Hello everyone, welcome to order flow trading with Robert Rosa please give me short feedback if you can see and hear me according to my Configurations everything should work Fine, but if you can just Give me quick feedback would be great So I got a Hello Rafael nice to see you all is good. Perfectly Rafael Hello Saeed nice to see you then we are also going to start Let me just arrange some more things See perfect.  So today like every Thursday 3 p.m. Central European time starting here order flow trading with me Robert Rosa for Everyone who doesn't know me yet. I Started trading at the age of 13. That was around 1995. I Co-founded my first investment company at the age of 17 with two partners in Frankfurt, Germany Actually, these two people also taught me about the investment business alternative investments hedge funds private equity managed accounts and Well with them together. I started to trade the SMP future still through the telephone at the Chicago mercantile exchange and was at that time the real SMP not the mini future and I was a witness of the transformation from Floor trading actually to online trading So I'm very aware about the changes and how fast it can be that the trading strategy or trading ways not working anymore because of technology in I sold my shares in that company couple years later and in 2004 I moved to China where I set up my second investment company with a Chinese partner We had under management over a 100 million US dollar. We I had this team of 30 your traders analysts and Project managers Well, and if you are quite successful in China then well, you always get trouble look at a Jack Ma and so on So I was detained in 2011 May 4 Yeah, so to say outsmarting the Chinese finance system And I spent the next seven years and seven months in Chinese detention center and prison I was released in December 2018 And well after that time I also discovered book map, which was a great tool since that day on I'm actually using it and Well, I started to write a book That's what you do when you get out of prison. You can also find the cover on the top right Unfortunately, it's only available available in German. It's called Dragon years It became a top 10 best-selling book in Germany at that time and well You're sort of proud of this so you can see me and my handcuffs and now I'm running actually a trading community and Developing propriety trading tools if you you can find more about me on Robert rosa.com And there is the German speaking community and also a link to an English speaking community. You can find it here school.com traders mindset You will get updates about book map about my trades that I'm doing actually real trades Even if you make a loss, it's totally for free and most of them are very Yeah keen to learn more about book map. You can find me on YouTube as well and on Twitter But now most importantly before we start training I always want to emphasize this you are responsible for your trade do not copy other traders do not make other people responsible for your own mistakes and We are going into the general disclosure all book map limited materials information and presentations are for educational purposes only and Should not be considered specific investment advice no recommendations Risk disclosure trading futures equities and digital currencies involve substantial risk of loss And it's not suitable for all investors past performance. It's not necessarily in Indicative of future results So now let's have a look To the markets I'll get all of this So Now let's see who's already here and Now our chat room Raphael best greetings to Switzerland Said hello Michael hello Aloisante. Hello Luca Piri Well, we have a very famous person in the chat right now former GT3 world championship winner Luca Piri and Well, we used to work together and well I was sponsor of the racing box team and we were together in the Le Mans racing series. So Honour to have you here Luca amazing. That was a great time Racing our Ferraris and well what the prototypes and Lamborghini In Valonga, I still remember these great amazing times So whoever of you is into car racing GT3 Le Mans, well, here's the world championship winner with us Luca Luca from Italy. Yeah, soon. I will come to visit you again back to Roma or Tuscany Now let's have a look to the markets. It's now was so 25 minutes before opening So we have to do our basic Education if we look into Yeah, the S&P 500 future most importantly, I have my so to say here my sheet sheet Where I do my homework today is 18th and Well, I want to get the information about the opening price. Unfortunately, the market is not open yet Then I want to have the settlement price this we can find out now And of course the initial balance, which is the high and low of the first 30 minutes of the trading day Then I want to have the delta to see to compare if it is Volatile day or if it is more quiet day for me. It's important to know if I should Short the highs or buy the pullbacks in a trend The settlement price. Yeah, very important information always You will find this one on the website of the Chicago mercantile exchange over here markets a Mini S&P Settlement price and we find it here 5062.25 So why is this in price important because actually it's not the settlement price of today because this will be done in the last Last 30 seconds of the trading day and it's a settlement price of yesterday But I still branded it as today because then I know I put it in today according to this price a margin regulations will be calculated for bigger institutions if they have to add more funds to their accounts or if they can withdraw funds to comply with the maintenance margin regulations from the exchanges and the brokers and then of course also the PNL of That day will be calculated and we know that this point is many times very valid support and resistant zone CLM good good good good very nice exactly. I will do this immediately CLM Yeah, this one is getting a little bit dry But I will still leave it open CLM of course a lot more Liquidity, so if you once sometimes you forget to roll over you see here on the right side is your order book is very thin Yeah, I mean it's still tradable But here we can see we have a lot more size in the book Okay, we close this so the second important thing that you have to do before the Business or trading day is starting. We have our favorite website trading economics I like this website because it's clean simple and brings information down to the point If you look at the calendar, you will find important news Impact today. We have nothing a Fridays some news today. Nothing of important will Fed Bowman speech some speeches existing home sales, maybe this will have some influence at 4 p.m. So should be carefully for other sectors like energy Nothing of interest for us right now. So let's have a look at the bigger point of the market As you know, I like to use Trading view We can see that we are really now at an important zone of the Uptrend was the abstract uptrend is still in play until we actually break the Support and resistance on I did Different analysis on different charts for this market. Let's see Wanted to have one long-term chart. No, it's also not this one Here exactly now I have on this chart. I draw some Anchored Vwebs. It's a low here low here low here and we actually now it's a center point of this anchored Vweb We broke through today will be an interesting day If we really close below this area, then we could say that's a short term downtrend That's a short term uptrend is broken and we're actually looking on the yeah downside To one hour chart We can see here I draw this volume profile zones and for me interesting the high volume notes each time They are actually very accurate support and resistance zones On the upside we can add to the Vweb here And before you forget it next Tuesday 9 p.m. Central European time, or I think it's 3 p.m. Eastern time. I Will have a book map where we now is Bruce together and we are going into detail into trading the Vweb and Anchored Vweb and term trade management Google hello guys Roberts community is really recommended. Thank you very much. That's nice Hello, hi my drive. Hi head for manager Hey So now let's see who is here on discord also Many people come higher up a head for manager cmj ec z great Now let's go a little bit Deeper into the view, you know, I like to use the one minute chart and you can see here I always extend going back to the one hour chart. I am extending this point of control Nines or high volume notes. So I actually can see them here on the one minute chart and They actually act for me very good as support and resistance on I have here the regular trading hours Which is starting here? coding 3 30 p.m CET until 1015 now, let's have a look at the extended trading hours electronic trading hours It started here overnight. We are still on the upside a little bit. I'm not trading the electronic trading hours Really, I'm living according to us time zones We can see we have the bottom here. We started to hit this at 50 63 on the upside and lucky Finally, you see actually how well these Virgin point of controls are working on the Tip basically, yeah, we had the high again here You can trade them multiple times if you're actually only each second time you are You get a trade like this with a very low risk to reward ratio very low stop you actually start to make money and For the trading day today, we have these lines in play the upside for 50 84 50 85. I'm looking for shorts We are now a little bit up So we are actually could have a gap close play and if we have a gap close, I would simply Go long at C close now. We have to enter here the settlement price important at 50 62 50 62.25 interesting very interesting zone and also no Coincidence the settlement price closing price is in conjunction with the point of control and While this is a nice support zone, which we can basically trade as for longs We will see this Later book map I will double check these lines To see if we have similarities 50 62 can we already see something in the book? 62 we see a little bit liquidity here on the upside 80 81 of course this is Book map 80 81 is this zone. I am heading back to the Regular trading hours, which will start in 15 minutes then I can better see the gap place Now I want to show you two features which I actually discovered and First of all we had to call On Monday with a book map because as you remember I had a trading problem. It was Over two weeks ago. It was a fast market I had orders in the in the market and news came and Actually two orders were filled and I got also stopped out everything a fine But with the third order my stop loss was not triggered and I was using this brackets Order so we actually went into the trading locks and we figured out that the trades got rejected by Rhythmic it was not a problem from book map So now we are still investigating what was the problem, but there is one thing that you have to keep in mind actually I I Never looked here into the details connection details Well, basically nothing is changing. Yeah, but somehow last year a new button came Bracket stop orders convert to market on reject point was my stop order was rejected So they simply cancelled the order But I don't want that if I even if the orders rejected I simply want to get out of the position by all means and you basically have to click this and this these two Buttons must be clicked Most likely this will be a default Functionality in later book map versions because people don't know that even we didn't know that and I never actually Checked my connection because once the system is working on you just don't look at it. Yeah Don't keep that in mind if you don't want to get the same problem click both Buttons in your configuration if your rhythmic trader then second Second feature that I actually like Configure at ons if you want to have multi-bracket orders Well, we got it multi-brackets this feature very simple if you cannot find it You simply go to manage at ons and you just choose it here from this At ons and install it Before I was basically trading with an SL of five ticks With a profit of 12 but many times my profit target was it and the market still continued moving in my direction So now I basically trade one lot which means three contracts for me and I entered I and will enter with two and take profit after 12 ticks and I will let a third contract run Give it more room to maybe get 20 or even more ticks. So basically then I would trail my stop loss at the at the Encard V web Hello, cool beans. Nice to see you here. So and then I also would like to explain a little bit about the iceberg orders and stop orders that you can see here and well, I went Quite deeply with Bruce into that last Monday. It was very interesting The red basically are the Stops that are triggered. Yeah, you can actually if you have rhythmic and MBO data This is also basic homework that you should do and read more about it Many times I'm surprised how little traders actually know about market regulations and market structure you should actually read and inhale this website and actually read the Information and the rules and regulations of the exchange It will give you a complete different confidence about training if you know what it is So on everything is actually described on the CME website and in a very I think Clear matter even if your English is not your native language like mine But it's quite simple English and if not, you just put it into chat GPT and it will translate it to you MBO data we have each single Information if we have if we see on the right side like 1000 contracts on the Bit side we can know if this is one order with 1000 contracts or 1000 orders with each one contract. Yeah So this is the information market by price Which you basically get from CQG or other brokers are not suitable for trading and each now order also has a ID Yeah Identification ID order ID and with that we can see if this is a stop order or an iceberg order iceberg orders basically is already If you if you know if you look into the ocean and you see an iceberg You only see the top but you don't know what is below the surface of the water and that is huge And these are iceberg orders. You only see a small part of that and you cannot know how much is actually behind this order but we can actually Because of the order ID detect these and now I will scroll into this Order a little bit. We can see each step. Let's see if we can have it here. Yeah, nice example So now we have here the lifetime of an iceberg order D means the iceberg order was detected But it's not filled yet. So we see the blue line that indicates the So the lifetime cycle of this iceberg order T means transmitted So for lots were transmitted eight lots and the order continued continued continued until the end E means executed. So this iceberg order went through this process Interesting information then maybe later if the trading is starting, we can see that the iceberg orders also are moving Maybe they change the limit price Or they do not get filled and then we have well a C for cancellation So what is the use of this information for us? The use is simply to know Where is the big money going into the market? Yeah, many times we can see like yesterday Iceberg orders are moving up and the price is actually changing these orders. So the market is going up Or if we have huge support from resistant lines like probably I would suggest later here 63, 62, 83, 85 according to our chart a lot of iceberg orders will pop up This can give us good ideas if these support and resistant zones are actually valid or not if there are no Orders basically, it also has no It's not important Ooga again, is it possible to use multi-bracket orders with cross BBO add-on? Good question, I don't know maybe someone here from From book map can answer this well to add Information to the bracket orders. These are server-cited orders. That means if you place a Multi-bracket order in book map, the orders will be on the rhythmic server. So even if your computer is crashing or you turn off Book map your order is still in place. That's actually very good Head from and I what is ice block order? Well, like I said ice block order iceberg order is something like The order that is in the book, but we cannot see the huge The magnificent well The size the real size. It's like a hidden order. Yeah, I guess it doesn't work with cross trading. Yeah, I always under I believe so, too It's only for that chart where you place the order But to really get the confirmation about this simply Go to ask this question on the book map channel. I think there is also Somewhere Somewhere a room for that Have to look at this if there are Information Yeah, you're welcome. And if you have any questions, feel free simply to ask Let me see how many viewers we have already Over 50 and a lot in discord. That's nice. Well, and you can also hit the like button Yeah, we have so many viewers and only 15 likes. That's not enough Okay, without to ask supported bookmark.com. Yeah, alloys under definitely I mean, it's an important information not that people's believe this is Working and then it's the end. It's not so one second now five minutes to start We can see liquidity is coming in and Our zones of interest are here and here and we can see a lot of liquidity around this level of 80 We can see here in that picture the anchored V-web or not the anchored V-web. It's actually the V-web starting from Recording start. It was quite early this morning And we can also see many times the market is moving very smoothly according to the V-web. Yeah And it's standard deviations This is basically my niche in trading. I'm trying to figure out where the algos are starting to buy and sell So I can get into that market Basically, if you trade here this V-web one two three four you have a very good Chance of success. Oh, okay. Perfect. Alois. Yeah there in the knowledge base This is basically the first step to go to get the information about book map Do you have to buy several indicators from book map? Which one would you recommend to us? Um hedge fund manager. This is basically depends on your trading style and your trading market For example, if you trade the NQ Yeah, I will Get it on here Just an example. Yeah, there is no right or wrong But the NQ has somehow I will not call it mail function But they are messing up the order book with so called bracket orders This here this noise We have to filter out this noise to get actually clear view on the NAS stack It's very messy. So for this add-on we have for example settings configure add-ons trader map pro and You can actually filter these orders. Yeah, so it will create a second chart here and we get Later, you would see better view if Market Piles for example, I'm having the market parts here. I simply switch it off during live streams because It creates somehow some noise And distraction Basically the add-on that you use for that is let me go to the book map marketplace Which concludes everything MBO bundle. I think this contains Stops an iceberg Exactly, you need risk make data, but that's not a problem stop an icebergs on chart what I'm having liquidity tracker trade I'm a pro market piles algorithm bundle for stocks and futures. Let's see With risk make data, you can't get the overnight. We've a correct only from when you open the platform my drive Exactly that is Well, the data is simply too large There is also no way to save or to record this then your system is not yet possible You simply have to turn on your computer and let it run Yeah, maybe we'll go sometimes in a learning by doing simply try and error So now we see market opening First thing that I'm going to do is to add to the V web Sculculating let's see if we have any surprises here in liquidity And why am I still having an order in that market? That's interesting cancel all Did I place an order? Somehow I started to place an order and I didn't know what I did actually Turn this off. Well, it's not my intention. So no surprises in liquidity. We have 80 well, that's a lot of selling pressure Let's have the chart on the other side Probably a quick gap close run to the settlement price. I think the 62 is a very interesting area for longs. We enter the opening here at 74 right now for me exactly minutes after the opening. I am basically not trading. I'm trying to get a Feeling for the market Also to get a feeling how the V web actually reacts on orders. Sometimes it's a little bit choppy like for example yesterday if you saw My trading diaries, I record them on Loom and publish them for example in here in Discord channel my discord channel on the community. I simply Somehow last two days. I was All that my stop loss was always triggered Exactly on the tick and then the market turned into my direction Really unlucky. The only thing that I found out which is which changed. Actually the strategy is valid It's not a problem of the strategy simply my stop loss was too small, but if you look really the Wix volatility index definitely increased from 13 1718 right now But still after two days, I'm not willing to change or adjust my stop Configuration I'm just well sometimes you're just not lucky in trading. Yeah, you are right with your analysis. Your strategy is working. You see that Just always this one tick and then also never took my take profit Well, always the market stopped like one ticket before my tp simply Yeah Annoying. Oh, there is a way to get the data if you risk make it is the DX feed historical data package for 14 bucks and You can get overnight VVP as well. Otherwise Santa that is interesting then I have I Have to check this out. You always learn something new Well, this is Chinese my I What we show Eden Chung when met I Used to live in China, but I have to pass on that So now we are going close to this level of sixties. That is interesting. Keep in mind the gap close This is very interesting turning point the settlement price and combination with the point of control is Could be a valid Long signal and we don't see a lot of liquidity yet here in the market Let's see what's going to happen in that area is a 60 Now we are the settlement price and basically Here at this level 60 still market goes further Stop run was for 89. Yeah, that is something nice to see so that we could get now probably Turn around But there's no nothing coming into the market no liquidity still Okay, now we can see here is an open iceberg order 25. It's not filled yet. The markets we see buyers are coming in here Was triggered Still more icebergs are coming We see if I have the settings correctly Basically, I have a threshold for the icebergs now. I have to put in my threshold Otherwise, I get too many information and I only want to have the big information The important information So the short 50 okay close Well, that is basically unusual. That's the market really simply Runs through the settlement price the big picture probably next support then here at 47 Now what am I going to do? I'm for me like I said the initial balance is important and this is the high and low From the first 30 trading minutes, we have the high at 50 74 right now and the low not figured out yet But it will give me an indication What is going on if this market is continuing now from? Yeah, we have 75 down to 51 is already over 20. So that's sort of a larger initial balance, yeah If the mark of the first half hour is over that basically I would look to actually buy the lows and sell the Sell the highs Because I wouldn't believe that the market will go into a special direction at that time We can compare it and compare it in this way if we have a IB that is very narrow We can see it as like a Yeah pressure point a lot of orders would be accumulated and then The second half of the market is leaving this range. It will continue into one direction. So we are going to have a trend right now. We already Actually developing a trend right now, or we already have a downtrend and Then normally if something goes down, there will also be a correction, yeah And we can see more and more larger icebergs are coming into place. This one is also open here quickly Executed here right now. This is a market if the market opens like this. I am not interested in doing anything Yeah, I'm just watching until this Pressure is over to be fine to reasonable bottom Okay 50 year more and more liquidity is coming more and more This is now a level where we could probably consider As the support zone To get basically a correction. We can also see the icebergs continuing Slowdown, do you pay attention to correlation with NQ when trading ES or do you just focus on the chart in front of you? I basically only focus on the chart in front of me I do not pay attention to the NQ if I trade ES But I pay attention to the spy here To the ETF To see if there we have certain Liquidity which is not displayed in the future market. So if we have their correlations or Differences, yeah, which I can use and we are also calculating the option prices for the s&p From the zero DTE options the options that expire today to actually see that we have a sort of volume profile And where we have a lot of volume Well, basically the market is in a fair zone. These are these green Buttons if the market goes outside of the zone and the price or the volume will not go with it Basically, we have oversold to overboard market It's just something to support. Yeah, it's not a trading indicator in that way And right now the information is not valid according to our rules after 4 o'clock or 4 p.m. Or CET was 10 a.m. Eastern time Now and we could see interesting We saw this liquidity coming into the market and now we have this sort of correction To go along into this area would not be right because there is simply no liquidity yet. No It's just like an empty hole And now we see buying pressure or buying power is coming into the market at 50 and now we see The pullback and basically the pullback Goes to the anchored V-web here or the session V-web starting at 330 And we can see interesting the iceberg orders are moving up.  This is a fair price to get into Well over 60 people here 65 very nice and Don't forget to hit the like button See very nice. We have the liquidity in play coming. We have increasing or limit the limit were changed with the iceberg orders going up up up and then Basically if they cannot get filled, maybe they cancel them and move the market up so we can see the buying pressure is coming in Nice to see a nice how to Interpret to analyze the iceberg orders and see the value behind it We didn't have that sign here here nowhere Just started to happen here And that is what I want to see if we found the bottom Then we have here 295 255 these are already 500 these are larger orders And now we see liquidity is coming here around that session V-web probably We know the algos are starting to Give selling pressure. It's a fair value to sell actually here if they believe the market is going down for everyone who is Just arrived now next Tuesday 10 now three Pmce at eastern time or 9 p.m. Central European time We are going to have a book map webinar about V-web trading and trade management Now we can see how the market actually is Eating up this iceberg order. Yeah, the blue line indicates. Okay. There is A lot of buying pressure. These are things that we basically cannot see on a chart and still here also buying Buying nice to see the iceberg order was hit Are not here And after this buying pressure comes into the market So then actually to go short here is very Dangerous if you see this there's also way how to actually filter these trades We know buying buying buying comes in And well, you can avoid trades at the V-web. For example, if you have this correlation Now we see that was the oversold reaction and now probably going back to this standard deviation What I think triggered so long If I would assume we have a lot of iceberg orders here larger orders and then probably Somebody got some pressure. Yeah, and simply did not want to wait with the order and just changed the iceberg order to a probably a market order to actually Move the market upwards. Yeah, this is what I would consider Well, it could be a reasonable explanation Because we can see here something ended here from the iceberg order, but there is no execution sign And then somehow probably it moved up. Yeah Now if we see these Pearls so to say they're simply going straight up. There is some buying pressure from people From larger institutions that have to go into the market. Maybe they cover their shorts or whatever. They think the price is fair We don't know the reason behind it. We can only see that people want to buy aggressively at that moment And also we have to consider at the moment. We have a very thin book. Yeah Only two digits. This makes the market very volatile the last weeks. We always said at least three digits here around continuously So this is why we have fast markets and I believe this is of course in The result of what happened During the weekend in israel and iran. So of course, there is a fear in the market Also interesting here at the standard deviation. We just had we hit The line and then the sell-off came three points Basically, these are very nice trades that I like to do. Just go place my order here Very narrow stop loss and then try to get these moves On the other side. Now we see this uptrend what we have to do. We simply have to add An anchored vweb to let the market run What we can see if you add the vweb at the bottom Or at the daily low We can see the market is moving up Make the retest and then this is your entrance point Vweb from the bottom and the standard deviation a nice long signal Again, where did the market go? exactly Add the vweb and then back to your question head from manager. What did this buying pressure trigger? I believe it was the touch on the vweb. This is when algorithms Algorithmic trading is starting to buy and the market is moving up Same here then back to the standard deviation like I mentioned and back to the vweb These are very very nice sweet trades And this is why I want to use the bracket Multi record order I would get out here with my first two contracts and the third one or the third lot I would basically cover here Now we're actually expecting to go back to the vweb What time frame are you using on the left? Well, basically there is no time frame Mr. Cage is simply Tick chart, yeah I'm just scrolling in and out to get the bigger picture, but there is no specific time frame We see each tick on the right. It's a one minute chart I know what are the white line? It's basically the anchored vweb from the bottom of the day Like on the right side, I just enter an anchored vweb here That indicates me as long as the market is above this line. We are simply in an uptrend and the pink lines or purple lines is the session vweb starting at 9 30 eastern time the market opening or 3 30 CET time And these lines are the standard deviations the first and second standard deviation Now we can see we simply hit the vweb again and we see some buying pressure coming Now it's a question. Is this still a valid uptrend or is this Let's say correction finished and we go again Back to the lows now the market is struggling here if we break below The trend is over But actually the market is not doing it. You can see and then this is my niche I would go along here and let it run And again, I would get my take profit here I'm out of the business and would have made my money two nice trends to the trades would be here And here and eventually here if you what I doubt if you really get into the market if you place your order here well, I know Actually there is no difference because a vweb Each reverb has a starting point I just call it session vweb because it's either starting point Is at the beginning of the trading session And cut vweb Has an individual starting point that I choose according to my expertise for example, when I know we have a Low I would enter a vweb here To actually confirm the continuation of the trend and to find entry points I am not a breakout trader. So if I know the market changed, where should I enter the market? I have I want to Take as less risk as possible. And then I basically have these points here and here To enter on this uptrend And you can see very little risk you can work with very Tiny stops So the end card we would simply a point where I decide I want to enter You can use Events for example, if you have news releases, you can enter an end card vweb there Basically anytime. Yeah, I can also put one here here here The question is when does it make sense? And again market is moving to the standard deviation again nice short scenario Already Three four points. I would have made my profit here also Exactly. There are a lot of buyers here. That was the turnaround zone. We had this sell-off And there was no liquidity. So there was nothing to trade and then we saw the iceberg orders coming into the market And we saw the liquidity here and then basically the trend was over and the long trend was initiated Doctor, I try in English. No problem. Well, not everyone is native English speaker. Same like me I actually switched from quanta or to book map and trading view And can you show how to use the anchor vweb in trading view? Is it an indicator? No, basically A vweb is no indicator. It's a benchmark. Yeah, but it's here in the category of Indicators of course, but it's a standard tool. You just go on the left side. I think it's here Projection Anchored vweb. You just click the star and you have it here in your favorite toolbox. That's it And there is not too much to configure if you look at it here at this vweb You simply click on that symbol and enter it anywhere like here for example And you can make right click settings and you can add the multi bands if you like first and second Change the style visibility in which charts you want to see it color and you can save it as a template That's it. There is not more to it so now the first 30 minutes of the trading day Is over and i'm going to calculate actually the initial balance. We have here initial balance low At 50 50.75. I will enter that into my table in the upside here at 50 75 The opening price 50 74 So now we have a delta of 24 which is compared to the last trading days Larger yeah, so according to my theory and my understanding I do not think that we will go much below the i below or much behind the i below. I would Look to find short scenarios here in this area. Maybe a little bit above a little bit below And long setups here Because I believe most of the business is already done Of course, that's not a guarantee. Yeah, like I said news can come anything can happen We know the situation right now, but this is how I think and well if I Believe that I can Find short setups here. It's possibility for me a much higher Wow over almost 90 viewers amazing. So you still can hit hit the like button. Yeah I still can also make some Um small Advertisement if you really want to come into our english speaking trading group. It's for free, of course, yeah Over 100 member. I am posting my trades and not only winners. I also make losers. Yeah It's like this we web trades laura. She's also very active in the trading community and book map And well, it's starting to grow and we have a very good german speaking community with over 500 members very nice and well The english speaking group as well. It's completely free and I have some interesting um We are things that I'm going to start during the next Next um week next months and if anyone is um near the german town of stuttgart next week, there is a Largest um investment exhibition in germany and I'm going to be a speaker there on friday the 26 So if anyone is around come to the exhibition to the invest and we can have a drink and we can get a book from me It's my Signature So now we can see if we broke the n-card v-web And now the trend basically is over The uptrend. Yeah, and I think we are going now more and more into a Rotation, yeah Now I would wait until the market is going to the initial balance low And then together with the second standard deviation We are 50 50. We can also see liquidity is coming in here Would be a nice um trading setup 50 50 I wish I can speak german Well, it's a very complicated language. Believe me. I really prefer to speak english. Somehow I could express myself A lot easier Yeah, where are you from south star? I think that was uh south korea if I remember correctly or You were there also last week and we can see again. Well, we are going into that range Yes, yeah, I remember that Unfortunately since I lived many years in asia. I never have been to south korea But of course when you're living in china, you learn a lot about k-pop. Yeah, it's I knew most of the k-pop singers and bands, but I don't remember their names, but I had to get used to it Ah in schweinfurt nicknack. Yeah Sorry for the european germany is the best country in europe. Yeah, well Depends on what you want to do. Yeah um Try swiss germany Yeah, well that is uh to roll the arrow like the Swiss people are doing that. It's crazy Um tess, how do you use the spy as a correlation? Well, I can tell you that now I want to see Where do we have? Oh, okay. We also have a data error here non cp. Okay interesting. So to look at the I'll go um I'm trying to look where are huge liquidity zones. Sometimes you can find liquidity in the spy That you cannot find in the future markets So then I assume that the market will still go to Huge liquidity areas. I'm this is not big Sometimes you really see huge orders here and then the chance is quite high that the future market will also go into this direction But you cannot detect this liquidity in the future market So this is what I'm looking for and basically Yeah option levels like I said normally we calculate zero dte options the option volume Um, but right now as I see there is somehow a bug. I don't know what's the problem. I have to talk to my Coder later on Then we can detect if there is overbought or oversold area Which software I use to stream I have obs obs studio. I'm using that obs studio and sometimes also streamlabs if I want to have multi streams Well in discord, you have see basically the normal streaming function here. Yeah, that is just screen share And it's doing this automatically Hello, Mike. Nice to see you here. What is your opinion about bitcoin split? Yeah, well, um, I really don't know. I mean Saturday, I think Saturday is the halving From bitcoin. I don't know. I just remember everyone as the bitcoin futures were Launched at the cme. Everybody thought okay great Now we have futures on bitcoin and after that the market crashed We always have this saying by the rumor says effect I really Don't know from the logic point of view. Of course bitcoin should increase because there is um less supply But in reality, I really don't know I can tell you from myself. I'm invested in cryptos in bitcoin isserium and Other tokens like render for example, I'm very interested in bitcoin or in cryptocurrencies But from the trading point of view, I simply prefer future markets because they are more stock stocks Or forex they are for me A bit more transparent and easier to Observe there's not so much fake going on So now we see an interesting level going to the initial balance high and the opening price and we can see Larger iceberg orders coming into play. We have this liquidity at 50 75 I would assume to look here for short scenarios in this area Mike, thank you very much. Uh, that is uh, very nice to hear from you Well, and still everyone can hit the like button very nice over 80 people And a lot in discord. That is nice so if there are No more questions then I would also start to continue trading and well book next Tuesday 9 p.m. Central European time or 3 p.m. Eastern time New York time. We are going to have a live webinar about vweb trading and the Yeah, trade management what ways we can use to trade Or we see each other in our our community. Yeah, English speaking community There will be Nice progress come join us. You will get updates about trades and About well ideas and new projects that I'm going to launch in November And November May I mean and I would say have a good day have a nice training day be successful. Don't Don't get a margin call. Yeah Always think about tomorrow when you trade today's today should not be your last day Otherwise take care. Bye. Bye


How fundamental is the conflict between science and religion? Is it true that the history of the church is a history of anti-intellectualism and the suppression of scientific inquiry? Is the cause of the tension between science and religion because of religious fundamentalism? And are there any rational truths in the domain of religion that science cannot answer? These are the questions I'm trying to answer on the 55th episode of Patterson in Pursuit. Hello my friends and enemies and welcome to episode 55. I'm speaking to you from Thailand right now, though the interview you're about to listen to was conducted in Brisbane, Australia, and boy is it a controversial subject. If you've been following the show for a while, you know that my default position on everything is a rabid skepticism. But in the modern world, skepticism has turned to a click. Instead of being an approach to knowledge, it's now a set of conclusions. People who identify as skeptics have to believe in accordance with a certain set of beliefs, atheism, materialism, empiricism, and the universal irrationality of any type of religious belief. In my opinion, this is not very skeptical. And if you investigate these topics with an open mind, I think you'll discover that there is truth to be found in religion. You just have to take a lot of the claims in a non-literal way. This is part of the discussion that I had with my guest this week, Dr. Peter Harrison, who teaches at the University of Queensland. He is the director for the Center for the History of European Discourses. Dr. Harrison has many professional accolades. Not only is he a practicing historian and an author, but he's the former professor of science and religion at the University of Oxford, where he was also awarded a Doctor of Letters, which is a higher doctorate degree that is given to exceptional academics. His most recent books are The Territories of Science and Religion, and Wrestling with Nature, from Omens to Science. So this topic is right up Dr. Harrison's alley. The sponsor for this episode is the company Praxis. My friends, the world has already changed. The job market has changed, industries have changed, academia and the credentialing system have changed. The old legacy systems are thankfully dying out, and they are being replaced by companies like Praxis. If you are like me, and you're somebody who has ambition, you have high standards, you're highly motivated to make an impact on the world on your terms, then I urge you to rethink the conventional wisdom surrounding getting a formal education in a university and start looking at alternatives. College is way too expensive. You don't learn practical skills. You don't learn correct theories about the world.  But until recently, there just wasn't a very viable alternative, and that's where Praxis comes in. They train you for three months about how to be a competent working professional and achieve your goals, and that's followed by six months of a paid apprenticeship usually at a startup. You don't need to burn the hundred grand. You don't need to waste your time. You can go straight into the real world. So that sounds interesting. Head over to steve-patterson.com slash praxis, P-R-A-X-I-S, and get more information. So I hope you guys enjoy my conversation about the tension between science and religion with Dr. Peter Harrison of the University of Queensland. So first of all, I want to thank you very much for sitting down and speaking with me today. That's a pleasure, Steve. I've got a few questions for you that I know this is kind of your area of expertise. From my background, when I'm talking to philosophers and I talk to people who are interested in science, a lot of them are very skeptical when you mention religion, even say the word religion, and they assume you're talking about some kind of superstition that has been historically very anti-intellectual. I think the church has this history of suppressing individual rational inquiry. And let's say I'm skeptical of their skepticism, and especially when they start talking about history. So there's kind of a simplistic story that a lot of people hear, which is the Catholic church, let's say in the West, actively for a thousand years or more, suppressed scientific inquiry. And it was only after the shackles were loosened that we see modern science emerge, and then there was objective investigation into the natural world, and before that it was pure superstition. Is that an accurate way of thinking about the history of this relationship between science and religion? Yeah, look, in a word, no. And for a number of reasons. And I think if you talk to historians, generally speaking, you'll get a very different view. And I think there are a number of components to what would regard us the true story. But one of the issues I think is to do with how in the past history has been divided up into various periods. And there was a longstanding view that the Renaissance was a genuine rebirth of learning, and what came before that was the dark ages, where there was no intellectual activity. What we know, of course, is that there was considerable vibrant intellectual activity in the Middle Ages, where we have the foundations of the first universities, they're set up in the Middle Ages, they're sponsored by the Catholic Church, and there's serious intellectual activity going on there. When we get to the next phase, when sort of modernity dawns from the Renaissance Reformation scientific revolution, again, there's a kind of myth that the modern age is brought about precisely, as you've said, when thinkers start to release themselves from the shackles of religion. But what we actually find in relation to science is that something like the contrary is the case, that in the medieval university, science and theology were separate faculties, and to some extent they had a considerable degree of independence. And in the 17th century, what we see is science and religion actually coming together as a kind of more cooperative, collaborative, mixed up enterprise. The category sometimes called physical theology, which is literally a kind of mix of physics or natural philosophy and theology, that never would have happened in the Middle Ages where they were kept quite distinct. So there are a number of problematic elements to a story that looks at the west as progressing away from religion towards science in a kind of linear fashion. So one of the questions we're interested in as historians is, well, where did this overarching myth come from? And it came from people in the 19th century, essentially, although, of course, the periodization of Middle Ages, Renaissance, goes back earlier. But here for the first time, I think you get progressivist accounts of history. And one of the famous ones is the positivist philosopher, Auguste Comte, who comes up with three stages of history, where history moves through these stages away from religious through the metaphysical to the scientific or positivist stage. And this became a very all-pervasive, powerful way of thinking about history. And it tends to lead people from the 19th century on to retrospectively construct history in this progressivist fashion, where progress is understood as moving away from religion towards something like a non-religious scientific present. Now, part of what underpins that, I think, is undoubtedly secularization has taken place. The influence of religion in the west has declined. But the question is where this is a kind of universal historical pattern. And I think what we see in the 21st century is that clearly that's not the case, that for better or worse religion is here to stay, and that there's not an obvious correlation between the advance of science and technology and the decline of religion. So when you were saying before there used to be these split disciplines and then they kind of came together and we saw the emergence, maybe, of the Renaissance, when I think about the modern division, there's definitely a strong division between natural sciences and any type of religious thinking. But now it seems like there's high productivity in the natural sciences, even with that split. So can you give me some more historical context for how it was and then how things changed? Sure, yeah. So I think you're quite right. If we look at the contemporary natural sciences, they're highly specialized. And this is indeed a mark of modernity, the high differentiation we get across the board. So it doesn't just happen in science. It happens in virtually every area of intellectual inquiry. So you get this high degree of specialization. So some separation between science and religion is a kind of specific case of that general degree of differentiation. But if we look at when modern science is undergoing its formative moments, and I'm speaking here of the 17th century and traditionally this period has been regarded as the period of the scientific revolution, which, in a way, I guess kicks off with Copernicus or after him Galileo and then we have Descartes and Newton and Kepler, these key, key figures. If you look at what these guys are doing, they're actually, they're religiously committed. There's no doubt about the sincerity of their religious commitments. So clearly for them, scientific activity is not something that is necessarily at odds with their religious convictions. And it's not just that they have private religious convictions and science goes on independently of those. What we see, and I'll give you a specific example, what we see is that religion plays a key role in motivating their scientific endeavors in providing religious presuppositions for the kinds of things they're involved in. To some extent, in particular cases, providing the content of the scientific, their scientific theories, also in underpinning scientific authority and even in underpinning specific methods of inquiry. So the motivation of one is easy. They say things like, I'm motivated to study nature because I can see evidence of God's wisdom and power. And they're not dissembling when they say that. It's pretty clear they're being sincere about that. So that goes to the motivation. It doesn't say anything about the content. If you look at the question of presuppositions, Descartes is quite explicit about this. One of the distinctive things about modern Western science as it begins in the 17th century is a conception of the regularities of nature understood as laws of nature. That's very different from a medieval period where Aristotelian science talked about the internal powers and qualities of things. So things derive their capacity to move and do stuff for Aristotle and the medieval period as a consequence of internal properties. In the early modern period, they are dispensed with, when we get a corpuscular or atomic matter theory that says, the particles of matter are inert. Where does the motion come from? In essence, it comes from God. And how is that motion understood? It's understood in terms of laws that God directly imposes on matter. So when Descartes first formulates the idea of a law of nature and the ideas of laws of nature in this mathematical sense is a modern idea that replaces this older conception, it's clearly a theological notion and Descartes' explicit about it. God instantiates laws of nature. And in the experimental or empiricist tradition in England, they have precisely the same conception of laws of nature. So for Newton, gravity, you've got this conception of gravity, universal laws of gravity. Why are the laws universal? Because God's activity is universal. Why are these laws immutable? Because God is immutable in his nature. Descartes says this, Newton will say something like it too. So that God instantiates laws of nature, he could have chosen law A or law B in order to find out what he has chosen. We need to investigate nature empirically. But you also get a move away from causal explanation, which was the old Aristotelian view, to explanation in terms of laws. So we don't really know what gravity is. It's not some internal property of matter. And in essence, I think for Newton and certainly for Newtonian thinkers who came after him, the motive force in the universe was divine action, understood in terms of laws of nature. And this conception of laws of nature persists essentially until the 19th century. It's able to be redescribed in terms of laws intrinsic to nature. And that's essentially what we see happen in the 19th century where we start to get this clear divorce between science and religion for the first time. It's interesting you say that because one of the areas that I've investigated a little bit is modern physics, quantum physics that sometimes gets thrown around to say really remarkable things about how the world works. But it's especially interesting the question, why would it be the case that there are discoverable laws of nature? It's something that is a presupposition that you're doing empirical inquiry. I think everybody assumes that there are these laws out there, but why is that the case? And it's interesting that it seems like that was a religious presupposition maybe originally. And I don't know, I don't really have a good answer to why it would be the case that there are discoverable laws of nature to humans. What's especially interesting is I know that there's a very modern movement that says there are no such laws, it's all made up. It's all, everything is chaotic and we're just kind of making stuff up. Yes, well I think the other move we see in philosophers like Nancy Cartwright who had a famous book that went something like why do the laws of physics lie? Now what Nancy Cartwright argues is that partly because laws of nature have theological origins. If we no longer buy into the theological presuppositions we have no reason to think that there are laws of nature. So that's one of her arguments, but she wants to suggest, and there are others like her, wants to return to something like the old Aristotelian view that talks about the inherent powers of things. And for Nancy Cartwright, it's a very interesting view. There are no universal laws of nature. What we see are patterns of order and the order that we see in the natural world that we're able to investigate is a function of the internal properties that things have and not some imposed universal law-like nature stuff. So she has an interesting paper called No God, No Laws. If you don't buy the theological presupposition don't buy into the notion that there are universal laws of nature. And she's writing this from a standpoint, a non-religious standpoint. She's making this as a... It does precisely wrong. Because I could see that kind of argument be made by somebody with religious dispositions to argue for why you should believe in God. That's interesting that that would be the claim from somebody saying we shouldn't believe in God, there are no laws. But when you were talking about the history there you mentioned Galileo. Galileo is caught up in this story, this narrative of the demonstration of the anti-intellectualism and dogma of the church. That everybody knows that Galileo had this theory that the earth revolved around the sun. The church didn't like that, they said it's heresy and so they jailed them because of it. And then that's kind of, this is near the foundations of modern scientific thinking. Is that story correct? Again, in a word, no. Okay, so, but you're right to say that it's a key narrative in this story about the idea that there's a perennial opposition between science and religion. So, if we go through the facts, Copernicus comes up with a heliocentric view. It's relatively uncontroversial for 50 plus years. That in itself is interesting, right? It's relatively uncontroversial. It's only when Galileo starts to come up with some telescopic evidence that it looks like it might support the theory. That's part of the reason it becomes problematic. The other part I think is to do with the Protestant Reformation but I won't go into that in detail. So, Galileo is cautioned in 1616 and told not to support the Copernican Hypothesis. That is the Sun-Centered Hypothesis. He publishes a book, Dialogue on the Chief World Systems that looks like it might be subtly supporting it. So, he's placed on trial in 1632 and in 1633. He's found guilty, vehement suspicion of heresy and in teaching a system that's absurd philosophically, which is I'll come back to, and he's placed under house arrest. And that's the facts. Okay, is this a kind of classic instance of a conflict between science and religion? And I'd say no for two reasons. First of all, this was completely atypical of how the Catholic Church operated. The Catholic Church was the chief sponsor of astronomical research for this period and indeed for centuries before and for centuries after. So, this is not a typical thing for the Catholic Church to do. And as I kind of hinted to you, part of the context is the religious upheavals that are going on in Europe at the time and the fact that the Catholic Church and Catholic authority is under threat from Protestants. Okay, and that's why the biblical passages are gonna play a role. So, it's not typical of Catholicism. So, therefore it doesn't epitomize an overall approach. Is it a conflict between science and religion? It's not really. It is in part, but the key conflict was between two competing or actually three competing scientific theories. So, it's important to understand that at this time, A, the scientific consensus is not with Galileo. B, the evidence in favor of the Copernican system is not good. In fact, the weight of evidence is in favor of the earth not being in motion. So, scientifically, Galileo is in a kind of minority position and a position that it's hard to support. And I'll give you some of the scientific evidence in a second. But the other thing that Galileo leaves out is a third competing hypothesis that has a stationary earth, but the planets revolving around a sun that in turn revolves around the earth. And that third option was the option of Tycho Brahe, the Danish astronomer. So, you've got three hypotheses. The old Ptolemaic earth-centered model, which with crystalline spheres and so on, a Copernican model that has the sun at the center and all of the planets revolving around the sun. And then a compromise model, which has the planets going around the sun and the sun going around the earth. Now, empirically, these last two were more or less equivalent. The Tychonic model would give you pretty much all of the observations of the Copernican Galilean and the phases of Venus and so on was consistent with the satellites of Jupiter. But it had the, what at the time was sort of the virtue of the earth not being in motion. Now, there's evidence against the earth not moving. And that evidence is evidence of parallax. That is to say, the relative positions of the fixed stars don't seem to move if the earth was in motion, they should. If they're a long, long way away, it might be possible that the earth's in motion and parallax could not be detected. Now, in fact, that is the story. Parallax was eventually detected in the 19th century when we had instruments that were sophisticated enough to pick it up. But at the time, because telescopes made stars look bigger than they actually look, it was thought that they were closer than, in fact, they are. And this was very, one example, very, very strong empirical evidence against the motion of the earth. So the Catholic Church actually backs what looks like a fairly respectable scientific position at the time. And in that case, it doesn't look like a conflict between science and religion. What it looks like is a conflict between competing scientific models with Catholicism or the Catholic authorities, perhaps unwisely, buying into the argument and putting their weight behind the view that at the time actually had more scientific support than the position that Galileo was advocating. I think the wrench that gets thrown into it, especially, is the heresy charges, because it's one thing to say this is an inferior scientific theory, but then the religious claims do get brought into the next where we start talking about heresy. Correct. So that's right. And here, the issue of the interpretation of key biblical passages becomes important. And what Galileo does, quite cunningly, I think, he wrote a famous book called A Letter to the Duchess Christina, where he amassed the biblical arguments and showed that you could actually use the Bible to support his own view. And it was pretty clear that Galileo was getting a lot of help from, he had numerous friends within the Catholic hierarchy. They were feeding him the biblical passages and indeed the views of the great churchfather Augustine, who Galileo cunningly uses in this book. But it was a kind of misstep, because what Galileo does in claiming to be able to interpret the Bible for himself starts to present a position that's essentially a Protestant position. And the Protestant position was, we retain the right to interpret scripture for ourselves. We don't want the church dictating to us the meaning of scripture. So there's a key principle that came up at the Council of Trent about who gets to interpret scripture. So Galileo fell foul of the Catholic church on this point about who gets to interpret scripture. And you're quite right to say, it wasn't just that the view he was defending was found to be absurd in philosophy. It was found to be heretical. And that certainly does look like a question of religion. But let me just say this one thing. If we look at the arguments that are mounted against Copernicanism, and these were interestingly compiled by a Jesuit guy called Richioli who puts together this book that's got all of the arguments in favor of Copernicanism, all of the arguments against it, and the weight, and a number of the arguments that were actually in favor of the Tychonic model which I mentioned. There are only three religious arguments, I think, against it, considerably fewer than the natural philosophical arguments. And together, the weight of this relatively small proportion of religious arguments with the great bulk of scientific arguments was significantly more than the interesting number of arguments that were in favor of Copernicanism. So Richioli's book, The New Almagest, kind of represents, I think, pretty well the position of that scientific orthodoxy at the time there were religious arguments against it. The bulk of arguments were scientific and there were a few scientific arguments in favor. On balance, it's scientifically not respectable. So are there any other examples of kind of popular cases of the church versus religion that have the same, that are oversimplified in the popular understanding? Sure, look, I think there's a few. I mean, Darwinism would be an obvious one. I think that Darwinism's clearly still today kind of problematic. We could probably identify a few others. One was in 1266, going way back when the Bishop of Paris issued condemnation of 219 propositions of essentially Aristotelian science. So you could say, well, that looks a bit like, it's more religion versus philosophy in that context. But again, paradoxically, some historians have argued that this event way back in 1277 actually was a spur to scientific thinking because it pushed people to think counterfactually and thinking counterfactually is really a key part of modern science. So for example, nothing we observe in the terrestrial environment keeps moving, everything stops. Think of Newton's laws of motion. Things will continue, will either remain at rest or they will continue in motion. We don't ever see that in nature. But we can think counterfactually if situations where that might obtain. And this ability to think counterfactually becomes a key part of modern science. So some people argue that, well, low on the face of it, that the 1277 condemnations look like anti-science. And they might have been, they were never universal across Europe and they might have actually had the consequence of being a spur to science. So that's one. Giudano Bruno is often brought up because Giudano Bruno is martyred, burnt at the stake. But he's burnt at the, and he has heterodox religious views that multiplicity of worlds was the big one. But really he wasn't executed for holding heterodox scientific views. He was executed, and no one's saying this is a great thing, but he was executed for having heterodox religious views. So he wasn't a martyr of the science. So that would be another one. Now were those religious views with Bruno? So when you say he was persecuted for the religious views, were those religious views derived from his scientific views though? Well, again, probably not. But here, again, here, this raises a whole other question of, at this time, what counts as science and what counts as religion? Yeah, right. And really, you know, I'd say the categories, the categories are 19th century ones. And what you're dealing with here is not not science as we would know it, but natural philosophy. And clearly the boundary, and clearly there's a lot we could say about this category, natural philosophy. But the short thing we can say is it's not science. It's significantly different from science. And one of the things that makes it different from science is its relation to theological conceptions. And the boundaries between natural philosophy and science were more porous than they are. So for example, God was actually one of the topics of natural philosophy in a way that he's not clearly from modern science. So to go back to your question about Bruno, it's somewhat artificial to make a hard and fast distinction between what's gonna be a scientific view and what's gonna be a theological view. But insofar as we can kind of make a rough and ready distinction, it seems that his views, the key things that they got him on were theological and not scientific. Insofar as we can make that distinction. Okay, so let's return to Darwin. We went from Galileo, touched on Darwin for a second, back to Bruno. What about Darwin? That is probably the most controversial figure at least that I can think of in terms of the science, religion, debate that is with us at present. Yeah, all right. So interestingly in the Galileo case, there wasn't much religiously at stake with a sun-centered cosmos than on the Earth-centered one. So some people argue that there's a kind of demotion of human beings from the center of the cosmos. That's just not the case. The center of the cosmos was the last place you wanted to be because it was furthest from the heavens. So that's why, and if you think about Dante's Inferno, Hell's actually located right in the very center of the cosmos. So there's nothing much religiously at stake and don't buy the idea that there's demotion of human beings in the Galileo story. But Darwin, actually, there's a lot at stake religiously. If you buy a little literal sense of Genesis, and historically in the Christian tradition, not that many people have, but if you do, clearly there's a human origins, the literal story of Genesis seems to contradict the Darwinian account. Then you've got the questions about where does human morality come from? Are human beings distinctive in any way? Or if there's just a gradation in the created order, it looks like we're not special, which seems to be a key part of Christian teaching that human beings are created in the image of God. What about traditional Christian doctrine like the fall that says we were originally created perfect and we fell away from that? So again, even if you don't accept a literal account of Genesis, there's some kind of story there that seems to account for why the world is not as perfect as we might otherwise think. Now, I think all of those are at stake in a Darwinian account of evolution by natural selection. Right, so is it then when Darwin publishes Origin of Species in 1858, does this precipitate conflicts between science and religion? In part, yes it does. There's a religious reaction against it and for some of the reasons that I talked about. But the part of the story you don't hear is how Darwin had significant religious supporters. And one of the most prominent was Asa Gray, who was the Professor of Botany at Harvard at Presbyterian, but a very strong supporter of Darwinian evolutionary thinking. And in a sense, Darwin's representative in America, so quite a fan of Darwinian thought. So Darwin has key religious supporters as well as religious opponents. And it's probably worth saying, he also has scientific opponents as well, just as if you think back to the Galileo case. So there's also a science versus science issue here too. So it's a little bit more complicated, but it's probably a better example if you're scratching around for an example of the science-religion conflict. But I think as in all of these cases, what you can't say is that there's some sort of global relation between science and religion that gives us the key to understanding history and that we can understand all of history in terms of this conflict. So you pick the Darwin case apart, what you find is that there is conflict there, but it's much more complicated than the kind of global story about the forces of religion being opposed by the forces of science. Young Earth creationism, which we're familiar with and you've referred to as the kind of contemporary manifestation of this conflict, actually turns out to date not from the 19th century when Darwin published Origin, but from the, in part, the early 20th century, but really from the 1950s on, young Earth creationism becomes a thing. So it's not as if there is a longstanding tradition going right back to the first days of Christianity that wants to believe in a literal six-day creation and an Earth that's only 6,000 years old. In fact, one of the early Christian fathers, Origin, famously said, well, who's going to be silly enough to believe that God in this kind of anthropomorphic way creates like a farmer. He says, creates the world in six days. Nobody believes that. So there have long been allegorical readings of Genesis. Many religious thinkers believed, except of the geological story about the age of the Earth, which long predated Darwin's theory of natural selection, incidentally. So to a large degree, the sorts of conflicts we see today around evolutionary thinking and its opposition by religious fundamentalists is relatively recent. And the other thing we can ask about this is whether it's genuinely a science-religion conflict. And I think it clearly is in part. But what fundamentalist Christians find most problematic, I think, about evolutionary thinking is that they regarded as part of a kind of secularist package that has a set of associated moral values that, in their view, devalues human life and human purpose. So for them, it's not so much that they object to the science. In fact, insofar as they generate their alternative science, they have a high view of what science can do. That's why they invest their own religious views with the scientific status. But what they find objectionable about evolution with a capital E is they see it as the bearer of secular values and anti-humanistic values. So for them, it's a moral problem as much as it is a kind of issue to do with science. Do you think it's fair to maybe view things more clearly this way, that we say, if we can speak in very broad brushstrokes, religious ideas themselves, if understood in a non-fundamentalist way or in taken as more allegorical, do not pose any kind of tension with scientific inquiry. What I see, because my background might grew up in a Christian evangelical fundamentalist household, had lots of experiences with people who would be young Earth creationists, the trouble is when there is a conflict between the scientific claims, the naturalist claims about the nature of the world with the biblical literalist claims, they do side. They do side strongly on the biblical side and then they cite scripture to give their evidence and that kind of thing. I think that's right. And so here, you wouldn't want to deny that there is conflict. But again, I would say, science, religion, conflict, if the claim is made, you always have to look at the specific context. And here, I think there's a clear case where you've got something that looks like conflict. You've got individuals who believe, who hear it not only from their own Christian circles, but when you get advocates for science or advocates for scientism, and I'm thinking here of people like Richard Dawkins or the new atheists, who also want to say, evolutionary thinking is not compatible with religion, you've got a disjunction that these people are facing and they themselves believe, they hear it from the other side and when forced to make a choice, they choose what's most important to them and that's their religious convictions. And at some degree, you can see why they would make that choice. Not that I'm advocating, but I am suggesting we need to understand what motivates it. Yes, I think so, based on my conversations then with the other side, many aggressively, I would say, anti-religious people and they base their hostility towards their understanding of religion which is exclusively as a fundamentalist religion.  The Islamic fundamentalists also have an issue with evolution. I think that's also an error on that end because there's this whole, this is an area of thought that I'm discovering kind of in real time after moving past the upbringing that I had and kind of saying this is a bunch of nonsense. Now I'm discovering there's a lot of truth to be found in allegorical understandings of religion that in no way is incompatible whatsoever with scientific inquiry and in fact is harmonized very nicely if you think if the world is operating according to universal law and that type of thing. Yes, so to put this another way, it's possible to tell some story about science and religion being in conflict if you define what counts as religion narrowly enough and you define what counts as science narrowly enough, you can make that, you can make that work but if you actually examine the phenomena themselves and that's what historians do really well I think. They actually look at how this stuff functions on the ground, you get a very different and much more nuanced picture. Now you said historically this more literalist religion was not as popular that this is kind of a recent phenomena. I've never heard this before and I'm totally ignorant on this topic so is it the case that for a large part of let's say church history they were, they did treat the Genesis story let's say as allegorical and not literal claims about how the earth came into existence. Yeah, well look, from the early Christian period right up to the Reformation in the 16th century the main way of interpreting the Bible was allegorical in fact there was what was called a four-fold method of interpretation and the first sense was the literal sense and the others, we don't need to bother the topological, anagogical and allegorical, right? But the last three were all non-literal. Now having said that the literal sense was really important because you needed to understand what the words meant but you needed to understand what they meant in order to construct the higher levels of interpretation on top of those. So allegorical reading was kind of a standard reading throughout the Middle Ages. Now interestingly the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation lead to a much greater focus on the literal sense of the Bible and the intention of the author and then we get the development of historical biblical criticism which looks at the historical context and attempts to understand the meanings. So you get a kind of scientific account of the meaning of scripture whereas the medieval sense was much more a kind of literally spiritual reading where you're not interested, it's a kind of devotional exercise in part. So it's not just that you engage in allegorical interpretation but the Bible functions in quite a different way and Protestantism makes a key difference because after Protestantism to some extent the Bible becomes a source of information and that actually sets up the potential for a conflict between the kind of information that you might find in the Bible and the kind of information that science is going to generate. Now all of that said scientific creationism emerges as a movement in the US from Seventh Day Adventism and that begins to happen around the beginning of the 20th century and then there's a famous book published called about flood geology in the middle of the century that then becomes a kind of foundation document for scientific creationism. So when you said that it's a really interesting way of putting it that some of the ideas in Protestantism could generate conflict if we take the Bible as something that is telling us information about the natural world that if you take that you're going to have conflict generation. So let me ask you then going back kind of where we started this conversation does it make sense then to say in so far as we understand religion it must be taken allegorical and it must be taken non-physical so that we have the split between science and religion so that the final say in naturalistic matters about the material world is the science. Well you could say that, you could say that. Look I would again nuance this slightly differently and I'd say two things, one about science and one about religion. Religion is not primarily I don't think historically across its various manifestations it's not primarily a proposition generating exercise that's attempting to generate propositions that give us a true reflection on the natural. That's not what it aims for. Now there are implications that might have they might have implications for what the natural world should be like but that's not the main game. So the point here is that science and religion are not competing to do the same kind of work. Now some advocates, a number of advocates of science-religion conflict constructed in precisely that way so religion just becomes a poor version of science and that if you set it up that way you're gonna get the result you want so that's what I'd say about religion. Let's not think about religion as an attempt to generate a scientific view a poor attempt to generate a scientific view of the world. Okay, science do we give science the last word on nature? Well I'm inclined to think for the most part yes but let's remember this. Science is a moving target and again if we look at the history of science it's very very clear that successive scientific theories about the world are not consistent with each other. They're not actually converging on some truth. So when Newton takes over from Aristotle he's not refining Aristotle he's throwing it out completely and starting again with and again if we look at an Einsteinian conception of the universe it might look like to incorporate Newtonianism within it and it does in terms of how you might calculate do Newtonian calculations but in terms of what Einstein postulates about what's really there it's a very different set of realities to Newtonian conceptions of mass and force. Okay, you've got space being warped by mass and so successive scientific theories don't look like they're converging on some ultimate truth about how things are out there they're giving us a better purchase they enable us to do more stuff but the realities they postulate differ systematically. So I'm quite happy for scientists to have the last word with that proviso that we understand that science is a work in progress and in a way if you're wanting to have a tight reconciliation between science and religion it's a mistake to make that too tight because science is on the move. I very much like that point because from my perspective is not fundamentally theological it's not fundamentally scientific it's philosophical, it's logical it's kind of theoretic as one step prior to the empirical analysis I think you have to have a theory prior to even examining the world to make sense of it and very essential to this way of thinking is avoiding dogmatism which my criticisms of the fundamentalist religion is that it is absolutely dogmatic when they have a conflict with scientific data instead of engaging it in a false civic way it's just, well this is dogma but you also see this with the crude scientists of scientism where they say well these claims couldn't possibly be right because this is the modern orthodox advanced way of understanding of the world I find that equally as dogmatic except that one comes with the veneer of being intellectually sophisticated because you're repeating the orthodoxy of the modern experts. Exactly, exactly so in a way you've got a kind of fundamentalism on both sides that gives rise to this conflictual situation, yeah. So last question I want to ask you then is about a way that we can think of religious claims not being claims about the natural world but still having truth value to them. So just in your own worldview do you see, I imagine you don't really see tension between science and religion it's just kind of two other, two areas of thought what are those, what are the questions that you think can be meaningfully answered and talked about in a intellectually respectable and reasonable way that just aren't naturalist in nature or aren't material in nature? Sure, look, I think all of the interesting questions actually fall into that category and those interesting questions are questions about value but I think we also have to ask what is it that makes science possible? What is it that makes mathematical reasoning possible? What is it that underpins our values? And it seems to me that science cannot answer the question that relates to its own success. What is it about human minds that has a capacity to get to the nature of things insofar as it can? And what's interesting I think is that evolutionary theory actually is totally unhelpful in answering that question because it suggests that there's no reason we should think that's the case at all. So I think that most of the interesting questions about meaning and value and about the success of our scientific endeavours are themselves non-scientific questions. And if we don't acknowledge the possibility of asking those questions and at least attempting to provide some answer to them then really the scientific enterprise itself I think sits on very fragile foundations. Now, when you're investigating those questions that also seems like an interesting area of just pure philosophy. So if it's not just pure philosophical inquiry, why look at any religious arguments? Well, I think some religious arguments are already philosophical for a start. But I would say more than that, any line of questioning that's looking at evidence must come to a stop somewhere.  And that I think ultimately is not a scientific question. It's partly a philosophical question, but I think it's also partly a religious question. So I'd say that. I think the other thing that as a historian, what I see in the religious traditions is a long tradition of kind of congealed wisdom that I don't subscribe to the view that people in the past were stupid or that they were somehow less intelligent than us or that the ideas they came up with are necessarily going to be inferior to ours. And I think this is a good attitude for historians to take because it's very easy to misunderstand the past if we treat it with condescension. And so I think part of my attitude to religious ideas and religious traditions would fall into that category of attempting to respect the views of other people and the views that the vast... If you think about history, and this includes philosophy as well, the vast majority of people in history have been religious. They've held strong religious views and this applies to the philosophical tradition in the West as well. Now, unless these people are complete idiots, it seems to me, there's going to be something in these ideas that's worth exploring and worth pursuing. I think that's especially true if you split what areas of thought you're talking about. So it's also the case that most people throughout history held bad ideas about how the world works. True. And that will probably be in the fullness of time be true of our period as well. That's definitely the case. When you were saying just a minute ago, though, maybe in closing here, what's really fascinating in my own pursuit is that I've investigated what I have dubbed irrationalism. That's what I call, there's a philosophic, the scientific cultural movement which says reality is unknowable. There are logical contradictions and paradoxes all around us. Human reason is fundamentally flawed. And what's interesting is how many of those people think that is the height of scientific and rational inquiry is to realize that your mind is this hunk of meat inside the skull of a mammal that for evolutionary reasons, we have no reason to believe has any access to truth. I think you can discover truth about the world. I think you'd discover some very limited set of certain truths about the nature of the world. And it's actually really hard for me to import that into my metaphysics because then I now have to give an explanation. Okay, what does that say about the nature of the mind? If it's true that I can know some limited things, that's a really weird thing to try to grapple with. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, to go back to your point about skepticism based on evolutionary thinking, it's again, paradoxically self-defeating because our whole evolutionary way of thinking is itself based on an evolution. So it's the old Pyronic skepticism versus academic skepticism that a thoroughgoing skepticism ultimately undermines itself. And this is why I think there's, there have often been interesting partnerships between versions of skepticism and Christian faith. And I think to some extent, we see this in Pierre Bale. To some extent, I think we see this in Kierkegaard. I'm not recommending it, but I'm saying it might seem streets away, but actually those views about ultimate skepticism can be quite close to certain religious Christian views that say in light of this, the only way out of the circle is some kind of faith or some kind of revelation. So you can get to that point through philosophical reasoning. Well, on that note, I really appreciate the conversation. This has been great. Good, thank you, Steve. Good to talk to you. All right, that was my conversation with Dr. Peter Harrison from the University of Queensland. I hope you found that insightful and engaging. I've got much to say on this topic. I'm really looking forward to breaking down this interview. I think with controversial subjects like this, there's so much misinformation, there's so much dogma, there's so much emotion that's running through people who find themselves on both sides of this issue. That the rational middle ground, I think, can be really hard to find. So that's what I'm trying to do. That's what I'm trying to do, not just about this topic, but in all these areas of thought that I'm investigating.  So if you value this project and you wanna listen to more interviews like this, then you can help support the show at patreon.com slash stevepatterson. You can sign up, join the more than 85 other patrons of the show who contribute just a dollar or two whenever a new episode or article is released. Plus, if you become a patron, you also get some neat perks, including free copies of the two books that I've written so far. If you want this message to reach more people, you can also leave a rating and a review on iTunes and Stitcher. That will help the ranking of the show, which will get these ideas out to more people. So thanks everybody for listening and I'll talk to you next week.