Counter Apologetics

The Moral Argument for God – Have I Been Debunked? Jul 02, 2024

Two Christian apologists reviewed my series on the moral argument for God on their channel, Democracy of the Dead. I recorded my own counter-response shortly thereafter, but thought it was too profanity-laden and impolite to release. Generally speaking, it’s good to remain dispassionate in these online spaces, but I let my frustration get the better of me. However, I changed my mind. I trust that you in the audience can discern why I’m reacting as I do in the episode. My exasperation was entirely the product of their errors, oversights, and misunderstandings — all of which were completely avoidable, had they put one-tenth of the effort into their video that I put into mine. Their mistakes are not exclusively philosophical. In many instances, they simply misunderstand what is being said, for what purpose it’s being said, and even who is saying it. All in all, it was an extremely tedious video to review, but I hope that my commentary makes it interesting, or at least entertaining.

CA132 From Atheism to Agnosticism (w/ Adherent Apologetics) Jun 30, 2024

Zac (Adherent Apologetics) and I explore a few of the things that drew me to agnosticism. Religious ambiguity, disagreement among epistemic peers, the diversity of the theistic tradition (as well as the varieties of non-theism), the seeming inscrutability of the prior probability of theism, and my acceptance of the value-selection hypothesis have all played a part in pushing me (somewhat reluctantly) to agnosticism.

Losing My Religion – with Fuad Abdullah Harahap (@fubilosophy) Apr 04, 2024

I’m interviewed by Fuad Abdullah Harahap (@fubilosophy) about my deconversion, the sad state of Christian apologetics, my issues with the skeptic community, free will, the afterlife, agnosticism, and a few other topics.

Fubilosophy

Jimmy Akin & Emerson Green – Debunking the Skeptics on UFOs

CA131 What would convince you? Mar 04, 2024

What would convince you of God’s existence? Specifically, the Christian God. What would change your mind and cause you to convert?

I name three things: Christian aliens, miracles, and religious experience. That’s not an exhaustive list, but those things would dramatically raise my credence in Christian theism.

I spend the most time talking about religious experiences, mainly for two reasons. First, their epistemic significance is not always appreciated by nonbelievers. Second, I’ve noticed that some Christian apologists really hate it when nonbelievers say the experience of God would convince them of theism and thought that was worth examining.

/ Videos referenced in the episode /

The Argument from Miracles (Panel)

Countering the Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus

What would make atheists accept a miracle claim? | C.M. Lorkowski & Real Atheology

5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology

4 Things I Learned About Epistemology

Phenomenal Conservatism with Michael Huemer

CA130 Am I Agnostic? Feb 24, 2024

The world is religiously ambiguous: It can be interpreted in various incompatible ways, and the interpreters are not necessarily violating any standards of rationality in doing so. As for me, I don’t feel any position being forced on me by the evidence. My best efforts to judge the total balance of evidence weighing for and against theism leave me thinking that no one has a decisive case; and the main way to give the impression of having a decisive case is to ignore the total evidence, focusing solely or primarily on the facts that support your position. Put a spotlight on the things that favor your view, and minimize or cast aside the things that don’t fit.

Over time, I’ve come to appreciate the force of some of the evidence against the hypothesis of indifference and in favor of a “value selection hypothesis“, e.g. psychophysical harmony, fine-tuning, and the axiological trajectory of the universe. These, along with a few other considerations that favor theism more directly, have gradually moved me to more of a middle position on theism vs. atheism. (Today, I don’t dive into a full-fledged defense of those arguments.)

There are plenty of sources of epistemic uncertainty that have increasingly led me to hold on to my beliefs more loosely. How am I supposed to alter my confidence in light of peer disagreement? How should I set my priors? How am I supposed to reckon with the inescapable contingency of my beliefs? Richard Rorty often spoke about a certain kind of philosopher with “radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered” (1989). Rorty goes much further, in ways that I can’t get behind. But what can I say? I’m impressed by many of you. The problem is that you have mutually exclusive, incommensurable worldviews. At least for me, at this point, agnosticism seems like the most honest reaction to my epistemic situation. (Of course, God can settle this whenever he likes.)

CA129 Universalism Debate: John Buck vs. Emerson Green Jan 28, 2024

Returning guest John Buck joins me to debate universalism, eternal conscious torment, and other topics related to hell and the afterlife.

My Playlist on Hell

CA128 No, math does not prove God Jan 14, 2024

I respond to the wildly popular Redeemed Zoomer video about proving God’s existence with math. To see the open hangout that took place afterwards, you can watch the original livestream (unedited with no postscript) on YouTube Linktree

CA127 What’s wrong with the moral argument? Dec 27, 2023

We wrap up our series on the moral argument for theism, summarize several problems with the argument famously associated with William Lane Craig, and discuss two other moral arguments for God that are not abysmal failures like the standard moral argument.

Majesty of Reason – Moral Realism | Dr. Michael Huemer & Dr. Don Loeb

CA126 Euthyphro’s Revenge Dec 24, 2023

Today, we continue our series on the moral argument for theism. We discuss the Euthyphro dilemma, Hume’s Law, and explore a back-and-forth between William Lane Craig and Michael Huemer on the question, “Why obey God?” Common Mistakes about the Moral Argument | Majesty of Reason Majesty of Reason – Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis Michael Huemer – Groundless Morals (this chapter is within the volume of Erik Wielenberg vs. William Lane Craig on the moral argument) Metaethics w/ Michael Huemer | Emerson Green Is God Necessary for Morality? | William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan Moral Objectivity Without God | Russ Shafer-Landau Post-Debate Interview with Justin Schieber of Real Atheology Linktree

CA125 The Moral Argument for God Dec 19, 2023

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And morality.

The standard moral argument popularized by William Lane Craig and others goes as follows:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

(2) Objective moral values do exist.

(3) Therefore, God exists.

Today, we cast some doubt on the idea that morality is objective only if God exists. We also define some crucial terms, refute a few apologetic canards, and discuss a few ways in which apologists have misrepresented the field of metaethics and failed the audiences that rely on them.

Here’s the overview of the whole moral argument series. Today, in part one, we’ll be covering sections (1)-(5).

(1) Introduction

(2) Defining Terms

(3) Apologetics vs. Metaethics

(4) “Humans are just animals” (Moral agents vs. patients)

(5) The Moral Law Giver

(6) Euthyphro & Intrinsic Value

(7) Hume’s Law

(8) Why Obey God?

(9) Groundless Morals

(10) Two Classes of Moral Realism

(11) God Cannot Provide the Basis for Objective Morality

(12) Good Moral Arguments

(13) What’s wrong with the moral argument?

A few resources mentioned in this episode:

Is God Necessary for Morality? | William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan

Moral Objectivity Without God | Russ Shafer-Landau

Support the Show

Linktree

CA124 Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Conversion to Christianity Nov 21, 2023

Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently announced her conversion to Christianity. But has she only adopted a form of cultural Christianity? I examine her reasons for becoming a Christian and draw some parallels between Ayaan and another political convert: Andrew Tate.

I think her reasons for adopting Christianity are quite clearly explicated, even though some Christians have been trying very hard to ignore them. She argues that Christianity can sustain the liberal values of the Enlightenment that she cherishes so deeply. Those values are under attack, she says, from Islam, Russia, China, and woke ideology. Every purely secular strategy tried in response has been insufficient. Christianity, on the other hand, could function as a far more effective weapon against her political enemies in this existential clash. But why does it matter that the west prevails over its cultural and geopolitical foes? Christianity can help with that, too – not just on a civilizational level, but individually as well. It’s the antidote to nihilism, the heart of liberalism, a panacea for wokeness and illiberalism. These considerations together lead her to adopt Christianity, even if she doesn’t think it’s actually true.

Maybe in the future, she’ll affirm something more than cultural Christianity. Until then, I’m honestly inclined to see Ayaan’s “conversion” as further vindication of the death of God: even the converts don’t really believe anymore. A good deal of true believers are apparently so desperate for a morale boost, they’re willing to look past that.

Ayaan’s guiding light is liberalism, the Enlightenment, and western civilization. She is a positively zealous believer in what the west represents to her, and this is absolutely crucial to understanding her conversion to Christianity. She may not believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus, but she believes in western civilization. She believes this is the best way – perhaps the only way – to save it from withering.

Watch this episode on YouTube

AMA Nov 19, 2023

I recently asked for your questions, and I posted my responses on YouTube here. We touch on compatibilism, NDEs, aliens, euthanasia, abortion, death anxiety as an atheist, idealism, incest, Islam, Mormonism, subjectivism, psychophysical harmony, and more. (For those listening via podcast, I left the introduction in to preserve the timestamps for those who want to skip around to different sections.)

00:00 Intro
00:46 Atheistic platonism?
01:22 Why are you gay?
01:30 Are you still a naturalist?
05:47 What kind of compatibilist are you?
09:41 If I settle your debt with PragerU, will you become a libertarian?
10:12 What’s your biggest gripe with physicalism?
12:42 On the abortion debate, when do you think personhood / full moral status begins?
17:22 Do twinks make better philosophers?
17:56 Are you agnostic about anything in philosophy?
19:37 Why are you such a sucker for spooky stuff?
30:49 Who makes those guitar transitions?
32:34 Favorite music?
34:30 Who are some of your favorite Eastern philosophers?
35:03 Which religion would you choose to be true?
40:54 Who are your favorite theist and atheist philosophers?
42:18 Arguing for dualism from mereological nihilism?
45:48 Euthanasia?
48:43 What are your thoughts on each general era of philosophy?
55:00 Thoughts on Jordan Peterson?
58:55 Have you looked into Islam?
1:03:57 Does your mother know you spend so much time talking to strangers on the internet?
1:04:04 What is your opinion on the resurrection?
1:08:23 The best argument against veganism?
1:21:18 What is the primary goal of adopting panpsychism?
1:23:20 Best defenses of objective morality?
1:24:34 How would aliens affect theism and atheism?
1:30:53 Are you a dualist or a physicalist?
1:31:31 Isn’t solipsism simpler than panpsychism?
1:33:37 Thoughts on idealism?
1:35:41 Which political system do you think is right?
1:39:34 Thoughts on metaethical naturalism?
1:41:52 Is incest wrong?
1:45:27 When will you have some Mormons back on your show?
1:46:34 Why atheist and not agnostic? Where can I find good philrel content?
1:49:54 Would necessitarianism defeat fine-tuning and psychophysical harmony?
1:57:38 Do you accept physical causal closure?
2:00:00 How do you explain psychophysical harmony?
2:02:34 Kant’s transcendental idealism and free will?
2:07:56 Are we obligated to refute false beliefs even if they’re meaningful?
2:13:01 Is there any profound nugget of wisdom that Christianity has first or exclusive ownership of?
2:15:17 Analytic/Continental divide?
2:18:05 “Emmerson”
2:19:03 Does the phenomenal powers view weaken psychophysical harmony?
2:22:04 Is time necessary for consciousness?
2:28:49 If you did reconvert, would you be a Christian or a generic theist?
2:32:20 Finite theism?
2:36:22 Top three philosophers who are wrong about everything?
2:37:57 Moral subjectivism with normally functioning humans as the (collective) observer(s) morality is stance-dependent upon?
2:48:52 Are you afraid of death? How do you cope with death anxiety as an atheist?

Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen

CA123 Christian Universalism w/ Andrew Hronich Oct 14, 2023

I’m joined by Andrew Hronich, author of Once Loved, Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis. We discuss universal reconciliation, eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, and much else!

Watch the interview here

Where New Atheist Epistemology Goes (Very) Wrong | @EmersonGreen | Ep. #259

Where New Atheist Epistemology Goes (Very) Wrong – Interview on Adherent Apologetics Sep 05, 2023

Here’s my appearance on Adherent Apologetics to talk about the recent series of Counter Apologetics episodes on epistemology.

5 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology

4 Things I Learned About Epistemology

Epistemology playlist on YouTube

Previous limited god debate

Debate: Is God Finite? Sep 05, 2023

Alex Strasser (Protestant) and John Buck (Catholic) debate the merits of finite theism, the view that God is limited in power. Theistic finitism is less vulnerable to the problem of evil than perfect being theism, but are there other trade-offs that make the notion of a finite God less defensible overall?

John is defending the view that strong versions of omnipotence avoid problems of vagueness, arbitrariness, ad hocness, lack of predictive power, and complexity that limited models of God suffer from. John also thinks that a new problem of evil arises that is particular only to limited views of God.

Alex will give a cosmological argument and fine-tuning argument for finite theism, and further argue that omni-theism is not a fruitful research program due to serious issues with coherence and the analysis of omni-properties. Theistic finitism is rarely discussed in the philosophy of religion, and Alex wants to invite us to take finite theism more seriously and to investigate it carefully.

Debate: Is God Finite?

Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy

CA122 Substance Dualism w/ Michael Huemer Aug 28, 2023

Dr. Michael Huemer joins me to defend interactionist substance dualism, the view that the mind and body are composed of different substances and can exert causal influence over each other.

CA121 Encountering Mystery w/ Dale Allison Aug 13, 2023

Today I’m speaking with Dr. Dale Allison, historian and author of many books, including The Resurrection of Jesus, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, and our subject today, Encountering Mystery: Religious Experience in a Secular Age. The subtitle of the book notwithstanding, the unusual experiences we discuss are not explicitly religious. They’re usually interpreted through a religious lens (often without any reflection), but almost all of them needn’t be, which is something we return to quite a bit. Flatly disputing the phenomenon is not the only option available to atheists. We talk about paranormal and parapsychological phenomena, and two major sources of skepticism towards things that fall into those categories. On the one hand, of course, there’s materialism, conservative naturalism, skepticism (as in, the skeptic community), etc. But Protestant Christianity, I was surprised to learn, has also been a skeptical force in history due to their drive to debunk Catholic miracle stories, or even just extraordinary events documented by the Catholic Church that explicitly or implicitly were used as evidence for Catholicism. Since we’re exploring new terrain that involves some quite unusual topics (e.g., clairvoyance, levitation, visions of dead loved ones, etc.) there’s a lot more I want to say, even in this little description box, but I’ll save it for the interview. One thing I forgot to mention during the interview: In addition to Dr. Allison’s book, there are a couple podcasts that regularly discuss cases like the ones that came up today in greater depth. “Otherworld” and “Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World” come highly recommended from me. Linktree

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence Jun 28, 2023

Today, I defend the controversial idea that ordinary and extraordinary claims don’t require the same evidence.

CA120 Debate: Limited vs. Unlimited God Jun 28, 2023

LDS Philosophy and Dry Apologist join me for a debate on the nature of God. We compare the virtues of a limited model of God versus a model on which God is unlimited in power, as well as simple, impassible, etc. Are the classical models of God too impersonal and abstract, incapable of sustaining a commitment to a personal God who loves us? Or are the limited models of God not divine enough? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both views with respect to the problem of evil? Watch the debate on YouTube: Catholic vs. Mormon on the Nature of God Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen

CA119 Intuition, Lacktheism, & Charity Jun 20, 2023

We close out our series on atheism and epistemology with the epistemic value of intuition, the issue of lacktheism, and whether or not I’ve been charitable to my fellow atheists throughout these episodes. Linktree

CA118 Testimonial Evidence Jun 19, 2023

Can we really trust the testimony of others? Does testimony provide any evidence or justification for a claim? I defend the idea that we should trust testimony, and that the epistemic value of testimonial evidence is supported by induction, the principle of charity in interpretation, and coherence.

Understanding Knowledge – Michael Huemer

CA117 Is Theism Unfalsifiable? Jun 11, 2023

This is part two of a five-part series. For even more on epistemology, check out Walden Pod for a completely different epistemology series.

Understanding Knowledge – Michael Huemer

CA116 Mistakes Atheists Make About Epistemology: “There is no evidence for God.” Jun 08, 2023

There are a number of slogans one hears in the online atheist community, some of them purporting to be epistemic principles or rules of thumb. Unfortunately, many of them are only correct if we interpret them very narrowly and often not in the way they were intended, while others are just plain wrong. Today, we’ll be tackling the idea that there is no evidence for theism. What exactly is evidence? And is it reasonable to think there is literally zero evidence for theism?

This is part one of a five-part series. For even more on epistemology, check out Walden Pod for a completely different epistemology series.

Post-debate debrief – Patreon

CA115 Post-Debate Interview w/ Justin Schieber of Real Atheology May 10, 2023

Justin Schieber joins me for a lighthearted breakdown of his debate with Eric Hernandez on the existence of God. We critique the arguments put forward by Eric, discuss the evidence presented by Justin, and talk about a few of our favorite moments from the debate. Huge shoutout to Capturing Christianity for organizing the debate, and to the beautiful Lanier Theological Library for hosting the event. Does God Exist? Justin Schieber vs. Eric Hernandez (CC Exchange 2023) Real Atheology’s channel Patreon | Counter Apologetics Linktree

CA114 Animal Suffering is Evidence Against God Apr 30, 2023

Is the kind, degree, and distribution of animal suffering evidence against theism? We discuss why teleological evil, the scale of suffering in evolutionary history, and the moral randomness of animal pain is strong evidence against the existence of God.

Debate: Is Animal Suffering Evidence That God Does Not Exist? w/ Perspective Philosophy Apr 19, 2023

Perspective Philosophy and I recently had a friendly debate about the problem of evil, metaethics, the contingency argument, and how he maintains his worldview as a catholic and vegan.

The Conversation

“I remember asking Frank Turek in person during a Q&A how he reconciled the portrayals of God in the OT & NT, since it seemed like there was a personality change. He said, “There wasn’t one. Next question.” Anyway, I deconverted a week later.”

Unknown Arguments For & Against God Apr 12, 2023

Two Catholics (Dry Apologist & John Buck) and two atheists (Emerson Green & Chris Rhodes) talk about lesser-known arguments for theism and against theism. Chris joins us a little later, but he makes it in time to rack up several casualties on the battlefield of ideas. Originally hosted on Dry Apologist’s channel. 00:00 Introduction 04:00 Evidential Complementarity 08:20 Common Consent Argument 27:00 Argument from Desire 35:35 Argument from Unjust Distribution of Propensities to Sin 1:12:30 Meager Moral Fruits Argument Animal Suffering is Evidence Against Theism (Patron-only bonus episode) Linktree

CA113 God’s Personality Change? Feb 28, 2023

Is there any moral clash between the depiction of Yahweh and Jesus Christ?

Catholic Answers recently responded to a question I had originally asked when I was 19. On Twitter, I’d recounted an experience I had with Frank Turek when I was struggling to hold onto my faith:

Joe Heschmeyer, writing for catholic.com, made a much more respectable and empathetic attempt to answer the question, which we’ll be taking a (critical) look at today.

God’s Personality Change? – Catholic Answers

Good God? – David Bentley Hart

Slavery in the Bible – Counter Apologetics

Transcript of this episode

Subscribe on YouTube here

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

For those who are curious, I asked Frank Turek the question in August 2014 in Manitou Springs, Colorado. I attended a two-week apologetics camp called Summit.

The original clip on Thoughtful Faith’s channel

Bonus: Mormonism is More Defensible Than You Think (w/ LDS Philosophy & Thoughtful Faith) Feb 28, 2023

I was recently invited on Thoughtful Faith’s channel to share my thoughts about why LDS theology may have a few philosophical advantages over more mainstream versions of Christianity. For example, Mormons reject perfect being theism in favor of a limited god, which opens up new avenues in responding to arguments from evil that are not available to other Christians. Rather than forwarding creation ex nihilo, Mormons believe the universe is eternal. God is a part of nature rather than outside it; he organized our universe from pre-existing material. Latter-day Saints also reject the standard, logically incoherent view of the trinity. Strikingly, they reject the notion of eternal conscious torment for the vast majority of non-Christians. Universalism (or something like it) is the default view in the LDS Church.

This is not “Christianity plus implausible stuff” – this is Christianity minus implausible stuff. Unless, that is, you consider eternal conscious torment, creation ex nihilo, and the baffling notion that our world was created by a perfect being to be valuable aspects of Christianity that somehow increase its plausibility.

Why would a loving God create a place of ETERNAL torment? (feat. Emerson Green)

Full conversation with LDS Philosophy and Thoughtful Faith

My Linktree

CA112 What’s the Best Explanation of Psychophysical Harmony? w/ Philip Goff & Dustin Crummett Feb 20, 2023

Philip Goff and Dustin Crummett debate psychophysical harmony, God, axiarchism, pan-agentialism, natural teleology, and explore some neglected terrain between theism and the hypothesis of indifference. What are our options in explaining the fine-tuning of consciousness?

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Twitter @waldenpod @Philip_Goff @dustin_crummett

Dustin’s Channel

Mind Chat

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

The Doubter’s Creed (currently $8.99 on Amazon)

CA111 How to Be a Christian When You Don’t Believe It’s True w/ Randal Rauser Feb 12, 2023

I’m joined by Dr. Randal Rauser to discuss his new book, The Doubter’s Creed: How to Be a Christian When You Don’t Believe It’s True. We discuss the uniquely creedal character of Christianity, the credibility of doxastic voluntarism (the view that we can choose our beliefs at will), prudential reasons to hope Christianity is true, the dispute between William James and W.K. Clifford over belief without sufficient evidence, universalism, eternal conscious torment, religious disagreement, and whether non-Christians can be saved.

Randalrauser.com

CA110 Addressing Popular Forms of Theism vs. the Best Forms Jan 27, 2023

Should we address popular versions of theism? Or should we address the best, most defensible versions of theism?

To pursue the question of God’s existence, we must engage with the best forms of theism, not the worst. As Michael Huemer put it, “Who cares if you can refute the craziest version of a view? … The way to learn is to address the most interesting defensible views, not to spend our time discussing trivially false ideas.” Even if those trivially false ideas are widespread, wield lots of influence in the world, and are positively dangerous, they’re still trivially false. At worst, it’s deeply dishonest to refute the worst version of an idea, stop there, and act as if the entire idea has been refuted.

Depending on one’s goals, however, addressing the strongest forms of theism might seem like a waste of time. If you’re primarily concerned with atheist activism, helping others, and reducing the harm brought about by religion, why spend any time on things that have no significant influence in the world? The activists are generally more concerned with attacking the truth of influential beliefs that make the world worse. Philosophers are generally more concerned with addressing the best versions of each side, since that’s the best way of figuring out whether we should be theists, atheists, or agnostics. Though both are valuable and worthwhile projects, the main issue with the activist crowd is that they seem to think they’re the best at both, despite never engaging with the strongest versions of the view they reject.

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Discussion on Miracles Jan 09, 2023

Friendly debate between three miracle skeptics and a theist.

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod

CA109 Meager Moral Fruits w/ Real Atheology Dec 28, 2022

Ben Watkins of Real Atheology joins me to discuss the meager moral fruits argument, a few objections to the argument, and why we’re interested in it in the first place. Subscribe to Real Atheology on YouTube and on iTunes Follow us on Twitter @waldenpod @RealAtheology @SpeedWatkins Subscribe on YouTube Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Support the podcast at Patreon.com/counter linktr.ee/emersongreen / Timestamps / 00:00 Housekeeping 1:41 To the Christians in my life 3:43 Introducing Ben from RA 6:06 Why I’m interested in the MMFA 9:49 The Meager Moral Fruits Argument 42:51 Open Hangout

CA108 Psychophysical Harmony, Physicalism, & God w/ Brian Cutter Nov 30, 2022

Dr. Brian Cutter joins me to discuss his paper, ‘Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism‘, coauthored with Dr. Dustin Crummett.

After talking about epiphenomenalism and why William James’ argument against it works against all views in philosophy of mind (with the lone exception of Type-A materialism), we explain why psychophysical harmony seems so improbable. We also discuss what I consider to be one of the weirder features of physicalism – the metaphysical impossibility of inverts, zombies, disharmony, and so on – and why one’s views about metaphysical modality won’t help you escape the argument from psychophysical harmony. In addition to touching on a few objections, we also talk about the underdetermination of the data, and why psychophysical harmony may be equally good evidence for some hypotheses of those who exist in The Nagel Zone.

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

CA107 The Participation Theodicy — w/ John Buck Nov 17, 2022

The participation theodicy holds, reasonably enough, that it would be good to create an ideal world. Since it would be good for God to do so, it would also be good for us to do so (as well as any other beings). The goodness would only be multiplied through our participation and contribution to the creation of an ideal world. The defender of the participation theodicy doesn’t deny that God could’ve created a much better world than ours — or even created us in heaven — and that this would be a good thing. Rather, they compare the goodness of creating a heavenly world ex nihilo to the goodness of creaturely participation in the creation of the same heavenly world. A unilateral divine act of ex nihilo creation would preclude the creative activities of other creatures. To quote my guest today, “The best sort of thing God could do would be to create the very best type of world for creatures to inhabit. But for creatures to be spontaneously generated in an ideal state of the world would be for them to miss out on helping God bring about that ideal world. So God, being generous, would have good reason to initially create creatures in a non-ideal state of the world, so that they could contribute towards bringing about its idealization, so that they too could do the very best type of thing that they could have done.”

and watch the interview here

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod and John @WriterJohnBuck

Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy

CA106 One Hell of a Problem – w/ Real Atheology & Counter Apologist Oct 07, 2022

I’m joined by Counter Apologist and Ryan from Real Atheology to discuss eternal conscious torment. First, we take a closer look at the views of William Lane Craig, who famously denies the possibility of an actual infinite in the context of the kalam, yet seems to argue that the guilt of those who reject God is an actual infinite. As he says, finite sins only merit finite punishment. But since the guilt of those who reject a relationship with God is infinite, their punishment in hell is justified. We also touch on free will, postmortem salvation, the rejection of God, religious diversity, universalism, and David Bentley Hart’s case that everlasting torment is morally indefensible. Watch the video here Clarification: I used the words “ignorance or limitations/imperfections” several times (e.g., “No one would reject a relationship with a being of perfect love without some ignorance or imperfection”). “Ignorance” in this context would include lack of knowledge of God’s existence or his exact nature. “Imperfection” or “limitation” was usually intended to refer to our rational faculties. So if a person is rejecting a being of perfect love, I think that person must be lacking information or ability to assess that information, most likely. As David Bentley Hart argues, “no rejection of God on the part of the rational soul is possible apart from some quantum of ignorance and misapprehension and personal damage.” Subscribe on YouTube Consider supporting the show at patreon.com/counter or patreon.com/waldenpod Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

Metaethics & Moral Realism w/ Michael Huemer Sep 26, 2022

Dr. Michael Huemer joins me to discuss moral realism vs. antirealism, ethical intuitionism, phenomenal conservatism, moral disagreement, and much else in moral philosophy. (This aired originally on YouTube and Walden Pod.)

Ethical Intuitionism

William Lane Craig vs. Erik Wielenberg

/ The Five Metaethical Positions /

Noncognitivism/expressivism: Moral statements are neither true nor false. Evaluative predicates do not even

purportedly refer to any sort of property, nor do evaluative statements assert propositions.

Error theory/nihilism: Moral statements (that imply that something has an evaluative property) are all false.

Subjectivism: Some moral statements are true, but not objectively. For a thing to be good is for some individual or group to (be disposed to) take some attitude towards it. Moral Naturalism: There are objective moral properties, but they are reducible.
Evaluative truths are reducible to descriptive truths. Additionally, moral statements can be justified empirically.

Moral Non-Naturalism/Intuitionism: There are objective moral properties, and they are irreducible. Evaluative truths are not reducible to descriptive truths. Additionally, at least some moral truths are known intuitively.

/ Timestamps / 00:00 Introduction 01:05 Objective vs. Subjective 06:45 Five Metaethical Views 36:45 Fictionalism 50:40 Phenomenal Conservatism, Scientism, Skepticism 1:15:00 Moral Disagreement 1:25:00 Theism and Moral Realism 1:41:00 Companions in Innocence 1:46:30 Evolutionary Debunking Arguments 2:00:00 Huemer’s soul is not in Colorado nor is it in Michigan

CA105 Responding to Trent Horn’s “5 Atheist Double Standards” Sep 07, 2022

This is my response to Catholic apologist Trent Horn’s recent video entitled “5 Atheist Double Standards.” (The first minute is a cold open. It makes more sense if you’re watching the video version.) Watch on YouTube Interview on the Sentientism podcast The Meager Moral Fruits Argument My devil’s advocate debate Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen Timestamps: 00:00 Coming Up 01:00 Introduction 01:48 Trent’s Introduction (No disagreement!) 03:13 Ancient Historical Documents (Double Standard 1) 05:36 God is evil, nothing is evil (Double Standard 2a) 19:43 Divine Command Theory 25:18 Moral Realism vs. Atheism (Double Standard 2b) 36:35 Bad Christians vs. Bad Atheists (Double Standard 3) 42:17 Ridiculing Christian censorship while excommunicating atheist heretics (Double Standard 4) 47:49 Atheists refuse to criticize Islam (Double Standard 5) 55:39 Outro

Debate Breakdown w/ Ben Burgis: Christopher Hitchens vs. David Berlinski Aug 31, 2022

This is my appearance on Ben Burgis’s channel. Ben and I listen to and comment on a debate between Christopher Hitchens and David Berlinkski over the motion “Atheism poisons everything.”

The video

CA104 How did religion evolve? w/ Naturalism Next Aug 28, 2022

Naturalism Next joins me to discuss “the cognitive science argument against theism.” We talk about the psychology of religion, hyperactive agency detection, signaling theory, and more on the evolutionary origins of religious belief. Crucially, theories from modern cognitive science of religion are antecedently more likely on naturalism than on theism, and so provide good evidence against theism. We have plausible natural mechanisms that account for religious belief and practice – how they form and how they spread. The persistence and prevalence of religious belief can be understood through the framework of evolutionary theory and cognitive science of religion, providing us an answer to the question, “If God doesn’t exist, why does nearly everyone believe in God?” The first half of this episode is about the cognitive science of religion, and the latter half is on why the cognitive science of religion is evidence favoring naturalism over theism. Something for the psychology of religion nerds and philosophy of religion nerds alike. Naturalism Next (YouTube) Naturalism Next (Blog) Subscribe on YouTube Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

Bonus: The Fall – w/ Christian Idealism & Invoking Theism Aug 21, 2022

I’m joined by Christian Idealism and Invoking Theism to discuss how they see the Fall as non-young earth creationists. This was an impromptu recording in my hotel room at the Capturing Christianity conference in Houston. (You also might recognize the introductions from the previous episode.)

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

CA103 Defeat, Evil, & Hell – w/ Christian Idealism & Invoking Theism Aug 16, 2022

I’m joined by Christian Idealism and Invoking Theism to discuss the problem of evil, the defeat condition, eternal conscious torment, alternative models of the afterlife, and whether we can have sex in hell. We’re also joined on mic by John Buck for a few minutes. This was an impromptu recording in my hotel room at the Capturing Christianity conference in Houston.

Support the podcast at patreon.com/waldenpod or /counter

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Watch the interview on YouTube here

CA102 The Most Plausible Form of Christianity Jul 22, 2022

I outline a version of Christianity that doesn’t suffer from some of the problems that I find the most troubling. Universalism, in conjunction with a handful of other views, seems capable of smoothing over some of my biggest reasons for rejecting theism. This is a clip from a longer interview on Adherent Apologetics. We didn’t plan on covering this subject, but I was asked near the end of the interview about what I considered to be the most viable form of Christianity. Universalism has been on my mind a lot in the past month or so, and this seemed like a good way of kicking off the exploration on this podcast. If we’re to steelman Christianity and attack it at its best, this is to my mind the version that deserves our attention. Watch the full interview here David Bentley Hart – That All Shall Be Saved Keith Derose – Universalism and the Bible Elenore Stump – Closer to Truth Joe Schmid w/ Trent Horn – Is explicit knowledge of God necessary for a relationship with him? Subscribe on YouTube Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

CA101 Five Arguments Against God w/ Jonathan MS Pearce Jul 15, 2022

I’m joined by the author of “30 Arguments Against The Existence of ‘God’: Heaven, Hell, Satan, and Divine Design” to discuss five arguments raised in his new book.

Jonathan’s column on OnlySky

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

YouTube: A Catholic and an Atheism Debate God and Religion

CA100 A Catholic and an Atheist Debate God Jul 01, 2022

Emerson Green defends the motion “God probably does not exist” against John Buck. Moderated by the Non-Alchemist.

Transcript of Emerson’s opening statement

Follow John on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/WriterJohnBuck & Emerson here: https://twitter.com/waldenpod

Support the podcast at patreon.com/counter

Roadmap:

Introduction (2 min)

John’s Opening Statement (20 min)

First Cross-Examination (5 min)

Emerson’s Opening Statement (20 min)

Second Cross-Exam (5 min)

John’s Rebuttal (12 min)

Emerson’s Rebuttal (12 min)

John’s Closing Statement (5 min)

Emerson’s Closing Statement (5 min)

Audience Q&A

CA99 Teleological Evil Jun 20, 2022

There are many famous examples of unintelligent design in nature, but what about malevolent design? Some natural systems are aimed at producing suffering: they cause suffering by acting in accordance with their natural purpose, function, or design plan. Why would we infer a benevolent, omnipotent designer from malevolent design?

The fact that predation – a striking example of teleological evil – is a prominent feature of the biological order is very surprising on theism. Predation isn’t a feature of the biological order because animals are acting against their design plan – exactly the opposite. The fact that animals must savagely kill and devour each other in order to survive is strong evidence against the hypothesis that nature was designed, directly or indirectly, by an unsurpassably great being of perfect love and goodness.

The Problem of Teleological Evil – Felipe Leon [exapologist]

An Atheological Argument from Evil Natural Laws – Quentin Smith [infidels]

Justin Schieber of Real Atheology interviews Quentin Smith (2017) [YouTube]

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

The Problem of Evil w/ Dry Apologist Jun 18, 2022

Here’s my appearance on Dry Apologist’s channel. We discuss arguments from evil, theodicies, and answer questions from the audience. The interview: https://youtu.be/WEBSV1HF9sE Linktree

CA98 Religious Experience & Conclusion (Devil’s Advocate pt. 3) Jun 15, 2022

We conclude our Devil’s Advocate series with religious experience, a summary of the arguments we’ve discussed, and why I’m still an atheist. I also offer a few thoughts on the debate between atheists and theists.

The Full Series

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Support the show on Patreon

CA97 Widespread Theistic Belief & Religious Disagreement (Devil’s Advocate pt. 2) Jun 12, 2022

I recently participated in a “devil’s advocate” debate on God’s existence. Today, we continue to take a closer look at the arguments I raised. We discuss the common consent argument, epistemic authorities, soteriology, universalism, eternal conscious torment, religious diversity, and divine hiddenness.

This is part two of a three-part series. The full series is available now for patrons AND on YouTube for subscribers to the channel: https://youtu.be/qzV3E5NcDTA

00:00 Introduction & the argument from widespread theistic belief

11:00 The consensus of experts

15:57 Religious disagreement (diversity, discord, confusion, etc.)

37:06 Divine Hiddenness

47:02 A few more thoughts on religious disagreement

52:03 The value of disagreement

55:33 Final Thoughts

Transcript of my Opening Statement

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

CA96 Debunking Myself on God (pt. 1) Jun 09, 2022

I recently participated in a “devil’s advocate” debate on God’s existence. Today, we take a closer look at the arguments I raised. We talk about the general approach of building a cumulative case for naturalism and theism, the argument from the existence of consciousness, and the argument from psychophysical harmony.

This is part one of a three-part series. The full series is available now for patrons AND on YouTube for subscribers to the channel: https://youtu.be/qzV3E5NcDTA

00:00 Introduction

01:08 Models of God

03:19 Methodology

08:27 The Existence of Consciousness – Is this understated evidence?

21:49 Psychophysical Harmony

33:17 Final Thoughts

Support the show on Patreon

Transcript of my Opening Statement

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Emerson Green vs. Kyle Alander (Christian Idealism)

Does God Exist? Devil’s Advocate Debate Jun 01, 2022

I recently participated in a “devil’s advocate” debate on God’s existence. I defended theism, and my opponent, a Catholic, defended atheism.

Transcript of Opening Statement

Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism (Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion)

CA95 The Argument from Psychophysical Harmony w/ Dustin Crummett May 08, 2022

Dr. Dustin Crummett joins me to discuss a new argument from consciousness for theism. Though psychophysical harmony is evidence for theism, it may be equally good evidence for non-theistic hypotheses that I find interesting, like axiarchism and natural teleology.

**In the initial presentation of the argument (the first ten minutes or so), we assume that epiphenomenalism—the idea that consciousness has no physical effects—is true, but this is just for convenience, as psychophysical harmony is a puzzle for all (or nearly all) metaphysical views of the mind.

Philip Goff & Joshua Rasmussen – The Nature of the Cosmic Mind

Philip Goff – Axiarchism, cosmopsychism, the fine-tuning problem (Aeon)

A Christian Philosopher Answers Common Objections to Same-Sex Marriage – Dustin Crummett

In Defense of Socialism | Dr. Dustin Crummett

Applied Ethics: Abortion & Gun Control | Dr. Dustin Crummett

dustincrummett.com

/ / /

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Consider supporting the show at patreon.com/counter or /waldenpod

Twitter @waldenpod

CA94 Logical Fallacies? May 01, 2022

Take a look at nearly any book on critical thinking and you’ll come across a list of fallacies: ad hominem, argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, post hoc ergo propter hoc, god of the gaps, and so on. The problem is that many of these “fallacies” closely resemble good lines of reasoning. Overreliance on fallacy lists – common practice in the skeptic community – fosters shallow criticism, distracts from the substance of an issue, and doesn’t even accomplish the ostensible purpose of demarcating good and bad reasoning.

I’m hard on skeptics in this episode, but that’s because I used to lean on this crutch myself. Over time, the usefulness of this approach struck me as less and less credible, and talk about fallacies tapered off. Fortunately, philosophers like Maarten Boudry and Michael Huemer, whose work you can find below, explained in clear terms what is so unhelpful about this mode of thinking. “Fallacy theory,” as Boudry calls it, is only one feature of a shallow, facile mode of philosophizing, one which isn’t very conducive to a genuine search for truth. I would suggest that one way of improving the quality of our discourse would be to lay off the fallacy accusations a bit. It would lead to a more fruitful search for knowledge and understanding.

After the first five minutes or so of big picture criticism, the bulk of the episode is dedicated to concrete examples, focusing on the ad hominem fallacy, ad populum, “correlation does not imply causation” – the post hoc ergo propter hoc (or cum hoc) fallacy – and begging the question.

The Fallacy Fork: Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory – Maarten Boudry

Playing Fallacy “Gotcha!” – Maarten Boudry

Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy – Michael Huemer

The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life – Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

My version of the argument

Meager Moral Fruits Discussion – Guest Appearance on Jonathan MS Pearce’s Show Apr 12, 2022

Jonathan MS Pearce is an author, speaker, and columnist who recently wrote an article on the meager moral fruits argument. Jonathan invited me on his YouTube channel, A Tippling Philosopher, to speak about the argument and a few common criticisms offered in response to it. We also discuss state atheism, liberalism, favorite books, and open theism.

The interview on YouTube

Jonathan’s article

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

CA93 Is Mormonism the Best Version of Christianity? — with Tarik D. LaCour Apr 04, 2022

Tarik D. LaCour is a Ph.D. student in philosophy and an M.S. student in psychology. He is a philosopher and cognitive scientist whose primary research interests are in the philosophy of psychology, cognitive science, and bioethics. He also writes about politics “from a conservative point of view,” and also on religion, from his perspective as a member of the LDS Church. Here’s an excerpt from a profile in Public Square Magazine entitled “A Latter-day Saint Empiricist”:

“LaCour is a growing figure in the Latter-day Saint intellectual community, no doubt largely due to the unexpected nature of his takes on almost everything. His social media leaps from brooding observations on science and philosophy to deadpan quips about politics and sports. In fact, the way LaCour evades easy categorization is surely part of his draw. He’s pessimistic, but not cynical. He cares about social justice but frequently deviates from popular narratives. … He’s a devout member of the Church, but openly embraces scientism (his Twitter handle is @realscientistic).”

Tarik and I discuss the LDS worldview and how it differs from other forms of Christianity. Mormons have deep disagreements with other Christians about the nature of God, soteriology, the afterlife, and much else. Further, these differences may provide philosophical advantages that favor Mormonism relative to other versions of Christianity. Tarik and I also discuss his scientism, empiricism, and eliminativism, and how these views intersect with his Mormonism.

Watch on YouTube here

The Scientistic Stance

A few thoughts on Mormonism

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

CA92 The Meager Moral Fruits Argument Mar 28, 2022

Does Christianity bear the kind of fruit one might expect if it were true? Does naturalism or Christian theism better predict the moral fruits and lack thereof that we actually observe? Naturalists would expect Christianity to produce a mixed bag, like any other man-made institution. Christianity leads one to form loftier expectations.

There’s much more to say about this argument than we cover today, but we manage to lay out the essential core of the argument: a Theological Premise, an Empirical Premise, and a Moral Premise. The Theological Premise is, roughly speaking, the claim that Christianity should bear appreciable moral fruit, and that Christian theism and naturalism make different predictions: they lead us to form different expectations about the world. The Empirical Premise is meant to establish some relevant fact about the world. The Moral Premise affirms a moral fact or normative judgment. We defend each of these premises and work the meager moral fruits argument into a cumulative case for naturalism.

“I might believe in the Redeemer if his followers looked more redeemed.” – Nietzsche

For a discussion of Paul Draper’s original argument from meager moral fruits, see my video on Draper’s Case for Naturalism

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Consider supporting the show

Is Free Will An Illusion? with Theoretical Bullshit Mar 23, 2022

I’m joined by Scott Clifton (Theoretical Bullshit) to discuss free will skepticism, compatibilism, moral responsibility, revenge, and killing coyotes. Video version – Is free will an illusion? Scott’s channel Follow me @waldenpod and TBS @TheoreticalBS Consider supporting Counter Apologetics here or Walden Pod here linktr.ee/emersongreen

CA91 Why won’t God heal amputees? Feb 20, 2022

For the believer who advances the argument from miracles, the question of why God won’t heal amputees can be a thorn in the side. If God is willing to perform healing miracles – miracles that should convince anyone – why hasn’t God restored the lost limbs of amputees?

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Original video on YouTube – From YEC to Atheist

From Young Earth Creationist to Atheist – Guest Appearance on Answers in Reason Feb 15, 2022

My Channel

Twitter @waldenpod

CA90 Hell: Eternal Conscious Torment Feb 08, 2022

I argue that the notion of eternal conscious torment (ECT) leads to absurdities, and that theists can easily avoid these absurdities by abandoning ECT. For example, a believer in ECT must defend the following proposition: “A perfectly good, merciful, just, and loving God superintends the eternal conscious torment of human beings.” This proposition is incoherent simply in virtue of the meaning of those words. (The word “superintend” implies responsibility without suggesting that God is directly involved in the minutia of operations.) If a being oversees the eternal torment of humans, that being is not perfectly loving, good, merciful, or just. But these divine attributes are far more central to theism than ECT. Since ECT leads to conflicts with core aspects of theism, and since ECT is not itself a core aspect of theism, theists should not believe ECT.

So, either God doesn’t exist, and there isn’t anything to worry about; or God exists, and we shouldn’t fear eternal conscious torment precisely because the God of theism exists. If God’s nature is anything like theists have traditionally affirmed – good, merciful, just, and loving – eternal conscious torment is not a feature of the world.

Whether atheists or theists are right, there is no reason to be afraid of eternal conscious torment.

Glenn Peoples vs. Ben Watkins on Hell, Annihilationism, and Universalism

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Ben Watkins – Brief on Hell

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

CA89 Why I don’t spend more time on contingency arguments Dec 18, 2021

Arguments from contingency are widely considered to be among the strongest offered in defense of God. The results of the 2020 PhilPapers Survey have cosmological arguments ranked as the strongest family of arguments for theism. So why don’t I spend more time worrying about cosmological and contingency arguments?

Even those unfamiliar with cosmological arguments will have encountered the perennial “Why is there something rather than nothing” out in the wild. If a theist wants to know why there is something rather than nothing, then, for the sake of argument, I’ll say that however they explain the existence of God, that’s how I explain the existence of nature.

Philip Goff – responding to Joanna Leidenhag Graham Oppy – An argument for atheism from naturalism Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Transcript (w/ links & references) Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. linktr.ee/emersongreen

What is Naturalism? – Walden Pod Dec 02, 2021

Naturalists, according to David Papinau, author of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on naturalism, urge “that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’.” Naturalism “has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy” beyond this, along with an emphasis on science as a means to understand the natural world. Naturalism is the view that there is only the natural world. I defend this simple conception of naturalism, ward off a few criticisms, and argue that there’s a kind of parity between the terms “theism” and “naturalism.” In other words, if you don’t have a problem with the term “theism,” you shouldn’t have a problem with “naturalism.” Originally posted on Walden Pod – subscribe here watch the video here Luke Roelofs – Combining Minds: How to Think about Composite Subjectivity Is God the Best Explanation of Things? A Dialogue – Joshua Rasmussen & Felipe Leon (this wasn’t mentioned in the episode, but Leon does a wonderful job fleshing out “liberal naturalism” Graham Oppy – The Best Argument Against God Sean Carroll – Poetic Naturalism Galen Strawson – Real Naturalism William Lycan – Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction Naturalism – SEP / / /

Listen to our sister show Counter Apologetics here

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod and @OnPanpsychism

/ / / a few elaborations of naturalism… “By ‘naturalism’ I mean the view that the world contains a single basic type of stuff, whose behavior is governed by a single set of simple, general laws, and that these laws are those revealed by science. The most common version of naturalism among contemporary philosophers is physicalism, the view that the world is entirely made up of matter, and matter is exhaustively described by physics. But some philosophers reject physicalism, even while accepting naturalism, holding that matter is not exhaustively described by physics—there are fundamental aspects of matter that physics is blind to. In particular (they tend to say), there are certain things each of us can know about matter, such as that one particular portion of matter (the one between our ears) sometimes feels and thinks and experiences, which go beyond both what physics itself says and what can be deduced from any physical description, no matter how detailed. Because facts about my consciousness are left out by any purely physical descriptions, these ‘naturalistic anti-physicalists’ infer that consciousness must be itself a fundamental feature of reality, no more derivable from physical properties than mass is derivable from charge.” Luke Roelofs “Naturalism is a philosophy according to which there is only one world — the natural world, which exhibits unbroken patterns (the laws of nature), and which we can learn about through hypothesis testing and observation. In particular, there is no supernatural world — no gods, no spirits, no transcendent meanings. I like to talk about a particular approach to naturalism, which can be thought of as Poetic. By that I mean to emphasize that, while there is only one world, there are many ways of talking about the world. “Ways of talking” shouldn’t be underestimated; they can otherwise be labeled “theories” or “models” or “vocabularies” or “stories,” and if a particular way of talking turns out to be sufficiently accurate and useful, the elements in its corresponding vocabulary deserve to be called real.” Sean Carroll “Naturalism says that causal reality is natural reality: the domain of causes is nothing more nor less than the natural world. Atheism says that there are no gods; in consequence, atheism says that there is no God. Naturalism entails atheism: if causal reality is natural reality, then there is no (supernatural) cause of natural reality, and, in particular, there is no God. But atheism does not entail naturalism: to deny that there are gods is not to insist that causal reality is natural reality. . . . Supernaturalism says that causal reality outstrips natural reality: there are supernatural causes. . . . This ‘minimal’ conception of naturalism relies on a prior understanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural (as did our ‘minimal’ conception of theism). We shall proceed on the assumption that we do understand this distinction well enough. If we come to have doubts about whether we do understand this distinction well enough, then we can return to give it more careful consideration. ‘Minimal naturalism’ admits of elaboration in many different – mutually inconsistent – ways. Any suitably elaborated naturalism will hold that some features of the natural world are primitive – not susceptible of further explanation – whereas other features of the natural world are fully explained in terms of those primitive features. Thus, for example, some naturalists suppose that all of the primitive features of the natural world are physical features – i.e. features that lie in the proper domain of the discipline of physics. Other naturalists suppose that there are features of the natural world . . . that cannot be fully explained in terms of the fundamental physical properties. The key point to note is that all naturalists suppose that there are no supernatural causal properties…” Graham Oppy

CA88 ID Theorist Accidentally Produces Evidence Against Intelligent Design Nov 17, 2021

The Discovery Institute, an ID thinktank, has a list of “Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.” On this list is an article authored by Michael Behe, alleging to prove the irreducible complexity of certain protein binding sites. However, his experiment demonstrated the exact opposite point as intended. He had to rig his study to an incredible degree, only to fall short nonetheless.

Watch it on YouTube here: Intelligent Design Theorist Accidentally Produces Scientific Evidence Against Intelligent Design

Behe’s article, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”

For more on intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and evolutionary biology, check out my Biology and Design playlist

Rate the show on iTunes!

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

watch the video version here

7 Questions for Christians Nov 09, 2021

Support at patreon.com/counter or /waldenpod

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod

Answers in Reason – Ten Questions for Theists

Braxton Hunter – Ten Questions for Atheists

my responses to Braxton

and here are links to a few of the arguments I mentioned in Question 7: Schellenberg’s argument from hiddenness Rowe’s evidential argument from evil the meager moral fruits of theism teleological evil Draper’s biological role of pain and pleasure argument the problem of heaven Oppy’s argument from naturalism

CA87 God & Evolution Nov 01, 2021

We’ll be exploring what the discovery of evolution potentially means for religion. Is evolution evidence against theism? If so, why? Is it incompatible with Christianity, as some Christians maintain? What is the conceptual landscape vis-à-vis evolution and theism—as in, what is the range of potential options available to a religious believer when it comes to evolution? We also briefly discuss evolutionary evil as evidence against God’s existence, and argue that the acceptance of evolution does not dissolve all the problems that arise between evolution and theism. Accepting evolution doesn’t mean you’re off the hook.

Transcript (and further links)

Support the Show

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Joe Schmid & Micah Edvenson on Evolutionary Evil

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Joe Schmid & Non-Alchemist on Evolutionary Evil

CA86 The Argument from Scale Oct 05, 2021

Human beings seem cosmically unimportant. Though certainly from God’s perspective, we are more important than stars, rocks, vast stretches of empty space and time, and other things that don’t seem to possess any value in and of themselves, the latter group seems to have been afforded the lion’s share of the cosmos. Human beings, presumably the jewel of God’s creation, don’t seem to be the main event. So, does this favor naturalism or theism? Is the unimaginable vastness of time and space, and the lack of human centrality therein more probable on naturalism, or on theism?

If the universe is indifferent to human life, it’s no surprise that humans seem cosmically unimportant, not occupying a position of centrality or significance in an incomprehensibly vast ocean of space. The reality of our situation is sharply contrasted with the one our ancestors imagined themselves to be in. As William Lane Craig put it, “on the cozy, pre-Copernican cosmology—what C. S. Lewis called ‘the discarded image’ of the cosmos—theism seemed vastly more probable than atheism. Like a Fabergé egg, the little universe centered on the Earth, with the spheres of the planets and fixed stars revolving about it, cried out for an explanation in terms of a Cosmic Designer.”

We also discuss the “symmetry of evidence” and get a bit into the weeds of Bayes’ theorem.

Read more here from Hugh Jidiette

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

/ / /

On likelihoodism observation O is evidence for hypothesis H over ¬H iff P(O|H) > P(O|¬H).

Since P(O|H) + P(¬O|H) = 1 and P(O|¬H) + P(¬O|¬H) = 1, we can insert it into the prior formula to get an interesting result:

1 – P(¬O|H) > 1 – P(¬O|¬H)

P(¬O|¬H) > P(¬O|H)

So, in English, O is evidence for H over ¬H iff ¬O is evidence for ¬H over H. The means that you can have evidence for a hypothesis iff you can have evidence against a hypothesis.

Two other ways of expressing the same point that “O is evidence for H over ¬H iff ¬O is evidence for ¬H over H”:

P(h|e) > P(h) iff P(h|~e) < P(h)

E being evidence for H entails that ~E is evidence for ~H

or here from Michael Huemer

William Lane Craig – Does the Vastness of the Universe Support Naturalism?

Emily Thomas – Does the size of the universe prove God doesn’t exist?

Carl Sagan – The Cosmic Calendar

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right – NYT

New Scientist – Vatican admits Galileo was right

Arguments from Scale – Tim Mulgan

CA85 Conversation with The Non-Alchemist: Deconversion, Atheism, and Apologetics Sep 01, 2021

Today, I’m speaking with The Non-Alchemist about the trials and tribulations of deconversion, reasons for being an atheist, lacktheism, Calvinism, Christian double-standards regarding testimonial evidence, the state of apologetics, what stuff is real, and more. Here’s this interview on YouTube with video (this episode was recorded on Streamyard and originally posted on YouTube).

NA’s channel

Emerson’s appearance on NA’s channel

Follow us @waldenpod and @AlchemistNon

Debate: Is evil strong evidence against God? Jul 16, 2021

Here’s my debate with Zac of Adherent Apologetics on the problem of evil, hosted by the Non–Alchemist. I focus on the problem of animal suffering and defend an argument called the teleological argument from evil.

Video of the debate here

emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

CA84 Why I Am An Atheist Jul 07, 2021

There are five reasons, broadly, why I’m an atheist:

I. We don’t need God to explain anything.

II. There are few phenomena that are better explained by theistic models than by atheistic models.

III. There are many phenomena that are better explained by atheistic models than by theistic models.

IV. Theism is more metaphysically profligate than naturalism as an explanation.

V. Theism suffers from various internal problems.

We discuss each of these reasons, abductive atheology, and several issues related to atheism.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Abductive Atheology – Timothy Perrine & Stephen Wykstra

/ / /

Paul Draper’s Case for Naturalism (with transcript)

Graham Oppy explains “The Best Argument Against God”

Richard Swinburne on building a cumulative case

A few thoughts on what it means to be an atheist

On Atheism’s Intuitive Appeal:

100,000 Years

God’s Checklist

The “Good News”

CA83 Hume on the Argument from Design May 19, 2021

Today we discuss the evergreen critique of the design argument from David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume’s skepticism is aimed at the inference to a designer on the basis of our observations of natural objects and their analogy to human artifacts. When two objects are similar effects – say a house and another house – we’re on solid footing when we infer a similar cause. To the extent that two objects are similar effects, we have grounds for inferring a similar cause. But as Hume points out, human artifacts and natural objects are not similar effects. Their dissimilarities vastly outnumber any similarities. So, we don’t actually have much ground for inferring a similar cause. Further, inferring a “similar cause” would not lead one to the orthodoxly conceived monotheistic god. We’d be led to an imperfect designer (or designers), finite in their power, knowledge, and goodness. linktr.ee/emersongreen twitter.com/waldenpod (@waldenpod) Hume on the Design Argument [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Hume’s Objections to the Teleological Argument (5 minute summary) [YouTube] Arguing About Gods – Graham Oppy [Amazon] The Design Argument (Cambridge Elements) – Elliot Sober [Abebooks] The Problem of Teleological Evil [exapologist] Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion [text]

Condemn the Architect: Hume’s Answer to Skeptical Theists (Bonus Episode) May 07, 2021

Happy birthday, David Hume! I thought I’d share Hume (or more accurately, Philo) casually destroying skeptical theism in Part XI of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. His analogy of an architect and a poorly constructed house arose in a discussion of the problem of evil between Philo and Cleanthes, two of Hume’s fictional characters in the Dialogues. Skeptical theism is no excuse for the poor final result, even if skeptical theists (correctly) claim that making adjustments here or there would affect the causal web negatively overall. If the architect had skill and good intentions, they could’ve constructed a different causal web that didn’t suffer from these problems. Skeptical theism will never be satisfying, since a designer infinite in knowledge and power would have been able to construct a different web entirely, one that wasn’t interconnected in such a way that the prevention of terrible suffering would somehow lead to goods being prevented or worse evils coming to be. Transcript to this episode: emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2021/05/07/condemn-the-architect-david-humes-answer-to-skeptical-theists/ Magic Tricks by Whalers linktr.ee/emersongreen

CA82 What the ‘agnostic atheist’ graph gets wrong Apr 25, 2021

Can you be an “agnostic atheist,” or are those terms mutually exclusive? I try to explain how the famous four quadrant graph misunderstands the nature of belief, knowledge, and agnosticism.

the chart in question

Joe Schmid on Agnosticism and Justification [YouTube]

Gettier and knowledge with Kane B and Cole Nasrallah [YouTube]

What is knowledge? [SEP]

The Analysis of Knowledge [SEP]

Graham Oppy – Atheism: The Basics [Amazon]

Transcript for this episode

twitter.com/waldenpod (@waldenpod)

Consciousness and Atheism with John Buck and Craig Reed TCR

Debate: Is evil evidence against God? Emerson Green vs. Dr. Khaldoun Aziz Sweis Mar 10, 2021

Here’s the audio from my recent debate hosted by Adherent Apologetics on the problem of evil. I argue that with respect to suffering, the world looks about as we’d expect it to look if god did not exist. Atheists can do a much better job explaining the kinds, degree, and distribution of suffering we observe in our world. Specifically, I appealed to three lines of evidence: The biological role of pain and pleasure, gratuitous suffering, and divine silence during tragedies.

(note – I accidentally said “When I was an atheist,” near the beginning when I meant to say, “When I first became an atheist.”)

/ / /

A few recent appearances on other channels:

Tjump and Emerson Green on Panpsychism – The Right to Reason Podcast

Deconversion and Atheism with The Non-Alchemist

https://linktr.ee/emersongreen

The Rats in the Walls
The Shadow Out Of Time
The Shadow Over Innsmouth

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

CA81 Skeptical Theism Mar 03, 2021

We discuss several reasons to doubt skeptical theism, including Paul Draper’s objection, phenomenal conservatism, divine silence during tragedies, Pandora’s box, and moral paralysis. linktr.ee/emersongreen Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Additional music by ichika Nito and was used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod / / / Ryan Stringer – Evil and Skeptical Theism (2012) [infidels.org] Aron Lucas – The Argument from Cognitive Biases (2018) [infidels.org] Jeffery Jay Lowder – In Defense of an Evidential Argument from Evil: A Reply to William Lane Craig (2016) [infidels.org] Starving Child and Vulture – Kevin Carter (1993) [Time] Thomas Nagel – Problem of Evil [NYRB] Schopenhauer on the Sea Turtles [Goodreads] Skeptical Theism [SEP] / / / S = some facts about suffering I = the hypothesis of indifference T = the hypothesis of theism (1) Pr(S/I) = quite high (2) Pr(S/T) = quite low (3) Therefore, Pr(S/I) > Pr(S/T) (4) Therefore, S is evidence is that favors indifference over theism / / / 00:00-03:32 Evidential arguments from evil 03:33-06:38 The theological premise 06:39-08:59 Skeptical theism 09:00-13:32 Concrete examples of gratuitous suffering 13:33-15:31 Draper’s objection 15:32-17:28 Phenomenal conservatism 17:29-21:02 Moral unintelligibility 21:03-22:59 Divine silence during tragedies 23:00-30:25 Pandora’s box, reliable cognitive faculties, & moral paralysis 30:26-36:12 Conclusion

CA80 Secular Christianity with Philip Goff Dec 17, 2020

Non-believing Christian Philip Goff joins us to discuss religious fictionalism, literalism, religious language, Jordan Peterson, the resurrection, the spread of Christianity, the transcendent, and Christianity without theism. After the interview, I try to work through my thoughts on secular Christianity. I reflect on antitheism, fundamentalism, and what replaces religion after the death of god. Philip is a philosopher who teaches at Durham University. He is the author of Galileo’s Error and Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. He’s published more than forty academic papers, and his writing has appeared in many newspapers and magazines, including The Guardian and The Times Literary Supplement. You can follow Goff on Twitter @Philip_Goff and Emerson @waldenpod Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness – Goff [Amazon] Consciousness and Fundamental Reality – Goff [Amazon] Robin Le Poidevin on Religious Fictionalism [PDF] Ozymandias Ramses II on New Atheism [YouTube] Sean Carroll’s Speech (begins at 1:23:13) [YouTube] philipgoffphilosophy.com Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Support the show at patreon.com/counter Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by Whalers. Additional music by ichika Nito. Both were used with permission.

CA79 Paul Draper’s Case for Naturalism Dec 01, 2020

In his 1997 debate with William Lane Craig, Paul Draper considers seven lines of evidence and asks if they are more expected on theism or on naturalism. He argues that the meager moral fruits of theism, mind-brain dependence, evolution, the biological role of pain and pleasure, tragedies, divine silence during tragedies, and religious confusion are not what we would expect to find if theism were true. The world looks about as one would expect it to look if god did not exist. Christians and atheists are both capable of accounting for what we observe. Certainty is not on the table. So what are we to do? According to Draper, we should ask: Is this fact likely given naturalism? Or is it surprising given naturalism? Is that datum to be expected on theism? Or is it not exactly what we would expect? Then we should survey the total evidence and see which worldview fares better overall. Draper vs. Craig – 1997 [YouTube] J.J. Lowder’s Summary and Assessment of the Debate [Patheos] Elephant Philosophy – Draper’s Case for Naturalism [YouTube] Paul Draper [Infidels.org] Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Support the show at patreon.com/counter Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

The Atheism & Mythos of H.P. Lovecraft Oct 30, 2020

This Halloween, we’ll be discussing the life and work of the great horror author, H.P. Lovecraft.

Lovecraft’s atheism 00:00 – 07:38

Biographical details 07:39 – 12:50

Lovecraft’s reanimation and influence on culture 12:51 – 18:02

Lovecraft and the unknown 18:03 – 20:22

Forbidden knowledge and a New Dark Age 20:23 – 26:14

Fast zombies 26:15 – 27:27

More on the Lovecraftian mythos 27:28 – 29:13

Lovecraft’s writing style 29:14 – 38:54

Lovecraft’s racism 38:55 – 43:19

The Old Church Lady and art 43:20 – 45:46

Horror and its critics 45:47 – 48:20

/ / /

FREE LOVECRAFT AUDIOBOOKS
Dagon

At the Mountains of Madness

The Call of Cthulhu

/ / /

MORE LOVECRAFT PODCASTS

Chapo Trap House on Lovecraft [YouTube]
Lovecraft Literary Podcast [HP Podcraft]

Patton Oswalt [HP Podcraft]

Patton Oswalt with Chapo Trap House [Patreon]

/ / /

READINGS ABOUT LOVECRAFT

hplovecraft.com

Emma Stefansky – Primer on the works of HP Lovecraft [Polygon]
HP Lovecraft’s 125th Birthday [The Atlantic]
Nnedi Okorafor – Lovecraft Award [blogspot]
Criticism of Lovecraft’s Writing Style [The Guardian]

Criticism/Praise for Lovecraft [The Guardian]
The Philosophy of Horror – Noel Carroll [PhilPapers]

Against Religion – HP Lovecraft [Amazon]
The Portable Atheist – Christopher Hitchens [Amazon]

Complete List of Lovecraft’s Short Stories [hplovecraft]
/ / /

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube

Light-In-Transit and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention – Jason Lisle [AiG]

Dark Lofi (outro music) [YouTube]

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod

My Top 25 Horror Movies [Letterboxd]

Check out my review of Hereditary, the most overrated horror film in cinematic history, over on Walden Pod.

/ / /

Bonus: The EA Show – Interview with Emerson Green Oct 23, 2020

This is the audio from my appearance on The Empathetic Atheist YouTube show. Justin & Andy ask me what I take to be the best argument against god and what I take to be the worst argument for god. I apologize for the audio (as well as the video) quality. I don’t know how to properly stream and my internet is terrible!

The EA Show – Interview with Emerson Green: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f59q8x1yqSY

CA78 Young Earth Creationism & the Distant Starlight Problem Sep 21, 2020

Young earth creationists believe that the earth, humankind, and the universe are approximately six-thousand years old. Scientifically, this is a fringe view, not taken seriously by anyone outside religious circles. However, the majority of Christians in the United States are young earthers.

Today, we discuss one particular problem for young earth cosmologies: the distant starlight problem. We can see stars that are millions and millions of light years away. If it’s true that the universe is only a few thousand years old, then why can we see stars more than a few thousand light years away?

40% of Americans Believe in Creationism [Gallup]

William Lane Craig on young earth creationism [YouTube]

Ken Ham on young earth creationism [YouTube]

Jason Lisle – The Speed of Light and the ASC [YouTube]

The One-Way Speed of Light [YouTube]

Conventionality of Simultaneity [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Starlight and Time – Russell Humphreys [GoogleBooks]

William Lane Craig on the Kalam & Theories of Time [YouTube]

Kalam & the A Theory – Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pgs. 183-184) [PDF]

PBS – How we know the universe is ancient [YouTube]

PBS – How we know the earth is ancient [YouTube]

The Age of the Universe – Sixty Symbols [YouTube]

/ / /

Darwin’s Warm Little Pond Revisited: From Molecules to the Origin of Life – Hartmut Follmann & Carol Brownson [PubMed]

Additional music by ichika Nito and was used with permission.

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

CA77 Since Matter First Writhed: The Mystery of Abiogenesis Jul 24, 2020

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises from non-living matter. Though life’s origin is an open question, abiogenesis research is a thriving interdisciplinary enterprise. In spite of this, many apologists have argued that it’s unlikely we will ever have a scientific explanation of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is so improbable on naturalism, they say, that we should be open to supernatural explanations. I argue that abiogenesis is not improbable on naturalism, and also attempt to unravel the numerous errors creationists make when discussing the origins of life.

Astrobiologist Stuart Bartlett on What “Life” Means [Mindscape Podcast]

Astrobiology at NASA – Defining and Detecting Life [NASA]

Michael Russell on Alkaline Hydrothermal Vents [JPL]

Clay may have been birthplace of life on Earth [ScienceDaily]

Michael Russell on Emergent Structures in Nature [YouTube]

Meteorites Reveal Another Way to Make Life’s Components [NASA]

The Origins of Life [GreatCourses]

The Elemental Ingredients of Life are Common [wiki]

Jackson Wheat – A Few Ideas in Abiogenesis Research [YouTube]

The Replicators (Chp. 2 of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins) [text]

Why Abiogenesis is Impossible – Creation Research Society Quarterly [PDF]

Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: A Reply to Stephen Meyer – Dennis R. Venema [PDF]

Peanut Butter – The Atheist’s Worst Nightmare [YouTube]

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

@waldenpod

“We left the last hint of polar land behind us, and thanked heaven that we were clear of a haunted, accursed realm where life and death, space and time, have made black and blasphemous alliances in the unknown epochs since matter first writhed and swam on the planet’s scarce-cooled crust.”

— H.P. Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness

CA76 The Incoherence of God (pt. III) May 28, 2020

We complete our trilogy on igtheism and discuss epistemic questions about god’s attributes, the historical development of god’s nature, the experience of god, god’s relationship with logical truths, absence of evidence, and address the inevitable retreat into transcendence.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Music by Whalers and ichika Nito and was used with permission.

. . .

Unintelligible God – Reasonable Doubts [Podchaser]

Bart Ehrman on the Origins of the Trinity [YouTube]

Ozymandias Ramses II on Logical Truth and Omnipotence [YouTube]

Logical Truth and Omnipotence [Reasonable Faith]

YouTube Playlist on Igtheism [YouTube]

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin [Amazon]

CA75 The Incoherence of God (pt. II) May 12, 2020

We define our terms, address Graham Oppy’s claim that igtheism is self-defeating, discuss logical positivism and its relationship with igtheism, and present an igtheist divine hiddenness argument.

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito and was used with permission.

. . .

Ozymandias Ramses II on Theological Noncognitivism – Steve McRae Show [YouTube]

Unintelligible God – Reasonable Doubts [Podchaser]

Rabbi Sherwin Wine coins the term ‘ignostic’ [New York Times]

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin [Amazon]

Response to Matt Dillahunty’s Criticism of Igtheism [YouTube]

TMM on Igtheism [YouTube]

YouTube Playlist on Igtheism [YouTube]

Atheism: The Case Against God – George Smith [Google Books]

A Disproof of God’s Existence – Colin McGinn [Skeptic]

/ A Note on Terminology /

I use my terminology in a consistent way throughout. As I mentioned, there is no widely recognized standard usage, so it’s important for one to define at the start words like igtheist, incoherent, meaningless, etc. I’m using the terms igtheist, ignostic, and theological noncognitivist as interchangeable, since many already treat them as interchangeable, for better or worse. Trying to establish one as strictly referring to incoherence and another as strictly referring to meaninglessness seems like a hopeless struggle to me, but I apologize for any confusion that resulted from the use of ‘theological noncognitivist’. I only insist on distinguishing two branches of thought that are too often conflated: the related but distinct views that god’s attributes are meaningless and god’s attributes are incoherent. Respectively, one means god talk is without content and the other means god’s attributes don’t cohere, which assumes some content. I’m primarily interested in the latter.

CA74 The Incoherence of God (pt. I) May 11, 2020

Can we make any sense of the idea of god? God is supposed to be an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, timeless, spaceless, immutable, disembodied conscious mind. We begin our series on igtheism by discussing several problems with these divine attributes. Is god unintelligible? Is this episode unintelligible? You’ll have to be the judge.

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito and was used with permission.

/ Resources on Igtheism /

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin [Amazon]

Ozymandias Ramses II on Theological Noncognitivism – Steve McRae Show [YouTube]

Response to Matt Dillahunty’s Criticism of Igtheism [YouTube]

TMM on Igtheism [YouTube]

YouTube Playlist on Igtheism [YouTube]

Atheism: The Case Against God – George Smith [Google Books]

A Disproof of God’s Existence – Colin McGinn [Skeptic]

CA73 Why Was Jesus Killed? Apr 10, 2020

Why did the Romans kill Jesus? When I was a Christian, I was taught that the Jews were primarily responsible for the death of Jesus. The Romans may have carried it out, but it was ultimately motivated by Jesus’s conflict with Jewish authorities over his transgressions of Jewish law (calling himself god, blasphemy, etc.). Crucifixion, however, was a Roman punishment carried out by the Roman government for violating Roman laws — not a Jewish punishment carried out by Jewish authorities for violating Jewish laws. If Jesus was crucified, it was because he ran afoul of the Romans, not the Jews. So why did the Roman authorities want to execute Jesus?

We also discuss the historical Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, human sacrifice, and the bad faith of William Lane Craig.

This week I’ll also be appearing on Embrace the Void with Aaron Rabinowitz and The Right to Reason with Robert Stanley.

Past Easter episodes:

CA48 William Lane Craig’s Four Facts about the Resurrection

CA26 The Spread of Christianity

CA25 “Who would die for a lie?”

CA24 The Resurrection of Jesus

Is there historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? (This is where Craig repeatedly lies about Joseph of Arimathea) [Reasonable Faith]

Why Was Jesus Killed? [Bart Ehrman Blog]

Anti-Judaism in the Gospels [Ehrman Blog]

Jesus Smuggling – Rationality Rules [YouTube]

or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

Music by Whalers (theme) and ichika Nito (transitions) and was used with permission.

Listen to ichika Nito here

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

CA72 Moral Luck and Free Will Skepticism with Aaron Rabinowitz Mar 15, 2020

I’m joined by Aaron Rabinowitz of Embrace the Void and Philosophers in Space to discuss moral luck, moral judgement, and whether it’s ever justified to hate a person.

Our first discussion on The Right to Reason Podcast: https://therighttoreason.podbean.com/e/panpsychism-debate/

Thomas Nagel – Moral Luck [PDF]

Galen Strawson – Things That Bother Me [Amazon]

Moral Luck [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

You can listen to Aaron on Embrace the Void here and Philosophers in Space here

Follow Aaron on Twitter @ETVpod and Emerson @waldenpod

Free Will – Counter Apologetics (2017) [YouTube]

“Tumors all the way down” [Very Bad Wizards]

New music used with permission from ichika Nito

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

CA71 Leibniz’s Argument from Contingency Feb 23, 2020

We discuss Occam’s Razor and simplicity, the principle of sufficient reason, and brute facts.

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): The principle that everything must have an explanation, reason, cause, or ground.

Brute fact: Something with no further explanation.

*Edit* I used “brute fact” to simply mean “explanatory termination” in this episode. A brute fact, however, even if it’s the place where our explanations ultimately come to an end, may not be true in all possible worlds. If it was true in all possible worlds, we wouldn’t call it a brute fact; we would call it a metaphysical necessity. In other words, if x is brute, x may not have been.

/ Leibniz’s Contingency Argument /

Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God (a necessary being).
The universe exists.
Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

I reject the principle of sufficient reason (the first premise) because I think there must be at least one brute fact, and because the PSR is arguably self-refuting. I also don’t think the universe needs an explanation for its existence, assuming we’re defining universe in the broadest possible sense. I need to add that caveat because what has previously been called “the universe” may in fact only be a part of everything that exists. In the same way that scientists prematurely named certain particles “atoms,” only to find out later they were not in fact atoms, we may have prematurely named a part of the universe, “the universe.” Apologists will sometimes burn a lot of fuel arguing that “the universe” has an explanation, when they’re not really talking about everything that exists, ever has existed and ever will exist. If this all-encompassing whole is not “an arbitrary act of the mind,” then it could be a brute fact. And to be fair, if god existed, god could be a brute fact. But on grounds of simplicity alone, without even touching all the problems with the notion of god, nature or some aspect of nature is a better candidate than god as the place where our explanations ultimately come to an end.

William Lane Craig on Leibniz’s Contingency Argument [Reasonable Faith]

Leibnizian Contingency Argument – InspiringPhilosophy [YouTube]

Contingency Argument [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Principle of Sufficient Reason [SEP]

. . .

ichika Nito’s YouTube channel

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

CA70 Why I Am Not A Christian (pt. II) Feb 14, 2020

In 1927, Bertrand Russell delivered a now-famous address entitled ‘Why I Am Not A Christian’. We examine Russell’s contribution to one of the most important questions you can ask yourself: should I be a Christian? Today we discuss the argument from design, the fine-tuning argument, the problem of evil, and the Euthyphro dilemma. “Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. . . . This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.” Bertrand Russell – Why I Am Not A Christian [text] . . . Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

CA69 Why I Am Not A Christian (pt. I) Feb 03, 2020

In 1927, Bertrand Russell delivered a now-famous address entitled ‘Why I Am Not A Christian’. We examine Russell’s contribution to one of the most important questions you can ask yourself: should I be a Christian? Today we discuss who counts as a Christian, the first cause argument (as well as a couple other arguments in the same family), and the natural law argument. “Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. . . . This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.” Bertrand Russell – Why I Am Not A Christian [text] Galen Strawson and Robert Wright [YouTube]

CA68 Do Atheists Need Faith? with Ozymandias Ramses II Jan 05, 2020

Ozy and I discuss whether atheists have faith, and whether it’s naive for atheists to hold a reflexively anti-faith position. We also discuss Hume’s problem of induction, external world skepticism, solipsism, properly basic beliefs, certainty, Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed foundationalism, reliabilism and our belief-forming mechanisms, presuppositionalism, movement atheism, and other various issues in epistemology.

You can subscribe to Ozy’s channel here [YouTube]

Ozy, Alex Malpass, and Matt Dillahunty [YouTube]

Ozy and Matt Dillahunty [YouTube]

Ozy on Real Atheology [YouTube]

. . .

or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so with Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

CA67 Kalam Cosmological Argument: The Nature of Time Dec 16, 2019

We discuss the A and B theories of time and how they relate to the kalam cosmological argument.

Support on Patreon here or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pgs. 183-184) [PDF]

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

. . . . .

A and B Theory of Time and the Kalam Argument – William Lane Craig [YouTube]

Why William Lane Craig Thinks Einstein Was Wrong – TMM [YouTube]

Brian Greene on the B-Theory of Time [YouTube]

Sean Carroll on Eternalism vs. Presentism [YouTube]

Sean Carroll on the KCA [YouTube]

NOVA – How an eclipse proved Einstein right [YouTube]

Complete solution to the Twins Paradox – minutephysics [YouTube]

CA66 Materialism, Consciousness, and Atheism Dec 06, 2019

We discuss the relationship between atheism, consciousness, and materialism after debunking arguments from consciousness formulated by Peter Kreeft and William Lane Craig. We also discuss why it’s important for naturalists to think carefully about these issues. I suspect that seemingly unrelated problems arise from our lack of a convincing story about consciousness. Consciousness and related phenomena, like morality and meaning, seem to be a major source of resistance to physicalism, naturalism, and atheism.

[Edit] Based on some of the feedback I’ve received, I feel the need to reiterate a major thesis of this episode: there is no incompatibility between atheism and any explanation of consciousness on offer. Atheism is not mutually exclusive to materialism, idealism, dualism, panpsychism, or any other solution to the mind-body problem. There is nothing one could say about the mind-body problem or the hard problem of consciousness that would count as a strike against atheism.

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod for much more on philosophy of mind here

or if you prefer to give a one-time donation, you can do so through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Martine Nida-Rümelin, Atheist and Substance Dualist

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

. . . . .

Alvin Plantinga – Against Materialism [PDF]

William Lane Craig – Argument from Intentionality [Reasonable Faith]5

Does consciousness point to God? – Unbelievable [YouTube]

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ben Shapiro [YouTube]

Thomas Nagel – Mind and Cosmos [Amazon]

Arguments from Consciousness [wiki]

Here are modern atheist philosophers who hold very different views on consciousness:

Galen Strawson, Atheist and Panpsychist

Dan Dennett, Atheist and Materialist

Thomas Nagel, Atheist and Neutral Monist

(Young) Bertrand Russell, Atheist and Idealist

…

Keith Ward, Christian Idealist

Sharon Dirckx, Christian Substance Dualist

Peter van Inwagen, Christian Materialist

CA65 God and Objective Morality — with Ben Watkins of Real Atheology Nov 17, 2019

Ben Watkins joins me to discuss the moral argument for god’s existence, objective moral truth, the is/ought gap, meta-ethics, and other related topics.

You can listen to Ben’s podcast, Real Atheology, here

Moral Non-Naturalism [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Listen to The Bible Says What!? here

Support on Patreon here or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

H.P. Lovecraft – Halloween Special Oct 26, 2019

This Halloween, we’ll be discussing the life and work of the great horror author, H.P. Lovecraft.

Lovecraft’s atheism 00:00 – 07:38

Biography 07:39 – 12:50

Lovecraft’s reanimation and influence on culture 12:51 – 18:02

Lovecraft and the unknown 18:03 – 20:22

Forbidden knowledge and a New Dark Age 20:23 – 26:14

Fast zombies 26:15 – 27:27

More on the Lovecraftian mythos 27:28 – 29:13

Lovecraft’s writing style 29:14 – 38:54

Lovecraft’s racism 38:55 – 43:19

Art and the Old Church Lady 43:20 – 45:46

Horror and its critics 45:47 – 48:20

. . . . .
Dagon – HP Lovecraft [YouTube]

The Call of Cthulhu – HP Lovecraft [YouTube]
The Shadow Out Of Time – HP Lovecraft [YouTube]
The Rats in the Walls [YouTube]
Lovecraft Literary Podcast [HP Podcraft]
Against Religion – HP Lovecraft [Amazon]
The Portable Atheist – Christopher Hitchens [Amazon]
Emma Stefansky – Primer on the works of HP Lovecraft [Polygon]
HP Lovecraft’s 125th Birthday [The Atlantic]
Nnedi Okorafor – Lovecraft Award [blogspot]
Criticism of Lovecraft’s Writing Style [The Guardian]

Criticism/Praise for Lovecraft [The Guardian]
The Philosophy of Horror – Noel Carroll [PhilPapers]
Dark Lofi (outro song) [YouTube]

Patton Oswalt [HP Podcraft]

Patton Oswalt with Chapo Trap House [Patreon]

Chapo Trap House – H.P. Lovecraft [YouTube]

. . . . .

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod

emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

CA64 Exorcism and the Rise in Demonic Possession Oct 20, 2019

Why is the demand for exorcism on the rise? We discuss the belief in demonic possession, the concurrent rise of anti-science attitudes, the cultural role of religious psychology, and the evolutionary origins of demons.

Tracie Harris of The Atheist Experience – Exorcisms and Anthropology [YouTube]

Vatican to hold exorcist training course after ‘rise in possessions’ [The Guardian]

Exorcisms are on the rise [Atlantic]

A man drowned his 6-year-old son while trying to cast out a demon, police say [Washington Post]

‘Like being raped’: three claims of coerced exorcism in the UK [The Guardian]

Demonic Possessions – Here and How Podcast [Stitchr]

. . . . .

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod

emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers

**CA63 Slavery in the Bible** Oct 03, 2019
Slavery, the practice of owning people as property, is never condemned in the Holy Bible. In fact, it’s endorsed by God personally in Leviticus 25. We discuss the character of Biblical slavery, and respond to seven common apologetics in defense of the slavery in the Bible.

Nonstampcollector – Context [YouTube]

Matt Dillahunty – Biblical Slavery [YouTube]

Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro [YouTube]

Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath [YouTube]

Rationality Rules – Biblical Slavery [YouTube]

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Rate the show on iTunes

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod

Support on Patreon

or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Subscribe on YouTube

Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers

**CA62 Reformed Epistemology, the Sequel** Sep 22, 2019
We discuss relativism, Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith,” the argument from personal experience, certainty, and how it all relates to Plantinga’s Reformed epistemology.

To those of you who may be wondering why we’re covering Reformed epistemology: Alvin Plantinga is one of the most respected Christian philosophers alive. He once served as the president of the American Philosophical Association, and he’s been awarded the Templeton Prize. Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion renamed its Distinguished Scholar Fellowship the Alvin Plantinga Fellowship. And in 2012, the University of Pittsburgh’s Philosophy Department, History and Philosophy of Science Department, and the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science co-awarded Plantinga the Nicholas Rescher Prize for Systematic Philosophy. William Lane Craig has described Reformed epistemology as “one of the most significant developments in contemporary religious epistemology.”

What I’m trying to convey is that Plantinga is a Sophisticated Apologist and is taken very seriously by the religious and non-religious alike. According to many apologists and theologians, he’s the best they have. We should take the time to attempt to debunk their best offerings. Even though these two episodes have been comparatively dense to the usual CA episode, I think they were undoubtedly worth it. If for no other reason than to see how underwhelming the best they have turns out to be. As Jerry Coyne put it, “I’m starting to realize that there is no sophisticated theology; there are merely evasions and fancy language to get around the problematic lack of evidence for God and the palpably immoral statements in scripture.”

. . . . .

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin (pgs. 266-278) [Amazon]

Tyler McNabb vs. Stephen Law on Reformed Epistemology [Unbelievable?]

William “In my heart” Craig [YouTube]

Daniel Hill on Reformed Epistemology [Panpsycast]

Alvin Plantinga – Is Belief in God Properly Basic? [PDF]

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Rate the show on iTunes

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod

Support on Patreon

or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)

Emerson’s Blog

Subscribe on YouTube

Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers

**CA61 Reformed Epistemology** Sep 08, 2019
We discuss Alvin Plantinga’s reformed epistemology, and ask whether belief in god is “properly basic.” We also discuss Cartesian skepticism, the notion of a divine sense or “sensus divinitatis,” and which beliefs should be considered properly basic. We also spend some time on the age-old question of “What is the difference between god and trees?” We discuss various types of trees, and which trees are the most reasonable to believe in, and why I don’t appear to have a sensus ghostatis. Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Rate the show on iTunes Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod Support on Patreon or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) Emerson’s Blog Subscribe on YouTube Listen to Magic Tricks by Whalers CA42 The Argument From Personal Experience could be a supplement to this episode. . . . . . Alvin Plantinga – Is Belief in God Properly Basic? [PDF] Daniel Hill on Reformed Epistemology [Panpsycast] Cartesian Skepticism — Crash Course Philosophy [YouTube] Properly Basic Beliefs — Ozymandias Ramses II [YouTube] Atheism: A Philosophical Justification – Michael Martin (pgs. 266-278) [Amazon]
To those of you who may be wondering why we’re covering Reformed epistemology: Alvin Plantinga is one of the most respected Christian philosophers alive. William Lane Craig described Reformed epistemology as “one of the most significant developments in contemporary religious epistemology.” Plantinga once served as the president of the American Philosophical Association. In 2017, he was awarded the Templeton Prize. The University of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion renamed its Distinguished Scholar Fellowship as the Alvin Plantinga Fellowship. In 2012, the University of Pittsburgh’s Philosophy Department, History and Philosophy of Science Department, and the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science co-awarded Plantinga the Nicholas Rescher Prize for Systematic Philosophy.

I’m trying to convey that Plantinga is a Sophisticated Apologist and is taken very seriously by the religious and non-religious alike. According to many apologists and theologians, he’s the best they have. We should take the time to attempt to debunk their best offerings. Even though these two episodes have been comparatively dense to the usual CA episode, I think it was worthwhile for many reasons. To quote Jerry Coyne, “I’m starting to realize that there is no sophisticated theology; there are merely evasions and fancy language to get around the problematic lack of evidence for God and the palpably immoral statements in scripture.”

CA60 Christianity vs. Climate Change Aug 31, 2019

Does Christianity, and religion generally, naturally lead to skepticism and apathy towards climate change? We discuss the apocalypticism, otherworldliness, and the just-world belief of Christianity, and their effects on our priorities and beliefs.

Blinded by Eschatological Light – William Bradford Nichols [Humanist]

Climate Change and Religion (Special Issue) – Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture [PDF]

Climate Change Skepticism and Denial – Riley Dunlap [PDF]

The Politics of Climate Change in the U.S. [Pew Research]

GOP rep: If climate change is real, God will ‘take care of it’ [TheHill]

Jesus Christ’s Return to Earth [Pew Research]

Predictions and claims for the Second Coming of Christ [wiki]

Trump will start the end of the world, claim Evangelicals who support him [Newsweek]

Charles MacKay – Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds [PDF]

Nietzsche and the Other World [YouTube]

Philosophize This – Nietzsche and Otherworldliness [YouTube]

Potholer54 – Climate Change Playlist [YouTube]

. . . . .

Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook

Help out by rating the show on iTunes here

You can support the show on Patreon here

or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast)