Is Religious Diversity a Slam Dunk Against God?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- In this in-person interview, I sit down with Real Atheology founder Justin Schieber to discuss one of his favorite arguments against God: the argument from religious disagreement.
Justin's debate with Eric Hernandez: ua-cam.com/users/livea1YA2yQP...
Real Atheology UA-cam channel: / @realatheology
0:00:00 Talking About Debates
0:06:08 Religious Disagreement
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/43Ty8BD
Lens (Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8): amzn.to/3YkeD4c
HDMI Adapter (Elgato HD60 X): amzn.to/3DFUKe4
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/44NJtUZ
Audio Interface (Apollo Twin): amzn.to/44SRF6w
Key Light (Aputure 300X): amzn.to/3Qs1WSZ
Color Back Lighting (Hue Floor Lamps): amzn.to/3DDkpnL
Recording/Interview Software: www.ecamm.com/mac/ecammlive/?...
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
Thanks for having me on for a fun conversation, Cam.
As a clarification to viewers, I don't think it is a 'slam dunk' against theism or that it 'disproves' theism. I think it counts as evidence - that's the argument I defended.
Okay, FairPlay.
Definitely makes the bayes machine go a little brrrrr
Hmm, I was under the impression you guys didn't like cumulative arguments
@@Qwerty-jy9mj yes we are dogmatically against all of them, our infallible authority said so in that one council
@@macmac1022 you get 3 unexcused absences before we kick you out
Does that book on the table mean there's a Rasmussen interview coming out soon? :D
Congrats on 200k , keep up the good work!
You are walking down the street when you are stopped by a group of deputies who are all dressed differently. Each of them says, "I am the representative of the one true sheriff, and you need to comply with the ordinances in this pamphlet." Each pamphlet conflicts with the others, and some even contradict themselves. The nicer-looking pamphlets have guidelines for keeping slaves.
Do you think any of these deputies represents the real sheriff? Does it get better if there are more or fewer of them, or if some of them point guns at you?
Considering the nicer looking pamphlet completely revolutionized the world into the one we take for granted today, in a way that no other pamphlet has ever done in human history, yes I would say that one probably represents the true sheriff, since it shows that there is actual power in that pamphlet. The most ridiculous pamphlet would be one that says this pamphlet created itself out of nothing for no reason. That pamphlet belongs in the garbage along with the flat earth pamphlet
@@justaguy328 sorry, was that the Catholic sheriff or the Protestant one?
Maybe it is Mormonism that was true all along! The world was completely changed even by the partial revelation of the old and new testaments, and only in the past two centuries does humanity have the final pieces of the puzzle to work on. How would you be able to tell the difference?
A better analogy for the apartment would be that the landlord communicates with everyone clearly but some of them insist on paying more to try and curry favor and some underpay, presuming upon his gentle demeanor and long patience.
I haven't seen the video, but I clicked on it because of the title. I don't think God expect all of His children to think exactly in the the same way. The natural world is a beautiful example of this, there's some basic functions and physical aspects most living things share, but the one thing we all share is our differences 😅
Does your God concept want belief?
Is your God concept all-powerful?
Is your God concept all-knowing?
I think the main and possibly only difference between bare-bone naturalism and theism is that events are grounded in past events on naturalism and are grounded in gods free will on theism. I.e anything can happen on theism without auxiliary hypotheses. On naturalism things can only happen if they are consistent with the rest of the system. (I accept that natural reality always existed)
It's not obvious to me that you can stipulate that a person can have the right disposition towards God and also have important moral beliefs that are incorrect. I think that if we were to push back some more on what exactly that disposition towards God looks like, we might see that it could entail certain metaphysical commitments that logically exclude the kind of important moral/religious disagreements that this argument hinges on.
Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that a disposition towards God automatically brings with it the correct relational/moral beliefs about God? One worry is that this pushes the problem back to disagreements about which disposition toward God is correct if God exists.
@@RealAtheology I'm not sure I would make quite that strong of a claim, but that's certainly the direction that I'm going with my objection. Most theists that try to come up with coherent comprehensive moral systems do ground those moral facts in God, so at the very least we ought to treat "disposition towards God" and "moral opinions" not as two independent variables in a person, but one where there would be some sort of relationship between them. And since there's some relationship between these two things within a person, it's not obvious that we can say that the people with diverse moral opinions on important matters actually have the same disposition towards the same kind of God.
I think the most clear kind of example to illustrate this would be on the issue of sexual ethics. At the very least a pro-LGBT Christian has a conception of God where God doesn't care about what we do in the bedroom, whereas the opposite is true for those who hold to traditional Christian sexual morality. If God exists, He either cares about what we do in the bedroom or He doesn't, and it seems very clear to me that lots of people who hold both the pro-LGBT and traditional views aren't actually dispositionally open to God thinking the other way on that issue.
I don't think pushing the problem back a step works as a rebuttal to this because if the source of the discrepancy in the people occurs further "upstream" because one's being dispositionally open to God (at least as I'm understanding it), seems like it's properly understood as an act of the will. So the explanation for the divergence of opinion on moral or theological issues actually ends up being rooted in our own free will rather than honest mistakes.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol
You're contradicting yourself though, because if saying that the source of the disagreement is higher up the moral value scale, then why is your example of the cornerstone of God's existence whether it's ok to sodomize other people? There _must_ be something about that act that you believe is important enough to explain why disagreement on it implies God must not exist, otherwise the whole example would make no sense.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol Recall that, as presented, it was an inductive argument saying that the disagreement is evidence against theism. This is consistent with there also being a coherent story that a theist can tell that includes the disagreement so it's not going to suffice as an objection.
Soooo... since the evolution of humanity, we've invented lots of gods, because we need something/someone to explain/blame the things we don't understand about how nature works. This is "evidence" for the existence of Jesus... how, exactly? Even if one were to suppose an Aristotelian prime mover to explain where earth and heavens came from, and I doubt there's any necessity to do that, there's a lot of false steps between that and Jesus.
@@CMVMic Exactly. It could a completely blind and natural process. Doesn't even need to lead to an orderly universe, maybe it just happened that this one time it did. Yet Christians not only want to organise their lives around what is obviously a myth, and some of them want to organise everyone else's lives around their theology. The former I can live with, the latter are dangerous.
God is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, all wise and present in every atom of his creation. How do you go against your own atoms?
All people in all times and places have tried to describe the divine. Different knowledge, cultures and languages all colour the perception and then the description.
In the end all of them are descriptions because God is beyond descriptions.
So religious diversity is actual evidence that everyone perceived divinity in some form or other.
While I don't think any atheist argument is a slam dunk against God, I do believe that the religious confusion that we see in the world is much more probable on the assumption that atheism is true rather than theism.
In my opinion, the position that control over beliefs is consistent with goodness is an attack on virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics deserves to be attacked.
Then it must have at its center something good which makes me jealous.@@mugsofmirth8101
Does the multitude of scientific disagreement disprove science?
You just blew my mind. Good point.
Would be a good point, if science is consensus based. The scientific method is supposed to be challenged and change in light of new evidence.
The idea that God would not allow religious divergence is question begging determinism.
@@martytu20that’s right. We know what religious disagreements look like throughout history: war and inquisition.
@@bigol7169 Most of the wars fought in the name of religion were just pretext for imperial or political ambition, as seen by Catholic France joining the Protestant’s side during the 30 Year War.
I'm not sure how this question is directly relevant to the argument I've presented. Science doesn't posit an all powerful being who (i) cares about scientific truth and (ii) is capable and desirous of clearing up misunderstandings among his created creatures. Those differences matter a great deal.
3:29 Oh him….😂
Religious diversity does not disprove God. If anything, it shows the opposite. Because there are so many diverse conceptions of God or gods that have been present in every human society since the very beginning of our species, that means there has to be something to it. Because there are so many religions, that means the divine, in some way, shape or form, must exist. Scientists often come up with various theories when attempting to explain a new phenomenon they observe. Because there is a variety of theories and interpretations, does that mean the phenomenon has no correct explination at all? Of course not. It just means each scientist explains and interprets the data diffrently, and arrives at different conculsions, thought there still might be some overlap between the various theories.
It is the same thing with Religions. Religions have attempted to explain our existence and the meaning of our existence in various ways since the very beginning of our species. Just because they often disagree or arrive at different conclusion doesn't mean none of them have no truth in them at all. But just as it is with Scientific theories, some specfic religions might have more evidence and more satisfying answers to back them up, and therefore they win out over others.
If anything, if God really doesn't exist at all in any way shape, or form, then the burden of proof is on the atheist to explain what is the origin of all those religious beliefs and why humanity has always been religious since the very beginning of our species.
Tell that to the Muslim, "may dear sir you may be praying to the wrong god..." you will be beheaded faster than expulsing those words...
@@tihomirvrbanec9537What you said had nothing to do with my argument, but fine.
I never claimed Muslims are praying to the wrong God. I do however, think their perception of what God's character is like is not entirely correct.
I choose Muslim belief as an example bcs they are one of the people you refer to when acknowledging religious diversity in broad strokes. But I think I didn't read your comment till end hah. You've put it rather nicely at end. Alas for me the religious diversity only shows how different people through different times had different conceptions about the cosmos and it all came from respective lands and nations not some all knowing revelation from above. Lets just start with earliest gods in middle east that were explanations for natural occurences (god of water, god of creation, god of earth etc. there is enough evidence of this out there) And then how nations "traded" their gods one to another. There is a rather firm theory YHWH was a warrior god from Ugarit citystate. So the evolution would go, warrior caananite god - ywhw personal god of the nation israel - one almighty god of all people in christianity. For me personally the best i could do is some kind of deist god. Overwhelming force that may have started everything but then left or at least doesnt interfere.@@legodavid9260
@@tihomirvrbanec9537The theory that Yahweh evolved from a previous Cannanite diety is riddled with problems. For one, we still have the oldest Yahwistic literature preserved in the Bible: The Song of the Sea, The Blessing of Moses, The Song of Deborah, The Oracles of Balaam, and the Blessing of Jacob. All scholars acknowledge that those poems and songs are the oldest material found in the Bible, dating way before this supposed conflation of Yahweh and some other Storm god took place. In those poems, Yahweh's character is presented as both powerful and vengeful, but also loving and caring for his people, not to mention the strong henotheistic sense you get from them. It's very hard to reconcile those poems with the theory that Yahweh was a conflation between different Cannanite dieties.
There's also the fact that Yahweh's demands from his people are completely out of the ordinary when you consider the context of Ancient Cannan. A god that was so vehemently opposed to idols of any kind was completely unheard of in the ancient world. Not to mention the sacrifices that were given to him. In ancient Cannan, sacrifices (including human sacrifices) were given in order to gain the approval and favour of the gods. Those people believed that the gods needed to be "fed" in a literal sense, and they would provide belssings in return. Yahweh is the complete antithesis of that. He was said to already own everything, and he needed nothing, and his favour could not be bought in any way, except through keeping his commandments. Such a diety stood in stark contrast to all the other gods of ancient Cannan. It just doesn't seem to fit into the culture it originated from at all.
This doesn't prove Yahweh exists or that he is the true God, of course, but even from a non-relgious perspective, it does provide for a fascinating case study.
So in my personal opinion, the idea that Yahweh was originally just different gods combined into one doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.
I wouldnt say and I think that it is a bad line of reasoning that yhwh is some kind of amalgam of gods. This kind of thinking only denegrates the buoyant imagination and culture of hebrews. Let me just say regarding the oldest yhwh poems, caananitee city states culture and deities are still much much older. Furthermor there is perfectly reasonable line of thought that jews had their own version of yhwh which they constructed and it may as well be that it was superior to the other gods. Exactly how in the beginnings of christianity, the small sect of risen jesus christ had many advantages for common people and was actually quite advanced (care for elders and low classes, making everyone their equals) all very humane achievements but still not divine in my eyes. @@legodavid9260
Buy Cameron a coffee cup
Before Listening to the Conversation:
Religious diversity is an assault to the idea of monotheism IF the idea of a God is denoted as wanting belief and having the power to bring about belief since the state of affairs questions both the idea of power and the idea of goal. I can't at this time imagine anything that would overturn either of this issues given the current state of the world. However, my statement itself is only applicable to some of the monotheistic claims such that even what the supposed aboutness constitutes is itself a mess - putting it mildly. Thus, the net state of affairs with regard to theological notions in general is that such is purely a psychological/sociological thing without a shred of merit with regard to an actual thing as the various beliefs propose in various forms.
Lmao you're such a pseud
Average atheist response:
Why isn't the title: Is Religious Diversity a Slam Dunk Against Scriptures?
I appreciate the nuance brought to this discussion but I wish Cameron would be directly challenged to account for a religious disagreement in which many thousands of people (Buddhist monks, Muslim imams, Pre-Columbian religious leaders) devote their entire waking day aiming for God’s inspiration, often at cost of any worldly pleasures, and yet God, omnipresent, does nothing to correct them.
What is His purpose for them?
This seems to be the clearest sign of a nonresistant nonbeliever. If the purpose of life is relationship with God and Jesus, his allowance for these errors seems inexplicable.
How do you know God does nothing to correct them?
@@chrispark2698 If god corrects them why are there still so many different religions? Why are there so many different sects of Christianity?
@@jacoblee5796 To me it actually makes sense that God purposely created certain aspects of His Word to be up to interpretation to encourage us to explore and debate the topics more. This pushes us to further our understanding of His Word and His character and ultimately brings us closer to Him.
The vast majority of Christian disagreements are not on fundamental issues. For instance, disagreements on eschatological positions, or infant baptism, the view of Communion, etc. So even if different Christian sects disagree on some tertiary issues, we all agree on the core tenets of the faith - Christ is Lord, He was resurrected, God is the only One True God, etc.
As for other religions - the simple answer is that Man is stubborn, and Man wants to believe what Man wants to believe. People will reject God in favor of their own desires, including making their own gods to worship. In His infinite love & mercy, God gave us Free Will, and He won't force us to enter into relationship with Him - but for those that sincerely seek and ask for His presence, He will show Himself - according to Scripture. There is no possible way you can know that God has not talked to people in other religions and brought them to the Truth - in fact there are countless testimonials from people all around the world detailing just that.
@@chrispark2698 I tend to agree with you that "man is stubborn" but I don't think that this characteristic is necessarily the only reason why people hold to their specific beliefs.
From my understanding, lots of variables can influence religious beliefs, such as culture, education, experience, etc.
I'm not trying to negate what you said. I just think there's"more to the story ".
By the way, I think the characteristic of being stubborn can be categorized under "mankind is fallen" or "humans are deeply flawed".
I appreciate your comments because they are making me think better.
Respectfully from Florida USA
Hello bsm... I appreciate your comments and honesty. Something for me to ponder.
Respectfully...
There is the Hiddenness of God as part of God's nature.
He is not known in communicate directly during the space between Joseph and the Exodus biblically.
He is believed to have no prophets between Malachi and John the Baptist. (A period of about four hundred years.)
Christ Himself says "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’
-Mark 4:10-12
One can conclude from this that it is not the Divine intention to be known by every single person.
So are they just destined for torture?
@@TalentMthiyaneThey not given undeserved and special intervention that would bring them into an eternal favourable relationship with God.
so torture@@iannewton3820
Religious diversity doesn't disprove God. By itself, religious diversity as an argument against God would be a weak argument. But it's yet another aspect of human culture that is perfectly consistent with, and even predicted by, the proposition that God doesn't exist. So naturalism doesn't have to explain it, whereas religious diversity under theism is yet another thing that apologetics has to explain.
That doesn't logically follow homie.
@@axderka
Well, it depends on one's understanding of psychology -- what is logical, rational, reasonable is always a matter of context.
I don't think I fully understand how religious diversity is "predicted by the proposition that God doesn't exist". Could you go into that a little further? I agree that it's on the theist to explain religious diversity, but I don't see how it's predicted by naturalism.
@@pendletondrew
[drew]: "I don't think I fully understand how religious diversity is "predicted by the proposition that God doesn't exist". Could you go into that a little further?"
Humans have a virtually infinite capacity for self-delusion. That's simple observation. If God doesn't exist, there's no "absolute" standard of what God is or what God should be. So it becomes a free-for-all to answer those questions -- and that's exactly what we observe.
[drew]: "I agree that it's on the theist to explain religious diversity, but I don't see how it's predicted by naturalism."
If God DOES exist, there is at least some objective existence that establishes what God is and what God isn't. So, at least potentially, there is a standard for determining what "correct" or "incorrect" views are.
If God doesn't exist, then how could humans rally around a single concept / notion of what God is, since it's all imagination to begin with?
@@dougsmith6793too many assumptions. One doesn't follow from the other. If God is real it doesn't follow that we can know him. And diversity of religion doesn't mean he doesn't exist. That's like saying - people see the color red differently therefore it doesn't exist.
I think every major theistic religion teaches that we can never fully know God.
If you want to argue against that, you'd have to make up some fairytale land in which everyone constantly sees, hears or knows God. Like - how? How is that supposed to even work?
And why do mystics constantly get ignored? There is a theory that the closer you get to the core of each religion the more similar they seem. So that would mean it's a question of revelation which can never be complete in this life. All of these questions have been considered a long time ago so you'd have to come up with something better for your "debunking of God".
A few more thoughts - a wiser man than me once said, "A God that exists, doesn't exist." because existence is a human category bound to time and space. God also doesn't need to follow any logic as reality itself doesn't follow logic at its core. So a logical syllogism like: a) if God exists we have only one religion or image of God.
b) we have multiple religions or images of God.
c) therefore God doesn't exist.
That's a bit too simple.
To me it actually makes sense that God purposely created certain aspects of His Word to be up to interpretation to encourage us to explore and debate the topics more. This pushes us to further our understanding of His Word and His character and ultimately brings us closer to Him.
You almost certainly dont remember me. We had a debate on Cosmology on a Reasonable faith video where you quit and ran away. But your thinking is SO strange to me. It is so incoherent to hold that an omnipotent, infinite being wants humans to be brought closer to him. Why would an omnipotent being want finite, deeply flawed humans to be closer to him. What is the point of that? What would God have to gain?
@@Dhorpatan I actually remember conversing with you before. I remember leaving a debate where my opponent became increasingly condescending, arrogant, and rude, who seemed to purposely take my statements out of context in his responses and twist them to attempt to make his point - and thus the conversation became fruitless. I hope that doesn't happen again!
"Why would an omnipotent being want finite, deeply flawed humans to be closer to him. What is the point of that? What would God have to gain?"
Scripture teaches that God wants relationship out of love - it's really quite simple as that. The same reason a man & a woman fall in love and decide to have kids and start a family - because of love.
Have you ever read the Bible?
@@DhorpatanI hope you don't mind that I read your comments.
You asked an excellent question of "why would an omnipotent being want finite, deeply flawed humans to be closer to Him?"
Actually from my perception, your question provides the answer. Since God is/was our Creator and because we ( His creation) are deeply flawed ( no matter what the source of that "flaw" is ), God wants us to understand that He deeply loves us. So of course a deep love would desire a deeply flawed creation to desire a closer relationship with God. I don't think God Himself necessarily gains anything but His creation does. The point is that our finite life as a finite being is not the whole story. I personally think the story continues in the words and teachings of Jesus.
By the way, why do you think it's "incoherent"? Only God is all-knowing. I don't think God's desire for a relationship ( whatever that relationship entails) necessarily negates His omnipotence or His image of infinity. In fact, I think God's love for us supports a closer relationship with Him.
I'm no scholar so I'm somewhat open-minded to listen to various views. I think respect is important for good communication between people, no matter what beliefs they hold.
Respectfully from Florida USA
@@chrispark2698 I hope you don't mind that I read your comments. I like your observations.
God bless..
@@Dhorpatan"where you quit and ran away"
NOT "where maybe you didn't see I replied, or you got busy with life"
You seem way too eager to ascribe the worst to people. Why is that?
What if there is a God and it isnt represented by any known religion? What if it doesn't care whether we worship it or not? What if it just leaves the universe up to its own affairs?
Deism.
This argument doesnt rule that out, but it doesnt have to. Can be evidence for atheism over certain religions, but not for atheism over deism.
Then atheism is false and every so called "strong" atheist is an atheist for the wrong reasons
Hello John...
I appreciate your comments. I'm a Christian believer but I tend to agree with some of your observations.
Respectfully....
If WLC is the GOAT I think I'll go with the chicken
It such a non argument. Why wouldn't I expect religious disagreement? To the contrary, I find remarkable that in the history of mankind atheism is such an aberration.
People sleep on yhr argument from desire, but it perfectly articulates why cultures around the world, at all times, all with different information, are constantly aiming towards the same thing.
You'd expect atheists to synthesize world religions a bit more if this objection was legitimate (to create a weird type of syncreticism or perennialism), but they instead take the most opposite possible position to any of the "diverse" religions they use as a point against theology.
It's like asking 5 people where they want to grab dinner, getting 5 different answers, and as a result, going nowhere and thinking that's the best choice.
@@newglof9558 I like both your responses.
No disrespect, but you haven't read many atheist philosophers, have you? Religious confusion/disagreement is a very prominent argument against the existence of God. If God exists, we expect God to clearly reveal himself in such a way that there would be no confusion. However, if atheism is true, we are merely the result of mindless processes that don't appeal to God. This is not at all surprising if atheism is true. If atheism is true, there is no God and so there is no way in which God could lead us to figure out which religion is true. Notice, the religious confusion that we see in the world is precisely what we would expect if atheism were true.
@@markfullbrighton5070
I know what the argument is.
Yes, it is definitely a problem for some religions, Christianity is one.
Not any more that philosophical diversity is an argument against philosophy, or scientific diversity is an argument against science.
And science definitely has diversity! (Note the replication crisis)
Every time I see your name and especially that face in the avatar I have a negative reaction. You are so horrible. Similar to how I felt about ShockofGod and Nephy.🤣
The comparison has a key detail that you've overlooked. Science doesn't posit an all powerful being who (i) cares about scientific truth and (ii) is capable and desirous of clearing up misunderstandings among his created creatures. Those differences matter a great deal.
Theism does.
This only works for impersonal inert gods. Then you can compare it to philosophical concepts
Philosophy and science isn't an end all be all thing, they are both flexible and willing to change when new information is discovered. Religion is the complete opposite of that, you think you have all the answers to all questions and people who don't agree with you are doomed.
@RealAtheology that's a non sequitur. There are differences of theological position even within theism (such as religions like Christianity, Islam, paganism, etc), Christianity (such as denominations) or even within denominations like Catholicism (Thomism, Scotism, Suarism, Communio theology/nouvelle theologie). Varieties of scientific position don't negate science, varieties of philosophical position don't negate philosophy, varieties of theological position don't negate theology.
The positions exist even though the "object" of scientific/philosophical/theological inquiry remains the same.
At least the guitar is half hidden here, still the bookcase screams cliche imitation.
Religion is a function of culture which in my opinion proves gods are man made and created in our own image
The philosophical problem of religious diversity is an interesting topic, but I must say that justin is just sooooooo boring. 🥱🥱
Ouch!
@@RealAtheologyLol! I didn't think it was boring. Appreciate your charity. You put some of us Christians to shame.