The Academic Respectability Illusion: Debunking “The Plantinga Effect”

📘 About This Series

This post is part of a daily response series to The Problem of God: Answering a Skeptic’s Challenges to Christianity by Mark Clark. The series critically engages with each chapter and section of the book, examining Clark’s arguments through the lens of reason, historical evidence, and The God Question’s core philosophy: what’s true doesn’t fear investigation.

Today’s post responds to content found in pages 25-26 of the book — the section titled “The Plantinga Effect”.

If you’re just joining us, you can view all prior entries in this series on The God Question blog at godordelusion.com\thegodquestion.


Why philosophical theism isn’t gaining the ground Clark claims it is.

In The Problem of God, Mark Clark tells a story that many Christians love to hear: that belief in God is once again becoming intellectually fashionable, thanks largely to the work of Alvin Plantinga. He calls this movement “The Plantinga Effect,” and he uses it to argue that theism is not only rational — it’s regaining academic respectability.

But is that really what’s happening?

Let’s examine the claims, the context, and the credibility of what Clark calls a “fundamental shift” in the world of science and philosophy.


🧠 What Clark Argues

Clark builds his case on three main points:

  1. Quentin Smith’s WarningSmith, a noted atheist philosopher, once warned that Christians were “taking over philosophy departments” and that the field was becoming “de-secularized.” Clark treats this as evidence that theism is resurging — not by ignorance, but through reason.
  2. Alvin Plantinga’s InfluencePlantinga, a Christian philosopher, is credited with making belief in God “academically respectable.” His arguments for the rationality of theism are portrayed as having turned the philosophical tide.
  3. David Bentley Hart’s Dismissal of AtheismHart is quoted as saying that atheism is not only irrational but amounts to superstition — a position Clark presents as reflective of a broader academic awakening.

🔍 What’s Actually Going On?

1. Plantinga Is Respected — But Not Convincing the Majority

Alvin Plantinga is, undeniably, a heavyweight in modern philosophy of religion. His work — particularly his claim that belief in God can be a “properly basic belief” — has shaped academic discussions.

But here’s the problem: most philosophers don’t agree with him.

According to the 2020 PhilPapers Survey, about 73% of professional philosophers identify as atheists, while only 15% identify as theists. So while Plantinga has legitimized theism as a discussion topic, his arguments have not reversed the broader philosophical consensus. His influence is real, but not revolutionary.

2. Quentin Smith Was Sounding an Alarm, Not Celebrating a Shift

Clark quotes Smith as though he were acknowledging a renaissance of reasoned Christianity. But Smith’s actual point was one of concern, not endorsement. He was warning that Christian apologetics was gaining visibility — particularly in Christian institutions — not that their arguments were winning converts among secular philosophers.

This is a common rhetorical move: frame critique as concession.

3. David Bentley Hart’s Dismissal Is Polemical, Not Philosophical

Clark ends the section with a quote from David Bentley Hart, who calls atheism a “superstition” and claims it stems from “a tragic absence of curiosity.” It’s a colorful insult, but not an argument.

This kind of language may feel satisfying to believers — flipping the script on those who’ve long dismissed religion — but it doesn’t provide evidence. It simply mirrors the ridicule that many Christians rightly reject when it’s aimed at them.

Ironically, Hart’s mockery commits the very error Clark criticizes elsewhere: dismissing a worldview without engaging its strongest arguments.


💡 The Real “Effect” of Plantinga

If anything, the Plantinga Effect demonstrates this:

It is possible to argue for theism in academically serious ways —

but it is not inevitable that reason leads to belief.

Clark wants his readers to feel reassured that theism is gaining intellectual ground. But citing a few Christian philosophers and institutional trends does not amount to a paradigm shift. In fact, it reveals a deeper truth:

Christian apologetics often relies not on evidence, but on reframing old ideas as newly respected.

If theism is making a comeback in some circles, it’s not because the arguments have suddenly become airtight. It’s because, like any belief system, it’s finding ways to adapt, promote, and repackage itself for modern audiences.

And that’s not a triumph of reason. It’s a triumph of marketing.


The Problem with Miracles: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

📅 Today is Day 9 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.


“A wise man… proportions his belief to the evidence.”
David Hume, Of Miracles

The resurrection of Jesus is often called the cornerstone of Christian faith. But it’s also one of its most extraordinary claims—a literal return from the dead after three days in a tomb. For skeptics and critical thinkers alike, this raises a profound question:

What counts as sufficient evidence for a miracle?


🧠 The Core Issue: Miracles vs. Natural Law

Philosopher David Hume, writing in the 18th century, offered perhaps the most famous critique of miracles. He didn’t say miracles were impossible—only that belief in them is never reasonable, because a miracle is, by definition, a violation of the laws of nature.

If natural law tells us that dead people stay dead, then any claim to the contrary carries a heavy burden of proof.

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”
— Hume

In other words: Is it more likely that someone rose from the dead, or that people misunderstood, misremembered, or misreported what happened?


🕵️ Eyewitnesses and Testimonies

Christian apologists often cite eyewitness testimony as compelling evidence for the resurrection:

  • “Hundreds saw Jesus after the resurrection.”
  • “The disciples were willing to die for this belief.”

But Hume would respond: So have people of many other religions.

Martyrdom is not unique to Christianity. Nor is sincere belief the same as truth.

If thousands believed Elvis was still alive after his death—or saw apparitions of the Virgin Mary—does that make those claims true?


🧬 Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence

The idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is now a bedrock principle of rational inquiry. And resurrection—bodily, irreversible, and historical—is among the most extraordinary of all.

What would such evidence need to look like today?

  • DNA tests?
  • Global video footage?
  • Medical records?

Now ask: Does the ancient claim of Jesus’ resurrection meet even a basic standard of ordinary evidence?


🧩 A Deeper Question

Let’s flip the script.

If someone told you today that their dead uncle came back to life, visited people, then ascended into the sky—but that the event occurred decades ago, was written down in texts filled with theological embellishments, and was supported only by the faithful—would you believe them?

If not, why make an exception for Jesus?


📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: David Hume – On Miracles | Explained and Critiqued

This short, insightful video unpacks philosopher David Hume’s devastating critique of miracles—focusing on why testimony alone is never enough to override the natural laws we know through experience. With clear explanations of probability theory, bias in religious contexts, and common counterarguments, this video challenges viewers to confront a tough question: Is it ever rational to believe in a miracle?


📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.