Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Emerson Green
I defend the controversial idea that ordinary and extraordinary claims don’t require the same evidence.
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
updated 1 year ago
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Amos Wollen - Conversion Review: Christianity gains a new smart person wollenblog.substack.com/p/conversion-review-philip-goff
Randal Rauser on Goff’s Conversion youtube.com/watch?v=DzVRUppDKjw
Nathan Ormond (DigitalGnosis) - Philosopher CONVERTS to Christianity youtube.com/live/k1NR3IDpdC8?si=73YidnD75EXq7i-h
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
David Papineau: Physicalists who find panpsychism counterintuitive haven’t truly freed themselves from dualist thinking https://x.com/OnPanpsychism/status/1822034358439489978
Jonathan Birch on overconfidence about sentience 80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/jonathan-birch-edge-sentience-uncertainty
My Substack open.substack.com/pub/emersongreen/p/why-is-panpsychism-counterintuitive?r=3avwt7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
This episode was available early to supporters at patreon.com/waldenpod
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
I primarily drew from three sources: Philip Goff’s Consciousness and Fundamental Reality (2017), Hedda Hassel Mørch’s Non-physicalist Theories of Consciousness (2023), and the SEP entry on Zombies written by Robert Kirk.
Goff: amazon.com/Consciousness-Fundamental-Reality-Philosophy-Mind/dp/0197766390/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Mørch: amazon.com/Non-physicalist-Theories-Consciousness-Elements-Philosophy/dp/1009317334
Kirk: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
Here are two David Chalmers papers that were very useful:
Chalmers on different types of physicalism: consc.net/papers/nature.html
Chalmers on different kinds of conceivability and possibility and the links between them: consc.net/papers/conceivability.html
Also referenced:
Erik Hoel - Consciousness is a great mystery. Its definition isn’t. theintrinsicperspective.com/p/consciousness-is-a-great-mystery
Philip Goff - A posteriori physicalists get our phenomenal concepts wrong philpapers.org/rec/PHIAPP-2
Kane B on conceivability and possibility youtu.be/BYsT1Bk1_8Q?si=k5gzXXqSqSm4DLV3
00:00 Housekeeping
00:56 Where I stand currently & some common confusions
04:03 Intro
05:32 Clarifying Conceivability
14:06 What is physicalism?
19:16 Consider the Houseplant
25:09 What the zombie is missing
32:38 Are zombies conceivable?
39:04 Metaphysical Possibility
42:42 A Posteriori Necessity
54:38 Phenomenal Transparency
1:03:56 Goff Interview
Am I Agnostic? youtu.be/QCdTYZdFkNY?si=jwiJFpB7K7dPdGde
For more on peer disagreement, see chapter 19 of Understanding Knowledge (Huemer) amazon.com/Understanding-Knowledge-Michael-Huemer/dp/B0BK12PN47
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
LINKS
Sean Carroll speaking to the Freedom From Religion Foundation youtu.be/40eiycH077A?si=xgg4KC0JPYWnH0fU
Philip Goff: Is physics different in the brain? youtube.com/live/wlyKdirhOa4?si=RRYXSUbW8As7sRLw
Papers:
The Quantum Field Theory on Which the Everyday World Supervenes (2021) arxiv.org/abs/2101.07884
Carroll: Consciousness and the Laws of Physics (2021) philarchive.org/archive/CARCAT-33
Goff’s response to critics: philpapers.org/archive/GOFPCF.pdf
Relevant blog posts from Carroll:
preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation
preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood
preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/29/seriously-the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-really-are-completely-understood
preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/10/01/one-last-stab
preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/07/18/the-effective-field-theory-of-everyday-life-revisited
preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul
preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory
/ timestamps /
00:00 The Core Theory Argument & Micro-reductionism
10:07 Weak Emergence
13:18 Strong Emergence
16:16 The perils of modifying physics
The conversation on his channel: youtu.be/RqLidsTNB4E?si=Fg_ZEXatzwQiP6GP
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
I name three things: Christian aliens, miracles, and religious experience. That's not an exhaustive list, but those things would dramatically raise my credence in Christian theism.
I spend the most time talking about religious experiences, mainly for two reasons. First, their epistemic significance is not always appreciated by nonbelievers. Second, I've noticed that some Christian apologists really hate it when nonbelievers say the experience of God would convince them of theism and thought that was worth examining.
/ Videos referenced in the episode /
Jimmy Akin & Emerson Green - Debunking the Skeptics on UFOs youtu.be/aptdgtE5z-E?si=45CN8jubFSK9TqPq
The Argument from Miracles (Panel) youtu.be/i0DUQbvQvBk?si=YDM-4V4Ek9OsR0IO
Countering the Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus youtu.be/zz6GapB6DMI?si=S-O58gKoW6wnqtPC
What would make atheists accept a miracle claim? | C.M. Lorkowski & Real Atheology youtu.be/NFMI3c_Iex4?si=lbTM4EPrWFi0oXxi
5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology youtu.be/4dalQu-vdMU?si=47A_FfzBiaRjJX-9&t=2390
4 Things I Learned About Epistemology youtu.be/Vo484enDccA?si=fAphMKP_fJJq-qF5
Phenomenal Conservatism with Michael Huemer youtu.be/Heoei-RFpZA?si=NUz9qxmvONNP5eCQ
/ timestamps /
00:00 A few thoughts on the question
02:35 Christian Aliens
04:30 Miracles
05:38 Religious Experience
/ All my stuff /
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Over time, I've come to appreciate the force of some of the evidence against the hypothesis of indifference and in favor of a "value selection hypothesis", e.g. psychophysical harmony, fine-tuning, and the axiological trajectory of the universe. These, along with a few other considerations that favor theism more directly, have gradually moved me to more of a middle position on theism vs. atheism. (Today, I don’t dive into a full-fledged defense of those arguments.)
There are plenty of sources of epistemic uncertainty that have increasingly led me to hold on to my beliefs more loosely. How am I supposed to alter my confidence in light of peer disagreement? How should I set my priors? How am I supposed to reckon with the inescapable contingency of my beliefs? Richard Rorty often spoke about a certain kind of philosopher with “radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered” (1989). Rorty goes much further, in ways that I can’t get behind. But what can I say? I’m impressed by many of you. The problem is that you have mutually exclusive, incommensurable worldviews. At least for me, at this point, agnosticism seems like the most honest reaction to my epistemic situation. (Of course, God could settle this whenever he likes: https://x.com/waldenpod/status/1749836106973970860?s=20)
Relevant video from Philip Swenson: youtu.be/MZR-PoFIRsw?si=jpuq9HaDYORRQHyN
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Religious Ambiguity
6:37 The Value Selection Hypothesis
8:45 Theism and Evil
12:46 Psychophysical Harmony and Physical Complexity
14:29 Axiological Arc of the Universe
17:05 Two Pretty Good Value Selection Hypotheses
18:38 Is that you, God?
20:00 Common Consent Argument
22:46 Agnostic?
My playlist on hell youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgCsHWkb9NYtUnr7hNK_ar8MEJiosUcDm&si=D2n99kshEhRory6r
Keith DeRose - Universalism and the Bible: https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/
David Bentley Hart - That All Shall Be Saved amazon.com/That-All-Shall-Saved-Universal/dp/0300258488/ref=pd_lpo_sccl_3/134-6476606-7763711?pd_rd_w=RnK3U&content-id=amzn1.sym.1ad2066f-97d2-4731-9356-36b3edf1ae04&pf_rd_p=1ad2066f-97d2-4731-9356-36b3edf1ae04&pf_rd_r=9MEMFSD6TXQM4CNZCE7Y&pd_rd_wg=Sq7Sp&pd_rd_r=a8c0066b-22e3-4ed4-bba9-b7504ebaff61&pd_rd_i=0300258488&psc=1
Rachel and Joshua Rasmussen - When Heaven Invades Hell amazon.com/When-Heaven-Invades-Joshua-Rasmussen/dp/1732383405/ref=sr_1_5?crid=16OSNXJR1XB3L&keywords=joshua+rasmussen&qid=1706464735&s=books&sprefix=joshua+rasmussen%2Cstripbooks%2C108&sr=1-5
Andrew Hronich - Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis amazon.com/Once-Loved-Always-Logic-Apokatastasis/dp/1666756202
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/timestamps/
00:00 Intro
04:05 Free Will
18:21 Why do atheists care about universalism?
24:51 Alternative Models of Hell
37:51 Scripture
42:57 Why is John not a universalist?
1:13:04 Wild Metaphysical Speculation
1:19:17 More on culpability and rejecting God
1:32:44 Restraining Sin
1:41:57 Finite Theism
00:00 "Math Proves God"
30:14 Open Hangout (Incorruptibility, Miracles, Tradcaths)
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Common Mistakes about the Moral Argument | Majesty of Reason youtu.be/HagWjUtIzzY?si=prlYGNDzj3uaL6iy
Majesty of Reason – Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis youtu.be/cFEjSzfEQrU?si=RhKSMu8ihQjFPj1-
Michael Huemer – Groundless Morals (this chapter is within the volume of Erik Wielenberg vs. William Lane Craig on the moral argument) taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003055259-14/groundless-morals-michael-huemer
Metaethics w/ Michael Huemer | Emerson Green youtu.be/32HHaQcqLPs?si=h_nlivpLA6Kp0cqY
Is God Necessary for Morality? | William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan youtu.be/Rm2wShHJ2iA?si=5qy7VnT2qVV4Pwmj
Moral Objectivity Without God | Russ Shafer-Landau youtu.be/50CQwa15R7A?si=kfK1sbx0kSG8BvUV
/Timestamps/
00:00 Introduction
01:36 The Big Picture
08:12 Metaethics (Defining Terms)
9:26 Descriptive vs. Evaluative (Defining Terms)
11:21 Objective Morality (Defining Terms)
14:54 Subjective Morality (Defining Terms)
20:05 The Metaethical Landscape (Defining Terms)
22:18 Apologist (Defining Terms)
23:33 Apologetics vs. Metaethics
27:49 “Humans are just animals” (Moral agents & patients)
33:40 The Moral Law Giver
40:19 Euthyphro & Intrinsic Value
52:29 Hume’s Law (Is-Ought Gap)
57:35 Why Obey God?
1:02:05 Groundless Morals
1:09:44 Two Broad Classes of Moral Realism
1:12:31 God Cannot Provide the Basis for Objective Morality (Craig vs. Huemer)
1:37:41 Good Moral Arguments
1:47:01 What’s wrong with the moral argument?
1:58:16 Why Craig still uses the argument
Full AMA: youtu.be/m-Cf8vEO5Qk?si=CjlIkbquDBS5Esw9
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
#afterlife #nde #atheism
I think her reasons for adopting Christianity are quite clearly explicated, even though some Christians have been trying very hard to ignore them. She argues that Christianity can sustain the liberal values of the Enlightenment that she cherishes so deeply. Those values are under attack, she says, from Islam, Russia, China, and woke ideology. Every purely secular strategy tried in response has been insufficient. Christianity, on the other hand, could function as a far more effective weapon against her political enemies in this existential clash. But why does it matter that the west prevails over its cultural and geopolitical foes? Christianity can help with that, too – not just on a civilizational level, but individually as well. It's the antidote to nihilism, the heart of the Enlightenment, a panacea for wokeness and illiberalism. These considerations together lead her to adopt Christianity, even if she doesn't think it's actually true.
Maybe in the future, she'll affirm something more than cultural Christianity. Until then, I'm honestly inclined to see Ayaan’s “conversion” as further vindication of the death of God: even the converts don’t really believe anymore. A good deal of true believers are apparently so desperate for a morale boost, they're willing to look past that.
Ayaan's guiding light is liberalism, the Enlightenment, and western civilization. She is a positively zealous believer in what the west represents to her, and this is absolutely crucial to understanding her conversion to Christianity. She may not believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, but she believes in western civilization. She believes this is the best way – perhaps the only way – to save it from withering.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Why I am now a Christian unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian
Shadi Hamid - Embracing Islam to Own the Libs thefp.com/p/embracing-god-to-own-the-libs
Randal Rauser on Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s conversion randalrauser.com/2023/11/ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-the-celebrity-conversion-with-the-weak-apologetic
Rod Dreher - A Christian of Convenience? europeanconservative.com/articles/dreher/ayaan-hirsi-ali-a-christian-of-convenience
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2023/11/18/ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-the-rise-of-political-conversions
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
00:00 Introduction
02:13 The Nature of Her Conversion
08:56 Arguing from Meaning
18:10 The Political Convert
00:46 Atheistic platonism?
01:22 Why are you gay?
01:30 Are you still a naturalist?
05:47 What kind of compatibilist are you?
09:41 If I settle your debt with PragerU, will you become a libertarian?
10:12 What’s your biggest gripe with physicalism?
12:42 On the abortion debate, when do you think personhood / full moral status begins?
17:22 Do twinks make better philosophers?
17:56 Are you agnostic about anything in philosophy?
19:37 Why are you such a sucker for spooky stuff?
30:49 Who makes those guitar transitions?
32:34 Favorite music?
34:30 Who are some of your favorite Eastern philosophers?
35:03 Which religion would you choose to be true?
40:54 Who are your favorite theist and atheist philosophers?
42:18 Arguing for dualism from mereological nihilism?
45:48 Euthanasia?
48:43 What are your thoughts on each general era of philosophy?
55:00 Thoughts on Jordan Peterson?
58:55 Have you looked into Islam?
1:03:57 Does your mother know you spend so much time talking to strangers on the internet?
1:04:04 What is your opinion on the resurrection?
1:08:23 The best argument against veganism?
1:21:18 What is the primary goal of adopting panpsychism?
1:23:20 Best defenses of objective morality?
1:24:34 How would aliens affect theism and atheism?
1:30:53 Are you a dualist or a physicalist?
1:31:31 Isn’t solipsism simpler than panpsychism?
1:33:37 Thoughts on idealism?
1:35:41 Which political system do you think is right?
1:39:34 Thoughts on metaethical naturalism?
1:41:52 Is incest wrong?
1:45:27 When will you have some Mormons back on your show?
1:46:34 Why atheist and not agnostic? Where can I find good philrel content?
1:49:54 Would necessitarianism defeat fine-tuning and psychophysical harmony?
1:57:38 Do you accept physical causal closure?
2:00:00 How do you explain psychophysical harmony?
2:02:34 Kant’s transcendental idealism and free will?
2:07:56 Are we obligated to refute false beliefs even if they’re meaningful?
2:13:01 Is there any profound nugget of wisdom that Christianity has first or exclusive ownership of?
2:15:17 Analytic/Continental divide?
2:18:05 "Emmerson"
2:19:03 Does the phenomenal powers view weaken psychophysical harmony?
2:22:04 Is time necessary for consciousness?
2:28:49 If you did reconvert, would you be a Christian or a generic theist?
2:32:20 Finite theism?
2:36:22 Top three philosophers who are wrong about everything?
2:37:57 Moral subjectivism with normally functioning humans as the (collective) observer(s) morality is stance-dependent upon?
2:48:52 Are you afraid of death? How do you cope with death anxiety as an atheist?
AMA (the questions are in the comment section here) youtu.be/fR5V2yc_wJE
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Here's the AMA: youtu.be/m-Cf8vEO5Qk?si=5zNwymThdns7o9OM
LINKTREE https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Inspired by Matthew Adelstein’s post defending epiphenomenalism, I want to explain my opposition to the view. A few times, he referenced a podcast episode / blog post of mine from 2020, which I hadn’t read since it was first posted. I found a few things to disagree with in my own episode, so I thought I’d respond to Matthew and try to offer an updated critique of epiphenomenalism in the process. While epiphenomenalism is probably less wrong than physicalism, the causal efficacy of our mental states is as evident as anything, so the view should still be rejected in favor of panpsychism or interactionist dualism. As Paul Draper once put it, “wild ideas are needed” to explain consciousness, but I don’t think epiphenomenalism is the right wild idea.
After responding to a few key points from Matthew, I offer a few reasons to reject epiphenomenalism:
- Epiphenomenalism is self-defeating.
- The evidence that supports the causal influence of mental states is the exact same kind of evidence for causal influence in other cases. This not only supports mental causation, but also raises the threat of undermining the epiphenomenalist’s claim that the physical has causal powers.
- The phenomenal powers view as defended by Mørch (2017, 2020) is plausible and entails the falsity of epiphenomenalism. In short, there are plausible examples of causal necessity in the mind.
- Among metaphysical theories of consciousness, epiphenomenalism is the most vulnerable to the problem of psychophysical harmony.
LINKTREE https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
00:43 What is epiphenomenalism?
02:27 Conservation of energy, Libet experiments
07:42 Self-Defeat
16:44 Evidence of Causation & A Dilemma
23:20 The Phenomenal Powers View
28:00 Psychophysical Harmony
32:24 Epiphenomenalism is Counterintuitive
40:02 Summary
For arguments against ECT, check out my Hell playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgCsHWkb9NYtUnr7hNK_ar8MEJiosUcDm
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Second Debate (John Buck vs. Alex Strasser): youtube.com/live/mlMBzYTGuW4?si=zb-5uMnOi4cbX_PW
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
John is defending the view that strong versions of omnipotence avoid problems of vagueness, arbitrariness, ad hocness, lack of predictive power, and complexity that limited models of God suffer from. John also thinks that a new problem of evil arises that is particular only to limited views of God.
Alex will give a cosmological argument and fine-tuning argument for finite theism, and further argue that omni-theism is not a fruitful research program due to serious issues with coherence and the analysis of omni-properties. Theistic finitism is rarely discussed in the philosophy of religion, and Alex wants to invite us to take finite theism more seriously and to investigate it carefully.
Summary of theistic finitism: britannica.com/topic/theism/The-idea-of-a-finite-God
Previous limited god debate: youtu.be/K8f5gensQF0?si=SjGkdvxlaWH01MVs
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
03:41 John's Opening
22:00 Alex's Opening
39:16 Problem of Evil
1:02:51 God's Power
1:16:26 Miracles & the Bible
1:22:22 Simplicity as a Theoretical Virtue
1:29:53 Fine-tuning Redux
1:55:19 Biblical & Theological Constraints
2:03:30 Necessity
2:06:30 Worship & Hell
2:17:46 Parting Thoughts
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy amazon.com/Knowledge-Reality-Value-Mostly-Philosophy/dp/B091F5QTDS
/ timestamps /
00:00 Intro
00:41 Why dualism instead of physicalism?
20:34 Emergence
30:47 Epiphenomenalism and Other Minds
37:53 Emergence II
39:45 Mental Substance and Spacetime
50:56 Personal Identity
1:09:44 Reincarnation
1:23:38 Audience Qs: Embodiment and Pairing
1:30:16 God
I’m joined by Jimmy Akin to answer ten common objections to UFO phenomena and alien visitations. In the wake of recent news stories about unidentified aerial phenomena, I heard the same skeptical talking points trotted out over and over again as if UFO believers had never considered them and had no response to them at all. So I’d like to play whatever small part I can in improving the quality of the discourse by advancing the conversation past the initial thoughts that are commonly offered into more interesting territory. This should make skeptics better skeptics, and help agnostics like myself better appreciate the skeptical position. Right now, the skeptics are not sending their best.
The Objections emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2023/08/15/alien-apologetics-w-jimmy-akin
Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World sqpn.com/2023/09/alien-apologetics-with-emerson-green
The conversation on Jimmy’s channel youtu.be/aptdgtE5z-E?si=5OIF0jVrpO2KOyh5
My Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:47 Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
05:28 The Trump Objection
13:43 The 'Too Many People' Objection
22:47 The Crash Objection
33:50 The Distance Objection
47:39 The Geography Objection
54:48 The Skeptic Community
1:02:05 The Historical Objection
1:16:01 The Motivation Objection
1:38:19 The Low Priors Objection
1:54:43 The Illusion Objection
2:03:27 The Psychoanalysis Objection
2:15:00 Conclusion
2:18:00 Goodbyes
The subtitle of the book notwithstanding, the unusual experiences we discuss are not explicitly religious. They’re usually interpreted through a religious lens (often without any reflection), but almost all of them needn’t be, which is something we return to quite a bit. Flatly disputing the phenomenon is not the only option available to atheists.
We talk about paranormal and parapsychological phenomena (e.g., clairvoyance, levitation, visions of dead loved ones, etc.) as well as two major sources of skepticism towards things that fall into those categories. On the one hand, of course, there’s materialism, conservative naturalism, skepticism (as in, the skeptic community), etc. But Protestant Christianity, I was surprised to learn, has also been a skeptical force in history due to their drive to debunk Catholic miracle stories, or even just extraordinary events documented by the Catholic Church that explicitly or implicitly were used as evidence for Catholicism.
One thing I forgot to mention during the interview: In addition to Dr. Allison’s book, there are a couple podcasts that regularly discuss cases like the ones that came up today in greater depth. “Otherworld” and “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World” come highly recommended from me.
Encountering Mystery amazon.com/Encountering-Mystery-Religious-Experience-Secular/dp/0802881882
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Dan Dennett vs. Greg Caruso on Free Will (clip at 16.30) youtu.be/AxhA7S3q49o
Interview with Randal Rauser on ‘The Doubter’s Creed: How To Be A Christian When You Don’t Believe It’s True’ youtu.be/h3mwqd_Gvl8
Majesty of Reason - Theism is rational, but Trent Horn is wrong and that upsets me (clip at 52.20) youtu.be/tctHQlYbl6E
Phenomenal Conservatism w/ Michael Huemer youtu.be/Heoei-RFpZA
My Epistemology playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgCsHWkb9NYthZ9K4fDau7A6zDE7LzDgH
Support: https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ timestamps /
00:00 Intro
00:45 What is Knowledge?
14:40 Wittgensteinian View of Concepts
28:21 The Skeptic’s Error and the Moorean Shift
39:45 Internalism vs. Externalism
50:00 Empathy on the Epistemic Landscape
56:52 Parting Thoughts
Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer amazon.com/Understanding-Knowledge-Michael-Huemer/dp/B0BK12PN47
00:00 Introduction
00:30 No evidence for theism
14:20 Theism is unfalsifiable
25:30 Testimony is not evidence
39:50 Intuitions don't matter
47:43 Lacktheism
51:29 Charity
Support: https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
LDS Philosophy and Dry Apologist join me for a debate on the nature of God. We compare the virtues of a limited model of God versus a model on which God is unlimited in power, as well as simple, impassible, etc. Are the classical models of God too impersonal and abstract, incapable of sustaining a commitment to a personal God who loves us? Or are the limited models of God not divine enough? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both views with respect to the problem of evil?
My Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
LDSPhilosophy's channel: youtube.com/channel/UCD9dBPDSDvwkajmC0fPW3CQ
Dry Apologist's channel: youtube.com/c/dryapologist
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
00:58 Limitations?
12:08 Caleb’s Opening
16:29 Joseph’s Opening
27:27 Aseity, Simplicity, Impassibility
48:02 Problem of Evil
58:52 Can a limited God cause revelations and religious experiences?
1:03:05 Problem of Evil redux
1:07:51 Arbitrary Limits
1:26:33 Why omni-properties?
1:29:31 Worship-worthiness
For reference, Paul Draper (1989) characterizes the hypothesis of indifference as follows: “neither the nature nor the condition of sentient beings on earth is the result of benevolent or malevolent actions performed by non-human persons.”
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Huge shoutout to @CapturingChristianity for organizing the debate, and to the beautiful Lanier Theological Library for hosting the event.
Does God Exist? Justin Schieber vs. Eric Hernandez (CC Exchange 2023) youtube.com/live/a1YA2yQPzZM?feature=share
@RealAtheology's channel youtube.com/c/RealAtheology
Patreon | Counter Apologetics patreon.com/counter
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:52 Moral Argument
14:15 EAAN
26:50 Souls
36:56 Eric’s Rebuttal
53:55 Open Dialogue / Q&A
1:00:19 Lanier Theological Library
1:07:54 Religious Ambiguity (more Q&A)
1:10:56 Chillin
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2023/04/26/animal-suffering-is-evidence-against-gods-existence
Tip Jar account.venmo.com/u/emersongreenpodcast
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Defending the argument from widespread theistic belief: youtu.be/lF6Z7uKiHpQ (There are plenty of objections you may have thought of that didn't come up in this video. They're probably discussed in the longer video linked here ^ )
How did religion evolve? youtu.be/ARPxNYNgiSc
Full conversation with Dry Apologist, John Buck, and Chris Rhodes: youtube.com/live/NgwBQ0EwXU8?feature=share
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
. . .
“[Ad populum] is the ‘fallacy’ of believing something because most people believe it. But what exactly is supposed to be wrong with that? . . . Maybe the idea is that most people believing p is irrelevant to whether p is true. I.e., if most people believe it, that doesn’t mean it is more likely to be correct. Problem: This is obviously wrong. If most people believe something, that obviously does make it more likely to be correct than if most people don’t believe it. If most of our beliefs weren’t true, the human species would die out pretty much immediately. Sometimes, people elaborate on this ‘fallacy’ by citing examples of beliefs that were once widely held but were false – e.g., that the sun orbits the Earth. So let me now just mention a few typical examples of beliefs that are widely held: Dogs exist. It’s generally lighter in the daytime than at night. The sky is blue, not red, green, or yellow. There are more than three human beings in existence. Human beings commonly have beliefs and desires. Putting your hand in a fire hurts. Six is more than two. The Earth has existed for more than five minutes. When you drop rocks near the surface of the Earth, they generally fall. . . . I’m sure you can extend that list for a long time. Now, which would you say there are more of: Widely-held beliefs that are true, or ones that are false?”
Michael Huemer (Knowledge, Reality, and Value)
"I remember asking Frank Turek in person during a Q&A how he reconciled the portrayals of God in the OT & NT, since it seemed like there was a personality change. He said, 'There wasn’t one. Next question.' Anyway, I deconverted a week later."
Joe Heschmeyer, writing for catholic.com, made a much more respectable and empathetic attempt to answer my question, which we’ll be taking a (critical) look at today.
God’s Personality Change? - Catholic Answers catholic.com/magazine/blog/gods-personality-change
Good God? - David Bentley Hart theopolisinstitute.com/leithart_post/good-god-a-response
Slavery in the Bible - Counter Apologetics youtu.be/FXklhcQ41KQ
Transcript of this episode emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2023/02/18/gods-personality-change
Follow me on Twitter @/waldenpod twitter.com/waldenpod
For those who are curious, I asked Frank Turek the question in August 2014 in Manitou Springs, Colorado during a two-week apologetics camp called Summit.
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Frank Turek
02:01 The Parenthood Analogy
07:16 Relativism & Moral Agents
08:31 Parting Thoughts
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Dr. Dustin Crummett on PhilPeople: philpeople.org/profiles/dustin-crummett
Dr. Philip Goff's website: philipgoffphilosophy.com
My playlist with a lot of psychophysical harmony stuff: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgCsHWkb9NYt1r3Q_4nx9DJHdlr40LYrG
/ 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
01:40 Indifference vs Value Selection
03:47 Dustin's opening
09:48 Philip's opening
23:32 Open dialogue: Panagentialism, IIT, Teleology
1:02:22 Problem of Evil
1:12:53 Limited God
1:51:43 Philip's book title & subtitle
The Doubter’s Creed amazon.com/Doubters-Creed-Christian-When-Believe/dp/1738771830/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UOHWM7HWVDFR&keywords=doubter%27s+creed&qid=1675895504&sprefix=doubter%27s+cree%2Caps%2C161&sr=8-1
randalrauser.com
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ Timestamps /
00:00 A religion of creeds
07:19 Doxastic voluntarism
18:17 Grace for beliefs, not just actions
31:12 Why hope Christianity is true?
43:40 Love your Rwandan neighbor as yourself
53:33 James vs. Clifford
So, should atheists address popular and harmful versions of theism? Or should we address the most defensible versions of theism? To explore the question of God’s existence, we must engage with the best forms of theism, not the worst. As Michael Huemer put it, “Who cares if you can refute the craziest version of a view? … The way to learn is to address the most interesting defensible views, not to spend our time discussing trivially false ideas.” Even if those trivially false ideas are widespread, wield lots of influence in the world, and are positively dangerous, they’re still trivially false. At worst, it’s deeply dishonest to refute the worst version of an idea, stop there, and act as if the entire idea has been refuted.
Depending on one's goals, however, addressing the strongest forms of theism might seem like a waste of time. If you're primarily concerned with atheist activism, helping others, and reducing the harm brought about by religion, why spend any time on things that have no significant influence in the world? The activists are generally more concerned with attacking the truth of influential beliefs that make the world worse. Philosophers are generally more concerned with addressing the best versions of each side, since that’s the best way of figuring out whether we should be theists, atheists, or agnostics. Though both are valuable and worthwhile projects, the main issue with the activist crowd is that they seem to think they’re the best at both, despite never engaging with the strongest versions of the view they reject.
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2023/01/25/addressing-popular-forms-of-theism-vs-the-best-forms
/ 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
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ 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 to topic and guests
05:34 What is a miracle?
07:21 Hume
12:27 The role of miracles in religious belief
19:34 Analyzing miracles as a class vs. individual cases
27:27 What would convince you?
41:33 Why don't people try to heal amputees?
51:20 The non-random selection of data
1:06:07 Classical vs. evidentialist divide
1:10:04 The resurrection (of George)
1:15:19 Gerrymandered epistemology
1:27:49 The theological significance criterion
1:32:30 Theoretical virtues & reverse minimal facts
1:37:02 Closing thoughts
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
1000 Word Philosophy - Vagueness 1000wordphilosophy.com/2019/03/11/vagueness
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/the-vagueness-argument-against-physicalism
Michael Tye - Vagueness and the Evolution of Consciousness academic.oup.com/book/39910
David Papineau’s review of Vagueness and the Evolution of Consciousness in NDPR https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/vagueness-and-the-evolution-of-consciousness-through-the-looking-glass/
Nino Kadic - Phenomenology of Fundamental Reality kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/phenomenology-of-fundamental-reality(ea85e9fa-6b07-4018-9c54-a54407d16f35).html
Follow on twitter @waldenpod @onpanpsychism
Support the podcasts at patreon.com/counter or patreon.com/waldenpod
/ timestamps /
00:00 The vagueness argument
03:59 Which creatures are conscious?
06:55 The sharpness of consciousness
09:20 The vagueness of biological phenomena
11:51 The sharpness of consciousness (cont.)
19:25 Weak emergence
20:52 The advantage of vagueness arguments
Subscribe to Real Atheology on YouTube and on iTunes podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/real-atheology/id1200545713
A few resources on the argument: emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/12/24/meager-moral-fruits
Follow us on Twitter @waldenpod @RealAtheology @SpeedWatkins
Support the podcast at patreon.com/counter
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
00:00 Housekeeping
1:41 To the Christians in my life
3:43 Introducing Ben from RA
6:06 Why I’m interested in the MMFA
9:49 The Meager Moral Fruits Argument
42:51 Open Hangout
First, arguing that some people deserve to die is not sufficient to show that any particular institution (e.g. the state) should have the power and legitimacy to carry out executions. Second, capital punishment is not reconcilable with the principle of remedy: when mistakes are inevitably made, the punishment for the wrongly convicted cannot be brought to an end and they cannot be given damages. Third, the application of the death penalty will inevitably be morally arbitrary in some cases – either due to the morally arbitrary nature of the laws themselves, the enforcement of the law, or the imperfect determination of guilt. Since this is unavoidable, we cannot have the death penalty without murdering innocents. And since saving innocent life is far more important than ending the lives of the guilty, this should dissuade us from maintaining a death-penalty system. Finally, the virtuous qualities of revenge are absent in the death penalty system.
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Support at patreon.com/waldenpod & patreon.com/counter
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/12/07/why-i-support-abolition-of-the-death-penalty
Music by ichika Nito and used with permission.
Twitter @waldenpod
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:02 Defending the State
03:02 Moral Arbitrariness
06:00 The Principle of Remedy
08:15 What if we're certain?
10:46 Saving the Innocent vs. Killing the Guilty
15:28 Revenge
29:32 Final Considerations
After talking about epiphenomenalism and why William James’ argument against it works against all views in philosophy of mind (with the lone exception of Type-A materialism), we explain why psychophysical harmony seems so improbable. We also discuss what I consider to be one of the weirder features of physicalism – the metaphysical impossibility of inverts, zombies, disharmony, and so on – and why one's views about metaphysical modality won't help you escape the argument from psychophysical harmony. In addition to touching on a few objections, we also talk about the underdetermination of the data, and why psychophysical harmony may be equally good evidence for some hypotheses of those who exist in The Nagel Zone.
The paper: philarchive.org/rec/CUTPHA
William James' argument against epiphenomenalism: youtu.be/GrG6SdJzozc
My interview with @dustin.crummett youtu.be/auahudU1C08
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ 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 & Preliminaries
03:59 The Problem with Epiphenomenalism
10:44 The Likelihood of Harmony
19:04 The Impossibility of Disharmony?
31:45 The Revenge Problem
49:53 The Path of Least Resistance
53:22 Underdetermination & the Nagel Zone
58:02 Hiddenness
1:01:53 Do only those with a theistic agenda notice this problem?
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Follow us on Twitter @waldenpod and @WriterJohnBuck
/ 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 /
0:00:00 Introduction
0:02:00 The Participation Theodicy
0:18:37 Divine Hiddenness
0:22:54 Teleological Evil
0:32:47 Is it worth it?
0:34:26 What would disconfirm your theory?
0:39:34 Is knowledge of participation necessary?
0:45:30 Evil we can't eliminate
0:54:37 Is our participation meaningful? How does free will factor in?
1:13:36 Draper's argument from pain & pleasure
1:37:04 Intrinsic vs. extrinsic goods (Why not hellworld?)
2:00:04 Rasmussen's analogy on theodicies
2:09:45 Skeptical theism continues to be wrong
2:15:34 Some topics for future discussion
The Argument from Teleological Evil: youtu.be/S8W9E_YvmFw
Full Conversation with Dry Apologist: youtu.be/WEBSV1HF9sE
Felipe Leon's argument: http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-problem-of-teleological-evil.html
Quentin Smith's argument: infidels.org/library/modern/quentin-smith-evil-laws
Is God the Best Explanation of Things? Rasmussen and Leon amazon.com/God-Best-Explanation-Things-Dialogue/dp/3030237516
Support the show at patreon.com/counter
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
We discuss the argument from widespread theistic belief, the hyperactive agency detection device, religious ambiguity, universalism, divine hiddenness, the ad populum fallacy, whether religious disagreement is truly distinct from other kinds of disagreements, and why I think the prevalence and persistence of theism is evidence for God's existence.
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Full Videos:
First clip - An Atheist Makes the Case for Theism w/ Adherent Apologetics youtube.com/watch?v=2kKpU1hBBJc&list=PLgCsHWkb9NYt1r3Q_4nx9DJHdlr40LYrG&index=2
Second clip - Debunking Myself on God youtube.com/watch?v=qzV3E5NcDTA&list=PLgCsHWkb9NYt1r3Q_4nx9DJHdlr40LYrG&index=4
Third clip - Devil's Advocate Debate w/ Christian Idealism youtube.com/watch?v=EtNgscve6P8&list=PLgCsHWkb9NYt1r3Q_4nx9DJHdlr40LYrG&index=3
Related:
Logical Fallacies youtu.be/2tcBav3rwZo
A Catholic and an Atheist Debate God youtu.be/k5k48FeQqE4
Hell: Eternal Conscious Torment youtu.be/iYXI9e8M6d4
00:00 Interview with Adherent Apologetics
12:50 The Argument from Widespread Theistic Belief
35:33 Roadmap for the rest of the episode
39:31 Religious Ambiguity, Hiddenness, & Universalism
1:07:59 Summary from the Devil's Advocate Debate
First, we take a look at the views of William Lane Craig, who famously denies the possibility of an actual infinite in the context of the kalam, yet seems to affirm the existence of an actual infinite in his defense of everlasting torment. Craig grants that finite sins merit finite punishment. But since rejecting a relationship with God is *not* a finite sin, eternal conscious torment is justified. (Craig seems to hold that our *guilt* is an actual infinite, not our punishment, which is a potential infinite.)
We also touch on free will, postmortem salvation, the rejection of God, religious diversity, universalism, guilt, and David Bentley Hart's case that everlasting torment is morally indefensible.
Clarification: When it comes to rejecting God, I used the words “ignorance or limitations/imperfections” several times (e.g., “No one would reject a relationship with a being of perfect love without some ignorance or imperfection”). “Ignorance” in this context would include lack of knowledge of God’s existence or his exact nature. “Imperfection” or “limitation” was usually intended to refer to our rational faculties. So if a person is rejecting a being of perfect love, I think that person must be lacking information or ability to assess that information, most likely. As David Bentley Hart argues, “no rejection of God on the part of the rational soul is possible apart from some quantum of ignorance and misapprehension and personal damage.”
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Subscribe to Real Atheology: youtube.com/realatheology
Subscribe to Counter Apologist: youtube.com/CounterApologist
Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/RealAtheology twitter.com/CounterApologis twitter.com/waldenpod
My Hell playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgCsHWkb9NYtUnr7hNK_ar8MEJiosUcDm
Ethical Intuitionism amazon.com/Ethical-Intuitionism-M-Huemer/dp/0230573746/ref=sr_1_1?crid=8CEYB73OM4PJ&keywords=ethical+intuitionism+huemer&qid=1663122578&s=books&sprefix=ethical+intuitionism+huemer%2Cstripbooks%2C75&sr=1-1
Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy amazon.com/Knowledge-Reality-Value-Mostly-Philosophy/dp/B091F5QTDS/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3GLGJRYBMDRL5&keywords=knowledge+reality+and+value&qid=1663122524&s=books&sprefix=knowledge+reality+and+value%2Cstripbooks%2C85&sr=1-1
William Lane Craig vs. Erik Wielenberg amazon.com/Debate-Morality-William-Lane-Craig-dp-0367135655/dp/0367135655/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=
Consider supporting at patreon.com/counter or at patreon.com/waldenpod
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
01:03 Objective vs. Subjective
06:40 Five Metaethical Views
37:01 Fictionalism
50:42 Phenomenal Conservatism, Scientism, Skepticism
1:17:05 Moral Disagreement
1:24:48 Theism and Moral Realism
1:40:02 Companions in Innocence
1:44:54 Evolutionary Debunking Arguments
1:57:40 Huemer’s soul is not in Colorado nor is it in Michigan
What is Naturalism? youtu.be/4G-WJCI85oQ
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
"Conservative naturalists are straight physicalists—nothing exists but the physical, and the physical is characterized by all and only the properties of a completed physics (and perhaps chemistry, if chemistry cannot be reduced to physics). By contrast, moderate naturalists differ from conservative naturalists in that they expand their conception of the natural world so as to include abstract objects (e.g., propositions, properties, possible worlds, etc.). Finally, liberal naturalists differ from moderates and conservatives in that they not only admit into their ontology of the natural world the abstracta of the moderates, but they also allow for concreta that have more properties and powers than the conservatives and moderates allow. Examples of liberal naturalism include Spinozism and Russellian monism (also known as panprotopsychism)."
Is God the Best Explanation of Things? Felipe Leon & Joshua Rasmussen (p. 91)
Interview on the Sentientism podcast: youtu.be/e9iuwVIXDZc
The Meager Moral Fruits Argument: youtu.be/q5Kq-73HfWk
@rationalityrules' video on his conflict with the ACA (relevant to 'Double Standard' 4): youtu.be/cX_vOpX6mt4
/ Counter Apologetics /
Support the podcast at patreon.com/counter
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xgyg04BWh0U1tCZ0z
/ Walden Pod /
Support the show 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 Coming Up
01:00 Introduction
01:48 Trent's Introduction (No disagreement!)
03:13 Ancient Historical Documents (Double Standard 1)
05:36 God is evil, nothing is evil (Double Standard 2a)
19:43 Divine Command Theory
25:18 Moral Realism vs. Atheism (Double Standard 2b)
36:35 Bad Christians vs. Bad Atheists (Double Standard 3)
42:17 Ridiculing Christian censorship while excommunicating atheist heretics (Double Standard 4)
47:49 Atheists refuse to criticize Islam (Double Standard 5)
55:39 Outro
Leave a voicemail at (734) 707-1940
(I'm only taking 3-4 calls per episode, so if you've already left one and haven't heard it yet, don't worry)
@waldenpod
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Coming Up
00:40 1st Call
01:45 Does the existence of intelligent theists give you pause?
10:31 2nd Call
16:10 Does atheism deplete moral motivation?
25:56 3rd Call
26:27 Do contingency arguments succeed? What is necessity?