Can British Idealism save God?

At the end of the 19th century, Nietzsche famously declared that 'God is dead'. But in Victorian era Britain the crisis of faith had begun much earlier with Darwin's theory of evolution and other scientific discoveries. The initial intellectual response was to accept science, but not as ultimate truth, and to make room for meaning, values, and a different form of religion by arguing for idealism as a metaphysical view. These thinkers were called the British Idealists, and this video provides an overview of their thought and the historical context within which it arose and declined.

#BritishIdealism #CrisisofFaith #Nietzsche

----------Video Contents----------

00:00 - Introduction
00:29 - Victorian Evangelicalism
02:08 - The Crisis of Faith
04:29 - The Early Idealists
05:53 - T. H. Green
08:38 - F. H. Bradley
12:04 - J. M. E. McTaggart
14:04 - The Decline of British Idealism
14:56 - Ending

_____Channel description_____

I am a graduate of Cambridge University with a PhD in Philosophy. My thesis was on the nature of truth, and I specialise in metaphysics, logic, and the history of analytic philosophy. I believe philosophy should be made accessible to the curious and philosophers have a duty to reenter the public debate on the questions of importance to our age. This channel is my attempt to do that!

On a personal level, I am a lucky husband, and proud father of two young boys that keep me very much grounded!

_____Memberships_____

To take the ideas I explore on this channel to the next level with in-depth videos and more academic content, please become a member. Most of the videos I produce are exclusive to members. There are also options here to get in touch with me and do philosophy together. Also, with your support I will be able to spend more time reading, thinking, writing, and shooting video content for all you good people! But I need to keep my family fed too, so your membership is GREATLY appreciated.

It's a simple equation: more members = more videos. Thanks!

----------References----------

Allard, J. W. (2005). The Logical Foundations of Bradley’s Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.

Mander, W. J. (2011). British Idealism: A History. Oxford University Press.

Stern, R. (2012). [Review of the book British Idealism: A History, by W. J. Mander]. Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain, 65, 118–122.

[MonisticIdealism]

Your coverage of the great British idealists, the decline of British idealism, and how its return can overcome the difficulties of today's crisis of faith is excellent. Certain versions of idealism provide a response to atheism and materialism that has not been explored much these days, so I'm looking forward to watching more of your videos to find out more.

[xavieragummochy]

Thanks for covering this topic. From my studies at uni I have to say this is perhaps the most important area for philosophy students. Hope you continue on this path!!

[ajw]

I'm reading Rowe's life of J L Austin. This is a useful gloss on his section on the British Idealists.

[aldensmith]

Excellent explanation of the historical and intellectual context - very watchable and informative.

[emmashalliker]

Excellent video, looking forward to the journey.

[NoReprensentationWithoutTax]

Simply... AMAZING !!!!
Keep doing what you are doing.

[TheYoungIdealist]

This is a wonderful video and you do a great job of summerizing a clear and conscise account of British Idealism

[cedriccarette]

It seems that you must then interview Dr Bernardo Kastrup who's idealism is made analytical 😉. Good work and thanks for the sharing 👋

[onewithall]

Thank you for your extensive knowledge of philosophy. I was ignorant of English "Idealism", grateful.

[artisanmage]

Bradleys ideas reminds me a lot of Kant, much more so than Hegel.

[saulbee]

Another good video, my rank amateur first impression is that a lot of modern pressupositionilist apologetics seem to be derived from this type of British idealism, but I am not convinced. I think some of this seems to step over the bounds of what we can comfortably claim to know by establishing grounds to reality which are to some degree arbitrary and then justifying them.
Like I say just first impressions and this is not something I am familiar with so am keen to see where you take us.
Thanks again for the video.

[wildcatguy]

Excellent overview. I first discovered these thinkers in Timothy Sprigge’s book ‘The God of Metaphysics’.British idealism and process philosophy have interested me ever since.

[lovaloo]

These short videos that condense a lot of information are helpful, thank you.

I don't know what to think, but a lot of people seem to derive purpose and meaning from religion. Humanity takes primacy over metaphysical claims in my moral framework. Religious people tell me my morality isn't up to their standard, but I don't know how to attain that without holding God belief. I think the disagreement comes down to moral intuitions and our political dispositions, which seem to be partly intrinsic and partly influenced by socialization.

[LegionXCV]

Took me a while to come around to absolute idealism, but, I would say yes.

[dadsonworldwide]

Its pragmatism that can save it .
I wouldnt even call this idealism . This idealism physicalism is the European reactions to Newton it does feedback in. But the arguments are essentially methods of1 ( for-m dy 2 thru dx 3 dz ) = man made time hierarchy knowledge of Good and evil equations. That form is only good for identifying, yes to reductionism but only to sir bacon dig out code / definable matter 1 that will have lattus structure body 2 critical extreme state or environment 3 .
Then one can get epigenetics. The platonic values will both interact inside out and phenotypical explanatory power can be used.
Darwin Lyle huxly all the former dualist or plutonic movements was strongly Babylonian and opposed the computational simulation approach postulated. Uk faithful Wanted to keep epochs reward human qualities & methods in modeling..where as Darwin or Europe even the orthodoxy perodic table created dementi mendolov was desperate to keep the old world form and shape pov put time, color all these wonderful human specialities back into nature itself..thus the grand unfinacation.
1300s Peasants revolt theologically inspired scientifically studied mathematically confirmed in concert with Newton already witnessed this the orientation and direction was able to predict all of what keys would unlock natural systems of all kinda. One could think of humans building out soul agency free will inertia frame of reference in a robot where in concert with Darwin wanting to anthromorphized the cosmos and mechanized biology was a trainwreck waiting to happen in the future. Its why esoterica America designed itself the way it did as much as anything else. So was metaphysically designed english orientation and direction with deep masonic lodge for men Eastern star for women encoded views of language and the world around us.
It's acceptance to subjective properties is not soul agency idealism but can be objectivly measured despite not being physical as we know it.
European feedback seems to create the dualistic battles .
I'd argue that understanding that 3 lines of measure ends in physical mystification or one must reorientate and the methods by which relativity no matter where 1soul agency 2 free will inertia 3frame of reference correlated with eternal cosmos allows us to manipulate local systems to evolve how we see fit including the cosmos and biology.

Darwin simply reduced platos essence into 1 natural selection & the spiritual into 2 evolution.
It only wants old world Deterministic control over birds eye point of view perception management. It's great for form and shape naming ordering categorizing but horizon paradoxes will not allow it to predict anything .
Even under platos tripartite nature before Darwin turns it dualistic anthromorphized Babylonian evolutionary primordial flood creation soup goo model where they assume hierarchy of value and prescribe them only objects with a premium on carbon based life.

Here lies the problem it has nothing to do with Einstein or Newton they simply go back to old world paganism as huxly seeked Devine matter not definable matter.

Yes the literal creationist can know we can manipulate evidence to fit how we see fit. Its a property of our reality we live in..

[michaeldillon]

Idealism now has a profound and scientific advocate in the work of Bernardo Kastrup ( PhD PhD) who came to the conclusion through his work in AI, that ' matter ' is a product of Consciousness - not the other way around . To my humble mind I think this is a natural conclusion that follows on from the conclusions of particle Physics where the observer and observed become part of a process . People pointed out to Bernardo that his view seemed to reflect very closely the millennial old teachings of Advaita Vedanta . So here we have someone giving a modern scientific and philosophical basis to a very ancient ontology . Disappointingly Bernardo seems to have been expounding his views for about ten years ( I have only discovered him in the last year ) but publicly has found little traction . The materialists still hold sway in the British media at least . Personally I think Bernardo will come to be seen as the Galileo of Consciousness ✌️.

[Achrononmaster]

@0:40 omg, love your channel but I don't think I can disagree more with your initial premise there about the early 19th century. People in Britain were extremely anti-religious then, probably more than today. Why can I say so? It's because it was all pretense and most knew it, and those who considered themselves "god-fearing" were the most hateful and intolerant, for the most part. I'm using a definition of Religion here as _a source of good._ Most things done or practiced in the name of religion are anti-religious. Don't laugh. It's the same in politics and sport. Maybe even art? (I don't know about art, just a maybe, since I do not know what "anti-art" could mean). But for damn sure (as a keen ex sportsman in cricket and rugby) most sport played is anti-sport. I got sick of it because. My father (R.I.P) was a wonderful politician, only lasted a term, because everyone else for the most part in Parliament were anti-politicians, totally acted against the public purpose, with rare exceptions.
As Britain became a more tolerant and less a colonial nation it became more religious, not less, regardless of church-going or self-professed "atheists" (yeah, as if they know! ha!) Some atheists (that I know closely) are more religious than church-goers. GB is more religious today than back then, quite clearly. OK, so that's upon my definition of Religion. But I think it's a good one. More should use it. It's good because it shows you true religion is rare, very rare, maybe impossible. You can go a whole lifetime and only see glimpses. Makes it more precious when you find it, like a seemingly unattainable proof of a long standing mathematical conjecture.