Skip to main content

Resonance FM radio show

I will be on London's Resonance FM "Little Atoms" radio show 7pm tomorrow (Friday) night. Talking about CFI, scepticism, religion, etc.

Comments

Mr. Hamtastic said…
Anyway to get that in the US?
Anonymous said…
Off topic but you have come across the comedian Tim Michin ?

His stage poem (!!!) is an excellant rant against new age woo woo. It's worth a look for a chuckle if nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s&feature=related
dobson said…
Mr. Hamtastic: Yes

Little Atoms is one of the shows included in the Resonance FM podcast feed.

While you subscribe, I think all your readers would enjoy Hooting Yard which is another show podcasted by Resonance FM.

Sal
Stephen Law said…
Just did the radio prog. My 3 year old appeared halfway through and started climbing over my head before starting up a noisy DIY project in the corner. Hopefully it didn't show.
Crispian Jago said…
Little Atoms is also available on iTunes and has a fine selections of guest speakers in addition to Stephen. Here's a recent review of my favourite science, reason and critical thinking podcasts.

http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2009/03/top-of-pods.html
Matt M said…
Is anyone else having trouble with Little Atoms iTunes feed? I've subscribed, but it keeps telling me that the feed can't be found on the server.
Crispian Jago said…
The iTunes feed was down for a couple of days but it was up again last time I checked. Looks like Neil has updated the feedburner name. You can access it directly from the link below, if you’re still having problems with iTunes:

http://feeds2.feedburner.com/littleatomspodcast
Matt M said…
Thanks for that, Crispian. I used the link you provided and it worked like a treat.

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...

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...

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...