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.


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.

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


Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 

The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at

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…