Graham Oppy and Josh Rasmussen discuss the Nature of Ultimate Reality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 січ 2020
- Two of the world's leading philosophers of religion sit down and exchange thoughts on what ultimate reality may be like and where they have common ground in constructing worldviews.
Thanks a bunch to Graham and Josh for returning to have this talk and to my friend Joe Schmid for helping moderate.
Well look at that. Wasn’t expecting my Thursday to include both Rasmussen and Oppy.
Wtf how did you arrange this
"My wife tells me I have an inability to understand ordinary language" I feeeeeeeel that, Josh
Micah, I don’t know how, but you have outdone yourself yet again! I’m stunned! I can’t wait to watch! This will be great to listen to on the way to Atlanta. Thank you Joe Cool (that’s my official nickname for Joe Schmid), Dr. Oppy, and Dr. Rasmussen for your appearances. It’s always a pleasure listening to you all!
I love the exploratory nature of this discussion. It's much more interesting to me than the "trying to convince the other guy" approach.
A pleasant surprise.
You guys are legit. Very balanced and humble.
Thanks so much for this channel. I've been looking for exactly this for several years.
This was a real pleasure to watch. Thank you so much for this excellent and respectful discussion.
Damn this is good stuff! Very much like both these guys.
Absolutely fascinating discussion! I got a bit lost at times, but I still learned a lot. Thanks Micah.
Picture of Alien Guy......
Cats......
I love Graham Oppy
I think that a good definition of natural is "whatever can be observed and described in physical and mathematical terms"
These talks are amazing. I grew up when the climate of hostility between atheists and theists online was so heavy, I don't think anyone would be interested in hosting civil discussions like this. I can't even remember any vocal agnostics from that time period. This was really refreshing...
Yo! Champ in the making!
I just discovered this channel and the content looks great. Why so less sub though I wonder
- I do not think that attributing necessity to something does not need further explanation. Frankly, I think that if someone tells me "the existence of this is necessary", I would ask "Why is it necessary?"
-I like the problem of options on the limits of the necessary being. I have read something about the metaphysical possibility and the epistemological possibility. I think the limited or unlimited options are metaphysical, that is to say about the thing. The epistemological is the option of not having knowledge. I think the problem is correctly presented only with the metaphysical options, because regardless of what we know (the epistemological option), the necessary being is limited or not.
-I agree that if you can base different necessary truths to just one, it is an improvement in a worldview.
-About the arbitrary limits of the non-consciousness in the necessary being, I think there were two different issues. One is that zero is not an arbitrary limit; this is to say that it has no conscience. I think of the other issue like this: there is an initial state that has certain properties, how many properties does it have? If I say 9 and not 10 because he has no consciousness, it seems to me that, unless I justify or explain that limit on the number of properties, it is an arbitrary limit. In this case, if naturalism only by definition excludes consciousness, it seems to me an arbitrary limit on the number of properties of the necessary being.
- In the comparison of worldviews, I prefer explanatory power and explanatory scope than simplicity, because I think they seek the truth, and simplicity not.
1:40:35 I think this result is more a matter of parallel experience. Like if you poll Buddhist philosophers of mind they will also probably say the brain is equivalent to thinking. Because their outlook is formed by the parallel experience of becoming a Buddhist, while also becoming a philosopher of mind. So over time they develop a perspective that's a result of their long term experiences of becoming.
I just have to say in my opinion anybody who would claim that arbitrarily saying that the most fundamental thing of the universe is made of I don't know what you want to say magical stuff, and not only is this stuff magical but it's all powerful, it's all knowing, it's all loving, etc. And not only that it's got the ability to make from I guess nothing, mind you that it can make anything that you could imagine possible any universe any structure anything.
Now to say that that thing is more simple than just the universe you either have to be ignorant or intellectually dishonest. This is something that flat Earth does all the time it takes normal words, definitions, concepts that we have and use in our reality and they steal the word and changes the meaning. For example they've hijacked the word perspective and change the meaning of perspective to mean that something that disappears from the bottom up which we all know perspective doesn't make things disappear from the bottom up that's just total silliness. This is identical to calling that imaginary all-powerful thing that can create anything that you could ever positively think of in everything you can't think of to be something simple no.... Just no...
I think, it is much more interesting if this conversation occurs publicly, because these two people are very uncommon on the planet earth, make a schedule regarding this matter after pandemic. If that is the case, I can't wait to buy your ticket.
Show your talent on the stage, and burn the stage like a hell, so that the people might know you well and buy your books.
a scheduled pandemic, says it all.
Hey Micah, thanks so much again for your videos. This is highly interesting. I know this was a year ago, but I am interested to hear your thoughts on this. It seems to me that when Graham is presenting his view, he acts very confident that naturalism is simpler than theism. But when someone like Josh or Rob Koons points out that the initial boundary of theism is simpler because it does not have arbitrary constants, Graham backs off into skepticism because “physics hasn't gotten there yet”. I feel like this is a little inconsistent. Do you feel the same way?
Unless you think the universe is the only one that god could possibly have made, then theism has what might be considered as hidden constants, the number of which is vastly greater than the actual physical constants we know about, because gods choices as to what universe to create are unbounded (according to most theistic positions). The universe is either a brute necessity or a brute contingency and it makes no difference to that if you interpolate a god somewhere, except to make the total picture more convoluted than it needs to be and to add a lot of strange and probably incoherent powers that are not detectable in this universe, by the means we have. Graham makes this explicit in the discussion with BIll Craig about craig's mathematical "proof", but it is an aside that I haven't seen expanded on, although I hear references to him discussing this in some of his prose.
This "arbitrary limits discussion" regarding one's epistemic approach of his own foundational explanation with respect to reality seems much like; trying to throw a ball at a wall (epistemic approach) , and land it as close as possible to the wall (foundational explanatory theory), without it bouncing off (implications) back away from the wall.
It seems that "bounce back" (implications) away from "pinning the ball to the wall" (getting your explanatory theory right) can push the ball (epistemic approach) just as far away from the wall (explanation) , albeit in a separate direction, as stopping too short of the wall (explanation).
Oppy seems to suggest that Rasmussen bounces off the wall, but Rasmussen seems to suggest that Oppy stops too short of the wall.
Oppy has a wall of his own though. But it's a physical wall, and not a concept like supremacy. I personally don't know if supremacy is even relevant. It's sort of like omniscience. If a being were supposedly omniscient how would he know there is something he doesn't know? The same goes for supremacy. How does a supreme being know he is ultimately supreme? These concepts are more likely contingent on us, and not a necessary feature of reality. So that's likely why these questions can't be answered well without circular reasoning.
That's correct. Interestingly, it isn't just distinctive to this conversation. Plenty of apologist and atheist after hours of conversing always seem to reach a stalemate at this very point. The great thing is that Oppy seems to consider or well.... consider may be too strong at this stage but at least contemplate his own approach. Has he really stopped too short? I hope we have another video in a few years with these two onboard.
Wow! This is an amazing channel! Where do you study?
Joshua Brecka
Thanks! Appreciate it! I’m currently getting my AA at a State college in Florida. Joe is an undergrad at Purdue.
@@crusadeagainstignorance8309 that's great! It is so exciting to find all of this useful content. You have built something great with Oppy and Rasmussen here. I'm a big fan of both of their work (tend to agree with Oppy these days though...)
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 ?
FIVE!
So I guess Joshs response to the trinitarian question was just to say that he doesn’t think the 3 persons can be deduced from the necessary being (maybe not even from a supreme being) and that further arguments for Christianity would be required?
Yes. That's not controversial. The Trinity is a _revealed_ positive 'attribute' (not the best term to use) about God. That's the difference between natural theology and revealed theology.
38:29
Question about identity theory:
Consider two worlds, one where a given brain state generates a conscious experience, and one where that same brain state does not generate a conscience experience. Wouldn't that mean that the first world contains something that the second doesn't, namely the experience? That would indicate experience is distinct from the brain. If so, doesn't that invalidate identity theory?
Am I missing something?
Oppy's view is not coherent; however your example wouldn't work for him. When you said the brain state "generated" an experience, you had already failed to talk in terms of identity. He thinks the brain state just *is* the experience; not that it "generates" it.
@@BlueEyesDY
I apologize if I came across as nit-picking the wording. What I meant to convey was that the very question you're asking presumes the falsehood of identity theory. It's like asking "how can H2O be identical with water when there is a possible world with H2O that isn't water?" The proponent of identity would just say there is no such possible world because H2O just _is_ water. Likewise, Oppy's position is that conscious states just _are_ brain states, so it makes no sense to talk of worlds where you have the one without the other.
I'll reiterate, though, that I agree with you: the view is nonsense. It literally makes no sense.
41:15
Hmmm 55:26?
49:30 wait by what he's saying and implying shouldn't he be an agnostic???
1hr>>> 1:03:00
5:09
f i v e
5!!
5!!!
I think it's funny that the Trinity often comes up in this context, given that it isn't taught in Scripture, and moreover even someone like Swinburne admits that arguments of natural theology are really arguments for a singular personal being, namely "The Father".
I just wanna ask , is religious philosophy and naturalism in any way beneficial to humanity
its trying to figure out why there is anything at all question which I would say is important
@@anglozombie2485 but is there anyway they can reach a conclusion
@@abhaysreekanth
Yes, we can reach a conclusion with good reasons and evidence. And it addresses some of humanity's most central concerns, so it's worth working on.
@@Mentat1231 can we find better reasons as we go on
What I mean to ask is if we've made big leaps from the ancient philosphers
I'm not familiar with philosphy but I think a lot of it has stayed the same
@@abhaysreekanth
Philosophy isn't really about progress and finding out new things, but rather clarifying the concepts and reasoning that we use. I'm not sure if society has taken proper note of the available clarity, so maybe you're right to wonder if it ever will. Still, the clarification itself has value and is there waiting for people to notice.
Also, I just want to throw in that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical, and I think Swinburne is right to say that arguments to the existence of God are arguments for the existence of a single being: the Father (the "Jehovah" of the Bible... in English, at any rate). It may be that this Being's nature requires it to cause certain other beings, but they would not in any sense be God (that last bit is me, not Swinburne; but it seems quite obvious).
Good to see you here brother. You made some good points, Jehovah is the one true God. Rasmussen made a few similar points in his book and even referred to a publication attempting to deal with the philosophical issues the Trinity raises for some. Divine Simplicity is often discussed in that context as well. A simpler resolution is the conclusion that it's not taught in scripture, and therefore a non-issue. My email is listed in the About section of my UA-cam profile, send me a message when you can brother. ☺️
Oppy deserves a much wider audience. Especially, when compared with other tub-thumping religious 'philosophers'. Maybe that's the issue(?)
I've said it before, but Oppy's big problem is thinking necessity is explanatorily primitive and doesn't permit of further explanation. I wish I could talk with him and really challenge that for at least the following two reasons:
1) Necessity of truth often does have an explanation, namely in the meaninglessness (e.g. because of entailed contradiction) of the negation. And it is not a brute "cost" to hold something is true because denying it is meaningless or contradictory. The existence of a thing is just a certain kind of truth (more on that in #2), and so why couldn't it be the case that some sort of Ontological Argument is right and the negation of the claim that X exists entails a contradiction? Or perhaps an analysis of a powers-based alethic modality theory leads to the explanatory ultimate being such that the very possibility of its failing to exist makes no sense (possibility being predicated on either actuality or powers)? Or maybe some third option involving a condition-less being, and therefore it makes no sense to think of a state of affairs in which its sufficient conditions aren't satisfied? Etc. Etc. Even if none of these are actually right, don't they show that the idea of having an explanation for the necessity of a thing is not forbidden full-stop?
2) Perhaps even more importantly, I don't think "necessity" or "contingency" actually are properties of objects or states of affairs (what kind of property could they be??). I think "necessity" comes down to propositions. If we were to state all the true propositions, it would be necessary to include certain ones. And, of those, it could obviously be meaningful to ask "why do we need to (why is it necessary that we...) include those?" And the answer, again, may have to do with the meaninglessness or contradiction of their negations or some such thing.
Anyway, I think if Oppy could get past that, the door might be open to consider what kind of existential statement could be such that its negation is meaningless or contradictory, or such that the related statements about the conditions for its existence are unavoidable....
Nature vs. Technology
Nature vs. Civilisation
Nature vs. Art
Nature vs. Sickness
Nature vs. Supernatural
Nature vs.????
To see what you mean by nature tell me what the opposite term is.
On "mind", I wish I could hear round 2 of this discussion after both Rasmussen and Oppy drop whatever they're doing and read Peter Hacker on the topic. I don't understand how this "inner/outer" distinction, talk of "mental states", identity theory, etc. survived Wittgenstein, but they definitely won't survive Hacker.
Ew. Philosophy grew out of its ordinary language and semi-positivistic nonsense phase a long time ago.
@@mickeyesoum3278
If you call perpetuating bad 17th century metaphysics "growth".... I'm not espousing anything like positivism. But sense is a precondition of truth. And much of what Rasmussen and Oppy got stuck on makes no sense.
@@Mentat1231 it's much better than bad early 20th century metaphysics and epistemology, which is what Hacker and Witt ultimately reduce to when you analyze them. But alright, to each his own.
@@mickeyesoum3278
I've analyzed both for myself. Besides, you could skip Wittgenstein and see the holes in the shadow of Descartes through Merleau-Ponty and Dreyfus. Or even, sketchily but sharply, through people like Alva Noe. You don't need the deeper problem of sense to see that this neo-Cartesian muddle is a dead-end.
@@Mentat1231 I mean, I don't disagree that Cartesian views have problems, I myself favor pre-modern metaphysical views - Platonic, Aristotelian, Neoplatonic, Medieval, etc. -, but I do find much of value and seriousness (and sense) in Descartes, Malebranche and all the gang. I much prefer them to Wittgenstein and friends, who often think perfectly meaningful ideas are nonsense.
But to each his own anyway.
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?
I think that's a bad way to use those words. God is supernatural in the sense that he transcends nature and can violate the laws of physics. We are natural in the sense that we are temporal and bound by physical laws. In that sense, watches and cars are natural, too. I think this is what Graham was alluding to when he talked about all the different connotations of the world "natural."
@@asdfghjkl2261 natural in the sense I'm using it means there's no apparent intelligence that created something for a purpose. Watches and cars don't appear in nature. We create them for a purpose. In this sense, watches and cars are not naturally occurring things. And so it is with a god and created humans.