Judaism 101 - Shiur #7 - Intelligent Design Part 2

2:18 " So far, so good. Now The other argument that Shlomo made was that we spoke about the complexity of the earth, and Shlomo said. Aside from that argument, there was another argument you made. We set it aside last time. Now we're going to get back to it. It was the argument of neo-Darwinian evolution. So today, that's what we're going to deal with. We're going to deal with the concept of evolution. Let me tell you what I'm not going to do. Because we're not yet up to Judaism, I'm not going to discuss whether or not the concept of evolution fits into Judaism or not. Don't worry. We can argue that it does. But right now, let's just speak about evolution by itself in a vacuum. Shlomo, what's your question? Our question was when we started off. We said there's an initial point of origin. There's complexity to the design.

3:13 What was Shlomo's argument? Shlomo articulated it. That all life's complexity can be explained through evolution. Correct. The complexity of life can be explained through neo-Darwinian evolution, namely that Everything adapts, and therefore, in order to survive, it required complexity. Rather than say that there's an intelligent designer Merely say that the DNA developed in such a way. Correct. Fine. The question is What would happen if we agreed with Shlomo? In other words. In other words Let's assume evolution is 100% true. That indeed is exactly how it occurred. What are we left with? There's two diverging opinions here. One argument says let's try to attack evolution. The other says let's agree with evolution. Let's take that approach, and that's going to be the approach we take at least for the moment. Evolution is indeed true. Now what? Correct. Correct. Excellent. Very good. In other words Neo-Darwinian evolution does not lay claim to know about the origins of life.

4:36 All it seeks to claim, and by the way, any evolutionist would agree with this. All it seeks to say is how the original point of origin became what we now know as our universe. In conceding the point, the argument actually falls apart. In other words, there are two ways to speak about evolution. You're going to have rabbis that do both. Let me take one approach this year. Some say you have to attack evolution because once you acknowledge the possibility of evolution, you're going to lose it on the Judaism side. I don't think that's true. So I'm not worried about that. Mameila, I'll concede the point. Evolution is true. The world did develop. You're going to ask me what happened in Bara'ishus. We'll deal with that. We'll get to that when we get to that. When we get up to Judaism, we'll circle back and we'll speak about does evolution fit in with the Torah or not. But in the meantime, I'm willing to concede the point. Everything started in an open model of the universe. There was an initial point, and that point evolved.

5:39 What's the problem? Exactly right. The origins of life have nothing to do with evolution. I'm right. I'm doing I'm doing good today. Hashem. Baruch Hashem. Any questions up until this point? That was the easy part of today's. The hard part is coming in a moment. Shlomo, evolution doesn't lay claim. It doesn't say we're explaining how you know how they explain specifically how a single amoeba developed into a human. And I'm not arguing against that. I'll concede the point. A single amoeba or whatever the original primordial matter is. The original primordial soup, or as the Rebbein called it, huly. That original stuff, however, it became this. You want to call that evolution? Great, I'm in. But we, you didn't negate the concept of God, or at least you didn't eliminate logically the possibility of God. Good. If we can all agree to this Now we can start on today's shiur.

6:48 And now it goes as follows. Step two after evolution is As follows, this is the argument of Sir Fred Hoyle. And it goes as follows. We're just going to call it the chance argument. The chance argument goes as follows. Again, this is on the side that there is a designer. If you were, and this is how the classic argument goes, if you were in a junkyard of a Boeing Of the Boeing company, a Boeing 747 and all the pieces of the Boeing 747. Are there in the junkyard, and a tornado comes, and the tornado starts whipping around, and all the pieces in the junkyard go up. What are the chances that a 747 would be formed? This is the argument from Sir Fred Hoyle for chance. Obviously, what would you say the chances are? Trillions to one. If you saw a Boeing 747, what would you say?

7:50 You would not think to yourself, tornado. You would think to yourself, somebody put it together. So the argument does as follows: since evolution does not lay claim to that original point of origin, all it does is speak about how that original point of origin became the universe as we know it. So now let's go. What were the chances that the DNA of the universe would develop in such a way that all of the complexity of our entire universe could exist? For example, what were the chances that original primordial matter was going to develop in such a way that the Earth is going to be perfectly positioned between the Sun and Jupiter. That if we were positioned even fractionally differently, the Earth would not be able to be sustained. What were the chances that the Moon was exactly as it was to allow for the creation of life?

8:39 So the argument for chance goes as follows: just like none of us would believe that the Boeing 747 was put together by a tornado It would be ridiculous to think that the design we know exists in the universe. We can study scientifically the design of the universe. We know that computers today pale in comparison. We've never been able to replicate it. Perhaps one day we will, but we've never been able to replicate it in a computer because that's basically what DNA is. It's digital code, and so just like we've never been able to replicate the DNA, and we see the sophistication of design, it would be ridiculous to think that design happened accidentally. You understand the argument? So far, so good. Not all at once. Yes. Good. Here's the argument against. This is where we get excited. This is the work today. Comes along Sir Richard Dawkins, and he says as follows.

9:40 Not a good argument. The argument for chance is not a good argument. Why? Because you have to keep going backwards. For example. If the Boeing 747 was planned, put together, and had a design Then what would you say about the thing that put the Boeing 747 together? This is what you would have to say. You would have to say that it's more sophisticated than the Boeing 747. In other words, the designer is always going to be more sophisticated than the design. Which is true. So far, we can concede that point. But then he says, and this is where we start going backwards. Therefore The probability of the seven forty seven being created God is the ultimate seven forty seven. You hear the argument? In other words, he's saying as follows: the world is exceptionally sophisticated Exceptionally sophisticated. So it would be ridiculous to suggest that the Boeing seven forty seven happened accidentally. When he looks at the world, what does an atheist see?

10:54 He sees unbelievable design. So what does he say? If the design is that sophisticated The designer must be more sophisticated. Just like the person who puts together the plane has to be more sophisticated than the plane itself. Now the question becomes: If you're arguing that there is something that has this exceptional design, that it's capable of creating this thing that has exceptional design, the probability of that thing. Occurring by accident Is greater than the Boeing 747. God is the ultimate Boeing 747. One second. Let's make sure we understand the problem. I want everyone to appreciate. The problem is that the other side Like the atheist argument Is how could you say that a god, something that's as much as a god, came by chance? That's right. In other words, as follows

11:46 What the argument for chance says. This thing that's created, let's say point A. Point A has exceptional design. Nobody will dispute that. We haven't done the science on it. I'm not going to do the half an hour bit where we go through the fact that all of the books in the entire world, if they were written, the DNA code could fit on a teaspoon. We're not even going to go there. We know, without even getting into the science, if you want to look at it, you can. The Rambam says that a person could look at science and appreciate the flowz habore, could appreciate the Creator. So we know that this world is exceptional design. We know that the fact that the Earth has the water it does, which allows for the sustainment of life, which they haven't found on any other planet as far as they've been able to see for hundreds of millions of light years, nothing has come close to what we have. A has exceptional design.

12:34 If A has exceptional design, then the designer, we'll call that D, must have greater design than A. Because just like I am the creator, so to speak, of the Boeing 747, which has exceptional design. Which tells you what about me? I must have been brilliant to come up with exactly right. So if you want to argue that this can't be accidental, that this can't be by chance, then you certainly have to make that same argument about D. That's the argument against. The chance against Sir Fred Hoyle's argument for chance. So it's kind of saying that God would need to have a designer also. Exactly right. In other words, if you want to take the argument of intelligent design, that anything that has intelligence must have a designer, so then you have to make that argument about the designer himself. If you're going to make that argument about the designer himself, then you can't say he's by chance. Now you're going to start going back.

13:36 Then where's their start? Ad infinitum, and that's the point. The point is now you're in a loop. You're just going on and on in circles. Who was the thing that created that, and who was the thing that created that? So the argument for, in other words, you're saying this can't happen by chance. Then God can't happen by chance. Who created God? Whoever that is, that can't happen by chance. So the whole thing, the whole argument, Dawkins says, falls apart. Don't you have an easy way out of that? Wait! Don't answer yet. I do have an easy way out of it. I actually think it's a pretty ridiculous argument, but I want you to appreciate the problem. The whole point is that you can answer. I just want to make sure everyone appreciates the problem before you guys get the answers, because there's gonna be plenty of answers. Are you saying Deism, God, or if you keep going back to the old meaning?

14:23 If you want to say that anything that's intelligent has a designer. So then I'm intelligent. I'm more intelligent than a Boeing 747. Why? Because a human being could conceive of the notion of manned flight. We can put an object that weighs tons and put it up in the air. We knew how to do that, which means, in the scale of intelligence, the Boeing 747 is not nearly as great as the one that designed that in the air. So you're looking at a human being and you're saying, 'That's massive.' So who created the intelligent human being? Must be that there's a more intelligent designer than that. Now you're going to argue, as a firm Jew, you're going to argue that intelligent designer is called God. Whoa, the intelligence of God must be astronomical. Well then, who created that? Whatever that is, that must have been unbelievably intelligent. There must have been a designer for that. If you want, the argument for intelligent design falls in on itself.

15:14 Because then you're always going to say, if anything that's intelligent has a designer, then God must have a designer too, because that's the ultimate intelligence. You're going to go back ad infinitum. You're going to lose the whole thing. So says the atheists. The entire concept of intelligent design implodes on itself when you consider the design of God. Got it. Now let's see you whack away at it and see what we come up with, Schiff. God was never designed to exist. So now you can appreciate. Very good, Ellie. Now you can appreciate why I set it up the way I did when we first started this year. Dawkins would be one hundred percent correct if the argument was for a God that exists. You understand why. And I want it's by the way perfect that you use that terminology. Do you see why the terminology was so important? We hammered away at it for weeks.

16:09 When we speak about that which exists, we're always speaking about the beginning of it. So we're saying this thing that exists has an intelligent design. Mammalit has an intelligent designer. The argument for God is that God does not exist. You got that? When we say God doesn't exist, we don't mean to say that God is not real. In fact, we're saying the opposite: that which is real Doesn't exist. Does that make sense? This table exists. So it's not so real. Why isn't it real, guys? I could break the table and turn it into something else. I could burn down the table. In other words, it's malleable. Its truth is not locked in. It's not defined. Physical is not real. It's measurable, it's important. But it's can't be said if you're arguing that there's a god that doesn't exist and that's the ultimate definition of reality. Then when you look at this table, you can't go. That's what's real.

17:13 So now, if your argument is as follows, let's play it out. Make sure everyone gets it before you argue. Let's make sure everyone gets the argument. If your argument is for a god that exists, then you would look at the design. Of God, that's what's critical here. What's critical is the argument says that God exists and He has a design. What are we arguing? God doesn't exist. There is no design to God. What does the Rambam call God? Matzui Rishon. What does Matzui Rishon mean? First. First what? First mover. The prime mover. The argument is that if everything comes from somewhere, then there needed to be a beginning, meaning a point of non-existence, just like we said in the open model of the universe that this came ex nihilo, it popped into existence, it came from nothing. Then the question is, what's the nothing? So we're arguing that nothing, whatever you want to say about the point that happened at existence, is this designer Meaning it had no design, because if it had a design.

18:20 Then what would it be? That it would be within the realm of existence. Then it would have design. Then we would say, where was the designer? And then whatever that thing is, we would call God. Sammy. What is your definition of real? So here's the key. Reality has to be true. True means it has to be unchanging. Meaning. If you want to argue one plus one is two, then it always needs to be correct. It always needs to be true. One plus one must always equal two in order to have this argument. So if one plus one is two ninety percent of the time, then it's not true to say one plus one always equals two. So I want to say anything that's measurable is real. It means it needs to be unchanging. That's the way I'm using the word. You want to use it differently? We can, but that's the way I'm using the word.

19:12 Which means that this table cannot be said to be real. In its current state, this is what it is. But if it's capable of changing, if I'm capable of changing it, or if it's capable of changing by itself. Then that wouldn't be real. So we're all fake. I was going to say, are humans real? Correct. To a certain extent, not to a certain extent. All I would say, all the way. The answer is no. Humans, or at least a part of us, exists. For example, the body can go old, can die. So then it's not truly real. I would argue. Because I believe in God, I would argue for the notion of the soul, and I would say that if you wanted to speak about the reality of a person, you wouldn't speak about their flesh; you would speak about their soul.

19:55 Their soul is real. Their soul is a spark of the infinite. It's a piece of the infinite. It's like a ray of the sun. It has the qualities. We spoke about the five qualities that are unchanging. Those things are in their maximal state, right? And so, therefore, we're not going to define a human being by their hand or by their arm or by their legs. And if somebody was a quadriplegic or a paraplegic, or if somebody was an amputee, or even if somebody was mentally disabled, we would never treat them differently, right? Why? Because that didn't define them to begin with. So the person who has a mental disability is not, or again, he's handicapped in the sense that he may not be able to do as much as we do, but his dignity, meaning what makes him real, is equivalent to mine. And therefore, we would have to treat him with that godly dignity. So yes, we, meaning the human in its existence form, I would not define as real.

20:49 Bibi. I know this is a bit off topic. But how would you define? I reserve the right to say I'm going to get to it then. As I don't want to ignore the question, I might reserve the right if it's off topic. I don't think you're going to get. Hopefully we'll find out. What about non-Jews that they don't have? I'm definitely going to get to it. Definitely going to get to it. Why would you think that this sheir would not include? Absolutely a specific class. You're asking a fundamental question. You're saying that, given the nature of Judaism, there's a division in the species between Jew and non-Jew. We have to understand what is the nature of that division. And if non-Jews should be not real At least as real as Jews Because the Jews have the neshama. And who said it? Who said a non-Jew doesn't have a neshama? In other words, Bibi, I'm only highlighting that it's an important point to make, and I agree with you 100. It needs to be discussed. It absolutely requires at least a shiur to shalom.

21:47 So what you've done here is you essentially put forward that an infinite loop of. I'm blocking the infinite loop. You're blocking the infinite loop by saying the beginning is magic. Because magic implies one of two things. Either you could say magic is a sleight of hand, right? Meaning it's happened. You just didn't see it, right? In which case, science would be able eventually to understand that sleight of hand, right? Or alternatively, what I'm suggesting to you is this point And again, science doesn't have an answer to this question. By the way, science will never have an answer to this question because science isn't even trying to answer this question because it can't measure the non-quantifiable thing that came the moment before spontaneous combustion. And we know that to be true. So now the question is, what is the nature of this nothing? So it's not magic.

22:41 Religion is saying there's a nature to it. Science is saying it's beyond the purview of science to say. And by the way, Dawkins himself said, if you go back and you read his books and you go back and you listen to his lectures, when people ask him what was before that moment, he goes, I don't know. But his answer, his response is, just because I don't know, doesn't mean God is real. And again, I'm not trying to prove scientifically. Remember, we go back to that point. I'm not trying to prove scientifically that God is real because I don't think God can be measured. All I'm trying to do is give the possibility of a definition to nothing. Possibility of a definition to nothing. Exactly right. Which I'm saying is what? Make it even worse. Which I'm saying is non-definable, beyond the realm of human comprehension. So then, what's the point of it? You can't ask anything on that. We'll see. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps you're wrong. But one thing. But at the very least, can we agree that there's nothing that's been said so far scientifically? That negates the notion of God. In other words, that one does have the capacity. As we're arguing, that there is a concept of a soul. We're arguing that the soul naturally could connect to God, and we're just allowing for this possibility. So far, is that a reasonable argument?

23:47 I'll give you that. There's a supernatural problem. There's a supernatural first mover, because otherwise, you're stuck with an infinite regress. If you've gotten to the realm of supernatural first mover I'm in a great position then. Now we just want to know. What do we know about that supernatural first mover? If we can know anything The supernatural first mover could, in and of itself, be the infinite loop to begin with. Could be. Could be, but that's exactly the point. In other words, you're willing to concede that this, by definition, is supernatural. Because it doesn't. Because it's not within the realm of the natural. No possibility of it being natural. That's all I'm trying to say. That's exactly. Shlomo, you nailed it. I'm with you 100. Now you want to talk about Har Sinai? You want to talk about crazy Jews having this cult-like following and developing this crazy mythology? We could discuss that.

24:34 But so far we can agree. You call it supernatural prime mover; I call it God. But we're talking about the same thing. Yeah. You don't mean to say it's more intellectually honest. You mean to say it's more scientific. Let's be clear. Would you say a musician is not intellectually honest? No. But why not? He's not doing anything. He's not doing anything intellectual at all. So he's not being intellectually dishonest. He's not in the realm of science. What you're making the same mistake that we made, that a lot of us make, including myself, when we first start having this conversation. You've decided that in order for something to be intellectually honest, it needs to be measurable. But the human experience is specifically connected. In other words, everything about your life We hope it's going to be beyond the realm of science. If you're going to deteriorate it to its pure form of existence, you're going to be missing out on the humanity of it. So if you think that your relationship with your wife and your children is just a series of chemicals, then you've lost out on all relationships. And no person, no intelligent person, who thinks they're in a relationship is trying to measure the relationship. Same thing with music. Same thing with art. Same thing with poetry, and it's no different than religion. It's not intellectually dishonest to say that this prime mover that we're discussing is possible.

25:56 That's all we're saying. He's saying it's not measurable, but I agree with him on that. And he's saying you don't know just like I don't know, and I agree. I'm not trying to measure it, and I'm not using science as the barometer of the only possibility that's true. If you want to use science that way, you can, but then you have to do it with everything. In other words, you have to do it to music, art, history, poetry. You have to do it to everything. If it's not scientific, if it can't be measured, you don't believe in the concept of indirect proof. Then I'm with you. But you got to do it to everything in your life. Meaning, when you do get engaged, I want you to get down on one knee and say, 'Nobody makes me secrete serotonin better than you.' Because you got to be all the way. And if you want to do that, that's fine. Both do that. But the thing is, though, that it's only one. If you can't ever really know, why bother?

26:42 The opposite. Why did you make the same exact mistake again? Why are you defining knowledge that way? You're defining knowledge as measurable. The only thing that's true is that which I can touch, that which I can measure, right? That's not true in your life, and you know that to be true. So the question is, if there are multiple forms of knowing something, why did you take science as the only way of knowing something? Once you expand the possibility of knowing something, like the artist knows his musician to be true, he doesn't mean it in the measurable scientific term. He means it on an experiential soul level. So once you expand the definition of know, then it becomes exceptionally relevant. Once I know that this nothing is a prime mover, and now here's where Shlomo is going to get upset and has a plan and a purpose. Once I make that argument If in fact I do make that argument, that cult-like mythology that occurred at Sinai, maybe it was just some giant mushroom trip. But let's say I say that it has a design. Now you're going to come to me and you're going to say, "Wait a second, that's tremendous relevance because if the knowledge is beyond simple science."

27:45 If the knowledge is beyond the measurable scientific community, then it becomes exceptionally relevant. That's what I'm going to argue. But when I get there Can we say that atheists must believe in the supernatural? No. Why not? Because if Dawkins was in this room, he would argue as follows, and I think this is what Dolby was trying to say. Daniel was trying to say. I think those as follows. When you I've made a jump. I've made a jump between this initial point and the nothingness that I'm describing as this supernatural prime mover. The honest atheist says, "I don't know." He doesn't believe in the supernatural. For him, this is a giant question mark. He says it popped into existence. That's all I know. You're coming along and now saying this is what made it pop into existence. Because I'm measuring things scientifically, I don't accept your assertion.

28:44 They don't believe in the supernatural. They only speak about what they know. For example, do you know that there's a thing called the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? As you're holding it Pastafarianism, right? And so it was like a big deal because they're saying it's as random. By the way, I agree with them. You want to call this Flying Spaghetti Monster? Sure. It's at this point in the argument, it's really all the same. I'm just trying to give a hadarah. Not a definition in terms of quantifying it, but in terms of saying This is what we call the supernatural. How can they say that it's not supernatural that something popped out of nowhere? Because they have no idea what happened. If you press them, when or how They keep responding in the same way, and this is the brilliance of their argument. Then they're closing their door and they're not willing to discuss with you.

29:34 Like I mean, but they're right, but I'm not just like they're not willing to. I'm not willing to discuss with you the flying spaghetti monster. Is it because they're not willing to discuss it? They say I'm only willing to discuss the known. Religion seeks to discuss the unknown. And science can't discuss the unknown. And I don't blame science for not discussing the unknown because that's the nature of what science is. It defines the known. The question is whether you believe in the unknown. I believe that there's a talent of the soul that connects to the unknown. I see it in relationships, in music, in love, in poetry, and in our desire for purpose in our life. I believe that. But I don't measure that scientifically. So they would say, yes, that I'm being intellectually dishonest. I made up this thing, right. In other words, there's a I'm arguing for the point of supernatural, right, a supernatural prime mover. And from that nothing supernatural prime mover from the effis from the ion from the zero right. That's what we call God, right. From that comes all of the "Quote unquote, nothing exists in our world. That which lies beyond existence, that which is transcendent.

30:37 Meihtesi. That's their argument. You say they don't think about this, but there's something that came. They say there's something that was there and led to this. So how did? What were they? You say they don't think about this But no, it's not that they don't. It's not that they don't think about it. It's not thinkable. But they have to agree that it was there. They agree that it was there. They agree to this. They agree to this point Coming into existence. Fine. Forget everything else. Just this thing, right? Where does it come from or what is it? How could we know? They have to agree that it's something that's not natural. It doesn't naturally come. So therefore Supernatural. It's something that's not natural. Would they agree that it's supernatural? So maybe they should. They should agree that it's something supernatural. Maybe God. Maybe God doesn't exist.

31:23 It's not measurable. So it can't. There's no language for it, guys. One of the things you really have to work on when you're talking about these things is remember, all of these things come down to the technology of words. You have to get that. That's huge. Do you guys appreciate that point? Because it's a huge one. The technology of words is what gives you the capacity to have these conversations. Without the technology of words, you can't have the conversation. Science never developed on purpose. It never developed the language to discuss what you want to say. They can't talk about supernatural because science can only speak about the natural. You understand? From a scientific perspective. I can't tell you they believe in the supernatural because they don't have the language to believe in the supernatural. So that, therefore, they the conversation is over. That's but that's not that's not.

32:12 I agree with you, but I'm saying that's why when you say to me, doesn't atheists believe in the supernatural? As they say, you are now making a soulful jump. But I don't, I can't measure that. I don't. I don't even want to claim I think that God created the first whatever. I just want to say it. It was there, right? Something was not there before, right? Not there's not before, but that thing Not maybe, though maybe in other words, on the supernatural, came somehow formed that way through something and then somehow created all this. But look what you're doing. You're describing a god without using the word. You're now in an infinite loop. Because whatever that was, and then whatever that was, and then whatever that was. You're going back to going right. Whatever that was, it had to have something that was more intelligent than that, and then you're off the board.

32:58 Not necessarily. Not necessarily. I just unless you claim that thing is a god. That's the point. You've developed language for it. That is the guy. Liars. You all set on Maine. Socially conditioned people that have no idea. Yeah. So is that an experience that in your eyes is just like not supernatural, not physical? It's like an experience on physical? I would agree. I would agree with that one hundred percent. That's a brilliant observation, guys. This is the value of listening to the questions that your friends ask. Question is making an amazing point. He's saying every event now has two qualities to it. It has the existence, the measurable existence of the event, right? And then there's the transcendent, what you're calling supernatural, part of the event, right? So when you connect with someone, let's say when you get married, there's the measurable hormones of what we can see, right? But then there's something transcendent that also has the supernatural component.

34:05 That's where the humanities lie. So both are necessary. I agree with you. An atheist wouldn't propose to his wife saying, Whatever that dopamine stuff. They would say, because it's not a nice social convention to say that. That's true. But they would believe that it's not. If they're being intellectually honest and they go all the way, then they cannot acknowledge that there's something science can't measure. What about just like sitting down and like. Like watching sport is that like watching sports is that also super like? Do I believe that there's a supernatural quality to sports? Just like Like me being conscious and me experiencing Watching anything like that is not like waiting just talking about watching a TV show or watching like is this any experience? Absolutely, I'll give you the biggest proof in the world. Ready for this? Many years ago Tell you guys this. Many years ago I was in New York. My brother at the time was living in New York. Now I don't know if you know this about me.

35:10 But if you cut me open, if you cut me open I bleed—not red But blue Orange, and white. Deep inside of me, if you cut me open You will find the Knicks. You will find in my bones players like Anthony Mason. Patrick Ewing John Starks, Charles Oakley The Gavirabas. Of the '90s Knicks, if you went down the lane, this was no soft LA basketball. This was no, look how pretty I am. If you came down the lane in New York, Anthony Mason had an elbow in your forehead. And you didn't come back twice. That's how the Knicks scraped and clawed their way into the playoffs every year. We had players like Latrell Sprewell, who choked their coach, and the pretty boy Allen Houston. We had great gadolim. Compared. Compared to the patheticness that is currently the state of New York basketball Although in R. J. Barrett we trust.

36:16 Or in Kyrie. So many years ago There was a great evolution in the sport of basketball. And one summer, LeBron changed the world by taking his talents to South Beach. As a Knicks fan I was despondent. I knew Nick fans always have a rational hope. I knew LeBron was coming to New York. And when Amari Stoudemire May he be blessed, Yehoshafat Stoudemire When Amari Stoudemire came to the Knicks, I knew the King is coming to New York. So when he took his talents to South Beach, I was devastated. But don't worry Don't worry because we're about to trade away our whole team: Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari. We're trading them all away for who? For Carmelo Anthony. Unbelievable! We have a super team of our own. Carmelo, in his heyday, comes to New York in the first game. They scored like 130 points, and we said, "This is it."

37:14 Knicks are back. And of course, we had none other than the great J. R. Smith Who has proven the theory of evolution, and that he only has half of the necessary brain to survive. And that year, for those of you that remember, Miami went on the greatest winning streak of all time in basketball. You recall this? Was that the second greatest? And I went to New York in the middle of that streak to see the Knicks take on the Heat. My brother got us tickets. We're sitting in great seats. It's a close game because the Knicks always give you that gift of hope. And they stab you in the back with it. And so there I am, and the Knicks are down. I believe it was four points or six points. It was a very close game. It's the final minute of the half of the game, and this is it. This play is huge. And there is Jr. Smith, Yimakshamo, dribbling Dribbling the ball off the court.

38:21 And every Knicks fan is like "Okay This is it. Just get the ball to Melo. Let him put in that three. We're going to be right there. All we'll need is a stop and a score, and we're going to win. We're going to break the streak. We're going to defeat the evil Miami Heat. Because of course everybody knew they were evil. What happens? J. R. Smith telegraphs his pass. He must have whispered in LeBron's ear, "This is what's coming." Carmelo is standing at the top of the key and he goes. Just like that, and before, as it's happening, everybody in the garden saw it happening. By the way, every single person says, 'No!' You hear them say, 'Like everyone says, 'No, don't do it,' right?' And he passes the ball, and LeBron, because he's so quick And his court vision is exceptional And because he can take two steps and be from the three-point line, that great block—he took two steps literally and be from the three all the way to the basket. So we all saw it coming, and all of a sudden, LeBron has picked off the pass.

39:17 And he goes down the court. And he does one of those LeBron dunks, where he dunks it like that. You know what I'm talking about? Yeah. And it seals the game, and the Knicks lose. I'm at the game, and I notice the strangest thing. As LeBron is moving to pick off the pass Every single person in the garden did the same thing. We all stood up And when he dunked it There wasn't a collective groan. There was almost like a sort of cheer, which is strange because he just killed us. What was it? What we witnessed was a transcendent moment. It's like bases loaded, bottom of the ninth. Every you down three, your best player is up, and what's everybody doing? If you're a real baseball fan, what's everybody doing? You're standing up. Why? Why do we stand up for transcendent moments? It wasn't because he put a ball in a hole. That's what I hated when my rabbis said. You ever have the rabbi that say that? What are you rooting for? A man who put a ball in a hole? Yes That's exactly right.

40:22 That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm rooting for a man who put a ball in the hole. But if you want to do that, then do that with everything. It was like this is my dad used to say. He's like, if you take ten men, dress them up in pajamas, hang toilet bowls ten feet up in the air, and throw rocks into it, would you watch that? I'm like, if they were really good, I would even pay to watch it. I might even develop fantasy sports around it. Because you're describing the physicality of the thing doesn't diminish its transcendence. So yeah, everything's got a transcendental quality. I agree. It'd be a ridiculous activity. And by the way, that's what I said. I don't know if I told you guys that story. When I was 16 years old, this guy Patrick was becoming Jewish, a ger, and I was totally not keeping Shabbos, not keeping kosher, and we're walking around the shul.

41:10 No Shana, I don't know what the words mean. It's just ridiculous activity. I had to be there because my dad was there. So I turned to Patrick and I said, 'This must seem like the dumbest thing in the world to you.' And he looked at me, and that was the moment I knew I was the worst Jew in the world. Ever. Except for maybe Jesus, he was the worst Jew. But after that, I said, "I said this must look ridiculous," and he goes, "Really? I think it's beautiful." A guy understands this, and I don't, because I looked at it and said, 'You're waving a palm frond and a citrus fruit, and that seems ridiculous.' He had learned about the essence of the thing. Anytime you describe the physicality of something, you can make it seem stupid. Anytime you describe the transcendence of the thing, you get to its reality. I would agree with you. Any meanings are going to be transcendent. The meaning is never contained within the game.

42:03 Shy. Last question for today because we're already running late. If you don't believe in God, is it the opposite view? This table is real, but your soul is not. Though there is no soul if you don't believe. But there's like If you don't believe in God, then all you believe in is the measurable. Is the fine. So like you're empty. We'll stop here for today, guys.