Getting Fact-Checked

Support the channel by joining the Reinforcements at brianholdswort....
Take a look at our sponsor Real Estate for Life if you are looking to find a new home and would appreciate the help of realtor who shares your beliefs: realestateforl...
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
We live in the age of information, but as any reasonable person can appreciate, most of the information that is available to us, is pollution and noise. Most of it does not educate or illuminate our minds. Plenty of it is misleading. This is a consequence of unflinching admiration for technological advance. It blinds us to important ethical questions like, "Should we do this?" And since we've refused to ask those questions, we now find ourselves in the age of fake news and having to try to fight back against it. But instead of revisiting those important ethical questions that we've neglected, we've decided to technologize a new solution to fix the old: enter fact checking!
But the phenomenon of fact-checking has introduced more problems of its own. The authority that it brings is too tempting and intoxicating to not breach its own requirements and now we find ourselves getting censored for conclusions that cannot be easily called into question because... you cannot fact check an argument. That requires counter-arguments, but that isn't fact-checking, yet the self-appointed fact-checkers aren't willing to admit that what they're doing is argumentation because they're too used to the unquestioned authority that fact-checking has brought them.

[@Madkingstoe]

In my own personal experience I have found the internet has brought me closer to religion. After 20 years of upbringing in a religious family I was pretty much ambivalent towards faith. Sermons and preachy songs and lectures had begun to irritate me at worst, and at best it all sounded like white noise. I would say I had become agnostic, but barely even that. The atheist arguments seemed logical and convincing, but I found their views to be depressing (and hardly ever found an atheist who seemed happy or content). I think it was first Dennis Prager who began to encourage me to reconsider religion again, and then Andrew Klavan, and then slowly I started seeking out people online who were discussing religion and atheism openly and logically, and my opinions began to shift. I realized I had never really thought about religious beliefs from a reasoned, intelligent point of view, and have been going along that path you once walked on to. Now that I believe there is a God, I want to know what that means to me, what religion offers the truth, and how it may affect my life. I've heard the best atheist and christian arguments thanks to the internet and it has opened me to new ways of thinking that I never considered before. Your channel has helped me a great deal and I'm very grateful for what you do.

[@haroldmcbroom7807]

*Quote:* _"Now that I believe there is a God, I want to know what that means to me"_ Perhaps I can help. The most important thing is to realize that *Jesus Christ* is not a religion. "Religion" was created by man of who esteem their own traditions over the Word of God. God hates religion, and those that are drawn to "religion" will most likely be sucked into Catholicism, or it's Orthodox cousins. *(See Below)* A relationship with Christ is a relationship with His Scriptures of which we have come to accept as the Word of God, which includes both Old and New Testaments. The Word of God contains the Law. But we are not under the Written law, but under God's Grace which is a free gift; for Christ, alone, fulfilled the law of the prophets, and the fulfillment of that law is LOVE. *1 Thessalonians 2:13 (kjv)* _13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe._ The Word of God, called the "Bible", is not just a book, but works within those that believe, and... *Hebrews 4:12 (kjv)* _12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart._ (some translations say "living" instead of "quick") ...and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The same power that Jesus had when He walked in the flesh. Jesus Christ is the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, and He could perceive the thoughts and intents of the hearts of those around Him. *John 1:14 (NKJV)* _14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth._ it is important to know that when we read the Word of God, that "understanding" comes from God, and we are not going to "understand" everything we read, but what His Word discerns that we need. He gives us each day our daily bread, what we need, and when we need it, that we may finish the race He has set before us. A true relationship with Christ starts with reading His Word and sharing it with those around you. God is love, and loving others is letting your family and friends know that you believe in Christ, and that there is hope for them. *Matthew 10:32 (nkjv)* _32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven._ God doesn't want us to be "religious", for He desires "obedience" over sacrifice. (1 Samuel 15:22-23) God's Word says, _"Pray often that you do not fall into temptation, for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!"_ We can only resist sin if our love for God and His Word is greater than the sin that keeps us enslaved. Until we love God more than the sin, we will not be able to reach escape velocity. For every temptation that satan gives us, God always provides a way out; the question is, are we looking for the way out, or the way in. Here's how it works: If you love your wife, you will not cheat on her, not because there is a law that says "not to" cheat on your wife, but because you LOVE HER. If you do not love your wife, then there's nothing stopping you from being unfaithful, except the law which says "do not commit adultery!" The law was not written for the righteous, but for the lawless. If you LOVE GOD, then you do not need the law that says do not commit adultery, etc. For love is the fulfillment of all the laws of the prophets that you love God with all your heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself. *Romans 13:8-10 (KJV)* _8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law._ _9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself._ _10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law._ Talk to God often, as you talk to those around you, and tell Him what's on your heart, your burdens, the things you love, etc... Pray to Him in good times, and in bad times, asking Him to help you, strengthen you, and if we can't go around a problem, we pray that God be with us, as we go through the problem for in our times of trouble and sickness we build up endurance. I hope this helps brotha. It's taken me a life time to get this far, and I'm still learning at 50 years of age.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Thanks for sharing that. Obviously, I think Catholicism is true and that's what my channel aims to promote. Send me an email through my site and maybe we can discuss further. Link in video description.

[@Madkingstoe]

@@haroldmcbroom7807 Thank you for this! It's clear I need to read the Bible again since I'm looking at things from a new perspective. This is a good start. Appreciate your time, and good wishes.

[@Madkingstoe]

@@BrianHoldsworth Thank you Brian. I will.

[@haroldmcbroom7807]

@@BrianHoldsworth I subscribed to your channel, because I was under the impression that you had left the Roman Church, wasn't there a video you posted at one point that indicated your confusion of the church? Jesus doesn't make mistakes, nor His Disciples through whom the Word came of which we ALL received freely. Why then is Christ's Church so troubled today? There's trouble with every church, one may say, but they are not professing to be the ONLY True Church, True Faith, True Christians, and True Spiritual Chosen of God. So the true Church should be a model the world over, why is it not, if Jesus is the head of that church. How can Jesus be the head of that Roman Church when God's Word says: *1 Corinthians 11:3 (NKJV)* _3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God._ I have a copy of the Catechism, God's Word says not to add anything to God's Word, while their Bible contains 77 books, then they accuse non-roman churches of removing from God's Word. God's Word says salvation is only through the Man, Christ Jesus, and yet the Roman Church claims salvation through the Roman Church only. God's Word tells us how to pray, unto the Heavenly Father, as did He (Jesus), but the Roman Church prays to Mary of whom Christ has NOT transferred any powers unto Mary. Is not the Word the history of all that was, and all that will be? Yet Mary is hardly mentioned in God's Word. If apostolic succession is true, why then are there only 12 foundations to the New Jerusalem which is to come, each representing an apostle of the Lamb. *Revelation 21:14 (nkjv)* _"14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the [a]names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."_ They break every rule in God's Word and then profess to be in accordance with the Word of God. The information is out there, why even Priests are leaving the Roman Church. 50 of them in fact. God's Word which is a history of all that was, and all that will be, does not acknowledge any of Rome's appointed apostles, and there are no apostles, or prophets living today. *Hebrews 1:1-4 (KJV)* _1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,_ _2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;..._

[@storyisqueen]

Why don’t they teach logic in schools? C. S. Lewis understood the root of this problem. Why don’t we? By the way, I just wanted to say thank you for the work you do. You’re videos were instrumental in my own conversion to the one, true Catholic faith. Thank you. You’re videos are brilliant.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@dominicpardo4783 As a matter of fact, they don't teach logic anymore. Logic, as part of dialectic (the second part of the Trivium) was a standard component in a classical Western education. That was abolished in the 20th century, in most places with state funded education. Further, please provide just one example of Lewis gaslighting or outright lying.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@dominicpardo4783 An apologist arguing for something you disagree with is not the same as lying. But Claiming things that you can't substantiate, like you just did, is lying. Give one example of gaslighting or lying on his part, that actually fits the standard definition of either accusation or admit that you're guilty of the exact thing you're accusing him of.

[@830toAwesome]

@@BrianHoldsworth I'd also point to The Screwtape Letters. I know, a sacred cow for Catholics and widely considered to be one of the greatest of all his works. This will of course work better for those not predisposed towards bias towards Lewis but the method that the Letters goes about pushing it's theology and philosophy is one entirely built on the gaslighting Dominic is calling forth. It puts into doubt your own experiences, calls into question your memories and actions, asks for radical distrust. Letter #23 is a great example. It is gaslighting as Screwtape suggests to Wormwood that he should get the Patient to look at Christ as a historical figure and not the Son of God. This is clearly C.S Lewis, of the Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument, pointing out that those who would even question the divinity of Jesus are on the road to hell. It is there to make you doubt the intentions of inquiry and thus, close inquiry off. As the book says ""We thus distract men's minds from who He is," and follows up with "and what He did." The Letters continue to have the Demons using naturalistic, liberal, theology to break the hold of God on the Patient and bring him to Hell. This is C.S Lewis's own thoughts in the words of his characters, we know this, we know that's how C.S Lewis felt and you know he felt that way. You've talked about it in videos before Brian. He is saying to people with doubts that they're not really their own but Satan's influence. He is making one question their own thoughts, to distrust their own minds. The height of gaslighting. It is what a cult does. This all fits the standard definition as you ask. I've got you @Dominic Pardo. He also made a lie of omission, a lie still, in his Trilemma. It is not merely Liar, Lunatic, Lord. There is a fourth option and one that Lewis refused to accept. Legend. Jesus was either Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend. Not only that but another. Mistaken. Not a cute little L word to fit but still. Jesus could just have been wrong on his claims. He could have believed it, he wouldn't be a liar but he'd also not be God. He could just be Wrong. So Mad, Bad, Wrong, Myth, God. Five points he could have had. I'll call you out now Brian. You and me, just a nice discussion on Modern Day Debates. We can pick a topic, we can discuss back and forth. No formal debate rules. Just a back and forth.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@830toAwesome Every single example of "gaslighting" you just provided presupposes that the things he is arguing against are true, that his view is false, and that he knows it and is deliberately trying to obscure the fact - because that's what gaslighting is. Instead, he's writing an entertaining work of fiction that advances a philosophical and theological belief system. To say that he is wrong and that the beliefs he is arguing against are true is begging the question. To say that he knows and is deliberately lying is casting judgements you have no way of making. All the evidence points to his own sincerity of his beliefs and the arguments he makes which support those beliefs. Making arguments in favor of one's beliefs is not gaslighting by any stretch and if you insist that it is, then every attempt to do so on your point (which you've done plenty of in the comments) condemns you to the same sin. I appreciate the effort, but... c'mon. Further, even if your assessment is true, you don't have Dominic's back because he made an accusation that he couldn't back up which makes him guilty of the thing he was condemning others of. Just because you can substantiate his accusation for him (which you didn't) doesn't mean that he isn't still guilty of dishonesty.

[@830toAwesome]

@@BrianHoldsworth It doesn't "Presuppose" that he's false, I'm not arguing against his theology. I'm not talking about his argument about the claims. I'm talking about the style and the psychology of his method. I could point out that he's making a claim without evidence, he's writing assuming his theology is correct, that'd be fair of me but it's irrelevant if what he said is true or not. I gave an example from the book not to illustrate the wrongness of his beliefs but the wrongness of the method he tries to convince you he's correct with. I also never said he was lying, you can gaslight when you're being honest with what you believe, its the narrative you're building that is false. Gaslighting is making another person doubt their own memory and feelings by creating a false narrative, telling them they're not justified in their own feelings or real opitions. You're just putting words in my mouth and constructing an argument I'm not making. I absolutely believe that C.S Lewis believed the things he was saying. I absolutely believe that Lewis viewed philosophy and religion in the way he wrote. The false narrative he's forming, and it's one he presupposes and asserts, is that your doubts are not inherently your own and that you should doubt your doubt because it could be something more sinister. It's false because he can't prove it. If he could, and it was Satan in this example, then he wouldn't be gaslighting. That's correct. It's not that I'm presupposing it's not Satan. It's me saying "you haven't proven it's Satan so why are you trying to convince me it is." The people he's doing this in are, presumably, believers already and he's using the power dynamic to push his worldview on to them. He's gaslighting because instead of using arguments to persuade, evidence, logic, reason, he instead attacks the other person's beliefs and ability to judge reality. That's why it's Gaslighting. You could replace God and Satan with anything in the example and it'd still be Gaslighting. He is trying to push people to his belief system, which obviously we all do but the methods matter. I never once said that arguing for one's beliefs is gaslighting. I never even hinted at that. Clearly I'm arguing for my beliefs and you're arguing for yours in the video and that's fine. You're allowed to do that, I'm not gaslighting you, you're not gaslighting me. One of the reasons is that the power dynamic between us isn't unequal. You do not have more power over me in a social, political or religious way, and you for sure don't think I have power over you in any way. Please refer back to what I said here. ". He is saying to people with doubts that they're not really their own but Satan's influence. He is making one question their own thoughts, to distrust their own minds." Take out Satan here. It's not important in the grand scheme, it was just framing it in the context of the Letters. It's the latter part that is important and it's what sets up the false narrative that C.S Lewis is hoping to exploit to make people stop doubting, to stop asking questions. He's doing it for what he thinks are benevolent reasons but that doesn't mean it isn't gaslighting. He is telling people that their doubts of their beliefs are not actually their own doubts but some self destructive urge, some Other that is influencing them, leading them away from the "correct" opinion. That's gaslighting. That's textbook (which you asked for even though gaslighting isn't a textbook Psychological term, it's a colloquialism and not recognized as anything other than that) gaslighting. Telling someone that the experiences they're feeling aren't actually real, that they're make believe, or even worse they're the opposite of reality, is exactly what gaslighting is and that's the method C.S Lewis is employing here and like I said, the method matters. Leading people to believe things in the wrong way just leads them to break away from the beliefs in a damaging way. The lie in the trilemma is a different topic, which you're trying to merge here and you shouldn't. I addressed them as separate points. I expected you'd address them as separate points as well. I didn't however say he knew there was another option. I said he wouldn't accept the option as offered by critics. That doesn't mean he was lying or intentionally obfuscating what he believed. He was convinced it didn't fit. That's fine. That's why it's a lie of omission, not a lie of what he believes. I can't repeat this enough, no where in what I wrote said that C.S Lewis was lying deliberately. I don't believe that C.S Lewis was lying deliberately. I think he was honest about what he believed. I don't agree with what he believed but that's a separate issue. I didn't generally think you'd find this convincing, KZbin ate one of my comments (I provided some links to high schools and universities that offered Logic courses because you said that was a thing that they weren't doing in the West) but in that comment I pointed out that you're far too close to this stuff to take an objective look. I wish that comment was still up because it basically predicted what you did. I'd said that you were going to tell me it wasn't gaslighting because Lewis could be correct, that it could in fact be Satan leading one to doubt, and I said that it didn't matter if it was correct or incorrect, that it was the style of argument that was gaslighting. Not the argument itself. The offer still stands though Brian. Instead of going back and forth in comments, let's do this publicly. We don't have to discus Lewis. We can discuss anything you want. We clearly have a lot of disagreements. I'll contact Modern Day Debates. We'll pick a date and a time. We'll work out a topic. I offer this in good faith and charity. I'll even promise that any money I make off it (because Modern Day Debates generally pays their debaters) will be donated to a charity. Probably Doctors Without Borders. I'm not interested in the recognition, I'm interested in you publicly defending and arguing your views without the production and pomp of your videos.

[@roberthrosc5582]

Facebook had to recently admit that fact checking is opinion. In a court of law BTW. Maybe I should've waited until the end of the video... LoL my bad.

[@iain5615]

The internet brought me to faith. It took a lot of research looking at all arguments for or against something whether Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc. It drove me to research deeper and deeper until I found an answer that supported one single position. Sometimes that position supported only one interpretation, sometimes it could be interpreted in a number of ways - such as science. What I found always supported Christianity and predominantly supported atheism but not always. The resurrection being an example of it supporting Christianity but not atheism. That pushed me to become a Christian. (Edited for typing mistakes)

[@briantrafford4871]

The irony of course is that Facebook is now defending its "fact checking" as mere opinion, which is, of course a contradiction in terms.

[@jacksgirl23]

Wonderful. The world needs more discussion! Remember when people used to gather up in small groups and discuss/hash out important things? I miss that.

[@kimfleury]

You were a breath of fresh air for presenting sound reasoning, which is why I subscribed to your channel way back when. I miss Barbara Mikkelson, who was the other co-founder of snopes. She and her staff were the original researchers and writers for that site. They were thorough, provided good citations and source material, and they were neutral in the way they presented information. It's common to hear that nobody is perfectly neutral, which is true. However, a neutral person is able to hear both sides without discarding the side he doesn't like, or agree with, and if he's presented with information that proves his own view to be questionable, or even wrong, he will accept the information and will change his own views appropriately. Barbara Mikkelson could present information in that way. Unfortunately, when the website became profitably successful, her co-founder and husband left her for a Nevada prostitute. He won the ownership of the website in the divorce settlement, but was obligated to return Barbara's writing to her. (Her staff's articles were also removed from the website). Following this, obviously snopes wasn't going to continue to be profitable without content, and Dave wasn't a researcher or writer, so that could be why he plagiarized. After the ruling against him, his mistress took over, bringing on her friends from her former business, and the site became immediately radical left in bias. I had been relying on snopes as a shortcut for quite some time, and noticed the change of tone right away, which is why I dug into the situation. I miss Barbara.

[@cnam1258]

Very true and well said. Snopes is a complete joke. Wikipedia is not far behind.

[@Chamindo7]

Wow! Never knew that. I know some people who think Snopes is the truthiest of truth with no bias and settles every argument, case closed. Your little paragraph of info, if true, is utterly damning to Snopes. Thanks for posting.

[@tgbluewolf]

If true, it's not surprising that a site would so suddenly lose integrity once taken over by an adulterer. 😕

[@stevenkavanagh2082]

Thanks for broadening the real scope for discussion with simple distinctions. You’re a gem 🙏

[@Fiona2254]

The internet had a lot of information. And a LOT of it is bad. The problem is that children are no longer taught to think critically, only to accept whatever someone with some kind of "authority" as true. The internet is a great tool AND a very toxic and horrible fount of misinformation.

[@pianolady10]

Facebook “fact checked” my reply to someone else’s post. Apparently someone found “good morning” offensive. On top of that, three weeks after I closed my Twitter account I got an email informing me that my account was being suspended.

[@minorityvoice9253]

People that make those claims haven't delved into the questions at ALL!!

[@sr.elizabethmarieoftheholy4980]

Fact, bears eat beets. Bears, beets, "Battlestar Galactica."

[@Chamindo7]

Battlestar socket wrench ice cream beets and electrical corn pop bad dude, c'mon man. Vote for Brandon.

[@deborahrozenzhak3696]

I subscribe to John strossel and I am glad he sued Facebook. Thank you for making these videos. Why I became Catholic was the first video that helped me make that leap into RCIA and now I am waiting for Easter Vigil to be confirmed.

[@Chamindo7]

Praise be to God. Wonderful. Blessings on you and your family.

[@GinKirk7256]

Thank you! Blessings!

[@TSliw]

I agree you cannot "fact check" an argument as a whole, you can "fact check" to verify or falsify premises used in an argument which is not quite the same as full refutation of an argument. As someone who seems to have had at least some study in logic you'd know that a false premise isn't a logical fallacy in the same sense of more formal fallacies. An argument can be logically valid and still wrong if the premises are too general or factually in error. Part of the difficulty in getting into conversations with with whom we disagree with is even agreeing to the premises in the first place.

[@bernardokrolo2275]

Simple question is way much better then raise an argument in many conversation(in conversation which you describe)

[@jenniferh7163]

I would say one of the benefits of open debate is that one side can have the flaws in their argument rebuked, so they can improve the argument. This is one reason for Apologetics, and one reason why academics often like to take adversarial positions(in addition to it resulting in twice as many jobs/papers!), and become good friends with smart people on the other side. We see this in science all the time, where a flaw is found in a theory which leads to an extremely similar but improved theory; for example, Relativity came in part from flaws seen in Newtonian gravity in regards to the motion of heavenly bodies. However, people involved in politics more often than not do not care about improving their philosophy but instead just want certain things to happen, and will do anything to argue that case including upholding false premises, and often they view people who openly profess the shaky premise as "faithful" and in a positive light, and actually accept arguments using such premises more openly. For example, the Soviet Union denied Darwinsim for some time in favor of Lamarckism as a result of this taken to an extreme, and we see both parties in the US argue that tax increases or decreases will have results that data clearly shows are false as the Invisible Hand will correct activity to keep tax revenues in a narrow range regardless of rates, and in both cases it is because they only care about the immediate outcomes of the argument rather than coming up with a better case for their philosophy and better philosophy.

[@iain5615]

The problem with fact checkers is that they have been proven to have confirmation bias amd so the fact checkers are only trying to prove theif belief is true. When you check most fact checkers it is a case of more what they don't state than what they do. Misdirection whether conscious or not is self evident when people are fact checking arguments or beliefs.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Thank you. I had noticed the same thing without really thinking about it, but you made it clear.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

The Net is a tool. either good nor bad, simply Is.

[@one_eye9135]

Great vid. And sadly, necessary. Thanks Brian.

[@Kitiwake]

Sophistry.....the art of telling lies while sounding good.

[@830toAwesome]

Yep. Exactly what Brian's channel is.

[@830toAwesome]

@@dominicpardo4783 I like you Dominic. Good to see someone else here willing to listen to Brian but also not give in to his screeching. You're one of the good ones.

[@830toAwesome]

@@dominicpardo4783 For sure. He's a conman at that. This slick presentation is held aloft by like 20 other people. He's just a handsome face they put out to regurgitate their stance. He's a better looking Ben Shapiro.

[@830toAwesome]

@@dominicpardo4783 Oh yes, for sure. He has said he thinks that external appearances are vitally important. There's no misunderstanding there with how he presents himself. The soft voice, the long hair (which men aren't supposed to have by the bible), the beard, it's all well kept and manicured. His beard is trimmed, his hair coifed. He rages against people valuing beauty but clearly has the ego that needs him to look good.

[@AprendeMovimiento]

the problem with liberal democracy is that since it is born out of a bad principle (relativism thus nihilism) it opens the door to crazy ways of directing the policies of a country or even the world and we can't really object to them as long as we also encourage those bad principles (liberal democracy) if we don't understand the current crisis in the world as a metaphysical crisis and a theological crisis we will only see the results and point to those issues when the solution is to be found actually in the principles and the application of those principles.

[@830toAwesome]

Really happy to see out and out fascists supporting Brian. Keep up the good work.

[@AprendeMovimiento]

@@830toAwesome I am not a fascist though XD. I am just pointing out that there is such a thing as objective reality and Truth and if there is such a thing which transcends us all, that objective truth is no subject to voting, if we are to vote on what's good or bad then goodness is subjective, if a majority decides the good for the whole then again goodness is subjective and it's not a transcendental. The post French Revolution politics of left and right are both wrong and go against the natural order and against divine hierarchy also. I don't know how is that fascism, I am not imposing anything and fascist just like communists love dictatorships they love imposing their ideology on the whole as if reality has to bend to their subjectivities and reductionists views. Freedom is not an end in itself but a means to a transcendent end, and freedom is not self-given we are on the receiving end and God is the giver of freedom so "liberal and democracy" are both wrong and are the core problem that leads to the issues we see in our cultures.

[@CantusTropus]

@@830toAwesome Pointing out the flaws with liberal democracy doesn't make you a fascist. "Fascism" is not a catch all word for "not liberal democracy". Heck, he doesn't even say we should get rid of liberal democracy, just that it has certain flaws.

[@henrybn14ar]

@@830toAwesome What are your criteria for classifying someone as a fascist?

[@Wargulpartal]

Internet is a bowl of shite with perls and gold coins throwed inside: You have to be selective about content you grab from it.

[@BETH..._...]

Excellent video Sir!

[@conniecostello3072]

I had a FB fact checker see a meme about cabbages looking like snowflakes when cut in the middle. They said my information was incorrect. How shameful to put out information about cabbages!

[@pip3670]

Thank you. You are one of the few people on YT who can successfully present and argue a position. Critical thinking is not enough today; one must also be able to present , support and defend a position whether it be a political, spiritual or philosophical belief/idea/thought/position..

[@physiocrat7143]

"Fact checking" is just a way of shutting down debate. Who checks the fact checkers? What about the use of loaded words such as "Islamophobia"?

[@830toAwesome]

I mean...you should? You should check the fact checkers and if they're not reliable, then don't listen to them. It involves removing your biases though. That's what skepticism is all about.

[@physiocrat7143]

@@830toAwesome The self styled fact checkers are often anonymous censorbots using artificial untelligence. A surprising amount of supposedly fact checked material does not hang together. You often find this when the topic under discussion is within a subject area you already know something about.

[@830toAwesome]

@@physiocrat7143 Sure but that's why you have to check the sources and vet them.

[@physiocrat7143]

@@830toAwesome Sources of "facts" invariably have agendas of their own, usually with money as the driving force. A further difficulty is that statistics can be manipulated so at to mislead. It then takes an expert statistician to uncover the deception. There are facts such as X is 6 feet tall, weighs 12 stones, has 3 children and never eats meat. Facts tell us little about the beliefs of X and what he would do in certain sets of circumstances. There are indeed facts which can be objectively demonstrated eg there is a smoking gun, or assertions that are so improbable as to demand special explanations. How would one fact-check the resurrection or the midnight journey to Jerusalem on the back of a flying horse?

[@Fiona2254]

@@830toAwesome how do you counter fact checkers that are simple AI created by a biased entity? You can't. That is exactly why I deleted all of my social media a year ago. Debating someone through a keyboard and screen is useless and rarely changes someone's mind. Especially of the debate is with someone who doesn't know and and respect you personally. That's why social media has turned so toxic. I had a HS friend, someone who I thought of as a sister, call me "come santos" roughly translates as "saint lover" an insulting slang for someone considered crazy religious. The insult was a response to me saying abortion is morally wrong. We grew up together, went to catholic school and slept at each other's home frequently but she was unable to accept the reminder that as a catholic we should support life. It was very hurtful and baffling that she couldn't debate without insults. If we can't accept a long time friend (over 40 years) holding a different opinion how can we accept a stranger's? That's when I realized FB was no longer a place I wanted to be. I don't miss it much.

[@lesparks126]

Every time he used phenomenon, I thought of the Muppets. However, Brian is on point here. Public debate is in a "Coma" right now.

[@LauraBeeDannon]

😄

[@Wargulpartal]

Who will fact-check the fact-checkers? 🤬😠🤬😠🤬😠🤬😠

[@thedon978]

You’re absolutely right: information in not the same as the truth, and certainly not the same as thee Truth.

[@barry.anderberg]

Brian, I'd be interested to see you make a video about Meta's "metaverse"

[@bradspitt3896]

Bell curves are where every battle is. What is the essence of things; everything within two standard deviations is generally considered the essence, then you have outliers used to disprove the category. E.g. who are the majority of cases, how much is inflation, how much is the media lying, how much X? We think science and history can tell us everything we need to know. Problem is, everyone is outsourcing their "knowledge" to the state or institutions. Meaning the issue isn't who "knows," it's who "trusts" the institutions since nothing is experienced directly. The only way to free yourself from this confusion is to study philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

[@Iad83]

People who say 'trust the experts' really just mean the experts that have approval of their corporate news outlet of choice. What they really mean to say is 'trust my preferred corporate news outlet'.

[@TSliw]

@@Iad83 and people who say “I did my own research” trust the data as presented to them by people who question said corporate news sources 🙄

[@Iad83]

@@TSliw Or they're comparing and contrasting a variety of sources and making up their own minds.

[@Mark36896]

There are lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics.

[@bradspitt3896]

@@Mark36896 Philosophers have always argued what the bell curve was (the one and the many), but recently you have centralized empiricism, and for a while it lasted. Until they started lying and trust started waning, and you can't have distrust + centralization. The progressive God of the state is dying; this isn't just a science issue for them, it's an existential crisis. Unless they are willing to change their minds and engage genuinely, they will necessarily continue to scapegoat because looking inward is out of the question.

[@theveryproudmoroccan2834]

I'm a Muslim and i enjoy your video Brian! Keep up the good work against neo atheism and other delusional and false ideas that are perpetuated into people's minds! God with us.

[@ifitwere22]

Yeah. I mean we all hopped into this social media thing but one of the big things we thought we we signing up for was that it would be treated like a conversation in real life or a phone call. We didn’t think we’d have all these unknown parties injecting themselves into our natural mode of dialogue

[@ThePhil737]

BTW, John Stossel is a great reporter/journalist. You should look him up.

[@GaryM260]

Brian when i was young i couldn't help being Naive. "What is a naive person? If you describe someone as naive, you think they lack experience, causing them to expect things to be uncomplicated or easy, or people to be honest or kind when they are not." the following seems to be more of an expression of reality these days... "DONT CONFUSE ME WITH SOUND REASONING SINCE MY MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP"

[@terezagrbin9142]

today people who control this don't argue they just call you derogatory names and yell at you.

[@thomaspomeroy5678]

Irrelevant question: What is the watch you are wearing? I like the look.

[@CantusTropus]

The moment you get Fact-Checked is the moment you know that you're right and they fear you.

[@pottingsoil]

Not at all true lmfao

[@geoffreywalles]

Another good video. You should be King of Canada. Especially since your current emperor doesn't even realise he had no clothes. Good bless your family and work.

[@TSliw]

Long live and God Bless Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. What’s this “Emperor” malarkey? The PM doesn’t even have a majority government…nor does the federal government control health policy.

[@kimfleury]

@@TSliw and yet there is tyranny running rampant in Canada. Maybe they're all doing the bidding of the US.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

With a heavy heart and much soul searching, I accept this great honor.

[@odo324]

Fact checking is the reason I joined the Church! The Catholic position is unarguable, given the facts. When I looked at the evidence of my Protestant upbringing I discovered a lot of hurt feelings and self-proclaimed judges that couldn't prove their position (harassies) and decided to leave and build up something different ~ something that wasn't the Church Christ founded. I couldn't side with that, I wanted the Truth and the Truth led me to Catholicism. I don't even have to justify my faith, the Bible does it for me!

[@dominicpresta5637]

Superb analysis!!!

[@josephgiunta4430]

You make some excellent points.

[@javajoel08]

Love the cbc clips!

[@AnnInFL]

Your point is spot on, that simply because we have the means to do something does does not mean that we should do it. I can think of so many examples, particularly in the area of biotechnology and artificial "intelligence". Successfully navigating the moral minefield of bioethics in this brave new world will require holding fast to the radical truth of the Christian view of the human person: that humans are material-spiritual composite creatures made in the image and likeness of an eternal, all-good, and infinite loving Creator, yet are fallen through sin and in need of salvation through acceptance of God's grace in Jesus Christ by repentance and faith in order to follow Christ, and through the action of the Holy Spirit in our souls, reach our ultimate destiny of Holy Communion with God and one another in heaven.

[@lcronovt]

I highly recomend " Is atheism dead? " by Eric Metaxas . Book about how science probe God existence.

[@830toAwesome]

And this is where actually researching the person and their claims is important. Metaxes is not a scientist. He has no relevant schooling in the science he is discussing and the majority of people in those fields disagree with his assessment. But ya know. FACT CHECKING IS SIN.

[@Teuts2000]

I liked the classic CBC Mr. Wizard clip in the video :)

[@markpugner9716]

Great first video of the year, I say.

[@joelancon7231]

I see what you are saying and I agree with it, some arguments rely heavily on sole claims or "facts" which if proven to be "not facts" would essentially dismantle the argument. Much Love brother but to an extent you can fact check an argument. Now granted you cannot necessarily fact check a position because there can be numerous arguments for a position including ones that are less susceptible to fact checking. But some arguments can be disproven disproven if they are reliant on a claim being factual

[@StJohnPaulXXIII]

Holy smokes you're getting throttled too. I haven't seen you in a long time and you only have 16k views.

[@jonathanstensberg]

Most important video of the year.

[@michaelflores9220]

What doe it mean to "love God and avoid sin FOR HIS OWN SAKE" (Perfect Contrition) if God already ahs infinite joy and can't get any happier than he already is? Please clarify.

[@lordmaddog6003]

That is some wired logic so wired infact that I have never even heard something like it before. But yes God made man to have followship with them and he made him in his image so we could be one with him in eternity. It may seem kinda hard to understand but an easy way to think about God is like the guy in the movie Passengers (2016). Some would say this example is sacrilegious and it is because it oversimplifies it, however what you think about that man is more or less how you will see God.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

It is about becoming what will make you most happy, fulfilled and blessed. It is not too satisfy God's needs.

[@TSliw]

It means to love God (or be sorry for our sins) because he deserves it (because they offend God) in contrast to doing these things to gain rewards or avoid punishment

[@michaelflores9220]

@@BrianHoldsworth But the church says doing it so you can go to heaven is "imperfect contrition".

[@michaelflores9220]

In what sense do they offend God since according to Aquinas God feels no pain and is not subject to change?

[@paulohara4153]

You can fact check an argument if the information you based the argument on are wrong.

[@Seethi_C]

Passports are a restriction of freedom? What does that even mean?

[@1685Violin]

He's referring to vaccine passports that some countries and a few states in the US have done.

[@amyraab8326]

👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@Chamindo7]

As usual Brian, excellent, reasonable, calm, sane content. Deus Vult

[@terezagrbin9142]

It changed for the worse. I had job which initially texting, meant OK I can have unlimited text but still more money, then they changed to website, needed more money to have more data, then now they changed to app and I have difficulty and pleaded to stay on old system, but they say no this is how it will from now on. So I got help downloaded app and more cost as need more data, then after all this I lost job because did not get vaccinated. So Internet and technology did not improve life just more cost and easy these people to control us.

[@caleb.lindsay]

to be fair am argument COULD be fact checked but something like, "an argument that is purely based is logic and/or axioms can't be fact checked." I think that's true

[@ConservativeMirror]

"My position should be accepted even if it can't be shown to be true."

[@mobileore]

Christianity in a nutshell?

[@lordmaddog6003]

@@mobileore What in the world? Christianity is what the west was built on it is why we have science like we do! It is what has brought us the wealth and prosperity we have now! That alone is proof enough! But those who hate the truth lie about ever thing so poor indoctrinated people like you think Christianity is the antithesis of our society. If you have even a smidgen of desire to know the truth you should lookup Person of Interest by J. Warner Wallace. You will be shocked by the lies you have been told!

[@terezagrbin9142]

I agree church is destroyed withing it pains me. People today believe anything but God

[@dissident_media]

Task bar Flash bar wubawuba

[@kubasniak]

I don't agree with fact checking by corporations but I like to fact check the bible and also follow scientific method.

[@timothyclark5786]

Who fact checks the fact checkers? No one because no one is allowed.

[@hglundahl]

7:35 c. I am reminded of a Catholic religious I know, who was very sure, we could by now be sure of heliocentrism being true, _bc the instruments are so much better._ Hubble and all the rest are in fact providing with few exceptions either geocentric or near geocentric observations. Heliocentrism comes from an argument, and improving the instruments doesn't change the arguments. Not per se, automatically, everytime, and arguably not this time. If the argument is bad - as I think it is - heliocentrism remains a lousy argument, however many good (and immediately geocentric) instruments you bolster it with.

[@3ggshe11s]

COVID needs to also be mentioned, though, for the ongoing effect that the massive overreaction continues to have on the entire planet.

[@830toAwesome]

No. There's simply no further info here that isn't available to you. Just no.

[@giuseppesavaglio8136]

Ok I'll open up a can of worms. How do we fact check someone's assertion that a god/s exists?. In other words how can it be demonstrated? Any polite replies below would be most welcome.

[@Forever-tn7pe]

What I will never understand is how people committed to a worldview that reduces reality to a personal construct can talk about "fact checking" or "information/misinformation".

[@karinaengelhardt3224]

sometimes all you find is lots of opinions...

[@TheForbiddenKush]

3:47 your welcome

[@physiocrat7143]

What has happened to all the comments?

[@BrianHoldsworth]

What do you mean?

[@physiocrat7143]

@@BrianHoldsworth All the comments had vanished on the browser I was using.

[@MichaelWilliams-eq4kt]

"satan was the first fact-checker" meme - it's good because it's true.

[@VeronicaBrandt]

Commentus Tertius

[@merial7]

However you can fact check a "fact" in a argument.

[@kynesilagan2676]

Please consider my honest 2 cents: This content which I perceive as deconstructive complains to your critics; has 'ad hominem' written all over. Someday you'll get a rebuttal from Trent.

[@scipioafricanus2]

what's available on the internet is mostly rubbish by far.

[@pottingsoil]

Lots of schitzo's in the comments lmfao.

[@shihyuchu6753]

6:00 "People in power manipulating people who are not in power" Do you mean like people in Rome who claim they CANT err in doctrine?

[@zwijac]

A fine attempt at sarcasm, but no, that's probably not what he means, since that's nonsensical. Catholic Doctrine is in fact itself, laid out by the church. Doctrine is by definition not infallible because doctrines do and have changed. Since you're commenting on matters you have no knowledge in... It's more likely you're referring to Dogma, or specifically papal infallibility (which is a Dogma not a doctrine). Neither of those make sense either, when put in the place of Doctrine in your comment. If you're interested in shooting down Catholicism, find out what it is and what the Catholic Church teaches. That will make it a lot easier for you. Then you could come back and question other people's statements... Hoping to publicly prove them wrong.

[@marygr8064]

Read “Why the Universe is the Way it Is”. Will change your life.!!! Consider, God created the entire universe for us.

[@yaelsahov]

second

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

Fact checking is an appeal to authority.

[@830toAwesome]

Yeah, when someone tells you you can't fly they're just appealing to Big Physics!!

[@benedictmacfarlane-barrow3211]

Third

[@ZiraRisasi]

Fourth

[@MaximilianMKGill]

First Comment

[@MaximilianMKGill]

@@dominicpardo4783 Yes

[@MaximilianMKGill]

@@dominicpardo4783 Thank You it was very tasty.

[@shihyuchu6753]

Brian and Catholics....if you were deceived....would you know it??

[@tryingnottobeasmartass757]

As a deceived person yourself, are you aware of the deception?

[@stefanheinzmann7319]

A lot of beating around the bush here. Brian, rather than talking in general terms, using analogies and unspecific waffling, what if you just gave us the actual, real example of a fact checking response that you are unhappy with, and use this to demonstrate what you mean?

[@robertholley2195]

one thing that I have noticed is that you seem to have no response to the Bible. Everything to you is Catholic history. If I am not Catholic, why should I listen to you ? Jesus and the apostles talked directly to the people, why would Jesus love us any less? With the history of bad behavior in men, you would trust any of them? Our Lord said "come unto me". Any church is hardly mentioned in the gospels.

[@physiocrat7143]

The government were produced by the church. The church existed from the moment of Pentecost.

[@sethmurray6270]

Your, well, argument here is actually incorrect overall. You CAN fact-check arguments in the sense of testing to see if the premises or conclusion correspond to reality. If a premise is factually false, then the argument is unsound. If the conclusion is factually false, then it is impossible for the argument to be sound. And so on. The ***structure*** (form) of an argument cannot be fact checked. The structure is either valid or it is not. It could be called true or false, but in doing so we are employing the terms in a fuller way. This is not the first time you have made claims about arguments, logic, etc. that are simply wrong. You seem like a sincere, well-intentioned fellow. I urge you to educate yourself more fully on these matters before making claims about them, as your frequent errors on these matters diminishes the credibility of your other presentations (even if they are correct). Alternatively, you might consult with an expert in these topics before making claims about them.

[@MrPeach1]

10th

[@andrewm8608]

We have abandoned books, and literature in this woke society.

[@Ivan.A.Churlyuski]

I left Christianity over Christians weak stance on abortion. Turning the other cheek to slaughter innocents is pathetic. If that’s what Jesus was about I wasted years following him.

[@Chamindo7]

Yikes. Just a thought....Perhaps take another look at someone that Jesus hand picked and had called a dear friend and appointed as one of His Apostles, that guy's name is Judas. There are some people in the Church that are, disorienting. Judas represents 8% of the 12. What if 8% of the whole Church is exactly like Judas? Do we make a decision based on that 8%? Jesus says follow ME and be cautious of pretenders. Looking at the Judas account is worth it though. IMHO. Deus Vult

[@TheSeverian]

Isn't it deeply ironic that you would complain about sophistry on the internet!

[@830toAwesome]

Leave it to you, Brian, to decry people pointing out where you're wrong. Those who fear correction usually have something to hide.

[@CantusTropus]

"Hillary Clinton didn't literally smash her phone with a hammer herself. An aide took it and destroyed it on her orders instead, therefore we rate the headline "Hillary Clinton destroyed her phone" Mostly False". These are the kind of people he's talking about.

[@TSliw]

@@CantusTropus Is it, though?

[@bradspitt3896]

Predetermine guilt comes from pride. Charity is necessary for healthy dialectic.

[@830toAwesome]

@@bradspitt3896 Are you saying this on a Catholic apologist channel without a sense of irony or sarcasm?

[@bradspitt3896]

@@830toAwesome Can you be less vague? Take a concrete stance so you can be criticized; where's the irony?

[@sr.elizabethmarieoftheholy4980]

Fact, bears eat beets. Bears, beets, "Battlestar Galactica."