Alex, you're the epitome of what an atheist should be: always searching, always learning, and always willing to listen to the other side. Keep up the good work!
Anyone seriously looking for the truth won't find it anywhere but the illuminati, they've written 20 million words in over 200 books do describe the truth of existence.
@Please enter a name I think Matt is great when in a public debate. He is sharp as a tack and also respectful. He is less respectful in the call-in programmes, but so are many of his interlocutors.
@@Fotomadsen thank you for your reply but I’m sorry I completely disagree with that, I think in terms of a debater he’s completely embarrassing and intellectually dishonest at least nowadays, in some of his older debates he was definitely at least willing to have a good faith conversation, He goes into debates with have absolutely no justification for his for really any of his positions at all, he doesn’t even attempt to and just throws out claims most of the time. And constantly dodges and is incredibly incoherent at least in recent debates and in every recent debate I’ve seen with him. I think he’s mostly and predominantly just doing these debates for publicity into inflate his ego, and please his audience. I have heard many Christians and some atheists tell me and also complain that they think the warranty is a bully, I definitely wouldn’t say that I think he’s pretty respectful for the most part. For the most part because I really just don’t think he cares about the topics that he debates, and that’s pretty difficult to say because he’s basically spent his entire career on many of the topics but he knows little to no information about the topics, it’s pretty comparable to Kent Hovid’s understanding an experience with Evolution by natural selection. He really has no excuse he was literally a Southern Baptist for 25 years. And also I know this is kind of irrelevant but his audience is unbearable I’m not talking about you you’re probably a member of his audience, and if you are I’m not judging you or saying you’re a terrible person or anything like that, or that you’re dishonest I’m just talking about in general, and I think he’s everything wrong with the modern atheist movement and anti-theism in general for the most part. With some of his callers I can understand some of them can be pretty unbearable, but at the same time though he’s just nasty to some of them and it’s pretty frustrating to watch.
How? 😅 by bringing on this apologist buffoon? He can’t even understand that human decision/agent causation doesn’t end at the agent. This is frankly embarrassing for Alex
He all but admits that he choose to believe in free will, as that makes most sense as a theist. Major respect to him for acknowledging, he could be wrong. Alex you are an intellectual powerhouse and you are so in a very humble way. I think you are a very influential thinker. Thank you for upholding the banner of reason, curiosity and inquiry. And at such a young age too.
I'm not very scholarly in my abilities to understand free will but I agree with your comments. I'm a Christian believer and I also support the "banner of reason, curiosity and inquiry". Respectfully...
> Major respect to him for acknowledging, he could be wrong. Except for where, right at the end, as soon as Alex even suggested the hypothetical situation of "being able to demonstrate that animals feel 'as much' pain as we do" he *immediately* started backtracking and flinging out excuses as to why he'd never believe that anyway. He's as indoctrinated as anyone.
@@johnnypopstar well let's face it, to believe in God ultimately requires some level faith not based in rational thought - but we can still respect people who have analysed and rationalised there beliefs to a very far extent at least, and are very considerate of counter arguments.
@@jim-bob87 can we? Should we? They did all the rationalising work that *should* have led them away from believing, yet still didn't. In many ways they're even *less* deserving of respect than folk who never even bother questioning why they believe what they believe at all. It's a great example of the Trump-Boris problem. Is Trump worse because he just can't help himself and is wired to be a self-serving fuck 24/7, or is Boris worse because he's actually educated and rationalises that being awful actually works in his favour? It's Boris. He's *capable* of being decent yet chooses not to. That's the worse position.
Not sure that "free will makes the most sense as a theist". You could just as well argue from the perspective of total predetermination which leaves no room for free will. Just as one could make the biblically based argument there is no immortal, immaterial soul. Neither position makes more or less sense for a theist and not even for a Christian theist. In fact the whole idea of an immortal soul that flutters away into heaven like a butterfly in the moment of death is taken from pagan beliefs that have been incorporated into the Christian worldview.
It is incredible the clarity and ease that Swinburne has to respond even a such advanced age. A bit slow already but in very good shape. Excellent dialogue!
I can’t believe he is 88 years old. So inspiring, his mind is still quite sharp! I’m halfway through the interview and enjoying a lot. Thanks again for this kind of content, Alex!
@@badgerlife9541 why specificly biden? trump and biden can be both idiots, even if you approve some of their decisions. i think both of them are laughable. don't you?
Wow. I don't think I've experienced an interview that was so succinct and to the point in both asking and answering that I was actually disappointed it finished so soon. We often get a lot of pointless "meandering" but there wasn't even the slightest trace of it here. Utterly brilliant and spellbinding. Thank you. Subscribed.
I love that you pointed out that his assertion that animals feel pain less than humans is not falsifiable and just terribly convenient for him. Your questions throughout pointed directly to the flaws in his many arguments. Excellent interview and I appreciate that you don't just let him get away with saying whatever
I doubt it's not falsifiable. Hook up a monkey to some electrodes, see which brain areas are active to which degree when he feels pain (highly unethical experiment though). I think that should be a pretty good foundation for assessing whether animals feel pain as strongly as we do.
That was really a great discussion, everything put very well and I think your moderation style is just perfect for this kind of discussions/podcast. Consistently something to look forward to :)
He appeals to classical or orthodox views a bit too often. That being said, he definitely has a deep understanding of his own views. That’s quite admirable.
It's only an appeal to tradition if his reasons for his beliefs are "it's always been that way", which his reasons appear to be much deeper than that. No need to discount something because it's always been that way.
Really enjoyed this discussion. Alex, I enjoy your curiosity and critical thinking. I hold an opposing view and I enjoy hearing your challenges and pondering them. Richard is a true intellectual, I love that he holds to no dogma and I'm impressed by the sharpness of his mind at such an old age. Love the contrast of the wisdom of the experienced and the curious youth... both searching to understand the truth.
It's also a privilege to listen to both Alex and Richard Swinburne. We continue to learn throughout life and although I am strongly deficient in scholarly abilities, I'm still open-minded to listen to the beliefs and worldviews of others, including Christians, Muslims, and atheists. Sometimes I wish I wasn't a human being but God had a different plan. So while we struggle with doubts and frustrations, I hope I can better understand Jesus' words "Come follow me". With both reasoning and faith, I hope I can become less judgemental and more desirable of listening to others. Respectfully from Florida.
Cheers mate. Good luck in your journey. Know that in Islam at least, the good deeds you did while Christian will still count after converting to Islam, whereas the bad deeds will be forgiven.
@@أحمدإبراهيم-غ4ه9ط I actually like your honesty although I personally believe that no matter how good we try to be, we still carry the stain of a sinful nature. Call it "original sin" or a tendency to do bad things because of evolution. Whatever we call it, I think mankind is fallen. However my belief in a sinful nature does not negate our being created by God in His image. Isn't that called "fitrah" in Islam? To be truthfully honest, the only good deeds that count in the sense that they redeem us, are the "good deeds" of Jesus Christ. I'm referring to Jesus' sacrifice of love for us on the cross. I know the crucifixion makes no sense to most Muslims. Don't worry, I'm not on here to judge anyone. In fact, Jesus' crucifixion is difficult for me to understand too. If Jesus' death does indeed refer to the mystery of salvation, then He had to be divine. That's why Jesus is called the beloved ( unique ) Son of God in Christianity. I respect Muslims but some beliefs in Islam confuse me. But again, don't worry. Some doctrines in Christianity are also hidden in a mystery. But God is all-knowing. So I must be somewhat open-minded to God's guidance on my journey. I don't even like the word " religion". I think God wants to know us and desires for us to know Him. From my understanding, that's not religion, but a spiritual and psychological aspect of Life. I know God wants to forgive ( and forget) our bad deeds. I think such a forgiveness is possible because of Jesus the Lord. No disrespect intended to you. I wish I could understand better but I'm not very scholarly. Peace of God to you and your family.
As an epileptic person i used ny degree to research individual interpretation in relation to human vibration and visuals. Was so interesting i ended up going into neurology, biochemistry and even consciousness . I could research my own epilepsy and wanted to make a 3d print of my MRI brain scan but wasnt able to rent it in time. A month later a proffesional from another uni did this and had good results. I studied art but was told i should of studied sciences . This conversation was so good enjoying a cupa n listening to discussions is totally my guilty pleasure.
It is always a delight to hear Richard Swindburne .. as with Anthony Kenny, Peter Vardy, Alan Carter, Richard Price (and the late Roger Scruton, Gerard J Hughes SJ, Benedicta Ward SLG, and going way back Frederick Coppleston SJ etc); there are not enough British scholars offered a place on YT (et al) to thin out the far too heavy larding of US socio-political contextualization of moral, philosophical, theological, and metaphysical issues. Thanks for sharing this little treasure. One can learn a lot in discussion with someone one does not tend to agree with, if only by 'understanding' their understanding .. and critiquing it. Sadly, there seem to be relatively few academics of Swindburne's stature and capacity to 'debate' with .. in gently attentive conversation on religiousy topics; I itched to tease out more from his necessarily truncated responses .. but that's me (I wasn't terribly fond of Swindburne's take of Aquinas, e.g. his 'Faith and reason' 1981, Oxford : Clarendon Press - snotty-nosed undergrad oik that I was). Great stuff. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)
Simply wonderful interview. I also consider it not only a privilege, but a blessing to listen to great minds like Richard Swinburne. Thank you Alex for bringing such excellent content.
His response to Nozick's experience machine is interesting, given its parallels with the description of an infinitely blissful afterlife; most people disregard the latter on the same grounds he dismisses the former. His response to Free Will in heaven is also interesting. "There will be Free Will to choose among alternative 'good' states". The problem is that "Free Will" is used to describe the existence of "not good" states in this current life; bad things happen as a consequence of the freedom to choose to do bad things. This is obviously circular. If in heaven, there simply aren't any "bad" choices to select from, it begs the question why there are "bad" choices to select from here. The Christian will cite the Fall of Man, but that merely pushes the problem back, and the question still remains: "why were the bad choices available" These arguments are always asymmetric in favor of the theistic position. It is typically said that the logical problem of evil is answered by the free will defense: it is not logically incoherent for a tri-Omni-god to exist while evil, pain, or suffering exists. People can do this by their own volition. I think this does alleviate the issue to an extent but doesn’t do away with the evidential problem. Nevertheless, it implies something very peculiar. If God does not want to interfere with our free will, and hence does not have to answer to evil , he equally cannot answer for miraculous benefits or positive outcomes, by the same logic of free will. It’s stated that some people are blessed, or that god does great things for people. Many times, these things are done by the free will of others for countless reasons, the possibility of a positive outcome exists for a variety of reasons (economical, knowledge advancement, access to education etc). Is it not equivalent to say that, god does not answer for these "good" things precisely in the same way he does not answer for evil: on behalf of our free will and ability to manipulate the environment for our gain and the gain of others? It seems we relegate gods existence to that of deism; rarely involved and much of the moral good or bad we experience can be accounted for purely on human terms.
Thank you! I was literally screaming when he said that I'm part because of what you pointed out! I mean the least disrespect possible to the man, but at 48 minutes it seems "because Christianity is true to me" is the genesis of his thoughts which leads to increasingly unsatisfying conclusions. Heck, he basically said being neurodivergent and incapable of avoiding immoral impulses is grounds to not be in heaven.
Enjoyed this conversation! Regarding animals being able to speak - what about the apes who have learned to sign? They might not be able to have deep philosophical discussions, but they can certainly tell us when they're afraid or hurting, as well as when they are happy. You don't even need words to do that. Anyone who has owned a dog knows they have the ability to suffer, or miss their owners, and form deep connections with other beings.
Very interesting episode. I wonder whether the whole idea of "me" is akin to the idea of a "table". We assign a name to something which, if you're a materialist, doesn't actually have a name from the "universe's perspective". I.E., a table is just a collection of atoms in a shape that is close enough to the shape and kind of something we call, with our flawed language, a "table". I think the same applies to the concept of "self" or "me". Materialists would believe we are just a bunch of atoms and, while this is a rather crass and unhelpful answer to give to a neuro-transplant patient, it seems to capture the truth of the situation quite well.
You're talking about mereological nihilism here, and most philosophers reject the idea that there are no such things as "things", not just because of intuition, but truly because if "things" are just a pattern of matter, then all emergent properties would be incompatible with reality. There are lots of objections to mereological nihilism, this is just one example, but even quantum physics nowadays tell us that emergent properties are, at least, possible.
“Just a bunch of atoms” is not what most modern materialists think we are. The atoms are transferable it doesn’t matter what atoms are in you because they mostly aren’t the Same ones as were in you a year ago, even the carbon atoms in your brain only hang around for a decade or so. Your neurons themselves last much longer than that but according to most materialist neuroscientists you are the patterns of neurons, neurochemistry, genetics, epigenetic factors etc that are in you, some of those slowly change but there is continuity between the states. It was very interesting to hear someone try to explain the concept of the material self without talking about StarTrek style transporters etc. or cutting the corpus collosum between the hemispheres which is another rare surgical procedure which seems to produce two different personalities which experience the world from slightly different perspectives
The very question though is who or what is the one naming everything though? And is it merely molecules in motion or something independent of the laws of physics or not?
@@GianFerreyraBouillon If the ship of theseus is just a label applied to an organization of wood and cloth, how can emergent properties not happen? How do emergent properties conflict with mereological nihilism?
@@josephpostma1787 Better Physics education is necessary to dismiss the idea that "emergant properties" are somehow not accounted for by a more complicated treatment of mereological nihilism. Simply start by asking: _where precisesly are these emergant properties occuring?_ Are they occurring in the mereological simples of some arbitrarily defined spacetime boundary around the mereological composite itself? Or are these emergant properties merely occuring in the minds of the observers of the aforementioned arbitrary spacetime boundary around the mereological composite itself? If you subscribe to the former then you're comitted to rejecting the Law of Conservation of Energy underpinning all of modern scientific inquiry. In the case of the later, let's take a look at the Ship of Theseus again. Where in spacetime does the "Ship of Theseus" start and where does it end? Obviously its _technically_ a different "Ship of Thesus" from moment to moment in terms of Mereological simples-but that's only the answer if one arbitrarily draws a circle around the "Ship of Thesus" that starts at the bow and ends at the stern. But this arbitrary line in spacetime isn't quite true for capturing the _entirety_ of the "Ship of Theseus" idea-a roughly similar configuration of synapses and neurotransmitters in multiple different brains such that the "Ship of Theseus" can be talked about _as if_ it were transcendant. But this only makes sense if you arbitrarily draw boundaries. In truth, the mereological simples of the _refferant_ and the _referrer_ are all parts of the only mereological composite (the universe)-meaning a more useful but still arbitrary boundary between mereological composites is to include the mereological simples involved in naming and duscussing the referrant in question. These mereological simples need not exist within the arbitrary spacetime boundary that starts at the bow and ends at the stern of a specific, physical Ship of Theseus and can, in effect, extend it's range to include all the "Ships of Theseus" that occur in each and every brain of its metaphorical observers. Yet, this too is a simplification. All quanta of matter/energy exterts a force on every other quanta of matter/energy such that the arbitrary line in spacetime you draw around any mereological composite in order to start talking about it must encolose all of it's mereological simples-including ones it's easily but arbitrarily definable mereological simples have ever interacted with such that if you go back far enough then your circle encloses the Big Bang and everything that has happened since. The educated mereological nihilist would say that there isn't actually any arbitrary boundary and that everything is _ultimately_ the sum of all the various influences on it, no matter how distant or remote, no matter if those influences canceled each other out or reinforced each other-that changing a single minor influence might have a negligible effect... but a negligible effect is _not_ no effect. Furthermore, E = MC^2 tells us that neither matter nor energy is the universal mereological simple of the universe. But that the mereological simple is some form of supersymetry between the two.
Another great interview. You were able to gently challenge his views, and he was able to offer a sophisticated defence whilst remaining open to the possibility that he is wrong. It was a pleasure to watch.
> a sophisticated defence That's certainly not what I heard. I heard him grasp at "phenomenology" as a shield without ever actually explaining the whys or hows of how that evaded the very legitimate questions Alex was asking. Why does this professor think it's ok to just view situations as "deciding to do the good thing, versus allowing the thing you want to happen"? That's way too conveniently supporting his fairytale worldview, and isn't justified at all.
@@johnnypopstar I agree with Johnny. However, I think that this subject itself is a bit tricky to discuss because there's really no way to know. I don't believe in free will, but I'm interested in knowing how it can exist because I've not heard a convincing argument that it does. Like in a world where it does exist, what does that look like?
@@johnnypopstar Swinburne doesn’t “view situations as either doing the right thing or what one pleases”, he just said that such situations are the ones where free will is most evident. Then he argues that the phenomenology of free will, that is, the way that purported free will FEEL TO US, is that the chain of causality stop in us: we either choose to force ourselves to do the right thing, or to allow ourselves to do what we please. We may take information, previous inclinations and other considerations into account, but they neither cause nor force our choice: we alone have the power to choose (to cause) either path. And because the by-us-only-caused-choice is intentional, it isn’t random either. That’s how it seems to us anyway, and I agree. Then he further argues that we should believe what prima facie seems true, unless given good reason to drop that belief. And he doesn’t see reasons against free will as being good enough. So he believes in it. Still, he does admit the possibility of our phenomenology of free will being illusory. It’s all fine for me. As an atheist, I just don’t have one of the powerful reasons to believe in free will. But I have the others (phenomenology, it would make Darwinian sense if possible, consciousness is bizarre and might very well allow free will somehow)... So I’m agnostic. I do think it’s pretty possible. I definitely don’t agree that there’s no coherent notion of free will. I think I just outlined one - if barely.
Growing up in a non religious family ...i take scientific determinism as the ultimate default ....but Its intriguing how Moral choices we made points to somethng beyond us..given we made more thag 10000 choices a day where most of it can be rationally explain by cause and effect phenomenon but moral choices are so different ..Richard swineburn is explaining the thought i had which i cannot explain.Thanks to both...
Only halfway through and already writing to agree with most top commenters: The podcast keeps getting better and is one of the most enjoyable podcasts out there. Also, thanks for inviting only non-fringe christians so far ;)
I kid you not. Yesterday I was thinking, "what if Alex gets Richard Swinburne onto his podcast?" Did not think it would happen, but here we are. One of my all time favorite philosophers, someone who has significantly shaped my thinking on a lot of philosophical issues. Looking forward to watch this!
He has his wits about him, and I admire his intellect. That being said, his philosophical views are logically flawed. There is no evidence for consciousness or mindfulness without a functioning brain. From studies of pathology, neurobiology, psychology, etc. we know processes such as memory, emotions, and sensibility are tied to the physical body. We know which region of the cerebrum Is responsible for each function and process. If a region of the brain is damaged or injured, one can lose part or all of the function associated with it. This includes cognition and memory. It's also known that anyone can see or hear nonexistent things. Therefore, when the body and brain expire, what is left of the "soul"? What would this "soul" carry on to the afterlife? What is a soul, if we know it can not carry memories or emotions? You can not see without eyes and a brain to process the information. You can not feel without physical touch and nerve endings (consider local anesthesia). You can not hear, taste, or smell without the necessary physical components, including the central nervous system. Therefore what is the afterlife without any of these things? If you claim our consciousness is our soul, you will have to prove you can still have consciousness without a central nervous system.
@@andrewc1205 The christian idea of the afterlife is that our bodies get resurrected, your misunderstanding of christian afterlife is in no way an objection to the idea of a soul. "If you claim our consciousness is our soul, you will have to prove you can still have consciousness without a central nervous system." What he claims is that we're both soul and body, it's substance dualism. What I would say is that we are the consciousness, because consciousness is that which is aware and we are the ones who are aware so the person and the consciousness are basically synonymous, and us/our consciousness depending on the body does not in anyway prove that we're not also simultaneously something beyond the body, so no, not really, you don't have to prove you can have consciousness without a central nervous system in order to prove the soul. The dependence upon one thing does not show lack of distinction or function, just because the mind is dependent on the body that doesn't mean it is the body. Cars need wheels to move, they're dependent on wheels to move, but even with no wheels, the car is still there, it's its own distinct thing with its own engine, and without that engine the wheels would be pointless and so on and so on. "one of the definining elements of cars are their function to move, and they cannot move without wheels therefore cars don't exist! You have to prove that cars can still move without wheels in order to prove cars exist" no that's not how it works.
@@CristianChirita2234 I'm well aware of Christian dogma. There are two conflicting views of "resurrection" in the bible. Some interpret it as physical, others interpret it as spiritual. Which idea do you adhere to? A spiritual resurrection means no body, and therefore, no sensibility, vision, or memory. A physical resurrection means bringing a decomposing body back to life. Both are equally illogical. Your analogy of body and mind is flawed. A vehicle and it's wheels are two material components. You are comparing those with a material and a non-material (theoretical concept) component. A car is still a car without it's wheels - it's just not going to move. We know both components are interchangeable. The idea of the body being separate from the mind is preposterous. But there is no sense arguing about something that cannot be proved or disproved. We'll all find out one day! Unfortunately, if I'm correct you won't know about it and none of this will matter.
@@andrewc1205 Not the point. If Swinburne adopts the view that I mentioned, then your objection just doesn't apply, and you actually have no idea which view he adopts (correct me if I am wrong) and the whole comment is you explaining why his reasoning is wrong. I wouldn't say my analogy is flawed, I am not seeking to make a perfect one, and also no I am not comparing the fundamenetals of material and non material, what I was comparing WAS dependability, that was the whole point of the analogy, you have an entire explanation of the analogy prior to the analogy, right above it. I was making an argument about dependability, and I made an analogy for the argument, that's all it is, the ideas of materialism or idealism or substance dualism have nothing to do with my argument because I made no argument for the soul, I was only objecting to what you said about your problems with the supposed interractions between them. "A car is still a car without it's wheels" Yes? that is the point of my analogy, indeed, how did you figure it out? My point was that let's say the mind couldn't function without the brain, that does not in any way prove that the mind is the brain. It can be dependent on the brain and also be its own seperate thing. Can you RE READ the analogy? I swear all of this is very heavily implied and I shouldn't have to explain it. "The idea of the body being separate from the mind is preposterous." That's not an argument. " spiritual resurrection means no body, and therefore, no sensibility, vision, or memory. A physical resurrection means bringing a decomposing body back to life. Both are equally illogical. " First one is a logical reach, but still logically possible, in the sense of that God could just add memory and everything that we have on substance dualism to the soul, it's not that hard, and second is logically possible and no there's nothing illogical about that, unless you assume materialism which is just fallacious. The first one, yes, again, it's a logical reach, but it's not full on non-sense, it is still logically possible. You present your argument with an implied hypothetical premise of the soul being true so your argument goes something like this: "Ok well let's say you are right and there's an afterlife, and there is a God, and consciousness is a consequence of the soul, my problem with that hypothetically being true is the idea of the body being resurrected, that's the thing that makes no sense to me in that hypothetical scenario." Really? That's your objection? In the hypothetical case where the soul and God exist, your problem is ignoring God's qualities in the entire hypothetical scenario? Not a very good argument. Point is, your objection doesn't make sense because of the totality of the hypothetical implied by your objection. The only alternative is that you're just assuming materialism. EIther way, it doesn't make sense.
@Cristian Chirita way to strawman the argument. Do you live your life in total dishonesty? I'm not even going to waste my time with your petty arguments. Have fun playing make-believe. Good luck.
I think this was truly a historic interview. Well done Alex for, as ever, asking brilliant questions. It was a joy to see you interact so positively with what is surely one of the most brilliant minds of our time! (I mean the person who is Richard Swinburne of course! ;) )
I saw swinburne speak live in debate with a.c. grayling. He used the Occams razor argument to defend the existence of God, and I was incredibly unimpressed and unconconvinced. Grayling on the other hand was fascinating and enlightening, and is a major reason why I am going to study philosophy at university
Funny- I watched a Grayling lecture just this week in which he claimed he could prove God does not exist. It was the biggest load of waffle I have heard. Oh well, whatever floats your boat.
I would have to hear the actual debate to pass fair judgement, but Occam's Razor seems like it would completely fall apart as a concept in the face of the supernatural. At that point the simplest explanation for why anything happens is always "it just did". Why did your car break down? It just did. Yeah but why? Maybe the batte- Nope, that's an unnecessary assumption, it just did.
This is brilliant! The CosmicSkeptic, Alex, is getting such eminent philosophers and scientists on. If higher animals have conscious free choice, do they also have moral responsibility for their actions?
Wonderful interview and thank both of you for presenting it to us. I thought the final musings on animal suffering and the existence of a deity was especially poignant! Wow!
"What is it that leads people to accept Jesus Christ? What is it that appeals to them when they read Scripture or they approach the sacraments? We could say that it is only custom or background or luck that leads them to say yes, but I think that something much deeper is going on. There is a resonance when Christ’s voice is heard precisely because the whole world has been wired to hear it." Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (05/01/23)"
I understand that Alex wasn't in a position to argue with his guest during the interview, so It might be a good idea if Alex makes a video to respond and comment on the answers given by his guest.
Prof. Swinburne will never make it in stand-up comedy but he sure is smart, collected and eloquent. Food for thought here, even for the most obdurate of atheists like me.
@@alansmith4748 right? I'm so confused by these comments saying how good this discussion was. Alex barely had any pushback or would just rollover and move to the next topic.
@Alan Smith I fully agree. I was quite underwhelmed. The opening talk about the mind-body problem really put a bad taste in my mouth. It was really as if Swinburne didn’t even know what Alex was asking. It was an astoundingly poor response to a interesting question
@@alansmith4748 It could be that what he presented were condensed answers that made people understand the essential nature of his position without going too deeply into the specifics (like his work "Are We Bodies or Souls" might) and limited himself to focusing on the interaction being a "basic fact" that tries to argue for the intertwined character of experiences and the physical aspect of sentient beings. Considering his age and the limited time he had, I am not surprised that he did not try to explain everything all at once. Additionally, sometimes we are better at elucidating topics while writing instead of speaking.
Daily Verse "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing." -1 Corinthians 13:4-8
I went to the comments to see if anyone else had noticed this. The professor is really good at defining things in such a way that makes him right by default. You can define what a soul is all you like, that doesn’t mean it actually exists outside the world of philosphy.
@@You_do_not_exist_Jack I see what you are saying, but what do we have outside of that? Are you saying that he does it more than others or his arguments are qualitatively different? I just can't see how any argument is different to what he is doing however I do see what you are saying. Even in the hard sciences I feel as if you face the same problem, in the cases such as strong under determinism with two theories of identical mathematical structure.
I like the Buddhist answer to the question of whether I am the same person as my past self. They say that there simply is no self, and that's why we can't find it anywhere.
This was a great interview, I found a lot of holes in the arguments presented by the interviewee but you pointed those out almost all the times even if it wasn't fully answered by the interviewee afterward. It might be because it comes from a point of view very different from his own
I found Richard Swinburne's reasons to support free will very unconvincing. He had to hedge his bets and find an exception every time that AO'C suggested a problem. He further explains that free will is a gift on the pure assumption that there's a giver.
A gift could also just be a "good" thing like a gifted artist 🎨 The "gift" is the talent that we can use our free will to use or not. No one has to give it, it's not like a christmas present..... But yes, I know that he probably meant so.
This podcast is so much needed today. So much nonsense, delusion & lack of genuine thinking today. Fear, insecurity has always ruled mankind.Therefore religion.
The problem with mr Swinburne’s statement that hemispherectomies don’t affect personality or memory is that it is a gross oversimplification, verging on negligence or deception. There are so many factors involved in the effects of a hemispherectomy. From which hemisphere is being removed (dominant or non dominant), age (as it is often done on children which are still hugely neuroplastic), previous condition (if your memory is already impaired due to epilepsy, the fact that it doesn’t worsen after surgery doesn’t mean that you have a normal memory). So using this claim as a sweeping justification for something which is beyond the brain is disingenuous. Plus, structures such as the hippocampus or amygdala are not removed during a hemispherectomy, and these structures have a large function in episodic and emotional memory, while the neocortex, which is removed, is more involved in the general knowledge function. Obviously this is an oversimplification of how memory and personality works, but it still shows how faulty the reasoning is.
When someone has the hemispheres of their brain severed, it can often be the case that they act independently and in "willful" contrast of one another. It can then be reasoned that there may be two autonomous agents acting within the same body, thus perhaps up to two egos (what Richard refers to as a soul) within a single material being. I'm not so sure this is so different from the myriad of cases of conjoined twins.
David the severed hemisphere outcomes always solidify how deterministic and unfree the self truly is!! The fact that you would have an outright atheist corresponding to one hemisphere and religious believer on the other is anything but freedom!! How in the hell do see freedom in that? Your brain isn’t choosing to be a brain. Your heart is choosing to pump blood! The act of making a choice is a deterministic process being fulfilled by the totality of internal and external factors that don’t have anything to do with the subjective experience of self (which is in and of itself the outcome of deeply deterministic functions and factors). I found nothing this fine gentleman said to in anyway make me think we have free will. It is the greatest myth we live with individually/collectively!!
I am rather cautious of making any deductions from this divided brain idea. It seems to me that you can disprove a few hypotheses here but no matter how many hypotheses you can rule out there will still be any number of alternative explanations. Personally I have no problem with a divided brain developing into two identities, both believing they are the whole identity, but ultimately both different from each other and the whole.
@@milesgrooms7343 My view on it is that free will proponents are ideological proponents. Like Christian apologists argue that we chose to go to Hell. A just God wouldn't condemn somebody to an eternity in Hell if they were determined to end up there, would he? Thus we must have free will. I'm not a legal expert, but believe the legal system is at least partly based on free will. Libertarians, in turn, would have a hard time justifying their ideology without free will. In addition to that, we all lead our lives as we have it. Free will just feels right.
Swinburn's "soul" just seems to be a placeholder for our lack of understanding about the details of emergent properties of the physical brain. How is this not just a god of the gaps argument?
premise 1: You have free will premise 2: Physical answer cannot account free will existence premise 3: Unmaterial soul can account the free will existence Conclusion: Soul existence is more plausable than physical answer That is not even God of the gaps,
Alex knows we will never know what goes on in the minds of animals yet posits the old "Science will work it out one day!" Materialists do this all the time. Is this called "future science of the gaps?"
Wooooow Dr Swinburne, 88 years old, Sharp mind I am trying to teach myself about developmental neuroscience, and what I have Come across is adressing these very issues, namely the differentiation of the perception of self and the Other This has to do with the mirror neuron system, and is adequately explained within a "physicalist" framework Philosophy ought to be informed by cognitive neuroscience in my opinion, and fundamentally developmental cognitive neuroscience has the empirical tools to study these question in a scientific manner. Immanuel Kant's 'a priori' is constituted by the discipline of cognitive neuroscience Best regards from Sweden
next time ask him to give a very specific and detailed example of a human making a free will choice and then simply counter it with: it's either random or there are events that caused the choice, meaning it was determined, or a mix between random/determined, none of which allows a free will.
Yes, yes, yes. Of course! Cause and effect. Our decisions, like deliberative hand-waving gestures, follow physical processes of neurons firing in the brain some milliseconds prior to our being conscious of having made the decision to do so. Cause and effect! It governs everything in our universe. Except for, of course, the creation of our universe and the origin of life. In this regard, we believe it comes out of thin air. This is where cause and effect goes to die 😂 this makes perfect sense.
33:34 THE CAMERA ZOOM ON THE IMPATIENT TAPPING FINGERS. IM DEAD. Oh my god that was amazing. I paused the video in a fit of laughter just to comment this.
"Phenomenologically correct", a curious deployment by Swinburne. If I feel a sting in my arm and there see a bee, I would conclude the bee caused the sting. But what exactly is the correct phenomenology? That the sting caused the bee: first I experience the sting and then the bee. We then invert experience to conform to reason (bee sting, not sting bee). Nietzsche joked that's how morality works: a rationalization after the fact, and we confuse consequences as causes.
@@nonononononono8532 Thank you, nono. The host Alex O'Connor referred to a phenomena: feeling thirsty. We do not seem to be conscious of the motive force for that phenomena, only that it emerges as a feeling. Explanation of the cause comes after the feeling; hence if stretched the argument can apply to moral reasoning: if I act for a reason and mull over the rightness or wrongness of an action before acting, that scenario implies a reverse causation: that I act for reasons. However, it seems that action comes first and rationalizations after (sting bee or bee sting). Of course there is great utility in reasoning "feeling thirsty" but that is a separate issue from the problem of consciousness. We can anticipate and predict certain outcomes based on reason, but that too is an emerged feeling, e.g., to prefer a benefit, or a desire to "know" etc. Is free will another reversed phenomena, i.e., of our ignorance of the future causing us to rationalize an actor who can make moral choices?
huh? He said it's the correct phenomenology. Meaning that we experience ourselves making a choice in those situations. He remarked that the phenomenology may be misleading. It's probably not though. Are disagreeing with the phenomenology of making a choice or something? That's weird. Maybe you're just neurodivergent or something.
It's quite remarkable seeing such a distinguished and supposedly sophisticated philosopher resort to question begging in exactly the same way the lowest hanging fruit apologists do, as soon as a concrete question about the mechanics of the mind-body dualism is raised. Question: How exactly do mind/soul and brain interact and where's the line dividing the two? "Answer": All I need to do is assert that they DO interact. I'm paraphrasing but only slightly.
I was thinking about commenting something to this effect, but wasn't sure if maybe it's me not getting something. The bit about Alex/Sandra was also interesting as well. Why would you assume that (if such a situation is possible), there is such a necessity to say that one of them is the original person. I find that only if you already presume the soul there is such a necessity. It cannot be the reason for supposing that soul exists "pfff, because otherwise it doesn't make sense".. It does to me.
I'm not sure what's supposed to be problematic about this answer. Presumably everyone believes that the nature of causal interaction will be irreducible at some point, right? We can break down causes into mechanisms to a point, but when we get down to the fundamental level of particle interaction we don't really have much informative to say about how they interact. We could maybe appeal to laws (which are not explanations, but descriptions), or just say that it's just a basic fact that they do.
``All I need to do is assert that they DO interact. I'm paraphrasing but only slightly.`` But you are not only paraphrasing, you're also question-begging yourself. You are saying: ``as soon as a concrete question about the *mechanics* of the mind-body dualism is raised.`` The mechanics? What mechanics? This is begging the question: you assume that the mental constituent, the mind itself, is precisely as accountable as the body, presumably through the workings of the brain. In other words, you want an account of the mind, as many physicalists/materialists *think* they have about the brain and its function supposedly culminating to consciousness, subjective experience. Essentially, you want a materialist explanation of the mind-body interaction. And that is question begging. By the way, do you think neuroscience has explained consciousness? We know exactly what the liver does in the human body. Or, we know exactly what the kidneys or the lungs do, the link between the presence of these organs in the human body and all about their function. Similarly, do we know exactly what is the link between brain & consciousness?
@@ktheodor3968 I'm not question begging anything. Posing something as a question isn't question begging. He on the other hand is double question begging by positing there is a soul in the first place with no evidence to support it and then again by positing this soul interacts physically with a brain - has to be physically because the brain is physical. The third level of his sloppy thinking is asserting the connection between a "soul" and the brain because he feels pain. The feeling of pain can literally be induced by manipulating certain regions of brain, either electrically or by mechanically sticking needles in there. His "soul" is nowhere to be found. It's literally a mere assertion influenced by his religiosity and nothing rational...which is perfectly fine in the realm of religion. Philosophy however is a rational endeavor.
“Bad people”, “good people”…. He’s using these terms and he is well educated in philosophy. This is quite eye opening on how religious beliefs can even make the most educated people put on a blindfold to their expert subject just to ensure that their religious belief can still apply. It’s insane.
@@giovaniconte1860 Not quite. He has tended to use - perfectly reasonable - spiral logic .. though one's perspective can make it appear to be circular. That, of course, does not make what he says 'correct' only presentable.
He, like Socrates, is leaving you to do the required brain work involved in .. comprehending .. these terms, how they are generally used, and in what manner they are applied in the given case. This is philosophy in action, not theology; God, so far as the terms used goes is irrelevant, other than as a common example of the usage. The belief required to distinguish between the concepts of good and bad (people, etc) is that of reason, and our trust in it. ;o)
@@mil401 'As a society, we could probably stand to use “good people” / “bad people” language much less ..' Why? Are we to nullify the praise of the good, great, and greatest athletes, to encourage the less good, bad, and worse athletes; no, of course not, indeed we wouldn't really want to even if we could because we know we shouldn't (for a variety of reasons). The task then, as with Platonic and Aristotelean philosophical ideas, is to encourage good, right, true, useful, ideal understanding and application of the terms .. e.g. (it makes) a good football, it is a bad (design) for a (terrestrially launched) spaceship, it is awarded Top Slot (for the best entry to a contest), etc = she is a good soldier (she did her duty), he was a bad teacher (he couldn't/ wouldn't/ didn't teach his subject), they/them are (is) an excellent example (of personal trans-pronouning). ;o)
Was Swinburne informed of the topics to be covered beforehand, animal suffering including? Even if one disagrees with his views, his coherence and ability to think on the spot is impressive, especially considering he is 88 years old. I guess this is one of the benefits of having been a professional analytical philosopher for over 65 years.
Yeah. A lot of people are complaining that he didn’t get flushed out answers, for a lot of his views; and it sounded like he was just making a bunch of assertions. I think what they need to keep in mind is that he has already explained his positions thoroughly in his work, and also this is more of just a friendly discussion. He’s not attempting in any way to give the most philosophically or logically incoherent defense for any of his positions.
"He who wishes for anything but Christ, does not know what he wishes; he who asks for anything but Christ, does not know what he is asking; he who works, and not for Christ, does not know what he is doing." -St. Philip Neri
Swinburne is simply incorrect about the brain’s atoms not being replaced. I believe he is confusing the lack of birth of new brain cells (and even this is incorrect, adult neurogenesis has been demonstrated in the olfactory bulb and hippocampus) with there not being things replaced in the brain. Cells still take in nutrients and excrete waste and use those new atoms to build new molecules and to repair their membranes and such.
I'm still not sure if it even makes a difference either way whether or not the brain parts are replaced or not. Does it even matter? What relevance does it have for the dualist? So what if the brain isn't entirely replaced, how does that imply anything about a soul?
@@123unknownsoldier126 my comment was more in light of Swinburne making the point about brain matter not being replaced - I don't see how that helps him prove the existence of the soul
The way I think of the mind as being an emergent property of the brain is to make an analogy. Wave your hand, like you're waving to someone. How does the wave interact with the physical nature of your arm/hand? How can your arm interact with the phenomenon of the wave? Waving is one of the things your arm can do. For me, the mind is the same. It's one of the things that brains can do. We just tend to think of it differently because we don't see an "arm" waving when the brain works. I don't find the notion of a mind being the result of the machinery of brains particularly disturbing or troubling. Totally fine for me.
The hypothetical I use is, ok, if someone makes a decision, then you go back in time, would they make a different decision? If they'd always make the same decision, where's the free will, but if they make a different decision, why? What mechanism is there to allow them to make a different decision if everything is exactly the same?
Actually, you would want to use the possible worlds of modal logic. What you're actually asking is "Is there a possible world where ◇p or ¬p?" "Possible worlds" can be understood also as possible states, or dimensions, or alternate histories, etc.
If all possible outcomes exist, is that free will? Unless we're also applying some interpretation of quantum immortality such that, by your free will, you choose which timeline you exist in through your choices at any given moment. That is, I, ME, that which I consider to be the self, the "soul", consciousness.. whatever you wanna call it... must be capable of it's own free will, to choose. Without the ability to "jump timelines" then I am still fixed on my timeline, which has a fixed set of events - almost by definition of the possible worlds hypothesis - as are all other versions of me, that are not me. Unless we're just saying that all possible worlds "are possible" and our choices determine which of these worlds we will create, but that doesn't solve the causality problem. How do we choose something other than that which we most desire to choose? How do we choose what we choose?@@angusmcculloch6653
Just want to say you must be doing something right, because though I seem to vehemently disagree with most of your guests, I can't stop coming back. Keep up the good work!
Surely a moral choice is also dependent on the actions that caused the person to consider something being moral or immoral. I’m not quite sure a moral choice makes any difference. I realise this person has an enormous amount more qualifications than me on this subject, but I find a lot of what he is saying isn’t logically consistent.
Great interview Alex, thanks. I think there is one question that would stump most theists who believe in a soul and that is: at what point in our evolutionary linneage from archaic proto-humans to modern Homo sapiens did we get a soul, given that this is a gradual process where we progressively took on more modern human biological traits over a long period of time? And similarly, when did we become sinners? Also, given that Neanderthals were as intelligent as us (their brains were actually larger) , did they have souls and were they sinners?
This is something I've wondered for a very long time, as in how do theists explain this? I might have stumbled across this before where it seemed the theist simply tried to dismiss evolution. I don't think they can do that any more and remain credible? So many questions...Off to do yet another youtube, google and wikipedia search...
Alex has long held the position that we always do what we most desire in that moment. When I first saw him talk about it, it made a lot of sense to me. Even when we choose to do the moral thing over the most self-beneficial thing, it's because that's what we most want to do at that moment in time. For example, a soldier who dives on top of a live grenade to save the lives of his fellow soldiers even though he knows he's going to die is choosing to sacrifice himself because in that moment, his desire to save his comrade's lives is greater than his desire to keep on living. A more prosaic example would be abstaining from your favorite calorie-laden dessert because at that moment in time, your desire to lose weight and become healthier is greater than the desire for instant gratification.
@@EnglishMike I agree and I don't really know how Swinburne can get out of this. As I point out to people in conversations at times, we can choose what we want, but we cannot choose to want something else. I think every choice has a sufficient cause in brain structure, experience, and circumstances. When deconverting from Christianity, I would often ask "what is the *difference* between someone who accepts the religion's message and rejects it and how can a person be held responsible for that difference"?
@@Sveccha93 exactly this. We always do what we desire most and secondly, our "consciousness, self, whatever u wanna call it" are not the author of our desires. For example: I did not choose to like chocolate better than vanilla, brunettes over blondes, etc. Furthermore, even in things we become convinced of are not by choice. I can't choose to not believe Australia actually exists. However, inputting data in my brain can alter what I believe. My "self" just simply becomes aware of that belief.
@@EnglishMike "For example, a soldier who dives on top of a live grenade to save the lives of his fellow soldiers even though he knows he's going to die is choosing to sacrifice himself because in that moment, his desire to save his comrade's lives is greater than his desire to keep on living" The atheist's trick with this argument is to create a tautology (hypothesis that is true no matter what data is found). I don't know how people fall into that. No matter what happens you will always say that there was a greater desire and that was the cause of your decision making your hypothesis come true in any scenario.
@@nemrodx2185 It's not a trick. Even most philosophers admit that there's no way to know whether true free will exists, so without empirical data, everyone has to come up with their own explanation for the observed behavior of others. What plausible argument is there for or against free will that is falsifiable? Appealing to any form or religious imperative certainly doesn't cut it.
@24:30 what is meant is "you are not today the same person that existed in a different body which you previously identified as yourself". It only begs the question if you phrase it in such a way to cause it to
Absolutely fascinating conversation. On the topic of free will, I feel Alex had a more convincing argument, so did I choose to agree with him or was this phenomenon a process that was completely out of my control??? Lol
How is open dialog and understanding possible with one who performs taqiyya? This is the issue I have. I do not see how it is possible to ever trust anything a Muslim says. No dialog between you and I can ever be open and understanding since you have a religious obligation to be dishonest with me. We had a clash between a secular schoolboard and parents here some months back, and I saw Muslim parents fighting fiercely for their children to be free of transgender pornography in the schools. It brought me great joy to see and made me wish I could stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their fight, but then I realize that isn't possible. My God commands me to love my neighbor as myself, but their God commands them to subjugate me. I wish it were possible to flourish together at peace, but how can we do that when I see in your scripture that you have a knife ready as soon as I trust you enough to turn my back.
@@patrickbarnes9874 you are such a reprehensible liar. Christianity has subjugated, enslaved, and conquered every indigenous people it has ever met. It followed forced conversion with genocide, rape, and displacement. And you pretend your religion can be trusted not to be holding a knife behind your back? Disgusting.
@@patrickbarnes9874 What you claim is false and one more thing I don’t practice taqiyya. The weird thing that your are the one who is not willing to accept us not the other way around based on your reply
@@patrickbarnes9874 give evidence for each of your claims. Find me evidence for Taqiyya in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Lying is, in fact, a major sin in Islam. But pagan idol worshippers and polytheists like you won't get it.
@@patrickbarnes9874 Hi there, I’m a Muslim and I can see that you have a lot of misconceptions about Islam. It’s important that we get our information from the Scripture itself, and not Fox News or online anti-Islamic propagandists-or even the behavior of imperfect Muslims themselves. Now according to the Qur’an (our Scripture), lying is sinful, and the only exception for “lying” about religion is when you are being PERSECUTED, and conceal your faith out of fear for death or injury (Qur’an 16:106 and 3:28). So ‘Taqiyya’ (which literally means ‘self-protection’) has NOTHING to do with “lying about Islam to trick people with an agenda”-but is rather simply a minor exception to concealing your faith out of self-preservation, just like the Jews did in World War II for example, when they were being persecuted and killed by the Nazi army. So if you lived in Germany at the time, and someone asked you: “Are you Jewish?” -you could response with “No” and that would be a form of ‘Taqiyya’ which is acceptable. So this internet lie that people like to spread around about ‘taqiyya’ (where you can’t trust a Muslim) is an an extremely DANGEROUS and FALSE myth that is only used to cast doubt on innocent people, break bridges between our communities, and provoke unnecessary hate and hostility between people, when we should actually be joining forces towards good and faithfulness. It is a real shame. And with all due respect, I consider you a victim of that. However, you might be surprised to know that the Qur’an says the following-Read closely: *”Those who’ve come to faith, and those who are Jewish, and Sabian, and Christian-ANY who believe in God and the Last Day, and act virtuously-they have NOTHING to fear, nor shall they be sorry!”* _(Qur’an 5:69)_ That’s right-the Qur’an actually teaches that other monotheistic faiths (like Christianity or Judaism) can also get salvation and go to Heaven, as long as they are sincere and act righteously. In fact, Sūrah 5:5 of the Qur’an allows us to MARRY Jewish and Christian women! So why would the Qur’an then promote “violence” and “hate” against your spouse or neighbor, when it also says they can go to Heaven? It makes no sense-because this is not what the Qur’an teaches. It teaches respect and kindness towards everyone, unless they’ve done something bad to deserve otherwise. And if you doubt anything I’m saying, then simply read the Qur’an for yourself. That’s actually what Muslims want you to do in the first place! And if you think it’s being mistranslated, then just read non-Muslim translations on the side if you want to (as long as it’s not from an Islamaphobe, but an actual educated scholar). It’s easy, my friend. And you will find that in the Qur’an, the concept of “truthfulness” and “honesty” are EXTREMELY pervasive and important topics, which are given serious weight. For example, read these following verses: *_”O you who have faith! Be conscious of God, and keep company with the TRUTHFUL & sincere!”_* _(Qur’an 9:119)_ *_”…Whenever you speak, be FAIR and HONEST, even if it concerns a close relative! And fulfill your covenant with God. This He has charged you with, so that you may carefully take heed!”_* _(Qur’an 6:152)_ *”Do not say ANYTHING about God except the TRUTH.”_* _(Qur’an 4:171)_ And ironically, the Qur’an actually tells us not to IMITATE the sins of those who read God’s Scriptures before us who did the same thing. And what exactly was that sin? If was: *_”Mixing the truth with falsehood; and intentionally concealing the truth.”_* as well as: *_”Twisting the scripture with their tongues, and making up lies against God”_* _(Qur’an 3:71 & 3:78)_ So clearly-this distorted understanding of ‘Taqiyya’ that you have, is not only NOT taught in the Islamic Scripture (the Qur’an), but is in fact CONDEMNED as a gross sin, which it also warns ALL followers of God and the Abrahamic religions to carefully avoid. So while I understand that there’s a lot of tension between our communities, and a lot of bad things happening in the world right now-let us try not to let the Devil get between us, but instead work together towards good. Muslims make up 1/4 of the whole human race; and with Christians we are nearly have the global population. So think about how small-minded we would be to lack trust in each other before even getting to know each other? And how much good we could do with that energy instead. As the Qur’an itself amazingly says (and I will end with this): *_”For each of you We have assigned a law and a method. If God wanted, He could have made you into a single group-but instead He is testing you through what He has given you. So compete with each other in doing good deeds! To God is your collective return, where He will then explain to you everything you used to disagree with each other about.”_* _(Qur’an __5:48__)_ So with that, I hope you will carefully re-consider, and read the Qur’an for yourself-and not allow yourself to fall victim to blindly trusting agenda-driven Internet personalities who misrepresent Islam (and so many other faiths and ideologies). You seem like an intelligent man, so I trust that you can expand your mind to sincerely think for yourself. And I encourage you to travel, or meet Muslim people in your local Mosque and area. You will find them to be extremely welcoming and hospitable, and they can also answer more questions you might have. Thank you for reading. And peace be unto you.
It seems that to come to his view on free will, I would have to see an example of a moral decision in which someone "forces" themselves to do something. To me it seems like the phenomenology is that someone would put effort into performing a moral action only if they wanted to do the moral thing both more than they want to do the immoral thing and more than they don't want to put in the effort.
That's insane. People have chosen horrific torture and death rather than betray family or friends. Your belief is that this is entirely unpraiseworthy or worthy of our admiration because in the end they simply did the thing they most wanted to do! No. They chose to endure the very last thing they wanted to face because they loved their family and friends. If we lived in a world where people truly believed there is no free will it would be a terrible place in which to exist.
@@markmooroolbark252 you said it perfectly. Their desire to be loyal to people they love was stronger than their desire to be tortured. Just think, if the betrayal was against someone else that they had less desire to betray than be tortured, they would have chosen to betray. Now you're getting it. ;)
"If we lived in a world where people truly believed there is no free will, it would be a terrible place in which to exist." Well, yes. No disagreements here. Just one addition, to make. "If we lived in a world where people truly had free will, it would be a terrible place in which to exist." both arguments can just be considered true if we just say the world, the universe, the "super universe" (if you know, you know) are in fact a terrible place in which to exist. @@markmooroolbark252
When Alex gave the example of choosing between two flavors of ice cream, he said, "You don't choose which to like." But there's a difference between choosing to desire an option and choosing to act on your desires. Maybe you have a choice over whether you act on your preferences even if you don't always choose your preferences?
Ok, let’s say I’m choosing whether to buy my favourite ice cream flavour or a different one. Despite it being my favourite, I choose a different one to demonstrate that I have free will. And why did I do that? Because my desire to demonstrate that I had free will was stronger than my desire to eat my favourite ice cream. Why? Because it just was. If I had been a slightly different person (I.e different genetics and/or upbringing) then it might not be. Whatever decision you make, it is always predicated on things that you didn’t choose, so we’re you really free to make those decisions?
@@willhasnofriends Swinburne's e.g. was choosing what is right over what is comfortable for me. Phenomenologically the self-determination of ultimate desire can come before the desire. Decision before wanting. My experience is that it can be "up to me" what I do, not simply desire-driven. That's why we hold people responsible.
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 Usually when people do things against there apparent desire, there is an easy explanation why they did that. That explanation often has a clear causal chain of itsself. For example I desire to eat icecream, but I know that it will make me fat. I don't want to be fat so that 'desire' of not wanting to be fat drives my choice towards not eating the desired ice cream. In common language I could even say 'I ought not eat' the ice cream almost as if it is a moral decision.
@Richard Bloemenkamp But your examples are still centred upon bodily good of the subject. Swinburne is talking about moral, responsible generosity. The preference for others over self is certainly experienced as a reason but it’s simultaneously experienced as Swinburne’s “ self-determination”. I make myself to be the type of person who has such preferences freely, responsibly. Swinburne did allow that this phenomenology be empirically shown to be a delusion - notwithstanding that we all assume it in each other and it is at the heart of civilisation. But, he clearly implied, it must be taken at face value whatever its final metaphysical interpretation. I would say that the empirical evidence confirms it: our moral and creative preferences are not the physical, ecological-niche-oriented-desires/reasons-for-action of all viable physical things. Humans are the only species to transcend physically adapted limits. We have our own reasons.
I do like this episode. Truly. But it’s nice to see that a skeptic gets to interview one of the better Oxford philosophical apologists, who still would be a bit of a crank (not my term, that’s Richard Carrier’s) if we check his Bayesianism and how it doesn’t match his philosophy of religion. It’s nice to see a respectful conversation and not another polemic, which gets exhausting when waxing rhetorical for a beatdown is its aim (see Carrier’s caricature of Swinburne, which nevertheless made good points against Swinburne’s use of Bayesian probability).
It's interesting how some philosophers can argue backwards from a conclusion. Premise 1: There must be something that makes me "me." But why though??? It reminds of the moral argument for the existence of God. Premise 1: There must be somewhere that we get our moral laws from. But why are we starting by assuming those are real?
What a delightful gentleman! We will be such a lesser world when this generation is gone. We are not replacing men and women in our generation of such caliber.
"Heaven is not so much a reward for being good but as a place where good people would be happy. It's a natural home for them." What a profound statement that should equally affect and perhaps change the minds of both theists and non-theists in their understanding of the Christian afterlife!
the biblical description of heaven (the only one that should count i think most christians will agree) is clear. heaven is a place where souls that are "saved" get to sing god praises, in a choir, for eternity. thats it. nothing else. so like north korea now, except in north korea at least you can die and escape that hellish life... heaven is for eternity! sounds like hell to me...
@@atee876 respectfully, you have a very wrong notion of what Christians believe. The orthodox position of all Christianity regarding eternity is not of heaven but rather of a new earth in which we will dwell in our resurrected bodies. The idea that we will form a choir and merely sing songs all day is also a caricature of the Christian position. I hope you will take the time to seek out these things further as I would hate for you to continue on with such jaded and false ideas of the Christian afterlife.
@@bilbobaggins9893 what "christians" believe and what is written in their book is rather different... thanks to centuries of catholic, and then more recently protestant, conmen/priests making stuff up about how it will be a lovely eternal garden party. that is not what is written. what is written ios what i wrote. an eternity of singing god praises mindlessly. and i do mean a real eternity, no breaks, no chatting, no drinks or fancy food. singing about how good god is. for ever. .... like i said. hell!
@@atee876 again, with all due respect you are just demonstrably wrong and you don’t seem to have a spirit of truth seeking. The Bible clearly teaches the fact that we will exist forever in a new created earth with new resurrected bodies. It does NOT say we will form a choir and sing for all of eternity. That’s just false. If you want to continue making that claim, please show me where the Bible says that. Look man, it’s one thing not to believe and idk your story but at least deal with the religion you claim to reject fairly. Creating caricatures and straw-man arguments isn’t helpful for anyone. Take care and hopefully one day you might change your mind!
To Alex's question of what is a human being, I would suggest it is an entity which at best aspires to being humane. Yet, where do our frailties sometimes waylay us, does judgement creep in to determine our lot otherwise, as being someone other than wise. To bandy an idea about the apparent interaction between the "two parts" of a human being (in other words, a human engaged in the act of being) that sees the mind and brain as separate from each other, the greater question is one of awareness, but awareness of what? As I sense things, it is an awareness of a larger self at work in this world of which we are all a part, what Artists often refer to as the "zone" out of which they steal fire. This "zone", this "moment" of being at whose mercy we place ourselves is conversely of Mercy itself. The "direct experience" Mr Swinburne speaks of is ultimately an expression of that experience. Therefore, where Mind and Spirit interact they do so as of one entity as is Eternity the entirety of being, each facet although a different face in connection with the other. Why should we seek to separate when it is oneness we are so wont to find. Personal identity. Individuation. We are here to experience individuation that we should realise our oneness, the "sameness" we share that sees us as different but only here. Beyond this, there is no such separation in the exact same way Eternity is Time without borders. The question here is one of regulation. Where does every substance has a shadow does every body have a soul. Then to consider meditation, what I like to consider as mediation between one's self and one's soul. That Free Will by way of accountability is never so free, are the non-accountable bound by their behaviour, and in this way for better or worse. It is that with choice there comes change as do all changes offer choice - yes? - and where the one thing that does not change is Change itself, is Cause and Effect of a continuum whose crest like a wave contains its motion ever forward. To the existence of God, where it does not make sense to me it is a sense within me. Yet does this depend upon your perception of who or what God is. What's in a name, yes? God does not allow people to commit evil, we allow ourselves to do it. In our deep-seated self, the relatively sane person knows better. Once again it is a question of choice, and of choosing which brings about Change. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven was within our midst. Consider if you will the word "midst" as an abbreviation of mid-centre, and go there! To that region within yourself, the haven you know as your heart Love's only home. Blessings!
A person who doesn’t want to believe will never be convinced. Regardless of the preponderance of evidence available to him, or the soundness of the argument made.
Of course we all wrestle with this notion of free will. All of us have lived a life; constantly experiencing a portion of this 'chain of causation' that the universe is. Since its all we have ever known, to keep our illusion of 'self' (seperation of perciever from the perceptions) we must think we are "free" of this univeral chain of causation, hence the term free will, freedom. "Our choices are free of the constraints of the outside world." However when we can identify the illusion of self, it is then that we can realise that this chain of causation cascade is the universal soul, indistinguishable from our consciousness. Think about how determinism has led itself to sentiently acknowledge itself. You must realise we "free will" is a flawed term. Our choices arent free from anything but they're the result of our deterministic soul. Tea anyone?
Why do almost all of the people who say they believe free will is an illusion live their lives in accordance with the idea that we are all responsible for the choices we make and the words we speak? If a belief is so impossible to actually embrace in our daily lives perhaps it is because we all know in our heart of hearts that people deserve punishment or praise for what they do or say because they had a choice and didn't have to say those hurtful words or do that harmful thing.
@markmooroolbark252 well I'd say that the praise or punishment you would give was also determined and not your free will. Just simply a reaction which was always going to take place
So well done, Alex! I think you could have driven the knife just a little deeper on free will by saying that there ARE compelling reasons to consider the phenomenology of free will to be illusory. Namely, philosophy, physics, evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, and neuroscience. That would have backed Swinburne into a corner and you could have then pushed him to acknowledge the logical conclusion and admit the error of his way.
Other than that though you honestly did this flawlessly. I'm a huge fan and just wanted to say keep going with the discussions, debates, and interviews!
Free will is basically just an idea that can only come about in a brain complex enough to create such an idea. But in actual experience I think it's hard to point to it having any validity, every 'choice' we make is the result of something previous that shaped us in someway to make that final choice. When you hear people arguing for free will its usually that they start with the concept of free will being foundationally true and then work an explanation around that. If your starting point was nothing is true without experience I don't see how you could ever verify free will being true
he was not starting with 'nothing is true'. He says that even if you have the mental capabilty of understanding/feeling the concept of free will, it's not a checkmate. AFTER you understand the question 'is it real?' you need to think about it, not starting with 'of course it's tue because i feel it!!' if you start with the feeling as a fact, you can say that a psysically/mentally abusive partner loves the other one, because the FeELinG he/she has
@Áron Janosov @tobias yoder thanks your reply and yes I'm not saying the starting point is 'nothing is true', I'm saying your starting point should be agnostic pending investigation. So if someone comes up with the statement 'the concept of free will is true', if you take that for fact as a starting point then all your ideas going forward have to allow for that to be true, like the professor in the interview. Whereas with contemplation and consideration of your own direct experience it would be hard to maintain the view that there is free will without some unknown force like God making it so, but this concept would be outside of your own and anybody else's direct experience, so at best you could say I don't know.
Alex, you're the epitome of what an atheist should be: always searching, always learning, and always willing to listen to the other side. Keep up the good work!
I would love for him to condemn and denounce a lot of the fundamentalist atheist dogma of today, from people like Matt Dillahunty or Aron Ra.
Anyone seriously looking for the truth won't find it anywhere but the illuminati, they've written 20 million words in over 200 books do describe the truth of existence.
Alex is proactively NOT smug and seems most concerned with consistency over everything else which I appreciate as a rational theist.
@Please enter a name I think Matt is great when in a public debate. He is sharp as a tack and also respectful. He is less respectful in the call-in programmes, but so are many of his interlocutors.
@@Fotomadsen thank you for your reply but I’m sorry I completely disagree with that, I think in terms of a debater he’s completely embarrassing and intellectually dishonest at least nowadays, in some of his older debates he was definitely at least willing to have a good faith conversation, He goes into debates with have absolutely no justification for his for really any of his positions at all, he doesn’t even attempt to and just throws out claims most of the time. And constantly dodges and is incredibly incoherent at least in recent debates and in every recent debate I’ve seen with him. I think he’s mostly and predominantly just doing these debates for publicity into inflate his ego, and please his audience. I have heard many Christians and some atheists tell me and also complain that they think the warranty is a bully, I definitely wouldn’t say that I think he’s pretty respectful for the most part. For the most part because I really just don’t think he cares about the topics that he debates, and that’s pretty difficult to say because he’s basically spent his entire career on many of the topics but he knows little to no information about the topics, it’s pretty comparable to Kent Hovid’s understanding an experience with Evolution by natural selection. He really has no excuse he was literally a Southern Baptist for 25 years. And also I know this is kind of irrelevant but his audience is unbearable I’m not talking about you you’re probably a member of his audience, and if you are I’m not judging you or saying you’re a terrible person or anything like that, or that you’re dishonest I’m just talking about in general, and I think he’s everything wrong with the modern atheist movement and anti-theism in general for the most part. With some of his callers I can understand some of them can be pretty unbearable, but at the same time though he’s just nasty to some of them and it’s pretty frustrating to watch.
I swear the podcast is only getting better and better keep it up
How? 😅 by bringing on this apologist buffoon? He can’t even understand that human decision/agent causation doesn’t end at the agent. This is frankly embarrassing for Alex
I read this almost like a threat. It’s Getting better. You better keep it up!!!😂
@@christopherwaters8822 You never know who will be next
He all but admits that he choose to believe in free will, as that makes most sense as a theist. Major respect to him for acknowledging, he could be wrong. Alex you are an intellectual powerhouse and you are so in a very humble way. I think you are a very influential thinker. Thank you for upholding the banner of reason, curiosity and inquiry. And at such a young age too.
I'm not very scholarly in my abilities to understand free will but I agree with your comments. I'm a Christian believer and I also support the "banner of reason, curiosity and inquiry".
Respectfully...
> Major respect to him for acknowledging, he could be wrong.
Except for where, right at the end, as soon as Alex even suggested the hypothetical situation of "being able to demonstrate that animals feel 'as much' pain as we do" he *immediately* started backtracking and flinging out excuses as to why he'd never believe that anyway. He's as indoctrinated as anyone.
@@johnnypopstar well let's face it, to believe in God ultimately requires some level faith not based in rational thought - but we can still respect people who have analysed and rationalised there beliefs to a very far extent at least, and are very considerate of counter arguments.
@@jim-bob87 can we? Should we? They did all the rationalising work that *should* have led them away from believing, yet still didn't. In many ways they're even *less* deserving of respect than folk who never even bother questioning why they believe what they believe at all.
It's a great example of the Trump-Boris problem. Is Trump worse because he just can't help himself and is wired to be a self-serving fuck 24/7, or is Boris worse because he's actually educated and rationalises that being awful actually works in his favour?
It's Boris. He's *capable* of being decent yet chooses not to. That's the worse position.
Not sure that "free will makes the most sense as a theist". You could just as well argue from the perspective of total predetermination which leaves no room for free will. Just as one could make the biblically based argument there is no immortal, immaterial soul. Neither position makes more or less sense for a theist and not even for a Christian theist.
In fact the whole idea of an immortal soul that flutters away into heaven like a butterfly in the moment of death is taken from pagan beliefs that have been incorporated into the Christian worldview.
It is incredible the clarity and ease that Swinburne has to respond even a such advanced age. A bit slow already but in very good shape. Excellent dialogue!
I have just paused the video midway to express my immense gratitude for this gem you're producing and sharing in your channel
Thanks for this video, Alex, I enjoyed listening to it very much.
I can’t believe he is 88 years old. So inspiring, his mind is still quite sharp! I’m halfway through the interview and enjoying a lot. Thanks again for this kind of content, Alex!
I know! Impressive, right! And then compare that to poor, confused president Biden.
@@badgerlife9541 why specificly biden? trump and biden can be both idiots, even if you approve some of their decisions. i think both of them are laughable. don't you?
@@badgerlife9541 Wouldn't be talking considering you seem to have a terminal case of hyperpolitical brain rot.
And yet, he's older than the senile Joe Biden.
And yet, he's older than the senile Joe Biden.
One of my favorite episodes. Hope you bring on more philosophers like this.
Just have to say I have been loving these interviews, and this is my new favorite podcast right now
Wow. I don't think I've experienced an interview that was so succinct and to the point in both asking and answering that I was actually disappointed it finished so soon. We often get a lot of pointless "meandering" but there wasn't even the slightest trace of it here. Utterly brilliant and spellbinding. Thank you. Subscribed.
I love that you pointed out that his assertion that animals feel pain less than humans is not falsifiable and just terribly convenient for him. Your questions throughout pointed directly to the flaws in his many arguments. Excellent interview and I appreciate that you don't just let him get away with saying whatever
I doubt it's not falsifiable. Hook up a monkey to some electrodes, see which brain areas are active to which degree when he feels pain (highly unethical experiment though). I think that should be a pretty good foundation for assessing whether animals feel pain as strongly as we do.
Some do. Naked mole-rat for example.
Some do. Naked mole-rat for example.
Some do. Naked mole-rat for example.
Some do. Naked mole-rat for example.
That was really a great discussion, everything put very well and I think your moderation style is just perfect for this kind of discussions/podcast.
Consistently something to look forward to :)
He appeals to classical or orthodox views a bit too often. That being said, he definitely has a deep understanding of his own views. That’s quite admirable.
Except his own views seemed deeply flawed. Especially when talking about such concepts as heaven, free will and animal suffering
It's only an appeal to tradition if his reasons for his beliefs are "it's always been that way", which his reasons appear to be much deeper than that. No need to discount something because it's always been that way.
@@alansmith4748 Sure, I definitely disagree with him
Let’s not get carried away 😂
imagine having a deep understanding of astrology
Why did I not find Mr. Swinburne before? He is extraordinary.
Really enjoyed this discussion. Alex, I enjoy your curiosity and critical thinking. I hold an opposing view and I enjoy hearing your challenges and pondering them.
Richard is a true intellectual, I love that he holds to no dogma and I'm impressed by the sharpness of his mind at such an old age.
Love the contrast of the wisdom of the experienced and the curious youth... both searching to understand the truth.
It's also a privilege to listen to both Alex and Richard Swinburne. We continue to learn throughout life and although I am strongly deficient in scholarly abilities, I'm still open-minded to listen to the beliefs and worldviews of others, including Christians, Muslims, and atheists.
Sometimes I wish I wasn't a human being but God had a different plan. So while we struggle with doubts and frustrations, I hope I can better understand Jesus' words "Come follow me". With both reasoning and faith, I hope I can become less judgemental and more desirable of listening to others.
Respectfully from Florida.
Cheers mate. Good luck in your journey. Know that in Islam at least, the good deeds you did while Christian will still count after converting to Islam, whereas the bad deeds will be forgiven.
@@أحمدإبراهيم-غ4ه9ط I actually like your honesty although I personally believe that no matter how good we try to be, we still carry the stain of a sinful nature. Call it "original sin" or a tendency to do bad things because of evolution. Whatever we call it, I think mankind is fallen.
However my belief in a sinful nature does not negate our being created by God in His image. Isn't that called "fitrah" in Islam?
To be truthfully honest, the only good deeds that count in the sense that they redeem us, are the "good deeds" of Jesus Christ. I'm referring to Jesus' sacrifice of love for us on the cross. I know the crucifixion makes no sense to most Muslims. Don't worry, I'm not on here to judge anyone. In fact, Jesus' crucifixion is difficult for me to understand too. If Jesus' death does indeed refer to the mystery of salvation, then He had to be divine. That's why Jesus is called the beloved ( unique ) Son of God in Christianity.
I respect Muslims but some beliefs in Islam confuse me. But again, don't worry. Some doctrines in Christianity are also hidden in a mystery.
But God is all-knowing. So I must be somewhat open-minded to God's guidance on my journey. I don't even like the word " religion". I think God wants to know us and desires for us to know Him. From my understanding, that's not religion, but a spiritual and psychological aspect of Life.
I know God wants to forgive ( and forget) our bad deeds. I think such a forgiveness is possible because of Jesus the Lord.
No disrespect intended to you. I wish I could understand better but I'm not very scholarly.
Peace of God to you and your family.
Alex is a gnat compared to a great thinker like Swinburne. It’s hilarious to see him pontificate as if he’s on a similar level
As an epileptic person i used ny degree to research individual interpretation in relation to human vibration and visuals. Was so interesting i ended up going into neurology, biochemistry and even consciousness . I could research my own epilepsy and wanted to make a 3d print of my MRI brain scan but wasnt able to rent it in time. A month later a proffesional from another uni did this and had good results. I studied art but was told i should of studied sciences . This conversation was so good enjoying a cupa n listening to discussions is totally my guilty pleasure.
It is always a delight to hear Richard Swindburne .. as with Anthony Kenny, Peter Vardy, Alan Carter, Richard Price (and the late Roger Scruton, Gerard J Hughes SJ, Benedicta Ward SLG, and going way back Frederick Coppleston SJ etc); there are not enough British scholars offered a place on YT (et al) to thin out the far too heavy larding of US socio-political contextualization of moral, philosophical, theological, and metaphysical issues. Thanks for sharing this little treasure.
One can learn a lot in discussion with someone one does not tend to agree with, if only by 'understanding' their understanding .. and critiquing it. Sadly, there seem to be relatively few academics of Swindburne's stature and capacity to 'debate' with .. in gently attentive conversation on religiousy topics; I itched to tease out more from his necessarily truncated responses .. but that's me (I wasn't terribly fond of Swindburne's take of Aquinas, e.g. his 'Faith and reason' 1981, Oxford : Clarendon Press - snotty-nosed undergrad oik that I was).
Great stuff.
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
Simply wonderful interview. I also consider it not only a privilege, but a blessing to listen to great minds like Richard Swinburne. Thank you Alex for bringing such excellent content.
I love your content! Hearing terms like the "problem of interaction" gives me loads of memories of my undergraduate studies in philosophy. Good times!
His response to Nozick's experience machine is interesting, given its parallels with the description of an infinitely blissful afterlife; most people disregard the latter on the same grounds he dismisses the former.
His response to Free Will in heaven is also interesting. "There will be Free Will to choose among alternative 'good' states". The problem is that "Free Will" is used to describe the existence of "not good" states in this current life; bad things happen as a consequence of the freedom to choose to do bad things. This is obviously circular. If in heaven, there simply aren't any "bad" choices to select from, it begs the question why there are "bad" choices to select from here. The Christian will cite the Fall of Man, but that merely pushes the problem back, and the question still remains: "why were the bad choices available"
These arguments are always asymmetric in favor of the theistic position.
It is typically said that the logical problem of evil is answered by the free will defense: it is not logically incoherent for a tri-Omni-god to exist while evil, pain, or suffering exists. People can do this by their own volition. I think this does alleviate the issue to an extent but doesn’t do away with the evidential problem. Nevertheless, it implies something very peculiar. If God does not want to interfere with our free will, and hence does not have to answer to evil , he equally cannot answer for miraculous benefits or positive outcomes, by the same logic of free will. It’s stated that some people are blessed, or that god does great things for people. Many times, these things are done by the free will of others for countless reasons, the possibility of a positive outcome exists for a variety of reasons (economical, knowledge advancement, access to education etc). Is it not equivalent to say that, god does not answer for these "good" things precisely in the same way he does not answer for evil: on behalf of our free will and ability to manipulate the environment for our gain and the gain of others? It seems we relegate gods existence to that of deism; rarely involved and much of the moral good or bad we experience can be accounted for purely on human terms.
Thank you! I was literally screaming when he said that I'm part because of what you pointed out!
I mean the least disrespect possible to the man, but at 48 minutes it seems "because Christianity is true to me" is the genesis of his thoughts which leads to increasingly unsatisfying conclusions.
Heck, he basically said being neurodivergent and incapable of avoiding immoral impulses is grounds to not be in heaven.
Enjoyed this conversation! Regarding animals being able to speak - what about the apes who have learned to sign? They might not be able to have deep philosophical discussions, but they can certainly tell us when they're afraid or hurting, as well as when they are happy. You don't even need words to do that. Anyone who has owned a dog knows they have the ability to suffer, or miss their owners, and form deep connections with other beings.
I appreciate your comments and I agree with your observations.
Very interesting episode. I wonder whether the whole idea of "me" is akin to the idea of a "table". We assign a name to something which, if you're a materialist, doesn't actually have a name from the "universe's perspective". I.E., a table is just a collection of atoms in a shape that is close enough to the shape and kind of something we call, with our flawed language, a "table". I think the same applies to the concept of "self" or "me".
Materialists would believe we are just a bunch of atoms and, while this is a rather crass and unhelpful answer to give to a neuro-transplant patient, it seems to capture the truth of the situation quite well.
You're talking about mereological nihilism here, and most philosophers reject the idea that there are no such things as "things", not just because of intuition, but truly because if "things" are just a pattern of matter, then all emergent properties would be incompatible with reality. There are lots of objections to mereological nihilism, this is just one example, but even quantum physics nowadays tell us that emergent properties are, at least, possible.
“Just a bunch of atoms” is not what most modern materialists think we are. The atoms are transferable it doesn’t matter what atoms are in you because they mostly aren’t the Same ones as were in you a year ago, even the carbon atoms in your brain only hang around for a decade or so.
Your neurons themselves last much longer than that but according to most materialist neuroscientists you are the patterns of neurons, neurochemistry, genetics, epigenetic factors etc that are in you, some of those slowly change but there is continuity between the states.
It was very interesting to hear someone try to explain the concept of the material self without talking about StarTrek style transporters etc. or cutting the corpus collosum between the hemispheres which is another rare surgical procedure which seems to produce two different personalities which experience the world from slightly different perspectives
The very question though is who or what is the one naming everything though? And is it merely molecules in motion or something independent of the laws of physics or not?
@@GianFerreyraBouillon If the ship of theseus is just a label applied to an organization of wood and cloth, how can emergent properties not happen? How do emergent properties conflict with mereological nihilism?
@@josephpostma1787 Better Physics education is necessary to dismiss the idea that "emergant properties" are somehow not accounted for by a more complicated treatment of mereological nihilism. Simply start by asking: _where precisesly are these emergant properties occuring?_
Are they occurring in the mereological simples of some arbitrarily defined spacetime boundary around the mereological composite itself? Or are these emergant properties merely occuring in the minds of the observers of the aforementioned arbitrary spacetime boundary around the mereological composite itself?
If you subscribe to the former then you're comitted to rejecting the Law of Conservation of Energy underpinning all of modern scientific inquiry.
In the case of the later, let's take a look at the Ship of Theseus again. Where in spacetime does the "Ship of Theseus" start and where does it end? Obviously its _technically_ a different "Ship of Thesus" from moment to moment in terms of Mereological simples-but that's only the answer if one arbitrarily draws a circle around the "Ship of Thesus" that starts at the bow and ends at the stern. But this arbitrary line in spacetime isn't quite true for capturing the _entirety_ of the "Ship of Theseus" idea-a roughly similar configuration of synapses and neurotransmitters in multiple different brains such that the "Ship of Theseus" can be talked about _as if_ it were transcendant. But this only makes sense if you arbitrarily draw boundaries. In truth, the mereological simples of the _refferant_ and the _referrer_ are all parts of the only mereological composite (the universe)-meaning a more useful but still arbitrary boundary between mereological composites is to include the mereological simples involved in naming and duscussing the referrant in question. These mereological simples need not exist within the arbitrary spacetime boundary that starts at the bow and ends at the stern of a specific, physical Ship of Theseus and can, in effect, extend it's range to include all the "Ships of Theseus" that occur in each and every brain of its metaphorical observers.
Yet, this too is a simplification. All quanta of matter/energy exterts a force on every other quanta of matter/energy such that the arbitrary line in spacetime you draw around any mereological composite in order to start talking about it must encolose all of it's mereological simples-including ones it's easily but arbitrarily definable mereological simples have ever interacted with such that if you go back far enough then your circle encloses the Big Bang and everything that has happened since.
The educated mereological nihilist would say that there isn't actually any arbitrary boundary and that everything is _ultimately_ the sum of all the various influences on it, no matter how distant or remote, no matter if those influences canceled each other out or reinforced each other-that changing a single minor influence might have a negligible effect... but a negligible effect is _not_ no effect.
Furthermore, E = MC^2 tells us that neither matter nor energy is the universal mereological simple of the universe. But that the mereological simple is some form of supersymetry between the two.
Another great interview. You were able to gently challenge his views, and he was able to offer a sophisticated defence whilst remaining open to the possibility that he is wrong. It was a pleasure to watch.
> a sophisticated defence
That's certainly not what I heard. I heard him grasp at "phenomenology" as a shield without ever actually explaining the whys or hows of how that evaded the very legitimate questions Alex was asking. Why does this professor think it's ok to just view situations as "deciding to do the good thing, versus allowing the thing you want to happen"? That's way too conveniently supporting his fairytale worldview, and isn't justified at all.
@@johnnypopstar I agree with Johnny. However, I think that this subject itself is a bit tricky to discuss because there's really no way to know. I don't believe in free will, but I'm interested in knowing how it can exist because I've not heard a convincing argument that it does. Like in a world where it does exist, what does that look like?
@@none377as Alex pointed out: randomness. Absolute randomness.
@@johnnypopstar Swinburne doesn’t “view situations as either doing the right thing or what one pleases”, he just said that such situations are the ones where free will is most evident.
Then he argues that the phenomenology of free will, that is, the way that purported free will FEEL TO US, is that the chain of causality stop in us: we either choose to force ourselves to do the right thing, or to allow ourselves to do what we please. We may take information, previous inclinations and other considerations into account, but they neither cause nor force our choice: we alone have the power to choose (to cause) either path. And because the by-us-only-caused-choice is intentional, it isn’t random either. That’s how it seems to us anyway, and I agree.
Then he further argues that we should believe what prima facie seems true, unless given good reason to drop that belief. And he doesn’t see reasons against free will as being good enough. So he believes in it. Still, he does admit the possibility of our phenomenology of free will being illusory.
It’s all fine for me. As an atheist, I just don’t have one of the powerful reasons to believe in free will. But I have the others (phenomenology, it would make Darwinian sense if possible, consciousness is bizarre and might very well allow free will somehow)... So I’m agnostic. I do think it’s pretty possible. I definitely don’t agree that there’s no coherent notion of free will. I think I just outlined one - if barely.
@@eprd313Thats hardly what anyone would call free will though
Growing up in a non religious family ...i take scientific determinism as the ultimate default ....but Its intriguing how Moral choices we made points to somethng beyond us..given we made more thag 10000 choices a day where most of it can be rationally explain by cause and effect phenomenon but moral choices are so different ..Richard swineburn is explaining the thought i had which i cannot explain.Thanks to both...
Only halfway through and already writing to agree with most top commenters: The podcast keeps getting better and is one of the most enjoyable podcasts out there. Also, thanks for inviting only non-fringe christians so far ;)
I kid you not. Yesterday I was thinking, "what if Alex gets Richard Swinburne onto his podcast?" Did not think it would happen, but here we are. One of my all time favorite philosophers, someone who has significantly shaped my thinking on a lot of philosophical issues. Looking forward to watch this!
He has his wits about him, and I admire his intellect. That being said, his philosophical views are logically flawed.
There is no evidence for consciousness or mindfulness without a functioning brain.
From studies of pathology, neurobiology, psychology, etc. we know processes such as memory, emotions, and sensibility are tied to the physical body. We know which region of the cerebrum Is responsible for each function and process. If a region of the brain is damaged or injured, one can lose part or all of the function associated with it. This includes cognition and memory.
It's also known that anyone can see or hear nonexistent things.
Therefore, when the body and brain expire, what is left of the "soul"?
What would this "soul" carry on to the afterlife?
What is a soul, if we know it can not carry memories or emotions? You can not see without eyes and a brain to process the information. You can not feel without physical touch and nerve endings (consider local anesthesia). You can not hear, taste, or smell without the necessary physical components, including the central nervous system.
Therefore what is the afterlife without any of these things? If you claim our consciousness is our soul, you will have to prove you can still have consciousness without a central nervous system.
@@andrewc1205 The christian idea of the afterlife is that our bodies get resurrected, your misunderstanding of christian afterlife is in no way an objection to the idea of a soul.
"If you claim our consciousness is our soul, you will have to prove you can still have consciousness without a central nervous system."
What he claims is that we're both soul and body, it's substance dualism. What I would say is that we are the consciousness, because consciousness is that which is aware and we are the ones who are aware so the person and the consciousness are basically synonymous, and us/our consciousness depending on the body does not in anyway prove that we're not also simultaneously something beyond the body, so no, not really, you don't have to prove you can have consciousness without a central nervous system in order to prove the soul.
The dependence upon one thing does not show lack of distinction or function, just because the mind is dependent on the body that doesn't mean it is the body. Cars need wheels to move, they're dependent on wheels to move, but even with no wheels, the car is still there, it's its own distinct thing with its own engine, and without that engine the wheels would be pointless and so on and so on.
"one of the definining elements of cars are their function to move, and they cannot move without wheels therefore cars don't exist! You have to prove that cars can still move without wheels in order to prove cars exist" no that's not how it works.
@@CristianChirita2234 I'm well aware of Christian dogma. There are two conflicting views of "resurrection" in the bible. Some interpret it as physical, others interpret it as spiritual. Which idea do you adhere to?
A spiritual resurrection means no body, and therefore, no sensibility, vision, or memory. A physical resurrection means bringing a decomposing body back to life. Both are equally illogical.
Your analogy of body and mind is flawed. A vehicle and it's wheels are two material components. You are comparing those with a material and a non-material (theoretical concept) component.
A car is still a car without it's wheels - it's just not going to move. We know both components are interchangeable.
The idea of the body being separate from the mind is preposterous. But there is no sense arguing about something that cannot be proved or disproved. We'll all find out one day! Unfortunately, if I'm correct you won't know about it and none of this will matter.
@@andrewc1205
Not the point. If Swinburne adopts the view that I mentioned, then your objection just doesn't apply, and you actually have no idea which view he adopts (correct me if I am wrong) and the whole comment is you explaining why his reasoning is wrong.
I wouldn't say my analogy is flawed, I am not seeking to make a perfect one, and also no I am not comparing the fundamenetals of material and non material, what I was comparing WAS dependability, that was the whole point of the analogy, you have an entire explanation of the analogy prior to the analogy, right above it. I was making an argument about dependability, and I made an analogy for the argument, that's all it is, the ideas of materialism or idealism or substance dualism have nothing to do with my argument because I made no argument for the soul, I was only objecting to what you said about your problems with the supposed interractions between them.
"A car is still a car without it's wheels" Yes? that is the point of my analogy, indeed, how did you figure it out? My point was that let's say the mind couldn't function without the brain, that does not in any way prove that the mind is the brain. It can be dependent on the brain and also be its own seperate thing. Can you RE READ the analogy? I swear all of this is very heavily implied and I shouldn't have to explain it.
"The idea of the body being separate from the mind is preposterous."
That's not an argument.
" spiritual resurrection means no body, and therefore, no sensibility, vision, or memory. A physical resurrection means bringing a decomposing body back to life. Both are equally illogical. "
First one is a logical reach, but still logically possible, in the sense of that God could just add memory and everything that we have on substance dualism to the soul, it's not that hard, and second is logically possible and no there's nothing illogical about that, unless you assume materialism which is just fallacious.
The first one, yes, again, it's a logical reach, but it's not full on non-sense, it is still logically possible.
You present your argument with an implied hypothetical premise of the soul being true so your argument goes something like this:
"Ok well let's say you are right and there's an afterlife, and there is a God, and consciousness is a consequence of the soul, my problem with that hypothetically being true is the idea of the body being resurrected, that's the thing that makes no sense to me in that hypothetical scenario." Really? That's your objection? In the hypothetical case where the soul and God exist, your problem is ignoring God's qualities in the entire hypothetical scenario? Not a very good argument.
Point is, your objection doesn't make sense because of the totality of the hypothetical implied by your objection. The only alternative is that you're just assuming materialism.
EIther way, it doesn't make sense.
@Cristian Chirita way to strawman the argument. Do you live your life in total dishonesty?
I'm not even going to waste my time with your petty arguments. Have fun playing make-believe.
Good luck.
I think this was truly a historic interview. Well done Alex for, as ever, asking brilliant questions. It was a joy to see you interact so positively with what is surely one of the most brilliant minds of our time! (I mean the person who is Richard Swinburne of course! ;) )
I saw swinburne speak live in debate with a.c. grayling. He used the Occams razor argument to defend the existence of God, and I was incredibly unimpressed and unconconvinced. Grayling on the other hand was fascinating and enlightening, and is a major reason why I am going to study philosophy at university
Swinburne's books are better than his debating style. Well worth picking up
Funny- I watched a Grayling lecture just this week in which he claimed he could prove God does not exist. It was the biggest load of waffle I have heard. Oh well, whatever floats your boat.
I have seen grayling and remain unconvinced that atheism is a tenable position to hold. Swinburne convinced me God exists.
I would have to hear the actual debate to pass fair judgement, but Occam's Razor seems like it would completely fall apart as a concept in the face of the supernatural. At that point the simplest explanation for why anything happens is always "it just did". Why did your car break down? It just did. Yeah but why? Maybe the batte- Nope, that's an unnecessary assumption, it just did.
It was a mind shattering conversation. Amazing work Alex
This podcast is so amazing. Phenomenal work.
Every new episode of this podcast makes my day. Thank you for your work
This is brilliant! The CosmicSkeptic, Alex, is getting such eminent philosophers and scientists on. If higher animals have conscious free choice, do they also have moral responsibility for their actions?
You got Swinburne! On your show!
Wonderful interview and thank both of you for presenting it to us. I thought the final musings on animal suffering and the existence of a deity was especially poignant! Wow!
"What is it that leads people to accept Jesus Christ? What is it that appeals to them when they read Scripture or they approach the sacraments? We could say that it is only custom or background or luck that leads them to say yes, but I think that something much deeper is going on. There is a resonance when Christ’s voice is heard precisely because the whole world has been wired to hear it."
Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (05/01/23)"
I understand that Alex wasn't in a position to argue with his guest during the interview, so It might be a good idea if Alex makes a video to respond and comment on the answers given by his guest.
Prof. Swinburne will never make it in stand-up comedy but he sure is smart, collected and eloquent. Food for thought here, even for the most obdurate of atheists like me.
What a brilliant, nuanced and critically discerning mind embodied in your guest today! Bravo, Alex, for a truly engaging and lively discussion!
Really? I thought his answers were incredibly weak. Especially when it came down to free will and animal suffering
@@alansmith4748 right? I'm so confused by these comments saying how good this discussion was. Alex barely had any pushback or would just rollover and move to the next topic.
@@TheBox225 Yeah, frankly, while the podcast model may be more profitable for Alex, I think it's worse than traditional debate style videos.
@Alan Smith I fully agree. I was quite underwhelmed. The opening talk about the mind-body problem really put a bad taste in my mouth. It was really as if Swinburne didn’t even know what Alex was asking. It was an astoundingly poor response to a interesting question
@@alansmith4748 It could be that what he presented were condensed answers that made people understand the essential nature of his position without going too deeply into the specifics (like his work "Are We Bodies or Souls" might) and limited himself to focusing on the interaction being a "basic fact" that tries to argue for the intertwined character of experiences and the physical aspect of sentient beings. Considering his age and the limited time he had, I am not surprised that he did not try to explain everything all at once. Additionally, sometimes we are better at elucidating topics while writing instead of speaking.
Daily Verse
"Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing."
-1 Corinthians 13:4-8
Interesting that the professor started his career being critical of language and here at the end he's fully entangled by it.
I went to the comments to see if anyone else had noticed this. The professor is really good at defining things in such a way that makes him right by default. You can define what a soul is all you like, that doesn’t mean it actually exists outside the world of philosphy.
@@You_do_not_exist_Jack I see what you are saying, but what do we have outside of that? Are you saying that he does it more than others or his arguments are qualitatively different? I just can't see how any argument is different to what he is doing however I do see what you are saying. Even in the hard sciences I feel as if you face the same problem, in the cases such as strong under determinism with two theories of identical mathematical structure.
I like the Buddhist answer to the question of whether I am the same person as my past self. They say that there simply is no self, and that's why we can't find it anywhere.
This was a great interview, I found a lot of holes in the arguments presented by the interviewee but you pointed those out almost all the times even if it wasn't fully answered by the interviewee afterward. It might be because it comes from a point of view very different from his own
My favorite podcast right now.
I found Richard Swinburne's reasons to support free will very unconvincing. He had to hedge his bets and find an exception every time that AO'C suggested a problem. He further explains that free will is a gift on the pure assumption that there's a giver.
A gift could also just be a "good" thing like a gifted artist 🎨
The "gift" is the talent that we can use our free will to use or not.
No one has to give it, it's not like a christmas present.....
But yes, I know that he probably meant so.
Like all theists, Swinburne's ability to formulate unbiased propositions is noticeably contaminated by his inherent predilictions.
also didnt find his arguments on anything convincing.
Have you ever read Swinburne's actual work?
@@ZambeziKid Have you ever read Swinburne's actual work?
This podcast is so much needed today. So much nonsense, delusion & lack of genuine thinking today. Fear, insecurity has always ruled mankind.Therefore religion.
Well done Alex, loving every episode!
Thank you Alex for having Mr Swinburne on.
Richard Swinburne is the man.
yo, ty for this. Im a christian but its nice seeing your arguments, these debats are awsome
On the subject of free will, Christopher Hitchens suggested we have no choice but to have free will.
Yes, but that hardly settled the matter.
I farted.
The problem with mr Swinburne’s statement that hemispherectomies don’t affect personality or memory is that it is a gross oversimplification, verging on negligence or deception. There are so many factors involved in the effects of a hemispherectomy. From which hemisphere is being removed (dominant or non dominant), age (as it is often done on children which are still hugely neuroplastic), previous condition (if your memory is already impaired due to epilepsy, the fact that it doesn’t worsen after surgery doesn’t mean that you have a normal memory). So using this claim as a sweeping justification for something which is beyond the brain is disingenuous.
Plus, structures such as the hippocampus or amygdala are not removed during a hemispherectomy, and these structures have a large function in episodic and emotional memory, while the neocortex, which is removed, is more involved in the general knowledge function. Obviously this is an oversimplification of how memory and personality works, but it still shows how faulty the reasoning is.
When someone has the hemispheres of their brain severed, it can often be the case that they act independently and in "willful" contrast of one another. It can then be reasoned that there may be two autonomous agents acting within the same body, thus perhaps up to two egos (what Richard refers to as a soul) within a single material being. I'm not so sure this is so different from the myriad of cases of conjoined twins.
Conjoined twins have two complete brains, which would entail 4 egos.
David the severed hemisphere outcomes always solidify how deterministic and unfree the self truly is!! The fact that you would have an outright atheist corresponding to one hemisphere and religious believer on the other is anything but freedom!!
How in the hell do see freedom in that? Your brain isn’t choosing to be a brain. Your heart is choosing to pump blood! The act of making a choice is a deterministic process being fulfilled by the totality of internal and external factors that don’t have anything to do with the subjective experience of self (which is in and of itself the outcome of deeply deterministic functions and factors).
I found nothing this fine gentleman said to in anyway make me think we have free will. It is the greatest myth we live with individually/collectively!!
Or at least that is what you are forced to believe...
I am rather cautious of making any deductions from this divided brain idea. It seems to me that you can disprove a few hypotheses here but no matter how many hypotheses you can rule out there will still be any number of alternative explanations. Personally I have no problem with a divided brain developing into two identities, both believing they are the whole identity, but ultimately both different from each other and the whole.
@@milesgrooms7343 My view on it is that free will proponents are ideological proponents. Like Christian apologists argue that we chose to go to Hell. A just God wouldn't condemn somebody to an eternity in Hell if they were determined to end up there, would he? Thus we must have free will. I'm not a legal expert, but believe the legal system is at least partly based on free will. Libertarians, in turn, would have a hard time justifying their ideology without free will. In addition to that, we all lead our lives as we have it.
Free will just feels right.
Thanks to you both! Excellent interview and discussion. 🙂
Swinburn's "soul" just seems to be a placeholder for our lack of understanding about the details of emergent properties of the physical brain.
How is this not just a god of the gaps argument?
It very much is, I think.
premise 1: You have free will
premise 2: Physical answer cannot account free will existence
premise 3: Unmaterial soul can account the free will existence
Conclusion: Soul existence is more plausable than physical answer
That is not even God of the gaps,
@@deczen47 I don't accept premise 2; it seems like you're just asserting a conclusion.
@@shassett79 How can you have free will if your mind is determined by unguided and blinded laws of nature?
Alex knows we will never know what goes on in the minds of animals yet posits the old "Science will work it out one day!" Materialists do this all the time. Is this called "future science of the gaps?"
This was absolutely fascinating, bravo Alex
Wooooow
Dr Swinburne, 88 years old,
Sharp mind
I am trying to teach myself about developmental neuroscience, and what I have Come across is adressing these very issues, namely the differentiation of the perception of self and the Other
This has to do with the mirror neuron system, and is adequately explained within a "physicalist" framework
Philosophy ought to be informed by cognitive neuroscience in my opinion, and fundamentally developmental cognitive neuroscience has the empirical tools to study these question in a scientific manner. Immanuel Kant's 'a priori' is constituted by the discipline of cognitive neuroscience
Best regards from Sweden
Great to hear this on utube and especially with a young participant.....well done.
I'm really enjoying this podcast. Great work and effort for sure. Hope you are also enjoying the process
Wow you got Swinburne on, mad respect.
next time ask him to give a very specific and detailed example of a human making a free will choice and then simply counter it with: it's either random or there are events that caused the choice, meaning it was determined, or a mix between random/determined, none of which allows a free will.
Yes, yes, yes. Of course! Cause and effect. Our decisions, like deliberative hand-waving gestures, follow physical processes of neurons firing in the brain some milliseconds prior to our being conscious of having made the decision to do so. Cause and effect! It governs everything in our universe. Except for, of course, the creation of our universe and the origin of life. In this regard, we believe it comes out of thin air. This is where cause and effect goes to die 😂 this makes perfect sense.
33:34 THE CAMERA ZOOM ON THE IMPATIENT TAPPING FINGERS. IM DEAD.
Oh my god that was amazing. I paused the video in a fit of laughter just to comment this.
How does he get such big names on his show? Incredible!
"Phenomenologically correct", a curious deployment by Swinburne. If I feel a sting in my arm and there see a bee, I would conclude the bee caused the sting. But what exactly is the correct phenomenology? That the sting caused the bee: first I experience the sting and then the bee. We then invert experience to conform to reason (bee sting, not sting bee). Nietzsche joked that's how morality works: a rationalization after the fact, and we confuse consequences as causes.
Wow that’s a pretty simple but insightful perspective I’ve never thought about before. Cheers bro 🙏🏻.
@@nonononononono8532 Thank you, nono. The host Alex O'Connor referred to a phenomena: feeling thirsty. We do not seem to be conscious of the motive force for that phenomena, only that it emerges as a feeling. Explanation of the cause comes after the feeling; hence if stretched the argument can apply to moral reasoning: if I act for a reason and mull over the rightness or wrongness of an action before acting, that scenario implies a reverse causation: that I act for reasons. However, it seems that action comes first and rationalizations after (sting bee or bee sting). Of course there is great utility in reasoning "feeling thirsty" but that is a separate issue from the problem of consciousness. We can anticipate and predict certain outcomes based on reason, but that too is an emerged feeling, e.g., to prefer a benefit, or a desire to "know" etc. Is free will another reversed phenomena, i.e., of our ignorance of the future causing us to rationalize an actor who can make moral choices?
huh? He said it's the correct phenomenology. Meaning that we experience ourselves making a choice in those situations. He remarked that the phenomenology may be misleading. It's probably not though. Are disagreeing with the phenomenology of making a choice or something? That's weird. Maybe you're just neurodivergent or something.
It's quite remarkable seeing such a distinguished and supposedly sophisticated philosopher resort to question begging in exactly the same way the lowest hanging fruit apologists do, as soon as a concrete question about the mechanics of the mind-body dualism is raised.
Question: How exactly do mind/soul and brain interact and where's the line dividing the two?
"Answer": All I need to do is assert that they DO interact.
I'm paraphrasing but only slightly.
Baffled by this as well.
I was thinking about commenting something to this effect, but wasn't sure if maybe it's me not getting something. The bit about Alex/Sandra was also interesting as well. Why would you assume that (if such a situation is possible), there is such a necessity to say that one of them is the original person. I find that only if you already presume the soul there is such a necessity. It cannot be the reason for supposing that soul exists "pfff, because otherwise it doesn't make sense".. It does to me.
I'm not sure what's supposed to be problematic about this answer. Presumably everyone believes that the nature of causal interaction will be irreducible at some point, right? We can break down causes into mechanisms to a point, but when we get down to the fundamental level of particle interaction we don't really have much informative to say about how they interact. We could maybe appeal to laws (which are not explanations, but descriptions), or just say that it's just a basic fact that they do.
``All I need to do is assert that they DO interact.
I'm paraphrasing but only slightly.``
But you are not only paraphrasing, you're also question-begging yourself. You are saying:
``as soon as a concrete question about the *mechanics* of the mind-body dualism is raised.``
The mechanics? What mechanics? This is begging the question: you assume that the mental constituent, the mind itself, is precisely as accountable as the body, presumably through the workings of the brain. In other words, you want an account of the mind, as many physicalists/materialists *think* they have about the brain and its function supposedly culminating to consciousness, subjective experience. Essentially, you want a materialist explanation of the mind-body interaction. And that is question begging.
By the way, do you think neuroscience has explained consciousness? We know exactly what the liver does in the human body. Or, we know exactly what the kidneys or the lungs do, the link between the presence of these organs in the human body and all about their function. Similarly, do we know exactly what is the link between brain & consciousness?
@@ktheodor3968 I'm not question begging anything. Posing something as a question isn't question begging.
He on the other hand is double question begging by positing there is a soul in the first place with no evidence to support it and then again by positing this soul interacts physically with a brain - has to be physically because the brain is physical.
The third level of his sloppy thinking is asserting the connection between a "soul" and the brain because he feels pain. The feeling of pain can literally be induced by manipulating certain regions of brain, either electrically or by mechanically sticking needles in there.
His "soul" is nowhere to be found. It's literally a mere assertion influenced by his religiosity and nothing rational...which is perfectly fine in the realm of religion. Philosophy however is a rational endeavor.
“Bad people”, “good people”…. He’s using these terms and he is well educated in philosophy. This is quite eye opening on how religious beliefs can even make the most educated people put on a blindfold to their expert subject just to ensure that their religious belief can still apply. It’s insane.
Yep. The first few(at least the first 3) questions were all answered with circular logic. It really fogs one's mind.
Look at John Lennox, not an idiot, but yet has a personal relationship with an entity outside of time and space.
@@giovaniconte1860 Not quite. He has tended to use - perfectly reasonable - spiral logic .. though one's perspective can make it appear to be circular. That, of course, does not make what he says 'correct' only presentable.
He, like Socrates, is leaving you to do the required brain work involved in .. comprehending .. these terms, how they are generally used, and in what manner they are applied in the given case. This is philosophy in action, not theology; God, so far as the terms used goes is irrelevant, other than as a common example of the usage. The belief required to distinguish between the concepts of good and bad (people, etc) is that of reason, and our trust in it.
;o)
@@mil401 'As a society, we could probably stand to use “good people” / “bad people” language much less ..' Why? Are we to nullify the praise of the good, great, and greatest athletes, to encourage the less good, bad, and worse athletes; no, of course not, indeed we wouldn't really want to even if we could because we know we shouldn't (for a variety of reasons). The task then, as with Platonic and Aristotelean philosophical ideas, is to encourage good, right, true, useful, ideal understanding and application of the terms .. e.g. (it makes) a good football, it is a bad (design) for a (terrestrially launched) spaceship, it is awarded Top Slot (for the best entry to a contest), etc = she is a good soldier (she did her duty), he was a bad teacher (he couldn't/ wouldn't/ didn't teach his subject), they/them are (is) an excellent example (of personal trans-pronouning).
;o)
Was Swinburne informed of the topics to be covered beforehand, animal suffering including? Even if one disagrees with his views, his coherence and ability to think on the spot is impressive, especially considering he is 88 years old. I guess this is one of the benefits of having been a professional analytical philosopher for over 65 years.
Was thinking exactly the same thing.
Yeah. A lot of people are complaining that he didn’t get flushed out answers, for a lot of his views; and it sounded like he was just making a bunch of assertions. I think what they need to keep in mind is that he has already explained his positions thoroughly in his work, and also this is more of just a friendly discussion. He’s not attempting in any way to give the most philosophically or logically incoherent defense for any of his positions.
"He who wishes for anything but Christ, does not know what he wishes; he who asks for anything but Christ, does not know what he is asking; he who works, and not for Christ, does not know what he is doing."
-St. Philip Neri
Swinburne is simply incorrect about the brain’s atoms not being replaced. I believe he is confusing the lack of birth of new brain cells (and even this is incorrect, adult neurogenesis has been demonstrated in the olfactory bulb and hippocampus) with there not being things replaced in the brain. Cells still take in nutrients and excrete waste and use those new atoms to build new molecules and to repair their membranes and such.
Yeah, that threw me off and made me think some new research had emerged
I'm still not sure if it even makes a difference either way whether or not the brain parts are replaced or not. Does it even matter? What relevance does it have for the dualist? So what if the brain isn't entirely replaced, how does that imply anything about a soul?
jDuncs I don’t think it necessarily has any relevance, but I wasn’t necessarily using it as an argument. I was just pointing out a factual inaccuracy
@@123unknownsoldier126 my comment was more in light of Swinburne making the point about brain matter not being replaced - I don't see how that helps him prove the existence of the soul
The way I think of the mind as being an emergent property of the brain is to make an analogy.
Wave your hand, like you're waving to someone. How does the wave interact with the physical nature of your arm/hand? How can your arm interact with the phenomenon of the wave? Waving is one of the things your arm can do.
For me, the mind is the same. It's one of the things that brains can do. We just tend to think of it differently because we don't see an "arm" waving when the brain works.
I don't find the notion of a mind being the result of the machinery of brains particularly disturbing or troubling. Totally fine for me.
The hypothetical I use is, ok, if someone makes a decision, then you go back in time, would they make a different decision?
If they'd always make the same decision, where's the free will, but if they make a different decision, why? What mechanism is there to allow them to make a different decision if everything is exactly the same?
Actually, you would want to use the possible worlds of modal logic. What you're actually asking is "Is there a possible world where ◇p or ¬p?"
"Possible worlds" can be understood also as possible states, or dimensions, or alternate histories, etc.
If all possible outcomes exist, is that free will? Unless we're also applying some interpretation of quantum immortality such that, by your free will, you choose which timeline you exist in through your choices at any given moment. That is, I, ME, that which I consider to be the self, the "soul", consciousness.. whatever you wanna call it... must be capable of it's own free will, to choose. Without the ability to "jump timelines" then I am still fixed on my timeline, which has a fixed set of events - almost by definition of the possible worlds hypothesis - as are all other versions of me, that are not me. Unless we're just saying that all possible worlds "are possible" and our choices determine which of these worlds we will create, but that doesn't solve the causality problem. How do we choose something other than that which we most desire to choose? How do we choose what we choose?@@angusmcculloch6653
Loved what Swinburne said on Heaven.
Very awesome discussion, Alex! Keep up the good work.
Fantastic discussion
Posted 25 sec ago. Great podcast loved every minute.
100x playback speed
@@gradientO 😁😁😁😂😂😂😂👀
I live in reverse time (antimatter realm) and am quite confused - what language are they talking? What does "live fo melborp" mean? 🤔
Just want to say you must be doing something right, because though I seem to vehemently disagree with most of your guests, I can't stop coming back. Keep up the good work!
Surely a moral choice is also dependent on the actions that caused the person to consider something being moral or immoral. I’m not quite sure a moral choice makes any difference. I realise this person has an enormous amount more qualifications than me on this subject, but I find a lot of what he is saying isn’t logically consistent.
Great interview Alex, thanks. I think there is one question that would stump most theists who believe in a soul and that is: at what point in our evolutionary linneage from archaic proto-humans to modern Homo sapiens did we get a soul, given that this is a gradual process where we progressively took on more modern human biological traits over a long period of time? And similarly, when did we become sinners? Also, given that Neanderthals were as intelligent as us (their brains were actually larger) , did they have souls and were they sinners?
This is something I've wondered for a very long time, as in how do theists explain this? I might have stumbled across this before where it seemed the theist simply tried to dismiss evolution. I don't think they can do that any more and remain credible? So many questions...Off to do yet another youtube, google and wikipedia search...
I've never heard the "some intentional actions aren't necessarily free" defense before. Very interesting.
Alex has long held the position that we always do what we most desire in that moment. When I first saw him talk about it, it made a lot of sense to me. Even when we choose to do the moral thing over the most self-beneficial thing, it's because that's what we most want to do at that moment in time.
For example, a soldier who dives on top of a live grenade to save the lives of his fellow soldiers even though he knows he's going to die is choosing to sacrifice himself because in that moment, his desire to save his comrade's lives is greater than his desire to keep on living. A more prosaic example would be abstaining from your favorite calorie-laden dessert because at that moment in time, your desire to lose weight and become healthier is greater than the desire for instant gratification.
@@EnglishMike I agree and I don't really know how Swinburne can get out of this.
As I point out to people in conversations at times, we can choose what we want, but we cannot choose to want something else. I think every choice has a sufficient cause in brain structure, experience, and circumstances.
When deconverting from Christianity, I would often ask "what is the *difference* between someone who accepts the religion's message and rejects it and how can a person be held responsible for that difference"?
@@Sveccha93 exactly this. We always do what we desire most and secondly, our "consciousness, self, whatever u wanna call it" are not the author of our desires. For example: I did not choose to like chocolate better than vanilla, brunettes over blondes, etc. Furthermore, even in things we become convinced of are not by choice. I can't choose to not believe Australia actually exists. However, inputting data in my brain can alter what I believe. My "self" just simply becomes aware of that belief.
@@EnglishMike "For example, a soldier who dives on top of a live grenade to save the lives of his fellow soldiers even though he knows he's going to die is choosing to sacrifice himself because in that moment, his desire to save his comrade's lives is greater than his desire to keep on living"
The atheist's trick with this argument is to create a tautology (hypothesis that is true no matter what data is found). I don't know how people fall into that.
No matter what happens you will always say that there was a greater desire and that was the cause of your decision making your hypothesis come true in any scenario.
@@nemrodx2185 It's not a trick. Even most philosophers admit that there's no way to know whether true free will exists, so without empirical data, everyone has to come up with their own explanation for the observed behavior of others.
What plausible argument is there for or against free will that is falsifiable? Appealing to any form or religious imperative certainly doesn't cut it.
@24:30 what is meant is "you are not today the same person that existed in a different body which you previously identified as yourself". It only begs the question if you phrase it in such a way to cause it to
this is great content! thanks for picking the brain of such an amazing philosopher
Absolutely fascinating conversation. On the topic of free will, I feel Alex had a more convincing argument, so did I choose to agree with him or was this phenomenon a process that was completely out of my control??? Lol
I'm a Theist and a Muslim, but I really enjoy your discussion and debates. Open dialogues and understanding, its vital for us to flourish as humanity.
How is open dialog and understanding possible with one who performs taqiyya? This is the issue I have. I do not see how it is possible to ever trust anything a Muslim says. No dialog between you and I can ever be open and understanding since you have a religious obligation to be dishonest with me.
We had a clash between a secular schoolboard and parents here some months back, and I saw Muslim parents fighting fiercely for their children to be free of transgender pornography in the schools. It brought me great joy to see and made me wish I could stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their fight, but then I realize that isn't possible. My God commands me to love my neighbor as myself, but their God commands them to subjugate me.
I wish it were possible to flourish together at peace, but how can we do that when I see in your scripture that you have a knife ready as soon as I trust you enough to turn my back.
@@patrickbarnes9874 you are such a reprehensible liar. Christianity has subjugated, enslaved, and conquered every indigenous people it has ever met. It followed forced conversion with genocide, rape, and displacement. And you pretend your religion can be trusted not to be holding a knife behind your back?
Disgusting.
@@patrickbarnes9874
What you claim is false and one more thing I don’t practice taqiyya. The weird thing that your are the one who is not willing to accept us not the other way around based on your reply
@@patrickbarnes9874 give evidence for each of your claims. Find me evidence for Taqiyya in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Lying is, in fact, a major sin in Islam. But pagan idol worshippers and polytheists like you won't get it.
@@patrickbarnes9874 Hi there, I’m a Muslim and I can see that you have a lot of misconceptions about Islam. It’s important that we get our information from the Scripture itself, and not Fox News or online anti-Islamic propagandists-or even the behavior of imperfect Muslims themselves. Now according to the Qur’an (our Scripture), lying is sinful, and the only exception for “lying” about religion is when you are being PERSECUTED, and conceal your faith out of fear for death or injury (Qur’an 16:106 and 3:28).
So ‘Taqiyya’ (which literally means ‘self-protection’) has NOTHING to do with “lying about Islam to trick people with an agenda”-but is rather simply a minor exception to concealing your faith out of self-preservation, just like the Jews did in World War II for example, when they were being persecuted and killed by the Nazi army. So if you lived in Germany at the time, and someone asked you: “Are you Jewish?” -you could response with “No” and that would be a form of ‘Taqiyya’ which is acceptable.
So this internet lie that people like to spread around about ‘taqiyya’ (where you can’t trust a Muslim) is an an extremely DANGEROUS and FALSE myth that is only used to cast doubt on innocent people, break bridges between our communities, and provoke unnecessary hate and hostility between people, when we should actually be joining forces towards good and faithfulness. It is a real shame. And with all due respect, I consider you a victim of that.
However, you might be surprised to know that the Qur’an says the following-Read closely:
*”Those who’ve come to faith, and those who are Jewish, and Sabian, and Christian-ANY who believe in God and the Last Day, and act virtuously-they have NOTHING to fear, nor shall they be sorry!”* _(Qur’an 5:69)_
That’s right-the Qur’an actually teaches that other monotheistic faiths (like Christianity or Judaism) can also get salvation and go to Heaven, as long as they are sincere and act righteously. In fact, Sūrah 5:5 of the Qur’an allows us to MARRY Jewish and Christian women! So why would the Qur’an then promote “violence” and “hate” against your spouse or neighbor, when it also says they can go to Heaven? It makes no sense-because this is not what the Qur’an teaches. It teaches respect and kindness towards everyone, unless they’ve done something bad to deserve otherwise.
And if you doubt anything I’m saying, then simply read the Qur’an for yourself. That’s actually what Muslims want you to do in the first place! And if you think it’s being mistranslated, then just read non-Muslim translations on the side if you want to (as long as it’s not from an Islamaphobe, but an actual educated scholar). It’s easy, my friend.
And you will find that in the Qur’an, the concept of “truthfulness” and “honesty” are EXTREMELY pervasive and important topics, which are given serious weight. For example, read these following verses:
*_”O you who have faith! Be conscious of God, and keep company with the TRUTHFUL & sincere!”_* _(Qur’an 9:119)_
*_”…Whenever you speak, be FAIR and HONEST, even if it concerns a close relative! And fulfill your covenant with God. This He has charged you with, so that you may carefully take heed!”_* _(Qur’an 6:152)_
*”Do not say ANYTHING about God except the TRUTH.”_* _(Qur’an 4:171)_
And ironically, the Qur’an actually tells us not to IMITATE the sins of those who read God’s Scriptures before us who did the same thing. And what exactly was that sin? If was:
*_”Mixing the truth with falsehood; and intentionally concealing the truth.”_* as well as: *_”Twisting the scripture with their tongues, and making up lies against God”_* _(Qur’an 3:71 & 3:78)_
So clearly-this distorted understanding of ‘Taqiyya’ that you have, is not only NOT taught in the Islamic Scripture (the Qur’an), but is in fact CONDEMNED as a gross sin, which it also warns ALL followers of God and the Abrahamic religions to carefully avoid.
So while I understand that there’s a lot of tension between our communities, and a lot of bad things happening in the world right now-let us try not to let the Devil get between us, but instead work together towards good. Muslims make up 1/4 of the whole human race; and with Christians we are nearly have the global population. So think about how small-minded we would be to lack trust in each other before even getting to know each other? And how much good we could do with that energy instead.
As the Qur’an itself amazingly says (and I will end with this):
*_”For each of you We have assigned a law and a method. If God wanted, He could have made you into a single group-but instead He is testing you through what He has given you. So compete with each other in doing good deeds! To God is your collective return, where He will then explain to you everything you used to disagree with each other about.”_* _(Qur’an __5:48__)_
So with that, I hope you will carefully re-consider, and read the Qur’an for yourself-and not allow yourself to fall victim to blindly trusting agenda-driven Internet personalities who misrepresent Islam (and so many other faiths and ideologies).
You seem like an intelligent man, so I trust that you can expand your mind to sincerely think for yourself. And I encourage you to travel, or meet Muslim people in your local Mosque and area. You will find them to be extremely welcoming and hospitable, and they can also answer more questions you might have.
Thank you for reading.
And peace be unto you.
I enjoyed this one quite a bit. I was waiting for the "but you have to WANT it"
I was a determinist until I changed my mind!
I know I'm famous for one liners, but this one's in earnest.
You gave me no choice but to reply.
I believed in free will until you made me change my mind
"I have no choice, but to have a free will"
It seems that to come to his view on free will, I would have to see an example of a moral decision in which someone "forces" themselves to do something.
To me it seems like the phenomenology is that someone would put effort into performing a moral action only if they wanted to do the moral thing both more than they want to do the immoral thing and more than they don't want to put in the effort.
That's insane. People have chosen horrific torture and death rather than betray family or friends. Your belief is that this is entirely unpraiseworthy or worthy of our admiration because in the end they simply did the thing they most wanted to do!
No. They chose to endure the very last thing they wanted to face because they loved their family and friends. If we lived in a world where people truly believed there is no free will it would be a terrible place in which to exist.
@@markmooroolbark252 you said it perfectly. Their desire to be loyal to people they love was stronger than their desire to be tortured. Just think, if the betrayal was against someone else that they had less desire to betray than be tortured, they would have chosen to betray. Now you're getting it. ;)
"If we lived in a world where people truly believed there is no free will, it would be a terrible place in which to exist." Well, yes. No disagreements here. Just one addition, to make. "If we lived in a world where people truly had free will, it would be a terrible place in which to exist." both arguments can just be considered true if we just say the world, the universe, the "super universe" (if you know, you know) are in fact a terrible place in which to exist. @@markmooroolbark252
So much special pleading followed by a thought experiment that refuted his own position.
When Alex gave the example of choosing between two flavors of ice cream, he said, "You don't choose which to like." But there's a difference between choosing to desire an option and choosing to act on your desires. Maybe you have a choice over whether you act on your preferences even if you don't always choose your preferences?
Ok, let’s say I’m choosing whether to buy my favourite ice cream flavour or a different one. Despite it being my favourite, I choose a different one to demonstrate that I have free will. And why did I do that? Because my desire to demonstrate that I had free will was stronger than my desire to eat my favourite ice cream. Why? Because it just was. If I had been a slightly different person (I.e different genetics and/or upbringing) then it might not be. Whatever decision you make, it is always predicated on things that you didn’t choose, so we’re you really free to make those decisions?
*were
not we’re, it won’t let me edit
@@willhasnofriends Swinburne's e.g. was choosing what is right over what is comfortable for me. Phenomenologically the self-determination of ultimate desire can come before the desire. Decision before wanting. My experience is that it can be "up to me" what I do, not simply desire-driven. That's why we hold people responsible.
@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 Usually when people do things against there apparent desire, there is an easy explanation why they did that. That explanation often has a clear causal chain of itsself. For example I desire to eat icecream, but I know that it will make me fat. I don't want to be fat so that 'desire' of not wanting to be fat drives my choice towards not eating the desired ice cream. In common language I could even say 'I ought not eat' the ice cream almost as if it is a moral decision.
@Richard Bloemenkamp But your examples are still centred upon bodily good of the subject. Swinburne is talking about moral, responsible generosity. The preference for others over self is certainly experienced as a reason but it’s simultaneously experienced as Swinburne’s “ self-determination”. I make myself to be the type of person who has such preferences freely, responsibly.
Swinburne did allow that this phenomenology be empirically shown to be a delusion - notwithstanding that we all assume it in each other and it is at the heart of civilisation. But, he clearly implied, it must be taken at face value whatever its final metaphysical interpretation.
I would say that the empirical evidence confirms it: our moral and creative preferences are not the physical, ecological-niche-oriented-desires/reasons-for-action of all viable physical things. Humans are the only species to transcend physically adapted limits. We have our own reasons.
So annoyed, as I saw you at St ebbs in Oxford tonight and didn't get a chance to talk!
I do like this episode. Truly. But it’s nice to see that a skeptic gets to interview one of the better Oxford philosophical apologists, who still would be a bit of a crank (not my term, that’s Richard Carrier’s) if we check his Bayesianism and how it doesn’t match his philosophy of religion. It’s nice to see a respectful conversation and not another polemic, which gets exhausting when waxing rhetorical for a beatdown is its aim (see Carrier’s caricature of Swinburne, which nevertheless made good points against Swinburne’s use of Bayesian probability).
It's interesting how some philosophers can argue backwards from a conclusion.
Premise 1: There must be something that makes me "me."
But why though???
It reminds of the moral argument for the existence of God.
Premise 1: There must be somewhere that we get our moral laws from.
But why are we starting by assuming those are real?
I keep hearing Joe Schmid's impression of Swinburne whenever he says 'That is to saayyy...'
What a delightful gentleman! We will be such a lesser world when this generation is gone. We are not replacing men and women in our generation of such caliber.
"Heaven is not so much a reward for being good but as a place where good people would be happy. It's a natural home for them." What a profound statement that should equally affect and perhaps change the minds of both theists and non-theists in their understanding of the Christian afterlife!
Well said!
the biblical description of heaven (the only one that should count i think most christians will agree) is clear.
heaven is a place where souls that are "saved" get to sing god praises, in a choir, for eternity.
thats it.
nothing else.
so like north korea now, except in north korea at least you can die and escape that hellish life... heaven is for eternity!
sounds like hell to me...
@@atee876 respectfully, you have a very wrong notion of what Christians believe. The orthodox position of all Christianity regarding eternity is not of heaven but rather of a new earth in which we will dwell in our resurrected bodies. The idea that we will form a choir and merely sing songs all day is also a caricature of the Christian position. I hope you will take the time to seek out these things further as I would hate for you to continue on with such jaded and false ideas of the Christian afterlife.
@@bilbobaggins9893 what "christians" believe and what is written in their book is rather different... thanks to centuries of catholic, and then more recently protestant, conmen/priests making stuff up about how it will be a lovely eternal garden party.
that is not what is written. what is written ios what i wrote.
an eternity of singing god praises mindlessly.
and i do mean a real eternity, no breaks, no chatting, no drinks or fancy food.
singing about how good god is.
for ever.
....
like i said.
hell!
@@atee876 again, with all due respect you are just demonstrably wrong and you don’t seem to have a spirit of truth seeking.
The Bible clearly teaches the fact that we will exist forever in a new created earth with new resurrected bodies. It does NOT say we will form a choir and sing for all of eternity. That’s just false. If you want to continue making that claim, please show me where the Bible says that.
Look man, it’s one thing not to believe and idk your story but at least deal with the religion you claim to reject fairly. Creating caricatures and straw-man arguments isn’t helpful for anyone. Take care and hopefully one day you might change your mind!
To Alex's question of what is a human being, I would suggest it is an entity which at best aspires to being humane. Yet, where do our frailties sometimes waylay us, does judgement creep in to determine our lot otherwise, as being someone other than wise.
To bandy an idea about the apparent interaction between the "two parts" of a human being (in other words, a human engaged in the act of being) that sees the mind and brain as separate from each other, the greater question is one of awareness, but awareness of what? As I sense things, it is an awareness of a larger self at work in this world of which we are all a part, what Artists often refer to as the "zone" out of which they steal fire. This "zone", this "moment" of being at whose mercy we place ourselves is conversely of Mercy itself. The "direct experience" Mr Swinburne speaks of is ultimately an expression of that experience. Therefore, where Mind and Spirit interact they do so as of one entity as is Eternity the entirety of being, each facet although a different face in connection with the other.
Why should we seek to separate when it is oneness we are so wont to find.
Personal identity. Individuation. We are here to experience individuation that we should realise our oneness, the "sameness" we share that sees us as different but only here. Beyond this, there is no such separation in the exact same way Eternity is Time without borders. The question here is one of regulation.
Where does every substance has a shadow does every body have a soul. Then to consider meditation, what I like to consider as mediation between one's self and one's soul.
That Free Will by way of accountability is never so free, are the non-accountable bound by their behaviour, and in this way for better or worse. It is that with choice there comes change as do all changes offer choice - yes? - and where the one thing that does not change is Change itself, is Cause and Effect of a continuum whose crest like a wave contains its motion ever forward.
To the existence of God, where it does not make sense to me it is a sense within me. Yet does this depend upon your perception of who or what God is. What's in a name, yes? God does not allow people to commit evil, we allow ourselves to do it. In our deep-seated self, the relatively sane person knows better. Once again it is a question of choice, and of choosing which brings about Change. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven was within our midst. Consider if you will the word "midst" as an abbreviation of mid-centre, and go there! To that region within yourself, the haven you know as your heart Love's only home. Blessings!
Wow, this guy was incredibly unconvincing
not strong enough to convince others but strong enough to make already believers to not think too much more
I'm with you lol
A person who doesn’t want to believe will never be convinced. Regardless of the preponderance of evidence available to him, or the soundness of the argument made.
I find his detractors embarrassingly unconvincing tbh
Such a bright interviewer you are, Alex!
Of course we all wrestle with this notion of free will.
All of us have lived a life; constantly experiencing a portion of this 'chain of causation' that the universe is. Since its all we have ever known, to keep our illusion of 'self' (seperation of perciever from the perceptions) we must think we are "free" of this univeral chain of causation, hence the term free will, freedom. "Our choices are free of the constraints of the outside world." However when we can identify the illusion of self, it is then that we can realise that this chain of causation cascade is the universal soul, indistinguishable from our consciousness. Think about how determinism has led itself to sentiently acknowledge itself. You must realise we "free will" is a flawed term. Our choices arent free from anything but they're the result of our deterministic soul. Tea anyone?
Why do almost all of the people who say they believe free will is an illusion live their lives in accordance with the idea that we are all responsible for the choices we make and the words we speak? If a belief is so impossible to actually embrace in our daily lives perhaps it is because we all know in our heart of hearts that people deserve punishment or praise for what they do or say because they had a choice and didn't have to say those hurtful words or do that harmful thing.
@markmooroolbark252 well I'd say that the praise or punishment you would give was also determined and not your free will. Just simply a reaction which was always going to take place
So well done, Alex! I think you could have driven the knife just a little deeper on free will by saying that there ARE compelling reasons to consider the phenomenology of free will to be illusory. Namely, philosophy, physics, evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, and neuroscience. That would have backed Swinburne into a corner and you could have then pushed him to acknowledge the logical conclusion and admit the error of his way.
Other than that though you honestly did this flawlessly. I'm a huge fan and just wanted to say keep going with the discussions, debates, and interviews!
Free will is basically just an idea that can only come about in a brain complex enough to create such an idea. But in actual experience I think it's hard to point to it having any validity, every 'choice' we make is the result of something previous that shaped us in someway to make that final choice. When you hear people arguing for free will its usually that they start with the concept of free will being foundationally true and then work an explanation around that. If your starting point was nothing is true without experience I don't see how you could ever verify free will being true
If you're starting point was nothing is true, then I don't see how you could ever verify anything is true. The old cartesian problem.
he was not starting with 'nothing is true'. He says that even if you have the mental capabilty of understanding/feeling the concept of free will, it's not a checkmate. AFTER you understand the question 'is it real?' you need to think about it, not starting with 'of course it's tue because i feel it!!'
if you start with the feeling as a fact, you can say that a psysically/mentally abusive partner loves the other one, because the FeELinG he/she has
@Áron Janosov @tobias yoder thanks your reply and yes I'm not saying the starting point is 'nothing is true', I'm saying your starting point should be agnostic pending investigation. So if someone comes up with the statement 'the concept of free will is true', if you take that for fact as a starting point then all your ideas going forward have to allow for that to be true, like the professor in the interview. Whereas with contemplation and consideration of your own direct experience it would be hard to maintain the view that there is free will without some unknown force like God making it so, but this concept would be outside of your own and anybody else's direct experience, so at best you could say I don't know.
So Kant's entire philosophy is wrong, correct?
@Angus McCulloch happy to answer but would need some elaboration