Skip to main content

8th June event: Can science solve every mystery? A scientist, a philosopher and a Christian discuss

 
Centre for Inquiry UK and Conway Hall present

Can science solve every mystery? A scientist, a philosopher and a Christian discuss.

Peter Atkins, David Papineau, Peter S. Williams

Can science answer every question? Should scientists show a little humility and acknowledge there are questions that only religion can answer? Are science and religion “non-overlapping magisteria”, as the scientist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, or is science capable of showing that religion is false, as Richard Dawkins believes? And what, exactly, do philosophers do?

Presented and chaired by Stephen Law (Philosophy, Heythrop and Provost of CFI UK).

Saturday June 8th, 2013

Conway Hall
25 Red Lion Square
Holborn
London
WC1R 4RL

£7 (£4 students) Free to friends of CFI UK. Tickets on door. or go here http://humanism.org.uk/events/?page=CiviCRM&q=civicrm/event/info&reset=1&id=22

10.30am registration. 11am-2.30pm

Speakers

Professor Peter Atkins (Univ. of Oxford). Chemist, atheist and author of many books including Galileo’s Finger and Four Laws That Drive the Universe:

“Religion closes off the central questions of existence by attempting to dissuade us from further enquiry by asserting that we cannot ever hope to comprehend. We are, religion asserts, simply too puny.”

“Sitting around thinking about the world … [that] is philosophy. And we know where that leads to in understanding. My argument is - nowhere.”

Peter S. Williams (Damaris Trust). Philosopher and leading British Christian apologist. Author of C.S. Lewis vs the New Atheists and A Faithful Guide to Philosophy:

“The existence of scientific laws is inexplicable unless we move beyond science into the realm of metaphysics, postulating a God who intends those laws for a reason.”

Professor David Papineau (KCL). One of Britain’s leading philosophers and humanists and author of Philosophical Devices:

“Philosophical problems are characterized by a special kind of difficulty, a difficulty which means that they cannot be solved, as scientific problems normally are, simply by the uncovering of further empirical evidence. Rather they require some conceptual unravelling, a careful unpicking of implicit ideas, often culminating in the rejection of assumptions we didn't realize we had.”

Comments

crabsallover said…
Shame this clashes with BHA Annual meeting in Leeds. Ongoing debate at Humanists4Science is whether Scientism is valid.
April 29, 2013 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous said…
Why do you keep inviting clowns like Atkins to these events?
April 29, 2013 at 9:03 PM
Hank said…
This could be an interesting debate.
April 30, 2013 at 8:10 AM
Unknown said…
'Should scientists show a little humility and acknowledge there are questions that only religion can answer?'

Only religion can answer the important questions in life.

Should I pray 5 times a day?

Is it a sin to eat meat on a Friday?

Should I put oil on my face when I fast?

Can a woman be a priest?

Is it a sin to eat beef , or pork, or are all foods clean?

Are cherubim different from seraphim?

Only religion can answer these questions.

There are many questions that science cannot answer.

By contrast, religion has many answers that cannot be questioned.
April 30, 2013 at 8:24 AM
Nullifidian said…
Should scientists show a little humility and acknowledge there are questions that only religion can answer?

Should religionists show a little humility regarding the quality of their answers?

“The existence of scientific laws is inexplicable unless we move beyond science into the realm of metaphysics, postulating a God who intends those laws for a reason.”

Here is where a little humility would be called for, because science does have an explanation for many physical laws. Noether's theorem shows that for every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system, there is a corresponding conservation law. To attempt to express it non-mathematically, there's no special point on a line where a physical system works differently, which gives us the law of conservation of linear momentum and there's no special orientation at which a physical system works differently, giving us the law of conservation of angular momentum, and so on.

This doesn't settle the question of where all laws come from, of course, but that wasn't Williams' claim. He claimed that the existence of physical laws as a whole were inexplicable without positing the existence of a superintending God. This is not true, and it would behoove him to run claims like these past a physicist before making them. This is why I get twitchy when I see statements about how scientists should have humility, because it too often translates into "Leave me with my with my unfounded intuitions intact!"
April 30, 2013 at 3:37 PM
Anonymous said…
Atkins always makes a complete ass of himself whenever he speaks about philosophy. I really grow tired of hearing his intellectually bankrupt ranting.
May 2, 2013 at 4:24 AM
snoring solutions said…
there are some instances when science cannot really explain some things or events.
May 10, 2013 at 6:00 AM
L.Long said…
Can science solve every mystery?
Is an open question with no concrete meaning. But given time and being allowed to do so it can solve the real mysteries - eventually.
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is NOT a real mystery, but the solution is easy.
May 11, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Glen said…
I really hope that Steven Carr was making a joke. Otherwise it's a pretty odd list of things to compare to Science. Do you think the amount of times a day one prays, or what the difference between cherubim and seraphim are, is important in any way, to the Science in reality? Such questions belong in a literature class and make for interesting conversation if you like those books, as does the difference between a Ring Wraith and a Dementor.
May 21, 2013 at 11:43 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