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
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.

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."

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

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