Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Time, foreknowledge, and alternative possibilities

  • JEFFREY GREEN (a1) and KATHERIN ROGERS (a2)
Abstract
Abstract

In this article we respond to arguments from William Hasker and David Kyle Johnson that free will is incompatible with both divine foreknowledge and eternalism (what we refer to as isotemporalism). In particular, we sketch an Anselmian account of time and freedom, briefly defend the view against Hasker's critique, and then respond in more depth to Johnson's claim that Anselmian freedom is incompatible with free will because it entails that our actions are ‘ontologically necessary’. In defending Anselmian freedom we argue that our ordinary intuitions do not support Johnson's case and that Anselmian freedom is compatible with deliberation.

Copyright
References
Hide All
D. Lewis (1996) ‘Elusive knowledge’, The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, 549567. Reprinted in D. Lewis, Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

T. Merricks (2009) ‘Truth and freedom’, Philosophical Review, 118, 2957.

K. Rogers (1996) ‘Omniscience, eternity, and freedom’, International Philosophical Quarterly, 36, 399412.

K. Rogers (2008) Anselm on Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

K. Rogers (2009) ‘Back to eternalism: a response to Leftow's “Anselmian presentism”’, Faith and Philosophy, 26, 320338.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Religious Studies
  • ISSN: 0034-4125
  • EISSN: 1469-901X
  • URL: /core/journals/religious-studies
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 29 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 131 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.