-
1207Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentPhilo 5 (1): 34-61. 2002.This paper begins with a fairly careful and detailed discussion of the conditions under which someone who presents an argument ought to be prepared to concede that the argument is unsuccessful. The conclusions reached in this discussion are then applied to William Lane Craig’s defense of what he calls “the kalam cosmological argument.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the chief contention of the paper is that Craig ought to be prepared to concede that “the kalam cosmological argument” is not a successful…Read more
-
315Review : 'New Essays on the A Priori' ed. by P. Boghossian & C Peacocke (review)Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (3): 384-6. 2002.Review of *New Essays on the A Priori*, an excellent collection edited by Paul Boghossian and Christopher Peacocke. Contributors include: Tyler Burge; Quassim Cassam; Philip Kitcher; Penelope Maddy; Hartry Field; Paul Horwich; Peter Railton; Stephen Yablo; Bob Hale; Crispin Wright; Frank Jackson; Stewart Shapiro; Michael Friedman; Martin Davies; Bill Brewer; and Thomas Nagel.
-
600Faulty Reasoning About Default Principles in Cosmological ArgumentsFaith and Philosophy 21 (2): 242-249. 2004.Robert Koons claims that my previous critique of his “new” cosmological argument is vitiated by confusion about the nature of defeasible argumentation.In response, I claim that Koons misrepresents—and perhaps misunderstands—the nature of my objections to his “new” cosmological argument. The main claims which I defend are: (1) that the move from a non-defeasible to a defeasible causal principle makes absolutely no difference to the success of the cosmological argument in which it is contained; an…Read more
-
410The ontological argument from Descartes to Hegel (review) (review)Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (2). 2010.Kevin Harrelson's book commences with the following words: This book provides a philosophical analysis of the several debates concerning the "ontological argument" from the middle of the seventeenth to the beginning of the nineteenth century. My aim in writing it was twofold. First, I wished to provide a detailed and comprehensive account of the history of these debates, which I perceived to be lacking in the scholarly literature. Second, I wanted also to pursue a more philosophically interestin…Read more
-
336Williams on Kaplan on the contingent analyticRatio 8 (2): 189-192. 1995.This paper is a reply to a prior work by C. J. F. Williams in which he criticised David Kaplan's account of the contingent analytic. In this paper, I take myself to be defending Kaplan's views against Williams' attack.
-
1491Pantheism, Quantification and MereologyThe Monist 80 (2): 320-336. 1997.I provide a classification of varieties of pantheism. I argue that there are two different kinds of commitments that pantheists have. On the one hand, there is an ontological commitment to the existence of a sum of all things. On the other hand, there is an ideological commitment: either collectively or distributively, the sum of all things is divine.
-
337Developmental theism: From pure will to unbounded love – by Peter Forrest (review)Dialectica 62 (4): 549-553. 2008.Review of Peter Forrest's "Development Theism".
-
765Science, Religion, and InfinityIn J. B. Stump & Alan G. Padgett (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, Wiley. pp. 430-440. 2012.This chapter contains sections titled: * Brief History * How We Talk * Science and Infinity * Religion and Infinity * Concluding Remarks * Notes * References * Further Reading
-
244Maydole on Ontological ArgumentsIn Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today, Ontos Verlag. pp. 445. 2012.This paper is an assessment of Robert Maydole's work on ontological arguments. (Bibliographical details are provided in the text.) I argue that Maydole's ontological arguments are unsuccessful.
-
3754Paley’s Argument for DesignPhilo 5 (2): 161-173. 2002.The main aim of this paper is to examine an almost universal assumption concerning the structure of Paley’s argument for design. Almost all commentators suppose that Paley’s argument is an inductive argument---either an argument by analogy or an argument by inference to the best explanation. I contend, on the contrary, that Paley’s argument is actually a straightforwardly deductive argument. Moreover, I argue that, when Paley’s argument is properly understood, it can readily be seen that it is n…Read more
-
597Consciousness, theism, and naturalismIn J. P. Moreland, Chad Meister & K. Sweis (eds.), Debating Christian Theism, Oxford University Press. pp. 131-46. 2013.I discuss J. P. Moreland's arguments from consciousness. I argue for the conclusion that considerations about consciousness favor naturalism over theism.
-
504Reply to professor CraigSophia 34 (2): 15-29. 1995.I hold that the considerations adduced in kalam cosmological arguments do not embody reasons for reflective atheists and agnostics to embrace the conclusion of those arguments, viz. that the universe had a cause of its existence. I do not claim to be able to show that reflective theists could not reasonably believe that those arguments are sound; indeed, I am prepared to concede that it is epistemically possible that the arguments procede validly from true premises. However, I am prepared to mak…Read more
-
143Perhaps almost all non-theists will agree that ‘the problem of evil’ has some role in their reasons for rejecting traditional Western theism. When they consult their intuitions, non-theists typically do not find it credible to suppose that this is the kind of world which could have been created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being. Moreover, when they review their reasons for non-belief, non-theists typically find that a catalogue of the amounts and kinds of evils which are to be foun…Read more
-
847On some alleged consequences of 'the Hartle-Hawking cosmology'Sophia 36 (1): 84-95. 1997.In [3], Quentin Smith claims that `the Hartle-Hawking cosmology' is inconsistent with classical theism in a way which redounds to the discredit of classical theism; and, moreover, that the truth of `the Hartle- Hawking cosmology' would undermine reasonsed belief in any other varieties of theism which hold that the universe is created.
-
1939Cosmological argumentsNoûs 43 (1): 31-48. 2009.This paper provides a taxonomy of cosmological arguments and givesgeneral reasons for thinking that arguments that belong to a given category do not succeed.
-
152Reading Philosophy of Religion: Selected Texts with Interactive Commentary (edited book)Wiley-Blackwell. 2010._Reading Philosophy of Religion_ combines a diverse selection of classical and contemporary texts in philosophy of religion with insightful commentaries. Offers a unique presentation through a combination of text and interactive commentary Provides a mix of classic and contemporary texts, including some not anthologized elsewhere Includes writings from thinkers such as Aquinas, Boethius, Hume, Plantinga and Putnam Divided into sections which examine religious language, the existence of God, reas…Read more
-
250Introducing Philosophy of Religion, by Chad Meister (review)Ars Disputandi 10. 2010.Review of Chad Meister's "Introducing Philosophy of Religion".
-
678Naturalism: A Critical Analysis (review)Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (4): 576-577. 2001.Review of Craig And Mroeland: *Naturalism: A Critical Analysis*
-
192On an argument about reference to future individualsPhilosophical Quarterly 45 (178): 84-87. 1995.This paper critically examines Roger Teichmann's defence of the claim that it is impossible to refer to future individuals. (Bibliographical details are provided in the article.)
-
996Arguments from Moral EvilInternational Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56 (2/3). 2004.In this paper, I argue that -- contrary to widely received opinion -- logical arguments from evil are well and truly alive and kicking.
-
159Review of D. Jacquette, Meinongian logic (review)Mind 107 (428): 877-908. 1998.This is a review of *Meinongian Logic* (by Dale Jacquette).
-
184God, God* and God'In Anthony Fisher & Hayden Ramsay (eds.), Faith and Reason: Friends or Foes in a New Millennium?, Atf Press. pp. 171-186. 2004.This paper compares overall cases for the existence of God, an evil God, and a morally neutral God. It argues that, while atheists can reasonably believe that the overall case for the existence of God is no better than the case for the existence of an evil God, and is perhaps worse than the case for the existence of a morally neutral God, theists can reasonably believe that the case for the existence of God is better than the cases for the existence of an evil God and the existence of a morally …Read more
-
180The Turing testStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2003.This paper provides a survey of philosophical discussion of the "the Turing Test". In particular, it provides a very careful and thorough discussion of the famous 1950 paper that was published in Mind.
-
437More than one flaw: Reply to MillicanSophia 46 (3): 295-304. 2007.Millican (Mind 113(451):437–476, 2004) claims to have detected ‘the one fatal flaw in Anselm’s ontological argument.’ I argue that there is more than one important flaw in the position defended in Millican (Mind 113(451):437–476, 2004). First, Millican’s reconstruction of Anselm’s argument does serious violence to the original text. Second, Millican’s generalised objection fails to diagnose any flaw in a vast range of ontological arguments. Third, there are independent reasons for thinking that …Read more
-
1194Minimalism and truthNoûs 31 (2): 170-196. 1997.This paper canvasses the various dimensions along which theories of truth may disagree about the extent to which truth is minimal.
-
469Review : 'God and Design', ed. by N. Manson (review)Sophia 43 (1): 127-31. 2004.Review of Neil Manson's excellent anthology on arguments for design.
-
217Evolution vs creationism in Australian schoolsIn Warren Bonett (ed.), The Australian Book of Atheism,, Scribe. pp. 139-53. 2010.This paper discusses the teaching of -- and opposition to the teaching of -- evolutionary theory in Australian schools in the early twenty-first century.
-
627Review: Daniel A. Dombrowski: Rethinking the Ontological Argument: A Neoclassical Theistic Response (review)Mind 117 (467): 690-693. 2008.Critical review of Daniel Dombrowski's "Rethinking the Ontological Argument".
-
683Perfection, near-perfection, maximality, and Anselmian TheismInternational Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (2): 119-138. 2011.Anselmian theists claim (a) that there is a being than which none greater can be conceived; and (b) that it is knowable on purely—solely, entirely—a priori grounds that there is a being than which none greater can be conceived. In this paper, I argue that Anselmian Theism gains traction by conflating different interpretations of the key description ‘being than which no greater can be conceived’. In particular, I insist that it is very important to distinguish between ideal excellence and maximal…Read more
Areas of Specialization
Philosophy of Religion |
Areas of Interest
Epistemology |
Metaphysics |
Philosophy of Language |