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

Non-believing Christian Philip Goff joins us to discuss religious fictionalism, literalism, religious language, Jordan Peterson, the resurrection, the spread of Christianity, the transcendent, and Christianity without theism. After the interview, I try to work through my thoughts on secular Christianity. I reflect on antitheism, fundamentalism, and what replaces religion after the death of god. Philip is a philosopher who teaches at Durham University. He is the author of Galileo’s Error and Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. He’s published more than forty academic papers, and his writing has appeared in many newspapers and magazines, including The Guardian and The Times Literary Supplement. You can follow Goff on Twitter @Philip_Goff and Emerson @waldenpod Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness – Goff [Amazon] Consciousness and Fundamental Reality – Goff [Amazon] Robin Le Poidevin on Religious Fictionalism [PDF] Ozymandias Ramses II on New Atheism [YouTube] Sean Carroll’s Speech (begins at 1:23:13) [YouTube] philipgoffphilosophy.com Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Support the show at patreon.com/counter Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod Music by Whalers. Additional music by ichika Nito. Both were used with permission.

In his 1997 debate with William Lane Craig, Paul Draper considers seven lines of evidence and asks if they are more expected on theism or on naturalism. He argues that the meager moral fruits of theism, mind-brain dependence, evolution, the biological role of pain and pleasure, tragedies, divine silence during tragedies, and religious confusion are not what we would expect to find if theism were true. The world looks about as one would expect it to look if god did not exist. Christians and atheists are both capable of accounting for what we observe. Certainty is not on the table. So what are we to do? According to Draper, we should ask: Is this fact likely given naturalism? Or is it surprising given naturalism? Is that datum to be expected on theism? Or is it not exactly what we would expect? Then we should survey the total evidence and see which worldview fares better overall. Draper vs. Craig – 1997 [YouTube] J.J. Lowder’s Summary and Assessment of the Debate [Patheos] Elephant Philosophy – Draper’s Case for Naturalism [YouTube] Paul Draper [Infidels.org] Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes here Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube here Support the show at patreon.com/counter Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

This Halloween, we’ll be discussing the life and work of the great horror author, H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft’s atheism 00:00 – 07:38 Biographical details 07:39 – 12:50 Lovecraft’s reanimation and influence on culture 12:51 – 18:02 Lovecraft and the unknown 18:03 – 20:22 Forbidden knowledge and a New Dark Age 20:23 – 26:14 Fast zombies 26:15 – 27:27 More on the Lovecraftian mythos 27:28 – 29:13 Lovecraft’s writing style 29:14 – 38:54 Lovecraft’s racism 38:55 – 43:19 The Old Church Lady and art 43:20 – 45:46 Horror and its critics 45:47 – 48:20 / / /  FREE LOVECRAFT AUDIOBOOKS Dagon The Rats in the Walls The Shadow Out Of Time The Shadow Over Innsmouth At the Mountains of Madness The Call of Cthulhu / / /  MORE LOVECRAFT PODCASTS Chapo Trap House on Lovecraft [YouTube] Lovecraft Literary Podcast [HP Podcraft] Patton Oswalt [HP Podcraft] Patton Oswalt with Chapo Trap House [Patreon] / / /  READINGS ABOUT LOVECRAFT hplovecraft.com Emma Stefansky – Primer on the works of HP Lovecraft [Polygon] HP Lovecraft’s 125th Birthday [The Atlantic] Nnedi Okorafor – Lovecraft Award [blogspot] Criticism of Lovecraft’s Writing Style [The Guardian]   Criticism/Praise for Lovecraft [The Guardian] The Philosophy of Horror – Noel Carroll [PhilPapers] Against Religion – HP Lovecraft [Amazon] The Portable Atheist – Christopher Hitchens [Amazon]  Complete List of Lovecraft’s Short Stories [hplovecraft] / / /  Transcripts available at emersongreenblog.wordpress.com Subscribe to CA and Walden Pod on YouTube Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here Rate the show on iTunes Support on Patreon Dark Lofi (outro music) [YouTube] Contact me at emersongreen@protonmail.com or on Facebook Follow on Twitter @waldenpod My Top 25 Horror Movies [Letterboxd] Check out my review of Hereditary, the most overrated horror film in cinematic history, over on Walden Pod. / / /   

This is the audio from my appearance on The Empathetic Atheist YouTube show. Justin & Andy ask me what I take to be the best argument against god and what I take to be the worst argument for god. I apologize for the audio (as well as the video) quality. I don’t know how to properly stream and my internet is terrible! The EA Show – Interview with Emerson Green: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f59q8x1yqSY