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

UnBeguiled 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."
udo schuklenk said…
thanks stephen, glad you like the final product!
Kosh3 said…
What does Philip Kitcher say?
Peter said…
Erm ... isn't P F Strawson dead? What's his contribution?
Hey, great. Thanks for your comment on this, Stephen (and to Udo for drawing it to my attention).
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.
Stephen Law said…
Duh, yes Singer not Strawson. Fixed it.... Senior moment from me.
Tim Stephenson said…
Why have a snuffed out candle flame on the cover? What happened to science as a candle in the dark?

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

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

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.