Metaphysical Investigations

---

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.

---

This paper is aimed to explain the moral behavior toward the problem of suffering. The main question is what the morally correct behavior is as to the problem of suffering and what its essential concomitants are. Philosophers and theologians have endeavored to justify the existence of suffering in the world sometimes relying on purely intellectual efforts and sometimes by paying attention to propositions and reports of the scriptures and combining reason and narration. In this regard, they established theodicies and defenses that are meant for suffering. From this paper’s point of view, we must distinguish between two subjects: (i) the suffering; and (ii) the suffering person; and the concept of morally correct behavior on suffering is formed in line with this distinction. Do intellectual preoccupations such as theodicy and defense have something to do with the morally correct behavior toward suffering? Based on general two titles the answer is presented: theoretical foundations and management of the suffering situation, which respectively include the analysis and definition of concepts such as suffering, theodicy and defense, epistemological perspectives, and the like; and the essence of morally correct behavior on the problem of suffering. Indeed, subjects that will be discussed in the section on theoretical foundations will clarify the role of ethics in the problem of suffering in an analytical way and, leads us to the conclusion that theodicy, by its very nature, has nothing to do with morally correct behavior towards the problem of suffering and doesn’t care about it.