Speaker 1: To start with, I really want you to know that
Speaker 1: I do understand and genuinely value how important logic and
Speaker 1: reason are, whether we're talking about presuppositional arguments for God
Speaker 1: or just good old fashioned P equals P. Please don't
Speaker 1: mistake my position on this. I love a good, clean
Speaker 1: syllogism as much as the next skeptic, but as a therapist,
Speaker 1: I can't help but notice and worry about the role
Speaker 1: that hyperrationality and skepticism at all costs often play in
Speaker 1: the so called angry Internet atheist experience. I don't buy
Speaker 1: into tired stereotypes of our community as a collective of
Speaker 1: spots and datas stripped of emotion and running on pure reason.
Speaker 1: And yet I've spent enough time in this space to
Speaker 1: know how easy it can be to use logic as
Speaker 1: armor and intellect as a way of keeping vulnerability at bad.
Speaker 1: Like our friend doctor Firth god be Here recently pointed out,
Speaker 1: you can't love logic or hate some mentality without getting
Speaker 1: pretty emotional about it. There's always a heart behind the argument.
Speaker 1: So no, I have no ambition of settling the war
Speaker 1: between logic and emotion, but I am interested in making
Speaker 1: space for both, because when someone calls in with their story,
Speaker 1: their doubt, their outrage, or grief or confusion. We owe
Speaker 1: them more than just a flaw of syllogism. We owe
Speaker 1: them empathy, curiosity, and the courage to say I don't
Speaker 1: know when that's the most honest answer we have. This
Speaker 1: is talk Hethen, a community for conversations where reasons meet compassion,
Speaker 1: and where every question deserves a thoughtful human response. So
Speaker 1: give us a call because the show is coming right now. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: welcome everyone. Today is Father's Day, June eighth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, Christy Powell, and with me today for
Speaker 1: our first time together, is Heathen Scott Dicky.
Speaker 2: All right, all right, I'm looking forward to working with
Speaker 2: you today, Chris. I've been looking forward to this to
Speaker 2: the show for a long time. I do want to
Speaker 2: point out that, at least in Minnesota, it's June fifteenth, today, June.
Speaker 1: Fifteenth, yet that is on me. Thank you for catching that.
Speaker 2: I didn't know if there was a time difference or
Speaker 2: what time zone you're in there.
Speaker 1: But yeah, don't you to talk about what year it
Speaker 1: is right now? I don't want to talk about the news.
Speaker 1: I just want to celebrate Father's Day and get into
Speaker 1: some good, clean syllogisms and logic and compassion and calls
Speaker 1: for sure.
Speaker 2: For sure, I'm really hoping that we get some callers
Speaker 2: that are either passionate about a logical argument or if
Speaker 2: they want to analyze and emotional argument, So hopefully we
Speaker 2: can get a nice mixture there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, that sounds great. Of course, this is
Speaker 1: talk Heathen, and we are open to all of your
Speaker 1: questions about religion, secular humanism, atheistic morality, cosmology, philosophy, science, history, life,
Speaker 1: the universe and everything that said, Scott, is is there
Speaker 1: anybody else that you're really hoping to speak to today?
Speaker 2: You know, last week I was listening to the show
Speaker 2: and there was somebody that was talking a lot about math,
Speaker 2: a lot of smack about math, And so I'm hoping
Speaker 2: we get some math related content because i think because
Speaker 2: as some of you may know, I'm a math teacher
Speaker 2: in my other life, and it seems like whenever I'm
Speaker 2: watching a show that I'm not on, that's when the
Speaker 2: math callers come in. So if you have a math
Speaker 2: related argument, I'd love to dig into that with you too.
Speaker 1: Oh man, Yeah, just any opportunity to listen to you
Speaker 1: explain infinity until my brain explodes. I'll just be kind
Speaker 1: of quietly eating popcorn here in the background. All right,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm ready, So let's do it. Talk Heathen
Speaker 1: is a production of the Atheist Community of Austin. We're
Speaker 1: a five oh one c three nonprofit organization that is
Speaker 1: dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism,
Speaker 1: and the separation of religion and government. We are a
Speaker 1: live call in show with open lines, so get your
Speaker 1: calls in at five one two two four two or
Speaker 1: from your computer at tiny dot ce c slash call
Speaker 1: t H. And while we wait for all of these
Speaker 1: passionate and logical calls to roll in, let's touch base
Speaker 1: with our backup host today, Jamie the Blind Limy, Who's
Speaker 1: going to go over our talk Eathen to me segment? Jamie,
Speaker 1: what do you got for us this week? Jimy, let
Speaker 1: me get you unmuted?
Speaker 2: There, Amy's there we go.
Speaker 1: Hell, there we are? How are you?
Speaker 3: I am excellent? And for this Beard, I paid the
Speaker 3: iron price. So we asked last week, Oh, what was
Speaker 3: God's biggest mistake? So God's beigest mistake was blank? So
Speaker 3: in at number three, we have Phil Herning Honing. God's
Speaker 3: biggest mistake was leaving a message to a message to
Speaker 3: creation that can be seen only by one guy in Nebraska.
Speaker 3: I wonder what that's referencing too. I am so.
Speaker 1: Curious about who this guy in Nebraska is. I'm not
Speaker 1: aware of any particular cult, any particular news story about
Speaker 1: this idea. I do kind of just love the notion
Speaker 1: of just one random dude cruising down the interstate between
Speaker 1: Cordon Fields, right right.
Speaker 3: He's the one who knows Jeff and.
Speaker 1: All held Jeff.
Speaker 3: And then at number two, gade Us. God's biggest mistake
Speaker 3: was having Jesus crucified on Friday and then resurrected on Sunday,
Speaker 3: making him miss the Saturday morning can't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, if you're gonna have to work on a weekend, jeez.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah man, miss anyway. And at number one, it's
Speaker 3: caade More God's biggest mistake, ORed biggest blunder. He made
Speaker 3: certain parts of the body incredibly fun to mess around with,
Speaker 3: then insisted that it's about to do so. Either that
Speaker 3: or the existence of the platypus. That thing is trash
Speaker 3: heap of nonsense together. True enough, the Platypus is the
Speaker 3: closest thing we have to Pokemon in real life from
Speaker 3: the black Light. It's got a venomous barb and it
Speaker 3: sweats milk.
Speaker 2: There you got to weird world, all right?
Speaker 1: Uh well, yeah, thank you, Jamie. I know that the
Speaker 1: prompt for next week is finish the joke Jesus Mohammad
Speaker 1: and Joseph Smith walk into a bar. We want to
Speaker 1: hear your responses in the comments section. Scott, what do
Speaker 1: you got for that one?
Speaker 2: All right? All right, I put a lot of thought
Speaker 2: into this. Here's my Joe and I wrote it down
Speaker 2: to make sure I didn't screw up the word in here.
Speaker 2: It's Jesus Muhammad and Joseph Smith walk into a bar.
Speaker 2: The bartender sets a single beer down on the bar
Speaker 2: with three straws and says, it's our new profit sharing policy.
Speaker 2: It's Father's Day.
Speaker 1: I gotta do a dad joke.
Speaker 2: I gotta get a dad right, all right?
Speaker 3: This one for me, Jesus Mohammad and Josepith walking to
Speaker 3: the bar and the bomb and says, is this some
Speaker 3: kind of joke?
Speaker 1: There you go? Or Jesus Mohammad and Joseph Smith walk
Speaker 1: into a bar? At least it was in a school.
Speaker 3: Or thank you Christy for I'm going to make a kopa.
Speaker 3: I messed that up and Christy got my back. But
Speaker 3: I'm going to get Christie's back now because there's some
Speaker 3: people we need to think.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely, I want to get our care up on
Speaker 1: the screen. Thank you for all of your hard work,
Speaker 1: all of your patients with us this morning is we're
Speaker 1: goofing around in the green room, and thank you so
Speaker 1: much for helping us put this show on.
Speaker 2: All right, cheers to the crew.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Scott, Okay, so we were diving into it. Let's
Speaker 1: go ahead and jump on the lines. Yeah, all right,
Speaker 1: sounds good. Cool. Let's hear from Benji and Alabama, who
Speaker 1: I guess has some questions about secular morality. Benji, what's
Speaker 1: on your mind? You're hearing us? Okay, well, we will
Speaker 1: work to get that sorted out. Benji, I'm gonna put
Speaker 1: you back in the queue and hopefully we'll talk to
Speaker 1: you soon. In the meantime, Scott, I'm curious from your perspective,
Speaker 1: do you share my concerns at all that I brought
Speaker 1: up at the top of the show. You know, is
Speaker 1: it just an occupational hazard? Of mine as a therapist,
Speaker 1: or do you see this sort of like over intellectualizing
Speaker 1: aspect of our community.
Speaker 2: Well, you know what's interesting is is you know, somebody
Speaker 2: watching the show might look at us and they might see,
Speaker 2: you know, Scott, you're the math teacher, that's the logic side,
Speaker 2: and then Christy or the therapist that's the therapy, that's
Speaker 2: the emotional side.
Speaker 1: Got a right brain situation.
Speaker 2: But in many ways, I mean, we can interpret that,
Speaker 2: revert you know, we could reverse that. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm a math teacher, but I'm not I'm not a mathematician.
Speaker 2: I'm an educator. So my job is to really make
Speaker 2: the math content meaningful to my students. Whereas you, as
Speaker 2: a as a professional therapist, your job is to apply
Speaker 2: the science to your clients. You know, different situations.
Speaker 1: So take all those big emotions and organize them and
Speaker 1: give them a framework and.
Speaker 2: A lot of exactly exactly. So, I think in that
Speaker 2: way we're we're both very similar. Is that our both
Speaker 2: of our careers kind of integrate. Uh, these these two
Speaker 2: or these these things that are appear to be these
Speaker 2: two different kinds of forces. But to answer your question
Speaker 2: about do we see this as over you know, intellectualization,
Speaker 2: And I would say yes and no one. Yes, it's
Speaker 2: very easy to to focus on things like logic, especially
Speaker 2: when you're talking to somebody who you think is failing
Speaker 2: on the logical side of things. But I do think
Speaker 2: I wouldn't necessarily use the word over intellectualizing, because thinking
Speaker 2: about emotion can be a very intellectual process. I mean
Speaker 2: it's uh, it's very deep in analysis, it's very humans centric,
Speaker 2: and so really what we're talking about here is uh,
Speaker 2: maintaining some sort of balance between logical approach and UH
Speaker 2: and incorporating our human emotions in that. And it's one
Speaker 2: of those if you're really good at talking about one
Speaker 2: of those two things, it is in fact very easy
Speaker 2: to to set one of them aside. And I know
Speaker 2: that talking about emotions. You mentioned doctor Firth Godbe here earlier.
Speaker 2: You know, he's really uh, you know, I just love
Speaker 2: listening to him talking about his field of expertise, that
Speaker 2: of emotion, in that you know, he can he can
Speaker 2: really quantify things, and he he has the knowledge of
Speaker 2: the history of the subject to really bring that to bear.
Speaker 2: And so I think it's really it's not so much
Speaker 2: of a focusing on one thing at the expense of
Speaker 2: another thing. But I think it's it's it's a balance
Speaker 2: where people can bring their own expectations into it. For example,
Speaker 2: let's say I wanted to read like a book called
Speaker 2: Don Quixote. Okay, we've all heard of Don Quixote, and
Speaker 2: it was originally written in Spanish, and so there's a
Speaker 2: couple of things that I would need to bring to
Speaker 2: bear on a problem like that. I'd have to learn
Speaker 2: how to speak Spanish, for one thing. How I can
Speaker 2: take the words that are written in Spanish and translate
Speaker 2: them into concepts and ideas that I'm familiar with. But
Speaker 2: then once I've done that step, then that only gets
Speaker 2: me to a point where I am then able to
Speaker 2: appreciate the literature and the themes and the messages, and
Speaker 2: so that much might be the that might represent the
Speaker 2: emotional side of the balance too, And so they are
Speaker 2: really two parts accomplishing the same goal that the idea
Speaker 2: being to understand somebody's cultural perspective, their sociological perspective, their
Speaker 2: historical perspective. And so, boy, this is the longest answer
Speaker 2: to a really very short question. And but yeah, I
Speaker 2: do I do see that. I do see that I
Speaker 2: see as a math teacher, of course, I'm going to
Speaker 2: be focusing on mathematics, but as I said before, motivation
Speaker 2: can be a big part of that and can be
Speaker 2: can be a stumbling block for especially new teachers that
Speaker 2: are having difficulty with that thing. But as you gain
Speaker 2: experience as a human being, as you interact with your students,
Speaker 2: you kind of develop that sort of thing. And I
Speaker 2: would imagine that maybe for a therapist it might be
Speaker 2: the flip side. It might be maybe somebody went into
Speaker 2: therapy to be a therapist because they really care about people.
Speaker 2: They really we have a strong and broad knowledge of
Speaker 2: emotional states and you know, human emotion and that kind
Speaker 2: of thing. But as they learn, then they can apply
Speaker 2: more and more science to the to the situation. And
Speaker 2: so I do see things leaning one way or the
Speaker 2: other in conversations, but I don't necessarily think that that's
Speaker 2: something that should be avoided or even a bad thing.
Speaker 2: I think it's good because then we can survey that
Speaker 2: that landscape and decide what best applies to us and
Speaker 2: our own approaches to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, that that notion of balance is super important,
Speaker 1: but also the idea of translating a word about emotion
Speaker 1: into another language. I mean, that really lines up with
Speaker 1: doctor Firth Godbee. Here's work about how our understanding of
Speaker 1: emotion has changed time after time after time. These aren't
Speaker 1: you know, specific compounds in the body that we can
Speaker 1: isolate and say like, oh, this is the dopamin feeling,
Speaker 1: this is the serotonin feeling. The way that we interpret emotion,
Speaker 1: it's just this sort of arbitrary lens that we are
Speaker 1: applying to these physical sensations. And that's true of thoughts too.
Speaker 1: Thoughts and emotions are really just the different ends of
Speaker 1: the same spectrum, or maybe not discreet from one another
Speaker 1: in any meaningful way. And I think that's really valuable
Speaker 1: in getting this conversation out of that sort of like
Speaker 1: mind body dualism, or that notion of like the animus
Speaker 1: or the soul being somehow separate from the logic or
Speaker 1: the brain, or all of these kinds of complexities. So
Speaker 1: there's a lot I think to be aware of here
Speaker 1: as we try to find a healthy balance in our lives.
Speaker 2: Right And I think that word they use right there, awareness,
Speaker 2: I think that's key, especially self awareness and reflective awareness.
Speaker 2: I think that can I mean, that's really part of it.
Speaker 2: We are and integrating different aspects of the human experience,
Speaker 2: and I think and awareness of the way other people
Speaker 2: are reacting in the way and self awareness the way that
Speaker 2: you are reacting can be very valuable in improving whether
Speaker 2: you know, maintaining that balance and also improving both aspects
Speaker 2: of that at the same time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, beautiful. I think there is so much to
Speaker 1: get into here. But I'm hearing from the crew that
Speaker 1: we've got Benji back on the line, So let's jump
Speaker 1: back on the calls. Yeah, all right, okay, Benji and Alabama,
Speaker 1: what's on your mind today? Oh? Okay, well, fair enough,
Speaker 1: Let's give it one more try. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: touch base with Tucker in Iowa. All right, Tucker, are
Speaker 1: you hearing us?
Speaker 2: I think we are narrowing in on the problem here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems to be okay, Well, I'm going to
Speaker 1: put all of the calls back into the line and
Speaker 1: trust our incredible crew to get that sordid for us,
Speaker 1: to let us know when we're ready to go. Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: I guess, Scott, when that balance gets sort of off level,
Speaker 1: what are the signs or the hallmarks of dismissing emotion
Speaker 1: in our understanding of things like cosmology or epistemology, like
Speaker 1: when do we know that we're kind of out of step?
Speaker 2: Well, that's the tricky part, right, That's that's the tricky part.
Speaker 2: That's where that self awareness comes in, if we're looking
Speaker 2: for I think it was was it Mark Twain that
Speaker 2: said the easiest person to fool is yourself, right and
Speaker 2: and the German and the hardest person to convince that
Speaker 2: you've been fooled is yourself. And so it's very looking
Speaker 2: back at yourself in the mirror can be very, very challenging.
Speaker 2: And so I think that you know, recognizing well, I
Speaker 2: think the first step would be to admit the possibility
Speaker 2: that you are not getting a good view of yourself
Speaker 2: or you're not taking into consideration certain aspects of your
Speaker 2: own emotional self. But I think that we need to
Speaker 2: be able to look back at ourselves and recognizing when
Speaker 2: we are in fact bringing our own emotions into into
Speaker 2: the process, and that can be that can certainly be
Speaker 2: a benefit that can you know we were talking about before,
Speaker 2: that drives your your passion, that drives your motivation, that
Speaker 2: can drive your interest as well. But on the flip
Speaker 2: side of that, we don't want to make sure that
Speaker 2: we we go too far in that direction. We don't
Speaker 2: want to rely solely on our emotional responses, because history
Speaker 2: and biology has shown that our emotional responses can be
Speaker 2: very can be misled, can be misled. And that's because
Speaker 2: our intellectual and our emotional selves kind of evolved responding
Speaker 2: to different aspects of the environment, you know, our and
Speaker 2: UH A book that I read called Thinking Fast and
Speaker 2: Slow by Daniel Kaman, I think when I when I
Speaker 2: read that, that really helped me focus on that particular
Speaker 2: difference we have. We have our emotional selves that are
Speaker 2: quick to respond to scenarios and quick to respond to
Speaker 2: danger especially, and then we have our slower intellectual self
Speaker 2: where we can kind of analyze a little bit more
Speaker 2: deeply and it's less less involved with emotion. And so
Speaker 2: I think being able to recognize that you have that
Speaker 2: balance in yourself and being able to recognize when it's
Speaker 2: off kilter, I think can be very challenging. I you know,
Speaker 2: as as you do as well. I wish we could
Speaker 2: have some kind of like pill that we could take
Speaker 2: that would that would fix that for us, right, that
Speaker 2: would that would give us that clear view of our
Speaker 2: own selves. But I think that can be an extreme
Speaker 2: challenge for for everybody, and I don't know I'd be
Speaker 2: interested to hear what other people have to say. So
Speaker 2: if anybody wants to call and we do have open lines,
Speaker 2: uh and talk to us about that, I love to
Speaker 2: I love to hear people's opinions on this kind of thing,
Speaker 2: because you know, people think of things that I even
Speaker 2: thought of, and that helps me to improve myself. So
Speaker 2: I think it all kind of starts. It's kind of
Speaker 2: starts at home, as they say, right, It's it starts
Speaker 2: with looking at yourself, and anybody can point the finger
Speaker 2: at somebody else and say you're not being logical, or
Speaker 2: you are reacting inappropriately or so forth. But in order
Speaker 2: to recognize that in our ourselves, I think takes practice
Speaker 2: and diligence.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think it's the self deception part that you
Speaker 1: kind of zoomed in on that is so significant to me.
Speaker 1: It's not that I want to like criticize people for
Speaker 1: being eighty percent logic and only twenty percent emotion, or
Speaker 1: that it would ever or could ever work in that
Speaker 1: kind of way. But it's when I see people, particularly
Speaker 1: in our community, who are insistent they like I'm not
Speaker 1: an emotional person. You know, maybe my partner or my
Speaker 1: children are just too emotional, whereas I operate from pure
Speaker 1: logic and reason. And then the moment you start to
Speaker 1: sort of push back, like, really is your logic and
Speaker 1: reason like all that pure, you start to see the
Speaker 1: anger boiling up that they are unself aware of, that
Speaker 1: they are in denial or about or unwilling to really
Speaker 1: acknowledge as meaningful and significant and not altogether like unhealthy.
Speaker 2: Right, right, Yeah, I mean that's part of the normal,
Speaker 2: normal human existence, right, is that type of thing? I mean,
Speaker 2: we've evolved, we have actually evolved to not notice those
Speaker 2: kinds of things in ourselves. We've evolved to try to
Speaker 2: present ourselves as some kind of as leaders and as
Speaker 2: dominant people and as the one that everybody wants to be.
Speaker 2: And so admitting weakness is on the surface, that can
Speaker 2: be seen as a weakness, right, the fact that you
Speaker 2: admit that there are weaknesses, But when you sit back
Speaker 2: and think about it, you want to make sure that
Speaker 2: you if there are weaknesses there, you want to make
Speaker 2: sure that they're that you can recognize that they're there,
Speaker 2: and that you can take steps to move forward. And so, yeah,
Speaker 2: so that the self awareness, I think is really really
Speaker 2: a key thing, and it's hard to do, especially if
Speaker 2: you're arguing with somebody about something. Like I said, it's
Speaker 2: easy to point fingers, it's easy to say what's wrong
Speaker 2: with their argument, and especially when they're not also doing
Speaker 2: any self reflection. Right, So if they're telling you that
Speaker 2: you're doing things wrong, and then you think, well, maybe
Speaker 2: I am doing things wrong, and then it seems like
Speaker 2: it kind of pushes it one way, and our egos
Speaker 2: respond instantly with that, with that fiery, that fiery response.
Speaker 2: We don't want to be the weak one. We don't
Speaker 2: want to be the vulnerable one. And I think the
Speaker 2: willingness to show vulnerability, well this is my opinion, but
Speaker 2: I think the willingness to show vulnerability is really a
Speaker 2: true sign of strength. And when I'm talking to somebody,
Speaker 2: if they can be vulnerable and or admit their own
Speaker 2: weaknesses to me, I think, Okay, that's a strong person.
Speaker 2: That's somebody that I want to talk to. That's somebody
Speaker 2: where we can make some progress and and and we
Speaker 2: can kind of set aside the egos and and really
Speaker 2: have some good conversations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that that vulnerability piece is so challenging here. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you feel like there is pressure in our community,
Speaker 1: especially when contrasted with a more like faith based belief system.
Speaker 1: Is there pressure on secular people to always sound rational
Speaker 1: at the at the expense of being emotionally on it? Uh?
Speaker 2: I think there is some pressure there. I mean, we
Speaker 2: can see with the responses that we have to our
Speaker 2: shows that it's when when we when we have hosts
Speaker 2: that tear into callers, you know, tear down their logic
Speaker 2: and that kind of thing, we get a lot of
Speaker 2: the most positive responses.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: And it's the longer discussions, the the back and forth discussions,
Speaker 2: the more empathetic approach doesn't necessarily get that strong response.
Speaker 2: And so I think there is some, Uh, there is
Speaker 2: some pressure, and I think a lot of that becomes
Speaker 2: a lot of that comes from our tendency to have
Speaker 2: those short sighted goals, right that that quick you can
Speaker 2: point to align on an argument and say there's where
Speaker 2: your logic failed, and that kind of thing. And so
Speaker 2: I think the concreteness of a logical examination makes it
Speaker 2: easier to get that you know, that dopamine kick and
Speaker 2: that and that ironically that that emotional kickback from from
Speaker 2: pointing at the uh, at the logic, I think UH
Speaker 2: that those short term benefits, I suppose we can call them,
Speaker 2: make it very easy to move in that direction, both
Speaker 2: as somebody who's talking to the theist or as somebody
Speaker 2: who's watching the show watching somebody else talk to the theist.
Speaker 2: And so there is pressure. But then there are people
Speaker 2: that and these are the hosts that I appreciate the most,
Speaker 2: and that includes yourself definitely, the people who do take
Speaker 2: the extra time to be empathetic, the people that do
Speaker 2: take the extra time to understand not only what the
Speaker 2: other person is saying, but why they're saying it and
Speaker 2: how why they're saying it the way they say it,
Speaker 2: and that kind of thing, and I think that can
Speaker 2: lead to more long term benefits that can lead to
Speaker 2: I mean, that's really the kind of thing that if
Speaker 2: something is going to convince somebody to become an atheist
Speaker 2: and abandon their religion, it's going to be those those
Speaker 2: longer conversations that do take those two things into account.
Speaker 2: And so it's really just a quick response, a quick feedback,
Speaker 2: a quick you know, kick of adrenaline or whatever, versus
Speaker 2: the longer but more ultimately beneficial goal of actually connecting
Speaker 2: with a human being and making progress together as you
Speaker 2: explore these uh, these truths and untruths.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, all fair to say. So to that end,
Speaker 1: I believe our connections are back up and running. So
Speaker 1: let's have a human conversation with Tucker in Iowa if
Speaker 1: we may.
Speaker 4: There, Hi, can you hear me now?
Speaker 1: I'm so glad to hear your voice. Glad you're here.
Speaker 1: What's on your mind?
Speaker 5: Ya?
Speaker 4: So, first of all, it's Tucker formerly known formerly known as.
Speaker 1: The Okay, thank you for sharing that with us. Glad
Speaker 1: to be speaking to you again.
Speaker 4: So, what I actually identify as is an agnostic anti theist,
Speaker 4: anti theist in the in the sense of being against
Speaker 4: Christian nationalism and the encroachment of religion into our government school.
Speaker 4: But I am still kind of I do still have
Speaker 4: some spiritual beliefs or supernatural as Richard likes to prefers.
Speaker 1: I think that's an important distinction, and we can sort
Speaker 1: of get into why. But walk me through I guess
Speaker 1: your sort of viewpoint.
Speaker 4: Here, my viewpoints as it pertains to what.
Speaker 1: Well, when you say that you have some supernatural beliefs,
Speaker 1: and maybe you also use the word spiritual to describe
Speaker 1: those beliefs. What is it that you're referring to?
Speaker 4: Well, I have had experiences in what at first glance
Speaker 4: seems to have been communications with my dead father and
Speaker 4: noticing some a couple of really interesting things that happened
Speaker 4: to my mother and sister as well from my father.
Speaker 4: I still believe my best friend is psychic. And it's
Speaker 4: well that I really nearly fall down the rabbit hole
Speaker 4: with these things.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Well, I guess what I'm interested in here
Speaker 1: is why we're referring to these ideas is supernatural? Like
Speaker 1: I think I take your meaning, but I also feel
Speaker 1: like that term supernatural sort of implies that it isn't
Speaker 1: real and that it's not natural, that it's somehow outside
Speaker 1: of something. Why are these not just natural phenomena, you know?
Speaker 1: Which isn't to say that we can or can't speak
Speaker 1: to the dead, obviously, like we can start to deconstruct
Speaker 1: those notions if we need to. But what makes the
Speaker 1: what gives you the idea that these are supernatural beliefs?
Speaker 1: And how are they distinct from I guess natural beliefs
Speaker 1: And why have these categories?
Speaker 4: Uh? Well, bluntly, because there's at least a couple of people,
Speaker 4: uh that uh, I suppose you could say is kind
Speaker 4: of are kind of in leader in a leadership position
Speaker 4: or uh or at least highly looked up to. Who
Speaker 4: made the distinction with me that instead of spiritual, I
Speaker 4: should be using the word supernatural.
Speaker 2: Do you think there's a difference between those terms, I
Speaker 2: mean comes on the way that you would normally use
Speaker 2: that those two words. Are they different or do you
Speaker 2: resist against using those words interchangeably?
Speaker 4: Well, I have been since uh you know, as as
Speaker 4: part of my my communication what I called in about
Speaker 4: is that some people really do take a very hard
Speaker 4: line against anything spiritual or supernatural. My my definition of
Speaker 4: supernatural would be like ghosts or uh, aliens or those.
Speaker 1: Are some categories. What's the definition that unites them together?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't I you know, like I said, it's
Speaker 4: been you know, strongly communicated to me from some folks
Speaker 4: that uh, that they are separate. But what I'm trying
Speaker 4: to get to is that you know those people who
Speaker 4: have you know, who I've spoken with, and that you
Speaker 4: know they take a real hard line against any type
Speaker 4: of spiritual or supernatural belief. And so I'm only right
Speaker 4: now just kind of get enough courage to be out
Speaker 4: there with the with the community and say that I
Speaker 4: still have some spiritual beliefs. I mean, I kind of
Speaker 4: feel like you've given me the permission to use that
Speaker 4: word now in me natural.
Speaker 1: You know, I definitely don't want to declare myself the
Speaker 1: arbiter of what words mean. I can tell you that
Speaker 1: I hold beliefs or operate in practices that I would
Speaker 1: describe as spiritual, sure, but I don't see any of
Speaker 1: that as having a lack of like materialistic truth or
Speaker 1: not standing up to an empiricist worldview or an empirical worldview.
Speaker 1: It seems to me, and I know we're kind of
Speaker 1: flirting with a couple of different words and some very
Speaker 1: loose definitions, but as we dive into it, the sense
Speaker 1: that I'm taking away, the understanding that I'm gaining here, Tucker,
Speaker 1: is that there are things that you believe in that
Speaker 1: people around you are telling you aren't real, and that
Speaker 1: the like unifying definition of supernatural as we're applying it here,
Speaker 1: are just things that other people dismiss as being made
Speaker 1: up and to me that would not fall under the
Speaker 1: definition of spirituality. That's another conversation that we can hold
Speaker 1: off on for just a moment. But how do you
Speaker 1: respond to the notion that, at least if you are
Speaker 1: taking these insights from other people, that you are perhaps
Speaker 1: holding two categories of beliefs in your mind, one which
Speaker 1: you recognize as real and one which other people do
Speaker 1: not recognize as real.
Speaker 4: Yes so, Christie, yes that that that's a pretty good summation.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, so, not to oversimplify it, but why believe
Speaker 1: in things that aren't real, or at least that other
Speaker 1: people don't believe are real? Or maybe another way of
Speaker 1: thinking about it is, if you believe that all of
Speaker 1: these things are in fact true and real, why have
Speaker 1: separate categories?
Speaker 4: Honestly, Christie, I don't. I don't have an answer to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can appreciate that. I mean, we can get
Speaker 1: into all the complexities of narcissism and of epistemology and
Speaker 1: these sorts of notions. But what we believe to be
Speaker 1: true is somewhat intuitive. It is, on at least some level,
Speaker 1: based on how an idea makes us feel. And I
Speaker 1: think it's worth really examining and asking the question are
Speaker 1: these beliefs grounded in reality? Do they hold up to examination?
Speaker 1: Is there a like literal type of truth to it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Scott, can you help offer any clarity here?
Speaker 1: I know that we're kind of swimming in some like
Speaker 1: very vague language, right right, Tucker.
Speaker 2: I'm curious in the notes here for the caller, the
Speaker 2: call screener, they said that you, some in the atheist
Speaker 2: skeptic community take a very hard line against any type
Speaker 2: of spiritual beliefs, and it can be very hard to
Speaker 2: be authentic. I'm curious as to what would you think
Speaker 2: would be the appropriate response if you were talking to
Speaker 2: a skeptic and you presented a belief, maybe you like
Speaker 2: you said, you believe that your friend is a psychic.
Speaker 2: What do you think would be the roparate amount of
Speaker 2: pushback that skeptics should give you.
Speaker 4: Well, the skeptics that i'm some of the skeptics that
Speaker 4: I'm referencing describe my some of my spiritual beliefs and experiences.
Speaker 4: They describe them as idiotic, unrational, a lot of negative words,
Speaker 4: you know, wasting my time of You know, then you're
Speaker 4: not really an atheist or a skeptic if you believe
Speaker 4: this stuff. And honestly, I whenever, whenever I'm asked, I
Speaker 4: I do not just use the word atheist because I
Speaker 4: am not. I have not crossed over to that absolute
Speaker 4: definition of I have no evidence for spiritual things.
Speaker 6: Okay, and so you would sorry, go ahead, Christine, Well,
Speaker 6: I suppose I was just going to say that, you know,
Speaker 6: whether we we divide atheism into like hard atheism or
Speaker 6: separated out from agnosticism or any of those things.
Speaker 1: I do think it's worth pointing out that atheism doesn't
Speaker 1: have a position, so to speak, about the existence of aliens.
Speaker 1: You know, we do associate atheism with skepticism, with rationality,
Speaker 1: and I think that some of those belief systems might
Speaker 1: push back on whether or not we are able to
Speaker 1: commune with the dead and some of these things. But again,
Speaker 1: we're really getting into all of these labels. And my
Speaker 1: ultimate curiosity, Tucker, is why you would believe in something
Speaker 1: that most people seem to believe isn't real and whether
Speaker 1: or not you yourself believe it to be quote unquote real.
Speaker 1: And what is that word real really mean or what
Speaker 1: is it doing in that sentence?
Speaker 4: Okay, understood. So I feel like this conversation has turned
Speaker 4: away from my original intent, and I appreciate you guys,
Speaker 4: stance on you know what is real and what is not?
Speaker 4: And why would I continue to believe? And the statement
Speaker 4: that you made Christy that most people would be skeptical
Speaker 4: or not believe my experiences kind of a add popular statement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, that's fair to say. So I'm not necessarily
Speaker 1: trying to destroy your logic, but I am interested in
Speaker 1: why you would hold these beliefs that may or may
Speaker 1: not hold or past the like smell test of rationality.
Speaker 2: Do you consider yourself to be skeptic?
Speaker 1: I do?
Speaker 2: Okay? How would you say that you apply that skepticism
Speaker 2: to your own beliefs? If you feel like other people
Speaker 2: are being maybe unfairly overly critical? How what you know?
Speaker 2: Earlier I asked you what would be the appropriate response?
Speaker 2: But maybe more specif physically, what I could ask you is,
Speaker 2: what are you applying to your own beliefs? If if
Speaker 2: you consider yourself to be part of the skeptic community,
Speaker 2: and I think that you are, I would be curious
Speaker 2: as to how you self apply that. How do you
Speaker 2: how are you skeptical of your own beliefs? And if so,
Speaker 2: are you meeting your own threshold of rationality?
Speaker 4: Yes? Because because I am continuously looking for ways to
Speaker 4: falsify those beliefs, the beliefs that I've experienced something spiritual
Speaker 4: or supernatural, the belief that you know that I think
Speaker 4: psychics are real. I'm constantly trying to put those to
Speaker 4: the test and find a naturalistic reason for them.
Speaker 2: Do you share that if somebody were to come up
Speaker 2: to you and say, I don't I don't accept your beliefs,
Speaker 2: I don't accept your belief that your friend is psychic,
Speaker 2: or whatever it is that you're presenting at that time,
Speaker 2: how do they respond when you present the approaches, when
Speaker 2: you present them that self reflection here, I've tested it
Speaker 2: this way, this way, this way, and this way. What
Speaker 2: kind of response do you get from that? Or are
Speaker 2: you saying that many in the skeptical community can be
Speaker 2: kind of dogmatically skeptical, which I think is obviously the case.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're all human beings, and human beings can
Speaker 2: do can even do the right thing for the wrong reasons,
Speaker 2: and that kind of thing. But do you find that
Speaker 2: self reflection being able to present that to others? Do
Speaker 2: you think that you're being still unfairly judged at that point,
Speaker 2: and are you open to the possibility that maybe you
Speaker 2: are not being as skeptical of your own beliefs as
Speaker 2: you might be of someone else's.
Speaker 4: As to your last as here, can you repeat the
Speaker 4: last question? Youah? Sure?
Speaker 2: Sure? I asked, are you open to the possibility that
Speaker 2: you are not seeing yourself in the same way that
Speaker 2: you might look at others? Are you being more critical
Speaker 2: on others' beliefs and maybe less critical? And I'm not
Speaker 2: suggesting that you're doing this, I'm just asking are you
Speaker 2: open to that possibility?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: Yes, absolutely, I am open to that possibility. And I come,
Speaker 4: as I said, I call myself an agnostic anti seist.
Speaker 4: The agnostic part for me is kind of backwards from
Speaker 4: the way you would usually use it. But I am
Speaker 4: now I'm getting confused.
Speaker 1: Sure, well, I know that this is all getting kind
Speaker 1: of far ranging. So Tucker, if you'll forgive me for
Speaker 1: kind of just rushing right into one particular point, maybe
Speaker 1: we can bat that around just a little bit before
Speaker 1: we move on to the next call. And I suppose
Speaker 1: what I want to ask is the question of how
Speaker 1: is it possible that your sister could be psychic? When
Speaker 1: we have billions of people on the planet, many of
Speaker 1: whom have claimed to be psychics. Themselves, but not one
Speaker 1: of which has ever been able to empirically demonstrate psychic ability.
Speaker 1: How does your skepticism balance that or maintain that belief
Speaker 1: in your sister's psychic abilities when no one ever has
Speaker 1: been able to demonstrate psychic powers.
Speaker 4: Well, it's definitely not my sister. It's a very good
Speaker 4: friend of mine.
Speaker 1: Misunderstood. Okay, Sure, all I have.
Speaker 4: All I have are my experiences.
Speaker 1: Well, I hear you. But you have more than your experiences, right,
Speaker 1: You have at least some amount of access to all
Speaker 1: of the experiences, all of the research, science, all of
Speaker 1: the data, all of the thoughts and opinions good, bad
Speaker 1: or otherwise, of this incredibly advanced society that we've built.
Speaker 1: You know, you have more than just your experiences to
Speaker 1: help you evaluate these truth claims, and you can choose
Speaker 1: or not choose to use those things. You can take
Speaker 1: the experiences that you have and you can say that
Speaker 1: they are very important, slightly important, not important at all
Speaker 1: in contrast with all the data sets and the research
Speaker 1: and the everything else here. But you have more than
Speaker 1: just what you yourself have witnessed in the room.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I have access to it.
Speaker 1: Yes, So without you know, trying to ask you to
Speaker 1: prove or disprove your your friend psychic ability. In answer
Speaker 1: to Scott's question about are you being skeptical? Are you
Speaker 1: applying that same level of you know, curiosity to these
Speaker 1: issues as you might apply to other problems. How do
Speaker 1: you respond?
Speaker 4: Because I am constantly trying to falsify those experiences, and
Speaker 4: you know, past studies don't help me with that, Okay,
Speaker 4: Because yeah, I know that that psychic powers have never
Speaker 4: been empirically proven, and I don't believe we ever would
Speaker 4: be able to.
Speaker 1: So's it's not just like a black Swan consideration. It's
Speaker 1: more that there is something unique about quote psychic ability
Speaker 1: that just defies scientific convention. So this is a inevitable
Speaker 1: thing that we will always be struggling with.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, I really, I really wanted to have
Speaker 4: a discussion of about your opening statement, and I was
Speaker 4: hoping to use my experiences to you know, highlight that.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, fair enough. I do know that we do
Speaker 1: have some other calls on the line, but I'd love
Speaker 1: to give you an opportunity before we wrap up here
Speaker 1: to respond to that monologue I gave it at the beginning,
Speaker 1: and I'd love to hear what you thought.
Speaker 4: Well, not right now, I'll let some somebody else come
Speaker 4: up and see. Thank you guys for taking.
Speaker 1: Well fair enough. Thank you so much for opening up
Speaker 1: and being vulnerable enough to share some of these ideas
Speaker 1: with us. Take good care, Scott. Anything that you want
Speaker 1: to kind of add or just a poke at before
Speaker 1: we move on.
Speaker 2: Sure, Yeah. I would like to say to Tucker, I
Speaker 2: think you have an opportunity here. As somebody who is
Speaker 2: skeptical of religious beliefs, you you will occasionally talk to
Speaker 2: people who believe those things, maybe even in spite of
Speaker 2: the fact that they know that there's not a lot
Speaker 2: of evidence supporting those beliefs. And now as somebody who
Speaker 2: has experienced that kind of thing, and I'm not I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that I can guarantee that your beliefs are
Speaker 2: false or anything like that, but at least you have
Speaker 2: a strong feeling for for something that you are being
Speaker 2: told is being irrational. And that's kind of the same
Speaker 2: boat that you know that the religious crowd are in.
Speaker 2: And so I think I think what what you've stumbled
Speaker 2: upon is an opportunity for you to be empathetic and
Speaker 2: to understand the feeling that somebody is going through as
Speaker 2: you're talking. If you're talking to them about religion, perhaps
Speaker 2: being skeptical, then you know, now you kind of know
Speaker 2: what it feels like to be in their shoes, as
Speaker 2: you know, as you've experienced from the other side. But
Speaker 2: one other thing I wanted to point out, Christy, and
Speaker 2: that is you mentioned something about how you didn't want
Speaker 2: to be the arbiter of what words mean, and I
Speaker 2: thought that that was an excellent example of what you
Speaker 2: had mentioned earlier about over intellectualization and how we really
Speaker 2: get focused on what's in the deck in the dictionary
Speaker 2: about these words, when really what's important is understanding what
Speaker 2: the person is meaning, what they.
Speaker 1: The idea that they're trying to convey, regardless of what
Speaker 1: mouth sounds come out of their face hole.
Speaker 2: In order to convey it, I would use almost word
Speaker 2: for word what you just said. So, yeah, that you
Speaker 2: exactly summed up what I was trying to say there.
Speaker 2: So I thought that was kind of a neat little uh,
Speaker 2: a little flashback to that there.
Speaker 1: Fair enough, Yeah, beautiful. Well let's talk to Nick in a, Massachusetts.
Speaker 5: Yeah, all right, hey Nick, Well, yeah, so I wanted
Speaker 5: to talk about consequentialism of mechanistically definable truths.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, so walk us through that a little bit.
Speaker 1: Hit us with some definitions just so that we're all
Speaker 1: starting off on the same clean table.
Speaker 7: Okay, So like there's you know, so like every statement,
Speaker 7: everything that can be said, anything that can be communicated
Speaker 7: through language, has that aspect of like you it's true
Speaker 7: that you can say it's true. So everything has some
Speaker 7: element of truth in that scope. Where but that's like
Speaker 7: the scope that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: Like truth by definition, like a foot is twelve inches
Speaker 1: long because we define the word foot to mean something
Speaker 1: that is contains twelve inches? Do I do I have that?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 7: And basically like every single statement, imaginable, composable, have that property.
Speaker 7: But then I guess, like if we go further into
Speaker 7: like what's the next sort of like truth paradigm that
Speaker 7: we're concerned with, I would say that, like I mean,
Speaker 7: I gets like our main truth paradigm that we're concerned
Speaker 7: with is like mechanistic uh, like think like statements that
Speaker 7: can be like mechanistically verified and like proven too. Like
Speaker 7: so so like you'll you you you might have a
Speaker 7: like you'll grab a statement and if you're reaching into
Speaker 7: a black box. You're you know, you don't know what
Speaker 7: statement you're gonna pull out, So you don't know if
Speaker 7: like you're gonna be able to like generate a mechanistic,
Speaker 7: mechanistically possible representation of that you know, that idea, the claim,
Speaker 7: the sentence, whatever you want to call it, the information,
Speaker 7: and so like that mechanistically like rely like consistently reliably
Speaker 7: mechanistically coherent representation of the information is like the type
Speaker 7: of truth that we're concerned with, and especially when it
Speaker 7: comes to like conversations about like God or supernatural things, like,
Speaker 7: we want to be able to have like a mechanistic,
Speaker 7: grounded representation of that information.
Speaker 1: So that we try to put it in order. For me,
Speaker 1: what does this look like on the ground, What is
Speaker 1: a important statement that you're trying to apply these ideas
Speaker 1: to Because I'm still having a little bit of trouble
Speaker 1: following or wrapping my head around some of these ideas.
Speaker 7: So, I mean, so is it like the position of
Speaker 7: a secular like government to be like, so there's like Christianity.
Speaker 7: It believes in the resurrection of a human being called
Speaker 7: Jesus Christ, and this was like a one time event
Speaker 7: and that this person like atomically reassembled and their heat nature.
Speaker 7: It came back like that's a mechanistically impossible statements like,
Speaker 7: so I mean to stay like I said it, I
Speaker 7: said the words, But it's not like there's no mechanistic
Speaker 7: reality that like into the future. You know that, Like
Speaker 7: you're not in the same reality anymore. If there, if
Speaker 7: you're if you you're suddenly in a reality where that
Speaker 7: can happen.
Speaker 1: It's like, so, okay, so when feet have eleven inches? Yeah, scudder,
Speaker 1: are you able to parse any of this out or
Speaker 1: help me see where we're going?
Speaker 2: I'm having a little difficulty following Nick, But let me
Speaker 2: ask you a couple of questions that might clarify what
Speaker 2: we're talking about here. First of all, what is it
Speaker 2: that you mean by truth or true? Because that there
Speaker 2: are some there are a variety of ways that people
Speaker 2: use that term, and you know, if we're talking about
Speaker 2: the importance of it being the concepts that are being conveyed,
Speaker 2: I suppose we need to, you know, put our money
Speaker 2: where our mouth is and ask you what you mean
Speaker 2: by those terms. But my second question and would be,
Speaker 2: then are you distinguishing between something being true and something
Speaker 2: being Humans being able to demonstrate that something is true.
Speaker 2: I mean, because those are two different things, although obviously
Speaker 2: they're related to each other. I'm I'm not really sure
Speaker 2: where the mechanistical aspect of it is coming in. Are
Speaker 2: you distinguishing between truth and demonstrability?
Speaker 7: So like it's you can, like so you can like
Speaker 7: codify into epistemology that it would be impossible for the
Speaker 7: sun to like suddenly slam onto the surface of the
Speaker 7: Earth in less than in less than like a second
Speaker 7: or like less than a tenth of a second. I
Speaker 7: don't know, I don't know what breaks like physics or
Speaker 7: how many seconds is like like under how many seconds
Speaker 7: is what constitutes breaking physics? But basically like that, you're
Speaker 7: like you you can operate under that assumption, like that
Speaker 7: you can operate under that epistemological assumption that like that
Speaker 7: will not happen because it's mechanistically impossible. So like the
Speaker 7: like truth we're talking about here is like it like
Speaker 7: it's possible to happen in reality, Like so it's not possible.
Speaker 2: Rather, so are you saying that, I mean, if you
Speaker 2: think of like girdles in completeness theorem, if you think
Speaker 2: of like girdles in completeness theorem. One of the one
Speaker 2: of the implications of that is that in any kind
Speaker 2: of language that's used to describe reality, there are going
Speaker 2: to be truths that are cannot be determined to be true,
Speaker 2: And there will also be statements that are false even
Speaker 2: though they can be proven to be true using that language.
Speaker 2: And and I think the point there was that languages
Speaker 2: that we used to describe reality can be deficient when
Speaker 2: in fully characterizing that that reality. Is that what you're
Speaker 2: talking about.
Speaker 7: Well, I think what you just said that from from
Speaker 7: my understanding of what you just said, I think you
Speaker 7: said that, like language doesn't really have a built in
Speaker 7: mechanism to like establish some sort of like mechanistic a
Speaker 7: priori clarification of like possibility.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think, so, what's your endgame then here?
Speaker 2: If if that's kind of what you're saying, if there
Speaker 2: there is going to be some kind of disconnect between
Speaker 2: the language of truth and the actual values of truth,
Speaker 2: is so where does this lead you? I mean, what
Speaker 2: you're so, let's say, let's say that we kind of
Speaker 2: came to some kind of conclusion on that. Therefore, what so, like.
Speaker 7: I operate under the I don't like I grant freedom
Speaker 7: of religion, right, but I don't grant the possibility like
Speaker 7: I'm granting the person the freedom to operate, like like
Speaker 7: I'm not interfering with their right to operate under false pretensions,
Speaker 7: but I'm like not opening it up for a possibility
Speaker 7: that it's possible to like resurrect by yourself in some
Speaker 7: cave when you're clinically dead for three days and you
Speaker 7: already started rotting like it's not you, it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 7: So like I'm going to operate under the assumption that
Speaker 7: that like my government doesn't like doesn't recognize that as
Speaker 7: mechanistically possible or like a viable Uh.
Speaker 1: Like I'm when I'm boiling it all down, Nick, I'm
Speaker 1: hearing that like fake things are fake and real things
Speaker 1: are real. I want to let you know I'm on
Speaker 1: board with going on this journey with you. I Am
Speaker 1: down to do the syllogisms and to throw out all
Speaker 1: of the big philosophy words and we can talk about
Speaker 1: consequentialism and morality and epistemology and some of these terms
Speaker 1: that you're throwing our way. But I'm I don't know
Speaker 1: that you're putting them together in a way that makes
Speaker 1: any organized sense. I don't want my failure to understand
Speaker 1: and what you're saying to be a form of dismissing
Speaker 1: everything that you're saying. But we've been after this for
Speaker 1: a good few minutes, and I got to tell you,
Speaker 1: I think Scott and I are both really scratching our head.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of our audience is scratching their head.
Speaker 1: And i'd really invite you to take what it is
Speaker 1: that you are attempting to say and see if you
Speaker 1: can't explain it to a five year old, and see
Speaker 1: if you can't break it down a little bit further
Speaker 1: to make sure that you're clear on what it is
Speaker 1: you're trying to say. I'm sorry if any of that
Speaker 1: feels disrespectful or defaming, but I think that your thesis
Speaker 1: here needs is a little bit undercooked. Is that okay?
Speaker 7: I mean I don't know if it's fully undercooked, but
Speaker 7: I get what you're saying. My whole thing is that
Speaker 7: there's like like if we're going to ground like conversation
Speaker 7: in or anything you know, society Collin shows, town Hall
Speaker 7: like podcasts or you know, like even comedy or like
Speaker 7: you know, Congress or Costco or wherever you're.
Speaker 1: At, communication is what you're getting at, like everything that
Speaker 1: you're describing. We were saying, if we're going to ground
Speaker 1: our communication in something that something should be.
Speaker 7: What, Well, it's not really like communication. It's more like
Speaker 7: the social contract itself.
Speaker 1: Right, like as some kind of culture society Like.
Speaker 7: We we yeah, like that, Like that's kind of like
Speaker 7: the tying thread to anything, including communication. But it's just
Speaker 7: like that's kind of like where I'm at with how
Speaker 7: religion like affects my outward position into like you know,
Speaker 7: the like because every no one from my day to
Speaker 7: day experience. People aren't like walking around like reciting their
Speaker 7: epistemology or you know, they're like what their reality is
Speaker 7: grounded on. But I kind of like expect that my
Speaker 7: government doesn't really operate in that loose sense and that
Speaker 7: like it's doing it like it's having some sort of
Speaker 7: due diligence in not really like going back and reconsidering
Speaker 7: things that have already been like mechanistically discounted. Does that
Speaker 7: make sense?
Speaker 1: So like saying data driven government is something that I
Speaker 1: think we can all sort of co sign. That is
Speaker 1: certainly a world that I aspire to, even if as
Speaker 1: I've become increasingly frustrated about our capacity to provide for
Speaker 1: that right now. But beyond that, Nick, I don't know
Speaker 1: that we're getting any closer to a mutual understanding. And
Speaker 1: I'd love to invite you to spend some time with
Speaker 1: these ideas, maybe bounce them back and forth with CHATCHYBT
Speaker 1: until you feel like you have something that's a little
Speaker 1: bit more clean and ready to present, and when you're ready,
Speaker 1: give us a call back. Bring your a game, as
Speaker 1: we like to say, because i'd love to bet understand
Speaker 1: what it is that you're talking about. But now, over
Speaker 1: ten minutes into it, I'm even more less certain I
Speaker 1: understand what you're saying than I did when we very
Speaker 1: first began, So respectfully, please work on it a little bit,
Speaker 1: give us another try, and we'd love to better understand
Speaker 1: what it is you're looking to express.
Speaker 7: So well, Okay, last time, question? Is there like is
Speaker 7: there a way like do you think it's appropriate for
Speaker 7: a government to take like positions and active actively or
Speaker 7: active like our counter to religious beliefs like?
Speaker 1: So, I mean appropriate is a very complicated term that
Speaker 1: covers all manner of sins. You know, if you are
Speaker 1: existing under a religious law, then is it appropriate for
Speaker 1: the government to support religious ideas? I guess does it
Speaker 1: make it beneficial, does it make it useful, does it
Speaker 1: make it desirable? Absolutely not. I do wish that our government,
Speaker 1: in particular here in Texas, here in the United States,
Speaker 1: was more data driven, was less interested in tradition, was
Speaker 1: less interested in the religion that we don't necessarily officially endorse,
Speaker 1: but increasingly we're pretty comfortable with endorsing it. All of
Speaker 1: that is very concerning to me. But I don't really
Speaker 1: know how to answer your question any further than that,
Speaker 1: And I think, unfortunately we're gonna need to leave it
Speaker 1: there so that we can open up the calls to
Speaker 1: or the lines of some other calls.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, I mean yeah, I feel you like when
Speaker 7: we bring it to like government and context, it's like
Speaker 7: democracy seems to be able to it seems to change
Speaker 7: what it thinks it can vote on with respect to
Speaker 7: other people's rights. So it's just like it's always putting
Speaker 7: itself in danger and peril because it's like, uh, like
Speaker 7: there's powers that want to make less freedom or democracy
Speaker 7: or whatever. Whatever.
Speaker 2: Well, Nick, maybe we can leave maybe we can leave
Speaker 2: you with this idea here.
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 2: It's clear that you're struggling to clarify and explain something
Speaker 2: that you think that you feel is important in your mind.
Speaker 2: And in a way, I'm envious of you because you
Speaker 2: have a wonderful puzzle in front of you to kind
Speaker 2: of uh put together. I would recommend Christie's advice and
Speaker 2: think of it. Try to explain it like you were
Speaker 2: explaining it to a five year old. You know, teachers
Speaker 2: say the best way to learn something is to try
Speaker 2: to teach it, and it really focuses forces you to
Speaker 2: look at something in a particular way. What's important, What
Speaker 2: are the connections and relationships that are important, What are
Speaker 2: the facts and the quantities that are important, and that
Speaker 2: kind of thing. And so I think if you did
Speaker 2: something like that, try to try to break down what
Speaker 2: you're trying to say as if you were talking to
Speaker 2: a five year old, and then and then from there
Speaker 2: you can become you can add sophistication and nuance and
Speaker 2: that kind of thing, and then and then build it
Speaker 2: up to something a little bit stronger. But yeah, I
Speaker 2: was I was having difficulty following you there. And it's
Speaker 2: not necessarily your fault. It's it's, uh, this is a
Speaker 2: great example here. Clearly you have a passion about this
Speaker 2: subject and you're struggling with the logic of it, and
Speaker 2: so you need to find that appropriate balance. And so
Speaker 2: I wish you luck with that, and I look forward
Speaker 2: to talking to you at a future time if and
Speaker 2: when you were able to kind of solidify it a
Speaker 2: little bit more and come up with something a little
Speaker 2: bit more concrete.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I definitely do hope to hear from Nick again,
Speaker 1: because I think he was pressing on some pretty interesting
Speaker 1: sociological big topics. But what those topics were I couldn't
Speaker 1: really say. I won't say it, but there was somebody
Speaker 1: in the chat who compared it to vog on poetry,
Speaker 1: and I thought that that was just brilliant. So thank
Speaker 1: you for that. And before we move on move back
Speaker 1: to the calls, I did want to take a quick
Speaker 1: moment to thank our top five patrons. Each week we
Speaker 1: do like to recognize five of the people, six of
Speaker 1: the people really who contribute to the ACA at tiny dot,
Speaker 1: cc slash, Patreon, thch you can be one of these
Speaker 1: wonderful folks, But for this week, I do want to
Speaker 1: recognize and our top spot oops all Singularity number two
Speaker 1: Dingleberry Jackson, three co Levi Helvetti, number four Ja Caltoon
Speaker 1: and number five Moldrid d Malcontent. Seeing a little bit
Speaker 1: of movement in those bottom spots, which is always exciting
Speaker 1: at a competition. Yeah, right, and then our honorable mention
Speaker 1: this week in the number six spot is Joseph Schmidt.
Speaker 1: So thank you all very much for all of your support,
Speaker 1: and we invite everybody watching to support us there or
Speaker 1: through a super chat, or really to just support by
Speaker 1: joining the community, by you know, going to Atheist hyphencommunity
Speaker 1: dot org, looking into membership, being up to date on
Speaker 1: what's going on in the organization. We really do hope
Speaker 1: that people will take this beyond the shows, beyond being
Speaker 1: a passive viewer and subscriber on YouTube, as much as
Speaker 1: we do appreciate all of your likes and subscribes. Okay,
Speaker 1: and actually, you know, we have had so much trouble
Speaker 1: with the phone lines today, it looks like we are
Speaker 1: getting that pieced back together. I hope that we're able
Speaker 1: to speak to some of the folks that I know
Speaker 1: we're waiting on the lines. Yeah, Scott, do you as
Speaker 1: a teacher, As a teacher who studies mathematics and abstract concepts.
Speaker 1: What can you offer folks like Nick who are maybe
Speaker 1: just not able to take these big ideas and put
Speaker 1: them out into the world in like clear and easy
Speaker 1: to understand language.
Speaker 2: Well, I think what he did today was an excellent
Speaker 2: first step, I mean trying to It's one thing to
Speaker 2: have a concept in your mind and struggle to understand it.
Speaker 2: But if if you can't, I mean, like the old saying,
Speaker 2: oh is if you can't explain it to somebody like
Speaker 2: their a five year old, then you don't really have
Speaker 2: a good grasp on it. And that's not true, literally true.
Speaker 2: I mean you can have a good grasp on it
Speaker 2: and still struggle to find the communication and find the
Speaker 2: way of explaining it. But going through that process of
Speaker 2: talking to somebody, of getting feedback from that person, he
Speaker 2: got some feedback from us. Even if that feedback amounted
Speaker 2: to mostly we're not really sure what you're talking about,
Speaker 2: I mean, that kind of tells him that the way
Speaker 2: he's describing this concept that he's thinking, there's it's a
Speaker 2: little bit lacking. And we know that our language kind
Speaker 2: of informs about our thinking process, and so by listening
Speaker 2: to the I would encourage him to go back and
Speaker 2: listen to the way he described it. He might be
Speaker 2: able to spot way different ways that he could describe
Speaker 2: it better. But I think the key to wrestling with
Speaker 2: those kind of things is really just breaking it down.
Speaker 2: I mean that, you know, if you want to teach something,
Speaker 2: you need to understand what the important points are. You
Speaker 2: need to understand how they relate to each other. You
Speaker 2: need to understand how those points relate to maybe what
Speaker 2: we were talking about yesterday, and how they are going
Speaker 2: to relate to what we're going to talk about tomorrow
Speaker 2: and that kind of thing. And so it's just really
Speaker 2: just having some kind of process where you break it down.
Speaker 2: And I think the best way to do that is
Speaker 2: to talk to other people. And so, you know, talk
Speaker 2: to people like us. Talk to people that might be
Speaker 2: more inclined to maybe accept what you're saying, or maybe
Speaker 2: even that agree with what you're saying. Or maybe you'll
Speaker 2: hear somebody say something that you think, oh, yeah, that's
Speaker 2: kind of like what I was talking about. Talk to them,
Speaker 2: tell them what Maybe they you know, maybe they can
Speaker 2: make a connection with your concepts a little bit easier.
Speaker 2: But you'll get that feedback from them, and so seeing
Speaker 2: the feedback of other people can really enlighten you know,
Speaker 2: your own opinion of your of that concept yourself. And
Speaker 2: we can even see that in our discussion with Tucker earlier.
Speaker 2: Tucker was talking about, you know, having a belief and
Speaker 2: having that belief being criticized, maybe even unfairly criticized by
Speaker 2: other people, and so you can learn from that as well.
Speaker 2: It's not just a well, I'm not going to listen
Speaker 2: to you kind of thing, but you can find out, well,
Speaker 2: why are you being critical? Why do you think that's
Speaker 2: a fair criticism, or maybe asking yourself, why am I
Speaker 2: being defensive? Or why why am I Why am I
Speaker 2: feeling that I'm being attacked here? Is it because of
Speaker 2: I am actually being attacked or is it because I'm
Speaker 2: being defensive of my own beliefs? And so it's a
Speaker 2: it's a very it's a very challenging labyrinth to uh
Speaker 2: to navigate, but it it is navigable if you have
Speaker 2: that passion and that that motivation to move forward and
Speaker 2: you have those basic tools of application that can that
Speaker 2: can get you through that made so it's uh, you know,
Speaker 2: that was a big question that you were asking, and
Speaker 2: so you know it's it's the way that we each
Speaker 2: approach it I think can be very valuable.
Speaker 1: But I think the.
Speaker 2: Key step, though, is to just talk about it. Just
Speaker 2: talk to other people, talk to yourself about it. I
Speaker 2: mean that if I had a thought like that in
Speaker 2: my head and I didn't have anything else going on,
Speaker 2: I could see myself just sitting there and just thinking
Speaker 2: about it for and and and you.
Speaker 1: Need to bring it out into the real world.
Speaker 2: Exactly, exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Something else I want to circle here is that
Speaker 1: you know, you and I are not afraid of using
Speaker 1: the big words, like we can shorthand things by not
Speaker 1: having to explain every single concept and just sort of
Speaker 1: drop in epistemology or consequentialism or some of the other
Speaker 1: things that that I'm sorry Nick was hitting on, but
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot to be said about scaffolding.
Speaker 1: Like when I was at university, I found that, in
Speaker 1: particular in the fields of mathematics, I would have professors
Speaker 1: that I'm relatively certain were pretty brilliant, that we're like
Speaker 1: doing advanced research and that we're very well respected in
Speaker 1: their fields, who couldn't teach for shit, whose classes were
Speaker 1: just like an absolute drudgery because they didn't have that
Speaker 1: capacity to offer that intellectual scaffolding to make it accessible
Speaker 1: to others, which is not for nothing why I'm so
Speaker 1: blown away by folks like Forrest Valkei, who can be
Speaker 1: just absolutely brilliant and able to explain it to a
Speaker 1: five year old without missing a beat. So, if you
Speaker 1: are holding one of these like challenging, difficult to wrap
Speaker 1: your hands around philosophical concepts in your head and you
Speaker 1: want to give us a call about it, don't be
Speaker 1: frightened to use those big words, but make sure that
Speaker 1: you are able to distill it down for a broad
Speaker 1: and general audience. And you know, the hosts on these shows,
Speaker 1: we're ready to go on those journeys with you, but
Speaker 1: we all have our own skill sets, we all have
Speaker 1: our own backgrounds, and if the two of us have
Speaker 1: no concept of what we're even discussing, it's unlikely that
Speaker 1: the audience is able to really get much out of
Speaker 1: it either. Is that all fair to say? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Definitely, And in addition to that, I would add that,
Speaker 2: go and look back at your own discussion. You know,
Speaker 2: if you can identify the place, if you feel like
Speaker 2: we were kind of with you for a second and
Speaker 2: then we got lost at one point. That's a that's
Speaker 2: a big red flag there, you know what was just
Speaker 2: said that caused that rift. And so by looking back
Speaker 2: at the interaction, look at the kind of questions that
Speaker 2: are being asked, look at the at the kind of uh,
Speaker 2: you know, facial expressions and that kind of thing that
Speaker 2: that you're getting. And so by looking back at your conversation,
Speaker 2: not only can you learn, oh, here's where I did
Speaker 2: really well, here's where I didn't do really well, but
Speaker 2: you can also see things that you might not have
Speaker 2: noticed during the course of the conversation. And so I
Speaker 2: think that self reflection, I think is an excellent starting point.
Speaker 2: And I think that uh, you know, that's really the
Speaker 2: first step into having that deep understanding. If you want
Speaker 2: to get to that point where you understand something well
Speaker 2: enough that you can explain it to a five year old,
Speaker 2: you have to talk to a few five year olds.
Speaker 2: You have to understand how a five year old thinks.
Speaker 2: You have to understand the presuppositions they're bringing in, and
Speaker 2: so on and so forth, and so that's I mean,
Speaker 2: I guess that's kind of the theme of the show today,
Speaker 2: right how we can integrate those that logical thinking with
Speaker 2: that emotional component, you know, talking to a human being
Speaker 2: trying to convey that concept is to get from inside
Speaker 2: of my mind into my student's mind. I mean, that's
Speaker 2: really the challenging, the difficult part to navigate, right, That's
Speaker 2: that chasm that we're trying to cross. And if you can,
Speaker 2: if you can do that, if you take those steps
Speaker 2: by talking to people that disagree with you, and also
Speaker 2: by talking to people that agree with you, by talking
Speaker 2: to people that don't know about what you're talking about,
Speaker 2: and by talking to people that do know what you're
Speaker 2: talking about, you can get you can incorporate all that
Speaker 2: kind of feedback and you know, if you internalize it
Speaker 2: and think about it and digest it, and then maybe
Speaker 2: next time what comes out will be a little bit
Speaker 2: more clear and a little bit more understanding sure or understandable.
Speaker 1: I should say, yeah, well, so before I let you
Speaker 1: out the door, I did want to ask, just as
Speaker 1: we are talking about, you know, awe and grief and transcendence,
Speaker 1: and he's very like, send some mental sort of words
Speaker 1: or earlier in the show, Tucker used the words spiritual,
Speaker 1: which we never quite defined, but that I like to
Speaker 1: kind of kick around as a interesting if challenging concept.
Speaker 1: In any case, whenever we're talking about awe, grief, transcendence,
Speaker 1: these types of things in secular spaces, is there pressure
Speaker 1: to you know, kind of qualify it or to bring
Speaker 1: it down and take some of the majesty out of it,
Speaker 1: to find rationality in all of it, or are we
Speaker 1: allowed to, I guess, to use those words and to
Speaker 1: explore that those bigger feelings.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, I think there there would have to
Speaker 2: be room for that kind of thing. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: a math teacher. Yeah, but I'm a human being as well.
Speaker 2: You know, I have very deep emotions I have. I
Speaker 2: am in awe of certain things. I experience grief, I
Speaker 2: experience elation, you know, I have the full spectral spectrum
Speaker 2: of emotions. But I think that in some way, I
Speaker 2: think that there is pressure to maybe not address those
Speaker 2: kind of things.
Speaker 1: But I think in other in.
Speaker 2: Very real other ways, there's also pressure to, you know,
Speaker 2: to incorporate that and to work that into your thought
Speaker 2: process and your communication process and so on.
Speaker 1: So we don't have to qualify or flinch away from
Speaker 1: exactly discussing some of these big picture things. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Right, And if you really want to be effective in communicating,
Speaker 2: which I think Christy, that's sorry to fanboy a little bit,
Speaker 2: but I think that's something that you do exceptionally well
Speaker 2: is actually make a connection with the with the caller.
Speaker 2: And if you want to do that, if you want
Speaker 2: to actually have a productive conversation, if you are really
Speaker 2: in search of the truth, then having that connection with
Speaker 2: another human being is really a key part of that
Speaker 2: step in my opinion.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, So, finally, in this debate, not debate about
Speaker 1: you know, logic versus sentimentality or all of this, I
Speaker 1: want to ask, if we are in the process of
Speaker 1: reconstructing a worldview after religion, how do we avoid just
Speaker 1: building another system that privileges certain ways of knowing? Or
Speaker 1: are we meant to do that? Is it important that
Speaker 1: we know things through particular means and not others?
Speaker 2: I think, well, in some ways where it's kind of
Speaker 2: inevitable that we're gonna do that way. Again, referencing Kinneman's
Speaker 2: book Thinking Fast and Slow, it's difficult to think slowly.
Speaker 1: It's difficult.
Speaker 2: There are some ways of thinking that are difficult, and
Speaker 2: as a math teacher, much of my duty is to
Speaker 2: help students embrace that difficult and show them that it's
Speaker 2: worth it, it's worthwhile to do that kind of thing.
Speaker 2: And if you can do that, if you can show
Speaker 2: that it's worthwhile to do that, to pursue that kind
Speaker 2: of challenging, difficult way of thinking, then you're you're in
Speaker 2: a way, you're co opting the quick way of thinking.
Speaker 2: You're saying, here's something that's valuable, go for it, go
Speaker 2: after that, And so that kind of gets that motivation
Speaker 2: going there. So I think if we were to rebuild society,
Speaker 2: I think it would be one of the keys. And
Speaker 2: of course, obviously this is just my opinion, but I
Speaker 2: think one of the keys would be to incorporate that
Speaker 2: kind of thinking. Incorporate we've been talking about balance, I think,
Speaker 2: recognizing that that kind of balance is needed, recognizing that
Speaker 2: the benefits of that kind of balance. Right, if you
Speaker 2: if you, as Nick found out, if you have difficulty
Speaker 2: communicating your ideas, it's difficult to get the logical kind
Speaker 2: of feedback that might help you break down the logic
Speaker 2: of your own thinking. And so, and especially since our
Speaker 2: own brains kind of think work along those lines too,
Speaker 2: are our original thinking processes were based off of our speaking,
Speaker 2: you know, the ways that we communicate. It started out
Speaker 2: as communication to yourself kind of thing, and so I
Speaker 2: think it's vital and critical to incorporate that kind of balance,
Speaker 2: and it would be it's going to be difficult to
Speaker 2: do that. If we ever get an opportunity to do
Speaker 2: something like that, it's going to be hard, and I
Speaker 2: think we need to embrace the difficulty and just understand
Speaker 2: that it's a worthwhile effort.
Speaker 1: Heard. Yeah, Well, so let's bring Jamie back into this
Speaker 1: conversation and get his take on some of these ideas
Speaker 1: and then help remind us about the question of the week, Jamie,
Speaker 1: how'd you like the show with all the technical difficulties
Speaker 1: and big confusing words.
Speaker 3: Well, I would say, despite being a hideous flesh golm
Speaker 3: that was birth from the birthing pools in the Black Country,
Speaker 3: the first has kept a session and an atheist third.
Speaker 3: So talking in that framework, talking about Tucker's call, I'd
Speaker 3: like to, you know, acknowledge and validate that having your
Speaker 3: ideas and beliefs criticized can be paid for. Because we
Speaker 3: don't choose to believe something, we just believe it or
Speaker 3: we don't. You can't choose not to believe something you
Speaker 3: have to convince away from it to it. And I
Speaker 3: believes form part of our personality, our core. So who
Speaker 3: you what you believe is sort of who you are,
Speaker 3: So it is very easy to feel attack. And I
Speaker 3: will also acknowledge that some members of the sort of
Speaker 3: skeptic community can be very sharp with their words, were
Speaker 3: known for it, and in certain circumstances I think you
Speaker 3: touched on this. We are encouraged to be sharp because
Speaker 3: it's entertaining, be sharite, sure to watch someone get a
Speaker 3: verbal drubbing. But then to come to the skeptic part.
Speaker 3: My view on belief and epistemology and things like that,
Speaker 3: the reasons to believe is that there's no safe minimum
Speaker 3: dose of bullshit. There's no safe dose of irrationality. I
Speaker 3: treat irrationality the same way I treat alcohol or drugs,
Speaker 3: in that I've indulged myself. There are eyehold certain irrational beliefs,
Speaker 3: but I understand their irrational and accept them, and therefore
Speaker 3: understand that if anyone critic sizes them and exposes the
Speaker 3: logical flaws in them, I'm believing in them knowing and
Speaker 3: much like though like those substances that can be comforting
Speaker 3: and can be can be fun, and can be you know,
Speaker 3: something to turn to in times of stress. They are
Speaker 3: inherently dangerous and damaging. I don't think irrational thought has
Speaker 3: While it has its emotional positives, it is intellectually damaging
Speaker 3: and I will pin myself to that. So, yes, if
Speaker 3: someone was rude and crass and callous to you, it's
Speaker 3: valid to feel bad. But you have to understand that
Speaker 3: the type of thought processes that allow someone to believe
Speaker 3: in psychics or ghosts or something, the same thought processes
Speaker 3: that lead people to be anti vacs or like flat
Speaker 3: earthers or moon landing denials or whatever. You know, ridiculousnesses
Speaker 3: that can cause real, true harm. So as that. As
Speaker 3: for Nick, we always say attack ideas, not people. That
Speaker 3: was very difficult to do because I had no idea
Speaker 3: what he was talking, Yeah, punching smoke. So I'm hoping
Speaker 3: that Nick calls back. I would like to have a
Speaker 3: conversation with him, but I'm hoping that he does poll
Speaker 3: your advice and give his conversation and orchiect to me,
Speaker 3: as in, remove the bollocks please. And it may sound
Speaker 3: rich as whipping cream from someone that looks and sounds
Speaker 3: like me. But sounding smart is not being smart, and
Speaker 3: it is better to be smarter than you sound than
Speaker 3: sound smarter than you are.
Speaker 2: Oh that's deep words again, Eli five, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: Oh And a reminder, since I didn't do it last time,
Speaker 3: but I'm going to do it this time that the
Speaker 3: question of the week is Jesus Mohammed and josh Or
Speaker 3: Smith Joseph Smith. Sorry, what a Mormon dude walk into
Speaker 3: a bar? I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1: No, thank you, thank you for coming out and for
Speaker 1: walking us through some of this. I am sort of
Speaker 1: fascinated by that question of is there some amount of
Speaker 1: irrationality that is good? Is all bullshit inevitably poison I mean,
Speaker 1: alcohol is poisoned. But I think there's at least some
Speaker 1: sociological evidence that cultures that have the ability to interfere
Speaker 1: with consciousness gain some benefit from it. Does that mean
Speaker 1: that we should all be allowed to have a little
Speaker 1: bit of delusion as a treat I don't know what
Speaker 1: to do with any of it, but I really appreciate
Speaker 1: the opportunity to kind of talk through some of these
Speaker 1: ideas with y'all. Who are y'all sending loverings out to?
Speaker 1: Before we head out.
Speaker 3: For today the millions of people around the country who
Speaker 3: did a wonderful thing yesterday, and I'll say no more
Speaker 3: than sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we appreciate everybody who is contributing to our democracy,
Speaker 1: who is aware of the needs of the many right
Speaker 1: now and being a part of the good Scott anybody
Speaker 1: for you.
Speaker 2: I would like to send out loverings to Fried Jemmy,
Speaker 2: who gave us a superchat. Fried Jemmy, I think there's
Speaker 2: a story behind that name. I'd love to hear that sometimes.
Speaker 2: But the superchat was for five dollars, Fried Jemmy said,
Speaker 2: Jeremiah here. Sorry I wasn't able to wait online to
Speaker 2: talk with the host today. I had an unexpected company
Speaker 2: arrived right before my turn came up. Well, we're sorry
Speaker 2: we missed you too, Jeremiah, but maybe next time.
Speaker 1: Glad to know I wasn't just stood up right exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I want to send loverings out to everybody who endured
Speaker 1: with us through some technical issues, but mostly for just
Speaker 1: being a part of our community, for being here and
Speaker 1: participating in these conversations, and for recognizing that, you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's a lot or a little of delusion that
Speaker 1: having religion in our government and in our schools and
Speaker 1: in our decision making, in our relationships can be incredibly
Speaker 1: damaging and working to be a part of the solution
Speaker 1: on those issues. So we love you very much. We
Speaker 1: send out our rings. We appreciate you for being here.
Speaker 1: Happy Father's Day. And to anybody still watching, if you
Speaker 1: don't believe, this is your community and we appreciate you
Speaker 1: being here. And if you do believe, we definitely don't
Speaker 1: hate you. We're just just not convinced. We want the truth.
Speaker 1: So watch Truth Wanted live Fridays at seven pm Central
Speaker 1: Call five one two nine nine nine two four two
Speaker 1: or visit tiny dot cc forward slash call tw