Skip to main content

Alvin Plantinga is Retiring

Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame), the greatest living Christian philosopher of religion, is retiring. Despite my disagreements with his views, he is one of my favorite philosophers of religion. His work is of the highest caliber, and his style is a model of clarity and rigor. I have learned more from his work than I can say.

On a happier note, a conference is scheduled in celebration of his retirement. Details about the conference can be found here.

P.S., Plantinga's latest reply to criticisms of his evolutionary argument against naturalism ("Content and Natural Selection", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (forthcoming)) is now available at his department website. Here is the link.

Comments

Ron said…
I really want to read his stuff someday. Out of curiousity, who would you say is the greatest unretired Christian philosopher of religion?

One thing I've always admired about you, Ex, is that you are not hateful towards those that disagree with you. In a blogosphere filled with ideologues and their polemics that is refreshing.
exapologist said…
Hi Ron,

Thanks so much for the kind words! I have likewise always appreciated your kindness and civility.

Regarding your question: I've thought a lot about this question since you asked it, but I still have trouble answering it. Part of the problem is that it's hard to find a Christian philosopher of religion with comparable maturity, depth, and scope in their work. Plantinga and Swinburne are agenda-setting, big-picture guys who raised the standards of clarity and rigor in philosophy of religion; it' s hard to find comparable philosophers of religion in these respects. Perhaps the philosophers who come closest are Peter van Inwagen, Robert M. Adams, and Linda Zagzebski.

Best,
EA
Cole said…
Hey ex,

You mean you don't like C Steven Evens? He's one of my favorite. He has a new edition of his introductory to Philosophy of Religion out. I love it! Although I'm just a theist and not a Christian theist.
exapologist said…
Hey Cole,

Thanks for the heads-up about Evans' new book -- I'll have to go look at it on Amazon.com.

Best,
EA

Popular posts from this blog

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…