Skip to main content

RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY: A CONFERENCE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT HEYTHROP COLLEGE



The Royal Institute of Philosophy presents

RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY:
A CONFERENCE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT HEYTHROP COLLEGE

19th and 20th June 2015

Heythrop College, University of London, Kensington Square, London W8 5HN (very close to Kensington High St. tube)

Funds for video-recording talks have been provided by The Templeton Foundation.

This is a free, two-day conference aimed at the general public. It makes accessible some of the exciting, cutting edge work recently done in religious epistemology. All speakers are leading figures in the field (two are flying in specially from the States).

Talks will be jargon-light and non-technical, presenting new ideas and insights to help inform and illuminate on-going public debate.

This event will appeal to anyone with an interest in continuing public debates about the rationality of religious belief (particularly post The God Delusion). A-Level students are very welcome to attend. The talks will be of particular interest to teachers, journalists, and other writers with an interest in religion.

This conference is free to attend, but it is likely to be very popular. We recommend you book your place in advance. To book a place on either one or both days contact: email: campus-services@heythrop.ac.uk tel: 020 7795 4194/4163. Some single B&B accommodation is available £60 plus VAT.

Timetable

Friday 19th June

10.30-11.00  Registration etc.
11.00-11.10 Welcome
11.10-12.10 John Cottingham: Detachment, Rationality, and Evidence
12.15-1.10 Lunch break
1.10-2.10 Trent Dougherty: Divine Hiddenness and The Problem of Evil
2.30-3.30 Duncan Pritchard: Wittgenstein on Faith and Reason
3.50-4.50 Stephen Law: How Might Religious Belief be 'Defeated'?

Saturday 20th June

10.15-10.30 Registration
10.30-11.30 Justin McBrayer: The Problem of Evil and Skeptical Theism
11.40-12.40 Charity Anderson: Divine Hiddenness: Are Glimpses Enough?
12.40-1.30 Lunch break
1.30-2.30 John Hawthorne: TBA
2.30-2.40 Farewell

(meals are not provided)

The conference will be of particular interest to those interested in the following questions:

·      Should a religious belief be rejected if there is little evidence in its support?
·      Can we just know God exists, or that a particular religion is true, by direct revelation?
·      If God exists, why doesn't he reveal himself more clearly?
·      Is religious language used in such a way that questions about truths, evidence, and so on, are inappropriate?
·      Does the problem of evil pose a significant threat to theism?
·      Might science refute theism?

Comments

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