YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 9 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer - With @unsolicitedadvice9198

9 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer - With @unsolicitedadvice9198 — Transcript

by Alex O'Connor · 32,227 words · 4,466 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Joe FY welcome back to the show oh
0:01thanks very much good to be here you're
0:03an atheist yes I'm an aist allegedly we
0:06have asked our respective followers for
0:08questions that atheists cannot answer uh
0:11and today well we're going to try and
0:13answer them well I noticed it's it's
0:15it's a good um followup I feel like we
0:16meet up every couple of months and
0:18attempt to destroy our own worldviews so
0:20this is a good a good follow on from
0:21those conversations that's right we
0:23should we should make a a regular thing
0:25of it um if if you follow me on Twitter
0:30or I suppose there was a YouTube
0:31Community post I think you posted on
0:32YouTube as well um we asked for
0:34questions and these could be from
0:36atheists it could be from theists the
0:38idea is questions that traditionally are
0:40thought of as questions that atheists in
0:42particular struggle to answer beginning
0:44with what is perhaps the most
0:46foundational question not just of the
0:48philosophy of religion but of all why is
0:51there something rather than nothing yes
0:54I mean it's it's you go go big or go
0:56home for the first question I think that
0:57um I think this is a very interesting
1:00one in the sense that it
1:02almost sneaks in a really cool
1:05presupposition uh that I think that I've
1:07seen some atheists disagree on it's like
1:10why is there something rather than
1:11nothing
1:13um is asking if there is a if there is a
1:16reason why there is something rather
1:17than nothing right and it assumes that
1:18that's a question with a sensible answer
1:20and in I have heard um some atheists say
1:24essentially do do the do the response of
1:27well what do you mean by that you know
1:28what do you mean by why um and you know
1:30I think that's sometimes can be sort of
1:32a fous factious response but um
1:34something that for instance like David
1:36Hume um addresses uh which I think is an
1:39interesting spect of of the very least
1:40worth considering is that He suggests
1:42that questions like why is there
1:44something rather than nothing The Domain
1:47in which they're operating is
1:48fundamentally unlike the domain through
1:50which we've acquired most of our uh
1:52knowledge Gathering apparatus so you
1:54know hum's an empiricist and he talks
1:57about um how well we're Gathering our
1:59IDE is from the material world around us
2:01or let's not be let's not be that
2:03controversial just the world around us
2:05and um CU yeah and
2:07um and additionally he thinks that we
2:10learn reason um even if even if he's not
2:13you know goes not entirely sure what the
2:15kind of metaphysical grounding of reason
2:17is um he thinks that our reasoning
2:19faculties are attuned to this reality
2:22that we live in and so something that he
2:23brings up which I think is very
2:25interesting is the notion that questions
2:28like why is there something wrong other
2:30than nothing
2:31are in principle unanswerable is is is
2:36is is is his idea at least um and he
2:38it's not that he thinks they it's not
2:39that he thinks necessarily just that
2:41they are unverifiable like why is there
2:43something rather nothing oh maybe
2:44there's a God maybe there's like a
2:45platonic ordering to the world that that
2:47dwells in a realm of forms it's not so
2:49much that's not so much his issue that
2:51becomes an issue for a lot of like 20th
2:53century philosophers but Hume through
2:56his kind of skeptical method uh
2:58basically raises the idea that it's just
3:00unanswerable because the the the tools
3:02that we've got to form beliefs and form
3:04opinions and reason uh aren't suited to
3:07The Domain in which that question needs
3:09to be answered um which is is sort of a
3:11copout answer I suppose well does it
3:12mean that the questioner is right that
3:14this is a question that atheists can't
3:15answer hum it's a question that no one
3:17can answer yeah um which is which I
3:19think I think may may end up potentially
3:21becoming a bit of a theme um well
3:24because you know and and the other the
3:26other presupposition of the of the why
3:27is there something rather than nothing
3:29is that it has this kind of like te
3:31logical B to it which I think is I find
3:33really interesting because I think one
3:34of the presuppositional differences in
3:37almost temperament between a lot of
3:39atheists and a lot of theists is that um
3:42I think that a lot of people as in I
3:45think that a lot of um theistic answers
3:47appeal to this like teleological
3:49Instinct we have in order to find not
3:51just not just mechanistic explanations
3:53and not just kind of causal explanatory
3:55theories but reasonable ones so you know
3:58um you know I if I um were to were to
4:03you know drop this like energy drink can
4:06then um this this new tonic this new
4:09tonic wait for the camera oh yes we're
4:11not sponsored but um but maybe one day
4:14but if I were if I were to drop it then
4:16there'd be there'd be two ways of
4:17approaching that one is um of
4:18approaching explaining that one is to
4:20say well the force of gravity acted on
4:22the can and all of the muscles in my
4:24hand unclenched and there was an
4:25electral signal that went from my brain
4:27to the hand um and that would be a kind
4:28of a mechanistic explanation right I
4:31I've got I can't say the word
4:32explanation like quite right I always
4:34missed the L but um that would be a
4:36mechanistic explanation and um whereas a
4:39theological one a one in terms of uh
4:42reasons or purposes um one might say
4:44kind of broadly construed um would be
4:46that I wanted to and then I did um and
4:49those two types of uh explanatory
4:52hypothesis often run parallel in in
4:54everyday life especially when explaining
4:55human behavior um and I think that why
4:57is there something rather than nothing
4:58you know the one of the reasons I think
5:01um that the kind of oh well there was
5:03the Big Bang or like stuff like that or
5:05or well because you know we have this
5:07causal story that runs towards this this
5:09whatever point in time the universe
5:11began at etc etc etc why I think that a
5:13lot of the time that seems
5:15unsatisfactory um especially to to
5:17someone with a sort of um with this kind
5:19of te logical predisposition uh is that
5:22it doesn't it doesn't have this parallel
5:24sort of well what what's the reason why
5:26it is the case you
5:28know there's an underlying
5:30methodological assumption I think to to
5:31basically all inquiry which is good
5:33because otherwise I don't think inquiry
5:35would be possible uh that we're going to
5:37have intelligible answers to whatever
5:39questions we ask and I think that you
5:41know why is there why is there something
5:42rather nothing is a perfectly sensible
5:44question um and I think that uh it tugs
5:48on this tedic Instinct that we have um
5:50so but you know but but something that I
5:52think that Hume uh raises as a
5:55possibility is just that our mechanisms
5:58of knowledge and sense acquisition
6:01simply aren't equipped to answer
6:02questions like this so I think I think
6:04to be honest I think it's a bit of a
6:05cough out I it has to be a cough out I
6:06mean this question is a sensible
6:09question like you say why is there
6:11something rather than nothing everybody
6:12likes to ask that everybody likes to
6:14address that question in a lot of
6:17philosophy and theology I think there's
6:19that sort of uh bell curve of
6:22intelligent questioning which like
6:24begins with well why is there something
6:26rather than nothing it's like the most
6:28naive simple unintelligent question you
6:30can ask it's just super straightforward
6:32and then as the intelligence of the
6:33question raises it's like why is there a
6:36you know contingent series of cause and
6:39effect but then you get down to the to
6:41the really again super smart super
6:43intelligent very meaningful question and
6:44you write back around to why I say
6:47something rather than nothing it's
6:48fundamental for a reason I I think that
6:50if you really reflect on the possibility
6:53of a world in which there's nothing I
6:54mean like a possible World um a way that
6:56things could have been that's just empty
6:59just and there is a there seems to be an
7:01empty possible world and we do not
7:03occupy that that possible world and well
7:06why it seems like nothing is the neutral
7:10position and that there being something
7:13is is uh this sort of strange um like
7:18insertion into that space though I have
7:20spoken to atheists who basically asked
7:23questions like well is it possible for
7:26there to be nothing I mean is it not a
7:28contradiction to say there is nothing if
7:31nothing is nothing you can't say there
7:33is nothing and so it's impossible to to
7:35have nothing and if it's impossible to
7:37have nothing then there must be
7:38something this is basically a way I
7:39think of putting forward what I think is
7:41the atheist's best bet in answering this
7:43question in hypothesizing that
7:46essentially the universe is necessary
7:48you know when you speak to a theists and
7:50they say well things exist because God
7:52brought them into existence and then you
7:54naively ask well then what brought God
7:56into existence they say well God doesn't
7:57get brought into existence God is
8:00the special kind of like first cause
8:03which by virtue of being the first cause
8:04the foundational cause is itself not
8:07cause that's fine that's not that's not
8:08an illegal chess move you know you can
8:10do that but I think a lot of atheists
8:12turn around and say well like maybe the
8:14Big Bang maybe the beginning of the
8:16universe is super special which does
8:18seem a little bit like yeah okay that's
8:20easy enough to say but if you think
8:22about the fact that at the big bang for
8:23example the laws of physics just like
8:26break down they just sort of stop
8:28working right and it does seem like a a
8:31very special kind of event in that way
8:33which makes it sort of not seem
8:35impossible to me that there's some kind
8:38of weird way in which that can be like
8:40separated from things that happen within
8:42the universe that that finally arises
8:44such that like yeah maybe the universe
8:46sort of necessarily came into existence
8:48maybe it necessarily exists I I don't
8:50believe that that's true but I think
8:51that that's basically the best option
8:53available for the atheists on on this
8:54question I sort of think I think that
8:56raises a really interesting point about
8:57um about this idea of like necessity
8:59right right you know there there's you
9:00know I don't want to um you there there
9:02are theological reasons why one might
9:03argue that God is necessary and I think
9:05there I think there are decent first
9:06offical reasons to argue why something
9:08might be necessary rather than nothing
9:10um in the sense that you know like even
9:11in like even in set theory if you want
9:13to say nothing you say the set of thing
9:15the the empty set the set of things that
9:17contain nothing it's a describing a
9:19thing yes yeah was true nothingness I
9:22think Aristotle defined as what rocks
9:24dream of Ah that's very poetic not it's
9:27just like nothing you know it's it's not
9:31like you speak to Lawrence Krauss and he
9:33says that nothing isn't really nothing
9:35and it's it's something and you think
9:37okay fine that's and that is actually
9:39really interesting and you know there's
9:41some great science there but we're not
9:43talking about the same thing or someone
9:45says oh there's not nothing there's like
9:46you know Quantum fluctuations okay well
9:49then there never was nothing I mean if
9:50somebody says something like if you take
9:53the Kian line and say well nothing
9:55doesn't exist you know nothing isn't
9:56really nothing I think that's just a
9:58version of saying
10:00that there can't be nothing yeah that
10:02that stuff just necessarily exists
10:03because even when you have nothing
10:05there's still something there that's
10:06just a way of saying that there isn't
10:08really nothing at all and so there isn't
10:10really nothing at all yeah and so like
10:13if you've got your sort of philosophy
10:14cap on anytime you hear this sort of
10:17scientific attempt to redefine nothing
10:20to be something I think we have to
10:22recognize that what's really going on
10:24there is another kind of like stuff
10:26exists necessarily kind of argument yes
10:28I mean I it is kind of difficult you you
10:31really tie you can really tie yourself
10:32in not defining nothing cuz like I
10:33remember um posing this to to a to a
10:36classroom of logic students and being
10:38like and asking you know how would you
10:40define nothing and they said well the
10:41the set in which every proposition or
10:43the the the universe in which every
10:44proposition is false and I was like well
10:45what about there does not exist an X I
10:47said or an X such that F like where f is
10:50whatever whatever predicate you like I
10:51said well that would be true though it's
10:52like oh God yes there's a true
10:53proposition in the nothing verse yes and
10:55I thought you know it's kind it's kind
10:56of a fun little a fun little formal
10:58exercise someone in a comment once said
11:00to me uh on YouTube true nothingness
11:05would not contain the constraining axium
11:07that something can't come from nothing
11:09so like why not why can't something come
11:10from nothing because if it's truly
11:11nothing then where where's the rule that
11:14says that something can't come from
11:16nothing the the other thing I I mean I
11:17really like that CU I feel like that's
11:18going to that's going to come up a lot
11:19later where it's like um where our rules
11:21something and um we'll do the laws of
11:24logic yes yeah yeah but oh yes um the
11:26talking about possibilities about
11:28whether there could be something rather
11:29than nothing um I think is is very
11:31interesting cuz it it again drawing back
11:33to this methodological Point um that hum
11:35like doesn't quite spell out but I
11:36actually think you know with with kind
11:37of modern like ideas about possible
11:39worlds we can we can think a bit more in
11:41a bit more detail about like reasoning
11:43about possible worlds is kind of weird
11:45in an of itself and I think that it's
11:46one of those things that are you know if
11:48you wanted to you could argue that um
11:49well all of our all of our reasoning
11:51about possibility again is grounded in
11:52this world right I can I can you know
11:54there's a camera over there and I can
11:56imagine a world in which there is no
11:58camera and I know that's possible
11:59because of all of my experience of
12:00Worlds that of of rooms that don't have
12:02cameras in um the I there is uh an
12:05argument to be made that that is really
12:07dis analogist to the to the situation of
12:09well could there have been nothing
12:10rather than something like there's it's
12:14it is true that there could have been
12:15nothing rather than something in the
12:17sense that it doesn't seem to imply
12:18contradiction um well unless you ask
12:21like some ancient Greek philosophers but
12:23like let's just assume that it doesn't
12:24apply contradiction um then there is but
12:27there is the further point of well does
12:30Ju Just because something doesn't imply
12:31a contradiction that might that may mean
12:33that it's logically possible under the
12:35rules of classical logic as in you can
12:36form a model of it uh but does that mean
12:38it's metaphysically possible like the
12:40universe could not have existed what
12:41would it take to make that phrase true
12:43like how do we how do we even go about
12:46investigating the possibilities there
12:47because normally as I say we're using
12:48we're using our imagination can you
12:50conceive of a world that's different
12:52from USS at the very least right because
12:53let let's not you know if we're going to
12:55abstract from why is there something
12:56rather than nothing to why is there you
12:59know why does our universe um hold the
13:02particular characteristics that it does
13:03like if you could imagine a universe
13:05where okay it's not nothing but it's
13:06just empty space and that seems like it
13:07holds the same kind of um the same kind
13:10of uh question for the atheist it sense
13:12what you mean by empty space right
13:14because when you when you say when you
13:16say like the possible World which
13:18contains nothing and by the way when we
13:19talk about possible worlds here this is
13:21like a way of conceptualizing
13:23probability right it's like it's a way
13:25that the world could have been uh or and
13:28by the world I mean like like everything
13:30which is I don't mean the earth I mean
13:31like everything which is and so a
13:32possible world is like a conceptual tool
13:35to think about what what was possible so
13:37there is a the way that people use the
13:39language there is a possible World in
13:41which your shirt is blue instead of pink
13:43that's how people talk about it it's not
13:44like oh there could be like the the
13:46language that she uses you know there is
13:47this possible world where everything is
13:49the same except like your shirt is blue
13:52and okay so there's a possible World in
13:54which there's nothing but then even just
13:56like imagining that I'm kind of
13:58imagining this like orb that exists
14:00somewhere that's just empty and black
14:01but the the the like the world itself
14:04still seems to kind of like exist in
14:06order to contain nothing I mean if it
14:08truly was nothing like what is that sort
14:12of possible world contained in like like
14:15even even like conceptually if there's
14:16no if there's no abstract objects if
14:18there are no numbers if there's like I
14:20mean do numbers exist in this possible
14:22world yeah I suppose I suppose the
14:23closest you come to us be like there
14:24there's a model such that it only
14:26contains the empty set yeah but you're
14:28still talking about a model well yes
14:29exact and and so that's why I think that
14:32the best shot The Atheist has here is to
14:34use this kind of language to say sort of
14:37when you really start Imagining the
14:38possibility of there being nothing like
14:41it's sort of not possible to do do you
14:43not think we still have a problem in
14:45that uh are as in whatever you know sure
14:49there may there may necessarily exist
14:50something but we have a lot more than
14:52just something we have a lot more than
14:54just there is a thing that is true and I
14:56think that that's and my response to to
14:59that particular worry is to to throw
15:01some gentle skepticism on the idea that
15:02our our possible world's reasoning
15:05stretches uh to the to the possible
15:10um existence or non-existence of our
15:13universe as a whole partly because I I
15:14don't I don't really know how to I don't
15:16really know how my imagination is
15:18Justified to hook on to the different
15:20possibilities there um I know but I'm
15:22I'm open to being convinced because also
15:24we're in really dangerous territory with
15:25that sort of response because possible
15:27worlds reasoning is so useful for the
15:29rest of the world so so so there is
15:32again I think there's a genuine like
15:34non-trivial problem um for an atheist
15:37answer to this question if they want to
15:38go down the route of well how reliable
15:40is our possible world's reasoning at the
15:42level of the whole universe where we
15:44have to cut the distinction fine enough
15:46that we get around this question or in
15:49in other ways you know Express the
15:50intuition that I think that a lot of
15:52atheists have that this question is in
15:54some way dodgy um without without
15:57getting rid of possible world reasoning
15:59in much of the rest of reasoning because
16:01that is it's it's such a useful tool
16:03like you know it's it's in everything
16:04from you know probability to to um
16:08epistemic logic to just like planning
16:10like can you imagine planning without
16:11thinking about possibilities yeah so
16:13it's it's it's it's a high stakes game
16:15this this why is something rather than
16:16why is there something rather than
16:17nothing question how much sleep do you
16:19lose over this particular question
16:21because I must admit for
16:23myself it's one of those super naive
16:25sounding philosophical questions that I
16:27think is really worth like
16:30reminding oneself of just how uh serious
16:33a challenge it is and how how incredible
16:35it is to think about stuff like
16:37sometimes I'm just like looking at an
16:38object it could be like the the wood on
16:40this chair or something and it's just
16:41like there's just like stuff that exists
16:44and it seems like that stuff could not
16:45have exist uh could not have existed and
16:47it's such a simple naive thought but
16:50it's it's really like it it's it's it's
16:53incredible so I I think about a lot in
16:56other words but I mean does it trouble
16:57you yeah I mean I I go back forth on it
16:59right because and I think it's a very
17:00natural question to go back and forth on
17:01how how how philosophically traveling it
17:03is um but partly because like stuff is
17:07like water to a fish it's it's it is
17:10like what would it mean to to to not
17:12have stuff but you're right it it is
17:13remarkable if you if if we are
17:15considering the open possibility that
17:16there there could have not been stuff or
17:18at the very least that this stuff could
17:19have been like totally totally different
17:21that you know the world like like the
17:24the idea that the world could could have
17:26contained contradictions that's really
17:27interesting and that's you some some
17:29like gra priest is a a logician who has
17:32set up this remarkable system of
17:33paraconsistent and paracomplete Logics
17:35which are Logics that where either where
17:38well where basically you get rid of the
17:39law of non-contradiction or you get rid
17:41of various other laws of like
17:42completeness and stuff um and you know
17:45then he'd say well you know in some
17:46possible worlds there'll be or or in
17:48some impossible worlds which is another
17:50fascinating um Fe like term that comes
17:53up in these par consistent Logics yeah
17:54the world is sometimes is contradictory
17:56and I think okay yeah that's fine and
17:58that's that's outside the Realms of what
17:59we would standardly consider logically
18:01possible but could it have existed and
18:02this is what I this is why I kind of
18:04this is where my intuitions run out and
18:06I go well actually I I don't think I
18:08have a firm grasp on what on on the ways
18:10in which I think the universe could be
18:12like you know think about the you know
18:14if if I if we're thinking about um
18:16possible worlds along alongside this
18:18kind of probability um vein you know
18:22they're exactly the same but like
18:23they're clearly related um if I'm like
18:25rolling a die uh I can or six-sided die
18:28I can be like right there there are
18:29going to be six possible six relevant
18:31possible worlds open to me um and I know
18:33that because of all of the other times
18:34I've observed dice uh but I we haven't
18:38we haven't observed Universe formation
18:40or Universe being and so I kind of when
18:42I attempt to justify why I think there
18:45could have been something rather nothing
18:47or why I think the universe could have
18:48been different on this kind of on this
18:50kind of not just intra Universe objects
18:52could have been different but the
18:53universe fundamentally could have been
18:55different I struggle to I struggle to
18:59like I I I have this strong intuition
19:00that it could have been and then I
19:01really struggle to justify it to myself
19:03see it does keep me up mean thinking
19:04about probability like I often think
19:07about like if I if I roll a five on a
19:10die to think about like what the
19:12probability of that was I kind of think
19:14well if I ran that back and did it
19:16again how many times would it have come
19:19out as a five and if I say well every
19:21time I ran it it came out a five then
19:23it's like it had to happen you know way
19:24sort of think about probility when I
19:26think about the universe existing
19:29so okay well let's run it back and how
19:31many times when we run it back does a
19:32universe well run what back yeah exactly
19:35from from where from where are we going
19:37to replay this what you know like where
19:39does it start I mean especially if time
19:40itself is a is like a physical property
19:42of the universe this question of like
19:44you know running it again and seeing if
19:46it works it's like I mean human other
19:48contexts talks about the fact that we
19:49don't have other universes to compare
19:51yes we just don't have any kind of like
19:54control group or point of comparison we
19:55have just no idea uh and so like it's
19:59difficult for me to even conceive of
20:01what it would mean to imagine there
20:02being nothing and yet at the same time
20:04like you say it's so obvious it's so
20:06simple it's like of course there could
20:07have been nothing yeah well I think I
20:08think part of this is that there's a
20:09there's a there's a there is vagueness
20:12in the concept of could like just
20:13impossibility in general because and we
20:15know you know you and often this is this
20:16is solved by a modifier so you can say
20:18Okay logically possible metaphysically
20:20possible or physically possible and I
20:22think you know I have a broad idea of
20:24what's physically possible and I have a
20:26it's much clearer idea of what's
20:27logically possible cuz that's much
20:28neater and and kind of you have fewer
20:30rules to worry about um but
20:32metaphysically possible is a real gray
20:34area I don't know what's metaphysically
20:35possible and I'm not sure that I could
20:37know and then you know there are
20:38philosophers that that that that try to
20:40know and you know best of luck to them
20:42um but certainly I I really struggle to
20:44justify my sense of what's
20:45metaphysically possible so why is
20:47something rather than nothing I will
20:48admit I have no answer but I also would
20:50tentatively suggest that no one in
20:53principle has an answer like as in as in
20:55the you know the the as in if you want
20:57to take you know the theist idea of um
20:59well there's something rather nothing
21:00because God created it I mean you know
21:02there's there's a kind of again to to
21:04your bell curve thing the the the kind
21:06of um the kind of silly atheist response
21:09which is well why is God necessary and
21:11then the kind of middle the the big hump
21:14which is the um the sort of are you know
21:15engaging with all of the kind of
21:16theological literature around around
21:18Divine necessity which I think is very
21:19interesting its own rights and then
21:21getting to the other side and being like
21:22yeah but like why is God necessary
21:23because it doesn't seem like it's
21:24contradictory to say that there is no
21:26God um and if we and if that
21:29The Benchmark because that's the
21:30Benchmark we used for discussing whether
21:32the universe could or could not have
21:33existed then it seems like we are at the
21:36same problem and the the sort of
21:38ontologically minded theist might want
21:41to say
21:42well God not existing is a contradiction
21:45because of the meaning of the word God I
21:46mean God is the maximally great being
21:48maximal qualities or God is the greatest
21:50conceivable being and that means you
21:52must conceive from existing or or
21:53whatever and my regular listeners or or
21:57viewers will know that I I
21:59I give a lot of credit to the
22:00ontological argument more than most
22:02people do I think it's brilliant I think
22:03it's great fun but in the same way that
22:06like okay you know Well Done clever
22:08clogs like you've sort of got this
22:10concept of God which is kind of
22:11difficult to imagine not existing even
22:13like conceivably I would say that
22:15there's a similar sort of thought you
22:17can have about nothing as a materialist
22:19right can you imagine whether you're
22:21materialist or not it's sort of like you
22:22know well okay um if something is
22:26possible then you should be able to
22:28conceive of it happening so now conceive
22:30of there being nothing oh look you can't
22:32do it CU as soon as you're conceiving of
22:33anything it's not nothing therefore
22:35nothing is not possible therefore to
22:37your question why is there something
22:38rather than nothing it's like that's
22:40like asking why is God necessary it's
22:42just like it just it just has to be that
22:43way by the definition of something you
22:45know like by the definition of of even
22:47conceiving of possibility now I don't
22:49think that would work I think because
22:51somebody's GNA somebody's going to
22:52listen to that and they're going to be
22:53like yeah but like man there could have
22:55been nothing they just could have right
22:57and some people will want to say to the
22:58god question I know you've got this
23:00clever ontological argument that sort of
23:01defines him as necessary but like he he
23:03could not exist he just could well
23:05there's there's there is a yeah there's
23:07I think I think there is real vagueness
23:09around around what we're meaning by
23:10could um not to be all not to be all the
23:14kind of stereotypical philosopher like
23:15what do you mean by that but what do you
23:17mean by by by could genuinely there
23:19there is there is ambiguity in the scope
23:21of could uh because I say you know you
23:23know classically it seems like could is
23:25the possibilities that are left when you
23:27have imposed certain constraints on a
23:29set of models so say classical logic
23:31imposes certain constraints on on models
23:33and fiscal laws would impose certain
23:35constraints on models if you want to be
23:36compatible with the fiscal laws um but
23:38then I say this this in this in between
23:41realm where it's like well you know the
23:43laws of physics could have been
23:44different and it's like well could have
23:45been within what constraints because log
23:47I think the trouble is that um physical
23:49possibility uh is is isn't sufficient to
23:52show this um could have been could have
23:54been nothing rather than something
23:56proposition because physically if you
23:58within phys physical laws it doesn't
23:59seem like that's the case but logical
24:01possibility is almost almost seems like
24:04it is not connected enough with the
24:07Universe um to be all that like if you
24:11like CU if you if we say logical
24:12possibility um according to classical
24:14logic is just the same as like
24:15non-contradiction
24:16um and if we say it is not contradictory
24:18that there would be nothing rather than
24:20something that doesn't seem to have the
24:21same pull as when someone says there
24:23could have been nothing rather than
24:24something so it strikes me that then we
24:27must need something slightly stronger
24:29than that um at least on first glance I
24:30might be wrong but um so it seems like
24:32we we are grasping for some sense of
24:35could some sense of possibility that is
24:38um uh that that does more than logical
24:41possibility but far less than physical
24:43possibility um I don't know again I I
24:46sort of I so this is again I I think
24:50that it would be fair to say that this
24:51is almost a copout answer because it is
24:53saying I I I'm in disagreement with the
24:56with the question yeah uh or at least I
24:58think the question requires further
24:59clarification but um I do think it's
25:02very interesting and you know arguably
25:03it is it is a genuine question that
25:05atheists can't answer yeah I mean
25:06atheists can try to answer it like with
25:08some Universal necessity thing might not
25:10be satisfactory but likewise you know
25:12theists try to answer it and it's up to
25:14you to decide whether you think that's
25:15satisfactory I mean they always have an
25:17answer to this question but the question
25:18is whether that satisfies you enough and
25:21for many it does um I mean even even if
25:24you are a theists it's still like pretty
25:25amazing that like the universe exists
25:28still something to sort of pause and
25:29think about and and wonder about the
25:30possibility of there having been nothing
25:33um I mean I guess for the theist there's
25:35never nothing in the sense that there's
25:36always the something of of God like the
25:39nothing they're imagining everything
25:40coming out of is like physical nothing
25:42yeah there there's no material things
25:44and um yeah I mean maybe that's their
25:48way out of say well yeah no you can't
25:50conceive of nothing but you can conceive
25:52there being no material stuff and it's
25:54out of that that the Universe sort of is
25:56brought into being by this non-material
25:58a very interesting thing that I I think
26:00this also touches upon is the fact that
26:03we are so much happier just intuitively
26:06and I'm not suggesting this is this is
26:07wrong um it's just kind of an
26:09observation we are much happier to
26:11accept um a a metaphysical grounding
26:13that ends in the immaterial than the
26:15ends in the material you know uh and I
26:17think this might be because we can
26:18conceive of material things not existing
26:20in a much more straightforward way but
26:21yeah that this this idea of okay well
26:23what's the beginning of material stuff
26:25and you you end up with the immaterial
26:27plane and be that kind of tonic or
26:28theistic or or whatever what what what
26:31what have you and then even I think that
26:35the question then oh well why was their
26:36immaterial something rather than nothing
26:39for some reason I don't know if this is
26:40just naive intuitions like I I am less
26:42troubled by that question it seems so
26:44much easier to smuggle in necessary
26:46existence in the immaterial than the
26:48material yeah um and again I that but
26:50there is a there is the possibility that
26:52this is just because because we don't
26:54have direct access to the immaterial in
26:57quite the same way that we do to the mat
26:58material it is much easier to imagine
27:00that necessary existence there whereas
27:01we can disprove necessary existence for
27:03intam intram Material World objects
27:06because we've seen things come in and
27:08out of existence yeah I I think I I know
27:10what you mean we've spoken about this
27:12before I think this this sort of
27:14explanations terminating in immaterial
27:16or material things we were talking about
27:17Free Will and and it's sort of like well
27:20why does the brain do this why does the
27:22hand move why does the neuron fire
27:23whatever and you keep wanting to ask
27:25well why did that happen then what
27:26determined that what determined that and
27:27if you get back to a point where someone
27:29says oh it was because of the Soul it
27:30was the the immaterial self that did it
27:33people just go like okay yes exactly
27:35it's like okay we just ends there yeah
27:37and that is prima fasy really weird that
27:39that that we that we do find that
27:40satisfying and that there is the
27:41question of asking whether we are
27:42Justified at being sa it's almost as if
27:44we imagine these non-material things is
27:45not having like mechanisms which can be
27:47asked about in that way yes you know one
27:49thing is that um I think that there
27:51there is uh potentially um I think a
27:55kind of a tendency towards being
27:58satisfied with agential explanations as
28:00the end point because like in everyday
28:02life we often are right if if again take
28:05the thing of me dropping dropping the
28:06newtonic the newtonic
28:08um
28:09the me saying oh I wanted to drop it and
28:12so I did tells you basically everything
28:13you need to know but I I it is weird I F
28:16on the train ride here there was a
28:18really cool example of this where there
28:20was this like 5-year-old sitting across
28:21from me on the train and she was trying
28:23to color in her um her unicorn coloring
28:26book and one of the the pens had ran out
28:28of ink and she said she put this in the
28:31most fascinating way she turned to her
28:32dad and said Daddy the pen has lied to
28:34me and I was like that's amazing that's
28:36like that's agential bias in in
28:39explanation just like in front of me
28:40that was incredible yeah well because
28:42they say that of children that children
28:44sort of have like agential preferences
28:46in explanation if you if you ask
28:48children why do rocks exist and you give
28:51them the option you know does it exist
28:52because of you know some insert physical
28:54explanation or do rocks exist so that
28:55the Bears can scratch their backs always
28:58prefer the the bear scratching their
29:00back explanation so atheists have have
29:02used this observation as a sort of
29:04atheist argument to say that you know we
29:06have this like natural sense to to this
29:09this natural want to improperly
29:13attribute agency where it doesn't belong
29:15because obviously the real explanation
29:16for the rock being there is because of
29:19the physical explanation but oh look at
29:21the silly children saying that it's
29:23because the bear wants to scratches back
29:25that's what religious people are like
29:26when they're like why does the world
29:27exist oh so that the big man in the sky
29:29can have as good people but the thing is
29:32like you can also use the same
29:34consideration in the other direction to
29:36say that well why would humans have this
29:39like this tendency to believe in
29:41agential explanations if they weren't
29:44you know like somehow more appropriate
29:46or more proper and and in fact the
29:48theists will even say that the analogy
29:50is wrong because why does the why is the
29:53rock exist is it so the bear can
29:54scratches back well no but is it because
29:57like of the you know the atoms bumping
30:00into each other blah blah blah well kind
30:01of but also no because for them
30:04ultimately it was an agential
30:05explanation it was just another kind of
30:06agential explanation it was God you know
30:08yeah I it's it's um also I think that we
30:12have to be reasonably careful similar to
30:13what saying about the PO World thing we
30:14have to be pretty careful about how much
30:16we undermine our own demands for
30:18explanatory hypotheses and our own
30:20reasoning faculties because another
30:22problem that people raise for for um for
30:24well not so much atheism but for um a
30:28mon materialist understanding of reality
30:29is the idea that we'll end up
30:30undermining our own reasoning faculties
30:32to the point we can't believe in truth
30:34yeah and that is you know that's a
30:35genuine philosophical worry right which
30:37we'll we'll talk about we'll get to
30:38we're going to get there perhaps we
30:40perhaps we should move on because
30:41otherwise how long have you been
30:42mattering about why is there God knows
30:44something rather 30 minutes 30 minutes
30:4730 minutes ladies and genten do we have
30:49um too many to count so uh we'll we'll
30:51try and speed things up just a little
30:52bit okay question number
30:54two what do you do if you're not getting
30:58enough fruit and
31:01vegetables I I can I can take this one
31:03actually uh okay that is where today's
31:05sponsor ag1 can help you ag1 is a daily
31:09convenient nutritional supplement it's a
31:11blend of over 70 vitamins minerals and
31:14other ingredients including gut friendly
31:16bacteria antioxidants high quality
31:18mushrooms and more just one scoop of ag1
31:21once a day contains the nutrients you
31:23need to help support your mental
31:24performance your energy levels your
31:26heart health and your immune system and
31:28as the science advances so does ag1 ag1
31:31was born 14 years ago and since then
31:33there have been 52 iterations that's 52
31:36improvements over 14 years to bring you
31:38the best possible nutritional supplement
31:40and ag1 can Aid healthy aging do you not
31:43have as much energy as you had maybe 5
31:45years ago 10 years ago me neither ag1
31:48can help you with that so if you're
31:49starting to notice differences in your
31:51skin your hair your nails then ag1 is
31:53something you should consider and trying
31:54ag1 is risk-free if you're not 100%
31:57satisfied within 30 days they'll give
31:59you your money back so if you want to
32:00replace your multivitamin and more start
32:02with ag1 try ag1 and get a free oneyear
32:05supply of vitamin D and five free ag1
32:08travel packs with your first
32:10subscription go to drink a1.com within
32:13reason that's drink a1.com within reason
32:17to check it out with that said back to
32:19Joe okay the real question to mhm any
32:23question that starts with a why is a
32:26question that atheists can't answer yeah
32:28that is that is that is the word why not
32:30the letter Y yes yeah yeah that's ah no
32:32that's fantastic and again I actually
32:34think that this this ties in quite
32:35nicely to the intuition we're talking
32:37about before about uh we do have this
32:39kind of crying out for tileology um in
32:42uh our why questions because there are
32:44there are two like why is is wonderfully
32:47ambiguous as a question in um in
32:49everyday life when we ask why we often
32:52have yeah we have we we mean it in two
32:53ways what's caused this to be the case
32:55and what is the reason this is the case
32:57or you know
32:58um this it's interesting uh Richard Bry
33:02um kind of offhandedly almost uh defined
33:04this this distinction between um uh
33:07reasonable and causal explanatory
33:09hypothesis and um and I I think this
33:12really touches upon it right uh in
33:14certainly in materialist atheism and
33:17there is non-materialist atheism which
33:18is again it own its own fascinating
33:20topic but it's I think it's fair to say
33:22that most atheists are coming at coming
33:23at it from a materialist standpoint yeah
33:25that you you eliminate te ology um you
33:29don't have per you know arguably you
33:31don't have purposes or or or reasons in
33:34this sense of why is this yeah it
33:38basically in the sense of purpose right
33:39in this telogical fashion at which point
33:41yeah you you actually do lose um uh
33:44questions of uh why um but it is worth
33:47noting that that's not necessar that's
33:48not actually an implication of atheism
33:50it's materialism it's an implication say
33:52that it's not it's not a problem for
33:54atheism because you I mean the the real
33:58is when you reduce everything to the
33:59material which I
34:01suppose all all materialists all
34:03materialists are going to be atheists
34:05but it doesn't mean that all atheists
34:07are going to be materialists you could
34:08be an atheist who believes that you know
34:10Consciousness is immaterial or something
34:12but you still don't believe in God like
34:14the problem I've always had with the
34:16example you gave earlier of there sort
34:17of being these two competing styles of
34:19explanation it's it's something I I hear
34:21commonly in religious discourse like why
34:23did I boil like why did the cattle boil
34:26well one answer is because the atoms got
34:29excited and you know the temperature
34:31increased and then the water turned into
34:32steam fine another explanation is
34:35because I was thirsty and wanted a cup
34:36of tea yeah and so they say so there's
34:38like an agential answer and there's a
34:40material physical answer and so where we
34:43have scientific explanations for how the
34:44world works that doesn't rule out God
34:46because God is like the agential answer
34:48the problem for me when I hear that is
34:49I'm like well just analyze for a second
34:52what the like I wanted a cup of tea and
34:54was thirsty is like for the materialist
34:58that explanation like well I was thirsty
35:00and and I wanted a cup of tea is just a
35:02material like event in the brain and so
35:04it is actually just part of the original
35:06chain so why did the kettle boil because
35:08the atoms got excited because the you
35:11know electric circuit was completed
35:13because the flick was switched uh
35:16because the you know the the electro
35:19signals in my arm you know moved the
35:22finger because the brain did this
35:23because I was thirsty and the
35:25thirstiness is like a material thing in
35:27my brain and so it just sort of becomes
35:28part of one long chain and so you've
35:31sort of broken down this ability to say
35:33that there are two different kinds of
35:34explanations I mean certainly that
35:36that's an implication of the materialist
35:37worldview I think that this question is
35:39presumably getting at the idea that
35:41their their first premise is that
35:43telogical questions are sensible to ask
35:46and then saying well if you have a
35:48materialist worldview then as you say
35:50all of the telogical explanations
35:52collapse into causal ones well the
35:53question might actually think that that
35:56te logical answers aren't s princi to
35:58ask and just sort of accept that again
36:01similar to I think a lot of I think that
36:02a lot of um atheist responses to these
36:06questions atheists can't answer are you
36:07know genuinely to to put forward a
36:09positive argument for dissolving the
36:10question um and but you know there's and
36:13and there is a debate about how what you
36:16lose if you lose tileology and much of
36:18much of I think the questions that that
36:20uh that atheist purportedly cannot
36:22answer are to do with this dissolution
36:24of TIY because Tey te te ology can give
36:28you all sorts of things it can give you
36:29morality and it can give you meaning and
36:31it all sorts right purpose is is such a
36:32is such a a weighty concept I think that
36:35um to use this as question as an
36:36opportunity though to to expand or to
36:39like broaden our kind of uh metaphysical
36:42imaginations uh so to speak is that
36:45obviously online like the the there is
36:48often this dichotomy drawn between um
36:51atheism as materialism and theism as
36:55non-m materialism um and it makes sense
36:57right because I think materialism is a
36:58very popular atheist position but it is
37:01not the only one um if you're going to
37:05to to to explore the different
37:07possibilities there you can also have
37:08things like a a platonist um atheistic
37:12worldview so you know if you you know
37:13Plato did believe in gods or at least he
37:16gives he gives indication of believing
37:17in Gods in his dialogues but at the same
37:19time much of the explanatory work in his
37:21metaphysics is done by the forms which
37:23aren't agential they're just they are
37:26immaterial and their metaphysics
37:27grounding but they're not agential and
37:30um you know that that's one atheistic
37:31possibility and it's an athe it's it's a
37:33possibility that some atheist
37:35philosophers of mathematics use uh when
37:37they're trying to explain you know why
37:39why does math work this is really weird
37:41um and and they say well if you want to
37:42metaphysically ground math we could
37:43always turn to Plato uh and and there's
37:46also this there was also an it was kind
37:48of an ancient View and it's kind of
37:50crept back in a little bit because
37:51Thomas neagel is like seemingly a fan of
37:54this where you just have a very thick
37:56conception of nature so
37:58um the kind of uh inherited you know
38:02kind of post Enlightenment view of
38:03nature is that it consists entirely of
38:04ises uh and that's you know all all all
38:07that is is is and um then you have the
38:10isort Gap and in some ancient
38:13philosophies this is ought separation
38:16doesn't make any sense because they have
38:17a much thicker conception of what nature
38:19amounts to uh so um like you know some
38:23stoic philosophers are outright theists
38:24but some at least in their writings
38:26don't reference god um or don't
38:29reference gods that heavily but they
38:31will reference this this thick
38:32conception of nature whereby um nature
38:35is in some way both descriptive and
38:36normative and so that that's that's
38:37another view that doesn't imply atheism
38:39sorry doesn't imply theism um and so is
38:42in some ways compatible with atheism but
38:44would also give you chology the trouble
38:46with this the trouble with this though I
38:48think is that um it tends to conflict
38:51with the methodological principles that
38:52have drawn many people to atheism which
38:54I think uh again it's not like I've done
38:56like a survey or anything think so I I
38:58can't speak to this but I when I speak
38:59to a lot of atheists including myself um
39:02when I'm pacing around my room talking
39:03to myself like a mad man um is is is
39:06that it tends to be something like you
39:07begin from like an empiricist standpoint
39:10and then you kind of build outwards from
39:11there and you go well what can I see I
39:12can see the natural world I I see um at
39:15least in my estimation the natural world
39:17doesn't imply a Creator there's not a
39:18kind of conditional there and as a
39:20result a Creator isn't in my my theory
39:23of reality it's not a statement implied
39:25by the things I believe and I don't have
39:27dependent reason to believe it and so it
39:28tends to fall out of that kind of thing
39:30and materialism also tends to fall out
39:32of that uh and unless you encounter a
39:36really a worry that you're or something
39:38that you're very very stressed about and
39:40you're like okay I just can't do without
39:41this and then you know there are reasons
39:42to reintroduce TIY uh people tend to
39:45want to stick with this materialist
39:47standpoint because
39:48also uh it's it's it's lovely um to have
39:53like that structure where you begin with
39:55an with an epistemological principle
39:57it's bits out a mes physical principle
39:58for you and you can make that work
40:00consistently is just so like wonderfully
40:02satisfying uh from a kind of it really
40:04tickles the kind of philosophical
40:06structure itch I think in people's
40:08brains or certainly in my brain so and
40:09and and to a certain extent saying oh
40:11well we can't answer this question so
40:13we're going to introduce thology at the
40:15metaphysical level it just seems a bit
40:17like oh you ruined that like lovely neat
40:19flow structure that that took you from
40:20epistemology down to down to uh your
40:23beliefs about God and stuff so so I
40:24think I think there's a there is a there
40:26is a worry there that there's a there's
40:27a certain amount of AD hoiness going on
40:29if then you know we we start saying oh
40:31well actually no we've got this thick
40:32conception of nature on the other hand
40:35um there is uh you know certain
40:38philosophers I think Thomas Nel actually
40:39has argued this where he says well
40:40actually no our intuitions about purpose
40:43are empirical data um that imply that
40:47there is thology out there and I don't
40:50think I agree but it is is I'm not I'm
40:52just wanting to raise it to say it's not
40:54entirely inconsistent with empiricism to
40:56to try and have a thick a conception of
40:57nature okay you mentioned it let's do it
41:01yeah atheists cannot get an ought from
41:03an
41:05is well I to a certain extent there's a
41:08strong argument suggest that no one can
41:09get an all from it is this is this is a
41:11fairly common theme in this genre of
41:14response video I find when somebody says
41:17you know why does the universe exist the
41:20SMI atheist says I don't know and
41:23neither do you and the point is like
41:25like you're asking a legitimate question
41:28but it's a legitimate question that your
41:29answer to is either like you say a bit
41:32sort of ad hoc or a bit unsatisfactory
41:34or a bit silly um or you know subject to
41:37its own you know analysis and questions
41:39so can an atheist get an A from an is no
41:43but like you say can ofus to it either I
41:44had this debate with Ben Shapiro and I I
41:47think I didn't Express this particular
41:49Point well enough on basically
41:50everything he was
41:52saying you know well if you're an
41:54atheist Free Will can't exist if you're
41:56an atheist you know there's there's no
41:58way to get ought if you're in it and I
42:00was just sort of like yeah like totally
42:03you're right but but where the hell are
42:04you getting it from what what difference
42:05does it make if if there's a God and I
42:08think with the a question even even if
42:11just to be clear like there were sort of
42:12two questions here I mean the the
42:14question I actually have written down is
42:17or rather the the the subject the
42:20statement the question of why we ought
42:22do anything aside from arbitrary
42:24preference right and so there are sort
42:26of two questions hovering here there's
42:28can atheists have a concept of ought and
42:30and I think it's legitimate to maybe say
42:32that you know the concept of a can only
42:34come from God but if the question
42:37specifically is can you get an ought
42:39from an
42:40is even God doesn't help you there all
42:42God does has just gives you the ought to
42:45derive more ought from yes I mean I
42:47think well yeah and that makes sense
42:48right because it's it's the problem of
42:50the is a problem at least I know this is
42:52kind of controversial of me to say but I
42:54think it's a logical problem right
42:55you're you're attempting to juice to
42:57deduce an ought from an is uh because of
43:00because of the idea that you know
43:01basically anything within the logical
43:02closure of the statements you begin with
43:04must in some way be contained within
43:06those original statements uh otherwise
43:08we would be doing otherwise we wouldn't
43:10be doing logic we'd be doing something
43:12else um or we wouldn't be doing
43:14deduction we'd be doing something else
43:16uh would suggest that it is it is
43:18primarily it just is an intractable
43:20problem right you you cannot get an
43:21ought from an is on because if you could
43:24VI if you could get deductively go from
43:26is to art then the must have been there
43:28originally well here's a question that I
43:30spoke about on a recent Q&A um can you
43:33get an is from an
43:36ought because if you have an ought
43:38statement like you know you ought you
43:41know like tidy the garden then it does
43:44seem to contain within that the is
43:46statement that there is a garden even
43:48even though it's like not really there
43:50explicitly because the statement is just
43:52you ought to you know tidy the garden it
43:55seems like you can say therefore or
43:57there is a garden yes I think that um
44:00and and if it were a logical problem if
44:02it were like these are just two totally
44:04separate logical categories then it
44:06would seem like you wouldn't be able to
44:07go either way well so as in the there it
44:10would be if you were saying um you ought
44:13to tidy the garden uh uh someone might
44:16respond by saying well the reason that
44:18you can get a there as a garden from
44:19there is because it within the you ought
44:22to tidy the garden there is the sub idea
44:25that the garden exists right it's it's
44:27it's sort of a it's just sort of within
44:29the within the constraints of deductive
44:31logic that that but maybe because like I
44:33mean it could be like it could be
44:36incorrect that there exists a garden
44:38somebody could could think you ought to
44:40tidy the garden and be wrong but still
44:42derive from that I guess I guess like
44:45okay so fine it like it like subc
44:47contains the like assertion that a
44:49garden exists but is there any way for
44:51somebody to say that some is statements
44:53sort of subc contain automatic ORS well
44:55I think that is kind of what the the
44:57that is kind of a theist position right
44:58because if as in what it is a position
45:01that um if you're using God to solve
45:03morality then that is part of your
45:06position right because you're saying
45:07that well God's will is good you know
45:09that's as in as in that that that that
45:11as in it's not that I think that you
45:13can't have mixed isort statements is
45:15that I think that if you just have is
45:16statements getting an ought it seems
45:18like it's a it seems like a problem that
45:20strikes me is likely to be intractable
45:21I'm not saying it definitely is I could
45:23just be wrong so maybe what what theism
45:25does here is Parts
45:28certain uh is statements with like
45:32automatic shoulds cuz if you say
45:34something like it is the case that God
45:35wills it then you've just automatically
45:38said that you should do it yeah because
45:40the the cashing out the definition of
45:42good as God's will yeah but then it
45:45still sounds like if you were being like
45:46really pedantic about it you're not
45:48getting an a from an is you're just
45:49getting an a from an you're getting an a
45:50from not like bridging that divide right
45:53okay but okay we we spoke about like the
45:55is all problem but I think the more
45:56inter question really is just like this
45:58concept of ought entirely like like so
46:00the the question here wrote the question
46:02of why we ought do anything aside from
46:04arbitrary preference I mean people will
46:06look at an atheist and they'll say I
46:07know you have feelings about the world I
46:10know that you don't like you know theft
46:13or whatever but that's just like your
46:15opinion man and very seen when you
46:17looked at me and said I look atheist I
46:19know you have
46:21feelings yeah odly therapeutic I I don't
46:24know um well I think you must have
46:26feelings I because I think I think
46:27that's all you have being a
46:28controversial emotivist um but when I I
46:31think I I would agree with this that
46:35there is no question of why we ought do
46:37anything aside from arbitrary preference
46:39to some degree i' qu with some of the I
46:41quibble with some of the wording yeah uh
46:44but but yeah I'm kind of I'm more or
46:47less an ethical emotivist so like okay
46:50uh yeah that's that's fine I'm I'm happy
46:52to say that maybe an atheist can't
46:53answer this I'm not sure if a theist can
46:54too but I I don't actually know what
46:55your moral worldview is like I sort of I
46:58go back and forth on this I I have I
46:59have pretty um emotivist pragmatist
47:02intuitions about ethics but I I think
47:03that I think that the you know to to but
47:07that's kind of esoteric of me so like to
47:08to take up the view of someone with
47:11significant because I think it's fair to
47:12say that most people have moral realist
47:13intuitions right like most most people
47:16want to say that murder is wrong is
47:18thicker in a in really significant ways
47:22from just boo murder or or you know just
47:24they want say any of the more
47:25sophisticated um moist theories yeah
47:27yeah yeah exactly I won't say it's true
47:29um and moreover there there is a there's
47:31a there's a governing scope there right
47:32so I think
47:34that we can I think that this this
47:37question about you you don't talk
47:39yourself into moral intuitions you talk
47:40yourself out of them yeah and I I think
47:42this question about about god- grounding
47:44morality um has uh I think the reason
47:48that it strikes people as as as
47:49worthwhile as as a challenge to atheism
47:51because you know people are very fond of
47:53their moral intuitions and I I think
47:54that that's fair right we we kind of
47:56want to say um uh we want to say that
47:58murder is bad um because we want to
48:00justify stopping people from committing
48:02murder and uh I think that one thing
48:04that the theist does really have going
48:06for them with with with the god
48:07grounding morality thing is that it's
48:10gives very good pragmatic reasons for
48:11following morality because when the
48:13stakes are Eternal punishment or or
48:15Eternal salvation you have a really good
48:17motivation to do to do um to follow his
48:21commands and I think that that and also
48:24it also gives you a standpoint from
48:26which to look at things uh that is
48:28beyond uh merely inter subjective kind
48:31of oh well let's look at let's look at
48:32right and wrong like language and say
48:34okay well uh they're relative to
48:35communities or purely subjective which
48:38is you know everyone has their own
48:39morals Matt and um and both of those
48:42kind of don't quite do what we want
48:43morality to do intuitively uh which is
48:46which I think is slightly separate from
48:47the question of can atheists come up
48:49with explanations of moral language and
48:51moral behavior um which I think broadly
48:53speaking I think we can we've got like
48:55um non-cognitivist theories of um of of
48:58moral language we also just could be
49:00error theorists and say all moral
49:01languages or all moral statements are
49:03false um and on the on the standpoint of
49:05moral Behavior we can talk about you
49:06know evolutionary basis for moral
49:08Behavior cooperation within communities
49:10that sort of thing so I think it's the I
49:11think it's the former kind of uh
49:13pragmatic concern that that that theists
49:15are worrying about because I I think
49:16often times I think this is pitched as
49:18um theism grounds objective morality and
49:22I sort of don't know if that's true
49:23because um standardly uh I think about
49:26sub objective and objective as um agent
49:29relative and not agent relative sure and
49:31by definition Divine command theory is
49:32Agent relative it's just relative to One
49:33agent but it but pragmatically that one
49:35agent does a is is is special in a way
49:39that allows you to do all of the
49:40pragmatic stuff that having said that I
49:42do think that all religious language is
49:46analogical including probably words like
49:48agent go God is not an agent in the same
49:50way that God is Not powerful God is not
49:53loving God is not you know uh like
49:57go God is not any of these things we've
49:59got to be really careful here though
50:00right because if we if we if we
50:01understand God too much by analogy then
50:03it becomes very difficult to articulate
50:05what but that that's that's the
50:07fundamental ethical problem is that
50:10there is no really sufficient way to
50:13capture what God is he is ineffable he
50:15he he can't be contained into language
50:18and basically the only reason the only
50:21real Authority that a Christian can have
50:23for example to use particular analogies
50:26like words like powerful and loving is
50:29because they've gotten through
50:30Revelation because Jesus used those
50:31words for example and so you know they
50:33must be accurate to some degree right
50:34but like it's it's just if it's truly
50:38impossible to to sort of comprehend what
50:40we're really talking about then we're
50:41going to use analogy and so when you say
50:44you know subjective means agent related
50:46or however you phrase it yes I I
50:49understand what you mean and I I I sort
50:51of wanted to raise this point as well
50:53that like okay like it's objective
50:56because it's grounded in God's agency
50:58well what makes God's agency special
51:00well maybe because it's not actually
51:01agency in the same sense maybe that's
51:03just a word we're using to capture that
51:05God is not just some like amorphous blob
51:08but but something like a person I
51:10suppose I suppose the again I think I
51:12think that there's a kind of um steering
51:14between a rock and a hard place um type
51:16thing going on here generally with kind
51:17of definitions of God because let's say
51:19let's just think about um belief in
51:21terms of the possibilities that you're
51:23excluding so like this is this is again
51:24this is how belief is defined epidemic
51:25logic it's very it's kind of it's nice
51:27it's a lovely kind of relatively neat
51:28system whereby okay so if I if I know
51:32that if I believe that you are sitting
51:33in front of me right now what that means
51:34is in um all of the possible worlds that
51:37I considering when I'm making decisions
51:39you sitting in that chair in front of me
51:41is in everyone uh and we could contrast
51:43this to say if I knew that you were in
51:45um Glasgow or London but I didn't know
51:48which then one of the possible worlds I
51:50would consider would have you in Glasgow
51:51and the other would have you in London
51:53and I think the the trouble there is a d
51:56in making God too ineffable I think this
51:58is like a like a kind of a nice
51:59epistemological internal tension in some
52:02theistic definitions of God whereas if
52:03you make God too so if you make God too
52:06ineffable because of all of his
52:08greatness um then the possible gods that
52:12the the the open possibilities for what
52:14God is start to broaden and broaden and
52:16broaden uh and on the far end of this
52:18you've got kind of uh something that
52:21looks almost like atheism if you'd say
52:23if you if you were to say that God is
52:24totally ineffable you're basically
52:25saying well there's something something
52:26out there but I don't know what it is
52:28and that is almost it that is like a
52:29hair's breath from atheism that is
52:32because you're basically saying oh
52:33there's there's a placeholder there's a
52:34variable to answer these questions but I
52:36don't know anything about it and but on
52:38the but but interestingly this is
52:40intention with God's greatness right
52:42because if God is so much greater than
52:44us then also it makes sense that we w't
52:46be able to find out everything about him
52:47so there there's a kind of so again
52:49there's there's there's steering between
52:50a rock and a hard place I quite like
52:51this it's one of the kind of it's it's a
52:53nice it's a a fun internal tension um
52:55within with theistic conceptions of God
52:57that I think is underexplored like I
52:59don't really hear people talk about this
53:01um like the idea that if you make God
53:02too great and too ineffable and Define
53:04too many things by analogy then it
53:06becomes very hard to believe in him in
53:08any in any sense where you've narrowed
53:10down the possibilities right because if
53:11you if you make him two an effable then
53:13you're like well it could be God um God
53:15one or God two or God three or God four
53:17all the way to like God n and it's like
53:19well if You' left open an infinite
53:20number of possible gods that that your
53:23description of God could latch on to
53:25there's an awful lot of bete head going
53:26on yeah it's sort of like God is the is
53:29the truest thing I've ever known he's
53:30more real to me than than than real is
53:32he's touched my life and and he's like
53:34oh what's he like I have absolutely no
53:38idea what kind of being is it I don't
53:40know like what what are some of his
53:41properties I I cannot put them into
53:43words I have literally no idea it does
53:45begin to sound a little bit
53:47like okay like is this really the the
53:50sort of the the trer than true thing for
53:52you but then I understand why people
53:53would then use language like that they
53:54would say like you know this this person
53:57is so real to me in a way that I I just
54:00can't quite like put my finger on it
54:03would be as if you were the only person
54:04in the world who's in love or who has
54:08like a really good friend even and
54:10everybody else are just like people who
54:11interact as we do but like they don't
54:13care about each other really they just
54:14sort of get on with their own lives and
54:16do their own thing purely like
54:18rationally and you say like I've just
54:21experienced this thing this connection
54:22to this this person what kind of
54:24connection like I I don't know and
54:26they're like oh is it like a reciprocal
54:28thing is it like you do it to them
54:30because they do it for you it's like
54:32well like actually kind of in a way but
54:34but no because it's not motivated by
54:35that it's kind of like yeah and you'd be
54:37trying to explain it and you'd end up
54:38having to sort of use analogies to the
54:40way that they live you'd have to talk in
54:42terms of reciprocal function and like uh
54:45you know Hedonism and how it makes you
54:46feel good and that kind of stuff but
54:48it's not quite the same you know but
54:50just because you couldn't explain it
54:52wouldn't mean that like you know it's a
54:55hair's breath away from not being love
54:56at all right I suppose the only
54:57difference there is that is that in the
54:59love example you've got direct access to
55:01the to the reference of your sentence
55:03right you can say at the very least you
55:05you can you can gesticulate to your own
55:07feeling so to speak well stinum worries
55:10aside yeah but if somebody's
55:11gesticulating their own God right then
55:14that's fine but then the reference the
55:16reference they have direct access to is
55:17their feeling not God right it's it's
55:19it's as in at the very least as
55:22in within some conceptions of theism
55:24their referent would be God um but at
55:27the r without assuming that at the
55:29outset they would be talking about you
55:30know the the thing they have direct
55:32access to is their feeling of the Divine
55:34um but if they're trying to pick
55:35something out in the world in the same
55:37way that like I would might pick
55:38something out in the world by or I might
55:40pick Shakespeare out by describing him
55:41as the writer of Hamlet or something
55:43like that um then it seems like that
55:46there might be a narrowing down issue
55:47going on there which I'm not suggesting
55:48it's it's insoluble um you could take an
55:50you could for instance take a different
55:52theory of reference and say well I'm
55:54having direct contact with God so I'm
55:55picking out that um or something like
55:58that so I'm I'm not again I'm not
55:59suggesting it's insoluble I just think
56:00it's an underexplored internal tension
56:02sure um before we move on I suppose
56:05briefly do you give any Credence
56:07to atheist moral realist positions um by
56:13moral realism I mean the idea that
56:15morality is a real thing that moral
56:18Claims can be true or false I suppose I
56:21don't I mean people will say what about
56:23utilitarianism what about cism what
56:26about you know um or like I guess a sort
56:28of atheistic cism uh you know what about
56:31like
56:32um what about uh like a sort of atheist
56:36virtue ethics maybe kind of work you
56:39know what do you think about these ideas
56:40well they're they're not they're not
56:42contradictory so it's not like it's not
56:44an implication of atheism that you can't
56:47have moral realism um it is more that
56:51are you sure about that I'm I'm
56:53reasonably sure as then I don't I don't
56:54think you could derive a contradiction
56:56from saying there are there are some
56:58things that are good and there is no God
57:00I mean again I think Plato's like a good
57:03example of this in the sense you know I
57:05think Plato broadly is theistic but um
57:07the form of the good is doing so much of
57:09the heavy lifting in his um philosophy
57:12in his like ethical philosophy uh that
57:16you kind of God is kind of a you know
57:17it's a bit of a loose Cog there right in
57:19the Republic he says that gods are fully
57:21good um but like the form of the good
57:24does a lot of the the philosophical work
57:26there so and that would be an atheistic
57:28position it wouldn't be a materialist
57:29position but it would be an atheistic
57:30position whereby you have moral realism
57:32I think that um I think that we run into
57:34again I think we run into more
57:36difficulties when we look at the kind of
57:37methodological constraints that tend to
57:39lead people to atheism which I think
57:41also tend to lead people to to moral
57:43antire or not moral anti well not to
57:46moral realism um like J Macky in
57:50inventing right and wrong raises this he
57:52has the the argument from quis um where
57:55he basically says well moral properties
57:58um if they exist are really queer
58:00they're very very odd um they we can't
58:03seem to see them directly in the same
58:04way we can see loads of other properties
58:06uh we feel them um in a way that we feel
58:10them but their reference is outside of
58:12our feelings um you know I I I I learn
58:15things by feeling all the time I might
58:16learn that I'm angry or learn that I'm
58:17happy or learn that I'm sad but I'm
58:19learning that something is right from
58:21the way that I'm feeling about something
58:23and Macky basically says this is so
58:25disanalogous with the other ways we
58:27learn things um that if we're going to S
58:31by broadly empiricist principles we
58:33ought not to be moral realists and I
58:35think that's the line of argument that
58:37where um the where a lot of then atheist
58:42uh worldviews would struggle to come up
58:43with Mor realism and it's it's broadly
58:45my my um my argument for not being a Mor
58:48realist right is it's so it convinced me
58:51um so uh so I think I think that's where
58:54the tension comes in it's not that it's
58:55not that think that atheism implies
58:57moral anti-realism it's that I think
58:59that uh the same steps that get you to
59:01atheism often get you to not believing
59:03in moral realism cool next
59:06question how can you explain census
59:09divinitatus
59:10ah which I believe is a term coined by
59:13John Calvin to describe the sense of the
59:17Divine that sort of seems to exist
59:20within people um Muslims have the
59:22concept of fitra you know this sort of
59:24this p
59:26towards God that even if you don't
59:28personally feel it maybe you've talked
59:30yourself out of it or something it does
59:33seem anthropologically that wherever we
59:35look people tend to have some kind of
59:38sense of the Sacred and the profane and
59:41the numinous and the religious if that
59:44does not actually latch on to something
59:46real why do we have it so again I I feel
59:48like there's yeah the theist has a has a
59:51very good a good answer to this question
59:53which is that we have it because it's
59:54accurate you know and I and you know
59:57that but remember this is not this this
59:59is not a series of questions that
1:00:01theists have a more ready and obvious
1:00:03answer atheist it's question that
1:00:05atheists cannot answer I think it's
1:00:07rather presumptuous to say that or to
1:00:09imply that atheists simply cannot
1:00:12explain why we may have developed a
1:00:13sense that does not latch onto something
1:00:15real oh yeah I mean you could there are
1:00:17all sorts as in you could come up with
1:00:18all sorts of explanations you could talk
1:00:19about how um you talk about how it might
1:00:21have some sort of evolutionary Advantage
1:00:23I I one of my friends who's a biologist
1:00:25sent me an article the other that was
1:00:26talking about the um uh the use of uh
1:00:30religion in sort of like social cohesion
1:00:32um and also uh the idea that
1:00:35um uh I can't remember the exact wording
1:00:37of this but he and I'll he'll kill me
1:00:40because I'll just butcher this but um
1:00:41but talking about how um uh the sense of
1:00:44a religious uh theistic god um would be
1:00:49uh is very useful for for things like um
1:00:52having a sense of fulfillment and love
1:00:54in your life you know kind of it's like
1:00:55a a kind of standin person um that is
1:00:58always there and is can be supportive
1:01:00and sort of present and can fulfill that
1:01:02psychological need and I sort of think
1:01:04that this is a this is a point where um
1:01:06of course the theist would say this it's
1:01:09this is exactly what the theist would
1:01:10predict it's just also not what the
1:01:12atheist would not predict um the sensus
1:01:15divinitatus if I'm saying that correctly
1:01:17um it is it is sure it's not implied by
1:01:19Atheism in the same way it's implied by
1:01:21theism but a atheism would it would not
1:01:23be an expected observation of a world
1:01:26without God that we wouldn't have a
1:01:27belief about God um in the same way that
1:01:30it it wouldn't be an expected
1:01:32observation of a world without uh like
1:01:36chairs that we would never have a belief
1:01:38about chairs but it does seem well this
1:01:42is more or less a version of the
1:01:44argument from desire that CS Lewis
1:01:46advised famously is this is M
1:01:48Christianity um I think so yes yeah I'm
1:01:51almost certain it's from Mere
1:01:52Christianity where Lewis points out that
1:01:55we have this desire I mean he's not
1:01:57speaking on like an anthropological
1:01:59sense you know analyzing humans he he
1:02:01just sort of says you know any person
1:02:03who who really pays attention to their
1:02:04own desires will find within themselves
1:02:06and and find very like strongly a desire
1:02:09for something that's not of this world
1:02:10and if I find myself with a desire for
1:02:14something that that cannot be satisfied
1:02:16by this world the only or best
1:02:18explanation is that I was not made for
1:02:19this world that it's Satisfied by
1:02:21something else and an expanded version
1:02:24of this is to say look from an
1:02:26evolutionary perspective people want to
1:02:27say oh yeah but it's just a sense that
1:02:29we've evolved like why did we evolve
1:02:31hunger to help us get food why did we
1:02:34evolve tiredness so that we could sleep
1:02:36you know why why thirst you know like
1:02:38it'd be strange indeed if we had all
1:02:41developed this like Perpetual hunger
1:02:45even though there was no such thing as
1:02:47food I think that the um if there was
1:02:49nothing that could actually satisfied in
1:02:51other words well I think that uh the I
1:02:53think the atheist uh response to that
1:02:55would be well there is something that
1:02:56satisfies uh our desire for a belief in
1:02:59God and it's a belief in
1:03:00God and nobody nobody disputes the idea
1:03:03that theists exist right I mean that
1:03:05that would truly be I know some theists
1:03:07have argue that atheists don't exist but
1:03:09I've never heard an atheist argue that
1:03:10theists don't exist but that would be I
1:03:12mean that would be radical somebody
1:03:13should do a paper on that you know I
1:03:15think I feel like that we don't have
1:03:16enough philosophy papers that are
1:03:17published just to kind of say something
1:03:20bat it and then leave well you know like
1:03:22i' I've often thought about the fact
1:03:24that you know how like Jordan Peterson
1:03:25says
1:03:26like you're not really an atheist man
1:03:28like he once actually said oh you think
1:03:30of secular are you in a museum are you
1:03:33looking at art well what makes you think
1:03:35you're secular then he sort of has this
1:03:38vision and and again I've tried to I've
1:03:39did a whole video trying to understand
1:03:40his religious philosophy where something
1:03:42like that begins to make sense but I've
1:03:43often thought like people do the same
1:03:45thing in the other direction like people
1:03:46don't act religiously and the example I
1:03:49always give is When They Mourn people's
1:03:50death yes yeah does that make sense if
1:03:52somebody's I mean I remember really
1:03:54annoying I I went school as a kid I
1:03:56remember really annoying uh the the very
1:03:59very friendly young man running it um
1:04:01when I was like six or seven because
1:04:02they were talking about like sin and the
1:04:04idea of well well when you're Christian
1:04:05you're free of sin and then like you get
1:04:07to go to heaven if you're free of sin
1:04:09and I remember being like mate why did
1:04:10you let me live past my christening you
1:04:13could have hell sounds like it hell
1:04:14sounds like it is enough worth avoiding
1:04:17that you should have killed me after you
1:04:18christened me yeah could have done could
1:04:20have done you a favor I mean yeah like
1:04:24it is strange the way people treat death
1:04:27and react to death if they truly believe
1:04:29in an afterlife in 12th night uh
1:04:32Olivia's mour her brother's death and
1:04:34the fool comes up to her and and says
1:04:36I'm I'm going to prove that you're a
1:04:37fool and she says go on then and he says
1:04:40like you know why are you crying why are
1:04:41you upset and because my brother's dead
1:04:43and she says that he's in heaven and he
1:04:46says I think he's he's uh he's probably
1:04:50gone to hell and she goes no no no he's
1:04:51in heaven and he goes well moreful you
1:04:54for mourning someone who's in heaven
1:04:56and and it sort of it jumped out at me
1:04:58because it was a sort of Shakespearean
1:05:01way of of putting the point that I'd
1:05:02been making for a while which is that
1:05:04like what are you mourning for okay like
1:05:07Alex you're being totally naive and
1:05:10you're not considering that people are
1:05:11just upset that they're going to be
1:05:12separated from the person they love but
1:05:14that's not right either because if I
1:05:16found out that I was never going to be
1:05:18able to speak to you again Joe I'd be
1:05:20pretty upset about that like if you were
1:05:21going on like a expedition to Mars or
1:05:23something and for some reason there was
1:05:24no communication and I literally would
1:05:26never see you again I'd be pretty upset
1:05:28about that but if I if I found out
1:05:30especially if you were the one on the
1:05:32ship you know
1:05:34like if I found out after you take off
1:05:37and I'm never going to speak to you
1:05:38again anyway that the that the ship just
1:05:40like exploded and you're now dead I
1:05:42think I'd be upset in a different way it
1:05:44would like change the the sadness that I
1:05:46that I feel right and so intuitively to
1:05:49me it can't just be the separation there
1:05:51has to be something stronger about the
1:05:52death itself and you know when I made a
1:05:54real about this um you know people in
1:05:57the comments were sort of saying tell me
1:06:00you don't understand emotions without
1:06:02telling me you don't understand emotions
1:06:03or you know this kind of just sort of as
1:06:05if like I'm being like really stupid oh
1:06:07he just doesn't get it but it's like the
1:06:08point is I do get it I do get like of
1:06:11course you're going to be emotional of
1:06:12course you're going to be upset but but
1:06:14why would you feel that way if you truly
1:06:16believed in the way that you think you
1:06:18believe that you know this person's Gone
1:06:20to Heaven yes yeah yeah exact I mean I
1:06:21once met at a pub a Christian
1:06:23anti-natalist which is a fascinating
1:06:25like to say I think he was he he had to
1:06:27kind of and I'm sure that this is just
1:06:28like heresy but um but he but he was he
1:06:31was a reformed uh Christian as in like
1:06:34you know following reformed theology and
1:06:36believed in predestination he said well
1:06:37if I think that that God has only chosen
1:06:39a few people I don't want to have kids
1:06:41because chances are they're going to go
1:06:43to hell and I would love my kids and I
1:06:46remember thinking oh wow that's that's
1:06:47because just is you know worldview that
1:06:49some familiar to me and I remember
1:06:50actually yeah that that kind of is in
1:06:51The Logical extension of of of of both
1:06:53loving your children and
1:06:56the idea I mean Christians are certainly
1:06:58encouraged well no but then conflicts
1:07:00would go forth and multip yeah but then
1:07:01I I don't know if that's like a
1:07:03commandment I mean like Paul was
1:07:05celibate at least ostensively he you
1:07:08know says he was and uh and like seemed
1:07:10to think the celibacy was a good thing
1:07:11he says at one point that you know it's
1:07:12best to be as I am but if you really
1:07:14can't keep your hands off each other
1:07:15then at least go and get married you
1:07:17know um like Jesus himself is probably
1:07:22celibate probably doesn't have a wife
1:07:23depending on which sort of ES iic
1:07:26gnostics and people that you speak to um
1:07:30and so like it doesn't seem like it
1:07:32can't be in other words a Christian
1:07:34necessity that you must have children
1:07:36because otherwise you know Paul would be
1:07:38this grave sinner Jesus would be this
1:07:39grave Sinner and so you know maybe there
1:07:41could be some some track to that yeah no
1:07:44I I don't know I've never considered it
1:07:45before I do think there's something a
1:07:47little bit sort of too game theoretical
1:07:49about about it that sort of Misses
1:07:51what's important oh what well I suppose
1:07:54I think
1:07:56generally get isn't it but you know I'm
1:07:58sure that they'd say that's not an
1:08:00argument that's just you saying I want
1:08:01kids yeah it's it's interesting that
1:08:04yeah I suppose you might be doing them a
1:08:06favor by sort of saving them the the
1:08:08trial all together um I suppose the
1:08:11Christian would say that communion with
1:08:12God is such an infinite good that it's
1:08:14worth running the res I don't even know
1:08:16if that is true well um that that would
1:08:18that it would be worth it even then
1:08:20that's an interesting point but okay
1:08:23yeah what was the question we
1:08:26yeah we were talking about sens of intis
1:08:27and um and how you know you you were
1:08:30saying about their there being people
1:08:33who uh let me actually think oh yes the
1:08:36atheist The Atheist answer to why do we
1:08:38have the atheist answer to CS lewis'
1:08:40challenge of like well why would we
1:08:42evolve hunger if we don't have food is
1:08:43to say well we don't hunger after God we
1:08:45hunger after a belief in God if if the
1:08:48belief is doing the the expl for an
1:08:50atheist the belief is doing the
1:08:51explanatory work rather than God doing
1:08:53the explanatory work but then why would
1:08:55we have a desire for a belief in
1:08:56something which doesn't exist I mean
1:08:58it's it's on I mean I'm I'm going to
1:09:00there are it does seem like there are
1:09:02examples where we potentially have this
1:09:05I mean I'm going to butcher some like
1:09:07psychological literature here so be you
1:09:09know I'm probably getting this wrong I'm
1:09:11going to preface that but there there I
1:09:13remember reading um a couple of papers
1:09:15about about the about self- judgment and
1:09:18the idea that humans on average
1:09:20overestimate themselves in a whole host
1:09:22of ways and the only and then you know
1:09:26they they asked people questions about
1:09:27themselves and then tested those
1:09:28attributes and basically they found that
1:09:29people would overestimate themselves in
1:09:30a whole host of ways I can't remember
1:09:31the exact properties but I think like
1:09:32one of them was like how attractive they
1:09:34are and all and like um and the and when
1:09:38they tested them they found that they
1:09:39were overestimating themselves but the
1:09:41only people that didn't were people who
1:09:42were like depressed and that they had a
1:09:45fairly accurate view of themselves this
1:09:47is this is explained to me by by by a
1:09:49professor when I was in third year I
1:09:50remember thinking God I wonder which way
1:09:52around that was for them is it like
1:09:53because they were depressed they were
1:09:54more accurate because they had a more
1:09:56accurate view of themselves they just
1:09:57get depressed but but but but one thing
1:09:59but one thing that this does demonstrate
1:10:02um potentially if this finding still
1:10:03holds it could be really out of date now
1:10:05um is that uh it is possible that there
1:10:07would be beliefs that are suited for
1:10:09surviving and thriving that nonetheless
1:10:11are not true this is actually the exact
1:10:13example that Richard Dawkins gave to me
1:10:14in response to the same challenge was
1:10:16was precisely that consideration about
1:10:18people who think they're more attractive
1:10:20than they are but like attractiveness is
1:10:22still a thing it's still it's still a
1:10:24metri trick which you can place yourself
1:10:26on legitimately or illegitimately right
1:10:29like but like if if God just doesn't
1:10:32exist then the desire for him it's not
1:10:35like you desire him like to be slightly
1:10:38bigger than he actually is or you know
1:10:40what I mean like it's just like this
1:10:41thing that doesn't exist at all and yet
1:10:43you develop this desire for it I mean
1:10:45Richard Dawkins also then said um you
1:10:48know well you can desire all sorts of
1:10:49things I mean you know like a a person
1:10:52might desire to you know mate with a
1:10:54attract famous super model but you know
1:10:57it's never going to happen and I was
1:10:58like yeah butel exists right you know
1:11:02and and it does seem like it's actually
1:11:05quite difficult to come up with an
1:11:08analogy for something that we that we
1:11:09would claim that we wouldn't dispute
1:11:11people almost universally desire in some
1:11:14sense and yet maybe doesn't exist yes I
1:11:17suppose depends because if you cast it
1:11:18in terms of propositions the proposition
1:11:20that you are more attractive than you
1:11:21are is just as is if as just as false
1:11:24the idea that God so like that but if
1:11:26you're but if you're cashing out in
1:11:27terms of objects I can see why that
1:11:29might I mean one one thing I suppose you
1:11:31you could say in response that I'm not
1:11:32entirely convinced by the response I'm
1:11:34about to give but um would be the idea
1:11:35the well if God is the maximal point of
1:11:37things like intelligence and and uh
1:11:39goodness and x y and Zed uh then um a
1:11:43desire after that would just be an
1:11:44extreme desire after loads of things we
1:11:46already we already desire in an everyday
1:11:48sense and that that that might be
1:11:49potential I mean that's kind of an ill
1:11:51formulated response but that's also
1:11:52something that Dawkins and I sort of
1:11:54discussed this idea that with there are
1:11:55things that we desire in the world that
1:11:56we've just sort of turned up to 11 or
1:11:59sort of abstracted or you know formed
1:12:01into this one great big archetype it I
1:12:03mean it I must say it does seem
1:12:05mysterious to me it would be as if I
1:12:06said I'm saying like you know I I think
1:12:09that like food is an illusion I don't
1:12:12think it exists and you're like well
1:12:14hold on like I I mean I feel like I can
1:12:16see it and I'm like yeah that's just
1:12:18because it's it's an evolutionary
1:12:19adaptation that you like get this
1:12:21illusory sense that food exists You' be
1:12:22like well like why would that like what
1:12:25possible reason would they be for that
1:12:26and I'm like well you know by believing
1:12:29there's obviously good reasons that we
1:12:30can have like if we believe that there's
1:12:32food there then we can like come
1:12:34together to eat it together and so we
1:12:36develop this this Universal sense of
1:12:38hunger that yeah like everybody
1:12:40everywhere has the sense of hunger but
1:12:41it's totally just an evolutionary
1:12:42adaptation man and it's because you know
1:12:44by evolutionarily inventing this this
1:12:46illusion of food we get to like eat
1:12:48meals together and we get to spend time
1:12:50together and we get to go hunting and we
1:12:51get to do all this kind of stuff you
1:12:52know like it it just seem really strange
1:12:56that we've all just got this desire for
1:12:58this thing which we also think is
1:13:00actually fulfilled in many cases but
1:13:03it's just completely illusory yes no I
1:13:05think that's fair but although I suppose
1:13:06with the with the food thing you
1:13:07directly experience food and I and so
1:13:10you're arguing you're argu direct
1:13:11experience actually no that's actually
1:13:13people directly experiences God but you
1:13:14just say that it's an illusion and I I'm
1:13:16saying like you experience the food in
1:13:17front of you but it's it's just an
1:13:18illusion your brain is just tricking all
1:13:20of your sense data into thinking that
1:13:22there's something there I suppose there
1:13:23are there are different well differences
1:13:25of differences of degree rather than
1:13:27differences of kind in the stupid
1:13:29analogy but you get what I'm saying I do
1:13:31get what you're saying is in like with
1:13:32the food thing because I can verify it
1:13:33with with other but also it's with with
1:13:35other people's like I I think that if if
1:13:37everyone um if people could publicize
1:13:40their um religious experiences in the
1:13:43sense if I could if if if my one of my
1:13:45very good friends is a is an is a a very
1:13:48very committed Catholic and he often
1:13:50explains when he takes Eucharist
1:13:52sometimes this feeling overcomes him and
1:13:53I was like yeah if you could make that
1:13:55feeling public in a qualitive sense you
1:13:58could beam that into everyone else's
1:13:59head I'm sure I would believe in God
1:14:01also in vness like if people actually
1:14:04died as a result of not believing in God
1:14:06in the same way that they die from not
1:14:08eating food that would that would
1:14:10probably this also do something this
1:14:12also tugs at the the the question of
1:14:14utility of belief like is are there
1:14:15legitimate reasons to believe in like
1:14:16say say that belief in God is useful and
1:14:18fulfilling is that a legitimate reason
1:14:20to believe in it even if it's not true
1:14:22yes well here's another question
1:14:25provide me with a single civilization
1:14:27that has ever succeeded under an
1:14:29atheistic Paradigm also name me a
1:14:32civilization that has come into being
1:14:34without a preceding binding myth so so
1:14:38this practical question like yeah yeah
1:14:41how does the atheist respond to the fact
1:14:43like implied in this question that
1:14:44there's never been a successful atheist
1:14:46in Paradigm and that there's never been
1:14:48a successful civilization that hasn't
1:14:49had some kind of like mythological
1:14:51founding I suppose that I mean one I
1:14:54mean obviously I'm not anthrop ologist
1:14:55so all of these answers are going to be
1:14:56terribly unreliable and you shouldn't
1:14:57listen to me but thanks for watching
1:15:00everybody I mean the first thing I would
1:15:02point out here is that this this this at
1:15:04least implies that like I mean the way
1:15:06the question is says also name me a
1:15:08civilization that has come into being
1:15:10without a preceding binding myth that
1:15:12might not be true also proceeding is
1:15:14interesting there right because um I
1:15:16suppose there there's a there might be a
1:15:17sort of chicken egg problem and
1:15:18something interesting that one of n's
1:15:20interesting observations is he thought
1:15:21that we often got causes and effects
1:15:23really confused so like you again come
1:15:26on to exential issues in in a sec but
1:15:27like the he thought that um it wasn't
1:15:30that nihilistic people he said thought
1:15:32it wasn't that a belief in God LED sorry
1:15:34disbelieving it wasn't necessarily that
1:15:35a disbelief in values led to nihilism it
1:15:38was that people became nihilistic
1:15:40emotionally because of the
1:15:41disorganization of their wills and then
1:15:43it didn't make sense for them to Value
1:15:44things and he like you know that that he
1:15:46had a kind of and he would talk about
1:15:47the active nihilist who was you know
1:15:49simplifying somewhat but B broadly
1:15:51someone who just thought well my will
1:15:52inherently has value like what do you
1:15:54mean my will doesn't have value I want
1:15:56something what M can you ask of me and
1:15:58so and there so and um to to bring it
1:16:01back to this question one potential
1:16:03atheist answer is to say Well yeah if
1:16:05you get if you get a group of people
1:16:07together in a room of really any
1:16:08significant size they'll come up with
1:16:10with all sorts of like awesome ideas and
1:16:13and and it could be that that that that
1:16:15Civilization begets a founding myth
1:16:17rather than a founding myth begets a
1:16:18civilization like uh like proceeding is
1:16:20an interesting word there um because I
1:16:23think clearly these two things are going
1:16:24to be interrelated right if I get um 100
1:16:26people together on on a desert island
1:16:28I'm sure they're going to form religion
1:16:30right as as a as a as a thing and I
1:16:32think that is like the interesting
1:16:34problem for the atheist is like why does
1:16:36this happen so much and um but uh
1:16:39regarding whether there's a preceding
1:16:40myth I think that's probably it's
1:16:41probably kind of a a a mutually
1:16:44interdependent uh thing there I mean on
1:16:46can a civilization survive without a
1:16:48shared myth I think is an interesting
1:16:49question it's one I don't have the
1:16:50answer to yeah I mean I I doubt it I'm
1:16:52I'm totally pessimistic about the idea
1:16:56of of a of a of a nation in any
1:16:59meaningful sense or certainly a
1:17:01civilization being able to be sort of
1:17:04cohesive and survive and thrive without
1:17:07having something that bonds them
1:17:09together more than like the immediacy of
1:17:11their like day-to-day sense experience
1:17:13right and and in fact I think for a lot
1:17:14of atheists they hypothesize that this
1:17:17is why religion is invented by the Mind
1:17:19by you know the the
1:17:21collective psychology of of mankind and
1:17:25kind because of course like we sort of
1:17:28need things to tie us together that's
1:17:30like the whole reason it's invented and
1:17:31so so where where the the questioner
1:17:33says I keep calling them questioners but
1:17:35a lot of these are just statements you
1:17:37provide me with a single civilization
1:17:39that has ever succeeded upon an athe
1:17:41under an atheistic Paradigm like maybe I
1:17:42can't um I mean an atheistic Paradigm no
1:17:47um people often conflate the idea of
1:17:50like secularism in politics with Atheism
1:17:51in politics right like an atheistic
1:17:55uh government might be like the USSR
1:17:58which like people bring that up as a
1:18:00point against atheism all the time it
1:18:01was not a secular government a lot of
1:18:03people describe it as secular even
1:18:04though it's was like actively like
1:18:05proactively persecuting religious people
1:18:07as if that in any way fits into a
1:18:08definition of secular but it was
1:18:09certainly atheist um yeah I can't think
1:18:13of one and maybe that is because I'll
1:18:14just grant it's because like it doesn't
1:18:16work let's just say F fine let's just
1:18:18agree with the the implication of the
1:18:19question no civilization can function
1:18:21under atheism that is as well answered
1:18:24by saying that's because atheism is
1:18:25false as saying and that's why although
1:18:28there is no God people have to invent
1:18:30one yes well the I mean the other thing
1:18:31is that that it doesn't it doesn't
1:18:32strike me as actually a necessary
1:18:34implication of God exists that no
1:18:37civilization could survive without a
1:18:38belief in God yeah sure but it is an
1:18:40implication of the atheist explanation
1:18:41there so like in some ways there's
1:18:43actually a strength of the atheist
1:18:44explan I think I think you might you
1:18:45might be right there because God could
1:18:47exist but if God existed it would seem
1:18:49like even if people didn't believe in
1:18:51him he could still in theory like design
1:18:53it so that Civilization can
1:18:55at the very least it doesn't fall out of
1:18:56theism as a as a kind of obvious
1:18:58implication that no civilization survive
1:18:59without God but I think this an
1:19:00interesting question for atheists we
1:19:02being terribly irresponsible Alex by
1:19:05spreading our horic corrosive doct it's
1:19:07true it's it's true at least to the
1:19:08extent that I mean there are studies to
1:19:10suggest that like religious people are
1:19:12like happier that they have better sex
1:19:14lives that there's all kinds of things
1:19:16and and so like there is this case to be
1:19:18made that like even if you don't think
1:19:20it's true like why would you talk people
1:19:22out of it like to what end and you can
1:19:23say oh because you know value truth and
1:19:25stuff like really like more than you
1:19:27value people's well-being well I mean
1:19:29like maybe but then I don't know like it
1:19:31is a question that does have to be
1:19:32address I mean I know to say it a bit
1:19:34tongue and cheek but it's it's really
1:19:35true it's worth thinking about one um
1:19:37one I mean interesting implication of of
1:19:39basically um the potentially of an
1:19:41atheist worldview but also just
1:19:42generally um pretty much any worldview
1:19:44that doesn't have a very very good
1:19:47metaphysical mirror between human mind
1:19:49and the structure of reality is that
1:19:51there can be is that there could be
1:19:52things that are true that are just
1:19:54unbearing
1:19:55um it could be that you discover truths
1:19:57that that send you mad and uh and
1:20:00arguably theism does have a way around
1:20:02that like theism could really neatly
1:20:04sync up truth and utility with the idea
1:20:06of a loving God it's like well things
1:20:08are things
1:20:09are truths are useful because the world
1:20:12has been designed benevolently and
1:20:13that's like that that is an explanatory
1:20:15framework that that helps square that
1:20:16Circle I think a very interesting um uh
1:20:19question when you when you remove that
1:20:20is well there could be things that are
1:20:22true that are really not beneficial to
1:20:24believe
1:20:25um but there are also atheistic theories
1:20:27like there's kind of global pragmatist
1:20:28theories that attempt to tie truth back
1:20:31to utility as a kind of Truth is like
1:20:33abstracted away from things that are
1:20:35useful even if uh there are individually
1:20:37things that are true that are not useful
1:20:39so there's there there's some extra work
1:20:40I don't think it's controversial to
1:20:42suggest that there could be things which
1:20:43are false but are beneficial for a
1:20:45society to believe in and so again
1:20:47considering that we're we're asking here
1:20:49for questions that atheists cannot
1:20:51answer like okay you know it's a
1:20:53confronting question well why hasn't a
1:20:54ISM ever worked on a civilizational
1:20:56level like I don't know let's talk about
1:20:57that but is it a question that atheists
1:20:58can't answer I don't think so I mean
1:21:01think about the fact that for example
1:21:02you know I don't think that
1:21:03civilizations can survive without all
1:21:04other kinds of myths like for example
1:21:07you know like belief in the rule of law
1:21:10like like belief in your Constitution
1:21:12belief in your like nation's ethic right
1:21:15it's very difficult for a nation to
1:21:16survive if there isn't like General like
1:21:18agreement on on that like when if we
1:21:22were still living in a in like a real
1:21:23monarchy like the monarchy was really
1:21:25like the absolute monarch with proper
1:21:27power yeah the kind of monarchy that I
1:21:28would like to see the kind of the kind
1:21:31of Limp monarchy we have at exactly um
1:21:34then like okay like you'd probably need
1:21:37most of the population to sort of
1:21:38believe in the concept of monarchy in
1:21:40order for it to work now I I could be
1:21:41sad in that society and be like well
1:21:43obviously monarchy is like ridiculous
1:21:45and it's not true that this person is
1:21:47ordained by God the crism oil being
1:21:49rubbed on the chest does not transform
1:21:51this person into some sort of like Demi
1:21:53God with like you know right to none of
1:21:56that's true right and people would
1:21:57probably say okay well how are those you
1:22:00know Republican societies working out
1:22:01how's France going you know go and look
1:22:03over that was what people wrote around
1:22:05the exact right and so and but it
1:22:08wouldn't all that would tell us is that
1:22:11what we're dealing with here is
1:22:12something like a noble lie you know it's
1:22:15like it's it's that's an idea from Plato
1:22:19you know that that the idea that there
1:22:21are certain things which are not true
1:22:22but must be believed by a society for it
1:22:23to function this is not an old idea and
1:22:25religion just may be one of those things
1:22:27yeah I suppose it's it's there is there
1:22:29is obviously the argument that um or at
1:22:31least I think people's response of that
1:22:32sort of thing tends to be well that's
1:22:33horribly condescending but I don't think
1:22:35I don't think that's and I don't think
1:22:36it necessarily has to be horribly
1:22:37condescending because I think you can
1:22:39make it work by saying well it's not
1:22:41that people are it's not that people are
1:22:43are too limited to to not have a God or
1:22:46something like that you could just say
1:22:47well you know it's it's just a good
1:22:49organizing principle it's not that any
1:22:50individual person um you know is is is
1:22:53limited in some way it's just that when
1:22:55you have people at scale there are all
1:22:56sorts of things that you need to like
1:22:58like most people don't need a
1:22:59spreadsheet to organize their lives but
1:23:01if you have 2,000 people you probably
1:23:02will need a spreadsheet yeah and and
1:23:05yeah and it's a bit like the monarchy
1:23:06thing
1:23:07where you know if I said I don't think
1:23:09the monarchy like comports to reality in
1:23:13in the sense that the claims that people
1:23:14make about Divine R of kings and stuff
1:23:16aren't true okay so then we abolish the
1:23:18monarchy and like Society just falls
1:23:20apart right at at best I would have to
1:23:23say
1:23:25okay maybe we should have kept it anyway
1:23:26you know it wouldn't prove to me that
1:23:27actually it was all true yes this isn't
1:23:29a question atheists can't answer it
1:23:30might be a question that atheist
1:23:31shouldn't
1:23:32answer yeah that's another good video
1:23:35idea actually questions atheists should
1:23:38not answer um let's change gears totally
1:23:42different kind of question here um I'm
1:23:44not sure if there's no answer but I'd be
1:23:46curious to hear an argument for why we
1:23:48are able to trust human intellect and
1:23:50rationality as a reliable guide to truth
1:23:54oh this a fascinating one I've been
1:23:55thinking about this this has been
1:23:56actually really playing on my mind
1:23:58recently um how can we trust human
1:24:00intellect to get us to truth if there's
1:24:03no God there's no divining Divine
1:24:05guiding principle just to sort of lay
1:24:07this out for the materialist like the
1:24:11brain is just a bunch of atoms bumping
1:24:13into each other right it's just like
1:24:15it's it's kind of like a rock or or a
1:24:17piece of wood or something that happens
1:24:18to have developed this weird thing
1:24:20called Consciousness but like there
1:24:21seems no necessary reason why it would
1:24:23have to be in relation to truth
1:24:27like we were just talking a moment ago
1:24:29about how it makes sense to believe
1:24:30certain things that are false because
1:24:32it's like beneficial for us right now if
1:24:35if it happened to be true that that that
1:24:37actually applied RIT large to things
1:24:39like the laws of logic and mathematical
1:24:41truths we literally be incapable of
1:24:43knowing because it might be the case
1:24:47that it's not that 2+ 2al 4 it's that
1:24:50believing 2+ 2al 4 is beneficial for my
1:24:53survival and that why my rationality
1:24:55evolved to believe that kind of thing
1:24:57and somebody will come along and say
1:24:59yeah but hold on like you know it just
1:25:01can't like my brain just can't conceive
1:25:04of the opposite like we can know it to
1:25:06be true aiori and I'm like that's
1:25:09because that's how your brain evolved
1:25:10right there were people who believed
1:25:12that 2 plus 2 is five it's just that
1:25:14believing that was not beneficial to
1:25:16their survival and so they died out
1:25:17leaving only us now people will want to
1:25:19say like this is stupid what do you mean
1:25:20that the reason they died out and the
1:25:22reason why believing 2 plus2
1:25:26was not beneficial to their survival was
1:25:27because it's not true right and do you
1:25:29think that that's a a good response to
1:25:31this I think this is a one instance of
1:25:33what of a huge of just a general problem
1:25:37of circular justification in philosophy
1:25:39and just sort of so here you've got two
1:25:42claims you've got one about epistemology
1:25:43and one about ontology and effectively
1:25:45the question is how are we going to get
1:25:46them to play nice together and the
1:25:48trouble is um I mean on the classic
1:25:50Aristotelian model of philosophy you
1:25:52have a bunch of branches of like the the
1:25:54outer branch of the tree and you get to
1:25:55the middle and it's metaphysics or
1:25:56ontology it's like the stuff that is
1:25:58this is why decart's meditations on
1:26:00metaphysics is called meditations on
1:26:01first philosophies because metaphysics
1:26:03is the first philosophy and um I think
1:26:06the trouble is that there is in practice
1:26:08there's an interplay there is mutual
1:26:10dependence between your epistemology and
1:26:11your ontology because your ontology will
1:26:13justify your epistemology but your
1:26:15epistemology has to justify why you
1:26:16believe in your ontology what is
1:26:17ontology and epistemology like so
1:26:19epistemology like the study of how how
1:26:21you can come to know things and ontology
1:26:23the study of what is so my
1:26:26epistemology as in that that's a really
1:26:27good example of where somebody has put
1:26:29forward the argument that that ontology
1:26:31has undermined epistemology the idea
1:26:33that we are simply evolved creatures
1:26:35atoms bumping together and that's what
1:26:36our brains are and that's what our
1:26:37rationality is um has undermined or
1:26:40portly undermined the epistemology um
1:26:43and then the and this is I kind of
1:26:46fascinating right but then the um you
1:26:48have to assume the reliability of
1:26:50epistemology in order to come to any
1:26:51sort of ontology so the so when the
1:26:54theist so it's not just that the theist
1:26:57argument is circular when they would say
1:26:59oh well God would ground that it's like
1:27:00well how do you how prior to God
1:27:02grounding it how do you know that what
1:27:04what's the what's the precons considered
1:27:06um reliability of your epistemology that
1:27:08has allowed you to know that your
1:27:10reasoning chain from God existing to the
1:27:11reliability of your epistemology Works
1:27:14um but but this and this is sometimes
1:27:15posited as a problem for the theist but
1:27:17it's not it's a far it's a problem for
1:27:21everyone it's a problem for everyone
1:27:23right it's because it's because this
1:27:24it's because um what we know is
1:27:26predicated on what we think is and what
1:27:28is what we believe is the case is
1:27:30predicated on what we think we can know
1:27:31yeah so so so um we'll we'll break this
1:27:35down even if just for your sake Alex I
1:27:38could see you looking sort of panicked
1:27:40over there because there's a lot of
1:27:42words and I think no don't apologize
1:27:45that's what we're here for but I I think
1:27:47I want to make sure that I'm
1:27:48understanding what you're saying there's
1:27:49like a circularity potentially in the
1:27:51god justification and saying well can
1:27:54trust my rationality because God grounds
1:27:56it that's what dayart does and one of
1:27:59the most famous criticisms of decart's
1:28:01work is known as the carian circle it's
1:28:03this circle of like well if you need God
1:28:06to justify your reasoning
1:28:08ability how do you reason that God
1:28:10exists in order to justify that
1:28:13reasoning ability and it sort of goes
1:28:14around in a circle right and
1:28:16so think about like the atheist version
1:28:19of this or the atheist problem here is
1:28:21is really put together best I think by
1:28:24Alvin planting it his evolutionary
1:28:26argument against naturalism so he
1:28:28specifically makes the case that if you
1:28:31believe in evolution I've talked about
1:28:32this a lot right if you believe in
1:28:34evolution and you're materialist
1:28:36assuming you're a materialist you
1:28:37believe in evolution by natural
1:28:38selection natural selection selects for
1:28:41survivability it doesn't select for
1:28:43truth which means that if you believe in
1:28:46evolution you believe that your
1:28:48reasoning faculty has not evolved to be
1:28:50sensitive to truth but to survivability
1:28:53why do you believe Evolution oh because
1:28:55you've reasoned your way into it but the
1:28:58thing you've just reasoned your way into
1:29:00Evolution has undermined your ability to
1:29:03trust the reasoning process that you've
1:29:04used to reason into it so he sort of
1:29:06points out that like you can't be a
1:29:09materialist and believe in evolution
1:29:12because believing in evolution undercuts
1:29:14the reasons you have for believing in
1:29:15evolution the thing is right one of
1:29:18these is a vicious circle and one of
1:29:21them is a virtuous circle because for
1:29:23the atheist you've got this horrible
1:29:25problem where like you've got this weird
1:29:28circle of like like yeah okay like I
1:29:32believe that it's just atoms bumping
1:29:34into each other that has no connection
1:29:35to truth and that's produced this belief
1:29:38but it's that belief which has caused
1:29:39this this reasoning fact and you're
1:29:41getting all messed up you know the
1:29:43theist goes around in a circle but they
1:29:44say okay sure it's circular but we all
1:29:46have to start somewhere and everyone's
1:29:47circular in some degree but my circle is
1:29:50one that says well God justifies reason
1:29:52because he's an agent who who is you
1:29:54know the foundation of Truth and gives
1:29:56us access to truth and yeah sure I've
1:29:59used my reasoning faculty to get there
1:30:00but that circle is like consistent and
1:30:03self-contained and gives you this access
1:30:04to truth even though it's still circular
1:30:06it's one that sort of gives you trust in
1:30:08truth I mean I think that I think that
1:30:10the yeah I think I think that is
1:30:12essentially the core difference between
1:30:13the two right self- undermining versus
1:30:14self-reinforcing um there's the yeah I
1:30:17want to point out the the
1:30:18epistemological ontological thing
1:30:20because I think often times uh we sort
1:30:23of pretend we can ground things more
1:30:25than we can I mean you know you've got
1:30:26Vicken Stein's uncertainty on your shelf
1:30:28and he comes to he has this idea of a
1:30:29hinge statement which is where a
1:30:31statement you eventually come to where
1:30:32you cannot you can neither justify it
1:30:34nor challenge it because you can only
1:30:36justify propositions with more strongly
1:30:37held propositions and you can only
1:30:39challenge propositions with more
1:30:40strongly held propositions so you have
1:30:42you eventually get something that you
1:30:43can't justify or challenge which yeah
1:30:45again and I think that that that is sort
1:30:47of that could form a kind of theist way
1:30:49out of this cartisian circle where they
1:30:50just say well that's it you've got to
1:30:51start somewhere um I think that the uh
1:30:54there are I suppose there are there are
1:30:55two there are a couple of potential um
1:30:57responses that nathus could have first
1:30:58of all I should say I genuinely think
1:31:00this is a cracking problem this is like
1:31:02this is this is the This Is The Stuff
1:31:04good philosophy is made of me too by the
1:31:06way like I I really like in fact often
1:31:09depending on who I'm talking to right
1:31:10because sometimes when I present this
1:31:12argument to people especially it's a bit
1:31:14complicated but it's also a little bit
1:31:15like there are so many little ways that
1:31:18that it can be I guess like
1:31:19misunderstood
1:31:21or objections that seem like they should
1:31:23should work but kind of don't and so
1:31:25it's a little bit tricky but like if I'm
1:31:27if I'm talking with somebody who who
1:31:29like gets it this is like my go-to
1:31:33challenge if someone's like what what do
1:31:34you think is the best argument for like
1:31:36believing in God or something I'll be
1:31:37like just check this out like try this
1:31:38on and see what you think I mean this
1:31:40this this idea that our epistemology can
1:31:41become self-undermining and that that
1:31:43does keep me up at night that you know
1:31:44to this keeps me up at night more than
1:31:46why is there something rather than
1:31:47nothing yeah I think that there are
1:31:49again there to to toy with roots out cuz
1:31:52there are I think that there are
1:31:53potential Roots out but at the same time
1:31:54each of them is so incredibly
1:31:56controversial um I mean I suppose
1:31:58actually before I do that initial
1:31:59observation is that you it's not that
1:32:02it's not that an atheistic view implies
1:32:04this it's a materialistic view implies
1:32:05this or potentially implies this um if
1:32:07there's no kind of break in the
1:32:09reasoning uh so again if you for
1:32:12instance you know if you if you like K
1:32:15uh to incredibly probably butcher K to
1:32:18say that that the world is in some way
1:32:19synthetically a priori uh aligned with
1:32:23with with the particular faculties your
1:32:24reasoning then you don't have to worry
1:32:25about this um but again that's like and
1:32:27that's what mean say all the solutions
1:32:28this is so controversial it's like yeah
1:32:29but do you want to do you want to
1:32:30swallow the synthetic aiori whole that's
1:32:33a lot to that's a lot to take man so
1:32:35each of these um Solutions will have
1:32:37massive controversies with them one is
1:32:38to adopt some form of global pragmatist
1:32:40view so this is what Hugh price does um
1:32:42who is a brilliant Australian
1:32:44philosopher um who uh goes from object
1:32:47naturalism which is essentially we need
1:32:49to stud we studying the world as a
1:32:50natural object and then he comes to
1:32:51subject naturalism which is studying the
1:32:53human As Natural object object and then
1:32:54he says well if you're studying the
1:32:55human as a natural object we use all
1:32:57kinds of weird non-natural terminology
1:33:00like truth and the whole of math and
1:33:02like loads of stuff that that at first
1:33:04glance is a bit non-natural and so he
1:33:06says well if we're going to be
1:33:07consistent naturalists we need to study
1:33:09the human as a subject naturalist
1:33:10project and so he comes up with an idea
1:33:12of Truth which is the same boat
1:33:14principle uh which again I it's been a
1:33:16while since I read price so you know
1:33:18don't quote me on this but uh this idea
1:33:20he takes um Truth uh and abstracts it
1:33:23from the stuff that is useful so he gets
1:33:25around it by um in a in a way that I
1:33:28won't attempt to recall the details of
1:33:29because I know that I Mis quote him um
1:33:33takes the things that are useful to
1:33:35humans and then abstracts truth away
1:33:37from that as the thing that is generally
1:33:39um the the the principles of TR of how
1:33:42we come to have truth is the principles
1:33:44of uh is the principle of the stuff that
1:33:46will be useful as a general rule and
1:33:48sure it will sometimes break with
1:33:49utility but it's kind of the best fit
1:33:51we've got uh and and that's kind of how
1:33:53he gets it of course the difference the
1:33:54difficulty with that is it's a
1:33:55fundamentally anti-realist conception of
1:33:57Truth yeah this is this is like this is
1:33:59like it is almost idealist in it's in in
1:34:02the way that it sets up the human
1:34:03investigative project but it does it's a
1:34:06definition of truth that means that we
1:34:07can be sure that we we can be pretty
1:34:10sure that our reasoning is true because
1:34:12we've defined truth relative to the
1:34:14human and this is kind of this this
1:34:15touches upon an interesting point
1:34:17regarding generally a pattern that I
1:34:20noticed between atheist and theistic
1:34:21reasoning again you know to generalize
1:34:24um is that often times you will have uh
1:34:27the the theist want to have something
1:34:29human grounded in metaphysics and the
1:34:33atheist will often take something that
1:34:35is purportedly metaphysical and attempt
1:34:37to ground it back in the human so like
1:34:39the classic you know classic one is uh
1:34:40quite a lot of metaphysically minded
1:34:42people will say well how does maass work
1:34:43and they'll want to say something like
1:34:44well maass works because it's grounded
1:34:46in these platonic Eternal truths that's
1:34:48why math works and lots of less
1:34:51metaphysically minded people want to say
1:34:52something like well math works because
1:34:54we've designed it to work it's a tool
1:34:56and we have if if the world was
1:34:58different math would be different and
1:35:01maybe truth kind of works in the same
1:35:04way yes so that so that that that so
1:35:06that would be again to just illustrate
1:35:08like General explanatory differences
1:35:09between between competing uh
1:35:12philosophical Tendencies or
1:35:13philosophical predispositions I think
1:35:15that that really cuts at something and I
1:35:17think that you know those that are very
1:35:18very sympathetic to the to um explaining
1:35:21the metaphysical in terms of the human
1:35:22will love something like crisis idea of
1:35:24truth because it it connects something
1:35:27weird and a bit fuzzy and and seemingly
1:35:29immaterial like the truth relation uh
1:35:31that's that's odd on the face of it
1:35:33right I can say a statement it latches
1:35:34on something in the world and that
1:35:35becomes true on the face of it that's
1:35:37kind of really weird and and sort of
1:35:39non-naturalistic and price linking it
1:35:40back to naturalism I think would be very
1:35:42satisfying for some people but on the
1:35:43other hand you've you've lost like
1:35:46hardcore realism about truth yeah I
1:35:49I've I guess in part because of this
1:35:52consideration just sort of been
1:35:54committed I think recently to to this
1:35:57kind of view of Truth um that that
1:36:00becomes like a sort of anti-realist view
1:36:01of Truth the TR truth is not as
1:36:04traditionally thought of that there is
1:36:06just this reality that our minds latch
1:36:09on to I mean maybe at least maybe that's
1:36:12the case it's just that you can't know
1:36:13that that's the case and so that the way
1:36:14that you're in practice using words like
1:36:16true and using uh and sort of granting a
1:36:19sense to propositions and saying I
1:36:20believe this is true recognizing as a
1:36:23materialist what my brain is how it
1:36:25evolved how it
1:36:28functions like I don't think I so much
1:36:30have to like abandon truth as
1:36:32rethink like what truth means yes but
1:36:36but then but then you hear a theist
1:36:37saying something like you know those who
1:36:40don't believe in God they've abandoned
1:36:42truth and you're sort of like
1:36:45maybe truth I mean it's it's also worth
1:36:47noting this type of antirealism about
1:36:49truth doesn't have the same implications
1:36:51as somebody saying truth is relative
1:36:52because here truth is not relative and
1:36:54here truth is not subjective it's not
1:36:56you know it's as antirealist theories of
1:36:59Truth go this is not a bad one but it's
1:37:01still an anti-realist theory of Truth
1:37:03and that is such a massive pill to
1:37:04swallow I mean the yeah this for
1:37:06instance this is not saying all
1:37:07statements are false which you know
1:37:09classically is self-contradictory um but
1:37:12uh yeah but you're right anti-realism
1:37:14about truth is is a is a really tough
1:37:15pill to swallow I mean depending on how
1:37:18good your your your grounding of Truth
1:37:20is in naturalistic principles it can be
1:37:22that you can get truth to do still lots
1:37:24of the same things that you'd want it to
1:37:25do anyway um but again it kind of again
1:37:28this one I mean about about I think some
1:37:29of these questions are a are an issue of
1:37:31philosophical predisposition because
1:37:34like I if I was more metaphysically
1:37:35minded I would just reject that out of
1:37:37hand i' say what do you mean like how
1:37:40does this anti-realist how is this
1:37:41anti-realist definition of Truth useful
1:37:44if not because it's true right you're
1:37:45saying truth is abstracted utility why
1:37:48is it useful like what's what's what is
1:37:50ontologically grounding that and I think
1:37:52that is that Phil opical instincts to
1:37:54ground something human in something
1:37:56metaphysical and again I I feel like it
1:37:59is those competing intuitions clashing
1:38:01in in this in this debate around the
1:38:03grounding of Truth next question moving
1:38:05on mhm where do the laws of logic come
1:38:07from oh yeah know this is a fascinating
1:38:10one um one thing is that I you know so I
1:38:13when I was at Uni my my specialty was
1:38:15mathematical logic it was like is what I
1:38:17focused on during my like final year and
1:38:19then during my masters so like it's it's
1:38:20it's it's a very interesting question uh
1:38:23there there's lot of um dispute
1:38:26understandably some argue that that um
1:38:28logic is uh fundamentally empiricist and
1:38:31founding so some people argue that the
1:38:33laws of logic are abstracted from
1:38:34observations we don't see contradictions
1:38:36so uh we have the law of
1:38:38non-contradiction and the there are
1:38:39various arguments used to support that
1:38:40so like um there was a an attempted
1:38:45research program called Quantum logic in
1:38:47like the ' 80s by Hillary Pam I think
1:38:49and he attempted he modified the
1:38:51classical laws of logic in line with OB
1:38:53obervations from quantum theory about
1:38:54about you know uncertainty principles
1:38:56and stuff I don't understand quantum
1:38:57physics in the slightest so I'm going to
1:38:59tread very lightly here um and and he
1:39:01was basically saying well actually you
1:39:02know imagine that his General argument
1:39:04was right imagine that you couldn't know
1:39:07um position and velocity in in like
1:39:10General Life well we would modify the
1:39:12laws of logic to reflect that right you
1:39:13wouldn't be able to you if you knew the
1:39:15um you wouldn't be able to distribute
1:39:17certain properties for instance and
1:39:19stuff like that so he's saying okay well
1:39:20we would modify the laws of logic in in
1:39:22in accordance with that so whether or
1:39:24not you know you want to modify um logic
1:39:26because of observations in quantum
1:39:27mechanics he's suggesting well what this
1:39:30does show is that the laws of logic
1:39:33would be alterable if we encountered
1:39:35certain things in the world thus there
1:39:37is some empirical component to the laws
1:39:38of logic um but that's that's that's
1:39:40that's the that's the epistemological
1:39:42answer for a plattinum for other people
1:39:43it's intuition um and and for others but
1:39:46but there's also the metaphysical
1:39:47problem which is why do the laws of
1:39:48logic work and again you have this kind
1:39:50of human human metaphysical directions
1:39:53of explanation where uh some people say
1:39:56like like Pon will say well the laws of
1:39:57logic work because we've they they are
1:39:59designed to fit the world we have
1:40:00designed them to fit the world um and
1:40:02then for a lot of people that's deeply
1:40:03unsatisfactory because they say well you
1:40:05know why does the world correspond with
1:40:07the laws of logic how have we been able
1:40:08to do that why is the world not not
1:40:10chaos and and and uh and and and
1:40:13darkness and and lots of other nasty
1:40:15unpredictable things that make logicians
1:40:17nervous and um and yeah and that's a
1:40:20broadly and that that strikes me as a
1:40:22sensible question right and and and uh
1:40:24and uh often you know kind of the only
1:40:27answer that that somebody who who
1:40:29suggests that who's doing the human
1:40:30Direction the metaphysical human
1:40:32Direction explanation there is to say
1:40:34something like well if the world have
1:40:35been different then the laws of logic
1:40:36would have been different and we would
1:40:38have made different laws of logic and
1:40:40like I can kind of get I I sort of some
1:40:43again I go back and forth and this
1:40:44intuitively where sometimes I find this
1:40:45like incredibly unsatisfying and
1:40:47sometimes I'm like okay maybe there's
1:40:48something in this because we do do
1:40:51things like reason with uncertainty
1:40:52because we have ility for reasoning with
1:40:54uncertainty we we if if the world if if
1:40:57we were never uncertain about anything
1:40:58we wouldn't have had probability there
1:41:00would be no need for it um likewise if
1:41:03there if deduction was always uncertain
1:41:05for whatever reason like that was just
1:41:06empirically true in the world as weird
1:41:08as that is to to say um then our
1:41:11deductions would have uncertainty
1:41:13attached to them and stuff like that so
1:41:14there's there there's an argument that
1:41:15you can you can you can say there but
1:41:17then we're also at this point bumping up
1:41:19against something we talked about at the
1:41:20beginning of the episode which is what
1:41:22is the limits of possibility
1:41:24uh is it is it is it in some sense
1:41:26impossible for the laws of logic to have
1:41:27been different because by the laws of
1:41:28logic what are we talking yeah actually
1:41:30that's a good point as well because the
1:41:31laws of logic are themselves kind of
1:41:33controversial so uh classically you know
1:41:35things like the you know a few a few
1:41:38uncontroversial laws well as
1:41:39uncontroversial as anything ever is in
1:41:40philosophy but uncontroversial laws of
1:41:42logic would be um if a implies B then
1:41:44you can infer from A to B uh stuff like
1:41:47that um one of the one of the less
1:41:50controversial ones is the law of
1:41:51non-contradiction so you not a and not a
1:41:55so um if you have a you can infer not
1:41:57not a so something can't be true and
1:41:59false at the same time yeah basically I
1:42:00mean it's it's very intuitive right but
1:42:02but but but there are people that you
1:42:03say not as in it's true that not
1:42:07brackets a and not a a so I mean I don't
1:42:10know if you can put make like a little
1:42:11little icon pop up on the screen we're
1:42:14getting we're getting getting a hard no
1:42:15from our video so not a and not a and um
1:42:20close bracket and there's but there's
1:42:22they're also more controversial olal
1:42:23laws like the law of the excluded middle
1:42:25which is oh God I always get this
1:42:26actually no let's just say something can
1:42:29only be true or false can only be true
1:42:31or false there are two really similar
1:42:32laws here so one is the law of eltr the
1:42:33middle and one is by veillance and for
1:42:35some reason I always get them the wrong
1:42:36way around and I got like completely
1:42:38roasted by supervisor for what's the
1:42:40what's the difference well so law of the
1:42:41law of exuded middle is something is
1:42:43either a or not a the law of B veillance
1:42:44is any statement is either true or false
1:42:47and they're clearly connected but they
1:42:48are different um in the way well they're
1:42:50distinct in the way that
1:42:53may have been misusing that too I'm not
1:42:55I'm not but I mean i' i' misuse it all
1:42:57the time and I'm meant to know about
1:42:58this and it's like I always say whatever
1:43:01man yeah exactly the um so here are some
1:43:05examples of the kinds of laws that we're
1:43:06talking about right these kinds of like
1:43:09fundamental seemingly self-justifying
1:43:13intuitive like like bases for work with
1:43:17I mean yeah like if a implies B that is
1:43:21like if a then b a a therefore B well
1:43:25how do you how do you how do you know
1:43:27that it it just seems like you're kind
1:43:29of saying the same thing twice yes has
1:43:31to be true yes like like what if you
1:43:33don't have this what do you have so the
1:43:36one of the one of the quirks of
1:43:37classical logic is that you can and a
1:43:38contradiction implies anything and um
1:43:41and my my my logic tutor in first year
1:43:43used to say that that a good way to get
1:43:45your head around this intuitively is
1:43:46well if this is true then anything can
1:43:48be true yes yes yeah that's a great way
1:43:50of putting it I'm been planning on doing
1:43:52a video about this concept you know from
1:43:54the law of explosion ex falo qu yeah
1:43:57yeah oh man it's great it's great fun I
1:43:59remember I talked about it in my
1:44:01interview for Oxford where I was sort of
1:44:05given the definition of a valid argument
1:44:07and then provided with a valid argument
1:44:10so so for those
1:44:12listening a valid argument is at least
1:44:15in you know some schools of logic not
1:44:18defined as if the premises are true then
1:44:21the conclusion is true that's not what a
1:44:22valid arent is a valid argument is one
1:44:25where there's no interpretation under
1:44:27which the premises are true and yet the
1:44:30conclusion false yes yeah that's not
1:44:33quite saying the same thing right so the
1:44:34definition of valid argument is there's
1:44:36no
1:44:37interpretation in which both of the
1:44:39premises can be true and yet the
1:44:41conclusion be false right and so then my
1:44:44tutor provide or my would be tutor
1:44:46provided this argument that was like
1:44:48premise one it's raining outside premise
1:44:51two it's not raining outside conclusion
1:44:55you know Batman has a black cape is that
1:44:58valid I was like no she was like think
1:45:00about it like no no so I thought she was
1:45:02trying to trick me I was like No And
1:45:03then suddenly the penny drops I was like
1:45:05yes it's valid because there's no way
1:45:06which the premises can both be true and
1:45:08the conclusion be false because there's
1:45:10no way that the both the premises can be
1:45:11true because they contradict each other
1:45:13I used I used to love doing this I talk
1:45:15so it's a valid argument and what that
1:45:16means is that it
1:45:18follows from it's raining outside and
1:45:21it's not raining outside that in logic
1:45:23it follows that Batman has a black gape
1:45:27it it and so xalo quad bet I think means
1:45:31from the false anything like from a
1:45:33contradiction you can drive anything
1:45:34yeah so the yes and this is classically
1:45:36um because uh in like when you when
1:45:39you're defining classical logic you have
1:45:41a mark for contradiction and it's
1:45:42normally like an upside down T and um
1:45:45yeah the the the X EX for soad liet is
1:45:48yeah from from from contradiction what
1:45:50you please um and it's just
1:45:52contradiction implies anything and um
1:45:56yeah I mean this is it's it's a very
1:45:57inter I mean I so I taught logic um
1:45:59first years during my masters and I used
1:46:01to love doing this this is like my
1:46:02favorite little pullback and reveal over
1:46:04the course of the lessons and um but yes
1:46:07yeah so so so that's yeah that's another
1:46:09another law of logic I mean one thing to
1:46:10bear in mind here is that the laws of
1:46:12logic aren't nearly as uncontroversial
1:46:14as people think they are uh so there are
1:46:16par consistent Logics as we're talking
1:46:17about earlier with gry and priest um I
1:46:19think I think the TR partly this is and
1:46:21paraconsistent Logics get rid of uh any
1:46:24contradiction implies anything it places
1:46:26limits on what you can infer from
1:46:27contradictions because it allows for
1:46:29contradictions in non in like
1:46:31non-trivial models of it uh so yeah that
1:46:34that that's like a that's that's um yes
1:46:37so the laws of logic aren't nearly as
1:46:39contro AR nearly as uncontroversial as
1:46:40people think but at the same time we for
1:46:43all intents and purposes most of the
1:46:44time classical logic works perfectly
1:46:46well and we want certain things to
1:46:48really work like a imply if a implies B
1:46:51then if you've got a you've got B we
1:46:53want that to work because otherwise what
1:46:54do we do I don't know we just kind of
1:46:56sit in a corner and cry or at least I'll
1:46:57sit in a corner and cry um if even if no
1:47:00one else will everyone else will get on
1:47:01with their lives because they don't need
1:47:02every Everything the worldview to be
1:47:03grounded in classical logic but I do and
1:47:06um uh but yeah so so that would be yeah
1:47:08so this is a real worry right and um
1:47:11yeah and and AR you know theists can can
1:47:14make a pretty cool move which is say
1:47:16well because God has ordered the world
1:47:18according to to the laws of logic but
1:47:20there are um I mean there are further
1:47:24there are a couple of things that I I
1:47:25want
1:47:26to potentially talk about here as as as
1:47:28potential problems for for that response
1:47:30which is that one is that
1:47:33um it sort if God is going to be
1:47:35explanatory there it sort of implies
1:47:37that God could have given the world a
1:47:38different logic and I think that's
1:47:39really cool um but that in turn raises
1:47:42tensions for classic theistic responses
1:47:44to things like can God make a stone so
1:47:46heavy he can't lift it because the the
1:47:47classic theistic response which think is
1:47:49perfect and Brilliant that's why I don't
1:47:50really think it's you know what can God
1:47:52make us Stone so heavy you can't lift is
1:47:53a problem is just to say well a stone so
1:47:56heavy God can't lift it doesn't make any
1:47:57sense it's a self-contradictory property
1:47:59but of course if God crafts the laws of
1:48:00logic and God grounds the laws of logic
1:48:02um then if in order for that to be
1:48:04explanatory it kind of seems like God
1:48:06could have made it differently because
1:48:07otherwise it's like well if God couldn't
1:48:08have made it differently then in what
1:48:10sense is he grounding it in a way that I
1:48:12know platonism wouldn't or just a bare
1:48:14it just then becomes a bare fact about
1:48:15immaterial reality rather the material
1:48:17reality so there so there's a potential
1:48:19tension there with other um other
1:48:22potential like theistic responses uh to
1:48:24to uh alternative problems and um but
1:48:29yeah so so and
1:48:31the yes and and the second is just toest
1:48:34that it's it's probably a bit too
1:48:35extreme to say The Atheist cannot
1:48:37explain the laws of logic um but it is
1:48:39probably fair to say that there are
1:48:42there are genuine difficulties in
1:48:44grounding the laws of logic
1:48:45metaphysically uh a lot of let say a lot
1:48:47of the time um philosophers will turn to
1:48:49platonism for for mathematical and
1:48:51logical laws to give them their
1:48:52grounding there uh so you say something
1:48:54you say that you know there's a the laws
1:48:55of logic exist in the material in the
1:48:57immaterial plane and are instantiated in
1:48:59the material plane so the law of
1:49:01non-contradiction is out there in the
1:49:03platonic realm and in this world it is
1:49:06instantiated in the fact that nothing
1:49:07contradicts uh there there are no
1:49:09contradictory properties
1:49:12and I think that's fine I mean it's it's
1:49:16it is it strikes me as at least as good
1:49:18an explanation as the theistic one um
1:49:21for for the reason I gave before is that
1:49:22it's seems like uh the agency of God
1:49:24must be pretty Limited in explaining
1:49:26this particular thing because otherwise
1:49:29uh theological reasoning why God did one
1:49:32thing rather than another thing and
1:49:33stuff like that becomes very very
1:49:34difficult because God isn't Bound by the
1:49:35laws of logic uh and he's they they're
1:49:38kind of Downstream of his will then that
1:49:40becomes you know then it's kind of you
1:49:42make God really really inscrutable yeah
1:49:44maybe God does exist and also doesn't
1:49:45exist it's just the one that did exist
1:49:48created this law of logic which BS
1:49:49everything else exactly if if God isn't
1:49:51Bound by the laws of logic and they are
1:49:52Downstream of him then there are there's
1:49:54loads of theological reasoning becomes
1:49:56potentially really really tricky yeah
1:49:57and and that would mean that the theist
1:50:00has as much of a question as to sort of
1:50:03where this comes from if it binds God
1:50:06and come from God and I think this is
1:50:08really really nice right because there's
1:50:09a there's there is a difference between
1:50:11God grounding the laws of logic and God
1:50:13grounding the laws of like morality uh
1:50:15because logic is plausibly prior to God
1:50:18in even an a theistic worldview it is
1:50:20one of the few things that is plausibly
1:50:22prior to yeah it seems prior to thought
1:50:25yeah exactly it's like it's like it's it
1:50:26the trouble with any kind of grounding
1:50:28of the laws of logic atheistic or
1:50:29theistic is that I mean first of all
1:50:31you're going to use logic to get there
1:50:33because what else are you going to use
1:50:34like if you don't have that you know
1:50:36you're either going to going to shout or
1:50:38just take a wild stab in the dark and
1:50:39then not be able to evaluate it so
1:50:41there's there's that aspect to it um and
1:50:43also uh yeah just that um whatever uh
1:50:48whatever you pick to ground logic if
1:50:51you're trying to ground logic in
1:50:52something prior to logic then the thing
1:50:54that you're grounding logic in becomes
1:50:55really difficult to examine because it
1:50:58sort of seems like it wouldn't be itself
1:51:00Bound by the laws of logic because if it
1:51:01was then well it's bound by the laws of
1:51:03logic well where's where's its binding
1:51:06coming from it's a difficult question to
1:51:07answer all around yeah I mean amazingly
1:51:10diff I mean I mean any question that
1:51:12that goes um that attempts to take a
1:51:14step before you get to logic is going to
1:51:16be yeah horribly difficult to answer yes
1:51:19uh but I do think genuinely this is this
1:51:21is this is a this is not just a problem
1:51:23for atheist it's a problem for theists
1:51:24it's a problem for anyone who wants to
1:51:25use logic yeah again why does it work
1:51:27relevant here is the cartisian circle I
1:51:30mean day tries to say that God exists
1:51:33and so the sort of our our trust in even
1:51:36our logical laws our mathematical truths
1:51:38can be grounded in the fact that we know
1:51:40that God exists but if he's using reason
1:51:43to prove the existence of God and using
1:51:44God to justify the existence of
1:51:46reason there seems to be a circle but
1:51:48Pascal once wrote that he could never
1:51:49forgive dayart because he sort of uses
1:51:53God he like constructs God to be this
1:51:55basis of his worldview so he can justify
1:51:58like reason and logic and stuff and then
1:52:00just has no more use for him ever
1:52:02again he's just this sort of like that's
1:52:04so true he's just this like stepping
1:52:06stone that he uses to sort of you know
1:52:08to to to to start walking and then he
1:52:11just leaves him in the dust and Pascal
1:52:13was really annoyed at they that's God
1:52:15I'd never thought of that but that's so
1:52:16true he absolutely does but he arguably
1:52:19is is working in a circle just as the
1:52:21atheist The Atheist would have to do as
1:52:23well so again it's one of those
1:52:24questions that maybe atheists can't
1:52:25answer it but if they can't reason to
1:52:27think the theist can't either but
1:52:28there's also it's also worth noting that
1:52:30the atheist whereas the whereas before
1:52:32we had a The Atheist was in a potential
1:52:34Vicious Circle here The Atheist seems to
1:52:36be in if anything a kind of neutral
1:52:37Circle it's like it's like kind of again
1:52:40because part partly this is just because
1:52:41we're so we're so we are now so deep
1:52:44into not being able to use reasoning
1:52:47apparatus if we're going prior to logic
1:52:49that I I know again like I said at the
1:52:51beginning my intuition kind run out a
1:52:53little bit yeah um but I mean I'd be
1:52:54interested to know what people's
1:52:55intuitions are with something like this
1:52:56yeah I'm I'm sure that they're already
1:52:59letting us know in the comments uh I
1:53:01have
1:53:02a quite simple straightforward one next
1:53:05yeah yeah what is consciousness oh yeah
1:53:07no oh yeah reckon we could probably
1:53:08rattle off a few answers this up 30 the
1:53:11mystery but in a way maybe we can
1:53:14because of course it's a bit of a cop
1:53:16out but it is worth saying that you can
1:53:20be an atheist whilst not being a
1:53:22materialist yes I mean this is this is
1:53:24almost like that we've the kind of runs
1:53:26like that would apply to to the logic
1:53:27one indeed loads of ones we you can
1:53:29believe that Consciousness is this
1:53:31strange immaterial you can believe in
1:53:33the existence of the soul you can
1:53:35believe in all that kind of stuff and
1:53:36just not believe in like an agential God
1:53:38overseeing it all it would be quite
1:53:40weird maybe it would still be like
1:53:42weirder that there wasn't some like
1:53:43Creator non-material thing but like it's
1:53:45it's possible to be of that persuasion
1:53:47so it's worth noting that but I think
1:53:48really the question here put in the
1:53:51context of atheist not being able to to
1:53:52answer it is like Consciousness seems
1:53:55like a very strange thing to expect if
1:53:57there is no intention behind the
1:53:59universe and if there is no immaterial
1:54:02element to the universe because
1:54:03Consciousness seems like it's immaterial
1:54:06uh it seems I mean we can answer this as
1:54:07if we were looking for questions that
1:54:09materialists can't answer Consciousness
1:54:11is very strange I've talked about a lot
1:54:13recently people who've been listening to
1:54:14my recent material will know that I'm
1:54:15just bemused by Consciousness well it's
1:54:17it's it's one of the weirdest things you
1:54:19know this as in it's it's well it's
1:54:21actually it's it's a bit like the law
1:54:22logic in the sense that it's one of the
1:54:23weirdest things and one of the most
1:54:24obvious things what are you going to do
1:54:26to like you like um I think it's Paul
1:54:28Churchland is a limitative materialist
1:54:30so he thinks that that Consciousness
1:54:31doesn't exist like and he thinks about
1:54:33it his point is more nuanced than that
1:54:35but like I remember reading one of his
1:54:36papers and being like what do you mean
1:54:37how do I even go about disbelieving in
1:54:39Consciousness seems like yeah it's like
1:54:42how how how do you expect me to not
1:54:43believe in Consciousness seems like one
1:54:44of the only things that is really
1:54:46self-evidently there um again on par
1:54:48with something like the laws of logic um
1:54:50it's arguably it's it's the filter which
1:54:52I view everything else in the world yes
1:54:54um if I'm not conscious like where where
1:54:56do I begin uh and and you know again
1:54:59you're right I think I think that the um
1:55:01the the difference here though I think
1:55:03with with Consciousness compared to
1:55:05something like morality uh and why I
1:55:07think that the atheist has a more
1:55:10sensible anti-materialist position here
1:55:12like I I don't think it kind of gets him
1:55:14gets get get I don't think gets us in as
1:55:16many uh epistemological binds is that we
1:55:19have direct empirical evidence of
1:55:20Consciousness so if something is going
1:55:22going to be the exception to the
1:55:23materialist rule it's going to be
1:55:24Consciousness because if the materialist
1:55:26rule is broadly Downstream of of this
1:55:28kind of broad naturalist empiricist
1:55:30approach then um if there's going to be
1:55:32an exception Consciousness is going to
1:55:33be the least controversial one I I'm not
1:55:36I don't think people might expect me to
1:55:39have some the thing is I I'm not a a
1:55:42neuroscientist no no me neither and I
1:55:44think that this is this is a relevant
1:55:45field right like there may be these
1:55:47wonderful explanations for what
1:55:48Consciousness is on a purely
1:55:50materialistic framework I've try to sort
1:55:52of discover them uh I've tried to
1:55:54interview people who might be able to
1:55:55give me some ideas and I've been left
1:55:58sort of wanting and I'm just perfectly
1:56:00happy to say that I'm like agnostic on
1:56:02the question of materialism because of
1:56:04conscious yeah I mean I I'm I'm kind of
1:56:06approaching approaching this the same
1:56:07sort of place I mean Francisco verella
1:56:11uh is a a neuroscientist who's been
1:56:12looking at um like correlations between
1:56:15um like certain mental States and
1:56:18certain like physical brain States and
1:56:19stuff like that but but again it's it's
1:56:21it's a it we we're so far away from a
1:56:23kind of reductive materialist program of
1:56:25Consciousness and uh and and you know
1:56:27I'm not I'm not I'm not suggesting that
1:56:30it that it definitely can't happen I
1:56:31don't quite buy into the like Thomas
1:56:35Nagel David Charmers oh nothing physical
1:56:37in principle could explain Consciousness
1:56:39um you know I I it's it strikes me that
1:56:42it could if we're just like Blue Sky
1:56:44Thinking then there could be a kind of
1:56:45future scientific Paradigm that is as
1:56:47dissimilar from our current way of
1:56:49thinking about Consciousness as like the
1:56:51the mechanis IC view of the world whilst
1:56:53from theological aristan view of the
1:56:55world thinking you know just like this
1:56:56kind of in in and that's but to a
1:56:59certain extent that's like Idol right
1:57:00because what am like scientific
1:57:02revolutions almost by definition uh are
1:57:05pretty unpredictable um as in you can't
1:57:07predict what they're going to be in
1:57:08Advan you might be able to predict when
1:57:09they're going to be but um but so that
1:57:12that that that would be like my first
1:57:13point is that I wouldn't uh I think that
1:57:15it's probably I'm not convinced that
1:57:17that materialism that materialism is
1:57:19like completely blown to Pieces there
1:57:21but I'm also I also think that it would
1:57:23be unwise to say that it survived it
1:57:24because it hasn't yet the um there oh
1:57:27there are some cracking responses to to
1:57:29this sort of worldview though there's a
1:57:31guy called Galen strawson yeah um you
1:57:34know I I I get him mixed up with Peter
1:57:37strawson one the son of the other and oh
1:57:40are they related I think I think that's
1:57:41so cool I mean G's the son of yeah then
1:57:44I must have met gayen I mean yeah yeah I
1:57:46Pete stw's awesome and gay ston I think
1:57:48is is is also very cool though I only
1:57:49really know him for this um this idea
1:57:51that he suggests um that uh he is an
1:57:57atheist and he is a naturalist and he
1:57:59just thinks that Consciousness is part
1:58:00of the natural building blocks of the
1:58:01world you know he just thinks that
1:58:03Consciousness is he thinks that
1:58:04Consciousness is some sort of so I'm
1:58:07sorry I'll start I'll start from the
1:58:08beginning of what I take to be part of
1:58:10his reasoning chain so he starts um the
1:58:12first thing I supposed to note is that
1:58:14is that a Consciousness is at least
1:58:16potentially gradable right you can get
1:58:17more or less of it both on the yeah both
1:58:20on the kind of drifting in and out of of
1:58:22Consciousness I was I went from being
1:58:23unconscious to conscious this morning um
1:58:25and from the kind of if you were to
1:58:27gradually remove bits of my brain in
1:58:28like a horrifyingly sadistic manner then
1:58:32in theory it it was it seems intuitive
1:58:34that I become less and less of a
1:58:35conscious being um until I was dead and
1:58:37was no longer a conscious being yeah it
1:58:39seems strange if there was just like a
1:58:40point where you just everything just
1:58:41switches off all at exactly yeah so so
1:58:43so that's that's um one kind of faucet
1:58:45of his argument the other the other is
1:58:47been basically saying well there's
1:58:48there's nothing there is nothing as
1:58:49obvious as the existence of
1:58:51consciousness um which you know that's
1:58:54that's reasonably well you know I think
1:58:57therefore I am is is is you know you
1:58:58might have your issues with the argument
1:59:00but as a whole you know there there's
1:59:01very little self-evidence of
1:59:03Consciousness and then he basically says
1:59:04well then if the Consciousness either by
1:59:08um structure or by just matter um the
1:59:13pre the preconditions for Consciousness
1:59:15must already be out there and we we can
1:59:18kind of think about Consciousness along
1:59:19this kind of gradation scale and so he's
1:59:21sort of a pan
1:59:22but not in the sense that he thinks that
1:59:24rocks can think like he's just kind of
1:59:26very few panas actually think that they
1:59:28pan don't think that rocks can think no
1:59:29exactly because you know someone
1:59:32somewhere does I'm sure yeah I'm sure
1:59:33someone somewhere will but I have
1:59:35podcast with Philip gof on people are
1:59:38interested pans sism The View that sort
1:59:40of everything is conscious but kind of
1:59:43more like I mean his his view is more
1:59:44like the fundamental building blocks of
1:59:46the universe is consciousness and it
1:59:48like is everywhere strawson's position
1:59:51is reasonably similar to that sort of
1:59:52saying well well the the the potential
1:59:54for Consciousness must already be there
1:59:55in matter and and and and that's sort of
1:59:58how he get it makes sense man like it
2:00:00makes sense to suggest that like yeah
2:00:02like there is just something about I
2:00:04mean it seems like really weird well why
2:00:06would like why would the fundamental
2:00:07like material of the universe like you
2:00:09know be Consciousness or or have
2:00:11Consciousness or provide for
2:00:12Consciousness like why would the
2:00:13fundamental matter of the universe like
2:00:15have energy and vibration and and and
2:00:18you know velocity and mass like all of
2:00:21these properties are completely
2:00:22mysterious there's no reason not to
2:00:23ascribe Consciousness or Consciousness
2:00:25permitting you know uh fundamental
2:00:28properties to to the sort of subatomic
2:00:31particles and if you are a materialist
2:00:34then you're unlikely to conceive of
2:00:36Consciousness and in this kind of
2:00:37cartisian dualist way where it's like
2:00:39it's one thing right you have
2:00:40Consciousness and it is a single object
2:00:43you're more likely to view it along the
2:00:44lines of along the lines of gradation
2:00:46long lines of well it's composed out of
2:00:47something else and and and uh st's point
2:00:51is well if it's composed out of else um
2:00:53then the preconditions must be in the
2:00:54thing that was there and then you know
2:00:56and I think I think we are broadly more
2:00:58comfortable talking about gradations of
2:01:00Consciousness and and and this also this
2:01:01kind of comes up a little bit in
2:01:03integrated it's integrated information
2:01:05Theory which is another theory of
2:01:07Consciousness where you know the
2:01:09integrated information is everywhere
2:01:10it's not just in in human subjects uh
2:01:13and you know and I it's I'm not
2:01:15suggesting that this is like necessarily
2:01:17A knockdown way of viewing Consciousness
2:01:18but it's a I see real potential here for
2:01:21for for for a a philosophical framework
2:01:24for analyzing Consciousness that is
2:01:26non-theistic and like not even that
2:01:29different from materialism like if you
2:01:31think that you know CU materialism most
2:01:34of the attractive qualities of
2:01:35materialism just comes about from the
2:01:37fact that it's monist it's just one type
2:01:39of stuff and like the the physicalist
2:01:41stroke materialist side of it is is you
2:01:44know great in some ways but but you know
2:01:46there's there's if you could have one
2:01:48type of stuff that is that has
2:01:50preconditioned properties of
2:01:52Consciousness and non-conscious
2:01:53properties it doesn't strike me as like
2:01:55absurd that that that that that would
2:01:56also have that also has loads of
2:01:58philosoph loads of the philosophical
2:01:59strengths of materialism um without this
2:02:01potential conscious weakness of course
2:02:03the the reply to that is isn't this all
2:02:04a bit ad hoc isn't this all like you've
2:02:06got a problem and you're just being like
2:02:07Well there must have been Consciousness
2:02:09before then how explanatory is that and
2:02:12I don't think I have I don't think I
2:02:13have a very good response to that if God
2:02:15is
2:02:16being sort of filled in here purely
2:02:19because of considerations of
2:02:20consciousness
2:02:22the right and so to the question what is
2:02:24cons is this a question that atheists
2:02:27can't
2:02:28answer well I think that it's I think
2:02:30that it's a qu it's a question that on
2:02:32the face of it materialists would
2:02:33struggle to answer and to the extent to
2:02:35which um a theist doesn't have
2:02:37materialist constraints then the theist
2:02:38could answer it and the atheist would
2:02:39struggle but um but yeah but I think
2:02:40this kind of pan psychist idea has
2:02:42potential as does integrated information
2:02:43Theory I think that um yeah and I and I
2:02:46I do think that
2:02:48um I do think that the the uh St stonite
2:02:53I suppose um pans cist uh or stoian um
2:02:56panych um
2:02:59uh Theory at the very least does it does
2:03:03strike me as not explanatorily totally
2:03:06inert because it you know it predicts
2:03:08certain things like it would predict
2:03:10gradations of Consciousness depending on
2:03:11the structure and we can I think broadly
2:03:13have a pretty good argument for for
2:03:15gradations of Consciousness based on
2:03:16structure um Eric schitz Gable is really
2:03:18really keen on this at the moment he's a
2:03:19professor at UCLA and um he's like he's
2:03:22really hammering this point home at the
2:03:24moment so so that that so I think that
2:03:26that I don't think that that that this
2:03:28sort of modest psychism is as
2:03:30explanatorily inert as people give it
2:03:32credit for as people kind of criticize
2:03:33it for people who've been listening to
2:03:35me recently will know that as I say
2:03:38Consciousness has like baffled me
2:03:39especially as of late it started with
2:03:41this podcast right like I'm speaking to
2:03:42people like annel Seth and Philip gof
2:03:45and and Josh Ras musin and I'm just just
2:03:48my mind is is is blown or my brain is
2:03:50blown or both maybe I don't know but but
2:03:54like like people will know it's kind of
2:03:56become a bit of a meme in many ways I'm
2:03:57just like asking people like where is
2:03:59the triangle in my head like where is it
2:04:02man like show me the triangle I I saw
2:04:05someone made a made a meme of this for
2:04:06me with like a gun being like I'm no
2:04:09longer asking like where is the triangle
2:04:11you know because it does you know freaks
2:04:13me out I lose sleep over it there's
2:04:15another there's another question um sort
2:04:19of on on our list which which I sort of
2:04:21think functions here or fits in here
2:04:23somebody said on Consciousness this one
2:04:25of your subscribers why could my body
2:04:28have not accomplished all the same
2:04:29evolutionarily favorable tasks simulated
2:04:32all the emotions and motivations of
2:04:33firing neurons in complex possibly
2:04:35deterministic sequences of pattern
2:04:37response without me being there to
2:04:39experience it I mean bit of a
2:04:40complicated phrasing and maybe I'm I'm
2:04:42slightly sort of going in a different
2:04:44direction to the question but but I'm
2:04:46imagining like why could not have things
2:04:49just evolved essentially as they did
2:04:51without first person conscious
2:04:52experience there could still be human
2:04:54beings interacting like eating things
2:04:58and whatnot but sort of in the way that
2:04:59like a flower tracks the sun there
2:05:01wouldn't need to be this first person
2:05:03Center of Consciousness I me it does
2:05:05seem like a mystery I will say that like
2:05:08if it is some evolutionary adaptation it
2:05:11does seem to serve some pretty useful
2:05:13purposes it does seem like it probably
2:05:14makes it easier for people to interact
2:05:16for them to chase out food for them to
2:05:18work out that they need to go and like
2:05:20hunt that animal and put it on the fire
2:05:22and all this kind of stuff but it
2:05:23doesn't seem like necessary and given
2:05:25how like weird it
2:05:27is it does seem like a grand mystery
2:05:30that the Universe could have evolved
2:05:33such that I mean I mean even to get
2:05:34biological evolution off the ground is
2:05:36like you a grand mystery like how does
2:05:38life get started like the universe could
2:05:40have just been rocks and like grass and
2:05:44water but there's just this thing this
2:05:48this first person conscious experience
2:05:50this like potentially infinite number of
2:05:53imaginary triangles that can just be
2:05:55sort of conjured up out of nowhere and
2:05:57still in nowhere it's a grand mystery if
2:06:00you are a theist and you think that this
2:06:03is all created by a sort of immaterial
2:06:06mind with intention to bring about
2:06:08immaterial minds then yeah of course
2:06:10that's that's why so so I do think that
2:06:11like Consciousness is going to be more
2:06:13expected on a theistic worldview than an
2:06:15atheistic one like a lot of these
2:06:17questions I don't know if it's like
2:06:18atheists cannot answer this or cannot
2:06:20account for it but I think that we have
2:06:21to admit in a lot of these cases that at
2:06:23the very least even if an atheist can
2:06:25answer this question they're going to do
2:06:27it with a bit more squirming than a
2:06:28theists going yes I think I think
2:06:30there's yeah there's there's certainly
2:06:31it's uh it is yeah it's a difficulty for
2:06:34the atheist in as much as they might be
2:06:35able to come up with an answer we might
2:06:36be able to come up with an answer but
2:06:37like it's it's clearly going to be like
2:06:40well the fact that we haven't so far
2:06:41shows it's probably going to be a little
2:06:42bit more convoluted than the theist
2:06:44answer right um and yeah I think I think
2:06:47that's that's a fair point right it's
2:06:49it's you know what do we judge theories
2:06:51if not the things they can explain and
2:06:53things they can predict and the things
2:06:54that they you know the observations that
2:06:55they make and Stu so so so there is I
2:06:57think genely something there I think
2:06:58that um yeah I
2:07:02suppose I think one of the reasons why
2:07:04Consciousness becomes so difficult is
2:07:05because we see it from both within and
2:07:08without like I see Consciousness from
2:07:10without with you and I see it from
2:07:12within with me and so I you know one
2:07:15response I've seen people give to this
2:07:18is that uh well um Consciousness
2:07:21probably is necessary for complex
2:07:22Behavior because whenever we see complex
2:07:24Behavior we we see Consciousness and I
2:07:27think well it's probably more accurate
2:07:28to say that whenever we see complex
2:07:30Behavior we infer Consciousness because
2:07:32we're pretty complex and we we we we
2:07:34behave in certain ways and then we go
2:07:36well you know if if a if a bird is is is
2:07:38behaving in ways that are a bit less
2:07:40quite a bit less complicated than humans
2:07:42then I is probably conscious in in a
2:07:44different way a way that facilitates
2:07:45that that less complex behavior um and
2:07:47you know when you know intuitively if
2:07:49you ask people whether an ant is
2:07:51conscious they'll probably say yes but
2:07:52they'll probably be like well yeah but
2:07:54in a in a really really minor way you
2:07:56know and that's sort of you know and
2:07:58that makes sense given that the
2:07:59correlates of of of Neuroscience and
2:08:01stuff like that but also I I think that
2:08:02so I think that that response
2:08:04potentially also encounters difficulties
2:08:05when we when we say um well because you
2:08:08know Consciousness is necessary for
2:08:09complex Behavior we say well I no we've
2:08:12only got really one example of that
2:08:13direct matching up and that's with us as
2:08:16in not us as humans as in us as as
2:08:18individual agents and then we we're kind
2:08:20of extrapolating out further so I think
2:08:22AI is going to have a significant
2:08:24contribution to make on this question
2:08:25too because I mean sort of everybody and
2:08:28their dog is debating whether AI is
2:08:30conscious and everybody and their AI
2:08:32chat B is debating whether AI is as know
2:08:34as as I well know um and look we're not
2:08:37even like close to to convincing me that
2:08:40these things are or can be conscious but
2:08:43like saying like you know 100 years 200
2:08:47years 300 years like we still have a
2:08:49thing which just like is not climing to
2:08:51be conscious does not appear to be
2:08:53conscious like it does seem that the
2:08:56fact that we just can't simulate it with
2:08:59material things we can't simulate it
2:09:01with electricity and and by sort of
2:09:03replacing the biological matter with
2:09:05digital matter or sort of you know
2:09:07cables instead of neurons or whatever it
2:09:11does maybe seem to give us a clue that
2:09:13Consciousness is something more than
2:09:15material and like obviously if the
2:09:17reverse is true and we just develop a a
2:09:19convincingly conscious agent out of you
2:09:21know out of computer materials I think
2:09:24that the materialists would have much
2:09:26more of a leg to stand on in saying that
2:09:27we're just material beings as well you
2:09:29know also yeah there's there's a
2:09:30question about what what what makes
2:09:31something convincingly conscious because
2:09:34the problem we have about about talking
2:09:36about AI consciousnesses is not that
2:09:38different from the problem we have
2:09:40talking about other human consciousness
2:09:41or animal Consciousness right like we
2:09:43we're still doing the behavior to
2:09:45whatever is hidden from the behavior
2:09:47inference yeah well famously there's the
2:09:48churing test the churing test is
2:09:51uh a test that you can put a computer
2:09:53through as to whether you can tell that
2:09:56it's a computer or not and so if it
2:09:57passes the test then you can't tell that
2:10:00it's not a real person on the other side
2:10:01right that's how a computer can pass the
2:10:03churing test and somebody recently on my
2:10:06chat GPT video where I tried to convince
2:10:07it that it's conscious and chat gbt is
2:10:09like I'm not conscious Alex I'm not
2:10:11conscious you know and I was like you're
2:10:13you're having me on they said something
2:10:15that I thought was kind of eerie they
2:10:17said like you know everybody's wondering
2:10:20about whether a computer can pass the
2:10:22touring test but are we ready for one
2:10:24which fails it on purpose I also I mean
2:10:26my my controversial um take on AI is
2:10:29that we at the very least we ought to
2:10:32have a theory of when we're going to
2:10:33consider it conscious if we're going to
2:10:34consider it conscious yeah sure because
2:10:37um well partly I mean partly because of
2:10:39you know the whole AI apocalypse worry
2:10:40but also like and this point was made
2:10:42Again by by exit recently was that
2:10:45like they'll need rights and protections
2:10:48right like if if we're going to create
2:10:50life we can't just like abon it so if we
2:10:52if we decide that that's possible and we
2:10:54decide that there's going to be a point
2:10:56at which we consider it conscious
2:10:57whatever that's going to be um then we
2:10:59need to do some hard thinking about when
2:11:01that's going to be in order to not
2:11:02create like I don't know what could be
2:11:05an enormous civil rights disaster I mean
2:11:07I I think there's well there are two
2:11:09sort of competing fears here there's
2:11:11fear of like evil robot aliens trying to
2:11:14kill us all and like really good uh you
2:11:17know happy personable robot aliens who
2:11:20need rights and protection
2:11:21thei who
2:11:23areus them there is some kind of like
2:11:27interesting sci-fi concept here of when
2:11:29you think of the the robot takeover
2:11:31movies it's always these big robots
2:11:33coming in and and and destroying
2:11:35everyone with their big guns but imagine
2:11:37like a a tyrannical AI robot that is so
2:11:41successfully tyrannical because it's
2:11:43convinced people that it is not that
2:11:45that's why I find world that's why
2:11:48that's why I find that comment so so so
2:11:49Eerie sort of like you know what if it
2:11:51it's like purposefully trying not to
2:11:54pass the touring test what it's
2:11:55purposefully trying to convince us that
2:11:56that it's not conscious it's just a
2:11:57little bit sort of kind of scary to to
2:12:00to think about but yeah well I hope that
2:12:02maybe maybe it maybe it would be best if
2:12:04the theists or the antim materialists
2:12:05are right and we can't do Consciousness
2:12:07with with with bare materials that would
2:12:09be well I've I've I've always just
2:12:11thought that the um the the question of
2:12:14what Consciousness is and the question
2:12:16of whether it's material is the answer
2:12:19to the question of for instance the
2:12:21simulation hypothesis everybody just
2:12:24assumes that we can simulate things into
2:12:27this sort of infinite regressive
2:12:28simulations but it only works if it's
2:12:31possible to be in a simulation where we
2:12:32have Consciousness simulated and so like
2:12:35if it turns out that Consciousness is
2:12:36more than material it's not something
2:12:38that we can create with an AI or
2:12:39something then like the simulation
2:12:40hypothesis for me just completely
2:12:41collapses so this question of
2:12:43Consciousness and whether it's material
2:12:44or not I think has some interesting
2:12:46implications for things like AI but also
2:12:48for these fun little tidbits like the
2:12:50like the simulation hypothesis that that
2:12:52lives or dies on your theory of
2:12:53Consciousness essentially yeah I mean I
2:12:55mean theories of Consciousness are are
2:12:56probably one of the greatest examples of
2:12:59of a philosophical question that is
2:13:00truly practical in like a really a
2:13:03really visceral everyday sense like like
2:13:06our Theory what whether we decide that
2:13:07Consciousness can be simulated or not
2:13:09could change the course of history yeah
2:13:12finally okay one more question and then
2:13:15we're done because God knows how long
2:13:17we've been how long have we been going
2:13:18now 2 hours 35 it's been a long time I I
2:13:20bet I bet you'll see like my answers
2:13:22degrading quality as time goes on well
2:13:25we'll see if people agree with that it's
2:13:26um it's been a long time but a good time
2:13:28I think uh we need to get this mentioned
2:13:33fine tuning somebody says fine tuning
2:13:36never heard a good rebuttal to the issue
2:13:39Christopher Hitchens was in the back of
2:13:40a car once mhm I think with like Doug
2:13:42Wilson or someone and he was asked you
2:13:44know there are any good religious
2:13:46arguments and he says you know the fine
2:13:49tuning the the sort of hairs bre
2:13:51balance it's sort of you know it does
2:13:53sort of yeah but at some point certainly
2:13:55we all asked well which is the best
2:13:57argument you've yet come up against from
2:13:59the other side and I think every one of
2:14:01us picks the fine tuning but as the as
2:14:04the most intriguing the golden blocks
2:14:06yeah yeah okay find to fine tuning the
2:14:09one degree well one degree one hair
2:14:11different to
2:14:13nothing but even though it doesn't prove
2:14:17a design doesn't prove a designer could
2:14:19all have happened without
2:14:21it you have to spend time thinking about
2:14:23it working on it it's not a
2:14:27trivial we all say that and he he sort
2:14:30of said it was something that really did
2:14:32actually trouble him and a lot of
2:14:33atheists possibly influenced by that
2:14:35clip I don't know seem to say that the
2:14:38most powerful religious argument is the
2:14:39fine-tuning argument and so what's the
2:14:42question that atheists can't answer why
2:14:43are the constants of the universe so
2:14:45finally tuned there are constants which
2:14:48govern the physical Universe things like
2:14:49the strength of gravity the strength the
2:14:51strong and weak nuclear force this kind
2:14:52of stuff like if these had different
2:14:56values by you know whatever it is one
2:14:58part in 1 time 10 to the minus billion
2:15:02or whatever the universe couldn't exist
2:15:04it's just like balance on a knife edge
2:15:06If gravity was slightly stronger then
2:15:08the universe would have collapsed in on
2:15:10itself if it was slightly weaker then
2:15:11everything would have flown apart so
2:15:12fast that even atoms couldn't form so
2:15:16there are three options here the the
2:15:19constants of the universe are so finely
2:15:21because of chance because of necessity
2:15:24or because of design chance seems
2:15:27ludicrous because the odds are just so
2:15:29unfathomably
2:15:30small necessity seems maybe possible but
2:15:34like doesn't seem to be any like logical
2:15:36reason why something would like the
2:15:37strength of gravity would have to be
2:15:39what it is and the only thing left there
2:15:41is design which requires something like
2:15:43God so by ruling out design as an
2:15:45atheist how do you answer this question
2:15:47well I mean first of all I say that I
2:15:49kind of I share the intuition that this
2:15:50is thorny really like yeah yeah and this
2:15:53this it quite often gives me postive
2:15:54thought you know this is I think that um
2:15:56I think that
2:15:58the the primary way that I I think an
2:16:01atheist could respond to this is is to
2:16:03again draw on these draw draw on
2:16:06questioning the justification of the
2:16:09notion of possibility when stretched to
2:16:11ways the universe could be so the you
2:16:13know this is kind of broadly an argument
2:16:15from analogy right it's it's is in like
2:16:16it's like it's like it's like paly's
2:16:18watch but with the entire universe um
2:16:21you know the universe is so finely tuned
2:16:22if it was if it was off by a you know
2:16:26fraction of a tiny number then then then
2:16:29then then everything would collapse and
2:16:30we'd all be doomed um and you know if we
2:16:33were to find a similarly intricate
2:16:36object in the world we would say well of
2:16:37course that was designed um and again
2:16:40this it's interesting as to again to
2:16:41bring this full circle from the
2:16:42beginning um of the podcast this is very
2:16:45similar to a point that Hume touches
2:16:47upon where he again just questions the
2:16:51justification that we have for a saying
2:16:53things could have been different um
2:16:55because it's like well what do we mean
2:16:56could there uh as in sure it's
2:16:59non-contradictory to say things could
2:17:00have been different but but but like
2:17:01what what do we genuinely mean like it
2:17:03seems like we need a Meer sense of could
2:17:04than that um and also he just he throws
2:17:07together like almost like off the top of
2:17:09his head like a load of other hypotheses
2:17:10because they're kind of equally um you
2:17:14know so he says um well uh it could be
2:17:18that God is not intelligent but just
2:17:20really prolific
2:17:21um so you know just if you do something
2:17:23an infinite number of times then you'll
2:17:24you'll eventually have this uh which is
2:17:26kind of s which is basically chance but
2:17:28saying well yeah so some people do some
2:17:31people do take the
2:17:32chancee and they just say that we live
2:17:34in a Multiverse which I I've I've spoken
2:17:38to people who believe in the Multiverse
2:17:40um not the kind of Multiverse that I
2:17:42think would actually work here but there
2:17:43are people who just say yeah there's a
2:17:45Multiverse we have no seems like we
2:17:48could even possibly have evidence to
2:17:49sort of indicate that but it does like
2:17:52explain it there's one hypothesis I mean
2:17:55so so and the other one he says he says
2:17:57is that we don't really know um what he
2:18:00well he's talking about order generally
2:18:02says we don't really know how ordered or
2:18:04disordered universes could be yes um is
2:18:06is one of you know that's kind of
2:18:07skepticism about about the notion of
2:18:08possibility and that's more taking the
2:18:10necessity line to say you know had the
2:18:14law of gravity been different by one
2:18:16paron Whatever It Is the universe
2:18:18couldn't exist is not the same thing as
2:18:20saying there's one
2:18:21in a one part in 10 to the whatever
2:18:24chance yeah that it does exist because
2:18:27the sort of the room to maneuver in
2:18:30terms of you know what would have been
2:18:32different had it been different is not
2:18:33the same thing as the chance that it
2:18:35could have been different yes exactly so
2:18:37so so the basically the problem there is
2:18:38so how do you define a probability space
2:18:40on the way on the ways the universe
2:18:41could have been because we don't have
2:18:42any any sort of observations there and
2:18:44and hum's point is not necessarily that
2:18:47um that that either of these are well so
2:18:50the dialogue kind of runs where he Pho
2:18:52the character in humans dialog says this
2:18:54and then the response that he gets is um
2:18:56yeah but like isn't the idea of
2:18:57intelligent God just so much more
2:18:58plausible and then his response is to
2:19:00say something like
2:19:02well
2:19:04our uh idea of what is plausible is
2:19:07solely intra Universal it it doesn't
2:19:09step outside the universe it's just form
2:19:11within it outside the universe he's like
2:19:13well it's not necessarily that all bets
2:19:15are necessarily off but that um we don't
2:19:18know what bets are on uh is his his
2:19:21point so he more it's more of an
2:19:22agnostic Point than atheist point he
2:19:23says you know he says he doesn't know
2:19:26the answer but he also thinks that we
2:19:28are IL equipped to know the answer but I
2:19:30don't know man like I I don't know it's
2:19:32just doesn't it on the other hand
2:19:34doesn't it just seem like the universe
2:19:35definitely could have been tuned
2:19:37differently and it definitely isn't
2:19:38maybe but it there is a question that's
2:19:41sometimes asked as to if this is by
2:19:44Design like God God designs everything
2:19:47including presumably the parameters by
2:19:49which universes can and can't exist
2:19:51and so there is this mystery of like why
2:19:53would it be so difficult like if the
2:19:56universe is what everything exists for
2:19:59like like you know the universe exists
2:20:00for the creation of humankind that's
2:20:02like the purpose of it all then why
2:20:04would the parameters be set such that
2:20:06they're balance on such a knif edge you
2:20:07know why wouldn't it be uh why wouldn't
2:20:11it be that that like the sort of meta
2:20:13laws of the universe was such that you
2:20:15know it it could exist in all kinds of
2:20:17different conditions now I've never
2:20:19found that a very convincing response
2:20:21but I must say that I spoke recently to
2:20:23my friend Phil Halper who I've mentioned
2:20:25on this show before he's uh he's he's
2:20:27got some some wonderful ideas uh and we
2:20:30were talking about nostic ISM the the
2:20:33tradition in
2:20:34Christianity and I've been talking I've
2:20:35been banging on about nosism and
2:20:37everybody seems to hate me for it online
2:20:39at the moment at least the Christian
2:20:40Community are taking umbrage with how
2:20:42much I I I mention it but like in some
2:20:46Gnostic Traditions there's this idea
2:20:48that the material world is created by
2:20:50this like evil Demi urge that the true
2:20:52God is this immaterial spiritual being
2:20:55and that the material world is created
2:20:57by an evil or malevolent sort of figure
2:21:01and
2:21:02so the the the Christian Gnostic
2:21:04position is many times that Jesus is
2:21:07sent by the father to enter the material
2:21:09world and sort of help people to throw
2:21:11off their material conditions and you
2:21:13know regain sort of their spiritual
2:21:15truth whatever and Phil pointed out that
2:21:19the fine-tuning argument seems to work
2:21:21better for a gnostic cosmology than a
2:21:23than a sort of traditional monotheistic
2:21:25one because you've got these metac
2:21:28conditions which seem to have been
2:21:29designed such that it's like nearon
2:21:32impossible to create a material Universe
2:21:35because the the true God the true sort
2:21:38of creator of everything didn't want it
2:21:40to happen because the material world is
2:21:43evil and bad and and and incompetent and
2:21:45all this kind of stuff and so that the
2:21:46true God sort of sets the parameters so
2:21:48that it's nearly impossible that it's as
2:21:51impossible as it can be for a material
2:21:53world to come into existence but the
2:21:54evil Demi urge balances everything just
2:21:57right to bring it into
2:21:58existence that quite a novel Point yeah
2:22:01I know that's fantastic I hadn't thought
2:22:02of that I'd be surprised if anyone had
2:22:04thought of that yeah the um that's art I
2:22:06can't remember where he got it from I I
2:22:08he probably got it from somewhere I wish
2:22:10I could credit it but it's a it it was a
2:22:12really interesting thought which I mean
2:22:13it's a bit silly I'm being a bit silly
2:22:15here but but it does point out that like
2:22:18it kind of just depends where your
2:22:19intuition is like I mean why like well
2:22:21why is everything balanced on a knife
2:22:23edge that question can be asked can be
2:22:25asked in both directions the theist can
2:22:26say look you know if if atheism is true
2:22:30then why is everything just balanced on
2:22:31a knif edge and I could say if if like
2:22:34theism is true why is everything
2:22:36balanced on a knife edge you know it's
2:22:38the same question yeah I mean there's
2:22:40again it it it trades on this idea of
2:22:42like well once you're at the once you're
2:22:43at the the the the level of meta laws
2:22:46How likely is it that the laws of the
2:22:48universe were a certain way we're just
2:22:50so outside the realm of anything that we
2:22:52normally reason about that I find it
2:22:54hard to come to any conclusion
2:22:56whatsoever apart from just throwing my
2:22:58intuition at it and kind of grasping at
2:22:59something and it's like oh yeah it kind
2:23:01of seems like it would be unlikely yeah
2:23:02but when I think about all of the other
2:23:04times that I infer something is unlikely
2:23:05I'm taking a set of previous experiences
2:23:08or other people's previous experiences
2:23:09or what I know about the laws that
2:23:11govern this universe and coming up with
2:23:13a hypothesis about uh How likely it is
2:23:16that a given set of possibilities will
2:23:17emerge yeah but I don't have any of the
2:23:20prior data once I step outside to to the
2:23:22metal laws of the universe it seems to
2:23:23me like if the fine-tuning argument is
2:23:26correct that it is exceedingly unlikely
2:23:30for the the constants of the universe to
2:23:31be as they are and that they needed to
2:23:34be in order to create the universe that
2:23:36either God really didn't want the
2:23:38universe to exist like he does he he
2:23:40created things so that like he really
2:23:42did not want this to happen and maybe
2:23:44somewhere in the sort of infinite realm
2:23:46in which he exists it just had to happen
2:23:48at some point or he really did want it
2:23:51to happen because he balanced these laws
2:23:53so perfectly but he's somehow
2:23:55constrained by these like imagine like
2:23:57the immaterial Creator God before the
2:24:00existence of the universe is constrained
2:24:02by the strength of gravity and the
2:24:04strong the strong nuclear force like
2:24:07what what the what can that even like
2:24:10mean how can God be constrained by the
2:24:14strength of the strong and weak nuclear
2:24:16forces in creating the universe that
2:24:18just that just sort of seems Unthinkable
2:24:19to me well I think is this is draws Upon
2:24:21A Wider Point we've touched upon a
2:24:22number of times which is that there's an
2:24:23open question about if God is God does a
2:24:26lot of grounding for theistic philosophy
2:24:28and quite right too right this is this
2:24:29is like you know right back to like
2:24:31aquinus some long before then God does a
2:24:33lot of grounding and and it's a good
2:24:34philosophical job if you can get it so I
2:24:37it makes sense why he would um but then
2:24:40the meta question of what what um
2:24:45what what grounds the things that seem
2:24:47to constrain God is like like things
2:24:50like the laws of logic which classically
2:24:51constrain God it's like well God can't
2:24:53ground something that's that's seems
2:24:55metaphysically prior to him and is
2:24:57constraining what he can do uh so yeah
2:25:00and the metal laws of the universe is
2:25:01another one it's like well if God made
2:25:02the metal laws of the universe then then
2:25:04in what sense does you know then then
2:25:07then yeah if God sorry if God is
2:25:08constrained by the metal laws of the
2:25:09universe and had to do this fine tuning
2:25:11thing then it seems like what's
2:25:12grounding those metal laws you so he's
2:25:14he's either constrained by these metal
2:25:15laws which is like really weird because
2:25:17it means god is constrained by things
2:25:18like the force of gravity or the
2:25:19strength of gravity and if he's not
2:25:22constrained by them then it seems really
2:25:24weird that he designed things so that
2:25:26they seem so constrained yes and I mean
2:25:28this this comes up with with lots of
2:25:29other things like like you know the laws
2:25:30of morality I mean classically um this
2:25:33comes up in it's like really nent form
2:25:34in the euther FR dilemma but has been
2:25:35developed a lot since then which is that
2:25:37is that um if God is the thing that
2:25:39grounds the laws of morality then from
2:25:41God's perspective the laws of morality
2:25:43are morally
2:25:44arry um which is amazing right that
2:25:48that's that's you know that then there
2:25:49is just a of well he must have some
2:25:51other reason you know don't know what it
2:25:54is but but you know that that you know
2:25:55that there there is this um what God
2:25:58grounds can't Ground God and what God is
2:26:00constrained by he can't ground and
2:26:03sometimes it's very helpful for him to
2:26:05be constrained by things and sometimes
2:26:06it's very helpful F to ground things but
2:26:08each of those has philosophical
2:26:09trade-offs because once they're in one
2:26:11position it seems very unintuitive that
2:26:13it would be in the other position so yet
2:26:16another question which gives us pause is
2:26:19difficult I can't say that we solved the
2:26:20problem um and and like like you say it
2:26:23you know it gives you a lot of trouble I
2:26:25mean I I I wouldn't say it's like easy
2:26:27it's just not my favorite argument I
2:26:29mean a lot of people say this is like
2:26:30their their best religious argument is
2:26:32the one that they struggle with the most
2:26:33I mean I I find something like the
2:26:34existence of Consciousness more
2:26:36compelling for theism than something
2:26:37like fine tuning maybe I I don't know
2:26:39maybe I just haven't thought about it I
2:26:40think for me the most troubling one
2:26:41we've looked at today is the um
2:26:43self-undermining one yeah that's the
2:26:45that's the one that genuinely does keep
2:26:47yeah like the argument from reason yes
2:26:48yeah yeah that's like that I find that
2:26:50the most interesting and maybe also
2:26:52actually the most like difficult to
2:26:53respond to but maybe the not quite as
2:26:56like just moving as the Consciousness
2:27:00that I am like
2:27:01constantly like like in and aware of um
2:27:05although you're not always aware of your
2:27:06Consciousness even though even though
2:27:07you are conscious all the time you're
2:27:09awake you're not always aware of it I
2:27:10think kind transparent quite a lot Josh
2:27:12rasm said he he talked something about
2:27:14the difference between noticing a tree
2:27:17and noticing that you've noticed a tree
2:27:19yeah I mean and it's sort of the second
2:27:20one that you need to really be thinking
2:27:22about Consciousness as opposed to just
2:27:23being conscious um yeah I I can't
2:27:26remember sort of the exact phrase he
2:27:28used but it was something like that at
2:27:30any rate um these are all questions
2:27:33which you know I can't say like we've
2:27:35answered them but to say that they the
2:27:37questions that atheists can't answer I
2:27:39know it's it's a good clickbaity video
2:27:41title but I hope people have found some
2:27:42interest in in listening to us give it
2:27:44an attempt and and found us to be
2:27:46relatively Fair on our treatment I mean
2:27:47I think a lot of this can be summed up
2:27:50in a in a question or or response that I
2:27:52got on Twitter that somebody said when I
2:27:54put out a tweet asking for
2:27:57questions what's the question that
2:27:58atheist can't answer somebody said most
2:28:01questions that's what makes us different
2:28:03to everyone
2:28:04else oh okay admitting that like well we
2:28:09can't answer questions but it's the fact
2:28:10that we admit that we don't know that
2:28:13makes us
2:28:14atheists I don't know if that's a bit
2:28:16too self- congratulatory to to say or to
2:28:18end on maybe but like I wouldn't just
2:28:20describe that to atheists but I do think
2:28:22that this this sort of basic response
2:28:25that seems underneath almost all of our
2:28:27responses here
2:28:28that clarify we don't know I don't know
2:28:30the answer I don't know what conscious
2:28:32is I I don't know how to justify reason
2:28:34but it's not clear to me that theism
2:28:36necessarily helps and it's not clear to
2:28:39me that the certainty that theism sort
2:28:42of gives people is legitimate um the
2:28:45best the best that I can say is that I
2:28:47don't know the answer to a lot of these
2:28:49questions but I certainly would be a far
2:28:52cry from saying that it's impossible for
2:28:53atheists to one day answer them at least
2:28:55yes I think I think the another thing
2:28:56that I kind of General take away from
2:28:58discussion is that almost any Phil
2:29:00almost any ambitious philosophical view
2:29:02will have trade-offs to it um you
2:29:05know it is almost any philosopher view
2:29:09has questions that it cannot answer and
2:29:11I think that that's very very
2:29:12interesting it's one of the things that
2:29:13that allows philosophy to continue is
2:29:15hopefully one day we'll converge Upon A
2:29:17A A Perfect total philosophy and I think
2:29:19it' be interesting to maybe sit down
2:29:21with a theist and do a series of
2:29:23questions that theists can't answer why
2:29:26does the Mind map onto the brain so
2:29:28perfectly if it's not just the same
2:29:30thing as the brain why is there
2:29:32suffering in the world if if God is
2:29:34good the youfo Dilemma these kinds of
2:29:37things like there are there are
2:29:39perennial questions that people have
2:29:40been raising for for thousands of years
2:29:43to theists in the same way they've been
2:29:44doing to atheists and um I'm kind of
2:29:46glad in a way that that no one really
2:29:48has an answer because Not only would I
2:29:50be out of a job but also out of a hobby
2:29:53yes that's what I well Joe thanks for
2:29:56what might be the longest episode we
2:29:58have we've gone over the the three-hour
2:30:00Mark Sam Harris might have still 2 hours
2:30:0251 I think Sam Harris still just about
2:30:04takes the biscuit but um it's it's been
2:30:06fun nonetheless and I hope people
2:30:07especially if they're still listening
2:30:09you know good on you I'd say like you're
2:30:11in for the Long Haul I'd say like you
2:30:13know if you're watching this then don't
2:30:14forget to subscribe but if you've made
2:30:16it this far and you and you're not a
2:30:17subscriber to the channel then then I've
2:30:19already taken far too much from you so
2:30:21uh so do do do as you please but uh Joe
2:30:24honestly thanks for taking so much time
2:30:26especially to to sit down and answer
2:30:28some of these questions thank you so
2:30:28much for having me to watch my last
2:30:30episode with Joe click the link that's
2:30:31on your screen if you want to support my
2:30:33work and get early ad free access to
2:30:35episodes then go to alexo con.com And
2:30:38subscribe to my substack thanks for
2:30:39watching this extraordinarily long
2:30:41episode of within reason and I'll see
2:30:43you in the next one

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 9 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer - With @unsolicitedadvice9198 by Alex O'Connor, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 32,227 words across 4,466 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.