Virginia Beach Theology and Philosophy Meetup Group

Let’s go back to October 27, 1982 when Prince released 1999. During this time period, nuclear war feels like a real possibility. The news is terrifying. And Prince’s response to all of it was to write a banger and tell everyone to dance.

Which raises a genuinely interesting question:
When the world feels like it’s falling apart what’s the right way to live?

This isn’t a lecture. There’s no homework (except listen to the song 1999 by Prince if you never heard it and review the lyrics) Nobody is going to use words you need to Google afterward. This is just a group of curious people sitting down to wrestle with something that actually matters.

Because here’s the thing October 27, 1982 might as well be today. Climate change, political chaos, AI taking jobs, endless bad news on your phone. The doom is different but the feeling is the same.
So what do you do with that feeling? Do you party through it like Prince? Do you unplug and ignore it? Do you fight it head on? Do you quietly fall apart?

We’ll talk about:
• Whether joy in dark times is brave or just a way of avoiding reality
• Why some people thrive under pressure while others shut down
• Whether living for today is wisdom or just a really good excuse
• What “a good life” even looks like when the future feels uncertain.

The one question we’ll keep coming back to:
Is dancing through the apocalypse the most human thing we can do or are we just lying to ourselves?

Let’s discuss one of the great modern philosophers of our time Prince!

Descartes' dualism argues that mind and body are fundamentally distinct substances. The mind is an immaterial, thinking thing, independent of the physical body. The will, therefore, is inherently free and unconstrained, operating as the source of human freedom.

On the other hand, many contemporary philosophers hold that there is no immaterial soul or will, and therefore no Cartesian free will. Additionally, many contemporary neuroscientists, such as Robert Sapolsky, argue that any capacity for free choice is limited by prior biological factors, including neural activation, genetics, and the environment. Some suggest a compatibilist view. Biology may indicate there is no objective free will, but Daniel Dennett claims free will is real "to us" in the same sense that colors are real "to us." There may not be colors objectively, but we function in a world of real colors. We stop at a red light, enjoy a blue sky, and follow a hiking trail marked by colors. In the same sense, we hold people responsible for their actions. Regardless of biological evidence against free will, you get a ticket for speeding and go to jail for murder. For us, free will is real and necessary.

Compatibilist free will defines freedom as the ability to act in accordance with one's desires, motives, and intentions without external coercion or impediment, even if those desires are determined by prior events.

Jerry Coyne has a problem with that definition of free will. Dennett is not a Cartesian dualist in that there is a will or mind separate from the brain that can make independent choices. Dennett and compatibilists have redefined traditional free will to make it compatible with determinism. Coyne argues that the compatibilist view of free will is not what the average person thinks of as free will. When compatibilists say free will exists, it misleads people into thinking they have traditional dualist free will.

Dennett defends his view of free will, and Coyne disagrees with his position:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF-MJcw7QnA&list=PLrxfgDEc2NxZiPzRjCs0Ai6DwM49xshC-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiZAlG-BhwA&list=PLrxfgDEc2NxZiPzRjCs0Ai6DwM49xshC-&index=3

THIS IS A REPEAT OF THE MAY 23RD EVENT TO ACCOMMODATE OVERFLOW

The design or fine-tuning argument is a popular argument to prove God's existence. A less common one is from personal testimony. This purely subjective evidence carries emotional weight, but its validity is strictly limited and open to critique.

Conversion experience lacks objective proof. Testimony shows that belief can change a life, but it cannot prove that metaphysical claims are universal. Moving testimonies of transformation appear in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and secular movements. These belief systems mutually exclude one another, so subjective experience cannot dictate objective truth.

Social and narrative conformity adds another layer. Studies show that people often reshape stories to match "testimony lingo" to gain social acceptance in religious communities. Testimonies by famous prisoners are sometimes ridiculed as weak attempts at forgiveness for crimes.

Despite these complications, do radical conversions carry any weight? Specifically, does the empirical reality of visible change—such as sudden recovery from addiction or a radical shift from hatred to altruism—constitute evidence that supports the existence of God, or does it merely reflect psychological or social factors?

It’s time for me to force myself to read another book on my “to read” list so I’m enlisting the group to make it happen.

Philosophy book club this time, The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli-
Is it truly better to be feared than loved? We are diving into one of the most influential (and infamous) political treatises ever written. Written in 1513, Machiavelli’s The Prince shocked the world by suggesting that a successful leader must be willing to act immorally for the sake of the state.
We will explore the "Realpolitik" of the Renaissance and discuss whether Machiavelli’s observations are a cynical "how-to" guide for tyrants or a brilliant, objective analysis of human nature that still applies to modern power structures today.
-Points for Discussion:
* The End Justifies the Means: Does the stability of a society excuse the questionable actions of its leaders?
* Virtù vs. Fortune: How much of success is calculated skill, and how much is just being in the right place at the right time?
* The Modern "Machiavellian": Where do we see these tactics in 21st-century leadership, corporate culture, or social dynamics?
* Satire or Sincerity: Was Machiavelli actually a secret republican trying to warn the people about how monarchs think?