All entries by this author

Racial and Religious Hatred Bill *

Jun 10th, 2005 | Filed by

‘For “racial hatred” substitute “racial or religious hatred”.’… Read the rest



Yes, That’s the Problem *

Jun 10th, 2005 | Filed by

‘Line in the sand which indicates to people a line beyond which they cannot go.’… Read the rest



Polly Toynbee on Religious Hatred Bill *

Jun 10th, 2005 | Filed by

Enlightenment values under growing threat from collective softening of the brain.… Read the rest



Not Contempt but Outrage

Jun 9th, 2005 8:18 pm | By

Norm has a post on religion and Hitchens and the vexed subject of ‘contempt for religious believers and what they believe’ that I have – however reluctantly! however ashen with misgivings, trembling with nerves, tottering with distress, quaking with anxiety, keening with regret – disagreed with him about in the past.

It might be suggested on Hitch’s behalf that, whether it meets such needs or not, because religious belief isn’t substantively true, all it merits is contempt from atheists and humanists; and its adherents, likewise, only deserve disrespect in one or another mode. But that religion isn’t true cannot be a sufficient reason for this; it is quite standard in democratic and pluralist societies to disagree in a tolerant

Read the rest


Students Assault Academics *

Jun 9th, 2005 | Filed by

Problem more widespread than previous research had shown. … Read the rest



Religious Hatred Law *

Jun 9th, 2005 | Filed by

More mischief-making claims predicted.

External Resources

Read the rest


Mugabe’s ‘Urban Clean-up’ Continues *

Jun 9th, 2005 | Filed by

‘People disappear and you don’t know what happened to them all.’… Read the rest



Radio 4 on John Mack and ‘Alien Abduction’ *

Jun 9th, 2005 | Filed by

The stupidest, most credulous half hour you’ll ever listen to.… Read the rest



The Difficulties of Being a Mitigated Sceptic *

Jun 9th, 2005 | Filed by

Degrees of doubt and questioning don’t work with sound bites.… Read the rest



On Being a Mitigated Sceptic

Jun 9th, 2005 | By Philip Stott

To be a sceptic is a difficult and dangerous business. To be what the philosopher, David Hume, called a “mitigated”, or moderate, sceptic is, in addition, deeply frustrating. In the first case, sceptics are seen as enemies of ”religion”; in the second, the moderate sceptic is constantly misunderstood, because one is dealing with carefully-modulated degrees of questioning and doubt that do not conform easily to the modern world of sound bites, shallow interviews, and pressure-group action. The media inevitably favour the religious fanatic who can encapsulate into a single sound bite simple articles of unquestioned faith that mesh readily with the prevailing public mood, which they themselves so often – too often – share.

In the UK, ”global warming” is … Read the rest



Professor Carey Will Have His Fun *

Jun 8th, 2005 | Filed by

Is art merely a way for people to show off? Or is there more to it than that?… Read the rest



Alan Ryan on Harvard and its Rivals *

Jun 8th, 2005 | Filed by

Harvard view of MIT: a hangout for nerds and social inadequates. … Read the rest



All Shall Have Prizes *

Jun 8th, 2005 | Filed by

University is a consumer product and teachers are servants.… Read the rest



Heidegger, Hölderlin, and the Ister *

Jun 8th, 2005 | Filed by

Film is reinvigorating a conversation among philosophers.… Read the rest



Greatest Philosopher Shortlist – Vote Now *

Jun 8th, 2005 | Filed by

Hume, Mill, Spinoza, Marx, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Aristotle, Plato?… Read the rest



Full Disclosure

Jun 8th, 2005 2:33 am | By

All right, we’ve made this separation; we’ve put the veracity or epistemic question on one side of the line, and the consequentialist question on the other. We’ve further said that the epistemic question comes first: that is, that for the sake of clarity, it ought to. So then what happens on the other side of the line? How does that discussion go?

One way it goes is to say that even if there is no good reason to think religion is true (unless religion is defined so thinly that it bears no resemblance to what most people mean by the word), it still doesn’t do to say so, because saying so would (to put it somewhat hyperbolically, as people occasionally … Read the rest



Marx is not Buried Under All That Rubble *

Jun 7th, 2005 | Filed by

Francis Wheen on Marx’s metaphoric but piercing accuracy about the beast.… Read the rest



Religion in the US *

Jun 7th, 2005 | Filed by

Enthusiasm for influence of ‘religious leaders’ greater than in other industrialized countries.… Read the rest



The PM, the Philosopher and the Stigmata *

Jun 7th, 2005 | Filed by

BHL woke in the night with bleeding hands.… Read the rest



First Things

Jun 7th, 2005 12:02 am | By

There are many ways one can divide up religion and arguments for religion in order to discuss or analyze them, many ways one can draw a line down the middle of the room and put all the Xs on one side and all the Ys on the other. (And then draw another line and sort the Ys, and then draw another line and sort their progeny, and so on, until everyone goes mad and the game is over.) One way is to separate questions about veracity from questions that leave veracity aside. To separate the epistemic issues from the moral and aesthetic and emotional, one might say. So on this side of the tavern we argue about whether there is … Read the rest