The Atheist's Problem of Evil
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Support the channel by visiting brianholdswort...
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
For whatever difficulties arise for the Christian in accounting of the Problem of Evil, I think there is an even larger difficulty for a materialist atheist. Because materialism is the belief that the physical properties of the universe are all that exist. There is no invisible, transcendent dimension of reality - only what can be observed physically.
But if you hold this view, and you want to arrive at some rational explanation for the kinds of evil I discuss in the video, you have to account for those events by appealing to exclusively material causes.
But as soon as you do make an explanation like that, if one is available, notice what you’ve forfeited. What you cannot say after having observed such phenomena is, “That was evil or that was wrong.”
Because as soon as you admit that, what you’re saying is, “Something that happened, and is therefore real and part of reality, should not have happened.” In effect, you’re saying, “I disapprove of those events which are part of the fabric of reality and, therefore, I disapprove of reality.”
To say that is to insist that reality and the events that constitute it should have been another way. Something else should have happened; specifically, that guy shouldn’t have brutally murdered an innocent life. And he shouldn’t have gloated about it afterwards as if he did something enviable with complete indifference to goodwill or the lives that he has now traumatized.
But if all there is is material reality, how can you lay claim to knowledge of an alternate reality, which doesn’t exist, and which you believe should exist - some invisible better world that you would have approved of?
Podcast Version: brianholdswort...
Understanding that the world is a physical place where things happen due to cause and effect doesn't negate that we as humans have moral judgements on what happens in the world. I think your premise is flawed.
He had a premise? I thought he is just rambling incoherently. Well, thx for telling me what this was maybe supposed to be about.
noo dont mention morals they will say that your morals came from Gawd rofl
I beg to differ. If the world is a physical place only, how are humans able to have/experience/exercise moral judgement? What is the purpose of having moral judgement?
@@tatianasouza2361 Moral judgement serves the purpose of physical survival.
@@tatianasouza2361 the human brain can simulate and emulate things , that is pretty much how imagination works and the same goes for sleep which is a process you can even a record with an MRI machine , we know which parts of the brain do each of those you mentioned , because humans are a social specie as a result of natural selection we have refined social skills like all other social animals , even chimps have a social code , a chain of command , reward and banish pro and anti social behavior and have moral standards , if you just dont know some thing it does not mean its magic , we understand that stuff VERY very well , a needle to the brain can pretty much make you immoral and anti social , that much is not a history , it stopped being a mastery 20 years ago , dude the human brain is not magic
The *Problem of Evil,* in a nutshell:
The existence of a tri-omni god and the existence of evil are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true at the same time.
So since evil (arguably) exists, the tri-omni god cannot.
Take the tri-omni god out of the equation and there is no more *Problem of Evil.*
Or maybe good is bi
-Omni
@@jonathan4189 God being bi-omni solves the *Problem of Evil,* in that case god is either unaware of specific evil acts being committed, is powerless to prevent them from happening, or simply doesn't care if it happens.
@@fred_derf Yup, that was a the joke. Except I also implied it was about segguality.
What kind of non sequitur is this? 😂
It’s very concerning and more than a bit embarrassing how often theists attempt to address the Problem of Evil without having any actual idea what it is. It’s like they heard the title and just ran from there as if it’s not a very specific set of internal critiques of a religious system that has thousands of years of history of discourse to look at to make sure you’re addressing the right thing.
I don’t think appealing to evolution to explain this particular murder makes any sense. I would appeal to environmental conditions, genetics, and brain states (all of which are material), but I am not aware of a specific enough theory to satisfactorily explain this particular murder, especially when I am missing lots of information regarding this case. Likewise, if I were trying to explain mouse development, I wouldn’t invoke evolution; I would appeal to environmental conditions and genetics. We know the effects of lots of environmental and genetic influences on human behavior and mouse development, but I fail to see why our failure to fully explain these phenomena is a threat to materialism.
Whether materialism gives up the ability to call things “wrong” or “evil” depends on what those terms mean when they are used. And people have lots of different views about this…
I “know alternate realities” because I can imagine them as hypotheticals. I can imagine a world in which this particular murder did not occur, and I can wish that the real world had behaved like the imagined world. And as a part of the real world, I can behave in ways that will bring about the world that I want to see.
If I may, as an atheist, the problem of evil is not us saying that something is evil objectively. I don't think there CAN be objective morality, even with a God (please ask if you'd like that explanation, I won't go into it here) but essentially it's asking
"You think X is objectively evil, right?"
"Yes"
"You also think your god is all powerful and all loving, right?"
"Yes"
"But those are mutually exclusive. If there's an all-powerful God, they have the power to simply eliminate all evil while maintaining free will. The only reason why they wouldn't do that, is that they're not all-loving. But that contradicts your other premise. Therefore, your god cannot exist."
It's not asserting our own morality in any way, it's asking you about yours and asking about the contradiction between your belief that evil exists, and your belief in an all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-loving God.
"simply eliminate all evil while maintaining free will" is a contradiction. This argument seems to me to be the same as "if God is all powerful can he make a rock so heavy he can't lift it", just a bit more fancy.
There is no free will without the possibility of evil, it makes no sense.
@@magikarp2063 I'd like to argue against that. Your analogy of God making a rock so heavy he can't lift it is a paradox, having no evil while keeping free will is not. Let's use the example of heaven. In most presentations of heaven, people say there is no evil there. So, does heaven not have free will? People would typically argue that no, there's still free will there, and yet, there's no evil. Clearly it's possible.
Now I imagine the argument against that would be something along the lines of the residents of heaven simply chose to never commit evil, but that could be possible on earth as well, since God is all-seeing and knows the future of every human and animal, they could either have the ones who would commit evil simply not exist (I mean their existence itself is cruel, if they exist only to commit evil then live in hell for eternity,) or they could prevent the evil before it happens, like a parent snatching a kid's hand from the fire. Lastly, I would like to know your argument for why babies with cancer are permitted to exist when, as they are babies, they have yet to do anything wrong. I've heard multiple people give arguments but I want to know yours.
Now I'm somewhat sorry if I made a lot of assumptions about your beliefs, I was generalizing and may have misrepresented what you actually believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong about anything!
@@lightningqueen1145 Very simply someone who is in heaven or hell already made his choice.
God wants us to choose him of our own will, that's why he gave it (not that there could not be other reasons).
But if no choice was ever really given then there would be no point in even having free will.
God could have an endless amount of reasons to call a person to himself sooner or later.
Wanting a soul to enter heaven earlier, wanting to teach a lesson about how this life will end to other people, wanting to shock parents to make them think of things they really need to think about.
This is just speculation of a not even a very intelligent human ofcourse and God's plans are endlessly greater then anything I could think of.
Why would you think God couldn't have a reason for allowing evil to happen?
@@magikarp2063 Ok, these are all interesting points, however, may I ask one question?
Does God see our futures?
If so, God knows if we'll choose him or not, and he knows what would convince us if we didn't choose him. Personally, what would convince me to follow him would be a) concrete proof in our current material world, and b) the elimination of what we call "evil." These would both be fairly easy for an all-powerful God, and offering proof would not be a violation of my free will because look, I'm offering proof as to why I think God cannot exist and you still have the free will to not accept my argument. I am not merely obstinate, I do think I could be convinced and I am perfectly willing to believe in a God that offers proof of its own existence. Worshipping? Eh, I don't think anything could deserve worship, not even a God, but we could be friends.
Essentially, if God knows everything, he knows what would convince any atheist, and if they physically cannot be convinced. If he's all-powerful, then he can do whatever would convince that atheist, and if someone cannot be convinced, is that really any fault of their own? They physically cannot know God, and thus they have to be tortured for eternity?
Now, I would argue that your argument in it if itself is arguing that God is not all powerful, but if I say that over and over again we would never get anywhere, both saying the same thing over and over again with no one budging.
@@lightningqueen1145 I'm Catholic, and this "future" thing used to bother me a lot some time ago. The problem with this question is, however, that God exists OUTSIDE of time. Theoretically, you can pray for someone who already died that he may convert before his death, I believe the famed Father Pio talks about this. I actually pray pretty much every day that God gave my dead relatives one last change to convert shortly before their deaths. God is all-powerful and merciful, and so I choose to trust in his mercy and justice.
It is just kind of sad to so completely fail to understand the problem of evil, that this is the result.
What are you talking about?
@@cyberjay9146 That was funny.
Yes, because evil is something that a white man would find it difficult to understand
?
@@cyberjay9146 That Brian does not understand the problem of evil on even a basic level.
Also: Stop equating Atheism to Materialism, Evolution, Naturalism, and so on. Stop asserting things about Atheists that you don't know is true and probably know it isn't true.
They know exactly what they are doing. That's why I left Christianity long ago, most are completely dishonest and have this "lying for Jesus" mentality that the ends justified the means, they are trying to "save" your from god having you tortured. They are cowards looking for an easy out by accepting blood. They also follow one of the most evil fictional characters ever written that is guilty of genocide, murder, slavery, tolerates rape, and countless more atrocities. But they dont care because they are just afraid of hell and want that carrot on a stick heaven.
Yeah but Naturalism is the only philosophical alternative to atheists apart from agnosticism/skepticism ("I don't know")
@@markaguilera493 Even if, which it isn't, it's still not the same, and he equated it with Materialism, not Naturalism.
@@markaguilera493 No it isn't. Plenty of atheists who believe in reincarnation, karma and all that other spiritual shit. There are plenty of alternatives that don't involve gods.
@@jaclo3112 All alternatives that don't include god are naturalistic.
You’re mixing up materialism with atheism.. they are not the same.
He doesn't mix up materialism with atheism because he doesn't understand either. He's left with some dumbed-down version of physicalist (hard-)determinism mixed with moral absolutism, probably without ever opening an actual philosophy book about any of those.
10:10 Sounds like what a religious person would say. "It's all God's plan!"
On the other hand, I find it perfectly easy to use my "materialst atheist" ethical system to explain why the violent murder of little girls is bad (or even evil) and society should attempt to minimize its occurance.
it amuses me when they lack self awareness and use their own bad methods as an example of other people using a bad method to explain anything , its like when they say '' all you know is based on faith ! and that is bad with no evidence '' regardless of how true that is in one breath but then say '' i have faith in god '' with the next ....
man saves girl ? oh god's plan
man kills girl ? its evil.... what is that ? nah this is not what god wanted but its in his plan every thing is... still loving !! the pastor found his car keys !
like are you people high ? lol
@Christa Simon First, please demostrate that this plan exists. Second, that would mean that we don't have free will.
@Jordan B Peterson Sometimes it's hard to tell apart satire from extremism.
@Christa Simon Anyone can be more powerful than God as long as they have chariots with iron-rimed wheels.
With your materialism you can explain why it is painful, and perhaps why it is not advantageous for most people, but not why it is morally wrong.
Brian, that’s not what the problem of evil is. The problem of evil is that Christianity holds two things to be true:
1. There is such a thing OBJECTIVE good and evil.
2. God is all good and all powerful.
The problem of evil is the problem that an all good, all powerful deity allows for things which the religion itself qualifies as objective evil to occur.
The objection you raised here merely amounted to “there is no contradiction between an all good god allowing things which are objectively evil to occur because atheistic morality is subjective.” This is, at best, an irrelevant non-sequitur.
So, why then, is "the law of good and evil" written on the hearts of most atheists?
Evil is not it's own power, but the lack of good. Only mislead Christians, and those who don't have a solid grasp on what God is like, think God would create creatures with free will but then force them to do good. We also shouldn't jump to use the limited human "goodness" to encapsulate God.
When we say God is loving/good, most people want that to just mean "kind", as in God just wants us to be content, no matter what we do. Just because there is evil in men's hearts and actions doesn't mean God cannot exist alongside it.
@@Multipurpose_Bagel I, and I alone, determine what is good and evil. Good and evil is not "written on my heart". What does that phrase even mean?
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality.
@@Multipurpose_Bagel I don’t know if the “the law of good and evil” is written on the hearts of most atheists, that would imply they all come naturally to biblical morality, which is only the case amongst those living in christian or post-christian societies. If you mean they have a sense that some things are right and some things are wrong naturally, then I would like to reference that 1 in 20 people being sociopaths statistic that Holdsworth brought up in this video. It remains to be seen whether or not sociopaths are at fault for their own lack of conscious. The materialist explanation of sociopathy would be that some people, due to genetics, have a defect which arrests empathy towards others and inclinations towards selflessness. The abrahamic explanation of sociopathy would have to belong the lines of “God intentionally puts a veil over some people’s hearts at birth so that their evil actions lead to a greater good later on” or some such.
The evil being a lack of good model of morality doesn’t solve the issue. Again God, being infinitely good, allows for a universe which has a multitude of these pockets of deprivation, when a world without them would’ve been easily achievable. The shortest distance between any two points is a straight line, so why not just bring about this greater good from the outset? If God needs this deprivation to bring about greater goods, then that itself is a mark against his omnipotence. If, for whatever reason, it is necessary due to the nature of reality that this greater good can only be achieved through the permission of evil, then it would have to be explained why God, the author of reality, made it that way.
I didn't argue any of the points you just recited. Nor did I provide a contrary definition of the problem of evil.
@@BrianHoldsworth I know, that is precisely my point, the argument you did respond to in the video is not the strongest version of that argument.
As an atheist, I have no problem saying what the guy in your story did was evil.
7:35 "when you're saying something is evil, what you're saying is that something should not have happened."
Yes.
"And in fact what you're saying is 'I disapprove of those events, which are part of the fabric of reality, and therefore I disapprove of reality.'"
O... kay... kind of a weird way to phrase it, but sure. As long as we're agreed that when "I disagree with reality" I don't disagree with all of reality, but of a part of it. Sure.
8:21 "But if all there is is material reality, how can you lay claim to knowledge of some alternate reality, which doesn't exist, and which you believe should exist?"
That's... not what is happening.
You claim to know what is evil by comparing the real world with an ideal world (called Heaven, I presume? Idk, you don't go into detail about what this invisible dimension of reality is) and what is inconsistent with Heaven is evil.
I come to the knowledge of what is evil in a completely different way. No knowledge of an alternate reality is necessary. I have a standard of what is good and what is evil. I built this standard from my life experience, noticing which qualities I find don't cause unnecessary harm and promote human flourishing and which actions do cause unnecessary harm and are deleterious to human flourishing.
That's all that is needed to be able to say "this was evil."
I really don't understand this "you believe in some alternate reality but you are a materialist atheist" argument.
You tried doing this in your video about renewable energy.
Just because an atheist sees a problem in the real world and can propose a solution doesn't mean he believes in some alternate reality in which the problem is already solved.
That's ridiculous.
Breathing is part of reality. I dissapprove of people breathing.. what bollocks
"I built this standard from my life experience, noticing which qualities I find don't cause unnecessary harm and promote *human flourishing* and which actions do cause unnecessary harm and are deleterious to *human flourishing*."
Arbitrary. If matter is fundamental to reality, I can just as much say that it is itself the final end of reality. And the way the world seems, everything tends to turn back to a more or less simple material state. Humans die, they decompose - they turn back to quite simple chemical compounds like water and CO2. I could just as easily craft a system of thought with a preeminence of death over life, since lifelessness is more fundamental to reality, it's what it seems to tend towards, it's what it will end up in. Should materialism be true, the universe is going to turn darker and colder as time progresses. Why not achieve as much of that as early and quickly as possible?
And I could even get creative - me and others will definitely be chemically simple at some point. Why not speed that up a little bit? Why not already cut off a finger here, half an arm there, two legs here, burn someone there, drop a nuke here, play a little with acid there - the options are endless. And don't say that's evil. Your account of good and evil is simply nominalistic. Mine is too. I just picked some different principles and went along with them instead. I was just as arbitrary as you.
Of course I'm wrong. And you are too. Because we both started with materialism. Because we didn't end up with it through reasoning. Instead, we started with it as a presupposition.
Had we reasoned from the beginning, we would have recognized first our own conscience and being. We would have recognized that we have thoughts and a will. We recognize them as essentially independent. We maybe would have come across some first principles for which no further reason could be given (like the principle if identity or of non-contradiction). We maybe wouldn't have been able to prove to ourselves with absolute certainty that the outside world exists, but since we are about it, and since we didn't cause our own existence, we can have some basic trust that it was just as real as we are. We could have trusted our senses, because they are the beginning of our thinking.
We definitely would have recognized certain forms like cats, trees, dogs and cars. That they are essentially different things, but real wholes comprised of parts would have seemed natural to us. We would have recognized meaning in life, and maybe would have pursued or at least looked for the supreme meaning of this curious existence we have found ourselves in. We would have wanted a sufficient explanation of all the intuitions, desires and longings which we recognized as so straight-forwardly natural.
We maybe would have wondered about beauty, and why we are so drawn to it, why we would find it permeate all parts of life. We maybe would have recognized our deep desire to be happy, we would have seen that it was basically what was driving all of our actions. We then could have wondered if there was a supreme good which would make us perfectly happy. We maybe even would have a grasp of the concept to accept suffering for the sake of obtaining this supreme good.
We maybe would have at least been able to follow words like these: "The sensus communis [...] quite naturally arrives at a knowledge of the first cause, one and unchangeable, of multiple and changeable beings. The orderly arrangement of things in this world and the existence of intelligent beings prove that the first cause is intelligent; the moral obligation made known by conscience necessarily calls for a legislator; lastly, the principle of finality demands that there should be a supreme, sovereignly good end, for which we are made, and which, therefore, is superior to us."
Maybe the theist's account of reality would have backed up and substantiated much what we had arrived at through common sense and basic observation and would have made it fit into a coherent whole.
We definitely would have laughed at a guy who would have told us that basically everything we had just arrived at was either an illusion or false, because matter, energy and space-time are all that exists, and taking this to it's logical conclusion would have 'proved scientifically' that we were wrong. We would have laughed at him, because his attempted bottom-up synthesis was in reality a top-down synthesis, starting with an incomplete principle and explaining everything from there. We would have laughed at him, because we saw so clearly that he didn't start with the obvious like we did, but he started way up on the epistemological ladder, a place he wouldn't have arrived at, had he started from the beginning. Had he started from the beginning, he would have shrugged off the next materialist guy trying to enlighten us, because some of his conclusions are just directly opposed to glaringly obvious observations. The rejection of teleology and the arrival at mereological nihilism as the logical outcome of the materialists basic principle would have been only some examples of that. He would have laughed with us. You would have laughed with us. You *could* laugh with us.
The quote I gave in between is from 'God, His Existence and His Nature' by Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., which is a quite sophisticated work which you could find interesting. It would give you some of the best we Catholics have to offer, and you would get a better understanding of our thinking about things. Maybe you could at least wrap your head around the arguments and sharpen your intellect. Please get the book.
God bless!
J.
@@intedominesperavi6036 Thanks for replying and thanks for the book recommendation!
I don't know how much free time I can deficate to reading it as I recently became a father, but I will try!
For now I will just reply to some points you raised.
"Should materialism be true, the universe is going to turn darker and colder as time progresses. Why not achieve as much of that as early and quickly as possible?"
Because I and many other people don't want to.
Also, you say my standard is arbitrary. I agree!
Do you recognize that your standard is also arbitrary?
@@g07denslicer
It's great that you are willing to look into the book. I hope that you may profit from it.
"Do you recognize that your standard is also arbitrary?"
It would be arbitrary, if it rested on a materialist presupposition. I'm not a materialist.
@@intedominesperavi6036 What I'm saying is thst _all_ standards of morality are arbitrary, whether you're a materialist or not.
The events you describe occurred in May 2020.
Yep. It's back in the news because the trial is starting. Pity Brian didn't do his research before jumping in at the deep end.
@@jimmydaniels3835 When does Brian do his research about anything, though?
@@HuxtableK Exactly :)
I'll save you 12 minutes of your life:
The guy is just moving the goal post from the questions atheists pose on theists for years while all the theists ever did is to pee pee dance around it.
Thank you for saving me time.
I wish I'd read this first. Would have saved me watching another christian man making a complete fool of himself by showing he cannot formulate a logical thought so awkwardly projects his "God has a Plan" worldview onto atheists and materialists. The Christian man clearly showed he has no idea what materialism or atheism is while completely missing the irony he was simply describing the christian "God's Plan...therefore that bad thing is good" schtick.
So basically, "No you"
@@nathanlloyd774 Give it a southern drawl - albeit he doesn't have one, it just makes it funnier - and you're there.
Poo poo.
Wee wee.
---
Edit: Sorry, I thought that's what we were doing.
Another video where the theist thinks he knows what is in the atheist's mind. Pathetic.
Before I converted to Catholicism this Easter, I was an atheist for about a year or so. I had been previously a Pentecostal Christian but deconverted when I discovered the problem of evil and other philosophical arguments against God. I had asked my pastor and youth leader for advice on how to deal with that problem and I was just told to “trust God”. That was the wrong answer for me and I left. I should also note that when I discovered this philosophical argument, I had been dealing with years of grief and depression after my father died when I was seven.
I eventually realized that part of the solution to that problem is realizing that you cannot define good or evil without a standard (thank you Catholic Answers), and that morality and truth must be objective to authoritatively define good and evil, and that evil cannot be defined except by comparing it to that which is good. The evolution argument now better makes sense for mortality if you accept that we did not come up with morality but discovered that standard which already existed, with the help of divine revelation. I would come to realize that God was the standard of truth and morality, and that evil was the absence or privatization of good.
I also came to accept that natural evil (storms, etc) are the result of making a habitable earth for us and so can be explained that way.
I also came to realize that eventually we will all be repaid for our deeds in one way or another, and so the evil that God allows will not be permanent and does not reign freely without consequences, something the problem of evil does not account for.
I am so thankful for the church and it’s magisterium, intellectual tradition, and evidence for the supernatural reality behind everything. I would still be an atheist if not for it. Deo gratias!
Hello Roy. The description of your spiritual journey to Catholicism was both intriguing reassuring to read.
@Harold Reinhardt thank you!
@Harold Reinhardt thanks for the tips! I’ve already been doing those things and I’m fully confirmed now, so I’m on track for the rest of my spiritual journey!
@@pauloriess thank you! Pax Christi!
@@georgegoodyear9631 thanks! I hope to someday help others in similar situations through some lay ministry or through the priesthood. I plan on contacting the ICKSP once the three year waiting period is over.
As a happily married atheist, I feel completely comfortable making the following comment: Brian, you should thank your god that you're at least good looking.
As a gay happily married atheist bot, you sound jealous and... well... gay) Why? You want to switch partners?🤣🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy while I wouldn't mind the looks, the smooth brain would definitely not be worth it.
So... after several minutes of your video I have little to no idea what you are even trying to say, maybe its the irrelevant stories... Is the "problem" that _you_ cannot understand something? That's a you problem, not an atheism problem.
Before you try to spin the problem of evil around, you should try to understand it. Also, just because something has been "addressed" doesn't mean it has been solved or that it goes away. Every Christian argument for God has been fully addressed and rebutted, and yet people keep presenting them without alteration over and over and over. That many Christians are fine with dismissing arguments, evidence, and rebuttals without reason in favor of what they like has no bearing on the validity of an argument.
To make an atheist problem of evil, you first need to present some atheist (or Materialist in this case because that's the stance you are _actually_ talking about) idea that asserts or requires that "evil" should not happen, then show that "evil" happens to violate that idea.
"Evolution of the gaps"... wow, its amazing how vapid you are vs how clever you think you are.
You deciding, ad hoc, what we should or shouldn't know about something isn't an argument for or against anything. Unless, that is, you are a leading expert on the topic.
I don't know why I expected anything interesting from this video... but I was thoroughly disappointed.
The Problem of Evil, at least Epicurus' version has to do, specifically, with an outside will.
Bad thing happens, God doesn't stop it. Either he can, and doesn't, or he can't, so why bother worshipping him? That's the problem of evil.
In the atheist worldview, bad things happen, cuz they do.
An all powerful, all knowing, all Loving God, would not have let, say, Uvalde happen. He could have vaporized the bullets, as they left the muzzle, hardened the children's skin against the bullets, or sent an angel to pluck the projectiles out of the air, as they were fired, all without influencing the shooters free will. Literal miracles.
But he didn't. Kids were killed, either because he could do nothing to stop it, or was never going to try.
There is no "problem of evil" in the atheist worldview.
There is only it's existence.
you explained it probably better than I could. The world could easily be a better place and god could do much more while still respecting freedom.
And even if he cant, we are expected to intervene in stoping grave evil when we are present and able to. Not doing so when we can makes us the dickheads... but god?
@@Unclenate1000 yup.
It's also like the God's will argument. If anything happens, that's how it was supposed to happen, and no one should feel anger, or grief.
It's ridiculous, on its face.
Brian is my favourite apologist. He says the dumbest shit in the most pleasant way. Turek and Friel says just as stupid stuff but, they're also super obnoxious. Never change Brian.
So we can agree they all talk 💩.
"Unctuous" the word describing Brian is unctuous. A slimy, patronizing, disingenuousness and sickening ingratiating manner and tone thatdrips with condescension and makes normal people's skin crawl. It is the behavior of a gaslighting con-man.
One mans pleasant is another mans smug I guess.
from a nauralistic perspective, our knowledge of an alternate preferred world comes from our desires and our capacity to plan for the future. it is not a difficult question.
I have no idea why anyone would think this is insightful. You literally misunderstand what "The Problem of Evil" is. you misunderstand what "atheism" is.
He also deliberately mischaracterised and lied about materialism. I say 'lied' as no one would possibly display the level of ignorance and misinformation by accident. It's just not possible.
The problem of Evil doesn't exist. Otherwise, you would be a UTOPIAN idealist
This video is an absolutely incoherent mess. I've watched it four times now and I'm still trying to figure out what the hell the argument is.
A guy killed someone, I don't like that, therefore God? Is that the argument? That's my serious attempt at untangling this deranged word salad.
Agreed but apologetic are about quelling cognitive dissonance and absolutely _nothing_ else. They don’t have to make sense. They just have to make the self-contradictory beliefs of a believer feel momentarily palatable.
You’ve never talked to an atheist, or understood their position, and have put exactly zero thought into your claims.
So, if your God exists...this murder still happened, this kid was still killed, the guy still claimed he enjoyed it.
Therefore, your God wanted it to happen. It was part of his plan.
How can you say you morally disagree with this? After all, your God wanted it to happen and had it happen according to his Perfect Plan.
And historically his Catholic Church taught that if the child was not baptized he would suffer eternity in hellfire. Also if the murderer repented and was baptized he would be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. Somehow he doesn’t see anything wrong with this picture.
You greatly simplified the problem of evil.
It is not "why does God allow evil".
It is "why did God create a world where suffering was mandatory"?
An all powerful and loving God would have created a reality where suffering was not a possibility- like beings that had no need to eat each other. Suffwring extends far beyond humans.
An all loving God would not have created us with this capacity, and it would.not have impacted our free will at all.
glad im not the only one who realizes this. even our dumbasses with a pretty basic imagination could conjure up a better world setup, while still respecting the notion of freedom in some way. There's no excuse why god of infinite knowledge and imaginative power could also.
1stly. You have to remember that God did make such a place with no problems. And that's heaven. Clearly this world wasn't meant to be as nice as that one.
Than why put us here in the first place? As did the angels who could only enter into heaven upon being tested so were humans in Genesis were set here with a bunch of rules. Earth is meant as a place of testing. It has features that are purposely granted with distasteful things so that we will be tested on whether we will choose Him no matter how much crap is thrown our way or not.
But why that way you ask? It's simple. God is not just merciful. He's also just. And it isn't just to make a la la land where two individuals with opposing stances get equal positive outcomes.
But hey at leased no one gets hurt right? But then again it'd still be unjust because we have good outcomes when our free will was never tested.
God will never give us that form of happiness until we deserve it.
@@JustUsCrazyBoyz Thanks for the response. Here are my thoughts.
I don’t think you understand the issue.
//1stly. You have to remember that God did make such a place with no problems. And that's heaven. Clearly this world wasn't meant to be as nice as that one. Than why put us here in the first place?
That is the question of evil - why construct a reality where all living beings can only succeed if they kill other things, etc. This is not something an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God would do. This God could have created the universe in a way that did not require suffering. But He chose to do it this way - why would He intentionally do this?
//As did the angels who could only enter into heaven upon being tested so were humans in Genesis were set here with a bunch of rules.
That is not the kind of test that an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God would use. In fact, an all-knowing God would not need any test at all because He would already know the answer.
//Earth is meant as a place of testing. It has features that are purposely granted with distasteful things so that we will be tested on whether we will choose Him no matter how much crap is thrown our way or not.
Again, God would not need to test us - He would already know the conclusion of the test prior to creating the universe. This is the problem of evil. There is no need for God to inflict suffering upon us as a test when He already knows how we would behave under such a test.
//But why that way you ask? It's simple. God is not just merciful. He's also just.
Those are mutually exclusive terms. You either apply justice, or you don’t. If you are merciful, you are not applying justice, and if you apply justice, you are not showing mercy.
//And it isn't just to make a la la land where two individuals with opposing stances get equal positive outcomes.
Opposing stances is different from suffering.
//But hey at leased no one gets hurt right?
No - everybody suffers. Everybody is hurt. This is the problem of evil. Why did God create a place where all must suffer when he had the power to do something other than this?
//But then again it'd still be unjust because we have good outcomes when our free will was never tested. God will never give us that form of happiness until we deserve it.
Assume God knows everything I will ever do, how I will feel, what will happen to me, etc. and He knows this long before I am born. He causes me to be born and live the life He knows I will live. He knows (before I am born) whether I deserve His gift of happiness but forces me to live a life of suffering before sending me to hell for infinite torture.
This is the problem of evil. By all accounts, this God is evil.
@@JohnBoen //Those are mutually exclusive terms. You either apply justice, or you don’t. If you are merciful, you are not applying justice, and if you apply justice, you are not showing mercy.
Um no. He is merciful because he is totally just. Justice has to work alongside mercy in order to be truly just. And how are justice and mercy contradictory in a philosophical level? Justice and mercy are both good things. How can two good things contradict each other?
And I noticed that all of your other objections have the same theme. "If God is all knowing and He knew all the evil than why did He still allow it?" Now I have to give you credit for mentioning it like this because at leased you're being very intellectual unlike most atheists in the comment sections are a bunch of smug aholes.
The answer is in the question itself. If God is All Knowing". Remember, due to this nature, God doesn't have to care what we think is right.. If He is all knowing and allows suffering, who are we to question His motives especially when it's on a human level which is faulty. Sure there's obvious suffering but no matter how obvious something is there are things about it that we can't know because human understanding is faulty. That's why we need God. If there's any person who'd confirm that the best way to salvation is through this world of suffering it's God. After all God doesn't see death and suffering in the way we see it. The girl in this vids story and the children who died in the Uvalde Shootings all died in the state of innocence therefore are all happy in heaven and probably thinking that it was the best thing to ever happen to them.
As I said, God doesn't care about what we think is right and will never submit to our standards because He knows best. Although He may have made objective morality He knows what to do with it.
C.S Louis made this syllogism
Premise A God Is all good
Premise B God Allows Suffering
Conclusion Suffering must be good.
Hard to swallow right? But think of it in this angle. I'm an amateur screenwritter. Let's say I write a movie about a protagonist who got everything he wanted and the end had him achieve his greatest goal without any trouble. Would you watch it? Would you like my protagonist?
Since this revolves around details we don't know about God, at leased we can try to make sense of the best we can, suffering can bring out the best in a person. If a person handles suffering no matter how hard it is and comes out on top or bares through it with a smile on his face than that is a model of inspiration and God has demonstrated that through His Son.
@Timothy
Why?
I define evil as an action where a person gains something (often pleasure) from causing harm. Failing to reduce suffering when it would cost nothing would also be evil.
Evil exists .. but good (gaining nothing from giving aid, or gaining only pleasure) is much more common.
No one asserts knowledge of another world, we simply say ours would be better if x rather than y. Because we can see y and we can imagine x and compare. That doesn't change the fact that what happens in our world is the simply the way things are, or rather the way things have happened. Bad things happen but we don't have to like it and we can work to change it. This isn't inconsistent with a materialist world view, it still describes a material reality.
Ok, let me give you a simple example :
Let's say I have diarrhea and I say "I wish I didn't have diarrhea" or "It would be better if I didn't have diarrhea". I am not claiming to have knowledge of some better alternate reality where I don't have diarrhea. As a healthy human being, I like the way my butt usually feels on a day to day basis, and I like the fact that I don't have to remain close to a toilet at all time. So all I'm claiming is that my normal state is more comfortable than my diarrhea state, and I would be better if I were in my normal state because I have knowledge of what my normal state and I prefer it. In other words, I can compare how I feel with and without diarrhea and come to the conclusion that I'd much rather not have it.
Honestly, you sound like a philosophy student on a mushroom trip. "Dood, what if, like, when we wish things were, like, different you know, we are actually connecting to like, an alternate reality where things are different."
If there is an objective morality, why is God exempt from it’s constrictions? God does innumerable morally heinous things in the Bible. His actions are unparalleled in causing needless suffering among humanity. How can the moral law giver be immoral?
That’s why many early Christians rejected Yahweh as an evil demiurge.
Atheist here. I enjoyed the video; I don't consider myself to be anti-religion and I found your perspective valuable. However, I would like to share my answers to the questions asked.
First of all, how can atheists label something as bad or evil when the material world itself doesn't yield a definition of good or evil? Simle. Popular morality has already been defined for centuries, in large part due to the efforts of the church through history. It is accepted my the vastest majority of society that the bloody murder of a child is, as you said, an almost incomprehensible level of evil. Therefore, when atheists label such an occurrence as evil, we are simply making a judgement in accordance with our own world view of morality, which almost always comes from popular morality (which, as I said, is in part derived from biblical values).
Furthermore, I would posit that there are logical reasons that most humans are inclined to believe such a murder is evil; I would argue that humans RATIONALLY recognize that some level of cooperation is needed for the maintenance of society, and that actions such as Moss' that would have been normal in a Hobbesian state of nature are no longer excused due to the existence of both popular morality as well as organized society and organized states/governments. Remember, many argue that organized states and modern cooperative society exist to prevent senseless violence. Therefore, to excuse such violence would be to argue against the existence of the state, something which very few people are inclined to do as they derive many benefits from the states.
Second, a point is made in the video that if we label an occurrence as wrong or evil, we are wishing for the existence of another place of reality, or that we wish that reality is another way. I have contentions with this for a couple of reasons. One, the video states that we believe another reality "should" exist. This is not completely true. I would argue that we WISH for another reality to appear, not that we think one SHOULD. This semantic difference raises an important question: Is it not okay for a materialist to wish that something in their materialist world didn't happen? Why is this not allowed? Do religious people not believe this? Atheists wishing for another reality does not contradict our materialist views; we do not actually think such a reality exists, we are only wishing that one did. The second reason I have contentions with the alternate plane of reality argument presented in the video is that science hasn't really answered the question of free will yet (but we do know that humans have autonomy). In a way, atheists are not wishing for an alternate reality, we are only wishing that Moss had made a different CHOICE, one in accordance with popular morality.
The last contention I have with the video is the part where it is stated that Plato and Aristotle had a theological answer for the existence of another reality (which, again, atheists don't think exist): they posited that another spiritual realm exists in contact with the human soul. Now, this does somewhat answer the question "Where do atheists get knowledge of alternate reality?" Again, I do not believe we have this knowledge, but I will accept the premise of the question for rhetorical purposes. Assuming we do have this knowledge, why are Aristotle and Plato's arguments correct? The mere fact that they answer the question is ABSOLUTELY NOT enough justification for the truth of their claims. I could argue that there is a metaphysical unicorn living in my brain in constant communications with all other brain-living metaphysical unicorns, and that they together decide what the alternate reality looks like. Does this answer the question? Yes. But I have not proved that my claim is true, and neither has any religious thinker for thousands of years. The burden of proof lies on the claim-maker, and one piece of pseudo-circumstantial "evidence" is sure as heck not enough. Again: why are Aristotle and Plato's arguments correct?
That's a lot. And I thought I was a big mouth. Lol. No offence intended. I really am one. I go ON and ON. But I agree. I particularly like the point you made in the last paragraph. The only thing I'd take issue with is when you said you're not anti religion. I don't see how that's possible in this day and age. I'm not saying a predominantly atheist society would fix all our problems. But it would be silly to think it wouldn't fix any. If NOTHING else, it gives us a universal standard by which to judge objective truth. When you ask people why they believe Trump won the election or why they believe some anonymous claimant named Q on a message board where anyone can write anything they want, about matters that are both implausible and have no evidence to support it, they don't answer "Because of the evidence." They say that they have been given by god the gift of discernment. Can you think of a more dangerous idea? Or they say that it's because those who believe that are evil and from the devil and what we believe comes from god and all that. Did you think people were exaggerating when they said it was a post fact world? Just think of the ways that might manifest itself? So, if I'm going for the most extreme example I can think of off the top of my head, let's say for example, a certain number of people got it in their heads that the first born of every 100 families must be killed to appease god so he will spare us from his wrath. Or something. I don't know how they'd determine who the 100th family was but it's just a hypothetical example. Okay that's extreme. But somewhere in between that and believing Trump won the election is where people will land and I don't want to find out what that means.
I am constantly trying to toe the line between the belief that people are entitled to their beliefs and the harmful effects of religion.
@@patrickvanhoven461 Well they are entitled to their belief. There's no doubt about that. I don't see how there's a line to tow there. Banning religion is out of the question. I don't want to live in a society that doesn't allow me the freedom to think how I please. It's just a matter of educating people. It sounds so easy when I say it like that but no. It's quite a chore. I don't think there will ever be a time with no religion but I'd like to see the day when the atheist wasn't the one who had the weird, kind of eccentric belief that most people didn't agree with. But the numbers look better every year. Atheism is growing slowly but irreligion is skyrocketing.
So, we do what we do. We hang out online hoping to get our point of view across. Lol. And I think it's worked. People at least seem to know what it is now. Excepting those who won't understand of course. You can't force anyone to accept something but you can diligently educate people and try to make sure any doubters are aware of the logic behind it. That's why you see some of these activists online year after year, going over and over the same old talking points again and again. But, if I ever did manage to change anyone's mind and if their experience was anything like mine, it's worth it. It's the first step into a bigger and better world. I'm using poetic language but the point is, it's worth it. There is something good at the end of that long and sometimes painful road. Not just for society but for the individual.
@@PaulTheSkeptic 100%. The route to ending the evils of religion lies not in legal penalties but in popular atheism.
@@patrickvanhoven461
[(which, as I said, is in part derived from biblical values).]
I agree with most of what you presented, but I reject this point. Why? People have understood various moral notions well before the Bible. However, the issue is actually worse, since the Bible entails moral and a lot of immoral notions. The fact that people tend to reject the immoral notions supports the idea of an understanding of morality which is separate from what is presented in the Bible.
ua-cam.com/video/dWNW-NXEudk/v-deo.html
Can we talk about the fact that you declared the alternate universe is actually the explanation for those moral declarations handed down from on high? The same thing you accused atheists of asserting - even though we don't because imagination and desire don't point to another bloody reality - and demanded to know where we got that information from? Care to explain where Plato and Aristotle got the information about this otherworld of base forms, or is this just a typical appeal to catholic authority?
"I think it would be audacious for us to assume that we can have any meaningful knowledge of things which are external to us like the universe if we can't understand the basics of human nature" So from your own words we can have no idea of whether this so-called "god" being exists. Congratulations, you're an agnostic.
While I disagree with virtually everything you say in the video, I commend you for leaving the comments section open.
As for the primary point of contention, let me ask you a question. Imagine you read two novels, both of which are clearly in the realm of fantasy. If I were to ask you which fictional world you would rather live in, does it require there to be some actual real platonic version of the world in question for you to make that judgment call? What if I then asked what one thing might make that chosen world better? Does the platonic version have to change to represent the slightly different ideals of this follow-up question?
No to both questions. What it does require is a knowledge of potential goods from which you could compare the actual or fictional worlds in question to. If I approve/disapprove of an action or an event in the actual world then I am invoking comparisons between potential and actual. The fact I have knowledge of the potential means there must be more than the apparent actual, especially if I assign to it some value that measures it as being something far more than a day dream fantasy.
PS. I'm grateful to see someone has a grasp of what is being discussed here. Most replies reveal a lack of appreciation for things they are taking for granted.
@@BrianHoldsworth No it does not mean that. The "value" has no manifestation in the real world except in people's minds, and a "day dream fantasy" is all that's required to explain what we see in the world.
I have yet to find any explanation for this frankly outlandish claim. Please point it out, either in the video, the comments or someplace else.
@@BrianHoldsworth Most replies point out the obvious weak points of your line of thinking.
@@korbendallas5318 Hubristic and condescending assertions are not counter arguments. The content of the mind is exactly what we're talking about here. You're saying that you cannot observe the content of a person's mind as a material manifestation and therefore it is not a form of meaningful evidence. That presupposes materialism, making it circular, but further; the problem is, we live by our ideas which makes them, arguably, more important than any observable phenomena. The content of our thoughts inform our decisions and our moral thoughts, most of all, since decision isn't about true or false , but rather right or wrong. Before you make a decision, if you're a moral person, you consider what is the right one to make. That is based on your apprehension of potentials that you want to realize as actual. But if you're a materialist, there is no such thing as potential, yet it is the basis of all deliberation and actions. That's the inconsistency for anyone who claims to be a positivist/materialist yet conducts themselves in this way. Any philosopher worth their salt knows that goodness is a transcendental because it exceeds the material facts.
I'm a Christian, and your argument is terrible. You literally cited a case of psychosis caused by drug use as a way of suggesting you can't explain things by physical causes.
Ok, so your first point, if I understand you correctly, seems to be that the occurence of sadism doesn't make sense in a material world. Well, why wouldn't it? What we enjoy or don't enjoy is entirely dependent on how our brain responds to certain situations and stimulations. Why wouldn't we expect a chemical reaction in a brain that causes some people to feel joy killing someone? I wouldn't even go to to evolution to explain that on materialism. It can be explained the same way as you would explain why some people are born with only one leg: genetical stuff is delicate and sometimes it turns out different than usually. You don't need some magical evil to explain that lol. And btw we're talking about really few people here. You said 20% of the population are sociopaths, but this is something entirely different than sadism, which your example was about.
The second point was the classical "if there's no God there's no standard for something to be evil or wrong". Well, so what? That's why I don't call it evil. It is wrong though if you set a goal. If your goal is to live in a peaceful world where everyone including you can prosper, this murder is obviously a threat to your goal, and therefore by defintion "wrong". Nothing more, nothing less. I dont need to appeal to some magical evil in order to say that murdering someone for sadism is a threat for the society we live in.
As an atheist I dont see this problem as too difficult to answer. I will answer for myself here and not for all atheists as other atheists may disagree or have better explanations etc. Firstly as a non-believer I don't assign "wrong" and "evil" as being equal or the same thing. I can assign wrong to something without using the word evil and thereby invoking religious overtones of the devil and demons etc although I may use the word evil from time to time but in the more general meaning to describe something as being wrong in a more extreme or repugnant way. I dont need to understand why someone kills an innocent child but what I do know is that individuals like that who have been discovered, outed etc would be ostracised in a community and hence have to fend for his or her self and would therefore not succeed in becoming mainstream etc. How evolution plays into how I understand right from wrong goes something like this, humans have evolved as a societal species simply out of survival because our chance of survival is far better in groups than alone and to live in groups means rules inevitably are created and you must follow otherwise you will find youtself kicked out and therefore more likely to die etc. The successful society would be made up of majority cooperative individuals etc but just like a bell curve with statistics etc you are still going to have your outliers and these include people who do extreme wrong, or "evil" if you believe in that.
My response to someone who claims that if God existed, then evil would not exist, would be: then if God doesn't exist, what is the meaning of your or anyone else's suffering? In a purely material, mechanistic universe, suffering would be just a brute fact with no meaning and the sufferings of millions of people who suffered through history would therefore be devoid of value. I think that is a conclusion that no one, not even an atheist, would want to draw.
Value is subjective. Suffering in the weight room can have value because it makes you stronger. The suffering of the victims of the Holocaust had no subjective value as far as I can tell. Those people died for nothing, and are in the same place as Hitler. That is to say, they are in oblivion. That is a brute fact of the universe.
So your argument is because suffering exists it can't just be for nothing? That's not a logical argument whatsoever. Yes atheists would rather that suffering and death not be in vain and completely meaningless. But you feeling that a meaningless uncaring universe is unfair and therefore something beyond this must exist doesn't actually mean it does. Maybe God exists but your argument on this basis that you put forward isn't a good argument. Its the equivalent of saying if Santa doesn't exist then Christmas is meaningless and I find that depressing and therefore Santa must exist. A better question is "why is there anything at all rather than nothing?" which is the only question that makes me agnostic on the existence or lack of existence of a God. Thats the one question that nobody seems to be able to explain logically aside from "nothingness is impossible or it came from nothing" which just creates more questions as to why do laws exist that would allow something to emerge out of nothingness.
@@paulohara4153The only logical conclusion of your argument is suicide: insofar as you continue to live you refute yourself, for to choose to go on living is to assume that there's something inherently good and meaningful about living.
Animals suffer for no reason. No heaven after being tortured in slaughterhouses.
Suffering doesn't have a deep meaning. It is a biological adaptation to destructive events. If a segment of the population dislikes the feeling they experience when say, they put their leg in a thornbush, they will put their legs in fewer thornbushes. They will then have healthier legs as a group and therefore greater reproductive success. Over time, the segments of the population which avoid suffering will replace those who do not.
Suffering can bring about improvements in the world, but only if the sufferers survive and learn how to avoid it. Robert, you have been listening to too many stupid lying evil bastards like Mother Teresa. The only value that suffering has is what it can teach you. If someone is locked in a concentration camp or a home for the dying until they die, then their suffering has no value. The Catholic Church supported Teresa's torture of helpless dying folks while she intercepted enough aid money to build and staff a state of the art hospital in Calcutta. She used that money to promote her religion.
" to choose to go on living is to assume that there's something inherently good and meaningful about living."
Do you not understand that some people enjoy living even though they suffer sometimes? Some people even enjoy suffering. I certainly enjoy things which I don't necessarily think are inherently good or meaningful.
7:20 This is just a mashup of different fallacies:
Equivocation: You want to dictate that the word "evil" necessarily has some transcendant qualities. It does not, I'm very well able to use the word without any transcendant implication. "Rape is evil" is just as true for me than for someone with a religious background.
Tautology: If your "evil" is necessarily transcendant, it's tautologically true that your "materialist Atheists" can't use the term in a meaningful way.
You continue by explaining that Atheists would have to disapprove of reality. Uhm, so? Do Christians agree with every part of reality? What's your point here?
You also don't seem to understand the difference of prescriptive vs descriptive materialism.
I'd suggest sticking to the more shallow waters until you have a better understanding of the words you're using
This is complete madness, you may as well say that when I order a pizza and wish that the crust was thinner that I believe in an entire alternate reality where the pizza had a thinner crust.
Brian when you say you wish more people are Christian you have not said that you belive in an alternate universe where all people are Christian and I suppose this is now part of a new kind of Catholicism I guess we can call Holdsworthism
I have no knowledge of an invisible world that is any different than this one. What are you talking about? It is a complete absurdity, I literally have listed to this on hallucinogens and it was profoundly funny, I sadly did not understand the absurd worlds of magic you assert that I claim are real everytime I have an experience that is not absolute perfection.
Hey, Simba. Why not offer your two cents on a belief system that says that the sign on bonus is that anything and everything you have done wrong or will ever do wrong is immediately expunged. That you will never, ever pay a price for your actions, and that, quite the contrary, you will be rewarded for them in the most glorious way - essentially relieving you of all responsibility for anything and everything you do while supporting and rewarding abject licentiousness. Why not try to explain to us how that is NOT the opposite of a system of morality. Go ahead, Simba.
Ah, the old god of gaps argument. Atheism is not an affirmation, it is the denial of theism. And you forget that there are two types of materialism, methodological and philosophical. You seem to forget that you also arbitrarily decide what is right and what is wrong in the bible, which is why we no longer stone people for working on the Sabbath.
Atheism is also the denial of sanity. Especially if one ends up as a materialist/physicalist. And even with methodological materialism, why exactly you only focus on material explanations has at least some philosophical reason. Philosophy always comes prior to the natural sciences.
@@intedominesperavi6036 "Denial of Sanity". I find this an ironic statement coming from people who believe in talking mules and pregnant virgins.
Nothing atheists do or say commits them to the bizarre assumptions you work from. For example, this "alternate reality" stuff. It's entirely your personal, weird philosophy. Nobody else's.
just don't make descriptive statements like inherent evil of an act in regards to its relation to reality.
On a completely reduction and rational level, I disapprove of child murder not because I see it as evil, but I know that disapproving of it is advantageous to my positions and goals. No one thinks like that, you or me, but our brains are structured to do things that are advantageous to the continuation of our DNA-heritage.
You instinctively perceive these actions as evil, not because there actually is something like evil that you can make prescriptive statements of, but because it helps you without you even having to be aware of why.
Basically, you seeing these things as "evil" is just a natural process like getting sleepy at some point. You don't have to make the effort to become tired and make a rational decision, it just happens because it is easier for your brain to work like that.
On your view, why should I buy that words like 'advantageous', 'goal', 'help', 'because' and 'work' even have meaning. Teleology just seems so arbitrarily introduced to it.
Over all, you are turning in circles with your explanation. That's because you start with reductionism and try to end up with it again. Reductionism is really more of a presupposition first held, not something arrived at a posteriori. You are not actually giving a final or even sufficient explanation of reality. Of course, ending up at a final explanation of reality is was theism is.
What you describe as "evil" is explicable only in a materialistic universe. In fact, it's not only explicable, but inevitable. It is no problem for what you call the atheist.
The problem only arises when you try to reconcile the actual universe with an all-loving, all-knowing, all-present creator god.
If, for a moment, we can suspend the arrogance of only considering the human condition, we can see that what you describe as "evil" is the default state in the natural world, in which life has evolved to prey on other life in order to survive.
It didn't have to be this way if the wisest, most loving and most powerful thing imaginable created it all.
This is why evil is a philosophical problem for the religious but only an existential one for non-believers.
What does evolution have to do with materialism or atheism? And why would wishes and imagination mean that we assert that an other reality must exist? Materialists and atheists don't even believe in an other reality. Have you never watched a movie or read a book? If you did watch a movie someday would you start believing in Hogwarts, Narnia and Tartaros?
It's really strange that people will use these weird, esoteric notions about reality, like the realm of Platonic ideals, but they're operating with such fundamental ignorance of more common and straightforward notions like materialism and determinism.
Either you're lecturing in an area you yourself have never made even a casual study of, or you're lying.
I think it's the first, but this really is very simple. If you can imagine a better world than the one that exists, as a materialist you have no reason to have expected to be in the better world you imagined instead of the one you find yourself in. Materialism makes no predictions about this. As a theist who claims to believe in a tri-omn God, you should have expected to find yourself in the better world you imagined, rather than the world you find yourself in. You have made assertions that have, as their logical consequence, the conclusion that you should have found yourself in the best world imaginable.
The theist has a contradiction and the materialist does not.
7:20 I would say morality is indeed subjective. You and I can sit here and say well that was fucked up what that guy did but If the individual doesn't view it as wrong then it simply isn't to them. That's not to say that there aren't morals that we all agree upon in society as "right" and "wrong" . It is up to the individual to decide for themselves what they consider a good action or bad. That is not advocating for anything just literally say thats how it is. Also, i think it is extremely disingenuous to say if you dislike someone getting murdered that you are against nature. I think it was also disingenuous when you claimed that if we dont understand human nature how can we know anything about the natural world. Humans are animals whether you like that or not. Are we very intelligent animals? Absolutely. But that does not change facts.
Here is an example of how morality can be subjective. Let's imagine a world (!) in which someone became convinced that this man was about to murder a child. Perhaps the man bragged about it to this other person. To prevent that obviously "evil" act, this person chose to murder the man instead. This of course would be seen as an "evil" act by people that did not know what the man intended to do. He might try to justify his act by saying the man was going to murder a child, but everyone else would have no reason to believe it. To the rest of the world, this man was killed for no reason - an obviously "evil" act.
Now Imagine you are that person - no matter what you do, you would be committing an act that would be deemed "evil" by itself - not acting to prevent the murder of a child would be called "evil", but killing the man before he did anything would also be called "evil".
Either way, the perception of whether or not the act is "evil" lies purely in the information the person passing judgement has of the situation. If you know what the man intended to do, killing him would not be "evil". If you don't know, then killing him would be "evil". It is purely subjective.
Even the act of murder can be "evil" or "not evil", depending on the circumstances and the opinions/beliefs of the observer.
I feel more stupid after watching this video. So thank you.
But no really, almost everything in this video is wrong. I can claim that certain actions are wrong, when my moral model is that any imposition of will is morally wrong. So I can make an objective judgment of this action based on this principle.
No problem for the material world, but a better moral standard than „because god said so“.
I believe in the invisible fairy Zeus myself. Never have any problems with him being evil. A bit naughty for sure. But the 'torture people for eternity for no reason' style of the invisible fairy you worship, is not his style....
cringe. 😂😂😂
and he has no qualms with people jacking off... just dont camp in the left lane while driving and youre pretty much good
I would just like to state that I am deeply sad for the victims. And I am also sad for the murderer, that he came to be a person that acts in such a way. The tragedy is big enough. No reasoning needed.
But according to Brian's Christian worldview, the tragedy that happened was unavoidable as everything that happens is part of "God's Plan". otherwise his god is not all powerful or all knowing as he claims.
Atheist confuse me because it’s either some biological component triggered him to such a horrendous act making him “non-evil” by default or he truly did something evil (which I believe he did)
@@drose3100 If god told you to do what the guy in the story did, you would do it in a heartbeat. I would call that kind of blind obedience evil
So let me get this straight. You refused to study any element of psychology or pathology or biology or trauma or anything else that might help you understand these actions but you think Plato‘s cave is real and not an allegory and because you think this incredibly weird irrational thing atheism is illogical. That’s your argument.
4:30 Ok, first off, no one is making that argument. Most people assume there's something broken in his particular brain. Let's be clear about that. But you seem to be suggesting that it's completely implausible and would be unsupported if anyone said such a thing. Did you know that when a male lion takes over a pride of females, he often kills the cubs sired by the previous male? Instinctive aggression toward the offspring of rival males *is a real thing we observe in mammals.* If someone suggested that it would not be completely speculative. It would just be wondering if humans also have such a drive buried somewhere in our brain. I suspect most "Evolution of the Gaps" things you don't like are actually based on something. And ones that have no clear basis are simply wondering what advantage something could provide. Because you see, speculation is thinking about what might be, not what is.
I am an atheist and do not know how I have any problem with the existence of evil ( Bad shit that happens)? I know that bad things happen. It is consistent with my atheism. The issue is not quite the same from a Christian theistic belief system. You see we are told that God is all loving and all good as well as all powerful and if you do believe this, you are stuck with a God who does not fit these attributes. He is all good but allows a devil to exist and wreak havoc on humans as well as allow all types of evil to exist, when he and only he could possibly change this. As an atheist I do not think there is any supernatural being who could possibly change the existence of evil. I am not seeing any contradiction at all with the problem of evil. It exists, end of story.
This comes across as pretty ridiculous assumptions.
From your story
The devil made him do it
1:50
"evolution of the gaps" is such a blatantly reactionary argument.
1) Agrippa's Trilemma and/or the Euthyphro Dilemma have never been rationally dealt with by theists. That being said...
2) Morality is a social construct. Evil is an idea. Justice is an idea. Ideas can be assumed to exist independently of the human mind but not rationally justified as such.
3) Values, such as good and evil, if assumed to exist for utilitarian purposes (which they usually are), are subjective. Lots of people agreeing on values are inter-subjective. Enough people now and in the past believing in ideas as a part of reality can fake it until they make it. We do this with property, ownership, tradition and historical narratives all the time.
4) Appealing to right and wrong as ideas is something anyone can do. Assuming that those ideas are absolute, in other words, making believe that they're absolute, is the very essence of idealism, Platonism, etc. Because we think using language, it's no surprise that we can convince ourselves that words and ideas are absolute. That doesn't mean they are.
Bottom line is, the social utility of make-believe, when it comes to moral oughts, is an integral part of the social nature of humanity. Ideas exist in our minds, and that includes morality. The end.
Yes, I'm an atheist and consider theism completely unjustified.
Though articulated very neatly, what your analysis leaves out is that our inter-subjectice value hierarchies (including good and evil) must accurately correspond with objective reality, otherwise they will not function. We are not free to capriciously construct arbitrary value hierarchies. In fact, they must abide by very narrow strictures to correspond with objective reality, even if our access to that reality is always mediated through our subjectivity. This is why certain basic moral truths are nearly universal amongst humankind.
@@dp1381 I completely agree that morality must be grounded in objective reality, and that's why variations of the Golden Rule are found throughout history in various cultures. We're a social species, and many of the moving parts of our moral structure are found throughout the natural world, in animals. Aside from articulation of moral oughts, the acts themselves are nearly all present, from justice to altruism.
and for better or worse... like it or not... That is morality and that is in fact where it actually evolved out of...
If the guys hand was 'stopped by an angel', would that be less evil?
Would the child's terror of being 'almost' murdered, potentially scarring that child for life, be less evil somehow?
Not his intention, but it would have far less serious consequences.
I hope I misunderstand you: Do you propose to mercy-kill all victims of serious crimes?
@Anon Ymous
I'd opt for no child terrorism or sacrifice, actually.
But nice imagination you have.
What a great relationship that would turn out to be, huh? Live in constant fear that your dad might try to kill you again?
The gift that keeps on giving.
Evolution is not necessary to explain this crime.
A tumor in a portion of the brain that controls reasoning. These are observed.
A chemical imbalance brought on by trauma, diet, a medical condition, or drug use... this is also observed.
These psychotic breakdowns are heavily studied, and there are many potential explanations - but this particular case probably hasn't been studied yet.
Many of these cases have a good physical explanation and as we study more we find additional explanations. It is not just "one" explanation.
I cannot say that was evil, but I can say that someone was wronged - therefore making the action "wtong" from that subjective position.
I don't disapprove of reality - I disapprove of the actions taken by this person.
It is completely explainable my a material-only reality.
God could have created nervous systems that did not become unbalanced and there would never be irrational people that felt a desire to kill.
nothing in the world we live in remotely points to a god.....we know enough now how things work to put these childish practices to bed.............
The question you’re overlooking is whether “his choice” has a material explanation. Because on one hand you claim that this is explainable by chemical neurology, but if that is the case then the whole affair would have been out of his control and you can’t say that he was “wrong” because that’s just the reality of his mind. Where does his chemistry and and his choice begin? And even if he did have a choice, what basis do you have to call it a wrong one? Morality is a metaphysical concept, you cannot see or touch it like a material thing, and on the materialist’s view the physical is all that there is. Where do you get the idea that he’s in the wrong?
@@peaceribbon8322
Your claim fails to get us past the three issues brought up with the problem of evil.
God intentionally created a universe (the claim) where suffering is required (the observation).
You suggest he is doing this for some reason unrelated to physical reality.
He doesn’t need to be all knowing to understand this. If He is all good and all knowing he will find a way around that suffering.
So you are saying God had to create a universe full of suffering because of a limitation placed upon Him by the non physical reality.
The problem of evil explains why God cannot be the summ of the three alls - he is either not "all poweful", not "all good" or not "all knowing".
I think youbare saying He is not all powerful because some constraint kept him from building a universe without suffering.
Which means He is also not "all good". An all good being would have chosen not to produce all the suffering.
His inability to create a universe without suffering means You are telling me that God is not all powerful.
@@peaceribbon8322
What basis do I have to call it wrong?
The situation: An all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent creator wishes to create a companion. He had the ability to create spiritual beings that had no need of a physical body. He had the ability to do this without causing any suffering - or he is not all powerful.
If He is all powerful he chose to cause unnecessary suffering- which means he is not all benevolent. He cannot be all good if He understands the outcome of his choices before they are made.
Mutual contradictions in the premises lead me to believe He does not exist in the way you think He does.
He is explicitly a subject - if His moral prescriptions are objective they work on Him too. If they do not work on him they are not objective moral obligations.
Why would ai conclude He had a higher ability to make moral judgement than me?
@@peaceribbon8322 we get the idea that he was wrong by agreeing on a goal, for example increasing human flourishing, and then assessing whether his actions are compatible with the goal. If they are not then we deem them "wrong".
Gibberish.
An action or choice is moral or right if it somehow maximizes health, happiness, and/or well being, or minimizes harm and/or suffering, or both.
An action or choice is immoral or wrong if it somehow minimizes health, happiness, and/or well being, or maximizes harm and/or suffering, or both.
Too easy to answer.
This whole argument is just dumb...
Nietzsche has criticised the problem of secular morality far better than any Christian has ever done and he was an atheist, existentialists have made strides in actually solving the problem. Current evolutionary psychology shows us that although not objective, moral judgements are a natural tool for us and are parts of healthy development. The only answer to "There is no objective morality without God" for an atheist should be "We know".
you speak alot with zero meaning
Positing immaterial realms and souls is question-begging and accounts for nothing. It's either a proof by assertion or an infinite regress of unverifiable, unsupported matters alleged as evidence for an assumption.
Blah, blah, blah. If you don't understand that your persona is not identical with the matter of which your body is temporarily composed after realizing that you were once a tiny clump of cells, you are not capable of comprehensibly attaching meaning to words.
And some people say that there is no circumstances where the death penalty might be warranted.... I beg to differ!!
the guy has admitted to being mentally ill before doing what he did.
What is the death penalty going to do?
You no what's evil creating everything while also being omnipotent and omniscient, but not mentioning how to create an incubator for babies or how to treat dirty water.
along with a near infinite list of other things he half-assed. like hello?! why does our own excrement kill us if we mishandle it? why cant steak grow on trees in easy abundance rather than the more difficult and violent way we obtain meat now... etc...
I think the question of evil is one of the most easy dilemas, like, saying that it disproves God or makes him evil himsef is so dumb
It's super easy with Catholics. Catholicism is all about suffering and pain and embracing that. Only seems like a real problem for Protestants.
It’s not easy. It’s a very involved response with a lot of moving factors: defining what is good and evil, connecting that platonic view to a more realistic Aristotelian, and asserting that whole framework make it okay for innocent people to suffer evil.
Beyond that of course is the biblical witness which shows God can be good and allow evil, but that is inherently more complex.
It’s complicated bro
@@ultimateoriginalgod no i know how complicated it can get, how ever its still so simple and such a bad argument against theism
The problem of evil proves that God can not be omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. One property must be abandoned.
@@Valdrex so your saying that the existance of evil is inherently evil?
And that an all powerfull God doesent have the power to make this work?
So much wrong with this video that it would require a response video. You obviously have never taken a psychology, sociology or philosophy class at the university level and if you did you didn’t learn anything. You try to blame evolutionary biology as if that’s a checkmate. You try to say a theist that believes in an all loving all powerful god has the same burden with the problem of evil as someone who doesn’t believe in said god….you failed miserably. You don’t seem to know the difference between materialism and atheism, fyi they are not mutually exclusive terms. Just an epic fail.
You are not even trying to comprehend anything. You are cherry picking and pointing a finger at a target.
First you equate atheism with materialism. Not true. Many atheists have many different ideas they are not like christians where there is one idea they try to make 1000 different denominations of.
Next the killer claimed he had a spiritual awakening. This is usually the phrasing used by who believe in supernatural things.
You point at atheists when your whole argument is against materialism and ignores how often murderers are christians. Hell look at your bible and it's full of god believers who are doing all kinds of horrors in his name and by his order.
Then claim that christians have a rational way to accept evil but materialists can only resort to evolution? Well sure why not it's scientific. Your half hearted attempt at the evolution blah blah blah sees off spring as a threat. No. How about chemicals in the brain? How about a traumatic upbringing? Or a mix of both? You see it as a lack of explanation. Then you even point to sociopaths which is science based and needs no supernatural reasoning. See your problem is you see evolution as different from science. It isn't.
Yes atheists can say something is evil or wrong. Let me show you.
Evil profoundly immoral and wicked.
Wrong unjust, dishonest, or immoral.
That whole rant about atheists are not accepting reality because they think something is wrong because that means they are going against reality. No dude how much bs are you spewing? Reality includes though definitions. So by those definitions and the fact it happened makes it a part of reality. If a lion kills a human materialism does not say I can not use my thoughts and observations to say it was a bad thing. Christians do not own rights to morals as most of the religious bs is completely immoral. Numbers chap 31. Is proof enough..... Such utter nonsense dude. All this gish gallop of complete bs in an attempt as a gotcha for shit you already admit you can not understand. Yet try to rationalize that which you refuse to understand in a way that paints others in a bad light.
Here's a funny point your rant missed. If god created light and darkness good and evil than evil is a part of reality. So the same bs you apply to materialists applies to christians. If evil is a part of reality that god created then you deny reality if you call it evil.
Your first reply is probably "God defined evil so we can call it evil"
No dude humans defined evil so we can use the term and not be in denial of reality.
We must understand that there's a difference between tragedy and evil. A disease, an accident and things like those can cause suffering and are tragic, but they're not evil per se.
But it's evil to let someone suffer when you can spare them the pain.
I have brain damage from watching this
You are right that from a purely materialistic view, this had to happen, but then isn’t the urge to call something evil also a materialist necessity? An amoral person is unlikely to be well received in society even today, so the claim that something is evil could be another example of a survival strategy, as is lying, though the materialist may actually believe what he is saying, that the act in question is evil when such a thing, from his worldview, really cannot exist. Several years back, I saw a video on ‘God helmet’ studies, in which researchers using fMRI to look for a brain-based source of religious experience showed different lighting patterns in the brains of theists vs. atheists. As I recall, Richard Dawkins was even a participant. It makes my head hurt to think this way, but it’s possible that everything truly is meaningless. However, as even Camus admits, most of us can’t live that way. I’m very happy to think that my brain is wired like that of most of the rest of the species, to believe in right and wrong and to seek God as the absolute standard.
'Survival' is as much happening as death. If we would hold to a materialistic view, we must not give any priority to it, since we can make no qualitative judgement about it - it's simply moving matter. Me lying a pillow under a sick child's head is as much happening as me lying it on the child's face and pressing down. That one thing happened and not the other - who cares? Things happen. Materialism is absurd.
With the story of survival strategy you can explain everything: just for the fact that a living thing esists there must be a cause for his survival. The problem for me is that in too many cases what I see are only made-up stories that have some plausibility but there is no way to prove them in empirical terms. Regarding materialism, for me it is sufficient to note that people do evil things not only because they have damaged brains but also because they follow bad ideas and I am still struggling to find an instrument to detect ideas as material objects.
there is purpose regardless. the difference is whether that purpose is decided by you or dictated to you.
30 seconds in and you've already fucked up. Examining your blindspots being the quickest way to knowledge is like saying everyone already knows the earth is flat, that space and time are objective, that illnesses are caused by curses etc etc.
Examining your method for evaluation has been the only reliable way people seem to have made any amount of accuracy. Your framework here seems to be for or against, and I can understand to some degree why that is the case. However, take the time to ponder what exactly truthseekers (rather than atheists) do when they disagree with you. The fact of the matter is, this religious war of for and against are often fought between those who have a vested interest in religion either being something to protect or destroy but the arguments tossed around that have been destroying religion aren't discovered on that level. It is discovered on the level of truthseekers and then used as a tool to bludgeon religion with. And if we agree that truth is the highest virtue then if religion can get bludgeoned by good arguments then it ought to, but the takeaway is that you're throwing a rock high in the sky nearly touching the clouds thinking you're cool as fuck when everyone else has been traveling and simulating not merely the skies but the seemingly endless space beyond the clouds. Of course people will shittalk you if you're that far behind, and that far behind only for personal ego reasons.
Here's what modern day people who is interested in the problem of evil are actually doing:
1. Different cultures have different moral values, why?
2. Different people have different moral values even within the same culture, why?
3. Different situations alter moral values, what are those situations?
4. Different situations alter moral values, why?
5. What moral values exists?
6. What moral values exists among non-human animals?
7. What non-human animals exhibit what moral values?
8. How are these different from human's moral values?
9. Can these be manipulated or altered?
10. Can they be grouped?
11. How deliberate are moral values?
12. How can moral reasoning be grouped?
13. How reliable is moral reasoning?
14. How are moral values different from other values? How much overlap or intertwined are they?
15. How are moral values different from emotions? How much overlap or intertwined are they?
16. How are moral values different from beliefs? How much overlap or intertwined are they?
17. How are moral values different from aliefs? How much overlap or intertwined are they?
18. How rigid or malleable are moral values of individuals?
19. How rigid or malleable are moral values of societies?
20. How rigid or malleable are moral values of humans (across time and or cultures)?
21. What moral values can exist in theory?
22. How do moral values alter behavior?
You no doubt have answers for all of these just like all the people who are more concerned about throwing stones into the sky thinking it's cool as fuck how high you can throw the stone but did you know you can truthseek? These are actually interesting questions most people never ask. Fighting for your fandom is fun and all but if you don't actually nerd out on questions regarding morality, you're kinda the definition of a fake christian who puts their own hubris above the truth, the light, and the way. You're literally saying that if there's a conflict between you, and truth (or god), you'd be far too busy defending your own beliefs than to actually even notice... which is fine, but be honest about what it is you're doing maybe? It's kinda weird having come across actually 0 honest christians in my life.
You should learn what a hypothesis is. And atheists have no problem with evil, that is just projection on your side brian.
I'm not going to insult you like many others but please look into what the problem of evil actually is
It's about the consistency of god and the Christian worldview
It cannot apply to beliefs without a god or belief with say an evil god or a god that doesn't care
It only applies to beliefs with an all knowing all powerful loving god
BTW materialism and atheism are not the same thing
As always, 3 Aves for you 🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻
This is on the mark. I have some additional thoughts on the topic,:
When I abandoned the Church, I tried on the materialist views. It seems to me that the socalled "problem of evil" is tracking it in backwards order. I'm sure every human community from the beginning has grappled with the existence of evil in some way, shape, or form. Yet only one community views God as love itself. The ancients didn't, no matter whether they were pagan or Abrahamic. Mostly people have helplessly attempted to understand why evil was befalling them, and often tried to appease the gods, or the One True God, with sacrifices. So the atheist's reliance on "the problem of evil" only questions the Christian view, not the view of non-Christian theists. It's not an argument against the existence of God.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 lack of religious belief doesn't automatically send a man to hell. As Catholics, we do not condemn anyone to hell, that is between them and God, you are referring to protestant theology where they believe they know who is saved and who is in hell.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 love is just. If you are to follow the Ten Commandments to get to Heaven, then do that or repent or go to hell. God wants you to love yourself enough to obey and do what is right. If you don’t do what’s right, you sent your own self to Hell. Don’t blame God because you broke the rules.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 Greetings. I'm a Christian believer and I actually agree with your statement of "A loving god wouldn't send one to be eternally tortured" for "lack of religious belief." The reason I agree is because we all have our reasons for our different beliefs/worldviews. I think God understands that too.
And since God created us, He must know how to speak to our hearts. And the One true God must be a loving God, right? If this loving God can reveal His love to us, then we should have a desire to be with Him in a place that He has prepared for us. But if we know that God loves us and welcomes us, and we still reject such a love, then I think God will say: "My child, I created you with a free will. My love for you can't negate your free will."
Of course I believe God wants us to love Him, but He first reveals His love to us.
Regarding "hell", there are so many different interpretations of the word. I don't personally accept the concept of being "eternally tortured." Hell may be a place with no love or it may be annihilation ( the 2nd death ). I don't know.
No offense to you. I think I understand your comments. My views/beliefs are not necessarily what other Christians believe but I think my beliefs are based on the cornerstone of Christianity who is Jesus the Christ.
Peace to you.....
It's not meant to be. It's an argument against a tri-omni god.
I think the reason there's such a ridiculous amount of christian argumenters not understanding the problem of evil argument may be because of it's name? Like they misread the "problem" part in the name as like a complaint or something
Its named that becausd it uses the word in the mathemathics context, basically "omnibenevolence+omniscient
Damn i accidentally hit post before finishing the sentence
Well , as a believer, I agree with you, but let me play devil’s advocate. There are traits in this world that are not desirable as a whole from society, such as harming others physically. In this case, one can make the argument that those undesirable traits are to be fought against and eradicated or prevented as much as possible, somewhat like fighting an infection. Therefore, one can still deny the metaphysical reality of the spiritual world without compromising on basic morality. In a way, St. Paul somewhat advocated for this innate sense of morality, that even those “without the law” have the law in their hearts so they they are not without excuse. So an extreme example like the one you used can still be innately immoral like inheriting a gene and also societally undesirable as a trait that needs to be “selected against” like evolution. This is probably the best response I can think of from an atheist perspective.
With that said, I do agree that the atheist basis of morality is futile and subjective, and at the very least they admit subjectivity in morality as such. That’s why other moral issues become less obvious to them. To use such an extreme example is a good way to introduce how futile their basis is. Nevertheless, they probably will concede in a sort of intellectual shrugging to remain unconvinced that God is a better answer to the problem of evil than materialism because they’re not willing to try to have a relationship with that God of Love and instead stick to their pride and hate of the God that could not remove evil in the way they want it, not in the manner in which God’s infinite and wise providence may allow it. In order for an atheist to become convinced, they must be humbled in some sense. “Let the bones you have crushed rejoice.” (psalm 50)
God isn't a "better" answer because it isn't an answer at all. It's an assertion. Sure, I know people believe it and have faith and all that stuff, but don't kid yourself that it explains anything. It doesn't.
@@RustyWalkeryou’re right God is not a better answer. Let me rephrase: God is the only truth.
@@minasoliman That'll do for me. Like I said, I recognize people have beliefs.
@@RustyWalker Great comment! Keep posting.
@@minasoliman 1) How did you come to conclude this god you've mentioned is the only truth? Please explain your methodology in determining your assertion.
2) How is it that I recognize and discover numerous truths each and every day without any intervention from this god?
some very strange thought reading attemps in this video, if i tell you i dont belive that every time i want, hope, dream, imagine, or halucinate something it calls upon another dimension... if you choose to tell yourself im lieing to you about what i think... no conversation can be had, and you wont change anyones mind if you cant even talk to them.
BRILLIANT!!!!AS A STAUNCH CATHOLIC,,,,,,AND FOR RC s TESTIMONY👏👏👏👏👏👏👏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏FOLLOWING BRIAN FROM BUENOS AIRES,ARGENTINA
Personally I don't find the argument that bad things happen therefore God isn't real persuasive. Idk why. It's just emotional and egocentric. I know I can choose to do bad things to other people. I know natural disasters can happen. Neither of these things prove that life isn't beautiful or even that tragedy can't create beauty let alone that God isn't real.
It's emotional and egocentric to believe those who do evil will be punished.
That's not the Problem of Evil.
Stop lying to yourself and look it up.
So if I'm an evil selfish bastard I can rape and maim your children and then tell you not to worry because tragedy can create beauty?
Don't a lot of people turn to God in hope of protection? Do people pray for tragedy in their lives? Do they seek to be heartbroken and humiliated? "life is beautiful" is one of the most hollow statements ever. A lot of people stay alive because of instinct or insanity, not because they think it's beautiful or that tragedy can create beauty.
"bad things happen therefore God isn't real" thats not the argument of evil. its "Bad things happen therefor All-powerful and All-loving God isnt real". Thats a big difference
If you think that is incomprehensible evil, you have a very limited imagination. also this is not a problem for a materialist.
So this coming from a life long Atheist's perspective here. I think we can both agree that this type of behavior is horrible and it should have no place in society regardless of spiritual belief.
I would use the word Evil to describe this and I would use it strictly in the Websters definition sense where this action was "morally reprehensible" or "causing discomfort or repulsion" . I honestly wouldn't be using the word in a religious or spiritual sense. I have never really thought about myself in a materialistic fashion, I DO like finding the answers the mysteries of this world if they are out there.... then again I like knowing why a part on my Jeep that is supposed to be indestructible broke this past weekend. I DO however understand that some things are just out of my grasp of comprehension ... or anyone else's for that matter. From Jeep parts to human behavior there are just some mysteries we can't explain.Who knows, years from now after sessions of speaking to a therapist they might find similar patterns in this killer to be similar to other murderers but it still doesn't provide concrete factual evidence and I'm OK with the unknown, but at least people are making the attempt to understand. As Far as the concept of another world without pain or suffering ... I mean who wouldn't want that? A world without pain and suffering , where I don't have to see multiple friends die from cancer or suicide from war induced PTSD, I don't believe you need to believe in anything spiritual to envision that.
I've also seen in some of your other videos where you reference that these concepts have been delt with before.. perhaps for people like me unfamiliar with these historical concepts can you cite where to find them? Be curious to read
Thanks for your comment. Which specific concepts was I referring to that you're asking for reference material on?
@@BrianHoldsworth Around the 3:45 mark, (to paraphrase) you mention the Problem of Evil and mention that these are concepts that are not new and have been wrestled with and addressed in the earliest days or the church or scripture. I was just curious if could provide any sort of reference I can look at.
So looking at this from a religious outsiders perspective, you suggest that some people would say " atrocities like this are proof there is no God... etc etc" and I have heard arguments like this as well. But you go on to say that this is nothing new and has been delt with, so I am kinda left without an explanation here.
Please note I am not trying to criticize you here , just me attempting to search for your sources of knowledge to better understand your point of view is all.
@@DigiacomoDave No, not at all. So, the "problem of evil" is something that was apparent to Christians (as well as other monotheistic faiths) from the beginning. Augustine has probably one of the most well known treatments of the topic in the early Church and much of our philosophy/theology is based on his thinking, but it's no small thing to pick up a book like The City of God if you just want to address this issue. St. Thomas Aquinas tackles it in his Summa in a few places, but his writing is also difficult if you don't have any familiarity with the structure of his articles, but if you want to check it out, you can start here: www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm
For a more contemporary treatment of the tradition, as a whole, I'd recommend C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain. www.goodreads.com/book/show/13650513-the-problem-of-pain
Hope that helps.
@@BrianHoldsworth Thank you Kindly Sir, I will check them out
Now I’m curious. Is there a better argument from evil against atheism?
This one was not effective. Psychological pathologies are easily explained in a materialist worldview. Also, Individuals committing immoral acts are in no way in contradiction with a world with no gods. This guy is just rejecting secular moral systems instead of making a decent internal critique of any specific ones.
However, the problem of suffering/evil demonstrates that an all powerful and all good god concept is incompatible with the existence of suffering/evil. It’s an internal critique of that particular view of the Christian god.
All this guy is doing here is providing an argument from ignorance fallacy-‘materialism and evolution do not explain evil therefore God.’
Brian, if you could put this argument into a syllogism, it might make more sense.
Reality is reality regardless of how anyone believes humans should behave, and this does not contradict a world without gods in anyway.
Sometimes I hate that we have an imagination, especially when listening to crimes such as this. For those who disagree with the death penalty, how does this not justify such a sentence?
@@Roman-Labrador With regard to this case, I think the certainty and gravity of the crime are evidently grounds for capital punishment.
The cost and the taking of ones freedom is a way better punishment than ending the person life.
The Church still technically doesn’t declare the DP intrinsically evil, even if the new teaching is full of error and implies the opposite. The DP is the value at which we attach to life, the extent to which we are willing to protect life is at the cost of taking it.
What's the Church's historic view on torture, instead of the death penalty, as a method of justice?
The fact that our society considers human dignity undeniable even for criminals
Events cannot be evil. They might be harmful, but the definition of evil requires a decision and a moral and thus someone to have both. Natural events have neither. Actions have neither. Only the acting persons do. This video tries to deceive right from the start by using the word wrongly.
The problem of evil only exists when one believes in gods controlling these events. In short, the problem of evil is not a problem for atheists, but believers cannot wrap their heads around this due to the worldview they are cought in.
Thank you Brian, great insight and exposition of the problem.
Materialism? Dialectical Materialism or Classical Materialism?
Do you know that vast numbers of toddlers (male and rarely female) are mutilated every year? The people doing it think that's perfectly moral.
"Rarely female"? Do you have some source to back that up?
First number that comes up on Google: 200 million
@@korbendallas5318 Of course I was talking about Western countries because the real disgusting fact is that male genital mutilation was normalized.
Why do conflate (strawman) atheism with materlialism?
There is in fact a simple materialistic explanation.
Sociopathy is a mental disorder and is mainly a genetic condition. The parts of the brain that regulate emotion and impulse control are underdevelopped.
It is true that neuroscience still has a long way to go to "pin point" which areas in some mental disorders are affected. Many more studies, some are under way, will be needed and it depends largely on collecting masses of brain scans to compare and analyse.
However that doesn't mean a naturalistic explanation is impossible or inadequate.
For schizophrenia, e.g., there is already convincing neuroscientific evidence out there.
It's not because, science (materialism) doesn't have all the answers, yet, that it's reasonable to assume immaterial explanations.
What invosible good world do you mean? That makes no sense to me. Humans are capable of thought and can object to the world (the one we know is teal and that we are a part of) being the way that it is. Wanting things to be different is not claiming knowledge of a real place where it is different. Are you suggesting that wishful thinking defies materialism?
Well, no. The problem of evil is not limited to what humans do to one another. That barely even touches the surface of it. Humans can be monsters, no question, but that's only one aspect of this evil problem. It also includes things beyond our control, like kids born with deformities, cancer, and terminal illnesses that will take them far too soon. It includes natural disasters like sinkholes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis. It includes animals deadly to us attacking without provocation. It includes natural deadly viruses. It includes deadly toxins in plants that people and animals might encounter and consume without knowing better. A loving god, one described as omnibenevolent (all loving), as well as omnipotent (all powerful), and omniscient (all knowing), would not have created life that he cares about in an environment that is directly antagonistic to that life, with all the defects and weakness in that life that we see. The really committed believer in creationism and all the baggage that brings with it will usually counter with free will to account for the human induced evil, and then original sin as having changed the utopia garden (where they also believe humans were installed... to be slave gardeners) into the world we see today. But that still doesn't square with those 3 characteristics unless you also include narcissistic sadist in God's attributes. Then it all falls into place... except for the part where the science doesn't support the creation myth.
Without God natural disasters, disease and many other things would still kill people. Only with God does there lie the promise of something great after that. Atheism tells anyone that dies of those things “ welp, too bad”. Pretty bleak viewpoint, eh?
What Jason said, plus you're describing an appeal to emotion.
@@elizabethkraszewski6603 life isn’t forever. We all die. We all have to suffer here. That’s the way it is. You can believe God made it that way or it evolved from the Big Bang that way. Either way it is what it is. Believing in God opens the realm of possibility that it’s not all for naut. Believing it’s all meaningless is bleak. And frankly irrational. We instinctively know life has meaning, that’s why we all do stuff to contribute to society. We know our actions have value because we have a conscious that tells us so. Conscious is the mystery that can’t be explained by materialists. Only God can explain our being conscious.
Bleak maybe, true nonetheless.
Thanks!
What you said has no bearing on the problem of evil. My opinion on reality and how I wish it would play out has no affect on reality itself nor does it introduce other realities. The problem of evil remains squarely in your gods hands. Could a god achieve it’s goal without allowing evil? Of course, a god can do anything. The question now becomes, why does a god allow evil when it doesn’t have to? Given a god can’t be restricted in any way and evil things happen, the only available answer is that it must like using evil to achieve its goals.
pretty much. considering my dumbass could think of a better world setup while still respecting at least a basic notion of free will, im sure he could. Yet they claim he can't.
Bruh, saying that I wish would world was like something else than it is, is not at all conceding that that world exists. What on earth are you smoking?
I honestly have no idea what this guy is trying to say about us.
False dichotomy bro
You mean "The Materialist's Problem of Evil". The divine POE is where a supposedly good god falls short of its own standard of goodness given the evident suffering in this world. Can anyone point to where atheists (or materialists) proclaim such a standard?
This is more a critique of materialism than atheism and feels out of touch. Personally, my argument for why God isn't real isn't in the broad sense but is about why specific gods aren't real and why 'holy law' isn't an objective thing that one should follow without question. Any 'holy text' written had to be written by man, let's take Christianity as an example. The Bible was written by various Men. Many who believe in this book claim that 1) this version of God is real, 2) the Bible is the word of God and 3) the Bible is infallible. Yes this isn't everybody, but the people that hold these beliefs are who I'm talking about in this example.
First, the claim their God is real relies on the validity of their book, as that is what even informs this idea and personification of this great force to begin with. They claim that because the book has references to historical events, that makes it a historical text and therefore speaks to its undeniable validity. Problem with this assumption is that the entire goal of Christianity is conversion. You're told at a young age it's a Christian's job to bring as many people into "the light of God" as possible, regardless of their desire to.
A book saying that the city of Sodom was destroyed by sulfur because they tried to sexually assault angels doesn't magically make it so. What it is doing is taking an event that you can find truth in and applying fantastical elements to it with the verifiable information in the story making the fantastical elements more viable to people and therefore more likely to convert people. Entertainment media does this as well in a different capacity. Captain America fights in WW2 against the Nazis. This is a story set in the past that blends in some real-world history enough to help you suspend your disbelief and enjoy a story about this kid from Brooklyn becoming a super soldier and hero. You can sit back and think about how cool it'd be for heroes to be real as this universe does its best to show you a world like ours where they are. Those realistic elements don't make the fantastical magically true.
Second, the validity of the book relies on the trustworthiness of the source. Do I trust all my old school's textbooks? No. History is famously told by the victors but there are elements that can be relied on to an extant. They're not completely false nor are they 100% true. I bring this up because I had a weirdo try and use that as a gotcha before when I bring up the untrustworthiness of the Bible. Now there is an obvious difference between more recent history we have in our books, some of which has the lovely existence of video recording to back them up, and a book written much further away from our times in a dead language we tried to pick back up to translate it from a completely distant time and culture. That time removes the context for many things such as why something would be immoral or discouraged as well as cultural context. Both of which are in my opinion necessary if you're going to be holding the book in its entirety up as THE way to live. Why, if it was even in the original text in the way we understand it now, homosexuality be considered immoral? Logically speaking in the modern day I have never seen an argument that follows genuine logic and doesn't immediately fall into "I'm reaching to justify my own prejudice" territory. But in the past where plague and famine and such dire things are described could it be that it was considered immoral in that time because they believed, justified or not, that it posed a risk to the population to have less people repopulating? Or could it just be prejudice as we've seen in our own modern times and recent history? Important to question that, don't you think?
Problem is many refuse to question it and will dismiss the question with "it's God's word so I know it's true. I know it's true deep down." Except they don't know, because they don't even take into account the time this comes from and the culture it would have come from. These may not have even been taken into account fully when translating. Look at the nuance our language English, a pianist is someone who places piano but a racist isn't someone who races lol. Gay means happy and to have am attraction towards another man. People barely know this language as I keep having to explain to homophobes that it doesn't just mean a fear of but also an aversion to/strong dislike of😐
Lastly should be my quickest point to make. They act as though the Bible is magically infallible because it's Gods word. Who wrote the Bible? Men. Who wrote the translations? Men. Who wrote the numerous versions that are floating around everywhere? Men. What aren't men? Infallible. Who lie, exaggerate, misinterpret, have biases and have the ability to hallucinate? Men. How and why would God magically protect these texts when he can't even protect children in his own churches? Or his own priests from temptation? Or his words from being misinterpreted into several editions and having its meaning lost to time to begin with? He wouldn't. The existence of multiple editions alone to me proves that the book and "word of God" isn't infallible. We don't even know for a fact if the that first book we know of was the first edition in its time. And even if it was, it was written by- men! Men with motives and the ability to be wrong. The crux of my argument that any particular God isn't real is that the idea that any religion's god being real is entirely dependent on the idea that their book and their authors are completely infallible and that for some reason they were more correct than all the others who claim the same.