The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast

Hello good sir! If you do not mind me saying, you look as if you’re in limbo.

Lost? It might please you to know that most of the tourists, and the locals for that matter, don’t know where they’re heading in these parts.

If I could be so bold as to make an assessment, I would take you for the sophisticated type but with a little bit of an edge? Your smile says it all. Nothing wrong with indulging in the simple things in life every now and then.

Do you see that bar over there? Yes, the one with the peculiar name. Mexico City, here in Amsterdam. You’ll likely find one or two characters in that place; the brute who runs the place for instance. On a good night, you can end up in the type of conversation which only drunken stranger can have – putting the world to rights. On an even better night, you might learn something about yourself.

Intrigued? I knew you were an adventurous sort the moment I lay eyes on you. Enjoy your time here in Amsterdam. No better place in the world for a bit of escapism! The only problem some have is not being able to escape the thought of it after they visit! What? Oh, I meant nothing by it. A slip of the tongue.

Before you leave, can I make one final suggestion? I’d take the coat off if I were you. This place can get a lot hotter than limbo if you catch my drift...

Believe it or not, humans have been debating questions concerning God for as long as couples have been discussing what they fancy for dinner. Does God exist? Is God all-power, all-knowing and all-loving? Shall we try that new Mexican restaurant on Bold Street?

In this episode, we’re going to be discussing the existence of God in relation to the problem of evil, more specifically, on what has come to be known as ‘the evil-god challenge’. Roughly stated, our question is as follows: why is belief in a good-god significantly more reasonable than belief in an evil-god?

Contents

Part I. For God’s Sake: Paradise and the Snake.

Part II. Weighing the Scales of Evil: How Heavy is God’s Heart?

Part III. Audience Questions, Further Analysis and Discussion.

Currently Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, Robert Wright’s work in journalism, psychology and philosophy has been deeply influential. Robert is the author of many best-selling books including ‘The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology’, ‘Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny’, ‘The Evolution of God’, and most recently, ‘Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment’.

Our focus for this episode is Robert Wright’s latest book, Why Buddhism is True. In a word, Wright defends the Buddhist view that ‘the reason we suffer is because we don’t see the world clearly’. The reason we don’t see the world clearly, says Buddhism, is because our perception of our own minds and ‘the outside world’ is impaired by illusions. Viewing Buddhism through the lens of evolutionary psychology, Wright argues that we have good reason to think that this Buddhist claim (that suffering is caused by illusion) is true, and that Buddhism also holds the answer to how we can alleviate ourselves from illusion and suffering.

Part I. Why Buddhism is True.

Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion.

Simone de Beauvoir was a pioneer for the second-wave feminist movement and one of the most famous philosophers to have lived. Strikingly, Beauvoir did not label herself as a philosopher, since she never attempted to provide an original treatise which aimed to fully encapsulate the truth of the world or the human condition. Instead, she considered herself as a writer, commentator and novelist. Beauvoir’s identification should not, however, discredit her as a philosopher. Jean-Paul Sartre’s work on existentialism is heavily indebted to Beauvoir’s careful eye and scholarly expertise, and her book The Ethics of Ambiguity, is considered by many as one of the most significant texts in moral philosophy and existentialism; the ethical text which Sartre promised, but never produced.

Simone de Beauvoir’s most famous text is The Second Sex; a detailed examination on what it means to be a woman through the lens of existentialism. The Second Sex was highly controversial at the time of its publication; receiving backlash from certain areas of male-dominated academia and the press. Nevertheless, it is still considered to be one of the greatest works in feminist philosophy.

Get 20% How The Light Gets In Festival 2018 using the discount code “PANPSYCAST20” at the final checkout page! Visit: https://hay.htlgi.iai.tv/?utmsource=panpsycast. Our Patreon page: www.patreon.com/panpsycast. Everything you could need can be found at www.thepanpsycast.com! Please tweet us your thoughts at www.twitter.com/thepanpsycast.

Broadly speaking, the term 'religious language' refers to statements or claims made about God or gods. Many problems arise in the field of religious language, but our principal focus in this episode will be the problems that arise within the Abrahamic religions (that is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Simply put, it is unclear how one could use human-made language, to talk meaningfully about something infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely loving. This problem is worrisome to believers as it has the potential to undermine their traditions; if we cannot speak meaningfully about God, then the texts and teachings of Abrahamic faiths can only be deemed unintelligible (i.e. impossible to understand). In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the 18th Century Scottish philosopher David Hume alluded to the problem as follows: “But when we look beyond human affairs... when we carry our speculations into the two eternities, before and after the present state of things; into the creations and formulation of the universe; the existence and properties of spirits; the powers and operations of one universal Spirit existing without beginning and without end; omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, infinite and incomprehensible: We must be far removed from the smallest tendency to scepticism not to be apprehensive, that we have here got quite the reach of our faculties.” In Part I we’re discussing ‘the via negativa’, in Part II, Thomas Aquinas and Ludwig Wittgenstein, in Part III, the verification and falsification principles, and in Part IV we’ll be engaging in some further analysis and discussion.