A transcript would be great. I'm not going to spend an hour and more watching a video (I hardly ever watch a video except quick ones about dogs, or music) but I'd like to know the gist of his remarks. I'd invest 5 minutes scanning them (more if he happened to be interesting to me).
I notice other commenters in various blogs who request transcripts too so it's not just me. Though I would not ask you to spend a lot of time on this, really I don't have much interest in the guy but it's worth a scan.
Could jewish triumphs and persistence against adversity be better explained by the familiar history? Maybe there was an initial kernel of biological superiority which was honed by millennia of persecution, only the fittest survived, leaving the vast gulf between jewish intellect and that of the other races we see today
Overall, interesting conversation. I found it somewhat frustrating how Singer was not particularly responsive to nuances beyond the main line of his program.
A) You asked about specific prophecies that you said were not fulfilled (E.G. crops being planted but not being used by the farmers due to worms). How do you know that these scenarios never happened over the past 2000 years?
B) You seem to believe in objective morality, but that God doesn't set this morality. I am very interested about how this would work.
I was wondering the same. Plus to point 1 God does not say that he will put all his curses on us unless we only do bad and do not repent. In Ninveh when Jona prophesized the destruction of Ninveh God there too did not keep that prophecy as he clearly said that unless they repented it would happen.
To point 2, Mathew says with no reasoning morals can be just morals 'objectively'. would that mean that the ancient people who sacrificed their children to idols did a moral thing? Maybe they had the morals right and we have it wrong?
I don't think there is an argument to be made for Mathew's claim.
A transcript would be great. I'm not going to spend an hour and more watching a video (I hardly ever watch a video except quick ones about dogs, or music) but I'd like to know the gist of his remarks. I'd invest 5 minutes scanning them (more if he happened to be interesting to me).
I notice other commenters in various blogs who request transcripts too so it's not just me. Though I would not ask you to spend a lot of time on this, really I don't have much interest in the guy but it's worth a scan.
Substack has a transcript feature that may be helpful. I'm not sure how the substack owner turns it on but it does exist.
Could jewish triumphs and persistence against adversity be better explained by the familiar history? Maybe there was an initial kernel of biological superiority which was honed by millennia of persecution, only the fittest survived, leaving the vast gulf between jewish intellect and that of the other races we see today
Overall, interesting conversation. I found it somewhat frustrating how Singer was not particularly responsive to nuances beyond the main line of his program.
Can you put this video on YouTube so that I can download it and listen to it offline? Thanks!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9IF3u64LZYk
Very interesting conversation.
I have two points/questions;
A) You asked about specific prophecies that you said were not fulfilled (E.G. crops being planted but not being used by the farmers due to worms). How do you know that these scenarios never happened over the past 2000 years?
B) You seem to believe in objective morality, but that God doesn't set this morality. I am very interested about how this would work.
I was wondering the same. Plus to point 1 God does not say that he will put all his curses on us unless we only do bad and do not repent. In Ninveh when Jona prophesized the destruction of Ninveh God there too did not keep that prophecy as he clearly said that unless they repented it would happen.
To point 2, Mathew says with no reasoning morals can be just morals 'objectively'. would that mean that the ancient people who sacrificed their children to idols did a moral thing? Maybe they had the morals right and we have it wrong?
I don't think there is an argument to be made for Mathew's claim.