The Uncertainty Podcast

Dr. Randal Rauser and I explore the arguments of his new book, The Wideness of the Sea: How to be Evangelical and Gay-Affirming, wherein he offers a four-part case for including a gay-affirming perspective within the fold of Christian orthodoxy: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:12 The tale of Eugene Peterson00:04:45 What is evangelical Christianity?00:09:10 Affirming vs. non-affirming perspectives00:14:55 Why do evangelicals care so much about gay relationships?00:24:19 Argument #1: The Bible00:40:25 Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man..."00:45:10 Romans 1:26-27 - "God gave them over..."00:50:05 Argument #2: Reason00:51:11 William Lane Craig's case against homosexuality00:54:22 Against natural law?00:58:32 Argument #3: Tradition01:07:28 Argument #4: Experience Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Talia Mae Bettcher explains why she has come to a dismal view of the United States as a home for trans people, details the Trump administration's recent policy changes targeting trans individuals, and debates the merits of a biological understanding of sex and gender.Check out Talia's latest book, Beyond Personhood: An Essay in Trans Philosophy.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:05 Why do you feel unsafe in the U.S.?00:06:27 How did the U.S. get here?00:12:01 Has your religious upbringing informed your work today?00:17:13 Methodology and biological theories of gender00:24:17 What is trans philosophy?00:28:37 Can a traditionalist engage in trans philosophy?00:33:03 Answering Matt Walsh: what is a woman?00:46:44 Circular definitions of gender00:49:13 Trans people can be mistaken in their gender identity00:54:57 Trans woman and prison placement01:07:47 Is "it's complicated" a cop-out? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Stephen Law, professor of philosophy at Oxford, discusses his "evil god challenge" to theists: prove that God is not perfectly evil. That challenge, we will see, is surprisingly difficult to meet. Check out Stephen's paper outlining the evil-god challenge, as well as Mooney and Hendricks paper critiquing the challenge.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Do please follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:06 The evil-god challenge00:11:03 The versions of the challenge00:17:02 Does the moral argument break the parallel?00:24:28 Skeptical theism will not undercut the challenge00:34:07 Does skeptical theism lead to skepticism about everything?00:46:30 The neutral-god challenge00:53:13 Theodicies won't undercut the challenge, either00:59:39 Would Jesus' resurrection break the parallel?01:07:57 Is an evil god logically incoherent?01:16:47 What are you most uncertain about? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Graham Oppy and Brian Cutter join me to debate philosophy's newest argument for God: the argument from psychophysical harmony. We talk about epistemic probability versus metaphysical possibility, the relevance of thought-experiments to determining possibility, whether mental states are identical to brain states, and what we ought to infer if we found John 3:16 in binary code in the digits of pi.Check out Cutter and Crummet's paper defending the psycho-physical harmony argument, my previous interviews with Graham and Brian.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:34 Cutter opening statement00:18:14 Oppy opening statement00:27:59 Moderated discussion01:48:33 Cutter closing statement01:50:07 Oppy closing statement Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Mhairi Tait, my friend and fellow DPhil student at Oxford, sits down with me to discuss whether Ted Bundy's mother was right to stand by her son, whether you could ever love the same person forever, whether you should "trade up" if you find someone with better qualities than your current beloved, and whether one still ought to be loved even if one were a worm.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:52 Is the best kind of love unconditional?00:14:10 Is it okay to not love everyone?00:20:00 Should we "trade up" if we find a better romantic partner?00:21:21 Is love ever unjustified?00:24:07 Is love for an abuser real love?00:30:14 The possibility of love at first sight00:40:30 What IS love, exactly?00:45:04 Do you, Miles, think love has created value in you00:55:11 Ted Bundy's mother loved him to the very end00:59:28 Ethical non-monogamy?01:01:15 Does love require free will?01:04:20 Is there a single concept the unifies all our uses of the word "love"?01:06:39 Does analytic philosophy do damage to love?01:11:50 Realist vs. anti-realist accounts of love01:14:17 Could you love the same person forever? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. David Enoch, author of "Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism," joins me to discuss moral realism versus anti-realism, objections from the moral error theorist, and my personal sticking points in affirming the existence of irreducible moral facts: moral disagreement across cultures and evolutionary explanations for our moral beliefs.Buy David's book defending robust moral realism.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:07:23 Naturalism vs. non-naturalism00:19:23 Why should we reject moral error theory?00:32:32 The revisionary costs of error theory00:43:34 Intuition as our only ground for moral realism?00:47:45 The connection to ethical intuitionism00:51:19 Objection #1 - Moral disagreement01:03:18 Moral skepticism01:06:20 Objection #2 - Evolutionary debunking arguments01:16:16 Is God required to explain objective morality?01:20:45 Are most philosophers moral realists? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Dan Linford breaks down Einstein's theory of special relativity, its consequences for our understanding of time, and whether there are any ways to reconcile relativity with the view that past events are no longer real, and future events are not yet real. In particular, he examines William Lane Craig's attempt to rehabilitate a neo-Lorentzian theory of relativity.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:10 What is special relativity?00:11:30 Of trains and absolute simultaneity00:15:31 Time dilation and length contraction00:25:08 Three "interpretations" of special relativity00:27:14 Theory #1 - Einsteinian relativity00:29:11 Theory #2 - Minkowskian relativity00:35:11 Theory #3 - neo-Lorentzian relativity00:47:09 What do physicists think of neo-Lorentzian relativity?00:59:50 Can we integrate special relativity with presentism?01:10:06 Neo-Lorentzianism applied to cosmology Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Sociologist and professor Dr. Christian Smith discusses his recent book, "Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America". We discuss the reasons for the decline of faith in a traditionally Christian nation, the seeming recent revival of faith among the younger generation, and what these developments mean for the future of religion in America.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:13 How do we define religion?00:05:44 In what sense has religion gone obsolete?00:09:13 Why has religion gone obsolete?00:18:52 Is religion trending downward worldwide?00:21:20 The internet's role in undermining religion00:25:43 The "cringy-ness" of online religious outreach00:28:11 The legacy of the New Atheists00:32:01 The role conservative politics has played00:37:33 Does this mean Americans are atheists?00:46:50 The advance of science did not cause religious decline00:50:26 The negative impact of creationism00:54:01 Homosexuality and abortion as the ride-or-die issues01:02:09 A revival of faith among American youth?01:10:20 Does religion have a future? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Astrophysicist Niayesh Afshordi and science communicator Phil Halper return to the channel to discuss their new book, Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins. We discuss inflationary theory, the BGV theorem, how space and time might not exist at the fundamental level of reality, and so much else besides. This was one of my favorite interviews so far.Make sure to check out Phil and Niayesh's book, and follow Phil on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:13 Does the Big Bang theory feature a bang?00:07:53 What is an FLRW spacetime? What is the Lambda-CDM model?00:18:39 Is a singularity unscientific?00:25:05 Singularity theorem #1: Hawking-Penrose00:33:04 Singularity theorem #2: Borde-Guth-Vilenkin00:39:23 What is "classical" spacetime?00:52:40 Singularity theorem #3: Generalized second law of thermodynamics00:57:54 The quantum eternity theorem01:01:10 String-theoretic models of the universe01:05:56 A fundamental limit to what we can know?01:09:10 Is a cosmic beginning scientifically unsatisfying?01:15:17 Teaching science as a story01:19:35 Embrace uncertainty Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Dan Linford and I discuss the causal principle, that everything that begins to exist has a cause. We look at William Lane Craig's oft-repeated three reasons for affirming the premise: something cannot come from nothing, if something could come from nothing, then anything and everything should come from nothing, and an inductive generalization supports the causal principle.Check out Linford's paper discussing neo-Russellian analyses of causation, "Without microphysical causation, not just anything can begin to exist just anywhere".To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:01:58 Different types of "causes"00:05:49 Premise (1) of the KCA00:10:19 First argument for CP: An inductive generalization00:23:56 Metaphysics should be continuous with physics00:34:27 Is science our only source of knowledge?00:38:32 Second argument for CP: Something cannot come from nothing00:42:16 Is neo-Russellianism just too counter-intuitive? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Tomas Bogardus discusses contemporary philosophical analysis of sex and gender, defending a traditional understanding of these terms.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 IntroductionEPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:32 What are the main views about gender?17:03 What's the difference between sex and gender?27:52 Why think sex terms are social constructions?35:29 Societal consequences for biological realism regarding sex39:05 Intentional revision of sex terms?44:35 Dr. Bogardus: What is a woman?45:04 Woman: Adult human female55:24 Can trans-women be women on this account?01:12:38 But still, should we revise the meaning of our terms? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Matt Lutz defends moral error theory, the two-part thesis that (i) our moral claims are capable of being true or false, but (ii) because there is no objective morality, all of them are false.Check out all of Dr. Lutz's publications.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:13 What is moral error theory?00:03:46 Non-cognitivism in ethics00:19:32 Motivation for non-cognitivism00:25:00 Ethical naturalism vs. non-naturalism00:54:30 Is there an objective morality?00:58:21 Epistemological objections to realism01:11:00 Miles' two responses to arguments for error theory Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Joe Folley and I discuss our philosophical differences regarding fine-tuning, the problem of evil, skeptical theism, pragmatic justification for God, apatheism, and much else besides.Check out Joe's excellent YouTube channel.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:15 The fine-tuning argument00:12:30 Can the constants really vary?00:18:41 What is "possibility"?00:34:54 Is probability just frequency?00:48:16 Is there common ground between theist and atheist?00:58:04 We should not be apathetic about God's existence01:10:38 There are more options besides theism and naturalism01:19:50 Skeptical theism01:28:29 Does evil disprove God?01:32:04 Philip Goff's limited God01:43:55 Life is better if you believe in God01:53:40 Should we take the red pill?01:58:59 Problems with moral realism02:12:50 What motivates you in running a YouTube channel? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Tim Maudlin returns to the channel to discuss the fine-tuning of the universe, the beginning of the universe, and whether these facts might be reasonably suggest that a creator God exists.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:56 How do science and philosophy relate?00:11:33 The fine-tuning argument00:22:35 Is the universe fine-tuned for rocks?00:27:39 Does evil disprove God?00:31:04 Of multiverses and Boltzmann Brains00:35:45 How does the multiverse explain fine-tuning?00:47:39 Do we know we're not Boltzmann Brains?00:50:59 God and the beginning of the universe00:58:24 The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem01:01:49 Does everything that begin to exist have a cause01:08:02 Are theistic philosophers acting in good faith01:11:56 Are atheists acting in good faith?01:16:59 What is Tim's favorite color?01:17:29 Will physics ever explain consciousness? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Randal Rauser, himself a Christian apologist, joins me to critically examine some of the mistakes and excesses of Christian apologetics as it is commonly practiced - on YouTube and within broader academic discourse as well.Check out Randal's YouTube channel.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:15 What is apologetics?00:05:52 What is a 'tentative' apologist?00:14:25 Mistake #1 - Not giving weight to moral experience.00:36:09 How do we determine what the Bible teaches?00:38:02 Mistake #2 - Thinking every question must be answered.00:45:49 Mistake #3 - Simplifying enormously complicated issues.00:50:50 If saving souls isn't the right motive for apologetics, what is?00:57:03 Mistake #4 - Mixing apologetics with politics.01:01:36 Debating vs. discussing controversial issues. Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Michael Huemer and I discuss the evils of factory farming, the strengths and possible drawbacks of a vegan and vegetarian diet, whether animals have rights, if humans are the pinnacle of intrinsic value, and whether already having severe dietary restrictions justifies eating meat (it doesn't).Check out Dr. Huemer's book, "Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism".To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:33 What goes on in factory farms?00:10:45 Do we have to argue that animals have rights?00:17:26 Do animals have rights?00:25:02 Can we hunt animals?00:27:24 Are all animals sentient?00:29:01 The Shrimp Welfare Project00:36:54 Why does it seem normal to eat meat?00:41:08 Nutritional deficiencies in a vegan diet?00:47:25 Plant farming kills animals too!00:55:06 Are we heading for a vegetarian-only world01:02:30 The role of ethical intuitions01:09:04 BONUS CONTENT - The inconsistencies of moral anti-realists Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. RT Mullins discusses his view that God is literally identical to time. We also discuss and critique William Lane Craig's proposal that God is, in a sense, both temporal and timeless.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:12 What's the point of philosophical theology?00:11:00 Mullins' definition of time.00:21:14 An absolutist theory of time.00:23:39 Is this pantheism?00:30:49 The idea that God is time.00:39:35 William Lane Craig's view - God creates time.00:52:50 Is God's timelessness logically prior to His temporality?01:04:48 Does time have a beginning?01:14:07 Do scientists know anything about time? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Daniel Rubio graciously agreed to come on the channel to discuss and critique a paper I wrote examining four lesser-discussed hypotheses that lie somewhere between theism and atheism: the simulation hypothesis, cosmopsychism, axiarchism, and new laws of nature.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:12:13 Option #1 - We're in a simulation.00:32:26 Option #2 - The universe designed itself.01:05:31 Option #3 - Goodness requires that the universe exist.01:29:01 Option #4 - Laws of nature guide the universe towards life. Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Graham Priest explains his views on dialetheism, the view that some contradictions are true, while also discussing the relationship between Buddhism and modern science, the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments, and how Christians can avoid refutation by embracing paradox.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:12 What is dialetheism?00:06:09 Paradox #1 - The liar00:14:54 Paradox #2 - The law00:29:37 Paradox #3 - Theology00:38:15 Why Christianity can't possibly be true00:40:46 Does dialetheism support Buddhism?00:49:01 The relationship between Buddhism and modern science00:49:25 Support #1 - The impermanence of all things00:51:54 The cosmological argument for God00:56:26 The fine-tuning argument for God01:55:44 Support #2 - The nature of consciousness Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. Klaas Kraay explains that the multiverse, rather than serving as an alternative to God, actually supports belief in God by undermining two atheistic arguments: the problem of evil and the problem of no best world. Check out Klaas' paper explaining the theistic multiverse, "Theism, Possible Worlds, and the Multiverse." Also see my paper looking at the relationship between theistic multiverses and modern science, "Does science undermine the theistic multiverse?"To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠. Feel free to follow me on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:07 Multiverses in cosmology00:06:36 The problem of no best world00:13:15 The wine analogy00:19:44 Two versions of the problem00:24:20 Theistic multiverse solution00:32:10 Objection - Duplication00:37:27 1st response - Limit the multiverse to kinds00:43:53 2nd response - More is not always better00:49:50 What's more valuable, God or the multiverse?00:58:39 The problem of evil01:18:30 What got Klaas into philosophy?01:20:11 Does philosophy make progress? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe