Brain in a Vat is back from hiatus with a deep dive into the philosophy of religion. Stephen Kershnar and Nathan Bray join us to ask whether God can be morally responsible and whether worship makes sense if God could not have done otherwise.

The discussion begins with a thought experiment about gratitude and worship. If worship expresses praise for morally responsible action, can a perfectly good God deserve it at all? Kershnar and Bray argue that divine perfection may undermine responsibility rather than secure it.

From there, Kershnar and Bray explore compulsion, omnibenevolence, and free will. Along the way, we discuss moral saints, chess computers, Frankfurt-style cases, Patty Hearst, and the costs these arguments impose on traditional theism.

We would love to hear your thoughts. Is worship grounded in gratitude, awe, or something else entirely? And does God need moral responsibility to be worthy of it?

[00:00] Welcome Back to Brain in a Vat

[00:45] Thought Experiment: Worship and Gratitude

[02:59] The Compulsion Argument

[05:04] The Role of Awe in Worship

[13:21] Maximizing Goodness and Divine Discretion

[20:26] The Problem of Evil and Divine Psychology

[33:33] Exploring Patty Hearst's Psychology

[40:19] The Nature of God's Perfection

[46:57] Philosophical Debates on God's Existence

[01:03:49] Concluding Thoughts and Viewer Engagement