Skip to main content

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins event 12th April in Oxford


MAJOR EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT:
Tuesday 12 April 2011, 7:30pm (doors open at 7:00pm)
Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford
WHO SAYS SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT MORALITY?
with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins

TICKETS ON SALE FROM 10 a.m. FRIDAY 1 APRIL at BHA website here.

In his new book 'The Moral Landscape', neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris challenges the commonly held view that science has nothing to say about moral issues and that religion is the best authority on meaning, values and a good life. For Sam, the goal of 'The Moral Landscape' is to begin a conversation about how moral truth can be understood in terms of science. Richard Dawkins is known for his persistence in demanding a rational and scientific approach to solving life's most fundamental questions wherever and whenever it can be applied. So, can science help us to determine how we should live in the 21st century?

Join us as these two pinnacles of rationalist thought discuss how the science of morality might be formulated and applied to human well-being.

This, **the first ever appearance of Sam and Richard together in public**, will be followed by a book signing. You can buy copies of books by Sam and Richard at the Sheldonian after the event, or bring your favourites with you.

Tickets are £4. Tickets go on sale Friday, April 1st and can be purchased through the BHA website. Net proceeds from the event will be donated to Amnesty International and Non-Believers Giving Aid.

This talk is brought to you by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, UK, The British Humanist Association, The Centre for Inquiry, UK, Oxford Atheists, Humanists, and Secularists, and Project Reason.



Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Is this the same Richard Dawkins who has gone on record as saying:

"If I read an author who is ridiculing some idiot, I myself am rather amused".

Is 'mocking' and 'belittling' another human being going to be part of the the scientific model Dawkins would implement that is to replace Religion?

For example:

Is "Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself" old and outdated and no longer applies?

Richard seems to want to create a world in which our hearts are disconnected from our heads. Where the smug and the arrogant rule the world and those with opposing views are belittled and made fun of for being too stupid to know there is only one way - and that is King Richard's way.

Real reason Richard does not believe in God: he does not want any competition.

he is looking more and more like the sad and pathetic figure he is.

Twinkledorp peabody IV.
March 31, 2011 at 2:23 PM
Anonymous said…
Dear Mr. Stephen Law:

I just sent you a comment for your approval for posting. It was not a very complementary one about Richard's idea of replacing Religion with Science given that he finds it 'amusing to read' when an author "ridicules some idiot".

My question to Richard would be, "What if that author was ridiculing you?", to which the other half of the world would be having a good laugh?

From my seat ridiculing and belittling another human being is a shameful act from a heartless, insensitive individual that one should be very weary of in terms of the direction their 'Moral and Ethical Compassion' was pointing.

Religion certainly has its faults and causes much discourse in the world. But the weapons Religious warriors use are developed by Scientists so to assume that Science does not have blood on its hands in Holy wars is beyond dellusional.

Should we throw Science out with Religion as well, as both seem to have formed a co-dependant relationship thus share equal responsibility in wars between Religions?

Both Science and Religion have their good and their bad. It is best that we take the good from both, and toss out the bad, because a world of one in the absence of the other is to no one's benefit.

Thanks for listening.

Twinkledorp Peabody IV.
March 31, 2011 at 2:48 PM
Anonymous said…
2 magnificantly educated intellectual minds that are held in the very highest esteem. How I wish I could spend just one hour in their inner circle. Oh, what I could learn!!! It will have to suffice that I will be restricted to the pleasure of attending their event in person.

Thank you for informing.
March 31, 2011 at 7:06 PM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks - I didn't write the copy, and do not necessarily endorse all of it.
April 1, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Stephen Law said…
sold out in 15 mins. v sorry.
April 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM
Stephen Law said…
sufian - quickly go to the website NOW and try again...
April 1, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Stephen Law said…
I am the MC for this event, btw...
April 7, 2011 at 11:41 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