1:59

talking about existence, which all five of

2:02

us who are sharing the stage tonight have contributed

2:04

to. So if you'd like to pick up a copy, there'll

2:06

be a QR code

2:08

showed during the interval. For people watching

2:10

at home, they can access it through

2:12

the description. So without further ado, please

2:14

welcome to the stage one of Judaism's

2:17

most innovative and insightful big

2:19

picture thinkers, Professor Sylvia

2:21

Jonas,

2:24

the world's most famous atheist

2:27

and recently ranked the world's

2:29

most influential thinker,

2:33

Professor Richard Dawkins,

2:34

globalizing

2:42

the philosophy of religion,

2:45

its Hindu experts and Oxford

2:47

University lecturer, Jessica Frasier.

2:58

And last but certainly not least, one

3:01

of the biggest names in all of Christian philosophy,

3:03

Professor Richard Swinburne.

3:19

We've agreed to limit

3:21

our discussion this evening to three

3:23

main questions. They are why

3:25

there is something rather than nothing, how

3:28

our laws of nature ended up being fine

3:31

tuned for the existence of intelligent

3:33

life and where our natural

3:35

environments and complex organisms

3:38

came from. We've got people representing different

3:40

worldviews here from Christianity,

3:42

experts on Hinduism, atheism

3:45

and Judaism as well. We've got two Richards

3:47

with us this evening. So excuse me

3:49

for using full names very formally,

3:51

but Richard Dawkins, would you like to begin

3:53

with the motivations for why you'd

3:55

reject God as an explanation? No, that's not

3:57

how I would like to begin. Okay.

3:59

I'm here to

4:02

talk about science and biology and

4:04

the third of your your three three points in other

4:06

words the mystery of existence

4:09

is indeed a deeply profound

4:11

mystery and a biologist

4:14

is perhaps best qualified of anybody

4:16

to expound this mystery

4:19

because at least until 1859

4:21

it was a total mystery the facts of life

4:25

being

4:28

both highly complex

4:30

are almost unbelievably complex and

4:33

also carrying a gigantic

4:35

illusion of design living

4:38

things appear to have design written

4:41

all over them and this applies

4:43

to the deepest levels of complexity

4:46

as well as superficial

4:48

levels. Complexity

4:50

first the human brain has about 86

4:52

billion neurons

4:55

and about 600 trillion connections

4:57

between them and if you were to count

4:59

up the number of nerve impulses that

5:01

are rocketing through your like rifle

5:04

bullets through your brain at the moment it

5:06

would be something like

5:08

four quadrillion of these clicks

5:11

these impulses per

5:13

second. Complexity of the

5:15

brain complexity of the rest of the body every

5:18

animal and plant every bacterium

5:21

is prodigiously complicated the

5:23

illusion of design you can see this every

5:25

time you see a camouflaged insect

5:28

a stick insect a stick caterpillar a leaf

5:30

insect a stick caterpillar that has

5:33

carved on its exterior leaf

5:35

scars perfect mimicry of

5:38

a real stick butterflies

5:40

that have perfect mimicry of a leaf

5:43

everything about a living organism screams

5:46

at you it's it's designed and until

5:48

Darwin came along that's what most people thought

5:50

almost everybody thought Darwin

5:53

had the effrontery almost to

5:56

realize that it was possible

5:58

that all this complexity and this is illusion

6:00

of design could come about through

6:03

blind, mechanical forces,

6:06

evolution by natural selection.

6:09

That degree of complexity and

6:11

apparent design

6:13

cannot just happen. It has

6:15

to have a process leading

6:18

up to it. It has to have a process leading

6:20

from primeval simplicity to

6:22

the complexity that we see around

6:25

us at present. Simplicity is

6:27

difficult enough to explain. That's the

6:29

first of your things. Why is there something rather than nothing?

6:32

But simplicity is by definition

6:34

a whole lot easier to explain than complexity.

6:37

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural

6:39

selection in its most general form

6:41

is the only explanation we know

6:43

that can lead from simplicity

6:47

to complexity, which is why I stick

6:49

my neck out and say that if there

6:51

is life elsewhere in the universe,

6:53

and I think there probably is, but if there is, it

6:56

will be Darwinian life. Every other

6:58

detail may be different from life on

7:00

this planet, but one thing I would bet

7:02

on is that it will be

7:04

Darwinian life. It will have come about by some

7:06

version of random variation

7:09

followed by non-random survival.

7:12

That is the only formula I believe

7:14

we know that is capable of lifting

7:17

simplicity to the level

7:19

of complexity. It gets a lot of help

7:22

on this planet and probably elsewhere

7:24

from what I've called evolutionary arms races.

7:27

It's one thing for animals and

7:29

plants to be adapted to the climate,

7:32

but what happens in nature is that you

7:35

have enemies which are evolving at the same time.

7:37

I think Darwin realized that

7:40

the prodigies of complexity that

7:42

we see are mostly the result

7:44

of arms races. He didn't call them arms races,

7:46

but he meant it. Arms races between

7:49

predators and prey, parasites and hosts,

7:52

males and females. When you are surrounded

7:54

by other things that are evolving

7:56

at the same time as you are, then you get an escalation.

7:59

And it's that escalation between predators

8:02

and prey, parasites and hosts, etc., that

8:06

gives rise to these

8:07

extraordinary levels of complexity

8:10

that we see. That's biology, and

8:12

since Darwin, we in principle understand

8:14

how the trick is done. The trick is done

8:16

by non-random survival of

8:19

random variation, natural selection. Pushing

8:21

back before biology, the origin

8:24

of all things, the origin of the universe, the origin

8:26

of matter, the origin

8:28

of the laws of physics. We need a physicist

8:30

on this panel. I think we haven't got one, because

8:32

that's where the problem is at present. Biology

8:35

is essentially solved, and that was the big

8:37

one. William Paley in his book on

8:39

natural theology

8:41

in 1803 said that

8:44

physics is comparatively easy. It's

8:46

biology that really demonstrates the role

8:48

of the creator. And he said

8:51

that apart from Saturn's ring, there's not a lot

8:53

of complexity going on in the physical world. He

8:55

was right. But nevertheless, since biology

8:58

is solved, we're now pushed back to

9:00

physics and cosmology as the place

9:02

where the mystery is now

9:05

deepest. And as I said, I'm

9:07

not qualified to talk about that. My physicist

9:09

friends are working on it. Perhaps

9:11

there are physicists here tonight who can tell

9:13

us what the present state of the art is on explaining

9:16

things like the origin of the laws of physics,

9:18

the origin of the fundamental constants,

9:21

half a dozen or so fundamental constants, whose value

9:25

is measured,

9:26

but which are not yet explained.

9:29

And as you know, there's a strong argument

9:31

to say that these fundamental constants are fine-tuned

9:34

in the sense that if any of them were slightly different

9:36

from what they are, then we would not

9:39

have galaxies, we would not have matter, we would

9:41

not have chemistry, we would not have biology,

9:44

and we would not have us. There are various solutions

9:46

to this riddle of where the fine-tuning

9:49

comes from. And I think the one that is

9:51

most favored at the moment is the multiverse idea,

9:53

that we are in

9:56

one of a very large number

9:58

of universes.

9:59

which have different laws of

10:02

physics and different physical constants. By

10:04

the anthropic principle, we have to be in one of

10:06

that, a minority of universes, which

10:09

has the properties necessary

10:12

to give rise to sentient beings such as

10:15

us, capable of understanding

10:17

it. Other physicists say that

10:19

it's just, we don't yet understand enough. There

10:21

will come a time when we have a theory of everything

10:24

and then we will know why these physical constants

10:27

have the values that they do and where the laws of physics come

10:29

from. I would divide the problem into the

10:32

biology problem, which was once thought

10:34

to be huge, was huge, still

10:36

is kind of huge,

10:38

but the courage that we should get

10:40

from the fact that Darwin solved that problem

10:43

would lead us on to have courage to feel

10:45

that the same problem in physics

10:47

will be solved. I think I probably had my

10:50

time. No, that's wonderfully fair. Richard

10:52

Swinburne, would you like to jump

10:55

in here because your view in terms of

10:57

whether or not physics will eventually gather

10:59

as, could contrast well with Richard Dawkins's?

11:02

Okay, I believe that the world in the

11:04

sense of all that there is apart from God

11:07

exists because

11:08

God sustains it in existence.

11:11

If it had a beginning, God created that

11:13

first state of the world and if it had

11:15

no beginning, God kept it in

11:17

existence throughout past everlasting

11:20

time. Things in the world

11:22

behave almost entirely in accordance

11:24

with scientific laws and it

11:26

is God who keeps those laws operative.

11:29

God does however, in my view, give

11:31

to human beings some very limited free

11:34

will to make differences to the

11:36

world and God may occasionally

11:38

intervene in the world to bring about some

11:40

event directly. I believe these

11:42

things because I believe that theism, the

11:45

hypothesis that there is a God, provides

11:47

the most probable explanation of

11:50

the most general features of the world,

11:52

that there is a physical world and the same

11:54

applies that there is a multiverse, that it

11:57

is governed almost entirely by simple

11:59

comprehension. laws of nature and

12:01

that those laws are such as

12:03

to bring about in the course of time, including

12:06

via the mechanism of evolution, human

12:08

bodies. Those bodies are the bodies

12:11

of conscious human beings. Theism

12:13

is rendered probable by these data

12:16

in virtue of the very same

12:18

criteria as a hypothesis

12:20

of science, history, or detective work

12:23

is made probable by its evidence.

12:25

These criteria are one, if the

12:27

hypothesis is true, it's

12:30

quite probable that we refine the data.

12:32

Two, if the hypothesis is false,

12:35

it's not at all probable that we refine

12:37

the data. And three, the hypothesis

12:40

is simple. Theism is a very simple

12:42

hypothesis. It postulates the

12:45

existence of only one entity,

12:47

not many, one substance as

12:50

philosophers call it, God. And

12:52

it postulates about him that

12:54

he is essentially everlasting and omnipotent.

12:57

That is, able to do anything logically

13:00

possible. So Theism postulates

13:02

that there are zero limits to

13:04

God's length of life and zero

13:07

limits to his power. Zero

13:09

is a simple number and so

13:11

the whole nature of God is a very simple

13:14

nature. All the other properties

13:16

traditionally ascribed to God follow from

13:18

these properties. For example,

13:21

such a God is omniscient, that is,

13:23

he knows anything, or to qualify

13:25

that claim in the same way as the claim

13:27

of omnipotence, that he knows

13:30

everything logically possible to know,

13:32

compatible with his omnipotence. Thus

13:34

he will know of all actions whether or not

13:37

they are good or bad. To know that an

13:39

action is good is to have some inclination

13:41

to do it. We humans, as well

13:44

as having inclinations to do what is good,

13:46

are also subject to counter

13:48

inclinations to do actions which are

13:50

bad. The simplest and so most probable

13:53

kind of God would not

13:54

have bad inclinations and so

13:57

he will always do good actions. He

13:59

will be perfect.

13:59

good. Hence God's omniscience

14:02

and perfect goodness follow from

14:04

his omnipotence, and so do

14:06

all the other properties traditionally ascribed

14:09

to God, such as being creator

14:12

of any world there is. Being

14:14

perfectly good, God would wish

14:16

to spread goodness, to create more

14:18

good things. We humans are

14:20

good things. We have powers

14:23

to reason and to make small differences

14:25

to ourselves, other people in the world.

14:27

But most of the great making

14:29

properties, which we have, with

14:32

one exception, are properties possessed

14:34

in far greater degree by God

14:37

himself. But the one very

14:39

good property which we possess and God

14:41

does not possess is the power

14:43

to choose freely between

14:45

good and evil. God would think it

14:48

good that there should be beings who can

14:50

make a real differences to themselves,

14:52

others in the world, for good or

14:54

evil, without being always programmed

14:57

to do the good. Just for example,

15:00

as good parents who want their children

15:02

to be good, would not wish to give them

15:04

a drug which would make them automatically

15:06

do good actions. They would want

15:08

the children to make up their own minds about

15:11

what to do within limits. For

15:13

this reason, it is probable that God

15:15

would make humans, although

15:17

it is also probable, though less probable,

15:19

that he would make many other good things.

15:22

But in order to make humans, he must give

15:24

them bodies and so a physical world.

15:26

He must make it governed by observable

15:29

regularities, simple enough for them

15:31

to understand, because otherwise they will

15:33

not know which actions of theirs will have which

15:35

effects. They will not know what

15:37

will happen if they set light to crops, whether

15:40

that will destroy the crops or help them

15:42

to grow. And so generally, but

15:44

there will only be simple observable

15:47

regularities if there are simple

15:49

underlying laws of nature. Yet

15:51

humans will only exist if those laws

15:53

are such as to be compatible with the existence

15:56

of humans, whether or not

15:58

God makes them by an evolution. no princess

16:01

or page them fully grown and

16:03

finally of course humans will not be

16:05

able to reason and to make com choices

16:08

nice they are conscious hence

16:10

if god seeks to bring about humans

16:12

he must bring about the necessary

16:14

condition for their existence and

16:16

those are the general features the world

16:18

which i have described that there

16:20

is a physical well governed

16:23

in almost entirely by simple laws

16:25

of nature such as to be compatible

16:27

with existence of humans and that

16:29

humans are conscious but of course there isn't

16:31

the slightest reason for raising these

16:33

things would occur unless there is

16:35

a god why should there be a physical

16:38

universe at all if there

16:40

is why should it be governed by simple

16:42

laws of nature or a needles that nature

16:45

at all without a hypothesis such

16:47

as theism one would expect the

16:49

different chunks of matter to behave an

16:51

entirely different ways from each other

16:54

but in fact every fundamental particle

16:56

in the universe behaves in exactly

16:59

the same way as every other one

17:01

in conformity with laws of nature

17:04

unless someone arrange things in this

17:06

way it would be immensely and probable

17:08

that this would happen and an aspect

17:10

of that is of course the fine tuning

17:12

likewise it would be immensely improbable

17:15

that the laws even if they were simple

17:17

incomprehensible would be such

17:19

as to bring about the evolution of humans

17:22

and there would have to be an enormous set of laws

17:24

quite different from those of physical science

17:27

to explain the evolution of consciousness

17:30

maybe there are such laws but

17:32

again this is not to be expected

17:34

unless god made it so since

17:36

the postulated god is simple since

17:39

these data as the such as my probably

17:41

occurred if there is a god and such as

17:43

fairly probably would not occur if there

17:45

is no god i can true

17:47

that any rational and scientifically

17:50

minded person must on the basis

17:52

of these data conclude that there

17:54

is a god of course there are other less

17:56

general data to be taken into

17:58

account such as the fact of human

18:01

suffering. And because I

18:03

have only 10 minutes, I can only say

18:05

two or three sentences about this. But

18:07

the basic reason why given theism

18:10

we might expect suffering is

18:12

that it is either the result of bad

18:14

human choices, which God allows

18:16

humans to make, or although

18:19

caused by natural processes, it

18:21

makes possible human choices of how

18:23

to deal with it in good ways. And

18:26

by the way we deal with our suffering, we

18:28

have the opportunity to make ourselves

18:30

saints. And what a good God

18:33

would want of most of all of his children

18:35

is that by their own free choices, they

18:37

would become saints. For

18:40

these reasons, I hold traditional views

18:42

of the existence and nature of God. And

18:45

if I can't explain why there's a God,

18:47

that casts no doubt on the correctness

18:49

of my explanation of the general features

18:52

of the world, just as a physicist can't

18:54

explain why the fundamental laws of physics

18:57

operate, that casts no doubt on

18:59

those laws

18:59

being the fundamental laws of

19:02

physics. Thank you Richard, you've

19:04

finally tuned your answer to precisely 10 minutes

19:07

there as well, so thank you so much. Sylvia,

19:10

in an earlier draft of the

19:12

book we put together, I described

19:14

your view as making friends and enemies of

19:17

everybody, and you didn't like the overly combative

19:20

nature of my phrasing, so we

19:22

changed it. But this might be a good

19:24

way, because you see virtues and vices

19:26

in both the views that both Richards have

19:29

presented here.

19:29

How would you approach the three mysteries

19:32

we set out at the beginning, and well, becoming

19:35

less and less mysteries as we're having the discussion here,

19:37

but also to compare your view

19:40

with some of the others and begin contrasting.

19:42

Yeah, thank you. My perspective

19:45

on these questions is completely from

19:47

a philosophical point of view.

19:49

I started thinking about these questions because

19:51

I found it really puzzling to put

19:54

it mildly, perhaps even a little bit annoying,

19:57

that the topic of theism and God

20:00

and religious belief and what it actually means

20:02

to people has almost entirely vanished

20:04

from most graduate

20:07

syllabuses that I've seen. Even though

20:09

now we're sitting here with people who

20:11

are mainly or thinking to

20:14

a large extent about these topics, theism

20:16

is not really such a big issue anymore

20:18

in philosophy departments. It's just ignored

20:21

as a topic. And I found that strange because

20:24

it seems to me quite obvious that it's

20:26

a topic that many people have very

20:29

strong views about, etc. Okay. So

20:32

when I started thinking about the question of

20:34

this evening, why is there something rather

20:36

than nothing?

20:37

For now, I'll focus on that

20:39

big question, perhaps the biggest of metaphysics.

20:42

I thought, well, there are, well, two

20:44

extreme positions you can have. You could say, well,

20:46

if there is an explanation, there's going to be a scientific

20:49

explanation. And that's that. There

20:51

is another side that says, well, there

20:53

is a God that's a metaphysical

20:56

explanation of how things are. And

20:58

it seems that a lot of the debate is going on

21:00

between these two extreme sides of

21:02

the debate. My goal is to bring these

21:05

questions, the big metaphysical questions

21:07

about why there is something rather than nothing

21:10

back onto the philosophical center

21:12

stage, as it were. I want to find

21:15

ways of thinking about these questions

21:17

that are not going to be either condemned

21:20

as religious in a way that many

21:22

of us no longer find adequate

21:25

or satisfying or overly scientific

21:28

to a question like why is there something rather

21:31

than nothing? We can give different

21:33

kinds of answers. We could be looking for

21:35

a causal explanation for

21:38

why there is something rather than

21:39

nothing. And causal explanations,

21:42

typically we turn to the natural sciences

21:44

too. And as we just heard,

21:47

the sciences have certain answers up

21:49

to a point. And we may expect many

21:51

more answers from the natural sciences about

21:54

things that right now seem mysterious. But

21:56

causal explanations are not the only kinds

21:59

of explanation that are out there. Even

22:01

within the natural sciences, many of

22:03

the explanations that are in place

22:05

are non-causal. And I'll just give a very

22:08

simple example. When we

22:11

ask ourselves why the number seven

22:13

is not divisible by three, probably the

22:15

explanation of this fact is going to involve

22:18

some story about the primeness

22:20

of seven, about this characteristic,

22:22

which makes a prime number only

22:25

divisible by one and by

22:27

itself. So seven would not

22:29

be divisible

22:29

by three. We have thereby given

22:32

an explanation of a certain fact, and that

22:34

explanation was not a causal explanation.

22:36

That's just perfectly

22:38

fine. Happens all the time. So in the

22:41

math case, one might say, well, this is

22:43

something like a conceptual explanation.

22:45

We said what it involves or

22:47

what it entails to be prime.

22:49

But there are other kinds of non-causal

22:52

explanations we could explain certain

22:55

item or a certain fact in terms of

22:57

its purpose rather than in terms

22:59

of its physical workings. For

23:02

example, an explanation of a computer

23:05

could involve a very complex

23:07

description of how, I don't

23:09

know, electrical signals interact

23:12

with the hardware or something like that. But

23:14

we could also explain a computer as a device

23:17

that is designed to process

23:19

and store information. So

23:21

in that way, we would have described

23:24

and explained the computer in terms of its purpose

23:26

or in terms of its function. So

23:29

you probably see where I'm getting at.

23:31

I think that question like why is

23:33

there something rather than nothing

23:35

might best be answered with an

23:38

answer that concerns its purpose

23:40

and not so much its cause. And the

23:42

reason for that is that I think if

23:45

we try to give a causal answer,

23:47

almost necessarily we're going to, theism

23:50

and scientists are

23:52

going to run into some kind of conflict,

23:55

which I think should be avoided if

23:57

religion is supposed to be taken

23:59

seriously.

23:59

at all, it has to be an agreement

24:02

with science, and that's just that. So

24:04

I just mentioned that science, I think,

24:06

should always have priority. But at the same

24:09

time, I find that religious

24:12

people's beliefs and convictions

24:14

should be taken seriously. Obviously, up to a point,

24:17

there is a limit to what's reasonable and what isn't.

24:21

But sometimes my impression is that people

24:23

who have any sort of theistic inclinations

24:26

come out as

24:27

unreasonable on the utterly scientific

24:30

picture, and that's something I would like to avoid.

24:33

So what I'm looking for is a way of reconciling

24:36

the positions from a philosophical point of view,

24:38

a way of perhaps giving

24:40

an explanation

24:42

of the non-causal kind for

24:44

the question, why is there something rather than

24:47

nothing from a point of view that doesn't

24:49

reduce religious sentiments to wishful

24:51

thinking. And I'll stop at that.

24:53

Okay, thank you. Jessica,

24:55

Hinduism has a worldview

24:58

or a religion just as diverse as

25:01

any other school of philosophy, African

25:03

philosophy, European philosophy. So when we talk

25:05

about Hinduism, we haven't got like a set

25:07

of core doctrines like you might have, like

25:10

Catholic Christianity or something like that. So

25:12

I assume it's got lots of different ways it can help

25:14

solve these three mysteries. I'm going

25:17

to push you with a question, although you're going to set out your soul

25:19

as well, because I want to hear as

25:21

well your view within there as to whether

25:24

there's any branches of Hinduism

25:25

you think we can rule out or whether

25:27

there's some versions which are particularly

25:29

helpful in solving these mysteries.

25:31

Okay, so ruling

25:33

out, I'm not my job to rule out, but

25:36

I will focus on one school that I think has kind of philosophy

25:38

at its core. And in a way by

25:41

speaking to a range of global

25:44

sort of philosophy stroke religions, particularly

25:46

Asian ones, a particular one in Hinduism

25:49

called Vedanta, I want to speak to

25:51

a worldview that doesn't really see this and this

25:53

view as in conflict. Right,

25:56

so I'm start off by kind of just saying

25:58

globally, there are a... a huge range

26:01

of philosophies that take existence as

26:03

their inspirational source for reflection.

26:07

And from that perspective,

26:09

just take a moment to realize that the contemporary

26:12

fight between Christian monotheism

26:14

and scientific materialism can

26:16

look like actually very much a minority

26:18

concern in the wider

26:21

global and historic history.

26:23

We shouldn't assume that that dominates all

26:25

of thought across the range

26:27

of philosophies globally. People are much

26:30

more invested in a shared set

26:32

of insights that inspire both philosophy and

26:34

science and religion. And that's kind of interesting when you

26:36

look at the Asian religions and you see, for instance, Taoism,

26:39

which is trying to analyze reality in

26:41

terms of forces, that

26:43

balance and flow in relation to

26:45

each other, or Buddhism, which

26:47

observes the changing flow

26:50

of phenomena of whatever kind we

26:52

see and questions our way of analyzing

26:54

the universe, or Jainism,

26:57

which says, reality can be analyzed

27:00

from many different perspectives. There isn't one

27:02

single system. There isn't one computational

27:04

ontology that captures it all. So we've got

27:06

a range of different options. Hinduism interests

27:09

me partly because it takes precisely

27:11

the mystery of existence, the fundamental

27:14

reality we see unfolding

27:16

around us as the

27:18

core of its insights, at least in the tradition

27:20

I'm looking at. So if you go back 3,000 years to him

27:22

in the Vedas called

27:25

the Nasa Deasukta that Carl Sagan

27:28

cited in his classic series, Cosmos,

27:29

it starts off na

27:32

asada sit no sad

27:34

asid tadanim.

27:36

In the beginning, was not being all

27:38

that we see around us, forces, space-time,

27:42

nor even non-being, a kind

27:44

of big empty space. It

27:46

says there was neither air

27:48

nor space beyond it. This

27:50

is 3,000 years ago. They're thinking speculatively

27:53

about what must have been the source of everything. And

27:56

they say, the ways that we think about the

27:58

universe, whatever must have been.

27:59

must have been the source, must have been fundamentally more

28:02

basic than either of those images, neither

28:04

stuff, space-time, nor a big

28:07

empty space. And this text

28:09

goes on and says, you know, at some point something must

28:11

have burst forth in energy, generated

28:14

the forms and beings and forces

28:16

we see. But this ancient

28:18

hymn ends with, but

28:20

who really knows? Right, so having

28:22

had the mystery of existence, we now have

28:24

the skepticism of quite a well-formed

28:26

philosophical insight. Who really

28:29

knows

28:29

what the origin is? It says where it was,

28:32

what it came from, how it happened. Even

28:35

the gods come after

28:37

the generation of existence. And

28:40

the last line of this ancient text is, maybe

28:42

the highest God in heaven knows, and then

28:44

it says, or maybe it doesn't. Right.

28:48

So there's this like, fabulous little moment of

28:50

like, we have a deep question here for everyone

28:53

to engage in, and we should not accept

28:56

over simple answers that take

28:58

the easy route. Now, what we get

29:00

is three different key insights that

29:02

come out of this ancient

29:03

text, right, which they

29:05

think are true, no matter which perspective

29:07

you take on what kind of thing it is. Here's

29:10

what we seem to find. One, if we look at

29:12

the causal and constitutive generation

29:14

of the world, all that we see, everything is formed

29:16

in some way and out of something. All

29:19

that back, and what you have is

29:21

a world of contingencies. Everything

29:23

comes out of a certain circumstance. At

29:25

some point at the bottom, you have to have something which is

29:27

what we call self-existent, right? Whether

29:29

this is physics or whether this is religion or whether this is

29:31

philosophy, something has to be there which

29:34

was not formed by something

29:34

else.

29:36

Even if you have a circle causally,

29:38

even if you have an infinite regress causally,

29:40

then the whole thing has its

29:42

nature innately. So what we get

29:45

is a self-existent reality too. We

29:47

get a self-natured reality. Everything

29:50

could have been different as far as we can tell

29:52

from how it is, right? Most of the things we

29:54

see, we can see being contingent as

29:56

we put it. Carpet could have been blue.

29:58

I could have been red-haired. I just

30:00

wanted to be a redhead, right? Everything could

30:02

have been different. These natures are

30:04

contingent, but you can't have

30:06

contingencies all the way back. That

30:09

seems to be by definition to the nature of contingency,

30:13

so that you have to have something which is of its own character,

30:16

a nature that generates the rest. So

30:18

there has to be something which is innately self-natured.

30:21

Three, there has to be something

30:24

which has an immense causal power. That

30:27

is constantly working upward

30:29

through all we

30:29

see, and which, by the way, doesn't

30:32

just generate the same thing over and over again,

30:34

like a repeating computer program. It

30:36

generates level upon level of

30:38

what we call emergence. So

30:41

from the most fundamental level, whatever that

30:43

is, up, up through the levels,

30:45

whether it's to energy, whether it's to matter,

30:47

whether it's atoms, chemicals,

30:52

to organic life, to

30:54

consciousness, to thought, to

30:57

meaning, to stories, to emotions,

30:59

to values, right? All of this

31:01

clearly must be generated out of whatever

31:03

is the foundation of existence. So

31:06

these three insights, self-existence,

31:08

self-nature, causal power, all

31:11

for Hindus must be the case, and

31:14

that should be something everyone can agree on.

31:16

Could you just say how that's different

31:18

to Richard Swinburne's view? And

31:21

we can open the discussion up and interject

31:23

at this point. Because Richard's view seems quite

31:25

close to that, in that you've got this self-existent

31:28

cause, this thing that couldn't have failed

31:30

not to exist, that brings into being

31:33

everything like this Hindu

31:36

metaphors of the root of being and it

31:38

growing into the tree of life

31:40

and stuff. Seems very close to a view like

31:42

Aquinas or someone like this, one of Richard

31:45

Swinburne's favourite

31:46

scholars. Would you say that's quite closely

31:48

linked to that? Yeah, Aquinas is a fabulous

31:50

guy. I think, one

31:53

thing I will say that Hindus wants to dial back

31:55

the added assumptions you build

31:57

on that philosophically. So there's clearly

31:59

a...

31:59

source, whether it's a person, whether

32:02

being a person is

32:04

the highest form of existence you could imagine

32:07

or the only cause for the world, that's

32:10

out there still to be determined, right? And

32:12

some Hindus are theists and some are not. Lots

32:15

of other religions have different views on that. So

32:17

I think whether you add on to this a number

32:19

of further doctrines including

32:21

personhood, afterlife, etc,

32:24

etc, that's another matter. But you

32:26

do have a philosophical insight at the

32:27

core. Okay, for the why there's something rather

32:30

than nothing. Richard Swinburne, we're

32:32

talking about causality. I think we all

32:34

tend to agree with the Darwinian explanation

32:37

for the complexity of life. There are no

32:39

issues there on the panel. The one which

32:41

you've all spoken about most of all is that perhaps

32:43

the biggest question and the mystery

32:45

of existence in the singular, why there's something

32:48

rather than nothing. There's two key themes that have came

32:50

out of the answers, one of simplicity

32:53

and one of causality. Sylvia

32:55

spoke about that a little at the moment ago. Richard

32:57

Swinburne, you've

32:57

got an argument, quite a famous

33:00

argument for why the cause of

33:02

the world, talking about causality, would

33:04

have to be a person

33:06

rather than some prior physical

33:08

fact, why it'd have to be something, a

33:10

person, some non-physical consciousness

33:12

that kicked off the Big Bang rather

33:15

than something else.

33:16

Yes, but just let me make

33:18

two other remarks first. I

33:21

have no quarrel at all with anything Richard

33:23

Dawkins said. I entirely agree but

33:26

the question is why is these

33:29

laws operative? And the answer

33:31

is of course because, as you said, the laws

33:33

of physics are crucial here. But

33:36

then why are the laws of physics operative?

33:39

And okay, there's a multiverse,

33:41

but that will only produce these

33:43

laws if it itself has laws.

33:46

And so in the end you

33:48

are left with the laws of science. And

33:51

the laws of science postulate

33:53

that everything in the world,

33:56

it might be the atoms of our world or

33:58

the chunks of the

33:59

and a so-called nothingness in

34:02

the big space out

34:04

of which universities evolve, behaves

34:07

in exactly the same way. And

34:09

that's what law-likeness means.

34:13

And it means that everything,

34:15

just to take that we're talking

34:17

about atoms, but it's the same applies of whatever

34:20

the constitution of the multiverse is, it

34:22

behaves in exactly the same way.

34:25

And the question is why? It's

34:27

no good just saying there's a law of nature.

34:30

The law of nature just is that

34:32

they behave in this way, full

34:34

stop. So why do they behave in

34:36

this way? And there are a large

34:38

number of separate things. And

34:41

unless something causes them to behave

34:43

in the same way, we're left once

34:46

again with a multitude of things. And

34:48

that's why I think there's no scientific

34:51

explanation of these things, because scientific

34:53

explanation just consists

34:55

in postulating that a lot of things

34:57

behave in exactly the same way. And

34:59

we want something a little simpler

35:02

than that. And in fact, there is a model

35:04

of causality, which is the question you were

35:06

coming on to. Just before we do the model

35:08

of causality, could we give Richard an opportunity

35:10

to? I find this an extraordinary idea.

35:14

Richard Swinburne is saying that we need

35:17

a special explanation for why every

35:19

electron, every proton, every neutron, every

35:21

particle behaves in exactly the same

35:23

way. How could they not behave in the same

35:25

way? They're all the same kind of thing. That's

35:28

what they do. Why are the constitutions

35:29

of the universe exactly

35:32

the same kind of thing? If

35:34

you define the kind of thing in terms

35:36

of its powers, and I agree, that's a reasonable

35:39

way to do it. Why are all the things

35:42

in the universe have the same powers

35:44

in the sense of attracting, for example,

35:47

every other one in accordance

35:49

with the

35:52

newton's law of gravity or whatever else

35:54

the law is. That question remains.

35:57

There are two separate questions there. One

35:59

is why...

35:59

Why do these particles have the properties

36:02

that they do? And that is

36:04

a profound question. The other is why do

36:06

they all have the same properties, which is the one

36:08

you're stressing. That's not profound at all.

36:11

That simply follows from the... Well,

36:14

I mean, in that case, I mean, if

36:16

you say they have the same powers because

36:18

that's what they are, the question then

36:21

is why are all the things

36:23

in the universe the same

36:25

in this respect? They have

36:29

the power to attract

36:29

every other body in the universe

36:32

in accordance with Mm dash over R

36:34

squared.

36:35

That is why... Well,

36:37

if you are saying that you need a God

36:39

to explain why all these electrons and protons

36:42

are behaving the same way, a God capable

36:44

of doing that would have to be supremely

36:47

complicated, and yet you're saying that he's supremely

36:49

simple. Why do you think he's got to be

36:51

a simple? Because he's got to hold all these electrons

36:54

in his little hands. How will he

36:56

possibly be simple? No, he's not that sort of

36:58

God at all. He has no extension in space.

37:00

OK, I think that's obviously a terrible point. But that

37:02

comes back to the question of causality,

37:05

in fact,

37:05

because there is a model

37:07

of causality which is entirely not

37:09

the scientific law, one which we use

37:12

all the time. The nature of a scientific

37:14

model of causality is it postulates

37:17

laws of nature acting on initial

37:20

states, producing from them

37:22

other states.

37:23

But if you are... The model

37:25

of personal action is not at all

37:27

like that. If you ask any one of the

37:29

audience, why are you here? They're

37:32

not saying, well, there was a scientific law

37:34

in virtue of which, et cetera, which led

37:36

to my being here. They say, well,

37:39

there were some interesting talks going on,

37:42

I believe. I believe that

37:44

they are coming at this time and that

37:46

the way to get there is this. And

37:48

I have the purpose of hearing, of having

37:51

these, and I have the purpose of getting here.

37:53

So we explain all

37:55

human behaviour in terms of the

37:58

powers of humans,

37:59

in terms of their beliefs about what

38:02

the effects of their actions will be, and

38:04

in virtue of their desires to produce

38:07

these beliefs. And that is a model

38:09

by which we explain ordinary

38:11

human behaviour, which of course consists

38:14

in a large number of atoms buzzing around

38:16

in our bodies, but what

38:20

explains them is something

38:22

fairly simple, me.

38:25

Jessica, do you wanna come in on this point,

38:27

this debate about simplicity? It's

38:29

just an interesting case, that argument is made in

38:32

about 700 by Indian texts, that there's a

38:34

striking coherence

38:38

across the range of phenomena that shape the universe,

38:40

and the Buddhists, who were very anti the idea

38:42

that there's a shared coherent thing

38:45

going on, attacked it quite strongly.

38:47

The response philosophically is what we call the counterfactual

38:49

argument, which says basically if you didn't

38:52

have some coherence that

38:54

keeps things that

38:56

in a sense a coherent nature unfolding in

38:58

everything, you'd have a chaos, you'd have static.

39:01

The Indian texts say humans would become elephants,

39:03

would become seeds, would become trees at every given moment

39:06

of the time. So there is a coherence,

39:08

but in a sense it seems that what both positions

39:10

share is essentially the observation

39:12

that there's a coherent nature that constitutes

39:15

the cosmos. Without the cosmos you

39:17

wouldn't have that coherent nature. Where that what

39:19

that comes from is another issue.

39:22

So maybe the issue is more whether that unity

39:24

of character that unfolds in laws and

39:27

in the different materials we

39:29

have is striking or not. Is

39:31

it significant or is it

39:32

really doesn't really matter? And

39:35

some of that's about whether it could have been otherwise. So

39:37

I said you made friends and enemies from everybody

39:40

and you explained your view very well

39:42

just a moment ago. But

39:43

I thought your view in particular was

39:47

against this view of

39:49

Swinburne's that theism can serve

39:51

as a type of scientific hypothesis because

39:55

the more progress science makes the further we

39:57

push God back against the wall. And that's not the

39:59

kind of theism.

39:59

that we want. I think Bonhoeffer has a nice quote

40:02

about this somewhere, doesn't he? Right, yes. Dietrich

40:04

Bonhoeffer says, if we conceive

40:07

of God and theism that way, and

40:09

with science progressing, then theism is always

40:11

going to have its back against the wall, and that's

40:13

not what we want, like the God

40:15

of the gaps. We can fill in God wherever

40:17

science hasn't gotten to yet, or

40:20

for whatever question, the science doesn't have

40:22

an answer yet.

40:23

Let us pause for a moment to say a quick

40:26

thank you to all of our benevolent patrons

40:28

for bringing this episode into existence.

40:30

In particular, a very special thank

40:33

you to the trendiest product of natural

40:35

selection. It's Mr. Adam Cool.

40:37

Boiling in a state of thermodynamic heat

40:40

death, it's Mr. T. He's not

40:42

the Messiah, he's a very naughty

40:45

boy. It's the life of Brian

40:47

Ramirez. Trapped in a cyclical

40:49

universe, it's Miss Lily Hooper. Looking

40:52

forward to his just dessert

40:54

in the Kingdom of Heaven, it's Andrew

40:57

Cherryman. Propelling himself across

40:59

the universe in a calmer-powered watercraft,

41:02

it's Pedolo Monte Gino. Unlocking

41:05

the gates of God's Kingdom and enjoying the

41:07

heavenly gardens, it's our newest esteemed

41:09

patrons, Keys and Heather Brindescu.

41:12

Kosher Cheese, yes please, it's

41:14

John Breeden. He'll settle for first base,

41:17

no need for the Big Bang, it's Michael

41:19

Kistley. Driving in the fast lane

41:22

on the

41:22

highway to hell, it's Vivian

41:24

Carrera. Evolutionarily wired

41:26

to travel upright and raise livestock,

41:29

it's Walker Barnes. And last

41:31

but not least, the man whose name begins

41:33

with simplicity but ends with complexity,

41:36

it's Moron van der Kolk. If you're enjoying

41:38

the show and you want to help us host more shows

41:40

on this great stage that we call existence,

41:43

then please head over to Patreon.com

41:46

forward slash panpsychast to show your

41:48

support. A link is also in the

41:50

iTunes description. Right,

41:52

let's jump back into it.

41:59

big bang. So is Richard

42:02

Swinburne okay to say here that a

42:04

non-physical, non-scientific explanation can

42:06

never be pushed back against the wall because

42:09

science will never reach

42:10

that type of cause? Well

42:13

ordinary ones can be pushed back a bit, but

42:16

if you postulate an omnipotent God

42:18

then it can't be pushed back

42:20

anymore because if there was another

42:23

God that caused the omnipotent God,

42:25

the omnipotent God wouldn't be omnipotent.

42:27

So once you've got there you do reach

42:29

a stop. And as regards

42:32

this simplicity I think

42:34

perhaps the ordinary detective examples

42:37

or historical examples will illustrate

42:39

this point. Both you find all the coins

42:41

in a deposit have the same head

42:44

on them. You're not going to look for a separate

42:46

explanation for each of the heads.

42:49

You're going to look for one explanation

42:51

which explains them. And if you can do it

42:53

by one explanation, one entity

42:56

which brings them about, you're not going to look

42:58

for two entities. Fewness

43:00

of entities, substances as

43:02

philosophers call them, as well as

43:05

simplicity of properties. In other words

43:07

a number zero as opposed

43:09

to a number 2.3546. These are

43:10

the criteria we're both

43:14

in history and in detective

43:17

work and in physics that you're

43:19

looking for. Well Richard

43:21

Swinburne a moment ago said any scientifically

43:23

minded person would believe that

43:25

God is the ultimate cause. Why

43:28

is it about this explanation that you're

43:30

not happy to entertain Richard?

43:32

Don't you know? Is it simplicity?

43:35

Isn't it obvious? Is it simplicity,

43:38

the main point though? Or is it just

43:40

something non-physical?

43:40

Richard Swinburne is saying that God

43:42

is simple because he's a single entity.

43:46

How can he be a single entity if

43:48

he's simultaneously controlling

43:51

the universe, every particle in the universe,

43:53

he's forgiving our sins, he's

43:56

giving us free will, he's deciding

43:58

whether or not you'll die or not on a mission.

43:59

certain day such a thing

44:02

is not a single simple entity

44:04

it's a highly complicated mammoth

44:07

great big fat entity.

44:10

Well take another example of a very

44:12

simple entity a particle of matter

44:14

here this particle of matter

44:17

is influencing all sorts of other

44:19

particles of matter all over the universe

44:22

how can it do that with just being one

44:24

particle of matter well it does according

44:26

to the law of gravity

44:29

well

44:29

yes so what I mean that well

44:32

you were saying that in order to have

44:34

a large number of effects it

44:36

had to be a big thing in

44:39

order to do the things that God is supposed

44:41

to be doing he cannot be simple he's

44:44

an entity of subjective consciousness

44:47

he thinks about things he has will

44:49

free will he has the

44:52

power to influence anything in

44:54

the world that he wants to do he even

44:57

does the things that the Christians

44:59

believe

44:59

and all the other religions believe how

45:02

can you possibly say that such an entity is

45:04

a single simple entity well

45:06

I'm giving you the example that's

45:09

an entity which is a pretty

45:11

small unconscious entity

45:13

can have a very large number of effects

45:16

and if God can have a

45:19

large number of effects and yet the even

45:21

smaller than electron other words having a

45:23

spatial extension why shouldn't

45:26

you say so it is the nature of science

45:28

to postulate entities

45:30

to which are unobservable

45:32

and have strange properties in order

45:35

to explain observable entities

45:38

we postulated atoms etc

45:40

with their properties in order to explain

45:42

regular combinations of substances

45:45

by weight and volume we postulate

45:47

fundamental particles explained to explain

45:50

this these fundamental particles turn

45:52

out to be rather strange in

45:54

having both wavelike and particle like

45:56

properties but if they are able to

45:59

produce this

45:59

effect, then that's reason

46:02

for believing them to be true. And

46:04

of course, you need an omnipotent being

46:06

in order to produce all that, but you should go

46:08

for the simplest one you can have. And

46:10

the simplest one will have simple properties,

46:13

and it will not be extended. Because if it's

46:16

extended, it would have parts, and

46:18

they would have ways of behaving.

46:20

Is Hinduism a uniquely place to

46:23

solve this sort of tension here? So

46:25

the criticism is the beginning must be just

46:28

as complex as the thing that it creates,

46:29

just kicks the can down the road. You've

46:32

got the same problem further on, says Dawkins

46:34

to Swinburne. Swinburne said, well, you

46:36

need an uncaused cause, something separate.

46:38

Does Hinduism give us that without all

46:41

of the baggage of some

46:43

of these other bees, to put it?

46:46

Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting, because in some

46:48

ways, we've got here, we've got a multi-part

46:52

nature. So let's say we've got all

46:54

the atoms and particles

46:56

have essentially the same sorts of natures, but

46:59

there are many of them. And there are laws of

47:01

natures, and they have their own character, and there are multiple

47:03

ones. So we've got a coherent universe,

47:06

but multiple factors going on

47:08

in that universe. Coherence is agreed

47:10

upon here. That there

47:12

is complexity is also agreed

47:14

upon here.

47:16

So what exactly is the point of

47:18

dissension? The point of dissension is whether

47:20

those things are unified

47:22

in something that is significant in and of

47:24

itself. And I think here,

47:27

we want to say, it sounds like you want

47:29

to say no. They're very different things coming

47:31

together to make a cosmos. They have no intrinsic

47:34

unifying character to them. To

47:36

speak on the Hinduism point, one of the three major

47:38

arguments that you see in the ancient

47:41

Indian scholastic world, one of them is

47:43

that to have multiple factors

47:45

that are able to causally impact each other,

47:48

to make up things together,

47:50

and in any sense, to form a shared

47:52

cosmos, there has to be a link.

47:55

There has to be some ontological

47:57

underlying medium that allows them to have

47:59

those things together.

47:59

connections and make a cosmos, whether they are laws

48:02

or materials or whatever. So on that account,

48:05

it's hard to see how an utterly

48:07

pluralistic universe works in

48:09

that way. There must be some form of unity

48:12

that links those factors and enables the coherent,

48:15

complex universe to

48:17

unfold, right? That

48:19

seems to be the case. Whether you want it then to be

48:21

a person with will and intention,

48:24

that seems a bigger part of what's

48:26

really at stake here. Okay. Does

48:28

anyone want to come in on any of those points just

48:30

there? I just wanted to actually

48:33

ask the question, because this is something

48:35

that's really been puzzling me for a long time. How

48:38

a being or

48:39

an entity that is so

48:42

different from

48:44

ordinary mid-sized objects with

48:46

causal powers can have

48:48

the causal powers to bring about everything

48:51

there is here. So I think that's

48:53

something many people find very puzzling. And

48:55

when you've made the comparison with fundamental

48:58

particles, and your argument was, well,

49:01

we

49:01

postulated these entities at some point.

49:04

Eventually we continue, the scientific story continued.

49:06

We managed to unravel some of the mysteries. Those

49:09

particles became less mysterious. The

49:12

question popped into my mind. Well, do you think potentially

49:14

this is something that would happen with the

49:17

divine entity as well? Because

49:20

you made this comparison, so can science

49:22

ever

49:24

get to a point where perhaps God

49:26

is an unraveled mystery? Of

49:29

course, I don't know where science

49:31

will get to. But what science will get

49:33

to is the scientific law. I don't

49:35

know what the law will be, but it doesn't matter

49:37

what the law will be. It may

49:40

get to a beginning, or it may not.

49:43

But it will get to laws. And

49:47

laws are claims about

49:49

how every

49:51

particle or whatever it's made of

49:53

is going to behave in certain

49:56

respects in exactly the same way.

49:58

I agree with Richard's point.

49:59

you can think that as a defining

50:02

characteristic of the constituents

50:04

that's found out. And the question

50:06

is why the constituents have just

50:09

the same finding. And that's

50:11

why if you can get, you

50:13

need to get beyond that if you're to have

50:16

an explanation because you've reached a

50:18

terminus where everything is behaving

50:20

in exactly the same way. And

50:23

so it's worth looking at the

50:25

other mode by which we explain

50:28

things and explain

50:29

personal behavior. Explain personal

50:32

behavior and virtue of the powers of people.

50:35

We've all got powers, pretty limited ones,

50:37

and they differ a bit with each other, what

50:39

we can do. We've all got beliefs

50:41

and that influences what we do. We've

50:44

all got desires that that influences

50:47

what we do. And the beliefs influence

50:49

the steps that we take to influence our

50:52

desires. So if you can

50:54

explain in terms of one entity,

50:57

it's not going to be a scientific

50:59

word, but it

50:59

could be a personal one because you would

51:02

explain it in terms of someone

51:04

who is something like us. And

51:07

remember the Genesis starts with

51:09

God made humans in

51:12

his image after his likeness.

51:14

There are similarities and the similarities

51:16

are that in this respect, he's a personal

51:19

being. But of course, his powers

51:21

are immensely greater and his

51:23

knowledge is immensely greater. And

51:26

his desires are for the good. We've

51:28

got all this model, it's

51:29

all ready. We've just got to blow it up a

51:32

bit. It's ready there to explain

51:34

things.

51:35

So just one further question

51:38

because I was wondering about

51:40

your exchange, the exchange between the two

51:42

of you. And you were saying, well, this being would have to be

51:44

infinitely complex in order to achieve

51:46

all these things that the being allegedly

51:49

achieves. But what you seem

51:51

to be saying just now was that we

51:53

won't get to a point where we're going to be able

51:56

to fully

51:57

explicate the nature of this

51:59

being. Right? I mean, we're going to be

52:01

able to say things like, well, it's an omnipotent

52:03

being, and we're going to have to be satisfied with

52:05

that. So we cannot inquire

52:08

any deeper into the nature of this being.

52:10

Sure, I wasn't saying we know everything about

52:13

God. I'm just saying we know in this respect

52:15

what he's like.

52:16

Sure, of course, yes, obviously.

52:19

If he's like us, we're not simple.

52:22

Well, as regards us

52:24

being, I mean, you are

52:26

thinking of us as a chunk of

52:28

brain or a chunk of brain plus body.

52:31

These are the causes of our

52:33

thoughts, but they're not the same as our

52:35

thoughts. They are the causes of our

52:37

desires, not the same as our desires.

52:39

Do you think God... And they are the causes of us, but

52:42

we have a unified

52:45

attitude. I mean,

52:46

when we hear a sound

52:49

and see a light and so on, it's

52:52

not that part of us hears

52:54

a sound and the other part sees a light.

52:57

It's a unified self seeing

52:59

these things and which is aware of its

53:02

own beliefs at the same time. Of course,

53:04

it's causally dependent at

53:07

any rate on this earth or on

53:09

a body, but what is dependent

53:11

on a body is a center of consciousness

53:15

of which these are properties,

53:16

and therefore the properties won't

53:19

be extended in the sense

53:22

in which the property of this

53:25

carpet is square. We've only got

53:27

a couple of minutes till the interval, but do you want to come back on

53:29

this point here? Well, do you think

53:31

God can read our thoughts? Can

53:33

he read the thoughts of everybody in this room? Eight

53:36

billion people in the world. Yes. And

53:38

he's simple.

53:39

He's reading all these thoughts and he's simple.

53:41

He's a simple entity in

53:44

the sense that he has properties,

53:46

but they are very big properties. But

53:48

you're using simplicity as an argument

53:51

in his favor on sort of Occam's razor grounds.

53:53

Yeah. It's a simple explanation because he's one

53:56

entity, but he's not a

53:58

simple entity. He's reading eight billion.

53:59

people's thoughts simultaneously. But

54:02

that's not the issue at play. It is the issue.

54:04

The issue is, I

54:06

kind of don't agree that this is the right argument, but

54:08

I do think your point is important. It's a causal

54:11

simple thing. It's a single cause which

54:13

generates all of it. That's your point of your coin

54:16

example. Right? We wouldn't say, oh my god,

54:18

there are peaches all over the room. You wouldn't say, oh

54:20

my god, everyone, some random people all came in and

54:22

put peaches on the floor. You just see them as one person.

54:24

So there can be causal simplicity without the entity

54:27

being simple. Having said that,

54:29

whether that argument ultimately works is another

54:31

thing, but

54:31

it doesn't require causal simplicity

54:34

for the entity itself to be simple. But

54:36

the argument in favor of him being

54:38

simple is that we want simple

54:40

explanations. That's Richard Sinburn's point.

54:43

We want a simple explanation,

54:45

and I'm saying God cannot possibly

54:47

be a simple explanation. He's a very

54:50

complex explanation. I'm

54:51

going to have to pause the discussion

54:53

there. I am postulating him as a simple explanation. We'll

54:55

pause the discussion there for our interval for a moment.

54:58

We'll see you after the interval. We've cut into it

55:00

by ten minutes. Apologies.

55:02

Wanted to keep going there. So we'll

55:05

see you back here at half past eight.

55:07

Thank you again for being here. APPLAUSE

55:26

That

55:26

brings to an end the first installment of

55:28

the debate. We hope you enjoyed the discussion.

55:31

The next installment of this episode is already

55:33

available on Patreon. To access

55:35

this, head over to patreon.com forward

55:37

slash panpsychast. That's patreon.com

55:40

forward slash panpsychast. Thank

55:43

you for wanting to know more today than you did

55:45

yesterday. You're

55:46

going to get me in trouble, Jack, and it's not my

55:48

fault. I have it on record of me complaining

55:50

about this.