Is Philosophy of Religion Still Necessary? | Daniel Kaufman & Megan Fritts [Sophia]

0:00 Intro
06:45 Megan: philosophy of religion shouldn't focus on "proofs for God"
17:38 Determining rational grounds for supernaturalism
24:29 Why Dan rejects epistemic foundationalism
29:17 Megan's Christian agnosticism, Dan's Jewish atheism
38:52 Wittgenstein's engagement with philosophy of religion
47:26 What kind of authority would it be good for us to submit to?
54:57 Dan has a revelation
1:02:59 Has philosophy forgotten that it's a humanistic discipline?

Daniel Kaufman (Missouri State University, The Electric Agora) and Megan Fritts (Utah State University). Recorded on December 11, 2020.

[BastianHelena]

Dr. Fritts presents her points very well. I think she breaks down complex ideas in ways anyone can understand, even if they do not come from a philosophical background. She is patient with the host, and maintains her composure. Bring back Dr. Fritts!

[roderickhare]

This was particularly good. Would love to hear more from Megan.

[Fakery]

I get the feeling Daniel wants us to know he doesn't like religion

[andydavis]

One thousand people watched this in one day. That’s about 960 more than either of you would normally directly lecture and about 996 more than would read one of your academic papers. The internet is amazing.

[squatch]

Great discussion and insightful back and forth. I hope you have Megan back for another episode.

[jlangfitt]

17 minutes in and I feel like Dan here is not letting Megan explain her position. He should be asking he questions to clarify just what she is saying but instead just interrupts with a kind of "but don't you see" type of attitude. Ah the committed philosopher who knows it all.

[Dreamingforwaking]

Not my favorite of his interviews by any measure. Daniel interrupted way too much, and was bordering on being rude. Normally he's very good and interesting on these. I whole heartedly disagree that Wittgenstein's mysticism is the worse thing about him, I think it's his most interesting aspect, a good deal of the rest, especially in the Investigations, are behaviorist word-playing. Oh well, on to the next one.

[davidsimpson]

This is one of my favourite Kaufman discussions!!

[zaccoopah]

Dear Daniel,
I enjoy your podcast in general and enjoyed this episode in particular. I feel compelled to say that I feel you speak over your guests too much. Everything else is great.

[TheologyUnleashed]

What's wrong with using intuition to resolve big questions? We use intuition to resolve the big questions which undergird science. If we didn't do so then we would be left bare to the induction problem. We don't take the induction problem seriously because we happily trust our intuitions about principles like uniformitarianism and proportionate casualty. These intuitions are not considered to be a problem or even acknowledged for the epistemologically leap that they are because they are so bedrock that we don't give them any thought and so self-evident that anyone who doesn't accept them is seen as impaired.

To make the use of intuition sensible for questions where there is wide spread disagreement then we simply need to bring in virtue epistemology - the idea that some people are more qualified than others to have epistemic access to certain truths. On a spiritual world view this would be as a result of having purified consciousness - of having no dirt on their windscreen and thus being able to see reality clearly at a deeper level. Defending this takes a bit more work but one way is to find a way to identify purity of consciousness and then investigate whether people with similar levels of purity have similar perceptions and intuitions. I discussed this at length with Graham Oppy on my channel. Some evidence in support of this is a similarities and parallels in mystic experiences across a diversity of cultures and religions.

[david_dennen]

Interesting. I don’t much follow philosophy of religion, but I would’ve thought it would include critical things like Dennett’s Breaking the Spell and not just apologetics and proofs of God and the like.

The discussion of philosophy in general reminds me so much of Richard Rorty. Which is maybe not surprising since Rorty was also influenced by Wittgenstein and Sellars. One of my favorite of his essays is “Relativism: Finding and Making” which considers many of these issues. It would be worth discussing in this context.

[thehairblairbunchjones]

One important thing in relation to Wittgenstein and religion that isn’t talked about enough IMO, is that his philosophy of mind can be quite plausibly argued to entail that the notion of an immaterial deity is incoherent, due to mental predicates owing their meaning to behavioural criteria. Anthony Kenny is one notable figure who has argued this case.

[fingerpickinggood]

Dan went full Glenn loury on this one, always interrupting

[TedsBeach]

From early on Kauffman’s approach was to apply a series of straw man arguments to Dr. Fritts. As is usually the result of this line of questioning, his guest was prevented from ever laying out her position properly. Not very generous of him as a host. All I learned from this exchange was that there was “zero chance” she was ever going to change his mind.

[DanielCCaz]

I don’t think I could engage in a debate with Dan K. because I don’t think I agree with him on anything, so there’s nowhere to begin.

[joshuabrecka]

Good conversation. But Dan, if you read these, you need to know that you talk over your guests too much. Thanks

[mcnallyaar]

49:00 David Bentley Hart, a Christian, does not believe in an eternal punishment.

[mcnallyaar]

Rationalism is also a fiction, although not a fairy tale. There are very good reasons to trust it in a limited way. Similarly, one can *imagine* trusting a fairy tale in a limited way. Accepting that, and being willing to look at possible benefits of both, either, and neither is called "intellectual honesty." Megan's point that either one is prone to fanciful thought or not due largely to culture makes the philosophical study of religion perennially necessary. Dan can only solidify his argument otherwise is he concedes that fanciful thinkers must simply be left to their own devices and here is probably one of only about four or five places I actually agree with Sam Harris: that sounds dangerously ignorant.

[Qeduhh]

I knew Dr Fritte was eventually going to invoke Taylor.

[Magnulus]

Jeez... the host is sort of rude. Even if a person is an expert in a field you consider nonsense, I think it's brash to come out and say it, in not so many words.