In this final part of the common mistakes series, we cover mistakes about free will, Christianity, and consciousness.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Level up your philosophy of religion game by avoiding these common mistakes about models of God, divine simplicity, Thomism, and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Are ordinary people moral realists? Dr. Lance Bush doesn't think so. He joins me today to discuss his reasons why.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

There seems to be widespread moral disagreement across cultures, societies, time periods, and even individuals. Many people think this poses a serious problem for moral realism. In this epic lecture, I evaluate a number of arguments to this effect.

Presentation Outline  

0 Introduction and Definitions 

1 Tolerance 

1.1 Conflates theoretical and practical reasons 

1.2 Absurd extensions 

1.3 It’s not actually intolerant 

1.4 Premise (2)

1.5 Self-defeat 

2 Self-evidence 

2.1 Premise (2) 

2.2 Premise (1) 

3 Inference to the Best Explanation

3.1 Realist-friendly alternative explanations of moral disagreement 

3.2 Fallacy of understated evidence 

3.3 Is moral disagreement in need of explanation? 

3.4 Does widespread, deep moral disagreement really exist? 

3.5 Holistic explanatory assessment 

3.6 Self-defeat 

3.7 IBE-argument extended

3.8 Summary 

4 No Method Argument 

4.1 Premise (1) 

4.2 Premise (2) 

5 Rationally irresolvable disagreement 

5.1 What is rational irresolvability? 

5.2 Justification vs. dialectical efficacy 

5.3 Epistemic peerhood

5.4 Why accept premise (1)? 

6 Undermining realist epistemology 

6.1 Knowledge doesn’t require knowledge-how 

6.2 Proves too much 

6.3 Not really an argument from disagreement 

7 Self-defeat

8 The extent of moral disagreement 

9 Moral Disagreement as evidence for realism?

Enoch, David. “How is Moral Disagreement a Problem for Realism?”: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aBcq...   

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!):  https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Aquinas's Third Way aims to demonstrate God's existence. But does it succeed?

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

From Necessary Being to Purely Actual Being? https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

What is philosophy? What's the value of philosophy? How should we think philosophically? What are some book recommendations for philosophical reasoning? I answer these questions and more.

Map of Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxBSh...

My response to Nemes: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Also known as the Argument from Motion, Aquinas's First Way aims to demonstrate God's existence. But does it succeed? Buckle up for some juicy philosophy, a (bad) Trump impression, and exciting Patreon news.  

Patreon link: https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason   

SLIDE CORRECTION: It's q2a3 :)

Moorean Defeaters Resources  

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTsSW...  

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hCRG...  

(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK46W...

(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPuE_...  

(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_lqq...  

(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX6di...  

(7) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U...

(8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcZFf...  

(9) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...  

(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watXa...

(11a) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

(11b) https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

And, of course, the usual resources... :)

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Is classical theism compatible with eternalism? Is Christianity compatible with eternalism? Does Christianity actually require eternalism, as Alex Pruss argues? Helsinki Hero Dr. Ryan Mullins joins me to discuss these questions and more. Outline below!  

1. Defining terms 

-----Eternalism and presenting 

-----Four-dimensionalism (of which perdurantism and stage theory are versions) and endurantism 

-----Classical theism and neo-classical theism 

-----The method of perfect being theism 

-----Christian theism

2. Classical theism and eternalism 

-----Creation ex nihilo 

-----Act and potency 

3. Perfect being theism and eternalism 

4. Christian theism and eternalism 

-----Undefeated/Unredeemed evil 

-----Personal identity over time and life after death 

5. Christianity entails eternalism? (Alex Pruss) 

-----The Christian life and Christ’s suffering 

-----Salvation and the gift of grace

Intellectual Conservatism recently held a discussion criticizing existential inertia. I don't think their criticisms work. In this two-part series, I explain why. 

Existential Inertia Defended, Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dG1H...  

A User's Guide to Existential Inertia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr44d...  

Intellectual Conservatism's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQJgV...

Link to my IJPR paper: https://rdcu.be/b6HXP  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Intellectual Conservatism recently held a discussion criticizing existential inertia. I don't think any of their criticisms work. In this two-part series, I explain why.  

Part 1 covers the first 75 minutes of their discussion. Part 2 covers the second 75 minutes of their discussion and should be posted within the next week (or so).

In part 2, I examine Christopher's criticisms, the distinction between essence and existence, and much more.  

Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQJgV...  

Link to my IJPR paper: https://rdcu.be/b6HXP  

Check out this lovely interview I just did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHG11...  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Does classical theism entail that gratitude to God is unfitting or inappropriate? I’m joined by Dr. Marcus Hunt to discuss this very question in connection to his recent article published in IJPR.  

Argument Outline  

(1) If someone cannot be benefited, then they cannot be a fitting target of prepositional gratitude. 

(2) The God of classical theism cannot be benefited. 

Therefore, 

(3) The God of classical theism cannot be a fitting target of prepositional gratitude.

For premise (1):  

Step 1: A necessary condition for prepositional gratitude is a desire to benefit one’s benefactor. 

Step 2: A desire to benefit a benefactor is fitting only if it is metaphysically possible for the benefactor to be benefited.  

For premise (2):  

Step 1: Classical theism (in particular, divine impassibility) entails that God is perfectly blessed. 

Step 2: If God is perfectly blessed, then nothing could possibly benefit God -- God has all possible benefits necessarily and ‘already’ (as it were).  

Curious to learn more about this argument? 

Check out his IJPR paper: 

(1) https://link.springer.com/content/pdf... OR (2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tETh...   

Marcus’s link: https://philpeople.org/profiles/marcu...  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

What is existential inertia? What are some metaphysical accounts of existential inertia? And where should you go to learn further about it? Buckle up for discussion of these questions and more.  

Want to read my IJPR paper, "Existential inertia and the Aristotelian proof"? 

Check out these links:  

(1) https://link.springer.com/article/10....  

(2) https://rdcu.be/b6HXP    

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Today I'm joined by John DeRosa, host of the Classical Theism podcast, to discuss methods for productive and loving dialogue across ideological barriers.  

Curious about what's to come on my channel in the next 6(ish) weeks? Here's a preview:  

- Discussing a new argument against divine impassibility with the author of a recent IJPR article 

- Discussing an argument from the PSR against classical theism with Chad McIntosh 

- Aquinas's First Way (lecture video) 

- Aquinas's Third Way (lecture video) 

- A User's Guide to Existential Inertia (lecture video) 

- And more...   

John's link: http://www.classicaltheism.com/  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Today I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford to discuss the Kalam's causal principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. In particular, we discuss the first half of a video produced by @ReasonableFaithOrg .

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

God, let’s talk about your feelings. Today I chat with Dr. Ryan Mullins about his new book “God and Emotion” with Cambridge University Press.  

Among many other things, we discuss: What is divine impassibility, and what are the arguments for and against it? And what are emotions? Does God empathize with us? Can God suffer along with us?  

Video Outline:  

0. Introducing the book 

1. Chapter One: Emotions 

2. Chapter Two: The Impassible God 

3. Chapter Three: The Passible God 

4. Chapter Four: The Love of God 

5. Chapter Five: The Wrath of God and Other Moral Judgments 

6. Chapter Six: Divine Empathy and the Problem of Creepy Emotions 

7. The Problem of Arbitrary Creation for Impassibility  

Link to the book: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elemen...   

Ryan’s paper “Can the Impassible God Suffer?”: https://philpapers.org/rec/MULWCT   

Ryan's paper "The Problem of Arbitrary Creation for Impassibility": https://www.degruyter.com/view/journa...    

Ryan's website & podcast: https://www.rtmullins.com/  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

What are the norms governing sexual behavior? Is sex outside of marriage wrong? What about homosexuality? Hear two professional ethicists discuss these questions and others, arising from the Natural Law tradition in ethics.  

Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydrtF...   

Dustin's link: http://dustincrummett.com/  

Brian's link: http://bbesong.weebly.com/  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Is divine simplicity compatible with there being one God in three persons? Buckle up for a very illuminating exchange.

Rob's relational qua-object paper:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fb2c.

Ryan's three papers on Trinitarianism:

(1) https://www.academia.edu/31860370/Has...  

(2) https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/th...  

(3) https://www.academia.edu/1971708/Divi...

Rob's website: http://robkoons.net/

Ryan's website: https://www.rtmullins.com/

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Trent Horn recently claimed he had 'demonstrations' of God's existence that are relevantly analogous to 'ironclad' proofs. In this video, I argue that this is straightforwardly false.  

Link to my debate with Randal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68Fxt...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...   

SPECIAL THANKS to Dr. Alex Malpass, to whom credit goes for the 'respecting consistency' point concerning modal patchwork principles.  

If Trent sees this video, consider this an open invitation to a discussion between the two of us! (Whether on my channel or Trent's or what have you). :)  

Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PF1J...

Why am I agnostic with respect to God's existence? Buckle up for one of my favorite videos made thus far.

Here are some important resources I mentioned in the video, as well as some others:  

Leon on Six Dozen (or so): https://exapologist.blogspot.com/2019...  

Leon's Assessment of Arguments for Theism: http://exapologist.blogspot.com/p/ind...  

Lowder on Arguments for Naturalism: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secular...  

Mullins on panentheism and models of God: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf...  

God, Geography, and Justice: https://philpapers.org/rec/LINGGA   

Two useful websites/blogs are Infidels.org and Philosophical Disquisitions blog  

CORRECTION: Klaas Kraay is a *theist*, not a non-theist. Whoops! :)  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

Is God’s comprehensive foreknowledge of the future incompatible with free will? Let’s see where reason takes us.  

Here’s another argument that I didn’t cover in the video but which will be of interest to y’all:  

(1) It is not under your control that God believed 1000 years ago that each of your actions would occur. 

(2) Necessarily, if God believed 1000 years ago that each of your actions would occur, then each of your actions occur. 

(3) If P necessarily entails Q, and P is not under your control, then Q is not under your control. 

(4) So, the occurrence of each of your actions is not under your control. 

(5) If (4), then you are not free. 

(6) So, you are not free.  

This argument is interesting. I would probably challenge premise (1). It is precisely because you are free in each of your actions that you are in control of past facts specifying what your free actions will be. In other words, while you don’t cause the past to be how it is, there’s a kind of counterfactual dependence of the past on your choices: had you chosen A instead of B, God would have foreknown that you chose A.

Here’s another example. Presumably, it was true before you were born that you would read this sentence today. And — by the same kind of reasoning that would presumably motivate (1) — this truth is not under your control (since you didn’t even exist to causally influence the past). And, moreover, this truth necessarily entails that you do in fact read this sentence today. So, it would follow from all of this that you are not free in reading this sentence! And we didn’t even need to invoke God’s foreknowledge here. All we needed was a truth prior to your birth.  

Surely, then, the argument has gone wrong somewhere. I suggest — as I did in the case of the foreknowledge argument — that it’s simply false that you have no control over truths prior to your birth. Rather, it is precisely because you are free and in control of your present actions that you thereby have control over truths prior to your birth. The explanation of your actions doesn’t flow from the past truth to your actions; rather, it’s the opposite. Your actions explain the past truth. Don’t put the cart before the horse.  

Website: https://www.majestyofreason.wordpress...  

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

How do we facilitate the flow of insights across ideological barriers? How do we have productive, loving dialogue? Is there such a thing as rational disagreement, and (if so) how should we respond to it? What are some neglected intellectual virtues?  

Today I'm joined by Dr. Josh Rasmussen to discuss these questions and more. Warning: this episode is amazing.  

Outline  

1. Productive and loving dialogue across ideological barriers 

2. The nature of rational disagreement 

3. Extra-rational barriers to belief 

4. Intellectual virtues 

5. The tension between maximizing true beliefs and minimizing false beliefs  

Links  Josh's website: https://joshualrasmussen.com/

Josh's youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXVv...  

My website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Can the God of classical theism extrinsically change? If not, does this pose problems for classical theism? Dr. Ryan Mullins joins me for an illuminating discussion on these (and many more) questions.  

Outline  

1. Defining terms (classical theism, relation (medieval and contemporary understandings), real/logical relations, intrinsic/extrinsic properties, extrinsic change) 

2. Can the God of classical theism extrinsically change? Hear what scholars (new and old) have to say on extrinsic change, the No Real Relations Doctrine, Divine Timelessness, and much more. Among such scholars are: Paul Helm, Bill Craig, JP Moreland, Lombard, Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, and Anselm. 

-----2.1 Zimmerman & Chisholm on Anselm and Cambridge change 

-----2.2 Extrinsic change entails temporality 

3. Does denial of extrinsic change pose problems for classical theism? 

-----3.1 Relational (accidental) properties like Lord, Redeemer, Creator 

-----3.2 The tension between (i) timelessness & (ii) omniscience and presentism

-----3.3 Impossibility of God’s being in a personal relationship with you 

-----3.4 Incarnation  

Curious to learn more about our work? Check these out:  

Reluctant Theologian Podcast: https://www.rtmullins.com/podcast  

Ryan's book on timelessness: https://www.amazon.com/Timeless-Oxfor...  

Joe's book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...  

Joe's website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/ 

* No, I'm not Dr. Schmid. Please don't sue me. It's a meme, bruv! In all likelihood, I'll be Dr. Schmid in about 8(ish) years. Stay tuned!

Cosmological arguments aim to arrive at some uncaused cause or necessary being. But why think this necessary being is God? 

In this episode, we explore some potential paths. 

Buckle up for some philosophy.  

Here's the Pruss-Koons paper we referenced: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.100...  

 Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Website: https://www.majestyofreason.wordpress...

Isn’t Neo-classical theism silly? Not so fast. In this video, Dr. Ryan Mullins, Micah Edvenson, and I discuss prominent classical theist objections to Neo-classical theism (“Theistic Personalism” as some folk call it).  

Here are the criticisms we cover:

1. Prisoner of Time objection (against Divine temporality) 

2. Aseity entails DDS 

3. Composition entails causal dependence      

       3a. The argument from this-such-ness (Nemes, Vallicella)      

        3b. Feser’s Neo-Platonic proof      

          3c. Thomistic essence-existence argument 

4. Neo-CT entails God is a creature      

       4a. Anthropomorphism 

5. Biblical arguments for CT 

6. Simplicity is necessary to rule out polytheism (Feser) 

7. Platonic argument from perfection 

8. Problems for passibility      

        8a. Horny God objection      

         8b. Interminable suffering and hell

Abbreviation key:  

CT: Classical Theism 

Neo-CT: Neo-Classical Theism 

DDS: Doctrine of Divine Simplicity  

Curious to learn more about CT, Neo-CT, and the work of those features in the discussion? Check these out:  

Ryan’s podcast: https://www.rtmullins.com/podcast  

Micah’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5PC...  

My blog post on CT: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...  

My book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...   Here’s a special link to our show notes:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/19...

Today I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Linford to respond to the scientific case for the universe's beginning as well as the claim that the universe's cause must be God. In particular, we discuss a video produced by @ReasonableFaithOrg .

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Can there be infinite regresses of causes? Can infinity be traversed? Is infinity even coherent? 

Buckle up for an infinitely edifying video.  

Outline of topics covered:  

1. What is a paradox? What is infinity? 

2. Grim Reaper supertask 

3. Paper Passers and beginningless past 

4. Ross' Urn 

5. Infinite Fair Lottery 

6. Hilbert's Hotel 

7. Vicious circularity and infinite regresses 

8. Potential Solutions 

9. Implications (God's existence)  

Curious to learn more? Check out my book and website!  

Website: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/  

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Steven Nemes joins me for a cordial discussion on a potential path from contingent being to the God of classical theism.  

~ 

I wish to add some clarifications on my response near the end of the video, as I could have been clearer concerning the thrust of my response.

Steven's argument against the (live epistemic) possibility of a composite necessary being roughly proceeded as follows:  

Composite beings are always a mixture of two distinct principles: a principle of intelligibility (which is, of itself, universal and not tied down to any concrete particular) and a principle of individuation (which is, of itself, particular and indeterminate). Because neither of the two principles demand that they be combined with one another, there must be some extrinsic cause or principle which accounts for their unity.

I have three primary responses to this that I did not sufficiently disentangle in the video:  

(1) In the case of a metaphysically necessary being (e.g. the neo-classical theistic God of Bill Craig, Ryan Mullins, and co.), it's precisely because it is a metaphysically necessary being that its principle of intelligibility and principle of individuation are necessarily conjoined or united with one another. That need not be explained in virtue of some extrinsic cause -- it's explained in virtue of the being's metaphysical necessity. We would presumably only need a causal explanation if the composite being were such that its two principles are merely contingently united. But that wouldn't be the case for a necessary composite being. And we cannot derive contingency from mere composition, since from the fact that x and y are distinct, it doesn't follow that they could come apart, or that one is accidental to the other, or that they are separable, or that they are possibly absent from reality. For instance, the properties having a radius and having a circumference are distinct but nevertheless inseparable, non-accidentally related, necessarily co-instantiated, and so on.

(2) It seems question-begging to claim that ‘neither of the two principles demand that they be united with one another’. This is the very question at issue -- namely, whether there could be a being with distinct parts/principles but which is nevertheless such that its distinct principles demand that they be conjoined and necessarily instantiated in reality.

(3) Not in and of itself a response to the argument, but something worth bearing in mind: the argument relies on heavy metaphysical background assumptions that many philosophers deny.

Note that these considerations are NOT the end of the discussion, and that Steven himself will have responses, I'll have responses to his responses, Steven... and so on. Hopefully this gives a taste, however, of the complexities involved!

~

For Steven Nemes' work, check out his Academia page! https://fuller.academia.edu/StevenNemes

For my work, check out my book and blog!

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Blog: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

I explain a new argument against classical theism (more specifically, the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) and rebut three objections to it.

~

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason... 

Blog post mentioned at the end: https://majestyofreason.wordpress.com...

Interested in God's existence? Theism? Atheism? Thomism? Creation? Panentheism, pantheism, and Spinozism? The origin and cause of the universe? Russelian monism? Causal finitism? We have just the discussion for you.  

Thanks to Dr. Felipe Leon and Micah Edvenson (from Crusade Against Ignorance channel) for joining me to discuss Felipe's argument from material causality against creation ex nihilo.

IMPORTANT NOTE: 

Near the beginning of the video, Felipe used the term 'classical theism' to describe people like Plantinga, Swinburne, and co. This is an incorrect usage of the term. But this is a mere terminological issue. He means 'traditional theists' or 'orthodox monotheism'. He doesn't mean to pick out the Big Four attributes characterizing classical theism: immutability, simplicity, impassibility, and timelessness.

He just means that the theists to which he refers affirm the omni attributes, monotheism, God's perfection, God's necessity, and God's causally originating and sustaining the universe ex nihilo. An alternative understanding of the term doesn't warrant not listening. It was a wonderful conversation.

Also, his target is ex nihilo creation. It's "classical theism*cvc*", i.e. classical theism plus classical view of creation. So, it doesn't really matter (in the present context) whether or not he gets immutability, timelessness, and so on correct. What matters is his characterization of ex nihilo creation, since that's his target. So, pointing out a misapplication of 'classical theism' with respect to something other than creatio ex nihilo is not quite relevant. His target is any view according to which there is creation ex nihilo. The specifics about the Divine nature are tangential.

I do want to stress, of course, that I disagreed with Felipe's use of 'classical theism'. Classical theism, as I use it, is meant to expressly pick out orthodox monotheism plus the Big Four: immutability, simplicity, timelessness, and impassibility. I would have preferred that he used 'orthodox monotheism' or 'traditional theism'. But the reason I didn't dwell on it or correct it in the dialogue was because (i) it's a terminological issue, and more importantly, (ii) it is irrelevant to his argument, since his argument has nothing to do with the Big Four but is instead aimed at ex nihilo creation.

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Why does anything exist? Is there something that necessarily exists? If so, what is its nature? 

Today I discuss Dr. Josh Rasmussen's Philosophy Compass article "Cosmological Arguments from Contingency".  

~

Article: https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpr...

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com/

In this episode, I chat with Dr. Graham Oppy, professor of philosophy at Monash University, about the nature, purpose, and conditions of success for arguments. We also talk about Feser's Aristotelian proof and existential inertia. Those who wish to pursue these matters further can read "The Normative Status of Logic" (SEP).

~

I have a number of corrections and clarifications to make for what I said between 1:45:45 and 1:47:03.  

First, I am simply reporting what seems to me to be Feser's attitude toward his premises. I do not claim this is the only possible or rational interpretation of Feser's level of confidence or certainty. I cannot know Feser's own doxastic states, and I want to renounce any psychologizing of his doxastic states that I may have implied in what I said in this clip.

Second, there is evidence for my claims about Feser's thinking his premises are demonstrably certain. At the end of his Five Proofs, Feser writes:

"A third problem with [an objection previously considered] is that those who raise it often misunderstand what classical theists like Aquinas mean when they say that God’s existence can be “demonstrated”. What is meant is that the conclusion that God exists follows with necessity or deductive validity from premises that are certain*, where the certainty of the premises can in turn be *shown via metaphysical analysis*. That entails that such a demonstration gives us knowledge that is more secure than what any scientific inference can give us (as “science” is generally understood today), in two respects. First, the inference is not a merely probabilistic one, nor an “argument to the best explanation” which appeals to considerations like parsimony, fit with existing background theory, and so forth, but where some alternative explanation might in principle be correct. Again, it is instead an attempt at a strict deduction to what follows necessarily from the premises.

[...]  

[T]he argument can successfully be defended against *all objections claiming to show that the conclusion does not really follow or *that the premises are doubtful*. Now, that has been accomplished in this book with respect to the proofs just mentioned, from all of which it follows that God exists." (p. 307) [Emphasis mine]

This shows rather forcefully Feser's attitude towards his arguments, and -- at the very least -- my interpretation in the clip is not an uncharitable one. Feser then ends his book with the following:  

"Quod erat demonstrandum." (p. 307)  

Denotatively, this means 'that which was to be shown'. In fact, however, the connotation is extremely strong, often connoting a decisive proof or demonstration of something. Traditionally, it's placed at the end of formal mathematical proofs whose conclusions follow from indubitable premises and axioms. Its use in philosophy also traditionally signifies an indubitable, certain, demonstrable proof. Consider, for instance, Spinoza's Ethics (1677). Spinoza frequently used it at the end of his philosophical arguments in such a book. It's no coincidence, moreover, that the style and system of the book are, as Spinoza says, "demonstrated in geometrical order", with axioms and definitions followed by propositions.

Third, regarding the 'real debate' quote. Here is Feser's full quote:

"That is a confident claim, I realize. But natural theology, historically, was a confident discipline. A long fine of thinkers from the beginnings of Western thought down to the present day... have affirmed that God’s existence can be rationally demonstrated by purely philosophical arguments. The aim of this book is to show that they were right, that what long was the mainstream

New atheism is dead (and this video killed it). But what can we learn from it? 

Today I discuss and build upon Kaufman's Philosophy Compass article "New Atheism and its Critics".  

Article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...  

Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com  

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Here's part two of my video on McIntosh's Philosophy Compass article "Nontraditional Arguments for Theism". 

Among the philosophers discussed are Augustine, Trent Dougherty, and Al Plantinga.  

Paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/e... 

Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com  

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Today I discuss McIntosh's Philosophy Compass article "Nontraditional Arguments for Theism". 

Among the philosophers discussed are Ed Feser, Josh Rasmussen, and Brian Leftow.  

Paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/e...

Website: www.majestyofreason.wordpress.com 

Book: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...

Richard Swinburne, one of the most influential philosophers of religion in the 20th and 21st centuries, joins me and my friend Ashkan to discuss Swinburne's latest book on substance dualism, titled, "Are We Bodies or Souls?"

Dr. Eric Olson joins me to discuss various puzzles of material constitution and composition. Do birds exist? Do tables? Do you? Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

What times exist? Should we be A-theorists or B-theorists? Can God change the past? If he can, does this defend theism against the problem of evil? I'm joined by Sam Lebens and Ryan Mullins to discuss temporal ontology, hypertime, and more!

Here I respond to Trent Horn for the 912th time, this time on the problem of evil and the evil God challenge.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

The Kalam’s causal principle says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. But should we accept this principle? That’s the topic of today’s (epic) video.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Could anything have been otherwise? Amy Karofsky thinks not. In her view, absolutely everything is necessary. Today we discuss arguments for and against this view. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Ontological arguments seek to prove God's existence from the armchair. But are they any good? Let's tour some prominent ontological arguments and some prominent objections to help us find out. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

I'm joined by Dr. Patrick Todd to discuss whether all future contingents are false. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

What is religion? What is naturalism? Can naturalism and religion be combined? Is religious naturalism viable? I'm joined by Graham Oppy and Eric Steinhart to discuss these questions and more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

The Grim Reaper Paradox has been used to support the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Here I mount a grim challenge to this sort of reasoning: implying the impossibility of an endless future.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Suan (@intellectualcatholicism) and I chat about philosophy research, writing philosophy papers, how to publish in philosophy, and so much more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Recently, Tyler McNabb had William Lane Craig respond to new objections to the Kalam. In this video, I explain why Craig's responses fail. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

What is time? Is God temporal? Is God timeless sans creation? I'm joined by Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Ryan Mullins to discuss these questions and more.

Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason

If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

Dr. David Builes and I chat about laws of nature, the metaphysics of persistence, existential inertia, and so much more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

I chat with Michael Jones (@InspiringPhilosophy) about contingency arguments, idealism, the argument from limits, and so much more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid

What are intuitions, and what role do they play in philosophy? Do they justify beliefs? And what are some skeptical challenges to intuition? I discuss these questions and more. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid