Stephen Law

When people ask 'Am I normal?' they're often looking for reassurance. What they mean is: am I normal, or do I have some kind of problem that needs addressing? For example, they may ask: is it normal to feel this miserable, to struggle as much as I do to spell correctly, to be as interested - or disinterested - in sex as I am? It can be reassuring to hear that you're normal - that you're not diseased, for example. However, sometimes that you're not normal is what you want to hear - you'd much prefer to learn that you have some sort of medical, learning, or other condition. For example, discovering that the difficulties they have with are not normal and that they have dyslexia can be a huge relief to someone who has been struggling with reading and writing. There's now the possibility of expert help, of acknowledgement of this particular disability when it comes to exam-taking, and so on. Those diagnosed with dyslexia can be reassured that they're ...

  Consider what we might call the ‘trope’ criterion of bigotry:   if there’s a negative attribute associated with an ethnic/racial/sexual traditionally stigmatized minority (e.g. they’re greedy, terrorists, bad drivers, over-emotional, violent, conniving, sexist, etc.) and a person maintains that someone of that ethnicity/race/sex has that negative attribute, then that person is a bigot.   Of course we have a moral duty to be self-reflective and carefully monitor what we say about the members of such traditionally stigmatised minorities. It's very easy to slip into adopting toxic cliches and stereotypes about women, or gay people, or black people, or Jews, or Muslims, etc. without realising we have done so. Those who are justifiably sympathetic to the view that we have this moral duty to monitor ourselves and others and to avoid adopting poisonous stereotypes may well be drawn to the trope criterion of bigotry.   However, it's easy to...

NATURALISM VS. THEISM IS A FALSE DILEMMA (This is prepublication draft of my contribution to the next issue of THINK , which focuses on naturalism.)   Often, when theists attempt to make a case for theism, they contrast their theism with what they call 'naturalism'. Atheists, they insist, sign up to a 'naturalistic world view'. Indeed, it's because atheists sign up to a naturalistic worldview that they reject theism (naturalism is, if you like, the ideological engine that draws people into atheism). And they argue that naturalism, while widespread, has fatal flaws. We should, therefore, embrace theism.   This way of making a case for theism, while popular among religious apologists, is flawed. It is a classic example of the fallacy of false dilemma . Our options are not restricted to just theism or naturalism.   Many assume that naturalism entails atheism. They assume that if there's only th...

Had Cummings simply panicked and driven to Durham because of concerns about his children, well that's human and perhaps forgivable. But, looking at his story in the round, many of us are left with a different impression: 1. that Cummings repeatedly and deliberately flouted the rules designed to protect us all - rules that he helped draft and that others in the same position followed, and 2. that he exhibits the kind of knee-jerk, arrogant I'll-do-what-I-want attitude typical of someone used to being plugged into power and privilege. It appears that: 1. Cummings did not just break the lock down rules once. He did so repeatedly. The suspicion is that he did so so that his family could enjoy being in the countryside and have the opportunity to visit tourist spots, rather than being holed up in their house central London. Certainly, his explanation makes little sense - particularly the part where he decided to test his eyesight by driving his whole family ...

You can download a copy of my The Evil God Challenge (most viewed paper of the journal Religious Studies of the last decade, I'm told) here: THE EVIL GOD CHALLENGE PDF You can watch the 3 minuted animated version here on VIMEO (it's a Staff Pick): EVIL GOD CHALLENGE - THE MOVIE

In case you missed it: New Scientist: A Field Guide To Bullshit How do people defend their beliefs in bizarre conspiracy theories or the power of crystals? Philosopher Stephen Law has tips for spotting their strategies You describe your new book, Believing Bullshit , as a guide to avoid getting sucked into “intellectual black holes”. What are they? Intellectual black holes are belief systems that draw people in and hold them captive so they become willing slaves of claptrap. Belief in homeopathy, psychic powers, alien abductions – these are examples of intellectual black holes. As you approach them, you need to be on your guard because if you get sucked in, it can be extremely difficult to think your way clear again. But isn’t one person’s claptrap another’s truth? There’s a belief system about water to which we all sign up: it freezes at 0 °C and boils at 100 °C. We are powerfully wedded to this but that doesn’t make it an intellectual black hole. That’s because t...

INTRO   Here’s a short introduction to some of the most fascinating philosophical issues about happiness. We are going to look at three key questions:   Is happiness just about feeling good , or is there more to it than that? Is feeling good always what motivates us? And: Is increasing happiness always morally the right thing to do?   1. ANCIENT AND MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF HAPPINESS   Happiness is elusive – something we work hard to achieve, yet rarely seem to find. Indeed, as T.S. Elliot reminds us, the harder we strive to attain happiness, the more quickly it seems to recede over the horizon.   We see them everywhere, those trying desperately for happiness: pitifully chasing clouds of butterflies, laughing too loud, drinking too much, buying too much, working too hard; hating themselves.   Perhaps one of the reasons happiness is hard to achieve is that it’s not entirely clear what we are after. So let’s begin by asking: ...