Providence, foreknowledge, and explanatory loops
A reply to Robinson
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20311804 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David P Hunt (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2004 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 485-491 |
| Publication date | 2004-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religious Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0034412504007279 |
| OpenAlex | W2119777662 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
In a number of earlier papers I have attempted to defend the providential utility of simple foreknowledge as a via media between the accounts of divine providence offered by Molinists, on the one hand, and ‘open theists’, on the other. In the current issue of this journal, Michael Robinson argues that my response to one of the standard difficulties for simple foreknowledge – that its providential employment would generate explanatory loops – is inadequate. In the following paper I answer Robinson's charge
Epistemology · Foreknowledge · Simple (philosophy) · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Citations per year | 0.3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2016 - 2021 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |