200+ Living Philosophers of Religion and Their Best Work

by Luke Muehlhauser on April 25, 2009 in Buddhism,Christian Theology,General Atheism,Islam,Resources


(last updated 06/06/2010; current count is 248 philosophers)

To give you a brief sketch of contemporary philosophy of religion, here’s a list of 200+ living philosophers of religion who publish in English, along with a few of their most significant books/papers in philosophy of religion. (I’ve listed a few people who aren’t philosophers of religion but who have published at least one influential work in the field – e.g. Jaakko Hintikka, John Earman, Robert Kane, etc.)

The list is not interested in philosophers of religion who only publish work on what earlier philosophers have said. Finally, I must note this is technically a list of philosophers of religion who were alive as of the date this post was first published: 04/25/2009. As philosophers who were living at that time die off, I’m not going to remove them from this list.

In compiling this list, I noticed that the philosophy of religion appears to be dominated by theists (in the English world, anyway). I guess that is not surprising. After all, if there was such a thing as the “philosophy of werewolves,” one would not expect many of us werewolf disbelievers to bother gaining expertise in disproving werewolves. We’ve got better things to do with our time. In contrast, hundreds of academic theists believe it is their God-given cosmic purpose to clarify and defend theism from the world of professional philosophy.

Also see Prosblogion’s Most Important Philosophy of Religion Articles (many of them are linked to the PDF, below).

I will keep this list updated, so please comment with corrections and suggestions. My labels of each philosopher’s personal beliefs are mostly guesses, so please correct me if I’m wrong!

letters a

letters b

letters c

letters d

letters f

letters g

letters h

letters i

letters j

letters k

letters l

letters m

letters n

letters o

letters p

letters r

letters s

letters t

letters v

letters w

Please remember to comment with additions and corrections. If you can send me a PDF of any articles not linked above, send it to:

“lukeprog [at] gmail [dot] com”

Updates since January 2010

  • 01/22/2010 added Stephen R.L. Clark
  • 01/31/2010 added Philip Clayton
  • 01/31/2010 added Vincent Brümmer
  • 01/31/2010 added Elizabeth Burns
  • 01/31/2010 added Robert Fogelin
  • 01/31/2010 added Phillip Wiebe
  • 02/03/2010 added Katherin Rogers
  • 02/05/2010 added Stephen Cahn
  • 02/05/2010 added Stephen Grover
  • 02/05/2010 added James Muyskens
  • 02/05/2010 added Gary Gutting
  • 02/08/2010 added David McNaughton
  • 02/08/2010 added Derk Pereboom
  • 02/10/2010 added Christine Overall
  • 02/10/2010 added Louise Antony
  • 02/12/2010 added Elliot Sober
  • 02/12/2010 added Frances Howard-Snyder
  • 02/17/2010 added Michael Ruse
  • 02/21/2010 added Todd Long
  • 02/21/2010 added Richard Feldman
  • 02/21/2010 added Robert McKim
  • 02/21/2010 added Robert Neville
  • 02/21/2010 added J. William Forgie
  • 02/21/2010 added Bernard Katz
  • 02/23/2010 added Peter Horban
  • 02/23/2010 added Louis Dupré
  • 03/06/2010 added Aleksandar Santrac
  • 03/06/2010 added Mikael Stenmark
  • 03/15/2010 added Mark Johnston
  • 03/20/2010 added Shane Andre
  • 03/28/2010 added Robert Lovering
  • 04/02/2010 added Thomas Crisp
  • 04/02/2010 added Joshua Rasmussen
  • 04/02/2010 added Erik Baldwin
  • 04/02/2010 added Doug Geivett
  • 04/02/2010 added Ted Warfield
  • 04/02/2010 added John Martin Fischer
  • 04/02/2010 added David Basinger
  • 04/02/2010 added Tomas Kapitan
  • 04/03/2010 added Gary Rosenkrantz
  • 04/03/2010 added David Hunt
  • 04/03/2010 added Kelly James Clark
  • 04/03/2010 added Hugh McCann
  • 04/03/2010 added Anna Marmodoro
  • 04/03/2010 added Charles Seymour
  • 04/03/2010 added Jerry Walls
  • 04/06/2010 added Trent Dougherty
  • 04/15/2010 added Stephen Wykstra
  • 04/17/2010 added Jean Beaudoin
  • 05/19/2010 added Ken Perszyk
  • 05/22/2010 added Peter Vardy
  • 06/06/2010 added Stephen Mulhall

  1. Flew was an atheist for most of his academic career, but recently became a deist. []
  2. Quentin described his views to me like this: “According to established meaning of ‘atheism’, I am an atheist. But I have also called myself a practitioner of ‘explanatory atheism’ (I try to explain why the universe exists using only atheistic principles). I am in search of an ‘ultimate reality’ that does not fit any conventional religious model or even the meaning of the word “religion” in our culture. I am in search of an atheistic ‘One’ or ‘Supreme Being’ that is a naturalistic replacement for religion and supernatural beings, but which is not itself a new type of religious reality.” []

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 178 comments… read them below or add one }

Reginald Selkirk April 25, 2009 at 9:24 am

Alvin Plantinga: Finding bold new ways to hide the question-begging.


Stanley April 25, 2009 at 10:03 am

I notice that there are very few women amongst this list of philosophers of religion. My wife suggests that this is because men are mostly concerned with feathering their own nest, pontificating about their opinions, and generally furthering their own dominance of the academic world. Just as I treat adverts on the TV (i.e. I do not buy anything I see advertised) I would only listen to a female philosopher of religion!


Lorkas April 25, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Interesting, since women are, on average, more religious than men.


Andrew Atkinson April 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm

WoW what a list.  Off the top of my head I would add 
1.Comparison of Judeo-Christian Theism and Philosophical Naturalism As Explanatory Worldviews (Dec 30, 2007) by Jason A. Beyer and Paul K. Moser


lukeprog April 25, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Added, thanks.


toweltowel April 25, 2009 at 4:14 pm

To be fair to philosophy of religion, there are relatively few women in philosophy generally. Here‘s some commentary (a pdf) by Sally Haslanger on the unwelcoming and unfair conditions faced by women in philosophy.


toweltowel April 25, 2009 at 4:24 pm

A few names that occur to me:

Stephen Maitzen, Michael J. Murray, Yujin Nagasawa, Philip L. Quinn, Edward Wierenga


lukeprog April 25, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Maitzen is on there. Dunno how I missed Wierenga and Murray. Quinn died in 2004. I’d never heard of Nagasawa.


toweltowel April 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Also: John Hare, Klaas J. Kraay


toweltowel April 25, 2009 at 4:55 pm

Oh, and is Wainwright now an atheist, or is that a typo?


lukeprog April 25, 2009 at 5:29 pm

Wainwright fixed, others added, along with a few more I found. Thanks again for the additions.

I love the young guys; they put all their articles online!


Danny April 25, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Looking through my copies of Philo, I find quite a few more philosophers on religion: Paul Kurtz, Charles Echelbarger, Theodore Schick, Glenn Branch, Arnold T. Guminski, Aaron Holland, Matt McCormick (he even has a blog!), Owen McLeod, Stephen T. Davis, Mark Vuletic, Peter Byrne, Jeffrey Lowder, Timothy Madigan, etc. I’m sure there are more philosophers who’ve published in that journal.


lukeprog April 25, 2009 at 7:23 pm


Thanks for the list. Obviously, there are hundreds of philosophers of religion I haven’t listed yet.

I couldn’t find a list of peer-reviewed work by Kurtz, do you know if there is a list online?

I don’t see many publications on religion by Echelbarger or Vuletic. Byrne is already on the list. For some of these (Branch, Holland…), I can only find a single article on philosophy of religion in a peer-reviewed journal.


Danny April 25, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Well, they have published works in Philo, the journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers. As for Kurtz, he has published books and articles advancing humanist philosophy, which may or may not be peer reviewed.


Pablo Stafforini April 26, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Adolf Grünbaum (atheist, retired)

I second the suggestion to add Paul Kurtz to the list.


exrelayman April 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Wow! No Robert Price? Maybe I don’t know what religious philosophy is.


lukeprog April 26, 2009 at 1:30 pm

Pablo Stafforini,

I’ve added Grunbaum now, thanks. To add Kurtz, I would need some suggestions as to the significant academic papers he has written about atheism. I can’t find a bibliography for him.

Pablo, I see you organized a study group on Parfit. I haven’t gotten to Parfit yet, but he’s definitely on my reading list. It sounds like he’s offered several criticisms of desire-based theories of morality that would be relevant to my “defense” of desire utilitarianism. Do you have any thoughts on that?


lukeprog April 26, 2009 at 1:32 pm


No, I don’t think you do know what philosophy of religion is. But fear not! For I have written an introduction to philosophy of religion.

Robert Price works and publishes in the field of Biblical criticism, not philosophy of religion.


UNRR April 27, 2009 at 2:55 am

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 4/27/2009, at <a href=”http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/”>The Unreligious Right</a>


Stanley April 27, 2009 at 4:46 am

Searching for one or two more women, I suggest Karen Armstrong and Mary Midgley? This is a very interesting and useful  list, thank you!

Also, how about John Polkinghorne?


Ibn Abu Talib April 27, 2009 at 4:55 am

Wow! Most of these theist philosophers of religion are Christians! I think you should include the names of such savants as Ismail Raji Al Faruqi and Mohammad Iqbal as well.


lukeprog April 27, 2009 at 6:42 am


Karen Armstrong is a historian of comparative religion, not a philosopher of religion. Midgley is a moral philosopher; I’ll have to look and see if she’s written much about philosophy of religion. Polkinghorne is a borderline philosopher of religion; I’ll consider adding him.


lukeprog April 27, 2009 at 6:42 am

Ibn Abu Talib,

Thanks. I’ll look into those two and consider adding them.


lukeprog April 28, 2009 at 8:30 am

Ibn Abu Talib,

Both of those Muslim philosophers are dead. This is a list of LIVING philosophers of religion.


Matt April 29, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Three theist philosophers of religion in the contential vein: Jean-Luc Marion (U Chicago), James K. A. Smith (Calvin), William Desmond (KU Leuven). Two atheists: Jean-Luc Nancy (Strasbourg, I think), Giorgio Agamben (Turin; he does a lot of work at the intersection of political philosophy and religion/theology).


lukeprog April 29, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Thanks, Matt. Unfortunately for the two atheists, it does not appear they publish much of anything in English, though some of their work has been translated.


Eric April 30, 2009 at 6:49 pm

John Haldane (University of St Andrews) definitely belongs on this list. Stephen Law (Heythrop College) would be a nice addition to the atheists, too.


Eric April 30, 2009 at 6:56 pm

Oh, and Ralph McInerny and Ed Feser.


Nathaniel April 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Unless something has changed very recently, Brian Pitts (whom you list as James Pitts) is a theist, not an atheist.

For Neil Manson, you should probably list God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science.


lukeprog April 30, 2009 at 7:15 pm

Nathaniel and Eric, thanks again for your corrections and contributions.


Matt April 30, 2009 at 7:40 pm

Nancey Murphy


Andrei Buckareff May 1, 2009 at 4:52 am

John Bishop from Auckland should be added.  He’s a theist.  But he’s a non-classical theist and a reconciliatory naturalist (there are a few of us theists who actually reject supernaturalism–but we are a minority among analytic philosophers of religion).  Also, for a living Islamic philosopher of religion (who also rejects classical theism), you should list Imran Aijaz (also at Auckland).


smrdina May 1, 2009 at 8:35 am

I think Nick Trakakis is a theist.


Timothy May 1, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Just curious, what’s your source for calling Yujin Nagasawa a theist?   I’m not saying he’s not, I’ve just been trying to find out information about his religious background.


lukeprog May 1, 2009 at 7:10 pm

Thanks, Andrei! Two very interesting additions.


lukeprog May 1, 2009 at 7:13 pm


Oops! Fixed.


lukeprog May 1, 2009 at 7:21 pm

Timothy: what’s your source for calling Yujin Nagasawa a theist?

I don’t know. A look at his CV doesn’t give me any clues. Anybody know?


Haecceitas May 2, 2009 at 9:23 am

Chad Meister and Jay Wesley Richards coud be added. Doug Groothuis might qualify as well?

Not sure if Stenger and Carrier should be listed. I know that Carrier likes to call himself a philosopher, but I don’t think that he has a degree in philosophy. Stenger seems to have held (perhaps still does) the title “adjunct professor of philosophy”, but I’m not aware of him having a philosophy degree either. Perhaps I’m mistaken on this?


Haecceitas May 2, 2009 at 9:28 am

Also, Thomas V. Morris should be on the list.


lukeprog May 2, 2009 at 9:34 am

Hilarious internet nickname, Haecceitas. :)

Thanks for your recommendations.

A philosophy degree is not required to make the list. Stenger and Carrier have published several articles that are taken seriously by the philosophical community, and have published in peer-reviewed philosophy of religion journals like Philo.

I don’t really see any top-level academic publications by Meister. I see an intro text, some edited (but not written) books, and a book review.


Haecceitas May 2, 2009 at 9:40 am

Sorry about dropping the names in separate posts, but a few others came to mind.

Austin Dacey

Bede Rundle

Anthony Kenny


Haecceitas May 2, 2009 at 9:43 am

Btw, the list seems to be polarized between theist and atheist philosophers. There might be some pantheists that are being left out. Wouldn’t John Leslie be one of them?


lukeprog May 2, 2009 at 10:25 am

Yeah, I’ve been meaning to make the “belief labels” more specific. Dacey doesn’t seem to have published much academic work in philosophy of religion yet.


Andrei Buckareff May 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm

John Leslie, while a pantheist, is a Christian.  There are some philosophers of religion who describe themselves as Christian but are pantheists or panentheists.  Leslie is one.  John Bishop is another.  There are more.  But who is counting heads?  I count myself among such heretics.


Eric May 3, 2009 at 5:26 pm

What about  John Joseph Haldane,  University of St Andrews? Michael Novak and Michael Dummett  would also be fine additions. Perhaps Peter Kreeft, too?


lukeprog May 3, 2009 at 6:35 pm

I can’t find any work in philosophy of religion by Michael Dummett. I’m also having a hard time tracking down the academic work of Peter Kreeft; it is overwhelmed by his popular work. I’ll add the others.


Pete May 7, 2009 at 12:37 pm

I would definitely put David Lewis (atheist) on the list. Admittedly, his main area is not philosophy of religion, but
(a) he’s one of the greatest philosophers ever, and
(b) his essay “evil for freedom’s sake?” is a true classic, and “divine evile” is pretty interesting as well.

(Oh yeah, he’s no longer alive… Maybe that explains the omission.)

Another thing (slightly off topic): I’m anxious to read your review of the Craig-Kagan debate. The first debate I have seen that (in my opinion) Craig clearly lost… Kagan is *killing* him in the Q&A part :-)

Besides, I really enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work!


Facilis May 8, 2009 at 12:36 am

Where are Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew?


Damien May 8, 2009 at 11:40 am

I think William J. Abraham (Southern Methodist University) deserves a mention.

Crossing the Threshold of Divine Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); The Logic of Evangelism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), The Rationality of Religious Belief, edited with Steven W. Holtzer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987); Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1985)


BCAB May 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm

J.R. Lucas should probably be on the list. He’s published a number of articles and a book on omniscience and foreknowledge (‘The Future’, published by Basil Blackwell in 1989), a book of essays on philosophical theology (‘Freedom and Grace’, Basil Blackwell, 1971), and has defended a particular version of the ontological argument in a variety of different places. Here is his website, where most of his articles are available for download and there is a comprehensive bibliography: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/

And yes, he is still alive.


BCAB May 8, 2009 at 3:54 pm

I forgot to mention: Lucas is currently retired, but taught at Merton College, Oxford.


lukeprog May 8, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Facilis: Where are Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew?

Habermas is not a philosopher. Flew is on there.


lukeprog May 8, 2009 at 9:06 pm


Added, thanks!


BCAB May 8, 2009 at 11:02 pm

No worries.

And one more thing: you have Anthony Kenny labeled as an ‘atheist’, though Kenny quite explicitly does not identify as an atheist, and has given arguments for why. He describes himself as an ‘agnostic’.

A useful reference list for authors to read, though. Thanks, Luke.


Facilis May 9, 2009 at 10:51 am

Gary Habermas is a research professor of philosophy at Liberty U and has published many articles in Philosophia Christi and his research on the Historical Jesus has been highly influential in natural theology. If Victor Stenger and Richard Carrier are on there I’m sure habermas should be.


blah May 9, 2009 at 10:57 am

Michael Dummett has dealt with prayer (I think) in his ‘Bringing about the past’. He also has a paper called ‘Biblical Exegesis and the Resurrection’. There are lots of women philosophers of religion missed out:
Pamela Sue Anderson (Christian), Oxford.
Janet Martin Soskice (Christian), Cambridge.
Janine Marie Idziak (sp?).
Sarah Coakley.
Harriet A Harris.

John Cottingham (Christian), retired.
David Oderberg (Christian), Reading.
Bruce Langtry.


Facilis May 9, 2009 at 11:03 am

Oh and can I suggest you add Shandon L. Guthrie to the list.


lukeprog May 9, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Facilis, I’ll add Habermas. I wasn’t aware of some of his more philosophical publications. But I can’t find any by Guthrie.

blah, thanks for naming the Dummett papers. I’ve added him. Could you name some papers for Harris and Idziak?


Anomalous May 9, 2009 at 12:55 pm

Brian Davies, Fordham.  He’s written mostly about Aquinas, but he’s also written a fair amount of non-historical stuff.  Most importantly, The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil is the best recent book in the philosophy of religion, and anybody who thinks guys like Swinburne and Plantinga make sense needs to read it.  It’s inspired by Aquinas, but it isn’t a book on Aquinas.

And for the love of God, add Anthony Kenny.


Anomalous May 9, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Whoops, I missed Kenny the first time around. I’m not sure if Bob Kane is a Christian, though.


David Gordon May 9, 2009 at 1:52 pm

I think that Bede Rundle is wrongly listed as a Christian. His book is a criticism of theism.


blah May 10, 2009 at 12:26 pm


Harris has edited ‘Faith and Philosophical Analysis’ with Chris Insole.
You may wish to add John Foster (The Divine Lawmaker) and Bas Van Fraasen (The Empirical Stance).


David Alexander May 13, 2009 at 6:11 am

Theodore Gulesarian is at Arizona State University

You should probably add: Robert Roberts (Baylor University)
Thomas Hibbs (Baylor University)
Michael Foley (Baylor University)
Doug Henry (Baylor University)
Michael Beaty (Baylor University)
Trent Dougherty (Baylor University)
Robert Koons (University of Texas at Austin)
Trenton Merricks (University of Virginia, I think)
Theodore Sider (NYU)
Kevin Corcoran (Calvin College)
Alfred Freddoso (Univerity of Notre Dame)

I apologize if some of the above names are already on your list


lukeprog May 13, 2009 at 9:57 pm


Thanks. Could you list some significant papers/books in philosophy of religion from each of these philosophers?


Jay Carlson May 22, 2009 at 3:10 am

Good interesting list.  James Keller is not an independent, however.  He’s at Wofford College, where he was my advisor for my first year and a half as a philosophy student.


wowow May 31, 2009 at 2:17 am

Is Richard Gale really an atheist? I am pretty sure he is a theist. Also, I wonder about Robert Fogelin.


wowow May 31, 2009 at 2:24 am

I really do think Basil Mitchell (retired) should surely be included.


cartesian June 3, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Robert Kane is Catholic. He’s on board with the Nicene Creed, though not with the stuff about contraception or abortion.


Peter June 30, 2009 at 8:23 am

Are you sure Peter Byrne is a Christian? What’s your reason for thinking so?


Robert Gressis June 30, 2009 at 8:41 am

Gale considers himself neither a theist, nor an atheist, nor an agnostic.  When asked how he identifies himself, his answer is that he doesn’t care.
The Adamses are, as of July 2009, at UNC, Chapel Hill.
J. Brian Pitts is a Christian theist.
Ted Sider’s only paper on philosophy of religion, as far as I know, is “Hell and Vagueness”, but it’s very well-regarded and has generated a lot of response.
Eleonore Stump should be in bold-face, as she’s inarguably one of the most important philosophers of religion alive.
Descriptions of Corcoran’s contributrions to philosophy of religion can be found on his website.  He also has a blog.
Links to many of Robert Koons’s papers on philosophy of religion can be found on his website.


D C Cramer June 30, 2009 at 9:22 am

Great list. I’m surprised you don’t consider John Hick an uber-philosopher, given his influence on the rationality of theism debates in analytic philosophy back in the ’60s, particularly with his first work, Faith and Knowledge. Also, his later works in theodicy and pluralism have changed the nature of those discussions dramatically.
One of Hick’s former doctoral students might also be worthy of mention, Harold Netland (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School). He has two important works on pluralism, Dissonant Voices and Encountering Religious Pluralism, as well as a recent book on Buddhism co-authored with Keith Yandell (http://www.amazon.com/Buddhism-Christian-Exploration-Keith-Yandell/dp/0830838554/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246382506&sr=8-3). Also, has articles in Faith and Philosophy and elsewhere.
Finally, while I agree that Chad Meister may not merit inclusion on this list quite yet, I believe that he is someone to keep an eye on over the next couple years. He is working on a number of original works at the moment with publications in philosophy of religion forthcoming. See http://chadmeister.com/about/#publications.


adhunt June 30, 2009 at 10:37 am

Surprised not to find John Milbank and Anthony Thiselton here


RicoG June 30, 2009 at 10:55 am

Rob Koons is Catholic.


jon kvanvig June 30, 2009 at 11:18 am

Regarding footnote 1, there’s this citation-based ranking at Prosblogion that I generated a couple years ago:


Matthew June 30, 2009 at 11:33 am

John Schellenberg is agnostic. He doesn’t think there is enough evedince to determine one way or the other.


lukeprog June 30, 2009 at 4:42 pm


No, I’m not sure at all. Most of these labels are quick guesses based on a glance at their CV. Please correct if you know better.


lukeprog June 30, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Thanks, Robert Gressis.


lukeprog June 30, 2009 at 5:08 pm

D C Cramer and adhunt:

Added, thanks.


lukeprog June 30, 2009 at 5:11 pm

jon kvanvig,



Robert Gressis June 30, 2009 at 5:21 pm

You’re welcome! Also, Wes Morriston is a Christian theist, at least according to William Lane Craig in a podcast he put up this year.


lukeprog June 30, 2009 at 6:03 pm


Wes himself denies this, though.


Robert Gressis June 30, 2009 at 8:39 pm

Oh, I had no idea Wes denied this.  Did he do so on Prosblogion?  Thanks for letting me know!


lukeprog June 30, 2009 at 9:53 pm


I remember reading some comments from Wes stressing that he is a ‘non-traditional theist’, however I’ve also noticed that he serves as an officer for the Society of Christian Philosophers, so… I’m not sure!


D C Cramer July 1, 2009 at 11:35 am

Hick might be more accurately called a “pluralist” than a “christian,” though he has identified critically with the Christian tradition throughout his career. At the present, he is neither a thiest in the traditional sense nor an atheist, but something more like an Ultimate Reality-ist.


Matt July 2, 2009 at 11:47 am

To Peter Forrest’s entry you should add his recent book “Developmental Theism” (OUP, 2007 or so).


nico2 July 2, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Here are some more who work in pol philos and phil religion:
Chris Eberle (Navy)
Mark Murphy (Gtown)
Terence Cuneo (Vermont)
Paul Weithman (ND)


lukeprog July 2, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Matt and nico2,


But I can’t find many papers on (non-historical) philosophy of religion by Cuneo or Weithman.


Philip July 4, 2009 at 5:37 am

I read William Vallicella’s blog, and I was under the impression he only classfied himself as a traditional theist, but _not_ specifically as a Christian. In a discussion with Alexander Pruss a bit ago, he said he was *sympathetic to* Christianity, but such a case hardly justifies labeling the sympathizer a Christian, and seems to imply a ready distinction between the speaker and being a Christian.

Does he elsewhere say he is a Christian?


Robert G. Wolf July 4, 2009 at 8:17 am

You might add Brian Leftow (University of Oxford).  He is an Episcopelian.  Time and eternity is his first published book.  He has 2 books on Aquinas  listed as forthcoming, as well as a couple of dozen articles in various peer-reviewed journals.
Articles on philosophy of religion by Michael Dummett are in New Blackfriars.  I’ve listed several of them in my 1997 bibliography on analytic philosophy of religion.


lukeprog July 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Thanks, Robert.


Sam July 6, 2009 at 10:10 pm

How about posting who is who in the topmost photo?


lukeprog July 6, 2009 at 11:04 pm

Let’s see, from left to right, row by row, looks like we’ve got:
Quentin Smith, Peter van Inwagen, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Mike Almeida, Alvin Plantinga
William Hasker, William Alston, Wes Morriston, Victor Reppert, William Lane Craig
(forgot), R.M. Adams, Richard Swinburne, (forgot), Daniel Howard-Snyder
(forgot), Julian Baggini, J.P. Moreland, Graham Oppy, Evan Fales

Who can fill in the gaps?


Matthew July 7, 2009 at 4:01 am

The two women who bracket Daniel Howard-Snyder are Marilyn McCord Adams and Lynne Rudder Baker.


Scylla July 9, 2009 at 5:40 pm

Great job compiling the list however you left off New Zealand’s most prominent Philosophers of Religion, Dr Matthew Flannagan and Dr Glenn Peoples.
Flannagan’s work is in Plantingan epistemology, religion and morality and applied ethics. He has been published in the likes of The Journal of Medicine and Ethics, Think, Colloquium, The Journal of Libertarian Studies. He teaches History of Philosophy and Philosophical issues in Education for the Philosophy of Religion departments of two theological institutions. His blog, mandm.org.nz, is one of the most widely read blogs in New Zealand and attempts to take philosophy to the layman. While its main thrust is at non-philosophers, it appears to be an effort to making philosophy more accessible, Flannagan does put his more considered academic works on it too. He also runs the Auckland branch of Thinking Matters, an organisation aimed at equipping the lay person with rudimentary philosophy of religion skills.
Dr Peoples has done most of his work on religion in the public square holding Rawls in his sights. He has been published in the Journal of Religion and Society, Faith and Philosophy, Think to name a few. He runs a very popular blog and podcast, again aimed at bringing philosophy to more people.
The type of philosophy of religion that is growing in the US was not present in New Zealand until these two philosophers brought it here. New Zealand has a long way to go until it enjoys the philosophy of religion revival you are all familiar with but it is on its way now thanks in major part to the work of these two living philosophers of religion.


lukeprog July 9, 2009 at 7:04 pm

Thanks, Scylla.


Mike Heffner July 13, 2009 at 3:25 pm

I would have expected Daniel Dennett to make the top 100.  You should check out his book “Breaking the Spell”.


Trevor Mander July 13, 2009 at 4:26 pm

“John Bishop (christian pantheist, University of Aukland)”

Should be Auckland.


lukeprog July 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm


I’ve read ‘Breaking the Spell,’ but I’m not sure I’d call any of his published work ‘important’ in the philosophy of religion. He is primarily concerned with the philosophy of mind and philosophy of action and philosophy of biology.


lukeprog July 13, 2009 at 7:49 pm


Thanks, fixed.


ph July 26, 2009 at 9:39 am

i’m just curious, is it the case that philosophy of religion is exclusively “western” (i.e. judeo-christian tradition)? Or, none of those people working in non-judeo-christian tradition is worth mentioning?


lukeprog July 27, 2009 at 7:27 am


I’m primarily concerned with analytic philosophy of religion, but feel free to suggest some eastern philosophers of religion for the list.


Mike September 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Footnote (1) is badly misleading, as I pointed out in the comment at Prosblogion. It makes some look like much better philosophers of religion than they are. It puts Bill Rowe at 25, and Bob Audi at 5, for instance. It puts Rowe far behind Kvanvig, Gutting and DeRose. That’s ridiculous, frankly, and it should have been noted explicitly in the post. What is being measured there is citations generally,not citations for philosophy of religion.  It’s troubling that this was not expressly stated.


Brad October 8, 2009 at 12:38 pm

A few suggestions:

Hendrik Hart
Mark C. Taylor
Gianni Vattimo
Rene Girard


lukeprog October 8, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Thanks, Brad, I’ll look into them.


Brad October 19, 2009 at 7:38 am


I see you’ve updated the list with Girard, but none of the others. That’s no skin off my back, but I’m just curious how you decide which people to put on the list. Taylor, for sure, seems like he should be on any list of this sort (especially considering you have people like Caputo on the list).


lukeprog October 19, 2009 at 7:53 am


I didn’t have time to look at Taylor’s work yet. I was already familiar with Girard.


Roman October 23, 2009 at 1:00 am

Hi Luke,

There’s a guy called Tim Mawson at Oxford:


He’s published a lot in the Philosophy of Religion.


lukeprog October 23, 2009 at 6:52 am

Thanks, Roman!


Alex November 14, 2009 at 2:28 pm

I’m under the impression that Bob Pennock is a Quaker, not an atheist.


lukeprog November 14, 2009 at 4:19 pm


Same thing. :)


Michael November 18, 2009 at 9:08 pm

D C Cramer: Hick might be more accurately called a “pluralist” than a “christian,” though he has identified critically with the Christian tradition throughout his career. At the present, he is neither a thiest in the traditional sense nor an atheist, but something more like an Ultimate Reality-ist.  

Hick’s an interesting character. he was a Christian, in fact, Craig got one of his doctorates under him. But then he developed his own idea of pluralism, but still practices Christianity (at least the last I heard he did) because he liked it and it was comfortable. But I think he’s just covering his butt if he was wrong haha.


Marcus Krueger November 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Hey another person you might want to be on the lookout for is R. Zachary Manis. A book by him and C. Stephen Evans on philosophy of religion just came out. I watched him in a panel debate againts Carrier and Stenger. The debate became a back and forth intellectual war between him and Carrier. Very even I would give him the nod though.


lukeprog November 27, 2009 at 8:43 pm


I wish that debate had been recorded!


Conor Gilliland December 2, 2009 at 2:50 pm

“Alvin Plantinga: Finding bold new ways to hide the question-begging.”

Methodological Naturalism: Finding bold new ways to hide the question-begging.


Bebok January 22, 2010 at 8:51 pm


Do you know Stephen R. L. Clark? I’ve only read some of his articles on animal ethics, but it seems like he’s a philosopher of religion as well.



lukeprog January 22, 2010 at 9:43 pm

Thanks, Bebok.


Bebok January 23, 2010 at 6:10 pm


One more suggestion would be Paul Helm:

Also, Brian Clack’s text is called “Religion and Wittgenstein’s Legacy” and it’s actually only a review of the book of that title.


Bebok January 24, 2010 at 10:36 am

And Michael Dummett needs one more ‘t’.


Bebok January 24, 2010 at 10:50 am

I’d also add his paper called “The Intelligibility of Eucharistic Doctrine” (1987), it’s his most popular work in the field, I guess.


lukeprog January 24, 2010 at 3:42 pm

Thanks, Bebok!


Chris Stephens February 12, 2010 at 12:58 pm


What about Elliott Sober? He’s published regularly on the design argument (about 1/4 of his newish book, Evidence and Evolution in on the design argument and the problem of evil, among other topics – chapter 2 looks indistinguishable from other stuff that counts as philosophy of religion), as well as articles in journals such as the International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, etc.

So he’s published in philosophy of religion journals, and he contributed to the Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion (I think that is the right title), etc.
Of course he’s primarily a philosophy of biology/science, but given the number of important publications he has criticizing Plantinga, Dembski, and on the Design argument, I’d have thought he should count. (He’s also written an important paper on Pascal’s wager “Betting against Pascal’s wager” in Nous. I bet even his phil religion papers have been cited more than at least some of the people on this list.

He does philosophy analytically, he’s not dead, and his papers are important and cited in philosophy of religion.

In short, it seems arbitrary to keep him off.

I also wonder about my colleague here at UBC, Paul Russell, who is one of the world experts on Hume’s philosophy of religion (including having written the Stanford Encyclopedia article on the topic). Maybe he is too historical for your list?


lukeprog February 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Sober is a great philosopher; I just forgot he’d done so much in philosophy of religion.

I’ll have to read some of Paul Russell’s stuff to see how historical he is. It’s not clear to me from his CV.


Yazan February 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Hi Lukeprog
Could I suggest an interesting paper entitled ‘Universalism for open theists’ by Gordon Knight (Religious Studies (2006), 42 : 213-223)? The paper defends a form of universalism from a strongly libertarian viewpoint, thereby filling an important gap in the literature – since many universalist defenses end up assuming compatibilism.
Many thanks for compiling this list – it’s been incredibly valuable to me!


Bebok March 2, 2010 at 2:37 am


Do you think Helm can’t make the list?


lukeprog March 2, 2010 at 6:17 am


Which Helm?


Bebok March 2, 2010 at 8:33 am

The one nine comments above.


Feldmm1 March 6, 2010 at 10:23 pm

Here is a link for Guminski’s paper about examining Nowacki’s Kalam argument.



lukeprog March 6, 2010 at 10:57 pm

Oh yeah. Thanks. :)


Jay Quigley March 15, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Mark Johnston (the chair at Princeton) does some work on philosophy of religion and has a recent book out about God. Someone else will know more than I about his views. Anyway, I find it surprising that someone at the very top of the world of analytic philosophy with a book on theism (pantheism? panentheism?) would be left out.


lukeprog March 15, 2010 at 2:12 pm

Huh. I could’ve sworn I put Mark Johnston on there. Thanks for pointing out the gap, Jay!


Andrew April 2, 2010 at 5:37 pm

I suggest you include the recently interviewed Tom Crisp. Publications in philosophy of religion:

- “On Divine Foreknowledge and Newcomb’s Paradox,” Philosophia Christi 1 (1999): 33– “On Believing that the Bible is Divinely Inspired,” in Analytic Theology: New Essays in Theological Method, eds. Michael C. Rea and Oliver D. Crisp (Oxford, 2009).
- “An Evolutionary Objection to the Argument from Evil,” in Evidence and Religious Belief, eds. Kelly James Clark and Raymond Van Arragon (Oxford, forthcoming).

And why not throw Joshua Rasmussen into the mix? (If it’s because he’s a graduate student, note that he’ll have the doctorate next Tuesday). Publications in philosophy of religion:

- “From States of Affairs to a Necessary Being,” Philosophical Studies (forthcoming).
- “Cosmological Arguments from Contingency,” Philosophy Compass (forthcoming).
- “From a Necessary Being to God,” International Journal of Philosophy of Religion (2009), 66.1: 1-13.
- “On Creating Worlds without Evil – Given Divine Counterfactual Knowledge,” Religious Studies (2004), 40.4: 457-470.
- “Hume and the Kalam Cosmological Argument,” with Garrett De weese, in In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Reassessment (2004), ed. Douglas Groothuis and James Sennett.


Andrew April 2, 2010 at 5:41 pm

And if you’re looking for more atheists, try Jim Stone. His publications in philosophy of religion include:

- “Evidential Atheism”. Philosophical Studies 114 (3).
- “A Theory of Religion Revised”. Religious Studies 37 (2):177-189.
- “A Theory of Religion”. Religious Studies 27:337-351.
- “Anselm’s Proof”. Philosophical Studies 57 (1).


lukeprog April 2, 2010 at 5:50 pm


Thanks. I added those two and also Erik Baldwin.


Andrew April 2, 2010 at 5:50 pm

Or Doug Geivett; his publications in philosophy of religion include a dozen or so articles (some in popular venues) and three books:

- Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Co-edited with B. Sweetman.
- Evil and the Evidence for God: The Challenge of John Hick’s Theodicy.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993.
- In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997


Andrew April 2, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Fritz (Ted A.) Warfield:

- Ted A. Warfield (1997). “Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom Are Compatible”. Noûs 31 (1):80-86.
- Ted A. Warfield (1999), with Alicia Finch. “Fatalism: Logical and Theological”. Faith and Philosophy 16 (2): 233-238.
- Ted A. Warfield (forthcoming). “Ockhamism, Molinism, Prophecy: How to be an Ockhamist,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion.


Andrew April 2, 2010 at 6:08 pm

John Martin Fischer has also written dozens of papers (and edited a book) in the philosophy of religion. Indeed, he’s one of the few non-theists to know the foreknowledge literature in and out (and to have made substantial contributions to it).


Andrew April 2, 2010 at 6:20 pm

OK, last post. David Basinger has penned “10 books and 85 articles”, mostly in the philosophy of religion. Here are his papers from just one journal (Faith and Philosophy):

- Basinger, David. Simple Foreknowledge and Providential Control: A Response to Hunt (1993, 10:3) 421-427.
- Basinger, David. Pluralism and Justified Religious Belief: A Response to Gellman (1996, 13:2) 260-265.
- Basinger, David. Plantinga, Pluralism, and Justified Religious Belief (1991, 8:1) 67-80.
- Basinger, David. Middle Knowledge and Human Freedom: Some Clarifications (1987, 4:3) 330-336.
- Basinger, David. Hick’s Religious Pluralism and “Reformed Epistemology:” A Middle Ground (1988, 5:4) 421-432.
- Basinger, David. Divine Omniscience and Human Freedom: A ‘Middle Knowledge’ Perspective (1984, 1:3) 291-302.

Some more names (it shouldn’t be hard to find a list of pubs for each):

Jerome Gellman
David Hunt (Whittier College)
Tomas Kapitan (NIU)
James A. Keller (http://webs.wofford.edu/kellerja/)
Tom Senor


lukeprog April 2, 2010 at 6:21 pm

Thanks again, Andrew.


lukeprog April 2, 2010 at 6:22 pm

What the hell, I don’t have Basinger already? Oops.


Andrew April 3, 2010 at 5:36 am

Odd to list Hoffman without Gary Rosenkrantz. Almost all of their notable work in metaphysics and philosophy of religion is co-authored.

Rosenkrantz CV: http://www.uncg.edu/phi/cv/Rosenkrantz2007.doc


Andrew April 3, 2010 at 7:38 am

Citations for some of David P. Hunt’s (of Whittier College) work in the philosophy of religion:

- “Divine Providence and Simple Foreknowledge”. Faith and Philosophy (1993, 10:3) 394-414.
- “Dispositional Omniscience”. Philosophical Studies 80 (3).
- “Evil and Theistic Minimalism”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (3).
- “Providence, Foreknowledge, and Explanatory Loops: A Reply to Robinson”. Religious Studies 40 (4):485-491.
- “Contra Hasker: Why Simple Foreknowledge Is Still Useful”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Sept 2009) 545-550.


Andrew April 3, 2010 at 7:57 am

Hugh McCann:

- Hugh J. McCann, Divine Providence. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Hugh J. McCann (2004). Divine Power and Action. In William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell Pub..
- Hugh J. McCann & Jonathan L. Kvanvig (1991). The Occasionalist Proselytizer: A Modified Catechism. Philosophical Perspectives 5:587-615.

Kelly James Clark:

- Kelly James Clark, Religious Epistemology. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Kelly James Clark (2001). God is Great, God is Good: Medieval Conceptions of Divine Goodness and the Problem of Hell. Religious Studies 37 (1):15-31.
- Kelly James Clark (1989). The Explanatory Power of Theism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 25 (3).


Andrew April 3, 2010 at 9:46 am

Anna Marmodoro: http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/members/anna_marmodoro

- The Metaphysics of the Incarnation, Oxford University Press, forthcoming in 2011 (co-edited with Jonathan Hill)
- ‘The Incarnation and the Extended Mind hypothesis’, forthcoming in The Metaphysics of the Incarnation, (eds. Marmodoro and Hill) OUP, 2011
- ‘Modeling the Metaphysics of the Incarnation’ (forthcoming in Philosophy and Theology, Vol. 20, 2009, co-authored with J Hill)
- ‘Composition models of the incarnation: unity and unifying relations’ (forthcoming in Religious Studies, co-authored with J Hill)


Andrew April 3, 2010 at 10:08 am

Charles Seymour:

- Charles Seymour (1998). “Hell, Justice, and Freedom”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (2).
- Charles Seymour (1997). “On Choosing Hell”. Religious Studies 33 (3):249-266.
- Charles Seymour (2000). A Theodicy of Hell. Boston: Kluewer Academic.

Few philosophers have worked more on afterlife issues than Jerry Walls. He’s got a book on Heaven, a book on Hell, and a forthcoming book on Purgatory.

- Jerry L. Walls (1991). Why Plantinga Must Move From Defense to Theodicy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51 (2):375-378.
- Jerry L. Walls (2004). A Hell of a Dilemma: Rejoinder to Talbott. Religious Studies 40 (2):225-227.


Andrew April 3, 2010 at 10:26 am

Luke Gelinas:

- Klaas Kraay & Luke Gelinas (2010). Book review: God, the Best, and Evil – Bruce Langtry. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):432-446.
- Luke Gelinas (2009). The Problem of Natural Evil I: General Theistic Replies. Philosophy Compass 4 (3):533-559.
- Luke Gelinas (2009). The Problem of Natural Evil II: Hybrid Replies. Philosophy Compass 4 (3):560-574.


lukeprog April 3, 2010 at 10:38 am

Jerry Walls is with which institution?

I’m going to wait a bit on Luke Gelinas, but thanks.


Andrew April 5, 2010 at 6:18 am

Trent Dougherty was already suggested; I second the nomination.

- “Hell, Vagueness, and Justice: A Reply to Sider,” (co-authored with Ted Poston), Faith and Philosophy, 25:3, 322-328, July 2008.
- “Epistemological Considerations Concerning Skeptical Theism,” Faith and Philosophy, 25:2, 172-176, April 2008.
- “A User’s Guide to Design Arguments,” (co-authored with Ted Poston) Religious Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2008), 44:1, 99-110.
- “Divine Hiddenness and the Nature of Belief,” (co-authored with Ted Poston) Religious Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 43:2, 183-198.


aweisbe April 24, 2010 at 7:13 pm

A number of people here should have The Cambridge Companion to Atheism added to their reading list:



marius May 19, 2010 at 5:30 pm

what about Peter Vardy from University of London?


Jonathan June 3, 2010 at 7:34 am

I’m a bit surprised to see Don Cupitt listed as an atheist (or indeed as a philosopher of religion, which he isn’t – he’s a theologian who does a bit of philosophy). By one reckoning he is an atheist, of course, but he would reject the label. He’s also an Anglican priest and thus a Christian, so to list him as simply “atheist” simpliciter is misleading at best. Of course many Christians would deny that he is really a Christian at all since he’s so liberal he practically falls off the scale – but then I should think that for any given person X who claims to be a Christian, you could find some other person Y who claims to be a Christian and who says that X is not a Christian. (E.g. there are Catholics who think that no Protestants are Christians, and Protestants who think that no Catholics are Christians.)


Jonathan June 3, 2010 at 7:48 am

A couple of other things that just occur to me on closer reading. The main post implies that non-theists who work in philosophy of religion are working to disprove theism. (That’s what the werewolf analogy seems to presuppose, at any rate.) But of course that’s not true. There’s more to philosophy of religion than just the question of the existence of God – far more! – and even on the question of the existence of God, it’s possible to do work that isn’t intended to prove it one way or the other. One might do purely historical work on the topic. Or one might, for example, analyse someone’s argument for God’s existence and argue that the argument is flawed – without thereby arguing for God’s non-existence. Both Thomas Aquinas and Richard Swinburne did precisely this with the ontological argument, which both rejected without (of course) arguing against God’s existence. This goes for all philosophical topics: one can work in that field or on those particular questions without having to take sides. In the case of religion in general – not just the philosophy thereof – it’s perfectly possible to be interested in the subject not only without being religious but without being for or against it, or even particularly bothered either way. You’ll find the same thing among theologians, sociologists of religion, and so on.

I’m not sure about the wisdom of just guessing people’s personal religious views. I think that’s rather presumptuous. And I suspect that this may be part of the reason for the preponderance of theists in the list, since I suspect that you’re guessing that people are theists when in fact they might not be. But that’s just a guess on my part.

Also, by the way, all of Anna Marmodoro’s works listed here are co-written with me!


kohoutek June 6, 2010 at 10:28 pm

What about Stephen Mulhall (Oxford)?


lukeprog June 6, 2010 at 11:26 pm

Cool, added.


eric June 8, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Here are a couple on Buddhism:

Steven Heine (Florida International University) has published works on Dogen and Heidegger, as well as editing essays by Masao Abe.

Dale S. Wright (Occidental College) produced a text, Philosophical Meditations on Zen Buddhism, synthesizing contemporary philosophical hermeneutics with historical study of Chan.

Would philosophical theologians or a/theologians count? It seems that if John D. Caputo counts, then perhaps the following would as well:
Thomas J.J. Altizer (retired)
Gianni Vattimo (Turin)
Mark C. Taylor (Columbia)
Robert P. Scharlemann (retired)
David E. Klemm (Iowa)
William Schweiker (Chicago)

Hopefully that helps. If selections from the works of the 14th Dalai Lama are showing up in Phil of Religion anthologies, ought he be included?


eric June 8, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Oh, and along with Marion, Graham Ward and Richard Kearney might work, too.


eric June 8, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Sorry for the surplus of comments, but I thought of one more continental philosoper of religion, Luce Irigaray.


lukeprog June 8, 2010 at 8:11 pm


Yeah, the theology is a fine line.

Also, note that I’m not including philosophers who are mostly just commenting on past philosophers. Is that the main work of Steven Heine and Dale Wright?


eric June 9, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Heine more than Wright, I guess, although Heine’s comparative study of Dogen and Heidegger is much less a mere commentary than a genuinely constructive endeavor. And Wright’s meditations is an argument about how, despite Zen’s rhetoric against language, Zen is a particular mode of participating in language. It seems to me that these are no more commentary than what, say, William Rowe has produced (see the table of contents on that one).

Mark C. Taylor’s After God (link won’t work) seems to fit well within the scopes of the genre(s) developed above, with the benefit that he (and most of the others on my list above) is considered by naive theists to be an “atheist.” Luce Irigaray’s Way of Love, as well as her Ethics of Sexual Difference, fit the genre, too (for some reason I can’t link to these). Another atheist could be Loyal Rue, with his recent text, Religion is not about God.


eric June 9, 2010 at 1:28 pm

Richard Kearney: Anatheism and The God Who May Be


eric June 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm

With the links fixed (I think):

Richard Kearney: Anatheism and The God Who May Be

Mark C. Taylor: After God

Luce Irigaray: Way of Love

Loyal Rue: Religion is not about God</a


kohoutek June 12, 2010 at 2:26 am

John Bishop is most definitely not a pantheist.

What about Frederick Ferre? He has published a lot in phil of religion, especially on issues relating to the meaning of religious language. Another name to try out: W Matthews Grant.


Jim June 21, 2010 at 2:33 am

Why is this list overwhelmingly dominated by USA based philosophers? Is there even a single philosopher from mainland Europe on this list?

I mean this as a genuine question. I am not very familiar with the field, and I wonder is this genuinely representative of the discipline or does it reflect your own biases?

I suspect that it may be because of a peculiarly American need to rationalise religious belief, but I stand to be corrected by people familiar with the descipline than I am.


lukeprog June 21, 2010 at 8:13 am


The explanation is simple. Almost everyone on the list is from an English-speaking country. This is a list of philosophers who regularly publish on the subject in English.


Jim June 21, 2010 at 1:11 pm

fair enough. My misunderstanding. I should have read the introductary text more carefully


Thomas September 20, 2010 at 8:24 pm

Luke, do you know for sure that Gregory Dawes is an atheist? At Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Bradley Monton says, “One interesting aspect to this book is that Dawes never tells us whether he is a theist or an atheist. I take it that he is a theist, but I did wonder whether that was really the case when I saw how high he was setting the bar: theistic explanations must fulfill the optimality condition to even be in the running, and they don’t fare well when measured up against some of the six explanatory virtues under consideration. It’s unfair of me to think this way though — I shouldn’t just assume that a theistic philosopher will assess the virtues of theistic explanations in a different way than an atheistic philosopher would.”

What do you think?


lukeprog September 20, 2010 at 8:38 pm


Yeah, Dawes is an atheist.


Thomas September 21, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Thomas October 17, 2010 at 2:48 pm

Your link for Edward Wierenga doesn’t work. Here’s one that does:

Also, Jordan Howard Sobel’s page is gone (he passed away recently).


lukeprog October 17, 2010 at 7:21 pm



Thomas October 17, 2010 at 9:47 pm

Luke, you wouldn’t happen to have any of Sobel’s papers, would you? By that I mean other than the two you’ve got linked here, which I’ve already got. I went to his page to see what papers were on there, and it was gone. Do you have the paper where he responds to his critics (Swinburne and Koons, I think it was) on “Logic and Theism”? Or anything else of his?


Thomas October 19, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Thomas October 19, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Thomas October 19, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Dan November 26, 2010 at 11:09 am

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts

What would a lie dismissing the truth teach the truth about about the lie?



blessy April 5, 2011 at 9:31 am

Out of curiosity, I find it rather fascinating that while you mention you are a evangelical turned atheist- the vast majority (or atleast >50%) of your listed philosophers are christians. Any particular reasoning behind it? No malicious intentions but I am rather curious…Would love to hear your thought on this.


Luke Muehlhauser April 5, 2011 at 4:56 pm


Most philosophers of religion are theists. Most people who don’t believe in fairies aren’t going to have much motivation to make fairy-theology a focus of their career.


blessy April 7, 2011 at 10:41 am

hmm, interesting.
so with all due respect, what then is your motivation to run this blog? atheism by definition would be a rejection in the belief of any deity- but then any discussions, on this topic, on your part could be likened very much to a non-believer in fairies painstakingly and systematically trying to prove the non-existence of them?

atheism seems at times to me almost like a religion and I often wonder what exactly makes its members ‘tick’…i mean they seem refute the existence of God with almost an evangelistic gusto! Who, or should I say what is the motivation here?

Would you say most philosophers (not just philosophers of religion) are theists or atheists? That is actually the original search that led me to your website.



Luke Muehlhauser April 7, 2011 at 12:04 pm


Most philosophers are atheists. See the philpapers survey.


Leave a Comment