Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:26:05.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against deliberation restrictions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

GARRETT PENDERGRAFT
GARRETT PENDERGRAFT*
Affiliation:
HUTE Division (CAC 300), Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA, 90263-4225, USA e-mail: garrett.pendergraft@pepperdine.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditional views about God and about deliberation seem to imply that we need a deliberation restriction on the concept of divine omniscience. I will argue, however, that this deliberation restriction is both irrelevant and unnecessary. It is irrelevant because there is no time at which God needs to deliberate; and it is unnecessary because even if God does deliberate, it's possible for him to do so while knowing what the results of that deliberation will be. And because this possibility of deliberating despite knowing the results holds for deliberation in general, my argument provides useful (and perhaps surprising) results not only for discussions of the divine attributes, but also for broader discussions of deliberation itself.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 341 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Basinger, David (1986) ‘Omniscience and deliberation: a response to Reichenbach’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 20, 169–172.Google Scholar
Clarke, Randolph (1992) ‘Deliberation and belief about one's abilities’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 73, 101–113.Google Scholar
Coffman, E. J. & Warfield, Ted A. (2005) ‘Deliberation and metaphysical freedom’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29, 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, John Martin (1994) The Metaphysics of Free Will (Malden MA: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin (2006) ‘Responsibility and alternative possibilities’, in My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility (New York: Oxford University Press), 38–62.Google Scholar
Grim, Patrick (1985) ‘Against omniscience: the case from essential indexicals’, Noûs, 19, 151–180.Google Scholar
Hasker, William (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Hunt, David P. (1992) ‘Omniprescient agency’, Religious Studies, 28, 351–369.Google Scholar
Hunt, David P. (1996) ‘The compatibility of omniscience and intentional action: a reply to Tomis Kapitan’, Religious Studies, 32, 49–60.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert (1996) The Significance of Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kapitan, Tomis (1991) ‘Agency and omniscience’, Religious Studies, 27, 105–120.Google Scholar
Kapitan, Tomis (1994) ‘The incompatibility of omniscience and intentional action: a reply to David P. Hunt’, Religious Studies, 30, 55–65.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (1986) The Possibility of an All-Knowing God (New York: St Martin's Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. (1989) ‘The analogy argument for a limited account of omniscience’, International Philosophical Quarterly, 29, 129–137.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Yujin (2008) ‘A new defence of Anselmian theism’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 577–596.Google Scholar
Nahmias, Eddy (2006) ‘Close calls and the confident agent: free will, deliberation, and alternative possibilities’, Philosophical Studies, 131, 627–667.Google Scholar
Nelkin, Dana K. (2004) ‘The sense of freedom’, in Campbell, J. K., O'Rourke, M., & Shier, D. (eds), Freedom and Determinism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press), 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, Dana K. (2011) Making Sense of Freedom and Responsibility (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk (2001) Living Without Free Will (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk (2008) ‘A compatibilist account of the epistemic conditions on rational deliberation’, Journal of Ethics, 12, 287–306.Google Scholar
Perry, John (1979) ‘The problem of the essential indexical’, Noûs, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M., Hasker, W., Reichenbach, B. & Basinger, D. (2009) Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Pettit, Gordon (2002) ‘Are we rarely free? A response to restrictivism’, Philosophical Studies, 107, 219–237.Google Scholar
Prior, A. N. (1962) The Formalities of Omniscience (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Bruce R. (1984) ‘Omniscience and deliberation’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 16, 225–236.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert (1969) The Concept of Mind (New York: Barnes & Noble).Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1993) The Coherence of Theism (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1996) Is There a God? (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Taylor, Richard (1964) ‘Deliberation and foreknowledge’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 1, 73–80.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (1989) ‘When is the will free?’, Philosophical Perspectives, 3, 399–422.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (2004) ‘van Inwagen on Free Will’, in Campbell, J. K., O'Rourke, M., & Shier, D. (eds), Freedom and Determinism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press), 213–230.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter (2008) ‘What does an omniscient being know about the future?’, in Kvanvig, J. L. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, I (New York: Oxford University Press), 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierenga, Edward R. (1989) The Nature of God: An Inquiry into Divine Attributes (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar