As a Catholic I had to struggle with all kinds of imaginary problems: Original sin, heaven and hell, Yahweh and Yeshua, guilt, fear, shame, cognitive dissonance, and endless seeking. As an atheist that no longer believes any of it, my life is much simpler and happier. Thank God.
Well, I used to be Catholic too, but went the other way after a time and studied more of the Bible, I would be happy to explain all these issues to you if you like?
@@evolutionisbull5h1t *"I would be happy to explain all these issues to you if you like?"* James may not be interested, but why don't you offer your explanation for the peanut gallery? I'm curious as to why, in the 21st Century, anyone would be studying an ancient book.
Perfect circular reasoning: Atheist: Why should I believe in God? Christian: Because the Bible says so! Atheist: But why should I believe in the Bible? Christian: Because God wrote it. Gimme a break!
@Vela S Don't be silly! The context in which I said it is *CLEAR.* I'm asking why anyone would rely upon an ancient book in order to make a decision about *facts in the world.* Whether or not a "god" exists is not decided by a book written centuries ago to promote a cult. *NONE* of the works you mention is the basis for any similar widely believed claim.
Hi, Michael. I really appreciate your engagement with these issues, and especially the fact that you discussed this particular issue, which, arguably, puts the naturalist in a challenging position. So thank you for doing it, and for the spirit with which you did it in. I wanted to highlight two points at which I believe you misstepped, and I thought it worthwhile because you did one of these multiple times. I think I’ve also heard you make this misstep in other conversations as well. Basically, at certain difficult moments in the discussion you resorted to a 'your answer isn’t any better’ line of argument. Your exact words, once, were: “I don’t see how God gives us that answer either.” I recognise that in a free-flowing conversation this is a perfectly fine thing to say and is good for back and forth. But, when you make this move right at the most difficult point of the defence of your position it appears to me to be mere evasion. Not to mention it just isn’t a defence or counter argument. I would have felt the weight of your position much more firmly had you defended it until you could no longer do so, and then owned whatever remained outstanding as outstanding, given naturalism. The only other moment of the video I thought could have been improved was not in the discussion itself but in your brief introduction to it. I’m referring to when you highlighted that when pressed for his own “support structure” for objective moral values Christian was not able to provide what he believes is lacking on atheism (“good reasons” for believing these things). Your exact words were: "He wants to go for more than that [a consequentialist approach] but as you’ll hear he really can’t justify it [objective moral values] theistically [either]." But I think this was confused. His response was that a theistic worldview (in contrast with naturalism) could give an internally consistent rationale for objective moral values. The key words are “internally consistent.” That is what atheism is unable to provide on Christian’s view, and this is possible on theism. Of course, you may not believe theism is true. But that’s not the point or the question. The question, at this point, is ‘Who is able to give a rationale for objective moral values that is consistent with his or her worldview?’ This would mean that the rationale could be properly anchored in the worldview and logically flow out of it. Atheism appears to fall short of this, whereas theism appears to deliver, regardless of whether theism itself is true. Love to hear your thoughts or if I have misrepresented you. Again, I appreciate your work!
Great conversation, a professional skeptic is challenged with meta-skepticism! Agree with the previous comment that Dr. Christian is indeed very smart and interesting to listen to (especially in the last 2/3rds of this conversation. Gonna buy the book. Thank you!
36:12 the atheist delusion 48:07 can atheism survive a harsh world? 55:00 most men would not want to deny women the vote (citation?) 1:09:07 mind experiment
The topics of outreach and of overreach are exceptionally important. What I would hope to underline is that there is such a diversity of people who identify as nones and/or as nonbelievers that the act of committing to outrach, e.g., humanitarianism, is something which is possible to do. For those who wish to solely focus on their immediate ingroups, I say go for it. As for where my secular humanism positioning focuses on, it is on building communities and/or empowering individuals who are focused on lessening the suffering of others regardless if these others are in an ingroup or in any outgroup. 🌻
J Man As an atheist I have no desire to tell people not to go to church (although I wish they would think a bit more about what they hear there). It's the religious people who are the bullies, trying to force everyone to agree with their rules about how people should behave. Atheism is based on reason. Most religion is based on a grand invisible spook (or spooks) in the sky, who is/are freaky about people's sex lives. It's not surprising they burned people at the stake who thought differently: when your whole system is based on illogic, you have to resort to violence to get your point across.
"if atheism is true?", just another way to spin a pro theist worldview. prove that theism/god is true first. so you (not so cunningly) start with a false default position of a particular religion. how non-enlightening.
@Frances Snowflake Atheism actually is a strategy to test a hypothesis X-Theism. (There is more than one theism) But it's common practice to construct your enemy such, that you can defeat him.
Frances Snowflake : it's "true" by definition, so a silly oxymoron statement/question. here: theism is true and atheism is true, as in, they are true in what they represent, as everything that has a label does. in terms of what's preferrable etc, those are separate questions. this "is atheism true?" non-question is just sneaky/nasty christian tactic, just like talking about "Darwinian evolutionism" or "evolution is only a theory". it's lame word acrobatics that dont even deserve a response. they know why they're doing it..because there's no evidence for any god and all their apologetics arguments have been shown false ages ago. So they like to pretend to be highly learned but, merely stoop to label twisting and posing nonsense questions, like "why are we here?". being sneaky by getting an implicit basis in reality (theism) by asking a silly question about atheism..is not particularly clever, just lame underhanded and ignores basic logic arguments. but then, theists cant really even argue using logic, so reach for tricks. everyone is born an atheist. there..it's "true". the only reason theists believe in the mythical babble is because they think they'll get the candy when they die, whilst giving up freedom during the only real thing there is, a short life. get over dying, it happens to everything that lives/lived. dont believe nonsense religious bs stories, especially the ones that treat women as lesser than men. that's most current religions. in any case, false myths dont lead to truth, merely leading to empty candy wrappers that you pay dearly for.
@Frances Snowflake Earlier, you asked if someone could demonstrate their position was "true". That's an entirely different demand. There is abundant justification for the view that theism is unconvincing.
What about humanism? We value the human. That's basically what the Bill of Rights is referring to. Humanity affords a level of rights that are not given and cannot be taken. No gods needed.
@J Segal Have you ever put some decent amount of thought into how potentially bad humans can get along with their society? What kind of atheist are you?
The problem with the Christian threat of punishment after death is it is greatly delayed and undemonstrated. Criminal minds don't do long-range planning. Criminal minds tend to be focused on reality in the here and now. They are hedonistic thinkers. The Christian threat works best on gullible spinsters who attend church multiple times a week. They are not the people who need extra control to inhibit them from poisoning the neighbour's cat.
Great conversation. I love that you have people with diverse views and that you have very civil discussion while still being able to disagree. I like to play the home version for my own understanding and with the hope that maybe I can make some point of worth. 16:00 I think if an atheist can simply add enough empathy to his views to understand that others have an equal concern for their and their loved ones well being equivalent to ones own that moral concern can be universalized. - I think a lot of the moral progress of humanity lies in our tribal sentiments. We are naturally more caring and cooperative towards individuals within our in group and wary or hostile if feeling threatened by individuals in our out group. As the world becomes closer and more interconnected we have gradually come to see the "other" more as part of "us". 43:55 It may be an ontologically different argument, but is it practically any different? 48:08 I think what is moral also includes the values needed to preserve and protect what is good. What good are your humanistic or religious virtues in a more barbaric world if those who hold them are wiped out by stronger, crueler groups. I think this is much of what Haidt claims when he argues that the conservative values of sanctity, loyalty and authority are moral virtues. 55:49 It counts as south because of the objective reality of human nature. We prefer pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering. I think that's all the objective standard we need to build moral progress on. 1:09:10 Empathy. You may not be part of that %70 but you may be part of a different %70 that might be eliminated if that sort of practice became a norm. 1:26:30 The atheist argument for morality doesn't have to be perfect to be better than the religious one.
To use the phrase "moral systems" implies an understanding of the word "moral" .. so far this discussion has not addressed any understanding of "morality".
I was a little annoyed with that should part I mean this whole there is a god so I should be good really does not work so given real consideration to morality we probably come to the conclusion that living with some understanding of well being is better than not.
In regard to the 30% vs 70% argument, I think that's a slippery slope. I think human nature is such that as soon as the 70% are gone, we start looking for other reasons to decide who is the best or worst of society, and it starts all over again.
I think, Christian has no concept of disbelief. He needs to be able to put himself in the shoes of the atheist. As there have never been any real gods or creators, man has been the one all along, writing and determining moral values. And as, Chris, asks below, what is up with "if atheism is true?" God believers exist and disbelievers exist, period. Like believers, there are many kinds of disbelievers. I myself, am not a science-based atheist, but rather a history-based atheist. I don't need science to dismiss myths. But then again, I'm an older atheist. I am tired of atheist = science. At least Christian did not have notions of atheists = nihilists. I do think he sees all secular people can have happy lives, well, thanks, Christian. Sorry, had to bail early, I don't have 1.5 hours between the time I get home and time my head hits the pillow.
Atheist are not required to prove a god does not exist.I don't believe a god exists: let the believers try to convince me otherwise. If someone told me a giant purple penguin with headquarters on Jupiter ruled the universe, it's that person's job to prove that absurd claim, not my job to disprove it.
Construct a definition of "objective morality" that we can agree on. It's not a scientifically useful word. Mutually adaptive, or mutually beneficial at least suggests a new start on what we hope "objective moraltiy" might represent.
I can give morality an objective: Nature contains your future. And yes, its meaningless to refer to subjective/objective in relation to morality. Morality is just the awarness of responsibility in the face of communication and experience of the facts of reality.
Morality is a good thing for society however one could choose not to care about other peoples well being and it would show in society that is the case with religion we still wound up with poverty, corruption, murder for me religion underminds a real understanding of what morality is.
Behavioral consequences are no different than biological consequences. We evolve genetically AND behaviorally. If I say "this is how you should behave' how do you know I'm not saying that for my own social advantage. You don't.
quote: Behavioral consequences are no different than biological consequences. Most people don't have children. And behaviour often plays no part in this fact. The biological consequences are only partly driven by human behaviour. quote: We evolve genetically Humanity is on life support and the only question is: when to pull the plug. Trivia: it is no descission done by democratic vote!
About 30 minutes in and I just have to stop. If there is anyone that can be accused of overreaching, it's the religious. I didn't learn anything new here. Fine, we inherited centuries of Judaism and Christianity. We also inherited centuries, if not millennia, of paganism. But even more importantly, we inherited our genes. I don't see any reason to say, therefore, that Christianity is special. I also don't think that any atheists aren't acknowledging our shared history. Seems to me though, that all the most important advances of our species have been made by directly contradicting the edicts of the bible. Maybe I need to continue with the interview, but I just can't.
Christian Smith is a Christian and it appears that like most Christians he thinks the Christian religion and God is the correct one. If by overreaching, Smith means that atheist are setting the bar too high for morality, I am not sure if that should be a concern. Humans are very competitive and are always trying to achieve high standards and perfection in their lives and in the work they do. They may never be perfect but having the goal and trying to achieve the goal can lead to a meaningful, productive and happy life. If there has been any overreaching in trying to explain, teach, educate and present ideas on how somebody or a society should behave or live their lives and what rules to follow, it would definitely be from main stream religions that have dominated in preaching their stories and gospels throughout the centuries. One of the points that Smith makes in his book is that Science cannot disprove that there is no God. This is of course true and I think most atheist would agree but he should also point out that the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim that something exists whether it be a god , big foot or unicorns. When Smith is asked were do the ideas of Christianity come from? His answer is by revelation. At least Smith agrees that there are serious limitations with that. Smith wants to start with Christian presuppositions. I would ask why start there? Shermer points out to Smith that someone that believes in a God cannot explain where God comes from so if morals come from God, believers in God have the same problem as atheist when trying to explain where morals come from. I like Shermer’s idea of provisional morality. Certain principals that are provisionally true for most people in most places most of the time with obvious exceptions. Smith also doesn’t think atheist have a reason or at least not a good reason why we should be committed to the idea of asserting or believing in the equality of all people in political, economical and social life. I think he is implying that the reason comes from God and specifically the Christian God trying to tell us, teach us or guide us either by scripture or perhaps by revelation. If you have to get the reasons for these types of questions from a God, when Shermer points out that 20% of the earth’s population believe in Islam and that God also says you have to kill homosexuals, should you listen to God? Smith says, his God is a loving God and would not say that and a God that would say that is wrong. I think the reason most atheist would give as to why we should be committed to the idea of asserting or believing in the equality of all people in political, economical and social life is that we, or at least most of us, would not like to be slaves or controlled or dominates by other humans. Basically, the reason is the golden rule. If you would not like something done to you, that is a pretty good reason why you should not do it to someone else.
@21:00 It always amazes me when theists say "if Atheism is true" then describes some horrible despot, without realising they are describing exactly what we see in reality. @21:27 America is absolutely being destroyed/beset by shrewd opportunists all the time!
We evolved within tribes. We're hardwired to develop belief systems that support this group structure. The mythologies (part of the belief systems) that were spoken around the camp fire for untold millennia started be be recorded in the middle east around 4 thousand years ago. In recent millennia our philosophy builds upon this urge, this biological and cultural legacy. There have always been moral deviants within every society, e.g., a psychopath (not sexual preference). Is normal behaviour a choice? What about the outliers? Do we need the deviants to provide grist for the mill? We're coming to understand the neurology underlying human behaviour. But we're in the scientific dark ages. Just like the development of the nuclear bomb, we're smart in some areas, and grossly stupid in others. I wonder what will happen when we change the structure of our brain? Which we're bound to do in the next few decades, whether it's through neural implants or through genetic engineering. Will we create a God gene and bring about a perfect world (and by what standards)? Or will the scientific elite produce a mass of zombies to service them? If humanity is required at all, it's much cheaper to build and maintain robots. The atheistic attack on the religion of our ancestors will be so irrelevant. We need to understand why we need religion at all and whether it will be part of our future culture. Historically we were homo religiosus. Is our future homo borgus (as in Star Trek)? Or were we created in the image of God?
Watch the behaviour of a child in the terrible twos. They think the universe's function is to conform to their desires. Parents train this out of them. They teach the norms of culture to child needs to function in society. Few people construct a moral framework. They just adopt one dominating their culture.
All religions and religious books are man-made and there is no evidence God exists. So, live and let live, do no harm, and beware of con artists.😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
As a Catholic I had to struggle with all kinds of imaginary problems:
Original sin, heaven and hell, Yahweh and Yeshua, guilt, fear, shame, cognitive dissonance, and endless seeking.
As an atheist that no longer believes any of it, my life is much simpler and happier.
Thank God.
Well, I used to be Catholic too, but went the other way after a time and studied more of the Bible, I would be happy to explain all these issues to you if you like?
@@evolutionisbull5h1t *"I would be happy to explain all these issues to you if you like?"* James may not be interested, but why don't you offer your explanation for the peanut gallery? I'm curious as to why, in the 21st Century, anyone would be studying an ancient book.
Perfect circular reasoning:
Atheist: Why should I believe in God?
Christian: Because the Bible says so!
Atheist: But why should I believe in the Bible?
Christian: Because God wrote it.
Gimme a break!
@Vela S Don't be silly! The context in which I said it is *CLEAR.* I'm asking why anyone would rely upon an ancient book in order to make a decision about *facts in the world.* Whether or not a "god" exists is not decided by a book written centuries ago to promote a cult. *NONE* of the works you mention is the basis for any similar widely believed claim.
Hi, Michael. I really appreciate your engagement with these issues, and especially the fact that you discussed this particular issue, which, arguably, puts the naturalist in a challenging position. So thank you for doing it, and for the spirit with which you did it in.
I wanted to highlight two points at which I believe you misstepped, and I thought it worthwhile because you did one of these multiple times. I think I’ve also heard you make this misstep in other conversations as well.
Basically, at certain difficult moments in the discussion you resorted to a 'your answer isn’t any better’ line of argument. Your exact words, once, were: “I don’t see how God gives us that answer either.” I recognise that in a free-flowing conversation this is a perfectly fine thing to say and is good for back and forth. But, when you make this move right at the most difficult point of the defence of your position it appears to me to be mere evasion. Not to mention it just isn’t a defence or counter argument. I would have felt the weight of your position much more firmly had you defended it until you could no longer do so, and then owned whatever remained outstanding as outstanding, given naturalism.
The only other moment of the video I thought could have been improved was not in the discussion itself but in your brief introduction to it. I’m referring to when you highlighted that when pressed for his own “support structure” for objective moral values Christian was not able to provide what he believes is lacking on atheism (“good reasons” for believing these things). Your exact words were: "He wants to go for more than that [a consequentialist approach] but as you’ll hear he really can’t justify it [objective moral values] theistically [either]." But I think this was confused.
His response was that a theistic worldview (in contrast with naturalism) could give an internally consistent rationale for objective moral values. The key words are “internally consistent.” That is what atheism is unable to provide on Christian’s view, and this is possible on theism. Of course, you may not believe theism is true. But that’s not the point or the question. The question, at this point, is ‘Who is able to give a rationale for objective moral values that is consistent with his or her worldview?’ This would mean that the rationale could be properly anchored in the worldview and logically flow out of it. Atheism appears to fall short of this, whereas theism appears to deliver, regardless of whether theism itself is true.
Love to hear your thoughts or if I have misrepresented you. Again, I appreciate your work!
Great conversation, a professional skeptic is challenged with meta-skepticism! Agree with the previous comment that Dr. Christian is indeed very smart and interesting to listen to (especially in the last 2/3rds of this conversation. Gonna buy the book. Thank you!
36:12 the atheist delusion
48:07 can atheism survive a harsh world?
55:00 most men would not want to deny women the vote (citation?)
1:09:07 mind experiment
The topics of outreach and of overreach are exceptionally important. What I would hope to underline is that there is such a diversity of people who identify as nones and/or as nonbelievers that the act of committing to outrach, e.g., humanitarianism, is something which is possible to do. For those who wish to solely focus on their immediate ingroups, I say go for it. As for where my secular humanism positioning focuses on, it is on building communities and/or empowering individuals who are focused on lessening the suffering of others regardless if these others are in an ingroup or in any outgroup. 🌻
Atheists should go door to door asking people to NOT go to church on Sunday. They've been doing it to everyone else forever.
J Man
As an atheist I have no desire to tell people not to go to church (although I wish they would think a bit more about what they hear there). It's the religious people who are the bullies, trying to force everyone to agree with their rules about how people should behave. Atheism is based on reason. Most religion is based on a grand invisible spook (or spooks) in the sky, who is/are freaky about people's sex lives. It's not surprising they burned people at the stake who thought differently: when your whole system is based on illogic, you have to resort to violence to get your point across.
A reason for a declaration of universal human rights is practical:
if everyone adopts them, the world works more smoothly.
I would be more friendly to religion if Yahweh/Allah/Brahman would restore the perfect world that he allegedly created in the beginning.
"if atheism is true?", just another way to spin a pro theist worldview. prove that theism/god is true first. so you (not so cunningly) start with a false default position of a particular religion. how non-enlightening.
@Frances Snowflake the position of not believing someone else's claims does not make a claim, and does not need to be demonstrated to be true.
@Frances Snowflake
Atheism actually is a strategy to test a hypothesis X-Theism. (There is more than one theism)
But it's common practice to construct your enemy such, that you can defeat him.
Frances Snowflake : it's "true" by definition, so a silly oxymoron statement/question.
here: theism is true and atheism is true, as in, they are true in what they represent, as everything that has a label does.
in terms of what's preferrable etc, those are separate questions.
this "is atheism true?" non-question is just sneaky/nasty christian tactic, just like talking about "Darwinian evolutionism" or "evolution is only a theory". it's lame word acrobatics that dont even deserve a response. they know why they're doing it..because there's no evidence for any god and all their apologetics arguments have been shown false ages ago.
So they like to pretend to be highly learned but, merely stoop to label twisting and posing nonsense questions, like "why are we here?".
being sneaky by getting an implicit basis in reality (theism) by asking a silly question about atheism..is not particularly clever, just lame underhanded and ignores basic logic arguments. but then, theists cant really even argue using logic, so reach for tricks.
everyone is born an atheist. there..it's "true".
the only reason theists believe in the mythical babble is because they think they'll get the candy when they die, whilst giving up freedom during the only real thing there is, a short life. get over dying, it happens to everything that lives/lived. dont believe nonsense religious bs stories, especially the ones that treat women as lesser than men. that's most current religions. in any case, false myths dont lead to truth, merely leading to empty candy wrappers that you pay dearly for.
@Frances Snowflake Earlier, you asked if someone could demonstrate their position was "true". That's an entirely different demand. There is abundant justification for the view that theism is unconvincing.
@Frances Snowflake I don't. Why do you?
What about humanism? We value the human. That's basically what the Bill of Rights is referring to. Humanity affords a level of rights that are not given and cannot be taken. No gods needed.
Why does possessing humanity afford these rights? Why can't they be taken? I don't see the ground you're standing on.
@J Segal
Have you ever put some decent amount of thought into how potentially bad humans can get along with their society? What kind of atheist are you?
The problem with the Christian threat of punishment after death is it is greatly delayed and undemonstrated. Criminal minds don't do long-range planning. Criminal minds tend to be focused on reality in the here and now. They are hedonistic thinkers. The Christian threat works best on gullible spinsters who attend church multiple times a week. They are not the people who need extra control to inhibit them from poisoning the neighbour's cat.
30:11 "torture and the death penalty to not cure crime" .... death penalty was very useful last I checked
Great conversation. I love that you have people with diverse views and that you have very civil discussion while still being able to disagree.
I like to play the home version for my own understanding and with the hope that maybe I can make some point of worth.
16:00 I think if an atheist can simply add enough empathy to his views to understand that others have an equal concern for their and their loved ones well being equivalent to ones own that moral concern can be universalized.
- I think a lot of the moral progress of humanity lies in our tribal sentiments. We are naturally more caring and cooperative towards individuals within our in group and wary or hostile if feeling threatened by individuals in our out group. As the world becomes closer and more interconnected we have gradually come to see the "other" more as part of "us".
43:55 It may be an ontologically different argument, but is it practically any different?
48:08 I think what is moral also includes the values needed to preserve and protect what is good. What good are your humanistic or religious virtues in a more barbaric world if those who hold them are wiped out by stronger, crueler groups. I think this is much of what Haidt claims when he argues that the conservative values of sanctity, loyalty and authority are moral virtues.
55:49 It counts as south because of the objective reality of human nature. We prefer pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering. I think that's all the objective standard we need to build moral progress on.
1:09:10 Empathy. You may not be part of that %70 but you may be part of a different %70 that might be eliminated if that sort of practice became a norm.
1:26:30 The atheist argument for morality doesn't have to be perfect to be better than the religious one.
To use the phrase "moral systems" implies an understanding of the word "moral" .. so far this discussion has not addressed any understanding of "morality".
Man designed the word, we can use it in a secular manner without any notions of gods.
If god forces us to be moral, what forces god to be moral? If he is moral by definition, I can simply say that we are moral by definition.
To use the word "we should... you shoud .... " is to say you know more than evolution.... You shouldn't say that :)
I was a little annoyed with that should part I mean this whole there is a god so I should be good really does not work so given real consideration to morality we probably come to the conclusion that living with some understanding of well being is better than not.
These talks are great! Thanks Michael!
In regard to the 30% vs 70% argument, I think that's a slippery slope. I think human nature is such that as soon as the 70% are gone, we start looking for other reasons to decide who is the best or worst of society, and it starts all over again.
I think, Christian has no concept of disbelief. He needs to be able to put himself in the shoes of the atheist. As there have never been any real gods or creators, man has been the one all along, writing and determining moral values. And as, Chris, asks below, what is up with "if atheism is true?" God believers exist and disbelievers exist, period. Like believers, there are many kinds of disbelievers. I myself, am not a science-based atheist, but rather a history-based atheist. I don't need science to dismiss myths. But then again, I'm an older atheist. I am tired of atheist = science. At least Christian did not have notions of atheists = nihilists. I do think he sees all secular people can have happy lives, well, thanks, Christian. Sorry, had to bail early, I don't have 1.5 hours between the time I get home and time my head hits the pillow.
At some point we became too smart to buy into the myth. Even "believers" know it is a lie.
Atheist are not required to prove a god does not exist.I don't believe a god exists: let the believers try to convince me otherwise. If someone told me a giant purple penguin with headquarters on Jupiter ruled the universe, it's that person's job to prove that absurd claim, not my job to disprove it.
One idea I think about is, that all this moral discourse can become inconsiquential from one big rock falling from the sky.
We need to impose a CRC16 on our behavior :)
That's funny.
Smith is a smart guy and has an interesting angle!
Construct a definition of "objective morality" that we can agree on. It's not a scientifically useful word. Mutually adaptive, or mutually beneficial at least suggests a new start on what we hope "objective moraltiy" might represent.
I can give morality an objective: Nature contains your future.
And yes, its meaningless to refer to subjective/objective in relation to morality.
Morality is just the awarness of responsibility in the face of communication and experience of the facts of reality.
"Why should we assume organ donation is a good thing?" asks Christian Smith. REALLY?
Morality is a good thing for society however one could choose not to care about other peoples well being and it would show in society that is the case with religion we still wound up with poverty, corruption, murder for me religion underminds a real understanding of what morality is.
Good one-very balanced
“If atheism is true...” is a non-sequitur. How can “I don't believe in God” be untrue? Atheism isn't a claim to knowledge; it's about belief.
Behavioral consequences are no different than biological consequences. We evolve genetically AND behaviorally. If I say "this is how you should behave' how do you know I'm not saying that for my own social advantage. You don't.
quote: Behavioral consequences are no different than biological consequences.
Most people don't have children. And behaviour often plays no part in this fact.
The biological consequences are only partly driven by human behaviour.
quote: We evolve genetically
Humanity is on life support and the only question is: when to pull the plug.
Trivia: it is no descission done by democratic vote!
Evolution is a contest. It's never over.
To begin you have to say what do you mean with "being", "divine" and "by nature".
@Carlos
Don't you think they are intertwined definitions either way? What type of atheist are you?
Why is he saying "If atheism is true"??
I don't know what I want but I know I'm not getting it.
Dude looks exactly like Mark Serbu
This guy is a shallow, muddy thinker. I'm surprised Shermer bothered with him.
About 30 minutes in and I just have to stop. If there is anyone that can be accused of overreaching, it's the religious. I didn't learn anything new here. Fine, we inherited centuries of Judaism and Christianity. We also inherited centuries, if not millennia, of paganism. But even more importantly, we inherited our genes. I don't see any reason to say, therefore, that Christianity is special. I also don't think that any atheists aren't acknowledging our shared history. Seems to me though, that all the most important advances of our species have been made by directly contradicting the edicts of the bible. Maybe I need to continue with the interview, but I just can't.
"Morality" is a religious word. Not objective.
Christian Smith is a Christian and it appears that like most Christians he thinks the Christian religion and God is the correct one.
If by overreaching, Smith means that atheist are setting the bar too high for morality, I am not sure if that should be a concern. Humans are very competitive and are always trying to achieve high standards and perfection in their lives and in the work they do. They may never be perfect but having the goal and trying to achieve the goal can lead to a meaningful, productive and happy life. If there has been any overreaching in trying to explain, teach, educate and present ideas on how somebody or a society should behave or live their lives and what rules to follow, it would definitely be from main stream religions that have dominated in preaching their stories and gospels throughout the centuries.
One of the points that Smith makes in his book is that Science cannot disprove that there is no God. This is of course true and I think most atheist would agree but he should also point out that the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim that something exists whether it be a god , big foot or unicorns.
When Smith is asked were do the ideas of Christianity come from? His answer is by revelation. At least Smith agrees that there are serious limitations with that. Smith wants to start with Christian presuppositions. I would ask why start there?
Shermer points out to Smith that someone that believes in a God cannot explain where God comes from so if morals come from God, believers in God have the same problem as atheist when trying to explain where morals come from.
I like Shermer’s idea of provisional morality. Certain principals that are provisionally true for most people in most places most of the time with obvious exceptions.
Smith also doesn’t think atheist have a reason or at least not a good reason why we should be committed to the idea of asserting or believing in the equality of all people in political, economical and social life. I think he is implying that the reason comes from God and specifically the Christian God trying to tell us, teach us or guide us either by scripture or perhaps by revelation. If you have to get the reasons for these types of questions from a God, when Shermer points out that 20% of the earth’s population believe in Islam and that God also says you have to kill homosexuals, should you listen to God? Smith says, his God is a loving God and would not say that and a God that would say that is wrong.
I think the reason most atheist would give as to why we should be committed to the idea of asserting or believing in the equality of all people in political, economical and social life is that we, or at least most of us, would not like to be slaves or controlled or dominates by other humans. Basically, the reason is the golden rule. If you would not like something done to you, that is a pretty good reason why you should not do it to someone else.
@21:00 It always amazes me when theists say "if Atheism is true" then describes some horrible despot, without realising they are describing exactly what we see in reality. @21:27 America is absolutely being destroyed/beset by shrewd opportunists all the time!
We evolved within tribes. We're hardwired to develop belief systems that support this group structure. The mythologies (part of the belief systems) that were spoken around the camp fire for untold millennia started be be recorded in the middle east around 4 thousand years ago. In recent millennia our philosophy builds upon this urge, this biological and cultural legacy. There have always been moral deviants within every society, e.g., a psychopath (not sexual preference). Is normal behaviour a choice? What about the outliers? Do we need the deviants to provide grist for the mill?
We're coming to understand the neurology underlying human behaviour. But we're in the scientific dark ages. Just like the development of the nuclear bomb, we're smart in some areas, and grossly stupid in others. I wonder what will happen when we change the structure of our brain? Which we're bound to do in the next few decades, whether it's through neural implants or through genetic engineering. Will we create a God gene and bring about a perfect world (and by what standards)? Or will the scientific elite produce a mass of zombies to service them? If humanity is required at all, it's much cheaper to build and maintain robots.
The atheistic attack on the religion of our ancestors will be so irrelevant. We need to understand why we need religion at all and whether it will be part of our future culture. Historically we were homo religiosus. Is our future homo borgus (as in Star Trek)? Or were we created in the image of God?
Watch the behaviour of a child in the terrible twos. They think the universe's function is to conform to their desires. Parents train this out of them. They teach the norms of culture to child needs to function in society. Few people construct a moral framework. They just adopt one dominating their culture.
All religions and religious books are man-made and there is no evidence God exists. So, live and let live, do no harm, and beware of con artists.😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
If atheism is false, jesus raised the dead and Mohammed went to heaven in a Unicorn. Check mate atheists
L
Sorry, but this professor ain't too brite. He has a plodding mind, not agile. And quite limited imagination. Just my opinion.