Skip to main content

Today's BBC 1 Big Questions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01f1npg/

From about 43 minutes on "Do we need religion to create a moral society?" I start it off and finish it up too. It will be up for a week.

Comments

Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only

That sucks. Can't find this on iTunes - if anyone is aware of how it can be accessed ex juris, please let me know.
Anonymous said…
The Atheist Missionary said...To be certain that god does not exist I’d have to be all knowing. However, the only entity possessing that power is a god. Therefore, I would have to be the god that I claim does not exist. Hmmm… Better convert myself to the agnostic persuasion instead.

Appreciated your comment on philosophy embracing all religions Steve. (The Big Questions) As I see it religions and science are merely flawed tools. Devised to assist survival of us, in compliance with the meaning of life. The meaning of life is life itself, ensuring the continuity of the species. Since nothing entirely dependant or wholly reliant on human existence, can occur in our absence. While we have existed without them. They cannot exist without us. If we did indeed teach our youngsters how to question, they would soon expose all the paradoxes (incomplete understandings of reality) currently holding us back. Regards, al.
Psiomniac said…
You dealt well with one pernicious aspect of this debate that seems to crop up often: the false dichotomy between morality based on religion and naive moral relativism.
Jack said…
Here it is on youtube I believe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisxYorDNr4
Jack, thanks for posting the youtube link. I enjoyed watching the discussion.

Stephen, I'm interested to know whether you have read Chris Hedges' I Don't Believe in Atheists (Free Press, 2008). If you have, I would be interested in your take on Hedges' attack on (what he suggests is) the myth that modern societies are progressing morally. If you haven't read it, I think you would enjoy it - the title is deceptive. Although Hedges has a Masters in Divinity, he excoriates religious fundamentalists. Here's a snippet:

"We live in a universe indifferent to our fate. We are seduced by myths that assure us that the world revolves around us, that fate or the gods or destiny have given us a unique and singular role in the cosmos. It is hard to reject these myths and face the bleakness of human existence. It is more comforting and reassuring to have faith in our collective moral advancement as a species, to believe that we are heading toward something great and wondrous. The bitter reality of existence and the bondage of human nature, however, are real. These myths are not. All those who tempt us to play God turn us away from the real world to flirt with our own annihilation". (pp. 89-90).

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...

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...

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...