Scan barcode
nurullahdogan's review
4.0
First of all, I am proud to say that I understood %85 of the book, the arguments and the premises Alvin Plantinga presented, defended or refuted. He is a genius and I now see and am very glad to get to know why he is a very respected scholar who is quoted a lot when it comes to Natural Theology, arguments for GOD's existence, the problem of evil etc.
Reading "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig at the same time(didn't finish that one yet) was also interesting because I could see where and what exactly Craig was influenced by.
For the %15 part I missed, I want to reread it at some point in my life. (Probably next year.) I just really couldn't digest it all... At some point, I thought my brain was going to be fried... That is why I didn't give it 5 stars, but let's see if that will change when I read it again.
Reading "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig at the same time(didn't finish that one yet) was also interesting because I could see where and what exactly Craig was influenced by.
For the %15 part I missed, I want to reread it at some point in my life. (Probably next year.) I just really couldn't digest it all... At some point, I thought my brain was going to be fried... That is why I didn't give it 5 stars, but let's see if that will change when I read it again.
josiahdegraaf's review
4.0
This was a good short-yet-complex philosophical work to read through over a weekend. Plantinga is rather brilliant and that's very much on display here in this work. Whether I agreed with him or not, the book was rather intellectually stimulating.
There were two parts to this book: one part dealing with the problem of evil, another part dealing with various proofs for God. I found it interesting how, despite being most well-known for his contribution to Reformed epistemology and being sometimes labeled as a Reformed philosopher, his defense to the problem of evil is decidedly not Reformed and is much more molinist in its presentation of human free will and divine sovereignty. It's a rigorous defense of molinist thought against the problem of evil... but it's one I found less helpful as someone who isn't a molinist myself.
His arguments about the various proofs for God were likewise rigorous but unhelpful in my opinion. He doesn't believe either the cosmological or the teleological arguments actually held up to scrutiny. I somewhat agree on the teleological argument, but in both cases I felt like he was arguing against weak versions of these arguments rather than the strongest versions of those cases. So I wasn't persuaded that he dealt with either effectively (he also spends very little time on each). I also found it quite fascinating that he finds the ontological argument (generally seen as one of the weakest argument) to be most convincing and ended up kind-of holding to a version of that argument. IMO, his ontological argument falls prey to the problems with the ontological argument in general, and I didn't find his solution satisfying.
On the whole, I agreed with very little in this book, but my mind was sharpened by reading it, and I was glad I did so.
Rating: 4 Stars (Very Good).
There were two parts to this book: one part dealing with the problem of evil, another part dealing with various proofs for God. I found it interesting how, despite being most well-known for his contribution to Reformed epistemology and being sometimes labeled as a Reformed philosopher, his defense to the problem of evil is decidedly not Reformed and is much more molinist in its presentation of human free will and divine sovereignty. It's a rigorous defense of molinist thought against the problem of evil... but it's one I found less helpful as someone who isn't a molinist myself.
His arguments about the various proofs for God were likewise rigorous but unhelpful in my opinion. He doesn't believe either the cosmological or the teleological arguments actually held up to scrutiny. I somewhat agree on the teleological argument, but in both cases I felt like he was arguing against weak versions of these arguments rather than the strongest versions of those cases. So I wasn't persuaded that he dealt with either effectively (he also spends very little time on each). I also found it quite fascinating that he finds the ontological argument (generally seen as one of the weakest argument) to be most convincing and ended up kind-of holding to a version of that argument. IMO, his ontological argument falls prey to the problems with the ontological argument in general, and I didn't find his solution satisfying.
On the whole, I agreed with very little in this book, but my mind was sharpened by reading it, and I was glad I did so.
Rating: 4 Stars (Very Good).
arileah's review
5.0
Though I am an atheist, Plantinga has convinced me that belief in God can be, at the very least, considered rational. I once often quoted John Mackie's logical problem of evil to my theistic peers as to why I could not believe in God, but Plantinga has made an incredible case for the consistency of omnibenevolence with the existence of evil in his Free Will Defense. Though I do not think this has solved the problem of evil, it has certainly buried Mackie's argument. Furthermore, Plantinga's Ontological Argument for the existence of God using modal logic made me seriously reconsider my atheism. Though I do have some strong objections to this argument (strong enough to remain atheist) I certainly respect it. I would highly recommend this book to theists and atheists alike.
condorhanson's review
4.0
Plantinga is candid with his logical proofs; he’s not afraid to follow them through. He is also very honest and straightforward about what this logical argument does and doesn’t do. It is not meant to help people in the midst of suffering.
The first half of the book is “natural atheology,” or engaging arguments against God. Plantinga argues against J.L. Mackie, who argued religious belief is irrational because it leads the theist to a contradiction due to the beliefs a theist holds. Plantinga argues (convincingly, I think) the contrary: there is no contradiction. However, this is not theodicy proper (an actual reason why God allows evil and suffering) but merely a defense (a possible reason God allows evil and suffering). Again, Plantinga is candid and tight with his logic. It really is a great example of honest analytic philosophy at work.
The second half of the book is on “natural theology,” or how we can show that God exists through argument/logic accessible to anyone (religious believer or not). He engages the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments, concluding only the last has a chance of being successful (again very honest about all this considering he is a Christian). He engages the ontological argument thoroughly, both its original form from St. Anselm as well as criticisms from Guanilo, Kant, and contemporary philosophers. He ultimately reformulates his own modal version (modal logic) which is really cool to see him develop in real time.
Ultimately, he says these arguments don’t bring anyone to faith, and I agree. Nonetheless, his constant engagement with others and himself models an openness, charity, and honesty worthy of imitation within discussions of evil and natural theology. One must respect the limits of this form of argumentation, and Plantinga is the epitome of this.
The first half of the book is “natural atheology,” or engaging arguments against God. Plantinga argues against J.L. Mackie, who argued religious belief is irrational because it leads the theist to a contradiction due to the beliefs a theist holds. Plantinga argues (convincingly, I think) the contrary: there is no contradiction. However, this is not theodicy proper (an actual reason why God allows evil and suffering) but merely a defense (a possible reason God allows evil and suffering). Again, Plantinga is candid and tight with his logic. It really is a great example of honest analytic philosophy at work.
The second half of the book is on “natural theology,” or how we can show that God exists through argument/logic accessible to anyone (religious believer or not). He engages the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments, concluding only the last has a chance of being successful (again very honest about all this considering he is a Christian). He engages the ontological argument thoroughly, both its original form from St. Anselm as well as criticisms from Guanilo, Kant, and contemporary philosophers. He ultimately reformulates his own modal version (modal logic) which is really cool to see him develop in real time.
Ultimately, he says these arguments don’t bring anyone to faith, and I agree. Nonetheless, his constant engagement with others and himself models an openness, charity, and honesty worthy of imitation within discussions of evil and natural theology. One must respect the limits of this form of argumentation, and Plantinga is the epitome of this.
More...