The question is whether morality is justifiable without a God. It annoys me how much people miss the centrality of that in this debate. Nobody denies that an atheist can adhere to the social/ moral norms of their time and place. It is whether, being a materialist, you can coherently justify those norms as objectively true and rationally compelling. This is not "can atheists adhere to normal morality" it is "is morality a coherent concept under atheism". Please stop missing the point on this.
Probably, but we didn't just all of a sudden have the religious beliefs. They evolved over time. Certainly in an atheist world morality would develop over time as well.
@@natethegr8230 The difference being that the morality will just suit the powerful, whereas Christians waged war on slavery at immense personal cost to rich and poor alike because Christ told us to do it. So great was our fervour that we were thought tyrants by men like Jefferson over it.
Morality already exist within everyone no matter what believe they represent . You don't NEED a believe system to be moral for everyone already is inherently. Almost everyone is just in denial of their most inner voice and refuses to listen to it because of the stresses created by the world which makes a believe system necessary for those who don't know how to listen to that voice.
@@natethegr8230On the contrary, there's never beena purely Atheist society that existed in ancient history. Religion and belief systems were deeply embedded in the fabric of ancient human life, serving as a cornerstone for identity, governance, and societal structure. One can argue for an Atheist society to eventually develop a sense of morality they'd have to adopt a more theistic viewpoint .
@@altnarrative He’s gotten very egotistical in his righteousness. I agree with some of his beliefs but his insistence that delusion - religion - is real, ‘god’ is real, when jp is supposed to be a man of science, based on *evidence,* totally turned me off of him. He should keep his crazy where it belongs - at home and in church. We don’t come to hear about insanity from him, we come to hear his viewpoint regarding his chosen profession. He losing his intelligent fans and will be left with nothing but religious crazies. I hoped for better than this for him.
I listen to my most deep intuition to orient myself which I do through meditation. I don't need a to give it the name god to understand that it is of the utmost importance to listen.
@@falconcourt8740 The issue is that, without God, you have no objective basis upon which you can consider "listening to your deepest intuitions" as a valuable thing.
It is valuable because it aligns me with truth. Getting into that state of meditation will render all unnecesary thoughts mute. Only leaving the objective making it obvious what is the right thing to do. But i guess what you are suggesting is that what i deem "obvious" is a value system given to me through god/christianity. I believe thos vallues allready existed long before the idea of god was invented. and its been given to me through an evolutionary trial and error.
I think one of the strongest arguments against secular morality is that it's inevitably subjective. Without being able to appeal to a set of religious tenets, what one person considers moral is relative to his/her individual judgement. It lacks a uniting principle of codification, unlike scripture.
You could postulate that scripture is collectively adhered, but also "just" a set of arbitrarily adopted beliefs among other sets (i.e. other religions or moral systems). In Maps of Meaning (book and lectures), though, Peterson talks about how a joint agreement on fundamental principles is necessary to establish predictability. The difficult task comes from ordering belief systems.
This is true but Jesus also undermined our uniting principle of codification in the law of Moses. Even within the frame of religion the choice of which religion to choose is somewhat subjective in the first place, especially in relation to different lineages and nations. In Christianity there are Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians. In this age of increased literacy, internet access and globalization the choice is no longer as simple as the default purpose our ancestors had and to make an informed decision requires an expert level knowledge. That’s one reason why many are non religious today.
How do you account for moral disagreement among Believers of the same god? Consider the parents of Mortara against pope Pious IX. Both parties were followers of yaweh, but they didn't agree about the morality of taking the child. What is the testable, objective mechanism the theist can apply to demonstrate what's morally correct?
Then there are those of us that are science based - something jp once insisted he was - that prefer to wait for empirical evidence before we cast our belief behind something. Jp left that rational space some time ago.
@ Empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. I’d settle for empirical evidence jesus ever existed, but as he is a product of the early church co-opting pagan ritual to bring in followers/$$$$$$, I doubt such evidence will ever be sourced.
Konstantin appealing to him growing up in the Soviet union is always ridiculous. He was 8 when it ended. He has extremely few memories of it, and most he imagine are from it are later conflations. Saying that you grew up in post-soviet Russia has less zing so he goes with the less honest route.
Im reminded of that movie, "City of Amber." Hundreds of years before, the forefathers created a amazing mechanical works to keep the city functioning. But over time, the descendants forgot how it operates and how to maintain it. This the city came to an end.
Yes, it is indeed strange that, despite the wealth of historical and philosophical evidence, many still struggle to disentangle morality from divine decree. The capacity for independent thought and reasoning is one of humanity's greatest strengths, yet it is often underutilized when confronted with deeply ingrained traditions or beliefs
@alexanderuser1282 His claim is certainly fair. What's up to question is the quality of that pre-Divine morality and the evidence if any that if attained it is in anyway sustainable on a social level. I would argue that leaving morality to be determined be people instead of a pre-deteemined "High value" is very unstable ground to build your morals on, since human attitudes change as quickly as the sands.
@ Exactly. If it's arbitrary, and by extention, reality is arbitrary (since there's no epistemological materialist claim that can account for the intelligibility of the world and our senses) then nothing makes sense. It's a contraddictory worldview from the outset.
@alexanderuser1282It is. It addresses the nature and development of knowledge regarding morality and the concept of God, suggesting a historical progression and relationship between the two. The statement reflects beliefs about moral philosophy and theology, exploring how these beliefs have changed over time, which is central to epistemology.
Living "good" using the idea of good determined by the society one grew up in. It always comes down to "good" according to which society, and which "god(s)" they follow(ed). A cannibal tribe that sacrifice other humans to their gods are deemed as good, righteous, and respectful, and they know not otherwise for that's their worldview and live among that moral and ethical standard.
And to continue this, ancient civilizations knew this and created “gods” to fit their morality. End point; It comes from God, but humanity needs it “gods” if they don’t want to accept the one true living God and Creator, Jesus Christ.
@@christianbrown7621 you can call them gods. they exist, and are gods. they are demonic spirits that are powerful and were worshiped out of fear or bargain for power and were the grand principal of various communities. Christ is God, but infinitely higher - of a different nature and is the source of their existence.
2:45 so the increase in the lack of belief in God will lead to a DECREASE in moral behavior? So if we took a historical sample of religious adherence we'll see that trend, right?
Yes lol. Abortion, fornication, divorce, adultery have all skyrocketed as people apostatize from Christianity and that’s like 1-2 generations. The whole system will collapse and other kinds of murder, corruption, theft etc will skyrocket. The principle has been set and will come to completion
It’s quite obvious. Look at the immorality that has dramatically increased since we’ve become more atheist. It has caused a perpetual downfall in western society.
As a non religious person, i think so. But it is not at all easy to measure true belief in something greater vs just pretending, its also difficult to measure morality. Cherry picking some arbitrary stats wont prove anything either way.
Imagine If god had the forthsight to mention slavery in his 10 rules for life, would have saved us for much of this debate. Buddism and jainism manged to create a greater moral appeal for all living things without an appeal to god (rather then Christian human centric morality, and Even then its lacking) but all moral systems are too universalist to be able to account for all human experience
A false morality can be simulated without the belief of God. But ultimately it is exactly that - false. It's not morality at all. It's appeal to consensus or its purely utilitarian. Morality is not about a set of rules. It's about a disposition of the heart, soul, and mind that says "I love others" and genuinely desires their good even at your own expense because you understand that the sacrifice is merely a thorn in your side compared to the glory of giving the transformational power of love unto others. Secular morality is about "do's and don'ts" True morality is about identity and transformation of the heart in order to transcend this world and bring back Eden.
The claim made that morality, absent the divine, is but a hollow mimicry-a counterfeit coin whose gilded surface conceals no true worth. Yet, let us linger upon this assertion and unravel its threads with the patience of reason and the clarity of a reflective mind. Morality, whether divine or secular, is not merely the memorization of rules, nor the mechanical adherence to "do's and don'ts." It is a mirror to the soul, reflecting the choices we make as we navigate the labyrinth of existence. To dismiss secular morality as false because it lacks divine imprimatur is to misunderstand its essence. Morality is not the property of any one creed or worldview; it is a universal endeavor, a journey shared by all who seek to live with integrity and compassion. Consider the notion that true morality springs solely from a divine source, rooted in a transformation of the heart. This presumes that love, selflessness, and the desire for others' well-being are inaccessible to those who walk a secular path. Yet, is not the act of love-pure and unbidden-a testament to the human spirit itself? Does not the parent who sacrifices for their child, the stranger who risks their life for another, embody the very essence of moral transformation? These acts, unmoored from any divine command, shine as brightly as any sanctified virtue. To transcend the self for the sake of others is not the sole province of religion; it is a capacity born of our shared humanity. The recognition of another's suffering, the impulse to alleviate it, and the understanding that our fates are intertwined-these are the roots of true morality, deeper than dogma and broader than belief. And what of this Eden, this ideal state to which morality aspires? The metaphor is apt, for Eden is not a place to be reclaimed but a state of harmony to be cultivated. It is not brought forth by clinging to doctrines but by living with awareness, empathy, and a commitment to justice. Eden, in truth, is the garden we tend within ourselves and in the world we share. Secular morality, then, is not a counterfeit; it is a testament to the human capacity for reason and compassion. It is not bound by rules but guided by principles, not driven by fear of punishment but by the aspiration to do what is right. If morality is indeed about the transformation of the heart, then let us not confine its source to a single narrative but celebrate its flowering wherever it may bloom.
Yes secular morality can be noble but can never transcend mere nobility. Rather, at its most transcendent it can never transcend the political because its functions must constantly be renegotiated to remain noble.
I'd argue morals can be there with or without God; BUT - God helps you keep to morality, whereas a society without God distorts morality until it outright becomes evil. After all, sins are acts of erring away from God, sins proliferate the further away from God a society gets.
@ what you described is not morality at all hence the inevitable collapse of this behavior system. It is nothing more than the perception of God like behavior under the guise of morality.
The question of whether morality can exist without god is tied to our understanding of existence itself. Some believe that morality relies on God’s existence, as a higher power is seen as the source of moral standards. However, others argue that morality can exist independently of God, based on human reason, societal norms, and the need for cooperation. In this view, morality isn’t about obeying a divine command but about what helps humans live together harmoniously and ethically. Ultimately, whether morality needs God depends on how one defines moral principles and where they believe they come from.
The science of language includes sounds( phonations) phonemes, morphology(words)syntax, semantics, structures, literal and lastly pragmatic( contextual meaning). Language in its structure can have fractal meanings, with double, triple or more entendres ( meanings) given the same syntax, semantics structures, sounds, etc. Language is regarded as a representation of information. Words are not only sounds but transmit meaning. Transmission of meaning is a function of intent. Sounds and words can have meaninglessness by intent but when there is meaning there is necessarily intent. Sounds transmit action. Sounds are measured as frequencies and vibrations. Sounds and vibrations can act on reality. Chladni plates, cymascopes, oscilloscopes, etc are means of demonstrating the actionable properties of sound. Sounds can have particular shapes and patterns. These shapes and patterns are determined by the substances being acted upon as well as the substance acting. Water is a classic example of such actings visualized in cymascopes and oscilloscopes. Furthermore water not only can be acted upon by sound but water also then produces sound. Multiple sources of frequencies, vibration can simultaneously act on water. Oceans are acted on by wind, earth crust ( earthquakes and volcanoes, tectonic plates and subsurface dynamics) , gravity and electromagnetic fields, etc. Water crashing on a beach creates sounds as well as patterns in sand or rock. Sounds as spoken can have structural topology. This topology itself has transmitting effects( these effects can have effects into and beyond the structure directly acted on.. ocean waves caused by earthquakes can transmit patterns on land, sand and rocks not acted on directly by the earthquake, etc.).
That’s interesting information. Thanks for that! But what is the purpose of this comment? Is there a reason why you commented all this? Does it somehow relate to the discussion in the video?
No because everyone has a different view of what is moral and what isn’t. What is the final say of what moral and what isn’t? Some people would say killing someone in self defence is okay, some people would say absolutely not it isn’t okay to take anyone’s life. Some people would say it’s okay to steal if you are starving, some would say absolutely not.
Can you prove that if there is a god he himself is moral. Is there a coherent argument too be made for a god that allows suffering and pain on his own creations. Is god moral? Why all pain and suffering well expecting us to believe in him with little to no interaction just left on our own to figure it out. My question to you is why is god a moral being?
The problem of evil is based on our limited understanding of God's nature. God doesn't have to fit our ideas of what omnipotence and benevolence should look like. In Christianity, the Bible shows that God opposes evil and wants to bring order, but He can't just erase evil with a snap of His fingers. His way of dealing with evil may seem morally questionable to us. According to Christians, god isn't just a perfect, abstract being. Like humans, He is complex and not simply an idealized version of power and goodness. However, it's not whether why he allowed evil or not. The real question is, is god evil? He can't be good because he doesn't give absolute free will, and he interferes with other choices that contradict free will because it's not defined, so why praise a god that isn't good to you?
Saying we can't understand God's nature screws up the whole argument. Just look at it Morality and goodness come from god. -> God's nature is goodness. -> We can't understand God's nature. -> We can't understand goodness. -> We can not understand morality. Unless we break one of these, then under the theist view, morality might be objective in a sense, but it's completely inaccessible to humans. It's like a black hole at the center of the galaxy, perfectly real but simultaneously completely irrelevant in your daily life.
@@j8000I never said we can't understand god's intentions at all, only that our understanding is limited. The human mind is finite and can't fully grasp the infinite complexity of god's nature. 1. In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. Instead, He provides moral guidance through sacred texts, prophets, or natural law. While god's full nature may be beyond comprehension, He communicates enough for humans to understand and apply moral principles in daily life. 2. Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any aspects of it. For example, we might not grasp the full nature of infinity, but we can work with concepts like "larger than any number." Similarly, humans can understand enough about goodness and morality to live meaningfully, even if the ultimate source is beyond full comprehension. 3. The comparison to a black hole is flawed. Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life. Morality is not irrelevant just because it has a divine source that is ultimately incomprehensible.
@j8000 I never said we can't understand god's intentions at all, only that our understanding is limited. The human mind is finite and can't fully grasp the infinite complexity of god's nature. 1. In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. 2. Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any part of it. For example, we might not grasp the full nature of infinity, but we can work with concepts like "larger than any number." Similarly, humans can understand enough about goodness and morality to live meaningfully, even if the ultimate source is beyond full comprehension. 3. The comparison to a black hole is flawed. Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life. Morality is not irrelevant just because it has a divine source that is ultimately incomprehensible.
@@Mr.business7777 "In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. (...) Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any part of it." As long as you don't know which parts you do fully understand and don't fully understand, you are in fact in complete ignorance. What mechanism do we have for delineating this, that isn't just subjectivity? The ultimate truth could conceivably involve that things we think we understand are in fact false. A great example of this are the theodicies that place the Fall prior to the existence of humanity; at the shoulders of angelic rebellions. See Cliffe Knechtle and Gavin Ortlund as recent proponents. "Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life." "Accessible" would be a meaningful argument if it were true. However, since moral disputes exist amongst followers of the same god, it is on it's face false. These would not arise in the first place if If you are simply talking about "access" in the sense that it is possible to interpret things you believe come from god, then the black hole is exactly as real, or arguably much more so; the solar system we are in would not exist (as we know it) without it, for instance.
Unethical acts have ill effects, which spread. One who wants a peaceful, sane, and productive society that is best for all concerned doesn't need a god or even rules to understand that and act accordingly.
I don’t know how it’s possible for morality to be objective, even conceptually. Saying something is “good” and “bad” is a value judgment, and judgments require a judge (and if any judge is a subject, even those with a capital J, their judgments are definitionally subjective). Judgments don’t fall out of thin air, nor do they just…exist. We can imagine a world in which God doesn’t care much for humans, or at least so prioritizes other beings that his care for humans is comparatively minor, to the point that he would treat us basically as mere sources of food and entertainment for higher beings. This is basically how we understand God’s care for many *other* earthly creatures (how much does God care about mosquitos, for example?). But in that scenario, where God intends nothing more than to flog and feed humanity to other gods, in what meaningful sense could we say “God is good?” Would we not at least temper that declaration? “God’s pretty alright?” By what principle of logic would we be constrained to declare that our divine torturer/absentee father was good? It seems to me that “God is good” is a realization afforded to us by special revelation, and that it is absolutely and wonderfully subjective because the goodness is really a *love* for and from subjects (God’s love for us). While most pagan traditions see the gods care for humans as fickle at best (see Greek mythology), the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition created humanity in his image and desired their good-to bless the whole world through the family of Abraham. That idea, that God has plans for humanity that are suited to bless them, is what makes the statement “God is good” true in any meaningful sense. If we later learn we got it wrong and God only intends to bless and give the world to mosquitos, and toss all of humanity into a cauldron for inventing bug spray, I trust I won’t be the only one who will declare, “Uhhh. You know, maybe God isn’t so good (for us) after all.” I’m not arguing we’re in that timeline, of course, I believe God *is* good-but I am arguing that saying so (and meaning anything) depends on that declaration being subjective.
To build a moral system, one must first answer the question, "Is there an objective reality and, if so, what is it compared to relative reality?" Science has historically trailed behind religion is this understanding but recently quantum physics has confirmed that phenomena comes out of nothing and goes back into nothing again. This confirmed our understanding of God or Emptiness or Creator and that it is beyond our current understanding but that all in our world is like a relative dance. We also know from western and eastern religion that the expression of God in our relative world is Love/Compassion (willing the good of the other and acting). Now we can build a moral system from this point. For westerners, Jung said Christianity provides us the best chance at full actualization of which Love is the foundation. But beyond the above is faith which can be defined as understanding beyond reason and really does not need this level of rational understanding. It is interesting that the main goal of quantum physics is to find one formula that will explain everything. Sounds like a search for God doesn't it?
Without God morality would be subjective because by default it will come from humanity and the implications of that would be disturbing because if the laws of morality can changed then any horrible thing justified by reason can be done but If morality is objective meaning unchangeable given by God would imply restrictions from any individual doing evil.
You assume that if morality is subjective, it would inevitably lead to justifications for harmful actions, but this perspective overlooks the complexity of how subjective morality can work in practice. Morality is already, to a large extent, subjective because it is influenced by personal, cultural, and societal factors. Different cultures have different moral codes, and individuals within those cultures may hold varying views on what is right or wrong. It was always more subjective rather than objective. In a world where morality is subjective, the potential for justifying harmful actions still exists, but people can use reason, growth, and empathy to build consensus on what is considered immoral. While this makes morality more flexible, it doesn't mean it is free from any moral standards; it simply means these standards can be debated and revised. You are saying that objective morality (imposed by god) is the only way to prevent moral wrongs, which ignores the growing recognition that moral values can be determined through human reasoning and the collective good. Far from leading to chaos, subjective morality can foster ongoing reflection and growth in ethical thinking.
To contend that morality sans God must devolve into the capricious theatre of human subjectivity is, perchance, to overlook the labyrinthine complexity of the human spirit. Yet, let us parse this proposition with care, as one who seeks the golden thread amidst the tangle. If morality springs solely from the wellspring of humanity, its essence may indeed be mutable, a clay molded by the potter's hands of circumstance and consensus. Such a vision portends a world wherein the lodestar of right and wrong sways to the tempests of convenience or power. Reason, unmoored from an eternal compass, might justify acts that chill the marrow, cloaking them in the garb of necessity or progress. The specter of "might makes right" looms large, and the moral edifice trembles before the onslaught of expedience. Yet, the assertion that morality, to be objective, must emanate from the divine implies a foundation unassailable, a rock upon which the storms of sophistry break impotent. In this framework, moral law becomes a luminous chain, binding the hands of the wicked and guiding the steps of the just. The immutable is a bulwark against the caprices of human frailty, a safeguard against the abyss of relativism. But consider: even within the mortal breast, there resides a yearning for justice, a pang at the sight of suffering, a thrill at the triumph of mercy. Might this not suggest that, whether planted by divine hand or born of evolution’s crucible, humanity carries within itself the seeds of an objective moral sense? And if so, could it not be that the divine and the human are less estranged than supposed, that the former has inscribed its law upon the latter’s heart?
4:02 Vervaeke demonstrates the danger of moralizing Jesus better than most Christians could explain it. Peterson needs to be most careful about this. Jesus is not just a moral example or a Jungian archetype. He is a real person, flesh and blood, who lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and was resurrected by God to conquer death and grant us eternal life.
You're absolutely right about John Vervaeke, I disagree with you when you assert Peterson is moralizing Jesus. He isn't moralizing Jesus. You see that because you looking at it from a theological lense which in regards to this necessitates a interdisciplinary approach to properly see the problem. Jesus as a moral example and Jungian archetype are but tools and/or paths of conceptualizing the Logos, dismissing that is dichotomous thinking. Both are true as long as the centrality is Christ.
Did not all tribes of Isreal suffer damage from straying away from the Word of God? Straying away from what the Bible says and not letting that be the reference is damaging. Missing details do cause hurt and things getting damaged. Remove not the Ancient Landmarks that the Father’s have set. 5:18 Ignorance and omission causes damage.
It would not be the same without god thats true, but it would be stupid to suggest that its an all or nothing. The driving force behind the “ought” of an action is the incentive for the actor to do it or avoid it. This still clearly exists in our reality even though theres no heaven/hell, or an omniscient being watching us. People generally dont want live in a world where awful things are allowed, and there are other disincentives to do things that are commonly deemed “wrong”, like guilt, social isolation, imprisonment, etc.
Now then consider the fractal nature of language and the fractal nature of sou The science of language includes sounds( phonations) phonemes, morphology(words)syntax, semantics, structures, literal and lastly pragmatic( contextual meaning). Language in its structure can have fractal meanings, with double, triple or more entendres ( meanings) given the same syntax, semantics structures, sounds, etc. Language is regarded as a representation of information. Words are not only sounds but transmit meaning. Transmission of meaning is a function of intent. Sounds and words can have meaninglessness by intent but when there is meaning there is necessarily intent. Sounds transmit action. Sounds are measured as frequencies and vibrations. Sounds and vibrations can act on reality. Chladni plates, cymascopes, oscilloscopes, etc are means of demonstrating the actionable properties of sound. Sounds can have particular shapes and patterns. These shapes and patterns are determined by the substances being acted upon as well as the substance acting. Water is a classic example of such actings visualized in cymascopes and oscilloscopes. Furthermore water not only can be acted upon by sound but water also then produces sound. Multiple sources of frequencies, vibration can simultaneously act on water. Oceans are acted on by wind, earth crust ( earthquakes and volcanoes, tectonic plates and subsurface dynamics) , gravity and electromagnetic fields, etc. Water crashing on a beach creates sounds as well as patterns in sand or rock. Sounds as spoken can have structural topology. This topology itself has transmitting effects( these effects can have effects into and beyond the structure directly acted on.. ocean waves caused by earthquakes can transmit patterns on land, sand and rocks not acted on directly by the earthquake, etc.). nd. If sound is an operative of words and therefore language then such sounds can transmit intent by their meaning. Given the above consider:
Morality came from us not god. The gods are man made, it's clear and obvious. If you think of a good thing done or moral thing stated by an atheist is one thing But if you want a moral person to commit evil, you need religion. Jesus didn't say anything in the Bible mainly cos the first account was 80 years after his death. And Mark and Mathew dont agree. MAN MADE
Can Morality Exist Without God? Not only can it exist, it is in my best interest for it to exist. Any intelligent person can grasp that he derives benefit from living in society with others rather than trying to go it alone. Therefore, if I am to have those benefits, I must agree to certain rules of conduct so others will want to live in society with me. We must all agree not to kill and steal and other BAD behavior that would incentivize others to not live harmoniously with us. Basically, living by the 10 Commandments. I don't NEED to believe in God to understand that it is in my own best interest to behave this way. And if we are to live in society, we must separate those who break these rules from us in some manner for some length of time depending on which rules he broke.
You don't need to believe in God to live by the ten commandments? The first two commandments is a command to love and worship God alone and to make nothing else in your life as high a status as God. But leaving that side... Even if you could live by the 10 commandments without believing in God, the ten commandments come out of the concept of God. Therefore, mortality relies on God, even if one chooses not to believe in God.
@@notthatkindofanglican Even if you could live by the 10 commandments without believing in God. It shows a great weakness of character to suggest one needs to rely on belief of God to be a good and moral person and you then confirm this by stating mortality relies on God. You are saying there was no morality until YOUR God delivered the 10 commandments, AND there are no moral atheists or people who believe in a different God than yours. WOW! That is a lot of people to whom you are casting aspersions. I, being one of them and you judge me to be immoral though you don't even know me. I am fairly certain I have heard Mr. Prager say he has friends or family who are atheists. I would assume they are good and moral people. I just explained I am moral because it is in my own self interest to be so by the benefits of living in society with others. So, do you accuse me of being stupid or a liar? If you look in your good book, you will find "you will know them by their fruits" and these fruits you have dropped here are rotten says I. You will also find that you too will be judged if it turns out you are right in your belief. I will leave you with a quote that I agree with: “One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” Arthur C. Clarke
The truth, but as the teacher would say: Show your work! Morality cannot exist without CHRIST specifically (not any of the made-up gods) because an unmoored morality swings at the whims of whatever may be considered politically correct, and what is PC is decided by whatever benefits the powerful. Jesus, on the other hand, provides objective morality by virtue of being the primary authority above all others.
Human morality is an emergent property of natural law. God is always in the shadows, even when we convince ourselves morality stands on its own. The echoes of divine archetypes persist, shaping our sense of right and wrong whether we acknowledge it or not.
Why you dicuss a one small aspect while you can proceed dicussing a variety of things,,,it is an interesting videos,,and hoping the Bishop is well and will make to the coming show
Morality is one of God characteristics,like justice, the totality of all of that is what we call hollines, still have a long way to go, please help us Yeshua
I think that John Lennox said it best, If God does not exist then evolution is the correct model and therefore our brain is molded by this model which is fundamentally guided by survival of the fittest. Then if the presumption that God does not exist is taken then we should see our morality crystalize around survival of the fittest. We frequently see atheist take a moral stance that is contrary to survival of the fittest and this then shows this presumption as false.
In the beginning was the word( a word as a form of expression of meaning and intention) and the word was with God, and the word was God( when you speak your words are you and the spirit of your intentions and so then the words, sounds of the words having meaning by God’s intention are transmitted information). The same ( word) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him( the word of God as God); and without him was not anything made that was made( all things then are made by the word, sound, frequency, vibration, as language , as information transmission, as God/ I am that I am, as in to be to be, God as existence itself, being as the primary category of existence, that being spoke into existence all other being/ being the creator of all other being is not the same as being that other being ( not a oneness of all things .. not a Buddhist proposition). In him( the word as God, in the word was life/ life is spoken into existence) was life; and the life was the light of men( life as light, in the word was life which was light/ light is the fundamental being ( object as wave particle… as a something which exists… which has structure and is a transmitter of information/ light as a particle, as spherical, an object with a surface which surfaces can carry-transmit information).
Please discuss Wielenberg’s godless normative )platonic) realism. And there are other frameworks. That said, yes, classical theism (and even neoclassical a la Josh Rasmussen 2019) would entail moral realism, granted.
Good and bad come from somewhere just like technologies did not appear from out of thin air something immortal that has been around for ages taught people technology something that was born perfect and full of knowledge of life.
How come no one in this group really examine the question at hand and dive in to HOW morality might be able to exist in a world without gods? They are not discussing the question deep enough because they cling to their propositional attitude that "The christian God is the only explanation".
Lets say we are the hardware and morality is the operating system. There is a code writer for that system! Hardware doesnt write its own code and most certainly doesnt assemble itself!
Many people argue that, without God, morality becomes subjective based on individual or cultural beliefs that can change over time. Belief in God provides an unchanging, universal foundation for what is right and wrong. Christian believes that god is the ultimate source of objective morality. Under this perspective, morality is objective because it is rooted in God’s unchanging nature. But whether believing in god for objective morality would depend on who he is. Since Christians say that god is the ultimate source of objective morality. Under this perspective, morality is objective because it is rooted in god’s unchanging nature. Now, whether god is good or evil that you have to find out both subjectively and objectively
Nothing was made except through him Good and beauty exist because he spoke them to existence and He instilled his image in man.I believe morality proceed from God's image in us.
"Can you do God's will without believing in God?!" Seems so silly to me... There is no believing. Is the sky and Earth a joke to you? Do they not exist?
Can Morality Exist Without Belief in God? IF morality cannot exist without Belief in God, then Morality & God WOULD BE synonymous. At least implicatively...they are not.
They just presuppose their christian belief in god to be true and then construt their world around it. With no evidence...and then claim that without their unfounded beliefs there could not be any moral/ethical behaviour. None of them ever heard about humanism?
The question is whether morality is justifiable without a God. It annoys me how much people miss the centrality of that in this debate. Nobody denies that an atheist can adhere to the social/ moral norms of their time and place. It is whether, being a materialist, you can coherently justify those norms as objectively true and rationally compelling. This is not "can atheists adhere to normal morality" it is "is morality a coherent concept under atheism". Please stop missing the point on this.
Probably, but we didn't just all of a sudden have the religious beliefs. They evolved over time. Certainly in an atheist world morality would develop over time as well.
@@natethegr8230 The difference being that the morality will just suit the powerful, whereas Christians waged war on slavery at immense personal cost to rich and poor alike because Christ told us to do it. So great was our fervour that we were thought tyrants by men like Jefferson over it.
Morality already exist within everyone no matter what believe they represent . You don't NEED a believe system to be moral for everyone already is inherently. Almost everyone is just in denial of their most inner voice and refuses to listen to it because of the stresses created by the world which makes a believe system necessary for those who don't know how to listen to that voice.
@@natethegr8230On the contrary, there's never beena purely Atheist society that existed in ancient history. Religion and belief systems were deeply embedded in the fabric of ancient human life, serving as a cornerstone for identity, governance, and societal structure. One can argue for an Atheist society to eventually develop a sense of morality they'd have to adopt a more theistic viewpoint .
@@KopperNeomanCHRISTIANS DID NOT OPPOSE SLAVERY DONT MAKE ME LAUGH😂😂😂😂😂
Bishop Barron replaced by Konstantin Kisin? Holy shit, this is absurdly hilarious.
Not hilarious, but I get your drift.
Great dialogue. Mainly because Jordan isn’t interrupting every time his neurons fire 😅
He knows when to talk
I’m a long time Peterson supporter. Not much in recent years. In part due to how he bulldozers over other speakers by course.
@@altnarrative He’s gotten very egotistical in his righteousness. I agree with some of his beliefs but his insistence that delusion - religion - is real, ‘god’ is real, when jp is supposed to be a man of science, based on *evidence,* totally turned me off of him. He should keep his crazy where it belongs - at home and in church. We don’t come to hear about insanity from him, we come to hear his viewpoint regarding his chosen profession. He losing his intelligent fans and will be left with nothing but religious crazies. I hoped for better than this for him.
Jordan ran from addiction and recovery after getting out of rehab.
“This Jew is very frightened of a post Christian society” - Dennis Praeger
That really says alot.
Where is Bishop Barron? His insight is needed here.
Indeed
Had to make room for Random Twitter Man
Felt his absence as well
His schedule allowed him to be only there for 4 days
@@llamzrtcareful with judgements brother
Believing in God oriented me in the right direction for morality and more
I listen to my most deep intuition to orient myself which I do through meditation. I don't need a to give it the name god to understand that it is of the utmost importance to listen.
@@falconcourt8740 The issue is that, without God, you have no objective basis upon which you can consider "listening to your deepest intuitions" as a valuable thing.
It is valuable because it aligns me with truth. Getting into that state of meditation will render all unnecesary thoughts mute. Only leaving the objective making it obvious what is the right thing to do. But i guess what you are suggesting is that what i deem "obvious" is a value system given to me through god/christianity. I believe thos vallues allready existed long before the idea of god was invented. and its been given to me through an evolutionary trial and error.
This clip seems more potent than the others. Lots of new thoughts for me.
I miss Bishop Barron
I think one of the strongest arguments against secular morality is that it's inevitably subjective. Without being able to appeal to a set of religious tenets, what one person considers moral is relative to his/her individual judgement. It lacks a uniting principle of codification, unlike scripture.
Eloquently "spoken", @Razear♠
You could postulate that scripture is collectively adhered, but also "just" a set of arbitrarily adopted beliefs among other sets (i.e. other religions or moral systems). In Maps of Meaning (book and lectures), though, Peterson talks about how a joint agreement on fundamental principles is necessary to establish predictability. The difficult task comes from ordering belief systems.
It’s all subjective for religious people as well, since the scriptures were written by people.
This is true but Jesus also undermined our uniting principle of codification in the law of Moses.
Even within the frame of religion the choice of which religion to choose is somewhat subjective in the first place, especially in relation to different lineages and nations. In Christianity there are Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians. In this age of increased literacy, internet access and globalization the choice is no longer as simple as the default purpose our ancestors had and to make an informed decision requires an expert level knowledge. That’s one reason why many are non religious today.
How do you account for moral disagreement among Believers of the same god? Consider the parents of Mortara against pope Pious IX. Both parties were followers of yaweh, but they didn't agree about the morality of taking the child. What is the testable, objective mechanism the theist can apply to demonstrate what's morally correct?
I love how everyone in the comments knows without a shadow of a doubt that what they believe is a fact.
Then there are those of us that are science based - something jp once insisted he was - that prefer to wait for empirical evidence before we cast our belief behind something. Jp left that rational space some time ago.
@@kalabakonbitts1362empirical evidence for morality??
@kalabakonbitts1362 you have belief/faith that others don't/won't lie to you and are honest about such empirical evidence
Yet this very comment assumes belief that you are right that everyone is wrong.
@ Empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. I’d settle for empirical evidence jesus ever existed, but as he is a product of the early church co-opting pagan ritual to bring in followers/$$$$$$, I doubt such evidence will ever be sourced.
Konstantin appealing to him growing up in the Soviet union is always ridiculous. He was 8 when it ended. He has extremely few memories of it, and most he imagine are from it are later conflations.
Saying that you grew up in post-soviet Russia has less zing so he goes with the less honest route.
or maybe it's less of a mouthful
You were there? You have from your experience before you concluded how or what was there?
Um, so post-soviet time for him was just "peachy keen"? Please think about that.
Love these. @1:45-2:07 totally agree.
Im reminded of that movie, "City of Amber." Hundreds of years before, the forefathers created a amazing mechanical works to keep the city functioning. But over time, the descendants forgot how it operates and how to maintain it. This the city came to an end.
City of Ember clears
You've got to admire Konstantin Kisin 's self-confidence in accepting an invite to this table.
More like delusion
Chutzpah.
Morality emerged and underwent changes before the concept of God. As time went by, both morality and the concept of God changed.
Yes, it is indeed strange that, despite the wealth of historical and philosophical evidence, many still struggle to disentangle morality from divine decree. The capacity for independent thought and reasoning is one of humanity's greatest strengths, yet it is often underutilized when confronted with deeply ingrained traditions or beliefs
That's not a valid epistemic claim. Try again.
@alexanderuser1282 His claim is certainly fair. What's up to question is the quality of that pre-Divine morality and the evidence if any that if attained it is in anyway sustainable on a social level. I would argue that leaving morality to be determined be people instead of a pre-deteemined "High value" is very unstable ground to build your morals on, since human attitudes change as quickly as the sands.
@ Exactly. If it's arbitrary, and by extention, reality is arbitrary (since there's no epistemological materialist claim that can account for the intelligibility of the world and our senses) then nothing makes sense. It's a contraddictory worldview from the outset.
@alexanderuser1282It is. It addresses the nature and development of knowledge regarding morality and the concept of God, suggesting a historical progression and relationship between the two. The statement reflects beliefs about moral philosophy and theology, exploring how these beliefs have changed over time, which is central to epistemology.
0:30 (living "good" but without God) ...."We should accept that we don’t know the preconditions for the maintenence of the belief system"
Living "good" using the idea of good determined by the society one grew up in. It always comes down to "good" according to which society, and which "god(s)" they follow(ed). A cannibal tribe that sacrifice other humans to their gods are deemed as good, righteous, and respectful, and they know not otherwise for that's their worldview and live among that moral and ethical standard.
This is atheism’s newest quest to prove… but the answer logically and spiritually is a resounding and repetitive no
And to continue this, ancient civilizations knew this and created “gods” to fit their morality. End point; It comes from God, but humanity needs it “gods” if they don’t want to accept the one true living God and Creator, Jesus Christ.
@@christianbrown7621 you can call them gods. they exist, and are gods. they are demonic spirits that are powerful and were worshiped out of fear or bargain for power and were the grand principal of various communities.
Christ is God, but infinitely higher - of a different nature and is the source of their existence.
@@christianbrown7621 I fully agree with this analysis.
Could. Not can. Thats a big word in that sentence.
2:45 so the increase in the lack of belief in God will lead to a DECREASE in moral behavior? So if we took a historical sample of religious adherence we'll see that trend, right?
Yes lol. Abortion, fornication, divorce, adultery have all skyrocketed as people apostatize from Christianity and that’s like 1-2 generations. The whole system will collapse and other kinds of murder, corruption, theft etc will skyrocket. The principle has been set and will come to completion
CHRISTIAN adherence. Using other religions such as Islam will skew the results because those faiths are false.
It’s quite obvious. Look at the immorality that has dramatically increased since we’ve become more atheist. It has caused a perpetual downfall in western society.
As a non religious person, i think so. But it is not at all easy to measure true belief in something greater vs just pretending, its also difficult to measure morality.
Cherry picking some arbitrary stats wont prove anything either way.
Yes. Demonstrably so.
I love JBP, (even if saying God exists is complicated)
I mean 'belief in God'
"we have bishop Barron at home"
Imagine If god had the forthsight to mention slavery in his 10 rules for life, would have saved us for much of this debate.
Buddism and jainism manged to create a greater moral appeal for all living things without an appeal to god (rather then Christian human centric morality, and Even then its lacking) but all moral systems are too universalist to be able to account for all human experience
You are going to have to wait a long time for a reasonable explanation on that.
@jouzel8951 god works in misterious ways, sometimes so contradictory it doesnt Even make sense
Christianity influenced Buddhism.
A false morality can be simulated without the belief of God. But ultimately it is exactly that - false. It's not morality at all. It's appeal to consensus or its purely utilitarian.
Morality is not about a set of rules. It's about a disposition of the heart, soul, and mind that says "I love others" and genuinely desires their good even at your own expense because you understand that the sacrifice is merely a thorn in your side compared to the glory of giving the transformational power of love unto others.
Secular morality is about "do's and don'ts"
True morality is about identity and transformation of the heart in order to transcend this world and bring back Eden.
The claim made that morality, absent the divine, is but a hollow mimicry-a counterfeit coin whose gilded surface conceals no true worth. Yet, let us linger upon this assertion and unravel its threads with the patience of reason and the clarity of a reflective mind.
Morality, whether divine or secular, is not merely the memorization of rules, nor the mechanical adherence to "do's and don'ts." It is a mirror to the soul, reflecting the choices we make as we navigate the labyrinth of existence. To dismiss secular morality as false because it lacks divine imprimatur is to misunderstand its essence. Morality is not the property of any one creed or worldview; it is a universal endeavor, a journey shared by all who seek to live with integrity and compassion.
Consider the notion that true morality springs solely from a divine source, rooted in a transformation of the heart. This presumes that love, selflessness, and the desire for others' well-being are inaccessible to those who walk a secular path. Yet, is not the act of love-pure and unbidden-a testament to the human spirit itself? Does not the parent who sacrifices for their child, the stranger who risks their life for another, embody the very essence of moral transformation? These acts, unmoored from any divine command, shine as brightly as any sanctified virtue.
To transcend the self for the sake of others is not the sole province of religion; it is a capacity born of our shared humanity. The recognition of another's suffering, the impulse to alleviate it, and the understanding that our fates are intertwined-these are the roots of true morality, deeper than dogma and broader than belief.
And what of this Eden, this ideal state to which morality aspires? The metaphor is apt, for Eden is not a place to be reclaimed but a state of harmony to be cultivated. It is not brought forth by clinging to doctrines but by living with awareness, empathy, and a commitment to justice. Eden, in truth, is the garden we tend within ourselves and in the world we share.
Secular morality, then, is not a counterfeit; it is a testament to the human capacity for reason and compassion. It is not bound by rules but guided by principles, not driven by fear of punishment but by the aspiration to do what is right. If morality is indeed about the transformation of the heart, then let us not confine its source to a single narrative but celebrate its flowering wherever it may bloom.
@@arunnair7584an excellent defense of secular morality without the need or impulse to tear down religious morality. This. More of this. Well done!
Yes secular morality can be noble but can never transcend mere nobility. Rather, at its most transcendent it can never transcend the political because its functions must constantly be renegotiated to remain noble.
No morality without God.
I'd argue morals can be there with or without God; BUT - God helps you keep to morality, whereas a society without God distorts morality until it outright becomes evil. After all, sins are acts of erring away from God, sins proliferate the further away from God a society gets.
@ and I’d argue that without God, we default to survival mechanisms. Goodness is taught survival is instinctual.
@ what you described is not morality at all hence the inevitable collapse of this behavior system. It is nothing more than the perception of God like behavior under the guise of morality.
No anything without God.
@ RIGHT!
Awesome discussion happening here.
The ultimate proof of your faith delivered is the resurrection. As Christ said...blessed are those who believe without seeing
Amen
I have enjoyed watching this series . It's very enlightening and important.
Morality serves Aim and we aim at what is highest
“Can you drive according to traffic laws w/o traffic laws..” Good sir we have traffic laws now and people can’t/refuse to drive according to them
So much of this Catholic example reminds me of Chesterton’s, “Literature as Food.”
The question of whether morality can exist without god is tied to our understanding of existence itself. Some believe that morality relies on God’s existence, as a higher power is seen as the source of moral standards. However, others argue that morality can exist independently of God, based on human reason, societal norms, and the need for cooperation. In this view, morality isn’t about obeying a divine command but about what helps humans live together harmoniously and ethically. Ultimately, whether morality needs God depends on how one defines moral principles and where they believe they come from.
Great video
Really intersting
The science of language includes sounds( phonations) phonemes, morphology(words)syntax, semantics, structures, literal and lastly pragmatic( contextual meaning). Language in its structure can have fractal meanings, with double, triple or more entendres ( meanings) given the same syntax, semantics structures, sounds, etc. Language is regarded as a representation of information. Words are not only sounds but transmit meaning. Transmission of meaning is a function of intent. Sounds and words can have meaninglessness by intent but when there is meaning there is necessarily intent. Sounds transmit action. Sounds are measured as frequencies and vibrations. Sounds and vibrations can act on reality. Chladni plates, cymascopes, oscilloscopes, etc are means of demonstrating the actionable properties of sound. Sounds can have particular shapes and patterns. These shapes and patterns are determined by the substances being acted upon as well as the substance acting. Water is a classic example of such actings visualized in cymascopes and oscilloscopes. Furthermore water not only can be acted upon by sound but water also then produces sound. Multiple sources of frequencies, vibration can simultaneously act on water. Oceans are acted on by wind, earth crust ( earthquakes and volcanoes, tectonic plates and subsurface dynamics) , gravity and electromagnetic fields, etc.
Water crashing on a beach creates sounds as well as patterns in sand or rock.
Sounds as spoken can have structural topology. This topology itself has transmitting effects( these effects can have effects into and beyond the structure directly acted on.. ocean waves caused by earthquakes can transmit patterns on land, sand and rocks not acted on directly by the earthquake, etc.).
That’s interesting information. Thanks for that! But what is the purpose of this comment? Is there a reason why you commented all this? Does it somehow relate to the discussion in the video?
@ in the beginning was the word
The world has morality, and the Lord has a way. It is regression vs direction.
Man! For all the crap YT can throw at you, This is one of the very, very, few reasons while I still love coming back here.
Which god?
that cliff hanger, about Jesus braking Sabbath
I hope Dennis Prager is ok. He's had a rough year.
Who?
Amen!
No because everyone has a different view of what is moral and what isn’t. What is the final say of what moral and what isn’t? Some people would say killing someone in self defence is okay, some people would say absolutely not it isn’t okay to take anyone’s life. Some people would say it’s okay to steal if you are starving, some would say absolutely not.
Can you prove that if there is a god he himself is moral. Is there a coherent argument too be made for a god that allows suffering and pain on his own creations. Is god moral? Why all pain and suffering well expecting us to believe in him with little to no interaction just left on our own to figure it out. My question to you is why is god a moral being?
The problem of evil is based on our limited understanding of God's nature. God doesn't have to fit our ideas of what omnipotence and benevolence should look like. In Christianity, the Bible shows that God opposes evil and wants to bring order, but He can't just erase evil with a snap of His fingers. His way of dealing with evil may seem morally questionable to us. According to Christians, god isn't just a perfect, abstract being. Like humans, He is complex and not simply an idealized version of power and goodness.
However, it's not whether why he allowed evil or not. The real question is, is god evil? He can't be good because he doesn't give absolute free will, and he interferes with other choices that contradict free will because it's not defined, so why praise a god that isn't good to you?
Saying we can't understand God's nature screws up the whole argument. Just look at it
Morality and goodness come from god.
->
God's nature is goodness.
->
We can't understand God's nature.
->
We can't understand goodness.
->
We can not understand morality.
Unless we break one of these, then under the theist view, morality might be objective in a sense, but it's completely inaccessible to humans. It's like a black hole at the center of the galaxy, perfectly real but simultaneously completely irrelevant in your daily life.
@@j8000I never said we can't understand god's intentions at all, only that our understanding is limited. The human mind is finite and can't fully grasp the infinite complexity of god's nature.
1. In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. Instead, He provides moral guidance through sacred texts, prophets, or natural law. While god's full nature may be beyond comprehension, He communicates enough for humans to understand and apply moral principles in daily life.
2. Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any aspects of it. For example, we might not grasp the full nature of infinity, but we can work with concepts like "larger than any number." Similarly, humans can understand enough about goodness and morality to live meaningfully, even if the ultimate source is beyond full comprehension.
3. The comparison to a black hole is flawed. Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life. Morality is not irrelevant just because it has a divine source that is ultimately incomprehensible.
@j8000 I never said we can't understand god's intentions at all, only that our understanding is limited. The human mind is finite and can't fully grasp the infinite complexity of god's nature.
1. In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality.
2. Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any part of it. For example, we might not grasp the full nature of infinity, but we can work with concepts like "larger than any number." Similarly, humans can understand enough about goodness and morality to live meaningfully, even if the ultimate source is beyond full comprehension.
3. The comparison to a black hole is flawed. Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life. Morality is not irrelevant just because it has a divine source that is ultimately incomprehensible.
@@Mr.business7777
"In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. (...) Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any part of it."
As long as you don't know which parts you do fully understand and don't fully understand, you are in fact in complete ignorance. What mechanism do we have for delineating this, that isn't just subjectivity?
The ultimate truth could conceivably involve that things we think we understand are in fact false. A great example of this are the theodicies that place the Fall prior to the existence of humanity; at the shoulders of angelic rebellions. See Cliffe Knechtle and Gavin Ortlund as recent proponents.
"Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life."
"Accessible" would be a meaningful argument if it were true. However, since moral disputes exist amongst followers of the same god, it is on it's face false. These would not arise in the first place if
If you are simply talking about "access" in the sense that it is possible to interpret things you believe come from god, then the black hole is exactly as real, or arguably much more so; the solar system we are in would not exist (as we know it) without it, for instance.
Please try to converse with Nassim Nicholas Taleb on your podcast it would be historically significant.
Unethical acts have ill effects, which spread. One who wants a peaceful, sane, and productive society that is best for all concerned doesn't need a god or even rules to understand that and act accordingly.
Narrative - sequence - wind, spirit - the before and the after
I don’t know how it’s possible for morality to be objective, even conceptually. Saying something is “good” and “bad” is a value judgment, and judgments require a judge (and if any judge is a subject, even those with a capital J, their judgments are definitionally subjective). Judgments don’t fall out of thin air, nor do they just…exist. We can imagine a world in which God doesn’t care much for humans, or at least so prioritizes other beings that his care for humans is comparatively minor, to the point that he would treat us basically as mere sources of food and entertainment for higher beings. This is basically how we understand God’s care for many *other* earthly creatures (how much does God care about mosquitos, for example?). But in that scenario, where God intends nothing more than to flog and feed humanity to other gods, in what meaningful sense could we say “God is good?” Would we not at least temper that declaration? “God’s pretty alright?” By what principle of logic would we be constrained to declare that our divine torturer/absentee father was good?
It seems to me that “God is good” is a realization afforded to us by special revelation, and that it is absolutely and wonderfully subjective because the goodness is really a *love* for and from subjects (God’s love for us). While most pagan traditions see the gods care for humans as fickle at best (see Greek mythology), the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition created humanity in his image and desired their good-to bless the whole world through the family of Abraham. That idea, that God has plans for humanity that are suited to bless them, is what makes the statement “God is good” true in any meaningful sense. If we later learn we got it wrong and God only intends to bless and give the world to mosquitos, and toss all of humanity into a cauldron for inventing bug spray, I trust I won’t be the only one who will declare, “Uhhh. You know, maybe God isn’t so good (for us) after all.”
I’m not arguing we’re in that timeline, of course, I believe God *is* good-but I am arguing that saying so (and meaning anything) depends on that declaration being subjective.
Without God there can be no objective moral standard. Without God, there is only your relative, subjective opinion and nothing else.
To build a moral system, one must first answer the question, "Is there an objective reality and, if so, what is it compared to relative reality?" Science has historically trailed behind religion is this understanding but recently quantum physics has confirmed that phenomena comes out of nothing and goes back into nothing again. This confirmed our understanding of God or Emptiness or Creator and that it is beyond our current understanding but that all in our world is like a relative dance. We also know from western and eastern religion that the expression of God in our relative world is Love/Compassion (willing the good of the other and acting). Now we can build a moral system from this point. For westerners, Jung said Christianity provides us the best chance at full actualization of which Love is the foundation. But beyond the above is faith which can be defined as understanding beyond reason and really does not need this level of rational understanding. It is interesting that the main goal of quantum physics is to find one formula that will explain everything. Sounds like a search for God doesn't it?
Without God morality would be subjective because by default it will come from humanity and the implications of that would be disturbing because if the laws of morality can changed then any horrible thing justified by reason can be done but If morality is objective meaning unchangeable given by God would imply restrictions from any individual doing evil.
Well said
You assume that if morality is subjective, it would inevitably lead to justifications for harmful actions, but this perspective overlooks the complexity of how subjective morality can work in practice.
Morality is already, to a large extent, subjective because it is influenced by personal, cultural, and societal factors. Different cultures have different moral codes, and individuals within those cultures may hold varying views on what is right or wrong. It was always more subjective rather than objective.
In a world where morality is subjective, the potential for justifying harmful actions still exists, but people can use reason, growth, and empathy to build consensus on what is considered immoral. While this makes morality more flexible, it doesn't mean it is free from any moral standards; it simply means these standards can be debated and revised.
You are saying that objective morality (imposed by god) is the only way to prevent moral wrongs, which ignores the growing recognition that moral values can be determined through human reasoning and the collective good. Far from leading to chaos, subjective morality can foster ongoing reflection and growth in ethical thinking.
To contend that morality sans God must devolve into the capricious theatre of human subjectivity is, perchance, to overlook the labyrinthine complexity of the human spirit. Yet, let us parse this proposition with care, as one who seeks the golden thread amidst the tangle.
If morality springs solely from the wellspring of humanity, its essence may indeed be mutable, a clay molded by the potter's hands of circumstance and consensus. Such a vision portends a world wherein the lodestar of right and wrong sways to the tempests of convenience or power. Reason, unmoored from an eternal compass, might justify acts that chill the marrow, cloaking them in the garb of necessity or progress. The specter of "might makes right" looms large, and the moral edifice trembles before the onslaught of expedience.
Yet, the assertion that morality, to be objective, must emanate from the divine implies a foundation unassailable, a rock upon which the storms of sophistry break impotent. In this framework, moral law becomes a luminous chain, binding the hands of the wicked and guiding the steps of the just. The immutable is a bulwark against the caprices of human frailty, a safeguard against the abyss of relativism.
But consider: even within the mortal breast, there resides a yearning for justice, a pang at the sight of suffering, a thrill at the triumph of mercy. Might this not suggest that, whether planted by divine hand or born of evolution’s crucible, humanity carries within itself the seeds of an objective moral sense? And if so, could it not be that the divine and the human are less estranged than supposed, that the former has inscribed its law upon the latter’s heart?
The answer is "yes, it can."
... and it is not objective.
Psalms 53:2-3. Ano ang pagkakaiba ng mga Hukom at Abogado?! Proverb 16:12. Hebreo 4:12
4:02 Vervaeke demonstrates the danger of moralizing Jesus better than most Christians could explain it. Peterson needs to be most careful about this. Jesus is not just a moral example or a Jungian archetype. He is a real person, flesh and blood, who lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and was resurrected by God to conquer death and grant us eternal life.
You're absolutely right about John Vervaeke, I disagree with you when you assert Peterson is moralizing Jesus. He isn't moralizing Jesus. You see that because you looking at it from a theological lense which in regards to this necessitates a interdisciplinary approach to properly see the problem. Jesus as a moral example and Jungian archetype are but tools and/or paths of conceptualizing the Logos, dismissing that is dichotomous thinking. Both are true as long as the centrality is Christ.
What happened to bishop Barron?
Did not all tribes of Isreal suffer damage from straying away from the Word of God? Straying away from what the Bible says and not letting that be the reference is damaging. Missing details do cause hurt and things getting damaged. Remove not the Ancient Landmarks that the Father’s have set. 5:18
Ignorance and omission causes damage.
No Christ is morals made flesh. Got a date. I got to go. Fantastic work, gentlemen.
Where is Bishop Barron?!?
Atheists, like Kisin, insist that racism and homophobia are wrong - therefore moral absolutes exist. Kisin simply seeks to pick and choose.
yes
It would not be the same without god thats true, but it would be stupid to suggest that its an all or nothing.
The driving force behind the “ought” of an action is the incentive for the actor to do it or avoid it. This still clearly exists in our reality even though theres no heaven/hell, or an omniscient being watching us.
People generally dont want live in a world where awful things are allowed, and there are other disincentives to do things that are commonly deemed “wrong”, like guilt, social isolation, imprisonment, etc.
Now then consider the fractal nature of language and the fractal nature of sou The science of language includes sounds( phonations) phonemes, morphology(words)syntax, semantics, structures, literal and lastly pragmatic( contextual meaning). Language in its structure can have fractal meanings, with double, triple or more entendres ( meanings) given the same syntax, semantics structures, sounds, etc. Language is regarded as a representation of information. Words are not only sounds but transmit meaning. Transmission of meaning is a function of intent. Sounds and words can have meaninglessness by intent but when there is meaning there is necessarily intent. Sounds transmit action. Sounds are measured as frequencies and vibrations. Sounds and vibrations can act on reality. Chladni plates, cymascopes, oscilloscopes, etc are means of demonstrating the actionable properties of sound. Sounds can have particular shapes and patterns. These shapes and patterns are determined by the substances being acted upon as well as the substance acting. Water is a classic example of such actings visualized in cymascopes and oscilloscopes. Furthermore water not only can be acted upon by sound but water also then produces sound. Multiple sources of frequencies, vibration can simultaneously act on water. Oceans are acted on by wind, earth crust ( earthquakes and volcanoes, tectonic plates and subsurface dynamics) , gravity and electromagnetic fields, etc.
Water crashing on a beach creates sounds as well as patterns in sand or rock.
Sounds as spoken can have structural topology. This topology itself has transmitting effects( these effects can have effects into and beyond the structure directly acted on.. ocean waves caused by earthquakes can transmit patterns on land, sand and rocks not acted on directly by the earthquake, etc.).
nd. If sound is an operative of words and therefore language then such sounds can transmit intent by their meaning.
Given the above consider:
excelent
Morality came from us not god. The gods are man made, it's clear and obvious.
If you think of a good thing done or moral thing stated by an atheist is one thing But if you want a moral person to commit evil, you need religion.
Jesus didn't say anything in the Bible mainly cos the first account was 80 years after his death. And Mark and Mathew dont agree.
MAN MADE
Bishop Barron 🤧😭😭
Can Morality Exist Without God? Not only can it exist, it is in my best interest for it to exist. Any intelligent person can grasp that he derives benefit from living in society with others rather than trying to go it alone. Therefore, if I am to have those benefits, I must agree to certain rules of conduct so others will want to live in society with me. We must all agree not to kill and steal and other BAD behavior that would incentivize others to not live harmoniously with us. Basically, living by the 10 Commandments. I don't NEED to believe in God to understand that it is in my own best interest to behave this way. And if we are to live in society, we must separate those who break these rules from us in some manner for some length of time depending on which rules he broke.
You don't need to believe in God to live by the ten commandments? The first two commandments is a command to love and worship God alone and to make nothing else in your life as high a status as God.
But leaving that side... Even if you could live by the 10 commandments without believing in God, the ten commandments come out of the concept of God. Therefore, mortality relies on God, even if one chooses not to believe in God.
@@notthatkindofanglican Even if you could live by the 10 commandments without believing in God. It shows a great weakness of character to suggest one needs to rely on belief of God to be a good and moral person and you then confirm this by stating mortality relies on God. You are saying there was no morality until YOUR God delivered the 10 commandments, AND there are no moral atheists or people who believe in a different God than yours. WOW! That is a lot of people to whom you are casting aspersions. I, being one of them and you judge me to be immoral though you don't even know me. I am fairly certain I have heard Mr. Prager say he has friends or family who are atheists. I would assume they are good and moral people.
I just explained I am moral because it is in my own self interest to be so by the benefits of living in society with others. So, do you accuse me of being stupid or a liar?
If you look in your good book, you will find "you will know them by their fruits" and these fruits you have dropped here are rotten says I.
You will also find that you too will be judged if it turns out you are right in your belief.
I will leave you with a quote that I agree with: “One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.” Arthur C. Clarke
It can’t
The truth, but as the teacher would say: Show your work!
Morality cannot exist without CHRIST specifically (not any of the made-up gods) because an unmoored morality swings at the whims of whatever may be considered politically correct, and what is PC is decided by whatever benefits the powerful. Jesus, on the other hand, provides objective morality by virtue of being the primary authority above all others.
Our morality are inscripted in our DNA
The still, soft voice
Well, at least our proclivity for it
Our morality is scripted in all levels of our reality
It was embedded in us by God. Our creator. It doesn’t just magically appear within us.
Is Dennis doing any better?
Know it in your heart and soul trust in jesue
Human morality is an emergent property of natural law. God is always in the shadows, even when we convince ourselves morality stands on its own. The echoes of divine archetypes persist, shaping our sense of right and wrong whether we acknowledge it or not.
Why you dicuss a one small aspect while you can proceed dicussing a variety of things,,,it is an interesting videos,,and hoping the Bishop is well and will make to the coming show
There is no question that morality is independent of god. The question that matters is: can religious people be moral?
Morality is one of God characteristics,like justice, the totality of all of that is what we call hollines, still have a long way to go, please help us Yeshua
I think that John Lennox said it best, If God does not exist then evolution is the correct model and therefore our brain is molded by this model which is fundamentally guided by survival of the fittest. Then if the presumption that God does not exist is taken then we should see our morality crystalize around survival of the fittest. We frequently see atheist take a moral stance that is contrary to survival of the fittest and this then shows this presumption as false.
Vervaeke is correct on “ to save western civilization “…
What do you mean by "can", and "Morality" "exist" what do you mean "without", and what do you mean by "God"
Why do these arguments seem so fragile?
Morality does not exist without God as God is morality. That is like saying there can be sunshine without the Sun.
In the beginning was the word( a word as a form of expression of meaning and intention) and the word was with God, and the word was God( when you speak your words are you and the spirit of your intentions and so then the words, sounds of the words having meaning by God’s intention are transmitted information). The same ( word) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him( the word of God as God); and without him was not anything made that was made( all things then are made by the word, sound, frequency, vibration, as language , as information transmission, as God/ I am that I am, as in to be to be, God as existence itself, being as the primary category of existence, that being spoke into existence all other being/ being the creator of all other being is not the same as being that other being ( not a oneness of all things .. not a Buddhist proposition).
In him( the word as God, in the word was life/ life is spoken into existence) was life; and the life was the light of men( life as light, in the word was life which was light/ light is the fundamental being ( object as wave particle… as a something which exists… which has structure and is a transmitter of information/ light as a particle, as spherical, an object with a surface which surfaces can carry-transmit information).
Please discuss Wielenberg’s godless normative )platonic) realism. And there are other frameworks. That said, yes, classical theism (and even neoclassical a la Josh Rasmussen 2019) would entail moral realism, granted.
Good and bad come from somewhere just like technologies did not appear from out of thin air something immortal that has been around for ages taught people technology something that was born perfect and full of knowledge of life.
The verbal gymnastics is exhausting and leading us nowhere - missing the Bishop
They should have had William Lane Craig at this table.
Who defines what is good?,because I can be good for personal gain does that mean I am still good?
How come no one in this group really examine the question at hand and dive in to HOW morality might be able to exist in a world without gods? They are not discussing the question deep enough because they cling to their propositional attitude that "The christian God is the only explanation".
Contemporary right wing conservatives take note ! You can’t do this thing without Christ!
Lets say we are the hardware and morality is the operating system. There is a code writer for that system! Hardware doesnt write its own code and most certainly doesnt assemble itself!
Why would you need a belief in God if you subscribe to moral objectivism?
Because man made morality has changed dramatically in the last 12 years alone…
Many people argue that, without God, morality becomes subjective based on individual or cultural beliefs that can change over time. Belief in God provides an unchanging, universal foundation for what is right and wrong.
Christian believes that god is the ultimate source of objective morality. Under this perspective, morality is objective because it is rooted in God’s unchanging nature.
But whether believing in god for objective morality would depend on who he is. Since Christians say that god is the ultimate source of objective morality. Under this perspective, morality is objective because it is rooted in god’s unchanging nature.
Now, whether god is good or evil that you have to find out both subjectively and objectively
Nothing was made except through him
Good and beauty exist because he spoke them to existence and He instilled his image in man.I believe morality proceed from God's image in us.
Acting in a moral way because god is watching is better than being a jerk.
"Can you do God's will without believing in God?!"
Seems so silly to me...
There is no believing.
Is the sky and Earth a joke to you? Do they not exist?
Define God.
A creator?!
That would imply a beginning, but the truth has no beginning.
Always has, always will.
Have you heard of the Power of Expectation ?
Can Dennis Prager point to a singular character in the Bible who did the will of God without believing in Him?
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteous
if jordan could interview jesus i wonder what questions he would ask.
The Gospels are not about morality. It’s about Christ and what he did for us on the cross
I love John Vervaeke so much, he would be a juggernaut in the body of Christ
Can Morality Exist Without Belief in God?
IF morality cannot exist without Belief in God, then Morality & God WOULD BE synonymous. At least implicatively...they are not.
What evidence would support your last sentence? the Old Testament alone provides overwhelming evidence of the opposite
First Council of Nicaea : reimagined in modern day
They just presuppose their christian belief in god to be true and then construt their world around it. With no evidence...and then claim that without their unfounded beliefs there could not be any moral/ethical behaviour. None of them ever heard about humanism?
No morality without God...