year 2, Issue 3 (Spring and Summer 2021)
پژوهش های مابعدالطبیعی 2021, 2(3): 59-86 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Baghdadi S, Rasoulipour R. Adam’s Vicious Circle Argument Against Molinism and Flint’s Critique of it.. پژوهش های مابعدالطبیعی 2021; 2 (3) :59-86
URL: http://mi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-120-en.html
URL: http://mi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-120-en.html
Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
Abstract: (640 Views)
More than anything else, Molinism seeks to prove the compatibility between providence and free will. One of the current debates is what God’s knowledge is and its limits. That is, if we accept middle knowledge, how can we believe in two things; First, the freedom and second, the Compatibility of free will with divine providence. Molinism’s suggested solution is middle knowledge. Based on the middle knowledge, the counterfactual that corresponds to a free action is the solution to this problem. Asking the truth validity of these conditionals, Adams argues that middle knowledge is the begging the question and absurd. Because the analysis of middle knowledge tells us that despite the efforts of Molinism, freedom is not proven. On the other hand, in a detailed critique, Flint dismisses Adams' claim. In this article, as its title suggests, first Adams' argument and then Flint's critique of it are discussed in detail.
Keywords: the Molinism, the Middle Knowledge, the Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedom, the Free Action, Robert Adams, Thomas Flint.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Philosophy
Received: 2021/10/30 | Accepted: 2021/12/1 | Published: 2021/12/1
Received: 2021/10/30 | Accepted: 2021/12/1 | Published: 2021/12/1
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Vote
