十年坚持话责任

到上一期为止,《科学与无神论》杂志已经走过了十年路程。如果说十年坚持宣传无神论的历程能够说明点什么,那就是本期两篇论文的题目：“宣传科学无神论责任重于泰山”,而“《科学与无神论》的创刊势在必行”。     

《科学与无神论》杂志的历史功绩——献给本刊创办二十周年(五)

正四、承前启后,小结十年行文至此,为何要作一个小结?主要是因为2009年以后办刊重点有所变化,杂志改版,以推进无神论学科建设为目标,体现主管单位中国社会科学院的特色,成为我国哲学社会科学体系中无神论学科的代表性学术刊物。杂志宗旨依然是:"宣传科学精神,开展无神论教育,维护公民宗教信仰自由权利,推动科教兴国战略实施"。根据这样一个变化,小结一下前十年任务完成情况,以承前启后,进入论述后十年《科学与无神论》杂志的历史功绩,是顺理成章的     

终生受益

编辑部:今2002年2月4日收到一本《科学与无神论》杂志。去年2001年收1——6期六本。我本人是村老人会成员,在会里,我大力宣传科学与无神论,大有进展。很多老年同志根据亲身体会、信仰无神论和相信科学,在这方面得到     

《青少年科学无神论宣传与教育的理论与实践》说明

此书是中国无神论学会策划支持的《科学无神论丛书》之一。它将近10年来，中国无神论学会专家学者所进行的青少年无神论宣传与教育的理论探索和实践经验，集合而成。除专题调查报告外，其他文章均发表在《科学与无神论》杂志上。此书由中国社会科学出版社2009年10月出版，编者为中国无神论学会理事。     

《科学与无神论》杂志征稿启事

《科学与无神论》杂志自1999年创刊,至今已走过了八个春秋。八年来,我们在各级领导的关怀和广大读者、作者的支持下,为实现"宣传科学精神,开展无神论教育,维护公民宗教信仰自由权利,推动科教兴国战略实施"的办刊宗旨做了不     

闭幕词

各位代表:中国道教协会第三次代表会议,已经园满地完成了各项任务。各位代表认真地审议并同意《第二届理事会工作报告》和修改后的《章程》,并且作出了相应的决议。代表们畅所欲言,回顾了上届代表会议以来道协的工作情况,商讨了今后道协的工作任务。大家一致认为《第二届理事会工作报     

科教兴国是建国之本

《科学与无神论》杂志于1999年7月试刊,同年9月18日出版创刊号。贵杂志的出版正值“法轮功”及各种形形色色邪教组织疯狂作乱之际。贵刊全体同仁以科学的态度发表了《二十年来辨是非》的文章,有力地揭发批判了以“法轮功”为代表的各种邪恶势力的反动本质。《科学与无神论》杂志不愧是揭批各种邪恶势力的勇士、揭批伪科学的斗士、捍卫科学真理的卫士,我向你们致敬!     

《学者不应吹捧风水术》等文章在多家报刊刊载

2006年3月20日, 《北京日报》18版理论周刊·学习与答疑栏目,用半版的篇幅刊发了中国无神论学会理事长任继愈的文章: 《理直气壮地宣传科学无神论》。这是一种声音,是党报发出的重视科学无神论宣传的声音。为此,中国无神论学会的专家学者做了精心的准备,将长达7年艰辛努力的理论储备和现实思考,浓缩在这篇3000多字的文章里。     

创刊三年献词

《科学与无神论》杂志创刊三年了。三年来,杂志得到了各级领导和各界朋友、广大作者和厂大读者的热情关怀与支持,杂志社全体同志对此表示衷心的感谢！ 中共中央1982年十九号文件指出:“用马克思主义立场、观点、方法对宗教问题进行科学研究,是党的理论工作的一个重要组成部分。用马克思主义哲学批判唯心论(包括有神论),向人民群众,特别是广大青少年进行辩证唯物论和历史唯物论的科学世界观(包括无神论)的教育,加强有关自然现象、社会进化和人的生老病死、吉凶祸福的科学文化知识的宣传,是党在宣传战线上     

创刊词

为了落实中央关于坚持用正确的世界观、人生观、价值观教育广大干部和群众,坚持开展唯物论、无神论宣传的指示精神,我们创办了《科学与无神论》杂志。 宣传科学精神,开展无神论教育,维护公民宗教信仰自由权利,推动科教兴国战略的实施是本刊的宗旨。 以马克思主义、毛泽东思     

无神论和科学无神论

人类是天然的无神论者。假如人类的历史果然有三百万年,人类有神的历史,最多也不过二十万年左右。在二百八十万年的漫长时期里,人类没有神,也不靠神的指导,发展了智力和能力,完成了自己的进化。近二十万年以来,在自己可以解决问题的范围内,从衣食住行、生儿育女到谋道谋财、治家治国,人们一般也不去求助于神灵。即使那些求助     

Atheism, Morality and Meaning

Book reviewed:
Michael Martin, Atheism, Morality and Meaning , 2002, Prometheus Books, 330pp, price £21.00 pb.     

Humility,Virtue Epistemology,and the New Atheism

Most criticisms of the New Atheism are attempts at traditional apologetics. However, Christians who wish to defend the faith against the onslaughts of these critics might appeal to virtue epistemology by showing that the New Atheists do not possess the necessary habits of thought that a person would need to make a careful and thoughtful consideration of the evidence. In fact, the New Atheists fail to practice intellectual humility and this prevents them from genuine engagement with the strengths religion offers.     

Atheism and Morality,Guilt and Shame: Why the Moral Complacency of the New Atheism is a Mistake

When it comes to morality, the New Atheists appear to think that their rejection of religion, except for the removal of fundamentalist distortions, changes nothing. We think that this is because they have not thought things through. Atheism might not be a threat to shame morality, but it is certainly a threat to guilt morality. Given that there are reasons to doubt the viability today of shame morality, we face a far greater problem if atheism triumphs than the New Atheists admit.     

Atheism,faith, and the social scientific study of religion

The social “scientific”; study of religion originated in atheism and the basic theses pursued today, especially by psychologists and anthropologists, are little changed since they were first proposed by militant opponents of religion in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century. In this essay I trace these links from major scholar to major scholar across the centuries. I then examine the remarkable irony that the recent emergence of a truly scientific approach to religion was accomplished mainly by an influx of “believers”;. I sketch why and how this happened before turning to an assessment of the persistence of atheistic biases. I conclude with suggestions about how a truly scientific study of religion can be pursued by both believers and unbelievers, if not by fanatics of either stripe.     

Unicorn Atheism

Kripshe treats `god’ as an empty natural kind term such as `unicorn’. She applies Saul Kripke's fresh views about empty natural kinds to `god’. Metaphysically, says Kripshe, there are no possible worlds in which there are gods. Gods could not have existed, given that they do not actually exist and never did. Epistemologically, godlessness is an a posteriori discovery. Kripshe dismisses the gods in the same breath that she dismisses mermaids. Semantically, the perspective Kripshe finds most perspicacious, no counterfactual situation is properly describable as one in which there are gods. Perhaps it is not quite a necessary truth that there are no gods. According to Saul Kripke, failed natural kind terms are ill‐defined. Incorporating ill‐defined terms into declarative sentences yields only mock propositions. Just as the meteorologist has no professional interest in mock thunder, the logician has no professional interest in mock propositions. Kripshe disagrees with agnostics who assign a low probability to `There is at least one god’. The bearers of probabilities must be propositions. Despite this deference to science, Kripshe agrees with the a priori atheist that, necessarily, no future experience could constitute an encounter with a god. Divine revelation is impossible. Kripshe's a posteriori necessary atheism compares favorably to familiar forms of atheism and to non‐cognitivists. It reveals interesting challenges to a coherent formulation of atheism.