Talk:Alvin Plantinga

Influence on Other Theists

I cleaved a sentence from the first paragraph, "Plantinga's works are often considered to be responsible for the resurgence of theist philosophy in recent years," because it violates the weasel terms policy of WikiProject Philosphy. Upon proper citing of those who "often consider" this should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.206.52 (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The claim follows from the verifiable fact that his work on his respective interests has either been widely discussed with respect by philosophers, or has become largely normative. Whether it is the argument against naturalism, the free will defense, the ontological argument, discussion of actualism, etc., Plantinga's work has been significant in this regard. Dextris Dei 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Education

According to his autobiography, his education was a bit more complex than it is made to seem here. He attended Jamestown College for one semester Fall 1949. Then When his father was offered a job at Calvin he moved there and attended for the following semester before being offered the scholarship at Harvard. I know these details seems trivial, but since he is such a major figure in contemporary Philosophy, it seems as if it should be shown that he did go straight to Harvard.--Bkcraft 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Plantinga is listed as having studied w/ Nancy Cartwright at Michigan- that can't be right- she's much younger than he is and earned her PhD from Illinois-Chicago.

It was Richard Cartwright not Nancy Cartwright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.65 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Harvard itself doesn't give scholarships. They only offer financial aid. (Their argument: "All of our students deserve scholarships.") However, it is possible he got a scholarship from other organization for which he used to attend Harvard.

But was that the case in the 40s? — goethean ॐ 20:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary argument against naturalism

I have re-added material to this article that was removed from the Naturalism (philosophy) article. Plantinga's paper was deemed "a bad source" by User:Daelin. Of course, this contradicts that fact that Wikipedia is supposed to document, rather than take a side on, philosophical issues. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Although the argument has been criticized by some philosophers, like Elliott Sober[65][citation needed], it has received favorable notice from Thomas Nagel,[66] William Lane Craig,[67] and others." - Should this sentence say anything byond "This argument is controversial amongs philosophers"? That the opponents are decribed as "some philosophers" could mean, that there aren't many, eighter because most philosophers don't deal with it or because most agree. --89.26.98.56 (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Nagel and William Lane Craig are anti-evolutionists, and Elliott Sober is on the side of science. It is pretty clear where the line is between those who agree with Plantinga's "reasoning" and those who do not: it is between anti-science religion on one hand and science on the other. "Some" is indeed a no-go. See WP:WEASEL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Plantinga's arguments against evolution are schoolboy howlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:447F:F0EC:4090:D508 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Argument that evolutionary naturalism is incoherent

Any chance that the paragraph could be expanded beyond two quotes from other people? What is the nature of Plantinga's argument? Guettarda 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that either Plantinga's "evolutionary argument against naturalism" should be made into its own article (since it is both serious and widely discussed in the field), or should be (re?)added to the article on naturalism (philosophy). The alternatives are undesirable; it is of course tedious to include all of a philosopher's arguments in one article, but it is awkward to only include substantive discussion of one. What do you people think? (Also, how do you put in block suggestions into an article? I know nothing about Wikipedia.) Dextris Dei 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've found a reference; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA120.html It seems that Plantinga argument boils down to "an evolved mind is fallible, its conclusions untrustworthy" leading onto "I don't want to have a fallible mind, therefore my mind must have been created". Not making sense? It screams fallacy, but then what did you expect? — Dunc|☺ 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The argument makes perfect sense to me, and your paraphrase certainly does not do it justice. It is unlikely that naturalistically evolved minds would be geared towards truth-finding, especially abstract truth-finding, for the reasons in the Churchland quotation. That is, that naturalistically evolved minds would be geared towards "feeding, fleeing fighting, and reproducing". Not only is it not fallacious, it is very similar, if not identical, to arguments that have led contemporary postmodern philosophers like Richard Rorty to anti-realist epistemological positions. — goethean ॐ 18:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be re-added to the naturalism article. It's deletion was a purely POV move. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish by any other name. And "Dextris Dei", eh, we're getting bold with the nicks these days, eh? Of course, it blows any chance that the persons contribs will be taken as NPOV.

In any case, Plantinga's argument is asinine, an is a fallacy; "I can't be here for no reason at all, I must have a purpose, thus I had to have been created, and in God's image to boot, and God has a mind and mine must be created just like his was. Ooops, hmmm...er, no...lemme try thisd again..." •Jim62sch• 19:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to interpret POV issues according to a user name. A better method is: look at the contributions. The name "Dextris Dei," meaning "Right hand of God" in Latin, is quite funny actually, for a Wikipedia username.

As for Plantinga's argument being "asinine," the opinions of those on talk origins, or infidels.org, etc., are completely irrelevant, since there is ample material in actual scholarship on the matter. It is not often that a living (and Christian) philosopher's critique of something a prominent as naturalism elicits an anthology of discussion from reputed scholars. Plantinga's argument has done this. Your reformulation of the argument appears to be a reformulation of a completely different argument. Plantinga is not talking about purpose or being made in God's image and so on. He is demonstrating the low or inscrutible probability of true beliefs being produced by naturalistic mechanism and, furthermore, the irrationality in believing such production has occurred. The Christian "answer" to the problem is an afterthought, but it certainly is interesting for a theistic epistemologist. Surely, if "properly functioning cognitive faculties operating in a congenial epistemic environment with a design plan aimed at truth" have both a powerful and benevolent origin, they are going to be trustworthy (at least, belief in their trustworthiness is warranted). Dextris Dei 20:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim calls religious view gibberish. Stop the presses. — goethean ॐ 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, the issue isn't whether Plantinga is wrong, but whether this particular argument deserves an article in itself, however wrong it might be. I can think of two reasonable justifications for branching off an article: 1) there's too much material to comfortably fit here or 2) the argument is often searched for by people who aren't looking for Plantinga. As far as I can tell, though, neither one of htese possible justifications applies. Do you disagree? Al 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section belongs in the naturalism (philosophy) article. It is, after all, a criticism of philosophical naturalism. — goethean ॐ 20:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you say so. Frankly, it's really not much of an argument. As with so many of Plantinga's arguments, it's best received by those who already agree with the conclusion, but not necessarily taken all that seriously when preached to those not already in the choir. If we stick it in Naturalism (philosophy), though, it's going to have to deal with the issue of size there. Al 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Every argument is best received by those who accept its conclusion. A notable example is attempts at Ontological arguments. Or, the problem of evil. Anyway, Plantinga's argument is taken seriously in the field, which explains the several peer-reviewed articles on it in secular publications, as well as an entire volume - and all these within the philosopher's lifetime. This cannot be said for the work of near-charlatans like Norman Geisler, to some extent William Lane Craig, etc. We could, perhaps, create an article for the book Naturalism Defeated?: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Dextris Dei 21:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if it were created by an anon would it be deleted as WP:PN? Anyway, what is important is to (1) try to improve the wording of the argument because it's not very well written, and then include critical responses to it. — Dunc|☺ 19:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Al 01:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidently it could not be reasonably deleted as WP:PN, since both religious and secular peer-reviewed scholarship takes the argument so seriously (despite infidels.org), among Plantinga's other commentary (reformed epistemology, actualism, free will defense, modal logic, etc.). If it goes into a criticisms section in Naturalism, having extensive response to the argument might be too lengthy. This is one reason why making an article for the book itself is a good idea. Dextris Dei 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Naturalism goes to a disambiguation page. Which specific article did you mean? Al 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this whole discussion not about Naturalism (philosophy). Dextris Dei 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Al 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this section should be here. While Plantinga did argue for the position, he by no means created it. If the argument is that he added greatly to it, then add parts of his work that do so. A summary of the general position, and not his specific work in it add no real value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.206.99 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

Not enough citations of those who disagree with or disprove Plantinga's ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs).

You're right. He stands against all of science, so he's got not shortage of detractors. A good starting point is Dennett. Al 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd. He does not "stand against all of science." I'm pretty sure, for example, that he believes in gravity. I'd say he stands for just about all of science. Just because one believes in God does not believe one stands against science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.238.126 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't know what science is.

Since the article is on Alvin Plantinga, it only needs to describe his views. A criticism section would be more appropriate in either a book article on Naturalism Defeated?, an article on the argument itself, or a section in Naturalism (Philosophy), when the argument is eventually re-added there. In any case, the article does at least cite Naturalism Defeated?, which is an overwhelmingly more serious treatment than any commentary you might find by Dan Dennet. Dextris Dei 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even spell his name right, plus your obvious bias, plus your assertion being an undemonstrable universal, makes your view on the matter less than worthless. -- 68.6.55.65 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. If you look at articles like Ayn Rand, you'll see that the criticism is there, not in articles on her various books. Certainly, the contents of Naturalism Defeated? could be summarized briefly, as could any essays by Dennett on the topic. Al 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though Ayn Rand was a charlatan, I would still say that the criticism belongs in the articles on the ideas themselves, since criticism is and should be about arguments and not humans. Dextris Dei 01:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but for practical reasons, I have to disagree. A philosopher's (or charlatan's) bio page is where a summary of their overall views belongs, and that includes a summary of criticisms. If there's more to be said, it can be broken out into appropriate pages (such as Objectivist philosophy as distinct from Ayn Rand), but that doesn't mean the original page should be silent on the matter. Consider that, for every link you place between the starting point and destination, you lose a large number of readers who just want a brief overview. That's why relegating criticism to sub-articles often serves to minimize criticism. Al 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, your last sentence above is the point exactly. I hope you can convince others of that. Criticism of Plantinga belongs on Plantinga's article; anything else is attempting, consciously or otherwise, to stifle disagreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs).

I should clarify that if it's not going to be put into a more relevant article, like Naturalism (Philosophy) or an article on the book, then it will have to go in the Plantinga article. It just seems less-than-desirable. There is a difference, I think, in cases like an article on Immanuel Kant, where criticism ought to be given significant mention, probably because there is after all such a thing as Kantianism. However, in general I would still expect a criticism to be placed in an article on the thing it is criticizing, namely, the argument itself. As for our anonymous friend above, I am not trying to stifle disagreement. What a silly suggestion. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dextris, unless you are a friend or associate of Professor Dennett, calling him "Dan" seems false. And although some might see Plantinga as a charlatan as well, the request for other viewpoints is not an ad hominem attack. We should note that Naturalism Defeated? *is* about his ideas. I've looked at some of your pages external to Wikipedia, and it would seem to me that you are either crazy or that you see irony as the height of humor (not an attack, just an observation)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)

Since he misspelled "Dennett", I'm going to guess he's not a close friend, or even a fan. My take on this was that the use of the overly familiar "Dan" looked like an attempt to diminish his stature. Of course, that's just what it looked like to me; it might not have been his intention at all. Al 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

hahah okay. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a friend or associate of Professor Dan Dennett. I am a junior studying philosophy at the University of Michigan. Second, I am not aware of any credible sources that consider Plantinga a charlatan. To answer your personal inquiry, indeed I do enjoy faux arguments, satire, and irony (e.g. "Science and Math Defeated!" on my website), influenced primarily by my heroes, Ali G and Stephen Colbert. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much that he's a charlatan as it is that he's more a theologian than a philosopher. Al 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

He's a member of the APA and is regularly published in philosophy journals. I think I'll take the opinion of the APA and of the editors of Philosophy and Phenomenological Research over yours. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I know. Why do people keep on saying that he is not a legitimate philosopher, or that he is a theologian of all things. This is completely ridiculous, albeit amusing. Dextris Dei 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because he is a useless idiot, that's why.

Not just a member of the APA. He was president of the Central Division for Pete's sake. Pascal's Revenge 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Goes to show how far downhill the field of philosophy has gone.

Incidentally, I find merit in Planinga's argument, and I think that evolution is almost self-evidently true. I just don't believe in philosophically naturalistic evolution. So Plantinga's argument is amenable to more than just Evangelicals. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you might want to read it more carefully. It's not really just an attack on (unguided) evolution, but on the principles behind science in general. Essentially, it's an argument for presuppositionalism. Al 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not an attack on the principles behind science at all. What makes you think this? He argues from fairly mundane principles of epistemic justification, that's all. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you reading the same thing I am? He argues for presuppositionalism, which undermines all of science. Al 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha yes I am indeed. His argument explicitly, and thoroughly critiques naturalistic evolution as epistemically unwarranted according to his theory of warrant; it further attempts to demonstrate that naturalistic evolution is self-referentially incoherent. As far as I can tell, all of peer-reviewed scholarship understands this. Dextris Dei 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am amenable to having criticism of Plantinga's argument, although I think that a better exposition of it is more important. I havent read the book on the argument yet. I also think that the exposition of the argument should be located at naturalism (philosophy). — goethean ॐ 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be on point. It doesn't matter who finds his ideas acceptable. I find them risible. But I would also expect Wikipedia to include views contrary to my own, say, a counterview to dialectic monist naturalism (I am a daojia Taoist). It is a matter of presenting a variety of views- and in the article on those espousing the view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)

Plantinga's argument is a criticism of philosophical naturalism, and I see no reason why it should not be presented at that article. Other writers' thoughts are, of course, presented there also. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; but do you not see the reasons for having counterpoints to his 'philosophy' presented in the article on Plantinga, an article which states some of his 'philosophies'? Please do not misunderstand; I'm asking for a rounded view. But I don't want to labour this too much, so I'll stop here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)

No, I disagree. Rebuttals of his argument are also on-topic at the naturalism (philosophy) article. — goethean ॐ 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would expect Wikipedia to include views that are taken seriously in peer-reviewed scholarship. I'm not sure that includes the views you mention, like Daojia Taoism. Dextris Dei 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Most of my comments have been directed toward Goethan's comments, specifically to the idea that Plantinga's ideas are acceptable to those other than evangelicals. I'm inclined to agree with Al on the nature of Plantinga's ideas, and I don't give them much weight; but that is beside the point. If I were trying to end dissent, I'd be looking to remove Plantinga altogether. Instead, let's insure all views are represented. BTW, my comment was intended to show that ideas I might personally hold to be true should be criticised as well, if there is valid criticism of those ideas (I haven't seen much outside of the Chinese religious commnity, but I'll end the digression). Criticism of Plantinga's thought has a place on the article concerning him, full stop. If it should go elsewhere as well, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)

It's perfectly obvious that you and some others don't give Plantinga much weight. It is not perfectly obvious why anyone should pay the slightest attention to your autobiographical comments in this respect. It is obvious that your opinion and feelings are irrelevant, since they are contrary to evidently all peer-reviewed scholarship, as literally five minutes' research into scholarly search engines reveals. Dextris Dei 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The comments were meant for illustration; it is hard to believe that you did not notice that, and so you leave the reader to wonder what you're playing at. Your claims to critics on this page being irrelevant and your suggestion that we look solely to journals is nothing more than the fallacious argument from authority. It is also expected from a person in your position, that is, an undergrad in a philo department. Now, all of your red herrings aside, there are 'scholars' who disagree with Plantinga; since you're spending so much time in journals, and hold them up as founts of knowledge, won't you cite a few articles in the spirit of the love of wisdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 (talk • contribs)

This has nothing to do with me being an undergraduate, or with the argument from authority. I am not arguing for the truth of anything because a credible person says so, although really that would be justifiable in most cases. It's perfectly legitimate if I say that the earth is billions of years old, even though I am merely going with scientific consensus on the issue. I am just trusting a reliable source with credentials, that is, the scientific community. So here I am saying that, trasparently, Plantinga's argument is respected and taken seriously - that means noticed and discussed in peer-reviewed scholarship. That is more or less a matter of definition for the terms respected and taken seriously. I can't think of a better usage, certianly not the elevated thoughts of you or me. Also, of course there are numerous scholars who disagree with Plantinga; philosophy and science are not supposed to be dogmatic in that respect. That's how progress works. And I'm not holding up journals as "founts of knowledge," I'm just taking seriously the benefits of peer-reviewed scholarship. What is peer-reviewed scholarship? A collection of rigorous work done by highly and verifiably educated people in a field, subject to mutual criticism and development by like persons. As I said, I can't think of a better way than those credentials for defining what is serious, respected, and so on. On the other hand, statements like "I'm inclined to agree," "I find them risible," etc. are autobiographical comments and therefore uninteresting. By the way, the proper stereotype for undergraduates is not reference to philosophy and science journals. Faculty would love that. The stereotype for undergraduate is, oddly, what you are doing, which is making outlandish claims which ignore the work in the field, just going by what so far appear to be your whims and feelings. Dextris Dei 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully support your goal of having all relevant views represented, including some criticism in this article.

Oh, it might be helpful if you created an account so we could address you by name. 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the argument

The concensus here seems to be that some criticism should mentioned. I think that's right, as it is a controversial topic. I have put in a brief mention at the end. Expand if you like... Poujeaux 12:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the following: Fitelson and Sober state that his 'arguments contain serious errors' [[1]]. The actual quotation is "we will try to show that both arguments contain serious errors." Don't put words in people's mouths, please. — goethean ॐ 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The part in quotes are their words, and if they tried to show it, then they certainly believe it. If anything, the text doesn't put enough words in their mouths; it certainly doesn't overstate their claim. -- 68.6.55.65 14:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote up a little summary of their conclusions. I actually was going through the paper and writing a summary of the arguments, but it got too long. Here is what I came up with:

They show that if traditional theism and 1990s naturalistic evolutionary theory are the only choices available, then Plantinga's claim that the probability that traditional theism is true has a 'comparable' probability as naturalistic evolutionary theory being true is impossible under the axioms of Bayesian logic (section 1.5)[2]. There is another way to interpret Plantinga's argument. In order for Plantinga's argument to avoid self-contradiction, prior to the argument the probability of traditional theism must be very high for the subject (around 95%) and the probability of naturalistic evolutionary theory must be very low (around 5%). So on this intrepretation, Fitelson and Sober continue, the argument is "entirely deprived of all probative force."

That only goes about halfway through the paper. Maybe I'll come back and finish it sometime. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Questionable sentence.

I restored this:

Thus, asserting that naturalistic evolution is true is also asserting that one has a low probability of being right in any of his assertions.

I believe this is an accurate summary of Plantinga's argument. Am I mistaken? Al 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence is fine, although a bit awkward. The propositions themselves are not the same, but it's true the argument is that the latter follows from the former. That's just a slightly careless formulation, since as I said the assertions themselves are not said to be identical, but are said to follow. Since, however, people read and understand the English language, it should be fine, and probably gets the point accross well since it is terse. Dextris Dei 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy first, beauty second. If you have some specific improvement, please suggest it. Al 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD about Plantinga's argument

An article about the Evolutionary argument against naturalism was created yesterday. But it is currently nominated for deletion. If one can contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased wording?

Perhaps this sentence should be reworded:

He has argued that anyone who holds to the truth of both naturalism and evolution is irrational in doing so, an argument that finds much support within the intelligent design movement.

Referring to naturalism and evolution as "the truth" in reference to Platinga seems out of place, from what I can gather. Ejectgoose 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You'd probably make less of a fool of yourself if you tried to understand Plantinga's argument before commented on it.

A personal detail or two?

I've found it practically impossible to find out if Plantinga is human -- ie, if he's married, has children or single or what. I couldn't find a single source that would tell me, so I eventually gave up.

Some time after I did this, I bumped into the fact that he has a wife and a daughter. He mentioned his wife in one of his talks on www.veritas.org/media's programmes, and his daughter is mentioned here: http://www.truthbook.com/news/labels/Alvin%20Plantinga.html%7Cthis. Does anyone know -- and have a good source for -- anything else about his personal life? I think they may be worth at least a mention. Hairouna 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to verify any of this information, but I do have a few more facts that could be added under personal details. His daughter is a professor at Louisville Seminary (PCUSA) and has written a book or two on Jonathan Edwards. I believe she goes by the name Amy Plantinga-Pauw. His father, Cornelius Plantinga Sr., had some connection to Calvin college, but I'm not sure what. His brother, Cornelius Plantinga Jr., is the current president of Calvin Seminary and has written several books on theology (he also has a page on Wikipedia which could be linked to). I'm only throwing that out there in case anyone is interested in verifying/citing it. Stewart 8:51, 19 October 2007(UTC)

Transworld Depravity

Plantinga doesn't claim that it is possible that every person goes wrong in every possible world. He claims that there is a possible world where God exists and every person goes wrong at least once. Think about the debate between Mackie and Plantinga and you will understand why. Plantinga admits to J.L. Mackie (his chief protagonist on this issue) that there ARE possible worlds where everyone always does what is right--morally perfect worlds. But Mackie's claim is that God and evil are logically incompatible--i.e. there is no possible world where both exist (just like there is no possible world where square circles exist). All Plantinga has to do to refute Mackie's claim that God and evil are logically incompatible is show that there is at least one possible world where they both exist. If there is such a possible world, then, contrary to Mackie, it is possible for God and evil to co-exist (again, if there is even one possible world with square circles, then square circles are logically possible). This difference is important. Now Mackie replies that if there are worlds where God exists and people always make the moral choices, why doesn't God create those worlds? Plantinga replies with transworld depravity: it is possible that the pattern of counterfactuals true at the actual world are such that God cannot actualize one of those perfect world. Anyway, the point is that the way the article stated transworld depravity was wrong in a subtle but important way. Plantinga only needs to show that there is ONE possible world where God and evil coexist to refute Mackie. He doesn't have to show that there are NO possible worlds where God exists and everyone makes the right moral choices all of the time. He doesn't have to make this stronger claim to refute Mackie and he doesn't. In fact, he concedes up front that such worlds exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.160.226 (talk • contribs)

That is a helpful summary. Would you mind prettying it up and adding it to the article? --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure but it may take me a few days due to other work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.160.226 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Does anyone have a pronunciation for the name Plantinga in IPA? Cpk1971 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The name is Dutch and it is highly doubtful that Plantinga is himself able to pronounce his surname correctly. Therefore any way that seems natural to a native English speaker is just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:447F:F0EC:4090:D508 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Intelligent design advocates

Plantinga has been tagged as an Intelligent design advocate. I know he is a member of ISCID and I think he's a critical stance towards methodological naturalism. I this enough to be an advocate of intelligent design? What is the definition of this term? I wonder because I have never seen him deny himself theistic evolution or embrace creationism (the idea that god created through several acts of special creation life on earth). When I think of an advocate of ID I have rather people like Behe in mind who deny explicitly evolution (the central claim of ID). I'd like to hear other opinions on this, additional sources are of course welcome.--Student of philosophy (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick points. Firstly, ISCID is viewed as an ID organisation, so this may be the rationale for tagging Plantinga as the same. Secondly, as far as I'm aware, Behe doesn't deny evolution per se, rather he claims that there are some biological structures that cannot have arisen through normal evolutionary processes. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think advocate is slightly too strong. It is safe to say that he shares some of their underlying principles; in particular, he supports their fight against naturalism. He is explicitly referred to as an advocate here, but I wouldn't consider that a reliable source. His detailed positions are in that fabulous book, but the entire debate is available here. I believe McMullin quite nicely spells out the differences and similarity between Plantinga and ID advocates. As a footnotes, he writes:

The most obvious difference scarcely needs be stated. Plantinga is one of the most highly respected philosophers in the U.S., justly renowned for the quality of his scholarship and the care and rigor of his arguments. I bracket him here with the creation-science group, incongruous as such an association may seem, only because of the broad similarity of their theses in regard to special creation. I very much fear that this similarity may be sufficient to encourage creation-scientists to co-opt his essay to their own purposes.

Emphasis was added to highlight the fear that people may be trying to add that category this article in order to lend some credibility to the ID movement; if that is at all possible ... Vesal (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He is listed by The Creationists (Expanded Edition, p397) as having "lent moral support to the design camp", and by Creationism's Trojan Horse as being a "long time Wedge all[y]" (p213) and one of the 'Ad Hoc Origins Committee' that defended Johnson's Darwin on Trial (p18) (the book that sparked off the intelligent design movement). He also provided a dustcover blurb endorsing it.[3] All that, combined with ISCID membership & participation in numerous ID conferences, would appear to be sufficient to call him an ID advocate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is quite solid. Maybe the section should be moved to his views? Additional detail about what he supports and what he disagrees with would be useful. I'll see if I can find the time to add it myself. Vesal (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that most prominent ID advocates are not Young Earth creationist Creation science supporters, so the McMullin-sourced material doesn't in fact differentiate him from other IDers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I actually saw that problem when writing it. I will remove it for now, perhaps better sources exist, or someone else can work with it. I'll dump it here: Plantinga shares with creation science advocates the view that the best explanation of biological diversity is an interruption in natural processes, a moment when God made the universe behave differently from its normal course. He also relies on critiques of current evolutionary theory to advance his alternative views. However, Plantinga rejects Young Earth creationism and limits divine interference to only guiding evolution, primarily of human beings. Most importantly, he does not attempt to package his views as a scientific theory, nor does he attempt to hide the Christian underpinnings of his position [4] Maybe just cutting out the part about YEC would make it valid? But ideally this should be done more carefully than I can commit the time to do. Sorry, Vesal (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sceptical about this whole section. I don't think Plantinga supports ID and this smacks of "guilt by association". At the very least it should be renamed "Stance in respect of ID". NBeale (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No, 'guilt by participation' would be more accurate. We have reliable sources both identifying Plantinga supporter, and documenting his activities in support of ID. Do you have any sources substantiating your 'skepticism'? I have changed the title back, per WP:SPADE (and WP:DUCK would also appear to apply). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All we have is an opponent of ID claiming he is a supporter, and the fact that he engages with the people involved. NBeale (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No NBeale, "all we have" is somebody accepted by a Federal court as an expert on the history of the ID movement, the most prominent historian of creationism, defense and endorsement of an ID-polemic book, membership of a pro-ID organisation, and participation in ID-conferences. To your claim of mere 'engagement', I say utter and unmitigated BULLSHIT! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

None of this says that he supports or endorses ID. He thinks that some of the arguments used are poor. Also you should try WP:CIVIL. NBeale (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably more accurate to say that he has supported the ID movement, and from what I recall seeing lately he continues to do that. Calling that "stance re" is weaselly and absurd, sounding like a dog cocking its leg in the air. Of course, there's nothing to prevent you from adding a properly sourced summary of his published thoughts that some of the arguments used are poor, but he shares their basic argument that empirical evidence for evolution is to be dismissed as materialist. Also you should try to remember that WP:CIVIL is not a weapon to use against other contributors. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your argument has not the slightest smidgeon of merit. We have Plantinga's own words on the dustcover of DoT endorsing it, and through it the intelligent design movement that this book launched, and we have two WP:RS (Numbers and Forrest & Gross) for his support of it. Further, you have offered no evidence whatsoever differentiating Plantinga from ID. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A8AF:DF88:4C28:2656 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

ROFL! "2:51 pm - Plantinga mentions Michael Behe, calls the argument serious. Dennett appears stunned, understandably. It's not clear whether Plantinga intended to be provocative by speaking up for this 'much maligned' intelligent design theorist. Plantinga says the ID argument is compelling but inconclusive as the complexity of the cell is more probable on theism than naturalism (but it isn't clear how much more)." Andrew Moon (February 23, 2009). "An Opinionated Play-by-Play of the Plantinga-Dennett Exchange - The Prosblogion". . dave souza, talk 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous intellectual dishonesty?

This edit summary states that it is "outrageous intellectual dishonesty" to make it appear Mackie was referring to Plantinga, but I thought Mackie was explicitly referring to Plantinga's theodicy. I don't have the book at hand, but this source seems to agree. Could someone explain? Vesal (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that what we need is the paragraph it is taken from, so that we can see the context & whether it is talking about Plantinga. I would note that the source that Vesal cites concludes "But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question." -- which does rather affect the tone and extent of the 'concession'. The source itself offers this interpretation: "However, Mackie is reluctant to attribute much significance to Plantinga's accomplishment. He expresses doubt about whether Plantinga has adequately dealt with the problem of evil." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that at least makes it clear that Mackie isn't bowing entirely to the mighty Plantinga. That source gives a bit more clarification of the argument, which is lacking in our article at present. It also covers problems with the defense which appear to be unresolved. However, the whole thing is framed as though no-one had thought of the issues before the 1950s, and Plantinga was the first to rescue religion. As Problem of evil makes clear, the argument goes way back and to me it looks as though Plantinga's defense isn't very novel. When asked, Darwin referred to "the problem of Free Will & Necessity which has been found by most persons insoluble". The theodicy of Malthus in Chapters 18 and 19 of his essay cover the issue at length, with the conclusion that "Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity." Seems logical enough. So, we should make it clear that Plantinga's defense is specifically in relation to 20th century philosophy. . dave souza, talk 11:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Having read the IEP source I really don't think we should be quoting the further para. This is what Bebe thinks Makie might say about Plantinga - we should stick to what he did say. NBeale (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think my modification might help here, although I'm coming late to the party and may have missed the point. --PLUMBAGO 15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we're describing Mackie's first sentence as a 'concession', then we should describe the second one as a 'caveat' or similar, rather than just as an 'addition' -- either that or let both sentences speak for themselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the notion of "concession" comes from Mackie's own words. But I'm not wedded to a particular wording, it should just be clear that Mackie (as one of the major players in this arena) considered Plantinga's defense as successful against a particular logical argument, but that he remained unconvinced that it was the last word on the more general topic. Anyway, I've already written more than we're quoting, so it's time to stop.  :-) --PLUMBAGO 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but Mackie's own words that his final sentence is "another question" sets it up as a 'caveat' and clearly creates a tension between his second sentence and his 'concession'. I think we need to either accurately characterise that tension, or allow Mackie's own words to speak for themselves on it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest editors should actually read Mackie's book before quoting it. Mackie is simply not discussing Plantinga at p. 154, and citing this passage as if it is, merely advertises ignorance or, as I said, outrageous dishonesty. His considered thoughts on Plantinga's defense appear 20 pages later, and I have added them to the article.

The underlying problem is that this passage is framed to tell a story -- that humble Plantinga overthrew the terrible atheist academics with his transworld slingshot, and that even the atheists have had to cravenly admit their errors and retreat to evidential arguments -- omitting the inconvenient fact that many philosophers are underwhelmed by Plantinga's argument, and foregrounding the narrative aspect when it rests entirely on one slender internet citation (from Jeff Lowder). 271828182 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have the book, could you please quote the paragraph that the quote comes from here on talk, so we can better understand the context. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what is Mackie referring to when he writes (according to Beebe) "Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible"? Is that generally about defenses? Thank you for adding Mackie's more careful thoughts, 271828182. On the other hand, I wish the entire section was somehow simpler. And I tried to remove some of the narrative complained about above, heeding Dave Souza's advice to place it in the context of 20th century analytic philosophy. The paragraph reads a bit clumsily, so please edit mercilessly :) Vesal (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have better things to do than transcribe a lengthy paragraph. However, I swear on a stack of Hume that Plantinga's name occurs nowhere near this passage. 271828182 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found an extensive quote of the relevant passage here, and can confirm that it does not makes no mention of Plantinga. I would further note that the 'concession' is merely the starting point of Mackie's argument, not the conclusion of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Hrafn for verifying the point: that the "Mackie concession" is thoroughly bogus. Can somebody tell the anonymous user from IP 75.64.67.36 to stop re-inserting this out-of-context citation? 271828182 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 271828182 and Hrafn for clearing this up. It's pretty clear from this source that Mackie's remarks should not be interpreted as being a concession. He has clearly processed Plantinga's argument and is questioning its premises. Apologies for my editing to the contrary — I couldn't access the original text without parting with cash, so digging up this reproduced version has been very helpful. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The same search Hrafn used brings up this book, and while it seems to favour Plantinga's arguments, the preceding page is interesting. P. 74 deals with the argument that natural evil is incompatible with an omnipotent benevolent deity, which Plantinga refutes by arguing it is possible (if not necessarily true) that natural evil is caused by Satan and the like, and God could not have created a world as good as it is without allowing Satan to create such evils. The Methodist theologian William J. Abraham is cited as saying that Plantinga is correct in terms of strict logic, but that the argument is thoroughly implausible and may make the theist appear dishonest or insincere. Worth checking out, and as natural evil is an obvious counter to the free will argument, something that should be mentioned. By the way, it's not a new problem . dave souza, talk 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Plantinga is a design proponent

Plantinga is a design proponent:

• That statement was made be a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute -- who should therefore know if somebody is a design proponent or not.
• Her opinion is cited without dissent by a leading historian of the ID movement.
• The section contains a mass of corroborating evidence.
• Plantinga has in no way recanted or disavowed his support.

Plantinga is a design proponent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All this shows is that X said P was a design proponent in 2000. We have no reliable sources that he is a supporter of "Intelligent Design" (and in fact I believe that he is not). NBeale (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC) What Plantinga seems to believe in (as do most mainstream Christian philosophers) is some form of "guided evolution" (similar to Francis Collins's BioLogos) whereby evolution occurs but within God's overall providence. This is not at all the same as Intelligent Design NBeale (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1. "All this shows is that X said P was a design proponent in 2000." Baloney! What we have is a senior fellow of the main ID organisation stating he is a design proponent, and a prominent historian of the ID movement citing this statement without dissent. This statement mirrors a similar one from the most prominent historian of creationism.
2. "We have no reliable sources that he is a supporter of 'Intelligent Design'" Baloney! "design proponent" = "supporter of 'Intelligent Design'"
3. "and in fact I believe that he is not" -- WP:OR & EVERY source says otherwise!
4. The source that you attempted to cite (http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/marapr/1.21.html?start=3 -- don't use ref-tags on talk) offers no unequivocal support for evolution, and could be viewed as simply postulating evolution for the sake of the phislophical argument. It certainly gives no indication that Plantinga's views on evolution are similar to Collins'.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that Plantinga has withdrawn his support for the ID movement, you need to find a supporting source. The article you linked to does not support that assertion - in fact, he's using the sort of "guided" v. "unguided" language that permeates the ID movement. Guettarda (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect you are missing the point. I am not seeking to put in the article "P's views are similar to C's" becasue I don't have a RS for this (yet). It is true that P was called a DP by X in 2000 and readers may draw their own conclusions (however misleading they may be). But in fact I'm fairly sure P's views are like FC's - for some inirect evidence of this consider the fact that they are co-presenting at the Mayo Clinic next month. If I can come up with something more solid I'll let you know. NBeale (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"With respect" commensurate to the evidence you have presented (i.e. absolutely none whatsoever), I'm "fairly sure" you have no idea what you're talking about.

1. Your tendentious "X"="Nancy Pearcey, a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture" Are you claiming she isn't in a position to know if Palantinga is a design proponent or not?
2. Your claim that "P's views are like FC's" is laughable. Collins is a serious scientist, working in areas closely related to evolutionary biology. Plantinga has no scientific background and hangs around with anti-science/anti-evolution cranks such as Johnson and Dembski. WP:REDFLAG thus applies to a claim that their views are similar -- and you haven't presented even ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary.
3. As I stated above, every source states Plantinga is an ID supporter -- Pearcey, Forrest & Numbers (supported by voluminous documentation of his involvement in the movement). Stacked against this, your WP:OR opinion that "in fact I believe that he is not" is worthless.
4. Your "inirect [sic] evidence" is likewise worthless. Plantinga and Collins are not "co-presenting" -- they are presenting in different venues on different days on different topics. To pretend that this means anything more than a mutual interest in the relationship between science and religion is dishonest.

I am getting completely sick of your unsubstantiated hand-waving. Either come up with some RSes that actually support your claims, or your further comments will be ignored and/or reverted/archived (per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect you are missing the point. You said (a) you don't believe he supports ID ("We have no reliable sources that he is a supporter of "Intelligent Design" (and in fact I believe that he is not)"), (b) that Plantinga believes in "some form of 'guided evolution'", like "most mainstream Christian philosophers" and that his beliefs are "similar to Francs Collins's". From that, I drew the conclusion that you're suggesting that we change the article to reflect these opinions of yours. If you didn't want to change the article, why bring it up here? (Surely you know that article talk pages aren't meant to be general discussion forums or places to air one's own speculations on the subject.) Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Until I get a RS that he does not support ID I am content that we report X called him a design proponent in 2000. As I say, his actual view seems to be pretty much the same as Francis Collins. His position seems to be that he has no problems with the science of evolution but thinks from a theological PoV it must be guided and not pure chance (see here). I'll see if I can get something better to work into the article, but I'm a bit busy on other things at present.

(PS;Hrafn: try WP:CIVIL. And acutally the Veritas Forum tends to pick people with fundamentally compatible views. Planinga would not be presenting at Mayo if he were considered a scientific nutter! NBeale (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NBeale:

1. Repeated WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT is considered to be incivil as well as disruptive, and will tend to be responded to with less and less tolerance every time it is repeated.
2. "…I am content that we report X called him a design proponent in 2000" -- and this is exactly what I was talking about in #1. It was not merely some anonymous "X … in 2000", it was Pearcey, Forrest & Numbers over a large number of years. Also, you did not answer my question: Are you claiming [Pearcey] isn't in a position to know if Palantinga is a design proponent or not?
3. "As I say …" Yes, as you say over and over and over again -- never, in spite of repeated challenges, with a shred of substantiating evidence, let alone a WP:RS. Article talk is not a WP:SOAPBOX for what 'NBeale says', so kindly restrict your comments to improving the article -- whaich generally means what you can demonstrate with RSs.
4. Christoph Schönborn has said a number of things that have been interpreted by commentators as veering dangerously towards ID. In any case, again I see nothing in Plantinga's statement that could be interpreted as actually endorsing evolution.
5. So Veritas Forum never picks anybody who disagrees with each other over anything, even to present in different venues on different days on different topics? Rather narrow-minded of them. If the ASA can accept both TEs & IDers at its forums, I'd be surprised if VF is unable to do likewise.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As Hrafn says, it isn't that "Pearcy said X, at time T". There are multiple sources that support the assertion that Plantinga is an ID proponent. You may be correct that he no longer supports the ID movement. And as soon as you provide a source for your assertion, we can move forward with that issue. Your claim that he believes in some sort of "guided" evolution is a red herring. YECs, OECs, IDists, and all sorts of religious scientists see room for some sort of "guiding hand" in evolution. But that doesn't mean that Ken Miller is a YEC, nor does it mean that Michael Behe isn't an IDist. In your link Plantinga is using language that's identical to what IDists use. How you see that as evidence that he has rejected ID is beyond me. It's also useless for our purposes.

As for Collins and Plantinga holding similar views because they're both speaking at the same meeting...that's an interesting assertion. I take it you have a reliable source for that? Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(As for Plantinga not being "a scientific nutter", to use your phrasing...have you read what he has to say about evolution? In one of his books (Warrant and Proper Function, iirc) he asserts that (a) polar bears and other Arctic animals are albinos, and (b) that this albinism evolved among them despite that fact that it was maladaptive. Elsewhere I've seen him talk about individuals evolving. Not saying he's a "nutter", not at all. But I think it's fair to say that we can deduce little about Collins' understanding of science from Plantinga's understanding of science, and thus we shouldn't assume that we can deduce anything about Plantinga's understanding of science from Collins' understanding of science. Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

What we put in the article must be supported by WP:RS. From "X said P supported D in 2000" and "Y said P lent moral support to D" in 2003 we cannot infer "P supports Y". This is simple logic. NBeale (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You can choose to spin the Pearcy and Forrest & Gross quotes in that way, but the Pennock quote clearly spells it out. Guettarda (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary said:

None of these refs demonstrate that he is a supporter of the IDM

The text you removed with that edit said

Alvin Plantinga was also a signatory to this letter, early evidence of his continuing support of the intelligent design movement

How does the phrase "his continuing support for the intelligent design movement" not say that he is "a support of the IDM"? "Simple logic"? Your convoluted claims and OR are bad enough. Now you're simply denying that sources say what they say? Seriously? Guettarda (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the Pennock quote, all of them are making the equivalent statement (with Pearsey's being the strongest articulation, Numbers the weakest). "Design proponent" ≈ "support of the intelligent design movement" ≈ "wedge all[y]" ≈ "lent moral support to the design camp". There is nothing in WP policy against paraphrasing (and WP:COPYVIO implies that we can't get away with quoting all the time), and there is nothing in the least bit wrong with summarising equivalent statements. What we have is not random "X" & "Y" -- but four prominent sources from all sides (pro-ID, critical of ID & neutral) saying the same thing. Given that depth and breadth of support, and the complete lack of any contrary evidence, it is not unreasonable to state it as a fact. We could make the whole thing long-winded with "is widely considered to be", or the more accurate but even more long-winded "is widely considered to be, by commentators on all sides of the evolution-creation controversy" -- but such is really superfluous genuflection (as well as WP:UNDUE weight to a single non-prominent editor's WP:OR opinion to the contrary). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't let your strong feelings in this matter interfere with your ability to think. "X said in 2001 that P supports ID" does not imply "P supports ID in 2009". Furthermore the other refs, using terms like "wedge ally" and "moral support" are clearly NOT stating that he is an out-and-out supporter of the IDM. P. is a world-class philosopher with a vast written output and if we attribute philosophical views to him it should be on the basis of his clear statements and not potentially outdated and contentious statements by third parties. NBeale (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And please don't try to censor people who don't agree with you. It is blatantly idiotic to claim that a living philosopher holds views when we have no statements from him that he does. NBeale (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Furthermore the other refs, using terms like 'wedge ally' and 'moral support' are clearly NOT stating that he is an out-and-out supporter of the IDM." = false claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, unless Plantinga explicitly states himself that he supports ID, it shouldn't be stated in the article that he does. He may have questions about both ID and evolution in their relationship to philosophy, but it doesn't mean he 'supports' either. It means he is an open minded rational thinker and philosopher, not a dogmatic sophist who is determined to stick to one polarised camp's views in their entirety. Having a sub-heading for this section is now unnecessary, and as such I will remove it.Utopial (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll revert that. The sources describe him as "a proponent", "ally" and having given "support" to IDM. It's fair to sumarise this as saying "Plantinga has supported IDM". Further, the word "devastating" is from the source quoted, hence the quotation marks. This all seems important enough for there to be a subheading on it. So I'll revert. Seek consensus here first. Gabbe (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that ID is more a strategy/rebranding of creationism (see for example Neocreationism and Of Pandas and People's cut/paste of ID for creationism), it is hardly surprising that he has not "explicitly states himself that he supports ID". AFAIK, few ID advocates have made such a statement (probably because ID acts as an explicit 'big tent' for a wide range of idiosyncratic viewpoints). It is a gross misrepresentation to claim that he "may have questions about both ID and evolution in their relationship to philosophy, but it doesn't mean he 'supports' either." Plantinga is in bed with a bunch of dishonest anti-evolution religious bigots -- the "dogmatic" "polarised" 'scientifically discredited' ID "camp". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, your clear inability to be NPOV on this issue makes your contributions to these discussions virtually meaningless. Just because a source says the word 'devastating' doesnt mean it should be in the article. I'm sure ID sources say their arguments are devastating. It's irrelevant, immature, POV and unencyclopedic. Some may say he supports ID, but until he says that himself it is not appropriate to assert that that is his view - just that there is evidence that he supports it. It is certainly not appropriate to have a subheading for this, and it is particularly immaterial in the context of a short biographic article about a philosopher. If you wish to add more headings then go and read his actual philosophy on huge amount of philosophical issues that aren't outlined in this article and add them in, don't just troll articles and plant POV arguments in to frame articles as you wish. Plantinga would be shocked to see that such a huge proportion (WP:UNDUE) of his biography is dedicated to ID. Until the article is big enough (and im sure neither of you will have the knowledge of plantinga to make it so), the undue weight of a subheading is POV and shouldn't exist.Utopial (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Utopial, your knowledge of Plantinga appears to be POV and blinkered by a refusal to notice Plantinga's repeated support for intelligent design, as in his March 2006 arguments against the Kitzmiller opinion where he confidently asserts what ID is and isn't, and supports its attack on the methodological naturalism of science.[5] He has clearly been seen as writing as an intelligent design advocate,[6] and your assertion that he would be "shocked" by his interest in the subject being noted is unsupportable. . . dave souza, talk 08:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave, he has clearly demonstrated support for it. My main concern is that undue weight is being given in his bio to ID. His main series of works on analytical theism of 1000 pages makes no mention of ID. There is already a heading on evolution & christianity. There is no necessity for a subheading.Utopial (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Utopial: your clear attempts to give equal validity to ID "makes your contributions to these discussions virtually meaningless."

• "I'm sure ID sources say their arguments are devastating." WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources
• "Some may say he supports ID…" EVERYBODY who has expressed an opinion states this -- this viewpoint is uncontradicted.
• "…it is particularly immaterial in the context of a short biographic article about a philosopher." "Immaterial" in an article about a philosopher whose main material has been defence of religion, and attacks upon science? I would think that engagement in movement which is a religiously-motivated attack on science would be directly relevant.
• The very short subsection on his involvement in ID is hardly WP:UNDUE.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Prove that the word 'devastating' is necessary for the article and prove that the subheading is material and necessary.

• Note: I haven't asserted any views on ID here, so your comments on me are baseless.
• If I was to find a non-fringe source that used the word devastating for a POV, that doesn't mean it should be included.
• everybody? including plantinga?
• In the context of the amount of philosophy he has written, the weight given to ID is not just somewhat but significantly undue. Your arguments about attacking science are your own views and not objective evidence of materiality (fact: a small % of his philosophical works are on this topic, and the article should represent this).
• You seem very interested in Plantinga. What future areas of his philosophy are you going to be adding in your thorough NPOV overhaul of this article? Proper functioning, foundationalism or reliablism, perhaps?Utopial (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Proof that "that the word 'devastating' is necessary for the article and prove that the subheading is material and necessary" is not required. All that is required is that (i) the material is WP:V & (ii) a WP:CONSENSUS for its inclusion.
2. "I'm sure ID sources say their arguments are devastating." = give equal validity to ID
3. "If I was to find……" -- see #1
4. I have a mild interest in Plantinga, dating back to a brief email conversation with him some years before I started editing WP. This led me to a general skepticism of his arguments & style of argumentation. On the ID advocacy issue, my participation here has been a reaction to the extremely vocal but totally unsubstantiated claims that Plantinga is not an ID advocate, which led me to write the very short section documenting his activity on behalf of ID.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Proof is needed to establish consensus, which doesn't exist right now: "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." Stacking articles with hyperbole and bolded headings on the issues/views you like is POV. Even though I believe the amount of ID information in this article is not substantiated by the mathematical proportion of his work on ID, I am prepared to accept such undue weight so long as it doesn't have a second heading (it already has the 'evolution & christianity' heading).Utopial (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Prove that it is "material and necessary" to call the Gifford Lectures "prestigious". Prove that it is "material and necessary" to mention that "Plantinga's father was a first generation immigrant, born in the Netherlands". Prove that it is "material and necessary" to mention that "Plantinga's father instructed Plantinga to skip his last year of high school and immediately enroll in college." WP Policy in no way or form demands 'necessity' for introduction of information, and does not require proof of materiality, only a consensus of editorial opinion that the information is material. "Proof" is NOT needed! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, consensus doesn't exist on the issues I have raised. Therefore, you must "convince others, using reasons." ie prove. I think a subheading is not necessary due to undue weight (mathematical proportions objectively show ID is an immaterial % of his work), you think a subheading is necessary because...? There is no consensus. convince using reasons (ie prove). Utopial (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(i) 'Convince using reasons' ≠ "prove". (ii) "devastating review" was the phrase used by the source, and is circumstantially supported by (a) the fact that the 'Ad Hoc Committee on Origins' felt it necessary to form to defend Johnson's book (you don't generally go to that effort for a feeble review) & (b) by the fact that it was a review by a prominent scientist, of an anti-science polemic by a largely scientifically illiterate law professor (meaning that the reviewer would know what he was talking about and would not pull punches). Further, the inclusion of the adjective adds to the coherence of the passage, as it helps explain why the 'Ad Hoc Committee on Origins' felt it necessary to form. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you've provided no reasons for support and to refute my reasons about including the subheading. Secondly, "review critical of ID" or "critique of ID" is sufficient. There is no need for hyperbole. (a) your opinion - perhaps they formed to refute a whole series of anti-ID publications, who knows, therefore this point is invalid and pure OR. also, hyperbole such as devastating isnt necessary - NPOV terms such as 'highly critical' can be used (this source didnt say devastating (in fact it says it wasn't altho that's irrelevant), so why cherry pick the one you like? ) (b)'devastating' has nothing to do with one being a scientist and the other being a lawyer. Coherence can be formed by numerous wordings, 'devastating' isnt necessary for coherence - e.g. 'highly critical review of ID'. In summary, the subheading is unjustified (see above) and the unencyclopedic POV hyperbole 'devastating' can be replaced by the NPOV encyclopedic 'highly critical'.Utopial (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>

1. I really have no strong opinion on whether the material on Plantinga's activities on behalf of ID should have a heading or not -- so see no particular reason to "refute [your] reasons about including the subheading."
2. As there have been hundreds of reviews critical of ID books that have not evoked the formation of an analogue of the 'Ad Hoc Committee on Origins', it is clearly not a "sufficient" explanation.
3. It is not "[my] opinion" -- it is IN THE BLOODY SOURCE! Your WP:AGF-violating accusations of WP:OR are thus WP:Complete bollocks.
4. Johnson had no real idea what he was talking about. Gould did. That appears to be the ideal set up for a "devastating review".
5. There are likewise hundreds of "highly critical review[s] of ID" books (pretty much the entirety of the scientific community thinks that ID is vacuous crap). See #2.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have no opinion, i'll remove the subheading in the evol&chris section. We have some sources saying it is devastating and others not using this word. How about this - that source also says "vitriolic analysis". I'll put that wording instead as it doesn't come from the POV that one side won.Utopial (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Gabbe, who was in fact the one that reverted you, may object. Ronald L. Numbers in The Creationists (p378) describes Gould's review as "scathing" and notes that Johnson attempted unsuccessfully to have a reply printed in Scientific American. Is there any RS discussion of the review that gives an impression of it that it didn't have considerable impact? If not, then some adjective giving an impression of that level of impact is needed. "Devastating" is a direct quote. "Scathing" would probably be an acceptable synonym, though less evocative of the level of reaction it provoked. You can ignore a mere "scathing" review (as Dembski has done of Wolpert's 'written in jello' review of No Free Lunch), a "devastating" review demands a counterattack to be seen as anything other than waving a white flag of surrender. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The one I quote above says nothing (in fact it says that the review was more about Johnson's attitude than his book), but your one says devastating and vitriolic, the one you quoted above says scathing as does this one here. Given that vitriolic and scathing are similar, it seems that most are saying scathing and it is a fairly NPOV word. I'd imagine that a response would also depend on how reputable the scather was - if it was some no-name scientist the ID camp probably wouldn't have cared. Utopial (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, "vitriolic and scathing" are not "similar". It is possible to be scathing without being vitriolic (as Wolpert's cooly scathing review of No Free Lunch demonstrates). The latter implies heat, the former does not. Access Research Network is not a RS, and in any case your link is broken. How "devastating" a review is will depend on (i) how scathing it is, (ii) how prominent it is (with both Gould and the fact it was in Scientific American adding to prominence) & (iii) how credible it is (with Gould having far more credibility on science than Johnson has). In this context it wouldn't be too unreasonable to equate "devastating review" with 'high profile scathing review' or similar (but that would still miss the credibility issue). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Gould and scientific american covers off credibility and high profile. I think that vitriolic or scathing are acceptable, but devastating would imply some kind of win/lose POV judgement. I think that 'high profile scathing review' is fine, +gould+scientific american. I'll make the change.Utopial (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

References

P's position on Evolution & Christianity

Rather than what some quite partisan people claim about Plantinga, let's talk about what he actually says, NBeale (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in support of evolution, and quite a bit in support of Schönborn's pro-ID position. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

And NO we will not ignore what "some quite partisan people" acknowledged experts and prominent commentators state in favour of WP:SYNTH interpretations of Plantinga's statements. That is against policy. I also note that your strident demands for strict dating miraculously disappears when it is not somebody stating that Plantinga is an ID supporter (oddly enough, I never did see that insistence anywhere other than the ID section).

On an unrelated matter, I would note that Schönborn's views came in for criticism from George Coyne, a theistic evolutionist. If a TE criticises Schönborn's views and Plantinga supports them, then isn't that reason to suspect that Plantinga isn't a TE? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Schönborn articles could do with some updating: links are dead, and for some reason there doesn't seem to be any mention of controversy at the time when his words were seized on by ID proponents. Plantinga's endorsement of Schönborn's "design" statement is in line with the ID claims, and precedes the later backing down by Schönborn. This article covers those basic points, and this indicates that Schönborn was still parroting creationist ideas in 2008. As for Plantinga, a more recent example of him supporting ID is briefly mentioned here: Plantinga's article of March 7, 2006, supports ID and argues against the Kitzmiller judgement, claiming that the definitions of science which excluded ID are wrong and "if you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused — as most of the world’s people believe — you won’t be able to reach that truth scientifically. Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science by precluding science from reaching what would be an enormously important truth about the world." This book, Intelligent Design : Science or Religion? Critical Perspectives by Robert M Baird & Stuart E Rosenbaum (eds) published 2007 may also be of interest: it has "recent" essays by a range of authors: "Intelligent Design advocates include such prominent representatives as William A. Dembski, Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, and Alvin Plantinga". The same statement appears here . . dave souza, talk 13:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wesley R. Elsberry critiqued some of Plantinga's 2006 article here . . dave souza, talk 14:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave: thanks this is all v helpful. P certainly thinks that some of the arguments used against ID are bad but that doesn't mean that he supports ID in the sense of subscribing to all its claims. I'm reluctantly content with your "has supported" formulation, though I would be a lot happier if we could get somethng directly from P either way. NBeale (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is Plantinga himself that is making a number of 'bad arguments':

1. The same 'if it isn't claiming a young Earth it isn't creationism' BS that we hear repeatedly from IDers. One might reasonably define IDers as 'those who have a convenient case of collective amnesia about the existence of Old Earth creationism.'
2. Similar to IDers Plantinga objects to people pointing out the fact that ID isn't science. I'll leave to Wes Elsberry to point out the flaws in this argument.
3. Plantinga displays the same antipathy towards methodological naturalism as Johnson does in DoT, and uses the same oft-repeated (especially among creationists) and poorly thought out example of Newton to defend it (Newton worked at the dawn of the split between science and philosophy, long before it was formalised, and his "planetary motions had instabilities that God periodically corrected" idea was later found to be superfluous).

More WP:DUCK. More denialism from NBeale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I think the article is pretty OK on this as it stands. There should not be a sub-section on ID because P. says v little about it explicitly. Gould's review may have been "devastating" but that does smack of POV and since this review was not of a book P. wrote it give undue weight to say Gould's review (described by X as "devastating" [ref]). NBeale (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbalance on Mackie

To read the article text, one would think that Mackie had abjectly surrendered to Plantinga -- we get his "concession" quoted, but no mention of the "another question" that this concession was setting up, and we now have his "simply incoherent" quote moved into footnotes. This is not giving WP:DUE weight to the balance of Mackie's views on Plantinga's arguments -- it is outright cherry-picking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an article on Plantinga not Mackie. Mackie is not the only philosopher to disagree with Plantinga. NBeale (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So don't mention him. Also note that Plantinga isn't positively showing the failure of the logical argument, he's arguing that it's possible that it's not within an omnipotent God’s power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil, and that all so-called ‘natural evil’ is brought about by, say, the devious activities of Satan and his cohorts. A terribly frail omnipotent deity, but that's the argument. . dave souza, talk 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mackie may not be the only philosopher to disagree with Plantinga, but he is certainly the most notable. The question is whether any dissent (including Mackie's) is notable enough to be included in the article. The book citation I added ( Meister, Chad (2009). Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. p. 134. ISBN 0415403278. ) very explicitly states that most (Mackie being an exception) contemporary philosophers have accepted Plantinga's argument and that for most mainstream philosophers of religion, the "logical problem of evil" is pretty much settled. Gabbe (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Free will defence

This section really needs to be rewritten. For example, it says:

Plantinga's argument has two basic stages. In this first stage he argues that the atheologian has failed to demonstrate that God and evil are logically incompatible. In the second stage he argues that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically consistent. He does so by constructing a model that includes both the existence of God and the existence of evil. Among other things, his model includes the possibility of "transworld depravity". His conception of transworld depravity amounts to the claim that there is a possible world in which an individual has morally significant freedom and does at least one morally wrong action.

We say the argument has two stages, but we offer neither of them. The section amounts to: "Philosophers say the existence of a good God and evil is a contradiction. Plantinga says it is not." Does anyone have the sources so it can be written up properly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Introducing Philosophy of Religion by Chad Meister (ISBN 0415403278) summarizes Plantinga's defense thusly (page 133):

It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.

Is that any help? Gabbe (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the last few edits have been going backwards. We had something pretty well refed, with the IEP, and a mention of Mackie (down from about 3 which was undue emphasis, but one was OK). Now we have taken out the IEP and Mackie altogether. The 2 stage summary is fair enough, and there is a separate article on the freewill defense. We are not trying to fight philosophical battles here, but to provide accurate refed information about Plantinga NBeale (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit reintroduced some of the problematic errors.

Gabbe, thanks for posting the material from Meister. I'm not sure the argument as presented makes sense; in fact, it's not an argument as such. Philosophers say it's a logical contradiction that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god could not prevent evil. We are representing Plantinga's argument as "no, it isn't." Does Meister say what the actual argument is?

Also, would you mind posting what Meister says about most philosophers accepting P's position? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To Nbeale: the problem with writing this article is that it's a complex subject and people need a background in philosophy to get the vocabulary right. I have studied philosophy but not this area, and I have none of the books in front of me, so editing it properly is impossible. However, I did remove some of the most obvious problems from that paragraph in terms of the way it had been written. Your edits are serving to re-introduce them. For example, it is not any old god that was deemed contradictory, but a very specific type (omnipotent etc).

As for Mackie, his argument is key, and should not be removed to a footnote. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two introductory textbooks on the subject which seem promising as sources, Introducing Philosophy of Religion by Meister and Reason and Religious Belief by Peterson et al. Both say explicitly that most philosophers accept Plantinga's argument, and both present a page or two in a "point, counterpoint" discussion format between Plantinga and Mackie. I'll try a rewrite the section based on them by the end of the week. Gabbe (talk) 05:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great, Gabbe, thank you. I'll look around on my bookshelves in case I have any secondary sources on him that I'm not aware of. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with Gabbe's edit is that it removes the references to Transworld Depravity - but "Transworld depravity redirects here -- don't change this title without changing that redirect" so we need to try to put this back in. I'm back home with my books so I'll have a go over the weekend. NBeale (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've redirected Transworld depravity to Plantinga's free will defense instead. Gabbe (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The article currently reads: "Most contemporary philosophers accept Plantinga's argument," with the reference (to Meister's book): "It is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted." The cited reference does not support the article text: it one thing to regard the logical problem as rebutted, it is another to accept Plantinga's argument. Can we get a better cite, or a rewrite of the sentence? 271828182 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The full sentence from the book is actually "Because of these and other replies, it is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted", with "these" refering to Plantinga's replies to critics of his argument. The Plantinga's free will defense contains even more explicit quotes from others:

Robert Adams says that "it is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of [God and evil]." William Alston has said that "Plantinga [...] has established the possibility that God could not actualize a world containing free creatures that always do the right thing." William L. Rowe has written "granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God", refering to Plantinga's argument.

I'll expand the quote slightly to reflect this. Gabbe (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would note that the second and third quotes are far from unequivocal: "established the possibility" and "granted incompatibilism" means that they haven't conceded that he's come up with an argument that is probable (merely not theoretically impossible) or would have any force with compatabilists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

True, Plantinga's argument does not at all deal with the evidential problem of evil, and presupposes incompatibilism. Should this be made more clear in this section, or does it belong in the more detailed article on the defense itself? Gabbe (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest mention here & give details in the article. The main thing is not to encourage any misapprehension that Plantinga has in some way unequivocally solved the problem of evil. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, could you take a look at Free will and Free will in theology and tell me if a theistic (especially Calvinistic) belief in an incompatabilist free will makes any sort of sense. I'm getting more than a little cognitive dissonance. Most incompatibilists appear to be determinists (rejecting free will), and that appears to be especially so of the Calvinists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am less than thrilled with most of the citations here coming from committed theists (Meister, Adams, Alston), but, short of some synoptic review of the literature (which itself would probably be biased due to the lack of interest among non-theists to specialize in phil of rel), I think this is as fair as it can get. 271828182 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Other minds

Nbeale, you changed that we know a god exists in the same way that we know other minds do, to a "similar" way. [7]

If not in the same way, what is the difference, according to Plantinga? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A great deal, partly because the subjects of knowledge are different. Also Plantinga suggests that we have a Sensus Divinatusthat allows us directly to sense the presence of God. He does not suggest this for other minds (and if we did it would not be a Sensus Divinatis NBeale (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on this point, can the article be expanded somewhat to clarify this point? At the moment, the lead states "Notably, he has argued that some people can know that God exists as a basic belief, requiring no justification, similar to how people usually claim to know that other minds exist", but I can't see anything in the main text that expands on this. Such expansion would allow both referencing and clarity.

It also doesn't help that the current lead text is rather confusing (at least to me). The problem seems to be with the word "know", which implies something stronger than "personal belief". My alternative wording would be "Notably, he has argued that some people accept the existence of God as a basic belief that requires no justification, in a similar manner to that by which people accept that other minds exist". Reasonable? Or am I misinterpreting Plantinga? --PLUMBAGO 13:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUS

Per WP:OBVIOUS, there is nothing wrong with stating first Plantinga's involvement in Christian apologetics (it is arguably his main focus) and then stating what form these apologetics take. I would note that Christian apologetics#Varieties notes a wide range of forms. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian apologetics adds no value to the sentence if it is already described in greater detail the exact work he does in christian apologetics. What value does 'christian apologetics' add if it is stated exactly what christian apologetics he does? It is like saying "i have a blue sock, and in particular I have a dark blue cotton sock." There is no need to mention it twice separately in the one sentence - the first mention is more vague and thus redundant. It can be covered in one statement within the sentence. There is no repetition and going into further detail in that sentence about his work in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion, so why should there be for the apologetics/defence? Conciseness is best and repetition is unnecessary.Utopial (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm with Hrafn on this one. P is best known for Christian Apologetics so I think this should be stated first. NBeale (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any comment on the order, I just think it can be dealt with in one rather than two hits. I think that this needs to be addressed. My alternative phrasing was as such:

He is known for his work in epistemology, metaphysics, the philosophy of religion and for applying the methods of analytic philosophy to defend orthodox Christian beliefs.

Apologetics was put at the end since it is the longest and the sentence flows better this way. Note that it is the only subject with specific & lengthy detail, so its importance isn't diminished.Utopial (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Meister as a source

I recently reverted a rewording regarding the acceptance of Plantinga's free will defense. I know that there are people who feel that because someone is Christian that by itself means that they can't make an unbiased statement on any topic connected with the philosophy of religion, but that argument is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Under WP:RS, a source is not deemed unreliable simply because their authors are of a certain persuasion or opinion. Furthermore, if there are reliable, contemporary, secondary sources indicating that Plantinga's argument has not been met with wide acceptance, I'd gladly welcome them in the article. Does anybody have such sources? Gabbe (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you do get a slightly different picture when you review atheist sources. The only atheist philosopher I have found to explicitly support Plantinga's defence is William Rowe. More typically, atheist philosophers reject logical formulations without necessarily accepting Plantinga's defence. Michael Tooley's SEP entry is a prime example of how to justify an inductive formulation without celebrating Plantinga's victory.

What is easy to find, though, are dissenting (presumably atheist) sources who acknowledge that most other philosopher consider the defence successful:

• Graham Oppy is already cited in the free will defence article.
• Geirson and Losonsky: "Since so many philosophers have regarded Plantinga’s Free Will Defense to be a definitive solution to the logical problem of evil, the focus of the debate of the problem of evil has changed from the logical problem of evil to the evidential problem of evil. But we believe that the atheist tossed in the towel too early, and the theist celebrated victory too early."
• Derk Pereboom: "Many of those involved in this debate agree that Plantinga has provided a successful response to the abstract logical problem of evil." However, he goes on to state that it does not solve the concrete logical problem of evil and cites a number of dissenters.

Finally, note that there has been a couple of "friendly amendments" to the defence. Most recently, in 2009, Richard Otte shows that universal transworld depravity is necessarily false, and he suggest an amendment which Plantinga has accepted. Nevertheless, I do believe that Gabbe has the right to use the textbook by Meister since other sources do not really reject that assessment. What seems clear to me is that a) the defence was highly influential historically in causing a shift towards inductive arguments, even if contemporary atheologians justify their preference for inductive formulations without reference to the defence, and b) most philosophers consider the defence (or a variant thereof) a successful response to the logical problem of evil, though there are some high profile contemporary dissenters as discussed at length in the article by Pereboom. Vesal (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. While there are numerous individual opponents of Plantinga's argument, what's interesting here is what secondary sources (that is, those gauging the acceptance of the FWD among philosophers in general) say. If there are any reliable secondary sources reaching the conclusion that Plantinga's argument is not widely accepted, then by all means bring those secondary sources forward. Gabbe (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, other than a general discomfort with the use of a textbook as a source, my concern with the line is that it may not really represent the situation. I'll need to think about it a bit more, but the statement "most contemporary philosophers accept" make it sound a bit like the argument is largely over, with just a few stragglers, while that isn't really how things work. It may risk downplaying both the strength of the remaining opposition and the significance of Mackie's statement, that it fails to solve the real problem and that the solution offered by Plantinga is necessarily dissatisfying. I'm not saying the line should be removed, as such, and adding "most Christian philosophers" really doesn't help, but that there's a bit of a problem with the current summary that warrants thinking about. - Bilby (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The anon does not seem to be giving up easily. Perhaps my compromise version can be stable enough until we figure out a solution here. It is not really a compromise because the version I left it at is not acceptable to myself even, but I refuse to edit war with an anon. We either need to get the page semi-protected, or leave it like this until we have a better solution. I don't know what to do when an anon just reverts and doesn't even comment on talk. I think a gave a fairly detailed response which has not been addressed by this anonymous editor. This is not fair at all. Vesal (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

• The External links section of Alvin Plantinga is meant to provide links to further information on the subject of that person, not an indiscriminate set of links to assorted writings by that author. The applicable policies are WP:EL & WP:LINKFARM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the WP policy stating the 'external links' section cannot have links to articles by the subject. Many articles on writers, scientists, etc. have links to papers, lectures, debates, online books, etc. in the 'external links' section. The 'external links' for 'Alvin Plantinga' is comparatively small. Compare the WP article on biologist Richard Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.77.105 (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• WP:EL provides prohibitions against overlinking. The links in question do not fall under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. They are also not to particularly prominent pieces of Plantinga's work (a partisan review, and, indirectly, a piece in some way connected to a grant). The EL section currently contains 9 links, which is not "small". If Dawkins' article contains more then (i) that is an issue for editors or that article & (ii) may be a consequence of Dawkins being more active in public advocacy than Plantinga. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I think it's fine to delete the link to the paper on supervenience. I recently added that link because it is an example of some of Alvin Plantinga's more recent work and though it would be informative, but you're probably right that it isn't a particularly eminent paper. However, the review of Prof. Dawkins' book The God Delusion is a prominent piece by Alvin Plantinga. It's probably the most well-known review of that book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.77.105 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Given the subject matter and forum, it would appear to be so much 'preaching to the choir' -- so hardly noteworthy. It also fails WP:ELNO #6, in that it requires membership in order to read the full review. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• The full text of the review if on richardawkins.net here. It's clearly notable, >10k GHits, and should either be a link or perhaps better refed in the article. BTW whether or not God exists, "Prof. Dawkins" does not. He's retired and is plain Dr Dawkins now. NBeale (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Google doesn't appear to agree with you on notability -- a search for "god delusion" & "review" placed this review out of the top 30. ">10k GHits" appears to be par for the course for a review of The God Delusion, so not much notability there. And I will politely ignore (well, sort of) your all-too-obvious Dawkins-envy Mr-never-was-a-professor-Beale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think Prof. Plantinga's review has been in the links section for a while and was initially freely available from Books and Culture. They must have changed their policy at some point. It is available here in pdf format. If that is allowed, then someone who knows how to do it could use that pdf for the links section. I will say that it doesn't follow from the fact that it appears in Books and Culture that is not a prominent piece of Plantinga's writings. And there just doesn't seem to be any WP rule against linking to a few writings by the subject of the article. This really seems to me to be a non-issue; I don't see the problem. What about that pdf file?

---

I've protected the page for three days to hash out the latest external link addition. Please stop reverting back and forth and have a discussion here first. If a conclusion is determined before the protection expires, please let me know and I'll remove it. Kuru (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Plantinga is not against science but against limiting science to only naturalism

Those who claim that "Plantinga is against science" should check their own paradigms. Seems that people here have fallen into the trap of setting "science vs religion", something that dates back to the Age of Reason when science was seen as an alternative to religion. The main paradigm in science today stems from a naturalistic viewpoint ; that is that there must be a "natural" explanation to everything. However, the problem is that naturalism cannot itself prove that there is nothing supernatural, thus adhering to naturalism means adhering to a belief. Prof. Puolimatka argues that the different philosophical viewpoints in science should be allowed to compete freely with each other (naturalism / supernaturalism) and their goodness evaluated in how well they explain the phenomena they study. Furthermore, Puolimatka points out that there has so far been no well-defined and crisp line between what is science and what is not. Thus, science that adheres to scientific methods but also does not exclude a supernaturalistic philosophical viewpoint (like Plantinga) cannot be excluded from science without falling into the loop of the inherited problems mentioned above.

(Text above based on the books by Finnish professor Tapio Puolimatka: "Usko, tiede ja Raamattu." Helsinki: Uusi tie, 2007. ISBN 978-951-619-467-0 and "Usko, tieto ja myytit." Tammi, 2005. ISBN 951-26-5347-8).

Tikru8 9:05, 9 November 2011 (EET)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed: (i) the quoted claim is not made anywhere in the article, so your claim to the contrary is a non sequitor. (ii) Your analysis contains a number of of flaws. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Those who claim that "Plantinga is against science" should check their own paradigms."

laughable. go ahead. do science non naturalistically. why do idiots like you even THINK you know what you are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8200:1767:DA00:8DFA:EF0B:73A3:BE77 (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

While science, by its nature as a methodology, must be accomplished naturalistically; that does not necessarily mean a scientist who also holds to a particular religious worldview is "against science." Whatever your opinion regarding the validity of religious worldviews, I find the above unsigned comment deriding the OP's statement as "laughable" and calling him an "idiot" as unhelpful, to say the least. I fail to see how insults serve to improve Wikipedia in any way. At the same time, as the OP's claim does not appear to be in the article, I probably shouldn't be feeding the attention given to this topic. The Famous Adventurer (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Disproof of one of his arguments

Here is a nice video by QualiaSoup which readily debunks some of his claims on substance dualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting though this is, a YouTube video is not a reliable source. On Wikipedia, we try to represent what reliable sources say. If a similar argument to the one made in the YouTube video is made in the scholarly literature (articles from scholarly journals, books from other philosophers etc.) then they can be included in the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Theologian categorization

Are you saying philosophy of religion is the same thing as theology? Category:Philosophers of religion is its own cat. If you have sources saying he's a theologian, please add it to the article. Categorization should be verifiable based on the article text. --JFHutson (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

His ontological argument for the existence of God constitutes what is called "natural theology" 191.254.134.147 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Weaselly syntax

Please compare the existing fragment: Although the argument has been criticized by some philosophers, like Elliott Sober, it has received favorable notice from Thomas Nagel with an alternative such as, for example: Although the argument has received favorable notice from, e.g., Thomas Nagel, it has been criticized by some other philosophers, such as Elliott Sober. Same information, different implications planted. So how about removing the bias from this statement? Thanks, Bansp (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alvin Plantinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510000000/http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php to http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alvin Plantinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725040247/http://www.ccel.org/info/faq.html to http://www.ccel.org/info/faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715155841/http://www.rbpchurch.com/RBPC/Our_Staff.html to http://www.rbpchurch.com/RBPC/Our_Staff.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713232024/http://www.londonfirstcrc.com/index.php?%2Ffcrc%2Fmenu_link%2Foutreach%2Fmissions to http://www.londonfirstcrc.com/index.php?%2Ffcrc%2Fmenu_link%2Foutreach%2Fmissions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426082515/http://americanphilosophy.net/dmap/apa_presidents.htm to http://americanphilosophy.net/dmap/apa_presidents.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Air Conditioning Incident

Why is the section about Platinga being on local television a noteworthy event for this page? The fact that someone appeared on a local television show about a mundane news story doesnt seem like it warrants inclusion on an encyclopedia article.

This section was originally made by an IP editor, I removed it and explained why, and another IP editor reverted it without explanation. Im reverting back to the original removal and if anyone would like to say anything in defense of that section they can talk about it here. Rosencrantz24 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Photo is uncharacteristically cool

Plantinga never looks as cool as in that photo in other situations. The article photo should be one in which he does not look that cool, in order to be more realistic. 191.254.134.147 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Alvin Plantinga-3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)