NYT Piece: Gutting Interviews Louise Antony on Atheism

Here. The piece is the second in a series that Gutting is doing for the Times.

We mentioned reactions to the first interview of the series, with Alvin Plantinga, here. The original interview with Plantinga can be found here.

Non-Trivial Counterpossible Monday

If theism were true, you'd know it.

Di Muzio's Reply to Craig Re: Theism, Non-Theism, and the Meaning of Life

Di Muzio, Gianluca, "Theism and the Meaning of Life", Ars Disputandi 6 (2006).

Update: John Danaher has a nice discussion of the paper (here and here).

Some Reactions and Reflections Re: the NYT Plantinga-Gutting Piece in the Philosophy Blogosphere

Here and here.

Does Money Make You Mean?

Substantively Updated SEP Entry on Samuel Clarke

Here.

Weekend Funnies

Existentialist Star Wars.



H/T: NewAPPs

Rational Acceptance: A Flowchart

Kraay's Important Recent Paper on Divine Satisficing

Kraay, Klaas. "Can God Satisfice?", American Philosophical Quarterly 50 (2013), pp. 399-410.

Here's the abstract:

Three very prominent arguments for atheism are (1) the argument from sub-optimality, (2) the problem of no best world, and (3) the evidential argument from gratuitous evil. To date, it has not sufficiently been appreciated that several important criticisms of these arguments have all relied on a shared strategy. Although the details vary, the core of this strategy is to concede that God either cannot or need not achieve the best outcome in the relevant choice situation, but to insist that God must and can achieve an outcome that is good enough. In short, this strategy invokes divine satisficing in response to these arguments for atheism. (The widespread use of this strategy may have gone unnoticed because the appeal to divine satisficing is usually implicit.) In sections 1-3, the three arguments for atheism will be set out, and it will be shown that the relevant replies all employ this shared strategy. Section 4 will show that those who invoke divine satisficing have failed to establish that this is a coherent notion. Accordingly, these replies to three important arguments for atheism are, at present, incomplete.

Required reading. Then go read this paper (if you haven't already).

Announcement: Call for Papers: Workshop on Testimony and Religious Epistemology

Call for Papers
Workshop on Testimony and Religious Epistemology
Oxford University 24 & 25 June 2014 

The New Insights and Directions in Religious Epistemology project at Oxford University invites the submission of papers related to the application of epistemic issues raised in the context of testimony to any question in the philosophy of religion or analytic theology. 

Keynote Speakers:     Lizzie Fricker (Oxford) 

                              Jennifer Lackey (Northwestern)

                              Trent Dougherty (Baylor)

                              Paulina Sliwa (Cambridge)

Papers should be suitable for blind review and be no longer than 4000 words in length. Submissions should be accompanied by a cover letter including the name, affiliation, and contact details of the author.

Papers should be submitted to insights@philosophy.ox.ac.uk. 
Submission deadline is 25 April, 2014.
Partial funding is available to support travel and accommodation expenses for speakers. 

Further details of the New Insights project can be found atwww.newinsights.ox.ac.uk  

De Cruz's New Paper on the Enduring Appeal of the Arguments of Natural Theology...

...in the current issue of Philosophy Compass. Here's the abstract:

Natural theology is the branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to gain knowledge of God through non-revealed sources. In a narrower sense, natural theology is the discipline that presents rational arguments for the existence of God. Given that these arguments rarely directly persuade those who are not convinced by their conclusions, why do they enjoy an enduring appeal? This article examines two reasons for the continuing popularity of natural theological arguments: (i) they appeal to intuitions that humans robustly hold and that emerge early in cognitive development; (ii) they serve an argumentative function by presenting particular religious views as live options. I conclude with observations on the role of natural theology in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion.

And if a copy should make its way to my inbox...

Update: Thanks!

Announcement: Creation-Evolution Debate

My good friend Wes McMichael is hosting a debate on creation and evolution on Saturday, March 29th, at Pennsylvania Highlands Community College. Please see the flyer for further details. The debate will probably be uploaded to YouTube soon after the event. Please consider attending if you're in the area.

John Hawthorne on Theism, Atheism, and Bayesianism

The talk is a contribution to the Cambridge-Oxford Philosophy of Cosmology Project. Here are the parts of John's talk: part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.

How it's done.

Forthcoming Book on God and Abstract Objects

Beyond the Control of God? Six Views on the Problem of God and Abstract Objects (Paul Gould, ed.) is projected to come out at the end of March. Contributors include Keith Yandell, Paul Gold, Richard Brian Davis, Greg Welty, William Lane Craig, Scott Shalkowski, and Graham Oppy. Further details here.

Announcement: Conference on "Faith and Reason: Themes from Swinburne"...

...at Purdue, Sept. 25th-27th. Speakers include Paul Draper, J.L. Schellenberg, Peter van Inwagen, Alvin Plantinga, Dean Zimmerman, Eleonore Stump, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Jonathan Kvanvig, Hud Hudson, and Marylin McCord Adams. Further details here.