The Uncertainty Podcast

Is it even possible to have empirical evidence for God's existence? What if the stars realigned to spell out "I exist! Sincerely, God." Wouldn't THAT count as evidence for God? It seems that the answer is yes. But then, various objections to arguments for God seem to imply that even this extravagant, awesome evidence for God would not be any evidence whatsoever for theism. To many philosophers, that implication implies that these objections prove too much, and must therefore fail. In this debate, eight philosophers go head-to-head over these fascinating questions.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you’re awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:02:10 Miles Donahue’s opening statement00:07:46 Brian Cutter’s opening statement00:13:16 Noah McKay’s opening statement00:18:30 Travis Dumsday’s opening statement00:23:30 Paul Draper’s opening statement00:29:15 Alex Malpass’s opening statement00:35:18 Nathan Bray’s opening statement00:40:41 Kevin Scharp’s opening statement00:47:15 Miles Donahue’s cross-examination01:03:22 Alex Malpass’s cross-examination01:20:15 Brian Cutter’s cross-examination01:33:41 Nathan Bray’s cross-examination01:49:03 Paul Draper’s cross-examination02:01:21 Travis Dumsday’s cross-examination02:10:54 Kevin Scharp’s cross-examination02:24:49 Noah McKay’s cross-examination Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

I discuss and debate the merits of drug-induced experiences for one's religious beliefs, the difference panpsychism makes, the distinction between God's essence and energies, and giant purple platypuses floating over New York City.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you’re awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:32 What is 5-MeO-DMT?00:02:07 Why Philip Goff tried toad venom00:05:02 What the experience was like00:07:13 Can you experience yourself not existing?00:13:00 Was ego death terrifying?00:17:03 William Lane Craig’s reaction00:19:57 What is a structureless claim?00:22:52 The content of mystical experience00:25:39 Does 5-MeO-DMT support panpsychism?00:33:15 Why trust a drug-induced experience?00:40:08 Experience versus interpretation00:43:54 Is Goff projecting panpsychism onto the experience?00:46:03 What would defeat the experience?00:51:25 How does this fit with Christianity?00:57:19 Divine essence, energies, and simplicity01:04:19 Why Christianity specifically?01:08:26 Why not deism or another religion?01:14:23 Does Goff believe in an afterlife?01:16:43 Near-death experiences and consciousness01:18:37 What is Goff most uncertain of? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Keegan Kjeldson of the Untimely Reflections YouTube channel returns to the podcast to discuss the merits of continental philosophy. While he is largely in favor and I am not, we both agree that Hegel is abysmally obscure.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you’re awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:18 Hegel vs Plantinga: obscurity and clarity00:03:07 Keegan’s defense of continental philosophy00:08:38 Why continental philosophy feels impenetrable00:11:15 Spinoza and intuitive knowledge00:14:25 Nietzsche, style, and philosophical insight00:18:07 Logical positivism and ethics00:22:21 What is metaethics?00:27:17 Utilitarianism and moral intuitions00:30:17 Do arguments bottom out in intuition?00:36:39 What is philosophy for?00:44:41 Moral realism and objective moral truth00:48:59 Judith Butler and the charge of gibberish00:54:10 Clear continental thinkers00:55:57 Heidegger and justified obscurity01:02:00 Is clarity always a virtue?01:06:49 Can poetry give us rational grounds?01:12:52 Moral knowledge vs moral persuasion01:15:29 Motivated reasoning in ethics01:25:21 Ethics, emotion, and objectivity01:28:14 The Nazi example and moral realism01:32:26 Abortion, personhood, and moral disagreement01:38:44 Objective truth in morality and science01:41:17 Has humanity made moral progress? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Dan Linford returns to the channel to offer his reply to my recent discussion with William Lane Craig, wherein he replied to critiques of his case for a cosmic beginning. We discuss probability theory, the BGV theorem, emergence of spacetime, and the relevance of quantum gravity to our scientific inferences about a beginning of the universe.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you’re awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:01:24 Craig's modest claim00:10:27 How to calculate the probability of a conclusion00:15:21 The probabilistic fallacy in Craig's scientific case00:21:56 Craig - "I'm ruling out classes of models"00:26:33 Exceptions to the BGV theorem00:29:22 Do theories of time make a difference?00:42:28 Inference to the best explanation and low probability00:51:25 Craig's inconsistency: temporally finite models of the universe00:59:18 Why we need a quantum theory of gravity01:12:04 The emergence of spacetime Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Joshua Rasmussen explains his cosmological argument for God's existence: the existence of contingent things requires an explanation, and God fits the bill. Roughly stated, for sure, but that's the idea.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X because you’re awesome.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:57 Why the question matters00:10:29 Is ultimate reality beyond logic?00:14:55 Contingent vs. necessary things00:20:44 Stage #1 - From contingent things to a necessary being00:26:38 What is an "explanation"?00:36:23 Why should there be an explanation of all contingent things?00:47:37 Should we trust what intuition tells us?00:55:56 Conflicting empirical generalizations - a la Joe Schmid01:04:04 Stage #2 - From a necessary being to God01:12:52 Even a limitless God requires explanation01:23:37 Graham Oppy's necessary initial state of nature Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Robyn Faith Walsh, professor of New Testament at the University of Miami, discusses how people in antiquity would have understood the concept of "resurrection", whether Jesus or Paul was the true founder of Christianity and what Paul meant when he said that we will be raised with "spiritual bodies", and what facts the historian can establish concerning the events before and after Jesus' death.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:07 Can historians verify miracles?00:06:37 Did the ancients take their myths literally?00:08:31 What did Paul think about the resurrection?00:19:22 Did Paul preach a spiritual resurrection?00:25:56 Do historians take the case for the resurrection seriously?00:44:18 Fact #1: Was Jesus crucified?00:46:56 Fact #2: Was Jesus buried in a tomb?00:52:10 Fact #3: Was Jesus' tomb found empty?00:54:35 Fact #4: Did Jesus' followers report appearances of Jesus alive?01:00:00 Fact #5: The origin of the Christian faith01:06:07 Was Paul the real founder of Christianity?01:08:00 How to be objective when studying Jesus Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Michael Huemer returns to the channel to answer YOUR best objections to his case for free will. While I originally styled this as a "bonus" episode, it is not a bonus. It's the main weekly thing. Forgive me. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.Check out our original discussion about free will.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 Introduction00:00:21 Objection #1 - You've got the wrong definition of "free will".00:03:10 Objection #2 - Free will is incoherent.00:07:48 Objection #3 - Free will leads to an infinite regress.00:09:06 Objection #4 - Philosophers can't agree on what "free will" even means.00:13:38 Objection #5 - Mike's argument is question-begging. Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Michael Huemer returns to the channel to discuss arguments for and against skepticism, the thesis that we cannot know much of anything, including whether or not we are dreaming right now. Other topics discussed: direct realism about perception and the arguments from illusion and hallucination, phenomenal conservatism, and the costs and benefits of self-publishing.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:44 What got Michael into self-publishing?00:08:35 How do I know I'm not dreaming right now?00:21:46 The argument for external world skepticism00:26:57 A critique of phenomenal conservatism00:32:29 Is a "real external world" the best explanation of our evidence?00:46:00 Direct versus indirect perceptual realism00:51:08 The argument from illusion00:56:11 The argument from hallucination01:03:05 Can we know we're not in a simulation?01:12:01 The problem of other minds Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

David Wallace, professor of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, explains why he finds the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics convincing. We discuss probability, what it means for persons to "split", whether teleportation means death, and the role of philosophy in assessing science.Video of this interview is available on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:01:22 What is the difference between quantum and classical mechanics?00:08:12 The measurement problem00:14:16 The many-worlds interpretation00:19:46 Why can't I see other branches of reality?00:33:13 Is many-worlds crazy and absurd?00:37:57 The probability problem00:50:58 Do people split in two when the universe branches?01:00:11 Does many-worlds explain fine-tuning?01:04:56 Should many-worlds change the way we live?01:16:30 Of what are you most uncertain? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Prof. Daniel Wolne explains historical theories of religion with special focus on Sigmund Freud's speculation that religious belief arises from a projection of a father figure onto the universe. We then dive into contemporary theories arising from the cognitive science of religion: theory of mind, hyperactive agency detection devices, and social function theories.Check out video of our discussion on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:03:51 Explanation vs. theory of religion00:07:26 Methodological naturalism00:16:48 What is "religion"?00:27:44 Sigmund Freud - Is religion just projection of a father figure?00:39:42 What about non-theistic religions?00:42:09 Is religion the response to fear of death?00:45:22 Cognitive science of religion00:50:52 Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD)01:06:06 What is religion's social function?01:11:56 Does cognitive science undermine religious belief? Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Two philosophers come together to debate the question of whether objective, mind-independent moral facts exist. Mike says yes, Matt says no. They discuss whether we can ever have reason to go against our desires, whether beliefs about morality make any difference to our behavior, how we know things about the world, and the relevance of intuitions.Check out the video of the debate on YouTube.To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.EPISODE CHAPTERS00:00:00 Introduction00:00:45 Dr. Matt Lutz opening statement00:11:49 Dr. Michael Huemer opening statement00:24:43 Do moral obligations involve impossible kinds of reasons?00:41:40 Can the error theorist make sense of doing something against one’s desires?00:56:08 If moral facts disappeared, would we live our lives differently?01:14:34 What’s wrong with intuition as a ground for moral knowledge?01:29:05 How do we know logical and mathematical truths?01:35:46 Dr. Matt Lutz closing statement01:36:54 Dr. Dr. Michael Huemer closing statement Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

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

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