共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
2001年11月24日-25日,中国无神论学会学术年会在北京隆重举行.中国无神论学会理事长、国家图书馆馆长任继愈先生、中国民进中央副主席楚庄先生,以及来自全国各地的无神论学会会员、教育工作者等共约70人出席了会议. 相似文献
2.
2013年8月18—19日,中国无神论学会第四届会员代表大会暨2013年学术年会在京召开。此次年会主题为“科学无神论事业继往开来的历史使命”.由中国无神论学会和中国社科院科学与无神论研究中心联合主办。来自全国各地的80多名代表出席。中国无神论学会张新鹰副理事长主持代表大会。 相似文献
3.
4.
<正>为深入学习贯彻党的二十大精神,进一步贯彻落实2016年和2021年全国宗教工作会议精神,中国无神论学会第六次会员代表大会暨2023年学术年会于2023年6月10日在北京举行。本次会议由中国无神论学会、中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院、中国社会科学院科学与无神论研究中心主办,《科学与无神论》编辑部协办。会议主题为“新时代农村无神论宣传教育”。中国社会科学院金融研究所党委书记、副所长,中国无神论学会第五届理事会副理事长、 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
8.
<正>2009年12月12~13日,中国无神论学会2009年学术年会暨"无神论研究与新中国60年"学术研讨会在上海师范大学举行。这次会议由中国无神论学会、上海社会科学院宗教所和上海师范大学哲学系三家联 相似文献
9.
2002年11月27日,中国无神论学会召开了<科学与无神论>杂志创办三周年座谈会.参加座谈会的有中国无神论学会理事长、国家图书馆馆长任继愈,中国无神论学会副事事长、中国科学院院士何祚庥,中国无神论学会的理事和会员,以及科技界、社科界、新闻界等有关专家和学者共30多人. 相似文献
10.
2012年10月20—21日,中国无神论学会2012年年会在陕西师范大学召开。此次学术年会由中国无神论学会、中国社会科学院科学与无神论研究中心与陕西师范大学宗教研究中心联合主办。年会的主题是"教育与宗教相分离"近50名专家学者出席了年会。这些学者来自中国社科院、教育部、中国科协、国家宗教事务局、中国藏学研究中心、中共中央文献研究室、中国国际友谊促进会等 相似文献
11.
12.
Roy Sorensen 《No?s (Detroit, Mich.)》2018,52(2):373-388
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. 相似文献
13.
Here is a new version of the Evidential Problem of Evil.Theists claim that it is reasonable for atheists to believethat if God did exist, suffering would look just as it does now. I endorse this claim, however it cannot be deployedagainst my argument without the following epistemic principle:what we see makes p likely only if it is reasonable tobelieve it would be discernibly different if p were false. I demonstrate that this principle is mistaken. The paperalso responds to objections from Alvin Plantinga and PeterVan Inwagen that Gods existence is compatible with pointlessnatural evil. In particular, I argue that appeals to vaguenessdo not support the compatibility claim. 相似文献
14.
STEPHEN MAITZEN 《Philosophy and phenomenological research》2005,70(1):225-239
On the basis of Chapter 15 of Anselm's Proslogion , I develop an argument that confronts theology with a trilemma: atheism, utter mysticism, or radical anti-Anselmianism. The argument establishes a disjunction of claims that Anselmians in particular, but not only they, will find disturbing: (a) God does not exist, (b) no human being can have even the slightest conception of God, or (c) the Anselmian requirement of maximal greatness in God is wrong. My own view, for which I argue briefly, is that (b) is false on any correct reading of what conceiving of requires and that (c) is false on any correct reading of the concept of God. Thus, my own view is that the argument establishes atheism. In any case, one consequence of the argument is that Anselmian theology is possible for human beings only if it lacks a genuine object of study. 相似文献
15.
16.
PHILIP KITCHER 《Journal of applied philosophy》2011,28(1):1-13
Militant modern atheism, whose most eloquent champion is Richard Dawkins, provides an effective and necessary critique of fundamentalist forms of religion and their role in political life, both within states and across national boundaries. Because it is also presented as a more general attack on religion (tout court), it has provoked a severe reaction from scholars who regard its conception of religion as shallow and narrow. My aim is to examine this debate, identifying insights and oversights on both sides. Two distinct conceptions of religion are in play. For Dawkins and his allies (most notably Dan Dennett) religions are grounded in doctrines, propositions about supernatural entities, events and processes which the devout believe. Their beliefs prompt them to actions, which they support or rationalize by reference to the doctrines. Dawkins and Dennett view the acceptance of the doctrines as resting on cognitive misfiring — these are delusions to be outgrown or spells to be broken. By contrast, the religious scholars who criticize the militant atheists often view religion as centered in social practices that inform and enrich human lives. To the extent that there are doctrines that atheists might subject to epistemic evaluation, these are to be viewed as pieces of scaffolding, that are, in principle, dispensable. I argue that militant modern atheism is incomplete (and likely counter‐productive) so long as it fails to attend systematically to the roles religion fulfills in human lives. Yet it is important to achieve public clarity about the literal falsehood of the doctrines on which fundamentalists rely. The challenge is to develop a well‐articulated and convincing version of secular humanism. Meeting that challenge is, I claim, one of the central problems of philosophy today. 相似文献
17.
18.
19.
“无神论”与“信仰” 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
无神论对应的是完全否定任何超自然的存在(包括上帝与灵魂等)的观念体系,作为一种世界观.它的根基是唯物主义。“信仰”属于非理性范畴而与唯物主义风马牛不相及。马克思主义是科学而不是信仰。不幸的是多年来我们有些政治家和理论家把共产主义必然实现的政治信念也表述为‘‘信仰”。以致混淆了科学与宗教的区别。60年的治国经验提供给我们的重要教训之一就是:决不能引导或者放任某种政治信念异化为“信仰”。共产主义者根本不需要诉诸“信仰”来维持对既定目标的遵循。认为无神论者不能离开“信仰”的那些号称共产党员又拒绝承认自己信教.以及一方面追逐着金钱一方面又指责“信钱”就是“没有任何崇高信仰的人”的学者应该重温马克思恩格斯的有关论述。执政党处理与宗教界关系的现行原则是“政治上团结合作,信仰上互相尊重”:信教和不信教以及所信宗教不同的信徒之间在根本利益上是完全一致的:世界观上的差别是“形而上”的问题.将长期存在,应该在民主法制层面保证各自的公民权利,最终由社会文明的发展逐步融解。某些研究宗教问题的专家把“信仰”直接归入“精神价值层面”.必然使一些完全违反道德和法律的“信仰”不能不获得“尊重”.以致“信仰上互相尊重’’这个表述成为鸡肋。建议改用不会产生歧义的说法——“政治上团结合作。世界观上互相尊重”。 相似文献