Counter Apologetics

The participation theodicy holds, reasonably enough, that it would be good to create an ideal world. Since it would be good for God to do so, it would also be good for us to do so (as well as any other beings). The goodness would only be multiplied through our participation and contribution to the creation of an ideal world. The defender of the participation theodicy doesn’t deny that God could’ve created a much better world than ours — or even created us in heaven — and that this would be a good thing. Rather, they compare the goodness of creating a heavenly world ex nihilo to the goodness of creaturely participation in the creation of the same heavenly world. A unilateral divine act of ex nihilo creation would preclude the creative activities of other creatures. To quote my guest today, “The best sort of thing God could do would be to create the very best type of world for creatures to inhabit. But for creatures to be spontaneously generated in an ideal state of the world would be for them to miss out on helping God bring about that ideal world. So God, being generous, would have good reason to initially create creatures in a non-ideal state of the world, so that they could contribute towards bringing about its idealization, so that they too could do the very best type of thing that they could have done.” Subscribe on YouTube and watch the interview here Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod and John @WriterJohnBuck linktr.ee/emersongreen

I’m joined by Counter Apologist and Ryan from Real Atheology to discuss eternal conscious torment. First, we take a closer look at the views of William Lane Craig, who famously denies the possibility of an actual infinite in the context of the kalam, yet seems to argue that the guilt of those who reject God is an actual infinite. As he says, finite sins only merit finite punishment. But since the guilt of those who reject a relationship with God is infinite, their punishment in hell is justified. We also touch on free will, postmortem salvation, the rejection of God, religious diversity, universalism, and David Bentley Hart’s case that everlasting torment is morally indefensible. Watch the video here Clarification: I used the words “ignorance or limitations/imperfections” several times (e.g., “No one would reject a relationship with a being of perfect love without some ignorance or imperfection”). “Ignorance” in this context would include lack of knowledge of God’s existence or his exact nature. “Imperfection” or “limitation” was usually intended to refer to our rational faculties. So if a person is rejecting a being of perfect love, I think that person must be lacking information or ability to assess that information, most likely. As David Bentley Hart argues, “no rejection of God on the part of the rational soul is possible apart from some quantum of ignorance and misapprehension and personal damage.” Subscribe on YouTube Consider supporting the show at patreon.com/counter or patreon.com/waldenpod Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

Dr. Michael Huemer joins me to discuss moral realism vs. antirealism, ethical intuitionism, phenomenal conservatism, moral disagreement, and much else in moral philosophy. (This aired originally on YouTube and Walden Pod.) Ethical Intuitionism Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy William Lane Craig vs. Erik Wielenberg Linktree   / The Five Metaethical Positions / Noncognitivism/expressivism: Moral statements are neither true nor false. Evaluative predicates do not even purportedly refer to any sort of property, nor do evaluative statements assert propositions. Error theory/nihilism: Moral statements (that imply that something has an evaluative property) are all false. Subjectivism: Some moral statements are true, but not objectively. For a thing to be good is for some individual or group to (be disposed to) take some attitude towards it. Moral Naturalism: There are objective moral properties, but they are reducible. Evaluative truths are reducible to descriptive truths. Additionally, moral statements can be justified empirically. Moral Non-Naturalism/Intuitionism: There are objective moral properties, and they are irreducible. Evaluative truths are not reducible to descriptive truths. Additionally, at least some moral truths are known intuitively.   / Timestamps / 00:00 Introduction 01:05 Objective vs. Subjective 06:45 Five Metaethical Views 36:45 Fictionalism 50:40 Phenomenal Conservatism, Scientism, Skepticism 1:15:00 Moral Disagreement 1:25:00 Theism and Moral Realism 1:41:00 Companions in Innocence 1:46:30 Evolutionary Debunking Arguments 2:00:00 Huemer’s soul is not in Colorado nor is it in Michigan

This is my response to Catholic apologist Trent Horn’s recent video entitled “5 Atheist Double Standards.” (The first minute is a cold open. It makes more sense if you’re watching the video version.) Watch on YouTube Interview on the Sentientism podcast The Meager Moral Fruits Argument My devil’s advocate debate Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen Timestamps: 00:00 Coming Up 01:00 Introduction 01:48 Trent’s Introduction (No disagreement!) 03:13 Ancient Historical Documents (Double Standard 1) 05:36 God is evil, nothing is evil (Double Standard 2a) 19:43 Divine Command Theory 25:18 Moral Realism vs. Atheism (Double Standard 2b) 36:35 Bad Christians vs. Bad Atheists (Double Standard 3) 42:17 Ridiculing Christian censorship while excommunicating atheist heretics (Double Standard 4) 47:49 Atheists refuse to criticize Islam (Double Standard 5) 55:39 Outro

This is my appearance on Ben Burgis’s channel. Ben and I listen to and comment on a debate between Christopher Hitchens and David Berlinkski over the motion “Atheism poisons everything.” The video Linktree

Naturalism Next joins me to discuss “the cognitive science argument against theism.” We talk about the psychology of religion, hyperactive agency detection, signaling theory, and more on the evolutionary origins of religious belief. Crucially, theories from modern cognitive science of religion are antecedently more likely on naturalism than on theism, and so provide good evidence against theism. We have plausible natural mechanisms that account for religious belief and practice – how they form and how they spread. The persistence and prevalence of religious belief can be understood through the framework of evolutionary theory and cognitive science of religion, providing us an answer to the question, “If God doesn’t exist, why does nearly everyone believe in God?” The first half of this episode is about the cognitive science of religion, and the latter half is on why the cognitive science of religion is evidence favoring naturalism over theism. Something for the psychology of religion nerds and philosophy of religion nerds alike. Naturalism Next (YouTube) Naturalism Next (Blog) Subscribe on YouTube Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

I’m joined by Christian Idealism and Invoking Theism to discuss how they see the Fall as non-young earth creationists. This was an impromptu recording in my hotel room at the Capturing Christianity conference in Houston. (You also might recognize the introductions from the previous episode.)  Subscribe on YouTube Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

I’m joined by Christian Idealism and Invoking Theism to discuss the problem of evil, the defeat condition, eternal conscious torment, alternative models of the afterlife, and whether we can have sex in hell. We’re also joined on mic by John Buck for a few minutes. This was an impromptu recording in my hotel room at the Capturing Christianity conference in Houston. Subscribe on YouTube Support the podcast at patreon.com/waldenpod or /counter Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

I outline a version of Christianity that doesn’t suffer from some of the problems that I find the most troubling. Universalism, in conjunction with a handful of other views, seems capable of smoothing over some of my biggest reasons for rejecting theism. This is a clip from a longer interview on Adherent Apologetics. We didn’t plan on covering this subject, but I was asked near the end of the interview about what I considered to be the most viable form of Christianity. Universalism has been on my mind a lot in the past month or so, and this seemed like a good way of kicking off the exploration on this podcast. If we’re to steelman Christianity and attack it at its best, this is to my mind the version that deserves our attention. Watch the full interview here David Bentley Hart – That All Shall Be Saved Keith Derose – Universalism and the Bible Elenore Stump – Closer to Truth Joe Schmid w/ Trent Horn – Is explicit knowledge of God necessary for a relationship with him? Subscribe on YouTube Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Twitter @waldenpod linktr.ee/emersongreen

I’m joined by the author of “30 Arguments Against The Existence of ‘God’: Heaven, Hell, Satan, and Divine Design” to discuss five arguments raised in his new book. Watch the interview on YouTube here Jonathan’s column on OnlySky Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Consider supporting the show on Patreon here or Walden Pod here linktr.ee/emersongreen