The recent work of logician Jc Beall marks a paradigm shift within the fields of analytic theology and philosophy of religion. Thanks to Beall’s work, the long held (and generally unquestioned) assumption that theology is governed by (or closed under) the classical account of logic, is no longer free for the assumption. More importantly, by dropping this unquestioned commitment to the classical account, Beall’s work has uncovered natural and well-motivated solutions to some of monotheistic theologies’ most difficult and longstanding problems. (...) That said, much of Beall’s work (and the work of others who have followed his lead) has been paraconsistent, utilizing glut-theoretic (contradictory) models to solve theologies problems. In this essay, my plan is to go paracomplete, with the aim of exploring a yet to be explored solution to the infamous foreknowledge and freedom problem. My solution finds its roots in the recent work Jc Beall and Aaron Cotnoir (‘God of the Gaps’, Analysis, 2017). Specifically, in this essay I will explore a gap-theoretic solution to the foreknowledge and freedom problem; one in which it is neither true nor false that God has foreknowledge. By utilizing Beall’s and Cotnoir’s model — which sees limit claims on God’s omni-properties as either just false or gappy — a natural and well-motivated solution to the foreknowledge and freedom problem emerges. Moreover, by utilizing the Beall-Cotnoir gap-theoretic model, not only is the foreknowledge and freedom problem circumvented, but an interesting and novel account of divine omniscience emerges. (shrink)

In this chapter I argue that the necessity of the present counts against theories of synchronic free will, according to which a person may have free will at a time t0 even once that person has decided at t0 to do something. I defend the theory of diachronic free will against recent critiques drawn from the work of Michael Rota and Katherin Rogers. And I chart some of the implications for the philosophy of religion.

A family of objections to theism aims to show that certain key theological doctrines, when held in conjunction, are incompatible. The longstanding problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom represents one such objection. In this essay, we provide the theist an epistemic approach to the problem that allows for the rational affirmation of both divine foreknowledge and human freedom despite their prima facie incompatibility. Specifically, we apply James Anderson’s Rational Affirmation of Paradox Theology model to the problem, arguing that the (...) theist can stave off defeat that arises from a belief in the conjunction of both doctrines by appealing to paradox. In order to establish this thesis, we first define key terms as well as lay out the theological fatalist argument. Next, we explicate Anderson’s model and apply it to the foreknowledge and freedom problem. We conclude by addressing the objection that an appeal to paradox is simply special pleading for the theist, arguing that the naturalist can be found in a similar epistemic position. (shrink)

در پاسخ به مسئلۀ ناسازگاری میان مشیت مطلق الهی و آزادی مخلوقات، مولینیزم نظریه علم میانی را مطرح می‌کند، نظریه‌ای که با فرض علم خداوند به شرطی‌های خلاف واقعِ آزادی ادعا می‌کند که می‌توان بدون حذف یکی از طرفین مسئله فوق را حل نمود. بدین نحو که خداوند با علم به این شرطی‌ها و بالفعل کردن مقدم آنها می‌داند که مخلوقات، آزادانه چه فعلی را محقق خواهند کرد. لذا بدین طریق هم آزادی مخلوقات حفظ می‌گردد و هم مشیت خداوند که (...) عبارت است از علم پیشین و کنترل او بر افعال مخلوقات. نوشتۀ پیش رو سعی دارد نشان دهد از آنجا که عدم تغییرپذیری خداوند یکی از مفروضات اصلی مولینیزم است، لذا این دیدگاه نمی‌تواند صفت اراده را به خداوند نسبت دهد، زیرا صفت اراده برای مولینیزم امری است دوسویه که مستلزم حرکت از امکان به سمت فعلیت است و این امر معنایی جز پذیرش تغییر در ذات الهی ندارد. در پایان استدلال خواهیم کرد که چون معلومات شرطی نیازمند بالفعل شدن توسط اراده الهی هستند، در نتیجه طرح شرطی‌های خلاف واقع در داخل علم الهی طرحی ناموفق است و بحث پیرامون صدقِ آن کمک شایانی در حل مسئله فوق نمی‌کند. (shrink)