Your argument fails to account for at least two critical things: (1) There are different strata of moral laws, some higher than others; and on balance, there is universal acceptance of the paramount ethical truths such as the depravity of murder, the morality of feeding the poor, etc. You yourself seemed to acknowledge this by your acceptance that all people have a basic conscience (which you used to argue against the free will counter). Now when it comes to other more complex issues, however, such as foreign aid or immigration-these are convoluted socio-political issues with many layers of complexity stacked within them; yet peeling back those very layers would still uncover a commonly shared moral awareness between both sides of the spectra, such as the desire to help needy humans and ensure the welfare of as most people as possible. Yet it is merely the means of doing so that differs. The methods, caveats, and inherent complexity within these topics is what leads to disagreement in HOW such deeply-sought moral goals (which are shared by all) ought to be achieved “on the ground.” Therefore a case against universally-shared conscience is not established. The second key point you failed to consider (since you are clearly discussing a theological issue, to be sure) is (2) that God does not merely weigh our individual actions, but also our intentions as humans exerting our effort & trying our best with the limited knowledge we possess. Therefore two people with differing opinions on a moral issue can still be appreciated & rewarded for their deeds by God, even despite their moral divides. For example, imagine two people (both God-fearing believers) debating whether to give money to a homeless man on the side of the road. The first man is strictly against it, since he believes the homeless man will simply use his cash to purchase narcotics, and he will have achieved no good; so instead he opts to give him food. The second man has no problem giving his cash to the homeless man, and does so eagerly even to the first man’s disgust and protest. And yet a third man believes that both of the two men are in error & folly, and instead trusts a charity organization to allocate his donations to the needy, instead of giving it out directly. So who is morally in the right, and who will God reward? The answer here is: all of them-since they all had the basic common intention of helping the poor, but with different means of doing so. And therefore it is theologically expected that God will still reward all of them for their pure intentions & efforts. Even if the homeless man indeed ended up using the cash to buy illicit drugs, or the charity organization lied and funneled their donations to self-serving purposes-it remains that God understands their desire & intention, and will still reward all three donors for their pure intentions & desire to do good. This example serves to show that our intentions are especially important to God, and a significant part of the equation as to how differences in moral opinion can be judged on an equal scale. Finally, it should also be noted that our innate conscience-while indeed a theological (and social/anthropological) reality, as you yourself seemed to admit-is indeed very important; it is however not the be-all and end-all when it comes to moral law. In addition to this is Scripture and Prophethood, which are also massively important aspects of most faiths (that Abrahamic ones at least, as you seem to be largely addressing) that serve the goal of expounding, elaborating, and clarifying these moral & ethical matters in more detail. And the sad truth is: most people (believers) who debate about moral issues have not even studied or consulted their scriptures for answers about their disagreements-but instead base themselves mainly on pure speculation & personal opinion. And then you in turn are using their ignorance to judge the entire concept of God. The Qur’an itself actually acknowledges this, when it says: *”If you were to obey the majority of those on earth, they would mislead you from God’s path. All they follow is opinion; and all they do is guess.”* ~ The Qur’an 6:116 However, it also stands as a theological truth (as far as the Qur’an is concerned) that different faith-communities have actually been given their own code of laws to follow by God-and this diversity is accepted, appreciated, and indeed divinely-inspired & orchestrated. However they all share the same basic set of virtuous principles, such as set forth by the 10 Commandments (do not murder, steal, covet, etc.). The Qur’an says (especially about the Abrahamic faiths): *”For each of you We have assigned a law and a method. Had God willed, He could have made you all into a single community, but He is testing you through what He has given you. So compete in acts of virtue! To God is your collective return; then He shall explain to you all your disagreements!”* ~ The Qur’an 5:48 Notice how it ends by saying “God will clarify all your disagreements”-which is a notable direct acknowledgement that God is well-aware of our occasional uncertainties & disagreements, and will establish the truth of them on Judgement Day in the end. And that is the point: this life is not the end, but is only the culmination towards the real existence that is to come; the “grade after the test” if you will, which is the final Resurrection when we face our Maker and are held accountable for everything we did. And on that day, as the Qur’an states: *”Man shall be a witness against his own self-no matter how many excuses he wishes to make.”* ~ Qur’an Sūrah 75 And it states in the final analysis: *”We shall set up the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so that no soul will suffer the least unfairness or injustice. And even if it be the weight of a mustard-seed, We shall bring it forward. Sufficient are We as Reckoners.”* ~ The Qur’an, Sūrah 21:47 And finally, the fact my friend that you even exist as a complex, living, self-aware, conscious, symmetrical & ordered being in a fine-tuned & mathematically balanced universe-and able to use your brain, lips, tongue, ears, eyes, and senses to think and formulate such an argument in the first place-should already be sufficient evidence that you are the product of intelligent design, rather than an accidental mistake formed by randomly colliding ancient stardust, that just happened to gain consciousness and moral proclivity over time by complete and sheer coincidence. That to me, truly, is the only falsehood and fairytale that warrants intellectual dismissal. You are essentially sitting atop the lap of God, yet attempting to slap Him in the face; but it will fail every single time. I humbly urge you to accept your purpose and acknowledge your Creator, and pursue a path towards your Lord, before it is too late. Peace.
There isn’t any evident reason why God should eliminate moral disagreement if he exists. What seems more evident to me is that God should give enough moral knowledge to render people accountable for their actions-that is, enough moral awareness to enable people to know when they’ve truly screwed up. And it seems God has done exactly this. No one will say “I only ever did what I knew was wrong because I didn’t have access to my moral obligations.”
Well, there are many people throughout history who have done things that were very wrong, which they did not realize were very wrong. It seems strange that a god would take the time to write a moral law on our hearts, and include many errors in the law written on our hearts.
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 There are a couple of things to think through here. I don’t think morality differs in the fundamentals from culture to culture; hence why there are areas of broad moral agreement. But more importantly, I think you’re taking a naive view of moral disagreement-as though disagreement happens because people either lack moral knowledge, or (on theism) that God has written error into the human heart. But white supremacists (for example) are going to believe that black people should be exterminated because they want to be in power; often immoral desires themselves drive belief formation and skew them in our own favor, depending on our own prejudices
@@KEvronista as Christians, we think that human sacrifice was idolatry precisely because it distorted something good; it was a wrongful impulse that grew out of a right perception that sin requires death. That’s why the church has always said evil is spoiled goodness; it takes and twists some truth latent within the good.
The question I'm more interested in is wheter religious people or atheist people live a more full filling live. I'm kinda an atheist but I still believe there are some wisdom we can learn from religion. In my opinion religion are just stories from our ancestors who try to share their experience to us. And through these stories a lot of the average people can learn consciously or unconsciously some of that wisdom. But why shouldn't they learn it from atheist moral philosophers ? Because of data. The reason people have followed religion for hundred of yearsis because it clearly worked (it's not perfect but it is ipdecent in my opinion). Now imagine we have no religion and people just trust moral philosophers. The probability that some tyrant will use this need for a moral compass is 100%. Of course this also happens within religous circles. The question is which kind of society is more likely to be corrupted. And I don't have an answer for that yet because we have good examples for both.
Ye myb humans need some woo in their life to not go insane I occasionally get severe existential dread, idk it seems people around me just dont feel this since they are convinced that theres stuff after you die huh. I like thinking epistemologically but if I had a choice I'm not sure that I would chose to know what I know.
this is a certified hood classic
Here because of AY. Upon hearing the intro to this video, I am delighted to sub to you. Love the honesty and self awareness.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Your argument fails to account for at least two critical things: (1) There are different strata of moral laws, some higher than others; and on balance, there is universal acceptance of the paramount ethical truths such as the depravity of murder, the morality of feeding the poor, etc. You yourself seemed to acknowledge this by your acceptance that all people have a basic conscience (which you used to argue against the free will counter). Now when it comes to other more complex issues, however, such as foreign aid or immigration-these are convoluted socio-political issues with many layers of complexity stacked within them; yet peeling back those very layers would still uncover a commonly shared moral awareness between both sides of the spectra, such as the desire to help needy humans and ensure the welfare of as most people as possible. Yet it is merely the means of doing so that differs. The methods, caveats, and inherent complexity within these topics is what leads to disagreement in HOW such deeply-sought moral goals (which are shared by all) ought to be achieved “on the ground.” Therefore a case against universally-shared conscience is not established.
The second key point you failed to consider (since you are clearly discussing a theological issue, to be sure) is (2) that God does not merely weigh our individual actions, but also our intentions as humans exerting our effort & trying our best with the limited knowledge we possess. Therefore two people with differing opinions on a moral issue can still be appreciated & rewarded for their deeds by God, even despite their moral divides. For example, imagine two people (both God-fearing believers) debating whether to give money to a homeless man on the side of the road. The first man is strictly against it, since he believes the homeless man will simply use his cash to purchase narcotics, and he will have achieved no good; so instead he opts to give him food. The second man has no problem giving his cash to the homeless man, and does so eagerly even to the first man’s disgust and protest. And yet a third man believes that both of the two men are in error & folly, and instead trusts a charity organization to allocate his donations to the needy, instead of giving it out directly.
So who is morally in the right, and who will God reward? The answer here is: all of them-since they all had the basic common intention of helping the poor, but with different means of doing so. And therefore it is theologically expected that God will still reward all of them for their pure intentions & efforts. Even if the homeless man indeed ended up using the cash to buy illicit drugs, or the charity organization lied and funneled their donations to self-serving purposes-it remains that God understands their desire & intention, and will still reward all three donors for their pure intentions & desire to do good. This example serves to show that our intentions are especially important to God, and a significant part of the equation as to how differences in moral opinion can be judged on an equal scale.
Finally, it should also be noted that our innate conscience-while indeed a theological (and social/anthropological) reality, as you yourself seemed to admit-is indeed very important; it is however not the be-all and end-all when it comes to moral law. In addition to this is Scripture and Prophethood, which are also massively important aspects of most faiths (that Abrahamic ones at least, as you seem to be largely addressing) that serve the goal of expounding, elaborating, and clarifying these moral & ethical matters in more detail. And the sad truth is: most people (believers) who debate about moral issues have not even studied or consulted their scriptures for answers about their disagreements-but instead base themselves mainly on pure speculation & personal opinion. And then you in turn are using their ignorance to judge the entire concept of God.
The Qur’an itself actually acknowledges this, when it says:
*”If you were to obey the majority of those on earth, they would mislead you from God’s path. All they follow is opinion; and all they do is guess.”* ~ The Qur’an 6:116
However, it also stands as a theological truth (as far as the Qur’an is concerned) that different faith-communities have actually been given their own code of laws to follow by God-and this diversity is accepted, appreciated, and indeed divinely-inspired & orchestrated. However they all share the same basic set of virtuous principles, such as set forth by the 10 Commandments (do not murder, steal, covet, etc.). The Qur’an says (especially about the Abrahamic faiths):
*”For each of you We have assigned a law and a method. Had God willed, He could have made you all into a single community, but He is testing you through what He has given you. So compete in acts of virtue! To God is your collective return; then He shall explain to you all your disagreements!”* ~ The Qur’an 5:48
Notice how it ends by saying “God will clarify all your disagreements”-which is a notable direct acknowledgement that God is well-aware of our occasional uncertainties & disagreements, and will establish the truth of them on Judgement Day in the end. And that is the point: this life is not the end, but is only the culmination towards the real existence that is to come; the “grade after the test” if you will, which is the final Resurrection when we face our Maker and are held accountable for everything we did. And on that day, as the Qur’an states:
*”Man shall be a witness against his own self-no matter how many excuses he wishes to make.”* ~ Qur’an Sūrah 75
And it states in the final analysis:
*”We shall set up the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so that no soul will suffer the least unfairness or injustice. And even if it be the weight of a mustard-seed, We shall bring it forward. Sufficient are We as Reckoners.”* ~ The Qur’an, Sūrah 21:47
And finally, the fact my friend that you even exist as a complex, living, self-aware, conscious, symmetrical & ordered being in a fine-tuned & mathematically balanced universe-and able to use your brain, lips, tongue, ears, eyes, and senses to think and formulate such an argument in the first place-should already be sufficient evidence that you are the product of intelligent design, rather than an accidental mistake formed by randomly colliding ancient stardust, that just happened to gain consciousness and moral proclivity over time by complete and sheer coincidence. That to me, truly, is the only falsehood and fairytale that warrants intellectual dismissal.
You are essentially sitting atop the lap of God, yet attempting to slap Him in the face; but it will fail every single time. I humbly urge you to accept your purpose and acknowledge your Creator, and pursue a path towards your Lord, before it is too late.
Peace.
There isn’t any evident reason why God should eliminate moral disagreement if he exists. What seems more evident to me is that God should give enough moral knowledge to render people accountable for their actions-that is, enough moral awareness to enable people to know when they’ve truly screwed up. And it seems God has done exactly this. No one will say “I only ever did what I knew was wrong because I didn’t have access to my moral obligations.”
Well, there are many people throughout history who have done things that were very wrong, which they did not realize were very wrong. It seems strange that a god would take the time to write a moral law on our hearts, and include many errors in the law written on our hearts.
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 There are a couple of things to think through here. I don’t think morality differs in the fundamentals from culture to culture; hence why there are areas of broad moral agreement. But more importantly, I think you’re taking a naive view of moral disagreement-as though disagreement happens because people either lack moral knowledge, or (on theism) that God has written error into the human heart. But white supremacists (for example) are going to believe that black people should be exterminated because they want to be in power; often immoral desires themselves drive belief formation and skew them in our own favor, depending on our own prejudices
*"And it seems God has done exactly this."*
which explains the history of human sacrifice.
KEvron
@@KEvronista as Christians, we think that human sacrifice was idolatry precisely because it distorted something good; it was a wrongful impulse that grew out of a right perception that sin requires death. That’s why the church has always said evil is spoiled goodness; it takes and twists some truth latent within the good.
@@anglicanaesthetics
either the evidence i cited supports your claim, or it doesn't. neither is a win for you.
KEvron
The question I'm more interested in is wheter religious people or atheist people live a more full filling live. I'm kinda an atheist but I still believe there are some wisdom we can learn from religion. In my opinion religion are just stories from our ancestors who try to share their experience to us. And through these stories a lot of the average people can learn consciously or unconsciously some of that wisdom. But why shouldn't they learn it from atheist moral philosophers ? Because of data. The reason people have followed religion for hundred of yearsis because it clearly worked (it's not perfect but it is ipdecent in my opinion). Now imagine we have no religion and people just trust moral philosophers. The probability that some tyrant will use this need for a moral compass is 100%. Of course this also happens within religous circles. The question is which kind of society is more likely to be corrupted. And I don't have an answer for that yet because we have good examples for both.
I find the question of whether god exists more interesting.
Ye myb humans need some woo in their life to not go insane
I occasionally get severe existential dread, idk it seems people around me just dont feel this since they are convinced that theres stuff after you die huh. I like thinking epistemologically but if I had a choice I'm not sure that I would chose to know what I know.
Another argument from incredulity 🥱 Research Bio-Geology it supports Divine Intervention!