This paper presents a new challenge for libertarianism. The problem, in a nutshell, is that libertarianism appears to self-destruct in cases where conjoined twins—who share body parts—disagree over what to do with them. The problem is explored, and some solutions are proposed. The verdict is that accepting any of them will make libertarianism harder to defend.

Hilary Yancey has recently defended the view that for the duration of pregnancy, the mother’s body (or much of it) is literally part of the foetus. I argue that if she’s right, then a venerable tradition of pro-choice arguments will become much harder to defend.

One version of Pascal’s Wager says we should commit to, or cultivate belief in, whatever religion we think is most likely to bring us eternal joy. I pose a reductio for this version of the Wager. After exploring some ways the Pascalian might respond, the verdict is that it provides some reason to suspect that somewhere, somehow, the Wager goes wrong.

Proponents of Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against Naturalism often quote Charles Darwin’s 22 April 1881 letter to William Graham to imply Darwin worried that his theory of evolution committed its adherents to some sort of global skepticism. This niggling epistemic worry has, therefore, been dubbed ‘Darwin’s Doubt’. But this gets Darwin wrong. After combing through Darwin’s correspondence and autobiographical writings, the author maintains that Darwin only worried that evolution might cause us to doubt particularly abstruse metaphysical and theological beliefs, and (...) beliefs arrived at by ‘intuition’ rather than evidence-based reasoning. He did not worry that unguided evolution should lead us to doubt all of our beliefs in the way Plantinga and others have implied that it does. (shrink)

In 1999, the U.S. Postal Service issued the Ayn Rand commemorative stamp, an out-of-place addition to their long-running Literary Arts series. This article tells the story of the stamp—how it came to be and why.

In March 1964, Ayn Rand sat down for an interview with Playboy. In it, Rand argued that Christ's atoning sacrifice—if it happened—was morally wrong. The author contends that Rand made a bad argument. Depending on how her words are interpreted, Rand's argument for the immorality of Christ's atonement was based on (a) at least one false premise or (b) a “bait-and-switch” fallacy. Either way, the argument fails and should be abandoned.

Mark David Henderson's book, The Soul of Atlas, defends the view that there is more common ground than is usually believed between Christianity and Objectivism. Despite some minor aesthetic difficulties, the book is well written, making it easily accessible as an introductory text to the Christian/Objectivist debate. After making some minor recommendations as to how the book could have been improved, the author concludes that The Soul of Atlas's place in the Objectivist literature is one of a "conversation starter," not (...) a "groundbreaking" work of Christian/Objectivist synthesis. (shrink)