Reviewing Trent's ABORTION Debate with
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- Matt sits down with @TheCounselofTrent to discuss his recent debate with @destiny on the @whatever podcast.
Hallow: hallow.com/matt
🔥 Emmaus Academy (2 weeks free!) stpaulcenter.com/matt
Watch debate between Trent and Destiny here: ua-cam.com/users/liveo6nnaxit...
@KyleWhittington
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
0:30 Whatever Podcast
2:03 Origin of Destiny Debate
5:20 Pro-Death Arguments
6:30 Recapping the Debate
11:45 Confronting Evil
18:40 Prepping for the Debate
24:06 Refutting Destiny
30:54 Defining Consciousness
33:20 Refutting Destiny's Definitin Consciousness
36:10 Destiny's Questioning Tactics
38:32 Human Embryo Adoption
41:22 Addressing Subjective Morality
51:26 Heated Moment in the Debate
55:08 Intuition Pumping
58:04 Fetal Photos in Debate
1:02:12 Good Faith Discussions
1:05:20 Baptizing Embryos
1:07:24 Lackluster Definition of Consciousness
1:08:50 Unreasonable Pro-Life Expectations
1:13:57 Equal Rights Argument
1:15:15 Objective Morality
1:19:06 Reflecting on the Debate
1:20:48 Writing Just Laws
1:22:06 Relaxing Before Debates
1:22:34 Exposing Destiny's Failing
1:23:16 Destiny's Strongest Moments
1:24:16 SuperMan vs Goku
1:25:02 Burden of Proof Arguments
1:26:52 Surreal Numbers
1:28:00 Kalam Cosmological Argument
1:29:42 Human Rights Before Birth
1:38:26 Moral Progress of Humanity
1:42:52 Disagreements Proves Objective Truths
1:45:58 Resources for Debating
1:47:16 Laura Horn
1:49:28 Trent's Upcoming Work
2:07:20 Moral Progress of Humanity pt 2
2:14:18 Closing - Розваги
Support us on Locals: mattfradd.locals.com/support
Holocaust deniers mentioned alongside pedophiles?? Insanity. Sad.
This is Controlled Opposition Catholicism.
Pathetic. Sinister.
Please get Mark Queppet on your show. Catholic self development coach (not the guru type)
I think you would give him a boost to his following which all parties involved would benefit from
The "it's not a person" argument has always struck me as a backfill for a pre-existing belief that abortion should be legal. It's not based on first principles, but rather offered up as a rationalization for an existing belief.
Give the Trent v Destiny debate a listen, would be interested to hear your thoughts after
I don't think so in specific cases, like destiny's argument. I don't know whether I agree with Trent or Destiny, but I don't think that this is accurate.
@@GageMasonYeah, destiny changed his beliefs from pro-life after he explored the principles
Off topic, but Matt and Trent, I wanted to thank you both for a previous interview you’d done together. Trent’s book A Case for Catholicism was mentioned and I was dating a guy at the time who was a non-Catholic Christian. He converted and Trent’s book was a big part of his conversion. We’re married now. Thank you both and keep up the good work!
I got that same book when I was first looking into Catholicism and found it to be a little too advanced for me. I'm converting from Mormonism, so I was pretty unfamiliar with some of the topics that are common between Protestants and Catholics. The book just seemed to jump straight into apologetics rather than laying out the key doctrines with some basis for belief as an introduction to Catholicism.
I'm just about to finish up Trent's Why We're Catholic and I found it far more approachable. Different books for different levels, of course.
Just sharing my experience for people trying to share the Catholic faith or those that are interested in learning more and don't know where to start for an intro.
Hope it helps. I was scouring the comments for stuff like this when I started investigating.
I'll go back to the Case for Catholicism know that I have a better understanding of Catholicism!
Read THE GALILEA REPORT It names the priests who Pope FRANClS has given promotions to after they covered up abuse of children. THE Catholic church is still covering up abuse. They never changed. Read Francis' letter defendig Cardinal Wuerl, the one who used hush money on victims...read about the mother who saw the Cardinal who silenced her daughters become an advisor to Francis.
KEEP YOUR POPE AWAY FROM OUR KIDS...Enabling the church that abused thousands of kids.
@@sirshramp5934- Thank you so much. My son-in-law (raised Baptist) is not really religious- AT ALL. (He’s never even been baptized.) Basically says “I’m a good guy so I’ll go to heaven”… HOWEVER, they have 4 children all baptized & being raised catholic. With each baptism he is drawn closer & closer to the faith. Do you think this “Why we’re catholic,” would be a good book for him to start with? 🙏🏼✝️
@@kath0000 Hey! I think it could potentially.
In Why We're Catholic, Trent starts from the very beginning discussing topics such as "why we believe in God," "why we believe in Jesus," "why we believe in the Bible," and builds upon these as he transitions into discussing why we believe in the institution of the Catholic church, why we honor Mary, infant baptism, and other doctrines of the church that are particular to Catholicism.
It's a 40,000 foot view of these topics, so if he's estranged to Christiantiy and doesn't have a comprehensive view of Catholicism (which seems like it might be the case), I'm not sure there is a better book for him. It could be a great starting point for him to be introduced to the apologetics of these topics, which could lead him to further research on the matters. For me coming from Mormonism, Catholicism was so vast and different that I had no clue where to start in a logical, linear fashion. This book has been helpful for me to get my arms around it all and decide if I can believe it.
If he's more knowledgeable and is held back by some of his Protestant upbringing or is looking for more of a deeper apologetic dive to answer his hang ups, A Case for Catholicism may be a better fit.
Hopefully that helps. Even if it doesn't happen over night or with a single book, hopefully seeds are being planted and his evolution plays out over time. You just never know what is going to flip that switch in his mind.
When my wife and I came to the conclusion that we were going to leave Mormonism, the first thing we both promised each other was that we wouldn't become Catholic. About a year later we're halfway through RCIA and are eagerly awaiting full membership in the Catholic faith. Ha ha. It's been a wonderful journey and I love sharing. God is good.
I wish you and your family luck!
The abortion debate brought me back into the Catholic Church after being an atheist for 20+ years. When politicians began agitating for abortion without limits around 2020 or so, I started questioning the Democratic Party, of which I had been a member for 40 years, and ultimately my whole world view.
God bless you, sister. Welcome home
Nice
God has called you home!
Press X to doubt.
I can’t support the anti abortion people. It’s an unrealistic law that serves no societal cause other than the moralization of sex
The way I see it, if Catholics are too tempted by the whatever podcast, they shouldn't be watching. However, that podcast is not aimed at Catholics and it's good to spread Catholic messaging. It may spark something in someone
Michael Knowles, Trent Horn. We need more Catholics there. I think they do better than the Protestants like Chase there.
In a way that's true. That's why I stopped watching the whatever podcast and other 'red pill' channels, (It poisoned my mind too quickly) unless there are exceptions, for example, Trent debating someome who is prochoice. Other than that, I rather spend my time doing something else more productive like reading
@Roxasguy13 whatcha reading?
When I first heard that the "Inspiring Philosophy" Channel guy, was gonna publically debate a Muslim Scholar on, "Should Child Marriage be Internationally Legalized," I was like: "What the *bleep*! Why is this even debatable in 21st-Century society!" But then within 1min of his opening statements, the Christian guy made the very same point. He literally said, "Even most heathen civilizations put this question to bed 3 hundred years ago." And I was like, "Muslims hate to be compared to heathens, so maybe we NEED this conversation to happen."
You can count on me to buy a copy of Trent's, "Against Liberal Catholicism," when it comes out. And I'm the parish Librarian here in Lexington, OH, and I'm putting a copy on the shelf.
Destiny was internally consistent. But my gosh, he was fighting every single human intuition there. It's a good demonstration of why pro-abortion debaters usually argue from the moral pro-choice framework
he mentioned it a lot because of how the entire discussion would be framed from uninformed audiences like urself who cant see the nuances. trent tried to put destiny in a box for optics and he didnt want to allow that. its just optics, had nothing to do with the core of the discussion
@Unknown-zt1ru Well yeah, because Destiny intentionally doesn't pick a box, and constantly stitches positions together based on his moral relativism. All the "nuances" are tangential, and his position on what consciousness is or when it's present or how it compares to animal consciousness either changed or were totally pliable to him at the time. If he weren't so inconsistent there wouldn't be so many inconsistencies with his positions, kinda stands to reason, you know?
@@Unknown-zt1ruThe older I get, the more sus I find the term “nuance.”
@@Unknown-zt1ru No, he just rationalized extreme agnosticism going so far as to admit that chattle slavery was not innately immoral. No one honestly thinks that. No one honestly thinks that it's okay to molest a baby without brain function. Destiny is forced to take those positions because he's an intellectually honest materialist who sacrifices human intuition for his atheistic worldview
I think Trent was soundly winning this debate out the gate, especially optically with his barrage of well-framed hypotheticals, but Destiny proved himself to be radically good faith biting all those juicy bullets. What really reversed the momentum was Trent's unwillingness to bite similar bullets/attempts to weasel out of the "64 Cell Petri Dish" hypothetical and "Women who terminate a 1st trimester embryo should be charged with murder" quandary. This really betrayed a duplicity in Trent's actual intuitions (a 1st trimester embryo isn't really afforded the same moral weight as a toddler) and stated beliefs that seriously damaged his credibility for me. You have to be willing to accept optically difficult truths inherent to your moral paradigm if you plan to convert anyone not already fully bought in to your ideology imo.
Trent is so brilliantly correct at the beginning. I was a hardcore atheist who became pro life because I was convinced of the logic of that position without reference to God. And then, I began to pursue the deeper premises behind the pro life position and converted to Catholicism.
same
I'm curious, what was the argument or logic that ultimately convinced you?
Don’t think you are 100% honest, seems like the two things were heavily linked….
My case is opposite I was a hardcore Christian but later felt like it had made me a terrible hateful person. One day I came across an abortion debate and made a decision to leave christianity for good. Now I finally feel like a free human being not living in the shackles of a man made religion
@@xHannibal It wasn't "one thing". I think watching apologetics online as well as Jordan Peterson's Genesis lecture was pretty influential.
Moral relativism by itself is not self-refuting, saying that we should live in accord with moral relativism is. There can’t be no absolute moral truths and at least one absolute moral truth at the same time
That’s why such a system should stick to intuitions wherever possible. If most people have the same intuitions, then they can follow a well-trodden path when entering the mysterious forest of relativism. And if we can all roughly agree, then perhaps we can have a democratic government over our society.
I don’t think saying “we should live in accord with” any proposed moral principle refutes/conflicts with moral relativism. Are you assuming “should” can only apply if it’s a divine commandment or a rule derived from some objective moral ether? I can say “Morality is relative” and “A society in which murder is allowed will be a far more dangerous and unpleasant than one in which it’s shamed and punished; therefore, we should accept the moral principle of ‘thou shalt not murder.’”
I can say a painter should study Michelangelo while still maintaining that art is a subjective discipline.
Are you absolutely sure about that?
@@FirstJohn2.12-17 Authority is irrelevant, but the basis was implied in my construction. Hypothetical imperatives are perfectly logical so long as they correspond to reality. “If you want to survive, you should drink water” is another way of saying “Drinking water will help you survive.” Saying that murder will lead to consequences you won’t like (even if that consequence is simply that I / God / the government will punish you for doing it) is sufficient to say “[If you want to avoid consequences you won’t like,] you should not murder [because if you murder, consequences you won’t like will follow].” Most of the time our “shoulds” have “if you want” hypotheticals baked in. Otherwise, the shoulds fall apart and become meaningless. Even a “You should or else” assumes the person you’re talking to cares to avoid the implied threat.
Think of personal affinities as the engine that powers any moral system or “machine.” If you take affinities/subjective desires out of the machine, it won’t work. That doesn’t make moral systems arbitrary, however, as the subjective desires serve as the basis for one to accept the obligation of an “should.” So-called “objective” morality is the only system I know of that is explicitly arbitrary (“You should not X.” “Why?” “Because you objectively shouldn’t.”).
Authority is only relevant insofar as it creates incentives. The “shall” in God saying “You shall not murder [or I’ll punish you in the afterlife / because I know that rule will create a society you’ll like / etc]” works because of the implied punishment and reward we stand to incur for heeding the command.
Why debate? Among other reasons, nominal Catholics need to hear it.
Yeah. The reason you should enter a debate is to advocate your position to the audience not win over the other person.
As a catholic who is trying to work on my faith and all that jazz, i really needed this conversation. Thank you!!!
Thank you for standing against the totalitarianism of ‘don’t debate’.
That doesnt exist.
@@ChillAssTurtle yes it does exist and your a npc who just repeats left leaning athiest talking points without backing it up with evidence. You only care about confirming your perverse worldview in your npc brain and rationalising lies
@@ChillAssTurtleyou need to deny it to lie to yourself and others that your moral while your not
@@sigmanocopyrightmusic8737 christianity is morally bankrupt, you have no idea what youre talking about lol
Trent literally said he would not debate someone when this person has a opinion he do not want other people to think about.
13:15
Destiny's reason for saying Trent is intuition pumping, is that by using the terms "newborn" or "baby" or other words like that, it's sort of begging the question. The whole debate is about when a human being becomes a person and when you use certain words or phrases, "person" is an implied quality of that thing. I understood what he is saying but perhaps he could have been more clear.
I was bother by trent's rejection of that also. Maybe he doesn't think intuition pumping is the correct term - but he's obviously doing something along those lines at certain points. Agree or disagree with the use, but it's clearly what he's doing
@@fjordan2345 How is telling the truth wrong?
@@boguslav9502 It's also the truth that people that can not move anymore or are stuck to machines in a hospital, yet alive, are useless to society and all they do is hog up resources when it's clear his situation won't change. So me saying we should just stop supporting him because it's a pit that won't get filled, wrong? Or is it okay for me to say?
On top of that, the whole debate is about when does a fetus become a person or not. THAT is the debate.
@@boguslav9502 you're literally doing the thing lol, wooosh
@@seanmundyphoto not really, I get what destiny means, however if the truth is the truth then you don't need to change language to say it, or at least shouldn't, if the person you are discussing is genuine and honest. If not then the entire discussion is a farce.
"You cant domesticate zebras, so they might as well be rugs" - Trent 😂🤣
It was an entertaining debate, but totally pointless in regards to helping Destiny. You can't reason with a moral relativist, they don't believe in metaphysical truth. There's nothing to find for them, it's just about justifying how they feel that day.
Not pointless. Trent did an amazing job showing to the audience that Destiny's positions led to conclusions most people (even liberals / choice advocates) would not be comfortable with.
As far as helping Destiny, a long-form dialogue on the best arguments for moral realism would probably be more fruitful.
Doesn‘t he have an open marriage with a social media sexy woman? It‘s frankly sick
I appreciate Destiny in the same way I appreciate Nietzsche. He is internally consistent in his moral relativism and shows us what it looks like to actually believe in the pro-abortion talking points
It’s not pointless. The reason debates are powerful is not so much the panelists changing their minds right then in there, but what it does for the audience. Thousands of people watch it, learn from it, and think deeper.
I was somewhat of a moral relativist/atheist in my younger years and have completely changed from that to a God fearing, RCIA attending soon-to-join-the-Church Catholic. More conversations like these will reach the secular world and for many who are searching, they’re going to see how rational the argument for Christ and objective morality is…the spiritual, faith, and God’s grace will continue to reveal itself as time goes on. Trust me
@@AxiomsGroundedRead what I wrote. I said in regards to helping Destiny. I didn't say totally pointless.
Great conversation. Going to listen to this again while I’m out on the fields. Thank you for this
Trent, thank you for being a St. Paul and seeking out an unusual platform to speak the truth! God will use your voice to reach many people who watch the "whatever" podcast but would never watch a pro-life platform.
Like how Francis wrote a letter that defended pedo defender Cardinal wuerl...🤨KEEP YOUR POPE AWAY FROM OUR KIDS!
Beside the seriousness if the topic, I enjoyed so much listening to such an eloquent+intellectual kind of explaining 'monologue' ! Reminds me of my own college hours 'ethics' and religion philosophy. Your way, Trent, of discussing this topic is much more fruitfull than just jelling and jelling. Think to see that Matt is also pleasantly impressed. So thanks both for this video from the Netherlands (beautiful country)🌻
Language problem: I ment 'lecture hours at university' instead of 'college hours'. In the Netherlands we call a lecture at the university a 'college'. Confusing🤪
Great show. Thanks 🙏🏼
Will Trent ever do a debating workshop for beginners? So not just reading or watching, but learning the terms of reasoning (and false reasoning), practice sessions, break down and explain recorded debates?
Why would a church that covered up abuse be seen as credible. So lame
Here you go:
ua-cam.com/video/VCdjMSPEYKc/v-deo.html
"Trent Horn | The Easiest Way to Defend Your Faith"
@@willdemi4094Are you saying because the church has done evil things that means Trent is apart of that evil?
@@cameronclark8298people are very dumb.
I would love that. Host a seminar for a weekend and teach these skills.
The suggestion that we should not debate pornography or abortion is drawn from Aristotle's dictum: don't debate those who deny the principle. The reason for this is that principles are so fundamental that there is nothing more basic than this and those who deny them can only do so by becoming incoherent. For example, to deny the principle of noncontradiction is to assume it while denying it (i.e. PNC is false and not true; but if PNC were false, then an assertion and it's contradiction could both be true which is incoherent.) Aristotle held that such folks need the rod and not instruction. The rhetorical equivalent of the rod is to reduce and argument to absurdity showing it's incoherence. St. Augustine was a master at this.
In morality, the most basic principle is to do good and avoid evil. If someone is a relativist, the most forceful way to refute them is to show them the incoherence of their positions. Why argue for a position of 20 weeks or for any position at all that is not currently held by the current "social contact"? Why not just go along with whatever the current position happens to be? Why not go along with the relativist mantra: "whatever". If you appeal to intuition, why are such "intuitions" different and again, why not go along with prevailing intuitions in a society via a nose count? And what makes a majority position inherently better than a minority position? And if it is not inherently better why not go with a minority position or one's own idiosyncratic position? This approach can indeed dismantle another person's position at it's very origin ( most fundamental premises that result in incoherence. In this case it would be moral relativism.)
Trent presented the Catholic position remarkably well. There is also however great need in working at the basic level to show the moral relativism is incoherent. That dictatorship of our age must be dethroned and give way to Christ..
Hmm. Help me out-I don’t see how anything in your middle paragraph demonstrates an incoherence within moral subjectivism/relativism. It seems you’re pushing back on ideas that may be expressed by some minority of moral relativists but that are not at all inherent to relativism itself. Moral relativism is not the same as the proposition that “one’s moral system is/should be based purely on what the majority perceives as moral.”
Morality is subjective in one way and objective in two ways. It is subjective in that it always proceeds from the interests and preferences of persons (or Persons, like God). It is objective in that there are statements about those interests that are factual (i.e., I could lie about them). It is also objective in that the way to optimize those interests is a strategic question with correct and incorrect answers. Any search for “ultimate objective value” is doomed to failure because at rock bottom, morality is a consequentialist system. It just is. There’s no getting around it. Any attempt to refute this ultimately ends up appealing to consequence. A rule is bad when it makes things worse. A prospective analysis is bad when it through erroneous forecasting makes things worse. One’s intuition is bad when it bends toward making things worse. When it comes to morality, consequence is schematically “king.” And how do we know what constitutes “worse?” That’s the subjective part.
Note: subjective does not mean “arbitrary” or “unimportant.” It just means it stems from subjects. And morality just *does* no matter how hard moral realists try to argue otherwise.
@@anthonynelson6249 Sure. I'd be glad to help you out. I am responding to the version of moral relativism explicitly stated by Destiny wherein he appeals to a social contract as a basis of morality. The point is that there is no good reason that a majority is better than a minority according to the relativist framework. Everything they posit morally is entirely ad hoc. Yet they act as though one position is in fact correct and better than another. Well that is an inconsistency between what they say they believe and what they are doing. It is duplicitous (or in common Christian parlance hypocrisy) to say you think one thing is true and then to act as though it is not. The positions of such folks don't deserve to be taken seriously by anyone. I will get to your version of relativism in a subsequent comment.
@@anthonynelson6249 "Any search for ultimate objective value is dommed for failure because at rock bottom, morality is a consequentialist system. It just is." Well there you have it. Thus speaketh the prophet of relativism and all shall hear and obey. Do you plan to provide any arguments for this fundamental premise of yours that you seem to imagine requires no argumentation? Or should we all just place child like faith in whatever you say? That's a quaint little idea. The prophet of relativism speaks and all must listen based on the sheer authority of their assertions. It's just the cutest little thing that you think anyone would take such bare unadorned assertions as Gospel Truth, as "just the way things are." But wait a minute, you don't think there is a "just the way things are" in morality. So why are you out here evangelizing for what are nothing more than your own preferences and then parading them about as though they are "just the way things are"? It seems relativists have a corner on the market of incoherence and hypocrisy. There you have it, it took about 5 minutes of my day to show your own incoherence after I showed destiny's. Let's see how much mental energy it takes you to work yourself out of that little knot. Or you could stop your incoherent evangelizing and do a bit more thinking.
@@AnselmInstitute For your first comment, you’re probably right-I don’t remember how Destiny defined his form of moral relativism, but if memory serves, I thought he did a poor job defining it. I agree that the social construct framing is insufficient and only gets part of the way there when explaining moral intuition. Obviously we can disagree with the status quo social contract, so there are other elements at play beyond obeisance to the social order.
Relativism (simpliciter) does not maintain that the majority is better than the minority. The (possibly deserved) ire you hold for such relativists is best directed at those to subscribe to it. I don’t. I share your incredulity in that respect.
I think the main thrust of my question still stands and remains unaddressed. Do you assume that the word “should” is only coherent if it stems from God or an objective moral ether? Do you think someone who is trying to build a house can at once recognize that many dimensions of the project stem from his subjective goals and desires and still tell all his men what they “should” do to accomplish that goal? If so, I don’t understand your argument that moral relativists act duplicitously. Moral relativism does not hold that moral systems are arbitrary and insignificant (and therefore not worth arguing about). It just recognizes the (in my view) undeniable fact that morality stems most foundationally from the desires/preferences/goals of persons and is therefore, at least in part, subjective. Again: this does not mean arbitrary or unimportant. The question of “Should we murder and allow murder?” is not a trivial question, even to the moral relativist-it is of tremendous import not least because *it will affect them and all the people they love.* That is not the only reason it matters, but it is certainly one of the reasons (and a rational one).
@@AnselmInstitute Your second comment is a lot of bluster, but I’ll try to find the substance. I think you’re doing two things. One, and this is the one I’m least sure of, I think you’re framing my position in religious language because you assume I’m irreligious and will take offense to it-and perhaps because you want to make the point that I, a supposed atheist, am simply subscribed to a different, secular religion. If I’m right, then you should know I don’t take offense (beyond the fact that I find it mildly annoying when interlocutors waste space just throwing insults) and am in fact religious myself. I’m a Christian. I recognized the relativistic nature of morality *by talking to other Christians.* If I’m wrong, and it “wasn’t that deep,” you were just trying to be snarky and chose a religious framing for some other reason-sorry for the waste of space here!
Two, you’re claiming I gave no reasons to think morality is a consequentialist system (even though I did) and that I expected you to just accept what I said whole cloth without any explanation. But I don’t expect you to take it on faith, I expect you to try and disprove it, I was simply underscoring the fact that the only way you would be able to do so would be to appeal to consequence-which proves my point that consequence is schematically “king.” If you have a rebuttal to this that ultimately appeals to something other than consequence, I’d love to hear it!
And I’m glad you think I’m cute, but I don’t know where you got the idea that I don’t think there is a “just the way things are” in morality. I said that morality was subjective in one way and *objective in two other ways.* So it seems you just didn’t understand my point. So while I’m impressed it took you only five minutes to write all this, it seems that five minutes also included the amount of time you took to read and process my reply. Respectfully, try giving the reading part a whole five minutes this time and check back with me after! 🙂
I could listen to these gentlemen for hours upon hours and not get bored. Part of it is how comfortable / relaxed they are with each other. Matt can press Trent on various points, but I feel that it's not in any way antagonistic. It's challenging without the drama. More like this, please!
Francis wrote a letter defending Cardinal Wuerl after he used hush money of victims of clergyabusee so no morality or light in him. He hurts and silences kids
H Xu
I love these conversations.
Men are so brave in the way they don’t fear rejection. I just love that about them.
@TheCounselofTrent, thank you for the shout-out to Publications at The National Catholic Bioethics Center! Everyone should look for the new volume of Human Embryo Adoption edited by Kent J. Lasnowski and Trent Horn in 2024.
Looking forward to the publication! 🙂 Would you be willing to comment on Trent’s stance on justifying GIFT or IUI to couples struggling with fertility? I was not convinced by his argument given in this discussion, as it seems morally inconsistent. Infertility is not an extraordinary circumstance to be in, so it appears no matter what fringes of morality people might employ to achieve to bring a child via a “lesser evil form of artificial insemination” (eg sperm collection from a pseudo-marital act) can ever justify the means of intentional procreation outside of the marital embrace. I understand there is no official teaching from the Church, but the nuance used by Trent was shakey. Appreciate any commentary on this!
"Pro-choice Catholic" sounds, to me, like a paradoxical category. Like "violent pacifist", "celibate prostitute", or "born-again atheist"; it sounds like two terms that cannot reasonably exist together.
This is pretty accurate. Catholics have never been about giving people choices unless it was convert or die. Shouts outs to Brazil.
Oh it means they are catholic other than their view on abortion, happy to clear that up for you
@@joss4521 Just like the celibate prostitute: she's celibate in all ways, except when she's engaging in prostitution. Just like the violent pacifist is against violence in all cases, except when he engages in violence. Just like the married bachelor is a bachelor at all times, except when he's married. We can call two contradictory things simultaneously true as much as we want, but that doesn't change the fact that two contradictory things can't both be true. You can't coherently say, "I believe what the Bible and the Church say is true," and simultaneously say, "I think people should be allowed to kill their children."
@@joss4521that's the point. A Catholic understands the creation of God and how we are made in his image and would do anything to protect it.
@@MrISkater They obviously don't think an unborn child before X week is equivalent to an image of God :)
Interesting stream. I always appreciate hearing Trent's thoughts on things. Thanks for having him on.
I appreciate this podcast cast because the communication level is reasonable.
It was very interesting to see both Trent's and Destiny's reflections on the debate, where they think they performed best, where they thought their opponent performed best, etc.
As an evangelical Protestant, I really enjoyed this discussion.
Read Ignatius of Antioch’s letters.
Stop being Protestant
@christsavesreadromans1096 I read Scripture and that's why I became Reformed Protestant
@@firingallcylinders2949 The early christians also read scripture, and they became catholic. If you read what the early christians (who knew and were taught by the disciples) taught, you may become catholic as well.
@christsavesreadromans1096 that's such a farce that RCs use....I try to get to doctrine and exegesis and all I get is "yea but the church fathers" "yea but Saint X did this" "yea but Council X said this" ....the early church fathers wouldn't recognize much of Rome today. That's a sneaky tactic Rome often does, they act like their current dogma has always been known by Christians but it's simply not true. The things in Vatican II and the dogmas of Mary etc, Papal infallibility early Christians would have no idea what you're talking about. These were all added over the centuries as Rome continued to stray.
Ohhhhh I love that no one has a right to another person and they have a right to a mother and a father that was so well put.
I think the biggest problem with this discussion is confusing the body with personal identity. Determining whether a body is a person doesn't make as much sense as determining whether a body IS THE BODY OF A person.
you’d never get anywhere with a materialist like Destiny on that though
@@bananatreelabs1137 well Destiny is not a scholar of philosophy so I don't care.
I used to be pro-choice a few years ago but when I noticed how much humanity I had to sacrifice to be consistent with the cold-logic of pro-choice, I had to bounce out. I like Destiny, he's great, and he argues the pro-choice position amazingly in it's representation, and he's incredibly honest...But that honesty only highlighted my problem even more with being pro-choice. When he said that it isn't wrong to intentionally cause the foetus to never be able to have a consciousness to be used for organ harvesting or to be used as a s*x doll, even for p*edophiles, that's when I had to back out of the video, it was already done.
If my options are that I can agree with a position that MUST condone intentionally causing a child to be brain dead to be used by p*edophiles or not being allowed to prevent that child from it's natural process of life? I'm picking the latter. Your cold-logic betrays your humanity at that point. I'm not a robot and I won't let such a stance to be on my conscious.
So many kids were sexually abusedd by priests and Francis covers up the abuse by promoting barros etc. KEEP YOUR CREEPY POPE AWAY FROM OUR KIDS!!!
@@LeiaSagenow do Judaism. I'll wait.
@@mistaando9741 Saying another Religion does the SAME evil things doesn't make catholicism any better. It just means u can't trust both.
I totally agree, I thought Destiny's position is untenable when you realize that you can do whatever you want to the fetus so long as it's before 20 weeks, it's the epitome of arbitrary, and totally betrays the truth that it is a person, because you are rushing to do what you want before 20 weeks, just feels like a license to murder
It seems you just decided that a disgust reaction is your moral motivation rather than rationality. What’s wrong with intentionally preventing a living thing morally equivalent to a bacteria and modify it such that it can be used as a sex doll? What is the moral relevant difference between a corpse that never belonged to any person and a fabricated sex doll?
Watching Trent and Matt do an in-depth chat on controversial topics, always helps to mentor and nourish within me my own "Charitable Nuancer."
sexual abuse of kids being covered up the catholic church...what about those kids???
This is the worst kind of “what-about-ism”. Nobody thinks this was okay. There’s no one to argue with about it.
I’m glad you showed the pictures - people need to see EXACTLY what we’re talking about
Everyone has seen them
People need to see the carnage at Sandy Hook so everyone can witness what these automatic weapons do to small children. People have to know what a School Shooting looks like.
Yes. The 2 cells that just began dividing. That little thing is what is chaining women down for the next 9 months and drastically altering their bodies, even if they don't want it, because you guys said they couldn't stop it at that earliest point.
Do you also look at pictures of single mothers struggling to go through life with no support from anyone? Working multiple jobs and struggling to give their child their basic necessities? Just curious
@@RengaritoEnjoyer I bet they also don't watch how animals get tortured, slaughtered and bred when they eat that delicious steak or cook an egg.
I'm not vegan btw, but I have seen the videos. I don't think eating meat is wrong so i'm not stopping it, but we could improve on the quality of life on said animals.
I loved this discussion. Please stay lifelong friends and have more of these haha
Trent Horn is such a great advocate for the faith and example of charity in conversation! Love having him
So the sexual abuse of children in the church doesn't bother you. The cover up of abuse doesn't bother you
@@willdemi4094 lmfao 🤡 how do atheists write these comments
@@willdemi4094The Catholic Church is a criminal organization which should be dismantled brick by brick. That said Trent was a good debator, it's unfortunate that he is a part of such a terrible organization.
@@willdemi4094this is whataboutism
@@willdemi4094Bringing negativity into a positive comment, ey? Of course abuse scandals and cover-ups bother people, but the Church is a big institution and bringing lay people into something which has to be resolved by those higher in Church hierarchy is ultimately futile. Can we not, amidst all this chaos in Church, discuss her positives and how we can bring betterment into this world?
I loved every part of this.
Trent's reflection on pro-life being a good gateway to conversion is totally true. My first step from atheism to the Church was first questioning the pro-choice logic. God loves to plant seeds of questioning to bring us closer to truth, which of course is closer to Him. ❤
Yep. The first step is asking why we are letting women control their reproductive right. After that I just knew the church life was for me since they barely let women do anything!
@@usucdik reproductive rights start at consent. Even as an atheist turned pro-life I acknowledged that I am a biological being and that sex had multiple purposes, a major purpose being reproduction. Sorry, it's not oppressive to simply not have sex with somebody I wouldn't raise a child with.
Nobody even needs a moral argument to conclude that it's just silly to separate sex from the potential for reproduction.
Also, as a woman, I've never felt like "I couldn't do anything" because of this. There's more ways than just vaginal intercourse to bond with partner. It's incredibly narrow minded to reduce human connection to just penis in vagina. There's absolutely nothing oppressive about holding yourself to higher value than just your parts, nor do you need to be religious to recognize your worth as being beyond than your genitals.
Mine to. It all started with my friend challenging me on when life begins.
You brought up a really good point about keeping arguments streamlined. If Destiny knows you’re putting together a premise with a ton of underpinning qualifiers, he’ll knock the legs out. I saw him do this with James Lindsay, who is notorious for taking ages to predicate his arguments (which are typically salient). Destiny didn’t let it get off the ground and James didn’t really know how to deal with it.
I mean, if all of the premises can be knocked out, then does it really matter? Like, there must be some sort of reason to go with a large collection of interconnecting points that fail individually instead of going with one or two points that can hold strong 😅
@@lwatchingvids1059 your perspective is valid I think overall, but I was moreover insinuating that in this specific case, because the debate was essentially open-forum, Destiny kept driving his qualifiers off into tangential digressions and Lindsay lost patience. Lindsay definitely goes into ad nauseam detail, maybe even superfluously, when he’s making a point. To be honest, though; the degree that he takes it probably wouldn’t work in a timed debate, either, because he’d never get to his actual point inside the parameters of the debate format. I think that he’s fine doing lectures, though.
It's quick and easy, but it's dishonest and bad faith. It's like instead of listening to the whole sentence, you get picky on single words and knock them out. It's just sophistry, may seem impressive to an outside but it's intellectually dishonest.
@@joane24it can also be dishonest to take more time than you need in setting up and answering points. Some speakers use this to obfuscate and confuse the point for their opponent, as well as spend more time in the driver's seat of the conversation which tends to look strong to the audience.
If you can get to the root faster, on balance you should.
1:42:52 This argument is strange to me. Yes, disagreement doesn't disprove objective moral truth exists, but it doesn't prove it either. The burden of proof is on Trent to prove that it exists.
One could ask, and this is the Michael Knowles question, is it better to bake a pie for a widow, or kick a baby in the head. And if you can answer that obviously, which you can, objective truth exists and in turn an objective morality.
@@mattdaraitis4253 That's equivalent to saying "hurting babies is bad". It may be the case that everyone thinks that but it doesn't follow that it's "objectively" true, or that objective morality exists. It just means a lot of people think/feel that way.
Ultimately, all morality exists as a sort of “intuition pump.” All moral questions will ultimately be reduced to some form of “it’s wrong because it feels wrong.” (Unless you embrace a theological standpoint) Therefore, the only reasonable way to argue morality from a secular worldview is to compare new moral questions with old, presumably already answered, questions that we’ve accepted even if we don’t have an actual provable moral value assigned to any of them
@@mattdaraitis4253”What makes better art-painting with acrylics or making sculptures out of dung? If you can answer this question, it proves that the quality of art is an objective fact.”
The argument doesn’t work at any level. Not only is it a non-sequitur but it fails to recognize that our moral intuitions don’t come out of a vacuum-they are informed by the society in which we live and by the sights/sounds we experience as pleasant versus unpleasant. For most, seeing a widow smiling and crying with happiness over a pie is much more pleasant than seeing the bloodied head of a newborn. That doesn’t prove morality is objective-it proves human beings generally like to pursue pleasure and avoid suffering. Is the quality of a smell an objective fact?-No, and yet, the vast majority of the human race will say that flowers smell better than skunk spray. That doesn’t prove that the “goodness” of a flower’s scent is an objective fact; it’s obviously a subjective judgment!
good listen
Will you be uploading this to Rumble?
Good dude that Trent Horn. Comment for traction.
Biology, by my lights, is inherently teleological. To me, it seemed like Destiny was denying biology at certain points: like him not seeing a substantial difference between a zygote and gametes. Also he seem to implicitly deny that it’s the same organism that does not have consciousness prior to 20 weeks and then does at 20-28weeks. Biology would dictate that it’s the same human organism throughout just with new potentials actualized.
If you're arguing whether there's a major difference between something that is 0.001mm across and something 0.002mm across... I don't think you're really making a difference in anyone's mind, no matter how technically right you may be. But it's not technically right, since it's still arbitrary nonsense and all of those conception arguments are anti-science propaganda.
Kind of. But destiny doesn't care about the potential... only the actualized potential. The zygote and gamete are much closer than either is to a full person, I think was his point on that side
@@fjordan2345 I think I get what you/Destiny are claiming. As a pushback, however, I would say that to deny the potential inherent within an organism just IS to deny biology. From a biological perspective a zygote is closer to a “full person” bc any “full person” can trace their biological organism’s history back to being a zygote. The difference between a “full person” and a zygote is a matter of development, while the difference between a gamete and a “full person” is a difference in kind. Gametes are parts of an organism, a zygote is an organism.
But still to be charitable, in terms of number of cells and physical size: I guess a zygote is closer to a gamete (or at least the egg in terms of size) than a “full person”. I would just strongly insist those are not the relevant characteristics to prioritize categorization and compare similitude. Cheers.
@markbirmingham6011 I mean in the same way the egg and sperm also have potential? But again destiny agrees that the potential exists - he just doesn't agree that the potential is what we ought protect
@@fjordan2345 By my lights, and I would also argue according to biology, the sperm & egg qua sperm & egg, do not have potential “in the same way” a zygote has. No egg is human organism, no sperm is a human organism. No egg, qua egg, can become a new human organism. The same with a sperm, qua sperm-can’t become a human organism. It is only upon fertilization & the formation of the zygote when the human organism comes into existence. It is this zygote (human organism) that contains within itself the capacity to continue to develop into a mature human. The potential between a zygote and gametes are worlds apart.
Destiny or anyone is free to start valuing humans at any point of development or never regardless of development. All I’m saying is that biologically speaking, the potential inherent in a zygote is immensely & qualitatively different from the potential in a gamete. This is reflected in the biological classification of the zygote as a whole organism (which will develop an immediate capacity for consciousness if it survives) while gametes are classified as parts of an organism.
Thursday, there was a 2005 movie about a zebra becoming a racehorse called “Racing Stripes.” I remember watching that movie A LOT as a kid 😂 I also recall being very confused at how the zebra, horses, and other animals did what they did sometimes cause I was like “um…. Do the humans read their minds or something? Cause that doesn’t make sense.”
Ah, good times 😁
It's not the thought experiments that were the issues. It was the final summary of his position on the thought experiment that used emotionally charged or preconceived ideas where the weird stipulations you put into the scenario are easily overlooked.
@@FirstJohn2.12-17 Yes, persuasive. Trent was being disingenuous and borderline dishonest with his summaries and Destiny rightfully pointed that out.
Awesome!!!
I am shocked that the idea of platforming a debate about whether we should kill our children in mass is acceptable to you, but platforming a discussion about the historicity of the holocaust is somehow a bridge too far. And you wonder why people are starting to ask why we can't ever challenge anything jewish.
Destiny is kind of an ironic name if you are an under 20 week old human 😢
Wow. Brilliant comment actually
Reading some of the chat replay and the comments below, maybe a factor I would like to see more is Christians commenting on other Christians beliefs and behaviors, because the seemingly unspoken disagreements between each other might do more to show why relying on "God" isn't better than a debate between two or more no-religious people giving their opinions without sourcing their reasons.
Putting sources behind beliefs can make a real difference (though I know we don't always remember those sources off the top of our head, maybe in the future, our phones/technology will auto-generate citations for us), as it gives outsiders the ability to potentially look into it for themselves, judging it more fairly in its proper context, and possibly feeling more comfortable changing their mind with the lack of pressure that's present during a debate between two or more people and a subject you may already have beliefs about.
I believe Trent earlier said that while Destiny and Matt Dillahunty shared the opinion that abortion should be legal, there reasons were not the same, and at least Destiny would not approve of it for Matt's given reason(s).
104:26 would be a funny place to clip a soundbite lol
To the point about people just wanting a yes or no answer when the answer calls for some nuance (53:00), I think it might be helpful to just say "qualified yes" or "qualified no" and just stop there, and then have the person ask to explain the qualifications.
Never thought of that before. Smart!
It definetly came across like a dodge - I agree that would have helped
Some people are too simplistic to understand that clear yes or no is not always possible. We're not omniscient, there's only as much as we can do based on our current knowledge and use of reason.
Trent: Men and Women are superior in different and complimentary ways
Matt :LOL bigot
My first exposure to Trent's work. Very reasonable and well marshalled arguments. Glad he's on our team.
1 hr 15 should've been time stamped "wide angle while Thursday goes to the loo"
"Racing Stripes" was the zebra horse racing movie (2005)
Trent "booing" murder at 45:00 made me laugh so hard
Need a gif of Trent thumbs downing and saying "don't like that"
00:49:30 | I think, from a non-religious point of view, our focus on making this life, or at least the future lives on this planet, in this universe, better, is by considering as many things as possible, and finding ways to do that all at once, so that next to nothing is forgotten in the pursuit of change.
While we struggle, much of that seems to do with our synergy. Looking at some of the individuals who gained/possessed a greater and in-depth understanding of a specific subject, we can see how much that effected our day to day lives, at least those of us in the areas of the planet where those changes took effect and were utilized.
At the same time, we typically try to remain consistent, 1) to not lose knowledge previously held/gained and 2) to avoid the label of hypocrite while trying to get other to trust/think like us. This is where the old and the new tend to clash as we run into the conflict of both ways meeting needs but having different sacrifices, which are best pointed out to the individual willing to think about it.
Religion tends to be one of those subjects that, while a part of our history, sits on the fence, leaning towards both an actually history in the eyes of some and a way of dealing with larger subjects (typically) beyond our observational abilities.
Understandably, if we don't know where we started, the destination is far less clear, and most people wouldn't want to waste their time, if they knew, that pursuits they were about to begin wouldn't lead to something even approximating the desired outcome, and that what they would do, if they knew the actual truth, required a totally different mindset, timescale, resources, etc and that it would achieve what Trent called the _"Ultimate Good/Happiness"._
39:46 it’s called a hypothetical. You can literally debate it right now and engage in the hypothetical. It doesn’t matter if we’re not technologically able to do it presently.
As I have mentioned on the actual debate video, here are time stamps and refutations to Destiny’s points:
The claim that there’s no objective morality, and that this ought to be held to as a Truth since it is in fact True, is an objective moral claim. So is it objectively good to hold to the fact that morality is not objective? If not, it’s relative, if yes it’s self refuting.
- 43:22 Destiny’s claim here would need to venture past mere opinion to then say it’s more than opinion that Trent ought to realize he isn’t on the same moral ground as he purportedly claims to be, but this is self-refuting because it uses what Destiny denies. He would have to deny opinionated oughts (which really hold no weight except an appeal to consensus) to say it ventured beyond his opinion, obviously.
- Additionally 57:26 isn’t arbitrary, the zygote has unique DNA that the being carrying it (the mother) cannot bear in her own being. Two sets of DNA aren’t subsistently possible as part of one being. This Zygote also fits all the characteristics Trent then laid out.
- Destiny’s entire moral bound for the 20 week justification of not allowing abortion does not make sense, since it’s also fully conditioned on what is presently happening. The issue is, he values potentiality every single day in regard to exercising induction in science, the sun rising, the food he eats, etc. He is drawing an arbitrary bound in respect to which potentiality he values and which he doesn’t.
- 1:00:31 Yeah Destiny, as Pro-lifers we have no problem yielding this, since it could be consistently held to irl & isn’t an outrageous hypothetical. Trent’s hypothetical counter about the lobotomy idea right before 20 weeks would be easily possible and if implemented, could lead to the limitation of any children being born in the future under any excuse the patient could name, simply because it’s now okay. Destiny’s Petri dish example would lead to more humans being born, rather than their unjustified death.
- 1:18:27 Trent is right here, it depends on the mens rea in relation to the actus reus. It could be a whimsical chance, or a deliberate intentional desire to kill. Both should be punishable & not too far off from each other, but still slightly different. Just like how someone has a gun as he normally would and kills a store clerk versus deliberately buying a gun to go kill a store clerk. One has a premeditation aspect, the other doesn’t, so they are treated differently but very similar in punishment. I’m not saying that the plan-B portion lacks premeditation, but more so how close the two crimes are.
- 1:20:53 Yeah we get that Destiny, but that isn’t what you asked, so Trent answered your question. You didn’t ask a metaethical question, you asked about intuitions regarding ethical bases.
- 1:26:28 I’d actually disagree with Trent here even as a Catholic, our moral intuitions are just intuitive, we know them through experience but justify them in another manner. This is why Destiny’s point here doesn’t work again, it’s not about using universal norms or what have you, it’s about the metaethical justification upon which basis are morals objective and must be. We’d employ divine revelation as to epistemically bridge the gap we have as finite beings. We don’t even need to go here though, because as I mentioned above, Destiny’s positions cannot even assert this claim ought to be true or ought to be considered without rejecting the idea that it’s merely his opinion he’s providing. Taste preference therefore holds no forceful weight, it’s just subjective as he casually agrees.
- 1:40:46 Trent’s tactic here is actually perfect. He is demonstrating that the bound for 20 weeks is arbitrary enough to push back to whenever else, and if done, would lead to a view that cannot decide on its own grounds when to kill and when to not. This doesn’t need to directly defend the Petri dish example, because at least Trent’s bound isn’t inconsistent, and therefore has more warrant and coherence than Destiny’s untenable view that cannot even figure out when to kill and when to not.
- 1:45:09 Completely incorrect
"The claim that there’s no objective morality, and that this ought to be held to as a Truth since it is in fact True, is an objective moral claim. "
I don't think that's a moral claim. That looks like a claim about morality that doesn't evaluate the morality of anything specific?
@@ChenKaifeng It actually is, which is the beautiful part! In philosophy there are three categories of a worldview, and they are all intertwined with respect to any operation or claim we make. If I say there is a tree in my yard, I am saying that there is some metaphysical status of the tree which I am asserting in fact exists, that I in fact know that there is a tree in my yard, and that this is True therefore we ought to view it this way. Metaphysics, ethics & epistemology.
People cannot escape value judgements or preferential treatment. When Destiny makes arguments, he is saying we ought to view X/Y/Z this way, since it is True, logical, coherent, etc. These statements cannot be the case on his own view because he’s attempting to apply it to other views, or map it onto reality, but this holds no weight if it’s purely subjective and relative. All we have to ask is, Destiny is it objectively true that morality is subjective? Is Truth objective? If he says yes, then we may ask, is following or adopting what is true in one’s view good? If he consequently says yes, this isn’t only a view that is attempting to make a claim about a universal state of affairs, but one which only works if you deny subjective morality. If he says it’s just his subjective opinion, then it’s stuck in the place it started with no metaphysical weight. Destiny makes universal claims all the time which are objective and apply beyond mere taste preference. He also then prefers these over others (logical vs illogical/true vs untrue), and then attempts to say that these are good by doing so.
So, either these things are not true beyond his view, or they don’t hold any moral weight at all. This is the folly of subjective morals. NB: You can look into why we always use universals in almost every sentence from Bertrand Russell.
Here
Ahhh the nesquick powder. Pink milk was the best and ignorance was bliss. I could never drink it now because I would read the label.
😅right?
Wow, of course youtube needs to put a "context" link under the description of the abortion debate video. You can't even have a debate about abortion without youtube telling people they should talk to a doctor so they can get one
The movie was called, "Racing Stripes," and starred Hayden Panettiere.
My daughter was born at 23 weeks on the dot, and we were offered either to have a special c-section and try and save her, or deliver naturally which would kill her but save my wifes body ability to have more children. Anyone who uses human consciousness as grounds for personhood has clearly never interacted with a 22 week/23 week baby. Forget the emotion and connection to my daughter, and focus on the fact that at 22 weeks she moved around and clearly held potential to (keep) living. At that age when everything is stripped down to essential human functions, you see the Lord the giver of life at full work, and how inherent the will to live is in humans. To strip anyone, regardless of age, of this opportunity because its "your body" isn't realizing the contradiction in that statement.
You realize that at 20 weeks destiny considers them a person?
Also the"your body"thing is a totally separate argument, destiny wouldn't agree with it
@@fjordan2345 and? Did i say anything about destiny?
@@tylertreese3150 "Anyone who uses consciousness as grounds for personhood has clearly never met a 22/23 week old baby"
"you see the Lord the giver of life at full work" What powerful words, thank you. God bless you and your family 🙏
The abortion debate has over 200k views already guys. Great job Trent! Imma make sure my husband wears his shirt with Trents carton face on it 😂 Also, Laura’s back and forth with “Cameron” in the comments was 🔥🤣🙌🏼
Pretty much any video destiny is in will get 150-250k
The original abortion debate with those 2 girls was so bad that I seriously started to consider the pro-choice side. Actual intellectuals, PhDs, and experts need to step up. Adult children are the only ones debating the pro-life position unfortunately. No wonder most Americans are pro-choice. Trent did a good job.
I was pro-life before I became Christian. I think that idea that humans have rights crumbles if abortion is okay, even in some cases. And if we allow ourselves the ability to arbitrarily assign those rights based on our own reason, ie people who are pro choice have a different point in development where they say abortion is okay or wrong, then it opens the door to do that at any point in a person’s life. The comparison to US slavery is extremely apt for this reason.
You did great Trent!! I really loved the debate!
You clearly didn't watch the whole thing lol
@@ChillAssTurtle wdym
@@valharris95 the blue haired girl completely dismantled him over and over and over and over. I thought trent was gonna cry if it kept going XD
@@ChillAssTurtle
Isn’t that just an ad hominem over a good debate? :P
@@FuddlyDud if thats the best you can do then thats the best you can do.
Trent makes some excellent points about freedom of speech. When we outlaw unpopular speech its only a matter of time where your own speech is outlawed. I may dsiagree with Trent in a majority of his worldview and even ethics but people should be free to speak.
On avoiding debates that are above your intellectual weight class so to speak, I agree. At the same time, there are plenty of regular people and Saints alike that basically say "I don't know how to articulate my point, but that doesn't mean your point is correct."
From what I understand about chess, the reason men tend to do better is thought to be related to men's natural proclivity to taking risks and being naturally more aggressive. Women are generally more cautious and less aggressive, so men can get a leg up on them in mental games like chess and poker that benefit from high risks and aggressive behavior. Granted, there's obviously a lot more to chess than just risk-taking, but I know that's why it's believed men dominate in poker, a game that's mostly luck on its surface.
That being said, it would be very interesting testing out other more mental games to see which sex does better based on what we know about male and female brains. Things like Risk, Battleship, Go, etc.
Open debate is part of evangelization. Jesus came for the conversion of all sinners not the just. Conversations on platforms like @whatever are necessary otherwise we as Catholics are not reaching out to those outside of our circle. Wasn’t the purpose of St. Paul the conversion of the gentiles? Congratulations to Trent for evangelizing and being in an uncomfortable position. If even one person listening to that debate changed their mind on abortion, the debate was a victory.
What seems to be missed in Trent’s approximation of Destiny’s view. Is that “human consciousness” as described by him, he would reject the claim that a lower form of human conscious awareness is equal to that of an animal.
He said in the debate, it’s different in ‘kind’. You can begin to articulate the sophistication that develop later in life, but the hardware is already in place at a very early stage. And though the only thing we can test for, which is basic stimulus input output testing of things like heat etc. there is an essentially human, unique, type of consciousness that is fundamentally different and it ought to be protected as a part of the social contract we have across society and have no problem conceptualising post-birth.
I think the only valid argument here is that this ultimately is an educated guess and that we have no way to tell whether a baby’s consciousness is different to that of a baby pig. There is an epistemic blind spot there that can’t be addressed.
A couple issues here:
1) the hardware doesn’t exist yet and won’t for several more months, even years depending on how we measure conscious experience, such as Peter Singer’s position.
2) While he says different in “kind,” this means the “kind” part is important and we should get specific about it with what measurements we have. If we can’t measure it well, I’d reason being more cautious with the ending of life is important. :)
@@FuddlyDud we know a lot more than what you’re suggesting. The lobes in the default mode network are more or less developed by 20-28 weeks. Thalamo-cortical activity has been discovered to be more or less the minimal neural connectivity required for conscious experience.
I don’t subscribe to “level” of consciousness for a variety of reasons. To me, it’s binary. There or not there. (Happy to expand if you’d like).
In any case. Getting specific involves delineation of the more sophisticated aspects of human consciousness. It’s being deduced from what’re explained in the adult experience (because we can articulate it).
The features singer describes are indeed defining characteristics of human consciousness. What I don’t agree with, is that these are absent merely because we’ve no memory of it. As Chomsky posited, there is a hardwired structure to language - brain structure for which exists at an early stage. And language can be the proxy for the innumerable conceptual abstractions human consciousness can perform.
In other words, the measurement exists. It simply involves looking at what brain structure exists at how many weeks. And brain structure that can deploy said experience is present at 20-28weeks.
I’ve no interest in level of consciousness, although if you’re interested in that. There is actually really good computational neuroscientific methods that have been developed to measure it. It’s got to do with the entropy of artificial electric signals you can send across the brain.
Kind of beyond the point in my opinion. Philosophy is what ultimately dictates what deserves protection. Science gives us the description to work across.
@@kuro2797
"we know a lot more than what you’re suggesting. The lobes in the default mode network are more or less developed by 20-28 weeks. Thalamo-cortical activity has been discovered to be more or less the minimal neural connectivity required for conscious experience. "
Agreed on this stage of development, but this level of conscious experience is not yet considered valuable yet, right?
NOTE: When we talk "conscious experience" as fully developed adults, I'd say its important to remember just how alien this type of conscious experience is to us.
"I don’t subscribe to “level” of consciousness for a variety of reasons. To me, it’s binary. There or not there. (Happy to expand if you’d like). "
Please do and agreed! :)
"The features singer describes are indeed defining characteristics of human consciousness. What I don’t agree with, is that these are absent merely because we’ve no memory of it. As Chomsky posited, there is a hardwired structure to language - brain structure for which exists at an early stage. And language can be the proxy for the innumerable conceptual abstractions human consciousness can perform. "
I generally agree, but what's so valuable about being a proxy to language?
Dogs and cats can understand language and can even get to the point of understanding syntax. I'd say we are again dealing with analogous levels of consciousness that needs distinguishment (although I will agree there is far more future potential in children, but it doesn't become relevant until later in development). :/
"In other words, the measurement exists. It simply involves looking at what brain structure exists at how many weeks. And brain structure that can deploy said experience is present at 20-28weeks."
And Trent rightfully pointed out this sort of conscious experience is analogous to animals...so then why not draw the line when human beings can have rational thoughts, or maybe self awareness around 18 months development? :/
Also, as a quick note, "deploy" implies that unborn human beings are actively choosing to "deploy" their conscious experience. It is not a choice, but an outgrowth of their development. It would be akin to saying a newborn "deploys" their refuse which they don't have the muscles to control yet. :P
"Kind of beyond the point in my opinion. Philosophy is what ultimately dictates what deserves protection. Science gives us the description to work across."
Agreed again!
So, since you know this topic more in depth than I, what's your take on the idea that consciousness is ultimately immaterial, going off of recent quantum physics research that posits that physical reality may not be fundamental? :)
@@FuddlyDud
"Agreed on this stage of development, but this level of conscious experience is not yet considered valuable yet, right?"
Depends on who you'd ask. I would personally give value to it. Who are you directing this question to?
"NOTE: When we talk "conscious experience" as fully developed adults, I'd say its important to remember just how alien this type of conscious experience is to us." -
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I merely mention the point from which deduction is made. Ultimately, there's an epistemic gap as we cannot know anyone other than ourselves are conscious. Presupposing then that we are conscious based on our own, we can describe aspects that are likely present in our own species - especially if the relevant structures are there.
Re Level of Conscioousness - how conscious you are is just a matter of rate in various metabolic processes. Technically, being on psychedelics can be measurably a "more conscious" state when you computationally measure complexity of signals in the brain. And when you're groggy in the morning you're not "as concious". To say levels of consciousness matter, would be like saying you deserve more rights when you're on psychedelic and less when you're tired - all of which is absurd. We don't afford moral rights to people based on what we can or can't achieve, we give rights because we want to protect the essence that is a part of the social fabric we're apart of.
...And language can be the proxy for the innumerable conceptual abstractions human consciousness can perform.
"I generally agree, but what's so valuable about being a proxy to language?"
Other way around. Language is a proxy for the uniqueness of human consciousness. Language is signposts something that's far more distinct than what you suggest below, so I'll elaborate further there.
"Dogs and cats can understand language and can even get to the point of understanding syntax. I'd say we are again dealing with analogous levels of consciousness that needs distinguishment (although I will agree there is far more future potential in children, but it doesn't become relevant until later in development). :/"
As far as I know, this is not true. Cats and dogs do not understand syntax the way humans do. In fact, we've tried very extensive and extremely elaborate experiments to teach language to more sophisticated primates and have failed. Always upon closer inspection, you find out that these are just "stacked" stimulus input/output relationships, that are not generalised once context is change - if syntax was understood this would not be a problem. If you can point me to a decent peer-reviewed study, that says otherwise - I'm open to check that out.
- now another thing, you've crept in with the word 'level of consciousness' there. I don't care about how conscious something is, I'm only interested in what 'type' of consciousness it is. That is the human consciousness. I'll elaborate on why below.
"In other words, the measurement exists. It simply involves looking at what brain structure exists at how many weeks. And brain structure that can deploy said experience is present at 20-28weeks."
"And Trent rightfully pointed out this sort of conscious experience is analogous to animals..."
No. When Trent talks about "this sort" of conscious experience, he talks about the types of stimulus that is being perceived (heat etc.). This is a "level" of consciousness argument, which neither Destiny nor I am arguing for.
so then why not draw the line when human beings can have rational thoughts, or maybe self awareness around 18 months development? :/ - again. This is a levels of consciousness argument, where you're assuming that until they are showing signs of rational thought (i.e., full sentences etc.) they're having some different form of consciousness. This will lead to a Eugenics argument. A person with severe developmental delay with an IQ of 60 is less conscious so therefore is deserving less of moral rights? No. In my world, the fact they have a human conscious experience period -is deserving of protection. Not how rational they are.
"Also, as a quick note, "deploy" implies that unborn human beings are actively choosing to "deploy" their conscious experience. It is not a choice, but an outgrowth of their development. It would be akin to saying a newborn "deploys" their refuse which they don't have the muscles to control yet. :P"
I'm guessing this is just a joke? It's purely semantic. If I said the immune system deploys t cells and b cells to fight infection, I'm assuming you're not thinking this is a deliberate act of the person.
"Kind of beyond the point in my opinion. Philosophy is what ultimately dictates what deserves protection. Science gives us the description to work across."
Agreed again!
"So, since you know this topic more in depth than I, what's your take on the idea that consciousness is ultimately immaterial, going off of recent quantum physics research that posits that physical reality may not be fundamental? :)"
I won't pretend to have a thorough understanding of quantum mechanics, I'll just note that almost every eminent quantum physicist bemoans the recruitment of their field to justify all kinds of unrelated concepts by people who do not understand the concepts to begin with. As far as I do understand, however, there isn't some irrefutable evidence suggesting that physical reality is not fundamental. It just doesn't work the same way classical physics has seemed to suggest. That's not to say it repudiates materialism - in fact quantum mechanics works just fine without having to make this claim, which is why we make very useful calculations based on our understanding of ostensible "objective chance" underscoring superposition etc.
In any case, consciousness is something I'm far more versed in. And currently, the idea that consciousness is immaterial is an idea with no evidence to back it up.
To be clear, this is not to say it's not possible. It's very much a possibility, but as far as I know, there is no evidence (let alone a little evidence) to suggest this to be the case.
A major problem is that we don't yet have a coherent theory of consciousness and the mechanism by which it is connected to the concatenation of electrochemical events. That absence of knowledge is just that, absence of knowledge. It quite literally doesn't suggest anything in any direction. And if anything, we're uncovering many properties of consciousness each day - all of which are explainable by physically testable experiments. But the rest, is up to further research.
Sorry, if I missed anything. Pull me up and I'll elaborate if you'd like.
@@kuro2797
"Depends on who you'd ask. I would personally give value to it. Who are you directing this question to?"
I'm asking you, for I assume your personal position reflects what you think is the best position. :)
"I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I merely mention the point from which deduction is made. Ultimately, there's an epistemic gap as we cannot know anyone other than ourselves are conscious. Presupposing then that we are conscious based on our own, we can describe aspects that are likely present in our own species - especially if the relevant structures are there. "
Right, and the aspects that are there are not to do with distinctly human attributes, but with sensory capabilities. We agree on that, so then what do you mean by "relevant structures?"
NOTE: It seems to me like you are speaking about the future potential of said structures, so please elaborate if I am improperly inferring. :)
"To say levels of consciousness matter, would be like saying you deserve more rights when you're on psychedelic and less when you're tired - all of which is absurd. We don't afford moral rights to people based on what we can or can't achieve, we give rights because we want to protect the essence that is a part of the social fabric we're apart of. "
I generally agree! Sooo, then you would contend Destiny's position is valid based on the hardware when you have a more consistent position? :P
"...And language can be the proxy for the innumerable conceptual abstractions human consciousness can perform. "
I tend to agree, but if some animals can learn aspects of language, then isn't it a poor proxy (leaning into attributing causation with correlation) since the brain has not developed to the point of conceptual absractions? :/
"Cats and dogs do not understand syntax the way humans do...If you can point me to a decent peer-reviewed study, that says otherwise - I'm open to check that out. "
In terms of what study to go over syntax, I will point to this study I am currently reading since I heard of the idea of animals knowing basic syntax 2nd hand:
"Syntax and compositionality in animal communication" (2020)
Of course I agree dogs and cats don't understand syntax the way humans do (since this ropes in adult humans, which the article agrees with), but I would argue a newborn appears to understand syntax the way some animals do. :)
"This is a levels of consciousness argument, where you're assuming that until they are showing signs of rational thought (i.e., full sentences etc.) they're having some different form of consciousness. This will lead to a Eugenics argument."
Well I agree there! :P
"In my world, the fact they have a human conscious experience period -is deserving of protection. Not how rational they are. "
Why though?
I agree with idea of giving humans more value...but I think you run into the issue of smuggling arbitrary human value.
Alex O'Connor brought this up in his conversation with Destiny on animals where said position is like an On/Off switch that, going back far enough in the evoluntionary chain, you have to say the humanoid parents have no moral value and the children of said humanoids are human beings with full moral value. In other words, you would have to draw an arbitrary line which contends with how reality functions on a gradient. :/
Ok, I am meeting with my church's youth pastor for coffee, so I will finish replying when I get back!
That said, thank you for being so good faith and thorough in your responses. I am genuinely looking forward to doing the same for you. :)
"Supposed I have a pill that allows an organism to read a book"
Just finished the modern Planet of the Apes trilogy. The first movie was the best because it delved deep into these same issues of rationality, capability, dignity, identity, and morality. In fact, the main character, the ape Caesar, was saved from ape infanticide in the movie.
More power to you both! May God bless your ministry!
Regarding Destiny's question about how we discern moral facts, would it not perfectly reasonable and objective to say "by their fruits you will know them?"
That's not a satisfying answer to any non religious person. What if two religious people disagree and both claim revelation of some sort?
@@fjordan2345 well no one is ever satisfied it seems lol now two religious people can at least have some points of contact and basic assumptions that they share and therefore can use to evaluate a claim of revelation
Destiny’s reductive view of being vs. Trent’s holistic composite view. Are we merely minds who happen to be stuck in some material husks, or are we totality of body and mind operating in a natural unity? Destiny’s position leads to horrific implications if you take it to its ethical conclusions. Can you please invite Trent back to talk about the ontological positions of both views, please?
As does Trents. The difference in the debate was Destiny was willing to honestly bite those bullets as opposed to Trent who dodged them for optics.
@@Bravo2zero0 Lol you debatebros and your lingo. Tell me which point Trent “dodged for optics” and I’ll answer it for you to save him the trouble.
@@bookishbrendan8875 sure, go back and time to the answers Destiny gives ti Trent's hypotheticals and then do the reserve.
Destiny was giving straight 'yes' or 'no' answers as opposed to 'well I'm not in a position to say one way or the other whether or not someone bla bla bla' when answering the suicide one.
Complete bullshit.
@@Bravo2zero0 No, give me the timestamps or a specific example and I’ll answer it.
@@bookishbrendan8875Trent should have said yes to the murder, yes to the police investigations and yes to caring for the 64 cell human. He could have done the nuances afterwards.
An interesting thing is that spatial awareness can be exercised.
Trent was a bit evasive at times, and I think that was unfortunate because Destiny capitalised on it rhetorically. But he did answer most or all (?) of the hypotheticals, it’s just that he gave a nuanced answer - such as his answer to the questions regarding appropriate punishments for women who have abortions.
Yeah, that was the one thing I thought Trent could have really improved upon. His objections were reasonable, but he would have looked stronger if he had just answered forthrightly, then elaborated from there.
So with Destiny's 20 week plus Human Consciousness Experience principle, kill a 19 week, 6 day, 23 hour 55 minute foetus is fine but do the same to a 20 week and 5 minute old and it's First Degree Murder?? What if you switch timezones at the critical time??
Lines have to be drawn for policies to be put into place. How different is a 17 and a half year old and and 18 year old? Why does one get a vote for the country when the other doesn't? Arguing based on where the line is drawn just for the fact that one has to be drawn isn't a good argument.
So we should not have age limits on anything? Age of consent, alcohol age limits. All stupid?
@@SteelingMorality No, we acknowledge that a capacity for decision making arises out of potential. The same potential that a human fetus has. Your argument also confuses "vote for a country" with "right to live".
@kingmarlin5043 I didn't confuse the 2, I was listing an example of where a line is drawn that also doesn't make much sense. Obviously in practice the 2 things are very different. That line still has to be drawn though because you can't have a grey area when writing policy(aka laws). So, to argue using the grey area instead of the line doesn't help anyone.
Exactly, the more advanced medical technology becomes, the earlier and earlier we determine consciousness begins. What if 5 years from now we discover consciousness starts at 10 weeks? Would Destiny then say he was wrong for supporting abortion up until 20 weeks? Doubtful
I learned chess as a 8 year old. When I was newly married I taught my husband. He did a few days of practice with an app and immediately started smoking me
The only thing these debates show
is that there are irreconcilable differences between us
We can not exist under the same political structures long term. its insanity.
Re: baptizing frozen embryos, could a priest blass the liquid they're frozen in, thus making it into holy water, and baptize them that way?
The reason Trent can't remember what destiny said is Trent doesn't like what is being said during the debate and looks for ways to win an argument rather than understanding the arguments from the other side.
Pay attention to the arguments and try steel- manning the argument from the other side, it improves your debating skills.
This right here.
He can't remember some of them of the top of his head.
He remembered more than he forgot.
He also said at the beginning of the podcast that he spent a long time listening to destiny in preparation.
IE internalizing his arguments in order to debate them.
Cool to get mentioned by Trent near the beginning (I was the one who was saying he should have challenged Destiny’s worldview) I understand what Trent is saying about time constraints and challenges that poses. I still think though that this is primarily an issue of theology and worldview than it is science and philosophy.
I completely agree. I think this debate was kind of a missed opportunity for Trent to present the moral argument for God’s existence.
@@LemonLimeJuiceBarrell The moral argument isn't very effective with people like Destiny who don't think there are any moral facts that stand in need of explanation.
@@TheCounselofTrent I completely agree. I was more-so meaning that it would have been cool to see you bring it up on this particular channel just because of the audience and the reach of the channel. I was an atheist for many years and it was the moral argument that started to make me doubt my position. I’m sure Destiny has heard that argument many times and still prefers moral relativism (or claims to). I don’t think you would have persuaded him but maybe planted a seed for someone in the audience. Tbh as soon as Destiny gave his definition of “personhood” the actual debate was over because if you accept his definition then you can justify anything from abortion to grape. That being said most people are not moral relativists for reasons that they probably don’t understand themselves so my point is that it would have been a good opportunity to throw the moral argument out there for people to chew on even if Destiny would never concede it. Anyway it was still one of the best debates on that channel and I commend you for showing such love and charity to Destiny. You did a wonderful job of representing how Christians should engage people without making a ton of emotions appeals. Great stuff.
I'm still watching the debate with Trent and Destiny and my honest observation thus far is Destiny is strengthening the case for objective morality being rooted only in religion and more specifically Christianity.
Trent, if you read this I really want an answer to this question.
I asked the following on Trent's video review of the Lila Rose/Hawkins/Destiny "debate":
Someone in the comments said, "Humans are objects and objects are only as valuable as we collectively agree them to be."
Trent, do you think the pro-life side could concede this point?
We can argue an individual could rationally conclude a human is a living creature with will and intellect, but an individual could never conclude that a human has inherent value. Or am I wrong?
Could we say what the commenter said is objectively true, but it ultimately leads to human atrocities because people can be viewed as merely objects? So the only way to avoid this dilemma if you want human rights is some philosophy or moral system that ascribes inherent value to human beings.
So it's necessary to bring Christian morality in. You can only assume universal personhood or value if someone or something outside of human opinion ascribes that value otherwise all we have is arbitrary cultural distinctions.
I know pro-life apologists try to avoid bringing religion into these debates, but ultimately don't you have to?
1:19:19 Whatever Podcast Destiny vs Trent Horn
I think the part in the debate about human intuition goes back to my original question. Pro-life apologetics has to ultimately rest on Scripture aka Divine Revelation aka God otherwise you have the issue that Destiny so aptly pointed out.
Trent wanted to say people can have "massively incorrect intuitions". Destiny said in Trent's world of moral realism humans cannot have incorrect intuitions.
In other words, Trent believes if any two people have disagreements their moral intuitions should be "sufficiently similar enough" to agree on any objective moral fact. Trent tried to distinguish "basic intuitions" and listed examples.
Trent says, "There are things you ought to do irrespective of the consequences to you."
And therein lies the problem. In reality I believe the basic human intuition is self-interest. I also believe Holy Scripture points to this problem when it refers to all sin having its origin in the human heart.
I understand Trent's appeal to human intuition, but Trent himself admits human intuition can be incorrect. Destiny pointed out the flaw in Trent's argument.
Destiny gives the example of a cheetah in the wild abandoning a disabled or injured cub and then he gives the hypothetical human equivalent: A human tribe choosing to leave behind a child for various practical reasons because the child cannot walk.
Then Destiny asks, "How do you determine who's intuition is correct?"
Perhaps my understanding is flawed or incorrect, but the Catholic Church teaches that our moral conscience has to be well-formed.
Page 440 Part III Life in Christ
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,
Paragraph 1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgement that departs from them.
Paragraph 1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgements less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in the divine law.
It seems to me you can argue against abortion with secular arguments that appeal to human reason, but you must inevitably bring God into the discussion. Then we can make the argument for Christ.
I think when Trent talks about some people's intuition being is because of sin. The more someone commits moral evil, the more he thinks its right. This doesn't address not bringing religion into the conversation but I think that's the line of thinking Trent was taking. This principle could be tweaked to say that those that commit moral evils over and over again against their intuition will eventually believe that something that is evil, is not as evil, or actually right. This I don't think would work against a moral relativist though...
@@quinlanhouse8919Thank you for your comment. I understand that Trent believes people can have immoral intuitions, but Trent assumes humanity has the same "basic intuitions" toward "good". However, Destiny's point is what happens when people have different intuitions? Who determines which intuition is correct? We're back at square one. Who determines what is good?
At 42:11 Destiny says exactly that, "You come from a position of moral authority. Where you believe you have a set of objective facts you want to argue in favor of. But, my argument to you would be I don't believe you can ever prove an objective fact without diving into the Bible." Destiny doesn't believe "we can reconcile moral fact disagreements" because we can't "perceive morality." We just have how we feel. He admits that's an unsatisfactory answer.
I think Trent is right in that we all have a conscience so yes, we can perceive morality. However, I think Destiny is right in that human conscience needs direction to determine what is moral. However, I think Destiny's position on this one key point is in the favor of Christianity or at the very least Christian morality.
Trent doesn't want to bring the Bible into the argument, but I agree with Destiny eventually you must.
12:00 it's because many have become disillusioned with "debate" and regard it as mere spectacle. We don't think you're changing any minds
Most people do have their convictions before they watch a debate. I think they are a good thing to still engage one's brain and expand one's worldview.
I’m not the first to mention this in the comments, but I think Trent should have bitten the bullet and asserted that we are morally obliged to maintain the life of a 16 cell embryo. Isn’t that the Catholic position? In that way, we would uphold the principle that all human life is sacred regardless of his / her stage of development ( which is a worthy lesson to others and therefore, from a practical point of view, would justify the minimal cost of keeping the human being alive in a petri dish ). And perhaps the early stage person in the petri dish could be used for some kind of beneficial scientific research, as long as he / she is not harmed in the process. Again, that would give some practical value to their life even though they are not aware of it.
I think that's what he said and what he expounds in this very interview. He says that proportional medical care should be provided. Just like how someone in hospice may gradually get too much pain medication, or someone on a feeding tube may have their nutrition revoked, or removed from a lung apparatus.
Trent you were amazing! ❤ I am VASTLY intrigued by the conscious argument.
Yeah I also liked the part were he refused to answer a single hypothetical straight after Destiny gave straight answers to all of his.
@@Bravo2zero0lol a bit assmad but I understand.
@@saraarlavi4217 true, always been mad over asses. Way better than boobs.
@@saraarlavi4217 doesn't seem like you do.
The comments on OT slavery are interesting. I haven’t dug very far into it - just enough to get a general impression that slavery in Israel was like indentured servitude until the end of the contract, where they could choose to remain with the household forever. Leaving out cases for abuse of a system (and also arguments for God’s treatment of slaves), I have become far more relaxed on whether someone has a right to CHOOSE to be a slave.
If I look around our society, I see a great many people (not necessarily a majority, but a sizable number just the same) that are far happier when someone is caring for them. From Failure to Launch to recidivism in incarceration to welfare dependence, a desire to be independent is not universal. With even indentured servitude outlawed, there isn’t even an option for an adult to choose that for themselves if they wanted it - so they make themselves slaves to the government instead. And like most things, I kinda lean towards the government filling a role that a private party could do is usually the wrong way to go about things.
In other words, if a person wants to depend on a third party for survival and care, I’d rather they had the right to do that individually instead of voting for all of us to be dependent on the government :/
I haven’t had much opportunity to test this thinking with good argumentation because it is so highly controversial/universally rejected. So it’s just loosely hanging out in the back of my head without strong conviction one way or the other.
"Murder BOOOO, I don't like that" ahahahah, Trent you're so funny!
Thank you Trent for your efforts! Your video with Destiny was a model of reason and charity. May God grant you great grace in your service to him.
which God?
It was a good conversation, much more productive than Destiny's previous one, but I'm seriously disappointed that Trent didn't answer many of the hypotheticals. To me that looks like a weak position.
I think he did answer them but he answered them in a nuanced way. I do agree that he could have been a bit more forthright sometimes on things like the 16 cells in a petri dish. My understanding of Catholic morality is that we would be obliged to keep such an early stage human being alive even if he / she couldn’t develop any further. And why not? In reality there wouldn’t be entire hospitals dedicated to keeping them alive as Destiny claimed. It actually wouldn’t take much in the way of resources to keep the petri dish human beings alive and they could serve as a reminder that all human life is sacred. And perhaps they could be used for beneficial scientific research as long as they weren’t harmed.
@@blakemoon123
You can't create policy with "it's nuanced". Draw the lines. Own a position.
He also tried to call out Destiny for not engaging in hypotheticals when Destiny absolutely did. He answered some really tough questions. Trent did not. Being "nuanced" means answering the tough questions... not dancing around ambiguity.
> It actually wouldn’t take much in the way of resources to keep the petri dish human beings alive
It absolutely would... those petri dishes would grow into fetuses which are more complex to keep alive. Then those would become children we'd have to find families to adopt those children. Are you joking?
@jscul “own a position”
You probably had math classes where you were asked whether a problem gave you enough information to solve it, and you would say it did or didn’t. If someone asks you a question and it doesn’t have enough info to answer one way or another, you can either say so, or you can try to answer with caveats that make it clear that the question was deficient but you could answer it with appropriate qualifications.
Trent did the latter.
@@michaeldulman5487
> Would you charge women with double homicide if they aborted twins.
The obvious answer for Trent should've been yes. He skirted the response.
> Which is more similar, a zygote and a sperm + an egg, or a 90-year-old person.
No response.
> If a woman dies, should we immediately rush her to the hospital to look inside her uterus to see if there's a zygote? If there is a zygote, should we keep the zygote alive in a petri dish?
Again, a non-answer.
^ these are INCREDIBLY simple hypotheticals. Each one prods at a philosophical topic. If there is insufficient information, ask for clarification or context. Trent did not do this.
Idk Trent, Fr James Martin basically did say that the Church is wrong at one of the Synod Meetings. With Francis right there.
Please get Mark Queppet on your show
I think you would give him a boost to his following which all parties involved would benefit from
The shrug at 1:51:21 is Trent remaining humble when he knows the truth lol. I am looking forward to his debate with Allie. I’m not trying to be rude but she is very arrogant and I think Trent’s demeanor will put a stop to it just like he did with Destiny. Respect to Allie for agreeing to have him on. She better be ready.
Oh..she will learn a thing a two on that day. I would love to see that debate.
Start an online training camp to prepare people to do the debate :)
I had the same thought when Trent talked about the dearth of strong Catholic debaters. I think it would still be important to be aware of your limitations however, even if you had taken the hypothetical course. But the more people who are reasonably capable in these areas the better.
I laughed so hard at your women’s chess pawn joke Matt
All pawnography is sinful
I’m Orthodox but I appreciate Trent’s approach and agree that trying to go straight to convincing of a Christian worldview is a bad strategy and seems to suggest that you can’t focus and think critically about something in particular but can only think ideologically