The science-fiction film The Matrix (the first in a trilogy) generated a great deal of philosophical interest. There are already three collections of philosophical papers either published or in the pipeline devoted to the film (all are aimed at the general public, not academics). Here, Colin McGinn takes a closer look at the film and comes up with some rather surprising conclusions.

Private education, and whether or not it is morally defensible, is currently a focus of public debate. Here, Adam Swift explains why he believes some of the popular justifications for private schooling just won't do.

The question of why there is anything at all is perhaps the deepest and most profound of all philosophical mysteries. Here, Brian Davies investigates whether it is reasonable to suppose the universe was created by God.

Antony Flew asks what might lie beyond the big bang, and questions the assumption that we must choose between two options: either God created it, or it popped into existence for no reason.

Richard Swinburne responds to criticisms of his arguments from design for the existence of God.

Chris Horner questions whether a ‘meritocracy’ is something for which we should really be aiming.

‘The class war is over. But the struggle for true equality has only just begun.’

Tony Blair

Frank Jackson introduces a seemingly intractable mystery concerning ‘if…then…’ statements.

In this article and the following one, Susan Blackmore and Michael Bradie take contrary positions on the ‘science of memetics’, an approach to explaining human behaviour and culture based on the idea that our minds and cultures are in large part determined by self-replicating gene-like entities called ‘memes’. Memes would seem to allow the application of evolutionary ideas to both biology and culture. Many find that thought exciting and appealing. Others consider it arrogant and scientistic. Who is right?

Paul Helm examines some of Stephen Hawking's scientific arguments concerning God, and finds them unpersuasive.

Michael Bradie does not share Blackmore's enthusiasm for the ‘new science of memetics’.

Piers Benn explores the moral ramifications of a recent court case involving the Pro-Life Alliance.

In issue one, Richard Swinburne presented two ingenious versions of the argument from design. Here, Richard Norman questions both arguments.

Richard Double takes us through James' defence of belief in God, exposing a few fallacies along the way.

Richard Swinburne here defends the view that mind and body are distinct substances capable of independent existence. For a very different approach to the question of how mind and body are related contrast Rowland Stout's ‘Behaviourism’, which follows this article.

Like Richard Norman, Nick Bostrom is also unconvinced by Swinburne's two arguments from design (from issue one).

Behaviourists take the view that mental states are essentially behavioural: to be in pain, for example, is just to behave, or be disposed to behave, in certain ways (to writhe and go ‘Ow!’, and so on). Behavourism, if true, would neatly explain how mind and body are related. Minds are not queer, ethereal entities that exist in addition to our physical bodies, and that are hidden behind our behaviour. Rather, to have a mind just is to be disposed to behave in certain ways, and that is something even a physical object can be. Nowadays behaviourism, as a philosophy of mind, is philosophically out of fashion. But here, Rowland Stout explains why he still believes it may be true.

In this review of Richard Swinburne's Is There a God? (which contains the same two arguments from design that may be found in his article in issue one of Think), Richard Dawkins admires Swinburne's clarity but is unconvinced by his arguments. Dawkins questions, in particular, Swinburne's suggestion that the hypothesis that God exists and sustains his creation is simpler than the hypothesis that there is no God.