Foreknowledge and Free Will

First published Tue Jul 6, 2004; substantive revision Tue Nov 2, 2021

Fatalism is the thesis that human acts occur by necessity and hence are unfree. Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free.

Fatalism seems to be entailed by infallible foreknowledge by the following informal line of reasoning:

For any future act you will perform, if some being infallibly believed in the past that the act would occur, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he believed what he believed since nobody has any control over past events; nor can you make him mistaken in his belief, given that he is infallible. Therefore, there is nothing you can do now about the fact that he believed in a way that cannot be mistaken that you would do what you will do. But if so, you cannot do otherwise than what he believed you would do. And if you cannot do otherwise, you will not perform the act freely.

The same argument can be applied to any infallibly foreknown act of any human being. If there is a being who infallibly knows everything that will happen in the future, no human being has any control over the future.

This theological fatalist argument creates a dilemma for anyone who thinks it important to maintain both (1) there is a deity who infallibly knows the entire future, and (2) human beings have free will in the strong sense usually called libertarian. But it has also fascinated many who have not shared either of these commitments, because taking the argument’s full measure requires rethinking some of the most fundamental questions in philosophy, especially ones concerning time, truth, and modality. Those philosophers who think there is a way to consistently maintain both (1) and (2) are called compatibilists about infallible foreknowledge and human free will. Compatibilists must either identify a false premise in the argument for theological fatalism or show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Incompatibilists accept the incompatibility of infallible foreknowledge and human free will and deny either infallible foreknowledge or free will in the sense targeted by the argument.

1. The argument for theological fatalism

There is a long history of debate over the soundness of the argument for theological fatalism, so its soundness must not be obvious. Nelson Pike (1965) gets the credit for clearly and forcefully presenting the dilemma in a way that produced an enormous body of work by both compatibilists and incompatibilists, leading to more careful formulations of the argument.

A precise version of the argument can be formulated as follows: Choose some proposition about a future act that you think you will do freely, if any act is free. Suppose, for example, that the telephone will ring at 9 am tomorrow and you will either answer it or you will not. So it is either true that you will answer the phone at 9 am tomorrow or it is true that you will not answer the phone at 9 am tomorrow. The Law of Excluded Middle rules out any other alternative. Let T abbreviate the proposition that you will answer the phone tomorrow morning at 9, and let us suppose that T is true. (If not-T is true instead, simply substitute not-T in the argument below).

Let “now-necessary” designate temporal necessity, the type of necessity that the past is supposed to have just because it is past. This type of necessity plays a central role in the argument and we’ll have more to say about it in sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, and 5, but we can begin with the intuitive idea that there is a kind of necessity that a proposition has now when the content of the proposition is about something that occurred in the past. To say that it is now-necessary that milk has been spilled is to say nobody can do anything now about the fact that the milk has been spilled.

Let “God” designate a being who has infallible beliefs about the future, where to say that God believes p infallibly is to say that God believes p and it is not possible that God believes p and p is false. It is not important for the logic of the argument that God is the being worshiped by any particular religion, but the motive to maintain that there is a being with infallible beliefs is usually a religious one.

One more preliminary point is in order. The dilemma of infallible foreknowledge and human free will does not rest on the particular assumption of foreknowledge and does not require an analysis of knowledge. Most contemporary accounts of knowledge are fallibilist, which means they do not require that a person believe in a way that cannot be mistaken in order to have knowledge. She has knowledge just in case what she believes is true and she satisfies the other conditions for knowledge, such as having sufficiently strong evidence. Ordinary knowledge does not require that the belief cannot be false. For example, if I believe on strong evidence that classes begin at my university on a certain date, and when the day arrives, classes do begin, we would normally say I knew in advance that classes would begin on that date. I had foreknowledge about the date classes begin. But there is nothing problematic about that kind of foreknowledge because events could have proven me wrong even though as events actually turned out, they didn’t prove me wrong. Ordinary foreknowledge does not threaten to necessitate the future because it does not require that when I know p it is not possible that my belief is false. The key problem, then, is the infallibility of the belief about the future, and this is a problem whether or not the epistemic agent with an infallible belief satisfies the other conditions required by some account of knowledge, such as sufficient evidence. As long as an agent has an infallible belief about the future, the problem arises.

Using the example of the proposition T, the argument that infallible foreknowledge of T entails that you do not answer the telephone freely can be formulated as follows:

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1)
Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2)
If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3)
It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4)
Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5)
If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6)
So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7)
If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8)
Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9)
If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10)
Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

This argument is formulated in a way that makes its logical form as perspicuous as possible, and there is a consensus that this argument or something close to it is valid. That is, if the premises are all true, the conclusion follows. The compatibilist about infallible foreknowledge and free will must therefore find a false premise. There are four premises that are not straightforward substitutions in definitions: (1), (2), (5), and (9). All four of these premises have come under attack in the history of discussion of theological fatalism. Aristotle’s concern about future contingent truth has motivated an increasing number of compatibilists to challenge premise (1). Boethius and Aquinas also denied premise (1), but on the grounds that God and his beliefs are not in time, a solution that has always had some adherents. William of Ockham rejected premise (2), arguing that the necessity of the past does not apply to the entire past, and God’s past beliefs are in the part of the past to which the necessity of the past does not apply. This approach to the problem was revived early in the debate stirred up by Pike’s article, and has probably attracted more attention, in its various incarnations, than any other solution. There are more radical responses to (2) as well. Premise (5) has rarely been disputed and is an analogue of an axiom of modal logic, but it may have been denied by Duns Scotus and Luis de Molina. Although doubts about premise (9) arose relatively late in the debate, inspired by contemporary discussions of the relation between free will and the ability to do otherwise, the denial of (9) is arguably the key to the solution proposed by Augustine. In addition to the foregoing compatibilist solutions, there are two incompatibilist responses to the problem of theological fatalism. One is to deny that God (or any being) has infallible foreknowledge. The other is to deny that human beings have free will in the libertarian sense of free will. These responses will be discussed in section 3. The relationship between theological fatalism and logical fatalism will be discussed in section 4. In section 5 we will consider whether the problem of theological fatalism is just a theological version of a more general problem in metaphysics that isn’t ultimately about God, or even about free will.

2. Compatibilist responses to theological fatalism

2.1 The denial of future contingent truth

One response to the dilemma of infallible foreknowledge and free will is to deny that the proposition T can be true, on the grounds that no proposition about the contingent future is true: such propositions are either false (given Bivalence), or neither true nor false. This response rejects the terms in which the problem is set up. Since God wouldn’t believe a proposition unless it were true, premise (1) is, on this account, a non-starter. The idea behind this response is usually that propositions about the contingent future become true when and only when the event occurs that the proposition is about. If the event does not occur at that time, then the proposition becomes false. This seems to have been the position of Aristotle in the famous Sea Battle argument of De Interpretatione IX, where Aristotle is concerned with the implications of the truth of a proposition about the future, not the problem of infallible knowledge of the future. But some philosophers have used Aristotle’s move to solve the dilemma we are addressing here.

This approach to the problem had already been endorsed, three years before Pike’s seminal article, by A.N. Prior (1962), but it received little initial attention. John Martin Fischer’s first anthology of essays on the problem (1989) does not contain a single paper advocating this solution. It wasn’t until the 1980s, when it was defended by Joseph Runzo (1981), Richard Purtill (1988), and J.R. Lucas (1989), that it began to gain traction in the debate. More recently, Alan Rhoda, Gregory Boyd, and Thomas Belt (2006) have argued for the “Peircean” semantics favored by Prior (1967, 113–36), on which the predictive use of the word ‘will’ carries maximal causal force and all future contingents turn out false, while Dale Tuggy (2007) has defended the position that future contingents are neither true nor false. A critique of both Rhoda et al. and Tuggy may be found in Craig and Hunt (2013). Another supporter of the all-future-contingents-are-false solution to the problem of theological fatalism is Patrick Todd (2016a), whose recent book (2021) offers a vigorous defense of this approach against various objections. Many (but not all) of those who reject future contingent truth base their position, at least in part, on presentism, according to which only the present exists. Statements about the future, especially the contingent future, would then arguably lack the grounding necessary for truth. D.K. Johnson (2009) has taken up this solution to both logical and theological fatalism, as has Dean Zimmerman (2008). A measure of how much the debate has shifted in this direction is that Fischer’s second anthology (Fischer and Todd 2015) contains an entire section on “The Logic of Future Contingents.” The connection between this solution and “open theism” will be discussed in section 3.

While there is considerable prima facie appeal to the idea that statements about the contingent future aren’t yet true, and that they become true only when the future arrives, both the semantic and the metaphysical justifications for this idea can be challenged. A semantics that collapses truth into necessity and falsehood into impossibility, at least for propositions about the future, may appear insufficiently attentive to people’s actual use of the predictive ‘will’, not to mention logically problematic. The true futurist theory (“the thin red line”), allowing for future contingent truth, is defended by Øhrstrøm (2009) and by Malpass and Wawer (2012). Presentist opponents of future contingent truth, for their part, need to explain how there can be contingent truths about the past but not about the future, given that, on presentism, the past is no more real than the future. (This is not a problem on the growing block theory.) Rhoda (2009) and Zimmerman (2010), for example, have independently suggested that truths about the past could be grounded in God’s present beliefs about the past; but if this move is allowed, it would seem just as legitimate to assume God has present beliefs about the future and use this to ground truths about the contingent future. The semantic and metaphysical issues surrounding future contingent truth are complex and highly contested, so it isn’t possible to do more than note them here.

It is not clear, however, that the denial of future contingent truth is sufficient to avoid the problem of theological fatalism. Hunt (2020) suggests that future contingents that fail to be true for presentist reasons alone might nevertheless qualify as “quasi-true” (Sider 1999, Markosian 2004), and argues that the quasi-truth of God’s beliefs about the future is enough to generate the problem. The following consideration tends in the same direction. According to the definition of infallibility used in the basic argument, if God is infallible in all his beliefs, then it is not possible that God believes T and T is false. But there is a natural extension of the definition of infallibility to allow for the case in which T lacks a truth value but will acquire one in the future: If God is infallible in all his beliefs, then it is not possible that God believes T and T is either false or becomes false. If so, and if God believes T, we get an argument for theological fatalism that parallels our basic argument. Premise (4) would need to be modified as follows:

(4′)
Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T will become true.

(6) becomes:

(6′)
It is now-necessary that T will become true.

The modifications in the rest of the argument are straightforward.

It is open to the defender of this solution to maintain that God has no beliefs about the contingent future because he does not infallibly know how it will turn out, and this is compatible with God’s being infallible in everything he does believe. It is also compatible with God’s omniscience if omniscience is the property of knowing the truth value of every proposition that has a truth value. But clearly, this move restricts the range of God’s knowledge, so it has religious disadvantages in addition to its disadvantages in logic.

2.2 God’s knowledge of future contingent truths

If T is true, there is still the question how God could come to believe T rather than not-T, and believe it without any possibility of error, given that T concerns the contingent future. T is contingent only insofar as it is still possible for you to refrain from answering the phone at 9 tomorrow morning, though we’re supposing for the sake of argument that you will answer the phone at 9. But then it’s still possible for T to turn out false (though it won’t), and still possible for the belief that T to be incorrect (though it isn’t). This is hard to square with the claim in premise (1) that God’s belief that T was infallible.

This problem for infallible belief about a contingent future parallels a problem for God’s knowledge of a contingent future. Though the argument for theological fatalism rests only on divine belief rather than knowledge (since the additional conditions for knowledge, beyond true belief, don’t play any role in the argument), God nevertheless wouldn’t believe without knowing. But it’s unclear what could have been cognitively available to God yesterday, when your answering the phone at 9 am tomorrow was still future and contingent, to raise his belief that T from a correct guess to genuine knowledge. Prior (1962) held this to be a further problem for premise (1), beyond the nonexistence of future contingent truths. For William Hasker (1989, 186–88), Richard Swinburne (2006, 22–26), and Peter van Inwagen (2008), who maintain (contrary to Prior) that there are future contingent truths, the impossibility of foreknowing them is the problem with premise (1). This “limited foreknowledge” view has been critiqued by Arbour (2013) and Todd (2014a), among others.

Defenders of divine foreknowledge need something to say in response to skeptical questions about how such knowledge could be available to God. One possible response is that it’s a conceptual truth that God is omniscient, and his knowledge, including his knowledge of future contingent truths, is simply innate (Craig 1987). Skeptics might regard this response as closer to a non-response. But others have offered detailed if speculative proposals. These include Ryan Byerly (2014), whose book-length treatment of the issue grounds God’s infallible foreknowledge in a divine “ordering of times” that is supposed to leave human free will intact.

It is relatively easy to see how God can know what is (contingently) “going to” happen if this refers to the present tendency of things. All it takes is exhaustive knowledge of the present. But what is “going to” happen can change, as the present tendency of things changes, and what God foreknows on this basis (his knowledge of what is going to happen) will change along with this change in present tendencies. This “mutable future” position, defended by Peter Geach, has been revived by Patrick Todd (2011, 2016b). On the “Geachian” view, God’s beliefs about the contingent future constitute genuine knowledge, because they track the changing truth about where the future is headed. What this view doesn’t provide is the infallibility required by premise (1).

Fischer (2016, 31–45) tries to fill the gap with his “boot-strapping” account of divine foreknowledge. Even human beings are sometimes in a “knowledge-conferring situation,” or KCS, with respect to the contingent future. Since God would be aware of all the evidence and other knowledge-conferring factors that human beings are aware of in such situations, God is in a position to know (some) future contingents in the same way that human beings can know them: by being in the appropriate KCS. But this presupposes a fallibilist theory of knowledge. What accounts for the infallibility of God’s beliefs? Fischer argues that God can “bootstrap” his way to certainty by combining his beliefs about the contingent future with self-knowledge of his own infallibility. Hunt (2017b) objects that the account is circular, and that it couldn’t support anything close to exhaustive foreknowledge, since most future contingent truths will lack KCS’s at any given time. Fischer (2017, and forthcoming) elaborates and defends the view.

The most straightforward account of the matter, accommodating the infallibility of God’s beliefs, is that he simply “sees” the future. If God is in time, this requires that he be equipped with something like a “time telescope” that allows him to view what is temporally distant. A hurdle faced by time telescopes is that they probably involve retrocausation. If God is not in time, however, he wouldn’t need a time telescope to view the future along with the present and past. This brings us to the next solution.

2.3 The eternity solution

A third challenge to premise (1), independent of the first two, is that it misrepresents God’s relation to time. What is denied according to this solution is not that God believes infallibly, and not that God believes the content of proposition T, but that God believed T yesterday. This solution probably originated with the 6th century philosopher Boethius, who maintained that God is not in time and has no temporal properties, so God does not have beliefs at a time. It is therefore a mistake to say God had beliefs yesterday, or has beliefs today, or will have beliefs tomorrow. It is also a mistake to say God had a belief on a certain date, such as June 1, 2004. The way Boethius describes God’s cognitive grasp of temporal reality, all temporal events are before the mind of God at once. To say “at once” or “simultaneously” is to use a temporal metaphor, but Boethius is clear that it does not make sense to think of the whole of temporal reality as being before God’s mind in a single temporal present. It is an atemporal present in which God has a single complete grasp of all events in the entire span of time.

Aquinas adopted the Boethian solution as one of his ways out of theological fatalism, using some of the same metaphors as Boethius. One is the circle analogy, in which the way a timeless God is present to each and every moment of time is compared to the way in which the center of a circle is present to each and every point on its circumference (SCG I, 66). In contemporary philosophy an important defense of the Boethian idea that God is timeless was given by Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann (1981), who applied it explicitly to the foreknowledge dilemma (1991). Recently it has been defended by Katherin Rogers (2007a, 2007b), Kevin Timpe (2007), Michael Rota (2010), Joseph Diekemper (2013), and Ciro De Florio (2015).

Most objections to the timelessness solution to the dilemma of foreknowledge and freedom focus on the idea of timelessness itself, arguing either that it does not make sense or that it is incompatible with other properties of God that are religiously more compelling, such as personhood (e.g., Pike 1970, 121–129; Wolterstorff 1975; Swinburne 1977, 221). Zagzebski has argued (1991, chap. 2 and 2011) that the timelessness move does not avoid the problem of theological fatalism since an argument structurally parallel to the basic argument can be formulated for timeless knowledge. If God is not in time, the key issue would not be the necessity of the past, but the necessity of the timeless realm. So the first three steps of the argument would be reformulated as follows:

(1t)
God timelessly knows T.
(2t)
If E is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that E.
(3t)
It is now-necessary that T.

Perhaps it is inappropriate to say that timeless events such as God’s timeless knowing are now-necessary, yet we have no more reason to think we can do anything about God’s timeless knowing than about God’s past knowing. The timeless realm is as much out of our reach as the past. So the point of (3t) is that we cannot now do anything about the fact that God timelessly knows T. The rest of the steps in the timeless dilemma argument are parallel to the basic argument. Step (5t) says that if there is nothing we can do about a timeless state, there is nothing we can do about what such a state entails. It follows that we cannot do anything about the future.

The Boethian solution does not solve the problem of theological fatalism by itself, but since the nature of the timeless realm is elusive, the intuition of the necessity of the timeless realm is probably weaker than the intuition of the necessity of the past. The necessity of the past is deeply embedded in our ordinary intuitions about time; there are no ordinary intuitions about the realm of timelessness. One possible way out of this problem is given by K.A. Rogers, who argues (2007a, 2007b) that the eternal realm is like the present rather than the past, and so it does not have the necessity we attribute to the past.

If God’s timeless knowledge doesn’t threaten free will, there’s still the question whether it can be confined to the timeless realm; if not, it might still cause trouble for free will. Van Inwagen (2008) argues against the Boethian solution on the grounds that a timeless deity could still bring about the existence in time of a “Freedom-denying Prophetic Object,” for example, a stone slab on which are inscribed the words, “Peter van Inwagen will answer the phone at 9:00 am on May 27, 2034.” An interesting puzzle for Christian defenders of the Boethian solution is the problem of whether the knowledge of Jesus Christ during his time on earth was infallible. The problem here is that the incarnate Christ was in time even if God is timeless. A particular problem discussed by Timothy Pawl (2014a, 2014b) is whether Christ had infallible foreknowledge of his own future choices, and if so, whether his created will was free. Pawl defends the compatibility of Christ’s infallible foreknowledge and the freedom of his created will.

2.4 God’s forebeliefs as “soft facts” about the past

The next solution is due to the fourteenth century philosopher William of Ockham, and was revived in the contemporary literature by Marilyn Adams (1967). This solution rejects premise (2) of the basic argument in its full generality. Following Ockham, Adams argues that premise (2) applies only to the past strictly speaking, or the “hard” past. A “soft” fact about the past is one that is in part about the future. An example of a soft fact about the past would be the fact that it was true yesterday that a certain event would occur a year later, or the fact that you saw Paris for the last time. Adams argues that God’s existence in the past and God’s past beliefs about the future are not strictly past because they are facts that are in part about the future.

Adams’s argument was unsuccessful since, among other things, her criterion for being a hard fact had the consequence that no fact is a hard fact (Fischer 1989, introduction), but it led to a series of attempts to bolster it by giving more refined definitions of a “hard fact” and the type of necessity such facts are said to have—what Ockham called “accidental necessity” (necessity per accidens). The resulting formulations became so refined and elaborate, in an effort to avoid possible counterexamples, that they risked becoming detached from the simple intuition they were intended to capture. Recent discussions of the hard fact/soft fact distinction may be found in Todd (2013) and Pendergraft and Coates (2014). Plantinga (1986) argued that a successful Ockhamist response to theological fatalism needn’t await the definitive formulation of necessary and sufficient conditions for soft facthood, because paradigm examples of soft facts--facts that are surely soft, if any facts are soft--are enough for the job. It’s clear that proposition T, for example--that you will answer the phone tomorrow at 9 am--does not express a hard fact about the past. (It doesn’t express a fact about the past at all.) But if God is necessarily existent and essentially omniscient, this fact about what you will do tomorrow both entails, and is entailed by, God’s yesterday believing T. Assuming that hard and soft facthood are closed under logical equivalence, it follows that God’s having believed T is not a hard fact about yesterday, a conclusion that doesn’t rely on any particular answer to the general question how the hard fact/soft fact distinction is to be articulated. Responses to this defense of Ockhamism may be found in Brant (1997) and Hunt (2002).

There was considerable debate over Ockhamism in the eighties and nineties. Some of the defenses in this period appear in Freddoso (1983), Kvanvig (1986), Plantinga (1986), Wierenga (1989), and Craig (1990). Some of the criticisms appear in Fischer (1983, 1985a, 1991), Hasker (1989), Widerker (1990), Zagzebski (1991), and Pike (1993). The Ockhamist strategy, relying as it does on the distinction between facts about the past that are really about the past and facts about the past that are really (at least in part) about the future, is intertwined with work on the reality of the past and future. Finch and Rea (2008) have argued that the Ockhamist solution requires the rejection of presentism.

Perhaps the toughest obstacle confronting the Ockhamist solution is that it is very difficult to give an account of the necessity of the past that preserves the intuition that the past has a special kind of necessity in virtue of being past, but which has the consequence that God’s past beliefs do not have that kind of necessity. The problem is that God’s past beliefs seem to be as good a candidate for something that is strictly past as almost anything we can think of, such as an explosion that occurred last week. If God’s past beliefs about the future are soft facts, but the past explosion is a hard fact, that must be because of something special about God’s past beliefs that is intuitively plausible apart from the attempt to avoid theological fatalism. Perhaps God’s doxastic states are best understood in terms of “wide content” or a functionalist account of the mental (Zemach and Widerker 1987); perhaps divine omniscience is dispositional rather than occurrent (Hunt 1995), or doesn’t involve beliefs at all (Alston 1986). If God’s foreknowledge is special in any of these ways, premise (2) is arguably false. But there are theological costs to these conceptions of divine omniscience. The appeal to Putnam’s point that “meanings ain’t in the head” conflicts with the “incompatibilist constraint” in Fischer (1983); see also Hasker (1988) for a response to Alston, and Hughes (1997) for a response to Hunt. Since these accounts of divine foreknowledge aren’t independently plausible, however interesting they might be theoretically, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Ockhamist solution is ad hoc.

2.5 The dependence solution

One of the best-known Ockhamist proposals after Adams was made by Alvin Plantinga (1986), who defined the accidentally necessary in terms of lack of counterfactual power. For someone, Jones, to have counterfactual power over God’s past beliefs, the following must be true:

(CPP)
It was within Jones’ power at t2 to do something such that if he did it, God would not have held the belief he in fact held at t1.

Plantinga argued that counterfactual power over God’s past beliefs about human free choices is coherent and if it occurs, these beliefs are not accidentally necessary; they do not have the kind of necessity the past is alleged to have in premise (2) of the basic argument.

Notice that counterfactual power over the past is not the same thing as changing the past. Under the assumption that there is only one time line, changing the past is incoherent since it amounts to there being one past prior to t2 in which God has a certain belief at t1, and then Jones does something to make a different past. That requires two pasts prior to t2, and that presumably makes no sense. What (CPP) affirms instead is that there is only one actual past, but there would have been a different past if Jones acted differently at t2. (CPP) also does not require the assumption that what Jones does at t2 causes God to have the belief he has at t1. There is much debate about the way to analyze the causal relation, but it is generally thought that causation does not reduce to a counterfactual dependency of an effect on its cause. The dependency of God’s belief on Jones’ act need not be a causal dependency. (CPP) is therefore weaker than the claim that Jones’ act at t2 causes God’s belief at t1. A discussion of the counterfactual dependence of God’s past belief on human future acts is given in Zagzebski (1991, chap 4).

The idea that God’s past beliefs depend upon our future free acts has been enlivened by Trenton Merricks (2009), who argues that the idea appears in Molina (see section 2.6). There is some question how distinct Merricks’ approach is from classic Ockhamism: Fischer and Todd (2011, 2013) argue that Merricks’ solution is simply a form of Ockhamism and suffers from the same defects, while Merricks (2011) replies that the dependency relation between God’s past beliefs and human acts is different from the one at work in Ockham’s approach. The idea, in any case, is that the dependence of God’s foreknowledge of future contingents on the foreknown events themselves, including future exercises of human free will, along with the independence of human actions from God’s foreknowledge of them, is the key to defending the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. This “Dependence Solution” has gained sufficient currency that it deserves a section of its own, regardless of its relationship to the original Ockhamist strategy.

The Ur-text for this approach is the following passage in Origen of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans:

it will not be because God knows that an event will occur that it happens; but, because something is going to take place it is known by God before it happens.

The because-relationship in question is stronger than counterfactual dependence, because it can be absent even when counterfactual dependence is present, as in the case of divine foreknowledge. (Though you won’t answer the phone tomorrow at 9 am because God foreknew you would do so, your answering it at 9 tomorrow is nevertheless counterfactually dependent on God’s foreknowledge: were God to have believed yesterday that you won’t answer the phone at 9 tomorrow, you wouldn’t answer the phone at 9 tomorrow, and were God to have believed that you will answer at 9, you would answer at 9.) What’s needed is the stronger relationship of explanatory dependence.

Fischer and Tognazzini (2014), in a response to Merricks (2009, 2011), McCall (2011), and Westphal (2011), ask how the dependence point alone shows that the hard past isn’t fixed. That would require that the agent upon whose action the past depends really can act otherwise, and this is just asserted rather than argued. After all, this is the very point at issue, so simply assuming it is to beg the question. Cyr and Law (forthcoming) defend the dialectical appropriateness of the assumption that doing and refraining are both open to the agent.

Todd (2013) challenges the courage of dependence theorists’ convictions with a scenario in which, instead of simply foreknowing that you will perform a certain action tomorrow, God prepunished you for it yesterday. The explanatory relations are the same in the two cases, but your undergoing that punishment yesterday is surely a fixed fact about the past, and your performing that action tomorrow is surely unavoidable. We have no less reason to think that God’s foreknowledge belongs to the fixed past and that foreknown actions are unavoidable. Swenson (2016) and Law (2020) dispute the moral Todd draws from his prepunishment case, appealing to time travel scenarios in which some fact about the past depends on what might yet happen in the future, where our intuitions are supposedly more open to the possibility that the past isn’t entirely fixed.

Swenson (2016) argues that what’s fixed isn’t the past in toto, but so much of the past as isn’t dependent on the future. Rather than modifying the principle of the fixity of the past, Law (2020) advocates junking it altogether and replacing it with the principle of the fixity of the independent. Law (2021) continues the case for replacing the fixity of the past with the fixity of the independent by arguing that the former, insofar as the past is fixed, is derivative from the latter. In two recent papers, Ryan Wasserman stakes out positions that differ from most other defenders of the dependence solution. After reviewing modal, counterfactual, metaphysical, and logical analyses of explanatory dependence, and taking in lessons from time travel cases, Wasserman (2021) concludes that causal dependence is the best model for understanding how God can foreknow what you will do because you will do it, and in Wasserman (forthcoming) he argues that the defense of libertarian freedom against theological fatalism is best served by emphasizing the independence of future actions from God’s foreknowledge rather than the dependence of God’s foreknowledge on the foreknown actions.

The dependence solution redirects attention from the temporal to the explanatory order, in which divine foreknowledge depends on future events while future events do not depend on divine foreknowledge. It then proposes that what’s relevant to assessing libertarian agency is the explanatory order--the temporal order is relevant only insofar as it follows the explanatory order, and (when it does follow it) because it follows it. Thus a fact about the past, such as God’s believing yesterday that T, is irrelevant to the libertarian status of a future action if that fact does not explain, and is instead explained by, that future action. This much is consistent with the past’s being fixed and necessary in just the way that premise (2) requires, and consistent with the solution we’ll look at in 2.8. What the dependence solution adds is that openness in the explanatory order overrides the necessity of the past: any facts about the past that aren’t yet explanatorily fixed, aren’t yet temporally fixed either. So (2) isn’t true in its full generality, and divine foreknowledge is one of the exceptions, blocking the inference to (3).

Whether this additional move is plausible depends on the strength of one’s intuitions about the necessity of the past. If the police are already on the way, summoned by the tachyonic alarm system the bank teller is about to activate, not everyone will share the intuition that the teller still has the option not to press the alarm button.

2.6 The transfer of necessity

The next premise in the argument is (5), the principle that licenses the “transfer” of necessity from (3) to (6) via (4). Ockhamists and Dependence Theorists both allow that the necessity of the past, when applicable to past events, transfers to the future. Whether this transfer principle is valid depends on the modality being transferred and the modality effecting the transfer. Logical necessity, for example, is validly transferred by entailment: □p, □(p ⊃ q), ∴ □q. But some modalities, like non-accidentality (Slote 1982), are not closed under entailment. How about the necessity of the past? A much-discussed transfer principle, playing the same role in Peter van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument that (5) plays in the argument for theological fatalism, is rule β (van Inwagen 1983). The necessity-operator featured in this principle is N, where Np is to be read, “p, and no one has, or ever had, any choice about whether p.” Rule β states that, given Np and N(p ⊃ q), it follows that Nq. Counterexamples to rule β were soon discovered, e.g., by McKay and Johnson (1996). But it was easy to amend the Consequence Argument to rest on Np, □(p ⊃ q), ∴ Nq, and this principle appears to have no counterexample. The parallel principle for theological fatalism is □tp, □(p ⊃ q), ∴ □tq, where □tp is to be read, “p is fixed, accidentally necessary, no longer avoidable, etc., relative to time t.” This principle, too, seems to have no counterexample.

Duns Scotus (Kenny 1979, 56–58) appears to have challenged this principle. Fischer (1985b) responds to the challenge. But the theory of divine omniscience that has been most closely associated with the denial of (5) is the doctrine of Middle Knowledge. This doctrine was vehemently debated in the 16th century, with the version of Luis de Molina, referred to as “Molinism,” getting the most attention in the contemporary literature. Recently the doctrine has received strong support by Thomas Flint (1998) and Eef Dekker (2000). Unlike the other compatibilist solutions we are considering, which aim only at showing that infallible foreknowledge and human freedom are compatible, Molinism provides an account of how God knows the contingent future, along with a strong doctrine of divine providence. Middle knowledge is called “middle” because it is said to stand between God’s knowledge of necessary truths and his knowledge of his own creative will. The objects of Middle Knowledge are so-called counterfactuals of freedom:

If person S were in circumstances C, S would freely do X.

Middle knowledge requires that there are true counterfactuals of this form corresponding to every possible free creature and every possible circumstance in which that creature can act freely. These propositions are intended to be contingent (a claim that has been disputed by some objectors), but they are prior to God’s creative will. God uses them in deciding what to create. By combining his Middle Knowledge with what he decides to create, God knows the entire history of the world.

There are a number of objections to Middle Knowledge in the contemporary literature. Robert Adams (1991) argues that Molinism is committed to the position that the truth of a counterfactual of freedom is explanatorily prior to God’s decision to create us. But the truth of a counterfactual to the effect that if I were in circumstance C I would do A is strictly inconsistent with my refraining from A in C, and so my refraining from A in C is precluded by something prior in the order of explanation to my act in C. This is inconsistent with my acting freely in C. Climenhaga and Rubio (forthcoming) clarify the nature of explanatory priority and in so doing affirm the essential correctness of Adams’ analysis. There are a number of other objections to Middle Knowledge in the literature, as well as replies by its defenders. William Hasker (1989, 1995, 1997, 2000) has offered a series of objections and replies to William Craig, who defends Middle Knowledge (1994, 1998). Yet other objections have been proposed by Walls (1990) and Gaskin (1993). Recent critical discussions of Molinism appear in Fischer (2008), Guleserian (2008), and Fales (2010). Defenses of Molinism appear in Brüntrup & Schneider (2011) and Kosciuk (2010), and a critique in Shieber (2009). Perszyk (2011) is a collection of essays examining Molinism and its future direction, while Perszyk (2013) provides a survey of the recent literature.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the doctrine of Middle Knowledge is defensible. How does that avoid the conclusion of the argument for theological fatalism? Middle Knowledge does not entail the falsehood of any premise of the basic argument. Freddoso (1988, 53–60) argues that Molina rejects the closure of accidental necessity under entailment, but for reasons closer to those inspiring the Dependence Solution (though Molina does not dispute the necessity of the past). Flint (1998) rejects some of the steps of the fatalist argument in addition to defending Middle Knowledge, and more recently blends of Ockhamism and Molinism have been defended (Kosciuk 2010), which suggests that even though the theory of Middle Knowledge is a powerful theory of divine knowledge and providence, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid theological fatalism by itself.

2.7 The necessity and the causal closure of the past

Doubts about premises (2) and (5) can be combined into a more radical critique of the argument. We have already discussed the Ockhamist response, which accepts (2) as applied to what is strictly past, but rejects it as applied to that part of the past that is not wholly or strictly past. It is worth asking, however, whether there is any such thing as the necessity of the past at all. What do we mean when we say that the past, the strict past, is necessary? When people say, “There is no use crying over spilled milk,” they presumably mean that there is nothing anybody can do now about the spilled milk; the spilling of the milk is outside the realm of our causal control. But it is not at all clear that pastness per se puts something outside the realm of our causal control. Rather, it is pastness in conjunction with the metaphysical law that causes must precede their effects. If we decided that effects can precede their causes, it’s quite possible that we would no longer speak of the necessity of the past.

So the necessity of the past may simply be the principle that past events are outside the class of causable events. There is a temporal asymmetry in causability because everything causable is in the future. But some of the future is non-causable as well. Whether or not determinism is true, there are some events in the future that are causally necessary. If a future event E is necessary, it is causable, and not E is not causable. But if the necessity of the past is the non-causability of the past, it would be odd to pick out the class of propositions about the past as possessing an allegedly distinct kind of necessity since some of the future has that same kind of necessity.

This leads to a deeper problem in the idea of the necessity of the past. Zagzebski (2014) argues that the interpretation of the necessity of the past as a purely temporal modality is confused. What people generally mean by the necessity of the past is that the past is causally closed, meaning the past is neither causable nor preventable. Understood that way, the necessity of the past is not a purely temporal modality, and it is not a form of necessity. The categories of causability and non-causability do not correspond to the standard modal categories of the necessary, possible, and impossible. The attempt to assimilate the causal categories to modal categories is a mistake.

Let us see what happens to the argument for theological fatalism if the necessity of the past is understood as the causal closure of the past.

Let us begin with a definition of causal closure:

E is causally closed =df There is nothing now that can cause E, and there is nothing now that can cause not E.

To use this principle in an argument for fatalism, the principle of the necessity of the past will need to be replaced with the following principle:

Principle of the Causal Closure of the Past:
If E is an event in the past, E is causally closed.

We will then need to replace the transfer of necessity principle by the following:

Transfer of Causal Closure Principle:
If E occurs and is causally closed, and necessarily (if E occurs then F occurs), then F is causally closed.

To recast the argument for theological fatalism, let us again consider the proposition that you will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9am and call it T:

(1)
Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2)
If E is an event in the past, E is causally closed (Principle of the causal closure of the past).
(3)
God’s believing T yesterday is now causally closed. [1, 2]
(4)
Necessarily, if yesterday God believed S will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9am, then S will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9am. [Definition of infallibility]
(5)
If E occurs and is causally closed, and necessarily (if E occurs then F occurs), then F is causally closed. [Transfer of causal closure principle]
(6)
S’s act of answering the telephone tomorrow at 9am is now causally closed. There is nothing now that can cause S to answer the telephone tomorrow and there is nothing now that can cause S not to answer the telephone tomorrow. [1, 4, 5]

But (6) denies that there are causes of the future. Certainly we believe that something now, whether agents or events, can cause future events, and the fatalist does not deny that. What the fatalist denies is that we can cause something other than what we cause. So the relevant half of the principle of the causal closure of the past is as follows:

Principle of the Unpreventability of the Past:
If E is an event in the past, nothing now can cause not E.

To use this principle in a fatalist argument, we need the following:

Transfer of Unpreventability Principle:
If E occurs and it is not now causable that E does not occur, and necessarily (if E occurs, then F occurs), then it is not now causable that F does not occur.

This principle is virtually identical to the transfer of unpreventability principle proposed by Hugh Rice (2005), and is similar to a strengthened form of the well-known principle Beta first proposed by Peter van Inwagen (1983).

Using this principle, we get the following argument for theological fatalism:

(1)
Suppose that yesterday God infallibly believed T.

From the Principle of the unpreventability of the past we get:

(2)
There is nothing now that can cause God not to have believed T yesterday.

From the definition of divine infallibility we get:

(3)
Necessarily, if God believed yesterday that S will answer the telephone at 9am tomorrow, then S will answer the telephone at 9am tomorrow.

From 2, 3, and the transfer of unpreventability principle we get:

(4)
There is nothing now that can cause S not to answer the telephone at 9am tomorrow.

From a variation of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, we get:

(5)
If nothing can cause S not to answer the telephone at 9am tomorrow, then S does not answer the telephone freely.

From (4) and (5), we get:

(6)
S does not answer the telephone freely.

This argument for theological fatalism is better than the standard argument if a purely temporal necessity is problematic. The second premise of the above argument is only the principle that the past is unpreventable, not a questionable premise that the past has a special kind of necessity distinct from the causal structure of the universe simply in virtue of being past. But since the unpreventability of the past is not a form of necessity in the formal sense, then the transfer principle licensing the crucial inference to (4) is not a transfer of necessity. Unlike the transfer of temporal necessity principle in our original argument, it is not a variation of an axiom of logic, and is far from indisputable. This suggests that the idea of the necessity of the past may be confused. On the one hand, we have inherited from Ockham the idea that the past has a kind of necessity for which we can formulate an analogue of the formal principles of logical necessity. But the intuitions supporting such a form of necessity are largely intuitions about causability, and the modalities of causability/non-causability do not parallel necessity, possibility, and impossibility. If this is correct, then if there is a true transfer of causability or non-causability principle, it is not because it is like logical necessity in its formal structure. The problem, then, is that the fatalist argument needs a kind of necessity that the past has and which is also transferred to the future via a valid transfer of necessity principle. In section 5 we will look at how this is a general problem that extends beyond the issue of fatalism.

2.8 The rejection of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)

Compatibilists who hold that it’s possible for an agent to do otherwise, in the sense required for free will, even if her action is causally determined, will probably be untroubled by an argument purporting to show that no one can do otherwise, given divine foreknowledge. The relevant interlocutors for the argument for theological fatalism are those who endorse a libertarian conception of free will (Alston 1985).

With that in mind, let us now look at premise (9). This is a form of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP), a principle that has become well-known in the literature on free will ever since it was attacked by Harry Frankfurt (1969) in some interesting thought experiments. The point of Frankfurt’s paper was to drive a wedge between responsibility and alternate possibilities, and to thereby drive a wedge between responsibility and libertarian freedom. In general, those defending libertarian freedom also defend PAP, and those attacking PAP, like Frankfurt, defend determinism, but some philosophers have argued that PAP is false even if we have libertarian free will. The literature that clearly distinguishes the claim that free will requires alternate possibilities from the claim that free will requires the falsehood of determinism is contemporary. The former is a thesis about events in counterfactual circumstances, whereas the latter is a thesis about the locus of causal control in the actual circumstances. Aside from the foreknowledge literature, support for the rejection of PAP from the perspective of an incompatibilist about free will and determinism can be found in Stump (1990, 1996), Hunt (1999b), Zagzebski (1991, 2000), Pereboom (2000), and Shabo (2010). This view was originally called hyper-incompatibilism by John Martin Fischer, but has recently been called source incompatibilism. For a recent critique of this version of incompatibilism for solving the foreknowledge problem, see Werther (2005) and Talsma (2013).

Here is an example of a typical Frankfurt case intended to show that an agent can act freely even when she lacks alternate possibilities:

Black, an evil neurosurgeon, wishes to see Smith dead but is unwilling to do the deed himself. Knowing that Mary Jones also despises Smith and will have a single good opportunity to kill him, Black inserts a mechanism into Jones’s brain that enables Black to monitor and to control Jones’s neurological activity. If the activity in Jones’s brain suggests that she is on the verge of deciding not to kill Smith when the opportunity arises, Black’s mechanism will intervene and cause Jones to decide to commit the murder. On the other hand, if Jones decides to murder Smith on her own, the mechanism will not intervene. It will merely monitor but will not affect her neurological function. Now suppose that when the occasion arises, Jones decides to kill Smith without any “help” from Black’s mechanism. In the judgment of Frankfurt and most others, Jones is morally responsible for her act. Nonetheless, it appears that she is unable to do otherwise since if she had attempted to do so, she would have been thwarted by Black’s device.

Most commentators on examples like this agree that the agent is both morally responsible for her act and acts freely in whatever sense of freedom they endorse. They differ on whether she can do otherwise at the time of her act. Determinists generally interpret the case as one in which she exercises compatibilist free will and has no alternate possibilities. Most libertarians interpret it as one in which she exercises libertarian free will and has alternate possibilities, contrary to appearances. As mentioned above, some philosophers have interpreted it as a case in which she exercises libertarian free will but does not have alternate possibilities. If Frankfurt cases can be successfully interpreted in this third way, then they can be used to show the compatibility of infallible foreknowledge and libertarian freedom. Hunt (1999a) argues that this is essentially the solution put forward by Augustine in On Free Choice of the Will III.1–4, though Augustine’s own considered position on free will was not libertarian.

But there is another way Frankfurt cases can be used to argue for the compatibility of foreknowledge and freedom. There is an important disanalogy between a Frankfurt case and infallible foreknowledge that might lead one to doubt whether an agent really lacks alternate possibilities when her act is infallibly foreknown. A crucial component of the standard Frankfurt case is that the agent is prevented from acting freely in close possible worlds. That aspect of the case is not in dispute. Black’s device is counterfactually manipulative even if it is not actually manipulative. In contrast, infallible foreknowledge is not even counterfactually manipulative. There is no close possible world in which foreknowledge prevents the agent from acting freely. Of course, if theological fatalism is true, nobody ever acts freely, but the point is that there is no manipulation going on in other possible worlds in the foreknowledge scenario. The relation between foreknowledge and human acts is no different in one world than in any other. But it is precisely the fact that the relation between the Frankfurt machine and Mary’s act differs in the actual world from what it is in other close worlds that is supposed to make the Frankfurt example work in showing the falsity of PAP.

To make this point clear, let us look at how the standard Frankfurt case would have to be amended to make it a close analogy to the situation of infallible foreknowledge. As Zagzebski has argued (1991, chap. 6, sec. 2.1), the device implanted in Mary’s brain would have to be set in such a way that no matter what Mary did, it never intervened. It is not even true that it might have intervened. Any world in which Mary decides to commit the murder is a world in which the device is set to make her commit the murder should she not decide to do it, and any world in which she does not decide to commit the murder is a world in which the device is set to prevent her from deciding to do it if she is about to decide to do it. Now of course this might be an impossible device, but it would have to be as described to be a close analogy to the foreknowledge scenario. And our reactions to this amended Frankfurt case are very different from typical reactions to the standard Frankfurt case. In the standard case it at least appears to be true that the agent cannot do otherwise, whereas in the case amended to be parallel to the foreknowledge case there is a very straightforward sense in which the agent can do otherwise because her will is not thwarted by Black in any reasonably close possible world. The machine is ready to manipulate her, but it does not manipulate her, nor might it have manipulated her since it does not even manipulate her in counterfactual circumstances. We might think of the machine as a metaphysical accident—an extraneous addition to the story that plays no part in the sequence of events in any possible world. Possibly it is not clear in the amended story whether or not Mary has alternate possibilities. What the story shows, then, is that alternate possibilities are not always relevant to the possession of libertarian freedom.

Disanalogies between the cases are relevant, however, only if the prospects for exempting divine foreknowledge from PAP depend on how closely it mimics Frankfurt-type counterexamples. That assumption may be unwarranted. Augustine’s counterexample to PAP was divine foreknowledge itself, not a proto-Frankfurtian thought experiment featuring a counterfactual intervener. Since God infallibly believed yesterday that you will answer the phone at 9:00 am tomorrow, there is no alternative possibility on which you fail to answer the phone at 9:00 tomorrow morning; but since “a man does not therefore sin because God foreknew that he would sin” (CG V.10) and, more generally, “God’s foreknowledge does not force the future to happen” (FCW III.4), we can still regard your action as free, even in the libertarian sense. So PAP is false, for the same reasons Frankfurt pronounced it false in his story about Black, Smith and Jones: God’s foreknowledge, no less than Black’s mechanism, played no role at all in leading the agent to perform the action, could have been subtracted from the situation without making any difference to what happened or why it happened, and is completely irrelevant to understanding why the agent acted as she did (Frankfurt 1969, 836–7). Divine foreknowledge constitutes its own counterexample to PAP (Hunt 2003).

If this is correct, the following dilemma critique of theological fatalism becomes available (Hunt 2017a). Either the argument fails somewhere along the way to (8), or it succeeds up through (8). If it fails at one of these earlier steps, it fails full stop. That’s the obvious horn of the dilemma. But if it reaches step (8) successfully, and reaches it for those reasons, we have a case in which you cannot do otherwise than answer the phone tomorrow morning, but you are presumptively free in doing so, since you are acting on your own, and the circumstances that deprive you of alternatives do not in any way explain your action. So (9) is false, and it’s falsified by (8). Whether (1)-(8) succeeds or fails, then, the fatalistic inference to (10) is blocked.

Note that this solution shares an intuition with the dependence response surveyed in 2.5, namely, that God’s foreknowledge is explanatorily dependent on future events, and not the other way around. The difference is that the Dependence Solution retains PAP by denying the general necessity of the past, while the Augustinian/Frankfurtian approach is to abandon PAP and stick with the necessity of the past.

3. Incompatibilist responses to the argument for theological fatalism

Ever since the dilemma of this article was identified, there have been philosophers who thought that something like our basic argument succeeds in demonstrating that infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with human free will. If they are incompatible, one of them must be given up. It’s possible to give up both, of course, but that’s more than the argument requires, and one reason the dilemma has attracted so much attention in the history of philosophy is that both the belief in a being with infallible foreknowledge and belief in the existence of libertarian free will are strongly entrenched in the world view of many philosophers. To give up either of these beliefs is difficult and often has many ramifications for one’s other beliefs.

The denial of libertarian freedom has always had many supporters. The idea of making causal determinism the focal point of discussions of free will is modern in origin, and some philosophers think that the modern framing of the issue is confused. Philosophers who deny libertarian freedom may affirm a type of free will compatible with determinism, or they may instead simply accept the consequence that human beings lack free will. It is worth noting, however, that theists who deny libertarian freedom are typically theological determinists rather than fatalists; it’s primarily considerations of divine omnipotence or sovereignty, rather than foreknowledge, that motivate them. When Augustine, for example, rejected human freedom apart from divine control—“I tried hard to maintain the free decision of the human will, but the grace of God was victorious” (Retractationes 2.1)—it wasn’t because of the fatalist argument from divine foreknowedge, which (as we’ve seen) he regarded as a complete failure. Jonathan Edwards, on the other hand, based his Calvinist denial of libertarian freedom, in part, on a sophisticated version of the argument for theological fatalism (FW II.12).

The other incompatibilist position is to affirm libertarian free will along with the principle of alternate possibilities (premise 9), and to deny the possibility of infallible foreknowledge. This position has recently come into prominence through its association with “open theism” (Pinnock et al. 1994). Open theists reject divine timelessness and immutability, along with infallible foreknowledge, arguing that not only should foreknowledge be rejected because of its fatalist consequences, but the view of a God who takes risks, and can be surprised and even disappointed at how things turn out, is more faithful to Scripture than the classical notion of an essentially omniscient and foreknowing deity (Sanders 1998, Boyd et al 2001, 13–47). See Rhoda et al (2006) for an argument that the key issue in the open theism debate is the nature of the future, and Tuggy (2007) for an overview of the different positions open theists can take on this question. A reply to both Rhoda et al. and Tuggy may be found in Craig and Hunt (2013). Fischer, Todd and Tognazzini (2009) offers a wide-ranging appraisal of responses to Pike's argument, paying special attention to open theism and issues in the philosophy of time. For an argument that open theism necessitates the view that propositions about the future lack truth value, see Arbour (2013). Todd disagrees on behalf of the open theist, defending (but without endorsing) the mutability of the future (2016a), and arguing that future contingents are all false rather than truth-valueless (2016b). Boyd (2015) attempts to turn the tables against critics on the grounds that the openist God’s knowledge of all the ways the future might go represents more knowledge than the classical theistic God’s knowledge of the way the future will go. Arbour (2019) is a recent collection of commisioned essays criticizing open theism on philosophical grounds.

One influential argument that open theists use against defenders of foreknowledge who do not also accept Molinism is that foreknowledge without middle knowledge is useless for divine providence. In a number of papers (1993, 1997, 2009), David Hunt has defended the providential utility of foreknowledge without middle knowledge, describing cases in which foreknowledge enhances God’s providential prospects without generating the “metaphysical problem” of explanatory circles, and arguing that the “doxastic problem” of agential impotence when one already knows what one is going to do rests on a principle that is in fact false. Responses to Hunt include Kapitan (1993), Basinger (1993), Robinson (2004a, 2004b), and Hasker (2009). Zimmerman (2012) is friendlier to Hunt’s position.

A related objection to foreknowledge without middle knowledge is that prophecy requires middle knowledge. See Pruss (2007) for a defense of a foreknowledge-only account of prophecy. Another issue related to divine providence is the efficacy of past-directed prayers. Kevin Timpe (2005) argues that adherents of simple foreknowledge or timeless knowledge and Molinists have the resources to explain the efficacy of prayers about the past, but open theism does not.

4. Logical fatalism

A form of fatalism that is even older than theological fatalism is logical fatalism, the thesis that the past truth of a proposition about the future entails fatalism. Aristotle discusses this form of fatalism in his famous Sea Battle Argument, mentioned in section 2.1 above. A clearer and more sophisticated form of the argument was proposed by Diodorus Cronus, whose argument is remarkably similar in form to our basic argument for theological fatalism. The logical fatalist argument parallels our basic argument as follows:

Argument for logical fatalism

Let S = the proposition that there will be a sea battle tomorrow.

(1L)
Yesterday it was true that S. [assumption]
(2L)
If some proposition was true in the past, it is now-necessary that it was true then. [Form of the Necessity of the Past]
(3L)
It is now-necessary that yesterday it was true that S. [1, 2]
(4L)
Necessarily, if yesterday it was true that S, then now it is true that S. [omnitemporality of truth]
(5L)
If it is now-necessary that p and if necessarily (p then q), then it is now-necessary that q. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6L)
Therefore, it is now-necessary that now it is true that S. [3L, 4L, 5L]
(7L)
If it is now-necessary that now it is true that S, no alternative to the truth of S is now-possible. [definition of “necessary”]
(8L)
So no alternative to the truth of S is now-possible [6L, 7L]
(9L)
If no alternative to the truth of a proposition about the future is now-possible, then what the proposition is about will not be brought about by free human choice. [Version of Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10L)
Hence, the sea battle tomorrow will not be brought about by free human choice. [8L, 9L]

Unlike the argument for theological fatalism, the argument for logical fatalism has few defenders. One reason is that (2L) is less plausible than (2). (3L) is a soft fact about the past, if anything is. Nevertheless, some philosophers, like Susan Haack (1974) and William Lane Craig (1987), have maintained that theological fatalism is just a gussied up version of logical fatalism, and that the former is no more impressive than the latter once one looks past the theological window-dressing. This seems to be Merricks’ (2009) position as well, since he holds that theological fatalism fails for essentially the same reason as logical fatalism. Warfield (1997) has argued for the equivalence of the two forms of fatalism if God is necessarily existent and essentially omniscient. Responses have been given by Hasker (1998) and Brueckner (2000), and Warfield (2000) offers a rejoinder to both. Hunt (2002) links Warfield’s argument with Plantinga’s (1986), discussed in 2.4, inasmuch as both exploit the logical equivalence of propositions about the contingent future with God’s believing those propositions, and argues that they both fall prey to the same reductio: the closure principles they invoke (closure of consistency under logical equivalence for Warfield, closure of hard/soft facthood under logical equivalence for Plantinga) would equally support the compatibility of free will with divine determinism, an unacceptable result for a libertarian. Peter Graham (2008) argues that the consensus about consistency to which Warfield appeals emerged against the backdrop of an assumption that there is no necessarily existent being, and is therefore question-begging.

5. Beyond theological fatalism

There’s more at stake here than the coherence of libertarian theism, as evidenced by the many non-libertarians and non-theists who have contributed to the debate. A comparison might be helpful. There’s more at stake in Zeno’s Achilles paradox than the fleetness of Achilles and the torpidity of tortoises. If that’s all there was to it, the discovery that Achilles was actually a quadraplegic, or that the tortoises of ancient Greece were as fast as jack rabbits, would resolve the puzzle. But that would simply exempt Achilles and/or the tortoise from complicity in the problem; it would do nothing to address the real issues presented by Zeno’s argument. The situation is arguably the same when it comes to the argument for theological fatalism (Hunt 2017a). If the argument gets God wrong by assuming that he’s in time when he isn’t, the problem possibly goes away for God, once the mistake is corrected, but it’s easily reinstated by replacing God with Gud, an infallibly omniscient being who exists in time. If the argument gets human beings wrong by assuming that they have (libertarian) free will when they don’t, the problem can be reformulated in terms of Gud’s infallible beliefs about the future actions of Eleutherians, a race of extraterrestrials stipulated to possess libertarian freedom. This is to understand the argument for theological fatalism as a thought experiment. Whether or not divine foreknowledge and libertarian freedom are real, we’re being asked, what if? Could libertarian freedom really be incompatible with divine foreknowledge for the reasons given in the argument? The answer to this question may involve rethinking more than God and free will.

Zagzebski has argued that the dilemma of theological fatalism is broader than a problem about free will. The modal or causal asymmetry of time, a transfer of necessity principle, and the supposition of infallible foreknowledge are mutually inconsistent. (1991, appendix). If there is a distinct kind of necessity that the past has qua past, and which is not an implicit reference to the lack of causability of the past, then it is temporally asymmetrical. The past has it and the future does not. The necessity of the past and the contingency of the future are two sides of the same coin. To say that the future is contingent in the sense of temporal modality does not imply that we have causal control over the entire future, of course. We lack control over part of the future because part (or even all) of it is causally necessary. But if the necessity of the past is distinct from the lack of causability, and is a type of necessity the past has just because it is past, the future must lack that particular kind of necessity.

The idea that there is temporally asymmetrical modality is inconsistent with the transfer of necessity principle and the supposition of infallible foreknowledge of an essentially omniscient deity. The inconsistency can be demonstrated as follows:

Dilemma of Foreknowledge and Modal Temporal Asymmetry

Again, let T = the proposition that you will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am.

(1f)
There is (and was before now) an essentially omniscient foreknower (EOF) [Assumption for dilemma]

(1f) and the Principle of the Necessity of the Past tells us that

(2f)
Either it is now-necessary that the EOF believed T before now or it is now-necessary that the EOF believed not T before now.

From (1f) and the definition of an EOF it follows that

(3f)
Necessarily (The EOF believed before now that T → T), and necessarily (The EOF believed before now that not T → not T).

By the Transfer of Necessity Principle (TNP), (2f) and (3f) entail

(4f)
Either it is now-necessary that T or it is now-necessary that not T.

(4f) is logically equivalent to

(5f)
Either it is not now-possible that T or it is not now-possible that not T.

From the Principle of the Contingency of the Future we get

(6f)
It is now-possible that T and it is now-possible that not T.

But (6f) contradicts (5f).

The inconsistency shown in this argument has nothing to do with free will or fatalism. In fact, the problem is even more general than this argument illustrates. The reason essential omniscience conflicts with temporal modality and the transfer principle is that the existence of an EOF requires that a proposition about the past entails a proposition about the future. But it straightforwardly follows from TNP that a proposition that is now-necessary cannot entail a proposition that is not now-necessary. So if the past is now-necessary and the future is not, a proposition about the past cannot entail a proposition about the future. The conclusion is that if asymmetrical temporal modality is coherent, it can obey TNP, or it can permit a proposition about the past to entail a proposition about the future, but not both.

The root of the problem, then, is that it is impossible for there to be a type of modality that has the following features:

(a)
The past and future are asymmetrical in that the past qua past is necessary with respect to this type of modality, whereas the future qua future is contingent with respect to this type of modality.
(b)
There are propositions about the past that entail propositions about the future.
(c)
TNP obtains.

So the problem of the alleged incompatibility of infallible foreknowledge and free will is a special case of a more general problem about time and necessity. It was suggested in section 2.6 that the problem may be (a) above. There is no temporally asymmetrical necessity. But regardless of what one thinks of fatalist arguments, the general problem in the logic of time and causation needs to be addressed. Both the alleged modal asymmetry of time and the causal asymmetry should be examined in more detail.

The problem of foreknowledge and fatalism has been around for a long time, but the amount of philosophical attention it has attracted since 1965 is truly remarkable. The literature on this problem is enormous, and it continues to grow.

Bibliography

  • Adams, Marilyn, 1967, “Is the Existence of God a ‘Hard’ Fact?” Philosophical Review, 76(4): 492–503.
  • Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1991, “An Anti-Molinist Argument,” Philosophical Perspectives (Volume 5: Philosophy of Religion), James Tomberlin (ed)., Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview, pp. 343–354.
  • Alston, William P., 1985, “Divine Foreknowledge and Alternative Conceptions of Human Freedom,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 18(1): 19–32.
  • –––, 1986, “Does God Have Beliefs?” Religious Studies, 22 (Sept/Dec): 287–306.
  • Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Ia, q. 14, art 13.
  • –––, Summa Contra Gentiles I, chap. 66.
  • Arbour, Benjamin H., 2013, “Future Freedom and the Fixity of Truth: Closing the Road to Limited Foreknowledge Open Theism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 73(3): 189–207.
  • ––– (ed.), 2019, Philosophical Essays Against Open Theism, London: Routledge.
  • Augustine, The City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson, intro. G.R. Evans, Penguin, 2003.
  • –––, On Free Choice of the Will, trans., with introduction and notes, by Thomas Williams, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 1993.
  • Basinger, David, 1986, “Middle Knowledge and Classical Christian Thought,” Religious Studies, 22(3/4): 407–22.
  • Baker, D., 2005, “Divine Foreknowledge—So What?” Heythrop Journal, 46(1): 60–65.
  • –––, 1993, “Simple Foreknowledge and Providential Control,” Faith and Philosophy, 10(3): 421–427.
  • Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, Book V, Prose vi.
  • Boyd, Gregory, 2010, “Two Ancient (and Modern) Motivations for Ascribing Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge to God: A Historic Overview and Critical Assessment,” Religious Studies, 46(1): 41–59.
  • –––, 2015, “The Open Future, Free Will and Divine Assurance: Responding to Three Common Objections to the Open View,” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 7(3): 207–22.
  • Boyd, Gregory A., David Hunt, William Lane Craig, and Paul Helm, 2001, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (eds.), Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
  • Brant, Dale Eric, 1997, “On Plantinga’s Way Out,” Faith and Philosophy, 14(3): 378–387.
  • Brown, Robert F., 1991, “Divine Omniscience, Immutability, Aseity and Human Free Will,” Religious Studies, 27(3): 285–295.
  • Brueckner, Anthony, 2000, “On an Attempt to Demonstrate the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom,” Faith and Philosophy, 17(1): 132–134.
  • Brüntrup, Godehard and Ruben Schneider, 2011, “How Molinists Can Have Their Cake and Eat It Too,” in The Ways Things Are: Studies in Ontology, Christian Kanzian, Winfried Löffler, and Josef Quitterer (eds.), Frankfurt, Paris, Lancaster, and New Brunswick: Ontos Verlag, pp. 221–40.
  • Byerly, T. Ryan, 2014, The Mechanics of Divine Foreknowledge and Providence: A Time-Ordering Account, New York & London: Bloomsbury Press.
  • Climenhaga, Nevin, and Daniel Rubio, forthcoming, “Molinism: Explaining Our Freedom Away,” Mind, doi:10.1093/mind/fzab042
  • Craig, William Lane, 1987, The Only Wise God, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
  • –––, 1990, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 19), Leiden: E.J. Brill.
  • –––, 1994, “Robert Adams’s New Anti-Molinist Argument,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54(4): 857–861.
  • –––, 1998, “On Hasker’s Defense of Anti-Molinism,” Faith and Philosophy, 15(2): 236–240.
  • –––, 2005, “Divine Eternity and the General Theory of Relativity,” Faith and Philosophy, 22(5): 543–57.
  • Craig, William Lane, and David P. Hunt, 2013, “Perils of the Open Road,” Faith and Philosophy, 30(1): 49–71.
  • Cyr, Taylor W., 2020, “Atemporalism and Dependence,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 87(2): 149–64.
  • Cyr, Taylor W., and Andrew Law, forthcoming, “Freedom, Foreknowledge, and Dependence: A Dialectical Intervention,” American Philosophical Quarterly.
  • Davenport, John, 2007, “Augustine on Liberty of the Higher-Order Will: Answers to Hunt and Stump,” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 81: 67–89.
  • De Florio, Ciro, and Aldo Frigerio, 2015, “In Defense of the Timeless Solution to the Problem of Human Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 78(1): 5–28.
  • –––, 2019, Divine Omniscience and Human Free Will: A Logical and Metaphysical Analysis, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Dekker, Eef, 2000, Middle Knowledge, Leuven: Peeters.
  • Diekemper, Joseph., 2013, “Eternity, Knowledge, and Freedom,” Religious Studies, 49(1): 45–64.
  • Dummett, Michael, 1964, “Bringing About the Past,” Philosophical Review, 73: 338–359; reprinted in his Truth and Other Enigmas, London: Duckworth, 1978.
  • Edwards, Jonathan, Freedom of the Will, ed. Paul Ramsey, Yale University Press, 2009.
  • Fales, E., 2010, “Is Middle Knowledge Possible? Almost,” Sophia, 50(1): 1–9.
  • Finch, Alicia, and Michael Rea, 2008, “Presentism and Ockham’s Way Out,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion (Volume 1), Jonathan Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–17.
  • Finch, Alicia and Ted Warfield, 1999, “Fatalism: Logical and Theological,” Faith and Philosophy, 16(2): 233–238.
  • Fischer, John Martin, 1983, “Freedom and Foreknowledge,” Philosophical Review, 92 (January): 67–79.
  • –––, 1985a, “Ockhamism,” Philosophical Review, 94 (January): 81–100.
  • –––, 1985b, “Scotism,” Mind, 94 (April): 231–43.
  • ––– (ed.), 1989, God, Freedom, and Foreknowledge, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • –––, 1991, “Snapshot Ockhamism,” Philosophical Perspectives (Volume 5: Philosophy of Religion), Atascadero: Ridgeview, 355–372.
  • –––, 1992, “Recent Work on God and Freedom,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 29(2): 91–109.
  • –––, 1994, The Metaphysics of Free Will, Oxford: Blackwell.
  • –––, 2008, “Molinism,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion (Volume 1), Jonathan Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 18–43.
  • –––, 2016, Our Fate: Essays on God and Free Will, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • –––, 2017, “Book Symposium on Our Fate: Replies to My Critics,” Science, Religion, and Culture, 4: 79–101.
  • –––, forthcoming, “The Frankfurt-style Cases: Extinguishing the Flickers of Freedom,” Inquiry, doi:10.1080/0020174X.2021.1904640
  • Fischer, John Martin, and Patrick Todd, 2011, “The Truth about Freedom: A Reply to Merricks,” Philosophical Review, 120(1): 97–115.
  • –––, 2013, “The Truth about Foreknowledge,” Faith and Philosophy, 30(3): 286–301.
  • –––, 2015, “Introduction,” Freedom, Fatalism, and Foreknowledge, John Martin Fischer and Patrick Todd (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–38.
  • Fischer, John Martin, and Neal A. Tognazzini, 2014, “Omniscience, Freedom, and Dependence,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(2): 346–67.
  • Fischer, John Martin, Patrick Todd, and Neal A. Tognazzini, 2009, “Engaging with Pike: God, Freedom, and Time,” Philosophical Papers, 38(2): 247–70.
  • Fitzgerald, J., 2008, “Timeless Troubles: The Challenge of Prophecy to the Eternity Solution to the Foreknowledge/Freedom Dilemma,” Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 82: 203–15.
  • Flint, Thomas, 1990, “Hasker’s God, Time, and Knowledge,” Philosophical Studies, 60: 103–115.
  • –––, 1991, “In Defense of Theological Compatibilism,” Faith and Philosophy, 8: 237–243.
  • –––, 1997, “Praying for Things to Have Happened,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy (Volume XXI), Peter French, et al., (eds.), pp. 61–82.
  • –––, 1998, Divine Providence: The Molinist Account, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Forrest, Peter, 1985, “Backwards Causation in Defence of Free Will,” Mind, 94 (April): 210–217.
  • Frankfurt, Harry, 1969, “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” Journal of Philosophy, 46 (December): 829–839.
  • Freddoso, Alfred, 1982, “Accidental Necessity and Power Over the Past,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 63: 54–68.
  • –––, 1983, “Accidental Necessity and Logical Determinism,” Journal of Philosophy, 80: 257–78.
  • –––, 1988, Trans. and introduction to Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of Concordia), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Gaskin, R., 1993, “Conditionals of Freedom and Middle Knowledge,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 43(173): 412–430.
  • –––, 1994, “Molina on Divine Foreknowledge and the Principle of Bivalence,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 32(4): 551–571.
  • Goris, Harm J.M.J., 1996, Free Creatures of an Eternal God: Thomas Aquinas on God’s Foreknowledge and Irresistible Will, Utrecht/Louvain: Thomas Instituut/Peeters.
  • Graham, P.A., 2008, “Warfield on Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom,” Faith and Philosophy, 25(1): 75–8.
  • Griffin, David, and John B. Cobb, 1976, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition, Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
  • Grössl, Johannes, and Leigh Vicens, 2014, “Closing the Door on Limited-Risk Open Theism,” Faith and Philosophy, 31(4): 475–85.
  • Guleserian, T., 2008, “Ontological Determination and the Grounding Objection to Counterfactuals of Freedom,” Faith and Philosophy, 25(4): 394–415.
  • Haack, Susan, 1974, “On a Theological Argument for Fatalism,” Philosophical Quarterly, 24 (April): 156–59.
  • Hartshorne, Charles, 1941, Man’s Vision of God, New York: Harper and Bros.
  • –––, 1967, A Natural Theology for Our Time, Lasalle: Open Court Pub.
  • Hasker, William, 1988, “Yes, God Has Beliefs!” Religious Studies, 24(3): 385–94.
  • –––, 1989, God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • –––, 1993, “Zagzebski on Power Entailment,” Faith and Philosophy, 10(2): 250–255.
  • –––, 1995, “Middle Knowledge: A Refutation Revisited,” Faith and Philosophy, 12(2): 223–236.
  • –––, 1997, “Explanatory Priority: Transitive and Unequivocal, a Reply to William Craig,” Philosophy and Phenomological Research, 57(2): 389–393.
  • –––, 1998, “No Easy Way Out – A Response to Warfield,” Noûs, 32: 361–363.
  • –––, 2000, “Anti-Molinism is Undefeated!”, Faith and Philosophy, 17(1): 126–131.
  • –––, 2009. “Why Simple Foreknowledge Is Still Useless (In Spite of David Hunt and Alex Pruss),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52(3): 537–44.
  • Hawking, Stephen, 1988, A Brief History of Time, New York: Bantam Books.
  • Hess, Elijah, 2020, “Contra Tooley: Divine Foreknowledge Is Possible,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 87(2): 165–72.
  • Hoffman, Joshua and Gary Rosenkrantz, 1984, “Hard and Soft Facts,” Philosophical Review, 93 (July): 419–34.
  • Hughes, Charles T., 1997, “Belief, Foreknowledge, and Theological Fatalism,” Faith and Philosophy, 14(3): 378–87.
  • Hunt, David P., 1993, “Divine Providence and Simple Foreknowledge,” Faith and Philosophy, 10(3): 394–414.
  • –––, 1995, “Dispositional Omniscience,” Philosophical Studies, 80 (December): 243–78.
  • –––, 1997, “Two Problems with Knowing the Future,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 34 (April): 273–85.
  • –––, 1999a, “On Augustine’s Way Out,” Faith and Philosophy, 16(1): 3–26.
  • –––, 1999b, “Moral Responsibility and Unavoidable Action,” Philosophical Studies, 97(2): 195–227.
  • –––, 2002, “The Compatibility of Divine Determinism and Human Freedom: A Modest Proposal,” Faith and Philosophy, 19 (October): 485–502.
  • –––, 2003, “Freedom, Foreknowledge, and Frankfurt,” in Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities, David Widerker and Michael McKenna (eds.), Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., pp. 159–83.
  • –––, 2009, “The Providential Advantage of Divine Foreknowledge,” in Arguing about Religion, Kevin Timpe (ed.), New York: Routledge, pp. 374–85.
  • –––, 2017a, “Theological Fatalism as an Aporetic Problem,” in Free Will and Classical Theism: The Significance of Freedome in Perfect Being Theology, Hugh McCann (ed.), pp. 23–41.
  • –––, 2017b, “John Martin Fischer on the Puzzle of Theological Fatalism,” Science, Religion and Culture, 4: 15–26.
  • –––, 2020, “Fatalism for Presentists,” in The Metaphysics of Time: Themes on Prior, Per Hasle, David Jakobsen, and Peter Øhrstrøm (eds.), Aalborg University Press, pp. 299–316.
  • Ishtiyaque, H., 2005, “Foreknowledge, Freedom, and Obligation,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 86(3): 321–39.
  • Johnson, David Kyle, 2009, “God, Fatalism, and Temporal Ontology,” Religious Studies, 45(4): 435–54.
  • Kane, Robert, 1996, The Significance of Free Will, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kapitan, Tomis, 1993, “Providence, Foreknowledge, and Decision Procedure,” Faith and Philosophy, 10(3): 415–420.
  • Kenny, Anthony, 1969, “Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom,” in Kenny, Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
  • –––, 1979, The God of the Philosophers, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Kosciuk, Christopher J., 2010, Human Freedom in a World Full of Providence: An Ockhamist-Molinist Account of the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Creaturely Free Will, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Open Access Dissertations.
  • Kvanvig, Jonathan, 1986, The Possibility of an All-Knowing God, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Law, Andrew, 2020, “The Dependence Response and Explanatory Loops,” Faith and Philosophy, 37(3): 294–307.
  • –––, 2021, “From the Fixity of the Past to the Fixity of the Independent,” Philosophical Studies, 178(4): 1301–14.
  • Leftow, Brian, 1991a, Time and Eternity, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • –––, 1991b, “Timelessness and Foreknowledge,” Philosophical Studies, 63: 309–325.
  • Lewis, David, 1979, “Counterfactual Dependence and Time’s Arrow,” Noûs, 13 (November): 455–476.
  • Linville, Mark D., 1993, “Divine Foreknowledge and the Libertarian Conception of Freedom,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 33(3): 165–186.
  • Lucas, J.R., 1989, The Future: An Essay on God, Temporality, and Truth, London: Blackwell.
  • Malpass, Alex, and Jacek Wawer, 2012, “A Future for the Thin Red Line,” Synthese, 188(1): 117–42.
  • Markosian, Ned, 2004, “A Defense of Presentism,” in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics (Volume 1), Dean Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–82.
  • Massie, P., 2006, “Time and Contingency in Duns Scotus,” The Saint Anselm Journal, 3(2): 17–31.
  • Mavrodes, George, 1984, “Is the Past Preventable?” Faith and Philosophy, I (April): 131–146.
  • McCall, Storrs, 2011, “The Supervenience of Truth: Freewill and Omniscience,” Analysis, 71(3): 501–6.
  • McCann, Hugh, 1995, “Divine Sovereignty and the Freedom of the Will,” Faith and Philosophy, 12(4): 582–598.
  • McKay, Thomas J., and David Johnson, 1996, “A Reconsideration of an Argument against Compatibilism,” Philosophical Topics, 24(2): 113–22.
  • McKenna, Michael, 1997, “Alternate Possibilities and the Failure of the Counterexample Strategy,” Journal of Social Philosophy, 28(3): 71–85.
  • Mele, Alfred, and David Robb, 1998, “Rescuing Frankfurt-Style Cases,” Philosophical Review, 107(1): 97–112.
  • Merricks, Trenton., 2009, “Truth and Freedom,” Philosophical Review, 118(1): 29–57.
  • –––, 2011, “Foreknowledge and Freedom,” Philosophical Review, 120(4): 567–86.
  • Molina, Luis de. [See Freddoso 1988.]
  • Mongkin, Charles, and Menachem Kellner (eds.), 2000, Free Will and Moral Responsibility: General and Jewish Perspectives, College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.
  • Mooney, Justin, 2018, “Does Molinism Reconcile Freedom and Foreknowledge?” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 10(2): 131–48.
  • Murray, Michael J., 1995, “Leibniz on Divine Foreknowledge of Future Contingents and Human Freedom,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55(1): 75–108.
  • O’Connor, Timothy, 2000, Persons and Causes: The Metaphysics of Free Will, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ockham, William, 1983, Predestination, Foreknowledge, and Future Contingents, 2nd ed & trans. by Marilyn McCord Adams and Norman Kretzmann, Indianapolis: Hackett.
  • Otsuka, Michael, 1998, “Incompatibilism and the Avoidability of Blame,” Ethics, 108 (July): 685–701.
  • Øhrstrøm, Peter, 2009, “In Defence of the Thin Red Line: A Case for Ockhamism,” Humana Mente, 8: 17–32.
  • Padgett, Alan, 1992, Eternity and the Nature of Time, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Padgett, Alan. 2002. “Divine Foreknowledge and the Arrow of Time: On the Impossibility of Retrocausation,” in God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature, Gregory E. Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–74.
  • Pendergraft, Garrett, and D. Justin Coates., 2014, “No (New) Troubles with Ockhamism,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, 5: 185–208.
  • Pawl, Timothy, 2014a, “The Freedom of Christ and Explanatory Priority,” Religious Studies, 50: (2): 157–73.
  • –––, 2014b, “The Freedom of Christ and the Problem of Deliberation,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 75(3): 233–47.
  • Pereboom, Derk, 2000, “Alternate Possibilities and Causal Histories,” Philosophical Perspectives (Volume 20), James Tomberlin (ed.), Atascadero: Ridgeview.
  • Perszyk, Ken., 2011, Molinism: The Contemporary Debate, Oxford University Press.
  • –––, 2013, “Recent Work on Molinism,” Philosophy Compass, 8: 755–70.
  • Pike, Nelson, 1965, “Divine Omniscience and Voluntary Action,” The Philosophical Review, 74(1): 27–46.
  • –––, 1970, God and Timelessness, New York: Schocken.
  • –––, 1993, “A Latter-Day Look at the Foreknowledge Problem,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 33 (June): 129–164.
  • Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger, 1994, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
  • Plantinga, Alvin, 1973, The Nature of Necessity, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • –––, 1977, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
  • –––, 1986, “On Ockham’s Way Out,” Faith and Philosophy, 3(3): 235–269.
  • Prior, Arthur N., 1962, “The Formalities of Omniscience,” Philosophy, 37 (April): 114–29.
  • –––, 1967, Past, Present, and Future, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Purtill, Richard, 1988, “Fatalism and the Omnitemporality of Truth,” Faith and Philosophy, 5(2): 185–192.
  • Pruss, A., 2007, “Prophecy Without Middle Knowledge,” Faith and Philosophy, 24(4): 433–57.
  • –––, 2011, “From Restricted to Full Omniscience,” Religious Studies, 47(2): 257–64.
  • Rauf, M.A., 1970, “The Qur’an and Free Will,” The Muslim World, 60(4): 289–299.
  • Rea, Michael, 2006, “Presentism and Fatalism,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(4): 511–24.
  • Reichenbach, Bruce, 1987, “Hasker on Omniscience,” Faith and Philosophy, 4 (January): 86–92.
  • –––, 1988, “Fatalism and Freedom,” International Philosophical Quarterly, 28 (September): 271–85.
  • Rhoda, Alan R., 2009, “Presentism, Truthmakers, and God,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 90: 41–62.
  • Rhoda, A.R., G.A. Boyd, and T.G. Belt, 2006, “Open Theism, Omniscience, and the Nature of the Future,” Faith and Philosophy, 23(4): 432–59.
  • Rice, Hugh, 2005, “Zagzebski on the Arrow of Time,” Faith and Philosophy, 22(3): 363–369.
  • Robinson, Michael D., 1995, Eternity and Freedom: A Critical Analysis of Divine Timelessness as a Solution to the Foreknowledge/Free Will Debate, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
  • –––, 2004a, “Divine Providence, Simple Foreknowledge, and the ‘Metaphysical Principle’,” Religious Studies, 40(4): 471–83.
  • –––, 2004b, “Divine Guidance and an Accidentally Necessary Future: A Response to Hunt,” Religious Studies, 40(4): 493–98.
  • Rogers, Katherin A., 2007a, “Anselmian Eternalism,” Faith and Philosophy, 24(1): 3–27.
  • –––, 2007b, “The Necessity of the Present and Anselm’s Eternalist Response to the Problem of Theological Fatalism,” Religious Studies, 43(1): 25–47.
  • –––, 2006, “Anselm on Eternity as the Fifth Dimension,” The Saint Anselm Journal, 3(2): 1–8.
  • Rota, Michael, 2010, “The Eternity Solution to the Problem of Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge,” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2(1): 165–186.
  • Rowe, William L., 1999, “Problem of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom,” Faith and Philosophy, 16(1): 98–101.
  • Runzo, Joseph, 1981, “Omniscience and Freedom for Evil,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 12: 131–147.
  • Sanders, John, 1997, “Why Simple Foreknowledge Offers No More Providential Control Than the Openness of God,” Faith and Philosophy, 14(1): 26–40.
  • –––, 1998, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
  • Sansbury, T., 2007, “The False Promise of Quantum Mechanics,” Zygon, 42(1): 111–22.
  • Sartorio, Carolina, 2016, “PAP-Style Cases,” Journal of Philosophy, 113(11): 533–49.
  • Shabo, Seth, 2010, “Uncompromising Source Incompatibilism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80(2): 349–83.
  • Shanley, B., 1997, “Eternal Knowledge of the Temporal in Aquinas,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 71: 197–224.
  • –––, 1998, “Divine Causation and Human Freedom in Aquinas,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 72: 99–122.
  • Shieber, Joseph., 2009, “Personal Responsibility and Middle Knowledge: A Challenge for the Molinist,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 66(2): 61–70.
  • Sider, Ted, 1999, “Presentism and Ontological Commitment,” Journal of Philosophy, 96(7): 325–47.
  • Sleigh, Robert, 1994, “Leibniz and Divine Foreknowledge,” Faith and Philosophy, 11(4): 547–571.
  • Slote, Michael, 1982, “Selective Necessity and the Free-Will Problem,” Journal of Philosophy, 79(1): 5–24.
  • Stump, Eleonore, 1990, “Intellect, Will, and the Principle of Alternate Possibilities,” in Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy, Michael D. Beaty (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 254–85.
  • –––, 1996, “Libertarian Freedom and the Principle of Alternate Possibilities,” in Faith, Freedom, and Rationality, Jeff Jordan and Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 73–88.
  • Stump, Eleonore, and Norman Kretzmann, 1981, “Eternity,” Journal of Philosophy, 78 (August): 429–58.
  • –––, 1991, “Prophecy, Past Truth, and Eternity,” Philosophical Perspectives (Volume 5: Philosophy of Religion), James Tomberlin (ed.), Atascadero: Ridgeview Press, pp. 395–424.
  • –––, 1992, “Eternity, Awareness, and Action,” Faith and Philosophy, 9: 463–82.
  • Swenson, Philip, 2016, “Ability, Foreknowledge, and Explanatory Dependence,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 94(4): 658–71.
  • Swinburne, Richard, 1977, The Coherence of Theism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • –––, 2006, Providence and the Problem of Evil, Oxford University Press.
  • Talbott, Thomas, 1986, “On Divine Foreknowledge and Bringing About the Past,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 46: 455–469.
  • –––, 1993, “Theological Fatalism and Modal Confusion,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 33 (April): 65–88.
  • Talsma, Tina., 2013, “Source Incompatibilism and the Foreknowledge Dilemma,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 73(3): 209–19.
  • Tanis, J., 2004, “Free Will and Foreknowledge,” Dialogue, 46(2–3): 95–103.
  • Timpe, Kevin, 2005. “Prayers for the Past,” Religious Studies, 41(3): 305–322.
  • –––, 2007. “Truth-making and Divine Eternity,” Religious Studies, 43(3): 299–315.
  • Todd, Patrick, 2011, “Geachianism,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, 3: 222–51.
  • –––, 2013a, “Soft Facts and Ontological Dependence,” Philosophical Studies, 164(3): 829–44.
  • –––, 2013b, “Prepunishment and Explanatory Dependence: A New Argument for Incompatibilism about Foreknowledge and Freedom,” Philosophical Review, 122(4): 619–39.
  • –––, 2014a, “Against Limited Foreknowledge,” Philosophia, 42(2): 523–38.
  • –––, 2014b, “Fatalism,” Oxford Bibliographies in Philosophy, Duncan Pritchard (ed.), available online.
  • –––, 2016a, “Future Contingents Are All False! On Behalf of a Russellian Open Future,” Mind, 125(499): 775–98.
  • –––, 2016b, “On Behalf of a Mutable Future,” Synthese, 193(7): 2077–95.
  • –––, 2021, The Open Future: Why Future Contingents Are All False, Oxford University Press.
  • Tooley, Michael, 2000, “Freedom and Foreknowledge,” Faith and Philosophy, 17 (April): 212–224.
  • –––, 2010, “Time, Truth, Actuality, and Causation: On the Impossibility of Divine Foreknowledge,” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2(1): 143–163.
  • Tuggy, Dale, 2007, “Three Roads to Open Theism,” Faith and Philosophy, 24(1): 28–51.
  • Van Inwagen, Peter, 1983, An Essay on Free Will, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • –––, 2008, “What Does an Omniscient Being Know About the Future?” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion (Volume 1), Jonathan Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 216–30.
  • Vicens, Leigh C., and Simon Kittle, 2019, God and Human Freedom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Walls, Jerry L., 1990, “Is Molinism as Bad as Calvinism?” Faith and Philosophy, 7(1): 85–98.
  • Warfield, Ted, 1997, “Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom Are Compatible,” Noûs, 31(1): 80–86.
  • –––, 2000, “On Freedom and Foreknowledge: A Reply to Two Critics,” Faith and Philosophy, 17 (April): 255–259.
  • Wasserman, Ryan, 2021, “Freedom, Foreknowledge, and Dependence,” Noûs 55: 603–622.
  • –––, forthcoming, “The Independence Solution to the Problem of Theological Fatalism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, doi:10.1111/phpr.12743
  • Werther, D., 2005, “Divine Foreknowledge, Harry Frankfurt, and ‘Hyper-Incompatibilism’,” Ars Disputandi, 5: 1–7.
  • Westphal, P., 2011, “The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Freewill,” Analysis, 71(2): 246–52.
  • –––, 2012, “The Logic of the Compatibility of God’s Foreknowledge and Human Freewill,” Analysis, 72(2): 746–8.
  • Whitehead, A. N., 1978, Process and Reality, D. R. Griffin and D. Sherburne (eds.), New York: Macmillan Press.
  • Widerker, David, 1990, “Troubles with Ockhamism,” Journal of Philosophy, 87(9): 462–80.
  • –––, 1991, “A Problem for the Eternity Solution,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 29: 87–95.
  • –––, 1995a, “Libertarian Freedom and the Avoidability of Decisions,” Faith and Philosophy, 12: 112–118.
  • –––, 1995b, “Libertarianism and Frankfurt’s Attack on the Principle of Alternate Possibilities,” Philosophical Review, 104 (April): 247–261.
  • –––, 1996, “Contra Snapshot Ockhamism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 39(2): 95–102.
  • –––, 2000, “Theological Fatalism and Frankfurt Counterexamples to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities,” Faith and Philosophy, 17 (April): 249–254.
  • Wierenga, Edward, 1989, The Nature of God, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • –––, 1991, “Prophecy, Freedom, and the Necessity of the Past,” Philosophical Perspectives (Volume 5: Philosophy of Religion), James Tomberlin (ed.), Atascadero: Ridgeview, pp. 425–446.
  • Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 1975, “God Everlasting,” God and the Good: Essays in Honor of Henry Stob, C. Orlebeke and L. Smedes (eds.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
  • Wyckoff, J., 2010, “On the Incompatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom,” Sophia, 49(3): 333–41.
  • Zagzebski, Linda, 1991, The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • –––, 1993, “Rejoinder to Hasker,” Faith and Philosophy, 10(2): 256–260.
  • –––, 1997, “Foreknowledge and Freedom,” Companion to Philosophy of Religion, Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro (eds.), Oxford and New York: Blackwell.
  • –––, 2000, “Does Libertarian Freedom Require Alternate Possibilities?” Noûs Vol. 34, Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives, 14 (Action and Freedom): 231–248.
  • –––, 2002a, “Recent Work on Divine Foreknowledge and Free Will,” The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, Robert Kane (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45–64.
  • –––, 2002b, “Omniscience and the Arrow of Time,” Faith and Philosophy, 19(4): 503–519.
  • –––, 2004, “Omniscience, Time, and Freedom,” Guide to Philosophy of Religion, William Mann (ed.), Oxford and New York: Blackwell.
  • –––, 2011, “Eternity and Fatalism,” in God, Eternity, and Time, Christian Tapp (ed.), Aldershot: Ashgate Press.
  • –––, 2014, “Divine Foreknowledge and the Metaphysics of Time,” in God: Reason, and Reality (Philosophia Series: Basic Philosophical Concepts), A Ramelow (ed.), Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
  • Zemach, Eddy M., and David Widerker, 1987, “Facts, Freedom, and Foreknowledge,” Religious Studies, 23 (March): 19–28.
  • Zimmerman, Dean, 2008, “The Privileged Present: Defending an ‘A-Theory’ of Time,” in Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, Theodore Sider, John Hawthorne, and Dean W. Zimmerman (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 211–25.
  • –––, 2010, “The A-Theory of Time, Presentism, and Open Theism,” inScience and Religion in Dialogue, vol. 2, Melville Y. Stewart (ed.), Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • –––, 2012, “The Providential Usefulness of ‘Simple Foreknowledge’,” in Reason, Metaphysics, and Mind: New Essays on the Philosophy of Alvin Plantinga, Kelly James Clark and Michael Rea (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Other Internet Resources

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Copyright © 2021 by
David Hunt <dhunt@whittier.edu>
Linda Zagzebski

This is a file in the archives of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Please note that some links may no longer be functional.