For early access to episodes, ad-free, support the show at www.Patreon.com/AlexOC

Most descriptions of afterlifes I've ever heard seem to just consist of things and ideas directly lifted from reality. I'm not sure how Lewis turns to desires not of this world. Seems like a bit of a switcheroo in the setup there.

This full interview did a fantastic job at informing me that Dawkins is not, at heart, a philosopher. This isn't good nor bad, it simply is. But it strikes me as an important distinction.

We like cheesecake because it's sweet, it has fat content, both of which we evolved to find enjoyable. But we didn't evolve to seek out cheesecake specifically; it didn't exist. It's a fairly recent human invention, not part of the environment. It's just an extension or a combination of more fundamental elements of human desires.

Every mathematicians in the nineteenth century and in the beginning of the twentieth century _really_ wanted to complete the Hilbert's program, a foundation of math based on first principles. Everyone wanted it, it even looked _very_ reasonable to have it, but than 1931 came with a famous publication by Gödel that destroyed any hope. Everyone really wanted to find something, a foundation of our logic thinking the desire of which was built in our system, and it could be _proven_ that instead it does not exist. All the supernatural things we desire are superior version of natural stuff. We do not have a desire for something we cannot explain or understand. We have a desire for _eternal_ life - like our, but longer - flying horses, magic weapons, love elixirs, end of struggles and internal peace: better versions of things we have or magic solutions for issues we have.

Nice content and thought provoking....thank you from South Africa 🇿🇦

"What if your reasoning evolved to favour survival over facts?" is a really bad question, because we already *know* that this is the case. We're a species that sees faces where there are none, can easily suspend our disbelief to experience a story, and are easily swayed by hundreds of logical fallacies and emotional arguments.

The really interesting part of this video is not Dawkins’ casual tossing aside of Lewis’ argument, but his falling short of even beginning grapple with Plantinga’s. Well done, Alex, as usual, at giving dense interviewees 2ed, and 3ed shots at the same, unmoved target. I’d be genuinely interested in your take on Plantinga’s argument there.

It's kinda silly to propose that something MUST exist because people have a desire for it. People have desire for things they've imagined all of the time. I don't see how gods or an afterlife are any different from things like time travel, immortality , magic, and alternate dimensions. No matter how much you want it this isn't an anime, you're not going to another world when you die

Great questions Alex! Always thought provoking.

The video quality is very good. Excellent!

The 10 coasters 2 glasses interview. Hehe.. Edit: Thank the lord for the table cloth. LMFAO.

Does Dawkins’s suggestion that long-dead Lewis come up with a better argument technically mean he believes in the afterlife?

I've always wanted to be able to freeze time, be invisible at will, fly, etc. Doesn't mean its related to something that exists.

Your an incredible individual alex,so enjoy your intellect in discussion with the wonderful richard Dawkins.

Most of us struggle with CPTSD whether we're aware of that or not. The desire for something "bigger" is simply the desire for the unconditional love and acceptance most of us haven't received from caregivers/parents. It's all about unmet emotional needs regardless of how perfect the family looks from the outside or whether we remember the abuse/neglect or not.

I like the way Alex phrases questions and genuinely considers arguments without an average-know-it-all-atheist dismissive attitude. On the point of "How do we know that 2+2=4, in the abstract mathematical realm, is just true rather than it being the case that thinking or acting as if 2 + 2 = 4 helps us get to the moon?" "If 2 + 2 is NOT equal to 4 in the abstract mathematical realm, but only appears to be 4 because hypothesizing it serves our goals, then how would we know if it were false indeed? How should one approach and inquire about "the abstract mathematical truths"?"

Most people seem to not realize the actual desire that Lewis is talking about in his argument. He starts with this indescribable, peak sense of what he calls 'joy,' which is really this fleeting sense that only comes upon a person rarely, where suddenly everything clicks in one's perception and they experience a profound sense of a 'beyond.' Interestingly, in my reading and in conversations with even my fundamental materialist friends, I've discovered that most people do seem to know exactly what Lewis is referring to. The German word is 'sehnsucht.' And when someone experiences this, it is immediately realized as the arch desire of one's life. One can either acknowledge it as meaningful or dismiss it as a strange happening of chemicals. Lewis is saying nothing in the world is the end of that specific desire, which he correlates to the ultimate fount of all desire. Nothing quenches that thirst. So either it's a desire of a phantom nothing or a desire of something, and if something then something beyond the material. It's a romantic argument in the sense that it's based in imagination and perception, and it doesn't claim to be other than that, but it is one based on a reasonable response.

As a Phil BA, i believe that the desire is for something that one can imagine, a teleporter, for example. This concept could be actualized, but is not in this world or time. Herego, I desire a teleporter, and would desire an alternate dimension/timeline in which simultaneously I and this transporter exists. Far from an analysis of void desire or the desire of nothing.

I think a great way to address the evolved rationale challenge is quantum mechanics. It is absolutely true that there are problems our mind can't find answers for and so we create more intuitive (but less correct) answers. But reasoning and testing has revealed to us some answers that we can continually show work (in at least some areas) better than competing theories. Our intuition rejects them, but we can reason that something about them must be 'true' -- because they work.

Who keeps letting Richard Dawkins have these conversations. Alex knows that there is a real problem that needs to be addressed here and Dawkins doesn't have the philosophical sophistication and humility to address the issue seriously. If Lewis were alive he would absolutely obliterate Dawkins in a debate.

Evolution doesn’t care if we have desires we can’t satisfy.

This was a surprisingly fun video, I love a good devil's advocate discussion

Desire for eternal survival, and desire for an ultimately protective parent figure. Both survival and parents who protect and we can look to for answers exist.

Alex Bhai Ram Ram 🙏 as usual you are best listen to but you have grown so wise since started listening to you since 2017

Dawkins' third button is undone

Even the value of our desires is historically situated and likewise determined. When life no longer exists on this planet nothing of absolute value will have transpired.

could be just a desire for entrainment into cycles beyond our narrow ego. into cyclical nature beyond our temporal and spatial understandings.

You should discuss Scientology on your show.

CS Lewis desired for a god. He got what he desired. He invented one for himself.

indeed!

I love these sort of conversations. It’s a shame that usually its only one party that seems to be able to set aside their opinions and predictions and beliefs to have an abstract conversation about a thing we can’t yet fully understand. If your job security and reputation among your peers will waiver in the face of such a conversation, then something’s gotta give. It’s a waste of time otherwise.

"I was angry at god for not existing" - BS Lewis. Pretty much says it all. He, like many others, were compelled , not by reason, logic, or a desire to seek what's actually true, but for emotional reasons and immediately reassuring answers. Albeit those "answers" are entirely fallacious.

I can't believe I used to take C.S.Lewis seriously. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🙇🏻‍♂️

To me, it makes perfect evolutionary sense for desire to never be satisfied. Think of things that inspire "awe". There is some evidence that the experience of "awe" is linked to learning. The desire for finding the beautiful, the numinous, the grand connections between things I think is part of a drive for survival and learning. If these desires could be satisfied then I don't think there would be much of a drive for the expanding of intelligence and seeking enrichment.

Alex your follower( shall i say subscriber) from 🇪🇹 Ethiopia I have a question for you.( may be not directly related to this video) if free will doesn't exist and we are determined, there is no way we know anything for sure, because if we think some claim is true, it is because we are determined to think so, not necessarily because that claim is true how can i be sure about the claim " Free will doesn't exist" if you are determined to say so( you say it because you are determined to say it, not because it is necessarily true)

Lewis promoted his anglican god belief using his skill as a writer but he never did provide proof of his god's existence.

Lewis’ argument is completely missing the point. We don’t desire something because it exists, we desire something because the satisfaction of that desire would be beneficial to our survival. In other words, there has to be an evolutionary reason for that desire to exist, but the object of desire does not necessarily have to exist. If suddenly all food disappeared from the universe, would we not get hungry?

Even understanding irrational beliefs may in some scenarios actually give us an advantage is an extension of rationality which gives us a survival advantage. We can know that such beliefs exist, we can know that they give an advantage, we can know why they give us an advantage, and we can know that they are wrong . . . each step increases our survivability and each step is attained through some means of rationality.

2 plus 2 equals 4 because we define 2 as a number which when added to itself equals 4.

From the womb of our mothers, we were under constant auditory bombardment. Heart beat, mother's voice, intestinal noises, and the list goes on. All in the darkness of the womb's universe. Then we're born. You can't see very well, and your new sense of hunger causes you to cry for help. Out of seemingly nowhere, a being shows up to comfort you. Could this be the subconscious yearn or expectation of something outside of us? A supposed born knowledge of a god? Any thoughts on this?

I feel like Dawkins profoundly misunderstood the first question. It wasn't a matter of "if you want something, it must be true," but WHY would you evolve to want something - specifically something outside the physical world - if something outside the physical world would serve no evolutionary benefit to you.

gotcha!

Interesting 😮

Reading CS Lewis makes me lose at least two IQ points per each sentence

You could say every religions God is just their idea of an ideal authority figure and the desire for a perfect authority figure does make evolutionary sense. God is just a conglomeration of desires for things which do exist like love, justice etc, we see a lack of these things in our world, grow hungry for them and create a being which promises us all these things, which our hunger for do make evolutionary sense, this also goes for belief in the afterlife too, very often it's just a hunger for retribution, reward or simply more life, all of which you could argue make evolutionary sense.

At the end there, Alex, somewhat unwittingly it seems to me, touches upon the question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered. His train of logic, drawing on Planting, offers an intriguing path to the conclusion that mathematicians who believe maths are discovered (which is most mathematicians, I think) are religious.

Wanting things that don't exist is pretty common. Artists, writers, creatives, scientists always imagine and strive for things that don't yet exist.

It's also important to remember we spent most of our time evolving in a much leaner environment. That's why we're often so unsatisfied. The way we think of needs and scarcity in the context of the Western world is a perfect example. Irrational is putting it mildly.

Women desire things that don't exist all the time. Checkmake CS Lewis! Checkmate!

Is the desire (from some) for 'eternal life' not just an extension of self preservation with death being the ultimate, inescapable conclusion to that ultimately futile pursuit?

Nice discussion. I would like to add that a desire for things that do not exist is exactly why we invent things. We are able to transform our environment because we can imagine things that do not exist (yet). This si of course an evolutionary advantage.

The argument says that every universal human desire (eg. hunger, thirst, sex, communication) has its means of satisfaction. You can't say that one of them (divine fulfillment) is completely false and made up lie. That is inconsistent, irrational, and has no supporting evidence.

He simply dosen't understand a single word Alex is saying. Every question goes over his head. He rambles incoherently. The patience shown here is to be applauded.

It could also be a desire for an explanation (meaning of life, etc.). Doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong as long as you believe it..

I mean, all of this can be an extension of this. We can wish, evolutionarily, for an extension of our life from our survival. But abstract ideas out live people as well. So it would continue to exist and the abstract idea would evolve too outside the ideas made by people. You could even see that denomination and other religions are a branching of evolution of this idea, changing wants and perspectives of what it is into the afterlife.

Mr Dawkins is just brilliant

Alex seems to think there's a mechanism we evolved that kicks in when it's beneficial to believe a false fact. That isn't what's happening. All that's happening there is that our brain considers all available data and comes to the wrong conclusion - either based on bad or incomplete data or an insufficient ability to process the data.

Humans can want whatever they can imagine. If I share my notion that you can live forever, you can now imagine it. You will likely want it to be true enough to convince yourself it is true.

I have been following you for a long time. I have recommended your channel to countless friends. Given that I feel somewhat invested, I am proud of your success and increasingly excellent content. Thank you. Great work!

I want the most perfect pizza, and I know I will have it after I die. Uh, that doesn’t work for me. All the Christian promises are to be delivered postmortem. I will believe Christians really believe this when Churches open banks where I can borrow money that I pay back when I die.

As an atheist who became a Christian and thought Christianity was silly, please have an open mind, all.

After so many videos, Dawkins button up you shirt!!!

8:36 ....or that they understand more than they do. If we're fundamentally wrong about the nature of the universe, but our incorrect notions have kept us alive and evolving, does objective truth matter to our actual existence? Or is the truth of our existence irrelevant to our understanding of the universe, and therefore a matter beyond our observational capabilities, and thus the refusal of general acceptance, especially by scientists that want to observe the observer.

well, he's dead, so that aint happening

Zizek makes the point that Desire's purpose IS precisely to be unfulfilled. As soon as one gets what is desired, the desire ends (the Lacanian idea of desire as a "productive force") Therefore it seems reasonable to say desire is actually about the impossible. Fantasies are almost always better as fantasies.

6:00 overlooking the unintended side effects or “spandrels” that emerge out of otherwise advantageous evolutionary processes. Being able to think in abstract ways that manipulate symbols and postulate imagined possibilities has profound advantages,, while also eliciting false beliefs based in wishful thinking and misapplied categorical rules as ways of trying to assuage existential anxiety, vulnerability and lack of control. Related to this, as humans gathered in larger and larger groups, shared religious beliefs was one way of creating order and having a basis for common legal/moral values. So we can argue there was some utility there, which also rode on the cost tails of the ubiquitous human tendency to fill in gaps in knowledge with supernatural explanations, and an imagined monarchical power structure that extended beyond the physical world. We’re there benefits? In relative terms, sure…. But the history of post enlightenment societies has been one of replacing those theocratic and monarchical systems with democracy, education, human rights, and a rational view of the world.

With regard to the first proposition, there are functions within our bodies which seek systemic balance by measuring something other than the critical variable involved. The example that comes to mind is that our breathing is triggered by an excess of carbon dioxide rather than a lack of oxygen. It's said that if it evolved around oxygen being the trigger it would be too close to critical failure by the time the breath was triggered, so instead it's triggered by a parallel but related product, namely carbon dioxide. In general terms then, I could image we desire things against imagined situations and imagined prospects for success or failure that don't exist in reality but trigger the desires to pursuit something that happens in reality. Desire is not a real world event based experience, it's a internal mental creation or urge which helped direct the rest of our activities towards goals. Desire is a mental weighting systems which makes activities in the real world worthy of pursuit. It is not the variable we are in need of but rather the variable that triggers us to pursue our needs. In that regard being entirely satisfied may well be evolutionary bad as it effectively has us "rest on our laurels", rather than continue to perform and improve in the real world. Resting is important but only to a degree. Those who thrive the most effectively improve their chances of better outcomes overall, including survival. With regards to whether evolution of mind effectively taints the output of that mind, what is the advantage of having a mind? The mind allows us to model the real world and plan and take actions in that world. The lower the accuracy that mind has with respect to objective reality, the less likely such plans and actions will be effective. Accuracy of modelling of the real world allows us to make better predictions as to what happens within that world, and thus puts us in better stead as to what to do next and how to go about doing it. It's always worth checking if our reasoning is consistent with the reality of the world we can check by other means, as there may be some evolutionary failure embedded deep within our mentality but hopefully cross-checking information and reasoning could uncover such a faulty, even if we ourselves could not directly comprehend it. Reality is the arbiter in this regard and the more we know about it the easier it gets to notice any problems with our interpretation of it.

The filmstar in the next world would wouldn't allow this person to find them,Haha

I believe many people have this unexplainable yearning for something that is not tangible or imaginable even. There is this void, emptiness inside us that we crave to fill constantly, most often in the moments of despair or when we feel lost. I'm not a theist but not an atheist either, more of an agnostic. I don't believe literately in stories from bible or quran, but there are interesting analogies to be found in them. In any case, how can we be so sure that there is nothing outside this perception of life as we have it now, while we live. Even the greatest scientists should have modesty to admit that we don't know everything. How can you even claim anything with 100% certainty when we cannot completely define what consciousness is, and all is a happening in consciousness?

Hi Alex, I think you could brought up Donald Hoffman's ideas here

I think Alex and Richard Dawkins are rather overintellectualising Lewis' point here. Lewis is drawing attention to that desire for the transcendent, for ultimate meaning, purpose and value, which is the deepest, most fundamental experience we have as humans. It lies behind so much of our great art, literature and thought. Certainly, our longing for the transcendent does not logically guarantee its reality, as Lewis recognises by using the word "probable". It is, however, wholly consistent with it, and is, shall we say, not surprising if the transcendent is actual. As William James said, with typical caution, of religious experiences, this desire points "with reasonable probability to the continuity of our consciousness with a wider spiritual environment". If, of course, we are the incidental by-products of a mindless, purposeless, valueless material universe, then we have to accept that our deepest longings are essentially evolved illusions - and it will, I think, be hard to live a truly human life after that. As Chesterton observed, "Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural".

How can we "know" that Plantinga talks the most absurd nonsense ? Because he is evidently in love with the idea of a spirit world, in which his favoured spirit is the Boss !

"Clarity is not born of logic." J. Krishnamurti

Alex O’Connor seems to understand the nuances and strengths of Lewis and Plantingas arguments. I always felt that Dawkins was a weak philosopher whenever he waded into that realm whereas O’Conner has honed his intellectual skills quite well.

Two plus two equals four is true by definition. We observe distinct entities (objects, ideas, the swings of a pendulum, etc.) and assign unique symbols (numbers) to delineate how many (plus). How could the concept not be true?

Lewis's argument regarding a desire for God indicating the reality of a deity is daft. However it is almost a prediction of Terror Management Theory.

I will forever scorn the name CS Lewis. Not for his religious BS but because I LOVED his "Chronicles of Narnia" UNTIL I read the concluding novel "The Last Battle" which sucked rhino balls.

It's admirable the justice you do to Lewis and Plantinga in this section. You're a true Socratic. Do you have a follow-up to challenge Lewis's argument from desire and Plantinga's argument against naturalism by evolution?

The eternal discussion about the possibility of the impossible. 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏿🤦‍♀️🤦🏾🤦🏽🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏿‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️ Plumbers are a lot more useful than any philosopher.

More like it sounds absolutely silly

“That’s a very odd argument” Dawkins way of saying ‘wow, good question, I’ve never really thought deeply about this before, I just wanted your viewers to buy my book’.

I find that there is no point in asking "2+2=4" or any kind of math question because all of math is built upon a bunch of postulates and everything else comes from logical reasoning from that. So the only two things you can really refute are: 1) the basic assumptions you start with 2) logic itself

the whole thing is they are avoiding the question altogether.

When a dog get sick, it hides under the table or behind a chair. It cannot understand something hurting inside, so it think some unseen force outside is hurting it.

Whatever rubbish Plantinga talks about evolution, it's evident that the process worked well enough to get us to our current situation. Stranded with Plantinga on a desert island, he would be too busy counting sand grains, than to be collecting coconuts.

The man who invented the car desired a better way to move around even tho cars did not yet exist. Every development we enjoy started in the mind of someone

Funny and sad that Dawkins didn't even understood Plantinga's argument, especially that this argument is quite popular and quite relevant to his field. Alex great job for pushing a bit.

When I was a teenager, I wanted Middle Earth and Gandalf and the hobbits to be true. According to CS Lewis, this is evidence that the Lord of the Rings is ontologically true. I mean, come on. This is literal wishful thinking.

The human brain is the most complex thing that has evolved. We know that it's resulted in the construction of illusions so It's hardly surprising that it's resulted in these inexplicable beliefs.

🔥

1:55 so far I would say it is actually connected to something. the supernatural desire if explored more deeply, isn't that its a desire but if people are brought up in specific (old and ancient) cultures they will attribute to everything odd of unexplainable in their life to the supernatural while there is a gaining number of people in society that are being better educated to realize the unexplainable is actually a place to explore more, and we can as in the past resources were scarce and any form of exploration by early man would lead more certainly to death, but today that bar just keeps on lifting. we now know all weather phenomenon is not an angry God but a complex weather cycle.

Alex does a characteristically excellent job of presenting a good steelman(ish) presentation of C.S. Lewis's argument ... and characteristically Dawkins bends over backwards misunderstanding it and responding to a strawman version. Same goes for Plantiga's argument ... he doesn't even seem to understand the argument. Awesome content.

the 'desire' for food is a fundamental need. It's not the same as a 'desire' for God. We evolved a consciousness with the ability to consider abstract concepts. Hypothesising there might be something that can 'save us' isn't too much different from hypothesising that food will end our hunger. Alex is weirdly missing the point when he says 'it's a desire for something that doesn't exist'. All desires are desires for something that doesn't exist. When you're hungry, you desire a full belly - which, at the time you desire it, doesn't exist.

Some people consume for comfort ( eating, shopping , the such) a quick fix. Others are in it for the long haul, and hope for a treat at the end.

Alex! Could you invite Jay Dyer over for an interview or debate on maybe the transcendental argument? Or any other philosophical argument? He's really grounded in his philosophy and would love to talk to you about it as he mentions in his review video of sam harris en wlc in 2:27:45 :) He has debated Matt Dillahunty as well

The “wisdom” of this world is foolishness in God’s sight!

God is bigger than reason and limited thinking.

The Plantinga argument is really an argument against determinism+rationality. The same argument would apply to any deterministic account of how life got here.

The Sloth was selected for survivability?? 😂😂😂