Skip to main content

Speaker needed

I am looking for a theologian, probably, to participate in an event on scientism, non-overlapping magesteria, etc. on June 8th, with Peter Atkins and philosopher David Papineau. Any suggestions? A woman contributor would be especially welcome given it's all guys at the moment.

Comments

Landon Hedrick said…
Nancey Murphy would be a good choice.
March 29, 2013 at 1:31 AM
linford86 said…
I don't know of any female theologians who work on this topic, but John Haught comes to mind as someone who defends a view like that.
March 30, 2013 at 5:13 PM
daz365 said…
http://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/sharon-dirckx

Sharon Dirckx was on unbelievable with justin brierley a few weeks ago. she has a science background and has written a book: “Why? God, Evil and Personal Suffering”.
March 30, 2013 at 5:25 PM
Louys David said…
I would suggest the catholoic theologian Lorenzo Albacete, who debated with Christopher Hitchens once : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZTbLuw2AV0

He is a member of the movement Communion and Liberation, founded by Luigi Giussani, a movement which insists on applying christian values in everyday life.

The reason why I think he would be an interesting speaker is that he seems to totally accepts scientific facts but claims to believe in god in the same way as when you fall in love with a person your friends can't bear. You hear the evidence they bring out but it doesn't diminish your love for the person. I think that you could show how this type of argument is spurious.

However, Mr.Albacete is american, so I guess there might be practical reasons making his presence at your event problematic.

I still wanted to mention him though, maybe for another time, and because he is a sophisticated theologian whose ability to square faith with scientific scepticism is interesting/annoying.

March 30, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Louys David said…
I add that Mr. Albacete has a scientific background, and that he genuinely questioned his faith when asked "how can you be a scientist from monday to saturday and believe that someone raised from the dead on sunday?". That might be the opportunity for him to lay out his answer to that question.
March 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM
Annie Jane said…
Francesca Stavrakopoulou! She's a theologian at Exeter and did the BBC documentary 'Bible's hidden secrets' - she came to Think Week and was an awesome speaker!
March 31, 2013 at 11:54 AM
The Atheist Missionary said…
IMHO, Dirckx's performance on Unbelievable? was unbelievably poor.
March 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM
Helen De Cruz said…
Sarah Coakley is not far geographically. Or, internationally, Celia Deanne-Drummond (Notre Dame). Both have done interesting work on science and religion.
April 2, 2013 at 9:14 AM
Anonymous said…
I agree that Sharon Dirckx was very poor during the discussion about the problem of evil on 'Unbelievable' whereas Alom Shaha, her 'opponent' was more focussed and rational. If you want to 'win' (I know that what you really want is to explore the issue) I think that you should choose her.
April 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
April 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Joe Sen said…
I'll do this talk against the scientists for spiritual philosophy.

Contact: josephchandrasen@gmail.com
April 24, 2013 at 1:21 AM
buying runescape gold said…
Your own minute card is just stunning -- and what an attractive present. Virtually any girl could be happy to obtain this particular.
Thanks for a person inspiration. buy rs gold
April 26, 2013 at 8:26 AM
McMenamin Law Group said…
I'm reading a lot of your post, very informative.


May 9, 2013 at 2:44 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