We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. Some features may not work well or at all. Please bear with us as we are working hard to restore full service.

A Problem for Hasker

Faith and Philosophy 27 (3):287-305 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In God, Time, and Knowledge, William Hasker presents a powerful argument against “theological compatibilism,” which, in this context, refers to the view that divine foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian free will. In this paper I show that Hasker’s views on free will, as expressed in God, Time, and Knowledge, are inconsistent with his own account of hard facts. I then consider four ways to remove the inconsistency and argue that the first two are untenable for the libertarian, while the remaining two leave the theological compatibilist in a good position to respond to the dilemma of freedom and foreknowledge. Along the way, I attempt to defuse Hasker’s argument that Anselmian eternalism is “fatal to libertarian free will.”

Other Versions

No versions found

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-09

Downloads
633 (#90,639)

6 months
124 (#107,900)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael W. Rota
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

Citations of this work

Freedom and the Necessity of the Present.Michael Rota - 2012 - Faith and Philosophy 29 (4):451-465.
Against Synchronic Free Will.Simon Kittle - 2021 - In Simon Kittle & Georg Gasser, The Divine Nature: Personal and A-Personal Perspectives. Routledge. pp. 176-194.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Anselmian Eternalism.Katherin A. Rogers - 2007 - Faith and Philosophy 24 (1):3-27.
The Absence of a Timeless God.William Hasker - 2001 - In Gregory E. Ganssle & David M. Woodruff, God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature. New York, US: Oxford University Press. pp. 182-206.

Add more references