Chat With Hans Halvorson

Here’s the video for the dialogue I mentioned earlier, a discussion with Princeton philosopher Hans Halvorson on physics, philosophy, and religion.

It was a friendly and substantive chat, moderated by Katie Galloway of the Veritas Forum. Most of the scientists and philosophers who work in fields close to mind are either agnostics or committed atheists; Hans is one of the exceptions. (Even closer to my own research area, Don Page is well known as an evangelical Christian.) Our ontologies are quite different, but many of our conclusions about the everyday macroscopic world are quite compatible.

This entry was posted in Philosophy, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Chat With Hans Halvorson

  1. David Redfrost says:

    I don’t see how Sean can sit there and listen to this fantasy garbage. Sean, why waste your time talking with people like this? I can’t watch this. Goodbye.

  2. Tony says:

    I don’t expect anyone the change their minds, but God works in the world in many, many ways, especially for those who believe, and for those who have the eyes to see. He can be known, He has helped me though out my life, just don’t expect Him to be a science textbook. Though He might just help you with your science.

  3. @Eugen Nedelcu. You could be correct. Multiples of universes could exist in infinity and prior to the big bang just as seamlessly as can the universe that we observe, but it is the same infinity no matter which way you look at it.

    When you looked at an egg yesterday you were then in a multi-verse that is not the same as the multi-verse you are in when you look at a chick today, but both fructify out of the same unchanging infinity. And the same would apply if you were observing another universe that might have existed before the big bang; that too would have had to egress from infinity and launch itself into its evolutionary entropic path.

  4. Frederick says:

    Help: I ask (anyone?) in a straightforward way and in complete sincerity if there is such a thing as inexpensive/freeware vocal pattern recognition software which could automatically edit out for me the typically rather unhelpful, predictable, and (I’m sorry) tedious commentaries by the likes of Dr. Halvorson; and especially, that of other opposition debaters of a less thoughtful and considerate nature? I’m always interested in Sean’s efficiently presented and nuanced insights… but wish I didn’t have to waste so much of my seventh-decade time getting to them.

  5. Frederick says:

    Maybe… folks… let’s not pile on the unfavorably-rated “Tony” above too hard. Personally, I find the Bible-is-NOT-a-book-of-science argument he offers with little equivocation a refreshing relief from much of what folks defending scientific rationalism and critical thinking usually have to put up with.

    And some people can’t even loosen up a little when it comes to Tony’s the-universe (all 46 billion light years this way, and all 46 billion light years that way!) -was-made-for-us assertion?! Gee… tough crowd.

    I’d should also note that I’ve employed, myself (in favoring a debate ’em on their own terms tactic), this argument with one or two persistently annoying proselytizers in public places not a church: That any-such-creator-as-might-exist surely has had his/its best revelation in nature in terms of descriptions fashioned by those best QUALIFIED to tell of natures workings (including human nature) in the most thoroughly consistent and rigorous manner — the scientists, of course (and a certain few scientifically-qualified philosophers)! Which logically leads to the likes of Ken Ham, Duane Gish, Philip Johnson,, being, in effect, blasphemers (!), hostile to g-oh-d’s own revelations.

    Apart from not believing the “Creation” nor its true expositors to be, by any evidence, divinely inspired… I think that otherwise, Tony and I would not necessarily be in severe disagreement on the HYPOTHETICAL point that a creator would wish to have the fairest and most reasonable kind of testiment to his/its creation put forth and believed — in preference to belief in empirically falsified dogma. Surely we are not being deceived intentionally… by you know who!

    “The Lord is subtle, but he is not malicious.” — Albert Einstein. I’m pretty much with Big Al on this one — god of Spinoza, or whatever — so maybe… let’s be a little charitable to Tony, at least on his points having some merit, taken in themselves.

  6. Frederick says:

    …And as for the similarly low rated “Roman M.”… Well, we have an entirely different kettle of fish there. I’d simply like to point out — fruitlessly, perhaps — to him (with his sarcastic seig heiling) and to any of a similar opinion regarding the naturalist’s inherent immorality who may be trolling about… that it wasn’t three million atheists (or naturalists!) who marched into Poland and Soviet Russia… It was, by and large, three million or so Lutherans and Roman Catholics, and such… and do ask about Popes Pius XI (early on and during) and XII when it comes to the matter of Fascist sympathies and God’s authorities on earth.

    Now, straw men having been put aside, back to scientific naturalism…