Ferhat Yöney

Open theists defend the epistemic openness of the contingent future for God, although they don’t regard biblical prophecies, which involve God’s providing information about the future, as problematic for their view. They proceed to explain such prophecies in one of the following three ways: as conditional prophecies, as prophecies based on current necessities, or as prophecies of divine intentions. In this article, I argue that there are problematic biblical prophecies for open theism that can’t be explained in any of these three ways within an open theist framework. Then I propose two ways for open theists to deal with these problematic prophecies. The first solution is to renounce a literal interpretation of the problematic prophecies, which would be compatible with open theism being more biblical than its rivals. The second solution is to put forward a fourth way of explaining prophecies, which involves a specific view of future contingents, and to apply it to the problematic prophecies.

Rik Peels ( 2016 ) treats divine repentance as a biblical theme and presents this theme as a paradox in which divine repentance, divine omniscience and divine moral perfect goodness are an inconsistent triad. To solve this paradox, Peels suggests that God does not know about some of his own future acts, and distinguishes his solution from open theism, although he accepts that open theism can also escape the paradox. In this work, I criticize Peels’ account of divine repentance from an open theist perspective. My first criticism concerns his dismissal of open theism as an untenable account of divine omniscience. In my second criticism, I point out that the philosophical motivations of open theism entail its success in dealing with the paradox. On the other hand, I argue that Peels’ account of divine repentance is philosophically unmotivated, and as an ad hoc solution to the paradox, it undermines God’s omniscience and subordinates it to divine repentance. In my third criticism, I address three implications that Peels attributes to his view. I emphasize that these implications have been described by open theists as strengths of their view, and compare Peels’ account and open theism in relation to them.

Tanrısal ön bilgi-özgür irade sorununa ilişkin Ockhamcı çözümler, 1960’lı yıllardan 1990’lı yıllara kadar analitik din felsefesi çevrelerinde önemli bir yer tutmuştur. Bu çalışmada, Ockhamlı William’ın (1287-1347) geleceğe ilişkin olumsal önermeler ve tanrısal ön bilgi-özgür irade sorununa ilişkin görüşlerine kısaca değinildikten sonra, çağdaş analitik din felsefesinde tanrısal ön bilgi-özgür irade sorununa ilişkin Ockhamcı çözüm olarak adlandırılan görüş ve buna ilişkin tartışmalar ele alınacaktır. Bu kapsamda Ockhamcı çözüm olarak savunulan görüşlerin tanrısal ön bilgi ile insan özgür iradesini bağdaştırma açısından başarısız olduğu gösterilecektir. Ayrıca, Ockhamcı çözümlerin geleceğe ilişkin olumsal önermeler konusunda varsaydığı görüşün karşılaştığı metafiziksel sorun ortaya konacak ve bu sorunun, tanrısal ön bilgi ile özgür iradeyi bağdaştırmaya yönelik herhangi bir girişim açısından sorun oluşturduğu vurgulanacaktır.

It is widely assumed that theism is superior to metaphysical naturalism in explaining moral phenomena, especially with regard to the practical aspect of morality. In this article, I will firstly clarify what this practical aspect amounts to and present two challenges against metaphysical naturalism, by John Mackie and Richard Joyce. Then, I will critically engage with two main attempts to argue for the superiority of theism over metaphysical naturalism: One of them is the appeal to the existence of afterlife, and the other is Robert Merrihew Adams’ divine command metaethics. I will argue that both are problematic for different reasons. Relying on the main aspects of Adams’ metaethical framework, I will advance my proposal to maintain the practical aspect of morality which lends theism superiority over metaphysical naturalism, and then follow with certain implications of the proposal for theistic metaethics.

Open Theist theologians argue that their view of divine foreknowledge and providence is the correct interpretation of the Bible, and suggest some biblical evidence to support this claim. Among these theologians, Gregory A. Boyd’s case is the most systematic, and also the most comprehensive and rigorous. Taking into consideration (1) the main philosophical claims of Open Theism and its main rivals, namely Calvinism and Molinism, and (2) Open Theist theologians’ interpretative principles for the Bible, the biblical evidence for Open Theism suggested by Boyd can be classified into three groups according to their strength. I will argue that the first group of themes has no evidential value for Open Theism, since these themes can be interpreted just as plausibly from a Calvinist or Molinist perspective. By contrast, the second group of themes has some evidential value and thus constitutes prima facie evidence for Open Theism, since these themes make most sense under an Open Theist interpretation. However, these themes also make some sense on a Molinist reading. The third group of themes, I argue, has most evidential value for Open Theism, since it seems hard to reconcile these themes either with Calvinism or Molinism.