Skip to main content

Tickets Now On Sale! CFU UK's Oxford Literary Festival events

SERIES OF EVENTS IN APRIL IN OXFORD. CFI UK has three high-profile events lined up in conjunction with the Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival:

1. Is Britain Too Secular Now? A discussion between philosopher Professor Roger Trigg (Oxford University Ian Ramsey Centre), author of Religion in Public Life, and Stephen Law, author of The War For Children’s Minds. Great Hall, Christ Church College, Oxford. 2pm, Friday 3rd April.

2. Ian Rowland on Mind Power. Ian, a skeptic and professional magician well known to CFI, will be presenting a very entertaining session on behalf of CFI UK. Christ Church College, Oxford. 12pm Friday 3rd April.

3. KID'S EVENT: Weird Science for kids. An event for children aged 12+ that aims to foster a critical attitude towards paranormal and other wacky claims. With Stephen Law and Ian Rowland. Christ Church College, Oxford. 6pm, Sat 4th April.

Go here for the website. Hit relevant day on left sidebar and then scroll down to the right time. There is a button to book tickets.


Whateverman said…
Why, oh why, are such things not more common here in the States?

Looks like a great way to spend the day. Good luck in the debate...

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