I find the philosophy of religion immensely interesting. Recently I watched a YouTube video in which a well known Christian philosopher/theologian, William Lane Craig, explained how the Anglo-American world had been "utterly transformed" and had undergone a "renaissance of Christian philosophy" since the 1960s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=902MJirWkdM&feature=related [starts at around the 7:40 mark]). Do you agree with these statements? Moreover, how well respected is Dr. Craig? Is he generally viewed as a top notch philosopher? I also wonder whether the very best arguments on the atheistic side are really being discussed. It seems there is some disdain among philosophers regarding the so-called "new atheists": Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. Who are the top contemporary atheists working in philosophy today? I'd really be interested in reading some of their work. I would really appreciate multiple perspectives on these questions. Thanks a lot.

Do Catholic hospitals have a right not to perform abortions?

Can a system of ethics exist that is universal and absolute to all societies and cultures if no supernatural power exists to enforce it? I mean, suppose that somehow God, karma or any possible force that could punish people for not following this system of ethics have been proven not to exist. What would prevent a specific society (or even the entire world) from simply saying "Since we will not be punished, we simply reject this system of ethics"?

Religions are frequently criticised for the bad conduct of their members or office bearers. And some go so far as to say that this behaviour renders religious belief untenable. I have always believed that since their tenets do not support or encourage this bad conduct such bad behaviour is not a valid criticism of religion. That it is simply the normal outcome of behavioural variation in the human population which says nothing about the validity of religious beliefs. Is this a valid line of reasoning? Peter S.

Is it possible for any legitimate science to prove, if not now at least someday, that God indeed exists? Or is Richard Dawkins more intuitively right in saying that "someday we would have to understand the whole of the universe without anymore referring to a supernatural being"?

Is it wrong to practice a belief which one does not believe or finds to be irrational? For instance, are cultural Christians like Richard Dawkins intellectually irresponsible for adhering to practices connected with the belief which they find unconvincing? This is a very bugging question for me since I am a Christian who is becoming more and more disillusioned with my religious beliefs, so a philosophical answer would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Is there a problem for atheists to explain, for example, the laws of logic and objective morality. How could we really account for either if the material realm is all that exists?

My question is about how we can value religion from a secular perspective. When it comes to thinking about the religion of Islam for example, there are a multitude of ways to rate the religion's value (or lack there of). It is evident that Islam gives meaning and hope to billions of people, but at what cost? The end result is that the believer is left with a worldview that is erroneous in relation to history, science and the very meaning and purpose of life. Should we base our valuation of Islam upon how closely its teachings cohere to reality, or base it on how much the religion positively effects those who follow it?

I have been thinking a bit about the so-called Intelligent Design argument for the existence of god and have wondered if the question I raise here is a viable criticism of the argument. I find the argument problematic, in particular, because of the idea or notion of “design” itself. It seems to me that “design” is a construct that human beings employ to explain what we perceive, or maybe infer from what we perceive, in observing the universe. We look at things and perceive order, or some kind of harmony and consistency to them; this is the way our minds happen to work. It is possible, however, that beings elsewhere in the universe observe it and have no conception of “design”, or see no such order or harmony. If design truly is an inference relative to human minds it seems like it would hardly point to the existence of a designer; from the premise that design is a human construct perhaps the most we can infer is that design is not a “feature” that is intrinsic, or built into the structure of the universe...

Presuppositional apologetics arguments attempts to show the logical inconsistencies in non-Christian world views. Is it not the case that, by beginning with the the presupposition that the Christian world view and the bible are the absolute truth, thereby beginning with the desired conclusion as part of the premise, this form of apologetics commits the fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question?