All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
24:11
608 Agnosticism Part 5
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, everybody. Steph, hope you're doing well.
We do a very short podcast today.
I was chatting with my wife most of the way home, and I just wanted to close off...
What am I saying? Close off.
There is to be no closing off of this topic of agnosticism, and that makes sort of sense because it is a very challenging topic that goes right to the root of philosophy.
It really doesn't have that much to do with God.
It's about much deeper things than mere sky projection and anthropomorphism of the sun, the clouds, the sky, the moon, and the stars.
It is about much, much, much deeper things.
Agnosticism is really about family, philosophy, blood, history, violence, and all of the basics within human life.
Human beings always use God as a proxy for other things, and they love talking about God rather than talking about what's really going on.
And that's why I think that this topic of agnosticism is causing such a great degree of consternation among people and why it's such a popular thread.
Any time an absolutist comes along, the accusations of tyranny and intolerance and vengefulness and cultishness and so on, this is the gauntlet that any absolutist who comes along has to run.
And it can be an annoying and painful and difficult and frustrating and enraging at times gauntlet to run, and I'm certainly perfectly willing to run it because why would I bother podcasting if it was all just a bunch of opinions, mine or yours or hers or his or anything like that.
I podcast because I believe in the truth, objectivity, reality, and yes, I believe in absolutism in method.
Not necessarily absolutism in conclusions, though there are some of those, but absolutism in methodology.
That's the fundamental thing.
And that's really the only choices that you have.
You are either absolutist in methodology, rationality, scientific method, empiricism, or you are absolutist in conclusions and you must therefore throw away methodology.
Those are the only two choices.
There are no other choices. There are no other choices when it comes time to establish truths that are more than just, I like candy.
You are absolutist in a methodology, which is the scientific approach, or you are simply absolutist in, quote, conclusions, which is the religious, statist, or foo approach, all too often.
So, the religious man says, there is a God.
And what's his methodology?
He has no methodology. It's simply a statement.
Ooh, well, he's got some feelings.
Well, so what? Amputees feel that they have legs.
That doesn't mean that they can do the tango.
Feelings don't add up to a whole hill of beans when it comes to objectively determining the truth.
Feelings are very important indicators and very important ways of figuring out complicated emotional and social situations.
But they don't prove objective truth.
Any more than you having a headache means that everyone has a headache.
It's just subjective. So, you either have absolutism in methodology or you have absolutism in conclusions.
There's no other magic.
There's no door number three. No other magic.
And you'll notice, not to pick on the guy today who, again, I think is a thoroughly pleasant person to debate with so far, but the person today said, Steph, it is wrong It's wrong to be judgmental towards other people.
It's wrong to judge other people's ideas negatively, even though they're close to yours.
But that's absolutism in conclusions.
That's not absolutism in methodology.
Let's just say that his and I position are very close.
And then he says, Steph, it's bad for you to have negative thoughts about people whose beliefs are close to yours.
That's his conclusion.
What's the methodology? Well, there isn't any.
Of course, right? And it's not to be critical, it's just to point out a fact.
Because any methodology would be self-reflective, right?
So, if he says to me, if he assumes, and let's say it's true, that his and I positions are very close, and he says, Steph, you should not have negative opinions, About people whose positions are close, then either A, our positions are close, in which case he's having a negative opinion about my position, right?
So how can he say that I should not have negative opinions about other people's opinions if they're close to mine, right?
He's judging that. Either our opinions are close, in which case his argument is self-defeating, because anything he says about me, he is automatically saying about himself.
That's a universal principle, right?
You can't avoid that. I mean, you can avoid it, but you can run, but you cannot hide.
Or our positions aren't close, in which case the argument is false anyway, because he's saying it should only occur with people whose opinions are close together.
Now, two seconds' worth on an absolutist methodology would reveal that pretty openly, pretty clearly, right?
And again, I'm so sorry to be picking on you, if you're listening.
I'm really not, right? This is just so common that it's instructive.
Really, I don't mean to pick on you, and of course, if I've made a mistake, feel free to pick on me.
But... This is where somebody just has a conclusion, right?
And this is an example of what I mean by willing your way to the top of the mountain, but not actually getting anywhere.
So if somebody says to me, oh, Steph, you shouldn't be so judgmental.
You shouldn't be so absolutist.
Well, that's willing your way to the top of the mountain.
Because it's just an opinion.
What is too absolutist?
Is it too absolutist to say that 2 plus 2 is 4?
Is it too absolutist to say that the world is more round than it is kumquat-shaped?
Is it too absolutist to say that an infection should be treated perhaps with some sort of antibiotics rather than rubbing mud into the wound?
I now dutyfully await the homeopathic email that tells me that mud is in fact better.
Is it absolutist to say that it is better to stitch a wound up than it is to insert a lit cherry bomb into it, if you're interested in making somebody feel a little better and healthier?
Is it absolutist to say that it is preferable to treat pain with painkillers rather than, say, a cattle prod and a polo mallet?
Everybody lives absolutistly all the time.
You either are in control of these things or you're not.
Everybody has to live absolutistly or in an absolute fashion all the time.
I know this. I'm driving.
I'm driving. I'm podcasting and I'm driving.
How focused on absolutes do I need to be?
Do I actually need to insert the microphone into the microphone jack?
Do I need to turn it on? Do I need to turn on the computer?
Do I need to start up Audacity?
Do I need to plug in my computer?
Well, all of these are absolute statements.
They're a yes or no. And, of course, they all have to be in place for the podcast to work.
God knows I've lost a few, even ones that I loved, when things didn't work.
So I'm fairly aware of all of that.
It's all absolutism. People typing on the board, using their keyboard in an absolutist fashion, spell-checking if they've got the time and all this and that, and being frustrated when the posts don't work and get posted correctly and all that, and emailing me and typing out my email address.
It's all absolutist.
I mean, please, people, don't tell me.
About absolutism.
I mean, don't tell me about absolutism.
Everybody's absolutist all the time.
Everybody's absolutist all the time.
Even the relativist, right? Oh, it's absolutely good that relativism is better.
So, there's absolutism, and then there's an absolute standard.
Better than, worse than. So, absolutism occurs all the time.
Absolutism can either be methodology...
Rationality, empiricism, scientific method.
Not writing to a priest.
Not looking up what George Bush said.
Not prayer.
Not social obedience transmogrified into personal virtue in some phantasmagorical manner.
But the absolutism is in the methodology.
And if you have that, then you can get to the truth.
If you have absolutism in conclusions, i.e., well, it just makes me sad that, Steph, you claim to hate those people who are close to your opinion.
Okay, so you feel sad and I feel hatred.
So what? It's still a negative judgment.
You just substitute one passive-aggressive feeling with another.
You substitute your passive-aggressive sadness with my hatred, even if that were true, right?
And it's the same thing, of course, that occurs...
When I posted the...
This is not pick on the listener day.
This is just something I really want to get across.
It's absolutism. You know, you can oppose it.
It doesn't matter. You're either in control of it or you're not.
You're either absolutist in methodology or you're just absolutist in bigoted conclusions.
There's nothing in between. No other route if you want to communicate with anyone about anything to do with the truth.
But, of course, when I posted the Jesus critique at 599...
I think it was $5.99.
Yeah, I think it was $5.99. Of course, naturally, I criticized Jesus for saying, you must hate your family.
And people say, well, Steph, you claim to hate the family.
No, I don't. That would be absolutism in conclusions.
Right? I don't say, hate your goddamn family.
Never have, never will.
That would be repulsive.
That would be bigoted. I say, hate vice.
Or, more particularly, remove yourself from the presence of irredeemable vice.
Vice which will not change. Self-defense, right?
If the majority of women are being beaten by their husbands, and I say to women, if your husband beats you and will not stop, you should leave him.
How the fuck do people get out of that?
That I hate marriage.
It just boggles my little brain.
It really does.
It's amazing. But that's people who are applying absolutism in conclusion, rather than absolutism in methodology.
And this is people who just want to come to a conclusion, and it's emotionally driven, right?
It's false self-driven. And it's all a massive subtle attack, right?
It's all a massive subtle attack.
I have never, never advocated hatred of a group in particular.
Never. Never in a million years.
I have advocated hostility towards evil.
And what would that matter?
I'm not saying that you must feel hostile towards those who would do you harm.
I'm saying that you probably do if you look in your own heart.
And that to act in a manner that's contrary to that would be not only lacking integrity, that if you claim to love virtue and you have no negative feelings towards evil, then that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But if you're acting in contradiction to that, then that's kind of hypocritical and it's kind of false selfie and so on.
But I say, hate vice that will not change.
And even hatred is just getting them out of your life.
I mean, to the degree you can't get the state out of your life, but you get your family if they're abusive and they won't change and you open your heart to them and you speak about what's important and you tell them what you love and you tell them what's meaningful and important to you.
And if they smack you down emotionally, physically, verbally, whatever, then try again.
Try again until you don't want to do it anymore.
And then let them go. But, of course, so when Jesus says, hate your family, well, that's bigoted bullshit.
I don't say hate your family.
I mean, what a load of nonsense.
I know why people do it.
I don't always have the patience with it that maybe I should.
I know why people do it. Because their families hate me, right?
Evil people hate me.
And so good people who are under the sway of evil people channel that hatred towards me.
But they do it in a passive-aggressive way.
Evil people can't hate me openly.
A few exiled board members accept it.
But evil people can't really hate me openly.
Because I'm clearly not a very evil guy.
So it has to be passive-aggressive.
And so... When people sort of see these two poles, and I only put myself in one pole not because I'm in any way synonymous with virtue, but just because I'm the polarizing other side of things, at least to some degree.
Let's just say, if you don't mind, we'll put that out there.
So they've got their family on one side who's saying, forget your true self, be unconscious, don't think, merge with the herd.
Join the Borg, dissolve into the empty soup of self-erasure, be with us in a way that it's not possible to be with anyone.
That's the family or the culture, the society, the country, the group, whatever.
And they all call that virtue.
Now I'm over here on the other side saying bullshit only quite extensively and without the cough.
And I'm saying, no, think for yourself, right?
Reason and define virtue and live by that or forget about virtue, but don't grab virtue and run to the herd and think you've still got virtue.
Think for yourself. Be rational and passionate.
And the group hates that, right?
Because I'm actually climbing the mountain, as I said in the 604, I'm climbing the mountain And everyone who thinks they're already at the top of the mountain, I was implicitly in the past, and now I'm explicitly saying, you're not climbing the mountain.
Don't even think about it. Don't even imagine for a moment that you're anywhere near the top of the mountain.
You're sinking into the mud. And they hate that, right?
Because it's a hell of a lot easier to will your way up the mountain than it is to climb the damn mountain.
It's horrible and hard to climb the mountain.
It's exhilarating and it's beautiful.
And it makes life a passionate orgy of worthwhile intentions.
But it's pretty hard.
Great view, quite a few scabs.
And so people hate me for that, right?
And then other people pick up on that hatred, right?
This is all unconscious stuff that's going on.
But it's passive-aggressive hatred, so they say things to me, silly things to me, like, well, Steph, why are you criticizing Jesus for saying hate your family when you say hate your family?
Right?
I mean, if I'm a doctor criticizing somebody who's injecting people with polio, when I'm injecting them with a polio vaccine, and somebody says, well, why are you complaining about people injecting other people?
You're injecting other people!
Eh, it's a little bit of a difference.
A little bit of a fucking difference.
So really that's the key thing.
That's the key thing, is the absolutism in methodology.
Versus the absolutism in conclusions.
Every dumb fuck in the world wants to just will their way to an absolute conclusion without climbing the mountain.
They want to will their way to the top of the mountain.
I'm not talking to any listeners here.
I'm not talking about any listeners here.
I'm just talking about others. The listeners are engaged in the conversation, which I hugely, hugely respect.
Not that my respect means anything, but it's there anyway.
But everybody just wants to pound their fist on the table and say, it's just this way, goddammit.
That's the false self, right?
That's the false self saying, you can make a rose grow by yanking it out.
You can make a child grow by putting them on a rack and stretching.
And you can will your way to the top of the mountain.
There's no need to go through a process.
You just say it loud or you say it passive-aggressively or whatever.
And that's why there are these constant assaults on my confidence, right?
Well, Steph, you're just like a cartoon figure in a Monty Python movie creating splits where they don't exist because you're psychologically damaged.
It's like, well, that's an absolutism in conclusion.
There's no methodology there. Nobody's telling me where I'm incorrect.
Nobody's stepping me through the logic and saying...
You made a left ear when you should have made a right.
Just saying, you know, they're just trying to mess with me, right?
Pull the rug out from under me.
And again, I understand that.
I mean, they're going through a process of self-emergence.
They're going through a process of authenticity, which is great.
But I will forever and a day, as long as I draw breath and have a microphone anywhere near me, I will continue to oppose that kind of nonsense.
Why? Because I care for the true self that's in there for these people.
Because I care. This is kind of like a test, right?
It's kind of a test. Like, is he going to fall for this bullshit?
Is he... Is he strong enough?
Is it possible that he won't fall for these attacks?
Because I really care.
I really do care.
However badly it may come out at times, I really do care for your authentic self that you have down in there, for your true self, for your non-manipulative, logical, rational, passionate, happy, glorious, sexy...
Self that you have down in there, underneath all the bullshit that's got poured all over all of us as we were growing up, underneath all the manipulations and the fears and the terrors and the angers and the saccharine sentimentality and the control and the jerking around that happened to all of us, right? That caused our true self to collapse in on itself and take shelter and grow.
Sorry, and cease to grow, but to hold its potential like the seed in the Japanese shrine for 2,000 years.
I'm kind of digging and watering that, right?
Which means that when people attack me and lash out at me in one way or another, The important thing for me is, yeah, well, of course I'm not going to take it.
I'm not going to hate them for it, because I understand why it happens.
But I'm not going to give it a moment's credence.
I had some guy on the board.
Oh, man, this made me laugh.
He posted a critique, and it was too much to get into.
I just didn't feel like typing a long thing out.
So I said, okay, well, I'll get to this in a podcast.
And then I had his sore tooth, which is getting much better, and It was tough to get round to it and so on.
And yeah, to be honest, I kind of forgot about it, right?
So, you know, a polite person says, bump, or, you know, would you mind picking this up again?
But he posted, he said, I'm still waiting.
I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting.
As if he automatically is taking the position that I'm saying, oh yeah, I'll meet you on the dueling field because I'm brave and tough.
And then he shows up and I'm just not there.
And he's like, I'm waiting. You're supposed to be so brave and tough.
Let's get it on. Let's rumble.
So he's taking this whole thing.
And I know that that comes from somebody who's been ignored and lied to and somebody who's been dismissed and humiliated in his life.
That's perfectly clear to me.
But man, what a rude way to deal with it.
So I posted to him and I said, well, do you feel that I'm obligated to you in some kind of time manner?
I don't remember that this is a guy who's donated a whole lot of money.
Hey, you donate a thousand bucks to me, you can call me out like that.
But otherwise, recognize that it's a hobby of mine and I got a lot of things on my plate.
And if I forget something, it's just, you know, I'm still waiting.
It's like... The fuck do I owe you?
I mean, it's pretty funny, right?
I think people have still not quite got the hang of the fact that I've ditched my friends and my family in order to live a life of integrity.
Not all my friends, but most of them.
And therefore, I'm not so big and down on the whole obligation thing.
And so I'm not sure why it is that people feel that I'm massively obligated to them in some manner.
It's just amazing. Anyway, so the reason that I am spending the time to work through this agnosticism slash absolutism of conclusion slash opposition to the false self stuff It's because I really do want to reach a hand down through the rubble of the false self to get to the growing strength of the true self, right? And I oppose this kind of stuff because I don't want people to do, like, it's a delicate thing.
It's a very delicate thing to be working in this area.
If you do enough wrong, you will no longer have access to the true self, and that would be a real shame.
Right? The true self can...
I mean, I can't say that it can be killed, because I don't know.
But certainly, there is a point beyond which it seems impossible to gain access to it again, impossible for it to grow again.
And that's certainly something that I've seen and Christina's seen in her lives and in the people we know and Christina's patients.
There is a time where you cannot recover.
So, the reason that I oppose this kind of stuff in people and encourage, hey, oppose me all you want, you know, but oppose me with love, right?
I put the podcast out with love.
Even the hostility that I have towards people's false self is done with the kind of love.
I mean, you can certainly let me know if you feel that's not true at all, but that's certainly my experience of it.
But be careful, you know, be careful with the snarkiness, be careful with the hostility, be careful with the passive aggression, be careful with the anger, be careful with the hatred, right?
Because that's not a good thing for you sort of fundamentally and in the long run.
I mean, hate, vice, absolutely.
Yeah, hate vice all you want. I think that's great.
But hating me or getting angry at me or snarking at me or, you know, saying, oh, Steph, you're just a divisive guy or you're an absolutist or ideologue or cult leader, all that kind of stuff.
I just be careful with that kind of stuff.
Because if it's true that I am making some horrible mistake, then I will only be correctable if it's done fundamentally out of love and rationality.
If you really care about me and want to correct me, great!
That's a beautiful thing to do for another human being.
But... If you think that I am, you know, so sort of fundamentally and horribly irrational that I'm sort of culty and divisive and all this kind of crazy stuff, then if you try to change me out of snarkiness, hostility, passive aggression, and so on, then you're certainly not doing it out of love.
I mean, that's totally clear to me, right?
You're not doing it out of love or affection or concern for me as a fellow human soul in a tricky world, right?
I know. I'm very clear about all of that.
That you're doing it out of sort of negativity and hostility and so on.
I mean, that's all very...
It may not be blindingly obvious to you.
Totally blindingly obvious to me.
And so either I am a rational human being and sensitive to being corrected and, you know, sensitive to criticism and wishing to receive it to improve myself, in which case snarkiness or hostility or passive aggression is really, you know, completely inappropriate. Or I am somebody who could only be corrected with snarkiness and passive aggression and so on.
In which case, why would you do that, right?
I mean, why would you even be listening? Thank you so much for listening, though.
▲
Export Selection