Stephen Law

Here are two sets of beliefs. Read each and decide which is set of beliefs is more likely to be true.   Belief set one   Mary lives in London Jill travelled in a sports car. Jill had a sun tan. Jill gave someone a case of wine.   Belief set two   Mary, who lives in London, inherited a sports car, but didn't have a driving license at that time, so she lent it to her good friend Jill, who used it to drive down to the South of France for a week long vacation on which she developed an impressive sun tan. On her return, Jill gave Mary a case of good French wine she bought while there to show her appreciation.   The first belief set involves just four disconnected claims. The second set includes those claims but weaves them together into a narrative that is coherent and makes sense. The story makes meaningful connections between the four claims.   Many people will intuitively find the second set of beliefs much more plausible than ...

'Scientism!' (This is a prepublication draft - it's forthcoming in Univ. Chicago Press volume Science Unlimited (eds. Pigliucci and Boudry). The term 'scientism' is applied to a variety of positions about science. One is the view that the only legitimate questions about reality are those answerable by science. Another is that, to the extent that anything can be known about reality, science alone is capable of providing that knowledge. Critics of religious, New Age, spiritualist, and other, popular forms of divine or supernatural belief are often accused of scientism by their proponents. The accusation typically involves the thought that critics have crossed a line or boundary demarcating those topics or subjects that are the proper province of science, and those that are beyond its capacity to adjudicate. The accused are often found guilty of hubris, of an arrogant failure to recognize that there are 'more things in heaven and Earth' tha...

SCIENTISM: here's the final paragraph of the chapter I just finished which will appear in Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry's forthcoming tome Science Unlimited . I have provided three illustrations of how the charge of scientism is made in a baseless and indeed irrelevant way against some critics of religious and/or supernatural beliefs. It is not difficult to find many more. In the hands of some - including many theologians - the charge of 'scientism!' has become a lazy, knee-jerk form of dismissal, much like the charge of ‘communism!’ used to be. It constitutes a form of rubbishing, allowing - in the minds of those making the charge - for criticisms to be casually brushed aside. No doubt some things really are beyond the ability of science, and perhaps even reason, to decide. But there's plenty that does lie within the remit of the scientific method, including many religious, supernatural, New Age, and other claims. However, because the mantra...

I am on Premier Christian Radio this coming Saturday 2.30pm talking with Prof. Alister McGrath about his new book on the "New Atheism". His book is called "Why God Won't Go Away: Engaging With The New Atheism". Justin Brierley presents. Very interesting discussion. It will also be available as a podcast. I'll make links available. It's the " Unbelievable " programme. PS Direct link to the podcast is now here . Also on itunes as a download - search "brierley unbelievable" for the page. The entry is "Unbelievable? 5th Feb - Alister McGrath and Stephen Law".

Here's what I think is wrong with McGrath's move (see previous post) in the video at 9mins 15-55secs. He says that whilst God may be highly improbable, the question is: Does God exist? After all, you and I are highly improbable (probability that our parents should meet, that exactly that sperm should fetilize that egg, etc.). Yet we can be rightly confident that we exist, can’t we? The implication is that, whether or not Dawkins is right about God’s probability, we might still be rightly confident of God’s existence. Seems to me McGrath here trades on an ambiguity, that between epistemic and objective improbability. Objective vs epistemic probability Philosophers often distinguish objective and epistemic probability. Objective probability is the probability of X occurring given Y. E.g what’s the probability of a lightening strike hitting just this spot (given the laws of nature plus these initial conditions), or this dice coming up six if we roll it? Epistemic probability i...

At one point in the interview posted below (at 9mins 15secs - 9mins 55secs) McGrath (see, I can spell it correctly) says something like: the issue of God's improbability is not really the issue. The question is, does he exist. After all, our existence is also extremely improbable (what are the odds on my parents meeting, exactly that sperm fertilizing that egg, etc.), yet we know (can be quite sure) we exist. What is going on here? Seems to me there's some sleight of hand going on with the notion of probability. In fact he's muddling objective and epistemic improbability. But what has gone wrong exactly? Comments?

Reasonableness is a matter of degree. Beliefs can be very reasonable (Japan exists), fairly reasonable (quarks exist), not unreasonable (there's intelligent life on other planets) or downright unreasonable (fairies exist). There's a scale of reasonableness, if you like, with very reasonable beliefs near the top and deeply unreasonable ones towards the bottom. Notice a belief can be very high up the scale, yet still be open to some doubt. And even when a belief is low down, we can still acknowledge the remote possibility it might be true. How reasonable is the belief that God exists? Atheists typically think it very unreasonable. Very low on the scale. But most religious people say it is at least not un reasonable (have you ever met a Christian who said "Hey, belief in God is no more reasonable than belief in fairies, but I believe it anyway!"?) They think their belief is at least halfway up the scale of reasonableness. Now, that their belief is downright unreasonabl...

Give a theist a good argument against their belief, and often they'll play the "faith" card. "Ah, well, theism is ultimately a faith position", they say. And then, very often, they add, "But of course atheism is a faith position too - you can't scientifically prove either , can you?" Here are a few examples. First, Alister McGrath in The Dawkins Delusion : There can be no question of scientific 'proof' of ultimate questions. Either we cannot answer them. or we must answer them on grounds other than the sciences. (p14) (I concede McGrath doesn't use the word "faith", but I think it's clear where he's going). Here's another example (not McGrath) I found on the internet (link now dead): (God’s) existence cannot be proved by physical means. However, neither can it be disproved. What does this mean? It means it takes complete and utter faith to believe there is a god (or gods) and complete and utter faith to believe t...