In a recent article in this journal, Andrew Johnson seeks to defend the “New Atheism” against several objections. We provide a philosophical assessment of his defense of contemporary atheistic arguments that are said to amount to bifurcation fallacies. This point of discussion leads to our critical discussion of the presumption of atheism and the epistemic justification of atheism.

The subject of agnosticism about the existence of God has emerged in many of the major conversations within analytic philosophy of religion, such as the debate on the nature of evidence for and against religious beliefs. In this article, I outline a map of the debate on agnosticism in religious epistemology—especially in relation to evidentialism—highlighting the significance of the problem of the ambiguity of evidence and connecting said problem to discussions of religious language and peer disagreement.

The first part of this essay discusses what naturalism in the philosophy of religion should entail for one's ontology, considers various proposed criteria for categorizing something as natural, uses an analysis of these proposed criteria to develop theoretical criteria for both the natural and nonnatural, and develops a set of criteria for identifying a potentially supernatural event in practice. The second part of the essay presents a persuasive empirical case for naturalism based on the lack of uncontroversial evidence for any (...) potential instances of supernatural causation, with particular emphasis on the lack of evidence for supernatural causation in our modern scientific account of the history of the universe and in modern parapsychological research. (shrink)