Skip to main content

Myself talking with Peter Atkins, Richard Swinburne, Ard Louis (and Richard Dawkins)

Here is a fairly long video of a discussion between myself, Richard Swinburne (philosopher), Peter Atkins (chemist), Ard Louis (physicist), and also Richard Dawkins (who was in the audience) at one point. The theme was Life, The Universe and Everything - The Quest for Truth.

My main contribution is at 39 mins 30sec.

(nb. Dawkins is at 1hr 18 min 20 sec [he has a pop at Swinburne and me] and my response to Dawkins at 1hr 24 min 30 sec).

I posted on this before, shortly after the recording. Go here.

This included quite a good discussion on the nature and value of philosophy, I thought.


Comments

Anonymous said…
Very dodgy misrepresentation by Atkins on Swinburne!
October 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM
André Assi Barreto said…
Atkins is so philosophically naive. It`s shame. That`s why he lost his first debate with Craig and gone bad in the second.
October 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Thomas Larsen said…
"Dawkins is at 1hr 18 min 20 sec [he has a pop at Swinburne and me]"

Ha!
October 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM
Paul P. Mealing said…
It was good to see a panel with such disparate views. I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with all of them at some point. The sound's not the best. I found the discussion you had with Ard Louis particularly difficult to follow towards the end. But overall, I thought it was very thought-provoking.

Regards, Paul.
October 20, 2012 at 1:41 AM
Thessik Irontail said…
Excellent debate, I think its rather clear that Atkin's position is naive at best.

We need more online videos of Stephen Law engaging in various topics, I always learn so much from them and yet there are so few.
October 25, 2012 at 7:05 PM
Ross Templeman said…
Regarding important examples of philosophical thinking; would the topic of how to interpret the notion of probability not perhaps be a more convincing example to use against people like Atkins and Dawkins?

Regards
October 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM
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

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist
49 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