Skip to main content

CFI London

I have been asked to head up the new Centre for Inquiry in London (in effect, in charge of all academic programmes), and I have agreed. Will be planning various talks and events once we get it going. Should be a lot of fun, I hope. I'll be soliciting suggestions....

You will have the option of joining the mailing list and/or becoming a "friend" for a modest sum (about £30 I think).

Website here.

I do not yet have an appropriate title. I was thinking "Grand Poo-Bah Extraordinaire" or "Supreme Authority". You may have suggestions.....

Incidentally, one of the reasons I am very pleased to be associated with CFI is that a founder was the late, great, Carl Sagan, whom I idolized as a kid (remember "Cosmos"?). I hope we can put on some really interesting events that avoid just preaching to the choir.


Sally_bm said…
Wow! I have nothing more intelligent to say than well done, and that's absolute great! Oh, and I wish it wasn't just for London :-(. Why not just run the country/ world's education system? Think BIG Stephen!

What does "academic" cover? I hope you don't stop doing the introductory, basic stuff as well, cos you do it very well! Hope that's not patronising... Well, you got me formerly "in to" philosophy and are now, though you don't know it, teaching me philosophy A level (with the help of Elizabeth Burns)!

Good luck with the new post. I have no witty titles... To be honest, "Dr Law" has quite an authority to it already!
Anonymous said…
As for a title I know of at several software communities that have a "Benevolent Dictator for Life".

On the other hand something catchy to get the God squad engaged might help "Lucifer" perhaps?
Matt M said…
Devil's Advocate-in-Chief.
Anonymous said…
Dear Scientistic Law, what is a Paranormal World-view? Is it a world-view in which the paranormal is possible and variously indicated, so that some people believe (perhaps because of chance events) that some particular kind of the paranormal occurs, and perhaps even in some pre-theoretic description of that?

Or is it any such pre-theoretic description? Do you oppose people who think that the paranormal may exist, or those who devise such theories, to explain their own or others' experiences? Are you against Idealism and Cartesian Dualism, for example? That's fine, to be against those philosophies you don't believe in; but are you against other people believing in them, or trying to persuade others of the truth of their views?

It seems to me that the bigger you get, and the more of an impact you have, the less you will be able to complain about the impact of your largest opponents. And if CFI London is just a mixture of Skeptics and Secular Humanists, then why add to ASKE and CSH; what's the point of it? Thanks etc.
jeremy said…
How about "God"? Hehe
Anonymous said…
Chief Disciple of Zarathustra?
Tony Lloyd said…
"Carl Sagan", I don't like that name, mainly because it reminds me of one of the most stupid things of my youth. I saw the previews for "Cosmos" and decided not to watch the program. I had decided that this Carl Sagan chap was obviously some no-nothing yank "TV personality" - it was screamingly obvious because he pronounce "Cosmos" differently from me!

Its up there in the list of "stupid things I've decided" with the time I picked up a friends copy of "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" at University. I flung it down after four pages say "this guy's a complete idiot".

I'll have a look at the website and see if I can come up with a suggestion.

BTW Sally is right about the introductory stuff. I have a 14 year old here talking to me about Heraclitus.
Tony Lloyd said…
I've had a quick flick and think you ought to get this chap:

to present this:

and, for balance,
Kyle Szklenski said…
Tony Lloyd: You dislike the name Carl Sagan because of something silly that you did in the past? I mean, he didn't flip you off or anything? I find that to be a little odd. It's like saying I hate Carl Sagan because I punched him in the gut. To be fair, I have neither punched him nor hate him. In fact, I too idolize him!

Congrats, Doc Law. I have a good title for yourself: Da Claw. You could chop off one of your hands and replace it with a hook, or several hooks. Or, if you want to be less dramatic, you could just wear a Michael Jackson glove with needles sticking out of the fingers.

There are several other possibilities, which my wife or I may have mentioned before. "The Judge", "Stephenski", and my all-time personal favorite, "Pope on a Rope".
Tony Lloyd said…

I neither hate nor dislike Carl Sagan. It's that reminiscence of my own stupid prejudice that I dislike: the unthinking idiocy of a young Englishman failing to recognise an intellectual giant.
Anonymous said…
Are there any plans to interview for CFI's 'Point of Inquiry'?
Anonymous said…
Stephen, this is FANTASTIC!

Presumably you'll still have your "day job", right?

My, my, my... you're going to be busier than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs...! And let me echo sally_bm's sentiments - should you ever decide that you've just plain gotten tired of London and want to jump the pond to the land of fried Snickers bars and an almost limitless supply of fundamentalist attitudes, we'll be happy to get you all set up! :)

Mucho congrats...!

Popular posts from this blog


(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

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o