Skip to main content

Me vs Peter Atkins on The Limits of Science

Go here for details all the THINK week events in Oxford this week. I am on Thursday night (24th) with Peter Atkins, scientist and atheist, to discuss whether science can answer all our questions. Expect religion to come up!

Peter Atkins and Stephen Law - 'Can science alone answer our questions?'
Feb 24th 2011: 8pm - Friends Meeting House, 43 St Giles

Philosopher Dr. Stephen Law and Professor of Chemistry Peter Atkins will be discussing whether science alone can answer our questions. Entrance is free, and all are welcome.

Here's Atkins in action:
Labels:

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
Calling ID a 'scientific abomination' is great name-calling but it doesn't address the argument. He's right in the sense that ID is effectively a 'God of the gaps' argument: it explains what we currently don't know, which is not at all scientific, but he makes the point rather obtusely.

What Atkins doesn't say is that there's a hell of a lot that we don't know and that natural selection is not the whole story. We still don't know what causes speciation, which is fundamental to evolution. In other words, we can confidently say that evolution is a fact, but we can't answer all the questions it throws at us.

He can say the universe is 'completely useless' yet it produced him, didn't it? Does this make Atkins completely useless? Science will always tell us that the universe has no purpose because indeterminacy is built in. But humans will always seek a purpose because that's a fundamental part of our nature.

Regards, Paul.
February 22, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Ollie Capehorn said…
Really enjoyed listening to you speak tonight, I'm convinced that you presented the most coherent case. Many thanks for such an engaging and funny debate.
February 24, 2011 at 11:48 PM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Ollie - I enjoyed it. I also like Peter, even if we disagree so it was pretty good natured. Though I felt slightly cornered what with Dawkins immediately in front of me and Atkins to my left both telling me philosophy is a waste of time.
February 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Anonymous said…
what was argued by each person?
February 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Paul P. Mealing said…
Hi Stephen,

Can you provide a link to your debate?

Regards, Paul.
February 26, 2011 at 12:00 AM
Paul P. Mealing said…
Silly question, I guess. I assume it wasn't recorded.

Pity, I would have been most interested.

Regards, Paul.
March 1, 2011 at 7:59 AM
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

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
49 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