Debates
Debates are at the heart of HowTheLightGetsIn - where ideas collide and new thinking takes shape.
Explore the first debates and panels at HowTheLightGetsIn London 2025.
Earlybird Festival Tickets selling fast
Debates are at the heart of HowTheLightGetsIn - where ideas collide and new thinking takes shape.
Explore the first debates and panels at HowTheLightGetsIn London 2025.
We think of our scientific accounts of the universe as well-founded and value-free. The Big Bang theory is surely one of those. But critics argue this is not the case. The origin of the theory is not so neutral. It was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who was also a theoretical physicist. He initially called it the ""hypothesis of the primeval atom"" – the primeval atom being created by God. Unsurprising, as the father of cosmic inflation Alan Guth put it, the Big Bang “says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged."" Increasingly, critics claim, there are challenges to the theory as the religious origins and miraculous character of the Big Bang result in ever more convoluted cosmological theories to account for our observations.
Will the future be one where we see all ideas, even scientific, as motivated by the perspective of the author? Should the fact the Big Bang was proposed by a religious thinker lead us to question its validity? Or is it possible to see past personal bias, and reach objective truth?
Many see populism with its focus on immigration and nationalism as not only politically dangerous but morally wrong. This reflects the universalist morality of all of the main Western moral frameworks, from utilitarianism to Kant's rule-based morality. But critics argue moral universalism has generated policies that favour strangers over the interest of those close to us and that it is profoundly mistaken. In contrast, Chinese Confucian morality accepts partiality towards our nearest. And recent studies have shown that in practice we favour those close to us and more so the closer they are. What's more a 2021 study concluded that we also think we are morally right to act in this partial way.
Do we need to abandon moral universalism, and see it as an overreach of an Enlightenment attachment to reason that flies in the face of our actions and what is beneficial for society? Have the excesses of moral universalism been responsible for the rise of populism? Or is moral universalism essential to the value system of the West and abandoned at great peril to ourselves and the world?
From Democritus to Einstein, we have assumed the world is made of tiny building blocks of matter. But the more we’ve looked for them, the more they’ve disappeared. Our best theory now proposes the world is better described by ‘fields’ that don’t have the familiar properties of physical bits, things, or particles. Yet physicists still refer to particles though few seem to agree on their nature. Some say they ‘approximately exist’ and others that they don’t exist at all. Stranger still, there are ‘quasiparticles’ that we can treat as particles and enable us to solve equations but which we know aren't real.
Will we give up thinking that the world is made of particles at all, and instead embrace a world of fields and relationships alone? Furthermore, will we abandon the idea that anything exists at a fundamental level? Or are things and particles necessary for us to have a viable account of the world at all?
We have for centuries in the West sought technological progress. But now some are making the radical claim that technology is the future of the human race. 'Effective accelerationists' have won high-profile Silicon Valley support and claim we should accelerate technology and ""usher in the next evolution of consciousness, creating unthinkable next-generation lifeforms."" Alongside, transhumanists such as Yuval Harari and Ray Kurzweil claim ""Homo sapiens is an obsolete algorithm"" and that soon ""there won't be a distinction between humans and technology.” Others go further arguing eternal life is an achievable, biological, scientific goal, and the creation of an artificial general intelligence, ""a digital God"", can solve human suffering. But critics fear this proposed future, calling transhumanism ""the world’s most dangerous idea”.
Is the future one where technology is not merely a source of innovation but the basis for a new account of what it is to be human and the ultimate goal of human endeavour? Does this new vision offer potential or disaster for the human race? Or are claims of eternal life and new forms of intelligence just fanciful nonsense?
We turn to evidence to settle the matter. Although its origins go back to the ancient Greeks, it was the Enlightenment that embedded the idea that facts and evidence confirm a claim or a scientific theory. But in a world of competing perspectives, the notion of neutral evidence is no longer straightforward. From Ukraine to Greenland, one person's territorial ambition is another's defensive strategy. Some argue all so-called 'facts' are dependent on perspective. And whether we accept evidence becomes a judgment rather than a truth - an outcome embedded in the English courts with opposing narratives each employing their own 'evidence'. Equally, physicists sometimes operate with different models of reality, recognising the possibility of alternative frameworks.
Is the future one where we conclude evidence never settles the matter, and accept that our views are dependent on judgment rather than the impartial facts of the matter? Will this be a world that leaves us victim to the views and desires of the strong and powerful? Or is the coherence required to find evidence within a given perspective sufficient to arrive at good and effective accounts of the world?
From the Crusades to the fight against Hitler, from US intervention in Vietnam to the Iraq war, morality has often been used to validate military campaigns and foreign policy goals. But perhaps no longer. Trump's emphasis on ""America First"" makes little attempt to hold the moral high ground and declares self-interest alone. Securing US mineral rights in Ukraine is not proposed as a moral strategy. Meanwhile, Sweden's Foreign Minister recently renounced the aim of being a 'moral great power' and the UK has embraced 'realism' in foreign affairs. While many warn that discarding morality leads to a dangerous world where might is right, others point to the terrors and tragedies carried out in the name of morality, from the Inquisition to the Nazis who urged the moral necessity of 'cleansing Europe'.
In world affairs, is the new age one where moral claims are abandoned and instead self-interest is the goal? Given radically different national perspectives, are the universal claims of morality necessarily impossible? Or is a language of morality essential to constrain belligerent leaders and their wild and sometimes tyrannical fantasies?
Bill Clinton in 2000 describing the Human Genome Project and the mapping of human DNA, successfully completed three years later, said ""Today we are learning the language in which God created life. It will revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases.” But while we have identified some diseases that have direct genetic markers, we have not found genes responsible for the great majority of common conditions. Nor have we found widespread genetic cures. Moreover, the initial research was focused not only on those of European descent but largely from a single American individual, making its predictions even less effective and in some instances dangerous and life-threatening.
Have we to abandon the idea that genes are a blueprint for life and disease? Is the reality that many other factors are responsible for our health and abilities? As we get an increasing understanding of the complexity of the elements involved, will we be able to deliver on the initial promise and claims to end disease or is the dream in fact a mirage?
It was President Obama who said, “we hang on to our values… what else is there to guide us?” And typically those on the left have championed universal moral values like equality and compassion while making the case for growing the welfare state. But across the West, from Trump’s re-election to the rise of parties like Reform, many no longer seem convinced by this vision. In response, some on the left propose a shift from compassionate welfarism to a more hard-nosed politics focused on work, productivity and national industry. In the UK, Kier Starmer promises to put “Britain first,” investing in defence while cutting welfare spending.
Is the future of the left a replacement of welfare with work, and moralism with realism? Is it returning to the mantra of socialist playwright Bertold Brecht that “Grub comes first, then morality”? Or will the left mount a defence of the politics of kindness in the face of populist firebrands, or create a completely new rallying call for left-wing politics altogether?
The liberal consensus is that we live in a patriarchy and we need to overcome the inherent discrimination against women and champion their rights. But this consensus is under threat. And not just from Trump and his followers. Educationalists are increasingly calling for action as boys underperform girls in every age group at school. Girls are a third more likely to go to university and, in the immediate years following, the gender pay gap is ten percent in their favour. Moreover, they claim this is the reason for the popularity of figures like Andrew Tate and for young men voting for the right, with three times as many committing suicide than women.
With 57% of Gen Z men in the UK believing that men are discriminated against, and 1 in 5 preferring unelected leaders to democracy, is there a risk to social order and even democracy itself? Will traditional masculine values of strength, courage and determination, return to dominate social and political life? Or are feminist gains sufficiently embedded in culture to stave off the threat of a newly confident and aggressive masculinity?
The Enlightenment was founded on the idea that facts and information would enable us to understand the world and help us make it a better place. So it is not surprising that at the outset of the internet era, we imagined that it would be a good thing for us all to have access to as much information as possible. But many now complain that we are overwhelmed by it. Moreover, critics argue information is never neutral and always presented from a point of view and a potentially hidden agenda. A so-called 'view from nowhere' is impossible and information and data inevitably contains bias. Late philosopher Bruno Latour argued that facts ""are not discovered but constructed.” While data scientist Cathy O'Neil states, ""Algorithms are opinions embedded in code.""
Is there no such thing as information since it cannot be neutral in the first place and more information not desirable? Do we need gatekeepers to sift and assess 'information' for us? Or is access to raw information not only liberating but vital to respond to a world of unsupported opinion?
In pursuit of the mantra of Making America Great Again, many see Trump as having upended the very idea of the West, breaking with the notion of allies working together in favour of the US pursuing its interest against all others. But some claim the outcome will be very different: the Making of Europe Great Again. Europe’s combined GDP and standard of living for most of the post-war era was far greater than either the US or China. Critics argue that by relying on American military defence, and ceding global leadership to the US, Europe lost its rightful place as a global leader and its motivation and incentive to focus on productivity and technological progress.
Is the new world one where Europe regains its global voice, and once again targets production and growth? Will the necessity to provide its own defence drive research and boost output? Can Europe find a leadership structure and cultural momentum to make it once again an economic powerhouse and a leader in global affairs, or is it destined to be a minor player to the global giants of the future?
Our primary mode of storytelling, whether in novels or films, has been to portray a realistic account of events. The modernism of Joyce and Woolf in the early 20th century challenged this approach by offering subjective perspectives and stream-of-consciousness writing. Now a new anti-realism is taking this attack further. Influenced by postmodern philosophers like Derrida and Baudrillard, a range of novelists including VanderMeer and Tamsyn Muir, and filmmakers, Yorgos Lanthimos and Oscar winner Guillermo del Toro, call into question the reality of the real, using fragmentation, metafiction and absurdity. This new anti-realism is not about escapism. As Frida Kahlo said, “I never painted dreams. I painted my own reality.”
Has realism limited us for centuries, forcing a focus on observations and rejecting the unseen, and the mystical? Will abandoning the norms of literary realism help us embrace realities outside of the Western, scientific, Enlightenment perspective? Or will realism always dominate due to its incomparable ability to frame narratives and offer insight into our lives?
The idea that the brain is computational has from the outset been central to neuroscience. The brain is a problem-solving machine operating according to the principles of mathematical logic, and stores memories, and processes information, as a computer. But despite the advance of AI, an increasing number challenge this assumption. Computers use transistors to build elementary logic gates, enabling them to store files exactly, in 0s and 1s. They are precise and perform identically on each occasion. Human brains are biological, the neurons do not operate as simple logic gates but have thousands of inputs and their output is dependent on past activity and its current internal state. Remove a computer’s processor, and it breaks. But humans can survive with only one brain hemisphere. Fundamentally, brains think and enable perception and consciousness while computers do not.
Is it a mistake to see the brain as computational and do we need to abandon the analogy? Are computers at root dumb machines with little in common with the sophistication of the brains of living things? Or have computers uncovered the essential character of all thought?
After millennia of autocratic rule, we see democracy as the way to prevent tyranny and power accumulating in the hands of the few. But democracy has not prevented power from concentrating in corporations, in media giants, in government bureaucracies and amongst the educated elite. Some question whether democratic governments are really sovereign or whether a host of other unelected institutions and organisations are in control. The left point to the power of giant corporations and to the highly concentrated ownership of media and social media organisations. The right to the influence of bureaucrats or the so-called 'deep state', and left-leaning academic elites who control education and influence government policy.
Can democracy prevent the concentration of power without itself becoming tyrannical? Are attacks on federal employees or universities a victory over unelected elites or the abuse of government? Is democracy unable to control the accumulation of power and should we instead see value in the competing power of an oligarchy of organisations each of which need to be defended and constrained?
Reason was supposedly the great liberator – an Enlightenment gift that freed us from blind adherence to tradition and the authority of church and state. But today, many now contend this is a comforting myth. For as Benjamin Franklin put it, reason merely helps us “make a reason for everything one already has a mind to do.” Furthermore, studies confirm people with more developed reasoning skills are more susceptible to groupthink and polarization, not less. For the more rational we are, the better we are at justifying what we already believe – especially when it aligns with our social circle.
Is the future one where we accept tribalism and conflict as inherent to the human condition, where moral and scientific beliefs based on reason are badges, shaped by class, nation, ethnicity and culture? Or is reason more important than ever, not as a route to truth, but as a means to test the effectiveness and consequences of a given outlook? And can we reclaim reason as a method for resisting the crowd rather than following it? "
A UK First. Back To Big Thinking
The Guardian
Press