I don't know, what do folks think? I voted Aquinas. (although I think Augustine is close - as for interesting positions, Spinoza and Kant would be there)

As for the list... please remove William Lane Craig >:O In fact, you can replace him with Edward Feser, a much better choice.

The other issue is that the list only has Christian philosophers of religion. What about Maimonides? What about Averroes, or Al-Ghazali? What about Nagarjuna? And so forth. And if you include Nietzsche, Berkeley, why not Heidegger?

I don't know enough about the subject or the options to have an opinion.

Swinburne and Thomas Aquinas. The rest is no contest really, as I do not consider Spinoza religious.

Some weird absences on the poll--St. Anselm, Kierkegaard and Charles Hartshorne for example.

Anyway, I was torn between Plantinga and Swinburne for my choice. I went with Plantinga.

Yes, why make it a poll? Who likes to be, er, polled? :-O
I think we've had enough elections for a while. Just state your preferences, and why they are meaningful to you.

Also, if it's not just folks who are pro-religion--Nietzsche, for example, then Michael Martin should be on the list, and he'd easily be my choice.

Plantinga — Terrapin Station

Why Plantinga? I've read about 2 of his books, but I wasn't too impressed...

For philosophy, it's pretty much a guarantee that if I have a choice between someone with a strictly analytic approach and someone with a more "literary"/poetic/flowery approach, I'm going to prefer the former. And it's also pretty much a guarantee that if it's someone with a continental approach I'm going to hate them. (And when we're talking about philosophers prior to those distinctions being cemented, it's typically a matter of how much the style resembles each of those camps in a "proto" manner, although there are some notable exceptions--for example, I very much prefer Plato's writing to Aristotle's, even though Plato was much more of a "literary" writer than Aristotle.)

That's not about their conclusions (and obviously I don't agree with Plantinga or any religious philosopher insofar as their religious views go) but about their method of doing philosophy and their style of communicating.

Given this list, I said Kant.

Hmm I see. Which philosopher of religion who is pro do you find most convincing then? (well I know you find none convincing but certainly one has to be the closest)

Given this list, I said Kant. — Thorongil

Really? Why Kant over Aquinas?

Because Kant has some of the most penetrating philosophical insights into the nature of religion.

Once he's done with the praeambula fidei, which doesn't amount to much of his writing, Aquinas is pretty straightforwardly a theologian and not a philosopher.

Because Kant has some of the most penetrating philosophical insights into the nature of religion. — Thorongil

Which work(s) are you referring to?

Probably Religion and Rational Theology.

The first Critique, the essay on religion within the limits of reason, and various other places throughout his oeuvre. I would include whatever essay I got those quotes on Abraham and Isaac from, too, but I forget what that is.

Most convincing in terms of conclusions on religious issues? I'm tempted to say "no one," although I can't say for sure that that's right, but, I wouldn't be able to say without going through everyone's phil of religion and doing something like a tally sheet, which I haven't done, and which would be a major, years-long undertaking that would also require some method of enumerating conclusions and making comparisons in light of uneven bodies of work. Some folks were far more prolific than others, and a simple percentage comparison for this wouldn't seem like a good idea for me, because intuitively, I'd say I find someone with many conclusions more convincing than someone with fewer, even if they're both at the same percentage.

The thing is that I don't primarily assess philosophers via whether I agree with conclusions. Of course, whether I agree with conclusions is a factor when it comes to my favorites overall, but that's not a primary way I assess anyone, because I don't think there's anyone where even 50% of the time I'd agree with their conclusions (not just talking about philosophy of religion, of course, but philosophy in general).

Instead, the primary ways that I assess philosophers is on their approach to doing philosophy--their methodology, how systematically, rigorously, logically, in a more or less analytic manner, etc. they go about doing philosophy, and just as importantly, I assess them on how well they write, in terms of the formal properties of their writing--just how clear and straightforward it is, etc., with bonus points for being able to also write in an entertaining, engaging way, and especially with a sense of humor.

So, for example, I think that Hilary Putnam is a fine philosopher even though I often disagree with his conclusions, sometimes vehemently. But he went about doing philosophy in the way I think it should be done, and he wrote extremely well.

So that's why I like philosophers of religion like Plantinga and Swinburne. Michael Martin is in the same camp, but there he gets bonus points for me often agreeing with him (where he's often dismantling/refuting the arguments of Plantinga, Swinburne and others of their ilk).

I also like Charles Hartshorne's work, which is why I mentioned him above. If he'd been on the poll and neither Plantinga nor Swinburne were listed, I would have picked him.

Once he's done with the praeambula fidei, which doesn't amount to much of his writing, Aquinas is pretty straightforwardly a theologian and not a philosopher. — Thorongil

Have you read De Veritate for example? That's mostly metaphysics discussing the nature of truth. Aquinas has wide ranging works, and he outlines, explicates and corrects Aristotelianism.

Kant — Thorongil

Indeed a lot seems to revolve around Kant, a man of a kind for certain. Both his "apprentices" - Schopenhauer and Hegel - don't quite reach up to him, although Schopenhauer fares much better, but he also "corrupts" Kant's metaphysics, and gives it a tint that Kant would probably not approve of. I'm not sure what to say about it - I appreciate transcendental idealism but Aristotelian realism also seems an appealing alternative. I can never be decided which conception I favour. Kant seems an improvement upon Plato, but Aristotle goes in a different direction entirely.

Two things.

1. This looks more like a poll for the best philosopher of Christianity as opposed to a poll for the best philosopher of religion. If you want to make a poll for the best philosopher of religion (and not just Christianity) then I would suggest including Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and other thinkers (dare I say Mormon? Hugh Nibley anyone? lol) as well.

2. Since there's no way for anyone to be familiar with the work of each philosopher in depth, then the poll is more a reflection of who on the list you actually took the time to read instead of who of them is "the best". So with that said, I'm going with Berkeley just because I recently read the following quote from him that resonated with me:

"For it is downright impossible that a soul pierced and enlightened with a thorough sense of the omnipresence, holiness, and justice of that almighty spirit, should persist in remorselessly violating his laws. We ought therefore earnestly to meditate and dwell on those important points, so as to become convinced beyond all doubt that the eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good; that he is with us and keeps us in all places to which we go, and gives us bread to eat, and clothes to wear; that he is present and conscious to our innermost thoughts; and that we have a most absolute and immediate dependence on him. A clear view of these great truths cannot but fill our heart with awed caution and holy fear, which is the strongest incentive to virtue and the best guard against vice." — George Berkeley

Great quote.

I would nominate St Augustine, not because he's the winner of the contest but because of his seminal influence on the development of Christian doctrine especially in regards to his being a conduit for Neoplatonism and for his development of the idea of the 'inner self'.

I'm curious if Kant is getting voted by both theists and atheists in this poll, and hence winning because of it. It's very possible to vote for Kant as an atheist, because he is taken to demolish the proofs of God's existence. But the same cannot really be said regarding voting for Augustine for example. I'd be curious if there are atheists who voted Kant, if they can specify why they have done so.

Have you read De Veritate for example? — Agustino

I've not and have debated whether to add it to my list. Still, considering his total output, the vast majority of it is theological. I would actually place Augustine ahead of Aquinas as a philosopher of religion.

Aristotelian realism — Agustino

I think it's somewhat of a mistake to apply the the terms "realism" and "idealism" to ancient figures, especially when these terms are highly contested in modern philosophy. In the present case, Aristotle's philosophy can be thought of as a variant of Platonism, which distinguishes between reality and appearance, which, in turn, is one way to couch idealism. I'm not actually certain how to classify Aristotle, since he doesn't use the same terminology that realism and idealism are predicated on. The act/potency distinction is unique.

Anselm and Kierkegaard are omissions. This site does not allow to edit the options in the poll.
I was surprised that Kant is ahead of Aquinas in philosophy of religion.

Still, considering his total output, the vast majority of it is theological. — Thorongil

This is so false though - what about Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle's works? On Metaphysica, on De Anima, and so forth?

I'm not actually certain how to classify Aristotle, since he doesn't use the same terminology that realism and idealism are predicated on. — Thorongil

Classify him in relation to Plato. If Plato is the idealist, then Aristotle is the realist. For example, Aristotle didn't believe that the Forms pre-existed in some realm other than this world. In his hylomorphism, a substance was composed by the unity of Form and Matter. Aristotle solved the problem of the One and the Many that Plato started with. Triangularity - if it applies to all triangles (it is universal), then it cannot be applied to particulars - have you ever seen a triangle that is neither scalene, nor isosceles, nor equilateral? And particulars, if they are particular, cannot be applied to more than one object. The way Aristotle resolves the problem is by having the forms present in both the object and in the intellect. Furthermore, triangularity exists in a particular triangle concretely, not abstractly or universally. What is present to the mind on the other hand is triangularity considered universally, as it applies to all triangles. But - triangularity in-itself is neither particular, nor universal - neither one, nor many. For if it was One - then it couldn't be shared by different objects. And if it was many, then it couldn't apply to particular objects - "universals as such exist only in the soul, but forms themselves, which are conceivable universally, exist in things"

Plato is an idealist with regards to the forms, Aristotle isn't.

There are further differences between the two, in that Aristotle is always focused on this life and this world, and Plato is not (and in this sense too, Plato is an idealist, and Aristotle a realist). Aristotle is about living in this world, Plato is about transcending this world. And the differences apply even further down the line. That's why I said Kant - and especially Schopenhauer are Platonists par excellence, and not Aristotelians. Kant, you could argue has elements of both with, for example, his Kingdom of God becoming manifest on Earth. That's one way in which Schopenhauer crudely mis-treated Kant's philosophy, in that he brought it back to Platonism, instead of keeping it as a unity of Platonism/Aristotelianism. And Hegel brought it into an objective idealist Aristotelianism, instead of again, keeping it a unity.

which distinguishes between reality and appearance, which, in turn, is one way to couch idealism — Thorongil

Not at all, for Aristotle it's all one reality, there is no element of transcendence in it. The Forms aren't separate from the world. There is no "realm of the forms". Neither is the Prime Mover separate from the world, but rather, the Prime Mover is always present, and always acting, at all times, and at all places within the world and sustaining it.

what about Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle's works? — Agustino

They're matched by his biblical commentaries.

Plato is an idealist with regards to the forms, Aristotle isn't — Agustino

I'm not so sure. I understand that for Aristotle the forms are inextricably bound with matter in an object, but we can ask: are the forms immaterial? If so, then that surely casts doubt on his alleged realism. Secondly, he thought we could abstract from particular forms and particular bits of matter to more basic (and real?) things: the prime mover, which is certainly not a material being, and prime matter, which, ironically, isn't exactly material.

Neither is the Prime Mover separate from the world, but rather, the Prime Mover is always present, and always acting, at all times, and at all places within the world and sustaining it. — Agustino

Yes, but this simply makes him an immanentist, not necessarily a realist. I define realism (at least one kind of it) as asserting the mind independent reality of the objects of sense. Does Aristotle do this? No, since the prime mover, as pure intellect, is always brooding over the particulars.

I'm not so sure. I understand that for Aristotle the forms are inextricably bound with matter in an object, but we can ask: are the forms immaterial? — Thorongil

The forms are immaterial only qua universals - ie in the mind. But the forms as they are in particular objects aren't immaterial. They are just the structure of matter.

Secondly, he thought we could abstract from particular forms and particular bits of matter to more basic (and real?) things: the prime mover, which is certainly not a material being, and prime matter, which, ironically, isn't exactly material. — Thorongil

They aren't any more real than anything else. The Prime Mover isn't more real than the chair you're sitting on. They're equally real, except that the chair cannot exist without the pure activity of the Prime Mover. So in the sense of what depends on what, sure the Prime Mover is more real, and there still is a hirearchy of being. But, ultimately, they are equally real, in the sense that there is no transcendence being referred. Transcendence is what's at stake. If you say that Aristotle is an immanentist, then he certainly isn't a transcendental idealist as Kant or Schopenhauer is. The noumenon, for those two, isn't equivalent with the Prime Mover in Aristotle. For Aristotle, it's not the case that the world as we perceive it through our faculties and senses is the Prime Mover. For Schopenhauer for example, the noumenon doesn't cause the world (as the Prime Mover causes the world in Aristotle), but rather IS the world, ultimately and fundamentally, below the appearances, below the veil of Maya that's drawn over our eyes. There are no "appearances" in Aristotle, and no reality beyond those appearances. There is no transcendence, so there can't be. Aristotelianism isn't compatible with Kantianism.

I define realism (at least one kind of it) as asserting the mind independent reality of the objects of sense. Does Aristotle do this? — Thorongil

He absolutely does this! The forms exist in the object even if there is no (particular) mind to perceive them. According to Aristotle, it's not the mind which imposes space and motion (time) on the world. These are real parts of its structure, which exist independent of the mind.