Why Great Art Doesn't Make Sense Without God
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лис 2023
- In this video I get very philosophical and talk about why I believe that great art doesn't make sense without God. I talk about relativism, nihilism, objectivity, morality, and the necessity for a moral law giver (God) to logically justify an objective standard for morals, beauty, and truth. It gets pretty intense and I'm sure there will be plenty of artists who disagree with my take so I'll be interested to hear the thoughts in the comments.
ALL MY LINKS! Consider supporting the channel if you like the content.
andrewjosephkeith.onuniverse.com
My roommate in college thought the only good music that existed was made by Brittany Spears. Everyone has their own taste I guess.
Very interesting video and sculpture. Personally I'm not religious and I can't say I agree with everything you said, but it did make me think. Thank you for sharing your work and thoughts.
In terms of great art existing without God, I find that one can perfectly appreciate the aesthetics, craftsmanship and emotional response generated by a work of art without needing to believe in a higher power. Equally one can put in the time to improve their skills and spend countless hours creating something beautiful simply because we are complex creatures that enjoy the challenge, the mental stimulation that comes with it and the reactions we can generate for other people who view our work.
Thanks for the comment and good to hear that people are willing to think about these issues.
As I said in the video I think plenty of atheists or agnostics can create great art but the cultures that saw the greatest advancements in figurative representation had a religious justification for studying and representing the human form. And artists respond to what culture values.
Also I think everyone is religious even if they don’t adhere to a traditional religion. Just find out what offends people when you make fun of it (a belief system, hobby, sports team, political party or whatever) and that is the thing they hold to be sacred. To me it seems that human beings are religious creatures.
Hello Andrew.
I think you conflate being "passionate" with "religious" because you are passionate about being religious.
What you are observing is that humans have the capacity to be passionate without being religious or spiritual.
When I say “religion” or “religious” I’m referring to this definition “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” (3rd definition in Google search.)
So holding a worldview in common with a group of people.
Secular liberalism is an example of a religious worldview that tries to elevate itself above other religions by claiming that it is not one. Everyone worships something or holds something to be sacred. Whatever you hold to be sacred is your God and religion.
For someone to be truly “non-religious” they must not believe in anything and not believe anything is right or wrong, better or worse, and not try to convert others into their worldview. I’ve yet to meet someone who meets that description though many people claim to be “not religious”.
Wow! Thank you Andrew. You are a rarity in the world of art. It’s refreshing to hear truth from an artist. This takes courage.
Yeah it's unfortunately a minority position. Thanks for the comment and the support!
@@HarryNicNicholas Notice how religiously you defend atheism. Preaching the word of the non-existence of a creator and trying to convert others to your religious worldview. You are no less preachy than I am but I’m honest about my religion.
As for “inspired art” argument ALL art is inspired. Even atheists must admit that artistic ideas come from somewhere. They would just say that they are inspired by other past artists or the culture or Darwinism or nature or whatever. No one creates art in a vacuum devoid of all inspiration or influences. I simply acknowledge that the ultimate source of what is good and beautiful (God) is the ultimate source of inspiration. Your argument is basically that it is fine to be inspired by something lesser but bad to be inspired by something greater (God). I find this to be a weak argument.
And as much as you claim that my belief is irrational but what I find irrational is the belief that rocks turned themselves into people if you just wait a REALLY LONG TIME (unguided neodarwinism) And that the universe “just so happened” to be perfectly tuned and balances so as the make life possible (the Anthropic principle). And that nothing turned into everything without an external cause (the big bang) and I could go on and on.
Atheism is not a scientific view it is a religious one. I have far more evidence for the existence of God than you have for the non-existence of God. You have simply blinded yourself to the evidence while seeking to blind others to it as well.
Hello again, Andrew.
Since you have invited us to join the discussion, I will accept your invitation with a lengthy comment.
Whether you know it or not, I think you made this video primarily for people who already agree with you.
All of your arguments are based on the existence of God. Or more accurately, you argue against relativism by arguing that there is a God and then you say that there must be a God, because it wouldn't make sense for people to be "good" or strive for something higher or make "good" art if there was no God.
Seems a bit circular to me.
Because of this, this video will only "convince" people who already believe in God and, by extension, in an absolute reference for "good/morality/excellence". You are, essentially, preaching to the choir.
It may come as a surprise to yo, but there are quite a lot of people who have found systems of morality that do not need a God.
There are a lot of people who live lives that are very similar to yours without the need of a God.
I assume you are familiar with the argument that if a person is only good because they fear punishment from God and expect a reward in the afterlife, then they're really not that moral. They do it out of a level of self-interest.
An atheist, however, who fears no punishment from God, who expects nothing from the afterlife, and who nevertheless helps other people, tries not to harm others and makes other people happy (I would argue) has developed a more robust moral compass than a religious person. This one is based purely on reciprocity and empathy.
Non-religious folk have a conscience based on the fact that they know what they would not like to be done to them (you might call this the eleventh commandment). But this is derived independently of religion, through individual experience, and acquired from a sense of community. All of these things can happen through religion and in conjunction with a belief in the supernatural, but notably, God and religion are not necessary.
What would be your answer to that?
If you wanted to convince someone who isn't religious of your argument(s), you would have to start without religious or deist arguments and work your way up to justifying the existence of God or an absolute morality.
In my view, there is no objective morality, but that doesn't mean I can't have a sense of morality or build my own system of morality. It just means that I know it's based on nothing but respect for other people. "Respect" is also subjective. It's a social construct like art and money and seconds and inches. None of these things were found in nature or, as far as I know, given to us by "God". We made them up in community and agreed they are useful concepts if we are going to live with other people.
Another key thing for "The Fountain" sculpture (and Picasso's painting) is that it wasn't made to be compared with the other works you mentioned, but rather an ironic, funny observation on the subjective definition of art. Its existence does not affect your enjoyment of traditional art. Those old sculptures are not going away; they're still there.
What's more: there are a lot of people making traditional art like that today, including you. Arguably, there are more people doing traditional art than ever before. But "excellence" as an endeavor in figurative art was already reached many times over by religious folk and, now, even non religious folk.
That's why we have new, silly, and weird forms of art, not to substract anything from traditional art but to add more types of art to the world in general.
I risk reading too much into this, but this video seems to indicate that you are insecure about not being valued in a world that values modern art and postmodern art. You fear that people will not align with your worldview, and you fear that anyone departing from your worldview will bring a risk to your world.
I ask you to recognize that your world is not being destroyed, it's just getting bigger.
The existence of "The Fountain" will not eliminate "The David". It just exists alongside it, and that's okay. (Feel free to apply this to the other things you mentioned in the video that might "destroy" "categories" by existing)
As for a question: why do you think all non-religious and atheist artists make art even when they don't believe in God?
By extension, do you believe atheists are incapable of being good people?
Clearly, you see how these result in obvious counter examples to all of your arguments in this video.
Enjoyed reading your post. I don't agree with Andrew but also like hearing his opinion, and i also admire his passion for it despite not agreeing with most of what he says.
Not that it is directly in theme with the video, but "modern art" was artificially constructed and inflated by the CIA to destroy the western culture and at the same time to serve as propaganda against the "authoritarian" and "antiquated ways" of soviet and communist art. So it isn't entirely wrong to objectively perceive the reality of modern art as being destructive in nature. It is, and it's also elitist, and often times pathetic as well. Your argument is more or less correct and I agree with most of it, though.
@@adamiadamiadami I dont think the CIA had anything to do with it. It's most likely just people wanting to make money and modern art is a way of easily market a sloppy artist then gas light the public into believing they are good in order to make loads of cash.
😂why’d you write all at he’s religious he’s not goona reply to anything he can’t disprove lmaoo
Well...most of what you said I can agree with as a christian. But you have the assumption that christians believe in the bible out of fear of punishment. Thats not true and therefore your thought of a superior moral origin (for atheists) not really the case. Christians believe that they are ALREADY saved and not based on their good deeds but by the grace and atonement through Jesus. They are motivated by their love and understanding of the creator, who showed us what it means to live as a human through Jesus` life. We dont EARN heaven. And atheists are capable of doing good deeds (by christian standards) because they where made by God and equipped with a conscience (you can read that in the book of romans 2, verse 15)
Andrew, thank so much for this video! I really appreciate your thoughts on this subject although I don’t agree on religious aspects. Watching videos and works like this makes me feel grateful just for being your contemporary)
I had to watch this video twice and it took me several days to make my mind on everything you’ve said and to articulate main points in this com ment, that I feel I just can’t miss to say. I find it amazing when people can build their statements so clearly and consistently, like you do in your videos. And you are the first religious person I’ve seen in my life, who can do it so cool (usually I hear statements like “I believe in smth, so there is no way for it to be wrong”). I don’t mean to argue, saying that atheistic way is better than a religious one. NOWAY. I just want to show you my point of view, because you are a very interesting person I admire and I’ll be grateful to know, what you think about it. Excuse me for a longread, I really tried hard to shorten it as I could)
I totally agree with your point on relativism. I’m absolutely sure that objective beauty exists and it’s pretty obvious. I think that calling a urinal a piece of art actually offends all the true art and true artists. As far as I face a lot of videos like “contemporary art explained” where some “expert” tries to prove some “great” idea of another urinal or two waterdrop like stone pieces to be a modern version of Pieta, I feel like I’m living in a world going insane. Or maybe smth is wrong with me as far as I can’t understand it? Therefore, your video and point of view personally means much to me because it shows, that I’m not going mad as far as you are a person, who creates his own pieces and believe in the same objective beauty as I do.
But the same value I agree with you about objective beauty, I disagree with your statement that great art makes no sense without God. And it’s not only because I’m an atheist, mostly it comes out of several logical steps. I totally respect people’s faith as far as it’s true and conscious (especially nowadays, because it’s really hard to keep faith in supernatural things like God having almost everything around us explained with science).
I think there are two main components in any piece of art - technic and idea. If some piece is amazing in technic but has no idea, it can be outstanding, but its going to last only until another artist won’t be able to do the same way or even better. And conversely, if some piece illustrates an outstanding idea, but sucks in technic, no one will even notice it and find this idea (no matter how great idea was hidden in it).
Therefore, I don’t think the God to be responsible for greatness in art. I agree that there are a lot of great pieces made to illustrate some religious ideas and stories. But it’s just a matter of talking with audience on a recognizable subject. As far as Bible stories are known all over the world, sculpting some religious story showing some new point of view on it, simplifies the task to become great for any piece of art. Personally, when I sculpted “Bathsheba’s sorrow” or “The trials of Job”, I was inspired by these stories not because of their religious interpretation, but because of philosophical options they open for us when we read and try to think of them.
If we consider the God not as “a supernatural being and creator of us and the universe” (like you said in the beginning), but as a set of some objective moral rules that are obvious for most of the mankind, I find it absolutely logical that a great art can not be made without those, because you can’t illustrate any interesting idea without referring to some basic statements that should be obvious for most of the humans. And at this point we’re coming back to first part of this discourse - about relativism and objective beauty.
Talking about the purpose of creating art, I find that it makes even much more sense without basic religion stamps - I mean hell and heaven, and all other theories about our afterlife. I believe that there is absolutely nothing after we die. It makes me appreciate this life even more as far as I have a short segment of time to realize everything that I want to create - and my backlog keeps growing every day much faster than I manage to create)) As far as I don’t believe in any kind of afterlife I can’t postpone, so I have an only chance to “stay creative and productive”. What is art for me? It’s my way to leave behind some of my thoughts and ideas. I don’t have any illusion about becoming some great and well-known sculptor, I just mean, I hope, that some of my sculptures will live longer than I will, and maybe they will bring some bright ideas or emotions to someone, who will be able to look at them, when my body will be already turned to dust.
Anyway, thank you for giving such a great exercise for my mind that took me several days to structure my thoughts to this statement. Hope, I’ve managed to show you my position clear on this subject.
Some examples on contemporary sculptures to illustrate my statements:
1) Mario Chiodo uses a great technic in his sculptures, but there are already some sculptors making their pieces same way, so it’s just a matter of time, when a greater one will appear.
2) “The Unbearable Lightness” by Aleksandra Slava is outstanding because of her details technic, amazing feel of 3d composition and an impressive pose. But as far as it’s not a recognizable story and she can’t articulate idea of this sculpture (according to her own comments, I’ve read), unfortunately it can’t be called “great” and stay popular in ages.
3) “Self Betrayal” by Eric Michael Wilson is a great piece not only because it’s done with a cool detail technic, but because it has a delightful idea to show Eve’s feeling of shame and fear with all her body and every muscle. As far as it’s a recognizable story it’s simple for a large audience to understand it and to be admired.
4) “Medusa and Perseus” by DocZenith is a great sculpture not only because it’s done in a pure renaissance style with wonderful details, but because it shows a new way of illustration of this story. Using emotions and cuteness of the girl, he shows Medusa not as a demonic creature defeated by a hero, but as a victim of guy, who just wants to get fame and a trophy (if you try to figure out this legend, you’ll suddenly find that it’s an obvious point of view when you’re reading this story nowadays with our contemporary understanding of morality).
Of course, saying that some works are not great, I really don’t mean to offend any of those great sculptors and their works. I admire them a lot. I would sell half of my soul (if I believed I have it) to have just a small piece of their talent myself. I mention them just to illustrate, where I place a division line between “great” and “not great”.
Thanks for the thoughtful and respectful reply even though we may disagree on this topic.
You claim to believe in objective beauty and by implication objective truth and reality but the point I try to make in the video is that objectivity itself does not exist without God. So many people want to take parts of a religious worldview that they like (like objective morals, standards of beauty, or truth, right and wrong, etc) but reject the foundation of these things (God who would be the foundation of an objective standard of truth, beauty, and morals). Relativism is the logical conclusion of an atheist worldview. While I have discussed with atheists who disagree I’ve never heard a convincing argument for objective standards from an atheist perspective.
Many atheists want to maintain the branches of a religious worldview (objective standards & notions of right and wrong) but remove the roots (God/a moral authority above mankind).
As far as science explaining everything I think that science does not and cannot disprove God. Science is the study of the physical world and God is the creator of the physical world so trying to disprove God by studying His creation is like trying to disprove the creator of your phone by studying the hardware and software. The thing itself is evidence of the creator of it. And many recent scientific discoveries point to God. (The big band infers a cause outside of time, space, and matter and therefore by definition supernatural, the digital code of DNA information, etc, etc. Stephen Meyer speaks at length on these recent scientific evidences of a Creator God)
I choose to believe in God because I believe in the branches (objective truth, morals, and beauty) and I recognize that the only solid foundation for these principles is God and more specifically the God of the Bible. I recognize that this is faith but it is not a faith that requires that I turn off my faculties of reason to believe.
Oh please.
Just discovered your channel and this video. I completely agree. Please make more of this sculpting/video essays! I wish you the best.
Hey thanks! I appreciate that.
Thank you for making such a wonderful video and stating some points about art I've believed for so long. As a composer, it's such a shame to see how modern music and many modern composers forsake the concept of something beautiful in lieu of something "ugly" for the sake of newness.
You’re welcome! Yes I think because God is the source of all real goodness, beauty, and truth so when society attacks God they also attack what is good, true, and beautiful.
Great video man, I'm so glad you've made this. When I clicked on this video, I didn't expect to hear the best summary of sin in the world today but I totally did, what you said made so much sense. I'm a Christian artist also, so it's super nice to hear from another one out there! I'm praying that this video reaches all the people it needs to.
Hey thanks for the comment. I do feel that there will be a cultural revival. Either that or western civilization will crumble because we cannot maintain the principles built on Christianity without the Christianity itself. And I think that the belief in God does not have to be irrational at all, that was also part of the reason for the video. Many have never even heard a coherent argument for the belief in God.
@@AndrewJosephKeith Yeah that last part you said is scary, that's why these days I'm trying to learn all I can so I can explain it to people. Your sin explanation helped a lot!
@@AndrewJosephKeith Though, over night I did do some thinking about what you had said about objectivity in beauty in art, one angle I think I somewhat disagree with is attributing beauty to the quality of the art. Forgive me if I misunderstood what you said in your video, but I would attribute the objective beauty to if the art was made as worship towards God, rather than objective masterful quality. Like for example, if the most masterfully created art piece was was super sinful and depicted something no Christian should partake in, it would be objectively masterfully created no doubt, but I wouldn't be able to call it beautiful, as it goes against God's principles. Though again, correct me if I misunderstood that point in the video.
There certainly is a difference between masterful art and moral art. But I do think that for art to be masterful it has to be based on truth at some level even if that truth is merely the truth of how people exist in reality or a true understanding of form etc. Masterful and even beautiful artworks can be sinful and morally good artworks can be ugly due to lack of knowledge or ability.
I can only speak for myself: two days ago i had a dream. I was into an old abandoned church, and outside it there were two dead men with rotten faces, trying to cause me fear. A woman appeared into the church saying to me not to be feared because Saint Jacob of Evoia (He is known as Saint Jacob Tsalikis, and his monastery is at the Greek island of Evoia) is here!
I woke up and at the same day, during driving to Athens, the radio search was repeatedly stoping to a station with a naration of his life!
Before entering the city my car slept on the wet road. I found my self out of the road in seconds, but without any scratch on me, nor on the car, except a broken tire!
The night before this event my mother saw in a dream that i had a car crash and that Saint Jacob reassured her that he will protect me from harm!
Thank you for the video and keep up the Amazing work!
Ps: i am a doctor (Human Medicine) but i Love sculpting during my free time (i am now experiencing the pain of smoothing Chavant Hard NSP).
Regards,
George
Thanks for the comment and for sharing your story. I definitely believe there is more to this world than what we can see under a microscope. God bless.
I was interested in starting out sculpting, as a nice hobby and form of art, to take the mind away from the stresses of daily life.
I found your video from Proko's channel and then came over to your channel.
I watched both of your videos of you sculpting the pregnant woman, with Beethoven's excellent symphony in the background, and the whole time I was thinking to myself: look at this guy... imagine how many hundreds or thousands of hours of his life he has dedicated to this craft.
Imagine the pains and hardships he went through to learn and get good at it, how many books he studied, how many bodies he's modelled, to the point where he now is at a level where he can conjure up the statue of a pregnant goddess in a couple of working days. And he does it so good, we are left in awe at his skill.
I thought: I would like to be like him, able to delight in the pleasure of studying and modelling the human body, an earthly representation of God, and do it with a smile as you do, to empty the mind, to fill it with devotion. But then it hit me: I will never reach this level of skill.
I'm 28 y.o., work full time, have a wife and a house to take care of, I could put in maybe 1-2 hours per day of sculpting, and it wouldn't even be my only "hobby" or leisure activity. It's just not possible to get to this level.
I compared my pretty uneventful life to that of the great sculptors of old times, or even contemporary artists like you, and contemplated this: their whole life was lived in the studio. Their whole being was dedicated to art. And they chose to represent religious images, since the only thing that can fill your mind and inspire you for so long, without you being burned out, would be God.
Imagine spending your whole life cultivating and perfecting the ability to represent the image of Man faithfully, only for you to sculpt unimportant or trivial subjects. Impossible, it has to be religious subjects for it to be worth it.
In fact, the very thing that made me want to give sculpting a try, was seeing statues of Jesus sculpted so masterfully that it makes you want to cry (I live next to Rome, so I get to see a lot of them😅).
So imagine my delight when I found this video from you. You're not only a great artist, but also a philosopher and a religious man, as I think all artists should be.
Throughout the video I was thinking: look at how this great man is honouring his Lord with his craft. What am I doing right now to make the world better and to honour Him with my life? Am I cultivating my talents to the level this Man did, am I becoming a Master of my own talents so that I can give something to the world?
So I took 2 main things away from this video:
1) a minor existential crisis 😅
2) I should stick with what I do best, using my God given "talents" or inclinations, and work on those.
So no sculpting for me, I should stick to playing with play-doh 😁
Cheers
hey thanks for the supportive and well thought out comment. you do say that you believe that you could never become great with just 1-2 hours a day but if you really dedicate that amount of time and you incorporate the principles that past masters have handed down to us (the kind of stuff I try to teach) then you can absolutely become a proficient sculptor capable of creating great works of art.
My grandma is 95 and always complains that she wished she would have pursued art. She gave up oil painting when one of her children swallowed a tube of paint (but it wasn't toxic so no harm no foul) but this event kept her from pursuing art. Her youngest child moved out of the home about 50 years ago. Imagine if she had just spent one hour a day doing art for 50 years! That's 18,250 hours of creating and improving. Almost anyone can master something in that much time. 28 is young and if you are truly disciplined enough to set aside time regularly to improve you can absolutely create something masterful and meaningful that others will look at in the future and that will inspire them.
If I were you I would look into workshops I'm sure there are many that you may be able to save up for to learn from masters in your area in addition to learning online. Stay creative. Stay productive. God bless!
@@AndrewJosephKeith thanks!
@@AndrewJosephKeith Hi Andrew, a follow up to this comment:
I know I said i would stick to playing with play-doh, but then I actually went ahead and bought some colored plasticine and mixed it together.
Then I followed your eye sculpting tutorial on Proko3D and I had a blast! It was so fun! This is my very first sculpture, here are some pictures!
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_rOd0jy1xoRhNz6N2dowOYm773cDFHjW?usp=sharing
Thanks for making this info free and available to anyone!
Andrew, just watching you sculpt, is a spiritually uplifting experience for me. Thank you for sharing these wise words with us. You truly are blessed with a stunning talent and the skill to teach as well! Thank you for sharing your experience with us...may Father God bless you abundantly in all your endeavors in Jesus' Name!
Thank you 🙏 God bless!
I love your boldness. I share it too! "Am I saying that one culture is right, and the other is wrong? Yes. That's what I'm saiyng."
Sometimes when I draw or paint , I feel like things were always meant to be painted or drawn , or sculpted. Sometimes everything works in such beautiful harmony that I can never describe. and that can not be a coincidence.
I read somewhere that "EARTH" without "ART" is just "eh"
I am a muslim teenager art student in Iran , and art made me love god more than ever. Especially when I was learning things like human anatomy.
Faith is something that If you don't have It yet , you don't know how beautiful it can be. God bless...
I agree that there is a feeling of inspiration when working on some works of art. All good skills and talents are God given.
Beautifully articulated, and your final closing words are spot on.
A christian believing in objective truth, some would say that’s ironic as they continue to reject themselves and put on a dress to show up to their human anatomy art class
I’m an atheist (love your sculpture by the way!) and I invite you and all religious folk who think that God is good/moral to go on safari trips to see wildlife with your own eyes.
In Tanzania I saw a zebra having it’s testicles eaten off by hyenas while it was alive and conscious.
In Kenya I saw wildebeests getting their faces and limbs bitten off by crocodiles while they were conscious.
I also saw a baby Impala being born only to be eaten immediately by a lioness. Also in Tanzania.
The agony these animals experienced was palpable and the first time I literally cried my eyes out wanting to help them. Anyone who says that “God is moral” has never looked nature in the eye. If god is real he’s an absolute sadist for creating a world where sentient beings are eaten ALIVE in the millions every single day as part of his “plan”.
As far as nihilism… I disagree completely. I matter to myself. My mother matters to me. Just because the universe itself doesn’t care if I live or die, I DO. And so do the people who love me. That’s all the significance I need. I don’t need the universe itself to validate my existence.
I appreciate that you enjoyed the sculpture and your thoughtful comment that remains respectful while disagreeing. I wish more people were able to do that.
My response to the problem of pain in the natural world is that if you are a Christian then this observation of the fallen nature of the world is explained by the exodus account where God did create a perfect world where there was no pain or death or sorrow or misery. Originally only innocence but He (God) gave Adam and Eve the ability to choose and they chose to disobey and be thrown into a world of death, labor, pain, and difficulty. But God also made a plan so that the evils of the world could be overcome through the atonement of His Son Jesus Christ. So mankind chose to disrupt the perfect world of the garden of eden and chose to bring about a fallen world with death and suffering.
Now obviously as an atheist you don't believe any of this but it is the philosophical framework that makes sense of the horrors of nature and the fallen nature of the world around us.
As for the point about nihilism and that you find meaning in your life and others care for you and therefor you have value. To this I would say that that value if it is dependent on others perception is not an intrinsic part of your nature but a relative opinion and so if society decides to strip the human rights of a group of people and kill them then that is moral (according to materialist atheism). After all if it is agreed upon by the majority then there is no framework (according to atheism) to argue against this type of brutality because morality is based on societal standards in a world where there is no God. And as I mentioned in the video this feeling of meaning is merely chemical reactions in a meat sack and has no objective reality if were are merely a cosmic fluke of random unguided chemical processes.
Also I never said I cared whether "the universe cares about me" because I do not worship the universe and the universe has no mind or capacity for moral action. What matters is if the God of the universe who created the universe also created us and gave us our moral sense and capacity for reason and thought. And that God I do believe cares for us because He has done things like call ancient and modern prophets and sent his Son Jesus Christ to show us how to live and to atone for the sins of the world.
The experiment that I invite any atheist to engage in is to act for 3 months as if God exists. This means pray to Him honestly and daily, talking to Him as if he were a father who loved you, read the scriptures and sincerely ask if He is there . Anyone who does this sincerely and actually wants to know will receive their own witness to the reality of God. But It is something that cannot be done for you. No one can be argued or cornered into believing in God.
@@AndrewJosephKeith With all due respect, a woman ate a piece of fruit 6,000 years ago against God’s will and hundreds of TRILLIONS of sentient animals got eaten alive in pure agony as a result of that action?
Can you expand a little bit on how God is moral if he allows this to continue to happen? Why wouldn’t he save all of the defenseless animals being eaten by obligate carnivores if he’s still all powerful to this day?
Animals have zilch to do with us or our choices and I see no moral justification for allowing them to suffer for our mistakes.
@@AndrewJosephKeith Right, so it's not like God is violent, sadistic and cruel. He's just making countless beings, his own children, needlessly pay him with blood on a daily basis for thousands of years for the disobedience of a woman who once ate the wrong stuff. I mean, how could you blame God for that?? It's all her fault, clearly.
@king4bear578,
I'm an atheist too. But I’ve read the Bible several times and I do understand Judaism and Christian ideology. Talking about dying and suffering people, children or animals, there is a simple answer to a popular question “How can the God be so cruel?”. You can find it in the book of Job in the moment when he is suffering from all the trials the God had sent him:
His wife said to him, “Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!”
He replied, “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?”
Job 2 9-10
I understand that it’s not a straight answer for this question, but it’s a good explanation of the ideology core that can provide a way to a more certain answer.
Btw, there is a similar answer in Judaism way, shown in a film "Serious man" by Coen brothers. You can find it in a talk with the second Rabbi:
ua-cam.com/video/jadWYEzk58Y/v-deo.htmlsi=GZSR1Yj23ks4HWIk
I thought that this was a parody but discovered that it is sincere vacuous, insipid and hateful drivel.
name one quote that was "hateful"
@@HarryNicNicholas Is it also hateful to tell a child that he will be burned if he touches a hot stove? No. Sin has consequences. Warning children of the consequences of sin is not hateful it is the opposite.
It seems that you simply hate Christians so you try to convince yourself that they are the hateful ones to justify your own bitterness towards them.
I love the art and I love the lord and thank you
My Idiot self looking for a Sculpting Tutorial Video: *Gets a Random Opinion that I don’t ask for instead.
But at least I can still learn something from watching you Sculpt. That's a good thing 👍
To be fair it’s in the title of the video.
what is this material that you're sculpting with? kinda looks like an ear wax lol
Victoria brown microcrystalline wax. its a soft wax that's a bit too sticky for tools but works great sculpting by hand.
It is a miracle, that a man, capable of creating such beauty with his hands, talks such complete bulls*it 😬 when you turn off the sound great video tho 😄👍
You make a compelling argument
You disprove a lot of points in your own video by saying "Without god putting effort and passion into art just doesn't make sense". If that was the case, great art made by atheists just would not exist/make sense (using your logic) but then at the same time you say great art made by atheists exists... Which one is it?
And also it's really weird how you give examples of morally bad cultures but the aztecs sacrificed children for RELIGIOUS reasons. But at the end of the video, you even get into the realm of what relativism really is by saying that your beliefs may be wrong, but you are willing to wager in hopes of there being meaning to life. Well maybe the aztecs believed in the same thing, that sacrificing their children WAS the right thing to do, and were willing to wager that they might be wrong for a good harvest or something. Without their religious beliefs though, then they'd be dictated by their biological motives, which you, at the same time, also think is "bad for culture". But if they didn't have religious beliefs they wouldn't've sacrificed their children because biologically infanticide because of religious motives (and religion in general) just doesn't exist. Then are biologically driven morals (or behavior) in culture better than religious ones in that case?
Also just weird point at 13:00 because it just completely ignores the argument that making works of art might as well be biological desire. Also the example you use of the urinal being objectively worse than the goliath is also a weird point because it conflates "aesthetically pleasing" with "art" and also it has nothing to do with modern "inclusiveness" because the urinal was put there in 1917. That's a view YOU put on the object (maybe what you think about it IS in fact relative?). And in fact, you are conflating everything together in this video! When people say "art is in the eye of the beholder" it doesn't extrapolate to "morals are subjective" which in turn does not extrapolate to "murdering an elderly person and giving a homeless person money has no difference".
Also really weird political tint to this video. Isn't this video about art? Why do you feel the need to hint at the fact you feel same sex marriage is wrong and that transitioning is also wrong? These are modern topics which people in the middle ages (which it seems like the time period you like the art from the most) just didn't think about much, they cared much more about what christian denomination is right and which one is wrong. Which is also RELATIVE to which denomination you believe in. Which is where relativism as an ideology should actually apply to 😛
The entire point of the video is that if there is no God then relativism is the logical position. Objectivity only exits if there is a God otherwise beauty, morals, and everything else is completely subjective. So there is no such thing as "great art" unless there is an objective reality which only exists if there is an authority above mankind (God).
The Aztecs did indeed engage in human child sacrifice to their gods but their religion was wrong. It was evil. That is the point. It was objectively wrong. As someone who believes in objective morality and an objective moral law that comes from a moral law giver (God) I can justify this position. However if you believe that there is no God and all morality is relative then you have no philosophical framework to condemn human child sacrifice if it is culturally accepted as a "good".
"biologically infanticide doesn't exist" ignores many biological organism that devour their own young (spiders and crabs for example). If it is biologically justified for spiders to eat their young then why not human beings? Where does your moral objection to cannibalism or child sacrifice come from? If there is no God then it is just bits of matter interacting with other bits of matter and there is no moral quality about life at all. Only a darwinist "survival of the fittest" which can be used to justify genocide like the Nazis did to justify removing "biologically inferior" people from society in order to create a stronger human race. As someone who believes in objective morality and intrinsic human value I can see the evils of this philosophy but if you believe that humans are merely a cosmic accident in an indifferent universe how do you go about condemning any behavior as "wrong" or "evil"?
If the creation of art is nothing more then a biological desire then it makes no sense to waste time, energy, and resources to create something that doesn't keep you warm, give you nutrition, or increase you chances of reproduction. Art is not justified from a materialist darwinian perspective because it is something that serves no utilitarian function. It only makes sense if the desire to create and the ability to create was given to us by the Creator of all things. And yes people can not believe in God and spend their lives creating great art but if they do this they are acting in a way that does not make sense according to their own materialist/atheist worldview. but people act irrationally all the time so that is nothing knew and not at all unusual.
I mention current political issues because they are perfect examples of the logical conclusions of atheist relativism in culture. Some refer to this as secular liberalism. If there is no God then marriage isn't a sacred covenant ordained by God but just a social contract that we can reinvent however we want. If there is no God then men and women aren't designed to be men and women with a soul that matches their body but it is just a biological fluke and no reason to treat men differently than women in society. These philosophies are rooted in the belief that we can put ourselves in the place of God and that we can change morality, biology, and reality to conform to a perverse vision of how believe the world should work.
Right and wrong, good and evil, beauty and ugliness, only exist as objective standards if God exists. Otherwise all of these words are relative and have no intrinsic meaning.
@@AndrewJosephKeith So is this video is just a complicated way of saying "If you're atheist where do your morals come from?" Also i didn't say biological infanticide didn't exist, i said biological infanticide for the reason of RELIGION didn't exist, because religion doesn't exist in biology (which you said in the video). And here you saying the aztec god is evil is disproving what you were saying in the video! You specified pretty much ALL of religion by saying "a creator" but here you are saying some religions are evil and some are good? What if someone who also had a religion with "the creator" said you were evil? What if another religion said homosexual marriage and transgenders were okay? Is it then solely your christian god that is correct? If that's the case just rename the video to "Why Great Art Doesn't Make Sense Without Christianity" and replace the part where you defined God as "A creator" with the christian god. The only semi-credible point you have is that art shouldn't exist without god. But even then, perhaps we are creative in nature and use art as an outlet for that creativity because we had to be creative to survive. Maybe morality evolved because it's better for survival not to murder people and commit mass genocide. if that's not the case, how come atheists DO usually have morality proven by the fact most atheists don't approve murder and hurting people? If you look at history, more times than not religion was used as an excuse to commit more genocides than to not. For example with the nazis? Maybe judaism is a religion and the nazis hated that religion because in their belief it was wrong and then conflated that to the entire people being wrong? Isn't that in a way what you're doing by saying homosexuality is wrong and transgenders are wrong in your religion instead of respecting people for who they are?
@cazek445 @AndrewJosephKeith
I agree that this video is basically just a set of questions and weird extrapolations plus a lot of conflating.
1. "Hey, secularists, how do you have morality? And how do you determine bad art from good art without God?"
2. "If there is no God, then morality is subjective and so is art, that can't be, right?"
3. "Btw, the cultures I like are objectively good and the ones I don't like are bad."
None of this is new and all of these questions have very simple answers if you are willing to listen.
@@JuanMiPibernus He's not even consistent in his own explanation either. He effectively states modern art is connected to "immoral" culture, which is supplanted by the fact he hates gays and transgenders for being "immoral", and in the comments he pretty clearly hints he really only uses the christian god as a sayer of what is "moral" and "immoral" because even though the aztecs brutally murdered children for religious reasons his explanation was: "But that's a bad culture!" according to who? God, he stated. What god then? The god he himself believes in. So is art really only great with traditional Christian values? But if he says morality and art aren't directly connected, his entire argument breaks down.
With the christianity part also lies a contradiction because he used David of an example of "Great" art. And despite michelangelo (who never married) making a poem about a dude he knew in real life about wanting to be his clothes so he could hug his body the entire time, Andrew still says open homosexuality is an example of the modern degradation of "Morality" and "Good" in modern society and uses that as a final explanation about why art in todays society is worse. And also not to mention, the renaissance itself was a rejection of the contemporary christian art of the time, and there WERE priests and people wanting to destroy that type of art for being "immoral" too! Completely contradictory! I'm sorry if im repeating myself but im so sick of people like this.
@@cazek445it's just a random ass circle jerk with a bunch of gibberish, people who align with him politically will just agree, actual npc activities in here.
I personaly think both Duchamp and Bernini are great artists.
Very beautiful and well spoken words, I was waiting for this video and you didn't fail my expectation good work. May god bless you and your family
Hey thanks! May God bless you and yours as well. Happy Thanksgiving
Oh happy thanksgiving
Your point about purpose (i.e., teleology) is key! Our culture wants to ignore the fact that God gave things purposes bc it gets in the way of what they want--to play God and define things for themselves.
Yes I think this is why we are seeing increasingly depressed and aimless people. The materialist worldview they are taught is depressing and encourages aimlessness.
beautiful 👏👏👏👏👏👏
Thank you 🙏
Beautiful
Sounds like someone didn't listen during its philosophy class. Please, here are some authors you can read, Spinoza, Albert Camus, Schopenhauer, Friederitch Nietzsche....
Ad hominem and argument from authority “these authors disagree therefore you are wrong”. I’m familiar with the philosophies that try to justify morality while eliminating an ultimate moral authority (God) I simply don’t find those arguments convincing.
@@AndrewJosephKeith Well if you read those authors (which I'm not convinced you have considering your answer) you makes a very weak case against them and their arguments. Your building your whole theory on a postulate that isn't demonstrated and you're not even aware of it.
Well said 👍👍
I love how you inject your spiritual and other values into your art making. 👍😊
Thank you Jesus for the manual skills and talents you gave us!! 🔥
Yes indeed
Well, there is a lot I agree with what you say but it seems to me that you created all these points to justify your particular point of view, based on what you believe being beautiful or ugly limiting it in such a way that you are disregarding freedom of artistic expression. Artistic expression is the starting point of all art, which is an individual power that is not the same from artist to artist. The observer, the public may or may not feel touched by this artistic expression and that is what lures the observer’s curiosity. For art to be truly useful it needs to be honest and that doesn’t necessarily need to come from a beautiful place or a technical mastery. You can apply this to literature, music, etc. Crime and punishment is an amazing book because it is raw in the depiction of human ugliness. Kid A is beautifully ugly at times finding order in itself. Beauty is comfortable, but it is only one of the many sides of humanity. Art shouldn’t be comfortable all the time (and if God made us in his own image, God can also have a man ugly face and bunions). This is not relative, it’s just how we were made by nature. Not looking at humanity and human expression this way makes anyone miss a lot about truth. I am an artist myself. I don’t believe in gods. I still know what is right, wrong, beautiful and ugly, true and false. Artists need to take all in consideration to make to make art ‘good, useful and pleasant’, with the three qualities working together, and not separately.
You can make great art if you aren’t religious. You can be a moral person if you aren’t religious. Following an abrahamic religion doesn’t make you superior to other people. There isn’t one “right” answer when it comes to religion. You are a great sculptor but I just can’t agree with this.
Everyone is religious
@@TheTastefulThicknessgrow up
@billybobwombat2231 Everyone worships something buddy
@@TheTastefulThickness do they, I don't, I know very few people that actually do , expanding your information bubble could be beneficial to to you perhaps 🤷♂️
In the video I mention that you can be a moral person and a great artist without believing in God. My point was that great art and morality are built on the belief in an objective standard and objective truth which only exists if God exists. Otherwise everything is relative. And that great art points to the transcendent.
And I am not convinced that someone can be "non-religious" as your religion is just the belief system you hold as sacred. To know someones religion you just need to see what offends them when you make fun of it. That is what they hold to be sacred or what they worship in the place of God.
Is perfectly possible to be atheist/agnostic and be against relativism and social construct, this is not a black and white situation, if there's no god it doesn't mean that everything is a social construct nonsense. We can accept there is a natural moral law and and objective beauty sense we are destined to follow as artists to achieve greatness.
Now, I don't care at all if that comes from the rules of a superior God or by mere chemical randomness during million of years of evolution. The fact is that our brain is objectively wired to have a north we must follow, it if comes from a god, magic, math, of mere casuality is something that we will never know, asuming that a god is the only option is just going too many steps forward.
I agree that culturally speaking the cultures that followed god with a civilizated mentality created better objective art compared to the barbaric ones. Most of these art peaked technically, but a lot of it was basically bible fanart and commisions for people with money. When religion lost territory, art found new paths to develope like romanticism. There is objective beauty, but there is beauty too in personal interpretation of things. I'm not speaking about extremes like picasso or urinals but in other ways to deviate from rigorous scientific perfectionism in representation. Is a gray zone, if we only consider true art the things people did under religious limitations we are leaving out a lot of incredible art made with another mindset that is still valid.
THISSS right here, I 100% agree with you!
6:04 you're being too black and white about it. The North American abolitionist culture directly benefitwd from the slave holding culture of the south. The wealth and cheap raw materials generated in the south was a great boone to the industrialzation and economic prosperity of the north, and this is something that ALL contemporary writers/thinkers of the time acknwoldge, and was significant contribution to why the abolitionist ideology always remained a fringe ideology even after the civil war.
You can't isolate one aspect of two cultures then make wholistic judgments of them. You need to consider all the factors and this is often difficult if not impossible. I largely agree with you argument about art, but you need to take a step back if you plan to apply such a simple framework of analysis to all aspects of life and reality.
You're essentially taking a helpful simple tool and using it as a hammer to smash all Nuance. I will say you're Objectively wrong for attempting to extend this framework beyond the confines of comparing specific art pieces
You've stirred up the atheist liberal hornet's nest. I salute your efforts. 😅 I was atheist most of my life, but no longer. Keep up the good work and stand strong in your beliefs despite the lack of popularity it may incur on UA-cam 👍
hey thanks! What was it that convinced you that atheism was incorrect?
@@AndrewJosephKeith first step was recognizing the existence of evil (odd that that came first). Then I started questioning evolution. I heard someone trying to imagine how just a simple sheet of notebook paper, with the three holes, the blue lines, pink margin line , perfect dimensions, and thickness etc.; what would be the odds of something that simple just randomly forming....even given billions of years of chance to do so. Pretty slim, but we're led to believe that's how something as complicated as human and animal life formed? Flood gates opened after that. Currently trying my best to learn to be Christian. I know atheists and maybe even some Christians would scoff, but it truly takes effort to understand the concept of free will and the need to move closer to God. I really feel each person has to make that effort consciously and with purpose. It's the biggest step for sure.
Anyways thanks for asking, and merry Christmas
Very interesting background and may God bless you in your search for truth.
@@joshpoole6056god, no wonder conservatives are so hated on in the industry, being a conservative is pretty much your whole personality.
It really gets tiring listening to someone blabber about what's correct and what isn't, "being open to conversation" but in reality No-one is gonna change their mind.
@@donkeykong6626 well hello random internet dipshit, I don't recall making a video and blabbering about anything, was your comment directed at me or the person who made the video? Never mind I don't really care, and additionally *I* never claimed to be open to listening to people like you 🤷 Anyway, isn't it crazy how some people have beliefs and convictions they stick to regardless if it makes them popular on social media? 🤯 There's a little down arrow in the left hand corner that will minimize the video and then a little X on the right hand side just for those videos you can't tolerate. Super complicated I know, should I explain again with crayons or are you good now?
This is such a brave content, in this modern world kudos to you for speaking the truth!
It really shouldn't be considered "brave" to articulate what many millions of people have believed for centuries. But I guess these are the times we're living in.
Sadly, Keep it up brother!@@AndrewJosephKeith
Your entire argument is reliant on a god and objective morality witch atheists don’t believe in. In order to actually prove this or eat least get close you would have to also make a convincing argument for either objective morality or the existence of a god. You had some good points but I think you fell into that same trap that most religious people fall into when they argue. There argument is reliant on something they can’t prove so the argument just becomes pointless.
My argument is absolutely built on that axiom (that objective morality exists and therefore God exists because that is the only way objective morality makes logical sense) and while atheists may claim that they don’t believe in absolute morality they will still claim that an immoral act has occurred when they themselves are harmed by the actions of another.
Murder, rape, and other immoral acts are only objectively wrong if there is an objective morality. To believe in subjective morality you would have to say that the holocaust was not evil but that it is just unpopular to commit genocide now but when it was voted on and popular then it was morally acceptable. The same with human child sacrifice, slavery, etc.
Very few atheists are willing to take their moral relativism to its logical conclusion because they would expose the absurdity of it as a framework for moral ethics.
Because I believe in objective morals I believe in the only logical basis for those morals. That is God.
@@AndrewJosephKeith No I don’t think that rape, murder ex. are objectively wrong. But that doesn’t change the fact that I still think these things are wrong. I can believe something without it being objective. For example I believe tea is the best drink. I don’t think your wrong for having a different food preference to me. That’s a conclusion I’ve come to myself. I don’t want to harm people or be harmed, simple as that. The fact that you’ve just demonstrated your argument is circular by trying disprove it is wild to me.
Regardless your argument still relies on the “fact” that objective morality and or a god exist. You have done nothing to prove the basis of your argument. Calling it an axiom doesn’t change that your argument is circular and you have no reasonable explanation for the basis.
Your evidence for god is objective morality.
Your evidence for objective morality is god.
That is a circular argument.
In order to prove it to be true you would need proof of at least one of them to prove the other. Which you haven’t provided.
Morals are not logical all the time. I don’t hurt someone because I have empathy. Pretty simple. LOGICALLY it makes more sense to steal from people because it will benefit you. If getting along with other people and collaborating together is what it takes for me to survive and live an enjoyable life I’m all for it. What’s so absurd about that?
@@vince.inthevoid8158 I choose to believe in God in part because I believe in objective morality which doesn’t make sense without the existence of God. This is not the only reason but it is one. It is not a circular argument It is a contingent argument. saying 1. If objective morality exists then there must be a moral law giver (God) 2. Objective morality does exist (because it is always evil to torture an innocent human being for one’s own pleasure regardless of what society thinks or what any individual thinks) 3. Therefore there is a God.
A circular argument is like saying “there is no evidence for God because any evidence that suggests the existence of God (like big bang, life from non-Life, DNA code, moral sense, conscious etc) must have another natural explanation… because God doesn’t exist”
When you say rape is “wrong” that is the same as saying that it is “objectively wrong”. You want to keep morality while erasing the only logical basis for it. Evil exists. To an atheist evil is just a synonym for “unpopular”. You don’t follow your philosophy to its conclusion.
@@AndrewJosephKeith my basis is survival. Simple and logical. Your argument is still very circular even if you don’t want to admit it. Your argument operates on the basis that objective morality exists. So the only way to prove your argument would be to prove that. So prove it. I’ll wait.
He is created in our image, which means he has legs as we do, yet he's omnipresent. Man has legs to walk from point A to point B, as he is not omnipresent. So why does God have legs if he is at point A and point B and everywhere else, at the same time, all of the time - omnipresent? Was God created in a whale's image to whales, or is this just a human thing?
You are trying to use nature as a limit on God but God created time, space and matter "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)" God was the cause of the Big Bang. God is by definition supernatural (above or beyond nature) and therefore is not limited by the natural laws or by time, space, or matter that He brought about. You are imagining a limited God but that is not the God I believe in.
"God created man in his own image, male and female created he them" Mankind is the only creature expressly mentioned as created in God's image and after His likeness.
@@AndrewJosephKeith God doesn't exist. The founding principle of creationism, which Christianity is built upon proves it, "something can't come from nothing, therefore: God". Man is something, materialistic (observable by touch) thus, according to the law of creationism whatever created man must be something (materialistic) as well. As man is.
I weigh 140lbs. How much does the God that created us weigh, in terms of lbs?
How can something immaterial (God) create something material (Matter)?
When you remove time, space, and matter - as it was "before God created it" - you are left with nothing. Resulting in, nothing creating time, space, and matter. So, why God?
Believing something to the point that it becomes real to you (God), is not proof to everyone else that what you believe is real, it just demonstrates to everyone else that you are trapped in a delusion.
The only reason that science can't prove the existence of God is that God only exists in the minds of man and not in the material world.
Why do you believe that we were created by an invisible man, from the dust of the earth, yet refuse to accept the fact that we have evolved from the world's oceans, lakes, and rivers to land through adaptation - evolving into intelligent species?
The closest relative of the whale is the Hippo, One's an ocean dweller, and the other is a land dweller. Yet, they are the closest living relatives. That, my friend, is evolution.
No species on earth can survive without water, because we all evolved from water.
There are other planets made of dirt, yet no water, no people.
What a stilted infantile stance 🙄
You make a compelling argument.
@AndrewJosephKeith not really, I could but this is just an observational comment, they can't see how small their world views are.
@@billybobwombat2231 lol "I could make a compelling argument but instead I'll just insult you and then pretend you are the immature one"
@@AndrewJosephKeith we all have much to learn, understanding that lifts us from infantile into primary
Great art only makes sense WITHOUT GOD. Try it and you will both enjoy it and produce it. Religion is the biggest blight on humanity and causes most of our bad behavior toward each other.
If there is no God the "bad behavior" does not exist. Only behavior. "good" or "bad" are relative and completely subjective. These moral/religious judgments are only objective if there is an objective moral law giver (God). So you are borrowing the morality from religion to try to argue against religion.
Not at all but it is clear from your post that you can't conceive of a world without some god in charge of it much less art that might exist in such a world. That's just one reason why the religious view is delusional and unfalsifiable. Your entire concept of morality is dependent on a fairytale and mine is not.@@AndrewJosephKeith
Anyone, no matter what he calls himself, who is opposed to the truth, beauty or good is either in service to, or enslaved by, the Evil One.
Andrew, you seem like a nice guy; in fact I have no doubt that you are a great guy. And a very talented sculptor as well as teacher. But I think you missed the mark on this video. I'm not a cultural relativist; nor am I an artistic relativist. I do, however, think that people in one culture are too quick to judge another's culture without taking the time to understand both their own culture as well as that of another. I think what we often find is that our own cultures are somewhat less superior than we think and conversely the other culture may have merits we didn't bother to understand. But where I felt you really missed the mark is the importance you ascribe to God. I readily admit to liking a lot of religious art, (particularly altarpieces and triptychs), even thought I consider myself an atheist. But my very favorite painters, while perhaps personally religious (I have no knowledge of their religious inclinations), are Degas, Vermeer, John Singer Sargent, Whistler, and Corot among others. Not one of their paintings is religiously based or inspired. And I think it fair to say that each of these artist is held in the very high esteem artistically. I will continue to look at and learn from your videos, but sadly with a little less pleasure than I had before I watched this one.
In the video I never said that our current culture is superior to any other specific culture. I said that cultures that believe in intrinsic human value are superior to those who do not. I believe that our own culture has engaged in the great Democrat Abortion Genocide of over 63 million innocent sons and daughters over the last half century which I believe to be an evil to rival that of any other genocidal culture.
I understand where you are coming from. If I had lived your life I would probably believe exactly as you do. If I understand correctly you want to deny relativism because of its implications at the extremes but the point remains that if there is no God then all morality truly is relative and so are definitions of things like truth, beauty, good and evil are all relative. It's all based on opinion and not an objective moral standard or moral law because that only exists if there is a moral authority above the authority of mankind.
As for specific artists I'm sure there are many atheist artists that are incredible and far more talented than I am, but these artists are drawing from a well of knowledge from past artists who I believe had a religious justification for spending time and energy to study mankind because they believed there was a spark of divinity or divine potential in us.
I appreciate the comment and I don't expect everyone to agree with every video or perspective that I hold. But I do believe that these issues should be discussed openly.
@@AndrewJosephKeith Andrew, I really do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my rather long comment. I also think people can, without the need of a god of any sort, live perfectly moral lives, as moral and just as someone who practices a religion. I think I have done so, as have my family and friends. Very few belong to a religion. Most are atheist or agnostic, though not all. The do's and don'ts of life, could in my view been put rather simply on a single tablet: 1)Do not cause the suffering of any person nor countenance it without offering to help alleviate that suffering. (We know suffering when we see it; it doesn't take a god to point it out). 2)Be kind, loving, and patient with your fellow man/woman/non-binary/child, etc. And 3)Treat others as you would like to be treated.
On the subject of abortion, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not share your view that aborting an embryo, or even a fetus, is a form of genocide. I know you hold a very different view, and while I respect the passion with which you hold that view, I think you come to that view on wholly incorrect assumptions.
Again, let me say that I appreciate the time you took to message me. I really do like how you teach clay sculpting, and you have a very nice way about you that speaks volumes to you character. Best wishes.
I find it pretty funny how you try and argue for morality, and then say “it makes no sense” to live a moral life if there’s no god or afterlife 😂
If your morality, way of life, and everything you believe and do hangs upon a belief in some cosmic “carrot and stick” system, rather than just being a kind and good person, for the sake of being kind and good, and if treating others the way you’d want them to treat you doesn’t make logical sense to you without without a god, then this demonstrates you are neither logical or moral.
This is a notion that I often see religious people hold; if there is no punishment or reward or guarantee cosmic eternal consequences to being kind or evil, why would you ever choose to be kind? And this is not presented as a rhetorical question either, it’s a genuine question they ask.
Now let me present a comparison to you, as you have done at the start of your video;
On the vague metric of “who is a better person “? To you, is it
the man who believes in eternal punishment for committing wrong acts, and eternal rewards for committing good acts, and decides to live his life committing good acts, based on this belief?
Or a man who believes that there is no eternal punishment or reward, and that in fact bad acts are often rewarded, while good acts are often not, and often put you in a disadvantage, and despite believing this to be true, with no exception for any “eternal payoff”, still decides to live his life committing good acts. Not out of want for reward or fear of punishment, but out of empathy and a sense of responsibility to his fellow humans.
I know the answer that *makes sense* to me, and it does not involve god.
You are constantly using terms like "good" but WHO defines what is good? If a serial killer environmentalist believes that humankind are a cancer on the planet and should be destroyed and that this is a moral good and he believes that the more people he kills the better he is then who are you to say that he is wrong? According to your philosophy why is he wrong?
Now I understand he is wrong because I believe in an objective morality and both you and I have a moral sense of that moral law.
And the golden rule "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is a religious moral principle. But it is only objectively correct if there is a moral law giver.
As for the carrot and stick argument that atheist like to bring up it is just a true statement about the world that actions have consequences and that ultimately there will be justice because there is a just God. In your question "who is more good" from the materialistic perspective it doesn't matter at all who is most good because good just means "popular" and the fate of the most good and most evil person is essentially the same in the end.
Now of course you don't have to believe in God in order to follow the moral sense that God has given to you and me and that is why many atheists choose to act morally. But what materialists/atheists lack is a logical framework to justify moral principles. That is what religion gives people and it is why people are naturally religious. To find what someone holds sacred just find out what offends them. That is their religion.
I'm simply promoting true religion based on the reality of the one and true God who created us and the universe and gave us our moral sense and logical capacities.
@@AndrewJosephKeith outside the context on this conversation, I believe that terms like “good” and “bad” are infantile and aren’t sufficient to describe anything in this world.
When a toddler approaches an electrical socket, you tell them “no! That’s bad!”, when they act with kindness, you praise them and tell them they’re good.
You don’t explain how an electric current running through their bodies would cause them harm, and you don’t start explaining the benefits of altruism to a 4 year old, because these are not concepts they can grasp, As opposed to “good” and “bad”.
Some of these toddlers will grow up into adults which will be able to have a more nuanced understanding of these and other subjects. some will not, and find that those time-tested terms of good and bad are sufficient.
And morality is anything but objective. Any person who owns human slaves today would be considered irredeemably evil, but for most of human history it was no different than owning anyone else, the divide between those who owned slaves and those who didn’t wasn’t a moral one, but a financial one. And this is one example of many.
I don’t know how to even respond to your statement about the carrot and stick lol? “It’s just a true statement-because there is ultimately a just god.”? Well alright, my jacket is cool because it’s ultimately just a true fact that my jacket is cool 😎I’m glad we could clarify that fact
Me phrasing the question as “who is more good” was adjusting the terms to the argument you presented, but instead of trying to answer it, you just pose that “it doesn’t matter” from a perspective I don’t hold? I could think of a few more elegant ways to avoid the question, though I’d rather you’d have just answered it, seeing as I phrased it in a way that’s already closer to your worldview than mine.
And there is an EXTENSIVE logical framework in favor of altruism and morality. Which y’know, is actually logical. As it doesn’t rely on a metaphysical entity to justify itself.
Ignoring the incomprehensible sufferings and horrors, this is also what religion *gave* people as you say, but only in the superficial sense that saying “bad!” *gives* the toddler the negative association with sticking its fingers in the socket.
As to my philosophy personally? It’s extremely simple.
I try and act the way I’d like everyone else to. That’s the beginning and end of my philosophy towards almost every moral dilemma I encounter. Eternal Reward, punishment, god and satan don’t really come into consideration.
If your philosophy requires you to have those factors in order to treat people fairly, then I honestly just hope you remain god fearing until your last day. Although it seems like your interpretation of “do unto others…” has a few choice exceptions, god bless.
@@arielsela4093As I suspected you could not answer why a serial killer environmentalist would be wrong to spend his life murdering people using your atheistic moral philosophy. Atheist morality has no footing to condemn any action as evil because as I mentioned in the video it is all relative.
@@AndrewJosephKeith didn’t you avoid commenting on my original comparison because “it doesn’t matter” according to a view I don’t hold lol? Are you being a troll? Your entire rhetoric is creating these weird strawman hypotheticals, misrepresenting my view on them, and then just deciding “you win”😆 checkmate atheist😎
This has been about as fruitful as any other conversation I’ve had on this topic, just logical fallacies and tangled logic loops, like a malfunctioning robot.
It’s very unfortunate you chose to attack your imagined misrepresentation of my point, rather than actually responding to those which I have articulated. But it also comes as no surprise, because you cannot logically convince someone out of a position they didn’t use logic to arrive to in the first place. I don’t see myself getting anywhere with this discussion so this is where I drop it.✌️
Hope you have a good relaxing weekend man, all the best
@@arielsela4093 You haven’t justified your position in any way. Your question of “who is more moral, a moral atheist or a moral believer” only makes sense if morality exists. Morality only exists if there is a moral law and therefore a moral law giver. Your question “who is more moral?” Infers an objective moral standard that your belief system does not account for and cannot logically justify.
So the question itself infers a moral standard that cannot be justified by materialistic philosophies.
And with regards to the question itself the answer is that God is the judge of morality and will judge the life of the believer and the atheist and He decides who is more moral. So, according to my religious beliefs, it is not for me to judge the ultimate morality of someone.
The reason you cannot answer why a serial killer is worse than someone who, like you, decides to treat others as he wishes to be treated, is because the atheism or materialism cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.
So you borrow morality from a religious worldview to try to disprove the necessity of a religious worldview to justify morality.
If there is no God then there is no good or evil. Therefore a serial killer, or Hitler, is no better or worse than you or I.
I'll listen to you teach, but I won't listen to you preach.
same lmao