...by William Hasker, here. The article mainly covers arguments and evidence for and against the possibility of survival after bodily death.
The article struck me as a bit too polemical for an SEP entry. Also, I'm not up to speed on the literature on this topic, but glancing at the bibliography for the entry, I can't help thinking that it can't be sufficiently robust and representative. Am I right about this?
1 comment:
Article didn't strike me as polemical - different intuitions I suppose. Not sure about there being important work that was passed up on in forming the bibliography.
Relevant anecdote: I edited an SEP entry on an issue in philosophy of science for a friend (a very influential philosopher of science) and he said he couldn't believe the reaction he got after the entry was published. A couple of philosophers e-mailed him saying that he should re-write the thing so that it shows there work as a part of the academic conversation (most of the individuals were reductionists), even though it is quite obvious both to an outside observer and themselves that their work is not that important. My friend said that he was not surprised by the response, as much of academia is run by nothing even closely resembling objectivity, impartiality, and reason.
Post a Comment