Skip to main content

RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY: A CONFERENCE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT HEYTHROP COLLEGE



The Royal Institute of Philosophy presents

RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY:
A CONFERENCE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT HEYTHROP COLLEGE

19th and 20th June 2015

Heythrop College, University of London, Kensington Square, London W8 5HN (very close to Kensington High St. tube)

Funds for video-recording talks have been provided by The Templeton Foundation.

This is a free, two-day conference aimed at the general public. It makes accessible some of the exciting, cutting edge work recently done in religious epistemology. All speakers are leading figures in the field (two are flying in specially from the States).

Talks will be jargon-light and non-technical, presenting new ideas and insights to help inform and illuminate on-going public debate.

This event will appeal to anyone with an interest in continuing public debates about the rationality of religious belief (particularly post The God Delusion). A-Level students are very welcome to attend. The talks will be of particular interest to teachers, journalists, and other writers with an interest in religion.

This conference is free to attend, but it is likely to be very popular. We recommend you book your place in advance. To book a place on either one or both days contact: email: campus-services@heythrop.ac.uk tel: 020 7795 4194/4163. Some single B&B accommodation is available £60 plus VAT.

Timetable

Friday 19th June

10.30-11.00  Registration etc.
11.00-11.10 Welcome
11.10-12.10 John Cottingham: Detachment, Rationality, and Evidence
12.15-1.10 Lunch break
1.10-2.10 Trent Dougherty: Divine Hiddenness and The Problem of Evil
2.30-3.30 Duncan Pritchard: Wittgenstein on Faith and Reason
3.50-4.50 Stephen Law: How Might Religious Belief be 'Defeated'?

Saturday 20th June

10.15-10.30 Registration
10.30-11.30 Justin McBrayer: The Problem of Evil and Skeptical Theism
11.40-12.40 Charity Anderson: Divine Hiddenness: Are Glimpses Enough?
12.40-1.30 Lunch break
1.30-2.30 John Hawthorne: TBA
2.30-2.40 Farewell

(meals are not provided)

The conference will be of particular interest to those interested in the following questions:

·      Should a religious belief be rejected if there is little evidence in its support?
·      Can we just know God exists, or that a particular religion is true, by direct revelation?
·      If God exists, why doesn't he reveal himself more clearly?
·      Is religious language used in such a way that questions about truths, evidence, and so on, are inappropriate?
·      Does the problem of evil pose a significant threat to theism?
·      Might science refute theism?

Comments

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