MARK COLYVAN, JAY L. GARFIELD and GRAHAM PRIEST PROBLEMS WITH THE ARGUMENT FROM FINE TUNING

Problems With the Argument From Fine Tuning

The argument from fine tuning is supposed to establish the existence of God from the fact that the evolution of carbon-based life requires the laws of physics and the boundary conditions of the universe to be more or less as they are. We demonstrate that this argument fails. In particular, we focus on problems associated with the role probabilities play in the argument. We show that, even grant...

2+1=1 (Reply to Ziporyn) - ReplytoZiporyn

How We Think Mādhyamikas Think Reply to Tillemans

In his paper in this Issue, ‘ “How do Mādhyamikas Think?” Revisited’, Tom Tillemans reflects on his paper “How do Mādhyamikas Think?” (2009), itself a reply to earlier work of ours (Deguchi, Garfield, and Priest 2008, Garfield and Priest 2003). There is much we agree with in these non-dogmatic and open-minded papers. Still, we have some disagreements. We begin with a response to Tillemans’ firs...

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakı̄rti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakı̄rti’s texts. Hunti...

1 A Mountain by Any Other Name ... Reply

### Chinese (Sino-Japanese) Buddhism in general, and Chan (Zen) in particular, are very different kettles of fish from Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. The Daoist influence gives it a whole new flavour. Chan certainly inherits a story about emptiness from Indian Buddhism, though. And though it may put a whole new spin on it, we take it that it preserves the structural features about emptiness which gener...