Uploaded August 2022 | Updated September 2026, 1 day ago
Naturalism Next joins me to discuss "the cognitive science argument against theism." We talk about the psychology of religion, hyperactive agency detection, signaling theory, and more on the evolutionary origins of religious belief. Crucially, theories from modern cognitive science of religion are antecedently more likely on naturalism than on theism, and so provide good evidence against theism.
We have plausible natural mechanisms that account for religious belief and practice – how they form and how they spread. The persistence and prevalence of religious belief can be understood through the framework of evolutionary theory and cognitive science of religion, providing us an answer to the question, “If God doesn’t exist, why does nearly everyone believe in God?”
The first half of this episode is about the cognitive science of religion, and the latter half is on why the cognitive science of religion is evidence favoring naturalism over theism. Something for the psychology of religion nerds and philosophy of religion nerds alike.
Naturalism Next (YouTube) youtube.com/channel/UCG8JSpvyaNMVKs3pRTWjK0Q
Naturalism Next (Blog) naturalismnext.blogspot.com
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
@waldenpod twitter.com/waldenpod
/ Counter Apologetics /
Consider supporting at patreon.com/counter
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xgyg04BWh0U1tCZ0z
/ Walden Pod /
Consider supporting at patreon.com/waldenpod
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5It3kjkrB9CTDen1Sx3aGl?si=fZ6MENZ4TdSLDPLAJ_6dAA&nd=1
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
02:47 The argument against theism - Overview
06:23 Prolific agency cognition
15:11 "Natural-born dualists"
17:20 What the argument is not
18:56 Costly signaling
23:48 Is religion an adaptation or a byproduct?
29:37 Summarizing the evolutionary account of religion
33:59 Lowering the prior probability of naturalism?
39:30 Why this is evidence for naturalism
1:21:52 The upcoming "Why I'm An Atheist" post/video
Naturalism Next joins me to discuss "the cognitive science argument against theism." We talk about the psychology of religion, hyperactive agency detection, signaling theory, and more on the evolutionary origins of religious belief. Crucially, theories from modern cognitive science of religion are antecedently more likely on naturalism than on theism, and so provide good evidence against theism.
We have plausible natural mechanisms that account for religious belief and practice – how they form and how they spread. The persistence and prevalence of religious belief can be understood through the framework of evolutionary theory and cognitive science of religion, providing us an answer to the question, “If God doesn’t exist, why does nearly everyone believe in God?”
The first half of this episode is about the cognitive science of religion, and the latter half is on why the cognitive science of religion is evidence favoring naturalism over theism. Something for the psychology of religion nerds and philosophy of religion nerds alike.
Naturalism Next (YouTube) youtube.com/channel/UCG8JSpvyaNMVKs3pRTWjK0Q
Naturalism Next (Blog) naturalismnext.blogspot.com
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
@waldenpod twitter.com/waldenpod
/ Counter Apologetics /
Consider supporting at patreon.com/counter
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xgyg04BWh0U1tCZ0z
/ Walden Pod /
Consider supporting at patreon.com/waldenpod
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5It3kjkrB9CTDen1Sx3aGl?si=fZ6MENZ4TdSLDPLAJ_6dAA&nd=1
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
02:47 The argument against theism - Overview
06:23 Prolific agency cognition
15:11 "Natural-born dualists"
17:20 What the argument is not
18:56 Costly signaling
23:48 Is religion an adaptation or a byproduct?
29:37 Summarizing the evolutionary account of religion
33:59 Lowering the prior probability of naturalism?
39:30 Why this is evidence for naturalism
1:21:52 The upcoming "Why I'm An Atheist" post/video





![Has Physics Debunked Panpsychism? Answering Sabine Hossenfelder
Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder recently published a widely-cited critique of panpsychism. Hossenfelder argues that physics has ruled out panpsychism. However, her article is mired in confusion, and one doesn’t need to be a panpsychist to notice.
Read her criticism, Electrons Don’t Think, here: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/electrons-dont-think.html
“Why do the Deniers ignore a long line of distinguished materialist predecessors and ally themselves with Descartes, their sworn enemy, in holding that experience can’t possibly be physical—thereby obliging themselves to endorse the Denial? The answer appears to be that they share with Descartes one very large assumption: that we know enough about the physical to be certain that experience can’t be physical.”
- Galen Strawson
“What a physiologist sees when he examines a brain is in the physiologist, not in the brain he is examining.”
- Bertrand Russell
“[M]aterialism ... is the philosophy of the subject who forgets himself in his calculation.”
- Schopenhauer
Transcript: https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/30/has-physics-debunked-panpsychism-answering-sabine-hossenfelder/
Listen to Walden Pod: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Follow on Twitter @waldenpod
Support the podcast at Patreon.com/waldenpod
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:47 Hossenfelders critique
04:12 Two interpretations of her critique
09:47 Unfalsifiable or falsified?
11:29 Further points of confusion evident in Hossenfelders critique Has Physics Debunked Panpsychism? Answering Sabine Hossenfelder](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BUIWW_2afBU/mqdefault.jpg)

![11 Objections to Panpsychism - Answered
We respond to eleven common objections to panpsychism.
Listen to the podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
[References and further links are in the show notes of each episode]
Check out our sister show, Counter Apologetics, here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
/ / / / / / /
00:00 Introduction
05:20 (1) “The incredulous stare,” or an argument from strangeness, which appeals to our common sense and argues that panpsychism is forbiddingly counter-intuitive.
8:54 (2) Falsifiability. Isn’t panpsychism unfalsifiable?
11:03 (3) Isn’t physics entirely on the side of materialism?
17:33 (4) Wouldn’t panpsychism force us to add a particle to the standard model?
24:50 Interlude — a few advantages of panpsychism
27:13 (5) Pan-nifty-ism. Dan Dennett’s reductio cuts to the heart of the issue: is Nagelian consciousness reducible? Is what-it-is-like-ness analogous to élan vital or fluidity?
29:38 (6) Mysterianism. Should we even expect consciousness to be rationally intelligible?
33:36 (7) The woo accusation
35:29 (8) Is [insert inanimate object here] conscious?
36:19 (9) Won’t science eventually solve consciousness?
38:47 (10) Doesn’t panpsychism open the door to parapsychology and other pseudoscience?
42:31 (11) The Combination Problem. Widely considered to be the most serious difficulty facing panpsychism, the Combination Problem deserves a little extra time. The exact nature of the problem depends on your view of fundamental reality (the parts that are being combined) and the self (what is being formed through combination). We also discuss Galileo, the fusion view, Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory, and a few other related issues. 11 Objections to Panpsychism - Answered](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CVquyZepZxM/mqdefault.jpg)


