Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Fischer's bootstrapping account of divine foreknowledge f... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Fischer's bootstrapping account of divine foreknowledge fails.

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fischer's account presupposes that God's belief-forming process is reliable, but reliability itself must be grounded in something external to God's self-attestation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Alvin Plantinga's proper function epistemology requires that warrant-conferring faculties be designed to track truth, a standard Fischer's introspective bootstrapping cannot independently satisfy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A belief-forming process that validates its own infallibility via the outputs of that very process exemplifies the 'easy knowledge' problem Vogel and Cohen identify in epistemic circularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Linda Zagzebski's dilemma for middle knowledge shows that grounding foreknowledge in God's cognitive situation requires either libertarian-incompatible determination or vicious epistemic regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fischer's bootstrapping generates only de se knowledge of God's own reliability, which cannot bridge the logical gap to de re knowledge of specific future contingent actions by free agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.William Hasker argues that no intrinsic divine cognitive state can constitute knowledge of libertarian-free future acts without an external truth-maker, a constraint Fischer's account structurally ignores.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The account is circular: it relies on God's self-knowledge of his own infallibility to establish infallibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The account couldn't support anything close to exhaustive foreknowledge, since most future contingent truths will lack knowledge-conferring situations at any given time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Related

    A belief-forming process that validates its own infallibility via the outputs of...Alvin Plantinga's proper function epistemology requires that warrant-conferring ...Fischer's account presupposes that God's belief-forming process is reliable, but...Fischer's bootstrapping generates only de se knowledge of God's own reliability,...
    +4 moreShow less
    Linda Zagzebski's dilemma for middle knowledge shows that grounding foreknowledg...The account couldn't support anything close to exhaustive foreknowledge, since m...The account is circular: it relies on God's self-knowledge of his own infallibil...William Hasker argues that no intrinsic divine cognitive state can constitute kn...

    Similar

    Compatibilists will probably be untroubled by an argument purporting t...78%Augustine regarded the fatalist argument from divine foreknowledge as ...76%God acts in accordance with God's eternal foreknowledge.76%The account couldn't support anything close to exhaustive foreknowledg...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    Fischer (2016, 31–45) tries to fill the gap with his “boot-strapping” account of divine foreknowledge. Even human beings are sometimes in a “knowledge-conferring situation,” or KCS, with respect to the contingent future. Since God would be aware of all the evidence and other knowledge-conferring factors that human beings are aware of in such situations, God is in a position to know (some) future contingents in the same way that human beings can know them: by being in the appropriate KCS. But this presupposes a fallibilist theory of knowledge. What accounts for the infallibility of God’s belief...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit