Phillip Goff

You just want to believe that. Every generation absorbs a worldview it can't quite see beyond. And I think future historians looking back will think, Why did they just ignore this fine-tuning stuff for so long?

You just want to believe that. Every generation absorbs a worldview it can't quite see beyond. And I think future historians looking back will think, Why did they just ignore this fine-tuning stuff for so long?

Yeah, I mean, I don't like the very traditional God hypothesis either. I mean, I do think it would explain this. So I do think that is a point in support of traditional views of God. It fits better with those views. But there are other things that don't fit well with the traditional God hypothesis.

Yeah, I mean, I don't like the very traditional God hypothesis either. I mean, I do think it would explain this. So I do think that is a point in support of traditional views of God. It fits better with those views. But there are other things that don't fit well with the traditional God hypothesis.

Yeah, I mean, I don't like the very traditional God hypothesis either. I mean, I do think it would explain this. So I do think that is a point in support of traditional views of God. It fits better with those views. But there are other things that don't fit well with the traditional God hypothesis.

the most obvious one being the horrific suffering we find in the world you know why would a loving god who can do anything choose to kill people regularly with hurricanes and cancer and so on you know i think that's you know if there isn't loving or powerful god they're committing mass murder every day that tends to wind up some traditional religious anyway um so so i

the most obvious one being the horrific suffering we find in the world you know why would a loving god who can do anything choose to kill people regularly with hurricanes and cancer and so on you know i think that's you know if there isn't loving or powerful god they're committing mass murder every day that tends to wind up some traditional religious anyway um so so i

the most obvious one being the horrific suffering we find in the world you know why would a loving god who can do anything choose to kill people regularly with hurricanes and cancer and so on you know i think that's you know if there isn't loving or powerful god they're committing mass murder every day that tends to wind up some traditional religious anyway um so so i

The way I think of it, I think there's two teams here that both have things they can't explain. You know, the traditional atheist view struggles with fine tuning. Traditional theism struggles with suffering. And they're both tying themselves up in knots trying to deal with that. Whereas I think there are middle ground options that can deal with both of these data.

The way I think of it, I think there's two teams here that both have things they can't explain. You know, the traditional atheist view struggles with fine tuning. Traditional theism struggles with suffering. And they're both tying themselves up in knots trying to deal with that. Whereas I think there are middle ground options that can deal with both of these data.

The way I think of it, I think there's two teams here that both have things they can't explain. You know, the traditional atheist view struggles with fine tuning. Traditional theism struggles with suffering. And they're both tying themselves up in knots trying to deal with that. Whereas I think there are middle ground options that can deal with both of these data.

Yeah, it's like, who's side are you on? Richard Dawkins or the Pope? Make your mind up. And I do find, actually, if I'm like... talking to someone in some social setting. I tend to bore people with philosophy at a party or something. You find people, they're trying to categorize you, which team are you on?

Yeah, it's like, who's side are you on? Richard Dawkins or the Pope? Make your mind up. And I do find, actually, if I'm like... talking to someone in some social setting. I tend to bore people with philosophy at a party or something. You find people, they're trying to categorize you, which team are you on?

Yeah, it's like, who's side are you on? Richard Dawkins or the Pope? Make your mind up. And I do find, actually, if I'm like... talking to someone in some social setting. I tend to bore people with philosophy at a party or something. You find people, they're trying to categorize you, which team are you on?

I mean, there are ways of dealing with this, I think, that make it very close to a standard scientific hypothesis. A couple of leading philosophers, John Hawthorne and Daniel Nolan, have given a really, really rigorous and precise account of what they call teleological laws of nature. I was going to ask you about this.

I mean, there are ways of dealing with this, I think, that make it very close to a standard scientific hypothesis. A couple of leading philosophers, John Hawthorne and Daniel Nolan, have given a really, really rigorous and precise account of what they call teleological laws of nature. I was going to ask you about this.

I mean, there are ways of dealing with this, I think, that make it very close to a standard scientific hypothesis. A couple of leading philosophers, John Hawthorne and Daniel Nolan, have given a really, really rigorous and precise account of what they call teleological laws of nature. I was going to ask you about this.

So this is from the Greek word telos, purpose. So these are sort of laws of nature with purposes built into them. So it's a different way of thinking about laws of nature.

So this is from the Greek word telos, purpose. So these are sort of laws of nature with purposes built into them. So it's a different way of thinking about laws of nature.

So this is from the Greek word telos, purpose. So these are sort of laws of nature with purposes built into them. So it's a different way of thinking about laws of nature.