Two half-hour interviews with my FAVORITE economist, Thomas Sowell. If you haven’t read any books by Thomas Sowell, then you don’t know how wonderful economics can be. Thomas Sowell stands for the proposition that before you adopt an economic policy, you have to consider what incentives it will create for everyone involved. And he backs up his ideas with studies that span the whole range of times and places. It turns out that many bad ideas have already been disproved in different times and places, and Thomas Sowell knows them all. Thomas Sowell is a man of facts and evidence.
Description of part one:
Dr. Thomas Sowell (Economist) joins Dave to discuss his Marxist past, free speech on campuses, distinguishing between classical liberalism and libertarianism, and his new book “Discrimination & Disparities.
“This idiot has stumbled on something that will ruin us all”. LOL!
Description of part two:
Dr. Thomas Sowell (Economist and Author) joins Dave to discuss the role of government, the problem with minimum wage laws, his experience as a black conservative, debunking systemic racism, the importance of common decency, and his new book “Discrimination & Disparities.”
In the comments, Dave explains that YouTube has demonetized the video. I suppose that this is because the video contains conservative ideas, and YouTube is owned by the far-left Google.
Anyway, I recommend getting your hands on some Thomas Sowell books.
This one seems to be a collection of introductory essays:
You can get a used one for a couple of bucks. I read the second edition a while back, and I remember that just reading the first 3 chapters knocked my socks off. Some helpful person even uploaded the audio of the edition I read to YouTube. Just listen to the first 3-4 chapters, and you’ll see what I mean. No one who wants to understand how the world really works can ignore Thomas Sowell.
One that I still haven’t read that’s short and sweet is:
I once dated a homeschooled girl who came from a large, rural family. This family produced brilliant children, but the parents didn’t really believe in college. I told the girl that to marry me, she would have to get a college degree. She and her parents didn’t really like that, and we broke up. However, I did tell her that she should read Thomas Sowell, because she had some left of center views on public policy, e.g. – health care. I found out later that she went on to read SIX Thomas Sowell books in two months. After that, she went on to get a BA in economics via distance learning, with a 4.0 GPA! I think part of that transformation is due to the Thomas Sowell books. Thomas Sowell changes lives.
I have to include this clip of Thomas Sowell from a long time ago:
He understood the things we are fighting about today decades ago. This man should have been our first black president.
OK. So I think it’s safe to say that of all the Christian apologists out there, David Robertson is my least favorite debater. Why? Many reasons, but mostly because he does not bring in evidence, especially scientific evidence. And he seems to make these clever quips like G. K. Chesterton. I like evidence. I would rather that he talk about scientific and historical evidence.
Dina asked me to listen to this debate a while back, between David Robertson and agnostic Matt Dillahunty (he’s not an atheist, he’s just an agnostic). I went in absolutely convinced that Robertson was going to have his ass handed to him by Matt Dillahunty. And I could not have been more wrong.
Here’s the debate posted on YouTube (audio only):
This snarky summary is just a paraphrase from certain parts of the debate, it is not designed for accuracy, but for fun – to make you listen to the debate. Listen to the debate to get the exact words in context.
Matt Dillahunty: he’s an agnostic who calls himself an atheist
David Robertson: he’s from Scotland, could we not get someone better?
Robertson opening statement is incredibly weak, as you might expect, he only had two arguments embedded in a long list of nonsense: 1) origin and design of the universe 2) reality of evil requires objective morality
Robertson: The fact is that matter exists. There are 3 views that could account for this fact: 1) created, 2) eternal, 3) self-generated out of nothing. Option 3) is self-contradictory, 1) requires a Creator, and 2) is falsified by the Big Bang cosmology. So what’s your view?
Dillahunty: You’re trying to get me to say what my view is, but I can just say “I don’t know” and get out of having to take any position on how matter got here. I can say “I don’t know” to all the scientific evidence for the Big Bang cosmology, too!
2) Evil requires objective morality, requires a moral lawgiver:
Robertson: evil exists, e.g. – the Holocaust. If atheism is true, objective morality is impossible. Richard Dawkins agrees. Therefore, theism is the best explanation for the existence of evil.
Dillahunty: In my opinion, morality means doing what helps people have well-being. And I think that the Holocaust is obviously bad, because it hurts the well-being of the victims.
Robertson: The problem is that on your view, different people decide what well-being is to them. If you were raised in the Social Darwinism of the Nazi regime, you would believe that the Holocaust was the best for the well-being of the society as a whole.
Dillahunty: Isn’t it obvious that killing people is bad for their well-being?
Robertson: Is it bad for the well-being of unborn children to kill them?
Robertson: So you’re against abortion, then?
Robertson: So you think that killing the child in the womb is against the well-being of the child, but you’re for that?
Dillahunty: I don’t know! I don’t know!
Then Dillahunty tried to claim Hitler was a Christian:
Dillahunty: here is a quote by Hitler saying that secular schools are bad, and religious schools are good – see, he’s a Christian!
Robertson: when was that said and to whom?
Dillahunty: I don’t know, I don’t know!
Robertson: It was said in 1933, during an election campaign, to Catholic authorities – he was a politician, looking for votes from Catholics so he could become Chancellor.
Good and evil on atheism:
Dillahunty: good actions results in states with more well-being, and evil actions result in states with less well-being.
Brierley: but when the Nazis slaughtered all those people, they believed they were increasing well-being
Dillahunty: But you could demonstrate to them that their action is not going to increase well-being. Survival of the fittest is descriptive of what happens, but it’s not prescriptive.
Robertson: Whose well-being will human beings think about most, if not their own? Do you really think that you can stop people like Charles Manson from being evil by sitting down and trying to prove to them that they are not helping their victim’s well-being?
(A BIT LATER)
Robertson (to Dillahunty): Is it a fact that Dachau (a concentration camp) was morally wrong?
Dillahunty: (literally, not a paraphrase) I DON’T KNOW
When I listened to this debate, the overwhelming conviction that emerges is that Matt Dillahunty is not someone who forms his worldview based on evidence. His rejection of the Big Bang cosmology with “I don’t know” is just atrocious. His comments about slavery in the Bible and Hitler being a Christian show that his investigations of these issues is far below the level of a responsible adult. His dallying with the Jesus-never-existed view just shows him to be fundamentally anti-intellectual, as even atheist historian Bart Ehrman denies that view. His definition of faith has nothing to do with the Bible, or Christian authorities, or Christian scholars – he invented a definition of faith that allows him to mock Christians as morons. That’s just irresponsible – letting the desire to mock others cause you to distort the definition of a word. When asked to state his positions or respond to specific evidence, his response is very often “I don’t know”. It seems to me that atheism, to him, means not pursuing truth with the aim of grasping it. He wants to keep reality at a safe distance – that’s why he says “I don’t know” so often.
On morality, it’s even worse. It’s not surprising to me that he is pro-abortion and has no opinion about concentration camps being objectively evil. Most atheists are pro-abortion, by the way. When it comes to morality, Dillahunty only has his own personal opinions, and they refer to nothing outside his own mind. (His opinion of morality as related to well-being is utilitarianism – a very problematic view – but moreover, it is his subjective view – he isn’t offering it as any sort of objective moral system that would be prescriptive instead of descriptive. Without an after-life, there is no reason for anyone to care about the moral point of view when it goes against their self-interest, anyway. Atheists use moral language, but their statements are not referring to any objective, prescriptive moral reality. Atheism is materialistic and therefore deterministic – it does not even ground the free will that is needed to make moral choices. Their view is Darwinian survival of the fittest, that’s what emerges from their origins story – and it does not rationally ground morality. The strong kill the weak, if they can. I’ve written before about how difficult it is for atheists to rationally condemn things like slavery, and nothing in Dillahunty’s presentation led me to believe that he had solved that problem.
Anybody can be an intellectually-satisfied atheist with an empty head – it’s knowledgethat causes people to conform their beliefs to reality. If one strives to keep one’s head as empty as possible, then of course one can believe anything one wants. I’m glad, speaking as a Christian theist, that I get to follow the evidence wherever it leads. It seems to me that we should do that, rather than decide how we want to live first, and then invent a worldview to justify our desires.
Morality has always been a problem for atheists, given that the worldview of atheism is unable to rationally ground the foundations of objective morality:
Objective moral values
Objective moral duties
Accountability for moral choices
Free will, for making moral choices
Ultimate significance, in an afterlife
Each of these is not available on atheism, because if atheism is true, then the universe is an accident, human beings are accidents, and there is no design for how humans ought to be, no free will, and no accountability in an afterlife for those who escape consequences for their actions before they die.
So, how can atheists rationally ground objective morality without a Cosmic designer and an objective design for how humans ought to be?
It’s easy. And I will show you how to do it, using some examples.
So, before we see how to rationally ground objective morality on atheism, let’s first see some atheist morality, courtesy of the UK Daily Mail.
Ed Buck was convicted Tuesday on charges he injected gay men with methamphetamine in exchange for sex, leading to two deaths and other overdoses.
A federal jury found 66-year-old Buck guilty of all nine felony counts against him, which could lead to a life sentence.
[…]Prosecutors said Buck paid black men and provided drugs in return for sex acts, having hunted online for partners with the familiar term ‘PnP’ – ‘party and play’, or using meth, then having sex.
Atheists believe a lot of objectively moral things like this. Remember Democrat politician Andrew Gillum? I don’t think I’ve ever seen an atheist being more objectively moral than that. What’s more objective morally than being passed out in a hotel room with drugs and gay prostitutes when you’re married and running for governor of Florida?
So, how can atheists rationally ground this excellent objective morality to people who don’t share their atheist worldview?
The first thing is that atheists need to be rich, so that they can escape the consequences of being judged and shamed by those intolerant Christians, who lack empathy and compassion. Being rich also allows atheists to use their money to promote the objective morality of atheism in the political realm – by donating to Democrat politicians. The more Democrat politicians get elected, the more Democrat policies we’ll get. And those policies are excellent for eliminating criticism of atheist morality.
Ed Buck demonstrates this well:
Buck is a wealthy white man who was active in gay causes and animal rights issues.
His Facebook page showed him with Hillary Clinton, the former governor Jerry Brown and Representatives Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff.
[…]His contributions to Democrat politicians and causes from 2005 to 2017 totaled $433,500, according to The New York Times.
Democrats politicians support all kinds of policies designed to rationally ground atheist morality. Democrats push for single mother welfare, in order to incentivize fatherlessness. Democrats support premarital sex and no-fault divorce, to destabilize marriage. Democrats urge women put their children with taxpayer-funded daycare and public schools. This way, children, (the ones who survive being aborted or infanticided), can avoid the harmful morality of their biological parents, and instead be raised by strangers in daycares and government-run schools. There, they will learn objective atheist morality: there is no God, no human rights, no objective morality, that natural marriage is an abomination, that abortion is a sacrament, that transgenderism is scientific, etc. Democrat policies will produce a generation of young people with rationally grounded objective morality.
Let’s see another example of atheist morality, and see how it can be rationally grounded in an atheist worldview.
The former boyfriend of Terrence P. Bean was arrested early Thursday on sex abuse charges stemming from the same alleged 2013 encounter with a 15-year-old boy at a hotel in Eugene.
Kiah Loy Lawson, 25, was arrested at 1:15 a.m. at the Portland Police Bureau’s Central Precinct and booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center shortly after 2 a.m.
He’s accused of third-degree sodomy and third-degree sexual abuse.
[…]Bean, 66, a prominent gay rights activist and major Democratic Party fundraiser, was arrested at his home in Southwest Portland and booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center at 10:12 a.m. Wednesday.
The indictment charges Bean with two counts of third-degree sodomy, a felony, and one count of third-degree sex abuse, a misdemeanor, police said.
[…]Both Bean and Lawson are accused of having a sexual encounter with the same 15-year-old boy in a hotel in Eugene last year. They had arranged the encounter with the teen after meeting him via a website, investigators allege.
Bean has been one of the state’s biggest Democratic donors and an influential figure in gay rights circles in the state. He helped found two major national political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, and has been a major contributor for several Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama. He’s also a close friend of former Gov. Barbara Roberts.
Again, the important thing is that atheists need to be wealthy, and donate to Democrat politicians. That way, no one will ever be able to judge or shame them for their atheist objective morality – it will be rationally grounded with all the best atheist logic and evidence.
Actually, there are a lot more good examples of atheist morality.
The mayor of Seattle, Ed Murray, said on Tuesday that he would resign after announcing in May that he would not seek a second term. Several men have come forward to accuse Mr. Murray of sexually abusing them decades ago, when they were underage.
The announcement came just hours after The Seattle Times published a story with an account by a fifth man, Mr. Murray’s cousin, who said Mr. Murray had abused him in the 1970s.
[..]Mr. Murray, 62, a Democrat, is the city’s first openly gay mayor, and had served in the State Legislature for many years before being elected in 2013.
[…]The liberal Mr. Murray is generally considered a father of Washington’s same-sex marriage law, which he pressed in the State Legislature for years.
The radically-leftist New York Times isn’t about to tell you what this Democrat gay-marriage activist actually did – that’s not news that’s fit to print. For that you have to go to Life Site News. Again, don’t try this unless you are an expert in atheist philosophy (being wealthy and donating to Democrat politicians).
Harvey Weinstein was especially good at defending atheist morality. He had perfected the argument from wealth and the argument from giving money to Democrats. He might have the most rationally-grounded atheist objective morality of any non-Christian scholar I’ve ever read. Even better than than the philosophical arguments of Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Elliot Spitzer or Eric Schneiderman. And those philosophers knew a thing or two about rationally-grounded objective morality on atheism.
The important point is that atheists need to be familiar with the 1) be wealthy argument, and the 2) give money to Democrat politicians argument, in order to rationally ground atheist objective morality. It’s also a good idea for rank-and-file atheists to vote Democrat – it will make moral judgement of atheists, and shaming of atheist morality impossible. As soon as atheists can user government to eliminate bad philosophy by Christians, then there will be no one left to question the excellent atheist morality I described above.