Skip to main content

Speaker needed

I am looking for a theologian, probably, to participate in an event on scientism, non-overlapping magesteria, etc. on June 8th, with Peter Atkins and philosopher David Papineau. Any suggestions? A woman contributor would be especially welcome given it's all guys at the moment.

Comments

Landon Hedrick said…
Nancey Murphy would be a good choice.
linford86 said…
I don't know of any female theologians who work on this topic, but John Haught comes to mind as someone who defends a view like that.
daz365 said…
http://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/sharon-dirckx

Sharon Dirckx was on unbelievable with justin brierley a few weeks ago. she has a science background and has written a book: “Why? God, Evil and Personal Suffering”.
Louys David said…
I would suggest the catholoic theologian Lorenzo Albacete, who debated with Christopher Hitchens once : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZTbLuw2AV0

He is a member of the movement Communion and Liberation, founded by Luigi Giussani, a movement which insists on applying christian values in everyday life.

The reason why I think he would be an interesting speaker is that he seems to totally accepts scientific facts but claims to believe in god in the same way as when you fall in love with a person your friends can't bear. You hear the evidence they bring out but it doesn't diminish your love for the person. I think that you could show how this type of argument is spurious.

However, Mr.Albacete is american, so I guess there might be practical reasons making his presence at your event problematic.

I still wanted to mention him though, maybe for another time, and because he is a sophisticated theologian whose ability to square faith with scientific scepticism is interesting/annoying.

Louys David said…
I add that Mr. Albacete has a scientific background, and that he genuinely questioned his faith when asked "how can you be a scientist from monday to saturday and believe that someone raised from the dead on sunday?". That might be the opportunity for him to lay out his answer to that question.
Annie Jane said…
Francesca Stavrakopoulou! She's a theologian at Exeter and did the BBC documentary 'Bible's hidden secrets' - she came to Think Week and was an awesome speaker!
IMHO, Dirckx's performance on Unbelievable? was unbelievably poor.
Helen De Cruz said…
Sarah Coakley is not far geographically. Or, internationally, Celia Deanne-Drummond (Notre Dame). Both have done interesting work on science and religion.
Anonymous said…
I agree that Sharon Dirckx was very poor during the discussion about the problem of evil on 'Unbelievable' whereas Alom Shaha, her 'opponent' was more focussed and rational. If you want to 'win' (I know that what you really want is to explore the issue) I think that you should choose her.
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Sen said…
I'll do this talk against the scientists for spiritual philosophy.

Contact: josephchandrasen@gmail.com
Your own minute card is just stunning -- and what an attractive present. Virtually any girl could be happy to obtain this particular.
Thanks for a person inspiration. buy rs gold
I'm reading a lot of your post, very informative.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

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

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