PROOF of objective morality: P1: if there is no objective morality, then there is no objective obligation to subscribe to majesty of reason P2: there is an objective obligation to subscribe to majesty of reason P3: therefore, there is objective morality
The biggest issue with moral arguments for a theistic god is that it ultimately fails when combined with other common positions in apologetics. For example, if one subscribes to divine command theory as William Lane Craig does, then moral epistemology is limited to the following two points: Good is solely that which is commanded by God, and Evil is solely that which is forbidden by God. Actions such as murder are, under this principle, morally good if they are commanded by God. Therefore the person who already subscribes to divine command theory has no actual way to demostrate the truth of the premise that objective morality exists without begging the question, as they can present no reason to believe that objective morality exists that does not first presuppose the existence of God.
@@alexandertaylor7316 Moreover, even if they can avoid begging the question, that would still not get them to "objective morality". Divine commands theory is by its very nature an anti-realist normative theory. It actually makes complete sense when read through the lense of an anti-realist view.
I’m not sure your portrayal of William Lane Craig’s position fully captures his argument. One of his responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that morality is neither grounded solely in God’s commands nor in an external standard, but in the idea that "God is the good," meaning goodness exists inherently and objectively within God’s very essence or nature. This view isn’t identical to Divine Command Theory, though there are areas where the two concepts can overlap-such as the idea that disobeying God would always be objectively wrong, even if God is making an allowance outside of his perfect will, such as allowing for divorce, for example, even though God disagrees with it. Disobeying God even within these types of commands would still be objectively wrong, even if the command is subjective and does not align with God's desired outcome. However, WLC's position incorporates additional elements, making it more complex than reducing it solely to Divine Command Theory. Recognizing these additional nuances could add clarity to the discussion and avoid potential misrepresentations. There are a few more issues to consider. Saying that the fierce would not be able to demonstrate the truth of the existence of objective moral values without begging the question misunderstand the form and how generally how the moral argument is used to support the existence of God. The argument does not begin by saying God exists and therefore creates objective values, it begins with the established conclusion that objective values exist, which therefore implies the existence of God. Your argument seems to be applying the moral argument backwards. Considering these nuances might offer an alternative perspective that could change once outlook on the moral argument.
@@Bi0Dr01d I have yet to see at least one good argument for "objective morality" and at least one good argument for why or how it implies God's existence.
@@Bi0Dr01d The issue with WLC's version of the moral argument can be summed up in two major ways: 1. It does not logically follow that if objective moral values exist, therefore God exists. 2. Appealing to God's nature only pushes the Euthyphro Dilemma back one step. With issue 1, objective moral values are mind independent. Since apologists like WLC often define God as having a mind, any commands he would give are subjective. And are therefore just as arbitrary as any moral judgement any other mind could make. On top of that, since WLC believes in Divine Command Theory, this would mean that if objective moral values do exist, they are not grounded in God by definition. Since he is allegedly omniscient, he would be aware of these values, but ultimately he would make whatever moral judgements that are in accordance with his being, even if such judgements may conflict with this objective moral system. Here's the dilemma with issue 2: Is something good because it comes from God's nature? Or does God's nature align with something because it is good? If the former is true, then morality is still coming from God since his nature is part of his being. And therefore morality is still subjective. If the latter is true, then God's nature moves him to follow some ethical system that exists independent of himself. And since he exists independent of this ethics system, it would still exist even if he didn't. Thus making premise 1 of the moral argument false.
1:08:08 - In the debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan, Kagan provided Craig with some potential reasons why human morality is distinct from animal morality (or lack thereof). If this guy really is such a fan of William Lane Craig, and his moral argument, you'd expect him to have watched that debate with an actual philosophy professor. One potential justification for human morality is that humans seem uniquely capable of reflecting on their past actions and imagining having done differently. Indeed, this is probably why we don't hold a toddlers accountable in any recognizable way that we hold our fellow adults accountable. We treat the actions of toddlers almost the same way we treat the actions of animals, precisely because neither toddlers nor animals have the ability to reflect on their actions. Craig's only response to this was to question why that matters, as if Kagan was supposed to cite some sort of ghostly magic as his answer, because that's the only thing that Craig seems to care about.
"One potential justification for human morality is that humans seem uniquely capable of reflecting on their past actions and imagining having done differently" This is nonsense though. Human morality is different because human morality is different? Humans are also capable of evils far beyond the capacity of animals. Does that unique capability make these behaviors moral?
Most life forms display empathy and altruism, particularly towards close relatives, whether or not they are "capable of reflection". Treating humans as morally unique is unwarranted special pleading.
@@reevertoun"Humans are also capable of evils far beyond the capacity of animals." I'm not sure that's true. Have you ever studied the chimpanzee wars that Jane Goodall observed between 1974 and 1978? Apparently a single population of chimps separated over several years and the northern band would wage war on the individuals of the southern band...waiting until one was alone and then orchestrating coordinated gang attacks violently killing them apparently without provocation. They apparently would attack the young and females as well seemingly trying to wipe out the southern troop of chimps. Check out the Gombe Chimp war So due to technology and intelligence, human ways of abuse are more creative but I'm not sure they're more violent. Consider that when a male lion takes over a pride he will kill all the young so the females will be ready to mate thus ensuring his seed is passed on at the expense of the defeated previous pride leader.
2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2
It's not, morality is specifically reflection about those traits, not just having those traits. Animals can act compassionately, but are they racked with guilt when they don't? Do they ponder on the many instances of their lives where they could have done otherwise? Do they argue with other animals about the morally right course of action for any scenario? There's no way to know for sure, but inference to the best explanations tells us humans are very obviously different and distinct in this regard.
Like Zelenskyy, I am depressed by the general ignorance of meta-ethics these debates engender. Neither the bland assumption that objective morality can only be grounded in God nor the bland assumption that morality is subjective show any awareness of the arguments for and against each position.
My bet is none of these theists have had ethics courses in (secular) colleges. If they did I dont think they would say that God needs to exists in order for morality to exist. The theory that proposes that - the Divine command theory - is the silliest one of all the meta-ethical theories you learn about in ethics courses. I'm a theist who majored philosophy, and I'm always dumbfounded by that typical moral argument, it just sounds to me like someone saying well you cant have atoms sticking together without God, like wait, did you even study physics. OTOH, the argument from moral knowledge like the one Swinburne gives actually seems to me have some strength to it.
They don’t say that God needs to exist in order for morality to exist genius. They say that God needs to exist in order for OBJECTIVE moral values to exist, because they need to be grounded in God. Big difference there and you’re just a walking straw man argument.
@@philosophicaltheist7706 Which is even worse, there are many objectivist secular ethical theories, but moreover its questionable if divine command theory is even an objectivist theory, being that it grounds morality in a subject.
@@zelenisok Divine Command Theory is an anti-realist normative theory. Thomas L. Carson has a great paper on that. Under an anti-realist framework, DCT makes actually perfect sense. That's the framework it should be analyzed under. I don't think "objectivist" secular and theistic moral theories are any good, btw.
I watched a couple of minutes but I already have a thorough refutation: 1) For every proposition P, if Trent Horn believes that P, it is very likely that P is true. 2) Trent Horn believes that God's existence is necessary for morality. C) Necessarily, God's existence is necessary for morality. Premise 1 is acknowledged by 97.842% of professional philosophers, so it's inescapably true, to borrow a phrase from inerrant erudite Bill Craig. What is more, there is no problem whatsoever with the modal inference to the conclusion - see modal axiom S6 - also known as axiom MyS. Thus, you either present strong evidence against 2, or delete your video.
I think there is a more plausible way to explain the success of the moral argument (a sociological one): people have been taught morality in an authoritarian way (mostly by the religious authoritarian traditions, like Christianity and Islam). And such values permeate culture, even among non-religious people. The moral argument is essentially an authoritarian dogma disguised as an argument. We must obey God, because we are his servants, because he is all powerful, etc. It clicks very easily in people's mind, unfortunately.
Then how come people can part ways with Christian belief itself extremely easily (reddit boys become atheists at 13), yet the values stick with us, even tho both are taught in the exact same "authoritarian way". And if values are "special" in a way that it's harder to part ways with, why's that?. If anything, the values of Christianity should be abandoned as soon as you abandon belief in Christ and His teachings, they're 100% dependant on it.
@@Igelme "Then how come people can part ways with Christian belief itself extremely easily (reddit boys become atheists at 13), yet the values stick with us, even tho both are taught in the exact same "authoritarian way". " What values?
@@mendez704 I wrote almost an entire essay on this reply, but I'm gonna keep it short for your time's sake (and anyone who cares to read this thread). I think there are 2 values, whom non believers still think are pillars of society, which I believe are fundamentally Christian in nature: Altruism, and equality (in the image of God). Note that these are not the "only" christian values, just the ones I believe are extremely hard to justify to value as a non-believer.
@@Igelme 1) Neither of those values are Christian. Altruism existed way before Christianity existed, and equality is not a Christian value at all. The fact that Christianity coexisted and accepted slavery for most of its history, including in the Bible, and still rejects gender equality shows that claim is false. 2) But the point is not which values society base its moral values, but what makes those values (regardless if they come from Christians or atheists) themselves morally good.
"deductive moral arguments fail" I think abductive one still have some weight to them but they are admittedly still weak in so far as the data point itself being morality itself. I find though that arguments from moral awareness are much better since those dont rely on the notion that morality can only be explained by God, but more on the notion that you wouldnt expect to have creatures with moral awareness in an indifferent universe.
We are creatures with moral awareness, but at the same time we are prone to so many errors when it comes to discerning moral issues. The history is full of atrocities committed by humans. Such flawed creatures are more likely under naturalism or an indifferent universe.
@@anteodedi8937 Your point about human moral awareness alongside our tendency to commit moral atrocities is certainly a challenging issue. However, when we examine this within the context of a broader theistic narrative, particularly the one I develop in my book The Educative Matrix, a different picture emerges. Rather than suggesting that these flaws are more probable under naturalism or an indifferent universe, we can interpret these moral failures as essential to a divinely orchestrated narrative aimed at the universal growth of all beings. The narrative approach in my theodicy sees human flaws as part of a larger, educative process where moral awareness is gradually refined through the experience of both good and evil. Our capacity for moral error and our moral struggles are not signs of an indifferent universe but are integrated into a cosmic story where free agents are allowed to make mistakes in order to grow in virtue and understanding over time. Suffering and moral failures are not the final word; they are tools within the broader framework of moral and spiritual development. Once we place this within a narrative framework, the data of human moral awareness (which I initially mentioned) and the data of moral atrocities ( the data you mentioned like historical atrocities committed by flawed humans) are both accounted for. In this narrative, moral awareness is the initial step, and the errors we make, though painful, are integral to the broader arc of learning and growing. The fact that we are creatures with the ability to discern moral issues but still prone to moral failure is precisely what we’d expect if this world is structured to educate and improve free agents. We would not expect this narrative if naturalism is true, in fact, naturalism doesn't predict any narrative.
@@anteodedi8937 Are they, though? Flawed creatures that commit various errors in their moral reasoning *but* are also able to realize (at least some of them) they have committed such mistakes and in doing so some engage in the project of changing for the better; is that more expected under naturalism/hypothesis of indifference? I don't think so. Sounds more like a narrative-like sort of plot that you would get from a quasi-conscious author or source with good intentions. I could be wrong, though.
@@esauponce9759 That's precisely what you would expect under naturalism by my lights. Slow progress on our part, going through trial and errors. Meanwhile, all of this would be weird under theism. A quasi conscious or conscious author with good intentions could at least diminish errors significantly or could interfere to avoid the innumerable atrocities. I mean, an author who had the power to create all of this would also have the power to do such things. That seems like an easy task for such an author considering what you are attributing to him. It seems as if we are alone, and the burden is on us to discern such issues and make progress further, doesn't it?
@@anteodedi8937 Slow progress on our part, going through trial and errors, finding redemption, etc. sounds like something out of a drama movie. That's something that, some would argue, is more expected from a personal foundation worldview, not an impersonal one. Also, if we really should expect moral/epistemic errors under non-theism, by the same token, shouldn't we see (or maybe not even see anything at all lol) more chaos and errors in every other domain in this world? Yet it seems we don't. Here we are, for example, having an interesting conversation allowed by a decently ordered world. I do resonate in part with what you mentioned though about feeling like we are on our own. Sometimes, at least to me, it does feel like that. But at the same time I don't think the whole story or analysis just ends there.
47:00 I like to stipulate that “unnecessary suffering” is bad because some argue that suffering is not inherently bad in cases where a suffering leads to growth.
Haven’t watched yet; Growing up I was whole heartedly convinced by the moral argument, but that was due to the lack of proper representation in my Christian school. Now I am in favor of moral realism, but there are so many explanations for moral realism outside of a god
I have almost always been an intutive moral realist but now it's starting to crumble for me and such a shift is being a lot more impactful to me than my change from theism to atheism.
I'm an Atheist and moral realist. Loss can be objectively determined. Value can be determined according to exclusive effects to create and preserve possibilities for the future without any subjective preferences. If it's irrational to sacrifice a valuable thing to create a less valuable thing, then it must be immoral to diminish a priceless thing to produce a less than priceless effect. Our moral impulses change as we learn more about ourselves and the world because there are moral facts to be discovered in the Naturalistic universe.
@@Nexus-jg7ev An observation I think many would agree with. Anyways, hope the journey of navigating morality in a new landscape works out for you! Although difficult, I hope there are som paths with answers along the line
@@peterlindal3352 Well, I'm not certain yet. I've read as much metaethics as I could find I keep reading more. I don't really see a resolution yet. I do hold certain moral views, but I have no idea if they track some truth out there, or if they are just expressions of my own attitudes.
2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2
@@ohrobert65 But what makes something valuable objectively valuable?
Not only is theism not a basis for an objective morality because it is just a morality subjective to One, we just have to take the word of the theist that he knows what it is his God believes. What is worse, a morality determined by one being's subjective beliefs, or being told what that One being's beliefs are by yet another being with no discernable special attributes?
I don't think that the theist position (at least the one I hold to) and the non-theist position mentioned here are analogous. This is because there is a clear logical consequence of God being good but there is no equally clear consequence of things, such as kindness, being good. God is a perfect being, and so has all perfections. Since moral perfection is a perfection, it follows that God would be morally perfect, by definition/nature. Claiming God is not morally perfect results in a logical contradiction since the claim would be that a perfect being is not perfect. Something like kindness, however, does not have the same logical consequence. Saying "kindness is not good" is not at all clearly logically contradictory. There does not seem to be any contradiction in claiming that kindness is not good. It seems like a perfectly conceivable idea. This is why many atheists would affirm that kindness is not good, since many atheists deny the existence of good and evil altogether. I would agree that things, like kindness, are intrinsically good, and that therefore they cannot be not good. But I would explain this by saying that God, who grounds moral value, is intrinsically kind. And since God is necessary, it would follow that kindness is necessarily good. I think this is a far more plausible view than trying to ground the goodness in kindness itself, which seems like an arbitrary stopping point, especially as you CAN explain things further. I think this view is also simpler, since on this theistic view you have one good thing which exemplifies its goodness in multiple distinct ways, whereas on the non-theist view presented here, you have multiple distinct goods that exemplify themselves in distinct ways. Analogous to this is the "theory of everything" in physics, where physicists want to unite the four fundamental forces into one force that exemplifies itself in four distinct ways. This is preferable as having one fundamental force that exemplifies itself in four distinct ways is simpler than having four distinct forces that exemplify themselves in four distinct ways. Likewise, having one good thing which exemplifies its goodness in multiple distinct ways in simpler than having multiple distinct goods that exemplify themselves in multiple distinct ways.
Apologists think they can win moral arguments if they just keep uncharitably asking: *why is that wrong ?* no matter what reason you give.... but the same thing can be done to them: *Why is it wrong to do something god forbids ?* Any answer they give will merely be them stating their subjective opinion
It's worse than that. It's their subjective interpretation of some ancient writer's subjective "revelation" of what Yahweh has supposedly forbidden....which would itself be subjective, even if Yahweh exists.
The infinite regress of justification or condemnation can crash into an intersubjective loop as easily as Theists crash it into God. Why it that wrong? Because it hurts Bob. Why is that wrong? Because it hurts Marge. Why is that wrong? Because it hurts Bob. That is as justified as saying that God forbids it.
Theyre also making the same argument their sibling religions make and we all know there are deep schizms between them they definitely arent intentionally trying to justify. If they had their way the argument would devolve into "my daddy could beat up your daddy" type reasoning.
William Lane Craig's answer to the question, "Why should we obey God's commands?" is (I kid you not), because one of God's commands is to obey his commands, which makes God's commands "self inclusive". Yep, Craig actually decided that circular reasoning is his foundation for morality.
@@VenaloidI command William Lane Craig to become an atheist. But why should Craig obey my command? Well it is because one of my other command is that Craig should obey my commands which makes my commands self inclusive.
I think the only reason morality is used for theist to make it look like it proves a god is because it’s a complicated topic and complicated topics is what theist love to confuse their audience. But in reality it’s not than complicated, they just make it complicated as all their irrational arguments. But what you said is right. The fact that they define god as good doesn’t make him good. This must be defined by his actions and not by definition. Can the actions of this god be described as good? The fact that apologetics exist to excuse this god is evidence that it is not good and there for can not be the bases of morality.
Your argument presupposes that goodness must exist independent from a mind. That good proposed actions exist and beings DO those actions. But the theist can say God IS the standard for good.
1:13:20 Aren't every one of those animal behaviors equally derived from God on his view? It seems that God's nature allows him to create cannibals and homosexuals as well as loving, kind, selfless animals. It would seem that the morals assigned to humans by God are arbitrary as well.
We need a video "Why Joe's channel for agnosticism fails". P1: Joe's channel is an agnostic channel P2: agnosticism entails the belief that one is not sure whether God exists or does not P4: theism entails the belief that God does exist P5: atheism entails the belief that God does not exist P3: Joe only focuses on refuting arguments that says God does exist P4: therefore, Joes channel is not an agnostic channel, but rather an atheistic channel Please don't get all bent out of shape here Joe, I don't need a 4-page response, this is all in good fun. But.... it is true. Your theistic fans would appreciate a bone to be thrown their way every now and again I'm sure.
@@bilbobaggins9893 if it’s in good fun at least make it a good argument😉 My videos focus primarily on my research interests and publication topics, which almost uniformly are on theistic arguments with which I disagree, so it’s no surprise that my videos mostly criticize theistic arguments! And besides, bones are thrown all the time to theists - Philip Goff defending the fine-tuning argument, me defending contingency arguments, Liz Jackson defending Pascal’s wager, me criticizing atheists repeatedly in my common mistakes series, etc etc etc
@@MajestyofReason @bilbobaggins Yeah, I've been through Joe's channel. I don't find it one sided. He's criticized popular New Atheism & Christian Apologetics stuff alike. It's also perfectly fine & reasonable even if it was one-sided. Tho I would like to see Joe's take on the logical argument from evil if it's of interest. (That evil is logically incompatible with theism.) Is it a bad or good argument? Should atheists stop making it? Etc.
@@sneakocentral4245 that’s fine but it’s just demonstrably false. Go through every video on his channel. I would venture to guess it’s at a minimum 75% videos in support of atheism and 25% dedicated to videos that support theism. It’s actually probably higher but I’m trying to be modest.
@@phill234 it most certainly is, even if indirectly. If you have two competing hypotheses and you do away with most of the evidence for hypothesis A, it then increases the plausibility of hypothesis B.
I'm 1/2 hour in and still waiting for Gavin to back up his claim that God is the best explanation for morality... shouldn't he be weighing candidate explanations and appealing to explanatory virtues by now?
1:15:00 & 1:21:00 - I now agree that Christians with both God's breaking from moral intuitions and a doctrine of sin inverting our moral (action) intuitions from God's make it difficult to say we really do know them. I personally think that this exchange is an effort to preserve the idea that humans are special. I think without being convinced in theism AND a god who cares for humans, then all morals are arbitrary. Now you need to prove theism AND a god who cares about grounding and finds humans special. Say an alien race shows up to Earth. They appear to adhere to a lot of our "moral intuitions" of caring for their offspring, altruism, consent, etc. After a few months existing with us, they reveal that they actually came to consume half if not all of humanity to continue their survival. Now what? Now the moral intuitions are out the window. We may want to defy them as we make a knowledge claim to KNOW we are good and/or believe that there is a moral fact in existence that says WE are worthy of preservation. How would we truly know that? How would the aliens truly know that?
I've never thought about how the "God is good by nature" response to Euthapro causes weirdness when things that we don't think of as god, like people, are good. It seems pretty obvious in retrospect.
12:50 “making the positive claim that you can’t have morality under atheism” that is not a positive claim. The positive claim is obviously saying you “can” have morality under atheism. That’s like saying the onus is on non-theists for making the positive claim that God doesn’t exist..
Burden of proof on the one claim “you can’t have morality under atheism “ and “there is no God” It’s a claim and anyone who makes it should bring the proof
@@muhammedshanushan3931 that means everyone has the burden of proof then. If someone claims, morality exists with God, or morality exists without God, both have the burden of proof? Same as the claim, “there is no God” needs proof?
I didn't understand the argument about the security of the claim that some things are intrisically impermissible, how it cuts our moral knowledge and how goes against how "God allows it and God cannot do anthing imperssible". If anyone can explain it to me I'd be grateful. Anyway nice content
I find the "god" described by each of the various arguments have no useful overlap. The source of morality, the uncaused cause, and ultimate intelligence, etc don't seem to require being a single thing nor do they align with a particular religion.
I know that this is a response to Gavin Ortlund, but It seems to me that the moral argument for God’s existence can be steel manned more than it is. I do not think this is a strong argument for theism, but the moral argument could go like this: The real problem is with the “obligations” part of moral obligations. If theism is false, what incentive or obligation does anyone have to be virtuous (by virtuous I mean “good” in the moral sense, but I am not assuming virtue ethics)? Take the myth of the Ring of Gyges, for example. The atheist could say, “but you should not use the ring to do wrong, for it is wrong to do so.” However, what is stopping the shepherd from replying, “so what?” The atheist could respond, “but you are morally obligated to not do these terrible things, for it is the essence of morality (or pick your favorite non-theistic account) to have these moral obligations.” Again, the shepherd replies, “I do not care.” It is unclear under the non-theistic account of morality as to what the “obligation” is. Is it an incentive? In this example, there is no incentive (if you don’t like the Ring of Gyges example, use Genghis Khan instead). Would he necessarily be better off (in terms of well-being), if he were better morally? This is unclear, which is strange because what is morally good seems to be much clearer, which makes it seems like well-being and morality are not one-to-one direct connections. My intuition is that sometimes one could do something morally good, but it makes him less well-off (e.g., sacrificing something for the sake of someone else). But isn’t it morally good for him to care about being morally good? Well, this is begging the question. Is it? The shepherd in the Ring of Gyges doesn’t think so. And even if it was, it still does not answer the question of whether the shepherd should care or not. It seems that adding the word “obligation” after morality doesn’t mean anything. Theists, however, can add the word “obligation” meaningfully. Is the obligation an incentive? Yes, God can punish moral wrongdoers, or at least exclude them from eternal life, or something. Would he necessarily be better off, in terms of well-being? If moral goodness was a requirement for eternal life, then it seems that being morally good is essential or necessary for well-being over the course of one’s (limitless) existence. Adding the word “obligation” actually does mean something under the theist account. I suppose this is not an argument for God’s existence from the existence of morality, but rather an argument from the existence of moral obligations. Atheists could easily bite the bullet and claim that there are no moral obligations, just moral facts about what is good or bad. Although, this would be kind of weird. What do you think of this argument? Also, moral arguments, such as this version, argue for a fairly robust model of God. This version probably requires an afterlife or some other ontological commitments.
It seems to me that a non theist can appeal to a deeper explanation with respect to people being intrinsically good in some respects, namely evolution which has tended to reward certain 'moral' behaviours in some respects. It seems like theists cant do this deeper explanation for there version that god is intrinsically good.
It fails for the same reasons any argument for god fails. Theists ground everything on god and take god as brute and unexplained. The naturalist or the atheist does the same, except he doesn't ground things on god. All the theist has ever achieved with these arguments is to beg the question. A great philosopher once said theory is prior to arguments...
@@kregorovillupo3625 I was referring to the “brute and unexplained” part. At some point, both atheism and theism hit bedrock. They take something that rests on no foundation or is not grounded on something external.
@@anteodedi8937 why are you talking of atheists as a block of people reasoning in the same way like they have a credo. Sure, there can be atheist hitting "rock bottom" whatever that means, but I know what grounds my morality and it's a mix of internal and external components, there's no dicothomy there or no implications that having "no ground on something external" is a bad thing or means having no foundations.
It’s not accurate that theists typically take God to be brute; indeed, some theists are skeptical of ANY brute facts! Rather what is typically claimed is that God exists necessarily, and this couldn’t have failed to exist, which isn’t brute
@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness Well, that's a paradigmatic case of proposing a brute necessity as there is no explanation given in terms of a deeper, more fundamental fact.
@@MajestyofReason Joe. What do you think of the biblical passages Colossians 2:8 and Matthew 11:25 that believers and apologists often use to justify not only their position, but to affirm that they possess something (divine revelation) that other human beings do not possess. On the other hand , is Liz Jackson a Christian ?
You are making a fallacious conclusion with your argument at 4:38. If God created the universe than there is no other way for suffering to exist outside of that reality. Therefore saying well if God does not exist suffering still seems founded in something real enough that it does need God to explain it.... But again if God did create the universe the "Realness" is God himself and then you've actually made no argument against God as a foundation whatsoever. Like you are saying suffering seems bad as a means in itself, but you are not asking or answering the question why is suffering bad in the first place? Why do we exist, why and how does a universe that has being capable of seeing and comprehending suffering as bad a possibility? You're building a foundation off of the thing itself and defining it by the context in your mind, by the objective reality is not in your mind or anyone else's but outside of subjectivity. And if that is the case morality can not be based purely in the individual just like suffering can not be bad if it is just the opinion of some. It has to be bad factually, which requires it to exist beyond the confines of opinion.
"It has to be bad factually, which requires it to exist beyond the confines of opinion." Why? I certainly don't need any philosophical justifications to hate pain.
@@WhiteScorpio2 You say that while using a word, "pain," knowing or at least hoping I can understand what you mean. In fact the way you use the word is entirely in a factual state of being in your sentence. So even you believe what I said is true even if you dont fully understand the entire meaning of what I said.
@@hippykiller2775 "You say that while using a word, "pain," knowing or at least hoping I can understand what you mean." Sure, I assume we are both humans. "even if you dont fully understand the entire meaning of what I said" Then you have to be more clear in what you are saying. What would you say something being bad "factually" means? What's a moral fact and how can someone know if any such thing exists?
It’s hilarious to me that people actually argue about these things in a TH-cam comment section, lol, but to each their own! Just feels even less productive than arguing in a Twitter thread. Nonetheless, I do disagree with your conclusion, however I respect how you got there. Nice video.
Hello, i hope this gets a response, but recently ive been depressed because of philosophy and regretting ever coming into contact with it (and honestly inquiry more generally). I dont know why, maybe i dont like having my cherished beliefs ruined, maybe i just dont actually find it fun, maybe its annoying, maybe i had a bone to pick with worldviews only to be destroyed by them, or any combination of these or more. Ive just grown so discontent and indifferent to truth and inquiry now. I just dont care. I will say I definitelt have a lazy disposition and indifferent one, easily prone to nihilism. I just find philosophy and inquirt, in my experience, alienating, dehumanizi g, depressing, maddening, saddening, and just feels me with a wish to never have done any of this. - Ive just had problems with philosophy and inquiry that I just can't find addressed or what not, I just dont think I was ever meant to due this to be honest, maybe under hopeful delusions that didn't work. I just wasted my time. Idk it's just made me a worse person and everything, I feel I would have been better had I not done any Inquiry - And like I geniunely think a lot of my issues stem from philosophy and inquiry, these have made me worse - I just would rather be ignorant at this point. I dont want to know if determinism is true, if physicalism, moral nihilism, what physics and the world is like, I'd rather just believe what I wanna believe at this point the truth be dammed. It doesn't care about me so why should I care about it? Its all so degrading and depressing and mental rape of my mind, it depresses me to an insane degree that we consider some many terrible hypotheses for our lives as true and that they actually are true I'd rather just be ignorant and live a blissfully ignorant life - I promise this isn't spam I really need help I hate this philosophy bullshit i wasted all this time someone fucking hear me out
I can relate! Oh, how I can relate. I was in a PhD in philosophy when the pandemic hit. Philosophy fell through, and I did, too. I found the wry poetry of Norman MacCaig, and gentle relaxation of the mind that comes with suspending judgement rather than wracking our brains over the questions, and the meditative practice of Pyrrhonian skepticism. The Pyrrhonian skeptics tell a story of an artist who longs to get the details just right. She gives up, throws the brush at the canvas, and the very act of throwing away the brush achieved the art she tried so hard to master. You haven't failed to find the answers - you have found that they bring anxiety in the search. Seek suspension of judgement on these tough topics. Focus on rest, relationships, and reflecting on the beauty of life beyond question and beyond questioning. You can find peace! "All the same, I myself (in a mythical sort of way) have been drawn over metaphorical waters by these curving backs, till, filled with an elation I don't want to have explained to me, I lifted a pagan face and shouted audible nonsense." - "Porpoises" "A loss of miracles - or an exchange of one sort for another . . . and all at last would be existence without category - free from demonstration except as hill or bird." - "Double Life" "And the hill we've looked out of existence comes vivid in its own language; and this tree stands self-explained, its own soliloquy." - "Explicit Snow"
I don't know why theist chose to die on this morality hill. There are 3 very obvious things they have to ignore to present "objective morality" as a proof for god. But before that, let's talk about the misnomer: they call it "objective", but they should call it "absolute", or at least that's the way they seem to use it. Morality never changing for anyone ever, seems absolute to me. First problem ignored by theists, secular morality was a real thing codified centuries before someone came up with theyr god. Ignoring that means they are proposing something proposterous like there was no moral behaviour before the invention of theyr god. And yes, they can say "BuT gOd WrOtE mOrAlS oN tHeYr HeArTh": yeh, sure, assumption with no backup, ok, but that still demonstrate they don't NEED to believe in your god to be moral. The second thing they have to ignore is there are very good reason to be moral even if it isn't an absolute rule coming from the almighty bestowed on us by magic. Look at this sentence: God doesn't want we kill each other, therefore we rule immoral killing each other, so we can live in a thriving society where personal security and well being are protected. Nothing controversial by now for a theist, right? Than look at this: We can live in a thriving society where personal security and well being are protected, therefore we rule immoral killing each other, so god doesn't want we kill each other. In this second sentence "god doesn't want we kill each other" is redundant, the first part is justification enough for murder to be labeled immoral. Not for theists it seems... let that sink in. Let sink in the part where having a thriving society where personal security and health isn't a reason enough to oppose murders. This is why sometime people just call them sociopaths. Third, "Objective morals exists" and "Therefore god exists" is a non-sequitur, it doesn't follow directly. There's no indication that having "objective morals" whatever that means implies the existence of a god.
Many apologists used to use "absolute" but when they found a definition of "objective" was "mind independent" they turned that into "independent of the human mind" so they could insert their claimed god.
It seems like morality must be based either on purpose or power. If we are designed to be a certain way, then we ought to be that way. Or, if we will be judged for our actions and rewarded or punished according to some standard, then we ought to behave according to that standard.
Moral impulses are driven by our perceptions of value. Moral facts are bound to objective value based on replaceability and exclusive effects to create and preserve possibilities for the future. Everything that anyone values can be described according to their perceptions of possibilities for the future. Our perceptions are limited by our knowledge and can be distorted by our preferences, but the qualities of rarity and exclusive effects are objective facts that can be quantified and compared. If it is irrational to sacrifice a valuable thing to create a less valuable thing, then it must be immoral to diminish a priceless thing to produce a less than priceless effect. Killing children for fun is objectively immoral because fun is infinitely replaceable with limited possibilities and children are each unique and irreplaceable with immeasurable possibilities. It is impossible for most modern people to enslave other people groups because science demonstrates that the differences in people groups are superficial and we all suffer from the loss of our freedom because of our representational thinking imposes a concept of time and mortality on all people that requires us to want and worry about the future. People have developed an understanding of humanity that makes slavery obviously wrong, no matter what the Bible says. Our moral impulses change as we learn more about ourselves and the world because there are moral facts to discover in the Naturalistic universe.
Regarding the evolution based epistemic argument. I think these hypotheticals gloss over critical elements. Rather than surface level instinctual behaviors like considering it virtuous to cannabalize a mate. I think it is much more appropriate to consider more foundational elements. Are we rational? Do we have empathy? With elements like these in place I think it is fairly easy to suggest that regardless of instinctual inclinations, they would trend towards the same moral truths that we have over time. And on the flip side, if you remove those crucial elements, while you wouldn't be able to reliably arrive at moral knowledge I struggle to understand the relevance since these aren't moral agents. I could expand on both of these but I do think the evolutionary objection fails even though on a personal level I don't think moral realism is the case. At least beyond a trivial level.
Morality is universally preferable behavior. Humans have preferences / preferred states. Some of those preferences are universal; like not being murdered, stolen from, etc. Any moral rule or theory has to apply universally in order to be valid or correct (otherwise it's arbitrary). So any moral rule or theory that breaks with universality cannot be correct. Thus we can know things like "murder is right" are objectively incorrect.
Close. Morality itself is subjective, the most extreme acts within that subjective system are considered to be objective, like your example. Morality is group based and only the most extreme cases are considered objectively immoral almost universal. And that is also due to the facts groups kept on getting bigger: family/tribe - village - city - country - large religions - international/"universal". That why we recently came up with Universal Human Rights. But it is telling there is also Islamic Human Rights.
@@KasperKatje Wrong. I said nothing about the extremity of the acts or put that forward as the reason they are objective. I said the things like not being murdered or not being stolen from are universal preferences. The extremity or lack of extremity is irrelevant. I made an argument which you can address if you like.
@@shlockofgodI know you didn't say that, I only used your example to show you that you are wrong. By the way, M is a bad example because it is wrong by definition: unjustified/unlawful. Try that with k-ing, so without the label unjustified and unlawful. But OK, is ever lie immoral? And you still missed my point: morality itself is subjective and relative, morals within a moral system can be considered objective.
@@KasperKatje You didn't show I was wrong. As I argued, the extremity is irrelevant to my point. I could have used "minor assault" rather than "murder" and made the same point. Murder is not necessarily wrong by definition and even if it was, I'm not using it that way. I can use a neutral definition of murder like "killing a person through the initiation of violence". Again I made an argument for WHY it's immoral. You can address it if you like. I didn't miss your point. You asserted it clearly. It's just irrelevant to my argument.
@@shlockofgod no, you keep on claiming universal by just using one example as an argument. Yes, almost everybody agrees on M being wrong/immoral. That just doesn't make morality itself objective or absolute. Is that why you dodged my question about a lie?
The main reason why the moral argument argument fails is simply because moral realism is false, trivial or unintelligible. I will definitely watch the video later because I love Joe's content, but I would love to see more content on how bad the arguments for moral realism are (as, for example, Lance Bush, Kane B, Don Loeb, and others had shown) and how that affects the moral argument as well.
Joe bootstraps his way into moral realism though so he would disagree with you. I agree with you. Moral realism is obviously false if atheism is true and watching them try to poof it into their ontology is never not entertaining.
Devil’s advocate: What’s wrong with arbitrariness? Especially if ‘wrongness’ itself is the fundamental subject in question? Is it simply that it contradicts our moral intuitions?
I offer my rebuttal to WLCs moral argument. #1 Are morals objective? #2 Are there objective moral duties? #3 Is it immoral not to do an objective moral duty? #4 Does god do the objective moral duties? #5 Is it an objective moral duty to save a drowning child if you can with no risk to yourself? #6 Is it objectively moral to punish people for crimes they did not commit? #7 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it an objectively moral parent?
@@muhammedshanushan3931 I think they are. To a person who says the disciples were just lying, asking the question why would they be willing to die for a lie is a great rebuttal question. I find it takes less words then a syllogism and gets the same point across.
@@macmac1022 The reason we need a syllogism is see the assumption behind the question, so one can easily respond to it It takes more words and time for the who responds if it’s in question form as one need to to stealman the argument before responding Take for example “ How can a immaterial mind interact with physical brain? ” This a question that if made in an argument form one can easily see the flaw , merely not able to explain the mechanism here doesn’t mean they can’t interact, it doesn’t even make it unlikely that they can interact
@@muhammedshanushan3931 ????????? Those are all yes or no questions I asked. It would take you longer to respond to those then if I made a syllogism? You cant steal man that argument? Does it look honest when people avoid answering questions?
@@macmac1022 Did you stop beating your wife ? It’s a yes or no and avoiding it is not dishonest All I’m saying asking questions can be deceiving, and gives someone unfair advantage in a debate
Perhaps part of the defense that a theist (hello, nice to meet you) could use for the second way is that given what know about moral facts, they seem to be much better explained by the brute nature of a personal being to whom we are accountable, rather then just a mere fact about the universe. For example, we intuit that people who do bad things ought to receive justice and be held accountable. Justice and accountability really do seem like the kinds of things that are only relevant among persons, if thats the case it seems, by my lights, to tip the needle towards the idea that the ultimate grounding for justice is something personal. To say that my sense of justice is explained by the truth of an impersonal brute moral fact that I ought to adhere to even though it in itself can't hold me accountable, just doesn't seem to make as much sense to me as it being explained by the brute nature of a personal being who actually can hold me accountable. Also, I did really like the video. Really great explanation of some of the thoughts/problems I've had with the typical moral argument. :)
I could be wrong, but there are at least two main competing explanations of our intuitions being given here. 1. We intuitively prescribe whether or not wrong things are deserving of consequences in virtue of consequences that actually exist (whether in this reality or in the afterlife presumably). 2. We intuitively prescribe whether or not actions are deserving of consequences as an extention of the intrinsic nature of the actions, independent of whether or not said consequences actually exist. I think Explanation 2 not only requires fewer ontological commitments, but seems to fit better with our intuitions, which are built by considerations of the nature of the action itself, not the punishment the wrongdoer may or may not experience as a result.
This is an interesting side topic. From what I can tell. You proposed an impersonal moral brute fact (that we are accountable to other personal beings). The effectiveness of this moral fact only becomes actionable if other beings exist. Which is distinct from whether the moral fact itself is derived from a personal being. As such, simply another human is sufficient for you to be accountable to someone. An eternal being is superfluous.
2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3
About 350 BCE Aristotle wrote 3 secular ethical treatises that are vastly superior to any moral system that any religion has ever produced, and thereby creating the philosophical field of ethics. To this day, Aristotle is the most influential thinker in the field of ethics, which anyone who studies ethics would know.
I don’t think moral arguments works as naturalists doesn’t have any good reason to commit to “objective” morality , so they can reject the premise that states there is objective morality If theists have other reasons to believe in God , then he has good reason to believe in morality Whereas for a naturalist , he has no good reason to commit to weird /queer brute unnecessary moral oughts (especially given EDA ) when they have other parsimonious ways to explain the data NB: I’m not saying theistic view is parsimonious here , All I’m saying theist has already committed to things (due to others arguments) that make moral realism likely So all the work is done by other arguments and moral argument fails
There are definitely good reasons to commit to "objective" morality. Morality comprises our expectations of each other. The closer we are to a perfect shared understanding the less conflicts we will see caused by moral disagreement. Practically a workable inter-subjective morality that approximates objectivity makes society function more smoothly such that we enjoy our lives more.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME nope. When someone claims there is no way to have objective without God, it’s a perfectly cogent criticism to bring up over a dozen perfectly coherent ways to have objective morality without God, and then to emphasize that the person making the aforementioned claim would need to systematically rule all of these views out - something that the person making the aforementioned claim has failed to do, and hence their argument is not to be taken seriously.
@@MajestyofReason I think that this is a worthy consideration to make, but Im not convinced of its effectiveness against most proponents of the moral argument, many of whom are at least 1. completely unaware of these metaethical positions (which in turn only leads to them dismissing them without substantive criticism or dialogue) or 2. Believe that the first premise is true by default until the contrary is demonstrated (which is an informal fallacy ofc). This response makes it seem like you are obligated to defend these particular metaethical positions through rigorous questioning, and if you cant, the moral argument proponent can claim victory. This is obviously not true, but its often what happens in dialogues/debates when this kind of objection is given.
Bad exists... which is a subjective observation. Evil implies that GOD IS DIVIDED. Evil requires for a CREATION of GOD to be imperfect. AN IMPERFECT CREATION can only come from an imperfect CREATOR. Creation is the complete expression of pure FREEDOM. In which, there is the latentcy for every possibility & probability within CREATION. BAD & EVIL are often conflated. Evil & sin are a conceptual construct created by Religion. "Bad" is a common experience shared by all subjective perspectives. (Ppl) The common, inevitable experience of "bad" is co-opted by religion, which then juxtaposes their perception of SIN over it, in order to control the masses through mass psychosis & mass Stockholm syndrome.... By using the artificial projections of Sin & Evil as tools to convince SENTIENT SINGULARITIES to lend their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto SYSTEMS and ESTABLISHMENTS which insidiously abuse this Gift to then forge chains of servitude to offer back. Those in POWER know that EVERYONE IS A FRACTAL EXTENSION OF THE GOD-HOOD.... And they do everything in their power to make sure we the ppl NEVER learn this.... The perception of a SENTIENT SINGULARITY (ppl) is the jewel of CREATION. Our consciousness is an extension of the OMNI-CONSCIOUSNESS. Every quanta of (our) experience fuels the life stream of the OMNI-VERSE. Morality can only exist in someone's mind... which Inherently makes it subjective... objective reality does not superimpose its objectivity on a subjective mind which objectively exists. A mind objectively existing does not interfere w the fact that the minds perception & perspective is RELATIVE. THERE IS OBJECTIVE REALITY. HOWEVER, ONES PERCEPTION OF THAT OBJECTIVE REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. I AM THE BRIGHTEST NIGHT. I AM THE DARKEST LIGHT. ❤
33:28 why do you need an explanation for necessary properties? If God is necessary, and his properties are as well, then asking for an explanation becomes frivolous. It is akin to asking about the properties of the number 2
@@ILoveLuhaidan necessary things can easily have explanations. See mistake 102 in th-cam.com/video/5BffU6iEktI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=emCV2zF5XlCPeOoL Besides, if the moral arguer takes this view - that necessary truths cannot or need not be explained - then their argument fails. For moral truths, or at least more basic moral truths, are necessary - it’s not contingent, for instance, that torturing someone for fun is wrong. But then their claim that they need or have explanation, and ultimately a theistic explanation, is false. (Also, re: the properties of numbers, mathematicians offer explanations all the time of why the mathematical realm is certain ways.)
@@fireinthesky2333 ahh yes the grown ups who make massive unjustified/incoherent claims because antirealism is "vewy scawy" and it hurts their little feelings. Projection is strong with this one.
@@fireinthesky2333 I think the problem is not with the concept of 'morality' but with the concept of 'real'. We humans make a lot of useful abstractions, but, if we call those abstractions 'real', we should notice that is not the same 'real' as in a physical object, for example. Sometimes i wonder if the endless discussions among philosophers (and wannabe philosophers) are just caused by unadressed different levels of reification. Flowers exist and countries exist, but countries don't exist the same way that flowers exist.
The commandments break themselves. "Thou shall not kill"... yet the "punishment" for breaking the commandments is to be killed. 😂😂😂 tell me again how there is no contradiction in the Bible. ❤
Not all theists are created equal. I am a non-Abrahamic true monotheist. Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers. Yahweh is a desert war God of hypocrisy, not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. The "Law of Yahweh " breaks itself, on top of Yahweh breaking it, annihilating any hope of declaring the law as absolute or objective. 😂😂😂
If Yahweh made man.... In his image, w his heart.... & Yahweh breaks his own commandments... Then by virtue of perfect CREATION, not only should Yahweh NOT punish his creation for breaking his commandments, HE SHOULD EXPECT & rejoice in his CREATIONS breaking his commandments.... because what is good for the FATHER is good for the SON. OTHERWISE, Yahweh proves himself to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. Yahweh can break his law all he wants... but at the moment he does, he proves that this law is not ABSOLUTE or objective. Yahweh breaking his own law proves he is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. The ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power to enact his will w out breaking his own laws. The ONE TRUE CREATOR is the primordial source of intellect & wisdom and would lead by example, not by hypocrisy. The ONE TRUE CREATOR has no need to make commandments. I realize that you have relinquished your divine sovereignty unto the theology of Abraham... and you would like to see me do the same to justify your decision. But I retain my divine sovereignty as I declare that ALL creations have direct access to the ONE TRUE CREATOR. ALL words are God's words. For there is no sound uttered without the empowerment of the breath of life from the CREATOR. ANY sentient being which makes demands or commands proves themselves to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. for the ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power of CREATION.... & with such, has no need of demands. Creation is the expression of pure freedom. The ONE TRUE CREATOR would not place artifical limits, such as arbitrary demands externally... he would build those limits into the structure of CREATION ITSELF, such as the "speed of light". Yahweh is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. IT IS NOT HIS CREATION. The Actual ONE TRUE CREATOR has nothing to be vengeful or jealous of, for ALL THINGS ARE HIS. That Yahweh is jealous & vengeful is more proof that he is NOT the ONE TRUE CREATOR. JESUS spoke out against the broken Theology of Abraham, and his followers killed him for it. They could not eradicate his story, so they integrated it into their dogmas in order to manipulate the masses into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church. I do believe in the Christ Consciousness. But I do not capitulate to distortions of it imposed by Followers of Abraham. And my perception of Christ does not require the approval or validation of your perception... just as your perception does not require the validation of mine. The actual ONE TRUE CREATOR requires NOTHING FROM YOU. Every CREATION that we as CREATORS extend is a testament to HIS GREATNESS. CREATORS CREATING IS HIS WORSHIP, accepted. 😂😂😂 Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers.... who use sin to manipulate CO-CREATORS into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church, using mass psychosis and mass Stockholm syndrome, through the dogma of the broken theology of Abraham. The ONE TRUE CREATOR is UNITED, NOT DIVIDED. ♥
@@Jk-ow8nyhiring a hitman to kill a baby (evil), but it's Hitler (preventing holocaust is good) but you use a fake check to pay (bad), but you really want them to do it (good). Looks like the math says it's morally neutral
Easy, it's an appeals to consequence fallacy Saying that it's unappealing to live in a reality without objective morality does not make the alternative true
It rests on an unspoken presupposition of authoritarianism. Some theists are aware of this, and avoid it; others honestly can't imagine any non-authoritarian moral philosophy.
Not to mention, it is baffling comming from defenders of the two major religions (considering that the Jewish-Christian Islamic God is morally abhorrent)
To be fair, "objective" morality exists, the problem is theists make of that a misnomer of what they actually mean: absolute morality. Objective morality exists because if we humans agree on morals rules, we can say objectively if a behaviour is moral or not. In the same way chess has rules, and we can objectively determine if a move is good, bad or irrelevant. So yeh, I use too in common parlant "objective" for a clear communication purpose, but they really mean another thing when they say that, and not the thing it is. I have to keep this in mind.
@@kregorovillupo3625 that's not what objective means. I agree that if we all agree that morality means a banana then I literally ate morality for breakfast, it's more productive to not obfuscate. Objective morality doesn't exist.
@@PercyTinglish I'm not obfuscating. I'm just stating that theists use a misnomer, they should use "absolute morality", because I can find a non contraddictory definition of objective morality. Like in the chess similitude. And when was "banana" a behaviour?
@@kregorovillupo3625 banana is a behavior when we define it that way, just like when you redefine objective to mean subjective. You can take steps that are objectively in line with your subjective morality, the morality is still subjective...
@@PercyTinglish " banana is a behavior when we define it that way" Now you are obfuscating. For real tho, not like me when i wasn't. "just like when you redefine objective to mean subjective." Where. Where have I done that. I really missed that because I don't think that. "You can take steps that are objectively in line with your subjective morality, the morality is still subjective..." Yes, my morality is subjective. That doesn't mean we can't objectively agree if a behaviour is moral or not. Again, like in the chess similitude, look a this description and see if it reminds you something: we agree on simple rules, we than move on the field, and we can evaluate the consequences of behaviours as advantegeous, detrimental or neither. The rules we agree on are sourced on our subjectivity, sure: WE have ruled the pawn moves as a pawn. It's just that giving us the ability to evaluate consequences in a field were we have ruled what "moral behaviour" are, and I don't think your "banana" behaviour will have many people agreeing. Reason why peer pressure is a factor in moral behaviour. Still, I think theists should rename the argument "absolute morality from god", and not objective: that is obfuscation.
Your analysis is not good. 1. Saying "suffering is intrinsically bad" in isolation is highly inadequate. You've heard the phrase "everyone is the hero in their own story" In real life, tough moral calculations are rarely ever Suffering v Pleasure, among two or more actors. Its more suffering v another kind of suffering. And the atheist worldview fails to provide an overriding principle in that sense. Also, you ran into the problem which Kant ran into, that human self-loathing exists. What if a man wants to consent to and opt into slavery? Or wants to voluntarily opt into torture or suicide? Without the Imago Dei principle, there is no valid objection to that. Also, you just throw out a grab bag of ethical principles, Kant and so on. Thats the WHOLE POINT OF THE THEISTS. If everyone has a grab bag of ethical justifications to pull from, with no hierarchical ordering of obligations, then there is no overriding universal ethic when the grab bag of justifications is used in a perverse, dictatorial or oppressive manner.
Theistic morality does not solve any of that. Your "grab bag" just becomes whatever you can glean from religious texts and traditions. And from that, you invariably just pick and choose the parts you feel like following, and ignore or make excuses for the parts you don't. You've been doing it since the days of Paul.
"Without the Imago Dei principle, there is no valid objection to that. " The Imago Dei principles solves nothing until you explain why God is good. But no theist is even close to that. They just assert it without any justification. It is just another subjetive arbitrary "ground" for morality.
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 Exactly. And the fact they insist it is hierarchical shows that for most theists, morality is just an authoritarian based system with no regard to reason at all.
@@mendez704 Why God is good - because a Necessary Being definitionally cannot possess a deficit. A deficit that can be filled by another thing is a contingency. Evil is a moral deficit. Evil does not exist for its own sake, as CS Lewis said. Every evil is an aberration or perversion of something already extant.
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 The grab bag is not intrinsically bad. God created Reason and Logic so that we could use those faculties. That's fine. The Problem is that is a poor substitute as a final guardrail against tyranny, because to be a guardrail, hierarchical ordering of axioms is necessary. The whole purpose of a moral overriding guardrail is that it is overriding. It has primacy. There is no solid grounding for that under naturalism
God is the goodness morality comes from God and is his nature Morality is merely how we come to discover Gods nature We can at any point in our existence choose to go against our moral intuitions via our free will.
@@mendez704saying God is x says nothing about y Yea that’s kind of how things work Saying I like chocolate cookies Says nothing about whether I like strawberry cookies
A Harvest is coming, everyone must choose a side soon “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:35, 38 KJV
@@someguy2249I predict even sooner than that “knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” 2 Peter 3:3-4
I'm convinced morality grows out of our biological nature. I'm not convinced by philosophical arguments, but by the way we respond physically to incidents that anger us or that gratify us. Our bodies respond automatically. Not sure you can or should deal with this aspect. Just thought I'd let you know.
It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This is the contingent and less real side. The other side is necessary and more real. The Holy Trinity has an event horizon between God side and Father, Son, Holy Spirit side. Gen 1-Gen 2.3 is the Holy Trinity. Gen 2.4-Gen 3 is the Unholy Trinity. Your 0D subatomic structure is dimensionless, timeless and outside of 1D, 2D, 3D space and 4D time. Quark singularities have no spatial or temporal extension whatsoever.
@@juanausensi499 Again, another outlandish presupposition on your part. What you're saying is something like, "mathematical truths require minds to discover them so if there were no humans there'd be no mathematical truths," but this seems silly.
HEY JOE! As a theist I do think that guys comment below about you not being an agnostic but actually a secret atheist was snarky. But I would like to see you take on some atheist arguments to even out the channel MORE. Notice I said MORE because you do critique atheist stuff just not as much. I enjoy your channel because it’s actual philosophy. Most Christian philosophers are not doing philosophy they are doing apologetics. Likewise most atheist philosophers (at least on TH-cam) aren’t doing philosophy they are doing polemic counter apologetics. As a theist I set aside my biases and I genuinely acknowledge agnosticism and deism as rational positions and if I remember correctly I think you said theism is rational. Anyways keep the content coming. But I really would be curious to see you pick out a popular atheist argument that you think fails and give it an hour and half to two hour long video.
Just scroll back through Joe's channel and you'll see who he is motivated to criticize and who he's not motivated to criticize. He is very shy about namechecking other atheist/agnostic philosophers despite there being more than enough bad videos to go around. And when he does mention them he is a good little boy. Agnostics in philosophy are the same as self described moderates in politics. They disarm with their moderation and use it to attack only one side as a rhetorical strategy. Atheists/agnostics are much less willing to criticize their own than theists. The proof is in his videos and you can scroll back and count for yourself. If someone tells you the arguments for both sides are approximately as good and spends 95% of their time attacking one side then they are lying to you.
Maybe a hot take, but... there really aren't many standalone arguments for atheism? Just as atheism is defined in opposition to theism, its arguments are responses to the claims of theists. Theists offer apologetics and atheists offer counter apologetics. Joe could offer counter-counter apologetics, but it's not clear to me why he'd bother.
@@shassett79 If atheists are relegated to describing their negative belief as basic then we have done our job. Just as if we can get them to admit moral realism and LFW exist. They can't build a system without our stuff.
@@vozcalma4127 This will be my last comment here, since it's clear you're not here to engage in good faith dialogue. (1) You're underestimating the number of videos I've made or co-made criticizing non-theistic arguments and defending theistic arguments. I've made many -- to take ones literally off the top of my head: (i) in almost every video in my common mistakes series, I repeatedly lampoon internet atheists as confused or philosophically uninformed and extensively challenge many of their biggest talking points ('one less god', 'that's god of the gaps!', 'laws are necessary therefore fine-tuning fails', in the last of which I also criticize Oppy's view [and do the same in some of my AMAs wherein people have asked me about Oppy]); (ii) I've extensively defended contingency arguments in a variety of places, both on my channel and other channels, both from the outset of my channel and even within the last few months on other channels; (iii) I've defended an argument from consciousness on both my channel and other channels; (iv) I've defended an a priori fine-tuning argument on my channel; (v) in my 12 hour long video, at several points I argue that certain data are evidence for theism and rebut common atheist counters to many of the theistic arguments I cover; (vi) I've defended a theistic symmetry breaker for the modal ontological argument in conversation with Alex O'Connor, and defended other theistic considerations (and rebutted atheistic arguments) in my tier list videos with Alex; (vii) on Trent's channel I criticized deductive versions of the hiddenness argument, logical problems of evil, and other atheist talking points; (viii) I’ve had Liz Jackson on to defend Pascal’s wager; (ix) I’ve had Philip Goff on to defend fine-tuning arguments and psychophysical harmony arguments against naturalistic atheism; (x) I've done devil's advocate debates defending theism; (xi) I've harshly criticized atheists for their mistakes about evidence, lack theism, and so on both in my own videos and on Cameron's channel; and on and on and on. I’ve also been trying to plan Daniel Rubio and Brian Cutter to come on to defend their favorite theistic arguments. (I’m meeting them in person this week at a conference.) Your comment just tells me you're not paying attention. (2) There is no doubt that, among the videos I make in philosophy of religion, the majority of them are critical of theistic arguments. Does this mean, as you suggest, that I don’t actually appraise the arguments for and against theism as roughly on a par? Obviously not. For there’s an alternative, spectacularly obvious explanation: my videos reflect my philosophical research interests and specializations. My philosophical research specializes in arguments for theism. Specifically: ontological arguments, the Kalam, modal contingency arguments, classical theistic proofs, and arguments against classical theism as a model of God, are my research interests in Philosophy of Religion. I have published extensively only on these aspects of phil religion. It’s no surprise, then, that *these specific* theistic arguments are a main focus on my channel. If people don't like me focusing on my research interests, they can unsubscribe. And what published positions do I take on *these specific theistic arguments* that I specialize on? My publications are critical. So it’s no surprise that, if my videos reflect my research, and my research specializes on theistic arguments about which I’m critical, that the majority of my Phil Rel videos will be the same. But this obviously doesn’t imply that *other* theistic arguments weigh on my mind - such as arguments from consciousness (including psychophysical harmony), moral knowledge, certain non-modal contingency arguments, an a priori fine-tuning argument, nomological arguments, and so on. I just don’t specialize on these and so am not particularly well-equipped to make videos on them or engage in discussions about them. It’s the same reason why I actually have *very* few videos on, e.g., the argument from animal suffering for atheism, even though I think the argument is extremely powerful: I don’t specialize on the topic, so I’m not particularly well-equipped to make videos on it or engage in discussions about it. So there’s no special bias against theism here; instead, there’s just a bias toward my research interests, which happen to correlate with theistic arguments I don’t accept. (Why are my research interests like that? That’s a matter of personal taste and historical accident: I first got into philosophy because of Alex Pruss and Josh Rasmussen and Ed Feser, the first two of whom work on modal contingency arguments and the Kalam, and the latter of whom works on classical theistic proofs. It’s no surprise that my research interests would blossom out of what first sparked my interest in philosophy.) (3) Building on (2), I also just find theistic arguments with a metaphysical focus much more interesting than atheistic ones - hence the differential focus on responding to these arguments (which I tend to disagree with, save stage 1 of non-modal contingency arguments). Again, notice: even though I agree with, e.g., versions of the problem of evil and certain evidential versions of divine hiddenness and religious confusion etc., I very rarely make videos on these topics. (4) Atheists on TH-cam tend to divide in two: those who are philosophically competent, and those who are philosophically incompetent. The latter aren't worth engaging and make up 99% of atheists on this platform. Internet atheism is a cesspool of incompetence with minuscule islands of credibility and competence. So I don’t care to interact with or waste much of my time on the 99% of internet atheists who are philosophically incompetent. As for the 1% who are competent, they usually use arguments that I actually agree with (or have sympathies with): the non-logical problem of evil, evidential versions of divine hiddenness, religious diversity/confusion, and so on. So among the atheists on TH-cam worth engaging, typically they aren't pushing arguments I disagree with. Hence fewer critical engagements with atheists. Thus, as before, nothing here implies that I’m “lying” about my assessment of the theism/atheism evidence. It only indicates that you’re either feeling upset or threatened (or both). (5) I’m filling a niche in the market. Almost no one on TH-cam competently addresses modal ontological arguments, modal cosmological arguments, classical theistic proofs, the standard moral argument, and even the Kalam. And certainly for most of these, practically no one on TH-cam engages them with rigor and high quality argumentation. By contrast, apologists already saturate the market with billions of responses to atheistic arguments, and already bring on quality philosophers etc to respond to atheistic arguments. It’s no surprise, then, that I would fill what I see is a dire need in the market - competent criticism of theistic arguments. (In my own personal judgment, I also see more weaponization of philosophy of religion from the apologetics side, and a big concern of mine is combating the weaponization of arguments - this also partially helps to explain my comparative emphasis on criticizing theistic arguments).
@@MajestyofReason You agree with the atheist channels so you don't critique them as much. We know. That's what people are pointing out... I get it. Saying you're an agnostic scores valuable strategic points and "fills a niche in the market" as you say which is why you maintain the label while dodging critiquing every prominent atheist youtuber out there while instead dedicating a non small amount of your energy to Trent Horn response videos(lol). You have more Trent Horn response videos recently than all detailed atheist critiques combined(lol). I'm sorry but that strikes me as performative contradiction too large to ignore. Maybe there are a bunch of videos coming up with thumbnails of atheists with the caption "they are way wrong and here's why" but somehow I don't see that in the cards.
PROOF of objective morality:
P1: if there is no objective morality, then there is no objective obligation to subscribe to majesty of reason
P2: there is an objective obligation to subscribe to majesty of reason
P3: therefore, there is objective morality
It is a good one, but I prefer to call it categorical intellectual imperative.
That's obviously proof of objective sophistry and motivated reasoning.
This amazingly evoids circularity - just by renaming C to P3 :O paradigm shift!
Your “logic” is UNDERWHELMING, Sir. 🙄
P1 is simply an assertion without anything to back it up. What nonsense!
The biggest issue with moral arguments for a theistic god is that it ultimately fails when combined with other common positions in apologetics.
For example, if one subscribes to divine command theory as William Lane Craig does, then moral epistemology is limited to the following two points:
Good is solely that which is commanded by God, and Evil is solely that which is forbidden by God. Actions such as murder are, under this principle, morally good if they are commanded by God.
Therefore the person who already subscribes to divine command theory has no actual way to demostrate the truth of the premise that objective morality exists without begging the question, as they can present no reason to believe that objective morality exists that does not first presuppose the existence of God.
@@alexandertaylor7316 Moreover, even if they can avoid begging the question, that would still not get them to "objective morality". Divine commands theory is by its very nature an anti-realist normative theory. It actually makes complete sense when read through the lense of an anti-realist view.
Why is "anti-realist"? @@esauponce9759
I’m not sure your portrayal of William Lane Craig’s position fully captures his argument. One of his responses to the Euthyphro Dilemma is that morality is neither grounded solely in God’s commands nor in an external standard, but in the idea that "God is the good," meaning goodness exists inherently and objectively within God’s very essence or nature.
This view isn’t identical to Divine Command Theory, though there are areas where the two concepts can overlap-such as the idea that disobeying God would always be objectively wrong, even if God is making an allowance outside of his perfect will, such as allowing for divorce, for example, even though God disagrees with it. Disobeying God even within these types of commands would still be objectively wrong, even if the command is subjective and does not align with God's desired outcome.
However, WLC's position incorporates additional elements, making it more complex than reducing it solely to Divine Command Theory. Recognizing these additional nuances could add clarity to the discussion and avoid potential misrepresentations.
There are a few more issues to consider. Saying that the fierce would not be able to demonstrate the truth of the existence of objective moral values without begging the question misunderstand the form and how generally how the moral argument is used to support the existence of God. The argument does not begin by saying God exists and therefore creates objective values, it begins with the established conclusion that objective values exist, which therefore implies the existence of God. Your argument seems to be applying the moral argument backwards.
Considering these nuances might offer an alternative perspective that could change once outlook on the moral argument.
@@Bi0Dr01d I have yet to see at least one good argument for "objective morality" and at least one good argument for why or how it implies God's existence.
@@Bi0Dr01d The issue with WLC's version of the moral argument can be summed up in two major ways:
1. It does not logically follow that if objective moral values exist, therefore God exists.
2. Appealing to God's nature only pushes the Euthyphro Dilemma back one step.
With issue 1, objective moral values are mind independent. Since apologists like WLC often define God as having a mind, any commands he would give are subjective. And are therefore just as arbitrary as any moral judgement any other mind could make. On top of that, since WLC believes in Divine Command Theory, this would mean that if objective moral values do exist, they are not grounded in God by definition. Since he is allegedly omniscient, he would be aware of these values, but ultimately he would make whatever moral judgements that are in accordance with his being, even if such judgements may conflict with this objective moral system.
Here's the dilemma with issue 2: Is something good because it comes from God's nature? Or does God's nature align with something because it is good?
If the former is true, then morality is still coming from God since his nature is part of his being. And therefore morality is still subjective. If the latter is true, then God's nature moves him to follow some ethical system that exists independent of himself. And since he exists independent of this ethics system, it would still exist even if he didn't. Thus making premise 1 of the moral argument false.
1:08:08 - In the debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan, Kagan provided Craig with some potential reasons why human morality is distinct from animal morality (or lack thereof). If this guy really is such a fan of William Lane Craig, and his moral argument, you'd expect him to have watched that debate with an actual philosophy professor.
One potential justification for human morality is that humans seem uniquely capable of reflecting on their past actions and imagining having done differently. Indeed, this is probably why we don't hold a toddlers accountable in any recognizable way that we hold our fellow adults accountable. We treat the actions of toddlers almost the same way we treat the actions of animals, precisely because neither toddlers nor animals have the ability to reflect on their actions.
Craig's only response to this was to question why that matters, as if Kagan was supposed to cite some sort of ghostly magic as his answer, because that's the only thing that Craig seems to care about.
"One potential justification for human morality is that humans seem uniquely capable of reflecting on their past actions and imagining having done differently" This is nonsense though. Human morality is different because human morality is different? Humans are also capable of evils far beyond the capacity of animals. Does that unique capability make these behaviors moral?
Wtf are you even talking about...??@@reevertoun
Most life forms display empathy and altruism, particularly towards close relatives, whether or not they are "capable of reflection". Treating humans as morally unique is unwarranted special pleading.
@@reevertoun"Humans are also capable of evils far beyond the capacity of animals."
I'm not sure that's true. Have you ever studied the chimpanzee wars that Jane Goodall observed between 1974 and 1978? Apparently a single population of chimps separated over several years and the northern band would wage war on the individuals of the southern band...waiting until one was alone and then orchestrating coordinated gang attacks violently killing them apparently without provocation. They apparently would attack the young and females as well seemingly trying to wipe out the southern troop of chimps. Check out the Gombe Chimp war So due to technology and intelligence, human ways of abuse are more creative but I'm not sure they're more violent. Consider that when a male lion takes over a pride he will kill all the young so the females will be ready to mate thus ensuring his seed is passed on at the expense of the defeated previous pride leader.
It's not, morality is specifically reflection about those traits, not just having those traits. Animals can act compassionately, but are they racked with guilt when they don't? Do they ponder on the many instances of their lives where they could have done otherwise? Do they argue with other animals about the morally right course of action for any scenario? There's no way to know for sure, but inference to the best explanations tells us humans are very obviously different and distinct in this regard.
Like Zelenskyy, I am depressed by the general ignorance of meta-ethics these debates engender. Neither the bland assumption that objective morality can only be grounded in God nor the bland assumption that morality is subjective show any awareness of the arguments for and against each position.
Zelenisok. Auto corrupt strikes again.
My bet is none of these theists have had ethics courses in (secular) colleges. If they did I dont think they would say that God needs to exists in order for morality to exist. The theory that proposes that - the Divine command theory - is the silliest one of all the meta-ethical theories you learn about in ethics courses. I'm a theist who majored philosophy, and I'm always dumbfounded by that typical moral argument, it just sounds to me like someone saying well you cant have atoms sticking together without God, like wait, did you even study physics. OTOH, the argument from moral knowledge like the one Swinburne gives actually seems to me have some strength to it.
They don’t say that God needs to exist in order for morality to exist genius. They say that God needs to exist in order for OBJECTIVE moral values to exist, because they need to be grounded in God. Big difference there and you’re just a walking straw man argument.
@@philosophicaltheist7706 Which is even worse, there are many objectivist secular ethical theories, but moreover its questionable if divine command theory is even an objectivist theory, being that it grounds morality in a subject.
@@zelenisok Divine Command Theory is an anti-realist normative theory. Thomas L. Carson has a great paper on that. Under an anti-realist framework, DCT makes actually perfect sense. That's the framework it should be analyzed under.
I don't think "objectivist" secular and theistic moral theories are any good, btw.
I watched a couple of minutes but I already have a thorough refutation:
1) For every proposition P, if Trent Horn believes that P, it is very likely that P is true.
2) Trent Horn believes that God's existence is necessary for morality.
C) Necessarily, God's existence is necessary for morality.
Premise 1 is acknowledged by 97.842% of professional philosophers, so it's inescapably true, to borrow a phrase from inerrant erudite Bill Craig. What is more, there is no problem whatsoever with the modal inference to the conclusion - see modal axiom S6 - also known as axiom MyS.
Thus, you either present strong evidence against 2, or delete your video.
I think there is a more plausible way to explain the success of the moral argument (a sociological one): people have been taught morality in an authoritarian way (mostly by the religious authoritarian traditions, like Christianity and Islam). And such values permeate culture, even among non-religious people. The moral argument is essentially an authoritarian dogma disguised as an argument. We must obey God, because we are his servants, because he is all powerful, etc. It clicks very easily in people's mind, unfortunately.
Then how come people can part ways with Christian belief itself extremely easily (reddit boys become atheists at 13), yet the values stick with us, even tho both are taught in the exact same "authoritarian way". And if values are "special" in a way that it's harder to part ways with, why's that?.
If anything, the values of Christianity should be abandoned as soon as you abandon belief in Christ and His teachings, they're 100% dependant on it.
@@Igelme "Then how come people can part ways with Christian belief itself extremely easily (reddit boys become atheists at 13), yet the values stick with us, even tho both are taught in the exact same "authoritarian way". "
What values?
@@mendez704 I wrote almost an entire essay on this reply, but I'm gonna keep it short for your time's sake (and anyone who cares to read this thread). I think there are 2 values, whom non believers still think are pillars of society, which I believe are fundamentally Christian in nature: Altruism, and equality (in the image of God). Note that these are not the "only" christian values, just the ones I believe are extremely hard to justify to value as a non-believer.
@@Igelme 1) Neither of those values are Christian. Altruism existed way before Christianity existed, and equality is not a Christian value at all. The fact that Christianity coexisted and accepted slavery for most of its history, including in the Bible, and still rejects gender equality shows that claim is false.
2) But the point is not which values society base its moral values, but what makes those values (regardless if they come from Christians or atheists) themselves morally good.
As usual, there is no mention of the religion that basically gave rise to all abrahimic religions.
Scared to talk about the jews bro?
"deductive moral arguments fail"
I think abductive one still have some weight to them but they are admittedly still weak in so far as the data point itself being morality itself. I find though that arguments from moral awareness are much better since those dont rely on the notion that morality can only be explained by God, but more on the notion that you wouldnt expect to have creatures with moral awareness in an indifferent universe.
We are creatures with moral awareness, but at the same time we are prone to so many errors when it comes to discerning moral issues. The history is full of atrocities committed by humans. Such flawed creatures are more likely under naturalism or an indifferent universe.
@@anteodedi8937 Your point about human moral awareness alongside our tendency to commit moral atrocities is certainly a challenging issue. However, when we examine this within the context of a broader theistic narrative, particularly the one I develop in my book The Educative Matrix, a different picture emerges. Rather than suggesting that these flaws are more probable under naturalism or an indifferent universe, we can interpret these moral failures as essential to a divinely orchestrated narrative aimed at the universal growth of all beings.
The narrative approach in my theodicy sees human flaws as part of a larger, educative process where moral awareness is gradually refined through the experience of both good and evil. Our capacity for moral error and our moral struggles are not signs of an indifferent universe but are integrated into a cosmic story where free agents are allowed to make mistakes in order to grow in virtue and understanding over time. Suffering and moral failures are not the final word; they are tools within the broader framework of moral and spiritual development.
Once we place this within a narrative framework, the data of human moral awareness (which I initially mentioned) and the data of moral atrocities ( the data you mentioned like historical atrocities committed by flawed humans) are both accounted for. In this narrative, moral awareness is the initial step, and the errors we make, though painful, are integral to the broader arc of learning and growing. The fact that we are creatures with the ability to discern moral issues but still prone to moral failure is precisely what we’d expect if this world is structured to educate and improve free agents.
We would not expect this narrative if naturalism is true, in fact, naturalism doesn't predict any narrative.
@@anteodedi8937 Are they, though? Flawed creatures that commit various errors in their moral reasoning *but* are also able to realize (at least some of them) they have committed such mistakes and in doing so some engage in the project of changing for the better; is that more expected under naturalism/hypothesis of indifference? I don't think so. Sounds more like a narrative-like sort of plot that you would get from a quasi-conscious author or source with good intentions. I could be wrong, though.
@@esauponce9759 That's precisely what you would expect under naturalism by my lights. Slow progress on our part, going through trial and errors.
Meanwhile, all of this would be weird under theism.
A quasi conscious or conscious author with good intentions could at least diminish errors significantly or could interfere to avoid the innumerable atrocities. I mean, an author who had the power to create all of this would also have the power to do such things. That seems like an easy task for such an author considering what you are attributing to him.
It seems as if we are alone, and the burden is on us to discern such issues and make progress further, doesn't it?
@@anteodedi8937 Slow progress on our part, going through trial and errors, finding redemption, etc. sounds like something out of a drama movie. That's something that, some would argue, is more expected from a personal foundation worldview, not an impersonal one. Also, if we really should expect moral/epistemic errors under non-theism, by the same token, shouldn't we see (or maybe not even see anything at all lol) more chaos and errors in every other domain in this world? Yet it seems we don't. Here we are, for example, having an interesting conversation allowed by a decently ordered world.
I do resonate in part with what you mentioned though about feeling like we are on our own. Sometimes, at least to me, it does feel like that. But at the same time I don't think the whole story or analysis just ends there.
47:00 I like to stipulate that “unnecessary suffering” is bad because some argue that suffering is not inherently bad in cases where a suffering leads to growth.
Haven’t watched yet;
Growing up I was whole heartedly convinced by the moral argument, but that was due to the lack of proper representation in my Christian school. Now I am in favor of moral realism, but there are so many explanations for moral realism outside of a god
I have almost always been an intutive moral realist but now it's starting to crumble for me and such a shift is being a lot more impactful to me than my change from theism to atheism.
I'm an Atheist and moral realist. Loss can be objectively determined. Value can be determined according to exclusive effects to create and preserve possibilities for the future without any subjective preferences.
If it's irrational to sacrifice a valuable thing to create a less valuable thing, then it must be immoral to diminish a priceless thing to produce a less than priceless effect.
Our moral impulses change as we learn more about ourselves and the world because there are moral facts to be discovered in the Naturalistic universe.
@@Nexus-jg7ev An observation I think many would agree with. Anyways, hope the journey of navigating morality in a new landscape works out for you! Although difficult, I hope there are som paths with answers along the line
@@peterlindal3352 Well, I'm not certain yet. I've read as much metaethics as I could find I keep reading more. I don't really see a resolution yet. I do hold certain moral views, but I have no idea if they track some truth out there, or if they are just expressions of my own attitudes.
@@ohrobert65 But what makes something valuable objectively valuable?
Not only is theism not a basis for an objective morality because it is just a morality subjective to One, we just have to take the word of the theist that he knows what it is his God believes. What is worse, a morality determined by one being's subjective beliefs, or being told what that One being's beliefs are by yet another being with no discernable special attributes?
I don't think that the theist position (at least the one I hold to) and the non-theist position mentioned here are analogous. This is because there is a clear logical consequence of God being good but there is no equally clear consequence of things, such as kindness, being good.
God is a perfect being, and so has all perfections. Since moral perfection is a perfection, it follows that God would be morally perfect, by definition/nature. Claiming God is not morally perfect results in a logical contradiction since the claim would be that a perfect being is not perfect.
Something like kindness, however, does not have the same logical consequence. Saying "kindness is not good" is not at all clearly logically contradictory. There does not seem to be any contradiction in claiming that kindness is not good. It seems like a perfectly conceivable idea. This is why many atheists would affirm that kindness is not good, since many atheists deny the existence of good and evil altogether.
I would agree that things, like kindness, are intrinsically good, and that therefore they cannot be not good. But I would explain this by saying that God, who grounds moral value, is intrinsically kind. And since God is necessary, it would follow that kindness is necessarily good. I think this is a far more plausible view than trying to ground the goodness in kindness itself, which seems like an arbitrary stopping point, especially as you CAN explain things further.
I think this view is also simpler, since on this theistic view you have one good thing which exemplifies its goodness in multiple distinct ways, whereas on the non-theist view presented here, you have multiple distinct goods that exemplify themselves in distinct ways. Analogous to this is the "theory of everything" in physics, where physicists want to unite the four fundamental forces into one force that exemplifies itself in four distinct ways. This is preferable as having one fundamental force that exemplifies itself in four distinct ways is simpler than having four distinct forces that exemplify themselves in four distinct ways. Likewise, having one good thing which exemplifies its goodness in multiple distinct ways in simpler than having multiple distinct goods that exemplify themselves in multiple distinct ways.
Apologists think they can win moral arguments if they just keep uncharitably asking: *why is that wrong ?*
no matter what reason you give.... but the same thing can be done to them:
*Why is it wrong to do something god forbids ?* Any answer they give will merely be them stating their subjective opinion
It's worse than that. It's their subjective interpretation of some ancient writer's subjective "revelation" of what Yahweh has supposedly forbidden....which would itself be subjective, even if Yahweh exists.
The infinite regress of justification or condemnation can crash into an intersubjective loop as easily as Theists crash it into God.
Why it that wrong? Because it hurts Bob. Why is that wrong? Because it hurts Marge. Why is that wrong? Because it hurts Bob.
That is as justified as saying that God forbids it.
Theyre also making the same argument their sibling religions make and we all know there are deep schizms between them they definitely arent intentionally trying to justify. If they had their way the argument would devolve into "my daddy could beat up your daddy" type reasoning.
William Lane Craig's answer to the question, "Why should we obey God's commands?" is (I kid you not), because one of God's commands is to obey his commands, which makes God's commands "self inclusive". Yep, Craig actually decided that circular reasoning is his foundation for morality.
@@VenaloidI command William Lane Craig to become an atheist. But why should Craig obey my command? Well it is because one of my other command is that Craig should obey my commands which makes my commands self inclusive.
I think the only reason morality is used for theist to make it look like it proves a god is because it’s a complicated topic and complicated topics is what theist love to confuse their audience.
But in reality it’s not than complicated, they just make it complicated as all their irrational arguments.
But what you said is right. The fact that they define god as good doesn’t make him good. This must be defined by his actions and not by definition.
Can the actions of this god be described as good?
The fact that apologetics exist to excuse this god is evidence that it is not good and there for can not be the bases of morality.
Your argument presupposes that goodness must exist independent from a mind. That good proposed actions exist and beings DO those actions. But the theist can say God IS the standard for good.
@@shlockofgodand the Christian would be wrong. I would point him to the OT...
@@shlockofgodThen God's decrees are arbitrary and he is just a tyrant
God would be omniscient though. Tyrants cannot justify their decrees. But an omniscient being might be able to.
1:13:20 Aren't every one of those animal behaviors equally derived from God on his view? It seems that God's nature allows him to create cannibals and homosexuals as well as loving, kind, selfless animals. It would seem that the morals assigned to humans by God are arbitrary as well.
4:45 intuitions aren't a reliable source of truth in a non-theistic worldview.
We need a video "Why Joe's channel for agnosticism fails".
P1: Joe's channel is an agnostic channel
P2: agnosticism entails the belief that one is not sure whether God exists or does not
P4: theism entails the belief that God does exist
P5: atheism entails the belief that God does not exist
P3: Joe only focuses on refuting arguments that says God does exist
P4: therefore, Joes channel is not an agnostic channel, but rather an atheistic channel
Please don't get all bent out of shape here Joe, I don't need a 4-page response, this is all in good fun. But.... it is true. Your theistic fans would appreciate a bone to be thrown their way every now and again I'm sure.
@@bilbobaggins9893 if it’s in good fun at least make it a good argument😉
My videos focus primarily on my research interests and publication topics, which almost uniformly are on theistic arguments with which I disagree, so it’s no surprise that my videos mostly criticize theistic arguments! And besides, bones are thrown all the time to theists - Philip Goff defending the fine-tuning argument, me defending contingency arguments, Liz Jackson defending Pascal’s wager, me criticizing atheists repeatedly in my common mistakes series, etc etc etc
@@MajestyofReason @bilbobaggins Yeah, I've been through Joe's channel. I don't find it one sided. He's criticized popular New Atheism & Christian Apologetics stuff alike. It's also perfectly fine & reasonable even if it was one-sided.
Tho I would like to see Joe's take on the logical argument from evil if it's of interest. (That evil is logically incompatible with theism.) Is it a bad or good argument? Should atheists stop making it? Etc.
@@sneakocentral4245 that’s fine but it’s just demonstrably false. Go through every video on his channel. I would venture to guess it’s at a minimum 75% videos in support of atheism and 25% dedicated to videos that support theism. It’s actually probably higher but I’m trying to be modest.
@@bilbobaggins9893Criticizing theistic arguments is not the same as supporting atheism.
@@phill234 it most certainly is, even if indirectly. If you have two competing hypotheses and you do away with most of the evidence for hypothesis A, it then increases the plausibility of hypothesis B.
I'm 1/2 hour in and still waiting for Gavin to back up his claim that God is the best explanation for morality... shouldn't he be weighing candidate explanations and appealing to explanatory virtues by now?
1:15:00 & 1:21:00 -
I now agree that Christians with both God's breaking from moral intuitions and a doctrine of sin inverting our moral (action) intuitions from God's make it difficult to say we really do know them.
I personally think that this exchange is an effort to preserve the idea that humans are special. I think without being convinced in theism AND a god who cares for humans, then all morals are arbitrary. Now you need to prove theism AND a god who cares about grounding and finds humans special.
Say an alien race shows up to Earth. They appear to adhere to a lot of our "moral intuitions" of caring for their offspring, altruism, consent, etc. After a few months existing with us, they reveal that they actually came to consume half if not all of humanity to continue their survival. Now what? Now the moral intuitions are out the window. We may want to defy them as we make a knowledge claim to KNOW we are good and/or believe that there is a moral fact in existence that says WE are worthy of preservation. How would we truly know that? How would the aliens truly know that?
I've never thought about how the "God is good by nature" response to Euthapro causes weirdness when things that we don't think of as god, like people, are good. It seems pretty obvious in retrospect.
12:50 “making the positive claim that you can’t have morality under atheism” that is not a positive claim. The positive claim is obviously saying you “can” have morality under atheism. That’s like saying the onus is on non-theists for making the positive claim that God doesn’t exist..
Burden of proof on the one claim “you can’t have morality under atheism “ and “there is no God”
It’s a claim and anyone who makes it should bring the proof
@@muhammedshanushan3931 that means everyone has the burden of proof then. If someone claims, morality exists with God, or morality exists without God, both have the burden of proof? Same as the claim, “there is no God” needs proof?
@@emczdt yes
@@muhammedshanushan3931 well if that’s the case then I like it
I didn't understand the argument about the security of the claim that some things are intrisically impermissible, how it cuts our moral knowledge and how goes against how "God allows it and God cannot do anthing imperssible". If anyone can explain it to me I'd be grateful.
Anyway nice content
You manage to explain such complex thought provoking content to the masses
I find the "god" described by each of the various arguments have no useful overlap.
The source of morality, the uncaused cause, and ultimate intelligence, etc don't seem to require being a single thing nor do they align with a particular religion.
We've got Scott the Woz explaining the failure of the moral argument before GTA 6
lmao
I know that this is a response to Gavin Ortlund, but It seems to me that the moral argument for God’s existence can be steel manned more than it is. I do not think this is a strong argument for theism, but the moral argument could go like this: The real problem is with the “obligations” part of moral obligations. If theism is false, what incentive or obligation does anyone have to be virtuous (by virtuous I mean “good” in the moral sense, but I am not assuming virtue ethics)? Take the myth of the Ring of Gyges, for example. The atheist could say, “but you should not use the ring to do wrong, for it is wrong to do so.” However, what is stopping the shepherd from replying, “so what?” The atheist could respond, “but you are morally obligated to not do these terrible things, for it is the essence of morality (or pick your favorite non-theistic account) to have these moral obligations.” Again, the shepherd replies, “I do not care.”
It is unclear under the non-theistic account of morality as to what the “obligation” is. Is it an incentive? In this example, there is no incentive (if you don’t like the Ring of Gyges example, use Genghis Khan instead). Would he necessarily be better off (in terms of well-being), if he were better morally? This is unclear, which is strange because what is morally good seems to be much clearer, which makes it seems like well-being and morality are not one-to-one direct connections. My intuition is that sometimes one could do something morally good, but it makes him less well-off (e.g., sacrificing something for the sake of someone else). But isn’t it morally good for him to care about being morally good? Well, this is begging the question. Is it? The shepherd in the Ring of Gyges doesn’t think so. And even if it was, it still does not answer the question of whether the shepherd should care or not. It seems that adding the word “obligation” after morality doesn’t mean anything.
Theists, however, can add the word “obligation” meaningfully. Is the obligation an incentive? Yes, God can punish moral wrongdoers, or at least exclude them from eternal life, or something. Would he necessarily be better off, in terms of well-being? If moral goodness was a requirement for eternal life, then it seems that being morally good is essential or necessary for well-being over the course of one’s (limitless) existence. Adding the word “obligation” actually does mean something under the theist account.
I suppose this is not an argument for God’s existence from the existence of morality, but rather an argument from the existence of moral obligations. Atheists could easily bite the bullet and claim that there are no moral obligations, just moral facts about what is good or bad. Although, this would be kind of weird. What do you think of this argument? Also, moral arguments, such as this version, argue for a fairly robust model of God. This version probably requires an afterlife or some other ontological commitments.
It seems to me that a non theist can appeal to a deeper explanation with respect to people being intrinsically good in some respects, namely evolution which has tended to reward certain 'moral' behaviours in some respects. It seems like theists cant do this deeper explanation for there version that god is intrinsically good.
It fails for the same reasons any argument for god fails. Theists ground everything on god and take god as brute and unexplained. The naturalist or the atheist does the same, except he doesn't ground things on god. All the theist has ever achieved with these arguments is to beg the question.
A great philosopher once said theory is prior to arguments...
"Theists gorund theyr morality on god, and atheist do the same except they don't ground theyr morality on god" Erm.... what?
@@kregorovillupo3625 I was referring to the “brute and unexplained” part. At some point, both atheism and theism hit bedrock. They take something that rests on no foundation or is not grounded on something external.
@@anteodedi8937 why are you talking of atheists as a block of people reasoning in the same way like they have a credo. Sure, there can be atheist hitting "rock bottom" whatever that means, but I know what grounds my morality and it's a mix of internal and external components, there's no dicothomy there or no implications that having "no ground on something external" is a bad thing or means having no foundations.
It’s not accurate that theists typically take God to be brute; indeed, some theists are skeptical of ANY brute facts! Rather what is typically claimed is that God exists necessarily, and this couldn’t have failed to exist, which isn’t brute
@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness Well, that's a paradigmatic case of proposing a brute necessity as there is no explanation given in terms of a deeper, more fundamental fact.
I missed where he explained what/who "BCS" is. The notes dont even explain. Help!
@@BDnevernind Bengson, Cuneo, and Shafer-Landau🙂
@@MajestyofReason cheers!
@@MajestyofReason Joe. What do you think of the biblical passages Colossians 2:8 and Matthew 11:25 that believers and apologists often use to justify not only their position, but to affirm that they possess something (divine revelation) that other human beings do not possess. On the other hand , is Liz Jackson a Christian ?
You are making a fallacious conclusion with your argument at 4:38. If God created the universe than there is no other way for suffering to exist outside of that reality. Therefore saying well if God does not exist suffering still seems founded in something real enough that it does need God to explain it.... But again if God did create the universe the "Realness" is God himself and then you've actually made no argument against God as a foundation whatsoever.
Like you are saying suffering seems bad as a means in itself, but you are not asking or answering the question why is suffering bad in the first place? Why do we exist, why and how does a universe that has being capable of seeing and comprehending suffering as bad a possibility? You're building a foundation off of the thing itself and defining it by the context in your mind, by the objective reality is not in your mind or anyone else's but outside of subjectivity. And if that is the case morality can not be based purely in the individual just like suffering can not be bad if it is just the opinion of some. It has to be bad factually, which requires it to exist beyond the confines of opinion.
"It has to be bad factually, which requires it to exist beyond the confines of opinion."
Why?
I certainly don't need any philosophical justifications to hate pain.
@@WhiteScorpio2 You say that while using a word, "pain," knowing or at least hoping I can understand what you mean. In fact the way you use the word is entirely in a factual state of being in your sentence. So even you believe what I said is true even if you dont fully understand the entire meaning of what I said.
@@hippykiller2775 "You say that while using a word, "pain," knowing or at least hoping I can understand what you mean."
Sure, I assume we are both humans.
"even if you dont fully understand the entire meaning of what I said"
Then you have to be more clear in what you are saying. What would you say something being bad "factually" means? What's a moral fact and how can someone know if any such thing exists?
It’s hilarious to me that people actually argue about these things in a TH-cam comment section, lol, but to each their own! Just feels even less productive than arguing in a Twitter thread. Nonetheless, I do disagree with your conclusion, however I respect how you got there. Nice video.
Hello, i hope this gets a response, but recently ive been depressed because of philosophy and regretting ever coming into contact with it (and honestly inquiry more generally). I dont know why, maybe i dont like having my cherished beliefs ruined, maybe i just dont actually find it fun, maybe its annoying, maybe i had a bone to pick with worldviews only to be destroyed by them, or any combination of these or more. Ive just grown so discontent and indifferent to truth and inquiry now. I just dont care. I will say I definitelt have a lazy disposition and indifferent one, easily prone to nihilism. I just find philosophy and inquirt, in my experience, alienating, dehumanizi g, depressing, maddening, saddening, and just feels me with a wish to never have done any of this.
- Ive just had problems with philosophy and inquiry that I just can't find addressed or what not, I just dont think I was ever meant to due this to be honest, maybe under hopeful delusions that didn't work. I just wasted my time. Idk it's just made me a worse person and everything, I feel I would have been better had I not done any Inquiry
- And like I geniunely think a lot of my issues stem from philosophy and inquiry, these have made me worse
- I just would rather be ignorant at this point. I dont want to know if determinism is true, if physicalism, moral nihilism, what physics and the world is like, I'd rather just believe what I wanna believe at this point the truth be dammed. It doesn't care about me so why should I care about it? Its all so degrading and depressing and mental rape of my mind, it depresses me to an insane degree that we consider some many terrible hypotheses for our lives as true and that they actually are true I'd rather just be ignorant and live a blissfully ignorant life
- I promise this isn't spam I really need help I hate this philosophy bullshit i wasted all this time someone fucking hear me out
I can relate! Oh, how I can relate. I was in a PhD in philosophy when the pandemic hit. Philosophy fell through, and I did, too. I found the wry poetry of Norman MacCaig, and gentle relaxation of the mind that comes with suspending judgement rather than wracking our brains over the questions, and the meditative practice of Pyrrhonian skepticism.
The Pyrrhonian skeptics tell a story of an artist who longs to get the details just right. She gives up, throws the brush at the canvas, and the very act of throwing away the brush achieved the art she tried so hard to master. You haven't failed to find the answers - you have found that they bring anxiety in the search. Seek suspension of judgement on these tough topics. Focus on rest, relationships, and reflecting on the beauty of life beyond question and beyond questioning. You can find peace!
"All the same, I myself
(in a mythical sort of way)
have been drawn over metaphorical waters
by these curving backs, till,
filled with an elation
I don't want to have explained to me,
I lifted a pagan face and shouted
audible nonsense."
- "Porpoises"
"A loss of miracles
- or an exchange of one sort for another . . .
and all at last would be existence without category
- free from demonstration except as
hill or bird."
- "Double Life"
"And the hill we've looked out of existence comes
vivid in its own language; and this tree
stands self-explained, its own soliloquy."
- "Explicit Snow"
I don't know why theist chose to die on this morality hill. There are 3 very obvious things they have to ignore to present "objective morality" as a proof for god.
But before that, let's talk about the misnomer: they call it "objective", but they should call it "absolute", or at least that's the way they seem to use it. Morality never changing for anyone ever, seems absolute to me.
First problem ignored by theists, secular morality was a real thing codified centuries before someone came up with theyr god. Ignoring that means they are proposing something proposterous like there was no moral behaviour before the invention of theyr god. And yes, they can say "BuT gOd WrOtE mOrAlS oN tHeYr HeArTh": yeh, sure, assumption with no backup, ok, but that still demonstrate they don't NEED to believe in your god to be moral.
The second thing they have to ignore is there are very good reason to be moral even if it isn't an absolute rule coming from the almighty bestowed on us by magic. Look at this sentence:
God doesn't want we kill each other, therefore we rule immoral killing each other, so we can live in a thriving society where personal security and well being are protected.
Nothing controversial by now for a theist, right? Than look at this:
We can live in a thriving society where personal security and well being are protected, therefore we rule immoral killing each other, so god doesn't want we kill each other.
In this second sentence "god doesn't want we kill each other" is redundant, the first part is justification enough for murder to be labeled immoral. Not for theists it seems... let that sink in. Let sink in the part where having a thriving society where personal security and health isn't a reason enough to oppose murders. This is why sometime people just call them sociopaths.
Third, "Objective morals exists" and "Therefore god exists" is a non-sequitur, it doesn't follow directly. There's no indication that having "objective morals" whatever that means implies the existence of a god.
Many apologists used to use "absolute" but when they found a definition of "objective" was "mind independent" they turned that into "independent of the human mind" so they could insert their claimed god.
It seems like morality must be based either on purpose or power. If we are designed to be a certain way, then we ought to be that way. Or, if we will be judged for our actions and rewarded or punished according to some standard, then we ought to behave according to that standard.
Moral impulses are driven by our perceptions of value. Moral facts are bound to objective value based on replaceability and exclusive effects to create and preserve possibilities for the future.
Everything that anyone values can be described according to their perceptions of possibilities for the future. Our perceptions are limited by our knowledge and can be distorted by our preferences, but the qualities of rarity and exclusive effects are objective facts that can be quantified and compared.
If it is irrational to sacrifice a valuable thing to create a less valuable thing, then it must be immoral to diminish a priceless thing to produce a less than priceless effect.
Killing children for fun is objectively immoral because fun is infinitely replaceable with limited possibilities and children are each unique and irreplaceable with immeasurable possibilities.
It is impossible for most modern people to enslave other people groups because science demonstrates that the differences in people groups are superficial and we all suffer from the loss of our freedom because of our representational thinking imposes a concept of time and mortality on all people that requires us to want and worry about the future.
People have developed an understanding of humanity that makes slavery obviously wrong, no matter what the Bible says.
Our moral impulses change as we learn more about ourselves and the world because there are moral facts to discover in the Naturalistic universe.
If God is a thing which pre categories, then how can we ascribe categories such as "good" to God?
I LOVE MAJESTY OF REASON
Regarding the evolution based epistemic argument.
I think these hypotheticals gloss over critical elements. Rather than surface level instinctual behaviors like considering it virtuous to cannabalize a mate. I think it is much more appropriate to consider more foundational elements.
Are we rational? Do we have empathy? With elements like these in place I think it is fairly easy to suggest that regardless of instinctual inclinations, they would trend towards the same moral truths that we have over time.
And on the flip side, if you remove those crucial elements, while you wouldn't be able to reliably arrive at moral knowledge I struggle to understand the relevance since these aren't moral agents.
I could expand on both of these but I do think the evolutionary objection fails even though on a personal level I don't think moral realism is the case. At least beyond a trivial level.
I wonder if Ants ponder why they work well together in groups.
most people don't even ponder it. it just happens. morality is a successful evolutionary strategy, that's all.
Joe I know you mentioned you liked Bayesian arguments from consciousness for God. But which ones specifically?
Morality is universally preferable behavior. Humans have preferences / preferred states. Some of those preferences are universal; like not being murdered, stolen from, etc. Any moral rule or theory has to apply universally in order to be valid or correct (otherwise it's arbitrary). So any moral rule or theory that breaks with universality cannot be correct. Thus we can know things like "murder is right" are objectively incorrect.
Close. Morality itself is subjective, the most extreme acts within that subjective system are considered to be objective, like your example.
Morality is group based and only the most extreme cases are considered objectively immoral almost universal.
And that is also due to the facts groups kept on getting bigger: family/tribe - village - city - country - large religions - international/"universal".
That why we recently came up with Universal Human Rights. But it is telling there is also Islamic Human Rights.
@@KasperKatje Wrong. I said nothing about the extremity of the acts or put that forward as the reason they are objective. I said the things like not being murdered or not being stolen from are universal preferences. The extremity or lack of extremity is irrelevant. I made an argument which you can address if you like.
@@shlockofgodI know you didn't say that, I only used your example to show you that you are wrong.
By the way, M is a bad example because it is wrong by definition: unjustified/unlawful.
Try that with k-ing, so without the label unjustified and unlawful.
But OK, is ever lie immoral?
And you still missed my point: morality itself is subjective and relative, morals within a moral system can be considered objective.
@@KasperKatje You didn't show I was wrong. As I argued, the extremity is irrelevant to my point. I could have used "minor assault" rather than "murder" and made the same point. Murder is not necessarily wrong by definition and even if it was, I'm not using it that way. I can use a neutral definition of murder like "killing a person through the initiation of violence". Again I made an argument for WHY it's immoral. You can address it if you like.
I didn't miss your point. You asserted it clearly. It's just irrelevant to my argument.
@@shlockofgod no, you keep on claiming universal by just using one example as an argument.
Yes, almost everybody agrees on M being wrong/immoral. That just doesn't make morality itself objective or absolute.
Is that why you dodged my question about a lie?
The Hebrew god is not bound by any moral guidelines. So how can he be a guide?
The main reason why the moral argument argument fails is simply because moral realism is false, trivial or unintelligible. I will definitely watch the video later because I love Joe's content, but I would love to see more content on how bad the arguments for moral realism are (as, for example, Lance Bush, Kane B, Don Loeb, and others had shown) and how that affects the moral argument as well.
The chuds are having a filed day today. Le good and bad subjective guys!!!
@@navienslavement ?
Joe is a moral realist as far as I know, so not sure you’re going to get that angle from him. He just doesn’t think god is needed for moral realism.
@@Capt.Fail. That's fair enough.
Joe bootstraps his way into moral realism though so he would disagree with you. I agree with you. Moral realism is obviously false if atheism is true and watching them try to poof it into their ontology is never not entertaining.
The ongoing confusion over cross or crotch is more than enough to debunk the preposterous idea of god induced morality
Morality existed long before any religion. Many life forms display moral behavior, particularly toward close relatives.
Devil’s advocate:
What’s wrong with arbitrariness? Especially if ‘wrongness’ itself is the fundamental subject in question?
Is it simply that it contradicts our moral intuitions?
There is no problem ig ,Every moral theory is have to commit to some brute ‘arbitrary’ fact
It's not that it's wrong, per se, it's that it proves morality cannot be objective.
I offer my rebuttal to WLCs moral argument.
#1 Are morals objective?
#2 Are there objective moral duties?
#3 Is it immoral not to do an objective moral duty?
#4 Does god do the objective moral duties?
#5 Is it an objective moral duty to save a drowning child if you can with no risk to yourself?
#6 Is it objectively moral to punish people for crimes they did not commit?
#7 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it an objectively moral parent?
Question are not rebuttals
@@muhammedshanushan3931 I think they are. To a person who says the disciples were just lying, asking the question why would they be willing to die for a lie is a great rebuttal question. I find it takes less words then a syllogism and gets the same point across.
@@macmac1022 The reason we need a syllogism is see the assumption behind the question, so one can easily respond to it
It takes more words and time for the who responds if it’s in question form as one need to to stealman the argument before responding
Take for example “ How can a immaterial mind interact with physical brain? ” This a question that if made in an argument form one can easily see the flaw , merely not able to explain the mechanism here doesn’t mean they can’t interact, it doesn’t even make it unlikely that they can interact
@@muhammedshanushan3931 ????????? Those are all yes or no questions I asked. It would take you longer to respond to those then if I made a syllogism? You cant steal man that argument?
Does it look honest when people avoid answering questions?
@@macmac1022 Did you stop beating your wife ?
It’s a yes or no and avoiding it is not dishonest
All I’m saying asking questions can be deceiving, and gives someone unfair advantage in a debate
Perhaps part of the defense that a theist (hello, nice to meet you) could use for the second way is that given what know about moral facts, they seem to be much better explained by the brute nature of a personal being to whom we are accountable, rather then just a mere fact about the universe. For example, we intuit that people who do bad things ought to receive justice and be held accountable. Justice and accountability really do seem like the kinds of things that are only relevant among persons, if thats the case it seems, by my lights, to tip the needle towards the idea that the ultimate grounding for justice is something personal. To say that my sense of justice is explained by the truth of an impersonal brute moral fact that I ought to adhere to even though it in itself can't hold me accountable, just doesn't seem to make as much sense to me as it being explained by the brute nature of a personal being who actually can hold me accountable.
Also, I did really like the video. Really great explanation of some of the thoughts/problems I've had with the typical moral argument. :)
I could be wrong, but there are at least two main competing explanations of our intuitions being given here.
1. We intuitively prescribe whether or not wrong things are deserving of consequences in virtue of consequences that actually exist (whether in this reality or in the afterlife presumably).
2. We intuitively prescribe whether or not actions are deserving of consequences as an extention of the intrinsic nature of the actions, independent of whether or not said consequences actually exist.
I think Explanation 2 not only requires fewer ontological commitments, but seems to fit better with our intuitions, which are built by considerations of the nature of the action itself, not the punishment the wrongdoer may or may not experience as a result.
This is an interesting side topic.
From what I can tell. You proposed an impersonal moral brute fact (that we are accountable to other personal beings).
The effectiveness of this moral fact only becomes actionable if other beings exist. Which is distinct from whether the moral fact itself is derived from a personal being. As such, simply another human is sufficient for you to be accountable to someone. An eternal being is superfluous.
About 350 BCE Aristotle wrote 3 secular ethical treatises that are vastly superior to any moral system that any religion has ever produced, and thereby creating the philosophical field of ethics. To this day, Aristotle is the most influential thinker in the field of ethics, which anyone who studies ethics would know.
In the West. Confucius was equally as influential in East Asia.
I don’t think moral arguments works as naturalists doesn’t have any good reason to commit to “objective” morality , so they can reject the premise that states there is objective morality
If theists have other reasons to believe in God , then he has good reason to believe in morality
Whereas for a naturalist , he has no good reason to commit to weird /queer brute unnecessary moral oughts (especially given EDA ) when they have other parsimonious ways to explain the data
NB: I’m not saying theistic view is parsimonious here , All I’m saying theist has already committed to things (due to others arguments) that make moral realism likely
So all the work is done by other arguments and moral argument fails
There are definitely good reasons to commit to "objective" morality. Morality comprises our expectations of each other. The closer we are to a perfect shared understanding the less conflicts we will see caused by moral disagreement. Practically a workable inter-subjective morality that approximates objectivity makes society function more smoothly such that we enjoy our lives more.
Did you just make the "throw poop at the wall and see what sticks" fallacy? ....it is of the informal type.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME nope. When someone claims there is no way to have objective without God, it’s a perfectly cogent criticism to bring up over a dozen perfectly coherent ways to have objective morality without God, and then to emphasize that the person making the aforementioned claim would need to systematically rule all of these views out - something that the person making the aforementioned claim has failed to do, and hence their argument is not to be taken seriously.
@@MajestyofReason I think that this is a worthy consideration to make, but Im not convinced of its effectiveness against most proponents of the moral argument, many of whom are at least 1. completely unaware of these metaethical positions (which in turn only leads to them dismissing them without substantive criticism or dialogue) or 2. Believe that the first premise is true by default until the contrary is demonstrated (which is an informal fallacy ofc).
This response makes it seem like you are obligated to defend these particular metaethical positions through rigorous questioning, and if you cant, the moral argument proponent can claim victory. This is obviously not true, but its often what happens in dialogues/debates when this kind of objection is given.
Hemorrhoids. Is the strongest argument against theism.
Bad exists...
which is a subjective observation.
Evil implies that GOD IS DIVIDED.
Evil requires for a CREATION of GOD to be imperfect.
AN IMPERFECT CREATION can only come from an imperfect CREATOR.
Creation is the complete expression of pure FREEDOM. In which, there is the latentcy for every possibility & probability within CREATION.
BAD & EVIL are often conflated.
Evil & sin are a conceptual construct created by Religion.
"Bad" is a common experience shared by all subjective perspectives. (Ppl)
The common, inevitable experience of "bad" is co-opted by religion, which then juxtaposes their perception of SIN over it, in order to control the masses through mass psychosis & mass Stockholm syndrome....
By using the artificial projections of Sin & Evil as tools to convince SENTIENT SINGULARITIES to lend their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto SYSTEMS and ESTABLISHMENTS which insidiously abuse this Gift to then forge chains of servitude to offer back.
Those in POWER know that EVERYONE IS A FRACTAL EXTENSION OF THE GOD-HOOD.... And they do everything in their power to make sure we the ppl NEVER learn this....
The perception of a SENTIENT SINGULARITY (ppl) is the jewel of CREATION.
Our consciousness is an extension of the OMNI-CONSCIOUSNESS.
Every quanta of (our) experience fuels the life stream of the OMNI-VERSE.
Morality can only exist in someone's mind... which Inherently makes it subjective...
objective reality does not superimpose its objectivity on a subjective mind which objectively exists.
A mind objectively existing does not interfere w the fact that the minds perception & perspective is RELATIVE.
THERE IS OBJECTIVE REALITY.
HOWEVER, ONES PERCEPTION OF THAT OBJECTIVE REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE.
I AM THE BRIGHTEST NIGHT.
I AM THE DARKEST LIGHT. ❤
If they atheist grant himself stuff from another worldview, then he can talk. Nice.
33:28 why do you need an explanation for necessary properties? If God is necessary, and his properties are as well, then asking for an explanation becomes frivolous. It is akin to asking about the properties of the number 2
@@ILoveLuhaidan necessary things can easily have explanations. See mistake 102 in th-cam.com/video/5BffU6iEktI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=emCV2zF5XlCPeOoL
Besides, if the moral arguer takes this view - that necessary truths cannot or need not be explained - then their argument fails. For moral truths, or at least more basic moral truths, are necessary - it’s not contingent, for instance, that torturing someone for fun is wrong. But then their claim that they need or have explanation, and ultimately a theistic explanation, is false.
(Also, re: the properties of numbers, mathematicians offer explanations all the time of why the mathematical realm is certain ways.)
@@MajestyofReason got destroyed as expected 😭
Moral antirealists out here wondering what all the handwringing is about.
That's because moral antirealists are like toddlers wondering what the grown ups are talking about.
@@fireinthesky2333 ahh yes the grown ups who make massive unjustified/incoherent claims because antirealism is "vewy scawy" and it hurts their little feelings. Projection is strong with this one.
@@anzov1n You are the living embodiment of the [[watch out guys, we gotta bad a$$ on our hands]] meme 😂
@@fireinthesky2333Anyway, when are the grownups going to demonstrate the truth of moral realism?
@@fireinthesky2333 I think the problem is not with the concept of 'morality' but with the concept of 'real'. We humans make a lot of useful abstractions, but, if we call those abstractions 'real', we should notice that is not the same 'real' as in a physical object, for example.
Sometimes i wonder if the endless discussions among philosophers (and wannabe philosophers) are just caused by unadressed different levels of reification.
Flowers exist and countries exist, but countries don't exist the same way that flowers exist.
The commandments break themselves. "Thou shall not kill"... yet the "punishment" for breaking the commandments is to be killed. 😂😂😂 tell me again how there is no contradiction in the Bible. ❤
Thou shalt not MURDER.... not KILL, there's a difference, bro.
Not all theists are created equal.
I am a non-Abrahamic true monotheist. Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers. Yahweh is a desert war God of hypocrisy, not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. The "Law of Yahweh " breaks itself, on top of Yahweh breaking it, annihilating any hope of declaring the law as absolute or objective. 😂😂😂
If Yahweh made man....
In his image, w his heart....
& Yahweh breaks his own commandments...
Then by virtue of perfect CREATION, not only should Yahweh NOT punish his creation for breaking his commandments, HE SHOULD EXPECT & rejoice in his CREATIONS breaking his commandments.... because what is good for the FATHER is good for the SON.
OTHERWISE, Yahweh proves himself to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
Yahweh can break his law all he wants... but at the moment he does, he proves that this law is not ABSOLUTE or objective.
Yahweh breaking his own law proves he is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power to enact his will w out breaking his own laws.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR is the primordial source of intellect & wisdom and would lead by example, not by hypocrisy.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR has no need to make commandments. I realize that you have relinquished your divine sovereignty unto the theology of Abraham... and you would like to see me do the same to justify your decision. But I retain my divine sovereignty as I declare that ALL creations have direct access to the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
ALL words are God's words. For there is no sound uttered without the empowerment of the breath of life from the CREATOR.
ANY sentient being which makes demands or commands proves themselves to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. for the ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power of CREATION.... & with such, has no need of demands.
Creation is the expression of pure freedom. The ONE TRUE CREATOR would not place artifical limits, such as arbitrary demands externally... he would build those limits into the structure of CREATION ITSELF, such as the "speed of light".
Yahweh is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. IT IS NOT HIS CREATION.
The Actual ONE TRUE CREATOR has nothing to be vengeful or jealous of, for ALL THINGS ARE HIS. That Yahweh is jealous & vengeful is more proof that he is NOT the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
JESUS spoke out against the broken Theology of Abraham, and his followers killed him for it. They could not eradicate his story, so they integrated it into their dogmas in order to manipulate the masses into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church.
I do believe in the Christ Consciousness. But I do not capitulate to distortions of it imposed by Followers of Abraham. And my perception of Christ does not require the approval or validation of your perception... just as your perception does not require the validation of mine.
The actual ONE TRUE CREATOR requires NOTHING FROM YOU. Every CREATION that we as CREATORS extend is a testament to HIS GREATNESS. CREATORS CREATING IS HIS WORSHIP, accepted. 😂😂😂
Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers.... who use sin to manipulate CO-CREATORS into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church, using mass psychosis and mass Stockholm syndrome, through the dogma of the broken theology of Abraham.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR is UNITED, NOT DIVIDED. ♥
What is Good?
The things you want other people to do
@@juanausensi499 if you want someone to do something evil, is that Good?
@@Jk-ow8nyhiring a hitman to kill a baby (evil), but it's Hitler (preventing holocaust is good) but you use a fake check to pay (bad), but you really want them to do it (good).
Looks like the math says it's morally neutral
@@Jk-ow8ny How do you know that something is evil, if we are still trying to make a definition for good?
Easy, it's an appeals to consequence fallacy
Saying that it's unappealing to live in a reality without objective morality does not make the alternative true
The Moral argument is the most garbage (serious) argument for God. Both premises are not just unjustified or not very plausible But outright false.
It rests on an unspoken presupposition of authoritarianism. Some theists are aware of this, and avoid it; others honestly can't imagine any non-authoritarian moral philosophy.
Not to mention, it is baffling comming from defenders of the two major religions (considering that the Jewish-Christian Islamic God is morally abhorrent)
Why the moral argument fails? Morality isn't objective. Done and dusted.
To be fair, "objective" morality exists, the problem is theists make of that a misnomer of what they actually mean: absolute morality. Objective morality exists because if we humans agree on morals rules, we can say objectively if a behaviour is moral or not. In the same way chess has rules, and we can objectively determine if a move is good, bad or irrelevant. So yeh, I use too in common parlant "objective" for a clear communication purpose, but they really mean another thing when they say that, and not the thing it is. I have to keep this in mind.
@@kregorovillupo3625 that's not what objective means. I agree that if we all agree that morality means a banana then I literally ate morality for breakfast, it's more productive to not obfuscate. Objective morality doesn't exist.
@@PercyTinglish I'm not obfuscating. I'm just stating that theists use a misnomer, they should use "absolute morality", because I can find a non contraddictory definition of objective morality. Like in the chess similitude. And when was "banana" a behaviour?
@@kregorovillupo3625 banana is a behavior when we define it that way, just like when you redefine objective to mean subjective. You can take steps that are objectively in line with your subjective morality, the morality is still subjective...
@@PercyTinglish " banana is a behavior when we define it that way"
Now you are obfuscating. For real tho, not like me when i wasn't.
"just like when you redefine objective to mean subjective."
Where. Where have I done that. I really missed that because I don't think that.
"You can take steps that are objectively in line with your subjective morality, the morality is still subjective..."
Yes, my morality is subjective. That doesn't mean we can't objectively agree if a behaviour is moral or not. Again, like in the chess similitude, look a this description and see if it reminds you something: we agree on simple rules, we than move on the field, and we can evaluate the consequences of behaviours as advantegeous, detrimental or neither.
The rules we agree on are sourced on our subjectivity, sure: WE have ruled the pawn moves as a pawn. It's just that giving us the ability to evaluate consequences in a field were we have ruled what "moral behaviour" are, and I don't think your "banana" behaviour will have many people agreeing. Reason why peer pressure is a factor in moral behaviour.
Still, I think theists should rename the argument "absolute morality from god", and not objective: that is obfuscation.
Your analysis is not good.
1. Saying "suffering is intrinsically bad" in isolation is highly inadequate.
You've heard the phrase "everyone is the hero in their own story"
In real life, tough moral calculations are rarely ever Suffering v Pleasure, among two or more actors.
Its more suffering v another kind of suffering.
And the atheist worldview fails to provide an overriding principle in that sense.
Also, you ran into the problem which Kant ran into, that human self-loathing exists.
What if a man wants to consent to and opt into slavery? Or wants to voluntarily opt into torture or suicide?
Without the Imago Dei principle, there is no valid objection to that.
Also, you just throw out a grab bag of ethical principles, Kant and so on.
Thats the WHOLE POINT OF THE THEISTS.
If everyone has a grab bag of ethical justifications to pull from, with no hierarchical ordering of obligations, then there is no overriding universal ethic when the grab bag of justifications is used in a perverse, dictatorial or oppressive manner.
Theistic morality does not solve any of that. Your "grab bag" just becomes whatever you can glean from religious texts and traditions. And from that, you invariably just pick and choose the parts you feel like following, and ignore or make excuses for the parts you don't. You've been doing it since the days of Paul.
"Without the Imago Dei principle, there is no valid objection to that. "
The Imago Dei principles solves nothing until you explain why God is good. But no theist is even close to that. They just assert it without any justification. It is just another subjetive arbitrary "ground" for morality.
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 Exactly. And the fact they insist it is hierarchical shows that for most theists, morality is just an authoritarian based system with no regard to reason at all.
@@mendez704 Why God is good - because a Necessary Being definitionally cannot possess a deficit. A deficit that can be filled by another thing is a contingency. Evil is a moral deficit.
Evil does not exist for its own sake, as CS Lewis said. Every evil is an aberration or perversion of something already extant.
@@hissupremecorrectfulnessre9478 The grab bag is not intrinsically bad. God created Reason and Logic so that we could use those faculties. That's fine.
The Problem is that is a poor substitute as a final guardrail against tyranny, because to be a guardrail, hierarchical ordering of axioms is necessary. The whole purpose of a moral overriding guardrail is that it is overriding. It has primacy.
There is no solid grounding for that under naturalism
Competently off topic. But it is just drives me mad:
Karamazov. Not karamadzov.
Not that hard, huh?
I always thought it was pronounced Karamotzov. :)
@@thephilosophicalagnostic2177 no no no 🥲
Alas, I thought this was going to be about a Kantian style argument for God. That facially implausible picture is actually intriguing, unlike Craig's.
God is the goodness
morality comes from God and is his nature
Morality is merely how we come to discover Gods nature
We can at any point in our existence choose to go against our moral intuitions via our free will.
Saying God is goodness does not say anything about what goodness is in itself, and makes it subjective to God. So, no, that doesn´t work.
@@mendez704saying God is x says nothing about y
Yea that’s kind of how things work
Saying I like chocolate cookies
Says nothing about whether I like strawberry cookies
@@japexican007 Jesus would have been a better response. He made himself known so we would know who He (God) is. Simple.
@@mendez704what does Good mean?
A Harvest is coming, everyone must choose a side soon
“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Mark 8:35, 38 KJV
Soon™
And when you say "soon", you mean another 2000 years or so, right?
@@someguy2249 Or 20*10^9, since a year is like a thousand to JESUS.
I predict Jesus will come back around the same time Trump builds the wall, and Mexico pays for it.
@@someguy2249I predict even sooner than that
“knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”
2 Peter 3:3-4
I'm convinced morality grows out of our biological nature. I'm not convinced by philosophical arguments, but by the way we respond physically to incidents that anger us or that gratify us. Our bodies respond automatically. Not sure you can or should deal with this aspect. Just thought I'd let you know.
It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center.
This is the contingent and less real side.
The other side is necessary and more real.
The Holy Trinity has an event horizon between God side and Father, Son, Holy Spirit side.
Gen 1-Gen 2.3 is the Holy Trinity.
Gen 2.4-Gen 3 is the Unholy Trinity.
Your 0D subatomic structure is dimensionless, timeless and outside of 1D, 2D, 3D space and 4D time. Quark singularities have no spatial or temporal extension whatsoever.
"Objective value" is an oxymoron.
Your values could coincidentally be objective
No it isn't, that's ridiculous.
@@Norger56 Paraphrasing the watchmaker analogy, a value requires a valuer... so it can't be objective.
@@juanausensi499 fair
@@juanausensi499 Again, another outlandish presupposition on your part. What you're saying is something like, "mathematical truths require minds to discover them so if there were no humans there'd be no mathematical truths," but this seems silly.
HEY JOE! As a theist I do think that guys comment below about you not being an agnostic but actually a secret atheist was snarky. But I would like to see you take on some atheist arguments to even out the channel MORE. Notice I said MORE because you do critique atheist stuff just not as much. I enjoy your channel because it’s actual philosophy. Most Christian philosophers are not doing philosophy they are doing apologetics. Likewise most atheist philosophers (at least on TH-cam) aren’t doing philosophy they are doing polemic counter apologetics. As a theist I set aside my biases and I genuinely acknowledge agnosticism and deism as rational positions and if I remember correctly I think you said theism is rational. Anyways keep the content coming. But I really would be curious to see you pick out a popular atheist argument that you think fails and give it an hour and half to two hour long video.
Just scroll back through Joe's channel and you'll see who he is motivated to criticize and who he's not motivated to criticize. He is very shy about namechecking other atheist/agnostic philosophers despite there being more than enough bad videos to go around. And when he does mention them he is a good little boy. Agnostics in philosophy are the same as self described moderates in politics. They disarm with their moderation and use it to attack only one side as a rhetorical strategy.
Atheists/agnostics are much less willing to criticize their own than theists. The proof is in his videos and you can scroll back and count for yourself. If someone tells you the arguments for both sides are approximately as good and spends 95% of their time attacking one side then they are lying to you.
Maybe a hot take, but... there really aren't many standalone arguments for atheism?
Just as atheism is defined in opposition to theism, its arguments are responses to the claims of theists. Theists offer apologetics and atheists offer counter apologetics. Joe could offer counter-counter apologetics, but it's not clear to me why he'd bother.
@@shassett79 If atheists are relegated to describing their negative belief as basic then we have done our job. Just as if we can get them to admit moral realism and LFW exist. They can't build a system without our stuff.
@@vozcalma4127
This will be my last comment here, since it's clear you're not here to engage in good faith dialogue.
(1) You're underestimating the number of videos I've made or co-made criticizing non-theistic arguments and defending theistic arguments. I've made many -- to take ones literally off the top of my head: (i) in almost every video in my common mistakes series, I repeatedly lampoon internet atheists as confused or philosophically uninformed and extensively challenge many of their biggest talking points ('one less god', 'that's god of the gaps!', 'laws are necessary therefore fine-tuning fails', in the last of which I also criticize Oppy's view [and do the same in some of my AMAs wherein people have asked me about Oppy]); (ii) I've extensively defended contingency arguments in a variety of places, both on my channel and other channels, both from the outset of my channel and even within the last few months on other channels; (iii) I've defended an argument from consciousness on both my channel and other channels; (iv) I've defended an a priori fine-tuning argument on my channel; (v) in my 12 hour long video, at several points I argue that certain data are evidence for theism and rebut common atheist counters to many of the theistic arguments I cover; (vi) I've defended a theistic symmetry breaker for the modal ontological argument in conversation with Alex O'Connor, and defended other theistic considerations (and rebutted atheistic arguments) in my tier list videos with Alex; (vii) on Trent's channel I criticized deductive versions of the hiddenness argument, logical problems of evil, and other atheist talking points; (viii) I’ve had Liz Jackson on to defend Pascal’s wager; (ix) I’ve had Philip Goff on to defend fine-tuning arguments and psychophysical harmony arguments against naturalistic atheism; (x) I've done devil's advocate debates defending theism; (xi) I've harshly criticized atheists for their mistakes about evidence, lack theism, and so on both in my own videos and on Cameron's channel; and on and on and on. I’ve also been trying to plan Daniel Rubio and Brian Cutter to come on to defend their favorite theistic arguments. (I’m meeting them in person this week at a conference.) Your comment just tells me you're not paying attention.
(2) There is no doubt that, among the videos I make in philosophy of religion, the majority of them are critical of theistic arguments. Does this mean, as you suggest, that I don’t actually appraise the arguments for and against theism as roughly on a par? Obviously not. For there’s an alternative, spectacularly obvious explanation: my videos reflect my philosophical research interests and specializations. My philosophical research specializes in arguments for theism. Specifically: ontological arguments, the Kalam, modal contingency arguments, classical theistic proofs, and arguments against classical theism as a model of God, are my research interests in Philosophy of Religion. I have published extensively only on these aspects of phil religion. It’s no surprise, then, that *these specific* theistic arguments are a main focus on my channel. If people don't like me focusing on my research interests, they can unsubscribe. And what published positions do I take on *these specific theistic arguments* that I specialize on? My publications are critical. So it’s no surprise that, if my videos reflect my research, and my research specializes on theistic arguments about which I’m critical, that the majority of my Phil Rel videos will be the same. But this obviously doesn’t imply that *other* theistic arguments weigh on my mind - such as arguments from consciousness (including psychophysical harmony), moral knowledge, certain non-modal contingency arguments, an a priori fine-tuning argument, nomological arguments, and so on. I just don’t specialize on these and so am not particularly well-equipped to make videos on them or engage in discussions about them. It’s the same reason why I actually have *very* few videos on, e.g., the argument from animal suffering for atheism, even though I think the argument is extremely powerful: I don’t specialize on the topic, so I’m not particularly well-equipped to make videos on it or engage in discussions about it. So there’s no special bias against theism here; instead, there’s just a bias toward my research interests, which happen to correlate with theistic arguments I don’t accept. (Why are my research interests like that? That’s a matter of personal taste and historical accident: I first got into philosophy because of Alex Pruss and Josh Rasmussen and Ed Feser, the first two of whom work on modal contingency arguments and the Kalam, and the latter of whom works on classical theistic proofs. It’s no surprise that my research interests would blossom out of what first sparked my interest in philosophy.)
(3) Building on (2), I also just find theistic arguments with a metaphysical focus much more interesting than atheistic ones - hence the differential focus on responding to these arguments (which I tend to disagree with, save stage 1 of non-modal contingency arguments). Again, notice: even though I agree with, e.g., versions of the problem of evil and certain evidential versions of divine hiddenness and religious confusion etc., I very rarely make videos on these topics.
(4) Atheists on TH-cam tend to divide in two: those who are philosophically competent, and those who are philosophically incompetent. The latter aren't worth engaging and make up 99% of atheists on this platform. Internet atheism is a cesspool of incompetence with minuscule islands of credibility and competence. So I don’t care to interact with or waste much of my time on the 99% of internet atheists who are philosophically incompetent.
As for the 1% who are competent, they usually use arguments that I actually agree with (or have sympathies with): the non-logical problem of evil, evidential versions of divine hiddenness, religious diversity/confusion, and so on. So among the atheists on TH-cam worth engaging, typically they aren't pushing arguments I disagree with. Hence fewer critical engagements with atheists. Thus, as before, nothing here implies that I’m “lying” about my assessment of the theism/atheism evidence. It only indicates that you’re either feeling upset or threatened (or both).
(5) I’m filling a niche in the market. Almost no one on TH-cam competently addresses modal ontological arguments, modal cosmological arguments, classical theistic proofs, the standard moral argument, and even the Kalam. And certainly for most of these, practically no one on TH-cam engages them with rigor and high quality argumentation. By contrast, apologists already saturate the market with billions of responses to atheistic arguments, and already bring on quality philosophers etc to respond to atheistic arguments. It’s no surprise, then, that I would fill what I see is a dire need in the market - competent criticism of theistic arguments. (In my own personal judgment, I also see more weaponization of philosophy of religion from the apologetics side, and a big concern of mine is combating the weaponization of arguments - this also partially helps to explain my comparative emphasis on criticizing theistic arguments).
@@MajestyofReason You agree with the atheist channels so you don't critique them as much. We know. That's what people are pointing out...
I get it. Saying you're an agnostic scores valuable strategic points and "fills a niche in the market" as you say which is why you maintain the label while dodging critiquing every prominent atheist youtuber out there while instead dedicating a non small amount of your energy to Trent Horn response videos(lol). You have more Trent Horn response videos recently than all detailed atheist critiques combined(lol). I'm sorry but that strikes me as performative contradiction too large to ignore. Maybe there are a bunch of videos coming up with thumbnails of atheists with the caption "they are way wrong and here's why" but somehow I don't see that in the cards.
Why is the guest here?
He hardly gets to speak.
@@jonathansmith8962 I was the guest on his channel. This is a re-upload
@@MajestyofReason Why go on there? he really had nothing to add.
@@MajestyofReason that explains it
Gavin is one of those people who seem to be made worse by Christianity.
First
fist