Sociologist and professor Dr. Christian Smith discusses his recent book, "Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America". We discuss the reasons for the decline of faith in a traditionally Christian nation, the seeming recent revival of faith among the younger generation, and what these developments mean for the future of religion in America.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:13 How do we define religion?

00:05:44 In what sense has religion gone obsolete?

00:09:13 Why has religion gone obsolete?

00:18:52 Is religion trending downward worldwide?

00:21:20 The internet's role in undermining religion

00:25:43 The "cringy-ness" of online religious outreach

00:28:11 The legacy of the New Atheists

00:32:01 The role conservative politics has played

00:37:33 Does this mean Americans are atheists?

00:46:50 The advance of science did not cause religious decline

00:50:26 The negative impact of creationism

00:54:01 Homosexuality and abortion as the ride-or-die issues

01:02:09 A revival of faith among American youth?

01:10:20 Does religion have a future?

Astrophysicist Niayesh Afshordi and science communicator Phil Halper return to the channel to discuss their new book, Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins. We discuss inflationary theory, the BGV theorem, how space and time might not exist at the fundamental level of reality, and so much else besides. This was one of my favorite interviews so far.

Make sure to check out Phil and Niayesh's book, and follow Phil on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:13 Does the Big Bang theory feature a bang?

00:07:53 What is an FLRW spacetime? What is the Lambda-CDM model?

00:18:39 Is a singularity unscientific?

00:25:05 Singularity theorem #1: Hawking-Penrose

00:33:04 Singularity theorem #2: Borde-Guth-Vilenkin

00:39:23 What is "classical" spacetime?

00:52:40 Singularity theorem #3: Generalized second law of thermodynamics

00:57:54 The quantum eternity theorem

01:01:10 String-theoretic models of the universe

01:05:56 A fundamental limit to what we can know?

01:09:10 Is a cosmic beginning scientifically unsatisfying?

01:15:17 Teaching science as a story

01:19:35 Embrace uncertainty

Dr. Dan Linford and I discuss the causal principle, that everything that begins to exist has a cause. We look at William Lane Craig's oft-repeated three reasons for affirming the premise: something cannot come from nothing, if something could come from nothing, then anything and everything should come from nothing, and an inductive generalization supports the causal principle.

Check out Linford's paper discussing neo-Russellian analyses of causation, "Without microphysical causation, not just anything can begin to exist just anywhere".

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:01:58 Different types of "causes"

00:05:49 Premise (1) of the KCA

00:10:19 First argument for CP: An inductive generalization

00:23:56 Metaphysics should be continuous with physics

00:34:27 Is science our only source of knowledge?

00:38:32 Second argument for CP: Something cannot come from nothing

00:42:16 Is neo-Russellianism just too counter-intuitive?

Dr. Tomas Bogardus discusses contemporary philosophical analysis of sex and gender, defending a traditional understanding of these terms.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction

00:32 What are the main views about gender?

17:03 What's the difference between sex and gender?

27:52 Why think sex terms are social constructions?

35:29 Societal consequences for biological realism regarding sex

39:05 Intentional revision of sex terms?

44:35 Dr. Bogardus: What is a woman?

45:04 Woman: Adult human female

55:24 Can trans-women be women on this account?

01:12:38 But still, should we revise the meaning of our terms?

Dr. Matt Lutz defends moral error theory, the two-part thesis that (i) our moral claims are capable of being true or false, but (ii) because there is no objective morality, all of them are false.

Check out all of Dr. Lutz's publications.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:13 What is moral error theory?

00:03:46 Non-cognitivism in ethics

00:19:32 Motivation for non-cognitivism

00:25:00 Ethical naturalism vs. non-naturalism

00:54:30 Is there an objective morality?

00:58:21 Epistemological objections to realism

01:11:00 Miles' two responses to arguments for error theory

Joe Folley and I discuss our philosophical differences regarding fine-tuning, the problem of evil, skeptical theism, pragmatic justification for God, apatheism, and much else besides.

Check out Joe's excellent YouTube channel.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:15 The fine-tuning argument

00:12:30 Can the constants really vary?

00:18:41 What is "possibility"?

00:34:54 Is probability just frequency?

00:48:16 Is there common ground between theist and atheist?

00:58:04 We should not be apathetic about God's existence

01:10:38 There are more options besides theism and naturalism

01:19:50 Skeptical theism

01:28:29 Does evil disprove God?

01:32:04 Philip Goff's limited God

01:43:55 Life is better if you believe in God

01:53:40 Should we take the red pill?

01:58:59 Problems with moral realism

02:12:50 What motivates you in running a YouTube channel?

Dr. Tim Maudlin returns to the channel to discuss the fine-tuning of the universe, the beginning of the universe, and whether these facts might be reasonably suggest that a creator God exists.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:56 How do science and philosophy relate?

00:11:33 The fine-tuning argument

00:22:35 Is the universe fine-tuned for rocks?

00:27:39 Does evil disprove God?

00:31:04 Of multiverses and Boltzmann Brains

00:35:45 How does the multiverse explain fine-tuning?

00:47:39 Do we know we're not Boltzmann Brains?

00:50:59 God and the beginning of the universe

00:58:24 The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem

01:01:49 Does everything that begin to exist have a cause

01:08:02 Are theistic philosophers acting in good faith

01:11:56 Are atheists acting in good faith?

01:16:59 What is Tim's favorite color?

01:17:29 Will physics ever explain consciousness?

Dr. Randal Rauser, himself a Christian apologist, joins me to critically examine some of the mistakes and excesses of Christian apologetics as it is commonly practiced - on YouTube and within broader academic discourse as well.

Check out Randal's YouTube channel.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:15 What is apologetics?

00:05:52 What is a 'tentative' apologist?

00:14:25 Mistake #1 - Not giving weight to moral experience.

00:36:09 How do we determine what the Bible teaches?

00:38:02 Mistake #2 - Thinking every question must be answered.

00:45:49 Mistake #3 - Simplifying enormously complicated issues.

00:50:50 If saving souls isn't the right motive for apologetics, what is?

00:57:03 Mistake #4 - Mixing apologetics with politics.

01:01:36 Debating vs. discussing controversial issues.

Dr. Michael Huemer and I discuss the evils of factory farming, the strengths and possible drawbacks of a vegan and vegetarian diet, whether animals have rights, if humans are the pinnacle of intrinsic value, and whether already having severe dietary restrictions justifies eating meat (it doesn't).

Check out Dr. Huemer's book, "Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism".

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:33 What goes on in factory farms?

00:10:45 Do we have to argue that animals have rights?

00:17:26 Do animals have rights?

00:25:02 Can we hunt animals?

00:27:24 Are all animals sentient?

00:29:01 The Shrimp Welfare Project

00:36:54 Why does it seem normal to eat meat?

00:41:08 Nutritional deficiencies in a vegan diet?

00:47:25 Plant farming kills animals too!

00:55:06 Are we heading for a vegetarian-only world

01:02:30 The role of ethical intuitions

01:09:04 BONUS CONTENT - The inconsistencies of moral anti-realists

Dr. RT Mullins discusses his view that God is literally identical to time. We also discuss and critique William Lane Craig's proposal that God is, in a sense, both temporal and timeless.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:12 What's the point of philosophical theology?

00:11:00 Mullins' definition of time.

00:21:14 An absolutist theory of time.

00:23:39 Is this pantheism?

00:30:49 The idea that God is time.

00:39:35 William Lane Craig's view - God creates time.

00:52:50 Is God's timelessness logically prior to His temporality?

01:04:48 Does time have a beginning?

01:14:07 Do scientists know anything about time?

Dr. Daniel Rubio graciously agreed to come on the channel to discuss and critique a paper I wrote examining four lesser-discussed hypotheses that lie somewhere between theism and atheism: the simulation hypothesis, cosmopsychism, axiarchism, and new laws of nature.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:12:13 Option #1 - We're in a simulation.

00:32:26 Option #2 - The universe designed itself.

01:05:31 Option #3 - Goodness requires that the universe exist.

01:29:01 Option #4 - Laws of nature guide the universe towards life.

Dr. Graham Priest explains his views on dialetheism, the view that some contradictions are true, while also discussing the relationship between Buddhism and modern science, the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments, and how Christians can avoid refutation by embracing paradox.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:12 What is dialetheism?

00:06:09 Paradox #1 - The liar

00:14:54 Paradox #2 - The law

00:29:37 Paradox #3 - Theology

00:38:15 Why Christianity can't possibly be true

00:40:46 Does dialetheism support Buddhism?

00:49:01 The relationship between Buddhism and modern science

00:49:25 Support #1 - The impermanence of all things

00:51:54 The cosmological argument for God

00:56:26 The fine-tuning argument for God

01:55:44 Support #2 - The nature of consciousness

Dr. Klaas Kraay explains that the multiverse, rather than serving as an alternative to God, actually supports belief in God by undermining two atheistic arguments: the problem of evil and the problem of no best world.

Check out Klaas' paper explaining the theistic multiverse, "Theism, Possible Worlds, and the Multiverse."

Also see my paper looking at the relationship between theistic multiverses and modern science, "Does science undermine the theistic multiverse?"

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:07 Multiverses in cosmology

00:06:36 The problem of no best world

00:13:15 The wine analogy

00:19:44 Two versions of the problem

00:24:20 Theistic multiverse solution

00:32:10 Objection - Duplication

00:37:27 1st response - Limit the multiverse to kinds

00:43:53 2nd response - More is not always better

00:49:50 What's more valuable, God or the multiverse?

00:58:39 The problem of evil

01:18:30 What got Klaas into philosophy?

01:20:11 Does philosophy make progress?

Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh, professor of New Testament at the University of Miami, explains the gnostic gospels, their significance, and their relationship to the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and whether Jesus' earlies disciples would recognize the theology of the earliest Christian creeds.

Check out Dr. Walsh's book, "The Origins of Early Christian Literature."

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:06 What is gnosticism?

00:10:43 The historical value of the gnostic gospels

00:24:12 Are the canonical gospels less legendary than the gnostic ones?

00:31:11 The gospels as literature rather than history

00:35:58 The Gospel of Thomas

00:48:35 Do the gnostic gospels go back to the first century?

00:53:28 Does the Apostles' Creed reflect earliest Christianity?

01:01:55 Would the apostles recognize modern Christianity?

01:07:14 The gospels writers borrowed from Paul

01:14:25 Are evangelical NT scholars taken seriously?

01:25:56 Confirmation bias in NT scholarship

Philip Goff joins me to discuss panpsychism, cosmopsychism, and how these theories of consciousness have the potential to explain one of the most striking discoveries of modern science: the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.Check out Philip's book, Why?: The Purpose of the Universe.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or Buy Me a Coffee.

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:01:05 What is panpsychism?

00:14:46 Panpsychism vs. idealism

00:17:49 Why we should be panpsychists

00:34:35 The combination problem

00:40:12 From panpsychism to cosmopsychism

00:48:40 The fine-tuning of the universe

00:56:28 Cosmopsychism vs. theism

01:10:45 What is the purpose of the universe?

01:16:40 Debating William Lane Craig

Dr. Jc Beall, professor of philosophy at Notre Dame, explains "glut theory," the view that some contradictory statements can both be true - or, equivalently, that true theories can be inconsistent.

To support the channel, do please oh please⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠consider donating⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:03:25 What is dialetheism?

00:15:12 Languages vs. meta-languages

00:23:47 Examples of true contradictions

00:25:02 #1 - The liar paradox

00:31:23 #2 - Contradictions in the law

00:40:11 #3 - Paradoxes of motion

00:45:00 Not every contradiction is true

00:52:40 Why should glut theorists care about consistency?

01:07:13 My argument against dialetheism

01:16:39 Contradictions within Christianity

01:23:30 Can both atheism and Christianity be true?

01:26:34 Is glut theory itself both true and false?

01:32:07 Glut theory and Eastern religions

01:39:49 Things logicians wish everyone would know

01:42:44 Godel's incompleteness theorems

Neil Manson explains the hidden tension between environmental ethics and findings in cosmology over the last thirty years: if life exists throughout the universe, then we lose one main argument for caring what happens to life here on Earth.

Check out Neil Manson's paper, "Anthropocentrism, Exo-Planets, and the Cosmic Perspective".

To support the channel, do please oh please⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠consider donating⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:45 Cosmological science today

00:10:25 Anthropocentrism, defined

00:15:16 Two kinds of anthropocentrism: biological and personal

00:30:46 Consequentialism

00:32:15 The cosmic perspective and non-anthropocentrism

00:40:47 Objection: Some infinities are better than other infinities

00:56:59 Why we should reject nonanthropocentrism

01:01:48 Should we seek to preserve nature?

01:18:25 Towards a stewardship model of environmentalism

Matthew returns to the podcast to discuss effective altruism and its philosophical underpinnings.

Check out Matthew's YouTube channel.

To support the channel, do please oh please⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠consider donating⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Dr. Max Baker-Hytch of Oxford University discusses Schellenberg's argument for atheism stemming from nonresistant nonbelief, nonbelief in God that results through no fault of one's own.

Check out Max's paper, "On Sin-based Responses to Divine hiddenness".

To support the channel, do please oh please⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠consider donating⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

02:04 Do you struggle with divine hiddenness?

05:00 Schellenberg's argument

14:22 Are there nonresistant nonbelievers?

21:05 Would God prevent nonresistant nonbelief?

27:43 Step #1 - God would always be open to relationship

39:32 Step #2 - Openness entails no nonresistant nonbelief

45:28 Relationship without belief.

52:25 Alex O'Connor as a nonresistant nonbeliever

59:52 Related Problem #1 - Demographics of nonbelief

01:09:15 Related Problem #2 - Religious disagreement

Dr. Brian Cutter outlines the argument from psychophysical harmony for theism and responds to Graham Oppy's recent critique. Check out Crummett and Cutter's article defending the argument from psychophysical harmony:

To support the channel, do please oh please⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠consider donating⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:22 The argument, summarized.

00:06:10 Does evolution explain harmony?

00:14:42 Probability of harmony on naturalism

00:20:46 Objection #1 - Infinite range of possible laws.

00:24:52 Objection #2 - Principle of indifference.

00:35:08 Probability of harmony on theism.

00:45:08 Replying to Graham Oppy's objections.

00:50:39 What if the mind and brain are identical?

01:14:36 Other explanations for harmony.

01:24:35 The role of historical context.