Skip to main content

Today's BBC 1 Big Questions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01f1npg/

From about 43 minutes on "Do we need religion to create a moral society?" I start it off and finish it up too. It will be up for a week.

Comments

Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only

That sucks. Can't find this on iTunes - if anyone is aware of how it can be accessed ex juris, please let me know.
Anonymous said…
The Atheist Missionary said...To be certain that god does not exist I’d have to be all knowing. However, the only entity possessing that power is a god. Therefore, I would have to be the god that I claim does not exist. Hmmm… Better convert myself to the agnostic persuasion instead.

Appreciated your comment on philosophy embracing all religions Steve. (The Big Questions) As I see it religions and science are merely flawed tools. Devised to assist survival of us, in compliance with the meaning of life. The meaning of life is life itself, ensuring the continuity of the species. Since nothing entirely dependant or wholly reliant on human existence, can occur in our absence. While we have existed without them. They cannot exist without us. If we did indeed teach our youngsters how to question, they would soon expose all the paradoxes (incomplete understandings of reality) currently holding us back. Regards, al.
Psiomniac said…
You dealt well with one pernicious aspect of this debate that seems to crop up often: the false dichotomy between morality based on religion and naive moral relativism.
Jack said…
Here it is on youtube I believe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisxYorDNr4
Jack, thanks for posting the youtube link. I enjoyed watching the discussion.

Stephen, I'm interested to know whether you have read Chris Hedges' I Don't Believe in Atheists (Free Press, 2008). If you have, I would be interested in your take on Hedges' attack on (what he suggests is) the myth that modern societies are progressing morally. If you haven't read it, I think you would enjoy it - the title is deceptive. Although Hedges has a Masters in Divinity, he excoriates religious fundamentalists. Here's a snippet:

"We live in a universe indifferent to our fate. We are seduced by myths that assure us that the world revolves around us, that fate or the gods or destiny have given us a unique and singular role in the cosmos. It is hard to reject these myths and face the bleakness of human existence. It is more comforting and reassuring to have faith in our collective moral advancement as a species, to believe that we are heading toward something great and wondrous. The bitter reality of existence and the bondage of human nature, however, are real. These myths are not. All those who tempt us to play God turn us away from the real world to flirt with our own annihilation". (pp. 89-90).

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

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

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