Gather initial thoughts and broad opinions about the book.

1. What was your initial reaction to Plantinga’s central thesis that the real conflict lies between science and naturalism, not science and theism? Did you find this reversal of the common narrative surprising or persuasive?

2. Plantinga spends significant time dismantling the arguments in Richard Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker (1986). How did you feel about Plantinga’s approach to critiquing a well-known work of popular science? Did it change your perspective on that book or the broader public conversation about evolution?

3. How did you find the book’s tone and accessibility as a work of philosophy aimed at a general audience?

Encourage readers to connect the book’s themes and characters with their personal experiences.

1. The book introduces the idea of “design discourse,” where the perception of design in nature can be a direct, non-inferential belief. Have you ever experienced a moment, perhaps when observing the natural world, that felt like a perception of design or profound order? How does Plantinga’s concept resonate with that kind of personal experience?

2. Plantinga uses the concept of a “defeater” to describe a new belief that makes it irrational to continue holding an old one. Can you think of a time you changed your mind about an important belief? What served as the defeater for you?

3. The book employs different kinds of evidence to make its argument, including data, supporting and conflicting theories, and personal intuition. Think of an event where conflicting testimonies of the incident were given. How did you ultimately decide what to believe? Did you give greater weight to a persuasive argument or your own intuition? 

4. What is your reaction to what Plantinga calls “Simonian science,” which explains complex human behaviors like Mother Teresa’s altruism as byproducts of evolutionary mechanisms? Do you find these kinds of explanations to be intellectually satisfying, or do they feel reductive?

5. Plantinga argues that naturalism functions as a “quasi-religion” by answering life’s ultimate questions. In your own experience, have you encountered secular worldviews or ideologies that seem to fill a similar role in providing meaning, morality, and a sense of identity? What characteristics do they share with traditional religions?

Examine the book’s relevance to societal issues, historical events, or cultural themes.

1. The book is presented as a direct response to the “New Atheist” movement of the early 2000s. How does Plantinga’s work contribute to the ongoing public conversation about the relationship between science and faith in contemporary society?

2. How does the argument that widespread American skepticism toward evolution is partly a reaction to the philosophical packaging of its most vocal proponents apply to other public debates today?

3. Plantinga distinguishes between scientific practice under methodological naturalism and broader philosophical conclusions. How does this framework help you understand public controversies, like the debate over teaching intelligent design in schools, where science, philosophy, and education intersect?

Dive into the book’s structure, characters, themes, and symbolism.

1. Plantinga redefines naturalism as a “quasi-religion” at the very beginning of the book. How does this strategic re-framing set the stage for his entire argument and shift the perceived burden of proof in the science-and-religion debate?

2. What role do Plantinga’s analogies, like the wrongly convicted defendant or the identification of a mountain goat, play in making his complex epistemological arguments more accessible? Which one did you find most or least effective, and why?

3. How does Plantinga separate scientific theories, like evolution, from what he calls philosophical “add-ons,” such as the claim that the process must be unguided? Did you find this distinction to be a useful analytical tool?

4. What is the function of the “deep concord” section, which focuses on concepts like the imago dei and the effectiveness of mathematics? How far does this case for theism as a foundation for science strengthen his overall thesis?

5. How effective did you find the book’s concluding Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)? Does the idea that naturalistic evolution undermines its own rational foundation strike you as a powerful philosophical challenge or a clever but unconvincing thought experiment? What do you see as its greatest strengths or weaknesses?

6. How would you describe Plantinga’s philosophical style and tone compared to the authors he critiques, such as Daniel Dennett in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (1995)? Where does his argument rely on formal logic, and where does it rely on rhetorical strategy?

Encourage imaginative and creative connections to the book.

1. Plantinga offers a model called “Divine Collapse-Causation” where God acts subtly at the quantum level. If you were writing a short story based on this concept, how might you depict a world where divine guidance operates without ever breaking the observable laws of nature?

2. How would you design a book cover that visually captures Plantinga’s central thesis of inverting the common narrative about where the conflict between science and belief really lies?

3. Imagine a short, written dialogue between Charles Darwin and Alvin Plantinga about Darwin’s famous “horrid doubt” concerning the reliability of the human mind. How would their conversation unfold? What key points would each figure emphasize?