Philip Goff (3:25)

Hi, Scott. It's good to be here. It's been a while.

Scott Barry Kaufman (3:28)

It has been a while. And in the intervening period you've solved the mysteries of the universe. So well done.

Philip Goff (3:34)

Yeah, yeah, all wrapped up now, ready to retire. But you know, actually, Scott, your one, your podcast was one of the first I ever went on. I thought it was years ago and I was incredibly nervous because I'd never really been on a podcast before and done a few more since then, so I'm a bit, bit more used to it. But yeah, it's exciting to come back on again.

Scott Barry Kaufman (3:55)

Well, it's great to have you back. Last time we discussed different theories of consciousness and I've just been absolutely riveted to see how you've integrated that and connected that with religion. So we're going to jump into all this today. What is the point of living? I'd start out with a really.

Philip Goff (4:13)

You start with the easy questions. Yeah, well, I mean, actually, because, you know, my recent book, modestly titled why the Purpose of the Universe? You know, most of it is doing what I do is the sort of cold blooded scientific, philosophical argument for something. But in the final chapter, I do get to these big questions, right? What's the point of it all? Why are we here? How does this affect human meaning and purpose? And I suppose, you know, quite generally I, I take a sort of middle way, I'm always the middle way, the middle way guy. So, you know, you've got some, some extremes like the, the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, who say, you know, if there's no God, if there's no point to the universe, it's all pointless. You know, we might as well, might as well just kill each other if we want to. And then at the other extreme, you've got the, you know, familiar secular humanist position like there probably is no purpose to the universe, but even if there is, it's kind of irrelevant. You know, we make our own meaning and purpose that's all there is to it. I guess I take a middle way point of view where, you know, if there's no God, if there's no purpose to the universe, we can still live meaningful lives by doing things that are worth doing. You know, pursuing kindness, creativity, the pursuit of knowledge and so on. But maybe if there is a purpose to the universe, if we've got some reason to take that seriously, maybe there's a hope of a greater purpose or at least a greater sense of meaning and purpose in existence. And that's where I eventually get to in the book.

Scott Barry Kaufman (5:47)

Yeah, you really had me thinking a lot because I teach a course on wellbeing at Columbia and I teach about purpose. And this semester I actually have a very, very, very religious Christian student who all of her reflections are tied to Jesus. We had a thing last week which is like reflection on what is your purpose. And the whole thing was to serve God, you know, And I feel like after reading your book, I'm kind of viewing her reflection. Maybe I need to give her a better grade. Come and think of it because, you know, I think, oh, there's something really interesting there. Where, like maybe there. And you're going to explain this to me, but maybe there is actually a reasonably scientific support for some version of the purpose I have is one that is in line with a cosmic purpose, even though I don't know exactly what it is yet.

Philip Goff (6:44)

Yeah, I guess the position I've reached after struggling back and forth for many years is that both sides of this never ending debate have something right and something wrong. I think so many people in the west think either you have to believe in the very traditional idea of God as all knowing, all powerful, perfectly good, or you're a secular atheist. It's like, whose side are you on? Richard Dawkins or the Pope? You know, make your mind up. And yeah, I've just come to think that both sides have something right and something wrong with the traditional belief in God. They have the challenge of explaining why there's so much suffering. Why would a loving God who can do anything allow so much suffering in the world? But I think there are also things traditional atheism struggles to explain, most notably the fine tuning of physics for life, the surprising discovery of recent decades that for life to be possible, certain numbers in physics had to fall in a certain incredibly narrow range in such a way that on the face of it, it's incredibly improbable that a universe like ours would get the right numbers for life just by chance. So, you know, humans get stuck in this dichotomy, don't they? You know, are you a sort of US Capitalist or a Soviet communist? You know, are you, do you believe in the soul or is it just electrochemical signaling? And we ignore the wealth of middle ground options? That's what I'm really trying to get, trying to do in the book. I'm not saying, you know, this is the answer. This is the one true faith. I'm just exploring the wealth of interesting positions between God and atheism.

Scott Barry Kaufman (8:27)

Look, I hear you and I would say from the perspective of an atheist, maybe a militant atheist, your position is not in the middle. It's interesting because you have to admit if Dawkins was. Richard Dawkins was listening to you right now and hearing your position as in the middle, he'd be like, no, no, no, look, you don't have evidence, but I understand you're putting forward the fine tuning of physics. That's your main data point.

Philip Goff (8:57)

Is that really?

Scott Barry Kaufman (8:58)

So tell people. Let's unpack that a little more. That seems like a pretty big finding that I don't think a lot of people on the street really have. They didn't get them. We haven't gotten the memo for that yet. Now, when was this discovered? Who are the main physicists who discovered. Is it really like a consensus now in physics?

Philip Goff (9:15)

Sure. Well, just, it's interesting you say that from your atheist perspective. It's not a middle way position. Actually, just to give me.

Scott Barry Kaufman (9:23)

I didn't say I'm an atheist.

Philip Goff (9:25)

Sorry, sorry. From any atheist perspective, do you know, actually the terms of my response from friends and colleagues, I found most of my atheist friends have said, oh, this is just non standard atheism. Whereas most of my religious friends have said this is just nonstandard theism. So probably in the middle is the right way to put it. But yeah, the fine tuning of physics for life. I mean, just to be clear, there's a lot of misunderstanding here. People think if you say physics is fine tuned for life, that means, oh, there's a fine tuner and okay, that that would be controversial, that there's some kind of designer. What it actually means, and this is a familiar term in physics, is just that for life to be possible, these numbers had to fall in a certain very narrow range. I mean, let's take an example, put an example on the table. One of the most discussed cases is the cosmological constant that measures the force that propels the accelerating expansion of the universe. Right. We discovered in 1998, I remember actually as a As a young kid interested in, you know, black holes and so on, we discovered that our universe is not only expanding, but it's accelerating in its expansion. And, and when you calculate what that, what the number is that governs that, the force, we call it dark energy, actually the postulated force that's propelling that expansion. It turns out that if that force was just a little bit stronger, everything would have shot apart so quickly that no two particles would have ever met. You know, you wouldn't have had stars, planets, any kind of structural complexity, whereas if it was a bit weaker, it wouldn't have counteracted gravity. And so everything would have collapsed back on itself a split second after the Big Bang. So for life to be possible, that number had to be kind of like Goldilocks porridge. Right? Not too big, not too small, kind of. Exactly right. Or not. You know, it's not one number that's, that's needed, but it's in a quite narrow range. So, yeah, I mean, this is fairly uncontroversial physics. Just what I've just said. And I do find it surprising. Not many people know about it. I mean, I tweeted a big list of very big, high profile physicists who accept this. I mean, Stephen Hawking did, Nobel Prize winners. Ah, my mind's gone blank on the, on, on names just now. Leonard Susskind. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's. There's always some controversy, but it's, it's a fairly broadly accepted fact, at least about our current theories. Right, of course, current theories may change. They may change that you'll get less fine tuning. They may change that you'll get more fine tuning. But I think, you know, we've got to work with the evidence we currently have. We're. What follows from that is another question. But just let me, let me say I am inclined honestly to think we're kind of sort of in denial about this as a society. I think it's a little bit like when we first started getting evidence that we were in the center of the universe and people struggled to accept that. Sorry, that we weren't. What did I say? We started getting evidence that we weren't.

Scott Barry Kaufman (12:49)

Miss another memo. I missed another memo.

Philip Goff (12:53)

Sorry, sorry. Freudian slipped there. And people struggle to accept that because it didn't fit with the picture of the universe they got so used to. And nowadays we scoff at those people and think, oh, yo, stupid religious people. Why did they just follow the evidence? But I think every generation absorbs a worldview that they can't see beyond. And I think we've got. So I think in our normal standard way of thinking about evidence, I think, and we can maybe debate this. I think this is evidence for some kind of goal directedness towards life in the early universe. And I think culturally we've just got so used to the idea. No, that's not what science says, that we're just, I think we're just ignoring where the evidence is most straightforwardly pointing. I think future historians, looking back will think, why did they just ignore this for so long? So that's, that's, that's where I'm up to.

Scott Barry Kaufman (13:45)

Or well, maybe there is a God somewhere thinking that, you know, like, why are they still ignoring, still ignoring me? I don't know. I guess a lot of people do pray to God. But it is so interesting because you're coming in as a non physicist and you're thinking this through. You're like, let's actually really think this through a human level. What are the implications for humans? And that's so cool. I feel like physicists should really appreciate you. Do they, do they appreciate you? Do you hang out with physicists?

Philip Goff (14:18)

Well, yeah, increasingly. I work with a lot of physicists. I'm currently working with physicist Graham White at University of Southampton. We're going to get in a few physicists and philosophers together to put forward a paper on some of the recent philosophical discussions in this area. Yeah, I had a conference in Durham last week where Luke Barnes and Jerain Lewis came to cosmologists who have written, I think one of the best recent books on the evidence of fine tuning. Got a fortunate universe. And it's interesting that one of them, Luke, is a Christian and takes this in a, in a theistic direction, whereas Geraint, his co writer, is an atheist and thinks the multiverse is the best explanation. But so most of the book is just the evidence and then they have a sort of dialogue at the end. But yeah, what I find a lot of. Though to be honest, I was talking to parent to one of my, one of my kids recently who's a very good friend at a physicist. What I find a lot is people say things like, I don't find many people saying that this is not true about the fine tuning. I get that on Twitter, but I don't get that from physicists. What they say is, oh well, you know, what they say is, well, the evidence is going to change. Right? You know, physics isn't complete. And I think, well, yeah, physics is not complete. We haven't been bought. General relativity and quantum mechanics together. Maybe when we do that, this will go away, but it's equally possible there'll be more fine tuning. And I think all you can ever do is work with the evidence you currently have. It's the definition of a bias to say, you know, well, I'm going to ignore the evidence as we currently have it and wait until evidence comes along that better fits the theory I like. And I honestly think that's what's going on. Just one more thing. I think we're very well trained in intellectual circles in the west to be very alert to religious bias. Bias from religious upbringing, you know. Oh, you just believe that because you want to believe in God or something. But I think we're not well trained to be alert to bias from a certain secular worldview. And I find, like, that's a much more powerful influence on me. You know, I do feel silly talking about this stuff in front of my colleagues. You know, really, it took me a long time to build up the confidence. So close. Childhood friend of mine, John says, oh, it's just your Catholic upbringing. I mean, you know, my Catholic upbringing that I rejected when I was 14.

Scott Barry Kaufman (16:44)

Yeah.

Philip Goff (16:45)

I feel like that has hardly any influence over me. Whereas the secular world, you know, worldview are swimming that, you know, cosmic purpose is just ridiculous. That has, you know, that's really hard to. To counter. So, so anyway, look, I mean, that's not an argument, but I think what I want to press is that we need to be alert to biases on both sides.

Scott Barry Kaufman (17:09)

Okay? So I agree. I definitely agree. So let's further unpack your argument. Why science points to a cosmic purpose. The second part of your argument is a little more my wheelhouse. The fact that you argue there's psychophysical harmony, the improbable alignment between consciousness and behavior that is presupposed in any evolutionary story of the character of our conscious experience. Can you unpack that one a little more for me? Because I can maybe wrap my head a little more around that one.

Philip Goff (17:41)

Yeah, this, now, this is much harder to convey. I'll be honest about that. You know, with the fine tuning, it's easy to get people to see the issue, even if they think it's bullshit or something. But with this, it is much harder. And, well, the way I try to set it up in a paper I've got in, well, an article in Scientific American is to think about the way David Chalmers famously set up the hard problem of consciousness. He distinguishes the easy problems, so called, and the hard problems, so the easy problems are kind of to do with behavior or information processing what stuff does. And science knows how to deal with that. You postulate a mechanism to explain the behavior. But Chalmers thinks those kind of things always leave open the hard problem. Why is there experience? Why, why does it feel like something to be in this brain state? So the whole, that whole approach to consciousness that, by the way, I'm, I'm very much on the side of distinguishes sort of behavior from experience and says this, of course, these go together in the real world, but there's at least a conceptual separation number once you do that. What I think Charmer's never realized is once you do that, you've got another problem. Why do they fit together so well? If experience and behavior are sort of logically separable, why do they fit together so well? I mean, I mean, the most obvious examples are like, pleasure and pain. Like when you, when something hurts, you avoid it. And that's kind of appropriate, right? That's like, if something feels bad, that gives you a reason to avoid it. If something feels good, you tend to go for it. And that makes sense as well. But if, if these two things are behavior and consciousness is a separable, like, why would they go together in this way? That kind of makes sense. And that's just one example. I mean, in general, they fit together. I mean, the crucial thing I'll say is. And this is what the first response is. Well, it's evolution, right? And I don't think evolution does it because, I mean, look, I believe in evolution. I think we evolved the consciousness we have. But I think any evolutionary explanation of our consciousness presupposes what I'm talking about, presupposes that behavior and consciousness go together in a kind of rationally appropriate way. Like natural selection is only going to make me feel pain when my body's damaged. If I'm going to respond appropriately and avoid getting my body damaged, it's only going to make me feel pleasure when I eat. If I'm going to respond appropriately and, you know, eat and then I'm going to survive. Well, so we do have this deep question. I mean, you could say, you could say, well, the whole thing's just Chalmers is just wrong. Consciousness just is a behavioral thing. That's, that's one option we could maybe talk about. But as soon as you say no, there is this separation, there is this deep difficulty of why they, why they fit together so well. And I think it's, it's massively under. It doesn't lead you straight to cosmic purpose. I've got to like a broad, complicated discussion, but there's something deep that the heart, the problem of consciousness is much deeper than we've, that we've currently envisaged. I think.

Scott Barry Kaufman (21:10)

Yeah.

LG X Boom Advertiser (21:13)

Stop settling for weak sound. It's time to level up your game and bring the boom. Hit the town with the ultra durable LG X Boom portable speaker and enjoy vibrant sound wherever you go. Elevate your listening experience to new heights because let's be real, your music deserves it. The future of sound is now with LG XBoom and for a limited time save 25% at LG.com with code fall25 bring the boom X Boom.

Washable Sofas Advertiser (21:43)

There's nothing like sinking into luxury. At washablesofas.com, you'll find the Annabe sofa which combines ultimate comfort and design at an affordable price. And get this, it's the only sofa that's fully machine washable from top to bottom. Starting at only $699. The stain resistant performance fabric slipcovers and cloud like frame duvet can go straight into your wash. Perfect for anyone with kids, pets or anyone who loves an easy to clean spotless sofa. With a modular design and changeable slipcovers, you can customize your sofa to fit any space and style. Whether you need a sink, chair, loveseat or a luxuriously large sectional, Annabe has you covered. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your home. Right now you can shop up to 60% off store wide with a 30 day money back guarantee. Shop now@washablesofas.com Add a little to your life. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply running a business online.

GoDaddy Advertiser (22:45)

Look legit and own your own brand with professional tools from GoDaddy instantly build trust with your customers and boost your credibility with an email that matches your domain so people know you mean business. There's never been a better time. Just go to GoDaddy.com GDnow and choose from a wide variety of popular domains. To find one that's right for you. Pair that with a professional email that works for all your business needs from daily communications to email marketing and everything in between. That's a little price for a lot of credibility. For a limited time, get a domain and matching professional email for just 99 cents a month for one year. Go to GoDaddy.comGdNow and look legit with GoDaddy. That's GoDaddy.comGdNow again GoDaddy.comGdNow there's never been a better time to choose the domain and email. That's right for you. New customer purchases only Products Auto renew separately See terms on site godaddy.com gdnow.

Scott Barry Kaufman (23:46)

This is really complex stuff and I don't want to lose our audience, but this is really, really, this is really deep stuff.

Philip Goff (23:54)

Could I put it in a slightly different way that might be a bit more accessible? That is kind of how I start the chapter. Actually, this chapter of the book, chapter three does have a warning on it that it's a bit more complicated. But here's a simpler point, right? There's a deep mystery of why consciousness evolved at all. Because natural selection just cares about behavior, right? Just cares about that. That's what matters for survival. But we've found with AI now, right, that you can have incredibly complex behavior and incredibly complex information processing with no kind of inner life at all. So why didn't natural selection just make us kind of complicated survival mechanisms, right, that can, you know, mechanically track features of the environment and initiate survival conducive behavior without having any kind of inner life at all? I think there's a deep mystery of why natural selection needed to give us an inner life. And again, the step to cosmic purpose is a few steps down the line. But look, I suppose I could put it this way. I think there are deep problems, deep challenges with underappreciated in our current scientific picture of things, consciousness fine tuning and these problems to do with how we make sense of the evolution of consciousness. And part of what I'm trying to do in the book is just really wrestle with them quite deeply.

Scott Barry Kaufman (25:25)

Oh, I know what you're doing and I am in awe of you for doing it.

Philip Goff (25:31)

Thank you.

Scott Barry Kaufman (25:32)

Yeah, yeah. There's just various things that I'm trying to see how they line up. So help me line up something. I mean, you make this case that there is. You use the word goddess. I think it's funny. But you're like, you know, there is this. Like these are the two arguments that there might be that there probably is the existence of something goddess and the fine tuning physics for life and the psychophysical harmony. And then you have a whole argument why the Omni God probably doesn't exist. But I guess help me square this away. I would have thought maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. But since you're like the guy when it comes to the theory of panpsychism, Right. Isn't panpsychism literally an argument for an omnipresent consciousness? And if there's something fundamental to the universe. And if there is an omnipresent, wouldn't that actually be some suggestion there might be an omnipresent God? I guess I'm not understanding how you come up with there probably isn't an omnipresent God. Considering you're Mr. Panpsychism.

Philip Goff (26:38)

Does my question make sense? Absolutely. I would have thought you would have.

Scott Barry Kaufman (26:41)

Come across the other way.

Philip Goff (26:42)

Well, actually, people might be interested that there is a big split in the ever growing panpsychist research community. You know, it's so exciting that 15 years ago nobody was panpsychist, you know, and it's just been this growing third way position. That's quite exciting. But there is a split, I think, maybe reminiscent of the split in the early psychoanalytic community between followers of Jung and followers of Freud. You know, followers of Jung took it in a spiritual direction with the collective unconscious and spiritual archetypes. Whereas people who, like Freud thought, you know, oh, this is religious superstitious nonsense. We need serious science. And likewise with panpsychism, some people, I mean, David Chalmers, insofar as he's sympathetic to panpsychism, Luke Roelofs, a very good panpsychist philosopher. Angela Mendelevici. These people are totally reductionist, secular atheist. You know, they don't believe in some transcendent reality. They just think, look, ordinary consciousness, seeing color, hearing sound. We need a new way of thinking, of dealing with these scientifically. Whereas others, I'm probably a bit more on this side also. Hedda Hassan Merck or Itaishani. Do you see a certain consonance with certain spiritual views? Actually, Joanna Leiden Haag is a very good philosopher and theologian who defends a sort of panpsychist Christianity where she thinks, you know, if you've got consciousness pervading the universe, this helps us understand how God can have an intimate connection with the universe.

Scott Barry Kaufman (28:27)

I think that's what I think.

Philip Goff (28:29)

Yeah. So I would say, look, I'd say there's a, there's a, there's a consonance here. And, and one of the middle way options I consider in the book is cosmopsychism, you know, where the universe is a conscious mind. And so if you're dealing with fine tuning, why go for a sort of supernatural designer if the universe itself can be a conscious being with goals in some sense? So. So look, I'm open to. I'm open to a God in some sense. I'm open to a conscious universe. I just think all I'm objecting to is a God who is all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good. Because I think why would so much. Why, why would. It's not, I suppose I speak more positive. There's evidence against, right. Why would such a being choose to create us with the horrific process of, you know, evolution by natural selection? You know, why would they allow these kind of shrew, I can't remember the name of it now, that kills its prey by paralyzing it and then slowly eating it alive. You know, it just makes no sense to me. So I mean I'm one, one possibility I take very seriously is a God of limited abilities. God who's made the best universe they can, right? And maybe, maybe God can't just create intelligent life in an instant. Maybe the only way they can do it is create a universe from a singularity with the right physics to eventually evolve life. And God's like, I'm sorry, it's gonna be messy. It was this or nothing. So I take that serious. I'm very open to all these possibilities. It's just the very traditional all powerful God that I really think this. So yeah, I think there's strong evidence against that. But fine tuning is strong evidence against classic atheism that we're in a purposeless universe. So we need hypotheses in my view that can account for both. And I think there are such hypotheses on the table. I mean the simulation hypothesis is one that atheists tend to like a bit more. You know, maybe we're just in a simulation created by some random software engineer on the, you know, on a spare day. But so yeah, that's, that's one non standard design hypothesis.

Scott Barry Kaufman (30:44)

Yeah, it's. Chalmers has a, believes we're living in a simulation and he puts it that he gave me a certain probability once and it was pretty high that he thought.

Philip Goff (30:53)

Yeah, yeah.

Scott Barry Kaufman (30:54)

But it seems like the simulation hypothesis is very consistent with your view.

Philip Goff (30:57)

That's one of, the, one of the views I take seriously. Look in this book. I'm not saying, you know, I'm very suspicious of certainty in general. You know, that glint in the eye when someone is just not open to contravening evidence that I think you find as much from militant atheists as from religious fundamentalists. But I suppose, well, where I eventually come to, and I've got a section of this in the book with the simulation hypothesis, I guess I don't think, and this is where I disagree with Chalmers, I don't think creatures in a simulation would be conscious.

Scott Barry Kaufman (31:38)

Why not?

Philip Goff (31:38)

Because I, I mean this is, this is Very difficult questions. And I suppose you're more attracted to that. I mean, this is all from Nick Bostrom originally, the argument for the simulation hypothesis. And if you have the kind of view where consciousness is about kind of information processing, then you're more likely to think something that's simulated, a simulation of me. If the simulation has all of the structure of my brain, that's kind of going to be the same information processing and so my consciousness. But if you're a panpsychist like myself, you kind of think consciousness is kind of the flesh and blood of the world. It's the sort of stuff of the world. And so just having a simulation of something isn't going to give its consciousness in the way. You know, having a simulation of a hurricane doesn't make your computer wet. But I mean. I mean, there are the neuroscientist anal Seth, who I've argued about with a lot. We've got about four debates on YouTube if people are interested. I mean, he's got a very different position to me, but he's in the kind of viewpoint that also thinks consciousness is more biological, is more about a living system, it's more about our biology than, like the brain as a computer, and then what? So once you're in that mindset, you're less likely to think a simulated brain is going to be conscious, too. But it's a huge debate, and I'm a little bit uncertain about it.

Scott Barry Kaufman (33:02)

I want to hear less about all the different perspectives in the table, and I want to hear your perspective. You're very good at, like, giving a million caveats, but I don't want that anymore. Let's spend the rest of this podcast. I want to know, like, walk me through the way you see the world. You are. Are you a Catholic now? Have you reclaimed your. Your Catholicism?

Philip Goff (33:24)

No. No. Well, this is.

Scott Barry Kaufman (33:25)

What are you now?

Philip Goff (33:27)

After the book? After the book. In the book, I was nothing. After the book, I've slowly come to embrace what I call heretical Christianity. But I haven't returned to Catholicism, actually, because I've returned to the Anglican Church or I've gone to the Anglican Church, which tends to be very. A lot more flexible than I think. Maybe it's because, you know, it was brought into existence when Henry VIII wanted a divorce. So, you know, there's less ideology built into it. So, you know, it's. You go to your average Anglican Church.

Scott Barry Kaufman (34:04)

People aren't gonn, okay, so you're religious.

Philip Goff (34:08)

But yeah. So, I mean, this started really learning much more about actually how The Eastern Orthodox Church thinks about things where there's much less of an emphasis on sin, right? And there's much more of an emphasis on unity. The purpose is it's all about God and the universe coming into a state of deep, intimate unity. And, you know, when I was talking and reading about this, I have two reactions. Firstly, it resonates at a deep level, much more so than the Christianity I was familiar with. You know, I mean, this idea of, you know, God's interested in punishing someone for our sin, you know, and we all deserve to go to hell, but Jesus takes the hit and so we're going to go to heaven. You know, that just makes no sense intellectually or spiritually. But this idea that, you know, it's all about God and the universe coming into harmony makes a lot more sense to me on both levels. And also, I think. I think it fits quite well with this God of limited powers hypothesis. So the way I interpret Christianity, right, God's on the way to making a dead good universe. That was a bit of a. English. English is a must. God's on the way to making a fantastic universe. But the only way God can do that is kind of in two stages. Firstly, creating an okay universe, right, with the right kind of physics that will evolve life. And then when it's evolved enough, God starts to bring it to perfection by becoming more intimately involved with it, sharing in its form of existence so that we can share in God's form of existence. So this is. So this is something, let me just say, very finally, I am very uncertain this is true, but I've come to think of it as a credible possibility because I think it fits well with this God of limited powers hypothesis because it kind of resonates spiritually. And I think that's really what all you need for faith. You know, I think when you think about religion, I think you should be thinking, is it definitely true? I think you should be thinking, is there a reasonable chance it's true and will it bring me happiness? Will it bring me community? Will it bring me spiritual practice, a deeper sense of meaning and purpose? And I found it has brought me all those things. And I'm happy to live with the uncertainty that it might not be true. That's the. It's, you know, it's cost benefit analysis, right? You're living in hope of something that might not be true, but you're getting a lot out of it in how you're living your life.

Scott Barry Kaufman (36:52)

Yeah, you talk about spiritual advancement and the community. So obviously religion fills a need for humans, because it's amazing how long it's lasted compared to the other things that have not lasted nearly as long. So there's something really deep there. What I just find so fascinating is you're. You're like, no, look, you know, I respect science, and I think there's a scientific case that can be made for a certain view of. Of Christianity. Now, how do the Jews look in this? Is there any science evidence the Jews are right at all?

Philip Goff (37:30)

Well, well, so just let me. I'll get to that. Let me clarify slightly. So what I'm confident about, I suppose, is we need this middle way between God and atheism, that there's good evidence that there is some kind of purpose or goal, directedness, something going on. There's something going on, yeah. But what it is, I'm much less certain about this form of mildly heretical Christianity I've come to think is a credible possibility. But I'm very open to the possibility that other religions might also be credible possibilities. And you mentioned Judaism. Well, in the 1980s, I think it was. There was a bestseller by Rabbi Harold Kushner. Was it Harold Kushner, who also argued for a God of limited powers as the best explanation of suffering. What's the book called Now? Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, I think. I haven't actually read it. I probably should. I'll probably read it before the next book I'm researching. So, look, I'm. I'm open to the idea that a very liberal form of Judaism with a God of limited powers is also a credible possibility with Islam. I've never heard a Muslim thinker open to the possibility of a God of limited powers. If someone told me about that, I'd be open to thinking about that. So, yeah, I think, as I say, look, look, let me put it this way. I think faith is not about certainty. I think ultimately faith is about trust. It's about trusting a certain view of the meaning of existence, trusting it in terms of. To shape your. Your fundamental life goals and trusting it with how you interpret your deepest experiences. And, you know, certainty would be nice, but these matters are inherently uncertain. And I think there's a deep need to have a view on the meaning of existence and kind of live that out. So either we give up on that need or we trust in something where we've thought about it and we think there's a reasonable chance this is true. And I'm going to put a bet on it.

Scott Barry Kaufman (39:44)

Yeah. Okay. So the Pasquale's wager is kind of what you're talking about right there. A lot of people talk about, well, I'd rather bet on there. You're being God then not be God. Because if I'm wrong, I don't want to spend eternity in hell. But I'm trying to coin the opposite. No one ever talks about the opposite. And I'm trying to think of what a cool. Maybe you can help me come up with a cool name for what it would be. And that's this. What if the truth is there is no God and you spend your whole life inhibiting all your hedonistic things and all the things you really want to do out of your life because you're terrified, you know, you've kind of wasted your life. So what is that called? You could have lived a fuller life and you could have had a lot more fun.

Philip Goff (40:31)

Yeah, no, I think you're making a very important point and I just to say I prefer that Pascal has a lot of interesting things to say, but I actually prefer William James on this. William James is just one of my all time intellectual heroes, wonderful 19th century psychologist and philosopher. He had this wonderful paper, the Will to Believe, which he late, which he thought should be called the Right to Believe. And I think, I think that would have been a better title. And you know, he's just talking, he's not saying you should be religious. He's saying, look, you got away different things. You could, you could end up with a false belief if God doesn't exist, but you could miss out on a true belief if God does exist and you just got away these different things. And it's, you know, I'm not here saying, oh, to be, to live a meaningful life, you've got to be religious. I suppose I'm interested in getting rid of dogmatism and trying out lots of different experiments in living and seeing, seeing how they turn out, seeing the fruits. But yeah, I mean, I suppose my version of Christianity would be incredibly liberal. So I'm not really going to be giving up, you know, I, you know, look, I think here's an interesting point, right? Christians used to think it was, it was a sin to charge interest on money. Very few Christians think that now because we've, we've changed our, you know, with our understanding of the modern economy. But how come not more Christian Christians have changed their view on gay sex, right. With our modern understanding of, you know, like one thing I'm keen to look, I think, you know, if you look historically, religion has always reinvented itself in the light of the science and philosophy of the time, you know, Aquinas's philosophy was radically new. Now it's the official view of the Catholic Church. I think that's become stultified more recently because I think we're going through a period of history where liberals and progressives kind of think it doesn't make intellectual sense. And so then it becomes dominated by conservatives, especially in the U.S. now, let me just say, actually, before I misinterpreted, you know, I don't hate conservatives. I think, in fact, I think it's good in some ways to have a balance between progressives and conservatives, you know, so the conservatives can protect our traditions and not sort of throw everything out at once. But the progressives can think, well, look, you know, science and philosophy and morality is changing. Let's update them. So, you know, I'm just about to start a new book in the new year on reimagining religion, and I would just like to encourage, you know, more liberal voices to be in the mix in how we're thinking about religion and re. Understanding. Can I say one more thing on the sex stuff? I've just talked a little bit too long, but you see my point.

Scott Barry Kaufman (43:25)

See my point. I feel like you really get what I'm trying to say, you know.

Philip Goff (43:28)

Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. You know, Tom Holland, wonderful book. Dominion on the impact of Christianity and history makes an interesting point that, like in the early days of Christianity, the rules on no sex before marriage were really bloody important because they protected women and slaves from getting raped. I mean, not entirely, obviously not entirely at all. But to an extent, it protected people who have no rights. So maybe we need to rethink Christian sexual ethics. As Christians now, we're in a situation where we don't really. We don't have slaves or, you know, it's not legal at least, and women have more rights. So maybe we need to rethink these norms in the way we've rethought interest on loans. So, yeah, that's this. But you make a good point. You make a good point. Look, I. God, if I was gay and I thought being a Christian meant I couldn't have a gay relationship, I wouldn't be a Christian. I wouldn't, you know, but I don't think as a liberal progressive Christian, I don't think that's necessary.

LG X Boom Advertiser (44:38)

Stop settling for weak sound. It's time to level up your game and bring the boom. Hit the town with the ultra durable LG X Boom portable speaker and enjoy vibrant sound wherever you go. Elevate your listening experience to new heights because let's be real, your music dudes deserves it. The future of sound is now with LG x boom and for a limited time save 25%@LG.com with code fall25 bring the boom xboom.

Washable Sofas Advertiser (45:08)

There'S nothing like sinking into luxury. At washablesofas.com you'll find the Annabe sofa which combines ultimate comfort and design at an affordable price. And get this, it's the only sofa sofa that's fully machine washable from top to bottom starting at only $699. The stain resistant performance fabric slipcovers and cloud like frame duvet can go straight into your wash. Perfect for anyone with kids, pets or anyone who loves an easy to clean spotless sofa. With a modular design and changeable slipcovers, you can customize your sofa to fit any space and style. Whether you need a single chair, lovestand seat or a luxuriously large sectional, Annabe has you covered. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your home. Right now you can shop up to 60% off store wide with a 30 day money back guarantee. Shop now@washablesofas.com Add a little to your life. Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

GoDaddy Advertiser (46:08)

Running a business online look legit and own your own brand with professional tools from GoDaddy instantly build trust with your customers and boost your credibility with an email that matches your domain so people know you mean business. There's never been a better time. Just go to GoDaddy.com GDnow and choose from a wide variety of popular domains to find one that's right for you. Pair that with a professional email that works for all your business needs from daily communications to email marketing and everything in between. That's a little price for a lot of credibility. For a limited time, get a domain and matching professional email for just 99 cents a month for one year. Go to GoDaddy.comGdNow and look legit with GoDaddy. That's GoDaddy.comGdNow again. GoDaddy.comGdNow there's never been a better time to choose the domain and email that's right for you. New customer purchases only products Auto renew system separately See terms on site godaddy.com gdnow.

Scott Barry Kaufman (47:10)

There'S just so much deep stuff here and so many implications. I think that just a big a big disappointment for me if you're right. Is that like praying? An implication of what you're saying is that praying is useless like, you know, that there really is not a God or there really is not something higher than me that cares about me, you know, beyond my parents. And I think that that's kind of like. I think a lot of religious people would be very disappointed with your view because to them there's something about a personal God that is so meaning oriented that I can pray to God and God's listening to me. There's something very special about that intimacy. You're removing that intimacy in a way, right? Not in a way, in a big way.

Philip Goff (47:55)

You're making a good point. Yeah. It's not ideal, is it? But look, I mean, I do pray every night. I meditate every morning, pray every night. So I still think I'm listening to God in the morning, talking to God in the evening. And I think, you know, whether or not you think it's gonna have an impact, you know, praying for friends who are suffering or for the suffering in the world, I find it so important to connect you up to what's going on. I can be a bit thoughtless, I think not because I don't care. I'm just sort of forget about friends who got deep troubles. So then when I kind of pray and I return to thinking about them and it helps to put them in my mind and yeah, I mean, just the value of spiritual practice I think is I found since I become religious, it's lessened my ego, right? It's, you know, living in hope of some greater purpose. Continuously making effort to orientate yourself to that, to conceive of what you're doing is contributing in some small way to some greater purpose makes me less bothered about my own personal success and failure. You know, not that it's not important, but it's, it's not what the meaning of my life hangs on. And I found that's actually opened me up to just enjoying being in the moment a lot more with my family and friends and, you know, so. So you're talking about like, what you might be missing out on from a religious like, and I really want to take that seriously. But yeah, I've actually found it's, it's just opened me up to just what you've gained. Enjoy, enjoy the present moment a bit more because I'm less hung up with my own ambitions. It's like that's the only thing that makes my life have a point.

Scott Barry Kaufman (49:43)

Yeah, I hear you. And, and for the remainder of this podcast, I want to just jump into some really, really deep territory and that's this. Are people when they're having a peak experience or a mystical experience, are they seeing reality? That's a question that I have been pondering for the past seven, eight years. Wrote the book Transcend, and I think it's a really interesting question. Let's just say they are for a second. Can we play that game that would suggest that there really is some level of reality that's very hard for an ordinary consciousness to get in touch with, but that it's possible for humans to get in touch with in certain rare moments. And in those moments, the big question I have is, what are we getting in contact with? And it's such a fun thing to really think about and really unpack, you know, because it does. Because I do think there is some. Something there. There is some level of reality. Now, I'm not going matrix, I'm not going all matrix, but I'm saying there is something that is pointing to a loving unity of a universe, of a consciousness. There's something very loving and one of humanity that is very hard for humans in their ordinary consciousness to access, but I think is probably true. What do you think?

Philip Goff (51:07)

Yeah, I think we're probably of one mind on this.

Scott Barry Kaufman (51:12)

That was funny. That was funny.

Philip Goff (51:13)

Oh, yeah. That was an unintended joke. Maybe that was the cosmic consciousness making me funny, even though I. I couldn't.

Scott Barry Kaufman (51:20)

How funny that response was.

Philip Goff (51:21)

Right? It was good, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, this is one thing panpsychism can make a difference on. I said that some panpsychists. Not all. It's important to say not all. Some panpsychists see a consonance of certain spiritual views. And I think it does perhaps open you up to taking mystical experiences more seriously. I mean, if you're a physicalist and you think it's just physics is the complete story of the fundamental nature of reality, you've got to think a mystical experience is a delusion, just something funny going on in your brain. Because you know, at least if you have an experience that there's some greater form of consciousness at the root of things. You know, that's not really compatible with physics being the complete story. But if you're a panpsychist and you already think there are forms of consciousness at the fundamental level, then it's less of a leap to think this higher form of consciousness you seem to be experiencing is part of that fundamental story of consciousness. Although. But some people might still say, you know, okay, but it's just something going on in your brain. Why. Why trust it? And here, let me. Let me come Back to the great William James.

Scott Barry Kaufman (52:32)

Where is consciousness? Where is consciousness? And in your view, it's not just in the brain?

Philip Goff (52:37)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what that, yeah, that's, that's a good point. Yeah, that's another, another good way you could be led into that. And it's, it's a lot more complicated than many people think. But, but James had this. So, you know, one of the great, still really good text on, on mysticism is in James's the Varieties of Religious Experience. Most of this is a, is a sort of psychological study of mystical experiences. But at the end he says, would it be rational for someone who's had a mystical experience to trust it? And he says, well, if you say no, it's sort of a double standard because we all think it's okay to trust our ordinary perceptual experiences. Right, right. And you know, you could be in the Matrix, right? I mean, you could say, oh, well, we can test our senses. Well, you can test your senses by using your senses. It's sort of circular, you know, but at some. All knowledge is ultimately based, rooted in just a decision to trust experiences. But all of our experiences could be delusion. We could be in the Matrix, but we think it's rational to trust our perceptual experiences and to do science and to build on that. So why is it okay to trust our ordinary perceptual experiences, but it's not okay for a mystic to trust their mystical experience? Well, when you say, especially when a mystical experience, you know, often seems more bloody real than ordinary experiences, even after you've had it. Sorry, carry on.

Scott Barry Kaufman (53:55)

That's true. There's a word for that, right? Yeah, that it feels noetic, it feels more real than real. Okay, but what about the schizophrenic? Is that, can we make a claim? I feel like that's somehow different. I feel like we can kind of look into what's happening in the mind of someone in psychosis and kind of show it doesn't align with what. Like we can't really trust it as much as we can trust our normal senses. Or can we, can we really go there? Can we really question whether or not schizophrenics are really seeing reality?

Philip Goff (54:32)

What I think this is showing. You're making a really good point in response to what I've just said, what we're taking seriously. And I think what that shows is this is just very complicated and there are very difficult judgment calls. I think so many people think, ah, science is wrapped up, you know, there's I mean we've still got gaps, we need to dot some I's, cross some T's. But the basic picture of the universe is there and it rules out anything. Goddess. But look, there are, there are areas of deep uncertainty in science, in, in quantum mechanics, in consciousness, in this fine tuning stuff. And not just areas of uncertainty, but areas where we need philosophical judgment calls in how to interpret the data. And this is, I mean this is very clear in quantum mechanics. And as I just read a wonderful book on, on quantum mechanics by Adam Becker, what is real and the horrible power struggles in early quantum mechanics. Because people wanted to say, what is this theory telling us about reality? Right? That's what you need to know about quantum mechanics, right? It's our best scientific theory. All of our technology is based on it. But there is no consensus on what it is telling us about reality. There are these different views and it requires philosophical judgment call in what the hell is this telling us? And with the early, with the early quantum mechanics people, people who ask that question, what is this theory telling us about reality? They couldn't get jobs. They were demonized. They still are to it. Sean Carroll has talked about this. You know, really, people still are. It's hard to get taken seriously if you want to say, but what is going on in the world to make quantum mechanics work? People say that's not science, you know, just, it bloody works. Do the experiments shut up and calculate.

Scott Barry Kaufman (56:29)

Shut up.

Philip Goff (56:29)

And you know, we need, we need to, we've forgotten that the, we can't do without philosophy. There are these choice points where there are judgment calls, like mystical experience. Is it a genuine insight or is it just something funny going on your brain? Very difficult judgment call might depend on your worldview and, but yeah, it's not so obvious and it's sadly someone who's very, very delusional. It might be hard for, for them it might seem very rational. It might be the rational thing to do to, to believe these wrong things. I mean we can see from the outside and relative to everything we take ourselves to know, this, this particular individual might be sadly very delusional. But from the inside it's possible that sadly the rational thing for them to believe is to trust these hallucinations. It's just very complicated and we need to work together. We need to bring scientists and philosophers together. I need to have the journey look.

Scott Barry Kaufman (57:30)

Well, me and you, philosophers and cognitive scientists, absolutely we need to work together because I really do think there's evidence for the universe being a fundamentally loving place now you, because you said, I know you talk about consciousness, but there's got to be a way of combining your theory with what I just said because. And I think that like hate, hate just always feels experientially like it's a resistance against what's natural and what is fundamental. And look, I have not really fully formed my thoughts, but I must thank you for inspiring me to think about the farthest reaches of human nature, as my hero, Abraham Maslow would put it. You said something in your book that has kept me up at night ever since I read it. You talked about actually William James. And I didn't know he said this, but he's like, if you're in the middle of the precipice between two things and you have to leap and take the chasm, you have to take the leap of faith sometimes. But here's the interesting thing. Whatever you believe is going to end up increasing the probability that it's true if you don't jump. If you just stay there in the middle of these two things on both sides yourself, you're just going to stay there forever. If you would have any hope at all of reaching one of the ground on of the sides, you have to believe that you'll be able to make the jump. And it's just like, wow, there's something so freaking profound about that, about consciousness and our lives and how we live our lives. And of course it applies to religion, but it really applies to everything in our lives that we don't think we can do and applies to self belief, self belief. Like, you know, if I go and I take undertake this whole investigation and study of psychology that I can become a psychologist or if I start taking singing lessons even though there's no evidence right now that I have any potential for singing, that maybe I can be a singer someday. The ones who really make history are the ones that bet on themselves. So there's just something so unbelievably profound about this and, and I, and if it really does truly apply to religion, you know, Pascal's Wager is right, you know, like, you know, I can see an argument for choosing religion. So look, I just think that, you know, these questions are so fun to talk about and I really truly appreciate just your open mindedness to not call people crazy who even want to just have such discussions. So I must thank you for that as well.

Philip Goff (60:04)

Oh, thanks, Scott. Yeah, I think you're right. I mean, we do this.

Scott Barry Kaufman (60:07)

Am I making any sense?

Philip Goff (60:09)

Absolutely. I mean, you're just making me think we do this in life, don't we, that we, we take a leap of faith, you know, when, you know, let's say a loved one is, is, is very ill and the prospects are not good, but they're not, I mean, you know, maybe there's like a 40% chance they'll pull through. It's entirely rational to say, look, I'm going to have faith that you're going to pull through. I'm going to root for you, I'm going to, I'm going to work with you. And that can make it more likely that they will pull through. Or take another example with, I'm very worried about climate change. You just think about the evidence. Are we going to deal with this? Maybe, probably not, I don't know. Or it's very unclear. But I can still say I'm going to have faith that we are. That gives me meaning and motivation and give me strength to carry on and make it more likely. So that's, yeah, that's very much how I see religion. I'm not interested in, oh, you know, this is the one true faith. You're right. I'm right, I'm right, you're wrong. But you only live once. And you could be pursuit believing something false, but you could miss out on something true and you could miss out on a richer form of life. And you know, I think historically religion has played a crucial social role in how it brings the community together, marks the seasons and the big moments of life, you know, birth, coming of age, marriage, death. I think the secular world has not managed to replicate that. I mean, I'm not saying. I've got no argument that never could. Some secular thinkers think it could and think we should develop such institutions, but at least for the moment, it's never seemed to quite manage that. So, yeah, that's really the value for me in bringing people together in community and spiritual practice and embracing their uncertainty. Taking the leap of faith.

Scott Barry Kaufman (62:14)

Taking the leap. Yeah. Hey, thank you, Phil. Golf. I'm glad we're finally able to have this chat.

Philip Goff (62:20)

Oh, thanks, Scott. Really lots of fun. Let's stay in touch. Let's carry on talking. Thank you.

Scott Barry Kaufman (62:25)

I love that our mutual friend Annika Harris says hi.

Philip Goff (62:28)

Oh, hi, Annika. Annika's cool. She's done some great stuff, written some great stuff on panpsychism.

LG X Boom Advertiser (62:46)

Stop settling for weak sound. It's time to level up your game and bring the boom. Hit the town with The Ultra Durable LG XBoom Portable speaker and enjoy vibrant sound wherever you go. Elevate your listening experience to new heights because let's be real, your music deserves it. The future of sound is now with LG XBoom and for a limited time save 25% at LG.com with code fall25 bring the boom x boom.

Washable Sofas Advertiser (63:16)

Time for a sofa upgrade. Visit washablesofas.com and discover Annabe where designer style meets budget friendly prices. With sofas starting at $699, Anabe brings you the ultimate in furniture innovation with a modular design that allows you to rearrange your space effortlessly. Perfect for both small and large spaces, Anabe is the only machine washable sofa inside and out. Say goodbye to stains and messes with liquid and stain resistant fabrics that make cleaning easy. Liquid simply slides right off. Designed for custom comfort, our high resilience foam lets you choose between a sink and feel or a supportive memory foam blend. Plus our pet friendly stain resistant fabrics ensure your sofa stays beautiful for years. Don't compromise quality. For price. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your living space today with no risk returns and a 30 day money back guarantee. Get up to 60% off plus free shipping and free returns. Shop now at washablesofas.com Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

Chase Sapphire Advertiser (64:16)

The day begins at the Chase Sapphire Lounge by the Club at Boston Logan Airport. You get the clam chowder in San Diego, it's Tostadas New York Espresso Martini. It's 10:00am why not? It's the quiet before your next flight, the shower that resets your day, the menu that lets you know where you are. This is access to over 30 airport lounges and every Sapphire Lounge by the club. And one card that gets you in Chase Sapphire Reserve, the most rewarding card.

Philip Goff (64:41)

Learn more@chase.com Sapphire Reserve cards issued by.

Scott Barry Kaufman (64:43)

Morgan Chase bank and a member FDIC.

Philip Goff (64:45)

Subject to credit approval. This is an iHeart podcast.