Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces tips and pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously.

Kaye and Prisco draw our attention to one of the more obvious difficulties with all versions of the argument from design (including both the fine-tuning and intelligent design versions).

If we are going to treat other species so very differently from our own — killing, eating and experimenting on pigs and sheep, for example, but never human beings — then it seems we need to come up with some morally relevant difference between us and them that justifies this difference in treatment. Otherwise it appears we are guilty of bigotry (in just the same way that someone who discriminates on the basis of race or sex is guilty of bigotry). But what is this morally relevant difference? Julia Tanner's article examines, and rejects, some of the most popular answers to this question.

It is claimed that the universe appears to be fine-tuned so as to admit the development of life. In this article Rodney Holder examines the evidence for fine-tuning and the chief rival explanation to design, namely the existence of a ‘multiverse’.

Tibor Machan introduces an ancient and infernal puzzle.

In a preceding article, Phillip E. Johnson notes that ‘famed atheist philosopher Antony Flew’ has announced that he has ‘converted to philosophical theism (though not to Christianity or any other specific religion, at least as yet), on the basis of scientific discoveries and related reasoning, which [have] convinced him that there is an intelligent designer of the natural universe’. Here, Flew sets out his position more clearly.

I hope I'll be forgiven for including this piece about the infamous Priory of Sion, which, as, anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code can tell you, is a secret organization dedicated to keeping the secret of the Holy Grail — an organization led down the centuries by eminent scientists, thinkers and artists including Da Vinci himself. While not strictly philosophical, this article is an excellent exercise in the kind of scrupulous detective work rarely done by those who spread such myths. It also nicely illustrates how such myths are often started.

In this article, Tom Wanchick addresses a common criticism of theism — that the concept of God is logically incoherent. Elizabeth Burns responds to Wanchick in the piece that follows.

Might viewing a violent horror film damage your moral compass? Daniel Sokol suggests that watching gratuitously violent imagery may be ‘bad for the soul’.

Dene Bebbbington explains, and criticises, the intelligent design creationism of William Dembski.

Mary Midgley asks, ‘What do we mean when we say that things are real or illusory?’

A response to the preceding article by Tom Wanchick.

The British Government has finally banned fox hunting. Richard Ryder explains why he believes it was the right decision.

Thomas Riggins responds to Michael Levin's provocative piece on homosexuality (in Issue 10).

Warwick Fox questions the question set by Shell and The Economist for their year 2003 essay prize.

Peter Cave juggles sex and God, Wittgenstein and language, and Kant and his lemons, pointing to some irredeemably paradoxical and perilous aspects of erotic love.

Richard Jennings unpacks some of the complex ethical issues surrounding scientific research.

David Robjant also criticizes Levin's article from Think 10.

Julian Baggini has managed to lay his hands on some newspaper articles from the future.

Does our future lie in global citizenship?