Mark I. Vuletic
[ Author Bio ]
Does horrendous suffering constitute evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinitely benevolent God? In this colorful hypothetical dialogue (based upon a real one in the philosophical literature), Mark Vuletic considers the primary issue of contention between the defender and skeptic of God's goodness: Could any amount of suffering ever constitute evidence against the goodness of God?
Creation ex nihilo - Without God (1997; revised 2011)
In a long overdue update to this popular article, Mark Vuletic offers a short but informed discussion of whether physical processes could have produced the universe from nothing. This discussion is divided into three main sections: (1) Can Something Come from Nothing? (2) Can the Universe Come from Nothing? and (3) Is the "Nothing" of the Physicists Really Nothing? This discussion is supplemented with an updated list of quotes from popular science works supporting the idea that the universe could come into existence from nothing via natural processes.
Review pointing out some, but not all, of the errors in Denton's book.
Compendium of creationist criticisms of evolution, and evolutionist responses to those criticisms.
Paper defending those who adopt consequentialist ethics from the charge that they do so to absolve themselves of all personal responsibility.
There are a number of arguments for the existence of God which depend, at least in part, upon the notion that the universe had a beginning. But Vuletic points out that cosmologists know very little about the conditions present prior to the Planck Era. Until we know more, apologists must suspend their reliance upon the big bang as support for the cosmological argument.
From Believer to Atheist (2000)
Vuletic recounts his path from faith to unbelief in a public speech given for the Jesus Forum.
Critical examination and rejection of a Jehovah's Witnesses endtimes prophecy, written several years before the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves abandoned the prophecy.
In Defense of Evolution (2003, 2006)
Brief paper outlining some of the problems with creationism, and defending evolution from a few creationist criticisms.
This paper replaces "Against the Moral Argument" (1997). As should be clear to those familiar with the earlier paper, my approach to theistic moral arguments has changed considerably over the past five years.
Is Atheism Logical? (1996)
Response to Hank Hanegraaff's claim that atheism is incoherent.
Paper rejecting the claims that methodological naturalism leaves no room for appeals to the supernatural in science and that scientists must be methodological naturalists to fulfill the aims of science, as well as the claim that scientists should abandon methodological naturalism.
Response to the argument that atheism entails that one has no reason to behave morally.
Takes the eminently terrible pathlights.com "encyclopedia" to task for irresponsible claims about the eminent physicists George Gamow.
"Pigliucci's 'review' reads for the most part like an extended diatribe against the intelligent design (i.e. creationist) movement."
Argues, against W.T. Stace, that a third category of experience intermediate between objective and subjective is not needed for the characterization of mystical experiences.
An excellent, fictional introduction to the problem of evil and typical theistic responses to the problem. Previously "The Five Officers" (2000), and then "The Nine Officers" (2001), Vuletic has updated his essay to include more points of view, now twelve in all. [Adobe Acrobat PDF version of this document.]
Argues that theists and atheists often get too caught up in a pointless debate over the metaphysical leanings of despotic historical figures.
Comparison of two mystical works from very different traditions, and assessment of whether the similarities and discrepancies are best explained by naturalism or mysticism.
In 1978, philosopher John Perry published a well-received little book in which three fictional friends engaged in a series of stimulating but easy-to-understand discussions about personal identity and immortality.
Review: Nature's Destiny (2000)
Although Denton's book is widely praised among creationists, Denton is no fundamentalist. In his latest book, Michael Denton argues for a theological view that is most like deism or pantheism. However, Denton's view is "distinct from pantheism and some varieties of deism in that it takes the production of familiar and anthropomorphic life as the raison d'être of the universe.
|Top of Page|