A balanced approach toward the problems we face will demand the best of science and philosophy.
If philosophical naturalism is as important as secular humanists think it is, we need to be ready to rise to its defense.
In the preceding issue, Part 11 of this three-part symposium in print took a think-tank approach, emphasizing naturalism’s implications for education and public policy. In Part 2, we turn in a more critical direction.
Who cares about philosophy, anyway? You must, because you have one.
Atheodicy and the Impossibility of God: Epilogue
The necessity of atheodicy—and why humanists and atheists who’ve been harmed by religion will see it most clearly.
In our time, John Dewey might be called a “religious humanist,” although if he were able he might object. I am a secular humanist. Dewey’s philosophy informs many of my most significant interactions, but I do not explore in them, as Dewey did, what it means to be religious. Naturalistic philosophy and the sciences support …