Alvin Plantinga famously appeals to the existence of a sensus divinitatis, a “sense of the divine”, as the cognitive faculty by which one can form justified and rational belief in God apart from evidence. In this video, I explain why I prefer to argue for properly basic belief in God by way of the more […]
Alvin Plantinga
Here I Stand: On Alvin Plantinga’s Luther Moment
I took a course with Alvin Plantinga in 1998 (wow, twenty years ago!). The main textbook was an early draft of his book Warranted Christian Belief. By the time the book was published two years later, I was well into my PhD thesis in England in which I was seeking to articulate a fundamental theology […]
On Fundamentalism: The Best Thing Alvin Plantinga Ever Wrote
I was called a “liberal” this week on Twitter. I don’t have any problem per se with being called a liberal. But in this case it clearly wasn’t intended as a compliment. So I asked my interlocutor about his basis for making the charge. He replied by pointing out that I support public healthcare for all. Guilty […]
Alvin Plantinga’s Surprisingly Deflationary Take on his own Ontological Argument
Living legend Alvin Plantinga was recently a guest on Unbelievable with Justin Brierley. The show was classic Plantinga — clear analysis, dry wit, admirable humility — and surveyed some of the highlights of his impressive career including warrant, proper basicality and Christian belief, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, and the ontological argument. The last choice […]
“Why I Became an Atheist”: A Review (Part 8)
Here begins the eighth installment of my incredibly expanding review of John Loftus’ book Why I Became an Atheist. For part seven click here. In this section I’ve decided to return to some unfinished business on page 44. On this page Loftus endorses a classical foundationalist epistemology. And what is that, exactly? According to foundationalism, […]
“Why I Became an Atheist”: A Review (Part 6)
This is the sixth installment of my meandering review of John Loftus’ book Why I Became an Atheist. For part five click here. In this section I’m going to critique Loftus’ understanding and presentation of Alvin Plantinga’s epistemology in chapter 2. This section begins on page 44. Since I defended Plantinga’s epistemology in my PhD thesis […]
A Quick Response to Randal Rauser’s Critique of Universal Sanction (by Tyler Wunder)
In this guest post philosopher Tyler Wunder offers a response to my article “Must properly basic beliefs have universal sanction? A reply to James F. Sennett Part 2“. Dr. Wunder graduated with a PhD in philosophy from Boston University in 2007 with a dissertation on “Warrant and Religious Epistemology: A Critique of Alvin Plantinga’s Warrant […]
Must properly basic beliefs have universal sanction? A reply to James F. Sennett (Part 2)
In “Must properly basic beliefs have universal sanction? A Reply to James F. Sennett (Part 1)” I introduced James F. Sennett’s paper “Direct Justification and Universal Sanction” and stated my intention to offer a critique of it. This is that (long overdue) critique. Let me state at the outset that I share a lot of […]
Beliefs that are adaptive but false ain’t that unusual
The other day one of my readers, David Evans, expressed skepticism toward Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument from naturalism. Plantinga’s argument is a type of argument from reason. This family of arguments aims to show that conceptions of human reason which do not assume that human cognitive faculties are created by a competent and benevolent agent lead to […]
Are demons responsible for natural evil?
In the discussion following my critique of William Dembski’s theodicy Dima asked about Greg Boyd’s thesis that natural evil can be attributed to demonic agency. The relationship between natural evil and demonic agency was memorably proposed by Alvin Plantinga in God, Freedom, and Evil when he noted that Augustine attributed natural evil to demonic agency. Based on […]
The last argument you’ll ever need?
I just returned from driving the Ontological Argument to the airport when I found the following comment from Jerry: Walter, and then TAM, posted a link to a counterargument to the ontological argument. I didn’t read it all, but I did notice the following: Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s […]
