Skip to main content

Book Zoom sessions with me for your RS or Philosophy class


 

TEACHERS. I'm offering online (via Zoom) talks and sessions to schools on A Level RS, Philosophy, and more.
 
ZOOM sessions can be organised to suit your exact class and needs, and can involve interaction, powerpoint slides, etc.
 
All sessions are accompanied by a pdf explaining the key points.
 
Sessions offered include:
· Ontological Arguments
· Natural Law and its practical application to e.g. embryo research and designer babies, abortion, assisted suicide, capital punishment, etc.
· The Kalam Cosmological Argument (incl. William Lane Craig)
· The Principle of Sufficient Reason
· Religious Experience (e.g. including Persiger and Dawkins)
· Religious Language: Ayer, Flew, Wittgenstein
· MetaEthics - especially emotivism and intuitionism
· The Logical and Evidential Problems of Evil (and my own Evil God Challenge)
 
Plus any other syllabus-related content you might want covered. I am happy to tailor sessions to your exact needs and syllabus.
 
All these sessions are interactive - I will take questions from pupils, and can include small group work and other activities within a session (to be agreed in advance with teacher).
 
I also offer mind-stretching sessions suitable for G&T that get pupils to think outside the box on issues such as the limits of science, naturalism, and the supernatural.
 
Cost is £220 for one hour, £380 for anything up to 5 hours.
 
If you would be interested in any of the above, do please get in touch.

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

Sye - nowhere to run to, baby.

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...
153 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