Top News, Articles, and Interviews in Philosophy

Beyond Logic: Why Do We Disagree?

Two people look at the same arguments. The arguments are valid, the evidence that supports the premises are available to both people, and they both have the requisite training and intellectual skill to understand the subtleties of the domain. Why do they disagree? Differences in how people position themselves relative to arguments affect not only academic discourse but challenge dialogue in much more pedestrian discussions as well. It might be handy if the irresistible force of logic was much more irresistible than it appears to be. But as anyone who ever has engaged in any kind of a disagreement knows, there is much more at play psychologically and epistemically in how arguments are conducted than yielding to the pure logic of an argument.

While focused mainly on religious disagreement, I thought a recent paper  by Helen de Cruz (really just a collection of her thoughts on the subject) gets at some ideas that are critical ideas that affect discourse academic and otherwise. Humans aren’t Turing machines. Background beliefs, intuition, emotion, even physiology all play a role in how we think about evidence and the dynamics of argumentation. Thankfully, she gives some taxonomic help too by providing terms one can use to categorize various responses to these dynamics

As someone who is interesting in finding some unification across epistemic theories, I’m pleased to see that some of her ideas align with the work Robert McKim is doing.

“There seems to be an easy escape: one common response, both by steadfasters and conciliationists has been that we need not revise our beliefs in complex messy cases if we have reason to believe that we have access to some sort of insight that our epistemic peer lacks.”

You can read the article here

Placement Report Highlighted in Top Higher Ed Web Mag

5586-WWUThe response to Andrew Carson’s placement report has been phenomenal. Philosophy News (and Andrew himself) has received feedback from around the country—most of it positive—about the project with many of the respondents thanking us for the data and encouraging us to continue to work on perfecting the report. The Chronicle of Higher Education picked up the buzz on the report and interviewed Andrew for their popular website and we couldn’t be more thrilled.

The source, which bills themselves as the “No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators” highlights the hard work Andrew did to collect, normalize, and analyze the data. Author Audrey Williams June writes, “In his spare time, [Andrew] began gathering placement data—copious amounts of it—from almost 60 graduate philosophy programs in the United States and Canada. It took him three or four months to comb through the Web pages of each of the programs to retrieve and format its publicly available data.” The result is a report that attempts to provide insight into how graduate students in philosophy from various schools are placed in jobs after they graduate.

Andrew is continually working on updating the report. If you’re associated with an institution as a faculty, student, administrator or alumnus, and would like to ensure that your institution is represented as accurately as possible, please work with your school and with us to get us the latest and most accurate numbers. You can write to me directly at with any updated information. We especially encourage people from institutions in Europe and Australia to reach out with data so we can include information on your schools.

Andrew also is working on an new report that provides the same information for terminal MA programs around the country so stay tuned!

Paul Pardi
Publisher, Philosophy News

Man Gets Shot in Argument Over Kant’s Philosophy

Courtesy of Wikimedia CommonsThis story sounds like something The Onion would publish but apparently truth is indeed stranger than fiction. Two men in southern Russia apparently were arguing over Kant's philosophy when a fight broke out ending with one man shooting the other several times. It's not being reported which part of Kant's philosophy became the point of contention. For the shooter's sake, let's hope it wasn't the categorical imperative.

See details on this story here.

A ‘New’ Theory of Consciousness?

2596-Jenn-1x1-125pxPrinceton neuroscientist Michael Graziano has a take on the problem of consciousness he thinks may shed some new light on this puzzle. He calls his approach, the “attention schema theory” and sums it up as the idea, “consciousness is a schematic model of one’s state of attention.” Essentially, consciousness is the brain’s ability to create mental schemas of whatever the conscious entity is attending to, signal other parts of the brain to access the information, and create an output in the form of speech or writing that reports on the schema. He writes, “Consciousness isn’t a non-physical feeling that emerges. Instead, dedicated systems in the brain compute information. Cognitive machinery can access that information, formulate it as speech, and then report it. When a brain reports that it is conscious, it is reporting specific information computed within it. It can, after all, only report the information available to it.”

Readers of this blog will know that I’m a fan of John Searle’s Chinese Room Argument in which Searle argues that a system that can pass the Turing test (Graziano’s system?) is different than a conscious system. Computational models don’t map to conscious states because computation isn’t a sufficient condition for consciousness (one could have a computation system that functions exactly like a conscious being but isn’t conscious). Whether computation is necessary he leaves open. Searle’s argument has its critics but, in my view, his critics are missing the essence of the argument.

Thanks to Matt Snyder for the pointer.

Book Review of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Note: This article originally appeared on billpen and is authored by Bill Pardi

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of NazarethZealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan

four star

Zealot is the controversial new book by Reza Aslan. Controversy has come not only from the book’s content, but also from media reaction and even Aslan’s own background:


  • There is premise of the book: that Jesus was just a man, and spent his brief adult years trying to create a rebellion against Rome, not to preach peace and a future in heaven.
  • There was the outrageous (but entertaining) Fox News inquisition interview that went viral and put Zealot on top of the best seller list.
  • There is Aslan’s own religion — he’s a Muslim, but was formerly an Evangelical Christian – and he’s writing about Jesus.
  • There is Aslan’s credentials – he’s a self-described “scholar of religion” (he has 3 degrees in the subject), but is currently a Professor of Creative Writing at UC Riverside.

All of that sounded too good to pass up and I decided to give it a read.

Aslan is hardcore. By that I mean he takes a hardcore approach to looking at Jesus as an historical person. His starting assumption is similar to that of many historians writing about a larger than life figure: what was the historical context in which this person lived, and what was it about him or her that ultimately created the legend? The implication of course is that the actual person wasn’t in reality what he or his followers claimed or what history made him out to be. In that way Zealot is more Aslan’s quest for historical accuracy than philosophical truth.

Aslan’s work is in many ways a popular compendium of a number of academic sources on his subject. Even so, Aslan draws his own conclusions and has a distinct point of view. He not only assumes Jesus wasn’t a deity, but in fact claims that real Jesus didn’t even see himself that way. He spends a large portion of the book setting up the time period in which Jesus was born and raised. He describes the harsh oppression that the Jews lived under well before Jesus’ birth and into his adulthood. He describes the constant stream of would-be messiahs all with similar messages to the one Jesus adopted, but each with slightly unique points of emphasis. Some versions of the messianic rhetoric played better than others with the Jewish crowd, but most all ended in execution, either from a Roman sword or, if Rome suspected the worst, crucifixion. Most of the Jewish religious order, according to Aslan, colluded with the Roman government to keep the locals in line. To prove that they superseded the local authorities and demonstrate their bona-fides, travelling messiahs would use illusions and magic to show that they could channel the supernatural. These rebels, or lestai, would travel the region, preaching their message of deliverance from the Roman Empire and in many cases gathering rather large followings before being permanently stopped by the Roman authorities.

This is the world that Jesus, an uneducated peasant from a tiny, barely-functional town in Palestine was born into. Aslan outlines Jesus’ likely journey from subsistence farmer in Nazareth to sometime carpenter in bigger towns to regional Jewish messiah and rebel against Roman authority in Palestine.

As the narrative gets to the end of Jesus’ career Aslan goes into great detail about what got him crucified. At that point in Roman history crucifixion was the punishment of choice for sedition. Aslan paints Jesus not a peaceful messiah looking for a future heavenly kingdom, but as a zealot advocating a new earthly kingdom in his own lifetime with himself at its head. The author points out that at that time in Roman/Jewish relations a message of peaceful, spiritual rescue of mankind somewhere in the future would have been ignored by the authorities and not resulted in trial and execution. But Jesus got caught up in the ongoing rebellion of his day and emerged as a popular leader, at least in the outskirts of Palestine. Once he made his way into the bigger cities, his rebellion against the synagogue and messages about establishing a new kingdom would not be tolerated. He describes how Jesus’ public statements about him establishing a new kingdom and (sometimes violent) run-ins with the temple leaders resulted in his being brought before Pilot and ultimately executed.

Where the New Testament accounts of Jesus and his resulting movement conflict with Aslan’s historical data, he claims that the narrative in the canonical New Testament are simply representative of a lot of history of the era – some facts blended with some fiction. The writers of the New Testament, all writing at least 70 years after Jesus death were, according to Aslan, relaying the story and message of who they believed was a messiah, not simply capturing history. To make their story viable, they needed to embellish or change the historical facts that didn’t fit the narrative they were trying to tell, and that was not unexpected or viewed as deceptive. As an example, the story of how Pilot felt guilt over condemning Jesus and turning his fate over to the Jews as part of an annual custom of freeing one prisoner was probably mostly fiction. According to Aslan the historical Pilot was known as a ruthless governor who killed Jews as a matter of regular practice without any indication of remorse. The idea of him feeling guilt over yet another rebellious Jew simply doesn’t fit with the historical character. Add to that the question of how a Jewish writer decades later would know what occurred in Pilot’s inner chamber and have access to his emotional state. And outside the gospels there is no record of any custom of annual prisoner release ever taking place anywhere in Palestine. Even the gospels disagree on whether it was a Jewish or Roman custom. The gospel narrative, Aslan states, was likely included as a political move in the first century as more converts were coming from the Roman world than the Jewish world, and the church didn’t want to make a Roman governor responsible for the death of the messiah they were preaching to them about.

Some critics of Zealot accuse Aslan of cherry-picking his use of Biblical passages, citing some as history and some as myth. I agree, though I didn’t find it egregious. More often than not he explained why he felt something “probably happened” as written, and why other passages were “unlikely” and others “almost certainly made up.” He does a good job throughout providing the historical context for each event, and uses multiple source material to back up his claims. Having said that, there were several instances in the book where I did feel he glossed over certain passages, or selectively chose his material to provide better backing to his claim.

Overall though, Zealot is well written, well documented and has a direct point of view on the historical Jesus. But it’s not going to change anyone’s mind about Jesus’ deity, either for believers or non-believers, with the possible exception of those on the fence. Even so, I think Zealot is an important book for both camps. While the believer will dismiss Aslan’s basic premise and conclusions as the opinions of a non-Christian historian, there is enough detail about Jesus’ contemporary society to provide them greater insight into the world where he started the movement to which they now belong. The non-believer will get a rich view into the man around which a religion was born that has attracted millions and endured for more than two millennia.

Note: This article originally appeared on billpen and is authored by Bill Pardi

Robinson on ‘What is Philosophy?’

What differentiates philosophy from other disciplines that attempt to get at truth about being and existence? Is there a core idea, method, or behavior that sets it apart from the rest? Historically, the work of philosophers has evolved but there may be a core set of practices and concepts that can help us define what it is that philosophers do (or what each of us does when we philosophize). I took a stab at my own, brief definition in which I attempted to establish a starting point for such distinctions. Recently, however, I was listening to The Teaching Company’s excellent series by Oxford scholar Daniel N. Robinson titled, Great Ideas in Philosophy, 2nd Edition in which Robinson offers his own take on the subject. His description is more narrative in nature and he attempts to isolate the key features of philosophy in terms of its historical significance and looks at the ways in which it differs in comparison to fields in the near vicinity. He provides this description in the context of the question, “Did the Greeks invent philosophy?”

Below is the transcription from his lecture as I think it provides some unique insights into what makes philosophy what it is.

“What is the difference between a philosophical perspective, and, let's say, the perspective that Homer had in composing Iliad and Odyssey? Or the perspective the singers and writers of the Upanishads had, or that of the Hebrew prophets? In what sense did Pythagoras have the right to call himself for the first time "a philosopher" over and against, say, Moses or Isaiah? Why not begin the history of philosophy equally with say Buddha, Confucius, and Socrates instead of distinguishing the last of these from all earlier, non-Greek thinkers?

And what of the scientific and medical and engineering achievements of Egypt and the mathematical discoveries of India? Sharp lines can be drawn here only at peril. Indeed, the more developed thinking becomes, the more philosophical and scientific thinking tends to merge. So too with great literary works, with the poetic imagination, with the realized dreams of great architects and good kings, with the noble and proven teachings of saints and prophets. Just where personal genius and virtue in such figures rise to the level of impersonal and trans-historical significance, will always be a topic of joyful dispute among scholars.

But there is, nonetheless, a special feature of philosophy that really does mark it off from all the rest. Not in the sense of being better, or more advanced, or reserved to a privileged few. The philosophical perspective is one of criticism, and, yes, skepticism. I hope this won't be taken as indelicate, or worse, heretical, but if God were to declare a truth to the community of philosophers, at least the best of them would say (and one would hope, worshipfully), "But how can we be sure of that?"

The point, of course, is that philosophy carries its truths, earns its truths, the hard way--by working for it. What the scientist actually sees, through aided or unaided sight, what the poet dreams and the prophet has revealed to him, the philosopher must find through argument, analysis, doubt, and yes, disinterest. The operative word here is disinterest not uninterest. The blindfold that decorates the face of justice is intended to signify just that judicious disinterest that would have the chips fall where they may. The verdict will depend on evidence, not on the rhetorical skill of the advocate, the wealth of the defendant.

This, needless to say, is the judicial ideal and, we know, it is rarely achieved. But it is the recognized ideal. So too in philosophy. Let the successful arguments fall where they may. We are prepared to abandon one that was long favored, and accept one that we find personally odious. Philosophy takes a systematic and critical perspective on all the assumptions and claims that we in the other compartments of human endeavor accept.

It's not that the others have no epistemological or quasi-epistemological aims. The playwright, indeed, is attempting to get at a kind of truth, even a fundamental truth. Indeed, the great playwright reaches the deeper level of human sensibility and thought and presents the discovery in a memorable way. Are not the greatest "depth psychologies" served up by Euripides, Sophocles, Escalus. We reach levels of self-understanding by way of such dramatists and in a manner that would be almost impossible to approximate in any other way.

Still, philosophy is different. The bottom line in philosophy is not to solve practical problems; it's not to solidify the civic bonds among people; it's not to make us feel better--or worse. Rather it is to test the most fundamental beliefs, the most fundamental values and convictions we have, and to test them for the purpose of getting them right while at the same time realizing that basic questions as to what it could mean to "get it right" are, often, finally unanswerable.

So the central aspect of the philosophical perspective is a critical aspect. Criticality. Criticism. Self-criticism. This is what is at the very center of the philosophical project, the philosophical way of thought. It's at the very center of the philosophical enterprise. What is believed by way of the philosophical worldview is wisdom itself. Not wisdom-so-that, not wisdom-in-order-that, not to get more of this or more of that, not to be reassured, not for the good night's sleep, not for its consolations (with all due respect to Boethius). No, it's to get it right and where "getting it right" might indeed be, bad news also.

It is not inevitably good news. Sometimes it is not news at all: it’s a question that is answered with yet another question. And answered with yet another question. I sometimes say that profound philosophical insights should always be followed, not with exclamation points, but with semicolons. Because the long debate goes on. If it wasn't concluded by Plato or Aristotle, we can be sure that it will not be ended in the editorial pages of the New York Times.” (Daniel N. Robinson, Great Ideas in Philosophy, 2nd Edition, Lecture 2, “Philosophy: Did the Greeks Invent It?”

An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments

bookHere is a clever little ebook that serves as a primer on logical fallacies. The descriptions are brief but well-stated and the illustrations are fun. The entire ebook is online (I had trouble with the flip book so I linked to the “page” view).

From the inside cover: “This book is aimed at newcomers to the field of logical reasoning, particularly those who, to borrow a phrase from Pascal, are so made that they understand best through visuals. I have selected a small set of common errors in reasoning and visualized them using memorable illustrations that are supplemented with lots of examples. The hope is that the reader will learn from these pages some of the most common pitfalls in arguments and be able to identify and avoid them in practice.”

Has Science Become ‘Soulless’?

In a bit of an usual move for The New York Times, the paper has published a series of very short responses to the question, “Should Creationism Be Controversial?” Regardless of what you think of the responses, it is at least interesting for The Times to take this on. What's even more interesting is that there is a growing move in this direction across many naturalistic-oriented disciplines (like theories of mind and even physics) playing out in journal and newspaper articles and books .

My admittedly tentative take is that the standard naturalistic story has stagnated somewhat. There are boundaries that many believed we should have broken through by now and we seem to be making little to no progress. Also, the sentiment that modern science is "soulless" that comes out in these articles is resonating with a lot of people and so they're looking for a way to jumpstart progress.

It also seems that so many scientists working in the ‘hard’ disciplines like chemistry, physics, and neuroscience are becoming more interested in the affective side of the human condition after a rather lengthy dry spell. There seems to be a growing sentiment even among non-theists that the standard naturalistic story just doesn't have the foundation to address this in any meaningful way.

Honestly, I think that if we as a species can break through this barrier and embrace the idea that there is something more--whatever that turns out to be--we may be at the cusp of a new revolution not only in the sciences but also in the humanities. It's going to be fascinating to watch this develop.

Thanks to Stan Dokupil for the link.

Manufactured Meaning

Rachel Held Evans piece for CNN titled, “Why Millennials are leaving the church” has gotten quite a bit of traction in some circles. It’s an interesting piece that is a good discussion starter and she has moments of solid insight among her sometimes over-simplistic opining (read on for my own over-simplistic opinions). Evans argues, if I understand her correctly, that modern, Western churches are losing Millennials because they’ve capitulated too much to the whims of modern society. They’ve lost the practices and doctrines that make church what it traditionally has been—a retreat from the everyday that represents something greater and transcendent by being different and being about something greater. There’s a lot of truth to this I think. 

Responses to Evans vary in quality but this one, by Artur Rosman, caught my eye recently (thanks to Ben Olsen for the pointer). Rosman seems to agree with Evans for the most part but argues that she doesn’t quite go far enough in placing the locus of the problem. Even those religions that belong to more liturgical and doctrinally stringent traditions like Catholicism are losing. “Catholicism” Rosman writes, “is blowing its Catholic Moment because it has idolized assimilating to America.” He seems to say this not necessarily as a criticism of Catholicism or even of the failure of churches in general but as a failure of a generation.

In a particularly honest and almost despairing moment he writes, “My generation (and the generation of students we teach in college classes) is totally clueless. If you ask us we will tell you that we are lost in the cosmos. We have failed at manufacturing our own meaning, because meaning cannot be manufactured like the consumer services and trends mentioned at the start of this (and the Held Evans) piece.” I fully agree that Millennials are lost in the cosmos. This is seems to be a product of both authenticity and cynicism—sometimes both held at the same time. (In my opinion, Millennials seem to be after what many were striving for in the 1960s though the 60s had too much of the former without enough of the latter to temper it so authenticity turned into disgust and then to open rebellion.) Because of this, I don’t think Millennials are clueless. I think they are very much aware of their situation and don’t know what to do next.

No Country for Old Men–Opening monologue
Indeed, despair is the right attitude. As Soren Kierkegaard observed, despair is the gateway to authenticity. But I’m not with Rosman (assuming I understand him) that we should despair because we can’t manufacture meaning. In fact, I think the way through is to realize that any meaning, wherever it is found, is manufactured. As Evans has observed, Millennials are seeing through the façade of American “culture” and the manufactured “meaning” it attempts to create: buy this car, achieve this career goal, eat this food, have this many kids, go to this church etc. and are rejecting it—just as young people did in the 60s. Similarly, they are rejecting church either because it’s transparently fake or, as Evans notes, its too much like the culture they’ve already turned their backs on.

But the problem isn’t that these meanings are manufactured, and surely they are. Despair may come when we realize that manufacturing meaning is all we got (in the parlance of our times). In Seattle, where I live, people are attempting to manufacture new meanings to replace the old: eat vegan, marry a same-sex partner, legalize (and then smoke) pot, drive an electric car, save the planet, hate the republicans, say fuck a lot (and mean it), climb a mountain, run your legs off, raise chickens, join a band, keep a philosophy blog – whatever. And these things work for many people. But they’re all manufactured. They’re all devices that people use to get out of bed in the morning. And it’s damn good we have them. Without these manufactured meanings, none of us would be able to survive, as Ernest Becker so brilliantly taught us. Despair enters the picture when we realize this and stand naked before a world devoid of intrinsic meaning. That’s what truly scares us.

I recently read a quote attributed to Woody Allen that someone had posted to Facebook. Allen is one of my favorite filmmakers because he embraces the despair Becker talks about and yet figures out a way to meaningfully manufacture meaning. The quote reads:

“It's just an accident that we happen to be on earth, enjoying our silly little moments, distracting ourselves as often as possible so we don't have to really face up to the fact that, you know, we're just temporary people with a very short time in a universe that will eventually be completely gone. And everything that you value, whether it's Shakespeare, Beethoven, da Vinci, or whatever, will be gone. The earth will be gone. The sun will be gone. There'll be nothing. The best you can do to get through life is distraction. Love works as a distraction. And work works as a distraction. You can distract yourself a billion different ways. But the key is to distract yourself.”

This is the idea in a nutshell. We have to figure out a way to manufacture meaning, know that we’ve manufactured it and yet still find it meaningful. If Evans and Rosman are correct, Western church is becoming less and less a source for meaning for the young in American culture. Whether that turns out to be a good or a bad thing will largely be dependent upon what people replace it with. Contrary to what Rosman hopes for, I don’t think ecclesiastically-generated authoritative answers to cultural angst will do the trick unless the current knowledge explosion we’re experiencing does an about face or people lose interest in all that we’re learning about the world and want something much more simple and more authoritarian. While this certainly is possible (I easily can envision scenarios where either or both happen) it doesn’t seem likely. But it also doesn’t seem relevant if religious belief is just another—though admittedly wildly successful—device for manufacturing meaning.

What will kill America culturally isn’t loss of religious faith. It will happen when most of us feel the despair of a lack of ultimate meaning and lose the will or psychological resources to successfully manufacture it.


I had a recent exchange with a friend on a similar subject. Below is what I wrote to him about my take on Becker, Kierkegaard, and despair. I think it’s relevant to the current discussion so I’m including it here.

The view that’s developing in my mind is that religion is a by-product of a more fundamental psychological phenomenon -- just as Fredian psychology, Marxists economics, Democratic politics, and any other “institutional” solution is. My views have largely been shaped by the work of Ernest Becker. Becker doesn’t really offer a “solution” per se but provides a searing analysis of the problem which is partly why I was blown away when I read Becker. His take on the root of guilt and all the various and sundry explanations of and solutions to it (if one thinks guilt needs a solution at all) shed some light in some very dark places for me.

In Becker’s view (which is a kind of post-Freudian improvement on Freudian psychology largely built on the ideas of Otto Rank), guilt and other psychological angst is derived from “unlived life” that is rooted in the more fundamental reality of human consciousness. Because humans are conscious, we are acutely aware of our mortality which creates in us a bifurcation: a symbolic self-- the person (or the soul, or spirit, or mind or whatever you want to call it) and the animal self of the body. The person as symbol seems to have tremendous value--perhaps transcendental or eternal value--that should not be subject to the frailty of the mortal body. We invest in the self by raising a family, getting an education, developing long-term, meaningful relationships, by trying to achieve success in work and enjoy the fleeting moments of pleasure as long as we can. Yet we also know we have a decaying body that defecates and grows old, that needs nutrients to survive, that engages in this body-focused thing called sex in order to procreate, and is subject to the elements, disease, old age, and the like.

This realization--when we actually take time to think about it--causes an enormous conflict psychologically and leads to angst and the development of what he calls “character armor” in order to deal with that angst. Character armor is a kind of façade that we create where we emphasizes the symbolic self and we try to minimize the body with all it’s decay. We like to think of our “self” as being eternal, not subject to decay and having transcendental meaning. From this vantage point, religion becomes a kind of emotional and psychological armor that supports this idea and gives us comfort.

In my view, that view really resonates because it explains so much about our psychology. For example, it really explains why we become “religious” (in the broad sense of that term) about so many things: politics, sports, various theistic worldviews, cars, companies, sex, economic theories etc. It seems to me to have enormous explanatory power.

Interestingly, Becker, while not a theist at the time he wrote Denial of Death, did argue in that book that Kierkegaard’s existential approach to the problem is probably the most effective and balanced approach out there. He argues that Kierkegaard saw the issues--and the solution, better than Freud and just about any modern psychologist writing at the time. That’s a pretty big statement.

In his view, mental health comes by embracing the despair that comes from realizing our mortality yet taking a leap of faith to act in the face of that despair. While Kierkegaard obviously thought that the faith one should leap into was theistically grounded, Becker believed that one might be able to make a similar leap without theism. Still, it’s Kierkegaard’s model that’s important here. The mental trick is to live meaningfully while still understanding that life is essentially absurd (and ultimately meaningless). If you can make the leap--something most of us are unable to do, the absurdity is minimized once you’re over the chasm. This is Kierkegaard through and through.

Update (8/11/2013):

Rod Dreher at The American Conservative wrote a few notes on Rosman’s piece and picked up my response (along with a few comments about it). Check it out here and join the conversation!

Philosopher Spotlight

Conversations with philosophers, professional and non-professional alike.
Visit our podcast section for more interviews and conversations.

Interview with

Dr. Robert McKim
  • on Religious Diversity
  • Professor of Religion and Professor of Philosophy
  • Focuses on Philosophy of Religion
  • Ph.D. Yale

Interview with

Dr. Alvin Plantinga
  • on Where the Conflict Really Lies
  • Emeritus Professor of Philosophy (UND)
  • Focuses on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion
  • Ph.D. Yale

Interview with

Dr. Peter Boghossian
  • on faith as a cognitive sickness
  • Teaches Philosophy at Portland State University (Oregon)
  • Focuses on atheism and critical thinking
  • Has a passion for teaching in prisons
See all interviews


Twitter followers


News items posted


Page views per month

21 years

in publication

Latest News

Here are some of the things going on in the philosophy
and the humanities.

See all News Items

Latest Articles

See all Articles

Recent Books in Philosophy

Check out some of the latest books being published in philosophy
in various fields and disciplines.