Today on The Matt Walsh Show, I have an idea, a plan, for how to proceed. It involves everyone making their own decisions. “Personal responsibility,” we used to call it. Also, Five Headlines, including millions of Americans now considering homeschooling for the first time. And in our Daily Cancellation we will cancel two of the dumbest criminals in world history.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, I have an idea, a plan for how to proceed, how to get things going again.
And it involves, you know, everybody making their own decisions.
Personal responsibility is what we used to call it.
And I will outline that today.
Also, five headlines, including millions of Americans now considering homeschooling for the first time.
So we'll talk about that.
And in our daily cancellation, we will cancel two of the dumbest criminals In world history, possibly, and they happen to be NFL players, perhaps not surprisingly.
So all of that coming up.
Alright.
And also, I should mention at the top, just because, that I really, really need a haircut.
It's getting... The situation is getting bad.
I am getting precariously close to ponytail territory in the back here.
I could almost make a ponytail.
Almost.
And that has brought me precariously close to actually allowing my wife to cut my hair.
And I have held off for two months, bravely, boldly, not allowing it.
And the reason I won't allow her to do it is because I know that at least part of her would be tempted to take the clippers and just go right off the top of my head.
Just buzz cut right off the top.
And I know she'd be tempted to do that because I would be tempted to do that if I was her.
So there would at least be that temptation.
And I could never, probably only about a 5% chance she would actually do it.
And then I also know, yes, it would be hilarious if I had to go do the show the next day with totally mangled hair.
So I would kind of appreciate the humor, but at the same time, it would ruin my life.
So, that's the situation.
Hopefully we can get the barbershops open again.
And mainly not because of people like me need haircuts because we look like mangy dogs,
but mainly because people who run barbershops and hair salons and so on, they need to make
a living.
I think that's probably the more important thing.
So as we talk about opening up and everything, there's been a lot of debate about whether
people should wear masks and whether it's really effective or not to wear masks, and
whether businesses should require it of their customers.
Or not.
Personally, it seems clear to me that mandating the use of face masks outside, as some localities have done, like in Los Angeles, for example, is absurd.
At best.
I mean, the best thing you can say about it is absurd.
There's no reason to think that you're at any appreciable risk of contracting or spreading the disease when you're outside.
Outdoors.
Especially if you're maintaining a comfortable distance from other groups.
Now, on the other hand, There does seem to be reason to think that running or cycling or jogging or exercising outside in the heat with a mask strapped to your face and collecting sweat and spit as you go is not the most hygienic practice.
I've done no scientific research into this, I admit.
I have no data whatsoever.
But I'm guessing that when presented with a choice between exercising while breathing into a spittle-soaked rag or exercising without the rag, the latter choice will generally be healthier and more sanitary.
That's, I'm guessing.
Now, does that mean that people shouldn't wear masks, in my opinion?
Am I anti-mask?
Okay, now this is one of those things where we all have to be anti-mask or pro-mask.
No, I'm neither.
I have really no opinion on what other people decide to do with their faces.
You can do whatever you want with your face.
Cover the whole thing in a mask.
You can walk around with a pillowcase over your head if you want to.
It doesn't matter to me.
I acknowledge a business owner's right to require masks in his establishment, and I'll comply with those requirements out of respect to the private property rights of a business owner.
Outside of that, I'm probably not going to wear one.
My opinion on masks is like my opinion on most other coronavirus precautions.
Make your own decision.
And live your life.
And Godspeed.
It's just, it's not clear to me why there needs to be a consensus or a universal strategy that we all adopt when it comes to this.
Now yes, you could argue that masks are more effective if everybody else wears them too, but if they're effective at all, if they have any effect, they should still offer you a significant amount of protection regardless of who else has them on.
Like if you're going to the store or something and you have a mask on, And you're maintaining social distance, and you're not lingering very much.
You're going in, getting what you need, and you're leaving.
Even if nobody else in the store has a mask on, yeah, it's not perfect protection, but it should offer you some protection.
It should make a difference.
And if you're telling me that masks make no difference at all, unless everybody has them, then it sounds like masks are pretty ineffective anyway.
So what's the point?
Somewhere along the line we decided that the coronavirus threat is one threat that we all have to respond to in the exact same way without exception.
But that is not how this country generally functions and it shouldn't start now.
So why can't this be the way forward?
Those who wish to wear masks, wear them.
Those who don't wish to wear masks, don't wear them.
Businesses that wish to require masks, require them.
Businesses that don't wish to require them, don't.
Businesses that wish to remain closed, remain closed.
Businesses that wish to open up, can open up.
People who wish to stay locked in their homes indefinitely, stay locked in their home indefinitely.
People who wish to go outside of their homes, will go outside of their homes.
See, these are all matters of risk assessment.
So, a combination of factors have to be weighed, and that calculation can be complicated for every individual, depending on your situation.
That calculation, though, is downright impossible if we're treating 330 million people as if they are one homogenous, single entity, when they're not.
The calculation is going to be different for everybody, depending on their situation.
And that's the point.
I think there are some people, personally, it seems to me there are some people who, for them, it makes a lot of sense to stay inside as much as possible.
Wear a mask when you go out.
There are some people like that.
People who are elderly, people who have pre-existing conditions.
But that's not everybody.
Why do we have to pretend that everybody is the same?
And why is it that people who usually are all about extolling the virtue of choice suddenly have abandoned that when it comes to this?
We'll talk about that more in just a second.
But first, Ancestry.com, I've done this myself with AncestryDNA, learning about our family ancestry, where we come from.
And, you know, I'll be honest with you, I was a little bit worried at first when I started, because I'd heard of so many people doing this.
And I was worried that I'd be disappointed, that it wouldn't live up to the hype, but it definitely did.
And it's just been fascinating to learn about my own family and where I came from, how it is that I ended up this way, which I think is a question a lot of people have.
There are many paths to finding your family story.
Whichever way you choose, tracing your family generations back with a family tree or uncovering your ethnicity with Ancestry DNA, whatever it is, it's easy to get started with Ancestry.
An Ancestry DNA test tells you where your ancestors are from, and Ancestry's billions of records and millions of family trees let you discover their personal stories.
Researching a history is a fun activity.
It's something that involves the whole family.
You know, I know my kids especially have been very interested to find out as well.
And the stories you learn about can, you know, be shared, and it gives you something to talk about around the dinner table.
And with your families.
So, uh, if you haven't, if you've never tried this before, I would absolutely recommend it.
You could trace the paths of your recent ancestors, learn how and why your family moved from place to place around the world.
Just learning the story of your family.
Start exploring your family story today.
Head to my URL at ancestry.com slash Matt to get your ancestry DNA kit and start your free trial.
That's ancestry.com slash Matt ancestry.com slash Matt.
Um, okay.
So this is my point.
This much seems obvious to me.
If you remain shut inside your home indefinitely, and you only emerge for brief moments, fully masked, just to go to the grocery store, you're probably not going to get sick.
You'll also be living a kind of dreary life, not a life that I want to live, but that's my own perspective.
And who cares what my perspective is?
You can live that life if you want to.
You are free to be a reclusive hypochondriac, if that's the sort of existence That you prefer.
The point is that there's no reason to require the same existence of everyone.
Even if all the rest of us are running around, you know, coughing in each other's faces, kissing strangers on the mouth, whatever it is, you will be safe, shut in your home, sheltered from the germ orgy that's happening out there.
So you don't need to worry about it.
So why not make this our reopening strategy?
Another term for this strategy is personal responsibility.
Also, liberty.
It's the strategy we've employed for most other diseases, most of the time.
If you're very fearful of this disease, it doesn't matter if anyone else thinks that your fear is overblown or justified.
I think that's where a lot of the tension and the argument and the division is coming from, where we think that we have our opinion of this disease and the threat that it poses, and we think that everyone else has to feel the same way about it.
They don't.
It doesn't matter.
It shouldn't matter.
At least they shouldn't have to feel the same way.
If you're fearful of it, you have your reasons, great.
Well, not great.
I mean, I'm sorry that you're fearful, but you can live accordingly.
You're entitled to your fear, you're entitled to whatever strategies you put in place for its sake, but your fear is not entitled to dictate my life.
That's the point.
Now, I know you can dream up scenarios where even if you're locked in your house, someone can get you sick.
Someone today told me that, or yesterday when I was talking about this, someone said, Well, that's the old canard of, well, it's great for you, but your choices might kill my parents.
And I said, how are my choices going to kill your parents?
If I'm out doing my thing and they're shut in their house because they want a shelter in place, then it seems like how could I have any effect on them?
The only way I could have any effect on them is if they choose to go out and participate in society.
And if they choose that, then they choose to take on the risk.
And that's it.
And then I was told, well, you could get a mail carrier sick, and then he could deliver mail to my parents, and the virus could get on the mail, and my parents could touch the mail, and then get sick.
Okay.
That's how extreme, that's how tortured people are getting in trying to explain how or why everybody has to stay locked in their home.
Because you might get a mail carrier sick who somehow transmits the virus by mail to someone who's locked in their home.
I mean, come on.
The other argument I've heard a lot in the last couple of days is that if we're going to take this approach of everyone, you know, assess their own risk level and live accordingly, then by that logic, well, it almost seems like you're saying we shouldn't have seatbelt laws or we shouldn't have smoking bans.
And actually, funnily enough, yes, that's how I feel.
That's actually a great comparison.
I think the seatbelt law comparison is very good.
Because, let me tell you how I feel about seatbelt laws.
I think they're completely ridiculous.
And nothing but a fundraising mechanism for the state.
There is no reason why we need cops going around looking for people that don't have seatbelts on so they can charge them 50 bucks for not having a seatbelt on.
If you want to drive down the road without a seatbelt on, that's your choice.
It's your risk.
You're not putting anybody else at risk.
And no problem.
You should be able to choose to take on that risk.
Except even with that, that's actually a generous comparison for the pro-lockdown side.
At least with seatbelts, although I believe that people should be able to take on that risk if they want to, and there's no reason why we need daddy, you know, daddy state out there, daddy police officer out there lecturing us to keep our seatbelts on.
But at least there, you know, the science is pretty well established.
There's very little controversy that you are safer with seatbelts anyway, most of the time.
Now, you could argue if you're going very slow, you get into a fender bender, you might be better off without the seatbelt, because if you have it on, you could get whiplash or something.
I don't know.
But generally speaking, you're better off with the seatbelt on.
That's pretty well-established science.
The thing with the lockdown, though, is not only should people have the right to assess their own risk, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion that this lockdown strategy is actually the safest.
So, it's not just that people aren't being given the right to assess their own risk, but it's that we are being forced to accept the risk assessment of government officials and scientists who are on the government's payroll.
We're being forced to accept their assessment when their assessment is, at a minimum, highly controversial.
And there's a whole other way of looking at it.
So, that's the point.
But either way, it goes back to, as I said, you can be as scared as you want.
Whether your fear is justified or not is not the point, but your fear does not dictate choices in my life, or at least it shouldn't.
Let's go to headlines.
A camera guy from a New York news channel was at a lockdown protest.
And the video was shared by Kevin Vesey from News 12 in New York.
And he said, as he shared it on Twitter, the level of anger directed at the media from these protesters was alarming.
And a bunch of other media people shared the video as well, shaking their heads in disappointment and indignation at all the mean things that people in this video said about the media.
But if you listen to it, I don't know, I listened to it and everything seemed pretty accurate to me.
So take a listen to this.
I was trying to get by on the sidewalk.
That's all.
You shouldn't be here.
You're fake news.
You stopped airing the Trump briefings and you keep airing Cuomo briefings.
Go home.
You're fake news.
You're destroying suffocating homeless people.
You are the enemy of the people!
You are fake news.
We all know it.
You are fake news.
We know about your liberal agenda.
We know you want to keep your job.
We get it.
You're not getting advertising dollars in right now.
You're not going to answer?
So you're just going to go live?
Yes, I am getting a paycheck.
I'm very happy.
But other people are not getting paychecks.
That's why I'm here.
You used to be a good channel at one time.
I don't know what happened to you.
Tell the truth, Kevin!
Come on!
Fake news is not essential!
Fake news is not essential!
I gotta say, I can't find fault with anything that was said there.
It just... Where's the lie?
Tell me where the lie is.
It shows you the whole problem with the media, though, doesn't it?
That rather than think to themselves, geez, people really hate us.
What have we done wrong?
Okay, what have we done?
What are we doing wrong that people feel this way about us?
Rather than saying that, which is the question that a self-aware person would ask themselves, rather than that, they say, oh, geez, people really hate us.
There must be something wrong with them.
Number two, NFL announcer Joe Buck says that it's quite likely the NFL season will go forward without fans in the stadium.
But he indicates some other adjustments that might be made.
He said in an interview, quote, I think Fox and these networks have to put crowd noise under us to make it a normal viewing experience at home.
I think whoever is going to be at the control is going to have to be really good at their job and be realistic with how a crowd would react depending on what just happened on the field.
So it's really important.
And then he also said on top of the crowd noise that they might pump in.
At least to the broadcast.
They might have CGI.
He indicated they've talked about doing this.
Well, they'll have CGI people in the stands.
So it looks like a full stadium.
And this, of course, is all a very terrible idea.
If anything, you get more mics down on the field so we can hear the action, you know, on the sideline, on the field.
That might be interesting.
Might get a little dicey too with the language, I admit.
Or, you know, of course, the other option is just Play the games.
Have people in the stands.
Let people come to the games.
It's outdoors.
At least most stadiums are.
Even the indoor stadiums are obviously very big, so there's plenty of air circulation.
I really don't see any reason why you have to not have people in the stands.
Or, at a minimum, you've got a 70,000-person stadium.
Sell 40,000 tickets.
Or 35,000 tickets.
And then there's plenty of space.
People can spread out.
Not a problem.
Number three, the New York Post reports, quote, A black professor driving in Vermont with New York license plates was flagged down by two white men and told to leave the state in what police are investigating as a bias-related incident, according to a report.
The unidentified professor was driving with his 11-year-old son last Friday in Hartford when two unknown vehicles approached and flagged them down around 10 a.m.
The professor, who owns property in the state, told police that One of the drivers, a white man, said that he was not wanted in Vermont and told to leave, according to the report.
He also told police that there were significant racial undertones to the interaction.
Vermont's governor, Phil Scott, said he'd spoken with the victim and added that he has, quote, no tolerance for hate crimes in the state.
Wow.
You know, I have to say, I'm not surprised that Jussie Smollett got a job as a college professor, but what the heck is he doing in Vermont?
That's my question.
Also, there are a number of issues here, okay?
Like, what do you mean they flagged you down?
So you were driving along, and some white racist flagged you down to say something racist to you, and you just stopped and listened to hear them out?
I can't even make sense of this.
And even if this did happen, which I doubt, couldn't it be that the guy's from New York, and he has New York license plates, and that's why they didn't like him?
I mean, couldn't it be, if this really happened, my first thought would be, well, he's got New York license plates and these are people that are worried that he's bringing the coronavirus into Vermont.
And so that's why they told him to leave.
And whether it happened or not, whether it was racial or not, why are police investigating it?
Hate crime?
The governor's involved calling it a hate crime?
What crime occurred?
Telling someone they aren't welcomed in the state, how is that a hate crime?
Based on what law?
What law forbids using that phrase to another person?
That's what I would like to know.
Number four, another report from the New York Post says New York Attorney General Letitia James said Wednesday that she is looking into reports that the NYPD is targeting minorities for aggressive enforcement of social distancing.
She says, quote, in a statement, the apparent unequal enforcement of social distancing policies is deeply troubling and deepens the divide between law enforcement and the people they are tasked to protect.
Then she mentioned some videos that have popped up on social media showing violent arrests in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
Okay, so to state the obvious, videos of arrests in black neighborhoods do not prove or even indicate That these laws are being enforced unequally on a racial basis.
Of course, though, they are being enforced unequally.
But it's got nothing to do with race.
The inequality is between the people who've been subjectively determined to be essential workers and the people who have been subjectively determined by the government to be inessential.
The inequality is between politicians who keep making a paycheck while depriving everybody else of their paycheck.
The inequalities between small businesses that are shut down while mega-corporations that sell the same sort of stuff are allowed to stay open.
Okay, this is all inequality.
It's all injustice.
It is something the Attorney General of any state should be looking into.
But unfortunately, leftists like Letitia James have to see everything through a racial lens, which means they often miss the point entirely, like is happening here.
Finally, a real clear opinion poll released this week says 40% of Americans are more likely to homeschool once the lockdowns end, and that at least is one good thing.
Maybe the only good thing to come of all this.
Now, I'm sure that a lot of the people that are thinking about this is just because they're afraid of the virus, and that's why they want to homeschool their kids, but whatever prompts I think it's good.
to at least think about, consider taking charge of their child's education,
well then it's good that they're considering it at least.
So maybe that's one thing that people will pry their kids loose from the grip of the state.
I think it's good. It's something to at least think about.
Now let's go to your daily cancellations.
This is a fun one.
I've been looking forward to this.
Fun for us anyway, not so much for the NFL players Quinton Dunbar and DeAndre Baker, who are both being cancelled.
They're cancelled because, allegedly, despite being NFL players and making millions of dollars to play a game for a living, they participated in an armed robbery a few days ago.
Now, the details in this case, all alleged, yes, The details are pretty incredible.
Bear in mind, okay, just to clarify, the cancellation is because of the sheer stupidity of this crime.
It's not because I object morally to armed robbery.
On the issue of armed robbery, I'm sort of in the middle ground.
I can see arguments for it and against it.
So this is not me passing judgment on armed robbery or armed robbers, just to be very clear about that.
Anyway, let me read from TMZ.
It says, according to police, The two men were partying in Florida on May 13th when things took a disturbing turn.
Cops say Baker and Dunbar were allegedly hanging out at a cookout playing cards and video games when an argument broke out and Baker whipped out a semi-automatic firearm.
Cops say the man began to rob party guests, with Dunbar assisting and taking watches and other valuables at the direction of Baker.
At one point, cops say Baker directed a third man, who was wearing a red mask, to shoot someone who had just walked into the party.
But fortunately, no one was actually shot.
Alright.
Law enforcement says the men made out with more than $7,000 in cash, along with several valuable watches, including an $18,000 Rolex watch, a $25,000 Other kind of watch that I can't pronounce because I'm not rich, and then some other watches too.
According to cops, some people at the party believe it was a planned robbery because the three men, when they were done taking valuables, there were three getaway cars strategically positioned to expedite an immediate departure.
And the alleged getaway cars, by the way, were a Lamborghini, a Mercedes-Benz, and a BMW.
Okay, so... First point here, obviously, is why weren't they social distancing?
That's the real crime here.
Forget about the armed robbery.
The real issue is what were they doing at the party in the first place?
Very irresponsible behavior during a pandemic.
Second, they were hanging out at a party with people they know.
Everybody knows them.
They're there, okay?
Having a good time, apparently.
Argument breaks out.
So they say, hey, you know what?
Might as well rob the joint.
And they rob it, and then they run away, and they get in their luxury cars, and they run away.
But where are they going?
Everybody knows who they are.
So what's the point?
This is like when my, a couple days ago, I caught my three-year-old sneaking into the pantry to steal a snack.
And I stopped him, I said, hey.
And then he ran away, and I'm thinking, where are you going?
I know who you are, and I know where you're going.
And I have a key to every lock in this house.
So you might as well face up to the punishment now.
The jig is up.
So this whole thing perplexes me.
Who robs people out of frustration?
What kind of response is that?
I'm not saying I'm the best at conflict resolution.
And I get frustrated too.
It sounds like they were playing a game and one of the guys got frustrated.
I get frustrated too, playing board games.
But it never occurred to me To flip over a scrabble board and just commit felony robbery on the spot.
Out of anger.
And then the whole fact, of course, that, again, these are NFL players making millions of dollars.
One of these guys was a first-round pick last year.
So, I mean, he just became a millionaire recently.
And now he's out robbing barbecues.
Imagine how shocking that is for everybody else there.
That not only are these dudes robbing you, not only do you know them, not only are you going to be able to ID them to the cops in five seconds, but they're the richest dudes at the party and they're the ones robbing you.
Which is super surprising.
That would be surprising, I guess, to everybody but Bernie Sanders.
Who I guess will not be surprised that rich people are robbing others.
Maybe he was on to something, I don't know.
All I can say is that it is now more important than ever that the NFL season go forward.
We cannot cancel the NFL season.
Look at what NFL players are doing after just the off-season workouts were cancelled.
And now you've got two NFL players, one of them a first-round pick last year, committing armed robbery.
Of not just one person, but mass armed robbery.
Just from cancelled workouts.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine if they cancel the season?
Imagine what it's going to look like in like December 2020 if the NFL season is cancelled and these guys have had nothing to do this whole time.
The sheer death toll from NFL player-related violence will easily exceed the COVID death toll.
So that's a pretty good argument right there, I think, for keeping the season going.
Also, I just want to watch football.
That's the other argument as well.
Okay, let's go to emails.
Before we do that, I want to take a moment to tell you about DailyWire's newest, most exclusive membership tier.
That's All Access.
The All Access membership tier is our premier level of membership.
All Access members get to participate in All Access Live, which is a brand new interactive programming feature.
One of us at DailyWire hosts Hangout every night at 8 p.m.
Eastern, 5 p.m.
Pacific, and you can ask questions with just a back-and-forth, pretty casual.
You also get all the benefits of our other membership tiers, including an ad-free website experience, Access to our live broadcasts, the show library, access to the show's mailbags, all of that.
All-access membership tiers also include, of course, the singular irreplaceable Leftist Tiers Tumblr.
So head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join Daily Wire's all-access club with a new membership or an upgrade and get 10% off with coupon code WALSH.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
See you there.
Okay.
So, as mentioned, if you're a Daily Wire member, you can send a Email through the mailbag, and I'll get to a couple of those now.
This is from Michelle, says, hey Matt, I agree with everything you say about letting people make their own choices, but aren't you walking right into an obvious response from liberals?
If you can make your own choice about being exposed to the virus or not, why can't women make their own choices over their bodies when it comes to abortion?
You said on Twitter, quote, if you want to leave your house during lockdown, do it.
If you don't, don't.
Well, isn't that just like the left's don't like abortion, don't have one logic?
Yeah, Michelle, I've heard this many times now, and no, I don't think the two issues are the same at all.
I think that these are two very different arguments.
Here's the crucial difference.
Well, there are two crucial differences.
Number one, abortion is the direct and intentional destruction of another person's body.
It is the direct and intentional killing of another person.
It would be completely irrational and incoherent To claim that a person who leaves their house during a lockdown is directly and intentionally killing another person.
As if, as if the very point of leaving is to kill someone, is to infect and kill someone.
Now, but here's the thing.
If someone actually did, you know, let's say someone knew they had coronavirus and they went out because their intention was to infect people, then I would say, yeah, I mean, I would put that person in jail.
If someone dies as a result, I would charge them with murder.
Of course.
But the law recognizes a distinction between accidentally getting somebody sick, even though you didn't mean to, and getting them sick on purpose.
And so that's, so really, related to abortion, it's like the difference between a miscarriage and abortion.
You know, in both cases, a child dies and it's tragic, but in one case, the mother intentionally and directly killed the child, and in the other case, the child died by, you know, Accident or illness or something else.
Number two, and this is a very important difference too, the unborn baby cannot and does not consent in any way to the abortion.
Whereas my whole point here with the shutdown is you have to, in order to be exposed, in order to have any reasonable likelihood of being exposed, you have to choose to expose yourself.
To the potential of getting sick.
If you stay locked down, you won't be exposed.
If you go out and about, then you might be.
But that's a choice that you made.
Which again, the unborn baby does not have a choice.
So, on one hand you have a child being directly and intentionally killed.
Without any choice or any consent on their part.
On the other hand, you have a person potentially getting sick, unintentionally, by accident, because, partially, they chose to go out and, you know, participate in society.
So those are, I think, just not the same at all.
Okay, this is from Dan, says, Hey Matt, great show.
Definitely been enjoying it on a daily basis.
I wanted to respond to your reaction to the NDE testimonials you were asked about on the May 13th episode, near-death experience.
I think the near-death experiences you described were a poor representation of the case studies which make for the peaked interest on the subject.
If you've read Gary Habermas and J.P.
Moreland's research, you might find that they have a more discriminating view on the subject, which makes their findings on it more compelling.
The things you described about seeing lights and tunnels and universal religious experiences are subjective and unverifiable, and therefore not very compelling when it comes to analyzing these accounts.
The more intriguing cases are ones in which an individual experiences temporary brain death, In which case they should have no conscious awareness and yet can describe scenes slash events in the physical world which from a materialism slash physicalist perspective should be incapable of doing such as seeing on the roof, witnessing an accident a few blocks down, overhearing a private conversation which they can repeat verbatim.
These things can and often are verified correctly.
This says nothing at all about religion, and the mistake people make is jumping to conclusions that it does.
It merely shows or suggests that materialism is false or untenable under these circumstances.
There could, of course, be possible alternative explanations, such as a case of universally experienced clairvoyance at the point.
Maybe they're just lucky guesses.
It's possible, though arguably unlikely.
The important thing to take from these accounts is not that religion is true, but that materialism is likely false.
For materialism to be false does not prove theism or any religious belief, it is just merely consistent with it.
Anyway, great show, keep up the good work.
Okay, yeah, Dan, I agree that these NDEs you describe are far more compelling, and that was my point, as you mentioned, that the religious experiences And experiences of the afterlife are very subjective and oftentimes tailored to a person's preconceived religious beliefs, which would seem to very much call into question their validity as a scientific proof of anything.
But then, okay, what about these cases of somebody who says they floated to the top of the room, or they saw something happening down the road, etc.?
And those are interesting.
And I'm not sitting here saying that they don't happen.
And I'm definitely not accusing people who experience them of lying intentionally.
That's not my position.
But to say that this happens because the soul leaves the body and travels down the street or up to the roof or whatever, I think raises some difficulties.
Maybe not insurmountable difficulties, but difficulties.
The first is that, you know, you think this would be relatively easy Or simple, at least, to test and confirm.
But it would need to be in a controlled environment, like an experimental, like a scientific experiment, so you're not relying on anecdotes or personal testimony, which I think most of the time, right, when it comes to these NDEs, what it comes down to is the personal testimony, anecdotal testimony of a person who says they experienced it.
Doesn't make it invalid, doesn't make it uninteresting, doesn't, you know, nothing like that.
It's difficult to call it scientific proof when you're just going based on what someone tells you happened, right?
So, I know, you know, why can't they do an experiment?
Maybe they've done this before.
I don't know.
You tell me.
But one thing they could do is, you would think, like scientists, researchers could place I don't know.
A note, let's say, up on a high cabinet in a trauma ward at a hospital where NDEs typically happen.
Don't tell anyone what the note says.
And then wait to see if somebody reports floating to the top of the room and they can tell you what's on the note.
Now, that might sound silly, but if you want to propose that these are actual scientific phenomena, then you would need to be able to test them scientifically.
And I think there would have to be some kind of experiment like that in a controlled environment.
As I said, maybe they've done that.
I don't know.
But it strikes me that you need to have an experiment like that.
The other issue I have is just sort of a metaphysical one.
You mentioned somebody who has temporary brain death and then wakes up and talks about an accident that happened down the road.
Now, again, that's interesting.
I'm not sure if that's an actual case that you're talking about or a hypothetical one, but let's just use that.
Now, the skeptical explanation for that could be, yeah, lucky guess, or maybe they heard something about it, people talking about it, when it seemed like they were unconscious, they were still somewhat conscious, they heard discussion of the accident that happened.
Those sound like stretches, but that's a potential explanation.
Now, the NDE believer, What would be your explanation though?
Like, that's what I'm trying to get at.
What's the claim here?
That when you die, or not even die, but when you almost die, your soul literally floats out of your body and travels down the street?
That just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
And I say that as someone who believes in souls.
I still don't think that makes sense.
You know, we're imagining souls now as these things that You know, in some sense are literally contained within your body as if they're like a fluid inside a container.
And that when you die, or not even die, but just almost die, your soul leaves and travels spatially through the physical world down the street and sees something and then comes back.
I don't know.
That just seems to raise metaphysical questions.
I can't quite make sense of that.
It raises enough questions that perhaps the lucky guess explanation is just more sensible, simpler.
It doesn't require as many additional explanations on top of it.
And that's the thing I think about explaining something, especially in a scientific context.
If the explanation you provide raises more questions than it answers, And there's another available explanation that answers more questions than it raises.
Probably the latter explanation is better.
For the time being.
So... Anyway, that's... But as I said before, I'm open to more information on that.
It's definitely... I mean, certainly, at a minimum, it proves that...
It proves that there's a lot about the human mind we don't understand.
So certainly that.
And that's why it's interesting to look into.
But I still think, you know, I'm far from convinced, I guess.
That's what I would say.
But thanks for emailing and thanks everybody for watching.
We'll wrap it up there.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show.
