The podcast of my hour long discussion of science and religion with Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute is now available as a podcast. Go here. It was broadcast on Premier Christian Radio on Saturday.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Podcast of myself and Denis Alexander on science and religion
The podcast of my hour long discussion of science and religion with Denis Alexander of the Faraday Institute is now available as a podcast. Go here. It was broadcast on Premier Christian Radio on Saturday.
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Review of 50 Voices of Disbelief
There's a review of this book (to which I contributed) from David Hart of First Things available here.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
By David B. Hart
I think I am very close to concluding that this whole “New Atheism” movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County. This is not because I necessarily think the current “marketplace of ideas” particularly good at sorting out wise arguments from foolish. But the latest trend in à la mode godlessness, it seems to me, has by now proved itself to be so intellectually and morally trivial that it has to be classified as just a form of light entertainment, and popular culture always tires of its diversions sooner or later and moves on to other, equally ephemeral toys.
Take, for instance, the recently published 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. Simple probability, surely, would seem to dictate that a collection of essays by fifty fairly intelligent and zealous atheists would contain at least one logically compelling, deeply informed, morally profound, or conceptually arresting argument for not believing in God. Certainly that was my hope in picking it up. Instead, I came away from the whole drab assemblage of preachments and preenings feeling rather as if I had just left a large banquet at which I had been made to dine entirely on crushed ice and water vapor.
To be fair, the shallowness is not evenly distributed. Some of the writers exhibit a measure of wholesome tentativeness in making their cases, and as a rule the quality of the essays is inversely proportionate to the air of authority their authors affect. For this reason, the philosophers—who are no better than their fellow contributors at reasoning, but who have better training in giving even specious arguments some appearance of systematic form—tend to come off as the most insufferable contributors. Nicholas Everitt and Stephen Law recycle the old (and incorrigibly impressionistic) argument that claims of God’s omnipotence seem incompatible with claims of his goodness. Michael Tooley does not like the picture of Jesus that emerges from the gospels, at least as he reads them. Christine Overall notes that her prayers as a child were never answered; ergo, there is no God. A.C. Grayling flings a few of his favorite papier-mâché caricatures around. Laura Purdy mistakes hysterical fear of the religious right for a rational argument. Graham Oppy simply provides a précis of his personal creed, which I assume is supposed to be compelling because its paragraphs are numbered. J.J.C. Smart finds miracles scientifically implausible (gosh, who could have seen that coming?). And so on. Adèle Mercier comes closest to making an interesting argument—that believers do not really believe what they think they believe—but it soon collapses under the weight of its own baseless presuppositions.
Continue reading. Thanks to Dawkins site.
PS If Hart weren't a twit he would have noticed that my particular version of the problem of evil is immune to the "incorrigibly impressionistic" dismissal he used in the above review, for then the problem of good could be dismissed in the same way - which of course it can't. This is one of the many strengths of this particular version of the problem of evil, in fact.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
By David B. Hart
I think I am very close to concluding that this whole “New Atheism” movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County. This is not because I necessarily think the current “marketplace of ideas” particularly good at sorting out wise arguments from foolish. But the latest trend in à la mode godlessness, it seems to me, has by now proved itself to be so intellectually and morally trivial that it has to be classified as just a form of light entertainment, and popular culture always tires of its diversions sooner or later and moves on to other, equally ephemeral toys.
Take, for instance, the recently published 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. Simple probability, surely, would seem to dictate that a collection of essays by fifty fairly intelligent and zealous atheists would contain at least one logically compelling, deeply informed, morally profound, or conceptually arresting argument for not believing in God. Certainly that was my hope in picking it up. Instead, I came away from the whole drab assemblage of preachments and preenings feeling rather as if I had just left a large banquet at which I had been made to dine entirely on crushed ice and water vapor.
To be fair, the shallowness is not evenly distributed. Some of the writers exhibit a measure of wholesome tentativeness in making their cases, and as a rule the quality of the essays is inversely proportionate to the air of authority their authors affect. For this reason, the philosophers—who are no better than their fellow contributors at reasoning, but who have better training in giving even specious arguments some appearance of systematic form—tend to come off as the most insufferable contributors. Nicholas Everitt and Stephen Law recycle the old (and incorrigibly impressionistic) argument that claims of God’s omnipotence seem incompatible with claims of his goodness. Michael Tooley does not like the picture of Jesus that emerges from the gospels, at least as he reads them. Christine Overall notes that her prayers as a child were never answered; ergo, there is no God. A.C. Grayling flings a few of his favorite papier-mâché caricatures around. Laura Purdy mistakes hysterical fear of the religious right for a rational argument. Graham Oppy simply provides a précis of his personal creed, which I assume is supposed to be compelling because its paragraphs are numbered. J.J.C. Smart finds miracles scientifically implausible (gosh, who could have seen that coming?). And so on. Adèle Mercier comes closest to making an interesting argument—that believers do not really believe what they think they believe—but it soon collapses under the weight of its own baseless presuppositions.
Continue reading. Thanks to Dawkins site.
PS If Hart weren't a twit he would have noticed that my particular version of the problem of evil is immune to the "incorrigibly impressionistic" dismissal he used in the above review, for then the problem of good could be dismissed in the same way - which of course it can't. This is one of the many strengths of this particular version of the problem of evil, in fact.
Friday, 30 April 2010
New Book - Intellectual Black Holes
Apologies for the infrequent posts - having work meltdown situation re new book. I will post bits here for your comments shortly...
The book is on Intellectual Black Holes (an analogy I came up with back in Feb 2008, if anyone remembers?).
I will be giving a talk on intellectual black holes at the Oxford Humanists:
Fri. 21st May, 7.45 for 8.00pm, Restore Centre off Manzil Way, East Oxford OX4 1YH. Details from John White jdwhite (AT) talk21.com (nb this address has been spamproofed - you need to fix it)
post script it may now be 8.30 as the room cannot be dimmed for my powerpoint,
Thursday, 29 April 2010
OXFORD UNIVERSITY course based on my Philosophy Gym
Go here for details - Philosophy Gym: starting to think philosophically (Online) Sept 2010. I wrote this online course (but don't actually run it myself). Sept - Dec 2010.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
"Test of Faith: Do we need God, now we have science?"
I just recorded an hour long show for Premier Christian Radio to be broadcast this Saturday at 2.30pm (1st May). It will also be available as permanent podcast then. Go to: http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable. Denis Alexander was my "opponent" (from the Faraday Institute in Cambridge - nice guy).
Friday, 16 April 2010
Almighty row over ethics in schools
Interesting row developing in Australia about alternatives to religiously-based ethics teaching. Go here.
Almighty row over ethics in schools:
Democracy and the welfare of children
By Dr Simon Longstaff
The Sydney Morning Herald (Saturday 26 September 2009) is to be congratulated for having helped to initiate public debate about discrimination against children whose parents make a conscientious decision that they not attend classes in special religious education (scripture). It is unfortunate that, rather than engage with the serious arguments advanced on behalf of many parents and their children, Mark Hillis of the InterChurch Commission on Special Religious Education in Schools (ICCOREIS) is reported as having said “I don’t see how having a small interest group coming into a school and ramping up things helps”. But who is this small interest group to which he refers?
The NSW Federation of P & C Associations has been promoting a review of NSW Education Department policy since 2003 – the year in which St James Ethics Centre was first approached by parents with a request that it examine the issues at the heart of this matter on their behalf. The NSW Federation of P & C Associations represents parents in 2,200 schools across NSW, making it the largest parent organisation in the Southern Hemisphere. It has twice passed motions calling for an ethics-based complement to scripture, most recently at its July 2009 AGM. In 2004, widespread support was demonstrated in a survey indicating a clear majority of parents felt it was important or very important that their child be offered an ethics-based option to scripture.
Mark Hills gave the impression that there is a monolithic lack of support, amongst religious groups, for the modest trial being proposed to the Minister for Education, Verity Firth. This is not entirely true. As part of a lengthy and comprehensive consultation process, St James Ethics Centre engaged with a broad cross-section of leaders including those within the faith-based realm. The vast majority of all respondents viewed this as a social justice issue — agreeing that all children should be treated with equity. The core curriculum does a certain amount of important work to aid ethical formation. However, if it is good enough to provide an additional opportunity in this area to some (who attend scripture) then it should be good enough for all. The denial of opportunity, on the basis of religion, is discriminatory and should not be endorsed by any government. Beyond this, there is a deeper question about the NSW Government’s commitment to democracy. We might ask: ought the untested fears of some, determine the plight of up to 80% of children at NSW primary schools who do not attend scripture? Does the government turn its back on the unmet needs of the majority of students in order to satisfy the demands of the few who cater for the needs of the few?
ICCOREIS may represent the official views of the faiths represented on its committee. It does not necessarily represent the views of ordinary members of faith-based communities. Many practising members of faith-based groups argue that all children have a right to an equal measure of meaningful instruction during the period allotted to scripture and have offered support for an ethics-based alternative. So do representatives of faith communities who are unable to mount their own scripture classes.
Seven P & Cs across NSW have already voted to take part in the proposed pilot that is awaiting ministerial approval to proceed. We encourage the Minister to base her decision on principles of democracy and social justice. In a modern, pluralistic and progressive Australia all children ought to be treated fairly. The major churches need to ask themselves a fundamental question that they have faced before: should children bear the costs of institutional self-interest?
Dr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre.
Almighty row over ethics in schools:
Democracy and the welfare of children
By Dr Simon Longstaff
The Sydney Morning Herald (Saturday 26 September 2009) is to be congratulated for having helped to initiate public debate about discrimination against children whose parents make a conscientious decision that they not attend classes in special religious education (scripture). It is unfortunate that, rather than engage with the serious arguments advanced on behalf of many parents and their children, Mark Hillis of the InterChurch Commission on Special Religious Education in Schools (ICCOREIS) is reported as having said “I don’t see how having a small interest group coming into a school and ramping up things helps”. But who is this small interest group to which he refers?
The NSW Federation of P & C Associations has been promoting a review of NSW Education Department policy since 2003 – the year in which St James Ethics Centre was first approached by parents with a request that it examine the issues at the heart of this matter on their behalf. The NSW Federation of P & C Associations represents parents in 2,200 schools across NSW, making it the largest parent organisation in the Southern Hemisphere. It has twice passed motions calling for an ethics-based complement to scripture, most recently at its July 2009 AGM. In 2004, widespread support was demonstrated in a survey indicating a clear majority of parents felt it was important or very important that their child be offered an ethics-based option to scripture.
Mark Hills gave the impression that there is a monolithic lack of support, amongst religious groups, for the modest trial being proposed to the Minister for Education, Verity Firth. This is not entirely true. As part of a lengthy and comprehensive consultation process, St James Ethics Centre engaged with a broad cross-section of leaders including those within the faith-based realm. The vast majority of all respondents viewed this as a social justice issue — agreeing that all children should be treated with equity. The core curriculum does a certain amount of important work to aid ethical formation. However, if it is good enough to provide an additional opportunity in this area to some (who attend scripture) then it should be good enough for all. The denial of opportunity, on the basis of religion, is discriminatory and should not be endorsed by any government. Beyond this, there is a deeper question about the NSW Government’s commitment to democracy. We might ask: ought the untested fears of some, determine the plight of up to 80% of children at NSW primary schools who do not attend scripture? Does the government turn its back on the unmet needs of the majority of students in order to satisfy the demands of the few who cater for the needs of the few?
ICCOREIS may represent the official views of the faiths represented on its committee. It does not necessarily represent the views of ordinary members of faith-based communities. Many practising members of faith-based groups argue that all children have a right to an equal measure of meaningful instruction during the period allotted to scripture and have offered support for an ethics-based alternative. So do representatives of faith communities who are unable to mount their own scripture classes.
Seven P & Cs across NSW have already voted to take part in the proposed pilot that is awaiting ministerial approval to proceed. We encourage the Minister to base her decision on principles of democracy and social justice. In a modern, pluralistic and progressive Australia all children ought to be treated fairly. The major churches need to ask themselves a fundamental question that they have faced before: should children bear the costs of institutional self-interest?
Dr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Mountain biking in Afan yesterday
Went to Afan Argoed in South Wales to do some biking yesterday. First time mountain biking since the Spanish incident. The guy going past is an Italian chap I met up with on the way round. Did the Wall, then up the Wall and down Whyte's level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)