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

The Conversation

Post-debate debrief – Patreon

Linktree

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

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

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

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

God’s Personality Change? – Catholic Answers 

Good God? – David Bentley Hart 

Slavery in the Bible – Counter Apologetics

Transcript of this episode

Subscribe on YouTube here

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

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

linktr.ee/emersongreen

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

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

The original clip on Thoughtful Faith’s channel

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

Full conversation with LDS Philosophy and Thoughtful Faith

My Linktree

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

Subscribe on YouTube

Twitter @waldenpod @Philip_Goff @dustin_crummett

Dustin’s Channel

Mind Chat

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

linktr.ee/emersongreen

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

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

Randalrauser.com 

linktr.ee/emersongreen

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

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

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

Subscribe on YouTube

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Transcript

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

linktr.ee/emersongreen

Friendly debate between three miracle skeptics and a theist.

linktr.ee/emersongreen

Subscribe on YouTube

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

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

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

Subscribe on YouTube

Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

linktr.ee/emersongreen