Counter Apologetics

We’ll be exploring what the discovery of evolution potentially means for religion. Is evolution evidence against theism? If so, why? Is it incompatible with Christianity, as some Christians maintain? What is the conceptual landscape vis-à-vis evolution and theism—as in, what is the range of potential options available to a religious believer when it comes to evolution? We also briefly discuss evolutionary evil as evidence against God’s existence, and argue that the acceptance of evolution does not dissolve all the problems that arise between evolution and theism. Accepting evolution doesn’t mean you’re off the hook. linktr.ee/emersongreen YouTube Transcript (and further links) Support the Show Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Joe Schmid & Micah Edvenson on Evolutionary Evil Joe Schmid & Non-Alchemist on Evolutionary Evil

Human beings seem cosmically unimportant. Though certainly from God’s perspective, we are more important than stars, rocks, vast stretches of empty space and time, and other things that don’t seem to possess any value in and of themselves, the latter group seems to have been afforded the lion’s share of the cosmos. Human beings, presumably the jewel of God’s creation, don’t seem to be the main event. So, does this favor naturalism or theism? Is the unimaginable vastness of time and space, and the lack of human centrality therein more probable on naturalism, or on theism? If the universe is indifferent to human life, it’s no surprise that humans seem cosmically unimportant, not occupying a position of centrality or significance in an incomprehensibly vast ocean of space. The reality of our situation is sharply contrasted with the one our ancestors imagined themselves to be in. As William Lane Craig put it, “on the cozy, pre-Copernican cosmology—what C. S. Lewis called ‘the discarded image’ of the cosmos—theism seemed vastly more probable than atheism. Like a Fabergé egg, the little universe centered on the Earth, with the spheres of the planets and fixed stars revolving about it, cried out for an explanation in terms of a Cosmic Designer.” We also discuss the “symmetry of evidence” and get a bit into the weeds of Bayes’ theorem. linktr.ee/emersongreen Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here YouTube Transcript Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. / / /  On likelihoodism observation O is evidence for hypothesis H over ¬H iff P(O|H) > P(O|¬H).  Since P(O|H) + P(¬O|H) = 1 and P(O|¬H) + P(¬O|¬H) = 1, we can insert it into the prior formula to get an interesting result: 1 – P(¬O|H) > 1 – P(¬O|¬H) P(¬O|¬H) > P(¬O|H) So, in English, O is evidence for H over ¬H iff ¬O is evidence for ¬H over H. The means that you can have evidence for a hypothesis iff you can have evidence against a hypothesis. Two other ways of expressing the same point that “O is evidence for H over ¬H iff ¬O is evidence for ¬H over H”: P(h|e) > P(h) iff P(h|~e) < P(h) E being evidence for H entails that ~E is evidence for ~H Read more here from Hugh Jidiette or here from Michael Huemer William Lane Craig – Does the Vastness of the Universe Support Naturalism? Emily Thomas – Does the size of the universe prove God doesn’t exist? Carl Sagan – The Cosmic Calendar After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right – NYT New Scientist – Vatican admits Galileo was right Arguments from Scale – Tim Mulgan

Today, I’m speaking with The Non-Alchemist about the trials and tribulations of deconversion, reasons for being an atheist, lacktheism, Calvinism, Christian double-standards regarding testimonial evidence, the state of apologetics, what stuff is real, and more. Here’s this interview on YouTube with video (this episode was recorded on Streamyard and originally posted on YouTube). NA’s channel Emerson’s appearance on NA’s channel Follow us @waldenpod and @AlchemistNon Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Linktree

Here’s my debate with Zac of Adherent Apologetics on the problem of evil, hosted by the Non–Alchemist. I focus on the problem of animal suffering and defend an argument called the teleological argument from evil. Video of the debate here linktr.ee/emersongreen Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here YouTube emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

There are five reasons, broadly, why I’m an atheist:  I. We don’t need God to explain anything. II. There are few phenomena that are better explained by theistic models than by atheistic models. III. There are many phenomena that are better explained by atheistic models than by theistic models. IV. Theism is more metaphysically profligate than naturalism as an explanation. V. Theism suffers from various internal problems. We discuss each of these reasons, abductive atheology, and several issues related to atheism. linktr.ee/emersongreen Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here YouTube Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission. Transcript  / / /  Abductive Atheology – Timothy Perrine & Stephen Wykstra Paul Draper’s Case for Naturalism (with transcript) Graham Oppy explains “The Best Argument Against God” Richard Swinburne on building a cumulative case A few thoughts on what it means to be an atheist On Atheism’s Intuitive Appeal: 100,000 Years God’s Checklist The “Good News”

Today we discuss the evergreen critique of the design argument from David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume’s skepticism is aimed at the inference to a designer on the basis of our observations of natural objects and their analogy to human artifacts. When two objects are similar effects – say a house and another house – we’re on solid footing when we infer a similar cause. To the extent that two objects are similar effects, we have grounds for inferring a similar cause. But as Hume points out, human artifacts and natural objects are not similar effects. Their dissimilarities vastly outnumber any similarities. So, we don’t actually have much ground for inferring a similar cause. Further, inferring a “similar cause” would not lead one to the orthodoxly conceived monotheistic god. We’d be led to an imperfect designer (or designers), finite in their power, knowledge, and goodness. linktr.ee/emersongreen twitter.com/waldenpod (@waldenpod) Hume on the Design Argument [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Hume’s Objections to the Teleological Argument (5 minute summary) [YouTube] Arguing About Gods – Graham Oppy [Amazon] The Design Argument (Cambridge Elements) – Elliot Sober [Abebooks] The Problem of Teleological Evil [exapologist] Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion [text]

Happy birthday, David Hume! I thought I’d share Hume (or more accurately, Philo) casually destroying skeptical theism in Part XI of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. His analogy of an architect and a poorly constructed house arose in a discussion of the problem of evil between Philo and Cleanthes, two of Hume’s fictional characters in the Dialogues. Skeptical theism is no excuse for the poor final result, even if skeptical theists (correctly) claim that making adjustments here or there would affect the causal web negatively overall. If the architect had skill and good intentions, they could’ve constructed a different causal web that didn’t suffer from these problems. Skeptical theism will never be satisfying, since a designer infinite in knowledge and power would have been able to construct a different web entirely, one that wasn’t interconnected in such a way that the prevention of terrible suffering would somehow lead to goods being prevented or worse evils coming to be. Transcript to this episode: emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2021/05/07/condemn-the-architect-david-humes-answer-to-skeptical-theists/ Magic Tricks  by Whalers linktr.ee/emersongreen

Can you be an “agnostic atheist,” or are those terms mutually exclusive? I try to explain how the famous four quadrant graph misunderstands the nature of belief, knowledge, and agnosticism. the chart in question Joe Schmid on Agnosticism and Justification [YouTube] Gettier and knowledge with Kane B and Cole Nasrallah [YouTube] What is knowledge? [SEP] The Analysis of Knowledge [SEP] Graham Oppy – Atheism: The Basics [Amazon] Transcript for this episode twitter.com/waldenpod (@waldenpod) linktr.ee/emersongreen

Here’s the audio from my recent debate hosted by Adherent Apologetics on the problem of evil. I argue that with respect to suffering, the world looks about as we’d expect it to look if god did not exist. Atheists can do a much better job explaining the kinds, degree, and distribution of suffering we observe in our world. Specifically, I appealed to three lines of evidence: The biological role of pain and pleasure, gratuitous suffering, and divine silence during tragedies. (note – I accidentally said “When I was an atheist,” near the beginning when I meant to say, “When I first became an atheist.”) / / / A few recent appearances on other channels: Consciousness and Atheism with John Buck and Craig Reed TCR Tjump and Emerson Green on Panpsychism – The Right to Reason Podcast Deconversion and Atheism with The Non-Alchemist   https://linktr.ee/emersongreen Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

We discuss several reasons to doubt skeptical theism, including Paul Draper’s objection, phenomenal conservatism, divine silence during tragedies, Pandora’s box, and moral paralysis. linktr.ee/emersongreen Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Support on Patreon here Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Additional music by ichika Nito and was used with permission. Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod / / / Ryan Stringer – Evil and Skeptical Theism (2012) [infidels.org] Aron Lucas – The Argument from Cognitive Biases (2018) [infidels.org] Jeffery Jay Lowder – In Defense of an Evidential Argument from Evil: A Reply to William Lane Craig (2016) [infidels.org] Starving Child and Vulture – Kevin Carter (1993) [Time] Thomas Nagel – Problem of Evil [NYRB] Schopenhauer on the Sea Turtles [Goodreads] Skeptical Theism [SEP]   / / /   S = some facts about suffering I = the hypothesis of indifference T = the hypothesis of theism   (1) Pr(S/I) = quite high (2) Pr(S/T) = quite low (3) Therefore, Pr(S/I) > Pr(S/T) (4) Therefore, S is evidence is that favors indifference over theism   / / /   00:00-03:32 Evidential arguments from evil 03:33-06:38 The theological premise 06:39-08:59 Skeptical theism 09:00-13:32 Concrete examples of gratuitous suffering 13:33-15:31 Draper’s objection 15:32-17:28 Phenomenal conservatism 17:29-21:02 Moral unintelligibility 21:03-22:59 Divine silence during tragedies 23:00-30:25 Pandora’s box, reliable cognitive faculties, & moral paralysis 30:26-36:12 Conclusion