Skip to main content

Video of Richard Dawkins and myself in conversation in Sheldonian Theatre Oxford


Comments

Miles Rind said…
So glad to hear someone (Dawkins, around 3:00) give the correct interpretation of Hamlet's phrase "your philosophy": it just means "philosophy," which in Elizabethan English is roughly equivalent to the word "science" as we use it today. Hamlet uses "your" the same way when he says "Your worm is your only emperor for diet." He is not contrasting one "philosophy," in the modern sense of a personal worldview or outlook on life (a sense of the word that did not exist in Shakespeare's time), with another, but scientific knowledge with things that are outside of it.
March 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM
John W. Loftus said…
Excellent discussion. Bravo Richard and Stephen.

FYI: I responded to the infinite regress argument in my book, seen in this post of mine.
March 14, 2013 at 3:52 PM
John W. Loftus said…
I made one of Richard's statements into a poster.
March 14, 2013 at 7:06 PM
Stephen Law said…
Nice poster! I'll stick it in the blog.
March 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Ryan M said…
I'm watching now. By the way Stephen, it might be worth making a post about your Closer to Truth interview because they are now online:

http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Stephen-Law/154
March 15, 2013 at 9:40 PM
Stephen Law said…
Ah right - didn't know my Closer to Truth stuff was online. Thanks Ryan.
March 16, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Anonymous said…
"You, know, the lunatic asylums are full of these people who have these private beliefs - and we lock them up!" A rare "Ouch!" Prof. Dawkins. Not very nice and not very true.
March 19, 2013 at 8:45 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