Skip to main content

Announcement: The Epistemology of Atheism

Wednesday, June 26 2013 - Friday, June 28 2013
University of Lorraine

Nancy
France

Details

Laboratoire d'Histoire des Sciences et de Philosophie-Archives Poincaré (CNRS, UMR 7117) Université de Lorraine, Nancy (France)
91, Avenue de la Libération, Nancy Salle Internationale de la MSH Lorraine (3rd floor)
Organized by:
Michel Bastit (Laboratoire d’Histoire des Sciences et de Philosophie-Archives Poincaré, Nancy, Université de Lorraine & CNRS, UMR 7117)  Roger Pouivet (Laboratoire d’Histoire des Sciences et de Philosophie-Archives Poincaré, Nancy, Université de Lorraine & CNRS, UMR 7117) Darek Lukasiewicz (Department of Philosophy, University Kazimierz Wielki, Bydgoszcz, Poland)

PROGRAM

Wednesday 26 June Morning Session
09:30-10:00 : Welcome
10:00-11h00 Roger Pouivet, Université de Lorraine/LHPS-Archives Poincaré, Nancy : A Short Introduction to the Epistemology of Atheism
11:00-12:00 John Schellenberg, Mount Saint Vincent University, Canada : The Epistemology of Modest Atheism
Wednesday 26 June Afternoon Session
01:30-02:30 Michel Bastit, Université de Dijon/LHPS-Archives Poincaré, Nancy : If Atheism Were a Sort of Ignorance ?
02:30-03:30 Jacek Wojtysiak, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawla II: The Principle of Justice and the Principle of Evidence in the Theism vs. Atheism Debate
03:30-03:50 Break
03h00-04h50 Ireneusz Zieminski, Uniwersytet Szczecinski: Religious Skepticism
Thursday 27 June Morning Session
09:30-10:30 Darek Lukasiewicz, Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego: God's Hiddenness as an Argument for the Non-existence of God
10:30-11:30 John Greco, Saint Louis University: No-fault Atheism
11:30-12:30 Cyrille Michon, Université de Nantes/Centre Atlantique de Philosophie: On the Very Idea of Atheism
Thursday 27 June Afternoon Session
02:00-03:00   Ewa Odoj, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawla II) Do we Have to Prove Atheism? A Critical Examination of Anthony Flew’s Position
03:00-04:00 Sébastien Réhault, LHPS-Archives Poincaré, Nancy: If God doesn’t exist, why so many people believe in him?
16:20-17:20 Reneta Zieminska, Uniwersytet Szczecinski) Atheism and Skepticism
Friday 28 June Morning Session
09:30-10:30 Ryszard Mordarski, Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego: How Scientific is The New Atheism? The mutual influence of scientific naturalism and religion
10:30-11:30 Paul Clavier, École Normale Supérieure, Paris: “Beginning to exist without some productive principle”: Hume's Challenge to the cosmological argument
11:30-12:30 Yann Schmitt, Professeur agrégé, Paris : Materialism without Atheism ! Really ? Yes !
Friday 28 June Afternoon Session
02:00-03:00 Piotr Gutowski, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawla II: Is the Phenomenon of Belief in Belief restricted to Religion?
03:00-04:15 General Debate-End of the Conference

Comments

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…