Smart is obviously an important philosopher and his work on atheism is important. But this article is still embarrassingly bad, particularly given the caliber of many of the other entries in the SEP. First, they need to separate atheism and agnosticism. Second, they need to distinguish between the ontological and the epistemological issues in both positions. The bibliography is idiosyncratic and surprisingly out of date. There are glaring omissions like Graham Oppy's first rate and central work on the topic. And the most serious problems with the entry were in the earlier version and they aren't fixed in this new one.
I've got a pretty good handle on this segment of the literature. See my bibliography here at Oxford Bib. Online: http://oxfordbibliographiesonline.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0009.xml?rskey=0zDtB8&result=1&q=atheism#firstMatch (Sorry that's not a real link, just paste it.)
And, even if I'm talking about my own work, my entry on atheism at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is much better: http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
2 comments:
Smart is obviously an important philosopher and his work on atheism is important. But this article is still embarrassingly bad, particularly given the caliber of many of the other entries in the SEP. First, they need to separate atheism and agnosticism. Second, they need to distinguish between the ontological and the epistemological issues in both positions. The bibliography is idiosyncratic and surprisingly out of date. There are glaring omissions like Graham Oppy's first rate and central work on the topic. And the most serious problems with the entry were in the earlier version and they aren't fixed in this new one.
I've got a pretty good handle on this segment of the literature. See my bibliography here at Oxford Bib. Online: http://oxfordbibliographiesonline.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0009.xml?rskey=0zDtB8&result=1&q=atheism#firstMatch
(Sorry that's not a real link, just paste it.)
And, even if I'm talking about my own work, my entry on atheism at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is much better: http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
Thanks Ex. Good work on the blog as always.
Matt McCormick
provingthenegative.com
Thanks, Matt. I was likewise puzzled by the unrepresentative and out-of-date bibliography.
Post a Comment