Call for Papers
Last updated: January 21, 2013
Many conservative Christians and lay atheists alike claim that if biological evolution is true, then God does not exist. Ironically, while many conservative Christians have attacked evolution because it supposedly entails atheism, no contemporary atheist philosopher has used evolution as evidence for atheism. Indeed, the only philosopher who has formulated an argument for the claim that evolution is evidence against theism and for metaphysical naturalism is agnostic philosopher Paul Draper. Draper defends an evidential argument from evolution for naturalism. Specifically, he grants that evolution is logically compatible with the existence of God. However, he argues that, all other things held equal, known facts about the origin of complex life are prima facie evidence against theism. Draper summarizes his argument as follows:
In his book, The Non-Existence of God, philosopher Nicholas Everitt provides the first detailed analysis and defense of the argument from scale for God's nonexistence. Everitt formulates his argument as follows:
Note: Books are listed in chronological order according to publication date; prices shown are list prices, but these books can usually be purchased new or used by clicking on the book title links below.
The Myth of Morality by Richard Joyce. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pp 264. $75.00 (Cloth)
Richard Joyce argues in this study that moral discourse is hopelessly flawed. At the heart of ordinary moral judgments is a notion of moral inescapability, or practical authority, which, upon investigation, cannot be reasonably defended. He asserts, moreover, that natural selection is to blame, in that it has provided us with a tendency to invest the world with values that it does not contain, and demands that it does not make. This original and innovative book will appeal to readers interested in the problems of moral philosophy.
Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (Cognitive Science of Religion) by Justin L. Barrett. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2004. Pp 152. $22.95 (Paper)
Appealing to evidence from cognitive psychology, Justin Barrett argues that belief in God is a natural consequence of the kinds of minds that all human beings possess due to natural and cultural selection in the struggle for survival. Most of our conscious beliefs are driven by subconscious assumptions which fit well with belief in gods, especially the belief in an all-knowing and all-powerful God. Religious beliefs are widespread because it is difficult to think without the underlying assumptions which drive them.
Philosophers Without Gods: Atheism in a World of Believers ed. Louise Antony. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Pp 304. (Cloth)
Atheists are frequently demonized as arrogant intellectuals, antagonistic to religion, devoid of moral sentiments, advocates of an "anything goes" lifestyle. In this revealing volume, nineteen leading philosophers open a window on the inner life of atheism, shattering these common stereotypes as they reveal how they came to turn away from religious belief. These highly engaging personal essays capture the marvelous diversity to be found among atheists, providing a portrait that will surprise most readers. Many of the authors, for example, express great affection for particular religious traditions, even as they explain why they cannot, in good conscience, embrace them. None of the contributors dismiss religious belief as stupid or primitive, and several even express regret that they cannot, or can no longer, believe. Perhaps more important, in these reflective pieces, they offer fresh insight into some of the oldest and most difficult problems facing the human mind and spirit. For instance, if God is dead, is everything permitted? Philosophers Without Gods demonstrates convincingly, with arguments that date back to Plato, that morality is independent of the existence of God. Indeed, every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong. Moreover, they contend that secular life can provide rewards as great and as rich as religious life. A naturalistic understanding of the human condition presents a set of challenges—to pursue our goals without illusions, to act morally without hope of reward—challenges that can impart a lasting value to finite and fragile human lives. Collectively, these essays highlight the richness of atheistic belief—not only as a valid alternative to religion, but as a profoundly fulfilling and moral way of life.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett. New York: Viking Adult, 2006. Pp 464, $25.95 (Cloth)
In a spirited narrative that ranges widely through history, philosophy, and psychology, Dennett explores how organized religion evolved from folk beliefs and why it is such a potent force today. Deftly and lucidly, he contends that the "belief in belief" has fogged any attempt to rationally consider the existence of God and the relationship between divinity and human need. Breaking the Spell is not an antireligious screed but rather an eye-opening exploration of the role that belief plays in our lives, our interactions, and our country. With the gulf between rationalists and adherents of "intelligent design" widening daily, Dennett has written a timely and provocative book that will be read and passionately debated by believers and nonbelievers alike.
Graham Oppy examines contemporary arguments for and against the existence of God. He shows that none of these arguments are persuasive enough to change the minds of those participants on the question of the existence of God. His conclusion is supported by detailed analyses of contemporary arguments, as well as by the development of a theory about the purpose of arguments, and the criteria that should be used in judging whether or not an argument is successful. Oppy discusses the work of a wide array of philosophers, including Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Kant and Hume, and more recently, Plantinga, Dembski, White, Dawkins, Bergman, Gale, and Pruss.
Dawkins critiques God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. In so doing, he makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just irrational, but potentially deadly. Dawkins has fashioned an impassioned, rigorous rebuttal to religion, to be embraced by anyone who sputters at the inconsistencies and cruelties that riddle the Bible, bristles at the inanity of "intelligent design," or agonizes over fundamentalism in the Middle East--or Middle America.
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) by Michael Martin. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp 352, $27.99 (Paper)
In this volume, eighteen of the world's leading scholars present original essays on various aspects of atheism: its history, both ancient and modern, defense and implications. The topic is examined in terms of its implications for a wide range of disciplines including philosophy, religion, feminism, postmodernism, sociology and psychology. In its defense, both classical and contemporary theistic arguments are criticized, and, the argument from evil, and impossibility arguments, along with a nonreligious basis for morality are defended. These essays give a broad understanding of atheism and a lucid introduction to this controversial topic.
Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro present a succinct and accessible critique of metaphysical naturalism in both its "strict" and "broad" forms. Their critique argues that either form of naturalism will have implausible consequences for the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of action, value theory and metaethics, philosophy of religion, teleological explanation, and causation.
Theism and Explanation (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) by Gregory W. Dawes. New York: Routledge, 2009. Pp 222. $125.00 (Cloth)
In Theism and Explanation Gregory W. Dawes defends the methodological naturalism of the sciences. Though religions offer what appear to be explanations of various facts about the world, the scientist, as scientist, will not take such proposed explanations seriously. Even if no natural explanation were available, she will assume that one exists. Is this merely a sign of atheistic prejudice, as some critics suggest? Or are there good reasons to exclude from science explanations that invoke a supernatural agent? On the one hand, Dawes concedes the bare possibility that talk of divine action could constitute a potential explanation of some state of affairs, while noting that the conditions under which this would be true are unlikely ever to be fulfilled. On the other hand, he argues that a proposed explanation of this kind would rate poorly, when measured against our usual standards of explanatory virtue.
In this anthology of recent criticisms aimed at the reasonableness of Christian belief, former evangelical minister and apologist John W. Loftus has assembled fifteen outstanding articles by leading skeptics expanding on themes introduced in his Loftus' Why I Became an Atheist. Central is a defense of Loftus' "outsider's test of faith," arguing that believers should test their faith as if they were outsiders with the same skeptical standards they use to evaluate the other faiths they reject. Experts in medicine, psychology, and anthropology join Loftus to show in four chapters why, when this test is applied to Christianity, it becomes very difficult to rationally defend. Three chapters follow that demonstrate errors and superstitions throughout the Bible, making any claim of the Bible being God's word nearly impossible to sustain. Two chapters expose the immorality of the biblical God, with an innovative argument from animal suffering and a cogent reply to Christians who attempt to defend the depravity of the Bible's God. Three chapters then focus on why it is unreasonable to believe that Jesus is the risen son of God. Finally, the contributors show why Christianity does not provide the basis for morality, why atheism was not the reason Hitler murdered so many, and why Christianity was not responsible for modern science. Contributors include Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, David Eller, and Robert Price.
The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions by Alex Rosenberg. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011. Pp 368. $25.95 (Cloth)
We can't avoid persistent questions about the meaning of life and the nature of reality. Alex Rosenberg maintains that science is the only thing that can really answer all of them. His bracing and ultimately upbeat book takes physics seriously as the complete description of reality and accepts all its consequences. He shows how physics makes Darwinian natural selection the only way life can emerge, and how that deprives nature of purpose, and human action of meaning, while it exposes conscious illusions such as free will and the self. The science that makes us nonbelievers provides the insight into the real difference between right and wrong, the nature of the mind, even the direction of human history. The Atheist's Guide to Reality draws powerful implications for the ethical and political issues that roil contemporary life. The result is nice nihilism, a surprisingly sanguine perspective atheists can happily embrace.
Morality Without God? (Philosophy in Action) by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp 192. $14.95 (Paper)
Some argue that atheism must be false, since without God, no values are possible, and thus "everything is permitted." Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues that God is not only not essential to morality, but that our moral behavior should be utterly independent of religion. He attacks several core ideas: that atheists are inherently immoral people; that any society will sink into chaos if it is becomes too secular; that without morality, we have no reason to be moral; that absolute moral standards require the existence of God; and that without religion, we simply couldn't know what is wrong and what is right.
Reasonable Atheism: A Moral Case For Respectful Disbelief by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011. Pp 219. $20.00 (Paper)
Reasonable Atheism presents a compelling argument both for atheism and the necessity of mutual respect and open debate. Recent research suggests that atheists are one of the least trusted social groups. Perhaps compounding this negative impression is the attack-dog persona taken on in the past decade by the 'New Atheists.' Not only have they been quite public about their disbelief, but they've also stridently lambasted religious belief in a number of bestselling books. Disturbed by this negative public perception and the deterioration in the tone of open debate, the authors of this eminently reasonable work attempt to introduce a note of civility and rational clarity. The heart of the book is the authors' moral case for atheism. Atheism, they contend, manifests a decidedly moral concern for others and their well-being. They further argue that atheism is driven by the kinds of moral considerations that should be familiar to all religious believers.
Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp 376. $27.95 (Cloth)
In his characteristic refined analysis Alvin Plantinga pines in on the long-standing and broad debate about whether science and religion are compatible. He concludes that any appearance of conflict is superficial, as science and religion harmonize at a deeper level. Alleged domains of conflict such as evolution, evolutionary psychology, biblical criticism, and the scientific study of religion reveal only conflict between methodological naturalism and religion, and science can actually bolster religious belief through fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God. Ultimately Plantinga concludes that science and religion offer two different ways of talking about ultimate questions.
Objecting to God by Colin Howson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pp 232. $88.00 (Cloth); $29.99 (Paper)
The growth of science and a correspondingly scientific way of looking at evidence have for the last three centuries slowly been gaining ground over religious explanations of the cosmos and mankind's place in it. However, not only is secularism now under renewed attack from religious fundamentalism, but it has also been widely claimed that the scientific evidence itself points strongly to a universe deliberately fine-tuned for life to evolve in it. In addition, certain aspects of human life, like consciousness and the ability to recognize the existence of universal moral standards, seem completely resistant to evolutionary explanation. In this book Colin Howson analyses in detail the evidence which is claimed to support belief in God's existence and argues that the claim is not well-founded. Moreover, there is very compelling evidence that an all-powerful, all-knowing God not only does not exist but cannot exist, a conclusion both surprising and provocative.
God in the Age of Science? by Herman Philipse. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Pp 400. $75.00 (Cloth)
God in the Age of Science? is a critical examination of strategies for the philosophical defense of religious belief. The main options may be presented as the end nodes of a decision tree for religious believers. The faithful can interpret a creedal statement (e.g., "God exists") either as a truth claim, or otherwise. If it is a truth claim, they can either be warranted to endorse it without evidence, or not. Finally, if evidence is needed, should its evidential support be assessed by the same logical criteria that we use in evaluating evidence in science, or not? Each of these options has been defended by prominent analytic philosophers of religion. In part I Herman Philipse assesses these options and argues that the most promising one for believers who want to be justified in accepting their creed in our scientific age is the Bayesian cumulative case strategy developed by Richard Swinburne. Parts II and III are devoted to an in-depth analysis of this case for theism. Using a "strategy of subsidiary arguments," Philipse concludes: (1) that theism cannot be stated meaningfully; (2) that if theism were meaningful, it would have no predictive power concerning existing evidence, so that Bayesian arguments cannot get started; and (3) that if the Bayesian cumulative case strategy did work, one should conclude that atheism is more probable than theism. Philipse provides a careful, rigorous, and original critique of theism in the world today.
The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates by Howard Bloom. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012. Pp 575. $18.48 (Paper)
God's war crimes, Aristotle's sneaky tricks, Galileo's creationism, Newton's intelligent design, entropy's errors, Einstein's pajamas, John Conway's game of loneliness, information theory's blind spot, Stephen Wolfram's new kind of science, and six monkeys at six typewriters getting it wrong. What do these have to do with the birth of a universe and with your need for meaning? Everything, according to Howard Bloom.
Atheism and the Case Against Christ by Matt McCormick. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012. Pp 330. $19.00 (Paper)
Hundreds of millions of people believe that Jesus came back from the dead. Philosopher Matthew S. McCormick presents a decidedly unpopular view in this cogent, forcefully argued book—namely, that the central tenet of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus, is false. McCormick asks a number of probing questions: Is the evidence about Jesus as it has been relayed to us over the centuries of sufficient quantity and quality to justify belief in the resurrection? How can we accept the resurrection but reject magic at the Salem witch trials? What light does contemporary research about human rationality from the fields of behavioral economics, empirical psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy shed on the resurrection and religious belief? Can we use contemporary research about the reliability of people's beliefs in the supernatural, miracles, and the paranormal to shed light on the origins of Christianity and other religions? Does it make sense that the all-powerful creator of the universe would employ miracles to achieve his ends? Can a Christian believe by faith alone and yet reasonably deny the supernatural claims of other religions? Do the arguments against Christianity support atheism? By carefully answering each of these questions, Atheism and the Case against Christ undermines Christianity and theism at their foundations; it gives us a powerful model for better critical reasoning; and it builds a compelling case for atheism. Without stooping to condescension or arrogance, McCormick offers persuasive arguments that are accessible, thoughtful, and new.
Oxford Handbook of Atheism by Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Some writers have claimed that Christians actively destroyed classical works from antiquity, including the burning of a library in Alexandria. We're interested in publishing a review of the relevant historical evidence.
What is the historical evidence for the alleged miracles of Muhammad? Has Islam helped or harmed women? Does the Qu'ran contain predictive prophecies that prove a divine origin? Has the Qu'ran promoted science?
Did Joseph Smith make predictive prophecies that confirm his status as a divinely-appointed prophet? What was the Mormon Church's original doctrine about African Americans?
The utility of religion.
Much of our web site is concerned with whether various religious claims are true. We are also interested in publishing several articles on whether religious beliefs have helped or harmed humanity.
Internet Infidels is interested in publishing discussions of the following theistic arguments:
The Modal Cosmological Argument (Aquinas' "Third Way")
According to this argument, reality cannot consist ONLY of contingent (or dependent) entities, and therefore, there must exist a self-existent necessary being to explain the way things are. Sometimes the argument is expressed as "God is needed to explain why there is anything at all rather than nothing." This argument does not appeal to the concept of time, and it allows that time (and the universe too) may always have existed. Even if the universe has always existed, it would still be contingent, and therefore requiring a self-existent necessary being as its ground or explanation. Thus, this argument needs to be distinguished from the Temporal (or Kalam) Cosmological Argument that Craig uses in his debates.
Argument from Reason
Reply to Barefoot. In response to a review by Richard Carrier of Victor Reppert's C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea, Darek Barefoot has presented an accessible prima facie argument against naturalism from logical necessity and intentionality. We would like to publish an accessible rebuttal on the Secular Web from a commentator familiar with the literature on intentionality, representation, and the ontological status of logical laws.
If you're interested in submitting an essay on one of the above topics, please see the The Secular Web Submission Guidelines.
Jeffery Jay Lowder maintains this page.
|Top of Page|