Freedom and the Necessity of the Present: A Reply to William Hasker

Faith and Philosophy 29 (4):451-465 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In a recent paper, William Hasker has responded to a paper of mine criticizing his argument for theological incompatibilism. In his response, Hasker makes a small but important amendment to his account of freedom. Here I argue that Hasker’s amended account of freedom is false, that there is a plausible alternative account of freedom, and that the plausibility of this alternative account shows that Hasker’s argument for theological incompatibilism relies on a dubious premise.

Author's Profile

Michael W. Rota
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota


Added to PP

52 (#71,884)

6 months
6 (#78,494)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?