Go
In its own words: "Ars Disputandi is the first online journal for the philosophy of religion. It publishes refereed articles, literature surveys and discussion notes, as well as book reviews and bibliographies. Unlike traditional journals, it will not appear in issues; papers that are accepted will be immediately published online. AD does not aim to be a rival to established philosophy of religion paper journals, but to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and arguments. AD is concerned to promote research and discussion of issues in the philosophy of religion by providing for the fast publication of contributions to ongoing debates."
Go
In its own words:
"While run-on sentences, comma splices, split infinitives, and other
such grammatical minutiae may rarely make appearances in the best of
our nation’s dailies and weeklies, and a small but growing class of
press watchdogs help to correct errors of fact (pointing out bias,
factual omissions, and distortions), a more perilous corruption lurks
under the clean surface of the printed page: specious reasoning." ... "Our contemporary political discourse is, to put it
bluntly, a mess. As a population we simply are not trained in the basic
logical, rhetorical, and analytic tools necessary to navigate the swamp
of contemporary politics." ... "Logical analysis should be a first line of defense
against the hijacking of our political discourse by cynical
manipulators. Even without knowing the truth of the premises of an
argument, one can determine whether or not the conclusion is justified
by these premises. Sadly, as we will have ample opportunity to show in
detail, many editorialists cannot even pass such a basic and
fundamental test. This transforms their editorials from opinions that
are worth taking seriously into mere nonsense and empty assertions. As we say, we are speaking 'validity to power' — not truth as the phrase usually runs, but validity."
Man's Unconquerable Mind (Columbia University Press: 1954).
Go
There are many naïve people all over the world – some of them scientists – who believe that all problems, sooner or later, will be solved by Science. The word Science itself has become a vague reassuring noise, with a very ill defined meaning and a powerful emotional charge: It is now applied to all sorts of unsuitable subjects and used as a cover for careless and incomplete thinking in dozens of fields. But even taking Science at the most sensible of its definitions, we must acknowledge that it is as unperfect as all other activities of the human mind.
The Existence of God, 2nd Edition (Clarendon Press: 2004), p. 134.
Go
From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is (whether by logic or just in fact) a unique object, the only one of its kind, and rational inquiry can only reach the conclusions about objects which belong to kinds, e.g. it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron, because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection of course has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology cannot reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is a unique object); and also that physical anthropology cannot reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed misguided.
R. Scott Smith (Ashgate Publishing, Limited: March 2003), 230 pages.
Go
We live in a time of moral confusion: many believe there are no overarching moral norms and that we have lost an accepted body of moral knowledge. Alasdair MacIntyre addresses this problem in his restatement of Aristotelian and Thomistic virtue ethics; Stanley Hauerwas does so through his highly influential work in Christian ethics. Both recast virtue ethics in light of their interpretations of the later Wittgenstein's views of language. This book systematically assesses the underlying presuppositions of MacIntyre and Hauerwas, finding that their attempts to secure moral knowledge and restate virtue ethics, both philosophical and theological, fail. Scott Smith proposes alternative indications as to how we can secure moral knowledge, and how we should proceed in virtue ethics. ~ Product Description
Go
If God is a person, it follows that our relations with God are personal relations. ... God is not a Thing. Nor is he an Idea. If we were Platonists, we might believe that there was some technique whereby we could emancipate ourselves from the shackles of our earthly existence and put ourselves on a level with the Forms. But God, being a living spirit, has a different sort of existence from the dead timelessness of the Forms. Knowledge of him is not like knowledge of mathematical truths, which any man can set himself to come to know, but like knowledge of persons, and is essentially an interchange between two parties, requiring not only our wish to know, but his willingness to be known.
Go
So you think you understand the cosmological argument? Well, here's the article. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html Also The New Philistinism on the "new atheists". http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/the-new-philistinism/?searchterm=feser
Where was the conviction that to wage war against inequality is the church’s responsibility and not a political ideology? Where were those farsighted believers who could offer a voice of reason and hope to the task? Where was the manpower and funding to carry out this visible love of Christ? Why do we always settle for hindsight instead of foresight, reproducing instead of originating, getting on the bandwagon instead of leading the charge? Because a spirit of anti-intellectualism keeps us uninformed we can only attack and not contribute.
This book is a dandy — a little social commentary full of Chesterton’s ever-so-fun-and-clever humor and incredible way of making you realize that the ways in which we humans think is often the exact opposite of what we ought to think. The content is, I suppose, a bit dated… it is intended for the turn-of-the-century (the last turn, not this one) English reader; as such, issues such as women’s suffrage might appear to be entirely culturally irrelevant. If read in its historical context, however, it can function both as a history lesson and poignant (in its time) social commentary. And, needless to say, as with all truly good observations about something in the past, there is a good deal which is extremely pertinent to the current social condition… even in those things that might appear outmoded. A good read. ~ Fred Schultz