Skip to main content

50 Voices of Disbelief




I just got my copy of this book and must say I am impressed - much better than I was even expecting. I am strongly recommending it as a present for anyone who has an interest in atheism/theism, from either side of the debate. OK I have a piece in it, but that's not why I am recommending it (I make not a penny from any sale). It's just a great read, from great authors...

A.C. Grayling, Julian Baggini, Peter Singer and Marc Hauser, Michael Shermer, James Randi, J.J.C. Smart, Ophelia Benson, etc. etc.

My contribution: Could It Be Pretty Obvious There's No God?

Comments

GarageDragon said…
It's pretty obvious there is no God.

Your essay made me recall an amusing off hand remark by Bertrand Russell:

"You could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it."
October 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM
udo schuklenk said…
thanks stephen, glad you like the final product!
October 24, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Kosh3 said…
What does Philip Kitcher say?
October 24, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Peter said…
Erm ... isn't P F Strawson dead? What's his contribution?
October 24, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Russell Blackford said…
Hey, great. Thanks for your comment on this, Stephen (and to Udo for drawing it to my attention).
October 25, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Russell Blackford said…
Oh, and it's Peter Singer and Marc Hauser for those who hadn't worked it out. Though a Strawson/Hauser collaboration would have been ... interesting.
October 25, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Stephen Law said…
Duh, yes Singer not Strawson. Fixed it.... Senior moment from me.
October 25, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Tim Stephenson said…
Why have a snuffed out candle flame on the cover? What happened to science as a candle in the dark?
November 11, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Sye - nowhere to run to, baby.

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...
153 comments
Read more