Skip to main content

GOD IN THE LAB, Sat. 21st March - book now


Title: God in the Lab
Location: Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R

Description: A day with some of the World's leading scientific researchers into faith, many from Oxford University. We'll be looking at hearing voices, possession, etc. What goes on the brain of someone hearing voices? Come and see the MRI scans. Is religious belief hard-wired into us? Yes, says one of our scientists, and provides the empirical evidence. One of our speakers was recently featured in NEW SCIENTIST magazine: Born believers: How your brain creates God.

A unique opportunity to hear and question those working at the cutting edge of this growing field of scientific research. Presented by CFI London and the Ethical Society.

To book, send a cheque payable to “Centre for Inquiry London” to: Executive Director Suresh Lalvani, Centre for Inquiry London, at the above address (Include names of all those coming). Alternatively pay by PAYPAL. Use the “Support CFI UK” button at www.cfiuk.org and follow the instructions. £10 or £5 concessions.
Start Time: 10:30 (for 11.00)
Date: 2009-03-21
End Time: 16:00

Comments

Anonymous said…
If God DOES exist, then it makes perfect sense that he'd hard wire his creation to believe in him, so I don't see why or how this New Scientist study can be used as evidence that God doesn't exist. It's compatible with the theory that A. God does exist. and its also compatible with the theory that B. God is an idea which has evolved into our brains.

If anything, I'd say it lends itself just as much to the first alternative and maybe even moreso than the second.
Stephen Law said…
Trav - I don't think any of these guys is suggesting this is evidence God doesn't exist. At least one is a Christian. Come along - you might find it interesting!
Julian Bennett said…
There is one suggestion that lends itself to religious gods being fictions and that is the fact that they nearly always appear to have human psychological profiles e.g. they think about sexual relations, justice, revenge, obedience etc.

Further, such traits are evolved adaptations or offshoots of adaptations in humans. [Dog gods would have different traits, not so much the all seeing eye but the all smelling nose]. So gods have acquired psychological traits that are the result of evolution in humans rather than another species.

But hang on - gods are meant to be immaterial beings, some of which are thought to have existed forever, none are mean to the result of evolution.

So how do we reconcile non-evolved gods have evolved psychological traits??? Ah, I see, it all makes sense once we understand that they are the projections of human minds.
I've read the article, and I've found it very interesting. I've already written about it on a Hungarian religious blog, jezsuita.blog.hu. Too bad it's in Hungarian.

I might go to this conference, it seems that I'm free that day:)

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

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