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
    Molinism is distinct from other compatibilist solutions r... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Molinism is distinct from other compatibilist solutions regarding foreknowledge and freedom.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Other compatibilist solutions aim only at showing that infallible foreknowledge and human freedom are compatible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Molinism provides an account of how God knows the contingent future, along with a strong doctrine of divine providence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Middle knowledge depends on the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, but such counterfactuals have no ground if libertarian freedom obtains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without grounded CCFs, Molinism cannot coherently claim to explain HOW God knows the contingent future, collapsing its alleged distinction from mere compatibility arguments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This 'grounding objection,' advanced by Robert Adams and William Hasker, shows Molinism's explanatory ambition is illusory, not genuinely distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Open theists like William Hasker argue that classical compatibilist solutions and Molinism alike presuppose a static, block-universe model of time incompatible with genuine libertarian freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If both Molinism and standard compatibilism share this problematic presupposition, the purported distinctness is a difference in degree of theological elaboration, not kind.
      ?

      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

    If both Molinism and standard compatibilism share this problematic presuppositio...Middle knowledge depends on the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, ...Molinism provides an account of how God knows the contingent future, along with ...Open theists like William Hasker argue that classical compatibilist solutions an...
    +3 moreShow less
    Other compatibilist solutions aim only at showing that infallible foreknowledge ...This 'grounding objection,' advanced by Robert Adams and William Hasker, shows M...Without grounded CCFs, Molinism cannot coherently claim to explain HOW God knows...

    Similar

    Other compatibilist solutions aim only at showing that infallible fore...92%The compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom can be def...80%If compatibilism is true, then the fact that God cannot act otherwise ...78%If compatibilism is true, then God's acting in the best way in every p...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    Duns Scotus (Kenny 1979, 56–58) appears to have challenged this principle. Fischer (1985b) responds to the challenge. But the theory of divine omniscience that has been most closely associated with the denial of (5) is the doctrine of Middle Knowledge. This doctrine was vehemently debated in the 16th century, with the version of Luis de Molina, referred to as “Molinism,” getting the most attention in the contemporary literature. Recently the doctrine has received strong support by Thomas Flint (1998) and Eef Dekker (2000). Unlike the other compatibilist solutions we are considering, which aim ...

    Details

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