Talk Heathen 09.24 with Christy Powell and Scott Dickie

In this Father’s Day edition of Talk Heathen, Christy Powell is joined by co-host Scott Dickie for a thoughtful episode focused on the balance between reason and empathy. The hosts open with a discussion on hyper-rationality within skeptic communities and the importance of making space for vulnerability and emotional honesty. From there, they take a few deep calls exploring belief, truth, and the boundaries of skeptical inquiry.

Benji in Alabama attempts to discuss secular morality, but technical issues delay his participation. The hosts use this time to reflect on the interplay between logic and emotion in how we engage with others, particularly in conversations about religion, science, and belief.

Tucker in Iowa shares that he still holds some spiritual or supernatural beliefs despite identifying with the skeptic community. He speaks about personal experiences, such as perceived communication from his deceased father and a belief in a friend’s psychic abilities. The conversation explores definitions of “supernatural,” the tension between personal conviction and external skepticism, and the challenges of maintaining authenticity within a sometimes rigid atheist framework.

Nick in Massachusetts brings a densely abstract discussion involving truth paradigms, mechanistic reasoning, and epistemology. The conversation struggles to find clarity, with the hosts encouraging Nick to refine and simplify his ideas for better communication. While the points raised touch on government, religion, and logic, the lack of a clear thesis leaves the hosts and audience searching for firmer ground.

Despite some technical hiccups, Christy and Scott deliver a show rich in reflection and mutual curiosity. Viewers are encouraged to think deeply about the ways we balance emotion and logic—not only in belief, but in how we talk to one another. Thanks for joining us, and talk heathen to us: How do you balance reason and empathy in difficult conversations?
00:00 Intro
08:18 Benji – AL | Secular morality (connection issues)
25:06 Tucker – IA | Spiritual beliefs and skepticism
49:29 Nick – MA | Mechanistic truth and epistemology


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/talk-heathen--3195702/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To start with, I really want you to know that
I do understand and genuinely value how important logic and
reason are, whether we're talking about presuppositional arguments for God
or just good old fashioned P equals P. Please don't
mistake my position on this. I love a good, clean
syllogism as much as the next skeptic, but as a therapist,

(00:21):
I can't help but notice and worry about the role
that hyperrationality and skepticism at all costs often play in
the so called angry Internet atheist experience. I don't buy
into tired stereotypes of our community as a collective of
spots and datas stripped of emotion and running on pure reason.

(00:42):
And yet I've spent enough time in this space to
know how easy it can be to use logic as
armor and intellect as a way of keeping vulnerability at bad.
Like our friend doctor Firth god be Here recently pointed out,
you can't love logic or hate some mentality without getting
pretty emotional about it. There's always a heart behind the argument.

(01:02):
So no, I have no ambition of settling the war
between logic and emotion, but I am interested in making
space for both, because when someone calls in with their story,
their doubt, their outrage, or grief or confusion. We owe
them more than just a flaw of syllogism. We owe
them empathy, curiosity, and the courage to say I don't

(01:24):
know when that's the most honest answer we have. This
is talk Hethen, a community for conversations where reasons meet compassion,
and where every question deserves a thoughtful human response. So
give us a call because the show is coming right now. Okay, Well,

(01:47):
welcome everyone. Today is Father's Day, June eighth, twenty twenty five.
I'm your host, Christy Powell, and with me today for
our first time together, is Heathen Scott Dicky.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
All right, all right, I'm looking forward to working with
you today, Chris. I've been looking forward to this to
the show for a long time. I do want to
point out that, at least in Minnesota, it's June fifteenth, today, June.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
Fifteenth, yet that is on me. Thank you for catching that.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
I didn't know if there was a time difference or
what time zone you're in there.

Speaker 1 (02:17):
But yeah, don't you to talk about what year it
is right now? I don't want to talk about the news.
I just want to celebrate Father's Day and get into
some good, clean syllogisms and logic and compassion and calls
for sure.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
For sure, I'm really hoping that we get some callers
that are either passionate about a logical argument or if
they want to analyze and emotional argument, So hopefully we
can get a nice mixture there.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
Yeah, yeah, no, that sounds great. Of course, this is
talk Heathen, and we are open to all of your
questions about religion, secular humanism, atheistic morality, cosmology, philosophy, science, history, life,
the universe and everything that said, Scott, is is there
anybody else that you're really hoping to speak to today?

Speaker 2 (03:02):
You know, last week I was listening to the show
and there was somebody that was talking a lot about math,
a lot of smack about math, And so I'm hoping
we get some math related content because i think because
as some of you may know, I'm a math teacher
in my other life, and it seems like whenever I'm
watching a show that I'm not on, that's when the
math callers come in. So if you have a math

(03:23):
related argument, I'd love to dig into that with you too.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
Oh man, Yeah, just any opportunity to listen to you
explain infinity until my brain explodes. I'll just be kind
of quietly eating popcorn here in the background. All right,
all right, I'm ready, So let's do it. Talk Heathen
is a production of the Atheist Community of Austin. We're
a five oh one c three nonprofit organization that is

(03:46):
dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism,
and the separation of religion and government. We are a
live call in show with open lines, so get your
calls in at five one two two four two or
from your computer at tiny dot ce c slash call
t H. And while we wait for all of these

(04:07):
passionate and logical calls to roll in, let's touch base
with our backup host today, Jamie the Blind Limy, Who's
going to go over our talk Eathen to me segment? Jamie,
what do you got for us this week? Jimy, let
me get you unmuted?

Speaker 2 (04:19):
There, Amy's there we go.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
Hell, there we are? How are you?

Speaker 3 (04:24):
I am excellent? And for this Beard, I paid the
iron price. So we asked last week, Oh, what was
God's biggest mistake? So God's beigest mistake was blank? So
in at number three, we have Phil Herning Honing. God's
biggest mistake was leaving a message to a message to

(04:45):
creation that can be seen only by one guy in Nebraska.
I wonder what that's referencing too. I am so.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
Curious about who this guy in Nebraska is. I'm not
aware of any particular cult, any particular news story about
this idea. I do kind of just love the notion
of just one random dude cruising down the interstate between
Cordon Fields, right right.

Speaker 3 (05:07):
He's the one who knows Jeff and.

Speaker 1 (05:10):
All held Jeff.

Speaker 3 (05:13):
And then at number two, gade Us. God's biggest mistake
was having Jesus crucified on Friday and then resurrected on Sunday,
making him miss the Saturday morning can't.

Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, man, if you're gonna have to work on a weekend, jeez.

Speaker 3 (05:25):
Yeah, yeah man, miss anyway. And at number one, it's
caade More God's biggest mistake, ORed biggest blunder. He made
certain parts of the body incredibly fun to mess around with,
then insisted that it's about to do so. Either that
or the existence of the platypus. That thing is trash

(05:46):
heap of nonsense together. True enough, the Platypus is the
closest thing we have to Pokemon in real life from
the black Light. It's got a venomous barb and it
sweats milk.

Speaker 2 (06:00):
There you got to weird world, all right?

Speaker 1 (06:05):
Uh well, yeah, thank you, Jamie. I know that the
prompt for next week is finish the joke Jesus Mohammad
and Joseph Smith walk into a bar. We want to
hear your responses in the comments section. Scott, what do
you got for that one?

Speaker 2 (06:21):
All right? All right, I put a lot of thought
into this. Here's my Joe and I wrote it down
to make sure I didn't screw up the word in here.
It's Jesus Muhammad and Joseph Smith walk into a bar.
The bartender sets a single beer down on the bar
with three straws and says, it's our new profit sharing policy.
It's Father's Day.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
I gotta do a dad joke.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
I gotta get a dad right, all right?

Speaker 3 (06:42):
This one for me, Jesus Mohammad and Josepith walking to
the bar and the bomb and says, is this some
kind of joke?

Speaker 1 (06:47):
There you go? Or Jesus Mohammad and Joseph Smith walk
into a bar? At least it was in a school.

Speaker 3 (06:54):
Or thank you Christy for I'm going to make a kopa.
I messed that up and Christy got my back. But
I'm going to get Christie's back now because there's some
people we need to think.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
Yeah. Absolutely, I want to get our care up on
the screen. Thank you for all of your hard work,
all of your patients with us this morning is we're
goofing around in the green room, and thank you so
much for helping us put this show on.

Speaker 2 (07:20):
All right, cheers to the crew.

Speaker 1 (07:22):
Yeah, Scott, Okay, so we were diving into it. Let's
go ahead and jump on the lines. Yeah, all right,
sounds good. Cool. Let's hear from Benji and Alabama, who
I guess has some questions about secular morality. Benji, what's
on your mind? You're hearing us? Okay, well, we will
work to get that sorted out. Benji, I'm gonna put

(07:42):
you back in the queue and hopefully we'll talk to
you soon. In the meantime, Scott, I'm curious from your perspective,
do you share my concerns at all that I brought
up at the top of the show. You know, is
it just an occupational hazard? Of mine as a therapist,
or do you see this sort of like over intellectualizing
aspect of our community.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
Well, you know what's interesting is is you know, somebody
watching the show might look at us and they might see,
you know, Scott, you're the math teacher, that's the logic side,
and then Christy or the therapist that's the therapy, that's
the emotional side.

Speaker 1 (08:14):
Got a right brain situation.

Speaker 2 (08:16):
But in many ways, I mean, we can interpret that,
revert you know, we could reverse that. I mean, yeah,
I'm a math teacher, but I'm not I'm not a mathematician.
I'm an educator. So my job is to really make
the math content meaningful to my students. Whereas you, as
a as a professional therapist, your job is to apply
the science to your clients. You know, different situations.

Speaker 1 (08:38):
So take all those big emotions and organize them and
give them a framework and.

Speaker 2 (08:42):
A lot of exactly exactly. So, I think in that
way we're we're both very similar. Is that our both
of our careers kind of integrate. Uh, these these two
or these these things that are appear to be these
two different kinds of forces. But to answer your question
about do we see this as over you know, intellectualization,

(09:02):
And I would say yes and no one. Yes, it's
very easy to to focus on things like logic, especially
when you're talking to somebody who you think is failing
on the logical side of things. But I do think
I wouldn't necessarily use the word over intellectualizing, because thinking
about emotion can be a very intellectual process. I mean

(09:25):
it's uh, it's very deep in analysis, it's very humans centric,
and so really what we're talking about here is uh,
maintaining some sort of balance between logical approach and UH
and incorporating our human emotions in that. And it's one
of those if you're really good at talking about one

(09:46):
of those two things, it is in fact very easy
to to set one of them aside. And I know
that talking about emotions. You mentioned doctor Firth Godbe here earlier.
You know, he's really uh, you know, I just love
listening to him talking about his field of expertise, that
of emotion, in that you know, he can he can
really quantify things, and he he has the knowledge of

(10:09):
the history of the subject to really bring that to bear.
And so I think it's really it's not so much
of a focusing on one thing at the expense of
another thing. But I think it's it's it's a balance
where people can bring their own expectations into it. For example,
let's say I wanted to read like a book called

(10:30):
Don Quixote. Okay, we've all heard of Don Quixote, and
it was originally written in Spanish, and so there's a
couple of things that I would need to bring to
bear on a problem like that. I'd have to learn
how to speak Spanish, for one thing. How I can
take the words that are written in Spanish and translate
them into concepts and ideas that I'm familiar with. But
then once I've done that step, then that only gets

(10:52):
me to a point where I am then able to
appreciate the literature and the themes and the messages, and
so that much might be the that might represent the
emotional side of the balance too, And so they are
really two parts accomplishing the same goal that the idea
being to understand somebody's cultural perspective, their sociological perspective, their

(11:14):
historical perspective. And so, boy, this is the longest answer
to a really very short question. And but yeah, I
do I do see that. I do see that I
see as a math teacher, of course, I'm going to
be focusing on mathematics, but as I said before, motivation
can be a big part of that and can be

(11:35):
can be a stumbling block for especially new teachers that
are having difficulty with that thing. But as you gain
experience as a human being, as you interact with your students,
you kind of develop that sort of thing. And I
would imagine that maybe for a therapist it might be
the flip side. It might be maybe somebody went into
therapy to be a therapist because they really care about people.

(11:58):
They really we have a strong and broad knowledge of
emotional states and you know, human emotion and that kind
of thing. But as they learn, then they can apply
more and more science to the to the situation. And
so I do see things leaning one way or the
other in conversations, but I don't necessarily think that that's

(12:20):
something that should be avoided or even a bad thing.
I think it's good because then we can survey that
that landscape and decide what best applies to us and
our own approaches to that.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
Yeah. No, that that notion of balance is super important,
but also the idea of translating a word about emotion
into another language. I mean, that really lines up with
doctor Firth Godbee. Here's work about how our understanding of
emotion has changed time after time after time. These aren't

(12:52):
you know, specific compounds in the body that we can
isolate and say like, oh, this is the dopamin feeling,
this is the serotonin feeling. The way that we interpret emotion,
it's just this sort of arbitrary lens that we are
applying to these physical sensations. And that's true of thoughts too.
Thoughts and emotions are really just the different ends of

(13:15):
the same spectrum, or maybe not discreet from one another
in any meaningful way. And I think that's really valuable
in getting this conversation out of that sort of like
mind body dualism, or that notion of like the animus
or the soul being somehow separate from the logic or
the brain, or all of these kinds of complexities. So

(13:36):
there's a lot I think to be aware of here
as we try to find a healthy balance in our lives.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
Right And I think that word they use right there, awareness,
I think that's key, especially self awareness and reflective awareness.
I think that can I mean, that's really part of it.
We are and integrating different aspects of the human experience,
and I think and awareness of the way other people
are reacting in the way and self awareness the way that
you are reacting can be very valuable in improving whether

(14:06):
you know, maintaining that balance and also improving both aspects
of that at the same time.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
Yeah, well, beautiful. I think there is so much to
get into here. But I'm hearing from the crew that
we've got Benji back on the line, So let's jump
back on the calls. Yeah, all right, okay, Benji and Alabama,
what's on your mind today? Oh? Okay, well, fair enough,
Let's give it one more try. Let's go ahead and
touch base with Tucker in Iowa. All right, Tucker, are

(14:36):
you hearing us?

Speaker 2 (14:37):
I think we are narrowing in on the problem here.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
Yeah, it seems to be okay, Well, I'm going to
put all of the calls back into the line and
trust our incredible crew to get that sordid for us,
to let us know when we're ready to go. Yeah. So,
I guess, Scott, when that balance gets sort of off level,
what are the signs or the hallmarks of dismissing emotion

(15:02):
in our understanding of things like cosmology or epistemology, like
when do we know that we're kind of out of step?

Speaker 2 (15:08):
Well, that's the tricky part, right, That's that's the tricky part.
That's where that self awareness comes in, if we're looking
for I think it was was it Mark Twain that
said the easiest person to fool is yourself, right and
and the German and the hardest person to convince that
you've been fooled is yourself. And so it's very looking

(15:28):
back at yourself in the mirror can be very, very challenging.
And so I think that you know, recognizing well, I
think the first step would be to admit the possibility
that you are not getting a good view of yourself
or you're not taking into consideration certain aspects of your
own emotional self. But I think that we need to

(15:50):
be able to look back at ourselves and recognizing when
we are in fact bringing our own emotions into into
the process, and that can be that can certainly be
a benefit that can you know we were talking about before,
that drives your your passion, that drives your motivation, that
can drive your interest as well. But on the flip

(16:10):
side of that, we don't want to make sure that
we we go too far in that direction. We don't
want to rely solely on our emotional responses, because history
and biology has shown that our emotional responses can be
very can be misled, can be misled. And that's because
our intellectual and our emotional selves kind of evolved responding

(16:30):
to different aspects of the environment, you know, our and
UH A book that I read called Thinking Fast and
Slow by Daniel Kaman, I think when I when I
read that, that really helped me focus on that particular
difference we have. We have our emotional selves that are
quick to respond to scenarios and quick to respond to
danger especially, and then we have our slower intellectual self

(16:54):
where we can kind of analyze a little bit more
deeply and it's less less involved with emotion. And so
I think being able to recognize that you have that
balance in yourself and being able to recognize when it's
off kilter, I think can be very challenging. I you know,
as as you do as well. I wish we could

(17:15):
have some kind of like pill that we could take
that would that would fix that for us, right, that
would that would give us that clear view of our
own selves. But I think that can be an extreme
challenge for for everybody, and I don't know I'd be
interested to hear what other people have to say. So
if anybody wants to call and we do have open lines,
uh and talk to us about that, I love to

(17:36):
I love to hear people's opinions on this kind of thing,
because you know, people think of things that I even
thought of, and that helps me to improve myself. So
I think it all kind of starts. It's kind of
starts at home, as they say, right, It's it starts
with looking at yourself, and anybody can point the finger
at somebody else and say you're not being logical, or
you are reacting inappropriately or so forth. But in order

(17:58):
to recognize that in our ourselves, I think takes practice
and diligence.

Speaker 1 (18:02):
Yeah. I think it's the self deception part that you
kind of zoomed in on that is so significant to me.
It's not that I want to like criticize people for
being eighty percent logic and only twenty percent emotion, or
that it would ever or could ever work in that
kind of way. But it's when I see people, particularly

(18:22):
in our community, who are insistent they like I'm not
an emotional person. You know, maybe my partner or my
children are just too emotional, whereas I operate from pure
logic and reason. And then the moment you start to
sort of push back, like, really is your logic and
reason like all that pure, you start to see the

(18:43):
anger boiling up that they are unself aware of, that
they are in denial or about or unwilling to really
acknowledge as meaningful and significant and not altogether like unhealthy.

Speaker 2 (18:55):
Right, right, Yeah, I mean that's part of the normal,
normal human existence, right, is that type of thing? I mean,
we've evolved, we have actually evolved to not notice those
kinds of things in ourselves. We've evolved to try to
present ourselves as some kind of as leaders and as
dominant people and as the one that everybody wants to be.

(19:18):
And so admitting weakness is on the surface, that can
be seen as a weakness, right, the fact that you
admit that there are weaknesses, But when you sit back
and think about it, you want to make sure that
you if there are weaknesses there, you want to make
sure that they're that you can recognize that they're there,
and that you can take steps to move forward. And so, yeah,
so that the self awareness, I think is really really

(19:40):
a key thing, and it's hard to do, especially if
you're arguing with somebody about something. Like I said, it's
easy to point fingers, it's easy to say what's wrong
with their argument, and especially when they're not also doing
any self reflection. Right, So if they're telling you that
you're doing things wrong, and then you think, well, maybe
I am doing things wrong, and then it seems like

(20:00):
it kind of pushes it one way, and our egos
respond instantly with that, with that fiery, that fiery response.
We don't want to be the weak one. We don't
want to be the vulnerable one. And I think the
willingness to show vulnerability, well this is my opinion, but
I think the willingness to show vulnerability is really a
true sign of strength. And when I'm talking to somebody,

(20:23):
if they can be vulnerable and or admit their own
weaknesses to me, I think, Okay, that's a strong person.
That's somebody that I want to talk to. That's somebody
where we can make some progress and and and we
can kind of set aside the egos and and really
have some good conversations.

Speaker 1 (20:40):
Yeah, that that vulnerability piece is so challenging here. I mean,
do you feel like there is pressure in our community,
especially when contrasted with a more like faith based belief system.
Is there pressure on secular people to always sound rational
at the at the expense of being emotionally on it? Uh?

Speaker 2 (21:00):
I think there is some pressure there. I mean, we
can see with the responses that we have to our
shows that it's when when we when we have hosts
that tear into callers, you know, tear down their logic
and that kind of thing, we get a lot of
the most positive responses.

Speaker 4 (21:17):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
And it's the longer discussions, the the back and forth discussions,
the more empathetic approach doesn't necessarily get that strong response.
And so I think there is some, Uh, there is
some pressure, and I think a lot of that becomes
a lot of that comes from our tendency to have
those short sighted goals, right that that quick you can

(21:38):
point to align on an argument and say there's where
your logic failed, and that kind of thing. And so
I think the concreteness of a logical examination makes it
easier to get that you know, that dopamine kick and
that and that ironically that that emotional kickback from from
pointing at the uh, at the logic, I think UH

(21:59):
that those short term benefits, I suppose we can call them,
make it very easy to move in that direction, both
as somebody who's talking to the theist or as somebody
who's watching the show watching somebody else talk to the theist.
And so there is pressure. But then there are people
that and these are the hosts that I appreciate the most,

(22:21):
and that includes yourself definitely, the people who do take
the extra time to be empathetic, the people that do
take the extra time to understand not only what the
other person is saying, but why they're saying it and
how why they're saying it the way they say it,
and that kind of thing, and I think that can
lead to more long term benefits that can lead to

(22:41):
I mean, that's really the kind of thing that if
something is going to convince somebody to become an atheist
and abandon their religion, it's going to be those those
longer conversations that do take those two things into account.
And so it's really just a quick response, a quick feedback,
a quick you know, kick of adrenaline or whatever, versus

(23:03):
the longer but more ultimately beneficial goal of actually connecting
with a human being and making progress together as you
explore these uh, these truths and untruths.

Speaker 1 (23:15):
Yeah, no, all fair to say. So to that end,
I believe our connections are back up and running. So
let's have a human conversation with Tucker in Iowa if
we may.

Speaker 4 (23:27):
There, Hi, can you hear me now?

Speaker 1 (23:30):
I'm so glad to hear your voice. Glad you're here.
What's on your mind?

Speaker 5 (23:34):
Ya?

Speaker 4 (23:34):
So, first of all, it's Tucker formerly known formerly known as.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
The Okay, thank you for sharing that with us. Glad
to be speaking to you again.

Speaker 4 (23:47):
So, what I actually identify as is an agnostic anti theist,
anti theist in the in the sense of being against
Christian nationalism and the encroachment of religion into our government school.

(24:07):
But I am still kind of I do still have
some spiritual beliefs or supernatural as Richard likes to prefers.

Speaker 1 (24:20):
I think that's an important distinction, and we can sort
of get into why. But walk me through I guess
your sort of viewpoint.

Speaker 4 (24:27):
Here, my viewpoints as it pertains to what.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
Well, when you say that you have some supernatural beliefs,
and maybe you also use the word spiritual to describe
those beliefs. What is it that you're referring to?

Speaker 4 (24:43):
Well, I have had experiences in what at first glance
seems to have been communications with my dead father and
noticing some a couple of really interesting things that happened

(25:03):
to my mother and sister as well from my father.
I still believe my best friend is psychic. And it's
well that I really nearly fall down the rabbit hole
with these things.

Speaker 1 (25:17):
Go ahead, Well, I guess what I'm interested in here
is why we're referring to these ideas is supernatural? Like
I think I take your meaning, but I also feel
like that term supernatural sort of implies that it isn't
real and that it's not natural, that it's somehow outside
of something. Why are these not just natural phenomena, you know?

(25:42):
Which isn't to say that we can or can't speak
to the dead, obviously, like we can start to deconstruct
those notions if we need to. But what makes the
what gives you the idea that these are supernatural beliefs?
And how are they distinct from I guess natural beliefs
And why have these categories?

Speaker 4 (26:01):
Uh? Well, bluntly, because there's at least a couple of people,
uh that uh, I suppose you could say is kind
of are kind of in leader in a leadership position
or uh or at least highly looked up to. Who
made the distinction with me that instead of spiritual, I

(26:27):
should be using the word supernatural.

Speaker 2 (26:30):
Do you think there's a difference between those terms, I
mean comes on the way that you would normally use
that those two words. Are they different or do you
resist against using those words interchangeably?

Speaker 4 (26:43):
Well, I have been since uh you know, as as
part of my my communication what I called in about
is that some people really do take a very hard
line against anything spiritual or supernatural. My my definition of

(27:04):
supernatural would be like ghosts or uh, aliens or those.

Speaker 1 (27:12):
Are some categories. What's the definition that unites them together?

Speaker 4 (27:16):
Well, I don't I you know, like I said, it's
been you know, strongly communicated to me from some folks
that uh, that they are separate. But what I'm trying
to get to is that you know those people who
have you know, who I've spoken with, and that you
know they take a real hard line against any type

(27:39):
of spiritual or supernatural belief. And so I'm only right
now just kind of get enough courage to be out
there with the with the community and say that I
still have some spiritual beliefs. I mean, I kind of
feel like you've given me the permission to use that
word now in me natural.

Speaker 1 (28:01):
You know, I definitely don't want to declare myself the
arbiter of what words mean. I can tell you that
I hold beliefs or operate in practices that I would
describe as spiritual, sure, but I don't see any of
that as having a lack of like materialistic truth or

(28:22):
not standing up to an empiricist worldview or an empirical worldview.
It seems to me, and I know we're kind of
flirting with a couple of different words and some very
loose definitions, but as we dive into it, the sense
that I'm taking away, the understanding that I'm gaining here, Tucker,
is that there are things that you believe in that

(28:43):
people around you are telling you aren't real, and that
the like unifying definition of supernatural as we're applying it here,
are just things that other people dismiss as being made
up and to me that would not fall under the
definition of spirituality. That's another conversation that we can hold

(29:03):
off on for just a moment. But how do you
respond to the notion that, at least if you are
taking these insights from other people, that you are perhaps
holding two categories of beliefs in your mind, one which
you recognize as real and one which other people do
not recognize as real.

Speaker 4 (29:22):
Yes so, Christie, yes that that that's a pretty good summation.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
Yes, yeah, so, not to oversimplify it, but why believe
in things that aren't real, or at least that other
people don't believe are real? Or maybe another way of
thinking about it is, if you believe that all of
these things are in fact true and real, why have
separate categories?

Speaker 4 (29:46):
Honestly, Christie, I don't. I don't have an answer to that.

Speaker 1 (29:50):
Yeah, I can appreciate that. I mean, we can get
into all the complexities of narcissism and of epistemology and
these sorts of notions. But what we believe to be
true is somewhat intuitive. It is, on at least some level,
based on how an idea makes us feel. And I

(30:11):
think it's worth really examining and asking the question are
these beliefs grounded in reality? Do they hold up to examination?
Is there a like literal type of truth to it.
I don't know, Scott, can you help offer any clarity here?
I know that we're kind of swimming in some like
very vague language, right right, Tucker.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
I'm curious in the notes here for the caller, the
call screener, they said that you, some in the atheist
skeptic community take a very hard line against any type
of spiritual beliefs, and it can be very hard to
be authentic. I'm curious as to what would you think
would be the appropriate response if you were talking to
a skeptic and you presented a belief, maybe you like

(30:56):
you said, you believe that your friend is a psychic.
What do you think would be the roparate amount of
pushback that skeptics should give you.

Speaker 4 (31:03):
Well, the skeptics that i'm some of the skeptics that
I'm referencing describe my some of my spiritual beliefs and experiences.
They describe them as idiotic, unrational, a lot of negative words,
you know, wasting my time of You know, then you're

(31:27):
not really an atheist or a skeptic if you believe
this stuff. And honestly, I whenever, whenever I'm asked, I
I do not just use the word atheist because I
am not. I have not crossed over to that absolute
definition of I have no evidence for spiritual things.

Speaker 6 (31:53):
Okay, and so you would sorry, go ahead, Christine, Well,
I suppose I was just going to say that, you know,
whether we we divide atheism into like hard atheism or
separated out from agnosticism or any of those things.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
I do think it's worth pointing out that atheism doesn't
have a position, so to speak, about the existence of aliens.
You know, we do associate atheism with skepticism, with rationality,
and I think that some of those belief systems might
push back on whether or not we are able to
commune with the dead and some of these things. But again,

(32:28):
we're really getting into all of these labels. And my
ultimate curiosity, Tucker, is why you would believe in something
that most people seem to believe isn't real and whether
or not you yourself believe it to be quote unquote real.
And what is that word real really mean or what

(32:49):
is it doing in that sentence?

Speaker 4 (32:51):
Okay, understood. So I feel like this conversation has turned
away from my original intent, and I appreciate you guys,
stance on you know what is real and what is not?
And why would I continue to believe? And the statement

(33:12):
that you made Christy that most people would be skeptical
or not believe my experiences kind of a add popular statement.

Speaker 1 (33:26):
Yeah, no, that's fair to say. So I'm not necessarily
trying to destroy your logic, but I am interested in
why you would hold these beliefs that may or may
not hold or past the like smell test of rationality.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Do you consider yourself to be skeptic?

Speaker 1 (33:44):
I do?

Speaker 2 (33:45):
Okay? How would you say that you apply that skepticism
to your own beliefs? If you feel like other people
are being maybe unfairly overly critical? How what you know?
Earlier I asked you what would be the appropriate response?
But maybe more specif physically, what I could ask you is,
what are you applying to your own beliefs? If if
you consider yourself to be part of the skeptic community,

(34:08):
and I think that you are, I would be curious
as to how you self apply that. How do you
how are you skeptical of your own beliefs? And if so,
are you meeting your own threshold of rationality?

Speaker 4 (34:23):
Yes? Because because I am continuously looking for ways to
falsify those beliefs, the beliefs that I've experienced something spiritual
or supernatural, the belief that you know that I think
psychics are real. I'm constantly trying to put those to

(34:48):
the test and find a naturalistic reason for them.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
Do you share that if somebody were to come up
to you and say, I don't I don't accept your beliefs,
I don't accept your belief that your friend is psychic,
or whatever it is that you're presenting at that time,
how do they respond when you present the approaches, when
you present them that self reflection here, I've tested it
this way, this way, this way, and this way. What

(35:15):
kind of response do you get from that? Or are
you saying that many in the skeptical community can be
kind of dogmatically skeptical, which I think is obviously the case.
I mean, we're all human beings, and human beings can
do can even do the right thing for the wrong reasons,
and that kind of thing. But do you find that
self reflection being able to present that to others? Do

(35:37):
you think that you're being still unfairly judged at that point,
and are you open to the possibility that maybe you
are not being as skeptical of your own beliefs as
you might be of someone else's.

Speaker 4 (35:50):
As to your last as here, can you repeat the
last question? Youah? Sure?

Speaker 2 (35:56):
Sure? I asked, are you open to the possibility that
you are not seeing yourself in the same way that
you might look at others? Are you being more critical
on others' beliefs and maybe less critical? And I'm not
suggesting that you're doing this, I'm just asking are you
open to that possibility?

Speaker 3 (36:14):
Well?

Speaker 4 (36:14):
Yes, absolutely, I am open to that possibility. And I come,
as I said, I call myself an agnostic anti seist.
The agnostic part for me is kind of backwards from
the way you would usually use it. But I am

(36:34):
now I'm getting confused.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
Sure, well, I know that this is all getting kind
of far ranging. So Tucker, if you'll forgive me for
kind of just rushing right into one particular point, maybe
we can bat that around just a little bit before
we move on to the next call. And I suppose
what I want to ask is the question of how
is it possible that your sister could be psychic? When

(36:59):
we have billions of people on the planet, many of
whom have claimed to be psychics. Themselves, but not one
of which has ever been able to empirically demonstrate psychic ability.
How does your skepticism balance that or maintain that belief
in your sister's psychic abilities when no one ever has

(37:22):
been able to demonstrate psychic powers.

Speaker 4 (37:27):
Well, it's definitely not my sister. It's a very good
friend of mine.

Speaker 1 (37:33):
Misunderstood. Okay, Sure, all I have.

Speaker 4 (37:35):
All I have are my experiences.

Speaker 1 (37:39):
Well, I hear you. But you have more than your experiences, right,
You have at least some amount of access to all
of the experiences, all of the research, science, all of
the data, all of the thoughts and opinions good, bad
or otherwise, of this incredibly advanced society that we've built.
You know, you have more than just your experiences to

(38:01):
help you evaluate these truth claims, and you can choose
or not choose to use those things. You can take
the experiences that you have and you can say that
they are very important, slightly important, not important at all
in contrast with all the data sets and the research
and the everything else here. But you have more than

(38:22):
just what you yourself have witnessed in the room.

Speaker 4 (38:24):
Yeah, I have access to it.

Speaker 1 (38:26):
Yes, So without you know, trying to ask you to
prove or disprove your your friend psychic ability. In answer
to Scott's question about are you being skeptical? Are you
applying that same level of you know, curiosity to these
issues as you might apply to other problems. How do

(38:48):
you respond?

Speaker 4 (38:49):
Because I am constantly trying to falsify those experiences, and
you know, past studies don't help me with that, Okay,
Because yeah, I know that that psychic powers have never
been empirically proven, and I don't believe we ever would

(39:12):
be able to.

Speaker 1 (39:14):
So's it's not just like a black Swan consideration. It's
more that there is something unique about quote psychic ability
that just defies scientific convention. So this is a inevitable
thing that we will always be struggling with.

Speaker 4 (39:31):
Yeah, you know, I really, I really wanted to have
a discussion of about your opening statement, and I was
hoping to use my experiences to you know, highlight that.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
Okay, well, fair enough. I do know that we do
have some other calls on the line, but I'd love
to give you an opportunity before we wrap up here
to respond to that monologue I gave it at the beginning,
and I'd love to hear what you thought.

Speaker 4 (39:57):
Well, not right now, I'll let some somebody else come
up and see. Thank you guys for taking.

Speaker 1 (40:03):
Well fair enough. Thank you so much for opening up
and being vulnerable enough to share some of these ideas
with us. Take good care, Scott. Anything that you want
to kind of add or just a poke at before
we move on.

Speaker 2 (40:16):
Sure, Yeah. I would like to say to Tucker, I
think you have an opportunity here. As somebody who is
skeptical of religious beliefs, you you will occasionally talk to
people who believe those things, maybe even in spite of
the fact that they know that there's not a lot
of evidence supporting those beliefs. And now as somebody who
has experienced that kind of thing, and I'm not I'm

(40:38):
not saying that I can guarantee that your beliefs are
false or anything like that, but at least you have
a strong feeling for for something that you are being
told is being irrational. And that's kind of the same
boat that you know that the religious crowd are in.
And so I think I think what what you've stumbled
upon is an opportunity for you to be empathetic and

(41:01):
to understand the feeling that somebody is going through as
you're talking. If you're talking to them about religion, perhaps
being skeptical, then you know, now you kind of know
what it feels like to be in their shoes, as
you know, as you've experienced from the other side. But
one other thing I wanted to point out, Christy, and
that is you mentioned something about how you didn't want

(41:22):
to be the arbiter of what words mean, and I
thought that that was an excellent example of what you
had mentioned earlier about over intellectualization and how we really
get focused on what's in the deck in the dictionary
about these words, when really what's important is understanding what
the person is meaning, what they.

Speaker 1 (41:40):
The idea that they're trying to convey, regardless of what
mouth sounds come out of their face hole.

Speaker 2 (41:45):
In order to convey it, I would use almost word
for word what you just said. So, yeah, that you
exactly summed up what I was trying to say there.
So I thought that was kind of a neat little uh,
a little flashback to that there.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
Fair enough, Yeah, beautiful. Well let's talk to Nick in a, Massachusetts.

Speaker 5 (42:01):
Yeah, all right, hey Nick, Well, yeah, so I wanted
to talk about consequentialism of mechanistically definable truths.

Speaker 1 (42:14):
Okay, yeah, so walk us through that a little bit.
Hit us with some definitions just so that we're all
starting off on the same clean table.

Speaker 7 (42:22):
Okay, So like there's you know, so like every statement,
everything that can be said, anything that can be communicated
through language, has that aspect of like you it's true
that you can say it's true. So everything has some
element of truth in that scope. Where but that's like

(42:42):
the scope that we're talking about.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
Like truth by definition, like a foot is twelve inches
long because we define the word foot to mean something
that is contains twelve inches? Do I do I have that?

Speaker 5 (42:54):
Right?

Speaker 7 (42:54):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (42:55):
Yeah?

Speaker 7 (42:55):
And basically like every single statement, imaginable, composable, have that property.
But then I guess, like if we go further into
like what's the next sort of like truth paradigm that
we're concerned with, I would say that, like I mean,
I gets like our main truth paradigm that we're concerned

(43:16):
with is like mechanistic uh, like think like statements that
can be like mechanistically verified and like proven too. Like
so so like you'll you you you might have a
like you'll grab a statement and if you're reaching into
a black box. You're you know, you don't know what

(43:36):
statement you're gonna pull out, So you don't know if
like you're gonna be able to like generate a mechanistic,
mechanistically possible representation of that you know, that idea, the claim,
the sentence, whatever you want to call it, the information,
and so like that mechanistically like rely like consistently reliably
mechanistically coherent representation of the information is like the type

(44:01):
of truth that we're concerned with, and especially when it
comes to like conversations about like God or supernatural things, like,
we want to be able to have like a mechanistic,
grounded representation of that information.

Speaker 1 (44:17):
So that we try to put it in order. For me,
what does this look like on the ground, What is
a important statement that you're trying to apply these ideas
to Because I'm still having a little bit of trouble
following or wrapping my head around some of these ideas.

Speaker 7 (44:32):
So, I mean, so is it like the position of
a secular like government to be like, so there's like Christianity.
It believes in the resurrection of a human being called
Jesus Christ, and this was like a one time event

(44:53):
and that this person like atomically reassembled and their heat nature.
It came back like that's a mechanistically impossible statements like,
so I mean to stay like I said it, I
said the words, But it's not like there's no mechanistic
reality that like into the future. You know that, Like

(45:16):
you're not in the same reality anymore. If there, if
you're if you you're suddenly in a reality where that
can happen.

Speaker 1 (45:23):
It's like, so, okay, so when feet have eleven inches? Yeah, scudder,
are you able to parse any of this out or
help me see where we're going?

Speaker 2 (45:34):
I'm having a little difficulty following Nick, But let me
ask you a couple of questions that might clarify what
we're talking about here. First of all, what is it
that you mean by truth or true? Because that there
are some there are a variety of ways that people
use that term, and you know, if we're talking about
the importance of it being the concepts that are being conveyed,
I suppose we need to, you know, put our money

(45:56):
where our mouth is and ask you what you mean
by those terms. But my second question and would be,
then are you distinguishing between something being true and something
being Humans being able to demonstrate that something is true.
I mean, because those are two different things, although obviously
they're related to each other. I'm I'm not really sure

(46:17):
where the mechanistical aspect of it is coming in. Are
you distinguishing between truth and demonstrability?

Speaker 7 (46:24):
So like it's you can, like so you can like
codify into epistemology that it would be impossible for the
sun to like suddenly slam onto the surface of the
Earth in less than in less than like a second
or like less than a tenth of a second. I

(46:45):
don't know, I don't know what breaks like physics or
how many seconds is like like under how many seconds
is what constitutes breaking physics? But basically like that, you're
like you you can operate under that assumption, like that
you can operate under that epistemological assumption that like that

(47:05):
will not happen because it's mechanistically impossible. So like the
like truth we're talking about here is like it like
it's possible to happen in reality, Like so it's not possible.

Speaker 2 (47:19):
Rather, so are you saying that, I mean, if you
think of like girdles in completeness theorem, if you think
of like girdles in completeness theorem. One of the one
of the implications of that is that in any kind
of language that's used to describe reality, there are going
to be truths that are cannot be determined to be true,
And there will also be statements that are false even

(47:41):
though they can be proven to be true using that language.
And and I think the point there was that languages
that we used to describe reality can be deficient when
in fully characterizing that that reality. Is that what you're
talking about.

Speaker 7 (47:55):
Well, I think what you just said that from from
my understanding of what you just said, I think you
said that, like language doesn't really have a built in
mechanism to like establish some sort of like mechanistic a
priori clarification of like possibility.

Speaker 2 (48:14):
I mean, I think, so, what's your endgame then here?
If if that's kind of what you're saying, if there
there is going to be some kind of disconnect between
the language of truth and the actual values of truth,
is so where does this lead you? I mean, what
you're so, let's say, let's say that we kind of
came to some kind of conclusion on that. Therefore, what so, like.

Speaker 7 (48:35):
I operate under the I don't like I grant freedom
of religion, right, but I don't grant the possibility like
I'm granting the person the freedom to operate, like like
I'm not interfering with their right to operate under false pretensions,
but I'm like not opening it up for a possibility

(48:59):
that it's possible to like resurrect by yourself in some
cave when you're clinically dead for three days and you
already started rotting like it's not you, it's not gonna happen.
So like I'm going to operate under the assumption that
that like my government doesn't like doesn't recognize that as

(49:22):
mechanistically possible or like a viable Uh.

Speaker 1 (49:26):
Like I'm when I'm boiling it all down, Nick, I'm
hearing that like fake things are fake and real things
are real. I want to let you know I'm on
board with going on this journey with you. I Am
down to do the syllogisms and to throw out all
of the big philosophy words and we can talk about
consequentialism and morality and epistemology and some of these terms

(49:49):
that you're throwing our way. But I'm I don't know
that you're putting them together in a way that makes
any organized sense. I don't want my failure to understand
and what you're saying to be a form of dismissing
everything that you're saying. But we've been after this for
a good few minutes, and I got to tell you,
I think Scott and I are both really scratching our head.

(50:12):
I think a lot of our audience is scratching their head.
And i'd really invite you to take what it is
that you are attempting to say and see if you
can't explain it to a five year old, and see
if you can't break it down a little bit further
to make sure that you're clear on what it is
you're trying to say. I'm sorry if any of that
feels disrespectful or defaming, but I think that your thesis

(50:36):
here needs is a little bit undercooked. Is that okay?

Speaker 7 (50:38):
I mean I don't know if it's fully undercooked, but
I get what you're saying. My whole thing is that
there's like like if we're going to ground like conversation
in or anything you know, society Collin shows, town Hall

(51:00):
like podcasts or you know, like even comedy or like
you know, Congress or Costco or wherever you're.

Speaker 1 (51:08):
At, communication is what you're getting at, like everything that
you're describing. We were saying, if we're going to ground
our communication in something that something should be.

Speaker 7 (51:17):
What, Well, it's not really like communication. It's more like
the social contract itself.

Speaker 1 (51:23):
Right, like as some kind of culture society Like.

Speaker 7 (51:26):
We we yeah, like that, Like that's kind of like
the tying thread to anything, including communication. But it's just
like that's kind of like where I'm at with how
religion like affects my outward position into like you know,

(51:50):
the like because every no one from my day to
day experience. People aren't like walking around like reciting their
epistemology or you know, they're like what their reality is
grounded on. But I kind of like expect that my
government doesn't really operate in that loose sense and that
like it's doing it like it's having some sort of

(52:13):
due diligence in not really like going back and reconsidering
things that have already been like mechanistically discounted. Does that
make sense?

Speaker 1 (52:22):
So like saying data driven government is something that I
think we can all sort of co sign. That is
certainly a world that I aspire to, even if as
I've become increasingly frustrated about our capacity to provide for
that right now. But beyond that, Nick, I don't know
that we're getting any closer to a mutual understanding. And

(52:44):
I'd love to invite you to spend some time with
these ideas, maybe bounce them back and forth with CHATCHYBT
until you feel like you have something that's a little
bit more clean and ready to present, and when you're ready,
give us a call back. Bring your a game, as
we like to say, because i'd love to bet understand
what it is that you're talking about. But now, over
ten minutes into it, I'm even more less certain I

(53:07):
understand what you're saying than I did when we very
first began, So respectfully, please work on it a little bit,
give us another try, and we'd love to better understand
what it is you're looking to express.

Speaker 7 (53:18):
So well, Okay, last time, question? Is there like is
there a way like do you think it's appropriate for
a government to take like positions and active actively or
active like our counter to religious beliefs like?

Speaker 1 (53:36):
So, I mean appropriate is a very complicated term that
covers all manner of sins. You know, if you are
existing under a religious law, then is it appropriate for
the government to support religious ideas? I guess does it
make it beneficial, does it make it useful, does it
make it desirable? Absolutely not. I do wish that our government,

(54:00):
in particular here in Texas, here in the United States,
was more data driven, was less interested in tradition, was
less interested in the religion that we don't necessarily officially endorse,
but increasingly we're pretty comfortable with endorsing it. All of
that is very concerning to me. But I don't really

(54:21):
know how to answer your question any further than that,
And I think, unfortunately we're gonna need to leave it
there so that we can open up the calls to
or the lines of some other calls.

Speaker 7 (54:30):
Yeah, yeah, I mean yeah, I feel you like when
we bring it to like government and context, it's like
democracy seems to be able to it seems to change
what it thinks it can vote on with respect to
other people's rights. So it's just like it's always putting
itself in danger and peril because it's like, uh, like
there's powers that want to make less freedom or democracy

(54:54):
or whatever. Whatever.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
Well, Nick, maybe we can leave maybe we can leave
you with this idea here.

Speaker 1 (54:57):
I do.

Speaker 2 (54:58):
It's clear that you're struggling to clarify and explain something
that you think that you feel is important in your mind.
And in a way, I'm envious of you because you
have a wonderful puzzle in front of you to kind
of uh put together. I would recommend Christie's advice and
think of it. Try to explain it like you were

(55:19):
explaining it to a five year old. You know, teachers
say the best way to learn something is to try
to teach it, and it really focuses forces you to
look at something in a particular way. What's important, What
are the connections and relationships that are important, What are
the facts and the quantities that are important, and that
kind of thing. And so I think if you did
something like that, try to try to break down what

(55:40):
you're trying to say as if you were talking to
a five year old, and then and then from there
you can become you can add sophistication and nuance and
that kind of thing, and then and then build it
up to something a little bit stronger. But yeah, I
was I was having difficulty following you there. And it's
not necessarily your fault. It's it's, uh, this is a
great example here. Clearly you have a passion about this

(56:01):
subject and you're struggling with the logic of it, and
so you need to find that appropriate balance. And so
I wish you luck with that, and I look forward
to talking to you at a future time if and
when you were able to kind of solidify it a
little bit more and come up with something a little
bit more concrete.

Speaker 1 (56:17):
Yeah, I definitely do hope to hear from Nick again,
because I think he was pressing on some pretty interesting
sociological big topics. But what those topics were I couldn't
really say. I won't say it, but there was somebody
in the chat who compared it to vog on poetry,
and I thought that that was just brilliant. So thank
you for that. And before we move on move back

(56:41):
to the calls, I did want to take a quick
moment to thank our top five patrons. Each week we
do like to recognize five of the people, six of
the people really who contribute to the ACA at tiny dot,
cc slash, Patreon, thch you can be one of these
wonderful folks, But for this week, I do want to
recognize and our top spot oops all Singularity number two

(57:05):
Dingleberry Jackson, three co Levi Helvetti, number four Ja Caltoon
and number five Moldrid d Malcontent. Seeing a little bit
of movement in those bottom spots, which is always exciting
at a competition. Yeah, right, and then our honorable mention
this week in the number six spot is Joseph Schmidt.

(57:27):
So thank you all very much for all of your support,
and we invite everybody watching to support us there or
through a super chat, or really to just support by
joining the community, by you know, going to Atheist hyphencommunity
dot org, looking into membership, being up to date on

(57:48):
what's going on in the organization. We really do hope
that people will take this beyond the shows, beyond being
a passive viewer and subscriber on YouTube, as much as
we do appreciate all of your likes and subscribes. Okay,
and actually, you know, we have had so much trouble
with the phone lines today, it looks like we are

(58:09):
getting that pieced back together. I hope that we're able
to speak to some of the folks that I know
we're waiting on the lines. Yeah, Scott, do you as
a teacher, As a teacher who studies mathematics and abstract concepts.
What can you offer folks like Nick who are maybe
just not able to take these big ideas and put

(58:33):
them out into the world in like clear and easy
to understand language.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
Well, I think what he did today was an excellent
first step, I mean trying to It's one thing to
have a concept in your mind and struggle to understand it.
But if if you can't, I mean, like the old saying,
oh is if you can't explain it to somebody like
their a five year old, then you don't really have
a good grasp on it. And that's not true, literally true.

(58:59):
I mean you can have a good grasp on it
and still struggle to find the communication and find the
way of explaining it. But going through that process of
talking to somebody, of getting feedback from that person, he
got some feedback from us. Even if that feedback amounted
to mostly we're not really sure what you're talking about,
I mean, that kind of tells him that the way

(59:20):
he's describing this concept that he's thinking, there's it's a
little bit lacking. And we know that our language kind
of informs about our thinking process, and so by listening
to the I would encourage him to go back and
listen to the way he described it. He might be
able to spot way different ways that he could describe

(59:40):
it better. But I think the key to wrestling with
those kind of things is really just breaking it down.
I mean that, you know, if you want to teach something,
you need to understand what the important points are. You
need to understand how they relate to each other. You
need to understand how those points relate to maybe what
we were talking about yesterday, and how they are going

(01:00:01):
to relate to what we're going to talk about tomorrow
and that kind of thing. And so it's just really
just having some kind of process where you break it down.
And I think the best way to do that is
to talk to other people. And so, you know, talk
to people like us. Talk to people that might be
more inclined to maybe accept what you're saying, or maybe

(01:00:21):
even that agree with what you're saying. Or maybe you'll
hear somebody say something that you think, oh, yeah, that's
kind of like what I was talking about. Talk to them,
tell them what Maybe they you know, maybe they can
make a connection with your concepts a little bit easier.
But you'll get that feedback from them, and so seeing
the feedback of other people can really enlighten you know,

(01:00:41):
your own opinion of your of that concept yourself. And
we can even see that in our discussion with Tucker earlier.
Tucker was talking about, you know, having a belief and
having that belief being criticized, maybe even unfairly criticized by
other people, and so you can learn from that as well.
It's not just a well, I'm not going to listen

(01:01:01):
to you kind of thing, but you can find out, well,
why are you being critical? Why do you think that's
a fair criticism, or maybe asking yourself, why am I
being defensive? Or why why am I Why am I
feeling that I'm being attacked here? Is it because of
I am actually being attacked or is it because I'm
being defensive of my own beliefs? And so it's a

(01:01:22):
it's a very it's a very challenging labyrinth to uh
to navigate, but it it is navigable if you have
that passion and that that motivation to move forward and
you have those basic tools of application that can that
can get you through that made so it's uh, you know,
that was a big question that you were asking, and
so you know it's it's the way that we each

(01:01:43):
approach it I think can be very valuable.

Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
But I think the.

Speaker 2 (01:01:46):
Key step, though, is to just talk about it. Just
talk to other people, talk to yourself about it. I
mean that if I had a thought like that in
my head and I didn't have anything else going on,
I could see myself just sitting there and just thinking
about it for and and and you.

Speaker 1 (01:02:03):
Need to bring it out into the real world.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
Exactly, exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
Yeah. Something else I want to circle here is that
you know, you and I are not afraid of using
the big words, like we can shorthand things by not
having to explain every single concept and just sort of
drop in epistemology or consequentialism or some of the other
things that that I'm sorry Nick was hitting on, but

(01:02:27):
I think there's a lot to be said about scaffolding.
Like when I was at university, I found that, in
particular in the fields of mathematics, I would have professors
that I'm relatively certain were pretty brilliant, that we're like
doing advanced research and that we're very well respected in
their fields, who couldn't teach for shit, whose classes were

(01:02:50):
just like an absolute drudgery because they didn't have that
capacity to offer that intellectual scaffolding to make it accessible
to others, which is not for nothing why I'm so
blown away by folks like Forrest Valkei, who can be
just absolutely brilliant and able to explain it to a

(01:03:11):
five year old without missing a beat. So, if you
are holding one of these like challenging, difficult to wrap
your hands around philosophical concepts in your head and you
want to give us a call about it, don't be
frightened to use those big words, but make sure that
you are able to distill it down for a broad

(01:03:32):
and general audience. And you know, the hosts on these shows,
we're ready to go on those journeys with you, but
we all have our own skill sets, we all have
our own backgrounds, and if the two of us have
no concept of what we're even discussing, it's unlikely that
the audience is able to really get much out of
it either. Is that all fair to say? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
Definitely, And in addition to that, I would add that,
go and look back at your own discussion. You know,
if you can identify the place, if you feel like
we were kind of with you for a second and
then we got lost at one point. That's a that's
a big red flag there, you know what was just
said that caused that rift. And so by looking back
at the interaction, look at the kind of questions that

(01:04:12):
are being asked, look at the at the kind of uh,
you know, facial expressions and that kind of thing that
that you're getting. And so by looking back at your conversation,
not only can you learn, oh, here's where I did
really well, here's where I didn't do really well, but
you can also see things that you might not have
noticed during the course of the conversation. And so I

(01:04:33):
think that self reflection, I think is an excellent starting point.
And I think that uh, you know, that's really the
first step into having that deep understanding. If you want
to get to that point where you understand something well
enough that you can explain it to a five year old,
you have to talk to a few five year olds.
You have to understand how a five year old thinks.
You have to understand the presuppositions they're bringing in, and

(01:04:53):
so on and so forth, and so that's I mean,
I guess that's kind of the theme of the show today,
right how we can integrate those that logical thinking with
that emotional component, you know, talking to a human being
trying to convey that concept is to get from inside
of my mind into my student's mind. I mean, that's
really the challenging, the difficult part to navigate, right, That's

(01:05:16):
that chasm that we're trying to cross. And if you can,
if you can do that, if you take those steps
by talking to people that disagree with you, and also
by talking to people that agree with you, by talking
to people that don't know about what you're talking about,
and by talking to people that do know what you're
talking about, you can get you can incorporate all that
kind of feedback and you know, if you internalize it

(01:05:39):
and think about it and digest it, and then maybe
next time what comes out will be a little bit
more clear and a little bit more understanding sure or understandable.

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
I should say, yeah, well, so before I let you
out the door, I did want to ask, just as
we are talking about, you know, awe and grief and transcendence,
and he's very like, send some mental sort of words
or earlier in the show, Tucker used the words spiritual,
which we never quite defined, but that I like to

(01:06:08):
kind of kick around as a interesting if challenging concept.
In any case, whenever we're talking about awe, grief, transcendence,
these types of things in secular spaces, is there pressure
to you know, kind of qualify it or to bring
it down and take some of the majesty out of it,

(01:06:29):
to find rationality in all of it, or are we
allowed to, I guess, to use those words and to
explore that those bigger feelings.

Speaker 2 (01:06:39):
Well, of course, I think there there would have to
be room for that kind of thing. You know, I'm
a math teacher. Yeah, but I'm a human being as well.
You know, I have very deep emotions I have. I
am in awe of certain things. I experience grief, I
experience elation, you know, I have the full spectral spectrum
of emotions. But I think that in some way, I

(01:07:00):
think that there is pressure to maybe not address those
kind of things.

Speaker 1 (01:07:05):
But I think in other in.

Speaker 2 (01:07:07):
Very real other ways, there's also pressure to, you know,
to incorporate that and to work that into your thought
process and your communication process and so on.

Speaker 1 (01:07:19):
So we don't have to qualify or flinch away from
exactly discussing some of these big picture things. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:07:26):
Right, And if you really want to be effective in communicating,
which I think Christy, that's sorry to fanboy a little bit,
but I think that's something that you do exceptionally well
is actually make a connection with the with the caller.
And if you want to do that, if you want
to actually have a productive conversation, if you are really
in search of the truth, then having that connection with

(01:07:46):
another human being is really a key part of that
step in my opinion.

Speaker 1 (01:07:52):
Yeah. Well, So, finally, in this debate, not debate about
you know, logic versus sentimentality or all of this, I
want to ask, if we are in the process of
reconstructing a worldview after religion, how do we avoid just
building another system that privileges certain ways of knowing? Or

(01:08:13):
are we meant to do that? Is it important that
we know things through particular means and not others?

Speaker 2 (01:08:20):
I think, well, in some ways where it's kind of
inevitable that we're gonna do that way. Again, referencing Kinneman's
book Thinking Fast and Slow, it's difficult to think slowly.

Speaker 1 (01:08:33):
It's difficult.

Speaker 2 (01:08:34):
There are some ways of thinking that are difficult, and
as a math teacher, much of my duty is to
help students embrace that difficult and show them that it's
worth it, it's worthwhile to do that kind of thing.
And if you can do that, if you can show
that it's worthwhile to do that, to pursue that kind

(01:08:56):
of challenging, difficult way of thinking, then you're you're in
a way, you're co opting the quick way of thinking.
You're saying, here's something that's valuable, go for it, go
after that, And so that kind of gets that motivation
going there. So I think if we were to rebuild society,
I think it would be one of the keys. And

(01:09:18):
of course, obviously this is just my opinion, but I
think one of the keys would be to incorporate that
kind of thinking. Incorporate we've been talking about balance, I think,
recognizing that that kind of balance is needed, recognizing that
the benefits of that kind of balance. Right, if you
if you, as Nick found out, if you have difficulty
communicating your ideas, it's difficult to get the logical kind

(01:09:42):
of feedback that might help you break down the logic
of your own thinking. And so, and especially since our
own brains kind of think work along those lines too,
are our original thinking processes were based off of our speaking,
you know, the ways that we communicate. It started out
as communication to yourself kind of thing, and so I
think it's vital and critical to incorporate that kind of balance,

(01:10:07):
and it would be it's going to be difficult to
do that. If we ever get an opportunity to do
something like that, it's going to be hard, and I
think we need to embrace the difficulty and just understand
that it's a worthwhile effort.

Speaker 1 (01:10:20):
Heard. Yeah, Well, so let's bring Jamie back into this
conversation and get his take on some of these ideas
and then help remind us about the question of the week, Jamie,
how'd you like the show with all the technical difficulties
and big confusing words.

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
Well, I would say, despite being a hideous flesh golm
that was birth from the birthing pools in the Black Country,
the first has kept a session and an atheist third.
So talking in that framework, talking about Tucker's call, I'd
like to, you know, acknowledge and validate that having your
ideas and beliefs criticized can be paid for. Because we

(01:11:00):
don't choose to believe something, we just believe it or
we don't. You can't choose not to believe something you
have to convince away from it to it. And I
believes form part of our personality, our core. So who
you what you believe is sort of who you are,
So it is very easy to feel attack. And I
will also acknowledge that some members of the sort of
skeptic community can be very sharp with their words, were

(01:11:22):
known for it, and in certain circumstances I think you
touched on this. We are encouraged to be sharp because
it's entertaining, be sharite, sure to watch someone get a
verbal drubbing. But then to come to the skeptic part.
My view on belief and epistemology and things like that,
the reasons to believe is that there's no safe minimum
dose of bullshit. There's no safe dose of irrationality. I

(01:11:45):
treat irrationality the same way I treat alcohol or drugs,
in that I've indulged myself. There are eyehold certain irrational beliefs,
but I understand their irrational and accept them, and therefore
understand that if anyone critic sizes them and exposes the
logical flaws in them, I'm believing in them knowing and

(01:12:07):
much like though like those substances that can be comforting
and can be can be fun, and can be you know,
something to turn to in times of stress. They are
inherently dangerous and damaging. I don't think irrational thought has
While it has its emotional positives, it is intellectually damaging

(01:12:27):
and I will pin myself to that. So, yes, if
someone was rude and crass and callous to you, it's
valid to feel bad. But you have to understand that
the type of thought processes that allow someone to believe
in psychics or ghosts or something, the same thought processes

(01:12:48):
that lead people to be anti vacs or like flat
earthers or moon landing denials or whatever. You know, ridiculousnesses
that can cause real, true harm. So as that. As
for Nick, we always say attack ideas, not people. That
was very difficult to do because I had no idea
what he was talking, Yeah, punching smoke. So I'm hoping

(01:13:15):
that Nick calls back. I would like to have a
conversation with him, but I'm hoping that he does poll
your advice and give his conversation and orchiect to me,
as in, remove the bollocks please. And it may sound
rich as whipping cream from someone that looks and sounds
like me. But sounding smart is not being smart, and

(01:13:36):
it is better to be smarter than you sound than
sound smarter than you are.

Speaker 2 (01:13:41):
Oh that's deep words again, Eli five, Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3 (01:13:47):
Oh And a reminder, since I didn't do it last time,
but I'm going to do it this time that the
question of the week is Jesus Mohammed and josh Or
Smith Joseph Smith. Sorry, what a Mormon dude walk into
a bar? I'm so sorry.

Speaker 1 (01:14:10):
No, thank you, thank you for coming out and for
walking us through some of this. I am sort of
fascinated by that question of is there some amount of
irrationality that is good? Is all bullshit inevitably poison I mean,
alcohol is poisoned. But I think there's at least some
sociological evidence that cultures that have the ability to interfere

(01:14:34):
with consciousness gain some benefit from it. Does that mean
that we should all be allowed to have a little
bit of delusion as a treat I don't know what
to do with any of it, but I really appreciate
the opportunity to kind of talk through some of these
ideas with y'all. Who are y'all sending loverings out to?
Before we head out.

Speaker 3 (01:14:52):
For today the millions of people around the country who
did a wonderful thing yesterday, and I'll say no more
than sure.

Speaker 1 (01:14:59):
Yeah, we appreciate everybody who is contributing to our democracy,
who is aware of the needs of the many right
now and being a part of the good Scott anybody
for you.

Speaker 2 (01:15:09):
I would like to send out loverings to Fried Jemmy,
who gave us a superchat. Fried Jemmy, I think there's
a story behind that name. I'd love to hear that sometimes.
But the superchat was for five dollars, Fried Jemmy said,
Jeremiah here. Sorry I wasn't able to wait online to
talk with the host today. I had an unexpected company
arrived right before my turn came up. Well, we're sorry

(01:15:30):
we missed you too, Jeremiah, but maybe next time.

Speaker 1 (01:15:32):
Glad to know I wasn't just stood up right exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:15:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:15:36):
I want to send loverings out to everybody who endured
with us through some technical issues, but mostly for just
being a part of our community, for being here and
participating in these conversations, and for recognizing that, you know,
whether it's a lot or a little of delusion that
having religion in our government and in our schools and

(01:15:58):
in our decision making, in our relationships can be incredibly
damaging and working to be a part of the solution
on those issues. So we love you very much. We
send out our rings. We appreciate you for being here.
Happy Father's Day. And to anybody still watching, if you
don't believe, this is your community and we appreciate you

(01:16:19):
being here. And if you do believe, we definitely don't
hate you. We're just just not convinced. We want the truth.

(01:16:44):
So watch Truth Wanted live Fridays at seven pm Central
Call five one two nine nine nine two four two
or visit tiny dot cc forward slash call tw