Great interview! Thank you Jordan and Dr Tucker. I am working through this very topic of phenomenal conservatism right now, including a couple of Dr Tucker's papers, and I found this discussion very helpful.
Disagreeing with Michael Huemer is a rather bold thing to do, haha. Thanks for the interview. As a phenomenal conservative and Christian, I am thankful that you have made a video on how they work so well together.
Well, it would probably be bad news if all the phenomenal conservatives had exactly the same view. That would suggest bias, the influence of a single figure or two, or that the success of the view depends on a very narrow range of things being exactly right.
@@christophertucker9329 It could suggest bias in today's intellectual atmosphere for sure. Perhaps one-day philosophy will progress to the point that it will suggest, rather, that we are correct on many issues - see consensus views in other academic subjects (like round earth, heliocentrism). I never said I wasn't bold as I disagree with Michael Huemer too - see his agnosticism as an obvious example. But Huemer is a smart, common-sense guy who's conclusions are difficult to argue with, and I hope one day we and the Holy Spirit can show him the light of day on God. I have a feeling the Problem of Evil holds him back from orthodox theism. Speaking of, if you don't mind answering, what is your preferred solution to the Problem of Evil? I think Perry Hendricks' modified version of Michael Bergmann's skeptical theism is by far the most promising. He also has some papers defending skeptical theism from skeptical objections and Dougherty's objection from phenomenal conservatism. I would suggest checking them out if you haven't. Here is his paper where he modifies skeptical theism philpapers.org/rec/HENTNO-9 Some of his other papers I mentioned: philpapers.org/rec/HENSTU-5 philpapers.org/rec/HENHTB-4 philpapers.org/rec/HENSTA-10 As a bonus, he also has a unique, compelling argument against abortion worth checking out: philpapers.org/rec/HENEIT-2 philpapers.org/rec/BLASTI
@@SolarxPvP You might be interested to know that Michael Bergmann was actually Chris Tucker's doctoral advisor! I'm pretty sure Dr. Tucker knows Bergmann's skeptical theist views. I don't know if he knows Perry Hendricks' stuff. I definitely want to look into it at some point.
@@andrewmoon1917 Interesting! I did not know that. Purdue produces a lot of talent it seems. Definitely check his stuff out. Much like Huemer's work, it's essential stuff in my view. Hendricks, while an externalist (I would guess proper functionalist) himself, defends skeptical theism from a very wide scope perspective in his papers. He defends it from externalist, phenomenal conservative, and Alstonian perspectives; this helped resolve basically all of my doubts about skeptical theism. His impairment argument against abortion is almost impossible to argue against as well (mainly the strengthened one he wrote with Bruce Blackburn).
Trying to understand his objection to proper functionalism. It sounds like it's similar to my objection which is that it begs the question by assuming God exists and has given us an ability to know Him. I think bother proper functionalism and phenomenal conservatism fall short due to not talking about qualification (Adhikara). The arborist has the same data as me but he has and ability to make sense of the data which I don't have. A derelict fails to understand the truth of basic moral values due to being in a degraded state of consciousness. I understand the moral standards I understand due to the quality of my consciousness. It follows from this that it's plausible that people in even higher states of consciousness then me perceive God. Without talking about qualification then reformed epistemology runs into problems because it can't explain disagreements.
I don't think proper functionalism begs the question by assuming God's existence, as proper functionalism isn't used to argue that God exists (in this context, at least). It's used to argue that laypeople can justifiably believe in God's existence without knowing about philosophical arguments. Sure, it presupposes God's existence to do that, but why is that a problem? Proper functionalism can be understood to defend the following: if God exists, then laypeople can be justified in believing in Him even if they don't know of any arguments for His existence. The truth of the antecedant is defended independently.
Various areas of interest and research have led me to this video years later (for the first time). And WOW. This is SO GOOD. Thanks for making this!
Great interview! Thank you Jordan and Dr Tucker. I am working through this very topic of phenomenal conservatism right now, including a couple of Dr Tucker's papers, and I found this discussion very helpful.
Disagreeing with Michael Huemer is a rather bold thing to do, haha.
Thanks for the interview. As a phenomenal conservative and Christian, I am thankful that you have made a video on how they work so well together.
Well, it would probably be bad news if all the phenomenal conservatives had exactly the same view. That would suggest bias, the influence of a single figure or two, or that the success of the view depends on a very narrow range of things being exactly right.
@@christophertucker9329 It could suggest bias in today's intellectual atmosphere for sure. Perhaps one-day philosophy will progress to the point that it will suggest, rather, that we are correct on many issues - see consensus views in other academic subjects (like round earth, heliocentrism). I never said I wasn't bold as I disagree with Michael Huemer too - see his agnosticism as an obvious example. But Huemer is a smart, common-sense guy who's conclusions are difficult to argue with, and I hope one day we and the Holy Spirit can show him the light of day on God.
I have a feeling the Problem of Evil holds him back from orthodox theism. Speaking of, if you don't mind answering, what is your preferred solution to the Problem of Evil? I think Perry Hendricks' modified version of Michael Bergmann's skeptical theism is by far the most promising. He also has some papers defending skeptical theism from skeptical objections and Dougherty's objection from phenomenal conservatism. I would suggest checking them out if you haven't. Here is his paper where he modifies skeptical theism philpapers.org/rec/HENTNO-9
Some of his other papers I mentioned:
philpapers.org/rec/HENSTU-5
philpapers.org/rec/HENHTB-4
philpapers.org/rec/HENSTA-10
As a bonus, he also has a unique, compelling argument against abortion worth checking out:
philpapers.org/rec/HENEIT-2
philpapers.org/rec/BLASTI
@@SolarxPvP You might be interested to know that Michael Bergmann was actually Chris Tucker's doctoral advisor! I'm pretty sure Dr. Tucker knows Bergmann's skeptical theist views. I don't know if he knows Perry Hendricks' stuff. I definitely want to look into it at some point.
@@andrewmoon1917 Interesting! I did not know that. Purdue produces a lot of talent it seems.
Definitely check his stuff out. Much like Huemer's work, it's essential stuff in my view. Hendricks, while an externalist (I would guess proper functionalist) himself, defends skeptical theism from a very wide scope perspective in his papers. He defends it from externalist, phenomenal conservative, and Alstonian perspectives; this helped resolve basically all of my doubts about skeptical theism. His impairment argument against abortion is almost impossible to argue against as well (mainly the strengthened one he wrote with Bruce Blackburn).
@@SolarxPvP the last one gave an error in the link
New channel name?
Yes. I changed the name of my channel at the start of 2021. I used to be Crash Course Apologetics. Now I am the Analytic Christian
Nice beard!
Trying to understand his objection to proper functionalism. It sounds like it's similar to my objection which is that it begs the question by assuming God exists and has given us an ability to know Him.
I think bother proper functionalism and phenomenal conservatism fall short due to not talking about qualification (Adhikara). The arborist has the same data as me but he has and ability to make sense of the data which I don't have. A derelict fails to understand the truth of basic moral values due to being in a degraded state of consciousness. I understand the moral standards I understand due to the quality of my consciousness. It follows from this that it's plausible that people in even higher states of consciousness then me perceive God.
Without talking about qualification then reformed epistemology runs into problems because it can't explain disagreements.
I don't think proper functionalism begs the question by assuming God's existence, as proper functionalism isn't used to argue that God exists (in this context, at least). It's used to argue that laypeople can justifiably believe in God's existence without knowing about philosophical arguments. Sure, it presupposes God's existence to do that, but why is that a problem? Proper functionalism can be understood to defend the following: if God exists, then laypeople can be justified in believing in Him even if they don't know of any arguments for His existence. The truth of the antecedant is defended independently.