This is a superb epistemological argument for the de jure (as opposed to de facto) validity of warranted Christian belief. Plantinga's main goal is to determine whether it is rational, intellectually acceptable, to hold Christian belief. Using a hybrid Aquinas/Calvin model, Plantinga defines what exactly he means by Christian belief (teaser: the crux of the model is what Calvin terms the sensus divinitatis). Turning to Freud and Marx on the other side, Plantinga distills all opposition to warranted theistic belief since Epicurus's eloquent paradox (what we call today the argument from evil) into two strains: fantasy or illusion that stems from our wish-fulfillment faculties; and external pressure (e.g. societal, parental, etc.). In 500 pages, this book covers more ground and turns more stones than any other book I've read, and uses a mix of analytical philosophy and dialectics. Before reading, I would get at least a working knowledge of probability calculus, Freud's FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION, Hume's ENQUIRY, Kant's PURE REASON, and the main positions of more contemporary individuals like Rorty, Dawkins, and Dennett. (Marx is unnecessary, as he didn't write much on religion, and most know the common quip about religion being the opiate of the people). After setting up the models of the sides of the arguments, the de jure question of warrant is raised in the context of Enlightenment, scientific reason, atheism, agnosticism, postmodernism, pluralism, and, as I said, the argument from evil. Through it all,
Plantinga hunts for defeaters to the stance that Christian belief does not imply lack of intellectual warrant. No matter one's position on the topic, this is a masterwork of scholarship worthy of careful reading and consideration. Yes, it will take quite some time and effort to work through, but it is the worth the journey.
( )