Dedicated Lion: February 2013

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Can a Teddy Bear Save Your Child from Hell?

By Timothy Dalrymple
Philosophical Fragments

Listen, brother: If you don’t want your children to roast forever in hell, you should buy this teddy bear from John Hagee ministries.

That was the message of a product commercial that Matthew Paul Turner noted recently on his blog. You’ll have to take my word for it, since the commercial has since vanished from the interwebs. But you can see a basic ad for Barnabas, the Bible Bear, sans John Hagee, here. Barnabas is a “soft, cuddly companion” that quotes nine Bible verses. The video shows a little girl who is sweetly addicted to squeezing all the biblical wisdom out of this poor talking bear.

Since Matthew Paul Turner was snarking about the bear, and since I’m a contrarian, I was prepared to counter-snark. I don’t find the bear “creepy,” as MPT did. But I did find the advertisement strategy rather loathsome. It was just about that stark: You don’t want your kids burning in hell, right? God has made you responsible to deliver them from the hands of Lucifer. Ergo, you should buy this teddy bear, which by the way my son Matthew Hagee helped develop, and which also brings money into John Hagee ministries through our online store. If you don’t buy this bear, then you just may be falling short in your obligation to save your kids from hell. Perhaps the Hagees reconsidered their hellfire-missile marketing strategy and that’s why they removed the video. If so, good for them.

This is all a very, very pointed way of bringing up a question I’ve been mulling recently, and a question I intend to address in a series of posts here in the coming weeks. I’ll frame the question in more nuanced ways as the series goes along. Even now, my savvier readers will find themselves crying out for distinctions. The distinctions will come. But let me start by putting it broadly:

What is the value of Christian culture?

It’s become popular in more fashionable evangelical circles to cheer the demise of American cultural Christendom. Gabe Lyons (whom I like) proclaims “The Good News About the End of Christian America.” The assertion seems to be that the collapse of “Christian America” will clear the way for a more pristine Christian community and confession — one that would, in the words of World Vision’s Richard Stearns, be more “authentic,” more “back to basics.” We could stop fighting over the Ten Commandments at courthouses and manger scenes in city parks, and instead focus on, you know, serving the least of these and living lives in the imitation of Christ. It’s a festival and false dichotomies in a carnival of caricatures, but here’s what Stearns says:

There was a time when Pastor Curry might have worried about things like posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, but today he’s too busy changing the city of Tacoma and world. This is the work Christians are called to do. Christians can stop worrying about the symbols of the decline of Christian America and get back to the mission Jesus gave us to show the world a different way to live — a way that demonstrates the great character of God: his love, his justice, his compassion, his forgiveness and his reconciliation.

It’s at this point that I find the slow bilious burn of skepticism rising up in my throat. Aren’t symbols important? Don’t they remind us of important truths? Don’t they, at least potentially, have a leavening effect upon the culture? And aren’t we talking about more than mere symbols anyway? Aren’t we talking about a whole set of assumptions and ideals about the true, the good and the beautiful? While a cultural hegemony can certainly be abused, and may be gone for good, aren’t there things to be said for a cultural pervasiveness, for sowing seeds of divine truth and goodness and beauty into the culture? ”Christian America” can mean, after all, about a thousand different things.

In my thirty-six years, I’ve lived in/around the San Francisco Bay Area, in Princeton, in Cambridge/Boston and now in Atlanta. I was prepared to find the “Christian culture” of the South off-putting. I expected to find it superficial, artificial, hypocritical. But that’s not really what I found. I’m sure it’s out there. I expected to find lots of plastic-grin men and big-haired women for whom being “Christian” was all about listening to Steven Curtis Chapman, reading Karen Kingsbury and plastering Thomas Kinkade on every wall. Instead I’ve found a lot of people who are deeply earnest about their faith and willing to make dramatic sacrifices for it. And if they have Christian kitsch on the walls it’s because they want to remind themselves of the truths they hold dear.

So I’m left with a question I intend to address in a series of thought experiments here: What value Christian culture? What can we really expect to happen to our society if it’s increasingly uprooted from the classical Judeo-Christian cultural inheritance? What if it would actually be unloving in the extreme to evacuate the culture of Christian symbols, to dilute the pervasiveness of Christian cultural assumptions? Or, to put it more pointedly, while I abhor the way in which Barnabas was advertised, is there a place for Bible Bears?

Listen, brother: If you don’t want your children to roast forever in hell, you should buy this teddy bear from John Hagee ministries.
That was the message of a product commercial that Matthew Paul Turner noted recently on his blog. You’ll have to take my word for it, since the commercial has since vanished from the interwebs. But you can see a basic ad for Barnabas, the Bible Bear, sans John Hagee, here. Barnabas is a “soft, cuddly companion” that quotes nine Bible verses. The video shows a little girl who is sweetly addicted to squeezing all the biblical wisdom out of this poor talking bear.
Since Matthew Paul Turner was snarking about the bear, and since I’m a contrarian, I was prepared to counter-snark. I don’t find the bear “creepy,” as MPT did. But I did find the advertisement strategy rather loathsome. It was just about that stark: You don’t want your kids burning in hell, right? God has made you responsible to deliver them from the hands of Lucifer. Ergo, you should buy this teddy bear, which by the way my son Matthew Hagee helped develop, and which also brings money into John Hagee ministries through our online store. If you don’t buy this bear, then you just may be falling short in your obligation to save your kids from hell. Perhaps the Hagees reconsidered their hellfire-missile marketing strategy and that’s why they removed the video. If so, good for them.
This is all a very, very pointed way of bringing up a question I’ve been mulling recently, and a question I intend to address in a series of posts here in the coming weeks. I’ll frame the question in more nuanced ways as the series goes along. Even now, my savvier readers will find themselves crying out for distinctions. The distinctions will come. But let me start by putting it broadly:
What is the value of Christian culture?
It’s become popular in more fashionable evangelical circles to cheer the demise of American cultural Christendom. Gabe Lyons (whom I like) proclaims “The Good News About the End of Christian America.” The assertion seems to be that the collapse of “Christian America” will clear the way for a more pristine Christian community and confession — one that would, in the words of World Vision’s Richard Stearns, be more “authentic,” more “back to basics.” We could stop fighting over the Ten Commandments at courthouses and manger scenes in city parks, and instead focus on, you know, serving the least of these and living lives in the imitation of Christ. It’s a festival and false dichotomies in a carnival of caricatures, but here’s what Stearns says:

There was a time when Pastor Curry might have worried about things like posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, but today he’s too busy changing the city of Tacoma and world. This is the work Christians are called to do. Christians can stop worrying about the symbols of the decline of Christian America and get back to the mission Jesus gave us to show the world a different way to live — a way that demonstrates the great character of God: his love, his justice, his compassion, his forgiveness and his reconciliation.

It all sounds so patently obvious, doesn’t it? So obvious that you wonder how anyone could possibly disagree. Stop fighting for political power. Stop scrambling to protect the vestigia of Christian culture. Stop worrying so much. (Hey man,) They’re only symbols. Focus on the substance of Jesus’ mission. Just love the world.
It’s at this point that I find the slow bilious burn of skepticism rising up in my throat. Aren’t symbols important? Don’t they remind us of important truths? Don’t they, at least potentially, have a leavening effect upon the culture? And aren’t we talking about more than mere symbols anyway? Aren’t we talking about a whole set of assumptions and ideals about the true, the good and the beautiful? While a cultural hegemony can certainly be abused, and may be gone for good, aren’t there things to be said for a cultural pervasiveness, for sowing seeds of divine truth and goodness and beauty into the culture? ”Christian America” can mean, after all, about a thousand different things.
In my thirty-six years, I’ve lived in/around the San Francisco Bay Area, in Princeton, in Cambridge/Boston and now in Atlanta. I was prepared to find the “Christian culture” of the South off-putting. I expected to find it superficial, artificial, hypocritical. But that’s not really what I found. I’m sure it’s out there. I expected to find lots of plastic-grin men and big-haired women for whom being “Christian” was all about listening to Steven Curtis Chapman, reading Karen Kingsbury and plastering Thomas Kinkade on every wall. Instead I’ve found a lot of people who are deeply earnest about their faith and willing to make dramatic sacrifices for it. And if they have Christian kitsch on the walls it’s because they want to remind themselves of the truths they hold dear.
So I’m left with a question I intend to address in a series of thought experiments here: What value Christian culture? What can we really expect to happen to our society if it’s increasingly uprooted from the classical Judeo-Christian cultural inheritance? What if it would actually be unloving in the extreme to evacuate the culture of Christian symbols, to dilute the pervasiveness of Christian cultural assumptions? Or, to put it more pointedly, while I abhor the way in which Barnabas was advertised, is there a place for Bible Bears?
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/02/26/can-a-teddy-bear-save-your-child-from-hell/#sthash.OebZ9dPk.dpuf

There was a time when Pastor Curry might have worried about things like posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, but today he’s too busy changing the city of Tacoma and world. This is the work Christians are called to do. Christians can stop worrying about the symbols of the decline of Christian America and get back to the mission Jesus gave us to show the world a different way to live — a way that demonstrates the great character of God: his love, his justice, his compassion, his forgiveness and his reconciliation.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Platonism: An Abuser's Guide

By Dave Maier
3 Quarks Daily Blog

In my recent post on Nietzsche I referred to Platonism as "the ancient enemy," and criticized certain kinds of naturalism for not overcoming it, or for even, ultimately, amounting to it themselves. In this post I consider the sense in which a robust anti-Platonism is a philosophical imperative for our post-medieval era.

Let me be clear (as our President likes to say): Plato deserves his exalted place in the philosophical pantheon. He's a terrific writer, and Platonism was a brilliant and timely synthesis of Pythagorean, Parmenidean, and Socratic ideas into the very backbone of European philosophical thought for some 2000 years. And I have nothing against the medieval worldview either, except what is entailed by the simple if as yet poorly understood fact that it's not the 13th century anymore.

But we cannot afford complacency. Modernity is stuck, and while Nietzsche's own construal of the problem as that of "nihilism" in the wake of the "death of God" is in many ways unhelpful, he was spot on in his perception of its urgency. What is right in Platonism must be detached from what is no longer useful in it, or we will never understand the ways in which, by now at least, we have torn ourselves apart. What is no longer useful in Platonism is what I call the "ancient enemy". Our problem is that we can no longer see it for what it is. We see it when it is not there, and look right through it when it is.

Naturally I am taking some interpretive liberties to make my point, which can be made in other ways. In fact one of the difficulties here is that once you get that point, you could perfectly well present it as just as much a victory for Platonism as a defeat. (And that would even be okay, if the point stuck; but for reasons I will try to make clear, that seems most unlikely – so anti-Platonists let us be.) This makes the problem very difficult to state, so please bear with me as I display its difficulty in the most direct way: by struggling.

...

Hardly anybody today admits to being a Platonist. To do so invites the assumption that one subscribes to Plato's most well-known doctrine, the Theory of Forms (or Ideas), which literally no one does anymore. Here's the Philosophy 101 version of that theory. Each particular horse differs in many ways from each other horse; but what they share is that they are all horses. To be a horse is to "participate" (metekhein) in the Form or Idea of Horse, which (here's the weird part) is itself a horse – the perfect Horse, with none of the imperfections of merely physical horses. The Form of Horse is of course identical with itself, which is by definition the closest you can get to Ideal; so it must be a horse too, even more so, if you like, than any of the others. Consider some particular horse, say Secretariat. We think he's a real horse. We can see him, ride him, and so on; what more do you want? Of course he's real. But as Socrates tells it in the Republic, we think this way only because we're stuck in the Cave. We don't encounter the really real with our senses; we grasp it with our minds. Only by abstracting away from individual horses do we uncover the real essence of Horse; that is, do we understand what it is to be a horse in the first place, and see how – while they are indeed horses, due to their participation in the Form – the horses we see and ride are merely pale shadows of reality.

We hear more about this in the part about the Divided Line, which uses triangles as its example. Here Socrates discusses four levels of reality: images of physical figures, the physical figures themselves, individual abstract triangles, and at the top, the Form of Triangle. The Line makes it clearer that the physical/sensual vs. mental/intellectual distinction is only one aspect of the problem, the central distinction being that between universals (or essences) and particulars (or individuals). Naturally we can't see essences; but even when we get into the mind, and consider, say, a 30-60-90 triangle, we are still talking about a particular (type of) triangle.

Once you get on this train it's hard to stop. Plato continues his story by telling us what happens outside the cave, where we are blinded by the Sun. In other words, even the philosopher's mind, only newly freed from the Cave, cannot grasp the ultimate reality. If to be a particular sort of thing is to participate in the Form of that thing, then since the Form of X is the perfect, abstract X, then the Form of Forms is Perfection itself, or the Good.

So construed, the regress stops there. Perfection = the Ideal in every sense: the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. But their (its) very perfection puts this rarified level of reality beyond our grasp, surrounded as even philosophers are with merely particular, individual things (even abstract ones like triangles). Yet it is in that direction that we must direct our every effort: in reasoning, in acting, in being. Not to do this would be to deny our very nature as human beings (= rational animals) and return to the level of beasts.

It's a powerful picture, not least because it's so relentlessly consistent. All the arrows point in the same direction: up. (We laugh at Duck Dodgers's announcement that he will start his trip to Planet X by going "33,600 turbo-miles due Up" thanks only to our post-Copernican perspective on such matters.) And we surely recognize the relentless, dispiriting force of earthly gravity, so to speak, pulling us away from what we naturally think of as our better, higher selves – or at least the effects of same on others. It's a struggle to be rational, to be good, to be … well, not beautiful, but either to create beauty oneself or to find really timeless beauty among merely superficially sensuous pleasures. What should one strive for if not an ideal?

Still, that bit about the Forms sounds funny. Even after hearing about the Cave, it's hard to think of that horse right there as being less real than some abstract-but-real Horse cantering about in Plato's Heaven with the Form of Triangle and whatnot. This is why (on the standard story) we see in Raphael's famous allegorical painting The School of Athens (above) that while Plato points up, Aristotle is either (depending on whom you ask) pointing down or making a horizontal gesture, in either case supposedly indicating his contrasting emphasis on the particular things of our world over the Forms of another.

In fact, Aristotle is often thought to have refuted Plato's theory via what is called the "Third Man" argument (no time to explain; must press on – but see here for a compressed version). So what's the problem? Why worry about Platonism today?

...

The enduring strength of the Platonic picture comes from its truth. Following Parmenides, Platonism rightly separates what we have subsequently come to understand as the conceptual truths of logic and mathematics from those of ordinary empirical inquiry. Yet this insight was just as fragile as it was important. The gap between the two realms needed to be propped open for the proper approach to each, and their relation, to become clear. Without this, modernity's signature achievements (most obviously, the "scientific method" of modern science) could never have happened. Plato's expedient was the idea of a "transcendent" reality, higher than, and yet informing, our own.

As we've seen, it worked. But the means to that success – the idea of ontological transcendence, with all the accreted cultural baggage of two millennia – has taken on a life of its own in the interim and will not leave the stage (workshop, whatever). And neither empirical science nor its child the Enlightenment can achieve the proper distance from it to push it off. Think about it: Enlightenment discourse is chock full of universal truths, eternal values, and the formal perfection of mathematics and logic – and why not? In the sense in which we moderns are children of the Enlightenment, we want to keep those things around. But we cannot find a way to do so and cut the Platonistic cord to the pre-modern era and thereby fulfill the promise of modernity.

But what alternative could there be? Surely "post-modernism" is a cruel joke; and indeed contemporary pre-moderns point to that sorry spectacle as modernism's self-contradictory heresies come home to roost – the inevitable result of cutting oneself off, in the name of "progress", from the source of Being in the Platonic logos. We can't adjudicate that little spat here; but it does point to a characteristic dilemma, a Gordian knot we cannot simply cut with a single stroke.

The anti-Platonist must walk a very fine line. If your criticism isn't fundamental enough, you simply swap one version of Platonism for another. This is what Aristotle did, which is why the medieval version of what I (if not they) call Platonism is fundamentally Aristotelian. But in order to get at the real problem – to pull the weed out by the roots, as you would thereby see yourself as doing – you concede the very ideas at issue. This is why the best "post-modernism" can do, once it has conceded a fundamental distinction between (let's say) order and chaos, is to come down boldly on the side of chaos rather than order. This approach too has its merits, I must concede; but it tends to smack of desperation (or worse), and – perhaps by design, not that that helps – has little staying power.

...

A better strategy is to give up on the single decisive stroke and to play the long game, even given, or perhaps because of, the high stakes. We can't pull up the big weed all at once, but we can pull up one little weed after another, and say, each time, "see, here's another one", carving out an anti-Platonistic practice an inch at a time. But to do this we must decide: what, finally, is the problem with Platonism, and when and how should we object to it? It's all very well for philosophers to reject Plato's "transcendent" reality, but what does that mean for our actual practice of weed-pulling? Argh: see how it works? Even in vowing to avoid the Platonistic pull toward abstraction, we find ourselves bound to generalize. All we can do here is to remind ourselves that generalization itself is not the problem, and press on.

Remember what I said above about Platonism's strength: all the arrows point in the same direction, giving it the tremendous internal coherence necessary for the very real intellectual advances of Athenian philosophy to take hold. This is where we will find its characteristic flaw. Consider an artificially pure example to get the sense of it. Your basic pre-modern Platonist, whether contemporary or historical, assimilates all phenomena to his hierarchical model (Ideal at the top, toward which all things aspire in their way; humans caught in the middle, struggling to swim; merely physical nature pulling us down). Reason is pure contemplation of the eternal; empirical observation depends on the here-and-now. Real morality is a reflection of the good-in-itself, not utilitarian expedience. Happiness itself extends beyond mere physical health [notice how easy it is to run truisms together with tendentious metaphysics] toward spiritual communion with (again) the eternal. Real beauty too is eternal, and true art an attempt to capture it or at least point us toward it, while contemporary fads, whether empty conceptual games or decadent wallowing in mere sensuality, pull us down toward the material world and our animal nature.

And so on. We moderns may (or may not) regard those particular attitudes as outdated, and I have used the appropriate language to suggest this; but it is the pattern that we are concerned with here. (Again, our paradoxical lesson: to overcome Platonism we must knowingly risk it in ourselves – compare Nietzsche's complex and ambivalent attitude toward the "will to truth".) It's not so much that each point here is false, but instead that they are basically thought to be ultimately the same one: up toward transcendence. Indeed, this lesson itself is that same point again: up toward Up. In seeing it we take another step into the light, letting our blinking eyes adjust to it as we ascend toward the Sun.

It is this conceptual conflation – not so much the horizontal conflation of truth and goodness and beauty, but the vertical one, e.g. of truth with Truth – at which we may point our figurative weed-killers. This can take some real work, not least because to the extent that we allow our preconceived idea of the target – here, a tendency toward conflation, against which we must deploy an ability to make proper distinctions – to dictate our procedure, we allow it to slip our net. For what seems a conflation in one case is manifested in another as an untenable conceptual dualism. (And, as we might expect by now, vice versa.)

Not incidentally, in allowing our preconceptions, however necessary, to dictate our method of combating Platonism, we once again succumb to Platonism itself. Platonism tells philosophers to use right reason to arrive at stable doctrine – to describe the world rightly, the way it really is, not simply how it appears or how we would like it to be. If we once get things right, philosophically speaking, our doctrine will be ideally stable, as the eternal verities are called just that for a reason: they don't change. Surely we can't decide that things are one way and then switch to another way of talking when we feel like it – that's what sophists do, which it was the whole point of Socrates's early philosophy to reject.

In other words, our resistance to these conflations could – to the extent that we thought of our criticisms as true, or of ourselves as acting rightly, philosophically speaking, even in the absence of doctrine – be spun not as a rejection of Platonism, but as an affirmation of truth qua Truth. And yet that Platonism always buries its detractors in this way – that at the end of every skeptical road the dogmatist lies waiting to package up the result into a shiny new doctrine – is the very reason we must ultimately reject it, if we are to stand, as the first moderns demanded we do, on our own feet. This, not subjection to "transcendent ideals", is what it is to be the rational animal.

-----

And so we have barely begun. (I told you we might have to play the long game.) For next time consider this. We know – we know – that skepticism is false. We have plenty of knowledge. But at least skepticism gives us the leverage to hold truth at arm's length – neither too near nor too far. In one sense this is why it is false: even in its most defensible forms, it is inconsistent in the way that relativism is (which is why we might start there sometime instead). But it also creates a space to plot our next move.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga Receives Prestigious Rescher Prize

By David J. Theroux
The Independent Institute

The world-renowned philosopher Alvin C. Plantinga has recently received the prestigious Nicholas Rescher Prize for Contributions to Systematic Philosophy, awarded by the University of Pittsburgh’s Departments of Philosophy, History, and Philosophy of Science, and the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science. Plantinga is widely known for his work in the philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics and Christian apologetics, and he has revolutionized scholarly interest in Christian theism, shown naturalism/atheism to be self-refuting and incoherent, and set the new standards for the defense of free will, individual agency, consciousness, rational inference, science, objective truth and morality, and more. As a result, Plantinga has both directly influenced the entire field of philosophy and has mentored and inspired new generations of top scholars who are critiquing the reductionism, relativism, materialism, collectivism, scientism, positivism, determinism, and de-humanization of the modern era. In short, Plantinga has devastated the prevailing view in Western elites that human beings are merely “matter in motion” (i.e., purposeless, accidental, robotic products of a closed, natural world ruled solely by physical laws and that truth, reason, morality, and God are illusions).

Plantinga is the inaugural holder of the Jellema Chair in Philosophy at Calvin College, the John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Center on Culture and Civil Society at the Independent Institute. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale University, he has served as President of the American Philosophical Association (Western Division) and Society of Christian Philosophers, and he has delivered the Gifford Lectures in Scotland three times.

Plantinga’s work is of immense importance to all thinking in epistemology, ethics and economics, especially regarding individual action, entrepreneurship, free markets, civic virtue, and the rule of law. Plantinga has shown that those scholars who attempt to ground reality in naturalism are not just pursuing a futile quest leading to determinism and nihilism but are embracing views that defeat their very intellectual enterprise, including science itself. Unfortunately, many superb classical liberal and libertarian scholars remain unaware of Plantinga’s work and are oblivious of the profound weaknesses in their naturalistic assumptions. In this regard, I authored an earlier, preliminary paper, “Economic Science and the Poverty of Naturalism,” that discusses this dilemma and the crucial value of the critiques of metaphysical naturalism by both C.S. Lewis and Plantinga, especially as this is relevant to the corpus of economic reasoning in the Austrian School, Public Choice and other traditions within what Peter Boettke describes as “mainline economics” in his new Independent Institute book, Living Economics.

For example, Plantinga’s “evolutionary argument against naturalism” brilliantly argues that if evolution is true, it is an epistemic defeater for naturalism, leaving naturalism in ruin. The influential philosopher Thomas Nagel agrees and utilizes Plantinga’s work in his recent book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford University Press). Nagel also recently and favorably reviewed Plantinga’s newest book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University Press), in the New York Review of Books.

Similarly, Plantinga developed the “Modal Ontological Argument” for the existence of God, drawing on the work of St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century but correcting the argument using modal logic in a more rigorous, formal, and irrefutable way. Here is a video discussion of Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Argument and a further video that refutes objections. Here, here and here are videos that further discuss the argument.

In his book God, Freedom, and Evil (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), Plantinga’s essay “The Free Will Defense,” with its implicit libertarianism, is accepted today by most philosophers who have come to see the “problem of evil” as having been sufficiently rebutted and showing that free will is necessarily true. Here is a video discussing Plantinga’s argument.

In the following, pioneering trilogy of books, Plantinga has famously argued that “warrant” (something held to be true) cannot exist in naturalistic epistemology and that for all warrant, theism must be true:

Warrant: the Current Debate (Oxford University Press)
Warrant and Proper Function (Oxford University Press)
Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press)

Other key books of Plantinga’s work include the following:

The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader (edited by James F. Sennett)
Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy
Does God Have a Nature?
Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality (edited by Matthew Davidson)
Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (edited with Nicholas Wolterstorff)
God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God
Knowledge of God (with Michael Tooley)
The Nature of Necessity
The Ontological Argument: From St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers (editor)
Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? (with Daniel C. Dennett)

The Rescher Prize is named after the distinguished philosopher Nicholas Rescher, University Professor of Philosophy and former Director of the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh. Rescher is a member of the Board of Advisors for both the Independent Institute’s Center on Culture and Civil Society and quarterly journal, The Independent Review, and he authored the foreword to the Institute’s book by Tibor Machan, Private Rights, Public Illusions. Rescher is founder of the highly influential journal, American Philosophical Quarterly, and he is former President of the American Philosophical Association, American Catholic Philosophy Association, American G. W. Leibniz Society, C. S. Peirce Society, and American Metaphysical Society.

Here are some of the videos of Plantinga from the PBS series, “Closer to Truth: Cosmos, Consciousness, God”:

“Does God Have a Nature?”
“What Is a Properly Basic Belief?”
“Is the Person All Material?”
“Is the Soul Immortal?”
“What are Possible Worlds?” Part 1, Part 2
“Is God Necessary?”
“What Are Some Defeaters for Theism?”
“How Can an Immaterial God Interact with the Physical Universe?”
“Can God Change?”
“Does Philosophy Illuminate Religion?” Part 1, Part 2
“Is This the Best of All Possible Worlds?”
“Atheist’s Arguments Against the Existence of God”
“Can Many Religions All Be True?”
“Does Evil Disprove God?” Part 1, Part 2

Here also are sample articles by Plantinga:

Dedicated Lion