Skip to main content

SCIENCE AND RELIGION: Simon Singh, Mary Warnock, Jack Cohen, Stephen Law



PLEASE PUBLICIZE!

Saturday 25th April 2009

A day exploring the relationship between science and religion, with some very eminent and well-known speakers (plus myself).

The day will address, among other issues, such questions as: Are religion and science non-overlapping magesteria? Can science support, or undermine, religious beliefs? If so, how? If not, why not?

This promises to be a fascinating series of talks, whatever your views on religion.

Simon Singh will talk about Georges Lamaitre (scientist and priest) and the Big Bang, Baroness Mary Warnock about "religion as humanism" Jack Cohen about evolution and belly buttons, and Stephen Law about empirical evidence against the God hypothesis.

The cost is £10 (£5 students and national Humanist orgs). BOOK NOW. Send a cheque payable to “Centre for Inquiry London” to: Executive Director Suresh Lalvani, Centre for Inquiry London, at the Conway Hall address (include names of all those coming). Alternatively pay by PAYPAL (credit and debit cards). Use the “Support CFI London” link at www.cfilondon.org and follow the instructions.

Presented by CFI UK and the Ethical Society.

10.30-11.00am registration. Talks are 11.00am-1.00pm and 2.00-4.00pm

VENUE: Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square. London WC1R 4RL (nr. Holborn tube)

JOIN OUR FACEBOOK PAGE FOR UPDATES.

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
Hi Stephen,

Would love to go, but it's a long way from Oz. Will it be covered by any media: radio, podcasts, or magazines like New Scientist?

Regards, Paul.
Mr. Hamtastic said…
Can someone cover the costs for me to see this? Airfare, Hotel, Food... I think I can afford the cost to get in, though.
anticant said…
I hope Jack Cohen will explain why belly button fluff is always pink - at least that's what I read recently!

Seriously it sounds a fascinating occasion, and I'm sorry I can't be there.
jeremy said…
[Off topic: Stephen, I see your comments on Scruton's latest screed have made it to the pages of American Spectator (see here). Out of interest, did they ask you specifically for your comment, or did they simply lift it from this blog?]
Anonymous said…
"some very eminent and well-known speakers (plus myself)."

Hehe :)
Stephen Law said…
Jeremy - I did send that in. Forgot I had done so, though. I wonder if it is in the print version?
Crispian Jago said…
Nice selection of speakers, I’m certainly getting value for money out of my CFI membership.

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

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist