It may be true that science cannot establish whether God exists or not, but that does not mean that we cannot argue about the matter.
What should the reaction of open or liberal societies be to the assault we experience on the principles on which they are based?
We have to be on our guard against the forces that undermine democracy. If liberal democracy is to survive we need militant democracy.
Judaism, Christendom, and Islam differ in some aspects. But none of these differences can hide the similarity in their understanding of God.
Bertrand Russell was an agnostic. Agnosticism has always attracted people who scorn the straightforwardness of the atheist position.
The outright rejection of the idea of scriptural authority seems to be more straightforward and intellectually promising than any alternative.
Many people are under the spell of historicism when they tell us that for the Arabic world is it “too early” to expect liberal democracy.
An atheist is someone who denies the existence of a god with certain characteristics. In other words: he denies the existence of “God”.
In an age of international religious terrorism divine command morality poses considerable problems for the maintenance of the political order.
How can this dispute about the relationship between religion and violence be resolved? Or will this always remain a matter of opinion?