21 Burst results for "David Berlinski"

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

05:47 min | 2 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Back talking to Larry Taunton. Very best to take your life and you put me to hey there folks, Eric metaxas here. As you know, our friend and he's a real friend, Mike lindell has a passion to help everyone get the best sleep of their life, but he didn't stop by simply creating the best pillow now Mike has done it again by introducing his my slippers, my slippers, they're unbelievable. I know all about them, but I got to tell you for a limited time you will save $90 on each pair of my slippers. They're expensive. You can save $90. This blowout sale of the year won't last order. Now he's taken over two years to develop them. The mice slippers are designed to wear indoors and out all day long made with my pillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue made with quality leather swayed call one 809 7 8 three O 5 7 use the promo code Eric. Or go to my pillow dot com, click on the radio listeners square and use promo code Eric, the offer will not last long, so order now with promo code Eric at my pillow dot com or call 809 7 8 three O 5 7 809 7 8 three O 5 7. When you were young and your heart was an open book you used to hey there folks talking to Larry, taunt and this is the Eric metaxas show. I'm playing the role of Eric metaxas. Larry. You were just going to say something before we went to the break. Please go ahead. Yeah, well, you know, to your point about the absence of real absolutes, the absence of values, the absence of God. You know, I'll loosely quote our mutual friend, David berlinski, who said that what Mao did not believe what Stalin did not believe, what Hitler did not believe. What Tito did not believe was that there was a God to judge them in the next life for their actions in this one. There are very practical outcomes for how you answer the question, does God exist or does he not exist? And if I believe that you are a being an object of special creation that is made in his image and that there are absolute values and that he does stand to judge me for my actions in this life, that's going to oblige me to act in a very different way. And I think it's not just true of the individual. In other words, it's part of the culture. We used to live in a culture where those ideas were generally believed and accepted so that even if you yourself weren't sure what you believed, you had the kind of outriggers on the canoe, the culture itself really kind of promoted the idea of marriage and the idea of sacrifice and the idea of nobility and dignity and honor. These were ideas that were in the drinking water, so to speak. And they have leached out of the drinking water. And so that we really live in a culture where someone like this young man who murdered so many children, I don't know what world they live in. I don't know who the people are who were around this young man. It sounds like he had no father. His mother was pretty messed up. We used to be able to talk about that. We used to have conversations where we would say, well, listen, a healthy family life and a mother and a father who love each other or who respect each other. You know, these are the things that help us all to function when we have communities that encourage those kinds of values. But when you cease to be able to talk about those things, you get what we have now. And I think that the issue is people don't want to talk about that. You said it earlier. And if you don't want to talk about those things, if those things are anathema, you have to come up with a simple band aid solution. It's always something it's technology. Kids are messed up because we need a laptop. Every kid needs a free laptop or every kid needs access to the Internet or we need to get rid of all guns. There's some simple solution because you can't really deal with the root of it. The root of it is too big and people say, I don't want to go there. Let's just make more gun laws. But you know, Larry, it's kind of funny thing if they make more gun laws, this problem won't go away. That's the tremendous irony here. Even if they got their way with these gun laws, this would change anything. Listen, to pull up beto o'rourke. You know, and to confront governor Abbott in Texas at a press conference or a town hall meeting or whatever it was. That makes for great theater. And I'm sure that it will Garner him some votes because he looks very engaged, very passionate, very compassionate. But at the end of the day, it really does nothing to address the real issues. It's just simply, it's just simply political theater. Well, you know, again, I think most people know that there's something sick in the culture. And yet you and I can talk about it. And we can say, we know what's wrong. We don't talk about God. We don't talk about right and wrong. You can't really function as a culture, unless you're willing to deal with that. You and I also know that we wouldn't have the United States of America if it hadn't been for these moral categories. The idea of self government, virtue, all of that eventually you run out of it. If you don't continue teaching young people about these ideas, then you're on fumes. And that's really where we are right now. And the chattering classes who talk about this on TV wherever they talk about it, they really they just don't have the ability to talk in these categories anymore. They're just not going to go.

Eric metaxas Larry Taunton Mike lindell David berlinski Larry Tito Mao Stalin Eric Mike Hitler governor Abbott rourke Garner Texas United States of America
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

05:01 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"So, okay, so when a couple of minutes, we have a man who walked on the moon for real on this program, no kidding, okay? Now, you know, what that makes me think of. Yeah. They can put a man on the moon. But they can invent a pillow that's comfortable for most users. And then I realized, wait a minute, wait a minute. They did put a man on the moon and they also invented a pillow, in fact, my friend Mike lindell invented a pillow. And if you go to my pillow dot com and use the code Eric, you get a whopping discount and he also invented towels. Oh yeah, they're the best. He invented all this stuff. My pillow dot com. Now, by the way, that's the technology we live in, that we were able to put a man on the moon and only about 40 years later, Mike lindell was able to invent this next level state of the art pillow and all this other stuff. And if you don't go to my pillow dot com or my store dot com and use the code Eric, you are anti science. That's right. You're an enemy of science. And that pillow is our version of Tang. Exactly. That's exactly correct. That's exactly right. I just hope Charlie duke doesn't say like, walking on the moon. Not all what's cracking up the deal. No big deal. Big deal. Okay, so in a couple of minutes to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Charlie duke walking on the moon. And now he's a man of profound Christian faith. I should say that. Profound Christian faith, they got to meet his son, and that's how I was connected to him. So we're talking to him in a minute. In our two, we're going to do our regularly scheduled ask metaxas, where you all write in and ask questions and I try to answer them. And then if we can keep Charlie duke around because, you know, it's only the 50th anniversary. I'm sure he has nothing else to do. We'll keep talking to Charlie duke. Otherwise, we'll figure out what we're going to do. By the way, last week, I actually don't know who we are this week. David berlinski. Oh, yeah. I think folks. David berlinski, if you have not seen my video, sign up for our newsletters, which is Eric metaxas dot com. David berlinski, he's a mathematician, a philosopher, a raccoon. He's one of the most entertaining if John Zach didn't exist. I wouldn't even have to think hard about this one. Who's the most entertaining person to talk to? David berlinski. Monday's show. I just checked, right? And if that's not enough, I spoke to Oz Guinness. That's right. Both of them Monday. Oh my goodness. So we've just had crazy, wonderful guests. And because I'm in the middle of a book deadline, we are re airing some interviews that I've done. We're going to re air or did we re air the Rudy Giuliani interview? Yeah, we did. We did that on Tuesday. Oh my gosh. But Dave Rubin, new interview coming up on Friday tomorrow. So I think I want to tell people as well. There's a movie coming out. Now, if you're not aware of this, I will keep talking about this. This is a big deal. Salem now dot com. If you go to Salem now dot com, there's a raft of films which I believe you'll want to watch. One of them is called whose children are they, and we're going to be doing an interview with the people who made that film that may be today actually that I do the interview with them. But the other film at Salem now dot com is called 2000 mules. Yes, yes. Now folks, mules are people who do illegal activity. They get paid. The film 2000 mules, if you refuse to watch it, it's like the people who refuse to look through Galileo's telescope. You don't want to know the truth. The truth is incontrovertible. It is astonishing, and if you would dare to argue with it, I would say you better watch the film before you open your mouth to argue with it because you simply won't believe it. It is an astonishing accomplishment, it is available at Salem now dot com soon. The premiere is going to be in a couple of weeks. Yeah, yeah, it's coming up. But I want to tell people, it's simply it's too much to bear because dinesh d'souza genius that he is, he brings the evidence, it's clear, and your life will never be the same once you've seen it. Once you know, because some of you listening to this program, you don't know. I tell you, you're going to know, and the world is going to change because we're going to have to deal with this information. So it's 2000 mules. You can see it at Salem now dot com. Don't forget whose children are they, which is a good question at Salem now, dot com. Can you tell I have a cold? I sound stuff. Do you have a bit of a cold? Yeah. All right, well, listen, folks. When we come back, we're celebrating the 50th anniversary of Charlie duke walking on the moon..

Charlie duke David berlinski Mike lindell metaxas Eric Salem Eric metaxas John Zach Oz Guinness Dave Rubin Rudy Giuliani Galileo dinesh souza
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

04:54 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Agnosticism. Forgive me, we're going to yet another break. Folks, I'm talking to David berlinsky. His collection of essays is called human nature, you can read his other books I recommend them highly will be right back. Volkswagen back a few minutes left with David berlinsky, his book the devil's delusion is one of which I'm particularly fond at Socrates in the city a few years ago. He spoke about it. So you can go there to Socrates in the city dot com and listen to his lecture. David, we were just talking about the idea of agnosticism versus atheism. And you're quite right. I agree with you that people who claim who are Ardent in claiming their Ardent atheism really can't be an aren't actually atheist. And so I've never heard it put that way, but you said it's really a watered down agnosticism. So why do you suppose you when you describe yourself as an agnostic? Let me just say, what do you mean by that? I think the two ways to look at it might be useful to invoke a distinction of scope, you can say very affirmatively, very aggressively, I believe. I believe that God does not exist. Very few people are willing to say that. Very few people are going to say that's one of my beliefs. That's internal to me. On the other hand, you can say, I don't believe that God exists, which is quite a different proposition. It means that the proposition affirming God's existence is simply not among my beliefs. It could be because I haven't paid any attention to it. And for many people, that's absolutely true. I've just never considered them out of it. I think that distinction is crucial to the discussion of contemporary atheism because what most atheists really mean to say is, I don't know. I've never really I've never really seriously committed myself to the inquiry. It's just not one of my beliefs. By the way, I think that's exactly the position Christopher Hitchens adopted. At least it was when I talked to him. He was not willing to be avowedly an atheist. He simply said, I can't bring it in. I can't accommodate that belief. It's not one of my beliefs and I'm perfectly prepared to live my life without that. Which is fine. Which is fine. But it just, you can imagine exactly the same kind of declaration with respect to some interesting propositions of mathematics. I don't know. Not one of my beliefs, fundamental years of the calculus. It's a weak form of agnosticism because it speaks to a certain floppiness of inquiry, which will be obviously. But we fly into lex, find it very difficult to go beyond. Very difficult. And that's something I think is not widely appreciated. It is very easy to be an agnostic. I mean, you know, lose anything. It's very difficult. It's very difficult as the Hindus say to pass over the razor's edge to faith. It's very difficult. There are a lot of I remember Dick Cavett at the Socrates in the city event where you spoke. He asked you in the private dinner afterward that did you ever worry about falling on either side of the razor's edge of agnosticism. We've just got a 30 or so seconds left, but maybe you can respond to that. Sure, everybody worries about falling on one side or the other. If you fall on the wrong side, you face the awful possibility of judgment. If you fall on the right side, you face the awful possibility of being forever deprived of divine comfort. Neither is particularly attractive. Well.

David berlinsky Volkswagen Christopher Hitchens David Dick Cavett
Agnosticism v. Atheism With David Berlinski

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:44 min | 4 months ago

Agnosticism v. Atheism With David Berlinski

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

03:14 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Certainly in Germany. Yeah. I mean, it is fascinating and we could go in so many different directions. But your book is called human nature, collection of essays, we just have a few minutes left really. What do you touch on in the book that we haven't gotten near yet? Well, I think language is a very interesting case. And when we talk about human beings, I think it is almost obligatory to say human beings have one property. The species specific property that's not shared anywhere in the animal kingdom of needless to say the plant kingdom. They're able to express their thoughts. They're able to express their thoughts. How this property came to characterize human beings, how it emerged over evolutionary time. What its secret nature really is, the extent to which it's founded the extent to which it can vary. These are all tremendously suggestive and important questions. And I think as the result of linguistic inquiry over the last 50 years, principally the Chomsky and revolution, we now see that language is a much more tightly constrained system that we ever imagined. Languages can't vary all over the place. In fact, it could be argued and Chomsky has argued that there's only one language, the human language, and every particular language, just a variation. Small variation. I think that's a deeply suggestive thesis and one of the profound results in the social sciences. The doctrine that human language is species specific. It is a necessary feature of human identity. It is in many respects a complete mystery, and there's only one of them. It's, I mean, you put yourself forth as an agnostic, but you realize, of course, that all of these ideas that were talking about somehow lead us back to the God of the Jews, to the Bible, the idea that there is such a thing as human nature that were made in God's image that language is central to who God is to who we are. I mean, it's at least fascinating to think about that. And I think that people who tend to be uncomfortable with some of these things usually tend to be cavalier atheists, I guess. At least that's my experience. Well, I have to be candid in one respect. I'd never really met honest to goodness atheist. And I've talked to a lot of people who are affirmed their atheism, grandly. Often in print, but always inevitably a conversation, but they really don't mean what they're saying. Atheism comes to it in practice. It's a kind of lord of down form of agnosticism. I say watered down, but it's of course exactly the kind of agnosticism to which I commit my allegiance as a secular Jew. And undiluted.

Germany Chomsky
'Human Nature' Author David Berlinski on the Power of Language

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:35 min | 4 months ago

'Human Nature' Author David Berlinski on the Power of Language

"Book is called human nature, collection of essays, we just have a few minutes left really. What do you touch on in the book that we haven't gotten near yet? Well, I think language is a very interesting case. And when we talk about human beings, I think it is almost obligatory to say human beings have one property. The species specific property that's not shared anywhere in the animal kingdom of needless to say the plant kingdom. They're able to express their thoughts. They're able to express their thoughts. How this property came to characterize human beings, how it emerged over evolutionary time. What its secret nature really is, the extent to which it's founded the extent to which it can vary. These are all tremendously suggestive and important questions. And I think as the result of linguistic inquiry over the last 50 years, principally the Chomsky and revolution, we now see that language is a much more tightly constrained system that we ever imagined. Languages can't vary all over the place. In fact, it could be argued and Chomsky has argued that there's only one language, the human language, and every particular language, just a variation. Small variation. I think that's a deeply suggestive thesis and one of the profound results in the social sciences. The doctrine that human language is species specific. It is a necessary feature of human identity. It is in many respects a complete mystery, and there's only one of them.

Chomsky
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

03:47 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Welcome back, I'm talking to David berlinski author of human nature and many other books. David, I was just trying to get at this idea that's in my head that the war against representational art. The idea that the avant garde had a hundred and more years ago that we're now going to do the next thing. And the next thing is to invent our own reality just to do representational art. It's somehow kitschy, that's for the bourgeoisie. We want to be more exciting and more inventive. I think at its core, it was a war against God against God's reality. There was something there. All of this strikes me in a way as a satanic project, that there is something about everything that is offensive to me. And I just want to go to war with reality. And we just see it taking on these different forms in a way. It's an idea of mine. Yeah, well, maybe satanic project. Well, I'm not sure. I mean, the history of 20th century art is very complicated. And at a certain point, don't forget when the impressionists came on the scene at the end of the 19th century. They were regarded with a great deal of hostility. Sure. A great deal of us don't see today, we regard impressionism, one of the loveliest manifestations of the western tradition. I'd love to have a wall full of emotions. Right. Slightly out of that price range right now. To a certain extent, what's happened in both art and music is that really ambitious artists under the impulse of this desire to be new. To be revolutionary, made the objects of their affection inordinately complex with respect to what had come before. You see that even more clearly in music, 20th century music. Nobody in his right mind wants to go to a concert and hear a lot of stuff written with the 12 tone row serial music. It's very complicated. It's very ingenious, and sometimes it can even be beautiful. But it's just way too complex for the musical experience for the most part. And as a result, both in art, graphic arts and music and to a certain extent in the literature. Under that revolutionary impulse to constantly be providing something new, the art forms themselves seem to have collapsed. Classical music to my way of thinking no longer exists. It's a museum. Museum enterprise. The great the great tradition of western art with representational art from saint Giotto to 1930s and 1940s. That's also collapsed. It doesn't mean they're not very good artists. Freud was a fine artist, Francis Bacon, is a wonderful artist. But these are isolated cases now. The impulse, the artistic impulse is scattered. It's fragmented. And I think it's overwhelmingly true in music. Classical music that incredible tradition say from palestrina to stravinsky, if you even beyond stravinsky, that's no longer a vital living force. Right. You don't hear classical music in the same way that my parents heard classical music. Poetry, obviously, poetry. Poetry. This is the first time since I would say 1400 that we lack a major poet and English. Somebody, everyone would recognize. Perhaps ordin WH Jordan was the last major port to play that role. But I can think of anyone a touchstone like auden automatically repair to his verse to illuminate a particular situation. There's no one. And I think that's true in France as well. And in Germany,.

David berlinski saint Giotto David stravinsky palestrina Francis Bacon Freud ordin WH Jordan auden France Germany
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

04:17 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Now, the interesting part of all well in 1984 is that he chose the proposition that two plus two equals four. And he insisted on placing that in doubt. And when you talk to anyone and you say, well, could two plus two equals 5. There's an automatic rejection. Automatic rejection. And if you, if you pressure them, why can't two plus two B 5? They're always crackpots on Twitter who say that it can define blood neglect them. Because they are crackpots. The answer that comes about is that two plus two equals four is necessary. It's a necessary feature of the world. It's not a necessary feature of our thinking. It's a necessary feature of the world because it can be demonstrated from first principles. It could be demonstrated very, very rigorously. The minute that idea comes into the discussion, some things unnecessary, they are. Absolutely implacable and therefore there's no place where they're false. Then the discussion shifts, if two plus two equals four is necessary. Other features of human existence similarly necessary. I believe that certainly there are. That is one of the meanings of human nature, the necessary features of human human beings. The things they can not change should not wish to change must accept. And need confront. Those are the necessary features of human beings. For example, you can talk about a quantum particle being in two places at once quantum entanglement, quantum position, these ideas break down the subatomic level. But a human being can not be in two places at once, and I would argue that's a necessary feature of human life. I'm here in Florida right now. I can't be in Paris. It's just not possible. It's not that it's difficult. It's not possible. Aging goes in one direction. Not in the other direction. It's not that it's difficult. It's impossible. I can not change your species. You can not become a turtle. Look, you can very well imagine rewriting the genetic code. You're sitting here, Erica, you're sitting at your desk. We put your body in a machine and begins unscrambling the genetic code in your body all the way back to the last common ancestor of you and the turtle. Then it goes forward to a turtle. Well, anything of you left there? If your answer is no then the obvious conclusion is that some necessary feature resists that kind of transformation. There's no question about it. I mentioned wanting to connect this to the idea that anything can become anything over time. The idea which strikes me as ideological wishing on the part of scientists and but I think there's a connection also to the idea and we're going to go to another break here. But to the idea that people in some ways being at war with the idea of representational art, the path that art took into the 20th century, it's touching some similar ideas to what we're talking about here. We'll be right back folks. I'm talking to David berlinsky, you can read his book human nature, you can read any of his books and I recommend that you do. Hey folks, if you listen to this program, of course, you've heard me talk at infinitum about my pillow and my friend Mike lindell. Well, Mike is just announced that you will receive one of his books and the book is next level insane. It is called what are the odds from crack addict to CEO. It's his story. You will receive it absolutely free with any purchase using the promo code.

Twitter Erica Paris Florida David berlinsky Mike lindell Mike
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

03:14 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Dot com. Somewhere. Thought I'm talking to David berlinski, the new book is human nature. David, you were just reminding us of this scene, my friend John zirak has brought up this very scene many times on this radio program. This fascinating moment when the party, these totalitarian monsters in the novel 1984 by George Orwell, they're trying to force a Winston Smith to say that if the party says two plus two equals 5, you must agree with it. It's an extraordinary thing. Trying to force them to say that, saying it is easy. Ah. They're forcing him to believe it. And that's not easy at all. They succeed. They succeed. And that's a weak part of the novel because they succeed by physical violence, which never really never really works. But that is the idea. The essential idea is that reality is malleable, infinitely malleable, and power accrues to whatever individual or group is capable of enforcing their vision of reality on everyone else. And in this as in so many other things, practice makes perfect. You begin the assumption of power by relatively trivial things like gender studies. And then you move on from there, but it's a totalitarian impulse. The impulse is the desire. To force people to suspend their disbelief at will. To force them to suspend their disbelief at will. Not by violence, but by endless intimidation and harassment. Those are a very effective techniques. And once one group, for however long, it's never very long. Caesar's control of reality, then the entire apparatus of power and control devolves into their hands. And that's what I think is taking place now the attack is an attack on the principle of reality as something independent inexorable inflexible and irreparable. But you'd have to ask why we would side with reality, in other words, in a funny way. I mean, I know what you're saying is exactly correct, but I would say that I side with reality because God created reality and I mean, because, you know, the Hindus say that everything's illusion, I don't believe that. I believe there is this thing called reality. If there were not such a thing called reality that's actually reality, I would say, well, what does it matter whether people want to be what people do say? That is exactly what people to say, what does it matter? Who controls a sense of reality, provided that what we're doing is satisfying any number of vagrant desires, the desire, for example, of a man to be a woman or woman to be a man..

David berlinski John zirak Winston Smith George Orwell David Caesar
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

02:57 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Extremely, I think that's what makes it on some level funny because you think where did you get the idea that we have to bend to your wishes? I mean, I want to, because you've written extensively on darwinism and whether natural selection can turn mouses into elephants and things, I see a relation. In other words, the idea of accepting that there are these forms that God or nature has created certain things, there seems to be kind of a will to power the idea that anything can become anything over time. And if you say no to that, you offend me. Oh, that's for sure, will to power and urge the power of desire for power. In fact, if you step back from the tribal debates about gender, I myself would very much like to see the new revised reform Bruce Jenner put back on the box of wheaties. I think that would be an improvement all around, sea sales, skyrocket. But that's neither here nor there. Bruce Turner is not the issue. The issue is, a will to power with respect to what? And one answer is that these are the manifest images of something much deeper down the latent images. It's a built of power against reality. This is what is intolerable. The idea that whatever we may say about the external world, whether we're talking about gravitation or quantum mechanics or chemistry or biology, I think that in some deep sense, we all recognize that platitude that reality does exist and sooner or later it bangs us on the head sooner or later to everyone. And the desire to escape from that, the failure to make your peace with reality. Is I think the latent content of these very frivolous and superficial discussions about gender. Nobody really cares what Bruce Jenner wears or how he, how he displays himself, but the attack on reality, that's something else. And that goes straight back to the totalitarian dogmas of the 20th century. You may recall in all wells 1984 the very powerful scenes. Almost 1980 fours of flawed novel, many respects, but ideologically, it's a very sophisticated discussion. And the inquisitor, the novel, has a hapless prisoner, and his task is to persuade him that if the party says two plus two equals 5, two plus two does equal 5..

Bruce Jenner Bruce Turner
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

04:23 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"That, it's one step to ask the obvious reduct deal at absurdum questions. Can we change our hands? Age is chronological age and just the same way. For example, at my age, I would very much like to be 20 again, is that ontologically possible. I'm not talking about reduction in the appearance or improvement in appearance. I'm talking about could one be that very thing. Or to put the matter another way of a man or a woman were to conceive the desire to be a spoon, a kitchen utensil. Is that a possibility? I mean, you can certainly imagine given the society we're living in, a group of people who ardently wish to become spoons and become serviceable utensils and a restaurant. Is that possible? Well, if it's not possible, I'm not asking whether it's likely if it's not possible, why make a preferential distinction when it comes to changing sex? If it's not possible for a human being, say to become a turtle, is it impossible for reasons that are more significant, more serious than the ones we might offer and defending the impossibility of changing the binary distinction that we've all that we can trace back to time immemorial? Are there other more powerful arguments at work? And I think there's an error for quality about that. We all know that we can become spoons, nor can we change our chronological age, nor can we become turtles. And the world is what we make a distinction saying, ah, but those things we can't do. But we can change sex. And that's what I mean by human nature. Why is that particular distinction? Lifted from the stream of history and declared to be mutable and not irreparable. Well, let me ask you because what's fascinating to me is that you could take a sample of blood from someone and know in a moment what kind of chromosomes do they have? Is it a man or a woman? You don't need to look at them. You can know because this is something intrinsic to every single cell in their body. So obviously, Bruce Jenner didn't say that I would like to change the chromosomes in every of the innumerable cells in my body. So it really becomes a mental thing. It becomes, I guess it's the idea, human beings seem to think that with my mind, I can do whatever I like. And they kind of insist on it despite the physical reality. There's something, it really has less to do with cosmetics and surgery than it does with this idea that you don't have the right to tell me who I am. And maybe if there's a God, God doesn't have the right to tell me who I am. I somehow have the right to determine anything I like with regard to myself. I mean, it's preposterous, but it seems to me at the essence of it. It's very much a weak sputtering form of defiance, isn't it? Yes. In my desires, my needs, my ambitions for their satisfaction, no, no boundaries. I mean, nothing else in the animal world or the physical world for that matter is such that we can point to it and say, it knows no boundaries. That's not possible physics. I mean, everything is what it is in physics. The laws of physics determine what it can be, the transformations that can undertake. Same thing is true of chemistry. The same thing is true throughout the biological world. Why should the social arena in the early part of the 20th 21st century have witnessed this kind of let's admit it? Luridly fascinating, display of petulance. To the point where people who determined that they are, in fact, entitled to change their sex just as they could. Be entitled to change their chronological age, become extremely indignant. When limitations are suggested,.

Bruce Jenner
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

05:38 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Folks. I have the joy of speaking with David berlinski, the new book is human nature don't go away. Tell me, Eric, why is relief factor so successful at lowering or eliminating pain? I'm often asked that question, the owners of relief factor tell me they believe our bodies were designed to heal. That's right, designed to heal, and I agree with them. So the doctors who formulated relief factor for them selected the four best ingredients, yes, 100% drug free ingredients, each helps your body deal with inflammation. Each of the four ingredients deals with inflammation from a different metabolic pathway. And that right there approaching from four different angles may be why so many people find such wonderful relief. So if you've got back pain, shoulder neck hip knee or foot pain from exercise or just getting older, you should order the three week quick start discounted to only 1995 to see if it will work for you. It works for me. It has for about 70% of the half a million people who've tried it and have ordered more, go to relief factor dot com or call 800 for relief to find out about this offer, feel the difference. Hey folks, if you could make money off of abortion or pornography, would you do it? I hope the answer is no. But I want to tell you, Robert netze, the founder of inspire insight dot com, he was the president of his local pro life pregnancy center. When he discovered that he owned investments in three companies manufacturing abortion drugs, well, God helped him to see that he was making money from abortion pornography LGBT activism and the list goes on. And that's why he created inspire insight dot com, inspire insight dot com, gives you instant access to biblical values data on over 23,000 stocks mutual funds and ETFs. So you can invest to the glory of God. You need to go to inspire insight dot com today and screen your four-o-one-ks IRAs and other investment accounts. I did and I was shocked. Now I'm able to clean out the junk and invest in companies actually doing good things. Go to inspire insight dot com today and register for free. That's inspire insight dot com, go there. Folks, welcome back. I'm talking to David berlinski. Mathematician philosopher polymath author rack and tur. Parisian at this point, although with no discernible accent. David berlinski, you were just talking about in discussion of human nature. This issue, this idea, which of course is utterly preposterous that somehow what we've all known forever for many millennia that there are men and women that somehow, I don't know how, but through some sleight of hand, we can make that all go away, what do you suppose is behind this? Because it seems like a kind of madness, if somebody says, listen, I believe roosters can lay eggs, make a note of it going forward and you'd say, where did you get that idea from? And what do you propose to do about it? What do you suppose is behind it? Well, I think that in a highly individualistic society, such as we are progressively occupied. And in pretty much a secular society as well. The individual is desire of his aptitudes as velocities, his needs become overwhelmingly important. Not only for the scientific analysis of society as max Weber, for example, argue, but also in terms of any personal program of development and satisfaction. It is entirely it has been entirely reduced to a kind of cornucopia of needs, which because we're human beings are infinite in their nature. No matter how many times you satisfy a particular need, you find your astonishment. There is another need that replaces it. We are by nature never satisfied with what we have. A piece of folk wisdom, but it's nonetheless true. And we're reaching the point in an abundant society where the primitive needs have well been satisfied. Very few people that we talk to go without eating, for example, or lack shelter. There are such people, but by and large, the malthusian imperatives have been satisfied in the west, certainly in the United States and in Europe. There are remains in a secular society, the incessant demand for the creation of new needs, and of course the victims, those who can not satisfy their needs. No matter the restraints that say a hundred years ago, would have limited the expression of that desire. A hundred years ago of a man said, well, I intend to become a woman. He would have been regarded as a fool, rightly so. And vice versa, a woman who decides to become a man. Bear in mind, there have always been men who enjoy provocatively dressing as women and vice versa. That's not an issue. The issue is ontological. It has become ontological. Not whether we can propose to make amend look like a woman, but that we can undertake an exercise in which he becomes a woman. Now, from.

David berlinski Robert netze Eric max Weber Europe United States
David Berlinski and Eric Discuss Human Nature

The Eric Metaxas Show

02:02 min | 4 months ago

David Berlinski and Eric Discuss Human Nature

"David berlinski, you were just talking about in discussion of human nature. This issue, this idea, which of course is utterly preposterous that somehow what we've all known forever for many millennia that there are men and women that somehow, I don't know how, but through some sleight of hand, we can make that all go away, what do you suppose is behind this? Because it seems like a kind of madness, if somebody says, listen, I believe roosters can lay eggs, make a note of it going forward and you'd say, where did you get that idea from? And what do you propose to do about it? What do you suppose is behind it? Well, I think that in a highly individualistic society, such as we are progressively occupied. And in pretty much a secular society as well. The individual is desire of his aptitudes as velocities, his needs become overwhelmingly important. Not only for the scientific analysis of society as max Weber, for example, argue, but also in terms of any personal program of development and satisfaction. It is entirely it has been entirely reduced to a kind of cornucopia of needs, which because we're human beings are infinite in their nature. No matter how many times you satisfy a particular need, you find your astonishment. There is another need that replaces it. We are by nature never satisfied with what we have. A piece of folk wisdom, but it's nonetheless true. And we're reaching the point in an abundant society where the primitive needs have well been satisfied. Very few people that we talk to go without eating, for example, or lack shelter. There are such people, but by and large, the malthusian imperatives have been satisfied in the west,

David Berlinski Max Weber
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

04:30 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"They're raging. Part of what what's appealing to me about the idea of using this subject as for a collection of essays as a framing principle is that you're aware more than most, that there are people who are somehow at war with human nature. There's something about human nature that offends them, it seems to me that ultimately there beef is with God. In other words, I would say that there's something annoying to them about the idea that we are made in God's image and we have these. We want to be able to do anything. We don't like to be bounded in any way. We would like to be able to evolve into other species. And anybody who says maybe I can't gets on my nerves. There's a great deal of truth to that. I would begin by saying, we are all at wall with human nature and one way or another, whether we admit it with a forthright, whether our candidate. But there is something about human nature that is of course an ex Ripley tragic and limited, even the bluntest facts about human life and in disappointment often in despair and certainly in death. These effects with which we struggle were at war with them, we wish they were otherwise, but we have no power to imagine how better to make the situation than the situation we find ourselves. But quite beyond that, which is an immemorial meant. There is a sense of defiance in the rejection of human nature that I think you very perspicuous attribute to a withdrawal from religious commitment. After all, virtually all of the western religions coincide on one point of principle that the human being shallow ignorant, limited as he is, embodies an image of the deity. That is, when we consider a human being, we say with Shakespeare, what a work of art as men. What we mean in part is that work of art embodies some aspect of divinity, not all aspects of divinity, surely, because we are limited finite, and living on borrowed time. But some aspect of the divinity and to reject the idea of human nature as it's been classically framed in the western tradition, at least from the Greeks, but probably back to the sumerians. Is in a way to undertake a withdrawal from any kind of religious encounter. Even to the extent of denying the possibility of limitations as you yourself said. And what certainly living in a culture which is manifestly engaged and attacking any sense of limitations. Limitations in terms of length of life limitations in terms of the inexorability of death. But also limitations in the frivolous sense that it is widely supposed that human beings are capable in one way or another. Bending to their satisfaction, any constraints of personal identity or necessary features of the human condition. For example, gender. For example, just pulling it out of a hat, nobody's talking about that. It's the canary in the coal mine. I mean, look, we're among friends we can be honest. Nobody really takes the gender disputes all that seriously. It has repercussions, certainly. But everyone quite deep down and understands that proposing to eliminate the gender binary, which has been a property of human nature for 10,000 years. Is a fruitless task. It can't be done. It won't be done. It is a performative action. And it speaks to a much deeper level of antagonism than merely having some monstrous Harry 6 foot two guy clamber out of the swimming pool. That's the frivolous asset. On that on that horrible image, let us pause, we'll be right back,.

Ripley Shakespeare swimming
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

03:19 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"What you did? I think honestly, I spent a whole lot of time in the academic world. And I wound up teaching mathematics up and down Silicon Valley in various community colleges, various college San Jose state university, for example. But around 1992, I said, I'm going to live strictly with my pen, just as a writer. And so I would describe myself now exactly those terms. I'm a writer. I happen to have written a lot about mathematics. Right. That's true. Well, actually, in the bio that I have on you, it does claim that your mathematician. So I'm going to go with that. We're going to kick your dividends to the curb and we're going to say that man is a mathematician. He's a philosopher. He's a polymath. Senior fellow with the discovery institute. I am a gigantic fan of the discovery institute and grateful that they have you aboard there. I often hear about you through Stephen Meyer, whom I just saw very recently. And I think he's the one that said to me that David berlinski is coming from his home in Paris to America and maybe he'll be in the same time zone and you can have a conversation. So it's to Steve and the discovery institute that I owe this time. And here we are. And here we are. So let's talk about your most recent book. It's called human nature, it is not a book that I have read, but I wanted to interview you about it. And so what is it about? Well, human nature is a collection of the essays that I've written unified, I think by a single question, is there such a thing as human nature? And if so, what are its characteristics or its properties? And this is a question. I mean, it's such a big question. So I talk about it in any number of different ways and from any number of different perspectives. But that's essentially why the book is entitled human nature because that is the question in my sunset years that seems to have occupied me more than any other question. What is human nature? Is there such a thing? And as you are no doubt aware, the very idea of human nature is under tremendous attack right now. It seems somehow to be in any number of fields of anthropology, the political science. To gender studies, it seems to be a deeply suspicious notion. If you want to dismiss someone's work, say an anthropology, you will say he's in essentialist, meaning by that. He believes they're essential properties attached to the human to a human being. And those essential properties are a part of its human nature. So those are the issues. They're very, very problematic. They're very controversial. And I don't think that anyone and I'm including myself has reached anything like complete clarity about them. Well, but.

discovery institute David berlinski San Jose state university Stephen Meyer Silicon Valley Paris Steve America
"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

The Eric Metaxas Show

02:01 min | 4 months ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show

"Are a mathematician. I've written a lot about mathematics. Not many people can say that, David berlinski. So I want to help my audience who isn't familiar with you because I don't want to just read your biography. How do you describe yourself? I mean, you've written many extraordinary books, the most recent for me that I've read is the devil's delusion, a spectacular takedown of the so called new atheists. I borrowed from it for my new book is atheism dead, but you've written many books. How do you, how do you describe yourself if somebody were to ask you what you did? I think honestly, I spent a whole lot of time in the academic world. And I wound up teaching mathematics up and down Silicon Valley in various community colleges, various college San Jose state university, for example. But around 1992, I said, I'm going to live strictly with my pen, just as a writer. And so I would describe myself now exactly those terms. I'm a writer. I happen to have written a lot about mathematics. Right. That's true. Well, actually, in the bio that I have on you, it does claim that your mathematician. So I'm going to go with that. We're going to kick your dividends to the curb and we're going to say that man is a mathematician. He's a philosopher. He's a polymath. Senior fellow with the discovery institute. I am a gigantic fan of the discovery institute and grateful that they have you aboard there. I often hear about you through Stephen Meyer, whom I just saw very recently. And I think he's the one that said to me that David berlinski is coming from his home in Paris to America and maybe he'll be in the same time zone and you can have a conversation. So it's to Steve and the discovery institute that I owe this time.

discovery institute David berlinski San Jose state university Stephen Meyer Silicon Valley Paris Steve America
Who Is 'The Devil's Delusion' Author David Berlinski?

The Eric Metaxas Show

02:01 min | 4 months ago

Who Is 'The Devil's Delusion' Author David Berlinski?

"Are a mathematician. I've written a lot about mathematics. Not many people can say that, David berlinski. So I want to help my audience who isn't familiar with you because I don't want to just read your biography. How do you describe yourself? I mean, you've written many extraordinary books, the most recent for me that I've read is the devil's delusion, a spectacular takedown of the so called new atheists. I borrowed from it for my new book is atheism dead, but you've written many books. How do you, how do you describe yourself if somebody were to ask you what you did? I think honestly, I spent a whole lot of time in the academic world. And I wound up teaching mathematics up and down Silicon Valley in various community colleges, various college San Jose state university, for example. But around 1992, I said, I'm going to live strictly with my pen, just as a writer. And so I would describe myself now exactly those terms. I'm a writer. I happen to have written a lot about mathematics. Right. That's true. Well, actually, in the bio that I have on you, it does claim that your mathematician. So I'm going to go with that. We're going to kick your dividends to the curb and we're going to say that man is a mathematician. He's a philosopher. He's a polymath. Senior fellow with the discovery institute. I am a gigantic fan of the discovery institute and grateful that they have you aboard there. I often hear about you through Stephen Meyer, whom I just saw very recently. And I think he's the one that said to me that David berlinski is coming from his home in Paris to America and maybe he'll be in the same time zone and you can have a conversation. So it's to Steve and the discovery institute that I owe this time.

David Berlinski San Jose State University Silicon Valley Discovery Institute Stephen Meyer Paris America Steve
"david berlinski" Discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast

Cross Examined Official Podcast

11:28 min | 3 years ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast

"Frank Turk calendar. Go there talking to David Berlin Sqi in addition to his books. He's got some articles up on the Discovery Institute and Dr Berlin Ski. I see this article. You Co wrote with Brian Miller and Gunter Benchley response to Jerry. Coyne what is that about well. Jerry Coyne Jerry Coyne is Professor Becerra Emeritus He. He was an evolutionary biologist eroded. Interesting book about species and he published a critique of a video l. that appeared. Oh I think three or four months ago which certain claims were were made and he thought he would publish a very authoritative critique and talk about the Cambridge explosion explosion with an insider's keen point of view and Guenter Betcha who's a world-famous paleontologist. Brian Miller who's a first rate physicists. Nayereh and We all put together a response which was published. Interestingly enough unquote let which does not usually publish if these kinds of responses but it was published uncle was very authoritative and it was very detailed. It was certainly not a piece of the rhetorical abuse. It was just a dispassionate dispassionate analysis of the kind of claims that an evolutionary or former evolutionary biologists was wont to make about certain issues and and it was very satisfying to get that out because I think people reading it at least I hope people reading it would have the sense that The station is changing their different arguments. Now on the table and It's been a long time and people have been arguing in this way at least since eighteen eighteen fifty nine but There is a certain amount a certain appreciation within the mile logical community. No matter how indignantly they'll deny nine any association with me or the Discovery Institute that certain issues need to be resolved before anyone can claim that Biology is the science studies in all respects Rog alike theoretical physics. Nothing like ciaran physics. I think that was a good thing. Oh very very pleased and proud to be associated with the bachelor. Brian Miller and though that article can be seen Discovery Institute Website Ladies and gentlemen go to Discovery Dot Org and then search for Berlin Ski. And you'll find that article as well as many others and as we've said many times on this program before ladies and Gentlemen Science doesn't say anything scientists do do all data needs to be gathered all data needs to be interpreted. And you'll see when you read this article that when you look at the data you have to decide who's interpretation makes more more sense and I think if you're reasonable you'll see that Dr Berlin skis interpretation of the data along with Miller and Benchley makes a lot more sense than what Jerry Coyne is saying. Aim but you have to require where right there raw. That's right that's right. What what am I thinking Dr Berlin? Take it from its correct now. Some Internet atheists their really fond right now making this silly claim that atheism awesome is just a lack of belief in God. But you point out that atheism makes many assertions about reality in fact you say that atheism is an ideology can can you want pack that force. Atheism is an ideology. I think you have a vulgar way of of capturing that Something more sophisticated. Atheism is an ideology too way of presenting yourself and it offers a kind of snap snapshot appraisal of your character. If you say I am an atheist usually it's between the ages of ten and twenty seven it means you're defiant rebellious the unwilling to truckload authority completely convinced of your own assured place in the universe in unwilling like so many soldiers in the trenches to encounter religious experience. Only as a matter of thought unpleasant contingency but that disappears very quickly in. It's it's it's very vulgar. This naipaul grade English writer had a somewhat different perspective on exactly that question he said well I find the idea of participating hitting religious life completely unacceptable alien in fact and nobody asked him why is that I was always tempted but of course oh I didn't know I don't know if I would have had the nerve to pose the question in just those terms but it is an interesting question will stay often sensitive intelligent. Well read people find that any participation in the in a religious life or any any attempt to capture a religious experience is profoundly troubling to their self image. Because I think that's what's really at issue to be a religious man or woman in the twenty first century or even the late twentieth only a century within the Western world is to disassociate yourself from prevailing ways of self presentation and that comes at a price price. It's quite different than the Muslim community. Barron yes it is not a universal universal part of experience and that is one reason that the Muslim community appears so overwhelmingly threatening to Western liberals. Because here are hero billion people who take to take their religious. Tom Devotions very seriously and nobody knows quite how to deal with it. It's a it's a an aspect of contemporary life. It's fraught might as we'll just say it is fraud. Last time I was in Paris I woke ventured into a neighborhood and I've only been there once unfortunately but it it seemed like I was in Saudi Arabia. Where were you? I don't know I was lost. So yes and you live there. How did they know you learn Paris and is it is are there two different Paris's if few will no not really I mean there's there's some some in Paris says you know is divided into appointees months this handy sponsor that You know if you're smart you won't walk around two three o'clock in the morning But they're not dangerous in the way that say a New York Neighborhood Abraham could be dangerous or Los Angeles or San Francisco neighborhood could be dangerous. They just Solomon CD. There's quite a bit of vagrancy quite a bit of homelessness people sleeping on on the street and if you are a woman dressed inappropriately you can expect a certain amount of harassment is no question about that but I would say only two or three hundred small some parasol like that. Certainly nothing like that. Mind which was off quite different so it depends where you go i. I just saw today that the French police not to go too much tangent though have cleaned out a number of the shantytowns underneath need oh they do okay call in the newspapers that call on the photographers they clean it up in the weak light of. They're all back. Let me ask one more thing where we only got about four minutes to go. But I've found a wonderful essay in your new book. The Human Nature About Peter Appleyard the eleventh century philosopher and low jition. He got involved in an illicit relationship. which you describe? And he was made to choose between his head and his heart. Basically can you share with our audience the conflict that appleyard had an in fact as you point out. It's a conflict that we all have. We have a conflict between logic and love AB laud Actually the building where they consummated their affair Apple Award and the young woman is maybe fifty feet from my own building is still there. The old structures still assigned abroad was an extremely clever low jition I they came to prominence around eleven ten eleven fifteen and he was a man in his thirties taken authors of course and he was widely known to be insufferable because his victims victims were outraged at his cleverness and he was walking along the K.. One day which I can see from my window he met a beautiful young woman not clear how old who else anywhere from fifteen to twenty two and he was immediately smitten she lived in a building adjacent and he became her tutor. Oddly oddly enough immediately promoted himself logistician to love. They carried on the tar affair they were discovered and her uncle Put together a dreadful plot to you humiliate Avalon by castrating. It was successfully accomplished. He was devastated Eh. Louise he's was sent to a nunnery much against her will. She spent the rest of her life lamenting the loss of the love that she cherished that Brad extent extraordinary extent she she has some prayers deeply. Moving prayers was. She said Even if it meant the loss of my soul in paradise wouldn't wouldn't give up the love that I thought Abbott and Abba lots life was shattered and broken of causes. You can imagine and You can see very vividly in this famous twelfth century. Love affair the deep conflict between the longing for purity in every human being which is is expressed by logic and the joy and exuberance of Karnal relationships and loving karnal relationships which is expressed in the affair air that was doomed from the first as all loving relationships are doomed from the first simply in virtue of being loving relationships among human beings. It's very poignant and it's not resolved than it is attention than it is there on the these are the facts of life as we have to bear them. Enjoy this overview your them who I just it just struck me that all of us know there are things we should do and yet there are things that we would love to do that. We shouldn't do and it's attention. It's a continual tension and it continual conflict as the Christians. Try and say is that we we we try and resist our our idols and try and put Christ the top. And we don't always do that. We fail but if if you you do anything else do read the letters between Abelardo l louise there among the imperishable masterpiece day. Hers Is. `specially well Dr Belitsky. It's it's been a great pleasure having you on. We're about out of time but I just want to thank you for your work. The Devil's delusion is one of my favorite books on Cassani theism and the new books deniable Darwin Twenty Ten and the brand new book human nature also wonderful read so Dr Berlin Ski. Thank you so much for joining us. We're going to look for your appear. Osho thank you so much. That's the that's Dr David. Berlin ski again. You can find more about him at the Discovery Institute the Discovery Dot Org and again his books the devil's delusion which should be the first book you get Get.

"david berlinski" Discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast

Cross Examined Official Podcast

12:32 min | 3 years ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast

"Welcome back to. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist with Frank Turk my guest. Dr David Orlinsky author of the Devil's Delusion Husian deniable Darwin and human nature of on the other books before we get back to Dr Berlin Ski WanNa Mention. I'll be at the University of Maine in or Ono. That's up near Bang. Hang or this Wednesday night for. Don't have enough faith to be an atheist that's November thirteenth. I believe check our website cross examined Dot Org for events as always any college event. Event is always free to the general public. They'll be time for Q.. And A. so come out to. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist this Wednesday night. If you're a maniac if you live up in in Maine okay back to my guest. Dr David Berlin Sqi. Dr Berlin ski before the break. We were talking about some of the motivations that people might have for getting a little bit annoyed eight if you criticize the theory of Darwinism seem to me you you you had mentioned money and prestige. There's a another category that I think our friend. Christopher Christopher Hitchens made quite clear with regard to the issue of sex he didn't want God to exist and he thought maybe a suggesting that he does exist and that maybe maybe Mac Revolution wasn't true would be to give into a cosmic North Korean dictator. which by the way is great imagery? If you're an atheist I like the way hitch instead that but it seems to to me. There are other motivations as well people in fact you right I want to say this is in. This is in the devil's delusion you right. Let let me find this quote. Because it's very very telling what did I do with it. You write about someone's hair here. You say arguments. Follow follow from assumptions and assumptions follow from beliefs and very rarely perhaps never do beliefs reflect an agenda determined entirely he by the facts. UNPACK that further sir. Well I think the way we form beliefs is still in the twenty first century. Rather mysterious steriods. We don't really understand how you in beings come to the beliefs that we hold it certainly not driven by the evidence. Let's put that myth aside. Nobody is driven by the evidence to form the beliefs they do or have In the evidence isn't relevant. It's just not probative determined took Bishop Barclay has an interesting point. He says that the only thing that can influence a belief is another belief he had a particular philosophy philosophy of mind in view he thought the mine was the only real thing that existed in the universe but the observation is quite distinct that we're influenced in a way that we have never successfully described by our other beliefs and it is kind of a closed circle of beliefs influencing -fluenced beliefs where it meets the real world where the real world penetrates our system. It's not entirely clear. It's very hard to make that case. Ace you'll certainly notice you yourself. I gather us something of a polemicist or at least you participate that the number of times where somebody it comes up to you after discussion and says as opposed to I found your talks interesting everybody will say that as a gesture of politeness but very rarely allie will. They say I've changed my mind or your views have provoked me to change my mind. That doesn't happen a lot. So we're dealing with the situation and to seemingly in which many many positions of frozen and all that you can really hope to do was take a hammer and give the ice of the self possession of Good Shaw Shaw whack. Sometimes it helps. Sometimes it doesn't help but anybody who participates in in public debate knows as as much that the beliefs of very sturdy creatures that are resistant to change Well said you remind me Philip Johnson's Use of the wedge sched- Penetrating petrified wood of naturalism. visit me for interrupting you talk you know. Years and years and years ago I worked at McKinsey is a management consultant and I came across an essay but one of the senior partners extremely smart guy very very impressive. Carnevale's was his name any any said. How do we get something done? He was talking about working in a bureaucracy. And he says you can't take a chisel you can take a hammer. You can't take assault what you have to use his plane. And you'll have have to be extremely patient. And you have to plan that would sandpaper sandpaper sandpaper. And you have to be prepared to accept up. Small changes very wise declaration. I think in philosophy in theology and modern scientific polemics you have to be is prepared to accept small changes things change incrementally. They don't change dramatically unless it's one of those rare cases in physics where decisive experiment. Burma Dora magnificent theory appears everything changed. Nineteen O five with special relativity because then we understand it was right but that's the exception option for most of the time things changed a small way. In fact you have written. I believe it's in human nature that that ideologies change around the edges. They do not cave in the center so it does take a while for minds to change and I think they are changing in the realm of Darwinism. Because as you well know they had the Royal Society had the conference in November twenty sixteen looking for a new theory of Mac doc revolution. Did you happen to attend that. No one in London it was. Yes Sir Stephen Meyer. Doug axe went and a few other folks from discovery. Every institute was invited but decided just to inconvenienced cross likely than my apartment in general. Well you're you're in the United States now for our listeners. Look for Dr Alinsky on the Ben Shapiro show because he's about to record an interview with Ben Shapiro. Ben is a wonderful interviewer. He knows the issues surrounding intelligent design and Mac Revolution because because he demonstrated that quite well in his interviewer. Stephen Myra colleague of Dr Berlin Ski so listeners. Look out for the interview with Dr Berlin Ski which I assume will come out in the next few weeks. That's why he's in the United States right now. I've made a secret vow to lapse into Sullivan. Irrelevance tomorrow refused ingle go question. Please flees he. I think you're incapable of doing that. Sir so I've seen interviews with professor of philosophy who had master that. This was the old days where you can get away with it. His name was John Herman rental junior and I remember Some somebody ask question. He always came to class smoking. A huge cigar often a cigar for about five minutes and then he gave What I thought was one of the great answers in all of pedagogic history said? That's a stupid question. There are stupid questions now. Now let me ask you this question. First of all. I know everybody. Who's listening right now is GonNa want me to ask Dr Berlin Ski? What is religious beliefs are not going to ask him that? And I'll tell you why because he's asked. The same question is book human nature and I want you to get that book so in the back of the book there is a interview that he does and he'll ah you can see his answer there. So let's just leave it at that but I do want to ask you this Dr Belenky if you suggest that maybe there's an intelligent designer route. They're given the evidence the evidence we see four intelligence. How do you deal with the so-called God of the gaps fallacy when atheists or Darwinism say? Dr Dr Berlin Ski. First of all you're not a biologist and secondly you're committing the god of the gaps fallacy. How do you respond okay? What's next the god of the gaps fallacy has entered into the English language as discussion stoppard's like a door stop? Stop you put him under the door on the hope the doors gonNA stop swinging. The fact of the matter is wherever you look at the gap. Some imagine the number line which is filled with a lot of little Gaps wherever you really look the gaps on getting smaller. They're getting more numerous and they're getting larger. So to the extent that that argument points to a real fallacy I don't a fallacy there If you say God did it. That's what explanation of Abia good explanation about explanation but it's not a fallacy. Nothing fallacious being advocated to the extent. That argument is invoked the count responses well lot of gaps. We need a big fella to to deal with them. That's right and I think some of the arguments that you've made Stephen. Meyer is made and others. Doug Acts The folks at the Discovery Institute when you're arguing it's possible there's an intelligent designer out there. You're not arguing from what you don't know your arguments on what you do know. And you've pointed out and then to die deniable Darwin Win that Hayley's arguments still good that a watch implies a watchmaker when you find to watch you. Don't you don't say lack an actual explanation you go. There's got to be a watchmaker out out there. And there appears to be anyway so many aspects of biology not to mention physics and other areas. That appeared require an intelligent. 'cause there's intelligence Algiers agency in there. You've made that case in several ways in deniable Darwin and the Devil's delusion so friends you need to get those books. Let me ask you this to you. Also so say this point out at the hypothesis that were nothing. More than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. And you mentioned that Richard Dawkins Bertrand Russell Steven Weinberg others. They have this belief as an article of their faith. Now why why use the word. Faith there they revel full in this belief they can't get enough of self abuse but there is a wonderful new word phrase. That's entered the English language. It's called Humble Brag and I think it perfectly describes this Dr Johnson at a a wonderfully witty way of putting it he he said you can depend on that. Every form of self-criticism is oblique. A form of self-praise. It shows that you have something thing to spare. Money is exactly what Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins Christopher Hitchens old all doing. They're covering themselves ignominiously with the blanket of their own insignificance. But they're if they really meant that they would not be covering them so fly covering themselves so flamboyantly really. They mean that they're pretty special. Anyway even if they are a very little cosmic significance but the whole thing is is rhetorically an exercise in any number of dissimulations mutilations. It's not meant seriously. It's not meant seriously. Well the the issue here though for them well. Let's let's go back to Einstein's question. Why is the universe so comprehensible why is it? Can we even do science. Or it's a good question Russian and I have no idea why it so but it is so to a certain extent the fact that we have magnificent scientific series and I would add a Magnificent mathematical theories as as well is a great Is a great gift. But it's an unexplained gift I mean after all if you look at the species dogs Dogs are in their own way. Quite intelligent animals. They get five very very well alliance or Mousse whatever you want but this particular aspect of cognition this particular. ACQUAINTANCESHIP with the universe is not a feature of the dog's mind but entered into feet cheaper of ours and we don't quite understand why it's there. What good does it certainly has? Nothing left survival. In fact it may lead to the opposite given the existence of nuclear weapons it may lead precisely the extinction of the human race nonetheless. We have an earthly capacity to form these profound these deep these rich these intricate a good scientific theories when they're just gifts and.

"david berlinski" Discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast

Cross Examined Official Podcast

12:14 min | 3 years ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast

"The emergence of the universe or why it is here not even close. Have the scientists explain why our universe seems to be fine tuned to allow for the existence silence of life not even close are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it's not religious thought close enough has rationalism channel ISM and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good what is right and what is moral not close enough has secularism in the terrible twentieth. A century been a force for good not even close to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion in the scientists close enough does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justified. The claim that religious belief is irrational. Not Even Ballpark is scientific atheism. MMA frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt. Dead on that is from Dr Dolinsky book the Devil's delusion. You have a way with words sir. You're you're not an English major. Your philosophy major in a mathematician. How did you get so good? At pros wasn't even a philosophy major. I studied medieval history. Istrian college from Princeton but in college I studied when I was studying anything which wasn't wasn't a whole lot of time devoted to that particular rock. I spend most of my college years chasing girls and playing pool. But perhaps your your listeners shouldn't be entitled to that privileged information. Well I noticed in reading human nature and other one of your books that they said. It's going to come out and a couple of weeks here. Ah that you were skeptical of Darwinism back in the nineteen sixties during your days at Princeton. Why did you doubt then? Well it's very interesting when I when I was we're studying Logic and philosophy at Princeton Darwin simply did not appear on anyone's intellectual horizon. The man's name wasn't in both series. Weren't weren't discussed and I spoke with my Graduate School Roommate Daniel Messing about it and he said well I read on the origin of species. All right tell tell me. What's what's inside so he told me what's inside and I said that's it? That's the complete global explanation for the emergence and diversification of. He said. Yeah well that's it and it was. It was then it was nine hundred sixty four said. That couldn't be right. It just couldn't be right so my my doubts were very long standing and they were confirmed and afterwards I discovered much to my surprise there were a lot of other people out exactly the same reaction. I just couldn't be right. That doesn't sound like a scientific theory. It's it's vague. Doesn't really specify much doesn't answer the deepest kinds of questions about living system that we very naturally WANNA present to ourselves and and it was a great pleasure discovering that the other people felt the same way I published a paper nineteen seventy-three about what would be needed to make a Dalwin Darwinian Darwin's theory somewhat more successful is an paper and AUTOMATA theory Kind of AUTOMATA is needed. A push down storage automata to look forward to at least anticipate anticipate So that complicated structures could be put together without that you have nothing either in language or in the establishment of machines and I I published it. The editor was a very very good philosopher. Sidney Morgan Esser and He said well. You know we'll publish. It looks interesting enough. Nobody's really interested. I didn't win. This is nineteen seventy-three. Nobody's really interested in going and He said well. We'll publish it We'll just stick philosophy in the title so they call the philosophical little soft aspects of molecular biology. And then I discovered other people felt the same way my great friend in Paris the mathematician Schwarzenberg awesome. Barriche I wrote to him. I sent him my stuff. You wrote back. We got together and he said it's just a preposterous idea that we have an explanation in these terms. Of course he was just delighted as a Frenchman to be denying an English theory. That was it an additional Larry Pleasure but by the nineteen nineteen eighties. There were a lot of people a lot of people that were saying the same thing but I was there I you were there I in in. It didn't income on my radar until nine hundred ninety one when Philip Johnson wrote Darwin on trial and of course he just passed on this week. Yes it is doc and you have a terrific terrific influence. I think he was probably credited with starting the modern ide- movement that got of Stephen Meyer involved in it and many others. But you right in the devil's delusion. I love what you say here. This is page one. Eighty six you say within the English. Speaking World Darwin's theory of evolution remains the only scientific theory to be widely championed by the scientific community and widely disbelieved by everyone else no matter the effort made biologist thing in continues to elicit the same reaction is always elicited. You've gotta be kidding right. What what what has happened since one thousand nine hundred seventy three when you started to see holes in theory? What have we learned since then? Dr Berlin ski about this theory of Mac Revolution. What are the problems with it? There are lots and lots of the problem from my point of view which is which is not identical? Steve Myers point of view. Out The other guys at the Discovery Institute of my point of view is is this look. They've got three hundred years experience now with series in physics and we pretty much understand. What a good theory looks like we've got newtonian mechanics? We got clock DOC. Maxwell electromagnetic field got theories of relativity. We've got quantum mechanics quantum field theory without the standard model. We're not moving in in a blind way. We're not entering dark room. We know what a scientific theory looks like and knowing this when we look at what biologists say about macro That just isn't a scientific theory. It's open ended its vague. It makes no precise quantitative predictions. It doesn't have a sound mathematical mathematical structure. And I'm not the only one saying. This is the whole institute at Oxford now devoted to providing the missing mathematical structure February theory. Well destructor is missing missing. Why the universal sense among biologists structure is complete? There's something incoherent A mark of the distinction between the propaganda effort which is relentless and the true state of the theory which is completely in cold. Incomplete complete incoherent vague uncertain unspecified. That's a remarkable fact but it's not a fact about science fact about sociology Now how you have spoken in your another book that I have Right here on my desk called the deniable Darwin which is about five hundred pages on Darwinism and the problems problems with it. Tell our listeners. A little bit about the Cambrian explosion and the problems. This creates for Darwin Darwinist today it's one example but it's by by no means the only example of five hundred million years ago. You look all the way into the remote past. And what do you see. You see a lot of Weirdo. around in the ocean the so called Ideo Karain Flora and fauna and they're they're truly bizarre creatures and then in a relatively short amount of time say between ten and forty million years ago. This tremendous efflorescence suburban of living systems including the ancestors for almost all of the modern Medicine medicine flaw and former And where the information came from where the organizing principles came from for this Cambrian explosion remains profoundly enigmatic because these are creatures with no obvious predecessors. We can't find the predecessors associates and we've looked it's not as if we have failed to look diligently enough no no no the looking has been very effective we've exhausted. The exhaustively scrubbed the likely sites and as far as we can tell for the greater part of the came ran we are dealing with the sudden emergence. It's the No vote emergence of new life forms. That's Kinda surprising surprising under several different Assumptions but wanting thing don't win. Even though in theory makes a very firm assumption prediction that life is a matter of continuously expanding proliferation of new forms continuous suggests they're always going to be intermediates with respect to the Cambrian. We can't find those intermediates that is a signal important signal goal. That requires a kind of decisive explanation. Before anything about Darwinian theory can be accepted on its face and the Cambrian is not the only example. They're very very many examples throughout the fossil record. Where there seems to be exhibited in the record itself a radical form of discontent discontinuity discontinuity with something entirely new appearing on the one and an inadequate fall barrows on the other hand this failure of continuity annuity has always struck me as the key ingredient in Ah Scientific Critique of Darwinian evolution bear in mind. It's not the only only time we've seen something like this. At the end of the Nineteenth Century Physics Newtonian physics which is built on the axiom of continuity because all the functions differential encountered sharply fleet discontinuance phenomenon. Quantum couldn't explain it. We need a revolution to accommodate the discontinuities. It seems to be a form of scientific. Heresy to say is much in in biology. Maybe that's changed. Maybe that's changing just a bit but until the last five or six years to say well look exactly exactly the same deeply singular evidence that we saw. The end of the nineteenth century in physics seems to be a feature of biology itself votes to suspicion. That in the very next moment. I'm going to advocate handling snakes and so I always ask me when I start speaking French. Well I saw you interviewed somewhere and I can't remember exactly where it was now but it might actually be in the back of the Human Nature Book your new book but the indignation that the darwinist immediately vomit out if you criticise me just you but anybody who criticizes Darwinism seems to me that they're protesting too much. And you point out that if you're a Christian they're going to they're going to call you a liar for Jesus now they can't call you that because you're not a Christian but they call you other names rather than dealing with your arguments arguments. I'M GONNA ask you to be a bit of a psychologist in the last minute. We haven't here in this In this segment Dr Berlin Ski. Why are they doing this? Why are they so indignant? Well let's take two of the things that all men prize one is money. The other is prestige a stern advocacy. In Favor of Darwin's theory of evolution has tradition suggests lead both money and prestige if someone is criticizing the theory. There's an implicit threat that both are going to be withdrawn or if not withdrawn at least temper was certain extent so the the counter reaction is not unexpected. It it's not a nobody likes to be criticized I'm including myself my immediately former suspicious Conjecture about anyone who criticizes us me. If I had the choice I would abuse him to or her Fortunately I'm not usually given the choice. We're talking talking to Dr David Berlin Ski. He has several fabulous books. The Devil's delusion.

"david berlinski" Discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast

Cross Examined Official Podcast

08:39 min | 3 years ago

"david berlinski" Discussed on Cross Examined Official Podcast

"Skis and author thinker professor. and He's a self-described secular Jew who with wit it an elegant says you'll see dismantles the assumptions and assertions of Darwin and other Atheist Equatorial. materialists he does this in his interviews and his books Wchs Dr Dolinsky has his PhD from Princeton University. Not far from where I grew up. He's taught at Stanford and rutgers. He's a fellow with our friends at the Discovery Institute. And as you Stephen Meyer on this program several times so Dr Linski is part of the Discovery Institute. He actually lives in Paris under the shadow. Auto of the Great Cathedral. Notre Dame there Dr Berlin Ski. Let me start by asking you this first of all. It's a privilege to have yawn but I've seen some kind of crazy Z.. Plans to convert or to renovate the cathedral there. One of them has a pool on top. They expecting mass baptisms uh-huh or something over there. What's going on over there in Paris? Well I think those claims an to a certain extent. One hopes exaggerated the French government and the French people reacted with undisguised. Hara when they were proposed and of course they were absolutely right. The plans were grotesque. They were architecturally grotesques. They were theologically grotesque nonetheless. A lot of architects Lauda great idea. Let's put a pool on the top. Make this a community. He's pool for all face. All religions lines have been dropped. There was another grotesque plan to replace the spire on the roof saw with with glass instead of the ancient material solid wood but it's kind of a episodic outbreak of insanity that we are very familiar with where with respect to the architectural tradition. These architects go nuts every every now and then now have they have. They made any progress on the renovation. So far it's very slow. You know I talked to the guys. I live right next to note with them so I talked to some of them. I talked to some of the engineers. The problem is the fire was much more devastating than anyone realized. At the time I was right there are so the whole structure burn but You know you're dealing with eight hundred. You're old blocks of sandstone of line. And nobody knows the damage that was caused on the inside by Water much more than fire so their their real questions about the structural stability of the building and those questions are not going to be resolved anytime soon in the present. The French President Mike Collins said well five years will rebuild the whole structure nobody. Nobody's counting on that anymore. It's GonNa take twenty years to get that whole thing settled when he was a massive massive amount of destruction just quite incredible. That's unfortunately it Kinda parallel the destruction of the faith in France. I believe we've Over that Bridgestone's bought that immediately. That was the thought that everyone in France and I think it was beyond France to everyone had the same thought. What are unpleasantly the appropriate symbol? Now you have written what I think is my favorite book on atheism and its scientific pretensions attention subtitle but it's so well titled And so well written this book. The Devil's delusion is a book that anyone can read Ladies and gentlemen and despite the fact was written in two thousand in an eight is an evergreen book. It's a book you can pick up today and it's just as fresh as it was written eleven years ago. How did you come about to write this book? It seems to be a response response partially to the book the God delusion but how did you come about to right this doctor landscape. I think you're absolutely right. I mean it was response to to the book by Dawkins but also there was a book by Christopher Hitchens entitled God was not great and what what struck me as curious. Struck me as provocative certainly is that this was not simply an expression an overflow of village. Atheism sort of stuff. That's been perennial western Western culture of the last two thousand years. It was different to the extent that it was invoking the authority of the scientific experience to make inclines and I thought that was particularly egregious in particularly outrageous. Scientific Experience Does Not Provide Atheism. The with that kind of authority and I think you are very kind saying that. The book still has some Topical Relevance I think it is that extent that it is relevant because I meet people very regularly with the same impression while science shows the proletariat is always science has shown signs shows science will show and the fact of the matter. Is that Questions about the existence of the Deity on neither in the premises not conclusions of any of the great theories. You have have to be very careful. What exactly does science show it? Turns out it doesn't show very much. It leaves the question open and that as you quite perspicuous. Curiously noted was my motivation for writing the book but I have to admit it was an exuberant experience. I love taking off after guys. Like Dawkins Hitchens Sam. I'm Howard the unbelievably tempting targets. Don't know whether you agree or knock did self satisfied pods smug just begging to be slapped in the face and so I was happy to applaud. You did so very well sir. And in fact I've had a couple of debates with Christopher hitchens myself and I thought your little essay in the new book that you've written which comes out on November Nineteenth Ladies Gentlemen. It's called Human Nature by Dr David Berlin ski and by the way this is what the Chicago Tribune says about this book. It says quote on the very covered Verlinsky puts any topic. Excuse me balint Berlin Ski. Plus any topic equals and extraordinary book. Well said comment was. Is that yours with the Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Tribune is hard to believe. But that's what they said. There must be somebody. It's it's right on the clever flavor. So it's it's Chicago Tribune and of course the Great Victor Davis Hanson says a brilliant indictment of scientific group. Think think that's on the back cover. And this is Dr Berlin Skis New Book Human Nature. Your Essay in there on Christopher Hitchens I thought was so insightful. I had a couple of debates with myself myself and as you put out hitchens was not really interested in the theological arguments despite trying to claim the scientists disproven God when I pressed him a little bit it on the evidence for the beginning of the universe which you cover in the devil's delusion he just said well I'm not a physicist. Well then why is he. Bring up arguments related to science then. I think you're absolutely right. Look look I have to have to begin any remarks. I liked Chris Ninety two. I don't know anybody who disliked him. Intensely appealing figure commit a tragic death. He suffered very bravely and I think he was in many many respects and admirable you in being at least his capacity for suffering bring was quite extraordinary and being an improved and made more virtuous through his suffering but as far as philosophically weekly acute intelligence or logically acute intelligence. He knew as well as anyone else you or I that he lacked in that department that was not his his Strongest suit he was a polemicist who was a large gregarious. Bold and dramatic figure that was Christopher Hitchens. Yes and for me. He was evidence of a divine being because the qualities he exhibited in his in his rhetoric were just approaching divine. I mean I'm sitting there. Art David in first debate with him. And he's the first person I ever debated believe or not other than my wife who annihilates me routinely goes without saying but he. He was so good at rhetoric that I'm daydreaming during my first debate. I'm going. I really liked this guy. I don't know what he's saying but it just sounds on so good and he was just brilliant. Didn't hurt the beautiful baritone beautiful correct a wonderfully plummy English accent and people tend to overlook the acuity of what he very often said. He wasn't driven very hard by his opponents. I have to say that no I'm.