Skip to main content

Videos from the CFI Conference on Scientism.

Are available on youtube. For some reason I cannot embed them. The links are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SaOYVZLatk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_4_ys1SseM&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Bff92Pi2k&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYgv6hVx9Vg&feature=youtu.be

Comments

Anonymous said…
Interesting to see Atkins admit to and defend 'scientism'. Up until watching this I'd always assumed 'scientism' was little more than a straw-man used by religious and/or pseudo-scientific apologists to caricature the position of science-based critics. But when pressed briefly by Papineau, Atkins seemed to concede there may be limits to what science can answer and where it can take us, which, as I understand it, is to reject scientism (i.e. as a (largely non-existent) radical belief system where science can answer all questions and should dictate all human affairs). Makes me wonder whether Atkins' dislike of philosophy has caused him to misunderstand what he's being accused of? Not sure...
July 19, 2013 at 8:06 AM
sam said…
I only watched the panel discussion, but Peter J. Williams is clearly an evangelical with a commitment to biblical inerrancy or some form of divine inspiration. He also offered the standard theistic response to the Euthyphro dilemma, that objective morality ontologically derives from yhwh's essence or nature, not its commands.

I want to know what it is specifically about yhwh's nature which ontologically makes taking pleasure in forcing parents to eat their children (DT 28:53-63)or bashing babies' heads against stones (PS 137:9) objectively moral. What is it within yhwh's essence which makes objectively moral such acts as human sacrifice (LE 27:28-29), genocide and infanticide (EZ 5:17, EX 12:29, 1SA 15:3-8, 2KI 2:23-24)?

If yhwh's nature IS X, can we derive an ought from it regarding how to behave? This seems to be the naturalistic fallacy. Is there a single philosopher of ethics who takes this moral ontology at all seriously?
July 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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...
151 comments
Read more