Debriefing Philip Goff's Conversion to Christianity

[@philipgoff7897]

Thanks Randal! Few answers: 1. I think if God were all-powerful, universalism would be true. But perhaps God can't save people who really aren't up for it, so I'm agnostic between universalism and annihilationism. 2. On my Allison-inspired view it was the physical stuff of the body itself which was transformed into a new kind of physicality. I describe it as 'non-bodily but physical' rather than than 'spiritual body'. Only insistence is that it can't be perceived with the senses. My colleague the distinguished Catholic theologian Karen Kilby thinks it's non-heretical even by Catholic standards. 3. I think God could set the numbers in physics at the beginning, can incarnate in highly specific circumstances (I have a paper under review on this), and can allow creatures to experience their presence if they are in the right frame of mind. I suspect God has some further limited power to interact but I don't think we know what that is.

[@Randal_Rauser]

1. Fair enough, though "annihilationism" is used to refer to two different positions: a. a general resurrection to destruction; b. cessation of existence at death. The former would be consistent with orthodoxy but also requires extra footwork to explain the necessity for a general resurrection. 2. Yes, that sounds perfectly orthodoxy. Idiosyncrasy, as such does not entail heresy. :) 3. Reminds me perhaps of Maurice Wiles' view of divine action as general governance rather than particular special divine action. Perhaps petitionary prayer is still a thing on this view as a means of meditative reflection to get oneself in the right state of mind. I'd be interested to hear what your view entails for a general providential prayer like "Thy kingdom come..." Thanks

[@zacdredge3859]

@@Randal_Rauser As an Annihiationalist I would simply say that people are to be raised from the dead to stand physically before the judgement seat of Christ. Think of it a bit like wearing the appropriate attire to a court hearing. Beyond that I think it's perfectly reasonable to say in this instance that we don't know. I don't see how it is a defeater of the Annihilationist position in the first place so you're welcome to explain that if you think it's a legitimate counterfactual we need to wrestle with.

[@IamGrimalkin]

I previously said in a comment your view on the resurrection don't qualify you Christian, but your clarifying remarks mean.... I'm not sure now. I hope you're there, but since I'm sure you know now how central the resurrection is in the bible you can understand why I'm a little conflicted. In any case, I'm glad of your change of direction and hope you keep searching. I only skimmed through the actual video of you but it seems you are very much open to engaging with Cameron's ideas and arguments, which I'm very glad to see.

[@philipgoff7897]

@@Randal_Rauser 1. I definitely don't believe in bodily resurrection. Perhaps option (a) could be made consistent with my view of the resurrection. I think at that point I just think we should be very uncertain. My view is that God wouldn't deliberately keep someone in an unpleasant state but we don't know whether God can guarantee eternal life for everyone. More than that, I don't think we know. 2. :) 3. There might be some limited divine action, I'm not sure. On my interpretation of Christianity, God and the universe are becoming more deeply unified and will one day be perfectly unified (not as in identical, rather aspects of a perfectly unified whole), which is what it means for the kingdom of God to come. When I say every evening 'thy will be done' I endeavour to make my fundamental life commitment contributing to bringing that about.

[@DIBBY40]

@@philipgoff7897 1) My experience is that God's power only appears to us as limited, for it is dependent upon us learning. A teacher can only create the conditions and do everything to encourage a child to learn; but the child can't be forced to learn. God's grace is constantly poured out to help us learn a) who we really are and our inner connection to God; b) what stops us from perceiving that, is the slavery of the false. The parable of the Good Shepherd teaches that God always pursues the lost sheep, which IS eventually found. 2) Do you think the resurrection could be allegorical? 3) Human beings could have been created for the specific purpose of bringing the love and power of God through to this reality. In the Gospel of Thomas it says, "The Kingdom of the Father is laid out over the whole Earth, but men don't see it"; and that we need to "bring forth that which is within you". I'm a heretic, but I do think orthodoxy has gone astray on many things. ❤️

[@DIBBY40]

I loved the interview. I found Philip Goff refreshingly honest and exhibiting humility. It was actually lovely to hear someone not certain about everything.

[@philipgoff7897]

thanks!

[@TXLogic]

Doubt and uncertainty are sins for evangelicals. Gotta be absolutely certain about everything (as told them by their favorite Bible-thumping preachers and KZbinrs).

[@CapturingChristianity]

Great review.

[@Randal_Rauser]

Thanks!

[@physics_philosophy_faith]

I really appreciated your point about how thinking carefully about one's doctrine will very commonly end in a unique version of Christianity!

[@DVN5381]

Agreed, we almost all have a unique theology and we’re almost all probably wrong about some things. I wish the Church felt like a place where we could discuss these things instead of a place where we’re expected to simply regurgitate established doctrine.

[@physics_philosophy_faith]

@@DVN5381 True!

[@pauloriess]

Cameron's interview with Philip was really thought provoking. As is your follow up... Many thanks brother 🙏

[@lifeandbeyond9801]

Hi Randall. I’ve noticed that just about every trinitarian apologist in the KZbinland embraces atheists and welcomes them in their discussions. Unitarians like Dale Tuggy are regarded as persona non grata. Unitarians are mostly hated. Can you possibly discuss this in the future?

[@eew8060]

Amen

[@clivejungle6999]

Unitarians calling themselves Christians are hated for their deception. Nominal Liberal Christians who are part of orthodox trinitarian denominations but who are really Unitarian Universalists in all but name are also hated for their deception. It is the deception that is hated because deceivers are particularly dangerous and pernicious. But a Unitarian who admits they are not a Christian is perfectly fine and whether they are Mormon, JW, Muslim or Jew they are welcomed to explore Christianity as people of a different faith.

[@ajrthrowaway]

"very unique form of Christianity" look inside its 20th century modernist protestantism. jokes aside, im very very happy to see this development. i really like philip Goff and his sincerity

[@mercy2351]

The lottery example is especially intriguing, though the whole video really illuminates quite a bit. I imagine your book on the subject would be a great read.

[@Thomas_Zscheile]

I found the faith question quite interesting. I don't think one can quantify faith in terms of hope or probabiltity. I also tend to faith being some kind of trust, that is based on a relationship. In the past I thought faith was when I was convinced of what I heard or was taught. Today I feel differently. When you listen to the gospel, it makes you want to have your own experiences with the God, who gives his life to save humanity. And then I started to have more and more of such personal experiences, me asking for something and receiving it. Putting trust in God's trustworthiness leads to personal experiences and that is what makes my faith. Even if doctrines may change I will never deny what I experienced. This is relationship. Thomas

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

What do you think about the response by skydive Phil and Alex Malpass did saying Goffs view doesn’t make sense?

[@JohnVandivier]

I think if we press Goff he would lower the threshold of confidence for faith to far less than 30%. As a science-adjacent thinker, I believe he would agree with “significantly above zero” which might be as low as 10, 5, or even 1%+

[@stephenbailey9969]

People hop from one intellectual system to another across their lives, looking for one that will soothe their egos and make them comfortable, create a temporary sense of meaning. But God is not a system, is rather the source of being itself. To approach him with intellect alone is like trying to drink the ocean through a straw. Concepts are only pale approximations of lived reality. Fortunately, God's mind and our minds are not distant from each other. He communicates directly, as millions across the millennia have attested. Then it is up to each person to decide: accept and trust or harden one's ego against the message.

[@FinnMcCarthy-uj8ui]

'All is vanity and grasping after the wind.' - Ecclesiastes 1:14. I have recently returned to Christianity after more than twenty years oscillating between atheism and agnosticism. I enjoy listening to theological speculation as a form of entertainment, but I try to remind myself of the above verse while doing so. God is simply beyond my understanding, and no amount of 'ontological' this and 'metaphysical' that is going to render Him any more intelligible. I'm quite happy to pray, read the Bible, and try to take the teachings of Christ seriously, rather than engage in endless quibbling about what some or other long dead theologian meant by this or that Greek word.

[@JohnVandivier]

~12:00 agreed that hope can form a kind of bare minimum foundation, but with the lottery example the individual should not act as if they have already won the lottery. So the theory works but you have an empirical counter example of theoretical limits

[@sparrowsparrow4197]

randal. Have you read " the inescapable love of God" by Thomas Talbot and " hope for all by Gerry Beauchemin PDF" and "the christian doctrine of apokatastasis a critical assessment from the bible to Eriugena by illaria ramelli PDF". Blessings 🕊️🕊️🕊️

[@IamGrimalkin]

Oh I'm at the end of the video now. If he doesn't affirm the bodily resurrection he's not a Christian yet, even if he is over the 50% mark. He's moving in the right direction though, I hope he'll get there eventually.

[@philipgoff7897]

physical though. it's a bit like the relationship between the seed and the plant: continuity but radical difference.

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@philipgoff7897 Yes, I realised that from your clarification above. I'll refer you to my reply there. In any case, I'm glad of the direction you're going and I hope you keep thinking about it.

[@ThoseThousandHills-kr8mb]

Ya many live as Psalm 88 describes! Good Stuff!

[@EnHacore1]

Profesor, I have to say that I am surprised on your push against unitarianism and yet you are quick to jump over half the Old Testament statements. Maybe the omnipotent statements should be judged in the same way you judge the commands to kill, etc

[@calebp6114]

I wonder if Goff would like Thomas Jay Oord's account of non-interventive "amipotence", as described in The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence (2023). Provides a good case against God's omnipotence imo

[@jgmrichter]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was an influence on him!

[@belialord]

As an agnostic who doesn't know much about theology I find this very interesting/confusing. It makes me wonder: can a being who is not all powerful even be called "God" (with a capital G)? Isn't omnipotence one of the main differences between God and the so-called "false gods" of polytheistic religions?

[@wet-read]

None of the omni properties seem either evident or necessary to me.

[@jgmrichter]

It gets a bit technical/philosophical, but true omnipotence relies on Greek conceptions of divinity. It's more theoretical than referring to actual or potential power (exposed by the old question 'Can God lift a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted?'). What complicates it even further is that the Jewish/Christian conception of power was very un-traditional - it saw fragility, love and weakness as legitimate (and even ultimate) expressions of God's power. Omnipotence might be philosophically or theologically interesting to discuss, but in practice, love matters more.

[@belialord]

@@jgmrichter Very interesting

[@colinpurssey9875]

Good evaluative review . I know this is somewhat incidental and an aside to the theme of the above address but I have a response to make regarding Randal's comment about the Anglican Church's putative hospitality towards doctrinal and theological diversity . When , several years ago , I decided to reconnect with institutional Christianity here in Australia after decades of disengagement , I opted to attend a local Anglican congregation because of my belief that they were indeed an inclusive entity. ( Not that my own theology is especially radical ) Anyhow although the parishoners were generally quite wecoming , the clergy insisted that it was necessary for me to attend a series of formalized doctrinal inductive lessons and also obligatory for me to undertake baptism before I could have full participatory status with the church or receive Communion . As my knowledge of Christian theology and history , and my personal spiritual committment was patently obvious to them , I was of course acutely disenchanted . I've never believed that unrestricted fellowship should be granted only after one completes qualifying rituals and formal determinative examinations . So anyway , for those reasons I immediately quit , and since then have been happily embraced by both parishoners and clergy at the Uniting Church ( The Methodist Church as you call them in North America ) where no such irrelevant and inhibiting eligibility conditions apply .

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@colinpurssey9875 If you have a good knowledge of Christianity and a commitment to it, you should know that baptism is commanded by God for all believers, so it's entirely reasonable for them to expect you to be baptised before you fully participate. I don't think sitting through the course is neccessary though.

[@colinpurssey9875]

@@IamGrimalkin I respectfully challenge your conviction that " God " commanded baptism , and the corollary of such a command would be that this requirement is a necessary condition for salvation . My own conviction is that it's not .

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@colinpurssey9875 Who said anything about salvation? I don't think that something not being necessary for salvation means you don't have to do it. Obviously God commanded baptism. Look at the Great Commission for example.

[@colinpurssey9875]

@@IamGrimalkin OK , I grant you that point . But nonetheless , if baptism was a Divine directive , to then purposely neglect it , would be defiance of God's authority , and thus , as many evangelicals and fundamentalists believe , disqualify one from ultimate salvation . Trust me , many Christians ignorantly believe that rituals like baptism are determinants of eligibility for heavenly destiny . Rituals , no matter how piously practised , have no saving capacity or potential . And that is made explicit in the NT .

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@colinpurssey9875 Yeah, I'm not talking about any of that stuff. All I'm saying is: -If you believe, you should get baptised. -As such, it's entirely reasonable for the Anglican church you attended to insist you should get baptised.

[@calebp6114]

Very cool development! I read his recent book where he argues against God's existence, so this is quite a change :0

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

Just a minor question, did Flew convert to theism? I thought he became a deist.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Deism is a type of theism isn't it?

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@IamGrimalkin Not technically, no. Theism classically involves a god that intervenes in the universe and in human lives, but deism rejects all of that. You can even be a deist and believe the creator god died in the act of creation.

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

@@IamGrimalkin what weird William said. Deism posits an impersonal god maybe even indifferent. Theism holds to a personal God(s). There are many different flavors of deism & theism though. **Edited "God to God(s)."

[@IamGrimalkin]

@@weirdwilliam8500 I understand plenty now who call themselves deist still believe god intervenes in the universe. I don't know if Flew believes that; but regardless, I always just saw theist as =believes in a god of some kind.

[@josiahsimeth3681]

You’re right, but they are too. Deism is a subset of theism and separate from theism, depending on how “theism” is being used.

[@tedgemberling2359]

I agree with you that hope is the most important thing. Being attracted to the beauty of Christianity is enough to make one a Christian in my opinion. But to me, that makes the idea of inerrant scripture problematic. If hope is enough, how can we say that a scriptural (or papal for that matter) authority is absolute? I've noticed that Roman Catholics have come to have trouble defining what papal infallibility means. They claim that it's infallibility when the pope "speaks ex cathedra," but when is that? I remember reading that the conservative Society of St. Pius X asked Pope John Paul II to make a ruling on whether Vatican II was infallible, and he declined to do that. I think people realize that the more you say things are infallible, the more problems you run into.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@tedgemberling2359 That sounds like intellectual suicide.

[@newtonfinn164]

God need not be finite in power but only self-limiting in creation to account for the existence of evil. I would suggest that the very idea of creation, as opposed to cloning, entails the bringing into being of something other than God--Not-God, if you will--which accordingly must be freed, at least in large part, from direct omnipotent control. And let me also suggest that what's true for the creation is true for the incarnation; i.e., that God chose to be fully human and thereby to subject Himself to all mortal limitations. Is not this the thrust of perhaps the earliest Christology to come down to us, the kenotic hymn apparently quoted in Philippians?

[@jonathanhagger791]

This sounds more consistent.

[@IamGrimalkin]

I think if he's only at 30% right now he probably should have waited before making this interview. But this is good to hear anyway.

[@ApPersonaNonGrata]

10:30 - 10:40 -- Actually, yea, you do. This is why literally nobody "believes in the Trinity". Trinitarians merely believe-in-believing-in the Trinity". -- Belief is an expression of understanding. Professing a belief means to profess both to understanding and to acceptance.

[@pbradgarrison]

Excellent commentary. It's very difficult to intelligently design a God.

[@IamGrimalkin]

Those questions are all worth asking though. I'll check up on those two theologians to see what you mean If they're supposedly theologians and they disagree with the virgin birth, that honestly does make me doubt their credibility; but I can't hold a random guy like Philip Goff to the same standard.

[@patrickbarnes9874]

I find the problem of evil to be somewhat absurd. It occurs to me that it resembles one amoeba asking another if it believes in humans. There's nothing in their capabilities or perspective that would allow them to reasonably approach such a question. Similarly, I think it is a systemic flaw amongst both theists and atheists to believe they have any sort of capacity to make a meaningful point about good vs evil on a divine scale. I don't see anything any human is capable of conceiving that could possibly move the needle one way or the other on how a divine being should or would behave. If you accept the divine revelation of a particular faith as true then you can of course draw conclusions from that. You can argue over what was going with the God of the Bible not stopping the Holocaust or something like that. That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the pure logical problem of evil where a perfect being wouldn't allow evil to exist. Posing the question at all requires an assumption that humans have the capacity to make judgments about an infinite being's thoughts or actions.

[@clorofilaazul]

It was expected. He’s stupid arguments for pantheism were similar to a person who needs God. I always found his reasoning quite unsophisticated. Now he proved it.

[@ApPersonaNonGrata]

As always, I agree with much. As always, I cringe at several points as well. -- There's no way you have a coherent understanding of the Trinity. There is no such thing as a tiny percent who do. Nobody does. Because it's really not a concept. It's a gaslighting mechanism designed to confound, in order to help generate the mind-fog that's so essential to a religious domain built upon clinical Narcissism. Sheep who profess to understand it ... are caught up in an Emperor's New Clothes fear of exclusion. Clergy are just pretending, because they understand what the real purpose of it is. It's a way to make the peasant-class of sheeple feel further from grasping the mysteries of "God" so that they'd keep deferring to the Catholic (and later, the Protestant) leaders as more qualified to investigate, gather, and dispense spiritual insights.

[@blairmcian]

Hope as a basis for the existence of faith, notwithstanding extremely low odds of it being true, sounds like William Lane Craig's statement about a year ago, leading some to derisively call him "Low Bar Bill." If faith means belief, then I don't think that his suggestion makes sense, and it's particularly nonsensical for someone like Craig who have long touted "reasonable faith," claiming it to be REASONABLE to believe what he claims to believe.

[@EnHacore1]

Yes, God can be the creator even if not omnipotent. A man can create a machine that is more powerful than him after it is built, that does not mean that he didn't create that machine. For example, humans could creata a AI that is more powerful than humans, that does not mean that it was not created by humans

[@wordscapes5690]

In Buddhism we also have secular Buddhists. They are valid, welcomed, and encouraged in their path without judgement, coercion, or manipulation. You Christians need to grow out of your childish puritanicalism.

[@Dizerner]

"Mere" Christianity. Only Christ can define, not men.

[@JohnVandivier]

~9:00 “return to a Christian tradition, although an Anglican one” was this an academic roast professor? 😆 i joke np

[@jeffinjapan9005]

You can call Goff whatever you want, just don’t call him a Christian.

[@sparrowsparrow4197]

Love CREATED the univers. " God is love". God saves all god loves. ISIAIH says we have ALL got lost like sheep Jesus says I will seek find and save ALL lost sheep and I will bring ALL people to myself and I will save ALL I bring. "Do we not ALL have one Father has not one God created us all ?". God our Father doesn't throw away and burn HER HIS ungrateful wicked children. Would you burn yours ? Jesus says " God is kind to the ungrateful and wicked". The Father says " ALL people SHALL know me I will forgive their sins remember them no more and give them new hearts". Who can stop or shorten the saving arm of God. " Look to me creator AND SAVIOR". God is equally Savior of ALL God creates

[@davethebrahman9870]

Goff has been looking for comfort rather than understanding for a long time.

[@philipgoff7897]

This is called an ad hominem.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@philipgoff7897 Not at all. I was not presenting an argument but an observation.

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

@@davethebrahman9870 Still counts, you'd rather play armchair psychologist rather than deal with what he's saying. Bad form.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@inquisitiveferret5690 All the evidence favours physicalism. Therefore those who accept idealism or dualism are either motivated reasoners or simply thick. I’m pretty sure Goff isn’t thick. Not so sure about you though.

[@inquisitiveferret5690]

@@davethebrahman9870 Scathing, positively scathing. You just keep digging when you're in it don't ya? That's debatable. You believe it does. Goff, at least to my knowledge, doesn't. You know someone else can be convinced or unconvinced of a position. You don't need to play armchair psychologist. Otherwise it just comes off as projection. You got criticism, or a point to debate? Then do that. But enough of the mean girls schtick.

[@atheistcomments]

Your God still only exists as an imaginary character and nothing fundamentally changed about reality.

[@sparrowsparrow4197]

Randal. Have you read " the only true GOD" by Eric H.H. Chang. ? Christian Monotheism 😊😊😊😊😊🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️🕊️