A simpler free will defence

Otte (Philos Phenomenol 78(1):165-177, ) and Pruss (Faith Philos 29(4):400-415, ) have produced counterexamples to Plantinga's (The nature of necessity, ) famous free will defence against the logical version of the problem of evil. The target of this criticism is the possibility of universal tr...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal for philosophy of religion
Authors: Bernstein, C'Zar (Author) ; Helms, Nathaniel (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2015
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Further subjects:B Free Will
B FREE will & determinism
B Free Will Defence
B GOOD & evil
B Libertarianism
B Plantinga, Alvin
B problem of evil
B God
B Necessity (Philosophy)
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:Otte (Philos Phenomenol 78(1):165-177, ) and Pruss (Faith Philos 29(4):400-415, ) have produced counterexamples to Plantinga's (The nature of necessity, ) famous free will defence against the logical version of the problem of evil. The target of this criticism is the possibility of universal transworld depravity, which is crucial to Plantinga's defence. In this paper, we argue that there is a simpler and more plausible free will defence that does not require the possibility of universal transworld depravity or the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. We assume only (a) that libertarianism is possibly true and (b) that God's existence is consistent with the existence of free agents who never go wrong. We conclude the paper by explaining how our defence may be able to succeed without assuming (a), in a way that is consistent with compatibilism.
ISSN:1572-8684
Contains:Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s11153-015-9512-7