The Uncertainty Podcast

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

Check out video of our discussion on YouTube.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:11 Interview with Joe Rogan

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

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

00:17:26 The limits of singularity theorems

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

00:32:36 What if spacetime is emergent?

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

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

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

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

00:57:55 Technical objection: No background information

01:03:04 The multiverse hypothesis

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

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

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

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

Check out video of our discussion on YouTube.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:03:51 Explanation vs. theory of religion

00:07:26 Methodological naturalism

00:16:48 What is "religion"?

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

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

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

00:45:22 Cognitive science of religion

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

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

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

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

Check out the video of the debate on YouTube.

Amos has a great Substack that you should absolutely read.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:50 A new argument for Hell

39:43 A pre-existence theodicy

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

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

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

Check out the video of the debate on YouTube.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:45 Dr. Matt Lutz opening statement

00:11:49 Dr. Michael Huemer opening statement

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

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

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

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

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

01:35:46 Dr. Matt Lutz closing statement

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

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

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:05 What are you a YouTuber?

00:19:08 Objection #1 - Phenomenal transparency

00:29:22 Why physicalism cannot tolerate transparency

00:32:31 What if consciousness is translucent?

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

00:49:52 Objection #2 - Philosophical zombies

01:00:57 Different types of conceivability

01:12:29 What about modal skepticism?

01:17:32 Objection #3 - Vagueness

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

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

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:12 The tale of Eugene Peterson

00:04:45 What is evangelical Christianity?

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

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

00:24:19 Argument #1: The Bible

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

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

00:50:05 Argument #2: Reason

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

00:54:22 Against natural law?

00:58:32 Argument #3: Tradition

01:07:28 Argument #4: Experience

Talia Mae Bettcher explains why she has come to a dismal view of the United States as a home for trans people, details the Trump administration's recent policy changes targeting trans individuals, and debates the merits of a biological understanding of sex and gender.

Check out Talia's latest book, Beyond Personhood: An Essay in Trans Philosophy.

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

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:05 Why do you feel unsafe in the U.S.?

00:06:27 How did the U.S. get here?

00:12:01 Has your religious upbringing informed your work today?

00:17:13 Methodology and biological theories of gender

00:24:17 What is trans philosophy?

00:28:37 Can a traditionalist engage in trans philosophy?

00:33:03 Answering Matt Walsh: what is a woman?

00:46:44 Circular definitions of gender

00:49:13 Trans people can be mistaken in their gender identity

00:54:57 Trans woman and prison placement

01:07:47 Is "it's complicated" a cop-out?

Stephen Law, professor of philosophy at Oxford, discusses his "evil god challenge" to theists: prove that God is not perfectly evil. That challenge, we will see, is surprisingly difficult to meet. Check out Stephen's paper outlining the evil-god challenge, as well as Mooney and Hendricks paper critiquing the challenge.

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

Do please follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:06 The evil-god challenge

00:11:03 The versions of the challenge

00:17:02 Does the moral argument break the parallel?

00:24:28 Skeptical theism will not undercut the challenge

00:34:07 Does skeptical theism lead to skepticism about everything?

00:46:30 The neutral-god challenge

00:53:13 Theodicies won't undercut the challenge, either

00:59:39 Would Jesus' resurrection break the parallel?

01:07:57 Is an evil god logically incoherent?

01:16:47 What are you most uncertain about?

Graham Oppy and Brian Cutter join me to debate philosophy's newest argument for God: the argument from psychophysical harmony. We talk about epistemic probability versus metaphysical possibility, the relevance of thought-experiments to determining possibility, whether mental states are identical to brain states, and what we ought to infer if we found John 3:16 in binary code in the digits of pi.

Check out Cutter and Crummet's paper defending the psycho-physical harmony argument, my previous interviews with Graham and Brian.

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

Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:34 Cutter opening statement

00:18:14 Oppy opening statement

00:27:59 Moderated discussion

01:48:33 Cutter closing statement

01:50:07 Oppy closing statement

Mhairi Tait, my friend and fellow DPhil student at Oxford, sits down with me to discuss whether Ted Bundy's mother was right to stand by her son, whether you could ever love the same person forever, whether you should "trade up" if you find someone with better qualities than your current beloved, and whether one still ought to be loved even if one were a worm.

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

Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:52 Is the best kind of love unconditional?

00:14:10 Is it okay to not love everyone?

00:20:00 Should we "trade up" if we find a better romantic partner?

00:21:21 Is love ever unjustified?

00:24:07 Is love for an abuser real love?

00:30:14 The possibility of love at first sight

00:40:30 What IS love, exactly?

00:45:04 Do you, Miles, think love has created value in you

00:55:11 Ted Bundy's mother loved him to the very end

00:59:28 Ethical non-monogamy?

01:01:15 Does love require free will?

01:04:20 Is there a single concept the unifies all our uses of the word "love"?

01:06:39 Does analytic philosophy do damage to love?

01:11:50 Realist vs. anti-realist accounts of love

01:14:17 Could you love the same person forever?