Summary:

Can Christians in the absence of the rationality required, be held accountable for their moral actions? To what degree can we expect rationality from people who may not have our intellectual abilities?

It makes sense to look at whether or not there is choice involved when looking at diseases. The billion dollar proposition is a way of testing for the existence of free will. If you approached an alcoholic and told him “I’ll give you a billion dollars if you give up the drink for 20 minutes”, and they’ll be overjoyed with this proposition. If you approached a cancer patient and said “I’ll give you a billion dollars if you get rid of cancer”, they would most likely be outraged at you. If behaviour will change, given the right incentives, then we know we’re dealing with free will.

When a person doesn’t claim to be epistemologically and scientifically correct, then while that person may not be able to really be argued with, at least they accept that they their ideas are corrupt or untrue. On the other hand, when a person claims verifiability and adherence to the scientific method, this person has ‘stepped into the arena’ so to speak. Voluntarily coming into the arena means your propositions will be subjected to question.

When people make statements such as “God exists” or “The Bible is true”, which are not about subjective opinion, these people have stepped into the arena. These people cannot now complain if skeptics want to check their propositions in order to apply the scientific method.

There’s a difference between knowing something and not wanting to know something. Once you are no longer in a state where you can’t know, this puts responsibility on you to not actively evade knowing. This means that it must be argued that Christians are incapable of knowing, rather than actively not knowing. Let’s say you offered a Christian a billion dollars for studying atheism, or perhaps show their children atheism for a week. If they did take it, this would obviously indicate that there is some choice in the matter, and that there is some kind of active evasion of the truth.

Christians are not neutral in this. They’re not saying they have some personal opinion that unicorns exist, and that it’s a personal quirk. They are saying that they have an absolute and universal moral truth. They know about the power of morality and of universal truth, because that’s what they use! So obviously it can’t be held that they are just stupid and don’t know what they’re doing. Arguing this is like picking up a gun in a bar fight and then saying you didn’t know what the gun could do. They know exactly what they’re doing in trying to convert children while they’re young, and in wrapping up their beliefs and conflating these with the truth.

It is important to understand the power of universals, and how bad things get when we get them wrong for eg. Communism and the millions of people who died because of it. It is for this reason that universal morals/truths need to be treated with great caution.

Transcript: (Auto-transcribed by Dragon Naturally Speaking)

Good afternoon, everybody. It is 5:17 PM, because precision is so important,
on December 29, 2005, and I hope that you're all having a wonderful break, and, unlike one of my loyal listeners who has written to tell me that he is spending today grading exams from his students, which he considers to be a terribly dull task, and given most of the people I went to school with, I can understand why. I hope that you're having more fun than that he is.

So I've had two interesting e-mails, two interesting e-mails that are I think rich enough to to talk about and, you know,one of them is from a writer who I quite admire who asks, you know, wonderful questions and the other is from a writer who I don't admire quite as much, but whose e-mail contains enough instructive errors that I think it's worth having a go at.

So, and to solve this, I'm going to introduce something that I call the billion dollar proposition.

So let's jump right into it and from the person who I really enjoy receiving e-mails from, but until I talk to him directly, I won't reveal his or her name.

He wrote to me and this is what sort of provoked my last podcast about Christianity and moral responsibility, and he has written me and after saying some very nice things,says, "Regarding your answer that Christians are guilty of a crime sans intent, because they have not, in a society where information is readily and freely available, taken the opportunity to question their beliefs, instead choosing to pass those beliefs along without rigorous examination.

I believe you're right on an intellectual level, and that proclaiming an absolute should require an artful examination of one's position.To people who think this is much this much is second nature.

But does the requirement of intellectual rigor not mandate a level of skill and rationality to those who, almost by definition, lack that requisite rationality?"
Which takes us back to the original question of intent.

Can Christians, in the absence of the rationality required to philosophically examine one's own position, be held accountable for a kind of moral criminal negligence if they fail at this high a cognitive task?

And of course this is a wonderful question and deal cuts right to the heart of moral responsibility and to some degree our feelings of fellowship towards our fellow thinkers or psuedo thinkers. So I'll tell you what I think of in terms of free will, and you can let me know what you think, and I certainly look forward to your responses. Free will is something that you know, you can go mad trying to understand, and analyze, and identify, but I think that we all understand it in our gut.

And of course I always do find it enjoyable when people try to argue me out of believing in free will, In other words, they are attempting to change my mind about my ability to change my mind, which is, I think, quite funny, and just as sort of example, and I'm not saying that this gentleman is making that that claim, but it's just the kind of example of the foolishness that people get into when they simply refuse to begin reasoning from basics and build their sort of intellectual structure up from a firm foundation of rationality and empiricism, and they just start, as Ayn Rand used to call it, philosophizing in midstream. So they'll just pick up stuff, and start going with it, with no reference to reality or empiricism.

But I call it the "Billion dollar proposition", and I think it might be a helpful to you to sort of understand what it is, and what it means, and see if it's helpful to you in understanding this question of free will.

It used to be the million dollar proposition, but of course, the government has been in control of the money supply for quite some time now, and so it is no longer a million dollar proposition, but inflation has tacked on a few, well, I guess, 3 zeros?

So the million dollar proposition is simply this.

Let's take something which is often referred to as a disease which is alcoholism.

And let's take another thing which is referred to as a disease which is cancer.

Now to me one of the things that will help differentiate what is actually disease and what is not is the question of choice.

Or, so let's say that you have a nice tidy shiny pile of dollar bills stacked in a small square in the center room that add up to $1 billion. OK, so maybe it's not
a small square, and maybe it's a large room, but you have $1 billion, and somebody comes to your house, and during the course of a dinner conversation, (say you just have a sheet of tarpaulin over this),and they say that, "I'm an alcoholic. I have a disease. I can't control it, or it is very hard to control, or its impossible to control",or whatever, right? Well I think that's fine.

Then you say to them, "Well, I'll tell you what. If you don't have a drink for the next 20 minutes, I will give you this nice shiny pile of a billion dollars. You can take it in sacks out to your car, and drive home.

Now of course the alcoholics, the supposed alcoholic's eyes will light up at that proposition.

Much like the cigarettes, the cigarette of a smoker will not light up if you make the same claim to a smoker and you say, "If you don't smoke for the next 20 minutes, then I will give you $1 billion." So their eyes will light up with greed, and they'll be very excited and look forward to spending all that lovely money.

Now, I mean, the length of time is unimportant. I mean, it could be two days, it could be a month, like if you just, whatever length of time is valid for you or for them, is what you can propose, right? And their eyes will light up, and they will by far think that they're getting the best part of the bargain, because you know, if the incentive is $1 billion they can not perform that kind of action for that period of time.

And yet, if you have somebody come over to your house, who has bone cancer or bone marrow cancer, something horrible, something like stage IV lung cancer, or, something that, you know, they just don't have more than a month or two or three to live, and you say to them," I will give you $1 billion, if you don't have cancer for the next 20 minutes."

I very much doubt that their eyes will light up with greed. In fact, their eyes will light up, probably with either rage or, sort of, pity for your moral foolishness.

So I think that the billion dollar proposition is a very important way of helping people to understand, or helping to understand where people have choices and where they don'tdon't. andAnd you can takestake, sort of, a number of approaches to the moral choices that people make.

And you can help to understand where they do have choices and where they don't have choices.

So let's have a look at some other examples that helphelp, will help verifyclarify this.this, I think,think. so,So, you know, for instance, if you say to somebody who has schizophrenia that I'm going to pay you $1 billion if you don't hear voices for a day.day, right.

RatherAnd than you'veyou, gotI adon't blisterknow,let's sojust say you could magically test the auditory hallucination.Parthallucination part of his brainbrain. wellWell, enoughyou're not going to have aany lotluck, triedright? ifIf you pay someonesomeone, aif you joboffer andto pay somesomeone ofa billion dollars to not have the symptoms of an illogicalneurological aboutor chemicalbiochemical mental illness for a day, day.They'rethey're not going to have any luck.I'mluck taking you up on your offeroffer. theirTheir eyes onaren't intellectgoing ofto thelight greedup with greed, and you don'tknow, think that they've got the better of youyou. butBut if you look at something like infidelityinfidelity, ofyou know, people saysay, of"Oh, you knowknow, whatwell it just happened.

I didn't have a choicechoice. myMy wifewife,uh hasn't, hasn'tI hadhaven't had sex with my wife isin six monthsmonths, and I was lonelylonely, and I was on the roadroad, and I draw I was drunk, and so onon. whileWell, they say, well basicallybasically, it just happened you know theknow. bigThe events unfolded to a particular position where I had no choice but to do what I diddid, ouror choice wasn't really an element and so on.

But of course if you say to that person: “I will give you $1 billion.”Notbillion thatnot soto,sort ofof, sleep,sleep wouldwith this woman at this conference somewhere.Thensomewhere, then they wouldwill probably take you up on itit. theyThey willwill, sort slipof, miraculously find the willpower to do the right thing or two to at least do not do such an egregiously wrong thing.

And that's another way of looking at itit, you noticedknow, isjust the billion dollar proposition is a way of testing for the existence of free well.will.

You knowknow, him.Notnot all of us enjoy our jobs, but most people will go to work so that they can have something to toeat toat the end of the day.

So they do that because there's an incentive for them to go to work.

And they're responding to that incentive, so it's, it's a very important him.important,um,

It's a very important criteria to apply to the choices that people say that they can make or they cannot make which is to look at the billion dollar proposition and see if there hates youbehavior would change.Givenchange given the right incentivesincentives. andAnd if it would change given the right incentives, then you know you're dealing with an issue of free will.

SoSo, isthere's another aspect wherein thisthis, isI gettingthink, very helpful when it comes for people to understand their families.

Now I'm unawareaware that my own family was probably worse than most, thoughthough, forcedof thecourse, there are many families thatout thatthere that youwere caneven worsenworse mythan andmine,and talkI'm talking about my family of origin of course, not the blissful cloud nine that I inhabit with my wifewife, and me be one of the things that my brother and I argued aboutabout, to some degree.Indegree, in the pastpast, was is aour different sort of moral evaluations of our mothermother. I mean our father to some degree as well, but that's another storystory. aboutBut, yourour mother, who was a good violenceviolent and abuse ofabusive women.woman.

He claims that she was doing herthe thatbest she couldcould, she was a single mother.mother,
I should understandunderstand, that I havehaven't been in that situation, I don't have children yet.Andyet, and so onon, and you knowknow, those wereare all arguments that I can understand it and appreciate.

ButBut, you knowknow, what I said to him waswas, well lotsI sort of thetook two approaches at to trytrying to unravel this sort of moral question.

And don't worryworry, I will eventually get back to this e-mail that I started with, but this wasis alsoall thesort of the deep background to be the portrait which I'm going to paintpaint. itsIts all part of a larger process, I promise youyou. soSo my response to my brother's statements that my mother to dodid the best that she could, this is all she knew.Thisknew, this is how she was treatedtreated, forand someoneso withon, defaultwas onetwofold. One is that I said.Well,said, "Well, if my mother had been paid $1 million, this is back when it was $1 million proposition.proposition, If my mother had been paid $1 million.Notmillion not to beat usus, saysay, for two days straight.Thenstraight, then would she have been able to do that,that? wouldWould she have been able to pull that off, and sheyou know.Ofknow, of course she could havehave, triedright? toI mean, although she was evil.Sheevil, she was not somebody who was mentally ill to the point where she could not process incentives or cause-and-effect.

So his argument that that this is the best that she could do was not.Itnot, was not particularly compelling to meme, rightright. andI mean, if she had developed some sort of illogicalbiological ailment, and she had become schizophrenicschizophrenic, or say she had some sort of chemical imbalance that caused the extreme mood swings or somethingsomething, than in me she wouldn't need ofwouldn't, theyou theknow, the billion dollar proposition would'vewouldn't have meant anything to herher, because she would've been unable to control her symptomssymptoms, likeright, any more than in aif fightI feed you'veyou eight glasses of water and pay you $1 billion not to bepee for a week.Youweek, permityou're upprobably not going to be able to pull it offoff, rightright. thatI statesmean, thatthat's things which you don't have aany control overover, everand byeverbody somesort of understands what the differences is between us.them.

So that was the first argument that I had saidsort of in response to this moral question of the culpability of parents for abuses that they perpetrate on their children.

The the second was, you know, ifdid she do it in public.

I mean, that's a very important question to ask when you're dealing with moral issues and Emmy this particularly unpleasant ones around children, because it's something that is so unequivocably bad right to to to to to to to perform violent actions against your children for the sake of feel like the immature rage.

I think were all the chalk on the dark side of the moral fence and not have a lot of ambiguity about.

And so my question to my brother, which I think is is also helpful when it comes to differentiating parental responsibility or moral responsibility in general is.

You know, she never did it in public like when we were out at the mall she would never support offered and in practice over the head.

When people were over visiting for dinner, she didn't some of the dragons from the Roman and pummel us.

And you know, when I am when the Mormons would drop by with their books and literature and all that she didn't yell scream at us and throw stuff at us and so, you know without a doubt.

My mother was perfectly capable of restraining her impulses.

It's just that when she knew that she could get away with it in IE when it was just us.

Then she looked up perfectly free to vent for whatever evil pleasure that gave her.

But you know she was absolutely without a doubt, completely and totally able to control her impulses and the reason that I know, that is because of course you know, my brother and I grow into adulthood, and nobody knew about the abuse right so in there was a people who came in the house.

Relatives of my father who left when when I was very young at all of that none of these people knew about the abuse.

Now, that's not accidental.

That's not the in the actions of so that's not the result of somebody who is taking a sort of random and deranged approach to life amid one of the criteria for knowing whether somebody has committed a crime.

In other words, they had a moral knowledge of what it is they were doing versus somebody who just acted randomly because they're crazy.

Is did they try to hide it right so mean, if I don't kill someone and then the IEP to bury the body in some remote location.

I wash my hands I washed my car and you know all of this kind of stuff and I come up that I make sure I have an alibi and so on.

While I'm not crazy, ride them if I go and I do no stop beating up someone right in front of a cop.

Then I probably am crazy, because I'm not as I'm not able to process the consequences of my actions, but the moment that I try to hide something than I am in fact morally responsible.

And through my act of hiding it have also revealed that I am perfectly capable of changing my behavior and your entire members are pointing out to my brother that.

You know, my mother could be like it in a full house.

You no connection crazy rage and the phone would ring and you know, she's so ago from this shrieking deranged harpy to somebody who would pick up the phone and say, you know, you're just in case it was her boyfriend on the line.

So without a doubt my mother could change her behavior she wasn't subject to that kind of irrational uncontrollable rage.

And so to return to my good friend's letter about to what degree can we expect rationality from people who may not have our intellectual abilities think I can sort of a.m. much though not a beginners book metaphors I think one may be appropriate here.

Let's say that that's this gentleman's is perhaps arguing to some degree that you know you and I are you a professional tennis players and we've been practicing for 20 years and our skills are honed to a razor edge and I know we can bullet the ball from the back corner of the net anywhere that we want to win a ferocious that and is it really fair for us than to say to people who are amateurs.

Look, you should be as good at this as we are, and judge them as being inferior for not being as good at your philosophy or truth or rationality as we are in a book through a combination of natural talent and no long-term longtime practice.

And I think that is a very interesting question and I think that's at the heart of what this gentleman is talking about.

Are we to have the ability to be rational and two works alleges that Lee and who have perhaps a more pragmatic or empirical street to our natures.

Are we just lording it over other people calling them bad and wrong because they don't have happened at this particular a talent you know, so similar to an elected cool kids in high school who come from families who have seen a lot of money and you know they've got a cool air and cool clothes and and the unit are good-looking or whatever and so these kids run the high school and ends socially, but united on any of this just happens to be a particular set of circumstances and physiology so they were born with.

So what right do they have to say so, if we are the kings of creation and unit you weasels should serve as a whatever.

So I met you know, we always don't want to be in that position where our natural talents or rationality cinematically pragmatic natures.

Turn this into some of pompous know it all soup can lord it over everyone else are being irrational.

But that's not the case.

That's not the case here, and those of you who've read my podcast before shouldn't be supplied surprised that any notion of absolutism and my boys.

But it's absolutely not the case at also have explained why that is a first of all.

If somebody is an astrologer.

We don't call them a scientist or, so, if an astrologer says to me.

You not that this great scam going in on me and I put all this numerology crap together and you know, I secured lunatics pay before you notice of random number mucking about and you think that they getting some sort of a deal for their money on them to tell the future and you don't tell them.

You know, how many kids I have what there names in the be-all is kind of stuff.

Then I say well, you know, I'm think it's an immoral scam that you pulling, but I'm not going to argue with you epistemologically unlock and argue with you and say that you're wrong in your stencils of your knowledge by because you know you're scamming people leeches to scam people and do not trump tell me that numerology or astrology or whatever his real.

So you know of are you not a Reaganite friends, you definitely an enemy, but you are not space of epistemologically or metaphysically corrupt enemy.

And you're not in the teacher children that astrology number and/or numerology is true.

You just in the say hey, you know, if you feel he can ethically loosey-goosey anyone a fairly easy source of income, this might be a way to go.

However the moment, that an astrologer or in a psychic or terra-cotta breeder or in any of these idiots.

The moments that they'd stay safe, but what we do is scientific.

But what we do is true that what we do is verifiable.

Well then, my friends, they have.

They have stepped into the arena, you know, we didn't drag them in there you know those of us who know something about how to differentiate truth from falsehood.

You know, we didn't drag them kicking and screaming and throw them into the lion’s den they themselves have voluntarily come into the arena wherein their propositions are subject to verification and examination to be forced into.

It’s their own choice, but they decided to come into the arena.

So, many moons ago I had a girlfriend who told me that she was psychic.

Army unluckily How many moods of us to fix quite a few and you even back then I was fairly skeptical of all of the stuff I said to her by now you know, that's, that's great, but it doesn't stick I got really excited.

And she was like shields and got a little alarmed by my level of excitement, and she said wide wife that so bright.

I said well, I mean, you're rich, she said, what is it you reach amateur talking about when I said well, the amazing Randi, who is not a porn star but in fact, a magician has had a think for about 30 years, that is has $1 million US in the bank, which he has volunteered to hand over to anyone who can prove that their psychic right and you don't have to be perfectly psychic aikido have to pick out 100% of random cards predict them directly and even if you get 5% over the random distribution of overlong and testing time.

You know he will hand you a check for $1 million.

So I can finally realize my dream of being a kept man.

You know, you can be my sugar mama, this is good and beautiful it could have a big check.

And of course I got the stare right.

It's not to be used for gaining the here that can do it, but you know, I didn't care if you have she said to me.

When no idea.

I think I might be psychic, but I don't have any proof and CEO Ben Affleck in a like me saying I had a dream about an elephant last night well okay a means to prove me right and who's to prove me wrong.

Now, if I say, everybody had a dream about an elephant last night.

That's a whole different thing, and he doesn't epistemologically is similar to saying I like ham.

You know that's not been empirically verifiable statement by Jean m Bucher to the Bible because you could hook up the electrodes to the pleasure center of the brain and see if they fired off when you had it in and I suspect these and but it you either know like us a son is to say it's not right.

So “I like ham” is one statement. “Ham comes from pigs” is another statement.

So I like ham and get a nice night.

I like this view, even though I might prefer wearing track pants to speed as he let the things that you can save images based preferences and nobody's got a whole you into the arena of truth and falsehood and rationally examine you, because it is unverifiable, and it's unprovable, and it doesn't matter fundamentally is good to take the time to surf online at liking him with cancer may be my pigs anyway.

So in the moment of the moment somebody comes out with a statement, which is something like God exists.

Jesus Christ died for us is the Bible is absolute truth pray to Allah five times a day facing in America or whatever, that this is the absolute morality that heaven exists that hell exists that the saints existed miracles exist.

You know all of the stuff that leprechauns exist, whatever you want to say.

The moment you start making statements which are not about subjective truth, but about subjective opinion but rather objective reality.

Well then my friend.

You have stepped into the arena, and you have absolutely no cause for complaint if people come along and say to you.

That's very interesting.

Let's have a look at the proposition and see if it's true or see if it's false, and you don't see scientists getting all up in arms because you know, some magazine requires a peer review of their findings at it would be inconceivable for us for a scientist say I've found fusion in a jar and no you can't test for it me.

That would be mean to study the scientist is just some lunatic and a lack of so I think that's that's an important thing to realize when you start talking to your religious people are socialists or communists or get a collectivist sore mistakes or in all of these people innocent to the degree to which they say at you noticed how my opinion.

I like fooling around a character but he said the lack of a claim that a true that you know, we might say that they could be more productive uses for their time, but Yahoo Catholic video games, and I like that give me a PhD.

But some moment of this not to say that something is true well, then, they have said something quite different.

They have said something which is absolutely open to rational examination.

So how does this bear on my good friends later well.

He is saying too to some degree, that yes Christians, a lot of them don't spend a lot of time trying to get a question their own faith or figure out what's true and what's false and therefore I am maybe we can let them off the hook because you are intellectually weaker than them saying this than the other.

Well, I am the final thing that I will say about that.

And why think that that's not proposition that we should not act on is that there is a need a very large difference between not knowing something and not wanting to know something.

So let's say that you're a smoker.

In 1948 marks are you really enjoy having to pack a day and you have no clue that it's bad for you mean this is sort of people they do use to paint think it was like.

Women in the 1920s after radium was discovered used a paint regime undertakes of it would glow when they went to nightclubs because nobody had any clue that it was so dangerous and of course these people just completely wrecked physically within the 10 or 15 years, but if you don't know something.

I am enough fair enough, right so your smoker and you don't know that smoking is bad for you -- it was like in the early 50s of the Surgeon General came out with the first fairly conclusive evidence that smoking caused emphysema lung cancer or heart defects are problems and so now all of you to be a smoker prior to their being any evidence that smoking is bad for you, and smoking is the best example is of course you have trouble climbing a flight of stairs just took a pack of David 20 years, but let's just say that we you know you didn't have any idea that smoking is bad for you.

Then, you can to some degree be forgiven for not knowing that it do that if you get lung cancer, whatever people say well that's a deal that's a shame I didn't know either.

I have sympathy, however, if you then find out that the Surgeon General has released a report about the health effects of smoking and useful if you stare to pack cigarettes in oh so round sofa sofa and back and you look at that and you say he had smoking aren't so good that she's not that bad of an epic is just an essay, you know that it's, it can give you to think.

Maybe Angie just refused to read anything about it will now you are the whole different category.

Marlee so you now no longer are in a state where you can't know when there is no way to know and so I'm and if you know, you keep hearing people talk about it and you start to hear who contents are old man that can't be good.

And you know your friends start quitting and your kids about mutant quits and then, you know pattern of celebrities that you know die from lung cancer like Humphrey Bogart as he died of lung cancer like these sort of things become sort of to put the responsibility on you.

So, it's one thing if you don't know.

But it's another thing completely, if you resist knowing if you actively is eight now and then you are morally responsible for the consequences of that.

And that's really what I want to focus on, and this gentleman's argument.

I think is that they're incapable of knowing that Christians are incapable of being rational and he hasn't some argument about you, which I've talked about before, like, you know their community will disown them in the people will be upset and so of course, all we have to do is go back to the billion dollar I could write so if you go to the Christian and you say, I will give you $1 billion.

If you read this article on atheism and teach teach you to children for a week and after that you get $1 billion will get what they probably do it right as they say, well okay, I can fix that the evil atheism a children might have for that week and I can use the billion dollars to further the good works of the church and you don't pay the legal bills of the priests or whatever.

So that you noticed often the argument from me the billion dollar proposition and see if they would go for it, in which case their perfidy capable of exploring alternatives to their viewpoint so that capable of all of exploring alternatives to their viewpoint.

They just choose not to and absolutely morally responsible for that choice.

Now of course, you may say well you know, the EU off the billion dollar proposition to a Christian to some study atheism routers could study atheism per week.

That is going to go through the motions they do, you know, have tickets repeated like some sort empty formula and every night they had whispered to their children that it's not good to Dr.

ante on that finding my my my issue isn't whether or not they going to do it wholeheartedly.

Right there and it's not like if you offer, they guy to quit smoking for today's billion dollars that he's got to do it and enjoy it so they want a cigarette that doesn't matter the question is can they do it all.

Can they not do it in a dimension before, if you find pay someone $1 billion to not have cancer for two days, by golly, they just have cancer for today's diffusive pay someone $1 billion to live to be 200 years old.

Then, I a lot else other than marketing to cash in by its sole I'm talking about is is it possible for them to do it.

Or is it not possible to for them to do it the more about whether or not.

It works by basically it is not.

I don't think intellectually honest to say well we are so far superior to these people that day that they can't, in other kinds conceivably look at alternate viewpoints is on so returned to the sports metaphor, he notes say that we're the ace tennis players.

You would not dragging amateurs on the court and beat them in thinking that where you don't just beat Kings of all creation.

The more appropriate custom metaphor is to say that, you know, we are good and experienced tennis players and people come onto the court and say to us.

You guys don't know anything about tennis.

We are the best tennis players, we are the only good tennis players and you guys don't know anything about tennis whatsoever now, but I do know about you.

I think that is the truth is worth fighting for, and so it's if I was a very good tennis player, and somebody came onto the court and is basically said you to your bed tennis player, you know what you're talking about on the only good tennis player.

And I can beat you without even opening one I well in a part of me would sail right saddle, a pilgrim lets take this for a spin and let see what happens because it's very important to understand that when you're talking to irrational people.

Religious people and collectivists and Socialists on their hearts neutral here.

They're making a claim that they possess universal and absolute metaphysical and epistemological ethical political and moral truth right there.

Not saying I have this idol I happen to believe in leprechauns that I know it's a personal quirk, but I'm, you know is it's just that's my thing.

They are saying that they have an absolute, universal truth about everything.

Nobody's forcing them to make that statement, nobody put a gun to their head on it okay to get bullied a lot as their kids but you know, a lot of us do and we don't all end up you crazed epistemological mistakes.

So the moments that people come into her life and say things like everybody has a right to healthcare.

And if you're at all and response that the couple podcasts you're upset about: LewRockwell.com.

Everyone has a right to healthcare, you know, we needed the government must redistribute money to help the poor and the old people either pensions and therefore we have to pay them.

Am God exists on, you know, you should be patriotic to support your troops, I’ll listen as people come in and start saying things like that.

And they have stepped into the arena of verifiable truth right there making universal claims, much like a scientist, and therefore they absolutely have to subject their claims to the verification and examination of others.

And that's I think the part that bothers me the most about these sorts of people.

And let's just talk about Christians in that settlement to pick on Christians if there is one group of these people, but I don't have to keep running up a list whatever that many people as is go to that Christians are now.

So, the reason that I know that Christians know exactly what they're doing and are not dumb, and are not crazy and are not irrational.

In the sort of pursuit of their goal is that they know about the power of morality.

They know about the power of universal truth.

They know about the value of moral prescriptions and ethical absolutes, because that's what they use by somebody who's in a bar fight, can't pick up a gun and use it and then say.

I had no idea that the gun was so powerful, because they've picked it up and they're using it in an extremity.

So obviously they know that that's the most powerful thing.

Similarly Christians and grandkids by the neck when they're very young and shake all of this Tara of an all seeing God, who knows everything and the guilt of original sin and guilt of Christ died for your sins me what a claustrophobic argument that it's end and you know that God didn't Christ cries when you do a bad thing and an angel loses its wings if you masturbate or whatever nonsense that they come up with.

And you know that God loves you and the churches they have sent.

You know, you've got to get into heaven and you need to dance at.

They know about the power of universal morality, because that's what they inflict upon children.

They know about the power of absolute truth because they say that God is love and that absolute truth is what God is and that you have to have allegiance to what is true.

And what is right and what is good.

They know all about the power of morality, don't underestimate them and for God's sake don't look upon them as misguided fools.

They know exactly what they're doing so to me the argument that well they're just not so bright and you know, they just have a tough time examining things and you know, they just cannot don't be fooled for a moment, they know exactly what they're doing.

There is no way that something this this universally politically and economically powerful lasted 2000 years.

Just because people are dumb or just because they're misguided.

You know, they cut right to the core of what it is that human beings live for just truth.

Integrity and morality.

Now, they wrap it into this insane deranged face towards the invisible and give us your money and baptize your children, and we own all the significant events in your life and come to church and give us a percentage of your income, and they do, I mean, they wrap it up and all that crap.

But right down in the heart of in the heart of it in the really important core of it.

They know exactly what they're doing and I would argue that Christians and religious people as a whole and Socialists know far more about morality and the power of morality than libertarians do, because my friends.

They are beating us hands down.

So I for one don't sit on a pedestal and say I'm the only smart guy around and these guys are all idiots, because you know, they're kind of running the world.

You know, so it's kind of hard for me to say G., if only they were as smart as pedophilia they were as smart as me.

Then maybe they'd be powerless and completely in the minority as well.

You know I need my friends to wake-up to the facts of the situation, which is that irrational people and corrupt people run the world.

And that's not an accident.

That's not because they're dumb, and they don't know what they're doing and had made it its its universal.

Its constant threat history, crazy people run everything in the week that a guy in the US and who he is going off and killing hundreds and 30,000 people.

So far, because God told him to, and he got all these other people who think and yes good idea.

I think that's wonderful, if he thinks God told him to then I guess we've got some genital guy in the sky, who is now given in Commandments that the kind of moral.

You know, we've got 80 people go voluntarily submitting to send 50% of their money or more to the central political authorities the good old so.

So why so was so the government can use it as collateral to borrow money, which is going to completely destroy the economies of the children, although they hope their children will grow up in Inoue pay money to the government so the government can hire the police and troops to take money from its ridiculous is wanting to be domesticated.

Another thing to wander into the farmer and put your own noose in bed and neck in the news and in stand.

You know by what you get milked into oblivion.

So, I would say that the temptation to underestimate how much or how deeply irrational or mystical or socialistic people understand the morality and the power of morality.

I think is to completely miss it and ended us it would never in 1 million years explain how they've won.

I mean, if we're so smart.

Why do we always lose and so I guess I would say that I start with a fair manageability that way and a fair amount of trying to work from the facts of reality, which is, you know, they kicked our butts every time over and over and that's why I'm so focused on the argument from morality.

And so focused on helping people who are interested in freedom and spreading truth in understanding that if you don't take the argument from morality.

If you don't use that there's no point getting into the arena at all.

And you're not even in the arena you're just wasting time somewhere in a box install delegates and graffiti.

You're not actually out there fighting anything good, and the last thing that I say, is.

And this is not only to to my friend who wrote 10 but you know to everyone out there who has mystical socialistic right-wing left-wing religious people say crazy cultural irrational people in their lives.

Well, I would say that's all you need to do is test your theory.

So if you believe that Christians say again become Christians is to say that you think that Christians are just kind.

Not so bright, kind uninformed and you know, I bet they couldn't can't do any better intellectually.

I think that's a focus on a worthwhile theory, but there's no point having a theory and sitting on it.

So what you want to do is you want to pick some disposable friendship.

Some friendship that goes away, you can get fired and end up living in the gutter.

So you'd you'd you'd gone pick some friend of yours whose office persuasion that say.

And you sit down and you say, my friend.

I would like to talk to you about your beliefs, and you begin to question this person obviously argument from morality and ask how universally consistent rules could be drawn out for this and you start to talk about, you know that the 10 questions questions that I suggested last time you got religious people and if your theory is correct -- they're just not too bright, and they just never been exposed to these things and so on.

The negative, the really curious right have never been exposed to Chinese opera.

The summary sits me down and says all you got to listen to the stuff that's right in assuming that I'm not late for work, you know I'm going to sit down among the curious unlistenable.

That's really interesting, more bad it would come from, how does it work well but the plots you know it sounds very alien to my ears.

Maybe that person would know something about how you know the records that we find pleasing is a cultural thing and so I'm, I learn a lot because I don't know.

I've never been exposed to Chinese opera know much about it so you know what I'm saying to your friends and expose yourself to go your friends and your thoughts about this stuff.

And if you're right that they're just had a not so bright or never had the information you don't have the capacity.

Then they won't be offended, they won't be upset, they will be angry at you at all.

You know, I mean, if physicists examine five to explain some your brain bending calculus to me unlikely to be offended on to say, listen up all you as far as I can but this really isn't my thing.

And I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I do know that I'm going to be able to follow it.

But you know hate hemming and I'm always interested in learning new stuff and maybe this will be helpful to so that's what people who don't have knowledge of a particular field do when someone comes to talk to them about it or, you know they'll be open and curious like how I've never thought of that before.

And that's really interesting so that's the way that you would prove his theory that Christians either on that bright.

Or you haven't been exposed to the ideas, whatever.

So I am good like you to go out there and I can tell you exactly what is going to happen.

You will get a face.

Initially a kind of benevolent and smug condescension.

Oh you poor sinner, you know, Jesus Christ has told me to be kind to the black and I'm perfectly anonymous.

And then on to lead you to the and you get to get all of this on well I can certainly understand that from your perspective that you might have some problems with the beauty and the infinity of days is that.

And you get all of the stuff on you no good like it's a little tough to stomach, you might need an insulin shot or two, but you know that's a lot, and if you continue to be persistent.

Then you're going to get their attention, and if you continue to be persistent.

You're going to eventually reach a point where the Christians as good as they stop.

I will not listen to anymore of this.

I will not listen to anymore of this at some point, you will hit that and the reason that you will hit that is because people who irrational.

No, that there is rational.

People who are schizophrenic.

Even often know that their schizophrenic, they just can't help it.

The people who irrational at the positively duty know that they are irrational, and they also know that their hypocritical, because if you claim an absolute and somebody comes along and point out to you that you're incorrect.

You should fall on your knees and thank them.

If something comes along to me and proves to me that there is a God I will fall on my knees and thank the because the last thing I have to do is to operate in era.

If something comes along and proves to me that there's no such thing as morality.

Fantastic outtake to a wildlife of trying something.

I mean, the last thing I want to do is to live in era setup and comes along and is able to correct me.

Thank you.

I really appreciate that.

I appreciate the questions that I get them except with a snarky one doesn't read another guy's e-mail but I don't want to.

Just now because of what he gone on long enough, but if somebody is genuinely trying to help me understand something that I don't know or have made a mistake I made one a wonderful thing to do for another human being in a minute if my doctor says if you continue to eat this much chocolate.

You're going to die next week.

Thank you, my physician, I mean, what more could you ask for from other human beings and help you to correct erroneous thinking.

And it's very hard to think straight because Rall talk such nonsense from day one.

So I believe that there are absolutes, I believe that there are universal absolute selecting working for 20 years to prove that there are I think I've made some good progress, if not perhaps magically or miraculously clinch the case.

So I do believe in universal absolutes, and I work very hard to make sure that I know what I'm talking about.

I was on the stuff for 20 years before I published anything.

So, I take the responsibility of striving for as much accuracy, honesty and integrity as possible, because I am fully aware of the power of universals, and the power of universal morality.

If you make a mistake millions of people die.

If you make a mistake to say on a little thing called communism.

Well, 50 million people 40 million people die.

Families are destroyed civilizations are destroyed people live and die in Gulag their enslaved.

They start they killed a murder they rape.

It is an orgiastic nightmare of violent horror when people get universals wrong.

So universals need to be treated like radioactive substances you have to be so so so careful, because they are so so powerful.

So when someone comes along and says, I know the universal truth that its name is God.

Then you absolutely have to examine them and if they have any interest in truth whatsoever.

They will thank you for every flaw that you point out in their theory.

If however they are spiritual robber, if they are somebody who is using the power of universals for personal gain for profit.

For regaining the false respect of their children for fitting into their community for looking good on Sundays than their scum.

They're absolute scum and the only way to chicken out of their scum are not just a start to question.

And if you start to point out the flaws in their thinking, and they get hostile.

I'm sorry I haven't this is not my decisions is not my judgment, this is just the fact that people who use universals without taking care to ensure that what they say is true are unleashing the demons of hell in the world, you know that the 20th century 70 million people murdered by governments, all in the name of absolutes all in the name of universal morality.

You don't mess around with the stuff you have to be so careful.

You have to be absolutely rigorous.

It's worse than atomic warfare, far more people have died and thousands of times more people have died for the sake of absolutes.

Then for the sake of nuclear weapons and if some guy was waiting around some nuclear bazooka at your body probably tackle into the ground will that's what I'm talking about.

You have to have to call these people on their errors, and if they continue to persist in the air as they are the most dangerous people in the world.

People with false absolutes will get you killed in that section are part of the Christmas message, but that's where it was enough for today and hope this is been helpful him.
I do have very another interesting e-mail that I think could spark a lot of interesting discussion, which I will try to get to tomorrow so heavy celebrate a/evening