Welcome everybody to the first ever live Rattlesnake TV debate. Been wanting to do
this for a very long time, and I'm absolutely thrilled to say that we
are going to be starting off with a bang. We've got two heavyweights in
the house with us today in the form of Yaron Brook and Jay Dyer.
These guys are both extremely accomplished in their field, experts in their field,
and the topic it's a light one. It's can human civilization survive on science
and rationality alone? So just an easy Friday here if you guys don't mind
starting with you, Jay giving a little bit of a brief introduction about yourself,
who you are, a little bit about your work and where people can
find you. Yeah, I'm a person that comments on a lot of different
topics. We do discussions of geopolitics, we do a lot of film analysis,
we do a lot of philosophical conversations and debates. We've debated some of
the top Muslims, Atheists, other religion proponents out there. I also do
live events, comedy, etc. And I host the fourth hour of the
Alex Jones Show every Friday for the last four years. And I have four
books out on philosophy and film Fantastic and your Own. Yeah. I'm the
host of you on book show, comment on pretty much everything going on in
the world, and from esthetics to geopolitics, to ethics and morality and how
to live a good life. I am the former executive direct or CEO of
the Owned Ran Institute. I'm currently the chairman of the board of the own
Ran Institute. I am author of books on inequality and capitalism and probably best
known for my moral Defense of capitalism Fantastic. So the structure of the debate
today, guys, is going to be that we're going to have five minutes
from each of these gentlemen giving their position on can human civilization survive on science
and rationality alone? And then we're going to have ten minutes each of cross
examination, where both gentlemen will be able to ask as many questions as they
would like in that ten minutes to try and unpack the other person's worldview,
and we'll see how that goes. We're also going to be reading out superchats
at some point in the middle of the stream, and there's going to be
a pole there as well. At the very start, we're going to have
a poll on the question to see where you guys all sit with it,
and then at the end we're going to have another poll as well to see
who you guys found more convincing. So I think with that we should get
into it. Maybe Jade, you want to kick us off with your opening
statement of fuddlements, I don't mind. Go yes. I would answer that
no society cannot function in a healthy way and flourish believing or acting as if
science and reason alone is all this necessary. First of all, I would
say that we don't exactly have, at least typically from the people who would
be the proponents of this view, we don't usually have a pretty consistent definition
of what science and reason are. Now I'm not saying that there is no
science or reason. I'm saying that usually the proponents of this type of a
view, which I would class them in the category what's called scientism, they
will make appeals to things like quote science, quote logic, quote reason.
But what are they? How do they exist? What is the motive of
their existence? Where are they? So? Science is oftentimes ill defined.
For example, one of the premiere scientist and proponents, tychnoicrat Bertrand Russell himself
gives about thirty different statements as to what science acts is. In his famous
book Scientific Outlook, he says that science is reasoning, Science is knowledge.
Science is beginning with what began with Galileo sciences, technique sciences, progress sciences,
the power manipulating nature. Science is induction and not deduction. Science is
omnipotent sciences based on assumptions that are quote verifiable. Science is in decay.
Unfortunately, in his day he said science is the ultimate authority. Science is
systematic pursuit of knowing what is out there in the world, knowledge, etc.
So we get all of these like elastic definitions as to what it actually
is. Now, the opponent, as I understand, believes that there is
such a thing as mind or consciousness. And he would say that we have
minds, but what that is and how that came to be, no one
knows. And I would just push that a little bit further and say that,
well, if that's the case, then also there's no basis for logical
reasoning itself, and so the very endeavor of science would be undercut by his
own worldview if it were the case. In other words, he takes an
anti metaphysical stance in terms of part of his worldview from what I understand of
it. But at the same time, he wants there to be some metaphysical
principles that he can act upon and that he can promote through his version of
objectivism, and that would be the promotion of things like the true, the
good, value judgments, ethics, things that he mentioned. And that's precisely
my key point here is that science and reason cannot give us value, judgments,
or virtue. Society needs some form of virtue ethics to actually survive,
And in fact he himself said that living a good life that's connected to virtues.
But virtues are not things that can be determined from states of matter or
even states of mind. If he admits the existence of im material things like
minds, because the way something is doesn't tell us how it ought to be.
So I would just go back to David Hume's critique of this kind of
almost arbitrary move that people make to where because of their presuppositions of atheism limit
them from allowing certain things to be the case, such as aughts. We
can't get an aught from an is. So even if he admits immaterial things
like minds, the state the fact that minds exists or the fact that matter
exists doesn't tell us how minds ought to be or how matter ought to be.
Yet he wants to have I think, a lot of claims about morality
and ethics and what should and shouldn't be done. We shouldn't have the government
stealing our tax you know, taking our tax money, or whatever, taking
our money in taxes. We shouldn't have collectivism, I think he would argue,
but those are value judgments, and they're not based on any universal claim
or universal ethic. Thus they can't actually be objective. They must ultimately be
purely subjective or relative. And so my point is that he can't be consistent
with his foundationalist enterprise, and so his position, I think, is going
to devolve into some form of foundationalism. But foundationalism, again, is a
failed enterprise when we look at the fact that there's nothing that's actually self evident.
Even Aristotle's basic laws, categories, the law of excluded middle, law
of non contradiction, law of identity, those things are not actually found in
nature themselves. Their propositions or metaphysical things that we believe in universal laws,
abstractions that don't have any scientific demonstration. And so ultimately my opponent, I
think, would be some type of empiricists. That doesn't mean he has to
be a complete reductionist, because he might be an empiricist who admits the existence
of minds or even abstract concepts, but there's no basis for his belief in
those things. So ironically, the very things that he would point to,
like science, reason, math, universals, concepts, laws, et cetera,
themselves if we think about something like wvo Quin's famous lecture, famous paper
to dogmas of empiricism, they actually can't be explicated or justified. They must
be believed in in this much the same way that the spaghetti flying spaghetti monster
of a is positive. So his idea of meaning and concepts and reasoning is
also just as much as flying spaghetti monster. All right, thank you very
much. Jay. If you're opening five minutes now, turning out of a
tier on five minutes on the clock, that is a lot. And he
speaks fast. He doesn't get me at all, and that's fine, that
is good. So, yes, rationality is at the basis of all human
knowledge. It is the means by which we know the world. It is
the only means by which we have to know the world. Reason is the
definition of It is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's
senses. It is a faculty of the mind. It is a faculty of
human consciousness. Yes, consciousness does exist, and its existence is you know,
one of the foundational metaphysical axiomatic concepts, together with the fact that there's
something to be aware of that is existence out there. And as in reason
and rationality, rationality, which is a commitment to reason, are the only
ways in which we know what exists, and we know about reality, and
from which which we can integrate into abstract concepts, including those abstract concepts that
are necessary to figure out how to live a good life. There is no
other way in order to discover a what is good, what is even life?
Every every concept being used relies on the fact that we integrate the evidence
of our senses, the facts of reality, into some conceptual understanding of the
world. That is what rationality involves. Rationality therefore can indeed a bridge.
We can't. Indeed, bridge is odd gap. Once we understand what is
human life, we can certainly understand what ought is what is necessary for its
sustaining for sustaining that human life. Morality is a consequence of figuring out what
are the requirements for human beings to live. Meaning comes from an understanding of
life and understanding of UH. You know, our own values and the values
necessary to sustain our life and to UH to UH build a life and to
and too and to flourish as human beings. So meaning comes from rationality and
reason UH, as as does morality. So UH value judgments, virtues UH
all come from a rational, rational approach to understanding human life. Figuring out
from observation and observation of life and an integration of the fact of life and
understanding of the kind of animal human beings are to an understanding of what works
and what doesn't, what is good and what is not for the human animal
as it is, you know, every single value that we require in order
to survive, in order to live, every single value needs to be constructed,
needs to be discovered by the use of rationality. From the most primitive
man, from our need for tools, our need for weapons, to the
most sophisticated science that we use today, all of those are discoveries of the
rational mind. All of those discoveries of a mind observing reality, experimenting within
reality, and figuring out what is, what works, what is right,
what is true, and what is not. And consider all our achievements,
all achievements as human beings, from from great art to the great scientific,
the great scientific discoveries, to the amazing technology that allows us to do this
debate right now, all products of human reason. That is, to deny
reason, or to reject reason, or to reject the link between reason and
civilization is absurd and ridiculous. It is self it is not self evident,
of course, but it's pretty easy if one knows history and understands human life,
and understands the world in which we live to see and to observe,
and to understand that all civilizations, to the extent that they were civilized,
relied on reason, and to the extent that they adopted reason and rationality to
that extent they were civilized. I think that's five. Yep, that's nearly
bang On's thank you very much, Gods. You're opening statements, and now
we're going to get into a period of cross examination. So you guys are
going to have ten minutes look it up, and we'll start with Jay asking
questions to your own right, Well, yeah, thank you for the opening
statement there. I think I have a better understanding of what your position is.
There. You said, for example, at one point, that that
what we do is we sort of work in the world, and we test
and we try, and we then figure out what works versus what doesn't work,
and that this helps us to understand that we can derive an ought from
it is because essentially what I heard you say was some of the defect of
this allows us to live a life, and that we should have a flourishing
life, et cetera, something to that effect. But what I heard was
a lot of assertions, but I didn't hear a justification as to how we
got to an aught from the from it is. Sure, I mean,
five minutes, these are deep philosophical discussions. You're not going to get We're
not going to get a complete analysis of of how we get an offer from
an issue. But I do I do recommend people who are interested in seeing
the complete working out of this to check out Iran's essay in the Virtue of
Selfishness first essay or the Morality of Objectives and which she laid out She lays
out in great detail. I think how you get an offerm it is,
but the outline of it is is this human beings face a very basic alternative,
as all living beings face, and that is to exist and not to
exist. And that is the fundamental, the fundamental starting point. And then
the question is the question is once once you are get towards existence, if
you get towards non existence, if you've chosen not to exist, then morality
and values and all of that are irrelevant. They don't they don't matter.
They only matter in the context of existing of life. A pursuing life.
Plants pursue life. They therefore have values. They don't have concious values that
let me yea, you have a question, and fine, well I mean
that though it was a cross examination. So a cross examination typically you know,
you have to get a thought out to be able to examine it.
But okay, well I'm not trying to cut you off, Go ahead and
said whatever you want. You know, plants pursuit particular values. They pursue
what are They pursue light and you can see them pursuing that because they are
pursuing life. Human beings face the same alternative a plant does, life or
death. The difference is that we don't have it pre programmed. We are
not pre programmed. We're not predestined to choose life or to know how to
live. What is required in order to survive. Human survival is not automatic.
Human survival requires we take certain actions, that we choose certain actions.
We are quite capable of suicide. So we need actually to make choices about
what we do. And now what leads to human survival is something that we
have to learn from partially from experience. Go ahead, So, but you
said things like we see plants striving to live. Humans typically strive to live
versus choosing not to. Those are states statements again of things that are so
they're not justifications for the ought that is that is the how is that a
justification? No, the the justification is that you need to do certain things.
That is the the ought is the need in order to live, right,
you know, what to in order to live. That's a statement of
how things are. But that's not that's not an epistemic justification. That's just
another statement of how things are. Once once you once you, once you
have to sustain life. Now, there is no justification for sustaining life.
You don't want to sustain life, then, as I said value judgments,
are you well of it? But once sustaining life, then you know,
once that happens, once human beings, that is that a judge That seems
like a metaphysical sort of value judgment that you want as kind of an axiom
to start with. Right, No, it's not an it's not it's just
it's a fact of reality, that living being. It's a fact that it's
not a it's it's not an art. No, the the arts are what
we're asking how we get the fact? How do we get to sustain life?
Is? How do we get an art from a fact? You just
keep stating facts. No, I'm not saying facts. I'm saying indeed,
you just factating facts. You saidts are not divorced from facts. Arts are
facts. A minute, the need to survive arts of facts about gentlemen just
a second, just a second, just during just during this period of cross
examination, whoever is doing the cross examining has the floor. So Jay,
as you'd like to ask the questions, just cut off whenever you need and
then yer on you'll be able to do the exact same thing. Next sounds
good, Okay, So it seems like again to the definition of what a
fact is is also conveniently the definition of what ought to be the case.
But the question was apistemic justification for how we get value judgments or oughts from
states, affair affairs or states a matter of facts. It doesn't work to
just say that an art is just another fact, because that's a circle.
No, it absolutely does in a sense that once life once, whence life
is chosen, one needs aughts in order to know how to pursue that life,
and those oughts are discovered through a process of understanding what life requiets and
those affects right to understand that that doesn't when just to examine the world in
order to evaluate what leads to life, what allows to survival That is the
good, and what reject what is bad for survival That is the bad.
But how do we know that that's the good? You can just keep sort
of asserting that that is the case because that's some sort of self evident thing.
And I'm questioning, well, good, there is no good outside of
life? That is, how do you know that you're good? There?
There is no there is no These are assertions. What's the basis for the
assertions? Because make an assertion of what there is no the justification for the
assertion. That's what debates are all about. Value is that which a living
being seeks? How do we know that? You keep saying that? What's
the just value statements? You're talking about value statements. Values are things that
living beings seek. I don't think you understand the question. The justification for
that assertion not just to keep asserting it, but what how do you know
that? Why should we think certificate? Which assution? We're going on in
circles? Which is not very I mean, this is you're not you're aware
of the David Hume question, So you just keep asserting without giving an episode
and given an answer to the David Kumb question, which you have an answer,
but it's not just which is why this is the case. Fine,
if you refuse to accept it, it's just it's not it's not an answer.
It's another assertion that's not an attempt to justify epistemically, what the assertion
says? What? What do you what do you think justifying systemically means well,
it classically means justified true belief And then getting your problem and what how
how explain that? Don't don't f don't fow terminology and uh, and explain
what does it mean. I'm not throwing terminology. It's the classic definition of
what really Okay, I'm asking, well, I mean you don't care you
asked me what it is. You don't let me justification, which I think
I'm giving, And I would like you to explain the systemic justification to the
audience. We're explaining I understand, but I'm explaining why the answers that you
pistemic justification. So there's not a gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen each
other. Why should we believe that those are facts and that there's an aught
from a fact? Because also the questions during the during the cross examination,
guys, whoever's asking the questions is asking the questions. And then yeah,
on you can feel free to ask you any questions you'd like after this continue.
We've got a few more minutes on the clock. Right, So again,
understand question, idstand examination. I don't know like you can't let me.
You can interrupt all you want when when you're cross examining me. So
again, this position is based on various forms of self evidence and axiomatic assertions,
which is fine for him to say, but I'm asking a question that's
very well known in epistemology, is the question of justification. I'm not coming
up with any foreign, wild definition of what that means. Justify true belief
goes back to Plato, It's been used and brought forth in epistemology ever since
that time. So to say and just to assert that my ethic, speaking
of his position, it just is an ethics of life and of flourishing.
That doesn't tell me that I ought to accept that in nor does it tell
me what the good reasons to believe that that is the case. Maybe it
is the case I believe I'm a very pro life, pro flourishing of position
holder as well. Well. But why oughn't we to accept that position?
And that's the key issue, the question that comes with epistemic justification. I
am saying that the conventional way in which people view epistemic justification is wont So
I'm challenging, and I'm rand is challenging two thousand years of Western philosophy with
regard to epistemic justification. Absolutely, and why aren't we accept this right?
So we're asking a question. There is this is ought challenge that people have.
People are presented which is a legitimate challenge from their perspective of epistemic justification,
which is dramatically flawed because it doesn't recognize the fact that values only arise
in the context of a living being. How do we know that? You
keep asserting that. How do we know that that's the case? Because what
is the meaning of value? What is the definition of value? So it's
circular, so it's true by definition, So it's analytic. There is no
such thing as so there is no such thing as true by definition. That
is complete nonsense. Find it as contradict to find your terms, and you
need to be able to reduce your terms two observations in reality. So the
standard for truth is observation in reality a stand for truth. How do we
know this? You just keep saying it. How do we know this?
Okay, guys, so that's ten minutes of Jay's cross examination. Now you're
on. You can ask Jay any questions you would like. You got ten
minutes on the board, let's do it. So I'm curious with Jay.
Uh, it gets any model justification or that is where where value judgments come
from? J For j H, they're grounded ultimately in goden existence of so
they're grounded in a fantasy and they make belief. I mean, I guess
the same type of make believe as your is art distinction. Yeah, well,
my is art distinction is grounded in in actual facts of reality. And
actually it wasn't grounded observing reality. You're doing the same thing, right,
But yours is grounded on pure emotions. So because your God, when did
I argue by emotions? God is is whatever we want it to be.
And did I argue by emotion? I didn't argue by emotion? As soon
as you mentioned God, you good by emotion? That's your definition what you
think God is? That is, you make a rational argument for God,
the transcendental argument for God. There's no transcendental argument for God. It is
a purely emotional there's only hold on that. You know, you're saying that
doesn't exist as an argument. I mean you might not believe it, but
it exists, you know, Yeah, I mean, argument exists. It's
just it's just it's just again, it's it's a it's a it's a reduction
to it's a reduction to emotionalism. So where in the transcendental argument, there's
no emotion in that argument. The only justification for God is you feel like
there's a God? Do you have faith in a God? And your eject
reason and irrational argument? So do you want the form of the argument?
No? Not particularly How how would emotion relate to the form? Emotion relates
to the fact that you don't believe of the argument? There is an emotionalistic
argument, right, it's not X is the necessary condition of why why?
Therefore X? That's the form. There's no emotion. But I thought,
I thought, where does logic come from? Logic itself is grounded in God
is grounded God. So it's a circular argument and it's meaningless. Right,
So it's argument once you have God, then you know once you once you
have them emotionalistic belief in God, then you come up with a circular argument
to justify it, which is a pisurd right. So, uh, the
the whole perspective of of of value judgments as coming in because J believes in
them or because X believes in something else is the basic objectives. But it
is right, if you're gonna you should at least address the actual argument.
That's not the art. That's a strong man, okay, so so so,
so give me some example of value judgments that come from God. And
how do they get to you from God? I'm curious how you get them
from God? Right? We have pre subpositions that we all hold to basic
beliefs when it comes to ethics, metaphysics that you get from and ultimately,
ultimately those structures are grounded in the mind of God. And how do they
how do they imprint on you? Well, I'm made in God's image,
so I have the ability to reason after God. So the entire system is
built in a peace of position that there is a God. Correct, Like
your system is built on self evident presubpositions that are incoherent, no self evidence.
All it relies on is the fact that existence exists and consciousness. I
mean you kept saying it is self evident. Well, okay, justin exist
it's self evident. You know you're God it self evidence? Right? You're
making you're back and forth like every every time you're back and forth, Yeah,
because you can't. You can't have a discussion if you don't accept that
existence exists. Right do we are we talk? I just simply don't accept
it. It's self evident. I don't are we talking right now? So
how do we know we're talking about now, I just don't believe it's self
evident. Explain to me, what does the knowledge that we talk about now
come from. Well, that we're talking is experiential. I believe in an
experience, Yeah, and an experience is not self evident. No, and
where does it come from? How do how do you know it's actually happening?
Because well, again, there's nothing that's self evident. Because I'm having
experience, It doesn't follow that the experience or having experiences is self evident.
That's a whole other notion in epistemology that has to do with things that don't
require justification. Two different questions, same question. Uh, the reality is
that the existence of everything around us is self evident and everything we are talking
about, everything we say in the fact that existence actually exists. Well,
again, again that's just to aert a circle, which if you want to
know, it's not it's it's evident evidence. Every concept they use depends on
the fact that that you know, those concepts we were, you know,
integrated based on sensory evidence. If you if you look at a child and
you see how a child foams concepts, They don't phone concepts by some revelation
from God. They phone concepts by observing reality and experimenting within reality and seeing
similarities between things in reality. They build a concepts from the ground up,
from reality up. They don't start with God and everything. Category or the
fact that you gart with something doesn't mean that that's the ultimate grounding for the
thing. So that's that's a category. Well, you can't understand a thing
without knowing where it's coming from. But I'm not I don't disagree with empirical
sense data. I just don't think that empirical sense data is the limit,
is all we have, and you can't justify empiricism itself. I'm not going
to justify I piericism because the reality is that we can't abstract back from empirical
sense data. And we do have a mind, we do have consciousness.
But you understand those are those are your bedrock positions that you just assert and
you won't allow those to be questioned or challenged. The existence of consciousness and
the existence of reality cannot be questioned, and you know to question them,
you have a dogma, so you can't your fundamental positions. In philosophy,
it's called I don't believe it. I reject you cannot. You cannot get
a self evidence. So if you can bring axiom, you can bring oxiom.
You understand that if you if you bring self evidence to a debate,
I can bring self evidence to a debate and just say, God is the
self evident axiom. That's why you but that that's silly, that's fine,
you can't and you actually silly as yourself, and it's just it's just an
negation of all of human experience in all of human history. But fine,
that's just the all right, guys, we've got a few more minutes yere
on. If you did have any more specific questions to Jay about his world
view, or should we move into the next part, we can move into
an expert Okay, cool, So next bit I wanted to get into was
a little bit about the future of science and technology and how that's going to
impact human civilization, the rise of AI, for example, and the role
that scientific development is playing in human evolution itself. So if you guys want,
I'll give you a few minutes on the board. You can take two,
three, four minutes if you'd like to state your position on the future
of technology, if it's a good thing, if it's a bad thing,
and if human civilization will survive this on science and rationality alone. So starting
off with Yaron for this one, you've got a few minutes on the board
and you can do as you please with this. So I think basically whether
we survive it or art is going to be dependent on whether we in breech
rationality as a civilization and as a culture, and whether we approach all these
things from the perspective of human flourishing, from a perspective of a reason of
a reasoned approach to life. I think technology generally is amazing, wonderful.
I think they were unities here to significantly improve human life, to expand human
knowledge, to improve us both biologically through gene editing and editing out diseases and
all kinds of other things, uh, And and from the perspective of tools
that allow us to build more knowledge and future knowledge, like like what AI
is promoting. I don't fear AI comes alive and kills us all that that
I think is silly. But I do fear that bad actors use AI and
use these tools uh to the detriment of humanity. So I think what we
need is a civilization focused on individual human flourishing a civilization based on reason and
rationality to prevent those bad actors from using tools to destroy civilization. Okay,
thank you very much for that. Year On now, Jay, we're going
to go to you and you'll give you a piece on this. Yeah,
thank you. I would agree with pretty much everything he said there in his
assessment of where we're going and what he sees for the future with Ai and
Tach and transhumanism or whatever. I don't think transhumanism itself is any sort of
viable worldview, and we know a lot of the power elite push this.
I've been lecturing through their text of late, but I think that to reiterate
kind of my point in the opening statement, is that any society that attempts
to make its fundamental ethos centered around pure reason, I mean, we've actually
seen this in the past. That doesn't necessarily dictate that every possible instantiation will
be identical to the past. But if history teaches us anything about these,
we know in the French Revolution, the Jacobins sought, for example, to
have a society based around pure reason, and that actually led to a lot
of bloodshed. It led to a lot of collectivism, I understand that the
opponent here would not be a fan of collectivism, but I would actually just
argue that there's no real if we don't have a basis for why we should
prefer the individual, other than asserting that it just should be the case versus
the collective, there's no reason why future societies couldn't fall back over into some
sort of radical, technocratic collectivism, which actually I think that's the future that
we're going into. In fact, many of the writers who wrote and planned
out the future that we're going into actually do say that we will be going
into a collectivist, technocratic hell whole future. I don't think we have to
do that. We're not destined for that. I don't think tech itself is
the problem. I think that we got to have some kind of ethics that
we can appeal to that allow us to safeguard human dignity, to safeguard what
it is to have life, just to have and to value life. I
think that that only makes sense in his coherent in a position where man is
made in the image of God and thus derives human dignity from being made in
the image of that deity. And so when we look at writers that I've
been lecturing through recently, right, like Jacquette Lee's book Briefitity of the Future,
Klaus Schwab's books Fourth Industrial Revolution going back one hundred years, the books
of H. G. Wells, you know, they all write about going
into what Brazienski called the technocratic era, where essentially man would be merged into
a collective hive borg of some form of you know, Skynet or whatever.
I agree with Iran that I don't believe AI is going to become conscious or
anything like that. I think that's silly. But I think that what we
see is that the danger of the possibility of it repeating of a kind of
a technocratic Jacob and Panopticon society where we actually do lose our individuality and our
dignity being made in names of God, if we don't have a society that
also includes the notion of mythos. Man needs more than just facts and more
than just math, and more than beakers and test tubes. Man lives his
life in a beginning, mental and end status. Right, So there's something
fundamental to a story if you think about a conversation. This is an argument
that the virtue philosopher Alistair McIntyre makes He says, if you look at the
way a conversation is structured, has a beginning, of middle and an end.
Movies have beginning, middles and an end. And so there's something fundamental
to the way that humans understand and interpret the world to this triadic structure beginning,
middle, and end, such that we need and function on the basis
of stories more so than facts. So I'm not saying there's not facts,
and I'm not saying it is not science and tech. But what's more fundamental
to man is something that we would see in people like Tolkien or Lewis,
where we have stories and stories give us meaning. And thus it's fundamental to
man flourishing to have something like a religious story that gives his life purpose.
Science and reason itself cannot grant you telos. Telos cannot grant you meaning or
ethics. Okay, thank you very much, gentlemen. I just want to
say I'm enjoying this a lot, a lot, And if anybody wants to
find you guys, they can find you at YouTube Jadier and at YouTube Yaron
Brook. You guys both have fantastic shows that I watch regularly. So everybody
should go and check them out. The links are going to be in the
bio as well. So yeron what did you think about are we headed towards
a technocratic collectivist tell Hole. I think there's certainly a possibility of that.
I don't put it as very high because the reality is the collectism doesn't produce
technology. That is, the technology cannot thrive in such a society. So
we could be heading towards a collectivisty Hellhole, but it will have pretty primitive
technology, uh, and the technology will collapse around it. The only way
to sustain a technologically advanced society is through individualism. That is, since only
individuals think, collectives don't. There is no such thing as collective consciousness.
There's no thing as a collective identity, there's no such thing as collective anything.
Really, the only way to progress scientifically, technologically is through individual individual
thinking and individuals initiative and individuals creativity and innovation. I think the real risk
is is civilizational collapse and the abandonment of technology and and and what's scary I
think is that I think Jay's view of you know, the the necessity of
religion, necessity of God, the fact that virtue comes from comes from up
above, from some set of beliefs of basically faith. I think that is
set to basically hand the world over to the collectivists, because the fact is
that if we're at the point where human liberty, human freedom, individualism relies
on faith in order to progress, in order to survive, in order to
hold on, then it really is hopeless. It really is hopeless. There's
there's no It's not an accident that human liberty and human freedom, as ideas
that manifest themselves politically, ultimately come from a period where faith is relegated to
kind of your personal life and put it aside, and don't take it too
seriously. It's not a consequence that the United States is a product of the
Enlightenment, and as is the scientific revolution, and that is the industry revolution.
They're all products of a sidelining of the issue of faith and the collectivism.
That Jay talked about in the French Revolution. And you could argue,
I was sure he was going to bring up communism and Nazism as they always
do is forms of reason. I mean, these are the most unreasonable people
in all of history. They had no no respect for reason, rationality,
facts, reality, Uh, you know, anything like that these are people
who made stuff up. They were mystics, mystics of muscle often, but
mystics in a sense. Uh, you know, I'm not I'm not comparing,
but mystics and mystics. And this is the problem. The problem is
the communism and fascism and and and the French revolutions were so attitude is much
more similar to a mystical view of God and a make belief of God than
it is to an actual rational approach and an approach to what does it take?
And this is this is just a factual, logical, rational question,
what does it take to live a good life? And and that aquis that
aquis actually science. It requires examining, examining the world that they requires reason,
It requais thinking, It requires evaluating, it requires judging. And by
banning that, even though Jay doesn't want to, I think he hands it
over to these, He hands the answer over to the collectivists. All right,
Jerry, what would you say about that? Yeah? I understand the
critique there, and I understand that he would say that a lot of what
you know I'm proposing perhaps sounds like the sort of irrational sort of mysticism and
fanaticism. And I understand the comparison that he's making between you know what,
what he thinks. My position is with, you know, some sort of
regime that would be tyrannical. But to bring it back home to the original
point about the good, you know, he keeps pointing out the good of
the individual, the good of the of the you know, the freedom of
the individual to be creative and all that. I actually agree with that that
that's where we get these of you know, creativity and ventions technology. It
does begin with the individual. I'd reject the idea though that he said there
are no collective identities. That to me makes no sense, given the fact
that we have all kinds of collective identities that are true. Men exist as
men, families exist as real metaphysical realities and unities. I believe. So
the premise that he has, I think is another presupposition most of the proponents
of Van Rand. It's the idea that there's this sort of dialectical tension between
the individual and all collectives. There can be that, but ideally, I
think what we want to shoot for is a balance between the one and the
many, to have a synergy between these things and to not have the sort
of individual versus the collective. There's always going to be collectives, there's always
going to be individuals, and so we're never going to like figure out some
sort of like you know, perfect either or when. Ideally what we need
to shoot for is some sort of balance between them. But beyond that,
more fundamental is that I think he thinks that my position is one which is
irrational or anti rational. If you had listened to what I was arguing about
the transcendental argument, it's actually a logical, rational argument for the existence of
God, and it premises the premise is that all reasoning and rationality itself presupposes
fundamental transcendental categories, and those categories themselves require some justification, some unifying power,
some linkage, and some way to be grounded, and that is God
itself. So God is the basis for the transcendal categories. And that what
that means is that the position that I'm argument isn't against reason. It's not
some far flung mysticism. It's actually much more of a stronger claim that all
reasoning and rationality would only be possible if God existed. So I don't set
faith in opposition to reason and his presupposition is that everything I'm arguing does set
them in opposition. But again, to bring it back to the main point,
if we're going to value the true and the good, those are metaphysical
things that in some way have to be justified in a universal way. Throughout
the conversation, Iran, for example, has made many claims about everybody does
this, we all do that, we all know this. Those are universal
claims, and if he's going to have any justification for universal claims, he's
going to have to know or figure out how that's always provable or always the
case. And you can't do that if you have an empirical approach to life
or an empiricist approach. I'm not against empirical data, but if I'm an
empiricist, there's no justification for all of these universal claims. And he seems
to think his self evident universal basic axioms are the case everywhere at all times.
But those are just assertions. And so again, to bring it back
home what he's calling reason. If he was to read, for example,
Quin's paper, I mean he's in the tradition Ofwvoquine as an empiricist, as
an atheist, then he would know that Quin makes the same point that he's
making about God, that all of the things that he believes in his position
about reason, about self evident actions or whatever, those are just as much
fantasies and mythologies in his worldview. So if he can bring self evident assertions,
so can I. Okay, gentlemen, I'm enjoying this. Just quickly,
we're going to keep this line going because I like this. This is
what we're doing here. I want to keep it to two minutes each after
this, So we're just going to go back and forth, back and forth
on the points. But he was just going to quickly read out some super
chats here. We've got a few coming in, and the first one is
from show'sbot and it says, I understand, I don't understand the topic.
What additional things are supposed to be needed? Air, food, Netflix,
maybe all of them and X one. We've got chos. But again,
says Jay, is zeus a self evident axiom? If not, why you
know? Quickly answer that, Well, I don't believe in self evident axiom,
so I would question the whole notion. It's based on a foundationalist of
pistemology, which I don't believe, and I believe that we have webs of
belief and so if you want to use the terms foundation, that's fine,
but that's not the same thing as a foundationalist of pistemology. I think that
we have a worldview and all of our beliefs are interconnected. So the center
of the web of beliefs in my view would be God and so and that's
that. You could call God a foundation, But I'm not a self evident
foundationalist, okay. And the last one here we have got I'll just see,
knowledge is you know, foundationalist in a sense, all ideas, all
knowledge is hierotical. It starts from something. It starts from the self evident
otherwise, and which is self evident, and all knowledge is built on that.
And the self evident is the facts of reality, including the existence of
consciousness. And how do I know that? Because I'm conscious and I just
know I'm conscious. All of the universal claim though, and it's a universal
claim absolutely to university, Well, how do you adjustify universals if you're an
empiricist through you know, induction. Induction universalizes empirical claims. So, uh,
Human's point is that you can't get is wrong. I mean, I
I know Human's point, but human is wrong, and I'm positing. I'm
positing, and it's not me. I'm Rand is positing. I'm just doing
a pretty bad job of explaining who ideas. But I'm ran is positing a
new epistemology, a different peristemology. Uh, and it's rejecting Human's claim.
I suggest that people, you know, go go to the source and don't
take me. Uh. But Rand's introduction to Objectives of Prismology is a great
place to start if you're interested in whole particular epistemology. It's a it's a
great book. Uh. And Objectives of the Philosophy of Iran, which is
behind me by Lanta Peacock. You know, great summary uh and x explanation
of who ideas awesome. Last few super chats here we have got Rigovich says
watching this makes me so grateful. I finally did meaningful research into the Bible,
Bible, et cetera, became a Christian. God. Bless you.
Jay gord Els Snake TV fellow Ossie here who escaped, Well done and good
one Motorsport's great to see good one in the chat. Solid work jayder I
I appreciate the clarity of your argument. So, gents, following on from
this, I believe yeahon you had a few things to say about Jay's previous
statements. And if you guys want to just go back and forth here,
we can do two minutes on, two minutes off. That's the best way
to do it. Starting with your on Yeah, I mean, I just
want to say I'll agree with Jay on the importance of story. I think
story is super important. Story is a way to conquertize very abstract ideas and
make them real for us in a in a way that's easily digestible. Again,
I'm and wrote stories atle shrug the fountain head o stories. So I'm
a big proponent of using art. But of course art, good art,
art that has any kind of meaning. Who realizes heavily on reason, rationality,
on on, on all of that, it's only it's only so called
modern artists who think splashing paint on a canvas, uh, and and where
you don't need to think, uh, you know, only they divove the
aesthetic experience from from reason and rationality. So yeah, stories myths uh are
super crucial. You know, the the myth of of of the Bible is
survived for a very very long time in spite of its many contradictions and absurdities,
because it provides people with some primitive explanation for what's going on in the
world. Yeah, we have We now have science and a better understanding of
reason. Time to outgrow it. Trying to move on, all right,
Jake two minutes. Yeah, I mean, I I actually like an Rand's
book on aesthetics quite a bit. I read it maybe fifteen years ago.
I thought it was really good. It relies quite a bit on a lot
of Aristotelian approaches to aesthetic which is fine. I'm not anti art. We
have a lot of appreciation for Aristotle in our worldview, as well as Plato.
So but again, I think maybe what's being missed is that, you
know, if we think about something like the universal claims that are being made,
and I understand he would say, well, you need to look at
Anan Rand's you know, reassessment of Epistemology or whatever. That's that's fine,
But I mean, you know, Hume makes this point because if we are
empiricist, if we're approaching things from an empirical vantage point, then we might
want to go back to Aristotle or something like that, to try to justify
the existence of substances or essences in the world. Perhaps, But the question
is not ought we do that, but can we justify doing that? And
if we only have our individual experiences, because of course his philosophy begins with
and ultimately ends with the individual, then I can never get to a universal
state of affairs from a bunch of particulars. So even if I have one
thousand experiences of you know, this or that phenomena, it still doesn't grant
me the justification that that's a universal state of affairs. So, in other
words, it's another type of religious commitment. And that's why I believe all
of us have religious commitments. Even if we think that we're completely and purely
rational, ultimately we're believing in things that are unjustifiable all up yere on.
Yeah, I mean, the reality is that every child does this and knows
this and experiences this. Universalized is constantly. You know, if you have
if you have a kid and you watch them interact with the world, they
are constantly experimenting and generalizing. They're constantly forming new concepts that are universal.
You know, they'll drop they'll drop their spoon on the floor over and over
and over again until they get gravity. They get it, and it's now
universal and they don't have to they don't have to won the next time when
they're dropping something. You know, after a while, they you know,
they universalize it over They form universal concepts of chairs, furniture, lots of
things. Indeed, that's what the human mind does. It takes the concrete
experiences, it forms concepts. Concepts are in a sense universal. That's how
the human mind works through experience generalization. Again, if you redine Rand,
you know, the forming of const is crucial to all epistemology. And yet
it is a process that philosophers beforehood did not understand well and and now we
have an understanding of it. So but it is a form of generalization that
again children do when they're very young, not because they're inspired by some structure
that God is embedded in them, but because they observe reality. And this
is how a reason, this is the way human reason works. So,
you know, philosophers like to, you know, philosophize if you will.
They like to come up with objections to all all kinds of things. But
all you have to do is observe reality and observe human beings and you can
see what is actually going on. You can observe what is actually going on,
and to question ability to generalize. Okay, I'll jump this time.
Maybe gravity won't work this time, because God forbid, I can't universalize,
really, and I have to be a religionist. I have to believe in
God not to jump off the building a right if I do. Yeah,
So I think that a couple of things going on here. So the fact
that that's the way that it works, that doesn't tell us of the modality
of it, of the metaphysical status of it, the ontological status of these
things. And that's the question that I'm asking, the ontological status and the
justification for believing in universals. And you keep replying with, well, that's
just what we do. Well, you said something like kids have always done
this. They you know, drop a toy and then they universalize from that.
I don't deny that that's what we do. But that's a fallacy.
That's the appeal to tradition fallacy. The fact that we've always done something has
nothing to do with whether it could be done, whether it is true,
or whether we can give an account for that. So there's a difference between
giving an account for something and telling a story about the fact that we did
it. So that's the point of epistemology is epistemology is always concerned with epistemic
justification. And to say that, well, these are of truth questions if
philosophers ask, and we shouldn't really be that worried about it. Well,
now these are the questions that are asked in debates because you and your worldview
would like to have certain self evident axiom from which to build your system,
and you seem to not want those to be questioned. Which I don't mind
having God question. I'm happy to debate and defend the existence of God.
But what that suggests to me is that the self evident axioms that you have
as the foundation of your position are dogmas for you. When I ask you
for the dessercation for them, you say that, well, the you can't
justify the whole point of an acxiom is that it is indeed self evident,
and trying to refute it in its refutation, that's the nature of actionioms,
okay, then God exists a definition of the variation of God for you,
as an acxiom. I get that. I get that. It's an Actually
you understand that. That's why it doesn't work in a debate to just say
self evident. One, it's it's obviously not self evident. And b knowing
God, you know this is not a self refutation. I can I can
deal with the world with your position is self evident, ignoring the existence of
reality. I can't deal with the world by gnoing my consciousness. Those uh
you know, they they they it's yourself. You're refuting them by trying to
deny them with God. That doesn't work that way. I can easily deny
God. Well, but what you did was just keep reasserting your position as
self evident and understanding a debate. I can do the same thing. And
that's why that doesn't work in a debate. No, by the way,
asserting things that debate is if we don't have a even a basic agreement on
what constitutes knowledge, it's very difficult to debate. I agree, And so
I'm looking at you don't have that understand But I mean, you appeal to
universals. You've appealed to universals. They're just something that we do. Okay,
Well, then God is just something that we do. Fine, is
something that we do That why it's a bad argument is and then I don't
do, and many people don't do and don't have to do anybody illustrating just
quickly, Guys, it appears as though we're at a bit of a loggerheads
because we we can't quite get past this one, because this would take a
whole another rabbit hole. So I mean, I think that this is probably
a good place to wrap it up. This has been extremely entertaining. Perhaps
if we'd like to give a final statement just a few minutes, going back
to the original question of can human civilization survive on science and rationality alone?
Sticking to the question can we survive? Will we not survive on this science
and rationality alone? Starting off with you j two minutes on the clock.
Yeah, a little bit longer than in the course of this discussion. I
think what we've seen is that every world, the every position is going to
have to rely on some sort of starting point. For me, those starting
points are not self evident. They're part of a larger worldview or web of
beliefs, and so well as an epistemic holest I would say that all of
my beliefs are kind of interconnected, and at the center of that web would
be the existence of God. And so God is the foundation if we want
to use that terminology for the transcendental categories, or the preconditions of knowledge which
make knowledge possible. The preconditions of knowledge are not physical, they're not material,
they're not under a microscope. They're prior to the doing of science.
They're prior to the doing of mathematics and reasoning and so forth. They ground
the possibility of knowledge at all. And if we ask a further question,
where do we get those things from those transcendental preconditions, those categories? How
do they come to be? Where are they? Right? Aristotolists these categories
at the beginning of his book categories. Well, they have to be the
structures of the world, really in the world, and man's mind can really
tap into them, or else knowledge is not impossible. Do we have knowledge?
It appears that we do, and so therefore this must be the structure
of the world. To have predication, to have meaning, to have sentences,
to have reasoning at all, and so for those things to be the
case, there's nothing that prevents me from asking a further question, Well,
what grounds and structures the categories of the world, the universals, et cetera,
What holds them together? Well, the only thing that could work to
do that would be an omniscient mind, a personal God who gives intentionality and
telos to all of reality, and so all of reality has purpose, it
has meaning, it has regularity due to the existence of God. In a
position where you don't have that, we essentially just have man's mind as an
individual, atomized unit trying to sort of put together these pieces from finite details
of experience, with no universal justification or no universality at all. And what
happens then is that man gets lost in a sea of infinitude and nothingness and
meaninglessness, and so really his desires, his beliefs about the world, his
myths, his constructs, et cetera, they're all relativized. Ultimately we end
up in some form of nihilism, because all there is is really my own
raging against the dying of the light or whatever the poem says. And so
that worldview can't give an account for the very things that presuppose that science and
tech presuppose science of tech presupposed mathematics, universals, laws of logic, et
cetera, structure and meaning in the world. Think about something like Mandel broad
sets as a great example. There's a great lecture by doctor Jason Lyle on
Mantel broad sets and he explains how these are actually mathematical discoveries, they're not
creations of the human mind. So well, I agree that the human mind
has a lot of potentiality and power to work in the world, to do
tech and to do excuse me, to create technologies and to create societies that
hopefully will flourish. We also need objective ethics, metaphysics, and objective justified
knowledge in order to say how we have a good life versus bad life,
how we have true versus false, how we have the good versus the evil.
Those are metaphysical claims and an empiricist, sort of reductionist type of worldview.
A scientistic type of worldview can't actually tell us what the good is.
Thank you very much, Jay, You're on So I think Jay's argument is
basically a circular argument that makes no sense. It relies on the existence of
God in order to have logic to prove that that God exists, and everything
else kind of flows from this starting point, which is an arbitrary assertion.
The reality is that good versus evil is not a metaphysical claim. It is
an a mall claim, so one has to it is an ethical claim,
not a metaphysical claim. God and good and evil don't exist as entities out
there in the world as metaphysical beings. They are in the context of human
life. They're in the context of what is good for what, for whom,
for what purpose? There is no good beyond a good for something for
somebody in some particular context. So what good is universal? It is only
universal within that context of human life. It is there is no good beyond
human life. There is no good outside of human life. So if we
care about civilization, if we care about life, then what we need is
absolutely we need an objective universal ethics. We need an objective universal ethics.
And the only way to discover a objective universal ethics is to look at reality,
to look at reality, and to look at the nature of man.
What is it that makes it possible for human beings to survive? We are
out there in nature. We don't have the genetic code in order to tell
us how to live and how not to live. We don't have an innate
ability to discover, to discover how to survive, what ones do is we
must engage our rational mind, We must engage our reason. This is an
active process, a process that requires free will. It requires volitional activation of
our mind. And we need to discover the means by which we survive human
survival, individual life. And surviving is the good. That which threatens human
life, that which destroys human life is evil. That is the definition of
good and evil. These are not metaphysical concepts. They're in the context of
human life. So objective morality is that morality that takes into account the fact
the fact that human beings are rational animal that in order to survive they must
think, they must observe reality, integrate the knowledge from reality, and and
and you know, manipulate the world. That they manipulate the atoms in the
world out there in order to produce the things necessary for their own survival,
for their own existence, and ultimately for their own uh flourishing. The only
way to come up with an objective reality is through observation, is through study
of man, study of reality. You know, engaging in the study of
God does not lead you to morality. Christian morality is not morality. It
is not helpful, it is not useful, and it doesn't actually produce a
human flourishing, a human success. What we need is to reconceive morality.
What we need is to universal life morality based on the facts of reality and
the facts of the nature of man as a rational being. Rationality is at
the corn at the center of any progress that we make towards civilization and towards
maintaining whatever civilization we still have left. Okay, brilliant. I want to
remind everybody to make sure you check out Yaron and Jay down below. I'm
going to quickly read out a few super chats. I think we've got a
few questions from the audience here. The first one is from Justin Henley,
who says, fier, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this
morning? Hungry? Very good. Next one is from just another Canadian says
great stream more like this please, thank you very much. We'll get as
many as we can going. Next one is from Spartan up North says grade
a prattle from Brooks, but we're still waiting for a justification for his assertions.
Do you want to respond to that? If you're looking for anything beyond
reality exists and you have the ability to know it through your consciousness, and
reason is the faculty that allows you to be aware of it. That is
the justification. If you need more than that, then you're seeking something that
doesn't exist, and you're in the realm of mysticism, not in the realm
of reason and rationality. All right, and guys, just quickly, we're
going to be also running a poll on the YouTube live chat to see who
you, guys found more convincing, whose arguments you found more convincing. So
the next super chat we've got here is from Justin again says for yeronn Can
science tell me a painting is a painting is beautiful and if it be immoral
to destroy a beautiful painting? No, science cannot tell you any of that.
I'm not a scientist. I don't believe science can tell you everything,
but reason can't. That is, if you a reason allows you to study
aesthetics, it allows you to evaluate pieces of art, to differentiate between what
is good art and what is bad, to gain an understanding of what is
beautiful and what is not uh. And it is only through reason that we
can discover what is moral and what is not? The ending of his question
I think related to morality. So what is beautiful is discoverable through reason?
And is uh what is good? What is moral? Is discoverable through reason?
Can we discover what is category? Jay? Can we discover what is
beautiful through reason? I would say that there's a lot of ambiguity about reason
when we've had this conversation. The whole history of philosophy is one of the
most debated and sort of ambiguous terms. I would agree with his initial definition
at the beginning that usually what we mean is a faculty that man possesses to
understand the world. So reasoning as a faculty is one thing. Reason as
a reason quhah reason asking the question of what reason itself is, or the
power of reasoning, or the what we're appealing to the laws of logic,
the laws of thought, et cetera. That's another type of question, that's
the metaphysical question about the ontological status of those things. That's a lot of
what I was asking in this debate. And I would say that while reason
can help us assess things, it itself is limited in what it can tell
us about the ultimate things like the good, the true, the beautiful and
so, and I would agree. Earlier he was talking about I would agree
and disagree. He said that the good is in a human life, but
it's also universal, but it's not a metaphysical thing. Well, if you
say that the good is part of life and it's universal, you've already made
two metaphysical claims about what it is, and it's where it exists. So
it is a metaphysical thing. Okay, And moving on, We've got Maximus
for five dollars, says, if a society repeats evil and evil, then
evil becomes universal. Do you have universal experience of all those particular evils?
You're on no idea what he's asking. If a society of repeats evil and
it becomes universal, then that's a very sad state of affairs, and a
lot of us die. You know. I don't know what to do beyond
that, And and those of us who believe in the good should fight against
that evil. Can I respond to that too or not? I think the
question is getting at the heart of he's asking a hypothetical addressing the earlier critique,
which is that if with what makes something attained the status of a universal
is repeated individual experience then, by that argument, repeated individual experience of doing
evil would then make doing evil universal, So it's a defeater for the earlier
claim. All right, fantastic, Well, gentlemen, I'll let you go
for now. Whoever's watching this, if you guys want to stick around after,
I'm going to have a little bit of a chat with you guys,
and you guys can throw some chats my way and we'll talk about the debate
a little bit. But Jay, Yeah, I want to thank you guys
so much for your time today. Appreciate you being a part of the first
ever live debate on this channel, and I'd love to get you both back
sometime. It was a great discussion. Appreciate you. Sure, take care
guys. Alrighty, So it's nearly midnight over here in Bali, guys,
so I mean probably past midnight by now. Actually, first ever Rattlesnake TV
live debate. I cannot tell you how excited I've been to do these.
This has literally been the goal of the channel since day one, to get
some podcasts going and to eventually have people come on and debate live so we
can create our own exclusive content. So I just wanted to read out a
few of your chats here guys and whoever's in here discussing things and also put
it in the chat. If you guys have any topics you'd like to see
discussed, If you guys have any debaters or interlocutors you'd like to see appear
on the channel, people who have maybe been on the podcast before. Would
you like to see religion discussed? Would you like to see some woke he's
on here? Would you like to see some BLM debates? What would we
like to see? Absolutely anything? And also, Binny, did we get
a read on the poll about who we thought won the debate? Ninety four
percent thought Jay Dyer on the debate. That is pretty resounding. I mean,
I'm not sure if this is just a lot of Jay's audience in here,
but ninety four percent, guys, that's that's pretty significant. So yeah,
guys, let me know in the comments, what have we got in
any good comments coming in? All right, the rain is coming. It's
self evident that you're on lost. I'm interested to know what you got Why
you guys thought that you are on lost because there appeared to be a real
conflict there and obviously being a Christian myself. I believe that the fundamental presupposition
of Jay's worldview, in the sense that God is the creator of the universe
and that's where we get our reason, that's where we get our rationality,
that's where we get our morality, is correct, and that I obviously disagree
with yeron that everything is just self evident and that there is no cause,
there is no ought for that truth. So I would probably agree with Jay
myself in that regard, but I'd be interested to know why you guys thought
that someone's saying this. Jacob the Orthodox the Briar Wolfe says, that was
your first. Dang good job man, Thank you very much, Bria Wilf,
I appreciate that it was the first, but to be honest, guys,
this has been in the making for months and months, and obviously I
can only do this if you guys are in the live chat. We had
up to six hundred of you at one point. I'm super super grateful for
that. If we don't get people in the live chat and interacting and sending
in super chats and everything, then it becomes impossible. So I really appreciate
that. Darth Reevens says radlsneak TV try and get a woke one to argue
with a reasonable person, so there are no jump cuts like with the videos.
Yes, yes, well, I mean, unfortunately it's a bit hard
to get the wokies sometimes, guys, they're not that open to debate.
I don't I don't really know why that is. Maybe the worldview isn't isn't
that easy to defend, But yeah, a little bit difficult to get some
wokis on them. Hi says, Nah, there were a lot of atheists
in the chat debating with people. So there were a lot of atheists and
they're interesting. So with the poll, obviously ninety four percent in favor for
Jadier and then six percent in favor for your on Brook after that, but
there are still a lot of atheists in there arguing with people. So it
looks like the chat was absolutely lit and and we're happy to see it.
Helper of Men says he assumes his reasoning is better than someone else's when it
comes to good and evil. Lull. Yeah. I mean, like I
said, guys, obviously I'm as a moderator, I don't want to be
biased during the debate, but now that we're it's a little bit more so
of casual and free flowing. I can say that I also would agree with
Jay in that sense that you know, I'd agree with you as well in
terms of good and evil. That can't just be yes. We can experience
and we can intuit good and evil in the world, But then where does
that good and evil come from? C says even atheists would admit. J
One, this isn't a bias of home court advantage. Kirol Well, kirol
Let the name Dustin says best to let them speak as much as possible.
Sorry, I thought you, I thought you was done and left. I
think we let them speak as much as possible. I'm interested to know guys
leave it in the chat. Now. Do you think that the opening statements
were the best part. Do you think the cross examination was the best part,
or do you think that it was best when they were just going back
and forth and having two minutes each on the clock. Because the problem with
these debates is that it can my first time moderating, obviously, but with
these debates, obviously they can talk over each other a lot, like we
in the cross examination. If it's not in person and it tends to lag
a little bit, then you don't really know what anybody's saying, So perhaps
the two minute might be the best, But I'd be interested to know what
people are saying more cross examination. People are saying, no, two minutes
should have been a blood bath. Two minutes was good cross examination. Yeah,
that's I think. I think that it's good to have a mix of
stuff in there. Anyway, Xavier says, all of his arguments so I
can't read tonight, guys, I'm like literally retarded. I got to say
light in my face and it's late at night. But Xavier says all of
his arguments are circular, baseless claims about human experience, proposes the rationality on
the basis of universals while simultaneously denying its metaphysical entailments. Yeron failed hard.
Well, Yeah, I mean I wouldn't agree that. I think that Yeron
did pretty well. To be honest, he has his worldview, and his
worldview is essentially an objectivist worldview. And you know, the point of a
debate is not exactly to change the other person's mind. The point of the
debate is to convince the audience as much as possible, and obviously Jay did
a good job of that. So yeah, I would agree with some of
you guys are saying that both of them did well as well. I would
agree with that. I think that both gentlemen were fantastic. Aero says,
No, two minutes should have been a No. Two minutes should have been
a blood bath. Two minutes should have been a blood bath. No,
two minutes not really hundredent sure what you mean by that, Hi, says
Jake. I thought you did a very good innovative move there by asking their
opinions on what the topic means for the future and having them each give their
take on it before resuming the debate. Thank you very much. I appreciate
that, And we were actually going to get into the idea of transhumanism a
little bit. But Yarn is not a somebody who supports the ideology of transhumanism.
Jay is actually very well versed in transhumanism. But if you're not following,
Jadey's YouTube page might be one of the one of my favorite YouTube channels
in the whole world. The other day I watched a three our video that
he did on Marx's dialectical materialism and fascinating. I was like, it's the
only YouTube channel that I ever watch where I feel my retarded brain just getting
bigger, and I feel all of the box all of the brain cells that
I lost from getting punched in the head all those years with boxing, just
coming back coming back into my brain. So it's good. I've got my
notepad out. Make sure you're following Jay Chow's bott Thanks for the super chat
before shows. But I appreciate that, says at Justin. The point is
that in ancient times people needed to invent explanations for reality. Knowledge was extremely
limited. I think that's to do with the atheist questions in it. In
Yeah, okay, Justin Hanley says, for five dollars, thank you very
much. Don't make me donate more money. I want to hear about BALI.
I miss it. Love the culture there. Yes, so, I
don't know if you guys following the channel, you might see that I've got
a different set every month or so. That's because my brother Vinnie and I
who's just right now to me here. He does all the producing and all
the editing, and he manages all the team in that regard. He does
all the smart stuff. We move around every single Jay Diyes in the chat
there says thanks man, thank you, Jay. Appreciate you man. Yeah,
we move around a lot, so we're in a new set every single
month, and yeah it's great. So we're in Bali at the moment.
We're going to be traveling a little bit of Europe in the next few months.
Towards the end of the year, we are going to be going to
South America doing Columbia. We met up with Lord Miles, if you guys
know Lord Miles, the adventure of the guy who got imprisoned in Afghanistan for
eight months. We met up with him in London. So there could be
a few collaborations coming there on the Rattlesnake Travel channel as well, So keep
your eye out for that, guys. We might be doing some danger tourism
before the end of the year. Okay, So with that, guys,
appreciate you all so much. Thank you for joining. Make sure to go
and check out the other guy's channels. They're going to be link below,
and also leave a comment on this video and just say who you'd like to
see on here, what topics you'd like to see discussed, and all of
the rest. So, guys, with that from Jake, this reddles Nativty
keeping you armed and dangerous. Take care guys,