Search Results for: William Lane Craig

Arthur F. Holmes, 1924-2011

News broke over the weekend that the noted Christian philosopher, Dr. Arthur F. Holmes, died on Saturday, October 9. He was 87. Holmes “inspired generations of Wheaton College students and the broader Christian community through his thoughtful scholarship,” observed a Wheaton College press release.

On remembering Holmes’ life and legacy, Alvin Plantinga, the emeritus John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, said at the Christianity Today blog: “Arthur Holmes was a great Christian and a fine philosopher. We Christians who value the life of the mind must thank and praise the Lord for Art and his life, and we must do our best to see that his tradition is carried on and developed.”

Below is the following statement from Paul Copan, President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University

This past Sunday evening, I read the sad news of the death of the well-loved Christian philosophy professor Arthur Holmes; he had taught at Wheaton College for over four decades.  One of the two influential philosophy professors I had at Trinity Seminary, Stuart Hackett, had been a good friend and colleague of Prof. Holmes for many years at Wheaton College.  In fact, it was Prof. Holmes who helped bring Prof. Hackett out of obscurity—from a small Southern college to a highly-esteemed evangelical college, giving him a far wider influence in the Christian philosophical community.  The well-established reputation Prof. Hackett earned at Wheaton would pave the way for his coming to Trinity Seminary.  So, indirectly, I am a beneficiary of Prof. Holmes’ initiative and foresight.

I myself had the opportunity to meet and interact with Prof. Holmes personally at the annual Wheaton Philosophy conferences and as I bumped into him here and there at other philosophical gatherings.  Though I found him to be modest and unassuming, he influenced many student lives and helped contribute to the rising tide of Christian philosophers shaping this generation, including Stephen Evans and William Lane Craig. I myself have been influenced through Prof. Holmes’ writings.  When I took my first philosophy class at Trinity Seminary in the fall of 1985, “Religious Epistemology” with Prof. Hackett, we students read and dissected Prof. Holmes’ book All Truth Is God’s Truth—to our great benefit.   And during my final year at Trinity Seminary, I took a class with Dr. Carl F.H. Henry, and another of Prof.  Holmes’ books was our text—Contours of a World View. These textbooks inspired me to hunt down and read Prof. Holmes’ other works: Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions; Fact, Value, and God; The Idea of a Christian College; Building the Christian Academy (edited); and War and Christian Ethics (edited).  All of his books are now a valuable part of my library.  They are lucidly written and insightful; indeed, they are solid resources for Christians in the liberal arts and for any believer who wants to think Christianly. 

Though Arthur Holmes has died, he still speaks through the lives of the Christian students he has influenced and the books he has written.  I commend his writings to present generation of Christian philosophy students and to all interested in more fully understanding what it means for Christ to be Lord over every facet of life.

Paul Copan
EPS President

Christianity Today’s blog reported that “Wheaton’s archives has collected some of Holmes’ chapel addresses and his papers are housed in the college’s special collections.”

Do you have any personal memories of Holmes? Any favorite Holmes-isms? How was Holmes a model for your scholarship?

CALL for PAPERS: EPS at AAR/SBL

EPS members are cordially invited to submit a proposal for a paper at the EPS session at the AAR/SBL meeting in San Francisco, November 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm.

This is an “open” Call for Papers on any theme relevant to Christian philosophy, especially at the intersection of philosophy and theology/biblical studies.

Please send an abstract of your proposed paper to William Lane Craig’s attention by March 30, 2011.

We prefer suggestions for entire panels at the session.

You can contact Craig by going here.

2011 CALL for PAPERS at AAR/SBL

EPS members are cordially invited to submit a proposal for a paper at the EPS session at the AAR/SBL meeting in San Francisco, November 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm.

This is an “open” Call for Papers on any theme relevant to Christian philosophy, especially at the intersection of philosophy and theology/biblical studies.

Please send an abstract of your proposed paper to William Lane Craig’s attention by March 30, 2011.

We prefer suggestions for entire panels at the session.

You can contact Craig by going here.

2011 Christian Apologetics Training in Georgia

“Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World”
January 27, 2011
7:30-9:30 pm

Come join Biola University’s Craig Hazen, J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds for an exciting apologetics lecture series.

LOCATION
Apostles Church of Sandy Springs
6025 Glenridge Drive NE
Atlanta, GA 30326

Sponsored by Biola University’s Christian Apologetics Program, Reasonable Faith, Atlanta Chapter, and Apostles Church of Sandy Springs.

For more info and to register, please go to www.apologeticsevents.com or call 888.332.4652.

“Exploring Mere Christianity Series”
Right and Wrong: A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

January 29, 2011 (8:30a-12:30p)
Cost: $20

LOCATION
Perimeter Church
9500 Medlock Bridge Road
Johns Creek, GA 30097
www.perimeter.org

The Exploring Mere Christianity Series will focus on the central beliefs of Christianity that have been, in C.S. Lewis’s words, “common to nearly all Christians at all times.”  In his classic book Mere Christianity, Lewis shows how the essential beliefs and practices of the Christian faith make the most sense of our longings and questions.  This series will examine some of the same issues that Lewis addressed in his book for the purpose of equipping believers to articulate, defend and live faith in Christ.
Register at Perimeter Church.

“God, Time and Creation”
A weekend seminar exclusively with William Lane Craig

February 24-26, 2011
Thursday and Friday, 6-10 pm
Saturday: 9am-4pm
Cost: $95

LOCATION
Johnson Ferry Baptist Church
955 Johnson Ferry Road
Marrietta, GA

For more info and to register, please go to www.apologeticsevents.com or call 888.332.4652.

Further expand your training with EPS sponsored audio lectures from J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, and Craig Hazen!

A Debate of Significance: Does the Universe Have A Purpose?

By Peter S. Williams

A fascinating debate of significance took place recently in Mexico between a team of atheists (Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins) and a team of theists (Christian philosophers William Lane Craig and Douglas Geivett together with Rabbi David Wolpe) as part of the third annual International Festival of Great Minds.

The Significance of the Debate

The debate was about significance, in that the formal topic was ‘Does the Universe have a Purpose’; but it was also a highly significant debate, principally because it saw Richard Dawkins (stepping into a vacancy left by Michio Kaku) enter into debate with William Lane Craig for the first time, despite Dawkins’ prior refusals so to do (cf. here & here). For example, invited to debate Craig in 2007 Dawkins replied:

‘I’ve never heard of William Craig. A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn’t look good on mine!’

Now that Dawkins has heard of Craig, and has participated in debate with him (despite the perceived damage to his CV!), it will be interesting to see how he responds to future invitations to debate with Craig.

Craig describes meeting Dawkins:

‘I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US. It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists, scientists, etc. As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the question “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” Well, to my surprise, I just found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins! It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my hand and introduced myself and said, “I’m surprised to see that you´re on the panel.” He replied, “And why not?” I said, “Well, you’ve always refused to debate me.” His tone suddenly became icy cold. “I don’t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.” At that, he turned away. “Well, I hope we have a good discussion,” I said. “I very much doubt it,” he said and walked off. So it was a pretty chilly reception!’

Watch/Listen to the Debate

The video is available in two versions: English version (but no translation of the introductions) & Spanish version (introductions in Spanish and then a Spanish translation over the top of the English speakers)

You can also listen to the debate audio sans translation here (the introduction is in Spanish, but the speeches are all in English)

Commentary on the Debate

You can read Douglas Geivett’s post-debate commentary here – concerning Dawkins and Craig appearing in the same boxing ring (literally!), Geivett issues his own invitation:

‘There has been considerable commentary about the “Craig vs. Dawkins debate” as a result of this event. Prior to this debate, Richard Dawkins had refused all invitations to debate Bill Craig. It’s for this reason that Bill was surprised to learn that Dawkins had agreed to participate in this debate. This, clearly, was the safest venue for Dawkins to appear in debate with Craig, since it was a three-on-three debate with unusually brief allocations of time for each speaker. But Dawkins was not debating Bill Craig only. He was in debate with three theists, in partnership with two fellow atheists. There was nothing the least bit threatening or intimidating about Dawkins on this occasion. I would happily debate him in a one-on-one situation. So if he prefers not to debate Bill Craig, for whatever reason, he’s welcome to debate with me.’

The debate’s format of very short speeches (Craig describes it as ‘pithy, brisk, and focused’) meant there was little room for anyone’s arguments to be developed at any great length, which opened the door to some unfortunate accusations about ‘arguments from ignorance’. Nevertheless, the theistic side clearly put forward the most arguments (at least ten!) relevant to the contentions they wanted to defend, whereas the atheist team spent most of their time addressing red herrings (repeatedly confusing subjective purposes, values etc. with objective ones) and attacking straw men.

Moreover, the atheists contrived to advocate the incoherent position that ‘why’ questions are meaningless ‘silly questions’ and that the answer to the ‘why’ question posed about the universe was that it had no objective purpose! On the one hand, if ‘No’ was a sensible answer to the debate question, then the question cannot have been a silly one. On the other hand, if the debate question was a ‘silly’ question, then ‘No’ cannot have been a sensible answer.

Stephen Hawking’s Recent Comments About God

I am personally convinced, to borrow the title of the ‘last will and testament’[1] by recently deceased philosopher Antony Flew (1923-2010), that There is a God. Flew, ‘a legendary British philosopher and atheist [who was] an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades’[2], publically renounced atheism in 2004 after coming to the conclusion that ‘the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.’[3] Interestingly, Flew stated that ‘the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries . . .’[4]

Flew’s conclusion is at odds with the recent headline-grabbing but philosophically naïve assertion by physicist Stephen Hawking that ‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing’[5], and hence that ‘God did not create [the] Universe.’[6]

Hawking opines that while fundamental questions about the nature of reality and the need for a creator have traditionally been questions for philosophers, ‘philosophy is dead’ because ‘Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.’[7]

Of course, it was precisely keeping up with modern science that Flew testified led to his change of mind on the question of God! Moreover, as Professor George Ellis, President of the International Society for Science and Religion argues: ‘Philosophy is not dead. Every point of view is imbued with philosophy. Why is science worth doing? The answer is philosophical… Science can’t answer that question about itself.’[8] Professor Chris Isham, a philosopher and theoretical physicist at Imperial College London, is similarly unimpressed: ‘I groaned when I read this. Stephen’s always saying this sort of thing… but I suspect he’s never read a philosophy book in his life.’[9]

On the one hand, one needn’t know anything about cosmology to see that it’s logically impossible for anything to literally ‘create itself from nothing’ since things can only have causal effects if they exist and ‘nothing’ is by definition the absence of anything capable of doing anything whatsoever. As theologian and Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams dryly observed in response to Hawking: ‘Physical laws… are about the regular relations between actual realities. I cannot see how they explain the bare fact that there is any reality at all.’[10]

On the other hand, for many contemporary scientists and scientifically informed philosophers (contra Hawking, they do exist!) the discoveries of modern science have actually served to strengthen the case for theism.[11]

[1] Antony Flew, ‘Exclusive Flew Interview’ www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
[2] Craig J. Hazen, ‘My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew’
www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf
[3] Flew, ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] Stephen Hawking, ‘The Grand Design’ in Eureka/The Times, September 2010, p. 25.
[6] The Times, Thursday September 2nd, 2010, Front Page Headline.
[7] Hawking, ‘The Grand Design’, op cit, p. 18.
[8] George Ellis, The Times, Friday September 3rd, 2010, p. 8.
[9] Chris Isham, ibid.
[10] Rowan Williams, ibid, p. 9. cf. Craig, William Lane, ‘Why Does Anything At All Exist?’
http://rfmedia.org/av/video/why-does-anything-at-all-exist-wake-forest/
[11] cf. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, third edition (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2008); William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland, ed. The Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009); Dean L. Overman, A Case for the Existence of God (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009); Robert J. Spitzer, New Proofs For The Existence Of God: Contributions Of Contemporary Physics And Philosophy (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2010).

The “Return to Religion” in Philosophy

Scott McLemee, a columnist with Inside Higher Ed, recently interviewed editors Anthony Paul Smith and Daniel Whistler about their 2010 book, After the Postsecular and the Postmodern: New Essays in Continental Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing).

Let’s start with one word in your title — “postsecular.” What do you mean by this? People used to spend an awful lot of energy trying to determine just when modernity ended and postmodernity began. Does “postsecularity” imply any periodization?

Smith: In the book we talk about the postsecular event, an obvious nod to the philosophy of Alain Badiou. For a long time in Europe and through its colonial activities our frame of discourse, the way we understood the relationship of politics and religion, was determined by the notion that there is a split between public politics and private religion. This frame of reference broke down. We can locate that break, for the sake of simplicity, in the anti-colonial struggles of the latter half of the 20th century. The most famous example is, of course, the initial thrust of the Iranian Revolution.

It took some time before the implications of this were thought through, and it is difficult to pin down when “postsecularity” came to prominence in the academy, but in the 1990s a number of Christian theologians like John Milbank and Stanley Hauerwas, along with non-Christian thinkers like Talal Asad, began to question the typical assumption of philosophy of religion: that religious traditions and religious discourses need to be mediated through a neutral secular discourse in order to make sense. Their critique was simple: the secular is not neutral. Philosophy is intrinsically biased towards the secular. If you follow people like Asad and Tomoko Masuzawa, this means it is biased toward a Christian conception of the secular, and this hinders it from appreciating the thought structures at work in particular religions.

One of the reasons the title of the book reads, “after the postsecular” is that we felt philosophy of religion had yet to take the postsecular event seriously enough; it was ignoring the intellectual importance of this political event and still clinging to old paradigms for philosophizing about religion, when they had in fact been put into question by the above critique. So, the question is: What does philosophy of religion do now, after the postsecular critique?

Whistler: There are two other reasons we speak of this volume being situated after the postsecular. First, in our “Introduction” we distinguish between a genuine postsecular critique of the kind Anthony mentions and a problematic theological appropriation of this critique. The former results in a pluralization of discourses about religion, because the secular is no longer the overarching master-narrative, but one more particular tradition. The latter, however, has tried to replace the secular master-narrative with a Christian one, and so has perversely impeded this process of pluralization.

Yet it is precisely this theological move (exemplified by Radical Orthodoxy) which is more often than not associated with the postsecular. Thus, one of the aims of the volume is to move beyond (hence, “after”) this theological appropriation of the postsecular.

Second, we also conjecture in the Introduction that postsecularity has ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater – that is, everything from the secular tradition, even what is still valuable. So, in Part One of the volume, especially, the contributors return to the modern, secular tradition to test what is of value in it and what can be reappropriated for contemporary philosophy of religion. In this sense, “after the postsecular” means a mediated return to the secular.

The full interview can be found here.

Meanwhile, while Whistler and Smith describe the “return to religion” in continental philosophy, William Lane Craig and Paul Copan write about the renaissance in philosophy of religion (focused on the development in analytic philosophy).

Patheos, which is quickly becoming the #1 clearinghouse for online religion content, is featuring a “Future of Evangelicalism” series at their Evangelical Portal. Copan and Craig, along with several other intellectual influencers, are contributing to the series.

In “Trajectories in Philosophy and Apologetics,” Copan and Craig describe a rather unique phenomena concerning the influential effect of Christian intellectual work:

The effects of this remarkable renaissance of Christian philosophy are now making themselves felt on the non-academic level, as popularizers and apologists distill the academic work of professional Christian philosophers and make it accessible to a laity hungering for answers to the tide of secularism they feel rising around them. Academic apologetics work has served as an important bridge between high-level philosophical discussions and the translational work of local apologetics organizations and training centers …

If this transfer of goods from the ivory tower to the pew continues (and it shows every sign of gathering momentum rather than abating), then the next major revival of evangelical Christianity, as strange as it may sound, may well come through the intellectual re-engagement of the church, as her people discover sound arguments for Christian faith and answers to the objections lodged against it — and so, strengthened by the conviction that Christianity is not just “true for them” but objectively true for all, become emboldened, winsome, and intelligent witnesses for Christ in a decaying culture.

The growth of analytic philosophy of religion has also helped produced the flourishing of analytic philosophical theology, which Rea and Crisp’s Analytic Theology, is one among many stellar examples in this area.

It would seem that viewing religion, and specifically one’s theology, as a source of knowledge about reality, is crucial and perhaps increasingly “permissible” for religious believers working in philosophy, whether on the analytic or continental side of things, regardless if we are talking “secular,” “postsecular,” or “after postsecular” environments. For if what we have is not knowledge of what is real, – indeed, if our beliefs are not rooted in knowledge – what future do we really have as people or as a movement?

EPS Annual Events

November is fast approaching.

There are three great EPS events that you don’t want to miss the week before Thanksgiving, November 17-20th, in Atlanta, Georgia.

1. EPS annual meeting with Alvin Plantinga as our plenary speaker along with dozens of other presenters doing papers in philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and so much more! Register now.

2. EPS annual apologetics conference with Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas and Randy Newman as plenary speakers along with over 20 other great speakers on apologetics and contemporary objections. Take advantage of the discounted pricing before it expires on September 30th.

3. EPS annual session at the Society of Biblical Literature on the topic of “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” with Michael Rea, Paul Copan, Matthew Flannagan, Randal Rauser, and Richard Hess. More info here.

We welcome your participation at any of these events!

Honoring Alvin Plantinga

Many ideas have consequences.

How someone chooses to steward their ideas, influence and care  through institutions, networks of relationships, indeed among friendships, over time can be as consequential, if not more so, than sometimes even the ideas themselves.

Alvin Plantinga’s ideas, and his leadership with those ideas, have been deeply impactful for a whole generation of Christian philosophers. Moreover, his work has also been significantly appropriated by theologians, scientists, historians, psychologists and other Christian scholars working in various disciplines and fields.

“Alvin Plantinga is one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th and early 21st centuries,” says Michael Rea in a recent press release. Rea is a Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame and Director of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion. “His [Plantinga’s] publications range over a wide variety of fields, but his most enduring contributions have been in metaphysics, epistemology, and, especially, the philosophy of religion.”

Besides introducing important arguments into the literature on the philosophy of religion, however, Plantinga has also played an important role in shaping the way in which many religious philosophers now approach topics in their own fields of specialization …

Of all the teachers I had the privilege of learning from at Notre Dame, none seemed more effective in the classroom than Plantinga. Furthermore, Plantinga takes his role as a teacher of graduate students very seriously.

I treasure the time I spent working with him and the friendship that grew out of it, and I know that my experience was not unique. Several friends of mine were and are students of Plantinga’s, and I know that all of them would have very similar things to say about their own experiences….

In light of the recent “Retirement Conference” (May 20-22) at Notre Dame, with deep gratitude the Evangelical Philosophical Society celebrates and honors our friend and colleague, Alvin Plantinga. Below are comments of appreciation that we received from Tom Crisp, Jim Beilby,  Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland,  and Chad Meister.

“This was, for me, a deeply moving conference,” said Tom Crisp, Biola University’s Professor of Philosophy. “Al means an enormous amount to me as a mentor and friend; the chance to be part of the conference, to hear the various tributes to Al (Nick Wolterstorff’s in particular–there wasn’t a dry eye in the house by the time he finished), to thank him, to see so many dear friends–all tremendous blessings.”
Plantinga’s wise, Christian life is especially noted by Crisp:
One quick reminiscence about my time studying under Al. He once shared this (or something close) with a class: “In professional philosophy, you’ll find a sort of hierarchy or totem pole, a pecking order of power and influence. If you find yourself somewhere on that totem pole, my recommendation is that you go out of your way to be generous, kind, and helpful to those below you in the ordering, and that you attempt to be somewhat feisty to those above you.” This bit of advice has always struck me as wise and deeply Christian; I’ve seen Al put it into practice on many occasions.

William Lane Craig, Biola’s Research Professor of Philosophy, recalls something similar as Crisp concerning Plantinga’s character:

One of my first contacts with Alvin Plantinga was at a conference in Dallas in 1985. As a young philosopher, I was eager (though somewhat intimidated) to sit down with him and ask him some questions.  We arranged a time together in a section of the hotel lounge and began to talk. At that point, a woman came to him and said, “Prof. Plantinga, the press is here and asking to interview you.”  I figured that was the end of our conversation.  But to my shock, Plantinga said to her, “Well, tell them to go away!  Tell them I’m doing something more important: I’m talking philosophy.” Those words were burned into my memory. Imagine how I felt:  Alvin Plantinga considered it more important to talk to a nobody like me than be interviewed for an article that thousands would read! It spoke volumes to me of the character of this gracious man, who has over the years been such an inspiration to me.

At that time, Craig was also teaching at Trinity Seminary (Deerfield, IL). One of his students was Paul Copan, who is now the current President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society and Professor and Pledger Family Chairperson of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University.

“I was first exposed to his writings as an M.A. student, when I took an Alvin Plantinga seminar class with Bill Craig in early 1986 at Trinity Seminary,” says Copan.

Al has been a tremendous influence on my thinking ever since.  I am very grateful for his astonishing contribution to the philosophy of religion for the last 45 years and his key role in helping to create a truly historic movement for such a time as this.  Al’s articulation of a robustly Christian outlook, his strength of conviction to resist certain fashionable philosophical trends, and his warm-hearted commitment to Christ and to biblical authority have have encouraged and guided so many of us.  He has truly inspired a generation of Christian philosophers; indeed, we stand on the shoulders of a great warrior for the gospel.  “Blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.”

“Alvin Plantinga is, of course, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century,” says James Beilby, professor of philosophy at Bethel University. “His work has greatly influenced my academic work.  He was the subject of my dissertation and I’ve written or edited two books on aspects of his thought.  But his influence on me long predates my dissertation topic.”

During my senior year of college (1990-91) my faith fell completely apart. My crisis of faith was driven by the death of my football coach and a host of other things.  On my road back to faith, reading Plantinga’s God and Other Minds was a milestone.  Not the content, although that helped — honestly, I’m not sure I understood much more than a tithe of what he was really getting at.  It was Plantinga’s openness to dig deep, to question traditional ways of thinking, his clarity of thought, and his wit and humor that grabbed me.  “Christians can’t be all bad if there are some like this guy out there”, I thought.  Around this time, I wrote Al a letter, thanking him and asking what advice he might give to a young would-be theologian/philosopher.  I never really expected to receive a reply, but I did — promptly, two-and-a-half pages, single-spaced.  In the years since, he has encouraged and influenced me in a number of ways — through shared academic projects, personal conversations, games of disc golf, and showing up to my dissertation defense.

I tell this story not because I think my experience is unique, but because I think that it is not.  Al’s scholarly influence, as impressive as it is, is dwarfed by his personal influence.  Sure … he’s probably the best philosopher of our time.  But he’s a better person.

Congratulations, Al, on your retirement.  You said recently that after your retirement celebration that “I’ll be very happy if I don’t hear anything else about myself for, say, the next 20 years.”  I’m afraid that hearing these sorts of complements is the cross you will have to bear.  They are the fruit of your labors and the sign of your influence on so many.

Biola’s Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, J.P. Moreland, notes that “It is, indeed, hard to overestimate the impact of Plantinga’s life; clearly, his writings and lectures are central to this impact.”

But he has been a role model to an entire generation of younger Christian scholars of excellence, courage, faithfulness to Christ, and humility. I have been especially gratified by his critique of certain forms of physicalism and his defense of substance dualism, along with his identification of it as the Christian view. It has been an honor to be in the battle of ideas with him as our general. 

Surely, “Through Alvin Plantinga’s scholarship and his life, he has been the exemplar philosopher and Christian,” says Chad Meister

He is an inspiration to me and countless others-philosophers, theologians, pastors, and laypersons.  Through his framework-shifting articles and books in metaphysics and epistemology, for example, he reset the discussions and debates among philosophers and theologians.  He provided fresh ways of thinking about evil, free will, naturalism, and divine foreknowledge, to name a few key issues, and my own thinking about these matters has in many ways been structured around his profound insights.  He has demonstrated that being a devoted Christian and being a philosopher are not at odds; in fact, quite the contrary.  I am certain that among future generations he will continue to be regarded as one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.  I thank God for Al and all what he has accomplished in his productive career.
Clearly, an understanding of Alvin Plantinga’s character and spirituality are not to be divorced from an understanding of his scholarly productivity and the sort of intellectual impact that his work continues to make. (To learn more, see Plantinga’s “Spiritual Autobiography”, which was also featured in Kelly James Clark’s edited book, Philosophers Who Believe)

Although retired from Notre Dame, Alvin Plantinga will not be disappearing anytime soon. He is currently working on a book related to philosophy, science and theology, and he will occasionally teach at Calvin College.

We are pleased to have Alvin Plantinga as our EPS plenary speaker for both the annual conference and the apologetics conference in November. Over the years, Philosophia Christi has been privileged to publish Plantinga’s work, along with important discussions of his work, such as our theme issue on his Warranted Christian Belief.

We welcome your further personal appreciations on Plantinga’s life, leadership and work. Please comment below.