Skip to main content

Yujin Nagasawa

Yujin Nagasawa Is a young up-and-coming philosopher of religion at the University of Birmingham in England. He has recently written an intriguing book, God and Phenomenal Consciousness: A Novel Approach, (recently reviewed at Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, here) which critiques prominent a priori arguments for dualism, such as Thomas Nagel's and Frank jackson's. He has also co-edited the new cutting-edge volume, New Waves in Philosophy of Religion (with Erik Wielenberg).

A bunch of his papers are online at his department webpage, including his excellent "A New Defense of Anselmian Theism", which won the Essay Prize from the journal, The Philosophical Quarterly, in 2007. As you'll see at his page and his CV, he's working on a book-length treatment on the existence of God, entitled, The Existence of God: From Anselm to Big Bang Cosmology (under contract with Routledge).

UPDATE: I tracked down the table of contents for New Waves in Philosophy of Religion. Here it is:

Introduction; Y.Nagasawa and E.J.Wielenberg
A New Definition of ‘Omnipotence’ in Terms of Sets; D.J.Hill
Can God Choose a World at Random?; K.J.Kraay
Why is there Anything at All?; T.J.Mawson
Programs, Bugs, DNA and a Design Argument; A.R.Pruss
The ‘Why Design?’ Question; N.A.Manson
Divine Command Theory and the Semantics of Quantified Modal Logic; D.Efird
Divine Desire Theory and Obligation; C.B.Miller
The Puzzle of Prayers of Thanksgiving and Praise; D.Howard-Snyder
A Participatory Model of the Atonement; T.Bayne and G.Restall
Basic Human Worth: Religious and Secular Perspectives; C.J.Eberle
Imperfection as Sufficient for a Meaningful Life: How Much is Enough?; T.Metz


Chad said…
Nagasawa is a very clear and original thinker. I discovered his work while researching the problem of omniscience and first-person indexicals ( I've been wrestling with his article, "Grounds for Worship" for some time now. I referenced it during this past EPS conference in RI and I got the impression many weren't familiar with his work.

I appreciate this post!
Joost said…
Do you know what Nagasawa's religious background is?
exapologist said…
Hi Joost,

Not with any confidence. You might get a response from him on this, though, if you email him at the address advertised on his webpage.


James said…
He is an agnostic.

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…