Heythrop College stories please

Anyone got any good anecdotes or little known facts about Heythrop College (positive ones preferably)? Let me know...

Hear Holocaust escapee and survivor Jack Kagan next Monday

Hope to see some of you at this next Monday - S.L.

It is a great honour for Heythrop College Jewish Society, together with Heythrop Student Union and UJS, to mark Holocaust Memorial Day by hosting Holocaust survivor and ex-resistance fighter Jack Kagan.

Mr Kagan came from Novogrudek, a small town in Belorussia. He is the only member of the Bielski partisans in the UK. He will recount his amazing story of escape through a tunnel from a labour camp to join the Bielski brigade as a young teenager. Jack along with 1,230 plus men, women and children lived and survived in the forest as a whole community who managed to create synagogues, bakeries and even an airstrip. This was used by the Soviet air force to fly in supplies and fly out the wounded.

As part of his talk, he will be showing us a film made in 1931 showing his home town as it was before the war, when 50% of its inhabitants were Jewish.

He is also the co-author of a book about life in the community of partisans, called “Surviving the Holocaust with the Russian Jewish Partisans.” It's available on Amazon, and Mr Kagan might be willing sign copies if you were to ask him.

We strongly urge you to come to this talk; opportunities to hear first hand about experiences during the Holocaust are becoming increasingly rare, and it's important that our generation hears as many stories as possible so that it can pass them on to the generation after us who won't get the same opportunities.

So that we have an idea of how many people to expect, please click 'attending' on our Facebook event
Or drop an email to jthropsoc@gmail.com.

This event will be taking place in the Loyola Hall at 18:30 on Monday 28th January.

Refreshments provided.

See you there!
JThropSoc committee 2012-2013

In Conversation with Richard Dawkins

Location: Sheldonian Theatre
Friday, February 15th, 7:30

Professor Dawkins and philosopher Stephen Law discuss the major issues of import to humanists and atheists at a time when opposition to rationalist thought appears to be on the rise.

Other Oxford THINK week events here. Tickets on sale though the above sold out. I am also chairing the Wednesday 13th event "Do you fear death, or dying?" 7pm.

My talk today on New Teleological Arguments (for A Level)

Here is the text taken from my powerpoint that accompanied my talk today at Heythrop College. If you are a pupil or teacher interested in attending other A Level philosophy and/or RS conferences, go here (I speak at most of them).

Heythrop College MA taster day (I am speaking)

MA Taster Day

25 January 2013 10:00

Category: Open Days and Evenings

Want to try a university course before you apply?

---

10.00 a.m. – 5.30 p.m.

This MA Taster day will provide prospective postgraduate students with a taste of what a course at Heythrop is like. You will have the opportunity to hear and meet some of our most experienced lecturers and gain an insight into the additional facilities available in the College.


Stay all day (with lunch included) or dip in and out – all for free!

A provisional programme for the day is as follows:

10.00    Arrive, register, coffee                           

10.30    Interreligious Relations / Abrahamic Religions   
The Impact of Modernity on Abrahamic Religions: The Muslims' Reactions, Dr Ahmad Achtar
                       
Contemporary Ethics                               
Ethics and Contemporary Morality: What’s the Difference?, Dr Anna Abram

11.30    Biblical Studies   
Society Structures and Paul's Assembly in Corinth, Dr Jonathan Norton   
               
Psychology of Religion                   
Has Psychological Understanding Put God in Question? A New Look at Freud and Jung, Prof Rachel Blass

12.30    Philosophy                                       
Sceptical Moves in Classroom Debates and their Resolution, Dr Stephen Law

1.30    Lunch    (provided)

2.30    Christian Spirituality                      
Themes in Christian Spirituality, Dr Edward Howells

Christian Theology                           
Creation, Salvation and the Structure of Christian Theology, Dr Martin Poulsom

3.30    Canon Law                     
The Church, Money and Public Benefit, Dr Helen Costigane   

Pastoral Theology
Keeping Faith in Practice: Theology in Action, Dr James Sweeney

Bookings

Please click here to book your place.


If you have any queries about the day, please do not hesitate to contact us at a.clarkson@heythrop.ac.uk

Podcast interview with Kylie Sturgess

January 11th – 365 Days Of Philosophy Podcast – An Interview With Stephen Law

Kylie Sturgess

The interview for January is with Stephen Law.

http://365daysofphilosophy.libsyn.com/rss

Download audio here: January – Interview With Stephen Law
Stephen Law (BA, BPhil, DPhil) is a philosopher and senior lecturer at Heythrop College in the University of London. He also edits the philosophical journal Think, which is published by the Royal Institute of Philosophy and aimed at the general public.

Professor Law is the author of a number of books, including The Philosophy Files, The Outer Limits, A Very Short Introduction To Humanism, The War For Children’s Minds and Believing Bullshit. He is also the Provost for the Centre for Inquiry, UK. He blogs at Stephen Law and Believing Bullshit, and uses Twitter at https://twitter.com/stephenlaw60.

For this interview, I opened with a question that my students always had about his career – how and why did he get into philosophy in the first place (particularly as an adult student at the age of 24)? We discuss humanism, atheism, debates about the existence of god, philosophy for all ages - and, of course (as it is Week Two), arguments… and how do you know when is it worth arguing in the first place?

Podcast interview with Alan Litchfield

The Odds of an Evil God & The Truth of Moral Questions

For podcast go here. 

By Alan Litchfield

Stephen Law

Stephen Law Discusses His Interesting Thoughts on Morality, His “Evil God Hypothesis,” and His Views on Religion

Philosopher Stephen Law challenges theists to explain, “. . . why the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and all-good god should be considered significantly more reasonable than the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and all-evil god. Theists typically dismiss the evil god hypothesis out of hand because of the problem of good – there is surely too much good in the world for it to be the creation of such a being. But then why doesn’t the problem of evil provide equally good grounds for dismissing belief in a good god?” Law is the editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK. He has published several books and is senior lecturer in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. His books include Believing Bullshit, The Philosophy Gym, Humanism, A Very Short Introduction, and The War for Children’s Minds. During our conversation, Law shares his interesting views on morality, discusses how science relates to morality, and challenges both theists and non-theists to think.

For podcast go here.

Oxford Think week approaching

Peter Atkins, Richard Swinburne, Ard Louis and myself drawing straws to see who goes first at one of last year's events.

Go here.

Is religious freedom threatened by gay rights?

Last year I was a participant in a conference on Religious Freedom at Magdalen College, Oxford. The conference focused particularly on "the emerging conflict between new equal rights claims on behalf of homosexuals and existing claims of religious freedom."

 Cases such as the right to wear a visible cross at work, or to turn homosexual couples away from your B&B, or of registrars to refuse to conduct civil partnership ceremonies, were discussed. Many religious people at the conference felt that they were being victimized.

Here's my paper and my post script conference responses to the responses made to my paper by John Finnis and Christopher McCrudden.

I post it today because the landmark ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on various claims of anti-religious discrimination - a case in which McCrudden has been involved - is due today.

SHIFTS IN THE MORAL AND LEGAL LANDSCAPE

The UK has seen a revolution in its moral and legal attitudes over the last couple of centuries, particularly with regard to discrimination.

One of the earliest beneficiaries of changes to the law to protect minorities from unfair discrimination was the Roman Catholic community. The Catholic Relief act in 1829 aimed to protect Roman Catholics from such discrimination. Legislation to protect Jews was soon to follow. Today, our freedom to hold and espouse, or reject and criticise, different religious beliefs, is protected by law.

Our moral attitudes towards women, black people and gay people have also shifted dramatically, and this too has been reflected in the law. Gone are the days when women could be refused employment or the vote because they are women. Gone are the days when hotel owners could put up signs saying “No blacks”. Gone, too, are the days when men having sex with men in private risked imprisonment.

Today, most of us subscribe to the principle that the State and the law ought to treat all citizens equally. They should not discriminate between citizens or groups of citizens, granting privileges to, or penalizing, one group but not another, unless there is some difference that justifies that difference in treatment.

Of course it isn’t always wrong for the State or the law to discriminate. We suppose it is right that the State should withhold from children rights and privileges that it extends to adults, and only progressively afford them those rights as they mature. But there is an obvious justification for that: younger children are not sufficiently mature to exercise those rights and privileges responsibly. It may also be legitimate for the State to make, say, breast cancer screening freely available to all women but not all men, on the grounds that the risk to men is significantly lower.

However, almost all of us accept that such discriminatory practices are proper only where there exists a difference between the two groups that actually justifies treating them differently.

What's wrong with gay sex?

Here's a chpt of my book The Philosophy Gym on gay sex. It's topical again given current traumas in Church of England.

Mr Jarvis, a Christian, was asleep in bed, dreaming of the Last Judgement. In his dream, Jarvis found himself seated next to God in a great cloud-swept hall. God had just finished handing down judgement on the drunkards, who were slowly shuffling out of the exit to the left. Angels were now ushering a group of nervous-looking men through the entrance to the right. As the men were assembled before Him, God began to speak.

God: So who’s next? Ah, yes, the active homosexuals . So tell me, Jarvis, what shall we do with them?
Jarvis: You’re going to punish them, aren’t you?
God: Why do you say that?
Jarvis: Because to engage in homosexual behaviour is wrong, of course.

The Appeal to The Bible

God gently rubbed his chin and looked quizzically at Jarvis.

God. Wrong? Is it wrong?
Jarvis: Yes. You say so yourself in The Bible.
God: Ah. The Bible.
Jarvis: Yes. Look right here. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18.22
God. Well, I may have been a little hasty. I’m not sure about that bit now.
Jarvis. Not sure? You’re God! You don’t make mistakes!
God: Perhaps I am not the real God. Perhaps I’m merely a dream God – a figment of your imagination.
Jarvis: Oh.
God. Also, why do you assume The Bible is one hundred percent reliable?
Jarvis: You mean it’s not?
God: I didn’t say that. But look, if you plan entirely to base your morality on the contents of just one book, you had better be sure it is the right book. And you had better be sure to what extent it can be relied upon, hadn’t you?

The Lord pointed to The Bible lying in Jarvis’s lap.

Good and bad ways of influencing the beliefs of others

There are many ways in which we seek to influence what other people believe. We might employ procedural reason and rational persuasion of course. We might try to formulate a cogent argument. Or we might try to shape their beliefs in other ways, by means of threats, brainwashing, peer pressure, and indoctrination (through endless repetition, etc.), for example. 

As a philosopher, I value reason. Indeed, like most people nowadays, I consider the use of reason to shape the beliefs of others to be, on the whole, a good thing, and the use of techniques like threats, brainwashing, peer-pressure and indoctrination to be a bad thing. But why should reason be preferred to these other methods of shaping belief?

One important difference between using reason and those other methods is that threats, brainwashing, peer pressure, etc. can be just as effectively employed to produce false beliefs as true ones. They are not truth-sensitive. Try using reason to influence the beliefs of others, on the other hand, and you will find that reason is a double-edged sword. It will not necessarily favour your beliefs over the beliefs of those whose minds you seek to change. Reason favours the truth. After engaging in a reasoned argument with your intellectual adversary, you may find your opponent has shown that you are the one that is mistaken (this is a risk that some “educators” are not prepared to take – which is why they tend to favour other methods of shaping belief).