Hey Roger, I saw some of your early videos a few years ago and your willingness to challenge your own beliefs left an impression on me. Seeing your videos, I realised that despite a lifelong interest in philosophy I'd never truly challenged my own worldview but rather just reinforced the beliefs that I already had. Partly due to your influence I took it on myself to correct that. Which has led me to a wonderful journey of discovery through Christian, Greek, Egyptian, Vedic, and many other amazing traditions, until finally I had to admit that I could no longer defend my previously so strongly held views on agnosticism. Thank you for that, and all the best.
Thank you very much for sharing this part of your story. It's humbling to know I could be of some help or encouragement as you've worked through this important issue. Thank you for telling me, and I hope you continue! The world is such a beautiful and interesting place. Have a wonderful night. God bless, -Roger
Hi Roger Just wanted to say that I really enjoy your videos and recommendations for books. I am Brazilian girl who really enjoy Philosophy and listen to people like you. Thank you Keep up with your videos Eme
Thank you very much for watching, and for your kind and encouraging comment, Eme! I'm glad to know that you enjoy reading and philosophy, too! Have a wonderful night.
Your videos are always interesting, Roger, thank you. I find it hard to relate to Atheists, but I think that is okay... God bless you and your family, always share your videos/content!
I always appreciate your kind comments! You bring a smile to my face. I remember you. Yes, while it's good to be able to reach out to atheists, I think they're the ones missing out, and its ok to not miss out with them. Have a wonderful day!
Good video. I left a like. I was curious to hear a review of some good theistic arguments, and was pleased to have dismissed the father christmas type God that so many believe in. Which is preposterous of course. 1. If something has to be a first cause, it can just as easily be the universe itself. In particular, the same question of where the universe comes from, applies to ask where does God come from. And if we answer God comes from nowhere, so we can just as easily posit that the universe comes from nowhere without inconvenience. This is particularly valid because we observe a universe that is completely self organizing in every way, and has internal mechanisms to manage all self organizing processes, such as the balance of forces, or Nash equilibriums. In fact, I think the mistake here is to think that the "beginning" is a time, when it's actually a place. There is no time before time, and so there is no time before time for a god to live in. So there is no beginning as such, and yet time is finite. 2. An infinite being by definition cannot be beyond space and time, because being so makes it finite. That is to say, either I am God myself, or God is not infinite, because the two ideas are self contradictory. Because if God is inifnite, then I am God. That leaves us with a finite God who is condemned to be excluded from space and time itself, and who lives outside of it like an envelope or an eggshell. But then I would ask, does the Universe of Space Time actually need an eggshell to contain it at all, couldn't the eggshell simply not exist? The universe that we observe can plausibly function exactyl the same way without the external and invisible eggshell of a god. 3. Reading the Greeks does suggest that Zeus and the Christian concept of God are the same ones. Both are cartoonified as a father Christmas, but in neither case do serious proponents argue that the comic book illustration is true. Zeus is more like a logos, and also a demigod like jesus, and also a being outside of space and time, like an envelope which is known as "the Father". 4. None of the arguments presented address why Christianity would be true, but in particular that every other major religion be false. If anything, I would expect either all of the religions to be true if Christianity were true. Otherwise if most religions are false, then I'd expect all of them to be false for the same reason. In fact, as one of the newest religions, it suggests that Christianity is one of the most vulnerable to copying from other religious traditions that had carried the information until that time. In fact Nietzsche quite rightly proposed that we owe these teachings to Zarathustra because he comes with the message before jesus does. 5. Jesus is a human being. That needs an explanation that is not ridiculous. Because we risk, in the case of jesus, coming logically back to a literal father christmas god who sleeps on a cloud. And that is preposterous. 6. People like DeGrasse Tyson are more properly called Scientists, not atheists. And they are quite rightly, and thankfully, studying evidence and ignoring beliefs. If we had knowledge of a God and his ways, we could use that knowledge to make computers. The fact that theists cannot do this, does suggest that their ideas are not knowledge, and are not understood, which makes it speculative and less pragmatic than truth, which we can call knowledge. This is the body of things that we know, and we know how they work. 7. The moral argument suffers from a subject object fallacy. A rock does not live the experience of good and evil, which are emotions that we feel, and instincts that we have, just as we have legs to walk, we have a moral compass to guide our acts. But, belief in God does not change the nature of the moral compass, just as believing in legs improves your ability to use legs to walk as a human, because reality doesnt depend on beliefs. Every person tends to have instinct as to what acts they do not want to happen to themselves, and many of us would abstract the particular to the general, and suppose that nobody would like to live those experiences. Things ilke loving one's family, and not wanting them to come to harm. 8. The planets aren't fine tuned. Almost all planets are dead. The reason we live on earth is because we are humans, and humans live on earth, not the other way around. Our biology is fune tuned to our conditions, because animals fine tune themselves to their conditions. 9. You don't need to believe in God to value a life, or anything at all. I value my dog's life. That's how it is. That which is valuable means that which we value. That's what it means. 10. All the benefits of religion can be had by anyone in general by taking decisions. Religion doesn't need to be true, because it contributes useful ideas. But anything that isn't real unless you believe in it, is imaginary by definition. 11. Show me what a Christian can do that a Hindu can't do. 12. Evil. Atheists also seem to believe in morality. And worse, criminals on average tend to believe in God, and so that belief doesn't seem to reduce evil, and it doesn0t help us to recognize what is evil either. In particular because God doesn't talk or give direction, we are guided by our conscience. If that's the same thing, that's fine, but it just means atheism and theism are the same thing wearing different clothes. In the end, the argument did sound overall like "I believe because I want to" without a really solid foundation. And so in terms of vocabulary, it seems to be more accurate to speak of a suspicion or a speculation than of truth. I'm always interested in looking at what evidence there is, and where it leads. I read the bible as well as other religious scriptures often by the way, they are good, even though i don't believe that the stories are literally true, I don't think there are ghosts or angels. I think those are phenomena of mind (thoughts, impressions), not independant beings.
As a cradle catholic I've never even considered atheism. Not bc I was told to believe in God but bc I've always felt this world was too beautiful, intricate, and complex for it to have just come out of nothing. If we can't wrap our minds around it then it's probably bc it comes from something greater than us. I never required proof bc logically it just made more sense to me. Like the saying "to a man of faith no explanation is necessary, to a man with no faith, no explanation is possible. I feel bad for those people.
I think it's wonderful that you've had the fullness of truth available to you your whole life! Atheism, to my mind, really isn't plausible, and there's no need for someone to wrestle with it. It's more common in our lifetimes, not because people are better versed in philosophy, theology, literature, or science, but because our culture is hollowed out. People might feel isolated, in pain, depressed, wonder if life has meaning, or, frankly, arrogant and lustful. I feel for those people, too. I genuinely hope they keep searching in humility. God, as you say, though not illogical, transcends the human mind (as does the universe itself). But He's knowable through Christ. Which is such a profoundly beautiful thing to me. Thanks for watching and for your comment!
@@rogermaxson2512 I think society is hurting for sure which increases atheism but I also think with technology advancements and college programming, people literally think they are too smart to believe in God. That it's antiquated and for less intelligent people. Which affirms arrogance on your list and reminds me of another quote (lol I have a lot of quotes).. it's in a Kansas song "and if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know". That quote humbles me a lot when I think I know something. But there is one thing I am sure about and that is Jesus Christ and His church ❤️🔥
Yes, many atheists have a bit of arrogance, thinking they're more intelligent by sheer fact of being atheists than all others. This is really cultural prejudice, I think, as it allows them to think their modernist presuppositions are greater than virtually every historical civilization in the world, around the globe, until recently. Daniel Dennet tried to label atheists as "brights", which is fairly condescending. But, many atheists are polite, humble folks. Nice Kansas quote!
Hi Roger, nice video! I am very interested in your study method and how you organize your inputs (especially from books i assume) in order to generate ideas and opinions. Do you use any method to remember the concepts? Do you use any digital apps? Do you take notes from books? I would be very happy if you made a video about it. Thank you very much for your work. Keep going💪, with love from Italy
Hey Roger I hope you are doing well. I noticed in your library your videos you mentioned that when you first started reading you could often get the facts but never the big picture. How were you able to eventually comprehend the books that you read? I’m new to reading but I love non-fiction and history but I often find it hard to remember anything. Do you have any tips for improving comprehension? Thank you!
Hi there! I can certainly relate to the difficulty! But it's good to know you see the value in important books and enjoy learning! I'll think about compiling some things that helped me in a short video. But a few things for now: -As I began to read some difficult old book, I noticed I'd get stuck when the author referred to some other older thinker or event, assuming the reader knew. Which I didn't. So, say a 1900's writer referred to Milton. I didn't know Milton, but realized he must be important, so, I'd go get a famous book by Milton and endeavour to read it or at least learn the basics about it. But, to understand Milton, one has to know Genesis and Christian imagery. So, I'd read Genesis. Then, I had a broader context going all the way through what I was reading from the 1900's. One cannot do that with everything all at once, but, for the larger points in the Great Conversation, it's helpful to do some here and there! -Learning to see the "Big Idea" a book is trying to make (if literature or philosophy or theology, etc), and not getting bogged down trying to memorize details is helpful. Then, seeing what that Big Idea is, how it was argued for, and what other great thinkers would think about it was eye opening. -Be aware of genres. This sounds obvious, but, even in terms of History, modern historians don't write like ancient historians. So, being somewhat aware of nuance really helps. I tended to read very literally in the past. But, of course, not everything is intended to be read so. Learning that helped. -Don't get discouraged. Learning to read better is a process! Most of us nowadays don't learn the greater context for things in school. So good on you for looking more deeply on your own! Happy Reading!
Great video Roger. I struggled frequently with my faith from the age of 14 up until last week at 25. That's when things really picked up for me in my beliefs. I had prayed for God's wisdom and understanding in my life and recently have really began to understand things about Him. I wish I would have done it a long time ago, but it was actually the first time I ever faithfully prayed for it. All my friends being atheist or agnostic didn't help either, I wish I ran into your videos back then as I'd have been able to help them more. But over the last 11 years it has become increasingly clear about what is true and what isn't. I watch as the people I know live their lives with no moralities or thoughts on a greater judgment, and its unfortunate how much suffering they go through. Not just to themselves but to others. I lived through it for a period of time, and it has really opened my eyes that there is something greater. Some will say you don't need to believe in God to be a good person, but It is increasingly harder, and for nothing. Some will say we are chance, but as you said, I can not believe that id be here typing as billions of neurons go off every second in my brain, looking at the beautiful sky outside my window, if there wasn't something else that allowed that to happen, that it was a flip of a coin. I could not simply deny that every time I come to a choice of morality, that there is not some small voice telling me right from wrong, and urging me to make the better decision. We are not simple, and questioning is a way we try to understand things of God. But no matter how much understanding we have of things of the world,universe, and the things that make it up, He designed it that we must still have faith in His truth. No matter how intelligent we become, having faith without seeing is glory to God, and must be so. And that, is the most beautiful thing I have ever recently come to understand. I would love to pick your brain and understand things from a more refined mind as yours, is there some way I can get in contact with you? If not i understand, but I feel it would be a great way to help me be able to build up my debating skills and be better able to converse with non believers, and give them a rebuttal and not turn them away from the faith. Thanks in advance.
I always find it interesting to hear stories like this because my story is so directly the opposite of this. I took very similar steps but ended up not believing. We humans are so incredibly biased because we can reach such opposite positions with the same information. To me it just looks like the way our mind works ends up deciding what we end up believing.
It would seem that way...Cosmic explosion with a built-in blue-print that allows for the fine-tuning of the universe, that he brought up. Yep, all of that came from literally nothing, outside of both time and space. No one behind it, no outside intelligence, no outside force driving it etc. With all due respect, you need to be stupid to believe in a godless Big Bang.
I appreciate you taking the time to listen! I do think you're wise to note that, sometimes, other than intellectual factors can be at play in decisions like this. I think, for many, disillusionment with religious leaders or church services, feeling isolated or disappointed in parts of our lives, and feeling that secularism is normal (because of our secularizing culture), can all be at play. For some very vocal atheists, feeling that we're smarter or better than religious people can be a factor. But you don't strike me as an arrogant person. For my own part, watching people suffer added emotional weight to my doubts. But I do think, taken as a whole, Theism simply has much better explanatory scope than atheism. It makes more sense of more of our experience with an elegant answer. With a Reality (for which we use the word God) in the picture, it suddenly makes sense, all at once, why the universe came into existence, why it was fined tuned for life to exist, why it's so beautiful at large and small scales, why there's so much order, why there's so much intricacy to DNA and subatomic structures, why we feel our love for people who mean the most to us is real and not just neurons firing in an order predetermined by physical laws 14 billion years ago, why human life has value and rights at all; on and on. God would make sense of all of it at once, and much more. For me, atheism would fail to make much sense of these things all at once, and could only ever offer tenuous answers to one point, and eventually retreat into skepticism about reality. And when taken to conclusion, leads to despair. A despair that isn't warranted. Even Nietzsche, though he tried to live with joviality, succumbed to the despair of his views. Thanks again for taking time to listen in. I hope you keep thinking about it all! Perhaps consider reading Dostoyevsky. I hope you have a wonderful night. -Roger
What a fantastic point about how atheism has to retreat further and further into skepticism which is not an advancement of knowledge. I'm currently on my own faith journey that mirrors Rogers in many ways. Currently discerning between traditional Protestantism and the Catholic faith. Thank you for your videos. They have been tremendously helpful!
I always find it peculiar when Christians bring up the ‘Problem of Evil’ when discussing the existence of God. It’s irrelevant. It would only be a talking point if you choose to define your God as omni-benevolent and there is no reason you have to do that. The Kalam doesn’t get you to God. No one knows what came ‘before’ the universe or even if there was a ‘before’. Those that claim to know should be distrusted. I can easily postulate a scenario where there is a, ‘before’ the universe where none of the human Gods can possibly exist and it has just as much weight as your explanation, since nobody knows. Your ‘want’ for a ‘moral good’ is irrelevant to whether one exists. Your claim for the supernatural, is just that, a claim. Then you claim God is the grounding for morality because he is ‘goodness’. This is just a popular attribute of the Christian God, so is not relevant as to whether any God exists. A reasonable order would be, show the supernatural exists, then that Gods exist in the supernatural, then that your particular God exists, then that he 'thinks' the things you say. Your argument leads to the obvious question: As we see other species display moral behaviour. Do they have their own God or do they share ours? I would be interested in what you think morality actually is? Is it just DCT or do you think there's more to it. These days 'morality' is a word that gets kicked around, but often people mean very different things by it. FYI Mother Teressa mightn't be the best example! Again, another argument for your religion, and once again irrelevant to whether a God exists. The entire world could agree that your religion ‘has the best rules’ (it doesn’t, but that’s not important), but that wouldn’t make a God real. The Fine Tuning Argument, does not help, as no one has demonstrated that the universe could be any other way. The fact that the universe looks fine-tuned does not mean that it is. Even if it is, I can posit a scenario where none of the human Gods can exist. Your uncomfortableness with the facts of reality and a wish for deeper meaning and worth, exist in the majority of people, but that in and of itself does not necessitate their existence.
''The Fine Tuning Argument, does not help, as no one has demonstrated that the universe could be any other way. The fact that the universe looks fine-tuned does not mean that it is.'' oh boy. All that denial must be exhausting! I feel for you. ua-cam.com/video/DzPATGVsykw/v-deo.html
I truly don’t want to sound smug or rude here so with the upmost respect… you seem to be able to “easily” postulate a plethora of points and yet fail to establish one. I sense that you dont believe in morals being objective? Very interesting
@@jessidiaz1891 OK then, let’s take the first one, “a scenario where there is a, ‘before’ the universe where none of the human Gods can possibly exist”. Here you go: Our universe was created as a Tamagotchi type toy for the child of some higher species. This species does have a God and they know he’s real. In this scenario, there is a God, but he can never be our God. The likelihood of this scenario being true is unknown, much like all the other scenarios. I see no good evidence for objective morality, but that does not mean we cannot derive ‘objective moral standards’. I don't consider DCT objective by the way. If you think you have a way of demonstrating objective morality, the floor is yours. Also if you fancy answering either of my questions, feel free.
@@auntietheistjuror this is very simple… where is your evidence? Or are you just hypothesizing? I find your arguments to be absent by saying “I dont see evidence of what Mr Maxson is saying, because I can therefore say xyz.” Where is the substance in that? And to entertain you briefly… regarding there being objective morals… if you see a woman on the street walking by with a child and some person assaults them… you’re of the mind that theres no objective evil or wrong in that? Theres alot of mental gymnastics exercised there to come to that conclusion. If there is no God, if there is no objective morality, then everything is allowed. Period. Have a great day auntie
As you might be aware, many atheist intellectuals would disagree with much of what you've said here. The Problem of Evil is often seen as the greatest threat to Theism (in the classical sense). From the philosopher David Hume to current thinkers like Neil deGrasse Tyson and even possibly as far back as Epicurus, it's been postulated as a possible logical defeater of Theism. I'm glad you realize that it's not! But, this is why some Christians bring it up. I bring it up partly because it was difficult for me in my practical life. I do find it interesting, though, if nothing is good, that you say my religion doesn't "have the best rules", betraying an assumption that value judgments are possible, which assumes some things are better than others. Btw, if nothing really matters and nothing is good, there's no reason to believe your arguments are good or your comment matters. You seem to feel they do though you believe they don't. Btw, *you* do matter. Perhaps consider reading Dostoyevsky. Have a great night!
Somebody makes a claim that matters to me and I think about it and of arguments that might support or debunk it and I look for logical flaws and fallacies and so on. So regarding theism: I come to the conclusion that I never heard of any convincing argument for the existence of a deity or several deities. Whether I'd believe in the existence of a deity if I'd cast away all intellectual reasons? Well, that would necessarily need to include getting rid of all the knowledge I have about the subject that leads to the position of not being convinced that a deity exists. So yeah, I guess if my reasoning skills and my knowledge on the subject were gone, and somebody would tell me about it, I might believe it. But then in that state I might believe anything, including a flat Earth or that the Moon was made of cheese. Humans have the inclination to believe in stuff like deities. It's part of who we are. We don't like questions unanswered, so if I don't have an answer we make one up. And this also plays a bit into the Barnum Effect: a common psychological phenomenon whereby individuals give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically to them, yet which are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. People fall very easily for nonsense like astrology because we have the psychological tendency to fall for that. In a similar way people willingly tend to believe in the existence of deities. But why would I cast away all reasoning skills and all knowledge I have on the subject? It seems to me that it would be quite important to know whether deities exist or not. Therefor we should put great effort into finding out whether that claim is actually true. And that means we shouldn't believe it willy-nilly but only when it is supported by good evidence, which, as far as I know, it isn't. I'd have liked to watch more of your video, but the lack of timestamps is a bit demotivating. I mean, some people could answer that question in 5 seconds. It's great that you go into detail, but when you create a 40 minute video about it, it would be useful to have timestamps so people know the contents of the video or can jump to parts that are of more interest to them.
@@jonpersson9962 As I said in my comment: I watched it for a while, then stopped watching it, because a 40 minute video on something that could be answered quickly seems to be excessively long. Now it could be that long for a good reason, but then some structure would be useful, or at least some timestamps so you have any idea what is talked about at what point in time. If I said something that makes no sense based on what is later said in the video, feel free to explain why.
Thank you for the video and your clarity of thought! I wonder if there are any atheists (with all the arguments they make) who exist who have never formally heard of God; Did Christianity really create a band of atheists (more as protestors)? Are today's atheists more believers of 'anti-christianity' given the hostility most have of theists, rather than those who are truly unbiased- after all one doesn't hear atheists speak about what they believe in on their own merit. They seem to be more bent on saying they are atheists since they can't understand a God who would allow disfunction in society. Would love to get your thoughts on this when you find the time.
As far as I know there are surely groups of people who had never had of the omni-god or monotheism but rather believed in spirits or nature deities. Christianity didn't create atheists because atheism predates Christianity. I don't think that many atheists are anti-christian, but rather some atheists are anti-theists, unsurprisingly. Your assumption on why atheists don't believe seems to be a strawman.
Margaret, I think you are on to something. Many atheists see themselves in a sort of neutral intellectual position. They aren't asserting beliefs. In their minds, they are simply refusing to fall for superstitions posited without good evidence. But, (even as evidenced by a couple of the sillier, less mature comments on this post), they are often aggressive in asserting their own views, unaware that professional atheist philosophers would find their views ill-considered. Really, they are, as you say, protestors against established religions, a god they see as a dictator or fairy tale, and likely ignorant or mean-spirited religious people, or really religious overreach (in their minds). Throughout history, the natural state of humanity is not atheist. Around the globe for all of history, from native nations on this continent to the Egyptians, to Africa and the East, Human beings have been religious by nature, whether they worship the One God or something else. Atheists often think they are enlightened by science and reason to supplant these dark superstitions of the past. But, this is often because they're fairly unaware of the past, and can even be downright modernist arrogance. Even prejudice. But, I do think many people are realizing the shortcomings in the slick, shallow atheism that became rampant a decade ago or so, and are trying to read and think things through a bit better. A positive development in my book. I hope you have a great night!
"...are there any reasons, other than intellectual reasons, that might keep you from thinking God is real..." Nope. If anything, the opposite. I'd like there to be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being in charge of things. Unfortunately, reality demonstrates that either there's no good reason to believe it, at best, or that it's definitely false, at worst. "...came to existence some finite time in the past..." Maybe. That's one way to look at it. There are other ways, and we can't tell which, if any, of them are correct. Two which have been considered are that a) there is an eternal reality that exists as a quantum field, and every so often it spits out a universe, and b) time 'passing' is an illusion of our limited perspective, the universe as a whole, past, present, and future, exists as an essentially solid, unchanging block and always has. "...everything that begins to exist has a cause that brought it into existence..." The problem we have here is that every example we have of something 'beginning to exist' is a matter of perceptual pattern matching. That is, chairs don't 'begin to exist' in the way the universe would have if going by your model (of them coming into existence). Rather, we recognize chairness in a thing as a sort of meta-pattern, and an exemplar of that comes to be by rearranging matter and energy. In fact _all_ examples we have of _anything_ 'beginning to exist' is an example of this. The sole exception to this would seem to be quantum fluctuations... but those are coming out of 'nothing' (or possibly a quantum field, like the eternal one mentioned earlier) and seemingly _without_ having a cause. This makes this portion of things either untrue or an equivocation fallacy on the term 'begins to exist'. "...these things are contingent..." But is the _whole_ contingent? We don't know, and it would be a fallacy of composition to suggest it must be just because every part of it is. "...and if we know it's unjust..." This, right here, is the problem. What we consider 'unjust' has changed a lot over time, as a group, and some people even in their lifetime. Mostly our morals come from society, laced with our own interpretations and experiences. We get upset when the rules are violated _because_ the rules were violated. The Muslim who watches a quran being defaced feels the same way you do about watching a child being abused. "...God's nature itself is goodness..." Which really doesn't help. It just puts the layer one step back as to why those aspects are what they are. Not 'why is God's nature goodness', but rather 'why is X part of God's nature'. It comes down to 'it just is', but if we can go that route... then we don't _need_ a god for goodness, it could 'just be'. "...charity is a misfiring neuron..." I don't know if he said this, but it's not at all required. Perhaps it was that way at the start, as _all_ evolution comes from slight changes, and brain patterns are no different. However when charity _turned out to_ be useful, because it drew groups together to work better, thus increasing the odds of survival of the group and, consequently, the _individuals_ who _make up_ that group, the trait continued. "...we do know that they're very... precise..." Kind of? Part of the problem is that we don't know if they even _could be_ something else. We assign a number to them, and reason that because it's a number it _might have been_ some other number, but... well, could it? We don't know. Moreover, part of the argument that they have to be what they are is by working out what happens if you change one but leave the others the same, making the assumption that they are entirely independent (which is good science since we don't have a reason to think they're connected right now, _but_ which may be incorrect). However if one starts fiddling with them _all,_ there's a narrow, but not insanely small area of variation where it would all work out. "...that all this is simply chance..." Maybe it's unalterable, effectively it must necessarily be the case that gravity is what it is, it couldn't possibly be otherwise. At which point, there's no 'chance' involved. It's just a brute fact of reality. "...if God is real, your life objectively matters..." Nope. It's still subjective, just 'to God'. God is _a_ mind, but not the _only_ mind. God couldn't make chocolate _objectively_ taste good, even if God likes chocolate. The smell of burning flesh isn't objectively good, even though God likes it. "...some things really are evil... murder..." The idea that "murder is wrong" (or evil), along with rape and theft, are all tautologies. Oppression, too. Each one starts out with an action that is okay in some contexts, not in others. Killing other humans? Okay in some contexts, not in others. Sexual contact? Okay in some contexts, not in others. Taking things from people? Okay in some contexts, not in others. Restricting a person from doing things? Okay in some contexts, not in others. We have special labels for the 'unjustified' versions of these things, and then say they are unjustified. 'Murder is evil' would translate to 'an unjustified killing is unjustified'. Which tells us nothing, because we have no way to say something is 'really' unjustified, more that we have a _prefernce_ for some things over others. But since we have to work together to survive, we end up codifying what's justified and what isn't so we can all live by the same rules, and then we continue to argue and bicker over what those rules should be. This is _exactly_ what we see of society and through time, and is _exactly_ what we should _expect_ if there is no such thing as objective morality. Even our feelings _about_ things within that moral framework fit exactly with what we should predict. We get upset when people cheat at _board games,_ we're _very much_ invested in rules because _rules_ are what make a society of our size possible. We don't have to be _aware_ of that fact, it'll just work out that way in the long run through evolution. Just consider what would happen to American society _tomorrow_ if there were suddenly no rules, and you just did whatever you wanted. It'd be chaos, and the whole U.S. would likely crumble in months. People would get into fights, kill, steal, and nothing would be produced, no one would share, and so on. Without rules to bind us, we lose civilization, and civilization has been a _huge_ survival advantage. Those that tend towards civilization did better than those that didn't, and any society that starts heading back down, away from civilization, will get wiped out over time, either by their own decay, or just by being out-competed by other groups. "...love is obviously more than that..." No, it isn't. The searing pain I feel when I burn myself is just as much an impression of the brain, the dread I feel when my life is in danger. None of that requires more than brain chemistry to explain. That we sometimes get emotional about the explanation for such intensity being 'these several million neurons fired in this way' doesn't dictate the reality of it. You asked at the start if there were non-intellectual reasons that kept us atheists from accepting a god. Maybe you should ask if there are non-intellectual reasons for you not accepting the power of brain chemistry (and possibly quantum effects) upon your mental state. Oh, and then go get drunk and have someone record you, or high if that's legal where you are, and get recorded. Your feelings, your reactions, change... because your _brain chemistry_ has changed. You can also talk to people who have mental health issues who take medications that help with those things. It can be night and day. "...most atheists think that little girl's life is valuable, but there's no reason in atheism to think that's the case..." X is 'valuable' because we value it, for all X. It's subjective. If you want to see this, look into places where we think lives are _not_ valuable and see how we behave. We generally just don't care, of sometimes are actively hostile. This includes between humans, but also across species. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as 'objective value'. Have a nice day!
I appreciate the way you addressed the issue here. I think secular atheism has been given too much leeway over the past few decades. It has nothing to offer, morally or intellectually, except histrionic naysaying. It’s empty and emptying. On another issue, it seems to me that the doctrine of deification (Greek theosis) goes a long way to address the problem of evil. I was wondering what you thought about that?
I fully agree on both counts! Atheism takes shots at every other view and pretends to be neutral and objective. Which is silly. And, though it tears down, can offer nothing in return. Regarding the POE, yes! I think the Christian message is not just a legal "you're not guilty," but a "the world and our nature can be restored by grace." This is one reason I became Catholic.
so with no evidence, a human decides to worship some nonsense, which can't be shown true. He picks one version, sure that the other versions are wrong, but funny how all versions have no more evidence than the next. gee, the first cause argument once again, which every cult tries to use and not one can show their god merely exists, much less created anything at all. Mere Christianity is great. Lewis say to lie to potential converts and hide how splintered this cult is: "And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son." - preface, Mere Christianity. Curious how this supposed god hates lies and liars. Lying is when you intentionally try to keep information from someone so they can't make an informed decision.
''So with no evidence'' Would evidence that has 93 billion light-years in diameter be acceptable to you, o man of great intellect?😂 You don't want there to be a God, and you ''reason'' accordingly. The rest of your post is nonsense and a bunch of fallacies.
Wow! You just dismantled Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Leibniz, Kant, Descartes, and Newton with that brilliant "cult" comment! I'm just playing around, in good humor. I take it you don't mind a little playful joshing, based on your rather snarky comment. I hope you have a good day... and maybe really do read more. Aristotle's Metaphysics is a classic.
@@rogermaxson2512 Poor Rog, all you have is a lovely appeal to authority fallacy and still no evidence for your imaginary friend. Yep, smart people can believe in false things, just like all of those poor fellows did. you still fail, dear. Aristotle didn't believe in your imaginary friend dear, so he wasn't in your particular cult. All the first cause argument does is say things begin, not that your god or anything else is needed. Alas, aristotle didn't know about how the world really works. Christianity is a cult, or shall I say many cults that all try to claim the same name. Cult simply means religion, but the modern context is that a cult has some questionable nonsense in it. Let's see, your cult says to hate your family, to abandon your family, to give everything up for the cult and to mutilate your body. Sounds pretty culty to me.
Atheism is not if a god exist or not. Even If there is a god, but I do not know of it or believe in a god, then it is still true that I am an atheist. When you say "if Atheism is true" but mean, If there is no god , it make you come off as dumb or dishonest.
I don't see how your objection applies. Atheism is the position that God or Gods do not exist. Saying "if Atheism is true" is equivalent to saying "if the position that God does not exist is true". That is neither dumb nor dishonest.
i love your videos so much Roger. I’m an atheist and i find your insights and knowledge deeply inspirational to me, i sent you a message on Messenger, i admire you and am interested in corresponding with you if you would like
Hey Roger, I saw some of your early videos a few years ago and your willingness to challenge your own beliefs left an impression on me.
Seeing your videos, I realised that despite a lifelong interest in philosophy I'd never truly challenged my own worldview but rather just reinforced the beliefs that I already had. Partly due to your influence I took it on myself to correct that. Which has led me to a wonderful journey of discovery through Christian, Greek, Egyptian, Vedic, and many other amazing traditions, until finally I had to admit that I could no longer defend my previously so strongly held views on agnosticism.
Thank you for that, and all the best.
Thank you very much for sharing this part of your story. It's humbling to know I could be of some help or encouragement as you've worked through this important issue. Thank you for telling me, and I hope you continue! The world is such a beautiful and interesting place.
Have a wonderful night. God bless,
-Roger
You have a great library-
Hi Roger
Just wanted to say that I really enjoy your videos and recommendations for books. I am Brazilian girl who really enjoy
Philosophy and listen to people like you.
Thank you
Keep up with your videos
Eme
Thank you very much for watching, and for your kind and encouraging comment, Eme!
I'm glad to know that you enjoy reading and philosophy, too!
Have a wonderful night.
Your videos are always interesting, Roger, thank you. I find it hard to relate to Atheists, but I think that is okay... God bless you and your family, always share your videos/content!
I always appreciate your kind comments! You bring a smile to my face. I remember you.
Yes, while it's good to be able to reach out to atheists, I think they're the ones missing out, and its ok to not miss out with them.
Have a wonderful day!
Good video. I left a like.
I was curious to hear a review of some good theistic arguments, and was pleased to have dismissed the father christmas type God that so many believe in. Which is preposterous of course.
1. If something has to be a first cause, it can just as easily be the universe itself. In particular, the same question of where the universe comes from, applies to ask where does God come from. And if we answer God comes from nowhere, so we can just as easily posit that the universe comes from nowhere without inconvenience. This is particularly valid because we observe a universe that is completely self organizing in every way, and has internal mechanisms to manage all self organizing processes, such as the balance of forces, or Nash equilibriums. In fact, I think the mistake here is to think that the "beginning" is a time, when it's actually a place. There is no time before time, and so there is no time before time for a god to live in. So there is no beginning as such, and yet time is finite.
2. An infinite being by definition cannot be beyond space and time, because being so makes it finite. That is to say, either I am God myself, or God is not infinite, because the two ideas are self contradictory. Because if God is inifnite, then I am God. That leaves us with a finite God who is condemned to be excluded from space and time itself, and who lives outside of it like an envelope or an eggshell. But then I would ask, does the Universe of Space Time actually need an eggshell to contain it at all, couldn't the eggshell simply not exist? The universe that we observe can plausibly function exactyl the same way without the external and invisible eggshell of a god.
3. Reading the Greeks does suggest that Zeus and the Christian concept of God are the same ones. Both are cartoonified as a father Christmas, but in neither case do serious proponents argue that the comic book illustration is true. Zeus is more like a logos, and also a demigod like jesus, and also a being outside of space and time, like an envelope which is known as "the Father".
4. None of the arguments presented address why Christianity would be true, but in particular that every other major religion be false. If anything, I would expect either all of the religions to be true if Christianity were true. Otherwise if most religions are false, then I'd expect all of them to be false for the same reason. In fact, as one of the newest religions, it suggests that Christianity is one of the most vulnerable to copying from other religious traditions that had carried the information until that time. In fact Nietzsche quite rightly proposed that we owe these teachings to Zarathustra because he comes with the message before jesus does.
5. Jesus is a human being. That needs an explanation that is not ridiculous. Because we risk, in the case of jesus, coming logically back to a literal father christmas god who sleeps on a cloud. And that is preposterous.
6. People like DeGrasse Tyson are more properly called Scientists, not atheists. And they are quite rightly, and thankfully, studying evidence and ignoring beliefs. If we had knowledge of a God and his ways, we could use that knowledge to make computers. The fact that theists cannot do this, does suggest that their ideas are not knowledge, and are not understood, which makes it speculative and less pragmatic than truth, which we can call knowledge. This is the body of things that we know, and we know how they work.
7. The moral argument suffers from a subject object fallacy. A rock does not live the experience of good and evil, which are emotions that we feel, and instincts that we have, just as we have legs to walk, we have a moral compass to guide our acts. But, belief in God does not change the nature of the moral compass, just as believing in legs improves your ability to use legs to walk as a human, because reality doesnt depend on beliefs. Every person tends to have instinct as to what acts they do not want to happen to themselves, and many of us would abstract the particular to the general, and suppose that nobody would like to live those experiences. Things ilke loving one's family, and not wanting them to come to harm.
8. The planets aren't fine tuned. Almost all planets are dead. The reason we live on earth is because we are humans, and humans live on earth, not the other way around. Our biology is fune tuned to our conditions, because animals fine tune themselves to their conditions.
9. You don't need to believe in God to value a life, or anything at all. I value my dog's life. That's how it is. That which is valuable means that which we value. That's what it means.
10. All the benefits of religion can be had by anyone in general by taking decisions. Religion doesn't need to be true, because it contributes useful ideas. But anything that isn't real unless you believe in it, is imaginary by definition.
11. Show me what a Christian can do that a Hindu can't do.
12. Evil. Atheists also seem to believe in morality. And worse, criminals on average tend to believe in God, and so that belief doesn't seem to reduce evil, and it doesn0t help us to recognize what is evil either. In particular because God doesn't talk or give direction, we are guided by our conscience. If that's the same thing, that's fine, but it just means atheism and theism are the same thing wearing different clothes.
In the end, the argument did sound overall like "I believe because I want to" without a really solid foundation. And so in terms of vocabulary, it seems to be more accurate to speak of a suspicion or a speculation than of truth.
I'm always interested in looking at what evidence there is, and where it leads.
I read the bible as well as other religious scriptures often by the way, they are good, even though i don't believe that the stories are literally true, I don't think there are ghosts or angels. I think those are phenomena of mind (thoughts, impressions), not independant beings.
I am not Christian nor Atheist, but I like your perspective on these things!
Thanks for saying so, and for taking time to watch! I hope you're doing well.
As a cradle catholic I've never even considered atheism. Not bc I was told to believe in God but bc I've always felt this world was too beautiful, intricate, and complex for it to have just come out of nothing. If we can't wrap our minds around it then it's probably bc it comes from something greater than us. I never required proof bc logically it just made more sense to me.
Like the saying "to a man of faith no explanation is necessary, to a man with no faith, no explanation is possible.
I feel bad for those people.
I think it's wonderful that you've had the fullness of truth available to you your whole life! Atheism, to my mind, really isn't plausible, and there's no need for someone to wrestle with it. It's more common in our lifetimes, not because people are better versed in philosophy, theology, literature, or science, but because our culture is hollowed out. People might feel isolated, in pain, depressed, wonder if life has meaning, or, frankly, arrogant and lustful. I feel for those people, too. I genuinely hope they keep searching in humility. God, as you say, though not illogical, transcends the human mind (as does the universe itself). But He's knowable through Christ. Which is such a profoundly beautiful thing to me.
Thanks for watching and for your comment!
@@rogermaxson2512 I think society is hurting for sure which increases atheism but I also think with technology advancements and college programming, people literally think they are too smart to believe in God. That it's antiquated and for less intelligent people. Which affirms arrogance on your list and reminds me of another quote (lol I have a lot of quotes).. it's in a Kansas song "and if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know".
That quote humbles me a lot when I think I know something. But there is one thing I am sure about and that is Jesus Christ and His church ❤️🔥
Yes, many atheists have a bit of arrogance, thinking they're more intelligent by sheer fact of being atheists than all others. This is really cultural prejudice, I think, as it allows them to think their modernist presuppositions are greater than virtually every historical civilization in the world, around the globe, until recently. Daniel Dennet tried to label atheists as "brights", which is fairly condescending. But, many atheists are polite, humble folks.
Nice Kansas quote!
Hi Roger, nice video! I am very interested in your study method and how you organize your inputs (especially from books i assume) in order to generate ideas and opinions. Do you use any method to remember the concepts? Do you use any digital apps? Do you take notes from books? I would be very happy if you made a video about it. Thank you very much for your work. Keep going💪, with love from Italy
Hey Roger I hope you are doing well. I noticed in your library your videos you mentioned that when you first started reading you could often get the facts but never the big picture. How were you able to eventually comprehend the books that you read? I’m new to reading but I love non-fiction and history but I often find it hard to remember anything. Do you have any tips for improving comprehension? Thank you!
Hi there!
I can certainly relate to the difficulty! But it's good to know you see the value in important books and enjoy learning!
I'll think about compiling some things that helped me in a short video. But a few things for now:
-As I began to read some difficult old book, I noticed I'd get stuck when the author referred to some other older thinker or event, assuming the reader knew. Which I didn't. So, say a 1900's writer referred to Milton. I didn't know Milton, but realized he must be important, so, I'd go get a famous book by Milton and endeavour to read it or at least learn the basics about it. But, to understand Milton, one has to know Genesis and Christian imagery. So, I'd read Genesis. Then, I had a broader context going all the way through what I was reading from the 1900's. One cannot do that with everything all at once, but, for the larger points in the Great Conversation, it's helpful to do some here and there!
-Learning to see the "Big Idea" a book is trying to make (if literature or philosophy or theology, etc), and not getting bogged down trying to memorize details is helpful. Then, seeing what that Big Idea is, how it was argued for, and what other great thinkers would think about it was eye opening.
-Be aware of genres. This sounds obvious, but, even in terms of History, modern historians don't write like ancient historians. So, being somewhat aware of nuance really helps. I tended to read very literally in the past. But, of course, not everything is intended to be read so. Learning that helped.
-Don't get discouraged. Learning to read better is a process! Most of us nowadays don't learn the greater context for things in school. So good on you for looking more deeply on your own!
Happy Reading!
You have a beautiful soul!
Kind of you to say. Thanks for watching!
@@rogermaxson2512
Keep doing what you do bro...
Your family will be on my daily rosary prayer
Thank you, really, for your prayers.
Great video Roger. I struggled frequently with my faith from the age of 14 up until last week at 25. That's when things really picked up for me in my beliefs. I had prayed for God's wisdom and understanding in my life and recently have really began to understand things about Him. I wish I would have done it a long time ago, but it was actually the first time I ever faithfully prayed for it. All my friends being atheist or agnostic didn't help either, I wish I ran into your videos back then as I'd have been able to help them more. But over the last 11 years it has become increasingly clear about what is true and what isn't. I watch as the people I know live their lives with no moralities or thoughts on a greater judgment, and its unfortunate how much suffering they go through. Not just to themselves but to others. I lived through it for a period of time, and it has really opened my eyes that there is something greater. Some will say you don't need to believe in God to be a good person, but It is increasingly harder, and for nothing. Some will say we are chance, but as you said, I can not believe that id be here typing as billions of neurons go off every second in my brain, looking at the beautiful sky outside my window, if there wasn't something else that allowed that to happen, that it was a flip of a coin. I could not simply deny that every time I come to a choice of morality, that there is not some small voice telling me right from wrong, and urging me to make the better decision. We are not simple, and questioning is a way we try to understand things of God. But no matter how much understanding we have of things of the world,universe, and the things that make it up, He designed it that we must still have faith in His truth. No matter how intelligent we become, having faith without seeing is glory to God, and must be so. And that, is the most beautiful thing I have ever recently come to understand. I would love to pick your brain and understand things from a more refined mind as yours, is there some way I can get in contact with you? If not i understand, but I feel it would be a great way to help me be able to build up my debating skills and be better able to converse with non believers, and give them a rebuttal and not turn them away from the faith. Thanks in advance.
I always find it interesting to hear stories like this because my story is so directly the opposite of this.
I took very similar steps but ended up not believing.
We humans are so incredibly biased because we can reach such opposite positions with the same information.
To me it just looks like the way our mind works ends up deciding what we end up believing.
It would seem that way...Cosmic explosion with a built-in blue-print that allows for the fine-tuning of the universe, that he brought up. Yep, all of that came from literally nothing, outside of both time and space. No one behind it, no outside intelligence, no outside force driving it etc. With all due respect, you need to be stupid to believe in a godless Big Bang.
I appreciate you taking the time to listen!
I do think you're wise to note that, sometimes, other than intellectual factors can be at play in decisions like this. I think, for many, disillusionment with religious leaders or church services, feeling isolated or disappointed in parts of our lives, and feeling that secularism is normal (because of our secularizing culture), can all be at play. For some very vocal atheists, feeling that we're smarter or better than religious people can be a factor. But you don't strike me as an arrogant person.
For my own part, watching people suffer added emotional weight to my doubts. But I do think, taken as a whole, Theism simply has much better explanatory scope than atheism. It makes more sense of more of our experience with an elegant answer. With a Reality (for which we use the word God) in the picture, it suddenly makes sense, all at once, why the universe came into existence, why it was fined tuned for life to exist, why it's so beautiful at large and small scales, why there's so much order, why there's so much intricacy to DNA and subatomic structures, why we feel our love for people who mean the most to us is real and not just neurons firing in an order predetermined by physical laws 14 billion years ago, why human life has value and rights at all; on and on. God would make sense of all of it at once, and much more. For me, atheism would fail to make much sense of these things all at once, and could only ever offer tenuous answers to one point, and eventually retreat into skepticism about reality. And when taken to conclusion, leads to despair. A despair that isn't warranted. Even Nietzsche, though he tried to live with joviality, succumbed to the despair of his views.
Thanks again for taking time to listen in. I hope you keep thinking about it all! Perhaps consider reading Dostoyevsky.
I hope you have a wonderful night.
-Roger
What a fantastic point about how atheism has to retreat further and further into skepticism which is not an advancement of knowledge. I'm currently on my own faith journey that mirrors Rogers in many ways. Currently discerning between traditional Protestantism and the Catholic faith. Thank you for your videos. They have been tremendously helpful!
I always find it peculiar when Christians bring up the ‘Problem of Evil’ when discussing the existence of God. It’s irrelevant. It would only be a talking point if you choose to define your God as omni-benevolent and there is no reason you have to do that.
The Kalam doesn’t get you to God. No one knows what came ‘before’ the universe or even if there was a ‘before’. Those that claim to know should be distrusted.
I can easily postulate a scenario where there is a, ‘before’ the universe where none of the human Gods can possibly exist and it has just as much weight as your explanation, since nobody knows.
Your ‘want’ for a ‘moral good’ is irrelevant to whether one exists. Your claim for the supernatural, is just that, a claim. Then you claim God is the grounding for morality because he is ‘goodness’. This is just a popular attribute of the Christian God, so is not relevant as to whether any God exists. A reasonable order would be, show the supernatural exists, then that Gods exist in the supernatural, then that your particular God exists, then that he 'thinks' the things you say.
Your argument leads to the obvious question: As we see other species display moral behaviour. Do they have their own God or do they share ours?
I would be interested in what you think morality actually is? Is it just DCT or do you think there's more to it. These days 'morality' is a word that gets kicked around, but often people mean very different things by it.
FYI Mother Teressa mightn't be the best example!
Again, another argument for your religion, and once again irrelevant to whether a God exists. The entire world could agree that your religion ‘has the best rules’ (it doesn’t, but that’s not important), but that wouldn’t make a God real.
The Fine Tuning Argument, does not help, as no one has demonstrated that the universe could be any other way. The fact that the universe looks fine-tuned does not mean that it is. Even if it is, I can posit a scenario where none of the human Gods can exist.
Your uncomfortableness with the facts of reality and a wish for deeper meaning and worth, exist in the majority of people, but that in and of itself does not necessitate their existence.
''The Fine Tuning Argument, does not help, as no one has demonstrated that the universe could be any other way. The fact that the universe looks fine-tuned does not mean that it is.'' oh boy. All that denial must be exhausting! I feel for you.
ua-cam.com/video/DzPATGVsykw/v-deo.html
I truly don’t want to sound smug or rude here so with the upmost respect… you seem to be able to “easily” postulate a plethora of points and yet fail to establish one.
I sense that you dont believe in morals being objective?
Very interesting
@@jessidiaz1891 OK then, let’s take the first one, “a scenario where there is a, ‘before’ the universe where none of the human Gods can possibly exist”. Here you go:
Our universe was created as a Tamagotchi type toy for the child of some higher species. This species does have a God and they know he’s real. In this scenario, there is a God, but he can never be our God. The likelihood of this scenario being true is unknown, much like all the other scenarios.
I see no good evidence for objective morality, but that does not mean we cannot derive ‘objective moral standards’. I don't consider DCT objective by the way. If you think you have a way of demonstrating objective morality, the floor is yours. Also if you fancy answering either of my questions, feel free.
@@auntietheistjuror this is very simple… where is your evidence? Or are you just hypothesizing? I find your arguments to be absent by saying “I dont see evidence of what Mr Maxson is saying, because I can therefore say xyz.”
Where is the substance in that?
And to entertain you briefly… regarding there being objective morals… if you see a woman on the street walking by with a child and some person assaults them… you’re of the mind that theres no objective evil or wrong in that? Theres alot of mental gymnastics exercised there to come to that conclusion. If there is no God, if there is no objective morality, then everything is allowed. Period.
Have a great day auntie
As you might be aware, many atheist intellectuals would disagree with much of what you've said here. The Problem of Evil is often seen as the greatest threat to Theism (in the classical sense). From the philosopher David Hume to current thinkers like Neil deGrasse Tyson and even possibly as far back as Epicurus, it's been postulated as a possible logical defeater of Theism. I'm glad you realize that it's not! But, this is why some Christians bring it up. I bring it up partly because it was difficult for me in my practical life.
I do find it interesting, though, if nothing is good, that you say my religion doesn't "have the best rules", betraying an assumption that value judgments are possible, which assumes some things are better than others.
Btw, if nothing really matters and nothing is good, there's no reason to believe your arguments are good or your comment matters. You seem to feel they do though you believe they don't. Btw, *you* do matter.
Perhaps consider reading Dostoyevsky.
Have a great night!
Somebody makes a claim that matters to me and I think about it and of arguments that might support or debunk it and I look for logical flaws and fallacies and so on.
So regarding theism: I come to the conclusion that I never heard of any convincing argument for the existence of a deity or several deities.
Whether I'd believe in the existence of a deity if I'd cast away all intellectual reasons? Well, that would necessarily need to include getting rid of all the knowledge I have about the subject that leads to the position of not being convinced that a deity exists. So yeah, I guess if my reasoning skills and my knowledge on the subject were gone, and somebody would tell me about it, I might believe it. But then in that state I might believe anything, including a flat Earth or that the Moon was made of cheese.
Humans have the inclination to believe in stuff like deities. It's part of who we are. We don't like questions unanswered, so if I don't have an answer we make one up. And this also plays a bit into the Barnum Effect: a common psychological phenomenon whereby individuals give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically to them, yet which are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.
People fall very easily for nonsense like astrology because we have the psychological tendency to fall for that. In a similar way people willingly tend to believe in the existence of deities.
But why would I cast away all reasoning skills and all knowledge I have on the subject? It seems to me that it would be quite important to know whether deities exist or not. Therefor we should put great effort into finding out whether that claim is actually true. And that means we shouldn't believe it willy-nilly but only when it is supported by good evidence, which, as far as I know, it isn't.
I'd have liked to watch more of your video, but the lack of timestamps is a bit demotivating. I mean, some people could answer that question in 5 seconds. It's great that you go into detail, but when you create a 40 minute video about it, it would be useful to have timestamps so people know the contents of the video or can jump to parts that are of more interest to them.
It doesn’t sound like you actually watched the video?
@@jonpersson9962 As I said in my comment: I watched it for a while, then stopped watching it, because a 40 minute video on something that could be answered quickly seems to be excessively long. Now it could be that long for a good reason, but then some structure would be useful, or at least some timestamps so you have any idea what is talked about at what point in time.
If I said something that makes no sense based on what is later said in the video, feel free to explain why.
Thank you for the video and your clarity of thought! I wonder if there are any atheists (with all the arguments they make) who exist who have never formally heard of God; Did Christianity really create a band of atheists (more as protestors)? Are today's atheists more believers of 'anti-christianity' given the hostility most have of theists, rather than those who are truly unbiased- after all one doesn't hear atheists speak about what they believe in on their own merit. They seem to be more bent on saying they are atheists since they can't understand a God who would allow disfunction in society. Would love to get your thoughts on this when you find the time.
As far as I know there are surely groups of people who had never had of the omni-god or monotheism but rather believed in spirits or nature deities.
Christianity didn't create atheists because atheism predates Christianity.
I don't think that many atheists are anti-christian, but rather some atheists are anti-theists, unsurprisingly.
Your assumption on why atheists don't believe seems to be a strawman.
Margaret,
I think you are on to something. Many atheists see themselves in a sort of neutral intellectual position. They aren't asserting beliefs. In their minds, they are simply refusing to fall for superstitions posited without good evidence. But, (even as evidenced by a couple of the sillier, less mature comments on this post), they are often aggressive in asserting their own views, unaware that professional atheist philosophers would find their views ill-considered. Really, they are, as you say, protestors against established religions, a god they see as a dictator or fairy tale, and likely ignorant or mean-spirited religious people, or really religious overreach (in their minds).
Throughout history, the natural state of humanity is not atheist. Around the globe for all of history, from native nations on this continent to the Egyptians, to Africa and the East, Human beings have been religious by nature, whether they worship the One God or something else. Atheists often think they are enlightened by science and reason to supplant these dark superstitions of the past. But, this is often because they're fairly unaware of the past, and can even be downright modernist arrogance. Even prejudice.
But, I do think many people are realizing the shortcomings in the slick, shallow atheism that became rampant a decade ago or so, and are trying to read and think things through a bit better. A positive development in my book.
I hope you have a great night!
"...are there any reasons, other than intellectual reasons, that might keep you from thinking God is real..."
Nope. If anything, the opposite. I'd like there to be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being in charge of things. Unfortunately, reality demonstrates that either there's no good reason to believe it, at best, or that it's definitely false, at worst.
"...came to existence some finite time in the past..."
Maybe. That's one way to look at it. There are other ways, and we can't tell which, if any, of them are correct.
Two which have been considered are that a) there is an eternal reality that exists as a quantum field, and every so often it spits out a universe, and b) time 'passing' is an illusion of our limited perspective, the universe as a whole, past, present, and future, exists as an essentially solid, unchanging block and always has.
"...everything that begins to exist has a cause that brought it into existence..."
The problem we have here is that every example we have of something 'beginning to exist' is a matter of perceptual pattern matching. That is, chairs don't 'begin to exist' in the way the universe would have if going by your model (of them coming into existence). Rather, we recognize chairness in a thing as a sort of meta-pattern, and an exemplar of that comes to be by rearranging matter and energy. In fact _all_ examples we have of _anything_ 'beginning to exist' is an example of this. The sole exception to this would seem to be quantum fluctuations... but those are coming out of 'nothing' (or possibly a quantum field, like the eternal one mentioned earlier) and seemingly _without_ having a cause.
This makes this portion of things either untrue or an equivocation fallacy on the term 'begins to exist'.
"...these things are contingent..."
But is the _whole_ contingent? We don't know, and it would be a fallacy of composition to suggest it must be just because every part of it is.
"...and if we know it's unjust..."
This, right here, is the problem. What we consider 'unjust' has changed a lot over time, as a group, and some people even in their lifetime.
Mostly our morals come from society, laced with our own interpretations and experiences. We get upset when the rules are violated _because_ the rules were violated. The Muslim who watches a quran being defaced feels the same way you do about watching a child being abused.
"...God's nature itself is goodness..."
Which really doesn't help. It just puts the layer one step back as to why those aspects are what they are. Not 'why is God's nature goodness', but rather 'why is X part of God's nature'. It comes down to 'it just is', but if we can go that route... then we don't _need_ a god for goodness, it could 'just be'.
"...charity is a misfiring neuron..."
I don't know if he said this, but it's not at all required. Perhaps it was that way at the start, as _all_ evolution comes from slight changes, and brain patterns are no different. However when charity _turned out to_ be useful, because it drew groups together to work better, thus increasing the odds of survival of the group and, consequently, the _individuals_ who _make up_ that group, the trait continued.
"...we do know that they're very... precise..."
Kind of? Part of the problem is that we don't know if they even _could be_ something else. We assign a number to them, and reason that because it's a number it _might have been_ some other number, but... well, could it? We don't know. Moreover, part of the argument that they have to be what they are is by working out what happens if you change one but leave the others the same, making the assumption that they are entirely independent (which is good science since we don't have a reason to think they're connected right now, _but_ which may be incorrect). However if one starts fiddling with them _all,_ there's a narrow, but not insanely small area of variation where it would all work out.
"...that all this is simply chance..."
Maybe it's unalterable, effectively it must necessarily be the case that gravity is what it is, it couldn't possibly be otherwise. At which point, there's no 'chance' involved. It's just a brute fact of reality.
"...if God is real, your life objectively matters..."
Nope. It's still subjective, just 'to God'. God is _a_ mind, but not the _only_ mind. God couldn't make chocolate _objectively_ taste good, even if God likes chocolate. The smell of burning flesh isn't objectively good, even though God likes it.
"...some things really are evil... murder..."
The idea that "murder is wrong" (or evil), along with rape and theft, are all tautologies. Oppression, too. Each one starts out with an action that is okay in some contexts, not in others. Killing other humans? Okay in some contexts, not in others. Sexual contact? Okay in some contexts, not in others. Taking things from people? Okay in some contexts, not in others. Restricting a person from doing things? Okay in some contexts, not in others. We have special labels for the 'unjustified' versions of these things, and then say they are unjustified. 'Murder is evil' would translate to 'an unjustified killing is unjustified'. Which tells us nothing, because we have no way to say something is 'really' unjustified, more that we have a _prefernce_ for some things over others. But since we have to work together to survive, we end up codifying what's justified and what isn't so we can all live by the same rules, and then we continue to argue and bicker over what those rules should be.
This is _exactly_ what we see of society and through time, and is _exactly_ what we should _expect_ if there is no such thing as objective morality. Even our feelings _about_ things within that moral framework fit exactly with what we should predict. We get upset when people cheat at _board games,_ we're _very much_ invested in rules because _rules_ are what make a society of our size possible. We don't have to be _aware_ of that fact, it'll just work out that way in the long run through evolution. Just consider what would happen to American society _tomorrow_ if there were suddenly no rules, and you just did whatever you wanted. It'd be chaos, and the whole U.S. would likely crumble in months. People would get into fights, kill, steal, and nothing would be produced, no one would share, and so on. Without rules to bind us, we lose civilization, and civilization has been a _huge_ survival advantage. Those that tend towards civilization did better than those that didn't, and any society that starts heading back down, away from civilization, will get wiped out over time, either by their own decay, or just by being out-competed by other groups.
"...love is obviously more than that..."
No, it isn't. The searing pain I feel when I burn myself is just as much an impression of the brain, the dread I feel when my life is in danger. None of that requires more than brain chemistry to explain. That we sometimes get emotional about the explanation for such intensity being 'these several million neurons fired in this way' doesn't dictate the reality of it.
You asked at the start if there were non-intellectual reasons that kept us atheists from accepting a god. Maybe you should ask if there are non-intellectual reasons for you not accepting the power of brain chemistry (and possibly quantum effects) upon your mental state.
Oh, and then go get drunk and have someone record you, or high if that's legal where you are, and get recorded. Your feelings, your reactions, change... because your _brain chemistry_ has changed. You can also talk to people who have mental health issues who take medications that help with those things. It can be night and day.
"...most atheists think that little girl's life is valuable, but there's no reason in atheism to think that's the case..."
X is 'valuable' because we value it, for all X. It's subjective. If you want to see this, look into places where we think lives are _not_ valuable and see how we behave. We generally just don't care, of sometimes are actively hostile. This includes between humans, but also across species. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as 'objective value'.
Have a nice day!
ua-cam.com/video/DzPATGVsykw/v-deo.html
dang why'd you have to explain it better than me it took me awhile to write my comment out
Did you enter the Catholic Church?
Yes
I appreciate the way you addressed the issue here. I think secular atheism has been given too much leeway over the past few decades. It has nothing to offer, morally or intellectually, except histrionic naysaying. It’s empty and emptying.
On another issue, it seems to me that the doctrine of deification (Greek theosis) goes a long way to address the problem of evil. I was wondering what you thought about that?
I fully agree on both counts! Atheism takes shots at every other view and pretends to be neutral and objective. Which is silly. And, though it tears down, can offer nothing in return.
Regarding the POE, yes! I think the Christian message is not just a legal "you're not guilty," but a "the world and our nature can be restored by grace." This is one reason I became Catholic.
so with no evidence, a human decides to worship some nonsense, which can't be shown true. He picks one version, sure that the other versions are wrong, but funny how all versions have no more evidence than the next.
gee, the first cause argument once again, which every cult tries to use and not one can show their god merely exists, much less created anything at all.
Mere Christianity is great. Lewis say to lie to potential converts and hide how splintered this cult is:
"And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no
tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we
are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our
own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come
to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son." - preface, Mere Christianity.
Curious how this supposed god hates lies and liars. Lying is when you intentionally try to keep information from someone so they can't make an informed decision.
''So with no evidence'' Would evidence that has 93 billion light-years in diameter be acceptable to you, o man of great intellect?😂
You don't want there to be a God, and you ''reason'' accordingly. The rest of your post is nonsense and a bunch of fallacies.
Wow! You just dismantled Plato, Aristotle, Anselm, Leibniz, Kant, Descartes, and Newton with that brilliant "cult" comment!
I'm just playing around, in good humor. I take it you don't mind a little playful joshing, based on your rather snarky comment. I hope you have a good day... and maybe really do read more. Aristotle's Metaphysics is a classic.
@@rogermaxson2512 Poor Rog, all you have is a lovely appeal to authority fallacy and still no evidence for your imaginary friend. Yep, smart people can believe in false things, just like all of those poor fellows did.
you still fail, dear. Aristotle didn't believe in your imaginary friend dear, so he wasn't in your particular cult. All the first cause argument does is say things begin, not that your god or anything else is needed. Alas, aristotle didn't know about how the world really works.
Christianity is a cult, or shall I say many cults that all try to claim the same name. Cult simply means religion, but the modern context is that a cult has some questionable nonsense in it. Let's see, your cult says to hate your family, to abandon your family, to give everything up for the cult and to mutilate your body. Sounds pretty culty to me.
Weil du lieber eine lüge lebst als die Wahrheit zu akzeptieren.....
that's the argument, it seems.
Promo`SM
Atheism is not if a god exist or not. Even If there is a god, but I do not know of it or believe in a god, then it is still true that I am an atheist. When you say "if Atheism is true" but mean, If there is no god , it make you come off as dumb or dishonest.
right, science is not actually atheist. it's just an encyclopedia of established facts.
@@dfjpr It's the method, but we often do use it in the way you say.
I don't see how your objection applies. Atheism is the position that God or Gods do not exist. Saying "if Atheism is true" is equivalent to saying "if the position that God does not exist is true". That is neither dumb nor dishonest.
@@isoldam I think I make it clear that I don't use this definition. Trying to push it on the me is dishonest.
@@niel-w1gso if there was a God, you would still not believe in Him?
i love your videos so much Roger. I’m an atheist and i find your insights and knowledge deeply inspirational to me, i sent you a message on Messenger, i admire you and am interested in corresponding with you if you would like