Skip to main content

Centre for Inquiry CARL SAGAN T-shirts now available

You can go to an on-line store here. We are not making any profit on these - but if you want to donate a couple of quid, go to and hit the "Support CFI UK" button.

The Sagan picture shirts are on white or light colour only. Otherwise choose any colour you want. Hit the shirt to get the colour options.

I might pull the picture shirts shortly, depending on copyright issues, so if you want one get in right now!

These T-shirts are all Carl Sagan themed. Later, if I feel inspired, I may do e.g. a twee "Russell's Teapot" and an all-action "Bullshit Force!" (perhaps based on the A-Team, only with Russell, Sagan, Dawkins, and Randi as Mr T) version.


Jac said…
The link isn't working for me. I like the Russle's Teapot shirt idea.
Stephen Law said…
Link stopped working but is working again now I think, Jackie.

Will sort out Russell's teapot.
Kyle Szklenski said…
Um, does this mean we American's cannot order the t-shirts? I tried, and there's no "U.S." option for the address country.

If anyone would like to buy us a few shirts and send them, we'd pay good money for them. :) We'd need a woman's small, man's large, and man's medium.
Stephen Law said…
I'll post you some. Give me bit to sort out how. Maybe you could pay me via paypal?

The other thing is - I can send you the image and you can just whip up your own versions at an equivalent US site, of which I'm sure there are many.
Kyle Szklenski said…
I could pay via Paypal fairly easily. My Jackie says she might rather wait for Russell's Teapot, though. I rather like that one, too. Yeah, maybe we'll just wait. Thanks though!
Anonymous said…
There seems to be a typo on the long sleeved shirt - you might want to check it. (applie pie)?
Stephen Law said…
I have put up a Russell's teapot. But perhaps not to Jackie's taste? let me know.

I could do one with Russell's face in the teapot, or bigger teapot, or ....
Stephen Law said…
There are badges and mugs too, now. I don't suppose we'll sell many - or perhaps any. But fun designing them.

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