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