I understand that Anselm says that things which exist in the mind and reality are better then things that exist in the mind alone, but how can this apply to things such as murder and rape? If I think of the genocide of a race, how is it any better that this genocide actually exist?

When wondering whether a phenomenon A causes a phenomenon B, people often ask whether phenomenon A is necessary and sufficient to produce the phenomenon B. That got me thinking whether a phenomenon A can ever be proven to be a necessary condition for phenomenon B. According to modal logic, a proposition "p" is necessary if, and only if, not "p" is not possible. So, if we can demonstrate that in the absence of A, B is not possible, we would be demonstrating that A is necessary for the occurrence of B. My question is: Can it ever be proven that something is not possible? How?

The average American doubtless knows more about subjects like math, history and science than did an average American 200 years ago. Does philosophy also enjoy this kind of broad progress? Is the average person more philosophically able now than in the past? Or are advances in philosophy typically enjoyed only by specialists?

John Carey has written a book called "What good are the arts?" His central idea is that our evaluation of the visual arts and music is completely subjective and relativistic. Art and art creation are seen as an important part of being human but no one can make a case for a work being of higher value because this is just opinion. Fine. However, he goes on to argue the case for the higher value of literature. Predicting the obvious objections one might have after his previous relativist argument he says: "let me emphasize that all the judgements made in this part including the judgment of what 'literature' is are inevitably subjective". Here and in live debates he has stated this as a means of getting himself off his own hook. So my question is, surely there is some contradiction involved in arguing a position while at the same time stating that it is just subjective? Aren't we trying to lay claim to some objective truth as soon as we begin arguing?

I work for an organization for which the buzz word "compromise" has great appeal. However, I am not a fan of compromise - I feel that it should be used as a last - very last - resort. I think that operations generally run more smoothly if the person with the better idea gets his / her way. However, in my organization almost all differences are "resolved" by compromise even where difficult people who disagree as a matter of course are involved - on the simple belief that compromise is always the best option. However, I feel that compromise can be used as a means of control, as a way of ensuring that the other person cannot win, etc. What is your opinion?

We are a Muslim couple and it's now 5 years and we don't have childrens. Doctors said that my wife is not having eggs to produce although she is only 32 years old. There is only way to take the eggs from another lady. Please tell me that is it ok or it will be a sin. The answer from the doctors is the final that she will never be able to produce her own eggs so this is the only option for ivf..... Please help me. Rashid

Why do philosophers consider their memory and perception as a valid source of knowledge but not their intuition? Aren't memory, perception and intuition (pre)processed/coloured by the same unconscious processes before we get aware of it? Kobe

Hello, my name is Todd and I wanted to ask you a question: Do you feel/think that "Occam's Razor" is relevant and appropriately applicable when deciding whether or not to believe in a divine being, i.e. god (in the traditional western conception)? For example, I feel that the simplest explanation is that there is no god, rather than to make positive claims about something that exists. Thanks, Todd

My husband and I are agnostic. His ex-wife is Christian. His children (ages 7 and 11) go to church with their mother and very religious stepfather. She has told them that she divorced their father because he wasn't Christian and that it's not okay to not be Christian (she left out the part about her adultery, but I digress). They have learned in church that all non-Christians go to hell and are not loved or forgiven by God. We found a worksheet from church with a list: Christian/Non-Christian. Under the Christian list, there was a glistening gold heart. Under the Non-Christian list, a flat black heart. Under each was a list describing the wonderful things that happen to Christians and the horrible things that happen to Non-Christians. You get the picture. The oldest son believes that my husband's grandmother, his great-grandmother, will go to hell when she dies because she is Jewish. They have been told not to question the Bible (or their church's interpretation of the Bible) because they are...

Let's say arguments for Intelligent Design are correct. So what? The inference from apparent order in nature to the existence of a Creator is theoretically interesting, however this doesn't bear on the vast majority of beliefs, practices and norms which actually make up religion. (A Creator exists! But is he Zeus or Allah or Yahweh? Is the Bible his word? Does he want us to eat pork or not?) In the end, what significance can teleological arguments really have for a religious person?