Відео

A misconception held by TAG proponents about the nature of contingency in the laws of logic and physics. They mistakenly treat these fundamental laws as contingent, implying that they could have been otherwise and therefore require an external grounding-typically posited as God. In reality, it is the arrangement of matter within the universe that is contingent, not the laws themselves. This misunderstanding extends to arguments like the fine-tuning argument, where proponents suggest that the very structure of reality is contingent in the same way that the positions of particles in space and time are contingent. Reality is a unified whole. It could be no other way and still support all that there is. There is also this tension between claiming that the structure of reality "just is" vs the structure of reality is "just how god did it". I see no difference to these two claims other than that the former is pure and the latter is anthropic and posits a one-up being.

Everyone is in a same-sex marriage, with oneself.

Great as always Micah. Ill have to give philosophy of language another shot, but it was definitely really difficult for me

I dont think you understood stealing according to the Christian moral definition. Your example of taking a loaf of bread from rich people is not theft, because God created goods for the care of human beings. A person is entitled to some resoucres to not die because of their dignity. However, if you have a job and still take a loaf of bread that would be stealing. Taxes also absolutely can rise to the level of stealing. That was actually the nuanced position that Horn was making. At some point the degree of taxation goes from necessity to theft kind of like in the loaf of bread example I mentioned.

A1 ed

I think Dennett's most important contribution to philosophy was his work on Austin's putt. Dennett very much did think Austin could have done otherwise and the sense in which he could is significant to free will. What Dennett pointed out is although Austin thought he meant he could have holed that putt in the actual circumstances with the past as it was prior to the putt, that was Austin's error . He didn't mean "the circumstances" in that narrow sense at all and we know this because Austin thought he could demonstrate his ability by setting up further similar putts and sinking them. Dennett has said he wishes people get that. Mostly people don't.

The legend has returned! 🙌 Thanks for sharing this.

holyshit good to see you back !

Looking forward to this!

it seems like Jay Dyer's transcendental argument for god is basically hijacking Neo-Platonism & modifying mechanics to apply it to his orthodox trinitarianism seems like a crime was committed

“If the cosmos had any other gods in them besides God - they would have been destroyed & gone to ruin! So glory be to God, Lord of the Throne, beyond what they allege.” ~ The Qur’an, Sūrah 21:22

When he walked of to find the paper I got ‘doc brown explaining things to Marty’ vibes

There is good evidence to suggest that homosexual lifestyles/behaviors are harmful to the individuals who partake in them. IIRC, children raised by homosexual parents tend to become homosexual themselves. I don’t think you’re being charitable in so blithely dismissing the social sciences factor on this.

We goin full Solaire of Astora with this one ☀️☀️☀️

Great stuff again. Cheers mate. Can't wait for more pal.

Panentheism(implies neoplatonic emanation) is in my opinion the most accurate view of neoplatonic/hermetic philospohy. Also of course this can imply a soft polytheism as gods essence is the same. Think of all gods are representation of the one, philosophical monism. Alternatively, you can view it as the Gods are a family lineage which is how they are all related. Even in the bible the angels are described as sons of god and serve on his divine council. Even syncretic christopagan groups exist such as the santeria(cuba), voodoo(haiti), candomble(brazil),

this has to be a joke

what books woud u guys recommend that debunk silly atheist arguments? THX n God bless....

An excellent conversation that is a relief from the endless Christian and atheist apologetics. As polytheist who has Neo Platonic leanings it is nice to see an author creating new material in that school of thought.

wonderful video. You got a subscriber man. 😻

Most of this conversation is highly academic, but I would like to understand it. Where do I go to get an overview of neo platonism or anything else that would be prerequisite to understand where you're coming from? Most of this is over my head, but I've been interested in the idea of polytheist apologetics, for lack of a better term, for a while now.

Love Oppy's hair

Perceptions of freedom are ineffable - seemingly IMPOSSIBLE to define - because that which we count as our freedom is sneakily multifaceted. An analogous half-philosophical, half-neuroscientific error would come from trying to pinpoint consciousness within a particular characteristic, or region in the brain. That sounds absurd, because by all accounts, consciousness is comprised of many overlapping behaviours and neurological processes. I reckon freedom is the same (and is even contained within the analogy); it's a gestalt we ascribe to a monolithic faculty, even though there are innumerable exclusive and theoretically definable elements at play under the hood. Day-to-day, our common sense interpretation of freewill is a useful heuristic: Classical freewill lets us make reliable estimations of an individual's character and set expectations for the future. However, in the pursuit of evermore knowledge, we shouldn't contort our interpretations of the facts to meet our longstanding heuristics, or intuitions; we should revise our heuristics to meet emerging facts, all the while coming up with definitions that a regular Joe can understand. Compatibilism is likewise both an admirable attempt at reclassifying freewill, but is at times leveraged to twist the facts in a bid to preserve the longstanding heuristic. An honest compatibilism will seek to speak the language of intuition while conveying the facts yielded by empirical corollaries and hard analyses. Freewill might be said to appear when we behave both regularly and our momentary neurology is consistent with our typical neurology. Therefore, a crime of passion committed by an otherwise sane individual must be prosecuted not because of some metaphysical transgression, but because it reveals a critical failing in that person's normal state. If further investigation elucidates no such failure in the criminal's normalcy, then the primary function of punishment is deterrence. Deterrence nudges edge-case deviants more in-line with our preferred normal range, and fosters enfranchisement by appeasing the aggrieved. That's not retribution; soundness of mind is ultimately rational and can be located in far-flung proclivities, just like consciousness and freewill. This brand of compatibilism doesn't attempt mental gymnastics that invoke muddled libertarian freewill and alternate universes. Rather, it appeals to universally understandable, macroscopic processes, and hitches them on to the omnibus idea that is freewill.

the gods are eternal immortal celestial beings that keep balance to the cosmos and the fabric of reality. the gods themselves were never created, they have always existed, they are an emanation or a manifestation of celestial sentient intelligence of the one or chaos (impersonal source) the point of origin of all creation. the gods then created everything around us seen and unseen, and are the keepers of the entire space and time in which we live in. they can manifest themselves in physical forms, they can influence or cause change in the world, each god has their given natural roles in which they are the stewards of.

You should do a podcast

Neoplatonism has almost always felt like Monotheism with extra steps to me. If all is one, then Mono. If they are separate, then Poly, but they can’t be one. Feels just as non-sensical as the trinity.

We don’t have any direct awareness of our brain itself or neural processes themselves (per 1:29:00), but we also don’t have any direct experience of our subconscious mind either. Does Josh want to argue that the subconscious is the brain whereas the conscious mind isn’t? My understanding is that he doesn’t have that view. But then, if the ground of one’s own self consciousness can shield itself from a layer or legitimate consciousness, why is it problematic to say that the brain states that just ARE consciousness aren’t directly aware of themselves ?

If you are interested in polytheism I suggest checking out the Norroena Society. We are theological reconstructionists and our focus is Germanic heathenry (Sedianism).

I think that a good definition of natural is "whatever can be observed and described in physical and mathematical terms"

Loved this video. I think naturalistic paganism offers much to seekers who wish to forge connection and find peace without being forced into taking up beliefs that contradict all observable laws of nature. I count myself a panentheist and I love celebrating the beauty of the natural world. 🌿

God the Huemer argument is so unbelievably stupid

It's a bit silly to call God supernatural since I suppose, from his point of view, it is actually US the humans that are created, and therefore UNnatural. No one's gonna hesitate to agree that stuff like a watch or a car are non-natural things. We created them. So why do we flip this around and refer to ourselves and our universe as the thing that's natural, and the god/angels as supernatural?

Oppy deserves a much wider audience. Especially, when compared with other tub-thumping religious 'philosophers'. Maybe that's the issue(?)

thedionysiannaturalist.blogspot.com/2020/03/this-blog-dionysian-naturalist.html

If you don’t accept the premises then you just escape.” …How convenient!

Fun conversation

I've been having similar thoughts recently. The hard determinist arguments seem a priori. They don't frame them that way. Pereboom and Caruso pretend there is wiggle room for agent causation. That is doubtful, or doubtful that agent causation will help. You can run a version of the manipulation argument for the case of indeterminism (Kristin Mickelson) so that argument, which is a priori, extends to free will skepticism. Yet it seems that we have empirical evidence which suggests that some of us have more freedom than others. There is a disconnect, an ambiguity. Two senses of freedom, which is essentially a compatibilist view.

I actually broke away from the satanic temple and pursued a more independent satanic atheo-paganism for the very reasons Dr Eric has pursued religious naturalism. Spirituality may just be baked into what humanity is, even if there’s no gods or ghosts to commune with. I wish I’d known about this idea of his when I first deconverted from Christianity

43.40 that garbage perennialism is fascist and racist.. just look at those jokers julius evola and rene guenon.. just saying.. :o great talk otherwise guys.

I agree with your reasoning. It works perfectly fine for me to be an effective altruist and to fight for left wing politics.

41:15

Love this book! And I’m a proud polytheist

Yeah, I’m always unimpressed by people trying to critique EA, it’s just almost never thought through at all. Thanks for the rambling talk 😅

Very interesting discussion. I think your objections to right-libertarian ethics work. However, it is worth considering that Nozick didn't consider rights absolute because of the paradox of deontology, so maybe some of your objections won't work against Nozickean ethics specifically. I'm not sure where I stand on the socialism/capitalism debate. I think I'm to the left of social democracy and to the right of market socialism (a middle point between those two). I am, however, somewhat sympathetic to voluntary slavery, which is honestly quite funny.

I like my altruism ineffective

Lol like I’m gonna listen to that mic quality

Interesting video. I don't find the dilemma convincing at all, though I'm not that familiar with epistemology. I don't see why something that lacks propositional content couldn't justify a belief. In fact, don't all (or at least most) externalist accounts of justification appeal to the explanatory histories/chains leading up to a belief to justify said belief? Explanatory chains surely lack propositional content, and yet many find it intuitive that they may explain beliefs. I think I'm not an externalist but I still think the intuition behind the horn I discussed controversial and weird.

Great to find this video. I am a Naturalistic Pagan exploring the intersections of science and religion on my blog The Dionysian Naturalist. I am most interested in ecological Druidry.