Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 10

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter: Episode 10 · UK Column Radio

0:38
I received an interesting mail after my discussion with Steve
0:45
Falconer, who believes in evolutionary theory.
0:50
This idea of creation versus evolution constantly comes up.
0:54
I don't know if you've guys have guys have noticed.
0:56
It's a fascinating conversation. What?
0:58
Fascinates me is, is that this has become another sort of
1:02
Inflexion point, another area of division and that, you know,
1:09
it's it's almost as if you can't have evolution that and creation
1:16
as being features of the same mechanism.
1:22
I think that the idea that that Darwinism is, is somehow the
1:33
full picture of evolution is, is somehow, I mean, that's, that's
1:42
a separate thing again, in my opinion, because Darwin and
1:45
Darwinism and survival of the fittest is of course connected
1:50
very strongly with the eugenics movement and rightly so.
1:53
But again, it doesn't preclude the possibility that that that's
1:59
the only evolutionary mechanism that exists.
2:04
So you know, I I struggle with the the idea that these should
2:09
be mutually exclusive ideas. Creation, creation and and
2:14
evolution. Yeah, I think, I think that's a
2:17
good start point. I mean, I would say going back
2:21
to the it's being a point of Inflexion as with this and many
2:29
other of the I wasn't there. So I don't know topics.
2:33
I I'm perfectly happy not knowing to which people will be
2:37
leaping off the sofa saying but we've been lied to or have we
2:43
been lied to or, or a variant on that theme.
2:46
And yes, there is that possibility.
2:50
But if you make an issue of it and you make it matter, then it
2:54
will become the problem. And if you don't make an issue
2:57
of it and you don't make it matter, then it doesn't become
3:00
the problem. So ultimately it is up to you to
3:04
define exactly what it is you believe.
3:07
I think the area specifically is totally fascinating.
3:11
And I think even there are, I mean, you get into problematic
3:18
areas in terms of taxonomy and whatnot, but it's quite easy to
3:23
observe that people within our lifetimes have changed in
3:29
varying degrees. You can see the effects of what
3:34
I think what what are poorer diet or things being introduced
3:38
into water supplies of this and the other as to just just basic
3:43
features like like the shape of the shape of somebody's face.
3:47
For example, with regard to whether or not they breathe
3:50
through their nose or their mouth and what it is that might
3:53
have led to that in the 1st place.
3:55
Things like the amount of hair that people have on their heads
3:58
or on their bodies. Those sorts of things definitely
4:00
do change. So whether one counts that as
4:04
evolution, I'm not certain. I suppose that's that's up to
4:07
the individual debater. But the point is that things
4:10
definitely do change. And you see it, I mean, I see it
4:14
a lot with livestock. You absolutely get different
4:17
generations of livestock that exhibit slightly different.
4:21
Well, they're actually both things, either behavioural
4:23
tendencies or body shape or characteristics, physical
4:28
characteristics. So, so stuff does change.
4:30
I don't think 1 can really deny that.
4:33
I think the perennial question of, well, if something came from
4:39
something else and the something else still exists in the form
4:43
that it was originally and why did some change and some didn't?
4:47
I think that's, that's the that's the big one.
4:50
But then again, why should we? It's, it's funny really, because
4:54
we're, we're told trust the science and we all go ha, ha,
4:58
ha. Why would we do that?
5:00
Because scientists are all corrupt and at the same time we
5:03
want to cling to a certain extent to that very same
5:08
science. I mean, do do we really, do we
5:11
need to do that or do we just need to be happier in our own
5:15
minds that we believe one thing rather than the other?
5:18
Going back to the beginning, as I say, when it concerns an issue
5:22
that you cannot possibly yourself resolve, you might
5:25
easily be able to find credible evidence of something that
5:30
points to something else and indeed vice versa.
5:33
But you ultimately, you can never know and we're not going
5:35
to be around long enough to to see any of this play out,
5:39
presumably. And aside from other thing else
5:42
this this topic, there's no relationship to the issues of
5:48
the day in the sense that, you know, whether whether we were
5:52
created or we evolved is irrelevant to whether somebody's
5:58
going to drop a nuclear bomb in our heads in the next two years.
6:01
So, you know, we shouldn't really be fighting about this.
6:05
No, indeed. But I think that's what I mean
6:07
about all the other things, all the other talking points that
6:09
get dragged into it, but mostly Christianity.
6:11
And well, if if you're going to start talking about evolution,
6:15
then you're then you're dismissing the what?
6:17
You know what the Bible sets out at a stroke, and then that means
6:22
that that's opening the floodgates for Christians to be
6:24
wiped off the face of the earth and, and, and all of that sort
6:27
of thing. So I, I see, I see exactly why
6:29
people do choose it as a point. I'm just not sure there's
6:33
there's much to be gained from doing so.
6:35
No, but it is part of the the market of ideas.
6:40
And I see these in the in the comments like someone so Tim
6:42
Noakes might say on my show. Yeah, well humans have evolved
6:46
to to eat meat right? And then someone will go ha ha
6:51
lol he said evolved. Contact him.
6:53
Seriously. Like I say, you, you choose
6:55
whether or not it matters to you.
6:57
I mean, I, yeah, I agree to a point.
6:59
It matters. I agree that we should talk
7:01
about all these things. Nothing should be off limits
7:03
completely. But The thing is, if you're
7:05
going to question everything, I think you'll only drive yourself
7:09
mad if you're not prepared to accept that sometimes you're not
7:11
going to get the answer. So yeah, I mean, I similarly, I
7:14
would absolutely question everything.
7:15
And I think and, and actually going on Tim Noakes, you know,
7:18
about evolving to eat meat. Are you sure that's what he
7:23
said? I would have thought it was the
7:24
other way around that that we were designed to eat meat And
7:28
and some people have evolved or their guts have changed in order
7:32
to tolerate certain things. I don't remember specifically,
7:36
but I mean you get what I'm saying the the the point.
7:38
I do, but it, yes, I do. But I think it's really
7:40
interesting actually, because it does, it does provide an insight
7:44
and it's largely it's not discussed.
7:47
I mean, I I've not heard Tim talk about it, but it but this
7:49
pertains to blood type and and diet and the inextricable link
7:55
between that and geography and what what what available food
8:00
sources were. But ultimately I'm straying well
8:02
into territory that I can't possibly substantiate because
8:05
because I wasn't there. So, yeah, I mean, it's totally
8:08
fascinating, but the, but the, you know, what is it that people
8:11
want to do ultimately? They want to take it all the way
8:13
back to creation. And how is it that we're here at
8:16
all? And and, and I find it, I don't
8:21
mean this at all scornfully, but I do find it rather laughable
8:24
that people will come down so definitively one side or the
8:27
other because how on earth can they possibly know?
8:30
Because there's always the question.
8:32
It doesn't matter which way you go.
8:34
Yeah, but but what happened before that and what happened
8:37
before that? So, so yeah, fascinating to talk
8:40
about, but how, how, how on earth does one ever know?
8:45
And I think the, the, the real danger here, Jeremy, is, is
8:48
that, and we see this so much the, the, and maybe Mike Eden's
8:56
expressing this a little bit. And I think it's dangerous this,
8:59
this idea that everything is a lie, everything is a lie.
9:04
And therefore anything that we're told is untrue and
9:08
therefore the earth is flat, whatever, whatever your
9:12
particular thing is, that becomes an ideology at that
9:16
point. That becomes something which is
9:18
not based on a, a, a genuine search for the truth.
9:22
That's, that's a conclusion is reached and it's immovable.
9:26
It's an immovable object at that point.
9:28
And in fact, it becomes the height of hypocrisy because many
9:33
people will say that, well, science is scientism, that it's,
9:38
it's become something which is no longer an, an investigation
9:42
of, of the life around us. That's it's reached conclusions
9:45
which are driving policy. And to some degree, I'm not
9:48
denying that. But the point is that as soon as
9:51
you say, therefore everything's a lie and therefore the earth is
9:55
flat, then you have you're falling into exactly the trap
9:59
that you're accusing the opposition of doing, your
10:02
opposition of doing. And that is that is dangerous.
10:05
We've got, in my opinion, we've got to be absolutely challenging
10:09
our own viewpoints first before we start throwing the
10:14
allegations of anybody else. Yes, I mean that is sort of an
10:19
undercurrent. You know, the the idea that
10:23
anything that is an established view should be questioned.
10:28
I mean, as Nick Hudson says, any big event that requires a big
10:31
solution is almost always a lie. But but equally that, that same
10:39
rigour, that's that same determination that that we
10:42
challenge climate change and we challenge everything that, that
10:46
the scientific community says, we've got to apply that same
10:49
rigour to, to every position that we take.
10:53
And and that's where perhaps we don't, you know, we don't fulfil
10:59
that, that obligation as well as we might.
11:05
But then who do you trust? I think that was kind of what
11:07
Mike was asking also. I don't think it's a question.
11:12
It's not a question of trust. And, and this, this is, this is
11:15
actually fundamental to the whole discussion because,
11:18
because this idea of who do you trust is, is something which is
11:23
being heavily promoted by, by governments everywhere.
11:27
Because, you know, and, and my view very strongly is that as
11:31
soon as you put your trust in someone, you're switching your
11:34
brain off. So you put your trust in the
11:37
BBC, You don't need to question anything anymore because the BBC
11:42
said so you don't have to think. And, and I'm sorry, you're going
11:47
to have to edit this out, but I need to cough.
11:48
I do apologise. But so, so you know, we, we
11:56
absolutely, as far with respect to sort of public people that
12:03
are speaking publicly or, or any kind of institution that's
12:06
speaking publicly or the scientific community or the
12:09
media, whatever it happens to be, we should not be trusting
12:13
any of those people as as a sort of blanket reaction.
12:18
And we should be absolutely asking questions, whether those
12:21
questions are about creation or or evolution or whatever it
12:26
happens to be that we start asking questions and ourselves
12:32
should be the target of that as well, as I say.
12:35
Yeah, there is a very big problem of people in the
12:38
alternative space of falling into the identical trap where
12:43
they create yet again, A1 and 0 scenario.
12:46
Well, if it if it's allowed on YouTube, therefore it can't be
12:49
true or trusted. And that in itself is, you know,
12:53
it's a slippery slope. Yeah, and, and the mainstream
12:56
media people, people will say, well, it was, it was in the
12:58
mainstream media, so it can't be true.
13:00
Well, that's not true. It can be true.
13:03
And, and of course it's that is our challenge is working out
13:07
what's the truth and what's the propaganda.
13:09
And it is a challenge. I don't want to underestimate
13:11
that. And, and again, we should not
13:13
trust blindly what anybody says, whether that be the BBC or the
13:18
UK column or whomever, but we should not, in my opinion, be
13:23
going around just immediately assuming that everything that's
13:27
seen from a certain source is a pile of nonsense because it's
13:31
not always the case. Yeah, I mean, I do.
13:34
I do think The Who to trust is very problematic.
13:38
I mean, look at look at how that was manipulated with the COVID
13:42
jabs. I like David Beckham, so I'll go
13:46
and get a jab because he said so, for example, ad infinitum.
13:51
So I think it should always be the, the information rather than
13:57
the person that presented it, which is, you know, we get into
14:01
the Hitler like dogs thing. I can't remember quite how that
14:04
goes, but I think you know what I'm talking about.
14:07
So yes, the, the, the ultimately you trust yourself that, that
14:13
and, and actually it's rather more than that.
14:16
I think you're in real trouble if you can't trust yourself in
14:20
in all respects. And that is a really, really
14:24
important point because it, it really does dictate where you
14:30
are able to lead your life. And it doesn't just concern sort
14:33
of information, but it's, it's an ability to, to live and
14:39
thrive outside of all the sorts of things that we do talk about.
14:42
Because otherwise you get bogged down by them.
14:44
And ultimately that displays a lack of trust in yourself.
14:49
So yes, you might have been lied to about this than the other.
14:54
However, you need to convert that knowledge into a positive.
14:58
Or at least I would say that's what I try to do to it or with
15:02
it. You, you, you use that with
15:04
which to arm yourself rather than continually considering
15:08
that having been lied to is something you should consider as
15:12
a battering. Because, frankly, it isn't.
15:16
I don't know any person who believes.
15:18
I know some people who believe that Earth is flat.
15:21
Not one of them got the jab right, but I know people who
15:27
believe in NASA's narrative and and got the jab, if that makes
15:32
sense. So in other words, I see a
15:33
degree just in my immediate circles I see a degree of
15:37
critical thinking, which I think is a good thing, even if their
15:41
views are are possibly preposterous.
15:45
I, I'm going to say I don't agree with that.
15:47
And, and because I know people that believe in NASA and also
15:52
didn't get the job. So, you know, the thing, the
15:56
thing about, if you look at, at the thing about Richard Dawkins
16:01
and people like Richard Dawkins is that they are, they are
16:05
totally ideologically based just, and I would say that there
16:11
are people that are rabid creationists that are also
16:15
absolutely ideologically based. And the problem is that I think
16:20
that if you're, if you're suggesting that people who were
16:25
falling on the creationist camp didn't take the job through some
16:30
kind of form of critical thinking, I would say that
16:33
that's not the case. That in fact, they, are they,
16:36
they, they didn't take the job because somebody that, that was
16:41
a, an influencer in the creationist space on YouTube
16:45
said that they shouldn't and that there was no critical
16:48
thinking in it at all. It was just some influencer said
16:51
that you shouldn't do this. I, I think that I think that
16:55
what we're looking at there are, are pretty core extremes.
16:59
And I think that there are people on both sides of that, of
17:02
that argument that are occupying the influencer space that are
17:07
actually probably agents of the state.
17:11
I think Dawkins is 1. I think that that there's some
17:14
people on the, on the Flat Earth, in the Flat Earth
17:17
community that that appear to be as well.
17:20
And so I think, you know, if you're, if you're going to be a
17:26
critical thinker, you've got to be a critical thinker.
17:28
And and that means not falling into the trap of ideology and,
17:33
and many people blindly do that, unfortunately.
17:38
Yes, I have seen that and I can confirm.
17:41
I do know people who believe NASA's narratives and didn't get
17:46
the jab because I don't think, I don't think really that people
17:51
who are caught up in everything that's mainstream are more
17:56
critically minded than I think people who are sceptical.
17:59
I think being sceptical is a good thing.
18:02
Yeah, sceptical. Sceptical is a good thing,
18:04
absolutely. It is a good thing, no question
18:06
about that. But not to the degree of
18:12
absolutism, an absolute sceptic, and therefore everything is
18:18
false that that actually can land us in very dangerous
18:23
territory. Isn't absolutism sometimes a
18:28
good thing? Can you give an example?
18:34
Well, I think that a rape is always a bad thing.
18:37
I, I'm pretty absolute in that, in that, in that rationale, I, I
18:41
can't find a, a positive reason for, for, for for rape.
18:46
Well, you're in tricky territory there, really, when you look at
18:49
the law. I mean, I don't know what it is
18:51
in South Africa, but but here the, you know, you, you come up
18:55
against all sorts of technicalities with regard to
18:59
age and the inability to give consent.
19:02
And you know, I mean, I'm, I'm not obviously, obviously not
19:05
advocating for rape, but I mean, there is, there is nuance there.
19:10
No, but rape is effectively it's a violation of of a woman's
19:14
generally a woman's OK. But but is it?
19:17
Is it if if the very next day it wasn't rape because she was a
19:22
year older? Well then she wasn't raped.
19:24
Sure. No, but she was.
19:26
I mean, this is, this is the point I'm making.
19:28
According to law, she was raped because she's a minor because of
19:33
her age. So you know.
19:35
Like if she was 15 and then she turned 16.
19:37
Exactly, for example, the the the young guy that ended up in
19:41
prison in Saudi Arabia for for a guts of a year because he had a
19:45
sexual relationship of some on holiday with I think he was 18
19:49
and she was 17 and and the the age of consent was 18.
19:53
So so he was, you know, that was statutory rape and therefore he
19:57
spent time in prison and got released early because of I
20:02
can't remember which there was a there was a festival that that
20:06
traditionally people are released from prison at just
20:10
recently. So so you know, there is there
20:12
is nuance there. I mean, I think if what you're
20:15
saying is that. You know, under, under a very
20:19
relatively narrow definition of of what that is, that somebody,
20:25
you know, carries out that act with someone who was absolutely
20:32
not agreeing or consenting to that, then then that is
20:35
absolutely wrong under all circumstances of consent.
20:38
Wasn't there. But you know, I think you'd be,
20:43
I think you'd be struggling to find any thing which could be
20:51
absolutely considered in absolute terms to be one way or
20:57
the other. It there's always nuance.
20:59
My comment was about a moral judgement, not about what the
21:06
law states, because the law is fickle.
21:07
The changes over time, but the idea that somebody's body, a
21:13
bodily autonomy, has been violated against their will is
21:17
always a bad thing. How?
21:22
Can it be a good thing? How can?
21:23
How can it ever be a good thing? No, I I would probably agree
21:27
with that. If, if, if, if it's against
21:30
someone's will. If anything happens against
21:32
someone's will. But yeah, but you see, this is
21:34
problematic because I, I would agree with you in terms of rape.
21:38
But then if you're if you're suggesting that there's an
21:41
absolute where bodily autonomy is concerned, then I think
21:44
that's again problematic because there are situations in which
21:50
you might see that somebody is about to harm themselves in some
21:54
way, for example, present themselves for a COVID jab.
21:58
And you might seek to interpose yourself or take them away from
22:04
that situation, or destroy the you know, whatever it is you are
22:08
interfering with their bodily autonomy.
22:10
No, but that's not rape, obviously.
22:13
No, no, no, I'm, I, I know, I know it's not.
22:15
But I mean, the issue was was one of bodily autonomy, wasn't
22:20
it? Yes, but in the sense, but in
22:21
the in the case of rape, it's obviously, but more than bodily
22:24
autonomy, it's stuck. It's it's without getting into
22:28
the graphics. Well, no, but I mean that but
22:31
but one has to get into the graphics.
22:33
I mean, this is this is part of the issue with it because it
22:35
certainly again in this country. Yeah, OK, All right, maybe we
22:39
are getting into it. But but but you know, a rape can
22:41
only be committed by a man because it it involves the use
22:46
of a penis and. Well.
22:48
Obviously that's not true. I mean, what I mean is obviously
22:54
a man can be raped. That's what I'm saying.
22:56
Yes, a man can be raped, but it has to be by another man.
23:01
So anyway, that that that is a bit of a legal rabbit hole, but
23:06
but still the point, the point is, is again, it is very
23:09
difficult, I think to be to be absolute about things, but about
23:14
about anything. Yes, I agree with you
23:17
specifically with rapes, specifically with bodily
23:19
autonomy and and the obviously fundamental issue of consent.
23:23
Yes, absolutely. But but the, but the problem is
23:26
you're, you're, you're making that case on the basis of the
23:30
bodily autonomy thing. And then and then you move to a
23:32
different situation like I just suggest.
23:34
And then in actual fact, bodily autonomy becomes something where
23:37
there is a bit of wiggle room. So do you think that being
23:43
principled is not equivalent to absolutism?
23:50
That is a good question. I think that being a principled
23:58
is not equivalent to absolutism because because I think that
24:03
having principles doesn't rule out the nuance that we're
24:07
talking about here. You have, you know, I mean, I,
24:10
I, I would struggle to find a, an example of of someone having
24:15
principles that that were absolutely absolutist.
24:20
Well, let's just say you believe that cheating on your wife is a
24:26
terrible idea. Well, well, hang.
24:29
On a minute that that, but that's not a principle that
24:31
that's a, that's a specific action.
24:33
I mean, the principle is one of trust or betrayal, isn't it?
24:39
So. So in principle, you would never
24:42
betray somebody's trust or specifically your wife's trust.
24:49
I don't. Know is that a Yeah, maybe
24:51
you're right maybe it's not a principle.
24:52
Maybe it's a value. I don't know.
24:54
I guess it comes down to know how we define these these terms.
24:56
What do you think? That's what I.
24:58
Mean, but let's say, let's say the principle is the betrayal or
25:02
the betrayal, specifically the betrayal of trust.
25:05
You might well have that as a principle.
25:07
I mean, you know that that I would say is a, is a good
25:10
principle with which to sort of conduct yourself.
25:14
But you may find situations in which that you feel that
25:19
actually you would need to override that principle for, you
25:24
know, I hate to use the word, but for a, a greater good or, or
25:27
to, to meet another end. So the, the, the, you know,
25:31
principles can of course, in effect come into conflict with
25:35
one another. If you're, if you're
25:37
particularly, I mean, you know, we talked a lot about sort of
25:39
family context, but, but I mean, but you might consider that
25:44
shielding somebody from a certain piece of information
25:46
because you thought it would be better for them not to know it
25:49
or not to see it, particularly if it's going to be traumatic
25:52
that that could constitute a betrayal of trust.
25:54
So you've got, you've sort of got 2 principles in conflict
25:57
with one another. So it is it is very difficult to
26:00
be absolutist about any of these things.
26:02
All right. Another example is taking the
26:06
life of an innocent person murder, right?
26:08
I mean, I don't think that's a good idea under any
26:11
circumstance, unless is that absolutist.
26:18
Well, well, hold on, define innocent person.
26:20
Is there any such thing? So see this conversation that a
26:24
lot of this conversation is about definitions and so on.
26:27
But but but the bottom line here is what is an innocent person?
26:33
And if if you're taking that innocent person's life, that
26:36
might be perceived as murder, but if you're doing it in order
26:40
to prevent a a more significant wrong, then is it wrong?
26:46
I'm just not certain that that that life is black and white in
26:51
these terms that it's possible to be absolutist ever.
26:54
I think there's always you also. And actually, you know, jury
26:59
trials, for example, has been the topic of conversation
27:02
recently. I don't can't remember whether
27:04
we were talking about it at some point, but but you know, there
27:08
there is this effort to remove juries from the judicial system
27:15
in the United Kingdom. But, and part of the reason is
27:19
because juries have still have the power in the UK to look at a
27:25
piece at a law, look at a, a, a, an ethical situation, a lawful,
27:31
a legal situation and decide that under this particular set
27:35
of circumstances, that law does not apply, that that law is bad
27:38
law under these circumstances. It's called annulment by jury.
27:43
And this is, this is, this is fundamental part of of the way
27:47
that the judicial system is supposed to work in the UK.
27:51
So my point is that that, that, that par is there because
27:58
there's a recognition in the judicial system, in the law, in
28:02
the legal system that, that there are no absolutes.
28:06
And this is one of the dangers of, of AI in my opinion, because
28:09
you're bringing absolutes into the picture and you're saying
28:14
computer is never wrong. The computer knows absolutely
28:17
what the, what the truth is and, and there's no wiggle room
28:22
therefore at all. That's, that's where the danger
28:25
lies, I think. I think the the idea that that
28:29
there are absolutes in life is is just, it's, it's just wrong.
28:33
OK, so, so the the argument you're making is that there are
28:38
no absolutes in life and if somebody attempts to have an
28:43
absolute or an absolutist view, it's it's potentially dangerous.
28:52
Yeah, I think it is because yes, I think it is.
28:55
I don't know. I don't know what else to say
28:57
about that. I think, I think it is dangerous
28:59
because because not only does it drive us in the, in the corners
29:02
individually and say getting to the point where we, we, we are
29:08
getting to that point and, and many people are getting to the
29:10
point of saying nothing that I'm saying in the world is true.
29:13
They are lying to me constantly. And therefore and, and that that
29:17
can lead to making some pretty dangerous decisions for
29:21
ourselves. And so, so I think, I think it
29:25
is absolutely a dangerous thing to absolutely, absolutely.
29:30
To to feed into what you're saying, to add to what you're
29:32
saying, Elon Musk refers to himself as a free speech
29:35
absolutist. Now this This is demonstrably
29:38
false. Well, this is absolutely right
29:40
and, and, and you're right to call him out, but, but you know,
29:44
I would, I would consider myself, if I'm going to come
29:49
even close to being absolutist on anything, it's on that
29:52
because my view is that, you know, you allow the other person
29:56
to say what they've got to say and you can make a decision
29:59
about what they say and you can argue against what they say.
30:03
And, and I fundamentally disagree with, perhaps I even
30:06
absolutely disagree with the idea that, that, you know,
30:11
somebody saying something that I dis disagree with is, is somehow
30:15
dangerous and has to be shut down.
30:18
What that means is that I don't have, if I, if I, if somebody
30:22
says something that I disagree with, and I feel that that is
30:25
dangerous and it has and they have to be stopped from saying
30:27
it. What I'm saying is I don't have
30:29
an argument against that person's position.
30:33
And, and if I, if I genuinely don't have an argument about
30:37
that person's position, then I need to be thinking about that.
30:40
I need to be thinking about what my argument is.
30:43
Why do I find that person's position so dangerous?
30:45
Why do I want him to stop saying that and and why do I not have
30:49
something in rebuttal? Because that's my fear, not
30:52
theirs. Yeah, in South Africa you have
30:55
the third largest political party filling up stadiums,
31:00
100,000 people singing kill the farmer, kill the white man,
31:05
right, 100,000 people. That's that's not one person who
31:09
you are disagreeing with. It's 100,000 people jumping up
31:12
and down singing songs together in unison about killing white
31:16
farmers or killing white people and the politician on stage is
31:19
shooting a machine gun in the air.
31:21
That's not a very good idea to be to be singing songs with
31:24
masses and masses and masses of people about killing a certain
31:28
group of people, because that can lead to killing a certain
31:33
group of people. I couldn't agree.
31:37
So how do? You.
31:37
How do you how do you counter that?
31:41
That's that is a very good question.
31:43
I'm not sure that I have an answer that that's, that's why
31:46
I'm not an absolutist. You know, I, I would come close,
31:51
as close to being an absolutist as it is possible to be on this
31:55
issue. But but you're, you're
31:57
absolutely right. The only way to the only way to
32:01
counter that would be to fill another stadium with people
32:05
providing a different argument. But but what we're, what we're,
32:08
what we're, I think looking at there is something which goes
32:11
beyond speech because what you're looking at there.
32:15
Is. It will, but, but it's more than
32:18
that, isn't it? Because what you're looking at
32:19
there is the sort of Nuremberg, Hitler's, Hitler's Nuremberg
32:24
sort of event where you're actually bringing people
32:27
together and carrying out a certain set of actions which are
32:33
going to cause a psychological effect on those people.
32:35
And, and so again, because it's impossible to, to have absolutes
32:39
here, Where does it, where, where does the idea of speech
32:45
and, and the idea of a psychological operation begin?
32:50
Because what you're describing is something that goes beyond
32:53
freedom of speech, in my opinion, that's not freedom of
32:56
speech. That is, you know, something
32:59
which is being, is designed to have a psychological effect on
33:03
the people that are, that are in the room or in the stadium,
33:07
which is beyond just making an argument about something.
33:10
You're, you're, you're bringing the idea of singing together
33:14
into this picture. And singing together is
33:16
something that that helps build, you know, ideologies, let's put
33:25
it that way. It can be used in that sense
33:27
anyway. Boris Johnson has killed far
33:30
more people than Julius Malema by staying, by saying whatever
33:35
he said in 2020, stay at home, protect the NHS and whatever.
33:39
The third thing is that I, I can't remember what it was, but
33:42
there's no doubt that there's no doubt in my mind that him saying
33:48
that and having the mainstream media rebroadcast it meant that
33:53
10s of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people
33:55
died during the spring of 2020 because all their care and life
34:01
lines, particularly the elderly, were removed.
34:03
But no one would have suggested at the time, oh, he can't say
34:07
that. You know, it it that that would
34:09
never have been perceived to be a free speech issue.
34:13
Whereas, you know, Malema jumping up and down on stage
34:16
singing Kill the Boer. Yeah.
34:17
I mean, it obviously it is difficult to listen to, but
34:24
actually, how many people have gone out there, if we're to
34:27
consider incitement, how many people have gone with that in
34:31
mind to go and do that? I'm not saying none at all.
34:35
I'm, I'm just, you know, it's a question.
34:37
But. I mean, yeah, difficult.
34:39
Sorry for interrupting, but I'm, I'm going to agree with Mike in
34:42
the sense that it does crossover into the realm of psychological
34:46
operations. COVID was another good example,
34:49
as you just pointed out. But you know, you have somebody
34:51
like Fauci coming onto TV with 10s of millions, maybe more
34:55
people listening to his every word saying put on a mosque, put
35:00
on 2 mosques, put on three mosques.
35:01
It's going to it's going to protect you.
35:03
Absolutely. So I, I think we returned to
35:05
this issue of trust and trusting yourself.
35:09
And if you're at a can't remember what his what?
35:13
What's his party called the Nameless Party?
35:16
The EFF. OK.
35:18
So if you're, if you're at one of his rallies, it's up to you.
35:22
It's it's your discernment. Are you, are you seriously there
35:26
thinking that what he's singing and what everybody is singing is
35:30
to be interpreted literally put putting to, to to one side the
35:34
the fact that it is a deliberate psychological operation.
35:38
But it is up to you as to whether you do that in the same
35:41
way that it was up to us as to whether you did stay at home,
35:44
protect the NHS and do the other thing that I probably will never
35:47
remember, hopefully will never remember.
35:50
You know, or go and get the job or or you know, any of the other
35:54
things that that people of a certain mind and probably people
35:57
who are listening to this considered to be utterly
35:59
abhorrent to listen to it. It is still up to you to trust
36:03
yourself in, in terms of your reaction to it.
36:08
How do you deal with that piece of information?
36:11
We can't be absolutist about about this.
36:14
And, you know, and, and you know, one of the, one of the
36:20
things that the British government has said is that
36:26
everybody, you know, with the, as the censorship regime rolls
36:30
out, everybody will have the right to say what they want, but
36:34
they won't have the right to, to be heard.
36:37
So you'll be allowed to post whatever you like, but of course
36:41
then you'll be shadow band and all the other mechanisms that we
36:45
already know that social media platforms use.
36:51
And, and of course that that is effectively a shutdown on
36:55
freedom of speech by, by shadow banning people and so on.
36:59
But also equally, the shutdown on freedom of speech on the BBC,
37:05
for example, which is supposed to be a public service
37:07
broadcaster, when they decided that they were going to abandon
37:12
their claim of impartiality and and objectivity on the climate
37:18
change, the climate change policy area.
37:21
And they said, well, we're not going to give equal time to
37:24
people that argue against climate change, for example.
37:27
So they have taken an absolute position on that.
37:31
And that absolutism is absolutely detrimental to the
37:35
entire discussion because there's no discussion possible.
37:39
It's only ideology at that point.
37:43
And so, you know, I, I tend towards the view that that
37:52
attempting to censor people, no matter what they say is, is a
37:56
bad thing, but, or at least it ends up being a bad thing.
38:01
But I absolutely equally take your point that, that, that
38:05
there are certain circumstances where it may be really
38:08
regrettable that that things have been said in a particular
38:11
way. I still don't think I would shut
38:13
it down. Well, I mean, they in that
38:16
particular example, it's also a symptom of something else.
38:21
Catherine Austin Fitz makes, I think, a fairly good point when
38:25
she says, look, you have to go and change the minds of people,
38:30
but unfortunately you can only do it one person at a time.
38:34
When I was in the police and I was out and about, I would, I
38:38
would deliberately engage people in conversation about mask
38:41
wearing and tell them that they had absolutely no need to wear
38:44
one and that no one could challenge them on it, which they
38:48
always found a slightly problematic thing to hear from
38:53
somebody who's in the police at the time.
38:55
And I can remember saying it to a woman I saw in a shop.
39:00
I, I was, well, I was investigating something totally
39:04
absurd like it usually was. But, but there was a, there was
39:06
a young lady in there with a baby in a pram and she, the
39:09
woman, the mother was wearing a mask.
39:11
And I, it just, it was an awful sight as it was across the
39:16
board, but to see that this little baby was not able to see
39:20
her mother's face and I was just killing time waiting for
39:23
somebody to reappear. So I went to her and said, look,
39:27
because I was in plain clothes but identified myself and said,
39:30
look, I just, you know, just want to make you aware that you
39:34
don't have to wear face covering.
39:37
It's entirely up to you if you perceive there to be any harm or
39:41
risk of harm and your baby not being able to see you would
39:45
certainly qualify as that. And further, there's no need for
39:47
you to display a sign or anything.
39:50
And indeed, if anybody challenges, you don't need to
39:53
explain yourself. And she listened to me sort of
39:57
politely enough and didn't remove her mask.
40:02
Not not that I was expecting. You know, it wasn't a sort of
40:04
right, go on then take your mask off.
40:05
But but the point is it was it was just presenting her with the
40:09
information and she, I don't know, I mean, maybe she could,
40:12
but but. I could not myself understand
40:15
how a mother could possibly want to put that sort of a barrier
40:19
between her and her child, which sounds like I'm having a an
40:22
individual go at this woman. I'm not because I understand
40:26
exactly the psychological warfare she'd been subjected to
40:29
in order to do that in the 1st place.
40:31
But it was very interesting to, to just be able to have this
40:36
conversation, admittedly slightly one sided conversation
40:38
with her. And what I would to say that it
40:42
suggests is that she did not trust herself.
40:45
Because if she had, why on earth would she ever have done that in
40:48
the 1st place? I mean, there's no way had she
40:50
not been told to that she would have suddenly thought one day,
40:53
gosh, I'll tell you what, I, this baby, I don't think needs
40:56
to see my face anymore. I mean, it's just that, you
40:58
know, wouldn't happen. So so the the psychological side
41:01
of all this is so significant. Would it be a fair assessment to
41:07
think of ABS an absolutist view as an unwavering stance on
41:13
something regardless of context? Regardless of anything, it's
41:17
just a completely radicalised position, while being principled
41:24
might be about holding a set of values or ethical beliefs and
41:30
being able to adapt it based on context or situation.
41:37
Yeah, I mean, I, I think that's a pretty good stab.
41:39
I think. I think you're exactly right
41:41
that that absolutism in the way that we're talking about it
41:45
gives you no room for manoeuvre. It's there's, there's no nuance.
41:48
It, it, it, I think the way we've talked about it, it, it
41:52
prevents you ironically, it prevents you from achieving
41:58
perhaps the best result. And in actual fact, you might
42:02
find that's you're even thwarting your own ideals by
42:06
being absolutist. Obviously it's absurdly
42:08
hypothetical, but but but yes, I mean, although I think you need
42:12
to go back to what Mike had said, which in fact was exactly
42:15
what I was about to bring into conversation.
42:16
This, this, all of this pertains so much to to AI and the and the
42:21
whole computer says no thing. You know, you're asking a non
42:25
sentient tool to to make a decision based on an absolute,
42:31
which is utterly ridiculous in, in, in every regard, not just
42:37
those that concern life and death.
42:40
And and that that is something we should absolutely be very,
42:44
very aware of. But of course, absolutely.
42:46
Yeah, it's grabbed in a lot, isn't it?
42:49
But but but you know, that should be one of the things that
42:53
that undoes people's willingness to jump into bed with this sort
42:56
of technology. Why?
42:57
Why would you do that? It doesn't.
43:00
It cannot possibly understand the sorts of things we're
43:03
talking about. And it does actually horseshoe
43:08
all the way back to the beginning because I mentioned
43:11
the the dichotomy of creation versus evolution.
43:14
And both of those, as you have pointed out, like are absolutist
43:17
views. I don't think they, I don't
43:19
think they in and of themselves are necessarily absolutist.
43:23
I think that the way that some stalkers.
43:28
Express to me sorry, but sorry. Absolutely, yeah.
43:31
Yes, that that's what I'm getting to certain certain
43:34
certain vested interests present them as absolutist.
43:39
I, I think that I think that there is, is much more nuance in
43:44
the, in the if, if the debate is a serious debate, I think
43:48
there's much more nuance in that.
43:50
And, you know, at the end of the day, no matter what Dawkins or
43:55
anybody else says, the question of where life came from in the
44:00
1st place has not been answered. The question of, and you know,
44:04
as, as, as Charles has said, you know, even those who believe in
44:09
The Big Bang, the next question is, well, what, where did The
44:12
Big Bang come from? What was before that and and so
44:15
on. And so these, these questions
44:17
are unanswerable and, and it seems like a really ridiculous
44:22
place to start in taking an absolute position on them.
44:27
We start by asking the questions and you know, and Dawkins is a
44:34
campaigner. He, he, he has a fundamental
44:38
absolute non belief in, in a creator and, and he is a
44:42
campaigner on that basis and, and should be recognised as
44:45
such. And so it when we're, when we're
44:48
making a decision on who to trust, we need to absolutely
44:51
make that decision, recognising that fact.
44:54
And the same goes for people that are, are coming from the
44:58
creationist side as well. They're often, if not always
45:02
campaigners in their own way, because they have in that case,
45:06
they have a fundamental faith. And that's not a criticism of
45:10
faith, but you know, when we're making our decisions about what
45:15
is, what we should believe in, who to trust, that we've got to,
45:19
we've got to take these things into account.
45:22
I think. Bogosian yes, No, I was going to
45:26
say Peter Bogosian, who was on my show a few weeks ago.
45:28
You know, he in his book, he says you can simply just ask the
45:32
question, well, how do you know which, which is exactly what
45:37
you're saying, Mike. And what that does is that it
45:39
potentially dismantles an absolutist position.
45:46
So in other words, vaccines work well.
45:49
How do you know? We all come from The Big Bang.
45:52
How do you know? Well, God created us.
45:54
How do you know? Etcetera.
45:57
Exactly, And that and that goes back to the point that Mike, I
46:00
think was making that, you know, where we got into the well, you
46:03
know, if the Earth's flat, then I then, then there's no way I'll
46:07
take a jab. And I think on whichever side of
46:11
this side, whichever, where, wherever on the spectrum you
46:15
find yourself in terms of society and and what people
46:19
believe, for the vast majority of people, it is a it's a bingo
46:24
card. So you've got you've either got
46:27
yeah, I've got an electric vehicle.
46:30
Therefore, I believe that a man can be a woman and I believe
46:33
that the climate is being changed by man and this.
46:36
I mean, you know, it's, it's OK parody, but but I mean, and it's
46:40
the same on the other side. It is the sort of right, well,
46:43
I've got, I've got no jabs. I've got the government's lying
46:49
to us. I've got The Big Bang is a hoax.
46:54
I've got Flat Earth, you know, all the rest of it.
46:56
And I think I think there is a great deal on on, as I say,
47:00
across the spectrum of people just falling in with the
47:05
supposed beliefs of the people that they think that they are
47:11
part of a group with. But I don't think that's quite
47:15
how things really are or or indeed how they should be.
47:19
If you're not making each of those judgments for yourself,
47:23
then I think you are in trouble. And I think you're also further
47:25
in trouble if you if you do believe that the people that are
47:30
holding similar views do actually regard you as being
47:34
part of their group and that that group means something and
47:36
is going to do something. Because I think ultimately it's
47:39
probably not. But you just mentioned
47:42
transgenderism. If somebody asks me can a man
47:45
become a woman? And my answer is no, that is
47:49
that an absolutist position. Depends on your definition of
47:53
man and woman. If you, if, if you have, if you
47:56
have taken it to the extreme and you've decided that you're a
47:59
woman and you've had bits cut off and, and, and you know, your
48:04
body reformed in particular ways, you know, what does that
48:10
make you? I mean, I, I would, I would just
48:13
for the avoidance of diet, I would suggest that it doesn't
48:16
make you a woman, But you know, it depends on what your
48:20
definition of a woman is. What is a woman?
48:25
Well, exactly, Yeah. I mean, I thought for a second
48:28
your question might have been about evolution.
48:30
Again, no. No, no.
48:32
I was no, I know I'm joking, but no.
48:36
Well, this is it. So it is.
48:38
It is very much to do with sort of defining terms.
48:41
But it was completely ridiculous, isn't it?
48:44
The idea that that anyone can be anything else, or anyone else, I
48:51
mean. Sorry, I was going to say I
48:54
don't think it's absolutism. I think that there is just
48:58
science. Yeah, but you say that, but, but
49:00
you speak to someone who is a pro trans campaigner and they'll
49:05
say that that's not true. So, so where is where is the
49:09
truth in it? I mean, I, I, I personally may
49:14
agree with you over the position of the other person, but where,
49:18
where is the truth? Is it possible to find, is it
49:21
possible to identify an absolute truth?
49:24
Anything. In in that instance.
49:29
Well, only if the other person agrees that that's what defines
49:31
being a woman. So the so the problem is just
49:35
choosing, choosing the ground and then and then finding that
49:38
the other person wants to meet you on it.
49:39
Which by knowledge they don't. Which is how we're getting all
49:42
these Pickles in the 1st. Place.
49:43
Well, exactly. This is the problem, yeah.
49:48
An absolute mess, one might say. But it does.
49:51
It does then keep forcing 1 to ask questions, to hold up a
50:01
mirror and to analyse what one thinks.
50:04
Well, I mean this, this brings us right back to the very
50:06
beginning of this conversation, because this, I have to say, is
50:11
the the hill that I will absolutely die on.
50:13
And that is that we must my opinion, we must be challenging
50:17
our own positions at every, every opportunity.
50:25
And, you know, if, if somebody says something to me that I,
50:28
that I vehemently disagree with, I, I want to try to understand
50:33
why I vehemently disagree with it.
50:36
And I want to actually, because in the process of trying to
50:40
understand why I vehemently disagree with it, I've got to
50:43
actually challenge my own position.
50:46
And you know, that will either demolish the position that I
50:50
hold or it will strengthen the position that I hold.
50:53
But the danger is this whole thing of, of confirmation bias.
50:58
We've got to be absolutely conscious of that and, and be
51:02
aware that we could be guilty of it.
51:04
I think we all are to a certain degree.
51:07
And and so we've got to be, you know, we've got to be honest
51:10
with ourselves. It's not just a matter of trust,
51:12
because we can blindly trust ourselves just like we can
51:15
blindly trust anybody else. We've got to be honest with
51:18
ourselves about the positions that we hold and whether,
51:21
whether the the evidence and inverted commas that that
51:25
brought us to that position actually stands up.
51:28
And if it does, then we can we can produce better arguments
51:30
against the people that are that are coming at us from a
51:34
different perspective. And yes, sorry, no, sorry.
51:38
Please go on. I thought you were done.
51:40
No, more or less. It was.
51:41
Yeah, I mean, yeah, more or less.
51:43
So go ahead. Now, I was going to say this has
51:45
been absolutely, absolutely my favourite Vantas session to
51:49
date. And I'll tell you why, because I
51:51
haven't. I have certainly begun to
51:56
rethink my views on absolutism, and so I have you gentlemen to
52:00
thank for that. I'm holding up a mirror.
52:05
As a result, we can all go ahead and I, I'm.
52:08
Challenging my own views. I'm challenging my own views so
52:10
that that is, for me, a success. That is good.
52:14
I, I mean, I do, I, I must say, just go back to the beginning
52:16
again. I mean, in every sense, the,
52:19
the, the creation evolution sort of saga, it's fascinating.
52:24
It fascinates me in that I am amazed that people, and I don't
52:29
mean this is not right criticism, but it is amazing
52:31
that people will believe that God's gift of creation, which
52:37
has been mined by, I mean, we don't even know the half of it.
52:40
We're we're still unaware of who knows how many species in in the
52:46
air or on land and and in the sea, but that you can believe in
52:50
the wonder of that, but you can completely shut down the
52:54
possibility that any of those things can change over time.
52:58
I find that quite an interesting contradiction.
53:00
But but people are absolutely defined by contradiction.
53:03
I was thinking about your chat with Derek Bros a few days ago
53:07
and he he was really interesting.
53:09
He was talking about his brother in law and his views on Donald
53:11
Trump. And I thought that Donald Trump
53:13
is sorry to bring him into this, but but it's such a funny one
53:16
because if you've got the I got that I got jabbed, but I hate
53:24
Trump. Trump's bad.
53:25
And you say to them, yeah, but surely you have Trump to thank
53:28
for the fact that you got jabbed because of Operation Warp Speed
53:32
and they're confounded. But then you've got the I love
53:35
Trump. I didn't get jabbed.
53:37
And then you have to point out the same that well, but Trump
53:41
did Operation Warp Speed. He tried to get you jabbed.
53:45
So it, it is, it's a permanent, there is a permanent requirement
53:51
to, to update your thinking and your view of a particular
53:56
instance. And I think you going back to
53:58
what you were talking about, you know, Mike Yeadon's point, I
54:00
think you just have to take everything on its own merits.
54:04
And, and I think that that in a way feeds back into the the
54:07
absolutism side of it, that this is the whole problem with
54:10
absolutism is that it doesn't give you that degree of ability
54:15
to to move should should you be required to do so?
54:21
That's a great ending note. Thank you guys.
54:26
This was a great session. I'll catch up with you next
54:28
week. Thanks.