The Collapse of the Moral Argument for God
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- Today, we cast some doubt on the idea that morality is objective only if God exists. We also define some crucial terms, refute a few apologetic canards, and discuss how apologists have misrepresented the field of metaethics and failed the audiences that rely on them. We also discuss the Euthyphro dilemma, Hume’s Law, and explore a back-and-forth between William Lane Craig and Michael Huemer on the question, “Why obey God?” Finally, before summarizing the main problems for the moral argument, we cover two other moral arguments that are not abysmal failures.
Linktree linktr.ee/emersongreen
Common Mistakes about the Moral Argument | Majesty of Reason • Common Mistakes about ...
Majesty of Reason - Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis • Moral Arguments for Go...
Michael Huemer - Groundless Morals (this chapter is within the volume of Erik Wielenberg vs. William Lane Craig on the moral argument) www.taylorfrancis.com/chapter...
Metaethics w/ Michael Huemer | Emerson Green • Metaethics w/ Michael ...
Is God Necessary for Morality? | William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan • Is God Necessary for M...
Moral Objectivity Without God | Russ Shafer-Landau • Objective Morality Wit...
/Timestamps/
00:00 Introduction
01:36 The Big Picture
08:12 Metaethics (Defining Terms)
9:26 Descriptive vs. Evaluative (Defining Terms)
11:21 Objective Morality (Defining Terms)
14:54 Subjective Morality (Defining Terms)
20:05 The Metaethical Landscape (Defining Terms)
22:18 Apologist (Defining Terms)
23:33 Apologetics vs. Metaethics
27:49 “Humans are just animals” (Moral agents & patients)
33:40 The Moral Law Giver
40:19 Euthyphro & Intrinsic Value
52:29 Hume’s Law (Is-Ought Gap)
57:35 Why Obey God?
1:02:05 Groundless Morals
1:09:44 Two Broad Classes of Moral Realism
1:12:31 God Cannot Provide the Basis for Objective Morality (Craig vs. Huemer)
1:37:41 Good Moral Arguments
1:47:01 What’s wrong with the moral argument?
1:58:16 Why Craig still uses the argument
I usually hesitate to watch a long video, but this one was worth every minute. Thank you for providing clearly explained philosophy in a world where it's so often used as a weapon to trick people.
I disagree with many of your stances, but I appreciate you acknowledging the apologists' position. You've helped me steelman my positions and better understand God. I believe he has acted through you. So Thank you. God bless you brother!
Already listened to this on the podcast and i gotta say, this is one is an instant classic 💯
Why? It's just more atheist trash that fails to deliver on it's promises.
@@JimCastleberry Because he crushed WLC’s moral argument, that’s why.
There's a reason why apologetics fails. It's complete nonsense attempting to defend the indefensible. Of course it will fail.
Can’t wait for your upcoming series in which you fully endorse the transcendental argument for God.
TAG is worse, if not the worst argument. Perhaps you've seen the many takedowns of that argument from the likes of Matt Slick? That is to say, Matt S has made the argument many times, and has been repeatedly shown how it's fallacious.
@@timbertome2443 Sarcasm is hard to see in text form.
1. there is no interventionist creator of the universe
2. morality is subjective
Yep. I'll listen to the rest of video but I believe you summed it up fairly succinctly.
@@Mr.PeabodyTheSkeptic I think emerson is a moral realist, isn't he ???
If there was nothing objective to ground morality, it would be subjective regardless of whether there is a creator of not (the creator's morality would be subjective too).
@@Nexus-jg7evyes, perhaps that logic works. but I don't think that morality can be objective unless there were an interventionist creator of the universe.
afterall (although not a part of this logical reasoning) I think man created god to allow the claim that morality was objective
@@haydenwalton2766 Okay, have you ever tried thinking about what exactly makes you think that certain acts are wrong? Think of something that you consider extremely wrong. Now think about why you think that it is wrong? If God exists and decrees what is right and wrong, would you expect him to decree that what you consider extremely wrong is indeed wrong? Have you tried to come up with something alternative that can ground objective morality? Can you really not come up with anything? And, second, how exactly does an interventionist creator introduce objective morality? In order to trust that creator to be the judge of what is objectively right and wrong, he has to be morally perfect. But how can you tell whether the creator is morally perfect? It's perfectly possible that if a malevolent creator exists and appears to us, he might lie to us that he is perfectly moral and make us do terrible things. But how can you tell whether the things are terrible or not? How can you judge whether that creator is good or not? Proving the existence of God isn't an easy task. It's irrelevant whether there is a creator or not. God is by definition a perfect creator (which entails perfectly good and moral). God is not just a mere creator. Even if you believe that there is a creator, how can you prove that the creator is perfectly good and moral? The reason I aks myself this question is because I do not want to be fooled by people with malicious intentions who claim to receive commands from God (for example, Muhammad the Prophet). If they claim to have received commands from a perfectly good being, I need to be able to tell that this is true by having independent criteria to judge whether the commands are good or not. When I have reasons to believe that the commands are wrong, no amount of evidence and miracles can persuade me that the claimant really speaks to God. By divine command theory's logic, as long as the claimant somehow persuades me that he speaks with a supernatural being, I should do whatever he says is right. I will always assume that they are deceiving me somehow and are fabricating things when I follow my own logic.
I appreciate the time you put into sharing and explaining.
In my talks with my pastor after my deconstruction, one thing we could agree on was the moral was crap.
This video is objectivly exciting.
Pretty much any immoral act has not always been immoral. From the Christian Bible “Blessed be those who dash your children against the rocks”.
The exceptions are limited to the point where they really aren’t significant moral claims (torturing children solely for fun is wrong), because there have been moral systems where the more general versions were considered moral.
And there are physiological/evolutionary reasons for certain social moral standards. We can observe these moral standards in various animals.
So there are descriptive physical facts that support certain moral foundations. But these foundations are limited in what they support and to what degree they support it, especially since individuals vary in the amount of those facts expressed in them. Trying to build an objective moral system on these facts only gets you to tribal morality at best, and family morality at worst. Extending beyond that requires the same type of jump as you mentioned.
You cannot truly ground morality on anything descriptive.
Every religious person has a different set of morals from every other religious person and they all claim their morals are from god. It is self-evident that morals are subjective and then retrojected by individuals onto the god they prefer to believe in.
They are not fully different, and it is far from apparent that it is equally valid to think Hitler good as evil.
There’s subjective morality for things like, what to eat, but not things like murder and rape
@@jadonclifton
Shared morality is not mutually exclusive with subjective morality.
Is it self-evident all truth is subjective? People have different ideological sets.
You would seem to need to show secular morals are not objective to make your briad claim. Your premises lead to a more narrow conclusion of religious morals are subjective at best.
@@nics4967
_All_ morals are subjective and this is obvious when you consider that each human has a unique set of morals.
I think this is a first time where my position (moral subjectivism) was properly explained by someone who disagrees with it. Amazing job.
There is nothing wrong with an atheist believing moral law is ultimately subjective, in fact, thats the most honest position one could take. But how does one even get right/wrong from determinism in the first place?
@@CryoftheProphet I'm a determinist but I have never seen how it relates to right and wrong... Can you elaborate?
@@nati0598 determinism doesn’t account for right or wrong because everything is happening the only way it could. There is no free will in determinism. It’s not even rational to question why people believe what they believe, they were determined to believe it, concepts like right and wrong don’t make sense in determinism. There simply is. Basically reality is a series of causally determined dominos that can only fall in the way that nature determines.
@@CryoftheProphet Thank you for explaining what determinism is despite me saying I am one :p
I just don't see why free will has anything to do with morality.
An action is right or wrong simply because I have no choice but to think of an action as right or wrong.
Nothings determined by action without personal will which is freeing yourself from the external.
Thanks for the great video! The moral argument has always seemed extremely unconvincing and problematic to me even when I was a Christian. I'm not as sold on moral realism though.
I do think it is the case that there are some moral rules that are objectively best for humans to follow in order to increase human flourishing, and indeed for the vast majority of people are objectively bad in the sense of having undesirable effects on their own psyche as well if they are transgressed. When I say something like "it is wrong to kill innocent children for only your own gain", I am saying something that is definitely objectively deeply engrained in my and everyone else's psych. That it is bad for bad things to happen to humans for no reason because it leads to worse results for humans overall and myself also at the very least due to our nature as a social species. But that is dependent on my own stance that I desire things that myself and other humans consider good. I don't see how I could objectively say those things humans objectively want are also inherently and objectively moral and good apart from our valuing them though.
Even zooming further out, let's say an alien race were trying to destroy the earth and all humans for their own gain. If we wanted to convince them objectively that was the wrong thing to do, it seems clear the best approach would be to convince them that it is objectively not in their interest and that cooperation would objectively result in what we both SUBJECTIVELY consider to be better outcomes for ourselves in the long term. But those objective arguments are all still stance dependent on the fact that all rational beings we know of have a subjective preference for their own good. It very much seems to me that it takes some being having that stance to make any moral statement about an action. I'd be very interested in whether you disagree with this, or if you think what I'm saying doesn't necessarily go against moral realism because of some misunderstanding I have.
Morality is a made up concept, just like God.
yes. as soon as we agree on a goal like "encourage human flourishing" or "minimize suffering" we can arrive at empirically justified ethical principles (social safety nets, better food distribution to fight global hunger, sustainable energy, etc), but they would ultimately be dependent on our stance that human flourishing is a good worth attaining, which is fine, but still subjective.
this is why i'm a moral anti-realist.
This is objective fantastic. Thanks UA-cam algorithm and thank you Emerson, for making this.
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you....
Thank you for addressing the Euthyphro dilemma.
Finally someone who does it!
Almost always it is avoided outrigh in any debate we see online about the source of morality; and that's unbelievable: hours of talking and the dilemma never comes up.
The dilemma goes straight to the very core of the problem, and destroys any theist argument. That's why they avoid it!
Furthermore, by saying that "God IS good" or "God equals good" just to skip the dilemma, tells absolutely nothing, because it is just juggling with words while leaving the dilemma unscathed.
I'v actually seen it brought up brought up atleast a couple times but generally it is ignored or hand waved away.
I watched only up to minute 32, but the way your responding I take it he stuck with that. How does saying "God is good" skip the dilemma? The dilemma offers two choices: He decided the values or He recognized them. The third option is that God is good. What you're doing is just denying it. That's it. Nothing else. It's just saying that you don't like the answer. You're told that it is a false dichotomy and your response is that its not.
Emerson Green complained how mainstream apologetics don't do their homework. Then do yours as well. Read 1 Corinthians 13, the entire chapter and Galatians 5:22-23. But maybe that's not what you want to hear and you can just reject God.
What goes straight to the core of the atheist argument is a lack of foundation to back up their standard. This guy gets annoyed how people keep bringing up the animal kingdom. His response? We can reason. Sure we can. And we want to know where the standard come from so that we can reason from it? That destroys the atheist argument. I'll phrase it like this: if atheism is true, then moral values have no grounds.
I'm editing cause I watched a bit more. Are you a person because you have the properties that make you a person, or are these properties a person because you have them? That sounds really weird. Sure, use that to reject God.
@@JorgeIvanAlonso-si6hd I haven't finished his video but the "god is good" is a handwave. In the first place what the phrase "god is good" can mean atleast 5 different things and each of those things have additional implications but you're ignoring all that by using what amounts to a thought stopping technique to avoid actually considering the meaning or implications.
When god decides to kill children too young to have moral agency, does killing children become good? No matter what the answer is there are additional implications that you have to confront to answer the original dilemma.
@@JorgeIvanAlonso-si6hd
This has nothing to do about me "accepting" or "rejecting" God. This is just a matter of philosophical debate, and of logical consistencies/fallacies in reasoning.
To say that "God is good" does not solve the Euthyphro dilemma, it's just a preposterous attempt that ultimately leads to circular reasoning: you cannot state arbitrarily a supposed mathematical/logical equivalence just to skip the assignations required by the dilemma.
The property of "being Good" (or Goodness), is at most just one of the many properties of God; not a perfect mathematical/logical equivalence. "God" and "Good" cannot be identically substituted/used in any phrase or circumstance.
As a matter of facts, a thing (or concept) cannot be logically/mathematically equivalent to a supposedly more articulated/diversified one: a single part cannot be strictly equivalent to the whole. If God exists as defined by theologists and religion apologists, then God has many other properties, as "eternity", "omnipotence", "uniqueness", "trinity" for Christians, and so on.
Therefore "being Good", "being the actual embodiment of goodness", would be just one of the many properties of God.
Therefore the dilemma remains unscathed, because we may just ask:
is the property of "being Good" a component of God because it is BY ITSELF a valuable and absolute one, and thus God acknowledges it and accepts it as one of its parts,
OR does such property become valuable because God possesses it, and thus it is God that makes it so by defining its boundaries?
As a result we come back exactly at the very start of the dilemma: useless circular reasoning.
Furthermore, to try to shift the reasoning towards a supposed quality of God's being, is out of scope.
The debate leads inevitably to the moral principles that ultimately are reachable by humanity.
Do such moral principles (the ones effectively knowable by humanity an with which humanity can interact) come form ones that are absolute and universal on their own, or does God (if God exists) make them moral through mere choice and will?
The original phrasing of the dilemma can be summarised as:
"Does (do) (the) God(s) command so, because what is commanded is (by itself) pious (good),
or what is commanded is (becomes) pious (good) because it is commanded by (the) God(s)?
The dilemma, by itself, utterly destroys the "argument from morality" for the existence of god.
And that's it, because if an absolute morality even exists, this by itself does not demonstrate the existence of God.
Much less it demonstrates any supposed property of the supposedly existing God (or Gods).
@@lorenzoc.5136
I'm gonna predict something. You're not gonna read Scripture nor seek God with an honest heart and then you're gonna reject Him based on philosophical discussions. Then you're gonna say that logic lead you there.
Do you think its circular to say that light illuminates because of its nature? Does light illuminates because it has the properties of illumination or are the the properties illuminative just because they are in the light? You have no answer. Your error is the principle of sufficient reason.
Emerson even objected because of this. He can't see how God's nature splits the horns of the dilemma. Either there is a reason (for choosing morality? Might as well just say that atheism is true) or there is none. This is the same, in my humble opinion, to say that light has a reason for illumination and, well, its because it illuminates. That's why I gave you the other analogy. We need to explain the self in terms of what? The self? Is that circular? Go ahead and give me a definition of the self.
Might-makes right? Seriously? That's just another way of saying that God chooses arbitrarily, totally missing the point.
What about the atheistic worldview? Do you think reason grounds morality? How is that one not circular? But then again, I haven't seen the entire video. Maybe I should but so far its not looking good.
Btw, God tells you who he is in his Word. He is the light.
One of the best videos i have ever seen , love from iran ❤
To be honest i never understood the definition of "objective" in the humanities. My background is more computer science related. I always saw the distinction between "absolute", "objective" and "subjective" as follows:
Something is subjective if its truth value is dependent on an observer.
Something is objective if its truth value is independent of an observer, but dependent on a context.
Something is absolute if its truth value is independent of context and observer.
It seems to me that "objective" and "absolute" are often used as synonyms of each other. I don't understand why because i think it is an important distinction.
Absolutely true is just saying it's a truthy truth. If the proposition is already true, it adds no information to say it's absolutely true. Perhaps you mean necessarily true, but that's expressed in modal logics where the bivalent status of that proposition is true in all possible worlds.
Objective is best understood imo as stance independent and subjective as stance dependent. The truth of some moral proposition for example under some antirealists analysis will be made true by some psychological facts about the given agent(s). It's going to be indexical and incoherent when you make a statement that it's wrong to X absent the indexical. It would be like saying 'name is sam' rather than 'his name is sam'
Or lasnaga is the best food. That's incoherent gibberish if it isn't indexed to some agent or group.
Given this analysis, I see nothing added by saying it's absolutely true that jmike thinks torturing babies is wrong as opposed to it's true that jmike thinks toturing babies is wrong. And even on the objective side, saying 'it is absolutely true that is wrong to torture babies' adds nothing different than 'its true that it is wrong to torture babies'.
It's an inert qualifier in this domain. But that's just my view.
I would think it is because any "context" is also dependent on the subject /s which intepret it. Or how do you define "context"?
I find it more common to mistake subjective with relative truth.
A subject observes an object.
All subjective truths are absolute truths. I can drink a cup of tea and prove to myself that i like it. In the future I don't have to taste the cup of tea before i drink to know that i like drinking tea.
@@alena-qu9vj essentially there is a differentiation between internal and external states. A proposition is observer-dependent if its evaluation depends on the internal states of the agent doing the determination. A proposition is context-dependent if its evaluation depends on states of the external world, that would in principle be accessible to any agent. These external factors also include a common standard or rule/value-set on which one might evaluate the proposition.
Maybe some examples to illustrate:
"Its my personal preference that purposefully making false statements is wrong" -> subjective statement
"Given utilitarianism, purposefully making false statements as an act that would not maximize utility a is wrong" -> objective statement
"making false statements is always wrong regardless of any personal preference" -> absolute statement
They aren't the cleanest examples, but i hope it at least illustrates my point.
That's actually a pretty good way of distinguishing those terms, but a few things: (1) These terms are used inconsistently, even by people in the humanities (and even people who specifically work in metaethics). (2) "Absolute" is sometimes used to refer to a moral norm/rule that has no exceptions, e.g., "it's NEVER okay to steal..." which is consistent with your use of "independent of context," though a subjectivist could in principle hold to absolute moral rules, e.g., relative to their standards it's never okay to steal.
I wish all the philosophy stuff I've ever consumed was presented as well as this video!
Excellent content.
1:30:05 made me happy since I'm both a theist and a moral non-realist (not an anti-realist but at least a skeptic).
sorry, but as a cat, moral realism is just another alarmingly popular metaphysics humans made up. "objectivity" is not applicable to ethics, because ethics *only exists* relative to the behavior of subjects.
humans have human morality, wolves have wolf morality, neither is "objective." both are evolved traits of social animals, and only exist relative to how those animals function in their respective societies. if there were no moral agents currently existing in the universe, morality itself would not currently exist, because it would have no reason to. morality is a tool that only "exists" insofar as it determines animal behaviors.
oh, humans will say "it's 'objectively' wrong to torture infants," then they'll produce veal. make it make sense. "it's wrong to torture infants" is *not* "an objective fact," it's just something most humans agree on, and this becomes immediately evident when you compare the attitude of humans towards infants of other species.
"wanton cruelty is objectively wrong." who determines what constitutes "cruelty"? could it be subjects? there is no "objective" stance independent measure of cruelty or suffering, because those are descriptions of the emotional state of moral agents. you can say "things objectively don't like suffering," because that's what suffering definitionally is, states that things don't like, but "causing suffering is wrong" is again something humans just mostly agree on, not an "objective" external "fact." note that physiological pain (which can be measured at least somewhat "objectively") is not the same as suffering (i.e. masochists)
now, if you want to say "we can ground a common ethics on the general understanding that suffering is bad, sentient beings want to avoid suffering, and as such we can agree that we should try not to cause unnecessary suffering" that's fine. that's just Buddhism. but let's not pretend it isn't a stance dependent human invention like every other ethical system.
A very good point considering it came from a cat, is there a name for this way of thinking?
@@willroth7521 i don't know that there's an official name for my position, although a lot of it does come from my interpretations of Buddhism, Existentialism and Post-Structuralism. it's definitely some form of Moral Anti-Realism, but you could call it Moral Naturalism or Moral Pragmatism or Moral Subjectivism, whatever you like.
What if something can be *both* what most humans agree on and an objective fact? Have you considered it? Or have you considered that the attitude humans have toward non-humans might be wrong *regardless* of what humans say about themselves and whether they are correct about something else? "Well they say this but they do that" sounds kinda like a tu quoque, don't you think?
Is the holoc4ust also just a matter of opinion? And in case you're gonna go "again, humans do the same to non-human animals and their entire ecosystems", that won't answer my question.
After all, I can theoretically do whatever I want to you and justify it subjectively, and, if "moral realism is just another alarmingly popular metaphysics humans made up", it would be perfectly justifiable on my part to answer whatever negative comment about my actions you would have with a "well, it's, like, your personal opinion"
Just saying
@@shareenear9344
1:45:13 I’m completely lost on how naturalism requires a “happy accident”.
We evolved minds capable of comprehending both true and untrue things. We developed processes to assist in identifying which things are true. Where is the accident?
Naturalism, especially if tied to mechanical evolution
doesn't calibrate for philosophical truth. So it would be improbable (lucky) to give rise to minds like ours.
Great video - thanks for all your work!
FWIW, I've always thought WLC's debate with Shelley Kagan was the best rebuttal of Craig's moral arguments
Why do you think that? Kagan's response didn't strike me as super compelling.
Kagan has no answer. Bet you cannot provide any solution from Kagan. No atheists can defeat anything Dr Craig argues.
@@JimCastleberry False. This video destroyed Craig’s stupidity.
@JimCastleberry, yes, we can!
@@lanceindependentIt’s great simply because for once WLC had to just sit down and have a reasonable conversation instead of retreating behind regulated time. He couldn’t just say, “in order to [win], my interlocutor must now resonate that…” debates like that are so contrived and WLC excels at them. For me and decent and sincere back and forth is superior and Kagen is decent and sincere.
Gotta save this one. Thanks for this amazing breakdown
Yes. I keep a playlist of good videos I want to come back to, and this is definitely one of them
The main problem with the moral argument is that it simply isnt an argument.
You are lying. It certainly is an argument - that you cannot defeat.
@@JimCastleberry The moral argument is not hard to reject: simply deny moral realism.
@@JimCastleberry Correct neppy, one cannot defeat what never has been demonstrated.
That is like asking to prove wrong something that is unfalsable.
I mean, it is a valid argument. What you mean is that you don't agree with the premises.
What are you talking about? It is an argument: it has premises and a conclusion that it claims follows from its premises. Just because you think it doesn't succeed doesn't mean it's not an argument.
Why were there 3 ads in the first 15 minutes and one at the beginning of the video
Hey Emerson, you mentioned that the anti-realist positions don’t necessarily deny there are ANY objective moral judgements, but Joe’s graph seems to exclude that possibility at the end when it asks “Is their truth value stance-independent.” The “No” answer seems to rule out the last possibilities of objective moral judgements.
Thanks!
New to your channel!
New Subscriber
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit.........
Nice - just started listening, so my concern might come up.
I sometimes wonder of WLC's moral argument is potentially circular. The version I usually hear is:
P1. If God does not exist, then there is no objective morality
P2. There is objective morality
C. So God exists.
P1 is controversial on its own, but granting that - isn't P2 ultimately explained by appealing to God?
ie: why is objective morality true? Isn't the ultimate reason God? But God is supposed to be the conclusion. So is P2 appealing to the very thing (God) that the argument is trying to establish? He needs God to support P2 in an argument for God's existence.
I mean - if you already think (like WLC) that objective morality is true because of God, then this moral argument for God seems pointless.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
That's not what Craig argues. The argument is the Argument for God from Moral ONTOLOGY (REAL moral values and duties).
P1) If God does NOT exist, objective moral VALUES and DUTIES cannot exist.
P2) Objective moral values and duties DO exist,
Conclusion: God exists.
This is a transcendental argument. X is the necessary precondition for Y, Y, therefore X.
@@JimCastleberry Sure, but my point is: what justifies there being "real moral values and duties" is true?
WLC's answer: God.
ie: he uses God to support *why we should think P2 is true. But that seems circular (to me at least) because God is also the implication from P1 and P2.
@@coreygossman6243 That's my point. Why is 'Y' true? 'X' (God).
ie: It appeals to the conclusion to support the truth of P2. Which is why it looks circular to me.
No its not circular @@christaylor6574
Thumbs up
Just for the intro theme
Really like how u use Ichika Nito songs. Very cool
WLC: I can't understand why inflicting harm is wrong. I need threats to keep me in line. I'm a good moral person who judges others.
But aren't you judging WLC here?
@@will19125 Ooh yes. I'm mocking a man who condones genocide yet claims to understand objective morality.
How can you say there is clearly objective moral truth. There is nothing clear about that proposition at all. In fact there is a strong argument against it.
Depends somewhat on what objective means. I think it's fairly clear that someone inflicting suffering for no benefit (perceived or otherwise) to anyone is something that is objectively bad. I'd be curious how someone could argue the opposite.
@@WaterCat5 if there are no beings who can suffer, morality ceases to exist. it is only "real" as a description of the mind-states of subjects. we can all agree that causing meaningless suffering is bad, but that doesn't make it "objectively bad," it just means we agree it's bad.
@@nondescriptcat5620 I don't see that we need beings who can suffer to know that the situation I suggested would be wrong. You seem to be begging the question by assuming that things need to exist for morality about them to exist. I could easily think of a theoretical quality that doesn't exist and create moral prescriptions about it. For example, I could posit a quality called "bemdle" that some being could have. This is a very good thing to have, and all beings who have it are demonstrably better off than those who don't. Don't you think it would be morally wrong to withhold that from someone, at no benefit to myself or anyone?
The objective part is that even if everyone in the whole world thought such a thing were okay, it would still be wrong. People can have subjective beliefs about objective matters.
I would argue that my scenario would clearly be wrong, even if nothing existed. The only way I could see it voided would be if someone rejected the very concept of utility, which I suppose you could do, but that seems to be an erroneous belief. It's very clear that some things create (at least perceived) benefits and others create the opposite, at least on a short time scale.
@@nondescriptcat5620 But you are assuming your conclusion in your argument. It is, at the very least, not clear that morality ceases to exist without minds. That's the whole thing up for debate. If you have proof that morality ceases to exist when no beings exist, then you should write a philosophy paper on it because it would be a big deal.
@@WaterCat5 this whole "moral realism," "objective moral values exist in some transcendental state" line is Neo-Platonic garbage and i'm convinced the only reason it's "popular with a majority of 'atheist philosophers'" is because it's an easy way to spin an infinite amount of meaningless metaphysical jargon. i have no respect for it.
I'm inclined toward moral noncognitivism the more I think about it, although my initial reaction is typically in line with what little I grasp of moral nihilism, as presented around 22:00.
Why moral noncognitivism in particular? I don't think moral realism is true, but noncognitivism strikes me as too wedded to a view of language that I don't share. I don't think everyone making moral claims is trying to or is expressing some nonpropositional attitude, for instance.
@@lanceindependent I'm flirting with error theory and in a state of flux at the moment. I agree with your comment.
@@MathewSteeleAtheology I think you can have a mixed view, there is no need to choose one over the other. Maybe some people in some situations try to convey propositions with their "moral" language, while some people in some situations are closer to expressing feelings, commands and so on. We cant really know without empirical investigation.
@@richardgamrat1944 So nice to be understood.
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier..
👏🙂
Great video.
Very informative.
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you....
This video is the ultimate magna opus on this subject and, if the world was rational, would just put an end to the moral argument once and for all. Amazing work Emerson.
Ok so I’m just gonna comment on this topic and see if anyone is willing to argue with me on this
So the the problem I have with the theistic view for morality is that they claim that the atheist view on morals has no fundamental basis, the thing is tho is that their morals also don’t have a fundamental basis either since you can still keep asking the why questions and end up in an infinitely regressing chain just like any other view of morality, it usually ends up in avoidance of divine retribution like hell but then that would just be a consequentialist justification that appeals to self interest which can just as easily be done in a secular world view, so then the theist would have to prove that god exists and worth considering for in making moral decisions first before they use the moral argument. Not only that but under their view they never seem to explain what goodness even is because simply saying it’s what is in accordance with gods nature doesn’t explain much of anything.
I'll argue with you, Enzo! We've got a couple of threads already, but you seem like a good thinker.
What you say about infinite regress is true. I think that if a philosophical position requires infinite regress, it is essentially meaningless (I am a "finitist", in that regard). But, theism grounding morals in God does not require an infinite regress. Let's play the game
human morality -> intuition (law written on our hearts) -> God. God writes the law on our hearts.
*"Who wrote the law on God's heart?"* We don't claim God has the law written on his heart. God doesn't use intuition to know what is right and wrong. He does as he wills and designs the rules as he wills. He designed this world with certain rules in mind from the start.
*"If morality is whatever God wills, then it is subjective."*
I accept this, but it is applicable to all God's creation. There are possible worlds where morality is different, but in this world, morality will remain what it is. This is what our God Jesus has taught us. See Matthew 5:18
In conclusion, while morality might be subjective in that it is the result of God's will and decisions about what is right and wrong, we are justified in treating it objectively because it applies to all beings in heaven and earth until the heaven and earth pass away. New Heaven and New Earth may have different morality after Judgment Day.
*"You are just appealing to the bible!"*
Yes, because if we are critiquing the Christian worldview, we have to do it as a whole. That means we can't just cut out the parts we disagree with. Internal critiques must accept the presuppositions to have validity. That's why strawman is a fallacy.
@@coreygossman6243 No, you’re not justified in treating morality as objective. Who/where morality ‘applies’ to is irrelevant to it being objective.
@AsixA6 Then let's rephrase it. If morality were objective, it would apply to all humans in this universe. Morality does apply to all humans in this universe, and so it can be treated as if it were objective so long as we remain in this universe. Outside of this universe, Morality is not objective outside of the rules and regulations that govern this form of existence. It exists as objectively as the laws of physics do. Are the laws of physics objective? In this universe yes. But God can create a universe where they don't apply. Is Morality objective, in this universe yes, but God can create a world where that doesn't apply.
@@AsixA6 By your standard of objective, no morality can be objective. Fair enough. But that won't erase degrees of subjectivity.
@@coreygossman6243 Ahahaha!! No, AGAIN, who or where it ‘applies’, is irrelevant.
watched the entire video... understood maybe half of it but the Craig-Huemer "debate" was very interesting, especially what makes something _"objective"_ part, i have always struggled with that
4:50 I don't see why that is a problem for the moral argument. The argument doesn't depend on people having to propositionally represent the connection between God and goodness. If anything, it concurs with the way theists describe the connection between God and morality - it is written on our hearts / subconscious and we understand it instinctively.
5:03 "Even if God exists, he did not have to create moral truth". No God didn't "have" to, but why does this mean there's no connection between God and moral truth? If moral truth is a created (contingent) thing, then it has to come --from somewhere--, which makes the Michael Huemer quote look like a non-sequitur. "If the universe had a creator, this fact could have nothing to do with objective morality". The universe is a created thing and so is objective morality, so far from having "nothing to do" with a creator, what they have to do with it is a relationship of contingency on it.
I am confused . I have never formally studied philosophy, so I accept that my question may be stupid. That being said, can anyone tell me how, given the fact that all involved in this discussion seem to accept that morality is a concept that only applies to human beings, how can it be objective under any belief system? If moral truths only apply to humans, how can moral truths exist separate from human beings?
Something is objective if it does not depend on minds. (If you believe logic is real and objective, you believe, for example, that a thing is identical to itself, regardless of anyone's opinions on the matter). If you believe in objective morality, you believe that certain things are immoral or moral regardless of the opinions of any minds. Suppose that lying were objectively wrong. If this were the case, even if every human who ever lived believed lying was acceptable, it would still be wrong. It's true of course that humans (or other minds) are the only things in the universe that could violate this moral rule if it existed, but it is not dependent on humans.
Compare to subjective morality, which would say that lying is only wrong if humans think it is wrong. If there were no humans or if humans didn't believe lying was wrong, it wouldn't be.
It's a good question. Theists often use the term 'objective' (as you note, independent of any subjective human viewpoint) when they really mean 'absolute', in the sense that it comes from God and so is by definition correct. I've never seen any explanation for how such a morality is not itself subjective (i.e. just God's personal opinion). The idea of moral 'truths' being dependent on a god is necessary for theists because the Bible and Quran both condone heinous actions. Such actions would be immoral if carried out by humans , but moral when God does or commands them, with the result that this type of 'objective' morality is just 'whatever God says'.
@@ianchisholm5756 "The idea of moral 'truths' being dependent on a god is necessary for theists because the Bible and Quran both condone heinous actions. Such actions would be immoral if carried out by humans , but moral when God does or commands them, with the result that this type of 'objective' morality is just 'whatever God says'."
I get your point, but it's still an oversimplification. Not all theists rely on the Bible or the Quran, respectively. I'm a theist who doesn't, for example. And I've always had trouble with the concept of objective morality, for the simple fact that God, if he exists, would also be a subject. So any moral laws just given by him would still be subjective. I know, it depends on how exactly you define subjectivity and objectivity, but I think you get my point.
My view on the matter is that you can't only be objective if you refrain from any kind of subjectivity, but also if you have experienced all possible kinds of subjectivity. That's what the universe is for, IMO. It's a giant consciousness and experience generator with which existence explores itself. Both the starting and the end point are what we call God. The alpha and the omega. So God doesn't stipulate moral laws before creation, he experiences every good and evil himself, and the conclusion of it is what enables him to determine morality.
@@DoloresLehmann Thanks for replying. I agree with many of your points about subjective and objective morals: the reason for pushing back on the arguments from morality such as in the video above is that some (and I agree, not all) theists claim that God has already provided everyone with knowledge of a particular moral code and thus God's existence is proved. As this argument is circular and seems (to me at least) demonstrably false, I think it's worth criticising. As to whether the universe is an experience generator, well, that's another discussion for another day...
@@ianchisholm5756 Oh, yes, and about the consciousness generator, I already said that this is just my very personal take on the matter. I'm not making any truth claim here.
My first time really contemplating morality was when I became a Mormon at the age of 21. What I picked up from reading our religious texts and having conversations with more tenured members of the church, was that objective Good and evil existed eternally as an abstract apart from God. In part, what made God God was his nature being aligned with goodness, and his ability to help us change our natures to become more perfectly aligned with goodness like them.
When I first started to see debates about objective morality between Christians and atheists, I thought that they were talking about God revealing what was good, or something to that effect. I thought it would be a stance similar to what I found in the LDS Church.When I found out that it meant that something being good was completely dependent on whether or not God said it was good, I suddenly realized why the Christians kept bringing up that they would be a killer or a grapist if they didn't believe in God. Good and bad did not exist for them. At least in the way they rationalized it. They said good was objective, explained how it wasn't, and then argued that it was only possible to reasonably claim objective morality as a theist. Understanding what was going on soured pretty much all theist morality debates for me.
So how do you define morals?
@@freeyourmind7538 I would probably define morals as a standard that someone bases their actions on according to their understanding of what is good or bad in any given situation. I do believe that there is ultimately an objective good that these actions and standards can be judged by, even if we are limited in our ability to discern it.
@@Mendozam4 What would ground that moral goodness (objective moral values and duties) in REALITY absent God (God's moral nature)?
Where would this realm of objective moral values and duties conceivably exist in nature?
@Mendozam4 As a Christian I'd like to argue my case for objective morality lol.
The Bible describes God not as having love, or kindness, or mercy... but rather being those things. That's why you hear the common phrase God is love.
You can't separate God's attributes from himself. For example, love is the expression of God being himself in a way that involves caring for others more than himself in a sacrificial manner. Justice is God being himself by doing actions that involve fairness and proper treatment of humans. All these things appear to be apart from God, but are in reality just our attempts to understand and separate the nature of God.
You might ask if you are then God when you act loving. No. Humans are incapable of being able to truly be sacrificial, just, etc... without God. That makes sense from the biblical view and it also clarifies why Paul is so adamant about us getting restored bodies and being fully indwelt by the Spirit, as it would allow us to fully experience God who is the essence of what we call love.
Hope that helps broaden your perspective and give you something to think about. If you want to understand me better there is a book called Knowledge of the Holt by A.W. Tower, it's a great read if you're into that sort of thing.
@@Mendozam4 you made 2 claims but never explained how you came to this conclusion:
1. morals standards are based on situation and personal preference
2. You believe in ultimate good
my questions are:
1. how do you conclude on what standard of moral to use in a given situation
2. define good morals
54:20
"How is this gap between abstract and concrete bridged?"
Observation. So long and to the extent that analytical systems like mathematics coincide with the external world in an observable and quantifiable way... then good.
Granted that we do not arrive at "truths" in mathematics and physics the same because they are distinct, yet we harmonize them and make them work together, but that's because there is this selective process, which factors out illegitimate results.
For all I know, such a process does not exist for moral propositions; i.e. a way to falsify or verify the sentence "Killing babies is right/wrong."
If and when that appears, I'll be happy to grant that there are (some) objective moral truths independent of perspective, or stance, or end-goal.
If your response is that such a factor is not necessary and that moral propositions don't have to work the same way as synthetic propositions, then what would be a reliable way of discerning moral truths and either utilizing "ought" statements without any added ontological baggage, or harmonizing the is-ought gap while at the same time arriving at a meaningful conclusion?
"Granted that we do not arrive at "truths" in mathematics and physics the same because they are distinct, "
In a sense, we do arrive to those truths the same way: by testing them. For example, we have this mathematic proposition "the sum of two even numbers is a even number" and the physical proposition "light travels at 300,000 km/s". We can know they are true by testing them: we can add even numbers and check the result, and we can measure the speed of light, and check the result. Note those truths, found that way, aren't definitive truths: theoretically, we can't know if in the future we are going to find counterexamples of those propositions. Maths have an advantage, tho: it's possible to prove (in most cases, let's ignore incompleteness for now) that the proposition is true, via a mathematical proof. We can do that in maths because maths are constructs where all axioms are known, while in physics we work with provisional axioms, that can be changed over time. Nevertheless, testing is what they have in common.
When we say "it's true that x is moral", in what sense are we using the word 'true'? If morality is a constuct like maths, then it would be possible to make a mathematical proof, but that means morality is based in a set of known axioms, but that doesn't seem to be the case. And even if that set of axioms existed, and we knew them, then the truths would be about the construct, not reality. If morality is a property we can measure in the real world, like physics, then we could test this proposition against reality. But is that even possible?
My objection against 'objective morality' is that it doesn't have a recognizable method of determining the truth value of its claims, and without that, saying 'it's true that x is moral' has no meaning.
@@juanausensi499
No, testing is not what they have in common. Using axioms to arrive at sound conclusions isn't the same as observation and analysis or trial and error. They are fundamentally disconnected in methodology. Science is inductive, and mathematics is deductive. "Testing," as you're using it, is an equivocation.
_"When we say "it's true that x is moral", in what sense are we using the word 'true'?"_
That's a perfectly reasonable question. Saying "It is true that X is moral" is no more meaningful than saying "X is moral" because morality ultimately depends on the person making the moral judgment. There are no objective moral truths because there are no objective end goals for moral propositions to strive towards. If I say, "It is true that murder is immoral," I have implicitly presupposed that "we ought not murder", based on a specific goal either of the individual expressing the proposition, or of a society which strives towards a moral standard. Moral, or good, actions are those that consistently succeed in bringing about the desired results, and immoral or bad actions are those that are detrimental to that effect. The end goal is completely arbitrary and contingent on the agent who is making the moral judgment. So, labeling a moral proposition as true is incoherent.
Also, if _"the truths would be about the construct, not reality..."_ is not necessarily true. The construct could work in that it reflects reality and produces desirable results, as maths does.
Oh, so we agree in the end. I do not recognize objective morality either, which I believe was pretty clear from my reply. Moral propositions do not hold truth values because there is no way to assess the truth of these values without a subjective set of assumptions and end goals. I appreciate the nuance, I guess.
@@Gxlto I didn't want to make my argument too complicated. I know testing is not the same as deducting, but i wanted to point to a common ground to illustrate what i think 'truth' is. In all fairness, we can use induction and deduction in both maths and physics, but they have different meanings and purposes. Induction in maths can be used exactly the same as in physics: there are lots of unproven conjectures in mathematics. Using induction and failing to find counterexamples improves our confidence in the conjecture, the same as in physics. Deduction is also used in physics, but to make testable hypothesis "if this happens and this happnes, this other thing should also happen", except deduction in physics is not proof, because the axioms of physics (the laws of nature) aren't all fully known: if we have a deductive proof in maths, we know we aren't going to find counterexamples. In physics, if we find counterexamples, it's because we didn't have all the necessary axioms.
My comparison is that if we had the complete list of axioms of the physical world, then we could work with it exactly like we do in maths: the fundamental difference between maths and physics is that we choose our axioms in math, but we need to figure out preexistent axioms in physics. We can even simulate 'science' in maths: let a mathematician establish a series of axioms, without telling anybody else. Then, this mathematician will answer the result of any operation we ask, and we need to figure out the axioms. In this mathematical game, we can't use deduction to prove propositions, we need to use the same tools as we use in physics.
Worth noting, we can do maths with any set of axioms we want. We don't usually do that because we want to use axioms that are similar to the ones we have found in nature, so the results of the mathematical construct are similar to what we can measure in the world. But mathematics themselves don't inform us about anything of the world: if we have the wrong formula, something is going to be true in the construct and false in reality, and mathematics can't tell us wich formulas are the right ones.
Then, we have two kinds of truth: definitional truth and perceived truth. Definitional truth is absolute, but only works in human-made constructs. Not only in maths, but also in fiction in general: if i wrote a book and, in it's fictional universe, i define a character as 'evil', 'handsome', or 'tall', then those traits are objectively true. Or when using definitions: if i define "heavy" as "weighing more than 100kg", someone who weights 120 kg is objectively heavy, it's a definitional truth. Or in hypotheticals.
Perceived truth is what we experience: i can see a black raven, then another, then a hundred more, and they are all black. I can see the raven, i can see the blackness. I can say 'all ravens are black", and that would be a testable proposition. It would be true (but not definitional true!) until i find a non-black raven.
Finally, and i am sorry for the wall of text, moreso because we agree on the topic and all of that was only to address the point being disputed: objective morality claims can't be 'true' because they don't fit either in mathematical/definitional truths (because they are supposed to exist in the real world, not in a construct) nor in physical/perceived truths (because we can't test them), and there are no other kinds of truth. Proponents of objective morality usually make a construct where the moral propositions have a definitional truth value, and then try to affirm that that construct of their creation reflects the real world. It's a different approach to reach to the same conclusion: there is no such a thing as objective morality.
@@juanausensi499
Yeah, so we agree. Most of what you wrote was basically the analytic-synthetic distinction for propositions and truth claims. Moral claims can not be categorized under either branch. Therefore, they can't have either respective truth value.
I would add that their "truth" depends on arbitrary goals and ends, contingent on the individual or group relating to the claim due to the is-ought distinction, but essentially, we're on the same page.
Excellente!
Well done, Emerson! While I am ostensibly a Christian apologist, I agree with you that the moral argument is terrible and that it needs to be retired.
Not quite convinced, care to discuss?
@@indigatorveritatis7343 care to discuss what?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Whether the moral argument for God is valid. I'm finishing up the video, but at least so far, I'm not yet convinced. Could start with his opening salvo that "it's not God's say-so that makes actions" im/moral, and that God decrees based on what He sees as already "good and bad". And this was in the context of God's thoughts prior to creation, and how He was essentially figuring out what to decree.... I gotta turn it off for a bit and earn my keep, but would like to discuss it as you are a Christian who rejects this idea
@indigatorveritatis7343 yeah, I'm happy to discuss my reservations about moral arguments. For the record, I think that moral arguments can be formally valid. My concerns regard their soundness.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I can grant that concern to a degree. But to the extent that this video is concerned, there seems to be a repetitious begging the question and then a move to the explanation as to why the conclusion can be reached without God. It did at least address Euthyphro's dilemma decently, though I have reservations there as well...
The god of Israel is great.
He killed his own son so that he could forgive our sins.
That is so kind, thoughtful and simply brilliant !
You pass moral judgements yet you are an atheist
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit.........
AS I SAID THIS WORTHESS EMPTY GENERATION IS PLAYING too much with the fire.... but they do no0t get they are the only one one day will pay for it... No respect for those godless weak people.
Jesus Christ is the God of Israel
@@paulshimkin2713
Jesus prayed to the god of Israel.
"Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me etc."
"With God all things are possible" but he let his son die anyway.
Here's a question I've been pondering for a while: Almost everyone would agree that incest is (morally) wrong. But why? Suppose you have two adult siblings engaging in a romantic relationship, both are enthusiastically consenting, what exactly makes this morally wrong? And don't come up with the argument of the risk of deformation of their offspring, because to that I would say: a) that risk is usually highly exaggerated, it only increases signifficantly if the incest is kept up over several generations, b) they can use contraceptive methods and c) other people who have an elevated risk of passing on diseases to their offspring are not prohibited from procreating. So, how can anyone rationally defend that this behaviour is inherently morally wrong?
Just to be clear: I'm not trying to make a case for the legalization of incest, it's just such a striking example for the limitations of objective morality.
Something doesn't need to cause harm in order to be wrong.
I think there is a set of instints we as individuals develop as a social species to form healthy communities. Those instints inform our behavior and we feel repulsion to action that disrupt that harmony. Like for example eating rotten food/shit, pain, violence, torture, abuse toward minor and incest.
In the scenario you propose I say Incest is wrong because an intimate sexual relationship is always wrong with blood-related family members.
@@illithidhunter6177 Thanks for your comment. I see two issues here:
First, yes, in most cases, you wouldn't develop romantic feelings for someone you've grown up with. This is extremely rare, although it also happens. But there are many cases of people who didn't know they were related, fell in love and only found out afterwards, sometimes even after they were already married. What's with them?
And second: "I say Incest is wrong because an intimate sexual relationship is always wrong with blood-related family members." Yes, but that's just an assertion. You're basically saying "It is wrong, just because it's wrong." That's no real explanation. Who says it's wrong? According to which standard? Who's the authority behind it? Can you defend it on any rational, objective terms? You could surely say it's some kind of divine law. But if, like in this video, they're defending an objective, moral law without recurring to a deity, there should be an obvious, objective and logical explanation. And I can't find any.
@@DoloresLehmann all the above examples he brought up actually do bring harm (or can lead to harm) one way or another. So morality really is about causing harm, even if it's implicit-- something that comes to the detriment of harmony and sustainability. The particular relationship brought up with siblings has historically been harmful and therefor our instincts guide us against it. But if I put my aesthetic revulsion aside I don't see it as morally damnable. The fact that the harm incest can bring is only mitigated with recent and reliable birth-control technologies not accessible to someone like a shipwrecked family makes me believe that moral principles (principles, not absolutes) against incest still carry considerable weight, though not nearly as much as they did in the past.
Perhaps the reproductive mandate i.e. the sexual drive we are born with comes preequipped with a built in anti-incest component to insure the best possible genetic progeny. Therefore it is objectively "better" not to reproduce with siblings or parents. Do other mammals practice incest?
@ 4:50 "it's wrong to torture a baby." that would depend on your definition of "wrong."
KEvron
Yes, it does. It's important to distinguish normative language like "x is wrong" from language that explicitly indicates one's metaethical stance, e.g., "x is stance-independently wrong." A moral antirealist could think that it's wrong to torture babies, for instance. I also don't think anyone can "see," metaphorically or otherwise, that anything is wrong, any more than one can "see" that chocolate cake is tasty.
You forgot “it’s wrong to torture a baby FOR FUN”. That is what Frank Turdlick always says. I think Low Bar Bill says the same.
So, it’s ok if I’m not having fun? 🙄
I dont see how any of your arguments help you against two atheists who are arguing and one thinks its okay to kill babies and the other thinks its not. I dont know how you get past that. you spent 2 hours dismantling an argument but havent gotten near to answering that question. You pour your heart out about how people are so underexposed to the rigorous academic treatment of this subject but you wouldn't be able to answer that question. If you're reading this comment, I want you to read the replies from butt hurt individuals, ask yourself if they get straight to the point of answering my question or if they go off trying to dismantle my views and ask me stupid silly questions. If secularism is superior to theism then fine, you win, I agree with you, ill save you the hassle of dismantling my views... Now tell me how to decide who is right if two secular people are arguing against eachother about the ethics of child murder. While you're at it, feel free to use some of that rigorous academic argumentation that nobody hears about because we are all used to hearing defences such as "society doesnt like it".
I honestly think you can’t and neither can you do this with two religious people either unless those two religious people agree with the same exact creed same as with atheists agreeing with the same type of reasoning, so it seems like the only way to get two people to agree on something is if they have a similar reasoning to one another that can lead to the same conclusion instead of two completely different philosophies
@@enzoarayamorales7220 if you're talking about two different religious people then sure but when it comes to two people of the same religion, this does happen but less so. This is because we can just appeal to what is revealed in scripture. You might want to appeal to issues of interpretation but that doesn't change that something has been revealed that is itself objective. Much like scientists disagreeing on the theory behind a phenomenon doesn't change the fact that the phenomenon is taking place and can be described in some way given debate and discussion. The question is what does an atheist ground his morality in? I think nothing. Christians ground their morality in a God who created the thing and the people which he set morals for. Like making a board game and then saying, "these are the rules now play". This is why the question of whether morals are from God or God found morals is a silly one. If God created the universe then his moral framework is one which was made to fit the universe that he made. Similarly, if a boardgame maker makes a boardgame, the rules are made to fit the boardgame. Asking, did the rules come from the maker or did maker find the rules is a silly question.. Without the board game there would be no rules and their would be no need for them. I think atheists can solve their problem by just finding like minded people but that doesn't change that their ethical system is equally as valid as one where there is oppression. A religious person cannot do that, since the religious person's pursuit is to find out what morals are correct not find people like them to create one. A religious person cannot say "im just gonna do what I want" whereas an atheist can and just has to find people that will agree with them.
@@noahfletcher3019 you’d have to demonstrate that because that moral objectivity doesn’t mean anything if the person doesn’t already agree that’s the point I’m trying to make, this same reasoning could also be said for any form of organized ideology with clear tenets and doesn’t rely on individual reasoning, you’re right in saying it just becomes equally valid you just have to explain why it’s more valid
@@enzoarayamorales7220 yes that's the point of people making a case for God and defending the bible or I dunno, Islam or some other religion with claims about God. You're right. Believe it or not religous people really do worry about the state of world without religion. Absent of that there really are no morals at all. An organised ideology would work like I said but that doesn't change anything about morality itself. An organized ideology that involves slaying people and taking their land would work just fine, the question is if it's right or not and that simply cannot be established under atheism. There's nothing to reach for to settle the matter. I know in this 2 hour video he tried to gloss over "might makes right" but that really is the only option in atheism. I wish he would have gone into that more and not be so afraid of it.
@@noahfletcher3019that’s the thing tho I don’t think theism actually solves the fundamental why question of right and wrong at all, to demonstrate that id now like to ask you why if something is immoral under a theistic view without ending up in a logical chain that regresses
WHICH god? Because more than 95% of humanity has never heard of THAT god.
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit....
I gotta say some of the comments from ( I am guessing) christian apologists are ummmm disturbing. The whole idea that we absolutely have to have a god in order to not be horrible to each other says more about their dysfunctional view of humanity than it does about the argument itself. In essence what I get is they are telling us that unless there was a god they would be able to do any wrong they would like to and then project that onto everyone else. Listen - if you need a god to tell you not to be horrible great. I'm glad for you. Follow that god by all means. I however do not and I find it insulting that I am told I have to accept their god in order to not be horrible. No I am not horrible because I don't want to be treated that way so I shouldn't treat each other that way. You know - the golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You don't need a god to understand that. You also don't need a god to understand if someone wants or likes to be horrible we should have a way to retaliate without sinking to their level - hence - laws. Every civilized society has laws and regardless of religion or culture most of these laws seem pretty universal.
The guitar at the beginning, is that Mike Dawes?
I thought it was ichika nito
@@tennicksalvarez9079 It could be. Just sounded Mike Dawes-ish to me. I have no idea to be honest
The sad part is, you're addressing Craig's position in it's most robust form; if you watch him in debates, he and other apologists put forward a much dumber-downed version that has all sorts of issues all of its own
That's a fact, His most watch video from his channel about morality is straight-up appeal to emotion.
If it's objectively moral (independent of God) that God is the highest possible moral standard, then most of your criticism is irrelevant.
Well, the problem with what you are saying is that it is a contradiction....if something is objectively moral INDEPENDENT of God, saying that God is the highest possible moral standard [as a base for morality] literally contradicts the first statement. So your whole dismissal of Mr Green criticism as irrelevant is just nonsensical
@@mendez704 I don't understand where the contradiction is supposed to be. If you are the tallest man in the world, how is that fact and how others arrive at it not independent of you?
@@Loddfafnisodr The contradictions stems from the fact you are talking about objective standards that are independent of God, then making them dependent on him (by relying on him).
Now, regarding the example you bring into the discussion, the issue is we have a definition of tallness that is independent of any concrete example. So the tallest person in the world can be qualified as that, because you can measure their height and compare it to the rest of the people in the world, in such a way it is higher. In an analogous manner, what is the standard you will use to say, for example, to inform us God is the highest moral standard? What is the INDEPENDENT measure of morality you use to make that claim?
@@mendez704 The qualities that are assumed to be omni in reference to God, would be the likely answer. Power, benevolence, knowledge. I don't see how that's different from height. What if the tallest man is as tall as physically possible? His height is still an objective measure. Same with God's qualities.
What dependence is there? Is it about God having had created existence or sustaining it? That doesn't actually prevent independent objectivity.
@@Loddfafnisodr Which one of those qualities would make God "he highest possible moral standard" and why? And how will you compare it, to follow your example, with height (in the way it measures tallness, how any of such properties will measure goodness)?
Allow me to post my counter argument for the moral argument for god. I use socratic method.
People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
Now I have asked these A LOT in theist channels. Atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering them. Christians are less then 18% and muslims less then 7%. So who do you think understands morality better, someone who can answer simple moral questions or someone who cant? Now in a reply I will post why I think they avoid the questions. This is also why I think politicians avoid many questions, why some people are so easily offended and why many people cant change their minds. I think its the biggest problem in the world today.
If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking. If you want there is a 12 minute video by veritasium called "the science of thinking" that will explain it very well. I think this is knowledge that can really benefit people if they do not know about it. The next part though I dont know any videos for and I dont know if anyone really had the idea I have before.
The knowledge of the fast/slow mind is what is relevant from that video and I think a good starting point for the discussion. The video also gives examples of people doing it live, but it most likely will work on you as well so that is how I will show you. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter.
A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?
You might have an answer flash in your head right away with fast inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time.
The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it.
The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation.
Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones.
Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not exempt from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long.
Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it.
The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used.
So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point.
Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even.
So was this understandable or confusing?
if you understand it, do you think its possibly true?
Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
Christian Theist here.
1. Failure to act in this case is immoral.
2. I continue to save the child.
3. So long as the innocent person's punishment is repaid with a sufficient benefit so as to make the punishment irrelevant, it may be moral to punish one for the crimes another commits. It also may be moral if the innocent volunteers to accept the punishment on behalf of the guilty. For instance, if an innocent chooses to pay the fine of the guilty party.
4. Yes.
5. No, that would be a bad parent.
I hope you enjoy my answers.
@@coreygossman6243hi I’m an atheist leaning agnostic here and I think it’s interesting that you gave pretty much the same answers I would give, but then you’d have to justify why those would be the right answers, I’d also like to congratulate OP for bringing up an interesting debate
@@enzoarayamorales7220 My justification is that I can access the law which is written on my heart by God. I think you access the same law when you reason about morality, and so we come to the same conclusions. I don't think we need actively reference God, but in using that intuition we implicitly rely on a feature which is supplied by God.
Or do you want an exposition?
@@coreygossman6243now I’d have to ask why that law we are accessing in our hearts is justified and what makes that law inside come from something divine
“Or do you want and exposition” I get the feeling that maybe you’re sensing hostility from me in that case I apologize I do not mean to come off that way, and no I don’t need one just answer my questions and that’ll be fine (maybe I’m talking to the same person and haven’t realize it in that case I’m sorry)
I don’t believe there’s a value judgement in the statement “suffering is bad,” because it’s tautological; it’s bad by definition. The value judgement comes when determining whether a specific situation counts as suffering.
Suffering isn't bad 'by definition'. For it is not always bad. Consider someone who deserves to suffer. Well, it is not bad if that person suffers, is it? It is good. Furthermore, the statement 'John is suffering' is not evaluative, whereas 'it is bad that John is suffering' is.
@@geraldharrison5787 Suffering is bad by definition because it's a severely undesirable perception by the entity experiencing it. Saying that anyone deserves (i.e. "ought") to suffer is evaluative, and can not be objectively proven; you're just saying "it's good John is suffering," rather than bad.
Saying "John is suffering" *_is_* evaluative if I'm the one making that determination; I must use my conception of suffering, apply it to John's situation, and determine whether *_I_* would be suffering in the same situation. But just because I would suffer in John's situation doesn't mean John is suffering, and the opposite is also true.
Now, I would agree that some amount of suffering may be necessary for some greater good, but that still doesn't make the suffering itself good. If it did, and we took it to its logical conclusion, then inflicting any amount of suffering could be justified so long as the tiniest amount of good comes of it. Suffering itself is good if it serves a good purpose after all.
@@DirtPoorWargamer You are just nay saying. It is a conceptual truth that it is good when someone gets what they deserve and bad when they do not. Now, it is 'good' not bad, when a person who deserves to suffer, suffers. Thus, 'suffering' and 'bad' are not synonymous. (Note, I have not disputed that to suffer is to desire it to end - the point is that 'suffering' and 'bad' are not synonymous....and likewise, 'bad' and 'contrary to my wishes' are not synonymous either).
Now that shows what is also evident: that "John is suffering" is NOT evaluative. It is not yet to have made a moral claim. John is suffering 'and it is bad' is evaluative, for badness is a moral property. But suffering isn't, it's just often the reason why a moral property is present.
@@geraldharrison5787 Whether or not it's objectively true that it's good to get what you deserve isn't really relevant when the determination of who deserves what is evaluative.
For our purposes, to say "John is suffering" is synonymous enough with saying "John *_really_* doesn't want what's happening to him". How is it that you can speak objectively for what John does or does not want? I know that the only person who can objectively say whether *_I'm_* suffering at any given time is me.
@@DirtPoorWargamer You're missing the point. The point is "John is suffering" is neither a normative nor an evaluative claim, whereas "it is bad that John is suffering" is evaluative and "it is wrong to cause John suffering" is normative.
Morality is essentially normative and evaluative, thus morality cannot be reduced to claims such as "John is suffering". The point can be made numerous ways. I can judge John to be suffering and you can too, yet we can differ in our normative and evaluative judgements - that's incoherent if the normative and evaluative judgements are equivalent to the judgement that John is suffering. And so on.
The main problem that this is all indicative of, is that moral objectivism cannot accommodate normativity. Morality is normative: it directs, bids, favours, prescribes, proscribes, demands, requires. Mindless things - so, the objective world ('objective' here meaning 'extra-mental') - cannot issue directives, or bid us do things. Thus moral norms must be the directives of a subject - a mind. There's no sane way of avoiding this conclusion: morality is subjective. That is, it is made of subjective states.
But it's also clear that it is NOT made of our subjective states. For example, if you try and reduce moral badness to, say, John's disvaluing and valuing activity, then if John values something - anything (so, imagine something obviously morally bad) - it would be good. Yet it isn't, as all but the most unobservant can affirm.
Establishing that a person values X is not thereby to have established that X is morally valuable.
Likewise for commands: if I command myself to do something, that doesn't entail that it is morally right for me to do it.
Moral norms are norms of Reason, so it is made of Reason's subjective states. But that means Reason is a person - and that person would qualify as God.....thus moral norms come from God (because they come from Reaosn and Reason is God)
The is/ought gap is false.
This becomes obvious when you ask yourself what an ought IS. You don't even need to go so far as to define it, it should be apparent that there IS a descriptive fact there, if it IS something which can be described...
But, like the word good, people just tend to coast and not even define rhe word ought. They just take it for granted. But it's actually pretty easy. In literally all contexts, to say "you ought to do X," is precisely synonymous with "x is good." That's the verb form though, what IS an ought as a noun? Well, dictionaries exist, but in a word, it's a duty or commitment, specifically a CORRECT one. If you break that down, it just means good. It is good to uphold your duty, in fact good is a duty, a commitment itself, to truth/correctness and to functionality. Correctness is a feature of goodness and vice versa, so they're all very proximal concepts.
Try this yourself. Try to define what an ought is. You will end up in the same place. Use a dictionary if it's hard.
Is saying “you ought to do X” the same thing as saying “X is good to do”? It seems like some meaning is lost between the two. Obligation/motivation is not applied to the second sentence.
For example, if your mother told you “you ought to clean your room,” your response (if you’re an obedient person) would be to clean your room. If she were to say “cleaning your room is a good thing to do,” you would not feel any obligation to do so.
@@audrakoch431 they are precisely the same statement with absolutely zero meaning lost between the two. An ought is the SAME THING as an obligation. So, now define an obligation... "you are obligated to do x." Now, there is no ACTUAL obligation. It's merely a suggestion. I can ALWAYS shirk my obligation. So, what IS an obligation? It means it's a commitment to correct action X, ie, "X is good!" It's the same statement in every way!
Now, I may not have consented to this obligation, so it might not be an agreement, but I may still be obligated. Why? Because it would be good if I followed it. X is good. X should be followed. X ought to be followed. You have an obligation to do X. It's all the same thing. I can always choose NOT to do X, and I can always fail to be motivated to do X. There is zero motivation entailed in any ought, should, obligation, duty, agreement, or etc. The motivation is something separate entirely. You do X if you want X, or the consequences of X. You can NOT care about being correct or good. Doesn't change whether it is. You can always fail to be motivated by what's correct or obligated, etc. Which is why artificial consequences must often be enforced onto things we see as duties. You smoke crack at a police station? Nothing bad actually happens, in and of itself, but because we think that's SO bad, we will artificially impose an arrest and pressing of charges in the form of fines and/or jail time and/or community service.
The motivation lies outside of whether or not you should do it.
Let's take a look at your example. Why the hell is mom telling me to clean my room in the first place? Because it's good! Why should I follow her command? Because it's good to! Does the WORD I use change that? Not at all. Does using the word "you ought to" impose some magical motivation that wasn't there before? I sure don't think so. I can lack the motivation to be obedient, as I often did when my mom told me to clean my room. I can lack the motivation to be obedient, I can lack the motivation to get off my comfy couch, I can lack the motivation to have a clean room. That's completely independent of whether or not I should or if it's good.
Am I making sense?
@@SnakeWasRight Haha, yes, I can definitely see where you are coming from. I want to clarify something though… are you saying that moral obligations are essentially illusory? Would a psychopath, who by definition does not have a sense of moral obligation, have a more accurate grasp of reality according to this view?
I have a hard time conceiving the nonexistence of moral obligations given that they are so ingrained in us, but what you are saying at least sounds logical (I’m going to have to think about it more carefully). Thanks for the new perspective.
Edit: Is it fair to say that “you ought to do X” and “X is a good thing to do” only mean the same thing if someone lacks the motivation to do X? If the motivation (in theory) becomes a given and is applied to the “ought” statement, do they then mean different things? I think it gets down to what the source of the motivation is; can it be explained through some kind of self-serving naturalistic mechanism, or is there a motivational source that transcends biology? For anyone who automatically rejects anything outside a materialistic paradigm, they are forced to say the former, in which case the motivation becomes powerless and what you are saying starts to make sense… but I think there are cases that can point to the latter, in which case people are actually able to be motivated to do good for the sake of doing good (this is independent from a belief in God, of course, but something transcendent to provide a standard for “good” would have to exist). To be clear, I believe both are valid motivations that we observe.
@@SnakeWasRight “The motivation lies outside of whether or not you should do it.” -I’m not sure if I agree with this. It seems as though we feel compelled that we “ought” to do something simply because it is inherently good, at least in some instances. What about the case when someone sacrifices their life for someone they have never met before? It seems like the most plausible explanation is because that individual felt compelled to do “the right thing,” despite losing everything. I’m open to hearing any naturalistic explanations that would motivate someone to do this, but this phenomenon (dying for a stranger) does not seem like something nature would select for.
@@audrakoch431 It's not that moral obligations are illusory, they are just logical. They don't in themselves contain a motivator. One must be motivated by truth already. Just like how mathematics does not inherently contain any motivation to do it right or do it at all. It has rules, and you can follow them or you can not follow them. You don't have to get the answers correct, but the correct answer has a definite proof.
A psychopath who lacks morality would have a LESS accurate grasp of reality, if they cannot see what the correct moral choice is. If they understand what it is and choose not to do it, well, they're just being bad. They aren't motivated to be correct. They like being wrong. Just as if you like flunking your math test.
So, to your question, do they only mean the same thing if someone lacks the motivation? Well, in a sense, perhaps I should clarify. I'm just using those terms in the purely descriptive, objective sense. Motivation is subjective. But the answer is independent of motivation, so they mean the same thing whether you have the motivation or not. There IS a subjective sense of ought and good, which is just preference. It CAN mean "I want you to do X." But that's irrelevant to the question of moral realism. But there is also an objective use of the word good or ought, which are descriptive of facts, not of preferences. That's kind of the tricky part. Good can mean objectively functional... OR it can mean preferential depending on context (this pasta tastes good.) However, I think the subjective use needs to be ignored if we are evaluating the objectivity of a statement, as we need to be using these words in their objective sense. Which is in the dictionary, I'm not making it up just ad hoc.
All this is to say, motivation to be correct is independent of the correctness of a statement.
If you are talking about Craig's worst argument, there are so many, it's hard to pick THE worst.
Yet, you are lying. You cannot defeat anything Dr Craig argues - and you won't. Liar.
@@JimCastleberry LOL ... But I can. And I am not the only one. Your faith in the ancient myth of your choice demands you believe everything that Craig says is true, and that his arguments are valid... but they aren't. so...
@@JimCastleberry "You cannot defeat anything Dr Craig argues"
Everything WLC argues is based on baseless assumptions (both premises of the moral argument are good examples), and whatever can be asserted for no reason can be discarded for no reason. Sometimes he hides the baseless assumptions in confusing semantics, which doesn't make anything better.
@@JimCastleberry Correct neppy, even craig is aware adam and eve never existed, you cannot defeat that.
define baseless assumptions specifically please @@WhiteScorpio2
An excellent video overall, though I think you're giving the argument from moral agents for theism too much credit. Simple game theory tells us that the sorts of behaviors we think of as moral are often optimal strategies for survival and reproduction, and thus, on naturalism, we would expect that, if conscious agents existed, they would likely be endowed with tendencies toward such behaviors, since these tendencies would be favored for preservation over those without such tendencies.
Is Logic just another god? Philosophers, the priests? Sure it's more interesting and complex than religion (I'm really only familiar with the Abrahamic religions and Europe and ancient southwest Asia societies, history and development) but much like one can't chew one's own teeth, the only defense of Logic's truthiness is logic. 2+2 = 4? Bah, press the 2 button twice in an elevator, you're not going to the 4th floor.
Recently, I got linked into your channel, subscribed, and now working through your work. I like your approach and demeanor and calm voice. I'm familiar with and enjoy some of the other YT super-atheists but the propondence of ex-fundies make their presentations tend toward self-therapy. I grew up in a very liberal Roman Catholic tradition where we were warned that the OT Bible is a collection of ancient campfire tales that should be read with caution and that Luther and the Protestants had it all wrong; it is works. Baptism insured Heaven. Mary, the Blessed Virgin, is the female deity who will intercede for us. It was comforting in my youth but by the time I was 18 it was obvious that it is all man-made; In the beginning man created God. Look to the Mormons for a case study on how and why religion develops and thrives. I am now intersted in historical Judaism and Christianity. I am 70 years old and my closely held fallacy is that age brings wisdom. You can't fake experience. I'm taking your video slowly and googling terms and names. Thanks for your effort.
My biggest issue is that everyone is just asserting that is wrong to torture a baby. Ignoring a hypothetical where we rewire the baby's brain to enjoy the torture _(that is, assuming an act being torture depends on the perspective of the victim),_ we can still construct situations where torturing a baby is a moral act _(even if it disgusts us)._ This is because all moral decision making requires context to be complete. Without context, it is easy to say torturing a baby is wrong, but that is an incomplete moral statement. Just like saying that killing is wrong is incomplete. Unless we are implicitly declaring that in _all contexts_ those actions are wrong. I leave it to your imaginations to construct the contexts where baby torture becomes the moral act _(even if always repulsive to most people)._
When you are a psycho and a sociopath, sure.
But when would torturing a baby ever be moral? Torture is to actively inflict pain on another either for one’s own pleasure or to extract information or some other value. So you either need to be able to derive pleasure from the act, which most people will not since we are a social species, or you need to get some value from this which you can’t unless its to hurt someone else, EX the baby is a hostage. It has no social benefit, its a completely selfish thing to do, even if your torturing the kid to protect someone the act does not become morally good rather the situation becomes morally grey.
@raymoss706 Ad hominem isn't an argument. Limye's question is valid. For the atheist, what if we would maximize pleasure or utility for all involved by torturing the baby? If that is still wrong, then it's not pleasure or utility that morality is describing. For the theist, what if God commanded you to torture a baby? If it is still wrong, then God's command isn't morality.
All your Ad hom says is "raymoss can't handle hypotheticals". If that is the case, stop studying ethics.
@@coreygossman6243 It's not ad hominem, and atheism has nothing to do with it. What kind of sociopath brings up the idea of rewiring a baby's brain without his consent so the baby can enjoy torture?
And what kind of sociopath gets pleasure or utility from torturing a baby?
I don't study ethics, but if this is what I was being taught in an ethics class, I'd ask for my money back.
@@raymoss706 You still don't understand hypotheticals. How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast?
"In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this: If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be. On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.*
In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.*
*But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17).
*Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."*
*"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*
---------------------------------------------------------
Also look up:
*"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
*"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei.
*"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*
But of course morality is arbitrary of God. When God conceived of deeds, those which reflected Him were called good, and those which didn’t were called evil.
“And God separated the darkness from the light”
I believe the error in your positions is God is not in Flux but stasis and ergo cannot change. Maybe simply, you can't change perfect.
If God is the source of all truth (why truth is truth) then what is good is good because God causes it to be, evil then would be the absence or opposite of God. For example, if God caused punching bananas to be the highest good, then evil would be doing the opposite of it. Therefore if God is the One which good is defined by (i.e., because He's the source of all truth) then you have parameters by which to evaluate, otherwise you lack a standard by which to ascribe value to specific things. All that hinges upon you knowing what God's will is (hence the Bible and Christ).
In order for you to even have a conception of good and bad you need to be able to:
1. Have a justification for why your use of reason and logic comport to reality around you
2. Have a justification for why your use of reason and logic is authoritative
3. Have a justification for why your use of reason and logic is authoritative over another persons
4. Have a justification for the standard on which your use of reason and logic being authoritative is based on (it's impossible to ascribe value without one)
5. Have a justification for why the standard on which your use of reason and logic is based on is authoritative over another persons standard
I'm sure there's a lot more that's required there but every single perspective is inherently circular as all need to first assume reason itself is inherently authoritative. It's just that any kind of moral system that lacks a transcendent (will continue to be true regardless of belief) universal standard, lacks any kind of authoritativeness because there exists no justification to follow that standard, let alone establish it.
A Christian Theistic paradigm has a Creator creating creation, thereby making the choices for Creation but therein setting the parameters of everything that exists (everything from physics & matter to morals) and fulfilling all of the necessary justifications apart from the first use of reason in order to comprehend God. That one requires faith.
God bless ♥.
Edit: By the word authoritative I mean both reliability and also having authority over another thing.
@@Augmenter what if that faith is misplaced? And you do realize that faith is not a justification for why God is good too right? Your arguments can be made for other similar deities.
We often call other gods evil. But even their followers claim they have faith and that their gods work in mysterious ways
Also I don't espouse a firm, rock solid foundation for my morality. We don't espouse certainty for our beliefs. It changes based on the information we have on hand. There are aspects in our thinking where we can point to and validate due to experience.
Much like science.
We often have to grapple with uncertainty. Saying that we don't have a solid foundation therefore our beliefs aren't justified is a good way to sell a lie without justification which claims to be the foundation. "I don't know" is a valid answer to many things, but like I said, we can still point to aspects in our thinking despite its lack of foundation as reliable due to real life experience.
@@CB66941 I didn't say faith was a justification for why God is good, I said good is good because God is the source of all truth. I also said that there exists no justification for the authoritativeness of your reason to either a) to comprehend God or b) why reason and logic are authoritative. Any paradigm that exists outside of a Creator cannot say why reason and logic are authoritative at all, they constantly assume themselves in order to prove themselves. Whereas a Deistic or Theistic paradigm can circularly move past that step.
The arguments cannot be made for similar deities, only the ones who posses the necessary attributes in order to bring about everything. In the case of Islam and Judaism which share the same attributes as the Christian one (with minor differences) it becomes a historical question and also a question based reason (i.e., the texts, coherence & etc).
In order to change your morals you need to have a justification for ascribing value to specific things and a justification for why that standard is authoritative over other ones. Otherwise your belief towards something is no more true than someone who believes torturing innocent people is a good thing. At best you can only say it's different.
Edit: A good debate on this is Stein vs Bahnsen. I don't agree with the extremes of Bansen and think there's a place for natural Theology, however it's a good showcase of necessary presuppositions. God bless ♥.
P.s. There's a good article by Stanford on Justified True Belief that might be helpful too. It's the first result for me that comes up when I google "Justified True Belief". It's the one which has Justified True Belief as article number 1.
It's funny, when I was a divine command theorist I was so scared of the Euthyphro dilemma. When I actually started studying it, I realized that there was really nothing wrong (in principle) with accepting either horn.
The only reason I had thought that both options were bad was because apologists were so hesitant to accept either of them.
However, as soon as I switched from "God is the grounding of morality" to "there is a perfectly valid definition of morality that doesn't explicitly include God," I had to ask the question of "Is God good?" And immediately found that the answer to that was no (for the Biblical God).
So I guess that explains why some Christians are so afraid of giving an actual definition of good.
As soon as you define goodness, you have to actually do the work of establishing that "God" is good, which I am not sure anyone can do given the suffering in the world.
The definition of God entails a perfectly good being. You cannot say that if God exists, he is not good. If God is not good, then he does not exist, because a perfectly good being not being good is a contradiction. A god who is not infinitely great is not God. Fine, you can have some other kind of god but that will never be God.
@@Nexus-jg7ev Sure, if you want to go that route, then I would just change my comment to say something like the character of YHWH from the Bible is not an all-loving God.
(I meant to say "not all-good" in the first comment instead of just "not good," because I recognize that there are loving passages in addition to unloving ones)
@@PiRobot314 Okay, that's fine. But bear in mind that the Bible says that YHWH is perfectly good, and perfect altogether. If YHWH exists, then at least what the Bible says about him cannot be true because it is contradictory. It says that he is good, but portrays him doing evil deeds.
@@Nexus-jg7ev Yes, I agree. The Bible is contradictory on this point.
@@PiRobot314 Yeah, I see that sometimes there seems to be an equivocation in discussions about God, ie between the Biblical YHWH (also the Quranic Allah) and the concept of God in the philosophy of religion. But it's also hard to know whether they aren't just the same thing because YHWH is described in all alleged Abrahamic scriptures with attributes that philosophers attribute to God. God as a concept refers to and all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being who created the universe and rules over it. All these things are indeed attributed to God in the Bible and the Quran. The contradiction seems to be between the directly mentioned attributes of God, and attributes that we can infer from God's alleged actions in scripture. If the concept of God is derived from scripture and scripture is wrong, then should we conclude that the god of the scripture is a human invention like the scripture itself? I only mean the God of the scripture. Of course, I am not saying that there isn't a creator as a conclusion from what I already said (although I do happen to believe that there is no creator). I think that this would be a genetic fallacy, but about the general idea of a creator god, not about the idea of the specific biblical deity.
If a moral truth is to be objective, it must be true reqardless of who observes it. If each and every human is the highest authority for what moral truth is, then we have no authority on moral truth, its a matter of opinion as it only could be. God as the ultimate greatest conceivable being, who creates merely by speaking it into existence, and is in fact the moral law giver and is capable of enforcing it, means that whatever moral truth God has established is true regardless of what human observes it. That is why morality is only objective if God exists. Without God, morality is 3 wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner.
Thats just the facts, its inescapable. Atheism says humans are the highest authority on what is or isnt morally permissible, which is subjective, necessarily.
Prove your god exists. If you can't, your entire belief system falls apart by default.
@@tshirtjay If determinism/naturalism is true, you should be able to defend it without invoking God on its own merits. My statement about morality is just a fact. If transcendental moral claims are to be objective, you need a higher standard than human minds who disagree, you need something static that is authoritative regardless of the person who observes it. The principles of logic for example cannot be broken, its not possible because logical contradictions cannot exist. If you are going to propose transcendental moral truths with the same objectivity as the principles of logic, or say, mathematics, then you need to establish where they come from.
This is a major problem for the determinist/naturalist.
@@CryoftheProphet
.
Tell me dear is your OPINION regarding the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄
Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
44:45 The theist argument could really be described as "Morals can be treated as objective only because God has decreed what should and should not be done in this universe, and he has written it on our hearts." In that sense our intuition is trustworthy, God is the source of morals, and God's power remains unlimited.
I think the real problem for atheists is why we should trust intuition. 45 minutes in, what I have heard is "we know when something is moral or immoral without an appeal to God" and I would say that doesnt answer how we know. "We know" doesnt answer the how, while "God has written the law on our hearts" actually answers the question of how we know morality even before we consult the Bible.
Couldn’t this be answered through evolutionary development amongst a social species as ourselves, sure it doesn’t explain the why but it does explain the how I’m not sure of any world view religious or not can answer the fundamental why if there even is one to begin with
@@enzoarayamorales7220 Well, yes, I think that explains the how. But it opens an issue. If the apparent universal moral intuition is simply a generally evolved intuition for sociality, then morality as we know it is simply waiting to be replaced by a future morality. This is the morality that Nietszche sees when he talks about the Ubermensch. The Ubermensch is the man who evolves such that his morality is no longer human morality, but a superior morality that is able to outcompete the general human morality.
If this is the case, then not only is morality subjective, intuitions are not fixed across humanity, and all morality is simply a collection of responses to stimuli. This means that really it's not morality, but a question of what behavior is most conducive to reproduction. The most conducive moral behavior to reproduction seems empirically to be religious moral behavior, and in that case, religious moral behavior is true insofar as it represents the pinnacle of human evolution as a social species.
@@enzoarayamorales7220 Are you comfortable with the ramifications of morality being an evolutionary development, if that means that Christian or Islamic morality represents an apex of human natural selection?
@@coreygossman6243i understand that but then wouldn’t the how of morality simply be objective in the current context in which it resides with the combined factors of social and environment forces, wouldn’t it also be reasonable to conclude that there is bound to be commonalities between these moralities that can be worked with to construct a universal one, plus what would be a universally religious view of ethics that doesn’t exclude any religion
@@coreygossman6243are they actually the apex, you should also take into account that evolution doesn’t work as a hierarchy of bottom to top development it’s diverse so the only way to judge it something is an apex would have ti be subjective or based on social context and interest
When it switched to IASIP I thought Id skipped to a new video. 😂
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit....
First time on this channel via a youtube suggestion on the right-hand side.
What strikes me most is 1054 comments out of 14,486 views.
1 comment for every 14 views? I don't think I've ever seen that large of a percentage.
I'm almost suspicious the comments are paid for? Why do long-time watchers of this channel think that's happened?
A large majority are replies to comments. If you sort by "New" you can easily scroll all the way down and see that most comments have many replies.
The majority has 20+ replies, with a few having 40, 50 or even 100. The reason for this, is that the watchers are interested in discussing the subject. Many of the replies are from the same ~12 people.
The first line of the entire presentation sets up a straw man. The moral law was not created. God did not create the heavens and the Earth and also morality. God is morality. He is the standard by which morality is evaluated. It is not a creation it is his existence. I don't need to listen to any more I guess if the argument is against such an obvious and weak straw man.
People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
I used the word “hypothetical” for a reason. I’m illustrating a point, it’s not meant to be taken as literally as you’re taking it.
"In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this: If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be. On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.*
In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.*
*But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17).
*Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."*
*"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*
---------------------------------------------------------
Also look up:
*"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
*"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei.
*"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*
Morality is a concept not a being.God is a being that have personal subjective morality he is not creator of morality or morality itself.Or are you saying that god is a concept and not a being?
@@epicofgilgamesh9964 Yep. I wonder how socrates dealt with people avoiding his questions like often happens with theists? I think he chose the hemlock because of the frustration of "blind " people.
The Euthyphro dilemma! Apologists try to weasel out of the dilemma by saying that the goodness of god is in his nature.
Interest vid assuming moral realism. I'm still in the subjectivist camp leaning emotivist. Regardless, there are dozens or even hundreds of moral theories which all explain the world we experience. Till some theory has confirmed novel testable evidence to support it over the others, we should consider morality as... just being in our imaginations like "serendipity", "spookiness" or "justice". That's why I lean emotivist.
Question. I’ve heard this argument before: that moral realism doesn’t require God, therefore the moral argument for God doesn’t work. The idea being that apologetic arguments between atheists and theist are often really between atheist subjectivist and Christian moral realists, but in fact there are atheist moral realists, therefore the argument is a falsely reductionistic. Is that about right?
My thesis is that the moral argument for the Christian God does work, but one has to breakout of the narrow propositional/cognitive/right judgment framework of meta ethics and into real life.
What I mean is this. Justified morality isn’t just about right judgments grounded in a stance independent reality. It’s not just about how I know something is moral or immoral. It’s also about whether my moral action in relation to that moral realism will mean anything for me the actor.
So to answer the meaning question of moral realism, the “so what if it is really wrong,” we need more than moral realism, we need enforcement mechanisms and consequences that relate to that moral reality.
This is going to require a fuller view of reality. Like, are the moral punishments for offenses in this life equal to the demands of moral realism? Is an afterlife required? Is the violation of moral realism just a state of affairs like a square not fitting in a circle or is it a personal offense between moral agents-like man and a superior personal judge?
What I’d like to know is this: Is moral realism that is impersonal with no after life and no personal authoritative judge who is identified with those moral truths as good an explanation of morality as the moral realism that affirms an afterlife and personal authoritative judge?
If not, if the argument for morality needs to get out of our cognitive judgment space and into the real existential meaning of our lives, then maybe the moral argument has more teeth then is being given it credit.
Maybe meta-ethics as defined here has been cut off from the wider worldview considerations that are needed to justify ethics for creatures that are not just thinking judgment calculators but actual human beings that love and hate and live and die.
Maybe this sort of moral realism isn’t real enough.
So in short, you mean to say that judgement alone is not enough, and punishment itself is a part of morality, is that it? Did I get it right?
Other than the fact that these are independent subjects (it's like saying that grades at school only exist because the punishment is being unemployed),
doesn't the obvious question simply change from "what is moral" to "does morality exist"?
If you ground morality in the judgement it receives, it not only becomes subjective only to the judge and executioner, but absence of one simply means the absence of this new "morality". Unless you want to argue that morality is necessary, and therefore requires a final punishment as an argument for an afterlife, but then it becomes a circular argument, and the necessity of the morality is based on the punishment existing in the first place.
@@nati0598, yes, the idea is that punishment/consequence is part of the inherent meaning of morality.
To use the analogy of school, it’s like saying tests have meaning without grades.
You assert these are independent, but law without enforcement is just good advice. So also, moral judgment apart from consequence lacks meaning.
I’m not sure, I understand the objection concerning regarding circularity. Morality being necessary is agreed upon in moral realism. To say morality must have a real effect to have meaning is not circular, it seems logical.
But I’m curious what you think.
Let me give you a scenario to demonstrate that moral "justification" and moral "good" do NOT depend on any "God" 👍
let's say the there is indeed a "creator god and let's say we all become aware of this one true "creator God" and understand implicitly and precisely how he wants us to live our lives and the rules that govern this but ..................
We also learn that following said rules would infact lead to humanity suffering an eternity of torture and suffering. 😱😱 Would it still be a "GOOD" thing to follow said rules ??? Would we be "justified" in following them ?? 🤔
*I would emphatically say NO to both questions* Indeed the total opposite would be the case following the rules would be a "BAD" thing and we would be entirely justified in NOT following them.
This is because the words "Good" and "justified" in actuality refer to our desires with regard to "WELLBEING" and the actualization of a situation that conforms with said desires, regarding wellbeing and the values it incorporates.
Now let's change our "God" to the Christian one, now we recognise that *EVEN IF* he exists and the things he tells us ( his laws ) would lead to an eternal paradise, it would only be "GOOD" to follow said laws because of their conforming with our perception of "WELLBEING" and we would only be "justified" in following said God if we determined this to be the case, so..........
Now call me fussy but I don't think its "Good" to kill children for making fun of baldness ( as the biblical God did ) Nor to own people as "PROPERTY" for forced labour. For the life of me I can't see how the execution of people who gather sticks on a sabath could ever be said to be "Good" 🤔
I could go on and on and on .....
@@jrhemmerich Continuing your own school analogy, yeah, tests are graded. But the process of grading them and the questions they ask are two different things.
When you ask "is this moral?", you are already at the grading step of the test - the action being graded is the test itself, the grading is what morality is. Grading actions according to a cetrain keysheet, our moral values.
However, as I've said, grading process is the final step - grade isn't a punishment, nor a reward (to most people, some have been trained to see it differently). If you want to say that punishment exists because you can fail class, then simply look at all the other tests, like DNA tests - there is no punishment there unless you live in a very racist backwater village. Punishment in not a necessary component.
To lightly touch at my circularity argument, it was a small refutation to my own interpretation of your argument - if you see grades themselves as punishment, and then say that punishment exist because grades exist - that is circular.
I will also say that looking at it this way I kinda see your point, being a subjectivist. If there is noone to grade an action as moral, then the action doesn't have a moral value assigned. It's missing a spreadsheet.
@@trumpbellend6717, your line of reasoning depends upon the equivocation of suffering in hell as a good punishment with it being an evil because it is suffering.
The question is whether suffering can be just, is required for justice. If it can be, then such suffering is not evil.
There is still the question of whether Christianity teaches an eternal hell or one that consumes and destroys. But either would be a solution to your problem: (1) eternal suffering in hell is just and so good or (2) evil will be destroyed in hell and such suffering is good and just.
As far as bears and children go. Its not clear how young they were. And in fact, it only says they were mauled/attacked, not that they died. And the point was to prove to their parents, who were the representatives of the leadership class in Israel, that they should not humiliate God’s prophet out of pride and rebellion.
The point of the Sabbath was to point out that God provides and you can’t save yourself. Socially, it was a restraint against economic exploitation. Are there not forms of economic exploitation so abhorrent that you might even consider the death penalty to be just? The penalty was not often exacted, seems to have required a high degree of intent to violate it, and even then, the sabbath was not always respected in Israel. The Bible actually makes clear that social punishments are not part of the eternal aspects of God’s law but will be adjusted as society progresses. Something to consider.
I too could go on… ;)
How do they have morals they only have commands?
Do you have morals? Or just commands from people above you?
The moral values and duties must have some objective foundation in REALITY (ontology) to even 'have' - unless moral values and duties are a false delusion (atheism).
Is the choice of a metaethical system an objective choice? If it is not, then it is an invented rationalization, possibly motivated to have an orderly society (by whose standard?) without reference to God. I think the speaker needs to establish that the invented rationalization is itself an objective construction, not something that merely appeals to a rationalist. Ironically, this rebuttal sounds like it is resting on nothing but rationalist ambition. It sounds a lot like, "I don't need a God to explain objective morals, because I'm able to contrive a system that derives the sort of morality I'm open to."
Great work! This is definitely going to require repeated listens, at least for me. 😐
Me too. Dummies trying to learn, unite!! 💪🏼😤
I see a new Emerson Green video, I click!
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit....
Yes, low bar Bill doesn't really care about epistemic justifications. His justifications are unsurprisingly pragmatic.
I’m a theist, and approve of this video. 😂
Then do not tell me this is not a sick cult with godless ass kissers and godless alone trash people that are so obsessed with what other believe and the reflection of other people believe. No respect for those sick godless people.
For Real? What kind of stupid empty cult is this nothing offer nothing gives, but empty BS? As God really cares about what you think and your stupid philosophy empty words as godless alone trash person (anyone who deny God is a godless alone trash person)… Another reason none can respect you, you are a lier as any modern Goddenier.. And we hope the next generation will be better then you and forget about you and your empty stupid worthless atheism not even worst to clean my ass. … you are just empty like it.
Then why only godless alone trash people are obsessed with hell, while we are not? Another reason to do not be like them, and live with this constantly fear… What idiots!
For really you did not get those empty Videos where godless alone people
constantly talk about God, showing their obsession, are made not to
help anyhow your godless alone life but to trap you into this empty
stupid cult called atheism they know we live in the time of stupidity
and godless trash people so they need to capture them as more as they
can.
They know you are the most stupid, weakest and alone people in
the face of earth and they need to take advantages on you. They know you
run anytime you see godless ass to kiss it. That what this empty BS
cult atheism make you be, without God and without dignity. But let see
how you are in trapped in this cult: Let see how many godless rats are
here with their empty words and life, just as their cult called atheism.
Why? Why Godless alone trash people want see the existence of God
when it is clear that if they and all the things they see around (earth,
stars, planets and so on) if they are creation something must created
them. For real no respect for those godless blind trash people. God is
what they do not know have and do not know in their miserable alone
trash life. But God will take care about them as well, once death as
anyone alse. Let's hope we will have better generation that those
godless alone trash one.... We really do not need this empty and
worthless cult called atheism and those modern godless alone idiots who
thinks God cares to exist what those poor alone people think about him.
No respect for them and their miserable godless alone life. (they are
also godless ass kissers, as they run anytime they see a godless alone
person... that what happen when you do not have God in your life, you
lose your dignity, and you start to be disgusting in that way)... Oh
anyway when you stopped to believe in God something died on you but you
are so pathetic that you are not willing to admit it (right?). What
trashy people without shame they deny their creator, and they will be
judge for it.... Liars ad patetich as any Goddeniers. so their worthless
empty life without him.... They are even the weakest people, because if
they are wrong, they are the ones who will pay for denying God... Won't
be in their shoes. No respect for them....
I told you this godless
is the worst generation (those people are just empty and worthless as
the cult they are in), and when it will be gone with their stupid
empty, worthless atheism that does not going anywhere, that do not offer
or teach anything, none will complain about it, not even those very
weak losers!!!!! ... Do not call them atheist but godless alone souless
trash. Let's forget about those worthless empty people and their
worthless and empty cult do not even good to clean the dirtiest motel.
WHEN YOU WILL BE GONE NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT YOU AND YOUR STUPID CULt
CALLED ATHEISM. You are the worst of people, no respect for you:...
those are juss godless alone trash people, liers as any Godeniers with
less thing sacred in their miserable alone godless life… those weak
people are so weak and alone that they wait for an empty videos from an
obsessed godless person to kiss his ass, disgustingly (no God, No
Dignity) it would not change their life, actually more alone and empty,
(they do not even have a real community) empty life they live empty shit
they are in like this stupid cult called Atheism! No respect for them.
(They are very weak, empty and frustrated people, a life that none will
accepted, but those godless alone trash idiots).. those who say there is
no God will pay for it, soon or later... No won't be a godless alone
trash person into an empty cult not even good for my ass such atheism,
that offers them nothing. But emptiness and lonlyness for their
miserabile godless alone life. No respect for them. They are just empty
as their cult called atheism. But they will pay this soon or later, and
all the emptiness for nothing they are facing in their ridicolous
miserable alone life! It is time to throw on the trash empty atheism and
godless alone trash people, they are not even worthless to clean shit.
You can not respect them and their emptiness! It is over for you, trash
is not even good to clean you of all this atheism BS. No respect for
you. Let's really hope we can have a better generation and forget this
godless alone trash one as quickly as possible. IT IS OVER, it is time
for you and this nosense called atheism to go back from the nothing you
come from. No respect for you. You will pay all this shit, soon or
later...
Today I will put your BS atheism in the toilet and flash it
and you godless alone will shut up, ok? You are worthless and empty as
your stupid cult. No respect for you.... This is the worst, weakest,
empty generation, and when it will be over with their stupid empty cult
called atheism none will complain it. IT'S IS OVER, godless alone
trash.... Those godless alone poor people are playing with the fire, and
they will pay for it, and even badly........
They are so
desperate and frustrated in and empty stupid life... No sorry for you.
Let's hope in the next generation, let's hope in a better generation,
and let's forget this one and trhow it on the trash with their stupid,
nosense cult called atheism that will lead them anywhere. No respect for
you again..... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GODLESS ALONE TRASH PEOPLE AND
YOUR EMPTY STUPID ATHEISM NOT EVEN GOOD TO CLEAN THE DIRTIEST TOILET IN
THE WORLD... You got no peace over there (and if God is real you will be
and are f.... up.. You godless alone people are so weak).........
God
will care about you as well, poor person.... (you life is more
miserable and empty without God, but you are so patetic to realize it).
NO respect for you and your empty cult called atheism....... You are
just frutrated,obsessed, miserable, alone godless person that does
deserve any kind of respect, just to be so. (Lier as any
Godenier)....... IT IS OVER FOR YOU GUYS, YOU AND YOUR STUPID EMPTY CULT
ATHEISM That does not even deserve my piss….. all this just show how much those godless trash people are frustrated (to do not have what people have sacred and holly) no respect for them. it is time to throw away that empty BS cult called atheism that does not explain anything and it is not even good to clean the dirtiest toilet. Godless alone trash people, liars as an any Goddenier, dishonest and the worst and stupidest generation ever had. Let’s froget about this godless trash worthless generation and waiting for a better one. (By the way you will be judge as anyone alse once death by God, do not think you will escape because you deny him, as a godless alone rat as you are (You are also a disgusting godless ass kisser, that anytime you see a godlesss ass you run to kiss it. because you got no God and no dignity in your miserable godless life) NO RESPECT FOR YOU (your life is more empty and miserable without God, but you are the only fool to do not get it… WHY?)... this godless alone trash generation is the worst... Let's hope we can forget about them and have a better one. No respect for them and their stupid empty cult called atheism...... Godless weak people (you are weaker now and later ponce you will confront God, no matter what you sick people think about him)........... They do not deserve any respect, with their godless alone trash family who raised so trashy and sick to deny God. (and they will also pay fgor it, soon or later......... They got No God and no Dignity... something dies inside them when they stop to believe in God, but their are so patetic to admit... Soon or later they will stop to write empty shit on youtube about what we believe... Why? They are very weak, and quickly to change their mind about God... they are worthless people just like their empty atheism... but surelly they can not call theirselves atheists, but godless alone weak trash people. No respect for those liers or disgusting godless desperate ass kissers.... /they need to slpit on their dirthy mouth every morning as they deny God... but they are deceiving none but themselves, as they will paid for it, and be judge by God once death as anyone alse. (So it is better to be a son of God,m that a godless alone weak person).
It is time to theow on the trash atheims (where it belong) and forget about this generation (have better people then them). God will take care about them as well, and I won't be in the place of those godless weak alone people and disguasting godless ass kisses...... They lost any dignity, denying God, no doubt about that......... No respect for them..... The worst generaration, the weakest one (they got no God and No dignity)...
“Saying stance independent moral facts are identical to God is Gibberish “
I agree , but stance independent moral facts itself is Gibberish , Queer , unintelligible
I'm a Christian listening to this, I am glad someone has addressed a serious argument in a serious manner, thank you for producing the video.
However the snarky tone makes it seem you have zero respect for the worldview you're arguing against. The mockery is palpable all throughout the video. What prompted me to write this comment was the tone in the Hume's Guillotine section:
"The is-ought gap is roughly the idea that there is a logical gap between evaluative facts and descriptive facts. Ok, so what? Some people seem to think this is a problem for all moral realists... Or somehow just specifically to _atheist_ moral realists, which is genuinely baffling."
Is it really that baffling to think that if (1) all we have access to are facts about the material world, and (2) facts about the material world can't inform you about moral facts, then (C) a naturalistic worldview is incapable of giving objective morality (because it takes premise (1) as true), while a non-materialistic isn't?
Why the mockery and snarkiness? You're spitting on millenia of tradition for no reason other than ego.
Philosophical positions can be mocked and don't deserve respect. People shouldn't adopt an argument as part of their own identity just to get offended when people point out that incorrect, false, or ridiculous.
Yes, arguments can be mocked, challenged, dismissed, etc... they aren't the word of god that everyone most venerates like christians do.
Naturalism doesn't get offended if a christian says evolution is stupid but theism demands their idea to be treated the same as the egocentric people that beleive them.
As if God is something to argue about...... the hubris of humankind knows no bounds!
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit.......
Sure, your god gave you brains, but only for keeping your skull from caving in. Are your god’s feelings so tender that it can’t stand being argued about? Weak.
What do you think about transcendental argument, are you familiar with Jay Dyer??
Jay Dyer is not the person you should consult about really any philosophy at all.
@@popsbjd Why? What's the problem with him?
@@bilal535 1. I think he's an actual lunatic. 2. I think he cannot form even a valid argument. He spams the conversation with name dropping philosophers but his words are vacuous. Watch his debate with Malpass. It's painful.
It's not an argument.
@@bilal535He has emotional and mental problems, and has no idea what he's talking about.
The only thing that matters is how you live your moral in your everyday life, not how brilliantly you can form your arguments pro or contra God.
Could you all please stop with the never ending ping-pong of old saw and present some lovely videos with the empirical proves of the superiority of your understanding of moral in your everyday lives?
Philosophers generally love nothing more than mentally and verbally masturbating to their own intelligence. What we call morality is just an emergent feature of power struggles with a society. Appeals to higher power or grounding or whatever else are specious at best.
I also like youtube channel Paulogia, who has a good topic about this too called : The Moral Argument (Needs No God) (William Lane Craig Edition) and other topics , good to study them all.....
It’s my opinion that Christians feel obligated to conclude that God IS the only grounding for morality, as that’s somewhat biblical (James 1:17, Luke 18:19/Mark 10:18 etc.)
you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit....
All morals are subjective and quite obviously so if you take the briefest moment to think.
Do you know any two people who share the exact same morals? Do you expect you could ever find any two such people?
I don't think anyone could honestly answer yes to either question.
Bad reasoning. Everyone has a different view of physical reality. No two people believe all the same things about reality. Does this mean that physical reality is subjective?
@@hearts285 bad reasoning. morality doesn't exist external to the behavior of conscious beings. "reality" might.
@@nondescriptcat5620 That doesn't matter, even if you are right
OP was making an argument that morality is subjective.
Since you can make the same argument about reality which isn't subjective, the argument doesn't work.
Even if morality is subjective, the argument still fails. You can be right for the wrong reasons.
@@hearts285 this is all sophistry to defend your Neo-Platonic metaphysical nonsense.
the experience of reality is subjective. there being an external reality does not change that.
the experience of morality is subjective, and you have yet to prove an external "objective" morality.
@@nondescriptcat5620 I never tried to prove objective morality.
What I was trying to do is show why the poster's argument against objective morality doesn't work.
I have a magic 8ball if you want to borrow it, Godvoice.
Hi a-theology. I think we have argued in previous comment sections, and, as I recall, I won each argument completely and utterly!
Happy New Year!
@@coreygossman6243
I'll take your word for it, it clearly means a lot to you. I don't remember anything about you or your hobby horse.
@@MathewSteeleAtheology you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit......
@@coreygossman6243 you are more miserable and weak without God and you lost all dignity to denied him... no respect for you.... liar as any Godenier. (we really need to forget this stupid trashy generetion for a better one).. your empty atheism is not even good for my shit..........
@@coreygossman6243 you really have nothing in your life to be more proud of than “destroying” somebody in the UA-cam comments? Get a fucking life this is sad to read.
How’s that prophecy fulfillment, “The Abraham Accord” going?
Very kool
2 hours😮
2 hours wasted
To think that ethical intuitionism is different that moral naturalism is absurd. Where do you think our intuitions come from?
That's just a false equivalence that can be disproven by any dictionary.
At around 34 minutes.
We have rules with out authors because
I dont think anyone made up mathematical laws..
I dont think anyone made up the laws of logic.
I dont think that anyone made up the laws of rationality....
Just saying i dont think anyone made up these laws doesnt give me any reason to think that they werent "made up" or handed down tk us by God. Even if he had proved that these rules weren't made by God it doesn't stand that Morality itself wasn't made by God.
If my wife makes a cake you can't say that you know she didn't make that cake because she didn't make cookies, brownies, or pudding. This is a bad argument.
Also the rules for rationality i am not understanding. He says that it is not rational to self mutilate for its own sake. Serious question here. Why does he choose self mutilation? Would he say that eating healthy for its own sake isnt rational? Is he just saying that doing anything for its own sake is irrational? Like throwing a rock or painting a picture?
In that same time stamp you bring up, the speaker explains in detail that the assertion from christian that "if there are Law,there is a law author" is false.
Christian need to prove all laws require author, all laws are prescriptions and that descriptive laws are impossible.
@@illithidhunter6177 Maybe I am mistaken but I don't hear him explain in detail why it is false.
He gives the Christian claim 3 times, that laws need an author. And then argues with premise 2 but his argument that he asks us to chew on is just that he doesn't think that mathematic laws need and author, or laws of logic, etc. he doesnt back this claim up just says he doesn't think they do.
Christians claim that all laws need an author. The atheist seems to then say well there are 2 types of laws prescriptive and descriptive and descriptive don't need an author. So they have made up a category and then told the Christians that they need to now say why descriptive laws don't need an author but it has only been asserted that they don't. Christians reject that claim. I would argue that the atheist has the burden of proof behind this claim. At least more than "I don't think we need God for descriptive laws"
That begs the question. Atheists don't think they need God for anything.
Maybe the question and answer clears some things up, and again maybe I am misunderstanding.
If so can you please give me a rough draft of his detailed description?
@@Good_apollo76
"Morality" is a concept used to describe the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments.
We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in anyone's specific subjective invisible God.
The laws of logic are also a man made concept traditionally used to describe the process of correct thought and reasoning. These laws include the principles of identity, non contradiction and excluded middle. A God would be bound by the laws of logic just like everything else. For example ...
The law of excluded middle most certainly applies to God for God CANNOT both "exist"and "not exist" simultaneously. If he exist the negation CANNOT also be true and vice versa. Your God CANNOT make a square circle nor would he be able to make a stick with no ends.
Thus the laws of logic would be the very foundation of your God's existence he would be bound by them and must always have been so.
We don't have "rules without authors". For every single thing you think wasn't made up, we can literally see them being made up throughout history.
The "moral laws" themselves are still in the crafting stage, we are in the process of making them up right now, right here.
@@Good_apollo76 *_"but his argument that he asks us to chew on is just that he doesn't think that mathematic laws need and author, or laws of logic, etc. he doesnt back this claim up just says he doesn't think they do."_*
I rewatch the clip from 33:40 to 40 minutes.
He explained the argument and presented several examples of Laws that don't require authors. This supports his position that the laws don't require an author which is the defeater he needs to support the christian argument premise to be false.
The issue is that the christian argument requires a strong claim: ALL LAWS require an author.
This means that any single example of the contrary completely disproves the initial argument without further explanation.
For example: A person claim, All cars need gas to work.
A single example of a car that doesn't work with gas(electric, diesel, solar, etc...) is enough to prove the claim false.
I've moved on from being a life-long (66 yo) atheist to a fully fledged apatheist.
What’s an apatheist?
@@charlescarter2072
An apatheist is someone who is apathetic or indifferent towards the existence or non-existence of gods or deities. While atheists actively deny the existence of gods and theists believe in the existence of gods, apatheists simply don't care about the question of whether gods exist or not. They may find the debate or discussion about religious beliefs uninteresting or irrelevant to their lives, and they may choose to focus on other aspects of life that they consider more important or meaningful.
@@jonrendell I see. Thank you for your reply.
You know, I've never really thought about it, but I do, in fact, ground my "oughts" in "is".
I have values, goals and empathy. That is an "is". If I want to live according to my values and try to acchieve my goals, then I ought to do certain things and not do certain other things. So, an "ought" derived from an "is".
Do you have freewill, you think?
@@someonesomeone25 Not in the way Chritian apologists use the term, no. Maybe I would agree with some other definition, but I just prefer not to use the term.
@WhiteScorpio2 Fair enough. I don't think morality or freewill exist.
You are grounding your "oughts" in others' "oughts" not a "is" which is completely acceptable.
@@illithidhunter6177 Can you elaborate?
I think the difference is very semantic here, but still.
Humans harming, even Kiing other humans exists on a moral siding scale. There are christian soldiers that are tasked with killing even knowing that some deaths, some murders don't pass the morality test we ascribe to concerning noncombatants, collateral damage and the other euphemisms we use for excusing behavior that in nonwar settings would be considered immoral. We don't even have objective criteria for when an infant is old enough to be considered to be responsible. Steeling is wrong but only if you have a concept of ownership. Even more problematic is the whole free will issue. There are many documented cases of personality changes in individuals that seem as though the person has lost moral responsibility. A formerly honest person may begin to steal things, become a sexual predator, become violent. His friends think that he is just not himself. Then it is found that he had a brain tumor. Remove the tumor and the behavior reverted. Obviously our behavior is largely mediated by our environment. Rare in deed would be a parent that does not use some system of behavioral rewards to raise our children. Still it follows legal codes work better if there is some morality beneath it be it subjective or objective. Authoritarianism works.
I am just starting this video. But yes! I have always hated the moral argument the most. I think it is itself immoral.
Craig claimed something is good because god ordained it, and bad because god prohibits it. He even made an example, for instance if god says you shall not eat something or wear certian clothes then you should obey that even if there are no obvious justification for such.
If craig believes that moral truth claims terminate at god, and that god has no reason for deeming murder immoral and helping others moral, the ultimate difference between these two actions is arbitrary. God merely chose to deem one right and another wrong for no reason.
If god did have a reason, then it is not God where those morals come from, but rather the reason god has to command them. God would not be the giver, but rather the mediator of those truths.
Can someone help me out? I don't feel like watching 2 hours of this video. At what point does he argue objective morality from a secular worldview?
I don't understand "At what point does he argue that objective morality from an secular standpoint?"
Please re-state your question.
@@miyojewoltsnasonth2159 At first, I was confused as to why my comment was confusing to you, but then I realized that I made a typo. I edited my original comment.
i realised the way you talk (not the content) strongly mimics Sam Harris' speech pattern
My response to the moral argument is that morality doesn't exist.
@user-cr5pz2oc5y Indeed. And subjective morality, good/evil, isn't really morality as people use the term colloquially but is rather just personal preference and emotion. Combined with the lack of freewill meaning that no one is morally accountable for anything even if objective morality existed, it's fair to term the reality of the situation as being simply that morality doesn't exist.
I think all theories have an ultimate stopping point the point is which point is better. Does your theory says that there are infinite moral brute facts that speak about how agents should act like there are infinite numbers. A basic question is what is goodness itself and why should we strive towards it?
God defines everything. So he is right.
@@justice8718
God is transcended being who grounds reality. It is reasonable to say that goodness flows from his nature since nothing exists apart from God and morality itself is always a dialectic between persons. I agree however with Emerson that the moral argument however is ill-defined by popular apologists.
@jaskitstepkit7153
If goodness flows from his nature because God is who/what grounds reality then badness would also flow from his nature. If God is the ontological grounding for all thought and being then that everything would include all the bad too. If you’re going to go this route you at least have to be philosophically consistent. To say that God is the grounding for everything but is somehow not the grounding for bad/evil is simply to make a blatantly contradictory statement
@@loganleatherman7647
Evil can exist only in secondary causes since God is a perfect being. Just like a good criminal psychologist knows what a serial killer does without being actually a murderer, and a doctor knows about unhealthy things without being unhealthy, God simply knowing evil properties can exist does not mean he grounds them. If I know logical paradoxes does not mean logical self contradictions exist. We can say being moral means to be like God and evil is contingent in created agents who are not perfect
@@jaskitstepkit7153 special pleading. if your "god" created this universe, It created Evil.
Apes do have social norms and make moral judgments about family, friends, etc..