https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=9CyCks9TDxM
And so to say all that exists seems to be chaos, because I have no good arguments for thinking God exists. So I begin by thinking all there is is mindless matter, which I give names to. And yeah, you’re right, I can’t see the bottom because I’m not smart enough or we haven’t advanced enough in order to do that. But without a compelling argument for God or whatever you mean by God, I’m just gonna stick with, this is all meaningless and I give names to it. And that’s not a good enough, you don’t think? Well, because first of all, you don’t give names to it. Nobody gives names to things. You could say it’s like humans give names to things. So even those names you receive from your ancestors, like you receive from tradition. So you receive names from tradition and those names are teleological, they’re purpose-driven. They’re not just descriptions of things. That’s not true. Because there are certain things that we have, let’s say that we have names that we engage with and there are certain things that we don’t. So it’s like, okay, so think of a, I know you have a cardboard box, right? So we have a name for a cardboard box. But if I point to you to a part of it, I would add, what’s the name of that part here? I’m gonna, in this section right here, what’s the name of that? And you’re like, well, that doesn’t have a name. Really, it doesn’t have a name. You’re saying it doesn’t exist? Well, of course it exists, right? Names are teleological. So the idea that we have an identity of a cardboard box means that we know what it’s for. There’s a reason why we give a name to it. And it’s like that for everything. Like everything that has a name is named for reason. Like it’s named out of purpose and it usually has to do with human level interaction or human level engagement. That’s been messed up a lot because of artificial scene. Like because of telescopes and microscopes, we’ve let’s say, convinced ourselves that we have complete access to any level of reality. But we still see that world through this lens, right? Through this frame of experience that we have. And so you can think that, for example, the solar system is a perfectly acceptable structure. But the solar system is secondary to the sun rising up in the morning and going down at night. And you know why it’s secondary? Because your entire world is structured around that. Everything is structured around that reality. And so a lot of the science, a lot of the tropes, a lot of the tricks of science has been to move into levels of perception that are beyond our normal level of perception through mechanical means and giving us and trying to pretend that that’s the bottom of reality. But you’re still perceiving it from you. So it’s not the bottom of reality. You’re still there. You’re a person looking through a microscope and that’s the first experience. Not what’s down there underneath. Yes, yes, yes. And so that’s what you can never get out of. You can’t, and you can catch people. Like it’s good to be attentive and listen to people. And all of a sudden when they pretend that they’re not in the world, like they pretend as if they don’t exist. And you’re like, wait a minute, whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s bring you back, my friend. Let’s come back into this thing. Because it’s like, are you a disembodied God now that you can speak this way, that you can speak as if you perceive the solar system? You don’t perceive the solar system. You’ve never perceived the solar system. No human has ever perceived it. It’s a scientific abstraction based on this experience in the world that we have that we’re able to calculate and abstract from and create a model. And now we can think of that model, but that’s not first level. Like that’s way up. Like that’s way up in terms of the levels of abstraction once you have something like that. Yeah, so it’s like trying to detach yourself from reality and then you look at it, but you can’t do that because you’re part of it, yeah. Gotcha. You see it, everybody that, people that criticize religion are always doing that. They’re constantly doing that. They pretend as if their moral system doesn’t exist, that it’s completely objective. You see it like Dawkins is a great example of that. He has such strong moral sense, you know, and he pretends as if his moral sense doesn’t exist, right? He’s, I’m just a scientist. I’m just a scientist suddenly getting offended at how Christians act in the world. It’s like, where does that offense come from, Mr. Dawkins? Like, does it come from biology? Does your offense at what Christians did burn people? Like, you think that scientifically it matters whether Christians burned people or didn’t? Like, does that really matter? Like a lion that eats a cub in the nature and in terms of just scientific processes, there’s no value there. There’s no morality there. What are you talking about? But suddenly these weird new atheists, they have this super strong moral sense, but they pretend like they don’t. And now they use science to criticize Christians. But they have this like invisible, they act as if they’re like disembodied gods with like moral senses. It’s very fascinating if you’re attentive to it. You just have to ask like, where does your, where does your morality come from? Like, where does your capacity to judge phenomena come from? If all you’re saying is that you’re a scientist describing phenomena, like where does the judgment come from? How can you judge phenomena? It has to come from, it has to be something. Or at least you could say something like, let’s analyze the manner in which you judge phenomena. And you’ll see that you’re participating in the same tropes, you know, that the 11th century bishop was doing when he was confessing someone, a priest, you know, you’re participating in the same pattern. You just don’t know it. You’re not, you’re too naive. You don’t realize it, but you’re participating in the same type of structure.