The question is whether morality is justifiable without a God. It annoys me how much people miss the centrality of that in this debate. Nobody denies that an atheist can adhere to the social/ moral norms of their time and place. It is whether, being a materialist, you can coherently justify those norms as objectively true and rationally compelling. This is not "can atheists adhere to normal morality" it is "is morality a coherent concept under atheism". Please stop missing the point on this.
Probably, but we didn't just all of a sudden have the religious beliefs. They evolved over time. Certainly in an atheist world morality would develop over time as well.
@@natethegr8230 The difference being that the morality will just suit the powerful, whereas Christians waged war on slavery at immense personal cost to rich and poor alike because Christ told us to do it. So great was our fervour that we were thought tyrants by men like Jefferson over it.
Morality already exist within everyone no matter what believe they represent . You don't NEED a believe system to be moral for everyone already is inherently. Almost everyone is just in denial of their most inner voice and refuses to listen to it because of the stresses created by the world which makes a believe system necessary for those who don't know how to listen to that voice.
@@natethegr8230On the contrary, there's never beena purely Atheist society that existed in ancient history. Religion and belief systems were deeply embedded in the fabric of ancient human life, serving as a cornerstone for identity, governance, and societal structure. One can argue for an Atheist society to eventually develop a sense of morality they'd have to adopt a more theistic viewpoint .
Konstantin appealing to him growing up in the Soviet union is always ridiculous. He was 8 when it ended. He has extremely few memories of it, and most he imagine are from it are later conflations. Saying that you grew up in post-soviet Russia has less zing so he goes with the less honest route.
@@altnarrative He’s gotten very egotistical in his righteousness. I agree with some of his beliefs but his insistence that delusion - religion - is real, ‘god’ is real, when jp is supposed to be a man of science, based on *evidence,* totally turned me off of him. He should keep his crazy where it belongs - at home and in church. We don’t come to hear about insanity from him, we come to hear his viewpoint regarding his chosen profession. He losing his intelligent fans and will be left with nothing but religious crazies. I hoped for better than this for him.
I listen to my most deep intuition to orient myself which I do through meditation. I don't need a to give it the name god to understand that it is of the utmost importance to listen.
I think one of the strongest arguments against secular morality is that it's inevitably subjective. Without being able to appeal to a set of religious tenets, what one person considers moral is relative to his/her individual judgement. It lacks a uniting principle of codification, unlike scripture.
You could postulate that scripture is collectively adhered, but also "just" a set of arbitrarily adopted beliefs among other sets (i.e. other religions or moral systems). In Maps of Meaning (book and lectures), though, Peterson talks about how a joint agreement on fundamental principles is necessary to establish predictability. The difficult task comes from ordering belief systems.
This is true but Jesus also undermined our uniting principle of codification in the law of Moses. Even within the frame of religion the choice of which religion to choose is somewhat subjective in the first place, especially in relation to different lineages and nations. In Christianity there are Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians. In this age of increased literacy, internet access and globalization the choice is no longer as simple as the default purpose our ancestors had and to make an informed decision requires an expert level knowledge. That’s one reason why many are non religious today.
How do you account for moral disagreement among Believers of the same god? Consider the parents of Mortara against pope Pious IX. Both parties were followers of yaweh, but they didn't agree about the morality of taking the child. What is the testable, objective mechanism the theist can apply to demonstrate what's morally correct?
A false morality can be simulated without the belief of God. But ultimately it is exactly that - false. It's not morality at all. It's appeal to consensus or its purely utilitarian. Morality is not about a set of rules. It's about a disposition of the heart, soul, and mind that says "I love others" and genuinely desires their good even at your own expense because you understand that the sacrifice is merely a thorn in your side compared to the glory of giving the transformational power of love unto others. Secular morality is about "do's and don'ts" True morality is about identity and transformation of the heart in order to transcend this world and bring back Eden.
Living "good" using the idea of good determined by the society one grew up in. It always comes down to "good" according to which society, and which "god(s)" they follow(ed). A cannibal tribe that sacrifice other humans to their gods are deemed as good, righteous, and respectful, and they know not otherwise for that's their worldview and live among that moral and ethical standard.
Then there are those of us that are science based - something jp once insisted he was - that prefer to wait for empirical evidence before we cast our belief behind something. Jp left that rational space some time ago.
@ Empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. I’d settle for empirical evidence jesus ever existed, but as he is a product of the early church co-opting pagan ritual to bring in followers/$$$$$$, I doubt such evidence will ever be sourced.
And to continue this, ancient civilizations knew this and created “gods” to fit their morality. End point; It comes from God, but humanity needs it “gods” if they don’t want to accept the one true living God and Creator, Jesus Christ.
@@christianbrown7621 you can call them gods. they exist, and are gods. they are demonic spirits that are powerful and were worshiped out of fear or bargain for power and were the grand principal of various communities. Christ is God, but infinitely higher - of a different nature and is the source of their existence.
2:45 so the increase in the lack of belief in God will lead to a DECREASE in moral behavior? So if we took a historical sample of religious adherence we'll see that trend, right?
Yes lol. Abortion, fornication, divorce, adultery have all skyrocketed as people apostatize from Christianity and that’s like 1-2 generations. The whole system will collapse and other kinds of murder, corruption, theft etc will skyrocket. The principle has been set and will come to completion
It’s quite obvious. Look at the immorality that has dramatically increased since we’ve become more atheist. It has caused a perpetual downfall in western society.
As a non religious person, i think so. But it is not at all easy to measure true belief in something greater vs just pretending, its also difficult to measure morality. Cherry picking some arbitrary stats wont prove anything either way.
4:02 Vervaeke demonstrates the danger of moralizing Jesus better than most Christians could explain it. Peterson needs to be most careful about this. Jesus is not just a moral example or a Jungian archetype. He is a real person, flesh and blood, who lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and was resurrected by God to conquer death and grant us eternal life.
You're absolutely right about John Vervaeke, I disagree with you when you assert Peterson is moralizing Jesus. He isn't moralizing Jesus. You see that because you looking at it from a theological lense which in regards to this necessitates a interdisciplinary approach to properly see the problem. Jesus as a moral example and Jungian archetype are but tools and/or paths of conceptualizing the Logos, dismissing that is dichotomous thinking. Both are true as long as the centrality is Christ.
Imagine If god had the forthsight to mention slavery in his 10 rules for life, would have saved us for much of this debate. Buddism and jainism manged to create a greater moral appeal for all living things without an appeal to god (rather then Christian human centric morality, and Even then its lacking) but all moral systems are too universalist to be able to account for all human experience
I'd argue morals can be there with or without God; BUT - God helps you keep to morality, whereas a society without God distorts morality until it outright becomes evil. After all, sins are acts of erring away from God, sins proliferate the further away from God a society gets.
@ what you described is not morality at all hence the inevitable collapse of this behavior system. It is nothing more than the perception of God like behavior under the guise of morality.
Im reminded of that movie, "City of Amber." Hundreds of years before, the forefathers created a amazing mechanical works to keep the city functioning. But over time, the descendants forgot how it operates and how to maintain it. This the city came to an end.
The science of language includes sounds( phonations) phonemes, morphology(words)syntax, semantics, structures, literal and lastly pragmatic( contextual meaning). Language in its structure can have fractal meanings, with double, triple or more entendres ( meanings) given the same syntax, semantics structures, sounds, etc. Language is regarded as a representation of information. Words are not only sounds but transmit meaning. Transmission of meaning is a function of intent. Sounds and words can have meaninglessness by intent but when there is meaning there is necessarily intent. Sounds transmit action. Sounds are measured as frequencies and vibrations. Sounds and vibrations can act on reality. Chladni plates, cymascopes, oscilloscopes, etc are means of demonstrating the actionable properties of sound. Sounds can have particular shapes and patterns. These shapes and patterns are determined by the substances being acted upon as well as the substance acting. Water is a classic example of such actings visualized in cymascopes and oscilloscopes. Furthermore water not only can be acted upon by sound but water also then produces sound. Multiple sources of frequencies, vibration can simultaneously act on water. Oceans are acted on by wind, earth crust ( earthquakes and volcanoes, tectonic plates and subsurface dynamics) , gravity and electromagnetic fields, etc. Water crashing on a beach creates sounds as well as patterns in sand or rock. Sounds as spoken can have structural topology. This topology itself has transmitting effects( these effects can have effects into and beyond the structure directly acted on.. ocean waves caused by earthquakes can transmit patterns on land, sand and rocks not acted on directly by the earthquake, etc.).
That’s interesting information. Thanks for that! But what is the purpose of this comment? Is there a reason why you commented all this? Does it somehow relate to the discussion in the video?
Can you prove that if there is a god he himself is moral. Is there a coherent argument too be made for a god that allows suffering and pain on his own creations. Is god moral? Why all pain and suffering well expecting us to believe in him with little to no interaction just left on our own to figure it out. My question to you is why is god a moral being?
The problem of evil is based on our limited understanding of God's nature. God doesn't have to fit our ideas of what omnipotence and benevolence should look like. In Christianity, the Bible shows that God opposes evil and wants to bring order, but He can't just erase evil with a snap of His fingers. His way of dealing with evil may seem morally questionable to us. According to Christians, god isn't just a perfect, abstract being. Like humans, He is complex and not simply an idealized version of power and goodness. However, it's not whether why he allowed evil or not. The real question is, is god evil? He can't be good because he doesn't give absolute free will, and he interferes with other choices that contradict free will because it's not defined, so why praise a god that isn't good to you?
Saying we can't understand God's nature screws up the whole argument. Just look at it Morality and goodness come from god. -> God's nature is goodness. -> We can't understand God's nature. -> We can't understand goodness. -> We can not understand morality. Unless we break one of these, then under the theist view, morality might be objective in a sense, but it's completely inaccessible to humans. It's like a black hole at the center of the galaxy, perfectly real but simultaneously completely irrelevant in your daily life.
@@j8000I never said we can't understand god's intentions at all, only that our understanding is limited. The human mind is finite and can't fully grasp the infinite complexity of god's nature. 1. In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. Instead, He provides moral guidance through sacred texts, prophets, or natural law. While god's full nature may be beyond comprehension, He communicates enough for humans to understand and apply moral principles in daily life. 2. Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any aspects of it. For example, we might not grasp the full nature of infinity, but we can work with concepts like "larger than any number." Similarly, humans can understand enough about goodness and morality to live meaningfully, even if the ultimate source is beyond full comprehension. 3. The comparison to a black hole is flawed. Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life. Morality is not irrelevant just because it has a divine source that is ultimately incomprehensible.
@j8000 I never said we can't understand god's intentions at all, only that our understanding is limited. The human mind is finite and can't fully grasp the infinite complexity of god's nature. 1. In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. 2. Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any part of it. For example, we might not grasp the full nature of infinity, but we can work with concepts like "larger than any number." Similarly, humans can understand enough about goodness and morality to live meaningfully, even if the ultimate source is beyond full comprehension. 3. The comparison to a black hole is flawed. Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life. Morality is not irrelevant just because it has a divine source that is ultimately incomprehensible.
@@Mr.business7777 "In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. (...) Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any part of it." As long as you don't know which parts you do fully understand and don't fully understand, you are in fact in complete ignorance. What mechanism do we have for delineating this, that isn't just subjectivity? The ultimate truth could conceivably involve that things we think we understand are in fact false. A great example of this are the theodicies that place the Fall prior to the existence of humanity; at the shoulders of angelic rebellions. See Cliffe Knechtle and Gavin Ortlund as recent proponents. "Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life." "Accessible" would be a meaningful argument if it were true. However, since moral disputes exist amongst followers of the same god, it is on it's face false. These would not arise in the first place if If you are simply talking about "access" in the sense that it is possible to interpret things you believe come from god, then the black hole is exactly as real, or arguably much more so; the solar system we are in would not exist (as we know it) without it, for instance.
The question of whether morality can exist without god is tied to our understanding of existence itself. Some believe that morality relies on God’s existence, as a higher power is seen as the source of moral standards. However, others argue that morality can exist independently of God, based on human reason, societal norms, and the need for cooperation. In this view, morality isn’t about obeying a divine command but about what helps humans live together harmoniously and ethically. Ultimately, whether morality needs God depends on how one defines moral principles and where they believe they come from.
Without God morality would be subjective because by default it will come from humanity and the implications of that would be disturbing because if the laws of morality can changed then any horrible thing justified by reason can be done but If morality is objective meaning unchangeable given by God would imply restrictions from any individual doing evil.
You assume that if morality is subjective, it would inevitably lead to justifications for harmful actions, but this perspective overlooks the complexity of how subjective morality can work in practice. Morality is already, to a large extent, subjective because it is influenced by personal, cultural, and societal factors. Different cultures have different moral codes, and individuals within those cultures may hold varying views on what is right or wrong. It was always more subjective rather than objective. In a world where morality is subjective, the potential for justifying harmful actions still exists, but people can use reason, growth, and empathy to build consensus on what is considered immoral. While this makes morality more flexible, it doesn't mean it is free from any moral standards; it simply means these standards can be debated and revised. You are saying that objective morality (imposed by god) is the only way to prevent moral wrongs, which ignores the growing recognition that moral values can be determined through human reasoning and the collective good. Far from leading to chaos, subjective morality can foster ongoing reflection and growth in ethical thinking.
It would not be the same without god thats true, but it would be stupid to suggest that its an all or nothing. The driving force behind the “ought” of an action is the incentive for the actor to do it or avoid it. This still clearly exists in our reality even though theres no heaven/hell, or an omniscient being watching us. People generally dont want live in a world where awful things are allowed, and there are other disincentives to do things that are commonly deemed “wrong”, like guilt, social isolation, imprisonment, etc.
Morality is one of God characteristics,like justice, the totality of all of that is what we call hollines, still have a long way to go, please help us Yeshua
Yes. The answer is yes. Kant, Mills, Rawls none of these moral giants of philosophy require God for their morality... oh and also Aristotle. Ancient morality in general.
Now then consider the fractal nature of language and the fractal nature of sou The science of language includes sounds( phonations) phonemes, morphology(words)syntax, semantics, structures, literal and lastly pragmatic( contextual meaning). Language in its structure can have fractal meanings, with double, triple or more entendres ( meanings) given the same syntax, semantics structures, sounds, etc. Language is regarded as a representation of information. Words are not only sounds but transmit meaning. Transmission of meaning is a function of intent. Sounds and words can have meaninglessness by intent but when there is meaning there is necessarily intent. Sounds transmit action. Sounds are measured as frequencies and vibrations. Sounds and vibrations can act on reality. Chladni plates, cymascopes, oscilloscopes, etc are means of demonstrating the actionable properties of sound. Sounds can have particular shapes and patterns. These shapes and patterns are determined by the substances being acted upon as well as the substance acting. Water is a classic example of such actings visualized in cymascopes and oscilloscopes. Furthermore water not only can be acted upon by sound but water also then produces sound. Multiple sources of frequencies, vibration can simultaneously act on water. Oceans are acted on by wind, earth crust ( earthquakes and volcanoes, tectonic plates and subsurface dynamics) , gravity and electromagnetic fields, etc. Water crashing on a beach creates sounds as well as patterns in sand or rock. Sounds as spoken can have structural topology. This topology itself has transmitting effects( these effects can have effects into and beyond the structure directly acted on.. ocean waves caused by earthquakes can transmit patterns on land, sand and rocks not acted on directly by the earthquake, etc.). nd. If sound is an operative of words and therefore language then such sounds can transmit intent by their meaning. Given the above consider:
Our God indeed is a covenant keeping God. Has he said a thing and not perform it? I watch how things unfold in my life, from penury to $56,000 every three months and I can only praise him and trust him more. Hallelujah
Many people argue that, without God, morality becomes subjective based on individual or cultural beliefs that can change over time. Belief in God provides an unchanging, universal foundation for what is right and wrong. Christian believes that god is the ultimate source of objective morality. Under this perspective, morality is objective because it is rooted in God’s unchanging nature. But whether believing in god for objective morality would depend on who he is. Since Christians say that god is the ultimate source of objective morality. Under this perspective, morality is objective because it is rooted in god’s unchanging nature. Now, whether god is good or evil that you have to find out both subjectively and objectively
Nothing was made except through him Good and beauty exist because he spoke them to existence and He instilled his image in man.I believe morality proceed from God's image in us.
Why you dicuss a one small aspect while you can proceed dicussing a variety of things,,,it is an interesting videos,,and hoping the Bishop is well and will make to the coming show
No because everyone has a different view of what is moral and what isn’t. What is the final say of what moral and what isn’t? Some people would say killing someone in self defence is okay, some people would say absolutely not it isn’t okay to take anyone’s life. Some people would say it’s okay to steal if you are starving, some would say absolutely not.
Did not all tribes of Isreal suffer damage from straying away from the Word of God? Straying away from what the Bible says and not letting that be the reference is damaging. Missing details do cause hurt and things getting damaged. Remove not the Ancient Landmarks that the Father’s have set. 5:18 Ignorance and omission causes damage.
Human morality is an emergent property of natural law. God is always in the shadows, even when we convince ourselves morality stands on its own. The echoes of divine archetypes persist, shaping our sense of right and wrong whether we acknowledge it or not.
You can’t be good when you deny God, as he is essentially the embodiment of Just, Fair, Love, Light, Life, and Truth itself. You can imitate goodness, but if you don’t have enough humility or understanding of your own flaws, of your ego and pride, how can you every truly be virtuous enough to maintain your good nature. People only thinks they’re capable of being good if they do good, but apparently without God there is no actual standard in the first place.
Just look at what is happening now. There is this pervasive lack of meaning in people's lives..people are so freaking depressed and very anxious at the same time (i.e. lack of an ideal). It's a recipe for an existential crisis (a.k.a. dark night of the soul) 🤔🙃. On the outside it looks really bleak but on the spiritual level, this is actually a good thing. Why did I say that? Because it leads people to look up...to look for an ideal. A way to look at something higher than themselves. That is my definition of GOD in an ultimate sense, really. Morality without and IDEAL doesn't make sense. It might worked for a short time but is not sustainable in the long term.
Depression & anxiety are less of a lack of an ideal & more of a dietary issue, a health issue. Our food is highly processed, riddled with chemicals that play with our hormones & chemistry. People are malnourished because they don’t eat the right things, they don’t take care of themselves. Nutritional deficiencies, and hormone imbalances can cause change in perception, sensory input, cognition, temperament, etc.. Anthropology has shown us to be hyper carnivores from stable isotope testing. Plants have defense chemicals that destroy our intestinal wall over time leading to autoimmune immunity, and inflammatory conditions of all kinds, and sugar consumption leads to diabetes that causes many co-morbidities i.e. atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s, obesity, etc.. What you say amounts to only a fraction of what truly causes depression, and anxiety. Even malaise, and apathy. Lack of determination, sex drive, etc..
I’m a gnostic but I wasn’t always and morality has been central to me since I was a child. I grew up in a fully non religious family and society (Western Australia). Some argue that morality originates from an inherent, historical concept of God, suggesting that even secular ethics ultimately trace back to divine authority embedded in human culture. However, this claim can be refuted by examining morality’s foundations in human nature and reason, which predate and operate independently of any specific religious framework. Evolutionary biology shows that traits like empathy and fairness are universal, rooted in the need for survival and social cohesion, not contingent upon religious belief. Furthermore, diverse cultures worldwide developed moral systems that function effectively without shared concepts of God, as seen in Confucianism or Buddhism. Rational philosophical systems, such as Kant’s categorical imperative or utilitarianism, provide logically consistent frameworks for ethical behavior without appealing to divine origins. While the concept of God has influenced the moral norms of many societies, the ability to reason, empathize, and cooperate is an intrinsic part of humanity, demonstrating that morality can arise from secular and naturalistic principles rather than being inherently tied to theological origins.
beyond the word nothing is "known" ....therefore, I am not sceptical of God, I am sceptical of how belief and faith relate to God. belief ; an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. faith ; strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Good and bad come from somewhere just like technologies did not appear from out of thin air something immortal that has been around for ages taught people technology something that was born perfect and full of knowledge of life.
In the beginning was the word( a word as a form of expression of meaning and intention) and the word was with God, and the word was God( when you speak your words are you and the spirit of your intentions and so then the words, sounds of the words having meaning by God’s intention are transmitted information). The same ( word) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him( the word of God as God); and without him was not anything made that was made( all things then are made by the word, sound, frequency, vibration, as language , as information transmission, as God/ I am that I am, as in to be to be, God as existence itself, being as the primary category of existence, that being spoke into existence all other being/ being the creator of all other being is not the same as being that other being ( not a oneness of all things .. not a Buddhist proposition). In him( the word as God, in the word was life/ life is spoken into existence) was life; and the life was the light of men( life as light, in the word was life which was light/ light is the fundamental being ( object as wave particle… as a something which exists… which has structure and is a transmitter of information/ light as a particle, as spherical, an object with a surface which surfaces can carry-transmit information).
They are not debating god. They are addressing the mind and how it is oriented towards the higher goals. This is how to discuss god. The mind employs a set of a’ priori modes to systemically align and thus, synthesise with the order and symmetry of things. Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse. Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously. Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We can’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate. Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration. Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it. There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. You are employing them right now as you engage with me. This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it. From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more. It is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best. In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that. This set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye. Kant employed them to ground his categories. Einstein employed them to ground his perspective and so forth. One ring to rule them all. One eye to systemise it all. This is the essence of God. We are made in gods image means the systemic eye is the god of eye and its impress is within.
Is morality greater than God? If God has to act on the foundation of morals does that mean that God is subordinate to morals and morals is greater than God?
Morality is the vain prideful, hateful and ignorant judgment of 'good' and 'bad/evil'! The bible says don't! The Saved don't! The unSaved judge and hate all the time in their Hell! Moving on, not anything exists without God! God is ALL that exists! As the Saved know.
Please discuss Wielenberg’s godless normative )platonic) realism. And there are other frameworks. That said, yes, classical theism (and even neoclassical a la Josh Rasmussen 2019) would entail moral realism, granted.
Matthew 21:28-31 NIV [28] “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ [29] “ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. [30] “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. [31] “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.
The truth, but as the teacher would say: Show your work! Morality cannot exist without CHRIST specifically (not any of the made-up gods) because an unmoored morality swings at the whims of whatever may be considered politically correct, and what is PC is decided by whatever benefits the powerful. Jesus, on the other hand, provides objective morality by virtue of being the primary authority above all others.
What do you mean by God? The God the atheists deny doesn't appear to be the same as the God the believer experiences in the depth of his soul. In their debates, they are not talking about the same thing.
Can Morality Exist Without God? Not only can it exist, it is in my best interest for it to exist. Any intelligent person can grasp that he derives benefit from living in society with others rather than trying to go it alone. Therefore, if I am to have those benefits, I must agree to certain rules of conduct so others will want to live in society with me. We must all agree not to kill and steal and other BAD behavior that would incentivize others to not live harmoniously with us. Basically, living by the 10 Commandments. I don't NEED to believe in God to understand that it is in my own best interest to behave this way. And if we are to live in society, we must separate those who break these rules from us in some manner for some length of time depending on which rules he broke.
What if morality already exists within each of us without any sort of system. I disagree with the idea that morality is taught I actually think as someone who grew up with a single quite unstable mother that morality actually comes from within and whatever it is that people call god. Is actually an evolutionary believe system that is inherit. To everyone. But heaving something like a bible that outlines those believes is incredibly useful in a world where people have forgotten how to listen to their most inner voice.
Morality cannot exist without the presence of God. The core of morality relies on the intrinsic value of human life, which becomes meaningless if humans are not seen as valuable. Our worth doesn't simply come from being human; it stems from being created in God's image as His chosen representatives on earth.
A person who is moral for the sake of christ is reall different form others who are moral without Christ,for me its like a teacher who teaches because of passion and another who teaches because thats the only job available, both might work hard but the students note the difference Thank you very much Jordan Peterson and your clue,one day i will be like you
Morality is synonym for Morals. And I have to say, without God, being specific here, without Yahweh, because all these people dance around the word God. God to Europeans can be human figures, this is why all their Greek gods like Zeus are sculpted in a form of a man, if it’s a man’s body, it has weakness and cravings, not to mention, who created the stars and heavens, did Zeus claim to? No, thence he is not what we call God, which God to us is creator of the universe. That’s Yahweh, some etymological names like Jahova, Allah, Elohim and all that passed over to different languages. We see the number one beneficial things of the Jews, Christian’s and Muslims of the pre-modern era, 1,000 years and on, is the congregations, the churches, the mosques, the synagogues, these places are put up so their is consensus, two buildings for instance, one by the Greeks and Roman’s like Aristotle and Socrates, Marcus Aurelius they set up amphitheaters, to discourse on politics we know as democracy, the other a mosque, instead of just consulting on a philosophical level, theology, the study and coming close to the creators, is what the Jews patented. This is why they excelled in everything, the Roman’s compared to the Jews is of no contest, the Roman’s were probably the most unethical, inhumane, sadistic and cruel people to walk the earth. They didn’t have laws of justice, they had laws for lucrative gain. Moses was given laws far before the Roman’s even hit the scene, and by far it’s still the most used law universally, not just of their time, but our time and still far into the future as well. Gods law is just, all the prophets tested it, and so did our predecessors in the passed 500 years, likewise even the last century, entertainers like Elvis Presley, Bob Marley, Michael Jackson, and Willie Nelson were all gospel singers and they spread the Bible ten fold, which shows merit of the morality in what to do and what not to do. Scientist like Einstein, Nikola, Newton all have memoirs on how they read the Bible weekly and got all their advances from. Same with businessmen, Jim rhon, John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, these are all multi millionaires and billionaires, and they profess the importance of the morality that comes from God. As for the nay sayers, let them be, don’t even give them rent in your mind, we have too much things to employ than worrying about their empty minds or in their case, filled to the brim. There were believers in their eras that crossed over, and their was unbelievers in their era that died off, empty and baron. Like Solomon said, what has happened before will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun. Thence their will be believers now in abundance who follow the statutes of God, and there will be non-believers now as well, who just wanna argue to argue, be idiots and know it alls. Good luck to them, we already know how that’s gonna end. 😂 Fuck em, keep the statutes and commandments given in the Torah, Tanakh, Gospels and even the Quran. And you will be given life and peace.
"Can you do God's will without believing in God?!" Seems so silly to me... There is no believing. Is the sky and Earth a joke to you? Do they not exist?
The question is whether morality is justifiable without a God. It annoys me how much people miss the centrality of that in this debate. Nobody denies that an atheist can adhere to the social/ moral norms of their time and place. It is whether, being a materialist, you can coherently justify those norms as objectively true and rationally compelling. This is not "can atheists adhere to normal morality" it is "is morality a coherent concept under atheism". Please stop missing the point on this.
Probably, but we didn't just all of a sudden have the religious beliefs. They evolved over time. Certainly in an atheist world morality would develop over time as well.
@@natethegr8230 The difference being that the morality will just suit the powerful, whereas Christians waged war on slavery at immense personal cost to rich and poor alike because Christ told us to do it. So great was our fervour that we were thought tyrants by men like Jefferson over it.
Morality already exist within everyone no matter what believe they represent . You don't NEED a believe system to be moral for everyone already is inherently. Almost everyone is just in denial of their most inner voice and refuses to listen to it because of the stresses created by the world which makes a believe system necessary for those who don't know how to listen to that voice.
@@natethegr8230On the contrary, there's never beena purely Atheist society that existed in ancient history. Religion and belief systems were deeply embedded in the fabric of ancient human life, serving as a cornerstone for identity, governance, and societal structure. One can argue for an Atheist society to eventually develop a sense of morality they'd have to adopt a more theistic viewpoint .
@@KopperNeomanCHRISTIANS DID NOT OPPOSE SLAVERY DONT MAKE ME LAUGH😂😂😂😂😂
Where is Bishop Barron? His insight is needed here.
Indeed
Had to make room for Random Twitter Man
Felt his absence as well
Konstantin appealing to him growing up in the Soviet union is always ridiculous. He was 8 when it ended. He has extremely few memories of it, and most he imagine are from it are later conflations.
Saying that you grew up in post-soviet Russia has less zing so he goes with the less honest route.
or maybe it's less of a mouthful
Great dialogue. Mainly because Jordan isn’t interrupting every time his neurons fire 😅
He knows when to talk
I’m a long time Peterson supporter. Not much in recent years. In part due to how he bulldozers over other speakers by course.
@@altnarrative He’s gotten very egotistical in his righteousness. I agree with some of his beliefs but his insistence that delusion - religion - is real, ‘god’ is real, when jp is supposed to be a man of science, based on *evidence,* totally turned me off of him. He should keep his crazy where it belongs - at home and in church. We don’t come to hear about insanity from him, we come to hear his viewpoint regarding his chosen profession. He losing his intelligent fans and will be left with nothing but religious crazies. I hoped for better than this for him.
Believing in God oriented me in the right direction for morality and more
I listen to my most deep intuition to orient myself which I do through meditation. I don't need a to give it the name god to understand that it is of the utmost importance to listen.
Bishop Barron replaced by Konstantin Kisin? Holy shit, this is absurdly hilarious.
I think one of the strongest arguments against secular morality is that it's inevitably subjective. Without being able to appeal to a set of religious tenets, what one person considers moral is relative to his/her individual judgement. It lacks a uniting principle of codification, unlike scripture.
Eloquently "spoken", @Razear♠
You could postulate that scripture is collectively adhered, but also "just" a set of arbitrarily adopted beliefs among other sets (i.e. other religions or moral systems). In Maps of Meaning (book and lectures), though, Peterson talks about how a joint agreement on fundamental principles is necessary to establish predictability. The difficult task comes from ordering belief systems.
It’s all subjective for religious people as well, since the scriptures were written by people.
This is true but Jesus also undermined our uniting principle of codification in the law of Moses.
Even within the frame of religion the choice of which religion to choose is somewhat subjective in the first place, especially in relation to different lineages and nations. In Christianity there are Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians. In this age of increased literacy, internet access and globalization the choice is no longer as simple as the default purpose our ancestors had and to make an informed decision requires an expert level knowledge. That’s one reason why many are non religious today.
How do you account for moral disagreement among Believers of the same god? Consider the parents of Mortara against pope Pious IX. Both parties were followers of yaweh, but they didn't agree about the morality of taking the child. What is the testable, objective mechanism the theist can apply to demonstrate what's morally correct?
Love these. @1:45-2:07 totally agree.
This clip seems more potent than the others. Lots of new thoughts for me.
A false morality can be simulated without the belief of God. But ultimately it is exactly that - false. It's not morality at all. It's appeal to consensus or its purely utilitarian.
Morality is not about a set of rules. It's about a disposition of the heart, soul, and mind that says "I love others" and genuinely desires their good even at your own expense because you understand that the sacrifice is merely a thorn in your side compared to the glory of giving the transformational power of love unto others.
Secular morality is about "do's and don'ts"
True morality is about identity and transformation of the heart in order to transcend this world and bring back Eden.
0:30 (living "good" but without God) ...."We should accept that we don’t know the preconditions for the maintenence of the belief system"
Living "good" using the idea of good determined by the society one grew up in. It always comes down to "good" according to which society, and which "god(s)" they follow(ed). A cannibal tribe that sacrifice other humans to their gods are deemed as good, righteous, and respectful, and they know not otherwise for that's their worldview and live among that moral and ethical standard.
I miss Bishop Barron
Without God there can be no objective moral standard. Without God, there is only your relative, subjective opinion and nothing else.
I love how everyone in the comments knows without a shadow of a doubt that what they believe is a fact.
Then there are those of us that are science based - something jp once insisted he was - that prefer to wait for empirical evidence before we cast our belief behind something. Jp left that rational space some time ago.
@@kalabakonbitts1362empirical evidence for morality??
@kalabakonbitts1362 you have belief/faith that others don't/won't lie to you and are honest about such empirical evidence
Yet this very comment assumes belief that you are right that everyone is wrong.
@ Empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. I’d settle for empirical evidence jesus ever existed, but as he is a product of the early church co-opting pagan ritual to bring in followers/$$$$$$, I doubt such evidence will ever be sourced.
From what I've heard, Peterson has yet to be Saved!
This is atheism’s newest quest to prove… but the answer logically and spiritually is a resounding and repetitive no
And to continue this, ancient civilizations knew this and created “gods” to fit their morality. End point; It comes from God, but humanity needs it “gods” if they don’t want to accept the one true living God and Creator, Jesus Christ.
@@christianbrown7621 you can call them gods. they exist, and are gods. they are demonic spirits that are powerful and were worshiped out of fear or bargain for power and were the grand principal of various communities.
Christ is God, but infinitely higher - of a different nature and is the source of their existence.
2:45 so the increase in the lack of belief in God will lead to a DECREASE in moral behavior? So if we took a historical sample of religious adherence we'll see that trend, right?
Yes lol. Abortion, fornication, divorce, adultery have all skyrocketed as people apostatize from Christianity and that’s like 1-2 generations. The whole system will collapse and other kinds of murder, corruption, theft etc will skyrocket. The principle has been set and will come to completion
CHRISTIAN adherence. Using other religions such as Islam will skew the results because those faiths are false.
It’s quite obvious. Look at the immorality that has dramatically increased since we’ve become more atheist. It has caused a perpetual downfall in western society.
As a non religious person, i think so. But it is not at all easy to measure true belief in something greater vs just pretending, its also difficult to measure morality.
Cherry picking some arbitrary stats wont prove anything either way.
I know
slow it shows
the life inside my head
forever grows
one moment at a time
4:02 Vervaeke demonstrates the danger of moralizing Jesus better than most Christians could explain it. Peterson needs to be most careful about this. Jesus is not just a moral example or a Jungian archetype. He is a real person, flesh and blood, who lived a perfect life, died for our sins, and was resurrected by God to conquer death and grant us eternal life.
You're absolutely right about John Vervaeke, I disagree with you when you assert Peterson is moralizing Jesus. He isn't moralizing Jesus. You see that because you looking at it from a theological lense which in regards to this necessitates a interdisciplinary approach to properly see the problem. Jesus as a moral example and Jungian archetype are but tools and/or paths of conceptualizing the Logos, dismissing that is dichotomous thinking. Both are true as long as the centrality is Christ.
The world has morality, and the Lord has a way. It is regression vs direction.
Imagine If god had the forthsight to mention slavery in his 10 rules for life, would have saved us for much of this debate.
Buddism and jainism manged to create a greater moral appeal for all living things without an appeal to god (rather then Christian human centric morality, and Even then its lacking) but all moral systems are too universalist to be able to account for all human experience
You are going to have to wait a long time for a reasonable explanation on that.
@jouzel8951 god works in misterious ways, sometimes so contradictory it doesnt Even make sense
The verbal gymnastics is exhausting and leading us nowhere - missing the Bishop
No morality without God.
I'd argue morals can be there with or without God; BUT - God helps you keep to morality, whereas a society without God distorts morality until it outright becomes evil. After all, sins are acts of erring away from God, sins proliferate the further away from God a society gets.
@ and I’d argue that without God, we default to survival mechanisms. Goodness is taught survival is instinctual.
@ what you described is not morality at all hence the inevitable collapse of this behavior system. It is nothing more than the perception of God like behavior under the guise of morality.
No anything without God.
@ RIGHT!
I love JBP, (even if saying God exists is complicated)
I mean 'belief in God'
You've got to admire Konstantin Kisin 's self-confidence in accepting an invite to this table.
More like delusion
Im reminded of that movie, "City of Amber." Hundreds of years before, the forefathers created a amazing mechanical works to keep the city functioning. But over time, the descendants forgot how it operates and how to maintain it. This the city came to an end.
The science of language includes sounds( phonations) phonemes, morphology(words)syntax, semantics, structures, literal and lastly pragmatic( contextual meaning). Language in its structure can have fractal meanings, with double, triple or more entendres ( meanings) given the same syntax, semantics structures, sounds, etc. Language is regarded as a representation of information. Words are not only sounds but transmit meaning. Transmission of meaning is a function of intent. Sounds and words can have meaninglessness by intent but when there is meaning there is necessarily intent. Sounds transmit action. Sounds are measured as frequencies and vibrations. Sounds and vibrations can act on reality. Chladni plates, cymascopes, oscilloscopes, etc are means of demonstrating the actionable properties of sound. Sounds can have particular shapes and patterns. These shapes and patterns are determined by the substances being acted upon as well as the substance acting. Water is a classic example of such actings visualized in cymascopes and oscilloscopes. Furthermore water not only can be acted upon by sound but water also then produces sound. Multiple sources of frequencies, vibration can simultaneously act on water. Oceans are acted on by wind, earth crust ( earthquakes and volcanoes, tectonic plates and subsurface dynamics) , gravity and electromagnetic fields, etc.
Water crashing on a beach creates sounds as well as patterns in sand or rock.
Sounds as spoken can have structural topology. This topology itself has transmitting effects( these effects can have effects into and beyond the structure directly acted on.. ocean waves caused by earthquakes can transmit patterns on land, sand and rocks not acted on directly by the earthquake, etc.).
That’s interesting information. Thanks for that! But what is the purpose of this comment? Is there a reason why you commented all this? Does it somehow relate to the discussion in the video?
@ in the beginning was the word
The ultimate proof of your faith delivered is the resurrection. As Christ said...blessed are those who believe without seeing
Amen
I have enjoyed watching this series . It's very enlightening and important.
Can you prove that if there is a god he himself is moral. Is there a coherent argument too be made for a god that allows suffering and pain on his own creations. Is god moral? Why all pain and suffering well expecting us to believe in him with little to no interaction just left on our own to figure it out. My question to you is why is god a moral being?
The problem of evil is based on our limited understanding of God's nature. God doesn't have to fit our ideas of what omnipotence and benevolence should look like. In Christianity, the Bible shows that God opposes evil and wants to bring order, but He can't just erase evil with a snap of His fingers. His way of dealing with evil may seem morally questionable to us. According to Christians, god isn't just a perfect, abstract being. Like humans, He is complex and not simply an idealized version of power and goodness.
However, it's not whether why he allowed evil or not. The real question is, is god evil? He can't be good because he doesn't give absolute free will, and he interferes with other choices that contradict free will because it's not defined, so why praise a god that isn't good to you?
Saying we can't understand God's nature screws up the whole argument. Just look at it
Morality and goodness come from god.
->
God's nature is goodness.
->
We can't understand God's nature.
->
We can't understand goodness.
->
We can not understand morality.
Unless we break one of these, then under the theist view, morality might be objective in a sense, but it's completely inaccessible to humans. It's like a black hole at the center of the galaxy, perfectly real but simultaneously completely irrelevant in your daily life.
@@j8000I never said we can't understand god's intentions at all, only that our understanding is limited. The human mind is finite and can't fully grasp the infinite complexity of god's nature.
1. In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. Instead, He provides moral guidance through sacred texts, prophets, or natural law. While god's full nature may be beyond comprehension, He communicates enough for humans to understand and apply moral principles in daily life.
2. Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any aspects of it. For example, we might not grasp the full nature of infinity, but we can work with concepts like "larger than any number." Similarly, humans can understand enough about goodness and morality to live meaningfully, even if the ultimate source is beyond full comprehension.
3. The comparison to a black hole is flawed. Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life. Morality is not irrelevant just because it has a divine source that is ultimately incomprehensible.
@j8000 I never said we can't understand god's intentions at all, only that our understanding is limited. The human mind is finite and can't fully grasp the infinite complexity of god's nature.
1. In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality.
2. Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any part of it. For example, we might not grasp the full nature of infinity, but we can work with concepts like "larger than any number." Similarly, humans can understand enough about goodness and morality to live meaningfully, even if the ultimate source is beyond full comprehension.
3. The comparison to a black hole is flawed. Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life. Morality is not irrelevant just because it has a divine source that is ultimately incomprehensible.
@@Mr.business7777
"In most theistic frameworks, god doesn't leave humans entirely in the dark about morality. (...) Just because humans can't fully understand god's nature doesn't mean we can't understand any part of it."
As long as you don't know which parts you do fully understand and don't fully understand, you are in fact in complete ignorance. What mechanism do we have for delineating this, that isn't just subjectivity?
The ultimate truth could conceivably involve that things we think we understand are in fact false. A great example of this are the theodicies that place the Fall prior to the existence of humanity; at the shoulders of angelic rebellions. See Cliffe Knechtle and Gavin Ortlund as recent proponents.
"Unlike a black hole, moral principles derived from god, book, or any influence related (e.g., justice, compassion, honesty) are accessible and directly influence daily any human life."
"Accessible" would be a meaningful argument if it were true. However, since moral disputes exist amongst followers of the same god, it is on it's face false. These would not arise in the first place if
If you are simply talking about "access" in the sense that it is possible to interpret things you believe come from god, then the black hole is exactly as real, or arguably much more so; the solar system we are in would not exist (as we know it) without it, for instance.
Please try to converse with Nassim Nicholas Taleb on your podcast it would be historically significant.
Morality serves Aim and we aim at what is highest
The question of whether morality can exist without god is tied to our understanding of existence itself. Some believe that morality relies on God’s existence, as a higher power is seen as the source of moral standards. However, others argue that morality can exist independently of God, based on human reason, societal norms, and the need for cooperation. In this view, morality isn’t about obeying a divine command but about what helps humans live together harmoniously and ethically. Ultimately, whether morality needs God depends on how one defines moral principles and where they believe they come from.
Without God morality would be subjective because by default it will come from humanity and the implications of that would be disturbing because if the laws of morality can changed then any horrible thing justified by reason can be done but If morality is objective meaning unchangeable given by God would imply restrictions from any individual doing evil.
Well said
You assume that if morality is subjective, it would inevitably lead to justifications for harmful actions, but this perspective overlooks the complexity of how subjective morality can work in practice.
Morality is already, to a large extent, subjective because it is influenced by personal, cultural, and societal factors. Different cultures have different moral codes, and individuals within those cultures may hold varying views on what is right or wrong. It was always more subjective rather than objective.
In a world where morality is subjective, the potential for justifying harmful actions still exists, but people can use reason, growth, and empathy to build consensus on what is considered immoral. While this makes morality more flexible, it doesn't mean it is free from any moral standards; it simply means these standards can be debated and revised.
You are saying that objective morality (imposed by god) is the only way to prevent moral wrongs, which ignores the growing recognition that moral values can be determined through human reasoning and the collective good. Far from leading to chaos, subjective morality can foster ongoing reflection and growth in ethical thinking.
Awesome discussion happening here.
I hope Dennis Prager is ok. He's had a rough year.
Who?
"we have bishop Barron at home"
Jordan seems more and more like an undercover catholic.
Based
This is the Special Olympics of Verbal Gymnastics. Amazing performances from all!!
It would not be the same without god thats true, but it would be stupid to suggest that its an all or nothing.
The driving force behind the “ought” of an action is the incentive for the actor to do it or avoid it. This still clearly exists in our reality even though theres no heaven/hell, or an omniscient being watching us.
People generally dont want live in a world where awful things are allowed, and there are other disincentives to do things that are commonly deemed “wrong”, like guilt, social isolation, imprisonment, etc.
Morality is one of God characteristics,like justice, the totality of all of that is what we call hollines, still have a long way to go, please help us Yeshua
Yes. The answer is yes. Kant, Mills, Rawls none of these moral giants of philosophy require God for their morality... oh and also Aristotle. Ancient morality in general.
Now then consider the fractal nature of language and the fractal nature of sou The science of language includes sounds( phonations) phonemes, morphology(words)syntax, semantics, structures, literal and lastly pragmatic( contextual meaning). Language in its structure can have fractal meanings, with double, triple or more entendres ( meanings) given the same syntax, semantics structures, sounds, etc. Language is regarded as a representation of information. Words are not only sounds but transmit meaning. Transmission of meaning is a function of intent. Sounds and words can have meaninglessness by intent but when there is meaning there is necessarily intent. Sounds transmit action. Sounds are measured as frequencies and vibrations. Sounds and vibrations can act on reality. Chladni plates, cymascopes, oscilloscopes, etc are means of demonstrating the actionable properties of sound. Sounds can have particular shapes and patterns. These shapes and patterns are determined by the substances being acted upon as well as the substance acting. Water is a classic example of such actings visualized in cymascopes and oscilloscopes. Furthermore water not only can be acted upon by sound but water also then produces sound. Multiple sources of frequencies, vibration can simultaneously act on water. Oceans are acted on by wind, earth crust ( earthquakes and volcanoes, tectonic plates and subsurface dynamics) , gravity and electromagnetic fields, etc.
Water crashing on a beach creates sounds as well as patterns in sand or rock.
Sounds as spoken can have structural topology. This topology itself has transmitting effects( these effects can have effects into and beyond the structure directly acted on.. ocean waves caused by earthquakes can transmit patterns on land, sand and rocks not acted on directly by the earthquake, etc.).
nd. If sound is an operative of words and therefore language then such sounds can transmit intent by their meaning.
Given the above consider:
What do you mean by "can", and "Morality" "exist" what do you mean "without", and what do you mean by "God"
Our God indeed is a covenant keeping God. Has he said a thing and not perform it? I watch how things unfold in my life, from penury to $56,000 every three months and I can only praise him and trust him more. Hallelujah
Excuse me for real?, how is that possible I have struggling financially, how was that possible?
That's a major tum around. Praise be to Jesus our Lord. Hallelujah
But then, what do you do? How do you come about that in that period?
Kindly let me know more bout this bimonthly thing you just mentioned. Please...
Alright I will leave her info below this comment 👇
Put the digits together....
No Christ is morals made flesh. Got a date. I got to go. Fantastic work, gentlemen.
Atheists, like Kisin, insist that racism and homophobia are wrong - therefore moral absolutes exist. Kisin simply seeks to pick and choose.
The only God who listens, speaks, loves, redeems, forgives and loves is Jesus.
Who defines what is good?,because I can be good for personal gain does that mean I am still good?
Why would you need a belief in God if you subscribe to moral objectivism?
Because man made morality has changed dramatically in the last 12 years alone…
Many people argue that, without God, morality becomes subjective based on individual or cultural beliefs that can change over time. Belief in God provides an unchanging, universal foundation for what is right and wrong.
Christian believes that god is the ultimate source of objective morality. Under this perspective, morality is objective because it is rooted in God’s unchanging nature.
But whether believing in god for objective morality would depend on who he is. Since Christians say that god is the ultimate source of objective morality. Under this perspective, morality is objective because it is rooted in god’s unchanging nature.
Now, whether god is good or evil that you have to find out both subjectively and objectively
Great video
This is the guy you brought on in the place of Bishop Barron😂😂
I know. Such a downgrade.
Which guy?
@@odious5317 Konstantin Kisin (to the right of Jordan).
@ I see. Thanks for clarifying!
📖 Morality is subjective without a higher narrative and everyone knows this
Nothing was made except through him
Good and beauty exist because he spoke them to existence and He instilled his image in man.I believe morality proceed from God's image in us.
Psalms 53:2-3. Ano ang pagkakaiba ng mga Hukom at Abogado?! Proverb 16:12. Hebreo 4:12
The Gospels are not about morality. It’s about Christ and what he did for us on the cross
Morality does not exist without God as God is morality. That is like saying there can be sunshine without the Sun.
Vervaeke is correct on “ to save western civilization “…
Acting in a moral way because god is watching is better than being a jerk.
Why you dicuss a one small aspect while you can proceed dicussing a variety of things,,,it is an interesting videos,,and hoping the Bishop is well and will make to the coming show
No because everyone has a different view of what is moral and what isn’t. What is the final say of what moral and what isn’t? Some people would say killing someone in self defence is okay, some people would say absolutely not it isn’t okay to take anyone’s life. Some people would say it’s okay to steal if you are starving, some would say absolutely not.
Did not all tribes of Isreal suffer damage from straying away from the Word of God? Straying away from what the Bible says and not letting that be the reference is damaging. Missing details do cause hurt and things getting damaged. Remove not the Ancient Landmarks that the Father’s have set. 5:18
Ignorance and omission causes damage.
Human morality is an emergent property of natural law. God is always in the shadows, even when we convince ourselves morality stands on its own. The echoes of divine archetypes persist, shaping our sense of right and wrong whether we acknowledge it or not.
You can’t be good when you deny God, as he is essentially the embodiment of Just, Fair, Love, Light, Life, and Truth itself. You can imitate goodness, but if you don’t have enough humility or understanding of your own flaws, of your ego and pride, how can you every truly be virtuous enough to maintain your good nature. People only thinks they’re capable of being good if they do good, but apparently without God there is no actual standard in the first place.
Just look at what is happening now. There is this pervasive lack of meaning in people's lives..people are so freaking depressed and very anxious at the same time (i.e. lack of an ideal). It's a recipe for an existential crisis (a.k.a. dark night of the soul) 🤔🙃. On the outside it looks really bleak but on the spiritual level, this is actually a good thing. Why did I say that? Because it leads people to look up...to look for an ideal. A way to look at something higher than themselves. That is my definition of GOD in an ultimate sense, really. Morality without and IDEAL doesn't make sense. It might worked for a short time but is not sustainable in the long term.
Depression & anxiety are less of a lack of an ideal & more of a dietary issue, a health issue. Our food is highly processed, riddled with chemicals that play with our hormones & chemistry. People are malnourished because they don’t eat the right things, they don’t take care of themselves. Nutritional deficiencies, and hormone imbalances can cause change in perception, sensory input, cognition, temperament, etc..
Anthropology has shown us to be hyper carnivores from stable isotope testing. Plants have defense chemicals that destroy our intestinal wall over time leading to autoimmune immunity, and inflammatory conditions of all kinds, and sugar consumption leads to diabetes that causes many co-morbidities i.e. atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s, obesity, etc..
What you say amounts to only a fraction of what truly causes depression, and anxiety. Even malaise, and apathy. Lack of determination, sex drive, etc..
Where is Bishop Barron?!?
Know it in your heart and soul trust in jesue
I’m a gnostic but I wasn’t always and morality has been central to me since I was a child. I grew up in a fully non religious family and society (Western Australia).
Some argue that morality originates from an inherent, historical concept of God, suggesting that even secular ethics ultimately trace back to divine authority embedded in human culture. However, this claim can be refuted by examining morality’s foundations in human nature and reason, which predate and operate independently of any specific religious framework. Evolutionary biology shows that traits like empathy and fairness are universal, rooted in the need for survival and social cohesion, not contingent upon religious belief. Furthermore, diverse cultures worldwide developed moral systems that function effectively without shared concepts of God, as seen in Confucianism or Buddhism. Rational philosophical systems, such as Kant’s categorical imperative or utilitarianism, provide logically consistent frameworks for ethical behavior without appealing to divine origins. While the concept of God has influenced the moral norms of many societies, the ability to reason, empathize, and cooperate is an intrinsic part of humanity, demonstrating that morality can arise from secular and naturalistic principles rather than being inherently tied to theological origins.
Well said
I love John Vervaeke so much, he would be a juggernaut in the body of Christ
that cliff hanger, about Jesus braking Sabbath
Amen!
No morality without God...
beyond the word nothing is "known" ....therefore,
I am not sceptical of God, I am sceptical of how belief and faith relate to God.
belief ; an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
faith ; strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Contemporary right wing conservatives take note ! You can’t do this thing without Christ!
Barron > Konstantin. Sorry, I don’t make the rules.
You can’t do God’s will without believing in God, you have to believe in God first. Romans 8:7-8
Good and bad come from somewhere just like technologies did not appear from out of thin air something immortal that has been around for ages taught people technology something that was born perfect and full of knowledge of life.
In the beginning was the word( a word as a form of expression of meaning and intention) and the word was with God, and the word was God( when you speak your words are you and the spirit of your intentions and so then the words, sounds of the words having meaning by God’s intention are transmitted information). The same ( word) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him( the word of God as God); and without him was not anything made that was made( all things then are made by the word, sound, frequency, vibration, as language , as information transmission, as God/ I am that I am, as in to be to be, God as existence itself, being as the primary category of existence, that being spoke into existence all other being/ being the creator of all other being is not the same as being that other being ( not a oneness of all things .. not a Buddhist proposition).
In him( the word as God, in the word was life/ life is spoken into existence) was life; and the life was the light of men( life as light, in the word was life which was light/ light is the fundamental being ( object as wave particle… as a something which exists… which has structure and is a transmitter of information/ light as a particle, as spherical, an object with a surface which surfaces can carry-transmit information).
Our morality are inscripted in our DNA
The still, soft voice
Well, at least our proclivity for it
Our morality is scripted in all levels of our reality
It was embedded in us by God. Our creator. It doesn’t just magically appear within us.
They are not debating god. They are addressing the mind and how it is oriented towards the higher goals. This is how to discuss god.
The mind employs a set of a’ priori modes to systemically align and thus, synthesise with the order and symmetry of things.
Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse.
Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously.
Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We can’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate.
Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration.
Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it.
There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. You are employing them right now as you engage with me.
This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it.
From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more. It is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best.
In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that.
This set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye. Kant employed them to ground his categories. Einstein employed them to ground his perspective and so forth. One ring to rule them all. One eye to systemise it all. This is the essence of God. We are made in gods image means the systemic eye is the god of eye and its impress is within.
Is morality greater than God? If God has to act on the foundation of morals does that mean that God is subordinate to morals and morals is greater than God?
Morality is the vain prideful, hateful and ignorant judgment of 'good' and 'bad/evil'!
The bible says don't!
The Saved don't!
The unSaved judge and hate all the time in their Hell!
Moving on, not anything exists without God! God is ALL that exists!
As the Saved know.
Please discuss Wielenberg’s godless normative )platonic) realism. And there are other frameworks. That said, yes, classical theism (and even neoclassical a la Josh Rasmussen 2019) would entail moral realism, granted.
But I think, morality without God is an egg 🥚 without any content.
They should have had William Lane Craig at this table.
Read 2 Nephi 2
Im going to leave that here
excelent
Matthew 21:28-31 NIV
[28] “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ [29] “ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. [30] “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. [31] “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.
It can’t
The truth, but as the teacher would say: Show your work!
Morality cannot exist without CHRIST specifically (not any of the made-up gods) because an unmoored morality swings at the whims of whatever may be considered politically correct, and what is PC is decided by whatever benefits the powerful. Jesus, on the other hand, provides objective morality by virtue of being the primary authority above all others.
Which god?
What do you mean by God? The God the atheists deny doesn't appear to be the same as the God the believer experiences in the depth of his soul. In their debates, they are not talking about the same thing.
Can Morality Exist Without God? Not only can it exist, it is in my best interest for it to exist. Any intelligent person can grasp that he derives benefit from living in society with others rather than trying to go it alone. Therefore, if I am to have those benefits, I must agree to certain rules of conduct so others will want to live in society with me. We must all agree not to kill and steal and other BAD behavior that would incentivize others to not live harmoniously with us. Basically, living by the 10 Commandments. I don't NEED to believe in God to understand that it is in my own best interest to behave this way. And if we are to live in society, we must separate those who break these rules from us in some manner for some length of time depending on which rules he broke.
"MORALITY can't EXIST without MORAL GIVER (GOD JESUS )"
Money is our new God.
What if morality already exists within each of us without any sort of system. I disagree with the idea that morality is taught I actually think as someone who grew up with a single quite unstable mother that morality actually comes from within and whatever it is that people call god. Is actually an evolutionary believe system that is inherit. To everyone. But heaving something like a bible that outlines those believes is incredibly useful in a world where people have forgotten how to listen to their most inner voice.
@@falconcourt8740 Does the inner voice say the same things for every person, despite their divergence from their ancestors and each other?
This is where Jews and Christians differ. Jesus wasn’t say that much new that wasn’t already in the Hebrew Bible
First Council of Nicaea : reimagined in modern day
Morality cannot exist without the presence of God. The core of morality relies on the intrinsic value of human life, which becomes meaningless if humans are not seen as valuable. Our worth doesn't simply come from being human; it stems from being created in God's image as His chosen representatives on earth.
"....Ritualization tries to embed (these stories) at a procedural level that is deeper than...."..
A person who is moral for the sake of christ is reall different form others who are moral without Christ,for me its like a teacher who teaches because of passion and another who teaches because thats the only job available, both might work hard but the students note the difference
Thank you very much Jordan Peterson and your clue,one day i will be like you
Nothing is so critical and impotent as an intellectual. Keep it simple, keep it real, you Chaps
Morality is synonym for Morals.
And I have to say, without God, being specific here, without Yahweh, because all these people dance around the word God.
God to Europeans can be human figures, this is why all their Greek gods like Zeus are sculpted in a form of a man, if it’s a man’s body, it has weakness and cravings, not to mention, who created the stars and heavens, did Zeus claim to? No, thence he is not what we call God, which God to us is creator of the universe. That’s Yahweh, some etymological names like Jahova, Allah, Elohim and all that passed over to different languages.
We see the number one beneficial things of the Jews, Christian’s and Muslims of the pre-modern era, 1,000 years and on, is the congregations, the churches, the mosques, the synagogues, these places are put up so their is consensus, two buildings for instance, one by the Greeks and Roman’s like Aristotle and Socrates, Marcus Aurelius they set up amphitheaters, to discourse on politics we know as democracy, the other a mosque, instead of just consulting on a philosophical level, theology, the study and coming close to the creators, is what the Jews patented.
This is why they excelled in everything, the Roman’s compared to the Jews is of no contest, the Roman’s were probably the most unethical, inhumane, sadistic and cruel people to walk the earth. They didn’t have laws of justice, they had laws for lucrative gain. Moses was given laws far before the Roman’s even hit the scene, and by far it’s still the most used law universally, not just of their time, but our time and still far into the future as well. Gods law is just, all the prophets tested it, and so did our predecessors in the passed 500 years, likewise even the last century, entertainers like Elvis Presley, Bob Marley, Michael Jackson, and Willie Nelson were all gospel singers and they spread the Bible ten fold, which shows merit of the morality in what to do and what not to do. Scientist like Einstein, Nikola, Newton all have memoirs on how they read the Bible weekly and got all their advances from.
Same with businessmen, Jim rhon, John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, these are all multi millionaires and billionaires, and they profess the importance of the morality that comes from God. As for the nay sayers, let them be, don’t even give them rent in your mind, we have too much things to employ than worrying about their empty minds or in their case, filled to the brim. There were believers in their eras that crossed over, and their was unbelievers in their era that died off, empty and baron. Like Solomon said, what has happened before will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun. Thence their will be believers now in abundance who follow the statutes of God, and there will be non-believers now as well, who just wanna argue to argue, be idiots and know it alls. Good luck to them, we already know how that’s gonna end. 😂
Fuck em, keep the statutes and commandments given in the Torah, Tanakh, Gospels and even the Quran. And you will be given life and peace.
"Can you do God's will without believing in God?!"
Seems so silly to me...
There is no believing.
Is the sky and Earth a joke to you? Do they not exist?
Define God.
A creator?!
That would imply a beginning, but the truth has no beginning.
Always has, always will.