Skip to main content

"Test of Faith: Do we need God, now we have science?"


I just recorded an hour long show for Premier Christian Radio to be broadcast this Saturday at 2.30pm (1st May). It will also be available as permanent podcast then. Go to: http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable. Denis Alexander was my "opponent" (from the Faraday Institute in Cambridge - nice guy).

Comments

I couldn't get that link to work but I was able to subscribe to Unbelievable? on iTunes. Looking forward to your show.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks AM - link should work now... I might do another with William Lane Craig. Maybe.
wombat said…
Look forward to the 'cast.

On a topic slightly related to the title of the debate I spotted this in NewScientist - "Brain shuts off in response to healer's prayer"
Well only parts of the brain, but they wanted a striking title. It seems to show a definite effect in the brains of the devout which is dependent on whether they think the person saying the prayer is sufficiently potent.

Maybe we don't need God per se but Christians make great experimental subjects.
Paul Wright said…
I like Unbelievable, and not just because they had me on there once: it's pretty even handed and usually interesting (though I skip the ones which are merely arguments between theists). I'm glad they've changed the format to get rid of the listener phone in, though, as that gives more time to the guests, and the phone in people generally don't have strong arguments.

I might do another with William Lane Craig.

Cool. If you do, I hope will avoid the mistakes I see a lot of atheists make, where they apparently assuming Craig is an idiot with no serious arguments and they can just wing it. If you debate with Craig in a public forum, you can bet he'll have read your books and papers first.

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism has some thoughts on debating with Craig: here, here, and here.

The Unbelievable programme also has a forum over at Premier's site: you can see we're discussing last week's programme (featuring David Robertson, one of Dawkins's "fleas") there.
Paul S. Jenkins said…
Looking forward to hearing you on Unbelievable? (I'm now a regular listener, via podcast.)

A discussion with William Lane Craig would also be highly interesting, not least because of the firestorm of comments it would surely generate in the Premier Forum.

@Paul Wright: Thanks for linking to the mp3 of your 2006 Unbelievable? appearance — most instructive!
Soften Craig up and then we'll see if we can get a live rematch scheduled in Toronto.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Paul for advice - I will indeed do my homework on Craig as I know he is no fool.
Michael Fugate said…
Craig has many of his debates posted on his site, but they read like two people talking past each other using prewritten notes. I would really like to ask him to list all of the "objective moral values" about which he loves to go on and on, but never names a single one.
Stephen Law said…
P.S. Craig is only a maybe. The presenter merely raised as a possibility.

Craig is certainly an exceptionally good debater, and also a fairly good philosopher, with a vast battery of arguments and rhetorical moves at his disposal. He is particularly effective at getting his opponents on the defensive even when they're supposed to making their case (or, if they don't fall into that trap, he makes them look evasive).
DM said…
YOUR *****FINAL WARNINGS*****



THE BOOBQUAKE - 911


they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!

http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/in-name-of-science-i-offer-my-boobs.html


http://www.blaghag.com/2010/04/quick-clarification-about-boobquake.html


see how we take a term and convert in into its AUTHENTIC POLITICAL DIMENSION - THAT OF LIBERATION - not just merely harmless expression...


they thought BOOBIES had no effect... WRONG!


FOR THE *HEADLESS IDIOT* called m.shermer


http://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/graphics/audio_video/av558_lg.jpg


this is your *FINAL WARNING*



____________________________________
the really SHARP END OF OCCAM’S RAZOR…


they mix SKEPTICISM with ATHEISM…


KABOOM…


Now I want you to listen to this little f*cker...


http://www.ted.com/talks/james_randi.html


Randi:


When I see your UGLY FACE I understand why you are an atheist

_________________________________


now I want you to watch this video of DELUSION...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW2zsobxJDU


with the atheists:


they start begging when they start dying...


_____________________


Atheists,


but you have NO ANSWER TO DEATH... therefore you FAIL...


the Death of Ath*ism


*********************************


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8-Yxdphsg


DEATH TRAP


**********************************


THE REAL QUESTION:


DOES ATHEISM HAVE A FUTURE?


AND THE ANSWER - NO!


Atheists,


GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE


you little liars do nothing but antagonize…


and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity…


but you LOST…


THE DEATH OF ATH*ISM - SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD


Crystal Night, Atheists!


FINALE:


Have I said this before?


***********************************

http://theatheistwars.free0host.com/

***********************************


PULLING THE PLUG on atheism


http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp




[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3228845133_3599f8108f.jpg[/img]


bye


[img]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090126/as-indonesia-solar-eclipse/images/c52d9d50-7ca2-4c3a-b13c-c866836298c8.jpg[/img]




Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism…


*************************************


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ


*************************************


atheists deny their own life element…


LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?


********************************

***************************LIGHT*********

************************************


___________


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U


E=MC2


____________


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtK-X_MV0k&feature=fvw


DOWN THE TOILET!!!


_____________

http://open.salon.com/blog/sandra_no_longer_miller/2009/02/13/my_funny_valentine/files/lamb1234553042.jpg



LAMB POWER!


_____________________

UNDERSTAND!!!?

Shermer - Randi - Myers - Harris - Dawkins VS. NOSTRADAMUS - EINSTEIN - MARKUZE

you are ANNIHILATED!!!

crystal night is a reference to when the SUN IS ECLIPSED...

--------------------------------------

Repent and turn to God or be destroyed...

LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?


********************************
***************************LIGHT*********
************************************ or death...

LIGHT!
The best way to debate Craig would be in writing.
Lots of swallowing but no "empirical data". Excellent.

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