Majesty of Reason Philosophy Podcast

About Majesty of Reason Philosophy Podcast

A podcast that explains, analyzes, and evaluates philosophical issues. Buckle up for philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time.

Publisher

Majesty of Reason

Category

society & culture

Language

en

Explicit

No

First episode

16 Oct 2021

Latest episode

4 Sept 2026

Latest episodes

175 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   4 Sept 2026

   The BEST Objections to Catholicism ANSWERED

   Here I criticize non-Catholic explanations of the miraculous evidence and respond to objections to Catholicism. CORRECTIONS AND ADDENDA:(1) I asserted that “neither geocentrism nor young-earth creationism ever constituted Catholic doctrine”, but apparently there’s some dispute about whether the theological content of the March 5, 1616 Index decree is altogether non-magisterial, or whether it counts as an act of the ordinary, non-universal, fallible magisterium. Regardless, it was certainly never definitive teaching, which suffices for my analogy.(2) I described nettles as tingling, but it would be more accurate to say it’s a mildly uncomfortable stinging. For more on this, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSKjl0gAjM4(3) In describing Pawl's view on the incarnation starting around 5:42:15, I should not have said that he cashes out the *meanings* of the relevant putatively contradictory predicates. I should have said that he provides *truth conditions* for the *application* of those predicates. (I should also have clarified that this isn't universally quantifying over *all* Christological predicates.) Here's the corrected version: In short, we can offer truth conditions for the applications of these putatively contradictory predicates that are *nature relative* – for instance, ‘is timeless’ is true of Christ just in case Christ has a nature which exists outside time, and ‘is temporal’ is true of Christ just in case Christ has a nature which exists in time. So, being timeless and temporal (where these predicates have the aforementioned truth conditions) is, indeed, contradictory for any being with only one nature, but if a being has two natures (which doesn’t seem logically inconsistent in itself), then that being can be both timeless and temporal in the senses relevant to Christological predication.(4) I’m somewhat uncertain as to the compatibility of Maritain’s model with the authoritative teaching of the Church. Recall Maritain’s view: after a finite period of pains of sense, the damned experience complete natural happiness while retaining the pain of loss (a sorrowful, grieving awareness of the supernatural beatitude permanently lost through their sin). I’ve been made aware that this view is at least similar to views expressed in Mivart’s works that were condemned by the Church. But they're not identical. So, I just want to emphasize that Maritain’s model is theologically speculative and not *clearly* ruled out by the Magisterium, but it’s also not something for which we presently have sufficient grounds to claim assured compatibility with the authoritative judgment behind the Mivart condemnation.Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. ❤️🔥AMDG❤️🔥

2. 

   31 Aug 2026

   The BEST EVER Cumulative Case for God

   Here I argue that God exists. In the next two parts, I'll argue for Catholic miracles, criticize non-Catholic explanations of the miraculous data, and respond to objections to Catholicism. Here I argue that God exists. In the next two parts, I'll argue for Catholic miracles, criticize non-Catholic explanations of the miraculous data, and respond to objections to Catholicism.Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidRESOURCE DOCUMENT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qrECmtjhrnqJYtiOxOihJlCrNCPN_YDJ7hLIp-0U4Kg/edit?usp=sharing CORRECTIONS AND ADDENDA (1) I should have noted, when giving Pruss and Rasmussen's contingency argument in Part 3, that while I was very highly confident in this argument at the time, I'm less confident in it now. My main source of uncertainty nowadays is the second premise, as there might conceivably be an explanation of contingent things which both (i) doesn't invoke contingent things (and so is non-circular), but (ii) also doesn't invoke a necessary thing, because it's a non-entitative explanation (i.e., an explanation that doesn't cite the activity of any concrete things). Still, I think there are reasons to prefer an entitative to a non-entitative explanation here (e.g., the latter is strongly inductively disconfirmed). So, while Pruss and Rasmussen don't do the following in their formulation of the argument, I would either modify the explanatory principle to reference not just explanations but *entitative* explanations, or else modify the consequent of the second premise to 'probably some necessary thing exists'.

3. 

   21 Dec 2025

   Pascal's Wager: A Crash Course

   Are you rationally required to believe in God? Let's find out...Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreasonIf you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmidOUTLINE0:00 Intro0:18 Expected Utility Theory7:17 Pascal’s Wager14:48 Pascal’s Wager14:58 Doxastic involuntarism19:53 Self-interest objection21:28 Many gods objection27:17 Fanaticism objection37:23 Mixed strategies objection40:38 Other Pascalian wagers42:14 ConclusionLINKS(1) Al Hajek and Liz Jackson, "Pascalian Expectations and Explorations": https://philpapers.org/archive/HAJPEA.pdf(2) My video with Liz and Al on Pascal's Wager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeSICId7Yhw(3) Some of Liz' Jackson's papers on Pascal's wager: (i) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACFTP-2 (ii) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACAPD-9 (iii) https://philpapers.org/rec/JACSPW(4) Some of Al Hajek's papers on Pascal's wager: (i) https://philpapers.org/rec/HJEWWO (ii) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/(5) An earlier video I made with Liz on Pascal's Wager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTC7OZB_1A(6) My Springer book: (a) https://www.amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148/ (b) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2(7) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: https://www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4THE USUAL...Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvHJoin the Discord and chat all things philosophy! https://dsc.gg/majestyofreasonMy website: https://josephschmid.comMy PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid

Reach and audience

Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.

YouTube views

2,008,390

Score snapshot 15 Sept 2025

Apple Podcasts (US)

5.0 / 5

9 ratings

Spotify

4.9 / 5

55 ratings

Podcast Authority Score: 63 / 100

A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.

Quality

58

Social presence

0

YouTube

93

Engagement

77

Contact Majesty of Reason Philosophy Podcast

Guest appearances

Does not typically book guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.

Shows with a similar audience

• 

  The Counsel of Trent

• 

  Pints With Aquinas

• 

  The Thomistic Institute

• 

  Godsplaining

• 

  The Word on Fire Show - Catholic Faith and Culture

• 

  The Road to Emmaus with Scott Hahn