Responding to Trent Horn's "5 Atheist Double Standards"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- linktr.ee/emersongreen
Interview on the Sentientism podcast: • "Religion is at the in...
The Meager Moral Fruits Argument: • The Meager Moral Fruit...
@rationalityrules' video on his conflict with the ACA (relevant to 'Double Standard' 4): • I’ve Been Denounced by...
/ Counter Apologetics /
Support the podcast at / counter
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xg...
/ Walden Pod /
Support the show at / waldenpod
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5It3kjk...
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Coming Up
01:00 Introduction
01:48 Trent's Introduction (No disagreement!)
03:13 Ancient Historical Documents (Double Standard 1)
05:36 God is evil, nothing is evil (Double Standard 2a)
19:43 Divine Command Theory
25:18 Moral Realism vs. Atheism (Double Standard 2b)
36:35 Bad Christians vs. Bad Atheists (Double Standard 3)
42:17 Ridiculing Christian censorship while excommunicating atheist heretics (Double Standard 4)
47:49 Atheists refuse to criticize Islam (Double Standard 5)
55:39 Outro
Why are people peddling Frank-Turek-level claims like atheism implies moral anti-realism lol. It’s so obviously false it’s painful.
I don't know Trent super well, but it seems like he knows that, right..? I'm not sure how to explain parts of his video other than he was kinda pandering to segments of his audience, if I'm being honest
@@EmersonGreen so unfortunately, Trent has, indeed, argued in the past that moral realism requires theism
Correction: he hasn’t really argued it, but rather asserted it.
@@MajestyofReason damn that sucks lol
Even worse than that, why would moral anti-realism mean atheism can't be the case? Not wanting to live in that world?
>> “God gave us life, so he can take our life away”
>> “while the pregnant woman and her partner gave their child life, they can’t take its life away”
I was like "...he can't possibly mean this"
caTeGoRy ErRoR!1!!
God is Life, when God puts people to sleep he doesn’t take their life away, as per scripture no one is “dead” in the sense that they’re gone but rather will be resurrected at the last day to decide if they want Life ie: God or not
Btw wouldn’t it be more like Casting Judgement since God is Holy the analogy should be more akin to a judge casting judgement on someone who’s broken the law and thus sentenced them to death, was it really the judge or the persons wrongdoing that led them to the death penalty, furthermore why is it wrong for God to cast judgment on a sinner but we don’t regard the judge as having done anything wrong when he sentences a serial killer to death he’s merely exercising his authority to sentence the individual based on the crimes he’s committed
@@japexican007 special pleading. Why not say, "god is magic"?
@@mikemorenilla7444 How is it special pleading? Does this mean that a civilian can keep an attacker in their basement for life because they burglarized their home? Schmid might as well admit that.
The whole “God is the author of life” justification strikes me as ludicrous. Suppose I could build a conscious robot capable of suffering, love, hopes, future-directed desires, relationships, etc. (Hell, suppose I created such a robot ex nihilo.) It would be obviously absurd to suggest that I’m thereby permitted in doing whatever I want with the robot - torturing it, depriving it of its relationships, killing it, etc.
Also, this completely guts the idea that God is the moral standard, for then God’s nature and activities are very different to how we intuitively view morality.
I don’t think God being the author of life justifies killing people or otherwise acting in ways I would consider bad, but the fact that you and I might see this as ludicrous does not strike me as a strong objection to a theist who appeals to such a claim.
First, I don’t think the thought experiment you present would be very compelling to the theist who thinks this way. This is because they could think that the way in which we stand in relation to God differs from the way in which a conscious robot would stand in relation to us. They could, in other words, insist that while God has authority over our lives, we do not have authority over one another’s lives, or the lives of any beings we create. They could point to any number of potential differences between the two relationships as a reason for holding this view, or even just appeal to it being a kind of unanalyzable but intuitive difference.
Second, you say, “this completely guts the idea that God is the moral standard, for then God’s nature and activities are very different to how we intuitively view morality.”
I don’t think it guts the idea that God is the moral standard. First, I don’t think that something being counterintuitive completely guts it. It may serve as some evidence against it, but it is often best to accept a conclusion that is counterintuitive in one particular way when the weight of other arguments and evidence favor it on the whole.
In addition, the Christian can deny that God’s nature and activities are different from how they intuitively view morality. You suggest that their position would violate how “we” intuitively view morality, but who is “we”? What people find intuitive is an empirical question, and one would need to gather appropriate empirical data about the populations in question. And I think it would be reasonable for Christians to point out that if you’re surveying a highly secular population or assessing the intuitions of atheists or agnostics, that such intuitions may not be representative of the intuitions of theists, or Christians in particular. Christians could therefore make the case that even if modern e.g., US populations didn’t find God’s authorship over life as a legitimate justification for e.g., spreading plagues or whatever, that this is due to such populations having been corrupted by modern secular moral thought.
@@lanceindependent This will be my only response, since I don’t have time to go through an extended back-and-forth here :)
You say:
“First, I don’t think the thought experiment you present would be very compelling to the theist who thinks this way. This is because they could think that the way in which we stand in relation to God differs from the way in which a conscious robot would stand in relation to us. They could, in other words, insist that while God has authority over our lives, we do not have authority over one another’s lives, or the lives of any beings we create. They could point to any number of potential differences between the two relationships as a reason for holding this view, or even just appeal to it being a kind of unanalyzable but intuitive difference.”
Sure. But notice that this isn’t addressing my comment. My comment was about *Trent’s* purported justification of God’s activities in the OT. *Trent’s* purported justification was simply that God is the author of our life, and that this legitimates God in doing things that we couldn’t permissibly do. But this justification fails, since it doesn’t provide the relevant difference-maker between humans and God - after all, many humans meet that criterion for their children but cannot take their children’s lives, and similarly I meet that criterion but I clearly cannot kill my robot. In response to this, you note that Trent could point to other facts about God or the God-creation relationship to be the difference-maker. Sure. Nowhere did I deny that, and it doesn’t address my comment. My comment was that Trent’s justification and difference-maker fails, since it doesn’t, after all, provide a relevant difference. To point out that there may be *other* relevant differences is simply to not engage with my point that *Trent’s* proffered relevant difference fails.
You continue: “I don’t think it guts the idea that God is the moral standard. First, I don’t think that something being counterintuitive completely guts it. It may serve as some evidence against it, but it is often best to accept a conclusion that is counterintuitive in one particular way when the weight of other arguments and evidence favor it on the whole.”
Well, my point isn’t just that ‘it’s counter-intuitive therefore completely guts it’. My point was a single-sentence summary of a point I develop in more detail in my 12-hour video’s section on the moral argument. The point is that God’s depicted behavior is so clearly at odds with what seem to be fundamental moral data (like one shouldn’t commit genocide, drown innocent babies and children, etc.), and so God couldn’t then be a perfect moral exemplar (committing no morally wrong acts, etc.). In turn, if he *is* a moral exemplar - if those moral data really aren’t moral data after all - then we have an undercutting defeater for our moral beliefs.
This is similar to Christopher Cowie’s argument that some particular moral claims would definitely be true if any moral claims are true, and hence if those particular moral claims turn out to be false, all moral claims turn out to be false. But I don’t even need to be that strong; I can make the point in terms of undercutting defeaters - namely, that if one’s moral faculties/intuition are so staggeringly wrong about these central matters about the basic treatment of one another, then one thereby obtains an undercutting defeater for *other* deliverances of said faculties/intuition.
You say: “In addition, the Christian can deny that God’s nature and activities are different from how they intuitively view morality.”
Sure, my point doesn’t apply to those Christians who don’t intuitively view drowning babies as wrong, or genociding whole people groups (including children, babies, etc.) as wrong, and so on. Thankfully, such Christians seem quite rare, and Trent isn’t among them. I’m commenting in the context of *Trent’s* arguments, and so my comments are to be understood through the lens of responding to *Trent* and the dialectical context of his video. This, in turn - mutatis mutandis - will also apply to your next point about “we”. (I also don’t find it credible that a very large proportion of the population wouldn’t see any moral issue with drowning innocent children and babies, stabbing and killing innocent children and babies [as Dr. Randal Rauser notes in his recent book, this is what genocide would look like in an ancient Israeli context - and this is what God is depicted as commanding and commissioning], and so on. My not finding this credible is based both on some studies I’ve looked into regarding people’s moral beliefs and on common sense. (Note, ofc, that I’m not claiming they see it as *objectively* morally wrong.))
@@lanceindependent As an aside, you will appreciate a video I have coming out in 2-3 weeks (or so) -- namely, a conversation between Huemer and Loeb on moral realism :)
@@MajestyofReason Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, I think you misunderstood my main objection and that this has led you mistakenly think I wasn’t addressing your comments. I was, and I explain why below. You say:
“My comment was about Trent’s purported justification of God’s activities in the OT. Trent’s purported justification was simply that God is the author of our life, and that this legitimates God in doing things that we couldn’t permissibly do. But this justification fails, since it doesn’t provide the relevant difference-maker between humans and God”
(1) That is not at all clear from your remark. Nowhere in your original remark do you reference Trent by name or refer to him. Instead, you begin with:
“The whole “God is the author of life” justification strikes me as ludicrous.”
…it is not at all clear that you mean Trent’s justification specifically is ludicrous, or instead that you mean such justifications strike you as ludicrous in general. The latter interpretation is if anything, the more reasonable of the interpretations, given that if you had intended specifically to object to Trent’s views it would have made more sense to explicitly say so, and there is plenty of precedent for responding to an objection to one specific person by referencing the general kind of argument being made, so it would make sense to interpret you as objecting to kind of justification Trent offered, rather than to Trent’s specific formulation of it.
(2) I said that I don’t think this would be very compelling to “the theist who thinks this way.” This is inclusive of Trent Horn himself, since he could potentially think this way, so specifying that your comment was about Trent doesn’t seem to free you from my objection or support your claim that I didn’t address your comment.
(3) You say:
“In response to this, you note that Trent could point to other facts about God or the God-creation relationship to be the difference-maker. Sure. Nowhere did I deny that, and it doesn’t address my comment.”
My apologies, but you appear to have misunderstood my objection. That is not what I was claiming. When I said, “They could point to any number of potential differences between the two relationships as a reason for holding this view” I was not suggesting that Trent could point to *other* facts about God or the God-creation relationship. Rather, I am suggesting that the very concept of “author of life” that Trent has in mind could (a) itself be the difference maker, and that (b) this difference maker wouldn’t apply to humans creating robots. In which case, Trent wouldn’t have to appeal to other difference makers, he would have already provided the relevant difference maker.
It looks like you may have thought that when I said “They could point to any number of potential differences between the two relationships” … that you thought that I was tacitly conceding that the God-human and human-robot relationships are both instances in which the former is the “author of life” of the latter, but that there are additional differences between these two forms of authorship of life that justify God treating humans ways that humans couldn’t treat robots. But that is not the claim. Rather, I was suggesting that there are differences in the God-human and human-robot relationship such that only the former qualifies, on Trent or other Christian’s views, as a genuine case of the former being the “author of life” of the latter. In which case, the robot example you provided fails because humans aren’t the “author of life” of robots in the relevant sense.
If what Trent means by “author of life” doesn’t allow for it to be true that humans would be the “author of life” for robots, then your example would not serve as any kind of counterexample to Trent’s position that would illustrate your original claim that “God is the author of life” justifications are “ludicrous.” Since I am directly objecting to your first point, yes, I am responding to your comment.
Going back to one of your remarks, I believe the distinction I’ve drawn attention to illustrates why I believe your interpretation of my remarks is mistaken, and why your objection to Trent Horn’s justification is also mistake. Here’s why: you say that “this justification fails, since it doesn’t provide the relevant difference-maker between humans and God.”
However, first, Trent could say that he *has* pointed to the relevant difference-maker: that God is the author of life, and humans would not be the “author of life” for robots. Now, you might object that if we created robots, that we’d be the “author of life” for them, but Trent could mean something very specific by “author of life,” e.g., a quality only a God possesses, and not something finite beings like us could possess. In which case, the comparison between God creating humans and humans creating robots wouldn’t point to the same type of relation (this was, again, my original point). You could object that God being the “author of life” (whatever that means) isn’t a relevant difference, but it would be question-begging to just declare that it isn’t a relevant difference.
In addition, you say:
“after all, many humans meet that criterion for their children but cannot take their children’s lives, and similarly I meet that criterion but I clearly cannot kill my robot. “
That’s just it: Trent and other theists could simply deny that humans meet this criterion for their children or robots. That theists could make this objection was my whole point. You seem to have just helped yourself to the presumption that humans can meet the “author of life” criterion.
Yet Trent/theists could deny that parents are the “author of life” for their children. Your remarks presuppose that you and Trent share the same notion of “author of life.” You may have interpreted this phrase in a way very different from how Trent understands it, and perhaps in an overly-literal way that isn’t what Trent intended. If so, then it may be false that humans meet the same criterion. That is, it may be false that given what Trent means by “author of life,” that humans are the “author of life” with respect to their children, or with respect to any robots they create. If so, then you will have simply not understood what Trent meant by the term.
(4) Finally, another equally important consideration is that the positions people express often have unstated premises. We cannot expect every statement everyone makes to include or be accompanied by a complete justification for the statement. Saying that God is the author of life, and this allows God to act differently to others may seem like it fails because it doesn’t specify a relevant difference, but perhaps you are conflating the statement of a position (authors of life are permitted to act differently than non-authors of life) for its justification. Such justification could appeal to arguments and considerations external to the statement itself. That is, one could principle present arguments for why an author of life is permitted to act differently than others that isn’t obvious or explicit in the mere assertion that authors of life are permitted to act differently.
This brings me to your next remark:
You say: Well, my point isn’t just that ‘it’s counter-intuitive therefore completely guts it’. My point was a single-sentence summary of a point I develop in more detail in my 12-hour video’s section on the moral argument.”
Maybe that isn’t your point, but it looks like it was.
If I presented one argument, then said “this completely guts X,” it would be reasonable for readers to think that I was suggesting that my one argument “completely guts X.” That would be a literal, straightforward interpretation of what was said and what was meant by “this.” It’s a bit strange for you to say something I’m interpreting in about as straightforward a way as possible, and say that it wasn’t your point. Perhaps not. In which case, I don’t think I made any mistake in interpreting you; I think that you misspoke.
After all, when you said “This,” it looks like you were referencing your robot example. So it looks like you said “Also, [the robot example in the paragraph above] completely guts the idea that God is the moral standard.” You did not say, “Also, this point, which is a summary of a summary of a point I develop in more detail in my 12-hour video’s section on the moral argument, completely guts the idea,” which you could easily have done, given that you’re doing so now.
And that’s fine. I don’t expect every short comment to do justice to the many background arguments and reasons behind a summary. But if you are willing to grant that point for yourself, why not grant it to Trent Horn, as well? Perhaps Trent Horn has a robust 12-hour length account of why God’s authorship over life entitles God to do things you and I would consider awful. Do I think he does? Absolutely not. We’re likely on the same page here with how ludicrous the idea is. But I think the principle of charity would suggest that we should perhaps dig a bit more into what his position is exactly and why he holds that view.
Human intuition is evil. humans are more likely to treat an attractive person better than an unattractive person. The fact that a lot of atheists like to put human empathy on a pedestal demonstrates their ignorance. All of history demonstrates how irrationally bias, prejudice, and selfish humans are. For 1 example, the disdain of the upper class toward the middle and lower classes throughout history. If humans were so honorable, the upper class would work to treat the lesser classes just as valuable as themselves, but no, you see them indulge in hedonism. human moral intuition is just nature creating a very unstable and rickety roller coaster, where victims fly out of it everywhere. human intuition is nothing but a primitive attempt, that's why theists created an idea of a god who's very nature was to be good, unlike human beings.
Trent is not becoming a better defender of theism, unfortunately. He's joining Frank Turek's camp soon.
16:50 in the event an atheist does accept all of those (necessary existence, moral realism, non-physicalism, teleology), I think the next important step b/t the theist and atheist is "what is meant by the term 'God'", since at that point, it seems almost like the dividing line is primarily a definition. Aquinas' quote "and this we know to be God" comes to mind.
Cool channel btw, subbed
I'm a relatively new subscriber and I'm really enjoying your content. I'm surprised it took me so long to find your channel. Really engaging stuff.
What he said.
@@korbendallas5318 yooooo... By any chance, did you, or do you play Clash of Clans? And was/is your username Korben?
Your videos are always a treat!
Nice video. I shared your video on his channel(no link format)
I found this video thanks to you, cheers.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📌 Christian apologists assert atheists lack objective morals but often ignore existing systems of objective morality atheists adhere to.
01:10 📌 Responding to Trent Horn's "5 Atheist Double Standards" video. Evaluating Trent's points of agreement and disagreement with atheists.
02:07 📌 Trent aims to elevate discourse by addressing perceived double standards among atheists and calling out logical fallacies.
03:15 📌 "Ancient document double standard" - Atheists question the Bible's reliability but treat other ancient texts differently.
06:04 📌 "Saying God is evil but denying evil's existence" - Trent critiques perceived inconsistencies in atheist views on moral realism and God's nature.
09:46 📌 Atheists can run the problem of evil regardless of their stance on moral realism or God's nature, addressing the proposed double standard.
11:51 📌 Atheists can adopt various normative ethical theories, including teleology, without a necessary connection to theism.
13:40 📌 Trent's view on moral standards regarding evil and goodness. The distinction between holding God to human moral standards and discussing the universe's indifference.
17:22 📌 Trent's exploration of potential double standards in atheistic arguments about God's nature and actions.
18:45 📌 Trent discusses how atheists might apply different standards to divine actions based on their moral realism stance.
19:42 📌 Divine command theory and its problems, including the Euthyphro dilemma and potential implications for moral subjectivism.
20:52 🧐 Morality without God is possible and can be objective. Contrary to divine command theory, which suggests moral properties depend on a deity's commands, objective morality is independent of subjective attitudes.
21:20 🔍 Objective features are not dependent on psychological attitudes. Subjective features require reactions from observers, while objective features exist independently.
22:01 🤔 The distinction between causal and constitutive dependence is crucial in defining subjectivism. For moral properties, being good shouldn't solely rely on eliciting certain reactions.
23:10 📜 Subjectivism encompasses various perspectives, including approval by individuals or groups. Divine command theory, tying goodness to God's commands, falls under subjectivism.
24:07 🤝 Theistic personalism aligns with a form of moral subjectivism, as the moral assessment hinges on the observer's attributes. Revising terms might align divine command theory with subjectivism.
25:04 🤝 Divine command theory, while subjectivist, doesn't necessarily undermine morality's existence. The focus is on evaluating subjectivism's arguments rather than demonizing divine command theory.
26:12 🙌 Moral anti-realism doesn't universally apply to atheists. Many atheists, like moral realists, believe in objective morality, although the origin and basis might differ.
28:02 🧐 Moral realism among atheists exists in various forms: naturalism and non-naturalism. Acknowledging the diversity of atheistic moral frameworks is crucial in discussions about objective morality.
32:10 🧠 Phenomenal conservatism doesn't imply blind acceptance of appearances. It's a starting point, and arguments can overturn initial intuitions. Moral realism, like mathematical truths, stems from rational intuitions.
36:07 🤨 Hypocrisy and double standards exist in evaluating Christians and atheists. Pointing out immoral individuals in any group doesn't inherently prove or disprove the correctness of that group's beliefs.
38:56 🚩 The "meager moral fruits" argument focuses on whether Christian beliefs lead to better behavior. The argument compares the predicted behavior of Christians and atheists based on their respective beliefs.
40:07 🔄 Christian theology predicts a difference in behavior between Christians and non-Christians. The argument relies on the consistency of beliefs and their predictions.
41:28 🔄 Comparing behavior at atheist and Christian gatherings isn't inherently an argument against atheism. Differences reflect the values of the respective groups, not the validity of their beliefs.
41:43 🙏 Christians seen as uniquely good, evidence for Christianity.
42:05 🧐 "Meager Moral Fruits Argument" counters other arguments.
42:18 🤨 Atheistic ridicule of Christian censorship, yet atheist heretic treatment.
43:26 🙄 Atheists imposing secular liberal dogma, denouncing peers.
45:31 🛡️ Atheists criticize Christian thought policing, while practicing it.
47:53 📢 Criticizing Christians is okay, but not criticizing Muslims.
49:16 🗣️ New atheism partly in response to 9/11, Islam not off-limits.
51:47 🏳️🌈 Criticizing Christians, Islamophobia, and perceived double standards.
53:38 🧒 Fear of criticizing Islam, contrasting beliefs, and concerns.
55:02 🚫 Atheists also criticize Islam, it's not off-limits in atheist circles.
Very good response, thanks for sharing!
Part pf the issue is the difference between being a bad Christian & a bad person. Even I, who really dislike David Silverman, wouldn't argue he isn't a real atheist. I would say I don't want him in any org I'm involved with, because he'll chase away other members & undermine the mission. Atheists with Christians would kick out bad people as well. See the SBC & Catholic scandals. I don't think we have a big moral issue with kicking people out over doctrinal disagreements. We just think that the issues involved are silly.
Good response video!
When did Trent put out this video? Saying that Christians just want to be left alone maybe weeks after the culmination of a decades long plan by (largely) Christians to overturn Roe gave me whiplash...
I have never seen an apologist honestly address the problem evil.
*Strawman of Evil?*
Even if we allow Horn’s rewording of Dawkins, then Dawkins is calling Yahweh an evil entity. Evil is an adjective there.
Usually when atheists say “evil doesn’t exist,” they mean that there is no entity “Evil.”
So no double standard there.
Also, Dawkins said, “at bottom” and personal actions are not at the bottom - they are not fundamental to reality.
I like the Frank Turek comparisons: seems more plausible after this view of him, on grounds of laziness alone.
I'm a Catholic and the whole "we just don't want to be involved" comment is just flat out wrong.
It's not that I "just don't want" to be involved in abortion. It's that I see it as murder and don't want anyone involved in it, much like I don't want anyone involved in any other kind of murder.
Same with pornography - it's an irredeemable industry that I don't want, nor do I want anyone else, involved with.
Trent feels the same, per previous comments and actions, and should own it, not mealy-mouth otherwise.
As a vegan, I have to agree with you. I have ran into far too many vegans who will say they are not "militant extremists" about their veganism and do not attempt to "shove it down other people's throats". Really? You won't contribute to the slaughter, torture and exploitation of animals but you don't really care if other people do?
If the Catholic is right about abortion or pornography, and if the vegan is right about how animals are treated in factory farming, there should not be this sort of wishy-washy reluctance when it comes to advocating for your views and having discussions about them.
Sent by the almighty algorithm. Some thoughts:
- Saying "Evil doesn't exist" and "God performed evil acts" is not a contradiction... it's using different definitions of the word "evil". Those who don't accept moral realism don't think capital (E)vil exists, but do believe there are actions that can be viewed as being evil.
- Bart Ehrman isn't the pope nor the final authority on on what genre of text the gospels are or how reliable they so even if he believed the Gospels were completely reliable historical documents (he doesn't, and has spoken numerous times on how they aren't **just history** and there are fictional elements to them), you can't ignore the arguments made by those who disagree on the degree of the Gospels historical accuracy and claim they hold a double standard. There are many reasons to reject the Gospels as being primarily historical pieces of ancient literature.
- I don't understand Phenomenal conservatism. If I understand from how you described it, individuals can be rational to hold a view if that view appears as it seems unless they have a defeater. Where is the burden in these beliefs?
Can someone hold a rational view that an appearance from Jesus means Christianity is true as long as they never encounter someone who offers an alternate explanation?
Can someone hold a rational view that an abduction event they believed they experienced was an actual encounter with aliens until someone can provide good evidence that they were, in fact, not abducted?
If someone can be rational to hold a view that that appears as it seems, would it also be rational to act on those views?
If someone has a vision of their neighbor abducting a child (that is as real as any vision from Jesus), are they rationally justified in calling 911, or worse, taking matters into their own hand and breaking into their neighbors house in an attempt to rescue the child from imminent harm?
Overall I feel you were too charitable to Trent, and accepted much of his framing without enough pushback.
*Ancient Historical Document*
If part of the definition of an HD is “provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event,” then the Christian Bible might not qualify.
The only clearly first-hand written claim of Jesus is Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to him post-death. And “surrounding” that claim is a lot of things that seem impossible.
Still, it contains weak evidence that Jesus existed. Paul claimed to have met Cephas and James. Even if that was a lie or Paul was mistaken, it shows that Paul thought that his readers believed that Jesus had a human form. And that is evidence that he did.
I don't hear any double standard explained in the first point. I know of no atheist who expects more from the Bible than they expect from other 1st century texts, and Trent provides no examples.
If Trent is aiming his comments at mythicists, then he should come out and say so. But I think he can't, because mythicism (as least as exemplified by Dr Richard Carrier's work) is already discourse at a high level. Which does not, of course excuse atheists who hear about mythicism and say "gotcha, theists!".
He did acknowledge mythicists indirectly. His first example of a mundane historical fact was "Jesus existed"
Christians say God is the author of life and every natural system. Is there anything at all that God is responsible for? Any 'oughts' for God, the architect of everything?
Love your Zomboy t-shirt! I'm more of a Svdden Death type fellow
Haha I actually didn’t know what Zomboy was until I looked it up just now. I got the shirt from a thrift shop. I just thought the red and yellow grim reaper on the back looked cool lol
New music??
No, just some royalty-free stuff I threw in for this episode :p
This take from Trent was absolutely wild to me. I take him to be a deeply educated person who understands the nuances of belief. Like, he's talked to people that I know are both atheists and moral realists.
That being said, I'm okay with him addressing those tones where these double standards happen. But to paint *all* atheists this way seems out of character.
He didn't paint all atheists this way, which he points out at the beginning of the video. With that said, he said this happens enough among less rigorous atheists that he believes it should be called out and acknowledged
I think that most of the field of Moral Philosophy is just like the field of Epicycles in Astronomy. Many people consider it a complex field of study, and there are schools of thought about them.
The reason for my derision of it is that the point of view is wrong, just like Epicycles.
Moral Philosophy is based on the observer (judge of moral deeds). Instead, it should be based on the nervous system that experiences moral actions.
From that point of view, everything becomes clear. The pain of a person or an ant is morally bad, even if no one else is watching.
Why the suffering of an ant is morally bad? Easy, imagine that pain is "magically" transferred to you, what do you think now? "Should" that pain be removed? Or, "should" others just watch without doing anything? It suddenly becomes a moral situation, right?
Epicycles are a BAD point of view.
Me hammering.... Wait am I the bad neighbor???
I think Trent was talking against village atheist that are the fans of Dawkins and all the others. But he should had said that those were arguments against common misconceptions.
Very strange that Trent said that atheists get offended by the stories of genocide in the Bible. Doesn't genocide offend Trent too? Then Trent later refers to homosexuality as evil.
There is a chasm of knowledge between the average Christian and the present historical understanding of the Bible as put forth by a scholar such as Bart Ehrman. An interesting note about early Christian belief is that the Marcionites considered the god of the Old Testament to be evil.
Why do people give Trent Horn more respect than he deserves? He's just itching to get into bargain bin straight to video apologetics as bad as most of them. Baffles me people take him at all seriously.
Yeah I agree. I've heard good things about him until I saw his recent debate with Cosmic Skeptic.
The "what about Islam!" trope is just Christian self-pity and persecution complex.
48:00 this made me laugh, if ever a prophesy was coming true, atwood's is.
Even his first point is not an issue at all. I watched his video and it reminded me of how little critical thinking, if any, religions expect of their gullible followers. It is frustrating having to deal with such views that are so bad, they are beyond wrong; they are completely incomplete and idiotic. I know my comment isn’t politically correct but I don’t care; it is enough with us pretending that religious views are anything but mediocre and unworthy of any respect.
christian apologetics are absurd, but so are the secular based arguments for morality, and arguments that claim that existing in a universe of pointless evolution and unfairness is good. Atheists like yourself think a hypothetical god is evil if it does x,y,z. But then special plead to a universe which has no will or brain at all, claiming its fine for the universe to create criminals and cause harm to any sort of victim. Not all, but a lot of atheists want to replace religious devotion to devotion to an absurd universe, devotion to one's own ego (narcissism) and (in contradictory fashion) devotion to the human species above others.
Let's say I criticize things when it's safe for me to do so, and I don't when it's not safe
How is that a double standard again?
You are evolutionarily bound to your morals despite beliefs contrary.
This is why moral systems are universal with certain discrepancies
For instance, Jews and Canaanites engaged in human sacrifice to their patron deities usually of the firstborn son.
This however does not mean that they were doing something that they thought was right or didn't have extreme moral difficulties with this type of behavior.
Because the entire reason for the sacrifice is giving up the thing that is most precious and the most valuable to you committing the greatest horror imaginable in order to show your complete loyalty and devotion to that patron deity.
Basically if you're willing to kill your first born son for me, then you have shown that you'll go to any lengths for me.
If they didn't value the human life, then the sacrifice would be meaningless.
In the same way that the Rams life is extremely meaningful and on an equivocal level in God's eyes because the substitution sacrifice works because the ram is very valuable to you as well.
Otherwise it's not a sacrifice.
If I have $200 in my bank account and I feel morally inclined to let you borrow $180 knowing that you will have a lot of trouble paying me back.
That is a huge sacrifice for me because I'm giving up a lot with really the promise to get back nothing.
However if I've got a million dollars in my bank account and I let you borrow the same $180 it's not really a sacrifice is it because I'm not really giving anything veRy valuable or tangible to me up
One of the biggest arguments that Christians cling to is human barbarism, particularly ancient human barbarism. The belief that life was very expendable in the early parts of the human story. Although we know that for at least 60,000 years our species exist right now in basically the same state that it did 50,000 years ago. The idea that the morals today would be so different than they were back then would imply an accelerated human evolution that is virtually unthinkable. Which leads me to believe that people always had a problem with grown men marrying and having sex with teenage girls, but it was something that people did in society even though they felt like what they were doing was wrong.
As well of course; everyone wants to pretend that slavery was normal and nobody saw anything wrong with it, even though in Babylonian literature as well as the Hebrew Bible, it is very clear that slavery was viewed as an evil; perhaps a necessary evil; but an evil nonetheless. The thing that universally was viewed as immoral was the idea of walking by someone in desperate need and not helping them. People like to call the Romans barbaric and the Romans like to call the Germanic tribes barbaric but while those societies engaged in barbaric behavior, that doesn't mean that there was not moral struggling with that behavior.
In the future when people look back at our drone program and see that just a hundred years prior in the agreed rules of engagement bombing was bad because the idea was is if you even hit a military Target with a bomb there's a chance that you're going to hit an innocent civilian women or children, and that was viewed as unacceptable. History will look back at so-called collateral damage as being evidence of our human barberism and devaluation of human life. Of course people do value human life alot; but but for the select that engage in that barbaric behavior, they plant a stigma onto the rest of us
Scott Clifton is awesome.
Hi Emerson, you did show that there are atheist thinkers who try to avoid these double standards. However majority of people who hold atheistic views are even more or as dogmatic in their core beliefs then religious people are. It just shows that we all built our worldviews on more or less justified beliefes. So sometimes we are irrational (dont see our double standards) in our noble quest to show that others got it wrong.
Do you have any proof for that claim? I'm sure that a not-insubstantial portion of athiests are "dogmatic" in a way, but to claim that the majority are dogmatic is a step too far without some sort of proof.
@@gurigura4457 you are right, that was probably exagerated statement given I didnt have chance to meet majority of atheists. I made that claim based on experience with atheists who are willing to debate these topics, wether in person or online.
@@periruke Sure. I would guess the "dogmatic" members of any ideological group are far more willing to debate/converse these sorts of things.
Trent was critiquing some atheistic bloggers in their non-critique of Islam. For whatever reason, you brought up Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens?
Trent never said *all* atheists avoid critiquing Islam, he’s focusing on a specific group of atheists that does avoid critiquing Islam and yet does critique Christians.
If that were the case, it doesn't have a place in a list of "atheist double standards".
There is no good reason to presume every atheist content creator must at some point publicly address every religious group in existence. I follow a blogger that focuses exclusively on Southern Baptists and Evangelicals as they are the group the blogger is most familiar with, and they never address Islam... or Catholicism for that matter. That is a choice of focus, not a double standard, and it is very peculiar to argue that it is.
Are you using "moral antirealist" and "moral nihilist" interchangeably? And if not, could you clarify what you take the difference to be?
It seemed like when Trent was addressing moral antirealism, he was mainly concerned with nihilism, so I followed suit in my response. But of course in addition to moral nihilists, non-cognitivists and subjectivists are antirealists as well (though I'm flexible on subjectivism; seems like a gray area)
Could you guys discuss moral realism and moral antirealism in this channel
It’s not a subject I’ve cared to discuss in much detail in the past, but maybe that’s changing? I invited Huemer on to talk about moral realism. For now I’d rather just listen to others (and occasionally spout off in random response videos like this one). There are plenty of topics I have strong opinions on that I don’t talk about much on the podcast/channel, so we’ll see.
@@EmersonGreen Thanks. That goes some way in clarifying the distinction. It appears that you distinguish nihilists from noncognitivists and subjectivists.
Could you clarify further on what you take nihilists to be?
You reference Huemer, so perhaps your terminology is the same/similar to his? He uses "nihilism" and "error theory" seemingly interchangeably in his book, Ethical Intuiionism. Is that how you're using the term? That is:
Nihilism = moral error theory?
@@lanceindependent I'm reading Huemer's book right now. He uses error theory and nihilism interchangeably because he argues that there are broadly three possible forms of antirealism, with nihilism and error theory falling under the same category.
Take "X is good." This either makes a claim about how the world is (that x has a certain property) or it doesn't. Those who answer in the negative are noncognitivists. If you think the evaluative predicate in "X is good" purportedly refers to a property in the world, but nothing in the world actually has this property, then you're a nihilist/error theorist (i.e., we are making claims about the world, but they're false). If you think "X is good" does purportedly refer to the existence of a property in the world, and that at least some things actually have this property, *but* that this property constitutively depends on observers (or an observer), then you're a subjectivist.
So either an evaluative predicate like "good" purports to refer to a property or it does not. If it does, then either some things have the property or nothing does, and either the property depends on observers or it doesn't. That seems to exhaust the metaethical antirealist conceptual space.
the vast majority of trent horn's arguments are so bad they're not even worth responding to, however:
I completely agree with him on one issue.
It is hypocritical of someone to reject the notion of a god but to say that morality is objective.
my understanding is that there is no god, therefore the logical conclusion would be that morality is subjective. that is - it resides only within our consciousness, not without.
moreover, i think the reason monotheism came into existence in the first place was to enable the false claim that morality WAS objective. ie they are bound together.
morality in general is a spectrum.
I think moral realists confuse objectivity with a moral notion being well toward one end of a spectrum as to be difficult to discern or argue against. eg. murder/genocide is wrong.
of course, it's possible I'm completely mistaken. :-)
I really like your content. But it does seem like you have some misconceptions about the normative implications of moral antirealism.
I'd suggest talking to Don Loeb or Lance Bush. They are really good at making those things more clear.
Fascinating that all primates are not monogamous. Is that even relevant?
Theism doesn't provide objective morality.
@25:54 What is a statement that moral anti realists can't intelligibly make?
I'm convinced that many moral realists just don't understand that the distinction between realism and antirealism is about the stance independence. It's like they think if antirealism was the case nobody can have a personal opinion about the desirability of circumstances considering their own aims.
The ones who aren't confused about that part just don't want to give up the appearance of "weight" they have been tacking onto their opinion by claiming it comes from outside themselves. This is how most apologists I see are, if there's no pressure to make someone else do what they think is right they wouldn't affirm it even if it were obviously the case. That's why they keep telling people moral antirealism means atheism can't be true, they think it's scary.
“It’s true that harming an infant for fun is wrong”
@@EmersonGreen it's totally intelligible with "in my opinion because of my aims" implied, but that's not comfortable enough
@@EmersonGreen well I would say that statement and just mean that harming an infant for fun is out of line with my preferences. Surely you find that intelligible. What do you mean by "wrong" when you make that statement? I can't even conceive of what you could mean if it isn't cashed out from stance or perspective.
@@prophetrob Do you think someone might feel discomfort here because what antirealists are saying seems false? I might feel similar "discomfort" if I were to accept logically incompatible propositions.
@6:30 I think moral realists are the confused ones, nothing about the world indicates that it should be the way that you would like it to be, or a way that is comfortable, or any way in particular. You're just well trained to argue and feel as if it should be.
I'd definitely say moral realists in my experience seem to be the more confused people in terms of those I've met. That said, it's a throwaway statement, it's obviously not something he's prepared to backup with evidence.
trent and his buddies are pretty disgusting when they aren't being watched, i've seen and heard all of them bad mouthing atheists with what amounts to outright lies, good to see one of the more "generous" atheists calling them out. i detect in the voices and tones of people like paulogia, pinecreek, digital gnosis and others a frustration at having the same bad arguments and bad apologetics touted out, having to debunk creationism and the kalam and the like, over and over when most apologists should know they are licked is frustrating.
That doesn’t surprise me at all. They are frustrated, delusional, scientifically illiterate and mediocre “thinkers.”
Disgusting? How did you figure out what they are like when they aren't being watched?
Where have they lied exactly
As a moral non-realist, I bring up the logical incoherence of a allegedly loving God asking grown men hack into pieces the very infants he claims of love, only to be told I’m making a moral arguments against God. This happens repeatedly.
12:15
1. "The God of the old testament is bad" that seems a bit uncharitable to me, especially when it's always the atheist who draw's these conclusions without proper understanding of the Bible as a whole,
2. perfect being theism and in regards to the bible, of course you wouldn't see this world and apply it to God because he never meant for us to be separated from him, he created us to be with him and we rebelled, i think that response is also being uncharitable.
Why don't you try to engage Trent?
I’m happy to speak with Trent. I made this response on a whim like five minutes after I finished watching his video
@@EmersonGreen I hope I see you test yourself against him some day. But tell me something. It seems to me there are only 2 explanations for the coming into existence of the universe. 1. It just happened, get over it. 2. It was cause by a timeless, spaceless, powerful intellect and will. Now tell me why there is any REASON to prefer 1 to 2. No word salad please. I will only pay attention to a response in the form: 1 is preferable to 2 BECAUSE...........
@@gussetma1945 I have a video about contingency arguments that you should check out if you want my full answer. For the sake of argument, let's say that I explain the existence of the universe in the same way you explain the existence of God.
@@EmersonGreen I was not disappointed by you evasive answer. I expected it. I will try to find your video and watch it.
Actually you said you expected word salad, not evasiveness.
Trent Horn is a disingenuous ideologue, and a master of strawmanning and false logic. To give you an idea of his thinking, he thinks William Lang Craig is one of the best Christian apologists.
To be fair WLC is probably one of the most well-known and most-sought after Christian apologists, even though he has his flaws (Kalam isn't particularly compelling to me, though it is to many, and WLC is a monothelite)
With that said your response comes off as tattetale-ism. "Trent is disingenuous and strawmanny and bad! Trent likes WLC and WLC is bad!"
Many atheists and theists have been elevating the discourse. Others haven't. This comment does not, so let's do better.
@@newglof9558 , I responded to you a few days ago. Someone must’ve deleted it. I will summarize it: all apologists are willfully ignorant of the lack of objective evidence for Christianity. It’s falsified, get real.
@@86645ut "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Ergo, by your own criteria, if there's no evidence for it, it does not make it falsified.
Furthermore I don't think you understand what evidence as such actually is, or that evidence for and against a particular proposition can exist simultaneously.
Atheist epistemological issues, which is par for the course from what I've seen. I'm sure these will go unaddressed as they usually do. Shame, as these reasons were why I stopped being an atheist.
@@newglof9558 , every claim for Christianity has been falsified. Some general theist claims are unfalsifiable. You folks are making the positive claims, not us. Now, please tell me why you are a Christian.
@@86645ut "every claim has been falsified" really? Last I checked, Christianity claims Jesus existed and was crucified. Every mainstream scholar agrees with this point. Doesn't seem too "falsified" to me.
I'm a Christian because it's the truest option I've found, after looking into a variety of other systems, including Islam, Judaism, paganism, Dharmic religions and atheism.
You are lying about what theists argue on morality. Try to stop lying and engage what we actually argue.
lol show me a timestamp where I'm lying
@@EmersonGreen You lied immediately about the Argument from God from Moral Ontology!
1. You misrepresent what is argued (no moral ontology without God) as no 'objective morality' (whatever the hell that means) without God.
2. You then lie about some subjective goal being a solution to the problem - when it has zero relevance whatsoever. Unless and until you can establish moral ontology (foundation in objective REALITY for a realm of objective moral values and duties) without God, there can be no coherent moral right or wrong without God.
I stopped listening to this load of crap when you cannot be honest about the first argument. Typical atheist drivel.
@@EmersonGreen Your lies start immediately. At the 20 second mark, you lied about what theists argue. You purposefully misquote William Lane Craig as arguing 'no objective morals' (epistemology), when he is referring to ONTOLOGY (foundations in objective reality). The proof is right there in the name of the argument - the Argument for God from Moral ONTOLOGY). I realize you atheists have no moral duties without God, but you really solidify our point when you cannot be honest about the very core of what we argue.
@@festerreloaded2690 I'm not sure you know what epistemology and ontology mean, based on what you just said. At any rate, "If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist" is a direct quote from Craig. Many theists argue that atheism implies or entails moral antirealism. Everyone knows that many Christians say this. It's not a secret. The problem is that the defenders of the moral argument rarely even attempt to undermine e.g. moral non-naturalism, which is a realist metaethical position defended by many atheists.
@@EmersonGreen Horse crap. In fact, you dishonestly conflated moral epistemology with moral ontology to change the argument from ontology to epistemology. The argument is clearly about moral ontology (objective grounding in reality for moral values and duties), not 'objective morality' or 'objective morals' as you dishonestly claimed. You attempt to shift the subject to how we form moral opinions (epistemology) based upon moral 'objectives.' That's deception. You even changed Dr Craig's words to obfuscate the distinction between moral ontology (the subject) and 'morality' in general, which you shifted to epistemology,
Don't pretend I don't understand the difference - or your deception.
Don't pretend your original distortion 'quote' was a "direct quote from Craig." That's BS - and you know it.