#1263 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Semi-Secular Worldviews and the Belief in Something Beyond

00:00 Ricardo Lopes: Hello everyone. Welcome to a new episode of The Dissenter. I'm your host, as always, Ricardo Lops, and today I'm joined by Dr. Carl Johann Palmquist. He's a researcher in the department of philosophy at Lund University. And today we're talking about his book Semi-secular Worldviews and the Belief in Something Beyond. So Dr. Palmquist, welcome to the show. It's a huge pleasure to everyone.

00:27 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. It's Uh, it's really fun to be here and I, uh, look forward to our conversation.

00:36 Ricardo Lopes: Likewise. So er could you start by telling us a little bit about the premise of your book and what got you interested in these kinds of topics as a philosopher?

00:51 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Well, uh, the book is, um, uh, philosophical take on, uh, the contemporary worldviews, uh, which are neither traditionally religious or, uh, Atheists, uh, but somewhere, somewhere in between, we call them semi-secular. And uh another name for that is spiritual but not religious. Uh, SO, uh, what's, um, Unique about the the take. In this book is that uh instead of uh that we look at it from a philosophical angle, uh, this, um. These kind of worldviews, uh, have, uh, mostly been studied by social scientists and scholars of religion before and not very much from, uh. Philosophical perspective, uh, so we try to, to Expand the, the borders of philosophy of religion. Uh, A bit, um, by, um. Uh Taking a close look at these views and asking roughly the same question to these views as we traditionally, uh, used to ask to, uh, like Christian ideas um or uh. Uh, OR other, uh, standard religious ideas. Uh. So, um, Yeah, and we, we got this um. This idea from um Well, it began with a previous study where we This, uh, uh, dissertation about semi-secular, uh, people from the Swedish sociologist Annof Burian, uh, who claimed that some of these, uh, uh, people, they have, um, Different incompatible ideas at the same time, uh, and that seems like a very interesting topic to start it from a philosophical perspective. Especially if you're an epistemologist, uh, like me, this, you will, uh, It Uh, well, it seems that this, this is the kind of, of question which raises this, these, these issues raises, uh, interesting questions about rationality and, and so forth. Uh, I became interested in and then uh we kind of expanded this into a uh. And I took a more broad approach, uh, um, and then, and I. Cambridge University Press commissioned a uh This element. The sort of book that we have done them. So yeah, so it's uh but the. I think that the, the, the um Background here is just that. There seems to be a lot of interesting questions, especially when it comes to Rationality which are raised by this fuses it's uh and it's an unexplored field so it's a like yeah. Um, Also a good opportunity to expand the philosophy of religion a bit, I would say, yeah. Mhm.

04:29 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and we're going to explore, uh, most of the questions, the topics you pointed to there. So, uh, but just to get it first into the kind of framework you apply in your book, uh, the sort of theoretical framework, uh, what is worldview theory?

04:51 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: So yeah, worldview theory is a conceptual framework used for understanding uh different outlooks uh on life or on, uh, on the world, uh, and it has been developed, uh, well, the point with worldview theory is that it should include All kinds of worldviews which not just include. Uh, FOR example, religious worldviews, so it's uh It's often used like in, in, uh, if it's been used to broaden, for example, religious. Education and other uh areas where where you want to uh have this broad perspective and you, you, and so, uh. So it's um. And I thought Also comes with this idea that um worldviews have different parts uh and different and that they could be like partial or more complete and so forth so it's but the basic concept is, is uh the basic idea with the concept is to, to get to capture. All kinds of outlooks on life and, and to make no big distinction really between, between religious and secular and or semi-secular for that matter.

06:08 Ricardo Lopes: But what is a worldview? How do you define it?

06:14 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Well, I think that there are at least two senses of the worldview which are. And I think that these senses are some, sometimes conflated, uh, because first we have this uh worldview uh in the Sense of being an all-encompassing coherent take on the world which is like official and which many people have worked on to, to, to produce like, you know, uh, Catholicism or Marxism or something, yeah, that's a word in one sense, one word and then we, we have this other personal sense where we have a spec it means a specific person's outlook. Uh, SPECIFIC individuals take on, on life and the world, uh, and this can be, I mean, they can be like just a personal version of one of these big worldviews so they can be more of, you know, uh, um, a remix of different sources. They can be more or less articulate, uh, I mean, obviously a very reflective person will have a much more elaborate worldview than a person who doesn't. Think very much uh before he or she acts. So it's like Uh, So I think that these are the two basic um Basic uh things we can mean by world, either this big cluster. See, by ideas or this personal take, take on the world. Um, SO what we are trying to do in, in, uh, in this book is that we're trying to take this, um, what people said about the worldviews in sociological studies and so forth, the same, same secular people, and then we have tried to Look beyond that and say, what, what bigger worldview this or uh implied here, so to speak.

08:12 Ricardo Lopes: Right, uh, and there are those people who are referred to as the nuns. Um, I think that, uh, if I'm not mistaken, social scientists use this term. I mean, who are the nuns?

08:30 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Yeah, yes, you're, you're correct. That's, that's a term from social scientists, uh, and the, the nouns are, um. Basically people who does not identify with any major traditional religion, uh, it uh, it's the term has been, uh, especially, uh. Widely used in an English speaking and perhaps also American context, um. And it's uh. Um, IN, in, in this big, uh, American, um, uh, surveys about people's, uh, orientation in life, uh. And then there, so, so one of 4 points is that the Uh, the nouns or they might be, uh, uh, if you're. Uncareful, you might get the impression that nuns are non-religious, uh, but they, and that the reaction of traditional religion. Means that they are instead atheists or that they are uh Fully secular and uh one of the uh um but instead we have this great diversity of semi-secular views which are in between traditional religion and And atheism and these people are knowns as well. Uh, EVEN though of course the atheists are nouns because they react traditional religion, so, but yeah, yeah.

10:10 Ricardo Lopes: Uh, DO we know exactly how many atheists are really out there? I mean, of course, I imagine, uh, uh, uh, it's not only that, I imagine, it's a matter of fact, I think that, uh, it depends on the country we're talking about. But, but, uh, do we have percentages? I mean, uh, uh, global percentages and, uh, the exact percentages by country of how many people are actually atheists?

10:44 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Yeah, yeah, I, I mean, uh, that's something sociologists investigate a lot and uh Uh I think that the uh One of the things that um um. Strike, uh. I, uh, I was a bit surprised to learn what was, uh, how relatively few. Atheists there are. Uh, AS compared to the semi-secular group. Uh, SO I mean I'm from, uh, Sweden which is, uh, regarded as a highly secularized, secularized country and even we got no more than like 20% right atheists. Right, which is a bit more than the traditionally religious group. Uh, BUT, uh, still it's like this. More than, we, we got more than 50% of, of, of here in Sweden which are uh We, we can define as semi-secular, which are neither in this. Bigger bit of awe, and I, I think that in, in um In other countries it will presumably be the traditional religious part of the population which might be a bit higher than in Sweden, but Uh, the athes will presumably not have many more atheists, and the big group in the middle will be. Uh, uh, YEAH, uh, still the lowest group, even if, if, if it has been said that it's a bit bigger in Scandinavia than in other parts of. Western society, so.

12:35 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, but, but this is a debated topic among sociologists of religion, right, about how, how we actually determine exactly what's the percentage or what's the number of atheists out there, because there might be some people who just because they're not traditionally. Religious, they might be identified by other people or might identify themselves as atheists, but then, as a matter of fact, they have more of a semi-secular worldview or I mean they are somewhere in between religious and atheist,

13:16 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean you're definitely right there and I mean these are. Um A matter of definition in some senses, uh, atheism and uh Naturalism or sometimes used as, as, uh, if they were synonyms even though athe was strictly only uh implied that you do uh do not believe in. In God and some might use atheism to say that they do not believe in. The Christian God while they believe in other godlike things, uh, so it's, uh, um, I mean, um. So these are, are tricky matters and especially if you're a sociologist, you will presumably and, and work with quantitative methods, you will. I guess, uh, not have, have the, the The space in your surveys to go into exactly what it is. Means, and that's where the, the, the numbers, they can get a bit, um, I think. It can easily get a bit tricky to, to, to sort this out exactly how many atheists are and exactly what we mean by, by atheists, uh, but, uh. Um That being said, I think that it, it is fairly uh well established right now that uh this kind of uh semi-secular or fussi religion is a middle position between, between. The fully secular and the traditional religion that is, is In fact, uh, The majority view or close to the majority view in in most The big, big part of, of, of Western society. Mhm.

15:16 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and I think it's important to mention here, I mean, you briefly touched on that point that, uh, I, being an atheist, it's just a matter of, uh, not believing in gods or other sort of or other sorts of divine entities because in terms. In terms of epistemology more broadly, it doesn't necessarily tie you to, for example, naturalism or materialism. You could be an atheist and a non-materialist or non-naturalist, right? So I mean those are different things,

15:53 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: epistem are different things, but they are which are often. Conflated when we speak about them.

15:59 Ricardo Lopes: Mhm, YEAH, yeah, that I think that's a very important point to make. So, um, uh, and what about those people who say that they are not religious but are spiritual? I mean, what does it mean to be spiritual but not religious?

16:17 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Well, that's, uh, that's a term which are uh which is kind of prevalent in, in uh. In North America and So it's once again, uh, a, um, and it's kind of tied to the idea of the nouns, so it's, uh, it's, uh, that from that kind of, from that context, uh, but that, what, what people who identify as spiritual but not religious often mean by that, uh. Uh, IS that they are not traditionally religious. Both At the same time, they do not want to embrace. Naturalist. Mhm. Right, uh, or they have, they, uh, I think that, uh, that, that they want, um. To signify that they believe that there is. More, uh. In, uh, in life in some sense than, than, um. Fully, uh, secularized, uh, naturalist would, would care to admit, and many of these people, in fact, would qualify as religious by many academic definitions of what religion is. Uh, SO it's, uh, so the, the religious in this case should be, be read as traditionally religious. Perhaps even Christian, so um. Spiritual but not Christian would perhaps be a better, uh, better way of describing.

17:56 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, so it might be the case. I mean it might follow along the lines of what I even talked about just a minute ago. They might actually not even believe in gods or divine entities, but they believe in something that is above the natural, like supernatural, supernatural, or something like that, that we can reduce reality to just the world, the worldview of naturalism. Correct.

18:26 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think you're correct there. So, um.

18:30 Ricardo Lopes: Uh, SO, um, philosophically and in this particular case, epistemologically, how do you approach semi-secular worldviews?

18:44 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Well, uh, Of course, there's this when you try to approach. These kinds of subjects as a philosopher, there's uh a lot of methodological issues uh you have to face which um you do not have to face if you are interested in, in traditional religion because The semi-secular or the spiritual but not religious, they do not have, they're not very organized, um, they do not have uh churches or official theological creeds and so forth. Uh, BUT they have been, uh, studied and quite intensively studied by, uh, sociologists and other social scientists. So. Uh, THE method, uh, here is to, to go to the, um, results of the social sciences and then try to, to, uh, I mean, the social scientists are not, they're not, uh, they like to, uh, understand what people believe about that, uh, the significance of that work, the lives and so forth, but they're not very interested in. Trying to Uh, pick out the, the. The uh fuller uh picture of what is, uh, that is implied in what is being Said, uh, so the method is one of, uh, of a rational reconstruction. We have to make this a more Uh, charitable reading and ask yourself, what does it imply when someone says stuff like, Uh, I do not believe in, in God, but I do believe in something. What could that mean? Uh, AND what, uh, what, uh, large reviews. Uh, IS it reasonable to, to, to connect to these statements? Uh, AND I will say that, I mean, this might sound like a a lot of. Uh, IS that not too, too, too far away from what people are saying, but I, I would say that it's really the same thing as most philosophers of religion do when they. Uh, PEOPLE say that they believe in God, I mean. Then the philosopher of religion instantly begins to, to discuss perfect being this with this uh very specific concept of God in mind. Uh, I mean, so, so that's, there's always this. Kind of gap between what people actually say and the large reviews which are, are uh implied which can be uh Inferred from what he said, uh, and, uh, not all persons, of course, might be really conscious of the connections or might agree with, uh, so what, so, so, so what. So it's important to say that we are not like trying to uh Recreate something people have in their minds, but we're trying to uhpolate uh this uh larger worldviews which are uh. And, uh, philosophically interesting also, yeah, because, um So we try to try to reach this more um Um, yeah More abstract, more, more, uh, hopefully, uh, coherent and, and elaborate views which, which are, uh, suitable, uh, subject for philosophical inquiry, uh, and which we can, which we think that we can find in this, uh, sociological material. Mhm.

22:49 Ricardo Lopes: Yes, because I mean I've I've talked with many scientists of religion on the show and of course even uh the ideas or the traits that people, just common people might attribute to God or whatever they believe their God is might even be completely different. From, uh, the more abstract, more intellectually elaborate ideas that theologians, priests, and philosophers have of what God is. So I mean that that's I guess an important point to make, um, but I mean, uh, when it comes to this idea of believing in something and in the book you call it somethingism, um, I mean, are there different types of somethingism?

23:41 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the, uh, what we have, um. So, firstly, something is um very basically is, is, is the view that's Which simply says that something exists. I mean, that's not very. Informative, uh, but, uh, to, to, to, to understand a little bit more what, what it's about, it's important to, to, to, to say that it's often the answer to the question, do you believe in God? No, but I believe in something. Mhm. So that's all, that's kind of the context for you. Express your belief in something. Uh, And then we can see that this is not just any platitude, which it might. Uh, IT'S unlikely if you are not aware of the context, but it's, it's, uh, the idea that there, uh, Exists something which is not. The traditional God, uh, but which is also not, nothing, I mean, it's, if you, if you do not believe in God and you're just a fully secular, you, you say no to the question you believe in if you believe in God. So when you say that you believe in something you. You're convey that you believe in an alternative to the traditional God, uh, something that's, uh, and perhaps not, uh, like an alternative, like an alternative God, but something that could take kind of this place as being, uh, a truly, uh, significant, uh, part of the world or part of your life. Which God is the most the most significant. Being Uh So, so, uh. What's implied is that When, when they say there's something exists, they mean something. Of great, truly great significance exists. Uh, AND, uh. THEN this could be interpreted in. Some different ways. First of all, we can, we could, we, it's, it's possible to think of versions of something is where something is just. It's part of the natural world, but it's not like part of the everyday world, um, like we could, um. Um, BUT think of, uh, for example, special experience you have when you, uh, walk in the. In nature, when you do yoga and so forth, if you don't think that this is anything to do with anything beyond reality, but it's, it's still truly significant and and special. Right, and then we have, have the more uh Uh The stronger version where, where we think that something is. Transcendent in the way like. The way God is, uh, in the sense of being beyond. The natural world, so not being like. Being part of, not being part of the world describable by, by, by science but beyond it in some sense. Mhm. So then we have this supernatural or transcendent something. Uh, SO that, that there's two different, different types. Uh That we can see. And the, and, and there's also um We also want to, to make this distinction between because pure something is and qualify something is and pure something is. IS when you only have this belief, I believe in something, um, of great significance which might be transmundane or might be transcendental, but that's mostly a philosophically interesting idea because we do not. Uh, AND we, and, and it's um. It's discussed, uh, a lot, quite some late in the book, but, uh, uh, it's not a very common, uh. It's not very common by In, in this pure form among uh the nuns, so to speak, because they are most of them have some form of what we call qualified somethings that is something with, with some details, some other ideas connected to it or some practices connected to it which Which makes it uh. Uh Like a true kind of halfway house between, between traditional views and uh or more a fully detailed views and it's vague um some. Something is, and then we, we, some people, they are. Between traditional religion and pure something where they have it like this. Uh, SOME, there's something they believe in. Uh, RELATED in some way to, to. Traditional religion, it could be that uh I believe in something like a great life force which Um Empowers the weak or something. Uh, AND I mean that's kind of close to, to, to God in, in, uh, Christianity, but it's more vague and less detailed and Um, but it's, it's related in some way. Uh, SO that's one type, um. It could also be that you're, you're, uh, you say, yeah, I, I don't believe, I believe in something, it's like a higher justice and then it's like a more karmic I think, but so it does not like Christianity, but. Just that it relates to the traditionally these ideas. Yeah, and then, then we have what we call uh New spirituality, something which uh is more um Uh, connected to forms of spirituality like um, Nature's spirituality or wellness culture or Yeah. Other, um, and, uh, and other types of, types of spirituality and with um And uh of course then we have, if you do yoga, you could be like in the middle between between your spirituality and the old religion and that's, so I mean, so this is more like to, to, to uh uh structure things uh intellectually I guess like yeah. Uh, LIKE, ideal types more than it is, so, and the, and it's not like strict emission standard that, that you expect to find in, in reality. It's just up to, to order. Uh, TO, to make it a typology so we could, uh, think about it with, with some clarity or something, yeah. Uh, AND the third type, uh, uh, which It's put on the, highlighted in the book is um life question something it's, it's when you You just use um. You give a vague answer to a life question like do you believe in the afterlife? Well, I'm not really, I, I, I believe in, I perhaps I don't believe in heaven or hell or perhaps I don't believe in, in reincarnation, but I believe in something, something, uh, that's that there is some justice, uh, after death, yeah, that they. And then there's, so that's uh the third kind, uh. Looking into for this,

31:54 Ricardo Lopes: right, so earlier you mentioned that one of the questions that you explore has to do with rationality. I mean whether uh this process or the sort of intellect intellectual intellectual journey that people go from. Uh, uh, GO on from a more detailed religious view to abstract claims and claiming that they believe in something, whatever that something is. I mean, is this a rational process? Is it rational to believe in something?

32:31 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Oh, that's, uh, that's actually a, a great question. Uh, BECAUSE, uh, uh, first of all, uh, the, the process can, can, uh, Can look quite different, uh, I mean there's so many versions of this process, but we, in general we think of this as, uh, As, uh, thinning as uh we think of the content of something is something thin, so it's thinning content and then that's the process to to reach such is thinning. So, uh, everything that uh Uh, there are at least Three major ways where you can thin your, your, uh Worldview in this way and first of all it's, it's uh because and, and, and, and this seems to be mostly connected to what we said when you're when you're something is mis connected to some traditional religion which you have moved away from and the more abstract you. Well, You certainly must have had some reason to do this move from the uh detail to, to the more general or abstract. Uh, AND, uh, it might have been uh. Intellectual reasons you might have uh encountered like uh Um, intellectual objections to what you originally believed. Perhaps you, you. Lived in God and that you. The problem of evil made you uh Realize that this traditional picture of well it can't be true. There has to be some. But I still believe in something godlike, but perhaps it's not, uh, and then you just, uh, so you, um, and that, I mean that could be one reason to, to move in a more abstract way, I believe in something, something like God, something powerful and good but not perhaps. Uh, OMNIPOTENT or and perfectly good, uh. And then we, we say that, or perhaps you have pragmatic reasons. Perhaps you, you, you, uh. Become a feminist theologian and you think that this Traditional talk about God is to uh Patriarchal and you have to, so you, you can't really accept the traditional view of God and then you have to move to something less so you can have this kind of pragmatic reasons as well, I think, but, but they both indicate that you find the tradition unacceptable for some, some reason and uh. Uh, YOU feel that you have to move in a more, or, or, or you solve these problems by moving in a more general direction, right, uh. And I mean that's uh, that should not be conflated with uh another kind of move to, to a thin content which is perhaps a more uh often connected with this spirituality, something is, and that's has to do with, with uh when you can, when you experience things which you feel you cannot adequately put into words. So you, uh, like, uh. You, you're hiking in this beautiful landscape, and you are deeply moved and you feel this strong spiritual experience, and you feel that you can't really put it into words. Mhm Uh, AND if you take words from tradition, from traditional religious words, they don't really fit, and, and like describing it as in psychological terms, it doesn't really fit either, so, oh, it's something, it's like, uh, it's like it's, it's almost like if it was holy so I mean you move this, uh, uh, you, you make it vague, but, but because. If it was literally, you, you, you would have to say that no, that's not it. Uh, YEAH, so that's another, uh, another, uh, reason you could, uh, want to move in this direction. Mhm Uh, AND the third is, uh, is simply ignorance. Uh, IT might be that you would like to have a detailed view, but you. Failed to come up with one you would like to, to answer. Uh The question, what, what's the meaning of life, but you. You cannot articulate one an answer you, you, you. You find acceptable and then you, you go vague. Well, I, I believe there's something, I mean, we have to. Take care of each other right and um figure out why we're here and and you know something like even vehicles because you can't come up with one specific. And that, uh, so that will be the 3rd way. And In What sense can this be rational? Mm. Well, first of all, uh, It In, uh, if you look at this from a philosophical perspective, it's really important. To distinguish if this move has to do with vagueness or generality. Because, uh, vagueness is, uh, according to most philosophers, something we should avoid, you know, speech because It makes it Sort of uh Uh. Uh, IT makes it hard to, to, to know exactly what we mean. And exactly what the words refer to, and that makes it hard to see if they are true or false. Mhm. Uh, SO like, yeah. I mean, the, the, uh, classic example is how, how much hair can you have and still be bald. I mean bald is a vague term and it's not any, uh, definite, um. A border between being bold and that it, that's a vague term and that's. That's kind of bad if you want to, to make like this uh deductive argument that says that um. Says something about the ball about being bald because then you don't know if if the conclusion follows from that. Premises or not. So that's, that's something philosopher teaches us to avoid. Uh, BUT it, but the generality on the other hand, it just makes, uh, or it is more probable. Uh, SO if you, if you say that. I believe that the transcendent reality exists. That's a very general statement. And if any of this the major religious claims we know about is true, if The traditionally Christian or uh Muslim Abrahamic God exists and it's true if uh there's a Kormic reincarnation and Buddha fields and whatever that that's and it's true if, if, if, uh, some uh polytheistic pantheon exists and it's true that there's a so. It's like, you know, it's like hedging um and uh hedging your bets on the. What, how, however the world turns out, if you, if you have, if you only believe very general statements, you will always be right, right? Uh, SO that's uh. And I mean that's not really uh Objectionable However, it's. Uh As Not. I mean, if you only follow this principle. You will have, also have a quite impoverished intellectual life uh because um There's also this competing idea. Which Uh Uh, I mean, for, for example, uh, we have the famous, um, American pragmatist William Yams has said that we have two epistemic duties we should. Shun falsehoods and believe truths. So if you also all, if you only shun falsehoods. Uh, WE will Uh And not try to balance that with believing in truth, we will just It will end up with very few or in this case very general beliefs. Uh, SO it's, so it's, it's also important that we If we add information. If we add details, we will have much more. I mean, the risk of being wrong. And having false beliefs, it increases, but at the same time, Uh, As that risk increases, we will get more information and our beliefs will be more useful in both, both intellectually and practically. Uh, So you would like to in. Most cases you want to strike a balance between thinning, as we call it, and keeping with uh um. Uh, KEEPING details or adding details to your view. And that's why it seems that the In some sense, it's more reasonable to be uh uh what we call a qualified somethings than a than a pure somethings because The qualified something keeps details or have some details which makes uh These ideas more relevant for thought in thought and in action, and that's And as I said, it seems that most. Actual nons or something. They do not have this pure philosophical ideas that we have, but the more qualified versions of that. And uh they, they seem right to, to, to, to move in that direction. Yeah, yeah

43:25 Ricardo Lopes: So, um, another thing that you talk about in your book, uh, has to do with non-doxasticism. So, uh, what is non-ox doxasticism and what is the relationship between it and something is?

43:43 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Uh, YEAH, non-exoticism, uh, which is really my, um, My main area of research and how I, uh, how I got uh. But in this, uh, from the beginning, um. It was it's about. Attitudes which are weaker than belief. But which are still epistemic attitudes by which we, we can orient ourselves in, in uh Um, yeah, it's, it's also an action. Uh, SO in, in religious religious setting, uh, we, we talk about religious non-exoticis. And then we, we have, uh, and that, that's basically rejecting the idea that religious faith must be based on belief. And instead we say that religious faith can believe, religious faith can be based on hope. It can be based or perhaps. Acceptance or there are a lot of ideas what could replace. Uh, Belief in in faith in, in, in this uh In this field, but, but the main idea is that we can have some, some weaker attitude than belief and still. Positively engaged with, with religion. Mhm. Uh, So if you compare that to, to, to what the the Move off Uh, the something is of the, uh, the, the somethingists are doing when they thin their content because they find it unacceptable. Uh, WE can say that think of, uh, non-roasticism as a feeling of attitude instead of content. So if you have this, uh, traditional. Image of the Christian God and you do not feel that you can believe in this anymore. How can you do? Well, you can do like something is do and you can thin. Uh, THE contents. And start to believe in something more general. Hopefully or something more vague if you're Uh, take, take that the easy way, but you shouldn't, and, or you could, you could have. Use the non-toxic. Uh, PATH there and senior attitude instead. So instead of believing, uh, in the Christian God, you can say that I Well, there are Some heavy reasons which makes it impossible for me to believe in the Christian God, but I, I still hope that the Christian God exists. Or I, I, um. Or my religion is very important to me and since it has not been established as a Christian God does not exist. I choose to accept. The Christian worldview in my faith. So then you're a noasticist. Mhm. So you keep the, the details, but you, you, uh, lower, you, you, you, you change to a um weaker. Epistemic state is that. Uh, SO we can think of this as, um, I mean, it's possible to think of this as competing ways of, uh, of handling the problem, uh. But I mean for some people, they, they, I, I think they can also be Complementary, you can uh Perhaps, uh. There are parts of your If you're in this tradition and you feel that You cannot believe it anymore. Perhaps there are parts which you feel that you, you have to get rid of this porch and you move in a more general way, but other parts you feel strongly attached to, but you don't really believe that them either. But then you feel that you, it's, you can accept them or or hope for them. So I mean that's, that's also possible, possible. Way forward, I think. I don't think that. In general, one is better than the other. But I do think that uh nonoxastasis has this uh Perhaps as an advantage. Insofar as it lets us keep more details and details are Uh. Not unimportant when it comes to to to have to having a religious life, for example, uh, or so that's Perhaps, uh, non existence has some advantage there, but I, I, but that not on epistemic grounds, I, I think that they are, uh, both, uh. Equally acceptable Right.

49:10 Ricardo Lopes: So I have uh a couple more questions and they are all interrelated. I mean, I want to ask you now more about the existential aspect of somethingism. So, uh, do you think that something is um can manage to provide us with, uh, Comfort and guidance in this life, I mean, can it manage the existential challenge of that of providing, providing us with comfort and uh guidance or not?

49:46 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Uh, WELL, I, first of all, um, As I, as I said, uh, details are not without importance here, uh, and, uh. I think that the uh the. Pure something uh. It's presumably Not in a very strong position when it comes to existential issues. Uh, WHEN it comes to the more qualified versions, I think we have to, to. I mean that has to be decided on a case to case basis in relation to to to to the exact existential issues at hand, but Uh It also seems that In general, something is will be in a worse position, the traditional religion. Uh, AND that's um. Not only because it's uh. Lacking in details, but, but also because in when it comes to existential existential matters. It's often also the stories which are um connected to the traditional views which uh people find really comforting and, and helping in, in, in, in trying times like uh Uh, in People in the stories about people in the, the people in the, in the Bible, the Old Testament, and Jesus and the apostles, if you're a Christian. I have a Or in Islam, you have uh Muham the stories about Muhammad and the first caliphs and the, the Hadi tradition or The stories about the gods and traditional polytheism, I mean, that's really relatable. Uh, AND, um. Many people, uh, find, I mean, find comforting in that kind of story, and that, that's not something. Um, YOU can't move very, even if you're an old religion, something is, you cannot move very far from your Tradition and still. Keep this, I mean. OK Um. If you, if you keep the stories, it's like uh it, it, it, it becomes kind of uh Uncertain how to define Uh, what you're up to. If you, uh, OK, I, I don't believe in something. I believe in a, in a person, uh, in a, uh. I believe in something, a personal strong force, not to conflate with the Christian God, but I still read all the stories in the Bible. I think that they are very. And then it's like, but aren't you Christian? Uh. So it's um, yeah. Um And I think that's, oh, perhaps you can. On the other hand, there are nuns who are more uh what uh something called a remixed, who, who picks stories and parts from a multitude of traditions. Uh, AND I mean that's obviously one way forward here if you have uh. Have this, uh, uh, if you have a more general view, of course, more More religious stories will Uh, fit with your, um, With what you believe, uh. Like, um If you only believe that there is some. Transcendent reality. Perhaps it's personal with the deities, but it's, I mean, it doesn't really matter if it's Jesus or uh. Vishnu or uh Or a chembalistic angel who figures in your in your stories because, because, uh Your, your view is general enough to accommodate for all of that and you. While you perhaps do not take them, like literally, you think that. There's something here, and Uh, it's still. Possible to, to, to relate to the human persons in this story which encounters the divine and that's That might be, um, so I think that, uh, yeah, so, so perhaps presumably it's better to be a bit more uh. Um, TO be. Bit more of a mixture and things uh Take the story which you, which you, which fits with your, with your view. Uh, BUT yeah, then, but of course we have this, uh, as I said before that if you, if you only pick your views from one source and it's gonna be a question if you're, if you're not really, if you're really are something is or and then on and not. He's a traditionally religious person who doesn't really feel comfortable with articulating your, your, yeah.

55:32 Ricardo Lopes: Right, so I mean, just one last question then, but, but do you think that there are any instances where something is might provide people with the necessary resources for them to cope with existential problems or. Not, I mean, I mean, of course, I, I guess it depends again, it depends on what you believe in, right, but uh do you think that there are instances where it can actually provide the necessary resources for, for us to deal with existential questions?

56:10 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Uh. Yeah, I, I, I do, and uh. I think that the prime examples here is Uh, the different versions of life question something is when you, when you have, when you turn to something is. Simply to, to answer a life question or, I mean, Because the life questions, the concern is existential issues. So if you So if you have this kind of view, you, the view is more or less tailor-made just to, to uh answer um. One or several specific. Uh, SPECIFIC existential issues. Uh And uh so when you have that, your, your view will be uh It will have been made with that in mind. Like, uh, for example, what we mentioned earlier, if you, you might be. Uh, I have a view which only concerns the afterlife. Right, uh, that's, that perhaps you, you, that's, that's what you think about. That's what's relevant for you. You say, well, you think that something exists and that, uh, some kind of justice in the life, and that's. Presumably, um, Uh, enough to keep you, um. Existentially, uh. Uh, SATISFIED or at least more satisfied than if you had nothing, uh, when it comes to, to that, to that issue, so, uh. On the other hand, uh, And once again, if you have only pure something is. It's very hard to see how you could get. And a stronger support. In life from, from that, uh, even if you have, if, if, even if you relieved that the transcendent reality exists. Uh And And you only believe that you will lack. And I believe that is, that is transcendent reality is Um Has anything to do with, with your life. Uh, OR has anything to do with, uh, uh, That it's relevant for existential issues. I mean, it could be. Because it's fully possible, of course, that there could be a transcendent reality which is Uh, completely, um, which has nothing to do with humans at all. We could still be a cosmic byproduct. Right, their lives could have no meaning in the joke in the, in the biggest scheme of things, even though there is a transcendent reality result so. So this is uh very general, very bare uh view will not. Get you um anywhere existentially, uh, but I think that here the details are presumably more important for existential issues than they are for uh. Uh, INTELLECTUAL rationality, I would say for,

59:48 Ricardo Lopes: for epistemological issues,

59:50 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: yeah, yeah, exactly. Mhm.

59:53 Ricardo Lopes: OK, so the book is again semi-secular worldviews and the belief in something Beyond. I'm going to link to leave a link to it in the description of the interview. And Dr. Palmquist, uh, just before we go, uh, apart from the book, are there any places on the internet where people can find you and your work?

1:00:17 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Well, I think that my work is most easily uh found if you go to uh Google Scholar and just uh search for my name. Uh, BUT also, of course, it's, uh, you can, uh, check me out on Lund University's, uh, homepage, uh, but Google Scholar is presumably the best way to, to, to. Find out more about what I, what I've been doing, yeah.

1:00:46 Ricardo Lopes: Great. So thank you so much for taking the time to come on the show. It's been a fascinating conversation.

1:00:53 Carl-Johan Palmqvist: Yeah, thank you very much for having me once again. It's been, uh, super interesting.

1:00:58 Ricardo Lopes: Hi guys, thank you for watching this interview until the end. If you liked it, please share it, leave a like and hit the subscription button. The show is brought to you by Enlights, Learning and Development done differently. Check their website at lights.com and also please consider supporting the show on Patreon or PayPal. I would also like to give a huge thank you to my main patrons and PayPal supporters, Perergo Larsson, Jerry Mulleran, Frederick Sundo, Bernard Seaz Olaf, Alex Adam Cassel, Matthew Whittingberrd, Arnaud Wolf, Tim Hollis, Eric Elena, John Connors, Philip Forrest Connolly. Then Dmitri Robert Windegerru Inai Zu Mark Nevs, Colin Holbrookfield, Governor, Michel Stormir, Samuel Andre, Francis Forti Agnun, Svergoo, and Hal Herzognon, Michel Jonathan Labran, John Yardston, and Samuel Cerri, Hines, Mark Smith, John Ware, Tom Hammel, Sardusran, David Sloane Wilson, Yasilla Dezara Romain Roach, Diego Londono Correa. Yannik Punteran Ruzmani, Charlotte Blis Nicole Barbaro, Adam Hunt, Pavlostazevski, Ale Baka Madison, Gary G. Alman, Semov, Zal Adrian Yei Poltontin, Jo Barboza, Julian Price, Edward Hall, Edin Bronner, Douglas Fry, Franco Bartolotti, Gabriel P Scortez or Suliliski, Scott Zachary Fish, Tim Duffyani Smith and Wiseman. Daniel Friedman, William Buckner, Paul Georg Jarno, Luke Lovai, Georgios Theophannus, Chris Williamson, Peter Wolozin, David Williams, Dio Costa, Anton Ericsson, Charles Murray, Alex Shaw, Marie Martinez, Coralli Chevalier, Bangalore atheists, Larry D. Lee Junior. Old Eringbon. Esterri, Michael Bailey, then Spurber, Robert Grassy, Zigoren, Jeff McMahon, Jake Zul, Barnabas Raddix, Mark Kempel, Thomas Dovner, Luke Neeson, Chris Story, Kimberly Johnson, Benjamin Galbert, Jessica Nowicki, Linda Brendan, Nicholas Carlson, Ismael Bensleyman. George Ekoriati, Valentine Steinmann, Per Crawley, Kate Van Goler, Alexander Obert, Liam Dunaway, BR, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, Perpendicular, Janaertner, Ursula Guinov, Gregory Hastings, David Pinsov, Sean Nelson, Mike Levin, and Jos Necht. A special thanks to my producers Iar Webb, Jim Frank Lucas Stinnik, Tom Vanneden, Bernardine Curtis Dixon, Benedict Mueller, Thomas Trumbull, Catherine and Patrick Tobin, John Carlo Montenegro, Al Nick Cortiz, and Nick Golden, and to my executive producers, Matthew Lavender, Sergio Quadrian, Bogdan Kanis, and Rosie. Thank you for all.