Uploaded April 2023 | Updated September 2026, 4 hours ago
I joined @DryApologist and @johnbuck4008 to speak about the common consent argument, which is typically dismissed as fallacious without much consideration. However, I think the fact that most people in recorded history have believed in something godlike is some evidence favoring the existence of the divine. We discuss why that's the case, as well as the only good response to the argument: the evolutionary debunking response.
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 joined @DryApologist and @johnbuck4008 to speak about the common consent argument, which is typically dismissed as fallacious without much consideration. However, I think the fact that most people in recorded history have believed in something godlike is some evidence favoring the existence of the divine. We discuss why that's the case, as well as the only good response to the argument: the evolutionary debunking response.
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)






![Schopenhauer on Mind & Matter
Arthur Schopenhauer developed a fascinating version of dual-aspect monism, according to which from outside, the world appears as representation, but from inside, it appears as will: ontological monism and epistemological dualism. To Schopenhauer, desire-driven will is what we are from inside, and he goes on to argue that we should think of the underlying reality of all appearance in the same way. You represent my will as a body, but there’s an underlying reality to your representation that’s experiential in character. Schopenhauer thinks the basis of this dual-aspect character of reality pervades the natural world, organic and inorganic. Why? Because this is our only form of insight into—or acquaintance with—anything as a thing in itself.
We also discuss the connection between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, whether Schopenhauer is an idealist or a panpsychist, and explore a couple arguments for panpsychism.
“[O]n the path of objective knowledge, thus starting from the representation, we shall never get beyond the representation...We shall therefore remain at the outside of things; we shall never be able to penetrate into their inner nature, and investigate what they are in themselves…So far, I agree with Kant. But … we ourselves are the thing-in-itself. Consequently, a way from within stands open to us to that real inner nature of things to which we cannot penetrate from without. It is, so to speak, a subterranean passage, a secret alliance, which, as if by treachery, places us all at once in the fortress that could not be taken by attack from without.”
SHOWNOTES, LINKS, & REFERENCES: https://audioboom.com/posts/7758773-33-schopenhauer-on-mind-matter
Transcript https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/23/schopenhauer-on-mind-matter/
Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism
Listen to Counter Apologetics here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417?mt=2
Listen to Walden Pod here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
/ timestamps /
00:00 Schopenhauers personality
02:23 Will and Representation
10:15 Panpsychism and the key to movement
16:46 A subterranean passage
20:27 Different sides of the same mountain Schopenhauer on Mind & Matter](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TG3TRQ94KjE/mqdefault.jpg)



