What do you think?
The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader
Alvin Plantinga, called by Time magazine "America's leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God," has had a profound impact on the philosophical discipline. This book gathers in one place Plantinga's most important work in the philosophy of religion generally and his contribution to the resurgence in Christian philosophy in particular. Organized into four sections-"Natural Theology and Atheology," "Reformed Epistemology," "Divine Nature and Attributes," and "Christian Philosophy"-these thirteen essays and book excerpts reflect the areas of thought in which Plantinga has been most influential. The volume also includes an Afterword by Plantinga and instructions for accessing his work on the World Wide Web.
388 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 10, 2026
A nice collection of Plantinga’s most memorable essays on epistemology and natural theology. Naturalists and theist philosophers have tremendous respect for Plantinga for good reason!
The essays presented here are very interesting but they are too technical for my taste. There were a few times where, because of how technical the essays got, that I zoned out.
A few of the essays stood out to me. “Is Naturalism Irrational?” argues that, given naturalism and evolution, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is low—or at least difficult to determine. If naturalism and evolution give us reason to doubt the reliability of our cognitive faculties, then they also give us a reason to doubt naturalism itself. This is perhaps the best paper in the whole book—easily my favorite.
“Reason and Belief in God” makes the case that belief in God can be rational even if it is held non-inferentially. The idea is that theism can be held rationally even if it is not inferred from philosophical arguments or evidential premises. Plantinga defends an epistemological theory, proper functionalism, to explain how this is possible. This is a good read.
“A Defense of Religious Exclusivism” presents an interesting argument for why it is not irrational or immoral for a Christian to believe that Christianity is true while incompatible religious claims are false.
Some papers were more technical than others, but these were my favorites. I can definitely see myself coming back to read them.
The essays presented here are very interesting but they are too technical for my taste. There were a few times where, because of how technical the essays got, that I zoned out.
A few of the essays stood out to me. “Is Naturalism Irrational?” argues that, given naturalism and evolution, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is low—or at least difficult to determine. If naturalism and evolution give us reason to doubt the reliability of our cognitive faculties, then they also give us a reason to doubt naturalism itself. This is perhaps the best paper in the whole book—easily my favorite.
“Reason and Belief in God” makes the case that belief in God can be rational even if it is held non-inferentially. The idea is that theism can be held rationally even if it is not inferred from philosophical arguments or evidential premises. Plantinga defends an epistemological theory, proper functionalism, to explain how this is possible. This is a good read.
“A Defense of Religious Exclusivism” presents an interesting argument for why it is not irrational or immoral for a Christian to believe that Christianity is true while incompatible religious claims are false.
Some papers were more technical than others, but these were my favorites. I can definitely see myself coming back to read them.
Read
May 14, 2016Dear goodreads, Please note that I didn't drop out of Sunday school yesterday. No need to recommend books by contemporary atheists who argue that god is a thesis that's been disproven. I'm already quite familiar with that line of thought. I was raised Catholic but converted to atheism when I was 14. And though I had private reasons for wanting to leave the church, I daresay the overwhelming one was epistemology. Based on the state of what we now know about the universe, god just seemed like an incredibly unlikely proposition.
Of course this confidence about 'what we now know' depends on a sanguine faith in the progress of science as the royal road to truth. I used to accept this unproblematically, but in recent years my confidence has been compromised by reading a good deal of philosophy. To the point where I'm now willing to revisit the possibility that belief in god actually is not absurd.
Plantinga is the ideal author for this inquiry because he is at once formidably rigorous in his arguments (being a dyed-in-the-wool analytic philosopher) and uncompromisingly conservative in his beliefs. With some Christian philosophers, it's not even clear if they actually believe in god. See for example Terry Eagelton Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. I for one can't make head or tale of the claim that god is not a being or that belief in god is not a proposition. Very much to his credit, Plantinga doesn't engage in such shenanigans. He gives us a version of belief that's as clear as possible - at times almost over-explicit due to his heavy reliance on propositional logic.
I would say he's able to make a fairly plausible, if inconclusive, case for theism of some kind. His arguments against naturalism are provocative and fascinating. I would say his Christianity is the weakest link in his intellectual edifice. He can't seem to give any very convincing reasons to think that this historical person Jesus literally caused miracles. To me it still seems extremely arbitrary to privilege the New Testament as correct revelation.
*
Plantinga plays a mean game of chess.
He seems to make a lot of the fact that there is no ironclad argument for the existence of other minds. Indeed there is something highly artificial in trying to offer one. Empathy, we might say, is not an inference or an argument. More primordial than reason, but by no means does this make it irrational. Clearly Plantinga would like to claim a parallel position for the sensus divinitas. Whatever the various arguments to make theistic belief more plausible or atheism more implausible (and here Plantinga is pretty exhaustive), ultimately everything seems to hinge on the believer's most basic intuition of the divine.
However, even if we grant that some people do feel this, perhaps a lot of people, it still seems a good less universal than empathy. I'm actually not even sure this is relevant to Plantinga's point, but there does seem to be a sense in which solipsism is a purely philosophical problem where atheism is not.
*
Here I'd like to think I fall into the category of 'not just any perspective,' but that doesn't make me a Christian. I guess the question then is who's the bigger enemy.
Of course this confidence about 'what we now know' depends on a sanguine faith in the progress of science as the royal road to truth. I used to accept this unproblematically, but in recent years my confidence has been compromised by reading a good deal of philosophy. To the point where I'm now willing to revisit the possibility that belief in god actually is not absurd.
Plantinga is the ideal author for this inquiry because he is at once formidably rigorous in his arguments (being a dyed-in-the-wool analytic philosopher) and uncompromisingly conservative in his beliefs. With some Christian philosophers, it's not even clear if they actually believe in god. See for example Terry Eagelton Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. I for one can't make head or tale of the claim that god is not a being or that belief in god is not a proposition. Very much to his credit, Plantinga doesn't engage in such shenanigans. He gives us a version of belief that's as clear as possible - at times almost over-explicit due to his heavy reliance on propositional logic.
I would say he's able to make a fairly plausible, if inconclusive, case for theism of some kind. His arguments against naturalism are provocative and fascinating. I would say his Christianity is the weakest link in his intellectual edifice. He can't seem to give any very convincing reasons to think that this historical person Jesus literally caused miracles. To me it still seems extremely arbitrary to privilege the New Testament as correct revelation.
*
Plantinga plays a mean game of chess.
He seems to make a lot of the fact that there is no ironclad argument for the existence of other minds. Indeed there is something highly artificial in trying to offer one. Empathy, we might say, is not an inference or an argument. More primordial than reason, but by no means does this make it irrational. Clearly Plantinga would like to claim a parallel position for the sensus divinitas. Whatever the various arguments to make theistic belief more plausible or atheism more implausible (and here Plantinga is pretty exhaustive), ultimately everything seems to hinge on the believer's most basic intuition of the divine.
However, even if we grant that some people do feel this, perhaps a lot of people, it still seems a good less universal than empathy. I'm actually not even sure this is relevant to Plantinga's point, but there does seem to be a sense in which solipsism is a purely philosophical problem where atheism is not.
*
But then the very appellation "the problem of intentionality," like in another context the "problem of other minds," is not a neutral label; it betrays a materialist perspective. This is not a problem from just any perspective, and in particular not from a Christian perspective.
Here I'd like to think I fall into the category of 'not just any perspective,' but that doesn't make me a Christian. I guess the question then is who's the bigger enemy.
June 6, 2007
Alvin Plantinga is considered to be the most achieved philosopher of religion working today. He has been featured in Time Magazine for his influential reworking of Anslem's ontological argument for the existence of God. His work is always interesting, unexpected, rigorously logical, and often funny. This is an excellent reader for those interested in Plantinga yet not interested in wading through long, dense book-length arguments. But it will certainly make you hungry for more.
June 18, 2008
This is a collection of Plantinga writings, along with some explanatory notes. It was put together by a former classmate of mine, James Sennett.
See my review of God and Other Minds by the same author.
See my review of God and Other Minds by the same author.
September 17, 2024
A COLLECTION OF WRITINGS FROM THE FAMED CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER
Alvin Carl Plantinga (born 1932) is a Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, who formerly taught philosophy at Calvin College. He has written many other books such as 'God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God,' 'God, Freedom, and Evil,' 'Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism,' 'Warranted Christian Belief,' etc.
Editor James Sennett wrote in the Preface to this 1998 book, "This project began as an idea in the summer of 1993. I was a participant in a ... summer institute... and one of our guest lecturers was Alvin Plantinga. While visiting with him and talking over some of his more significant work, I was suddenly struck by the fact that so much of that work is scattered hither and you in a dozen different sources---a journal here, a book chapter there, etc. 'How odd,' I thought, 'that no one has put all this important philosophy of religion in one place.' I broached the idea of a collection to Plantinga that summer and received his endorsement to pursue it... Now at last I am pleased to present this volume. I hope it will be a valuable contribution to the study of philosophy of religion and Christian philosophy in America." (Pg. vii)
He summarizes an argument [given at length in 'God and Other Minds'], "if my belief in other minds is rational, so is my belief in God. But obviously the former is rational; so, therefore, is the latter." (Pg. 21) Later, he concludes, "this is not an argument for the FALSEHOOD of naturalism... naturalism might still be true. It is instead an argument for the conclusion that ... accepting naturalism is irrational... the argument is not for the falsehood of naturalism, but for the irrationality of accepting it.
"The conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the conjunction of naturalism with evolutionary theory is self-defeating... The traditional theist, on the other hand... may indeed endorse some form of evolution; but if he does, it will be a form of evolution guided and orchestrated by God. And... he believes that God... has created us human beings... with a reflection of his powers as a knower." (Pg. 94)
He reflects, "things have changed. There are now many more Christians ... in the professional mainstream of American philosophical life. For example, the foundation of the Society of Christian Philosophers, an organization to promote fellowship and exchange of ideas among Christian philosophers, is both evidence and a consequence of that fact... it is now a thriving organization with regional meetings in every part of the country; its members are deeply involved in American professional philosophical life." (Pg. 296)
He argues, "the 'new scientific morality' looks to me to be monumentally inauspicious as a stance for a Christian theologian, modern or otherwise. Even if there were a set of methodological procedures held in common by most philosophers, historians, and social scientists, why should a Christian theologian give ultimate allegiance to them rather than, say, to God, or to the fundamental truths of Christianity?" (Pg. 307)
He suggests, "my plea is for the Christian philosopher... to display, first, more independence and autonomy: we needn't take as our research projects just those projects that currently enjoy widespread popularity; we have our own questions to think about. Secondly, we must display more integrity. We must not automatically assimilate what is current or fashionable or popular by way of philosophical opinion and procedures; for much of it comports ill with Christian ways of thinking. And finally, we must display a more Christian self-confidence or courage or boldness. We have a perfect right to our pre-philosophical views: why, therefore, should we be intimidated by what the rest of the philosophical world thinks plausible or implausible?" (Pg. 312)
He adds, "we who are Christians and propose to be philosophers must no rest content with being philosophers who happen, incidentally, to be Christians: we must strive to be Christian philosophers. We must therefore pursue our projects with integrity, independence, and Christian boldness." (Pg. 315)
This is a broad, excellent collection of Plantinga's writings. It may not be the ideal "introduction" to his thought for a "newcomer," but it will be very helpful for anyone studying him.
Alvin Carl Plantinga (born 1932) is a Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, who formerly taught philosophy at Calvin College. He has written many other books such as 'God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God,' 'God, Freedom, and Evil,' 'Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism,' 'Warranted Christian Belief,' etc.
Editor James Sennett wrote in the Preface to this 1998 book, "This project began as an idea in the summer of 1993. I was a participant in a ... summer institute... and one of our guest lecturers was Alvin Plantinga. While visiting with him and talking over some of his more significant work, I was suddenly struck by the fact that so much of that work is scattered hither and you in a dozen different sources---a journal here, a book chapter there, etc. 'How odd,' I thought, 'that no one has put all this important philosophy of religion in one place.' I broached the idea of a collection to Plantinga that summer and received his endorsement to pursue it... Now at last I am pleased to present this volume. I hope it will be a valuable contribution to the study of philosophy of religion and Christian philosophy in America." (Pg. vii)
He summarizes an argument [given at length in 'God and Other Minds'], "if my belief in other minds is rational, so is my belief in God. But obviously the former is rational; so, therefore, is the latter." (Pg. 21) Later, he concludes, "this is not an argument for the FALSEHOOD of naturalism... naturalism might still be true. It is instead an argument for the conclusion that ... accepting naturalism is irrational... the argument is not for the falsehood of naturalism, but for the irrationality of accepting it.
"The conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the conjunction of naturalism with evolutionary theory is self-defeating... The traditional theist, on the other hand... may indeed endorse some form of evolution; but if he does, it will be a form of evolution guided and orchestrated by God. And... he believes that God... has created us human beings... with a reflection of his powers as a knower." (Pg. 94)
He reflects, "things have changed. There are now many more Christians ... in the professional mainstream of American philosophical life. For example, the foundation of the Society of Christian Philosophers, an organization to promote fellowship and exchange of ideas among Christian philosophers, is both evidence and a consequence of that fact... it is now a thriving organization with regional meetings in every part of the country; its members are deeply involved in American professional philosophical life." (Pg. 296)
He argues, "the 'new scientific morality' looks to me to be monumentally inauspicious as a stance for a Christian theologian, modern or otherwise. Even if there were a set of methodological procedures held in common by most philosophers, historians, and social scientists, why should a Christian theologian give ultimate allegiance to them rather than, say, to God, or to the fundamental truths of Christianity?" (Pg. 307)
He suggests, "my plea is for the Christian philosopher... to display, first, more independence and autonomy: we needn't take as our research projects just those projects that currently enjoy widespread popularity; we have our own questions to think about. Secondly, we must display more integrity. We must not automatically assimilate what is current or fashionable or popular by way of philosophical opinion and procedures; for much of it comports ill with Christian ways of thinking. And finally, we must display a more Christian self-confidence or courage or boldness. We have a perfect right to our pre-philosophical views: why, therefore, should we be intimidated by what the rest of the philosophical world thinks plausible or implausible?" (Pg. 312)
He adds, "we who are Christians and propose to be philosophers must no rest content with being philosophers who happen, incidentally, to be Christians: we must strive to be Christian philosophers. We must therefore pursue our projects with integrity, independence, and Christian boldness." (Pg. 315)
This is a broad, excellent collection of Plantinga's writings. It may not be the ideal "introduction" to his thought for a "newcomer," but it will be very helpful for anyone studying him.
October 5, 2013
This is a collection of Plantinga's writings, and contains his brilliant free will defense. Plantinga argues for his conclusions with extreme clarity and care; and this collection will give you a taste of the finest that analytic philosophy has to offer, theistic or otherwise.
September 3, 2013
My reference book for all religious philosophical issues :D
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews