Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 17, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:53:36

A Rational Critique of Atheism! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I think we are cooking with gas, putting out the fire with gasoline.
	How's everyone tonight?
	Welcome, welcome, welcome.
	Hello, hello, hello.
	Stefan Mollyme from Freedomain at Freedomain.com.
	If, if, if, always the big question of philosophy, how can you be so sure?
	And if, and compared to what?
	Like the old philosophy professor, somebody said, how's your wife?
	He said, compared to what?
	It's a fine question.
	It's a fair question.
	It's a good question.
	Another good question is, will you, will you donate?
	Will you support philosophy?
	The best philosophy show in world history?
	Lastly, because of lovely people like you who challenge and enlighten me with your great questions, will you help?
	Philosophy at freedomain.com slash donate.
	All right.
	Enough pitching woo.
	Let's pitch why, which is what's been going on.
	I guess I had a bang as beans and mash tweet gone to five and a half million views, which is with regards to the atheists.
	Why do you not lie?
	Why do you not lie?
	It's not a mean question.
	It's not a bad question.
	It's not an insulting question.
	It's not a hostile question.
	It's a genuine question.
	Religious people don't lie, or at least they have a reason to not lie, which is that the all-good, all-loving, all-perfect God commands it.
	You may disagree with the reason.
	I'm sure that atheists do, but it's a reason.
	And my question is, what is the reason for atheists?
	I can't help, but have a wee suspicion.
	And listen, I'll take calls, yell in my ear, set me straight.
	I'm thrilled to be set straight.
	Honestly, I'm not kidding about that.
	If I've missed something obvious, please help a brother out and set me on the right path.
	But I have a little suspicion about atheists, that what they're rebelling against is not God, but virtue.
	Virtue.
	Because the atheists say, well, I just don't want to be bad.
	It's like, how do you even know what bad is?
	And if you just don't want to be bad, then your ethics are basically let do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
	But I don't want to lie.
	Okay, but that's just hedonism.
	I don't want to.
	And they're just escaping morality as a whole.
	A strict definition of morality that has you sometimes damn well do what you just don't want to do.
	There's no diet called eat what you feel like.
	There's no exercise program that says, eh, move however you feel like.
	If you don't feel like moving, that's totally fine.
	Do whatever you want.
	That's not an exercise program.
	That's not a diet program.
	There's no discipline involved in that at all.
	Where, I mean, in religious ethics, in Christian ethics, for sure, you got to do a whole bunch of stuff you really, really, really don't want to do.
	Whereas it for atheists, and atheists say, well, the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell, it doesn't make you good.
	And then I say to atheists, well, why do you do virtuous things?
	They say, well, I get social benefit and I feel bad if I lie.
	I get social benefit if I tell the truth.
	I get a good reputation.
	I'm trustworthy.
	People I'm less likely in some ways to lie back.
	So I get social benefits, not fundamentally different from heaven in terms of it's a reward for virtuous behavior.
	And I feel bad or I get negative consequences if I lie, which is hell.
	And listen, I have no problem with the atheist critique of religious metaphysics.
	I get that.
	There's a lot of contradictions in the concept of a God.
	I get that.
	I accept that.
	I understand that.
	I'd love to work with that kind of stuff.
	But holy shyster balls, Batman, that's it?
	You poke holes in some pretty obvious self-contradictory nature of reality, existence of consciousness without a form.
	Oh, God can't be both all-knowing and all-powerful.
	Because if God is all-powerful, he can change the future.
	But if he can change the future, he can't know the future.
	So he can't be both all-knowing and all-powerful.
	I get it.
	I get it.
	Fantastic.
	Is that the sum journey of your intellectual curiosity to poke pretty obvious contradictions in the metaphysics of religion?
	Hey, the Bible has some goofy stuff in it.
	Yes, it does.
	Yes, it does.
	That's it.
	That's what you got.
	See, my concern is that atheists said religion and therefore religious morality is foolish, self-contradictory, irrational, and wrong.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So you've just ripped morality out of the core of the West, which is founded on Christian morality.
	Christian morality.
	You just ripped the heart of ethics out of the West.
	And you replace it with what?
	With what?
	If somebody's on life support and you take them off life support without any other plan for keeping them alive, they fucking die.
	As the West is doing.
	Could it be that you are part of a semi-demonic attack upon the West to rip out the heart of its ethics and replace it with nothing?
	Feels.
	I wanna, I don't wanna.
	It's common sense.
	It's obvious.
	Bullshit.
	If virtue was obvious, everybody wouldn't be in agreement.
	Or ridiculous.
	Feelings-based.
	Well, I don't.
	I just don't want to do things that hurt people.
	Hurting people is wrong.
	Anything that hurts people is wrong.
	First of all, people would just fake being hurt.
	The crybullies.
	They'll just fake being hurt in order to control you.
	Anything which hurts people is wrong.
	Therefore, boxes are evil.
	Saying something, saying a truth to someone that hurts them is wrong.
	Getting out of a relationship, which is bad is wrong because it hurts the other person.
	Just don't think that people just spew stuff with no thought as to counterexamples, no rigor, no debate.
	So, Christians held the hearth of Western morality aloft into their hearts for almost 2,000 years.
	And the atheist came along and said, Bulloney, that's nonsense.
	How contradictory.
	Sky Daddy ordering you.
	If you have to be ordered, you're a bad person.
	You're going to be a good person.
	Contradictory.
	It's a mirage.
	It's not true.
	Okay, fine.
	And replace it with what?
	And replace it with what?
	Like a bunch of arsonists who go around burning down buildings saying, well, they're not constructed very well.
	And people are supposed to live in what?
	Burn down a farmer's fields, well, these crops aren't super healthy for you.
	And replace it with what?
	Rip out the heart of virtue and replace it with what?" With nothing.
	With nothing.
	That's a murder.
	You burn down someone's house in the middle of a hailstorm and you give them no other accommodation.
	You say, well, but that house was not perfect.
	Yeah, but it was something.
	It was shelter from the sky.
	And now you drive them out into the open fields in a hailstorm.
	Hail stones the size of golf balls raining down around them, their bald pates, and their children.
	You just kill people if you drive them out of their home, with no other home to go to in the harsh elements of this brutal world.
	And if you say, well, Christianity is wrong and the Christian ethics are self-contradictory and it's bad and it's wrong, fine.
	Fine.
	Then you owe a replacement to the society whose ethics you are destroying.
	You owe the society whose ethics you are destroying some new fucking ethics.
	But it's all just feels and hedonism and insults.
	You know, I keep asking that.
	Atheists.
	Why do you not lie?
	Lying is highly advantageous.
	Lying is a way to get resources without work, defrauding people.
	It's easier than creating things.
	If you can convince people you're a witch doctor and they should give you 10% of their crops so that you'll bring good rains, it's a whole lot easier to twerk in a headdress than it is to grow a year's worth of crops.
	Lying is highly profitable.
	It's highly advantageous, as is violence throughout almost all of human history.
	Why not lie?
	It's the easiest and quickest way to get resources.
	Well, I don't like it.
	That's just hedonism.
	What about the people who do like it?
	What are you going to say to them?
	What about the con men who giggle and enjoy ripping people off, lying to them, stealing from them, through language?
	It's safer than actually fighting them physically, right?
	It's talking them out of stuff.
	It's talking them out of stuff.
	No, no, what they wanted to get rid of was not religion, but moral responsibility, because they've carved out the moral heart of the West and replaced it with nothing, which means what they were offended by were moral requirements, not God.
	Getting rid of God was just a cover for the true slate of hand, which was getting rid of moral obligations.
	And I had this debate.
	Was it yesterday?
	And you can listen to it on my stream, FDRpodcast.com.
	You can also find it at Stefan Molyneux on X 15th.
	It's the 16th today, right?
	Yeah, it was on the 15th of July, 2025.
	And the arrogance, the arrogance is really astounding.
	You know, I've had, I think, close to 6 million views on that tweet, thousands and thousands and thousands of replies.
	Not one atheist, not one atheist out of the thousands and thousands who've replied, not one atheist has said, you know, that's an interesting question, Steph.
	I'm not sure I have a great answer.
	Nope.
	You all just stand around whacking off into your fedoras and thinking that you've achieved enlightenment?
	This is embarrassing.
	Because I'm not a bad person.
	I don't lie because I'm not a bad person.
	It's like, how do you know?
	What is a good or bad person?
	How do you know what is right or wrong?
	And how do you universalize it?
	You're all supposed to be about science.
	Science is about universalizing things.
	If you simply take things from your own emotional perspective, the world looks flat and the sun and the moon look about the same size, about a dime held at arm's length, and they look like they go around the earth, as does the entire universe.
	Can't just take your own personal perspective and call it facts and truth.
	That's narcissism, solipsism.
	Subjectivism, ranked relativism, which is really the goal.
	I mean, one of the first public acts that I did, recognizing that Christian morality was being scorned and rejected, one of the first public acts that I did, my very second article that I ever published as a public intellectual, was called Proving Libertarian Morality.
	And I set myself the goal of proving secular ethics without reference to the commandments of God or the edicts of a usually corrupt government.
	Why?
	Because I'm not a selfish asshole.
	I'm not someone who drives people out in the snow and laughs at them as they freeze.
	I'm not somebody who says, your food is not to my taste.
	And I release rats and my own urine on the food stored for the winter.
	And then, in December, January, when the family is starving, say, oh, that's too bad.
	It's your fault.
	And this constant pivot, they won't answer the question.
	They will not answer the question.
	Why do you not lie?
	Well, Christians lie.
	Doesn't answer the question.
	Why do you not lie?
	Well, I don't need a skydaddy to tell me what's right.
	Doesn't answer the question.
	So blindingly obvious, and they don't even know it.
	No self-reflection.
	Atheists, do you challenge each other?
	Do you sit in circles and examine each other's viewpoints?
	Or do you just bag on the fairly intro to philosophy contradictions of religion and say, I'm brilliant!
	So brilliant.
	You're parrots just parroting each other.
	If you need a skydaddy to pretend to make you know a good person, it says more about you than me.
	My God.
	My God.
	My God.
	You all don't challenge each other.
	You all don't say, okay, well, if we're not going to do Christian ethics, what kind of ethics should we do?
	What is our proof for ethics?
	If we're gutting Christian ethics out of the society that has flourished on it for almost 2,000 years, if we're gutting Christian ethics, what are we going to replace those ethics with?
	Nothing.
	Pomposity, narcissism, vanity, tautologies, solipsisms, and insults.
	Insults.
	It's horrible, honestly.
	Just personally and emotionally.
	It's horrible to see.
	And they don't see it.
	They don't see it.
	Not one atheist has gone to another atheist who's being, it's always scatological.
	It's always you piece of shit.
	I'm not a piece of shit.
	Shit, shit, shit, shit, shit.
	All toilet trained at gunpoint or something like that.
	But not one atheist has swooped in and said, no, no, no, hang on.
	That's not answering the question.
	Let's try it from this aspect.
	Or that was kind of rude.
	Like, they don't police each other.
	They're just all, it's all just one rolling shitstone.
	Roller derby, tumbleweed, ars-tastic series of scatological insults.
	Posing as wisdom and knowledge.
	It's repulsive.
	It's repulsive.
	And the atheists worship the state.
	Holy crap.
	85% support for Democrats.
	Over COVID, a third of Democrats wanted to rip children from the arms of their parents for having some skepticism over the gene therapy, untested largely, that came out of the pharma companies.
	Half of the left, massively supported by atheists, wanted to lock people in their homes for not taking the vax.
	Half of them wanted the government to fine or punish people for even questioning the efficacy of the vaccines.
	91% of atheists, oh, it's important not to do any harm.
	You got to do no harm.
	Don't harm people.
	That's wrong.
	That's bad.
	And 91% of you are rapidly pro-abortion.
	91%, almost unheard of in the social sciences.
	It's functionally everyone.
	But 9% don't.
	It's functionally everyone.
	Go find a consensus that's 91%.
	Go find a consensus.
	White, evangelical Christians took the vaccs at 57%.
	Atheists at 90%.
	Y'all supposed to be so skeptical and rational?
	Supposed to follow science?
	No.
	You're just slaves to experts.
	Quote, experts.
	Highly compromised.
	Well bought and paid for, quote, experts.
	Oh, some guy in a lab coat said it.
	I'm going to do it.
	Some guy in a funny hat says it from Rome.
	That's just crazy, man.
	Thank you.
	90 plus percent of atheists believe that bought and paid for climate models can predict the weather at 100 years.
	My God.
	Oh, my God.
	The weather is more complex than the stock market.
	These ost-tastic bought and paid for lab coat baromir toadies.
	Sorry, wormtongue toadies.
	Let me get my Lord of the Rings reference correct.
	They all say, I can know what the weather's going to be in 100 years.
	Oh, really?
	Can you tell me what the price of Apple or Bitcoin is going to be five minutes from now?
	No.
	But I can sure tell you the temperature of the planet in 100 years.
	Oh, my God.
	I mean, maybe it's my experience as an entrepreneur.
	I was chief technical officer at a software company, which was in the environmental field, and I programmed modeling.
	I was a model, don't you know?
	Oh, and I've seen business plans goal seeking, right?
	Oh, I need to show this amount of profit.
	Let me tweak the numbers until I get that.
	Oh, look, I get an investment.
	Happens all the time in business.
	People screw around with their spreadsheets and assumptions until they get the numbers that most please the investors, but you don't think this happens with government when literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year are at play?
	Where is your skepticism?
	Where is your reason?
	Where is your commitment to science?
	Y'all slaves to white coats?
	Scientism, the new cult.
	Some guy with a pocket protector rules your very soul.
	To science.
	It's a new mystery religion.
	Hey, can we see the source data?
	No!
	You can't see the source data!
	That's blasphemy.
	It's just another mystery religion.
	You can't even look at the source data.
	They didn't want to release it for COVID for, what, 75 years until the judge ordered them to, and then Naomi Wolf and her brilliant team of experts combed over it and found more horrors than the lowest levels of Dante's Inferno?
	0.5 to 1%.
	Double the sales vision.
	How can these Christians believe things without reason?
	Can I look at the data and assumptions behind all of this scientific stuff that's controlling a very universe?
	No!
	Source!
	Trust my funding, bro!
	God almighty.
	And I guess maybe there's just not enough communication between genuine skeptics and the people LARPing as skeptics who call themselves atheists.
	Oh, atheism.
	Hey, man, atheism, it's not like, it's just an absence of belief in God.
	No, it's not.
	Bullshit.
	Atheism is specifically correlated with a worship of the totalitarian violence of the state and with swallowing all kinds of absolutely bullshit propaganda.
	If atheism was just a, I don't like wearing kilts, there wouldn't be a whole lot of association with other things.
	But there always is.
	You tell me, Bob is an atheist, I can with virtual certainty tell you his exact opinions on about 20 different things.
	His exact opinions, and I will be right nine times out of 10.
	You all are photocopied.
	You're NPCs.
	Which is why you always say the same shit when confronted with rational questions.
	Insults, blaming Christians.
	Well, you're a psycho if you need a skydaddy to force you to believe in this.
	I mean, you're smart people.
	Honestly, atheists, linguistically skilled, smart people, good memories, strong brains.
	But y'all are lazy.
	You're lazy.
	Because you hang on to a couple of contradictions, mostly that were identified to you.
	Yes, I read Atheism, The Case Against God when I was a teenager, too.
	And Ayn Rand, Dawkins Harris, Hitchens, fantastic, good stuff.
	Other people taught you about some pretty obvious contradictions that Christians have been debating for 2,000 years.
	Yay, good you.
	There's nothing wrong with reading that stuff.
	Fantastic, great.
	You know, that's the beginning of the journey.
	We actually start to think for yourself rather than parrot what other people have said, who themselves didn't really think things through.
	Dawkins, Harris, Harris Hitchens, you all owed society, especially the West, you all owed us a moral system.
	We are minus one moral system.
	This man is dying.
	It's all right.
	I'm a doctor.
	Really?
	Yes, doctor of mathematics.
	How can you help?
	Minus one.
	Anyway, let's get to your questions and comments.
	I appreciate everyone's patience.
	I love this conversation.
	I hope it's helpful to the world.
	Freedomane.com slash donate.
	Who wants to speaketh to me?
	All right.
	Lab rats.
	Voices on your mind.
	Yes, sir.
	Go ahead.
	Yes, I was just going to say that I've been listening to some of your like 80s critiques like the last few days.
	You had like a special day.
	And I was just like to say that I think a lot of the critique you made, it's also like a deist position where you would say stuff about, let's say, you had like a monologue about how, oh, you can't get values from like atoms or like the Big Bang or whatever, which is like no, I didn't have that speech.
	I'm pretty sure you did that.
	You couldn't say that.
	I didn't have that speech.
	I didn't have that.
	No, you didn't.
	I rebutted that.
	You did have a monologue about how you can't get values from science, unlike mainstream science?
	No.
	No, somebody brought up the Humean distinction, you can't get an ought from an is.
	Or the facts-values distinction, and I rebutted that yesterday in a fairly lengthy debate.
	But okay, go ahead.
	Yeah, I was just going to say that I think when I listened to some of your speeches the other day, I almost felt like this almost like a deist basically.
	What?
	Sorry, I want to listen to my speeches.
	What are you talking about?
	No, I listened to your speeches.
	Oh, you listen to them.
	Okay, sorry.
	I thought you said I should listen to them.
	My apologies.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	I was just going to say that I listened to your critique of atheism or whatever, and I got the impression that it's like this deist.
	You basically like a deist.
	Don't interrupt me, by the way, so I can get to my point.
	That it's like a deist critique almost, because a lot of what you said about your critique of atheism, it could almost be said about, let's say, it could be said by a Muslim or like a Hindu or an Armenian or like a Christian or like a like Yevre or like a yid.
	And like the thing is that I don't really get how you, let's say like that sort of like philosophical critique of religion.
	I don't really get how you get to atheists don't know how you can get like an author is and so forth.
	And to get to that, say that, let's say abortion is bad or divorce is bad because there's like a huge gap between them.
	Because I think there's a huge gap between, let's say, deism, or say that there's like a philosophical gap or hole between atheism and like deism.
	There's like a bigger gap between deism and Christianity than there is between deism and atheism, I would say.
	And sorry, I'm not sure what your question is.
	Like my critique of your critique of atheism is basically this that it could be said about it could be said by a Muslim.
	Who cares?
	Who cares?
	Or a youth.
	No, no, I gave you a chance.
	Hang on.
	I gave you a chance to talk, right?
	You said, don't interrupt.
	Yeah, interrupt.
	No, no, no, no.
	My show.
	My show, bro.
	My show.
	Okay, if I say, I'm sorry?
	You asked me to clarify.
	No, no, I'm giving you You did.
	Okay.
	If there's something that you want to add, then finish your thought and then don't interrupt me when I'm talking.
	Yes, my critique is basically this, that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity has, which is why the three religions I'm most familiar with, has like vastly different values.
	And all of them could be said by, has the same critique of atheism as you do.
	And it doesn't really reflect how values in real life, like day-to-day ethics and so forth.
	Because these three religions have very different values.
	And ethics.
	Okay, so I'm still not sure what your question is.
	Like your critique of atheism is meaningless because it could be said by anyone who's religious.
	And so?
	How does that make it meaningless?
	So if somebody says that two and two make five, and I say, no, no, no, two and two make four, and you say, well, but a Muslim and a Jew and a Christian, they could all say that two and two make four, therefore you can't correct the person.
	That wouldn't make any sense, would it?
	Well, my part is basically this, that.
	No, no, you gotta, hang on, bro.
	You gotta answer my question.
	Don't talk about it.
	It's really rude.
	It's really rude.
	Oh, man, what's up?
	Hang on, you bring up an objection.
	Hang on.
	You bring up an objection.
	This is how it works, right, in a civilized world.
	What's the problem?
	Hang on.
	You've got to let me talk or I'll just cut you off, right?
	This is really rude.
	So you bring up an objection and you say, Steph, your critiques of atheism could be voiced by any religion and therefore they're invalid, right?
	So I put forward a rebuttal.
	Do you remember what it was?
	No, I don't repeat it.
	Sorry, do you have something wrong with your thinking?
	Like, I literally said this 30 seconds ago.
	I mean, I didn't hear.
	It was cut out.
	You didn't hear?
	I mean, you could repeat it, but.
	Wait, are you saying?
	So you hear everything except my rebuttal.
	You have no problem with everything else.
	It's cut out.
	So, I mean, whatever.
	Bro.
	But you don't have to repeat it.
	If you interrupt me again, I will drop you like that.
	It's really rude.
	It's really real.
	Okay, well, that's fine.
	Yeah, I don't do that, man.
	That's just ridiculous.
	Yeah.
	So just so people understand, if a critique can be voiced by other people, it doesn't mean the critique is invalid.
	If a brunette, a bald man, a guy with a mohawk, a woman with blue hair says that two and two make four, it doesn't matter who's saying it, right?
	And just by the by, and I know that y'all are not like this, but don't overtalk me.
	It is my show.
	And I'm very happy to have a civilized discussion.
	But if the moment I start talking, you start talking in my ear, I'll just cut you off because it's a waste of time for everyone.
	Oh, and by the way, if you lie to me and say, oh, no, I heard everything you said.
	Oh, just accept that rebuttal, right?
	Oh, just accept that rebuttal.
	That's just a falsehood, right?
	All right.
	No worries.
	No worries.
	Dry lights.
	We're going to throw you.
	Good lord, what the hell is going on?
	Sorry, I'll get back here.
	I'm trying to do this sideways on my phone.
	Sideways, Paul Giamatti style.
	All right, there we go.
	Dry lights.
	No, let's get back here.
	I will get there, I promise you.
	Doom.
	I just got to get like one pixel here.
	All right.
	Barcode.
	We've talked before, I think.
	If you want to let me know what you're thinking, just don't forget to unmute.
	Hello.
	All right.
	He has vanished.
	We're going to try dry light.
	And man, this is a horrible interface, I got to tell you.
	Love the X. Happy to be here.
	There we go.
	Dry Light, if you want to unmute.
	I'm Olios.
	Yes, go ahead.
	Stefan, wow, what a pleasure, man.
	I've been listening to you since I was a teenager, probably.
	So this is awesome.
	Thank you.
	So first, I'd like to kind of preface this by saying that I don't claim that, you know, if society at large believed what I believe, that things would be better.
	I don't, you know, that's that's not my point, that everybody should believe what I believe.
	I'm sorry, I don't, I assume that some things you believe, like I'm into peaceful parenting, and if society believed in peaceful parenting, society would be better.
	There's some things that I believe that absolutely people should believe.
	Certainly, and some things I believe, I think most people believe that.
	Okay, so some.
	So not everything.
	They don't have to like cheesecake or nickelback.
	Okay, got it.
	Go ahead.
	All right.
	So I think the main, my main contention with some of, and I don't know that you've necessarily made like, you know, an argument.
	I think more you've been critiquing up till this point is, you know, if what I believe is that, you know, morality ultimately, you know, doesn't exist and things are basically hedonistic and sort of, you know, maximize good feelings in people.
	I guess my question is sort of, you know, so what?
	Like, if I don't like that answer, does that mean it's untrue?
	Sorry, when you say that morality doesn't exist, is that right?
	Yes.
	Like it, I would think the way you define it, probably I would believe it doesn't.
	Okay, what do you mean by exist?
	You know, I guess a better way to paint this is to say what I believe, which is that.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	That's not how this goes.
	I ask you a question and you don't ignore that I've asked you a question.
	You don't have to answer it, but you can't just ignore it.
	Sure.
	So you said morality doesn't exist.
	Now, I don't know what you mean by the word exist.
	I guess that one thing I'd like to know is what do we define as morality?
	No, no, no, no.
	That's rude again.
	I'm sorry.
	What was the question I asked you?
	What does it mean to exist?
	You said morality doesn't exist.
	I'm perfectly happy to hear that argument.
	Okay, I'll step you through it because I don't think you know how to do this, which is fine.
	Okay, so no, because you won't answer the question.
	I'm giving you three tries to answer the question.
	You just move on to other topics.
	So, okay.
	Do you accept that a tree exists?
	Yes, of course.
	Okay.
	Do you accept that the concept forest exists in the world like the tree does?
	Sure.
	Yes.
	Are you sure about that?
	The concept of forest, meaning just like a grouping of trees, yes.
	Okay, so the concept forest exists in the world in the same way that a tree does.
	Not in the same way, I guess.
	I guess what you're sort of saying.
	Okay, so I need you to listen to what I'm saying.
	Okay.
	Okay, because you just said something and just completely reversed yourself.
	So I don't want to have to keep asking questions because you're not listening.
	I'm sorry to be a nag, but we do have to be rigorous, right?
	So I look at a bunch of trees and I say, that's a forest.
	Now, the trees exist in the real world as discrete entities, as things, right?
	Can we agree on that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, the concept called forest does not exist out there in the real world in the same way that a tree does, right?
	Right.
	Okay.
	Is that fair?
	Yes.
	Right.
	So if I say to a kid, I'm going to give you some candy, and then I write down the word candy on a piece of paper and hand it to the kid, is the kid happy?
	No.
	No, of course not, right?
	So concepts do not exist in the real world outside of our minds.
	Can we agree on that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Is morality a concept or a thing in the world like a tree?
	I guess that, yeah, I guess that's sort of what I believe.
	It's more of a concept.
	So when you say more of a concept, do you mean it is...
	It is a concept.
	Okay.
	Now, does science as a discipline, does the scientific method exist out in the world like a tree?
	No.
	Okay.
	The scientific method exists within our minds, but is used to describe that which is out there in the world.
	Is that fair?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	If I look at a bag of sand and I say, that's a forest, am I right or wrong?
	You're wrong.
	Okay.
	So although the concepts exist in my mind or our minds, we share them, they're not arbitrary, right?
	I can't just look at a flock of seagulls and I ran and say, that's a forest, right?
	Correct.
	Any more than I can point at a forest and say, that's a flock of seagulls.
	Correct.
	So concepts do not exist out in the world, but they're not subjective and arbitrary.
	We can't just make them up to mean whatever we want, right?
	I suppose not.
	I guess they have to be agreed upon, you know, at a group level.
	Yeah, yeah, we have to understand.
	I mean, we can get into the semantics of all of that, but in general, just at the level at which we're talking.
	Sure.
	Ideas do not exist in the real world, but ideas that claim to describe universals have to be universal.
	Yes, I would agree with that, actually.
	I mean, if there's a scientific law that says all matter attracts other matter, we call it gravity, that's universal, right?
	Right.
	Universal, correct.
	Okay.
	Therefore, it has to be reproducible.
	Everyone's got to experience it.
	There can't be people who float around at two o'clock on the Wednesday afternoon in Philadelphia, right?
	Right.
	Okay.
	So when you say morals don't exist, what you mean, I think, is that they don't exist in the real world like a tree.
	We agree on that, right?
	Sure.
	Now, they certainly do exist in people's minds.
	People claim to have moral knowledge, moral views, moral theories.
	So morals do exist in people's mind.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	And I think what maybe where we might disagree is that it seems like what you're getting to is that I don't believe morals are universal.
	Okay.
	So if you don't believe that morals are universal, if somebody argues that morals are universal, do you contradict them?
	Do I contradict them?
	You mean like, do I...
	Yeah, I would say so, yes.
	Okay.
	So then truth is universal and it's infinitely preferable to error because when somebody says something false, you correct that person, right?
	Because truth is preferable to error and truth is universal.
	Like if I say, I like cheesecake, you wouldn't contradict me, would you?
	Because it's my personal taste and preference.
	I don't claim that it's universal.
	It's just I like navy blue and I like cheesecake.
	You wouldn't be able to disagree with me, right?
	Correct.
	Okay, so that's a subjective thing, right?
	If I say cheesecake has no dairy in it, assuming it's just regular cheesecake, right?
	If I say cheesecake has no dairy in it, is that something that can be corrected?
	If you say cheesecake has no dairy in it, I suppose that can't be corrected, right?
	Sorry, that can or can't be.
	Can't be, right?
	No, it can be because cheesecake is made with milk and cheese or whatever it is, right?
	So it has dairy in it, right?
	I know just about everything that has dairy in it because my wife being Mediterranean is lactose intolerant.
	So I have known for many years all of the things that do and don't have dairy in them.
	So if I am stating a personal preference, I like cheesecake, I cannot be contradicted, right?
	Right.
	Correct.
	Now, if I never eat cheesecake or whatever, maybe you have some doubt or whatever, right?
	But you can't tell me that I'm wrong.
	Now, if I make a claim about universality, then I can be contradicted, right?
	In other words, if I say, this is not my opinion, this is a fact, I can be contradicted, right?
	Yes.
	In the same way when I said if we point at the tree and it's actually a flock of seagulls, I'm wrong, right?
	Right.
	Okay.
	So you do believe in universals and you do believe in virtue because you correct people when they're incorrect, which says you should tell the truth and you should be accurate when you make claims about universals.
	And telling the truth and being honest and being correct is infinitely preferable to lying or being wrong or incorrect.
	So the moment you correct someone, you have accepted universal values and virtues and truth.
	Or maybe I just believe that it's more pragmatic for a society to be more aligned with truth.
	Okay.
	That's fine.
	But you're still saying that truth is a value and it's infinitely preferable to error.
	Well, I think truth is a value inso much as it, you know, a lack of truth, I would say, has probably been.
	And again, I don't claim to know for sure any of this, I want to say.
	But a lack of truth, you know, probably would lead to more suffering at an individual level and at a societal level.
	Well, not always.
	I mean, lots of people and people, you know, the media and politicians and lots of other scientists these days who work for the government and academics and educators, teachers, social workers, you name it, they all, I mean, pharmaceutical companies, advertisers, the makeup industry, they all profit from massive lies and falsehoods.
	They make hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars a year from outright falsehood.
	So the idea that society and all the individuals in it don't benefit from lying is to me kind of absurd, given that you live in the world and have observed all of these things, right?
	I'm certainly not making that claim.
	And I would say a lot of people who lie.
	Sorry, I thought you, sorry.
	I thought, my apologies if I misunderstood something, but I thought you did make the claim that truth benefits society and the individuals within it.
	What claim I'm not?
	Sorry, sorry.
	Did you make that claim or not?
	I'm not trying to, I just, I don't want to sibling.
	Yes, okay.
	So you made that claim.
	I provided a rebuttal.
	And now what?
	You can't just change the subject.
	So no, that claim I stand by.
	What I'm not claiming.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	So you made a claim that truth benefits society and the individuals within it.
	Yes.
	I provided probably half a dozen to maybe 10 examples of industries that profit enormously from falsehood.
	And individuals in those industries profit enormously from falsehood and gain massive amounts of power, both economic and political.
	And did you recognize that that was a rebuttal to your point that the truth benefits societies and individuals within it?
	Yes, and if I could respond to it.
	I would like you to.
	So yes, it does benefit some people, but certainly a lot of people do not benefit from lying.
	In fact, quite the opposite.
	A lot of liars, you know, get caught, get sued, things like that.
	And also a lot, you know, to say that, you know, corporations are benefiting, like certainly, but individuals as a result of that are certainly not benefiting.
	Many individuals.
	No, but hang on.
	You said, and this is just rigor, right?
	I'm just, you know, I'm not trying to be a nag here, but we have to, you know, if you're going to say things on my show, I need to make sure that they're true.
	Sure.
	So you said the truth benefits society and the individuals within it.
	But that's not the whole story.
	The truth benefits some individuals within society.
	Other individuals within society, particularly under the current status system, benefit enormously and disproportionately from lying their asses off.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	That's just so we're aware of that.
	There are massive advantages to lying.
	Yes.
	So for you, though, truth is something that we should pursue.
	Truth is something that we should have as a characteristic of the statement we make about the world and universals.
	And that if people make an incorrect statement, as you thought I did, they should be called up, in this case publicly, which is fine.
	That's the show, and confronted and told that they're wrong, right?
	Well, I mean, I wouldn't.
	I certainly wouldn't.
	I suppose so.
	Yes.
	Let's say yes.
	Okay.
	And listen, I respect that and I appreciate that.
	But then don't come to me and tell me that you don't believe in morals and virtue when you're correcting me for an incorrect and false statement because truth is infinitely preferable to falsehood.
	I guess what I would say is it should be, you know, it's infinitely preferable in the sense that it's the most predictive thing that will predict your own success.
	If you're a liar.
	Absolutely not.
	No, absolutely not.
	Absolutely not.
	I just listed up.
	I could list them off again if you want, all of the industries that massively profit to the tune of trillions of dollars a year around the world by lying their asses off.
	So would you say it's if you are a liar, it is the most probable outcome that you'll be successful versus if you tell the truth?
	I have no idea how to measure that, but there are definitely billions of people around the world who profit from falsehood.
	Yes, but what I'm saying is at an individual basis, it's more beneficial for you to tell the truth because it's more reliable.
	A good outcome is more likely than if you were to lie.
	Certainly not in the realm of politics.
	Any politician who would dare tell the truth, and I write about this in my novel called The Future, any politician who dares tell the truth won't succeed at all.
	Well, the question was why I don't lie, right?
	I'm not a politician.
	Well, but if you say the truth has value because it's beneficial to people, and then you skate over the fact that billions of people massively benefit from lying, I don't see it.
	I'm not really sure what to say.
	I don't see it.
	Like you're missing it.
	I don't skip over it.
	I just think that...
	Okay, no, sure, we'll mention it.
	We've mentioned it.
	We're talking about it right now.
	That's because I brought it up.
	Sure, of course.
	I'm aware people lie.
	Trust me.
	I know that.
	And are successful from lying.
	Fantastic.
	Okay, so for some people, the best strategy for gaining resources is to lie.
	If they're successful.
	If they get caught, it's successful.
	Yeah, of course.
	Look, if lying was never successful, it wouldn't be practiced.
	I'm not sure.
	So the reason that we have the capacity to lie is it works.
	If something is more likely to be negative, but in some cases is positive, would you say it's a generally positive or negative thing?
	Well, it depends.
	If you don't have much of a conscience, you've got great verbal skills and you're really good at lying, it's very productive for you.
	If you have a very overbearing conscience and you can't remember things very well, then it probably isn't going to work very well.
	Charisma generally is developed as a way of covering up falsehood.
	And I would say go ahead.
	I was just going to say, I would say most people don't have charisma.
	I would say I'm one of those people.
	And I think, you know, as a result, those people without charisma who cannot be successful liars will, to the best of their ability, it's not perfect, right?
	You know, I'm not claiming that the world is perfect, but to the best of their ability, they will mobilize against people who lie for their own self-interest.
	So people will mobilize against those who lie.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Can you give me a recent example of that where it's been successful?
	You putting me on the spot.
	But you could think of like libel, slander claims, holding, you know, politicians losing seats because of something they did, something, you know, maybe dishonest that they did.
	Have you ever tried to sue anyone for libel or slander?
	Personally, no.
	Okay.
	In America, it's virtually impossible.
	Okay.
	The law is set up that way.
	Like, you have to not just prove economic damages objectively.
	This is not legal advice.
	This is just my obviously amateur understanding of all of this.
	So if you have any questions about this, go talk to a lawyer.
	Don't listen to me.
	Sure.
	But especially if you're a public figure, you have to prove not only damages, you have to prove that the statements were false and that they were delivered when the person who delivered them knew that they were false or had something called a reckless disregard for the truth.
	And of course, everybody who lies and slanders knows exactly that.
	So they don't keep any records of anything like that and so on, right?
	With the exception of defamation per se, which is implicit.
	Like if you call someone a murderer, right, that's sort of, So anyway, it's very, very hard to sue for that.
	And of course, very few people succeed.
	And very few politicians lose their seats because of lying.
	In fact, most politics, I mean, almost, I would say all politicians gain their seats because they lie.
	Okay.
	I also would not make the claim that because I believe, you know, I would not make the claim that the current world system is perfect and it follows what I believe.
	I wouldn't make the claim.
	Okay, but that's, I mean, that's, I mean, this doesn't add anything to the conversation.
	Nobody would ever argue that the current world system is perfect because there's a wide variety of things.
	So that doesn't add anything to the conversation.
	And I guess that is sort of the heart of what I'd like to sort of understand from you.
	It's like, if the answer is not sort of sexy and something you want to hear, it just is wrong.
	Okay, society would potentially benefit more if everyone were telling the truth, but humans are humans.
	They don't necessarily adhere to that.
	And they're sort of machines with inputs and outputs, and they do what they will.
	Some of them try to adhere to this benefit maximizing idea.
	Through the ages, different societies rise and fall.
	They're sort of tested.
	But we haven't reached perfection, probably never will.
	And that's just the way it is.
	I guess that's how I feel.
	Okay.
	I'm not really sure how to respond to that, but I certainly do appreciate you telling us how you feel.
	And I appreciate the conversation.
	Thank you.
	Sure.
	Thanks.
	All right.
	All righty.
	We've got James.
	James Dean C. JDC, what's on your mind, my friend?
	If you want to unmute, I'm all ears.
	Yes, go ahead.
	Okay, so you're a little bit strong.
	So I've been commenting quite a lot on your stuff, and I'm a part-time philosopher myself.
	And I actually have an axiom from which we can derive all morality that's applicable to atheists as well as theists.
	Have you come across it at all in my comments?
	I mean, honestly, there have been thousands and thousands of comments.
	You can't ask me this.
	Some people get offended.
	Like, you're not answering me.
	It's like, bro, you're like one rain falling on a lake and you expect me to notice you.
	So I may have, I may have not.
	I don't know what it is.
	So I can't answer that at the moment.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	No, I appreciate that.
	So it's really quite a simple, logical argument that I'd like to put forward.
	And we can take our time on it and we can just agree on the first point and then work our way through, if that's okay with you.
	I'm not sure what the option would be other than you making the case and us working our way through it.
	But so go ahead.
	Yeah, no, I just wanted to be fair about it.
	So the first point is that life itself is the prerequisite for any value judgment.
	Do we agree with that?
	Human life, yeah.
	No, not human life, any life.
	Well, I mean, clams are alive, but they can't pass value judgments.
	Well, they can, just not the same way that we do.
	For example, even a plant can judge that the sunlight is good and can reach towards it, right?
	Well, they don't judge it.
	That's an automatic response, right?
	They just grow that way.
	They're not evaluating and saying, well, there's sunlight and there's shade, but I think based upon my moral values or my philosophical value, it's an automatic process of them.
	It doesn't matter.
	I mean, let's not, I'm not going to get into whether plants have free will because that's just a ridiculous argument.
	I'm not saying yours is ridiculous, but I'm just not going to get into that.
	So let's, with the caveat that we can agree, let's just focus on humanity, human beings who have the capacity to prepare, to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
	So human beings are required.
	Human consciousness is required for value judgments to exist.
	Let's just stay with that and leave the plants out of it for the moment.
	See, I disagree with that.
	I'd say that life itself is the prerequisite for any value judgment.
	I'd say that.
	Let's go to, hang on.
	Are single-celled organisms alive?
	Through it.
	Okay.
	Can they perform value judgments that are not implicit and automatic?
	Because a value judgment has to have some alternative.
	A value compared to what?
	They act in an automatic fashion to absorb to mitosis or meiosis or whatever's going on to split to, right, the bacteria in my belly, if you get food poisoning or something.
	They're not evaluating value judgments according to any abstract conceptual or philosophical standard.
	Can we agree on that?
	I'm not saying that.
	So we could agree on that.
	Okay, good, good.
	So as long as we're, but we are going to be talking about human beings have a different capacity for evaluating value judgments than, say, an amoeba, right?
	I'm not disagreeing with that.
	Okay, fantastic.
	So let's just focus on the human beings because this is a philosophy show, not a I automatically grow towards sunlight show, right?
	So it's about free will, morals, value judgments, and the willpower to pursue and achieve virtue.
	So those things, as well as the frame of life, aren't separate.
	So we need to consider that life, even if it's in its low forms, can still perform a value judgment.
	Why?
	Why do you need this?
	Why do you need single-celled organisms to be philosophical for your moral system to work?
	I'm not saying that they're philosophical.
	But a value judgment is the evaluation of a proposed course of action according to some ideal standard.
	I want to tell the truth, I'll tell the truth.
	I want to have moral courage.
	I'll stand up for what I believe in.
	There has to be some, a value judgment has to have some reference to an abstract conceptual framework.
	Otherwise, you're just talking about pure instinct.
	And pure instinct is not the same as a value judgment in a philosophical sense.
	I'd agree with that too.
	But we are still talking about value judgments that a rock doesn't make, for example.
	Okay.
	A rock can't decide what's positive or negative in terms of value.
	It's not.
	Okay, so Jan, so are you saying that a single-celled organism decides?
	It's not automatic.
	It's not just the way it is.
	It decides what is good or bad for it.
	I'd say any life form has to perform some form of evaluation to ascertain positive value within its environment.
	Okay, I don't want to get hunk up at this point, so I'll just concede it and let's move on to your proof of morals.
	Okay, so if we agree with that, we can also agree that life itself, as a self-perpetuating, adapting, and evolving system, has to see itself in a positive light or see itself as having intrinsic positive value.
	Okay, so a zebra has to like being a zebra and has to have a sex drive to make another zebra and has to bond with its foe in order to reproduce successfully.
	Is that what you mean?
	That's a really simplistic way of putting it what I'll say is.
	But I'm just being introduced to your argument.
	Forgive me for being simplistic when I'm hearing a new complex argument for the first time.
	I'm just trying to understand.
	Don't be a bit negative when I'm trying to actually genuinely understand your theory here.
	Sure.
	So that is one example.
	I probably wouldn't put it that way myself.
	No, no, it's your theory.
	How would you, it's your theory.
	I want to understand your theory.
	So how would you put it?
	I'd put it very simply in that.
	So mine is simple, but yours can be put simply.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Go ahead.
	I'd say that life, because it is a self-perpetuating system of the way that I've described, ontologically has to see itself as representing positive value.
	Because if it didn't, it wouldn't be here.
	Well, but doesn't the sex drive mean that the animal is compelled to mate?
	Not because it sees itself as a positive value, but because it has a sex drive and an orgasm is pleasurable.
	So we're looking at it in slightly the wrong way.
	I'm sorry.
	Are you saying that sex isn't pleasurable?
	I'm not saying that either.
	What I'm saying is that zebras are an expression of life.
	They're a form of life.
	And its hormones are part of the system which life utilizes in that expression to perpetuate.
	Okay, I'm not sure how that disagrees with what I'm saying, but go ahead.
	Well, so just on the second point, would you agree that life as a self-perpetuating system must see intrinsic positive value in itself or its existence?
	You know, but I don't know the mind of a zebra, whether it's the mind of the zebra when it mates, like the mind of a male zebra when it mates with the female.
	Is it being a zebra is wonderful, I want to make more zebras, or I'm horny and I want to have an orgasm.
	So I don't think those two things are really what we should consider.
	What I suggest is that it's a life form, and these hormones are part of what life uses to make that particular expression perpetuate itself.
	it's not talking about the zebra's mind it's not conscious the same way we are neither is an amoeba but it does have Are you saying that the value judgments are being made by what?
	The hormones?
	Yeah, effectively, yeah.
	Okay, so the hormones trigger lust and a desire for orgasm on the part of the male zebra.
	That creates new zebras, but I would argue it's not because the zebra has a deep appreciation of its own zebraness and the quality of being a zebra.
	I think it's, and we can know this almost empirically, because it is full of lust and wishes to insert its zebra penis into the zebra vagina of the female zebra and have an orgasm.
	So that drive itself is part of the fundamental drive that life has to perpetuate itself, right?
	Agreed.
	It's the value judgment, because you said that the life has to appreciate itself.
	Is the male zebra appreciating his own existence as a zebra, or is he in hot pursuit of an orgasm because it feels good?
	He's in hot pursuit of an orgasm because it feels good, but that's part of the tools that life is given it, is part of that form of expression to perform this self-perpetuation.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so go ahead.
	Okay, so we're agreeing with point one and point two.
	No, I don't think so, but because you tell me that it's not this, you said that the zebra, how did you put it, that the zebra values its own existence in some manner and therefore wants to perpetuate itself that way?
	I'm saying that life values its own existence or sees fundamental positive value, intrinsic positive value in itself.
	And that's what leads to these drives within zebra and any other vandal.
	Well, if the zebra saw intrinsic positive value in itself, why would it need the massive incentive of the orgasm?
	Okay, hang on, sorry.
	I'm sorry, I thought it was echoing there.
	Yeah, if the zebra sees massive intrinsic value in its own life, why would it need the massive incentive of the orgasm in order to reproduce?
	I'm saying life does, and that's what leads to that expression.
	I'm not saying that zebras have this conscious decision evaluation that says, right, I'm going to go and produce more zebra.
	Okay, so the zebra doesn't have any particular sense of value in its own zebraness.
	It just wants the orgasm.
	Correct.
	Okay, got it.
	Yeah, we agree on that.
	So let's move on.
	So that itself, that drive, via hormones in this case, is an expression of life, like big L life, the process of life, perpetuating itself.
	I think we can accept that and move on.
	Right, so you agree with point one and point two?
	Yes, as we've defined it here, I completely agree with it.
	Okay, so you'd have to concede.
	Sorry, you're cutting out?
	You're cutting out?
	Oh, I think we lost him.
	Let me just double check my internet beworky.
	It should be fine.
	Let's see here.
	No, sorry, we lost you.
	You'll have to go back after we agreed on points one and two.
	Okay, so point one is that life is a prerequisite for any value management.
	And point two is that it must see itself as having intrinsic positive value, otherwise it wouldn't be here anymore or it wouldn't self-perpetuate the way that it does.
	Okay, so once we accept those two things, we have to accept that ontologically and axiomatically, that life must see itself as good.
	Life must see itself as the good.
	Yep, that's why rabbits run away from foxes, and that's why foxes chase rabbits, because they both see their own life as a good to be maintained.
	The rabbit running away and diving into its hole and his warren, and the fox by chasing the rabbit and eating it, they're both preferring to live rather than to not live.
	And they, at some level, instinctively view their life as a value, or at least they want to avoid hunger, or the rabbit is programmed by fear, which is all to keep the rabbit alive and to keep the fox alive.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Yeah, no, perfectly point.
	Yep.
	They affirm their own existence because they see positive value in it.
	So because those things are true, we have to concede that both axiomatically, as in self-evidently, and ontologically, as in if it wasn't the case, it wouldn't be here, that life itself must deem itself as good.
	So with that, we can form an axiom that is both self-evident and ontologically true.
	Yeah, I mean, sorry, my understanding of axioms is self-evident essential truths.
	If this is the result of a chain of reasoning, it can't be an axiom, but a conclusion.
	Well, it's self-evident because of the arguments we've just agreed.
	Well, no, if it's self-evident, you don't have to go through the arguments.
	It doesn't matter.
	Let's just go on with the point, point three or four.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, we're home.
	You know, we've just agreed those.
	So we have to concede because of those that the phrase or the axiom, life is good, as in big L life must deem itself as having positive value, is axiomatic and ontological.
	And then?
	So we as human beings are within that frame.
	We are a life form, right?
	We are a life form.
	So we're not, we're subject to the very same axiom.
	And from that axiom that I've just described, you can logically derive all morality objectively, both as an atheist, as a theist, or any other kind of life form.
	Oh, okay.
	And in fact, so hang on, hang on.
	I mean, I feel like we're missing a step or two here.
	Right?
	So life is a valuable to the living.
	It applies to clams, single-celled organisms, zebras, cobras, rabbits and foxes, none of whom would be subject to moral rules.
	And now we've suddenly leaped from the clams like to live and view their own life instinctively as a value to we have suddenly got all morality.
	So morality in a human sense is very much downstream from that.
	But if we concede that original axiom, it logically follows, because we're within that frame, that we're still subject to it and therefore can derive all our morality logically from that star.
	Okay, so go ahead and derive all.
	Let's say, would you agree that rape is evil?
	So it comes down to, again, I don't know what you're saying.
	What is it with the modern communication?
	People just fucking ignore my questions.
	It's so weird.
	Did you hear me ask the question?
	I was asking you to ask me.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	It's a yes or no.
	It's not complicated.
	Is rape evil?
	Okay, good, good.
	So how do you derive logically that rape is evil from clams liking to live?
	Do you want me to go through the axiom again?
	We are part of the frame of life.
	Unavoidably, we are a life form, right?
	And that axiom that I've just described is the foundational truth that philosophy has been looking for because we are part of that frame of life.
	No, no, no.
	There's no need to repeat an argument I've already accepted.
	Yes.
	Life has to view itself as a value in order to want to sustain itself and reproduce.
	Okay.
	How do we get to rape as evil?
	You have to apply the axioms.
	No, no, apply the axiom to it.
	I'm asking you to apply.
	I don't see it.
	Apply the axiom because you know there's tons of rape in nature, right?
	Dolphins rape.
	Ducks rape all the time.
	and so I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
	Did I not give you enough time to talk that I can't get a word in edgewise here?
	Okay, go ahead.
	No, you keep on interrupting.
	No, no, I actually was making a statement that there's tons of rape in nature, which is something that see, I'm not just talking to you, bro.
	It's not just about you.
	I'm actually talking to the world as a whole.
	Okay?
	No, I'm still talking.
	I'm trying to explain something to you.
	I've listened very carefully and really tried to work hard to understand your reasoning.
	So I'm not just talking to you, right?
	So I have to explain to the audience that rape is all over the place.
	I mean, it's not really rape because like there's no morals involved in ducks or whatever, right?
	But let's say forced sex is all over the place in the animal kingdom, the bird kingdom and the mammal kingdom and other places.
	So if your moral axioms are derived from the existence of all life and forced sex is common as a means of reproduction in all life, how do we create an exception for forced sex being evil for humans?
	If you can just explain that to me, I'd really appreciate it.
	Because humans are part of society within our case, if you plug the axiom into that, which is context dependent, in the human case, we can see that it doesn't allow for trust.
	It breaks down trust within our societies.
	Our way of raising children is a little bit different in that we form relationships with the parents, et cetera, et cetera.
	So we can derive logically from that that within the human context, that's probably not a good thing.
	Well, no, no, probably not a good thing.
	It's not a moral absolute.
	I was being coy.
	It's obviously wrong in the human context.
	Sorry, by wrong.
	Hang on.
	Sorry, I just got to understand what it is that you said.
	There's no point going on if I don't understand what you just said.
	Okay.
	So what you're saying is that rape is evil because it's inefficient in the way that humans are raised.
	Is that right?
	Within a human context, it is bad.
	Okay.
	So how do you explain the fact that rape has been a common weapon of conflict throughout almost all of human history and remains that way in many parts of the world?
	Because people aren't aligning with the axiom the way that they should be.
	In fact, I've got a bit of a backstory to this, if you could let me speak for a few seconds.
	Please keep it quick because I'm not following the argument.
	But go ahead.
	Well, I've made it quite simple.
	We can go through it.
	Okay, no, I'm going to assume.
	No, no, that's just fucking rude, man.
	Nope.
	Nope, nope, nope.
	You're off.
	That's just gross.
	Yeah, that's really rude.
	Like, I'm really trying to understand this guy's argument.
	And then when I say I don't understand it, and he says, well, it's really quite simple.
	It's like, nope, nope, nope, nope.
	So just so everybody knows, according to UPB, rape is evil because rape cannot be universalized, right?
	If you were to have a moral theory that says rape is universally preferable behavior, then you would say everyone must both want to rape and be raped at the same time.
	But if you want to be raped, it's not rape.
	It may be some sort of weird role playing or whatever it is.
	In the same way that theft cannot be universally preferable behavior, morality is universally preferable behavior, which again, the book is free at freedomain.com slash books.
	You can also get a shortened version, a more compact version in the last third of my free book, Essential Philosophy at essentialphilosophy.com.
	So theft cannot be universally preferable behavior, because if we say theft is universally preferable behavior, then everyone must want to steal and be stolen from at the same time, for all time, everywhere.
	But if you want to be stolen from, if you want somebody to take your property away, it's not theft.
	So theft, rape, assault, and murder being universally preferable behavior are self-contradictory and therefore fail as valid concepts.
	All right.
	I'm going to try and get to some new people.
	And, you know, just in general, like this is just a tip for communication.
	When somebody is really struggling hard to understand your argument, don't say it's really simple in a condescending way.
	Oh, it's really simple.
	I can just go over it again if you want.
	When I'm pretty good at comprehending arguments, I'm, you know, trained at the graduate school level.
	I'm pretty good.
	I've been doing this for 40 plus years, over 43 years now.
	I've been doing it almost.
	I'm pretty good at comprehending arguments.
	If I'm having trouble with it, it may not be because I'm an idiot, right?
	And if you're going to call me an idiot because over 10 or 15 minutes you haven't completely explained your theory of ethics, you're just going to call me an idiot.
	You're just kind of a jerk.
	And then if you're kind of a jerk and rude, I'm not going to listen to anything really that you have to say about morality.
	Unless I'm rude to you first.
	Like if I'm rude to you first, then yeah, you can be rude back.
	But all right, let's go to the prodigal heel.
	What's in your mind, my friend?
	What's in your mind?
	What's in your mind?
	I know we have a delay or two.
	All right.
	Come on, man.
	You wanted to talk?
	You might need to unmute.
	I can't hear you.
	Oh, oh, okay.
	I didn't know you'd already got me in.
	Actually, I kind of agree with everything that you're saying.
	You know, I've been watching you for years.
	So whenever you first were on YouTube.
	And this is, it's more of a question that I have, kind of like your request.
	Maybe you can look into it.
	But I'm a kind of guy that looks at algorithms, particularly as it pertains to like the internet.
	And, you know, you could see the kind of like the morality shift on the internet from whenever you first started to like where we're at today.
	And I've noticed that a lot of the views, particularly like on X and like YouTube, they're kind of like a little bit more synthetic.
	And I was wondering if, you know, just to get your take on it, because it's been a while since I've actually watched one of your programs on YouTube.
	Well, that's because I was banned from YouTube five years ago.
	Sorry, I'm not sure what specifically you're asking me.
	My apologies if I missed it.
	Yeah, I was just, I was just going to kind of liked, you know, like I said, I just, like I said, I wanted to come on the show and kind of get your perspective on something like that.
	Maybe not to.
	No, no, just, I'm sorry, sorry.
	I don't need the whole introduction.
	Just if you can ask me more specifically what your question is.
	Oh, that was, that was my question about this.
	No, what was your question?
	Just repeat it for me, bro, please.
	Okay, so like my question was the state of like the internet, you know, where it's kind of like dipped in, to me, value, personal value.
	Because like I said, you were banned from YouTube.
	I was banned from YouTube.
	I was banned from Twitter, actually, quite a few times.
	And so like, to me, whenever I look at the internet and kind of like the way that it's going right now, it's like a whole different, it's kind of like what it wasn't back in 2016, 2015, 20, you know, 13, whenever people were going out and trying to add value in the internet.
	And it seems like the internet probably since 2017 has kind of really plummeted in value.
	And so I just kind of wanted to get your take maybe on a future show on that.
	Oh, yeah, no, I appreciate that.
	It's a great question.
	And I'm sorry if I was a bit opaque in trying to, I guess, in trying to try and understand what you meant.
	So, I mean, we'll never have 2015 back, like where you could really, really speak your mind and the deplatformings and the savaging and cratering and destruction of people's entire careers had yet to occur.
	I'm so sorry.
	I'm going to have to mute you because you're getting a lot of background noise here.
	So we're never going to get that back, that age of innocence, the Garden of Eden, of honesty, directness, and openness, that was the glorious years of 2005, 2006 to 2015, 2016, like those glorious 10 years, which was the greatest period of free speech in human history before the powers of B recognized that free speech was going to have consequences that went against their interests.
	They were so used to controlling the mouthpieces and organs of state and crony capitalism propaganda that they didn't realize the power of free speech as it manifested on the internet.
	We're never going to get those years back.
	But on the other hand, where things are now is certainly on X. In other places, I can't really speak because I'm still banned from most places.
	But on X, it's pretty glorious.
	It's pretty glorious.
	There's a lot of openness.
	There's a lot of things that were absolutely incendiary in the past.
	The Overton window, I'm sure I had a little bit to do with that.
	The Overton window has moved to the point where you can talk about stuff that you couldn't talk about before.
	And I feel that there's a certain amount.
	And of course, Elon Musk's heroic dedication to free speech on the platform is something that I hugely appreciate.
	And I rest relatively secure in that as a whole.
	So I think there's some real, real benefits.
	And it's different.
	And like most things in life, it's like getting older, right?
	There's drawbacks to getting older.
	There are great benefits to getting older.
	And there are drawbacks to where things are now in that we have seen countless examples of people getting nuked from the internet for speaking the truth.
	But on the other hand, the Overton window has moved to the point where you can talk about things, certainly on X with less concern for that than before.
	So I think that's important as well.
	All right.
	Moonbear.
	Moonbear, wider than a mile.
	Moonbear, I'm Olias, what's in your mind?
	Hey there.
	Yes, I was calling or taking this to ask you whether you think atheism is tenable given the different facts, statistical facts that you deployed.
	91% believe in abortion and this kind of things that to a more traditional theist seems untenable, but maybe I'm missing something.
	I'm sorry to be annoying, but what do you mean by untenable?
	Um, not credible.
	Well, yes.
	Okay, sorry.
	I just, let's not.
	I'm a big fan.
	Socrates never used the word epistemology, right?
	I'm a big fan of the language of the common person.
	So my concern with atheism, look, there's a lot that atheists get right in terms of metaphysical critiques of religion.
	Okay, I get that, right?
	I mean, consciousness without form, the fact that that which is the most complex takes the longest to develop and therefore can't be at the origin of things like God.
	So there's the critiques that are fine and I think valid and worth listening to and so on.
	It's the absolute arrogance that happens when you write about one thing, you suddenly think that you write about everything.
	And this is the amazing thing looking at, you know, a lot of atheists would hold Socrates as somebody who would be held in high esteem.
	And yet when I basically pursue the Socratic method, right, and I say, okay, I understand that religious people have the wrath of God, the promise of heaven, the threat of hell, and the desire for salvation as their reason to follow God's commandments.
	Okay.
	Well, what are your reasons, right?
	They're not those reasons because you're not religious.
	So what are your reasons?
	And atheists lose their shit and counterattack and scorn and mock and get aggressive.
	And it's just like, bro, it's a simple question.
	I'm not saying it's an easy answer.
	It's a simple question.
	The simple question is, well, religious people have their reasons for telling the truth.
	Well, they lie too.
	It's like, yeah, that's not the question.
	They have their reasons, right?
	They have their reasons.
	What are your reasons?
	And it's an important question.
	The fact that atheists have not thought of this really or have maybe absorbed some Dawkins reciprocal altruism, evo-psych stuff, I mean, it's all, you know, they can't defend the position.
	In other words, they have been right about things often that they've been told or taught, but they haven't continued their thinking to replace that which they have destroyed, which is essential for society, which is a shared moral framework.
	We don't have a shared moral framework.
	It's civil war sooner or later.
	So, So, sorry, with regards to its tenability, I'm just appalled at the, you know, scientists are supposed to be humble.
	Reasonable people are supposed to be humble.
	Socrates said, I'm called the wisest man in the world by the Oracle at Delphi, not despite the fact that I know nothing, but because I know nothing.
	I have the humility.
	Scientists have humility, at least they used to before the government paid them to exploit the people.
	But where's the humility?
	Where's the, you know, that's an interesting question.
	Where do I get my morals about truth-telling from in a way that is not insulting to Christians or other religions, in a way that is not the same as in sticks and carrots, right?
	It's a very interesting question.
	And I was, you know, hoping for an interesting debate about it and not just this endless petty people on the, like undergoing perpetual menstruation in these areas.
	So it's just, you know, atheists need to be shaken up because the fact that they are right in many ways epistemologically regarding metaphysics, sorry, the nature of reality, and here I'm complaining about your bus words.
	So the contradictions within religion, nature of reality, there's some good critiques and arguments there.
	And they then have seemed to have lost all of their curiosity or desire to progress.
	And it's important for atheists to recognize that there's a whole bunch of stuff they don't know that they need to know.
	And that way they can resume their intellectual journey other than just churning out Horseman of the Apocalypse talking points from 15 years ago.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	If you were to look in your crystal ball and predict the future, maybe that's what I meant by tenable or untenable.
	It's, okay, so there's a sort of loss of credibility.
	And so how would they hypothetically in the future evolve to adapt to these new circumstances going from more of the Richard Dawkins kind of talking points to, you know, what's going to be their, you know, what do you think atheism is going to carry?
	Like, what are their points going to be?
	Are they going to adapt and become more civil?
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah, I mean, it's hard to know because of free will.
	But in general, my experience has been that when you have, you know, there's stolen brains.
	You know, like stolen valor, you pretend that you're ex-military or whatever, it's stolen valor.
	So there's stolen brains where you pretend to be smarter than you are.
	It's called sophistry.
	You pretend to have answers you don't have.
	You pretend to be smarter than you are.
	And what happens is, and we saw this with both the first guy who was calling in and then the guy who was calling in with his theory of because clams like being clams, rape is immoral.
	So people who think they're smarter than they are, when they run up against, you know, open and honest questions and critiques of their reasoning, they just get aggressive.
	And that's because it's stolen brains.
	They think they're smarter than they are.
	Maybe they've impressed people who are midwits around them.
	And then when they come across, you know, really skeptical and, you know, dare I say, fairly skilled questions and rebuttals, they just lose their shit.
	And it's really, it's really tough.
	Like there was an old, oh gosh, what was it?
	30 Rock.
	And a woman who was attractive in a small town went to LA, right?
	And of course, half the people in LA are gorgeous and so on.
	Right.
	And I remember being at a karaoke contest some years ago and I was doing pretty well.
	I was doing pretty well.
	And then some guy with an absolutely golden, God-kissed voice came up and sang unchained melody, note for note, absolutely perfect.
	And I'm like, oh yeah, well, that's a real singer.
	I'm just a, you know, average amateur or whatever, right?
	So, you know, you get put in your, you get put in your place.
	I was very much the best actor in my university.
	I got cast in everything as the lead without even auditioning.
	Then I went to the National Theater School.
	I was kind of middle of the pack, I suppose.
	And, you know, it's just, you know, big fish in a little pond.
	So some atheists will rage quit the conversation because it's too hard for their ego to recognize that they don't know and are not as wise as they think they are.
	Some will say, they'll have a sort of initial shock and they'll be like, you know what?
	Steph has a good point.
	I don't actually have a good answer as to why I don't lie.
	And that doesn't, you know, the fact that atheists don't have an answer doesn't mean that the religious answer is right at all.
	I mean, that doesn't follow logically, right?
	And so if you get an answer wrong on the test, it doesn't mean that somebody else who got the answer wrong on the test is right.
	And some will be shocked into genuine curiosity.
	And of course, I went through the same thing.
	I was an objectivist for many years, but I never felt quite satisfied with Ayn Rand's explanation of morality.
	And so I eventually was like, okay, I got to sit down and work on this because it's just bugging the crap out of me that I don't have this sort of closed loop.
	I like arguments that are inescapable, that don't require that you agree with something that I say, which is why when I talk about UPB, it's so clearly illogical to say that rape, theft, assault, and murder can be universally preferable behavior.
	Like it's self-contradictory.
	You can't maintain any sense of logic and argue for the, against those, those propositions, or argue against the proposition that rape, theft, assault, and murder can never be UPB.
	So, you know, it's just when you get shocked when you get in contact with somebody who's really skeptical and asks you to prove what you think you know, again, this is all the way back to Socrates, right?
	Socrates disbelieved the Oracle at Delphi.
	Said, the Oracle of Delphi can't lie, but says I'm the wisest man.
	So I've got to go and find people who are wiser than me because this doesn't make any sense.
	He went around and questioned all of the sophists who got really mad at him because they said, oh, we know what truth is and justice and reason and virtue and courage.
	We know all of these things.
	And he would cross-examine them and find out that they didn't know these things.
	They got really angry at him.
	It's one of the reasons why he was put to death.
	I'm kind of aware of that as a risk.
	So I don't know.
	All I can do is bring reason, curiosity, and skepticism and conversation to insular groups.
	I mean, clearly the atheist community has become insular.
	They don't engage with skeptics.
	They don't engage with outsiders.
	And they kind of guard this stolen brains thing by launching verbal abuse at Anybody who dares to question them.
	And some people will be grossed out about that and develop wisdom.
	Other people won't.
	But I can't tell that ahead of time.
	There's no metric by which, if I could, there'd be no free will.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I guess I want to get to the mean potatoes of the atheistic epistemology, because you would say that you would hold that, you know, they have some positive aspects.
	Do you have the most specific and what you would say is the most demonstrably true, according to you?
	Well, I mean, it's hard to sort of organize them as a whole, but the claim that, as I mentioned earlier, that God is both all-powerful and all-knowing.
	If God is all-knowing, then he knows everything past, present, and future, if for an absolute certainty.
	But if he knows everything past, present, and future, he's unable to change it.
	And therefore, he can't be all-powerful.
	So the more you know for an absolute certainty, the less you're able to change it.
	So all-powerful and all-knowing cannot coincide.
	I mean, that would be sort of one example of a contradictory property or nature of God that is a reasonable and, I think, good criticism.
	And the way that it's rescued, as you know, is they say, well, God is outside of time and so on.
	But if I say two and two make five and you prove to me that it's not, and I say, well, two and two make five is outside the realm of mere mortal numbers and exists in another realm where two and two make five, I'm not really answering the question and it doesn't really work.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I guess I wasn't particularly prepared.
	That's, I mean.
	Well, there's no answer to that other than removing consistency and logic as a standard.
	So there is no answer to that.
	It's like a square circle.
	Like there is no answer to that.
	That doesn't necessarily mean that everybody should give up their faith in God, right?
	But that is...
	That's a good rebuttal.
	And there's other ones as well, but that would be one that would be kind of tricky.
	So listen, it's totally fine.
	I want to get to a couple of other people.
	It's totally fine if you're not prepared.
	These are tough ones.
	But yeah, read a book called Atheism, The Case Against God.
	Everybody who's religious should read that book.
	And everybody who's not religious should read, as I have, some of the Church Fathers, St. Augustine and other people as well, because you've got to know the other argument.
	Otherwise, you're really not particularly informed or well-rounded.
	All right, Darwin to Jesus.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Hey, Stefan.
	Good to speak with you again.
	I wanted to talk to you about a few things, but I don't know how much time you're going to give me.
	So I figure we start with free will.
	What are your thoughts on free will, like libertarian free will?
	What do you mean by libertarian free will?
	I mean having the real ability to do otherwise, to do other than you did.
	Yeah, so, okay, I got it.
	So just standard free will.
	I think the libertarian is a little bit of an extra that we don't need.
	So free will is our ability to compare our proposed actions to ideal standards.
	So we have the capacity to have ideal standards, which is saying, I should not cheat on my wife, the ideal standard.
	I keep my marriage vowel.
	So as you have that as an ideal standard, and you can compare a proposed action called sleeping with someone who's not your wife, you can compare that proposed action to ideal standards.
	So our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards is the essence of free will.
	And then, of course, depending on what you focus on, depending on what you choose, you will either conform with your values or not.
	Okay.
	I'm not sure that I agree.
	can I just explain why, uh, and maybe, maybe, uh, we're talking past each other, Sorry.
	Do you accept the premise?
	I'm not saying you should, right?
	But do you accept the principle of free will as a whole?
	Or are you more of a determinist?
	I definitely believe in free will.
	I'm not a determinist.
	I'm not sure that I agree with how you just described free will.
	I definitely think that what you said is part of it, but I think that the essential part of having free will is having the real ability to do otherwise.
	Would you agree with that or no?
	How is that in contradiction to what I said?
	Well, I'm not sure if it is or not.
	It just didn't sound like that was what you said.
	So that's what I'm not sure about.
	Yeah, a capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
	And I said, depending on what you focus on, you can then act in conformity to your ideal standards or you can reject acting to your ideal standards.
	Well, I don't think that that's the same thing.
	Do you think that that's the thing?
	So if you say, I shouldn't cheat on my wife, that doesn't mean that you won't cheat on your wife, but at least you have the standard called, I won't cheat on my wife.
	That's no guarantee that you won't, but at least you have reference to that standard so that you have the possibility, right?
	If you're an animal with no pair bonding, then you're just going to screw whatever moves, right?
	They don't have an ideal standard.
	You don't have it.
	So you'll just, you know, if you're horny and there's a hole around, you'll dip your wick in it, right?
	If you're, right?
	If you're hungry, you'll eat.
	If you're thirsty, you'll drink with no other standards, right?
	If you have a moral standard, which is, well, somebody who's more thirsty than I am should get the water because they're closer to death.
	You might have these sort of abstract standards of altruism or self-sacrifice that might condition or change your behavior.
	So you don't really have free will if you don't have a standard that gives you the opposite of what you want to do.
	And that's ideal standards.
	We need ideal standards because people want to cheat on their wives, right?
	There's some sexy woman and you're in a foreign city or something like that.
	People want to cheat on their wives.
	And so you have to have a standard called, I'm not.
	In the same way that if you want to lose weight, you may want to eat that piece of cheesecake, but you probably shouldn't.
	If you want to lose weight, you have to have.
	Whereas if you just don't have any desire to lose weight or everything, you think everything you eat is perfect, you're just going to eat whatever you feel like and you won't have any, right?
	So you won't really have any choice.
	You'll just eat what tastes good.
	So you have to have an ideal standard that goes against immediate preferences so that you have the capacity to choose something other than your instincts or preferences in the moment.
	Well, couldn't it be the case that you have an ideal standard, but you still don't have the real ability to choose otherwise?
	I mean, couldn't.
	Well, no, no, no, then it's not an ideal standard, right?
	So if I have an ideal standard called I need to live forever, it's not an ideal standard because it's not achievable.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Well, okay, let's say our ideal standard is, you know, it's a health standard.
	Like there's an ideal standard about like how we ought to eat in order to be maximally healthy or something like that.
	But let's say we have that ideal standard because of evolution or because of cause and effect or whatever.
	Hang on, no, no, no.
	Ideal standards are philosophical.
	They're not evolutionary.
	Well, for sake of the argument.
	No, no, I can't concede something that's false for the sake of the argument.
	That's like building an equation on two and two make five.
	It's just not going to work.
	So we can, we can, you can disagree with me, but I can't just accept something that I believe to be false for the sake of the argument.
	Okay.
	I'm not sure why that wouldn't come with evolution on your view.
	I mean, you think that there are these...
	No.
	Okay.
	I mean, so you believe in evolution, right?
	You're an atheist.
	Yes.
	That's correct, isn't it?
	Yes.
	So where do you think that these ideal standards come from?
	Well, they come from our capacity for universal abstractions, which was developed and then strengthened through willpower and working on particular problems.
	When I wanted to solve the problem of universal ethics and write universally preferable behavior, I sat down and willed myself to do it until it was done.
	It's just a matter of choice and focus and willpower.
	So we have developed this capacity for abstract reasoning.
	And it could be a bit of a chicken and an egg, but we have developed as human beings, these capacity for abstract reasons and universal concepts.
	I mean, dogs know what a ball is, but they can't define a ball, right, as a sphere whose exterior is equidistant from its center.
	So a dog can catch a frisbee thrown in the air, but it can't define the mathematical physics of the trajectory of the ball.
	So we do have this capacity for abstract reasoning, which is where we're able to work on and derive ideal standards.
	Well, you said, I think, if I heard you right, that we developed the ability to reason abstractly.
	I mean, doesn't that development come from evolution on your view?
	Sure, but the ideal standards themselves don't, because the ideal standards are all over the world, are quite different, right?
	So we all developed the idea, the ability to walk upright.
	That's the case all over the world.
	So that would be from evolution.
	But as far as the ability to perform abstractions was evolved, but the content of those abstractions is willed and chosen.
	So just to be clear, in your view, are these abstractions real things or are they like fictional things?
	Like, in other words, are these abstractions discovered or invented?
	Well, a scientific principle, is it discovered or invented?
	I would say invented.
	No.
	No, it is discovered.
	The description of it that is accurate is invented.
	But the principle itself must refer to something real in the world.
	Otherwise, it's not science.
	It's fantasy, right?
	So again, this sort of usual example, gases expand when heated.
	Well, that doesn't, the principle that gases expand when heated does not exist in the real world, but it's not arbitrary because it accurately describes what happens to gases when they're heated.
	Don't you think that there are some principles that are invented?
	I mean, I could invent a principle right now that nobody's ever heard of, plausibly, couldn't I?
	Sure.
	You could invent the principle that Klingons have kidneys in their foreheads.
	Sure.
	But, I mean, it doesn't reference anything real.
	Okay.
	So you agree that some principles are invented, right?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	You can invent as many principles.
	I mean, there are principles of playing cards that are invented.
	There are principles of playing Dungeons and Dragons that are invented.
	They don't reference anything in the real world any more than chess rules don't reference.
	They're not derived from things in the real world.
	They're invented to make the game of chess more challenging and enjoyable.
	So if I understand you correctly, I believe you're saying that some principles are invented, but other principles are discovered.
	They're just like real things because they have to do with the real world.
	Is that correct?
	Well, no, chess is in the real world.
	It's not to do with the real world.
	It's that if I'm describing something that is universal and absolute, I am discovering something that is universal and absolute, and then I'm conceptualizing and describing it according to abstract language.
	So E equals M C squared, like energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
	E equals M C squared, the equation doesn't exist in the universe, but the behavior of matter described by E equals M C squared, or to be more specific, the relationship between matter and energy described by E equals M C squared, that does exist.
	Matter and energy do behave in that way, but the abstraction exists in our mind, but the abstraction has to describe the way that things actually work in the universe.
	Yeah, it's a description.
	So I think then that I understood you correctly, which is to say that some principles are invented and some principles are discovered.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So you would say that these that these standards, these ideal standards, that these are discovered or invented?
	So when I talk about, say, fidelity in marriage, that is not discovered like a physical property.
	That is an invention of mankind.
	That is a vow, like a contract.
	It's not discovered in reality the way that E equals M C squared is.
	It's just entered into as a binding ethical agreement between two parties.
	So in the case of you get married and you say, we are going to be monogamous until we're dead, right?
	We're going to holding no others before here to be true to each other and in sickness and health, blah, blah, blah.
	So that is not a discovery of a physical law of nature like E equals M C squared or gases expand when heated, but it is a contract entered into by both parties.
	But it is the ideal standard of the marriage and it is the agreed upon standard of the marriage by both participants.
	Therefore, it is an ideal standard for the marriage, but it's not in the same way that laws of physics are discovered.
	Yeah, I think I agree with that.
	At least I think that you're being consistent.
	Are there any ideal standards that you think are discovered and that are Not invented because the one that you just said, fidelity and marriage, you said that one's invented.
	So are there any ideal standards that you think are discovered, or in your view, are they all invented?
	No.
	I mean, the scientific method is not invented.
	We've already went over this, right?
	The scientific method doesn't invent standards.
	It discovers them and describes them in universal abstract terms.
	So in your view, the scientific method is an ideal standard and you think that's discovered?
	I mean, the scientific method is the methodology by which we discover.
	But let's just say E equals M C squared is not invented like the rules of chess or an agreement in marriage.
	It is discovered and then, but the so it is discovered, but the formulation E equals M C squared is created, but it has to accurately describe what is.
	So it's not subjective or made up or like the rules of chess, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I agree with you about E equals M C squared.
	So just to be clear, are you saying that you think that some ideal standards are invented and some ideal standards are discovered?
	It depends what you mean by the word ideal.
	So if you're saying the behavior of matter and energy follows all across the universe equals MC squared, that is an abstract standard.
	That is an ideal standard in that that's how matter and energy behave, right?
	So that is both discovered, described, and universal.
	So there are some, but there are some ideal standards.
	There are some ideal standards that are invented and universal and described.
	And in other words, the rules of chess are the same all over the world, if that makes sense.
	But go ahead.
	Okay, well, maybe we should nail down what you meant by ideal standard, because we were talking about free will and you said that there has to be an ideal standard, I believe.
	And so I was trying to figure out like where you think that these ideal standards are coming from, if they're invented or discovered.
	And so.
	But hang on, but do you accept that there are ideal standards in the world?
	I mean, you have to, because you're asking me to be logically consistent.
	So you already accept that there are ideal standards in the world, right?
	Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Okay, so you accept that there are ideal standards in the world.
	So I'm not sure what we're debating about.
	I mean, we can spend all evening if you want.
	I mean, we won't.
	Hang on.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm still talking.
	So we can all evening spend, you know, refining and defining ideal standards, which is an interesting project, but may not be fascinating to everyone.
	I find it very interesting.
	But we both accept that ideal standards exist and are valid.
	We both accept that.
	You can't debate with someone without accepting the existence of ideal standards.
	And you also would prefer that what I say be in conformity to the ideal standards of reason and evidence.
	Is that right?
	Okay.
	You also accept that I have the choice to have my arguments conform to the ideal standards of reason and evidence.
	I can either pursue that course or I can reject that course.
	Obviously, you and I both prefer that I pursue that.
	And you'd be quite disappointed, as would I in myself, if I rejected that and say, well, my argument doesn't make any sense, but I still hold it to be valid, right?
	That would be crazy, right?
	So you and I both accept the existence and validity of ideal standards.
	And we also both also both accept that we have the choice to act in consistency or inconsistency with those ideal standards.
	We both, that that's embedded in the entire nature of having a debate.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, I would agree with that.
	Okay, so we all agree.
	Yeah, I think where the disagreement lies, I think there's a few actually here, which is that I'm not sure, and I actually feel very strongly about this.
	I'm not sure that any of that makes sense if atheism is true.
	Like, in other words, yes, you can hold these beliefs.
	It's possible for you to hold a belief.
	But if there's no God, if atheism is true, I'm not sure that those beliefs work together.
	I think that they're actually in great tension and maybe even there's a contradiction there.
	And so while we can share- Why?
	Well.
	Not disagreeing with you.
	I just want to know what your reasoning is.
	Yeah, sure.
	So I think that the materialist view of reality would be the correct one if atheism is true.
	And I think that on that view, all of our thinking becomes a matter of cause and effect.
	It would be something outside of our control.
	It's just atoms moving around.
	Sorry, why would it be?
	Like no individual carbon atom is alive, right?
	Right.
	Yeah.
	But there's still, you get enough carbon atoms together, you fire it up with a bunch of other stuff, and you have something called life, right?
	Which no individual carbon atom in a wolf is alive, but the wolf is alive, right?
	Yes, but if all of those, if all of our thoughts are ultimately reduced.
	No, no, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Okay.
	Maybe do this step by step, man.
	We're building.
	Come on, man.
	We're building a case here, right?
	Okay, go ahead.
	All right.
	I thought you want me to make the case.
	I didn't know you were making it.
	No, no, I'm making the case.
	All right.
	So, because I said emotion properties, right?
	So the wolf has an emergent property called life that is possessed by none of its individual atoms, right?
	Yes, that seems to be the case.
	I'm sorry, seems.
	If the wolf is alive, but none of its individual atoms are alive, then the wolf has an emergent property called life possessed by none of its individual atoms.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	In the same way, you get enough matter together, it collapses enough, you get a black hole where light can't escape its surface, and it's crossed over, right?
	There's an emergent property called black hole, right?
	So none of our individual atoms within our brain can think, right?
	That definitely seems to be the case.
	I would agree.
	Seems to be?
	Well, I've never been an atom, so I don't think that.
	Come on, come on.
	Let's not be clever and hedge.
	Can any individual atom think?
	I don't believe they can.
	No.
	You think it's possible that they could?
	It's possible.
	It's not possible.
	No individual atom can think.
	Any more than any individual carbon atom can possess the property called life.
	And we know that to be a case because there are almost countless amounts of carbon atoms in the world that are not alive or part of any life form.
	Oh, sorry, not alive.
	They're not part of any life form.
	So carbon atoms can exist in the absence of life.
	Carbon atoms are required for life, but carbon atoms themselves are not alive.
	But animals largely composed of carbon atoms can be alive, right?
	So carbon atoms individually do not contain the property of life.
	Atoms within our brain do not contain the property or capacity for thought.
	An individual neuron, can it think or not?
	One individual neuron.
	No.
	Agreed.
	Right.
	And two neurons can't think and five neurons and a million neurons.
	At some point, you get the emergent property called consciousness, right?
	On your view, yes.
	Well, no.
	On the material view.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So an aggregation of atoms and neurons can possess a quality that none of them possess individually, but in aggregate, in the same way that an aggregation of carbon atoms and other things can produce something called life that is possessed by neither, that is possessed by no individual carbon atom.
	So the fact that individual atoms and neurons can't think does not mean that there's not an emergent property called consciousness and thought when you put enough of them together in the right way.
	Well, I'm not saying that there's no consciousness.
	What I'm debating is whether or not we would have free will or real rationality.
	Well, you can't deny the capacity for free will based upon material terms because we've already accepted that there are emergent properties.
	No individual atom can make a choice.
	Is that fair to say?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	No individual neuron can make a choice.
	Okay.
	But you put enough of them together and the possibility of free will emerges in the same way that the possibility of consciousness and life emerges.
	Okay.
	Just to be clear, would you agree with me that just because something can emerge, that doesn't mean that anything can emerge.
	Is that right?
	Is that true?
	Like, it doesn't follow that because you put a bunch of atoms together and you get a wolf, that therefore if you put a bunch of atoms together, you could get like an angel or I don't know, just whatever you name it.
	Well, you can't get a square circle.
	Yeah, you can't get a square circle.
	Yeah, you can't get a square circle.
	Like just because something, just because some things emerge, that doesn't mean that anything can emerge.
	Is that true?
	Is that fair?
	Yeah, of course.
	However, when we see something emerge repeatedly, we have to accept that it can emerge.
	So for instance, we see life emerging repeatedly from the right combination of atoms and cells.
	We see thought emerging continually from the right combination of atoms and neurons.
	And therefore, and we see and assume and accept free will all over the place.
	And we see people making choices.
	We make choices ourselves.
	And so if we can't, so I'm not saying that we can have giant invisible spiders erupt from our eyeballs because we have eyeballs, because we don't see any of that.
	And it's a self-contradictory thing.
	But when we see and accept and experience free will on a continual basis, then we have every reason to believe that it is an emergent property because we see it everywhere.
	And of course, to argue with somebody assumes that they have the capacity to change their mind.
	And therefore, we are assuming that somebody has to change mind.
	Now, of course, I understand that you say, I think, if I'm wrong, of course, correct me.
	But I think you're saying that, Steph, you have the capacity to change your mind because you have an immaterial essence called the soul that transcends mere matter and therefore evades or escapes the restrictions of the domino effect, of course and effects that matter is subject to.
	Yeah, I would say that's very accurate.
	Right.
	Now, the problem is that you have no proof for this immaterial essence, and this immaterial essence is self-contradictory because you're saying it's consciousness or the ability to will with no physical cause and no physical manifestation and no way of finding it, whether it exists at all in the world in the way that it is.
	So what I would say is that we see countless emergent properties around the world, in nature and, of course, in the universe, we see countless emergent properties.
	And we don't say that the life of a wolf is because it's inhabited by an immaterial ghost, we'll never be able to tell exists, right?
	We wouldn't say that.
	We would say life is an emergent property of the wolf and it doesn't need a soul.
	And so consciousness we see happening not just in ourselves, but in monkeys and dolphins and other, certainly the more intelligent mammals, we can see consciousness emerge, not as sophisticated or abstract as ours, but definitely something.
	And so we accept that consciousness exists without necessarily ascribing souls to donkeys or monkeys or crows or dolphins or anything like that.
	And so when it comes to free will, adding something that is immaterial, self-contradictory and unproven does not prove anything.
	And the simplest, the Occam's razor explanation is that free will is an emergent property of human consciousness in the same way that consciousness and life itself is an emergent property of other things.
	And you don't need to add an incorporeal, indetectable, abstract ghost that can't ever be proven in reality and think you've answered anything.
	Well, you do need to add it if materialism is an insufficient explanation and can't actually explain how we would have free will.
	No, but that's circular.
	So you can't say that materialism is insufficient and that's why we need a soul.
	Because how do you know that materialism is insufficient, given that we see emergent properties all the time everywhere?
	Right.
	you could just think about it, right?
	So it's Okay.
	If everything is determined, like under materialism by laws of logic, or sorry, not laws of logic, laws of physics, right?
	And all of our thoughts are produced by neurons that are firing.
	It's a chemical reaction based on or governed by laws of physics, not by us, right?
	No, that's begging the question, though.
	The question is, Are the operations of our brain purely deterministic and outside the realm of choice?
	So you can't say, well, if we assume that everything's deterministic and outside the realm of choice, it's like, but that's called begging the question.
	That's what we're trying to prove or establish.
	Okay, well, what part of what I said do you disagree with?
	Do you think that the atoms in our head and the neurons firing are outside of the laws of physics?
	Well, can any individual carbon atom move around, eat, screw, and breed?
	Okay.
	But wolves can do all of those things.
	Does that mean that wolves are defying the laws of physics?
	No.
	Right?
	So no individual atom or neuron in my brain has free will, but my brain has free will.
	It doesn't defy the laws of physics.
	atom can move on its own and walk across the landscape, but wolves can, and they're all composed of atoms.
	So, sorry.
	No, because wolves cannot compare.
	You remember the definition, right?
	You've got to stick with the definitions.
	Do wolves have the capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards?
	Well, we need to talk about that if we're going to.
	No, no, they don't.
	It's not much to talk about.
	They don't.
	Well, no, I mean.
	Wolves don't have language.
	They don't have abstract conceptual reasoning.
	They can't do syllogisms.
	They can't.
	That's why they're not part of the social contract.
	I don't agree with you about how you're defining free will.
	Well, I'm going to stop here because we've been talking for like, I don't know, 20 minutes or half an hour.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	Hang on, hang on.
	And now you're telling me that you don't even accept the initial definition.
	So there's really no point going down a long sequential reasoning if you disagree with everything at the beginning, because that's just a bait and switch, right?
	Because I assume if you don't disagree with me, and we actually did go over this and you accepted emergent properties and you accepted that we have the capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
	So if at the end of the conversation, in order to protect your position, what you do is you say, well, I didn't agree with you from the very beginning, then I'm not saying you've wasted time because it's instructive from that standpoint, but it's not something that I'm going to continue with because it's a bit of a cheat.
	So, all right.
	Well, thanks, everyone.
	I appreciate your conversation tonight.
	Always a great pleasure to chat with you.
	I didn't get any donations during the show.
	I don't want to put down people on X as being a little cheap, but if you could go to freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show, I really would appreciate it.
	This stuff is not free.
	I have 60,000 hours in philosophy, massive amounts of education and book reading and so on.
	So if you could help out, I'd really appreciate it.
	I really do appreciate everyone dropping by tonight.
	Very enjoyable conversations.
	Lots of love from up here, my friends.
	I will speak to you Friday night.
	And then remember, Sunday, 11 a.m. is our subscriber-only, donor-only show.
	Take care, everyone.
	Bye.
	Look at everybody bailing out while I'm doing a donation pitch.
	Lovely.

▲