Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis @MajestyofReason

Majesty of Reason "Without God, all things are permitted." Wrong. Here's why.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

ADDITIONS

Here are some additions bolstering my points pertaining to the standard, WLC-style moral argument.

First, I didn’t get into many specific theories or accounts as to what grounds the rightness or wrongness (or im/permissibility etc.) of certain actions in a way that doesn’t involve God, but there are boatloads of such accounts. These, in turn, can be used to develop non-theistic metaethical accounts of morality. A small sampling:

(1) Utility: an act’s moral properties could be grounded facts about utility — i.e., facts about what would/wouldn’t maximize well-being [understood perhaps in terms of pain/pleasure, or desire dis/satisfaction, or flourishing/languishing, etc.]

(2) Kantian universalizability: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in facts about universalizability [e.g., whether one could, in performing the act, consistently will that everyone does the act]

(3) Kantian ends-in-themselves: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act treats someone as a mere means rather than an end in themself

(4) Contractualism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether principles allowing the act would be justifiable to others in a fair decision situation. Put differently (and with a Scanlonian vibe): an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the norms or rules underpinning one’s behavior could reasonably be objected to if they were to be agreed upon from an informed and unbiased vantage point.

(5) Virtue ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act is one a virtuous person would do (or in whether it expresses a virtuous/vicious disposition)

(6) Care ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act is one a caring person would do

(7) Ideal observer: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether an ideally situated observer would approve of the act

(8) Railton’s naturalism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in objective facts concerning the maximal fulfillment of idealized desires, which are what individuals would want themselves to desire if they had access to all the relevant information

(9) Discourse ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in universalizable presuppositions that underpin discourse between persons (see William Rehg’s work)

(10) Pluralism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in a plethora of the aforementioned potential grounds for morality OR in particular facts about actions on a case-by-case basis (e.g., gross power imbalances, infliction of pain without consent or benefits accrued to the victim, etc.)

(11) Natural law: an act's moral properties could be grounded in whether it contravenes the ends built into one's nature

More generally, as Kevin Scharp rightly notes with respect to non-naturalist, non-theistic moral realist accounts of morality, “There are literally dozens of theories of moral values and moral duties that are objective, not naturalist, and make no appeal to gods. For example, G. E. Moore, Sir William David Ross, Christine Korsgaard, Thomas Scanlon, Derek Parfit, Philippa Foot, David Enoch, Russ Shafer-Landau, Rosalind Hursthouse, John McDowell, Jonathan Dancy, H. A. Prichard, Roger Crisp, Joseph Raz, Jean Hampton, and Rey Wedgwood. That’s just a few.” Scharp’s lesson? “Stop assuming that atheists cannot accept that there are objective moral values. All it demonstrates is that you know nothing about ethics.”

Second, some links:

(1) Moral argument playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaUcAQpHXN9ZNF2RxZLe7U_

(2) Phil Disquisitions, "Craig on Morality and Meaning": philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2013/02/wl-craig-on-morality-and-meaning-series.html

(3) I elaborate on one of Morriston's criticisms of WLC's moral argument here: docs.google.com/document/d/1qwpqf2wZkwtZsyGI80uJMtZrY-4Am-XWKLUMYIGkElI/edit?usp=sharing

(4) 100+ Argument Resource Document: docs.google.com/document/d/1qWHRyegTNlBXC9Bupxl2ZSmEUTeXvi0KEeg0W0VW288/edit?usp=sharing

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
3:15 Generic Argument
20:21 Abductive Argument
23:47 The Normative Implications of Evil
25:36 Evil as Privation of Good
29:25 Horrendous Evils
33:08 Universal Moral Beliefs
35:42 Sidgwick and Kant
40:04 A Kantian Argument from Adams
45:13 Oderberg on Cosmic Justice
49:02 Layman’s Moral Argument
53:15 Need for Divine Aid in Being Moral
1:00:00 The Moral Gap
1:04:11 Duty to Promote the Highest Good
1:07:40 Objective Obligations and Duties
1:12:53 Argument from Conscience
1:16:22 The Intrinsic Harmfulness of Wrongdoing
1:17:53 Moral Knowledge
1:25:02 Apprehension of Objective Norms
1:25:58 Altruism: Schloss
1:28:20 Altruism: Pruss

updated 2 years ago

Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis

Majesty of Reason 2022-09-24 | "Without God, all things are permitted." Wrong. Here's why.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

ADDITIONS

Here are some additions bolstering my points pertaining to the standard, WLC-style moral argument.

First, I didn’t get into many specific theories or accounts as to what grounds the rightness or wrongness (or im/permissibility etc.) of certain actions in a way that doesn’t involve God, but there are boatloads of such accounts. These, in turn, can be used to develop non-theistic metaethical accounts of morality. A small sampling:

(1) Utility: an act’s moral properties could be grounded facts about utility — i.e., facts about what would/wouldn’t maximize well-being [understood perhaps in terms of pain/pleasure, or desire dis/satisfaction, or flourishing/languishing, etc.]

(2) Kantian universalizability: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in facts about universalizability [e.g., whether one could, in performing the act, consistently will that everyone does the act]

(3) Kantian ends-in-themselves: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act treats someone as a mere means rather than an end in themself

(4) Contractualism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether principles allowing the act would be justifiable to others in a fair decision situation. Put differently (and with a Scanlonian vibe): an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the norms or rules underpinning one’s behavior could reasonably be objected to if they were to be agreed upon from an informed and unbiased vantage point.

(5) Virtue ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act is one a virtuous person would do (or in whether it expresses a virtuous/vicious disposition)

(6) Care ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether the act is one a caring person would do

(7) Ideal observer: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in whether an ideally situated observer would approve of the act

(8) Railton’s naturalism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in objective facts concerning the maximal fulfillment of idealized desires, which are what individuals would want themselves to desire if they had access to all the relevant information

(9) Discourse ethics: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in universalizable presuppositions that underpin discourse between persons (see William Rehg’s work)

(10) Pluralism: an act’s moral properties could be grounded in a plethora of the aforementioned potential grounds for morality OR in particular facts about actions on a case-by-case basis (e.g., gross power imbalances, infliction of pain without consent or benefits accrued to the victim, etc.)

(11) Natural law: an act's moral properties could be grounded in whether it contravenes the ends built into one's nature

More generally, as Kevin Scharp rightly notes with respect to non-naturalist, non-theistic moral realist accounts of morality, “There are literally dozens of theories of moral values and moral duties that are objective, not naturalist, and make no appeal to gods. For example, G. E. Moore, Sir William David Ross, Christine Korsgaard, Thomas Scanlon, Derek Parfit, Philippa Foot, David Enoch, Russ Shafer-Landau, Rosalind Hursthouse, John McDowell, Jonathan Dancy, H. A. Prichard, Roger Crisp, Joseph Raz, Jean Hampton, and Rey Wedgwood. That’s just a few.” Scharp’s lesson? “Stop assuming that atheists cannot accept that there are objective moral values. All it demonstrates is that you know nothing about ethics.”

Second, some links:

(1) Moral argument playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaUcAQpHXN9ZNF2RxZLe7U_

(2) Phil Disquisitions, "Craig on Morality and Meaning": philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2013/02/wl-craig-on-morality-and-meaning-series.html

(3) I elaborate on one of Morriston's criticisms of WLC's moral argument here: docs.google.com/document/d/1qwpqf2wZkwtZsyGI80uJMtZrY-4Am-XWKLUMYIGkElI/edit?usp=sharing

(4) 100+ Argument Resource Document: docs.google.com/document/d/1qWHRyegTNlBXC9Bupxl2ZSmEUTeXvi0KEeg0W0VW288/edit?usp=sharing

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
3:15 Generic Argument
20:21 Abductive Argument
23:47 The Normative Implications of Evil
25:36 Evil as Privation of Good
29:25 Horrendous Evils
33:08 Universal Moral Beliefs
35:42 Sidgwick and Kant
40:04 A Kantian Argument from Adams
45:13 Oderberg on Cosmic Justice
49:02 Layman’s Moral Argument
53:15 Need for Divine Aid in Being Moral
1:00:00 The Moral Gap
1:04:11 Duty to Promote the Highest Good
1:07:40 Objective Obligations and Duties
1:12:53 Argument from Conscience
1:16:22 The Intrinsic Harmfulness of Wrongdoing
1:17:53 Moral Knowledge
1:25:02 Apprehension of Objective Norms
1:25:58 Altruism: Schloss
1:28:20 Altruism: Pruss

How William Lane Craig misrepresents science

Majesty of Reason 2024-10-01 | I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford and Phil Halper to explain what Craig gets wrong about science's bearing on the beginning of the universe. Specifically, we respond to a recent video by @ReasonableFaithOrg.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
2:22 Craig’s video
9:22 Material causality
18:14 Beginning to exist
20:05 Big Bang and cosmological models
33:18 No particular model is probable?
36:26 Past finitude doesn’t imply beginning
51:57 Quantum gravity
55:51 Window shade analogy
1:00:10 BGV Theorem
1:17:13 Vilenkin’s paper
1:26:00 Sean Carroll and Guth
1:38:12 The fixed Kalam
1:41:20 Abstract object counterexamples?
1:51:45 Second law of thermodynamics
1:55:10 The universe as a counterexample?
1:57:56 Document! Don’t just assert!
2:06:45 Conclusion

NOTE

At 1:15:05, I wanted to summarize the problems with Craig’s use of the BGV theorem. I didn’t provide the most helpful summary in the video, so here’s a summary:

(1) At best, the BGV theorem shows that a spacetime region which has been expanding on average throughout its history could not have been expanding forever. Such an expanding region must have begun its expansion at some finitely distant point in the past. This does *not* imply that all of spacetime *itself* has a beginning because all of spacetime may not have been expanding on average throughout its history. In such a case, the BGV Theorem would be inapplicable to the whole of spacetime itself. In fact, as pointed out in the video, both Guth and Vilenkin explicitly say that the BGV theorem only shows that the *inflation* of the universe has a beginning, it doesn’t show that the *universe as a whole* or *spacetime as a whole* has a beginning.

(2) Recent literature purports to give grounds to doubt the BGV theorem. Whether or not this recent literature is correct, it reveals that this is not a settled issue. Instead, it is an active area of research and debate. Relevant papers here include Lesnefsky et al (2023) journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.044024, Geshnizjani et al (2023) link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP10(2023)182, Nomura (2012) arxiv.org/abs/1205.5550, and Aguirre (2007) arxiv.org/abs/0712.0571.

(3) The BGV theorem is only a theorem about classical spacetimes. But we probably don’t live in a classical spacetime. We have good reasons internal to the standard model and general relativity for thinking that these theories will be surpassed by a new theory able to incorporate both. So our current understanding of spacetime will be replaced by something else. So the BGV theorem does not apply to the spacetime we live in.

(4) Even if we do live in a classical spacetime, the Malamant-Manchak theorems show that, in all likelihood, we couldn’t ever know enough about the global structure of spacetime to know that *all* of spacetime had a beginning.

(5) Even if the BGV theorem shows that the past is finite — and, as explained above, it does not — we cannot infer that the universe (i.e., the totality of all physical reality) began to exist, for the reasons given in the section of the video entitled “Past finitude does not entail beginning to exist”.

RESOURCES

(1) The video to which we're responding (@ReasonableFaithOrg): youtu.be/-Aq9rET8_BE?si=9a3Q5cxkkxjdlIYg

(2) Dan's dissertation, “Cosmic Skepticism and the Beginning of Physical Reality”: philarchive.org/archive/DAN_SA-15

(3) Saatsi, “Non-causal explanations in physics”: philarchive.org/archive/SAANEI

(4) “No, science doesn’t show the universe began to exist”: youtu.be/35tICdYtHsQ?si=oQ-LfJuWjSo6mWYb

(5) Phil’s book, “Battle of the Big Bang”: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo244963115.html

(6) @PhilHalper1's Kalam video: youtu.be/pGKe6YzHiME?si=XvhKyGYeEwecvAX4

(7) Phil's video responding to Craig's responses: youtu.be/femxJFszbo8?si=TV2fEGjS91K7HB65

(8) My Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(9) Linford, “A modal condition for the beginning of the universe”: philarchive.org/rec/LINAMC-2

(10) Linford, “Neo-Lorentzian Relativity and the Beginning of the Universe”: philarchive.org/rec/LINNRA-3

(11) Linford, "Big Bounce or Double Bang? A Reply to Craig and Sinclair": http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17188/1/FORTHCOMING_Big_Bang_or_Double_Bounce_Erk_Sub.pdf

(12) Linford, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Meets the Mentaculus”: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16833/1/Online_Final_BJPS_Kalam_Mentaculus_Submission.pdf

(13) Halper, "The Kalam cosmological argument: Critiquing a recent defence": philarchive.org/rec/HALTKC

(14) My Springer book with Dan: link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

(15) My website: josephschmid.com

The new REBUTTED case for Gods existence

Majesty of Reason 2024-09-15 | Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent) recently explained the new case for God's existence. In this video, I rebut his new case for God's existence.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:04 Trent’s preliminaries
3:49 Argument from change
27:14 Kalam
29:27 Scientific case
30:59 Hilbert’s Hotel
1:08:09 Benardete paradoxes
1:24:40 Modal contingency argument
1:49:42 Fine-tuning argument
2:00:29 Argument from miracles
2:18:45 Moral argument
2:33:18 Conclusion
2:34:16 A story
2:41:38 Bonus soccer

LINKS

(1) Want the script? Become a patron :)

(2) Trent's video: youtube.com/watch?v=22qUGVZXlGg&pp=ygUKdHJlbnQgaG9ybg%3D%3D

(3) Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(4) Argument from Change playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka2JpwLJaSaXdDZlBYkd9Cn

(5) Response Videos playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaNtpoOwEZm9fuJq423BUrW

(6) Moral Arguments playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaUcAQpHXN9ZNF2RxZLe7U_

(7) Contingency Argument playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZkl5I5QDUXW5CauOfO_bs1

(8) Classical Theism playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka0E9laGDA83gN2UbQoa4F2

(9) Design Arguments playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkax5OrwZmkqE1fY446O4i6g

(10) My Free Will playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka4SMFOH-KH-hdJoTz6fG5F

(11) My Common Mistakes playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK

(12) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

If God exists, is everything permitted? | Dr. Justin Mooney & Dr. Luis Oliveira

Majesty of Reason 2024-09-07 | Today I’m joined by Justin Mooney and Luis Oliveira to discuss a new aspects of the problem of evil.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:45 Summary of the paper
28:40 Symmetry argument
34:33 Necessary evil theodicies
56:32 Necessary permission theodicies
1:12:03 Divine right theodicies
1:26:28 Final thoughts
1:34:00 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Justin's website with all his papers: justinmooney.net

(2) Luis' PhilPeople profile with all his papers: philpeople.org/profiles/luis-r-g-oliveira

(3) Luis' article "God and gratuitous evil: between the rock and the hard place": philpapers.org/archive/OLIGAG.pdf

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Against single-issue pro-life voting

Majesty of Reason 2024-08-24 | If the pro-life view is correct, should we prioritize abortion over every other issue in politics and voting? Dustin Crummett argues that the answer is no.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
0:50 Overview
3:30 Body Count Reasoning
8:04 Four notes
13:18 Embryo Rescue Case
19:17 Objection: death vs. unjust killing
20:57 Objection: committing unjust killing
23:25 Objection: cooperating with evil
29:22 Objection: timing of abortion
31:59 Objection: non-inferential beliefs
38:20 Crummett himself
52:02 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Crummett (2023), "Is abortion the only issue?", https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/ergo/article/id/2270/

(2) McNabb and DeVito's response paper, "Basic Beliefs, the Embryo Rescue Case, and Single-Issue Voting", pdcnet.org/ncbq/content/ncbq_2021_0021_0002_0203_0208?file_type=pdf

(3) Debate between @TheCounselofTrent and @dustin.crummett: youtu.be/RKfa4vAAaPI?si=uaDtEoQXZ-6-_jgR

(4) Crummett's interview on @going_awoll: youtu.be/7m0fSYIWn8g?si=U04p-u-Hc4dzzB8c

(5) My Applied Ethics playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaYPueOwJRE0CPj6xyIWfxb

(6) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Van Inwagen RESPONDS to William Lane Craig #Kalam #God #Infinity

Majesty of Reason 2024-08-12 | The Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't work.

For more on why the Kalam fails, see my Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

For a specific video on this argument, see (especially Response #1 in) youtube.com/watch?v=wt-rEeUIcR4

This clip is taken from @HarrisonDean: youtu.be/H0GG_HhaiAI?si=mNXLCP6ugnc5eUsw

My website: josephschmid.com

Grim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles | Ft. @Friction

Majesty of Reason 2024-08-09 | The Grim Reaper Paradox does not support the Kalam cosmological argument. In this video, Troy and I explain why.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro & Outline
1:44 Benardete Paradoxes
6:43 Connection to the Kalam
8:31 Finitist B-Arguments
10:20 Grim Reaper Argument
21:40 Our first objection
22:41 A finite Benardete-like paradox
24:24 Our first premise
27:45 Our second premise
34:49 Our second objection
43:14 Diagnosis
45:48 Conclusion

LINKS

(1) Troy's channel: youtube.com/@Friction

(2) Troy's other links: https://link.space/@Friction

(3) The paper discussed in the video is “Grim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles: Severing the Case for Finitism”, Journal of Philosophy (Forthcoming): philarchive.org/rec/SCHGRP-4

(4) My Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(5) Blog post, "Responses to the Grim Reaper Kalam", majestyofreason.wordpress.com/2024/05/28/responses-to-the-grim-reaper-kalam

(6) Other papers of mine mentioned in the video:

(6.1) “Branching Actualism and Cosmological Arguments”, Philosophical Studies (2023, with Alex Malpass): philpapers.org/rec/SCHBAA-22

(6.2) “Benardete paradoxes, patchwork principles, and the infinite past”, Synthese (2024): philpapers.org/rec/SCHBPP-3

(6.3) “The End is Near: Grim Reapers and Endless Futures”, Mind (Forthcoming): philpapers.org/rec/SCHTEI-19

(6.4) "Benardete Paradoxes, Causal Finitism, and the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis", Mind (Forthcoming, with Alex Malpass): philarchive.org/rec/SCHBPC

(7) My Springer book with Dr. Dan Linford: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

(8) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Arguments for and against Molinism | Dr. Daniel Rubio

Majesty of Reason 2024-07-26 | Molinism is a popular view of divine providence, but it has serious problems. I'm joined by Daniel Rubio to explore these problems and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:50 Key definitions
19:30 Molina’s argument
23:34 Theological utility
35:00 Mooney’s argument
37:37 Hasker’s ‘might’ argument
44:42 Objective probability argument
48:30 Grounding objection
58:42 TSB argument
1:03:55 Bruteness argument
1:08:15 Explanatory priority argument
1:14:28 Swenson’s dilemma
1:24:00 Explaining freedom away
1:31:50 God’s unlucky day
1:33:37 Voodoo Argument
1:41:07 Kryptonite argument
1:45:45 Providential collapse argument
1:54:54 Tier List
1:56:59 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Dr. Rubio’s website: danielkfrubio.com

(2) Climenhaga & Rubio, “Molinism: Explaining Our Freedom Away”: philpapers.org/archive/CLIMEO.pdf

(3) Rubio, “Still Another Anti-Molinist Argument”: ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/84353

(4) Law, “If Molinism is true, what can you do?”: philpapers.org/archive/LAWIMI.pdf

(5) Rasmussen, “On creating worlds without evil given divine counterfactual knowledge”: philpapers.org/rec/RASOCW

(6) Rusavuk, “Molinism’s Kryptonite: Counterfactuals and circumstantial luck”: philpapers.org/archive/RUSMKC.pdf

(7) Zimmerman, “Yet another anti-molinist argument”: https://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/Anti.Molinist.arg.proofs.pdf

(8) Mooney’s argument for molinism (by @TheAnalyticChristian): youtube.com/watch?v=fzv37U2alAo

(9) Swenson’s argument against molinism (by @TheAnalyticChristian): youtube.com/watch?v=HE0fxXY3hjE

(10) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

A problem for effective altruism? | Dr. Travis Timmerman

Majesty of Reason 2024-07-12 | Effective altruism faces a serious dilemma. How might the effective altruist solve it? I'm joined by Dr. Travis Timmerman to explore this question as well as the actualism/possibilism debate in ethics.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:18 Effective altruism
9:22 Actualism and possibilism
18:20 Not Demanding Enough Objection
22:11 Bad Behavior Objection
25:25 Non-Ratifiability Problem
29:03 Worst Outcome Objection
34:34 Asymmetry Objection
38:58 Hybridism
51:40 Dilemma for effective altruism
1:08:21 A hybridist solution?
1:15:15 Other practical implications

RESOURCES

(1) Dr. Timmerman's website: travistimmerman.com

(2) "Effective Altruism's Underspecification Problem": philpapers.org/rec/TIMEAU

(3) Dr. Timmerman's co-authored SEP entry on actualism and possibilism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actualism-possibilism-ethics/

(4) "Sweatshops and Free Action: The Stakes of the Actualism/Possibilism Debate for Business Ethics": philpapers.org/rec/TIMSAF

(5) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

The Modal Ontological Argument: An Analysis

Majesty of Reason 2024-06-28 | Here's your comprehensive guide to the modal ontological argument for God's existence!

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro & Outline
2:06 General structure of MOA
12:55 Representative argument
15:16 Simpler variant
16:17 Criticisms
26:43 Symmetry Breakers
32:59 Presumption of possibility
40:45 Conceivability
45:07 Deontic
56:12 Ontomystical
1:06:33 Motivational centrality
1:11:05 Godelian
1:27:25 Maximal God
1:33:07 Modal continuity
1:44:23 Desire
1:54:08 Open-mindedness
1:59:30 Explicability
2:06:39 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) My co-authored SEP entry with Oppy and Rasmussen: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

(2) The paper on PhilPapers: philpapers.org/rec/SCHSBF-2

(3) Ontological Arguments playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Causal finitism is NOT the best solution to infinity paradoxes

Majesty of Reason 2024-06-14 | How should we solve paradoxes of infinity like the Grim Reaper Paradox? One candidate solution is causal finitism. In this video, Alex Malpass and I argue that there’s a better solution: the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis (UPD).

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:45 Summary of the paper
3:08 Grim Reaper paradox
8:07 The Kalam
9:52 Causal finitism
12:55 The UPD
23:16 Problems with causal finitist solution
44:30 Mysterious force objection
56:47 Patchwork objection
1:13:20 Finite Benardete-like paradoxes
1:15:35 Final notes

LINKS

(1) The original video from @PhilHalper1: youtu.be/vgLzMkxhEiQ?si=cIM4SZzykNmoOvod

(2) The paper discussed in the video is “Benardete Paradoxes, Causal Finitism, and the Unsatisfiable Pair Diagnosis”, Mind (Forthcoming, with Alex Malpass): philarchive.org/rec/SCHBPC

(3) My Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(4) Here are four other papers of mine mentioned in the video:

(4.1) “Branching Actualism and Cosmological Arguments”, Philosophical Studies (2023, with Alex Malpass): philpapers.org/rec/SCHBAA-22

(4.2) “Benardete paradoxes, patchwork principles, and the infinite past”, Synthese (2024): philpapers.org/rec/SCHBPP-3

(4.3) “The End is Near: Grim Reapers and Endless Futures”, Mind (Forthcoming): philpapers.org/rec/SCHTEI-19

(4.4) “Grim Reaper Paradoxes and Patchwork Principles: Severing the Case for Finitism”, Journal of Philosophy (Forthcoming, with Troy Dana): philarchive.org/rec/SCHGRP-4

(5) My Springer book with Dr. Dan Linford: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

(6) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Divine Foreknowledge vs. Human Freedom in Five Minutes

Majesty of Reason 2024-06-01 | Is divine foreknowledge compatible with human freedom? Let's see if we can answer this in five minutes.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

LINKS

(1) The video from which this is clipped: youtu.be/938qqjwCYC0

(2) My Free Will playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka4SMFOH-KH-hdJoTz6fG5F

(3) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Are we moral monsters? | Peter Singer on Charitable Giving

Majesty of Reason 2024-05-19 | Peter Singer argues that you are morally obliged to donate to charity even at considerable personal cost. Is he right?

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

RESOURCES

(1) Peter Singer's famous paper "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", originally published in 1972: personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/mm/articles/Singer_1972Famine.pdf

(2) Applied Ethics: An Impartial Introduction: amazon.com/Applied-Ethics-Introduction-Elizabeth-Jackson/dp/1647920116

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

(4) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Pascals Wager | Dr. Al Hájek and Dr. Liz Jackson

Majesty of Reason 2024-05-04 | Should you wager on God? Let's find out.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro and outline
2:48 Key background
15:52 The wager
23:36 Many gods objection
32:16 Mixed strategies objection
39:00 Al’s dilemma
51:21 Pascal’s mugging
1:01:02 Is wagering even possible?
1:10:34 Is wagering impious?
1:14:25 St. Petersburg Paradox
1:30:17 Closing remarks

LINKS

(1) The paper Liz and Al co-authored on Pascal's wager: philpapers.org/archive/HAJPEA.pdf

(2) Liz's YouTube channel (@lizjackson111) and website: liz-jackson.com

(3) Al's PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/alan-hajek

(4) Some of Liz's papers on Pascal's wager: (i) philpapers.org/rec/JACFTP-2 (ii) philpapers.org/rec/JACAPD-9 (iii) philpapers.org/rec/JACSPW

(5) Some of Al's papers on Pascal's wager: (i) philpapers.org/rec/HJEWWO (ii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

(6) An earlier video I made with Liz on Pascal's Wager: youtube.com/watch?v=9qTC7OZB_1A

(7) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

(8) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Why atheists can blame Trent Horn for his bad arguments

Majesty of Reason 2024-04-20 | Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent) recently argued that atheists cannot blame Christians for anything. In this video, I explain why he's wrong.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:00 Definitions
1:48 Trent’s video
4:24 Are atheists blaming Craig?
6:05 ‘Should’ implies alternative possibilities?
8:14 Power to change the future
8:50 Linguistic incaution
10:39 Sapolsky
11:49 Trent’s core argument
16:11 What’s the difference???
20:12 Leeway freedom
24:22 Atheism and reductive physicalism
25:51 Humans vs. animals
28:24 Libertarianism and laws of nature
32:55 Does theism preclude moral responsibility?
38:56 Luck objection
42:43 Punishment and moral responsibility
47:07 Old Testament God = North Korea
48:53 Clarifying compatibilism
51:54 Trent contra compatibilism
54:19 Trent’s second argument
57:21 Frankfurt cases
1:04:20 Flickers of freedom
1:11:02 Resources and conclusion

CORRECTIONS

(1) In the section entitled "Should’ implies alternative possibilities?", I contest the idea that 'S should φ' implies 'S could do something alternative to φ-ing'. I think my counterexamples to that idea are correct, but I don't think they actually address Trent's claim in the preceding clip. In particular, Trent's claim was instead that 'S should φ' implies 'S could φ'. Importantly, though, many of my examples can be modified to motivate denying this claim too. For instance, just imagine the boulder-trapping-arm case to be one in which you're compelled *not* to hack off your arm by your psychology (maybe you're very queasy). Still, it seems like you *should* hack off your arm!

LINKS

(1) My Response Videos playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaNtpoOwEZm9fuJq423BUrW

(2) My Free Will playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka4SMFOH-KH-hdJoTz6fG5F

(3) My Common Mistakes playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK

(4) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4

(5) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

How to excel at philosophy

Majesty of Reason 2024-04-15 | What is philosophy? Why is it valuable? And how do we do it well? Here I talk about these topics and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
0:56 The nature of philosophy
11:43 The value of philosophy
14:30 Is reason beautiful?
19:07 Intellectual virtues
25:34 How to communicate and engage philosophically
33:45 Pervasive mistakes
36:55 Mind changes
40:11 Personal factors
46:31 Recommendations

LINKS

(1) Original video with @NaHoa: youtu.be/3TPIgKRvc7o?si=eNRYtjUqjDFZozwO

(2) Doing Philosophy playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkbOGcxCZPjybRASmKynBfGN

(3) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4

(4) How to Analyze Arguments like a Philosopher: youtube.com/watch?v=uD5_2p-vUjs&pp=ygUqaG93IHRvIGFuYWx5emUgYXJndW1lbnRzIGxpa2UgYSBwaGlsb3NvcGh5

(5) Common Mistakes series: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK

(6) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

God is dead | April Fools

Majesty of Reason 2024-04-01 | Today I prove atheism using ontological nihilism. Btw, God doesn't exist.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
0:27 The proof
1:08 Ontological nihilism
3:29 Ad
4:24 Proof of ontological nihilism
6:10 Non-fundamental nihilism
9:16 Anti-foundationalism
13:19 Appearances?
15:45 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Westerhoff, Jan. 2024. "An Argument for Ontological Nihilism". Inquiry, available here: drive.google.com/file/d/1bAsqb8F599XsAR9CyUnNNIOVbGL2oFOH/view?usp=sharing

(2) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Answering HUNDREDS of your questions!

Majesty of Reason 2024-03-24 | The one million views AMA answers are HERE!

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

ARBITRARY OUTLINE (SEE DESCRIPTION FOR QUESTIONS)

0:00 Black shirt
1:19:51 Dark blue shirt
2:14:17 Grey-ish shirt
3:44:49 Light blue shirt

LINKS

The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4

My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2 (c) majestyofreason.wordpress.com/2022/12/05/details-and-errata-for-existential-inertia-and-classical-theistic-proofs

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Avoid these 15 mistakes about Free Will, Christianity, and Consciousness

Majesty of Reason 2024-02-28 | In this final part of the common mistakes series, we cover mistakes about free will, Christianity, and consciousness.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

00:00 Intro
1:03 Mistake 163
20:10 Mistake 164
21:36 Mistake 165
22:29 Mistake 166
23:40 Mistake 167
25:17 Mistake 168
40:56 Mistake 169
44:19 Mistake 170
46:13 Mistake 171
47:21 Mistake 172
47:49 Mistake 173
49:02 Mistake 174
52:56 Mistake 175
54:09 Mistake 176
59:22 Mistake 177
1:09:02 Mistake 178 (Bonus)

CORRECTION

25:28 I should have explicitly and clearly specified that a large portion of the section on OT atrocities — Mistake 168 — was not just drawn from Josh Parikh’s talk but *directly* drawn from Parikh’s talk, ie, quoted therefrom. Apologies for not clarifying this at the outset. I've now updated the document containing Mistake 168 to reflect this clarification. You can see the updated document here: docs.google.com/document/d/15_GnNWL8lZJUU-640OoKwNP3BSocQJDfWD38OYJF9Y0/edit?usp=sharing

You can also find Parikh’s talk here: youtu.be/b3Ey8-ypa_A?si=38oYSElHN1JnjUso

RESOURCES

(1) Resource Document for Part 7: docs.google.com/document/d/1yB118TjWVxTVk09LB95sd_IcvNAAHTZueWnHRYlsJXQ/edit?usp=sharing

(2) Common Mistakes Series playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Apples dont exist

Majesty of Reason 2024-02-17 | Here I cover the explanatory exclusion argument for mereological nihilism, which the view that composite objects don't exist.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Mereological nihilism
4:16 Explanatory Exclusion Argument
9:40 Moorean objection
11:58 Other arguments and resources

LINKS

(1) My discussion with Dr. Olson: youtube.com/watch?v=qoO9VpgzPIg

(2) My video on whether birds exist: youtube.com/watch?v=LgMY3-67uwk

(3) @KaneB's video on ordinary objects: youtube.com/watch?v=07PZ1a-gZxw

(4) Relevant SEP entries: (i) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ordinary-objects/ (ii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/material-constitution/ (iii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ (iv) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/

(5) Dr. Crummett's popular case for mereological nihilism: capturingchristianity.com/two-more-arguments-for-substance-dualism

(6) Portions of this video are drawn from Schaffer's "From Nihilism to Monism", AJP (2007): http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/nihilism.pdf

(7) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

LEVEL UP by avoiding these mistakes about God

Majesty of Reason 2024-02-05 | Level up your philosophy of religion game by avoiding these common mistakes about models of God, divine simplicity, Thomism, and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:12 Mistake 142
2:42 Mistake 143
4:06 Mistake 144
9:08 Mistake 145
10:12 Mistake 146
12:08 Mistake 147
15:30 Mistake 148
17:09 Mistake 149
25:39 Mistake 150
25:59 Mistake 151
32:54 Mistake 152
39:02 Mistake 153
40:28 Mistake 154
41:27 Mistake 155
41:58 Mistake 156
42:43 Mistake 157
43:05 Mistake 158
44:07 Mistake 159
45:35 Mistake 160
51:21 Mistake 161
52:36 Mistake 162
59:09 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Resource Document for Part 6: docs.google.com/document/d/1V4FkN4yqSf0zrVZBs2QpMd6_157PohjzgeWSmWarCl4/edit?usp=sharing

(2) Common Mistakes Series playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Grim Reapers and Endless Futures: A Problem for the Kalam

Majesty of Reason 2024-01-23 | The Grim Reaper Paradox has been used to support the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Here I mount a grim challenge to this sort of reasoning: implying the impossibility of an endless future.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
2:55 The paper
8:18 The unsatisfiable pair
14:35 B-arguments
17:34 A grim dilemma
20:55 A future-oriented paradox
31:44 First line: Patchwork principles
41:33 Second line: Mysterious forces
50:37 Summary
51:58 Conclusion

CORRECTIONS

At 8:02, I accidentally cut out the last two words of my sentence. I should have said "...equally motivate this new linking premise."

RESOURCES

(1) Free access link to the official article: academic.oup.com/mind/advance-article/doi/10.1093/mind/fzad065/7492631?utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=mind&utm_medium=email&guestAccessKey=79959771-76b4-4604-a90a-419f5de3ab39

(2) If the link in (1) doesn't work, you can read a pre-print here: philpapers.org/rec/SCHTEI-19

(3) Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(4) My forthcoming Synthese paper, "Benardete paradoxes, patchwork principles, and the infinite past": philpapers.org/rec/SCHBPP-3

(5) My 2023 Phil Studies paper with Alex Malpass, "Branching actualism and cosmological arguments": philpapers.org/rec/SCHBAA-22

(6) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Does Free Will Exist? | Sapolsky vs. Huemer Debate Review

Majesty of Reason 2024-01-08 | I’m joined by Dr. Taylor Cyr to review the recent debate between Dr. Robert Sapolsky and Dr. Michael Huemer on free will.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro & Outline
2:15 Key terms
13:12 Sapolsky’s opening
47:43 Huemer’s opening
1:50:20 Conclusion

LINKS

(1) Original debate on @PercyPrior1: youtu.be/FjAYvhv1-Lg?si=5Fs3NRhXhPHA45E9

(2) Taylor's website: taylorwcyr.com

(3) The Free Will Show (@thefreewillshow2132): thefreewillshow.com

(4) Fischer's review of Sapolsky's book: https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determined-a-science-of-life-without-free-will/

(5) My Free Will playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka4SMFOH-KH-hdJoTz6fG5F

(6) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

These mistakes are RUINING your philosophy of religion gains

Majesty of Reason 2023-12-27 | Build your mental muscle by avoiding these mistakes about the problem of evil and divine hiddenness.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
0:49 Mistake 126
8:57 Mistake 127
19:05 Mistake 128
21:51 Mistake 129
24:28 Mistake 130
25:08 Mistake 131
26:39 Mistake 132
30:03 Mistake 133
34:33 Mistake 134
36:28 Mistake 135
38:45 Mistake 136
39:34 Mistake 137
44:14 Mistake 138
48:05 Divine Hiddenness
55:18 Mistake 139
1:09:35 Mistake 140
1:12:01 Mistake 141
1:15:41 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Resource Document for Part 5: docs.google.com/document/d/1yxhbQRLtYzX-j-ZtWJi1Vyag49J4noPPkYvQGq6Odpg/edit?usp=sharing

(2) Common Mistakes Series playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Common Mistakes about the Moral Argument, Fine-Tuning, and Ontological Arguments

Majesty of Reason 2023-12-15 | In this fourth installment of my common mistakes series, I cover mistakes relating to the moral argument, fine-tuning argument, and ontological arguments.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
0:37 Mistake 105
2:46 Mistake 106
5:33 Mistake 107
15:18 Mistake 108
22:33 Mistake 109
39:54 Mistake 110
51:49 Mistake 111
53:04 Mistake 112
55:52 Mistake 113
58:09 Mistake 114
59:26 Mistake 115
1:02:15 Mistake 116
1:07:49 Mistake 117
1:09:24 Mistake 118
1:11:48 Mistake 119
1:16:03 Mistake 120
1:21:18 Mistake 121
1:31:10 Mistake 122
1:37:30 Mistake 123
1:43:21 Mistake 124
1:44:07 Mistake 125
1:45:29 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Resource Document for Part 4: docs.google.com/document/d/1Voy-_z92sFBBrVGFo2Hb2qjV1khVcthVxLS6jAKZCsA/edit?usp=sharing

(2) Document with resources criticizing WLC-style moral arguments: docs.google.com/document/d/1xjweiT6HE9kNVsWJeqVxpGekrWpnddnXiZryKSAZcJI/edit?usp=sharing

(3) Common Mistakes Series playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

The best philosophy paper ever published

Majesty of Reason 2023-12-02 | Let's read the greatest philosophy article every published.

Reference:

Goldschmidt, Tyron. 2016. "A Demonstration of the Causal Power of Absences". Dialectica 70(1): 85. Available at philarchive.org/archive/GOLADO-4

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

LINKS

(1) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

(2) Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

(3) Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

(4) My website: josephschmid.com

(5) My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

32 CAREER-ENDING mistakes about the Kalam and contingency arguments

Majesty of Reason 2023-11-21 | In this third installment of my common mistakes series, I cover mistakes relating to the Kalam cosmological argument and contingency arguments.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:12 Mistake #73
16:39 Mistake #74
20:00 Mistake #75
20:49 Mistake #76
45:12 Mistake #77
46:35 Mistake #78
48:32 Mistake #79
51:16 Mistake #80
53:15 Mistake #81
54:49 Mistake #82
1:00:51 Mistake #83
1:03:19 Mistake #84
1:04:56 Mistake #85
1:06:56 Mistake #86
1:07:09 Mistake #87
1:10:18 Mistake #88
1:17:23 Mistake #89
1:18:02 Mistake #90
1:18:56 Mistake #91
1:20:37 Mistake #92
1:22:25 Mistake #93
1:23:25 Mistake #94
1:25:17 Mistake #95
1:26:49 Mistake #96
1:34:14 Mistake #97
1:37:04 Mistake #98
1:38:21 Mistake #99
1:46:30 Mistake #100
1:48:37 Mistake #101
1:49:33 Mistake #102
1:52:16 Mistake #103
1:56:12 Mistake #104
1:56:46 Conclusion

CORRECTIONS

54:37 I should have written and said “Nothing in science shows that *none* of (a)-(d) hold.”

RESOURCES

(1) Resource Document for Part 3: docs.google.com/document/d/1awjudXbCE0SlyWV_UuESTqctJPS2UmDdPZYW_WCUVBM/edit?usp=sharing

(2) Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(3) Contingency argument playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZkl5I5QDUXW5CauOfO_bs1

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Majesty of Reason 2023-11-10 | Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But is he right?

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

RESOURCES

(1) Original video: youtu.be/ThHsjYx-oEs

(2) Resource Document from that video: docs.google.com/document/d/1Sh_xOyu0gVh0GdEAD7s2XGUiAFUARmpqyH-JZ_ofLOo/edit?usp=sharing

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Fine-Tuning, Cosmic Purpose, and Psychophysical Harmony | Dr. Philip Goff

Majesty of Reason 2023-10-31 | Is there purpose behind the universe? Philip Goff joins me to explain why he thinks the answer is yes. We cover fine-tuning, psychophysical harmony, and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:22 About the book
3:54 Fine-tuning
15:01 Epistemically illuminated region
24:23 Multiverse & Inverse gambler’s fallacy
55:27 Electrons in love
1:01:00 Too low intrinsic probability
1:07:08 Psychophysical harmony
1:20:23 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Dr. Goff's book "Why? The Purpose of the Universe": (a) amazon.co.uk/Why-Purpose-Universe-Philip-Goff/dp/0198883765 (b) global.oup.com/academic/product/why-the-purpose-of-the-universe-9780198883760

(2) Dr. Goff's Halloween Special episode on his book: youtube.com/live/tf3hp3G4OA8

(3) Dr. Goff's website: philipgoffphilosophy.com

(4) The Draper paper from the video: philarchive.org/archive/DRAPAF

(5) Dr. Goff's podcast / youtube channel @MindChat: youtube.com/@MindChat

(6) Dr. Goff's twitter: twitter.com/Philip_Goff

(7) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Avoid these HUGE MISTAKES about theism, atheism, and agnosticism

Majesty of Reason 2023-10-20 | In this second part of a seven part series, we cover common mistakes relating to theism, atheism, agnosticism, and naturalism.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:20 Mistake #55
4:42 Mistake #56
12:47 Mistake #57
16:28 Mistake #58
17:23 Mistake #59
18:45 Mistake #60
20:59 Mistake #61
21:28 Mistake #62
25:13 Mistake #63
33:40 Mistake #64
35:25 Mistake #65
39:50 Mistake #66
44:17 Mistake #67
45:40 Mistake #68
46:38 Mistake #69
48:36 Mistake #70
50:05 Mistake #71
50:57 Mistake #72
51:49 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Resource Document for Part 2: docs.google.com/document/d/1msopHLrp1QiwNBtM7AGDyLapNPBD36128A6oBFQmpJs/edit?usp=sharing

(2) Common Mistakes playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Stop misusing logical fallacies

Majesty of Reason 2023-10-10 | We need to talk about fallacy mongering...

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

RESOURCES

(1) Original video: youtu.be/ThHsjYx-oEs

(2) Resource Document from that video: docs.google.com/document/d/1Sh_xOyu0gVh0GdEAD7s2XGUiAFUARmpqyH-JZ_ofLOo/edit?usp=sharing

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Is everything necessary? | Dr. Josh Rasmussen & Dr. Amy Karofsky

Majesty of Reason 2023-09-30 | I’m joined by Josh Rasmussen and Amy Karofsky to explore whether there’s any contingency in reality. It’s a MUST watch. (Or maybe not?)

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro & Outline
2:16 Defining terms
4:31 What’s at stake?
9:57 Motivating necessitarianism
39:10 Motivating contingentarianism
1:03:37 Truth & A gadfly among gadflies!
1:11:52 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Dr. Karofsky’s book “A Case for Necessitarianism”, amazon.com/Case-Necessitarianism-Routledge-Studies-Metaphysics/dp/1032026162

(2) Dr. Karosky’s PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/amy-karofsky

(3) My video with Dr. Karofsky on her book: youtu.be/Kf0BjBBGjxA

(4) Dr. Rasmussen’s website: http://joshualrasmussen.com

(5) Dr. Rasmussen’s YouTube channel (@WorldviewDesignChannel): youtube.com/@WorldviewDesignChannel

(6) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Is philosophy useless?

Majesty of Reason 2023-09-16 | The answer might surprise you.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

RESOURCES

(1) Original video: youtu.be/ThHsjYx-oEs

(2) Resource Document from that video: docs.google.com/document/d/1Sh_xOyu0gVh0GdEAD7s2XGUiAFUARmpqyH-JZ_ofLOo/edit?usp=sharing

(3) The Priest lecture from @Philosophy_Overdose: youtube.com/watch?v=BsLYCgXufBI

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

These 54 mistakes are KILLING your philosophy game

Majesty of Reason 2023-09-05 | In this first part of a seven part series, we cover common mistakes relating to epistemology, argumentation, philosophical methodology, the nature of philosophy, and behavior.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:00 Prelims
3:05 Overview of series
4:01 Mistake #1
16:51 Mistake #2
19:58 Mistake #3
22:34 Mistake #4
26:33 Mistake #5
27:51 Mistake #6
29:17 Mistake #7
29:59 Mistake #8
30:40 Mistake #9
31:23 Mistake #10
32:00 Mistake #11
41:40 Mistake #11 (extended)
45:01 Mistake #12 (corrected #)
46:34 Mistake #13 (corrected #)
49:30 Mistake #14 (corrected #)
53:54 Mistake #15
55:24 Mistake #16
56:14 Mistake #17
57:37 Mistake #18
1:01:52 Mistake #19
1:03:29 Mistake #20
1:11:10 Mistake #21
1:11:57 Mistake #22
1:14:44 Mistake #23
1:15:28 Mistake #24
1:16:53 Mistake #25
1:17:48 Mistake #26
1:38:56 Mistake #27
1:39:15 Mistake #28
1:42:22 Mistake #29
1:46:11 Mistake #30
1:54:01 Mistake #31
1:55:41 Mistake #32
1:58:07 Mistake #33
1:59:18 Mistake #34
1:59:41 Mistake #35
2:02:21 Mistake #36
2:03:55 Mistake #37
2:06:44 Mistake #38
2:08:51 Mistake #39
2:09:37 Mistake #40
2:10:41 Mistake #41
2:15:15 Mistake #42
2:16:30 Mistake #43
2:19:04 Mistake #44
2:26:03 Mistake #45
2:28:00 Mistake #46
2:28:47 Mistake #47
2:30:58 Mistake #48
2:32:26 Mistake #49
2:33:55 Mistake #50
2:40:37 Mistake #51
2:43:14 Mistake #52
2:45:34 Mistake #53
2:47:30 Mistake #54
3:04:57 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Resource Document for Part 1: docs.google.com/document/d/1Sh_xOyu0gVh0GdEAD7s2XGUiAFUARmpqyH-JZ_ofLOo/edit?usp=sharing

(2) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Skeptical Theism and the Problem of Evil | Dr. Perry Hendricks

Majesty of Reason 2023-08-23 | Today I’m joined by Perry Hendricks to discuss skeptical theist responses to arguments from evil. We also cover seven objections to skeptical theism.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:30 Problem of evil
2:10 Rowe’s ‘noseeum’ argument
5:44 Common sense argument
15:51 Draper’s Humean argument
18:51 Skeptical theism
20:01 Wykstra’s CORNEA
23:45 Bergmann’s skeptical theism
29:11 Deontological skeptical theism
36:45 Addressing Rowe’s argument
46:40 Addressing the common sense argument
54:41 Addressing Draper’s argument
56:18 Climenhaga’s objection
1:01:20 Draper’s objection
1:13:48 Damaging natural theology
1:18:16 Moral paralysis
1:21:36 Divine deception
1:27:20 Radical skepticism
1:31:25 Horrific world: a reductio?
1:36:25 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Perry's website with all his papers: perryhendricks.com

(2) Climenhaga's paper contra skeptical theism: philpapers.org/rec/CLIIWC

(3) Perry's forthcoming book, "Skeptical Theism": amazon.com/Skeptical-Palgrave-Frontiers-Philosophy-Religion/dp/3031342704

(4) Perry's paper, "Deontological skeptical theism proved": cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/abs/deontological-sceptical-theism-proved/F2C7C8BF7AAE5AD81C75C3B36ACA44F6

(5) Perry's paper, "We are not in the dark: refuting popular arguments against skeptical theism": scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/apq/article-abstract/58/2/125/283427/WE-ARE-NOT-IN-THE-DARKREFUTING-POPULAR-ARGUMENTS?redirectedFrom=fulltext

(6) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Is moral realism the common sense view? | Dr. Lance Bush

Majesty of Reason 2023-08-09 | Are ordinary people moral realists? Dr. Lance Bush doesn't think so. He joins me today to discuss his reasons why.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

00:00 Intro
1:45 Experimental philosophy
3:11 Stances, commitments, and intuitions
13:09 Metaethics and folk metaethics
18:02 Moral realism and anti-realism
21:10 Disagreement paradigm
30:45 WEIRD populations
37:07 Confounds and validity
39:50 Tolerance confound
44:22 Normative confound
49:15 Epistemic confound / scope ambiguity
58:28 Open response data
1:04:32 Polzler & Wright 2020
1:20:08 Folk metaethical indeterminacy
1:27:45 Lance’s quantum mechanics study
1:41:14 Moral realism is the common sense view?
1:44:20 Lance’s closing comments
1:50:17 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) Lance’s dissertation: search.proquest.com/openview/862c9bde93de6fbe84a38345b2c50a25/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

(2) Lance’s Youtube channel, @lanceindependent: youtube.com/channel/UCcBjfs5Stfr-v66B7F7vo0Q

(3) Lance’s blog: lanceindependent.com

(4) Lance’s professional website: lancesbush.com

(5) My metaethics playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkbIsKrv640jcBmNCFbU-ZQy

(6) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Whatever begins to exist has a cause? | Dr. Daniel Linford

Majesty of Reason 2023-07-27 | Today I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford to discuss the Kalam's causal principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. In particular, we discuss the first half of a video produced by @ReasonableFaithOrg.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
0:39 A false dichotomy
2:06 Three arguments for the causal principle
3:51 Argument from intuition (or magic?)
14:20 Argument from chaos
19:00 Science and everyday experience
26:52 Dan’s reasons for rejecting the principle
32:24 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) The video to which we're responding (from @ReasonableFaithOrg): youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0

(2) Dan’s notes for this video (and our previous video on the scientific case for the Kalam): drive.google.com/file/d/1JjfleKIyFsPPLjUZL_6jieeLW9aI14nP/view?usp=sharing

(3) Dan’s dissertation, “Cosmic Skepticism and the Beginning of Physical Reality”: philarchive.org/archive/DAN_SA-15

(4) Dan’s paper, “A modal condition for the beginning of the universe”: philarchive.org/rec/LINAMC-2

(5) My analysis of the Kalam's causal principle: youtu.be/XslZE3luFq4

(6) My Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(7) My Springer book co-authored with Dan: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

No, science doesn’t show the universe began to exist | Dr. Daniel Linford

Majesty of Reason 2023-07-14 | Today I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford to respond to the scientific case for the universe's beginning as well as the claim that the universe's cause must be God. In particular, we discuss a video produced by @ReasonableFaithOrg.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
2:30 WLC’s video
3:16 Past finitude doesn’t imply beginning
19:45 Second Law of Thermodynamics
28:00 Red shift and Big Bang cosmology
36:53 Successive failure of models
39:45 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem
46:05 Stage Two: Properties of the cause
46:55 Spaceless?
53:13 Timeless?
56:02 Immaterial?
59:38 Uncaused?
1:02:57 Unimaginably powerful?
1:06:42 God?
1:12:35 Conclusion

RESOURCES

(1) The video to which we're responding (from @ReasonableFaithOrg): youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0

(2) Dan’s notes for this video (and our next video on the causal principle): drive.google.com/file/d/1JjfleKIyFsPPLjUZL_6jieeLW9aI14nP/view?usp=sharing

(3) Dan’s dissertation, “Cosmic Skepticism and the Beginning of Physical Reality”: philarchive.org/archive/DAN_SA-15

(4) Dan’s paper, “A modal condition for the beginning of the universe”: philarchive.org/rec/LINAMC-2

(5) Dan’s paper, “Neo-Lorentzian Relativity and the Beginning of the Universe”: philarchive.org/rec/LINNRA-3

(6) Dan's paper, "Big Bounce or Double Bang? A Reply to Craig and Sinclair on the Interpretation of Bounce Cosmologies": http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17188/1/FORTHCOMING_Big_Bang_or_Double_Bounce_Erk_Sub.pdf

(7) Dan’s paper, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Meets the Mentaculus”: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16833/1/Online_Final_BJPS_Kalam_Mentaculus_Submission.pdf

(8) My Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(9) My Springer book co-authored with Dan: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

(10) Phil Halper's (@PhilHalper1) recent article "The Kalam cosmological argument: Critiquing a recent defence", also on the scientific case for the Kalam: philarchive.org/rec/HALTKC

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Do Composite Objects Exist? | Dr. Eric Olson

Majesty of Reason 2023-07-01 | Dr. Eric Olson joins me to discuss various puzzles of material constitution and composition. Do birds exist? Do tables? Do you?

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

00:00 A note
1:01 Intro and overview
2:01 Defining terms
8:34 Statue and clay
24:11 Sorites
31:00 Problem of the Many
37:30 Causal redundancy
41:50 Conclusion

LINKS

(1) Dr. Olson's website: olsonphilosophy.blogspot.com

(2) Dr. Olson's PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/eric-t-olson

(3) Relevant SEP entries: (i) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ordinary-objects/ (ii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/material-constitution/ (iii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ (iv) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Theism is rational, but Trent Horn is wrong and that upsets me

Majesty of Reason 2023-06-18 | Here I respond to Trent Horn for the 912th time, this time on the problem of evil and the evil God challenge.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
3:52 Gratuitous evil
6:39 Evil requires God?
10:48 Back to gratuitous evil
15:04 The price of a lawful ecosystem?
19:47 Intuition, methodology, and dialectic
29:20 Clarifying gratuity
35:44 Reversing the modus ponens
45:05 Total evidence requirement
46:39 Theodicy: Original Sin
51:45 Theodicy: Free Will
59:42 Theodicy: Virtue
1:03:17 Intrinsic human dignity
1:06:20 Compensation in heaven?
1:08:37 Non-human animal suffering
1:17:39 Evil God Challenge
1:20:46 Privation theory of evil
1:27:49 Soteriological confusion
1:30:57 Conclusion

MENTIONED RESOURCES

(1) Trent’s video to which I’m responding (from @TheCounselofTrent): youtu.be/ZzM443aJbyM

(2) Bengson, Cuneo, and Shafer-Landau’s paper: drive.google.com/file/d/1RDyu0j6vb-W_-bWMreQqw_XM8fLuvlKG/view?usp=sharing

(3) Murray’s “Nature Red in Tooth and Claw”: amazon.com/Nature-Red-Tooth-Claw-Suffering/dp/0199237271

(4) Draper’s paper on panpsychotheism: philpapers.org/rec/DRAP-3

(5) Sebastian’s post explaining why he’s an atheist: naturalismnext.blogspot.com/2022/12/why-im-atheist_6.html

(6) Emerson’s opening statement: emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/06/27/god-probably-doesnt-exist

(7) Felipe Leon, "200 (or so) Arguments for Atheism": http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2022/06/120-or-so-arguments-for-atheism.html

(8) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs-ebook/dp/B0BNMHRW63 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

(9) My papers on classical theism can be found on my PhilPeople profile ( philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid ) or my website ( josephschmid.com/research )

(10) Pruss’ presentation on the privation theory: youtube.com/watch?v=rYs0ompB0kk

(11) My video “Over 100 Arguments for God ANSWERED”: youtube.com/watch?v=iP0Mh42jvV4

(12) Stephen’s (and my) response to Ben Shapiro (from @rationalityrules): youtube.com/watch?v=_W4I3G9ahCw&pp=ygUXc2hhcGlybyBhcmd1bWVudCBjaGFuZ2U%3D

RELEVANT PLAYLISTS

(1) Argument from Change: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka2JpwLJaSaXdDZlBYkd9Cn

(2) Existential Inertia: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkbm7dtYaTCuJ33bePOTYBBB

(3) Kalam: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(4) Contingency Argument: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZkl5I5QDUXW5CauOfO_bs1

(5) Moral Argument: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaUcAQpHXN9ZNF2RxZLe7U_

(6) Response Videos: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaNtpoOwEZm9fuJq423BUrW

(7) Classical Theism: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka0E9laGDA83gN2UbQoa4F2

CORRECTIONS

See the pinned comment for corrections!

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

How to Analyze Arguments Like a Philosopher

Majesty of Reason 2023-06-14 | Here's your ultimate step-by-step guide for analyzing and assessing any argument that comes your way.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

00:00 Intro
2:32 Bird’s eye view
3:33 Step 1
8:17 Step 2
8:55 Step 2.1
13:00 Step 2.2
14:49 Step 2.3
16:17 Step 2.4
21:51 Step 3
27:00 Step 4
27:49 Step 4.1
28:33 Step 4.2
33:10 Step 4.3
38:10 Step 4 continued
40:26 Step 5
44:46 Step 6
48:21 12 Tangible Tips
55:25 How to ruin your worldview
58:37 Book recommendations
1:00:22 Summary

LINKS

(1) Want access to the script? Become a patron :)

(2) Summary of the step-by-step guide: docs.google.com/document/d/1Ox4vxAQmK83-Y4BC-IPw-9bFdJUstpXEkuZs_52kpqI/edit?usp=sharing

(3) Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(4) The Kalam's Causal Principle: An Analysis: youtube.com/watch?v=XslZE3luFq4

(5) A User's Guide to the Modal Ontological Argument: youtube.com/watch?v=iKgJvGHYqs8&list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t&index=2&pp=gAQBiAQB

(6) Ontological Arguments from Anselm to Godel: youtube.com/watch?v=SVQz7AMUcyI&list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t&index=9&pp=gAQBiAQB

(7) Dr. Graham Oppy on the Nature and Purpose of Arguments: youtube.com/watch?v=ybUW693C8UY&pp=ygUfZ3JhaGFtIG9wcHkgbmF0dXJlIG9mIGFyZ3VtZW50cw%3D%3D

(8) Oppy, "What derivations cannot do": drive.google.com/file/d/1OmD1ecbqp_hNsKfO4SMXZsM101RGZ19p/view?usp=sharing

(9) Dr. Josh Rasmussen's video "How to ruin your worldview", from @WorldviewDesignChannel: youtu.be/5Y4PQQOH5vo

(10) Doing Philosophy playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkbOGcxCZPjybRASmKynBfGN

BOOKS I RECOMMENDED

(1) "Classical Logic and its Rabbit-Holes: A First Course" by Nelson Lande

(2) "Language, Proof, and Logic" by Dave Barker-Plummer, Jon Barwise and John Etchemendy

(3) "The Norton Introduction to Philosophy" edited by Rosen, Byrne, and others.

(4) "Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy" by Michael Huemer

(5) "Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy" by Simon Blakburn

(6) "The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy" by yours truly

(7) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

From Kalam to God?

Majesty of Reason 2023-06-02 | Must the cause of the universe be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal? No. Here's why.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

CLARIFICATION

Thanks to commenter Tym Miara for inviting this helpful clarification:

In the video, I argued that we cannot infer from the Kalam alone that the cause is spaceless. I began by using an example: “if, *for instance*, you’re only showing [in stage 1] that the past must be finite…” Using this example, I explained how we can’t then go on to infer that the cause of the beginning of (metric) time is spaceless.

I intended the points I made subsequently — about the epistemic possibility of there being some sort of space in which the first cause resides, etc. — to generalize to *other* ways of defending stage 1 of the Kalam, including the appeals to Big Bang cosmology. I wasn’t intending to impute to Craig the inference from ‘x causes the beginning of time’ to ‘x is therefore spaceless’. My point was, firstly, that *if* we only show in stage 1 that metric time is past-finite, *then* we cannot infer that the first cause(s) thereof is spaceless; and, furthermore, that the point about the epistemic possibility of some space in which the first cause(s) resides is a problem for *other* extant ways of defending stage 1, not just a way of defending stage 1 which only shows that the past must be finite. I used the finite-metric-past defense of stage 1 as an example to introduce the point which I intended to generalize more broadly.

So, then, the clarification is that I wasn't intending to say that Craig takes his spacelessness conclusion to be derived from the finitude of the past, though I can understand if what I said suggests that. I’m here canceling any such implicature, and explaining what I was intending to convey.

My point, instead, is precisely that *none* of the points in Craig's stage 1 case show that the cause is spaceless — even the points pertaining to Big Bang cosmology. They only show, at best, that the cause doesn't exist in the spatial framework of our local spatiotemporal manifold, i.e., the self-contained one that began to expand about 13.8 billion years ago. As I noted in the video, there may be a different space that exists causally prior to the beginning of metric time (and hence causally prior to the beginning of the spatial manifold associated with that metric time) and in which the cause resides. This space may be the same sort of space as our local spatiotemporal manifold's space (e.g., three-dimensional); or it may be some more exotic state space that various philosophers have proposed for the 'location' of the universal wavefunction; or it may be a higher dimensional spatial framework; and so on. The epistemic possibilities are boundless, and Craig — in claiming the cause must be spaceless — illegitimately assumes that none of these are the case. The crucial point is that they straightforwardly undercut the claim that the cause of our local spatiotemporal manifold must be spaceless, i.e., without any space.

And, of course, I think it's important to emphasize that Big Bang cosmology doesn't show that the universe, understood as all of physical reality, began to exist; for more on this, see Dr. Linford's dissertation here :)

philarchive.org/archive/DAN_SA-15

LINKS

(1) The original video from @thoughtology7732: youtube.com/watch?v=JL3Y7QRPp5k

(2) My Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193121 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

The Kalams Causal Principle: An Analysis

Majesty of Reason 2023-05-20 | The Kalam’s causal principle says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. But should we accept this principle? That’s the topic of today’s (epic) video.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro & Outline
2:53 Understanding the Causal Principle
10:44 Arguments For the Causal Principle
11:07 Intuition
52:16 Induction and Abduction
1:42:41 Argument from Chaos
2:29:12 Modus Tollens Argument
2:53:40 Arguments Against the Causal Principle
2:54:02 Intuition: Reverse Card!
2:57:23 Free Will
3:15:55 Conceivability
3:23:34 Quantum Mechanics
3:32:35 Non-Causal Explanations
3:37:53 Grünbaum’s argument
3:41:47 Summary of Arguments Against
3:47:39 Conclusion

LINKS

(1) Want access to the document? Become a patron :)

(2) Kalam playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR

(3) My co-authored article “Branching actualism and cosmological arguments”, forthcoming in Philosophical Studies: philpapers.org/rec/SCHBAA-22

(4) Special thanks to Stephen Woodford from @rationalityrules not only for allowing me to re-use the relevant videos, but also for playing an integral role in making them stellar. Check out his channel (or my Kalam playlist) for the original videos and their reference documents! :)

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

You MUST watch this video | Dr. Amy Karofsky

Majesty of Reason 2023-05-11 | Could anything have been otherwise? Amy Karofsky thinks not. In her view, absolutely everything is necessary. Today we discuss arguments for and against this view.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:20 Necessity and contingency
2:51 Necessitarianism vs. Contingentarianism
8:20 Necessitarianism vs. Fatalism & Determinism
18:42 Historical backdrop
24:15 Arguments for Contingentarianism
24:57 Deliberation
27:53 Imaginability
31:51 Powers, actuality, and natural kinds
40:48 Quantifying probability
43:07 Quantum mechanics
46:40 Intuition
49:55 Majority belief
52:50 Contingency-talk and counterfactuals
57:00 Ought implies can
1:02:49 Principle of Alternative Possibilities
1:05:59 Arguments for Necessitarianism
1:07:00 Ground of contingency
1:17:07 Simplicity
1:19:39 Conclusion

LINKS

(1) Dr. Karofsky’s book “A Case for Necessitarianism”, amazon.com/Case-Necessitarianism-Routledge-Studies-Metaphysics/dp/1032026162

(2) Dr. Karosky’s PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/amy-karofsky

(3) Btw, you NEED to check out the website New Work in Philosophy! They have all the latest information about new work on the cutting edge of philosophy. Link: newworkinphilosophy.substack.com

(4) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Ontological Arguments from Anselm to Gödel

Majesty of Reason 2023-05-02 | Ontological arguments seek to prove God's existence from the armchair. But are they any good? Let's tour some prominent ontological arguments and some prominent objections to help us find out.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

00:00 Intro
1:13 Anselm's Ontological Argument
4:19 Descartes’ Ontological Argument
5:37 Parodies
14:38 Modal Ontological Argument
22:23 Gödelian Ontological Argument
30:13 Dialectical problem
43:44 Riposte
45:43 Dilemma for the riposte
50:01 Another dialectical problem
56:30 Further criticisms
58:43 Bonus soccer

LINKS

(1) Want the script? Become a patron :)

(2) Oppy’s article “Ontological Arguments” from The Philosophers’ Magazine: archive.philosophersmag.com/ontological-arguments

(3) Ontological Arguments playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t

(4) Oppy (2000), “Response to Gettings”: philpapers.org/archive/OPPRTG-2.pdf

(5) Oppy (2017), “The Ontological Arguments”: drive.google.com/file/d/1y2cbpSqcTUwnySsJv18SKlz7hLCDV6vl/view?usp=sharing

(6) A User’s Guide to the Modal Ontological Argument: youtube.com/watch?v=iKgJvGHYqs8&list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t&index=2

(7) Four Ontological Arguments in 12 Minutes: youtube.com/watch?v=a8yl8suh7aA&list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t&index=5

(8) Graham Oppy responds to Josh Rasmussen’s Ontological Argument: youtube.com/watch?v=MIhwDlT2Eu8&list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZ7oLLpd6Joxl2VS1gOce6t&index=7

(9) Bonus Soccer playlist! youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkb7WN8KlASj2P9ewLpXGeML

(10) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Is the Future Open? | Dr. Patrick Todd

Majesty of Reason 2023-04-21 | I'm joined by Dr. Patrick Todd to discuss whether all future contingents are false. You can also win his book for FREE!

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
2:56 Thesis and key terms
9:55 The open future
18:20 Problem of future contingents
21:29 Grounding problem
31:40 Symmetry objection
41:50 Future-directed properties and abstracta
47:44 Competing intuitions
53:00 Moorean shift
1:05:44 Credence-based objection clarified
1:13:22 Companions in innocence: CCFs
1:20:20 Logical problem, semantics, and neg-raising
1:32:25 Conclusion and giveaway

LINKS

(1) Dr. Todd’s book, “The Open Future: Why Future Contingents are all False”, amazon.com/Open-Future-Why-Contingents-False/dp/0192897918

(2) Dr. Todd’s website: http://www.patricktodd.co

(3) Dr. Todd’s interview on open theism for @thefreewillshow2132: youtube.com/watch?v=3marFR9gr3g&pp=ygUYcGF0cmljayB0b2RkIG9wZW4gZnV0dXJl

(4) Dr. Todd’s interview on the open future for @TheAnalyticChristian: youtube.com/watch?v=dXeHp-R7xhw&pp=ygUYcGF0cmljayB0b2RkIG9wZW4gZnV0dXJl

(5) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Religious Naturalism | Dr. Graham Oppy & Dr. Eric Steinhart

Majesty of Reason 2023-04-11 | What is religion? What is naturalism? Can naturalism and religion be combined? Is religious naturalism viable? I'm joined by Graham Oppy and Eric Steinhart to discuss these questions and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
0:49 What is religion?
12:53 What is naturalism?
32:07 Religious naturalism
56:21 Religious naturalist practices?

LINKS

(1) Oppy’s book, “Naturalism and Religion”, amazon.com/Naturalism-Religion-Investigating-Philosophy/dp/0815354665

(2) Steinhart’s website: ericsteinhart.com

(3) My video with Steinhart on atheistic platonism: youtu.be/dQrNFMExwso

(4) Steinhart’s book, “Atheistic Platonism”, amazon.com/Atheistic-Platonism-Manifesto-Frontiers-Philosophy/dp/3031177517

(5) Tiddy Smith (ed.), “Animism and Philosophy of Religion”, amazon.com/Animism-Philosophy-Religion-Palgrave-Frontiers/dp/3030941698

(6) Tiddy Smith, “A common consent argument for the existence of nature spirits”, drive.google.com/file/d/1ITKus5fqUyqvpIibeQzjPdCivjuxr5Oi/view?usp=sharing

(7) Kohn, “How Forests Think”, amazon.com/How-Forests-Think-Toward-Anthropology/dp/0520276116

(8) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Birds dont exist, therefore Christianity is false | April Fools

Majesty of Reason 2023-04-01 | Birds don't exist. If birds don't exist, then Christianity is false. So, Christianity is false.™ QED.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro
1:13 Merch
2:47 Birds don’t exist
8:18 The Picometer Argument
11:13 No sharp transition?
20:50 Disproving Christianity
24:14 Believe or burn
26:53 Conclusion

LINKS

(1) Thanks to Esteban from @guardedacumen for making the T-shirt images! His channel: youtube.com/@guardedacumen

(2) The clip of Winger is extracted from @TheNonAlchemist's video here: youtube.com/watch?v=00IiRv6sJAc

(2) More on arguments against the existence of birds: (i) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/ , (ii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/material-constitution/ , (iii) youtube.com/watch?v=07PZ1a-gZxw

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193121 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

The Axiology of Theism | Dr. Ryan Mullins

Majesty of Reason 2023-03-19 | Should we want God to exist? Which model of God would result in the most valuable world? In this first ever MoR livestream, I’m joined by Dr. Ryan Mullins to talk about his recent contribution to this debate. And if you ask the best question during the live video, you’ll win a FREE BOOK!

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

HOW TO WIN THE BOOK

During the livestream, whoever asks the best question about the axiology of theism or the axiology of models of God will win a free book! You need to begin your question with either "Question:" or "Q:" to be considered, and the question needs to be on topic. Ryan and I will determine the best question at the end of the stream. Whoever wins should email me at majestyofreason@gmail.com. Good luck!

LINKS

(1) Ryan's paper we'll be discussing, "The Axiology of Panentheism": drive.google.com/file/d/10_LEZVm5YCwW4ZVB7lzRyy4jsccsMGNG/view?usp=sharing

(2) The book we'll be giving away: routledge.com/Value-Beyond-Monotheism-The-Axiology-of-the-Divine/Lougheed/p/book/9780367540203

(3) Ryan's website: rtmullins.com

(4) My classical theism playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka0E9laGDA83gN2UbQoa4F2

(5) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

How to Research, Write, and Publish in Philosophy

Majesty of Reason 2023-03-09 | Suan (@intellectualcatholicism) and I chat about philosophy research, writing philosophy papers, how to publish in philosophy, and so much more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro and published work
4:42 Pre-writing and research
12:17 Writing
29:52 Submitting
38:01 Post-submission
49:34 Publishing books
54:43 Q&A
1:20:01 Bonus soccer

LINKS

(1) The original video: youtu.be/UGxN57CcDC0

(2) If you liked this video, you'll love my Doing Philosophy playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkbOGcxCZPjybRASmKynBfGN

(3) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

A Users Guide to Bayes Theorem

Majesty of Reason 2023-02-24 | What is Bayes' Theorem? How is it used in philosophy, statistics, and beyond? How should it NOT be used? Welcome to the ultimate guide to these questions and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro and outline
3:10 What is Bayes’ Theorem?
4:50 Belief and credence
14:46 Interpretations of probability
24:52 Epistemic probability
28:32 Bayesian epistemology
30:50 Core normative rules
33:05 Propositional logic background
42:32 Kolmogorov’s axioms
54:25 Dutch Books
57:25 Ratio Formula
1:02:03 Conditionalization principle
1:10:47 Subjective vs. Objective Bayesianism
1:13:50 Bayes’ Theorem: Standard form(s)
1:39:25 Bayes’ Theorem: Odds form
1:53:06 Evidence
2:09:25 Visualizing Bayes’ Theorem
2:49:41 Common mistakes
2:49:53 Base rate fallacy
2:52:28 Evidence for H vs. Making H probable
2:53:43 Total evidence requirement
2:54:58 Fallacy of understated evidence
2:59:36 Confirmation is comparative
3:01:07 Evidential symmetry
3:07:56 Strength asymmetry
3:11:40 Falsifiability as a virtue
3:12:27 Likelihood ratio rigging
3:19:32 Conclusion and Resources

NOTES

(1) The argument I give around the ten-minute mark admittedly doesn't address the view that (i) credences don't exist, and yet (ii) we can still account for the relevant data about our doxastic lives by appeal to beliefs about probabilities. It also doesn't address the view that while credences exist and are distinct from beliefs, beliefs about probabilities suffice to account for the relevant data.

While I have independent reservations for these views, it's worth noting them nonetheless. The belief/credence part of the video was mainly an exercise in warming listeners up to talk of credences so they would be more receptive to the rest of the video. It's a necessary preamble to the main event: Bayes' Theorem. I grant that a proper defense of belief-credence dualism — and a proper defense of the overly-basic motivations I sketched at the ten-minute mark — would need to contend with these alternative proposals!

CORRECTIONS

(1) At 52:55, I meant to say that the SECOND claim entails the FIRST while the FIRST does not entail the SECOND. Oops!

(2) Thankfully, the audio improves at 28:32! Remind me to never record a solo presentation using Zoom…

(3) Here's an important clarification about the roommate/magical marker example given around 2:07:00. In the video, I was not clear about the content of the hypotheses in question and how this affects their likelihoods and priors. Here is how I should have spelled out the example.

Consider two hypotheses:

H1: My friend wrote on my board
H2: My marker by itself wrote on my board

The data is:

D: "Don't forget to take out the trash!" is written on my board

Now, H1 renders D quite surprising, given that my friend knows all about my diligent habits of taking out the trash, etc. If H1 is true, he would most likely have written something on the board then erased it (since he knows I don't like him touching my board, etc.). And even if he didn't erase it, it would be very odd for him to write this given that he knows I'm super diligent about the trash.

But H2 renders D far, far more surprising. Of all the possible things the marker could conceivably have written on the board by magically floating upwards etc., only an absurdly small fraction are even coherent, let alone English words strung together to compose an intelligible, grammatical, contextually relevant English sentence.

Of course, H1 has higher prior than H2. But the point made in the video stands, since the likelihood of H1 (i.e., P(D|H1)) is very low, but it's still much greater than the likelihood of H2 (i.e., P(D|H2)), and hence data can still be evidence for a hypothesis even though the data is very surprising on that hypothesis.

LINKS

(1) Want the script? Become a patron :)

(2) Videos from @3blue1brown: (i) youtube.com/watch?v=HZGCoVF3YvM , (ii) youtube.com/watch?v=U_85TaXbeIo , (iii) youtube.com/watch?v=lG4VkPoG3ko

(3) Videos from Dr. Ben Page (@thinkingillustrated5281): (i) youtube.com/watch?v=RNQeOJoeiW0 , (ii) youtube.com/watch?v=4zlaFnYqGYo

(4) Page's article on the Bayesian Bar: https://www.academia.edu/41820082/Introducing_Bayesianism_Through_The_Bayesian_Bar

(5) Over 100 Arguments for God ANSWERED: youtu.be/iP0Mh42jvV4

(6) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193121 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2

THE USUAL...

Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH

Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason

My website: josephschmid.com

My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid