Yes and I agree that the texts are immoral! However, if the cosmos and human beings are just clumps of matter, it is unclear to me why the moral intuitions most human beings have should be NORMATIVE, i.e. why someone OUGHT TO act in accordance with them even when he or she has other selfish (or even criminal) desires. Joshua Greene is an atheistic philosopher and a moral anti-theist who explains that cogently in his dissertation: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Joshua-D.-Greene-The-Terrible-Horrible-No-Good-Very-Bad-Truth-about-Morality-and.pdf
If atheism is correct, what they call moral and immoral, is really just socially acceptable and socially unacceptable, which are not exactly the same thing. There are no absolute good or bad actions in the atheistic position. They may appeal to them but, that would be a contradiction, since they have nothing to ground it in. If they talk about moral problems in the Bible, they have no way to tackle those problems logically, since morals are ultimately opinion-laden in their position. If morals are just projections of our individual likes and dislikes, they cannot judge God without it being a flaw in reasoning on their part because, all individuals are deciding what is right and wrong for themselves. So that means God is as well (Euthyphro Dilemma). So when an atheist says that what happened in the Bible is immoral, they are presupposing that moral absolutes exist and are not just societal constructions.
@@dellbridge7412 why is absolute morality a good thing? I like that my morality can change with new information rather than stay the same despite 9ver a thousand years of new information. It's good that what is moral and immoral changes over time. If we stuck to the absolute morality of the bible owning slaves would still be ok, treating women as property would still be ok, stoning gay people (or anyone for that matter) would still be ok, etc. As for what atheists ground morality in, empathy (like don't do to other what you wouldn't want done to you), reason and rationality, the greatest good (not to be confused with the greater good, that doesn't always work) and least suffering, etc. Morality without a god is actually very easy, it basically boils down to does it harm anyone or not. How do you know that god is moral? Especially if there is no way to actually judge morality as you have said yourself.
@@charlestownsend9280 My own position is that there is a Source from which all come and all are connected to ( God, or Christ to use the language of religion). God is the Source of all morality....the Good....but in our realm of time and conditioning it is unfolding, or evolving through us. This is why we basically see a progression (not wholly linear. There are ups and downs, but basically a forward evolution). Racial rights, gay rights, women's rights etc. The church is also feeling this tension: on the one hand to move forward, on the other the need to preserve the past. The culture wars are basically this tension. Both are necessary to the unfoldment and for that we need free speech and love. Liberalism without conservatism ends up a mess; conservatism without liberalism is a fossil.
@@dellbridge7412 First, this is just a long winded version of Turek's assertion, and doesn't address Randal's points at all. Second, when atheists engage in such discussions, they're not "judging God" at all, any more than you are "judging Allah" when critiquing Islam since you do not believe Allah exists as they don't believe God exists. They're judging the claims of the Christians they're talking to, and even you will have to admit that Christians are not infallible. Finally, atheists are not presupposing moral absolutes when debating the morality of certain acts of violence in the Bible. They don't have to. If moral absolutes was a slam dunk in these debates why do apologists go to such pains to argue that God was justified in commanding such violence? What are arguments that God killed the male infants because they would have grown up to exact revenge on the Israelites, or that he permitted the sexual slavery of young women and girls in order to protect them from the predations of the Israelite army, other than attempts to provide some modicum of subjective moral justification for those violent acts? Why isn't "because God said so" not enough of an answer?
Fascinating and on point, Randal: thank you. This is not a gotcha question, but a genuine one - I struggle with this: how do you square the moral atrocities ordered or approved by God in the Bible with the central revelation of His love for us through Christ's death and resurrection?
Deny that God issued all and every immoral commands and accuse the perpetrators of those atrocities of shielding behind their beliefs to commit such crimes.
@@piesho Nonsense! No UN, no police, no international court of law...and then read what these terrorists did to the Israelites. Given the above, what would you do if they came for your wife and daughters?
As an atheist that opening response would just piss me off, it would also make me know that we aren't in a discussion so my gloves will come off and I'd have no respect for their beliefs. When it comes to morality, atheists have humanism. Why do you need a god for moral values? I view my approach to morality as better because it's not rigid and instead changes with new information, rather than having a super rigid morality that hasn't changed in 2000 years despite new information. As for why atheists or naturalists have morality is basic empathy, I don't want to cause harm and act immorally to others (humans and animals) because I wouldn't want it done to me. Really the whole argument is a deflection and dishonest approach to debate, it doesn't address the issues raised and instead does the idiotic approach of if I disprove your position it somehow means that my position is correct, which is just stupid.
I get why it would piss you off but its not entirely bad. It seems (and correct me if my assumption is wrong) that your reason for being humanist is egoism and/or emotivism. (Both of which are ultimately subjective) I'd argue proper interpretations of the Christian ethic are not as rigid as you believe and the parts that survive thousands of years only do so because human nature isn't all that different across millennium. The argument is pointing out that good/evil are metaphysical concepts so you need a metaphysical framework to be a part of the discussion. It's difficult to define something as evil when evil is arbitrarily subjective. This is the atheist's problem of evil. It undermines the questioners position and makes your position look stronger in comparison. But I agree it doesn't make the Christian position any stronger. Pointing out the other position's problem doesn't solve the Christian's problems.
@@tann_man any argument that starts with assuming the other sides views would do that, normally because they're incorrect and/or a strawman and making out that an entire group of people are like that when no group is uniform. It's the intellectual dishonesty really that gets me. It's not the attitude for a discussion or debate, I might go as far as addressing an argument before it is made (because it saves time) but I don't presume or make a claim about what that person believes until they state it, any other position isn't useful to the discussion. I'm notvsure what either of those mean and will have to look them up. But humanism is generally founded upon actions that make life better for everyone, the only way to really do that is by looking at things from other perspectives and saying would I like that or would it cause harm. I'd say that humanist reasoning is more based on empathy. But if only specific parts of gods morality have survived due to popularity then how is it any different or non subject from the atheists views on morality? If the morality of god is absolute then surely slavery, stoning people, selling daughters, etc should all still be moral rather than viewed as immoral, if they are now immoral then it's just as subjective as my view of morality. Personally I view the subjective as better because it allows for change with new information, I don't view it as a problem. But even if something is subjective an answer can still be find with reason. I don't need anything other than the physical world to know whether something is wrong or not, just the ability to assess whether the action causes harm/the least harm or not. I don't even believe in anything outside of the physical world. Yeah it's like when people try to disprove evolution or the big bang in an attempt to prove creationism, disproving the other side doesn't make that side any stronger. It's not an approach that I like to take on a subject, I'll go as far as questioning points but only to get more clarity on the position or point out a flaw that needs addressing (if someone fixes it and comes back with a better version that's great or if they abandon it for a better arguement that's good as well, I do the same when it happens to me), never to prove my own point because it doesn't (like earlier in this comment, I wasn't trying to prove my position by disproving yours, only pointing out something that might need addressing in the argument you made or that I just failed to understand it correctly). The scientific method and general reasoning says that you can't prove a negative (you can rule out something as being really unlikely though, like ghosts or souls or big foot or alien abductions or magic or psychics or god or fairies or the flying spaghetti monster, etc, mainly due to lack of evidence or just being illogical), you can only prove what positive arguement has the best evidence at the time, which is my approach to any subject or topic.
Does it cause harm, would I be ok with it being done to me, does it cause good or suffering, what cause the most good and least suffering, etc. Morality without god is easy.
I wouldn't agree with absolutism though, as I think morality should be able to change with new information, what we view as moral today will likely change with new information and that's a good thing.
@@Adrian-ri8my the answers to the questions do though. Give me a question of whether something is or isn't moral and I'll answer it using those criteria I previously mentioned.
Where did he say that objectivity is attainable without God? He's simply saying that there are respected atheists philosophers who take that position (for a variety of reasons) so Turek's dismissive wave of the hand, while it's no doubt great for point scoring, merely leaves Christians unprepared for any kind of pushback. Sure, if the goal is to feel good about yourself and your faith, then perhaps Turek's approach is all that's needed, but that's not what Turek says is the goal of his ministry.
The problem with Turek's talking point is a lot of times is that he first strawmans a question and then give a hand wavy answer without getting into the deep in the Bible. A lot of times people don't realise when atheists say that they find the Christian God immoral a lot of times they are trying to make an internal critique of the Christian concept of God by assuming the "moral" claims of the Bible and seeing if the Christian God holds up to it. And honestly speaking that is a fair thing for the atheist to do. Everybody holds the lawmakers accountable to the law that has been made. It is the duty of the Christian to give their understanding of how to reconcile these things with their faith, or even saying " I don't know". I never thought Turek's way of answering this would be a helpful way to address this question.
I guess they cannot square the moral claims of the Bible with historical reality because they see the Bible as a handbook of morality (this is typical of American therapeutic moralistic deism) rather than the story of God working through the history of our depraved conduct to bring his kingdom in a renewed creation.
Conquest passages are war college, i.e., West Point, not Sunday School cases. Applies at Hiroshima, I think. Most of history, Sennacherib- type sieges were common.
It tickles me that so many apologists assert that they live by an "objective standard" of morality, but are unable to agree amongst themselves what this "objective morality" means in practice. For example, some interpret "hou shalt do no murder" to mean strict pacificism is the "objective" standard. Others that a "just war" involving killing is mandated. Some that termination of pregnancy is "objectively" always immoral, others that it is mandated in certain circumstances. They can't even agree on what the "objective" standard for loving god means in practice - is it "believing in Jesus" (whatever that means)? Is it doing "good works"? Is it "following the teachings of the Bible" (if so, which teachings, and how?). In short, their "objective" morality leaves them having to make precisely the same "subjective" moral jugements as everyone else.
2:40 Can we even really say that WLC is the leading apologist and debater at this point? His defense of the Canaanite genocide (granted not exactly an easy position to defend) and of course the "low bar Bill" moment have really damaged his credibility.
Accepting objective moral values is one thing; justifying them is an entirely different animal. The atheist philosophers you mentioned, the ones I am familiar with, don't do such a great job defending their position.
What you may say to any particular atheist, is that objective or subjective? Now Shelley has not done as well as either Hobbes or Rousseau. What makes a moral objective rather than subjective? It's enforcement makes the subjective standard objective a right has no protection until a law is in force. The is claimed as a freedom of exercise but is in force only in as much as a power protects, and in a monarchy for example (although the same principle applies in any social contract even ones personal self government maybe a monarchy in which he grants and enforced rights and duties upon himself by self conscience which if common becomes in law and constitution the conscience of the state), so again, in a monarchy the king is the objective standard by his force of the subjective moral agreement of his kingdom (that's why they are called subjects). In a state of nature where every man is his own monarch these monarchs are at war until they cede such sovereignty as allows peace by covenant. That peace is such as tends to the least injury to each and to all a subjective morality until enforced. You admit to this in your appeal to the United Nations as a judiciary that can enforce. There are no natural objective values unless there is a God who by his force makes them objective to each and all regardless of their like or dislike of them and the equity we have in God's law is fundamental standard of fairness by which we engage his subjects and the opposite behavior is unequity or iniquity. The creator God most high all powerful is the only fountain of absolute objective rights and duties our morality, the king subject to God is the fountain of objective morals in the state (therefore the general fear God, honor the king). NOW IN CHRIST JESUS WE HAVE THE GODMAN KING the fountain of absolute objective rights and duties our morality like it or not because God raised him from the dead and seated him in session of his universal jurisdiction from which he will judge all men in equity with the complete set of rights and duties to determine who will be citizens. He has given universal conscience by the holy spirit who convicts the world of sin righteousness/equity and judgement and the old testament is to explain the power and position he holds to enforce as he sees fit which we now know is for our good and peace if we submit in faith because he is a savior having no good cause to repent of his grace he gave for his own good that he shall be the preeminent first born in equity with his brethren.
I think we can have a better moral code without the bible, as it allowed its followers to consider another person to be purchased and considered inheritable property...The question is: Do you think that is morally acceptable?
I’ve never heard from an atheist an argument for objective morality that is convincing, coherent, and doesn’t require a set of objectionable definitions. It seems atheism taken to its logical conclusions devolves into subjectivism and materialism and nihilism. It makes sense to point out that good/evil are metaphysical concepts so you need a metaphysical framework to be a part of the discussion. Would I open with this? Probably not. It could come off as demeaning and its a debatable stance to begin with. Plus the inside critique still stands. You still haven’t answered the question given the Christian metaphysical framework.
I’m in the same boat, I think the atheistic arguments I’ve seen for objective moral values amount to hand waving, but I think you still have to contend with them as an apologist, rather than jumping straight to “atheism=moral relativism” as your talking point
@@dellbridge7412As Randal said its obnoxious to tell someone they can't even ask that question but it depends on the context and how you say it. I still think there's a risk there.
Why is good and evil metaphysical? If I punch someone that causes physical pain, causing physical pain is bad, I know that it's bad because I wouldn't like it happening to me, at what point in that determining of morality or good and evil did I not use the physical world?
@@charlestownsend9280Why does not liking something make it evil? What if you or the other person or both liked pain? What if you did want people to punch you?
Biblical violence or slavery is not a "shut down" and neither is that lack of objective morality among materialists. The Christian is asserting objective morality, so he can't appeal to the atheists possible lack of objective morality to justify his theistic beliefs. I think that materialist atheists are definitionally pragmatists though, materialistic pragmatists, since they materialists only believe in the existence of material or physical reality, if one is to deduce morality it has to be without appeal to an extra materialistic reality like "endowed by their creator" or a soul. It's hard to deduce intrinsic human rights from a materialistic world, and it is also a challenge to produce an internally consistent and "workable" pragmatic morality. We can disagree greatly on how to weigh living people, animals, future generations, environmental crimes, evolutionary imperatives and objectives, happiness, evil, suffering. Most internet intellectual atheists are materialists or naturalists. Now when you justify murder, genocide, torture, violation of human rights on god being able to fix it all in the afterlife then you do everything wrong that Hitchens blamed religion for. When you care for someone and don't think there is a heaven or hell, or that it will get you into or out of one, then that is the only real morality. If you are doing it for eternal benefits, it's just pragmatism on a supermaterialistic level.
This argument has been beat into the ground. If you give examples of Atheists who do not believe in a diety yet also believe in moral absolutes, please explain their logic for doing so as well. Just saying they exist does not disprove Frank's rationale. I do not really argue this point when speaking to an atheist personally. Regardless of their belief morally, genocide and slavery is against my God given morality. So I argue what is satisfactory to me to explain God's commands to destroy a tribe or purchase a slave, and do not focus on my opponents logic.
Actually reading how the Bible promotes or condones such evils as slavery, misogyny, intolerance, violence, etc. is one of the reasons I came to the conclusion of atheism.
I had to go watch Craig vs Kagan. I totally disagree Kagan won that debate. His points have huge flaws that should be obvious imo. He sure knows how to talk slick. Tureks point was not asinine. Jesus hardly answered questions directly. He pointed to truth. The fundamental issue is more important than the specific question. Think Mark 10:17-18. You cannot call God immoral if you don't believe in a God. The concept of God is perfection. Even Kagan acknowledges the flawed nature of man. How can a flawed being question a perfect one? Think God's answer to Job.
To say there are POSSIBLE(and conflicting) accounts of secular morality does not justify them. Kagan did not justify secular morality. Craig did a mediocre job but Kagan failed to satisfy the weighty standard. Morality cannot possibly be secular for without a trascendental Self that united the transcendental(the moral principles) with the concrete self(the ego), any obedience of the concrete ego to supposed moral principles will be alienating and religious. Max Stirner made this case powerfully. Any notion of morality is tied to the subirdination of the will of the concrete ego(its desires) to an external standard, and hence religious. But if atheism is true, no such object is real(otherwise such an object would be formally religious). Even if such an object existed, the subordination of the self to such impersonal objects would necessarily be alienating. This applies no matter the material objects these secular attempts are founded upon, be them Platonic objects, human evolution, virtues, or whichever.
Yes, but your average atheist has no training in philosophy or even an understanding of coherant principals. So your argument will be dismissed out of hand becuase they don't understand it and don't want to. It seems to me the old testament genocides are 100% morally good and so that's the line I defend.
On top just saying that if you belief in Christianitiy it gives you objective morals doesn't help you at all as long as you don't provide a reliable Method to establish what they are. Until you provide that shows your own morals align with those of god your morals are your subjective Interpretation and not objectively true.
He didn't say you don't have a right to ask, he said you don't have a standard by which to measure good outside of your own opinion. It's like the famous question "What is a woman?" only instead of woman it's morality. If your answer to either one is "It's whatever I say it is" then it doesn't mean anything. I do agree we shouldn't come off as confrontational to a legitimate question as the Turek video. But I think he was telling us how to respond to a more hostile questioner. You can tell the difference between someone with an honest question and someone who probably had to delete the "HA! GOTCHA!" off the end of their question before asking it. Someone who's asking about biblical violence as a point instead of as a question is not going to care about your honest answer. Instead, take the wise and reveal them to be fools.
But isn't the goal of apologists to win people over to Christ? Gotcha questions can be asked by insincere and sincere people alike, and you're not always going to be able to tell which they are. Point scoring can be satisfying, but in either case, wouldn't you be better off answering in good faith rather than in kind?
We do have multiple standards we can use outside of “our own opinions.” We can also use the Bible as an objective standard and still show the problems with some things. It’s called an internal critique.
@@EnglishMike You can quite often tell when someone is not being genuine in their intentions. If you can't, then you need to learn. Jesus tells us to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves, and not to cast pearls before swine. Treating everyone as if they are eagerly listening to what you say actually goes against the example Jesus sets for us. It is our job to have answer to every question about our faith and to share the Gospel. Neither of these involve being naive refarding people's intentions.
@@Tinesthia If there is no God, what makes the Bible, or any standard you may use, objective? Especially the Bible, seeing as how being an atheist already meams you don't believed in its authority. If there is no God, the Bible is just the opinions of those who wrote it.
@@Malhaloc Maybe you didn't understand, it's called an Internal Critique. That is to say, we can assume that the Biblical God exists, and then compare Him to His own standard. I don't believe Harry Potter exists, but I can compare what he tells people to do with what he does himself and see if he is morally consistent within the texts written about him. But even without that, there are objective truths about evolution, societal, and individual life, and Human empathy that we can draw from to develop a far more objective moral system than a Biblical one that is by definition subjective because it is based on the nature and will of a subject/entity: God.
People who are panpsychics, who believe in a spiritual universe or the god of deism or the god of the new age movement, aren't atheist--certainly not in the way naturalists are. To be fair, Turek could have a better bedside manner and perhaps tone.
Frank is amazingly skilled at making infuriating responses. At least to the atheistic perspective. The problem of Evil is specifically addressing the apparent contradiction of God's properties and actions, and Christian morality. And attempting to redirect to a discussion of what the atheist's morality is, is nothing but a distraction. And then there's the issue, that the problem of evil is highly unlikely to be the reason an atheist is an atheist. I now have a visual image of a straw stuffed red fish in a field... If you want to create a series of things not to say to atheists. You could probably fill a large catalog, without moving off of Frank Turek's work.
Northern Kingdom of Israel capital Samaria temple Bethel YHWH pronounced Yehowah and Torah is Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). Southern Kingdom of Judah capital Jerusalem temple Beer-sheba YHWH unpronounceable but we say Yahweh. Torah is Masoretic Text (MT). Two Torahs and two YHWH's. Yahweh is the great deciever.
I subscribed to you because you were on Zach's _"What Your Pastor Didn't Tell You"_ channel. I too don't view the Bible with traditional inerrancy and I also question the logic of the doctrine of the Trinity. BUT, that may be all we have in common. I think you are wrong about _abortion_ and _atheistic objective morality._ Atheists, by definition, cannot hold to objective morality. Only the laws of nature and laws of logic are objective to an atheist. Killing another animal, even if it is your own species, is not objectively right or wrong if there is no objective purpose or objective reason for life in the first place. All Atheists have is their opinion and manmade rules they create for society. If society says it is good to eat babies, Atheists have no objective argument against it outside of their opinion on why they think it is wrong. All Frank Turek is pointing out is the logical fallacy of "objective" morality that contradict the Atheists worldview. Preserving humanity is just a subjective idea. Atheism tries to derive meaning from a meaningless universe. I think you may be too progressive for your own good Rauser. You hold to a lot of contradictory beliefs up in that head of yours. Cognitive Dissonance much? You probably think you are consistent but you are not. I pray that you continue to "Israel" (wrestle with God). You probably don't care but _I'M UNSUBSCRIBING._
Turn about is fair play: "If God says it is good to eat babies, Christians have no objective argument against it outside of their opinion on why they think it is wrong."
"Atheists, by definition, cannot hold to objective morality. " Atheist definition : "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Could also use "One who claims God doesn't exist" what in the world does this have to do with morality "by definition" "All Atheists have is their opinion and manmade rules they create for socie" This demonstrates you have not read any moral realism philosophy. The Stanford encyclopedia is a good start.
@@billsherman1565 Atheist can say that certain actions are right and wrong but their godless worldview has no basis/foundation for it apart from the social construct and collective endeavor to coexist in harmony. Why shouldn't a person steal or kill? What if they desire to live their own way and by their own standards? What law in the natural universe exists to prohibit an individual from stealing and killing? What if they enjoy the "high" they get from it? For fun, I've been studying Ancient Near East mythology and religion. It was socially acceptable to sacrifice firstborn children on alters to a god or gods in the ancient world. These sacrifices were rarer, because of the nature of how hard they were to follow through with, but they believed child sacrifices held more weight. (Even early YHWH followers seemed to have accepted this practice until it was later banned as the religion evolved.) Would you say that those ancient people were acting immoral? ...and by what standard? If you were to enter a time machine and travel to their world, your 21 century moral standards would be wrong. The ancient world would disagree with you. How is morality not relative without objective right and wrong? There are still places in the world today who's societies have differing moral standards then yours. If atheistic objective morality is a real thing, why doesn't everyone agree on the same set of laws?
@@icypirate11 "Atheist can say that certain actions are right and wrong but their godless worldview has no basis/foundation for it apart from the social construct and collective endeavor to coexist in harmony." Please google "moral realism" "For fun, I've been studying Ancient Near East mythology and religion." That's really cool actually, keep that up! "Would you say that those ancient people were acting immoral? ...and by what standard?" No, I'm an error theorist. "If you were to enter a time machine and travel to their world, your 21 century moral standards would be wrong. The ancient world would disagree with you. How is morality not relative without objective right and wrong?" Because moral realists argue there is a fact of the matter, or at least we have good justification to hold to that. You have a definitional lack of understanding of the terms discussed. "If atheistic objective morality is a real thing, why doesn't everyone agree on the same set of laws?" This is as silly as arguing "If the earth is round, then why doesn't everything think so?" Please please, google moral realism, perhaps the internet encyclopedia of philosophy, or Stanford's, note how nowhere in these articles do they say. "Of course, this is all useless unless God exists" Do you want to discuss moral realist theories afterward?
I think you go to far in saying you cannot have objective morality on the basis of a naturalist worldview. Firstly when we talk about morals being objective we do not mean that norms are literally objects, rather that there Are objects to which they correspond. We can see an example of a norm which can exist in a naturalistic framework in a statement like, ‘human blood should be around 37 degrees centigrade. That is a norm which derives from certain objective facts about the universe. In the same wavy a naturalist can derive morals from the way humans are or are thought to be on a naturalist worldview. We would just be saying, if humans are like this they should do this. The object is the universe and the people in it.
You are really into making parallels with WWII, and your parallels are plain wrong. Firebombing of Germany? Hiroshima? None of those things was done by the Nazis. Was Hitler justified in the total war he started? This is what the apologists do, they claim that IHVH and the Israelites (Hitler and the Nazis in the WWII analogy) were justified.
I'd say not to repeat anything Frank Turek said. XD Why are you wanting to be an apologist? I'd love to pick your brain live on my channel sometime - if you would be down with that let me know, my email is on my profile. :)
Randall, your video would only make sense if moral objectivism was possible on atheism. It isn’t, I watched the Kagan Vs Craig debate…yet again another atheist not actually answering the question. There is no ontological basis for defining good or evil. If you think Kagan got the best of Craig, that makes me think There must be another debate I missed. Morality without a God is subjective because humans are the only thing to ground morality in. He never answered why something like murder is bad other than presupposing that harm to innocent people is bad. Everyone knows that, the argument is not that atheists can’t be objectively moral. It is simply that they can’t justify it with atheism. If you can’t explain why then maybe you should turn to one who reasonable can and concede. Human opinion and feeling is subjective not objective. Frank’s response isn’t a bad argument and being offensive is irrelevant to truth. The truth is often offensive, so that means we shy away from it? Christianity is offensive to many people, so should we not spread the word to them because it could be offensive? Your point is we should sugarcoat it in short, did Jesus sugarcoat things?We live in a society now where there are many people who think it’s offensive to assign a gender to a child at birth because of their anatomy because we haven’t asked what they think their gender is…stop worrying about offending someone rather than being truthful! Morality can only be subjective without God because being made in the image of God means we self evidently(objectively) have the knowledge of good and evil. You can’t give a naturalistic explanation for that without presupposing certain outcome or desires are good without explaining why they are good(ie: preventing harm, preserving human life, etc). Without God, we are animals at best. Molecules in motion dancing to our DNA and have only our brain chemicals to rely on for the actions we perform every day. Atheists may accept objective morality but the argument is they can’t justify it, they have no objective standard to base morality on.
@@billsherman1565 I haven’t read any of their books but I have listened to a few in debates and interviews. I just don’t think the “taking things at face value” cuts it in this topic. There is no way to explain why anything is bad or good without multiple presuppositions in that reasoning. Not to mention their method of how we gained morality…evolution…makes no sense. Craig said in later interviews that debate was supposed to be just a discussion which is why he didn’t push back as he normally would on things like the ontological question on what is good.
Totally missing the point, Randall. Atheism logically necessitates Naturalism because the same epistemic presuppositions lead to both, and whether an atheist believes in objective morals doesn't mean that he can justify why he believes they exist.
Atheism does not logically necessitate naturalism. It is a rarer position, but there are atheists that don't believe in a god but still believe in some form of higher power or greater than/beyond natural force. Randall cited some in this very video.
@@Tinesthia A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it to. It is only their hatred of God that would have them believe some unnamed natural force which cannot be evidenced or proven but then reject a personal God that has revealed Himself to mankind.
My standard of obnoxious thinks that you’re obnoxious for not taking in consideration that you might be obnoxious when making videos about what you think is obnoxious
The ironic thing is he is asking the question BECAUSE he has a sense of morality and can see obvious immorality in the Bible.
Yes and I agree that the texts are immoral!
However, if the cosmos and human beings are just clumps of matter, it is unclear to me why the moral intuitions most human beings have should be NORMATIVE, i.e. why someone OUGHT TO act in accordance with them even when he or she has other selfish (or even criminal) desires.
Joshua Greene is an atheistic philosopher and a moral anti-theist who explains that cogently in his dissertation:
emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Joshua-D.-Greene-The-Terrible-Horrible-No-Good-Very-Bad-Truth-about-Morality-and.pdf
If atheism is correct, what they call moral and immoral, is really just socially acceptable and socially unacceptable, which are not exactly the same thing. There are no absolute good or bad actions in the atheistic position. They may appeal to them but, that would be a contradiction, since they have nothing to ground it in. If they talk about moral problems in the Bible, they have no way to tackle those problems logically, since morals are ultimately opinion-laden in their position. If morals are just projections of our individual likes and dislikes, they cannot judge God without it being a flaw in reasoning on their part because, all individuals are deciding what is right and wrong for themselves. So that means God is as well (Euthyphro Dilemma). So when an atheist says that what happened in the Bible is immoral, they are presupposing that moral absolutes exist and are not just societal constructions.
@@dellbridge7412 why is absolute morality a good thing? I like that my morality can change with new information rather than stay the same despite 9ver a thousand years of new information. It's good that what is moral and immoral changes over time. If we stuck to the absolute morality of the bible owning slaves would still be ok, treating women as property would still be ok, stoning gay people (or anyone for that matter) would still be ok, etc.
As for what atheists ground morality in, empathy (like don't do to other what you wouldn't want done to you), reason and rationality, the greatest good (not to be confused with the greater good, that doesn't always work) and least suffering, etc. Morality without a god is actually very easy, it basically boils down to does it harm anyone or not.
How do you know that god is moral? Especially if there is no way to actually judge morality as you have said yourself.
@@charlestownsend9280 My own position is that there is a Source from which all come and all are connected to ( God, or Christ to use the language of religion). God is the Source of all morality....the Good....but in our realm of time and conditioning it is unfolding, or evolving through us. This is why we basically see a progression (not wholly linear. There are ups and downs, but basically a forward evolution). Racial rights, gay rights, women's rights etc. The church is also feeling this tension: on the one hand to move forward, on the other the need to preserve the past. The culture wars are basically this tension. Both are necessary to the unfoldment and for that we need free speech and love. Liberalism without conservatism ends up a mess; conservatism without liberalism is a fossil.
@@dellbridge7412 First, this is just a long winded version of Turek's assertion, and doesn't address Randal's points at all. Second, when atheists engage in such discussions, they're not "judging God" at all, any more than you are "judging Allah" when critiquing Islam since you do not believe Allah exists as they don't believe God exists. They're judging the claims of the Christians they're talking to, and even you will have to admit that Christians are not infallible.
Finally, atheists are not presupposing moral absolutes when debating the morality of certain acts of violence in the Bible. They don't have to. If moral absolutes was a slam dunk in these debates why do apologists go to such pains to argue that God was justified in commanding such violence? What are arguments that God killed the male infants because they would have grown up to exact revenge on the Israelites, or that he permitted the sexual slavery of young women and girls in order to protect them from the predations of the Israelite army, other than attempts to provide some modicum of subjective moral justification for those violent acts? Why isn't "because God said so" not enough of an answer?
Thank you Randal. Great Video again.
I have yet to met an honest religious apologist.
This video didn't change that.
Idk, Randal seemed pretty honest here, and he is a religious apologist
@@uglyfense7754 Well, as a religious apologist, the man is an excellent scholar.
THANK YOU Randal!
Whatever you decide to say, or decide not to say, you're going to have a lot of trouble defending a lot of what's in the Old Testament.
Do you know Rauser's theology?
Really?
Fascinating and on point, Randal: thank you.
This is not a gotcha question, but a genuine one - I struggle with this: how do you square the moral atrocities ordered or approved by God in the Bible with the central revelation of His love for us through Christ's death and resurrection?
Deny that God issued all and every immoral commands and accuse the perpetrators of those atrocities of shielding behind their beliefs to commit such crimes.
@@piesho
Thanks.
@@piesho Nonsense!
No UN, no police, no international court of law...and then read what these terrorists did to the Israelites.
Given the above, what would you do if they came for your wife and daughters?
@@lesliewilliam3777 Looks like we are talking about two different things here.
@@piesho Forgive me, but you want to explain your previous comment?
As an atheist that opening response would just piss me off, it would also make me know that we aren't in a discussion so my gloves will come off and I'd have no respect for their beliefs.
When it comes to morality, atheists have humanism. Why do you need a god for moral values? I view my approach to morality as better because it's not rigid and instead changes with new information, rather than having a super rigid morality that hasn't changed in 2000 years despite new information.
As for why atheists or naturalists have morality is basic empathy, I don't want to cause harm and act immorally to others (humans and animals) because I wouldn't want it done to me.
Really the whole argument is a deflection and dishonest approach to debate, it doesn't address the issues raised and instead does the idiotic approach of if I disprove your position it somehow means that my position is correct, which is just stupid.
I get why it would piss you off but its not entirely bad.
It seems (and correct me if my assumption is wrong) that your reason for being humanist is egoism and/or emotivism. (Both of which are ultimately subjective)
I'd argue proper interpretations of the Christian ethic are not as rigid as you believe and the parts that survive thousands of years only do so because human nature isn't all that different across millennium.
The argument is pointing out that good/evil are metaphysical concepts so you need a metaphysical framework to be a part of the discussion. It's difficult to define something as evil when evil is arbitrarily subjective. This is the atheist's problem of evil. It undermines the questioners position and makes your position look stronger in comparison. But I agree it doesn't make the Christian position any stronger. Pointing out the other position's problem doesn't solve the Christian's problems.
@@tann_man any argument that starts with assuming the other sides views would do that, normally because they're incorrect and/or a strawman and making out that an entire group of people are like that when no group is uniform. It's the intellectual dishonesty really that gets me. It's not the attitude for a discussion or debate, I might go as far as addressing an argument before it is made (because it saves time) but I don't presume or make a claim about what that person believes until they state it, any other position isn't useful to the discussion.
I'm notvsure what either of those mean and will have to look them up. But humanism is generally founded upon actions that make life better for everyone, the only way to really do that is by looking at things from other perspectives and saying would I like that or would it cause harm. I'd say that humanist reasoning is more based on empathy.
But if only specific parts of gods morality have survived due to popularity then how is it any different or non subject from the atheists views on morality? If the morality of god is absolute then surely slavery, stoning people, selling daughters, etc should all still be moral rather than viewed as immoral, if they are now immoral then it's just as subjective as my view of morality.
Personally I view the subjective as better because it allows for change with new information, I don't view it as a problem. But even if something is subjective an answer can still be find with reason. I don't need anything other than the physical world to know whether something is wrong or not, just the ability to assess whether the action causes harm/the least harm or not. I don't even believe in anything outside of the physical world.
Yeah it's like when people try to disprove evolution or the big bang in an attempt to prove creationism, disproving the other side doesn't make that side any stronger. It's not an approach that I like to take on a subject, I'll go as far as questioning points but only to get more clarity on the position or point out a flaw that needs addressing (if someone fixes it and comes back with a better version that's great or if they abandon it for a better arguement that's good as well, I do the same when it happens to me), never to prove my own point because it doesn't (like earlier in this comment, I wasn't trying to prove my position by disproving yours, only pointing out something that might need addressing in the argument you made or that I just failed to understand it correctly). The scientific method and general reasoning says that you can't prove a negative (you can rule out something as being really unlikely though, like ghosts or souls or big foot or alien abductions or magic or psychics or god or fairies or the flying spaghetti monster, etc, mainly due to lack of evidence or just being illogical), you can only prove what positive arguement has the best evidence at the time, which is my approach to any subject or topic.
I’m guessing that you and I must have witnessed a different Kagan/Craig exchange.
What is the objective morality for nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in general.
What is the basis for moral absolutism in an atheistic worldview? Since you mentioned that objectivity is attainable without God.
Does it cause harm, would I be ok with it being done to me, does it cause good or suffering, what cause the most good and least suffering, etc. Morality without god is easy.
I wouldn't agree with absolutism though, as I think morality should be able to change with new information, what we view as moral today will likely change with new information and that's a good thing.
@@charlestownsend9280 Those are just questions, they don’t establish a moral standard or why that moral standard should be objectively adhered to.
@@Adrian-ri8my the answers to the questions do though. Give me a question of whether something is or isn't moral and I'll answer it using those criteria I previously mentioned.
Where did he say that objectivity is attainable without God? He's simply saying that there are respected atheists philosophers who take that position (for a variety of reasons) so Turek's dismissive wave of the hand, while it's no doubt great for point scoring, merely leaves Christians unprepared for any kind of pushback.
Sure, if the goal is to feel good about yourself and your faith, then perhaps Turek's approach is all that's needed, but that's not what Turek says is the goal of his ministry.
The problem with Turek's talking point is a lot of times is that he first strawmans a question and then give a hand wavy answer without getting into the deep in the Bible. A lot of times people don't realise when atheists say that they find the Christian God immoral a lot of times they are trying to make an internal critique of the Christian concept of God by assuming the "moral" claims of the Bible and seeing if the Christian God holds up to it. And honestly speaking that is a fair thing for the atheist to do. Everybody holds the lawmakers accountable to the law that has been made. It is the duty of the Christian to give their understanding of how to reconcile these things with their faith, or even saying " I don't know". I never thought Turek's way of answering this would be a helpful way to address this question.
I guess they cannot square the moral claims of the Bible with historical reality because they see the Bible as a handbook of morality (this is typical of American therapeutic moralistic deism) rather than the story of God working through the history of our depraved conduct to bring his kingdom in a renewed creation.
Conquest passages are war college, i.e., West Point, not Sunday School cases. Applies at Hiroshima, I think.
Most of history, Sennacherib- type sieges were common.
It tickles me that so many apologists assert that they live by an "objective standard" of morality, but are unable to agree amongst themselves what this "objective morality" means in practice. For example, some interpret "hou shalt do no murder" to mean strict pacificism is the "objective" standard. Others that a "just war" involving killing is mandated. Some that termination of pregnancy is "objectively" always immoral, others that it is mandated in certain circumstances. They can't even agree on what the "objective" standard for loving god means in practice - is it "believing in Jesus" (whatever that means)? Is it doing "good works"? Is it "following the teachings of the Bible" (if so, which teachings, and how?). In short, their "objective" morality leaves them having to make precisely the same "subjective" moral jugements as everyone else.
2:40 Can we even really say that WLC is the leading apologist and debater at this point?
His defense of the Canaanite genocide (granted not exactly an easy position to defend) and of course the "low bar Bill" moment have really damaged his credibility.
Accepting objective moral values is one thing; justifying them is an entirely different animal.
The atheist philosophers you mentioned, the ones I am familiar with, don't do such a great job defending their position.
He's not trying to prove their position, merely show that there are plenty of atheists who hold to moral objectivism.
What you may say to any particular atheist, is that objective or subjective?
Now Shelley has not done as well as either Hobbes or Rousseau. What makes a moral objective rather than subjective? It's enforcement makes the subjective standard objective a right has no protection until a law is in force. The is claimed as a freedom of exercise but is in force only in as much as a power protects, and in a monarchy for example (although the same principle applies in any social contract even ones personal self government maybe a monarchy in which he grants and enforced rights and duties upon himself by self conscience which if common becomes in law and constitution the conscience of the state), so again, in a monarchy the king is the objective standard by his force of the subjective moral agreement of his kingdom (that's why they are called subjects). In a state of nature where every man is his own monarch these monarchs are at war until they cede such sovereignty as allows peace by covenant. That peace is such as tends to the least injury to each and to all a subjective morality until enforced. You admit to this in your appeal to the United Nations as a judiciary that can enforce. There are no natural objective values unless there is a God who by his force makes them objective to each and all regardless of their like or dislike of them and the equity we have in God's law is fundamental standard of fairness by which we engage his subjects and the opposite behavior is unequity or iniquity.
The creator God most high all powerful is the only fountain of absolute objective rights and duties our morality, the king subject to God is the fountain of objective morals in the state (therefore the general fear God, honor the king).
NOW IN CHRIST JESUS WE HAVE THE GODMAN KING the fountain of absolute objective rights and duties our morality like it or not because God raised him from the dead and seated him in session of his universal jurisdiction from which he will judge all men in equity with the complete set of rights and duties to determine who will be citizens. He has given universal conscience by the holy spirit who convicts the world of sin righteousness/equity and judgement and the old testament is to explain the power and position he holds to enforce as he sees fit which we now know is for our good and peace if we submit in faith because he is a savior having no good cause to repent of his grace he gave for his own good that he shall be the preeminent first born in equity with his brethren.
Watch the WLC vs Sam Harris debate.
So, how would you deal with it, Randal? Easy to criticize, hard to build.
That's about the only thing a genocide apologist really can say about this problem.
I think we can have a better moral code without the bible, as it allowed its followers to consider another person to be purchased and considered inheritable property...The question is: Do you think that is morally acceptable?
I’ve never heard from an atheist an argument for objective morality that is convincing, coherent, and doesn’t require a set of objectionable definitions. It seems atheism taken to its logical conclusions devolves into subjectivism and materialism and nihilism.
It makes sense to point out that good/evil are metaphysical concepts so you need a metaphysical framework to be a part of the discussion.
Would I open with this? Probably not. It could come off as demeaning and its a debatable stance to begin with. Plus the inside critique still stands. You still haven’t answered the question given the Christian metaphysical framework.
Why would opening in such a way be demeaning?
I’m in the same boat, I think the atheistic arguments I’ve seen for objective moral values amount to hand waving, but I think you still have to contend with them as an apologist, rather than jumping straight to “atheism=moral relativism” as your talking point
@@dellbridge7412As Randal said its obnoxious to tell someone they can't even ask that question but it depends on the context and how you say it. I still think there's a risk there.
Why is good and evil metaphysical? If I punch someone that causes physical pain, causing physical pain is bad, I know that it's bad because I wouldn't like it happening to me, at what point in that determining of morality or good and evil did I not use the physical world?
@@charlestownsend9280Why does not liking something make it evil? What if you or the other person or both liked pain? What if you did want people to punch you?
Biblical violence or slavery is not a "shut down" and neither is that lack of objective morality among materialists. The Christian is asserting objective morality, so he can't appeal to the atheists possible lack of objective morality to justify his theistic beliefs.
I think that materialist atheists are definitionally pragmatists though, materialistic pragmatists, since they materialists only believe in the existence of material or physical reality, if one is to deduce morality it has to be without appeal to an extra materialistic reality like "endowed by their creator" or a soul. It's hard to deduce intrinsic human rights from a materialistic world, and it is also a challenge to produce an internally consistent and "workable" pragmatic morality. We can disagree greatly on how to weigh living people, animals, future generations, environmental crimes, evolutionary imperatives and objectives, happiness, evil, suffering. Most internet intellectual atheists are materialists or naturalists.
Now when you justify murder, genocide, torture, violation of human rights on god being able to fix it all in the afterlife then you do everything wrong that Hitchens blamed religion for. When you care for someone and don't think there is a heaven or hell, or that it will get you into or out of one, then that is the only real morality. If you are doing it for eternal benefits, it's just pragmatism on a supermaterialistic level.
This argument has been beat into the ground. If you give examples of Atheists who do not believe in a diety yet also believe in moral absolutes, please explain their logic for doing so as well. Just saying they exist does not disprove Frank's rationale. I do not really argue this point when speaking to an atheist personally. Regardless of their belief morally, genocide and slavery is against my God given morality. So I argue what is satisfactory to me to explain God's commands to destroy a tribe or purchase a slave, and do not focus on my opponents logic.
I'll trust my "subjective" view all day long over a book which was handed down verbally over decades by uneducated sheep herders.
Actually reading how the Bible promotes or condones such evils as slavery, misogyny, intolerance, violence, etc. is one of the reasons I came to the conclusion of atheism.
I had to go watch Craig vs Kagan. I totally disagree Kagan won that debate. His points have huge flaws that should be obvious imo. He sure knows how to talk slick. Tureks point was not asinine. Jesus hardly answered questions directly. He pointed to truth. The fundamental issue is more important than the specific question. Think Mark 10:17-18. You cannot call God immoral if you don't believe in a God. The concept of God is perfection. Even Kagan acknowledges the flawed nature of man. How can a flawed being question a perfect one? Think God's answer to Job.
To say there are POSSIBLE(and conflicting) accounts of secular morality does not justify them.
Kagan did not justify secular morality. Craig did a mediocre job but Kagan failed to satisfy the weighty standard.
Morality cannot possibly be secular for without a trascendental Self that united the transcendental(the moral principles) with the concrete self(the ego), any obedience of the concrete ego to supposed moral principles will be alienating and religious. Max Stirner made this case powerfully.
Any notion of morality is tied to the subirdination of the will of the concrete ego(its desires) to an external standard, and hence religious.
But if atheism is true, no such object is real(otherwise such an object would be formally religious). Even if such an object existed, the subordination of the self to such impersonal objects would necessarily be alienating.
This applies no matter the material objects these secular attempts are founded upon, be them Platonic objects, human evolution, virtues, or whichever.
Yes, but your average atheist has no training in philosophy or even an understanding of coherant principals. So your argument will be dismissed out of hand becuase they don't understand it and don't want to. It seems to me the old testament genocides are 100% morally good and so that's the line I defend.
On top just saying that if you belief in Christianitiy it gives you objective morals doesn't help you at all as long as you don't provide a reliable Method to establish what they are. Until you provide that shows your own morals align with those of god your morals are your subjective Interpretation and not objectively true.
He didn't say you don't have a right to ask, he said you don't have a standard by which to measure good outside of your own opinion. It's like the famous question "What is a woman?" only instead of woman it's morality.
If your answer to either one is "It's whatever I say it is" then it doesn't mean anything. I do agree we shouldn't come off as confrontational to a legitimate question as the Turek video. But I think he was telling us how to respond to a more hostile questioner. You can tell the difference between someone with an honest question and someone who probably had to delete the "HA! GOTCHA!" off the end of their question before asking it.
Someone who's asking about biblical violence as a point instead of as a question is not going to care about your honest answer. Instead, take the wise and reveal them to be fools.
But isn't the goal of apologists to win people over to Christ? Gotcha questions can be asked by insincere and sincere people alike, and you're not always going to be able to tell which they are. Point scoring can be satisfying, but in either case, wouldn't you be better off answering in good faith rather than in kind?
We do have multiple standards we can use outside of “our own opinions.” We can also use the Bible as an objective standard and still show the problems with some things. It’s called an internal critique.
@@EnglishMike You can quite often tell when someone is not being genuine in their intentions. If you can't, then you need to learn. Jesus tells us to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves, and not to cast pearls before swine. Treating everyone as if they are eagerly listening to what you say actually goes against the example Jesus sets for us.
It is our job to have answer to every question about our faith and to share the Gospel. Neither of these involve being naive refarding people's intentions.
@@Tinesthia If there is no God, what makes the Bible, or any standard you may use, objective? Especially the Bible, seeing as how being an atheist already meams you don't believed in its authority. If there is no God, the Bible is just the opinions of those who wrote it.
@@Malhaloc
Maybe you didn't understand, it's called an Internal Critique. That is to say, we can assume that the Biblical God exists, and then compare Him to His own standard. I don't believe Harry Potter exists, but I can compare what he tells people to do with what he does himself and see if he is morally consistent within the texts written about him.
But even without that, there are objective truths about evolution, societal, and individual life, and Human empathy that we can draw from to develop a far more objective moral system than a Biblical one that is by definition subjective because it is based on the nature and will of a subject/entity: God.
People who are panpsychics, who believe in a spiritual universe or the god of deism or the god of the new age movement, aren't atheist--certainly not in the way naturalists are. To be fair, Turek could have a better bedside manner and perhaps tone.
Frank is amazingly skilled at making infuriating responses. At least to the atheistic perspective.
The problem of Evil is specifically addressing the apparent contradiction of God's properties and actions, and Christian morality. And attempting to redirect to a discussion of what the atheist's morality is, is nothing but a distraction.
And then there's the issue, that the problem of evil is highly unlikely to be the reason an atheist is an atheist.
I now have a visual image of a straw stuffed red fish in a field...
If you want to create a series of things not to say to atheists. You could probably fill a large catalog, without moving off of Frank Turek's work.
Northern Kingdom of Israel capital Samaria temple Bethel YHWH pronounced Yehowah and Torah is Samaritan Pentateuch (SP).
Southern Kingdom of Judah capital Jerusalem temple Beer-sheba YHWH unpronounceable but we say Yahweh. Torah is Masoretic Text (MT).
Two Torahs and two YHWH's.
Yahweh is the great deciever.
I subscribed to you because you were on Zach's _"What Your Pastor Didn't Tell You"_ channel. I too don't view the Bible with traditional inerrancy and I also question the logic of the doctrine of the Trinity. BUT, that may be all we have in common.
I think you are wrong about _abortion_ and _atheistic objective morality._ Atheists, by definition, cannot hold to objective morality. Only the laws of nature and laws of logic are objective to an atheist. Killing another animal, even if it is your own species, is not objectively right or wrong if there is no objective purpose or objective reason for life in the first place. All Atheists have is their opinion and manmade rules they create for society. If society says it is good to eat babies, Atheists have no objective argument against it outside of their opinion on why they think it is wrong. All Frank Turek is pointing out is the logical fallacy of "objective" morality that contradict the Atheists worldview. Preserving humanity is just a subjective idea. Atheism tries to derive meaning from a meaningless universe.
I think you may be too progressive for your own good Rauser. You hold to a lot of contradictory beliefs up in that head of yours. Cognitive Dissonance much? You probably think you are consistent but you are not. I pray that you continue to "Israel" (wrestle with God). You probably don't care but _I'M UNSUBSCRIBING._
Turn about is fair play: "If God says it is good to eat babies, Christians have no objective argument against it outside of their opinion on why they think it is wrong."
"Atheists, by definition, cannot hold to objective morality. "
Atheist definition : "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Could also use "One who claims God doesn't exist"
what in the world does this have to do with morality "by definition"
"All Atheists have is their opinion and manmade rules they create for socie"
This demonstrates you have not read any moral realism philosophy. The Stanford encyclopedia is a good start.
@@billsherman1565 Atheist can say that certain actions are right and wrong but their godless worldview has no basis/foundation for it apart from the social construct and collective endeavor to coexist in harmony.
Why shouldn't a person steal or kill?
What if they desire to live their own way and by their own standards?
What law in the natural universe exists to prohibit an individual from stealing and killing?
What if they enjoy the "high" they get from it?
For fun, I've been studying Ancient Near East mythology and religion. It was socially acceptable to sacrifice firstborn children on alters to a god or gods in the ancient world. These sacrifices were rarer, because of the nature of how hard they were to follow through with, but they believed child sacrifices held more weight. (Even early YHWH followers seemed to have accepted this practice until it was later banned as the religion evolved.)
Would you say that those ancient people were acting immoral? ...and by what standard?
If you were to enter a time machine and travel to their world, your 21 century moral standards would be wrong. The ancient world would disagree with you. How is morality not relative without objective right and wrong?
There are still places in the world today who's societies have differing moral standards then yours.
If atheistic objective morality is a real thing, why doesn't everyone agree on the same set of laws?
@@icypirate11 "Atheist can say that certain actions are right and wrong but their godless worldview has no basis/foundation for it apart from the social construct and collective endeavor to coexist in harmony."
Please google "moral realism"
"For fun, I've been studying Ancient Near East mythology and religion."
That's really cool actually, keep that up!
"Would you say that those ancient people were acting immoral? ...and by what standard?"
No, I'm an error theorist.
"If you were to enter a time machine and travel to their world, your 21 century moral standards would be wrong. The ancient world would disagree with you. How is morality not relative without objective right and wrong?"
Because moral realists argue there is a fact of the matter, or at least we have good justification to hold to that. You have a definitional lack of understanding of the terms discussed.
"If atheistic objective morality is a real thing, why doesn't everyone agree on the same set of laws?"
This is as silly as arguing "If the earth is round, then why doesn't everything think so?" Please please, google moral realism, perhaps the internet encyclopedia of philosophy, or Stanford's, note how nowhere in these articles do they say. "Of course, this is all useless unless God exists" Do you want to discuss moral realist theories afterward?
Listen to Jay Dyer sir, please.
I think you go to far in saying you cannot have objective morality on the basis of a naturalist worldview. Firstly when we talk about morals being objective we do not mean that norms are literally objects, rather that there Are objects to which they correspond. We can see an example of a norm which can exist in a naturalistic framework in a statement like, ‘human blood should be around 37 degrees centigrade. That is a norm which derives from certain objective facts about the universe. In the same wavy a naturalist can derive morals from the way humans are or are thought to be on a naturalist worldview. We would just be saying, if humans are like this they should do this. The object is the universe and the people in it.
God may judge you, but his sins outnumber your own.
What on earth makes you think Jesus our savipr needs a defence force?
Stop applogizing start spreading the good news about God's love.
OT is case law. The Conquest passages seem to apply in Total War disputations, like 1945 firebombing Germany etc.
You are really into making parallels with WWII, and your parallels are plain wrong.
Firebombing of Germany? Hiroshima? None of those things was done by the Nazis. Was Hitler justified in the total war he started?
This is what the apologists do, they claim that IHVH and the Israelites (Hitler and the Nazis in the WWII analogy) were justified.
I'd say not to repeat anything Frank Turek said. XD
Why are you wanting to be an apologist? I'd love to pick your brain live on my channel sometime - if you would be down with that let me know, my email is on my profile. :)
Randall, your video would only make sense if moral objectivism was possible on atheism. It isn’t, I watched the Kagan Vs Craig debate…yet again another atheist not actually answering the question. There is no ontological basis for defining good or evil. If you think Kagan got the best of Craig, that makes me think There must be another debate I missed. Morality without a God is subjective because humans are the only thing to ground morality in. He never answered why something like murder is bad other than presupposing that harm to innocent people is bad. Everyone knows that, the argument is not that atheists can’t be objectively moral. It is simply that they can’t justify it with atheism. If you can’t explain why then maybe you should turn to one who reasonable can and concede. Human opinion and feeling is subjective not objective. Frank’s response isn’t a bad argument and being offensive is irrelevant to truth. The truth is often offensive, so that means we shy away from it? Christianity is offensive to many people, so should we not spread the word to them because it could be offensive? Your point is we should sugarcoat it in short, did Jesus sugarcoat things?We live in a society now where there are many people who think it’s offensive to assign a gender to a child at birth because of their anatomy because we haven’t asked what they think their gender is…stop worrying about offending someone rather than being truthful! Morality can only be subjective without God because being made in the image of God means we self evidently(objectively) have the knowledge of good and evil. You can’t give a naturalistic explanation for that without presupposing certain outcome or desires are good without explaining why they are good(ie: preventing harm, preserving human life, etc). Without God, we are animals at best. Molecules in motion dancing to our DNA and have only our brain chemicals to rely on for the actions we perform every day. Atheists may accept objective morality but the argument is they can’t justify it, they have no objective standard to base morality on.
Have you considered reading/listening to an atheist philosopher who argues for realism? You would benefit a lot
@@billsherman1565 I haven’t read any of their books but I have listened to a few in debates and interviews. I just don’t think the “taking things at face value” cuts it in this topic. There is no way to explain why anything is bad or good without multiple presuppositions in that reasoning. Not to mention their method of how we gained morality…evolution…makes no sense. Craig said in later interviews that debate was supposed to be just a discussion which is why he didn’t push back as he normally would on things like the ontological question on what is good.
I think William Lane Craig won this debate though
Why do you think that he won?
Why not just be honest and admit that Christianity has moral and immoral stuff in it?
Why do you seem so comfortable with dishonesty? In this clip, nowhere does Turek say atheists don't have a right to ask that question.
Totally missing the point, Randall. Atheism logically necessitates Naturalism because the same epistemic presuppositions lead to both, and whether an atheist believes in objective morals doesn't mean that he can justify why he believes they exist.
Atheism does not logically necessitate naturalism. It is a rarer position, but there are atheists that don't believe in a god but still believe in some form of higher power or greater than/beyond natural force. Randall cited some in this very video.
@@Tinesthia A lot of people want to have their cake and eat it to. It is only their hatred of God that would have them believe some unnamed natural force which cannot be evidenced or proven but then reject a personal God that has revealed Himself to mankind.
@@IAmisMaster Do you hate our wizard-lord Voldemort?
@@vaskovallidis552
I hate atheists’ father, the devil (John 8:44).
My standard of obnoxious thinks that you’re obnoxious for not taking in consideration that you might be obnoxious when making videos about what you think is obnoxious