Freedomain Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern are coming to Australia in July 2018 with events in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane. Tickets are available now: https://axiomatic.eventsQuestion 1: [2:47] – “I'm a 27-year-old former banker/trader who has returned recently to University to undertake a PhD. I've been shocked at the change I have seen in only the last 5 or so years since I graduated, and it has made me seriously question the direction of the UK university system. Debate now is entirely group and identity based, even in debate hustings facts are secondary and arguments are subject entirely to identity politics. I recently attended my first ever competition at the ripe old age of 27 and had (what I believed to be uncontroversial arguments based on fact) cast as colonialist and borderline white supremacist. My question for Stefan is how do I navigate this new post-fact campus; I need to survive here for another 4 years do I just grit my teeth and pretend I see nothing?”Question 2: [44:33] – “I was raised Christian and I have faith that God exists (even though using that word is wrong). I've listened to as many conversations about God you've had as I can find, as well as reading your books on the subject. I fervently seek the truth and pride myself in putting logic and reason first. This puts me into a state of inner conflict pertaining to my faith. I honestly do think it is possible that because I was raised believing in God, I am unable to let go of a belief that has shaped so much of my life. Yet, even though I will admit that as a possibility, I do not think that is what it is, or at least not all of it. That leads me to a question I want to ask you. You’ve said that if one makes the argument that God doesn’t need to be created, that you can then say the same thing about the universe. Also, you say that complexity has to be proceeded by lesser complexity. Do you see any conflict between these two thoughts? From the understanding I have of science, the universe can't be infinite. I think a critical analysis of our universe puts you face to face with having to contend with that which isn't empirical and that which doesn't conform with our understanding of science and reality. Or is this a sort of confirmation bias observation of reality, a sort of "God of the gaps" argument that I've come up with? I'm interested to discuss this with you and to hear your thoughts.”Question 3: [1:35:51] – “I'm writing in because of a recent podcast I listened to involving changes to the story of the Florida School Shooting. Stefan discussed some topics I'm intimately familiar with due to my profession. I am a special education teacher working in an alternative program for students who've been expelled from their regular schools. I'm certain that my school is very similar to the one Nikolas attended for a short time before his shooting rampage. I would like to share some of the outrageous things I've seen happening in public education and the special education world as a whole. There are a lot of cases very similar to Nikolas Cruz and I think many of these, students are ticking time bombs and it's only a matter of time before we see more instances of mass violence. Due to federal laws, students can basically get away with anything. We've had students attack teachers, bring knives and even guns to school, sell drugs on school property, and much more. They have little to no lasting consequences. This is especially true if they have an Individual Education Plan. It's only a matter of time before another case like Nikolas Cruz happens again.”Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate Listen to the Podcast
Kohlrak Posted May 30, 2018 Posted May 30, 2018 1 hour ago, MMD said: Question 2: [44:33] – “I was raised Christian and I have faith that God exists (even though using that word is wrong). I've listened to as many conversations about God you've had as I can find, as well as reading your books on the subject. I fervently seek the truth and pride myself in putting logic and reason first. This puts me into a state of inner conflict pertaining to my faith. I honestly do think it is possible that because I was raised believing in God, I am unable to let go of a belief that has shaped so much of my life. Yet, even though I will admit that as a possibility, I do not think that is what it is, or at least not all of it. That leads me to a question I want to ask you. You’ve said that if one makes the argument that God doesn’t need to be created, that you can then say the same thing about the universe. Also, you say that complexity has to be proceeded by lesser complexity. Do you see any conflict between these two thoughts? From the understanding I have of science, the universe can't be infinite. I think a critical analysis of our universe puts you face to face with having to contend with that which isn't empirical and that which doesn't conform with our understanding of science and reality. Or is this a sort of confirmation bias observation of reality, a sort of "God of the gaps" argument that I've come up with? I'm interested to discuss this with you and to hear your thoughts.” I think the real question for this caller is to separate the questions. I'm not too different from him, myself, but I've had experiences that I cannot explain, most of which I couldn't even retell to the same degree that they happened. And i think the ultimate dividing line between people like the man and him (and I with him) is that once you've made up your mind, without compelling arguments, there's no reason to change. I don't find this quantum-physics-coupled-with-occam's-razor argument very compelling or convincing. I can sit here and argue against it all day with all sorts of rationality. The problem with infinite regression is that it can be argued that we don't exist, thus we must accept that since we do exist, that we're missing something. This may or may not tackle the complexity from lesser complexity argument, but i'll let that up to people smarter than I. This also doesn't really provide an argument for or against God, but we have to accept that we are indeed here. Omniscience and omnipotence relies on time's existence, which we really cannot verify, at least not to have the properties that we say it does. There really needs to be asked the question of what can be realistically included with the definition of omniscience. But who am i to judge when the caller also makes quantum physics argument? I think this is a bigger issue, because, as the man says, we can't really empirically verify quantum physics, 'cause we don't have the fancy atom smasher, and have to trust them with blind faith that they not only know what they're saying, but that there isn't an ulterior motive (remember, they take funds from commies who benefit from the removal of the obstacle of God). But i do appreciate UPB. As i said, it assists "our side" as well: many people try to use atheism to escape the "tyranny" of God's advice (or rules, depending on perspective and belief in punishments). The point of Christians abandoning everything to preserve God, from the God believing point of view, is important. If God does not exist, that's our weakness, but if He does, well, what should we really be working on (a real question, as we have to evaluate what would have an effect on getting the most believers: by promoting UPB-type arguments so they have no reason to run, or to show that God really does exist despite being the vile oppressor that the Marxists so love to attack). As for the man's message to Christians, i think the man's right, for the most part. I would argue that it's still important to show that we're not irrational, otherwise we're hypocrites if we're promoting morality from a God perspective if God doesn't exist. It's like trying to run from some bear without the legs. It's not necessarily that God is incompatible with philosophy, so much as God cannot be proven by philosophy. It's hard to make friends with atheists on common ground when both sides are too busy poking each other with a stick. Like 2 kids who agree to disagree, but both of them want the last word before they move on. The argument that we should argue from a secular ethics standpoint and abandon the rationalization of God is, basically, "shut up and join us and our clan and support everything we want while avoiding your own needs." Sure, it's not an argument, but you won't get as many people rallying behind your arguments with that attitude. You shall know them by their fruits (and yes, I understand how this turns on us as well, in the current context). But the man's right, we need to abandon trying to fight this on the philosophical front, and that means the man, too. These marxists have a philosophy, so we shouldn't rely on philosophy to protect universality.
Recommended Posts