Reviewing the Shapiro vs. O'Connor Religion Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2024
- In this episode, Trent reviews the debate that recently took place between Ben Shapiro and Alex O'Connor on the question: Is religion good or bad for society?
Support this podcast: trenthornpodcast.com
Original Debate: • Ben Shapiro vs Alex O'...
Dr Ortlund's Commentary: • Is Religion Bad For So...
The Lesson to Learn from Matt Dillahunty's Rage Quit: • The Lesson to Learn fr...
00:00 Intro
01:34 Is Religion Good?
04:08 Free Will
11:01 Using Atheist Logic
14:35 Changing the Topic
18:35 Non-Religious Societies
20:52 Emotivism
27:29 Wrap Up - Розваги
I think that the answer to their debate (is religion good or bad for society) is "it depends on the religion and how it's followed".
Yeah they should have been more clear as to what religion are they talking about. Marxism is very clearly a religion that has lead to hundreds of millions of deaths
I'm a catholic youtuber from Poland and just wanted to say: Thank you so much for your work! You're awesome! :)
Subscribed
Be making occasional videos in English. I think that will help those of us who are non-Polish. :)
Catholic in the Middle East, going through tough times. Pray for me
@@Lerian_VMay our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen and protect you all! And may God be glorified!
Consider making English subtitles for your videos
Was was hoping you’d cover this, Trent. Thank you!🙏
I’m so glad there are much more intelligent people than myself approaching these subjects reasonably lol. Thanks for sharing this Trent, I may have to check out the whole debate
Same here!
Me too! What a relief.
We should still try and better ourselves in every way, in order to defend our values but I agree. I'm glad these intelligent people exist to speak my values eloquently.
@@garintj1547 absolutely! It’s the understanding of those more wise than us that enlightens our own intellects to speak freely
Not a debate. Just questions that Shapiro has no real answers to.
I'm a protestant and I learn so much from your videos. You break down content so that it is accessible to everyone. Thank you.
It's remarkable that roughly 1 in 42 people watching this video post a comment. That's a pretty insane interaction rate. Just goes to show how top quality your videos (i.e., your analyses, explanations, reasoning, insights, etc.) are. Thanks for the great content.
John 14:21
I was looking forward to your recap, while watching the video a few days ago. God bless
Trent, I just finished your book "Hard sayings". It was excellent. Well done!
“If you hold to a strict determinism, and free will doesn’t exist; then you have zero business praising anyone for moral excellence, or blaming anyone for moral wickedness.” -Bishop Barron
First off, why is that bad? Is it so awful to think that people perform actions due to circumstances outside their control? What are people if not the circumstances that made them: their genetics, their relationships, their experiences, their triumphs and despairs?
Even so, we should praise people because the human mind likes it, ha ha. Yes, let's just ignore all the psychological research into conditioning and just stop encouraging good behavior. You're engaging in a straw man.
Common Bishop Barron W
@@WaterCat5 Play out determinism to its logical conclusion. We could still say, “you behave well which is good for society and order.” But we couldn’t honestly say, “you are praiseworthy and I want to be more like you, or you are wicked and I don’t want to emulate that,” because ultimately, who cares? Like you said if we have no ability to decide then praising virtue or condemning wickedness makes no sense. Stalin for example would be just a poor bloke who was a product of circumstance. What business would we have to judge him?
@@nickmedley4749there doesn't have to be a magic fairy for the dumbest human being on the face of the earth to realize that anyone who commits atrocities against humanity is bad. Free will is just part of survival, and to be desired to be included helps many species survive, and they try to help each other out.
@@nickmedley4749please do me a favor and just read what you wrote back to yourself. How desperate are you to win on some kind of technicality that theists just make up? Do you know who atheists actually are? They are people who worshipped a god, until they decided to really understand their god, and then they make the fatal mistake of reading the bible. Now wiggle your way out of that one.
Brilliant Trent! Thank you so much for your work, helps a lot🙌
Trent you are growing like crazy since 100k! Love your work, God Bless you
The opening remark finally got me to subscribe to a channel upon being asked to. Hahaha. That was well played.
(Thank you for all that you do. Blessings and love!)
Wait, what! I was just telling a friend earlier today, “it’ll be awesome if Trent reviews this debate!”. 😆
Since Shapiro is a lawyer, i had no concerns with him debating. I am glad though that he could hold himself up in a theological debate.
To be fair, Cosmic Skeptic debate skills is sus.
He did pretty poorly.
Shapiro couldn’t lawyer his way out of his moral relativism and really no Judeo-Christian believer can defend why god allowed for slavery, but condemned eating pork.
@@julianmartinez8954lol, he got Alex to admit that religion is good for society, which was the topic. Seems like he won 😂
@@MrGgabber When did that happen?
Great job. Yours doing such a great job. Please keep doing what you’re doing🤙
Nice video. Well articulated. God bless!
Alex seems angry at the people who have chosen to be slave owners or homophobic, but doesn’t believe they have any free will. That doesn’t make sense.
Exactly and he doesn’t seem to be interested in WHAT is directing this unfolding Creation.
For someone so “ smart”, it’s appalling
I think you've misunderstood what he was saying to be honest, I don't believe Alex would say that he is angry at people in either or those examples for precisely the reason you stated, the reason he brought them up I believe was to point out the problem that religious believers will state that the bible can give people objective morality but yet fails to condemn slavery and fails to condemn homophobia and many other things that people would consider objectively wrong.
@@jcbl62 Christianity isn’t all about the BIBLE. The early Christians spent HUNDREDS of years practicing and spreading the faith without a Bible. The Catholic intellectual tradition is THOUSANDS of years old and the concept of Natural Law has been unpacked over this time. The Bible isn’t the only source Christians use when determining morality. If anything, the Bible is proof that Christianity has shifted humanity in a direction that is clarifying our objective morality. The Bible providing an honest snapshot of the environment individuals experienced during the time it was written. It provides modern individuals extremely important insight into humanity’s ethical and moral journey. It provides a model of how to address the current culture while simultaneously providing aspirational ideas that take root and unfold over time. Precisely what Christian history reflects. Alex knows all this, but can’t acknowledge it because it clearly undermines his atheist claims about religion.
@jcbl62 You would have to explain why you think slavery is wrong then, if you don't believe in free will. Otherwise, you are arguing in bad faith.
Religion is bad because... I'm so tired of this phrase. Trent who provided an excellent answer with a secular equivalent for comparison. I enjoy this podcast for 1000 reasons thank you, Mr. Trent.
Inquisition, colonization, witch hunt, burning people, church taxes, brain washing of young people, blocking science and literacy, holy wars.
Awesome content Trent, thanks for doing all the resourch so we can have time to do other good in the world.
Alex pretty much pointed out that Ben was using moral relativism over how religious people behaved back in the past and now.
Well at least attempted to.
@@JUAN_OLIVIER didn't attempt, actually did. The problem is that Ben doesn't seem to recognize it.
@ay1489 No. Ben said that owning a slave under the Hebrew guidelines is objectively wrong after Alex asked him - see this section of the debate (ua-cam.com/video/j7rtkLJqbxM/v-deo.html) at 7:38. He then goes on to accuse him of being a moral relativist, only to then ask him the exact same question again at 9:01, seemingly having forgotten Ben's previous answer. It's not moral relativism to say that something was considered moral in the past, and therefore needed a more gradual approach to remove it from society. I still agree with Alex that the Bible could have at least implied slavery was an immoral practice, but I certainly wouldn't accuse Ben of using moral relativism, or that he didn't 'recognise' Alex's accusation
@@jackvanderlinden9234
This is just blatant cope.
God claimed so many things as immoral that were culturally acceptable to humans, but somehow had a problem with saying slavery was immoral?
Alex clearly won with the moral relativism point.
@@CastleFrasherdude I agree with you in that the Bible could have made that clear and I’m still unsure why it doesn’t. My point is that Ben wasn’t inconsistent - you can agree or disagree with his interpretation of the Bible but he made it clear he thinks slavery, even the slavery mentioned in the Bible, is objectively wrong.
Alex went for populist talking points rather than technical ones. And his audience ate it up. The facts dont care about your feelings part especially made no sense given the topic is literally on the effect of religion. Which obviously includes feelings.
Trent could you do a video on defending free will? It feels like the hardest problem to answer is the apparent connectedness between brain and personality/decisions (as shown by brain injuries)
For the point you brought, I'd say you need a healthy brain for the mind to act properly in the physical world.
I think Catholics actually have an easy answer under the framework that we're fully man and fully spirit. Your brain and mind work in conjuction. Your mind works as will and judge and brain processes information. Your feelings and expressed personality are a mix of your innate character and bodily chemical reactions. A change in the brain will change how it interacts with the mind and change how your personality is ultimately expressed
@@ghostapostle7225 it sounds like the self’s ability to carry out its will can be inhibited by the brain in your response. Which means your will isn’t free. And what makes this worse, is if you are suggesting the self interacts with the brain to carry out the will, unless you have a template for how the healthy brain functions and can determine that an individual’s brain doesn’t deviate or isn’t under the influence of something, how could you ever say that your will was actually free during a given action?
@@OrcaneVault - "It sounds like the self's ability to carry its will is inhibited by the brain in your response."
It's the opposite. The subject can withdraw from the instinctual striving towards action which is generally embedded within the entire body, not just the brain.
I don't think brain injuries damage free will too badly, but they are certainly in support of a more non-free will view of how we act as well. You're having to further sever connections between the idea of a mind and the physical brain to mix these together. It moreover makes the mind start to sound like a fiction of what could be the mechanism behind your thoughts rather than an actual proposal of what is there.
Love your work Trent, thank you!
Thanks for all your great videos GOD Bless 🙏🏼
The study showing that encouraging belief in determinism leads to more dishonesty doesn't imply people who already believe in determinism would be more dishonest. In fact, other studies show this to be true. So it may only be the case that encouraging a free will believer to doubt their free will leads to dishonesty, it has nothing to do with prior belief in determinism.
I have to do more research on this, in terms of the amount of people who believe in free will, but if the majority of people may have some belief in free will, then won’t actively encouraging free will people to doubt free will potentially lead to even more examples of dishonesty? Unless that tide of dishonesty declines overtime, which is a huge bet on if it does decline, it might be more wise to let them believe in free will, especially given people in oppressed circumstances or abusers or addicts etc
Yhhh, most people on the planet believe in freewill and most people don't doubt freewill unless exposed to certain schools of thoughts. So introducing such doubts would encourage people to be less responsible over time (just observe), especially criminals looking for excuses. To them, all thier criminal drives become thier deterministic destiny, they had no 'Choice'. There'd be people advocating for more comfort and expenses for prisons since from a deterministic view, the criminal had to do what they did and thus, even if they are put aside from society because of thier nuerodivergence from the majority definition of 'normal', they still deserve comfort like any other 'normal' person by society's standards because they apparently had no say in the matter of thier actions. In return, more people would see criminals treated nicely and spoilt and they'd revolt and even wish to go to prison
Religion is inevitable as a result of human society. Atheism has become a religion. I found the debate between Alex and Ben frustrating as Alex would consistently stray off topic and descend into moral judgments of minutiae. In my view, Ben performed well and Alex said little of consequence and displayed an inability to stay on topic. He also acted in bad faith with his repetitive, stubborn and fruitless hypothetical questions. I found it a fruitless discussion that Ben “won.”
Go Trent ! Hope you make it to the UK
You do amazing work Trent. I love your demeanor. You carry yourself very well.
Baptist Wes back here, I still binge your videos here. I legitimately think your past two videos have been some of your best apologetics against “skepticism”. Something I’ve learned that skeptics do is formulate their position based on assertions and when asked about their foundation for absolutely anything it goes back to “i don’t know “ or “I don’t have to explain it”
Do you know where statements like 'idk' are warranted?
@@Eliza-rg4vw The foundation of morality and the oughts of treating people one way over the other. Atheism/agnosticism has to ultimately say it’s all subjective, therefore the OUGHT itself it’s by definition subjective.
@@spiderwebbz3356 So a skeptic should respond 'IDK' to queries regarding what ought/ought not be done?
@@spiderwebbz3356There are plenty of atheists that believe in objective morality (the majority of philosophers for example). But there are even more theists that have no idea about this, because they’ve never needed to learn about the philosophy of morality outside of their own worldview.
@@spiderwebbz3356 isn’t a Subjective morality the norm? An atheist has a subjective morality based on their preferences, a Catholic has a subjective morality based on Gods preferences. We even see God’s preferences change over time. Subjectivity is par for the course
unbelievable needs to get Trent on, he is a genius, his debate with Destiny on Abortion was one of the best debates I have ever seen.
Thank you for your in depth commentary here! As a protestant, I especially appreciate that you are humble and honest enough to actually promote a video of Gavin's knowing how much of his content is geared against catholic doctrines! This form of appreciation and respect beyond dividing lines of denomination and doctrine really gives me hope for a restoration of the Church as Christs spotless bride!
Protestant here: I found you through Gavin! Thankful for your work, Trent!
Great video, Trent! I agree, Ben did a great job. It was nice to see him debate someone who isn't just a dumb college student.
Really looking forward to the Ben Shapiro vs Destiny debate. I hope you do a review of that when it happens.
Those aren't debates 🤨. Those are just Q&A. Haven't you ever seen some speaker come into a campus, give a presentation on a specific topic, and then after the presentation has concluded they open the floor for a Q&A?
Alex wiped the floor with destiny to the point destiny didnt even upload the video on his channel lol.. Shapiro dont need to engage with destiny to be honest, destiny is a fake liberal moron..
He's gonna debate Destiny? Destiny is gonna get rekt...
@@jamesholt8516 idk, Destiny's a way more experienced debater. Honestly, I hope its more of a conversation. I like both of them, but I definitely agree with Ben on more stuff.
It was originally scheduled for November, but I think it got pushed back to January.
Just because Alex can weave words together in a way that sounds intelligible doesn’t make him less dumb than the average college student. It wasn’t that much better, the delusion of objection morality in an atheistic subjective world is by definition contradictory.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎙️ *Debate Introduction*
- The host introduces the debate between Ben Shapiro and Alex O'Connor on whether religion is good or bad for society.
- Mention of the Big Conversation series on the Unbelievable UA-cam channel.
- Brief commentary on the studio setup and the host's nervousness for Ben Shapiro.
01:41 🌐 *Debate Topic: Is Religion Good or Bad for Society?*
- Ben Shapiro's focus on the debate topic: Is religion good or bad for society?
- Clarification that the question is neutral regarding the truth of religion but explores its societal impact.
- Reference to Ben's emphasis on concepts like truth, morality, and free will without asserting the existence of God.
03:44 📚 *Shapiro's Approach and Alex's Counterarguments*
- Ben Shapiro's emphasis on not trying to prove God's existence but arguing for the societal importance of concepts like free will.
- Alex O'Connor's argument against religion, stating it leads to false beliefs and practices, citing historical issues like slavery and witchcraft.
- Ben's challenge in debating specific Bible difficulties and the nuanced nature of these discussions in a debate setting.
06:31 🤔 *Free Will and Atheistic Perspective*
- Ben's argument that society needs a belief in free will for functional morality, regardless of the actual existence of free will.
- Alex's hard determinism and the potential consequences of rejecting free will on ethical behavior.
- Empirical studies indicating the link between belief in free will and ethical decision-making.
11:22 🔄 *Ben's Use of Atheistic Skepticism*
- Ben's use of atheistic skepticism against Alex's argument about the unexplained nature of free will.
- Analogous comparison to atheists accepting the existence of consciousness despite the unsolved "hard problem of consciousness."
- Ben's stance on justifiably believing in observed phenomena even without a complete understanding of their mechanisms.
15:43 ⚖️ *Drift in Topic: Bible Difficulties and God's Morality*
- Alex's shift towards questioning God's morality based on imperfect rules in the Bible, particularly regarding slavery.
- Implicit endorsement of an argument against the God of the Bible if it allows certain practices.
- Ben's response emphasizing the debate's original focus on the societal impact of religion, not the divine inspiration of scripture.
18:46 🌐 *Broadening the Perspective: Religious vs. Non-Religious Societies*
- Suggestion for Ben to counter Alex's focus on religious issues with examples of societal problems in non-religious states.
- Reference to Gavin Ortlund's commentary on the debate, highlighting examples from the Soviet Union.
- The importance of considering both religious and non-religious societies when discussing societal ethics.
20:07 🔄 *Applying Nuanced Discussions to Both Perspectives*
- Advocacy for fairness in discussing nuanced issues from both religious and non-religious perspectives.
- Mention of the need for equal scrutiny on tough ethical questions in societies with different foundations.
- Reference to another debate where a Christian apologist used a similar approach in discussing secularism and transgender ideology.
20:35 🌐 *Debate Overview*
- Ben Shapiro discusses atheistic totalitarianism and atheistic moral issues in the 20th and 21st centuries.
21:01 🧠 *Ben Shapiro's Debate Performance*
- Ben Shapiro demonstrates a strong understanding of philosophy, logic, and ethics.
- Highlights include his response to Alex's emotivism and the necessity of moral absolutes for societal well-being.
22:24 🤔 *Critique of Alex's Emotivism*
- Critique of Alex's emotivism, emphasizing its inability to explain objective moral truths.
- Emotivism's challenges in engaging in moral arguments and the problems it poses to moral reasoning.
- The inconsistency of Alex's emotivism revealed in discussions about animal rights and war.
23:57 *🔄 Moral Inconsistencies Undermine Emotivism*
- Alex's questioning of others' moral inconsistencies inadvertently undermines his emotivist foundation.
- Emotivism's struggle to account for moral worth, animal rights, and conflict resolution without objective moral principles.
26:15 🌐 *Necessity of Untouchable Moral Principles*
- Ben argues for the necessity of untouchable moral principles in societal construction.
- The challenge of justifying these principles without resorting to compulsion, emphasizing the need for strong arguments.
27:41 💡 *Future Plans and Funding*
- Expresses a desire for future debates in the UK with critics of Catholicism like Alex or Steven Woodford.
- Highlights the need for funding to support such projects and invites viewers to contribute at Trenhorn podcast.com.
Impressive
Thank you Trent!!
debates are not there to be won, but to exchange ideas and learn from each other…
Trent, you should have Gavin on to dialogue about this. Some ecumenical axiological defense of theism as such. :)
I can appreciate Alex. However, I've got to be honest, he is the epitome of the trope of young, solidly middle class student, well read and intelligent, but so very pretentious. I met a few like this when I was at university, possibly i myself was a bit like this too. Hopefully, people grow out of it with the wisdom of maturity which enriches their natural intellect, formerly limited by youthful hubris. But... I find him so very ponderous and difficult to listen to. He's obviously intelligent and erudite, but honestly i think such people do not truly realise that potential until they've got some wisdom and maturity to balance it out. Until then, what you often get is a lot of pretense and bluster; showing off like they've swallowed all the books they've read.
Perhaps, but to say this only about Alex and not ben, who has become a pop culture meme because of his pretentious personality and video titles simply betrays your biases.
How familiar are you with academic philosophy? Alex is very far from pretentious given his background. He has an undergrad degree from a very good university and is an excellent communicator and generous debater. He rarely or never pointlessly name-drops, refers to obscure essays, uses overly formal definitions, or waxes poetic with pseudo-profundities (the main pretentious crimes of academic philosophers). I think he makes a conscious effort to state his positions clearly and in plain language. He would be among the least pretentious people in any graduate level philosophy course in my experience. He's not showing off at all!
@@jayvillellaI agree. I enjoy listening to him, but nothing he says challenges my faith. I was raised atheist, marinated in Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens from an early age. I came to faith as an adult and I feel like my faith is far stronger for it. I look at people like Alex as a younger (smarter and more British) version of myself. I used to think people turned religious when they got old so they could “get into heaven” but personally it was just observing the world, culture, and humanity and coming to recognize the necessity of religion. I don’t know if Alex will ever reach that point. There are plenty of aged atheists, but I do think he is just rehashing the same talking points as the previous generation of charismatic atheists, even as the west grows less religious and increasingly spirals into nihilism.
Good stuff, Trent!
Yes please come to the UK Trent. We'd love to have you.
Alex honestly is no better than the atheists decades ago who made the same shallow arguments.
How he can say there is no free will when everyone lives a life where they can recount the decisions they made freely that got them to where they are.
Morals based on how you feel? When everyone knows that reacting based on your emotions … that your emotions will betray you. I have yet to find someone who can say that reacting emotionally when making a decision is how they accomplish everything good in life.
I have no idea why people find his like of supposed logic enticing as none of it makes sense to those who honestly and objectively consider their own lives.
People find his logic enticing because he speaks what they want to hear Not what they Need to hear👍
I got into a debate with someone who stated it wasn’t possible to control thoughts and imagination so it’s bull that “sin begins in the mind” (28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28 RSV-CE)
He believed he was powerless to control himself all as an excuse to enjoy every ugly urge…couldn’t think far enough to wonder what happens when a dude with a sword and a grudge decides he can’t control the urge to lop off a pedo’s head.
They made a correct observation that you cannot control the thoughts that pop into your mind, though. It sounds like you’re trying to conflate ACTIONS with THOUGHTS. You cannot control or choose who you are attracted to, or when your eyes notice someone who you find attractive. That’s why the whole concept of a “thought crime” is insane and immoral.
I dont get to choose who I find attractive. lustfulness is ridiculous as a sin. Lust isnt the same as molestation or harassment.
this is partially incorrect. true, you have no controll over a thought once it pops into your head, but you can controll your intake. When you stop watching porn, how often do you think about porn after a month-- things like that. A guy on a farm in iowa with no access to media, probably has very few instances of thinking about immigration or the war in ukraine, etc. the idea that we cant limit intake i think is what OP is refering to
@@TestMeatDollSteak
@@DCxSkateboarding
You do in fact control whether or not how you respond to that initial temptation of lust. If you indulge in the lustful thought, that's a conscious choice.
If you see an attractive woman, recognize her beauty and your subsequent attractiveness is in itself holy and a good and then leave it, that's a totally different thing than seeing an attractive woman and then proceeding to imagine what she'd look like naked or what you would do with her sexually.
The latter is obviously sinful.
Arguments like that are one reason that make me wonder whether the divine hiddenness argukent is really worth it. Atheism is evil because it defends reprobate ideas like lust, porn, etc.
The sole identification with awareness is the problem with understanding free will. I am my awareness of myself and simultaneously what my awareness is aware of when i examine myself. Meditation is a useful tool to humble my awareness and discover the other parts of my identity which contain the answers to these questions though they be personal. There are clues contained in the language we choose to use at times.
Hey Trent.. I'm learning many things about Apologetic however I do have a question which is not related specifically to this video. My question is this. Does it remain important for an Apologetic to remain focus on dealings of Christianity after Vatican II? What is your argument to remain an Apologetic around Religion?
Alex: Morality is non objective.
Also Alex: Religion was wrong on this moral question.
That's what really frustrates me, I do like that more atheists are coming around to the conclusion that morality cannot be objective with their worldview but then they have to stop complaining about their interpretation of the bibles morality
@@Forester- They are free to complain. They just can't say that it is a critique of religion. Your argument against religion can't be that it is morally wrong to discriminate against homosexuality when you say that morality is in the eye of the beholder.
not really contadictory all hes saying is that it doesnt meet his moral standards
@@S.D.323 It is. His argument goes as follows:
1. Morality is non objective.
2. Therefore, Christianity is wrong about morality.
3. Christian morality's wrongness causes moral wrong.
4. Christianity is objectively bad for society.
While he doesn't have to directly say Christianity is objectively morally bad, he is trying to argue that it is objectively bad for society because it is immoral. At most all he can reasonably argue is that he doesn't like it. And who cares what he does and does not like?
@@josephmoya5098that's not what he said at all bud
Whoa, I’m the second viewer of this vid. Trent, were you the first? Which would actually make me the first? Whoa…
I would really like if you did an episode on free will.
Thanks much for this video.
Alex's atheism basically boils down to, the bible seems to endorse things I dislike and condmen things I like, therefore there is no God. This includes suffering, and since there are formal arguments about the existence of God using suffering, he goes with these arguments. But when pressed, he goes back to bible difficulties, because that is his real reason for atheism. He just thinks the bible has things wrong, which isn't really a rational argument for the nonexistence of a God.
All atheists think this way
You never watched his any other videos
@@user-gs4oi1fm4lyeah sure nerd
I like your critique about the informal debate also the portion of Alex's talk with Destiny. At least Destiny follows his non-belief consistently to its logical end.
Yeah, I like Ben and Alex both, but the only major problem with Alex I have is that he doesn't follow the argument to its ultimate end.
I'm just waiting for Trent to reply to just one of my comments, but since he rarely comments to anyone, I'm not that surprised. Though, I would have expected him to do better in defending his Catholic faith. :]
Not sure why two people who have two completely different ubderstandings of the word “good” spent time having a debate on whether religion is good or not.
The comment section underneath the original video is pure comedy-it is of course the usual large group of atheists who are obsessed with religion and claim ben got demolished.
That's not new lol, this is a tactic that I have found that is in common with new athiesm and Muslims
We sometimes hear that a society with more atheists will lead to a flourishing of science and art but in practice it just leads to more people talking about God.
@Rocky-ur9mn the exact same thing happens from the opposite viewpoint on religious videos.
@@Darksage5555 right except it doesn't really make sense to go search for things you don't believe in and argue why you don't.
@@Forester- They are religious too, there religion being atheism sadly. Quite ironic isnt it?
If there’s no free will is it wrong to punish someone for a crime they couldn’t stop themselves from doing?
No it is not. Regardless if determinism is real or not, a person can be held responsible for their actions.
Pretty much. If we're all dancing to the tune of our genetics as Dawkins would say, how can they argue for moral accountability...when I robbed that bank, it was just the end result of billions of tiny chemical reactions I was powerless to stop.
@hicow6075
You have provided no justifications.
@@mattm7798 you have control over your emotions but you are over simplifying the issue. Some people are not born with empathy pathways. How are they able toi understand sin if they have no empathy.
In essence, the fact that we may not have free will isn't actually stopping us from assuming it anyways. It's sort of like how there are tons of optical illusions on the internet, and even though you know these are illusions, you can't stop yourself from being 'fooled' by it anyway. We may not technically have free will, but practically, we may as well.
I think also assuming we must 'punish' wrongdoing may also be part of the problen here, though I don't wanna make this too long.
Great job
Hey Trent, do you have any content discussing and explaining the issues with Gnosticism? Essentially, why we shouldn’t accept it.
Alex‘s initial position that religion got things “wrong”, holds a double fallacy in that some of the things that he describes as “wrong“ are matters of opinion, while others are simply examples of things that everyone got wrong: science, math, etc.
This is the main reason atheists are so uncredible imo. Even the smart ones like Alex fall into this self-contradiction where they reject objective morality and free will but proceed to appeal to both. He asks Ben what it means to "act like free will" as if having a debate over free will is not itself an example.
I had an argument with a very stubborn skeptic once who refused to accept that even basic principles of math are objectively true because of the possibility that we could discover new information in the future that would disprove the old. I was just trying to establish a baseline that something is knowable but you can embrace skepticism to such an extent that you refuse to accept even this premise.
@@sivad1025Strange you would argue atheists lack objective morality during a comment on a debate where the theist admits god’s moral relativism on slavery. Truly incredulous
Trent didn’t really show this part in his recap, but if my memory serves me right this isn’t why Alex brought it up. Alex brought these things up in response to the idea that social/scientific progress has largely been a theistic endeavour.
Ben even had a funny response about him not needing to justify the actions of the Catholic Church for convicting Galileo “vehemently suspect of heresy”.
Alex is essentially saying, look at all these instances where religions not only weren’t at the forefront of discovery, but were actively fighting against it. If we are going to count the times the church did support progress as evidence, then we must also support the times the church actively hindered progress as counter-evidence.
The measuremebts on Noah's ark are wrong. A giant wooden boat would not survive in the ocean. Also, the earth is not flat. The sundoes not revolve around the earth like the story of Joshua implies. Even if The story is saying that the earth stopped, then we would all be dead as it would be similar to stopping a car without a seat belt. We would just fly everywhere.
If Alex O'Connor really thinks we're all just a collection of molecules in a meaningless existence with no free will, then he needs to explain why it's so important to him that he spends his life trying to convince other people of it. It's self-defeating.
If life is meaningless, that doesn't mean humans can't invent meaning for themselves. Like morality, meaning is subjective.
@@gageduke7652 I disagree, meaning has to be objective. If meaning isn't objective or inherent then it's an illusion. If I'm just a collection of molecules then I'm just.a collection of molecules, no amount of subjective "meaning" is going to change that.
@@billydeewilliams267 Why is it so important that meaning has to be objective? Humans attribute meaning to otherwise meaningless things all the time. Nothing wrong with that.
At the end of the day, even if absolute or objective truth or value existed, humans would not recognize it given that we are fallible and imperfect creatures. Our knowledge and interpretation of absolute truth is incomplete and likely to be wrong.
For all intents and purposes... meaning, truth, and morality have to be subjective.
@@billydeewilliams267 yes it literally is an illusion
Okay so this is gonna get lost, but I listened to this on the way to my sister's house where we binge watched the Netflix special "Love under the knife". And at the very end of that documentary about the evils of a ruthless con artist experimental surgeon, the journalist mentioned that while the surgeon was just an awful person, every person that went along with him and didn't stop him or ask questions is also responsible. Our morality, our free will demands that we do the right thing. It is written in our hearts, it isn't a natural conclusion from our surroundings. I want to live in a world that is ordered toward that. Praise to our God Who is all loving.
hey, unrelated question but In desperate need of guidance in this matter. I want to become catholic after 2 years of studying, Do you recommend going through RCIA or going directly to my local priest and being privately helped? God bless you
Rcia will be better
Since even the priest of my parish do not feel the need to educate the youth about the CCC as a result, there are many youths who even think that muslims worship the biblical god🤣🤣🤣
The debate of free will is such an important one for our time. The answer affects us all on such a tangible level. If more people believed in the truth of free will then we would have such a more peaceful time.
The opposite. It’s much easier to be patient and accepting of others when you realize they are biological “machines”.
There is no free will. Either events are random or determined. If they're random, you have no free will. If they are determined, you have no free will. Events are either random or determined and in both cases, no free will.
@Boratio can you explain why events being random leads to humans having no free will?
@@canine_delight "free will" entails that there is a center of control, a "self" within one's consciousness, that directs actions, can reason, consider outcomes, etc. If events of the mind are random, then they are not "controlled" at all. They occur at random.
I feel the exact opposite. I think our societies are so focused on discussing everything as a moral issue that it clouds our ability to problem solve rationally.
Even when I was a Christian I didn’t believe in freewill, so this isn’t just an atheist/theist debate.
Great thoughts , as always. Hearing the debate this came to my mind: How can slavery be wrong if there's no moral frame of reference but feelings? 🤔 One of the points I see on atheist, most of them came to know the Bible from protestant literalism, that brings issues to the debate that are non-issues.
How can it be wrong if the book you get your morals from says its not wrong? That was the whole argument. The moral framework people base their lives on says its not immoral to own people. The bigger question is who are you to tell the creator of the universe that they are wrong?
Morals aren't just feelings, also for atheists.
@@JimmyHolt-ji8hz The bible gives regulations for how to treat slaves. That is condoning slavery, whether you like it or not.
@@LesChats1991 Exactly. That's one thing Christians will never admit. Also, slavery does mean forcing someone against their will, so Jimmy is plain wrong. It's pathetic how wrong their attempts to dismiss the truth are. The definition of slavery makes that obvious - " Slavery is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regards to their labor. Slavery typically involves compulsory work with the slave's location of work and residence dictated by the party that holds them in bondage. " That's the official definition, and the same definition used in " biblical " times.
@@LesChats1991- Creating slavery norms is not a suggestion of slavery per se.
that new shirt thing made me luagh! we need to support a little more guys!
Ironed shirt, Thank you Laura!
From these clips, Ben didn’t just do a good job, but he did a GREAT job! Quite impressive.
He did?
Liar 🤣
He was destroyed
Without yet watching, let me guess who youre with...Shapiro?
This is a Catholic apologetics channel. Shapiro was arguing that religion is not harmful to society. Yes, we’re with Shapiro on this issue. -Kyle
Everyone plays so nice with Alex, but he strikes me and hopelessly arrogant.
Great commentary. High quality 👏🏼
Man, it's so wierd to watch arguments from Atheists who have strong roots on modern philosophy. We are forced to debate if free will exists.
Omg.
I can only imagine what Socrates would say.
👍
The sooner people stop associating a British accent with intelligence the better. O’Connel is fine but hitchens wouldn’t have been near as popular if he had a different accent.
Hitchens' accent and command of the English language carried him a long way. I do love to listen to him talk but his criticisms of religion were just as shallow as the rest of the New Athiests.
The debate was quite poor in relation to the topic, but that falls on the moderator, not the debaters.
Trent, what are your thoughts on the following critique of Alex's question at 11:40?
It seems to me that Alex is looking for an explanation of self-determination *_in determinate terms,_* which is simply to reject the reality of self-determination from the outset. *_If self-determination is true,_* then it is a basic reality and can't be explained in a "mechanistic" fashion, as if some external stimulus *_necessarily causes_* me to act in a certain way. Now, if he wants an explanation of the ins-and-outs of self-determination that does not appeal to necessary relations (since free will is, first and foremost, an essentially contingent reality), then he should read Wojtyla's "Person and Act."
I think you’re right to point out that the debate devolved into essentially “religion is bad because it promotes bad things” which is circular. I do wish Ben had pulled back and pushed harder on the “but why is it bad” or how do you determine what is good for society anyway? He did a great job though, like you said it’s really hard in the hot seat and Alex is a formidable mind.
If you promote a bad thing, then wouldn't that make it bad..... and non circular? Slavery is bad, genocide is bad, and rape is bad. Which is stuff that the bible condones.
Personally I was a bit disappointed that they never defined what even is good for society. Without that defintion, a hypothetical reigion which promotes the killing of all people on Earth could be considered good by that religion, and so if we abide by them, yes, religion is good. In thr same vein, then, abiding by Christianity would be anti-this new religion, and so it is bad. Really depends on what angle you're taking and what the truth (if any) actually is. I only got a round to about halfway thru the original vid before I just stopped because I couldn't see it getting any mpre productive.
Atheist Regimes have religions beat when it comes to social atrocities if one wants to be honest with the tally
@@user-gs4oi1fm4l Name an Atheist regime? Cause I can name plenty of theistic regimes that are absolutely terrible.
@@ereyes6718 Mao, Rwanda, Bolshevik, just 3 off the top
They should have brought someone like historian Tom Holland for this debate imo
hes busy filming Spiderman series
@@akak8299Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does whatever a Spider-Man can (1960s Spider-Man animation song).
Hey Trent! I would love to see a video on building a personal relationship with god. I think many problems today stem from a lack of understanding on this! Thanks
do you delete comments here too?
Most arguments for determinism I've found come down to "cherry picking being," as it were. Freedom is found in the temporal and enactive process of subjectivity, not in the faulty conception of cause-effect relations of objectified "things."
First you have to define what you mean by freedom here then you have to define what you mean by temporal and enactive of subjectivity and then you have to describe why the concepts of cause and effect relations are quote faulty you're just saying words to say them holy fuck everything you've said here literally just makes no sense and completely disregards and underwrites all of the actual arguments made by cause and effect. My brain actually hurts reading how empty and brain dead these comments are for fucksake our school system has failed.
The confusion heavily lies in the fact that few people today understand how free will really works, but the answer to how it works, or at least an answer which I find very convincing, has been around for hundreds of years. It even can be leveraged to show exactly why so many fall into determinism. To whit: we have two mental powers, intellect/reason and will. Now free will by the name implies the will can be directed freely towards everything, and that is the point of confusion. The will actually is drawn by its very nature towards what it perceives as good, and in that sense is kind of deterministic. What makes will free is our reason possesses the capability of freely presenting various things to the will as good. Thus, we possess the freedom to choose what to set before our will, which then goes after it. Only seeing that the will always pursues the perceived good and not that the reason freely presents things as good is a big component in determinism.
@@Theseekerofinfinite you still miss the point. Such precess of "presenting to the will" is not under your controll and is either random or deterministic. Reason is a deterministic process, and our reason is constrained by the caotic mix of chemical processes that go on in our brain. So it is not free but dependent on physical conditions which are still outside our control.
@@marco_mate5181 - The content of the world which presents itself to the subject doesn't need to be undetermined in order for freedom to exist, because you're conflating determination *within* an interdeterministic relation between subject and world vs. a narrow causal chain of determination which goes one way. It comes down to a language trick.
@@evangelium5376 what does this word salad mean? The point isn’t that the content is determined, but the process itself. The abilities of our mind are determined by the natural laws of the reality we live in, and are out of our control. And the processes that present the set of choices to make are also determined, including the act of choosing itself, the alternative is randomness, which by definition would be not under our control.
If there is no free will, we cannot expect criminals to face the consequences of their behavior. Edit: Trent used the argument as well. Good. 😅
Interestingly European prisons designed to help criminals develop better skills, better self control, providing therapy and treating them as someone who's not fully responsible for their actions, have a far lower rate of inmates recommitting crime than those designed simply to punish prisoners.
@@helgaioannidis9365 I am in fact European and can tell you, that most crimes aren´t even punished although they should be. Gang rapists are running free without prison time. You don´t know a thing about what is happening over here and it shows. P.S. You did not dismantle my argument. Going to prison IS facing consequences.
@@libertasinveritas3198 calm down dear, I'm a German living in Greece who studied in Italy. Doesn't get more European than that I guess. Look at the crime rates in the USA compared to those in Europe and you'll understand what I was talking about
@@helgaioannidis9365 calm down lefty
@@RobertZemeckis2025 love your name. Great director!!!
The truth is, a debate should never be about, who won.
There aren't any losers or winners. That's the wrong mentality.
Debates shouldn't be about persuading or convincing each other, it should be about laying down logical arguments and letting the participants come to their own educated conclusions
Both Ben Shapiro and Alex O’Conner are educated, intelligent and have evaluated Christianity. Both have concluded Jesus is dead. Thus it is reasonable to conclude Jesus is dead.
I haven't full watched the video yet, so maybe I'm repeating what Trent says.
It seems like Alex's view is that thoughts cause other thoughts. Therefore, his "either thoughts are determined, or they're not" point works. Although, most of phenomenology implies that it isn't thoughts which cause thoughts, but a foundational faculty (or so Sartre argues in his Being and Nothingness).
"Thoughts cause thoughts" is obviously true in the physical world where everything is a domino chain. But that's why Ben appeals to the immaterial world where we have no reason to believe that cause and effect work this way
@@sivad1025 - The physicalist "domino chain" and general computational theories of mind don't sufficiently account for the temporal and enactive process of cognition. You're basically cherry-picking being.
@@sivad1025 Thoughts originate within a faculty not subjected to thought. If this faculty was subjected to thoughts, it would lead to a regress of thoughts into the unknown. Therefore, a thought may *precede or build off* another thought, but this thought doesn’t originate within the temporally prior thought itself.
Edit: Btw, Sartre totally rejected anything immaterial in this process.
@@evangelium5376 I'm Christian, so I'm inclined to agree. I'm saying that in the physical realm, I can understand the belief that all physical actions are entirely caused by prior actions
@@existential_o I don't really follow
Why is Alex admonishing Ben for his position when he has no control over it by his viewpoint😂
because he hopes that his arguments can change bens mind
well alex believes in determinism, meaning that external things such as your enviornment will influence what you will do in the future. so basically by exposing ben to his arguments, hopefully the idea is to influence him to change in the future.
Im looking at the study at 9:00.
Couple of things, first of all in one of the experiments there were 3 affirmations mentioned, free will, neutral, and determinism. There was no difference between free will and neutral which you failed to mention. So at most the study suggests determinism may correspond to cheating. So the argument is against determinism, not for free will.
Second, there are other forms of rejecting free will that are not deterministic, for example if everything was completely random. The study failed take this into account.
I see possible issues of endogeneity. It seems like the affirmations included a sense of effort to resist cheating. We should re run the experiment with the deterministic affirmation that says something like “although there is no free will, we should still put in effort to be honest”
To make a bold claim that this experiment proves the importance of free will is far too hasty.
Retributive punishment is wrong regardless of free will. Its a beneft of determinism that forces this view. Rehabilitation and safety should be the only concerns of the justice system.
I love Trent's creative but completely shameless subscription requests.
Hi Trent, two questions I have for determinists: 1) if determinism is true, how can you possibly know. 2) if determinism is true, why would one rely on the laws of logic, any thought you have, etc
1) Maybe you don't. Does not have any impact on whether there is determinism or not.
2) Because you are determined to rely on the laws of logic etc.
Couldn’t the first question be posed to free will equally
With regard to the first question, for me, it's about levels of conviction rather than absolute certitude. Determinism seems to cohere with the rest of my ontological positions and seems more plausible than the other alternatives. For that matter, Libetarian free will - which I assume is what most people talk about when they say they believe in free will - just seems incoherent to me.
As for your other question, ironically, I think it's actually the believers in libertarian free will who have the problem with trusting your faculties reliability. The denial of determinism entailed by adherence to LFW also means that a certain randomness is built into the fabric of reality to such a degree that any event, even your own thoughts, could very well be completely arbitrary.
@@Netum6am unfortunately, those responses don’t address the questions.
@@graysonguinn1943 it can be posed but all of our experience is that we are making free choices. Trent even cites a study on how a belief in determinism changes behavior.
Trent when debate video? Then, when funny Laura video?
The Bible DOES have the modern view of slavery. "For in Christ, there is neither slave nor free, male nor female", etc. The whole reason that society has condemned slavery is because of Christianity.
“For in Christ “ is the key part. In other words in the eyes of the lord. If you argue that “neither slave nor free” means there should be no slaves in society then one could also argue than “male nor female” means there should be no gender in society.
@@michaeldowdell3813 I think your analysis is missing the mark a bit. "For in Christ" does not just mean "in the eyes of the Lord", rather it also means "within the Kingdom of God", or "within the Church". This whole section of scripture means "within God's economy of the Kingdom, there is equality between all members of that Kingdom." People are equal, regardless of their gender, racial background, or status in society.
@@KenKopelson within his kingdom or within the church they are equal is what I meant by in his eyes but what scripture is not saying on earth those distinctions (slave or free) should not exist. If your saying we should view people on earth the same as god does then why would a murderer who is genuinely remorseful and accepts god , ie born again, still has to face judicial punishment and serve time. Even though god would accept them doesn’t mean we let them free.
Alex tried to have his cake and eat it too on the concept of free will. By asserting that he did not believe free will was real because “people are free to do as they will just not will what they will,” he merely redefined what free will is so as to avoid reconciling free will in a materialistic worldview. Being free to do (or not do - hence freedom) what you will is free will. In essence Alex does believe in free will, he just doesn’t admit that he does.
Not actually just take an example: I am right now writing a sentence to you, it is because I want to and I choose to, the want then leads to the action, every choice is based upon a want and the want is what you can not control, hence making all your choices sort of unfree. If I decided not to write this sentence it would be based on my non-want, but non-want which is also a want, hence your choices are grounded of infinite regress of wants and out of your control.
@@Anxh007doesn't that make it free will? Because you made the choice?
@@albertbecerra if it is based on a want outside your control and that want itself is based on another want outside your control how is it free will?
as it is not free, also the self or decision-maker is not an essential existing entity but rather an illusion as free will is.
Alex makes the same mistake you do. People sometimes choose to do what they want and sometimes choose to not do what they want. An alcoholic may or may not choose to break a period of sobriety. In that case the alcoholic may both want to have a drink and not have a drink. That is why will is not merely wants or desires. It is the freedom to decide for yourself what to choose regarding how how to behave that is free will.
@@Anxh007You can choose to do things you don't particularly want to do if your choices are informed by a knowledge of what is good and what is not good.
Alex keeping going at the bible instead of the topic. Very typical for somekne like him to refuse to stay on topic. Wheter ben is jewish, christian or muslim, the point would be the same and alex clearly has a bible beef.
I completely disagree with this. Ben brings up Judeo Christian values several times making it fair game for Alex to go after. Alex also goes after Islam so lets try to be fair. Also Alex and Ben both live in a majority Christian nation so doesn't it make sense?
The Bible is the crux of Christian belief, you can only attack the Bible for arguments for or against Christianity in any way, what else could they discuss? This is THE religious text for the religion
@@Darksage5555 The Bible is NOT the crux of belief. The Catholic Faith would still exist without the Bible.
@ThatCatholicGamerDude is the Bible the word of God?
What do you mean by that?@@Darksage5555
Asking "who won" is the wrong question to ask.
I'm starting to love and look forward to the clever segways he uses at the beginning of each episode to encourage people to subscribe ... apologetic content is good too.
I feel like atheists idea of freewill has been overly complicated, in order to rationalize “freewill doesn’t exist.”
I look at animal. An animal that doesn’t have hindsight, foresight, imagination, unable to use logic and rationale, primarily utilizing instinctive actions and reactions, and I think, “that’s not freewill.”
Humans, although can reflect much of the same traits you see in animal behavior, yet have the ability other animals don’t, granting humans to use freewill.
At some point in the conversation, I believe, Cosmicskeptic said, ‘evolution has granted us the ability to think we have freewill,” and it just sounds like an… evolution of the gaps.
The argument they will make is that, although we have the capacity to envision a future, enter problem solved, ultimately, the decisions we make are not a result of our own free will. But just a more complex biological programming.
@@felipetejeda7545 yeah, I’ve heard this argument.
I just think it sounds like redefining the concept of freewill as to deny that it exists.
@@moosechuckle Not all atheists are determinists.
It is 1 of multiple stances an atheist can take on the topic of free will.
Please don't say "atheists idea of free will"
Here is a way to think of what you think is free will in a deterministic universe.
Throw a coin in the air. Will it land heads or tails?
The only thing acting on the coin is physics. So it is determined on which side it will land right?
Given the time it might be possible to calculate the trajectory ect and get the correct answer. But we don't know and the situation does not allow for this.
What is the most accurate stance for our pattern detecting brains to take?
It is to consider both options as outcomes simultaneously. This gives us the illusion of choice while the coin is in the air.
Eventho it is deterministic.
I hope this helps you understand it is not that complicated.
That is not an “evolution of the gaps” wtf are you talking about? We know that our biology is the result of billions of years of evolution, and that our biology initiates the way we interact with our environment and ultimately our behaviour. Where in that is there a Gap? YOU are the one haphazardly inserting your “magic” or “soul” out of nowhere because you don’t understand the fundamentals of consciousness. So it is you who is committing a god of the gaps fallacy, lol.
@@aidanya1336 Hmm, but if you want to use the coin analogy it kind of breaks down on larger scales, that is, the more coins you have, you kind of generate a bell curve that shows which is more likely and you have sort of a determinate outcome, sort of like a dice. This is particularly common in nature, look at hest transfer for instance, on a subatomic level the electrons and molecules are jumping around randomly and so theoretically tou can have heat flowing out of a colder object into a warmer one, however the number of atoms in everyday materials are so tremendous that cold to warm heat flow is vitually impossible and unobserved. So if we wanna look at free will like an illusion that a coin offers, there are two options that an extremely large system which at its core is fundamentally just complicated physical laws should look like:
(a) The first option is that the system just turns out completely random or chaotic on a macro scale with no seeming direction, drives or motives, stuff just happens as the physical laws allow are applied.
(b) The second option is that the system becomes so deterministic that the random aspects are completely averaged out to zero by the large sclae of processes occurring simultaneously.
So, if you're gonna use the coin analogy to look at the human consciousness and free will, then you and people around you must be random or extremely predictable the same way you'd predict that warm wster kept in a fridge should freeze up, that level of predictability or randomness must be the outcome of such view of the illusion of freewill according to that analogy.
However I'm sure your experience shows otherwise, sometimes people act wierd or random, but often times you notice that people act in ways that you somehow innately perceive as good but don't seem deterministic like hot-cold heat transfer neither does it seem random like the toss of a single dice, they seem sophisticated and intentional
People like Alex only exist in times like this. A peaceful, mostly, sophiscated polite society built fundamentally by the ethics of the very systems he seems to want dismantled. No one had the luxury generally speaking of being a philospher for a living prior to the 1940's.
There were skeptics in ancient Athens. Best the main reason is his arguments aren’t any good and materialism is clearly false and the hard problem of consciousness is just a rejection of correct metaphysics
Is this supposed to be an argument in your favor? No one had the luxury of speaking out against religion in the past because they would have been ostracized, persecuted, tortured, and burned at the stake.
The great Martin Luther supported the death penalty for the Anabaptists and other heretics. Imagine what he would have done to Alex.
Heresiarchs aren't great
People like Galileo and Socrates were Executed for Blasphemy in earlier times.
@@shashwatsingh2748 galileo was not executed learn history
Alex wiped the floor with Shapiro - he is a presuppositionalist and people forget he is not Christian. I think both of them did not get to crux of the violence that religious thought has visited on the planet. Also - if you can not prove the existence of gods, how can you make a statement that living AS IF THERE WERE, was actually a good thing.
It was a great discussion. Both Alex and Ben were very impressive and demonstrated well thought out intellectual arguments. I cared less about who won but focused on what I could learn from their opposing perspectives.
That's the best approach to these videos
I get your point because debates help you reflect on truths, but I’m curious what did you learn from Alex?
I get really annoyed with atheists playing the slavery card like it's an ace and a compete rebuttal, of Christianity at least.
That key problem of the lack of free will does occur to me and I was disappointed Ben didn't point it out, it's a clear problem in society of people aren't held responsible for their actions.
I mean it is, even tho we have explainations for why slavery xyz they take way too much time and nuance, the moment they mention the word slavery, it acts like some ultimate slogan which 99% of people will be like haha christianity is man made.
I get tired of Christians no owning the fact that the god they worship 100% endorsed the owning of other people.
And the fact that it was christians who ended slavery throughout the world in the abolitionist movement is always ignored by such athiests.
o
@@Rocky-ur9mnbuy why did God allow slavery and even support it for so long if it's wrong?
The issue of slavery is really complicated because it is tied to many factors such as war and economics. The reason that human beings do not keep war captives as slaves today is because we have better ways such as using the UN or any international system or even nuclear weapons to prevent an aggressive nation from invading. Such options were not available in the ANE.
That being said, it's not like the enlightenment were against practices like corporal punishment since corporal punishment was a thing in the military until modern times so the atheist needs to tell us why the original enlightenment didn't get things like corporal punishment right?
Nice breakdown. I agree, I think Ben won on the 'topic' of the debate, but not the 'war' as such with how he framed it from the beginning. Which seemed like a defeat the purpose & why bother endeavor?
It was really just cringy when he told Alex, you're a 'high IQ' guy.....
Ok, ok...he's clever, but not exactly Einstein on the 'macro' or even better Oppenheimer on the 'micro' who studied the most current scientific basics of human reality at a quantum level which leaves 'determinism' back with Newton. Alex is lovely, a lovely Atheist philosopher with a You tube channel imo. Ben is lovely too....
The 'you're soooo clever' thing seems a little sad.
I know, I know, I used the word 'quantum' but there's some occasions it's ok ha ha ❤
I am a fan of neither side, but I am a fan of these thoughtful, civil engagements between bitterly opposed camps. Whether or not you win the debate, if you build bridges you are doing God's work.
I actually disagree with you on the point of O’Connor bringing up slavery. It seemed, at least in the context of the debate, he was saying that the Bible can make people do things we see as immoral today. What’s to stop somebody owning slaves through using the Bible as justification? This is the point I felt he was trying to make and I see it as a pretty good one and one that fits with the debate prompt.
You mention objective morality hinging on a divine being but with bringing up how slavery was acceptable back then, Shapiro acknowledged this, and it is unacceptable now, Shapiro also acknowledged this, than we can’t say the Bible gives us an objective morality. O’Connor said “who’s being the moral relativist here?” Why use the subjective morality of the Bible, which has justification for many horrid acts other than slavery itself, when we can use a more modern secular form of morality that the broader public agrees on. This, to me, would be better for society because it comes without the unnecessary baggage of aggressive reinterpretation of religious texts.
I understand that O’Connor didn’t make that exact point, that was more my own but I think it relates to the question of “is religion good or bad for society?”.