IMPORTANT: All submissions to this Call for Papers are to be submitted according to the Scholarly Paper Submission Guidelines for publication in the Secular Web Modern Library.
Atheism
Book Reviews
Miscellaneous
Theistic Arguments
Is atheism (or agnosticism) worth defending?
If there is no God, is that fact worth defending? What about agnosticism? Should atheists and agnostics even bother to rebut their critics and develop arguments for their positions? How proactively should atheists (or agnostics) promote atheism (or agnosticism)? Internet Infidels, Inc. is interested in publishing many articles (both pro and con) which address this question. (See the Outreach index in the Atheism section of the Modern Library.)
Note: we have published atheists who have tackled this question, but we're interested in publishing a theist or agnostic perspective as well.
Is a sound argument for the nonexistence of God even possible?
A common objection to atheism is that "you can't prove a negative." Richard Carrier, Jeffery Jay Lowder, and Mark Vuletic have responded to that claim. We're interested in publishing a paper by a theist or an agnostic which responds to Carrier, Lowder, or Vuletic.
Is biological evolution evidence for God's nonexistence?
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:
(1) Evolution is antecedently much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true [i.e., Pr(E/N) >! Pr(E/T)].
(2) The statement that pain and pleasure systematically connected to reproductive success is antecedently much more probable on the assumption that evolutionary naturalism is true than on the assumption that evolutionary theism is true [i.e., Pr(P/E&N) >! Pr(P/E&T)].
(3) Therefore, evolution conjoined with this statement about pain and pleasure is antecedently very much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true [i.e., Pr(E&P/N) >!! Pr(E&P/T)]. (From 1 and 2)
(4) Naturalism is at least as plausible as theism [i.e., other evidence held equal, Pr(N) >= Pr(T)].
(5) Therefore, other evidence held equal, naturalism is very much more probable than theism [i.e., other evidence held equal, Pr(N/E&P) >!! Pr(T/E&P)]. (From 3 and 4)
(6) Naturalism entails that theism is false.
(7) Therefore, other evidence held equal, it is highly probable that theism is false [i.e., other evidence held equal, Pr(T/E&P) <!! 1/2]. (From 5 and 6)
We're interested in publishing papers which comment on Draper's argument. See Paul Draper, "Evolution and the Problem of Evil" in
Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (3rd ed., ed. Louis Pojman, Wadsworth, 1997), pp. 219-230; cf. Louis P. Pojman, Philosophy of Religion (Mayfield, 2001), chapter 6.
Is the scale of the universe evidence for God's nonexistence?
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:
(1) If the God of classical theism existed, with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him, then he would create a universe on a human scale, i.e. one that is not unimaginably large, unimaginably old, and in which human beings form an unimaginably tiny part of it, temporally and spatially.
(2) The world does not display a human scale.
(3) Therefore, there is evidence against the hypothesis that the God of classical theism exists with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him.
Does the scale of the universe provide evidence against the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? What about "God in general?" We're interested in publishing a discussion of these and related topics. See Nicholas Everitt, The Non-Existence of God (New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 213-226.
Do moral realism and infinite spacetime imply moral nihilism and hence atheism?
In a recent article, Quentin Smith formulates a creative argument for atheism based on the combination of moral realism and infinite spacetime. Smith formulates his argument as follows:
1. Moral realism is true.
2. The universe in which we live is infinite.
3. At least one relevant version of an aggregative theory of values is true.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
Commenting on the structure of this argument, Smith writes, "Despite appearances, this argument is valid, since the seemingly 'suppressed premises' are implied by the stated premises and thus do not need to be added as separate premises. Even if there is no gratuitous evil, the moral situation of our universe implies that God does not exist."
We're interested in publishing a discussion of this argument. See Quentin Smith, "Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism," in Dyke, Heather (ed.), 2003, Time and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 43-54.
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 through Amazon.com by clicking on the book title links, below.
What Is Atheism?: A Short Introduction by Douglas E. Krueger. Prometheus Books, 1998. Pp 241. $21.00 (Paper)
In this accessible primer on atheism, Douglas Krueger addresses common questions about atheism. Each chapter begins with a question often asked of atheists, such as: Can atheists have morals? Doesn't the Bible show that God exists? and What's wrong with believing on faith? In a clear and easy-to-read style, Krueger takes the reader through an analysis of each question, atheist responses, rebuttals and related points. He shows that atheism is a powerful alternative to the religious outlook so prevalent today, and that atheists have a moral system often more rigorous than that of traditional believers.
The Myth of Morality by Richard Joyce. 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.
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Carroll Forrest and Paul R. Gross. Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp 224. $40.00 (Cloth)
"Religious interference in American science and science education is an old story. But intelligent design proponents' cultivation of support for efforts to eliminate evolution from public school science, or to disparage it, and to secure recognition of creationists' claims of scientific legitimacy, are today enjoying unprecedented, nationwide success. For the first time, such claims seem to many lay observers to have become respectable. In fact, however, they are no more respectable as scholarly inquiry, or specifically as biological science, than were their discredited 'creation science' predecessors. Unfortunately, this is not widely understood. Nor is the seamless continuity of 'Intelligent Design Theory' with other recognized forms of creationism. Having examined in detail claims made by members of the 'Wedge,' we saw it as our professional and civic obligation to scholarship and science to prepare a fully documented account of their anti-evolution agenda. We came to understand that, for the well-being of science and science education, the seamless continuity of intelligent design and traditional creationism must be demonstrated for our colleagues and the knowledgeable public. The narrowness of Wedge strategists' religious aims, which do not reflect the values of the broader, more tolerant religious community, must be exposed, as must ID's pervasively sham methods of inquiry. People who value science and the benefits of life in an enlightened society must be alerted to the Wedge's political, cultural, and religious ambitions."
The Ancestor's Tale : A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins. Houghton Mifflin, 2004. Pp 688. $28.00 (Cloth)
The renowned biologist and thinker Richard Dawkins presents his most expansive work yet: a comprehensive look at evolution, ranging from the latest developments in the field to his own provocative views. Loosely based on the form of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Dawkins's Tale takes us modern humans back through four billion years of life on our planet. As the pilgrimage progresses, we join with other organisms at the forty "rendezvous points" where we find a common ancestor. The band of pilgrims swells into a vast crowd as we join first with other primates, then with other mammals, and so on back to the first primordial organism. Dawkins's brilliant, inventive approach allows us to view the connections between ourselves and all other life in a bracingly novel way. It also lets him shed bright new light on the most compelling aspects of evolutionary history and theory: sexual selection, speciation, convergent evolution, extinction, genetics, plate tectonics, geographical dispersal, and more. The Ancestor's Tale is at once a far-reaching survey of the latest, best thinking on biology and a fascinating history of life on Earth. Here Dawkins shows us how remarkable we are, how astonishing our history, and how intimate our relationship with the rest of the living world.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel C. Dennett. 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.
Arguing about Gods, by Graham Oppy. Cambridge University Press, 2006, Pp 472, $90.00 (Cloth)
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.
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Houghton Mifflin, 2006, Pp 416, $27.00 (Cloth)
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 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.
Did Christians destroy classical works from antiquity?
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.
Do extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Many skeptics think so. In chapter four of Science, Confirmation, and the Theistic Hypothesis, philosopher Keith M. Parsons formulates a sophisticated version of this principle using Bayesian confirmation theory. Crudely stated, Parsons shows that miracles have extremely low prior probabilities and that is why extraordinary evidence is needed to show that a miracle has occurred. According to Parsons, "the a priori probability of physically impossible events is so low that it appears quite unlikely that any human testimony can ever succeed in establishing their occurrence beyond a reasonable doubt." We're interested in publishing a reply by someone who disagrees.
Islam.
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?
Mormonism.
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 humankind.
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.
Arguments from Consciousness
Reply to Moreland. J.P. Moreland has formulated his own version of an argument from consciousness, one which he calls the "argument from mind." Moreland's argument seems to be sufficiently different from the one criticized by Conifer that a separate critique is justified. Moreland's defense of this argument can be summarized in three main points: (1) mind/body dualism is true; (2) physicalism is self-refuting; and (3) the possibility that rational minds evolved from matter is not plausible. Moreland concludes, accordingly, that our rational minds come from another rational Mind--God. We're interested in publishing a critique of this argument. See J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), pp. 77-103.
Religion and the Queerness of Morality
In an influential paper, philosopher George Mavrodes argued that Bertrand Russell's secular view of ethics is puzzling, in two ways. First, Mavrodes claims that secular ethics suffers from a serious inadequacy: it cannot satisfactorily answer the question: why should I be moral all of the time? Second, Mavrodes claims that secular ethics is superficial, without a deep metaphysical basis. In contrast, he asserts, a religious morality avoids both of these problems. See Mavrodes, George I. "Religion and the Queerness of Morality." In Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment, ed. R. Audi and W.J. Wainwright. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.
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.