Skip to main content

Al Jazeera - my contribution to discussion



Here's the Al Jazeera discussion programme I appeared on last night. It was a very good discussion I thought. Al Jazeera produce exceptionally high quality TV. The other contributors were Salman Hameed and Imam Joe Bradford from the US.

The discussion was prompted by an article by Geneticist Steve Jones in the Telegraph. In fact I had not seen this earlier interview in the Australian where Jones does say the problem of students boycotting evolution classes is predominantly with Muslim students.

Comments

Unknown said…
I saw your talk on aljazeera today. We look at d world around us and all we see is beauty , creativity , sience & technology at its peak and we wonder: could it be a random event of things dat has created all these?. My sincere answer is no because from the most minute to the complex lifes of the universe, we see science and engineering that is beyond our scope.
I would want to follow ur blog & also invite u to mine @ wisdomunknown.blogspot.com
Peter White said…
The comments by the Islamic scholar on dogma in science are a good example of why I don't listen to religious scholars any more. Everything they say about science is either a popular misconception or complete nonsense. Science is based on physical evidence. Scientists won't change their minds unless you can provide physical evidence to refute what they believe is true. That is entirely reasonable and not dogmatic.
Anonymous said…
I don't think he knows what a "majority" is...
Debunkey Monkey said…
On a side note, Ireland wants to put psychoactive drugs in its drinking water? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it sounds like something straight out of a science fiction cartoon.
Geoff Coupe said…
Good stuff. I was impressed by Salman Hameed, and the studio anchor. I was not, at all, impressed by Imam Joe Bradford with his trotting out of "evolution - still a theory" and "faith in science" tropes.

Oh, and @WISDOM - I suggest that you take a look at the Ichneumonidea if you think that all we see is beauty. That genus could be said to be hard evidence for Stephen's "Evil god" hypothesis...
Unknown said…
Being dogmatic about science or religion will not help matters. The real solution out of this quagmire is for scientist & religionists to sit down and discuss with a calm heart ,expressing their veiws and listening to eachother. You may find out that scientist & religionist are basically saying the same thing but in different languages , its all just a matter of understanding. I am a scientist myself and i hope to become a phillosopher someday. I agree that science is based on physical evidence but there're some physical concepts that cant be explained or experimented physically. These concepts elude physical sense & transcends to the spiritual realm. In this game of right & wrong, those who think they see are the blind ones & those who calmly listen to pratical wisdom and sense are those that really see. When i say i look around and all i see is beauty, the beauty is not what i see with only my eyes but also with my heart. For me, i simply adhere to the words of ALBERT EINSTEIN which says: 'science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame' and i think we all should try to see this.

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

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

Suggesting a new named fallacy: the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (or David Cameron Fallacy)

Many of us are familiar with the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (' after this, therefore because of this) - Post Hoc Fallacy for short). It's the fallacy of supposing that, because B occurred after A, A must be the cause of B. For example: My car stopped working after I changed the oil, so changing the oil caused it to stop working. Or:  I wore my red jumper to the exam and I passed, so that jumper is lucky: it caused me to pass. This fallacy is so common, it gets a latin name. However, there's a related common fallacy that I think also deserves a name. I am going to call it the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (' not after of this, therefore not because of this), or, perhaps more memorably, the David Cameron Fallacy. Every now and then someone desperate to ‘prove’ that X is not causally responsible for Y – e.g poverty is not a cause of crime, will commit the following fallacy. They will argue that as X has often occurred without Y following, therefore X was not the