Skip to main content

Jesus paper published

The journal Faith and Philosophy have accepted my piece on "Miracles, Evidence and The Existence of Jesus", which evolved from discussions on this blog. So thanks for all your comments, provocations, etc.

I will put the final version up here eventually.

That's three papers in Philosophy of Religion now published. "The Evil God Challenge" has just been published in Religious Studies. "Plantinga's Belief-Cum-Desire Argument Refuted" appears in Religious Studies shortly.

If you want a copy of any of these, let me know...
Labels:

Comments

Bogdan said…
I would love to have copies of these three papers.
August 7, 2010 at 12:38 PM
The Uncredible Hallq said…
I'd like to see the final version of the Jesus paper. My just send it to my Google address, username challquist.
August 7, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Patrick said…
Well, I'd be interested in reading them. I take it they won't be online since they're in journals?
August 9, 2010 at 3:14 AM
Stephen Law said…
Bogdan - email me and I'll send as attachments.
August 9, 2010 at 8:24 AM
Evan said…
I just finished reading it today. I think it's a great piece. I would love to see some apologetic responses to it, but I suppose I would have to wait for them.

As you rightly point out, a hermeneutic of suspicion is entirely in order when we are presented with fantasy tales. I doubt even Richard Bauckham believes in the historical Grendel.
August 11, 2010 at 2:30 AM
jbierly said…
I'd like a copy as well! If I e-mail you will you send me a copy as well?
August 12, 2010 at 1:44 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 show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more