Human freedom and divine providence: some new thoughts on an old problem

1979 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Basinger

Christian theists have not normally wished to deny either of the following tenets:T1 God creates human agents such that they are free with respect to certain actions and, therefore, morally responsible for them.T2 God is an omniscient, wholly good being who is omnipotent in the sense that he has (sovereign, providential) control over all existent states of affairs.

2013 ◽  
Vol 65 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
Dariusz Łukasiewicz

Author(s):  
Aldro Frigerio ◽  
Ciro De Florio

In this paper, we aim to examine the relationships between four solutions to the dilemma of divine foreknowledge and human freedom—theological determinism, Molinism, simple foreknowledge and open theism—and divine providence and theodicy. Some of these solutions—theological determinism and Molinism, in particular—highlight God’s government of the world.  Some others—simple foreknowledge and open theism—highlight human autonomy and freedom. In general, the more libertarian human freedom is highlighted, the less God’s government of the history of the world seems possible. However, the task of theodicy becomes easier because humans are fully responsible for the evil they do. Conversely, the more God’s government is highlighted, the more human freedom seems to be restricted. Moreover, God seems to be directly or indirectly responsible for evil in the world. Because of the trade–off between control and freedom, each solution finds itself at ease with some problems, while on other fronts, it must adopt a defensive position. As we will see, no solution can solve all problems; thus, the pros and cons of each solution should be weighed carefully.


Author(s):  
Julia Jansen

When phenomenologists investigate the imagination, they approach it by examining how objects are experienced when they are imagined (rather than, for example, perceived) and what the experience of imagining is like (as opposed to, for example, the experience of perceiving). Their inquiries into the imagination are thus part of the greater phenomenological project of clarifying the different modes in which we can experience, or be conscious of, the world (or some objects in the world) and the correlating modes in which the world (or some objects in it) can appear to us. Mostly, phenomenologists consider what is often called ‘sensory’ imagination, that is, the experience in some sensory mode (such as the visual or the aural) of something not actually present. In order to emphasize its sensory and embodied dimension, they typically distinguish imagining something from entertaining its possibility merely in thought, which in other discourses is often referred to as ‘propositional imagination’, or ‘imagining that’. Of central importance, especially in post-Husserlian phenomenology, is the creativity of imagination. Moreover, the imagination is also seen to have an important cognitive and justificatory role insofar as it enables us to generate and consider hypothetical and alternative situations to those that we actually find ourselves in. Imagining is understood as an act (though not always voluntary or self-aware) of experiencing something as possible (rather than actual or necessary), which makes it central to questions of human freedom and to the phenomenological method itself. Although we often imagine things that are absent or nonexistent, most phenomenologists still consider imagining intentional. They call our attention to the many different ways in which we commonly relate imaginatively to absent, nonexisting or merely possible objects, events, situations or states of affairs. It might seem that phenomenological approaches, since they allegedly consider (only) how things appear, cannot distinguish between what is real and what is (merely) imagined. However, this is not the case. Phenomenologists may, for example, investigate how our beliefs in the reality or unreality, or in the presence or absence, of things are themselves founded in different modes of experience (such as perception or imagination) and motivated by different ways in which things appear to us (that is, as perceived, as imagined, and so on).


1979 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen T. Davis

Theists typically believe the following two propositions:(1) God is omniscient,and(2) Human beings are free.Are they consistent? In order to decide, we must first ask what they mean. Roughly, let us say that a being is omniscient if for any proposition he knows whether it is true or false. Since I have no wish to deny that there are true and false propositions about future states of affairs (as some philosophers have done), omniscience includes foreknowledge, which we can say is knowledge of the truth value of propositions about future states of affairs. For example, I believe the proposition ‘Davis will wear shoes tomorrow’ is true today, and if it is true today, i.e. if I will wear shoes tomorrow, an omniscient being knows today that it is true – and, if this being is eternally omniscient, he knew it millions of years ago.


Author(s):  
Andreas J. Beck

This essay discusses the interrelated loci of God, creation, and providence in post-Reformation Reformed theology, focusing primarily on the Leiden Synopsis and the works of Gisbertus Voetius, Melchior Leydecker, Petrus van Mastricht, and Francis Turretin. The doctrine of God is about the triune God and his eternal, immanent acts or works, whether direct to God himself or ad extra, whereas the doctrines of creation and providence concern external acts or works of the triune God which are directed ad extra. The essay shows, among other things, that the Reformed scholastics distinguished within the doctrine of God between a necessary ad intra dimension and a free ad extra dimension, thereby ascribing the pivotal role to the divine will, in order to ensure that this doctrine allows for a free and contingent relation of the infinite Creator to his finite creatures and for human freedom under divine providence.


Author(s):  
Alfred J. Freddoso

Molinism, named after Luis de Molina, is a theological system for reconciling human freedom with God’s grace and providence. Presupposing a strongly libertarian account of freedom, Molinists assert against their rivals that the grace whereby God cooperates with supernaturally salvific acts is not intrinsically efficacious. To preserve divine providence and foreknowledge, they then posit ‘middle knowledge’, through which God knows, prior to his own free decrees, how any possible rational agent would freely act in any possible situation. Beyond this, they differ among themselves regarding the ground for middle knowledge and the doctrines of efficacious grace and predestination.


2021 ◽  
pp. 127-170
Author(s):  
David Lloyd Dusenbury

Like other early Christian writers, Nemesius condemns any theory which denies that humans are by nature free. Though he believes that the human body is an instrument, he passionately rejects the idea that ‘humankind is a mere instrument’. He cannot tolerate any reduction of humans to the status of a tool, whether by ‘pagans’ (in theories of fate), or by Christians (in theories of providence). In this chapter, we reconstruct Nemesius’ theories of human freedom and divine providence. The bishop believes that human laws—and, hence, crime and punishment—are inconceivable in the absence of human choice. Since all cities have laws, he reasons, humans must have a natural power of choice. From this cosmopolitan line of reasoning (which has roots in Greek antiquity), Nemesius derives a subtle theory of divine world-governance in the final pages of his (unfinished) treatise.


2019 ◽  
pp. 164-178
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. Taylor

Throughout this book, I have attempted to detail some ways in which the native syntactic and semantic structures of natural language may fail to recapitulate the ultimate metaphysical structure of reality. I argued, for example, that the thematic structures of argument-taking expressions may vary significantly from language to language even when they express the same real-world relations, properties, states of affairs, or event structures. I begin this chapter with a further argument that changes in our encyclopedic representations of the world typically are not reflected in our native semantic representations of the world. Finally, I close the chapter and the book by illustrating the potential of the way of reference in metaphysics with respect to achieving metaphysical insight into the true nature of human freedom.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document