Does the Universe Have a Purpose? w/ Philip Goff - podcast episode cover

Does the Universe Have a Purpose? w/ Philip Goff

Dec 12, 202456 min
--:--
--:--
Listen in podcast apps:

Episode description

This week Scott is joined by author, philosopher, and professor at Durham University, Philip Goff. Scott and Philip discuss evidence for the existence of god, whether the universe has any purpose, and the function of religion in society. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Transcript

Speaker 1

You could be in the matrix, right, I mean you could say, oh, well we can test our senses. Well, you can test your senses by using your census. It's so secular, you know, but some all knowledge is ultimately based, rooted in just a decision to trust experiences.

Speaker 2

Hello, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast. Today, I'd like to welcome Philip Goff to the show. Philip is a British author, philosopher and professor at Durham University whose research focuses on philosophy of mind and consciousness. In this episode, we discuss his latest book, Why the Purpose of the Universe. This is a very deep book and therefore this was

a pretty deep discussion. In this episode, we discuss topics such as evidence for the existence of God, what physics says about the probability of there being a God, and whether the universe has a purpose. We also discuss the function of religion and society, and Philip's own views on what form God would take based on the latest evidence. And in probably my part of the discussion, we discussed peak experiences and whether people are seeing reality most clearly

when they're in the throes of a peak experience. So this is a very juicy topic and a juicy episode. So without further ado, I'll bring you Philip Gough. Philip Golf is so exciting to welcome you to again to the Psychology Podcast.

Speaker 1

Hi, Scott, it's good to be here. It's been a while.

Speaker 2

It has been a while and sit in the intervening period. You've solved the mysteries of the universe. So well done.

Speaker 1

Yeah, yeah, all wrapped up now ready to retire. But you know, actually, Scott, you you want. Your podcast was one of the first I ever went on years ago. I thought I was incredibly nervous because I've never really been on a podcast before, and done a few more since then, so I'm a bit more used to it. But yeah, it's excited to come back on again. Well,

it's great to have you back. Last time we discussed different theories of consciousness and I've just been absolutely riveted to see how you've agree with that and connecting that with religion. So we're going to jump into all this today what is the point of living?

Speaker 2

But start out with really you start with theasey questions?

Speaker 1

Yeah, well, I mean actually, because you know, my recent book modestly titled why the Purpose of the universe. You know, most of it is doing what I do is the sort of cold blooded scientific philosophical argument for something. But in the final chapter I do get to these big questions, right, what's the point and of it all? Why are we here? How does this affect human meaning in purpose? And I suppose, you know, quite generally, I take a sort of middleware.

I'm always the middle way, the middle way guy. So you know, you've got some extremes like the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, who say, you know, if there's no God, if there's no point to the universe, it's all pointless. You know, we might as well might as well just kill each other if we want to. And then at the other extreme you've got the you know, a familiar secular humanist position like there probably is no purpose to the universe, but even if there is, it's kind of irrelevant.

You know, we make our own meaning and purpose. That's all there is to it. I guess I take a middle way point of view, where you know, if there's no God, if there's no purpose to the universe, we can still live meaningful lives by doing things that are worth doing, you know, pursuing kindness, creativity, the pursuit of knowledge,

and so on. But maybe if there is a purpose to the universe, if we've got some reason to take that seriously, maybe there's a hope of a greater purpose, or at least a greater sense of meaning and purpose in existence. And that's where I eventually get to in the book.

Speaker 2

Yeah, you really had me thinking a lot, because I teach a course on well being at Columbia, and I, you know, I teach about purpose, and and I have this semester. I actually have a very very very religious Christian student who all of her reflections are tied to know. We had a thing last week which is like a reflection on what is your purpose? And the whole thing was to serve God, you know. And and I feel like, after reading your book, I'm kind of viewing her reflection.

Maybe need to give her a better grade, Come and think of it, because you know, I think, oh, there's something really interesting there where like may like maybe there and you're going to explain this to me, but maybe there is actually a reasonably scientific support for some version of of the purpose I have is one that is in line with a cosmic purpose, even though I don't know exactly what it is yet.

Speaker 1

Yeah, I guess the position I've reached, after struggling back and forth for many years, is that both sides of this never ending debate have something right and something wrong. You know, I think so many people in the West think I they have to believe in the very traditional idea of God as all knowing or for perfectly good, or you're a secular atheist, it's like, who sign you on, Richard Dawkins or the Pope, you know, make your mind up. And yeah, I've just come to think that both sides

have something right and something wrong. With the traditional belief in God. They have the challenge of explaining why there's so much suffering. Why would a loving God who can

do anything allow so much suffering in the world. But I think there are also things traditional atheism struggles to explain, most notably the fine tuning of physics for life, the surprising discovery of recent decades that for life to be possible, certain numbers in physics had to fall in a certain, incredibly narrow range, in such a way that, on the face of it, it's incredibly improbable that a universe like ours would get the right numbers for life just by chance.

So you know, humans get stuck in this dichotomy, don't they. You know, are you a sort of US capitalist or a Soviet communist? You know, are you a do you believe in the soul? Or is it just electrochemical signaling? And we ignore the wealth of middle ground options. That's what I'm really trying to trying to do in the book. I'm not saying, you know, this is the answer, this is the one true faith. I'm just exploring the wealth of interesting positions between God and atheism.

Speaker 2

Look, I hear you, and I would say, from the perspective an of an atheist, maybe a militant atheist, your position is not in the middle. It's interesting because you had to admit like to to you know, Dawkins was Richard Dawkins was listening to you right now and hearing your position as in the middle. He'd be like, no, no, no, my like, look, you don't have you don't have evidence. Now you're you're but you're I understand that you're putting

forward the fine tuning of physics. Is that that's your main data point?

Speaker 1

Is that really? So?

Speaker 2

Like tell people like UT's impact it all more, that seems like a pretty big shining that. I don't think a lot of people are on the street really have they din't get them women and the memo for that yet? Now, when was this discovering? Who are the mean physicists who described? Is it really like a consensus now in physics?

Speaker 1

Sure? Well, just it's interesting you say that from your atheist perspective, it's it's not a middle way position. Actually might just to con say sorry, sorry, from perspective, do you know. Actually, in terms of my response from friends and colleagues, I found most of my atheist friends have said, oh, this is just non standard atheism, whereas most of my religious friends have said this is just nonstandard theism. So probably probably in the middle is is is the right

way to put it. But yeah, the fine tuning and physics for life, I mean, just to be clear, there's a lot of misunderstanding here. People think if you say physics is fine tuned for life, that means oh, there's a fine tuna, and okay, that that would be controversial that some kind of designer. What it actually means, and this is a familiar term in physics, is just that for life to be possible these numbers had to fall in a certain very narrow range. I mean, let's take

an example, Put an example on the table. One of the most discussed cases is the cosmological constant that measures the force that propels the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Speaker 2

Right.

Speaker 1

We discovered in nineteen ninety eight. I remember actually as a young kid interested in you know, black holes and so on. We discovered that our universe is not only expanding,

but it's accelerating in its expansion. And when you calculate what the number is that governs that the force we call it dark energy, actually the postulated force that's propelling that expansion, it turns out that if that force just a little bit stronger, everything would have shot apart so quickly that no two particles would have ever met, you know, you wouldn't have had stars, planets, any kind of structural complexity, Whereas if it was a bit weaker, it wouldn't have

counteracted gravity, and so everything would have collapsed back on itself as split second after the Big Bang. So the life to be possible, that number to be kind of like Goldilocks porridge, right, not too big, not too small, kind of exactly right. Or not. You know, it's not one number that's that's needed, but it's in a quite narrow range. So yeah, I mean, this is fairly uncontroversial physics. Just at what I've just said, And do you find

it surprising not many people know about it. I mean I tweeted a big list of very big, high profile physicists to accept this. I mean, Stephen Hawking, did Nobel Prize winners. Ah, my mind's gone blank on names just now, Leonards Suskind and you know, it's it's, it's, it's there's always some controversy, but it's it's a fairly broadly accepted fact, at least about our current theories. Right, of course, the current theories may change. They may change that you'll get

less fine tuning. They may change that you'll get more fine tuning. But I think, you know, we've got to work with the evidence we currently have. What follows from that is another question. But just let me let me say I am inclined honestly to think we're kind of sort of in denial about this as a society. I think it's a little bit like when we first started getting evidence that we were in the center of the universe, and people struggled to accept that, sorry, that we weren't.

What did I say, We started getting evidence that we weren't another member, Sorry Freudian slipped there, and people struggle to accept that because it didn't fit with the picture of the universe they got so used to. And nowadays we scoff at those people and think, oh, yeah, stupid religious people. What they just follow the evidence. But I think every generation absorbs a worldview that they can't see beyond.

And I think we've got so I think, in our normal standard way of thinking about evidence, I think and we can maybe debate this. I think this is evidence for some kind of goal directedness towards life in the early universe. And I think culturally we've just got so used to the idea, no, that's not what science says, that we're just I think we're just ignoring where the

evidence is most straightforwardly pointing. I think future historians looking back will think, why did they just ignore this for so long?

Speaker 2

So that's that's that's where I'm or well, maybe there's is a god somewhere just thinking that, you know, like, why are they still ignoring?

Speaker 1

They still ignoring me? I don't know.

Speaker 2

I guess. I guess a lot of people do pray to God. But it's just it's it's it's it is so interesting because you're you're you're taking you're away coming in as a non physicist and you're thinking this through. You're like, let's they actually really think this through in a way in like a human lot, like what implications for humans? You know, And it's so cool, Like I feel like physicists should really appreciate you. Do they do they appreciate you? Do you do you hang out with physicists?

Speaker 1

I well, yeah, increasingly, I work with a lot of physicists. I'm currently working with physicist Graham White at University of Southampton. We're going to get in a few physicists and philosophers together to put forward a paper on some of the recent philosophical discussions in this area. Yeah. I had a conference in Durham last week where Luke Barnes and Jeraint Lewis came to cosmologists to have written I think one of the best recent books on the evidence of fine tuning,

It's got a Fortunate Universe. And it's interesting that one of them, Luke, but is a Christian and takes this in a in a theistic direction, whereas Geraint, his co writer, is an atheist that thinks the multiverse is the best explanation. But so most of the book is just the evidence and then they have a sort of dialogue at the end.

But yeah, what I find a lot of though, to be honest, I was talking to parently one of my kids recently, who's a very good friend at a physicist, and what I find a lot is people say things like I don't find many people saying that this is not true about the fine tuning. I get that on Twitter, but I don't get that from physicists. What they say is, oh, well, you know, what they say is what the evidence is going to change? Right? You know, physics isn't complete, And

I think, well, yeah, physics is not complete. We haven't bought general relativity and quantum mechanics together. Maybe when we do that, this will go away, but it's equally possible there'll be more fine tuning. And I think all you can ever do is work with the evidence you currently have.

It's the definition of a bias to say, you know, well, I'm going to ignore the evidences we currently have it and wait until evidence comes along that benefits the theory I like, and I honestly think that what's going on. Just one more thing. I think we're very well trained in intellectual circles in the West to be very alert to religious bias, bias from religious upbringing, you know, or you just believe that because you want to believe in God orthing. But I think we're not well trained to

be alert to bias from a certain secular worldview. And I find like that's a much more powerful influence on me. You know, I feel I do feel silly talking about this stuff in front of my colleagues, you know, I really it took me a long time to build up the confidence. So close childhood friend of mine John says, Oh, it's just your Catholic upbringing. I mean, you know, my

Catholic up bringing that and rejected when I was fortyected it. Yeah, I feel like that has hardly any influence over me, whereas the secular world, you know, worldview a swim in that you know, cosmic purpose is just ridiculous, that has much you know, that's really hard to counter. So so anyway, look, I mean that's not an argument, but I think what I want to press is the we need to be alert to biases on both sides.

Speaker 2

Okay, so I agree, I definitely agree that. So let's further unpack your argument why science points to a cosmic purpose. The second part of your argument is a little more of my wheelhouse. The fact that you argue there's psychophysical harmony, the improbable alignment between consciousness and behavior that is presupposed in any evolutionary story of the character of our conscious experience. Can you unpack that one a little more for me, because I can maybe wrap my head a little more run out.

Speaker 1

Yeah, this, now, this is much harder to convey, I'll be honest about that. You know, with the find with the fine tuning, it's easy to get people to see the issue, even if they think it's bullshit or something. But with this it is much harder. And well, the way I try to set it up in a paper I've got in all an article in Scientific American is to think about the way David Chalmers famously set up the hard problem of consciousness. Right. He distinguishes the easy

problems so called, and the hard problems. So the easy problems are kind of to do with behavior or information processing. What stuff does, and science knows how to deal with that. You postulate a mechanism to explain the behavior. But Charmers thinks those kind of things always leave open the hard problem. Why is there experience? Why does it feel like something

to be in this brain state? So that whole approach to consciousness that, by the way, I'm very much on the side of distinguishes sort of behavior from experience and says there's, of course these go together in the real world, but there's at least a conceptual separation now. But once you do that, what I think Charmer's never realized is, once you do that, you've got another problem. Why do

they fit together so well? If experience and behavior are sort of logically separable, why do they fit together so well? I mean, I mean the most obvious examples are like pleasure and pain. Like when you when something hurts, you avoid it, And that's kind of appropriate, right, That's like, if something feels bad, that gives you a reason to avoid it. If something feels good, you tend to go

for it, and and that makes sense as well. But if if these two things, if behavior and consciousness are separable, like why would they go together in this way? That kind of makes sense and that's just one example. I mean, in general, they fit together. I mean the final the Kushler thing I'll say is and this is what the first response is, Well, it's evolution, right, And I don't think evolution does it because I mean, look, I believe in evolution. I think we evolve the consciousness we have.

But I think any evil lutionary explanation of our consciousness presupposes what I'm talking about, presupposes that behavior and consciousness go together in a kind of rationally appropriate way. Like natural selection is only going to make me feel pain when my body's damaged if I'm gonna respond appropriately and avoid getting my body damaged. It's only going to make me feel pleasure when I eat if I'm going to respond appropriately and you know et and and I'm gonna survive. Well,

so we do have this deep question. I mean, you could say, you could say, well, the whole thing's just charmers is just wrong. Consciousness just is a behavioral thing. That's that's one option we could maybe talk about. But as soon as you say, now, there is this separation, There is this deep difficulty of why they why they fit together so well? And I think it's it's massively under exp it doesn't lead you straight to cosmic purpose. I've got to like a broad, complicated discussion, but there's

something deep that the heart the problem. Consciousness is much deeper than we've that we've currently envisaged.

Speaker 2

I think, yeah, this is really complex stuff, and I don't want to lose our audience, but this is really, really, this is a really deep stuff.

Speaker 1

Could I put it in a slightly different way that that might be a bit more accessible? That it's kind of how I start the chapter. Actually, this chapter of the book, chapter three, does have a warning on it that it's a bit more complicated. But here's a simpler point, Right, there's a deep mystery of why consciousness evolved at all because natural selection just cares about behavior, right, just cares

about that that's what matters for survival. But we've found with AI now right, that you can have incredibly complex behavior and incredibly complex information processing with no kind of inner life at all. So why did natural selection just make us kind of complicated survival mechanisms? Right? That can you know, mechanically track features of the environment and initiate survival conducive behavior without having any kind of inner life at all? I think there's a deep mystery of why

natural selection needed to give us an inner life. And again, the step to cosmic purpose is a it is is a few steps down the line. But this, look, I suppose I can put it this way. I think there are deep problems, deep challenges with underappreciated in our current scientific picture of things consciousness, fine tuning, and these these problems to do with how we make sense of the evolution of consciousness. And one of them, don't try and do the book is just really wrestle with them quite deeply.

Speaker 2

Oh, I know what you're doing, and I am in awe of you.

Speaker 1

For doing it. Thank you.

Speaker 2

Yeah. Yeah, there's just the very various things that I'm trying to see how they line up. So help me line up something. I mean, you you make this case that there is you use the word goddish. I think it's funny, but you're like, you know, there is this, Like these are the two arguments that there might be that there probably is the existence of something goddish, and the fine tuning physics for life and the psycho physical harmony, and then you have a whole argument why the omni

god probably doesn't exist. But I guess this helped me swear this away. I would have thought maybe I might understand it correctly. But since you you're like the guy when it comes to the theory of pant psychism, right, isn't panpsychism literally an argument for an omnipresent consciousness? And if there like something fundamental to the universe, and if there is an omnipresent wouldn't wouldn't that actually be some

suggestion there might be an omniprison God. I guess I'm not understanding how the world how you come up with there probably isn't an omnipresent God. Considering you're you're you're mister pan psychism, that question absolutely that you would have come across the other way.

Speaker 1

Well, actually, you know, there is people might be interested that there is a big split in the ever growing pant psychist research community. You know, so exciting that fifteen years ago nobody was punt psychist, you know, and it's just been this growing third way position. That's quite exciting. But there is a split I think maybe reminiscent of the split in the early psychoanalytic community between followers of

Young and followers of Freud. You know, followers of Young took it in a spiritual direction with the collective unconscious and spiritual archetypes, whereas people who like Freud thought, you know, oh, this is religious, superstitious nonsense. We need serious science. And likewise with pant psychism. Some people, I mean David Chalmers in so far as he's sympathetic to punt psychism. Luke Rolloffs a very good punt psychist philosopher Angela Mendelivici these

people are totally reductionist, secular atheist. You know, they don't believe in some transcendent reality. They just think, look ordinary consciousness, seeing color, hearing sound. We need a new way of thinking of dealing with these scientifically, whereas others I'm probably a bit more on this side. Also head to Hassle Merk or Itai Shanny. Do see a certain consonant with

certain spiritual views. Actually, Joanna LEIDENHG is a very good philosopher and theologian who defends a sort of pant psychist Christianity, where she thinks, you know, if you've got consciousness pervading the universe, this helps us understand how God can have an intimate connection with the universe.

Speaker 2

I think that's what I think, yeah.

Speaker 1

So I would say, look, I'd say there's a there's a there's a consonance here, and and one of the middle way options I consider in the book is cosmopsychism. You know, where the universe is a conscious mind, And so if you're dealing with fine tuning, why go for a sort of supernatural designer if the universe itself can be a conscious being with goals in some sense? So so look, I'm open to I'm open to a god

in some sense, I'm open to a conscious universe. I just think all I'm objecting to is a god who is all knowing or powerful and perfectly good, because I think, why wouldn't that be so much? Why would it's such a I suppose, I think more positive there's evidence against right, Why would such a being choose to create us with the horrific process of evolution by natural selection? You know, why would they allow these kind of shrew I can't remember the name of it now that kills its prey

by paralyzing it and then slowly eating it alive. You know, that just makes no sense to me. So I mean, one possibility I take very seriously is a god of limited abilities, god who's made the best universe they can, right, Maybe maybe God can't just create intelligent life in an instant. Maybe the only way they can do it is create a universe from a singularity with the right physics to eventually evolve life. And God's like, I'm sorry, it's gonna be messy and it's best. How was this or nothing?

So I take that's it. So I'm very up to all these possibilities. It's just the very traditional or powerful God that I really think this. So yeah, I think there's strong evidence against that, but fine tuning a strong evidence against classic atheism that we're in a purpose universe. So we need hypotheses in my view that can account for both, and I think there are such hypothesis on the table. I mean, the simulation hypothesis is one that

atheists tend to like a bit more. You know, maybe we're just in a simulation created by some random software engineer on the you know, on a spare day. But so, yeah, that's that's one non standard design hypotherism.

Speaker 2

Yeah, it's Charmers has believes we're living in a simulation, and he puts it I think gave me a certain probability once so it was pretty high, and then he thought, yeah, yeah, but it seems like the simulation I bought this is very consistent with your view.

Speaker 1

That's one of the one of the views I take. Seriously, look in this book. I'm not saying, you know, I'm I'm very suspicious of certainty in general. You know that cleant in the eye when someone is just not open to contravening evidence that I think you find as much from militant atheists as from religious fundamentalists. But I suppose, well, where I eventually come to, and I've got a section of this in the book with the simulation, is I guess I don't think and this is where I disagree

with Charmers. I don't think creatures in a simulation would be conscious. Ah why not? Because I mean, this is this is very difficult questions, And I suppose you're more attracted to that. I mean, this is all from Nick

Bostrom originally the argument for the simulation hypothesis. And if you have the kind of view where consciousness is about kind of information processing, then you're more likely to think something that's simulated a simulation of me if it has if the simulation has all of the structure of my brain, that's kind of going to be the same information processing and so my consciousness. But if you're a panpsychist like myself, you kind of think consciousness is kind of the flesh

and blood of the world. It's the sort of stuff of the world, and so just having a simulation of something isn't going to give its consciousness in the way you know, having a simulation of a hurricane doesn't make your computer wet. And but I mean, I mean, there are the neuroscientist Daniel Seth, who I've argued about with

a lot. We've got about four debates on YouTube of people are just that I mean, he's got a very different position to me, But he's in the kind of viewpoint that also thinks consciousness is more biological, it is more about a living system. We're more it's more about our biology than like the brain as a computer. And then what so once you're in that mindset, you're less likely to think a simulated brain is going to be conscious too. But it's a huge debate and I'm a little bit uncertain about it.

Speaker 2

I want to hear less about all the different perspectives on the table, and I want to hear. I want to hear your perspective. You're very You're very good at like giving a million caveats. But I don't want that anymore. Let's spend the rest of this podcast. I want to know, like, walk me through the way you see the world you are. Are you a Catholic?

Speaker 1

Now?

Speaker 2

Have you reclaimed your Catholicism?

Speaker 1

No? No, well this is well what are you now after the book? After the book? In the book, I was nothing after the book. I've slowly come to embrace what I all heretical Christianity. But I haven't returned to Catholicism actually because I've returned to the Anglican Church, or I've gone to the Anglican Church, which is tends to be very a lot more flexible than I think that. Maybe it's because you know, it was it was brought into existence when Henry the eighth wanted a divorce, so

you know, there's less ideology built into it. So you know, it's you go to your average Anglican church, people aren't gonna, okay, so you're religious, hussle you with you. But yeah, So I mean this started really learning much more about actually how the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks about things where there's much less of an emphasis on sin, right, and there's much more of an emphasis on unity. The purpose is it's all about God and the universe coming into a

state of deep intimate unity. And you know, when I was talking and reading about this, I have two reactions. First year, it resonates at a deep level, much more so than the Christianity I was familiar with. You know, I mean this idea of, you know, God's interested in punishing someone for our sin, you know, and we all deserve to go to Hell, but Jesus takes the hit, and so we're going to go to heave. You know,

that just makes no sense intellectually or spiritually. But this idea that you know, it's all about God in the universe coming into harmony makes a lot more sense to me on both levels. And also I think I think it fits quite well with this God of limited powers hypothesis. So the way I interpret Christianity, right, God's on the way to making a dead good universe. So it was a bit of English Englishism, wasn't it. God's on the

way to make in a fantastic universe. But the only way God can do that is kind of in two stages. Firstly creating an okay universe right with the right kind of physics that will evolve life. And then when it's evolved enough, God starts to bring it to perfection by becoming more intimately involved with it, sharing in its form of existence, so that we can share in God's form

of existence. So this is something let me just say, very finally, I am very uncertain this is true, but I've come to think of it as a credible possibility because I think it fits well with this God of limited powers hypothesis because it kind of resonates spiritually, and I think that's really what all you need for faith, you know. I think when you think about religion, I think you'd be thinking is it definitely true? I think you should be thinking is there a reasonable chance it's true?

And will it bring me happiness? Will it bring me community? Will it bring me spiritual practice? A deeper sense of meaning and purpose? And I've found it has me all those things, And I'm happy to live with the uncertainty that it might not be true. That's the it's you know, it's cost benefit analysis, right, You're living in hope is something that might not be true, But you're getting a lot out of it and how you're living your life.

Speaker 2

Yeah, you talk about spiritual advancement and the community. So obviously religion fills a need for humans because it's amazing how long it's lasted, you know, like compared to the other things that have not lasted nearly as long. So there's something really deep there. What I just find so fascinating is you're You're like, no, Look, you know, I respect science, and I think there's a scientific case that can be made for a certain view of Christianity. Now,

how do the Jews look in this? Is there any science evidence the Jews are right at all?

Speaker 1

Well, well, so just let me I'll get to that. Let me clarify slightly. So what I'm confident about, I suppose is we need this middle way between God and eighties, and that there's good evidence that there is some kind of purpose or goal directedness going on. There's something going on. Yeah, but what it is, I'm much less certain about. This

form of mildly heretical Christianity. I've come to think is an incredible possibility, but I'm very open to the possibility that other religions might also be credible possibilities, And you mentioned Judaism while in the nineteen eighties, I think it was there was a best seller by Rabbi Harold Kushner? Was it Harold Kushner who also argued for a god of limited powers as the best explanation of suffering. What's the book called now, Why Bad Things Happen To Good People?

I think I haven't actually read it. I probably should. I'll probably read it before the next book I'm researching. So look, I'm I'm happy. I'm open to the idea that a very liberal form of Judaism with a god of limited powers is also a credible possibility.

Speaker 2

With Islam.

Speaker 1

I've never heard a Muslim thinker open to the possibility of a god of limited powers. If that if there, if someone told me about that, I'd be open to thinking about that. So yeah, I think, as I say, look, I look, let me put it this way. I think faith is not about certainty. I think, ultimately faith is about trust. It's about trusting a certain view of the meaning of existence, trusting it in terms of to shape your your fundamental life goals, and trusting it with how

you interpret your deepest experiences. And you know, certainty would be nice, but these matters are inherently uncertain, and you know, I think there's a deep need to have a view on the meaning of existence and kind of live that out. So either we give up on that need, or we trust in something where we've thought about it and we think there's a reasonable chance this is true, and I'm gonna, you know, put a bet on it.

Speaker 2

Yeah, okay, so the Pascal's wager. That's kind of what you're talking about right there. A lot of people are always you know, talk about, well, I'd rather bet on there being God than not the guy because of them wrong. You know, I don't want to spend eternity in hell, but I wanted I'm trying to coin the opposite. No one, no one's never talks about the opposite, and I'm trying to think of what a cool maybe can help me comeup with a cool name for what it would be.

And that's this what if, like the truth is there is no God and you spend your whole life inhibiting all your hedonistic things and you know, and all the things you really want to do out of your life because you're like terrified, you know, you've kind of wasted your life. So what is that called? You could have lived a full life and you could have had a lot more fun.

Speaker 1

Yeah. No, I think you're making a very important point. I I just to say, I prefer that Pascal has a lot of interesting things to say, but I actually prefer William James on this. William James is just one of my all time intellectual heroes, wonderful nineteenth century psychologist and philosopher. He had this wonderful paper, The Will to Believe, which he late which he thought should be called The Right to Believe, And I think I think that would

have been a better title. And you know he's just talking. He's not saying you should be religious. He's saying, look, you got away different things. You could you could end up with a false belief if God doesn't exist, but you could miss out on a true belief if God does exist. And you just got away these different things. And it's you know, I'm not here saying, oh, to be to live a meaningful life, you've you've got to

be religious. I suppose I'm interested in getting rid of dogmatism and trying out lots of different experiments in living and seeing seeing how they turn out, seeing the fruits. But yeah, I mean, I suppose my version of Christianity would be incredibly liberals. So I'm not really going to be giving up about you know. I you know, look, I think he's an interesting point. Right, Christians used to think it was it was a sin to charge interest

on money. Very few Christians think that now because we've we've changed our you know, with our understanding of the modern economy. But how come not more Christians have changed their view on gay sex, right with our modern understanding of you know, like one thing I'm keen to like I think, you know, if you look historically, religion has always reinvented itself in the light of the science and philosophy of the time. You know, Aquinas's philosophy was radically new.

Now it's the official view of the Catholic Church. I think that's become stultified more recently because I think we're going through a period of history where liberals and progressives kind of think it doesn't make intellectual sense, and so then it becomes dominated by conservatives, especially in the US. Now, let me just say, actually, before I'm misinterpreted, you know,

I don't hate conservatives. I think, in fact, I think it's good in some ways to have a balance between progressives and conservatives, you know, so the conservatives can protect our traditions and not sort of throw everything out at once, but the progressives can think, well, look, you know, science

and philosophy and morality is changing. Let's update. So you know, I'm just about to start a new book in the new year on reimagining religion, and I would just like to encourage, you know, more liberal voices to be in the mix and how we're thinking about religion and re understanding. Can I say one more thing on a sex stuff. I've just talked a little bit too long, but.

Speaker 2

You see my point. I feel like you really get what I'm trying to say.

Speaker 1

You know, absolutely, yeah, absolutely, you know. Tom holland wonderful book Dominion on the impact of Christianity and History, makes an interesting point that like in the early days of Christianity, the rules on no sex before marriage were really bloody important because they protected women and slaves from getting raped. I mean, not entirely, obviously, not entirely at all, but to an extent it protected people who have no rights.

So maybe we need to rethink Christian sexual ethics. As Christians now we're in a situation where we don't really we don't have slaves or you know, it's not legal at least, and women have more rights. So maybe we need to rethink these norms that in the way we've rethought interest on loans. So yeah, that's this, But you make a good point. You make a good point. Look, I God, if I was gay and I thought being a Christian meant I couldn't have a gay relationship, I

wouldn't be a Christian. I wouldn't, you know. But I don't think as a liberal, progressive Christian, I don't think that's necessary.

Speaker 2

There's just so much deep stuff here and so many implications. I think that just a big, a big disappointment for me, if you're right, is that, like like praying, an implication of what you're saying is that praying is useless, Like you know that there really is not a God, or there really is not something higher than me that cares

about me, you know, beyond my parents. And I think that that's kind of like I think a lot of religious people would be very disappointed with your view because to them, there's something about a personal God that is so meaning oriented that I can pray to God and God's listening to me. There's something very special about that intimacy. You're removing that intimacy in a way, right, not a bit, not in a way, in a big way.

Speaker 1

You're making a good point. Yeah, it's it's it's it's not ideal, is it. But look, I mean, I I do pray every night, I meditate every morning, pray every night. So I still think I'm listening to God in the morning, talking to God in the evening. And I think, you know, whether or not you think it's gonna have an impact, you know, praying for friends who are suffering or for the suffering in the world. I find it's so important

to connect you up to what's going on. I can be a bit thoughtless, I think, not because I don't care. I'm just sort of forget about friends who have got deep troubles. So then when I kind of pray and I or return to thinking about them, and it helps to put them in my mind. And yeah, I mean, just the value of spiritual practice, I think is I've found since I've become religious, it's less in my ego, right, it's you know, living in hope of some greater purpose.

Continuously making effort to orientate yourself to that, to conceive of what you're doing is contributing in some small way to some greater purpose, makes me less bothered about my own personal success and failure. You know, not that it's not important, but it's it's not what the meaning of my life hangs on. And I found that's actually opened me up to just enjoying being in the moment a

lot more with my family and friends. And you know, so so you're talking about like what you might be missing out on from a rig Like I really want to take that seriously, But I've actually found it's it's just opened me up to just enjoy enjoy the present moment a bit more because I'm less hung up with my own ambitions. Is like, that's the only thing that makes my life have a point. Yeah, I hear you.

Speaker 2

And and for the remainder of this podcast, I want to just jump into some really really new territory.

Speaker 1

And that's this.

Speaker 2

Are people when they're having a h a peak experience or a mystical experience, are they seeing reality? That's a question that I have been pondering for the seventy eight years. You know, wrote the book transcend and I think it's a really interesting couching. Let just say they are for a second. Can we play that game? That would suggest that there really is some level of reality that's very hard for an ordinary consciousness to get in touch with, but that it's possible for humans to get in touch

with in certain rare moments. And in those moments, the big question I have is what are we getting in contact with? And it's such a fun thing to really think about and really unpacked, you know, because it does because I do think there is something there. There is some level of reality. Now I'm not going matrix. I'm not going to all matrix, but I'm saying there is something that is pointing to a loving unity of a

universe or of a consciousness. There's something very loving in one of humanity that is very hard for humans in the ordinary consciousns to access. But I think it's probably true. What do you think?

Speaker 1

Yeah, I think we're probably of one mind on this.

Speaker 2

That was funny.

Speaker 1

Oh yeah, that was an unintended joke. Maybe that was the cosmic consciousness making me funny even though I could It was good, isn't it? Yeah? I mean this is one thing panpsychism can make a difference. And I said that some psychists, not all. It's important to say not all. Some panpsychists see a consonance of certain spiritual views, and I think it does perhaps open you up to taking

mystical experiences more seriously. I mean, if you're a physical list and you think it's just physics is the complete story of the fundamental nature of reality, you've got to think a mystical experience is a delusion, it's just something funny going on in your brain, because you know, at least if you have an experience that there's some greater form of consciousness at the rud of things, you know that's not really compatible with physics being the complete story.

But if you're a pan psycho and you already think there are forms of consciousness at the fundamental level, then it's less of a leap to think this higher form of consciousness you seem to be experiencing is part of that fundamental story of consciousness. Although but some people might still say, you know, okay, but it's just something going on in your brain. Why why trust it? And here let me let me come back to the great William James consciousness.

Speaker 2

Where is consciousness and in your view, it's not just in the brain.

Speaker 1

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what that Yeah, that's that's a good point. Yeah, that's another another good way you could be led into that. And it's it's a lot more complicated than many people think. But but James had this. So you know, one of the great still really good text on mysticism is in James's The Varieties of Religious Experience. You know, most of this is this is a sort of psychological study of mystical experiences. But at the end he says, would it be rational for someone who's had

a mystical experience to trust it? And he says, well, if you say no, it's sort of a dumb standard because we all think it's okay to trust our ordinary perceptual experiences, right, And you know, you could be in the matrix, right, I mean you could say, oh, well we can test our senses. Well, you can test your sensors by using your senses. It's sort of circular, you know, but some all knowledge is ultimately based rooted in just a decision to trust experiences. But all of our experiences

could be a delusion. We could be in the matrix. But we think it's rational to trust our perceptual experiences and to do science and to build on that. So why is it okay to trust our ordinary perceptual experiences, but it's not okay for a mystic to trust their mystical experience? Well, especially when a mystical experience, you know, often seems more bloody real than ordinary experiences even after you've had it.

Speaker 2

Sorry, carry on, that's true. There's there's a word for that, right, Yeah, that no ethic. It feels more real than real. But but but okay, so but what about the sizophrenic? Is that Can we make a clean Okay, I feel like we could. I look, it's somehow different. I feel like we can kind of look into what's happening in the mind of someone in psychosis and kind of show it doesn't align with what like, we can't really trust it as much as we can trust our enormous normal senses.

Speaker 1

Or can we.

Speaker 2

Can we really go there? Can we really? Can we really question whether or not schizophrenics are really seeing reality?

Speaker 1

What I think this is showing, it's You're making a really good point in response to what I'm what I've just said, what we're taking seriously, And I think what that shows is. This is just very complicated and there are very different difficult judgment calls.

Speaker 2

You.

Speaker 1

I think so many people think, you know, ah, science is wrapped up. You know, there's I mean, we've still got gaps. We need to dot size across some te's. But the basic picture of the universe is there and it rules out anything godish. But look, there there are areas of deep uncertainty in science, in in quantum mechanics, in consciousness, in this fine tuning stuff. And not just areas of uncertainty, but areas where we need philosophical judgment

calls in how to interpret the data. And this is I mean, this is very clear in quantum mechanics, and as I just read a wonderful book on quantum mechanics by Adam Becker, What is Real and the horrible power struggles in early quantum mechanics because people wanted to say, what is this theory telling us about reality?

Speaker 2

Right?

Speaker 1

That's what you need to know about quant mechanics, and it's our best scientific theory. All of our technology is based on it. But there is no consensus on what it is telling us about reality. There are these different views and it requires philosophical judgment call in what the hell is this telling us? And with the early the early quantum mechanics people, people who asked that question, what is this theory telling us reality? They couldn't get jobs,

they were demonized. They still are to it. Sean Carroll has talked about this. You know, really that people still are. It's hard to get taken seriously if you want to say, but what is going on in the world to make quantum mechanics work? People? So that's not science, you know, just bloody works. Do the experiments, shut up and calculation and you know we need we need to we've forgotten

the We can't do without philosophy. There are these choice points where there are judgment calls, like mystical experience, is it a genuine insight or is it just something funny going on your brain? Very difficult judgment call might depend on your worldview. And but yeah, it's not so obvious and it's sadly someone who's very, very delusional, it might be hard for them. It might seem very rational. It might be the rational thing to do to believe these

wrong things. I mean, we can see from the outside relative to everything we take ourselves to know this this particular individual might be sadly very delusional, but from the inside it's possible that sadly the rational thing for them to believe is to trust these hallucinations. It's just very complicated, and we need to work together. We need to bring scientists and phiostphors together to have the journey.

Speaker 2

Well and me and you philosophers and cognitive scientists. Absolutely, we need to work together because I really do think there's an evidence for the universe being a fundamentally loving place. Now you because you said, I know you talk about consciounce, but there's got to be a way of combining your theory with what I just said, because and I think that like hate, hate just always feels experientially like it's a resistance against what's natural and what is what?

Speaker 1

What?

Speaker 2

What is fundamental? And look, I have not really fully formed my thoughts, but I must thank you for inspiring me to think about the farthest reaches of human nature as as mas as my hero Abraham maswill would put it, you put You said something in your book that has kept me up at night ever since I read it. You talked about uh, actually William James, and I didn't

know he said this. But he's like, if you're in the in the middle of the precipice between two two things, right, and you have to leap and take the chasm, you know, you'll you have to take the leap of faith sometimes and and but here's.

Speaker 1

The interesting thing.

Speaker 2

Whatever you believe is going to end up increasing the probability that it's that it's true if you don't jump, right, if you just stay there in the middle of these two things on both sides yourself, you're just gonna stay there forever. If you would have any hope at all of reaching one of the you know, ground on the other one of the sides, you have to believe that

you'll be able to make the jump. And it's just like, wow, there's something so freaking profound about that about consciousness and and and our lives and how we live our lives. And of course it applies to religion, but it really applies to everything in our lives that we don't think

we can do. It applies to self belief. Self belief like you know, if I go and I take undertake this whole investigation and study of psychology, that I can become a psychologist, or if I start ting singing lessons, even though there's no evidence right now that I have any potential for singing, that maybe I can be a singer someday. The ones who really make history are the ones that bet on themselves. So there's just something so

unbelievably profound about this. And if it really does truly apply to religion, you know, if Pascal's wage for is right, you know, like you know, I can see an argument for choosing religion. So look, I just think that you know that these questions are so fun to talk about, and I really truly appreciate just your open mindedness to not call people crazy who even want to just have such discussions. So I must thank you for that as well.

Speaker 1

Oh thanks Scott. Yeah, I think you're right. I mean, we do make any sense absolutely. I mean, you're just making me think we do this in life, don't we, that we we take a leap of faith, you know, when you know, let's say a loved one is is very ill and the prospects are not good, but they're not I mean, you know, maybe there's like a forty percent chance they'll pull through. It's entirely rational to say, look, I'm going to have faith that you're going to pull through.

I'm going to root for you. I'm gonna I'm gonna work with you, and and that can make it more likely that they will pull through. Or I mean, take another example with you know, I'm very worried about climate change. You just think about the evidence. Are we going to deal with this? Maybe? Probably not, I don't know, or it's very unclear, but you can I can still say I'm gonna have faith that we are. That gives me meaning and motivation and give me, you know, strength to

carry on and make it more likely. So that's yeah, that's very much how I see religion. I'm not interested in our you know, this is the one true faith. You're right, right, I'm right, you're wrong. But you only live once, and you could be pursuit believing something false, but you could miss out on something true, and you

could miss out on a richer form of life. And you know, I think, I think historically religion has played a crucial social role in how it brings the community together, marks the seasons and the big moments of life, you know, birth, coming of age, marriage, death. I think the secular world has not managed to replicate that. I mean, I'm not

saying I've got no argument that never could. Some some secular thinkers think it could and think we should develop such institutions, but at least for the moment, it's never seemed to quite manage that. So yeah, that's really really the value for me in bringing people together in community and so virtual practice and embracing their uncertainty, taking faith, taking the lead.

Speaker 2

Yeah. Wait, thank you, Philip Golf. I'm glad we were finally able to have this chat.

Speaker 1

Oh thanks Scott. Really lots of fun. Let's stay in touch, let's carry on talking.

Speaker 2

I love that our mutual friend Anaka Harris says, hi, oh hi Annika.

Speaker 1

Annaka is cool. She's done some great stuff, written some great stuff on Pansychism.

Transcript source: Provided by creator in RSS feed: download file