Is Compatibilism Compatible with Mormonism? Pt. 2 (w/ Tarik D. LaCour)

Your right and fireflies. So we continue our discussion of torque work is a latter-day St. PhD candidate in philosophy at Texas A&M University in the second installment of our conversation rhetorically discussed WSB return walls that are on that view external to God and we asked Tariq what he thinks about the Christian view that morality is rooted in God's perfect nature. We also discussed the Trinity and asked Tariq what other moral or philosophical questions about nonobvious Christian beliefs she thinks are most difficult for LBS to understand or that make it difficult for them to embrace and for joining us at silver demi-glace questions were some of the more colorful philosophical questions about nonobvious Christianity beliefs you believe are the most difficult for LBS to understand or make it difficult for them to embrace or have have effective dialogue with non-moderation. Christians and the first would be kind of in the philosophy of language that we use a lot of similar terms and then we think were talking about the same thing but we are so that legions of the problem of equivocation. For example, lots of people will say Latter Day Saints talking to other Christians, and several were Christians to yes that's true to an extent, but you are radically different so and sometimes Latter Day Saints don't fully understand all radically different views are obviously as we talked about the Trinity. How loud I think of one question for them is and how to view the Trinity. I was Howard, the father son and Holy Ghost want and how can we be one with them. Those are still questions for Latter Day Saints. I think the question of just even doing theology is a big question for Latter Day Saints.

Since I think within the Christian tradition extent there is a very strong commitment to theology can be done and it can be a successful science as Aquinas and Calvin and Luther and others shown a lot of everyday Latter Day Saints are more skeptical about it's it's not that I think within traditional Christian circles, it's more of an ally, a lack of awareness of all the theology that's been done with skepticism towards it, but within the latter-day St. communities Martha skepticism towards theology itself, so those are some of the questions I think that there's there's still wrestling with. Also I have a question of kindness that kind of universalism versus non-universalism. I think you're seeing a lot more of the resurgence of certain Latter Day Saints being more open to universalism than they were in the past so the system come questions there, which is also interestingly enough, in the Christian community. Now my recent Christian community. People like David Bentley Hart also been pushing universalism so it's interesting because it's like the book of Mormon is kind of both universalist and not universalist, so it is kind of what is family justice and mercy out of the time of the two things work together, can they work together asked that something I struggled with to cause LBS because RCD passages in the book of Mormon and are very strongly suggesting that you know this is the time to prepare to be God and you know when you leave this life beyond the same spirit will have in your next life you know to return like to eternal life and happiness. Internal condemnation and it seems like like to me when I would read the book of Mormon. I put the fear of God into me on for lack of better word. But then when you read the doctrine covenants section 76 it's like, well, that's only temporary and all known those who are murderers and SENDS a stove which he tossed Lori so that's one thing I struggle with.

Still, I talked LBS is it I don't know why I made there probably is a way to reconcile those things, but it just does seem like the book born D&C are kind of them – I would also throughout Newport, whose also was a universalist amounts of children killing the other person but I'm thinking that preacher should be paid nothing. So that's another. I think the skepticism problem of universalism probably comes from the idea if universalism is true, but it makes no difference how I live my life here now because all be saved anyway and we want to avoid that. I personally am a universalist. I believe everyone will eventually be stated. That doesn't mean I don't think that people won't go on for long, long periods of time longer than I can conceive without being saved. It doesn't mean people just died and everyone gets the same outcome. I think what an amulet is saying is luck it's it's it's true that you could be saved.

Eventually, but don't think it just going to the next life is going to magically change you are still going there still going to be reasons for you cannot actually put them in back and go on forever. Ultimately I think God will save everyone some, but he won't force them to be set that will be at Dell be a conscious choice. I think there's a lot of people who had outside districts that would cause us Christians like Rob Bell. I know he's a universalist discount become more popular. I think that's kind of what is motto is, is that you will eventually level win in the end, none of the gods level will draw the subject at a similar yeah but II do believe in hell, in the sense of separation from God slidably in health.

I don't believe Hell is a place of torture. So I think that being separate from God causes its own anguish and anxiety, which is I think in part by their lots of reasons why we humans are anxious to have the anxiety and I think one of the reasons is because we are separated from God's lifetime. And so that's that's one cause now that's best not to say that dispute by believing in God or being a Christian, you stop being anxious now that there lots of causes of anxiety and depression and those need to be addressed through proper medical channels understand that some additional recent portrayed. I think when I'm when I'm anxious and depressed.

That's far worse.

I think something fire or brimstone as great. I was going to ask a question, but it's always so LBS respectively desk yeah it was something I lied to, because we are good to talk about no philosophical ideas that are hard for us to embrace and okay so one thing I think it's a heartfelt list to understand his grace because many times when Christians young non-LDS Christians.

We talk about grace and how it's a free gift of God.

Instead, it's somehow something that doesn't make sense because experientially were so used to having to work for we receive in some aspects of what why do you think that is it LBS struggle to understand the Christian view of grace. It's a free gift given to by God in part it's because we are in Americans loudest the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was stored in America and has American origins and things like that. And Americans tend to think of you should get what you learn, rather than something is been given to this is more popular among libertarians and conservatives and by large Latter Day Saints traditionally are conservative libertarian. Although there lots of very good Latter Day Saints to our social Democrats or socialist or what large variety of views and you can hold those views would be Latter Day Saints. So that's not a problem think that's one of the other kind kind of has to do with what I talked about earlier. That is Latter Day Saints not doing a lot of theology so I think grace means one thing when grace to mean a lot of things and also Latter Day Saints tend to trivialize their own theology. So the plan of salvation I think is a plan of grace.

In other words it's given to you. You can choose to accept or not accept the gift of life. The atonement is all about grace. God Jesus giving his life for you and you choosing to accept not being a totally free gift of immortality also comes the grace so I think ironically while Latter Day Saints. This is probably more of problem 4050 years ago than it is now it seems of the restored gospel is all about grace and we just don't recognize that all the time. Hopefully it's been recognized that way for now, I don't see that as much of an issue as much now admit it may have been maybe 10 years ago.

I live first joined the church.

I think it was more of a problem than it is now Dieter F Ludendorff give a talk about grace in general conference a few years ago summed it up pretty well and we cannot we talk told about that in our conversation, Jackson's well that be because he's he's been a lifelong memory loss, we can see that also.

This discount shifts in the LDS church site. I think it'll might be nothing. A student continue to ship out with positive thing now because I want. You don't you don't earn salvation so I would get it states very it's a bit silly to even think of it that way. Yet, in my experience when I was LDS there there still was this culture of very high expectations very high pressure environment leads to a lot of ideological struggle with no depression and things like that and so I think I think overall that better or more biblical understanding. Grace can alleviate that.

I agree I don't think there's anything wrong with having high standards but Carol and were all going to fall short apology of anything that is or was a question on ask recovered everything so let's see let's talk a little bit about eternal law and I don't know if you watched it. There is a debate I believe between great gout and quick UL and vocab along and we had a mentor program to talk about the debate.

He kind of talk, they can debated this idea of eternal law so one of the traditional LDS views is that there is eternal law that preexist God so according to covenant section 130 2021 it says quote there is a law irrevocably secreted heaven before the foundations of this world upon which all blessings are predicated and when we obtain any blessing from God is by a PE side by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." So, you believe, as many traditional LDS leave or according to traditional this doctrine that God achieved immortality and eternal life location through obedience to these eternal laws or has eternally been well let's take that first verse you're talking about there. I don't think that's talking about what I would work with philosophers are talking about, like moral law, those types of things that I see that there talking more about how God gives punishment or reward for certain things are certain rules. He sets up there certain things. He asked us to do those types of things. Those wouldn't be eternal because what we haven't existed on the earth eternally and also Joseph Smith pointed out when he was when God was producing intelligences.

He said God ordained laws for them to progress so if God ordained laws of the law didn't exist already, so I I think law is something that law comes from a lawgiver, so it's not independent of one is Fars so I don't think God followed. Perhaps this date identical laws that we would have to do progress to be with God, as it seems. If there's a multitude of ways. For that to happen. Okay, that's does the question so as far as do I do I believe God came to be God, and there was a time when God wasn't God. Yes, how did God follow the same path exactly that humans on earth have to do that. I don't know I'm I'm inclined to think not. It seems there's different ways of getting at that yeah does seem even in the King fall discourse kind of he he does make statements. It seemed very start times and in some vague like at one point he says you've got to learn how to become God's is all God's before you select. It seems like on that reading it seems like what he saying is that all that the Elohim and all the previous God did follow that state law is that it's it's not there. Is there similar patterns of getting a body getting experiences learning things and also the time of learning not just being a leader seems just as also talked about, there's a lot to learn after you die so inoculated here which is what gives me a little comfort missed so much to learn here and we did.

If there's this much to know.

I feel like we may be like this much quality on earth.

So neck and a finger that is to be a lot more to learn would pass on the disk follow up on that seeing you there are certain Latter Day Saints thinkers that read on the 42 verses 24 and 25 to kind of imply the existence of at least two laws outside of God's own nature is that you talk about where talks to his son about his God did this, he would cease to be God write exactly okay and so that this is after Bill justice exercise.

Exercise in all his demands and also mercy claimant, all which is her own and thus none but the truly penitent are saved. What do you suppose that mercy can rob just as I say unto you, may not one whit if so, God would cease to be God and so some Latter Day Saints thinkers have taken particularly the third kind anthropomorphic language and pronouns are used for mercy and justice there and also the idea of a God and making them all making them persons are missing most almost yeah and it also suggested it's not just rhetoric that that if God were to go against those laws, then he would cease to be God. What was your view on that line of thinking, I think would almost talking about. There is once God is given kind of a promise he can't go back on the promissory would cease to be God that would be justice and mercy.

The things he promised and that there is a way and that it's that it almost seems that justice and mercy are my dogs and I think what I was trying to convey is there is a way that God can make them work together with a sting like there they can be exclusive.

The times but I don't think the justice and mercy are things in and of themselves. I think that justice and mercy are traits of the person that I would agree with that. I think that they're active, I'm not. I'm not that there are people who think that justice, mercy, truth, beauty, are things in themselves. This is what Plato and Platonists think of these abstract objects that exist. I don't but I don't think that's correct. I certainly if they are. I don't think there people, which is why I think that is the moving way of, given his telling the story, but I don't think there things and I and I don't think there I certainly don't think they're external to God, the part of God's nature think we would agree on that Matthew would you do that as well yeah definitely parents see Pam about the next question. I think that think that actually touches and touches on the next question loosening our timeline, Jesus. And when million national born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, headquartered in commonly referred to as the all of us have left that religion have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ as our podcast is next. John 19 calls Jesus, the true light which gives light to everyone you found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told in the light, we have is not our comes to us from without is to share our journeys of faith God has done in going us to his son, stationed in all aspects of the transition joys and everything in between that you found this help you stick around. The faith that the Mormonism conference is an annual conference that provides encouragement and insight, leaving Mormonism to explore new faith home and historic Christianity, speakers, workshops, exhibitors and individual interactions receive helpful resources and is on a similar journey this year, future guests are going to the folks from Adams with ministry as a Christian nonprofit ministry dedicated to sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ through song and testimony as members of Mormons brought into a saving relationship with Jesus this year to advance the north of that held Alpine church in Utah on September 10 and 11 in the South event will be held September 20 Centerpoint church in 19 making a trip to late to these events greatly blessed by the man was fun to share that information with. So the next question was kind of getting to that point I will you think of the Christian view that the moral laws are unchanging and reflective of God's perfect nature can God's moral laws be changed over time, or due to circumstance, we think there's a lot of different ways that Christians throughout the history of Christianity and of the present think of that some people think of Mark Marlowe law as being in a part of God's nature is kind of way. When Craig talks about it that route is part of God's perfection can exist as part of him. So the real things, but they're part of a person rather than abstractly.

Some people like Richard Swinburne think that morality are necessary. True that exist independent of God. So God obeys them rather than making them per se, but I ate it would seems to me that I am so what was the full question and start our students going to be his offer to start if there wasn't just one question that I think I think you can laid out that you view God allows you you I care Latter Day Saints driving Latter Day Saints believe that God subject to moral laws that end and do you believe that God's moral laws can be changed over time, or due to circumstance.

Well, I think that law can be changed again as it comes from a lawgiver. So yes I do think moral law can be changed. Some some summer less susceptible to change. I would think but yes they can be changed. I don't think there written in stone. I'm not even sure I think when we use it from law. We what we want to say is that these things are exactly what they are there always the same. They never change. I don't think that's exactly how morality works and I think morality evolves in its situational.

This is something that is kind of use shown early in the book of Mormon Nephi zest to kill Laban and leg and Nephi says now you are not supposed going from the men spirit says block. Very kill this guy and everybody's good and everyone's knows about the gospel than him just live so kind of the kind of that that will be more my mind. You it's not.

It's similar to what you'll find in virtue ethics. So where were correct what it means to be a moral person is to have certain traits that you know your patient, kind, just those types of things but those don't necessitate doing one action in every situation. There's a variety of things you can do so not I wouldn't be a moral absolutist would you say that that's why there is a continuing need in the mind of latter-day Saints are leasing your mind for prophets and apostles today because if moral moral laws or rally to change that we need someone to help us to know why God wants us to obey our how we should be moral.

Well that's part of it meant. Also, just the moral questions are very different today. There wasn't any thousands of years ago there wasn't pornography there wasn't. The questions of how we meet you marriage of another types of things were very different back then. So we need someone to have a communicate with us what we should do at certain times.

So I think that's part of it. Okay yeah it's different because we would we would say I would agree that definitely consents to change the it's it's changing in the last hundred years and all signs changed in so boat is are going which we can kind of see that with kind moving from the law of Moses to the New Testament. I don't think Christians would stone adult forces or adulterers where they would've in the Old Testament compass thanks out while he sat was the moral code them so I don't think I think that Donna dealing with different people in different circumstances. It's not can look exactly the same and I would I would agree that the reform the way that they can just tell you why was okay to start New Testament on the new is a they saw strictly called it the threefold distinction. Probably Greenwich that at some point this idea that all the law was separated or it's not like heart the hearts of rations, but it's kind kind of item the code into civil or judicial law, ethical or moral law, and that you also have ceremonial law is a ceremonial law was based in Christ in the Old Testament is also a theocracy right yeah exactly select with the end of no national Israel, the civil judicial codes are kinda finished surveys the lower left with is the moral law which is basically the 10 Commandments yet, so let's gather reform would address that. Like you, but like you said you you would believe that it's the moral so they would. The reform saw that the Morelos's constant, although it could be no applied differently based on circumstances. But the moral law is unchanging because God's unchanging flexes is you know his holy nature, you would say that God can change the law over time. Just reiterating what you said is that correct right in and Latter Day Saints couldn't based the moral code of God's unchanging nature because Applica changes so right yet yet it's just make the connection of her listeners to see why these where these differences in theology Tylenol into our beliefs are… I would say among Latter Day Saints morality is going to be more practical than metaphysical. That means it's not going to be. It's not going to be written.

Facts about how the world is it's more about how to kind of get along just creatures and their different kind of weights you can do that with different eras people so addressing what why do you think that there is that distinction within Latter Day Saints and theology that words it's more practical. Well, I think it goes back to Latter Day Saints being materialists and it's very difficult to have moral absolutes within the materials framework.

That's why most small realists are not naturalists of materialistic think there's something else.

In addition to the physical world.

It's very hard to see if I get right and wrong, metaphysics of neuroscience, or other things. Now there are some people think you can become more naturalistic think that what's right to do can be in some sense discoverable to the scientific means but I don't think that is the case, I think that morality has to do what you ought to do or how you should behave and sciences dealing with facts only.

So there's the fact value distinction there so that's why would stay Latter Day Saints or move more towards a practical version of morality than an absolute version that I think is more open to traditional Christians all say at picture explaining that.

So yes, it would also save since God is. A lot of people think God is still learning things so it would be kind of hard to make something absolute if the being that you were supposed to learn and get so now courses different differentiations on that. Some people like like also think that God knows most everything kind of like that is not learning the eternal laws of the universe or things like that or the moral laws if those exist people like BH Roberts would think that God is forever learning this always more to learn, as I would do. I think God knows everything, past, present, future. There's nothing else print alert is not learning morality.

He's just kind of giving us different systems so we can coexist is as a species, and I think is a latter-day St. I would agree with you. I think what I would have explained is that always the way I was taught and why I believe is that we spent in eternity past before we came to earth with God is so knows us so well are so intimately and I spent our time with us and helping God the creator that he knows exactly everything that will come to pass.

You know, based on that this is a how you would kind of explain your soft determinism or no view that you just elucidated that similar to James E, just you. When he talks about God watching you for so long and that you come to earth league leader for so long knows what you're going to do, but considering that your when you are fully embodied in your fully embodied your your circumstances are quite different and also I believe you believe conflict are you a libertarian about free will. I can remember. I'm not panelist okay must.

Latter Day Saints, a libertarian, so that would mean libertarianism would seem to rule out that God could know what free choice to make because of what instant you Wednesday you will be free to make that choice of God helping those choices have been made so now I mean my view is that since the past, present and future all exists that God can know since he knows the past it can, by extension, know the president to trick is it's only going to come out one way which is why God is always the conflict about how things will turn out okay. He's not worried about there being checks in the Army or armor what what move will someone do it already knows what is good about life not worried about Leslie.

It must be very freeing to do that that event week we talked limit about that. Calvin sighed his RFI thought question that you are not on the list. So how would you differentiate your view of how God knows everything, past, present, future versus the other Calvinist view that there's an eternal decree know about things come to pass. Would you see much of a difference there practically well Calvin, it would seem that God is causally responsible for everything that happens is that correct your Calvinist but I think that's the right okay I don't think Latter Day Saints think that God is causally responsible God can know the causes that lead up to what happens. But God himself does cause everything. For example, God is a caused being silly couldn't be the cause of everything so that will be a difference where certain Calvinist you God causes so that's why he knows what he knows that that would also be very similar to Aquinas's with 30 different certain specs, but God would cause allergic their having said that, I know that many of my Latter Day Saints friends are not fans of John Calvin. That's their loss like that he was a wonderful man, great thinker. I fully agree with him on the atonement. However, I'm a people second guy and ironically, lots of Latter Day Saints are also penal substitution people but they don't seem to recognize that that's a very Calvinist you so it's always a funny intersection the hate Calvin next think he's right about the atonement without knowing it.

So now it's not all basics are there others do not. Penal substitution people, but the common Latter Day Saints is except penal substitution.

One big difference I think in and there is still debate about what Calvin actually believed in terms of the extent of the atonement weather is limited unlimited seem to be some quotes from Calvin that seemed to demonstrate limited atonement visited innovatively the Christ. I call so from the modern Calvinist view, you know, I limited atonement or particular – call it. That's definitely a departure from what LDS view of the atonement is a billiards you believe it's a universal right and unlimited script just okay that the giver answering those questions. The problem, so let's let's go on to the Trinity and we talked a bit about how your young greed.

He said it was difficult to understand in our spiritual nonmaterial God. But let's start with focus more about just that the three and one of of the Trinity. So when Christians describe the training that there's a distinction it's always made between essence are being or yeah great and persons or apostasy's such a God can be one in being reimbursed without being contradictory.

So believe is the Valid categorization distinction or wire. But if I understand correctly what you're saying. The Trinity is that the truth is that there is that these three persons who are will say three centers of self-consciousness are made of the same substance and that's what makes them one.

But when there three centers of self-consciousness of the public and say I am the father the son can say I'm the some Holy Ghost of the Holy Ghost that correct yes correct yeah I would. I accept that that's the view I don't I don't think there's anything contradictory. Yeah that's that's one thing that I really struggled with now is not a saint because it just didn't make sense to me but it really requires just understanding.

Okay, God's not liking when we think of person even I am really struggling just explaining the Trinity because the Lord person has a lot of baggage to it in a race when we say person we think of human beings are separate from each other. Maybe you can help me out. Dude said center of consciousness or center center well-adjusted at that's more appropriate view.

I find it also hard to understand exactly what a person is. That's one of my interest in philosophy's personal identity and but yet I I guess I understand. Overall, the idea that if you think of consciousness as awareness and having will in the world and having some sort of causal influence. I can see out there could be things for me the problem of the Trinity is not the three persons is the image, or if the material is. That's the problem.

Okay, yeah, that's one thing that I noticed a lot of what I mean.

I struggle to do because he asked what what is spirit, and to be honest there is there's a whole section of theology at episodic theology is the idea that you will not tousle God's gutters right precisely other so much. God is so different for us transcended many times we talk about God being infinite. Let's sing that is not finite are you know immutable meetings.

He's not beautiful is not changeable, so that's the best we can do enough so someone know anything asking what spirit is at say I don't know.

I can't write describe it, and there's nothing wrong with saying I don't know right yeah yeah it's it's if I don't I don't think the problem of the Trinity is logical incoherence or even understanding. I think it's just a different ontological question of you think a person can exist materially or is the material being essential to the course so and it is because I think, and John Mackey talks about this in his book the miracle of theism is as well. All the persons that were acquainted with the material but we can certainly think of a person without a body and doing certain things, so there's no logical contradiction that will be able to conceive of and a lot of times I got started studying Aquinas's first part of instrument theology and he uses a lot of analogies to describe God enough to describe the procession God. You know that the son is begotten of the father spirit proceeds from the father and son but he admits that when we talk about the sending B.we don't really know what that means. It's scatological the other some kind of connection between father and son that stared at specs analogous to human arguments and but it's not exact because God is not human and, in that it united in a traditional classical sense, so it's that sometimes the best we can do in yesterday. No I think that's what we have to do is less in those believers is to some extent and I think you know a lot of letters. It's all talk to will admit this as well as that some extent we can't fully comprehend God rightly Lots of things we can't fully comprehend but can't fully understand and comprehend what time is the chemical interest in space and matter are.

We can't fully understand our introspective awareness. Lots of things we can't fully understand it is me. They don't exist just means that were epistemologically limited and we have to acknowledge there's a lot we don't know what we don't understand.

However, I think with this is the problem is, therefore, people think that gives them license to just think whatever they want about something without having to explain it that I think is unwarranted for there's nothing wrong with saying I don't know how it happens. I just but I think I don't think there's a contradiction I think there is reason to believe it's the case so for example, if you believe that God is with believe both of you do is the efficient cause of space and time when God could be a spatiotemporal being.

So we have to be in the material being so yes we can understand why you would believe that insert interesting and valid reason but you would agree that you don't exactly know how God does that my house how is out of the question.

How is God in the know how he is know that he is convinced that it will work from there right yeah let's get points and so the question is how can a person access to materially do you reference before that does not go Directly to the hard problem of consciousness. We haven't really been able to explain how consciousness arises from from the mind right from the furthest from the physical. The hard problem of consciousness is how does matter, space, things that don't seem to have any introspective awareness or causality or things like that. How is it that we being made up of those things do seem to have this phenomenal quality to us that we we seem to be conscious of the weakness of most things like rocks, are conscious even though word made of the same types of things.

Quarks, leptons, bosons, etc. so for some people at least a mistake. Maybe that's because there's no substance that we that as part of our being that is a part of the other things that they shall be the substance to us. Most Christians are substance to us.

Certainly my promise since they take after Descartes skills that Aquinas is a highly more fixed, which is a bit different, which is that so is his view is more materialist and state Descartes says there's different ways of looking at that. My own view is that of phenomenal consciousness doesn't exist that there is no hard problem that that this would I'm I'm an illusionist about consciousness. I don't think consciousness exists which goes back to your question when you were nine or nine years old all that. That's a different question of the problem of perception of the minds you can be an illusionist and still sitting think those are open questions so yes to follow their yeah just a quick one so so you would say the consciousness is so in the fact that we are conscious is because we are's know where spirit beings that were having our physical bodies in other like a consciousness is related to the physicality of our spirit in our being spirit beings when I II don't think consciousness exists.

There is no consciousness again so I'm just I'm I'm you know I got. I'm a low Brainerd Senate rejected Melissa Walker back a little bit so there is this question. Philosophy of mind, this question is called of phenomenal consciousness or quality of so in other words, this is an example to both of you like to be like burgers, Fisher observers will find once they were both at five guys was on my favorite burger joints and were each having a burger there, so there's something now unit you can know everything that the burgers made of and things like that but you can't but when Paul takes a bite out of his burger you can by analogy.

Say I think it taste something like what I'm tasting for Paul dictates the burger she don't know what it's like the politics that and there's nothing that physical inspection could do that would tell you what it's like for him to have that set that's called phenomenal consciousness. It states only accessible to you.

It's perfectly private and nothing.

Nothing. No physical inspection will tell you about that experience never fully understand it's only open to that person espresso when I was younger, my sister and I were sisters, favorite color is purple and she asked me the question, how do you know when you see purple that it's the same as when I see it think I sent an idea writing yet right at step three select I include analogy criticism is an easy one. So the physical list who thinks it, everything physical will say well there's nothing beyond what physics and neuroscience state so there isn't another thing that just as a solution.

If you think that now it's so they replaced it with not the hard problem of consciousness, but on question of why it is that why is that question of evolution so strong and it's probably because we only have acquaintance with our own kind of body but were not aware different collection of atoms in another person is so it's kind of hard for us to understand that it's exactly the same but that's where that's where materialism leads you to, projecting that deal of consciousness now. Lots of people are not happy with that view illusionist abuse. Definitely the minority view among philosophers of mind, but that's that's the view I hold.

That's the view out Dan Dennett Keith Frankish Andy Clark Peter Carruthers best of the behold most people say that quality are phenomenal consciousness does exist and it can be explained how will explain it will vary. Or maybe we might not will still believe that they have so is a little confused so I understand when when philosophers say that there's an illusion of free will. Right under that I'm struggling to understand what what you mean when you said it.

There's an illusion of consciousness.

Well, I certainly think that you're aware of things, so I'm aware that your view on the screen, you're with me on the screen.

Those types of things. What I'm talking about is this kind of people thinkers like an inner show of consciousness that you can only understand from the first person rather than third person. So in other words, the saying even if you understood all the neurology of the physiology of who I am as a person you would still outnumber never would not understand what it's like to be me right so that's what you got for that person say so that persons is phenomenal consciousness as above those things. If you say all there is is physical stuff so there's nothing to you beyond your physical file physical makeup and you will conclude now that that type of inner show doesn't exist. It's just an illusion appears one way, but it's not really that way now some illusionist could say will is at the same for free will and I don't think that's the case because even though I think you're a fully physical organism, and I know both you disagree with that is your simile both dualist about the mind believes you have some type of material so that the right you would still have free will, in the sense that as you have enough control over what you do that as long as someone's not pointing a gun to your head or pushing your making you do something good you do it freely so I don't think free will is an illusion.

I do think certain aspects of consciousness are illusions that make better sense does that mean that fashion correctly does that mean if you had a way of looking into this and of the mind of someone you know and able to examine the brain yell a couple electrodes to whatever you need to do to be able to get all of the information he needed a material perspective than you could understand their experience or what their exposure what they're seeing with the billing experiencing second yes that's correct okay so there's kind of an objectivity to experience that you can measure right basically by viewers. It is kind of like, you know, we can fully understand what it's like to be a robot. I think humans are just moist robots.

Humans are interesting with her not special in the sense that they can't be fully understood and I don't think that's a bad thing. It's I remember.

I mean, I've only taken undergraduate courses in psychology. That's a big debate is whether psychology is a science to know what I can be a science that he could predict know what people do it correctly diagnosed. I think that's probably something still debated today. Lately you're talking about. What is an actual science or pseudoscience.

They're different. I think most people agree that you can certainly study humans is how much and how should you do it for Jesus observed behavior and and saddest stimulus outputs. That's what behaviorism is, or should you savor something more going on in the brain that's apart from this behavior that the LB cognitivism which is more dominant view psychology now. Although behaviorism hasn't completely gone away, and it's making someone of Renaissance in other areas. It certainly made like the type that Skinner talks about a radical behaviorism that is probably gone by the wayside. Behaviorism completely is not so tired.

I appreciate you coming on and it's been fun to cover a lot of topics in and gotten some territory that I think will be challenging for listeners, but I think it's interesting to talk about some of these things, especially does when the timeout free will and how that plays into salvation. In particular, those are questions that are kind of venting back and forth among Latter Day Saints and then non-latter-day St. Christians a lot so appreciate coming on ensuring perspective and wish you the best of luck with your future academic Clearview do you intend to teach after you attain your PhD. That is the hopelessly what, let's hope it becomes a reality. But yes, that's the idea to deal with for decision. Also, when you when you write and I have a blog. Is there anything you want to promote well my blog is called footnotes to Hume that's alluding to David Hume was my favorite philosopher and so all sick. I can send you the link to that blog and you can plug it and if you like to, but besides that on Facebook and your listeners will reach out to me by email that my coupled with email number two so I'm always on, always be to talk. I thanks again and best wishes and then then God bless you and your family to thank you very much get regular thank you for tuning into this episode of the outer brightness podcast. We'd love to hear from you.

Please visit the other brightness podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions.

Clicking send a message at the top of the page. We would appreciate it if you give the page a lightning. We also have an outer brightness. On Facebook can join and interact with us and others. As we discussed the podcast past episodes and suggestions for future etc. you can also send this email outer brightness@gmail.com to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to outer brightness wherever you listen to podcasts if you benefiting from a content please write a review to help us spread the word subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit that notification will use it for other brightness is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and Adams Road. You can learn more about Adams Road. By visiting their ministry. Page at Adams Road. Ministry.com is the cheese and now Jesus is the way he and and and and she a man is the a and being saying the