Transcripts of our episodes are made available as soon as possible. They are not fully edited for grammar or spelling.

Dr. Nagasawa is a global scholar who specializes in the philosophy of religion. After academic positions on three continents, in Australia, Canada, and the U.K., Yujin is now the Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at the University of Oklahoma. He has published two new books this year– Global Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion and The Problem of Evil for Atheists. Yujin joins the podcast to explain just why the problem of evil is so perplexing, not just for people who believe in God, but also for people who don’t.

Tom: Yujin, welcome to the show.

Yujin: Thank you for having me.

Tom: I want to start by asking, I think listeners would be curious, where did you grow up and what captivated you as a child?

Yujin: So I grew up in Tokyo, which is a very busy city. The population is over 13 14 million. And as a child, I liked to read. So, in Tokyo, there is a big bookshop town called Kanda, where there are hundreds of second-hand bookstores. And I like to visit there almost every week. I liked science as well. And at one point, I wanted to be a physicist because I thought that it would be great to explore all kinds of interesting scientific questions.

But one day I encountered a philosophy book. And in the first chapter, the book talked about the concept of RK, which is, basically the fundamental principle of nature. So, some ancient Greek philosopher thought that the world is fundamentally, composed of water or particles and so on. So, I thought, I want to study philosophy because in philosophy, we talk not just about the physical universe, but we talk about morality something even beyond the material universe. So, philosophers talk about God and the possibility of the afterlife and That’s how I decided to study philosophy.

Tom: Yeah. Well, Japan has a fascinating history. It’s cultural crossroads, of East and West and, all kinds of, intellectual ideas, flow through. Can you tell me a little bit about the role of religion in Japanese society and maybe in your family specifically where you grew up?

Yujin: Yeah, that’s a very good question, because if you ask the Japanese if they are religious, probably most of them would say no. And many of them would say that they are not even interested in religion. But religiosity or spirituality is everywhere in Japan. Even in the center of Tokyo, you can find hundreds of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines and even Christian churches.

My grandfather had a little Buddhist altar in his house, as well as a tiny Shinto shrine. And he was praying to both every morning. because Japan is a kind of polytheistic country. So, there are so many gods in Japan, and they worship everything. And meanwhile, my grandmother, she was a Catholic. So, she was going to church. And as a teenager, I went to a Presbyterian junior high school and high school. So, I was attending a service every morning and reading the Bible. So, I think looking back, I grew up in a very rich, religiously or spiritually rich culture.

Tom: So, you got an exposure to a wide range of ideas. got your hands on philosophy books. You’re asking yourself. Big questions from early on. tell me about heading to college. where did you study and what were the things that are foremost on your mind at that, age?

Yujin: So first I wanted to study philosophy, but my university didn’t have a philosophy program. And so, I decided to study law instead in the hope that I can study jurisprudence, which is basically the philosophy of law.

Tom: Sure.

Yujin: And there was this professor of jurisprudence, and he was a Unique scholar, working on the artificial intelligence that would mimic, lawyers reasoning. this is a time when there was just, Unix and MS DOS and, very basic, technology. he was, very passionate about, logic and the philosophy of language and those technical areas of philosophy. And he encouraged me to study analytic philosophy. So, I decided to go to the United States to study philosophy more properly.

I went to the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and there I studied philosophy and applied mathematics, because I was interested in game theory and decision theory, and I thought that it would be helpful to study these, formal subjects, to explore philosophical ideas.

Tom: With how precise and technical philosophy is, did you find it a struggle to be studying philosophy there in New York with English as a second language being able to have to wrestle with the subtleties?

Yujin: Yeah, it was quite difficult to study in philosophy in English initially. So, the first class that I took was on ancient Greek philosophy. that was a course on Eros. So, we read Plato and Freud. And that was very difficult for me as a non-native English speaker. So, after that, I took some formal classes like logic and, critical, thinking and, other classes related to applied mathematics.

Tom: Students tend to hate these subjects because there are so many symbols, but they are universal. So, when you’re not a native speaker of English, it’s relatively easy to study

Tell me about how your interests, Pivoted towards philosophy of religion specifically during your studies.

Yujin: So initially I was more interested in the philosophy of a mind, and I was particularly interested in the problem of consciousness. The problem of consciousness is about, how the brain, which is just a physical organ can generate these amazing, phenomenal experiences like the vivid sensations and pain and pleasure and that kind of thing.

I found some links with the problem of consciousness and some issues, in the philosophy of religion. So, there is a thought experiment in the philosophy of mind, which is an argument against the physicalist approach to consciousness.

So, imagine there is a scientist called Mary. Mary is physically omniscient, so she has learned everything there is to know about the physical world. But she has lived in a black-and-white environment, so she has never seen any color. But she is physically omniscient, so she knows all facts, according to science.

But suppose that one day, she comes outside her room for the first time in her life and looks at the colorful flowers. Then it seems obvious to think that she learned something new, namely what it is like to see color. According to anti-physicalists, this is a refutation of physicalism because Mary has complete physical knowledge, but her knowledge is missing something.

So, it’s not true, according to this argument, that everything in this world is physical. And it’s interesting that people describe Mary as a physically omniscient scientist. And then I thought I would, study the literature on omniscience. And then, I found some interesting medieval or even early, modern, ideas about God’s omniscience.

Some philosophers have discussed whether God can know what it is like to fear. If God is omnipotent, then there is no situation where he’s in danger. So maybe he cannot know what it is like to fear, but that means that God is not omniscient. And so, I try to relate to these arguments in the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of mind. That’s how I started to work on the philosophy of religion.

Tom: I want to, ask you a bit more about philosophy of religion. It’s not a large field within philosophy more broadly, and maybe people haven’t heard of it before. I would like to ask, what is philosophy of religion? How is it different from theology, which I think people have heard of before.

Yujin: Right, so in the philosophy of religion, we, try to assess arguments, about religious beliefs and practices. so, we discuss, for example, various arguments for and against the existence of God. also, we talk about the relationship between science and religion. Are they compatible or incompatible? Are there different approaches to reality? We also talk about, miracles. Can there be miracles? Can we be justified in believing in miracles? We also talk about the possibility of the afterlife, because belief in afterlife is, present in many religious traditions.

Does it make sense to say that we could, in principle, exist beyond our physical death? so all of these, Ideas and beliefs are related to religion. The difference between theology and the philosophy of religion is that in theology, we tend to focus on more specific theological ideas. So, if you do Christian theology, you can approach them philosophically, but your focus is specifically on Christian doctrines. I think that’s the main difference. But there are some overlaps.

Tom: Philosophy of religion is trying to do something even more universal than a particular faith tradition. So yeah, tell me when, you step back and, whether you’re studying. religions or philosophy, religion. What do you gain from studying from a global perspective? I know that’s an area that you take pride in and have a lot of experience with.

Yujin: Yeah, so I was fortunate to have support from the John Templeton Foundation to run a project called the Global Philosophy of Religion Project. my aim was to really globalize and diversify the philosophy of religion. the philosophy of religion in the West has mainly focused on the, Judeo Christian, tradition.

But of course, you know, there are so many different, religious traditions worldwide. So, through the project, we have collaborated with scholars in, many different countries, especially in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa, and scholars who work on, different religious traditions, especially underrepresented religious traditions. Because I think that the many different traditions, there are interesting ideas and beliefs and philosophical resources. So, I thought it’d be nice to collaborate with scholars from all over the world to address common philosophical issues.

Tom: Well, you’ve had experience yourself of, I think, studying philosophy on, was it, four different continents Japan, United States, UK, Australia. your personal experience, being in so many different places in the world, does that give you some additional insights that is sort of experiential, firsthand, interaction with so many different scholars?

Yujin: When you do philosophy, it’s good to explore all kinds of ideas. So, studying in different places really helps because philosophers have different perspectives. So, I always encourage my students to visit d different places and speak to philosophers in, different universities and in different countries.

And it has been very helpful for me. So, for example, what I often wonder is that if philosophy, especially analytic philosophy, is compatible with Eastern culture, because in, Japan, where I grew up, there is this, idea that You know, it’s not necessarily polite to persuade someone you are right, and they are wrong.

But in philosophy, we often do that. We construct an argument to establish our conclusion and try to persuade others that they are wrong. And I sometimes wonder if this kind of thing is compatible with, certain cultures.

Tom: I want to turn next to exploring a couple of different philosophical topics to kind of dive in and see where philosophy gets us So let’s start somewhere simple the problem of evil perplexes many people can you start by explaining what the problem of evil is as it’s traditionally understood?

Yujin: Yeah, so the problem of evil is about all kinds of evil in the world, meaning wars and crimes and natural disasters. So, we are all aware that there are so many horrific things in the world. Now, if you believe that the world was created by God, who is all powerful and all loving, then this is a serious challenge for your belief.

How could God allow evil in the world? And I mean, philosophers find this problem intriguing because they like puzzles. So, this is a great puzzle for theists. You know, on the one hand we believe that there is God, but on the other hand there is evil. And how could that be possible? But I also think that this is a fascinating problem because it also raises existential concerns. So, when we encounter natural disasters or horrific events, we wonder, why the world is like this? How come there must be, horrific events like this? So that’s the foundation of the problem of evil.

Tom: Great. Thank you as you’ve studied it, what do you think the core issue is with the problem evil? Is it a problem? Mostly about evil is a problem. Mostly about God.

Yujin: I think it’s the problem is rightly termed as the problem of evil, because I believe that this is not just a problem for people who believe in the existence of God.

The problem is much deeper than that. Even if you don’t believe in the existence of God, there can be a version of the problem of evil.

Tom: Explain to me the problem of evil for someone who is not committed to a belief in God. What is the problem of evil for, atheists, for instance?

Yujin: The first step is to formulate the problem of systemic evil. So, I want to focus on evolution and natural selection. This seems to be a process that necessitates pain and suffering for uncountably many animals and humans.

So inevitably there are, pain and suffering in the world all the time. And if you are a theist, of course, this is a big problem because, it looks like God created this horrific system which guarantees pain and suffering. so, nature is a dangerous and violent system, and how could it be possible that God created this system?

But I argue that this can create a problem for atheists as well, especially atheists who embrace optimism. Because many atheists believe that, OK, there are horrific things in this world, but overall and fundamentally, this world is a good place, or at least not a bad place. So, my question is, how can you embrace this optimism if our existence is dependent on this horrific, violent, and cruel system?

So that’s a version of the problem of evil for atheists. And what I find interesting is that once both atheists and theists faced this problem, now theists are more advantaged than atheists. Because theists are typically supernaturalists, so they don’t believe that this world, this material universe is all there is.

There is something beyond that. There is God. There can be the afterlife as well. So, they have a lot of things to appeal to in response to the problem of evil. But atheists typically think that the material universe is all there is. So, if they want to respond to the problem of evil, they can only appeal to something within the material universe.

So, in this sense, theists are more advantaged. And suppose that atheists can resolve this problem by appealing to something within the material universe, then theists can appeal to that as well, because theists ontology is supernaturalist ontology, which subsumes atheist’s naturalist ontology.

Tom: How have religious believers typically responded to the problem of evil?

Yujin: So, there are so many responses that have been proposed by theists. So, for example, there is the soul making theodicy. So according to this idea God had to allow evil because evil is necessary for our spiritual growth. So, we encounter all kinds of horrific things in life, but they are necessary for our spiritual maturity. some other philosophers defend the free will theodicy, which basically says that freedom is a great thing. So, God wanted to create free humans instead of, Robots, basically.

Tom: Yeah.

Yujin: But because we are free, especially morally significantly free, sometimes we do good things, sometimes we do bad things, but we are responsible for evil. We create wars and crimes. So, God is not responsible for that. So, this is an attempt to shift the responsibility from God to humans.

Tom: Okay.

Yujin: Another popular response is called skeptical theism, which says that our knowledge is very limited. We don’t know a lot about God and morality. So, the mere fact that we cannot figure out why God allows evil doesn’t mean that God doesn’t have any good reason.

So, an analogy is that, suppose that a small child, she must go through a painful dental surgery. And she doesn’t understand, why she must go through this painful experience. But that doesn’t mean that her parents don’t have any good reason to allow this. this is an analogy where we cannot figure out why God allows evil in this world, but that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t have any good reason.

As I reflect on it, evil seems to be a problem for anyone who thinks the world is not as it ought to be. We have a conception of what’s good, and we act in that way, vote in that way, and interact with people in that way.

Tom: It seems where no matter what we think about God, if we think some conception of how things ought to be, there’s this tension, right, between the world as it’s given and the world that we think ought to be the case and how, things ought to be,

Yujin: Right. Yeah, that’s a very nice way of presenting my core idea. I formulate my argument in terms of what I call axiological expectation mismatch.

So, optimists, they have a certain expectation of how the world is. if you’re an optimist, do you think that the world is overall good or fundamentally good, or at least overall not bad or fundamentally not bad? But when you realize that we are products of evolution, we can see that our existence is based on this horrific, violent, unfair system of natural selection, which necessitates pain and suffering all the time.

Of course, theists face the same problem because they believe that the world was created by God. So, their expectation is high. The world should be very good. So, when they encounter evil, that’s a problem.

But this is a problem for almost everyone. I say almost everyone because it’s not a problem for pessimists. I think atheistic pessimism is a coherent view. Atheist pessimists would say, yeah, the world wasn’t created by God, and it’s horrible. And that’s compatible with our observation.

Tom: So, if you adopt a dark view of reality, then logically you’re consistent. But you may not be good company.

Can you tell me, are there some other logically consistent ways to respond to the problem of evil that, or maybe even just more palatable ways, and to do so in a way that, there’s wrecks like rational integrity.

Yujin: I don’t think there’s an obvious theistic solution to the problem, but equally there is no obvious atheistic solution to the problem. So, I’m not suggesting any, new response to the problem of evil. What I’m saying is that this is a problem for almost everyone except pessimists. So again, we, we must work together to address this problem.

Tom: It’s going to remain in tension. If you think, or if you reflect on this, it’s going to bother you.

Yujin: Yeah. So, the problem of evil remains as a, one of the biggest, puzzles in the philosophy of religion.

Tom: Gotcha. Let’s turn to another topic that’s fascinating to reflect on the topic of miracles.

Could you maybe start by giving us a description of what qualifies as a miracle or what we are talking about when we use that word?

Yujin: Yeah, so you’re right that if you look at the religious scriptures around the world, you can find so many interesting examples of miracles. So, of course, in Christianity, there is the virgin birth and, Jesus turned water into wine and walked on water. And there are so many miracles described in the Bible, but also in Buddhism, for example.

The Buddha produced water and fire from his body and alternated them. Muhammad split the moon into two, and there are many interesting examples.

And what seems common in these examples is that they all involve the violation, of the laws of nature. So, the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume defined a miracle as a violation or suspension of the laws of nature.

So, if you turn water into wine, then you must violate, suspend, or contradict the laws of nature. Because given the laws of nature, you can never turn water into wine instantly. So that’s a quite common definition of a miracle among philosophers.

Tom: And you described how David Hume gave precise or specific description as violating the laws of nature. are there other kinds of activities maybe that are deeply, deeply improbable. Maybe they don’t violate the laws of nature, but just the timing, the uncanniness of it could merit the name Miracle as well.

Yujin: So, there are many interesting examples of very unusual coincidences. For instance, but they don’t count as miracles according to the philosophical definition because unusual coincidences, they are unlikely to take place, but they can take place within the laws of nature. but what I’m really interested in is certain acts that are almost like miracles.

So, if you see religious scriptures, many leaders of the world’s great religious traditions, they somehow discourage people to focus on miracles themselves. So, when Jesus was challenged by the devil, he refused to turn stones into bread or jump off from the highest point of a temple without getting hurt. He simply refused it.

Or when the Buddha encountered a yogi who was trying to cross a river by walking on water, he just said, you know, what are you doing? It’s just a waste of time. Just take a ferry. And I always wondered, why do these figures say this kind of thing? And my answer is that, okay, miracles are impressive because they’re almost like magic tricks.

They are surprising and awe inspiring. But the Buddha and Jesus and other figures, they didn’t want people to just focus on these surprising aspects of miracles. They wanted people to focus on something more important. And an act that is closest to a miracle, which can be performed by humans,

I believe is an act of altruism. So, here’s an example. So, in 1982, in December, there was a very heavy snowstorm in Washington, D. C., and Air Florida Flight 90 departed the airport there. smashed into a frozen river, Potomac River there, and only six passengers survived. And there was a rescue helicopter came to rescue them, and they threw life rings to them.

And when the life ring was thrown to one of the passengers, he gave the ring to another passenger. And then the helicopter came back and did the same thing, and again, He gave the ring to another passenger. And eventually, the helicopter came for the last run, but this passenger who gave the ring to other people, he was gone.

So suddenly he passed away. And initially he was known as the man in the water, mysterious hero, but later people found out that he was R. L. D. Williams, Jr., who was a bank examiner. And I think this is an extreme form of altruism because we have this biological disposition to prioritize our own survival, But Williams, he, prioritized strangers’ lives over his own. And I think this act is, almost like a miracle because it defies this strong biological disposition that we have developed through evolution. And I think that these leaders of the world’s great religious traditions probably they wanted people to focus on this kind of act instead of just a quick magical solution to problems.

Tom: Yeah. So, we’ve discussed some, challenging topics, things that really perplex people, things that people struggle with the problem of evil, I want to know what, makes you hopeful looking towards the future or even just hopeful in the present?

Yujin: So, I want to think that we can maintain optimism. So even when we encounter horrific events in the world, like wars and crimes and natural disasters, I think we can always maintain optimism. whether you’re a theist or atheist. So, I want to develop a philosophical view that allows us to maintain optimism in a consistent way, not just as a psychological solution to cope with, difficult situations.

Tom: Yeah. optimism is an interesting topic. I think some people are naturally predisposed to be more optimistic than others. another way to look at it. Is that it’s a good tool. it’s in your interest perhaps to think optimistically, kind of as a life hack, maybe the question that would interest you the most, and certainly one that interests me of like, for what reason should we be optimistic? I want to hear an argument of why I should be more optimistic than I am.

Yujin: Yeah, that’s exactly what I would want to explore, because there’s a lot of psychological research suggesting that people are consistently optimistic. with respect to almost everything illness, natural disasters, divorce and, even when they encounter natural disasters, even those victims after several months, they recover optimism and they think that, eventually all will be okay.

And I want to think that we can maintain optimism, but as you say, we need a good reason to maintain optimism despite all kinds of. Horrific things in the world. And that’s a philosopher’s job, rather than a psychologist’s job.

Tom: I want to thank you for joining me for the show today. It was fun. I love wrestling with head-scratching or frustrating questions because they’re important. So, thanks for being able to wrestle with those with me.

Yujin: Thank you so much. It was my pleasure.