Skip to main content

Book coming out end of the year (to which I contribute)

The Oxford Handbook of Atheism
Editors: Stephen Bullivant (St Mary’s University College)
and Michael Ruse (Florida State University)
Introduction: The Study of Atheism – Stephen Bullivant (St Mary’s) and Michael Ruse (Florida State)
Part 1: Definitions and Debates
1. Defining ‘Atheism’ – Stephen Bullivant (St Mary’s)
2. The Case against Atheism – T. J. Mawson (Oxford)
3. Critiques of Theistic Arguments – A. C. Grayling (Birkbeck)
4. Arguments for Atheism – Graham Oppy (Monash)
5. Problems of Evil – Michael L. Peterson (Asbury)
6. Atheism and Morality – Erik J. Wielenberg (DePauw)
7. Atheism and the Meaningfulness of Life – Kimberly A. Blessing (Buffalo State)
8. Aquinas and Atheism – Brian Davies (Fordham)
Part 2: History of (Western) Atheism
9. The Pre-Socratics to the Hellenistic Age – David Sedley (Cambridge)
10. The Roman Empire to the End of the First Millennium – Mark Edwards (Oxford)
11. The Medieval Period – Dorothea Weltecke (Konstanz)
12. Renaissance and Reformation – Denis Robichaud (Notre Dame)
13. The Age of Enlightenment – Alan C. Kors (Pennsylvania)
14. The Nineteenth Century – David Nash (Oxford Brookes)
15. The Twentieth Century – Callum Brown (Dundee)
16. New Atheism – Thomas Zenk (Berlin Free)
Part 3: Worldviews and Systems
17. Humanism – Stephen Law (Heythrop)
18. Existentialism – Alison Stone (Lancaster)
19. Marxism – Peter Thompson (Sheffield)
20. Analytic Philosophy – Charles Pigden (Otago)
21. Jewish Atheism – Jacques Berlinerblau (Georgetown)
22. Buddhism – Andrew Skilton (SOAS)
23. Jainism – Anne Vallely (Ottawa)
24. Hinduism – Jessica Frazier (Kent)
Part 4: Atheism and the Natural Sciences
25. Naturalism and the Scientific Method – Michael Ruse (Florida State)
26. Atheism and the Rise of Science – Taner Edis (Truman)
27. Atheism and Darwinism) – David P. Barash (Washington)
28. Atheism and the Physical Sciences – Victor J. Stenger (Colorado)
Part 5: Atheism and the Social Sciences
29. Atheism and the Secularization Thesis – Frank L. Pasquale and Barry A. Kosmin (ISSSC)
30. Psychology of Atheism –Miguel Farias (Oxford)
31. Atheism and Cognitive Science – Jonathan Lanman (Oxford)
32. Atheism and Societal Health – Phil Zuckerman (Pitzer)
33. Atheism, Gender, and Sexuality – Melanie A. Brewster (Columbia)
34. Atheism, Health and Well-being – Karen Hwang (Center for Atheist Research)
35. Conversion and Deconversion – Ralph W. Hood and Zhuo Chen (Tennessee)
Part 6: Global Expressions
36. A World of Atheism: Global Demographics – Ariela Keysar (Trinity) and Juhem Navarra-Rivera (Connecticut)
37. Western Europe – Lois Lee (Cambridge)
38. North America – Ryan T. Cragun (Tampa), Joseph H. Hammer (Iowa State), Jesse M. Smith (Colorado)
39. Central and Eastern Europe – Irena Borowik (Jagiellonian), Branko Ančić (Institute for Social Research), Radosław Tyrała (AGH)
40. Islamic World  – Samuli Schielke (ZMO, Berlin)
41. India – Johannes Quack (Heidelberg)
42. Japan – Sarah Whylly (Florida State)
Part 7: Atheism and the Arts
43. Literature – Bernard Schweizer (Long Island)
44.Visual Arts  – J. Sage Elwell (TCU)
45.Music  – Paul Bertagnolli (Houston)
46.Film – Nina Power (Roehampton)


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