Jack Symes

There's no distinction between beasts.

There's no distinction between beasts.

Yeah. Well, here's the thought, right? Which is in terms of like cashing this out in terms of problems with atheism and religious beliefs. is that when you look at the system, and you mentioned a second ago, like, maybe we don't know God's reasons and stuff like this. Well, I think in that case, I think Peterson said something along the same lines when I spoke to him.

Yeah. Well, here's the thought, right? Which is in terms of like cashing this out in terms of problems with atheism and religious beliefs. is that when you look at the system, and you mentioned a second ago, like, maybe we don't know God's reasons and stuff like this. Well, I think in that case, I think Peterson said something along the same lines when I spoke to him.

Yeah. Well, here's the thought, right? Which is in terms of like cashing this out in terms of problems with atheism and religious beliefs. is that when you look at the system, and you mentioned a second ago, like, maybe we don't know God's reasons and stuff like this. Well, I think in that case, I think Peterson said something along the same lines when I spoke to him.

And I think in that case, you shouldn't just bet your soul on it for his words. Or, you know, William James, the philosopher, has this example of a mountaineer who's got like this gap they need to jump over, a storm behind them. So it's reasonable for them to believe they can make the jump or the runner... who has to believe they're going to win the 100-meter race.

And I think in that case, you shouldn't just bet your soul on it for his words. Or, you know, William James, the philosopher, has this example of a mountaineer who's got like this gap they need to jump over, a storm behind them. So it's reasonable for them to believe they can make the jump or the runner... who has to believe they're going to win the 100-meter race.

And I think in that case, you shouldn't just bet your soul on it for his words. Or, you know, William James, the philosopher, has this example of a mountaineer who's got like this gap they need to jump over, a storm behind them. So it's reasonable for them to believe they can make the jump or the runner... who has to believe they're going to win the 100-meter race.

It's rational to believe it then, even if they lack the evidence. I think these arguments work for, like, psychological states, but you believing that God has some good reason or believing you can jump the gap doesn't make it any more reasonable that... there's a proposition which says God exists and it is true.

It's rational to believe it then, even if they lack the evidence. I think these arguments work for, like, psychological states, but you believing that God has some good reason or believing you can jump the gap doesn't make it any more reasonable that... there's a proposition which says God exists and it is true.

It's rational to believe it then, even if they lack the evidence. I think these arguments work for, like, psychological states, but you believing that God has some good reason or believing you can jump the gap doesn't make it any more reasonable that... there's a proposition which says God exists and it is true.

So I think the reasonable thing to do here is to suspend belief, is to go, here we have some really good arguments for this hypothesis, here's the evidence we have against it, but it's contentious as to whether or not we can solve this problem.

So I think the reasonable thing to do here is to suspend belief, is to go, here we have some really good arguments for this hypothesis, here's the evidence we have against it, but it's contentious as to whether or not we can solve this problem.

So I think the reasonable thing to do here is to suspend belief, is to go, here we have some really good arguments for this hypothesis, here's the evidence we have against it, but it's contentious as to whether or not we can solve this problem.

So the most reasonable thing for us to do is to embrace like some form of agnosticism where we go, how can we find ethics and meaning in a world that's seemingly godless? And that's to go back to the start of our discussion there. It's like the failure of new atheism hasn't been able to address that. are looking for meaning.

So the most reasonable thing for us to do is to embrace like some form of agnosticism where we go, how can we find ethics and meaning in a world that's seemingly godless? And that's to go back to the start of our discussion there. It's like the failure of new atheism hasn't been able to address that. are looking for meaning.

So the most reasonable thing for us to do is to embrace like some form of agnosticism where we go, how can we find ethics and meaning in a world that's seemingly godless? And that's to go back to the start of our discussion there. It's like the failure of new atheism hasn't been able to address that. are looking for meaning.

Shakespeare, it wouldn't be right for someone English to come on the podcast and talk about meaning without quoting Shakespeare, wouldn't it? So you'll have to excuse me. Shakespeare says, essentially, if there's no God, then life is like a tale told by an idiot. It signifies nothing. Isn't it amazing that guy was so good so many years ago? So the agnostic life is like this.

Shakespeare, it wouldn't be right for someone English to come on the podcast and talk about meaning without quoting Shakespeare, wouldn't it? So you'll have to excuse me. Shakespeare says, essentially, if there's no God, then life is like a tale told by an idiot. It signifies nothing. Isn't it amazing that guy was so good so many years ago? So the agnostic life is like this.

Shakespeare, it wouldn't be right for someone English to come on the podcast and talk about meaning without quoting Shakespeare, wouldn't it? So you'll have to excuse me. Shakespeare says, essentially, if there's no God, then life is like a tale told by an idiot. It signifies nothing. Isn't it amazing that guy was so good so many years ago? So the agnostic life is like this.