The Uncertainty Podcast

Theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart explains the contours of his argument against materialism is his new book, All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life. We explore his idealist leanings, the claim that a mechanistic approach to nature could never explain consciousness, and the thesis that atman is brahman, that I am fundamentally identical to infinite consciousness.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 Introduction00:00:42 What do we mean by "mind"?00:09:24 Are you an idealist?00:15:21 Panpsychism00:28:18 Convince me that consciousness exists at all.00:46:09 Sean Carroll's case for naturalism, considered00:54:14 Is this just a type of "God of the gaps" reasoning?01:00:34 Do fine-tuning and cosmological arguments for God succeed?01:07:47 Is atman Brahman?01:12:50 Does this mean that I am God?01:19:34 What are you most uncertain of? 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

Philosopher, author, and intelligent-design advocate Stephen Meyer joins me to discuss the arguments of his recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. While we only got around to two of those three discoveries, our conversation was robust, engaging, and will interest both advocates and critics of Stephen's work.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 Introduction00:00:11 Interview with Joe Rogan00:03:19 Stephen's basic case for God00:12:05 Data point #1 - Origin of the universe00:17:26 The limits of singularity theorems00:25:45 Quantum cosmology and theories of quantum gravity00:32:36 What if spacetime is emergent?00:36:45 Why is a beginning more likely under theism?00:41:22 Data point #2 - Cosmic fine-tuning00:46:40 Why is fine-tuning unlikely under naturalism?00:53:31 Why is fine-tuning likely under theism?00:57:55 Technical objection: No background information01:03:04 The multiverse hypothesis01:08:19 Do we need a "scientific" theory of the multiverse?01:13:20 Richard Dawkins' argument: God is complex01:17:24 But what about evil and suffering? 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

Isn't "smorgasbord" a great word? Amos Wollen, my friend and fellow Oxford graduate student, joins me to debate his novel argument for the compatibility of God's love and an eternal Hell, a theodicy involving our consenting to suffering prior to our births, a case for the Baha'i faith, a fine-tuning argument from beauty, and the real reason that I take so many bathroom breaks.Check out the video of the debate on YouTube.Amos has a great Substack that you should absolutely read.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 Introduction00:50 A new argument for Hell39:43 A pre-existence theodicy01:04:52 A fine-tuning argument from beauty01:25:02 A case for the Baha'i faith Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe

Michael Huemer, philosopher and moral realist who defends objective moral facts via intuitions, debates Matt Lutz, philosopher and error theorist who denies objective moral facts and offers naturalistic explanations. They clash over desire-dependent reasons, whether moral beliefs change behavior, the role of intuitions versus explanation, and how we know a priori truths like logic and math.

Emerson Green walks through three powerful objections to attempts to reduce consciousness to the brain: phenomenal transparency, philosophical zombies, and vagueness.Check out Emerson's YouTube channel.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 What are you a YouTuber?00:19:08 Objection #1 - Phenomenal transparency00:29:22 Why physicalism cannot tolerate transparency00:32:31 What if consciousness is translucent?00:38:36 Maybe there are no mental states at all00:49:52 Objection #2 - Philosophical zombies01:00:57 Different types of conceivability01:12:29 What about modal skepticism?01:17:32 Objection #3 - Vagueness01:24:40 When do we go from non-conscious to conscious? 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

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