Keith Parsons's Blog, page 57

Philip Kitcher on Militant Modern Atheism

From the abstract:

Militant modern atheism, whose most eloquent champion is Richard Dawkins, provides an effective and necessary critique of fundamentalist forms of religion and their role in political life, both within states and across national boundaries. Because it is also presented as a more general attack on religion (tout court), it has provoked a severe reaction from scholars who regard

Rosalind Carey's Review of Michael Martin's ATHEISM, MORALITY, AND MEANING

LINK

Related articles: here, here, and here

William Rowe's Latest on Friendly Atheism

Abstract:

This paper endeavors to explain what friendly atheism is and why it is reasonable to seek to be friendly toward those whose views about God differ substantially from one's own.
Unfortunately, online access to this requires a paid subscription.

LINK

Silver's Defense of Draper's Argument from the Biological Role of Pain and Pleasure

LINK

Wanchick's Reply to Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

LINK

Biological Evolution as Evidence against Theism

LINK

The Argument from the Biological Role of Pain and Pleasure

LINK

Biological vs. Philosophical Perspectives on Morality

(This is from my archives and is undated; I'm guessing I wrote this about a decade ago. I think it is still relevant, as evidenced by Jerry Coyne's article about explaining morality.)

I recently updated one of the official FAQs for the *.atheism newsgroups. (For interested parties, I updated the "Atheist Media FAQ" at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/....) In private email, I received

Help Wanted

For the past two years I have, in my copious free time, been studying Richard Swinburne's case for God. Recently my focus has been on his evaluation of the cosmological argument (hereafter TCA) in his book The Existence of God, 2nd edition (hereafter EOG). His version of TCA is quite simple:e: A complex physical universe exists.Thereforeg: God exists.But Swinburne's argument about TCA is not so

Friendly Atheism, Reasonable Nonbelief, and Unfriendly Apologetics

I am what William Rowe calls a "friendly atheist." I respect many Christian philosophers and other theistic philosophers. I do not believe they are irrational or suffer from a mental disorder, as some "unfriendly atheists" have claimed.

Similarly, I know Christian philosophers who I happily describe as "friendly theists;" I've always enjoyed my interactions with them. Other theists, on the other