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.
Labels:

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.
March 25, 2009 at 11:12 AM
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.
March 25, 2009 at 12:46 PM
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.
March 25, 2009 at 5:12 PM
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?]
March 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Anonymous said…
"some very eminent and well-known speakers (plus myself)."

Hehe :)
March 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Stephen Law said…
Jeremy - I did send that in. Forgot I had done so, though. I wonder if it is in the print version?
March 26, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Crispian Jago said…
Nice selection of speakers, I’m certainly getting value for money out of my CFI membership.
March 27, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Post a Comment

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...
159 comments
Read more

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

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...
250 comments
Read more