Skip to main content

Myself and Alister McGrath on radio

I am on Premier Christian Radio this coming Saturday 2.30pm talking with Prof. Alister McGrath about his new book on the "New Atheism". His book is called "Why God Won't Go Away: Engaging With The New Atheism". Justin Brierley presents. Very interesting discussion. It will also be available as a podcast. I'll make links available.

It's the "Unbelievable" programme.

PS Direct link to the podcast is now here. Also on itunes as a download - search "brierley unbelievable" for the page. The entry is "Unbelievable? 5th Feb - Alister McGrath and Stephen Law".


Thanks for that heads up Stephen, look forward to the podcast.
Steve Wade said…
Interesting show. I thought you sounded more sincere than Alistair McGrath. He seemed to be employing debating tactics throughout - claiming to respect Dawkins but then sneaking in a few unpleasant snide remarks and so on. He misrepresented Sam Harris's position on torture. I think if you bring something up like that you are obliged to explain the context.
Thanks for participating in that discussion. Harris explains his position of torture here:

The End of Faith should be a part of any freethinker's library. Copy enroute to you now. If another listener has already sent you a copy, I'm sure you'll find a good home for it.
banksie said…
Hey Mr. Atheist Missionary sir - could you please send me a copy of 'The Christian Delusion'by John Loftus? I'm desperate to read it and have been for quite some time. Unfortunately i'm flat broke. Hard times = no new reading books. Thanks in advance :)

(cheeky, i know, but worth a shot!)
The hyperlink didn't work on my last comment. In any event, here is the url:
Not quite as interesting as I thought it might be. Some discussion of the New Atheism, but little of why belief in God won't go away - some reference on either side to people like Scott Atran(he has a lot to say about the New Atheists) and Pascal Boyer would have been interesting. That and the fact of McGrath himself, who called himself a social liberal, but always seems to be linked to christian fundamentalist groups, e.g. Ravi Zacharias. Maybe he is a social liberal.

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