Proof Delivery Form Number of pages (not including this page): 2 Please insert the corrections directly into the pdf proof using the tools incorporated (Adobe Acrobat Reader will be required to complete this task). Using the cursor select the text for correction, right click and use the most appropriate single tool (i.e. 'Replace', 'Cross out' or 'Add note to text'). Please use the yellow 'sticky note' function as it does not provide an exact location for the correction. Please be aware that corrections supplied in other formats will not be accepted. Any queries raised are listed on the next page. Do not mark corrections on this page. The text to which the query refers is indicated on the proof by numbers (e.g., Q1) in the margin. Please be sure to answer these queries in full on the relevant page of the proof. Only one set of corrections can be supplied. Additional corrections supplied at a later date will not be accepted. If corrections are required to a figure other than typographical please resupply the file with the corrections incorporated. For items written by more than one author, a single marked proof should be supplied in consultation with your co-authors. For clarity please do not supply explanations of the corrections, only the corrections themselves. The proof is sent to you for the correction of typographical errors only. Corrections will be carried out at the discretion of the Publisher. The Publisher reserves the right to charge for corrections deemed as excessive. Any corrections marked which are against journal style will not be incorporated. Please note that this pdf is for proof checking purposes only. It should not be distributed to third parties and may not represent the final published version. To avoid delays please ensure that a completed transfer of copyright form has been supplied. This proof is sent to you on behalf of Cambridge University Press. Date of delivery: 23.06.2020 Journal and vol/article ref: page 1 of 2 2000 29 Author Queries Journal: RES (Religious Studies) Manuscript: S0034412520000293jbr Q1 The distinction between surnames can be ambiguous, therefore to ensure accurate tagging for indexing purposes online (e.g. for PubMed entries), please check that the highlighted surnames have been correctly identified, that all names are in the correct order and spelt correctly. Book Review Religious Studies  () doi:./S © The Author(s), . Published by Cambridge University Press Heath White Fate and Free Will. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, ). Pp. xii + . £./$. (Hbk). ISBN . Theological Determinism (TD) is the most attractive and credible theistic option for questions regarding free-will and God's power, according to Heath White. He believes that it stands up and fares better than free-will libertarianism and deserves more credit and respect then its critics realize. This unpopular theory is defended with a myriad of arguments and a large variety of examples, weak, strong, and irrelevant. At the outset, he informs readers that towards the end of writing he changed his mind about his entire position. He now considers himself a hopeful agnostic, a radical turn from this book that is devoted to the all perfect God. Ironically, this clearly written provocative position no longer represents his current thought, and ostensibly belongs to no particular philosopher or theologian. It is like a reverse yet unfallacious strawman that argues for a position no one holds – even early on, he did not totally believe it. Nevertheless, this disclosure and admonition should not dissuade readers from studying this original work from a theistic perspective in order to discover its advantages, which are the culmination of years of research. White notes that different versions of TD have been argued by Luther, Aquinas (though disputed), Jonathan Edwards, and Calvin. The theories of Alvin Plantinga and other prominent philosophers of religion are discussed. A more apt title would have been 'Determinism and Free-Will' as White scarcely discusses fate or fatalism. The common terms 'compatibilism' and 'incompatibilism' are used throughout. Fatalism must be distinguished from TD. The former claims that events happen no matter what, inevitably, and the latter provides less causal necessity. Against the libertarians who claim that divine power is less controlling, White defends the position that God's power is not limited by anything contingent, and His will determines everything that occurs, including every detail. The facts about God's will entail every other contingent fact, and are explanatorily prior to them. Most importantly, he argues that TD 'does not say that God intends to happen all that happens' (). This distinction is between intended and merely Religious Studies (2020) 0, 1–2 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  foreseen consequences of God's will. Innumerable events happen that God did not intend, yet He knew they would occur and were foreseen. Surprisingly, he rewrites the same example of Pierre's absence in a café that Sartre used in Being and Nothingness, but for a different reason – to show that only positive and not negative realities matter. The remainder of the book includes four chapters on whether TD undermines moral responsibility and justice, the meaning of life, human freedom, problem of evil, and Hell. One challenging objection to TD is that it minimizes or eliminates the moral responsibility of agents for their actions, especially crimes; punishment would be unjust if all choices are determined. However, the intent of punishing wrongdoers should be for purposes of rehabilitation and educational – pedagogical, not basic retributivism. In theory, the Social Contract provides justification for punishment (). The claim that agents are determined by God does not matter if the punishment is for re-education and moral rehabilitation. Punishment also serves as a deterrence for future crimes in society, but some criminals are so dangerous that incapacitation or capital punishment are necessary. In practice, though, judges, juries and prosecutors commonly maintain some version of free will – not strong or divine determinism. This review sketches only the basics of this position. Advocates of free will also argue that determinism represents a threat to, and defeats, human autonomy and the meaningfulness of life. Critics say that because we are controlled by God's will and purpose, then agents are merely cogs or puppets. However, White holds that we need to believe that our rational lives are going somewhere valuable and meaningful and that determinism is no threat. Agents must still make choices every conscious moment, and have no knowledge of God's intentions. White's analysis of the problem of evil is more troubling and admittedly does not begin to resolve the question, as it offers a weak alternative to free-will defences and explanations of non-moral evils. He agrees with the classic theist view that God does not intend or cause evils, and for divine reasons only permits them. White acknowledges that horrendous evils are very problematic yet develops no new theodicy here. At the minimum, TD is no worse than inadequate free-will theories, he claims. This reviewer is sceptical regarding the major points in White's position. In general, TD is less credible than White contends, and his arguments are unlikely to persuade free-will advocates and agnostics. In the end, he emphasizes that it fares well against libertarianism and is a better answer for theism than critics realize. This review cannot do justice to the depth and multitude of arguments in this original and refreshing work. Over twenty pages of detailed endnotes, a lengthy bibliography and two indices are included. Recommended. MARK P. Q1MALLER Lewis University e-mail: mpmphilosophy@gmail.com  Book Review 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85