Skip to main content

CFI event at Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

I have arranged for CFI to put on three events at the Oxford Literary festival - two adult events and one for kids.

The biggest event is a debate between myself and Prof. Roger Trigg on Secularism. Friday April 3rd 2pm in the Great Hall at Christchurch. Tickets from Oxford Literary Festival.

Is Britain too secular now?


Is it right that British society be explicitly founded on Christian values? Is there something special about religion - and particularly the Christian religion - that justifies giving it a special, privileged role within our society? Should the state fund faith schools?

Philosopher Professor Roger Trigg believes secularization now threatens the fabric of British society. He defends the view that our freedoms are rooted in a Christian tradition and that, unless our Christian heritage is explicitly acknowledged and valued by the State, those freedoms may be at risk.

Philosopher Stephen Law argues that there is nothing about religious beliefs that justifies giving them such special treatment, and that it’s high time we kicked the church out of our state.

Roger Trigg is the author of Religion in Public Life: Must Religion be Privatized? He is also Senior Research Fellow at The Ian Ramsey Centre, University of Oxford, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Warwick and a former President of the Mind Association and of the British Society for Philosophy of Religion.

Stephen Law is the author of The War For Children’s Minds (which is critical of many faith schools). He is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy Heythrop College University of London, editor of THINK (journal of Royal Institute of Philosophy) and Provost of The Centre for Inquiry London.

Format 10-15 mins presentation by each speaker followed by 30 minutes of QandA.

Comments

anticant said…
Sounds interesting. I hope you will make the point that not just Christianity, but any religion, is socially divisive - not cohesive. Each sect strives to proclaim its 'correctness' and impose this on everyone else.

If you look at the 16th and 17th centuries - from the Reformation to the Civil Wars - religious disputes played a thoroughly malign part in setting people against one another. They squabbled endlessly about their respective concepts of God and the proper way to worship Him, with endless persecutions, killings, and finally civil war.

What was it all about? practically everything these people believed was in fact nonsense.
Steven Carr said…
Should we go back to religious tests for students to study at Oxford and Cambridge?

Or did Christian values meant that it was those freedom-loving Christians who campaigned against those horrible secular pagans who were imposing religious tests on students for Oxbridge?

And, freedom-loving Christians worked for years against the creeping secularization of Parliament, where secularists had introduced religious tests for people who wanted to be Members of Parliament.

Hoorah for freedom-loving Christians who destroyed all these religious tests and restriction that secularists had imposed on British life!
anticant said…
I myself would welcome a return of the Test Acts.

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

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist