论莫利纳主义的不一致性:中间知识与神的永恒性不相容

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Farid al-Din Sebt, Ebrahim Azadegan, Mahdi Esfahani
{"title":"论莫利纳主义的不一致性:中间知识与神的永恒性不相容","authors":"Farid al-Din Sebt, Ebrahim Azadegan, Mahdi Esfahani","doi":"10.1007/s11153-024-09906-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We argue that there is an incompatibility between the two basic principles of Molinism, i.e., God’s middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, and divine immutability. To this end, firstly, we set out the difference between strong and weak immutability: according to the latter only God’s essential attributes remain unchanged, while the former affirms that God cannot change in any way. Our next step is to argue that Molinism ascribes strong immutability to God. However, according to Molinism, some counterfactuals of freedom need to be actualized by divine will. We argue that this claim does entail a change in God because it attributes a knowledge to God that involves moving from possibility to actuality through divine will. Therefore, claiming God knows counterfactuals of freedom leads us to reject the strong sense of divine immutability. Further, we argue that assuming God’s knowledge encompasses counterfactuals of freedom cannot be consistent even with weak immutability because, according to Molinism, a change in God’s knowledge requires a change in His essence. We conclude that Molinism is incoherent.</p>","PeriodicalId":45180,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the incoherence of molinism: incompatibility of middle knowledge with divine immutability\",\"authors\":\"Farid al-Din Sebt, Ebrahim Azadegan, Mahdi Esfahani\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11153-024-09906-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We argue that there is an incompatibility between the two basic principles of Molinism, i.e., God’s middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, and divine immutability. To this end, firstly, we set out the difference between strong and weak immutability: according to the latter only God’s essential attributes remain unchanged, while the former affirms that God cannot change in any way. Our next step is to argue that Molinism ascribes strong immutability to God. However, according to Molinism, some counterfactuals of freedom need to be actualized by divine will. We argue that this claim does entail a change in God because it attributes a knowledge to God that involves moving from possibility to actuality through divine will. Therefore, claiming God knows counterfactuals of freedom leads us to reject the strong sense of divine immutability. Further, we argue that assuming God’s knowledge encompasses counterfactuals of freedom cannot be consistent even with weak immutability because, according to Molinism, a change in God’s knowledge requires a change in His essence. We conclude that Molinism is incoherent.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-024-09906-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-024-09906-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们认为,莫林主义的两个基本原则,即上帝对生物自由的反事实的中间知识与神圣不变性之间存在着不相容之处。为此,我们首先阐述了强不变性与弱不变性之间的区别:根据后者,只有上帝的基本属性保持不变,而前者则肯定上帝不会以任何方式改变。我们下一步要论证的是,莫林主义将强不变性赋予了上帝。然而,根据莫林主义,某些反事实的自由需要通过神的意志来实现。我们认为,这种说法确实意味着上帝的改变,因为它赋予了上帝一种知识,这种知识涉及通过神的意志从可能性转变为现实性。因此,宣称上帝知道自由的反事实,会导致我们拒绝接受强意义上的神圣不变性。此外,我们还认为,假定上帝的知识包含反事实的自由,即使与弱不变性也不可能一致,因为根据莫林主义,上帝知识的改变要求其本质的改变。我们的结论是,莫林主义是不连贯的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the incoherence of molinism: incompatibility of middle knowledge with divine immutability

We argue that there is an incompatibility between the two basic principles of Molinism, i.e., God’s middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, and divine immutability. To this end, firstly, we set out the difference between strong and weak immutability: according to the latter only God’s essential attributes remain unchanged, while the former affirms that God cannot change in any way. Our next step is to argue that Molinism ascribes strong immutability to God. However, according to Molinism, some counterfactuals of freedom need to be actualized by divine will. We argue that this claim does entail a change in God because it attributes a knowledge to God that involves moving from possibility to actuality through divine will. Therefore, claiming God knows counterfactuals of freedom leads us to reject the strong sense of divine immutability. Further, we argue that assuming God’s knowledge encompasses counterfactuals of freedom cannot be consistent even with weak immutability because, according to Molinism, a change in God’s knowledge requires a change in His essence. We conclude that Molinism is incoherent.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: The organ of no single institution or sectarian school, philosophical or religious, the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion provides a medium for the exposition, development, and criticism of important philosophical insights and theories relevant to religion in any of its varied forms. It also provides a forum for critical, constructive, and interpretative consideration of religion from an objective philosophical point of view. Articles, symposia, discussions, reviews, notes, and news in this journal are intended to serve the interests of a wide range of thoughtful readers, especially teachers and students of philosophy, philosophical theology and religious thought. Unsolicited book reviews are not accepted for publication in the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. If you would like to review a book for the journal, please contact the Book Review Editor: Scott A. Davison, Morehead State University s.davison@morehead-st.edu
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信