Skip to main content

A Level Philosophy One day Conferences 2009

A Level Philosophy One day Conferences 2009

Programme - Thursday 5th March 2009 and Friday 6th March 2009

10.30 Registration
11.00 Chris Horner: Ethics tips for A Level
12.00 Nigel Warburton (Philosophy: The Basics; Philosophy: The Classics): Mill and Plato on Freedom
1.00 - 2.00 Lunch break
2.00 Stephen Law (The Philosophy Files, The Philosophy Gym): Descartes proof that he is not his body
3.00 Michael Lacewing (co-author of Philosophy for AS Level): The origin of God
4.00 End

VENUE:
The venue is Heythrop College, Kensington Square, London W5 8HX, which is just a two minute walk from Kensington High Street tube station.

COST:
£16 per student/teacher.
Bookings will be accepted via e mail at alevelconference@heythrop.ac.uk and post.
Please note that payment must be received within ten days or the booking will be automatically cancelled.
Cheques should be made payable to HEYTHROP COLLEGE.
Please note that fees are non-refundable.
Confirmation of your booking will be sent along with travel directions.

OTHER INFORMATION:
A sandwich lunch will be provided for teachers.
There is a canteen on site which is open to all visitors selling a range of snacks, drinks, sandwiches and hot food.
Enquiries can be sent to alevelconference@heythrop.ac.uk
The college reserves the right to alter the programme.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Will you do one "up north"? Even us housewives, farmers and coal miners need some intellectual stimulation, but everything's always down in London. In fact, as everyone down south is rolling in it, and us folk up north are left struggling along with our coal fires, straw beds and extra toes, maybe the events could be up north instead, so the southerners have to pay the higher rail fares?

Just a thought...

I'm not a raging lunatic, by the way. Just a little bored. He he he.

Sally
January 29, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Stephen Law said…
Hi Sally

I can come up North. But Heythrop conferences are at Heythrop inevitably. If you want event for your school or whatever get in touch...
January 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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...
151 comments
Read more