Abstract

In “Truth and Molinism”, Trenton Merricks criticizes the argument against Molinism at the core of William Hasker's book, God, Time, and Knowledge. Merricks claims that, if Hasker's argument against Molinism is a good one, it also refutes theories of subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals that endorse ‘centering’ (like those of Stalnaker and Lewis). Merricks also offers a direct objection to Hasker's argument. But Hasker's anti‐Molinist argument can be embraced by advocates of centering; and Merricks's refutation of Hasker fails.