An Annotated Bibliography 1898-1940

John R. Shook

Designed to fill a large gap in American philosophy scholarship, this bibliography covers the first four decades of the pragmatic movement. It references most of the philosophical works by the twelve major figures of pragmatism: Charles S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey, George H. Mead, F.C.S. Schiller, Giovanni Papini, Giovanni Vailati, Guiseppe Prezzolini, Mario Calderoni, A.W. Moore, John E. Boodin, and C.I. Lewis. It also includes writings of dozens of minor pragmatic writers, along with those by commentators and critics of pragmatism. It encompasses literature not only concerning pragmatism as an alliance of philosophical theories of meaning, inquiry, belief, knowledge, logic, truth, ontology, value, and morality, but also as an intellectual and cultural force impacting art, literature, education, the social and natural sciences, religion, and politics. This bibliography contains 2,794 main entries and more than 2,000 additional references, organized by year of publication. 2,101 of the references include annotation. Its international scope is focused on writings in English, French, German, and Italian, though many other languages are also represented. Peter H. Hare contributed the Guest Preface. The introduction contains an historical orientation to pragmatism and guides to recent studies of pragmatic figures. This work is extensively cross-referenced, and it has exhaustive and lengthy author and subject indexes.

John R. Shook and Paulo Ghiraldelli


Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction

Edited by Scott Gelfand and John R. Shook

This book raises many moral, legal, social, and political, questions related to possible development, in the near future, of an artificial womb for human use. Is ectogenesis ever morally permissible? If so, under what circumstances? Will ectogenesis enhance or diminish women's reproductive rights and/or their economic opportunities? These are some of the difficult and crucial questions this anthology addresses and attempts to answer.

Editor-in-Chief John R. Shook and Maria Baghramian

Contemporary Pragmatism (COPR) is an interdisciplinary, international journal for discussions of applying pragmatism, broadly understood, to today's issues. Contemporary Pragmatism will consider articles about pragmatism written from the standpoint of any tradition and perspective. Contemporary Pragmatism especially seeks original explorations and critiques of pragmatism, and also of pragmatism's relations with humanism, naturalism, and analytic philosophy. Contemporary Pragmatism cannot consider submissions that principally interpret or critique historical figures of American philosophy, although applications of past thought to contemporary issues are sought. Contemporary Pragmatism welcomes contributions dealing with current issues in any field of philosophical inquiry, from epistemology, philosophy of language, metaphysics and philosophy of science, and philosophy of mind and action, to the areas of theoretical and applied ethics, aesthetics, social & political philosophy, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of the social sciences. Contemporary Pragmatism encourages work having an interdisciplinary orientation, establishing bridges between pragmatic philosophy and, for example, theology, psychology, pedagogy, sociology, economics, medicine, political science, or international relations.

Editorial questions, suggestions about special issues or book reviews, and other queries should be sent to:
Need support prior to submitting your manuscript? Make the process of preparing and submitting a manuscript easier with Brill's suite of author services, an online platform that connects academics seeking support for their work with specialized experts who can help.

NOW AVAILABLE - Online submission: Articles for publication in Contemporary Pragmatism can be submitted online through Editorial Manager, please click here.

Book Reviews:
Publishers can contact about mailing new books.
Instructions for book reviewers is to be found on

John R. Shook


The four commentaries on my article “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” only indirectly address my main argument that god-belief is not an innate (natural, normal, and so on) capacity of all humanity. Although scientific disciplines dispute criteria for innate biological functions, there remains little scien-tific evidence of an inherent capacity to our species for getting acquainted with any deity. Theologies looking to science may hope that the right sort of god best fits the right sort of brain. Methodologies for scientifically studying religion should not be in-fluenced by such normative presumptions.

John R. Shook


Proposals that god-belief is an innate capacity of all humanity have not been confirmed by empirical studies. Scientific disciplines presently lean against god-belief’s innateness. Perhaps religion should be relieved that belief in gods is not innate. Intuitive cognitive functions supporting god-belief offer little convergence upon any god. Religious pluralism back to the Stone Age displays no consensus either. Any cognition for god-belief can only be deemed as mostly or entirely misleading. Theology has tried to forestall that skeptical judgment, by dictating what counts as authentic religiosity and who enjoys a valid idea of god. Justin Barrett exemplifies this theological interference with scientific inquiry. Contorting the anthropology and cognitive science of religion too far, his quest for a primal natural religion won’t match up with his search for intuitive conceptions of god. His quest for god-belief’s innateness devolves into theological dogmatism, deepening doubts that scientific theories of religion will validate god-belief.