Skip to main content

New Journal: International Journal for the Study of Skepticism

Readers of this blog may be interested to know of an excellent new journal: International Journal for the Study of Skepticism. Below is some pertinent information from the Editor's Note:

The International Journal for the Study of Skepticism will publish articles on any topic related to the problem of skepticism, including both radical forms of skepticism and local skepticism, and also the contemporary debates regarding the history, nature, and viability of skepticism.

Forthcoming issues will include articles on Moore’s proof of the existence of the external world, Boghossian’s refutation of relativism, whether speech act theory can refute Pyrrhonian skepticism, and whether skepticism’s import is merely methodological; a symposium on contrastivism and skepticism with contributions from Steven Luper and Martijn Blaauw; and a book symposium on Ernest’s Sosa Reflective Knowledge with contributions from Richard Fumerton, John Greco, and Michael Williams, and a reply from Sosa.

The contents of the current issue are available for free (here).

HT: J.L. Schellenberg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…