Skip to main content

Israel, Palestine and Terror

Israel, Palestine and Terror is out at amazon.co.uk. Edited by me, it features contributions by many very eminent philosophers (and also myself). Noam Chomsky, Igor Primoratz, William McBride, Jerry Cohen and Ted Honderich, among others. Some very fiery and provocative papers among them. Tony Benn was kind enough to provide a flattering comment for the back cover.



Back to the vanishing God shortly....
Labels:

Comments

Sally_bm said…
You "understand" the Middle East too?! Do you know no limits?! I mean, you already seem to have a professional understanding of every single area of philosophy we wander into (which covers a LOT), the education system (here and in Australia!), the whole of London's academia, and even, most impressively, the logic-defying complexity of the British postal service. Ever considered, you know, being Prime Minister, just on the side? Just when you've got some spare time, you know... :-D
June 8, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Sally_bm said…
Oh, and I look forward to reading the book, etc etc... !

Seriously though, I do! Would you say that reading a basic introductory book to the Middle East's problems, history etc first would help, if you only know the very basic history of the situation (veeery basic) and what's on the news and in newspapers etc?

Thanks (and that's the end of the flattery)
Sally
June 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks for the flattery, Sally-bm. I don't pretend to understand the Middle East; nor do I claim to be any sort of authority. I just kind of got interested in topic of terrorism through talking to Honderich, and thought this would be an interesting collection to put together. My contribution is a bit of analysis on non-violent alternatives to terror, which required no particular Middle-East expertise from me, in fact.
June 8, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Stephen Law said…
Sorry, Sally-bm, I did not answer your question - you get a potted history included in some of the papers, so this really requires no background knowledge, I think (the history is from both sides - make up your own mind which is more accurate).
June 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Sally_bm said…
Alright, well maybe I should judge AFTER reading the book. It could be pants, after all :-)

However, it does sound brilliant!
June 8, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Anonymous said…
Sold out at Amazon (UK) already.
June 11, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Stephen Law said…
What - all four copies?!
June 11, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o...
151 comments
Read more