¶1For me, I'm just so convinced that it it makes such a difference whether there's a God, whether there's life after death, that I have the impetus to try to determine if these things are true because I think it makes a difference. >> As a guy who's kind of in the middle, do you think about the idea of hell often? >> The fine-tuning argument is too widely discussed and has been too long-standing and resilient to objections in the literature and is taken too seriously by too many smart people for it to fall prey to a devastatingly simple objection that can be succinctly stated in a YouTube comment. That's my hot take. If we deny that God is all powerful, well, then maybe the reason that all of the seemingly pointless evil that happens in the world, maybe the reason it happens is because God can't prevent it.
¶2>> What other philosophical topics and issues really keep you up at night? Hello everybody. Welcome back to another episode of Rove Views. Today, we have on Miles Donahue. He's a PhD student at the University of Oxford.
¶3He grew up deeply religious, went through his own intellectual deconstruction, and landed somewhere most people find uncomfortable, genuinely uncertain about almost everything except that God probably exists. Today, he sits down to talk about faith, doubt, Oxford, and what it actually looks like to take these questions as seriously as they deserve to be taken. Miles, thank you for coming on. >> Thank you for having me, Devin. >> Of course, Miles, can you first take the audience through your sort of spiritual upbringing?
¶4>> Yeah, so I grew up in a fairly conservative Christian home, and so those were the beliefs that I naturally adopted. The evangelical variety, if that means anything to anybody, uh it identifies largely with like Baptist fundamentalism. We're talking I grew up watching videos about how to defend young Earth creationism from my teachers when they would inevitably talk about evolutionary theories, This is idea that the earth is 6,000 years old. So, for for those outside of this camp, for those in my my European friends for example that I met at Oxford and talked to, they cannot understand that there is this section of the United States that believes these things. Like, that for instance strikes them as like the flat earth idea is got as much credence as that.
¶5>> [snorts] >> And the other emphasis of my belief system for whatever reason was like end times theology, the rapture, the second coming of Jesus was just right around the corner. So, all of all of these things were like deeply ingrained and I believed all of them very fervently. And the long story short of that is just that I was always a very curious person and just kept asking questions and so then I found apologetics, the branch of Christian theology which attempts to demonstrate that Christian beliefs are true and to defend them from objections. And from there I found philosophy of religion which is just the more general investigation into religious truth claims and then finally to the most general level of philosophy as a whole. So, just careful systematic reflection upon life's deepest questions.
¶6But philosophy of religion specifically is still my passion. I find those questions the most interesting even though I come at it from a much more agnostic place than I used to. >> Yeah, what what age were you when you were kind of officially agnostic? >> Well, again that term tends to mean like agnostic about God's existence. So, I guess I would just clarify like agnostic outside of the kind of bare bones theism.
¶7So, what once you go past this minimal claim that God exists and even then I'm not totally set on a specific definition of God, just real general. Once you go outside that then I I don't know. And as for like when did that happen? Uh it was a gradual process in from 17 till now. So, it would be it would be hard to pinpoint a specific time.
¶8>> Yeah, how how did you know that philosophy was the field of study you wanted to certainly embark on. >> It's always been the one I've been most passionate about since I knew about philosophy as a discipline. So, from as early as 13, 14, 15, I could have told you philosophy is what I love. Now, I at the time didn't know the field like I do now, but from earliest times I that I was able to read a philosophy book and understand enough of it to make it worthwhile. I thought this is it.
¶9This is the one I want. So, you know, analytic philosophy, the rigorous, systematic attempt to assess answers to life's deepest questions was so fascinating to me that there was a discipline that focuses on these questions that up to that point you think you're the only one who thinks about them or if people think about them, it's just late at night as you're lying in bed before you go to sleep. They're not things you can actually attack rigorously or try to answer much less. But apparently there is a discipline that tries to do that. And so, once I figured that out, it just nothing else nothing else could compare in terms of its significance to me.
¶10So, that that's that's how I got into it. It was fairly early and then I've just kind of only grown in my acquaintance with the discipline in every step of the way and ever more convinced like yes, this this is what I want to do. >> Yeah, it reminds me of the child at sleepover who suddenly thinks, wait, dude, is my blue your blue? Or is my green your green? Like those kind of questions that come up.
¶11So, I guess that's like the sort of intro to baby philosophy to kind of full set you on a journey towards the the sort of path of a degree. Yeah, who were your I guess when you were in the realm of Christian apologetics, who were the I guess the big wigs that you would listen to, that you would read about, all that? >> Yeah. Initially [clears throat] it was Lee Strobel. That was the first book that got me into it was The Case for Christ, which I think is a lot of people's story, at least those interested in Christian apologetics, where he interviews eight different scholars on eight aspects of New Testament history, historical Jesus studies.
¶12And so I read his four books and that got me into William Lane Craig. I think everyone who studies Christian apologetics knows William Lane Craig. And for most of the people like in my cohort during my master's degree in philosophical theology, Craig was like a the dominant influence. And that's going to be uh the case for most people in philosophy of religion, for better or worse. And so he was interviewed in several of these these books and I they the something Lee Strobel would do was reference like books written by the person he's interviewing.
¶13So with in the Craig chapters, it was like The Existence of God and The Beginning of the Universe. I was like, that's fascinating. And so I just started reading Craig's works and diving in. And so so I would say the number one influence was William Lane Craig. And then from there, people like J.P.
¶14Moreland, reading Craig and Moreland's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview was like really pivotal because there they applied rigorous analytic philosophy to the foundations of the Christian faith as it intersected with all areas of philosophy. And I thought, well, this is fascinating. They've they've woven together all of these disparate strands into like one coherent whole. And I thought that was like a a majestic intellectual achievement. And then from there, I think the second most influential thinker is William um um Alvin Plantinga.
¶15Not so much in terms of the number of works of Plantinga that I've read. I haven't read that many. But in how deeply impactful his style of philosophy was on me. And so early on, I think when I was 15 or 16, maybe that's too early, but I read Where the Conflict Conflict Really Lies and it was Plantinga's exploration of the relationship between science and religion and naturalism. I was so impressed by the both clarity and rigor with which he executed that discussion.
¶16And so it's from Plantinga that I wholesale adopted this model or this this dual goal of clarity and rigor in my philosophical writing and speaking. Those are my two guiding principles above all the rest. And so even though I haven't read a ton from Plantinga, the fact that I I want to write and think like him is is I think the best compliment I could pay to somebody. >> Mhm. Yeah, what do you what do you think are some of like the misconceptions of the philosophy of religion field?
¶17>> I don't know about misconceptions per se. Like I could speak to some of the concerns. And then you know, it's up to you whether you think these are fair or not. Some of them I think are fair. One concern is that philosophers of religion at a higher rate than other subdisciplines of philosophy or other other philosophers of other subdisciplines are engaged in philosophy of religion as like an after-the-fact justification for beliefs they already hold.
¶18So a lot of the concern is that it is Christian thinkers who go into philosophy of religion in the first place with a distinctly apologetic motive. Their motive is to provide a case for Christian theism, for example. And the worry is that that compromises philosophical objectivity in a way that maybe more austere or abstract investigations into metaphysics or mereology or theories of time don't, where you kind of go into that more open-minded and the ideal anyway of philosophical inquiry is to really just follow the evidence where it leads. And so the worry is philosophers of religion are not doing that. >> [snorts] >> And I encountered some of that perceived negativity, the projection of of negative connotations, when I applied to various PhD programs.
¶19I was told by people in a position to know that having a degree in philosophical theology, even even from Oxford, didn't help me. And having a a research proposal specifically focused on the fine-tuning argument for theism, so philosophy of religion, did not help me. Um how serious a concern that is, I I used to think it was pretty serious, but as I acquaint myself more and more with philosophers of a wider degree of specializations from from all over philosophy, I think this problem in so far as it afflicts philosophy of religion just afflicts philosophers as such. We like to think of ourselves as like the ideal objective inquirers, but I I just don't think that's accurate. I think that specifically once a philosopher makes a take has a public stake in a certain position where they publish a paper and they say, you know, I'm defending the A theory of time or libertarian conception of free will, I bet you if you did a rigorous study of all this, very few philosophers change their mind over the course of their life.
¶20So, you know, does that mean they found the truth at the very beginning of this whole thing of their lives and then just, you know, were lucky and then never had to change their mind? Maybe. Or [snorts] it points to the sheer difficulty in thinking objectively about these questions and the answers to these questions once we come to identify with certain answers. So, again, I just think that it's overblown. This might be more of a problem for philosophy of religion, but not as much as is typically thought.
¶21In so far as it's a problem, it's a problem for everybody. And then, what was the second? Oh, yeah, so the the second concern would be that philosophers of religion tend to be less acquainted with other areas of philosophy, so that their work in philosophy of religion is more superficial because it just doesn't intersect, it doesn't uh take account of the scholarship in other areas of philosophy that is entirely relevant to the questions that they want to answer. And this I think is a real problem and it's a problem because I don't remember the philosopher that said this, but like philosophy of religion is like the center of an old wagon wheel. And all the other areas of philosophy are like the spokes that intersect it.
¶22And so in order to do philosophy of religion well, you have to do philosophy as a whole well. The questions about God's existence or even just assessing the fine-tuning argument or the Kalam cosmological argument, to really assess all those premises and the arguments and counterarguments, you have to master whole tracks of philosophy as a whole. And so to do the discipline well, to to contribute well to the discipline, you've got to keep abreast of major debates outside of philosophy of religion proper because those those issues just intersect so much with what you want to do. And the worry is that a lot of people that go into philosophy of religion kind of just stay in philosophy of religion. In the US for example, there are programs where you can get a PhD in philosophy of religion.
¶23Maybe that's a problem. Maybe that disadvantages you, disadvantages the substance of your later work because there'll be whole debates with which your research intersects, but you're not aware of them. And so you can't avail yourself of the developments in those fields. Again, I don't I that that's more claimed and I've I've seen it in certain cases when reading maybe a paper in philosophy and in religious studies here and there. Again, I suspect that if that is a problem for philosophy of religion, it's it's probably symptomatic of philosophers as a whole because there's a lot of overlap and intersection between subdisciplines.
¶24It's It's really hard to say that, you know, investigation of philosophy of X is wholly sequestered away from every other subdiscipline. Maybe like if you study logic, you don't really need to know much that's going on in philosophy of biology or philosophy of science. But that's rare. And so I I think that what philosophers of religion, if they're having this problem of superficiality in their analysis, it just reflects the fact that philosophy is both ginormous in its scope and so mutually overlapping that to do any one specific thing in philosophy well, you've kind of got to have a grasp on so many things at once. That's hard for anybody to do, not just philosophers of religion.
¶25So there you go. That's my more or less balanced take. >> Yeah, cuz philosophy itself, doesn't that term just mean love of wisdom? >> That's right. It's huge.
¶26>> It's a huge massive scope. >> Yeah, massive scope is right. >> Yeah, okay, that's interesting. Cuz for you, what do you what's your I guess your end goal with philosophy? You Do you hope to be like a professor or do you want to be an author?
¶27>> I want to be a professor of philosophy. Yeah, which will allow me to teach and write, write articles, write books, continue to do the YouTube thing, develop my platform. I kind of want to try to do all of it. >> Yeah, this is probably No, it's this is a hot take. This is going to be a hot take that I have no business saying, but I'm going to say it.
¶28Is this the best time in history to be a philosopher? Just because of the the ability to engage with past philosophers' works while simultaneously being able to reach out to philosophers all over the world and just have conversations and argument or argument's a strong word, debates such as over many many topics and you get to engage with so many different people and just practice the philosopher mind all the time? >> Yeah. Well, so it's kind of like when you think about, you know, would you really want to be alive 400 years ago? And you know, you might think there's certain aspects that are better, but I think that's so naive cuz like you wouldn't have modern medicine.
¶29You know, like I wouldn't have these contacts in my eyeballs that allow me to see. Without them, I'd be virtually blind. So I I think that in so far as we're just limiting ourselves to like our scope is just the past to the present, this is the best time. But like with medicine, you know, maybe a thousand years from now we'll all be functionally immortal. And like then that's the best time to be alive.
¶30So it's it's very good now, but it you know, it can always be better. And so I think we don't want to claim that this is the best out of all time. But but certainly given the internet, the the scope of different lines of communication that I for instance can have is so much broader than it would be without this digital medium. Like because of the podcast platform and the fact that, you know, someone across the world can plug into their webcam and talk to me. Because of that, you know, I've had 90 or so conversations, long-form conversations with philosophers all over the world, which if I relied upon going to conferences to meet and network, I I wouldn't have met even a a quarter of them.
¶31>> [snorts] >> And so for those who avail themselves of it, you know, the access to online databases with journal articles and books and the burgeoning like cottage industry of of YouTube channels that are operate both at an academic and popular level. I think it gives you like this unparalleled access to philosophical investigation. And and just I think to knowledge as a whole, you know, from science and history and medicine. If you want to dive into something, generally there's very little uh stopping you. You don't have to go pay however much to get a bachelor's or master's or PhD.
¶32Theoretically, you can learn whatever you want. With the internet is right there for you. So I think in that respect, compared to the past, it's definitely a privileged time to be doing this sort of thing. >> Yeah, especially considering you now have almost well, to me, two major potential philosophical topics down the pipeline pipeline. One being AI and the other one being this whole alien phenomenon thing going on in the world.
¶33It's like those are two massive subjects and for philosophers to get to kind of dive into and discuss the ideas around those, right? >> It is. I I would say my only counterpoint about this being the best time that I've sometimes thought about when I'm less hopeful about AI is God, I wish I were alive like 50 years ago. So, not much further, but about 50 years ago, well before the advent of AI, because my worry is with artificial general intelligence it will just displace all human activity. It will render it superfluous and redundant.
¶34And especially just from the angle of philosopher, if you can have an AI system that outpaces the philosopher in terms of its output of journal articles and investigations tenfold, hundredfold, millionfold it's going to be very hard to find the motivation to do it yourself, because what's the point? So, that would be my only reservation is yes, we are at a point where we can influence the future by reflecting philosophically on AI and the ethics of AI, but at the same time it's it points to potentially a real sadness about the present time, if we really are on the cusp of rendering all of our philosophical work redundant. I hope we're not. But, it's a it's an epistemic possibility of the present time, for sure. >> What's the percent probability you give that possibility?
¶35>> [snorts] >> No idea. I I I don't know this field well at all. So, if I said anything, I'd just be plucking it out of thin air, but maybe but me personally, I mean, I'm 50/50. I I I don't know. I don't know enough to be more confident than that, but it seems to me there's enough smart people that think artificial general intelligence will happen, that I don't know that I could say it's much lower than that.
¶36Uh but I'm I still it's a significant possibility that AI systems at present are just the entirely incorrect paradigm to capture general human intelligence. And if that's right, then no matter how much we develop LLMs, we're never going to achieve general intelligence or superintelligence or what have you. So, there you go. 50/50. >> You know, it could actually, I mean, also a hot take, maybe, but I I do think there's a possibility if dead internet theory comes to true comes true.
¶37>> If what? >> Dead dead internet theory. >> What's that? >> Oh, basically that the internet becomes so oversaturated AI slop so to degree that people kind of abandon the internet as a whole and just >> Yes. >> Yeah, if that comes to truth, that will kind of drive people to doing more live events type of things.
¶38And I think that would push the philosophers towards, oh, we can now gather for live discussions. And this even makes it more interesting cuz now there's more people that are more engaged in that versus wanting or having desire to watch on YouTube. >> Yeah. I agree. And I that would be awesome.
¶39Um very much down for that, uh I think. I think that's also a real possibility is this sheer fatigue in the nonsense that you get I mean, even on YouTube, I don't know if you've seen the like AI-generated music videos of like crossovers between famous musicians and singers. And you know, at maybe at first it was kind of cool, but it's just like gross at this point. And some of these videos have millions of views. And but I think that in general many people's gut reaction to that sort of stuff is just uh And so, if that keeps happening and it just gets flooded with this sort of nonsense, then I think that's a real real possibility.
¶40>> Yeah. Cuz I don't know. I feel like it's I'm more surprised the amount of negativity towards AI in today's day, which is which I think is kind of a good thing that there's more negativity because everyone's like, oh, AI slop. Oh my gosh, I can't do the AI music, AI movies, all these other things. Which tells me that maybe there is that like you just mentioned that kind of natural inkling towards I want to be away from that and towards something that actually feels a sense of realness.
¶41>> Right. >> But you never know with humans cuz we can be very lazy and kind of bend ourselves towards the will of AI and you never know that what that would bring us to. But I digress. Anyway, so before we continue, I want to make sure I understand like your sort of I don't know you don't you don't want to use the phrase necessary of agnosticism, but I guess what what probability you put on God existing if if you think of those terms. >> I I couldn't tell you.
¶42I I couldn't tell you. I I think that the truth as frustrating as it may be for people to hear is that I wouldn't put a particularly high probability on it. There's even a chance that if you really press me, it would be like below 50%. And you would say like, how is that even possible? Well, because it seems to me that the pragmatic benefits of living with this belief, adopting this belief, inhabiting that world, even of a more like fuller more fleshed out religious life, the same point to apply are so great, the benefits so great that the rational thing to do all things considered once we incorporate like pragmatic rationality not just epistemic rationality, that like directed towards what's true, but also broader considerations.
¶43Once you step back and ask like what's rational for me to do then I think even if the like probability of theism is below 50% or or is is not right at 50/50 that's usually clear for people. If it's right there at 50/50, I think because of those benefits to your life here and now that accrue to you if you believe in God you should try to inculcate that belief, whether or not it's true. So, those benefits accrue to you whether or not it's true. It's a truth-independent pragmatic argument. And I think I think that's right.
¶44And so, for me personally, I find it a stabilizing force in my life to believe in God in many different ways. And so, for that reason, I kind of act as if God exists. I pray, and I feel that presence in my life. And so, that being the ultimate justification makes it harder for me to say like a particularly high probability as if like, you know, the fine-tuning argument really convinced me and it put my credence at 99% That's just That's just not where I'm coming from. So, I think that that kind of answer will disappoint everyone.
¶45If you believe in God, you're disappointed that I don't have a stronger defense of it. And if you're an atheist, you're angry that I'm letting pragmatic considerations have this kind of influence. But, that is my answer. >> I Well, I guess I'm from a Christian perspective, I wish you were Christian, but I also enjoy the unique perspective that you have because >> Mhm. >> there's not that which I'm sure you found there's not many people that think like that.
¶46I mean, out of all the people I've spoken to, they're either they either believe in God or they're an atheist, and there's not like this in-between zone that kind of like are wrestling with. It's basically you, Joe Schmidt, and another agnostic named Emerson Green. You guys are all kind of in this similar camps. Uh and it see and I do say I I do It must be challenging being there because I know how much you'd rather be all in or all out, right? >> Yeah.
¶47Yeah, no, I will say, yeah, Joe Schmidt is my intellectual brother. I feel much affinity with him and his positions. And so, yeah, I'm sure you could see that from our fine-tuning video. But, it is hard because there's less people in your camp, right? So in that respect, it's kind of lonely.
¶48There the natural human inclination across the board, I think, is to think in terms of black and white and to kind of full send, whether it's theological or not. And that just means there's going to be less people who can tolerate the ambiguity and the gray and the uncertainty. But I really think I nailed it on the head when I chose the name for my podcast as the uncertainty podcast. That's my ethos. That's me to T.
¶49I I'm uncertain about so much. >> [snorts] >> And that's that's just who I am. I'm a very skeptical person, for a strong skeptical bent. I can even admit maybe it's irrational, but it it exists. It's there.
¶50I can't get out of it. And so it is in that respect I I do think it has the advantage of being the the more agnostic kind of weaker credences has the advantage of being the most rational response to the complexity of these issues. I really think that to be like ultra certain of your very specific theological, religious, philosophical position requires that you ignore the majority of the dialectic and the conversation and the literature pertaining to some issue because if you did fully acquaint yourself with the huge complexity of the debate surrounding these issues, you would just and and then were sufficiently acquainted with your own limitations, you would say, "Okay, I will try to assess this, but it's very likely that I could have gone wrong somewhere." And so any of the conclusions you draw from this ginormous conglomerate of information uh could very well have gone off track somewhere. You just can't rule that out. And so I just think it's the better part of intellectual humility when trying to assess these enormously complicated issues to say, "This is my view, but I only hold it tentatively.
¶51So, I do think my approach has the advantage of being clued into the reality of the our limitations. >> Oh, yeah. Certainly, because you don't have herd mentality in your approach, because there's not really a herd. >> No, there's me, Joe Schmidt, and and Matthew Adelstein. I know that he like writes these eloquent and long defenses of theism, but if you if you press him, he's closer to like middle-range credences.
¶52[laughter] >> [gasps] >> Yeah, it's also interesting because I think Joe said this, too. Cuz some people probably think you guys are just lazy for not >> picking a side, so to speak. Well, it's not like that. I mean, sure, there are very much people that have a sort of agnostic approach to a belief in God that are more like, "I don't really pay attention to that stuff." But you guys are deeply ingrained in the topic >> Yeah. >> seemingly daily.
¶53>> Yeah. >> So, it's not like this avoidance of the whole subject matter. >> No, you could be agnostic because you've never thought about it, for sure. >> Yeah. >> That critique might of of laziness might apply to those people.
¶54It's like, "Pick up a philosophy book. Think about these things." But that does not apply to Joe Schmidt. I can tell you that. Um the man has been published multiple times in the best journals of philosophy in the world. So, if anyone understands this stuff, it's him.
¶55And for that reason uh and uh his is a well-thought-out agnosticism. And hopefully, so is mine. But at least I can point to Joe and go, "Not that one. He's not lazy." >> Yeah, yeah. What do you think cuz I know your big thing is the fine-tuning argument.
¶56>> Yeah. >> What is so profound about that argument? And how why is it I guess why is it so challenging to sort of settle? Because it's funny being around obviously, been around a lot of Christians. Fine-tuning they think is like an undefeated argument.
¶57Then I'll talk to atheists, and they're like, "Oh, well, here's three or four easy counters to that." I'm like, "Well, those are those easy counters when you think about it?" It's hard to really demonstrate what's easy in philosophy, anyway, but >> Yeah, no, no, the fine-tuning argument is too widely discussed and has been too long-standing and resilient to objections in the literature and is taken too seriously by too many smart people for it to fall prey to a devastatingly simple objection that can be succinctly stated in a YouTube comment. That's my hot take. You You If you think that you've refuted the argument in a couple sentences, you are wrong. You are mistaken and you don't know what you're talking about. And so it it's only it's only people who have like only scratched the surface of the literature on this argument that think they fully understand it because then once you dive deep, you realize, oh, >> [laughter] >> This is huge.
¶58This is way beyond me. I mean, I If you I can make good on that point. If you look at like especially my later publications, each of those papers is focused on a really narrow aspect of the fine-tuning argument. And in order to like assess that really narrow aspect, I had to write this whole paper and dive into the literature and assess it and systematize it and construct my perspective. And that's just on the smallest part of this argument.
¶59So, I have said that like to fully assess this thing, you know, write the my magnum opus, the book, you know, that's the project of a lifetime, I think. So, >> Why Why is it so hard? >> [snorts] >> That's a good question. I I think that because in the case of fine-tuning, maybe more than other cases of arguments in philosophy, it lies at the intersection of science and philosophy and theology, epistemology, probability, Bayesian reasoning, statistics, issues pertaining to how we predict what God would likely do, a perfect being. Trying to solve, for example, the gap problem of in most formulations of the fine-tuning argument, you typically only compare two hypotheses.
¶60You have single universe or like brute fact naturalism, the view roughly that the one single universe is all that exists and the values of these parameters in physics are just brute facts. You compare that hypothesis with theism, belief in a perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing creator. And you say that fine-tuning is evidence for theism over single universe naturalism. Well, that's fine, but you as an atheist, you can grant that point entirely because it's perfectly consistent to say that fine-tuning is evidence for theism over naturalism so defined, but maybe there's a third hypothesis which is even better supported by fine-tuning. Until you can like canvass a wider array of the conceptual landscape between theism and naturalism and beyond it, then there's just not that much epistemic significance to showing that theism is better supported by fine-tuning than this very specific form of naturalism.
¶61We we shouldn't equate that form of naturalism with atheism so that you get this, you know, mutually exhaustive disjunction of theism and non-theism. No, no, no, it's saying theism and this really teeny tiny very specific non-theistic alternative. Well, what what about all the other non-theisms, non-theistic alternative? And so that question is what motivated my paper in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy of Simulations and Conscious Universes Explaining Fine-Tuning Without God. There I look at four kind of non-traditional but non-theistic explanations that lie kind of in between the two that are more under-explored alternatives to theism that are still not recognizably naturalistic.
¶62And I try to show that theism is in fact better supported by fine-tuning, that fine-tuning is a increases the credence of theism against these alternatives as well. But that's hard to do. This is this is difficult philosophy. So that just goes to show this one narrow aspect, the gap problem, requires extensive study and careful thought and reflection. So I think ultimately that's why that in order to just just from the nature of the case given the questions that the fine-tuning argument raises, to assess it, you've got to be an expert in so many different subdisciplines that it's tough.
¶63>> [laughter] >> It's hard to do. >> [snorts] >> Yeah, I remember I was listening to this is what I'm going to butcher this, but hopefully it goes well. I remember I was listening to I think Graham Oppy was debating Richard Swinburne on this and Richard was dissecting the fine-tuning argument and and Graham was like, "Yeah, you could say it's fine-tuned for humans, but can't you also make an argument that's just fine-tuned for anything? Like there's 106 species of beetles. Did God make this fine-tuned for beetles?" Or the rebuttal of "Why would God make a world that has to be fine-tuned for life at all?
¶64Why would he make sort of an obstacle in the first place? It doesn't have to be this way." Sort of thing. And it's kind of like, "Oh, that's a that's a good point." But obviously there's for every good objection there's a thousand other objections to that objection. It's back and forth objections. And then >> Back and forth and back and forth.
¶65>> Yeah, it just never really ends. Almost become almost is like at some point it just comes down to a preference of opinion. Or like resonates with you the most. >> Yes. I think that that that carries the day far more often in philosophy than philosophers would care to admit.
¶66These kind of just aesthetic preferences where you just pick. You pick and then you run with it and you develop it. And you know, you hope that somebody else has an alternative aesthetic preference and they then pour everything into developing the other side and you kind of meet in the the But I I think unless you want to remain functionally agnostic most of the time, you just pick and you see how far you can go with it. Maybe not. Maybe that's unfair, but that does that is my suspicion for much of the time in philosophy.
¶67>> Yeah. Yeah, I I've taken that stance a lot more seriously since I learned that people take certain philosophical issues it's like kind of contingent on culture. For example, I think it was like some cultures in Asia don't have as much problem with the whole problem of suffering as Americans do. Uh and then you're you're like, "Whoa, really?" But it's like I I I think that's true. I My buddy was telling me that during his experience I think China, but maybe people from China listening this can can refute me on it.
¶68But yeah, he was saying that basically they didn't have as much of a problem with the idea of suffering as a as a typical American sort of does. And then you even goes even more sort of specific than that. It's like, "Well, I won't have a problem with suffering as much as someone whose parents died when they were six. >> Yeah. >> Uh or went through some kind of traumatic experience that has it more reason to have a problem with suffering versus maybe I'll have more problems with morality or something else because something happened when I was little.
¶69I don't know. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think none of us are ideal reasoners, fully objective, fully rational. We all have irrational influences on the way that we look at the world. And it's you can't escape that, but you can admit it and be a bit more humble in the um in the degree of conviction with which you hold your beliefs.
¶70>> Yeah, and and you're you're an interesting spot too because geographically Oxford's in Europe or I guess in like is in London? >> Yeah, so Oxford is its own city about an hour outside London. >> Yeah, and I know the nature of the spiritual nature of those areas is pretty secular. So, I can imagine some people dismiss I think we talked about this Laura earlier, but it sounds like people also even just will dismiss you anyway for having any type of opinion on there possibly being a God. >> Yeah.
¶71My impression and I think this is right is that most people don't have like a conviction. They're not convicted atheists for example. It's just not part of their culture and so they just don't give it much thought at all. It's just not it doesn't come up. And so when you bring up I believe in God they'll go, "Oh, okay.
¶72Interesting." They're not going to have like a very strong credence in atheism or anything like that or in the falsity of these arguments for God's existence or or what have you. They just haven't thought about it. Just not part of their milieu. And so I don't get a lot of flack for it. I just get a lot of people who don't quite get it.
¶73>> Oh, okay. That makes sense cuz I just remembered I remember Phil Goff describing the same thing. He was like, "It's more of seen as a hobby than it is a sort of world view." >> Yeah. Yeah. They're like, "Oh, this is your intellectual hobby." Exactly.
¶74Not like the the quest of a lifetime. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, which is kind of like huh, I can't believe people have a sort of blasé attitude. Yeah. I I guess if you don't if it doesn't resonate you it doesn't resonate with you. I don't know.
¶75I'm I'm more amazed that how much conviction could be a blessing at certain at certain points I guess. >> Yeah, I mean I I I think that what it relates to the pragmatic justification for belief in God. I think most of these people would probably just say it it just doesn't matter whether God exists. So, they're relatively indifferent to it. It's kind of apatheism.
¶76But for me I'm just so convinced that it it makes such a difference whether there's a God, whether there's life after death that I have the impetus to try to determine if these things are true because I think it makes a difference. I'm not I'm not certain about that. You know, maybe there's a good argument that objective meaning, value, and purpose, as Bill Craig would say, can be secured in, for instance, a naturalistic worldview. But, rightly or wrongly, I I see a tight connection between naturalism and nihilism. >> [snorts] >> And so, for that reason, given that I give a fair a non-negligible credence to naturalism, I'm I'm very invested in determining whether or not these things are true.
¶77>> What was that word? Nihilism? >> Ni- nihilism. Nihilism, nihilism. >> Oh, nihilism.
¶78Okay, okay. I don't remember pronouncing it right. >> even Yeah, closer to what I'm getting at, like absurdism, that >> Yeah. >> everything is absurd, no meaning, no value, no purpose. Whatever you want to call that, I see a tight connection between that It's It's only a few steps away from naturalism to get to that pit of despair.
¶79>> Yeah. How much credibility do you give the whole little g god possibility? >> Mm. Like a limited god hypothesis? >> I guess we can go limited god, we can go the god of a possible simulation that controls numerous simulations, but is also in maybe a simulation of his own, or never know.
¶80Or is a bot, perhaps. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, those I just I just wouldn't even call gods at We will get to the point where we have simulated worlds, where we are in charge of simulations, I'm sure. Whether they're conscious subjects within them or not, I don't know. But, I I think it just would be abuse of language to call to call yourself in that case god.
¶81Yeah, little g god, sure. So, are there simulators? Well, I'm sure there will be. We will be. But, are we in a simulation?
¶82I mean, the the epistemology of trying to assess that is tricky. I kind of got into that in in the paper I mentioned, where one of the explanations for fine-tuning is the simulation hypothesis. But, honestly, I don't think I fully took care of it and it to the degree that I wanted to. And so I would love to do a deep dive on that more one day. Uh it it just gets tricky to assess the probability that we are in a simulation.
¶83And to not have that like end up being self-refuting. Cuz like in in cosmology you have this problem, the Boltzmann brain problem. Where these various models in cosmology seem to predict that the vast num the the huge majority of observers in the universe are not ordinary observers like you and I. They're they're Boltzmann brains. They're single brains that randomly fluctuate into existence out of the quantum vacuum and then dissipate shortly thereafter.
¶84The probabilities do add up to where the vast majority of observers are are like that. And so there's this seemingly skeptical implication that if these models in cosmology are correct, you should think that you are in fact right now a Boltzmann brain that is merely having the illusion of all of this external world around you. But the problem is once you come to believe that, then you lose justification, all the justification you had for thinking that those models in cosmology were true in the first place. It it undercuts its own justification. So that's why Sean Carroll calls the Boltzmann brain problem like cognitive instability.
¶85Once you come to believe it, you lose your justification for believing it. And so it's hard to avoid that in the simulation case. Like all of the evidence you could give for uh us being in a simulation would itself come from the simulation. So there's a worry that you're you're cutting off the branch upon which you're sitting once you come to believe that you're in a simulation. Now not always.
¶86Not always. There might be lines of evidence that can avoid that kind of self-refutation problem, but it gets hairy. It gets tricky. >> Yeah. >> So do I believe in a simulator?
¶87Uh no. No, not at present. I I would have a much higher credence in the ordinary external world around us exists and it's not a simulation. >> What about the the unlimited power God theory? >> Mhm.
¶88No, and I couldn't tell you why. I've I find it deeply implausible and therefore just like a priori unlikely that there is a being that's like God but with these kind of very arbitrary limitations on knowledge or power or goodness. If there were some internal logic that kind of like made sense of why just those restrictions then then sure. But I think it's a huge theoretical cost to just say for example as Philip Goff seemingly does that God is all knowing and all good but is limited by the laws of physics in what God can do. I think that that makes the hypothesis extremely ad hoc or contrived and therefore that is to say has a very low intrinsic probability.
¶89Whereas if you compare to theism it's a remarkably simple hypothesis, the omni-God, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good, this limitless being. Uh uh Robin Collins characterizes God as unlimited consciousness and then he gives a plausible argument for where from this single attribute of unlimited consciousness you can get uh all power, all knowledge, and perfect goodness. So the the the parts of the theistic hypothesis fit together intuitively and well. And once you start breaking that apart, I think you just get you just get a bizarre ad hoc hypothesis that I just don't think has a very high credence. Now maybe you have ridiculous amounts of evidence for it.
¶90So even though it starts out as really improbable, nevertheless all of our evidence, you know, bumps it up past 50%. But I don't think you can do that. I don't think Goff successfully does that in his case. Uh so that's that's where I come down with the limited Gods is I they just strike me as terribly implausible supposed are on God's power. >> Yeah, cuz I feel like Gough uses that argument to its maximum utilization only not only but mainly for the problem of suffering as a well God can't see the future therefore suffering can exist.
¶91Which I I don't know. I feel like that's I feel like that's the only way you can use that argument and it has like one positive impact and it's that maybe. >> Well, so what he what he uses it for is to increase the probability of of observed evil given theism. If we deny that God is all powerful well then maybe the reason that all of the seemingly pointless evil that happens in the world, maybe the reason it happens is cuz God can't prevent it. It's you know, it's more of a problem for the theist who says God is all powerful and all knowing and perfectly good.
¶92Okay, well then why all this evil that seemingly has no point? Well, if you limit God's power in the right kind of way, then God just isn't capable of preventing the evils that occur. The problem is to do that in a way that's not just ridiculously contrived and artificial and ad hoc. The problem is that Gough wants to allow that God is powerful enough to fine tune the universe for life to adjust the parameters in the laws of physics themselves so that they all fall into life permitting values. But he's not powerful enough to prevent seemingly pedestrian acts of evil that occur every day.
¶93He's not able to get the cat out of the tree. He's not able to prevent you from you know He's not able able to prevent Cain from murdering Abel. He's not able to prevent the Holocaust. Actions which are which take seemingly take less power than fine tuning the universe for life. So I don't I don't think Gough has told us a plausible story yet about why we should take that kind of restriction on God's power seriously.
¶94>> Sure. Yeah, that's interesting. And I guess besides the the topics we've hit on so far, what other philosophical topics that you just really keep you up at night? >> Um I'm Well, the ones that keep me up at night, I suppose, are ones where I worry about the implications if they turn out to be true. So, right now I believe in libertarian free will.
¶95This is like the more robust view of free will that you could have where it really is up to me in certain circumstances whether to do A or not A. I really have the power to do one or the other. I'm not determined. The only thing if I do pick up this coffee cup, the only thing that determines that I do so is me. I think that that's a plausible view, but I also am worried by you know, unintelligibility arguments that when you really get down to it and think about like what that kind of power would be, it >> [clears throat] >> looks seemingly incoherent or unintelligible.
¶96And you know, from a more skeptical bent, I think, you know, where does this from a scientific vantage point, where does this capacity come from? Like how could the brain itself ever be a source of this kind of power? And I haven't seen an adequate response to that. So, anyway, the the prospect that we don't actually have that kind of free will, that's a real epistemic possibility for me. And then I think lots of bad things follow if we don't have that, if everything is determined.
¶97I think it's very difficult to make sense of moral responsibility in a world where all of our actions are predetermined. And once you don't have moral responsibility, none of your actions can have real moral value, you know, love loses its very meaning and and what makes it valuable. And so on and so forth. And so so that keeps me up at night. I've never done a deep dive into the literature on free will and compatibilism and determinism, but I know it enough that I'm in that predicament.
¶98>> Do you think there's [clears throat] any large philosophical questions that have been, you know, throughout antiquity that can be answered in our lifetime or will be answered in our lifetime that there's a higher chance it could be answered in this lifetime? >> I don't know. As you might pick up on from everything else I've said, I am a bit pessimistic about the prospect of philosophical progress on these questions. Maybe if we get superintelligent AIs, they'll be able to figure it out, but even then I suspect that it will the the dialectic will just recreate itself at a much higher level. I don't I don't have a ton of confidence in the power of the human mind to decisively answer the big philosophical questions.
¶99I think philosophy is really good at ruling things out. If there's a bad argument for some position, it's easy enough to figure out where it goes wrong, to find it sometimes. It's comparatively hard harder to construct an argument that succeeds for a substantive philosophical position. So, I think on the whole I'm just not sure that we are equipped to definitively answer these questions. There might be a real fundamental limitation that explains why after two and a half thousand years of reflection in Western philosophy anyway.
¶100We've made progress, absolutely, but but not progress in the sense of, you know, answering all the big questions in a way that brings consensus. >> Yeah. Yeah, and your channel, I think you've had close to 90 episodes I saw on Substack. >> Yeah, I think 91. >> I'm very interested to hear you answer this cuz I know we've talked to some of some of people, but who do you think are like the most intellectual How can I say this correctly?
¶101Intellectually impressive minds you've spoken to? >> Well, and I'll go it won't be any secret that Michael Huemer is up there. I've had him on the podcast like six times, I think more than anybody else. I love talking to him. And since, you know, finding his work, someone had to I didn't know about him and then someone on my on some YouTube video comment and said, "You should have Michael Huemer on.
¶102He's got kind of zany views on all sorts of things." And he does, he does. He believes in a soul, he believes in a form of reincarnation. He's a moral realist, he's an atheist. You don't see these different views come together in one person very often. Um and so I find him a breath of fresh air because he really is, I think, like uh a step up closer to the ideal inquirer than you normally find, someone who's really seemingly committed to thinking through issues on a case-by-case basis.
¶103And that's why he gets these weird combination of views cuz in this area he thinks this and that area he thinks that. And, you know, he's he's making good, I think, on the the ideal of philosophical inquiry. So, definitely my conversations with him always give me pause. >> I would love to hear his reasoning behind that. Like, why no God but there's a soul?
¶104Like, the idea of a soul being, I guess, natural phenomenon. >> Yeah, I don't know. I think he would he would probably say, you know, natural as a category isn't very helpful. But no, he's a substance dualist, as far as I can tell, in the full sense. >> And what does that mean?
¶105>> That the human person is fundamentally two substances, you know, the body and the soul, the body and the mind and the mind. >> Okay. Wow. Yeah, okay. So, he's he's number one for you.
¶106>> I think so. I think uh as well would be Randall Rauser. I've had on the podcast four or five times. So, you can see people I bring back routinely or I find quite inspiring and and want to learn from. >> [snorts] >> And I think that you know, as you'll see from my video with Ethan Moue it's not just people I agree with that I've brought on and that I find challenging.
¶107I mean, I thought that the talking to Moue was challenging and you know, forced me to think very deeply about certain issues. And so, that would be a case of like with Randal Rauser, I think we initially just agreed on most things. Whereas Ethan Moue, absolutely not. So, that would be another case where it's been very intellectually challenging. Cuz sometimes, you know, you sit down for these conversations and it's pretty low stakes, lowball affair.
¶108You're just kind of talking back and forth and it's pretty easy going. But, not for example with Ethan Moue. That's not the energy. So, is he the Catholic guy? Yeah.
¶109Yeah, okay. Okay. Glasses. Uh I don't Well, now off the top of my head I don't remember if he was wearing glasses. No, maybe he was.
¶110Okay. Yeah. What was What was the big disagreement there? Well, we talked about fine-tuning. Um >> [snorts] >> and we talked about the papacy, whether or not, you know, the Pope is infallible when they speak ex cathedra.
¶111Uh and then most pointedly we talked about the doctrine of eternal hell and went through that. But, I'm still thinking through those issues. So, I don't I don't want to rehash the eternal hell stuff. That will be down the road for sure. But, yeah, those are the things we talked about.
¶112Yeah, I mean, does that as a guy who's kind of in the middle, do you think about the idea of hell often? Uh no. No. Um but, you know, intellectually it's an important question. So, as I say, the TBD on all of that.
¶113I'm still assessing that kind of stuff. But sure. Yeah, humor, E Z Muse, Randall Rauser, many others as well that I've I found to cause me to give me pause to rethink, but I think I think those three would be in the top. >> Yeah, what's what's it doing this taught you about, I guess, humans and human nature and all that? >> Maybe that What is this good question?
¶114What is doing this taught me about human nature? I think that more often than not, my experience in these conversations has been that the people I'm speaking with are pretty genuinely open-minded and we can have a very substantive conversation even though we disagree. So in that respect, it's been very positively reinforcing for my view of like people and the intellectuals. Not always. Like there there are I won't name names, but there are a few where you get out of the conversation and you go, "Okay, they had a case they wanted to prove and that was that." But by and large, I think for for philosophers especially, but a broad range of people I've spoken with, they have struck me as a real congenial, open-minded, fair-minded inquirers into these questions.
¶115They don't have a lot of the usual animosity that you get when you start questioning these things maybe at a more popular level or for somebody on the street, you know, the convinced, convicted religious person, for example, may be much more inclined to kind of like bristle at these questions. Um and maybe not, I don't know, but but it's among the people I've spoken with there's just been a great deal of congeniality. It's been very positive experience. >> Yeah, it's very fascinating how you kind of grow up and think at least for me, I was growing up thinking at some point, okay, people I'm taught that people do not like talking about religion and politics, so I can't talk about those things. But then you realize how much fun those are to talk about and also how willing people are to engage in those conversations given that you have the emotional intelligence to cooperate.
¶116>> Right, right, right. Given that, yes. >> Yes, and then it really does matter how you ask the questions to get the best possible answer out of the person and also the most comfort out of them in answering the question, too, is significant. >> I think I think when you are not to put the point bluntly when you yourself are not a dick in the way that you approach these conversations and questions generally that brings out a lot of positive reaction uh within the other person. So sometime sometimes if you find yourself repeatedly failing to have productive conversations on these questions, you know, may do well to sit and reflect on yourself for a while and see if you're conducting these conversations fairly and well and with respect and, you know, really trying to listen rather than to prove a position and so on and so forth.
¶117And I'm not saying like I'm the expert on that, but I've definitely learned how to do that more as a process of of doing this. >> Oh, yeah, and also realizing how much nuance and opinion there really is out there. Going back to Michael Heumer. It's like even him, I mean, he's he's unique, but there are there are you'd be surprised how many people I mean, you're not surprised, but I'm saying this to the audience how many people out there think so differently even within their own, I guess, worldview. >> Yes.
¶118>> It's so fascinating. I have I have to talk people some of the atheists that believe that hell or no sorry, I talked to the atheists that believe ghosts can be real. I've talked to Christians that think that even the resurrection wasn't true, they'd still be Christian. It's just all over the place. It's like, "Wow, so fascinating." People just kind of have their own unique views on things.
¶119>> Yes. Yeah, I mean I think that again, it's it's you know, how do we deal with the epistemology of peer disagreement? And returning to themes that we've already addressed. But, you know, the whole thing is difficult and complicated and some humility goes a long way in our exploration of these questions. When so many smart people have every manner of disagreement about every little thing, I think the right response there is just kind of measured humility.
¶120>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Openness to the possibility that you might be completely wrong in the conclusions you draw. >> Yeah. I guess and for you, I guess when maybe one day hopefully you wake up and you're 95 years old and then have plenty of cognitive ability left, would you be more surprised if you were in the same spot you are now or would you be more surprised if you found whether atheism or full let's say Christianity was true?
¶121For you, I guess for your belief point. >> The only way, I think, that I would have a strong conviction on that score and a radical change of mind is through a religious experience. If I had a religious experience akin to like what Thomas Aquinas had where after he had this, it's my understanding anyway, he regarded his entire intellectual work, the Summa Theologiae, as almost nothing, almost worthless, because it just didn't even compare or capture the sheer power of what he had experienced. If I had something like that, God revealed himself to me in this powerful sort of way, absolutely my convictions would change. But, I haven't had that.
¶122And so, contingent upon, you know, the only influences on my beliefs being what they have been so far, these kind of more intellectual, theoretical explorations, then I I my strong expectation is at 95 I'll pretty much be here still. >> Yeah, cuz I I just what would move the move the needle for for atheism. >> I mean, like but this is the problem. Like even the problem of evil is a theoretical consideration. So, that that gives me the most pause, problem of evil-esque issues.
¶123But, assessing it, I think, raises all the same sorts of issues as does fine-tuning or arguments for theism. And so, I'll have the same level of tentativeness in the conclusions I draw and, you know, just general agnosticism about, well, you know, I don't know, maybe this, maybe that. And so, it it it would be very difficult to say of a theoretical consideration what it would take for me to be I mean, you could just stipulate, if I became certain the problem of evil was cogent, well, then I'd be an atheist. But, is it is it likely that I ever get to that point? No, because I just don't think it's likely that on most of these things I'll get to a place of really strong conviction.
¶124Maybe not. But, I the the impulse towards agnosticism, whatever it is, that goes really deep into who I am. That short again, short of this kind of direct religious experience, you know, where God intervenes into my life and and reorients, you know, this very core feature of who I am, I I don't see the needle shifting that much. Or, I suppose, short of like that kind of religious experience, if I experienced a bonafide miracle, that might not make me certain cuz I would still have some more like skeptical hypotheses in the background. >> Yeah.
¶125>> But you know, if if if I experienced miraculous healings or you know, 3 days later at a funeral after a loved one died, uh the casket flipped open and my loved one got up and started speaking, yes, yes, the dial would move for sure. >> Yeah, yeah, cuz >> But like so for example, it's very hard then to give you the parallel answer for atheism. What sort of anti-miracle could you point to? What sort of anti-religious experience could there ever be? I I don't see a clear answer to that.
¶126There's no parallel. So, I don't see a route there other than through theoretical considerations. >> Yeah, I would think anti-miracle would just be tragedy. It'd be like a Job's wife situation where you just something bad happens to you, you just say, "Curse God and die." >> Yes, you make a good point. You make a really good point.
¶127I am not so presumptuous as like Peter to be like, "I will never deny you, Christ." and then immediately does so. If something horrific happens to me, which God forbid it does and it hasn't yet, and I'm grateful for that. I'm not going to I'm not going to say that it wouldn't immediately persuade me to abandon all of my atheistic commitments to to then think, you know, what the universe is pointless, purposeless. I would hope that I would persevere into maintaining a hopeful worldview, but I'm fully aware that there are certain soul-crushing things that can happen to a human being that you just How do you come back from that? How do you find the meaning after that?
¶128So, sure. Sure, that is a possibility on the other side of the scale towards towards atheism, towards naturalism, towards nihilism. >> Well, I had two more questions, but the question I was going ask you is about paranormal or supernatural encounters, but it sounds like there hasn't been any of that just yet as we discussed. >> I know. No, not at all.
¶129Not at all. And I uh That's I think why I find naturalism so initially plausible is I have not experienced anything directly that conflicts with kind of just basic naturalistic assumptions. I've never seen anything paranormal. Never seen anything ghostly. Never seen anything miraculous.
¶130Never really had a religious experience. The the array of things that happen in the world seems to be close to what you'd predict if it were all random. And so yeah, I have I I think the fine-tuning argument is great, but what would be so much better is like a miracle right in front of you. Even if the probabilities of the fine-tuning are super strong and so that should like if I could have something right in front of me my my empiricist bent that wants the the empirical that would uh that would do it. Be quite happy with that.
¶131But I don't have >> Would uh would the existence of aliens shake up philosophy at all? >> Oh, that's a tough one. I really hope there are no intelligent alien species cuz I can't see that going well for us. So >> [laughter] >> um I uh but but philosophically like what would that do? Uh not necessarily anything.
¶132I mean, what if there were another planet filled with people just like us but they're just on a different planet. Like start there as the alien hypothesis. Like would that do anything to any major philosophical question either bolstering some views over others or showing that we didn't understand the issues? No, other than very narrow sets of issues like or or sets of views according to which there are no aliens then if we found them we'd falsify those views so maybe certain maybe naive religious understandings where it's just built in to the world view that human beings are the only intelligent agents in the universe. But I I think in so far as there are religious views with that element it's really just tacked on from the outside.
¶133It doesn't arise from deeper principles you know as far as I can tell there's nothing about classical Christian theology or orthodox Christian theology which requires that human beings are the only intelligent agents that exist. I think the only indirect way would be if you had a species of super intelligent aliens that we are to them as ants are to us. You know if that happened then maybe they have a much better grasp on the philosophical questions and their answers than we do and they could impart that knowledge. But like what would there be what would those answers be? Um who knows?
¶134Who knows? What I mean am I missing something? Is there a way in which aliens like really would shake things up? >> Yeah I guess I'm always thinking like if there is an advanced species of aliens and they do exist and they say been to Earth just like sending our smartest philosopher to talk to like their philosophers or whoever their thinkers are >> Yeah. >> be mind bending for everyone on the planet just for like this here's what I learned from them because they're so far ahead of us not just from a technology perspective but from a morality philosophy perspective too here's what they've learned over time.
¶135>> Yes. >> What what actually works for a well flourishing society that truly maximizes the mental physical and sort of spiritual health I guess >> Yes. >> and social health I guess, too. Of the whole entire civilization. >> Well, I think that it's far more likely that we will encounter that sort of a scenario with artificial general intelligence and super intelligence.
¶136If you have AI systems that exponentially increase in intelligence, who knows what perspective they will have on philosophical questions compared to us. So, I think that situation would be similar to superintelligent aliens. Whether you're evolved or whether you're digital, I think the underlying impact will be the same. We will be able to talk to something or someone that so exceeds us in capacity that we'll have much to learn, if they don't destroy us first. >> Yeah.
¶137Yeah, that's interesting. Oh, I meant to ask you too. What What's your Who's your dream guest for your for your podcast? >> Good question. In New Testament history, I'd love to have Bart Ehrman on because I think Bart Ehrman is feisty and I have talked to Okay, yeah, so that's been like You didn't ask me this, but that's been one really important thing I've learned after 90 conversations is I'm still learning this, but like how to deal with feisty, pointed, maybe somewhat arrogant guests and how to navigate that and assert myself in those conversations.
¶138So, anyway, I think Bart Ehrman would be a good next uh next frontier. I also think he's really smart and I I I also think it would do great for the channel. So, for all those reasons, I'd love to have Bart Ehrman on, but he has a pretty steep or a pretty tall barrier to entry, which is that it's like I think a thousand dollars per hour, which I don't have. >> Is that true? >> That's what his publicist or assistant told me in an email.
¶139>> Bart Ehrman exists your camera. A thousand dollars an hour? >> [laughter] >> Oh gosh, okay. >> Now, I've been told, not by him, but I've been told >> Oh, okay. >> that he donates that money.
¶140But, I don't understand what Donated or not, why would you do that? Maybe it's to weed out the non-serious interviewers or the small podcasts. Just say no. Just just decline the offer. I don't know why you'd require a thousand dollars.
¶141>> Wow. That's a lot of money. Okay. Yeah, that would be cool. Uh That would be cool.
¶142>> Um Richard Swinburne. I'd love to chat with Richard Swinburne. I've met him in person. He's a great guy. I've read his work.
¶143He's like such a pivotal figure from growing up in philosophy of religion, you know, you then you meet him and it's crazy. It's really cool. But, he's so busy that it's it's hard to track him down. So, those would be Those would be two off the top of my head. >> That guy How old is that guy?
¶144Richard? >> 90s. I think 93. >> Man. That's crazy.
¶145Yeah. That would be I have I have so many people I want to recommend you to, but I'll save that for offline. >> Oh, yeah, absolutely. >> My last question is one question you would ask God if you knew for a fact he would answer right then and there. Miles, what would you ask God?
¶146>> Yeah. You sent me that question and I remember thinking, I got to think about that cuz that's tough. If I knew he would answer right then and there, I think, if I can stipulate the nature of the question without knowing exactly what it is. I would ask a question about evil and suffering where the answer to it really gives me insight, substantive insight into why the suffer human suffering in the world really does transpire. And and not just kind of an abstract for a greater good, but in a way that really removes the mask.
¶147I would ask if I could glimpse the divine plan, just even for a moment, to see how it all fits together. Because I think the what gives me the most pause in my theistic beliefs, in my belief about this being a good world to begin with, that's aimed towards a good end, um is evil and suffering. So, if that could be lessened or removed for me, that would be great. So, whatever whatever question would have that as a answer and an outcome. >> Cool.
¶148Miles, thanks so much for coming on. Any last words, tips, piece of advice for the audience? >> Nope, not at all. Just that if you if you enjoyed this conversation, then there's 91 other episodes on my own YouTube channel, Miles K Donahue. So, check that out after you've listened to every single episode on this podcast first, and then and then check out mine.
¶149So, thank you for the conversation. >> Yeah, thank you. That's Miles K Donahue. Thanks, Miles.