Marilyn Mason, education officer of the British Humanist Association, asks whether an adequate moral education must involve religion, and reflects on the way that attitudes to moral education have changed over the last fifty years.

Ted Schick submits the ‘God hypothesis’ to close scientific and logical scrutiny and finds it seriously lacking.

Is your mind in your head? The answer, surprisingly, may be ‘no’. Guy Longworth sets out the philosophical case for accepting that our minds extend much further into the world than that.

Roy Jackson's introduction to Neitzsche's Beyond Good and Evil will prove invaluable to those reading Neitzsche for the first time.

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously. Here we get to grips with an everyday reasoning error: the gambler's fallacy.

Mark Piper introduces the best-known and perhaps most powerful of all the arguments against the existence of God.

Richard Dawkins argues both that Darwin's theory made a God-as-the-designer-of-species redundant, and also that the problem of evil provides overwhelming evidence against God's existence. But Michael Ruse suspects Dawkins may be too hasty…

Mr Jarvis, a Christian, was asleep in bed, dreaming of the Last Judgement. In his dream, Jarvis found himself seated next to God in a great cloud-swept hall. God had just finished handing down judgement on the drunkards, who were slowly shuffling out of the exit to the left. Angels were now ushering a group of nervous-looking men through the entrance to the right. As the men were assembled before Him, God began to speak.

In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents a number of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of inference.

James Lett argues passionately that science and religion are not non-overlapping ‘magesteria’, and explains why he believes appeals to religious faith over scientific reason are highly dangerous.

When people ask ‘What is the meaning of life?’ what, exactly, are they asking? And does God provide us with an answer? Alan Sidelle investigates.

Julian Baggini's inspector Gore is puzzled by Abraham's faith in God, which, Gore suspects, boils down to a form of mental illness.

Emrys Westacott explains one of the most famous and ubiquitous of all philosophical dilemmas.

In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents a number of the most intriguing philosophical paradaoxes. Here we examine the paradox of Bertrand's box.

Michael Bradie challenges the assumption, common among sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, that it is to science, not philosophy, that we must look if we wish to answer the fundamental questions of ethics.

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously. Here l explain some of the techniques commonly used by ‘gurus’ to dupe people into thinking they have something profound to say.

In this regular series, Michael Clark, editor of Analysis, presents some of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of democracy.

Richard Ryder recounts the birth of the term ‘speciesism’

Alan Montefiore explains how Kant's moral philosophy fits into and depends on the wider sweep of his work.

Peter Cave explains why he believes we can and should treat people well, even after they have ceased to exist.

We should treat people well;

therefore, we should treat dead people well.