Jay Dyer vs Ryan Dawson Debate: Theism vs Anti-Theism, Christianity vs Nihilism, Relativism, Atheism

0:00AndrewAnd we're back.

0:02AndrewDown our upper left, we have Jay Dyer, and on our right well, actually, we're gonna switch positions because of their positions. So we'll do this in reverse.

0:10AndrewRyan Dawson, go ahead and shout yourself out. Tell everybody where they can find you.

0:15Ryan DawsonJust

0:16Ryan Dawsonmy website, ancreport.com.

0:18Ryan DawsonI'm basically banned on everything.

0:20Ryan DawsonOh, I have Cozy too. I just joined them this week. Cozy TV slash Dawson.

0:26AndrewAwesome. Okay. And then, Jay Dyer, same to you. Shout yourself out, your channel out to everybody where they can find you.

0:32Jay DyerYeah. My channel is just Jay Dyer on YouTube, and then I'm on ROCOR fan as well as Jay Dyer. And then my website's Jay's analysis and then most of the other social media stuff.

0:42AndrewAlright. We appreciate that. Tonight's debate topic is theism versus anti theism. I'm gonna let Ryan open. The reason I am is because he had a couple of qualifiers he wanted to go over,

0:53Andrewas he was doing the debate, and he wanted to kinda briefly,

0:56Andrewtouch on those. And then, we'll move it right over to, to Jay for his opening. Go ahead, Ryan.

1:03Ryan DawsonWell, I'm also on Rockfin, but they froze my ability to cash out crypto, so I don't really post there anymore.

1:09Ryan DawsonBut yeah.

1:11Ryan DawsonYeah.

1:12Ryan DawsonI didn't like I don't like the framing of,

1:15Ryan Dawsontheism versus anti theism. I'm not against theology

1:19Ryan Dawsonat all. I still go to church once a week.

1:23Ryan DawsonAnd,

1:25Ryan Dawsonmy problem with

1:26Ryan Dawsonreligion is not the epistemological

1:29Ryan Dawsonclaims or metaphysics

1:30Ryan Dawsonor

1:31Ryan Dawsonmoral axioms. I mean, it depends on who's interpreting it, I guess, but it's more with the

1:37Ryan Dawsonpolitical and financial aspects that are obviously

1:41Ryan Dawsonpart of the business aspect of churches and mosques

1:44Ryan Dawsonthat are affecting our daily lives. That's where I have an issue, with Zionism.

1:51AndrewOkay. Appreciate that.

1:55AndrewI guess, Jay, go ahead with your open. We'll see where it goes from there, I guess.

2:00Jay DyerWell, I thought I mean, I'm not knocking Ryan or you or anybody. I I know I thought I came prepared for a philosophy debate. So, you know, my arguments were gonna be based around the types of worldviews

2:11Jay Dyerthat we

2:13Jay Dyersee in theism and then variations of atheism or nontheism or

2:18Jay Dyernaturalism, whatever they might be.

2:21Jay DyerAnd, I think that

2:22Jay Dyerin my perspective,

2:24Jay Dyerthe reason I'm a Christian, orthodox Christian, would be that I think that they have the best philosophical case for giving an account for ethics, for metaphysics, for epistemology.

2:34Jay DyerI think that the worldview as a whole provides an account for grounding

2:38Jay Dyerthe beliefs that we have in those three domains of philosophy, which in my view make up a worldview. So for example, if if we ask questions like,

2:46Jay Dyeris the universe

2:47Jay Dyerpurposeful or is it what's what we call in the philosophy, this teleological. Does it have an overriding design or purpose,

2:55Jay Dyeror is it purposeless?

2:56Jay DyerIf we phrase it in a disjunctive like that of an either or,

3:00Jay Dyerin my view, the, accidentalist

3:02Jay Dyerworldview or the this teleological

3:04Jay Dyerworldview

3:05Jay Dyerleads us to a world where we're not able to predicate.

3:08Jay DyerWe're not able to have meaningful statements. We're not able to make consistent and coherent arguments utilizing principles like

3:14Jay Dyerlogic and reasoning.

3:16Jay DyerIf we consider

3:18Jay Dyertypical atheist or naturalist arguments that that oftentimes I don't know about Ryan's position, but oftentimes they fall into determinism. They they fall into these positions where we don't have an account for the possibility of freedom.

3:29Jay DyerWe don't have an account for agency, free will, and thus moral responsibility.

3:33Jay DyerSo that's sometimes called the naturalist fallacy or the the determinist fallacy. I I would that's a typical critique that I would make of

3:39Jay Dyerof atheistic materialistic positions. I don't know exactly what Ryan's position is in that regard, but

3:45Jay DyerI would say that we could con we could put another disjunctive

3:48Jay Dyerout there like,

3:50Jay Dyeris the ultimate

3:52Jay Dyerprinciple in the universe personal or impersonal? And so in these disjunctives,

3:56Jay Dyereither way we go in these questions will determine

3:59Jay Dyera lot of what we believe in the rest of our worldview. So if there's a personal god behind the universe, then what what we get is a an account for

4:08Jay Dyerteleology,

4:08Jay Dyeran account for purpose, an account for these other things that I mentioned before that would don't leave us with an empty sort of

4:15Jay Dyernihilistic or

4:18Jay Dyermeaningless universe.

4:20Jay DyerI would say that a universe where I have a belief in a personal god does provide a way in which there's grounding for

4:28Jay Dyeruniversal

4:29Jay Dyermoral and ethical claims. So objective morality

4:33Jay Dyerexists in a worldview where there is a deity, where there is a personal god,

4:37Jay Dyerand thus the things that in philosophy we call preconditions

4:41Jay Dyeror transcendental categories such as belief in the external world, identity over time, the self,

4:48Jay Dyertime space relations,

4:49Jay Dyeruniversals,

4:50Jay Dyerlaws of logic,

4:52Jay Dyercausality,

4:53Jay DyerTilos, the principle of the one and the many. These are classic sort of philosophical questions and problems. In my view, those things which are prior to the possibility of knowledge, preconditions or transcendental categories,

5:04Jay Dyerthose things themselves, if we think about them as in a kind of a list or in in a in a ball, they make sense in a worldview,

5:12Jay Dyerin a paradigm

5:13Jay Dyerwhere you have creation,

5:15Jay Dyerprovidence,

5:16Jay Dyera personal god. They don't make sense in a world

5:19Jay Dyerwhere there is no telos. It's purely just teleological.

5:23Jay DyerEverything is determined. There's a pure chaos, chance, randomness is the overriding factor.

5:29Jay DyerWe wouldn't have a basis or a grounding for those preconditions.

5:33Jay DyerSo I always make the argument that

5:35Jay Dyerthe strongest place that I see for the existence of god is the transcendental argument in regard to these transcendental categories,

5:43Jay Dyerwhich are not themselves

5:45Jay Dyerreducible to our identical to

5:47Jay Dyerany physical thing. So the self

5:51Jay Dyercausality,

5:52Jay DyerTilos particularity

5:53Jay Dyerversus universality,

5:55Jay Dyerthis consciousness,

5:58Jay Dyerimmaterial

5:59Jay Dyerconcepts,

6:00Jay Dyeruniversals, laws of logic, mathematical objects, etcetera. None of these things are reducible to physicality,

6:06Jay Dyerphysicalism,

6:07Jay Dyeror matter itself. And so it in a universe where there are immaterial realities, where we do have a way to unify these transcendental categories, we have a being that does that in the Christian in the Christian worldview, particularly the orthodox view of Christianity.

6:22Jay DyerAnd all

6:23Jay DyerI and would say that the history of philosophy itself, we go through enlightenment up to today,

6:28Jay Dyerwe see a debate between various schools of rationalism and empiricism. And these debates that that center around a worldview

6:38Jay Dyerwhere there is no god, where we have autonomous reasoning without divine revelation.

6:42Jay DyerAnd when we do that, what we do is we put ourselves as human beings in a position where we can't actually do the thing we're trying to do. We see this, for example, with Descartes' project of trying to identify some self evident principle, which he basically says is his mind,

6:56Jay Dyerbut it becomes a self referential exercise of, again, predicating about things that he thinks are self evident, which aren't actually self evident. If we go the route of the skeptics and the empiricists like David Hume, we have the same problem of trying to find foundational principles that are self evident in the world,

7:12Jay Dyersuch as basic bitch empiricism, naive empiricism, which themselves are not justifiable.

7:17Jay DyerHow do we know that all knowledge comes through sense data? Right? That would be a proposition that is not itself found in sense data, but has to be assumed from the outset. So the debate, in my view, whether we're atheists of the, stripe of David Hume, skeptics of that

7:32Jay Dyerschool, or if for someone like Sam Harris or for somebody like, Richard Dawkins, all of those kinds of positions or versions of atheism would be susceptible to the kind of critique that I'm trying to give here,

7:44Jay Dyerwhich would apply basically to any version of naturalism

7:47Jay Dyeror even just skepticism.

7:49Jay DyerSo my argument then is that these transcendental categories, are necessary as preconditions for the possibility of any knowledge at all or any metaphysics at all or any ethics at all themselves are not reducible to physical things or physicalism.

8:03Jay DyerThey must be the case. And the only way to make sense of all of those things working together, interrelating with one another,

8:09Jay Dyerwould be in a paradigm where there is the kind of god that we argue for. Why would that be the case? Well, in the Christian paradigm,

8:15Jay Dyerman is made in the image of god, so he has the reasoning powers and faculties like god.

8:20Jay DyerThere is a masculine

8:21Jay Dyerdetermination where masculinity is has a premise,

8:25Jay Dyerespecially orthodoxy has retained that. So we find that you will never find an overturning of the notion of goddess worship or something like that. So it's a specific type of theism.

8:36Jay DyerIt's not a bare unitarian theism like we find in Judaism or Islam because there's an eternal relationship between the three persons, which provides a a basis for their being, energies, and attributes not contingent upon the created order. So god is both outside of time and space, but also within time and space. So in other words, it's a unique position. And because of attributes like divine providence, we have a basis for belief in the regularity of nature

8:58Jay Dyerin the notion which underlies basically the possibility of induction and science itself.

9:04Jay DyerCouldn't have science without some principle of induction and regularity.

9:08Jay DyerDivine providence makes sure that the future is like the past, so we have a solution to, like, David Hume's dilemmas of how do we know the future will be like the past, these kinds of skeptical, radical skeptical questions.

9:18Jay DyerWe have a basis for metaphysical principles and the distinction between the creator and the creature

9:23Jay Dyerthat that principles retain and stay the way that they are, that that being retains its status. The good is the good and will always be the good. Evil is always negation of the good. All of those things

9:36Jay Dyermaintain those identities and those those definitions

9:39Jay Dyerbecause of the structure that we have in Christian metaphysics. And lastly,

9:44Jay DyerChristianity provides a justification

9:46Jay Dyerfor how there is objective morals. It doesn't mean that Christians are always moral. It doesn't mean that

9:53Jay DyerChristian morality,

9:54Jay Dyeranswers every single ethical question ever or possible, but it does provide a basis for how there's objective morals given the fact that there is, an omnipotent deity who is omnibenevolent,

10:06Jay Dyeretcetera, etcetera. So

10:07Jay Dyermy argument would just simply be that that worldview, that paradigm

10:12Jay Dyergives an account for, makes sense of, and can justify the possibility of knowledge. And I don't think that any atheist positions can actually do that. And in fact,

10:21Jay Dyerthey actually undercut the possibility of knowledge whatsoever.

10:26AndrewThanks for the opening, Jay. The floor is open, guys, if you

10:30Andrewif you wanna go from there.

10:33Ryan DawsonDo you mean guys? Just me. Right?

10:34AndrewYeah. Well, I mean, the floor is open for for both of you for back and forth. Yeah.

10:40Ryan DawsonWell, they he said a lot, so I need to address a bunch of things.

10:46Ryan DawsonI think it's a non sequitur with

10:48Ryan Dawsontranscendental

10:51Ryan Dawsonarguments that,

10:53Ryan Dawsonlike, logic and ethics and things

10:55Ryan Dawsoncan't exist

10:57Ryan Dawsonbecause they're not physical in the sense of, like, baryonic matter. The concepts are in the mind,

11:03Ryan Dawsonthe brain. I don't know if think the mind is a brain or whatever, but it doesn't matter to me. Like, obviously,

11:10Ryan Dawsonpeople practiced

11:11Ryan Dawsonlogic and ethics

11:12Ryan Dawsonand had more accents and stuff before Christianity was invented.

11:17Ryan DawsonAnd I don't see the jump from the

11:20Ryan Dawsonargument for deism

11:22Ryan Dawsonto the very specific

11:24Ryan Dawsonreligion tied to religious texts like the Bible

11:28Ryan Dawsonof

11:29Ryan Dawsonwhatever form of Christianity,

11:31Ryan DawsonCatholic, Orthodox, Protestant, what have you,

11:34Ryan Dawsonwhich

11:35Ryan Dawsonis definitely a very important part of the faith,

11:38Ryan Dawsonwhich is very so different than, well, I don't think we can have a reasoning

11:44Ryan Dawsonunless

11:45Ryan Dawsonsome

11:46Ryan Dawsonall powerful thing creates it.

11:49Ryan DawsonThere is a problem with determinism.

11:52Ryan DawsonAnd, of course, the determinist,

11:55Ryan Dawsonif he wanted to be wanna split hairs on things, could just say, well, whatever they think was also determined. It's just I don't see any benefit

12:04Ryan Dawsonto that. And I don't see any,

12:07Ryan Dawsondifference in outcome

12:09Ryan Dawsonwhether or not I don't think it matters

12:12Ryan Dawsonwhether someone believes in this deity or not because they're still gonna practice logic and have ethics.

12:24Jay DyerWell, the first thing I would say is

12:27Jay Dyeryou said it's a non sequitur in regard to, like, con's arguments, and I would agree with that because I wasn't making con's argument. I mean, con has

12:35Jay Dyera kind of a transcendental argument, but he doesn't think that you can prove god's existence or know really any kind of clear proof.

12:43Jay DyerHe's more of a fideous.

12:44Jay DyerSo the transcendental argument that I was giving has the same form as Kant's argument, but it's not Kant's argument for god. So it's a distinct argument for an entire paradigm, which Kant would never do because Kant doesn't think you can actually know

12:55Jay Dyerwhat's going on outside of, you know, the phenomena as they present themselves, and he certainly doesn't think that you can really know what's going on in other people's minds. So Kant wouldn't make a metaphysical argument for Christianity or the kind of god that I was arguing for. Second, would say,

13:12Jay Dyerpeople doing logic and ethics prior to the emergence of Christianity really doesn't have anything to do with whether the doing of the ethics and logic makes sense or can be justified. So questions of justification are separate from

13:26Jay Dyerthe benefits or the,

13:28Jay Dyernonbenefit that they offer.

13:31Ryan DawsonI agree. But, like, why if if the results is the same, why does it matter is what I'm saying?

13:37Jay DyerWell, because just justification for our beliefs is a a very precise type of question, and it's asking for reasons why we think that is the case, reasons why we think logic works. So it's kind of a metallurgical question or a meta ethical question. So to just say that people did it or it worked for them doesn't answer the question that justification is after.

13:59Ryan DawsonI don't see the justification either. I I'm not saying you're just like Kant, but he did have his synthetic knowledge

14:05Ryan Dawsonfor

14:06Ryan Dawsonhis response to Hume's

14:08Ryan Dawsonassociationism.

14:10Ryan DawsonAnd

14:11Ryan Dawsonhe is also reacting to idealism and and relativism with his

14:17Ryan Dawsoncategorical

14:18Ryan Dawsonimperatives and things, but

14:20Ryan DawsonI see the the difference there. But

14:24Ryan Dawsonfor me,

14:26Ryan DawsonI don't see why it's necessary to have this

14:29Ryan Dawsongod character

14:31Ryan Dawsoncreating,

14:34Ryan Dawsonlike, the laws of physics or what have you. Why can't those just be part of nature and it's and a portion of which we discover,

14:41Ryan Dawsonand we base our logic on that from pattern recognition and trying to figure out nature in the world through our senses and through contemplation,

14:49Ryan Dawsonthinking, reasoning, all those together. It's not limited to just,

14:53Ryan Dawsonyou know, the five senses or something. Obviously, we we combine those. And I'm not gonna

14:59Ryan Dawsonact like I know how the mind works and

15:01Ryan Dawsonget into microtubules

15:03Ryan Dawsonand what consciousness is or whatever, but it seems clear to me that we we have it. And if we don't and it's deterministic,

15:09Ryan Dawsonthen how would I know? Because that still would be determined whether I knew it or not. So it's for me, it's just I'm kinda being consequentialist

15:17Ryan Dawsonhere, I guess, but

15:19Ryan DawsonI don't see the need,

15:21Ryan Dawsonor why it makes a difference

15:23Ryan Dawsonwhen you have the same results.

15:26Ryan DawsonAnd I also don't get the jump from the rationalization

15:30Ryan Dawsonof

15:31Ryan Dawsona deist deity that, okay, like a Spinozan. Okay. This thing creates all the laws of nature, and man can discover a portion of them. Fine.

15:40Ryan DawsonOr they're already there, and man can discover a portion of them.

15:45Ryan DawsonThe god character doesn't

15:47Ryan Dawsonadd anything.

15:50Jay DyerSo,

15:51Jay Dyerfor example, the first thing that you said in terms of pattern recognition, the the questions that we're asking, there's there's a couple different types of questions that I'm asking. One would be when we say that there's a recognition of patterns in history of philosophy, you get questions like, the question of universals or essences.

16:06Jay DyerSo when we ask those that there's a pattern, we're we're we're saying, okay. What is it that we're saying that is similar between these objects, but also in a way distinct? Right? So there's gotta be qualities or or traits or things that we can pick out

16:18Jay Dyerthat allow for there to be patterns at all. So to say that, well, we just do this doesn't give an account for how we do it and why we should do it and why is it or how is it possible to even do this.

16:31Jay DyerSo You're

16:32Ryan Dawsonyou're gonna have to have induction. Right? Like, even when you're saying an object,

16:36Ryan Dawsonlike, the lines are arbitrary.

16:38Jay DyerRight.

16:39Ryan DawsonYou're gonna no matter no matter what it is, like, if you're doing scientific classifications,

16:43Ryan Dawsonwe say all the all mammals have hair and

16:46Ryan Dawsonreptiles lay eggs or whatever. Like, those are true in the sense that they, you know, conform with observation.

16:53Ryan DawsonBut where all we drew these lines and categories and stuff is completely

16:57Ryan Dawsonmade up because

16:58Ryan Dawsonit's useful.

17:00Jay DyerSo, again, the Chris, I'm asking a question about the principle of induction itself or the principle of deduction, which goes along with that. So how do we know that those things are the case, and what are those principles themselves when we ask those kinds of questions

17:13Jay Dyerto say that, will they just work, doesn't answer the question that's being asked. So we're asking for something specific in terms of epistemology,

17:20Jay Dyerwhich is called justification.

17:22Jay DyerAre we justified in believing in the principle of induction?

17:25Jay DyerNot

17:26Jay Dyerall philosophers, for example, Hume didn't think we were justified.

17:29Ryan DawsonRight.

17:29Jay DyerWe don't have a justification

17:30Ryan Dawsonfor

17:30Jay Dyerthat.

17:31Ryan DawsonSo to say

17:32Ryan DawsonWe don't know either. I mean, our knowledge I would say the difference between knowing and thinking is the degree of confidence.

17:38Ryan DawsonAnd if it seems to work over and over again,

17:41Ryan Dawsonthen we put a certain degree of confidence and claim we know something. But as you know from Thomas Kuhn and others that sometimes we hit a paradigm and it's a shift of everything we thought we knew.

17:51Jay DyerRight. So how do we

17:52Ryan Dawsonwhat we're doing.

17:53Jay DyerRight. We don't know. Why the transcendental argument is geared towards answering the paradigm question. So there's no way to solve these problems without comparing the

18:01Jay Dyerwhat's that?

18:02Ryan DawsonSo that's that's the danger there. I like I'm comfortable with saying we don't know, and we can have paradigm shifts.

18:08Ryan DawsonI think when we think we do know is where we run into dogmatism,

18:13Ryan Dawsonand that I don't think it's objective.

18:16Ryan DawsonObviously, there's a whole bunch of different religions and a whole bunch of different sects within the same religion and a whole bunch of different interpretations of the same text within the same sect within the same religion. So it's still subjective.

18:27Jay DyerYeah. But that

18:27Ryan DawsonBut you want I I'd like to be an objective

18:30Ryan Dawsonreality

18:31Ryan Dawsonan objective morality,

18:33Ryan Dawsonthough.

18:34Ryan DawsonI wish that was the case. I think you can have it within value sets with the stated goal, then you go back

18:40Ryan Dawsonto

18:42Jay DyerBut wouldn't that be wouldn't that be a non sequitur? The fact that people disagree on on the interpretation of a text or the claims, that doesn't prove that nobody knows or that there's not objective truth. That's a

18:51Ryan Dawsonnon No. It doesn't. But if you don't have access to it, what's the difference? I mean, you're still left with everybody arguing over their interpretation. Like like like, if there is a god,

19:01Ryan Dawsonwe don't have access to what it wants us to do or anything. We have a bunch of religious texts and a bunch of

19:06Jay Dyerdifferent interpretations. That the religious texts don't convey that?

19:10Ryan DawsonBecause they're ridiculous.

19:13Jay DyerWell, so on the basis of what? Logic and reasoning?

19:17Ryan DawsonYeah. And I don't think logic and reasoning

19:19Ryan Dawsonare tied to having to have a god make them. Logic and reason are based on pattern recognition. So what are logic and reason?

19:25Jay DyerWhat is what is logic and what is the principle of reason that man has? What is that?

19:31Ryan DawsonWell, I'll just give a specific example. I don't think somebody lived in a whale's belly for three days. It's not possible. We can look at whales and people and how they have to breathe and I mean, you know you know that what this is.

19:46Ryan DawsonLogic

19:47Ryan Dawsonis coming like, even mathematics,

19:49Ryan Dawsonwhatever we do, a math is objective

19:52Ryan Dawsononce we set the parameters,

19:55Ryan Dawsonbut that's still arbitrary.

19:56Jay DyerSo humans determine the parameters and the objectivity of mathematics?

20:01Ryan DawsonHumans determine there wouldn't be math or morals or any of that without people.

20:05Jay DyerSo are they social constructs or are they discoveries?

20:09Ryan DawsonYeah. I'm but I don't know if math is discovered

20:12Ryan Dawsonor just a very useful tool. It seems to be

20:16Jay DyerWhat about luck?

20:17Ryan DawsonDiscovered. It seems to be something that matches

20:20Ryan Dawsonour reality. What about logic? Logic

20:23Ryan Dawsontoo seems to we have confidence in it because it works.

20:29Jay DyerWhy should we follow things just because they work?

20:33Ryan DawsonBecause the alternative is following things that don't work.

20:38Jay DyerYeah. But may maybe that's what we should do. So there's a normativity thing here.

20:42Ryan DawsonYou can follow things that don't work. I think the ones the people who survive are the ones following the things that work.

20:48Jay DyerRight. But maybe we shouldn't survive. Maybe we're polluting the planet and all the humans need to go away. I don't believe that, but I'm just saying that.

20:54Ryan DawsonI mean, there are some liberals that do feel that way.

20:57Jay DyerRight. So what I'm saying is that the what's assumed here is a value judgment or some sort of norm normativity,

21:02Jay Dyerand I'm asking for, well, how do we know that that normativity question is what we ought to do?

21:08Ryan DawsonYeah. I mean, that seems guillotine between ought and is, and I I don't know. It's just these are you know, it's asking my belief. I have value sets. I have my own ethics,

21:18Ryan Dawsonmorals, and I base them on my own empathy, sympathy, reason.

21:22Ryan DawsonAnd I don't need supernatural explanations to develop those for myself. And I'm okay if someone else does. And I'm okay if they think

21:31Ryan DawsonAllah or Jesus or whoever their figure is set out rules and they have the perfect interpretation and these are objective.

21:38Ryan DawsonAs long as they behave well, it doesn't matter to me.

21:41Jay DyerWhat does it mean to behave well?

21:43Ryan DawsonWell, that would go back well, of course, I'm judging what I think is good behavior.

21:48Ryan DawsonI don't know how I couldn't do otherwise.

21:52Jay DyerWell,

21:53Jay Dyershould we have good reasons for our ethics and our beliefs and our lot and why we accept this or that logical principle? Should we have a good reason or any reason?

22:00Ryan DawsonYeah. I think we should root it in reason,

22:04Ryan Dawsonmost things. Okay.

22:06Ryan DawsonBut with more than ethics, we're making claims also about

22:11Ryan Dawsontruth and other things. And I think

22:14Ryan Dawsonthe way we look at empiricism for science, I think empiricism is pretty good tool for science. It has its limits, though. It's very different than, like, an historical truth or

22:25Ryan Dawsonsome,

22:27Ryan Dawsonyou know, memory

22:29Ryan Dawsonor whether I feel pain or something like that. You prove those things all differently. But,

22:34Ryan Dawsonyeah, we root things in reason and objectivity as much as possible, but there are definitely ethical questions that are not

22:42Ryan Dawsonsimply, like,

22:43Ryan Dawsonmath. It's going to be subjective.

22:47Ryan DawsonAnd we can have like, we can argue within the subjectivity,

22:50Ryan Dawsonand we do.

22:51Ryan DawsonBut it'd be very hard to say no. I'm objectively right on all ethical questions

22:57Ryan Dawsonis

22:58Ryan Dawsongonna be difficult. And even if you say, well, I'm right because I'm speaking on behalf of God, and he's always right and invaluable. I'm like, but how do I know you're speaking on behalf of God or the right God or if God even is there? Like, it's still subjective.

23:11Ryan DawsonAnd I don't have a problem with I'm like, okay. It's subject it's subjective, and we're gonna have to argue between our own subjective opinions that what else is the other way out of that.

23:20Jay DyerDo you think all moral claims are purely subjective?

23:24Ryan DawsonWell, like I said, I should give an example. I said when we set make a value set, for example, like,

23:32Ryan Dawsonthis is an absolute, but nearly everyone would say

23:35Ryan Dawsonhealth is better than sickness. Right? So let's say our values,

23:39Ryan Dawsonwe'd like to live a long time rather than a short time, and we'd like to be healthy. And you you know what? Don't beg the question. You know what sick is. You know what healthy is.

23:47Ryan DawsonOkay. If our goal is

23:50Ryan Dawsonhealth,

23:51Ryan Dawsonthen our actions have to conform to that which works in prolonging

23:56Ryan Dawsonhealth.

23:57Ryan DawsonAnd what works is probably going to be

24:01Ryan Dawsonbased on empiricism.

24:03Ryan DawsonThat's how we figure out what works.

24:06Ryan DawsonSo when someone gets

24:08Ryan Dawsonsick,

24:09Ryan DawsonI'm going to go with the

24:11Ryan Dawsonthe best empirical knowledge of the day to try and fix it rather than, say, prayer or something.

24:18Ryan DawsonAnd if there is some, you know, tribe out there that's like, okay. Let's say a baby's born,

24:24Ryan Dawsonthey have that little piece of the umbilical cord still on their belly button. Aesthetically, it's ugly. I'm gonna get rid of it. That's not actually healthy as we know. But they might yank it off anyway, and the result will be some portion of those babies will get poisoned and die. Well, then within their own framework, since they also are aiming at health and so are we, They are objectively wrong because their actions did not lead to their own stated goal.

24:50Ryan DawsonHowever, what all values you pick are not objective.

24:53Ryan DawsonI mean, health seems to be one most of us are gonna pick. But, you know, as you go down the ladder, there's gonna be major disagreements in values.

25:04Jay DyerSo in the things that you listed there, you seem to have a prior categorization

25:09Jay Dyerof the things that are objective, the things that are subjective. And so there's, like, a a prior delineation

25:15Jay Dyerissue there. Is that also true, or is that also relative? Is that objectively true, the criteria that you gave, or is that relative?

25:21Ryan DawsonThe criteria the priorness is just based on ex experimentation.

25:25Ryan DawsonNow you are gonna have well, do we have

25:29Ryan Dawsonuniformity in, like,

25:32Ryan Dawsonthe laws don't change? Right? So if you're gonna say physical laws just change all the time,

25:38Ryan Dawsonthen you're gonna have a problem. But experience is showing, at least in our local area

25:43Ryan Dawsonand with,

25:44Ryan Dawsonbaryonic matter and so on, that the laws are not changing.

25:47Ryan DawsonAnd so it that's the first thing you have to accept. And if you accept that and you say, okay. Well, this is what happened last time. If the conditions are all the same, it'll happen again.

25:56Ryan DawsonAnd so that you can base on experience, like, you know what? We shouldn't rip this off the baby's belly.

26:01Ryan DawsonIt actually is harming them.

26:04Ryan DawsonAnd we know that because every time we did it, you know, it harmed them. You base it off experience,

26:09Ryan Dawsontrial and error. You could do it through reasoning. You could do there's different ways to get to the same conclusion, get the same result. But you're dealing with all your problems in an empirical way

26:18Ryan Dawsonwithout the appeal to superstition

26:21Ryan Dawsonand stuff.

26:22Jay DyerRight.

26:23Jay DyerSo a couple things there. You had said earlier that

26:25Jay Dyeryou recognize

26:26Jay Dyerthe problem of getting an ought from an is, but now you seem to be saying that from all of the empirical observations of this, you can derive what you ought to do from this, this, this, this instance.

26:38Ryan DawsonI'll say it again. This an ought if you have once you have your value set,

26:44Ryan Dawsonlike health,

26:46Ryan Dawsonthen what you ought to do is what

26:48Ryan Dawsonactually

26:49Ryan Dawsonprolongs health.

26:50Jay DyerWell, how do know you

26:51Ryan Dawsonhave the

26:51Jay Dyerright value set?

26:53Ryan DawsonThat you don't. You have to that's the thing. That's the subjective part. I said it's only objective within a value set once you've set your parameters.

27:02Ryan DawsonBut I guess you could argue, like, if people didn't prior if you didn't value living and health and stuff, then you wouldn't be alive and it'd be self contradictory.

27:10Ryan DawsonWell, it's not an issue. To be your value set.

27:13Jay DyerNo. It's not an issue of whether that's a good value because the question is prior. It's that your first criteria is relative, and then you're saying this is the value set.

27:22Ryan DawsonSo what? I mean, yeah, the values are relative. That's that's what people argue about.

27:26Jay DyerAnd you don't in the subset, you don't achieve objectivity.

27:30Ryan DawsonYou do within your subset. That's what I'm I agree. I mean, that's the problem.

27:34Jay DyerRight. But I'm saying that's not a justified move if the original principle itself is relative.

27:41Ryan DawsonWhy not? You have relative values

27:43Jay Dyerprinciple is relative, and we don't know if that's the right value set.

27:47Ryan DawsonRight. We don't know. That's that's the thing. No. It's not a theory of confidence.

27:52Jay DyerIt wouldn't be adjustable.

27:53Ryan DawsonSure it is. If it works,

27:55Ryan Dawsonit's based on pragmatism. Why should we call This one didn't.

27:58Jay DyerThat begs the question

27:59Ryan DawsonBecause you want your kids to live, and basing it on empiricism has that common So

28:05Jay Dyeryou're you're switching back and forth between the subset and the first criteria. The first criteria is relative, and then everything under that you're saying is objective. And I'm saying Yes.

28:12Jay DyerYeah, but I'm saying that is an invalid move because we don't know that the first criteria, which determines the second, is correct.

28:19Ryan DawsonWe don't have to. I mean, that's the thing. It's guesswork. You set up a yes. It is arbitrary. I said that in the very beginning. All of our all of our science, even our math is arbitrary.

28:29Ryan DawsonLike, it's useful tools that seem to work very well for our stated goals. The goals you pick are up to you.

28:35Jay DyerThat wouldn't make it arbitrary.

28:37Jay DyerBecause if it works in the world, it can't be arbitrary. If it's arbitrary, I can change it at will.

28:42Ryan DawsonWell, it works in the world is,

28:44Ryan Dawsonwell, the value is arbitrary. I could not choose health. You know? That that value is arbitrary. As far as what works, it seems like it's gonna have to match what's actual or it isn't gonna work. Although not all the time. Sometimes you can have the completely wrong correlation that happens to work,

29:01Ryan Dawsonand it it's not true at all.

29:03Ryan DawsonThat also can happen.

29:05Jay DyerBut what if that happens in the case of your subset?

29:09Ryan DawsonThen you'd just be wrong.

29:11Jay DyerSo then the subset wouldn't be objective.

29:13Ryan DawsonWell, people get things wrong all the time. I mean, I'm talking about how things actually are.

29:17Jay DyerOkay. But if it's objective, it can't be wrong.

29:21Ryan DawsonIf it's objective, it can't be wrong,

29:24Ryan Dawsonand it wouldn't be if you got it if you got the right formula and it's matching everything.

29:28Jay DyerRight. But that's the question we're asking is how we know that we have in that subset the right set of values.

29:34Ryan DawsonNo.

29:37Ryan DawsonIf you're doing it purely on pragmatism,

29:39Ryan Dawsonthen you could have something like, I don't know, geocentric navigation seems to work even though it's wrong. Newtonian gravity seems to work as long as we're on the Earth even though it's wrong.

29:50Jay DyerRight. But

29:50Ryan Dawsonthe problem I'm okay with that. I'm like, okay. That it was close enough that it works.

29:56Jay DyerBut the thing with pragmatism is that we kinda have assumed in the

30:00Jay Dyerfirst proposition where we wanna go. So the fact appealing to pragmatism doesn't actually tell us if it works because it only works based on the value set that we've already chosen. Right?

30:11Jay DyerMhmm.

30:12Jay DyerSo how do we know we've chosen the right value set, which is what determines how it works?

30:17Ryan DawsonYou don't know. You just base it on your reasoning of, you know, whatever values you're gonna pick

30:24Ryan Dawsonbased on your goals, those might be biologically driven. Like, most species wanna live versus not.

30:30Jay DyerSo there's not a justification for ethics is what I'm getting at in your view. Sure.

30:34Ryan DawsonThere is. You want ethics because, like, you don't want

30:36Jay Dyerarbitrary,

30:37Jay Dyerthen they're not there's not a

30:38Ryan DawsonI don't think being arbitrary disqualifies

30:40Ryan Dawsonsomething from being

30:42Ryan Dawsonuseful or valid.

30:44Ryan DawsonI mean Well These are the ones we pick, and we do it. Like, what music do I like? It's totally subjective. I still like it. I don't need to defend that with this These mathematical

30:54Ryan Dawsonnotes and stuff are objectively better than this other band or whatever. It's not like that's not what we really do.

31:00AndrewWell, give it a second. Let, let Jay respond. Go ahead. Go ahead, Jay.

31:04Jay DyerRight. So but the the that's that's precisely the point, though, is that the question that was asked in terms of justification is about having good reasons for the belief sets that we have, the values that we have, and not then then not just being any old thing. If we reduce our ethics to taste preferences,

31:22Jay Dyerthen there's no reason or basis to say that any actions are actually morally wrong. And that was really the question what that I was asking was, what is the justification for your criteria for choosing the value sets? And you said they're they're arbitrary.

31:35Jay DyerIn debate, to be arbitrary is a violation of the laws of debate.

31:40Ryan DawsonThey're still arbitrary even if you have religious values because that's just that sort of person's subjective

31:45Ryan Dawsoninterpretation of whatever religion they're following.

31:47Jay DyerAbusing the fact that a person has an interpretation with them being purely subjective, and those that's not the same thing.

31:53Ryan DawsonNo. You're gonna say this is my value set because I think Jesus said so or whatever.

31:58Jay DyerNo. I think that Where

31:59Ryan Dawsonyou have where you get rid of relativism is in the subset, and that's really all you can do

32:05Ryan Dawsonas far as picking the values as something that that's based on the reason or empathy, sympathy. I wouldn't want that to happen to me, whatever the little axiom is.

32:13Ryan DawsonAnd I it could be religious or secular. I don't see

32:17Ryan Dawsonany difference in outcome there.

32:19Jay DyerIf your criteria itself is relativistic,

32:22Jay Dyeranything else under that subset is not gonna achieve objectivity.

32:27Ryan DawsonIt's subjective questions. I mean, you can only answer you can answer math with math and science with science. When you're talking about ethics,

32:34Ryan Dawsonyou're gonna run into

32:36Ryan Dawsonit's it's not physics. It has physics envy, you could say. Now you could say,

32:41Ryan Dawsonwell, within this goal, here's the things that match reality that work.

32:44Jay DyerBut we're talking about logical propositions as they relate to ethics.

32:48Ryan DawsonI don't think ethics works like that. I think ethics is is subjective.

32:53Ryan DawsonI wish it

32:53Jay Dyerwasn't. Then there's not objective.

32:55Ryan DawsonI strongly believe in,

32:58Ryan Dawsonyeah, I strongly am against certain things that maybe you think are objective. I mean, I I assume you're not a literalist with the bible. Right?

33:08Jay DyerWell, I think there's a literal sense to the text, and there's also a allegorical mystical.

33:12Ryan DawsonYou don't really yeah. It's allegories and metaphors. You don't really think everything was made in seven days. Right?

33:18Jay DyerNo. I believe in six day creation.

33:20Ryan DawsonOh, okay. And, and all the miracles and stuff are real?

33:24Fr. AnaniasYeah.

33:25Ryan DawsonOh, wow. Okay then. So you you take it literally?

33:29Jay DyerYeah. And I take things that are meant to be literal literal.

33:32Fr. AnaniasSo you

33:32Ryan Dawsonbelieve in monarchy?

33:34Jay DyerWhat?

33:35Ryan DawsonDivine rule and monarchy rather than republics and democracy. We should have a king and a queen.

33:40Jay DyerI do.

33:41Ryan DawsonYou you do believe in monarchy. Okay. Slavery?

33:45Jay DyerNo. I don't believe in slavery. No.

33:47Ryan DawsonWell, they practiced it for over a thousand years.

33:49Jay DyerRight. But the fact that something's practiced doesn't mean that it was intended to always be practiced.

33:53Ryan DawsonOh, we're taking it literally. I mean, right after the 10 commandments, you got Exodus twenty one twenty giving out the rules of how you can beat slaves and punish them and own them as property. Like, that's definitely what they meant.

34:03Jay DyerBut you just said ethics are the sets of ethics that we choose our relatives. So I'm not I'm not clear why you think this is wrong.

34:09Ryan DawsonWell, I'm asking you. Are you okay with slavery? It's in the book.

34:12Jay DyerYeah. But the religion as a whole gives a context as to when these things are to be done away with and fulfilled. So the laws of the is it It

34:19Ryan Dawsonwas okay, and now it's not. Uh-huh. No.

34:22Jay DyerNo. There's a change in certain laws, which is part of the religion itself.

34:26Ryan DawsonSure.

34:27Ryan DawsonOkay. Are there any today? Like, do you does your church support circumcision?

34:32Ryan DawsonNo.

34:33Ryan DawsonOh, that's good. So Eastern Orthodox does not support circumcision.

34:37Ryan DawsonThen that's my favorite form of Christianity then because I think that's just genital mutilation.

34:43Ryan DawsonAnd you can I give a religious,

34:45Ryan Dawsonargument for that too? If god designed the body and that's what he came that's the penis he made, you're trying to alter that by cutting a piece of it off.

34:53Jay DyerBut the point that I was getting at is that some things are in the law for a time period. And you laughed at that, but I'm I'm not sure why why that would be absurd or why that would seem strange.

35:02Ryan DawsonWhy was slavery okay for so long?

35:06Jay DyerWell, Israelite slavery,

35:08Jay Dyerintroduced certain,

35:09Jay Dyerstipulations where you couldn't abuse people. So it was actually, novel in the ancient world.

35:16Ryan DawsonThey had endangered servants and slaves.

35:18Jay DyerCorrect.

35:19Jay DyerRight.

35:21Jay DyerTrue. Servant and indentured servanthood is something revolutionary in the ancient world.

35:27Ryan DawsonAre you okay with endangered servitude?

35:29Jay DyerI'm just saying that god spoke spoke to that time to that people, and he introduced laws, for example, that you can't abuse them and mistreat

35:36Jay Dyerthem.

35:37Jay DyerBut if you conquered a people group and you had their wives and their and their kids,

35:42Jay Dyerthen

35:43Jay Dyerthose laws are about how to take care of those people. That's revolutionary in the ancient world.

35:48Ryan DawsonYeah. I mean, it's it's ahead of his time for the time period, but god should be outside of culture and time, get the correct answer right away.

35:57Jay DyerWell, that's according to you, but why can't god wait and

36:01Ryan DawsonBecause he's supposed to be this all knowing thing.

36:04Jay DyerRight. But that's assuming that you know his designs, and why can't he introduce certain things pedagogically over time?

36:12Ryan DawsonHe can do whatever he wants, but I think slavery is a moral evil and was never okay and still isn't.

36:19Jay DyerWell,

36:21Jay DyerI would like to know why you think it's immoral. And we need more than just your subjective preferences because that doesn't achieve any kind

36:27Ryan Dawsonof See, that's that's the thing. You don't accept.

36:31Ryan DawsonYou won't accept it because But you don't I could say, okay, because because Allah or Zeus said so, whatever. Like, now a god's behind me. It's the same reasoning and stuff I would say anyway, except I added a a god creature. It's gonna be the same more. Like, you know why slavery is wrong? You know why you can't own a person? Don't play dumb. Like, you know that's wrong.

36:51Jay DyerWell, again, you say I know it's wrong.

36:54Ryan DawsonYou like to be a slave?

36:55Jay DyerThe the so you're deflecting on You can't

36:58Ryan Dawsonjust use your imagination and say, gee, that would be slave.

37:01Jay DyerKnow is a justification for objective morals,

37:04Jay Dyerwhich you said there aren't any.

37:05Ryan DawsonSo I don't think there's any problem with subjectively saying like, if you wanna argue lots of people about who all thinks slavery is good versus not.

37:14Jay DyerA fallacy. So that's a pure Not at all.

37:16Ryan DawsonNo. You know that

37:17Ryan DawsonWhat you say is objective,

37:19Ryan Dawsonisn't. You think don't know that you believe every word of the bible. Like A lot of people people wrote that.

37:25Jay DyerThat's a you understand that's a fallacy, what you just said.

37:28Ryan DawsonNo. It's not. You're like, is it divinely inspired? And I would say, no.

37:31Jay DyerIt isn't. You don't think it's really on.

37:32AndrewYou guys are talking.

37:34AndrewStop. Stop. You guys are both talking over each other,

37:38Andrewand nobody can understand what's going on. Just just to back up, go ahead

37:41Ryan Dawsonsay There's a bit of lag between Japan and wherever.

37:45Jay DyerTo say that

37:46Jay Dyera lot of people agree

37:48Jay Dyerthat slavery is wrong is a fallacy. It's called the mass appeal fallacy. It has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong.

37:56Ryan DawsonThat's not why it's right or wrong. It's just saying that it's so it's such a simple question

38:01Ryan Dawsonthat even you people will derive the same answer.

38:04Jay DyerAnd you keep yeah. I know you keep saying that.

38:06Ryan DawsonI I don't I don't

38:07Ryan Dawsonknow why that. Mhmm.

38:09Ryan DawsonI don't think you could maintain such a moral evil unless you thought that you had an objective prescription

38:16Ryan Dawsonfrom a deity that told you to do things that were definitely horrible. Like, we agree circumcision's

38:22Ryan Dawsonwrong,

38:23Ryan Dawsonbut we have tens of millions of Christians and Jews that mutilate their little boys. And I don't think because they hate their kids. I don't think they're like, yeah. I'm gonna hurt my son. They just do it because they don't think at all.

38:37Jay DyerLet me ask you this question. What do you think it means to ask for justification

38:42Jay Dyerfor a belief or a claim?

38:46Ryan DawsonI think for you, it means that we have to have a, unquestioning

38:50Ryan Dawsonauthority figure that says this is the way. Therefore, it's subjective.

38:54Jay DyerNo. In in philosophy,

38:55Ryan Dawsonwhat figure is says it is.

38:56Jay DyerIn philosophy, what is the question of justification after?

39:00Ryan DawsonYou get a whole bunch of different answers for that,

39:03Ryan Dawsonbut I

39:04Jay Dyerdon't domain of epistemology,

39:06Jay Dyerwhat are some of those?

39:08Ryan DawsonYou know, you have utilitarianism.

39:10Ryan DawsonYou have Kant's way. You have hedonism. You get a bunch of different things. For me, the justification is, as I said

39:17Jay DyerThose aren't justification. Those not

39:21Jay Dyerpart of just epistemology.

39:23Jay DyerThose are, utilitarian. It's that's ethics. So in terms of epistemology,

39:27Jay Dyerwhat do you think the question of justification is after?

39:30Ryan DawsonYou want objectivity.

39:33Jay DyerI mean Which you don't have.

39:38Ryan DawsonWell, yeah. Because, if things,

39:41Ryan Dawsonif it's subjective and matches

39:44Ryan Dawsonreality, the actions we're taking, that to me seems like the one that's gonna work the best.

39:49Ryan DawsonAlthough, I guess there are some exceptions where you're completely off base and things still happen to work. But, usually,

39:56Ryan Dawsonthe majority of

39:57Jay Dyerthe time after the question of, is it true?

40:00Jay DyerIs it a belief that we ought to have?

40:01Ryan DawsonWell, we don't know what's true until like, that's the thing we're trying to discover. We're trying to figure out what the natural order in laws are through experimentation and science

40:11Jay Dyerand reasoning. Is

40:12Jay Dyerthat true for everybody?

40:16Ryan DawsonWell, something. No. Not everyone. Some people are schizophrenic or whatever.

40:20Jay DyerNo. I mean, the the statement, we don't know what's true. Is that universally true in your view?

40:26Ryan DawsonI don't know. That's what I believe, though. I mean, I think I don't think anybody was just born knowing the everything.

40:33Jay DyerK. But the fact that you believe that is

40:37Jay Dyernot an argument. Right?

40:40Ryan DawsonI mean, the fact that you don't believe that's not an argument. You just think someone just just knew all the right things.

40:46Jay DyerNo. I'm specifically

40:48Jay Dyergetting to the question of justification because you're making these claims that none of us knows these things. We don't know these things. And I'm I'm just curious how you know that.

40:58Ryan DawsonI don't know. That's just my belief. That's what I said.

41:00Jay DyerThen there's not arguments behind the claims that you're making?

41:04Ryan DawsonI don't care. I mean, that's just you asked me what I believe.

41:07DGThat's what

41:07Ryan DawsonI believe.

41:08Jay DyerThat's what a debate is. It's presenting the arguments and justifying those arguments.

41:12Ryan DawsonNo. Because, like, you're I feel like you have a a dogmatic attachment to your faith that isn't gonna budge and doesn't matter what I say. Like, I'm saying religions are subjective. And you're like, no. They're not. Well, all of them except for mine are.

41:25Ryan DawsonLike, all the religions are subjective except for my religion. Mine's the real one, and it's true. And my god's correct.

41:31Jay DyerBut I'm I'm argument made up. Yeah. But I'm giving an argument and demonstrating how that's

41:35Ryan Dawsonthe case. It isn't, though, because there isn't a there's no bridge between

41:40Ryan Dawsongod has is the necessary condition in order for there to be things like

41:45Ryan Dawsonideas and concepts and reasoning and logic. I think all those things exist independent of god

41:50Jay DyerOkay.

41:51Ryan DawsonAnd are derived through experience

41:53Ryan Dawsonby,

41:54Ryan Dawsonyou know, people messing with nature. Mean, that's how we come up with our rules.

41:57Jay DyerAnd then my question has been the justification for that claim.

42:01AndrewAnd then, Jay, Jake, can you move your

42:03Ryan Dawsonmic a

42:05Ryan Dawsonlittle closer?

42:06AndrewThere you go.

42:07Ryan DawsonThat god is necessary for there to be physical laws. Like, why can't that just be part of matter?

42:13Jay DyerBecause I listed a whole bunch of things that are more than just physical things, and laws aren't reducible to physical objects.

42:19Ryan DawsonYeah.

42:21Ryan DawsonThat's a non sequitur for me too. Like, I'm not talking about

42:25Ryan Dawsonlike, motion is not part of the thing. It's where the it's the position of the thing. That's still tied to the thing, though. Like

42:32Jay DyerSo do you whatever our

42:33Ryan Dawsonwhatever our logic is about

42:35Ryan Dawsonstuff

42:36Ryan Dawsonstill depends on data from the stuff.

42:39Ryan DawsonAnd I don't think secondary mean that you could go to, like, lock and stuff, like

42:42Jay Dyercolor or not. Reductionism.

42:44Jay DyerThe fact that logic relates by the way, you said a non sequitur

42:47Ryan DawsonI'm not I think your your idea of physicalism is just like Adams or something.

42:53Jay DyerI what I don't know what your position on on that is, but it sounds like physicalism.

42:57Ryan DawsonNo. Like, I don't think,

42:59Ryan DawsonI mean, I'm not denying Adams.

43:01Ryan DawsonI think,

43:02Ryan Dawsonlike

43:03Ryan DawsonI don't know. I mean, I know

43:05Jay DyerYou you said a non sequitur. Right? So you appeal to

43:08Ryan Dawsona law firm. No there's no,

43:11Ryan Dawsonbridge there. Like, oh, my my memories are not physical

43:15Ryan Dawsonor my ideas of logic are not physical or my, you know, concepts

43:20Ryan Dawsonof,

43:21Ryan Dawsonyou know, I think, therefore, I am, whatever. The mind isn't physical.

43:25Ryan DawsonAlthough it might be. Like, I and I don't know the answer to that. Like, I think the mind could just be the brain, and the brain is definitely physical. And all those things technically actually are physical, but not in the same sense as, a table.

43:36Ryan DawsonLike, neuronic

43:38Ryan Dawsonfiring patterns are very different than,

43:41Ryan Dawsonyou know, carbon atoms or whatever. But that's getting into the

43:45Jay Dyerreason different questions, though, that I I don't think I'm maybe I'm just not being clear. Like, when you appeal to something being a non sequitur, you're appealing to a law of logic. Right?

43:54Jay DyerThe non sequitur?

43:56Ryan DawsonYep.

43:57Jay DyerOkay. Do you think the laws of logic are universally applicable at all times in all places?

44:03Ryan DawsonThere ought to be. The problem is people are gonna disagree on what they think the laws of logic are. Like, people make logical fallacies all the time without being aware of it.

44:12Jay DyerGood. But what does that have to do with whether the laws of logic are the case, and why should we

44:18Ryan DawsonBecause the laws of logic are derived

44:21Ryan Dawsonby

44:22Ryan Dawsonexperience

44:23Ryan Dawsonwith nature, not because some divine thing just

44:28Ryan Dawsonmaintains the like, every time there's gravity, god is pulling something down and over again.

44:33Jay DyerA law from a bunch of empirical observations.

44:36Ryan DawsonThat's exactly what we do. We have lots of empirical observations that test things over and over, and that's why we come up with the laws. And sometimes

44:44Jay DyerThat's the non sequitur.

44:45Ryan DawsonSometimes they're wrong.

44:47Jay DyerSo, again, that's the non sequitur. So there's not a justification for the belief in the things that you're appealing to. That's my point.

44:52Ryan DawsonThere is a justification. The justification is if if we do some

44:57Ryan Dawsonphysical process

44:59Jay Dyerk.

44:59Ryan DawsonThat has the same this we just we're going in circles here. No. If we do a physical process that Have you read David? The same result over and Yes. Over

45:08Ryan DawsonI read David humor. I like Donald would know

45:10Jay Dyerthat it's not a justification to keep appealing to the fact that the future is like the past.

45:15Jay DyerBecause that doesn't tell you that the future will always be like the past.

45:18Ryan DawsonIt doesn't hey. It might not be. But I'm going to believe that it is based on all the data I've ever gotten, which shows that it will be.

45:25Jay DyerThen the belief is not justified. That's the point.

45:27Ryan DawsonThat doesn't bother me at all. Like, you're asking what I believe based on all the data that I have.

45:31Jay DyerWe don't have to achieve justification.

45:33Ryan DawsonThere's no justification

45:34Ryan Dawsonto say the future won't be either, though.

45:36Jay DyerOkay. So, again, you're appealing to universal laws, which you can't justify. You don't know that.

45:42Jay DyerNo. You're not in a position as a skeptic to make those claims.

45:46Ryan DawsonNo. You're not in a position as a theist to make those claims either.

45:50Jay DyerBut I have a justification for how those things are the case.

45:53Ryan DawsonNo. You just say those things are the case. God made those the case. It has no explanatory power.

45:58Jay DyerSubject to the problems of your worldview.

46:00Ryan DawsonThat has no explanatory power whatsoever. So here's the

46:03Jay Dyerthing you can do every day. Because of divine providence.

46:06Ryan DawsonThe future is like the past because that's how it actually is.

46:09Jay DyerBut, again, that's not an argument. That's just stating your position and begging the question.

46:13Ryan DawsonNo. It's not. It's based on all prior experience that, like, the future has

46:17Ryan Dawsonto be like achieve this again, if

46:18Jay Dyeryou'd read if you'd read a hymn, you would know that doesn't achieve the status of justification.

46:22Ryan DawsonI don't agree with you. I mean, that's the thing.

46:24Ryan DawsonOkay. So prove him You could always say

46:26Ryan Dawsonit's gonna be a black swan and go, well, maybe tomorrow gravity's gonna be reversed and everything will go apart instead or something like that. But there's no

46:35Ryan Dawsonreason to think that, and there's a lot of

46:37Jay Dyerextreme reason not

46:38Ryan Dawsonto think that. That's No. There's a whole bunch of reasons to think the opposite. Yeah. There's not. It's a non sequitur.

46:43Jay DyerYou just appealed to non sequiturs a minute ago, and that's a non sequitur.

46:46Ryan DawsonWell, we disagree on what our non sequiturs are.

46:50Ryan DawsonYou're playing you're splitting hairs on just

46:53Ryan Dawsonphilosophical

46:54Ryan Dawsonminutia saying, oh, we can't believe

46:56Jay Dyerif you like the past. Justification for our beliefs are very important.

47:00Ryan DawsonIn the debate, I said the difference between knowing something and thinking something is just the degree of confidence.

47:06Ryan DawsonAnd I like, for me,

47:08Ryan DawsonI could not believe otherwise that the floor is under my feet. Like, I cannot say But that's Like, not asking definitely there.

47:16Jay DyerThing.

47:16Jay DyerI'm asking Yeah.

47:17Ryan DawsonYeah. You're like, oh, there's no reason the floor might not be there in the future. I'm like, I think it is, you know, based on all my prior experience.

47:24Ryan DawsonAnd I think I think using the past and data and experiment is a perfectly good foundation

47:29Ryan Dawsonto make predictions about the future.

47:32Jay DyerAgain, everything that you've said is totally arbitrary. And if we don't have to justify our claims, then

47:39Jay DyerI can just repeat everything that I say. Well, capable, god exists, and I don't have to justify it.

47:43Ryan DawsonThat's why we're just gonna keep talking past each other. I mean, you think god exists and you also believe in monarchy.

47:48Jay DyerBut I'm specifically making points and arguments. I'm making arguments about what you're donkeys and

47:54Ryan Dawsona serpent that spoke to people.

47:56Jay DyerAnd Well, you're not in a position to say that that's not possible.

48:00Ryan DawsonYeah. Yes. I am.

48:01Jay DyerNo. You're not. Because you can't give an account for possibility at all.

48:05Ryan DawsonNo. We I'm basing on empirical data, and we do not have anybody

48:09Jay Dyeris no basis to believe

48:10Ryan Dawsonin empirical stand still.

48:12Jay DyerDo you think that

48:13Ryan Dawsonall knowledge comes through Or flooding the whole earth Do you believe that

48:17Jay Dyerall knowledge comes through sense data?

48:20Ryan DawsonWell,

48:21Ryan Dawsonit originates from sense data. And then obviously know that all knowledge originates from sense data. I don't think all knowledge is from sense data.

48:27Jay DyerI said it originates all originates in sense data. Right?

48:30Ryan DawsonRight. Well, if you couldn't

48:32Jay DyerHow do you know that this

48:32Ryan DawsonIf you had no senses at all,

48:35Ryan DawsonIs that It'd be hard to think about anything.

48:38Ryan DawsonWhat's that again?

48:39Jay DyerDo know what a universal claim is? All knowledge originates in sense data.

48:44Ryan DawsonI don't think all knowledge originates.

48:46Ryan DawsonYes.

48:48Ryan DawsonI think all of our knowledge is from our sense data, and then we think about it, combine it, associationism.

48:54Ryan DawsonI agree with that part of here.

48:55Jay DyerWell, that's a universal claim.

48:57Jay DyerRight?

48:58Jay DyerBut you're not in a position to make any

49:01Ryan DawsonI I cannot I can just say what I believe. I'm not arrogant enough to say this is universal or not. I don't know. I'm going based on what works.

49:10Jay DyerAre universal quantifiers.

49:12Jay DyerSo now you can't predicate.

49:14Jay DyerSentences require universals to predicate.

49:18Ryan DawsonThis that's just nonsense. I don't have

49:20Jay Dyerto is nonsense? The laws of logic as I plot a grammar are nonsense?

49:24Ryan DawsonWell, all our words are arbitrary. Right? We just made them up. They so useful

49:28Jay Dyerand work. So you think the laws of

49:30Ryan Dawsonlaw think anything arbitrary is worth a damn. It's not objective. Every single word we have, someone made

49:35Jay Dyerup position to say anything.

49:37Ryan DawsonEvery word we have, someone made up, and then we have this agreed upon subjective pool,

49:42Ryan Dawsonand we come up with rules of grammar and stuff, which changes very slowly. Right?

49:46Jay DyerWords are not identical to concepts. Right?

49:48Ryan DawsonThey're still arbitrary,

49:50Ryan Dawsonbut you have no

49:51Jay DyerConcepts are arbitrary.

49:52Ryan DawsonBut no mustard in things being arbitrary.

49:54Jay DyerSo, again, I in this whole discussion, you're not even getting the argument. You're not getting the point. I'm making great

49:59Ryan DawsonI I know what you're saying, but I'm saying the same thing about language as with science and math. Like, at the very beginning, we just arbitrarily say,

50:08Ryan Dawsonthe Yeah. And I'm saying that is whatever. Right?

50:10Jay DyerThat's an

50:11Ryan Dawsonimportant point. Time, even though it's subjective, because we have a whole bunch of different languages. Right? This Japanese can be very different from English, whatever. So We have a whole bunch of things, and it's not like one is better,

50:22Ryan Dawsonand none of them are objective. Like, we're the language is going to evolve.

50:26Jay DyerFrom the concept.

50:27Jay DyerDo you understand this?

50:29Jay DyerThe Roman numeral seven and the number seven, they represent the same thing as the symbols.

50:34Ryan DawsonYeah. Seven and seven. Languages is irrelevant to

50:37Jay Dyerthe point I'm making.

50:38Ryan DawsonNo. It's not. If you have if you can have a completely arbitrary system

50:43Ryan Dawsonthat is subjective.

50:44Jay DyerThink the concepts and meaning are arbitrary?

50:47Ryan DawsonBecause of the fallacy you pointed out earlier, you said, well, it's the you know, just because a whole bunch of people think something doesn't make it so.

50:54AndrewOne one once a whole

50:55Ryan Dawsonbunch of people think of language one way and someone else doesn't, I mean, that person's just wrong. They're not gonna be able to communicate.

51:01AndrewHang on. Hang on, Ryan. I know that there's a, bit of a delay on your end. Just one second. We are gonna take some callers on this debate tonight.

51:09AndrewWe're

51:10Andrewa little little bit over halfway.

51:13AndrewI just kinda wanna get it back on track.

51:16AndrewI feel like we've been kinda,

51:17Andrewbogged down on this.

51:19AndrewJay, if you if you can kinda take us back into the initial argument and, we can kinda take it from there, I'd appreciate it. I just I kinda feel like we're we're getting into circular territory here a bit.

51:32Jay DyerRight. So, I mean, to bring it back to what I'm arguing is that when we make claims about the world, when we when we make claims about what exists, what doesn't exist, what's true, what's objective, what's subjective, what, rights are, what what freedom is, liberty is, etcetera, any of these claims are based on certain things that have to be the case as objective metaphysical principles

51:54Jay DyerThey can't be reduced to physical things. They can't be reduced to empirical sense data. None of those things can give an account for I'm not denying sense data, but I'm saying that to reduce our worldviews to some form of empiricism is self refuting.

52:08Jay DyerAnd all I have to do is bring bring it back to the questions of justified

52:13Jay Dyertrue belief and how we give an account for what we believe. We have to have good reasons for our beliefs, not just any reason.

52:20Jay DyerAnd so consistently, what I've heard is a bunch of arbitrary statements about this or that position, this or that thing, and never an actual argument for why those things are the case, just restating the position.

52:32Jay DyerSo all I have to do is keep bringing it back to the question of normativity.

52:35Jay DyerWhy ought we accept the argument that he's presenting? Why ought we accept the principles he's talking about?

52:40Jay DyerThe fact that there's no,

52:42Jay Dyerreal clear reason why empirical sense data is something that we ought to follow or that we know anything clearly from empirical sense data. I mean, how do we know there's an external world without assuming it to be the case? That was one of the things I brought up as a presuppositional category.

52:57Jay DyerSo I know that we believe in these things, and I know that we operate as if these things are the case. But my question is, in your view, as a nontheist or whichever agnostic or whatever position it is, I wanna know what's the what account do you have for how these things are?

53:13Jay DyerNot do you think that they are, but how are they the case? Why ought we to believe in those things? And to just simply state that they are

53:21Jay Dyeris not an answer or an argument.

53:25Ryan DawsonDone.

53:29Ryan DawsonThe reason I put faith in experience

53:33Ryan Dawsonand empirical testing of the world to try to derive at objective

53:38Ryan Dawsonprinciples

53:40Ryan Dawsonis because it's been working for so long.

53:43Ryan DawsonAnd I don't think I think we have the aim of figuring out objectivity,

53:49Ryan Dawsonand we definitely have an aim of trying to figure out what the natural laws are. I do believe, at least locally, that the there are

53:57Ryan Dawsonknowable,

53:58Ryan Dawsonunchanging

53:59Ryan Dawsonlaws about nature,

54:01Ryan Dawsonand a portion of them are discoverable.

54:04Ryan DawsonBut I don't see the need

54:05Ryan Dawsonfor those laws to be separate from nature itself. Like, God had to put them there or that a a brain could not have concepts or ideas

54:14Ryan Dawsonunless

54:15Ryan Dawsonsome deity allowed it. I think that's just part of having a mind.

54:20Jay DyerRight. But to ask the question of what a law is, you can't answer that question by simply saying, well, it's just recurring patterns.

54:29Jay DyerBecause what is it that is the thing that's recurring? That's

54:31Ryan Dawsonthe question. Law is about

54:34Ryan Dawsonthe nature, which is based on sense data.

54:36Ryan DawsonSo if we Newton's laws of motion or whatever is something that has always existed,

54:42Ryan Dawsonmost like well, all the way in you know, since we've had baryonic matter at least,

54:47Ryan Dawsoneven before we knew about it.

54:49Ryan DawsonOur role is to discover it, and we discovered it through experimentation

54:54Ryan Dawsonand empiricism.

54:55Ryan DawsonAnd then when we do that long enough, we have enough confidence to say, we think this is a physical law.

55:01Ryan DawsonIt may come along in the future that, nope. You were close. Guess what? That's wrong. Then we change our paradigm, and we say, we think this is a physical law.

55:10Ryan DawsonAnd we aim at objectivity.

55:13Ryan DawsonBut

55:14Ryan Dawsonbecause of our own limitations and stuff, we're you know, some things I definitely think

55:20Ryan Dawsonare certainly true. Like, the sun is bigger than my house and stuff like that. Like but there is definitely a gray area on the periphery where, well,

55:28Ryan Dawsonwe hope it's objective. It seems like it based on experiment. That's the best answer we have.

55:33Ryan DawsonBut we keep it open,

55:36Ryan Dawsonto say, well, it could be wrong, and we keep testing and trying to figure out trying to figure out. When you have dogmatism,

55:42Ryan Dawsonit's this is the right answer.

55:44Ryan DawsonGod said so, and there's no there's no room to change that and say, oops. We made a mistake. Maybe we shouldn't have enslaved people. But

55:52Jay Dyerif you read Quine's paper, two dogmas of empiricism,

55:55Jay Dyerone of the points that he makes as an empiricist himself is to critique the point that you're making, which is that actually

56:01Jay Dyerempiricism is a rabid dogmatic position

56:05Jay Dyerbecause the claims of meaningful laws in the universe

56:08Jay Dyerhave the exact same status as the metaphysical claims that Christians make. You don't actually know that there is any meaningful law in the universe. That's an interpretation that you've given of this, this, this, this, this phenomenon.

56:21Ryan DawsonThat's what I just said.

56:22Jay DyerNon sequitur leap that your own empirical skeptics point out is unjustified.

56:27Ryan DawsonI just said the same thing. I said it's a degree of confidence. Like, we come up with a law based on experiments,

56:33Ryan Dawsonwhich we're open to admitting could be wrong.

56:36Jay DyerThe very thing

56:36Ryan Dawsonthat you accused me of. Dogness is when you're like, this is definitely

56:39Jay DyerYou have a degree of confidence in something that's not justified,

56:42Jay Dyerwhich by your own definition is superstitious religious dogmatism. No.

56:46Ryan DawsonIt's justified.

56:48Ryan DawsonThe degree of justification based on the level of experience in bridge principles and so on, that's how it

56:53Jay Dyercomes with question. Because what's in question is the meaning of the experience, and you can't just appeal to the experience because that's that's not that's why it doesn't work for justification.

57:02Ryan DawsonYou just said Thomas Kuhn critiques what I said when I didn't say anything different than what he said.

57:07Jay DyerQuine. Excuse

57:08Ryan Dawsonme. Yeah. Excuse me. I've had migraine all day. You're quine, not Kuhn. Very different.

57:13Ryan DawsonIt's

57:15Ryan Dawsonthe same thing I just said. It's not dogmatic. There are people

57:18Jay DyerThe point of the people

57:19Ryan Dawsonmake that dogmatic and be like, no. This is the way

57:23Ryan Dawsonyou know, there are definitely people that

57:26Ryan Dawsontreat

57:26Ryan DawsonI'll give you a bunch of examples of things that I think are

57:30Ryan Dawsonmight as well be religion and science. People with the many world theory or maybe we're all in a simulation or what if there's no external world and solipsism and all this stuff

57:41Ryan Dawsonis can all be secular. And then to me, it's just as dogmatic. You can have dogmatism without,

57:48Ryan Dawsonsuperstition and supernatural

57:49Ryan DawsonNo.

57:50Jay DyerKlein's argument is that when you, as an empiricist,

57:53Jay Dyerattribute meaning to the external world, such as a natural law that is just as much an unjustified

58:00Jay Dyerdogma

58:01Jay Dyeras any metaphysical religious claim. And the argument is because it's a non sequitur unjustified

58:07Jay Dyerleap on your own grounds, on your own principle.

58:10Ryan DawsonI disagree because it's not a dog in my sense. I don't I'm not claiming

58:16Ryan Dawsonto know it. I'm saying this is I'm open to it changing, and I'm open to be having new data come in.

58:23Jay DyerEmpiricism might not be the case?

58:26Ryan DawsonI think empiricism is our best tool, but we debunk empiricism with empiricism, don't we?

58:33Ryan DawsonLike, we'll have we have a set of data. We have certain So

58:36Jay Dyerthere's not a good reason to believe in that tool. It's not justified.

58:39Ryan DawsonIt's justified by the it's it's you're right on that sense. It's not like,

58:44Ryan Dawsonyou can't, like, get the right answer on the first try. That almost never happens.

58:48Ryan DawsonBut it's the tool if I'm a going back to the practical and pragmatic sense, like, okay. We get the data. We come up with the best answer we can, and we're perfectly open to that answer changing as we get more information and data. That's the whole scientific process. It's a tool.

59:04Jay DyerYou can't

59:05Ryan DawsonIt's not supposed to be like

59:07Jay DyerPragmatism

59:07Jay Dyerdoesn't grant justification is the point I keep trying to make. Because The

59:11Ryan Dawsonjustification is only in that

59:14Ryan Dawsonit's it seems to be working and fits with all the other things that seem

59:17Jay Dyerto be working. But that would be circular because we're asking why should we believe in that. You're saying because it works. Well, how do we know it works? Because that's what it's supposed to do.

59:24Ryan DawsonNo. It it works because we keep testing it and it keeps working. I mean, the more you do it, the more confidence you have. You're never gonna get to an absolute. This is definitely

59:32Ryan Dawsontrue. We did it a million times, whatever.

59:37Ryan DawsonBecause we've seen that historically

59:38Ryan Dawsonthat we've had a very high degree of confidence in certain,

59:42Ryan Dawsonempirical beliefs, they turned out to be wrong.

59:45Jay DyerRight. But that doesn't grant justification.

59:49Jay DyerThat's the point.

59:50Jay DyerThere's not a basis to believe in the founding principles of empiricism is the point. And to say, well, they

59:56Ryan DawsonYeah.

59:56Ryan DawsonOkay. We're thinking justification in a different way. To me And the justification

1:00:02Ryan Dawsonfor using empiricism is because it's so useful.

1:00:06Jay DyerBut, again, I'm asking a question in terms of epistemology,

1:00:09Jay Dyernot pragmatism.

1:00:10Jay DyerEpistemology.

1:00:11Jay DyerWhy do we believe that this is the case, and what's our basis for believing that it is the case and true in the world?

1:00:17Ryan DawsonYou can think they're most all

1:00:20Ryan Dawsontheir prior experience, and they believe that, yeah, the future isn't random. It isn't gonna change that there are on Right.

1:00:26Jay DyerBut that's a belief, and we need to know how you have that certitude, how you have that

1:00:30Ryan DawsonWell, what I just said, you have a belief in unchanging physical laws based on all the experimentation

1:00:36Ryan Dawsonthat you can actually do,

1:00:39Ryan Dawsonshow that there are these discoverable laws.

1:00:41Jay DyerK. But David Hume presented all these arguments that I'm making about how that doesn't get you to justification.

1:00:47Ryan DawsonHe has a problem with induction that I don't agree with. Like, I don't have a problem with subjectivity

1:00:53Ryan Dawsonor induction.

1:00:53Jay DyerThe objection that he has.

1:00:57Ryan DawsonAbout which thing? Induction?

1:00:59Jay DyerHow does repeated observations in the past justify

1:01:03Jay Dyerthe future conclusion that it will always be the case?

1:01:06Ryan DawsonHow do well, it certainly to

1:01:09Ryan Dawsonme, it is faith. To me, repeated Oh,

1:01:12Ryan Dawsonthat's not true. Of

1:01:15Ryan Dawsonempiricism.

1:01:15Ryan DawsonNo. It has much more weight

1:01:18Ryan Dawsonto say if you're going to choose beliefs and one thing you do it, all of these experiments, then it's always the same way.

1:01:25Jay DyerSo we should choose

1:01:25Ryan DawsonDoesn't mean necessarily

1:01:27Ryan Dawsonthat the the million and second time you do it that then it's gonna be the same. Maybe eventually,

1:01:33Ryan Dawsonyou get a different answer or whatever.

1:01:35Jay DyerSo, again, it you you But begging the question and not answer.

1:01:37Ryan DawsonWhat is the a or b thing? Like, okay.

1:01:40Ryan DawsonOne side has all this experimentation

1:01:43Ryan Dawsonevery time I've done it.

1:01:44Jay DyerAgain, it's moving the question back a step. Why are we so good?

1:01:47Ryan DawsonGet the second

1:01:47Jay Dyersentence out of my mic. Why ought we accept that things that work are the right?

1:01:53Ryan DawsonWhy ought we think the future is going to randomly change?

1:01:57Ryan DawsonThere's no data for that. There's a whole bunch of data saying it doesn't.

1:02:01Jay DyerAgain, begging the question, I'm asking you why ought we? What's the basis for the ought?

1:02:06Ryan DawsonWhat I just said. If you have a lot of data behind one position

1:02:11Jay DyerThat begs the question.

1:02:12Ryan DawsonAnd none on the other.

1:02:13Jay DyerThe why ought we accept the lot of data? You see it just moving the problem back a step.

1:02:21Jay DyerHow do we derive odds normativity

1:02:23Jay Dyerfrom all of these is situations?

1:02:26Ryan DawsonBecause the alternative to

1:02:29Ryan Dawsonignoring data

1:02:31Ryan Dawsonis no prediction of the future whatsoever because you would just think, well, if if there's no consistency between past and future

1:02:38Ryan DawsonI'm just again, I'm just asking random all the time.

1:02:40Jay DyerOkay. So maybe that's what we should do. What why ought we not do that?

1:02:44Ryan DawsonBecause all the empirical evidence shows the future isn't random and that there is physical laws.

1:02:49Jay DyerI get the question.

1:02:50Jay DyerBecause that's an interpretation of the physical evidence that we ought to know.

1:02:52Ryan DawsonThat's that's

1:02:54Ryan Dawsonthat's a perfectly good reason to choose that belief.

1:02:56Jay DyerOkay. So it's circular.

1:03:00Ryan DawsonNo.

1:03:01Ryan DawsonYou're you're just

1:03:02Ryan Dawsonagain, this is just splitting hairs in a word salad. You wanna say, what's the justification?

1:03:08Ryan DawsonYou don't have a justification with the the god thing you talk

1:03:11Jay Dyerepidemic debate for hundreds of years not splitting Right.

1:03:14Ryan DawsonIt never never gets resolved.

1:03:16Jay DyerThey have a Atheism doesn't have a way to resolve this. That's the point.

1:03:20Ryan DawsonTheism doesn't either. It's just saying my my way of doing it is god made all the laws, but all those laws could just exist as intrinsic properties matter without having a supernatural entity.

1:03:30Jay DyerYou're just saying they just exist is not giving an account for them.

1:03:34Ryan DawsonWell, we're discovering them, so they exist. And saying god made them doesn't add anything.

1:03:40Jay DyerOkay. But I'm asking you what are those laws?

1:03:43Ryan DawsonLike, what is how are those laws?

1:03:44Ryan DawsonIt's a presupposition of, like, what's the proof that a god exists?

1:03:48Jay DyerSo you're saying you do agree that there are immaterial

1:03:51Ryan DawsonIt says god was just sitting around for infinity and then decided to create stuff and make these laws so we can argue about them.

1:03:58Jay DyerWell, a divine a divine mind does have a way to justify these principles.

1:04:03Ryan DawsonAnd, yeah, and living inside of animals and monarchy and all the rest of it. Like, I don't wanna dunk on the bible. I really don't.

1:04:11Ryan DawsonAnd like I said in the beginning, I'm not interested at all at arguing about deism and stuff because

1:04:18Ryan DawsonI know we're just gonna keep talking past each other. Like, I don't think,

1:04:23Ryan DawsonI don't have any problem with empiricism.

1:04:25Ryan DawsonI don't think it's going to answer

1:04:27Ryan Dawsonmuch outside of its own realm. Like, it's useful for science and math. It doesn't really give you good

1:04:33Ryan Dawsonyou're gonna have to use philosophy

1:04:36Ryan Dawsonfor questions of philosophy about, like, ethics, aesthetics, and things like that. There's a whole bunch of different schools on that.

1:04:43Ryan DawsonI have my opinion, but I I really don't care what someone's

1:04:47Ryan Dawsonreligion is or isn't. And I really don't find it necessary to have a god or gods or goddesses or

1:04:54Ryan Dawsonwhatever god to exist in order for nature to have physical laws.

1:04:59Jay DyerSo there's, again, an alternative You

1:05:01Ryan Dawsonknow, how do you know you have physical laws? We don't, but our confidence in it is based on all of our experimentation on it. That's not good enough for you. You're like, no. It's gotta have a divine origin or it can't exist.

1:05:12Jay DyerThere's a divorce here between assertions and arguments. And so all of what I'm hearing is psychological

1:05:18Jay Dyerreporting of your own beliefs and zero argumentation.

1:05:23Ryan DawsonWell, you're the one who wants to argue about that. I didn't. I was like,

1:05:27Ryan Dawsonthese you asked me, why do you believe this? I don't see the necessity

1:05:31Ryan Dawsonof having to have a divinity in order for matter to have natural laws.

1:05:36Jay DyerSo You haven't given me a reason why. How you know that there are laws.

1:05:40Ryan DawsonYour reason is if

1:05:41Jay Dyerto I don't

1:05:42Jay Dyerbe by belief in a law, and your answer was

1:05:45Ryan DawsonSame reason you justify belief in god. There just is one that made the law.

1:05:48Jay DyerNo. That's not the argument that I gave. I didn't say it just is the case.

1:05:53Ryan DawsonWhat's the justification for belief in god?

1:05:56Jay DyerBy impossibility of

1:05:58Jay Dyercontrary. The worldview that you're presenting

1:06:01Jay Dyerdoes not have an account for any of these things. It's called a transcendental argument.

1:06:04Ryan DawsonRight. If not a, it has to be b. Like, explain the nature of the entire universe. Otherwise,

1:06:10Ryan Dawsonyou know, Zeus is real.

1:06:13Jay DyerNo. Again, divine conceptualism gives a basis for their being, immaterial,

1:06:18Jay Dyerinvariant, abstract objects,

1:06:20Jay Dyerconcepts,

1:06:21Jay Dyeruniversals, all the things that I've been arguing for in this debate, which you need in your system,

1:06:25Jay Dyerbut you also negate by saying that they don't exist, but at the same time using them. So I don't think any

1:06:30Ryan Dawsonof these things don't exist. That's your paradigm

1:06:33Jay Dyeris don't have a way to explain them, and your worldview negates the possibility of those things existing. That's the argument.

1:06:40Ryan DawsonWorldview is materialism

1:06:42Ryan Dawsonand physicalism, and it isn't.

1:06:44Ryan DawsonI I don't see

1:06:45Jay Dyertalked about justification

1:06:46Jay Dyerfor the specific laws, categories,

1:06:49Jay Dyerand things I listed, and you said they just are.

1:06:52Ryan DawsonThese are things that we discover by doing experiments in the world.

1:06:56Jay DyerWell, you're saying that, but I'm saying you don't have a rational reason to believe in those things. And I've given you about 10

1:07:01Ryan Dawsondifferent kinds things. Rational.

1:07:03Ryan DawsonLike I said, like,

1:07:04Ryan Dawsonlaws of motion existed before we discovered them. I mean,

1:07:07Fr. Ananiasyou're They were

1:07:08Ryan Dawsonalready there.

1:07:09Jay DyerNot an argument. You're just reporting things that you

1:07:11Ryan DawsonYou're yeah. You can act like that's not an argument.

1:07:13Jay DyerIt's not an argument. You have no knowledge of that. Did you empirically

1:07:17Ryan Dawsonobserve did you empirically

1:07:18Ryan Dawsonobserve that? Then the alternative

1:07:20Ryan Dawsonis empirically observe that?

1:07:22Ryan DawsonThe alternative is Did you

1:07:23Jay Dyerempirically observe what was going on millions of

1:07:25Ryan Dawsonyears ago? I wasn't even born yet when they were discovered.

1:07:27Jay DyerSo as an empiricist, you don't have a basis to believe that?

1:07:30Ryan DawsonNo. Because you're saying because the alternative, since you're doing the a not b thing, then the laws of motion didn't exist until we discovered them, or they always existed and then we discovered them.

1:07:41Jay DyerAgain, you're not understanding that I'm asking on your worldview how you have a basis to believe that. I don't need you to tell me you believe that. We already know that.

1:07:48Ryan DawsonBut I'm saying how is that a reason to

1:07:51Jay Dyeractually believe in your view?

1:07:53Ryan DawsonThe same, like, the impossibility of the alternative. The same

1:07:55Ryan Dawsonthing you just asking

1:07:56Jay Dyeryou a specific question that you're not answering. You're you made a claim about what happened millions of years ago, and I'm saying but as an empiricist, you don't have a basis to believe that or know that.

1:08:05Ryan DawsonNot millions of years ago. Like, Newton's laws of motion were from

1:08:09Jay DyerYou said that they were always the case prior to their discovery. Right?

1:08:12Ryan DawsonBillions

1:08:13Ryan Dawsonof years ago. But

1:08:14Jay Dyerdo you know, as an empiricist, what happened billions of years ago?

1:08:18Ryan DawsonOh, I don't know everything that happened billions of years. Don't how you how know that all.

1:08:23Jay DyerDid you observe that as an empiricist?

1:08:26Ryan DawsonYou can observe light from billions of years ago. Yes.

1:08:29Jay DyerDid you observe that specifically billions of years ago?

1:08:32Ryan DawsonI didn't, but other people have.

1:08:34Jay DyerSo you don't have a basis as an empiricist to believe.

1:08:36Ryan DawsonThat's that's nonsense. You're acting like an empiricism. You're reducing empiricism

1:08:42Ryan Dawsonreally

1:08:42Jay Dyerto position.

1:08:43Ryan DawsonNo. It's not.

1:08:45Jay DyerLogic of your own position. It's a

1:08:46Ryan Dawsontotal troll,

1:08:47Ryan Dawsonman, to say that people can't use reasoning and logic.

1:08:50Ryan DawsonIt's all laid down.

1:08:51Jay DyerIt's not that you can't use it. It's that you don't have an explanation for its use. Do you see those two different points?

1:08:57Ryan DawsonI know those are two different points, and I disagree that you I mean, I understand that you think it's like not

1:09:02Jay Dyera good argument. How is that not a good challenge to what you're saying?

1:09:07Ryan DawsonYou want to say,

1:09:09Ryan Dawsonlike,

1:09:11Ryan Dawsonprove these physical laws existed before they got discovered.

1:09:14Jay DyerYour position as

1:09:17Jay Dyeran empiricist. I'm not an empiricist.

1:09:19Ryan DawsonOkay. Well, if, if there are unchanging physical laws about nature

1:09:24Ryan Dawsonand then we discover one,

1:09:26Ryan Dawsonthen it makes sense that those laws were still that way before we discovered.

1:09:31Jay DyerYou you're begging the question. I'm asking that you knew that that was always the case.

1:09:35Jay DyerYou're saying because I discovered it was always the

1:09:37Ryan DawsonThe most reasonable position is if they are from the point we discovered it onward,

1:09:43Ryan Dawsonthen that would also

1:09:45Ryan DawsonDo you do don't understand why that's the other direction too?

1:09:48Jay DyerLead. You're not justified in making that leap.

1:09:51Ryan DawsonI think we're perfectly justified in making that leap.

1:09:53Jay DyerThat's great that you think that, but it doesn't follow.

1:09:56Jay DyerYou don't know.

1:09:57Ryan DawsonI mean, I I I disagree with all all the things you're saying. Like, I don't think that you can make a leap from even if you have a deist god to this very specific Christian god of the bible,

1:10:08Ryan Dawsonand especially

1:10:09Ryan Dawsonboil down to

1:10:10Jay Dyerthe Put it this way. So the question the principle of uniformity in nature. Right? So your argument that the laws would have always been the case relies on another principle that that the the universe operates in this uniform way. Do you observe the principle of uniformity itself?

1:10:28Ryan DawsonYes. Based on experimentation,

1:10:30Ryan Dawsonthat is a reasonable conclusion because we do it over and over again. Principle itself. Gives us the best data that we have.

1:10:36Jay DyerThe principle itself.

1:10:38Ryan DawsonYep.

1:10:39Ryan DawsonThat principle is also discoverable

1:10:42Ryan Dawsonby sense data.

1:10:44Jay DyerSo the phenomena are not the principle itself.

1:10:47Jay DyerYou said the principle is a name that we invent for this. Right?

1:10:55Ryan DawsonThe principle is the name we invent for what?

1:10:58Ryan DawsonYou lost me there.

1:11:01Ryan DawsonBy describing an action in nature?

1:11:04Ryan DawsonYeah. Well, we have a series of actions in nature,

1:11:07Ryan Dawsonand we develop laws based on the best data we have. That's what we actually do.

1:11:11Jay DyerLaw, and it's not a justified move because as an empiricist, you don't observe that this always is the case. So it's a faith based position. It's a dollar.

1:11:21Ryan DawsonBased on it's it's faith that's tied to empirical evidence that you can test over and over again and is open to change.

1:11:28Jay DyerJust restating the problem that I've I've asked you 20 times that it doesn't grant you justification to say that it's been this way in the past, and you don't know

1:11:37Ryan Dawsonthat it's always been this

1:11:38Ryan Dawsonin disagree.

1:11:39Ryan DawsonI think you do have justification to say that way.

1:11:41Jay DyerDisagree, but the argument I said was that this If

1:11:44Ryan Dawsonyou have no data saying otherwise, you have no data saying

1:11:47Ryan Dawsonit wasn't this

1:11:48Ryan Dawsonway in

1:11:48Jay Dyerthe It It doesn't doesn't matter. Mean

1:11:49Ryan DawsonWell, you've been no. True.

1:11:51Ryan DawsonNo. You're basing your beliefs on the

1:11:53Jay Dyerdata. In nature.

1:11:54AndrewGuys, one at a time. One at a time.

1:11:57AndrewGo ahead. Let's start with let's start with hang on. Hang on, Jay. Hang on. Let's start

1:12:01Jay Dyerwith what you are observing.

1:12:03AndrewLet's start with mister Dawson.

1:12:05AndrewWe've, we've started with you a couple of times when we've had to break these up. Go ahead, mister Dawson.

1:12:10Ryan DawsonYeah. It's just going in circles,

1:12:13Ryan Dawsonbecause every time I start to say

1:12:16Ryan DawsonI start to say about, okay. We recognize some pattern.

1:12:21Ryan DawsonWe have a hypothesis. We think, okay. Maybe there's a rule here. Maybe there's a law here.

1:12:25Jay DyerI'm asking how you know it's a pattern.

1:12:27Ryan DawsonSee? Like, I don't get to the second part ever.

1:12:30Ryan DawsonYou you figure out the patterns,

1:12:33Ryan Dawsonwhich is not perfect because we get them wrong, but we figure out the patterns the best we can

1:12:38Ryan Dawsonsubjectively

1:12:39Ryan Dawsonthrough collecting data at the with the aim of finding an objective truth.

1:12:43Jay DyerYeah. And I keep that

1:12:45Ryan Dawsona lot of data. I know I know what you're gonna add. And then how do you know that why is that justified?

1:12:51Ryan DawsonUniformity

1:12:52Ryan Dawsonin nature,

1:12:53Ryan Dawsonthere's a lot more evidence to believe that that is the case than that it isn't the case. And so we just decide

1:13:00Ryan Dawsonthat there is uniformity in nature because it correlates with all the data that we have.

1:13:06Jay DyerBut that is irrelevant to the question that's being asked, which is that the principle itself is the case, which is the is that irrelevant?

1:13:13Ryan DawsonIt's what you're saying. Why is it an unreasonable position to say all the data Because you're empiricist.

1:13:19Jay DyerBecause you're an empiricist. You don't understand this. Being an empiricist, you limit yourself in what you can say. You can't then go outside of empiricism

1:13:27Jay Dyerand make claims about universal states of affairs

1:13:30Jay Dyerby the limits of your system.

1:13:32Ryan DawsonI disagree that that's a limit of empiricism. I think you can completely derive universals

1:13:37Ryan Dawsonor, you know, tasking universe, whatever you believe is objective from

1:13:41Jay DyerAnd that's a dogmatism because there's no way for

1:13:44Ryan Dawsonyou to get

1:13:45Jay Dyerhow do you have knowledge of universals? What's a universal?

1:13:48Ryan DawsonWell, you're not gonna again, like I said in the beginning, you're not going to absolutely know. You just have a degree of confidence based on a lot of data saying yes and almost none or none saying otherwise.

1:14:01Jay DyerRight. So but language

1:14:03Jay Dyerand the possibility of predication and saying all, any right? Those are universal claims. Those would be not possible in your view. You would have no bay there would be no different than

1:14:14Fr. AnaniasNo.

1:14:14Jay DyerMe saying god exists.

1:14:16Ryan DawsonThere's nothing else. Saying that you have. You say all the data you have, not all the data. You're never gonna have

1:14:22Ryan DawsonHave you read the data. Right?

1:14:24Jay DyerPopper points this out. Popper says it doesn't matter how many particulars you have. It doesn't grant you a universal claim.

1:14:31Ryan DawsonWell, I ain't saying we have all the data.

1:14:34Jay DyerIt doesn't matter. The stack of data doesn't matter. It doesn't change the universality.

1:14:38Ryan DawsonIt absolutely matters.

1:14:40Ryan DawsonYou're not gonna get any risk. I'll never gonna

1:14:42Jay DyerYou don't understand as an empiricist that you can't make a universal claim. This is a really simple point.

1:14:49Jay DyerYou can do it, but you can't justify that you can do that.

1:14:53Ryan DawsonRight. Which is why whatever claims you make in empiricism

1:14:57Ryan Dawsonare perfectly open to be changed with more data.

1:15:00Jay DyerOkay. So then they're not universal. There there are no universals. You can't have it both ways.

1:15:05Ryan DawsonRight. It's just the aim of objectivity,

1:15:07Ryan Dawsonand it's a long process of finding out

1:15:10Ryan Dawsonwhat we believe are the laws of nature based on the data that we are able to get.

1:15:15Jay DyerK. So if we can't

1:15:16Ryan Dawsonbe right to not know the grand nature of everything because we are not going to have all the data.

1:15:21Jay DyerSo in your view, there are universals when you wanna use them, but they also don't exist?

1:15:26Ryan DawsonNo.

1:15:27Ryan DawsonI'm saying if if there are universals,

1:15:30Ryan Dawsonwhat access do we have to those other than reasoning and experimentation and so on?

1:15:35Jay DyerWell, as a theist, I have a a great basis to believe in universals.

1:15:39Ryan DawsonWell, yeah, you think so. So then you have

1:15:41Jay DyerI'm demonstrating how I have a basis.

1:15:43Ryan DawsonThen because you have

1:15:45Jay Dyerthat your position has no basis for anything like

1:15:47Ryan Dawsonthat. Mhmm. So since yours is divinely inspired, you have the perfect ethics

1:15:53Ryan Dawsonand metaphysics and so forth.

1:15:54Jay DyerI said that already, have a justification for those things, not the perfect version

1:15:58Ryan Dawsonof it. That's alright. Fair enough. That's fine.

1:16:01Ryan DawsonI have to say I have to add something to,

1:16:05Ryan Dawsona request from somebody.

1:16:07Ryan DawsonAnd

1:16:08Ryan Dawsonsometimes I butt head with them, sometimes I don't. I consider him a friend. His name is

1:16:13Ryan DawsonAdam Green, who really wants to talk to Jay about

1:16:17Ryan Dawsonreligiosity and all that.

1:16:20Ryan DawsonI

1:16:22Ryan Dawsonsorry. I'm not brushed up on Kuhn and Klein and all these philosophers. It's been about twenty years

1:16:29Ryan Dawsonsince I looked at it, but I try to give you since I was already scheduled to do this, I'm like, fine. I'll argue about the philosophy of science. We have, like, completely no motivation prep or anything. So I apologize for that. But

1:16:43Ryan DawsonI feel like, for me,

1:16:46Ryan Dawsonempiricism works just fine. I don't see I know you're gonna say he's begging the question, but I don't think you really are justifying

1:16:54Ryan Dawsonwhether you have a theological

1:16:56Ryan Dawsonstance or not

1:16:59Ryan Dawsonany way around gathering data and coming up with discoveries of physical laws. Like, every physical law we think we know, we acquired through

1:17:08Ryan Dawsonboth experimentation,

1:17:09Ryan Dawsonwhich is not limited to only the physical processes. It's also our combination

1:17:14Ryan Dawsonof facts and contemplation and reason and all that. None of that, I don't think needs,

1:17:20Ryan Dawsonidea to create. That's just part of the mind.

1:17:23Ryan DawsonAnd that's based on

1:17:24Ryan Dawsonmany, many years of people being able to think and decide things. I think the argument from free will is much more interesting.

1:17:31Ryan DawsonThe free will versus determinism argument.

1:17:35Ryan DawsonAnd that I'm agnostic about. Like, I kinda favor free will, it seems like, which could also be an intrinsic property of matter. It could also come from a divine being. I'm open to that too.

1:17:45Ryan DawsonBut I just don't know enough about the brain to have that. There you know, I'd kick that over to, like, Roger Penrose or people who study that. I'm not a biologist. I don't care about these. As I said in the beginning, I think the results are the same. I've met great Christians, great Muslims, great Jews, and I've met some shitty ones of all those categories too.

1:18:05Ryan DawsonThe epistemological claims and things don't really

1:18:10Ryan Dawsonexcite me or matter to me so much as how people actually behave. And as I said in the beginning, which I think Jay probably wouldn't even disagree with, have way more concern with the

1:18:22Ryan Dawsonway I feel like religion has been subverted by commercial and business interests

1:18:27Ryan Dawsonand is being used to

1:18:30Ryan Dawsondivide and pit people against one another. And in particular,

1:18:35Ryan Dawsonfor me,

1:18:36Ryan Dawsonall the millions of dollars from well meaning people that are going to an apartheid state in Israel to support Zionism.

1:18:43Ryan DawsonAnd, yes, I know there are secular and religious Zionists. I think it that's just a thing. That's a greed thing more than a

1:18:50Ryan Dawsontheological thing.

1:18:54AndrewOkay.

1:18:55AndrewWith with that, Jay,

1:18:57Andrewwe have a ton of backed up callers. You wanna go ahead and give a closing statement, and we're gonna open up the phone lines for the callers. Can you stick around for just a little while, mister Dawson, for some calls?

1:19:06Ryan DawsonYeah. I'm sorry I'm not looking at the screen. I'm trying to avoid light. I've had migraines all

1:19:11Andrewfrom September. No. Migraines suck, and we sure appreciate you coming on. Wearing

1:19:15Ryan Dawsona hat and looking at the floor and talking all slow. Like, my head's kinda explode.

1:19:20AndrewGotcha.

1:19:21AndrewI go ahead, Jay. You have set up.

1:19:23Jay DyerJust say in conclusion that, you know, the the argument the way I usually try to take the transcendental argument is to point out a lot of the

1:19:31Jay Dyerepistemic universal type claims and the status of logical laws and

1:19:36Jay Dyeruniversals in a metaphysical way. What it what are they? Where are they? How are they? These are the questions I usually like to go to because

1:19:43Jay Dyeranytime we make sentences, anytime we predicate, anytime we make arguments in debate, we're relying on these immaterial invariant abstract things.

1:19:53Jay DyerAnd so,

1:19:54Jay Dyerto ask what those things are, where they are, how they are, to me, are very important

1:19:59Jay Dyerfundamental types of questions.

1:20:01Jay DyerSo they move out of the domain of

1:20:04Jay Dyerempirical sense data and evidentialism into meta questions, metalogic, metaethics, metaepistemology,

1:20:11Jay Dyerbecause I wanna know the basis for those things because they're prior to knowledge claims. Okay? And in my view, the Christian paradigm, because we have a deity who is an omniscient divine mind,

1:20:22Jay Dyerthe the the logical

1:20:24Jay Dyerprinciples and structures that exist in the world objectively are a mirror and a reflection of what's in the divine mind. So it makes sense that there would be a cohesion, a coherence

1:20:33Jay Dyerbetween

1:20:35Jay Dyerthe principles that underlie the possibility of cognition, like knowledge, causality,

1:20:40Jay Dyertelos, the one and the many, universals, laws of logic, time space relations, the self, regularity in nature, uniformity of nature. All these things are explanatory

1:20:50Jay Dyerin the Christian paradigm. They make sense. They cohere in the Christian paradigm because of that metaphysic,

1:20:55Jay Dyerbecause of that ethic,

1:20:57Jay Dyerbecause of that epistemology.

1:20:58Jay DyerAnd what I was trying to get at when I was asking for,

1:21:02Jay Dyerin terms of Ryan's worldview to me just seemed like kind of a reliance on things out of the enlightenment from human whatnot.

1:21:09Jay DyerAnd, I just didn't hear anything that approached something

1:21:13Jay Dyeranywhere close to a justification for why that is the case or why we ought to believe those things.

1:21:19AndrewAppreciate that, Jay. And then, mister Dawson, you can go ahead with the closing statement yourself before we take callers.

1:21:25Ryan DawsonYeah. I think the division there is,

1:21:29Ryan DawsonJay seems to be saying there's all these physical things. And then any thoughts about them or concepts or ideas, whatever, immaterial things, which definitely exists,

1:21:40Ryan Dawsonlike math

1:21:41Ryan Dawsonexists in the senses. Like, it's a useful tool to apply to the world.

1:21:47Ryan DawsonBut I still think that all our our thoughts and concepts are still about

1:21:52Ryan Dawsonthe sense data,

1:21:53Ryan Dawsonand that's the relationship. And then it's like

1:21:56Ryan DawsonI try to give an example of, like, a, you know, an object and then an object moving.

1:22:02Ryan DawsonThe movement isn't, like, part of the structure of the object. It's a description about what it's doing, but it's not physical in the sense of, like, touchable or tangible.

1:22:13Ryan DawsonIt's sort of a

1:22:14Ryan Dawsonwordplay on limiting what physical is.

1:22:18Ryan DawsonAll the attributes of physical things are also

1:22:23Ryan Dawsona part of existence. Like, the things that exist, like thoughts and things like that are I know some people argue those are also physical, but you know what I mean. Like, that's also part of the reality, and it's not. I'm not trying to be reductionist and say, nope. Just Adams. There's nothing else. Like,

1:22:41Ryan Dawsonof course, you can derive

1:22:43Ryan Dawsoncombinations of facts, and Hume's went into that too with his his bit on impressions and

1:22:48Ryan Dawsonhis

1:22:49Ryan Dawsonassociationism.

1:22:50Ryan DawsonBut I didn't see the leap from

1:22:54Ryan Dawsontrying to prove

1:22:56Ryan Dawsonwhat I would consider a a deist

1:22:58Ryan Dawsonentity

1:23:00Ryan Dawsonto

1:23:00Ryan DawsonOrthodox Christianity,

1:23:02Ryan Dawsonwhich is definitely a lot more than metaphysical claims and

1:23:07Ryan Dawsonepistemology.

1:23:08Ryan DawsonIt's very specific religious text,

1:23:11Ryan Dawsonwhich in my mind has a lot of immoral prescriptions

1:23:15Ryan Dawsonin it

1:23:18Ryan Dawsonor used to. I think Christianity, like any other religion, evolves with the science and reinterprets things until they don't mean what they say anymore so that they sound less ridiculous.

1:23:31AndrewWe appreciate that closing statement, mister Dawson. It's a mixed bag. We don't know who's winning in the poll just yet. I guess we're gonna find out. There will be an after debate poll that you guys can vote on to determine who you thought won the debate. We do have to get to our callers before we get to the super chats.

1:23:47AndrewIt's a you know, it's an engagement thing. People enjoy those types of things.

1:23:51AndrewMhmm. Father Deacon,

1:23:54Andrewyou're our first caller. Go ahead with your question.

1:23:57Fr. AnaniasCan you hear me okay?

1:23:59AndrewYeah. You're good.

1:24:01Fr. AnaniasSo, yeah,

1:24:04Fr. AnaniasI was just wondering, Ryan,

1:24:07Fr. Ananiasyou know, you were making claims about

1:24:10Fr. Ananiasthe subjectivity and that you you

1:24:13Fr. Ananiascouldn't

1:24:14Fr. Ananiaswe can't objectively know, but at the same time, you are making a lot of objective

1:24:18Fr. Ananiasstatements about

1:24:20Fr. Ananiashow we observe data.

1:24:23Fr. AnaniasIf we think about it too, that you're making an objective statement about

1:24:28Fr. Ananiassubjectivity

1:24:31Fr. Ananiasand various things like that too. And so,

1:24:33Fr. Ananiasobviously, that's gonna become a problem too. And

1:24:37Fr. Ananiasone thing that we often forget about when we move into

1:24:42Fr. Ananiastrying to take, I guess, I'll be charitable.

1:24:46Fr. AnaniasModest epistemic position is probably why you're wanting to say that,

1:24:50Fr. Ananiaslook. We'll just you know, I can't make these objective statements.

1:24:55Fr. AnaniasThat comes with consequences.

1:24:56Fr. AnaniasAnd one of the consequences

1:24:58Fr. Ananiasis that

1:25:00Fr. Ananiassub subjectivity means that

1:25:04Fr. AnaniasI, the person, and the either the moral or the

1:25:08Fr. Ananiasepistemic standard.

1:25:10Fr. AnaniasAnd if you wanna go with that, you know, it does come with a heavy cost. And that heavy cost would be,

1:25:18Fr. AnaniasI can't make any moral

1:25:21Fr. Ananiasor intellectual

1:25:22Fr. Ananiasprogress.

1:25:24Fr. AnaniasWhy? Because

1:25:25Fr. Ananiasif I'm the standard,

1:25:28Fr. Ananiasif what I believe is true

1:25:31Fr. Ananiasis true relevant to me,

1:25:33Fr. Ananiasthen how can we admit that we ever learn or grow

1:25:37Fr. Ananiaseither intellectually

1:25:38Fr. Ananiasor morally?

1:25:40Fr. AnaniasAnd so

1:25:41Fr. AnaniasI think that's something that a lot of people don't think about.

1:25:44Fr. AnaniasMost people go after the kind of contradictory nature of making subjective

1:25:49Fr. Ananiasclaims like that.

1:25:51Fr. AnaniasBut think about that. That that seems to be

1:25:54Fr. Ananiasa big problem is that if I go that route as far as saying that

1:26:01Fr. Ananiaseverything's

1:26:01Fr. Ananiassubjective,

1:26:04Fr. Ananiasthen I set the stage for myself not making any moral or intellectual progress.

1:26:09Fr. AnaniasAnd so that's kind of more of a common sense argument, flies in the face of kind of our intuitions and common sense. So I just throw that out there

1:26:18Ryan Dawsonfor you to think about.

1:26:19Ryan DawsonCan I respond

1:26:21Ryan Dawsonto that real fast?

1:26:22Jay DyerSure. Absolutely.

1:26:23Ryan DawsonYeah.

1:26:25Ryan DawsonWhat I was talking about is the subjectivity. Like, if we gather a bunch of data,

1:26:30Ryan Dawsonprobably it's gonna be a pretty good general agreement on what we think that data is, but you're it's still gonna be a subjective interpretation of the data. Like, each person

1:26:40Ryan Dawsonsome of it might be so obvious that it seems like, no. This is objective. We all agree on x or whatever.

1:26:47Ryan DawsonBut, obviously, there are examples where

1:26:49Ryan Dawsonthe same data comes in and people have vastly different

1:26:52Ryan Dawsonopinions on it. And that's where the it is subjective in the game is the

1:26:58Ryan Dawsonjudge of whether or not,

1:27:00Ryan Dawsonyou were objective or at least close to it is

1:27:04Ryan Dawsonwhether it worked.

1:27:06Ryan DawsonAnd so you you start with all these opinions and what the data is, and the one that,

1:27:12Ryan Dawsonyou know, proves the test of time and seems to work in the world

1:27:16Ryan Dawsonprobably works because it's actually

1:27:19Ryan Dawsonmatches

1:27:20Ryan Dawsonwhat is real.

1:27:21Ryan DawsonAnd so that's the experiment part. And then you refine

1:27:26Ryan Dawsonyour positions on the data.

1:27:27Ryan DawsonThe idea that, like,

1:27:30Ryan Dawsonoh, I just got it objectively right on the first shot. Really

1:27:35Ryan Dawsonlow statistic

1:27:36Ryan Dawsonof saying, yep. I interpret it. I got this data. I interpreted it right, and that's never gonna change.

1:27:42Ryan DawsonAnd, you know, hooray for me.

1:27:45Ryan DawsonThat's the part I was saying that's subjective is, I I mean, I agree.

1:27:49Ryan DawsonLike yeah.

1:27:50Ryan DawsonI understand that. You you can't get too

1:27:52Ryan Dawsonfar off of something. Like, the sun's not bright. That stuff's, like, just silly to me. You know? But, like, know what I'm saying? We have problems in science or even historical claims or whatever that you gotta

1:28:04Ryan Dawsonget a bunch of different people's opinion and hash it out with the best evidence you have and get the best conclusion you have, but it's not gonna be objective. You're gonna think it's subjective, and you wanna believe it is.

1:28:16Ryan DawsonBut it's not actually objective. You're still

1:28:19Ryan Dawsonbeing subjective because you have to interpret the data.

1:28:23Fr. AnaniasSo if you're saying there's subjects involved

1:28:26Fr. Ananiasin that that will have their beliefs, it can either be true or false. I think that's not a contentious

1:28:32Fr. Ananiasposition that anybody would disagree with.

1:28:35Fr. AnaniasBut I think what Jay was trying to ask is

1:28:39Fr. Ananiaswe all come with different standards

1:28:42Fr. Ananiason how we judge

1:28:44Fr. Ananiasexactly like you said. For example, what works.

1:28:49Fr. AnaniasIt's not just like

1:28:51Fr. Ananiaswhat works

1:28:52Fr. Ananiasis something that we all just agree on and is accessible. What works for one person

1:28:59Fr. Ananiasmay not work for another as far as that kind of that standard.

1:29:03Ryan DawsonOh, I was thinking sorry.

1:29:04Fr. AnaniasIs kinda more fundamental question about that.

1:29:09Fr. AnaniasWhat is the criteria to actually judge what works?

1:29:13Fr. AnaniasAnd judge even with ourselves, like,

1:29:16Fr. Ananiaswas I wrong, or is this person wrong? So he he's I think he was going I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Jay,

1:29:23Fr. Ananiaskind of more deeper issues.

1:29:25Fr. AnaniasI think, Ryan, what you were saying is that what's very clear,

1:29:30Fr. Ananiaspeople have different beliefs and different criteria.

1:29:33Fr. AnaniasJay's asking a normative question about what ought the correct criteria

1:29:38Fr. Ananiasbe. Is is that did I kinda spell it out correctly,

1:29:42Fr. Ananiasboth,

1:29:43Fr. AnaniasRyan, your position, Jake?

1:29:46Ryan DawsonI thought you were talking about empirical questions like,

1:29:51Ryan Dawsonwhat what do we think? How do we build a bridge? Right?

1:29:55Ryan DawsonWell, we've we've tried a lot of things, and, man, this set of, you know, physical law seems to work pretty damn well. We've been building bridges for thousands of years, whatever.

1:30:05Ryan DawsonAnd these other act architectural data, that just doesn't work. Right? And from prudence, I think you can have a high degree of confidence even though in the future, maybe it'll all change, but not for me. I feel like if

1:30:17Ryan Dawsonyou have a long set of data that says, hey. If you build a bridge in this way, it'll stay up a long time and work.

1:30:25Ryan DawsonLike, the fact that it works shows that

1:30:27Ryan Dawsonprobably your assumptions about the physical laws are correct

1:30:31Ryan Dawsonor it's some massive

1:30:33Ryan Dawsoncoincidental correlation,

1:30:35Ryan Dawsonwhich it could be. But probably,

1:30:37Ryan Dawsonit's because it's true.

1:30:39Fr. AnaniasWell, I wanna bring up a couple

1:30:40Jay Dyerhold on.

1:30:41AndrewHang on. Hang on. I'm I'm I'm sorry. We can't we can't stay on any one

1:30:44Ryan Dawsoncall. It's very different than, like, an

1:30:46Andrewethical question. Give I think You can stay

1:30:48Fr. Ananiason my call for as long as

1:30:49Andrewyou want. I can't I can't can't even do it for you. Sorry.

1:30:52Ryan DawsonCan't even do it for

1:30:53Andrewyour butt. Jay, I did wanna give you a chance to respond.

1:30:56Jay DyerRight. So when we say that things are the case because they work, the reason I kept re restating

1:31:03Jay Dyerand stressing the fact that that doesn't achieve justification justification is because it kind of assumes what's being asked. Right? We're asking

1:31:09Jay Dyernot,

1:31:11Jay Dyerdoes it give it get us to a goal? We're asking about the principle itself. Right? The principle of the thing itself,

1:31:17Jay Dyerand how do we have a justification to believe in that. And to say, well, because it works is begging the question because

1:31:24Jay Dyerthe value judgments that we have,

1:31:27Jay Dyerdon't grant us justification

1:31:30Jay Dyerin terms of pragmatism. Pragmatism will never get you justification because it's not fit to answer the question that justification is after.

1:31:37Jay DyerSo an anthropocentric

1:31:38Jay Dyerthing like the

1:31:40Jay Dyerbridges were we we're justified in building bridges because they work. Well, that's relative to human beings. What I'm asking for is something more

1:31:49Jay Dyerobjective in the sense of how do principles in the world work objectively?

1:31:54Jay DyerHow is there such a thing as a law of logic that works in the world to build a bridge? How does that work in a worldview where we have

1:32:02Jay Dyerpure chaos,

1:32:04Jay Dyermaterialism,

1:32:05Jay Dyeretcetera? Not saying that that's your position, but I'm saying in those types of atheistic positions,

1:32:09Jay Dyerthe principles themselves, not how they relate to individual human beings for

1:32:13Jay Dyerhuman goals

1:32:15Jay Dyerand the arbitrary,

1:32:17Jay Dyerend goals that we've chosen. Well, I like this because it works. I mean, I mean, nuclear

1:32:22Jay Dyerbombs work.

1:32:23Jay DyerRight? They achieve their goal. They're they're pragmatic.

1:32:26Jay DyerThey work. It was at a justification for their use because they work.

1:32:31Jay DyerSo saying something works and pragmatism

1:32:34Jay Dyerdoes not have anything to do with the justification for the principles themselves.

1:32:39Ryan DawsonThis is two very different

1:32:41AndrewGo ahead, Ryan.

1:32:42Ryan DawsonI'm sorry. Go on this or okay. Well, like, that a bomb works

1:32:47Ryan Dawsonis empirical and the science of splitting an atom. Yeah.

1:32:51Ryan DawsonThat But

1:32:52Jay Dyerthat's why it doesn't achieve justification.

1:32:54Ryan DawsonWell, the justification is like, well, look. This works. So these laws these physical laws and chemical laws we came up probably correct

1:33:02Jay DyerThat's not what the question of justification is.

1:33:04Ryan DawsonTo drop a bomb on a city is a political decision, not Yeah.

1:33:07Jay DyerYou're missing what justification is after.

1:33:10Jay DyerIt's not it's none of those things.

1:33:12Ryan DawsonWe're just gonna disagree. I think that the justification

1:33:15Fr. Ananiasone thing.

1:33:16Ryan DawsonJustification to give you confidence in that belief is that it works every time you do it.

1:33:21AndrewVery, very quickly, father.

1:33:23Fr. AnaniasSo

1:33:24Fr. Ananiasjust real quick,

1:33:26Fr. Ananiasand you'll see this in and and

1:33:29Fr. Ananiasa lot of these people in the philosophy of science were able to demonstrate that

1:33:33Fr. Ananiasyou can have multiple contradicting

1:33:36Fr. Ananiasscientific

1:33:37Fr. Ananiasparadigms that all work perfectly well. Yep.

1:33:41Fr. AnaniasThat doesn't get you to the question of veracity,

1:33:45Fr. Ananiasa connection to the world, let alone justification.

1:33:49Fr. AnaniasSo that's an additional failure of

1:33:52Jay DyerWell, the under determination of data problem.

1:33:54Fr. AnaniasData thesis. Yeah. That's another kind of failure of the pragmatist argument too. It doesn't want it doesn't do what you want or what you're saying it it it should do.

1:34:03Ryan DawsonI don't think it does lead to

1:34:06Ryan Dawsonobjective. Like, something is just solid objective never change. I say that objectivity is the aim,

1:34:12Ryan Dawsonand I just think the best closest way we can get to that is through

1:34:17Ryan Dawsonexperiment and empirical

1:34:19Jay Dyerprocess. Wouldn't solve the underdetermination

1:34:22Jay Dyerof data problem. That's the objective.

1:34:24Ryan DawsonOne of the is theology.

1:34:26Ryan DawsonLike, that's what I've said, like, 12 times.

1:34:29AndrewThank you so much for that call.

1:34:30Ryan DawsonHave us in

1:34:32Ryan Dawsoneither paradigm.

1:34:33AndrewFather father deacon Ananias, we appreciate that so much. Green feathers, you've been waiting patiently. Go ahead with your question.

1:34:39Green FeathersHey.

1:34:41Green FeathersHow's it going, guys? Appreciate the,

1:34:43Green Featherseverything you guys have been talking about.

1:34:45Green FeathersI just like to say, like,

1:34:48Green Feathersit seems like,

1:34:50Green Feathersyour position is kinda contradictory

1:34:53Green Feathersin a lot of regards to what you've been saying, but

1:34:57Green Feathersthe empirical data that you're talking about

1:35:00Green Feathersin nature,

1:35:02Green Feathersthe objective underlying

1:35:05Green Featherstruth to that is from our our perspective, what I really think that to bridge the gap that intellectually

1:35:13Green Feathersfrom a third party perspective that you're missing is logos theology,

1:35:17Green Featherslogos based creation, which is that

1:35:20Green Feathersall the objective and subjective

1:35:24Green Feathersobservations

1:35:24Green Feathersand truths

1:35:26Green Feathersin nature,

1:35:28Green Featherswhich you keep referencing, the data that can be gathered by the the the self and

1:35:33Green Feathersyou wanna you know, you keep referencing referencing other world religions and stuff like that, yet you're saying that

1:35:39Green Feathersreligions are

1:35:41Green Feathersmoney grabbing and all this stuff, but then you keep circling back to attacking Christianity,

1:35:46Green Featherswhich is the underlying

1:35:48Green Featherstruth to all of creation. I've spent so much time out in nature and in creation,

1:35:54Green Feathersand all of that subjective

1:35:57Green Feathersfor me, I can say at least in that perspective, which you're arguing from

1:36:01Green Feathersis empirically based on data

1:36:04Green Featherscorrect,

1:36:06Green Feathersis that

1:36:07Green FeathersJesus

1:36:08Green Featherscreated everything,

1:36:10Green Featherslogo space creation

1:36:12Green Featherson himself, his crucifixion,

1:36:14Green Feathersall of that the stories of the bible themselves play out

1:36:19Green Feathersin all of our lives in various ways, and that's why it's the objective universal truth.

1:36:25Green FeathersIt's also in nature. You go out

1:36:28Green Feathersand you you can

1:36:30Green Feathersnot

1:36:31Green Feathersexclusively

1:36:32Green Feathersfrom our perspective

1:36:33Green Feathersas Christians,

1:36:36Green Feathersyou know, find Jesus in that sense, but what I'm getting at is that

1:36:41Green Feathersthe totality of him and of creation is rooted in him, his person,

1:36:47Green Feathersand in his story.

1:36:53Ryan DawsonI I just wanna respond to that. I did not say that religions are money grabbing. It's not an intrinsic part of any religion, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, whatever.

1:37:04Ryan DawsonThere are just people

1:37:06Ryan Dawsonwho are greedy. That they that's not because of their

1:37:09Ryan Dawsontheology.

1:37:10Ryan DawsonIt's just part of their personality, and they have subverted religion.

1:37:15Green FeathersYou did say that religions evolve over time eventually, and now that they're all just corrupted forms

1:37:21Green Feathersof themselves to some materialistic

1:37:24Green FeathersNo. Version. You did say you did say

1:37:26Ryan DawsonNo. No. No. There are well, look. You have different people of the same faith that practice it differently. Doctor

1:37:33Ryan DawsonRon Paul's a lot different than Pat Robertson. You know? They're televangelists.

1:37:37Ryan DawsonClearly, just drifting

1:37:38Green Feathersand making money and their lives. That the empirical data that their lives It's

1:37:42Andrewyour hang on. Green feathers, this is your last follow-up. Make make it count.

1:37:48Green FeathersThe way in which every single person lives their lives and the empirical data that can be gathered on that alone through observation,

1:37:57Green Feathersif you don't have that gauge of truthfulness

1:38:00Green Feathersin regards to where that person is

1:38:03Green Feathersin the totality of the spectrum intellectually and spiritually

1:38:06Green Feathersthat can we can encompass and comprehend as people.

1:38:10Green FeathersLike, either you have

1:38:11Green Feathersyou're you got

1:38:13Green Feathersmental issues or something, whatever. You you that radar is not going off, right, as to out by yourself

1:38:20Green Feathersinteracting with others or nature,

1:38:22Green Feathersobserving

1:38:24Green Feathersor

1:38:25Green Feathersattempting to acquire truth

1:38:28Green Feathersin your life,

1:38:29Green Feathersit will lead you to Jesus. That's the whole point. Orthodoxy is the totality

1:38:34Green Feathersand fullness of that through the sacraments.

1:38:37AndrewGo ahead with your response, mister Dawson.

1:38:40Ryan DawsonI mean, I live in Japan, which is 99%

1:38:44Ryan Dawsonnot monotheistic,

1:38:45Ryan Dawsonmuch less finding truth in Jesus. I mean, I'm glad that worked for you.

1:38:50Ryan DawsonBut, I've been in nature and all that too, and I don't find that as a a truth

1:38:56Ryan Dawsonand neither do, you know, a few billion people.

1:39:00Ryan DawsonIt's

1:39:02Ryan DawsonI don't know what else to say to that. Like, that religion was invented at a c f n point time.

1:39:08AndrewLet finish, let green feathers. Go ahead, mister Dawson.

1:39:11Ryan DawsonPeople existed before the faith was made, before Jesus was on the planet,

1:39:16Ryan Dawsonand I'm just granting that he was.

1:39:19Ryan DawsonYou you're not you're not getting your morals and all that from Christianity. You can,

1:39:25Ryan Dawsonbut plenty of people have moral systems,

1:39:27Ryan Dawsonpractice logic, and all that

1:39:30Ryan Dawsonwithout that faith. That's not even what Jay and I were arguing about. He was arguing about

1:39:36Ryan Dawsonwhat is the progenitor of these logical laws and stuff. I'm saying we discover them.

1:39:40Green FeathersYou're not you're not providing an objective

1:39:43Green Feathersclaim to your

1:39:45AndrewYeah. Foundations.

1:39:46Ryan DawsonWhat Green

1:39:47Andrewfeathers. Feathers. I'm sorry, but that was that was your last follow-up.

1:39:50Jay DyerI wanna point out something if I can. One thing I would say really quickly is if you go watch the debate that I did with the stuff on Molinu,

1:39:58Jay Dyerseveral of the points that I brought up there are relevant here because there's kind of perennial problems for any empiricist position.

1:40:04Jay DyerProbably, you can mention one of those, which is the underdetermination

1:40:07Jay Dyerof data problem. There's the problem of there not really being

1:40:11Jay Dyerproperly basic beliefs. There's a problem of the external world. There's a problem of induction. There's another problem that's famously called in the philosophy of mind, it's called the problem, the myth of the given. Mhmm. And so a lot of, empiricism relies on this notion that there's a causally meaningful

1:40:26Jay Dyerimpression of external data upon us that we just assume has meaning,

1:40:31Jay Dyerwhich we just assume has

1:40:32Jay Dyersome significance from externally caused sense data. These are, again, just perennial problems that empirical

1:40:39Jay Dyerempiricist philosophers themselves have been wrestling with for a long time, particularly,

1:40:43Jay DyerWilford seller's book, empiricism and the philosophy of mind. So people wanna understand more of the the critiques that I'm giving, you could go read a book like that.

1:40:51AndrewThanks for that, Jay. Appreciate it. We need to move on to our next caller.

1:40:55AndrewLiam, you've been waiting very patiently. We certainly appreciate that. Go ahead with your question.

1:41:00AndrewDid you is it I'm sorry, Jay. Did you wanna shout something out real quick?

1:41:04Jay DyerNo. I was just showing the book.

1:41:05AndrewOh, okay. Go go ahead, Lyme.

1:41:07LiamIt's it's Liam, but you could I've been called worse.

1:41:11LiamI've really

1:41:13AndrewYeah. That's just for just just for saying that. Right? Like, just for saying, Liam.

1:41:19AndrewNo. I'm kidding. Go ahead. Go ahead with your question.

1:41:22AndrewGo ahead with your question.

1:41:24LiamNo. I appreciate this very much, Andrew. I'm Jay.

1:41:27Fr. AnaniasIt's

1:41:28Fr. AnaniasLiam.

1:41:29AndrewJust just ask ask your fucking question, man.

1:41:31Ryan DawsonJust ask

1:41:32AndrewJay, ask your

1:41:34LiamMy question is, ultimately I mean, I had some lead up to this because I appreciate Ryan and his brilliant mind and Jay and his theological depth of philosophical knowledge. And we get wrapped up in the epistemological

1:41:46Liamquestion of what is first mind or matter.

1:41:50LiamBut, really, when you come to it, it's Christianity was created by Jews to get gentiles to worship a non Jewish god, to abandon their tradition.

1:41:59LiamAnd to ultimately why does this matter? Because America

1:42:02Liamis fighting Israel's wars because of this Christian.

1:42:07LiamDebate Adam Green on this already.

1:42:11LiamThank you.

1:42:13Ryan DawsonI wouldn't disagree that

1:42:16AndrewCall it right. Right? But,

1:42:18Andrewanyway, go go ahead. Go ahead, mister Dawson.

1:42:21Ryan DawsonWell, yeah, there are Jewish Zionists,

1:42:24Ryan Dawsonvery prominent and powerful positions that are dragging US foreign policy to fight on Israel's behalf of the holy land for the self proclaimed chosen race of god, all that.

1:42:34Ryan DawsonBut, I mean, it's not the Jews. It's those Jews. And there are a lot of cucks in Christianity that, you know,

1:42:41Ryan Dawsontwo thirds of their holy book is all from Judaism. Their creation story is from Judaism. They worship a Jewish god, and so they have an affinity for Jews.

1:42:49Ryan DawsonAnd they a lot of them, not all of them, but a lot of them are going to defend whatever Israel does.

1:42:54Ryan DawsonAnd, of course, if they think that they have an objective ethic that can't be challenged, then

1:42:58Ryan Dawsongod says save the Jews, and that's what they're gonna do. And they don't mind bulldozing down houses and killing Palestinians and going to war with the rock and all the rest of the crap.

1:43:06Ryan DawsonAnd that's my major problem with how religion is practiced by some people.

1:43:11Ryan DawsonI don't give a damn about the epistemological

1:43:14Ryan Dawsonclaims and stuff. I care about how they behave. And what they're doing because of their beliefs

1:43:19Ryan Dawsonis sending billions of dollars to an apartheid state to support racial supremacists and utterly

1:43:26Ryan Dawsonpointless violence over the indigenous people of Palestine

1:43:30Ryan Dawsonand into Lebanon and into Syria.

1:43:33Ryan DawsonAnd, you know, this is what matters to me. Like, we're spending we spent trillions of dollars going to war with Iraq

1:43:40Ryan Dawsonon a pack of lies,

1:43:43Ryan DawsonBut our press is completely

1:43:45Ryan DawsonZionist run, and I don't wanna go

1:43:48Ryan Dawsontoo deep into that because this is on YouTube, and even talking about this will get your channel erased.

1:43:55AndrewYeah. Well, let's let's not do that then. Liam, I do appreciate your call. That's fucking new.

1:44:02AndrewIt's it's Wait. Wait. Wait.

1:44:03Ryan DawsonWait. I'm sorry.

1:44:04Fr. AnaniasSay your name.

1:44:05Ryan DawsonHow do

1:44:05Andrewyou how Well, hang on.

1:44:06Ryan DawsonHang on.

1:44:06AndrewI'm sorry. I'm sorry. Say your name again. Say your name again.

1:44:10AndrewYeah. Hey. Yeah. Shut up. Anyway

1:44:13Andrewon this. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Jay.

1:44:15Ryan DawsonShow there already? Like,

1:44:16Ryan Dawsonyou know that guy?

1:44:19Jay DyerWell, he was like, why won't you debate Adam Green? Well, because I don't think Adam Green has any knowledge of the topics that I offer to debate. So I offer philosophical argumentation

1:44:28Jay Dyerfor my position.

1:44:30Jay DyerAnd, I've listened to Adam Green do debates, and he doesn't have any knowledge of those topics at all. And just like that guy, I mean, the argument that it's a chrish Christian is a Jewish psyop is just so fundamentally ignorant when it comes to the history of Christianity and biblical theology that it's it's it doesn't even really deserve a response.

1:44:49AndrewOkay. Next caller, DG, can you hear me okay?

1:44:52DGYeah. I can.

1:44:53Fr. AnaniasCan you hear me?

1:44:54AndrewYeah. Go ahead.

1:44:55DGAlright. I tuned in a bit late, so I might have missed this. But I was just curious where Jay's disconnect is with where you know, just because we can observe and recreate experiments

1:45:05DGshowing, you know, so called laws of the universe that it must be because of or proof of god. I'm not saying that it isn't, and I don't think Ryan was either, but,

1:45:14DGjust curious what your take is on that.

1:45:15Jay DyerYes. I again, I made a very clear argument. It's called the transcendental argument where I argued from transcendental categories, which are prior to any knowledge claim.

1:45:24Jay DyerSo the argument is that anytime you make any knowledge claim, it doesn't matter what. You're talking about pencils, you're talking about universal laws,

1:45:30Jay Dyerphysics, whatever. Certain things have to be the case

1:45:33Jay Dyerfor you to make those claims at all. To make any sentences requires a certain structure to the world, certain structure to thought. There's a certain logic that goes into language, for example. Those principles can't be reduced to or identified to any physical objects. Okay? Go again, go watch the debate with stuff on Molin. That was a whole debate. Was over that. So,

1:45:55Jay Dyerwhat are those things? Where are those things? And how are those things given the fact that they're prior to any knowledge claim?

1:46:02Jay DyerMy argument was that all of the things that I listed that are necessary for that to be the case, I listed the external world, identity over time, the self, time space relations,

1:46:11Jay Dyeruniversals, laws of logic, immaterial concepts, causality, telos, the one in the many. All of those things are not physical.

1:46:19Jay DyerAll of those things

1:46:21Jay Dyerwork together. They cohere.

1:46:23Jay DyerAnd how does that how does that work?

1:46:25Jay DyerWell, a type of deity that I argue for gives an account for and explains how those preconditions

1:46:31Jay Dyerare the case, how they work. God created the world a certain way. I'm not saying it's true because I say it. I'm saying that the paradigm

1:46:38Jay Dyergives an account for those things. The argument is the other paradigm doesn't give an account for those things. That's the argument.

1:46:48Ryan DawsonI think all those immaterial

1:46:49Ryan Dawsonthings are about material things. Like, even if you say to, two of what

1:46:55Jay DyerRight. So

1:46:56Ryan Dawsonkind of object.

1:46:58Jay DyerOkay. So where is the law of logic under a microscope? You can't reduce these things to physical things.

1:47:05Ryan DawsonYeah. Again, we disagree on, like, where you limit physical things. Physical things have attributes.

1:47:12Jay DyerRight. But, I mean, fundamental problems for reductionist would be when you say that there's patterns, when you say that there's commonalities,

1:47:19Jay Dyerwhat are the things that are common between two different things that you say is a pattern?

1:47:26Ryan DawsonYeah. I I have not this is, again,

1:47:29Ryan Dawsongoing in circles. I have not made and will not make the case that,

1:47:34Ryan Dawsonlike, thoughts and concepts are

1:47:36Ryan Dawsonjust,

1:47:38Ryan Dawsonlike, physical objects. They're about physical objects.

1:47:42Jay DyerOkay. But that doesn't say what they are.

1:47:44AndrewCaller, do you do

1:47:45Ryan Dawsonyou have what they are through experimentation,

1:47:48Ryan Dawsonand we have a degree of confidence in it. That's we've said it. I mean, I don't think this is gonna change. If we had a

1:47:53Jay Dyerday ontological question about what the status of them is, and you saying that they're about things doesn't answer that question.

1:47:59Ryan DawsonYeah. It's like it's

1:48:02Ryan Dawsonlike

1:48:05Ryan Dawsondifferent from

1:48:06Ryan Dawsonplatonic forms. You have

1:48:08Fr. Ananiasan

1:48:08Ryan Dawsonontological

1:48:09Ryan Dawsonorigin of

1:48:12Ryan DawsonYeah. Things like logic instead of an ontological origin about, like, the first mover.

1:48:16Jay DyerWell, it wasn't just the origin. It's a question of how those things are. You're saying that there are these things, and I'm saying, well, in your worldview, please explain how that's possible or what that is.

1:48:24Jay DyerNow I am not hearing how that is or how that

1:48:27Ryan DawsonWhy would it not why would it be impossible? I mean, these are the things we discover through experimentation

1:48:32Ryan Dawsonwith nature.

1:48:33Jay DyerBecause the question is not, do you have a belief that you discovered it? It's a question about what is it that you've discovered? What how do you have a justification for believing that commonalities possess some common quality? So Plato raises this question. It's about the one and the many. Right? What is the status? What is the quality that things share?

1:48:51Jay DyerBecause they can't be reduced to the physical objects.

1:48:55Ryan DawsonI don't think it has to be reduced to the physical objects. You're saying

1:48:58Ryan Dawsonhow But then what is

1:49:00Ryan Dawsonphysical objects behave.

1:49:02Ryan DawsonThis behavior metaphysics.

1:49:03Jay DyerWe have a metaphysical belief now.

1:49:05Ryan DawsonYeah. The behavior isn't the physical object, but it's still about the physical object. Like, you have to have a thing moving for there to be movement.

1:49:12Jay DyerOkay. But saying that it's about the physical object is not answering the question of what is the ontological status of the thing that is common between them.

1:49:22Ryan DawsonThat just seems like dogmatic jingoism for theism. Like, what the the status of the audit between logic is logic. It has nothing to do with DG.

1:49:30Jay DyerSo, again, the t jump level argument. I'm asking a specific question. You're saying it just is.

1:49:36AndrewDG, did you have a follow-up?

1:49:38Ryan DawsonThat's the same thing. God just did and made everything. I mean, it just is. He's out, you

1:49:42Ryan Dawsonknow, making everything. Argument.

1:49:44Jay DyerI'm not I

1:49:44Ryan Dawsondon't I don't believe in creation either. Like, I think

1:49:47Jay Dyersaid that.

1:49:48Ryan DawsonMatter is eternal. I don't think all was void.

1:49:51Ryan DawsonI mean, I had those thoughts when I was a little kid, like, well, we didn't come from nothing, yet we're here. So something had to make everything

1:49:58Ryan Dawsonunless,

1:50:00Ryan Dawsonthere wasn't a time where all was nothing and matter is eternal.

1:50:04AndrewD DG, you can't ask one follow-up. That that is rules for the show. Go ahead.

1:50:09DGYeah. Think I'll pass, but I don't think we're gonna get much of anywhere. Okay.

1:50:12AndrewThank you so much. Got a

1:50:13DGlot of follow-up. I'll I'll throw

1:50:14Jay Dyerit out. I replied to DG. I wanna know if he knows, or if he wants to reply to what I said.

1:50:20DGWell, I don't know. I don't think your

1:50:23DGbelief that, you know,

1:50:25DGthese things we can observe simply exist because

1:50:29DGyour god or your book said so. I mean, they I didn't might exist because your god Did you hear me say that?

1:50:35Jay DyerI asked a specific question about the ontological status of the laws and your belief in them

1:50:40Jay Dyeror the common and problematic You

1:50:41DGless said that. But You

1:50:43DGmore or less said that

1:50:45DGthat these things exist because god, you know, made them. And that might be the case. But

1:50:52Jay DyerWell, I made an argument about an entire worldview and all of those preconditions cohering.

1:50:56Jay DyerVery clear argument.

1:50:58DGYeah. It's a lot of word

1:51:01Jay DyerRight. So you don't know common philosophical terms, and you're calling it word salad and just displaying your own ignorance because you don't have an answer to what I said.

1:51:09DGI don't think you have an answer for what you're saying.

1:51:11Jay DyerGood one. Can you get rid of this dude? What a retard.

1:51:13AndrewHe's just

1:51:15AndrewChef, can you hear me okay?

1:51:17Jay DyerYes, sir.

1:51:19AndrewGo ahead with your question.

1:51:20Speaker 8Hey. This is Ryan.

1:51:23Speaker 8Can you explain, if any, distinction between seven coconuts and the number seven? And I'll take my answer off here.

1:51:30AndrewOkay. Thank you so much for your question.

1:51:33Ryan DawsonJust the number would be a general

1:51:37Ryan Dawsonprinciple of I don't know how to do this without using the words, like, one more than six or whatever. Or is it coconut

1:51:44Ryan Dawsonis a

1:51:46Ryan Dawsondefined

1:51:47Ryan Dawsonobject from

1:51:49Ryan Dawsonthe coconut?

1:51:52Ryan DawsonIt's not a tree, is it? It's it's a fruit, whatever it is. Coconuts are an object, and if there's seven of them, seven of them. Seven itself,

1:52:00Ryan Dawsonobviously, can be

1:52:02Ryan Dawsonof

1:52:04Ryan Dawsonobjects, time, temperature, and just, you know, depends on how you're applying it.

1:52:11Ryan DawsonOne's a generality, one's specific.

1:52:14AndrewJake, do you wanna follow-up?

1:52:15Jay DyerDebate I did with stuff on Molinia because it's about that.

1:52:19Jay DyerOkay.

1:52:20AndrewI'm sorry. Do is it, Donatus?

1:52:24DonatusDonatus. Yeah. Yeah.

1:52:25AndrewYeah. Don't wanna make the Liam mistake. You know? He got he got pretty pretty upset by that. Anyway, go ahead with your question.

1:52:31Ryan DawsonI would

1:52:31Ryan Dawsonsay you wouldn't have seven if you couldn't count coconuts or time or temperature or anything that it's applied to.

1:52:38Ryan DawsonIt wouldn't matter.

1:52:41Ryan DawsonYeah. I don't think it would come up with seven ness unless we had some sort of data to divide things into sevens.

1:52:48AndrewGo go go ahead,

1:52:51Jay Dyercaller. Yeah.

1:52:53DonatusSure. Sure. Yes. So, my question was more for Ryan. I was just gonna ask him, like, if what works comes from your value set, then how is that like, that's a that's not a justification. Like, it's just begging the question if if what works is coming from your value set to begin with. Like, you you still haven't given a justification.

1:53:10Ryan DawsonThe the justification

1:53:12Ryan Dawsonis in the confidence that you believe that,

1:53:15Ryan Dawsonthis is accurate and matches the real world. The fact that

1:53:19Ryan Dawsonit seems to,

1:53:21Ryan Dawsonwork over and over again gives you confidence that it must correlate to how things actually are. Otherwise, it shouldn't work.

1:53:28DonatusI was I was talking more from an ethical,

1:53:31Donatusstandpoint.

1:53:35Ryan DawsonFor ethical questions, are far more complicated.

1:53:38Ryan DawsonI mean, that that,

1:53:41Ryan Dawsonagain, goes back to the problem of having subjective value sets. Like, what would be

1:53:47Ryan Dawsonperfectly acceptable for one group won't be by another, but that is how things are.

1:53:53DonatusBut do you see how that's a lot of justification? It's it's question begging. It's it's circular.

1:53:57Ryan DawsonIt's it's descriptive about how the world actually is. People do have different value sets, and they do have different ethical sets.

1:54:05Ryan DawsonAnd each one of them is trying to say, no. My set's really objective. Yours isn't. But I'm saying, mm-mm. They're subjective.

1:54:12Ryan DawsonThe way you can best determine who's

1:54:15Ryan Dawsonobjective or the closest to it is the ones that actually match reality.

1:54:21AndrewCaller, we we appreciate that. I'm gonna let, Jay Dyer speak to that. We have to move on to the other callers. Go ahead, Jay.

1:54:28Jay DyerI'm not. Don't have anything. So go ahead.

1:54:30AndrewOkay.

1:54:31AndrewI'm sorry. I saw you pop in, Jeremiah. We don't have time for you, unfortunately. I have to get to, one more caller, and we gotta get to the super chats or we'll never get through them. I do appreciate you calling in, though. Just give me the thumbs up that you hear me. Alright. Thanks so much. Chase, go ahead with your question.

1:54:49ChaseYeah.

1:54:51ChaseI'm just I'm curious. You say just that prior caller, you said you judge

1:54:56Chasewhat's gonna be closest to objectivity

1:54:58Chaseby what matches up with reality.

1:55:01ChaseBut the question we're asking is how do you know what matches up with reality?

1:55:08Ryan DawsonAre you asking that caller, or are you asking one of us?

1:55:11ChaseOh, I'm asking you. Sorry, Ryan.

1:55:14Ryan DawsonYeah. You don't. I mean, the best way I feel like that you can get at it is through experimentation

1:55:20Ryan Dawsonand testing.

1:55:23ChaseOkay. And if I say we've done experimentation and testing and, therefore, we believe Orthodox Christianity is true, if you're gonna be consistent, don't you just have to accept that it's true for us?

1:55:34Ryan DawsonI do accept that it's true for you.

1:55:37Ryan DawsonBut

1:55:38Ryan DawsonI have not seen the experiments or tests that prove

1:55:42Ryan Dawsonall the things I considered impossibilities

1:55:45Ryan Dawsonthat are

1:55:46Ryan Dawsonprescribed in the Bible and so on. I actually don't know much of difference between Orthodox Christianity

1:55:52Ryan Dawsonand Catholicism.

1:55:56Ryan DawsonI never really cared to look at it even.

1:55:59Ryan DawsonBut I know they have the same creation story, heaven and hell, Jesus is your savior. There gotta be the same core precepts. Right? I mean, that's all Christians believe.

1:56:08ChaseWell, I just I I'll leave after this. Thanks for having me on, Andrew. Of course. But I I just think it's interesting because I think you're totally inconsistent to then try to go and debate anyone and call them wrong and claim something's impossible

1:56:20Chasewhen you have no standard for

1:56:22Chaseobjectivity.

1:56:24ChaseAnd so I think it's pretty inconsistent.

1:56:26ChaseBut, I hope your migraine gets better, man. I can tell you're kinda suffering through it. Thanks for thanks for saying. I

1:56:31Ryan Dawsondon't feel like you have to have a perfect objectivity to say something's wrong. You have a really high degree of confidence in things that that you know you don't have all the data on or whatever. Like, yeah. I think I have enough. You know? Like, there's plenty of it's it's disingenuous for me to say

1:56:47Ryan Dawsonto just be like, oh, I I doubt everything, and I have no beliefs because I might be wrong, and it might be proven wrong in the future. That just isn't true.

1:56:56Ryan DawsonLike, if I'm tell if I'm being truthful, if I'm being honest, honest would be a better word, it's dishonest for me. Like, no.

1:57:02Ryan DawsonI do believe in gravity, and I do believe I believe in a whole bunch of stuff that might

1:57:07Ryan Dawsonend up being wrong,

1:57:09Ryan Dawsonbut I don't sincerely think it is. Like, I think that we we nailed it. We objectively nailed it on a few things

1:57:17Ryan Dawsonfor sure.

1:57:19Ryan DawsonLike, that like, and I'm not gonna go over all the yeah. I'm taller than I was when I was younger and stuff. I think some things are just facts. You know, that

1:57:27Ryan Dawsonreally high degree of confidence that that's not gonna ever be overturned.

1:57:30Ryan DawsonBut I leave room

1:57:32Ryan Dawsonfor a lot of things on the periphery that

1:57:35Ryan Dawsonwe don't know answers for, and we don't have that solid confidence for or experimentation.

1:57:41Ryan DawsonAnd in my experience,

1:57:43Ryan DawsonI have not seen

1:57:46Ryan DawsonI don't think god is or specifically Christian god is something that's proven through, like, a scientific

1:57:53Ryan Dawsonexperiment where Jay's got a completely the transcendental argument is totally different. He's saying, like, well, we have all these immaterial things like logic and stuff. Since it can't come from the material, it has to come from this divine being. I'm saying it absolutely can come in the materials. It's qualities of materials, not the atoms.

1:58:10Ryan DawsonWe're just going in circles.

1:58:12AndrewAlright. Appreciate that.

1:58:14AndrewSo we managed to nail it right at two hours with the collars. I'm pretty happy about that. We have some super chats. I don't know if you're able to stick around for those, or not. Mister Austin.

1:58:25Ryan DawsonI'm so sorry, and I'll do this whenever, but I gotta tap out. I feel like I have

1:58:29Andrewsome folks. No no problem, Jay. Would you do you mind taking some super chats?

1:58:33Jay DyerNo. That's fine.

1:58:33Ryan DawsonAnd thanks for coming, Ryan.

1:58:35Jay DyerIt was a lively, passionate discussion. I appreciate you.

1:58:37Ryan DawsonYeah. Thank you. Like, I'd like to talk about just philosophy in general. I'm more into, like, economic philosophy and stuff, but it's

1:58:46Ryan Dawsonit would have been fun if I didn't have such a fucking headache. Like

1:58:49AndrewNo. No, man. Go go take care of yourself. It's no problem. We appreciate you coming on this evening.

1:58:54Ryan DawsonStuff like, oh, like,

1:58:56Ryan Dawsonlike, I blew oh, I get to talk to Jay. This is gonna be fun. And then they're like, no. It's not. I have a fucking migraine, and I don't feel like doing this shit.

1:59:03AndrewSo well, I mean, we're we are happy that you came on.

1:59:06Jay DyerYeah. I appreciate you doing that. It was lively.

1:59:08AndrewAnd by the by the way, just so you

1:59:09Ryan Dawsonknow Yeah.

1:59:10AndrewWe don't care about,

1:59:11Andrewwhat you call content on this chain. If you wanna post it up to your own channel, whatever you wanna do with it, it's more than fine with us.

1:59:17Ryan DawsonSee, all the things I really wanna say,

1:59:20Ryan DawsonI can't say because you'd lose your YouTube.

1:59:22AndrewYeah. Well, that's that's I'm glad you're not saying

1:59:24Ryan DawsonI'm like

1:59:25Ryan Dawsondancing around

1:59:26Andrewthis stuff

1:59:26Ryan Dawsonand talking about things I don't care about at all because, like, I got this, like, other thing, major

1:59:33Ryan Dawsonmajor issue that cannot be brought up, which kinda shows you,

1:59:37Ryan Dawsonyou know, to run into

1:59:38Andrewthe I don't think you'd find that much disagreement probably on some of those things, mister Dawson. But I

1:59:43Ryan Dawsondon't think I think we'd agree on a lot of the corruption and stuff.

1:59:47AndrewYeah. But like, like Jay Dyer was saying, we sure appreciate it. I'm gonna let you go, tend to your tend to your headache, and, thank you so much for coming on. Do you wanna shout yourself out real quick before you go?

1:59:58Ryan DawsonSo I do the anti neocon report.

2:00:00Ryan DawsonIt's

2:00:01Ryan Dawsonmostly about politics and current events, and I have to

2:00:05Ryan DawsonI'm gonna be doing a Ukraine war update if people are interested in what's going on there.

2:00:10Ryan DawsonIt's pretty sad,

2:00:12Ryan Dawsonbut today. And so it's ancreport.com.

2:00:18Ryan DawsonAnd we have

2:00:20Ryan Dawsona lot of stuff up about September 11 since it was the anniversary yesterday in The US and not the kooky Alex Jones version, like the grown up version of what happened. And I think that might be a a curiosity for a lot of people if you wanna check it out. And then

2:00:36Ryan DawsonI'm on cozy.tb/dawson,

2:00:41Ryan Dawsonand I have nothing to do with the other creators on Cozy. I'm just doing my own thing. They're doing their thing. So

2:00:48Ryan Dawsonno guilt by association.

2:00:50Ryan DawsonNo praise by association either.

2:00:52AndrewOkay. Thank you so much, mister Dawson. Have a wonderful night. Thanks for sticking around for the super chats, Jay. And by the way, father deacon, if you're still watching, I know you're still watching. You can pop back on while we vet the super chats if you want to. That's, that's fine with me.

2:01:08AndrewWell,

2:01:09Andrewfor, 100 pesos says, say we're lost at sea. I use a navigation technique to determine we should go right. You throw a lucky charm and it points right.

2:01:18AndrewI think it does matter how we come to a conclusion

2:01:21Andrewbeyond

2:01:22Andrewpracticality.

2:01:24AndrewAnd I think there was a lot of that that was tied in with your point, Jay.

2:01:28Jay DyerRight. So we need, good reasons for why we believe what we believe, not just any reasons. And to say it works is just begging the question because we're not asking from an anthropocentric

2:01:39Jay Dyervantage point, does this achieve some human end? We're asking why should we believe in the principles themselves, or why should we think that we ought to believe in those kinds of principles? So there's an ontological question, so the question of the status

2:01:52Jay Dyerof those rules, laws, and then there's the normative question of ought we to believe in those kinds of rules and laws.

2:01:58Jay DyerAnd, those are questions that, again, I don't think I don't think I don't think it was conveyed as to what I was asking for.

2:02:06AndrewBased beard for a dollar 99, who has the best name on the Internet I've heard so far, says based nerd spergotron

2:02:16Andrewofficially

2:02:17Andrewactivated.

2:02:17AndrewI'm okay with that. Green feathers for $5 says, be sure

2:02:22Andrewbe sure to subscribe. What's the matter with you, father? You can't even get your mic to work and your camera. Get it to work, buddy. Get it to work.

2:02:31AndrewHe says, be sure to subscribe to the crucible and Jay Dyer.

2:02:34AndrewWe will have the links, of course, to Jay Dyer

2:02:38Andrewbelow this. I I think we already actually have them up. But if we don't, we always, we always put the links up. We'll also have a poll in the community tab. Make sure you guys go and vote vote on the poll.

2:02:49AndrewMade by Jim Bob for $9.99.

2:02:52AndrewAlso, you for your subscription.

2:02:54AndrewSays, Ryan,

2:02:55Andrewif what is true is based on what works and believing something untrue can keep you alive, then what does works mean?

2:03:03AndrewI think that's a good question. Ryan's not here to field it, but can you field it, Jay?

2:03:06Jay DyerWell, we could also post all kinds of situations where things that are, bad work.

2:03:13Jay DyerSo

2:03:14Jay Dyerwe would then be in a situation of anything

2:03:17Jay Dyerthat quote works now is

2:03:20Jay Dyerjustified in in believing or doing, and that that's doesn't seem to make any sense.

2:03:27AndrewDid did did you did you did you wanna open your mouth and talk on that one? Yes.

2:03:35AndrewBase beard for another $5 says,

2:03:38Andrewnerd spurgatron

2:03:39Andrewis activated.

2:03:41AndrewWe appreciate that, and it is true. And he probably does have a base beard.

2:03:46AndrewMy pay per view ticket fee supporting

2:03:48Andrewthe outreach from Steven Moraney for $10,

2:03:52Andrewwe appreciate that very much. Hang on. I'm pulling up a couple of more. How you been,

2:03:57Andrewfather deacon Ananias? How's everything going? I'm told that there's going to possibly be another Montana.

2:04:03Fr. AnaniasOh, yeah. That sounds

2:04:06AndrewIs that is that true? Is there gonna be one?

2:04:09Fr. AnaniasOnto the ages of ages. Yeah.

2:04:10AndrewGood

2:04:12Andrewstuff, man. Good stuff. Yeah. On the second, I'm worried.

2:04:15Fr. AnaniasJay, you've gotta come this year.

2:04:18Fr. AnaniasWe'll see. You're

2:04:20Fr. Ananiaspredetermined

2:04:22Fr. Ananiasto to come.

2:04:23AndrewPay yeah. Pedro has decreed it. Made by Jim Bob for another $5 says,

2:04:29AndrewRyan, if works to be believed in six day creation, how would your worldview argue otherwise without assuming objectivity?

2:04:37AndrewThat I think, again, that really kinda ties back in. I know that the a lot of these questions were directed at Ryan, but as you guys know, he had to, he had to leave. But I think that it's fine for,

2:04:48Andrewour guest to vet him if he's not here. If you guys wanna speak to him, go ahead.

2:04:54Jay DyerRight. Well, I think that that just kinda goes back to the objectivity,

2:04:58Jay Dyersubjectivity,

2:04:59Jay Dyerback and forth that I kept trying to highlight, which was which to me seems fundamentally inconsistent.

2:05:06Jay DyerAnd, Jay, I like what

2:05:07Fr. Ananiasyou had to say too.

2:05:09Fr. AnaniasI mean, you get this a lot that

2:05:12Fr. Ananiasthere's a fundamental category error.

2:05:15Fr. AnaniasJay wasn't asking

2:05:17Fr. Ananiaswhat people believe

2:05:20Fr. Ananiasand whether they think it's true, but the justifications

2:05:24Fr. Ananiasfor that

2:05:26Fr. Ananiasand what their criteria

2:05:27Fr. Ananiasor justification for their justification criteria would be.

2:05:31Fr. AnaniasSo some of these issues are just categorical

2:05:35Fr. Ananiaserrors,

2:05:37Fr. Ananiasand so they'll go back

2:05:40Fr. Ananiasto answering something that that Jay wasn't asking. Did you feel that that was kind of the case?

2:05:45Jay DyerYeah. I think I mean, you know, justification is specific. It's it's a it's a

2:05:51Jay Dyerit's asking specific

2:05:52Jay Dyerquestions about our beliefs and the good reasons or bad reasons for beliefs. And so we need to hear good reasons. So the next super chat there

2:06:01Jay Dyeris that it wasn't a justification.

2:06:04Jay DyerSo to say that, well, it's just wrong and it's mean and it's bad, we're asking why. On what basis should we accept that this or that thing is wrong or me or bad? Does it mean I'm arguing for it? It means that if you're gonna say things are bad,

2:06:18Jay Dyeryou're gonna have value judgments, then you're gonna have to give an account for how there are value judgments in your worldview, and that was the whole point.

2:06:25Fr. AnaniasSo notice how Ryan,

2:06:28Fr. Ananiaswanted to

2:06:30Fr. Ananiasto pitch you in to a corner and say that, like so you're you're agreeing with it.

2:06:35Fr. AnaniasBut, again, as Jay, you just pointed out,

2:06:38Fr. Ananiasit's a different category

2:06:41Fr. Ananiasbecause

2:06:41Fr. Ananiasboth you and I might believe slavery is

2:06:45Fr. Ananiaswrong or washing our hands

2:06:49Fr. Ananiasafter using the bathroom is a good thing.

2:06:52Fr. AnaniasThat's not the question of whether we agree to that, but what are the reasons

2:06:57Fr. Ananiasthat we think that's the case? And as I always make the joke, if you found out my reason that that I washed my hands after the bathroom is because I believe that it helps my Bitcoin investments go up,

2:07:08Fr. Ananiasyou might actually say that's not a good reason for holding a true belief.

2:07:13Fr. AnaniasAnd it's very difficult to get people they just stop at the agreement. Oh, we all believe that this is the case. This is right or wrong or true or false.

2:07:22Fr. AnaniasWhen you're asking a further question, what are your reasons

2:07:27Fr. Ananiasfrom your worldview, and how can you justify that?

2:07:31AndrewWe appreciate that $5 from you, Maddie. They did address it. Mark off for two Canadian dollars. That is 1 tooney, by the way, for those of you who aren't Canadian, or 2 loonies.

2:07:41AndrewHe says, haven't seen Andrew drink or smoke or not tonight. Is he okay? You clearly haven't been paying attention.

2:07:47AndrewSterling Fuentes for $5 says, Ryan, if slavery works to achieve an arbitrary goal, how can it be wrong?

2:07:54Jay DyerI I mean, I made this point with a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs work very well.

2:07:58Ryan DawsonYeah.

2:08:00Ryan DawsonAnd

2:08:01Fr. Ananiasin this book here, we actually cover covered this last semester when I was teaching ethics too.

2:08:09Fr. AnaniasIn some sense, utilitarianism

2:08:11Fr. Ananiasis kind of a pragmatic

2:08:13Fr. Ananiasphilosophy

2:08:14Fr. Ananiastoo.

2:08:15Fr. AnaniasAnd

2:08:16Fr. Ananiasyou actually have

2:08:20Fr. Ananiasboth with pragmatism

2:08:22Fr. Ananiasand utilitarianism,

2:08:24Fr. Ananiasthere's nothing that's intrinsically right or wrong with

2:08:29Fr. Ananiaswith an action.

2:08:30Fr. AnaniasIt's deemed in terms of its consequences

2:08:33Fr. Ananiasor its pragmatism.

2:08:35Fr. AnaniasAnd so, actually, it's really interesting.

2:08:37Fr. AnaniasThere's a utilitarian

2:08:41Fr. Ananiasphilosopher who was actually held in a concentration camp that actually makes an argument, and it's brought up in here,

2:08:50Fr. Ananiasthat

2:08:54Fr. Ananiasslavery

2:08:56Fr. Ananiascould actually be moral.

2:08:59Fr. AnaniasIf it what?

2:09:01Fr. AnaniasIf it's optimistic

2:09:02Fr. Ananiasor if we made

2:09:04Fr. Ananiasthe case from the pragmatist

2:09:07Fr. Ananiasas the person who just gave the super chat,

2:09:10Fr. Ananiaswhat if it works?

2:09:12Fr. AnaniasWhat if that's the optimistic and utilitarian

2:09:15Fr. Ananiaskinda standard

2:09:17Fr. Ananiassince nothing intrinsically is good or bad because you can't give an account for that if you are obviously Ryan

2:09:24Fr. Ananiasutilitarian

2:09:25Fr. Ananiasor

2:09:26Fr. Ananiasa pragmatist.

2:09:28Fr. AnaniasSo your standard is I would agree with it as long as it worked,

2:09:32Fr. AnaniasAs long as if I was a utilitarian, it's optimistic.

2:09:35Fr. AnaniasI mean, doesn't that kinda rub you the wrong way intuitively?

2:09:41AndrewFor 5 Canadian dollars, what are Jay and Ryan's thoughts on the recent events in the Ukraine conflict? Jay?

2:09:48Jay DyerI mean, I've done multiple livestreams on the Ukraine on my Rockfin.

2:09:52Jay DyerI have one here on my YouTube channel that's pretty in-depth.

2:09:56Jay DyerIt's called Liberal Imperium. If anybody wants to go watch Liberal Imperium.

2:09:59AndrewCan you can you DM me the link? I'll get it down

2:10:03Andrewbelow this so that people can get over there and watch it.

2:10:07Jay DyerYes. Just the

2:10:08Jay Dyeryeah. Sure.

2:10:10AndrewOkay. And then Donatus

2:10:12Andrewfor

2:10:13Andrew15 Australian dollars, which I think might be real money, but I'm not sure, says it's good because it works

2:10:20Andrewis dependent on your initial

2:10:22Andrewvalue set. It begs the question and isn't a justification.

2:10:26AndrewJay constantly kicks people like this on Twitter.

2:10:29AndrewHe deserves

2:10:30Andrewa higher level opponent. Well, it's not for me to speak to that one way or the other. Marc Huth became a new member to the YouTube. We sure appreciate that. Make sure that after this is done, you go make it rain on Jay Dyer. He deserved it. He was a champ, the whole debate, and he's still here fielding your super chats. All you plebs out there, you gotta show him some love. Jay Poopy for $5 says, Ryan, you don't seem to be a fan of Zionism.

2:10:55AndrewHow would you call Zionist criteria for choosing their subsets of belief wrong? Now that's a question. So we usually do moderator questions on this program.

2:11:03AndrewI knew we weren't weren't gonna have time tonight for me to do that, but that actually came to my mind was well, I mean, how can you really rage against these other people if they're just following a subset

2:11:14Andrewthat you consider to be the value set? Right? If that's the value set and that's what's moral, what's the problem here? And I I'm not sure I would have gotten a great answer there.

2:11:26AndrewJim Bob says,

2:11:27Andrewhow is dogma wrong if it works for one's goal?

2:11:31AndrewThat, again, that kinda moves right back into the,

2:11:35Andrewvalue set argument that we kinda heard. Nico Pluto for $5, he says nothing. I always appreciate it when Nico Pluto says nothing.

2:11:43AndrewYeah.

2:11:44AndrewBut when he pays to say nothing, I appreciate it just a little bit more.

2:11:49AndrewAgain, you can find both of these guys. You'll find their links underneath. We've done a bunch of shows with the

2:11:55Andrewpatristic faith members of them,

2:11:57Andrewespecially father deacon.

2:12:00AndrewYou know, he knows a lot about the demonic surprisingly.

2:12:03AndrewYou know? Surprisingly,

2:12:05Andrewthis philosophy guy, they know a lot of shit. Does Ryan not understand the problem of induction?

2:12:11AndrewNow that's interesting. Can you guys speak to that?

2:12:14Jay DyerI mean, that was just the point that I kept raising with David Hume was that this is Hume's whole point that no matter how many observations of an instance, you're not you never get to a universal rule or law.

2:12:27Fr. AnaniasGuess what we're covering by the way, I'm teaching epistemology

2:12:30Fr. Ananiasin college.

2:12:31Fr. AnaniasAnd

2:12:33Fr. AnaniasI kid you not.

2:12:35Fr. AnaniasIt's like this is like a setup.

2:12:37Fr. AnaniasWe're we're starting the problem of induction tomorrow in the tomorrow's lecture.

2:12:43Jay DyerWell, there's a good chapter on it in the text.

2:12:45Fr. AnaniasIt's great. Yeah. It's a great

2:12:49Fr. Ananiasso even if you could be justified

2:12:53Fr. Ananiasin making an inference about an immediate experience,

2:12:57Fr. Ananiasas Hume points out in almost all philosophers afterwards,

2:13:02Fr. Ananiaswhat is the justification to make the inference from past,

2:13:07Fr. Ananiasfrom some

2:13:08Fr. Ananiaspast sensed experience

2:13:10Fr. Ananiasto

2:13:13Fr. Ananiasa universal

2:13:15Fr. Ananiasa universal,

2:13:16Fr. Ananiaslike, conclusion.

2:13:18Fr. AnaniasRight? So

2:13:19Fr. Ananiasthe the question is about the

2:13:24Fr. Ananiasinference.

2:13:25Fr. AnaniasRight? The inferential connection between the standard inductive premise that I experienced this

2:13:33Fr. Ananiasso many times.

2:13:34Fr. AnaniasTherefore

2:13:35Fr. AnaniasUniversal. The inductive inclusion of a universal.

2:13:39Fr. AnaniasAnd as points

2:13:41Fr. Ananiasout, it's really good,

2:13:43Fr. Ananiasthe inference goes far beyond the information contained in the premise.

2:13:47Fr. AnaniasThere it is.

2:13:49Fr. AnaniasAnd human other philosophers conclude it's not even you can't even conclude that it's likely.

2:13:58Fr. AnaniasAnd then people just ignore this. I I just

2:14:01Fr. AnaniasI don't I don't get it.

2:14:02AndrewDo you read bluegrass music notes with those nerdy glasses too? I mean, do you do you do that when you're

2:14:09Andrewwhen you're before you're practicing, do you put on those dork glasses and, like, the Walmart glasses for that or what?

2:14:14Ryan DawsonI don't know what you're

2:14:15Fr. Ananiastalking about.

2:14:17AndrewFor $5 says, people make logical fallacies all the time and don't even realize it. Ryan Dawson. I thought, well, that's kinda funny.

2:14:27AndrewRyan for $5 says Ryan's position is way more ridiculous and incoherent than anything in the bible.

2:14:34AndrewTough crowd. It's

2:14:36Andrewfeels like

2:14:38Andrewfeels like the Dawson supporters aren't out there too much. Yeah. The Aquarion TV for $10 says, Ryan is just being smart and foreign to the theological word salad of JD is actually quite effective in breaking Jay's world down well done. Oh.