The Uncertainty Podcast

Dr. David Enoch, author of "Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism," joins me to discuss moral realism versus anti-realism, objections from the moral error theorist, and my personal sticking points in affirming the existence of irreducible moral facts: moral disagreement across cultures and evolutionary explanations for our moral beliefs.

Buy David's book defending robust moral realism.

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

00:07:23 Naturalism vs. non-naturalism

00:19:23 Why should we reject moral error theory?

00:32:32 The revisionary costs of error theory

00:43:34 Intuition as our only ground for moral realism?

00:47:45 The connection to ethical intuitionism

00:51:19 Objection #1 - Moral disagreement

01:03:18 Moral skepticism

01:06:20 Objection #2 - Evolutionary debunking arguments

01:16:16 Is God required to explain objective morality?

01:20:45 Are most philosophers moral realists?

Dr. Dan Linford breaks down Einstein's theory of special relativity, its consequences for our understanding of time, and whether there are any ways to reconcile relativity with the view that past events are no longer real, and future events are not yet real. In particular, he examines William Lane Craig's attempt to rehabilitate a neo-Lorentzian theory of relativity.

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

00:00:10 What is special relativity?

00:11:30 Of trains and absolute simultaneity

00:15:31 Time dilation and length contraction

00:25:08 Three "interpretations" of special relativity

00:27:14 Theory #1 - Einsteinian relativity

00:29:11 Theory #2 - Minkowskian relativity

00:35:11 Theory #3 - neo-Lorentzian relativity

00:47:09 What do physicists think of neo-Lorentzian relativity?

00:59:50 Can we integrate special relativity with presentism?

01:10:06 Neo-Lorentzianism applied to cosmology

Sociologist and professor Dr. Christian Smith discusses his recent book, Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America. We discuss the reasons for the decline of faith in a traditionally Christian nation, the seeming recent revival of faith among the younger generation, and what these developments mean for the future of religion in America.

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

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:13 How do we define religion?

00:05:44 In what sense has religion gone obsolete?

00:09:13 Why has religion gone obsolete?

00:18:52 Is religion trending downward worldwide?

00:21:20 The internet's role in undermining religion

00:25:43 The "cringy-ness" of online religious outreach

00:28:11 The legacy of the New Atheists

00:32:01 The role conservative politics has played

00:37:33 Does this mean Americans are atheists?

00:46:50 The advance of science did not cause religious decline

00:50:26 The negative impact of creationism

00:54:01 Homosexuality and abortion as the ride-or-die issues

01:02:09 A revival of faith among American youth?

01:10:20 Does religion have a future?

Astrophysicist Niayesh Afshordi and science communicator Phil Halper return to the channel to discuss their new book, Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins. We discuss inflationary theory, the BGV theorem, how space and time might not exist at the fundamental level of reality, and so much else besides. This was one of my favorite interviews so far.

Follow Phil on YouTube.

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

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:13 Does the Big Bang theory feature a bang?

00:07:53 What is an FLRW spacetime? What is the Lambda-CDM model?

00:18:39 Is a singularity unscientific?

00:25:05 Singularity theorem #1: Hawking-Penrose

00:33:04 Singularity theorem #2: Borde-Guth-Vilenkin

00:39:23 What is "classical" spacetime?

00:52:40 Singularity theorem #3: Generalized second law of thermodynamics

00:57:54 The quantum eternity theorem

01:01:10 String-theoretic models of the universe

01:05:56 A fundamental limit to what we can know?

01:09:10 Is a cosmic beginning scientifically unsatisfying?

01:15:17 Teaching science as a story

01:19:35 Embrace uncertainty

Dan Linford and I discuss the causal principle, that everything that begins to exist has a cause. We look at William Lane Craig's oft-repeated three reasons for affirming the premise: something cannot come from nothing, if something could come from nothing, then anything and everything should come from nothing, and an inductive generalization supports the causal principle.

Check out Linford's paper discussing neo-Russellian analyses of causation.

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

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:01:58 Different types of "causes"

00:05:49 Premise (1) of the KCA

00:10:19 First argument for CP: An inductive generalization

00:23:56 Metaphysics should be continuous with physics

00:34:27 Is science our only source of knowledge?

00:38:32 Second argument for CP: Something cannot come from nothing

00:42:16 Is neo-Russellianism just too counter-intuitive?

Dr. Tomas Bogardus discusses contemporary philosophical analysis of sex and gender, defending a traditional understanding of these terms.

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

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction

00:32 What are the main views about gender?

17:03 What's the difference between sex and gender?

27:52 Why think sex terms are social constructions?

35:29 Societal consequences for biological realism regarding sex

39:05 Intentional revision of sex terms?

44:35 Dr. Bogardus: What is a woman?

45:04 Woman: Adult human female

55:24 Can trans-women be women on this account?

01:12:38 But still, should we revise the meaning of our terms?

Dr. Matt Lutz defends moral error theory, the two-part thesis that (i) our moral claims are capable of being true or false, but (ii) because there is no objective morality, all of them are false.

Check out all of Dr. Lutz's publications.

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

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:13 What is moral error theory?

00:03:46 Non-cognitivism in ethics

00:19:32 Motivation for non-cognitivism

00:25:00 Ethical naturalism vs. non-naturalism

00:54:30 Is there an objective morality?

00:58:21 Epistemological objections to realism

01:11:00 Miles' two responses to arguments for error theory

Joe Folley and I discuss our philosophical differences regarding fine-tuning, the problem of evil, skeptical theism, pragmatic justification for God, apatheism, and much else besides.

Check out Joe's excellent YouTube channel.

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

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:15 The fine-tuning argument

00:12:30 Can the constants really vary?

00:18:41 What is "possibility"?

00:34:54 Is probability just frequency?

00:48:16 Is there common ground between theist and atheist?

00:58:04 We should not be apathetic about God's existence

01:10:38 There are more options besides theism and naturalism

01:19:50 Skeptical theism

01:28:29 Does evil disprove God?

01:32:04 Philip Goff's limited God

01:43:55 Life is better if you believe in God

01:53:40 Should we take the red pill?

01:58:59 Problems with moral realism

02:12:50 What motivates you in running a YouTube channel?

Dr. Tim Maudlin returns to the channel to discuss the fine-tuning of the universe, the beginning of the universe, and whether these facts might be reasonably suggest that a creator God exists.

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

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:56 How do science and philosophy relate?

00:11:33 The fine-tuning argument

00:22:35 Is the universe fine-tuned for rocks?

00:27:39 Does evil disprove God?

00:31:04 Of multiverses and Boltzmann Brains

00:35:45 How does the multiverse explain fine-tuning?

00:47:39 Do we know we're not Boltzmann Brains?

00:50:59 God and the beginning of the universe

00:58:24 The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem

01:01:49 Does everything that begin to exist have a cause

01:08:02 Are theistic philosophers acting in good faith

01:11:56 Are atheists acting in good faith?

01:16:59 What is Tim's favorite color?

01:17:29 Will physics ever explain consciousness?

Dr. Randal Rauser, himself a Christian apologist, joins me to critically examine some of the mistakes and excesses of Christian apologetics as it is commonly practiced - on YouTube and within broader academic discourse as well.

Check out Randal's YouTube channel.

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

Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:15 What is apologetics?

00:05:52 What is a 'tentative' apologist?

00:14:25 Mistake #1 - Not giving weight to moral experience.

00:36:09 How do we determine what the Bible teaches?

00:38:02 Mistake #2 - Thinking every question must be answered.

00:45:49 Mistake #3 - Simplifying enormously complicated issues.

00:50:50 If saving souls isn't the right motive for apologetics, what is?

00:57:03 Mistake #4 - Mixing apologetics with politics.

01:01:36 Debating vs. discussing controversial issues.