Middle knowledge: The "foreknowledge defense"

Abstract

In response to the objection (from Robert Adams and others) that counterfactuals of freedom are not sufficiently “grounded” to serve as objects of divine knowledge, some defenders of middle knowledge have argued that it is at least no worse off than foreknowledge in this respect; so if foreknowledge is deemed coherent, despite the threat of “ungroundedness,” middle knowledge should be likewise. I focus on the employment of this strategy in a recent article by Richard Otte, and show that it is undermined by significant differences between foreknowledge and middle knowledge as well as a failure to appreciate the force of the “grounding” objection.