Defence and development of Erik Wielenberg's argument re sceptical theism - forthcoming in Religious Studies

Sceptical theism and a Lying God – Wielenberg’s argument defended and developed

Stephen Law

Department of Philosophy, Heythrop College, University of London, Kensington Square, London W5 8HX UK

s.law@heythrop.ac.uk

Abstract: Sceptical theists attempt to block the evidential argument from evil by arguing that a key premise of that argument – that gratuitous evils exist – cannot reasonably be maintained. They maintain that, for all we know, our knowledge of reasons God may have to permit such evils is radically incomplete. Thus the fact that we cannot identify reasons for God to permit the evils we observe does not allow us reasonably to conclude that no such reasons exist. Erik Wielenberg points out what appears, for many sceptical theists, to be an unfortunate further consequence of their position. It appears that, if sceptical theism is correct, then, similarly, the fact that we cannot identify reasons why God would lie to us does not allow us reasonably to conclude no such reasons exist. But then, for all we know, God’s word constitutes not a divine revelation but a divine lie. This paper examines sceptical theist responses to Wielenberg’s argument to date (from Segal, and McBrayer and Swenson) and develops two new Wielenberg-style arguments for the same conclusion.

Email from Centre for Intelligent Design

Centre for Intelligent Design
Beware State-sponsored Darwinian Indoctrination                          March 2014

Dear Dr Law,

When Theos, the London-based public theology think tank, published 'Rescuing Darwin' in 2009 they presented a remarkable statistic.  It was that two hundred years after Charles Darwin's birth in 1809, 'at least half' of the British population is still sceptical about the theory of evolution.[1]  This was consistent with a survey conducted for a BBC Horizon programme in 2006 which put the figure at 52%.

However, Theos was actually being a bit generous with its data.  It was 63% of the population they found to be sceptical about Darwin's theory of evolution.  It does of course depend on the form of the question you ask.  However, more embarrassingly, Theos found that some 51% of the population thought that some form of Intelligent Design (ID) was a credible explanation of origins.[2]

That only 37% of the population in 2009 found evolution convincing led Theos to comment on this 'sorry state of affairs' and Richard Dawkins to speak of a 'worrying level of scientific ignorance among Britons'[3].  Time, then, for the ideologues to redouble their efforts to 'rescue Darwin' and sort out the poor souls who just don't get it.  Mind you, with the universities and the media completely on board, you could be forgiven for wondering what else they might do.  If that combination can't get better commitment figures, what could?

Global Warming – Where Do We Go From Here? April 12th

CFI UK and Conway Hall present

Global Warming – Where Do We Go From Here?

Radical ideas ad suggestions on how to respond to the threat of global warming from some of the UK’s leading experts and campaigners.

Organized and presented by Stephen Law.

April 12th, 2014

Conway Hall

Red Lion Square

London WC1R 4RL

Near Holborn Tube

£10 (£5 students) free to friends of CFI UK.

Tickets available online at: https://humanism.org.uk/events/?page=CiviCRM&q=civicrm/event/info&reset=1&id=52

10.30 Registration

11am Dr Mayer Hillman. Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute, London. What do we do now that society is demonstrating all too clearly its strong preference for downplaying the significance and implications of climate change?

12.00 Dr Rupert Read. Philosopher and Green activist. Rupert will speak about global over-heat, the end of denialism, and the self-destruction of libertarianism in relation to this issue - and a possible way forward, in terms of guardians for future people. (lunch)

1.45 Dr Vicky Pope. The Met Office. Vicky was a founding member of the Met Office Hadley Centre and is a member of the Advisory Board on the UNEP early warning project on climate related hazards. She will present an overview of the latest science from the IPCC report and talk about its relevance for the UK. Vicky will give some idea of weather extremes we might expect.

2.45 Saci Lloyd is an Ecological activist and internationally-acclaimed writer. She is the author of Carbon Diaries.

3.45 End

CFI UK reserves the right to change the programme.

Centre for Inquiry UK events at Oxford Literary Festival 2014

Bruce Hood

Introduced by Stephen Law

The Self Illusion: Why There is No You Inside Your Head

Saturday 22 March 2014
4:00pm

 

Experimental psychologist Bruce Hood argues that the self is an illusion but one that we cannot live without. He says most of us believe that we exist as a self – an internal individual who resides inside our bodies, making decisions, authoring actions and possessing free will. The feeling that a single, unified, enduring self inhabits the body – the ‘me’ inside me – is compelling and inescapable. This is how we interact as a social animal and judge each other’s actions and deeds. But that sovereignty of the self is increasingly under threat from science as our understanding of the brain advances. Rather than a single entity, the self is really a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that create the illusion of the internal you. We only emerge as a product of those around us as part of the different storylines we inhabit from the cot to the grave. It is an every changing character, created by the brain to provide a coherent interface between the multitude of internal processes and the external world demands that require different selves.

Hood is director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre in the experimental psychology department at the University of Bristol. He recently published The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity.

David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton talk to Stephen Law

Morality Puzzles - Would You Kill The Fat Man?

Monday 24 March 2014
6:00pm

 

http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Monday-24/morality-puzzles-would-you-kill-the-fat-man

Suppose you were out for a walk and whilst crossing a railway bridge you met a fat man. Would you push him over the bridge? One hopes not. But what if, by doing so, you could stop a runaway train from killing five people tied to a track? David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton discuss our moral intuitions in respect of this and other such cases and their fascinating implications.

Edmonds is a senior research associate at Oxford’s Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and a multi-award winning documentary maker for the BBC. He is the author or co-author of several books which have been translated into 25 languages. They include, with John Eidinow, the international bestseller Wittgenstein’s Poker. With Warburton he co-runs Philosophy Bites, the popular philosophy podcast which has had over 20 million downloads. Would You Kill The Fat Man? is his latest book.
Warburton is a freelance philosopher, writer and podcaster. His books include A Little History of Philosophy, and Philosophy: the Basics, and, with Edmonds, Philosophy Bites and Philosophy Bites Back. He is a frequent contributor to BBC radio programmes.

John Lennox and Stephen Law

Designed by God?

Wednesday 26 March 2014
2:00pm

 

http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Wednesday-26/designed-by-god

Does observation of the universe provide us with evidence for, or against, the existence of God? Is there evidence of cosmic design? Might there be evidence against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God? These and other fascinating questions concerning God, design and our ultimate purpose are discussed by a Christian professor of mathematics and an atheist philosopher.

Professor John Lennox is professor of mathematics at Oxford University and a fellow in mathematics and the philosophy of science at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also interested in the interface of science, philosophy and theology and his recent books in this area include Gunning for God, Seven Days that Divide the World, God and Stephen Hawking and God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? He has participated in a number of debates with high-profile atheists including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Stephen Law is senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. He is also a well-known atheist and humanist writer and blogger, as well as the author of many popular philosophy books including The Philosophy Gym, The Great Philosophers and, for children, The Complete Philosophy Files. He has debated a number of Christian apologists including William Lane Craig. 

Rupert Sheldrake, James Le Fanu and Martin Robbins

Chaired by Stephen Law

God and The Limits of Science

Saturday 29 March 2014
2:00pm 

http://oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-events/2014/Saturday-29/god-and-the-limits-of-science

Is science our only route to knowledge? Are there questions science cannot answer? Might science provide us with grounds for supposing there is a God, or that there is not? Join three leading, provocative and controversial thinkers as they discuss these and other fascinating questions concerning the limits of our understanding.

Dr Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and 10 books, including The Science Delusion. He was a fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University, and a research fellow of the Royal Society. 

Dr James Le Fanu is a general practitioner in South London and writes a regular column on medicine and science for The Daily Telegraph and on natural history for The Oldie. His books include The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, winner of The Los Angeles Times book prize in 2001, and Why Us: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. 

Martin Robbins is a researcher and writer who appears regularly in The Guardian, New Statesman and VICE Magazine. His writing explores themes of denial, conflict and mystery at the fringes of science and human understanding, where evidence and culture collide.

New additions to the International Academy of Humanism

There have been some new additions to the International Academy of Humanism.

Carolyn Porco
Russell Blackford
Susan Jacoby
AC Grayling
Maryam Namazie
Philip Kitcher
Maryanne Garry
Leo Igwe
Laurence Krauss 
Wendy Kaminer

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3258

Article in Foreign Policy Magazine

Help, I'm a British Philosophy Professor With the Same Name as a Burmese Heroin Kingpin!

...and banks keep getting us confused.

BY Jamila Trindle
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
Jamila.Trindle
@jtrindle
Source here.

The U.S. sanctions blacklist is meant to stop terrorists, drug lords, and weapons traders from getting access to their money. Unfortunately, it also ensnares a lot of people who just happen to have the same name as one of those alleged criminals. Professor Stephen Law, who shares the name of a prominent Burmese heroin dealer, has discovered that firsthand.

The British Stephen Law is a soft-spoken professor at the University of London where he has taught philosophy for 17 years and plays the drums in a band called The Heavy Dexters. He's also the author of books like Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked Into an Intellectual Black Hole. The Burmese one is a wealthy drug kingpin who was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in 2008 and again in 2010 because of his ties to the country's ruling junta. Treasury officials said Law's company, Asia World, received lucrative government construction contracts because of his close ties to the regime. The second Law uses several aliases and is believed to split his time between Burma and Singapore.

My THINK week event with Miguel Farias - Oxford Feb 24th

Think Week 2014 - Stephen Law & Miguel Farias

Monday February 24^th, 7:30pm:  Do You Believe The Facts Or The Myth?
Friends Meeting House, St Giles
Dr. Stephen Law
Dr. Miguel Farias

A discussion about belief. Humans believe in many different things, but what do we prefer? The science and facts, or stories and myths? Why are our minds inclined this way? And if we do prefer myth over fact, how can we change the nature of our belief?

Philosopher Dr Stephen Law, author of ‘Believing Bullshit’, and Experimental Psychologist Dr Miguel Farias, will present their ideas about these questions and discuss their thoughts. Members of the audience are invited and encouraged to join the resulting discussion.

Presented as part of Think Week 2014, February 24^th to March 2^nd Oxford


Think Week 2012 is sponsored by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK)http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/

PLEASE VISIT WWW.THINKWEEK.CO.UK FREQUENTLY FOR MORE EVENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND UPDATES.

OPEN TO ALL, AND ALL EVENTS ARE FREE

Presented by: the University of Oxford Atheist, Secularist, and Humanist Society; Oxford Brookes Atheist, Secularist, and Humanist Society; Oxford Humanists; and Oxford Sea of Faith.

Monday, February 24, 2014 - 19:30 to 21:00

source

How the US Treasury imposes sanctions on me and every other "Stephen Law" on the planet - my letter to OFAC

Right, here's another thing I am getting off my chest - email letter to OFAC (edited slightly from version sent).

Dear OFAC

This correspondence is copied to my UK Member of Parliament The Right Hon. Andrew Smith. Please copy him into your reply.

My name is "Stephen Law". The name "Stephen Law" appear on OFAC's "specially designated nationals" list:

Here is the actual OFAC listing for "Stephen Law", alias of "Steven Law"

https://ofac.data-list-search.com/Entities/ByName/steven-law

This person is Burmese and is suspected by US Treasury of drug trafficking. He is the son of Lo Hsing Han (dubbed by US Treasury as "The Godfather of Heroin") and has a Singaporean wife. His addresses, as listed by you, are all in Burma and Singapore. None are in the UK.

I have discovered that, as a result of this listing, US Customs block shipments of goods to me here in the UK. Also when people try to wire me money from abroad (not just from the US, but from anywhere), for e.g. occasional travel expenses for academic conference attendance, the payment is interrupted and various checks are made before the funds are released. This became so bad during one period (a series of payments every single one of which triggered a block) that I had to switch to a different bank account. At no point was I told why this was happening (i.e. that you, OFAC, are responsible). The banks concerned believe they must keep this information from me (I was told this by my bank branch). Hence it took me many months to figure out what the source of the problem was: OFAC/US Treasury.

It appears any "Stephen Law" anywhere in the world will suffer this same treatment, as indeed will anyone who merely happens to have the same name or alias as one of your "specially designated nationals". This has proved frustrating, time-consuming and also costly to me personally. E.g. I have  paid US$77 postage for goods it turns out I can never receive because they are returned by US customs to the US vendor because my name is listed. As a result of the OFAC listing, I cannot now order goods from - or receive gifts from friends and relatives in - the United States.

Can you inform me: given I am very obviously NOT the Burmese Stephen Law:

(i) how I can avoid having all goods shipped to me from the US to my UK address being blocked and returned to sender by US customs?

(ii) how I can avoid my own bank repeatedly asking me who I am (and requesting information including my DOB, which they already possess) before unblocking any payment from abroad?

My bank knows who I am, and they know I am not the Burmese "Stephen Law" on the specially designated nationals list, but still I have to go through this same rigmarole every single time money is wired to me. How do I avoid this please?

Yours faithfully

Stephen Law

PS Ofac-caused delays to payments to me can run into weeks. On one occasion I ran up overdraft charges as a result of not receiving funds blocked by OFAC.

PPS I was interviewed by Foreign Policy magazine about all this a short while ago.Also interviewed by News Hour on BBC World Service.

PPS OFAC just phoned me and suggested I have my DOB and passport number put on all parcels posted from US and all money transfers, plus a note to contact them in case of problems. It's worth a try....

Playing the Mystery Card (including discussion of McGrath vs Dawkins)

PLAYING THE MYSTERY CARD

(from my book Believing Bullshit - go buy it!) 

Suppose critics point out that not only do you have little in the way of argument to support your particular belief system, there also seems to be powerful evidence against it. If you want, nevertheless, to convince both yourself and others that your beliefs are not nearly as ridiculous as your critics suggest, what might you do?

Perhaps Play The Mystery Card. As we will see, this sort of strategy is particularly popular when it comes to defending beliefs in the supernatural – beliefs in ghosts, angels, psychic powers and gods, and so on. By far the most popular version of the strategy – the version on which I focus here – is to say, “Ah, but of course this is beyond the ability of science/reason to decide. We must acknowledge that science and reason have their limits. It is sheer arrogance to suppose they can explain everything.” Some things may indeed be beyond the ability of science and reason to decide. However, as we’ll see, those who say “But it’s beyond the ability of science/reason to decide” in order to try to immunize what they believe against rational criticism are often erecting little more than a smokescreen.

 “But it’s beyond science /reason to decide”

Scientism

The view that science can ultimately explain everything – can answer every legitimate question – is called scientism. Actually, even most scientists consider scientism a dubious doctrine. Many of them accept that there may be questions science cannot answer.

Religion and Philosophy in Schools

Religion and philosophy in schools

(from Hand and Winstanley, Philosophy in Schools, Continuum 2008))

Stephen Law

Is philosophy in schools a good idea? The extent to which early exposure to a little philosophical thinking is of educational benefit is, of course, largely an empirical question. As a philosopher, that sort of empirical study is not my area of expertise.

But of course there is also a philosophical dimension to this question. As a philosopher, conceptual clarification and the analysis of the logic of the arguments on either side certainly is my field. That is where I hope to make a small contribution here.

This chapter is in two parts. In the first, I look at two popular religious objections to the suggestion that all children ought to be encouraged to think independently and critically about moral and religious issues. In the second part, I explain a well-known philosophical distinction – that between reasons and causes – and give a couple of examples of how this conceptual distinction might help illuminate this debate.

PART ONE: Two popular religious objections

Philosophy in the classroom involves children thinking critically and independently about the big questions. These questions include questions about morality and the origin and purpose of human existence. Examples are: “Why is there anything at all?”, “What makes things right or wrong?” And “What happens to us when we die?” These questions are also addressed by religion. The subject matter of philosophy and religion significantly overlap. And where there is overlap, there is the possibility of disputed territory. Proponents of philosophy in the classroom may find themselves coming into conflict with at least some of the faithful. While many religious people are enthusiastic about philosophy in the classroom, there are also many who are either totally opposed to it, or else want severely to restrict its scope. Some Christians, Muslims and Jews consider the introduction of philosophy an unwelcome intrusion into those parts of the curriculum that have traditionally been deemed theirs. They have developed a whole range of objections.