Philosophy, Theology, History, Science, Big Questions
  • Homepage
    • Collections of Works By Great Thinkers
    • How To Become A Christian
    • Apologetics: Who Need's It
    • Ask ?'s
    • Introduce a New Topic to Discuss
    • Other Recommended Websites / Reading
    • 12 Pitfalls of the Foolish Apologist
    • Apologetics 101: The Basics
  • Phil. Theology
  • Phil. of Religion
    • Arguments for the Existence of God
    • Objections to the Arguments for the Existence of God
    • Defeaters of Divine Hiddenness
    • Defeaters of the Problem of Evil and Divine Silence
    • More Arguments Against Christian Theism
    • The Problem of Miracles
    • Incompatible Properties Argument
    • Reformed Epistemology
    • Molinism
    • Primary Sources On Big Topics In Phil. Of Religion
  • Phil. of Science/Time
    • The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics
    • Fine-Tuning is a Fact
    • Absolute Beginnings
    • God/Time/Cosmology
    • Scientific Realism
  • Biblical Studies
    • Substantial New Testament Puzzles (In Progress)
    • Substantial Old Testament Puzzles (In Progress)
    • Evolution and Christianity
    • Rethinking Biblical Inspiration (In Progress)
    • The Gospels: Guilty Until Proven Innocent?
    • The Historical Case for the Resurrection >
      • Objections to the Resurrection
  • Scholarly Naturalism
    • Paul Draper
    • J.L. Schellenberg
    • Gregory Dawes

Does Molinism Redound to the Glory of God?

12/8/2011

0 Comments

 
What is so great about knowing what would happen in all possible worlds?

1) If God did not have middle knowledge such as the Molinist maintains, then God, as an omniscient being, would be ignorant of an infinite number of truths, which would hardly qualify God to be omniscient.  Molinism then, redounds to the glory of God over and above other views such as Open theism, Calvinism and the like.

2)  WLC writes, "Once you grasp the concept of middle knowledge, I think you’ll find it astonishing in its subtlety and power. Indeed, I’d venture to say that it is one of the most fruitful theological concepts ever conceived. I’ve applied it to the issues of Christian particularism, perseverance of the saints, and biblical inspiration; Tom Flint has used it to analyze papal infallibility and Christology, and Del Ratzsch has employed it profitably in evolutionary theory."

How does God know these things?

1) It seems arbitrary for one to get worked up about how God could have middle knowledge, but to overlook how it is He can have Natural, and Free Knowledge.  Moreover, as an eternal being, God never acquired any of His essential attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the like; so again, an arbitrary objection.  With that said, what we really want is a model of how God can plausibly have knowledge at all, but especially middle knowledge.  I think the trouble comes from assuming a perceptualist model of omniscience whereby God literally looks and sees (like we do), but if there isn't anything there to look at then God can't know it.  This model of knowledge is terribly anthropomorphic, and luckily, there is another model of omniscience known as the conceptualist model whereby God graps all truths intuitively, and in a properly basic manner.  On this model, God grasps all truths immediately without having to "look and see."  There is nothing incoherent or unfamiliar about this kind of knowledge (we have it to a very small degree compared to God), and it seems that the greatest conceivable being is capable of knowing all truths in such a manner as well.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed