As an atheist I absolutely love Justin. He is by far my favorite theist interviewer. He treats us atheists with respect and comes across as genuine. Keep up the great interviews. I really enjoyed the dialogue between Peter and the theist. Peter is a brilliant thinker.
@@PremierUnbelievable thanks Justin, I used to be a Christian so I really relate to you. You treat us kind and respectful which is not often the case. I found you through Alex O'Connor. I was impressed the way you talked to him. Since then I've subscribed and watched all your videos. Wish you all the best.
Real brilliant thinkers believe in God. Narrow thinkers believe they know enough about God to not believe in God. Peter Singer believes God can't exist because God won't act as a butler. That's very narrow and not 'brilliant'.
I absolutely love the sincerely respectful way that Peter and Andy discuss ideas that they disagree about. They both clearly and confidently present their arguments, but neither of them seems motivated by "winning" the argument. They both seem to truly hear the other and have open minds that could be swayed or changed if they were to hear a sufficiently convincing argument or evidence. Far too often the participants in discussions or debates such as this one are extremely close-minded and exhibit an air of intellectual, moral, or spiritual superiority.
why do you suppose atheism and Christianity to be strict alternatives or mutually exclusive? May a being not live christ's precepts and reject all the goddist mumbo jumbo? The difficulty for you and that is that neither you nor anyone else not privy to the tradition of the way of christ have *absolutely no* idea what christ's precepts were and virtually no-one could live them which is probably why there *Are_No* christians, not..... a..... single...... one There are as many flavours of soi-disant atheists as there are soi-disant christians-but then there*Are_No christians and even fewer atheists, not that they are strict alternatives. Why contaminate the idea of god with all that good/ evil, right/ wrong, morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo?- That is pure savage an anthropomorphic fcuk-the-commandments idolatry, but of course you can't help that; you can o more not be an idolater than you could ever be able to be able to be a christian.
Great to watch this polite debate between Peter and Andy again. I like the way Peter cleared up some of the misconceptions Andy and Justin had about his views. It's not easy to find holes in the arguments of a philosophical heavyweight like him. He is logical, easy to understand and forceful.
Wonderfully pleasant discussion. This has been one of the least confrontational and positive conversations I've seen, debating such contentious ideas, in a long time. Well done!
Agreed! Bannister seems to be very adept at engaging in conflict while disarming his opponent. I really enjoyed this one. I've been astounded at the profound evil represented by Singer's arguments, and appreciated hearing them directly from him. As I expected, when presented with a flaw in his reasoning, he pivoted or equivocated. He really has no choice. The basis for his arguments is fundamentally flawed and unsupportable.
@@bkf8166 You saw this very differently from me. Peter was generous and intellectually honest. Andy repeatedly straw manned, gish galloped, and declined to engage with ideas deeply. I'm not saying Peter's ideas are right and Andy's are wrong, just pointing out the differences in how they engaged with ideas, here.
@@TheKrunel You are 100% correct! I did see this completely differently. Perhaps because I've judged Peter Singer to be a monster. In one breath, he advocates for the humane treatment of animals, and completely horrible inhumane treatment of humans in the womb. He's even advocated for allowing infanticide post partum. HIs logic is so inconsistent that nothing (literally) that he says can be trusted.
@@WilliamBrownGuitar Agreed. Not only shallow. He's what Chesterton would have called a Maniac. I think he's dangerous to that. I pray for him. And God bless Bannister, who I think was to nice.
@@CziffraNum Singer is a maniac?, he comes across to me as a deep thinker who has come to the conclusion that the problem of suffering can't be solved by belief in a Christian God.
I thought it very wrong that Andy used Peter's mother in the discussion. I thought that though he apologised beforehand, that does not absolve him of trying to make a point in very poor judgement and indeed, the purpose of the apology was simply to enable him to bring the point out for discussion.
Perhaps worse is when he wasn’t sharing the story correctly either. He left out important details to make the story sound more favorable to his position.
So refreshing to hear two respectful people who are well read, knowledgeable and thoughtful discussing controversial topics with respect and dignity. A complete role model for all the other screamers and head bangers out there. THANK YOU.
Here's a few comments on why this is a useful discussion: 1. Singer is representative of the modern secular intellectual. Sure, he advocates some highly controversial ethical positions, but his general outlook isn’t fringe. In a sense, he’s only controversial because he’s willing to say openly what he takes to be the logical implications of his worldview. Singer takes for granted the standard naturalistic evolutionary account of human origins. His approach to ethics is a modern, sophisticated version of utilitarianism. He doesn’t have a religious bone in his body, so it would seem, and he doesn’t think there’s the slightest reason to believe in God. I got the impression he could barely conceal his incredulity at Bannister’s views. I suspect he rarely interacts with orthodox Christian intellectuals. 2. Singer trots out the old Euthyphro problem as if it deals a swift death-blow to any divine command theory of ethics, but there’s no evidence that he’s familiar with (or even interested in) the standard responses that have been offered by Christian philosophers. He also thinks the problem of suffering is devastating to any theistic worldview; he can’t begin to understand why an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator would allow the amount and intensity of suffering we find in the world. (Note how much he rests on assumptions about *what God would* or *wouldn’t do.* Atheists just can’t help theologising!) All of this is fairly typical of 21st-century atheist intellectuals: smart and articulate, yet superficial and uninformed in their criticisms of Christian theism. 3. On the whole, Bannister does a fine job in response: a good model for Christian apologists. He’s done his homework. You can tell he’s read Singer’s major works and he’s taken note of shifts in Singer’s views over the course of his career. Bannister is winsome in his demeanour and has a good self-deprecating sense of humour. He’s a clear and effective communicator, deploying some nice illustrations to make his points. He tries to get at the root issues in a serious fashion, rather than trying to score ‘gotcha’ points 4. For my money, the most interesting point that came up in the exchange was this: *Singer is still an ethical utilitarian but now describes himself as a moral non-naturalist.* A moral non-naturalist thinks there are real moral values that cannot be derived from or reduced to natural (i.e., scientific) facts. Apparently several years ago Singer changed his mind about whether there are objective moral values, i.e., moral norms that are independent of human thoughts, feelings, social conventions, etc. He now thinks there are such values, and his utilitarianism needs to incorporate them in order to bridge David Hume's infamous is-ought gap. I take this to be quite a significant concession. Consequently, what’s striking about this exchange with Bannister is that Singer is operating with *two distinct philosophical frameworks,* and he subtly shifts back and forth between them depending on the point being pressed. Sometimes Singer answers questions from the standpoint of hard-nosed metaphysical naturalism. There’s no objective meaning or purpose in the universe! The neo-Darwinian evolutionary account of human origins is correct! Modern science has discredited the idea of final causes! Yet at other times - whenever the ethical ‘ought’ questions are posed - Singer adopts his moral non-naturalist stance, helping himself to objective moral norms to which he somehow has epistemic access. He hops from one foot to the other in the blink of an eye, but gives us no idea about *how he would integrate these two frameworks in a coherent fashion*. How does Singer reconcile his metaphysical naturalism with his moral non-naturalism? We’re left guessing. To his credit, Bannister picks up on this toward the end and draws a comparison with C.S. Lewis’s intellectual journey from materialism to idealism to deism to theism to Christianity, noting Lewis’s remark that the biggest jump was from materialism to idealism. Bannister somewhat cheekily (but justifiably!) suggested that Singer had slid halfway to idealism. It’s a shame there wasn’t opportunity to explore this point further. Singer has arguably moved to a _less_ consistent position in recent years, faced with the pressure of explanatory gaps in his naturalistic worldview.
That is a really good summary. On one hand Singer says he now accepts the idea of moral constants in what sounds like a Platonic realm without God. So "goodness" is stable in the same way as universal constants from mathematics or physics. But he also still stands by a model of utilitarianism that tries to answer the is/ought problem using Sam Harris' framework. Those two ideas definitely don't appear to mesh together.
It is an excellent summary. I think at the end of the day it really does come down to suffering and the problem of evil for Peter Singer. He can't reconcile this with a God and I think that is an understandable position. It can't be dismissed easily despite what most Christians think and I say this as someone who believes in God.
This is an excellent summary of my feelings as well. A lot of the people coming to this on Singers side have commented that he "destroyed" Bannister, but I think this is more accurate.
I agree with Peter Singer that a being’s dignity or worth is not predicated on membership to a specific species. Andy Bannister seems to believe it does and he never addressed this sufficiently.
Bannister on his best behaviour. Certainly better than the tripe he has posted to his own website recently, including apologia for a Christian god in a covid world. Truly eye rolling stuff.
@@jerardosc9534 that is a slang term. It means his argument is well grounded and he seems confident in what he sais. It is a meme expression so it probably means that but a little less formally.
Interesting talk and absolutly wonderful moderator, just intervening enough and letting the discussion flow. This could have been even better if Andy didn't jump from point to point and faced more rigorous questions from Peter and the moderator. Andy bringing up Mr. Singer's mother struck me as a bit disrespectful, or at least the way he approached that topic.
Great respectful conversation. As an atheist, I would say that my sense of right and wrong is simply an extrapolation of my own experience of the world. I see organisms that look and behave like I do, and I see them respond to suffering in much the same way I would.
1:13:27 " what we do is we place the evidence on the table and ask which best explains the range of evidence that we have." And there we have it. The reason so many people can convince themselves they have answers to the unexplainable. If you want to know what's true you can't just pick the thing that appears to be the closest match. You should build evidence to shape a conclusion and tentatively hold confidence proportionate to that evidence until presented with further evidence. In many cases we may not have enough, or any, good evidence to make a conclusion. This deep desire to have answers with whatever evidence we have is how we get deceived.
Well... in that case, we probably would not have any basis for science developed. It's no wonder the scientific revolution happened during the "Christian" revolution, because wise people followed their reason, intuition and the evidence on hand to search for knowledge. Despite everything we know, most knowledge is still nothing but a mere theory. There is absolutely nothing we are 100% sure of, therefore, to believe that we have certainty in anything is just foolishness...
But making decisions without full evidence is how every human has ever made decisions throughout human history, you can't be sure that you won't get hit by a car when you walk out your door in the morning, but you walk out your door anyways, you have faith that it's the correct decision. The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence. There's nothing that we do in our life with full proof, even the things we see with our eyes we have to trust We are seeing correctly, that trust is called faith
What a thoughtful, eloquent and congenial discussion between two sincere people who believe different things, and don't feel the urge to personally insult each other. Good mediation as well.
@@thrisighsty If you are basing human rights on dependency, you won't get very far. There is a good reason Singer does not do that. He ties his system to moral agency, the ability to have preferences and make choices. If you connect duties/rights to dependency then you have an ethic that doesn't allow for the rearing of children, care for the elderly/sick, giving to the poor, etc...
@@thrisighsty You are describing bodily autonomy. I don't think anyone would deny that is a factor when looking at abortion but its also not the end of the debate. There are multiple possible values to be weighed. As an example specific to pregnancy, most people would agree that a pregnant woman who uses drugs or alcohol resulting in fetal impairment has acted immorally. The example you give of requiring someone to donate an organ isn't a good argument. We are discussing moral systems - so the question needs to be structured as what is the moral choice. What can be justified to force others to do is a different standard than a personal moral standard. A better way to consider this is would it be immoral for a mother to refuse a liver transplant to her child? Its important to understand the moral difference in making a personal choice vs requiring other to follow that moral code by force.
@@thrisighsty I am not sure if you are a native English speaker but your statement is quite difficult to read and understand. You said "You can't force a women to donate her liver to her 3 year old, same goes to a womans body and a fetus inside." It is a very different thing to make a moral judgement for yourself vs forcing another to abide by your standard. Its perfectly consistent to argue that what this imaginary woman did is immoral but that we shouldn't force her to take a different action. When we have ethical discussions we start by trying to determine moral/immoral and not legal/illegal. I am not sure why you are trying to convince me of your position on the legality of abortion. Again, you should start with moral/immoral not legal/illegal. Also I was correcting you on using dependency as a moral defense of abortion since this is not Singer's position. If you think its a great argument, thats all well and good but it isn't what he is arguing.
I think the one thing that theists miss when they say that objective morality comes from God, is the fact that moral judgments from an atheist perspective often come from empathy - the product of evolution. We know that to cause suffering is wrong because most of us have experienced it, and can imagine that unnecessarily causing suffering to another can’t be good. Of course, some people lack empathy, and they tend to do things that most would classify as “bad” for this very reason. What is the theistic argument for why psychopaths feel no remorse when they kill, for example? Did God just forget to instill good values in them? I think not.
I think this is what he meant. Andy bannister was saying how someone he knew progressed from different stages and uses the word ‘slid’. This would indicate a fall and not a progression
Both Peter and Andy were excellent and the mutual respect and civility of their conversation was quite refreshing. Also Justin the interviewer is very good at framing the discussion so that the average person can understand the material being covered. Great video subscribed.
Think it is a pity that Andy keeps trying to support his points through references to other philosophers etc. If he has a good point then it should stand on its own.
Mr Bannister seemed to dance around the questions and points when he didn't have a clear answer. For example, the issue of the Christian god allowing suffering.
I loved the fact that this was a civil discussion but I hated the fact that Andy Bannister kept bring up statements that Peter Singer has said in the past, you're here to debate the topic not the person. 🤷♂️ Much respect for Andy though, don't get me wrong.
He also kept bringing up views of other atheists, as if to subtly imply that Peter holds those views. It’s sneaky, and Andy should just ask what Peter thinks instead of quoting other atheists.
The way John Lennox raised the issue of Peter Singer's mother's illness was insensitive. When Peter corrected something about what happened to his own mother Lennox still thought it appropriate to interrupt. For me that says a lot. Peter Singer proving that even when he must have been quite uncomfortable, well I would be in that situation, he still maintained dignity and poise, consistent with his writings. What a legend!
There are four main questions which I believe Andy avoided by either changing the subject or using unrelated quotes and arguments: 1. Are the laws given by God arbitrary? Would it be good if God said to murder infants etc.? 2. If god is benevolent, why does suffering exist? Why does it exist despite god's effort to eliminate it (through the crucification etc.) 3. Why are humans different than any other conscious creature? 4. How can we get goodness from god? Why is it better to take our ideals of goodness from god instead of from our own rationality?
For your second question, I believe that rather than to eliminate suffering, crucifixion in the bible and Jesus' life story, in general, is rather a resemblance of God's effort to suffer together with us that are currently living in this broken world.
@@felixsiswanto8561 This just avoids the real problem here. The claim is that god is omnipotent and cares about everyone, wants to end suffering. Yet he does not so either he doesn't care or he can't end suffering. This is classical Epicurian dilema. We can always explain that god has a certain plan or that free will exists, but that just further detracts from his omnipotence and undermines his desire to help people.
@@velar123 God/Allah is.. the creator so he's responsibility/Purpose is not "too work for us" but rather we should be admiringly lucky and blessed to be part of Allah's power and almighty.... Everything is a test for us and that God perfectly can sustain and his existence can still Be, without his "creation" Just as, logo toys a child puts together and later disassembles it.... The child still is present without his/her structure.... Simplicity
Wonderful discussion. Justin, I think you may have missed your calling as a negotiator or mediator. The fact that the arguments remain pointed and without the usual "Bulverism" from many atheists in all your podcasts is a testament to your Christian walk. GOD Bless!
@@HughJaxident67 How so? I don't hear Christians making the same proclamations as Dawkins: (2012 "Rally for Reason") - "Mock Christians in public". PZ Meyers - We need to take out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles and confront Christians." Irony?
@@sandypidgeon4343 You've obviously never listened to any creationists then, making assertions like 'atheists don't exist'....Moreover, there is no Bulverism as you state above, only one party is making a claim, the theist - and it's a claim that has never met its burden of proof. The theist claims a god exists, atheists don't believe the claim - every single damned argument ever offered by theists fails in one way or another and at the end of the day, arguments are not evidence.
@@HughJaxident67 Good evening, Hugh. Yes, I have listed to both the Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic evolutionary claims. The abductive argument has provided the burden of proof against atheist claims of GOD doesn't exist". Singer is making the claim - that's why he is there. Please show me where/when a theistic claim has failed - provide evidence. GOD Bless.
@@sandypidgeon4343 *Yes, I have listed to both the Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic evolutionary claims* And we know how old the Earth is, 4.5 billion years old, we also know young Earth creationist claims are non-scientific nonsense and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'Theistic evolutionary claims'. *The abductive argument has provided the burden of proof against atheist claims of GOD doesn't exist* Nonsense - Atheism doesn't make any claims, it's actually a rejection of theistic claims any god exists. Theists have never met their burden of proof for their claim a god exists, atheism has no burden of proof as it makes no claim. This is philosophy 101. *Singer is making the claim - that's why he is there* Well, if at any point in the video Singer claims 'no god exists', then that is a position of anti-theism (sometimes incorrectly referred to as hard atheism) - Does he specifically make this claim in any of this video? Can you time stamp where he did this? *Please show me where/when a theistic claim has failed - provide evidence* And again, it is your burden of proof as a theist to support your claim a god exists, anyone not believing a claim never has any requirement to present evidence to the contrary.
Ironic that Singer said, “We ought to be doing…” at 8:46 That is-ought dilemma sneaks up all the time. I was surprised to hear that Springer has shifted his thinking and now holds to an objective moral realm, like a Platonic realm, but is content to believe that these moral values can make moral demands upon us without a moral authority behind them-especially when we get them wrong. Andy is right that moral “oughtness” exists within relationships and thus are not like independent, laws of logic that exist. Moreover, Peter’s belief in an objective moral realm existing in our world is quickly undone by Peter himself when he later declares that our evolved world “is indifferent to human suffering.” This leaves Peter with only one recourse: to ground objective morality in human rationality. The problem? Peter also believes human rationality is a product of amoral, human evolution.
Butterfly skin. They can live in pain for up to 40 yrs or more. Then the other disease that gradually turns all muscles to bone. Its also a painful process.
It's been many years since I read Peter Singer. I did speak to the late Clive Hollands, Mary Midgely and Richard Ryder when writing about ethology. It was the early days of the internet and I got an email (I can't remember how) for Peter Singer. My message was responded to by a Peter Singer in the US who said he'd received dozens of emails thinking he was a famous philosopher. At least I tried...
Idk the Christian dude was hoping around topics constantly he may have ADHD and needs to be kept on topic. I feel as though the moderator dropped the ball they rarely interjected to keep them on topic.
Andy was smashing it until he brought into the conversation Singers personal example of his late Mother - I think it is fair, if Singer wishes to speak of his own personal experiences to then pick up off his thread, once the person who's anecdote is being used is the initiator. It's a little off handed, i think to bring it up when it is not your own, deeply personal private experience.. Of course unless permission has already been given. Other than that point, I thoroughly I enjoyed this debate, what would usually be an explosive topic was deftly discussed, with neither speaking past one another. Contrast this to the Rabbi the other week whom when confronted on his flannelly, post modernist approach to religion practically threw a tantrum.
I agree. It was really cringy watching him ask peter why he didn't kill his mother. It was a non-sequiter anyway being as that he never said he did the right thing, just that a person feels diff when comes to own blood. Doesn't mean feelings are true. But rest of convo was good. And the "rabbi" from last week wasn't a real rabbi. He was reform. Doesn't keep anything that would be described as jewish. Basically just ethnically jewish.
@@stevehays5029 All Singer was saying is that there was good arguments for it. Even if he agreed with the fact, it still doesn't have to be that he could bring himself to do it. For example; if there was a choice between you dying or 10 other people then everyone would agree that the moral thing for you to do is volunteer. But it is still hard to do and most people wouldn't. It doesn't show that it is the moral thing to let them die instead of you just because you chose that. There are still biases to consider. So there is nothing logically wrong with him saying what's right on an objective level and not being able to get past his personal feelings and biases to get there. I am religious and fervently disagree with him but I'm just saying that bringing in what someone did in his personal life has no bearings on what that person believes what one ought to do. This is like saying anyone who ever stole something believes that it is what one ought to do. So it was unnecessary and pointless to go there (and a bit cringy to watch someone try to explain why he didn't just kill his mother).
@@stevehays5029 If Singer believed his own ethics he should be very angry at himself for giving 30 to 40 % of his income to the less fortunate.He and others should send it all to one rich kid and hopefully those unfortunates will die off,thereby increasing the overall fortune of all.
If the universe has no purpose, as Singer states, then why are there ethical absolutes at all, which he also admits? If purposes is a term only applying to rational beings or purpose-driven beings, then each person can choose their own purpose and therefore absolute ethics is destroyed. If, in the subjective mind of each rational being, they can go against an absolute ethic, then from where does that absolute ethic derive? Not from any other mind or being from Singer’s view. There can be no ethic without purpose, as ethics requires a target and a target suggests something at which to aim-therefore a purpose arrives in the aiming. Singer wants to say that ethics can be absolute while purpose is subjective. This contradiction is his one primary error. The other major error is his popular claim about evolution. The science shows, as Thomas Nagel honestly admits, that natural selection plus mutation plus time is insufficient to explain the informational aspects of biology, the origin of life, or the new body plans required in the history of biology. James Shapiro, Stephen Meyer, and James Tour -among others- would help to overcome this second error. Christ has two comings. The solution is not yet complete, but as it will be in the end, all suffering will be ended, and eternal life will make the suffering of this life like a thimble set next to the universe. To not understand this is to not understand the God of Christianity. Singer doesn’t reject the God of Christianity but the false God who doesn’t exist that he blames for having no answer for suffering. In The Cider House Rules John Irving has Homer Wells read out the rules to the illiterate workers who live in the Cider House. Mr. Rose, their boss, interrupts him, saying, “They didn’t have to live in the Cider House, those who wrote those rules.” Irving means to equate the rules with the religious who have their rules - like the Ten Commandments. He wants to say that unless someone has walked in the footsteps of those he is making rules for, he has no right to make the rules. Unless he suffers what those who live on this world suffer, it is not his place to tell those who suffer what they can and cannot do. Christianity agrees with this. The one who made the rules therefore became one of us, lived a human life, suffered and died. He was beaten, humiliated, and killed. God is not a taskmaster giving rules arbitrarily. God is the source of all Goodness. To reject God has consequences just like ignoring gravity has consequences. Ignoring reality or fighting against it leads to harm. Rebellion is often needed to reject error, and is a good thing when it does so, as freedom depends upon truth. Many claim that accepting God is contrary to freedom as it is a submission to a higher authority. But submission is only enslavement if what one submits to is false. If we submit to truth, we have chosen the only path of freedom just as choosing the path of the only bridge across a canyon is the only path to preserve life. The only vision which aligns with what we experience of reason, morality, consciousness, natural law, physical laws, biological requirements, and what we know of love--is Christianity. Its influence on the world has brought us hospitals, universities, science, human rights, market economies, and freedom. Where it spreads these things increase. Where it diminishes, these things diminish.
@James Skene, you say God is the source to all goodness, who decides what actually constitutes 'goodness?, isn't goodness subjective?, Example: 2 young 17 year old beautiful girls who are making love with each other, would you describe that as goodness?
James Skene - " If, in the subjective mind of each rational being, they can go against an absolute ethic, then from where does that absolute ethic derive? " For any group of people who have subjective purposes and preferences there would seem to be better and worse ways of meeting those individual "wants". There might not be a "perfect" solution, since individual preferences may conflict, but I see no reason why there shouldn't, objectively, be a "best" way. It might not be clear or agreed upon how to achieve this goal, but that doesn't suggest to me that it isn't there to be found or sought. "The only vision which aligns with what we experience of reason, morality, consciousness, natural law, physical laws, biological requirements, and what we know of love--is Christianity. Its influence on the world has brought us hospitals, universities, science, human rights, market economies, and freedom. Where it spreads these things increase. Where it diminishes, these things diminish. " So, if most people tended to value freedom and health and security and education/learning, there would be practical benefits to adopting certain ethical behaviours/standards and discouraging others?!
The universe has no purpose but we can choose a purpose to live by. You wouldn't be happy if an authority declares your purpose is to be poor, or sick. You're alive, how do you decide live is your decision and your's alone.
What does it mean for something to be “good,” or “bad”? And, if it means that God says it’s “good,” or “bad,” then what does He mean when He says that?
So have I got this right? God creates a world knowing full well it's going to go to shit and then he sends himself as a sacrifice to himself because of a rule that he made up. How do smart people believe in such utter nonsense? Someone please explain.
Many many children have been born when doctors recommended abortion that became great accomplished and some famous humans that contributed great things to the world. My point is that these efforts are the business of our creator.
Go adopt a down syndrome baby. If they were all adopted by good families it's likely many fewer families would choose adoption over abortion, at least some would. So set an example.
Felt like Bannister wasnt engaging much, very frustrating. Whenever Singer debunks his argument, Bannister just moves on to some other long diatribe about his own life which he then attempts to turn into a new argument - like a smoke screen for how his last argument fell apart.
It is fascinating how an apparently normal human brain can organize it's perception as to fit any set of implanted religious concepts to the exclusion of all conflicting verifiable facts. Scarry, but interesting.
I just want to comment on how this academic discussion is so useful and fruitful and completely different than the type of thinking that is coming out of academia these days. Rational thought used to be common and it seems to be replaced with emotional outrage and a subversion of rational civility
0:21 what’s good , if good is being truthful scientific highly awaken , in the human case it means knowing themselves, which is very necessary or good , than what you understand with God , meaning either someone who Created a supernatural creature who made put in place things or directly created the unmixed elements and than let them play out , this is needed to understand and you’re good through this understanding
I think Peter Singer held his ground admirably here, despite all the attacks launched at him and his work. I would have liked to hear his response to the assertion that the Euthyphro dilemma is false 'because God is the Good'. He could have answered that it's just a reframing of the argument and that one can just as well ask "is God's nature good because it's God's or is God's nature God's because it's good?" whereby the same dilemma emerges. As regards the question of "purpose", we need to be careful. When we talk about purpose, we refer to an intention or plan. For example the purpose of a wallet is to contain money because we designed it with that intention in mind. A star has no purpose. It was not intended to burn helium, but it just does. Likewise humans have no purpose on an atheistic account, because we were not designed with some intention in mind. When we say "we make our own purposes", what we are referring to is our intention to do this, that, or the other. What we can say is that we plan to do X, Y or Z with the purpose of A, B or C, but it's our plans that contain purpose, not us as creatures.
I disagree. Singer has just become noncommittal. I heard: Bannister - “we know what’s good because god.” Singer - “no. we can have objective moral truths without god.” Bannister - “really? How?” Singer - “we just do.” Bannister - “why don’t we call that god?” Singer - “because I don’t want to” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I agree with Bannister here, I’m just saying Singer didn’t represent atheist morality very well, in my opinion.
@@ericb9804 I don't think that's a good summary of Singer's line of argument. He said that we just agree that suffering is bad, and morality develops out of that. You have to start somewhere and suffering is as good a place as any other.
@@flaze3 "You have to start somewhere and suffering is as good a place as any other." absolutely, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement of "objective morality". I confess, I watched this in the background, so perhaps a missed a nuance somewhere, but at 27:00 Singer agrees that he posits some kind of "objective truth". He compares it to "mathematical truth" but says the word "existence" can be "misinterpreted" (whatever that means). Singer says, 28:05 he is a naturalist, but not in the "ethical sense" and then proceeds to talk about the naturalistic fallacy. He goes on to say that because we are "rational beings" we can "discover" some kind of "normative truth". Justin reacts with incredulity, saying rightfully, 29:10 "Many atheists would deny that view". In fact, the look on his Justin's face in the moments where Singer is explaining this seem to be saying, "HA! you drank the kool-aide. Welcome to the craziness." The theists just let this go because they are making the same unsubstantiated claim that morals are "objectively true". And, at least in the context of this video, Singer never explains in more detail how exactly morals "exist" or why he thinks they do aside from casual remarks that people use reason.
@@ericb9804 well I don't believe in objective morality either, but I'm sympathetic towards Singer's position. As I understand it, his idea is that since we all agree that suffering is bad and therefore 'should' be avoided, the objectiveness of morality stems from this fact. Is it false that suffering should be avoided? Do you think it is meaningless to say it should be avoided? Personally I would say that it is in our best interests to avoid suffering, and so if we want to avoid suffering we should act in X way. I don't think there's any objective supernatural force in the world, and I don't think Singer does either.
flaze3 you and I have a similar understanding of what morality means under atheism. But it’s not what Singer was describing in the video. If you think otherwise, feel free to send me time stamps from the video, maybe I missed it.
"Raise them to have good moral character." ...yes, obviously. Why? So that they don't die (ending the genetic line) and that they don't act in a way that your grandkids die, and on and on. Here's a different approach...what makes you think your genes care about you? Your genes exist to keep the social group alive. The social group is more important than the individual (you). The goals of your 'drives' are to keep the group going, not necessarily to keep you happy. Like I posted earlier, it just so happens that groups that value the reduction of individual suffering have an adaptive advantage.
Heres a fun thesis: We are "religious" creatures in terms of the need for community, rules, cooperation sense of purpose and meaning, but our will to reproduce created religion (in the dogmatic sense) because some individuals had a harder time at achieving reproduction. That way they could convince their peers of having higher moral value, authority and a status that women likes when other aspects of their power were failing. Much of the same mechanisms could be posited to the universities as well.
Do Christians believe that ethics can only be real and meaningful if created by a God like entity? If so, would they not also need to apply this logic to that God itself ie who created the Gods ethics, in order for it to be meaningful? It is perfectly rational to believe that ethics emerged gradually as humans came into existence
Peter Singer comes across as the more sincere. Bannister is a brilliant speaker, who probably needs to be to dodge around the flawed Christian beliefs. I thought good, Singer has proposed the Suffering question into the conversation, something which indoctrinates like Andy would never initiate. But when it came to AB's turn to address it, he typically of his ilk, spent 1,000 words of convoluted nondescription before angling cleverly to another tangent. He knew Singer had him on this point, therefore answering it politician style
Very sublime even with the atheist Peter Singer, who impressed me as I am a Christian to hear that he is more than a notch higher in his giving than many Christians. He follows the example of the Lord’s saying. It is better to give than to receive . To me the answer to the sufferings in the world that troubles Peter, is to make us compassionate and sacrificial, which has a triple value 1) elevate the spirit of the giver. 2) touch the heart of the receiver. 3) sublimate our society from abase living.
@@jerklecirque138 Yes indeed Austin, I agree. When you look at natural disasters which kill and destroy, if you remove the God aspect, it makes a lot more sense as to why these things occur. It's something I've given a lot of thought to over the years, and the more you think about it, the less God seems a viable answer. The problem of evil and suffering is a weak link in the Christian chain. Atheism doesn't solve it, ( it's not meant to) but it explains it far better.
@@brando3342 Suppose you saw a large rock rolling down a hillside toward a young child. You have ample time to warn the child with no risk to yourself, but you decline to do so. Have you not acted immorally, and is this not an analogous situation to a powerful deity watching idly while nature wreaks havoc on innocent animals?
@@brando3342 I didn't claim that nature was evil, but rather that a thinking agent who could easily prevent needless suffering but chooses not to do so is evil. That Yahweh has already promised not to intervene should not be seen as an escape hatch. It was immoral for him to make that promise, just as it would be for a human to promise not to help another human.
@@brando3342 Brando You aren't engaging with my comments, which have specifically been about natural suffering that befalls mankind (not human evil). I don't find Biblical accounts for divine hidenness compelling. Clearly you do, but I think you make excuses for the inexcusable in order to do so. I found it extremely liberating to give up the mental contortions associated with apologetics. Perhaps you would, as well. I hope you will consider it with an open mind. Take care.
~30:00 - Singer's comment about garlic in his food gave me a thought: since he's seemingly convinced of moral truths based on human feelings about those things, maybe he should also be prepared to believe in taste truths. Maybe there's a special realm where the facts '1 + 1 = 2,' 'killing animals is wrong' and 'chocolate is delicious' all exist together.
That's an interesting idea! I think that would be platonism, i.e. realism about abstract objects. The problem is that even if objective moral values (such as "killing animals is wrong") do exist in some platonic realm, there would be no mechanism to translate them into moral duties-i.e. no reason for people to actually act accordingly.
If God created morality, why didn’t He decide to make everything good so, that way nothing bad could happen? If life is a test, what is it a test for? Determining who goes to heaven and hell? And, what is the point of people going to those places? Why didn’t God set up the rules in a way where everyone could go to heaven, if that’s the best place for them to go?
" Do we need god to be good?" Absolutely NO ! If one needs a god to be good, that one lacks empathy, not some imagined being who he's supposed to fear .
If it is a fact that your choice is determined and you could not do otherwise, morality would be a mere word game based on the falsehood that "you" can "choose" right or wrong. "You" would in fact be no more "responsible" for your actions than a tree. "You" would just be determined to follow determined preferences that were determined to seem "right". Unless a part of you is an undetermined determiner you cannot "choose". Thus, holding "you" as a cause of your actions is a falsehood that can determine "you" to do differently. Morality is impossible in materialism. It would be a mere control mechanism based on a falsehood.
Materialists should be advocating to send "criminals" to hospitals to fix their determined actions -- unless they think jail is the only thing that can serve that function -- and should only look at them in terms of healthy and unhealthy. But justice could not be anything more than an illusion in a materialistic frame. Can you hold a billiard ball responsible for hitting another billiard ball into oblivion?
You could act on that billiard ball in a way so it doesn't do that again, but there is no part of the billiard ball that is responsible for the outcome. "The whole show" would be the actual cause. You holding it responsible to effect its future effects may work, but at no time was it actually responsible and choose its action.
JR Byrne. Well said. All true. Funny things materialists say: "Being a rational materialist/determinist and a free thinker, I decided to consciously weigh the evidence for and against the existence of a soul (independent Self) in my mind using reason and logic. I then, based on this conscious evaluation of the evidence, made a rationally based decision that the soul does not exist. So why does the soul not exist? It is really very logical: Simply because there is no independent Self that could consciously weigh the evidence for or against a certain hypothesis, and then, based on this conscious evaluation of the evidence, make a rationally based decision. A soul ---- what a stupid idea! All rational people know that we are just mindless machines."
@@MidiwaveProductions Lol. Well done sir. "I think therefore I am" -- Self evident. ""I" think there is no evidence "I" think therefore "I" think "I" am not." -- Materialistic/scientism self-inflicted pathology. ""I" just don't see any evidence of materialism being false. God should have made it more apparent"
"Christianity is most admirably adapted to the training of slaves, to the perpetuation of a slave society; in short, to the very conditions confronting us today. The rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instill it into the blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun." ~ Emma Goldman
what a great debate. Peter singer wants to have his cake and eat it too! He doesn't want to be called a naturalist and yet feel that some forms of altruism or some purpose in life is better than the others? Doesn't make sense.
One criticism I have of my fellow atheists is the tendency to reject the moral of the idea of original sin as it was probably originally engineered. I think we can all assume that original sin was meant to convey the idea that humans are not moral simply by means of existence. Living a moral life requires genuine work, consideration, and bravery. Many of my fellow atheists seem to act as though they are unshackled from the moral of the original sin story, because the original sin story likely did not happen. But the moral is still incredibly important. And now it seems that many of my fellow atheists quickly run to nihilism in the face of topics such as: animal rights, charity for the poor, or assisted suicide. It really is disturbing to see how atheists will ignore those debates under the pretense that morality is just an illusion or it's just an evolutionary trait to propogate your genes (and thus no genuine consequences of right and wrong can stem from them) and quickly turn into the stereotypical amoral atheist that televangelists try to paint all atheists as.
Well done debate. Both sides help me explore my own beliefs. While a God could explain ethics I don't see it it as the best explanation of the world as we see it. I might want there to be a God to give the world a purpose but wanting doesn't make it so. I'm with Peter, we need to make our own purpose.
So what are you doing to ease the suffering of severely disabled children you have voted should be born, no abortions allowed. Are you doing anything to help them? Is that just a slogan? Are you adopting those kids? Volunteering? Or waiting for a god to help them.
Can't believe Singer saying that it would be more evolutionary advantageous for us to just help our close family and friends rather than those without a direct reciprocal relationship to us. We are not isolated, we are a part of societies in which we and our families must live, it makes perfect sense that we would try to help those around us to improve society as a whole because this benefits us and create the sort of society in which others my help us or our loved ones in the future. Giving up your seat for an old lady on a bus, whom you will never see again is in part trying the create the kind of society where strangers will help your own elderly mother on a bus one day. Being self-less is ultimately selfish in such wide ranging way.
@Oners82 exactly! Of corse it would be socially advantageous and highly recommended to care even for people or non human animals outside of your close circle of relatives and friends but evolutionary speaking it wouldn't have been advantageous in the past but now that we managed to escape the food chain and obviously we are not targeted by natural selection anymore it is alot more important to do that from a social standpoint.
These debates are pointless, if we don’t agree on the definition of “good,” before the debate begins(and definitions using synonyms don’t count). What are we even debating about, beyond semantics?
Well, parents can suffer too. And what if you have this child and they can't take care of themselves after the parents die? They can happen to any child but it's much more likely here. What if they get abused in a nursing home for decades? I would argue that it's people like you, no disrespect, you are not caring about people, just say "have all babies, it doesn't matter the suffering, because it's not MY problem and I can feel righteous about it, no cost to me". Why not adopt a downs syndrome baby RIGHT NOW?
Thank you for sharing these ideas...one thing they seem to agree on is that humans are ' broken " . My question is can an unbroken human exist in our present reality ? If not , why do we long for it (wholeness) ? Is that longing "God" ? I disliked Andy's jab about mother which was too personal .
@@reubenmiller7484 Lack of imagination? Or stranger to reality? Or just some one-word-odd-type? ANY life situation is better than no life? Can you explain? I can imagine about a thousand life situations I wouldn't want to be in and you can't come up with one? Strange. Wonder what makes you think this way... Have you really given this a thought? Really? You are saying life is preferable to any kind of suffering. Why? Can you convince me that's your actual stans?
I find it curious that you would be amazed a non-believer doesn't know or understand Christianity. Do you know and understand all the religions that you don't believe?
I think he's right to be at least a little surprised at the level of ignorance of an academic who frequently criticizes Christianity publicly. Surely, we ought to hold Singer to a higher standard.
@Paul Simon McCarthy I've read the Bible five times, the New Testament roughly 10 times. I've read the Bible in 90 days. I read it daily. What's your point again?
Speaking of reducing the amount of suffering in the world. If you have a child that will suffer with an illness all its life, it will make the parents suffer too and could break up the marriage causing the mother to have to cope alone.
I don’t understand why many are crying foul because Andy personalized Peter’s general philosophy on euthanizing human beings that have less human dignity on a sliding scale of less cognitive function (like the anencephaly baby Peter brought up) by asking Peter if his mother with dementia was an outlier in his own ethic when she was alive. It is fair point to be asked in light of Peter’s many statements… unless one thinks that a philosopher’s family members should be insulated from the philosopher’s ethic.
The question I would have for Andy Bannister is, if the story of the garden of eden is allegorical, what could have possibly gone wrong with creation? Why couldn't god have simply created a paradisiacal planet that encouraged the evolution of animals without suffering on it?
I don’t think thoughtful people debate whether god exists so much as is it better (or not) to think in terms of god. And it’s reasonable for people to differ without anyone being wrong. For me materialist philosophies fall short even though I have no supernatural beliefs.
Aren’t religious people also ruled by there pleasures just as much as atheists are? You mean to tell me that, if not following God got you into heaven and following God got you into hell but, it was still good to follow God, you would follow God just for the sake of doing good? We’re all ruled by pleasure and pain. We just have different perceptions of what results most in those things.
53.34 their was a star trek TNG episode called masterpiece society. They tried to eliminate suffering and disease. The solution to the planet destroying event was in a blind mans visor.
Andy Bannister's argument are so weak it makes you want to laugh. Bannister: People in the Far East don't think the world is evil. Singer: but they don't believe in the Christian God. Yes but those from the Far East who are Christians don't believe the world is evil...(Bannister's point disappears since if he is right that people in the Far East don't think the world is evil and most are NOT Christian then what is his point?) Bannister: Without God there is no basis for morality. Singer: but no moral being would allow such suffering to continue. Bannister: but God definitely reduced the suffering of the world by giving us Christ and the world is getting better because Pinker said so. Singer But all the same forms of suffering experienced in the year 1 have not changed...so Christ changed nothing and Pinker (of course) does not prove the reduction of suffering he allegedly demonstrates has anything to do with Christ or Christianity.
A society can either be run through rational thought or through power, and if we can't have intelligent discussions like this especially within academia, the only alternative is force. If the current mentality within academia and governmental structures is to dictate law based on emotion and feeling, the only thing in our future is the dominance of tyrannical Fiat
I found that to be truly top notch - they were not only respectful of one another but even amiable, indeed, Peter was able to see and enjoy Andy's witticisms which Andy made at Peter's expense. I've rarely heard Christianity so well and so eruditely defended. As a deist and a full-spectrum naturalist I felt a tad more able to evaluate both points of view than when I was just an atheist. Or when I was a fundamentalist Christian. If 'morality' does exist in any sense in some outside and objective realm as Peter believes, then why not call that realm God ? Not my choice. As a deist I think the creator just made a complete hash of things and has long since departed if not to a galaxy far, far away, more likely to spheres, realms and dimensions not only unknown to us but completely unknowable ever. As a deist I believe (on all the evidence I have been able to evaluate (and it's been a lot)) that the creator built morality - and sentience - into everything - which means I'm a pan-psychic and a pan-moralistic deist - oh yes, I also believe that everything - atoms, molecules, rocks and stones, are fully alive so that makes me a pan-animist, too. I can't loose !! 'Cepts I don't believe in any kind of after-life. I think Andy did the Christian position very proud - really well, B U T I wouldn't like to see him debate Sam Harris any time soon !!! Sam is absolutely - and quite rightly !! - ruthless in his criticism of the Abrahamic religions. Goes for the jugular every time.
Is love which expects rewards really love? If we can not see God act this moment, can he not act? _when two beings who are not friends are near each other there is no meeting, and when friends are far apart there is no separation_ (Simone Weil) Or, as an old bumper sticker once asked, 'Does God seem far away? Who moved?'
Love is a many splendor thing my friend. It comes in many shapes and sizes. Not quite sure what that author meant by not seeing God act, how can you determine such a thing? it's God's hiddenness which always intrigued me.
If god seems far away, it is because HE moved/ left. I mean split as in " later dude". The Deists are cool but they only got it half right. Dont fret tho .Caligula need not take over. Dark night of the soul my friend. Only for awhile tho until you realize God/ Jesus left brcause he dosent like you. Being an equal opportunity hater he threw his hands up & basically said i made a big mistake. As he began to turn around , he looked at Satan. Satan basically said "dont look at me i hate these little shitballs too." They went their seperate ways & that was that. So again i remind you that if god feels far away it is because he is hidden & you wont find him cause he KNOWS where to hide. He moved his all tough loving behind elsewhere. Just get used to it & move on. Tomorrow is another day my friend.
Thanks for that one. I'm agnostic with deist views and like Marcion and early Gnostics I believe there's might be a malevolent demi-god that have created that reality on Earth. And also reincarnation might be the key to the whole. Even buddhists and hinduism believe who have to escape that reality.
@1:01:33 (or earlier for Andy's prompt for his response) The question I'd want to ask Peter Singer: How do you know there is no purpose? [this is a question of epistemology] He said that it is 'unscientific' to hold the view that life has a purpose, and I'd agree with him, but ethics itself is field of study and questioning about a metaphysical category. Ethical values are not 'scientific' in the sense that it is a property of the natural/physical world that can be investigated with our senses (a fact I'm sure he'd concede since he affirms the idea of an ethical truths or objects). If we want to know whether there is a purpose, then we have to investigate the question of whether purpose(s) has/have been revealed from whatever / whoever is (or are) the metaphysical grounding of ethics. Obviously Christians (and other kinds of theists) will answer this in the affirmative with the actions of God in history. I'd encourage anyone reading this to investigate the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and determine whether the testimonies of his deity, death, and resurrection stand up to scrutiny.
@Ross Peterson Having investigated the historicity of Jesus, I'm willing to bet that he existed and claimed to be the messiah. I'm unsure of your stance. However I can not see how it would be justified to accept the claim of his physical resurrection given what we know about reality. We need to consider the possible candidates for an explanation. We can demonstrate that: People regularly make mistakes/are mistaken people die for their sincere beliefs even if mistaken. People lie Stories become more elaborate over time People conspire Eye witness accounts are unreliable We haven't demonstrated: The supernatural (a prerequisite for the resurrection). A supernatural containing a God Decomposing bodies returning to life/resurrecting. Based on this it's only reasonable to rank what we can demonstrate/know to occur as more probable/likely as the explanation than what we cannot demonstrate to occur. It may or may not be the case that a supernatural and god exist capable of resurrections, however until they have been demonstrated how can they serve as possible candidates for an explanation let alone the most likely?
@@robb7855 Its the position of methodological naturalism, a tentative position, requiring a demonstration of the supernatural before we attribute causation to it. A statement of faith would be accepting the claim the supernatural exists. In absence of this, i'm withholding accepting/believing that claim until a sufficient demonstration/evidence is provided. We cant pretend the supernatural and its claimed manifestation is evidenced clearly, sufficiently and as reliably as the natural, hence why supernatural explanations cannot rank as more likely a cause. First we need a clear demonstration the supernatural exists and can serve as a cause. Do you have a reliable to method to do so or is it a faith position?
@@Daz19 You are claiming it does not exist. That is a positive factual claim without any proof. Thus, it is faith based. Your faith based system requires proof (physical evidence), my faith based system requires truth (coherent logical arguments).
@@robb7855 You need to reared my comment. I clearly stated I do not expected the claim a supernatural exist, the doesn't mean I except the negation. I'm instead with holding my acceptance/belief of the claim until it meets its burden of proof. For example, Imagine a box of Tiktaks, it contains either an odd or even number of Tiktaks. Without being able to investigate/examine the box I am asked If I accept the claim it contains an odd number of Tiktaks. In response I reject the claim it has an odd number as I have not seen a demonstration/evidence/proof of such. However that does not mean I accept the claim it contains an even number of Tiktaks. Therefor as my previous comment stated, I'm withholding my acceptance/belief of the claim there is a supernatural (odd number Tiktaks) until it has been demonstrated. Has that helped you understand my position? Okay I'll humour you. Whats your best logical argument(s) that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the supernatural exists, containing a god that resurrected a decomposing body? Also how do you establish the truth of your premises with out proof? One can make all the valid logical argument they like but that does not make them sound.
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
Unbelievable? Would love to see Jeff durbin on your channel along with the (Pine Creek) guy share their views on your channel
Go Home... Look at your upvote/downvote. lol
As an atheist I absolutely love Justin. He is by far my favorite theist interviewer. He treats us atheists with respect and comes across as genuine. Keep up the great interviews. I really enjoyed the dialogue between Peter and the theist. Peter is a brilliant thinker.
Tim Doran aw thanks. Means a lot.
@@PremierUnbelievable thanks Justin, I used to be a Christian so I really relate to you. You treat us kind and respectful which is not often the case. I found you through Alex O'Connor. I was impressed the way you talked to him. Since then I've subscribed and watched all your videos. Wish you all the best.
@@Fuzzawakka a fellow CosmicSkeptic fan I see. I too am also a big fan of Justin.
Real brilliant thinkers believe in God.
Narrow thinkers believe they know enough about God to not believe in God.
Peter Singer believes God can't exist because God won't act as a butler. That's very narrow and not 'brilliant'.
CauseAndEffect most brilliant thinkers are atheists.
I absolutely love the sincerely respectful way that Peter and Andy discuss ideas that they disagree about. They both clearly and confidently present their arguments, but neither of them seems motivated by "winning" the argument. They both seem to truly hear the other and have open minds that could be swayed or changed if they were to hear a sufficiently convincing argument or evidence. Far too often the participants in discussions or debates such as this one are extremely close-minded and exhibit an air of intellectual, moral, or spiritual superiority.
These types of talks are way more interesting and fruitful than the exhausted "atheism vs Christianity" debates.
why do you suppose atheism and Christianity to be strict alternatives or mutually exclusive? May a being not live christ's precepts and reject all the goddist mumbo jumbo? The difficulty for you and that is that neither you nor anyone else not privy to the tradition of the way of christ have *absolutely no* idea what christ's precepts were and virtually no-one could live them which is probably why there *Are_No* christians, not..... a..... single...... one
There are as many flavours of soi-disant atheists as there are soi-disant christians-but then there*Are_No christians and even fewer atheists, not that they are strict alternatives.
Why contaminate the idea of god with all that good/ evil, right/ wrong, morality/ethics religious mumbo jumbo?- That is pure savage an anthropomorphic fcuk-the-commandments idolatry, but of course you can't help that; you can o more not be an idolater than you could ever be able to be able to be a christian.
Great to watch this polite debate between Peter and Andy again. I like the way Peter cleared up some of the misconceptions Andy and Justin had about his views. It's not easy to find holes in the arguments of a philosophical heavyweight like him. He is logical, easy to understand and forceful.
Wonderfully pleasant discussion. This has been one of the least confrontational and positive conversations I've seen, debating such contentious ideas, in a long time. Well done!
Agreed! Bannister seems to be very adept at engaging in conflict while disarming his opponent. I really enjoyed this one. I've been astounded at the profound evil represented by Singer's arguments, and appreciated hearing them directly from him. As I expected, when presented with a flaw in his reasoning, he pivoted or equivocated. He really has no choice. The basis for his arguments is fundamentally flawed and unsupportable.
@@bkf8166 You saw this very differently from me. Peter was generous and intellectually honest. Andy repeatedly straw manned, gish galloped, and declined to engage with ideas deeply. I'm not saying Peter's ideas are right and Andy's are wrong, just pointing out the differences in how they engaged with ideas, here.
@@TheKrunel You are 100% correct! I did see this completely differently. Perhaps because I've judged Peter Singer to be a monster. In one breath, he advocates for the humane treatment of animals, and completely horrible inhumane treatment of humans in the womb. He's even advocated for allowing infanticide post partum. HIs logic is so inconsistent that nothing (literally) that he says can be trusted.
Singer is an absolute giant of a thinker, love his work.
@Trolltician how so?, I thought he made a lot of sense.
@Trolltician, agreed. He seems remarkably shallow. I thought like him as a 6 year old but fortunately became a deeper person with age.
@@WilliamBrownGuitar Agreed. Not only shallow. He's what Chesterton would have called a Maniac. I think he's dangerous to that. I pray for him. And God bless Bannister, who I think was to nice.
Twenty Faces z
@@CziffraNum Singer is a maniac?, he comes across to me as a deep thinker who has come to the conclusion that the problem of suffering can't be solved by belief in a Christian God.
Justin is brilliant and very likable! I really appreciate his understanding the issues well enough to ask the most pertinent questions..... Kudos!
I thought it very wrong that Andy used Peter's mother in the discussion. I thought that though he apologised beforehand, that does not absolve him of trying to make a point in very poor judgement and indeed, the purpose of the apology was simply to enable him to bring the point out for discussion.
Perhaps worse is when he wasn’t sharing the story correctly either. He left out important details to make the story sound more favorable to his position.
You are now importing moral duties and obligations to treat others well
So refreshing to hear two respectful people who are well read, knowledgeable and thoughtful discussing controversial topics with respect and dignity. A complete role model for all the other screamers and head bangers out there. THANK YOU.
Here's a few comments on why this is a useful discussion:
1. Singer is representative of the modern secular intellectual. Sure, he advocates some highly controversial ethical positions, but his general outlook isn’t fringe. In a sense, he’s only controversial because he’s willing to say openly what he takes to be the logical implications of his worldview. Singer takes for granted the standard naturalistic evolutionary account of human origins. His approach to ethics is a modern, sophisticated version of utilitarianism. He doesn’t have a religious bone in his body, so it would seem, and he doesn’t think there’s the slightest reason to believe in God. I got the impression he could barely conceal his incredulity at Bannister’s views. I suspect he rarely interacts with orthodox Christian intellectuals.
2. Singer trots out the old Euthyphro problem as if it deals a swift death-blow to any divine command theory of ethics, but there’s no evidence that he’s familiar with (or even interested in) the standard responses that have been offered by Christian philosophers. He also thinks the problem of suffering is devastating to any theistic worldview; he can’t begin to understand why an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator would allow the amount and intensity of suffering we find in the world. (Note how much he rests on assumptions about *what God would* or *wouldn’t do.* Atheists just can’t help theologising!) All of this is fairly typical of 21st-century atheist intellectuals: smart and articulate, yet superficial and uninformed in their criticisms of Christian theism.
3. On the whole, Bannister does a fine job in response: a good model for Christian apologists. He’s done his homework. You can tell he’s read Singer’s major works and he’s taken note of shifts in Singer’s views over the course of his career. Bannister is winsome in his demeanour and has a good self-deprecating sense of humour. He’s a clear and effective communicator, deploying some nice illustrations to make his points. He tries to get at the root issues in a serious fashion, rather than trying to score ‘gotcha’ points
4. For my money, the most interesting point that came up in the exchange was this: *Singer is still an ethical utilitarian but now describes himself as a moral non-naturalist.* A moral non-naturalist thinks there are real moral values that cannot be derived from or reduced to natural (i.e., scientific) facts. Apparently several years ago Singer changed his mind about whether there are objective moral values, i.e., moral norms that are independent of human thoughts, feelings, social conventions, etc. He now thinks there are such values, and his utilitarianism needs to incorporate them in order to bridge David Hume's infamous is-ought gap. I take this to be quite a significant concession.
Consequently, what’s striking about this exchange with Bannister is that Singer is operating with *two distinct philosophical frameworks,* and he subtly shifts back and forth between them depending on the point being pressed. Sometimes Singer answers questions from the standpoint of hard-nosed metaphysical naturalism. There’s no objective meaning or purpose in the universe! The neo-Darwinian evolutionary account of human origins is correct! Modern science has discredited the idea of final causes! Yet at other times - whenever the ethical ‘ought’ questions are posed - Singer adopts his moral non-naturalist stance, helping himself to objective moral norms to which he somehow has epistemic access. He hops from one foot to the other in the blink of an eye, but gives us no idea about *how he would integrate these two frameworks in a coherent fashion*. How does Singer reconcile his metaphysical naturalism with his moral non-naturalism? We’re left guessing.
To his credit, Bannister picks up on this toward the end and draws a comparison with C.S. Lewis’s intellectual journey from materialism to idealism to deism to theism to Christianity, noting Lewis’s remark that the biggest jump was from materialism to idealism. Bannister somewhat cheekily (but justifiably!) suggested that Singer had slid halfway to idealism. It’s a shame there wasn’t opportunity to explore this point further. Singer has arguably moved to a _less_ consistent position in recent years, faced with the pressure of explanatory gaps in his naturalistic worldview.
I'm an agnostic/deist but your right on the money .
That is a really good summary. On one hand Singer says he now accepts the idea of moral constants in what sounds like a Platonic realm without God. So "goodness" is stable in the same way as universal constants from mathematics or physics. But he also still stands by a model of utilitarianism that tries to answer the is/ought problem using Sam Harris' framework. Those two ideas definitely don't appear to mesh together.
It is an excellent summary. I think at the end of the day it really does come down to suffering and the problem of evil for Peter Singer. He can't reconcile this with a God and I think that is an understandable position. It can't be dismissed easily despite what most Christians think and I say this as someone who believes in God.
This is an excellent summary of my feelings as well. A lot of the people coming to this on Singers side have commented that he "destroyed" Bannister, but I think this is more accurate.
I agree with Peter Singer that a being’s dignity or worth is not predicated on membership to a specific species. Andy Bannister seems to believe it does and he never addressed this sufficiently.
When put under a magnifying glass, speciesism crumbles.
@@AV57 frankly it crumbles even if in the peripheral vision, it would seemingly take some extraordinary mental gymnastics to argue for from any angle
Peter Singer is a wonderful writer and thinker. This was a superb discussion and I really enjoyed watching it.
Bannister on his best behaviour. Certainly better than the tripe he has posted to his own website recently, including apologia for a Christian god in a covid world. Truly eye rolling stuff.
Peter Singer is a truly great mind. Wonderful conversation.
Do you hold the same view he holds regarding abortion and infanticide????
@@jerardosc9534 yea, he's pretty based
@@perplexingpantheon “he pretty based” ???
Im not sure what you mean…..
@@jerardosc9534 that is a slang term.
It means his argument is well grounded and he seems confident in what he sais.
It is a meme expression so it probably means that but a little less formally.
@@Skurian_krotesk yea i guess you can say abortion and infanticide is well grounded in evil and wickedness
Interesting talk and absolutly wonderful moderator, just intervening enough and letting the discussion flow. This could have been even better if Andy didn't jump from point to point and faced more rigorous questions from Peter and the moderator. Andy bringing up Mr. Singer's mother struck me as a bit disrespectful, or at least the way he approached that topic.
Great respectful conversation.
As an atheist, I would say that my sense of right and wrong is simply an extrapolation of my own experience of the world.
I see organisms that look and behave like I do, and I see them respond to suffering in much the same way I would.
1:13:27
" what we do is we place the evidence on the table and ask which best explains the range of evidence that we have."
And there we have it. The reason so many people can convince themselves they have answers to the unexplainable.
If you want to know what's true you can't just pick the thing that appears to be the closest match. You should build evidence to shape a conclusion and tentatively hold confidence proportionate to that evidence until presented with further evidence. In many cases we may not have enough, or any, good evidence to make a conclusion.
This deep desire to have answers with whatever evidence we have is how we get deceived.
Aww how cute
Geoff King, I'd like to know how you evaluated the decision to make your post, given it's content.
Geoff King what evidence do you have for this conclusion?
Well... in that case, we probably would not have any basis for science developed. It's no wonder the scientific revolution happened during the "Christian" revolution, because wise people followed their reason, intuition and the evidence on hand to search for knowledge. Despite everything we know, most knowledge is still nothing but a mere theory. There is absolutely nothing we are 100% sure of, therefore, to believe that we have certainty in anything is just foolishness...
But making decisions without full evidence is how every human has ever made decisions throughout human history, you can't be sure that you won't get hit by a car when you walk out your door in the morning, but you walk out your door anyways, you have faith that it's the correct decision.
The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence.
There's nothing that we do in our life with full proof, even the things we see with our eyes we have to trust We are seeing correctly, that trust is called faith
Thank you very much. For my money, one of the best conversations I’ve watched on the show.
What a thoughtful, eloquent and congenial discussion between two sincere people who believe different things, and don't feel the urge to personally insult each other. Good mediation as well.
Peter you are an amazing human .. Keep up the good work.
Always a pleasure listening to Peter Singer; he is so clear and logical in his arguments.
@@thrisighsty If you are basing human rights on dependency, you won't get very far. There is a good reason Singer does not do that. He ties his system to moral agency, the ability to have preferences and make choices. If you connect duties/rights to dependency then you have an ethic that doesn't allow for the rearing of children, care for the elderly/sick, giving to the poor, etc...
@@thrisighsty You are describing bodily autonomy. I don't think anyone would deny that is a factor when looking at abortion but its also not the end of the debate. There are multiple possible values to be weighed. As an example specific to pregnancy, most people would agree that a pregnant woman who uses drugs or alcohol resulting in fetal impairment has acted immorally.
The example you give of requiring someone to donate an organ isn't a good argument. We are discussing moral systems - so the question needs to be structured as what is the moral choice. What can be justified to force others to do is a different standard than a personal moral standard. A better way to consider this is would it be immoral for a mother to refuse a liver transplant to her child? Its important to understand the moral difference in making a personal choice vs requiring other to follow that moral code by force.
@@thrisighsty I am not sure if you are a native English speaker but your statement is quite difficult to read and understand. You said "You can't force a women to donate her liver to her 3 year old, same goes to a womans body and a fetus inside." It is a very different thing to make a moral judgement for yourself vs forcing another to abide by your standard. Its perfectly consistent to argue that what this imaginary woman did is immoral but that we shouldn't force her to take a different action. When we have ethical discussions we start by trying to determine moral/immoral and not legal/illegal.
I am not sure why you are trying to convince me of your position on the legality of abortion. Again, you should start with moral/immoral not legal/illegal. Also I was correcting you on using dependency as a moral defense of abortion since this is not Singer's position. If you think its a great argument, thats all well and good but it isn't what he is arguing.
I think the one thing that theists miss when they say that objective morality comes from God, is the fact that moral judgments from an atheist perspective often come from empathy - the product of evolution. We know that to cause suffering is wrong because most of us have experienced it, and can imagine that unnecessarily causing suffering to another can’t be good. Of course, some people lack empathy, and they tend to do things that most would classify as “bad” for this very reason.
What is the theistic argument for why psychopaths feel no remorse when they kill, for example? Did God just forget to instill good values in them? I think not.
Great discussion. Both respectful and still explored their world views
1:17:39 Possibly the best comeback i’ve ever heard bravo Peter😂
I did not understand. Could you elaborate? 😅
I think this is what he meant. Andy bannister was saying how someone he knew progressed from different stages and uses the word ‘slid’. This would indicate a fall and not a progression
One of the best moderators I’ve listened to so far 👍
Both Peter and Andy were excellent and the mutual respect and civility of their conversation was quite refreshing. Also Justin the interviewer is very good at framing the discussion so that the average person can understand the material being covered. Great video subscribed.
This video is criminally underwatched. So many of yours are.
Peters symmetrical smile combined with a right side head tilt, ...speaks volumes.
Glad he addresses inflicting pain...
Think it is a pity that Andy keeps trying to support his points through references to other philosophers etc. If he has a good point then it should stand on its own.
Mr Bannister seemed to dance around the questions and points when he didn't have a clear answer. For example, the issue of the Christian god allowing suffering.
Then watch it again. You may also be interested in Lewis's The problem of pain.
I loved the fact that this was a civil discussion but I hated the fact that Andy Bannister kept bring up statements that Peter Singer has said in the past, you're here to debate the topic not the person. 🤷♂️ Much respect for Andy though, don't get me wrong.
👍
He also kept bringing up views of other atheists, as if to subtly imply that Peter holds those views. It’s sneaky, and Andy should just ask what Peter thinks instead of quoting other atheists.
@@jaronhall Yep. It was poor form and a little personal for my tastes.
The thiest is great at dancing around the questions presented by Peter. Wish he would actually answer the questions instead of deflecting.
He didn't deflect. You projected your anti-God self.
CauseAndEffect yes, he did. You projected your sky daddy self.
The theist acts a bit like a politician in that respect.
Thank you! :)
Peter Singer is very impressive. Well played sir.
The way John Lennox raised the issue of Peter Singer's mother's illness was insensitive. When Peter corrected something about what happened to his own mother Lennox still thought it appropriate to interrupt. For me that says a lot. Peter Singer proving that even when he must have been quite uncomfortable, well I would be in that situation, he still maintained dignity and poise, consistent with his writings. What a legend!
His name is Andy Bannister. And I think you're right, that was a d*ck move towards Singer
There are four main questions which I believe Andy avoided by either changing the subject or using unrelated quotes and arguments:
1. Are the laws given by God arbitrary? Would it be good if God said to murder infants etc.?
2. If god is benevolent, why does suffering exist? Why does it exist despite god's effort to eliminate it (through the crucification etc.)
3. Why are humans different than any other conscious creature?
4. How can we get goodness from god? Why is it better to take our ideals of goodness from god instead of from our own rationality?
For your second question, I believe that rather than to eliminate suffering, crucifixion in the bible and Jesus' life story, in general, is rather a resemblance of God's effort to suffer together with us that are currently living in this broken world.
@@felixsiswanto8561 This just avoids the real problem here. The claim is that god is omnipotent and cares about everyone, wants to end suffering. Yet he does not so either he doesn't care or he can't end suffering. This is classical Epicurian dilema. We can always explain that god has a certain plan or that free will exists, but that just further detracts from his omnipotence and undermines his desire to help people.
@@velar123 God/Allah is.. the creator so he's responsibility/Purpose is not "too work for us" but rather we should be admiringly lucky and blessed to be part of Allah's power and almighty.... Everything is a test for us and that God perfectly can sustain and his existence can still Be, without his "creation"
Just as, logo toys a child puts together and later disassembles it.... The child still is present without his/her structure.... Simplicity
Great stimulating discussion.
Wonderful discussion. Justin, I think you may have missed your calling as a negotiator or mediator. The fact that the arguments remain pointed and without the usual "Bulverism" from many atheists in all your podcasts is a testament to your Christian walk. GOD Bless!
*The fact that the arguments remain pointed and without the usual "Bulverism" from many atheists*
Oh, the irony....
@@HughJaxident67 How so? I don't hear Christians making the same proclamations as Dawkins: (2012 "Rally for Reason") - "Mock Christians in public". PZ Meyers - We need to take out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles and confront Christians." Irony?
@@sandypidgeon4343
You've obviously never listened to any creationists then, making assertions like 'atheists don't exist'....Moreover, there is no Bulverism as you state above, only one party is making a claim, the theist - and it's a claim that has never met its burden of proof.
The theist claims a god exists, atheists don't believe the claim - every single damned argument ever offered by theists fails in one way or another and at the end of the day, arguments are not evidence.
@@HughJaxident67 Good evening, Hugh. Yes, I have listed to both the Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic evolutionary claims. The abductive argument has provided the burden of proof against atheist claims of GOD doesn't exist". Singer is making the claim - that's why he is there. Please show me where/when a theistic claim has failed - provide evidence. GOD Bless.
@@sandypidgeon4343
*Yes, I have listed to both the Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic evolutionary claims*
And we know how old the Earth is, 4.5 billion years old, we also know young Earth creationist claims are non-scientific nonsense and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'Theistic evolutionary claims'.
*The abductive argument has provided the burden of proof against atheist claims of GOD doesn't exist*
Nonsense - Atheism doesn't make any claims, it's actually a rejection of theistic claims any god exists. Theists have never met their burden of proof for their claim a god exists, atheism has no burden of proof as it makes no claim. This is philosophy 101.
*Singer is making the claim - that's why he is there*
Well, if at any point in the video Singer claims 'no god exists', then that is a position of anti-theism (sometimes incorrectly referred to as hard atheism) - Does he specifically make this claim in any of this video? Can you time stamp where he did this?
*Please show me where/when a theistic claim has failed - provide evidence*
And again, it is your burden of proof as a theist to support your claim a god exists, anyone not believing a claim never has any requirement to present evidence to the contrary.
Ironic that Singer said, “We ought to be doing…” at 8:46 That is-ought dilemma sneaks up all the time. I was surprised to hear that Springer has shifted his thinking and now holds to an objective moral realm, like a Platonic realm, but is content to believe that these moral values can make moral demands upon us without a moral authority behind them-especially when we get them wrong. Andy is right that moral “oughtness” exists within relationships and thus are not like independent, laws of logic that exist.
Moreover, Peter’s belief in an objective moral realm existing in our world is quickly undone by Peter himself when he later declares that our evolved world “is indifferent to human suffering.” This leaves Peter with only one recourse: to ground objective morality in human rationality. The problem? Peter also believes human rationality is a product of amoral, human evolution.
Peter Singer for me is the most cool, calm and respectful guy on Christianity
Butterfly skin. They can live in pain for up to 40 yrs or more. Then the other disease that gradually turns all muscles to bone. Its also a painful process.
Unbelievable how unbelievably amazing Unbelievable’s debates are
It's been many years since I read Peter Singer. I did speak to the late Clive Hollands, Mary Midgely and Richard Ryder when writing about ethology. It was the early days of the internet and I got an email (I can't remember how) for Peter Singer. My message was responded to by a Peter Singer in the US who said he'd received dozens of emails thinking he was a famous philosopher. At least I tried...
Two perfect gentleman in conversation, fantastic discussion this one.
Idk the Christian dude was hoping around topics constantly he may have ADHD and needs to be kept on topic. I feel as though the moderator dropped the ball they rarely interjected to keep them on topic.
@@bentrinker1937 I agree ☝🏻
Andy was smashing it until he brought into the conversation Singers personal example of his late Mother - I think it is fair, if Singer wishes to speak of his own personal experiences to then pick up off his thread, once the person who's anecdote is being used is the initiator. It's a little off handed, i think to bring it up when it is not your own, deeply personal private experience.. Of course unless permission has already been given.
Other than that point, I thoroughly I enjoyed this debate, what would usually be an explosive topic was deftly discussed, with neither speaking past one another. Contrast this to the Rabbi the other week whom when confronted on his flannelly, post modernist approach to religion practically threw a tantrum.
I agree. It was really cringy watching him ask peter why he didn't kill his mother. It was a non-sequiter anyway being as that he never said he did the right thing, just that a person feels diff when comes to own blood. Doesn't mean feelings are true. But rest of convo was good.
And the "rabbi" from last week wasn't a real rabbi. He was reform. Doesn't keep anything that would be described as jewish. Basically just ethnically jewish.
Daniel Smith I do not agree that Andy was “smashing it”. I found him to be a bit evasive. Bringing up Peter’s mother was a low move.
@@stevehays5029 All Singer was saying is that there was good arguments for it. Even if he agreed with the fact, it still doesn't have to be that he could bring himself to do it. For example; if there was a choice between you dying or 10 other people then everyone would agree that the moral thing for you to do is volunteer. But it is still hard to do and most people wouldn't. It doesn't show that it is the moral thing to let them die instead of you just because you chose that. There are still biases to consider. So there is nothing logically wrong with him saying what's right on an objective level and not being able to get past his personal feelings and biases to get there.
I am religious and fervently disagree with him but I'm just saying that bringing in what someone did in his personal life has no bearings on what that person believes what one ought to do. This is like saying anyone who ever stole something believes that it is what one ought to do. So it was unnecessary and pointless to go there (and a bit cringy to watch someone try to explain why he didn't just kill his mother).
@@stevehays5029 If Singer believed his own ethics he should be very angry at himself for giving 30 to 40 % of his income to the less fortunate.He and others should send it all to one rich kid and hopefully those unfortunates will die off,thereby increasing the overall fortune of all.
@@doriangrey2743 it's like you've never read anything he's ever written or something...
If the universe has no purpose, as Singer states, then why are there ethical absolutes at all, which he also admits? If purposes is a term only applying to rational beings or purpose-driven beings, then each person can choose their own purpose and therefore absolute ethics is destroyed. If, in the subjective mind of each rational being, they can go against an absolute ethic, then from where does that absolute ethic derive? Not from any other mind or being from Singer’s view. There can be no ethic without purpose, as ethics requires a target and a target suggests something at which to aim-therefore a purpose arrives in the aiming.
Singer wants to say that ethics can be absolute while purpose is subjective. This contradiction is his one primary error.
The other major error is his popular claim about evolution. The science shows, as Thomas Nagel honestly admits, that natural selection plus mutation plus time is insufficient to explain the informational aspects of biology, the origin of life, or the new body plans required in the history of biology.
James Shapiro, Stephen Meyer, and James Tour -among others- would help to overcome this second error.
Christ has two comings. The solution is not yet complete, but as it will be in the end, all suffering will be ended, and eternal life will make the suffering of this life like a thimble set next to the universe. To not understand this is to not understand the God of Christianity. Singer doesn’t reject the God of Christianity but the false God who doesn’t exist that he blames for having no answer for suffering.
In The Cider House Rules John Irving has Homer Wells read out the rules to the illiterate workers who live in the Cider House. Mr. Rose, their boss, interrupts him, saying, “They didn’t have to live in the Cider House, those who wrote those rules.” Irving means to equate the rules with the religious who have their rules - like the Ten Commandments. He wants to say that unless someone has walked in the footsteps of those he is making rules for, he has no right to make the rules. Unless he suffers what those who live on this world suffer, it is not his place to tell those who suffer what they can and cannot do. Christianity agrees with this. The one who made the rules therefore became one of us, lived a human life, suffered and died. He was beaten, humiliated, and killed.
God is not a taskmaster giving rules arbitrarily. God is the source of all Goodness. To reject God has consequences just like ignoring gravity has consequences. Ignoring reality or fighting against it leads to harm. Rebellion is often needed to reject error, and is a good thing when it does so, as freedom depends upon truth. Many claim that accepting God is contrary to freedom as it is a submission to a higher authority. But submission is only enslavement if what one submits to is false. If we submit to truth, we have chosen the only path of freedom just as choosing the path of the only bridge across a canyon is the only path to preserve life.
The only vision which aligns with what we experience of reason, morality, consciousness, natural law, physical laws, biological requirements, and what we know of love--is Christianity. Its influence on the world has brought us hospitals, universities, science, human rights, market economies, and freedom. Where it spreads these things increase. Where it diminishes, these things diminish.
@James Skene, you say God is the source to all goodness, who decides what actually constitutes 'goodness?, isn't goodness subjective?, Example: 2 young 17 year old beautiful girls who are making love with each other, would you describe that as goodness?
James Skene - " If, in the subjective mind of each rational being, they can go against an absolute ethic, then from where does that absolute ethic derive? "
For any group of people who have subjective purposes and preferences there would seem to be better and worse ways of meeting those individual "wants". There might not be a "perfect" solution, since individual preferences may conflict, but I see no reason why there shouldn't, objectively, be a "best" way. It might not be clear or agreed upon how to achieve this goal, but that doesn't suggest to me that it isn't there to be found or sought.
"The only vision which aligns with what we experience of reason, morality, consciousness, natural law, physical laws, biological requirements, and what we know of love--is Christianity. Its influence on the world has brought us hospitals, universities, science, human rights, market economies, and freedom. Where it spreads these things increase. Where it diminishes, these things diminish. "
So, if most people tended to value freedom and health and security and education/learning, there would be practical benefits to adopting certain ethical behaviours/standards and discouraging others?!
The universe has no purpose but we can choose a purpose to live by. You wouldn't be happy if an authority declares your purpose is to be poor, or sick. You're alive, how do you decide live is your decision and your's alone.
What does it mean for something to be “good,” or “bad”? And, if it means that God says it’s “good,” or “bad,” then what does He mean when He says that?
Goodness is god so morality cannot exist without god is a circular argument.
So have I got this right? God creates a world knowing full well it's going to go to shit and then he sends himself as a sacrifice to himself because of a rule that he made up. How do smart people believe in such utter nonsense? Someone please explain.
There is no explanation; only wishful thinking-me thinks.
Many many children have been born when doctors recommended abortion that became great accomplished and some famous humans that contributed great things to the world. My point is that these efforts are the business of our creator.
Go adopt a down syndrome baby. If they were all adopted by good families it's likely many fewer families would choose adoption over abortion, at least some would. So set an example.
Felt like Bannister wasnt engaging much, very frustrating. Whenever Singer debunks his argument, Bannister just moves on to some other long diatribe about his own life which he then attempts to turn into a new argument - like a smoke screen for how his last argument fell apart.
It is fascinating how an apparently normal human brain can organize it's perception as to fit any set of implanted religious concepts to the exclusion of all conflicting verifiable facts.
Scarry, but interesting.
Best moderator ever.
I just want to comment on how this academic discussion is so useful and fruitful and completely different than the type of thinking that is coming out of academia these days. Rational thought used to be common and it seems to be replaced with emotional outrage and a subversion of rational civility
0:21 what’s good , if good is being truthful scientific highly awaken , in the human case it means knowing themselves, which is very necessary or good , than what you understand with God , meaning either someone who Created a supernatural creature who made put in place things or directly created the unmixed elements and than let them play out , this is needed to understand and you’re good through this understanding
I think Peter Singer held his ground admirably here, despite all the attacks launched at him and his work. I would have liked to hear his response to the assertion that the Euthyphro dilemma is false 'because God is the Good'. He could have answered that it's just a reframing of the argument and that one can just as well ask "is God's nature good because it's God's or is God's nature God's because it's good?" whereby the same dilemma emerges.
As regards the question of "purpose", we need to be careful. When we talk about purpose, we refer to an intention or plan. For example the purpose of a wallet is to contain money because we designed it with that intention in mind. A star has no purpose. It was not intended to burn helium, but it just does. Likewise humans have no purpose on an atheistic account, because we were not designed with some intention in mind. When we say "we make our own purposes", what we are referring to is our intention to do this, that, or the other. What we can say is that we plan to do X, Y or Z with the purpose of A, B or C, but it's our plans that contain purpose, not us as creatures.
I disagree. Singer has just become noncommittal. I heard:
Bannister - “we know what’s good because god.”
Singer - “no. we can have objective moral truths without god.”
Bannister - “really? How?”
Singer - “we just do.”
Bannister - “why don’t we call that god?”
Singer - “because I don’t want to”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I agree with Bannister here, I’m just saying Singer didn’t represent atheist morality very well, in my opinion.
@@ericb9804 I don't think that's a good summary of Singer's line of argument. He said that we just agree that suffering is bad, and morality develops out of that. You have to start somewhere and suffering is as good a place as any other.
@@flaze3 "You have to start somewhere and suffering is as good a place as any other." absolutely, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement of "objective morality".
I confess, I watched this in the background, so perhaps a missed a nuance somewhere, but at 27:00 Singer agrees that he posits some kind of "objective truth". He compares it to "mathematical truth" but says the word "existence" can be "misinterpreted" (whatever that means). Singer says, 28:05 he is a naturalist, but not in the "ethical sense" and then proceeds to talk about the naturalistic fallacy. He goes on to say that because we are "rational beings" we can "discover" some kind of "normative truth".
Justin reacts with incredulity, saying rightfully, 29:10 "Many atheists would deny that view". In fact, the look on his Justin's face in the moments where Singer is explaining this seem to be saying, "HA! you drank the kool-aide. Welcome to the craziness."
The theists just let this go because they are making the same unsubstantiated claim that morals are "objectively true". And, at least in the context of this video, Singer never explains in more detail how exactly morals "exist" or why he thinks they do aside from casual remarks that people use reason.
@@ericb9804 well I don't believe in objective morality either, but I'm sympathetic towards Singer's position. As I understand it, his idea is that since we all agree that suffering is bad and therefore 'should' be avoided, the objectiveness of morality stems from this fact. Is it false that suffering should be avoided? Do you think it is meaningless to say it should be avoided? Personally I would say that it is in our best interests to avoid suffering, and so if we want to avoid suffering we should act in X way. I don't think there's any objective supernatural force in the world, and I don't think Singer does either.
flaze3 you and I have a similar understanding of what morality means under atheism. But it’s not what Singer was describing in the video. If you think otherwise, feel free to send me time stamps from the video, maybe I missed it.
This world is a school of learning, good and bad must both exist so we can experience it.
If we don't see injustice how can we know justice and so on.
Any Christian who thinks the thou shalt not murder was the very first law forbidding murder, is sadly mistaken.
"Raise them to have good moral character." ...yes, obviously. Why? So that they don't die (ending the genetic line) and that they don't act in a way that your grandkids die, and on and on.
Here's a different approach...what makes you think your genes care about you? Your genes exist to keep the social group alive. The social group is more important than the individual (you). The goals of your 'drives' are to keep the group going, not necessarily to keep you happy. Like I posted earlier, it just so happens that groups that value the reduction of individual suffering have an adaptive advantage.
Ray Gowlett It just so happens.
Heres a fun thesis: We are "religious" creatures in terms of the need for community, rules, cooperation sense of purpose and meaning, but our will to reproduce created religion (in the dogmatic sense) because some individuals had a harder time at achieving reproduction. That way they could convince their peers of having higher moral value, authority and a status that women likes when other aspects of their power were failing. Much of the same mechanisms could be posited to the universities as well.
Do Christians believe that ethics can only be real and meaningful if created by a God like entity? If so, would they not also need to apply this logic to that God itself ie who created the Gods ethics, in order for it to be meaningful? It is perfectly rational to believe that ethics emerged gradually as humans came into existence
Peter Singer comes across as the more sincere. Bannister is a brilliant speaker, who probably needs to be to dodge around the flawed Christian beliefs. I thought good, Singer has proposed the Suffering question into the conversation, something which indoctrinates like Andy would never initiate. But when it came to AB's turn to address it, he typically of his ilk, spent 1,000 words of convoluted nondescription before angling cleverly to another tangent. He knew Singer had him on this point, therefore answering it politician style
Very sublime even with the atheist Peter Singer, who impressed me as I am a Christian to hear that he is more than a notch higher in his giving than many Christians. He follows the example of the Lord’s saying. It is better to give than to receive . To me the answer to the sufferings in the world that troubles Peter, is to make us compassionate and sacrificial, which has a triple value 1) elevate the spirit of the giver. 2) touch the heart of the receiver. 3) sublimate our society from abase living.
The grand design is that innocents should suffer so that you can learn to be a better person? Ridiculous and, frankly, evil.
@@jerklecirque138 Yes indeed Austin, I agree. When you look at natural disasters which kill and destroy, if you remove the God aspect, it makes a lot more sense as to why these things occur. It's something I've given a lot of thought to over the years, and the more you think about it, the less God seems a viable answer. The problem of evil and suffering is a weak link in the Christian chain. Atheism doesn't solve it, ( it's not meant to) but it explains it far better.
@@brando3342 Suppose you saw a large rock rolling down a hillside toward a young child. You have ample time to warn the child with no risk to yourself, but you decline to do so. Have you not acted immorally, and is this not an analogous situation to a powerful deity watching idly while nature wreaks havoc on innocent animals?
@@brando3342 I didn't claim that nature was evil, but rather that a thinking agent who could easily prevent needless suffering but chooses not to do so is evil. That Yahweh has already promised not to intervene should not be seen as an escape hatch. It was immoral for him to make that promise, just as it would be for a human to promise not to help another human.
@@brando3342 Brando You aren't engaging with my comments, which have specifically been about natural suffering that befalls mankind (not human evil). I don't find Biblical accounts for divine hidenness compelling. Clearly you do, but I think you make excuses for the inexcusable in order to do so. I found it extremely liberating to give up the mental contortions associated with apologetics. Perhaps you would, as well. I hope you will consider it with an open mind. Take care.
Woe unto these wicked people who have no idea what they’re talking about yet they judge as if they knew perfectly.
~30:00 - Singer's comment about garlic in his food gave me a thought: since he's seemingly convinced of moral truths based on human feelings about those things, maybe he should also be prepared to believe in taste truths. Maybe there's a special realm where the facts '1 + 1 = 2,' 'killing animals is wrong' and 'chocolate is delicious' all exist together.
That's an interesting idea! I think that would be platonism, i.e. realism about abstract objects. The problem is that even if objective moral values (such as "killing animals is wrong") do exist in some platonic realm, there would be no mechanism to translate them into moral duties-i.e. no reason for people to actually act accordingly.
The name of the show say's it all
If God created morality, why didn’t He decide to make everything good so, that way nothing bad could happen? If life is a test, what is it a test for? Determining who goes to heaven and hell? And, what is the point of people going to those places? Why didn’t God set up the rules in a way where everyone could go to heaven, if that’s the best place for them to go?
END THE FED!
" Do we need god to be good?"
Absolutely NO !
If one needs a god to be good, that one lacks empathy, not some imagined being who he's supposed to fear .
David Mahfuz why do you need empathy?
@@inzamammohammed . If you have to ask that question, chances are you lack it .
Empathy is an advanced primate trait .
If it is a fact that your choice is determined and you could not do otherwise, morality would be a mere word game based on the falsehood that "you" can "choose" right or wrong. "You" would in fact be no more "responsible" for your actions than a tree. "You" would just be determined to follow determined preferences that were determined to seem "right". Unless a part of you is an undetermined determiner you cannot "choose". Thus, holding "you" as a cause of your actions is a falsehood that can determine "you" to do differently. Morality is impossible in materialism. It would be a mere control mechanism based on a falsehood.
Materialists should be advocating to send "criminals" to hospitals to fix their determined actions -- unless they think jail is the only thing that can serve that function -- and should only look at them in terms of healthy and unhealthy. But justice could not be anything more than an illusion in a materialistic frame. Can you hold a billiard ball responsible for hitting another billiard ball into oblivion?
You could act on that billiard ball in a way so it doesn't do that again, but there is no part of the billiard ball that is responsible for the outcome. "The whole show" would be the actual cause. You holding it responsible to effect its future effects may work, but at no time was it actually responsible and choose its action.
JR Byrne. Well said. All true. Funny things materialists say: "Being a rational materialist/determinist and a free thinker, I decided to consciously weigh the evidence for and against the existence of a soul (independent Self) in my mind using reason and logic. I then, based on this conscious evaluation of the evidence, made a rationally based decision that the soul does not exist. So why does the soul not exist? It is really very logical: Simply because there is no independent Self that could consciously weigh the evidence for or against a certain hypothesis, and then, based on this conscious evaluation of the evidence, make a rationally based decision. A soul ---- what a stupid idea! All rational people know that we are just mindless machines."
@@MidiwaveProductions Lol. Well done sir. "I think therefore I am" -- Self evident. ""I" think there is no evidence "I" think therefore "I" think "I" am not." -- Materialistic/scientism self-inflicted pathology. ""I" just don't see any evidence of materialism being false. God should have made it more apparent"
@@robb7855 Lol. Yes, highly amusing. My current favorite oxymoron: "I am a moral realist." ---- Sam Harris, Determinist
"Christianity is most admirably adapted to the training of slaves, to the perpetuation of a slave society; in short, to the very conditions confronting us today. The rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instill it into the blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun." ~ Emma Goldman
what a great debate. Peter singer wants to have his cake and eat it too! He doesn't want to be called a naturalist and yet feel that some forms of altruism or some purpose in life is better than the others? Doesn't make sense.
One criticism I have of my fellow atheists is the tendency to reject the moral of the idea of original sin as it was probably originally engineered. I think we can all assume that original sin was meant to convey the idea that humans are not moral simply by means of existence. Living a moral life requires genuine work, consideration, and bravery. Many of my fellow atheists seem to act as though they are unshackled from the moral of the original sin story, because the original sin story likely did not happen. But the moral is still incredibly important. And now it seems that many of my fellow atheists quickly run to nihilism in the face of topics such as: animal rights, charity for the poor, or assisted suicide. It really is disturbing to see how atheists will ignore those debates under the pretense that morality is just an illusion or it's just an evolutionary trait to propogate your genes (and thus no genuine consequences of right and wrong can stem from them) and quickly turn into the stereotypical amoral atheist that televangelists try to paint all atheists as.
Well done debate. Both sides help me explore my own beliefs. While a God could explain ethics I don't see it it as the best explanation of the world as we see it. I might want there to be a God to give the world a purpose but wanting doesn't make it so. I'm with Peter, we need to make our own purpose.
We need God for EVERYTHING! We are IN God.
So what are you doing to ease the suffering of severely disabled children you have voted should be born, no abortions allowed. Are you doing anything to help them? Is that just a slogan? Are you adopting those kids? Volunteering? Or waiting for a god to help them.
I wonder why Andy didn't simply observe how an intellectually honest & generous conversation is had, by Peter's example, and copy it?
*What a great discussion, salute to all participants!*
Can't believe Singer saying that it would be more evolutionary advantageous for us to just help our close family and friends rather than those without a direct reciprocal relationship to us. We are not isolated, we are a part of societies in which we and our families must live, it makes perfect sense that we would try to help those around us to improve society as a whole because this benefits us and create the sort of society in which others my help us or our loved ones in the future. Giving up your seat for an old lady on a bus, whom you will never see again is in part trying the create the kind of society where strangers will help your own elderly mother on a bus one day. Being self-less is ultimately selfish in such wide ranging way.
@Oners82 exactly!
Of corse it would be socially advantageous and highly recommended to care even for people or non human animals outside of your close circle of relatives and friends but evolutionary speaking it wouldn't have been advantageous in the past but now that we managed to escape the food chain and obviously we are not targeted by natural selection anymore it is alot more important to do that from a social standpoint.
@Oners82 english is not my first language and i got dyslexia sorry for that.
But are you agreeing with my argument?
These debates are pointless, if we don’t agree on the definition of “good,” before the debate begins(and definitions using synonyms don’t count). What are we even debating about, beyond semantics?
I care equally. Doesnt ever say if downsyn people are suffering from living. just says they are a strain on parents.
Well, parents can suffer too. And what if you have this child and they can't take care of themselves after the parents die? They can happen to any child but it's much more likely here. What if they get abused in a nursing home for decades?
I would argue that it's people like you, no disrespect, you are not caring about people, just say "have all babies, it doesn't matter the suffering, because it's not MY problem and I can feel righteous about it, no cost to me".
Why not adopt a downs syndrome baby RIGHT NOW?
Thank you for sharing these ideas...one thing they seem to agree on is that humans are ' broken " . My question is can an unbroken human exist in our present reality ? If not , why do we long for it (wholeness) ? Is that longing "God" ? I disliked Andy's jab about mother which was too personal .
Main question: Is any kind of life necessarily better than no life? Can anyone really answer this question with a Yes?
Keyser Söze yes
@@reubenmiller7484
Lack of imagination? Or stranger to reality? Or just some one-word-odd-type? ANY life situation is better than no life? Can you explain?
I can imagine about a thousand life situations I wouldn't want to be in and you can't come up with one? Strange. Wonder what makes you think this way... Have you really given this a thought? Really?
You are saying life is preferable to any kind of suffering. Why? Can you convince me that's your actual stans?
No I think it is not necessary better. Check out antinatalism they are pretty high on this worldview
'we are here for anything, except what we choose for us to live for' Peter.
Hey Peter - @39:50 - Read 2 Peter 3:9. It never ceases to amaze me how atheists simply don't know or understand what Christianity says.
I find it curious that you would be amazed a non-believer doesn't know or understand Christianity. Do you know and understand all the religions that you don't believe?
I think he's right to be at least a little surprised at the level of ignorance of an academic who frequently criticizes Christianity publicly. Surely, we ought to hold Singer to a higher standard.
Was his error so egregious that he should start believing in Yahweh?
@Paul Simon McCarthy What would my complaint be?
@Paul Simon McCarthy I've read the Bible five times, the New Testament roughly 10 times. I've read the Bible in 90 days. I read it daily. What's your point again?
This was an interesting Interview by Justin Brierly with Peter Singer. Not sure who that other guy was, sitting across from Peter Singer.
Speaking of reducing the amount of suffering in the world. If you have a child that will suffer with an illness all its life, it will make the parents suffer too and could break up the marriage causing the mother to have to cope alone.
I don’t understand why many are crying foul because Andy personalized Peter’s general philosophy on euthanizing human beings that have less human dignity on a sliding scale of less cognitive function (like the anencephaly baby Peter brought up) by asking Peter if his mother with dementia was an outlier in his own ethic when she was alive. It is fair point to be asked in light of Peter’s many statements… unless one thinks that a philosopher’s family members should be insulated from the philosopher’s ethic.
The question I would have for Andy Bannister is, if the story of the garden of eden is allegorical, what could have possibly gone wrong with creation? Why couldn't god have simply created a paradisiacal planet that encouraged the evolution of animals without suffering on it?
I don’t think thoughtful people debate whether god exists so much as is it better (or not) to think in terms of god. And it’s reasonable for people to differ without anyone being wrong. For me materialist philosophies fall short even though I have no supernatural beliefs.
Aren’t religious people also ruled by there pleasures just as much as atheists are? You mean to tell me that, if not following God got you into heaven and following God got you into hell but, it was still good to follow God, you would follow God just for the sake of doing good? We’re all ruled by pleasure and pain. We just have different perceptions of what results most in those things.
53.34 their was a star trek TNG episode called masterpiece society. They tried to eliminate suffering and disease. The solution to the planet destroying event was in a blind mans visor.
Andy Bannister's argument are so weak it makes you want to laugh. Bannister: People in the Far East don't think the world is evil. Singer: but they don't believe in the Christian God. Yes but those from the Far East who are Christians don't believe the world is evil...(Bannister's point disappears since if he is right that people in the Far East don't think the world is evil and most are NOT Christian then what is his point?) Bannister: Without God there is no basis for morality. Singer: but no moral being would allow such suffering to continue. Bannister: but God definitely reduced the suffering of the world by giving us Christ and the world is getting better because Pinker said so. Singer But all the same forms of suffering experienced in the year 1 have not changed...so Christ changed nothing and Pinker (of course) does not prove the reduction of suffering he allegedly demonstrates has anything to do with Christ or Christianity.
Justin please invite Dr. david bentley hart.
A society can either be run through rational thought or through power, and if we can't have intelligent discussions like this especially within academia, the only alternative is force.
If the current mentality within academia and governmental structures is to dictate law based on emotion and feeling, the only thing in our future is the dominance of tyrannical Fiat
I found that to be truly top notch - they were not only respectful of one another but even amiable, indeed, Peter was able to see and enjoy Andy's witticisms which Andy made at Peter's expense. I've rarely heard Christianity so well and so eruditely defended.
As a deist and a full-spectrum naturalist I felt a tad more able to evaluate both points of view than when I was just an atheist. Or when I was a fundamentalist Christian.
If 'morality' does exist in any sense in some outside and objective realm as Peter believes, then why not call that realm God ? Not my choice. As a deist I think the creator just made a complete hash of things and has long since departed if not to a galaxy far, far away, more likely to spheres, realms and dimensions not only unknown to us but completely unknowable ever.
As a deist I believe (on all the evidence I have been able to evaluate (and it's been a lot)) that the creator built morality - and sentience - into everything - which means I'm a pan-psychic and a pan-moralistic deist - oh yes, I also believe that everything - atoms, molecules, rocks and stones, are fully alive so that makes me a pan-animist, too. I can't loose !! 'Cepts I don't believe in any kind of after-life.
I think Andy did the Christian position very proud - really well, B U T I wouldn't like to see him debate Sam Harris any time soon !!! Sam is absolutely - and quite rightly !! - ruthless in his criticism of the Abrahamic religions. Goes for the jugular every time.
Is love which expects rewards really love?
If we can not see God act this moment, can he not act?
_when two beings who are not friends are near each other there is no meeting, and when friends are far apart there is no separation_ (Simone Weil)
Or, as an old bumper sticker once asked, 'Does God seem far away? Who moved?'
Love is a many splendor thing my friend. It comes in many shapes and sizes. Not quite sure what that author meant by not seeing God act, how can you determine such a thing? it's God's hiddenness which always intrigued me.
If god seems far away, it is because HE moved/ left. I mean split as in " later dude". The Deists are cool but they only got it half right. Dont fret tho .Caligula need not take over. Dark night of the soul my friend. Only for awhile tho until you realize God/ Jesus left brcause he dosent like you. Being an equal opportunity hater he threw his hands up & basically said i made a big mistake. As he began to turn around , he looked at Satan. Satan basically said "dont look at me i hate these little shitballs too." They went their seperate ways & that was that. So again i remind you that if god feels far away it is because he is hidden & you wont find him cause he KNOWS where to hide. He moved his all tough loving behind elsewhere. Just get used to it & move on. Tomorrow is another day my friend.
enjoyed the dialogue
Thanks for that one. I'm agnostic with deist views and like Marcion and early Gnostics I believe there's might be a malevolent demi-god that have created that reality on Earth. And also reincarnation might be the key to the whole. Even buddhists and hinduism believe who have to escape that reality.
@1:01:33 (or earlier for Andy's prompt for his response)
The question I'd want to ask Peter Singer:
How do you know there is no purpose?
[this is a question of epistemology]
He said that it is 'unscientific' to hold the view that life has a purpose, and I'd agree with him,
but ethics itself is field of study and questioning about a metaphysical category.
Ethical values are not 'scientific' in the sense that it is a property of the natural/physical world that can be investigated with our senses
(a fact I'm sure he'd concede since he affirms the idea of an ethical truths or objects).
If we want to know whether there is a purpose, then we have to investigate the question of
whether purpose(s) has/have been revealed from whatever / whoever is (or are) the metaphysical grounding of ethics.
Obviously Christians (and other kinds of theists) will answer this in the affirmative with the actions of God in history.
I'd encourage anyone reading this to investigate the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and determine
whether the testimonies of his deity, death, and resurrection stand up to scrutiny.
@Ross Peterson Having investigated the historicity of Jesus, I'm willing to bet that he existed and claimed to be the messiah. I'm unsure of your stance. However I can not see how it would be justified to accept the claim of his physical resurrection given what we know about reality. We need to consider the possible candidates for an explanation.
We can demonstrate that:
People regularly make mistakes/are mistaken
people die for their sincere beliefs even if mistaken.
People lie
Stories become more elaborate over time
People conspire
Eye witness accounts are unreliable
We haven't demonstrated:
The supernatural (a prerequisite for the resurrection).
A supernatural containing a God
Decomposing bodies returning to life/resurrecting.
Based on this it's only reasonable to rank what we can demonstrate/know to occur as more probable/likely as the explanation than what we cannot demonstrate to occur.
It may or may not be the case that a supernatural and god exist capable of resurrections, however until they have been demonstrated how can they serve as possible candidates for an explanation let alone the most likely?
@@Daz19 This is just based on the assumption of naturalism/materialism. A statement of faith, not fact.
@@robb7855 Its the position of methodological naturalism, a tentative position, requiring a demonstration of the supernatural before we attribute causation to it. A statement of faith would be accepting the claim the supernatural exists. In absence of this, i'm withholding accepting/believing that claim until a sufficient demonstration/evidence is provided.
We cant pretend the supernatural and its claimed manifestation is evidenced clearly, sufficiently and as reliably as the natural, hence why supernatural explanations cannot rank as more likely a cause. First we need a clear demonstration the supernatural exists and can serve as a cause. Do you have a reliable to method to do so or is it a faith position?
@@Daz19 You are claiming it does not exist. That is a positive factual claim without any proof. Thus, it is faith based. Your faith based system requires proof (physical evidence), my faith based system requires truth (coherent logical arguments).
@@robb7855 You need to reared my comment. I clearly stated I do not expected the claim a supernatural exist, the doesn't mean I except the negation. I'm instead with holding my acceptance/belief of the claim until it meets its burden of proof.
For example, Imagine a box of Tiktaks, it contains either an odd or even number of Tiktaks. Without being able to investigate/examine the box I am asked If I accept the claim it contains an odd number of Tiktaks. In response I reject the claim it has an odd number as I have not seen a demonstration/evidence/proof of such. However that does not mean I accept the claim it contains an even number of Tiktaks. Therefor as my previous comment stated, I'm withholding my acceptance/belief of the claim there is a supernatural (odd number Tiktaks) until it has been demonstrated. Has that helped you understand my position?
Okay I'll humour you. Whats your best logical argument(s) that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the supernatural exists, containing a god that resurrected a decomposing body?
Also how do you establish the truth of your premises with out proof? One can make all the valid logical argument they like but that does not make them sound.