Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Parker, as an atheist, I wanted to say thank you for these discussions with the deepest and most compelling Christian minds of our time. I find it very upsetting that atheist bros come on your channel to disrespect both the discipline of philosophy and the depth of these thinkers by making senseless accusations of basic informal fallacies amogst other silly assertions hahaha. Never stop! 🖤
His conceptualization of reason and mind is so theory and bias laden he is fundamentally begging the question against naturalism before the argument even takes its first step.
Of course, as the rest of the interview shows, his use of the word “gap” there denotes, not a temporary vacuum in the science but an area of human experience that methodological naturalism is actually unable to explain because it’s not equipped to do so.
@@cygnusustus I think when the phrase "God of the gaps" is used as a pejorative against the theist the implication is that the naturalist hasn't YET found the natural explanation and so the supernaturalist is illicitly filling the "gap" with God. But Hasker's point here is not that the naturalist might yet find the explanation of mind and soul, but that naturalism is utterly unable to account for such a phenomenon. So deduction to the best explanation must necessarily be something other than naturalism. There's nothing illicit in that move.
@@BiblicalMuse A God Of The Gaps argument is a fallacy, not a pejorative. A God Of The Gaps argument is simply "We don't know X, so X is explained by God", or whatever other unsupported hypotheses is desired. This is regardless of whether "X" is even conceivably explainable. The argument presented in the video certainly qualifies as a God Of The Gaps fallacy. "Hasker's point here is not that the naturalist might yet find the explanation of mind and soul, but that naturalism is utterly unable to account for such a phenomenon." ...and therefore God is the best explanation. God. Of. The. Gaps. Argument. Furthermore, Hasker would need to prove that "Physical causes do not have anything to do with physical insight" for his false dichotomy to have any merit. He didn't do this, because he cannot do this. That was a bald assertion on his part. In fact, there is evidence that physical causes do impact physical insight. A great deal of it, that Hasker does not want to acknowledge. God. Of. The. Gaps. Argument.
Well we do think that nature and natural processes actually exist. It's a lot harder to accept that supernature and supernatural processes exist. In essence, Hasker seems to be using the inability of scientists to explain what mind and consciousness are to argue for the existence of the supernatural from which he then assumes that an explanation for the existence of mind and consciousness falls out. People seem to be confusing an explanation for some phenomenon (e.g. mind) with using that phenomenon (mind) as an argument for the existence of another phenomenon (e.g. the supernatural). However is he really offering anything remotely close to this book:- "Hidden Spring: A Journey To The Source of Consciousness" - or this paper:- "Integrated Information Theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate"? ^^ What the above two are putting out there are hypotheses which can be read about, thought about, argued over, and tested. What they are not doing is offering something like the following:- a. Here is some phenomenon X. b. Theists cannot mechanistically explain it. c. Therefore the best explanation is the natural. At the 28 minute mark Hasker accepts that what he is offering is not an explanation for "how". He mentions Nagel's hypothesis. However, he then goes on to talk as if Nagel's argument and the Theistic argument are actual explanations in the sense I'm asking about here. I cannot see that they are.
I don't think he was arguing that way at all. He was arguing that mental phenonena can't be wholly reduced to material/mental states or processes even in principle.
What are you supposing makes something natural or supernatural? I have never been clear on that distinction. It seems plausible to me there's not an actual distinction, the words are just useful for everyday use
We do think there are processes external to our minds. It's hard to accept that all of this is nature, especially if nature is reduced to matter in motion by physical laws in the void.
Atoms and stuff bouncing around seem to be involved in all aspects of our reality and lead to amazing complexity. Is it surprising that Atoms and stuff bouncing around in our brain can lead to amazing complexity in mental actions? I have yet to hear a definition of reason, which can be objectively measured. Without that, your argument is "You don't feel that the brain has the right stuff".
The problem that your comment seems to overlook is that reasoning (the process of rational inference) involves several features that seem to be both ineliminable (if indeed reasoning occurs) and incompatible with physicalism. One such example is that rational inference seems to be explicable ultimately only in terms of goals, purposes, or ends (for instance, the goal of arriving at true beliefs). This doesn't seem to be an inessential or eliminate aspect of rational inference, and yet physicalism is committed to the veiw that there are no ultimate or irreducibly teleological explanations (since explanations must be grounded in efficient causes, as described by physics, which explain phenomena in terms of prior states and physical laws).
@@allenanderson4567 Solms' book "the hidden spring" describes the root of consciousness as arriving from a part of the brain producing feelings (fear, loss, frustration, caring, lust, play and seeking) which drive the cortex to (mental and physical) action. I think it's important that this definition of consciousness may not align with common philosophy. It does fit with the evolutionary paradigm.
Its atheists who've never won any debate with a meaningful opponent. You dont know your world view is full of shit because you probably follow Matt Dillahunty
@@Unconskep i know the one with Sean where Sean escaped with a technicality. Well.. since then Vilenkin came in defence of Craig. He told him in an email that he represented the BGV argument the best. So Sean escaped explaining how the universe formed from nothing
@@koppite9600 religion is superstition and nothing more , Superstition ( definition ) A....a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance or a false conception of causation,......B,an irrational abject attitude of mind towards the supernatural, nature or God.......C a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary ( Merriam Webster English dictionary since 1825 ) If God created the entire universe and all of it's laws of physics, does God follow Gods own laws? Or can God supersede his own laws such as travelling faster than the speed of light and thus being in two different places at the same time, there are new stars and planets all the time, so to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt you must provide mechanism.......what is God mechanism ? If you think God is transcendental/ outside of time and space, then God must be supernatural, Most arguments for God, Contingency, Ontological, Kalam etc are basically trying to prove cause, however cause and effect is a law of nature, so there is a huge CONTRADICTION, Cause and effect is a law of nature. Supernatural ( definition ) Manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or THE LAWS OF NATURE. Can you provide verifiable evidence for God? No Can you prove God is a Christian God? No Can you prove God created anything ? No can you prove God operates the universe ? No Can you prove intelligent design ? Can you prove God answers prayers ? No Can you prove Jesus was the son of God ? No
Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
I’m 20 seconds in and subbed for the mustache alone.
Thats the first thing i thought too
SAME!
I had it paused at 0:00 but subbed based on the mustache plus the recommendation from Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity).
Parker, as an atheist, I wanted to say thank you for these discussions with the deepest and most compelling Christian minds of our time. I find it very upsetting that atheist bros come on your channel to disrespect both the discipline of philosophy and the depth of these thinkers by making senseless accusations of basic informal fallacies amogst other silly assertions hahaha. Never stop! 🖤
Thank you! I'm so glad you're enjoying them!
My man, you are my favorite RUclipsr now! Absolutely loved this video!
underrated chan imo
So insightful ty!!
Great interview and questions
Thank you!!
Great content!
Good show 👍
Great video, keep going. Subscribed!
Cameron sent me here
Same
@@meds7857 same
How do I get hair like yours damn
His conceptualization of reason and mind is so theory and bias laden he is fundamentally begging the question against naturalism before the argument even takes its first step.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Funny that at 9:50 Gandalf slips up and admits his argument is a God Of The Gaps fallacy.....
Of course, as the rest of the interview shows, his use of the word “gap” there denotes, not a temporary vacuum in the science but an area of human experience that methodological naturalism is actually unable to explain because it’s not equipped to do so.
@@BiblicalMuse
Thus, a God Of The Gaps argument.
Thanks.
@@cygnusustus I think when the phrase "God of the gaps" is used as a pejorative against the theist the implication is that the naturalist hasn't YET found the natural explanation and so the supernaturalist is illicitly filling the "gap" with God. But Hasker's point here is not that the naturalist might yet find the explanation of mind and soul, but that naturalism is utterly unable to account for such a phenomenon. So deduction to the best explanation must necessarily be something other than naturalism. There's nothing illicit in that move.
@@BiblicalMuse
A God Of The Gaps argument is a fallacy, not a pejorative.
A God Of The Gaps argument is simply "We don't know X, so X is explained by God", or whatever other unsupported hypotheses is desired. This is regardless of whether "X" is even conceivably explainable.
The argument presented in the video certainly qualifies as a God Of The Gaps fallacy.
"Hasker's point here is not that the naturalist might yet find the explanation of mind and soul, but that naturalism is utterly unable to account for such a phenomenon."
...and therefore God is the best explanation.
God.
Of.
The.
Gaps.
Argument.
Furthermore, Hasker would need to prove that "Physical causes do not have anything to do with physical insight" for his false dichotomy to have any merit. He didn't do this, because he cannot do this. That was a bald assertion on his part. In fact, there is evidence that physical causes do impact physical insight. A great deal of it, that Hasker does not want to acknowledge.
God.
Of.
The.
Gaps.
Argument.
@@cygnusustus I suppose you can
Use.
All.
The.
Sarcasm.
You.
Want.
But it still won't a turn a baseless pejorative into a valid argument.
Well we do think that nature and natural processes actually exist. It's a lot harder to accept that supernature and supernatural processes exist.
In essence, Hasker seems to be using the inability of scientists to explain what mind and consciousness are to argue for the existence of the supernatural from which he then assumes that an explanation for the existence of mind and consciousness falls out. People seem to be confusing an explanation for some phenomenon (e.g. mind) with using that phenomenon (mind) as an argument for the existence of another phenomenon (e.g. the supernatural).
However is he really offering anything remotely close to this book:-
"Hidden Spring: A Journey To The Source of Consciousness"
- or this paper:-
"Integrated Information Theory: From consciousness to its physical substrate"?
^^ What the above two are putting out there are hypotheses which can be read about, thought about, argued over, and tested. What they are not doing is offering something like the following:-
a. Here is some phenomenon X.
b. Theists cannot mechanistically explain it.
c. Therefore the best explanation is the natural.
At the 28 minute mark Hasker accepts that what he is offering is not an explanation for "how". He mentions Nagel's hypothesis. However, he then goes on to talk as if Nagel's argument and the Theistic argument are actual explanations in the sense I'm asking about here. I cannot see that they are.
I don't think he was arguing that way at all. He was arguing that mental phenonena can't be wholly reduced to material/mental states or processes even in principle.
What are you supposing makes something natural or supernatural? I have never been clear on that distinction. It seems plausible to me there's not an actual distinction, the words are just useful for everyday use
We do think there are processes external to our minds. It's hard to accept that all of this is nature, especially if nature is reduced to matter in motion by physical laws in the void.
Is it? Abiogenesis should by now be considered supernatural. Many atheists belive it true.
came here coz Cameron
Atoms and stuff bouncing around seem to be involved in all aspects of our reality and lead to amazing complexity.
Is it surprising that Atoms and stuff bouncing around in our brain can lead to amazing complexity in mental actions?
I have yet to hear a definition of reason, which can be objectively measured. Without that, your argument is "You don't feel that the brain has the right stuff".
The problem that your comment seems to overlook is that reasoning (the process of rational inference) involves several features that seem to be both ineliminable (if indeed reasoning occurs) and incompatible with physicalism. One such example is that rational inference seems to be explicable ultimately only in terms of goals, purposes, or ends (for instance, the goal of arriving at true beliefs). This doesn't seem to be an inessential or eliminate aspect of rational inference, and yet physicalism is committed to the veiw that there are no ultimate or irreducibly teleological explanations (since explanations must be grounded in efficient causes, as described by physics, which explain phenomena in terms of prior states and physical laws).
@@allenanderson4567 Solms' book "the hidden spring" describes the root of consciousness as arriving from a part of the brain producing feelings (fear, loss, frustration, caring, lust, play and seeking) which drive the cortex to (mental and physical) action.
I think it's important that this definition of consciousness may not align with common philosophy. It does fit with the evolutionary paradigm.
Why is Darwin on the thumbnail crying? He wasn’t a naturalist…
It's pronounced "pahn-SAY"
I know
Not another desperate Christian
Its atheists who've never won any debate with a meaningful opponent. You dont know your world view is full of shit because you probably follow Matt Dillahunty
@@koppite9600 LOL maybe you should watch WLC V Sean Carroll or Robert Price V WLC ,or Graham Oppy ,
@@Unconskep i know the one with Sean where Sean escaped with a technicality.
Well.. since then Vilenkin came in defence of Craig. He told him in an email that he represented the BGV argument the best. So Sean escaped explaining how the universe formed from nothing
@@Unconskep and since atheists KNOW God doesn't exist they should have evidence for that. What is your evidence God does not exist?
@@koppite9600 religion is superstition and nothing more ,
Superstition ( definition )
A....a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance or a false conception of causation,......B,an irrational abject attitude of mind towards the supernatural, nature or God.......C a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
( Merriam Webster English dictionary since 1825 )
If God created the entire universe and all of it's laws of physics, does God follow Gods own laws? Or can God supersede his own laws such as travelling faster than the speed of light and thus being in two different places at the same time, there are new stars and planets all the time, so to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt you must provide mechanism.......what is God mechanism ?
If you think God is transcendental/ outside of time and space, then God must be supernatural,
Most arguments for God, Contingency, Ontological, Kalam etc are basically trying to prove cause, however cause and effect is a law of nature, so there is a huge CONTRADICTION,
Cause and effect is a law of nature.
Supernatural ( definition )
Manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or THE LAWS OF NATURE.
Can you provide verifiable evidence for God? No
Can you prove God is a Christian God? No
Can you prove God created anything ? No can you prove God operates the universe ? No
Can you prove intelligent design ?
Can you prove God answers prayers ? No
Can you prove Jesus was the son of God ? No