Skip to main content

Israel, Palestine and Terror

Israel, Palestine and Terror is out at 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....


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
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)
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.
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).
Sally_bm said…
Alright, well maybe I should judge AFTER reading the book. It could be pants, after all :-)

However, it does sound brilliant!
Anonymous said…
Sold out at Amazon (UK) already.
Stephen Law said…
What - all four copies?!

Popular posts from this blog


(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

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

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