Debate on Naturalism vs Christianity (Graham Oppy & Josh Brister)

0:12[Music]

0:14medium

0:17[Music]

1:16all right welcome to apologetic showdown

1:18i'm joined by professor graham oppy and

1:21josh brister

1:22and this is going to be an open

1:23discussion on christianity

1:26versus naturalism and i'm going to go

1:29ahead and

1:30let both my guests introduce themselves

1:32and we'll go ahead and

1:33get started so professor appi if you

1:35want to start with us

1:37okay hi everyone so i'm graham oppe

1:41i'm a philosopher i'm employed at monash

1:44university in melbourne australia

1:47i've been working at monash for about

1:49the last 25 years

1:51the main philosophical interest of

1:54minors in philosophy of religion

1:56and in that area i've

2:01done quite a lot of work on arguments

2:04about the existence of god

2:06about on questions about divine

2:09attributes and more recently

2:11a bunch of stuff about naturalism and

2:14uh the reasons that you might or might

2:18not have

2:19for preferring naturalism to phase

2:25all right josh well my name is josh

2:28brister it's a pleasure to be here in

2:30dialogue again with you

2:31dr oppy i hope i can call you graham

2:34from here on out

2:35if not please let me know i'm just

2:38really happy to be here i've been

2:40studying philosophy for

2:42for over 20 years now in christian

2:44apologetics

2:47and i'm just really happy here

2:51i'm really happy to defend my

2:55my christian faith today the best that i

2:57can against

2:58such an imminent uh philosopher and a

3:01world renowned

3:02atheist and i just wanted this is my

3:06this is this is what's going to be with

3:07me my rosary and

3:09and i just want to give all the glory to

3:11god thank you

3:14all right thank you guys and then um

3:16josh if you want to go ahead and present

3:18your opening case and then it'll be open

3:20discussion from there

3:22okay um now now um

3:26how many minutes do i have

3:30you can take however long but try to

3:32probably keep her under 10.

3:35okay well um again it's a pleasure to be

3:38here with you dr opie

3:40and i'm very thankful for you uh

3:43for for you being here and us having

3:45this debate

3:47uh or discussion i like to quote thomas

3:51reid and i thought i would quote him

3:53to start out conjectures and theories

3:56are the

3:56creatures of men and will always be

3:59found unlike the creatures of god

4:01if we would know the works of god we

4:04must consult themselves with attention

4:06and humility without doing to any

4:09uh to to add anything of ours to what

4:12they'd

4:12um declare a just interpretation of

4:15nature as the only

4:16sound and orthodox philosophy whatever

4:19we add to our own

4:20is apocryphal and of no authority

4:24um i think the case for christianity is

4:27a cumulative case

4:29it's based off inference to the best

4:31explanation

4:32and it's held together by the dictates

4:35and principles of common sense

4:37now let me go through some of these in

4:39in i'll i'll go through it more

4:41comments what common sense is more uh

4:43throughout the debate

4:44discussion first of all we trust in a

4:47number of things we don't just

4:49come at the evidence with pure reason or

4:53just with reason trying to find out if

4:56god does or does not exist

4:58what do we trust then well we

5:01we trust um uh

5:04we hold fast to the law of contradiction

5:06the law of excluded middle

5:08the law of identity we we trust in

5:10traditions

5:12we trust that traditions weren't put

5:14together willy-nilly

5:15we trust in other people's knowledge and

5:18wisdom

5:19and guidance we can't be experts in

5:21everything

5:22uh we we also have properly basic

5:25beliefs that we hold to like the

5:26existence of the external world

5:28or other minds or of our own identity

5:32um a number of things we also i would

5:35argue

5:36in in how we live our lives we we live

5:38according

5:40to the truthfulness of natural law that

5:43we we judge people on a hierarchy of

5:45values of

5:46morals and virtues some things can be

5:49better than or worse then

5:52right now i want to quote to you

5:54something from cicero

5:56this is cicero the law was neither a

5:59thing to be

6:00contrived by a genius

6:03excuse me my eyes um the law was neither

6:06a thing to be contrived by the genius of

6:08man nor established by any decree of the

6:11people

6:11but a certain eternal principle which

6:14governs the entire universe

6:16which commanding what is right and prote

6:18prohibiting what is wrong

6:20therefore they called the original and

6:22supreme law

6:23the mind of god this natural law

6:26tradition

6:27which i would argue that dr oppy

6:30himself and other naturalists follow

6:32isn't

6:33ever bit of reality as us believing that

6:36the external world exists or the other

6:38minds exist

6:40we also believe in causation

6:44we have no good reason for denying

6:47causation

6:48or what hume would have us believe it's

6:50just

6:51constant conjunction he gives the

6:53example of a

6:55of a table um and a ball hitting another

6:58ball

6:59and we see that as it's just constant

7:01conjunction

7:03um but no causation is a real thing

7:06it's a metaphysical truth that we all

7:09know and all believe in in our daily

7:11lives

7:12we all believe in a teleological

7:14purposefulness of

7:16human action biology certain organs have

7:20certain

7:20functions uh the universe has certain

7:23functions the anthropic principle

7:25shows that it was put together with an

7:28ingenuity that's astonishing

7:30this cries out for an explanation

7:33induction also

7:36naturalism must reduce

7:41naturalism much must reduce rational

7:44explanations

7:45to either chance or brute fact and i

7:48believe i've heard

7:49dr opp say that again i want to ask him

7:52again

7:52do you believe everything is the result

7:56of physical processes and brute fight

7:59even your own arguments um theism

8:03is the uh is the view that the universe

8:06and all that is in it

8:07is rational and we know this brought by

8:10the law

8:10of proportionate proportionate causality

8:15whatever is in the effect which is our

8:17universe and me talking

8:19and and trees and in in the sky

8:21everything

8:22the that's the effect whatever is the

8:24cause must be at least as powerful

8:27to bring those those things into

8:29existence so

8:31uh whatever uh do the the principle of

8:34proportionate causality

8:35says non-being uh or being

8:38cannot com come from non-being and

8:42we all know this is true in our everyday

8:44lives

8:46um well aristotle begins his metaphysics

8:50with the statement

8:51all men by nature desire to know an

8:54indication of this

8:55is the delight we take in the senses for

8:58even apart from their usefulness

9:00they are loved for themselves and above

9:02all uh the sense of sight

9:04now according to aristotle philosophy

9:06begins with a sense of wonder

9:09and um and the most profound question a

9:11man can

9:12ask concerns the beginning of the

9:15universe

9:17man asks lorne isley

9:20is the cosmic orphan he is the only

9:23creature

9:24in the universe who asks why other

9:27creatures

9:28have instincts to guide them but mankind

9:32has learned to learn to ask questions

9:36who am i uh where did i come from

9:39why am i here dr hoppy does your

9:42naturalism

9:43take those questions into account or

9:46does it reduce it to the mere physical

9:49um

9:53the arguments for the existence of god

9:57dr oppy may think those are dubious and

10:00they're uncertain and they don't that we

10:02don't know if

10:03they prove the existence of god or not

10:06but

10:06if we um but these arguments are

10:09snippets

10:10of our everyday experience dr abbey of

10:13our every

10:14day experience of change happening in

10:16the world

10:17and i think the tradition of two

10:19thousand year old tradition of the

10:21western intellectual tradition

10:23perhaps we should take them seriously

10:26consider what aristotle

10:27again says he says that the art of

10:30shipbuilding

10:30were in the wood we would have ships by

10:33nature

10:34now wood however is finally

10:38in the ship's designer

10:41is in the designer who knows what ships

10:43are for

10:44and what purpose is served by them and

10:47what materials

10:48then you need to assemble to make them

10:51now what dr oppy is going to argue

10:54this is what i think is is something

10:57called scientism

11:01scientism is the view that physics is

11:03complete

11:04that is the bare bottom of reality of

11:07reality can be accounted for

11:09by physical explanations and processes

11:12moreover each facet of reality can

11:15ultimately be explained

11:17and therefore reduced to physics

11:21now what should we think of this

11:25the principle that all reality is

11:29reduced

11:30to physics though is not itself

11:34a physical statement it's not itself

11:36reduced to

11:37physics that's in a synthetic statement

11:41that's a statement that has content so

11:45dr oppi's own naturalism prevents him

11:48prohibits him from making that statement

11:53secondly um

11:56human action doesn't account for that uh

11:59we live as purposeful agents

12:03uh with with freedom of the will we can

12:06we can do

12:07certain things or where we can withhold

12:09from doing certain things

12:10so i think theism provides a far

12:14more detailed multi-faceted explanation

12:18remember naturalism only has one type of

12:20explanation

12:22all is reduced to the level of physics

12:24theism

12:25on the other hand can you you can say

12:30either some things are naturally

12:32explained

12:33or some things are intelligently

12:35explained

12:36uh so theism has a multi-faceted um

12:40explanation to guide it now here's my

12:43question

12:43and i'll end with this another question

12:47um considering the totality

12:51dr poppy considering the totality

12:54of human experience and history

12:57and sociology and psychology and so many

13:01other subjects

13:02is it really the simpler explanation

13:06to reduce all of human experience down

13:09to

13:09the level of physics

13:13that doesn't seem like it's the simpler

13:14explanation it seems to me

13:17that theism that leaves open the

13:19possibility

13:21that there are more things than nature

13:23being true

13:24let me just quote to you shakespeare's

13:26hamlet

13:28there are more things horatio than are

13:31dreamt of in your philosophy

13:34i think we need to consider other

13:36alternatives than a simplistic

13:39naturalism thank you

13:48all right thank you for that josh and

13:50that will be open discussion

13:52so i'll just step out and let you guys

13:54go so

13:55professor if you want to respond

13:59okay so there's we we got a lot very

14:02quickly there

14:03um so there's plenty to discuss

14:06there are some points of agreement and

14:08then there are going to be points of

14:09disagreement

14:11i'll start with the point of agreement

14:13so

14:15i think that if you're trying to make an

14:17argument

14:18either for the truth

14:21of theism or the truth of naturalism

14:25or the truth of some other worldview

14:27then

14:28the only kind of way of

14:32setting out that's got any chance of

14:33succeeding is going to be a kind of

14:35cumulative case

14:36argument and it may be the case that

14:40if you're talking to somebody

14:43and their view contains a contradiction

14:46that you can demonstrate the

14:48contradiction to them and

14:50in a certain sense you win the argument

14:52at that point

14:53but if someone shows that you're

14:55committed to a contradiction what you'll

14:56do is you'll make some small revision

14:58to your view to restore it to

15:00consistency and it's not going to be the

15:02case

15:03that say theism or naturalism

15:07or some other long-standing world view

15:10is going to be removed

15:14from the contest just because that

15:17particular version of it that a

15:18particular person holds

15:20actually has some contradiction in it

15:22right so

15:23i'm fully on board with the idea that

15:26we've got a

15:27that if you were thinking that there was

15:29going to be an argument that would win

15:30the day it would have to be something

15:32that was cumulative case

15:33that considered a whole lot of um

15:36different considerations i think though

15:39that the focus on argument is probably a

15:41mistake and what we're really interested

15:43in is the views themselves

15:45and assessing so if you've got a range

15:48of world views assessing which one's the

15:50best

15:51or looking to see if there's some

15:53reasons that we can find

15:54some independent reasons that are going

15:56to move us all to agree

15:58that one of the world views is better

15:59than the others this is

16:01related to the idea of cumulative case

16:03but

16:04not it's not exactly the same idea but

16:06it's based on the same thought that we

16:07should consider

16:08all of the relevant evidence all of the

16:10relevant considerations and reasons when

16:12we weigh up the different world views

16:15i suspect that

16:19probably if you take seriously

16:22the idea that we're going to compare two

16:24world views

16:25by the time we've set them all out set

16:28them out in sufficient detail

16:30considered all of them set out all of

16:33the things that they agree on the things

16:35that will trade us the evidence when

16:36we're comparing the views

16:38and then we sit down to try to do the

16:40assessment uh we'll find it

16:42very difficult to arrive at a

16:45decision right that is a final point

16:48that we can agree upon

16:50that has to do in with

16:53the huge number of things that we

16:55disagree about

16:57so if you're thinking of a disagreement

17:00between a typical

17:01christian and a typical naturalist

17:04there'll be thousands of claims that

17:06they disagree

17:07on and somehow or other you have to

17:11weigh all of those claims against the

17:13claims that they agree on

17:15and work out which one's the better view

17:17one last thing i'll say in my

17:19introductory remarks is

17:20you also have to have some way of

17:23determining

17:25how we're going to decide which is the

17:26better view so

17:28the way that i create the most important

17:31considerations are on the one hand

17:35simplicity committing yourself to less

17:38and that has to do with

17:40not just things but principles and so on

17:44and on the other side explaining stuff

17:47so

17:48um telling a story that brings

17:51all of the the relevant data

17:55into puts it all in a satisfactory

17:58explanatory

17:59place now some people when they want to

18:02do this

18:04will adopt a kind of bayesian approach

18:06so an example that some people who are

18:08listening will be familiar with is

18:10richard swinburne's

18:11approach uh where he thinks that you can

18:15make assessments of um probability

18:19and you end up finding out that one of

18:20the world views is more probable

18:22than the other yes i don't think

18:26that that's going to work

18:30uh i for various reasons i'm skeptical

18:33about

18:34the bayesian approach when you try to

18:35apply it to to world views or to the

18:38kind of debate that we've got but i

18:40think that something similar is is

18:42correct namely that we can try and

18:43reckon up what the commitments are

18:45on each side and then we can look at

18:48what's explained and what isn't

18:49explained

18:51on both sides and then we'll either

18:56reach a verdict that favors one view

18:59over the other

19:00or will end up saying something like

19:01well it's a matter for judgment and

19:03reasonable people can go either way

19:06and people who are familiar with my work

19:08already will know that in the end

19:10that's the direction that i end up going

19:13in

19:13i end up saying um there's no prospect

19:17of getting an unequivocal answer to this

19:20question that's going to satisfy

19:21everybody

19:22what we're going to end up doing is just

19:24agreeing to disagree

19:26okay so that's enough for introduction

19:29okay um now first of all you said at the

19:32at the last one that there's

19:33we can't get an unequivocal answer is is

19:36that correct

19:37okay one that we'll all agree on

19:41well i i don't think truthfulness uh it

19:44hinges on

19:45agreeableness universal agreement

19:48i think a person can um you know

19:52understand something and tacitly agree

19:55to it

19:56by the way that they live i i think the

19:58way that they

19:59live the way that a person lives their

20:02life

20:03is the ultimate arbiter of truth or

20:06at least it must be very important this

20:09is what

20:10uh c.s pierce and william james and

20:13their pragmatism

20:14now a lot of people view pragmatism as

20:17you know the crude understanding well if

20:20it works

20:21it's true no no

20:24um pragmatism is

20:28um is the view of choosing between

20:31two legitimate uh two legitimate options

20:35um william james discussed this in in a

20:39will to believe

20:40um but it's really the the choice

20:43between

20:43two legitimate options and which one

20:46you're going to choose

20:47for example einstein in in his special

20:50theory of relativity

20:52george elementary he has

20:56a view of um

21:01that competes with with einstein's uh

21:04gener uh

21:05i believe it's a special theory of

21:07relativity

21:09um and um it's fully compatible

21:13um and a lot of a lot of physicists and

21:16a lot of philosophers of science

21:18have thought george lumetri's view

21:21um is superior to to um

21:24to einstein but but i

21:28uh would you like to go on that any

21:31um so going back to the question about

21:36truth i

21:40ultimately the the i think it's right to

21:44think of the purpose of inquiry

21:46as aiming towards truth what's going to

21:49happen

21:50in the cases where we agree to disagree

21:52is that we

21:53agree to disagree about where the truth

21:55lies and it's important

21:57to separate

22:01the question about whether you've

22:03arrived at the truth

22:04from the question about whether

22:08the views that you've got are reasonable

22:10in the light of the evidence

22:11that you've got nobody should think

22:15that they know all the truth

22:18right that would be absurd everybody

22:23everybody's doxastic state is like this

22:26there's a vast blackness

22:27and there are tiny spots of light there

22:30are some things that they know

22:31most things they don't know to convince

22:33yourself that this is right

22:35you i mean back in pre-internet days

22:39you just had to walk into a library and

22:42look at

22:42a decent sized library one with millions

22:44of books

22:46um on a whole range of topics in the

22:48sciences

22:49the theoretical sciences the practical

22:51sciences the social sciences so

22:55you know a time and and then look at all

22:57the works about history and so on you

22:59know a tiny amount

23:01out of the truth so so there's no

23:04so so everybody has to draw this

23:07distinction

23:07everybody has to recognize and that

23:10sorry that's one part of it and then the

23:12next bit is

23:13you only have to reflect on your own

23:14life to realize

23:16that amongst the things that you're

23:18pretty certain of some of them are going

23:19to be wrong

23:20right this is this is also just common

23:23sense to think that

23:25that there's that somehow or other

23:27you've been gifted some kind of

23:28infallibility

23:30about the things that you have beliefs

23:31about what also be

23:33absurd so yes we have a desire

23:37for truth but there are considerations

23:41just about

23:42doxastic humility and fallibility

23:45that make us realize that

23:48uh or should make us realize that

23:52when it comes to disagreement stamping

23:55our feet and saying we've got to be

23:57right and the other people have got to

23:58be wrong

23:58or to put it you know that i've got the

24:02truth and they don't

24:03um when you've got plenty of evidence

24:06that as

24:07when it comes to reason and so on

24:09they're doing at least as well as you

24:11are

24:12that's that's not going to be the best

24:14approach

24:16well and and that concurs or that is in

24:19agreement with the quote i read about

24:21uh thomas reed speaking of humility but

24:24it seems to me that the naturalist

24:26is not being humble when he's when he

24:29looks at the landscape of human

24:31experience

24:32and you have history uh social

24:34interaction

24:36you have some so many things of history

24:38and so many other subject fields

24:40that you or or i are ill-equipped to

24:43comment on

24:45but you reduce all of them naturalism

24:49naturalism reduces all of them to the

24:52level of physics

24:54you you hold to an ontological monism

24:57that doesn't leave

24:58open the possibility that there are

25:00other truths

25:02then physics explains all so

25:05it to me it seems that naturalism is not

25:09synonymous with humility

25:12okay so i now will come down to

25:15one substantive point of course i don't

25:18accept the view that you're trying to

25:20attribute to me

25:21i'm not a reductionist in any sense

25:24right uh of the kind that you're

25:27imagining

25:28so in particular i do i think

25:31that give yourself the vocabulary of

25:34physics

25:36so you've got a vocabulary in which you

25:39can describe all of the physical truths

25:42you will not be able to do to deduce

25:44from claims formulated in the language

25:46of physics

25:48claims about

25:53any number of things but let's let's go

25:55with

25:56morality for example right

26:00there's no way that morality reduces to

26:02physics

26:03in that sense

26:07and it's also the case

26:10that is that if we widen our scope

26:15and we think not just about physics but

26:17we think about the natural sciences more

26:19generally so we throw in chemistry and

26:20biology

26:22i still think that there's no way that

26:25if give yourself all the vocabulary that

26:27you need to fully

26:28um characterize the natural sciences

26:32you'll not be able to deduce morality

26:36moral principles from those claims

26:40so the the claim about naturalism

26:43the way that i formulate it is a claim

26:45about causal reality

26:47right so so and you can find this in a

26:52bunch of my works in

26:53slightly different forms because i will

26:56formulate it

26:57slightly differently depending on what

26:59my purposes are but basically what

27:01naturalism commits you to

27:03is that causal reality is just natural

27:07reality there are no

27:08causes beyond natural causes

27:11and how do you know that that leaves it

27:14completely open

27:15what you're going to say for example

27:17about abstract objects or about

27:21i mean i'm now assuming that abstract

27:23objects

27:24well do you have an explanation

27:27sorry do you have an explanation of

27:31abstract objects that doesn't uh that

27:34isn't explained then by the level of

27:37physics

27:38so or immorality we could say i could

27:41add to abstract objects morality and

27:43history

27:44and so forth it seems to me even if

27:46you're not in a reductionist

27:49uh that you're still at the end of the

27:50day gonna have to explain

27:52all of them at the level of physics or

27:55or have some

27:56algorithm that you put in the

27:59the the the moral claim or the history

28:02claim and it corresponds to some

28:05physical thing in your brain um

28:09at the level of physics or at the level

28:11of a deterministic world i

28:13i don't see how you're escaping this

28:16so go back to the

28:20to the what i said a naturalist is

28:22committed to

28:24the um that all the causes

28:28are natural causes right so

28:32amongst the truths there are some

28:35that are claims about what's causally

28:38related

28:39right so that gives you for example all

28:43of history connections between

28:45events the connections between events

28:46that make up history

28:49it gives you

28:52people as agents because

28:56agency is causal

28:59right people cause things to happen

29:03so that's going to be in there it's part

29:05of what

29:06um naturalists are committed to

29:09on my favorite version of naturalism

29:14all of the data about consciousness

29:17experience and so on is in there

29:19because experiential states are just

29:23neural states

29:24consciousness is just a kind of neural

29:25state there are natural

29:28there there are naturalists who

29:32uh will um reject that view

29:35and think that there's an additional

29:37ingredient kind of proto-consciousness

29:40at the level of um fundamental particles

29:43that builds up

29:44to consciousness so you can see

29:48you know somebody like dave chalmers has

29:50a view or has

29:51at least talked about a few slides

29:55but i i don't like that kind of view i

29:58prefer the view

29:59um that i described before where we're

30:02going to identify

30:04experiential states and

30:07um states of consciousness and beliefs

30:10desires and so on

30:12as kinds of neural processing well

30:15then then they're determined you don't

30:17in your philosophy of naturalism you

30:19don't have

30:19any room for libertarian free will and

30:22by the way

30:23you in when it regards history you don't

30:25have any room

30:27for uh divine interaction i i suspect

30:30you hold to something called

30:32methodological naturalism

30:34so our metaphysical naturalism two

30:37things here first of all

30:39of course i'm an atheist i don't think

30:41there are any gods so i don't think

30:43there's any divine interaction

30:45this is part of the distinction between

30:47our views

30:48right you agree that there's the natural

30:50world but you think there's more you

30:52think there's a god maybe you think

30:53there's angels and demons and others

30:57and then that means that when we're

31:00doing the weighing of our positions

31:02in terms of simplicity i'm way ahead of

31:04you you've packed in all this extra

31:06stuff that i don't have

31:07and so the question is going to be

31:09you're explaining them

31:11no no no is this stuff that you can

31:13explain i'm not explaining them away

31:17we're talking about what the commitments

31:19of the two theories are

31:21i think that all you need

31:24to have a satisfactory explanation of

31:26everything

31:28is to suppose that

31:31causal reality is exhausted by natural

31:33reality

31:34plus some other stuff that you're

31:35committed to and then you see

31:38what you can explain with all of that

31:39and you compare it with a view that says

31:42causal reality is more extensive than

31:45natural reality there's a divine reality

31:47right that's what that's just what the

31:50contrast is

31:51this is not an argument this is just

31:53trying to get clear about what the two

31:55views are

31:56and then i've pointed to one way in

31:58which my view is going to be

32:01have an advantage over competing views

32:04all of the details of the argument

32:05remain to be had because we look at

32:07all the particular things that you might

32:09think might need explanation

32:11and you ask how they're explained we've

32:14so far talked about one thing

32:15about experience i've told you how that

32:18finds a place in my world view

32:20experiences are just neural processing

32:23that's fine i've located that i've given

32:26it a good explanation

32:27well i disagree i i think you're

32:30predetermined

32:31that they um that they are are um

32:35that your naturalism influences or has

32:38solidified your atheism by not even

32:41leaving

32:41open the possibility that we have

32:44legitimate

32:45libertarian free will or that miracles

32:48uh could be the product or or could

32:51could actually

32:52be have happened in the past um

32:55it seems to me that you're now i

32:58apologize for saying this but it seems

33:00to me

33:02that your view is naive when it comes to

33:04lived life

33:06and common sense let me just let me just

33:09read to you something that

33:10wittgenstein said this this is

33:13wittgenstein

33:14in his philosophical investigations

33:17uh regarding a new language replacing

33:19folk language

33:21he says and this is like uh this is a

33:23quote when i talk about language

33:25word sentences etc i must speak the

33:28language of every day

33:30is this language something too coarse

33:32and material for what we want to say

33:35then how is another one to be

33:37constructed

33:38and how strange that we should be able

33:40to do anything at all with the one we

33:42have

33:42in giving explain explanations i already

33:46have to use

33:47language full-blown not some sort of

33:50prepa

33:51and preparatory one um it seems to me

33:55that the language that we use in

33:56everyday life

33:58um and this is how i'm bringing it

34:01around to common sense

34:03um that we live our lives

34:06as as though

34:09these things like natural law exist that

34:11we have libertarian free will

34:14that there are properly basic beliefs in

34:16in

34:17in fact we live our lives as god does

34:20exist

34:21as if god does exist not as if

34:25naturalism were true so

34:28i mean this there's quite a few things

34:30to disagree with there

34:32some people live their lives as if the

34:34christian god exists

34:35the majority of people don't uh

34:38across the across the planet um

34:42there's about two out of seven no sorry

34:462.9 out of 7 billion people

34:49are christians so that puts the majority

34:51against you

34:53so that's the that would be the first

34:55thing the second thing is

34:57i my view is not deterministic

35:02i think that the that very likely

35:05the if you think about um

35:10realities if you think about

35:13if you think about reality as a

35:14succession of causal states

35:17and you think about the connection the

35:19con the the

35:20the connection between the succeeding

35:22states is indeterministic rather than

35:24deterministic

35:25uh my reasons for thinking that have to

35:28do

35:29with um quantum mechanics and the ways

35:32in which

35:34many people have thought it's plausible

35:36to suppose that

35:37um quantum mechanical evolution is

35:40indeterministic

35:41there is another way you could go right

35:43so as i as i mentioned

35:45before when it comes to consciousness

35:47you don't have to be

35:49an identity theory in order to be a

35:50naturalist

35:52you can be um somebody who believes in

35:56libertarian freedom

35:58if you want and still be a naturalist it

36:00just gives you another primitive

36:02in the theory i'm

36:05a compatibilist so i have a different

36:08conception of freedom

36:09i don't go for something like the

36:11principle of alternative possibilities

36:14when i'm explaining what freedom is

36:15rather what i want to say about freedom

36:18is that you act freely

36:19just so long as you act on your normally

36:21acquired beliefs desires intentions and

36:24so forth

36:25in the absence of certain kinds of

36:27defeating factors so

36:28no one's holding a gun to your head

36:30you're not locked up you're not

36:31inebriated

36:32and so on that's all there is to freedom

36:35and i'll tie this back to the point that

36:37you're making about wittenstein

36:38there's nothing in ordinary language in

36:41our ordinary talk about

36:43freedom that fixes on the principle of

36:46alternative

36:47possibilities in the libertarian

36:49conception it's neutral

36:51between the pec compatibility

37:00you don't think that our natural biology

37:04um um are our natural signs

37:08for language look we couldn't this is

37:11what thomas reed said

37:13says we couldn't even graft an

37:15artificial language

37:17unless we had unless we first had

37:20a natural language and and i'm using

37:24evolution as

37:25my chief argument here evolution

37:28has given us such a connection

37:32with our external environment that

37:35we uh we directly perceive things in the

37:39external world

37:41it's by virtue of the nature or how

37:44thomas reed says the mint of nature

37:48that we are so designed uh by god

37:52it's it's a it's an evolutionary

37:54argument

37:55really um for this

37:58as regarding free will um daniel dennett

38:03makes the claim um a free will that we

38:06have we hold to something called the

38:07intentional

38:08stance that is we we act

38:12as if we have free will now you keep

38:14bringing up

38:15compatibilism and and

38:19and uh and these other things

38:22but it seems to me that you're

38:23explaining away consciousness

38:25history and these other topics just

38:29because

38:30of your pa compatible compatibilism

38:33i have a question for you dr oppy

38:37are you are you a logical positivist

38:43um i don't think that they've been

38:47logical positivists probably since the

38:491950s

38:50with maybe one or two honorable

38:52exceptions so

38:54there's been one or two philosophers

38:56about whom it's been said

38:57oh they're the last of the logical

38:59positivists

39:00uh but if you think of what's

39:04um characteristic of logical positivism

39:08it's going to be a commitment to

39:11a particular theory of meaning that's

39:13just not in the holy spirit

39:16well you you don't think you don't think

39:18it has influenced

39:20um your naturalism to today

39:23no well i mean you discard

39:27history and consciousness as being signs

39:29to god

39:30there's there's no connection between

39:33um or no necessary connection between

39:37um being a naturalist

39:41and having a commitment to something

39:42like a principle of verification

39:45right so so do you and if you look

39:48if you look at um say the history

39:52since the history of philosophy since

39:54the since

39:56i don't know quine at least

39:59quinn's no positivist but he's a

40:01naturalist

40:02right that and this was clear in the

40:05early 1950s

40:07well it's it's funny that you bring up

40:09uh w v

40:10quine um have you read his 1916

40:1469 article uh a piston epistemology

40:18naturalized

40:21well he basically tries to

40:25psych uh psychologize philosophy

40:29um um and tries to explain away

40:33foundational things uh foundational

40:36beliefs

40:37kind of like what i brought up is in

40:38properly basic beliefs

40:40trusting the uh uh our uh

40:43unnatural law and and so forth he tries

40:45to explain

40:46all that away because he he thought the

40:50foundationalism

40:52which was from descartes uh that

40:55there was a soul or a mind and body

40:58distinction

41:00that there wasn't a foundation anymore

41:03foundationalism had crumbled so i

41:06what i'm thinking is do you think all

41:08this all this

41:09naturalism from from quine the lack of

41:12foundation

41:13the the the quest for certainty

41:16do you think that could influence why

41:18you're trying to explain away

41:20in my opinion i guess again why you're

41:23trying to explain away consciousness and

41:25and history or are miracles in in the

41:28historical order

41:29so um we'll get go back

41:33a step because you asked me about

41:34logical positivism

41:36but there's no connection between

41:39quine's holism and logical positivism

41:43i think there is there are just there

41:46are just

41:46two distinct issues here

41:50so the one of the things that

41:53um say yeah when he developed his

41:57logical positivism one of the things

41:58that air was

41:59very keen on was a very sharp

42:02distinction between

42:04the analytic and the synthetic and in a

42:07very famous paper quine argued that

42:10he just can't draw the distinction

42:13between yeah

42:14his 1951 paper right and and so

42:17this is so so this is why he's not a

42:20logical positivist

42:21right i didn't say that

42:25i was committing myself to quine's

42:27philosophy i was just making the point

42:29that logical positivism has been um

42:33in naturalistic circles broadly has been

42:36dead

42:36since the midfield okay yeah

42:39now i i totally agree with you that it

42:42has been dead and i think that has a lot

42:44to do with the resurgence of

42:46christian philosophy christian

42:47apologetics not not in naturalistic

42:50circles it doesn't

42:52well you can say that but you've had a

42:55resurgence of

42:56christian philosophy starting in the 50s

43:00and 60s and

43:0170s and and on um i have quotes here

43:04from even quinton smith the the famous

43:07atheistic philosopher who who says

43:09things like that

43:10um i think so

43:13so yeah there's quite a lot to say about

43:17that too

43:18um but it it's true that

43:21in the in the united states

43:24in the academy there's been

43:27a kind of solidification

43:31in the area of philosophy of religion

43:34around a certain kind of christian

43:36philosophy

43:39that much is certainly true and i i

43:42it doesn't really have much of a kind of

43:45bearing on the the debate

43:48between naturalists and theists

43:52but it but it's fine i mean i know the

43:54article from quentin smith that you're

43:56referring to

43:58yeah let me let me shall maybe save you

44:00from reading it out

44:01okay i won't read the quote then um but

44:04let me try to draw the

44:05um the connections between logical

44:09positivism

44:10and the the naturalism that's going on

44:13today

44:14um are you familiar with

44:17um carl hempel

44:21carl himple and coral park popper right

44:26yeah okay now they they devised

44:30devised something called the covering

44:32law

44:34they reduced everything all well let me

44:37just read it himple's uh

44:39numerological deductive model uh

44:41pneumonological i'm speaking of law

44:44numerological deductive model

44:48posits that an explanation is is

44:50scientific

44:51if it makes reference to a universe

44:54universal law known to be true and the

44:57event being

44:58explained is an instance of the

45:02universal law

45:03the explanation that is simply is simply

45:06a deduction from the universal law

45:09here's my point this is why i think

45:12logical positivism has had such a

45:15dramatic

45:15impact on naturalism as we see it

45:19as we see it today it tries to explain

45:24all things by my natural processes

45:29all all uh areas of human

45:33um human action of human history

45:36of everything you can think of

45:39consciousness

45:40um neuroscience

45:43uh funk the functionalism of uh bf

45:46skinner and watson

45:48it tries to explain all of that as

45:51brain chemicals or or the the an

45:54explanation that

45:55uh is purely natural it tries to reduce

45:59by way of an algorithm

46:02to explain it in in the language that we

46:05use

46:05what i'm trying to get at is the

46:07commonsensical language we use

46:10implies that there's more to reality

46:14than naturalism

46:18so i think that we are running together

46:22still running together two different

46:24things uh a kind of

46:26scientism the kind that you might find

46:30espoused for example by

46:34some of the new atheists and

46:40naturalism which doesn't have to have

46:43any truck

46:44with scientists so i haven't talked much

46:47about

46:48uh the background

46:51to the naturalism that

46:55i embrace or indeed about what its

46:58content is apart from what it says about

47:00causal matters

47:01so uh it might help to say this

47:05that i and so here i'm going to

47:11um say some things that

47:14plenty of other people have said plenty

47:16of other people who count themselves as

47:17naturalists have said in the last 40

47:19years

47:20right that um the various science

47:23sciences to a large extent are

47:25autonomous from one another the social

47:27sciences

47:28are largely autonomous from um the

47:32physical sciences and

47:36all of the sciences um

47:39to some extent rely on

47:43what you might think of as common sense

47:45foundations

47:46that reed would have approved of so you

47:49mentioned

47:50read to common sense epistemology

47:53to a very large extent i'm quite happy

47:56to go along with reid

47:58so here are some things that

48:01i think everybody takes for granted

48:06all the time that mostly

48:10our perception is reliable of course

48:13there are defeating conditions we know a

48:16lot about what those defeating

48:17conditions are

48:19it's part of part of what happened when

48:21so on one basis

48:23on my basis do you make that treatment

48:25hang on part of what happens when you're

48:27raised as a child is you learn about

48:29the limits about the cases where your

48:31perceptions are reliable in the cases

48:33where they're not

48:34and a lot of that has to do with

48:35coordinating your judgments with other

48:37people

48:37but there's a bunch of sense modalities

48:40um

48:41so since uh sorry i'm gonna

48:44sight smell taste hearing touch

48:49proprioception and so on they give you

48:52information about the world in your

48:54orientation

48:55in it okay so that's one thing another

48:58thing that everybody relies on is memory

49:00and again um

49:03part of what we learn when we're growing

49:05up partly by coordinating with other

49:07people

49:08partly from just

49:12sort of self-reflections is you learn

49:14about the limitations of memory the

49:15kinds of things that you're reliable at

49:17remembering things that that you're not

49:21so another thing that you rely on

49:24another thing that you're

49:24like yeah so i'm agreeing with you about

49:27that another thing that you rely on is

49:29reason

49:30so we all have a bunch of reasoning

49:32capacities

49:34we know perhaps less well

49:37than we do in the case of perception and

49:40memory

49:42but it's revealed in lots and lots of

49:44psychological experiments about the

49:46limitations of our reasoning capacities

49:48the various ways in which we go wrong

49:50but again where i we learn as we're

49:52going

49:54most importantly haven't mentioned it

49:55yet there's testimony

49:57so most of what you know you know on the

49:59basis of testimony

50:01and a very important part of your

50:04upbringing

50:05is learning how to distinguish between

50:08people who are reliable informants and

50:10people who are not

50:11and that's right and if you're unlucky

50:15you get hooked into epistemic

50:17communities

50:18that are really unreliable and not well

50:20connected

50:21to the truth but if you're lucky you

50:24learn

50:25to be good at identifying who are

50:29the appropriate authorities in those

50:31areas where there are authorities

50:33right so you learn who's the reliable

50:36sources about

50:37physics and chemistry and economics

50:40and history and so on but another thing

50:43that happens

50:44when you're growing up if you have a

50:46decent upbringing

50:47is you learn that there are some areas

50:49where there are no experts

50:51where there's there's no there are no

50:54oracular figures that you can do do you

50:56think theology is one of those

50:58i think that religion is one of those

51:01exactly

51:02do you think your naturalism could could

51:04could bend you

51:05or could influence you saying that are

51:08making that

51:09uh type of determination sure but

51:14but but remember we're comparing two

51:16positions here a naturals position

51:18and a theist position well that's your

51:20human

51:22does your theist position influence you

51:24in holding the alternative point of view

51:26what were your interests

51:28it's making a determination about which

51:30is the better view and the way to do

51:32that is to

51:33put the commitments out there and then

51:34try and weigh them there's no point

51:36no point in saying do you think you

51:38believe that

51:40because of some other part of your view

51:41of course if my view is any good

51:43it all hangs together well look at it

51:46look at it this way graham

51:48if you see um a purported miracle uh uh

51:52that you're reading in history books the

51:55theist

51:56is on better explanatory grounds because

51:59he has

52:00two options at his disposal he could say

52:03it's probably

52:05due to natural occurrence because

52:07there's not a religiou historical

52:09context

52:10to the purported miracle it didn't

52:12happen repeatedly

52:14it didn't happen at the will of a

52:16prophet or

52:17the son of god saying let there be

52:20or or something like that so he has

52:24a natural explanation at his disposal

52:27and um um

52:30one a supernaturalistic explanation or a

52:33theistic

52:33explanation something that the

52:35naturalist

52:36by his own you know limitations

52:40of of of what is possible

52:44uh can be known is is true so it seems

52:48to me

52:48that that the simpler explanation is the

52:51one that gives you

52:53two legitimate options and common sense

52:56will push you to what which one is the

52:59correct option

53:01and by the way i want to ask you a

53:02question uh but

53:04why you just said about your

53:07memory faculties and so forth but go

53:09ahead

53:10so if you're undecided

53:14about an explanation

53:18right then you're not committed either

53:20way

53:22so um

53:26the kind of more interesting i mean what

53:28what seems to me to be the important

53:30question is

53:31is there ever a reason to suppose that

53:34there's a miraculous event is there

53:36is it ever going to be the case that

53:38that simplest

53:39explanation is going to be

53:43that god was directly responsible for

53:45this bearing in mind

53:46the various things that you need in

53:48order to make that explanation the

53:50existence of god and

53:51god's divine intervention well what if

53:54you saw america is there is there a

53:56single case

53:57is there a single well-attested case in

54:00the historical record

54:02of a miracle and let's cast the

54:05net widely so i'm now not just thinking

54:08about christianity but i'm thinking

54:10about

54:10islam and buddhism and all the other

54:12religions that claim themselves that's

54:14the same way that christianity does

54:17right is there a single well-attested

54:19case out there

54:20on that i think i'm i'm

54:24and i've i've looked into this a bit

54:27uh but i'm also relying on other people

54:30who've looked into it as well

54:32i think the answers i i think the answer

54:34is no

54:35right but this is just a disagreement

54:37between us but if i'm right given that

54:39that's

54:39that's the way that i assess it that

54:42that

54:43fits well with the naturalistic judgment

54:46you don't think your prior commitment

54:48it's not a problem it's not a question

54:50about a

54:51prior commitment that you decide some

54:53things first

54:56to hit other things the the the

55:00the commitments all fit together right

55:03so the it's not which

55:07it's not it's not like so i mean earlier

55:09when we were talking

55:10about logical positivism the idea seemed

55:13to be okay so you make your commitment

55:14to positivism

55:16and then that just determines all the

55:17judgments that you make

55:19afterwards whereas i'm thinking that the

55:21decision

55:22between theism and naturalism

55:25if we're going to going to make what

55:28is an aposteriori one you line up all

55:31the evidence you line up the theories

55:33and then you look at the two and you say

55:35which one's better but here's the

55:37problem graham

55:38naturalism doesn't leave open that

55:40possibility there is no

55:42amount of evidence that that would

55:45uh convince uh well a good a good number

55:48of

55:49of uh naturalists or slash atheists not

55:52not all

55:52i'm not saying that but their their

55:54their prior commitments

55:56would uh would make them explain away

56:00that they'll explain uh something in the

56:02clouds uh

56:04uh or something in our dna as the the

56:06result of

56:07random mutation or something even if it

56:10says hi

56:10i'm god in the stars not some

56:13naturalists

56:14because of their prior commitments will

56:16explain that way

56:18due to a hallucination or or uh or

56:21something of that sort

56:24so strangely enough there's nothing like

56:26that in the historical record

56:28right i mean the because this is an a

56:30posteriori judgment

56:32right you go and look at what's there in

56:34the record

56:35and then you make your judgment about it

56:37um well let's

56:38look at one on the right on the question

56:41about the

56:43um about the

56:46again this so you kind of make up your

56:49mind and then

56:50then you've got this this mold that you

56:53force everything

56:54into the the you only believe that

56:57because you're

56:58a naturalist charge can be

57:01put back to you as you only believe that

57:03because you're a theist or you're only

57:04good

57:05because you're a christian right there's

57:07no

57:08there's no mileage to be got out

57:13remember what we discussed earlier and

57:16this was my first quote by thomas reed

57:18we discussed something called humility

57:20right and i even brought up

57:22that there's whole disciplines or

57:24subject matters

57:25that we don't know that we trust the uh

57:29the scholars or or experts in different

57:32fields

57:33but but consider this consider this gram

57:36and this is why i think naturalism and

57:38atheism is very presumptuous

57:41we hear sounds in the range of

57:43frequencies extending from about 20 to

57:45about 20 000 hertz

57:47we see light uh his wavelengths are

57:50longer than

57:51380 mil million million microns

57:55and shorter than 760 million microns

57:59our passive understanding um at

58:01perception

58:02um we have access only to a portion

58:06only to a portion gram of physical

58:08reality and are active

58:10we we see things by patterns

58:14we don't see things just as they are

58:17emmanuel kant he says um for there to be

58:21experience as such

58:23mere sensations must be given an

58:26organizational structure

58:28we see a lot of things by our

58:31background beliefs our basic beliefs in

58:34the possibilities of things in the

58:36imagination of things

58:38in um in might i dare say it in common

58:42sense

58:43so i i think theism is the much more

58:45humbler position

58:47and and by the way i think shakespeare

58:49knew this also when

58:51when his hamlet which i quoted before

58:53you know there are more things than

58:54having an earth horatio than are dreamt

58:56of in your philosophy

58:58now i apologize for quoting it a second

59:00time

59:02so on the question about

59:06um our limited access to the sonic

59:10spectrum

59:11and the um the electromagnetic spectrum

59:16of course that's true but we only know

59:19about those limitations because we've

59:21built machines that enable us to measure

59:24the rest of the spectrum and we trust us

59:26and

59:27those anxieties and those machines give

59:30us access so when you said we don't have

59:32access

59:33in that particular case that that

59:35example doesn't quite work because we do

59:38it's just that we have a kind of we have

59:40a kind of indirect

59:41access and uh

59:50but that's not a problem i i i

59:54mentioned before i talked about the

59:56various

59:57um sources of

1:00:00um information that we have about the

1:00:03world and the way in which we rely upon

1:00:05them

1:00:06everybody everybody relies on perception

1:00:10i understand i understand insightful i

1:00:14understand how you're being humble there

1:00:16with

1:00:16trusting other experts on other subjects

1:00:19and

1:00:19trusting uh our memory and sensory

1:00:22perceptions

1:00:23but why when it comes to history and

1:00:26much

1:00:26less social interaction and brian brain

1:00:30um mind distinction but when it comes to

1:00:32history

1:00:34you're not humble you you discount all

1:00:37the miracles

1:00:38a priori uh i don't discount them

1:00:42a priori i discount them are posteriori

1:00:45because they're not sufficiently well

1:00:49you haven't looked in all the evidence

1:00:51for them so

1:00:53me personally i'm not a historian i've

1:00:56read a certain amount of history

1:00:58and i've read a certain amount about the

1:01:03about the way that professional

1:01:05historians the kind of people who are my

1:01:07colleagues

1:01:09at work assess um

1:01:12ancient texts and so on

1:01:16and the

1:01:19judgments that you get about

1:01:22miracles for example uh

1:01:25line up with uh the judgments of people

1:01:30who are committed to particular

1:01:32religious positions and then

1:01:34everybody else that's incorrect

1:01:37no it's not incorrect well of course of

1:01:39course it's not incorrect

1:01:41because of course the people who are

1:01:43naturalists for example

1:01:45don't think that there are miracles

1:01:48well they won't think that there's ever

1:01:50a miracle there's no

1:01:52amount of evidence

1:01:56but that doesn't mean that they can't

1:01:57change their minds so you're running

1:01:58together two different things here

1:02:00there's the after you've spent 30 years

1:02:03studying stuff

1:02:04and you make a judgment about it right

1:02:07that doesn't show that you're pig-headed

1:02:10or that you're ignoring stuff it just

1:02:11shows that you've given consideration to

1:02:13the evidence

1:02:14how do you how do you explain this

1:02:18um you're familiar with craig keemer

1:02:20right

1:02:22not well craig keener is a professional

1:02:26new testament historian he was a secular

1:02:29historian but before he became a

1:02:31um um a christian historian but he

1:02:35uh he has documented he has this

1:02:38two-volume book

1:02:39it's called miracles and i hope

1:02:41everybody gets a copy

1:02:43it looks into all kinds of miracles

1:02:46from different religions but all across

1:02:49the world

1:02:50miracles are still happening today and

1:02:54it's it's two volumes it's over fifteen

1:02:56hundred pages

1:02:57this is probably you know the one

1:03:00one of the two or three top new

1:03:02testament scholars

1:03:04alive today he is a

1:03:07thoughtful researcher who believes in

1:03:11miracles

1:03:11and when there's surveys done and

1:03:15you know we we can say all we want about

1:03:17surveys of course

1:03:18but when their survey is done people

1:03:21attached

1:03:22to miracles having happened

1:03:25so or or improbable things added on to

1:03:29improbable things that

1:03:31normally don't happen naturalistically

1:03:34it just seems to me that your natural

1:03:36naturalism

1:03:38is might i dare say it

1:03:42is your naturalism in you know is it

1:03:45influenced by by people like david hume

1:03:49and

1:03:50and so forth i think you're familiar as

1:03:53i am with

1:03:55um john ehrman um refuting

1:03:59david hume refuting a lot of his

1:04:02arguments

1:04:03so there's a miracle

1:04:06let's just pick up on that point for a

1:04:08minute so in in

1:04:09his famous chapter on miracles in the

1:04:13inquiries

1:04:14hume gives two arguments an a priori

1:04:17argument and a posteriori

1:04:19argument and in his book hume's abject

1:04:23failure

1:04:24irman criticizes the a priori argument

1:04:26and quite rightly says that it doesn't

1:04:28work and that

1:04:29is the opinion of many though not quite

1:04:32all

1:04:33of the people um who naturalists

1:04:36who work in philosophy of religion that

1:04:39that particular agreement doesn't work

1:04:41but

1:04:42the other side the posteriori

1:04:45argument that hume gives may not be

1:04:48convincing as an argument that does

1:04:50represent

1:04:53a kind of judgment that many people

1:04:55who've looked at the historical record

1:04:57have come to so you go back and you look

1:05:00at the

1:05:01um say in the in the period

1:05:04from i don't know say 700 bc

1:05:08to 300 a day period of about a thousand

1:05:13years and you look at um pagan

1:05:17claims about that um

1:05:21about say

1:05:24the useful information that you got by

1:05:28consulting the oracles for example

1:05:32right now what are you going to say

1:05:35about all of that

1:05:36right miracles or no

1:05:41well you're very very well tested in the

1:05:43historical record

1:05:45are they really interesting yeah you

1:05:47know anymore

1:05:55um archaeology about questions that were

1:05:58asked of the oracles and so on

1:06:00and could i could i say like that that's

1:06:02indeterminate

1:06:03if those miracles actually happened or

1:06:05not who am i to

1:06:06make a um a philosophical pronouncement

1:06:10and say that no those miracles could not

1:06:13have happened

1:06:14i mean i'm not god what

1:06:18what i do say is i look at a

1:06:21very good tested miracle in the

1:06:23resurrection of jesus

1:06:25perhaps god has performed other miracles

1:06:30who am i to say otherwise but all i do

1:06:33know

1:06:33is that this one miracle the

1:06:35resurrection of jesus

1:06:37has been argued for attested been

1:06:41researched whole books

1:06:44by empty right the resurrection of the

1:06:46son of god right

1:06:48all apologists right okay

1:06:53you're for the rest of the resurrection

1:06:55yes

1:06:56do you do you think it's possible that

1:06:58you're explaining away

1:07:00the evidence and the reasons they give

1:07:03for the resurrection of jesus do you

1:07:06think that

1:07:07that inclination to explain

1:07:10away the resurrection has anything to do

1:07:13with a

1:07:14prior commitment to naturalism

1:07:17no right i mean they

1:07:20because naturalism is not something that

1:07:23you

1:07:23have to push christianity aside to

1:07:25arrive at

1:07:26right there's a whole world of religions

1:07:29out there

1:07:29thousands of them historically

1:07:34naturalism stands on its own two feet

1:07:36and

1:07:37we've got a nice simple metaphysical

1:07:40picture

1:07:41of the world and then if you want to add

1:07:44all this elaborate

1:07:45um infrastructure of gods and angels and

1:07:48demons and all

1:07:49and interventions in history and all the

1:07:51rest of it onto it

1:07:52you've got to make then we will assess

1:07:55that

1:07:56when we compare and compare their

1:07:58relative merits

1:08:00theism is what theism is providing

1:08:03is a productive cause a productive cause

1:08:07for human

1:08:08interactions that we have or at least

1:08:11act as if we have free will it

1:08:14provides a a productive cause

1:08:18to get things to explain things in

1:08:21history a productive cause for the

1:08:23origin of the universe

1:08:25um a productive cause for the design of

1:08:28the universe

1:08:29a productive cause what i'm saying is

1:08:31something that could bring about the

1:08:33effect an efficient cause

1:08:34at least an efficient cause um

1:08:38um naturalism does not do that

1:08:44it just it just seems to me at the end

1:08:46of the day

1:08:47you're saying there are no productive

1:08:49causes that naturalists deny for example

1:08:52when i strike the billiard ball and it

1:08:53rolls down the table

1:08:55scat is the cube scatters the balls

1:08:57you're denying that naturalists can say

1:08:59that

1:09:00no so i guess so let me let me let me

1:09:04finish

1:09:08what graham what you're getting that is

1:09:09from from david hume

1:09:11and he his view was constant conjunction

1:09:13right

1:09:14what david king said and it's it's the

1:09:17view of barry fought very few

1:09:19contemporary nationals

1:09:21okay well elaine and naturalists say

1:09:23there are no causes or anything

1:09:25this is what david hume says anything

1:09:28could be the cause

1:09:29of anything this is why in my opinion

1:09:42i don't believe he was skeptical of

1:09:44causes because in his

1:09:46he says um let me let me read

1:09:49to you uh on hume on causation guys

1:09:52okay we have a few minutes left and then

1:09:54we're going to take questions because

1:09:56we're getting near that a lot of time

1:09:57all right

1:09:59yeah okay about five more minutes of

1:10:02discussion and then we'll do a

1:10:03last few minutes of questions all right

1:10:06okay

1:10:08uh let me try to find it

1:10:12i should have it here yeah it's on right

1:10:15here let let me read this is what hume

1:10:17says

1:10:18uh on causation or this is what reed

1:10:21says

1:10:21about human causation excuse me this is

1:10:24what reed says about hume

1:10:27we see then that mr hume's philosophy is

1:10:30very much like a hobby horse

1:10:33which a man when he is ill can keep at

1:10:36home with him and ride to his

1:10:37contentment

1:10:38but just in case he should bring it to

1:10:40the marketplace

1:10:42his friends would quickly empower a jury

1:10:44and confiscate his estate

1:10:46and have the solicitude never uh

1:10:49to leave him alone again hume

1:10:52was not a skeptic of miracles in his

1:10:56in in his study he he does speculation

1:11:00like any philosopher might do

1:11:03but in the ordinary world he uses

1:11:06common sense common sense is believing

1:11:09in causation

1:11:10believing in induction you know thomas

1:11:13reed also gives

1:11:15an argument for um for causation

1:11:18he says nothing has been more certain

1:11:21than day and night

1:11:22but no one thinks that day is the cause

1:11:25of night and night is the cause of day

1:11:28it's it's because common sense that we

1:11:31attribute causes in this common sense is

1:11:34because of our own

1:11:35ability of agent causation this is what

1:11:38g

1:11:39g e moore said in his um

1:11:42proof of the external world this is what

1:11:45g.e moore says

1:11:46he gave an argument for um proof of the

1:11:50of the external world he this is what g

1:11:52moore says i

1:11:53raise my left hand and then i raise my

1:11:56left hand

1:11:57and then he says there that's proof of

1:11:59the external world

1:12:01ge more is using the principles of

1:12:03common sense

1:12:05for an argument so

1:12:08i'm not sure where all this is going

1:12:10right um

1:12:12i'm not hume i'm not a human human was

1:12:15wrong about induction and he was wrong

1:12:16about causation

1:12:18um i'm not sure

1:12:31so depends what i mean it's a bit tricky

1:12:34to know what direct means here but

1:12:36that means you can perceive the external

1:12:38world as it is

1:12:40so there so

1:12:44sure i'm a kind of common sense realist

1:12:47so

1:12:47i think that for example when you hear

1:12:51birds squawking in the backyard you run

1:12:53out and you look up in the tree and you

1:12:54see the bird

1:12:55you actually see the bird right that's

1:12:57just common sense

1:12:59so i do not believe we're about you do

1:13:01not believe graham

1:13:02that we're a bundle of perceptions that

1:13:05are just like

1:13:06like like what hume says in a parade

1:13:09right sure but i already said i'm not

1:13:11here i'm not committed

1:13:13well thank you i think i don't think

1:13:16you're acting

1:13:18i don't think you're acting i think i

1:13:20don't think you're acting like a

1:13:21naturalist

1:13:24well we'll go back to what i meant by

1:13:26naturalist it's my label i'll use it how

1:13:29i like

1:13:30right there are none but natural

1:13:33causes with none but natural properties

1:13:36right that's

1:13:37that's the the truth about causation

1:13:41causal reality is natural reality that's

1:13:45i think do you think there's no

1:13:49so there's so there's no supernatural

1:13:51causation follows immediately

1:13:53right well hold on

1:13:57okay okay to believe in causation to

1:13:59believe in our

1:14:00the reliability of our perceptual and

1:14:03sensory

1:14:04abilities uh to perceive the external

1:14:06world

1:14:07that's trust that's a type of faith that

1:14:10you have

1:14:13um so this sounds like a bit of a word

1:14:16game

1:14:17right you learn i mean we talked a

1:14:19little bit about that kind of

1:14:21what what goes on as you learn

1:14:25which perceptions you can rely on which

1:14:27one's not

1:14:28which um people who give you testimony

1:14:31you can rely on and which one's not

1:14:33now that what you can rely on that's

1:14:35called the prince

1:14:37might be faith in a certain kind of

1:14:40sense but

1:14:41it's not um anything like

1:14:44um religious faith right no

1:14:47no it it it's it's similar it's

1:14:50analogous to religion

1:14:51not not even remotely i've seen now

1:14:55now i think you're playing word games

1:14:58graham

1:14:58because it just as we have faith or

1:15:01trust in

1:15:02our the reliability of our senses i mean

1:15:06when we say i had i don't have to

1:15:09sort of engage in elaborate rituals to

1:15:11try to

1:15:12support the ways that i perceive the

1:15:16world or the ways that i interpret what

1:15:18other people tell to me

1:15:19right there's a complete difference

1:15:21between religious faith

1:15:29okay see now you're conflating religion

1:15:32with rituals

1:15:33okay now now christianity isn't

1:15:36about

1:15:43okay both of you um sorry have one more

1:15:45point

1:15:46and then we're gonna do questions right

1:15:48it would be

1:15:49conflation if i was trying to argue that

1:15:51the two are identical but

1:15:53to deny that ritual is very important in

1:15:56religion

1:15:57is to ignore almost the entire history

1:15:59of religion

1:16:00going back to the stone age right okay

1:16:04most religion is about praxis there are

1:16:06some religions

1:16:08in which doxa become important in

1:16:10particular

1:16:11they become particularly important for

1:16:13christianity for certain kinds of

1:16:15historical reasons that have to do

1:16:17with the kind of um specific ways in

1:16:21which

1:16:21between the first and the third century

1:16:24the empire

1:16:25in fact the kind of world was collapsing

1:16:28uh

1:16:28but let's not let's not go into that

1:16:31okay no for let let me just say josh

1:16:34this will be your last point and then

1:16:36we're gonna do questions okay

1:16:37for the emergence of christianity

1:16:39christianity was already growing by

1:16:41leaps and bounds by the time

1:16:43constantine accepted it and or made it

1:16:46legal

1:16:46in 311 at the edict of milan

1:16:51and there was already approximately four

1:16:55million

1:16:55christians already so constantine was

1:16:58simply reading the tea leaves

1:16:59but if you look at the origins of

1:17:01christianity why don't you read a book

1:17:04by by a sociologist named rodney stark

1:17:08who documents how how christianity grew

1:17:12and by the way when you say religion in

1:17:15general

1:17:15is just about rights and and um

1:17:19and things like that well you said it

1:17:21was about rights and

1:17:23they'd be very important and you

1:17:26shouldn't ignore them it's not the most

1:17:27important

1:17:28rodney storm also again

1:17:33he ronnie stark also let me finish okay

1:17:38he also argues against the rights

1:17:41and um that that was um

1:17:45uh argued by the the sociologists

1:17:48emailed durkheim

1:17:49and he says the belief in gods

1:17:54or a higher powers or high gods was

1:17:58instrumental and was in the very

1:18:00earliest

1:18:01forms of religion so when you go back to

1:18:04australia and the aborigines

1:18:08or if you go to africa and the the the

1:18:11religions there you can see high gods

1:18:14so the the history of religion is not

1:18:17about

1:18:18rights and so forth it's also about a

1:18:22more developed and sophisticated

1:18:24understanding of god so

1:18:28i think you're wrong about not

1:18:29interested in australian religion for a

1:18:31start

1:18:32i mean there are rainbow serpents in

1:18:34many of the cultures but the idea that

1:18:37that's a high god

1:18:38uh it seems to me to be drawing a very

1:18:40long bow

1:18:41and so i mean it's interesting because i

1:18:44mean you were giving

1:18:45suggestions about books for people to

1:18:47read so

1:18:49um i've recently been reading a pair of

1:18:53books

1:18:54um on religions in the ancient world

1:18:57uh by historians and

1:19:02that was published two years ago right

1:19:04so this is like a

1:19:05a handbook and the view there

1:19:09amongst the historians seems to be

1:19:13that uh the idea that there's a high god

1:19:17really doesn't appear

1:19:19until about 700. bc

1:19:24in judaism when judaism makes the

1:19:26transition

1:19:28that's that's incorrect

1:19:31that's incorrect it's not i'm reporting

1:19:34what's in the book by

1:19:36professionally sorry it's like old

1:19:42right the cambridge history of religions

1:19:46in the ancient

1:19:47world right published 2018.

1:19:51it's fairly recent it's not by

1:19:55some fly by night press now it's true it

1:19:58might be contentious though

1:20:00the people writing this book are very

1:20:02cautious about the claims

1:20:04that they make they insist on

1:20:08not reading more into the records that

1:20:10we've got

1:20:12then the records themselves will sustain

1:20:15but well i want to say i appreciate you

1:20:18very much

1:20:19telling me about that book i want to

1:20:21tell you about one book

1:20:22it's called one true god and it traces

1:20:25the origin

1:20:25and evolution of the view of gods and i

1:20:28want you also to look up

1:20:30two authors andrew lang that these

1:20:33authors are long past

1:20:35andrew lang and uh the celebrated

1:20:38wilhelm

1:20:38schmidt wilhelm schmidt

1:20:42a roman catholic his his views were were

1:20:45often

1:20:46um you know not or sometimes not

1:20:49accepted but he made the most

1:20:51compelling case that religion is

1:20:54um a more sophisticated

1:20:58understanding of of of the gods as time

1:21:01passed

1:21:02so monotheism was earlier than

1:21:05polytheism polytheism what had gods of

1:21:09limited scope

1:21:10you know like a rain god or something a

1:21:12rain god or a storm god

1:21:14but monotheism had a all-powerful god

1:21:18and that that that's that's um basically

1:21:25you were arguing that monotheism came

1:21:27first then it was

1:21:28a month and then yes why

1:21:32where did the other views come from

1:21:34right well i mean

1:21:36have you ever heard them have well

1:21:40that there's different scholars you have

1:21:42emailed durkheim

1:21:44you have taylor you have different

1:21:46scholars from history

1:21:47and then you have sociologists like

1:21:51um like um like andrew lang and wilhelm

1:21:55schmidt

1:21:56or rodney stark or another number

1:21:59so you can you can find some people who

1:22:02hold

1:22:02contrary views these aren't just these

1:22:05aren't just

1:22:06illegitimate scholars these are famous

1:22:09well-researched have numerous books to

1:22:12their

1:22:13um um circum

1:22:16sure and and so are the people on the

1:22:18other side

1:22:20right the people that contributed

1:22:24you're talking about the view of email

1:22:27durkheim

1:22:28okay he he his view was that rights

1:22:31sacred rights is what was the primary

1:22:33interest of religion

1:22:35and then you have the view which is not

1:22:38today

1:22:39i'm not i'm not talking about durkheim

1:22:41i'm talking about people writing

1:22:43in the cambridge history of religions in

1:22:45the ancient world

1:22:46in 2018 right they're not they're not

1:22:49getting their views from durkheim

1:22:51they're getting them from the

1:22:52archaeological record

1:22:54durkheim was the most influential

1:22:56sociologist and influenced

1:22:58countless sociologists and really had an

1:23:01impact on research

1:23:02but with this new view that there is a

1:23:05progressive

1:23:06uh progressive revelation of more

1:23:09sophistication

1:23:10sophisticated understanding of the gods

1:23:13with the passage of time

1:23:15that is very popular today i need you if

1:23:19i

1:23:20all i want to say is look up these

1:23:22authors andrew lang

1:23:24wilhelm schmidt rodney stark i mean

1:23:27if you're really humble in this

1:23:30i mean i i will try to look up yours but

1:23:34i think we we owe it to both sides to

1:23:36look up each other's

1:23:37book recommendations okay okay so we

1:23:41have a question

1:23:42we have we're going to go to questions i

1:23:43know there's always more that can be

1:23:45said but

1:23:46i want to stick to the time we agreed on

1:23:48so okay question for dr opp i've heard

1:23:51you say before that the laws of physics

1:23:53are necessary

1:23:54by that would you mean something like e

1:23:56equals m c squared is a tautology

1:23:59could not be false without

1:24:00self-contradiction so how would you

1:24:02respond to that

1:24:03so no i don't mean that they're

1:24:06logically necessary so you can think of

1:24:09um and this is kind of standard viewing

1:24:12contemporary philosophy that there are

1:24:13different kinds of necessities

1:24:15the most stringent kind is going to be

1:24:18logical necessity which you can think of

1:24:20as a formal matter

1:24:22for example it's logically necessary

1:24:24that all cats are cats

1:24:27assuming that the word cats interpreted

1:24:29the same way

1:24:30given both occurrences in that claim

1:24:33that's what the concern was talking

1:24:35about

1:24:35there are there are weaker senses

1:24:39of necessity than that i mean to move

1:24:42a little bit um further you might think

1:24:46that a claim

1:24:47like uh one plus one equals three

1:24:50is necessary but it's not formally

1:24:53necessary

1:24:54in order to get out that it's necessary

1:24:56you have to pay attention to what we

1:24:58actually mean by

1:24:59one and plus and three

1:25:02and equals and so that gives you a

1:25:05slightly weaker

1:25:06set so we might distinguish between

1:25:08narrow

1:25:10logical necessity and a slightly broader

1:25:12logical necessity

1:25:14the kind of necessity of that i've got

1:25:16in mind is not either of those things

1:25:18the kind of necessity that i've got in

1:25:20mind is what you might call

1:25:21metaphysical necessity uh and it's quite

1:25:25controv

1:25:25and um to what we can

1:25:29we we can distinguish um

1:25:32perhaps also physical necessity so

1:25:35think about um the permissible

1:25:41if you think they can be think about the

1:25:43different ways that

1:25:45um the the initial conditions

1:25:49of the universe could be and then think

1:25:50about the laws

1:25:52and suppose that we hold fix the laws so

1:25:54given the laws what's possible

1:25:56and that will give you what's physically

1:25:58necessary what's

1:26:00what what you could have given that the

1:26:02the laws of physics are as they

1:26:04are now when i say the laws of physics

1:26:08are necessary i just i what what i mean

1:26:12is that um not

1:26:16that it's a that it's a tautology that

1:26:18it's a formal

1:26:19contradiction to suppose they're

1:26:20otherwise or that it's inconsistent with

1:26:22the meaning of the words

1:26:24um laws of physics they could be

1:26:27otherwise

1:26:28but rather it's more likely imagine that

1:26:31there's laws of metaphysics

1:26:33not consistent with the laws and

1:26:41all right thank you and then josh is

1:26:44your argument

1:26:45i think he means argument over all like

1:26:47if theism was false

1:26:49x would be false humans cannot act as if

1:26:53x was false therefore humans must affer

1:26:56that

1:26:56theism is true and if so what is

1:27:00x i don't know i don't know i'd have to

1:27:03look at it on paper

1:27:05um but my argument again as i said in my

1:27:08opening

1:27:09it's a cumulative uh

1:27:12how i put it was it's an inference to

1:27:14the best explanation

1:27:17centered on a cumulative case from the

1:27:20arguments from natural theology

1:27:22and is backed and held together by the

1:27:25dictates of common sense

1:27:28things we all take for granted and i i

1:27:31argued

1:27:32for this by trusting a certain of our

1:27:36you know intuitions about um

1:27:40about well the laws of logic about

1:27:43trusting other authorities

1:27:45about humility about natural law

1:27:50and about properly basic beliefs so it's

1:27:53it's a cumulative case

1:27:54and i think it shows that we

1:27:58we all do we all live as though

1:28:01god exists um so

1:28:04so that that is my argument it's not an

1:28:07argument for

1:28:08certainty because we know we know

1:28:11nothing

1:28:11from for certain in the world

1:28:15perhaps you know mathematics geometry

1:28:18but but that's it we to to even

1:28:21um get out of bed in this

1:28:24to even live and get out of bed both the

1:28:27naturalist or atheist

1:28:29and the theist have to come to the table

1:28:32with certain foundational beliefs

1:28:35like the laws of logic or are like

1:28:38there's a teleological nature to human

1:28:41action that causation

1:28:43um is is true uh it's a metaphysical

1:28:47truth as

1:28:48as graham was speaking about

1:28:50metaphysical

1:28:51truths but we come to the table

1:28:55with so many things like kant said

1:28:59like kant said for there to be

1:29:02experience as such

1:29:03mere sensations must be given an

1:29:06organizational structure

1:29:08and this goes in line with gestalt

1:29:11uh psychology i want you to look that up

1:29:14gestalt

1:29:15psychology um look up another name

1:29:18uh wolfgang um all right

1:29:22well wolfgang uh forgot his last name

1:29:26i apologize um but um

1:29:29he was the founder of gestalt psychology

1:29:32just look up gestalt psychology

1:29:34when we look at something graham we

1:29:36don't see the world as it actually is

1:29:39we see patterns okay we see

1:29:42patterns where our mind is already

1:29:44attuned

1:29:45to certain things and to pick up

1:29:47different sensations and different

1:29:48experiences

1:29:50and interpret them and interpret them

1:29:52even in light of our background

1:29:54experience

1:29:55in our cultural upbringing so

1:29:58you know um so so i think we do see

1:30:02things like

1:30:03um you know i've got my cup of tea here

1:30:06when i feel thirsty i want to drink i

1:30:08can see the cup i pick it up i drink

1:30:10from it

1:30:10i don't think you want to deny that

1:30:13right no i mean what does that mean that

1:30:14makes

1:30:14that makes your position same really

1:30:17not common sense right i don't think i

1:30:20don't think

1:30:21you're interpreting what i'm saying

1:30:23correctly gestalt psychology is you

1:30:25don't just

1:30:26see the cup of tea you're focusing on

1:30:29the cup of tea

1:30:30now consider this when you're reading a

1:30:33book on your

1:30:34chair at home um

1:30:37um uh what what are you doing

1:30:40you're focusing on the book and the

1:30:42words and the sentences

1:30:44but your dog by you

1:30:48or your cat by you that doesn't know

1:30:50what you're doing

1:30:51you're purposely looking at the book so

1:30:55they're

1:30:55basically when you're looking at the

1:30:57external world there's an infinite

1:30:59near infinite amount of interpretations

1:31:02but by our act of selection okay which

1:31:06is shaped by

1:31:07culture and background beliefs and our

1:31:10understanding of the world

1:31:11but also our cultural heritage as being

1:31:15raised in a judeo-christian you know

1:31:18or the western intellectual tradition we

1:31:21we see

1:31:22things in a different way and that's

1:31:24just active selection

1:31:25i also brought up passive selection

1:31:28which we see different things on the way

1:31:30wavelengths we see different things from

1:31:33from bumblebees for example now

1:31:37my argument was the the humble view

1:31:40is not to say that physics is all there

1:31:43is

1:31:44that's not the humble view the humble

1:31:45view is shakespeare

1:31:48there are more things in heaven and

1:31:49earth horatio than our dreamed of in

1:31:51your philosophy

1:31:52that's what i'm trying to argue for the

1:31:54possibility the humility the humble

1:31:57approach

1:31:58daniel didn't said we uh have

1:32:01the um um the the um the approach

1:32:05uh the or the the um the intentional

1:32:08stance

1:32:09okay as a court of free will as

1:32:12regarding free will

1:32:14we should have a humble approach

1:32:17i'm not saying theism or christianity is

1:32:20certain but i'm saying it's more

1:32:21plausibly true than any worldview

1:32:24and it's something that we all live and

1:32:27and take for granted in many of the

1:32:29daily affairs of life

1:32:31okay so that sounds can i just say one

1:32:34thing about that that just sounds weird

1:32:36to me

1:32:36right there's two sevenths of us we're

1:32:39christians

1:32:40the other five sevenths of us take it

1:32:42for granted in our daily lives

1:32:44that sounds like a hell of a projection

1:32:46to me okay let's go on to the next

1:32:48question

1:32:50do you think do you think okay

1:32:54okay okay whatever you want okay so dr

1:32:56oppy would spinoza's conception of god

1:32:58be compatible with naturalism

1:33:01right so it depends how you define

1:33:03naturalism i think

1:33:05um it and as i said i've

1:33:09defined naturalism differently in

1:33:10different places so in my book on

1:33:12naturalism

1:33:13and religion i build in some stuff that

1:33:16would probably exclude

1:33:18any kind of pantheism right that's

1:33:22which i think it's benitez's view as an

1:33:24instance

1:33:26from counting as naturalism but then i

1:33:29you could uh you know you could finesse

1:33:33the definition either way it depends

1:33:35i mean this is a question that comes up

1:33:37in various cases where

1:33:39do you want to build a kind of a label

1:33:41that incorporates lots of things

1:33:44because you want to seem like you've got

1:33:45lots of allies or do you want to have a

1:33:47small label

1:33:48because it very accurately reflects your

1:33:50own view and you want to keep the label

1:33:53for yourself right so

1:33:56on the on the view that on the

1:33:59what i said today that that all the

1:34:02causes are natural causes if that's the

1:34:04full characterization of naturalism

1:34:06then i think probably it's going to turn

1:34:09out

1:34:10that spinoza's philosophy is compatible

1:34:14with naturalism

1:34:16whether you should say that he is

1:34:18committed to

1:34:19that whether he's committed to god or

1:34:21not uh

1:34:22is a kind of different question because

1:34:25we still have to

1:34:26do some defining of that term as well it

1:34:29was certainly the case that plenty of

1:34:31his contemporaries

1:34:32thought of him as an atheist but atheist

1:34:35was the kind of very

1:34:36flexible uh label of abuse

1:34:39back then so um

1:34:43i i also wanted to say when atheists or

1:34:45naturalists project that there's

1:34:47meaning to life meaning to the words

1:34:50that they speak and utter

1:34:53that's a type of projection because if

1:34:55if naturalism or atheism is true

1:34:57then there is no meaning so no

1:35:00naturalists think that

1:35:02right that's that's that's you putting a

1:35:05very peculiar construal

1:35:07what about existentialists what about

1:35:09start and commute

1:35:11um so

1:35:15the you want to distinguish between

1:35:19the meanings of words and the meaning of

1:35:20life so

1:35:23what that and camus thought was as

1:35:26many people have thought was that

1:35:30there was no big picture meaning to life

1:35:33no external thing

1:35:34nothing like god that gave meaning to

1:35:36life they didn't they were

1:35:38they were both authors they wrote

1:35:40fiction they didn't

1:35:42think that the words that they put on

1:35:44the page were meaningless

1:35:48well i i have quotes here that says that

1:35:51they could not

1:35:51um um they couldn't live with their own

1:35:54philosophy they said life is ultimately

1:35:57meaningless

1:35:58and maybe they're just drawing out the

1:36:00logical conclusions of their philosophy

1:36:04well maybe so and then maybe you might

1:36:07think that that was a reduxio of their

1:36:09philosophy

1:36:10but i'm no existentialist right so

1:36:13there's no problem there either yeah but

1:36:16my art but what i said initially wasn't

1:36:18too existentialism it was to naturalism

1:36:21it's a projection yeah but

1:36:25but then i think you're just wrong about

1:36:28naturalism but do you think that could

1:36:30be a type of hope

1:36:31or a pipe dream uh

1:36:35no i don't think so i think that it's

1:36:37real

1:36:39it's not it's not a hope right

1:36:45you got any verifiable evidence that

1:36:47it's real

1:36:48so um

1:36:52so what do i think that um where do i

1:36:55think that meaning in life comes from

1:36:57is that the question that you're asking

1:36:58me yeah yeah or

1:37:00what what why what gives meaning to

1:37:03lives

1:37:04i think is to human lives largely is

1:37:07relationships relationships with family

1:37:10relationships with friends

1:37:11if you're asking me if this thing is

1:37:13real of course they are

1:37:15basically i'm arguing from planet i'm

1:37:17arguing from alvin planiga

1:37:19that naturalism undercuts itself

1:37:25i think that's just false i've uh in in

1:37:28the book

1:37:28um on naturalism

1:37:32religion i have a long chapter on um

1:37:36planting his evolutionary argument

1:37:38against naturalism

1:37:39i think it's a terrible argument fails

1:37:42okay fair enough

1:37:44fair enough graham all right and dr next

1:37:47question is do you think there are

1:37:49good arguments for christianity or i

1:37:51guess you could

1:37:52also tailor it to do you think what do

1:37:54you think could be the best argument i

1:37:56guess

1:37:57right so

1:38:01so to put this in perspective my

1:38:04second book arguing about gods i

1:38:07argued that there are no good arguments

1:38:09for god and there are no good arguments

1:38:11against

1:38:12god i think that

1:38:16good arguments i mean because maybe it's

1:38:19because i set the bar

1:38:20kind of high i think that good arguments

1:38:22are very hard to come by but i also

1:38:24think that argument is not

1:38:26um kind of what's it is the main thing

1:38:29that we should be arguing about

1:38:31so if the question if you ask me um

1:38:34can people reasonably be christians my

1:38:36answer is just yes

1:38:37we can reasonably agree to disagree with

1:38:39one another there can be reasonable

1:38:41christian secrets

1:38:43that's not to say that all naturalists

1:38:45are reasonable it's not to say that all

1:38:47christians are

1:38:48it's just to say that you can be

1:38:49reasonable to believe in

1:38:51one way i wanted to ask you this

1:38:54um i know you've made the the argument

1:38:58that uh reality is just a brute fact for

1:39:01both the theist and atheist

1:39:03now now i i believe if it is the brute

1:39:06fact it's a necessary

1:39:08uh rational it or until it's part of the

1:39:12irrational logos that gives things

1:39:14meaning and i would argue that on the

1:39:17principle of proportionate causality

1:39:19that whatever is in the

1:39:21effect must also at least be in the

1:39:24cause but let me ask you this do you

1:39:27think

1:39:28your naturalism and atheism and

1:39:31um is a result

1:39:34from or are heavily influenced

1:39:38by a an ancient greek philosopher known

1:39:41as parmenides this is um

1:39:45that says change is impossible

1:39:49now remember heraclitus said that

1:39:52ch you know all there is is change

1:39:56um you can't jump in the same pond twice

1:39:59um i i think it's theism that takes

1:40:03change seriously you know changing

1:40:06human interaction and it's because of

1:40:09parmenides

1:40:11that is really the achilles heel or the

1:40:15the the the sprain um of

1:40:19where atheism gets its static

1:40:22um pure pure reason

1:40:25world view that says that um

1:40:29that says that all must be explained at

1:40:32the level of physics

1:40:34so i

1:40:37that's that's not what naturals think

1:40:41but let's let's go back to the the

1:40:44picture

1:40:46the the core in the characterization of

1:40:50naturalism as i gave it

1:40:51was that

1:40:55causal reality just is natural reality

1:40:57right now causal reality

1:40:59is straight out um

1:41:04changing right we have a structure of

1:41:08cause and effects

1:41:09and if an effect is brought about by a

1:41:12cause

1:41:13things are different from how they were

1:41:15before

1:41:16so the idea that

1:41:19the idea that this might be a sort of

1:41:20parmedian

1:41:23view um is going to fall over at the

1:41:26first

1:41:27hurdle right there's the

1:41:30the very sort of fundamental

1:41:32characterization of the view

1:41:34commits it to change the reality of

1:41:36change

1:41:39well i mean you it seems to me that

1:41:41naturalism doesn't like to see nuances

1:41:44or the complexities

1:41:46of of human interactions i

1:41:49i you you brought up neuropsychology or

1:41:53i think that's what you implied

1:41:56neuropsychology

1:41:57is a bankrupt view um from

1:42:01from phranology that says that that

1:42:04there's certain parts of the brain

1:42:06that that you can find locations that

1:42:08determine

1:42:10what how you're going to act and then of

1:42:11course you had the behaviorism of watson

1:42:14and um and uh skinner and now you have

1:42:19and now you have you know neurocognitive

1:42:22science

1:42:23but if you look at it from a

1:42:25commonsensical point of view

1:42:27of a libertarian free will point of view

1:42:30or

1:42:30a gestalt psychology by

1:42:34wolfgang curler i remember his name now

1:42:37then i think you're going to be more

1:42:39open to the complexities and nuances of

1:42:42human interaction

1:42:43and not try to reduce things to

1:42:46um you know unnatural phenomena and by

1:42:50the way

1:42:51natural phenomena you you keep bringing

1:42:54that

1:42:54up um as in like are are you

1:42:58are you meaning meaning it as in

1:43:00methodological naturalism

1:43:04so no not really um the

1:43:08the this comes back to the question

1:43:10about

1:43:11how much we're going to build into the

1:43:12characterization of naturalism

1:43:14so the bit that i gave you is clearly

1:43:16metaphysical

1:43:18right there's a question about the role

1:43:21that science plays

1:43:22in working out what the natural causes

1:43:25are

1:43:26and i think that your best guide to what

1:43:29the natural causes are

1:43:31is contemporary science of course it's

1:43:33fallible because some of contemporary

1:43:35science is wrong and

1:43:36also contemporary science is incomplete

1:43:39so

1:43:40there's something like a commitment to

1:43:42methodological naturalism there as well

1:43:44let me go back to the what you're saying

1:43:46about neuroscience

1:43:47right neuroscience is in its infancy

1:43:50still

1:43:52the things like phrenology and

1:43:55behaviorism were kind of early

1:43:59missteps it's very early in the

1:44:02attempt to make a scientific study of

1:44:04what's

1:44:05an incredibly complicated thing

1:44:08right you're the the neural processing

1:44:11that happens in your brain

1:44:13is an extraordinarily complicated thing

1:44:16and it's not yet well understood

1:44:19and my best guess is that it won't be

1:44:22for decades maybe even centuries

1:44:27but that's the the the right attitude to

1:44:30take here is to

1:44:31is is one or is and i'm borrowing a word

1:44:34of yours that you

1:44:35used quite a lot humility right there's

1:44:38just lots we don't know

1:44:39there it's not that there's some other

1:44:42easy

1:44:44already developed theory that um

1:44:48tells us everything there is to know

1:44:50about how the neural processing

1:44:51works yeah but gestalt psychology

1:44:56i think leaves open um the possibility

1:45:00that

1:45:00you know we have um or or the

1:45:03consciousness

1:45:04can't be reduced um can't be nearly

1:45:07produced we see patterns

1:45:09there there's something called pattern

1:45:10recognition and

1:45:12pattern recognition algorithms that we

1:45:14see things based on

1:45:16our past experiences and and when we

1:45:19look at sensations we come

1:45:21we come to the table again like i've

1:45:23said with a conceptual scheme

1:45:26that we've got through culture we've got

1:45:29through

1:45:30dare i say it again we've got through

1:45:32theology

1:45:33our con concepts of uh cause and effect

1:45:37and so forth

1:45:38cause and effect they're not merely in

1:45:40the mind they're

1:45:42from our agent agency that's what thomas

1:45:45reid held to

1:45:46we know cause and effect because we have

1:45:50active powers we have active powers

1:45:54not no no doctor opie you brought up

1:45:57again methodological naturalism

1:46:01um something else thomas reid

1:46:04said he said he coined it as

1:46:08as the term phrase providential

1:46:12naturalism that means the the

1:46:15natural causes even natural pauses that

1:46:18affect our brain chemistry

1:46:21are um are how god regularly

1:46:26interacts with the world so

1:46:29um it's not like nature is an impersonal

1:46:32thing

1:46:32but natural causes are how god naturally

1:46:36irregularly interacts with the world

1:46:40um and and sometimes he can perform a

1:46:43miracle

1:46:43if you if you define it as in a

1:46:46providential naturalism

1:46:48type of way not as in a impersonal

1:46:51mechanical methodological

1:46:55uh type way

1:46:58so i i think uh thomas reed's

1:47:00understanding of