Turtles All the Way Down 🐢

[0:00] Matt: It comes like a fleeting memory. Whatever you grab just turns to dust, like eye contact with strangers. What you looking at over there?

[0:28] Michael: Oh, I don't know. I think I'm going to, like, read from these, the questions I have for you, but. Oh, but most likely I won't.

[0:37] Matt: You wrote. You wrote things down. You did show prep.

[0:40] Michael: No, I did. I highlighted things.

[0:42] Matt: Okay. From.

[0:44] Michael: From a conversation.

[0:45] Matt: Okay, got it.

[0:46] Michael: But we'll see if it works.

[0:48] Matt: Let's get into it.

[0:49] Michael: All right, let's do it.

[0:50] Matt: To the shores.

[0:51] Michael: To the shores.

[0:55] Matt: A conversation, eh?

[0:56] Michael: Yeah. Yeah. There's so much, so many questions I have.

[1:02] Matt: So you want to set it up for the listening audience?

[1:05] Michael: I don't even know how to set it up, honestly.

[1:08] Matt: Well, you just said you were thinking through some stuff and you thought you wanted to ask me some questions that you were thinking through, and we can see if we can make any headway on them.

[1:19] Michael: Yeah, a lot of it has to do with our conversation that we had last week. So it's kind of part of my. I have my agent go through our last podcast and have topics from it to kind of rehash, and we kind of almost never really talk about the actual thing, but it kind of, like, sparks into a different realm or whatever. Because also it has to do with conversations I have, you know, throughout the week and with different people and stuff. And usually, like, what we've talked about kind of bleeds through all those conversations.

[1:54] Matt: Yeah.

[1:55] Michael: Anyways, it's having a conversation about nihilism with a couple people and.

[2:00] Matt: And just, you know, casual conversation.

[2:05] Michael: Totally. And, well, just like, how not tenable nihilism is like, nobody is actually a nihilist. And. And at some point, they kind of sneak in some sort of, like, meaning into the conversation as far as, like, it's like, well, I just. I think just being a good person is fine. Like, you don't have to believe in God or that there's an objective reality or whatever. It's just like. It's like, I think anybody can be a good person. And it's like. Then you push all the questions like, okay, what is a good person? And if they're honest. As a nihilist, it's the only thing you can say. It's a preference. It's not, someone is a good person. It's just, I prefer that things are this way. And it's really hard to accept that because it's like, well, usually when people say, I don't believe that there's an objective reality, it's like, well, you can't be angry at anybody technically, for disregarding your preferences, because that's all they are, are preferences. And if someone says, like, well, actually, it's. I think being human. There's something meaningful in being human. And it's like, okay, well, now you're no longer a nihilist. You're a naturalist. There's something inherent into the human experience that produces meaning. That's not nihilism.

[3:33] Matt: Do you think. Are there people around who say that they're nihilists? Yeah, it just makes me think of the big Lebowski. They're nihilists, man.

[3:43] Michael: I believe in nothing.

[3:48] Matt: I think people make soft claims that are nihilistic. But are there people who wear that banner?

[3:55] Michael: No, because I think, you know, if you actually are a nihilist, it's like, it's a really dark road that you. That you go down because you have to start accepting things that are not very pretty to accept.

[4:06] Matt: Right.

[4:06] Michael: And I think it's. It actually is a. It kind of like tears your soul is how I would metaphorically, you know, phrase it, you know, so. So I just. I just find it really fascinating that.

[4:17] Matt: Hold on. I don't know if that's even a metaph.

[4:19] Michael: I don't think so.

[4:20] Matt: I think it's just true. Yeah, it's like. I think that's true of a lot of things. When we deny God, it rips our soul from us. It has to, because we are inspirited in a divine way, made in the image of God. And when we. It's really us that's doing the tearing. We're ripping our soul from us

[4:46] Michael: in

[4:46] Matt: order to separate us from the thing that we wish didn't exist.

[4:50] Michael: Well, I think that's the hard thing, because, like, I think people, when they start participating in a way that there is meaning, it's like they're kind of being rewarded for that. You know, if I'm treating you as if you have value, you're like. You actually start kind of receiving a reward from that. It's like something starts to kind of click, but then it. Then. Then once you start justifying it as, you know, it actually doesn't mean anything. It depends on if you actually give yourself to that philosophy fully or if you kind of keep. Keep participating in the meaning itself, if that makes sense. I think that's why it's hard for people to actually give themselves to the meaning of nihilism. Like, there is no meaning. No, there is nothing, you know?

[5:37] Matt: Well, if there is nothing, then there's nothing to Give yourself to.

[5:39] Michael: Exactly. Yeah.

[5:40] Matt: I mean, I think mostly nihilism is a retreat. It's a retreat from meaning. It's not so much a denial of it. It's like RSVPing no to an invitation. You know, you're not saying that the. The party doesn't exist. You're just saying, I don't want to go.

[6:08] Michael: Yeah.

[6:11] Matt: You know, in one sense, it's that and another. In another, and. And in another sense, it is a. An accepting of darkness. It's turning towards darkness.

[6:25] Michael: Well, I think it's the part, like, that's why there's not really any true night. Like, even, like. Like Camus, there was a. Like, you know, like, he kind of had this whole idea of, like, suicide is like, really the. The ultimate sort of, like, free will, you know, to take your life. But it's sort of like it kind of like retreated back to, like, a defiance. What was it called? A defiant. The defiance against meaninglessness was a viable posture. Like, the defiance against the meaninglessness was like, a viable posture to have. And so it's like. But if you're even. Like, if you. In defiance of something, you're stating that there's something that is real. And so that's. That's the. That's the problem that everyone has whenever they try to take that there's actually no meaning out of.

[7:15] Matt: Well, I mean, even sitting down to write about it is already nullifying your point. It's like, if there's nothing, if there is no objective meaning and there's no point to you writing down anything.

[7:25] Michael: Yeah. So it's just. It's just fascinating. So it's. Because there's this. There's this thing. So, like, right now we're talking on the edges, where the complete denial of meaning in general or objective reality or however you want to say it. But then it's like. But then it's like once you start, like, saying, okay, actually, there is something. So all of a sudden, like, now. Now the conversation has shifted completely from like, there is no meaning to there is something. So once you say that there is something like it there, it brings accountability because now you're being judged by something outside of yourself. And I think. And then. And I think that's where you were saying like was interesting is like. Is like once you start being judged by something outside of yourself, a lot of times people will then retreat back to a nihilistic perspective because they don't like the judgment. Exactly.

[8:17] Matt: Yeah.

[8:17] Michael: And. And what the judgment actually means, because judgment brings accountability of some sort you know, it's like, to be a nice person. Well, now, being a nice person, whatever that means. There's something that we're measuring that against. And then you come short of that. And this. The whole coming short of, like, once you start traveling down this road of, like, okay, what is that? It's like, it actually gets more and more difficult the further you go down that road. Once you accept that there is meaning in the world, it's like, it gets really problematic. Very quickly,

[8:59] Matt: Say. Say that again.

[9:00] Michael: I said, once you accept that there's some. Some sort of objective reality or meaning in the world, it starts to get really difficult really fast.

[9:09] Matt: That's. Let's unpack that. Okay. Why is that?

[9:14] Michael: Oh, man. I don't know if I can. I don't know how much to. Because I'd like to kind of, like, move up to it, but I kind of like. I'm kind of more at the end of that, where it's like, as you start accepting it, there is no end. It's like turtles all the way down. And I think that's the part that's frustrating. Is that what it means that could be a good person? It almost becomes more obvious why you're not a good person than you are a good person.

[9:46] Matt: CS Lewis said only people who have tried very hard to be good understand anything about badness. People who haven't tried to be good don't really know anything about badness. I thought is a brilliant way to say that, to say it's turtles all the way down, which is because the more you attempt to live up to the good, the more you realize this. Like, that shines a light on you, and you see badness now in yourself. Where does turtles all the way down come from?

[10:19] Michael: Oh, that's a really great question. I feel like it's like a Hindu expression or something like that. Because the world sits on top of a turtle. What does the turtle sit on? Well, it sits on another turtle and then sits on another turtle, and it just turtles all the way down.

[10:33] Matt: Turtles all the way down is an expression of the problem of infinite regress. The saying alludes to a mythological idea of a world turtle that supports a flat earth on its back. I don't know what that means. It suggests that this turtle rests on the back of an even larger turtle, which itself is a part of a column of increasingly larger turtles that continues indefinitely. Increasingly larger turtles?

[11:01] Michael: Yeah, it seems like it's like a Buddhist or a Hinduist type thing.

[11:05] Matt: The exact origin of the phrase is uncertain. Okay.

[11:10] Michael: Fact Check. Michael.

[11:15] Matt: That's interesting. I mean, the thing that comes into my mind is, okay, so I recognize that there is such a thing as good, which is to say that there is meaning in the world and it is objective. I can objectively find that goodness does not originate in me. It originates. I benefit from it, and I learn from it, and I imitate it, and I am sort of blessed by it. To imitate it, to be made in its image, let's say. I mean, that's kind of the description of the relationship between what it means between who I am and what it means to be a good person. And that's kind of a tricky thing, right? Like, I want to be a good person. Well, what is that? What does it mean to be a good person? And the more we flesh out what it means, the more I realize I'm not that. And I'm probably never going to be that, at least not perfectly. And so that's a problem. What do you do there? And maybe the second problem is, well, if there's such a thing as good, and good is as fully good as it could be, good would be. Good might be something like infinity. It's immeasurable, and I am not it, which means I am measurable, which means I fall short an infinite amount because it doesn't matter how good I am. You can't measure the distance between where I am and infinity. That's not a measurable distance. Yeah, so you have a problem there. So as much as I try, I will not be able to move toward the goal in some sense, in some kind of quantifiable way.

[13:07] Michael: Let me ask you a question. I don't know if this was helpful last time, but I kind of want to do it again. To take the opposite stance to this, to flesh it out.

[13:15] Matt: Well, we should say that we did that last time, but I didn't know we were doing that. And I. I need to go back and listen to it because you said you told me, but I.

[13:27] Michael: Even your agent said you just.

[13:29] Matt: Oh, did he?

[13:29] Michael: Yeah, he was like. He's like. It's in the show notes. Oh, that's right.

[13:34] Matt: So now I missed that. And the whole time I was just like, michael, I know you don't think these things. What are you doing?

[13:41] Michael: Yeah.

[13:42] Matt: Okay, so you want to take the. You want to play devil's advocate, as it were.

[13:46] Michael: Yeah, it just helps me to, like, sometimes reason through and then you. And then have you push back on. On.

[13:51] Matt: On.

[13:51] Michael: On that stuff. Because it's like, I really like being able to like, just push things until they break. You know, it's like, like, even last. Our last episode is like. Is just as I was pushing on it and you. It's funny, like, not knowingly, like, it's like, like allowing that sort of bulwark to push against. And it's sort of like I felt like there was a certain. You could flesh things out a little bit more.

[14:17] Matt: I mean, it certainly challenged me to clarify my position. So I'm all game. Well, choose a safe word or something.

[14:28] Michael: Polyurethane.

[14:31] Matt: Let it be. Let it be.

[14:36] Michael: So in the way that I would push back on this is like, why does there need to be an objective reality? Why can't I just except that generally speaking, that we all kind of understand what it means to be a good person. And why do we have to sort of objectively say that it exists out there? Why is it not even. Just it being a social contract is useful? So it's like, I could just say, like, hey, you know, in this social contract, we're going to believe these certain things and accept these certain preferences, and that's how we're going to move forward in the world. And that's gonna. And we've seen that with those preferences and people adhere to those preferences, it leads to a. A better society.

[15:26] Matt: Well, better according to who?

[15:29] Michael: Well, I would just say, like, it's almost sort of like science. Sort of like, you know, as we play this out and we see that if there's a certain laws that we have in place that people follow, that it produces a certain type of society.

[15:44] Matt: Yeah, but even your own judgment that that certain type of society is preferable to another is just simply your preference. Because there are plenty of societies that do things like cover the faces of their women and throw homosexuals off roofs and murder the victims of rape. They're not doing that because they think it's making society worse. They're doing it because they think it makes society better. That's their preference.

[16:12] Michael: And I would just say, like, I would be fine with that. It's just that within the society that I'm creating or that I'm a part of, like, we don't. That's not. That's. Those aren't our preferences. You know, we. We would rather people have more freedom and to wear what they want to wear and say what they want to say.

[16:29] Matt: Well, I would say you would rather according to.

[16:33] Michael: According to agreement. Like, sort of like we determine, you know, what are the boundaries we're going to set. Like, in that society, they set very What I would say is strict brown boundaries and. But we would like to have a little bit looser boundaries that people can operate within. Sort of like a. An operating system that is, you know, whether it's like Apple or PC. It's like Apple's a very closed system and PC is a little open system that allows other things to sort of connect to. So it's like. So it's a preference like, do you like Apple or do you like PC? It's like, well, I'd rather have a PC just because I'd like to be able to hook up whatever things I want to hook up. But there's still things. You're still sort of. You're still limited by the components and technology and your understanding. So there's a certain idea of like, this society still needs to evolve as things change,

[17:31] Matt: but judging that one society is preferable to another is not the same thing as an expression of taste. Which is to say that I like apples better than peas. I mean, that's just a simple, almost arbitrary expression of taste. Whereas to say, if you say, hey, in our society we are going to agree that we do not allow the murder of a rape victim because they are a rape victim. Why is that objectionable? Why do you not prefer that? That's not a statement of taste. That's a statement of good versus bad. That's a statement of morality. There's nothing moral about preferring an apple to a pea. Yeah, but I mean, I suppose you could try, you could try to explain to me why you don't allow that in your society. Why is it your preference that rape victims not be murdered?

[18:30] Michael: Yeah, well, I think under, like the tenets of the society that I'm, that I'm thinking of, I would be, I would say like, you know, their rights, according to our society that we have deemed for our citizens, like somebody violated those rights and so that other person doesn't have, you know, like life, liberty and, you know, sort of autonomy.

[18:53] Matt: But how did you choose the rights?

[18:54] Michael: Well, arbitrarily. But we just felt like this was a better, a better society than the other. But it's not like. But it more out of like a sort of like a natural selection kind of way. Like, you know, how can we have a society that prospers into the future and that our genes and memes move more effectively into the future is that victims or people whose bodies are being violated doesn't propagate the gene or our genes into the future as efficiently and effectively as somebody who has, has bodily autonomy. If that makes so. It's like. So for, like, rape victims. It's like you're. You're actually like. It's quite possible that you're moving genes into the future. Unless there's an abortion or something like that. Genes into the future that you might not want to move into the future because you don't want those types of characteristics to move into the future as someone who would violate somebody else's space.

[19:53] Matt: Well, in those societies, the victim of a rape should be murdered, even if he's a male.

[20:02] Michael: The victim of a rape.

[20:06] Matt: But at some point, okay, so in your society, you prefer that genes propagate into the future. And I could ask you, well, why do you prefer that?

[20:20] Michael: Well, I would say it's because that's kind of how it's happened throughout the millennia. It's like we see some sort of value of that. Of that sort of natural selection. And moving genes into the future, that's actually a purpose of.

[20:38] Matt: Gotcha.

[20:41] Michael: Well, that was just the Michael who doesn't agree with this.

[20:44] Matt: I mean, at some point, you're going to have to arbitrarily stop asking why.

[20:49] Michael: Yeah, totally.

[20:49] Matt: And take something for granted, which is to say, treat it as objective.

[20:54] Michael: Totally, yeah.

[20:56] Matt: And you could push it further because I could say, well, all right, great. You have your society, and as long as people agree, everybody can live in your society. Okay, Thanos is now in the world, and he wants to arbitrarily get rid of 50% of people because he thinks that that's preferable. Now 50% of your society is going to be gone, and that's not preferable to you. So now what you do, you don't live in an isolation. At some point, you have to say, no, my way is so preferable that I am willing to fight you to stop from corrupting it. And then at that point, you have to have a reason why your way is better than the other way. And again, in order to justify that, you are either going. In order to justify assembling the Avengers and going to fight Thanos, you're going to have to either arbitrarily stop explaining and take for granted the rest that you left unexplained, which is to say, treat it as objective, or just start there and say there is something objective and we might quibble about the nature of it. As a matter of fact, we will always. Because it is unknown to us. The nature of goodness is unknown to us. It is hidden. It has been hidden from men, quite possibly because we just simply aren't capable of Grasping it fully. But it is the goodness itself that says, you might not be capable of grasping it fully, but I will wrestle with you about it. And that's what the quibbling might be, is to say, well, what is good? We have to fight over this. But we take as a starting point that there is such a thing and that we do have some kind of relationship to it and ability to commune with it. And in that way, the world becomes richer, more full of fruit, more full of reward. And such a thing as prosperous is possible, prosperity is possible. And when we see it, we say, yes, I want more of that.

[23:15] Michael: Well, it's interesting because there's quite a few things even just in how I was trying to get out of something objective or outside of preference is like, you really have to dance. And you almost have to say that there's meaning, but there's really not. Because even I was, you know, even trying to, like, tie it to moving jeans into the future. It's like, well, obviously now you're making a. A moral statement that it is good to do that. And it's like. Or is it arbitrary? You know, it's like. And I, and I invoke science for that, but still, it's like science is just like, this is how this works. It's not like whether it's good or bad. You know, it's like, like, so it really doesn't really matter if your genes move into the future or not. So it's like, so you're basing your society on something that doesn't really matter if it moves into the future or not. You know, it's like, but you're acting as if it does. And so it's like you're almost like, like fooling yourself even more so by trying to make this sort of mental gymnastics around how you're going to orient your society. Whenever you're really just saying, like, hey, this is something valuable. Even on the other side of, like, you know, a society who is going to kill the person who was raped because they're no longer a virgin or something like that, it's like they're making a statement about what is good or bad. It's like this woman's virginity has been taken and that is bad and they do not deserve to live.

[24:43] Matt: We were both just guessing about the motives of.

[24:46] Michael: Oh, yeah, totally.

[24:47] Matt: I can't explain why that happens, but I do know that it does happen in Muslim countries. Yeah, continue.

[24:58] Michael: So I think that's a. It's a difficult thing as you start to kind of like, Kind of do the mental gymnastics around, you know, staying away from making definitive statements.

[25:11] Matt: Well, yeah. And it's kind of funny. You do have to dance. And ultimately, I think that the more you defend that position, your best case argument starts to become something like, well, aren't you just being pedantic, asking me all of these stupid questions? This is exhausting. I don't have time for you.

[25:29] Michael: Yeah.

[25:31] Matt: Which is a position I think we've seen a lot of public intellectuals kind of come to. I mean, you'll see this floated out. You see it a lot. Like, for example. Well, I'll just go ahead and invoke Sam Harris, for example. I mean, he's removed himself from so many conversations because he's just sort of tired of being pestered about how his worldview doesn't really add up. There's all kinds of other examples of this. You know, it's like when Elon came out as supporting Donald Trump in the last election. Elon went from. It's. It's hard. There's been so much revisionist history. But he went from like, darling, the darling of the progressives, to all of a sudden, we hate him. We've always hated him. And there's been.

[26:22] Michael: We've always been at war with East Asia. East Asia.

[26:25] Matt: Yeah. Right. That's so. I don't understand how Orwell understood that, that that's the way that these things go.

[26:35] Michael: Maybe explain that for those who haven't or you don't have to.

[26:39] Matt: Yeah. It's worth it. Quickly. In 1984, Oceania is that.

[26:45] Michael: I forget all three of them. But, yeah, Oceania.

[26:47] Matt: It's Eurasia, East Asia and Oceania. And these are the three great societies and Oceania. Am I saying that right? I think I am. I'm going to Google it because I want to be sure. I just read this book last year is always at war. And it is necessary from time to time for it to announce suddenly that it is no longer at war with East Asia, it is now at war with Eurasia. And what they always say when they make that switch is, we are now at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia. It has always been that way. And every document, every documented or every document, every reference that ever talked about being at war with East Asia is incinerated or changed. Oceania. That is right. I was questioning it because it's a weird one to say. It doesn't sound right when you read it. It reads right, but when you say it out loud and the book, like 1984, I don't say that out loud very much. But Oceania. So, anyway, the response is, elon's always been an enemy. And I'm just thinking. I'm really positive that wasn't the case.

[28:12] Michael: Yeah, Trump did the same thing to

[28:13] Matt: you, and then totally the same thing with Trump. But that's. That switched so long ago that it's kind of hard to appeal to the memory of it. But Elon just happened. And I think it's really interesting when you see. I see people on Twitter or on X all the time, basically trying to make a statement about how Elon is such an idiot.

[28:37] Michael: AOC does this.

[28:38] Matt: Yeah.

[28:39] Michael: And I'm just thinking, he's not even an engineer.

[28:41] Matt: Right. I'm like, that so obviously cannot be true. And then if you see anybody push back on them, they always have to retreat to basically just like, you're exhausting. I don't have the time to educate you, which is another thing you hear a lot. It's like, I don't have the time to educate you about your own racism, which is a way to just sort of end your side of the argument. You know, if I tell you that you're a racist and you push back at all, I can just say, well, if you don't understand it, I don't have time. I don't have the energy to educate you.

[29:14] Michael: It's not my superior to you, and

[29:16] Matt: you don't understand, so you're opting out of the whole conversation. You're ending it.

[29:22] Michael: Well, I think that's the part where if you don't see that there is an objective reality in that sense, where you're saying something that is contrary to what is real. And when it's real is really complicated. But if you don't even acknowledge that it is real or objective, then it's like, the only way that you have is to dismiss, you know, or to kill. You know, it's like, I think even, like, the right. You know, whether you're talking about religious spaces where, you know, the Pharisees, you know, it's like, if you're not following the law, you know, it's like, you know, Jesus was healing on the Sabbath. It's like, what are you doing?

[29:59] Matt: Stone him.

[30:00] Michael: Stone him. Yeah, exactly. And it was like, we got to kill this guy. It's like, well, he totally forgot what the Sabbath was for. It's like, man was created for the Sabbath, not man. Sabbath was created for the man, not man for the Sabbath. And it's like, you know, it's like, that's what you have to do is whenever your worldview is challenged and somebody is saying, is actually wanting to discuss it and let's, let's get into this. And you know, and Jesus asked him, is like, you know, is it better to do good on the Sabbath or to restrain from doing good? And he gives example of like, if your donkey was. Fell into a hole, you'd get it

[30:33] Matt: out, you know, And I hate when that happens.

[30:38] Michael: Damn donkey in the hole again, you know, but it's like, it'd be a

[30:42] Matt: cool name for a dive bar.

[30:43] Michael: But if you're donkey in the hole

[30:45] Matt: or, or maybe just some kind of like cocktail.

[30:50] Michael: This is great. We should. We'll have a Shores of Ignorance pub one day and then we'll have all these crazy names for stuff. But that's what you have to do. You either have to destroy the other. Yeah, and you see this too, like whenever, like the whole like protecting something and not wanting it to be challenged, like communism does the same thing. It's like, it's like if you, if you don't. If you don't protect it to the death, it falls apart. You know, and there's a couple other examples there too.

[31:19] Matt: Well, is there anything. Is that not true about everything?

[31:23] Michael: It is, which is fascinating. It's almost true about almost anything except for Christianity. Because like, you know, like in. In Paul's writings, he talks about like, there is no Jew, there is no Greek. You know, it's like. And that you're supposed to live among people in a respectful way. Whether it's like, you know, obey the laws of the land. Like Jesus with the coin. He's like, he's like, whose face is this on the. On this coin? It's like Caesar. It's like, okay, we'll give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. And so it kind of divides that sort of like church and state, kind of.

[31:57] Matt: It's interesting. I've always found it just so much simpler and easier to tell the truth because the truth doesn't need to be defended. My ability or inability to justify the truth doesn't matter to the truth. And maybe there's some presuppositions in my feeling about that that are necessary to explain because I think that, I mean, there is the implicit claim in what I just said that, that the truth is objective, that my witnessing of it does not, is not required for it. So it is objective. And I also think that truth is good and goodness is true. There's something interchangeable about those Two things. And to interact with those two things, I don't really have to defend them. They don't need my defense because they are what they are. They enjoy my participation. I would say I enjoy participating with goodness and truth. But to tell a lie is just on a logistical level, a nightmare because you're having to track all of these versions of a story that you've been doling out and you have nothing to reference to, check whether or not you've got it right because it's been made up. It's a lie. Right. It just takes so much more energy.

[33:34] Michael: Yeah.

[33:37] Matt: So I think maybe you're right in the sense that. Well, if the central claim of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was the son of God incarnated and that he was with God in the beginning and that he is good and that he is true, that he is who he says he is, the way, the truth and the life, then no one has to defend that. That's why the Gospels are called the Gospels. I think maybe it's the good news. Whereas the Pharisees need to defend their interpretations of the law, no one needs to defend the goodness and the truth of Jesus because they are in some sense self evident. And definitionally speaking, is this the right way to say this? Indefensible? There is, in a strange way, here's another thing that gets turned on its head. The goodness and truth in its ultimate form, which the Christian claim is in Jesus Christ, then lowers itself to say, not only do I not need your defense, I'm actually showing up to defend you. You don't need to defend me, I will defend you.

[35:09] Michael: Which is kind of crazy because, like, there's this. It's like once you start. Once you kind of start going around accepting this idea, like there is meaning and that there is objective truth, it's like your only posture is humility. Because if you don't have humility, because once you start to navigate that you actually start to experience how wrong you

[35:30] Matt: are,

[35:32] Michael: it's like, yeah, it's like the. It's sort of like once you start making statements about something that is outside of yourself that you don't have to defend now you're discovering something. But it's also the humility of saying, like, someone else going, hey, I don't see that. This is what I see. And so you can either hold on to whatever it is that you think or believe, or you can look and objectively submit to reality. Submit to reality. And I think that's a really difficult. I mean, that's kind of what's.

[36:04] Matt: You have to die. To part of yourself totally. To part of your understanding of things, to part of the conception of reality that you are holding on to. That doesn't hold up when you encounter real reality totally.

[36:18] Michael: And that's kind of like. I mean, that's kind of. The birth of science too, is like, hey, yeah, we're going to submit ourselves to what is out there. There's something objectively true out there. And it was born out of that spirit. And it's like you can kind of see that this new spirit of science, which is like, we're going to tell you what is real and you can't measure it. You can't have other opinions about it. And so it kind of has a sort of like. And you'll be ostracized if you think differently. And so it's like it's changed. That whole thing is like now it's no longer this sort of like something that we can all objectively converse about. It's like now it's something sacred that you can't.

[36:57] Matt: Well, I think that that's more of a modern manipulation of what science is. I actually don't think that you can do science without.

[37:06] Michael: Totally.

[37:07] Matt: You can't do science within a nihilistic perspective. You can only do science from within a perspective that does admit to something objective that is pursuable and worth pursuing. And you might say, well, I'm an atheist because I'm a scientist, but I would say, I think that that's an oxymoron. You cannot be an atheist and a scientist because to do science you have to say that there is something knowable which is outside of myself and it's worth knowing and I am capable of knowing it, of discovering it to some degree. To some degree, yeah. Which is already to make a statement of value. It's a statement of faith, too, of goodness, because it would be good to know, otherwise it wouldn't be, why would you do it? Right. Nobody pursues a scientific endeavor because we think it's going to make things worse. We do it because we think we can make things better. And that gets corrupted in all kinds of ways and we do all kinds of terrible damage. But the basic presupposition of the scientific endeavor is a religious worldview. And I find it quite, maybe not surprising, but very strange that so many scientists might claim to be atheists because they're not behaving that way. Yeah, they. I think that they are, well, I guess, in a sense, claiming maybe this is the kind of the whole point of the conversation is it's like you can't get away from the objective. Because if I say I'm a scientist, but there's in science tells me that there is no God, well, then why would you do science? Because you say, well, because it's obviously good that humanity prosper, and I want to help humanity do that. Okay, well, on what basis are you making that claim? And we get back into our earlier discussion and ultimately you have to either arbitrarily stop and then again take for granted what is. Which is exactly what people who believe in God do. It's like I get to the edge of my ability to understand, the edge of my ability to describe, to define what God is, and then I have to take him for granted. I have to say, I don't know you, I don't understand you. I can't define you. I can't put you in a box. You are God after all. Which is the same statement. I'm just choosing to make that and to profess my faith and to profess my humility. Whereas the atheist scientist oxymoron person is just not willing to do that. Is willing to say, I'm content to leave all of that as just to the miracle that it is and to not give it a name and to not ever really address it.

[40:18] Michael: Yeah.

[40:21] Matt: Who is it said, give me one miracle and I'll explain everything to you?

[40:27] Michael: I don't know.

[40:28] Matt: I don't either. Well, I think it was Wesley Huff made this point when he was talking to Joe Rogan. He's like, either give me the big bang or give me the virgin birth. Give me one miracle and I can explain everything.

[40:39] Michael: Yeah. Oh, like as your basis for. Yeah, okay, that makes sense. Yeah. So if your basis is the big bane, then.

[40:48] Matt: Yeah. If you just, you just never attempt really to understand that.

[40:52] Michael: Yeah.

[40:53] Matt: Or explain how that could be possible or what that even means. The big bang.

[40:57] Michael: Yeah.

[40:58] Matt: You know, you can come up with a lot of scientific jargon about it, but ultimately you're just saying something miraculous happened, something came from nothing, not even science can explain that.

[41:09] Michael: Yeah, yeah. I've heard a lot of dancing around in that area, but it's, it's really. I mean, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Like, like I'm going. Only going to go with what I understand. And I can't understand God. But then. And so, you know, but I can't understand. If I push this ball down the hill, it moves in this way at this velocity and, and this trajectory and that Kind of stuff. It's like, so I'm going to measure that. And it's like. And I think that's really hard because it's like. I think scientists have kind of keep painting themselves into a corner. And the idea of, like, I'm just observing the world, it's like, I'm not making any truth claims. It's like, I'm just seeing how something works well.

[41:56] Matt: And I would push back by saying, you can't observe the world without making any truth claims.

[42:00] Michael: I agree. Yeah. Yeah.

[42:03] Matt: Your very perception is guided by truth claims.

[42:06] Michael: Yeah, But. But I can understand that. And it's just sort of like. I mean, because Sam's kind of very. He does this really. That's very well. It's sort of like he doesn't go outside of his fenced little plot of land. You know, it's like, yeah, it's like. Like Jordan Peterson would always, like, say, hey, come play with me. And he's like, no, I'm gonna stay right here, because out.

[42:28] Matt: That's.

[42:29] Michael: That's too. That's not. Yeah, there's nothing out there for me to discover.

[42:32] Matt: When you. When you were growing up, was it common for people to have. What were they called? Wireless fences,

[42:45] Michael: maybe?

[42:46] Matt: Do you know what I'm talking about?

[42:46] Michael: I kind of know what you're.

[42:47] Matt: Yeah. So I grew up in the Texas hill country and then sort of in a very small town in a neighborhood where all the lots were like, between 2 and 10 acres. So it was fairly well spread out, and then some here in Austin, actually, but out sort of near bee caves, which was nothing like it is now. And I remember that there was. It was fairly common for people to have wireless dog fences. And what it was was they would install a wire that had some electrical current running through it, buried slightly under the ground all around their property. Then you put a collar on the dog, and if the collar crosses where the wire is, they get shocked. And so the dog learns never to leave the yard. But they don't have to have a physical fence, a physical barrier. And so you might be out riding your bike and this Doberman comes tearing towards you, and then all of a sudden just stops dead at the edge of the yard and won't come past it. He's barking at you. This was common enough where. I have a lot of memories of this. Maybe it was just one household that I rode my bike by a lot. I don't know. But it's like Sam Harris has installed his own wireless dog collar where he won't go Past a certain place. And the reason why he won't go past that place is not exactly evident. It's not exactly. Like, there's the fence. I can see it. He's not going over the fence. It's like, no, he's just stopping dead in his tracks. For reasons that feel almost arbitrary to

[44:22] Michael: the outside observer, but also reinforces the sort of idea of, like, no, you just don't go on the other side.

[44:32] Matt: Right.

[44:32] Michael: That's just. There's nothing over there. Like, why would you go over there? That's just dumb.

[44:35] Matt: Well, the dog wanted to go to the other side. It just wouldn't.

[44:39] Michael: I think in Sam's, like, his argument for that is just like, well, there's nothing over there. Like, why would I go over there? Like, like, that's pointless. And that's kind of like a. To me, it's kind of like a cop out. It's like, okay, well, because, like, once you go over that line, it's like, then you have to start playing a little bit, and that's dangerous. It's like, once you've created a worldview,

[45:00] Matt: that's a great way to say that you have to start playing.

[45:03] Michael: Yeah.

[45:04] Matt: Because what is play ultimately? Play is the discovery of something. I mean, when we get old, we tend to think of play as like, we play a game. And mostly what we do is argue about whose set of rules that they learned when they were kids are the right set of rules and why my set of rules for gin rummy is better than your set of rules for gin rummy. But when you're a kid, that's not what play is at all. Play is, do you want to play a game and what game is it? We don't know. We make it up. We invent it as we go, which is to discover rules that make the game interesting and fun to play, fun to continue as well as define them. And then, yeah, that's what play is. That's what real play is.

[45:51] Michael: Yeah. And I think that's the hard thing is because, again, that's where the humility comes in. If you don't have humility, it's like, you can't go out there because your worldview is going to be challenged, you know, because you do not have. You do not have. You're not the master of objective reality. And basically you're saying that you are. Whenever you have this sort of, I know what's out there, and definitely God is not out there. You're like, oh, okay. You know, it's like. And so you start kind of, you have to build this sort of like, castle. And for you to leave that castle, you start running into difficulties and possibilities that aren't as tight as your little philosophy is.

[46:42] Matt: I feel like we're nearing a shores of ignorance analogy. Talking about the out there.

[46:51] Michael: Oh, man. There's this one thing I did want to get to, but. Let me read it. Can I read a couple of things or do I do. Okay, I'm read a couple of things, and I kind of want to get your. Your thoughts on this. On these. On these things. Okay, here's one. The cross is exactly this. God measures himself by himself and absorbs the gap.

[47:20] Matt: What gap?

[47:22] Michael: No, let me just kind of do a couple here.

[47:23] Matt: Okay.

[47:25] Michael: The Christian claim isn't that Christianity is the most coherent worldview. It's that Christ is the truth made flesh. Those are different claims. The first is a philosophical comparison. The second is a metaphysical revelation that includes within it the recognition that philosophical comparisons is the wrong category. Because if Christ is who he claimed to be, then no framework is going to be commensurable with him. Frameworks compare to frameworks. Persons reveal themselves. This is fascinating.

[47:57] Matt: Okay.

[48:00] Michael: The nihilist pride, the substitution, is treating one's own honesty about meaninglessness as itself a kind of meaning, a private virtue.

[48:13] Matt: That one's interesting.

[48:18] Michael: So the first one I read, So no matter if you believe in God or not, it's like you end up setting up these things that you're going to be judged by. So whether it's Sam Harris or whether it's me or whoever, it's like anytime you start setting up a system, you are now being judged by it. And so, like, what is your response to that? Like, like no one can live up to any system that they set up for themselves. Does that make sense? And so, so what is that? Like, I feel like that's that, like, you start to kind of hit against this objective reality. Because even if a system that you set up in a way that you've observed the world and you see that you fall short of that system, it's like, what do you do with that? Are you punished for that?

[49:22] Matt: Okay.

[49:24] Michael: And so this is kind of an interesting thing, is like, it's like,

[49:31] Matt: Oh,

[49:31] Michael: shoot, I don't know how to get there on this. Maybe let's talk about that a little bit. And then we can kind of. Because there's a connection with this sort of like. Like the cross is exactly this. God measures himself by himself. And something about what Jesus and the cross and then him dying and Being the one that was the only one that could actually be measured. Well, and I want to return to

[49:58] Matt: the last part of that sentence where he says absorbs the gap. But I agree with the fact that God measures himself by himself. And this goes back to a conversation we had a number of weeks ago in which we played with the idea that God is the only self justifying concept. When God says who he is, he says the I am that I am. You know, us humans have to understand what things are as they compare to other things. We describe everything in the world that way. I mean, that's why we have poetry. That's why all of our language is metaphorical. All of our words are metaphorical to something that we can experience with our senses, otherwise we wouldn't understand them. That's why we say things taste like chicken, because we all understand what the taste of chicken is. And so we have a reference point. Everything else needs a reference point. God is the only concept that does not need a reference point. And that's not, that's not exactly a religious claim as much as it is a definitional one. What is the definition of the word God? It is the only self justifying concept. It is the only concept without a reference point. How do you measure God? Well, you don't. God measures himself. And what does he measure himself against? Well, himself. He is self justified.

[51:41] Michael: Yeah.

[51:42] Matt: The part I didn't understand about what you read is and absorbs the gap. What does that mean?

[51:48] Michael: Well, I mean, I think that's kind of one of the things I wanted to kind of get into because I think kind of where I was going before is like, as I've been kind of thinking about these things this week and kind of last week and, and it was kind of a little bit frustrating because I just started seeing like all these sort of idols that I have in my life, you know, as far as like, you know, here's what I, here's what I think it means to be good, you know, and, and I measure myself to whatever idea that is. And if I don't meet what is good, it's like either kind of lower it a little bit so I get a little bit closer to it, or, or I measure myself against somebody else who's so much further away from my definition of what is good. And so it makes me feel good.

[52:39] Matt: I'm not good, but I feel good.

[52:40] Michael: I feel good.

[52:41] Matt: Yeah, I'm not good, but when I look at you, I feel pretty good.

[52:45] Michael: Yeah.

[52:45] Matt: So it's like, wait, that makes me bad though.

[52:47] Michael: Totally. But it's interesting because I feel like anytime that you start to have something that you're measured against, there's a gap that forms. And so you have a couple of different ways to go. It's sort of like you either shrink the gap by making it less and making it more, more, more like you and less like it, whatever, that however you envision that gap, it starts to. You start to make it look more like you, or you take somebody else and you're like, oh, well, at least I'm not that. So it's like either you are trying to bring the objective reality or what the standard is closer to you, or you try to, like, put. Bring yourself closer to it by comparing yourself to somebody else. But the whole thing is, in either one of those situations, you're acknowledging that there is something else, that you're either now because you're superior to somebody else, that you're more of that thing, or because you've lowered it, that you're closer to it. And I found that it's like there's almost no. The part of my life that I don't experience that well. I'm a good husband. I mean, I don't beat my wife.

[53:57] Matt: Right.

[53:58] Michael: You know, or, you know, it's like our, you know, Joe Schmo over here, he's like this. So I'm like, way better than him, you know, or. What does it mean to be a good husband? Well, you know, I put food on the table. You know, I just lower the standard in a way that then I can meet it.

[54:14] Matt: Right.

[54:14] Michael: It's like, but if I'm honest with myself, it's like, what does it mean to be a good husband? It's like, whoa. It's like, even the closer you get to it, the further you are from it, if you're honest with yourself.

[54:26] Matt: Well, that's the measurement coming up against the impossibility of measuring yourself against an infinite definition. And I would say the best that you can do is to say, well, I think a good husband is somebody who wrestles with the question, what is a good husband?

[54:47] Michael: And with that, you're actually saying that there is a standard. There's something that I'm measuring myself to that's outside of myself. And it's like, then you have to have the humility to be able. Like, I don't measure up.

[54:58] Matt: Yeah. And in some sense, it doesn't matter whether or not the standard is reachable, especially when you first start to wrestle with it. I mean, your first observation is going to be, I Don't live up to the standard. And then as you attempt to improve, you gain something that we might call wisdom. Which is, not only do I not live up to it, the closer I get to it, the further away it seems to get. And I don't know what to do with that paradox exactly because I feel like I'm growing and improving in some sense. But with that becomes the knowledge that the standard was much further from me than I thought it was in the first place. And. If I handle that well, and not in this case, retreat to some kind of nihilism. I think that's often the catalyst to nihilism. Nihilism is. The Lion King is a really good example of this. And this plays out in our lives all the time. I think, you know, Simba is naive and arrogant. You just think about I just can't wait to be king. And that whole musical number. He's talking about how, here's what I'm going to do when I'm king. And Zazu says, not while I'm around. I've watched this a lot recently. And naivety breeds arrogance. And then naivety and arrogance tend to be the, how do you say it? Welcomely open to manipulation by something evil. So Uncle Scar uses Simba's naivety to manipulate Mufasa's goodness, wise goodness, in order to bring him down. So catastrophe. Naivety, then catastrophe. What does catastrophe lead to? In Simba's case, it leads to hakuna matata. No worries. That's what nihilism is. You need to put your past behind you. Just don't worry about it anymore. Yeah, just don't go back there. Yeah, we're eating bugs, but everything's great. That's nihilism. But then nihilism needs to turn to wisdom, and Simba fights against that, right? He doesn't want to go back. He can't face his past. And Nala comes and finds him and is really upset about it. And ultimately it's the Rafiki character. It's the, Would you call him, kind of the medicine man, the sage that has to remind, has to humble Simba. He has to tell him, your father is alive. He lives in you. And you aren't living up to that. And you better get your shit together. And Simba turns that into the wisdom of the return. But in what we were talking about earlier, if you aren't living up to the definition of the system, whether that be an organization like a job or a business or an institution like a marriage, you have one of two options. I think maybe there's more than two. I don't know, but these seem to be the ones that we wrestle against most. And one is, well, I'm going to accept the fact that the better I get at this, the more I realize how far away it is. And that seems so discouraging that maybe I just say, I don't want to play the game anymore. It's a game where as I get better at it, I lose more, right?

[59:04] Michael: Totally.

[59:05] Matt: It's like if the better you got at gambling, the more money you lost or the better you got at anything, the worse you got at it, you'd probably stop. So you might say, well, I'm going to stop this game. And that's the nihilistic perspective. And sometimes we have to make that, we have to go through that, but at some point we have to be reminded to return. And that's the wisdom that says, no, there's something else I gain by getting worse at this game in that what I'm gaining is wisdom. And with wisdom comes other things like kindness, peace, and maybe ultimately a revelation that what I thought I was going to gain was not the thing worth having in the first place. It wasn't worth having the being a good person, the being a good husband, the being of any of these. Those were all the wrong terms. The thing worth having was the thing I gained by realizing that I couldn't have those things and letting those go and then ultimately getting those back by accident. In a sense, it's not an accident, but it's also. It's almost like, well, you see them as a gift. What's that?

[60:28] Michael: You see them as a gift rather than something that you earn.

[60:32] Matt: Yeah, well, and also I think there's a necessity to it for it to be that way, because I was listening to, apparently my understanding is the only known surviving audio recording of C.S. lewis speaking. And he was talking. It's like this 20 minute radio broadcast he did, and not the only one he did by far. He did a lot of these, but apparently a lot of the old tape reels that recorded them got recycled and taped over. But he said you can't. No artist who sets out to be original will ever come up with anything original. He said, everything's like this. If you attempt to be authentic in a conversation, you will come across as inauthentic or attempt to be good. Exactly. The only way to be authentic is to stop worrying about authenticity. The only way to be original is to stop worrying about originality. The only way to be a good person is to stop worrying about being a good person and worry about something that is worth being caught up in.

[61:38] Michael: It's like it's greater than being a good person.

[61:40] Matt: It's greater than that. It's something greater than you. It's like if I am caught up in the question of what is goodness and what is truth, then that is going to bear fruit in me if I am caught up in who I am and whether or not I'm a good person and to what degree. It's like you can sort of see, I think, from this vantage point that if I'm caught up in being a good person, how much of my time am I going to spend on complaining that this person or this person didn't recognize my efforts at being a good person? It's like, I did this, I did this, I did this. You didn't even recognize those. You're telling me that I'm failing you, that I'm not a good person. You get into this tit for tat, like, quantifiable thing, pharisaical kind of thing, if it's very pharisetical. And doesn't Paul say, love is patient, love is kind, love keeps no record of wrongs. But I think there's something interesting in that, which is that love keeps. No, you could just stop there and say love keeps no records. It's like, if I love my children, I'm not keeping a ledger of all the ways that they have been good or bad or all the ways that I do or don't love them. I just say, I love you. There's nothing that can change that. There's no ledger that can change that.

[63:07] Michael: It's so funny because it's like. It's definitely the. I don't know if I can get there. But the relational part of that is you're trying to be a good person, but who validates you as a good person. It's like you're looking for your validation from those around you. Because if you compare yourself to what it means to be a good person, you will ultimately find that you fall short of that. So it's like I'm doing this good person act in order to be validated. And when I'm not validated, it's either I keep striving for whatever that means to be a good person so then

[63:44] Matt: I will be validated, or you have to lash out at the person who isn't validating.

[63:48] Michael: And they are. They're so, like, wrong or not a good person that they can't even recognize

[63:52] Matt: that you're a good person.

[63:53] Michael: And so I think that's the fascinating thing is like. Is like, if. If that's your worldview, it's like, then you have this idol of, of being a good person. And, and. And you just can't be that.

[64:05] Matt: What do you do with idols? Yeah, you sacrifice other living things at their feet. You know, you sacrifice other people's reputations and relationships in order to justify the idol.

[64:18] Michael: And I think that's where that second statement that I read was just sort of like, you know, Christianity, it's not a philosophy. It's like, it's a relationship. Because it's like, it's not about, like, you know, Jesus is sort of like the standard, and we're trying to be like, Jesus, it's sort of like it's a relational thing. And that's. You actually can't be that well.

[64:40] Matt: And I will. I will lodge one complaint at this point. All of the things you read to me sound very much like AI, because AI, for whatever reason, is very fond of saying, it's not this, it's that. I don't know why it does that. In one sense, I agree with maybe the heart of the statement, but I think, if I remember correctly, he said it's not the most coherent worldview. It is a relationship. And I agree with the it's a relationship part. But I would also say that that relationship part, when properly, properly understood, recovers the first.

[65:22] Michael: Yes, totally.

[65:23] Matt: And it actually is the most coherent worldview.

[65:26] Michael: But I think that's the whole part. It's like. It's like you can't substitute one for the other. It's like, it's because if you say it's like, hey, this is a coherent worldview, it's like you miss it completely. It's the relational part that makes the worldview. Yeah, it's like the relational part makes it a coherent worldview. And so actually, that's kind of why I appreciate this is like, when people state things in that way, or with AI, that's half my conversation, is where it'll state something and then I'll argue with it about that, like how it was stated, and then just kind of get deeper and deeper. So that's why I've really appreciated this conversation because it's sort of like. It's like, okay, what is at the apex of what we're talking about here? And so when you make that sort of like, that idea that. I think what you did correctly was just sort of like, it is actually a coherent worldview. But it's not because it's a coherent worldview. It's because it's a relational thing that makes it a coherent worldview, if that makes sense. It's like always putting the highest thing and everything else falls kind of into

[66:28] Matt: place, fills in the gap, everything in its right place. Yeah, that's what a coherent worldview is.

[66:33] Michael: Totally.

[66:34] Matt: Yeah.

[66:35] Michael: So that's why. I mean, I think that's why I've really enjoyed this. Sort of like, for me, what this week is just kind of struggling through that. Sort of like. Because that's the other part where I was like, really kind of the. The thing, the relational aspect of it. Because I kept seeing these parts and, and like, that's why I say, like the turtles all the way down. I was like, I just kept seeing all these different idols and I was like. And part of me was just sort of like, is like, if I can only get good at tearing down these idols, but then that becomes an idol in and of itself to like.

[67:06] Matt: To be an idol killer.

[67:08] Michael: Yeah, exactly. And it's like. And then that was a. That was another point that we kind of got into. Was just sort of like. Like there's this. There's this place where you get to. It's like you have this almost spirituality idol that's sort of like. Like, look how good I am because I'm focusing all my energies on God. And even that part, you're missing it completely too.

[67:31] Matt: I was. So this was kind of fun. It was a couple weeks ago when we were off for that week. I was in Big Bend. You were in Vegas. My mom and I were camping and I decided to bring a copy of the book the Abolition of Man by C.S.

[67:49] Michael: lewis.

[67:50] Matt: And I told her I wanted to read it to her. She hadn't ever read it. I was thinking about it. It's a fairly short book and you're going to be camping, so you need things to do. And I wanted to read it out loud to her. And so I did. Which is just something I think we just. We don't do enough is read out loud to one another. So it was really enjoyable. And so anyway, my mom and I have been sort of, you know, we had like a six hour drive home and we talked a lot about it. And she read the final third lecture of it on the drive home. We talked a lot about it and then. And we've been kind of sending each other interviews. We find when people are talking about this book and there seems to be a lot of them recently, and there's this one interview with this man. I'm trying to remember if I get the reference right. I can't remember. It's one of two. I can't remember which it was, but I believe it was an interview on this YouTube channel called Socrates in the City. I've watched a couple of these now

[68:47] Michael: and

[68:49] Matt: oh, it was an interview with Carl Truman. That's right.

[68:51] Michael: Who?

[68:52] Matt: Carl Truman is the author of that book that I talk about a lot called the Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. And they were talking about this question. It's like, who are we? Who am I? Who are you? Who are we as humans? It's a quite profound question if you really spend some time on it. And I think Lewis is the Abolition of Man is one of the answers to that. But Carl Truman talks about how if you went back to the, let's say early 1800s or anywhere in time before that, and you just went up to somebody and said, who are you? He said they would likely respond in terms of externalities. And I might say, well, I'm this person, son of this person. I live on this land, I was born on this land. I'm a. Because my father's a blacksmith, I'm going to be the next blacksmith for the town. And I've known since this age that I'd marry this person and I go to this church or whatever. It's like who you are is defined by externalities. It's defined by your relationship to all kinds of things. And Carl Truman, who's a professor, can't remember which university. He said, what I've noticed is that if you ask young people these days questions about who they are, they tend to respond by describing choices that they've made. They don't talk about externalities, they talk about personal preferences. Well, I'm this person, I have this hobby. I chose to go to this university for these reasons. I'm choosing to do this profession for these reasons. It's all self referential. And I think that in a sense the first was a more coherent worldview to see yourself as the product of the relationships you're in. Because I think ultimately what we're talking about is that the definition that I want to move toward, I think is that who I am is a son of God. That is the most comprehensive response to that question. Because as I move toward what is good and I find that I'm further and further away from it, it starts to make sense why Jesus says, those who will save their life will lose it. And ultimately I find my definition Even my very personality. And C.S. lewis talks about this. He talks about how we only find our true personality when we give ourselves up to God. Our true personality is found in God, not in ourselves. And so ultimately, the answer to the question, who am I? As I'm the son of God.

[72:05] Michael: There's a lot to unpack here. The thing that you made me think of, like, as you're describing this is like, the problem of the one and the many. You know, it's like the individual versus the collective. And, you know, there's a part where it's like, like, who am I? It's like, I'm a son of God. Like, that's the individual, you know. But then you're also a part of a community of people, too. And it's like. And kind of to your point before, like, who are you? It's like you. It's like, it's all. It's relational to those around you and stuff like that. So there. It's kind of. There's like a. Both and. In this, and. And you can't collapse into one or the other. It's like it's. You have to hold both of those together. It's like, not only are you a son of God, but you're also a part of his creation. You know, it's like you're. You are. You are one and an individual, and you are also a part of. Part of the whole. And I think that's something that every, like, a lot of different religions and thinking tries to, like, collapse things into one or the other because it's a lot easier, you know, so it's like, you know, like, in Christianity, it's like, you can have a lot of different sects and stuff like that, and it's somewhat accepted. It's the same thing with, like, the United States sect. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Different denominations.

[73:23] Matt: In Christianity, you can have a lot of sex.

[73:26] Michael: It's like you have a lot of denominations or whatever.

[73:28] Matt: You didn't tell me that when I was in Baptist youth group.

[73:31] Michael: And there's a lot of conflict and stuff that. With. Between those different denominations and stuff like that. But it's still. It's like. It's under one arena. And then, like, you know. But if you. If you have, like, in Islamic, you can't have, like. There's basically two different. Anyways, I don't want to. There's two major distinct Islam, but it's like, even that. It's like you have a Quran, and it's like, it's the same throughout all of History. It's like. It's like you can't disagree with it, you know, with the Bible. It's like the Bible is something that points to God. It's not something that you have four gospels that are completely, you know, different, you know, and different perspective. Not different in. Well, different in, like, it's. It's pointing in the same direction, but it's different perspectives and different things are said.

[74:17] Matt: Right?

[74:17] Michael: And so there's. There's this whole part of, like, you know, how do you hold those. That.

[74:21] Matt: That.

[74:22] Michael: That. That dichotomy of, like, the one and the. The one and the many. And I feel like that's something that, you know, within Christianity does a lot better than, like, most other religions or worldviews. And I think that's why the US Is kind of like, mirrored off of that. It's like, how do we. How do we allow for that diversity of. Of the individual is important, but then how do we. How do we organize ourselves into a community? You know, because both those things are equally important. Important.

[75:00] Matt: What comes into my mind is that there's this idea of the Word and the Logos, and it seems to be very important in the biblical account in ways that I find really intriguing. So in the beginning, so John says, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through him, all things were created. Nothing has ever been created that was not through the Word. And in Genesis, God speaks. God says, let there be light. And then he separated the light from the darkness. He separated the waters from the expanse. He separated the creatures each into their own kind. And he did this by speaking. And then there's the story of Mary and Martha. When Jesus visits Lazarus House, and Martha is busying herself with preparing food and entertaining the guests and serving people. And Mary is just sitting, listening to Jesus speak. And Martha kind of snaps and says, my sister isn't even helping me. I'm doing all of this for all of you. She's not even helping. And Jesus responds and says something that is so interesting. He says, all of this food, all of these, this time, all of this will perish, but my words will not perish. Your sister has chosen wisely to sit and listen to my words. She has chosen the thing that will not perish. Think what. What is that? Words. We think of words as these fleeting things. It's like I say them and they're gone. And Jesus is saying, not my words. The words that I use to speak the world into existence seem to still hold the world in existence. They hold things as separated. And I think it's that way. In that way, the solution to the one and the many, if it indeed were a problem, I don't know that it is. Is that what it seems to me that goodness is calling us to do is to in some sense simultaneously individuate and integrate to be an individual as a part of a whole?

[77:27] Michael: Yeah.

[77:29] Matt: And so when I say that the best definition for me is son of God, it's like, son of God in all his creation and me individuated. It's like, I can say lots about that. But it's the person who individuated me that separated me from every other thing that I could be. That's the thing that gives me definition. I mean, you can't define light without dark or dark without light. The water without the expanse. There's no use defining a creature which isn't separated from other creatures.

[78:17] Michael: Or like women and men are. Are more alike than they are different, but it's what's different that makes them unique. Yeah, you know, it's like.

[78:24] Matt: Well, you could say the same of any given individual. We're more alike than we are different, but we are different enough that it is infinitely fascinating.

[78:33] Michael: Totally.

[78:35] Matt: And it doesn't matter how many of us have lived or do live or ever will live, each new one, everyone knows this implicitly, is utterly fascinating. That's why when you have a child, especially one of your own children, but you know this about other people's children too. It's like a newborn baby. You can just sit and hold that baby and stare at it for hours. What is it that you find so interesting about that? We like to say things like innocence or potential, but I think it's just the uniqueness is so incredible that you can just look at it.

[79:16] Michael: Yeah, I think that's. That's part of, like, becoming a parent. That really. I think that really stands out for, like, you're experiencing this person for many, many years and. Yeah, from, like, infancy to adulthood. It's like, my oldest daughter's in Alaska right now. And it's like. It's like, oh, my gosh, she's doing all these things and acting in the world independently. And it's like, it's like, who are you? Like, I don't even know who you are anymore. Yeah, it's like, it's. It's fascinating to. To see that.

[79:50] Matt: Yeah. You. You get to get to know your children as they grow. Yeah, it's pretty amazing.

[79:58] Michael: But so I want to. I kind of want to get back to this, this gap filled. Because like, that's the part that's been, I think, kind of a little bit baffling to me because it's. In one respect it seems very nihilistic in some regard. It's like, okay, what if I do recognize the good is never attainable? What do I do about that? And the answer is if you try, like you said earlier, it's like, if you try to be good, it's like you just can't. It's like you just start to realize, like, oh man, I fall short of that so much. And so like, you know, you have, you know, Jesus who comes into the world and says, yes, you can't, but I'm going to fill that gap. It's like, I don't. What does that mean? You know, it's like, it's like, it's like, why is that even important? You know, it's like, because, you know, on regard, I can see that in experientially, it's sort of like the more I try to do what is right, the more I realize that I can't. But I do know that if I change the rules a little bit, then I can perceive that I'm getting closer. But closer means that it's a finite point that I'm moving towards. But then if I'm really honest with myself, it's like, wow, I will never reach. That's not a finite point.

[81:29] Matt: It's an infinite point.

[81:31] Michael: Yeah. And it's like it's only, it's. It's in the finite point that then I, I have this false, this false achievement or, or idea. And it's like in, in. And as you get closer to it, it's like you become more false. And I'm, I'm just, I'm mostly just speaking from my own experience here because it's like, because I'm really interested in. It's like, okay, I see these things and I want those things and I want to become those things. But I feel like the more I become it, the further I get away from it. And I don't see this in anybody around me or that is actually achievable. And so that's where that sort of filling the gap, like Jesus fills that gap makes sense to me. Basically saying like, yeah, you can't fill that gap.

[82:25] Matt: Well, all of that point makes sense to me. I didn't take that point from the thing you read to me earlier. I don't know, Shoma, the point about the gap. You said the thing you read to me was God measures himself by himself and fills the gap. That those words together don't make sense to me.

[82:49] Michael: Oh, I lost. Which I was making a point there about. I see that there is a gap there.

[82:56] Matt: And it's like, for you, not for God. Yeah, right. So that's the difference I'm making.

[83:04] Michael: Okay. I feel like you made a point about something that I wasn't talking about. But so what do you. So tell me, what do you. What do you. I guess maybe what do you not understand about that or the part that you're having a hard time with that

[83:21] Matt: maybe I'm saying, when taken just without any other context, if I say God measures himself by himself and fills the gap, that doesn't make sense to me.

[83:35] Michael: Well, I think that's the part that doesn't make sense to me either. Then that's what. That's what I'm trying to talk about is like. Is like, you know, like, why would Jesus have to die for us? And that part of that is like, so that man could be without sin.

[83:49] Matt: But you're already adding in another concept to the thing that I was repeating back to you. Now you're adding measurement of man, and man does not live up. Now there is a gap.

[83:58] Michael: Okay, well, the thing is, like, whenever God measures himself to himself, which. Which was Jesus, it's like, that's the perfect measurement.

[84:08] Matt: Okay.

[84:08] Michael: And so that. That's why he could die for us was because it is the perfect measurement. And so, like, you know, and he fills the gap. And that's kind of the whole claim about Jesus is like. It's like, whatever gap that is is like he fills that gap. Like, well, there is.

[84:25] Matt: I would say that the thing I'm objecting to, I guess, is there is no gap when God measures himself to himself.

[84:32] Michael: Yeah. I don't want to get stuck on that. I think that's what I believe it's saying is like. Is like. It's like, it's like.

[84:40] Matt: I see.

[84:42] Michael: It's not important.

[84:42] Matt: So the gap you're talking about is

[84:44] Michael: like, I'm not interested, like, justifying this. I'm more interested in like, okay, what is. What is that? Like, why is. Why did Jesus have to die? And that, you know, there's a reason why he and only he could do that. It's like, there's some fulfillment there that only he could fulfill and be measured in a way that says it's the lamb that was without blemish.

[85:06] Matt: Yeah.

[85:06] Michael: And so it was that you could do that. You know, it's like. And then. And then the other side of that is like, there's a gap there that man experiences. And it's like, is there a way out of that? And I feel like that's where we build our castles, because we acknowledge and see that there is no way out of this. One way is nihilism, that there is no gap, you know, and the other way is like, it's like, okay, well, if you follow this system, then, you know, it's like, you are a good person. Yeah,

[85:44] Matt: I mean, I prefer American Eagle, but what's that?

[85:47] Michael: What's American Eagle?

[85:49] Matt: I was attempting to make a very Brett Weinstein style joke playing on the pun of the gap. Well, maybe we should leave that question, that very, very large question for the next episode. I'd like to get into that. Why? I mean, I think the question I'm hearing you ask is, why did Jesus have to die? And maybe I think it's a valid question because you could say, well, maybe that's the wrong phrasing. Why did Jesus die? Did he? And that maybe a separate question is, did he have to? Was there some other way to accomplish what it is that is claimed that he accomplished? And what is it even that is claimed that he accomplished?

[86:37] Michael: Totally. That's a whole other thing.

[86:39] Matt: Yeah, but those are three really, really large questions because I don't feel very

[86:44] Michael: satisfied with a lot of the explanations of that, honestly.

[86:48] Matt: I think we could do a lot of. Make a lot of progress on those questions.

[86:54] Michael: Okay.

[86:56] Matt: I have personally been convinced of a few things more recently in my life as satisfactory answers to some of those questions.

[87:08] Michael: All right, so tackle those.

[87:10] Matt: Okay.

[87:12] Michael: All right, cool.

[87:13] Matt: Well, it's been a good one.

[87:15] Michael: Definitely.

[87:16] Matt: We'll be back next week, always with some big questions.

[87:20] Michael: See you guys.

[87:21] Matt: Maybe not satisfactory answers.

[87:24] Michael: Sa.