There are just four more sleeps until I fly out for the UK to take part in the annual conference of the European Society for the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Oxford. I’m excited!
Adding to the excitement, another appointment has come up. Some of you may be familiar with the Unbelievable? radio show, which is also a very popular London-based podcast, hosted by Justin Brierly. The show features on Premiere Radio. I’ve been talking with Justin and he’s keen to get me into the studio to record not one but two shows with me. The first show will be on Christian physicialism: Those who (like me) profess a fairly conservative Christian faith, and yet reject dualistic portraits of human nature. As is the norm on the show, there will be another guest on the show who holds an alternative view. AT the moment Justin is looking at getting Keith Ward onto the show, who’s a keen defender of Christian dualism.
The second show – only a possibility at this stage, but we’re both keen to see it happen – will be related to the moral argument, and will look at the question of whether or not moral facts could exist if God did not exist. Justin’s looking for another guest to join us on the show at the moment, but the names of Stephen law and Julian Baggini have been suggested as possibilities – but we’ll see what works out!
This will be fun. I’ve never done a radio show before, and Unbelievable? has a large listening audience. Come to think of it, if you don’t subscribe to the Podcast via the iTunes store already, I highly recommend it.
Similar Posts:
- John Haldane and Glenn Peoples on physicalism
- Glenn Peoples and Stephen Law to Discuss the “Evil God” challenge on Unbelievable Radio
- D’Souza vs Loftus: Does the Christian God exist?
- Musings on debate outcomes
- A simple explanation of the moral argument
- Does Christian faith make people more moral?
Tags: public lectures
Hi Glenn and Matt
Been busy working so sorry I could not respond sooner. I was challenging Glenn to substantiate his claims and now he has done so in two new posts to this affect which I will address when I have the time.
As for Matt’s response they are more of the same in the sense of him just asserting and not arguing for 3 (or 4 or 5?) other variants of purported moral argument. Since I will address Glenn’s version in the other post threads, when I have the time, Matt can add his two cents (or dollars) worth there should he feel the need.
Happy debating to y’all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As for the rest of this thread, I have seen no decent cogent or consilient responses to Stephen’s arguments. Given the confidence with which Glenn and Matt seem to think their moral argument are meant to have, I am surprised.
Anyway I will leave the debate here to Stephen and examine the other two posts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Martin, as I’ve noted in this thread already, I devoted a more recent post to Stephen’s argument re: the evil God challenge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0