The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice05241 LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7 CLARIFICATION: Just in case I did not make it clear in the video, I am massively simplifying the literature around pro-social behaviour and religiosity. As I said in meta-analyses there is a slight correlation but a lot of what I looked at suggested we should be careful about blowing the effect out of proportion or saying that atheists are necessarily more anti-social. There is a complex relationship here that is difficult to summarise in a few minutes.
Not sure about some of the arguments. It would depend on the definition of God with respect to your section on "morality needs God". If God were defined as the ultimate good in the universe, or a "maximal good being". Then it follows that God would already know what is moral, that the definition of moral would then be static. If the definitions of moral are not static, then God is not maximal (as morality would then have superseded God), and would not be God. The contrapositive implication is that morality cannot exist from a material world view. Only dualism or idealism can solve for morality. Not atheism (materialism). The atheist must argue for materialism, and ultimately the idea that morals are constructed, or at the very least epiphenomenal.
Carl Watts is a man who grasped for redemption when it was far far too late. His mind might change, but his crimes will always remain. The only strange things about the story is why did he willingly confess? This is a question that cannot be answered materially if I understand the point of your question correctly. In any case a man is subject to morality. And he has been deemed a criminal. And our laws do not come from material necessity. We do not marvel when a lion kills his cub. The lion is an animal. But a man is held to a moral law. Such action not only makes him worthy of prison, but even Carl Watts' own mind cried out against him for justice.
As a religious person, atheists offer a very important lesson to believers BECAUSE of their morals. It shows us that these people, despite believing in no higher power, no greater cosmic judgement, still choose to be good simply for the sake of being good. They have morals when no morals are technically enforced on them from a divine being from their viewpoint. And that's whats so important to learn. The ability to be a good human simply for the sake of being a good human.
One thing I've always wondered about, and i apologize in advance if this is a bad question, what do theists think about evil theists? If a priest turns out to diddle kids, do Christians think the priest wasn't a believer in the first place? It just seems absurd to me that someone thinks god is always watching, and still decides to do things they'd never imagine doing in plain view of, say, their own father.
As an atheist myself I recognize the social and "spriritual" function of god in a civil society. People do need to know why historically and in modern times religion/spirituality is important. It is man's sense of purpose made manifest.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... Goodness needs no justification, because Good is its own justification, and so is Evil. Humans possess an instinct for "compassion" and an instinct for "cruelty". This is what we perceive as good and evil respectively. We are trying to express the instincts inherent within us, and every instinct follows its own logic and justifies itself with its own logic. If I was a naturally compassionate person, I could say "Suffering is inevitable, therefore I should help others as much as possible." If I was a naturally cruel person, I could say "Suffering is inevitable, therefore I should abandon others and focus on myself." None of these logic chains prove anything! They only reveal a person's natural proclivities!
Are these "instincts" present from the moment we're born, or are they learned? (nature vs nurture). Do we judge people differently and/or enforce different punishments for people with different instincts?
@@Noname-lw6hp not religion as a whole, just this flavour of this version of this personification of the universe aka the Christian diety of Yahwe or however you're meant to spell it. I reckon a video on norse mythology could takle much the same lines of reasoning, but in a far more interesting manner perhaps!
I read the title and I knew it was about the brothers Karamazov, it's such a great book honestly and your take on the thesis and arguments seemed all impartial enough that I believe both an atheist and a religious person can enjoy this video
Wow, this was pretty great. I have spent much of my time since deconvertion wrestling with what morality is. You managed to sum up most of what I have found in this brief video. Good job.
Great video again! Pertaining to secularism vs religious societal benefits: The most intriguing argument I've heard for the benefit of religion/theism is the difference in how people are likely to act when there is no one to witness a wrong-doing. For religious, god's omnipresence/omniscience plays the role of witness when no other sentient beings are there to witness the act. For secularists, they usually claim to have an internal guilty-conscious, which plays a similar role to god in this sense, and can incentivize them to change how they behave as well. Notably however, the god witness can be used to deter behaviors of malicious people through threat of condemnation, while the same does not necessarily apply to a malicious secularist. For secularism, we have to hope there is some human witness to deter the behavior of an individual or hope that the individual's guilty-conscious will do it themselves. I'm defining malicious here as: the willingness to put others in harms way for sake of ones own benefit (kinda similar to rejecting Kant's categorical imperative). Also, the theory for why secular people do good things when no one is looking (a.k.a. guilty conscious) is an intriguing conversation topic as well. Pertaining to moral relativism and how we may be able to criticize other cultures: I think we can criticize other cultures via epistemic responsibility. This is similar to the reasons why we aren't inclined to believe a conspiracy theorist with sketchy sources of information as opposed to an authority on the subject with more reliable sources. While we may not necessarily always trust a person with authoritative status, we at least know that they are knowledgeable, which cannot be rationally inferred for the conspiracy theorist. To critique another culture in the relativistic world-view, we wouldn't exactly be critiquing their morality so much as we would be critiquing their sources of information.
Many atheists try to strawman or simplify why a Christian pursued good. They think we just “pursue good so we don’t go to Hell or because there’s a God watching.” I’m gonna keep it straightforward with you, from my experience, most long-term Christians aren’t motivated by the very concept of God or judgement being a thing. That’s a very superficial view, one that only children or those who stay in the faith for a little hold. We pursue good because good is God in itself, such as the view attempts to show. We pursue it because it’s the only thing we truly have. But yeah, it does play a role, but it’s typically not the drive that moves us long-term.
There’s many other big causations, like our relationship of God and other concepts that directly cause this big motive, but Hell and judgement aren’t typically that crazy. My view on it is whatever happens, I know that God has made the right decision. Can’t sit there and argue with Him, I’m not even supposed to be going to heaven in the first place. But He cares for me, very much so, and that simply becomes another drive to pursue good.
@@christopherlabbe6543 Does god care about what relationship you have with him? For example, how does god judge these different types of believers: 1. Someone who is a devout believer and has never committed a sin since being born. 2. Someone who frequently sins, but repents. 3. Someone whose belief occasionally wavers. 4. Someone who doesn't care for god but abides by Pascal's wager. Does god have favorites amongst his believers? Also, do these factors even influence your chances of getting into heaven? To me, it sounds like your relationship with god is something that you do for yourself rather than something god cares about.
I think you’ve straw-manned the Abrahamic God entirely and that you have a lack of comprehension regarding Him, which is fully fine, however, don’t use that centric knowledge to enforce something about my prepositions and philosophy that is far from true.
For the first question, regarding if God cares about what relationship you have with him, yes, this is self-evident in Christian ideology. A non-indifferent God has been proposed in an advanced, complex manner for centuries, in fact, that is what Christianity is dependent on. God love us so much so that He sent His only son, Jesus, to die on a cross for us. He is not an indifferent God, and an indifferent God is not one worth worshipping. For your different “plausibilities”, we are to know God judges accordingly and there’s an entirely complex, developed philosophy in the topic of judgement, one that Paul introduces well. However, you’ll likely not listen to that, so I’ll simplify my answers to your questions. 1.) That doesn’t exist, such is what Christianity is dependent on, all men have sinned except He who knows no sin, Jesus. 2.) Very complex, can’t water this down, however, He loves them just as much as those who don’t sin in a repeating manner. 3.) Very complex, however, know that this is the majority of Christians. This isn’t a deal-breaker that stops them from the faith. And this is also talked about biblically, something of the sort is seemed to be expected. Christians are not robots, we are human, I promise you, the most basic, superficial answer is enough for this. Someone who doesn’t care for God but abides in Pascal’s Wager: We go into heaven by faith not works, although this is complex too. A man who has a superficial faith, one that isn’t genuine, can’t believe He is saved. And therefore, won’t be able to be accepted into heaven as, He hasn’t accepted God’s saving Himself. How can God save someone who declines wanting to be saved. And if you know of the Christian God, in a non-strawmanning way, and believe that you are saved, how could you not care about God and do His will. Does God have favorites?: The most basic, superficial answer could suffice for this too. Like I said, we go to heaven for faith, not works. So no man can boast. I promise you, Christianity isn’t dependent on judgement, because Christians on judgement have a mediator, Jesus, who intercedes on their behalf and dies for their sins, so that they might receive the gift of salvation.
I have thought of 3 semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought logical fallacy: 1. It appears that only living beings have the experience of goodness. It is their experience of goodness that causes them to behave in the way they do. Therefore, it stands to reason that if we want our morality to have an effect on the material world, it must deal with prescriptions for the behavior of living beings. 2. Any existing thing which destroys itself more than it propagates itself ceases to exist. This applies to all things: stars, animals, and morals, etc. In the case of inanimate objects like stars, they do not directly spawn from one another (at least not consistently), but the same underlying process produces them. In the case of living beings, they spawn from similar living beings who came first. Morality is like a living being in this respect. The morals that are best at propagating themselves will endure. If we care about our morality being widely adopted, it must be structured in such a way that it is good at spreading and maintaining itself. 3. It feels good to feel good, and we are motivated to do those things that feel good. Therefore, if something is good to do, it is good to feel good while doing it, so that it can be done more often. These are only semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought fallacy, because they still require moral suppositions. The first requires the moral supposition that we care about our morality having a material effect on the world. The second requires that we do not want our morality to be successful rather than to destroy itself. The third requires that we care about doing good things (although this seems to come from the definition of goodness itself). But they are not entirely weak either, because the first is based on sensory observation, the second is based on logic, and the third is based on our experience of what goodness means. This is not a coincidence, because my metaphysics (based on phenomenology) treat sensory information (the basis of facts), logic, and values, as elements of faith from which we build ALL of our other experiences. So, the correct morality according to this line of thought is prescriptions for living beings which will tend to spread the morality that they practice (and also the living beings themselves, if that was useful for spreading the morality), that feels good to those who practice it. This fits in nicely with my other moral view that all existing things are good. In order for living beings and things that act like living beings (such as morals) to exist, they must struggle to act in their own interests. So, it is in the nature of morality to prescribe actions that allow morality to exist. I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page.
I don't quite agree with that, morality is fundamentally a matter of what is true, and not all truth is material in nature. it doesn't just exist inside us, it extend beyond our own perception, otherwise morality would be no different than opinion. for example, kindness, compassion, patience, humility. These are all good qualities regardless of your perception. Logic and reasoning isn't material either and yet we know it has rules and exists outside our own perception. envying, jealousy, greed, hating each other, lying. These are bad qualities regardless of your perception. being good doesn't always mean benefiting ourselves but being bad will always lead to someone getting hurt, even if the actions makes you feel good.
@@justiceiria869 "or example, kindness, compassion, patience, humility. These are all good qualities regardless of your perception. " But without perception, those are just words. Values do not exist in a void. "I don't quite agree with that, morality is fundamentally a matter of what is true, and not all truth is material in nature. it doesn't just exist inside us, it extend beyond our own perception, otherwise morality would be no different than opinion." ....morality is very much an opinion. enough people and you have a societal norm. these change with shifts in ideologies, due to cultural changes over time.
"I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page." Perhaps philosophy doesn't offer people anything to act rational. Or threaten them apparently.
@@rageofheaven you can't tell me i am wrong if morality is "just an opinion". If morality can shift by perception ,what is wrong can be right tomorrow and what is right can be wrong. Judgement becomes meaningless when everything is just an opinion. You claim i am somehow wrong while at the same time telling me that morality is just an opinion. Don't you realise that this doesn't make sense? You are basically saying that murder and stealing can be right if social norms shift. If someone told you this while taking your stuff and then murdering you. Are you going to agree with him if this was considered "the norm"?
I learned years ago that the Golden Rule exists, in some form, in every major religion in the world. Reflecting on that, I realized that it doesn't require a god to exist in order for it to be valid, because it's entirely about how one person relates to others.
The golden rule does not exist in every major religious system. Especially if you extend the idea to “replacement religions“ which tend to pop up in post Christian/antichristian societies like Nazi Germany, communist Russia, communist China, communist Cambodia etc. Pre-Christian Viking and Germanic societies did not believe in the golden rule. Pre-Christian Greek and Roman societies did not believe in the golden rule. Any resemblance to believing in a “golden rule” applied only to those within the tribal group and no one outside the tribal group. When we talk about golden rule being applied universally, you are talking about the Judeo Christian tradition, as humans are considered to be a value and sacred because they’re all created equal in the image of God and our beloved of God. The universality is what is different and what has led to modern western liberal Democratic Society.
@@alias_crouton2671 I agree that this pattern holds up for many traditional religions, but is mainly applicable to the people in that religious tradition, rather than universal. I’m sure a lot of Muslims believe in the golden rule *for other Muslims*, not necessarily universally (with the exception of Sufi and other similar sects). Probably most Sunnis would not extend the golden rule to shia Muslims and vice versa. I’m not sure about Hinduism. Historically they seem pretty chill, but the BNP is currently trying to re-organize Indian society along Hindu nationalist lines. I suspect Buddhists are universalists in terms of the golden rule. Then you look at atheist “religions“ like nationalism, Nazism, communism, and woke authoritarianism. These are all explicitly founded on the idea that people are not created equal (in other words, group or collective goals are more important than any particular individual) and that individuals are not worthy of dignity and respect, and are suitable to be used as a means to an end. Judeo Christian ethics believe that all humans are created equal in the image of God ,and are beloved of God, therefore inherently sacred and worthy of dignity and respect, etc. That’s the Golden rule applies universally. The universality does come with the price that evangelists can be a little obnoxious because they’re always trying to convert everyone. But the United States has demonstrated that you can have a secular government modeled on Judeo Christian ethics… at least while the populace is mainly following Judeo Christian traditions. It’s unclear if that can continue without those traditions. We saw what happened in Europe after dechristianization. Malthusian ethics, social Darwinism, scientific racism, Nazism, communism, nationalism all superseded, or took the place formally held by the Judeo Christian ethics.
To me something is evil/good like chocolate is poisonous for a dog's health. "Poison" doesn't describe some object, chocolate isn't intrinsically poisonous, but rather it's a description of a natural object's effect on a being's constitution. The poisonous aspect "supervenes" over the chocolate. In that sense I see wrongness as something that supervenes over an action that negatively effects ones character and constitution.
You never can say that some action has negative effects only in our dual relative reality. You learn most (positive effect) from actions which originally might have effected you negatively.
I think that morals evolved as we became more dependent on staying in a group to survive so this is something that’s been with us for millions of years
It’s easy to be moral when you are afraid of something unseen. That’s the basis of religion. But real morality is being moral for the sake of it, knowing that nobody is judging you or holding you accountable for anything. That’s when your true self can be seen
A "tru self" rised in a a... Religios family? Of course you will be a nornal dude, cause soceity has values iven if you dont belive in them deeply Obviosuly if a soceity has a certain values, you don't want to go gaints that But libertinage and lack of virtue end in the same garbge, literally look "good people" with "modern values", total barbarians or idiots with good intentions Vegans, pro palestine lol, feminists, corrput OnG Lot of these groupes openly laic, atbeist or "" beliveers""" but there are no values Thia video is good, but is just the theory, in practice things are always different, an human morals can decay beliver or not Sorry if my english is not that good
Personally, as a religious person. And wanting to give a different view point. I think that argument falls apart when you consider the idea of what is morality.
@theultimategodofgaming3200 As I was taught by my religion, morality is a character in a book who does the better thing in a hard situation. And that the ultimate goal is Christ to become like Christ in the ways of self-sacrificing. However, when your goal is to be good and do good. How do you know your doing that? What's your example? What is the determining factor? How do you self-sacrifice and know that it is worth that effort? And that is a legit question. What or who do you look for morals?
@@josephfox514 Morality does not necessarily mean self-sacrifice, it just means showing compassion. As another commenter said, our morality comes from our evolutionary instincts of compassion and cruelty. Compassion developed out of an evolutionary necessity, because of our nature as a social species. A society where people are fine with murdering each other whenever they feel like it isn't going to last very long. Cruelty is also necessary, however. It developed out of a desire to protect the in-group. If a predator or a rival tribe threatens your family, it makes sense to develop an instinct to eliminate that threat. In this way, we evolved to be compassionate towards our in-group, and cruel towards any out-groups. This benefited our survival in the past, but sadly this mentality has been hijacked by various totalitarian ideologies, many of which are religious ones. The only way we can move past this is if we start to see all of humanity as our in-group, and not just those belonging to our specific race, gender, religion, or any other identifying characteristics.
You're a brilliant dude. I enjoy listening to you weave your way in and out of philosophies of the old, keep at it, the absolute truth is the goal. Also, did you purposely make this vid 24:24 or am I reading too much into it?
it's my basic understanding that everyone is born an atheist then some are taught to believe because that is how their moral framework is given. as an atheist my moral lessons came in the forms of real world applications from my parents, for example don't hurt others because you yourself wouldn't like being hurt and so on, if i would punch my dad he would grab me and pinch me very hard so it hurt real bad and made the logical connection for me that what i was doing was hurtful and so what i disliked being done to me i did not do to others. and with time there was more difficult questions being asked and so i had to dive deep into logic behind these basic statements that i was taught in order to form new logical reasoning to these difficult morality questions. which i just sum up to self preservation as in survival and societal good as in survival. my survival and everyone elses survival and finding the line of where is too cautious and where is too reckless.
Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos.
@@DesOttsel self preservation is still there, it's just not extended to anyone you don't value, meaning morality flies out the window at the first sign of trouble like it often does because you have very little moral framework if not properly established or followed. incidentally this is why i think religion was first founded, when chief is away someone else has to be the arbiter and you can't let the person who has the most to say about it be the judge so they leave it to a power higher than them, namely a god. but that's just my theory about it. emotions overrule any morality or rationality we have and we are left with whatever mayhem we cause. i'm sure you've heard the term crime of passion. this happens regardless no matter how moral a society becomes. that's the fear of losing grip on morality in a world of humans, humans doing as their basic instincts tell them. showing us how little difference there is between us and animals.
@@DesOttsel "Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos." Unless, of course, that source of morality was the primary contribution to the violence and chaos. Do schisms not exist amongst those whom claim what god wants or doesn't?
Nicely done 👍 Broad overview for the short format, brought in contemporary sources & props for philosophy of science and naturalistic fallacy mentions.
@@alena-qu9vj SO... many of them use your "God" as their moral reference standard dear. Indeed tell me, how could Adam or indeed mankind make moral choices without being able to differentiate good from evil ?? Without knowledge of right and wrong every moral "choice becomes meaningless, choice *A* no more valid than the diametrically opposed choice *B* And yet ...... dispite Gods foreknowledge of this he still decided to deny Adam and Eve this knowledge and to punish not only them for gaining this knowledge but also their descendants ?? 🤪 how utterly absurd and immoral!! We have names for people who do not know how to differentiate right from wrong and we lock such people up in concrete boxes or execute them. Yet this is how your "God" wanted mankind to be (and we would still be if not for the Serpent) and you think him a perfect moral reference standard 😂😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
4:50 || I find this topic very interesting, especially since I'm from Scandinavia. I once did a report in sociology class on how religion impacts Danes and Americans, where the guy named Phil Zuckerman claimed that "The more you struggle, the easier you turn to religion" whereas I believe that to be true, seeing as we in Denmark have a welfare system that will catch us if we fall, unlike in the US where it's a "to each their own" kind of deal, where the government will not catch you if you fall. Another thing Phil Zuckerman brought up was the fact that America, unlike Denmark, has state and church separately, meaning the churches funds themselves, while in Denmark we have the state funding our churches. But for some reason, despite the churches being funded by the government, Denmark still manages to be the least religious country in the world (as far as I'm concerned), whereas it would make more sense if we were more religious since church is accessible for everyone (I hope that made sense). In short: Because we know the government will help us if we're in need, we don't feel the need to rely on religion or pray. Me personally, I'm atheist.
I take a position similar to Sam Harris: love is logical and science allows us to act better aligned with our ethics along with its continued advancement. Because through scientific discoveries we find cures to alleviate suffering, we invent tools to protect life, to have better food, etc. It's also because we love as most are chemically wired(please don't get pedantic about my wording here), unless you have a condition like psychopathy, we gravitate towards care and kindness. Though this comes in different forms, it is similar in how we react to others. We share and offer food. We respond to sadness, we feel when another is lonely. These things, as wired into us are natural occurences. We are ethically inclined to love and care. Gods are not necessary for this
It was pleasant to read :) I just think God is creator of those rules, which makes them visible to all, believers or not. Being good wins in the long term.
The is/ought dilemma fails because it assumes, not _objective_ morality but _absolute_ morality. An example of this is the problem of defining goodness itself. As most people consider it, "goodness" is _absolute,_ always the same for everyone at all times. Most who follow theistic religions even think Good™ is an actual force that's active in the world, in opposition to Evil™. But that's demonstrably false - goodness certainly relies on context. The same action can be good (e.g. killing in self-defense) or evil (e.g. random murder) depending on the circumstances. (There's always more to any given context than my simple statements, but they make the point.) That's not to say that morality is relative. Conclusions drawn from a full context are objective because the facts comprising the context are definite and unchangeable. Therefore, moral judgments based on full context are as objective as anything can be, so long as logic and reason are the only assessment devices employed. (Then again, not to use logic and reason is to drop context, therefore not objective.) Another case of assuming absoluteness is that what is good for one is good for all no matter what (i.e. _without_ context). That, I think, comes from Kant's categorical imperative, which should be scrapped altogether because the imperatives are defined as applying to all, regardless of context, which is absurd. Instead, the idea should be more like his _hypothetical_ imperative. That is to say: what is good depends upon the nature of who is taking action and what the actor's goal is. For example, _If_ you want to _be_ (the _is)_ alive, you _ought_ to eat food that is nutritious for a human being. Eating such food is _good_ for living entities. Note that, say, horses (a different species) ought to eat different food that's nutritious for a horse, by _their_ nature, if they want to stay alive (which, generally, they do). So the _ought_ (eat stuff in line with your particular nature as a living entity) depends directly on the _is_ (being alive) and the goal (remaining so). Note that there is no necessity for a god to be involved. If a god or gods exist, their only role might have been to create living beings, therefore determining their natures. After that, things are just what they are, no more intervention necessary. Certainly no diktat about morality - it's already baked in. But we know from scientific fact that life developed via completely natural processes, so the gods didn't even do that. If they exist. Which they don't because there is absolutely no actual evidence that they do. And by definition there can't be, since we are unable to detect them in any manner, according to all religious writings. (We also know what the "Big Bang" was, if not yet precisely how it worked. So no gods needed there, either. And it's not "everything from nothing." No reputable physicist says that.) In summary, goodness is not Goodness™. It's not absolute, it's contextual. It depends on the nature of the being taking action and the goal of that action. And no god is necessary to define it or make judgments based on it.
A proper morality is objective without gods. What it's not, as I stated above, is absolute. It comes down to this: the good is that which benefits a living entity, the evil is that which harms a living entity. There are infinite actions that can do either, and infinite contexts that apply to those. So there are infinite × infinite possibilities. Which is a lot. Each living entity has a nature, in effect and in general according to its species. That's an indisputable fact. An _is._ What a living entity _ought_ to do is live according to that nature, choosing among all the possibilities that benefit it. Some might object that such a morality allows actions that cause harm, for example, robbery. This is false because as soon as you engage in robbery with the expectation of no consequences, you're granting that _you_ can be robbed with impunity because there's no way to justifiably claim that your actions should be treated differently than anyone else's. (Jefferson nailed it with his famous "created equal" statement in the Declaration of Independence.) Robbery does _not_ benefit you because you too can be robbed. Since the entire context must be taken into account, that "robbery reciprocity" must be addressed. The only rational conclusion is that robbery is wrong, given all the facts in the full context of a human life. Therefore it belongs on the evil side of the ledger. Objectively, being based on facts, logic, and reason. The same reasoning can be applied to every other possible action, with an equally objective assigned moral status. Thus morality, the _oughts,_ are objectively determined by the facts, the is-es.
You have a faulty logic. Natural processes CAN be governed by the "gods" still. Just because you see how natural processeses function on some low level doesn't mean you have the full grasp of these processes on all levels.
@@MNorbert89 I see your point. It still stands, though, that there is absolutely no actual evidence for anything supernatural. Also, there is no _need_ for anything supernatural for valid explanations/descriptions of reality. Adding gods just makes things more complicated for no good reason. Occam might have something to say about that. Positing gods with zero evidence is arbitrary, and arbitrary claims with no evidence to back them up (which arbitrary claims don't have) can be rejected out of hand because there's no substance in them to even acknowledge. So says the tiny blue elephant on my shoulder. P.S. Norb is my Minecraft name. 😁
@@durrangodsgrief6503 To my knowledge, there are two ways to look at that. It's the responsibility of the one making a positive claim to provide evidence to support that claim. It's not anyone's responsibility to disprove that claim. If that weren't the case, one could claim that anything at all is true and others would have to accept it if they couldn't prove the claim false. The tiny, blue elephant on my shoulder is incorporeal, so it cannot be detected in any way. Since it is impossible to detect it, it would be nonsensical for me to demand that anyone accept its existence (despite poor Jumbolita's hurt feelings from not being believed in). Because gods are unverifiable, the claim that they exist is arbitrary and can be rejected in the same way. This is not evidence or a claim that gods don't exist, it's merely remaining agnostic on the question. Second, note that it is the responsibility of the one making a _positive_ claim to provide evidence for it. It can be argued that the claim that gods _don't_ exist is a positive claim, specifically a claim of their explicit nonexistence. This is different than simply dismissing an arbitrary (unverifiable) claim, since the one doing the dismissing need not take a stand either way on the claim's truth or falsehood, thus has no responsibility to provide any evidence. But by taking the definite (positive) stand that gods definitely do _not_ exist, it is incumbent on _that_ claimant to prove it. I don't know what direct evidence can prove that claim, though many have made evidentiary arguments for it. My own argument is based on indirect evidence plus reasoning. I've never explicitly stated it, so I admit that, though I'm satisfied with it, it must be at least a little nebulous and needs to be fleshed out.
This is why I should wait until the end of the video to make responses, I was making a joke about how I'm coping with my agnostic religious position and then you mention pretty early on that you are also agnostic and I don't want you to think that I think you are the one coping....🤦♂️
I fell down the meta-ethics rabbit hole a number of years ago, and from where I stand the problem is not whether atheists can be moral, but rather how we can continue to speak of ‘morality’ when we know that moral language has no inherent meaning. I can see how a religious person might use a god-entity as a kind of anchor, but this is a problem largely because a divine conception of morality cannot be expected to be in any way understandable or applicable to mortal beings. I can never remember who wrote this (I think it was Ayer) but sometimes we have a word without anything to which it refers. We assume that there *must* be a referent - why else would we have the word? - but there is no reason why such a referent must exist. Morality is an example of this: areferential language.
The problem discussed in the second part of the video I think, is born of peoples attempts to find an example which taken state has the property of goodness, instead of searching for an explanatory definition. What is good? = which actions and items have the properties of goodness, what is the the property to which the label good is applied.
You are pronouncing every single syllable in a word; that is riveting to listen to. Your videos are engaging. Having said so, let it be born into your mind that philosophy is in fact a personality-a closeted atheist- wanting to be out by not itself by its readers, learners, and followers, and in that case, it is YOU, as religions do. so it is the amalgamation of both notions as you are in your thinking tilting towards atheism. I might be amiss; I am open to other notions. Thank you for reading.
I was an atheist, I would say becoming an atheist is like a freeing experience at first, you see the world in a very sceptical and rational way and only examine people on how they behave with you. After sometime I felt I lost something to hold me together, it felt like I was falling piece by piece. Then I turned to God and now I have peace within me. I feel whole and I can improve and be better.
makes sense, suddenly being able to explain away anything that goes wrong because of a magic man in the sky, sure makes it easier to justify everything.
During the whole video I was thinking about a gospel passage that says: "By their fruits you will know them" and meditating on it a little bit is that it evokes a series of questions, in the case of Scandinavia, for example, (which we know that despite being one of the most secularised regions in the world, it is also one of the richest, most developed and with the lowest crime rate), to what extent are these "fruits" related to its centuries of Christianity? And what about the "fruits" of the atheist regimes that humanity saw during the 20th century? This naturally leads to the next question, namely what would the "fruits" of moral realism as opposed to its counterpart moral anti-realism be?
@hemantjain2387 I have personally talked to people that confirmed what I said in my opening post. It's a bit of a dilemma. It's similar to how some people told me they love god because god commanded that they did. It's like love me or else.
@ulrichenevoldsen8371 I agree. It makes me wonder if religious people's goodness comes from a sincere place. Moreover, being good in order to secure a place in heaven is also unsettling.
@@skurt9109 I agree. But there is still a lot of people that have these beliefs. Misunderstood or not. But ok to be fair its not like I have talked to more than a few dusin people or so about this.
"naturalistic empiricists on paper sheets and moral spiritualists in messy streets." Excellent wording. My unwitting search for answers in this area I have always fallen back on two things. The first is the oldest rule in every book and I believe is found in every religion around the world to some extent. Treat others the way you want to be treated. The other is a common belief of many Americans, and inspired by the spirit of the U.S. constitution, that you are free and should be free to do whatever you want as long as is does not cause harm to others. I love your channel, and I feel it is extremely underrated.
On a tangent, when I heard you use this phrase, I immediately had a flashback to the late 90's or early 2000's when I was walking in a mall and I saw a shirt with two of the actors from the show the Golden Girls on it. The phrase written on it was "Dorothy in the streets and Blanche in the sheets." I still chuckle at its corniness.
10:50 If i remember correctly, The Open Question argument isn't just for naturalism, but also supernaturalism. The question applies when ascribing good to a fact, natural or supernatural.
Morality does not require god.. all it needs are feelings, empathy and suffering, those 3 elements that are naturally inherited by human beings in this cruel world will lead to morality as a byproduct.
Something immaterial, abstract and universal cannot be grounded in merely mortal men. You need Christ to justify morality. He is the Lawgiver with an All-knowing Mind that put a conscience into all of us, praising us when we do right and blaming us when we do evil.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy morality does not exist outside humans, for it is a perceived tool granted by the bias of their beliefs, experiences and feelings. it's very nature is subjective, and has been the cause of war and death. but humans are also foolish enough to grant the status of something like the divine to a lowly cause such as morality. alas, the pinnacle of human arrogance.. so that gods would order existence and life and structure it around morality, which is indeed blasphemy.
The reason you use skill share is the reason i watch your vudeo haha its something to watch or invest myself in that actually benifits my brain and time!
I do not believe in god, but I really do understand that Religion is an exceptionally important part of human life. It had formed the basis for various traditions and festivals. It was a moral guiding force, a judgement for evil, a pastime, peaceful feeling, sense of belonging and so much more for so long. Though I am an atheist myself. It is the understanding that different ideas can coexist that make the basis for modern science. Yeah I know this question wasn't asked towards me but I just felt the need to clarify the massive significance of religion even in today's world.
"Believe" Is Important In Human Life. Believe Is Not All About Religion Tho. Country, Nationality, Law, Government, Even Money Is System Of Believe. One Thing Human Can Held Stick Together is Believe. Believe In Tribe's, Believe In Religion, Believe In Nationality And Last But No least Is Money.
I was an atheist from 18 to 26, I was brought up in seventh day, Adventism and saw what any child could see that it was false. I am entering the Catholic Church in 2025 and I am totally head over heels for Catholic moral reasoning, and their conception of God. My atheism brought me to nihilism and hedonism pleasure was the highest good for me in practice, and when there was no pleasure, there was crippling depression. It took me years to understand my scientific materialism/empiricism was leading me to focus more on sex and what I could get from others rather than a higher purpose that transcends my desires. I am 29 now with very clear purpose and a desire to pick up my cross and suffer for those around me, even those who oppose me.
@@miguelatkinson in my experience, reducing everything to scientific raw facts made it so the moral landscape was something that was more relative and socially built. Where can you empirically find what is right and wrong? How do you measure that scientifically? My intuition told me if something was right or wrong but what if my intuitions were just molded by a social construction? That means they are not Absolute. This frame of mind personally allowed me to prioritize what felt best for me and in my relations with women it expressed itself in sexual pursuit. I wasn’t nearly as bad as some of my other friends, but I hurt a woman who I believed I loved dearly. But my worldview could not give me the ability to love in the truest sense. Not just emotions, not just affection, but transcendent and selfless love. I left Christianity because I thought there was no good reason to believe it, I came back because In my atheist materialism there was no reason to love and sacrifice for another. My atheism wasn’t an issue of intellect, it was an issue of moral decay and the corrupt will that followed.
@@Nrev973 you aere never an atheist, you were agnostic and when you saw you could use religion as a shield to do whatever you want to anybody you dont like you dodnt hesistate to use it to enact hate upon athers because you get off from it. I do not consent to your weird roleplay
3:25 You're probably not wrong here though I think both camps have a wide array of differing ethical theories and, in many instances, have some overlap. Personally, I'm a theist (Catholic) and a virtue ethicist (with a more Platonist bent than many Catholics) and see goodness as the primary object of ethics (as opposed to rules, duties, rights or consequences), with excellence of character being effectively a reflection of goodness itself, the ultimate goodness, God. That said, many theists are divine command theorists, which is mirrored in many atheists in a kind of "legal commend theory" that conflates legality/from the state and morality. As a theist, my response is that "theists aren't necessarily 'bad people', atheists aren't necessarily 'bad people', but if atheists are to be honest, any goodness they perform should be seen as effectively arbitrary if they're to be honest, since there's no reason to conflate pro-social behavior with goodness." 4:57 I'd argue that Scandinavian atheism is the end point of its historical Protestantism (which itself devolves into "liberalism" and a kind of "liberal theology" in the 19th and 20th centuries). So atheism aside, there remains an egalitarian Protestant ethos among the Scandinavian and many Western countries 5:20 In principle, yes, but in reality, they don't. "Atheistic churches" have been tried before to fill this gap (starting from the Cult of Reason to the current day) but they simply just don't withstand the test of time. With that said, religious institutions should not be relegated to merely pro-social clubs. I go to Mass to commune with the transcendent, not get coffee with baby boomers after. 9:12 emphasis on "some". Christianity and voluntarism (i.e. that God's will is prior to His intellect, and that wills as such are prior to the intellect) shouldn't be conflated. I subscribe to intellectualism (i.e. that the intellect is prior to the will, in God and humanity), with good things (or actions) being not because God commanded them to be good, but because they're a reflection of God's perfections in some way 10:54 interesting argument from G.E. Moore. He effectively mirrors my own take on this (that goodness itself should be seen as the "highest good", despite that such a notion might be "vague") 12:01 I suppose it depends what is meant by "God" here. Perhaps the atheist could say it's tautological, but the theist could quip back at the atheist saying his morality is functionally arbitrary. The atheist serving at a food bank and Joseph Stalin are functionally put in the same category (in fact, the latter could be viewed as more ethical as he's more reflective of an ubermensch who has made his own values, whereas the former remains a slave and living in the shadow of Christian slave ethics) 12:55 ah, the Euthyphro dilemma. I'd posit that it's a false dilemma - good things are good insofar as they're reflections of God and act in accordance with their nature as given to them by God. Have to get back to work - good video. I'll listen to the rest later.
This is such a well made video and it is remarkable how you managed to remain so unbiased in your discussion. The things you did say were very well thought out and logical but you left out what I think is the most important part of this morality discussion. In discussing whether there can be morality without God, the thing to focus on is the belief that God made every human in his own image and likeness and therefore every person has an objective dignity. It is not useful to focus on the belief that what God says is true and moral, since that obviously doesn't make any sense to an atheist. The truth of the matter is that there is no reason to treat others "morally" without the idea that every person has dignity. And, no person has dignity unless they were all created equal in the eyes of God. For example, if someone is smarter and stronger, then they are objectively superior to somebody who is dumber and weaker. Therefore, this bigger smarter person has no reason to treat the other with kindness unless for an ultimately self serving need. Of course, every person needs to combat the temptation to be selfish which is ingrained in us (concupiscence), but someone who does not believe in God literally has no reason to.
i think the answer to this one is that with something as complex as morality you have to take all of these philosophies into account. its like everything in life, philosophy wants to put everything into little black and white boxes, but in reality everything exist on a spectrum. our morality emerges from all these sources and we combine it together to do the best we can if thats what we decide we want to do as people. and we should probably set society up in a way that encourages that because as beings who evolved pain and empathy it feels best for both our own empathy and pain that society have functioning morals.
When I’m asked about where I base my morals without god I say that we have to have a tribe mentality to survive. Working together makes survival more likely. It’s that simple.
Very simple and elegant. But then they’ll say something like why is survival more favorable than not surviving without the epistemic foundation of a god or some such similar nonsense. They refuse the Brute facts of our evolutionarily driven morals.
@@user-ci2fd8vc2fI think that's why morality even exists in the first place. Evolutionarily, it has set informal norms for our species for the sole purpose of keeping us alive and happy.
Something that throws everything about religions into confusion is the fact that there isn't proof that a biblical or other god is always truthful. The fact that god could exist and have inspired parts of the bible, but also have just lied about parts of it. The only evidence for god being truthful is his being good, which was also sourced solely from god himself. In fact, god could have just lied about being immortal and died years ago. Furthermore claiming you understand god enough to claim he is always truthful in what he says about himself and his morality would suggest that god is not beyond human understanding as many religious people believe.
lying is a sin, hebrew word being "khata", means to fail/achieve something, and that being God's standard. If God were to be able to "lie" then He would be against what He Himself said and would thus fail His own standard, but how is that possible if *He* created this standard. Along with this, how would a being that created time and space die when He isn't even *in* the confines of time and space like we are?
This is the first time I've seen someone critique athiesm and theism in the same video lol. And I like your conclusion: Atheists are not intellectually consistent with their morality and their ideas. Each "solution" to morality presented by them sacrifices a key part of their preexisting morality, either the objectivity, of dichotomy, or of being self-proving. As a religious person, I find that my position is VERY comfortable in this regard--I'm interested in seeing atheists present a different system of morals in the future.
What about empathy and the need for external approval/validation? Couldn't they form the foundation of a natural moral system? They discourage you from harming others or even letting them get harmed, and encourage you to help people and make them happy.
Empathy is not an universal characteristic, and there are plenty of stories (fictional and real) where external validation was only found in groups like the KKK (for example) or criminal gangs.
Frankly I never had much time for Dostoyevsky... II much prefer Sir Terry Pratchett. If a 'god' exists.... Then divine command makes anything permissible. All one needs do, is convince oneself 'god' commands it and... Bobs your uncle.... Oh and... 'Moral realism' as a philosophical paradigm (either robust or minimal)fails since it can't demonstrate its axioms without resorting to subjective experience. (Edit... Just realised I previously commented on this video... But I'leave them both... What the hell)
I think moral statements are compatible with a scientific/materialistic view of the world. A statement that God exists is supposing the existence of a literal being that we have no tangible sign of. A statement that something is wrong or immoral is an abstract summation of a series of observable events along with some baseline observations about what we as humans almost universally value. Thus we’re not more “spiritual in the streets” than we are on sheets. We’re just making statements that we understand on an intuitive level but can’t quite flesh out in language. A theist runs into all the exact same problems for all the exact same reasons. It’s just easy to think those problems went away when you kicked them up to God and stopped thinking about them.
YOU CLAIM: I think moral statements are compatible with a scientific/materialistic view of the world. RESPONSE: TOTAL NONSENSE: “If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance.” ― former High Priest of Atheism Albert Camus The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AND THAT’S JUST TOO BAD? -- the current High Priest of Atheism Richard Dawkins. No right, no wrong, nothing has any meaning, and nothing has any importance. ITS ALL IN YOUR WIDDLE HEAD, and no one has a corner--except you--on your thoughts, and the person beside you. Under Atheism--there is no such thing as a Moral Statement. Its just molecules in motion, a chemical reaction, with no basis in "Morality," or reality.
Speaking as a United States citizen by birth and a relatively new Subscriber, I emotionally went through a phase of atheism in my high school days. My emotional phase of atheism in high school was a decade ago but with that said, the United States' Declaration of Independence persuaded me to believe in a universal creator!🧠📃🙏🏻
This is ridicolus. I am an atheist but I believe that morality has an origin in nature. In parenthood, group evolution and symbiosis. Also, morality needs to be relative, and take into account the war and peace game, and the need to punish evil.
I was wondering about this. If morality is simply a Natural habit in us, would it be alright if somebody rejected their own Nature? I mean, say Morality = a way of optimizing preserving the species. On what grounds does a person accept the preservation of species as something to protect? See this: 1) When you look at atoms or molecules moving around, say hydrogen ones, you don't say "Wow that's evil hydrogen" or good hydrogen. Atoms in motion are just atoms in motion. 2) Humans are just atoms in motion. 3) Therefore humans have no morality.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 By the way, I am working on a project you might find interesting. I am trying to create an atheistic version of Christianity, that is based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a fictitious character created by Titus Flavius the roman emperor. This also means that Christianity is a true slave morality both in nature and purpose, as Nietzsche had half figured out. So to strengthen this Christianity and make it viable, we need to add an equal part of master morality and acceptance of violence, based on the War Peace game. This creates a duality of cooperative and competitive morality. The whole ide is to create a super-based form of atheism that is nothing like nihilism, and that also ties into Christianity. Jesus Christ is still a holy figure in this religion, because he shows us the way towards cooperative morality. According to my atheistic religion, there is good and evil, based upon what we have chosen to be good and evil. Evil is lack of reciprocity and parasitism, and when someone does not allow others to be free. Freedom is a fundamental right, because without freedom, we cannot search for the truth. And if we cannot search for the truth, we cannot judge and create a better world Here are some links. It is all work in progress, so all clips on my channel are unlisted: ua-cam.com/video/VVGF723-Wdw/v-deo.html (there is a draft of my "Bible" in the description to this clip)
@@mcfloridaman2192 There is no objective morality with god either, that would merely make god the subject.... and it would be dependent on your subjective opinion that it's moral to do what god says
I know a staunch believer who today told me proudly of his side hussle (how I describe it) and I confronted him that it sounds like legal but immoral business. I had to explain it to him via analogies and he still struggled to understand but did finally realize what was so wrong about it. I have to say that stupid people have the moral of their own. No faith can make you a better person if you cannot yourself tell good from bad.
I believe being a good person without needing a god to hold you accountable is better than following a religion simply to enforce your morals or "stay on track" like many people do Pride in your own ability to do good without needing to flaunt it or think you are above others can bring happiness to yourself and them Most people either lean way too far into reason and become cold or lean way to far into morality and become irrational, the ability to mix both and weigh morality while acting as if others are above you simply to be nice without the need of an outside source to motivate you is an important skill that nearly noone has, and the ability to use knowledge of how your own mind and personality works to trick your brain into giving dopamine for tasks that bring you nothing material is also an integral skill, when you can trick your subconscious into wanting the same thing as your conscious, you have control over your emotions and get a free source of motivation to do anything you want, even if it would logically be a cost to you
if you need god to be good then you are not a good person, you just fear about the 'consequences' that might happen by not following the saying of 'god' that you believe
This notion is very simple, for God sets what is wrong and right, therefore without God there can be no objective right or wrong; everything would be subjective. This is a problem because someone’s right would be the next’s wrong.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jyI do since I base my morals on wellbeing, empathy and human rights. You have no justification to call them immoral if you believe god is unchanging and the source of objective morality.
Being nice to people makes me feel good. Being honest with others and with myself keeps my mind healthy. This is true whether I'm religious or not. Religion and ideology though can be a justification for actions that harm others.
"Well, I've always said, there's nothing an Agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not." ♫ ♫ All things dull and ugly ♪ All creatures short and squat ♪ All things rude and nasty ♪ The Lord God made the lot. ♫ Each little snake that poisons ♪ Each little wasp that stings ♪ He made their brutish venom. ♪ He made their horrid wings. ♫ - If you're monotheistic, I simply believe in one less god. If you think I have no faith, not so. I have faith in people which is far more difficult, plus they actually exist. I also have faith they will be people with warts, body odor, and bad breath. We are far from ideal but I have never laughed at anything harder than I laughed at a human. I've never heard anything more beautiful than a sound made by a human. I've never loved or cried, been sicked or rejoiced like I have over a human. We suck and I love us. - If you think that "morality" is defined by how I should treat my slave/master, if I plant two different kinds of seed in my field, or if I wear clothing made from two different types of fabric, and how I can sell my daughter, then you are correct. I have no "morals". What was 'objective' a million years ago? What will be objective and 'true' in another million years? Why TF *must* we have Objective Truth™ for all of time, in perpetuity and throughout the universe?!? This is why I reject your "morality" and substitute my ethics. By ethics I mean to treat others at least as well as I would wish to be treated, and as well as they would wish to be treated if I can know that. Maybe we should, for now, simply consider Maslow, and Sapolsky. Perhaps it is enough to hold space for folks to define their own happiness, so long as no harm come of it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well Good and Bad are Subjective if no sentient Beings Existed would Good or Bad exist plus I think the God of the Bible is Evil foul Malavelalent pile of Dung and people who worship God are Children afraid of death
The fundamental issue is that it is ineffective to claim that one can have objective morality or be moral without religion. Even if you are an atheist, you remain true to the book simply by nature of being from a western country. I'm not a Christian, but we live in a Christian culture. Examining different civilizations or religions would have been better to understand mortality or what is an objective morality.
This. Most atheists, especially young atheists, fail to realize that even though we no longer live in a Christian hegemony, our culture and upbringing is still enormously coloured by our religious past.
@@Psyshimmer Thats true but christians use this point to argue dominion over justification over athiest morality when they aren't even using the same starting point they just share similar principles due to cultural influence and personal exerpeience
Japan has close to zero Christian population and Christianity has had zero impact on its culture. Yet crime, from murder and violence to petty crime, is significantly lower than in basically any Christian country, even the most developed, rich and peaceful ones. China, also free from any Christian influence, although relatively poor, has a lot lower crime rate than the vast majority of Christian countries, even the rich and developed ones, and significantly lower than the bastion of Christianity US or the devoutly Catholic countries in the Americas. So has the even poorer India, a majority Hindu, minority Muslim, and close to zero Christian country. In fact, if you check out the list of countries by crime rate, you find Christian countries are very obviously dominate the list (yes, even Muslim countries have lower crime rates by average), and if you count the population, it's even worse, since big non-Christian countries having large population means the non-Christian majority of humanity lives with LESS crime than the Christian minority. And we haven't even gone into the question of the only nominally Christian, but in reality irreligious European countries, like those in Scandinavia, where crime rates are lower than in countries where Christians really believe.... So if morality comes from Christianity, than it's not a very good source relative to other possible sources, and even at that it works better when already abandoned, like in those Scandinavian countries.
What you said at 15:19 is important and many people don't know or overlook it , you can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time , just like you can beleive and be an agnostic , they aren't mutually exclusive . agnostism is about knowledge .
My take on morality as an athiest is that ultimately it all leads back to how we feel about what happens and is done to us and eachother and thats influenced by many things both in and out of our control, this is no different for the religious person as it is for the non religious one.
The research in social psychology (the full body, not the textbooks that cherry pick) is pretty consistent showing that atheists and questers without religious commitment are more moral than people who are religious for extrinsic reasons (eg, prosperity gospel adherents). BUT religious people who are questers with a strong religious foundation are more moral than either. Those who are regarded as canonized saints and living saints in the major traditions only regard the latter type of religious persons as true believers. By the way I grew up in a family that was Confucian and the gods were treated only in a superstitious fashion. My elders were quite moral. So I have no reason to believe that atheists can’t be moral. But I always knew something was missing. Then I became an orthodox Christian in an ancient sacramental tradition and came realize why atheism is adequate. It (certain atheist philosophies) can under favorable conditions help people be good, but never good enough without divine grace. However, non-believers who do prioritize truth unconditionally are necessarily open minded toward goodness in religion. This is regarded by many of the best Christian theologians as evidence of grace seeping into a non-believer’s life. The possible salvation of “non-believers” as being touched by grace though inchoate was in fact officially acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council. And this position builds on patristic and medieval thought. Dogmatic atheists are not interested in nuance any more than fundamentalist Christians. Many of both are in living hells because they do not repent of their narrow mindedness.
That was a great comment. The move from a confuncian background to litterate christian belief does catch the attention, considering that Confucius and Aristotle are the defining voices regarding acquired virtue. You must have carried out a careful reading of life. I believe myself that moral excellence does demand the workings of grace, despite being a staunch atheist. Cheers.
I'm thinking the people who think a book that endorses slavery, misogyny and homophobia is the holy word of gawd and use that to derermine right from wrong are ACTUALLY the ones without a valid moral compass.
it's not that you have no morals yourselves, but you have no basis for any such morality. If survival of the fittest is the truth of the universe, by what right do you complain if a stronger man takes what is yours because you are too weak to stop him? If i'm angry and my will to hurt you and your loved ones is stronger than your will to not let me do that, that's just the way it is. It might be subjectively bad for you, but what does that matter? Doing it made me happy. Oh you want laws and rules because you want to live in a society? Why? Why is that good? Why is anything good? What if someone prefers chaos? What if someone hates society? Then your only rights are the ones you can defend with force. That a world you want to live in? Why not? Yet you do have an inherent sense of good and evil. Isnt that illogical? Where do you suppose it comes from? Selfishness? That's not a great moral framework for all the reasons i said above.
Survival of the fittest is not (solely) about the strongest, it's about the best adapted. And even more detailed: it's about the species, not the individual. So morality is an evolutionary trait to enhance our survival, part of survival of the fittest. Just as our lange brain and being social animals because of safety in numbers.
@@KasperKatje Do you or have you eaten your children? Because evolution evolved that morality for a shocking number of species. You are no more evolved than all of histories greatest conquerors and monsters. Your morals did not evolve from them, they are a social construct. One with no basis in nature. By what metric do you gauge eating a baby to be wrong? Certainly not a natural one.
Good point. Goodness really depends from the one who defines it. If there is no goodness ideal / standard / template: There is nothing to compare yourself to. In that regard you see yourself as one who is better, with better self-control, with better choices made throughout your life. In other words: You have relative morality, measuring to the average, to not stand out too much in debauchery. If there is more criminals among religious people: atheists are kings... or it only means that atheists are better in getting away with it, or it doesn't mean either of these things. Maybe looking into warped mirror: you won't see morality, (or immorality) of your deeds. If you put a collective (atheists) into room full of warped mirrors: You won't be closer to the truth of the matter. Christians have another template to measure against: Life of Christ, and his Saints. Such a comparison offers true visions of our lacks in the same way like when we compare ourselves with heroes who jump into burning building to rescue a child. We see that such a person had a superior courage, and if we are honest we arrive at a conclusion that it's unlikely that we would do that. We wish we could, but would we? We doubt, we bow our head and thank God that we could see hero in action, that he somehow did this. Saints of the early Christianity, who died for what they saw to be the truth offer us one of the dimensions of the comparison, but there are those who although uneducated exemplified heroic virtues of the highest kind, led simple life, but were as beacons of light, like athletes crushing world record, showing that it's possible. Belief in a god, or lack there of doesn't not cause us to be instantly good, but believe in the God may offer us a way, trajectory to start the race against ourselves, world, and evil. The fact that people ask the question about "goodness", or "morality" of one side, or the other point that there has to be a standard, that there is something higher. Some of the conclusions point to "no man is perfect", and that we fail miserably when we compare ourself to brilliancy of the perfect life. Now, we can compare number of criminals (percentage wise), or number of completely average people... but I think it's a wrong way to do it. I would rather point to Saints, and look for equivalents of such people in atheistic world view. It's not about slightly better, or worse average personal moral achievements within a specific group, but about the fact that this specific group produces moral gold-medalists.
An atheist can be moral, but an atheist cannot justify their moral standard. If there is no objective standard for morality then right and wrong are just a matter of preference. Saying "I prefer living in a society without murder." is no different from saying "I prefer eating ice cream for dessert." but a preference is not a justification. Atheists will tend to go one of two ways from here. Either 1. the appeal to consensus or 2. the appeal to harm theory. The appeal to consensus is when atheists argue that whatever the majority of people agree on is correct. If you can't see how this standard fails then there probably isn't much hope for you, this is obviously incorrect. Just because the majority of people agree on something doesn't mean they're correct. The appeal to harm theory might seem good but ultimately fails as well. If you say "Murder is wrong because you're harming another person." then all I have to do is take skepticism to its logical conclusion in order to debunk this. I'll play Hume and ask in response "Ok, who determines what harm is and why is harming people bad?" All I have do is keep asking "Why?" to every single response because there is not justifiable response. Another thing atheists will do is appeal to evolution, which isn't really an argument. An explanation of how something came to be is not an epistemological justification for how we know it to be correct or why we ought to adhere to it.
Her second approach (that of the vicious use of "why?") fails, for she will end up falling into the denial of a statement treated as self-evident. In fact, his second approach can be used against any kind of argumentation and always ending in disagreement with argumentative implications or disagreement with basic premises (in short, his "why?" masks a judgment).
@@martasilva8036 So you believe in self evident truths? Explain to me how murder being bad is self evident. No, stating "why?" over and over is not a judgement. I'm just playing the ultimate skeptic like David Hume.
@@Nick-ij5nt If you do not believe that there is at least one evident truth, any and all argumentation in favor of any conclusion is defeated by principle, and you are even distant from the discussion of the video. Although the claim that murder is wrong cannot be an evident claim in itself, there are more basic axioms that can lead to this conclusion. One of the criticisms made to Hume's "final skeptic" is precisely the fact that it implies a statement about the nature of reasoning (which can also be challenged with the "why?").
@@martasilva8036 So you believe that self evident truths are a necessary precondition for all world views? How do you know this to be the case? I think you're trying to argue because of the impossibility of the contrary, but I'd like for you justify that. Which axioms can justify why murder is wrong and why should I adhere to them? Exactly, but that's an argument in favor of my position. The fact that you can use Hume's skepticism to destroy his own argument shows that it's ultimately absurd. But I can still use Hume as an internal critique of your position in order to expose the flaws in your world view. You still haven't addresses the crux of my argument which is the is-ought dilemma. How do you justifiably derive an ought from an is within an atheist paradigm?
@@Nick-ij5nt I thought this was clear, but Hume's approach is self-defeating. Ultimately, regardless of the context for using his approach, it's not a hurdle here. Whether it's justifying a duty in an atheistic paradigm or justifying a duty in a theistic paradigm, his approach can be used in both 'ad infinitum' so that it doesn't favor any of the scenarios. It's merely a problematic (counterproductive) issue about the nature of reasoning. If you don't grasp this, your situation is complicated.
@@gibbobux1033 That was exactly my point - atheistic bolshevics /mostly of other than slavic ethnicity) had no connections to religious prosecution. Their atheistic prosecution has been terrifying and no fun all the same.
@@gibbobux1033 What I am trying to say that yours: "Crazy atheist = funny Crazy religious person = terrifying" is nonsence. You can have crazy religious persons as well as crazy atheist not funny at all.
Very good. To be able to discern is divine, and being able to discern atheism and natural empiricism was a valid thing to clarify the relationship between atheism and lack of morals. Well done, thanks.
_Existential_ good, in the broadest sense, is well-being, which is experienced as positive valence states in sentient subjects. The more specific sense of _moral_ good is positive valences in the domain of interpersonal motives and the choices generated from them. Ethical right & wrong are defined by the _Principle of Reciprocity,_ which is the normative analogue to the descriptive _Law of Identity._ Below, I'll lay out argumentation logically demonstrating the bases of objective morality: *P1* - The existence of sentient subjects is an objective reality. *P2* - As real entities, subjects have properties inherent to them which may be objectively known and explicated. *P3* - Among the properties of sentience is the inherent capacity to have interests, which may be harmed or benefited. *P4* - This dichotomy of benefit & harm is the ontological basis of intrasubjective normativity, as it entails existential conditions such as "good/bad" and "better/worse" defining what's preferable or non-preferable for a given subject. *P5* - The property of inhering interests further entails that subjects as entities are ultimate ends. *P6* - There exist a multiplicity of distinct subjects with their own interests which may align or conflict with one another, entailing an intersubjective landscape for them to navigate which broadly coincides with the domain we call "morality". *P7* - Subjects are liable to have motive dispositions which generally incline them towards wanting to benefit the interests of others or harm them, entailing that subjects may themselves have normative value of an intersubjective nature, defining their worth as moral ends. *P8* - The concept generally referred to as "justice" entails reciprocity (i.e. commentsurate responsivity) in the intersubjective domain, with impartial and equitable judgments in such matters constituting an objective approach to it. *P9* - The equitable distribution of justice inevitably promotes general intersubjective well-being, in that it reinforces benevolent interpersonal choices & subjects while simultaneously punishing malevolent choices & subjects. *C* - Given the objective reality of sentient subjects, the inherent normative properties of their existence, and the possibility of making epistemologically objective assessments of such normative conditions _(which includes the matter of reciprocity in the intersubjective domain)_ it stands to reason that impartial, existential justice is definitionally the objective basis of natural rights.
@@rageofheaven Yes. Being a purposeful, goal-seeking agent with its own interests necessarily entails being an end. The quality of core motivations a subject operates from determines their existential value as an end.
"P8 - The concept generally referred to as "justice" entails reciprocity (i.e. commentsurate responsivity) in the intersubjective domain, with impartial and equitable judgments in such matters constituting an objective approach to it." And also no. I don't know what legal system you're speaking about, but equality did not come about in any objective manner.
@@rageofheaven All intents and purposes are necessarily in the service of intentional, purposeful agents. Definitionally, sentient agents are _literally_ the ultimate source and end of every purpose.
2:41 "ultimate judge of the universe" A Father's duty is judgement, A Son gets judged, and both are interested in the blood living on. The Ultimate judge of the universe is shown as one without skin in the game. He bears no consequence for his judgements.
Do not let yourself be distracted by the wrong patriarchal image of a "Father" God. Conscious universe itself is the "God", and so he has not only its skin in this Big Game.
Honestly, motality is a balancing act between 3 things: desire, practicality, and truth/fact/logic/etc ( how things can reasonably be desribed as accurate and real). The first thing is deciding which should take priority, as each have benefits and detraments. desire often conflicts with truth, as our brains often try to simplify and exagerate and fantasise things ultimately leading to falsehood. Practicality is often highly restrictive to desirability, and sometimes to truth, for the sake of stability and cohesion, which would leave miserable and clueless but practical/ efficient to the given goal induviduals in its wake. Truth can be great for understanding and advancement, but will involve undesirable and destabilising practices and discoveries by its very persuit as well.
As an Atheist ( which in no way should be taken to mean I speak for all Atheists ), my moral line is established by harm. If what I am thinking about doing could reasonably be expected to cause undue, unnecessary harm or hardship to someone else, then I clearly shouldn't do it. If it won't cause undue harm or hardship to others and I feel a need to do it, I'll most likely do it. Bottom line, for me: The potential for harm defines my morality.
Many of your videos are well explained and easier to consume. Perhaps the limits of my language skills are showing again because I struggled to fully understand this one.
We are a social species, whose survival niche is cooperation with others in our society. We would never have survived if murder and theft were widespread and permitted. It is the intricate and complex evolved instincts that we call morality. Religious people think god put it in our hearts, atheists know it evolved that way.
Not so simple. As beings with the genom of apes practically, cooperation helps to the survival of one specific group only, but not to the species as whole - on the contrary - the strong survival instinct of a group demands hostile behaviour towards other groups. Many a civilization perished exactly because of this, and humanity as a whole has never been so near to extinction in the known history because of the same reason. There always seems to be at least one cooperating group thinking of themselves as the "chosen ones" and with the right to go over dead bodies towards their goals.
@@alena-qu9vj strong is not always the evolutionary path. “Survival of the fittest” I think is the most misunderstood quote of the 19th century. It is fitness as in puzzle fit, not fitness as in strength. Evolution happens to populations not to species, if the same species get sales rated by a mountain range they will in time become two separate sub species and no longer be able to breed. Similarly if one group of humans cooperates allowing better resources gathering and protection. They are going to survive. We see that with melanin in skin. Due to diet and agriculture changes. We are all still human. But if we were separated we may have gone down different paths. I recommend you read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins it explains this very clearly.
According to science Either something IS good or bad IS completely subjective, as It IS a mechanism in our brain created because if millions of years of Evolution that mainly destroying, harming and other actions are bad as they can inderectly harm you or your close ones, that's a very important behavior as if we wouldn't have it, we would harm each other without caring and the species would go extint.
I know you focus on quality and accuracy a lot, but I’d love to just watch a video where you have no script and shoot from the hip. Also just wanna say your content is great I’ve been watching like all your videos for the last month.
The idea of Lucifer is quite interesting. Let’s say this if Lucifer does indeed exist then why would a “Good God” permit such a being to interact with his creation? Why not snuff him out or destroy him? Unless god Knew that he would fall and temp people away from God so God has justification to destroy or send people to hell! And since god is all knowing he knew who he wanted to destroy or get rid off so in conclusion humanity has no free will only God’s will! See how bad that is? God made Lucifer so people would be tempted and God could destroy them with the justification that they had “turned away”
I prefer to contrast that against Crime and Punishment, because Rodion justified murdering his moneylender but discovers that his conscious betrays him, the investigator suspects him almost immediately, and he gets punished with hard labour in Siberia. This sounds like Dostoevsky pointing out we are the ones that need to put consequences in place.
Here is a phenomenological definition of goodness: Goodness is whatever a living being subjectively feels ought to exist, implying a need to act to bring it about whenever the opportunity arises. This definition is objectively true in the sense that it can be observed from our behavior in the material world. Since it's describing a phenomena which one can experience within one's self and see in others, the definition is not arbitrary. However, it is subjective in the sense that it provides no basis for a morality that everyone can agree upon.
I am a Buddhist, so my definition of morality is as follows: That which produces well-being, reduces suffering, or does both is moral. That which reduces well-being, produces unnecessary suffering, or does both is immoral.
A good example of this is gaining a large amount of wealth. The wealth brings a lot of well-being for yourself and your family so working hard to acquire wealth is a good and moral thing to do. If, however, the acquisition of that wealth brings a lot of suffering by causing poverty and hardships for other people then that action becomes immoral. Seek the noble path by staying in the middle. Just enough wealth to bring well-being but not so much or in a way that it causes suffering.
Many religious (primarily Christians in my experience and bias as a committed Christian) say that God doesn’t invent goodness, nor is it a source outside of Him that He has to bend to (if that were the case then our worship should be devoted to that source of goodness rather than God) but that God is, in His very nature, good. To do a good action is to participate on a metaphysical level with good and therefore with God since God is good in and of Himself. In contrast, many Muslims (in my admittedly limited knowledge of Islamic philosophy) posit that whatever Allah says goes and it is good because he said so, no matter if he is contradicting other previous commandments. Goodness is good because Allah said, not because Allah is good in and of himself. Any Muslim thinkers, feel free to correct me if I am getting your faith terribly wrong.
The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice05241
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS:
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
CLARIFICATION: Just in case I did not make it clear in the video, I am massively simplifying the literature around pro-social behaviour and religiosity. As I said in meta-analyses there is a slight correlation but a lot of what I looked at suggested we should be careful about blowing the effect out of proportion or saying that atheists are necessarily more anti-social. There is a complex relationship here that is difficult to summarise in a few minutes.
Not sure about some of the arguments. It would depend on the definition of God with respect to your section on "morality needs God". If God were defined as the ultimate good in the universe, or a "maximal good being". Then it follows that God would already know what is moral, that the definition of moral would then be static. If the definitions of moral are not static, then God is not maximal (as morality would then have superseded God), and would not be God. The contrapositive implication is that morality cannot exist from a material world view. Only dualism or idealism can solve for morality. Not atheism (materialism). The atheist must argue for materialism, and ultimately the idea that morals are constructed, or at the very least epiphenomenal.
Yr proof J e s u s energy wash Enjoy ✨
I am curious on your perspective of Alan Watts…
Carl Watts is a man who grasped for redemption when it was far far too late. His mind might change, but his crimes will always remain. The only strange things about the story is why did he willingly confess? This is a question that cannot be answered materially if I understand the point of your question correctly. In any case a man is subject to morality. And he has been deemed a criminal. And our laws do not come from material necessity. We do not marvel when a lion kills his cub. The lion is an animal. But a man is held to a moral law. Such action not only makes him worthy of prison, but even Carl Watts' own mind cried out against him for justice.
@@leocilliers4346 ALTHOUGH I LOVE THIS INTERPRETATION, I MEANT ALAN WATTS IM SO SORRY YOU HAD TO WRITE THAT💀💀
As a religious person, atheists offer a very important lesson to believers BECAUSE of their morals. It shows us that these people, despite believing in no higher power, no greater cosmic judgement, still choose to be good simply for the sake of being good. They have morals when no morals are technically enforced on them from a divine being from their viewpoint. And that's whats so important to learn. The ability to be a good human simply for the sake of being a good human.
👏
Is that how you describe the atheist treatment of the palestinians? Choosing to be good by supporting genocide?
One thing I've always wondered about, and i apologize in advance if this is a bad question, what do theists think about evil theists? If a priest turns out to diddle kids, do Christians think the priest wasn't a believer in the first place?
It just seems absurd to me that someone thinks god is always watching, and still decides to do things they'd never imagine doing in plain view of, say, their own father.
Being a good human is its own reward. It feels good and makes one happy to be good. Morality is a choice in my absurdist atheistic worldview.
Believing is like an application. No one who does not apply will get the job, but not everyone who does will get him eather. @@BryanReggie
Yours is one of the only channels that both theists and atheists can watch without feeling attacked for their beliefs.
There are plenty
I feel attacked by his looks. He's so pretty is very distracting!
Beliefs? Between a theist and atheist, there is only one belief and one lack there of my dude.
@@aaronvoxous7806 lack of belief in a God is also a belief
@@الحمدلله101 my guy, please explain, how a lack of belief, is a belief. Currently your statement is a contradiction.
As an atheist myself I recognize the social and "spriritual" function of god in a civil society. People do need to know why historically and in modern times religion/spirituality is important. It is man's sense of purpose made manifest.
Marx told everyone about its function. They just refused to and still refuse to listen.
There is nothing more ironic than atheist knowing the important of things and then proudly reject it. The stupidity is truly astonishing to see.
@@DJWESG1 Marx was biased and we've seen obvious indications that blind dogmatism extends beyond the scope of religion.
I agree and I am a catholic
@@Psyshimmer are you on your period?
"Character is what you do when no one is watching" This quote has helped to be more mindful and considerate to live in a way that wouldn't cause harm.
So are my masturbatory activities actually a character building exercise? LOL
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
Goodness needs no justification, because Good is its own justification, and so is Evil.
Humans possess an instinct for "compassion" and an instinct for "cruelty". This is what we perceive as good and evil respectively.
We are trying to express the instincts inherent within us, and every instinct follows its own logic and justifies itself with its own logic.
If I was a naturally compassionate person, I could say "Suffering is inevitable, therefore I should help others as much as possible."
If I was a naturally cruel person, I could say "Suffering is inevitable, therefore I should abandon others and focus on myself."
None of these logic chains prove anything! They only reveal a person's natural proclivities!
Agreed 💯
Very good
Highly agreed! Beautiful comment! Regardless of what you believe in goodness needs no justification. It is what it is. 💯🔥
Are these "instincts" present from the moment we're born, or are they learned? (nature vs nurture).
Do we judge people differently and/or enforce different punishments for people with different instincts?
Good point
this guy is one of the smartest people ive ever seen on this platform
At least he know how to look like one for sure
Sure, he is.
he isnt even he admits that
Yes, he is very smart and funny.
Ask him who he says that about
As an orthodox christian i am looking forward to watch this video. It is nice to see more and more christian/god centered videos on your channel.
I disagree. Of all the fictions man has ever come up with, this one has been the most over-analysed. Let's try another one for diversity's sake.
@@Victor_Andrei You are on youtube not reddit.
@@skurt9109 shit, you're right. My bad.
@@Victor_Andrei No worries brother👍
@@Noname-lw6hp not religion as a whole, just this flavour of this version of this personification of the universe aka the Christian diety of Yahwe or however you're meant to spell it. I reckon a video on norse mythology could takle much the same lines of reasoning, but in a far more interesting manner perhaps!
I'm learning English and I really appreciate that the video has subtitles, which makes me understand better. Good video :) 👍
I'm Muslim and I enjoy your videos and perspectives. It's broaden my views about how other ppl understanding religions, the philosophy aspects in life
I read the title and I knew it was about the brothers Karamazov, it's such a great book honestly and your take on the thesis and arguments seemed all impartial enough that I believe both an atheist and a religious person can enjoy this video
Wow, this was pretty great. I have spent much of my time since deconvertion wrestling with what morality is. You managed to sum up most of what I have found in this brief video.
Good job.
Great video again!
Pertaining to secularism vs religious societal benefits: The most intriguing argument I've heard for the benefit of religion/theism is the difference in how people are likely to act when there is no one to witness a wrong-doing.
For religious, god's omnipresence/omniscience plays the role of witness when no other sentient beings are there to witness the act.
For secularists, they usually claim to have an internal guilty-conscious, which plays a similar role to god in this sense, and can incentivize them to change how they behave as well.
Notably however, the god witness can be used to deter behaviors of malicious people through threat of condemnation, while the same does not necessarily apply to a malicious secularist. For secularism, we have to hope there is some human witness to deter the behavior of an individual or hope that the individual's guilty-conscious will do it themselves.
I'm defining malicious here as: the willingness to put others in harms way for sake of ones own benefit (kinda similar to rejecting Kant's categorical imperative). Also, the theory for why secular people do good things when no one is looking (a.k.a. guilty conscious) is an intriguing conversation topic as well.
Pertaining to moral relativism and how we may be able to criticize other cultures: I think we can criticize other cultures via epistemic responsibility.
This is similar to the reasons why we aren't inclined to believe a conspiracy theorist with sketchy sources of information as opposed to an authority on the subject with more reliable sources. While we may not necessarily always trust a person with authoritative status, we at least know that they are knowledgeable, which cannot be rationally inferred for the conspiracy theorist. To critique another culture in the relativistic world-view, we wouldn't exactly be critiquing their morality so much as we would be critiquing their sources of information.
Many atheists try to strawman or simplify why a Christian pursued good. They think we just “pursue good so we don’t go to Hell or because there’s a God watching.” I’m gonna keep it straightforward with you, from my experience, most long-term Christians aren’t motivated by the very concept of God or judgement being a thing. That’s a very superficial view, one that only children or those who stay in the faith for a little hold.
We pursue good because good is God in itself, such as the view attempts to show. We pursue it because it’s the only thing we truly have.
But yeah, it does play a role, but it’s typically not the drive that moves us long-term.
There’s many other big causations, like our relationship of God and other concepts that directly cause this big motive, but Hell and judgement aren’t typically that crazy. My view on it is whatever happens, I know that God has made the right decision. Can’t sit there and argue with Him, I’m not even supposed to be going to heaven in the first place. But He cares for me, very much so, and that simply becomes another drive to pursue good.
@@christopherlabbe6543 Does god care about what relationship you have with him? For example, how does god judge these different types of believers:
1. Someone who is a devout believer and has never committed a sin since being born.
2. Someone who frequently sins, but repents.
3. Someone whose belief occasionally wavers.
4. Someone who doesn't care for god but abides by Pascal's wager.
Does god have favorites amongst his believers? Also, do these factors even influence your chances of getting into heaven? To me, it sounds like your relationship with god is something that you do for yourself rather than something god cares about.
I think you’ve straw-manned the Abrahamic God entirely and that you have a lack of comprehension regarding Him, which is fully fine, however, don’t use that centric knowledge to enforce something about my prepositions and philosophy that is far from true.
For the first question, regarding if God cares about what relationship you have with him, yes, this is self-evident in Christian ideology. A non-indifferent God has been proposed in an advanced, complex manner for centuries, in fact, that is what Christianity is dependent on. God love us so much so that He sent His only son, Jesus, to die on a cross for us. He is not an indifferent God, and an indifferent God is not one worth worshipping.
For your different “plausibilities”, we are to know God judges accordingly and there’s an entirely complex, developed philosophy in the topic of judgement, one that Paul introduces well. However, you’ll likely not listen to that, so I’ll simplify my answers to your questions.
1.) That doesn’t exist, such is what Christianity is dependent on, all men have sinned except He who knows no sin, Jesus.
2.) Very complex, can’t water this down, however, He loves them just as much as those who don’t sin in a repeating manner.
3.) Very complex, however, know that this is the majority of Christians. This isn’t a deal-breaker that stops them from the faith. And this is also talked about biblically, something of the sort is seemed to be expected. Christians are not robots, we are human, I promise you, the most basic, superficial answer is enough for this.
Someone who doesn’t care for God but abides in Pascal’s Wager: We go into heaven by faith not works, although this is complex too. A man who has a superficial faith, one that isn’t genuine, can’t believe He is saved. And therefore, won’t be able to be accepted into heaven as, He hasn’t accepted God’s saving Himself. How can God save someone who declines wanting to be saved. And if you know of the Christian God, in a non-strawmanning way, and believe that you are saved, how could you not care about God and do His will.
Does God have favorites?: The most basic, superficial answer could suffice for this too. Like I said, we go to heaven for faith, not works. So no man can boast.
I promise you, Christianity isn’t dependent on judgement, because Christians on judgement have a mediator, Jesus, who intercedes on their behalf and dies for their sins, so that they might receive the gift of salvation.
I have thought of 3 semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought logical fallacy:
1. It appears that only living beings have the experience of goodness. It is their experience of goodness that causes them to behave in the way they do. Therefore, it stands to reason that if we want our morality to have an effect on the material world, it must deal with prescriptions for the behavior of living beings.
2. Any existing thing which destroys itself more than it propagates itself ceases to exist. This applies to all things: stars, animals, and morals, etc. In the case of inanimate objects like stars, they do not directly spawn from one another (at least not consistently), but the same underlying process produces them. In the case of living beings, they spawn from similar living beings who came first. Morality is like a living being in this respect. The morals that are best at propagating themselves will endure. If we care about our morality being widely adopted, it must be structured in such a way that it is good at spreading and maintaining itself.
3. It feels good to feel good, and we are motivated to do those things that feel good. Therefore, if something is good to do, it is good to feel good while doing it, so that it can be done more often.
These are only semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought fallacy, because they still require moral suppositions. The first requires the moral supposition that we care about our morality having a material effect on the world. The second requires that we do not want our morality to be successful rather than to destroy itself. The third requires that we care about doing good things (although this seems to come from the definition of goodness itself). But they are not entirely weak either, because the first is based on sensory observation, the second is based on logic, and the third is based on our experience of what goodness means. This is not a coincidence, because my metaphysics (based on phenomenology) treat sensory information (the basis of facts), logic, and values, as elements of faith from which we build ALL of our other experiences.
So, the correct morality according to this line of thought is prescriptions for living beings which will tend to spread the morality that they practice (and also the living beings themselves, if that was useful for spreading the morality), that feels good to those who practice it.
This fits in nicely with my other moral view that all existing things are good. In order for living beings and things that act like living beings (such as morals) to exist, they must struggle to act in their own interests. So, it is in the nature of morality to prescribe actions that allow morality to exist.
I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page.
I don't quite agree with that, morality is fundamentally a matter of what is true, and not all truth is material in nature. it doesn't just exist inside us, it extend beyond our own perception, otherwise morality would be no different than opinion.
for example, kindness, compassion, patience, humility. These are all good qualities regardless of your perception. Logic and reasoning isn't material either and yet we know it has rules and exists outside our own perception.
envying, jealousy, greed, hating each other, lying. These are bad qualities regardless of your perception.
being good doesn't always mean benefiting ourselves but being bad will always lead to someone getting hurt, even if the actions makes you feel good.
Why is kindness an objectively good quality? Just curious. @@justiceiria869
@@justiceiria869 "or example, kindness, compassion, patience, humility. These are all good qualities regardless of your perception. "
But without perception, those are just words. Values do not exist in a void.
"I don't quite agree with that, morality is fundamentally a matter of what is true, and not all truth is material in nature. it doesn't just exist inside us, it extend beyond our own perception, otherwise morality would be no different than opinion."
....morality is very much an opinion. enough people and you have a societal norm. these change with shifts in ideologies, due to cultural changes over time.
"I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page."
Perhaps philosophy doesn't offer people anything to act rational. Or threaten them apparently.
@@rageofheaven you can't tell me i am wrong if morality is "just an opinion".
If morality can shift by perception ,what is wrong can be right tomorrow and what is right can be wrong. Judgement becomes meaningless when everything is just an opinion.
You claim i am somehow wrong while at the same time telling me that morality is just an opinion. Don't you realise that this doesn't make sense?
You are basically saying that murder and stealing can be right if social norms shift. If someone told you this while taking your stuff and then murdering you. Are you going to agree with him if this was considered "the norm"?
I learned years ago that the Golden Rule exists, in some form, in every major religion in the world. Reflecting on that, I realized that it doesn't require a god to exist in order for it to be valid, because it's entirely about how one person relates to others.
It’s kinda what Kant’s categorical imperatives boils down to. The golden rule, although grounded a bit differently
"Exists in every major religion" - "doesn't require god". Sus
The golden rule does not exist in every major religious system.
Especially if you extend the idea to “replacement religions“ which tend to pop up in post Christian/antichristian societies like Nazi Germany, communist Russia, communist China, communist Cambodia etc.
Pre-Christian Viking and Germanic societies did not believe in the golden rule. Pre-Christian Greek and Roman societies did not believe in the golden rule.
Any resemblance to believing in a “golden rule” applied only to those within the tribal group and no one outside the tribal group.
When we talk about golden rule being applied universally, you are talking about the Judeo Christian tradition, as humans are considered to be a value and sacred because they’re all created equal in the image of God and our beloved of God.
The universality is what is different and what has led to modern western liberal Democratic Society.
@@mbmurphy777I think what they're saying is that there's a pattern.
@@alias_crouton2671 I agree that this pattern holds up for many traditional religions, but is mainly applicable to the people in that religious tradition, rather than universal.
I’m sure a lot of Muslims believe in the golden rule *for other Muslims*, not necessarily universally (with the exception of Sufi and other similar sects). Probably most Sunnis would not extend the golden rule to shia Muslims and vice versa.
I’m not sure about Hinduism. Historically they seem pretty chill, but the BNP is currently trying to re-organize Indian society along Hindu nationalist lines.
I suspect Buddhists are universalists in terms of the golden rule.
Then you look at atheist “religions“ like nationalism, Nazism, communism, and woke authoritarianism. These are all explicitly founded on the idea that people are not created equal (in other words, group or collective goals are more important than any particular individual) and that individuals are not worthy of dignity and respect, and are suitable to be used as a means to an end.
Judeo Christian ethics believe that all humans are created equal in the image of God ,and are beloved of God, therefore inherently sacred and worthy of dignity and respect, etc. That’s the Golden rule applies universally. The universality does come with the price that evangelists can be a little obnoxious because they’re always trying to convert everyone. But the United States has demonstrated that you can have a secular government modeled on Judeo Christian ethics… at least while the populace is mainly following Judeo Christian traditions. It’s unclear if that can continue without those traditions.
We saw what happened in Europe after dechristianization.
Malthusian ethics, social Darwinism, scientific racism, Nazism, communism, nationalism all superseded, or took the place formally held by the Judeo Christian ethics.
To me something is evil/good like chocolate is poisonous for a dog's health. "Poison" doesn't describe some object, chocolate isn't intrinsically poisonous, but rather it's a description of a natural object's effect on a being's constitution. The poisonous aspect "supervenes" over the chocolate.
In that sense I see wrongness as something that supervenes over an action that negatively effects ones character and constitution.
You never can say that some action has negative effects only in our dual relative reality. You learn most (positive effect) from actions which originally might have effected you negatively.
It’s not actually the chocolate that is bad for dogs it’s the caffeine in chocolate thats bad for dogs however caffeine is bad for humans as well.
I think that morals evolved as we became more dependent on staying in a group to survive so this is something that’s been with us for millions of years
It’s easy to be moral when you are afraid of something unseen. That’s the basis of religion. But real morality is being moral for the sake of it, knowing that nobody is judging you or holding you accountable for anything. That’s when your true self can be seen
A "tru self" rised in a a... Religios family? Of course you will be a nornal dude, cause soceity has values iven if you dont belive in them deeply
Obviosuly if a soceity has a certain values, you don't want to go gaints that
But libertinage and lack of virtue end in the same garbge, literally look "good people" with "modern values", total barbarians or idiots with good intentions
Vegans, pro palestine lol, feminists, corrput OnG
Lot of these groupes openly laic, atbeist or "" beliveers""" but there are no values
Thia video is good, but is just the theory, in practice things are always different, an human morals can decay beliver or not
Sorry if my english is not that good
Personally, as a religious person. And wanting to give a different view point. I think that argument falls apart when you consider the idea of what is morality.
@@josephfox514 Why is that? Being good for the sake of being good isn't morality? That's the purest form of morality there is in my opinion.
@theultimategodofgaming3200 As I was taught by my religion, morality is a character in a book who does the better thing in a hard situation. And that the ultimate goal is Christ to become like Christ in the ways of self-sacrificing.
However, when your goal is to be good and do good. How do you know your doing that? What's your example? What is the determining factor? How do you self-sacrifice and know that it is worth that effort?
And that is a legit question. What or who do you look for morals?
@@josephfox514 Morality does not necessarily mean self-sacrifice, it just means showing compassion. As another commenter said, our morality comes from our evolutionary instincts of compassion and cruelty. Compassion developed out of an evolutionary necessity, because of our nature as a social species. A society where people are fine with murdering each other whenever they feel like it isn't going to last very long. Cruelty is also necessary, however. It developed out of a desire to protect the in-group. If a predator or a rival tribe threatens your family, it makes sense to develop an instinct to eliminate that threat. In this way, we evolved to be compassionate towards our in-group, and cruel towards any out-groups. This benefited our survival in the past, but sadly this mentality has been hijacked by various totalitarian ideologies, many of which are religious ones. The only way we can move past this is if we start to see all of humanity as our in-group, and not just those belonging to our specific race, gender, religion, or any other identifying characteristics.
You're a brilliant dude. I enjoy listening to you weave your way in and out of philosophies of the old, keep at it, the absolute truth is the goal. Also, did you purposely make this vid 24:24 or am I reading too much into it?
it's my basic understanding that everyone is born an atheist then some are taught to believe because that is how their moral framework is given.
as an atheist my moral lessons came in the forms of real world applications from my parents, for example don't hurt others because you yourself wouldn't like being hurt and so on, if i would punch my dad he would grab me and pinch me very hard so it hurt real bad and made the logical connection for me that what i was doing was hurtful and so what i disliked being done to me i did not do to others.
and with time there was more difficult questions being asked and so i had to dive deep into logic behind these basic statements that i was taught in order to form new logical reasoning to these difficult morality questions. which i just sum up to self preservation as in survival and societal good as in survival. my survival and everyone elses survival and finding the line of where is too cautious and where is too reckless.
Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos.
@@DesOttsel self preservation is still there, it's just not extended to anyone you don't value, meaning morality flies out the window at the first sign of trouble like it often does because you have very little moral framework if not properly established or followed.
incidentally this is why i think religion was first founded, when chief is away someone else has to be the arbiter and you can't let the person who has the most to say about it be the judge so they leave it to a power higher than them, namely a god.
but that's just my theory about it.
emotions overrule any morality or rationality we have and we are left with whatever mayhem we cause.
i'm sure you've heard the term crime of passion. this happens regardless no matter how moral a society becomes.
that's the fear of losing grip on morality in a world of humans, humans doing as their basic instincts tell them. showing us how little difference there is between us and animals.
you cant be born an atheist, atheists have a firm belief that there is no god, you cant have such concept when you're born.
@@DesOttsel "Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos."
Unless, of course, that source of morality was the primary contribution to the violence and chaos. Do schisms not exist amongst those whom claim what god wants or doesn't?
Nicely done 👍 Broad overview for the short format, brought in contemporary sources & props for philosophy of science and naturalistic fallacy mentions.
As an Agnostic, I just go with "Treat others how you want them to treat you"
Unfortunately, there is a lot of selfdestructing psychopaths out there - and they are also going by this.
@@alena-qu9vj
Lol and........ there are a lot of _"self destructing psychiopaths"_ out there even if your specific subjective God exists dear
@@trumpbellend6717 So??
@@alena-qu9vj
SO... many of them use your "God" as their moral reference standard dear. Indeed tell me, how could Adam or indeed mankind make moral choices without being able to differentiate good from evil ?? Without knowledge of right and wrong every moral "choice becomes meaningless, choice *A* no more valid than the diametrically opposed choice *B*
And yet ...... dispite Gods foreknowledge of this he still decided to deny Adam and Eve this knowledge and to punish not only them for gaining this knowledge but also their descendants ?? 🤪 how utterly absurd and immoral!!
We have names for people who do not know how to differentiate right from wrong and we lock such people up in concrete boxes or execute them. Yet this is how your "God" wanted mankind to be (and we would still be if not for the Serpent) and you think him a perfect moral reference standard 😂😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@trumpbellend6717 Have no idea how your lecture relates to what I remarked and honestly have no interest to find out.
4:50 || I find this topic very interesting, especially since I'm from Scandinavia. I once did a report in sociology class on how religion impacts Danes and Americans, where the guy named Phil Zuckerman claimed that "The more you struggle, the easier you turn to religion" whereas I believe that to be true, seeing as we in Denmark have a welfare system that will catch us if we fall, unlike in the US where it's a "to each their own" kind of deal, where the government will not catch you if you fall.
Another thing Phil Zuckerman brought up was the fact that America, unlike Denmark, has state and church separately, meaning the churches funds themselves, while in Denmark we have the state funding our churches. But for some reason, despite the churches being funded by the government, Denmark still manages to be the least religious country in the world (as far as I'm concerned), whereas it would make more sense if we were more religious since church is accessible for everyone (I hope that made sense). In short: Because we know the government will help us if we're in need, we don't feel the need to rely on religion or pray. Me personally, I'm atheist.
I take a position similar to Sam Harris: love is logical and science allows us to act better aligned with our ethics along with its continued advancement. Because through scientific discoveries we find cures to alleviate suffering, we invent tools to protect life, to have better food, etc.
It's also because we love as most are chemically wired(please don't get pedantic about my wording here), unless you have a condition like psychopathy, we gravitate towards care and kindness. Though this comes in different forms, it is similar in how we react to others. We share and offer food. We respond to sadness, we feel when another is lonely. These things, as wired into us are natural occurences. We are ethically inclined to love and care. Gods are not necessary for this
It was pleasant to read :) I just think God is creator of those rules, which makes them visible to all, believers or not. Being good wins in the long term.
The is/ought dilemma fails because it assumes, not _objective_ morality but _absolute_ morality. An example of this is the problem of defining goodness itself. As most people consider it, "goodness" is _absolute,_ always the same for everyone at all times. Most who follow theistic religions even think Good™ is an actual force that's active in the world, in opposition to Evil™. But that's demonstrably false - goodness certainly relies on context. The same action can be good (e.g. killing in self-defense) or evil (e.g. random murder) depending on the circumstances. (There's always more to any given context than my simple statements, but they make the point.)
That's not to say that morality is relative. Conclusions drawn from a full context are objective because the facts comprising the context are definite and unchangeable. Therefore, moral judgments based on full context are as objective as anything can be, so long as logic and reason are the only assessment devices employed. (Then again, not to use logic and reason is to drop context, therefore not objective.)
Another case of assuming absoluteness is that what is good for one is good for all no matter what (i.e. _without_ context). That, I think, comes from Kant's categorical imperative, which should be scrapped altogether because the imperatives are defined as applying to all, regardless of context, which is absurd. Instead, the idea should be more like his _hypothetical_ imperative. That is to say: what is good depends upon the nature of who is taking action and what the actor's goal is. For example, _If_ you want to _be_ (the _is)_ alive, you _ought_ to eat food that is nutritious for a human being. Eating such food is _good_ for living entities. Note that, say, horses (a different species) ought to eat different food that's nutritious for a horse, by _their_ nature, if they want to stay alive (which, generally, they do). So the _ought_ (eat stuff in line with your particular nature as a living entity) depends directly on the _is_ (being alive) and the goal (remaining so).
Note that there is no necessity for a god to be involved. If a god or gods exist, their only role might have been to create living beings, therefore determining their natures. After that, things are just what they are, no more intervention necessary. Certainly no diktat about morality - it's already baked in.
But we know from scientific fact that life developed via completely natural processes, so the gods didn't even do that. If they exist. Which they don't because there is absolutely no actual evidence that they do. And by definition there can't be, since we are unable to detect them in any manner, according to all religious writings. (We also know what the "Big Bang" was, if not yet precisely how it worked. So no gods needed there, either. And it's not "everything from nothing." No reputable physicist says that.)
In summary, goodness is not Goodness™. It's not absolute, it's contextual. It depends on the nature of the being taking action and the goal of that action. And no god is necessary to define it or make judgments based on it.
A proper morality is objective without gods. What it's not, as I stated above, is absolute.
It comes down to this: the good is that which benefits a living entity, the evil is that which harms a living entity.
There are infinite actions that can do either, and infinite contexts that apply to those. So there are infinite × infinite possibilities. Which is a lot.
Each living entity has a nature, in effect and in general according to its species. That's an indisputable fact. An _is._ What a living entity _ought_ to do is live according to that nature, choosing among all the possibilities that benefit it.
Some might object that such a morality allows actions that cause harm, for example, robbery. This is false because as soon as you engage in robbery with the expectation of no consequences, you're granting that _you_ can be robbed with impunity because there's no way to justifiably claim that your actions should be treated differently than anyone else's. (Jefferson nailed it with his famous "created equal" statement in the Declaration of Independence.) Robbery does _not_ benefit you because you too can be robbed. Since the entire context must be taken into account, that "robbery reciprocity" must be addressed. The only rational conclusion is that robbery is wrong, given all the facts in the full context of a human life. Therefore it belongs on the evil side of the ledger. Objectively, being based on facts, logic, and reason.
The same reasoning can be applied to every other possible action, with an equally objective assigned moral status. Thus morality, the _oughts,_ are objectively determined by the facts, the is-es.
You have a faulty logic. Natural processes CAN be governed by the "gods" still. Just because you see how natural processeses function on some low level doesn't mean you have the full grasp of these processes on all levels.
@@MNorbert89 I see your point. It still stands, though, that there is absolutely no actual evidence for anything supernatural. Also, there is no _need_ for anything supernatural for valid explanations/descriptions of reality. Adding gods just makes things more complicated for no good reason. Occam might have something to say about that.
Positing gods with zero evidence is arbitrary, and arbitrary claims with no evidence to back them up (which arbitrary claims don't have) can be rejected out of hand because there's no substance in them to even acknowledge. So says the tiny blue elephant on my shoulder.
P.S. Norb is my Minecraft name. 😁
@@MichaelPizis their evidence against the supernatural and god
@@durrangodsgrief6503 To my knowledge, there are two ways to look at that. It's the responsibility of the one making a positive claim to provide evidence to support that claim. It's not anyone's responsibility to disprove that claim. If that weren't the case, one could claim that anything at all is true and others would have to accept it if they couldn't prove the claim false. The tiny, blue elephant on my shoulder is incorporeal, so it cannot be detected in any way. Since it is impossible to detect it, it would be nonsensical for me to demand that anyone accept its existence (despite poor Jumbolita's hurt feelings from not being believed in). Because gods are unverifiable, the claim that they exist is arbitrary and can be rejected in the same way. This is not evidence or a claim that gods don't exist, it's merely remaining agnostic on the question.
Second, note that it is the responsibility of the one making a _positive_ claim to provide evidence for it. It can be argued that the claim that gods _don't_ exist is a positive claim, specifically a claim of their explicit nonexistence. This is different than simply dismissing an arbitrary (unverifiable) claim, since the one doing the dismissing need not take a stand either way on the claim's truth or falsehood, thus has no responsibility to provide any evidence. But by taking the definite (positive) stand that gods definitely do _not_ exist, it is incumbent on _that_ claimant to prove it. I don't know what direct evidence can prove that claim, though many have made evidentiary arguments for it. My own argument is based on indirect evidence plus reasoning. I've never explicitly stated it, so I admit that, though I'm satisfied with it, it must be at least a little nebulous and needs to be fleshed out.
My internal response to the thumbnail was "That's why being agnostic is the morally superior move."
The cope is strong with this one 😅
This is why I should wait until the end of the video to make responses, I was making a joke about how I'm coping with my agnostic religious position and then you mention pretty early on that you are also agnostic and I don't want you to think that I think you are the one coping....🤦♂️
@@tylerwarwick7975 lol
@@tylerwarwick7975 me too
"Show me one atom of good, one molecule of justice"
It's from Santahog
'Hogfather - Terry Pratchett'
I fell down the meta-ethics rabbit hole a number of years ago, and from where I stand the problem is not whether atheists can be moral, but rather how we can continue to speak of ‘morality’ when we know that moral language has no inherent meaning. I can see how a religious person might use a god-entity as a kind of anchor, but this is a problem largely because a divine conception of morality cannot be expected to be in any way understandable or applicable to mortal beings.
I can never remember who wrote this (I think it was Ayer) but sometimes we have a word without anything to which it refers. We assume that there *must* be a referent - why else would we have the word? - but there is no reason why such a referent must exist. Morality is an example of this: areferential language.
The problem discussed in the second part of the video I think, is born of peoples attempts to find an example which taken state has the property of goodness, instead of searching for an explanatory definition. What is good? = which actions and items have the properties of goodness, what is the the property to which the label good is applied.
As an atheist I never understood why people need a reason to be "good". For me being good is the default not the exception.
you do not know what good is.
@@L1_L2to say that is unbelievably ignorant. It's appalling
@@lyrenbells you don’t know either.
@@L1_L2 I should clarify in saying that you don't as well is what I mean by my last comment. I never claimed to know
@@L1_L2 nobody knows because nobody *can* know
You are pronouncing every single syllable in a word; that is riveting to listen to.
Your videos are engaging. Having said so, let it be born into your mind that philosophy is in fact a personality-a closeted atheist- wanting to be out by not itself by its readers, learners, and followers, and in that case, it is YOU, as religions do. so it is the amalgamation of both notions as you are in your thinking tilting towards atheism.
I might be amiss; I am open to other notions.
Thank you for reading.
I was an atheist, I would say becoming an atheist is like a freeing experience at first, you see the world in a very sceptical and rational way and only examine people on how they behave with you. After sometime I felt I lost something to hold me together, it felt like I was falling piece by piece. Then I turned to God and now I have peace within me. I feel whole and I can improve and be better.
makes sense, suddenly being able to explain away anything that goes wrong because of a magic man in the sky, sure makes it easier to justify everything.
During the whole video I was thinking about a gospel passage that says: "By their fruits you will know them" and meditating on it a little bit is that it evokes a series of questions, in the case of Scandinavia, for example, (which we know that despite being one of the most secularised regions in the world, it is also one of the richest, most developed and with the lowest crime rate), to what extent are these "fruits" related to its centuries of Christianity? And what about the "fruits" of the atheist regimes that humanity saw during the 20th century?
This naturally leads to the next question, namely what would the "fruits" of moral realism as opposed to its counterpart moral anti-realism be?
To me there's something strange and unsettling about people that behave in a moral way only because they are scared to be judged by a god. 😮
@hemantjain2387 I have personally talked to people that confirmed what I said in my opening post.
It's a bit of a dilemma. It's similar to how some people told me they love god because god commanded that they did. It's like love me or else.
@ulrichenevoldsen8371 I agree. It makes me wonder if religious people's goodness comes from a sincere place. Moreover, being good in order to secure a place in heaven is also unsettling.
Then you have misunderstood christianity.
@@skurt9109 I agree. But there is still a lot of people that have these beliefs. Misunderstood or not. But ok to be fair its not like I have talked to more than a few dusin people or so about this.
@@tevbuff yea. Maybe if you grow up with that sort of belief it's easy to adopt it yourself
"naturalistic empiricists on paper sheets and moral spiritualists in messy streets." Excellent wording.
My unwitting search for answers in this area I have always fallen back on two things. The first is the oldest rule in every book and I believe is found in every religion around the world to some extent. Treat others the way you want to be treated. The other is a common belief of many Americans, and inspired by the spirit of the U.S. constitution, that you are free and should be free to do whatever you want as long as is does not cause harm to others.
I love your channel, and I feel it is extremely underrated.
On a tangent, when I heard you use this phrase, I immediately had a flashback to the late 90's or early 2000's when I was walking in a mall and I saw a shirt with two of the actors from the show the Golden Girls on it. The phrase written on it was "Dorothy in the streets and Blanche in the sheets." I still chuckle at its corniness.
10:50 If i remember correctly, The Open Question argument isn't just for naturalism, but also supernaturalism. The question applies when ascribing good to a fact, natural or supernatural.
Maybe the best channel
Morality does not require god.. all it needs are feelings, empathy and suffering, those 3 elements that are naturally inherited by human beings in this cruel world will lead to morality as a byproduct.
Something immaterial, abstract and universal cannot be grounded in merely mortal men. You need Christ to justify morality. He is the Lawgiver with an All-knowing Mind that put a conscience into all of us, praising us when we do right and blaming us when we do evil.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy
What if I don't think morality is immaterial abstract and universal?
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Shut up
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy morality does not exist outside humans, for it is a perceived tool granted by the bias of their beliefs, experiences and feelings.
it's very nature is subjective, and has been the cause of war and death.
but humans are also foolish enough to grant the status of something like the divine to a lowly cause such as morality.
alas, the pinnacle of human arrogance.. so that gods would order existence and life and structure it around morality, which is indeed blasphemy.
@@calebr7199 Well then you are stupid because you can't observe morality with your five senses. It's not an action, it's an ideal.
The reason you use skill share is the reason i watch your vudeo haha its something to watch or invest myself in that actually benifits my brain and time!
Uploading these videos is the ultimate moral good 💪
do you think religion is insignificant? edit: sorry for not clarifying, i was specifically referring to the abrahamic religions
I do not believe in god, but I really do understand that Religion is an exceptionally important part of human life. It had formed the basis for various traditions and festivals. It was a moral guiding force, a judgement for evil, a pastime, peaceful feeling, sense of belonging and so much more for so long.
Though I am an atheist myself. It is the understanding that different ideas can coexist that make the basis for modern science.
Yeah I know this question wasn't asked towards me but I just felt the need to clarify the massive significance of religion even in today's world.
@hemantjain2387 hi so sorry for not specifiying i was talking abt the abrahamic religions
"Believe" Is Important In Human Life.
Believe Is Not All About Religion Tho.
Country, Nationality, Law, Government, Even Money Is System Of Believe.
One Thing Human Can Held Stick Together is Believe. Believe In Tribe's, Believe In Religion, Believe In Nationality And Last But No least Is Money.
I was an atheist from 18 to 26, I was brought up in seventh day, Adventism and saw what any child could see that it was false. I am entering the Catholic Church in 2025 and I am totally head over heels for Catholic moral reasoning, and their conception of God. My atheism brought me to nihilism and hedonism pleasure was the highest good for me in practice, and when there was no pleasure, there was crippling depression. It took me years to understand my scientific materialism/empiricism was leading me to focus more on sex and what I could get from others rather than a higher purpose that transcends my desires. I am 29 now with very clear purpose and a desire to pick up my cross and suffer for those around me, even those who oppose me.
How did scientific materialism and empiricism lead to you focusing more on sex ?
I'm on a similar journey; interesting how so many people are finding that materialist reductionist worldviews inevitably evolve into nihilism.
@@Psyshimmer sometimes you gotta live it to know it 😅, I will guide my children better than I was guided 🙏🏾.
@@miguelatkinson in my experience, reducing everything to scientific raw facts made it so the moral landscape was something that was more relative and socially built. Where can you empirically find what is right and wrong? How do you measure that scientifically? My intuition told me if something was right or wrong but what if my intuitions were just molded by a social construction? That means they are not Absolute. This frame of mind personally allowed me to prioritize what felt best for me and in my relations with women it expressed itself in sexual pursuit. I wasn’t nearly as bad as some of my other friends, but I hurt a woman who I believed I loved dearly. But my worldview could not give me the ability to love in the truest sense. Not just emotions, not just affection, but transcendent and selfless love. I left Christianity because I thought there was no good reason to believe it, I came back because In my atheist materialism there was no reason to love and sacrifice for another. My atheism wasn’t an issue of intellect, it was an issue of moral decay and the corrupt will that followed.
@@Nrev973 you aere never an atheist, you were agnostic and when you saw you could use religion as a shield to do whatever you want to anybody you dont like you dodnt hesistate to use it to enact hate upon athers because you get off from it. I do not consent to your weird roleplay
3:25 You're probably not wrong here though I think both camps have a wide array of differing ethical theories and, in many instances, have some overlap. Personally, I'm a theist (Catholic) and a virtue ethicist (with a more Platonist bent than many Catholics) and see goodness as the primary object of ethics (as opposed to rules, duties, rights or consequences), with excellence of character being effectively a reflection of goodness itself, the ultimate goodness, God. That said, many theists are divine command theorists, which is mirrored in many atheists in a kind of "legal commend theory" that conflates legality/from the state and morality. As a theist, my response is that "theists aren't necessarily 'bad people', atheists aren't necessarily 'bad people', but if atheists are to be honest, any goodness they perform should be seen as effectively arbitrary if they're to be honest, since there's no reason to conflate pro-social behavior with goodness."
4:57 I'd argue that Scandinavian atheism is the end point of its historical Protestantism (which itself devolves into "liberalism" and a kind of "liberal theology" in the 19th and 20th centuries). So atheism aside, there remains an egalitarian Protestant ethos among the Scandinavian and many Western countries
5:20 In principle, yes, but in reality, they don't. "Atheistic churches" have been tried before to fill this gap (starting from the Cult of Reason to the current day) but they simply just don't withstand the test of time. With that said, religious institutions should not be relegated to merely pro-social clubs. I go to Mass to commune with the transcendent, not get coffee with baby boomers after.
9:12 emphasis on "some". Christianity and voluntarism (i.e. that God's will is prior to His intellect, and that wills as such are prior to the intellect) shouldn't be conflated. I subscribe to intellectualism (i.e. that the intellect is prior to the will, in God and humanity), with good things (or actions) being not because God commanded them to be good, but because they're a reflection of God's perfections in some way
10:54 interesting argument from G.E. Moore. He effectively mirrors my own take on this (that goodness itself should be seen as the "highest good", despite that such a notion might be "vague")
12:01 I suppose it depends what is meant by "God" here. Perhaps the atheist could say it's tautological, but the theist could quip back at the atheist saying his morality is functionally arbitrary. The atheist serving at a food bank and Joseph Stalin are functionally put in the same category (in fact, the latter could be viewed as more ethical as he's more reflective of an ubermensch who has made his own values, whereas the former remains a slave and living in the shadow of Christian slave ethics)
12:55 ah, the Euthyphro dilemma. I'd posit that it's a false dilemma - good things are good insofar as they're reflections of God and act in accordance with their nature as given to them by God.
Have to get back to work - good video. I'll listen to the rest later.
I agree to your last point. It's a false dichotomy.
@@oggolbat7932 He's raised up some interesting points in this vid, I quite like this channel
This is such a well made video and it is remarkable how you managed to remain so unbiased in your discussion. The things you did say were very well thought out and logical but you left out what I think is the most important part of this morality discussion. In discussing whether there can be morality without God, the thing to focus on is the belief that God made every human in his own image and likeness and therefore every person has an objective dignity. It is not useful to focus on the belief that what God says is true and moral, since that obviously doesn't make any sense to an atheist. The truth of the matter is that there is no reason to treat others "morally" without the idea that every person has dignity. And, no person has dignity unless they were all created equal in the eyes of God. For example, if someone is smarter and stronger, then they are objectively superior to somebody who is dumber and weaker. Therefore, this bigger smarter person has no reason to treat the other with kindness unless for an ultimately self serving need. Of course, every person needs to combat the temptation to be selfish which is ingrained in us (concupiscence), but someone who does not believe in God literally has no reason to.
i think the answer to this one is that with something as complex as morality you have to take all of these philosophies into account. its like everything in life, philosophy wants to put everything into little black and white boxes, but in reality everything exist on a spectrum. our morality emerges from all these sources and we combine it together to do the best we can if thats what we decide we want to do as people. and we should probably set society up in a way that encourages that because as beings who evolved pain and empathy it feels best for both our own empathy and pain that society have functioning morals.
When I’m asked about where I base my morals without god I say that we have to have a tribe mentality to survive. Working together makes survival more likely. It’s that simple.
Very simple and elegant. But then they’ll say something like why is survival more favorable than not surviving without the epistemic foundation of a god or some such similar nonsense. They refuse the Brute facts of our evolutionarily driven morals.
@@apimpnamedslickback5936 ape together strong
CAESARRRRR!!!!!!
So, whatever morals the collective decides on that makes society work is good enough for you?
In my not so humble opinion.
Morals are no more then social laws.
I do not know of any moral that has not been broken by one culture or another.
What do you expect from objective morals? Being instantly smitten for transgression?
true but some people suggest that following certain norms leads to better results
@@user-ci2fd8vc2fI think that's why morality even exists in the first place. Evolutionarily, it has set informal norms for our species for the sole purpose of keeping us alive and happy.
@Wicker_ how would you know if they exist or not?
@Wicker_ how do you know
Something that throws everything about religions into confusion is the fact that there isn't proof that a biblical or other god is always truthful. The fact that god could exist and have inspired parts of the bible, but also have just lied about parts of it. The only evidence for god being truthful is his being good, which was also sourced solely from god himself. In fact, god could have just lied about being immortal and died years ago. Furthermore claiming you understand god enough to claim he is always truthful in what he says about himself and his morality would suggest that god is not beyond human understanding as many religious people believe.
lying is a sin, hebrew word being "khata", means to fail/achieve something, and that being God's standard. If God were to be able to "lie" then He would be against what He Himself said and would thus fail His own standard, but how is that possible if *He* created this standard. Along with this, how would a being that created time and space die when He isn't even *in* the confines of time and space like we are?
Morality is rooted in the mutual understanding of pain and suffering ..which breeds empathy
This is the first time I've seen someone critique athiesm and theism in the same video lol. And I like your conclusion: Atheists are not intellectually consistent with their morality and their ideas. Each "solution" to morality presented by them sacrifices a key part of their preexisting morality, either the objectivity, of dichotomy, or of being self-proving. As a religious person, I find that my position is VERY comfortable in this regard--I'm interested in seeing atheists present a different system of morals in the future.
Ex-atheist here. Recently became a believer. Back when I was an atheist a man once said to me that I was the "most Christian atheist" he had ever met.
Why did he say that?
Damn. They got you too huh? Sorry for your loss 😅
@@inquisitionagent9052 cringe
Taking practicallity over fact. Its a fair position nonetheless
What about empathy and the need for external approval/validation? Couldn't they form the foundation of a natural moral system? They discourage you from harming others or even letting them get harmed, and encourage you to help people and make them happy.
Empathy is not an universal characteristic, and there are plenty of stories (fictional and real) where external validation was only found in groups like the KKK (for example) or criminal gangs.
Evolution has engraved all species with some version of social contract theory
Frankly I never had much time for Dostoyevsky... II much prefer Sir Terry Pratchett.
If a 'god' exists.... Then divine command makes anything permissible. All one needs do, is convince oneself 'god' commands it and... Bobs your uncle....
Oh and... 'Moral realism' as a philosophical paradigm (either robust or minimal)fails since it can't demonstrate its axioms without resorting to subjective experience.
(Edit... Just realised I previously commented on this video... But I'leave them both... What the hell)
I think moral statements are compatible with a scientific/materialistic view of the world. A statement that God exists is supposing the existence of a literal being that we have no tangible sign of. A statement that something is wrong or immoral is an abstract summation of a series of observable events along with some baseline observations about what we as humans almost universally value. Thus we’re not more “spiritual in the streets” than we are on sheets. We’re just making statements that we understand on an intuitive level but can’t quite flesh out in language. A theist runs into all the exact same problems for all the exact same reasons. It’s just easy to think those problems went away when you kicked them up to God and stopped thinking about them.
YOU CLAIM: I think moral statements are compatible with a scientific/materialistic view of the world.
RESPONSE: TOTAL NONSENSE: “If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance.” ― former High Priest of Atheism Albert Camus
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AND THAT’S JUST TOO BAD? -- the current High Priest of Atheism Richard Dawkins.
No right, no wrong, nothing has any meaning, and nothing has any importance.
ITS ALL IN YOUR WIDDLE HEAD, and no one has a corner--except you--on your thoughts, and the person beside you. Under Atheism--there is no such thing as a Moral Statement. Its just molecules in motion, a chemical reaction, with no basis in "Morality," or reality.
Speaking as a United States citizen by birth and a relatively new Subscriber, I emotionally went through a phase of atheism in my high school days.
My emotional phase of atheism in high school was a decade ago but with that said, the United States' Declaration of Independence persuaded me to believe in a universal creator!🧠📃🙏🏻
This is ridicolus. I am an atheist but I believe that morality has an origin in nature. In parenthood, group evolution and symbiosis. Also, morality needs to be relative, and take into account the war and peace game, and the need to punish evil.
I should clarify I don't support the title statement. That's why I have put it in quotes :)
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Yes I know. I just got fired up because it is an argument you often hear from religious people.
I was wondering about this. If morality is simply a Natural habit in us, would it be alright if somebody rejected their own Nature? I mean, say Morality = a way of optimizing preserving the species. On what grounds does a person accept the preservation of species as something to protect? See this:
1) When you look at atoms or molecules moving around, say hydrogen ones, you don't say "Wow that's evil hydrogen" or good hydrogen. Atoms in motion are just atoms in motion.
2) Humans are just atoms in motion.
3) Therefore humans have no morality.
Why does morality need to be relative?
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 By the way, I am working on a project you might find interesting. I am trying to create an atheistic version of Christianity, that is based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a fictitious character created by Titus Flavius the roman emperor. This also means that Christianity is a true slave morality both in nature and purpose, as Nietzsche had half figured out. So to strengthen this Christianity and make it viable, we need to add an equal part of master morality and acceptance of violence, based on the War Peace game. This creates a duality of cooperative and competitive morality. The whole ide is to create a super-based form of atheism that is nothing like nihilism, and that also ties into Christianity. Jesus Christ is still a holy figure in this religion, because he shows us the way towards cooperative morality.
According to my atheistic religion, there is good and evil, based upon what we have chosen to be good and evil. Evil is lack of reciprocity and parasitism, and when someone does not allow others to be free. Freedom is a fundamental right, because without freedom, we cannot search for the truth. And if we cannot search for the truth, we cannot judge and create a better world
Here are some links. It is all work in progress, so all clips on my channel are unlisted:
ua-cam.com/video/VVGF723-Wdw/v-deo.html (there is a draft of my "Bible" in the description to this clip)
Damn, 18 seconds and I'm already here. Finally, my notifs don't take a century to ping me
Haha! That was speedy
*"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told....*
*Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right"*
Bingo!
Completely inaccurate, there is no objective morality without God
@@mcfloridaman2192 There is no objective morality with god either, that would merely make god the subject....
and it would be dependent on your subjective opinion that it's moral to do what god says
very well said
@@antve1618 depends on your objective/persuit
I know a staunch believer who today told me proudly of his side hussle (how I describe it) and I confronted him that it sounds like legal but immoral business. I had to explain it to him via analogies and he still struggled to understand but did finally realize what was so wrong about it.
I have to say that stupid people have the moral of their own. No faith can make you a better person if you cannot yourself tell good from bad.
I believe being a good person without needing a god to hold you accountable is better than following a religion simply to enforce your morals or "stay on track" like many people do
Pride in your own ability to do good without needing to flaunt it or think you are above others can bring happiness to yourself and them
Most people either lean way too far into reason and become cold or lean way to far into morality and become irrational, the ability to mix both and weigh morality while acting as if others are above you simply to be nice without the need of an outside source to motivate you is an important skill that nearly noone has, and the ability to use knowledge of how your own mind and personality works to trick your brain into giving dopamine for tasks that bring you nothing material is also an integral skill, when you can trick your subconscious into wanting the same thing as your conscious, you have control over your emotions and get a free source of motivation to do anything you want, even if it would logically be a cost to you
if you need god to be good then you are not a good person, you just fear about the 'consequences' that might happen by not following the saying of 'god' that you believe
This notion is very simple, for God sets what is wrong and right, therefore without God there can be no objective right or wrong; everything would be subjective. This is a problem because someone’s right would be the next’s wrong.
The people who wrote your holy book hade no truth so made one.
So slavery, misogyny, stoning gays, genoc1de and r4ping virgin girls are (still) moral?
All condoned and ordered by god.
@@KasperKatjeYou have no justification as to why that would be immoral. It's just your subjective opinion.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jyI do since I base my morals on wellbeing, empathy and human rights.
You have no justification to call them immoral if you believe god is unchanging and the source of objective morality.
@@KasperKatje Human rights don't exist. How do you justify knowledge of anything?
Being nice to people makes me feel good. Being honest with others and with myself keeps my mind healthy. This is true whether I'm religious or not. Religion and ideology though can be a justification for actions that harm others.
"Well, I've always said, there's nothing an Agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not." ♫ ♫ All things dull and ugly ♪ All creatures short and squat ♪ All things rude and nasty ♪ The Lord God made the lot. ♫ Each little snake that poisons ♪ Each little wasp that stings ♪ He made their brutish venom. ♪ He made their horrid wings. ♫
-
If you're monotheistic, I simply believe in one less god. If you think I have no faith, not so. I have faith in people which is far more difficult, plus they actually exist. I also have faith they will be people with warts, body odor, and bad breath. We are far from ideal but I have never laughed at anything harder than I laughed at a human. I've never heard anything more beautiful than a sound made by a human. I've never loved or cried, been sicked or rejoiced like I have over a human. We suck and I love us.
-
If you think that "morality" is defined by how I should treat my slave/master, if I plant two different kinds of seed in my field, or if I wear clothing made from two different types of fabric, and how I can sell my daughter, then you are correct. I have no "morals". What was 'objective' a million years ago? What will be objective and 'true' in another million years? Why TF *must* we have Objective Truth™ for all of time, in perpetuity and throughout the universe?!? This is why I reject your "morality" and substitute my ethics. By ethics I mean to treat others at least as well as I would wish to be treated, and as well as they would wish to be treated if I can know that. Maybe we should, for now, simply consider Maslow, and Sapolsky. Perhaps it is enough to hold space for folks to define their own happiness, so long as no harm come of it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
hard to be moral when everyone is rotten
Which is why secular humanism is a joke. Human nature is inherently rotten
Which is why secular humanism is incorrect. It trusts far too much in human nature as being good.
No one ever said it was easy. If anything you have been provided the best opertunity to stand out as moral.
He who endures to the end shall be saved.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Amen brother☦️
If there is no God.. Good or bad simply doesn't exist..the powerful can do all sorts of bad things and not face any consequences..
God 'exists' because we acknowledge both good and bad things (from our perspective).
To explain these opposites, we created a new 'whole'.
What does that have to do with god existing or not?
the powerful already do all sorts of bad things and face almost no consequences
Well Good and Bad are Subjective if no sentient Beings Existed would Good or Bad exist plus I think the God of the Bible is Evil foul Malavelalent pile of Dung and people who worship God are Children afraid of death
@@gorgnigon he’s talking about “judgement day” from the abrahamic religions
The fundamental issue is that it is ineffective to claim that one can have objective morality or be moral without religion. Even if you are an atheist, you remain true to the book simply by nature of being from a western country. I'm not a Christian, but we live in a Christian culture. Examining different civilizations or religions would have been better to understand mortality or what is an objective morality.
This. Most atheists, especially young atheists, fail to realize that even though we no longer live in a Christian hegemony, our culture and upbringing is still enormously coloured by our religious past.
@@Psyshimmer Yeah so ? one day it will be overshadowed by atheistic culture it proves nothing culture is changing continuously.
@@Psyshimmer Thats true but christians use this point to argue dominion over justification over athiest morality when they aren't even using the same starting point they just share similar principles due to cultural influence and personal exerpeience
Japan has close to zero Christian population and Christianity has had zero impact on its culture. Yet crime, from murder and violence to petty crime, is significantly lower than in basically any Christian country, even the most developed, rich and peaceful ones.
China, also free from any Christian influence, although relatively poor, has a lot lower crime rate than the vast majority of Christian countries, even the rich and developed ones, and significantly lower than the bastion of Christianity US or the devoutly Catholic countries in the Americas. So has the even poorer India, a majority Hindu, minority Muslim, and close to zero Christian country.
In fact, if you check out the list of countries by crime rate, you find Christian countries are very obviously dominate the list (yes, even Muslim countries have lower crime rates by average), and if you count the population, it's even worse, since big non-Christian countries having large population means the non-Christian majority of humanity lives with LESS crime than the Christian minority.
And we haven't even gone into the question of the only nominally Christian, but in reality irreligious European countries, like those in Scandinavia, where crime rates are lower than in countries where Christians really believe....
So if morality comes from Christianity, than it's not a very good source relative to other possible sources, and even at that it works better when already abandoned, like in those Scandinavian countries.
What you said at 15:19 is important and many people don't know or overlook it , you can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time , just like you can beleive and be an agnostic , they aren't mutually exclusive . agnostism is about knowledge .
My take on morality as an athiest is that ultimately it all leads back to how we feel about what happens and is done to us and eachother and thats influenced by many things both in and out of our control, this is no different for the religious person as it is for the non religious one.
The research in social psychology (the full body, not the textbooks that cherry pick) is pretty consistent showing that atheists and questers without religious commitment are more moral than people who are religious for extrinsic reasons (eg, prosperity gospel adherents). BUT religious people who are questers with a strong religious foundation are more moral than either. Those who are regarded as canonized saints and living saints in the major traditions only regard the latter type of religious persons as true believers. By the way I grew up in a family that was Confucian and the gods were treated only in a superstitious fashion. My elders were quite moral. So I have no reason to believe that atheists can’t be moral. But I always knew something was missing. Then I became an orthodox Christian in an ancient sacramental tradition and came realize why atheism is adequate. It (certain atheist philosophies) can under favorable conditions help people be good, but never good enough without divine grace. However, non-believers who do prioritize truth unconditionally are necessarily open minded toward goodness in religion. This is regarded by many of the best Christian theologians as evidence of grace seeping into a non-believer’s life. The possible salvation of “non-believers” as being touched by grace though inchoate was in fact officially acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council. And this position builds on patristic and medieval thought. Dogmatic atheists are not interested in nuance any more than fundamentalist Christians. Many of both are in living hells because they do not repent of their narrow mindedness.
That was a great comment. The move from a confuncian background to litterate christian belief does catch the attention, considering that Confucius and Aristotle are the defining voices regarding acquired virtue. You must have carried out a careful reading of life. I believe myself that moral excellence does demand the workings of grace, despite being a staunch atheist. Cheers.
I'm thinking the people who think a book that endorses slavery, misogyny and homophobia is the holy word of gawd and use that to derermine right from wrong are ACTUALLY the ones without a valid moral compass.
it's not that you have no morals yourselves, but you have no basis for any such morality. If survival of the fittest is the truth of the universe, by what right do you complain if a stronger man takes what is yours because you are too weak to stop him? If i'm angry and my will to hurt you and your loved ones is stronger than your will to not let me do that, that's just the way it is. It might be subjectively bad for you, but what does that matter? Doing it made me happy. Oh you want laws and rules because you want to live in a society? Why? Why is that good? Why is anything good? What if someone prefers chaos? What if someone hates society?
Then your only rights are the ones you can defend with force. That a world you want to live in? Why not?
Yet you do have an inherent sense of good and evil. Isnt that illogical? Where do you suppose it comes from? Selfishness? That's not a great moral framework for all the reasons i said above.
Survival of the fittest is not (solely) about the strongest, it's about the best adapted.
And even more detailed: it's about the species, not the individual.
So morality is an evolutionary trait to enhance our survival, part of survival of the fittest.
Just as our lange brain and being social animals because of safety in numbers.
@@KasperKatje Do you or have you eaten your children? Because evolution evolved that morality for a shocking number of species. You are no more evolved than all of histories greatest conquerors and monsters. Your morals did not evolve from them, they are a social construct. One with no basis in nature.
By what metric do you gauge eating a baby to be wrong? Certainly not a natural one.
Good point. Goodness really depends from the one who defines it.
If there is no goodness ideal / standard / template: There is nothing to compare yourself to.
In that regard you see yourself as one who is better, with better self-control, with better choices made throughout your life. In other words: You have relative morality, measuring to the average, to not stand out too much in debauchery. If there is more criminals among religious people: atheists are kings... or it only means that atheists are better in getting away with it, or it doesn't mean either of these things. Maybe looking into warped mirror: you won't see morality, (or immorality) of your deeds. If you put a collective (atheists) into room full of warped mirrors: You won't be closer to the truth of the matter.
Christians have another template to measure against: Life of Christ, and his Saints.
Such a comparison offers true visions of our lacks in the same way like when we compare ourselves with heroes who jump into burning building to rescue a child. We see that such a person had a superior courage, and if we are honest we arrive at a conclusion that it's unlikely that we would do that. We wish we could, but would we?
We doubt, we bow our head and thank God that we could see hero in action, that he somehow did this.
Saints of the early Christianity, who died for what they saw to be the truth offer us one of the dimensions of the comparison, but there are those who although uneducated exemplified heroic virtues of the highest kind, led simple life, but were as beacons of light, like athletes crushing world record, showing that it's possible.
Belief in a god, or lack there of doesn't not cause us to be instantly good, but believe in the God may offer us a way, trajectory to start the race against ourselves, world, and evil.
The fact that people ask the question about "goodness", or "morality" of one side, or the other point that there has to be a standard, that there is something higher. Some of the conclusions point to "no man is perfect", and that we fail miserably when we compare ourself to brilliancy of the perfect life.
Now, we can compare number of criminals (percentage wise), or number of completely average people... but I think it's a wrong way to do it.
I would rather point to Saints, and look for equivalents of such people in atheistic world view.
It's not about slightly better, or worse average personal moral achievements within a specific group, but about the fact that this specific group produces moral gold-medalists.
You're blowing up man, thanks for some intelligent content to consume 👍
An atheist can be moral, but an atheist cannot justify their moral standard. If there is no objective standard for morality then right and wrong are just a matter of preference. Saying "I prefer living in a society without murder." is no different from saying "I prefer eating ice cream for dessert." but a preference is not a justification. Atheists will tend to go one of two ways from here. Either 1. the appeal to consensus or 2. the appeal to harm theory.
The appeal to consensus is when atheists argue that whatever the majority of people agree on is correct. If you can't see how this standard fails then there probably isn't much hope for you, this is obviously incorrect. Just because the majority of people agree on something doesn't mean they're correct.
The appeal to harm theory might seem good but ultimately fails as well. If you say "Murder is wrong because you're harming another person." then all I have to do is take skepticism to its logical conclusion in order to debunk this. I'll play Hume and ask in response "Ok, who determines what harm is and why is harming people bad?" All I have do is keep asking "Why?" to every single response because there is not justifiable response.
Another thing atheists will do is appeal to evolution, which isn't really an argument. An explanation of how something came to be is not an epistemological justification for how we know it to be correct or why we ought to adhere to it.
Her second approach (that of the vicious use of "why?") fails, for she will end up falling into the denial of a statement treated as self-evident. In fact, his second approach can be used against any kind of argumentation and always ending in disagreement with argumentative implications or disagreement with basic premises (in short, his "why?" masks a judgment).
@@martasilva8036 So you believe in self evident truths? Explain to me how murder being bad is self evident.
No, stating "why?" over and over is not a judgement. I'm just playing the ultimate skeptic like David Hume.
@@Nick-ij5nt If you do not believe that there is at least one evident truth, any and all argumentation in favor of any conclusion is defeated by principle, and you are even distant from the discussion of the video. Although the claim that murder is wrong cannot be an evident claim in itself, there are more basic axioms that can lead to this conclusion.
One of the criticisms made to Hume's "final skeptic" is precisely the fact that it implies a statement about the nature of reasoning (which can also be challenged with the "why?").
@@martasilva8036 So you believe that self evident truths are a necessary precondition for all world views? How do you know this to be the case? I think you're trying to argue because of the impossibility of the contrary, but I'd like for you justify that.
Which axioms can justify why murder is wrong and why should I adhere to them?
Exactly, but that's an argument in favor of my position. The fact that you can use Hume's skepticism to destroy his own argument shows that it's ultimately absurd.
But I can still use Hume as an internal critique of your position in order to expose the flaws in your world view.
You still haven't addresses the crux of my argument which is the is-ought dilemma. How do you justifiably derive an ought from an is within an atheist paradigm?
@@Nick-ij5nt I thought this was clear, but Hume's approach is self-defeating. Ultimately, regardless of the context for using his approach, it's not a hurdle here. Whether it's justifying a duty in an atheistic paradigm or justifying a duty in a theistic paradigm, his approach can be used in both 'ad infinitum' so that it doesn't favor any of the scenarios. It's merely a problematic (counterproductive) issue about the nature of reasoning. If you don't grasp this, your situation is complicated.
Crazy atheist = funny
Crazy religious person = terrifying
"Crazy atheist = funny" - try to say it to the victims of atheistics bolshevics...
@@alena-qu9vj Soviet Union had no direct connections to religious prosecution. You could get sent to gulag if you are not "loyal to the regime".
@@gibbobux1033 That was exactly my point - atheistic bolshevics /mostly of other than slavic ethnicity) had no connections to religious prosecution. Their atheistic prosecution has been terrifying and no fun all the same.
@@alena-qu9vj what im trying to say is, it wasn't really about religion. Mostly ideology.
@@gibbobux1033 What I am trying to say that yours:
"Crazy atheist = funny
Crazy religious person = terrifying"
is nonsence.
You can have crazy religious persons as well as crazy atheist not funny at all.
Very good. To be able to discern is divine, and being able to discern atheism and natural empiricism was a valid thing to clarify the relationship between atheism and lack of morals. Well done, thanks.
_Existential_ good, in the broadest sense, is well-being, which is experienced as positive valence states in sentient subjects. The more specific sense of _moral_ good is positive valences in the domain of interpersonal motives and the choices generated from them.
Ethical right & wrong are defined by the _Principle of Reciprocity,_ which is the normative analogue to the descriptive _Law of Identity._ Below, I'll lay out argumentation logically demonstrating the bases of objective morality:
*P1* - The existence of sentient subjects is an objective reality.
*P2* - As real entities, subjects have properties inherent to them which may be objectively known and explicated.
*P3* - Among the properties of sentience is the inherent capacity to have interests, which may be harmed or benefited.
*P4* - This dichotomy of benefit & harm is the ontological basis of intrasubjective normativity, as it entails existential conditions such as "good/bad" and "better/worse" defining what's preferable or non-preferable for a given subject.
*P5* - The property of inhering interests further entails that subjects as entities are ultimate ends.
*P6* - There exist a multiplicity of distinct subjects with their own interests which may align or conflict with one another, entailing an intersubjective landscape for them to navigate which broadly coincides with the domain we call "morality".
*P7* - Subjects are liable to have motive dispositions which generally incline them towards wanting to benefit the interests of others or harm them, entailing that subjects may themselves have normative value of an intersubjective nature, defining their worth as moral ends.
*P8* - The concept generally referred to as "justice" entails reciprocity (i.e. commentsurate responsivity) in the intersubjective domain, with impartial and equitable judgments in such matters constituting an objective approach to it.
*P9* - The equitable distribution of justice inevitably promotes general intersubjective well-being, in that it reinforces benevolent interpersonal choices & subjects while simultaneously punishing malevolent choices & subjects.
*C* - Given the objective reality of sentient subjects, the inherent normative properties of their existence, and the possibility of making epistemologically objective assessments of such normative conditions _(which includes the matter of reciprocity in the intersubjective domain)_ it stands to reason that impartial, existential justice is definitionally the objective basis of natural rights.
"P5 - The property of inhering interests further entails that subjects as entities are ultimate ends."
No.
@@rageofheaven
Yes. Being a purposeful, goal-seeking agent with its own interests necessarily entails being an end. The quality of core motivations a subject operates from determines their existential value as an end.
@@Kimani_White But not an "Ultimate" end?
"P8 - The concept generally referred to as "justice" entails reciprocity (i.e. commentsurate responsivity) in the intersubjective domain, with impartial and equitable judgments in such matters constituting an objective approach to it."
And also no. I don't know what legal system you're speaking about, but equality did not come about in any objective manner.
@@rageofheaven
All intents and purposes are necessarily in the service of intentional, purposeful agents. Definitionally, sentient agents are _literally_ the ultimate source and end of every purpose.
2:41 "ultimate judge of the universe"
A Father's duty is judgement,
A Son gets judged, and both are interested in the blood living on.
The Ultimate judge of the universe is shown as one without skin in the game.
He bears no consequence for his judgements.
Do not let yourself be distracted by the wrong patriarchal image of a "Father" God. Conscious universe itself is the "God", and so he has not only its skin in this Big Game.
Honestly, motality is a balancing act between 3 things: desire, practicality, and truth/fact/logic/etc ( how things can reasonably be desribed as accurate and real). The first thing is deciding which should take priority, as each have benefits and detraments. desire often conflicts with truth, as our brains often try to simplify and exagerate and fantasise things ultimately leading to falsehood. Practicality is often highly restrictive to desirability, and sometimes to truth, for the sake of stability and cohesion, which would leave miserable and clueless but practical/ efficient to the given goal induviduals in its wake. Truth can be great for understanding and advancement, but will involve undesirable and destabilising practices and discoveries by its very persuit as well.
As an Atheist ( which in no way should be taken to mean I speak for all Atheists ), my moral line is established by harm.
If what I am thinking about doing could reasonably be expected to cause undue, unnecessary harm or hardship to someone else, then I clearly shouldn't do it.
If it won't cause undue harm or hardship to others and I feel a need to do it, I'll most likely do it.
Bottom line, for me: The potential for harm defines my morality.
This was an enjoyable pondering.
Morality is survival mechanism you don't God to know that pissing other people off is bad for your health.
Many of your videos are well explained and easier to consume. Perhaps the limits of my language skills are showing again because I struggled to fully understand this one.
another great video man!! Can I ask what got you into philosophy?
Nice question
Curiosity lol
We are a social species, whose survival niche is cooperation with others in our society. We would never have survived if murder and theft were widespread and permitted.
It is the intricate and complex evolved instincts that we call morality. Religious people think god put it in our hearts, atheists know it evolved that way.
Not so simple. As beings with the genom of apes practically, cooperation helps to the survival of one specific group only, but not to the species as whole - on the contrary - the strong survival instinct of a group demands hostile behaviour towards other groups. Many a civilization perished exactly because of this, and humanity as a whole has never been so near to extinction in the known history because of the same reason.
There always seems to be at least one cooperating group thinking of themselves as the "chosen ones" and with the right to go over dead bodies towards their goals.
@@alena-qu9vj strong is not always the evolutionary path. “Survival of the fittest” I think is the most misunderstood quote of the 19th century. It is fitness as in puzzle fit, not fitness as in strength. Evolution happens to populations not to species, if the same species get sales rated by a mountain range they will in time become two separate sub species and no longer be able to breed. Similarly if one group of humans cooperates allowing better resources gathering and protection. They are going to survive. We see that with melanin in skin. Due to diet and agriculture changes. We are all still human. But if we were separated we may have gone down different paths. I recommend you read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins it explains this very clearly.
According to science Either something IS good or bad IS completely subjective, as It IS a mechanism in our brain created because if millions of years of Evolution that mainly destroying, harming and other actions are bad as they can inderectly harm you or your close ones, that's a very important behavior as if we wouldn't have it, we would harm each other without caring and the species would go extint.
Hey man, I'm wondering, do you type all of these subtitles yourself? Do you use some tool to make it faster? Thanks
I know you focus on quality and accuracy a lot, but I’d love to just watch a video where you have no script and shoot from the hip.
Also just wanna say your content is great I’ve been watching like all your videos for the last month.
love listening to the weekly podcast of Lucifer. You are mesmerizing, no wonder so many followed you :P
The idea of Lucifer is quite interesting. Let’s say this if Lucifer does indeed exist then why would a “Good God” permit such a being to interact with his creation? Why not snuff him out or destroy him? Unless god Knew that he would fall and temp people away from God so God has justification to destroy or send people to hell! And since god is all knowing he knew who he wanted to destroy or get rid off so in conclusion humanity has no free will only God’s will! See how bad that is? God made Lucifer so people would be tempted and God could destroy them with the justification that they had “turned away”
I prefer to contrast that against Crime and Punishment, because Rodion justified murdering his moneylender but discovers that his conscious betrays him, the investigator suspects him almost immediately, and he gets punished with hard labour in Siberia.
This sounds like Dostoevsky pointing out we are the ones that need to put consequences in place.
really like your contend. could you upload it to spotify so i can listen to it while working?
I love your work. Keep it up ❤❤
Here is a phenomenological definition of goodness: Goodness is whatever a living being subjectively feels ought to exist, implying a need to act to bring it about whenever the opportunity arises. This definition is objectively true in the sense that it can be observed from our behavior in the material world. Since it's describing a phenomena which one can experience within one's self and see in others, the definition is not arbitrary. However, it is subjective in the sense that it provides no basis for a morality that everyone can agree upon.
Im an agnostic leaning towards Deism which is a belief in a higher power that isn't attached to any form of organised Religion
You shouldn’t need to be threatened with eternal suffering just to be a decent person
Being moral is simply living “ in the best way possible for the most people but, we all default to “selfishness” when our excess energy runs low.
I am a Buddhist, so my definition of morality is as follows: That which produces well-being, reduces suffering, or does both is moral. That which reduces well-being, produces unnecessary suffering, or does both is immoral.
A good example of this is gaining a large amount of wealth. The wealth brings a lot of well-being for yourself and your family so working hard to acquire wealth is a good and moral thing to do. If, however, the acquisition of that wealth brings a lot of suffering by causing poverty and hardships for other people then that action becomes immoral. Seek the noble path by staying in the middle. Just enough wealth to bring well-being but not so much or in a way that it causes suffering.
I personally think choosing to do good deliberately in the absence of power is even more virtuous than doing it under pressure from higher forces.
Many religious (primarily Christians in my experience and bias as a committed Christian) say that God doesn’t invent goodness, nor is it a source outside of Him that He has to bend to (if that were the case then our worship should be devoted to that source of goodness rather than God) but that God is, in His very nature, good. To do a good action is to participate on a metaphysical level with good and therefore with God since God is good in and of Himself.
In contrast, many Muslims (in my admittedly limited knowledge of Islamic philosophy) posit that whatever Allah says goes and it is good because he said so, no matter if he is contradicting other previous commandments. Goodness is good because Allah said, not because Allah is good in and of himself.
Any Muslim thinkers, feel free to correct me if I am getting your faith terribly wrong.
It's participation with God's uncreated energy of goodness but not with God's nature which is transcendant and unknowable.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy agreed. I misspoke.
@@randy9680 Love the pfp. Saint Paisios, pray to God for us!
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy amen