Naturalism | Dr. Graham Oppy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- In this interview, I talk with Dr. Graham Oppy about his understanding of metaphysical naturalism. He defends the thesis that natural reality is coextensive with causal reality such that there are no causal entities that are non-natural.
If you enjoy the content. Let me know who else I should have on the channel and what should we chat about!
Graham Oppy's Website:
research.monas...
Check Out Dr. Oppy's Work on PhilPapers:
philpeople.org...
Graham oppy with a Chinese house background is a force to be reckoned with 😂 Great interview.
Great interview! Thank you for the top shelf content.
Glad you enjoyed it!
i'm always wondering what kind of headset does graham oppy use, hahahah. please if you know what it is, let me know.
I’m still trying to figure it out myself!
good interview
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it❤️
The fine-tuning argument comes out very strange especially when postulating an omniscient and all-powerful God. Why would such a creator have to fine-tune anything?
I don't know if I agree. Fine-tuning may not indicate a limitation of God but rather an intentional act of designing a universe where specific conditions lead to life and conscious beings. Just because the universe is fine-tuned doesn’t mean God was constrained; it could mean that this specific configuration was chosen to achieve a particular outcome.
Great iview TY both. Interesting new release see: Concise Overview of the Critique of Jesus of Nazareth - DCS
32:00 reproducible natural science is indeed important. how would we create things another way? regarding the topic of people agreeing on something that is the truth or that works.
Shoot, I forgot what metaphysics mean.
The three concepts, RELIGION, METAPHYSICS, and LAW (“yogaḥ”, “tatva-mīmāṁsā/parabhautikī”, and “dharma”, in Sanskrit, respectively) are often confused and/or conflated by the typical religionist, and even more so by those who are critical of religion. For example, many detractors of Judaism and Christianity, condemn the metaphysical system contained within the first chapter of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, for being utterly inaccurate, and consequently, claim that the entire body of their doctrines must necessarily be counterfactual to confirmed scientific knowledge. However, apart from the inclination of those detractors for confusing the metaphysical claims with the religious precepts, this is a simple case of a “non-sequitur” fallacy. It is eminently possible that the metaphysics of “Genesis” is factually incorrect, but that does not mean that worshipping and serving a World Teacher or a prophet, like Lord Jesus Christ, is automatically “wrong”. In actual fact, devotion to a Divine Incarnation, such as Lord Jesus, is an extraordinarily-beneficial thing, because it leads to the true peace and happiness that we are all seeking!
Likewise, yoga and dharma are often confused and conflated with each other, so it is recommended that one carefully study the entirety of this Holiest of All Holy Books (the only truly holy book, to be quite frank), in order to learn the actual distinction between these quite disparate notions. In brief, however, yoga/religion is the union of the individuated self with the Universal Self, whilst law/dharma/ethics/morality is the adherence to the only moral law, and that is, the avoidance of unjustifiable harm to any living organism, including to oneself, of course. In summary, METAPHYSICS is that field of study which aims to uncover the ultimate nature of physics itself, including naturalism/physicalism, any one of the varieties of Theism, Idealism, Monism, et cetera, and thus, has practically nothing to do with (actual) RELIGION, nor with the (moral) LAW. The fact that both religious and non-religious/irreligious individuals are known to condone dharmic (holy and righteous) ideologies, such as monarchical/patriarchal/hierarchical rule, anti (unjustified) abortion, and condemnation of perverse sexuality, is sufficient evidence of this.
N.B. Here, “non-religious” and “irreligious” are used in the conventional sense of the terms, since, as demonstrated elsewhere in this treatise, a genuinely-religious person is one who adheres to dharma (the avoidance of non-justified-harm), and not necessarily a believer in any Deity.
“””””NiCe””””” WaLl Of TeXt “””””BrO”””””
@@dr.h8r He is trying to impress us and evaded the question.
Metaphysics means everything that's beyond physical
Jumpscare thumbnail.
Just seems to me like adding in a god is just one more unnecessary thing.