Skip to main content

In Conversation with Richard Dawkins

Dawkins_Law
Location: Sheldonian Theatre
Friday, February 15th, 7:30

Professor Dawkins and philosopher Stephen Law discuss the major issues of import to humanists and atheists at a time when opposition to rationalist thought appears to be on the rise.

Other Oxford THINK week events here. Tickets on sale though the above sold out. I am also chairing the Wednesday 13th event "Do you fear death, or dying?" 7pm.


Comments

Unknown said…
Can you provide details on how, where to get tickets for this event? I am really interested and don't want to miss it.

Thank you

Maria Zubizarreta
January 28, 2013 at 10:20 PM
Reynold said…
One of the problems is that those who oppose rationalist thought think absolutely nothing about lying about those they hate:

Their tools of choice *appear* to be logic and reason. But they consistently violate 'conventional' logic with irrational statements that are so, because they say they are so.

Their actual tools of choice are emotional in nature - ridicule, personal attacks, and flat out denial. They cycle between these techniques,. leaving folks frustrated over, essentially, Nothing. The Nothing of the VOID.

And yes, the blog poster is not any better.

February 2, 2013 at 9:11 PM
Unknown said…
I was going with a friend to see Dawkins and Crick at the Sheldonian a few years back, when Crick stepped in it over his view of Africans, and the show got canceled. Hope your luck runs better.

I am wondering, though, about this phrase, "opposition to rationalist thought." I "oppose" rationalism in that I disagree with it, but I don't oppose people thinking those thoughts if they like, wrong though they may be. Is the claim that people are arguing with atheists more than they used to? If so, might that not just be because there are more outspoken, prominent atheists to argue with than there have been since, say, the Marxist-Leninist enterprise was in full fury? Or is the title designed to encourage people to conflate rationalism with rational?

I guess one proof of "opposition to rationalist thought" would be Dawkins' own hall of "fleas," with my rebuttal of Dawkins & Co included:

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1617-the-fleas-are-multiplying

This reminds me of the wonderful drawings by Robert Hooke (late of Wadham College) of fleas, cork, and other objects he observed with his microscope. Unlike Hooke, I doubt Dawkins even bothered to even glance at most of the "fleas" he featured. This is one of the most paradoxical characteristics of the man: that he evinces such lively curiosity about the natural world, but no genuine curiosity at all about religion, even as an artifact of human culture, and even when he is writing about it.

But tell him hi from one of the "fleas."
February 3, 2013 at 4:29 AM
Post a Comment

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...
159 comments
Read more

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...
446 comments
Read more

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...
250 comments
Read more