Skip to main content

My Flickr page

I have started a black and white photography photostream at flickr under the name stephenwilliamlaw, if anyone is interested...
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why is it that black and white photos seem to capture detail in a far higher way? I suspect it has something to do with the way our eye retina cells work... anyone know?
July 14, 2008 at 4:31 AM
Stephen Law said…
No I don't. You're right though, I think....
July 14, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Jac said…
I love your "portrait of T and A, taken by window, natural light" and "camping." You do beautiful work.
July 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Jackie. Glad you like camping one as I do too, but not many others like it so much.
July 14, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Anonymous said…
Stephen - have you read Roger Scuton's famous essay on why photography is not an art (I only ask since you just addressed something by him). If so, your thoughts?
July 15, 2008 at 4:57 AM
Sally_bm said…
I love the camping and muddy walk ones, they make me feel very reminiscent :-) And the mountain ones look sooo striking in black and white. I'd never lug a big camera all the way up there though- I'm one of the "chop the end of your toothbrush off and eat off a compass" people!

Very nice, thanks for sharing them.
July 15, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Stephen Law said…
Hi Kosh - no haven't read it - have you?
July 15, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Anonymous said…
No I have not read it either, yet. Supposedly his argument is quite neat.
July 15, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more