The Speak Life Podcast, sharing Jesus in everyday life. Welcome to the live cast. I am Glenn Scrivener, and with me is Paul Feasy. Hello, good to be with you. Yeah, and uh we're not so live, unfortunately. We are instead uh pre-recording and then we're gonna have to uh upload it separately. So you are watching In the Future. How are things in the future? How's it all working out? In the year 3000.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, not much has changed.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. We live underwater. And our food comes to us mainly in pill form. Uh and we're still talking about the Matt Dillahunty debate, even though it's the year 3000. So it's uh three days on from uh the release of the Matt Dillahunty Glenn Scrivener debate. I can't believe my name is up there with Matt Dillahunty. Yeah. And with you, eh? No. Boy done good. Boy dungood. Um did he? Let's we're gonna find out, you see. We'll see. We'll see. Bits I get wrong, bits bits Matt gets wrong. And um yeah, but to be a part of the big conversation on Unbelievable is a huge privilege. I mean, I sat in the same chair as Tom Holland.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_02And uh other people that have been on there, uh AC Grayling and uh Brett Weinstein and Alistair McGrath and Glenn Sprevener. Like so your your buttocks have touched the same spot where never washing these trousers again. That's why they uh put me on last, uh, so that no one else needs to say the same as me. And uh yeah, we we had a little discussion on can atheism uh deliver a better world? Um that that was the topic of the discussion. Yeah. Important to define that. That's the topic of the discussion. Uh can atheism or you know, and and I think quite rightly Matt um wanted to sort of tweak that a bit and say, can secular humanism uh deliver a better world? And I think that's a that's a a better discussion to have. Um but coming out of the debate, um we we actually did the debate before Christmas, so it was it's it's sort of four weeks ago now. But straight out of the debate, um I gave myself a C minus in terms of like how I did. Um just in in terms of well, we'll we'll talk about a a number of different things that I that I uh wish I had done better. Um you know, things like if you go into YouTube comments, um kids don't do this, don't do this at home. Uh don't don't debate Matt Delahunty and then go read the comments into the scuttling underbelly of the internet and and read those comments. Um but I loved I loved one one comment, uh I I it just giggles, it cracks me up every time. Um he go he gives a little timestamp, 27 minutes, 49 seconds, and then he says, This is called the I'm a jerk headbounce. Uh should we have a little look at the uh I'm a jerk headbounce? That was quite fun. Your adherents to those are reporting that they're better at interviewing as anything. Yep, there it is. There it is. Still going we've got it on aloof.
SPEAKER_01Um there's a very aloof movement at the end there.
SPEAKER_02Just closing the eyes, feeling that moment. Yeah, the backwards, the backwards nod and the flutter of the eye left. Can we can we switch that off now?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, let's let's let's okay, no, seriously. Brilliant, brilliant. Yeah. Um it's good that people are focusing on the real issues down in the comments there, you know.
SPEAKER_02Of course. Uh there was a lot to be said about my looks, which is interesting.
SPEAKER_01Um they are interesting. That's true. That's very true.
SPEAKER_02Intriguing.
SPEAKER_01The same way a car crashes. Um just can't stop looking. Um so it's very good. I mean, I I mean Matt Delahantey, I always think of him as the guy who looks like he should be in Slayer. So he looks like he should be the guitarist, although he's playing. Yeah, yeah, something like that. So although he doesn't sound like he should be, he's quite well spoken, actually.
SPEAKER_02He very much is. But um, so that was one of the I mean, so you your your listening face. I need to work on my listening face. I mean what would you what would you do? Like if you if you're listening to someone opposite, you're making an interesting, though you know, controversial point.
SPEAKER_01See, and that would be preserved forever on YouTube. It's difficult, you do have to I mean it's what would you do? How do you sit there and not move at all? Like, how'd you do it?
SPEAKER_02Interesting that in the news, even yesterday, the Covington High Kid, uh he got like he asked for a payout of $275 million from CNN and they settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. Wow. But uh but literally that was a case of somebody looking at a kid and you know making a presumption. And it was worth 275 million you know bucks to somebody. So whoever that commenter is coming, the lawsuit's coming, you want to settle outside of court. How dare you? Um But more seriously, other things that made me give myself a C minus in terms of the performance um were I mean there are a few moments when I blank on stuff. I even blank on the word supernatural in a debate about God, you know. Right. Um Matt, at one stage you used the word super, super, super supernative, super. And it's like a minute later, I kind of remember. Oh, yeah, supernatural. Um in a debate about God, that's uh a pretty um ridiculous blunder. Um when Matt asked me to enter into the hypothetical situation in which I would talk the Nazi out of the final solution. Um I kind of wish I'd sort of said, I don't need to do that. I'm not gonna play that game. Um he's already evil before we have the conversation, so I don't need to enter into that conversation. So I kind of I kind of wish It's not a matter of proving that your morality is better at this point, you know. Yeah, it's probably the immorality of the genocide might take priority over whether we convince him. It's wrong. Sure. So and and there's other points where I I think Matt wanted to have a debate about is there any good reason to believe that God exists? Um so he wanted to make a debate about the existence of God. And that's where he's very comfortable. That's that's his wheelhouse to use a baseball term. That's that's you know, he he camps himself out.
SPEAKER_01Which is which is fine in one sense. Can atheism deliver a better world? And you're gonna put these two things side by side and say, well, is one better than the other? You know, I like the atheism, but I like Christianity, but which is better. But and and of course, after that discussion, you might you might come out one, you know, imagine you came out and you said, Yeah, Christianity is better, but is it true? Okay, now there is a discussion there, right? But the point is that's not the discussion you were there to have, and he does try and drag it around to that quite a lot and go, Oh, but my thing is is it true? And you're like, Yeah, but that's not what you're here to discuss. Why don't you keep on the topic and stuff?
SPEAKER_02So the I mean there was a point where, for instance, he he kind of says, um uh every uh every scientific question we've ever had has found turned out to have a scientific answer, and it's and the answer has never turned out to be a god. Um and I just don't I just don't engage with that at all because I kind of think it's a trivial point. Yeah, like every scientific question of course has a scientific answer, and every economics question of course has an economic answer, and every question about Makrame has a McCray answer. Um I can't about what now? Um But I I you know what I should have done is kind of addressed the issue in one sentence and then we need to talk about secular morality. So um yeah, there were lots of lots of things I could have done. Um lots better. I I jumped on the Gregory S. Paul thing like it was Christmas, because it was Christmas. Well, yeah. Um and and I'd been watching debate after debate uh where you know Matt has been called out on Gregory S. Paul and on and on his reliance upon this one study from 2005. Um I just put together a a a bunch of three different clips that uh we can have a look at now um to just go to show like Matt is constantly over the years relying again and again on this one paper by a paleontologist. Let's have a look at the clip.
SPEAKER_04There's a really good paper that we've referenced oh a gozillion times um that Gregory Paul wrote um basically comparing societal health to religion religiosity and showing a negative correlation between the two. Um, and we've pointed it out many, many times. I'll recommend Gregory S. Paul's work uh that was per published in the Journal of Religious Studies. We've been talking about it for years. Uh it would be very easy for each of us to sit here and cite different studies. I can go back to the Journal of Religion and Science study that I've been referencing from Gregory S. Paul for years.
SPEAKER_02So, you know, he says he uses Gregory S. Paul a gajillion times, uh, which he does. Um and so when when he used him yet again, when actually quite recently Inspiring Philosophy called him out on the Gregory S. Paul uh paper, I was I was actually surprised about that. Um so that was that was the that was the kind of the shock factor um in that. And so we we got into a discussion about studies and that sort of thing. Um and interestingly, in the comments, uh a lot of people are like, well, Glenn you know mentioned these thousands of studies. Where are they? Um check the links below. Um check the discussion box, the the the description box, and and you'll see all sorts of meta-analyses of these various studies. But it seems an odd thing for people to say in the year 2020. Like, you know, Glenn says there are studies. How how could we possibly verify this?
SPEAKER_01This is like the people on Facebook who type questions and ask people. I'm like, you could have Googled that question like without in the time it's taken you. Do you know the site Let Me Google That For You?
SPEAKER_02No. Go to L M G T F Y.com. Right. Because if anyone asks you a question, you just go to LGBT whatever it is, uh Let Me Google Itfory.com. And uh if you type that in, it it then takes them to that site where it is manually typed in for them. The question. Um But it it does seem like an odd thing uh for people to yeah in in today's day and age.
SPEAKER_01But also you're not you're not gonna in in that kind of setting, you're not gonna delve deep into this, this, this, this, and this, because I mean it's not gonna make very compelling viewing, is it? Yeah. To go through that. There was an element of there's an element of taking on faith. Yes. I thought his I mean his thing when you kind of you you came back about the Gregory S. Paul thing, I mean he kind of backed off on it quite quickly, I felt like he went, Well, you've got your things. It was kind of like you've got, you know, you say he cherry, but you've got a problem with his methodology, and almost like he didn't want to get into it, probably because he knows he's been called on it before, I imagine. I think so. But I mean I think I mean and you and you say it very uh and you mentioned about who the guy is, a paleontologist who had some beef.
SPEAKER_02He's more of an illustrator, really. Yeah, if you if you Google him, he's best known for his drawings of sauropods. Yeah. Seriously, that's his Wikipedia. Well, there you go.
SPEAKER_01Isn't it and it's just it's a bizarre, isn't it, that I mean, i i here's a paleontologist, so an expert in kind of dinosaur bones and things basically, yeah, who's got a beef with creationists who's done a study about all these things, but it's not in in any way his area of expertise. Um and I can imagine that if you were on Dillahunty's side, I mean, if you'd presented something and said, here's a pastor who has a real beef with atheists and he's done that you know or or who really hates evolution and he's done this study about something else, you'd you'd see this is clearly uh not a reputable source to be using. Right. Um but I mean it just seems to gloss over that. So he backs off pretty quickly. He doesn't actually delve into it, does he? Once you call him on it, he he actually doesn't really use that study at all. No.
SPEAKER_02So no, so uh for but but I do I think I do get a little bit too excited at that point because I can't believe I can't believe he's gonna be able to do that.
SPEAKER_01I did say to you, I did say to you that when I was watching it in my notes, I just wrote down like Glenn went in hard there. There was almost this glee on your face, like oh, the 2005 one, you're gonna be a problem. Well you've been using it for 15 years.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, we'll see a bit of a clip of that. Um I I don't think it was my finest moment. Um but uh so yeah, I I got things wrong, give myself a C minus. And and I gave myself a C minus without having seen it.
SPEAKER_01And now that I've seen the head bob, I think I'm maybe downgrading it. Well, I mean the fact that you felt that it'd been a C minus from you, but you felt you'd probably still have done better than Matt Dunley. If you've not watched the whole thing, I mean you're in for a treat, obviously, like even though it's sub-C minus levels.
SPEAKER_02We both we both failed. Spoiler alert, we both failed. But you know, a bottom of the table relegation scrap. Yeah, football because still be fun, still be fun. Game of football you'd ever say. Um I gave myself a C minus, downgraded to D minus after the head bob, but uh I give Matt Delahunty an F. Uh and I I give him an F uh not because of his performance as a debater. I mean, he's Matt Delahunty. He's amazing. He's done alright out of any. He's done alright since 2005. Um the atheist experience is the atheist experience because of Matt Dillahunty. There's there's some other great people with some great talent, but he has a very unique talent, and uh he does what he does exceptionally well. And when Justin Briley said, Hey Glenn, do you want to go up against just go up against Matt Dillahunty? It was a deep breath before. Sure. Wow, okay, all right. He is very good at what he does. So when I give him an F, I don't give him an F for his performance. Uh he was uh he was loquacious, he was erudite, he uh had his arguments in order, he was a good conversation partner. Um I give him an F uh because of his own report where he he says several times during the debates, can atheism deliver a better world? He even says, can secular morality deliver a better world? And he says no. Um Well, okay, that's the topic of the debate. So um so let let's let's just have one clip of many where where Matt says such a thing.
SPEAKER_04Can atheism lead us to a better world? No, it can't. Uh if you're looking at atheism as just that. Yeah. If you ask, you know, can secular humanism, can these um kind of values that we're packaging together that people care about that happen to be held by some atheists, they're not exclusive to atheism at all.
SPEAKER_02So there it is. Lincoln, you missed it, but uh but Matt does circle back a number of times. Uh and he he he gives a mixture of answers. Can uh secular morality or can atheism deliver a better world? He gives a mix of answers. Sometimes he just said a flat out no, sometimes he says, we don't know, but let's give it a go. Um sometimes he says we have no idea. Um but that is the topic of the debate.
SPEAKER_01So yeah, so if you're just being very kind of black and white about this is what we're here to discuss, yeah, you know, just yeah, coming out and just saying, well, no.
SPEAKER_02So for that for that reason, I I I give him an F on this topic. Um and also for the fact that uh he wants to he wants to um call himself a humanist, a secular humanist. Uh, but I think at a number of points, and we'll go through these points, at a number of points, I think he ought to hand in his humanist badge. Um to say that humans do not have intrinsic value but must earn value. By the value they add. They must add value, they do not have value. Or to say that not every member of the human family is um equally worthy of provision and protection. At that stage, I think you just gotta hand you know, go there there are other ways of being an atheist. Um, but I I don't I do think you have to hand in your your humanist badge at that point. Um and you know, I've got into discussion with other um atheistic humanists um who are also um disturbed by what Matt says at those points. And so I I I do think um I do think there's a failure to set out a humanist vision for the world, which is what Matt was meant to do in the debate. So for that, uh I get a D minus, he gets an F. How about that? Um should we should we have a look at uh some of the clips and just see uh the ways in which uh some of this stuff plays out, and and you can let me know uh what you think in the comments. Love to hear what people think. Um but uh let's have a look at uh one of the first clips I want to see from the debate uh where we're basically dealing with the issue that um just because you step away from institutional religion doesn't mean you stop being religious because everyone is religious.
SPEAKER_04I find myself challenging people in the atheist community far more often than I'm you know in having conflicts with people who are religious of any type.
SPEAKER_02Which is a great attitude to have. But I I think these days what we tend to see is cancel culture, what we tend to see is if you've got the wrong views about things, uh a prescribed set of views that have only really, you know, arisen in the last five minutes. Um if you don't, you know, if you don't tow the line on a number of different orthodoxies, and I use that word advisedly, orthodoxies, then you are kind of put outside the camp. And again, I use that word, you know, advisedly. It it it's a very religious language, isn't it? It's it's yes.
SPEAKER_00Which is and it's partly I think where the interest is coming for folks like Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray and Brett Weisine and others of the so-called intellectual dark web who uh are perhaps pushing against what some people see as this sort of politically correct. Uh from a secular point of view, and and I I find that there's some interesting bedfellows then between Christians who find themselves on the same kind of uh side as as those guys, and and they may be set against other secular people who are far more progressive in their views and that kind of thing. I mean it's i it is an interesting sort of time at which uh there's a whole new set of questions that are being put on the table.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, and I I think it it it speaks to the ineradicability of uh a religious spirit to humanity. Okay. Uh and and I do think that um one of the things that I think has sort of marked out the new atheism, if we want to give any labels to to anywhere, would be um the belief that it would be a better thing for society if far fewer people were religious. Uh and I think I think that that certainly captured the four horsemen of the apocalypse, uh of the of the atheist apocalypse, you know, the Hitchens and Dawkins and Dennett and uh and Harris. Um they certainly wanted to see people deconverted from Christianity in order to see a more flourishing and better world. But I I kind of think Dostoevsky was wrong when he when he said um you know when when there is no God, everything is permitted. Uh I think what we're saying is when there is no God, everything is very puritanical. Um and everything becomes actually even more heightened in its moralism. Um and I think what we've what we've found is getting rid of God at at that level of public discourse has actually led to people uh pronouncing anathemas on people and burning them at the stake and going on witch hunts.
SPEAKER_04See, and I don't think this is actually so much tied to atheism. So what I what I've seen a lot of is people are talking past each other and people on both sides of an issue are engaged in hyperbole and perhaps not the most honest assessment of what they view as the opposition.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, you don't need to be religious to to go on a witch hunt. Uh and during during the debate, uh we actually got onto a uh an issue with Stephen Wolford, who was Rationality Rules, who was an atheist uh YouTuber who made one video critiquing one aspect of trans ideology, and uh and then you know all hell broke loose, and because Matt had Stephen Wolford on his show, and there's therefore Matt was apparently, you know, transphobic or adjacent to a transphobe, and cancel culture really kind of infected that space, which is an incredibly irreligious space in one sense. Yep. And yet the the religious attitude of self-righteousness is ineradicable, you know, as as I say. I know you're very pleased with that one. I wonder if they would it's eight syllables, people. When's the last eight-syllable word you word use used? Um so yeah, every everyone is religious, and I and I do think the the idea that we could just get rid of institutional religion and people would be suddenly fair-minded and rational. Oh yeah, very much so. Um and so that and that is one of my beefs with the new atheism. I I think it's not just that the new atheism gets God wrong, I think it the new the new atheism gets humanity wrong. Um without a religious superstructure, we are going to cling on to other totem poles and uh orbit around those other totem poles, and that's gonna be not much fun. Um so that that was um the first clip I wanted to have a look at. Uh the second clip to have a look at is this issue of the studies uh being brought up. And let's let's have a look at the way first I bring up the studies and then uh Matt wants to bring up Gregory S. Paul. So when you look at the studies, you s you see that um those who have an intrinsic religiosity, that is uh those who identify as religion is the most important thing to me. Uh it helps me to frame the rest of my life. If you ask those people uh on any kinds of measures of um reproduction, how many babies do you have? Longer life, are you happier? Um will you have more of a a resistance to depression, to um to recovery from illness, recovery from surgery? Um do you have a resistance to um divorce, to um to suicide? Um there are there are any number of factors uh where an intrinsic religiosity that is a body of people who are saying that their religion means the world to them, uh those people thrive in in a world where if the government was able to put that into the water, if they were able to put a magic elixir into the water that could deliver those benefits, a longer life for goodness sakes, happier, healthier, uh those they give more money to charity, they give more money to secular charities than secular people do. They give more time. To secular charities than secular people do. They give more blood than than secular people give. All these things have been demonstrated in thousands of studies. So I you know, throw that into the mix as a government is looking at what will lead to the flourishing of society, what what could make society better? Um actually intrinsic religiosity is something that could definitely do that.
SPEAKER_04So here's where here's where we get to disagreement. But it's gonna be difficult because I don't have access to go look at studies and everything else. But if you do a Google search for uh religiosity versus societal health, there's a study that was done years ago that was in the Journal of Religious Education. So I don't I'm gonna get there. It's Gregory S. Paul. Yeah. Which is a very good thing. Shows something different.
SPEAKER_02But he's a paleontologist who is actually hacked off with creationists. Uh he you know you go to Wikipedia and you find Gregory S. Paul. But oh that's all about Gregory S. Paul. I'm talking about his data. I know. But I'm quoting his data, not him. Aaron Ross Powell Yeah. But he's one study against thousands of others. And he and he and he swims against a tide of literally 89% of uh the studies show that everything goes in the other direction. He did a univariate analysis about secularity and how it relates to public benefit. Trevor Burrus, Sure. And I'm not saying that he's cherry-picked his results.
SPEAKER_04Oh, all right. Well see now we're now we're in a different thing because if we're going to start making accusations that his study is not wrong or is not good because he cherry-picked it.
SPEAKER_00I have problems with the I'm not aware of the study. So could you just explain what's in the study just so that I think that's a good thing? Well that's the thing.
SPEAKER_04Without this is this isn't what I came in and prepared to discuss. So I don't want to m get the study wrong.
SPEAKER_02The point I'm making is wrong for 15 years. I've been getting what wrong for 15 years? What his study says? Aaron Powell His study, yeah. His study is a univariate analysis of how secularity within European countries is indexed to a whole different number of things, like murder rates and that kind of thing. He didn't uh look at other things like uh crime rates and that sort of thing, because it didn't help his analysis.
SPEAKER_04You are you are pointing to problems that you have with his methodology, but that's not me getting wrong what his report says. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Why are you camping out on his study when literally there are thousands of studies that show the benefits of religion? Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_04Well, I was getting to that a minute ago. Okay. Because a number of the things that you in the studies that you would cite, I would also have a problem with their methodology. Because when you talk about, first of all, you've got the issue of self-reporting, how happy are you? And we know, for example, from especially from ex-Mormons, that organ groups like Mormon culture encourage people to, because they are representatives of the church, to present themselves as happier when less problematic. Now, who knows what the actual truth is there, and I'm not saying what the truth is. What I'm saying is there's an issue with self-reporting. There's also an issue with what is the real foundation here. Is it that they are religious, which by the way is independent from the truth of the religious proposition? That's why the challenge that I had for years was show me a real true benefit of religion that is necessarily only produced by the truth of that religion. Because you can you can produce those same things with it with a compelling lie. If you've got five religion and only five religions and only one of them is true, but all five of those people religious individuals or people who are adherents to those are reporting that they're better and happier and these other things, then it has nothing to do with the tr the truth of the religion. It has to do with who we are. And it may be the case that what people need is the community, which religions have done a really good job of building those communities. And it's one of the things that secular organizations are working towards doing now, building stronger communities. But we had to fight for just the right to exist and be open and talk about this before we could get to a point of building uh those sorts of communities.
SPEAKER_02There it is. You had the example of the uh the headbob, the I'm a jerk head bounce. Um and you know, I did I uh I was far too gleeful about the fact that he latched onto Gregory S.
SPEAKER_01Paul. But I mean he because you when you kind of flag up Gregory S. Paul um and you say, Oh, he's a paleontologist who was actually hacked off with Grajanists, you go to Wikipedia and you find Gregory S. Paul when Matt Delante kind of cuts across you, but that's all about Gregory S. Paul. I'm talking about his data. As if somehow the person doing the study has no impact on the study. Yeah. I mean uh and you'd like to think, well, of course, someone should be non-biased.
SPEAKER_02It's a bit reviewed journal, Paul. Of course he's not biased. Except he wears his biases on his link. Wait, exactly. As he writes the writes it at the beginning. And in fact, what I've linked to in the description, do check out the the meta-analyses in the description. You know, I've got a I've got a meta-analysis of over three thousand studies about religion and spirituality as its index to health. But he would disagree with their methodology. All three thousand, clearly. He might. But uh like a meta-analysis is at least, you know, gonna deal with the bias issue, hopefully, by by balancing out three thousand different studies. I've I've also linked to another in the description box, a meta-analysis of 850 studies that are based on mental health and how it relates to religion and spirituality. And again, meta-analyses are hopefully gonna be you know far less uh prone to bias and and and uh the problems of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning than otherwise. But I mean, Gregory is Paul, he didn't even do a statistical analysis of his data, he just plotted it on a chart. Squint had cocked his head and said, Do you see a line going up? I see a line going up. It's that sort of thing. But I did I did get it wrong. When I said you've been getting it wrong for 15 years, I mean, kind of, I was saying you you've been getting you've been getting the subject wrong for 15 years, but technically speaking, he was right. Um, it's just he was wrongly relying on him.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, there's a technicality though, isn't it, to try and save himself down the article. No, I've not been getting it wrong. You know, I've I've been reporting accurately what this guy said, it's just that I shouldn't have been using it because it's completely ridiculous.
SPEAKER_02But here's the here's the really interesting thing, and what what the takeaway from this is not about greater ES Paul. The takeaway from this is at this point in the debate, studies are vague. At this point in the debate, are the data, who knows about the data, and different people will read the different data differently, and of course we'll all have it's all very difficult to figure out what's going on with these studies, right? At this point, the studies will not establish the fact of the matter. Even even if you've got 3,000 studies swimming in one direction and Gregory S. Paul in the other direction, okay. All right, let's imagine that the jury is out. All right, let's go with that. Let's go with the fact that these that these metrics of well-being are really difficult to discern. And let's pause on that and let's stick a flag there, and let's return to that fact when in the the rest of the debates Matt's gonna want to make a case for we can establish well-being, we can figure out what will lead to the flourishing of human society, we can make a decision on these things if we start from first principles. Anyway, that's the that's the issue about the studies. Uh and then uh I thought um it would be nice to have a look just for just for um ten seconds really at uh uh a reference that Matt makes to Jordan Peterson and the conversation that he has with uh Jordan Peterson. And I think this this bears on the issue of um does Matt understand humanism?
SPEAKER_04Let's have a look. When when Jordan Peterson and I sat down, I pointed out that there's never been a secular humanist uh government, and he tried to say that the Soviet Union was, and he just doesn't understand what secular human is. That wasn't secular humanism, that was basically state-enforced atheism and was very much anti-religion.
SPEAKER_02Did you see his uh debate with Jordan Peterson that they sort of sat down on stage together?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I've done I've not seen it in full, but I've seen a clip of him ca Matt Delhante. Is that Matt Delhante kind of says, like, no, you're completely wrong about you don't know what humanism is. Right.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. It was during the QA, and Matt said there what he also said in our debate, which is we just haven't seen what a secular humanist state would look like because we just haven't had long enough and nobody's ever attempted it. Um and then Jordan Peterson said, Well, the Soviets tried an atheist state, and then Matt Dilhante was like, if you think that's anything like you know, secular humanism, you don't know the first thing about secular humanism, how dare you? And you know. Um and I can understand, like, if you if you think that humanism always devolves into nihilism or always devolves into the gulags, then um that's that's um a problem. But at that point, Matt says, Jordan, you don't know what secular humanism is. And I've just got this question for Matt. Do you know what secular humanism is? Um, because later on I I I challenge Matt. Um, is every member of the human family equally worthy of provision and protection? He can't answer that. That's humanism 101. So um there's a there's a big question mark there for me on uh whether Matt needs to return his humanist card. Um let's have a look at uh at the at the next clip. And uh uh at that point uh I kind of accuse secular humanism of basically being Christianity light. Let's have a look at this this part of the debate.
SPEAKER_04To say that secular humanism is uh a new newly packaged light modified version of Christianity r really isn't relevant if Christianity is a modified version of other things that all tie back to the human being.
SPEAKER_02Which is a big if, and I don't think it is at all. I I think what what you get when you look at human civilizations, what you get when you look at the Hammurabi code, when you look at the Enumeralish, when you look at any number of the ancient Near Eastern texts, when you look at any number of Greco-Roman understandings of the world, or Persian understanding of the world, or Muslim understandings of the world, uh i is basically that in the realm of the flesh, in the realm of biological reality, it is survival of the fittest, you know, and and therefore sacrifice of the weakest. And I think what you get absolutely uniquely in Christianity is the reverse of that. You you have in Christ the fittest who is sacrificed for the survival of the weakest. And what you get birthed out of the Christian movement is uh a a unique uh preference for the poor, the marginalized, the weak, the outsider to draw them in. Such that obviously in every society there's tit for tat and there's let's cooperate and let's do all that kind of stuff. But who is we in that sentence? Let let us cooperate. Well, who's the us, you know? It could be just you and me and not Justin, or it could be just me and Justin and not you, right? Um who are the people on planet Earth who are actually saying uh it's actually all of us, even our enemies, are those who we include in the circle of humanity, and who we grant equal human dignity to, and who we say they must never be marginalized, no matter how weak they are, no matter how ineffectual they are, no matter how maladapted to survival they are, um they are ours, and uh we will gr you know we will grant them a universal human dignity. That's a thoroughly Christian idea. And I and it's it's not, you know, it's obvious that it's found on the first page of the Bible. Um so it's it's there in Judaism, but it's it is a uniquely Christian idea that I think secular humanism has taken on. But I don't think you derive that secular humanism anywhere else but in Christianity. And Judaism. Let's call it the Judeo-Christian worldview. The Judeo-Christian worldview, like I'm Dennis Prager or something. Who am I? Ben Shapiro or Judeo Christian. I wish I just said the Bible at that at that point. You know, you get it from the Bible. But I mean the to to uh to to compare the Hammurabi code, which has this vertiginously steep um hierarchy, social order, the king at the top and the slaves at the bottom, to to compare that in any way to the absolutely flat, you know, hierarchy of the Amago Day, that everyone, not just the king, everyone, male and female, is in the image of God, right? From page one, is is bizarre. It's it's like saying, uh, you know, because I see that the word morality is used in one setting and the word morality is used in another setting, oh look, they're both talking about the same morality. It's like this is the Hammurabi code, right? This is the Amago Day. See the difference? Like so, so incredibly different. And I I do think it's a unique contribution that Christianity has given to the world. And interestingly, the last big conversation before ours was um Tom Holland. Tom Holland talking to AC Grayling and again saying that point. And obviously, Tom Holland's great book, uh Domidian, is making that point that you don't get the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without the Bible. Sure. Um So I I do think that stands. I do I do think secular humanism is Christianity light. Um and you know, and and Matt can sometimes says, Well, Glenn, sometimes you're saying uh humanism is just Christianity light, um, and sometimes you're saying you can't have humanism without Christianity, which is it? Um and it it is both. It's it's that the fruit of Christianity is a kind of humanism that includes everyone in the circle of of what it is to be human. Um but you cut yourself off from the root of Christianity, and the fruit is gonna wither on the vine.
SPEAKER_01Well, and also just given his answers later on in the discussion, right? It shows that you know he he doesn't hold to the idea that every human has intrinsic value. Yes. Um and that's because he's lost the root. So he's he's taken the idea that he it's fascinating. I mean, I I feel he undoes himself later in the conversation more than anything in the discussions about the value of human beings and you know the who are the we, you're asking a you ask a number of times who's the we, who, and stuff like that, but you're talking about who is us, who are the human beings. And it's clear there are those that for him at least fall outside of humanity, right, you know, or being considered worthy of having value for whatever reason. Yeah. And so you you see immediately how he's trying to hold on to a kind of flat everybody's equal thing, but at the same time, when it suits him, there are those that he wants to get rid of out of that society, namely in in the case you'll talk about his those who don't add value.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Whatever that means.
SPEAKER_02So if you want proof that you need the root of Christianity to lead to the fruits of humanism, watch the debate to the end. And you'll see what happens. If you want to move away from the root, you do lose the fruits. I I think this I think our debate is one of the clearest examples of why you need the root to have the fruit.
SPEAKER_01Um well, the the fact that when he gets asked those questions by yourself and by Justin about the value of humanity, that he even has to pause and think. Right. And then still answer basically very badly. Yeah. Wrongly, effectively, you know, wrongly. What he says is terrible. Yeah. You know, that no, I'm not I no, I don't think everybody is. Yeah. Yeah. That's a horrific thing to say. That's a horrific position to be in. I mean it's abhorrent. It's a consistent position. It's consistent. I admire his consistency. It's consistently and consistently abhorrent. Yeah. But it's it is abhorrent to be able to say that and think somehow you have the moral high ground. Yeah. Yeah. You know? Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Let's have a look at uh the next clip. And again, we get into these issues of the strong ruling over the weak. We are always going to look after ourselves, but who is we and who are ourselves in that conversation? And we are always wanting to narrow the circle around us and our mates and exclude the other tribe and exclude the other kinds of people. So, you know, in in the news here in the UK, um just recently they they brought in uh um a non-invasive prenatal test uh for Down syndrome, and it had the reliable effect that everybody knew it was going to have. As people knew that they were going to have children with Down syndrome, they aborted them at ever higher rates. And yet the uh the the headlines said um uh children with Down syndrome down 30%. And it sounded like people had like found a cure for Down syndrome or something like that. Um they hadn't found a cure for Down syndrome, they'd just drawn the circle around humanity and kept those with that condition on the outside and wanted to eliminate them. Uh and that to me is a very chilling way of uh proceeding with a kind of a a humanism. Because that's that's always the danger. Like who is us? Who who are those who we are going to grant with the right to life? And who are those who we are going to say, uh they do not qualify? And it's always uh tempting for the for the humans to say, okay, it's the strong who will make the decision and it's the weak who must take the hindmost. If we want humans to be in charge, and if being in charge is on the table, uh then it will be a power grab. And it will be the strongest who will be in the position to rule over the weak, and bye-bye humanism. Um you need there to be the objective granting of human dignity to all members of the human race, um, as a gift, not as something to be grasped, not as something to be um taken up as a power play. Um you need that gift of the Amago Day, you need that gift of you know, Jordan Peterson secularizes the term, you know, there's a spark to all humans, or you know, the the the divine spark that every individual has. You need some kind of thing. It sounds very theological. Um as Tom Holland says, you know, to believe in the equality of all people, it's it's as theological as to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and sat at the right hand of the Father. And actually those two truths actually um go together.
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_02But unless you grant that from the outset, um it's by by humanism. I really think so. Um and then, here's here's one of my favorite clips. Um, and then Justin Briley steps forward. If there's if Enter Briy. Enter Briley. If there were if there was a winner to this debate, it's gotta be JB. I don't know. He should wear he should wear glasses every single unbelievable.
SPEAKER_01It's just no, he needs he shouldn't wear the glasses because that means when they do the thug life bit, there's something to come down over his eyes.
SPEAKER_02He had a few thug life moments. Um what was fascinating is that he invoked Godwin's rule. You know, Godwin's rule, you know, that the as the length of an internet thread, you know, grows, so the probability of someone mentioning Hitler approximates one. You know, it's a hundred percent likely that someone will mention Hitler. And Justin does. I didn't do it. I didn't. People, I did not bring up the Nazis. You didn't do it. I didn't start the fire. It was Justin's fault, but actually him stirring the pot actually clarified things. It's one of those rare occasions where bringing up the Nazis actually ends up clarifying things. Uh let's see how Justin does it.
SPEAKER_00It's because of the Why in your view is it wrong for, you know, I'm sorry to invoke Godwin's law, even though we're near near the end of the programme. Uh why was it wrong for Hitler and the Nazis to uh, you know, euthanize uh disabled people and gay people and people that they felt were outside of their circle of who they considered to be human?
SPEAKER_04What's why what what was the kind of I'm not convinced they considered them outside the circle of what they considered human. They had a view that these were somehow inferior humans. I think they would all acknowledge they were human, just that they were somehow inferior or less or less diverging. Yeah, race.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus, Jr. So it's one of those things where people say Because a lot of people would say Hitler was wrong about a fact there. Whereas from what I'm I'm wondering, like and we're getting to the issue of is there this objective m moral value to human to humanity?
SPEAKER_04And it was it reminds me of the people who argue that, you know, hey, slavery is really good for the slave owners. And so if you're a slave owner, you can look at this and say, hey, slavery is a good thing because it benefits me. The problem is that when you look at the larger picture, it's actually not necessarily good for the slave owners. And get beginning to recognize that uh every member of society affects potentially every other member fundamentally changes and and it shifts our in-group-out-group dynamic. So that when Hitler goes after the Jews for whatever religious reasons he had, for whatever uh superior, you know, Uber guy reasons he had, um that's fundamentally different from whether or not killing them makes society worse or better. And it's it's kind of this thing of, oh, this is what I think makes us better, which is independent from what actually makes us think better. Nobody, not Sam nor I nor anybody, is say suggesting that if we begin with an agreement on well-being as a foundation, that there aren't going to be things that are that we think we have the right answer about and find out we were wrong.
SPEAKER_02At that stage then, i it would seem like instead of having World War II, we would have a symposium in which the Nazis would present their papers and others would present other papers, and then we'd have a panel and we discuss them, and we try and thrash it out. Um at what stage do you say that their vision for updating, for for evolving, for having a master race, uh at what stage do you say that that is morally unjustified and therefore there is a just war that can be fought against them?
SPEAKER_04I d I don't know that there's an answer for that uh apart from assessing the individual situations, which is what we did. But we didn't have to rely on a god for it.
SPEAKER_02Well, are you we relied on we relied on nineteen hundred and forty well, nineteen hundred and thirty nine years of of Christian understanding of what is the good life and the the good life is the the the sacrifice of the strong for the protection of the weak. And and Hitler was doing the exact opposite of that. And so it was it was very obvious to people in that sense the evil of of the Nazis and they went and fought a a just war against it.
SPEAKER_04Sure. So it was Christianity that was the credit for ending the Nazi regime and and and why were people not even Judaism.
SPEAKER_02Uh no it was Christianity that had shaped the West and its moral sensibilities such that Nazism appeared to them as very obviously the very reverse of the Weight of the Cross.
SPEAKER_04So this is something you th you just can't argue with.
SPEAKER_02Yeah some some really revealing pauses there. And yeah and what gets me about this the whole symposium thing is it's fine. It's great to hold a symposium and to to have shared foundations and then to you know chat things through. But can one of our shared foundations be let's not kill people right?
SPEAKER_01Yeah I mean the the thing that I think Matt Delahunty seems to miss here is that someone comes and says you know what we've been killing lots of disabled people, gay people, gypsies, Jewish people because we think it's going to make society better. And Matt Delahunty's answer is well, well let's at least get round the table and talk about it and see. You know and can you say at what point you say no that's not okay and he's and he goes well I don't know if there's an answer for that apart from just assessing the situation. But you really need to sit down and assess that situation.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01If that doesn't ring an alarm bell in your head that somewhere your morality has gone askew.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Nothing will. Yeah. You know right. It's like you know I really if so imagine if someone said I mean well people there are people already saying you know you know paedophilia.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_01Maybe there's some benefits. Well let's at least sit down and talk about it. No, we don't need to sit down and talk about it.
SPEAKER_02Yeah right. Just no just no just no but there needs to be an objective realm of moral values to be able to do that.
SPEAKER_01Unfortunately Matt doesn't have that he can't so he's consistent at least like I said we've said before he's consistent in that but I think just nobody wants to live in that kind of world.
SPEAKER_02No and it's it is a very dystopian vision. Anytime people try to take consequentialism seriously which is what Sam Harris's project is it's what Matt Delahunty's project is consequentialism. Utilitarianism John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham back in the 19th century they basically said we can do a calculus we can figure out how many utils of pleasure you would have how many utils of pleasure I would have how many utils of pleasure every member of society would have and we do the maths and the right course of action is the course of action that raises the number of utils. Now there's all sorts of data yeah there's all sorts of problems. One of the problems is do you remember we we talked about the studies earlier do you remember I said still put a flag in it. Put a flag in it okay um even even looking back over a hundred and fifty years worth of scientific study on this issue even with thousands of studies even with meta-analyses and statistical analysis of stuff that has already happened even with that Gregory S. Paul gets floated right and we and and there's a measurement problem. Apparently there's a measurement problem and it's all really difficult. And I I understand it really is difficult in social studies. I'm not staking out my case entirely on social studies. It is really difficult. There is a measurement problem. But if that's a measurement problem based on studies we've already held can you just think of the measurement problem you have if projecting into the future you say okay let's let's say the amount of uh handicapped we want to get rid of in society is 10,000 people let's let's just say that and then back at the envelope let's just figure out how much it would cost for the cyanide. Let's just figure out you know and on the other hand you know we might be losing some geniuses you know from them we might be losing some works of art and that kind of thing and like and now let's weigh up how many nurses we wouldn't need and yes you know that kind of stuff and just let's let's cost it out let's do the cost benefit let's do the cost benefit analysis analysis if we can't figure out the utility of religion now how are we going to figure out the utility of a genocide in the future I can't even believe I said that sentence what is the utility of this genocide Matt reach out to me. If I've got you wrong on this I want to know I want to know um let's get into an another conversation but um it would be interesting to see you two maybe go back over some of these points yeah I think sure I'm willing I'm willing um and then let's let's go back to Justin because Justin absolutely is the star of this show he's just uh um yeah he again and again just moves conversation on in the right way brings up the right topics and uh yeah it's really really helpful and uh this is a longer clip but Paul and I can kind of speak over the top of it as it as it goes but this is uh roughly uh the last few minutes of our debate together. Let's have a look. So the moral argument for God's existence is is not that we we need some kind of arbitrary moral figure who has some whims and he will enforce them at the point of hell and therefore it would be better if we want to live in a moral world to believe in such a god. The moral argument for God's existence is there is an objective realm of moral values and the explanation for that objective realm of moral values um is not going to be a a material cause because morals are not material things, right? Moral values are not reducible to just biological reality and and thank God for that because biological reality is the survival of the fittest okay but moral values are something distinct from biological values natural values you cannot get from those natural values to the ethical values you can't get from an is to an ought and and you sure can't get from preferences to an ought you can't get from a like to an ought of course you can you can always get from preferences to an ought no you can only get from preferences to another preference it's just it just becomes another preference just backed up with force.
SPEAKER_04The pro alright we're not gonna we're not gonna necessarily so first of all I don't think we disagree on on on the is odd dilemma but as soon as you get into preferences that's the objection the reason you can't get from an is odd is that you have to inject a preference. It's ejecting the preference that gets you to the odd I would like to live in a world where this happens therefore I ought to do that.
SPEAKER_00The the objection on the is odd thing is this thing if if I try if I start with the foundation of I would like to is not a problem with what it leads to but why should I like to with the power I suppose is what I'm getting Glenn is saying if if the person in power say the Hitler simply has a very different conception of what the best is for his life compared to your life then do you have any moral if you like force to say you're doing something wrong.
SPEAKER_02Isn't he just going with his preferences as opposed to your preferences So what is it that's up here that says those preferences are better and those preferences are worse.
SPEAKER_04This this is the the objection that's it's often launched. So I could sit down with Hitler I wouldn't because he's dead. But I could sit down with Hitler and if we could find the thing that we agree about that we care about I can show we can then demonstrate which one of our preferences are in conflict with that. If if he he because what we what we do as human beings is often delude ourselves. And and we look at our preferences and assume they're right but they're gonna conflict with something foundational which I I basically at the beginning of that superiority secular morality talk I talked about how you could begin with let's say three foundational premises. Life is generally preferable from to death health is generally preferable to sickness and pleasure is generally preferable to pain. None of them are universally true. Sometimes pain is preferable sometimes death may be preferable which is why I support death with dignity for people who no longer have any hope of a of a quality life and with their individual autonomy and control over their own life. But you can begin with those and you can build something. But you can start with anything you can start with death is better than life and what you get to is extinction. And so if I find something I think Hitler probably I mean there's the old joke Hitler probably loved his mother too Hitler probably valued human life just had justifications for excluding certain others.
SPEAKER_03Right.
SPEAKER_04And you think you could reason Hitler into I don't know that I necessarily could because there are people into his way. It might be I'm not I'm I'm not saying that that's not necessarily the case I'm saying if you can show that what your actions are and the things that you're justifying are in conflict with a a a a foundation that you agree with that's where the problem is.
SPEAKER_02Right. And what if the it's it's the establishment of the master race because if the fittest do survive then wouldn't it be nice if the fittest should survive? Like we take that hop, skip and a jump and and then you then you ask what what criteria are you using to determine fittest? And again we're we're we're having a symposium and we should be fighting a war.
SPEAKER_04And and this is No, no we should always be having a symposium so we don't have to fight wars. Why would anybody ever say we should be fighting a war? You sound like Neville Chamberlain you know I've I found peace in our time with Hitler because I'm going to sit down with him and I'm gonna I'm sorry that I'm sorry that's being for reasoning rather than blowing crap up is so anathema. I think we tried to reason with him. I'm not saying see this okay here's where the confusion is I'm not saying after the war started send Matt in and he can sit down with Hitler talking about he's very clever. We're using a precise example to talk about a more abstract one which is essentially let's say you and I disagree on you you want to take some action you want to exterminate some portion of the population. The the process that I'm advocating for is for us to figure out what shared foundation we have, if any, which we'll find something shared, and show which one of us is more in conflict with and which one of us is more in keeping with that foundation. Is it always going to be the case? No.
SPEAKER_02But you asked how you would actually solve that and I would and if it didn't work I'd kill him and if and if well being just very vaguely just just defined if well being is is the metric that we're using and if Hitler could say oh we are so much better off without the disabled you have no idea. You know we're we're soaring our industry our numbers are through the roof our well being is is yeah is doing incredibly well once we eliminate the the sick, the weak the handicapped is he right at that point?
SPEAKER_04Well that's when you go through and you talk about what data are you looking at to define well being because what data?
SPEAKER_02Yeah. You're having that conversation about the data because he's because he's just told you I've eliminated the handicap it's not like I'm talking No Okay, but because it is happening right now. Okay, the the there is a Down syndrome population for instance that's being eliminated globally right now. And we're having a conversation about it. Okay and I I think it's better to have a conversation than to blow people up and all that sort of stuff. But um it's it's a very live issue.
SPEAKER_04It's not just the Godwin's rule I'm just going with the example that you say Hitler comes to me and says you wouldn't believe how much better our society is off now that we're eliminating these people then you have to go back and look at it and say, okay, what have you lost? Is your society better and are you just looking at the short term? Did you in fact yeah how do you know that you didn't lose a cure for disease? How do you know that you're not worse off because it has fundamentally changed your psyche? How do you know that you're not worse off because you've lost art, because you've you've lost human connection. It's not just see this is one of the problems that you could point out to people that are going down there.
SPEAKER_00Wellbeing is not just what's my financial lives worth something even if they didn't produce a cure for cancer or great works of art. Even if they just you know sat around and consumed all the resources that all the able-bodied people were doing.
SPEAKER_04If somebody sat around and did nothing but consume are I I I don't know how you could consider that in as adding value to you have to point to something where they're adding value to society.
SPEAKER_02Is that so they have to achieve they have to add value.
SPEAKER_04But they don't have value Yeah so w this is what I'm saying when I say that there's no intrinsic value to it but that I value that I value human life and that everybody almost everybody seems to be who's I you you might deal with it. I'm speaking specifically for me but also if you're if someone else doesn't you try to reason them out of it but yes what do you okay see you sit there and you go mm-hmm okay let's try it I don't value human life change my mind look at the Nazis look at that vision of humanity I don't care I don't value human life change my mind you have yourself a humanity that has dignity you might not believe it right now.
SPEAKER_02I don't change my mind I'm trying to change your mind by saying without achievements without attributes without contributing a penny of money without expending a calorie of effort I worry by the way that this is going to get cut as if this is really me saying this when it's not and I'm counseling yourself I'm your therapist I I don't I don't even understand why this this point is remotely contentious.
SPEAKER_00What's your point here though that that if you simply choose not to believe humans have value then nothing uh the nothing that he's gonna say is going to change your mind.
SPEAKER_04Right telling me that there's a God or a Jesus that that's not going to necessarily change my mind any more than than my line of reasoning.
SPEAKER_02My point is that the the changing of the mind is not the the most important factor that's going on here. It's the immorality of eliminating a whole people group. That's that's probably a little bit more important than I think someone's talking about it's a conversation.
SPEAKER_04We're talking about someone who doesn't value human life. Yes not what they've done but what they think.
SPEAKER_02Yes. Yes you have to figure out a way to change their mind. And the best way we've discovered over two thousand years is to tell a story about the God who becomes the weak and despised and the marginalized and the the single cell in Mary's womb.
SPEAKER_04And I think we can do better than telling a story. But you think but what evidence do you have? Well give it a shot there's no reason to think it's not worse than it's any worse except all the scientific studies I decided.
SPEAKER_02Yo Man a lot in there isn't there's a lot in there and you know I've just been praying for people with ears to hear to hear.
SPEAKER_01It's incredible to say isn't it that you to s to stand there and to think that in some way your your secularism your human secularism can uh sorry secular humanism can uh give you some kind of better morality and yet be asked outright do you think every human being has value intrinsic value and his answer is just no you basically have to it depends whether you're adding value. And the question is well what is it that adds value and how much value do you need to add before you're considered value valuable I mean is what is what we're doing valuable? Is what he's doing valuable? Yeah you know yeah and maybe maybe we can sit down and talk about that but if we disagree as we found out if he can't convince Hitler he'll just kill him.
SPEAKER_02Yeah that was fine.
SPEAKER_01Why would he kill him? Why why would he kill him? Well yeah because there's no basis to really say one is better than the other on in on a moral real moral ground.
SPEAKER_02Yeah you know just yeah why would yeah I I don't know and just the idea and and like how how much value do you need to add and you know if if the mansie guard's gonna throw you into the gas chamber unless you produce a work of art like do you like my painting? Is this good enough? Like what what is going on?
SPEAKER_01Well and then he's kind of you know he's saying what would you say to that and he's you know he's kind of saying well you have to think about what you've lost. You know think think of the things that you know what it is you've lost by killing those people. As if there needs to be some quantifying of that.
SPEAKER_02This is the other than the six million bodies you know that are ashes in Europe you know um Wow Wow yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah I wanna I I w I want to get rid of ten thousand handicapped people but what would you lose if you got rid of ten thousand handicapped people?
SPEAKER_01Yeah I don't know how about ten thousand people I don't know like and I think that there's a persons are not ends in themselves in this in this it's easy to see isn't it how there's that moment isn't there I think partly it was in that clip but partly in the clip before as well about you know you said oh we're having a symposium when we should be fighting a war and it basically he says in this one no we shouldn't be fighting wars we should be sitting down and talking but and and you see that seems very that seems very reasonable of course that sounds oh yeah of course but when you think about what the situation is no we don't sit down and talk about whether it's justified to kill six million people we just go no it's not right and my goodness if you're gonna try and do it we're gonna stop you. Yeah um yeah I mean that seems pretty I mean so much so that even if if you if you were to question if you were to question the morality of that.
SPEAKER_02I mean there are countries where you you know you you can't deny that these things happened you know it it we see that as such a serious uh bl uh you know bit of darkness and evil on our history that to even you know deny these things occurred is such a great evil to then for him to sit there and say hey maybe we could you know you could maybe justify it but I try and convince you otherwise and he even mentions the the comparison with slavery because like generally like he is so certain that slavery in all circumstances in all ages in all cultures across the world down through history is always wrong. He's so sure of that. But then genocide let's let's chat. Yeah you know um it's chat it's what you know it's it's but it's what it suits him because the slavery thing suits him um you know I can I can go to two places in the Bible I can go to Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 and I can point to verses that you know that endorse bond servants okay and from there suddenly he's he's an objectivist suddenly looking back over three and a half thousand years and cultures that are incredibly different oh that that's obviously wrong um yeah but he's a relativist when it comes to other matters I you know I don't know I don't know so there were some easy questions that like I I stumbled over my words and had brain fades and you know tripped up in a lot of ways but the the times when Matt tripped up were when he was asked simple questions is every member of the human family worthy of equal protection do people have value or must they contribute value? These are simple questions that a humanist should answer in a heartbeat and if there's a problem here guys if you're a if you're a Matt Delhante fan and uh if you're just an onlooker um I is is this stuff wrong? Is it is it wrong to eliminate the weak? Is it always wrong to eliminate the weak no matter how much benefit you get out of it. If you start to answer yes you are answering with a very Christian spirit and I just urge you to come home.
SPEAKER_01And I mean there's a question there around who are the weak as well. Right because there will be people who go yeah I think it's okay to eliminate the weak but what you need to realise is that once you eliminate the weak and that group is gone right there's gonna be another group that appears that you now consider weak. And at some stage you're gonna be in that circle. Yeah you know or outside of the circle. Right. Uh so yeah that's that's the thing.
SPEAKER_02Yeah so come home to come home to the God who was eliminated as a weak one in order to welcome us all into his circle. That's that's the gospel that's the good news that's what I tried to get across with some of my answers and we pray that it continues to do good. This is an extra specially long edition of the live cast and it's not live but it will appear as uh a podcast later on this week and uh yeah we'd love to hear what you think uh it's here on YouTube please uh do be commenting and uh the more you comment uh the more it gets shared around the place the algorithm loves the chat so do get chatting with us and uh as we as we say Sayonara uh let's have one last ridiculous jerk head bob we're gonna be go to the speak life store to get your bubble head glenn your glen bubble head I'm a jerk bouncing head of doom