9

The question's title says it all. Who are the most prominent Christian philosophers of the 21st century (if there are any) and why?

By "Christian philosopher", I mean a philosopher who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ and has philosophical works that try to show that this belief is justified.

user132181
  • 1,087
  • 2
  • 10
  • 23
  • Perhaps helpful for answers: That would be a subset of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_philosophers#Contemporary_philosophy –  Jul 04 '14 at 12:23
  • 1
    I think based on the meta discussion, we should take "who are the greatest" type questions out of currency here. – virmaior Oct 16 '15 at 04:46
  • @virmaior This doesn't ask "who are the greatest", but "who are the most prominent" which is an objective question, not a subjective one --assuming prominence equates to measurable things like popularity, books sold, etc. I disagree with the decision to close and have nominated for re-opening. – Chris Sunami Oct 16 '15 at 14:18
  • 2
    I don't think "who is the most prominent" is objective. Prominent from what vantage? There's not some universal vantage where all philosophers are looking from. – virmaior Oct 16 '15 at 15:13
  • @virmior-With all due respect and appreciating your concerns, I would like to say once again that very useful answers for many stack users can take the form of "most influential," and so forth. The answer by ATB below seems a perfectly good one. I find it useful. It is easy to grasp that it cannot be "definitive." In any case, isn't there always going to be a large residue of indeterminate "opinion" in any philosophy question, apart from logic? Citations, publications, and even simple name recognition seem pretty good criteria. – Nelson Alexander Oct 16 '15 at 15:59
  • Citations seems fine to me. "prominence", "name recognition" and "publications" are pretty thoroughly subjective questions. – virmaior Oct 17 '15 at 03:02
  • I vote for reopening. I would not argue about the wording. For me it is clear what the OP want's to know. I consider the question legitime. The restriction to 21rst century is particular challenging and also that each respondent is asked to give a reason for his choice. – Jo Wehler Oct 17 '15 at 14:46
  • 1
    For the record, I'm actually an upvote on the question and at least one of the answers. I just think this style of question is a poor fit for the SE format. – virmaior Oct 19 '15 at 07:39
  • @user132181, do you mean Philosophers that happen to be Christian? Or rather philosophers specializing in the theological philosophy of Christianity? In general, I'd be skeptical of questions of this format, but if your asking about philosophers of Christian philosophy over a 15 year time period, that's pretty narrow. – James Kingsbery Oct 23 '15 at 17:30
  • Beware of what Nietzsche alerted us to: *The criminality of being Christian increases with your proximity to science. The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.* (The Antichrist, chapter 62) http://www.shadowsgovernment.com/shadows-library/Friedrich%20Nietzsche/The%20Anti-Christ,%20Ecce%20Homo,%20Twilight%20of%20the%20Idols%20&%20Other%20Writings%20%281019%29/The%20Anti-Christ,%20Ecce%20Homo,%20Twilight%20of%20the%20Idols%20&%20Other%20Writings%20-%20Friedrich%20Nietzsche.pdf – Rodrigo Mar 15 '17 at 02:40
  • Dietrich von Hildebrand Edith Stein Michael Polanyi Bernard Lonergan Josef Pieper Mary Ann Glendon Nobody mentioned Gilson and Maritain – Hopppin Jane Jun 17 '22 at 12:50

7 Answers7

12

I'm not sure how to give an exhaustive list of prominent philosophers who are also Christians, but some philosophers who come to mind are: Bas van Fraassen, Michael Dummett (recently deceased), William Alston (recently deceased), Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Marilyn Adams, Robert Adams, Robert Audi, Keith DeRose, Anthony Kenny, Alasdair MacIntyre, Richard Swinburne, Nicholas Walterstorff. idk, there are lots more, but these are some who come to mind. All of them have made significant contributions to areas outside of philosophy of religion or distinctively Christian philosophy (actually, some of them -- van Fraassen, Dummet, for example -- have done very little, if any, work in philosophy of religion).

(Coincidentally, William Lane Craig is not a particularly prominent philosopher, although he's produced some fine work. He's well known in certain circles outside of academic philosophy because he's debated alot of people. Oh, and Craig isn't a fundamentalist. The person who gave the answer about Craig kind of doesn't know what they're taking about.)

ATB
  • 121
  • 2
5

Edward Feser—most well-known for his The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide, and Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction*—is one of the most prominent contemporary Thomist philosophers. See also his excellent blog.

*This last book is an excellent confrontation of Thomistic thought with modern, analytic philosophy.

Geremia
  • 7,672
  • 2
  • 24
  • 52
4

I would say the most important (maybe not always very popular. At least not in the states) are: David Bentley Hart, Richard G. Swinburne, Rowan Williams, Keith Ward, Roger Scruton and of course Robert Spaemann.

Jean
  • 41
  • 2
3

William Lane Craig is the top contemporary philosopher for the Christian worldview, if not one of the top philosophers. Here is a subjective list of the top philosophers (in alphabetical order) and Craig is the first Christian on it (#11)

MmmHmm
  • 2,401
  • 13
  • 28
user30555
  • 31
  • 1
2

Whether he counts as a philosopher proper or a scholar of philosophy, one important philosopher (in some sense) is Bishop Robert Barron. Bishop Barron is an interesting example of a "21st century philosopher" in that (1) he has formal training in philosophy at the PhD level, and (2) much of his work disseminating his take on things has taken place via YouTube videos, meaning he is a 21st century philosopher in medium as well as chronologically.

I also happen to like Peter Kreeft, and he is at least prolific as an author.

James Kingsbery
  • 5,919
  • 1
  • 18
  • 41
1

William Lane Craig would be on that list, without a doubt. For the avoidance of all doubt, I disagree with almost everything he says. However, he defends his brand of fundamentalist Christianity with well-sourced cogent arguments, and is a skilled debater.

quis est ille
  • 858
  • 9
  • 9
  • 1
    Really? I'm a Christian, probably one who you might call a "fundamentalist" and I think most of his philosophical argumentation is junk. – virmaior Jul 04 '14 at 13:10
  • Well I tend to agree that it is junk, when you look carefully at it, but I am impressed by the way he persuades so many people. The question was 'who is the prominent'. – quis est ille Jul 04 '14 at 14:07
  • In reply to the point below (namely that Craig is not a fundamentalist), I referred to his 'brand of fundamentalism'. What I meant by that was his defence of the historical truth of the resurrection, where he argues not only for the literal truth of the resurrection account, but for its being supported by the historical evidence. Also, if someone says 'you dont know what you are talking about', it is helpful if they say why. – quis est ille Jul 04 '14 at 15:18
  • Craig also endorses the following argument: (a) To find out whether something is right or wrong, you have to find out what God thinks on the matter. (b) You can find out what God thinks on the matter by reading the Bible. (c) it says in the Bible that homosexual behaviour is wrong (d) God thinks that homosexual behaviour is wrong (e) homosexual behaviour is wrong. Seems pretty fundamentalist to me. – quis est ille Jul 04 '14 at 15:26
  • 2
    that actually isn't the definition of fundamentalist... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism) / http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism. But I would also refer you to Al Plantinga's argument: http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/plantinga-on-the-definition-of-fundamentalist/ . In the first place it doesn't refer specifically to homosexuality. In the second place, it's basically just a term. (This is why I scare-quoted it). – virmaior Jul 04 '14 at 15:38
  • I take it that the resistance above is that evangelical is seen as distinct from fundamentalist because evangelicals need not be committed to the basically foundationalist account of knowledge (which is involved in fundamentalism) – virmaior Jul 04 '14 at 15:39
  • Fundamentalism is a movement that attempted to identify the core truths that all Christians must believe, so they could have freedom of opinion in all others. That is different from beliefs held by people who self identify as fundamentalists. – yters Jul 04 '14 at 18:15
  • I mean by 'fundamentalist' someone who is committed to the literal or near-literal interpretation of the Bible. That was the point (if it wasn't obvious) of my comment on Craig's view of homosexuality. It is premiss (c) of his argument above that is the problem. Does the Bible really say that? – quis est ille Jul 04 '14 at 18:35
  • 2
    Nope. The bible really says: "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40, NIV translation) – Wandering Logic Jul 04 '14 at 19:08
  • 2
    @quisestille - fundamentalist is a term for a theological school like Platonist or Kantian or materialist is in philosophy. It's also generally an unhelpful one. There are plenty of other groups that are committed to a "literal or near literal interpretation of the bible" that are not technically fundamentalists. Regarding your question about homosexuality and the bible, yes, it does condemn it (Romans 1:26, 1 Corinthians 6). But you don't have to be a literalist to accept that (robgagnon.net - uses most of the methods of higher criticism [which is the idea opposed to fundamentalism]) – virmaior Jul 05 '14 at 01:06
  • Hi @virmaior. I'm probably asking for too much in the comment section (and given that you wrote your comment about 5 years ago...), but I'm curious: why do you think most of Craig's argumentation is "junk"? I, as an amateur, really like how clear Craig is, and sort of see his "definitions, premise 1, premise 2, therefore conclusion" style as a paragon of analytic philosophy. (In some ways he makes it "too easy" on his opponents by explicitly stating his premises and argument form, so they can easily see where they disagree with him.) – Adam Sharpe Aug 13 '19 at 16:39
  • @AdamSharpe probably a good place to start is ATB's answer. Craig doesn't really write much in philosophy: he's got his one schtick with the kalaam cosmological argument and ???. More so, he has a popular brand in certain apologetics circles; in that respect, he's a mirror of Dawkins. Sure, he follows the format of philosophy but he is not in contact with any major debates. / To give a contrast, many more people take Plantinga's arguments seriously and deal with the arguments he raises about basic beliefs and evolution. – virmaior Aug 13 '19 at 23:24
-3

As written, the question is ambiguous and attempting to answer the question as is leads to the further questions of: do you mean philosophers that are also christian, or - considering your capitalization of an adjective - do you mean people purporting a "Christian philosophy"?

  1. As for philosophers that are also christian, do you mean "christian"

    • in the sense of similar to the fictional character known as "Jesus Christ" which is otherwise a "John Frum" amalgamation?
      Answering that would be an entirely subjective evaluation and depend much upon which texts chosen as reference for his character. In the sense of Jesus Christ as presented in the Thomas Jefferson Bible, I'd say of all the living published philosophers: John R. Searle is the most like the unpretentious and thoughtful characterization of Jesus presented in "The Life and Morals or Jesus of Nazareth" - as well for Jefferson's scholarly strategy of consulting different translations as well as his deist redaction of miracles, magic and nonsense.

    • in the sense of raised in a predominantly christian culture?
      There's John R. Searle, Hubert Dreyfus, Nancy Cartwright, Edmund Gettier, Noam Chomsky, Jürgen Habermaas, Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers, etc.

    • in the sense of a philosopher who identifies as a christian?
      Well there's William Lane Craig.
    • in the sense of a philosopher that has received a christian baptism?
      Presumably William Lane Craig, and there's also John Haldane

Given your statement in the comments that you mean the most prominent "philosopher who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ and has philosophical works that try to show that this belief is justified" an answer will depend largely upon what you mean by "philosophy" because:

  1. There simply is no "Christian philosophy" - the term is oxymoron. Philosophy has to do with what is, not "what is to Christianity." Philosophy contends with ponderables heuristically and does not deal in hermeneutics and imponderables except to reject invalid and unsound argumentation in support or drawn from of such nonsense. Philosophy has to do with knowledge and truth. Christianity, like all religions, has to do with belief and coherent statements of faith.

To the point of your clarifying comment - every belief is justified by the mere fact that you sincerely believe it. Such is a fundamental difference between statements of belief and statements of knowledge.

MmmHmm
  • 2,401
  • 13
  • 28
  • 1
    Still, most of this answer is irrelevant to the question. You seem to misinterpret it, because for example Daniel Dennet*t* is not a christian. –  Mar 14 '17 at 20:51
  • @Keelan In the sense that "christian" means raised in a predominantly christian culture, Dennett is a christian philosopher. Without the OP's input to clarify the ambiguity I've identified, there remains no way to determine what is or is not relevant such that per SE guidelines we may benefit from a laser-like focus. Likewise, you seem to intentionally mis-read yet another of my posts. – MmmHmm Mar 14 '17 at 20:57
  • 1
    Yes, but that is not what "[christian](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christian)" means. Hence, the suggestion that you have misinterpreted the question. [It seems clear](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14462/who-are-the-most-prominent-christian-philosophers-of-the-21st-century/41458?noredirect=1#comment33173_14462) what sense the author of the question intended. –  Mar 14 '17 at 21:01
  • @Keelan you confuse definition for meaning. You should fold that comment into the answer then. – MmmHmm Mar 14 '17 at 21:08
  • 4
    @Mr.Kennedy although there is technically ambiguity in the question, it is fairly obvious that the OP meant Christian philosopher as in Augustine or Aquinas. – Alexander S King Mar 14 '17 at 21:13
  • @AlexanderSKing my bad - I hadn't read all the commentary where the author clarifies the question. As is written, however, the question *is* ambiguous in the "flying planes can be dangerous" variety of ambiguity. – MmmHmm Mar 14 '17 at 21:16
  • @JohnAm minor correction: I did not co-edit this answer. I only undeleted it, after Mr. Kennedy edited it to make it answer the question (which does not mean that I think the answer is correct or relevant). –  Mar 14 '17 at 21:17
  • 1
    @AlexanderSKing see my updates to the answer. – MmmHmm Mar 14 '17 at 21:26
  • @Mr.Kennedy - this almost the same debate we had in your other post. Yes, a compelling argument can be made for "Christian Philosophy" being no more meaningful than "epistemology of Gandalf's approach to knowledge" - but sociologically speaking there are people deemed "philosophers" by institutional philosophy who also happen to seriously consider ideas from Christian scripture. – Alexander S King Mar 14 '17 at 22:02
  • @AlexanderSKing precisely my point, it is not a matter of what is deemed so, but how is an impartial description made. Furthermore, considering that not all answers to this question specifically cite "a philosopher who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ and has philosophical works that try to show that this belief is justified" is demonstration that the question is unclear. How then to address an ambiguous question? Shall we simply list every opinion ever or is there a heuristic resolution? I have demonstrated the latter. – MmmHmm Mar 14 '17 at 23:03