The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader

[RamistThomist]

Ed. James Sennett. Eerdmans.

Unlike some anthologies, this isn’t simply a Plantinga chapter here and a long snippet there. True, there are some reproduced chapters (see his legendary “Reason and Belief in God”) but other chapters in the book, while not necessarily giving new material, present it in a new format. A few chapters take key passages from his notoriously difficult Nature of Necessity and present it without the modal logic, making for an easier read.

The first section of the book explores his early and later approaches to natural theology, the ontological argument, and free will. A word on the latter: more Reformed readers do not have to accept some of his conclusions in order to appreciate his analysis of Possible Worlds Semantics. Per the ontological argument,

(22) It is possible that there is a greatest possible being.

(23) Therefore, there is a possible being that in some world W’ or other has a maximum degree of greatness.

(24) A being B has the maximum degree of greatness in a given possible world W only if B exists in every possible world.

(25) It is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness.

(26) So there is a possible being in some world W that has maximal greatness.

This is an early form of his argument, especially since the modal operators are lacking. But we can add the conclusion:

(27) It is possible that a necessary being exists.
(28) A necessary being exists.

Does the argument work? It depends on whether you think S5 modal logic is true or not. If it is true, the argument holds.

Reason and Belief in God

The issue: must I satisfy some norm to hold Belief B? If knowledge = justified, true belief, then what duty must I fulfil in order to have a rational belief? The modern answer to this question is seen in some form of foundationalism: what is a properly basic belief?:

(1) Self-evident or evident to the senses
(2) Incorrigible (for example, if I see a tree, I could be mistaken, but I am not mistaken that I think I see a tree)
(3) Which denial leads to a contradiction.

We will call (1)-(3) the Foundationalism Thesis (FT).

The problem with the above is that very few beliefs meet those criteria. In fact, the thesis itself doesn’t meet the criteria. FT isn’t self-evident, it’s not incorrigible, and rejecting it doesn’t violate any laws of logic. Even more striking, this seems to mean that the theist is warranted in believing in God even if he hasn’t bothered to meet the FT.

The last section is a collection of encouraging chapters on how to do Christian philosophy in a secular guild.

 

[TylerRay]

Ed. James Sennett. Eerdmans.

Unlike some anthologies, this isn’t simply a Plantinga chapter here and a long snippet there. True, there are some reproduced chapters (see his legendary “Reason and Belief in God”) but other chapters in the book, while not necessarily giving new material, present it in a new format. A few chapters take key passages from his notoriously difficult Nature of Necessity and present it without the modal logic, making for an easier read.

The first section of the book explores his early and later approaches to natural theology, the ontological argument, and free will. A word on the latter: more Reformed readers do not have to accept some of his conclusions in order to appreciate his analysis of Possible Worlds Semantics. Per the ontological argument,

(22) It is possible that there is a greatest possible being.

(23) Therefore, there is a possible being that in some world W’ or other has a maximum degree of greatness.

(24) A being B has the maximum degree of greatness in a given possible world W only if B exists in every possible world.

(25) It is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness.

(26) So there is a possible being in some world W that has maximal greatness.

This is an early form of his argument, especially since the modal operators are lacking. But we can add the conclusion:

(27) It is possible that a necessary being exists.
(28) A necessary being exists.

Does the argument work? It depends on whether you think S5 modal logic is true or not. If it is true, the argument holds.

Reason and Belief in God

The issue: must I satisfy some norm to hold Belief B? If knowledge = justified, true belief, then what duty must I fulfil in order to have a rational belief? The modern answer to this question is seen in some form of foundationalism: what is a properly basic belief?:

(1) Self-evident or evident to the senses
(2) Incorrigible (for example, if I see a tree, I could be mistaken, but I am not mistaken that I think I see a tree)
(3) Which denial leads to a contradiction.

We will call (1)-(3) the Foundationalism Thesis (FT).

The problem with the above is that very few beliefs meet those criteria. In fact, the thesis itself doesn’t meet the criteria. FT isn’t self-evident, it’s not incorrigible, and rejecting it doesn’t violate any laws of logic. Even more striking, this seems to mean that the theist is warranted in believing in God even if he hasn’t bothered to meet the FT.

The last section is a collection of encouraging chapters on how to do Christian philosophy in a secular guild.

Would this book be a good place to start for those of us who haven't read anything from Plantinga, but are interested?

 

[RamistThomist]

Would this book be a good place to start for those of us who haven't read anything from Plantinga, but are interested?

Mostly yes, especially since it is very cheap used on amazon. But a few caveats are in order:

1) His essays "Justification and Theism" and "Reason and Belief in God" are still working with knowledge as "Justified, True Belief." By 2000 he had fully moved to Warranted True Belief.

2) His argument on "Is Naturalism Irrational" has now fully developed into the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, but you see the beginning of it here.

3) When he wrote God and Other Minds he was more critical of natural theology than he is now. Strictly speaking, he isn't a natural theologian. He thinks the arguments for the existence of God can remove negative barriers, but that's about it. Pace natural theologians, however, he believes one is fully within his intellectual rights even if he can't satisfy the norms for rationality.

4) His ontological argument has been finely tuned since then. His point in that essay was that Kant's claim that existence isn't a predicate or property is misdirected. When he wrote that he wasn't fully convinced of the ontological argument's power.

 

[JimmyH]

The last section is a collection of encouraging chapters on how to do Christian philosophy in a secular guild.

Jacob, your review led me to Amazon to look over some of Plantigna's work, and I ended up following a link to a tome by Moreland and Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Here is one Editorial Review describing it better than I can ;
"Moreland and Craig present a comprehensive introduction to philosophy from a Christian point of view. Both theologically and philosophically engaging and stimulating. Moreover, the book is structured in such a way that prior knowledge in philosophy is not necessarily required to understand it. I highly recommend it. (Celucien L. Joseph, Christ, My Righteousness, August 1, 2008)"
I am one of those with little to no prior knowledge of philosophy, if you've read this, would it be a good introduction to the neophyte in Christian philosophical thought ? I ask because in some cases I read your excellent book reviews and need to google terms, and even then I'm not 'getting' what you're describing. So for a dumbkoff such as I, is this worth the trip ?

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob, your review led me to Amazon to look over some of Plantigna's work, and I ended up following a link to a tome by Moreland and Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Here is one Editorial Review describing it better than I can ;
"Moreland and Craig present a comprehensive introduction to philosophy from a Christian point of view. Both theologically and philosophically engaging and stimulating. Moreover, the book is structured in such a way that prior knowledge in philosophy is not necessarily required to understand it. I highly recommend it. (Celucien L. Joseph, Christ, My Righteousness, August 1, 2008)"
I am one of those with little to no prior knowledge of philosophy, if you've read this, would it be a good introduction to the neophyte in Christian philosophical thought ? I ask because in some cases I read your excellent book reviews and need to google terms, and even then I'm not 'getting' what you're describing. So for a dumbkoff such as I, is this worth the trip ?

Moreland and Craig's was one of the first books I cut my teeth on. It's a valuable reference but I would not go to it first. I didn't understand what they were saying until 10 years later.

I would start with Moreland's Love your God with All Your Mind.

then move to

Clark, Kelly James, Return to Reason. Then go to
Clark, eds. 101 Philosophical Terms You Need to Know. Then go to...
Moreland, JP. The Soul. Then go to...
Nash, Ronald. The Concept of God (and be sure to get his ITunesU lectures).

That should be a good start.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Jacob, your review led me to Amazon to look over some of Plantigna's work, and I ended up following a link to a tome by Moreland and Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview

Moreland and Craig's was one of the first books I cut my teeth on. It's a valuable reference but I would not go to it first.

I read "Philosophical Foundations" some years ago but evenually sold it it a second hand shop. Why? I came to believe a Reformed and Covenantal approach to philosophical theology is best.

My favourite books on these are (in order of recommendation):

1. Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Oliphint)
2. Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics (Oliphint & Tipton, eds.)
3. Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology (Oliphint)

What is noteworthy is that these books presuppose a Reformed and Covenantal approach to philosophical theology. They build on the work of Van Til, Turretin, Bavinck and Vos.

It may also be helpful to read alongside Bahnsen's "Van Til's apologetic" and Van Til's essay "Why I believe in God"

 

[RamistThomist]

I read "Philosophical Foundations" some years ago but evenually sold it it a second hand shop. Why? I came to believe a Reformed and Covenantal approach to philosophical theology is best.

My favourite books on these are (in order of recommendation):

1. Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Oliphint)
2. Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics (Oliphint & Tipton, eds.)
3. Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology (Oliphint)

What is noteworthy is that these books presuppose a Reformed and Covenantal approach to philosophical theology. They build on the work of Van Til, Turretin, Bavinck and Vos.

It may also be helpful to read alongside Bahnsen's "Van Til's apologetic" and Van Til's essay "Why I believe in God"

Reasons for Faith is worth reading, though I have some reservations on Oliphint.
~2. The essays book is good, though I would point to Paul Helm's review of it.
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...ason-new-essays-in-reformed-apologetics-1.php

Moreland and Craig's book is good in that it is aware of almost all the challenges you will face. Oliphint is more immediately edifying.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is the place to get started. Teaches *how* to analyze and introduces you to some powerful tools like Leibniz's law.
https://www.amazon.com/Invitation-A...=an+invitation+to+analytic+christian+theology

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I read "Philosophical Foundations" some years ago but evenually sold it it a second hand shop. Why? I came to believe a Reformed and Covenantal approach to philosophical theology is best.

My favourite books on these are (in order of recommendation):

1. Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Oliphint)
2. Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics (Oliphint & Tipton, eds.)
3. Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology (Oliphint)

What is noteworthy is that these books presuppose a Reformed and Covenantal approach to philosophical theology. They build on the work of Van Til, Turretin, Bavinck and Vos.

It may also be helpful to read alongside Bahnsen's "Van Til's apologetic" and Van Til's essay "Why I believe in God"

Presuppositional apologetics are great, but depending on the situation, not always helpful. For example, if a non-believer genuinely struggles with how God could exist in light of the evil in the world, it probably isn’t going to help to ask them why evil is a problem according to their worldview. In my opinion, an integrated approach is the best method of apologetics.

 

[ZackF]

Reasons for Faith is worth reading, though I have some reservations on Oliphint.
~2. The essays book is good, though I would point to Paul Helm's review of it.
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-...ason-new-essays-in-reformed-apologetics-1.php

Moreland and Craig's book is good in that it is aware of almost all the challenges you will face. Oliphint is more immediately edifying.

Curious, what are your reservations of Oliphint?

 

[RamistThomist]

Curious, what are your reservations of Oliphint?

Don't get me wrong. I like him and I genuinely enjoy listening to his lectures. However,

1. His idea of "covenantal properties in God" is on the right track, but he let himself get forced into the dichotomy of "creaturely or divine" properties rather than contingent or essential.

2. Would God have had these covenantal/contigent properties before creating anything? I can't remember what he said.

3. I go with his critique of Thomas Aquinas, but it is too lightweight. He should have gone with a heavier format for a take-down.

 

[RamistThomist]

Presuppositional apologetics are great, but depending on the situation, not always helpful. For example, if a non-believer genuinely struggles with how God could exist in light of the evil in the world, it probably isn’t going to help to ask them why evil is a problem according to their worldview. In my opinion, an integrated approach is the best method of apologetics.

And presups need to realize that most people today aren't Kant, Descartes, or Plato. Most of the online presup responses seem to think everyone is a card-carrying Idealist.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Reasons for Faith is worth reading, though I have some reservations on Oliphint

My point about Oliphint is not that he cannot be critiqued, but that I think he is right in saying that a Reformed Covenantal theology will impact on your apologetics.

Moreland and Craig's book is good in that it is aware of almost all the challenges you will face.

I just noticed that a 2nd ed of the Moreland and Craig book is now out so I ignored the hymn "yield not to temptation" and purchased the book

In my opinion, an integrated approach is the best method of apologetics.

So a mixture of Arminian and Calvinistic approaches? That was a little tongue in cheek, but I do get nervious when people use this type of argument without considering how it impacts on theology. As I said above a Reformed Covenantal theology will impact on your apologetics.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

So a mixture of Arminian and Calvinistic approaches? That was a little tongue in cheek, but I do get nervious when people use this type of argument without considering how it impacts on theology. As I said above a Reformed Covenantal theology will impact on your apologetics.

Ah yes, that raging Arminian Augustine with all his talk of abstract entities as proof of God. If only he had been more enlightened.

 

[TylerRay]

My point about Oliphint is not that he cannot be critiqued, but that I think he is right in saying that a Reformed Covenantal theology will impact on your apologetics.


I just noticed that a 2nd ed of the Moreland and Craig book is now out so I ignored the hymn "yield not to temptation" and purchased the book


So a mixture of Arminian and Calvinistic approaches? That was a little tongue in cheek, but I do get nervious when people use this type of argument without considering how it impacts on theology. As I said above a Reformed Covenantal theology will impact on your apologetics.

Reformed theology led me to adopt an integrated approach to apologetics. When I was new to the Reformed faith, I was a Vantillian by default, but as I learned Reformed anthropology, theology proper, and prolegomena (including epistemology), I was forced to abandon Vantillian dogmatism.

 

[TylerRay]

Ah yes, that raging Arminian Augustine with all his talk of abstract entities as proof of God. If only he had been more enlightened.

Not to mention the theologians of the first four centuries of Protestantism.

 

[RamistThomist]

Reformed theology led me to adopt an integrated approach to apologetics. When I was new to the Reformed faith, I was a Vantillian by default, but as I learned Reformed anthropology, theology proper, and prolegomena (including epistemology), I was forced to abandon Vantillian dogmatism.

Me too. I value what I learned from Bahnsen, but many post-Van Til students tend to treat every apologetic encounter as "This is another debate with a materialist atheist," whether the guy is actually an atheist or not. And not every atheist is as inept as Gordon Stein.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Ah yes, that raging Arminian Augustine with all his talk of abstract entities as proof of God. If only he had been more enlightened.

Bavinck points out in his prolegomena (Reformed Dogmatics) that Augustine was father of the whole church - Roman Catholic, Protestant, Calvinistic, Arminian etc so I am not sure how mentioning Augustine advances your argument.

Reformed theology led me to adopt an integrated approach to apologetics. When I was new to the Reformed faith, I was a Vantillian by default, but as I learned Reformed anthropology, theology proper, and prolegomena (including epistemology), I was forced to abandon Vantillian dogmatism.

Is your apologetic covenantal?

Not to mention the theologians of the first four centuries of Protestantism.

Vos points out in his wonderful essay "The doctrine of the covenant in Reformed theology" (in his shorter writings) that the Westminister Confession was the first confession to bring the doctrine of the covenant into the heart of the confession. I am simply saying our apologetic method must do the same.

Me too. I value what I learned from Bahnsen, but many post-Van Til students tend to treat every apologetic encounter as "This is another debate with a materialist atheist," whether the guy is actually an atheist or not. And not every atheist is as inept as Gordon Stein.

Right. This is simply saying our Reformed framework must be always used, but we wisely adapt it to the specific apologetic situation?

 

[TylerRay]

Is your apologetic covenantal?

I frankly don't know what you mean by that. I know that Scott Oliphint recently renamed Vantillian presuppositional apologetics "covenantal apologetics," but I can't imagine why.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Bavinck points out in his prolegomena (Reformed Dogmatics) that Augustine was father of the whole church - Roman Catholic, Protestant, Calvinistic, Arminian etc so I am not sure how mentioning Augustine advances your argument.

You asserted that any apologetic method that was not “covenantal” was essentially Arminian in nature. Augustine was certainly not Arminian, and yet he knew nothing of “covenantal apologetics.”

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I frankly don't know what you mean by that. I know that Scott Oliphint recently renamed Vantillian presuppositional apologetics "covenantal apologetics," but I can't imagine why.

Read his Covenantal Apologetics pp 47-55.
Esentially his argument is the same as Reformed Covenant theology. There are covenant keepers and covenant breakers. That has implications for how we do apologetics.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

You asserted that any apologetic method that was not “covenantal” was essentially Arminian in nature. Augustine was certainly not Arminian, and yet he knew nothing of “covenantal apologetics.”

I was simply making the point I made in the post above. Read Oliphint's Covenantal Apologetics pp 47-55.

Esentially his argument is the same as Reformed Covenant theology. There are covenant keepers and covenant breakers. That has implications for how we do apologetics.

 

[TylerRay]

Read his Covenantal Apologetics pp 47-55.
Esentially his argument is the same as Reformed Covenant theology. There are covenant keepers and covenant breakers. That has implications for how we do apologetics.

I'll check it out if I ever get the book. Although, according to Reformed covenant theology, Christ is the only true covenant keeper.

 

[RamistThomist]

Right. This is simply saying our Reformed framework must be always used, but we wisely adapt it to the specific apologetic situation?

True, but that generally hasn't happened in CVT circles.