Skip to main content

Me vs Peter Atkins on The Limits of Science

Go here for details all the THINK week events in Oxford this week. I am on Thursday night (24th) with Peter Atkins, scientist and atheist, to discuss whether science can answer all our questions. Expect religion to come up!

Peter Atkins and Stephen Law - 'Can science alone answer our questions?'
Feb 24th 2011: 8pm - Friends Meeting House, 43 St Giles

Philosopher Dr. Stephen Law and Professor of Chemistry Peter Atkins will be discussing whether science alone can answer our questions. Entrance is free, and all are welcome.

Here's Atkins in action:


Paul P. Mealing said…
Calling ID a 'scientific abomination' is great name-calling but it doesn't address the argument. He's right in the sense that ID is effectively a 'God of the gaps' argument: it explains what we currently don't know, which is not at all scientific, but he makes the point rather obtusely.

What Atkins doesn't say is that there's a hell of a lot that we don't know and that natural selection is not the whole story. We still don't know what causes speciation, which is fundamental to evolution. In other words, we can confidently say that evolution is a fact, but we can't answer all the questions it throws at us.

He can say the universe is 'completely useless' yet it produced him, didn't it? Does this make Atkins completely useless? Science will always tell us that the universe has no purpose because indeterminacy is built in. But humans will always seek a purpose because that's a fundamental part of our nature.

Regards, Paul.
Ollie Capehorn said…
Really enjoyed listening to you speak tonight, I'm convinced that you presented the most coherent case. Many thanks for such an engaging and funny debate.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Ollie - I enjoyed it. I also like Peter, even if we disagree so it was pretty good natured. Though I felt slightly cornered what with Dawkins immediately in front of me and Atkins to my left both telling me philosophy is a waste of time.
Anonymous said…
what was argued by each person?
Paul P. Mealing said…
Hi Stephen,

Can you provide a link to your debate?

Regards, Paul.
Paul P. Mealing said…
Silly question, I guess. I assume it wasn't recorded.

Pity, I would have been most interested.

Regards, Paul.

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