Template talk:Philosophy of religion

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Religion This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Religion This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

FWD?

Is Plantinga's free will defense notable enough to be included in this template? Gabbe (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Plantinga work on philosophy of religion is important enought to include him on this template. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian philosophers

I have added some Russian philosophers represents of Russian religious philosophy who contributed to philosophy of religion.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought Movement

Could or Should New Thought be included in this Template?66.108.86.141 (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design

Intelligent design is not mentioned once in the main Philosophy of religion article, so I would question whether it merits inclusion as one of its core 'Concepts'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Inside the section on 'The Problem of Evil', add Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense, probably the most accepted response and far worthier of a place than Augustine's answer. 86.179.170.16 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If that response is the most accepted, please create a well sourced article about it. As it stands now, Augustine's answer has an article, while this doesn't. DannyS712 (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]