Talia Mae Bettcher and Tomas Bogardus join me to debate the question, "What is a woman?". Is gender biologically grounded, socially constructed, or something else entirely? If you're looking for a cordial and substantive exchange from two thinkers who fundamentally disagree on these issues, look no further.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:01:17 Bogardus opening statement

00:02:03 Dictionaries and ordinary usage

00:03:41 The ambiguity view

00:07:09 The resistant concept of woman

00:08:12 Circularity and self-identification

00:11:23 The relevance objection to ambiguity

00:13:47 Non-human men and women

00:16:17 Bettcher opening statement

00:18:29 Woman as a philosophical question

00:19:44 Folk concepts and biological definitions

00:22:13 Folk concepts vs. theoretical concepts

00:24:45 Adult, human, and female

00:28:14 Open discussion begins

00:28:57 Bettcher on the ambiguity thesis

00:30:28 Family resemblance and trans womanhood

00:35:16 Political concepts and same-sex marriage

00:52:25 Are folk concepts biological?

00:57:47 Souls, bodies, and female identity

01:04:31 Twin Earth, Superman, and non-human men

01:13:13 Stone lions, Batman, and conceptual analysis

01:26:44 The husbandry argument

01:29:44 Sex, function, and biology

01:34:35 Why the question matters

01:39:44 Closing statements

Keegan Kjeldson of the Untimely Reflections YouTube channel returns to the podcast to discuss the merits of continental philosophy. While he is largely in favor and I am not, we both agree that Hegel is abysmally obscure.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:18 Hegel vs Plantinga: obscurity and clarity

00:03:07 Keegan’s defense of continental philosophy

00:08:38 Why continental philosophy feels impenetrable

00:11:15 Spinoza and intuitive knowledge

00:14:25 Nietzsche, style, and philosophical insight

00:18:07 Logical positivism and ethics

00:22:21 What is metaethics?

00:27:17 Utilitarianism and moral intuitions

00:30:17 Do arguments bottom out in intuition?

00:36:39 What is philosophy for?

00:44:41 Moral realism and objective moral truth

00:48:59 Judith Butler and the charge of gibberish

00:54:10 Clear continental thinkers

00:55:57 Heidegger and justified obscurity

01:02:00 Is clarity always a virtue?

01:06:49 Can poetry give us rational grounds?

01:12:52 Moral knowledge vs moral persuasion

01:15:29 Motivated reasoning in ethics

01:25:21 Ethics, emotion, and objectivity

01:28:14 The Nazi example and moral realism

01:32:26 Abortion, personhood, and moral disagreement

01:38:44 Objective truth in morality and science

01:41:17 Has humanity made moral progress?

The great, the one, the only Joseph C. Schmid returns to the podcast to offer a comprehensive reply to (almost) every objection to the fine-tuning argument for theism. Ever worried about puddles? Inverse gamblers? Stalking horses? Boltzmann Brains? Alex Malpass? Well, fear no more: we define, describe, and dispel (or defend!) all these concerns and more. Not gonna lie guys, this is one of my favorite discussions so far. Hats off to Joe for being 10/10 great.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:46:12 #1 The puddle analogy refutes the FTA

00:05:49 #2 Other forms of life are possible!

00:08:58 #3 The multiverse explains fine-tuning

00:53:08 #4 Electrons in love

01:16:06 #5 We couldn't have observed a non-fine-tuned universe

01:21:09 #6 Maybe the constants are metaphysical necessary!

01:33:38 #7 Our universe is hostile to life

01:42:00 #8 Alex Malpass and the stalking horse objection

01:47:54 #9 We cannot get a grip on divine psychology

Dan Linford returns to the channel to offer his reply to my recent discussion with William Lane Craig, wherein he replied to critiques of his case for a cosmic beginning. We discuss probability theory, the BGV theorem, emergence of spacetime, and the relevance of quantum gravity to our scientific inferences about a beginning of the universe.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:01:24 Craig's modest claim

00:10:27 How to calculate the probability of a conclusion

00:15:21 The probabilistic fallacy in Craig's scientific case

00:21:56 Craig - "I'm ruling out classes of models"

00:26:33 Exceptions to the BGV theorem

00:29:22 Do theories of time make a difference?

00:42:28 Inference to the best explanation and low probability

00:51:25 Craig's inconsistency: temporally finite models of the universe

00:59:18 Why we need a quantum theory of gravity

01:12:04 The emergence of spacetime

David Enoch and Lance Bush face off over the question of whether objective moral truths exist. They debate the intuitiveness of moral realism, whether most people are moral realists, question-begging, radical skepticism, and much else besides.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:38 David's opening statement

00:13:21 Lance's opening statement

00:26:05 "I don't give a damn if most people aren't moral realists"

00:31:59 Who is begging the question on whom?

00:35:55 Is realism the intuitive position?

00:40:35 Is Lance a radical skeptic?

00:43:39 Realists misattribute metaethical claims to most people

00:57:48 "People in general are idiots"

01:02:06 Does ordinary moral discourse support realism?

01:10:42 What are the costs of realism and anti-realism?

01:18:15 On the strengths and weaknesses of analytic philosophy

01:22:33 What do you mean when you say something is “wrong,” Lance?

Joshua Rasmussen explains his cosmological argument for God's existence: the existence of contingent things requires an explanation, and God fits the bill. Roughly stated, for sure, but that's the idea.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you’re awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:57 Why the question matters

00:10:29 Is ultimate reality beyond logic?

00:14:55 Contingent vs. necessary things

00:20:44 Stage #1 - From contingent things to a necessary being

00:26:38 What is an "explanation"?

00:36:23 Why should there be an explanation of all contingent things?

00:47:37 Should we trust what intuition tells us?

00:55:56 Conflicting empirical generalizations - a la Joe Schmid

01:04:04 Stage #2 - From a necessary being to God

01:12:52 Even a limitless God requires explanation

01:23:37 Graham Oppy's necessary initial state of nature

William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher and apologist, returns to the channel to defend his use of cosmology in support of the kalam cosmological argument. In particular, we focus on recent critiques of his work from Daniel Linford, Phil Halper, Niayesh Afshordi, and others.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X because you're awesome.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00 Introduction

00:06 Craig's case for a cosmic beginning

02:55 "We don't have a quantum theory of gravity"

09:24 Has Craig misunderstood probabilities?

15:44 Can you give a parody argument against a beginning?

20:23 Finite past vs. beginning to exist

24:08 The emergence of spacetime

28:05 The Malament-Manchak theorem

35:42 The BGV theorem and its limits

42:08 The generalized second law of thermodynamics

44:26 Sean Carroll's model of an eternal universe

47:58 Why don't all cosmologists agree about a beginning?

50:39 Does your scientific case require your philosophical case?

Robyn Faith Walsh, professor of New Testament at the University of Miami, discusses how people in antiquity would have understood the concept of "resurrection", whether Jesus or Paul was the true founder of Christianity and what Paul meant when he said that we will be raised with "spiritual bodies", and what facts the historian can establish concerning the events before and after Jesus' death.

Video of this interview is available on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:07 Can historians verify miracles?

00:06:37 Did the ancients take their myths literally?

00:08:31 What did Paul think about the resurrection?

00:19:22 Did Paul preach a spiritual resurrection?

00:25:56 Do historians take the case for the resurrection seriously?

00:44:18 Fact #1: Was Jesus crucified?

00:46:56 Fact #2: Was Jesus buried in a tomb?

00:52:10 Fact #3: Was Jesus' tomb found empty?

00:54:35 Fact #4: Did Jesus' followers report appearances of Jesus alive?

01:00:00 Fact #5: The origin of the Christian faith

01:06:07 Was Paul the real founder of Christianity?

01:08:00 How to be objective when studying Jesus