In what ways does Plantinga’s frequent use of quotations from his opponents, such as Patricia Churchland’s “four F’s” or Daniel Dennett’s claim that skeptics of evolution are “inexcusably ignorant,” serve as a primary tool of argumentation?

Plantinga’s argument for a “deep concord” between theism and science rests heavily on the Christian theological doctrine of the imago dei. To what extent is his case for concord dependent on the specific tenets of Christian theology, and how does this affect the argument’s applicability to non-Christian theistic traditions?

Explore Plantinga’s distinction between a scientific finding and a philosophical “add-on,” particularly in his analysis of evolutionary theory. How does this demarcation allow him to neutralize apparent conflicts, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of this analytical method?

Plantinga’s epistemology relies on insulating theistic belief within a wider “evidence base” that includes faith. Critically evaluate his characterization of methodological naturalism as a mere “procedural rule.” Does this framing accurately represent the role of naturalism in scientific inquiry, or does it overlook the philosophical justifications for its adoption?

Compare and contrast Plantinga’s treatment of the cosmological fine-tuning argument with his analysis of Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity. How do these two distinct scientific areas serve his broader theme of Design Discourse as Modest Support for Theism, and what does his different handling of each reveal about his epistemological strategy?

How does the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) synthesize Plantinga’s earlier critiques to substantiate the thesis of a “deep conflict” between naturalism and science?

How does Plantinga’s use of historical figures like Thomas Aquinas and Isaac Newton differ from his engagement with contemporary interlocutors like Philip Kitcher and Paul Draper?

Examine Plantinga’s constructive model of Divine Collapse-Causation (DCC). How does this speculative engagement with quantum mechanics function philosophically within the book to solve the problem of special divine action? What does its highly theoretical nature reveal about the challenges of reconciling classical theology with modern physics?