P.S. On that train of thought: I am always looking for opportunities (like subjects of philosophy not well treated yet or that could use a more developed naturalist viewpoint), and the system over-steers me into where those contact debunking subjects like politics or religion. But that means I am always keen to hear suggestions outside that contact point (even if I can develop a contact angle on it, I might overlook it otherwise).

So, if there are questions in philosophy you’d like to see my perspective on, please do list them. Something might inspire. I have done lists like that in aggregate (see my articles on the two latest PhilPapers Surveys), but they also can stir singular articles.

It’s part of the wider problem with society: “negative press gets clicks” (or views or audience share or whatever the metric is).

In the 80s the equivalent proverb was, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Don Henly wrote a whole song about the phenomenon (“Dirty Laundry”), one of his best (and, IMO, a good example of doing philosophy through art). In the current era, the metric is “engagement,” so what makes people angry is what “earns.” I’m not earning anything from engagement, but that the phenomenon manifests here illustrates why corporations chase it for bucks, and thus set up their systems and algorithms to do that. So, even though I’m not chasing that metric, it’s still observable here as anywhere.

Another example is that I am so often asked to talk about the historicity of Jesus and not my philosophy (my book Sense and Goodness without God is packed full of interesting subjects but earns about a fifth less and gets maybe a tenth of host interview requests). Even though I like that subject more, I don’t get hired to work on it nearly as much, and even when I do, there is a negative angle (usually its contact with theism). The same for ancient science, BTW.

Which is why I try to do crossover work, which sometimes gets my most views and yet “sneaks in” positive philosophy (like my Bayesian apologetics series: while “debunking” theism I am doing positive naturalism). Like sneaking vitamins into cake. Even my Musk article is really about positive epistemology.

And this article: being paid to debunk an argument for theism allowed me here to create a whole article about the positive philosophy of aesthetics, which could have been written even had theism not existed in our society to combat. Though we morally must combat it owing to the continual damage it does to our society, it would be a better world if we didn’t have to do that, and could just talk about evolutionary aesthetics. But alas, here is where we are.

A tl;dr would be: philosophy just doesn’t appeal to as many people as combat. So if you want to trick more people into a good diet of philosophy, you have to frame it as combat. I don’t like that. But alas, I have to work with the system I am in. Meanwhile, I want to produce more positive philosophy than my job allows, so I am always looking for angles to get it in.

I really enjoy your work in general. However, I enjoy your positive philosophical work even more, which is your philosophical work where you build and develop your world view using empirical evidence and a level of sophisticated scientific knowledge that is very rare to find, unfortunately, among a lot of modern philosophers. This article and your recent qualia article are examples of that.

It’s strange that these are the kind of articles that get the least comments here in the blog, but maybe because these articles are usually denser and more difficult than the other articles here.

I do believe you are delusional…

Dr. Carrier, always the romantic, correcting someone on Valentine’s day… I do not want us to get hung up on why you used a particular figure of speech! The fact is that you used it! “Believing” shit is something the ego participates in, and then takes all the credit for, like it’s a big deal, like believing shit is something to take credit for. It’s a participation trophy for the ego, in effect… This person may be delusional in certain of their “conclusions,” but, indeed, there is something very sane about perceiving one’s own thoughts as temporary, as “flowing down a river.” in my experience, this is something that takes a lot of work, a lot of practice. It’s something you have to “achieve.” calling it “relatively harmless,” though accurate in many ways, does seem to be “damning with faint praise.” 👀

Hallenberg: to be remembered in the minds (the natural thought patterns, the natural patterns of activity of the human brain) of those who survive us… Well, idk about you, but that’s MORE of an “afterlife” than I feel like I could “ask” for! (who would I ask? 😅)

I do believe you are delusional.

But your delusion appears to be relatively harmless.

Your conclusions don’t follow from the evidence presented. And they are contradicted by a great deal of evidence, as I already survey in Sense and Goodness without God but also here on my blog (such as under the drop-down categories of “mind” and “supernatural”).

We have one soul, but of two parts. The lower is our everyday life(time) and the upper is eternity.

My goal in life (especially at my age) is to reach my upper soul where God is waiting. I try daily through the method of “centering prayer” in silence, after letting my mental thoughts flow down the river, so to speak, allowing the Presence to enter. As a result I honestly feel I experience Divinity most of the times I try and the feeling stays with me-Now, today, tomorrow,etc. My “aha” moment was reading a book about Meister Eckhart(Joel Harrington 2018?). We must ignite the spark(intuitive awareness) in our soul which I believe is the divine imagine in all of us in order for union.

This is not a got-you-question. I have ask for constructive criticism from 3 other bloggers, who all say,”I liked your comment.” The process theology of Whitehead’s doesn’t address afterlife. I like David Bentely Hart’s “Universalism”, David Nicole and David Armstrong sub stacks. Finally, Carl Jung’s definition that there is a God is the best and my premise as well!

In one of your future essay please address the above. P.S. I live smack dab in the Bible Belt-The Scopes trial of 1925 was in Dayton, Tn. 100 years ago and religious wise not much has changed. It was the first national radio broadcast. We live just 25 miles from Dayton.

Lastly, I don’t believe in inerrancy nor moral certainty, but rather I am a believer in mysticism.

Scott