Skip to main content

BBC1 Big Questions again

I will be on BBC1 Big Questions programme again next Sunday 10am (May 6th). This one was prerecorded yesterday. The whole programme was devoted to children and religion.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Stephen, as an RE teacher who was in the audience, I felt like your comments were measured, important and fair. I understood your argument that many schools are not providing a critically reflective, engaging and philosophical subject. I should encourage you to observe my lessons, all of which you will see have a a critical and philosophical pupil at their heart.

Thanks

Richard Cooper
April 30, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Richard. Yes that was the key point I wanted to make so glad I got it across.
April 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said…
In terms of your book, which I have just purchased, it seems from its description and your comments that you share a pedagogical inclination similar to that of Andrew Wright, would that be fair?
April 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Anonymous said…
Thanks for the heads up Stephen.

On the whole, I found this to be an excellent and overdue episode of the Big Questions, and especially enjoyed yours and Andrew Copson's extremely considered contributions. However, the one point I would like to pick up on is your notion of teflon-coating belief (or non-belief) systems. (A useful metaphor I thought.)

I'm just not sure the late Hitchens (and colleagues) do attempt to teflon-coat the atheist position in response to challenges from history. My understanding is that he/they take issue with the use of Stalin and/or Pol Pot (etc.) as examples of how political systems/leaders fall down without the moral guidance/brakes of religion. If I have this right, Hitchens notes how the Stalinist system (for instance) could almost be considered 'religious' - or at least holds strong parallels - as it too demands unquestioned allegiance to a single (pseudo-divine) patriarch figure, and his moral/political system. It also flourishes on the condemnation of other, competing, belief systems, and discourages/punishes independent-thought/dissent. The cult of personality, and the promise of greater goodness - often illusions - could also be considered similar. In this sense (and only this sense) I see how this might be considered religious (or at least synonymous), albeit without any spiritual component. (To be 'like a religion' or 'religious' about something, doesn't always require literal religious beleif/practice.) I'd therefore argue this is different to an attempt at'teflon-coating'.

In fact, thinking about it now, some of these are parallels you yourself identify in 'Believing Bullshit', only you're perhaps more likely to connect Stalinist and religious systems as 'intellectual black holes', rather than being different versions of each other. Not sure...

Anyway, thanks for your time.

Adzcliff
May 6, 2012 at 2:47 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