Theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart explains the contours of his argument against materialism is his new book, All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life. We explore his idealist leanings, the claim that a mechanistic approach to nature could never explain consciousness, and the thesis that atman is brahman, that I am fundamentally identical to infinite consciousness.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:42 What do we mean by "mind"?

00:09:24 Are you an idealist?

00:15:21 Panpsychism

00:28:18 Convince me that consciousness exists at all.

00:46:09 Sean Carroll's case for naturalism, considered

00:54:14 Is this just a type of "God of the gaps" reasoning?

01:00:34 Do fine-tuning and cosmological arguments for God succeed?

01:07:47 Is atman Brahman?

01:12:50 Does this mean that I am God?

01:19:34 What are you most uncertain of?

David Wallace, professor of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, explains why he finds the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics convincing. We discuss probability, what it means for persons to "split", whether teleportation means death, and the role of philosophy in assessing science.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:01:22 What is the difference between quantum and classical mechanics?

00:08:12 The measurement problem

00:14:16 The many-worlds interpretation

00:19:46 Why can't I see other branches of reality?

00:33:13 Is many-worlds crazy and absurd?

00:37:57 The probability problem

00:50:58 Do people split in two when the universe branches?

01:00:11 Does many-worlds explain fine-tuning?

01:04:56 Should many-worlds change the way we live?

01:16:30 Of what are you most uncertain?

Philosopher, author, and intelligent-design advocate Stephen Meyer joins me to discuss the arguments of his recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. While we only got around to two of those three discoveries, our conversation was robust, engaging, and will interest both advocates and critics of Stephen's work.

Check out video of our discussion on YouTube.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:11 Interview with Joe Rogan

00:03:19 Stephen's basic case for God

00:12:05 Data point #1 - Origin of the universe

00:17:26 The limits of singularity theorems

00:25:45 Quantum cosmology and theories of quantum gravity

00:32:36 What if spacetime is emergent?

00:36:45 Why is a beginning more likely under theism?

00:41:22 Data point #2 - Cosmic fine-tuning

00:46:40 Why is fine-tuning unlikely under naturalism?

00:53:31 Why is fine-tuning likely under theism?

00:57:55 Technical objection: No background information

01:03:04 The multiverse hypothesis

01:08:19 Do we need a "scientific" theory of the multiverse?

01:13:20 Richard Dawkins' argument: God is complex

01:17:24 But what about evil and suffering?

Prof. Daniel Wolne explains historical theories of religion with special focus on Sigmund Freud's speculation that religious belief arises from a projection of a father figure onto the universe. We then dive into contemporary theories arising from the cognitive science of religion: theory of mind, hyperactive agency detection devices, and social function theories.

Check out video of our discussion on YouTube.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:03:51 Explanation vs. theory of religion

00:07:26 Methodological naturalism

00:16:48 What is "religion"?

00:27:44 Sigmund Freud - Is religion just projection of a father figure?

00:39:42 What about non-theistic religions?

00:42:09 Is religion the response to fear of death?

00:45:22 Cognitive science of religion

00:50:52 Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD)

01:06:06 What is religion's social function?

01:11:56 Does cognitive science undermine religious belief?

Isn't "smorgasbord" a great word? Amos Wollen, my friend and fellow Oxford graduate student, joins me to debate his novel argument for the compatibility of God's love and an eternal Hell, a theodicy involving our consenting to suffering prior to our births, a case for the Baha'i faith, a fine-tuning argument from beauty, and the real reason that I take so many bathroom breaks.

Check out the video of the debate on YouTube.

Amos has a great Substack that you should absolutely read.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:50 A new argument for Hell

39:43 A pre-existence theodicy

01:04:52 A fine-tuning argument from beauty

01:25:02 A case for the Baha'i faith

Two philosophers come together to debate the question of whether objective, mind-independent moral facts exist. Mike says yes, Matt says no. They discuss whether we can ever have reason to go against our desires, whether beliefs about morality make any difference to our behavior, how we know things about the world, and the relevance of intuitions.

Check out the video of the debate on YouTube.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:45 Dr. Matt Lutz opening statement

00:11:49 Dr. Michael Huemer opening statement

00:24:43 Do moral obligations involve impossible kinds of reasons?

00:41:40 Can the error theorist make sense of doing something against one’s desires?

00:56:08 If moral facts disappeared, would we live our lives differently?

01:14:34 What’s wrong with intuition as a ground for moral knowledge?

01:29:05 How do we know logical and mathematical truths?

01:35:46 Dr. Matt Lutz closing statement

01:36:54 Dr. Dr. Michael Huemer closing statement

Emerson Green walks through three powerful objections to attempts to reduce consciousness to the brain: phenomenal transparency, philosophical zombies, and vagueness.Check out Emerson's YouTube channel.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:05 What are you a YouTuber?

00:19:08 Objection #1 - Phenomenal transparency

00:29:22 Why physicalism cannot tolerate transparency

00:32:31 What if consciousness is translucent?

00:38:36 Maybe there are no mental states at all

00:49:52 Objection #2 - Philosophical zombies

01:00:57 Different types of conceivability

01:12:29 What about modal skepticism?

01:17:32 Objection #3 - Vagueness

01:24:40 When do we go from non-conscious to conscious?

Dr. Randal Rauser and I explore the arguments of his new book, The Wideness of the Sea: How to be Evangelical and Gay-Affirming, wherein he offers a four-part case for including a gay-affirming perspective within the fold of Christian orthodoxy: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:12 The tale of Eugene Peterson

00:04:45 What is evangelical Christianity?

00:09:10 Affirming vs. non-affirming perspectives

00:14:55 Why do evangelicals care so much about gay relationships?

00:24:19 Argument #1: The Bible

00:40:25 Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man..."

00:45:10 Romans 1:26-27 - "God gave them over..."

00:50:05 Argument #2: Reason

00:51:11 William Lane Craig's case against homosexuality

00:54:22 Against natural law?

00:58:32 Argument #3: Tradition

01:07:28 Argument #4: Experience