This is a great example of script reading gone bad, the second matt pulled him off the script he literally couldn't process it and just ignored his points
"Okay, presupposing that everyone agrees I'm right about everything I think and you're wrong about everything you think, wouldn't you have to concede that I'm right and you're wrong?" - Very Smart Theists
@John Thijm Thijm You would need to prove that the god you are referring to exists to even have it in the equation in the first place. Otherwise, we are just talking in hypotheticals.
For all of you that believe in subjective morality, I’m curious of your opinion on this. According to subjective morality, If someone believes something is morally right or wrong for them, it is subjectively right or wrong for them. Following that logic, someone could believe racism is right one minute, but then 5 minutes later believe it is wrong and that would be true for them. And they could change their mind endlessly but it would be true for them.
Yeah bud, thats exactly what that means. You can change your mind on things as easily as the wind blows, but I wouldn't venture too far and do something illegal because while we are free to do what we want, we are also free to suffer consequences.
@@lovespeaks777 Because its prudent and pragmatic. Chris Watts thought that it was okay to murder his wife and 2 daughters so he could be with his mistress. You think he should be allowed to walk around among us? of course not. What you are getting at is that our own human autonomy should us the right to do anything we want, and you would be right, but your subjective morals, your freedom, your free will, will always stop when it affects others. You are allowed to drive a car, you cannot drive it through a red light because you could hurt someone. Think of it this way, if morals were an objective reality, then where in the world did we get the idea that Jay-Walking is illegal? Was it in the bible? If morals are given to us by god as objective truths, then why does the bible give instructions on how to treat your slaves, or how women should be subservient? Why did god flood the earth killing millions of children? You *could* make an argument about cases like Charles Whitman, the man who killed 15 people plus his whole family, was arrested examined an it was found that a brain tumor affected his cognitive agencies and that resulted in the murders. However that still does not make it right, we still jail crazy people. We even try to rehab criminals in jail. Thanks for engaging man, im going to bed. I hope you can find answers to your questions.
"Please demonstrate that your assertions are true." "I don't have to demonstrate anythi..." "Okay then we don't have to continue talking to you on the show." "Wait please don-" *hangs up
Matt's argument summed up: Morality is both subjective and objective. Subjective: We need to arbitrarily decide the foundation of morality. In general, humans agree that maximizing societal well-being is the best foundation. This is the unanimous human consensus, which is why sociopaths who do not want to maximize well-being are looked down upon. Objective: Once we decide our object will be maximizing well-being, we can analyze actions/laws to determine whether they increase or decrease well-being. Morality based on God is not objective, because there is no solid foundation, no goal. It is entirely arbitrary to what God intends to accomplish at any given time. Following God's whims does not produce a society humans can unanimously agree is good. It leads to violence, death, and slavery. Religion can warp people's minds into thinking these atrocities produce a good society, but that does nothing for people outside the group and we are back to square one.
What defines societal wellbeing? Look how much money we spend on the elderly. If society just killed them, the rest of us would be materially richer. So, are we being immoral by caring for them?
@@jimmyjames6796 Society kills millions of fetuses/yr. Apparently, its moral, because society is better off doing this. How is killing the elderly any different?
My dog understands objective morality. As soon as we met, he realised that I am friendly and that it is his interest to be friendly to me. He has never shown any aggression towards humans and loves to have his back scratched. He obviously has his own pet theories about the origin of the universe.
We evolved as a social species, meaning that those that knew how to interact and cooperate out-survived those that didn't. The roots of morality are baked into our DNA, our ancient ancestry and our animal instinct to survive and thrive. Compared to the age of our evolutionary lineage, religion is a mere "blip" and is thankfully already fading. And it's been a huge source of trouble, judgement, resentment, guilt, deceipt and violence whilst it was here, despite some pleasant church meets and lovely bake sales.
Amy Xoxo He’s not brave or investigating anything, lol. He’s regurgitating found materials in order to prop up the world view forced down his throat by his parents and to try to make a prominent atheist look bad. He has zero goals of improving himself or simply discussing his point of view.
Well Matt is equally ignorant here. He refers to moral realism as 'speaking in code'. Yet moral realism is a philosophical position on morality within metaethics - the only field in which arguments for or against objective morality are discussed. Matt is a Nihilist. If morals are subjective then they don't exist. If someone doesn't agree that wellbeing should be maximized then morality is dead. What you get instead is a conflict of preferences. One person prefers to murder and another prefers not to murder. In Matt pointing out that some people 'prefer' not to murder doesn't resolve a serious problem. That problem being that we don't have answers to our questions regarding how humans should treat one another. Without answer its totally an opinion and so humanity will forever be murdering and killing each other. It doesn't matter if you personally prefer to be nice. Your personal preference could one day cause someone else harm and ultimately you wouldn't care because there is no need to reflect upon yourself because morality is a lie and all actions are directed by irrational personal preference.
@@biogerontology7646 you're just so wrong, likely because you're too deeply invested in some brand of theism, making you blind to 1, that since you can't get everybody to accept your particular god, you haven't solved the problem that you're saying secular morals create, and 2, it's irrelevant that there are gray areas with secular morals. That's not a problem. The fact is that people are moral and it works. Just go out into any crowded event and look. All those difficult to understand cues that you're worried about don't get in the way of people generally cohabitating. The fact is that morals work. Your position is that it comes from your God. You just need to prove he exists. Finding flaws with morality isn't an argument because the fact that it works is observed. We get people are culturally different as middle easterners, Africans, etc, coming to live in the US, and morality has just shown itself to be instinctual. We all know that killing isn't acceptable and those that want to do it do so on the down low, etc for other non social behavior. The argument from morality is just another way for theists to avoid proving their gods exist, and until you've done that nothing you attribute to them is valid argument.
@@JnWayn I'm an atheist. All it took was 3 words to not only undo your argument but point out that you didn't understand me because your ignorant just like the atheist community at large. If morals are subjective they don't exist FACT. I'm an atheist who has read secular moral philosophers who argue that it is objective. They call themselves moral realists. Their arguments are not represented in the media or by the atheist community. The narrative is that objective morality comes from god or morals are subjective i.e. not real. There are other options in that morality could be objective outside of god. Those other options are arguments from 'moral realists' hence when Matt said 'I don't speak it code' he's unknowingly revealing that he hasn't really read that far into ethics. So because of nihilistic idiots the general atheist lazily asserts morality to be subjective and theists exploit this by debating this fuckwits so that they win the debate every single time. If a theist debates you to demonstrate that morals can be objective without god.... running on stage and saying 'yes you're right mr theist sir.. morals are subjective' is throwing a white flag in the air. The theist wins the debate by default. Yet the theist is a coward because they only pick nihilists to debate not moral realists who will defend objective secular morality. Now you'll read this and probably won't give a shit. You'll go on a rant about why morals are subjective but still work. I've heard it before. If morals are subjective anything goes relative to the irrational insane mob.
Morality is like a ruler. I can argue for metric while someone else argues for imperial. But if two people agree to use the same units then when they measure something independently their results will be the same. The measuring device is subjectively chosen, but the measurements taken in relation to it are objective.
an inch objectively an inch from definition. So your analogy doesn't work, unless you think that, for example, murder is definitionally wrong, which I suspect you don't. Measurements are objective insofar as no one can disagree (because no one can disagree with a definition), but it seems this is precisely the kind of sleight of hand Matt is trying to pull in the video, where he imperiously defines morality as wellbeing. It's worth pointing out that Matt is wrong both logically and practically too. His idea of wellbeing morality doesn't give objective measures in all cases, let's show this with a straightforward example. Suppose I'm going to enact petty revenge on someone, and my revenge has a 50% chance of preventing future injustice on the part of the recipient of the revenge. Is this morally just or not? Please, using only your wellbeing = morality definition, objectively prove that this is just, or not.
@@bellumthirio139 What the fuck are you even trying to say? And can you please explain what you think my point was, because it seems like you never understood what I was even saying.
@@onyxtay7246 'Do you have anything to say, or are you just going to complain?' I think it's quite obvious I understand you analogy, but the analogy doesn't work. Measurements in imperial are objective because of the actual definition of a unit. There's no absolute moral convergence when we say 'let's care about wellbeing!', but even if there was, there wouldn't be objectivity from definition (as is the case with measurement) so the analogy doesn't work.
It's actually quite scary. A lot of these Christians directly say that they would not know the difference between right and wrong without their book and are dead serious when they say that.
Jamie Foxworthy without religion (belief in a higher power), we’d still know right and wrong, but it would be subjective... like abortions, spanking your kids, premarital sex etc... each person gets to choose what is right or wrong in their own eyes.
@@ARINOXMUSIC religion is better for the advancement of humanity. Atheism/subjective morality causes chaos and is disastrous for humanity. Probably why virtually none of our ancestors in history were atheists. Humans united is better than each human doing their own thing as they please (good or bad).
It’s amazing how some theists can’t grasp or accept that humans as a species/group can reach a general consensus about what is more beneficial for our existence than not without the influence of a God. This will be partly shaped by evolutionary traits that develop within a social species like empathy, fairness and co-operation. I think this may be influenced by a Christian foundational teaching that people are inherently flawed and therefore cannot question the dictates within the supposed perfect word of their holy book.
If a person "can’t grasp or accept that humans as a species/group can reach a general consensus about what is more beneficial for our existence than not without the influence of a God"; they aren't atheists. I would say that anyone with a 'holy book' can't be an atheist, and that includes the Quantum (Meta) Physicists who seem to think they have found a 'holy book'.
Merriam-Webster now includes multiple references to this video: see Obliterated, Dominated, Outclassed...and more importantly, Evil. This is the kind of guy that everyone should be scared of.
It happens more than once that He interacts conversationally with the hosts until they get to the core of his unwarranted assumptions, and then he falls back on theological duckspeak; (a la 1984).
Makes baseless assertions the entire call. And then when asked to demonstrate those assertions, He just says "Well I don't have to demonstrate that its true" Than why did he call in? what did he expect to get out of the call? Did he actually expect them just to take his word for it? People never cease to amaze me.
The caller said at the beginning that he's a proponent of Craig's moral argument. That means he uses it as an argument for the existence of God. Later on in the call, when he was trying to say why his view of morality isn't just his opinion, he started using god to claim that morality is objective. That sounds circular. God exists because objective moral values exist and objective moral values exist because god exists!
We can all invent commandments that were missing from the famous 10. For example "Thou shalt not donate to a religious organisation that is already fabulously wealthy" Or "Thou shalt not move abusive priests to another area so they can carry on abusing children" Or "Thou shalt not live in a palace and drive around in an expensive car telling people to be like Jesus"
To me it's like both people agreeing to follow the rules of the game. Then when a person breaks one of the rules then that would objectively be seen as wrong, against what rules were previously agreed upon.
What caused the first cause ? Nothing ? In that case, then we have no ultimate explanation for anything. We are looking for something that can't be found.
In regards to theistic morality, this is one of the most important things to know (And Matt Dillahunty said it himself): Morality either transcends the Christian god, and he therefore isn't necessary to turn to, or it's nothing more than subjective fiat declarations; commands from a dictator, essentially.
You fail to address one of the most important theistic positions: that God Himself _is_ the standard of morality. That through His own infinite and unchanging nature (and therefore objective), He is the very thing which one must judge good and evil against, because only He is perfect in every way and so He is the standard. Trying to derive morality from the world itself will lead to false notions since the world itself is imperfect and corrupt. Within the mind of God Himself is the perfect infinite knowledge and wisdom to judge all things, good and evil, to absolute perfection, and thus, only the mind of God is able to judge morality with perfect and absolute objectivity.
@@EndTimesHarvest But if God does make morality, why do we ought to follow him? Why is it objective? Your solution of God's "nature" makes no sense because it only pushes the problem one step back. Who decided what God's nature would be? If God himself did that, then it is still his own opinion, and if he did not make his nature himself, then there is no point discussing because morality comes outside of God!
@@RuggedPanther Why do we ought to follow God and His morality? Because it is objectively correct in everyway. God's morality is objective in the same way that saying "two plus two equals four" is objective. Due to God's infinite mind, He is able to provide objective reasons why His morality is correct. That is, He is able to produce mathematical (objective) or geometric (objective) proof of why each and every sin is a sin. And due to His infinite mind, He would even be able to produce an infinite number of objective proofs to support His moral system. This is to say, God's moral system is like our system of mathematics, geometry, or of physics; God's moral system is as objective as these systems. And this would be so, so obvious to us as humans if it weren't for that fact that our flesh is corrupted (including the brain) and that we are spiritually blind. This largely makes us blind to the spiritual truth of God's morality. "Who decided what God's nature would be?" This is like asking: "Who decided what one plus one would be?" God simply _is_ due to His eternal, unchanging and infinite nature. Who created mathematics? Who created geometry? Was it men? Doesn't it reason to believe that man simply discovered these things instead of inventing them? Wouldn't one plus one still equal two if man never existed? And this points to these things (mathematics, geometry, etc.) existing before time began in some kind of eternal state: truth is eternal; truth today was truth yesterday and will remain truth through eternity. And as it turns out, this "eternal state" is one in the same with God Himself: just as truth is eternal, God is eternal, and within God's eternal, infinite mind is all truth which has ever existed and which will ever exist. No matter what mankind does, achieves, discovers, and invents, God Himself already knew of all those things since before time began. And thus, nothing is ever "invented"; one is simply discovering the eternal truths which were within the mind of God all along. And in this sense, God Himself IS mathematics; God Himself IS geometry. The entirety of mathematics and geometry exists in the mind of God, existing before time began, existing eternally with God. God has no "opinion" on anything because His infinite mind makes Him objective in every single matter. For instance, even when God is judging art/music/architecture, etc., He would be able to objectively judge one work of art over another. Why? Because He's be able to provide objective, mathematical/geometric/philosophical truths. "there is no point discussing because morality comes outside of God!" I mean, morality _can_ come outside of God if man chooses to be his own god and starts defining good and evil for himself. But why is man able to do this? Because mankind had inherited from God, by being made in His image, the gift of freewill, which entails the option to become one's own god; to choose good and evil for one's self. Just think of this: if we were robots with no free will, we'd be forced to carry out our programming (i.e., pre-programmed morality) with zero freedom to deviate from our instructions. It is only because of freewill that we can develop our own sense of morality; the God-given freewill we've been given. In other words, it is all thanks to God that man has the choice to create his own moral system. Just as God established His moral laws, mankind inherits the same power to establish his own moral laws if he truly wishes to rebel against God and make his own rules. But here's the real issue: is mankind's moral system correct? Or is it full of flaws, biases, imperfections, and corruption? Sure, morality _can_ come outside of God, but only God's moral system is perfect in every way. And even when someone is deriving his own morality from various sources, he is doing so through the freewill God gave him and by deriving it from the rest of God's creation.
@@EndTimesHarvest Well, since God is able to provide proof of his morality, you have chosen the prong which states that morality exists independent of God, that moral truths exist and that God acts as only an informer regarding morality, which is THE POINT of this dilemma. The question of whether we can reach that proof is a different question altogether, and so is the question of the existence of the said God.
@@RuggedPanther The Bible itself makes it clear that morality _can_ exist independent of God. This is possible because God gave man the possibility to be his own god, capable of defining good and evil for himself. But this is the issue: man is not perfect. In fact, man is severely flawed, especially in the realm of moral logic. Because of this, imperfections will inevitably start seeping into man's personal moral system. And if even one imperfection slips in, if that imperfection is left to grow and grow, it will cause a downward spiral, continually corrupting one's moral system. This very thing happened to me when I deeply contemplating morality, nihilism, and the atheistic viewpoint: that eventually my moral logic deduced that if God doesn't exist, if our existence is without purpose and is meaningless, then morality doesn't truly exist and is merely just some fluffy concept dreamt of by men. In that case, murder isn't wrong since nothing matters anyway; murdering someone is then just like stepping on an ant. Try as I might, I found no way to establish morality within the atheistic lens which wasn't flawed in some way. As for God acting only as an informer regarding morality; He is both the informer and the judge and the ultimate authority. If you chose to be your own god, defining your own morality, then eventually God will judge you based on that. God will judge you on your own moral system: of how well you followed your own morality and if you frequently cheated and broke your own rules. And God will show you all the times where and how your moral system failed. He will also show you your life through His eyes; showing you what truly matters in life. Due to God's infinite mind, His moral system is perfect and He alone can offer the objective proof of why His system is perfect. Since man has limited knowledge, his understanding of morality by necessity is subjective; his understanding of morality is always influenced by his incomplete knowledge. Since God has infinite knowledge, His understanding of morality is by necessity objective. God already knows every argument: philosophical, mathematical, geometrical, or otherwise. God already has the objective proof for each moral argument. God cannot achieve a greater understanding one day in the future because His understanding of morality is already complete in every way. He knows everything there is to know. This is why God is the foundation for one's life; the rock on which to build one's house. If God's wisdom and knowledge is infinite, is it not wise to follow the system of morality He has laid out? If one chooses to be his own god and define morality for himself, there simply is no way to outdo God's system as it is already perfect. Since man is an imperfect, fallen state, it only makes sense for one to reach out to God, asking for guidance and wisdom. Our relationship to God is truly meant to be that of a Father to His children. Since God is the perfect Father, mankind is able to grow by learning from the Father. Doing so requires humbling one's self and admitting that there is so much that one does not know.
Maybe this discussion should have started with a clarification of what the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' mean. Matt argued that the foundation of morality (an 'agreement that we care about well-being') is subjective and that judgments about conduct flowing from that 'agreement' are objective. However, if there is such an (implicit) agreement then that is an objective fact. By way of example, in contract law when two or more parties make an explicit agreement, that agreement is an objective fact. Yes, it started with subjective facts (the intention of the parties) but once the two intentions meet to form an agreement that is an objective fact regardless of whether that agreement is reduced to writing. The analysis I think (and argue) can be applied to implicit agreements. Sticking with the legal point, when two or more parties from an intention to commit a criminal offence (a conspiracy) the actus rea (objective fact) of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement. The agreement is not the mens rea (the intent). Sorry for the legal language but hopefully you get my point. Applying this to the debate, an agreement to care about well-being is an objective foundation of morality. The other person in this debate (the theist) doesn't have a good understanding of this point. It seemed that he is of the view that 'objective' means something other than a fact - i.e. beyond facts to some underlying principle or 'thing' that explains reality, whatever that might mean. That is not a meaning that is in any way helpful for the debate about the foundation, or justification, for moral judgments. Moreover, I've heard theists talk about 'inherent value of human beings' but I've never heard them explain or define what that means. That point was left dangling. Isn't 'inherent' value independent of other persons? If so, then you don't need a God (another person) for humans to have inherent value. It's not inherent if it is contingent. Too many assumptions by theists in these kinds of debates.
I think the caller tried to define his terms. He just chose to parrot what William Lane Craig wrote. Which is unfortunate because: 1) WLC makes some astoundingly bad arguments, and his moral argument is one 2) The caller didn’t fully think through/understand what the definitions meant Re the legal definitions - its interesting to hear these as it can help shape our thinking, but I see no reason to retroactively apply modern legal definitions to terms used in a non-legal context. I can’t see what possible justification you could have for thinking he should use the definitions as you outline them. Re “inherent value of human beings” - the answer is usually something along the lines of “God created us all with a purpose in mind and that makes us loved and therefore worthwhile/valuable”. Without something greater than us giving us our purpose and value, they think we have no purpose and value. I can’t get on board with this (I think it is incredibly harmful), but I can at least see why a theist would have this view. That’s more than I can say about many things they say.
Re the subjective/objective terminology: Yes, if two parties agree on well-being as the basis for morality, that agreement is an objective fact. But what Matt is saying is that to decide on any basis for morality- be it well-being, God, or anything else, is a subjective judgement. Once the two parties subjectively define morality, then they objectively have an agreement. The fact that an objective agreement exists does not preclude the contents of the agreement from being subjective. Hope I worded this in a comprehensible way.
Re the subjective/objective terminology: Yes, if two parties agree on well-being as the basis for morality, that agreement is an objective fact. But what Matt is saying is that to decide on any basis for morality- be it well-being, God, or anything else, is a subjective judgement. Once the two parties subjectively define morality, then they objectively have an agreement. The fact that an objective agreement exists does not preclude the contents of the agreement from being subjective. Hope I worded this in a comprehensible way.
@@jaredhynum4823 Yes that makes sense. I think there’s a minor tweak in how Matt discusses it. It’s not the agreement that Matt says is objective (obviously it is an objective fact that there is an agreement, it’s Joliet not the relevant part). He says assessments of actions are what are (or at least, can be) objective once you have the agreed goal.
The callers argument replaced with gravity instead of morality. "Is your opinion that gravity exists? Yes? Then you're saying gravity is just your opinion."
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Are virtues loved by the gods because they are good, or are the virtues good because they are loved by the gods?" If it’s the first then virtues exist independent of god and a god is unnecessary and if it’s the latter than any action can become good if deemed good by god, for example the divine command theory of genocidal orders from god against various tribes and nations encountered in the OT
I like the analogy with coordinates. For many years humans believed gravity always pulls stuff down. We now know our earthly environment was deceiving us: there is no absolute down or up in space. Same goes for morality.
In all these years I've never seen anybody trip up Matt Dillahunty. If Christianity had anything going for it, anything at all, it would have happened by now. In my opinion
People who think there's a god who reveals himself (itself?) in the Bible should read Dan Barker's "God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction" 310 pages of immoral opinion and atrocities espoused by God in the Bible.
My mother was very wise. She said many things that have guided me though the valley of death. For one thing, she said, Don't walk through the valley of death. RUN! And always remember, a stick has two ends. Failing to plan is planning to fail. Fine words butter no parsnips. First things first (not last as Jesus said).
I love how theists always make the same terrible non-arguments. Makes my life a lot easier. They say that without god we can’t have objective morals but neither can they. You could just pick whatever god you want, or interpret his “word” and you can make anything moral. It’s still subjective.
The dumb Hitler point where they take someone who isn’t even behaving according to society’s subjective rules and try to apply it to a moral absolute. dumb
If there is a God, how do you know what it thinks is right and wrong? How do you know what God thinks about anything? The bible says kill AND don't kill. It says steal and don't steal.
"I'm not conceding anything." Ya did. You didn't want to, and may not even realized you did, but you agree with Matt almost 100%, but still want to stick god in there somewhere like square peg into a round hole.
😂 right? People forget that conceding a point isn’t only through volition; if your point has been successfully rebutted or countered, YOU HAVE CONCEDED THE POINT. 🤦♂️
What is wrong with throwing stones at your neighbours, friends and family ? I think the answer is so obvious, it's not worth the time to argue about it.
sitting around arguing who's God is best is a waste of time (using coercion, conversion or conquest), but we can sit around & discuss what's in our best interests - such a simple concept, yet so difficult for the superstitious to grasp
Here's the answer. Think of something which isn't written about. For example, cheating but not stealing. If one person says it's right and the other thinks it's wrong and they are both either Christian or atheist, then how is it possible they could arrive at a conclusion without God? If it is God, then how could they arrive at different conclusions?
DEUTERONOMY chapter 23 is brilliant. I could read it everyday, without getting bored. I must tell you that I get a great deal of my ethics from that chapter. For example, I have never moved a sickle unto my neighbour's standing corn. And I always carry a paddle upon my weapon, just in case of a little accident.
It is a fact that Christians can't agree on the wishes of Jesus. And your subjective opinion on what he wants us to do in regards to topics like assisted suicide, capitol punishment, abortion, homosexuality or cloning can't be confirmed as Christians can't and don't agree. _It's just your subjective opinion on what he wants us to do._
Ask the caller if he condones slavery. His moral master does condone it in Exodus 21:20. I dont see why people have to appeal to gods to justify morality. People have to establish rules not to live in a jungle-like society.
His argument keeps going back to “if God”. “If” anything, then yes, something is possible. “If morality comes from bird crap” is just as good as an argument - a foundation based on nothing. Except for the fact bird crap actually exists.
It has to do with target audience; Matt will be the first one to tell you that the caller will almost never be deconverted over the phone. The target is a 3rd-party listener who may benefit from the conversation.
I'm sure someone has already made this point with regard to the moral reference point and his 'floating in space' analogy. We ARE floating in space on a big ball. And we have AGREED reference points as to which way is up- North, South etc. Therefore this analogy holds AGAINST his argument and holds better for Matts argument of a subjective (but collectively agreed) basis for things which can then be objectively assessed - ie. are we travelling up or down (north or south)
I would agree we can objectively determine which actions maximaze wellbeing and which dont, and therefore first we call good and the later bad/evil. But would you say that this objective morality is relative as history shows? Would you say that in the past people did certain things which we would say are bad because it wouldnt maximaze our wellbeing today but in those day it did maximaze their wellbeing so it was good then. Or would you say it was bad because it actualy didnt maximaze their wellbeing back then, it was just unecesery suffering?
Premise 1, most of the people that live or have lived in the past, don’t or didn’t know the Christian God. Premise 2, most of the same people seem to share the same basic moral norms about well being and properties . Conclusion, there is no need for the Christian God to exist, to have morality.
Can something then be immorally moral? If an action that is clearly bad for one persons well being but is good for other groups well being. Is that action moral or not?
"Human wellbeing" refers to humans in general. Another common phrasing to clarify this is "human flourishing". Using slavery as an example, being enslaved is worse than not having a slave, so freeing the slave is better for human wellbeing. There's also the matter that slavery is bad for society in general because freedom and equality turn out to be more efficient and beneficial to society than having a class of slaves. There's lots of game theory and economics minutiae which can demonstrate this, but I like to avoid that by a simple question: "Would an individual American be better off if everyone in Europe were enslaved and working for the benefit of Americans?" The answer is obviously no. If anything, I think most Americans would be worse off if we enslaved all of Europe. You can then evaluate any individual action, rule, or policy based on this principle of human wellbeing/flourishing. Often you will find there are tradeoffs and uncertainty, like how freeing someone from slavery means taking the property of another (as the slave is presently property), but for most things the answer is quite clear once we have agreed upon the basic facts and premises of what we care about.
Matt is assuming that well being is objectively good. It's the same mistake Sam Harris made in his book. We know that well being is good, and I know why well being is good, but Matt cannot justify it.
@@BerishaFatian If it's indeed the case that all members of our species desire well-being (not just all existing ones, but all future and past ones as well), and goodness in defined in terms of desirability, then it's objectively embedded as a property of the species. "Cats like to hunt" is an objective description, for example, even though it requires cats to exist as subjects with desires to hunt. "Humans value well-being" is at least an objective claim about the observable world capable of being tested. I suspect the claim is true since if humans didn't value well-being of any form, they'd quickly perish. If that claim above is indeed true, then you're recursing beyond what is already a closed question to ask why something good is good. I find many philosophers tripping over this and I suspect due to a common belief in mind-body dualism and the notion that the human mind is immaterial rather than something rooted and constrained by the material world. Something can objectively be a constant property of our species at the species level, even psychological properties, provided that all members of our species (or at least the vast majority excluding explainable anomalies such as people with polydactyly possessing six fingers) share those traits. That said, I don't find these well-being arguments for objective morality very practical because well-being is highly ambiguous. Well-being for whom? What type? There are many like financial well-being, social well-being, physical well-being, mental well-being. An objective basis for morality should be grounded in anthropology and observable tendencies of the social interactions of our species.
This has been tested. Social species inherently strive for the well being of the group. Therefore maintaining the well being of the group is objective, just like how me having 5 fingers is objective. It's literally something every social species is born with outside of anomalies
I wonder if David, the caller, still thinks the same way? At some point theists have to understand that the core of their belief in “objective” morality is their agreement to believe in - to accept - the idea, not the god thingy in which they have also decided to believe.
How many times does he have to ask if “wellbeing” is subjective? As long as well-being is the standard for morality, then definitions can be objective. God is removed and wellbeing is substituted.
If morality is subject to god's will, then it is subjective. Unless you claim god is your "object", in which case you need to demonstrate your object even exists before you get any deeper.
Exactly. If I define morality as the contrast of right and wrong, in order for it to have objective foundation, we must include well being. Cutting off one's hand is contrary to their well being, thus is objectively immoral. "Slavery is wrong" = morally true "Slavery is right" = morally false "Slavery is good" = subjective opinion "Slavery is bad" = subjective opinion If I ask you "Is slavery evil"? you can answer No, but it wouldn't be your opinion. You would just be wrong. You can answer Yes, and you would be correct. If you ask me "well Is evil bad"? I would answer Yes. THAT you can say is just my opinion. Then the question becomes "How or what would it take to reach the unanimous conclusion that evil is bad and unacceptable"?
He claims he doesn't believe in the first premise when he actually does, since he says objective morality does not exist whether or not there's a god and "anything implies true". That is, "If there is no god, then objective morality does not exist" is true because objective morality does not exist regardless.
Morality has always been a matter of opinion. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was against the law to be gay, but fox hunting was legal. Now, it's the other way around.
There is a pattern to a lot of these apologist arguments which starts off with an assertion that they can prove God's existence. Yet half way through they resort to the following "If God exists then..."
They have to fill a minimum of 90 minutes of airtime and they get very few calls from theists which are the most dramatic calls. So hanging on and stretching a call out is just good content. But of course many theists also just won’t shut up, sothere’s that too.
@@DoctorShocktor also, why the shit does Matt owe a polite goodbye to a dude who said “I don’t have to prove what I’m saying is true”. Well, godDAMN, you just wasted both our time! 😂 🤦♂️
Listening to this is so painful. The caller agreed that well-being is a good basis for morality. He agreed that once this basis was agreed upon we can make objective evaluations of actions. They were done. Yet he wanted to then throw that basis away in favour of a basis that he has no way of proving, a basis that Matt does not accept, a basis that even if Matt did accept they would have no way of accessing, and a basis that even if none of these huge problems existed still wouldn’t solve the problem he has with Matt’s view on morality. All because he feels like the word “objective” has to be shoved into the discussion. I’ve never understood why people are so insistent that in an interaction between two people, the opinions of those people about how they want to be treated are irrelevant. They’re convinced that what really matters in that human-to-human interaction must be something non-human. It’s nuts. Religion has a lot to answer for for making people think this way.
Well-being leads to better quality of life, can increase longevity... that is not subjective. Better quality of life is evidenced by less illness, lower crime rates, and better performance from the work force.
Better quality of life and illness etc aren't objectively good though. It's subjective if I didn't care about these things then they aren't good or evil they just are.
@@ARINOXMUSIC only if agree on on something that is subjective good can we use that to have objective standard to judge things by. I.e telling the truth , loving others or a better standard of living. But all those things are subjective. There is no objective standard of morality. Everything is just how you feel about them. A lion would kill you if you stepped into its encloser it won't stop and think if thats a good or bad thing to do it just does. If a man comes to you with a gun and threatens to do something to your wife you won't be thinking if its right or wrong to harm him would you? Might makes right morality is subjective and doesn't matter when the gloves come off.
I wonder why god expected the people in his garden to obey him. (Note:- I don't expect the birds in my garden to obey me) Besides, he knew they wouldn't. Nobody would climb if they knew they would fall.
I disagree with Matt; there is an objective moral foundation (template) from which humans can operate in order to best discern whether a behavior is moral or not. An objective foundation only requires two parts: Definition: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Guiding Principles: well-being; fairness; equality The principles may be incomplete but it is, as it is, an objective template (free of bias). The subjective part is the dishonest, arrogant, or ignorant ways people will interpret or apply the principles to various circumstances.
Like many dishonest religious apologists(Yeah, I know that's redundant), this caller likes to try to change the subject even before he starts trying to present his lame arguments. Matt's opinions on objective morality have nothing to do with whether the caller's argument is valid and correct. Many people who are ignorant of basic logic try that tactic.
There is only one thing I disagree with Matt on here, and it's the idea that you have to have a subjective foundation of morality before you can make objective evaluations of actions with respect to the foundation. Subjectivity refers to preferences that are outside of the bounds of necessity, like what your favorite color is or what your hobby is. However, humans caring about their own well-being is an objective necessity for their own survival, and the fact that we can feel and perceive the affects of actions that are harmful to our Well-Being or our Survival, means that considerations of well-being is an objective Necessity for humanity to have as a basis for morality, for as Matt even said, to prevent our own self-destruction.
Dictators can kill millions of people to massively increase their own survival and avoid self-destruction, nothing objective against murder there at all. So no, it’s entirely subjective until a group of people define it as wrong and evaluate it objectively.
Fish, dead bodies and guests smell after three days. A good fence will help you love your neighbours. He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
That is so sad that it all came back to “well I don’t have to show that god exists…” You’re getting a glimpse into the indoctrination this person endured.
This is a great example of script reading gone bad, the second matt pulled him off the script he literally couldn't process it and just ignored his points
"Okay, presupposing that everyone agrees I'm right about everything I think and you're wrong about everything you think, wouldn't you have to concede that I'm right and you're wrong?" - Very Smart Theists
God's robot called in and didn't understand anything about morality related to humans.
😂😂😂
@John Thijm Thijm You would need to prove that the god you are referring to exists to even have it in the equation in the first place. Otherwise, we are just talking in hypotheticals.
This guy can't get off his script. He isn't even listening to what the hosts are saying.
Nate S
Pretty typical.
He probably wrote an argument down from some Christian site.
It doesn't help that the hosts (especially Matt) keep interrupting.
Seems what the video host is doing.
Based on what the caller says, I don't think he has the cognitive ability to.
I could smash my head in to a bloody pulp every time I hear the objective moral argument.
Please don't do that. That would be... objectively immoral.
For all of you that believe in subjective morality, I’m curious of your opinion on this.
According to subjective morality, If someone believes something is morally right or wrong for them, it is subjectively right or wrong for them.
Following that logic, someone could believe racism is right one minute, but then 5 minutes later believe it is wrong and that would be true for them. And they could change their mind endlessly but it would be true for them.
Yeah bud, thats exactly what that means. You can change your mind on things as easily as the wind blows, but I wouldn't venture too far and do something illegal because while we are free to do what we want, we are also free to suffer consequences.
@@Adrianv1981Why should people punish the ones that are just doing what they believe to be true?
@@lovespeaks777 Because its prudent and pragmatic. Chris Watts thought that it was okay to murder his wife and 2 daughters so he could be with his mistress. You think he should be allowed to walk around among us? of course not. What you are getting at is that our own human autonomy should us the right to do anything we want, and you would be right, but your subjective morals, your freedom, your free will, will always stop when it affects others. You are allowed to drive a car, you cannot drive it through a red light because you could hurt someone. Think of it this way, if morals were an objective reality, then where in the world did we get the idea that Jay-Walking is illegal? Was it in the bible? If morals are given to us by god as objective truths, then why does the bible give instructions on how to treat your slaves, or how women should be subservient? Why did god flood the earth killing millions of children? You *could* make an argument about cases like Charles Whitman, the man who killed 15 people plus his whole family, was arrested examined an it was found that a brain tumor affected his cognitive agencies and that resulted in the murders. However that still does not make it right, we still jail crazy people. We even try to rehab criminals in jail. Thanks for engaging man, im going to bed. I hope you can find answers to your questions.
When Matt said right back at him, “That’s just your opinion,” the caller was screwed.
Bingo 😂 if it’s only my opinion, it’s just yours too. Dude froze. 😯 😆 🤯
"Please demonstrate that your assertions are true."
"I don't have to demonstrate anythi..."
"Okay then we don't have to continue talking to you on the show."
"Wait please don-"
*hangs up
Matt's argument summed up:
Morality is both subjective and objective.
Subjective: We need to arbitrarily decide the foundation of morality. In general, humans agree that maximizing societal well-being is the best foundation. This is the unanimous human consensus, which is why sociopaths who do not want to maximize well-being are looked down upon.
Objective: Once we decide our object will be maximizing well-being, we can analyze actions/laws to determine whether they increase or decrease well-being.
Morality based on God is not objective, because there is no solid foundation, no goal. It is entirely arbitrary to what God intends to accomplish at any given time. Following God's whims does not produce a society humans can unanimously agree is good. It leads to violence, death, and slavery. Religion can warp people's minds into thinking these atrocities produce a good society, but that does nothing for people outside the group and we are back to square one.
Yep. That's why the "subjective vs objective morality" question is useless and the "is vs ought" problem is a false dichotomy.
"well-being" is objective?
What defines societal wellbeing? Look how much money we spend on the elderly. If society just killed them, the rest of us would be materially richer. So, are we being immoral by caring for them?
@@johnsmith-kc5hl Good point. Unfortunately, the answer I get is reasoned through an ad absurdum.
@@jimmyjames6796 Society kills millions of fetuses/yr. Apparently, its moral, because society is better off doing this. How is killing the elderly any different?
My dog understands objective morality.
As soon as we met, he realised that I am friendly and that it is his interest to be friendly to me.
He has never shown any aggression towards humans and loves to have his back scratched.
He obviously has his own pet theories about the origin of the universe.
Eeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxactly.
Try being friendly with a Tiger and come back to tell the story.
@@captainfatbat9557
Good point.
It makes me wonder why tigers exist.
Ha! "Pet theories". Did you even realize you made the pun? :)
@@the-trustees
I didn't notice. Pure coincidence. Honest !
We evolved as a social species, meaning that those that knew how to interact and cooperate out-survived those that didn't. The roots of morality are baked into our DNA, our ancient ancestry and our animal instinct to survive and thrive. Compared to the age of our evolutionary lineage, religion is a mere "blip" and is thankfully already fading. And it's been a huge source of trouble, judgement, resentment, guilt, deceipt and violence whilst it was here, despite some pleasant church meets and lovely bake sales.
"You don`t need morals, if you have religion. You just obey the rules" - Desperadox23
Morality is always nothing more than rules to be obeyed. However, certain rules certainly let us live together more successfully.
@@maxwellm9804 However, some rules of this world go against wellbeing, that's why we need a secular morality.
Buy slaves from the nations around u it say
POISON!!!!!!
~ I love this site and always enjoy Matt and Jen and their logic reason and brain power. Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
Refreshing to hear a full bandwidth voice call, I guess from an IP telephone, like he was right there in the studio.
He just will not allow anything like facts to penetrate his ignorance
@Amy Xoxo you could be right
Amy Xoxo He’s not brave or investigating anything, lol. He’s regurgitating found materials in order to prop up the world view forced down his throat by his parents and to try to make a prominent atheist look bad. He has zero goals of improving himself or simply discussing his point of view.
Well Matt is equally ignorant here. He refers to moral realism as 'speaking in code'. Yet moral realism is a philosophical position on morality within metaethics - the only field in which arguments for or against objective morality are discussed.
Matt is a Nihilist. If morals are subjective then they don't exist. If someone doesn't agree that wellbeing should be maximized then morality is dead. What you get instead is a conflict of preferences. One person prefers to murder and another prefers not to murder. In Matt pointing out that some people 'prefer' not to murder doesn't resolve a serious problem. That problem being that we don't have answers to our questions regarding how humans should treat one another. Without answer its totally an opinion and so humanity will forever be murdering and killing each other.
It doesn't matter if you personally prefer to be nice. Your personal preference could one day cause someone else harm and ultimately you wouldn't care because there is no need to reflect upon yourself because morality is a lie and all actions are directed by irrational personal preference.
@@biogerontology7646 you're just so wrong, likely because you're too deeply invested in some brand of theism, making you blind to 1, that since you can't get everybody to accept your particular god, you haven't solved the problem that you're saying secular morals create, and 2, it's irrelevant that there are gray areas with secular morals. That's not a problem. The fact is that people are moral and it works. Just go out into any crowded event and look. All those difficult to understand cues that you're worried about don't get in the way of people generally cohabitating. The fact is that morals work. Your position is that it comes from your God. You just need to prove he exists. Finding flaws with morality isn't an argument because the fact that it works is observed. We get people are culturally different as middle easterners, Africans, etc, coming to live in the US, and morality has just shown itself to be instinctual. We all know that killing isn't acceptable and those that want to do it do so on the down low, etc for other non social behavior.
The argument from morality is just another way for theists to avoid proving their gods exist, and until you've done that nothing you attribute to them is valid argument.
@@JnWayn I'm an atheist.
All it took was 3 words to not only undo your argument but point out that you didn't understand me because your ignorant just like the atheist community at large.
If morals are subjective they don't exist FACT. I'm an atheist who has read secular moral philosophers who argue that it is objective. They call themselves moral realists. Their arguments are not represented in the media or by the atheist community. The narrative is that objective morality comes from god or morals are subjective i.e. not real. There are other options in that morality could be objective outside of god. Those other options are arguments from 'moral realists' hence when Matt said 'I don't speak it code' he's unknowingly revealing that he hasn't really read that far into ethics. So because of nihilistic idiots the general atheist lazily asserts morality to be subjective and theists exploit this by debating this fuckwits so that they win the debate every single time. If a theist debates you to demonstrate that morals can be objective without god.... running on stage and saying 'yes you're right mr theist sir.. morals are subjective' is throwing a white flag in the air. The theist wins the debate by default. Yet the theist is a coward because they only pick nihilists to debate not moral realists who will defend objective secular morality.
Now you'll read this and probably won't give a shit. You'll go on a rant about why morals are subjective but still work. I've heard it before. If morals are subjective anything goes relative to the irrational insane mob.
Hats off to Mat! I wish I found this channel before I went to the seminary.
It's never too late to become sceptical and more reasonable.
Morality is like a ruler. I can argue for metric while someone else argues for imperial. But if two people agree to use the same units then when they measure something independently their results will be the same.
The measuring device is subjectively chosen, but the measurements taken in relation to it are objective.
Nice analogy. Simple to understand.
@money 1 Do you have anything to say, or are you just going to complain?
an inch objectively an inch from definition. So your analogy doesn't work, unless you think that, for example, murder is definitionally wrong, which I suspect you don't.
Measurements are objective insofar as no one can disagree (because no one can disagree with a definition), but it seems this is precisely the kind of sleight of hand Matt is trying to pull in the video, where he imperiously defines morality as wellbeing. It's worth pointing out that Matt is wrong both logically and practically too. His idea of wellbeing morality doesn't give objective measures in all cases, let's show this with a straightforward example. Suppose I'm going to enact petty revenge on someone, and my revenge has a 50% chance of preventing future injustice on the part of the recipient of the revenge. Is this morally just or not? Please, using only your wellbeing = morality definition, objectively prove that this is just, or not.
@@bellumthirio139 What the fuck are you even trying to say?
And can you please explain what you think my point was, because it seems like you never understood what I was even saying.
@@onyxtay7246 'Do you have anything to say, or are you just going to complain?'
I think it's quite obvious I understand you analogy, but the analogy doesn't work. Measurements in imperial are objective because of the actual definition of a unit. There's no absolute moral convergence when we say 'let's care about wellbeing!', but even if there was, there wouldn't be objectivity from definition (as is the case with measurement) so the analogy doesn't work.
With few exceptions, these "objective morals" types result in me envisioning a dead eyed cultist caller...
It's actually quite scary. A lot of these Christians directly say that they would not know the difference between right and wrong without their book and are dead serious when they say that.
Jamie Foxworthy without religion (belief in a higher power), we’d still know right and wrong, but it would be subjective... like abortions, spanking your kids, premarital sex etc... each person gets to choose what is right or wrong in their own eyes.
@@justonetime6179 But I'm an atheist... I believe that your religious morality is subjective.
@@justonetime6179 well christianity still gives subjective morality
@@ARINOXMUSIC religion is better for the advancement of humanity. Atheism/subjective morality causes chaos and is disastrous for humanity. Probably why virtually none of our ancestors in history were atheists.
Humans united is better than each human doing their own thing as they please (good or bad).
The biggest problem with devine command theory is that it reduces morality down to a series of arbitrary edicts.
This caller is a literal robot... He can't even seem to think without being told what to think.
I love the audio distortion when he says "in space" at 15:04
It’s amazing how some theists can’t grasp or accept that humans as a species/group can reach a general consensus about what is more beneficial for our existence than not without the influence of a God. This will be partly shaped by evolutionary traits that develop within a social species like empathy, fairness and co-operation. I think this may be influenced by a Christian foundational teaching that people are inherently flawed and therefore cannot question the dictates within the supposed perfect word of their holy book.
They DO grasp the concepts. They actively pretend that their god exists and that is why it is not possible to remain a theist AND be honest.
If a person "can’t grasp or accept that humans as a species/group can reach a general consensus about what is more beneficial for our existence than not without the influence of a God"; they aren't atheists. I would say that anyone with a 'holy book' can't be an atheist, and that includes the Quantum (Meta) Physicists who seem to think they have found a 'holy book'.
Caller has the Ben Shapiro/customer support entry level script reader psychotic vibe to him.
Objective =/= ABSOLUTE morality..
Caller is talking bout Absolute
@Sunnypsyop ??? Xians???
@@Paulthored X being the Greek letter pronounced "Chi" it's often used to abbreviate to mean "Christ"
He mean Christians.
Merriam-Webster now includes multiple references to this video: see Obliterated, Dominated, Outclassed...and more importantly, Evil. This is the kind of guy that everyone should be scared of.
Holy shit, Matt & Jen have an INCREDIBLE amount of patience.
If their “gawd” were real, they wouldn’t have to sell it.
It happens more than once that He interacts conversationally with the hosts until they get to the core of his unwarranted assumptions, and then he falls back on theological duckspeak; (a la 1984).
Makes baseless assertions the entire call. And then when asked to demonstrate those assertions, He just says "Well I don't have to demonstrate that its true" Than why did he call in? what did he expect to get out of the call? Did he actually expect them just to take his word for it? People never cease to amaze me.
The caller said at the beginning that he's a proponent of Craig's moral argument. That means he uses it as an argument for the existence of God. Later on in the call, when he was trying to say why his view of morality isn't just his opinion, he started using god to claim that morality is objective. That sounds circular. God exists because objective moral values exist and objective moral values exist because god exists!
Christian values basically mean "whatever God wants at a given time"
We can all invent commandments that were missing from the famous 10.
For example "Thou shalt not donate to a religious organisation that is already fabulously wealthy"
Or "Thou shalt not move abusive priests to another area so they can carry on abusing children"
Or "Thou shalt not live in a palace and drive around in an expensive car telling people to be like Jesus"
Thou shall not bendith thy small choir boy over thine alter
@@Garyskinner2422
I can't see what is wrong with it !
There are naturalistic arguments that can be used to explain the objectiveness of the normativity in morality.
To me it's like both people agreeing to follow the rules of the game. Then when a person breaks one of the rules then that would objectively be seen as wrong, against what rules were previously agreed upon.
What caused the first cause ? Nothing ?
In that case, then we have no ultimate explanation for anything.
We are looking for something that can't be found.
'What is truly wrong with negatively affecting the well being of people? ' um .. they don't like it! Is that hard to understand?
Eric Mishima and what is truely wrong when god decided to murder people and genocide the whole planet? Not to mention slavery.
Aesthetic XxX yes, that harmed the well being of others but God doesn’t care.
@@ispd123 God was playing god, what's wrong with that? It only becomes wrong when humans are playing god. Take abortion for example.
@@ispd123 then go do it then for your comic wizard
In regards to theistic morality, this is one of the most important things to know (And Matt Dillahunty said it himself):
Morality either transcends the Christian god, and he therefore isn't necessary to turn to, or it's nothing more than subjective fiat declarations; commands from a dictator, essentially.
You fail to address one of the most important theistic positions: that God Himself _is_ the standard of morality. That through His own infinite and unchanging nature (and therefore objective), He is the very thing which one must judge good and evil against, because only He is perfect in every way and so He is the standard. Trying to derive morality from the world itself will lead to false notions since the world itself is imperfect and corrupt. Within the mind of God Himself is the perfect infinite knowledge and wisdom to judge all things, good and evil, to absolute perfection, and thus, only the mind of God is able to judge morality with perfect and absolute objectivity.
@@EndTimesHarvest But if God does make morality, why do we ought to follow him? Why is it objective? Your solution of God's "nature" makes no sense because it only pushes the problem one step back. Who decided what God's nature would be? If God himself did that, then it is still his own opinion, and if he did not make his nature himself, then there is no point discussing because morality comes outside of God!
@@RuggedPanther Why do we ought to follow God and His morality? Because it is objectively correct in everyway. God's morality is objective in the same way that saying "two plus two equals four" is objective. Due to God's infinite mind, He is able to provide objective reasons why His morality is correct. That is, He is able to produce mathematical (objective) or geometric (objective) proof of why each and every sin is a sin. And due to His infinite mind, He would even be able to produce an infinite number of objective proofs to support His moral system. This is to say, God's moral system is like our system of mathematics, geometry, or of physics; God's moral system is as objective as these systems. And this would be so, so obvious to us as humans if it weren't for that fact that our flesh is corrupted (including the brain) and that we are spiritually blind. This largely makes us blind to the spiritual truth of God's morality.
"Who decided what God's nature would be?" This is like asking: "Who decided what one plus one would be?" God simply _is_ due to His eternal, unchanging and infinite nature. Who created mathematics? Who created geometry? Was it men? Doesn't it reason to believe that man simply discovered these things instead of inventing them? Wouldn't one plus one still equal two if man never existed? And this points to these things (mathematics, geometry, etc.) existing before time began in some kind of eternal state: truth is eternal; truth today was truth yesterday and will remain truth through eternity. And as it turns out, this "eternal state" is one in the same with God Himself: just as truth is eternal, God is eternal, and within God's eternal, infinite mind is all truth which has ever existed and which will ever exist. No matter what mankind does, achieves, discovers, and invents, God Himself already knew of all those things since before time began. And thus, nothing is ever "invented"; one is simply discovering the eternal truths which were within the mind of God all along. And in this sense, God Himself IS mathematics; God Himself IS geometry. The entirety of mathematics and geometry exists in the mind of God, existing before time began, existing eternally with God.
God has no "opinion" on anything because His infinite mind makes Him objective in every single matter. For instance, even when God is judging art/music/architecture, etc., He would be able to objectively judge one work of art over another. Why? Because He's be able to provide objective, mathematical/geometric/philosophical truths.
"there is no point discussing because morality comes outside of God!"
I mean, morality _can_ come outside of God if man chooses to be his own god and starts defining good and evil for himself. But why is man able to do this? Because mankind had inherited from God, by being made in His image, the gift of freewill, which entails the option to become one's own god; to choose good and evil for one's self. Just think of this: if we were robots with no free will, we'd be forced to carry out our programming (i.e., pre-programmed morality) with zero freedom to deviate from our instructions. It is only because of freewill that we can develop our own sense of morality; the God-given freewill we've been given. In other words, it is all thanks to God that man has the choice to create his own moral system. Just as God established His moral laws, mankind inherits the same power to establish his own moral laws if he truly wishes to rebel against God and make his own rules. But here's the real issue: is mankind's moral system correct? Or is it full of flaws, biases, imperfections, and corruption? Sure, morality _can_ come outside of God, but only God's moral system is perfect in every way. And even when someone is deriving his own morality from various sources, he is doing so through the freewill God gave him and by deriving it from the rest of God's creation.
@@EndTimesHarvest Well, since God is able to provide proof of his morality, you have chosen the prong which states that morality exists independent of God, that moral truths exist and that God acts as only an informer regarding morality, which is THE POINT of this dilemma. The question of whether we can reach that proof is a different question altogether, and so is the question of the existence of the said God.
@@RuggedPanther The Bible itself makes it clear that morality _can_ exist independent of God. This is possible because God gave man the possibility to be his own god, capable of defining good and evil for himself. But this is the issue: man is not perfect. In fact, man is severely flawed, especially in the realm of moral logic. Because of this, imperfections will inevitably start seeping into man's personal moral system. And if even one imperfection slips in, if that imperfection is left to grow and grow, it will cause a downward spiral, continually corrupting one's moral system. This very thing happened to me when I deeply contemplating morality, nihilism, and the atheistic viewpoint: that eventually my moral logic deduced that if God doesn't exist, if our existence is without purpose and is meaningless, then morality doesn't truly exist and is merely just some fluffy concept dreamt of by men. In that case, murder isn't wrong since nothing matters anyway; murdering someone is then just like stepping on an ant. Try as I might, I found no way to establish morality within the atheistic lens which wasn't flawed in some way.
As for God acting only as an informer regarding morality; He is both the informer and the judge and the ultimate authority. If you chose to be your own god, defining your own morality, then eventually God will judge you based on that. God will judge you on your own moral system: of how well you followed your own morality and if you frequently cheated and broke your own rules. And God will show you all the times where and how your moral system failed. He will also show you your life through His eyes; showing you what truly matters in life.
Due to God's infinite mind, His moral system is perfect and He alone can offer the objective proof of why His system is perfect. Since man has limited knowledge, his understanding of morality by necessity is subjective; his understanding of morality is always influenced by his incomplete knowledge. Since God has infinite knowledge, His understanding of morality is by necessity objective. God already knows every argument: philosophical, mathematical, geometrical, or otherwise. God already has the objective proof for each moral argument. God cannot achieve a greater understanding one day in the future because His understanding of morality is already complete in every way. He knows everything there is to know.
This is why God is the foundation for one's life; the rock on which to build one's house. If God's wisdom and knowledge is infinite, is it not wise to follow the system of morality He has laid out? If one chooses to be his own god and define morality for himself, there simply is no way to outdo God's system as it is already perfect. Since man is an imperfect, fallen state, it only makes sense for one to reach out to God, asking for guidance and wisdom. Our relationship to God is truly meant to be that of a Father to His children. Since God is the perfect Father, mankind is able to grow by learning from the Father. Doing so requires humbling one's self and admitting that there is so much that one does not know.
Maybe this discussion should have started with a clarification of what the terms 'subjective'
and 'objective' mean. Matt argued that the foundation of morality (an 'agreement that we care about well-being') is subjective and that judgments about conduct flowing from that 'agreement' are objective. However, if there is such an (implicit) agreement then that is an objective fact. By way of example, in contract law when two or more parties make an explicit agreement, that agreement is an objective fact. Yes, it started with subjective facts (the intention of the parties) but once the two intentions meet to form an agreement that is an objective fact regardless of whether that agreement is reduced to writing. The analysis I think (and argue) can be applied to implicit agreements. Sticking with the legal point, when two or more parties from an intention to commit a criminal offence (a conspiracy) the actus rea (objective fact) of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement. The agreement is not the mens rea (the intent). Sorry for the legal language but hopefully you get my point. Applying this to the debate, an agreement to care about well-being is an objective foundation of morality.
The other person in this debate (the theist) doesn't have a good understanding of this point. It seemed that he is of the view that 'objective' means something other than a fact - i.e. beyond facts to some underlying principle or 'thing' that explains reality, whatever that might mean. That is not a meaning that is in any way helpful for the debate about the foundation, or justification, for moral judgments.
Moreover, I've heard theists talk about 'inherent value of human beings' but I've never heard them explain or define what that means. That point was left dangling. Isn't 'inherent' value independent of other persons? If so, then you don't need a God (another person) for humans to have inherent value. It's not inherent if it is contingent. Too many assumptions by theists in these kinds of debates.
Gordon you had me hooked
I think the caller tried to define his terms. He just chose to parrot what William Lane Craig wrote. Which is unfortunate because:
1) WLC makes some astoundingly bad arguments, and his moral argument is one
2) The caller didn’t fully think through/understand what the definitions meant
Re the legal definitions - its interesting to hear these as it can help shape our thinking, but I see no reason to retroactively apply modern legal definitions to terms used in a non-legal context. I can’t see what possible justification you could have for thinking he should use the definitions as you outline them.
Re “inherent value of human beings” - the answer is usually something along the lines of “God created us all with a purpose in mind and that makes us loved and therefore worthwhile/valuable”. Without something greater than us giving us our purpose and value, they think we have no purpose and value. I can’t get on board with this (I think it is incredibly harmful), but I can at least see why a theist would have this view. That’s more than I can say about many things they say.
Re the subjective/objective terminology:
Yes, if two parties agree on well-being as the basis for morality, that agreement is an objective fact. But what Matt is saying is that to decide on any basis for morality- be it well-being, God, or anything else, is a subjective judgement. Once the two parties subjectively define morality, then they objectively have an agreement. The fact that an objective agreement exists does not preclude the contents of the agreement from being subjective. Hope I worded this in a comprehensible way.
Re the subjective/objective terminology:
Yes, if two parties agree on well-being as the basis for morality, that agreement is an objective fact. But what Matt is saying is that to decide on any basis for morality- be it well-being, God, or anything else, is a subjective judgement. Once the two parties subjectively define morality, then they objectively have an agreement. The fact that an objective agreement exists does not preclude the contents of the agreement from being subjective. Hope I worded this in a comprehensible way.
@@jaredhynum4823 Yes that makes sense. I think there’s a minor tweak in how Matt discusses it. It’s not the agreement that Matt says is objective (obviously it is an objective fact that there is an agreement, it’s Joliet not the relevant part). He says assessments of actions are what are (or at least, can be) objective once you have the agreed goal.
The callers argument replaced with gravity instead of morality. "Is your opinion that gravity exists? Yes? Then you're saying gravity is just your opinion."
Perfectly said/done Matt and Jen ᵔᴥᵔ ★★★★★
Katalyzt
If we 'intuitively' know what is right and wrong .. parenting would be a breeze!
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Are virtues loved by the gods because they are good, or are the virtues good because they are loved by the gods?"
If it’s the first then virtues exist independent of god and a god is unnecessary and if it’s the latter than any action can become good if deemed good by god, for example the divine command theory of genocidal orders from god against various tribes and nations encountered in the OT
I like the analogy with coordinates. For many years humans believed gravity always pulls stuff down. We now know our earthly environment was deceiving us: there is no absolute down or up in space.
Same goes for morality.
In all these years I've never seen anybody trip up Matt Dillahunty. If Christianity had anything going for it, anything at all, it would have happened by now. In my opinion
These are my opinions on morality I got from imagining what my imaginary friends opinions on morality are!
Stevo Devo Fixed? You didn’t even write a coherent sentence.
People who think there's a god who reveals himself (itself?) in the Bible should read Dan Barker's "God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction" 310 pages of immoral opinion and atrocities espoused by God in the Bible.
My mother was very wise. She said many things that have guided me though the valley of death.
For one thing, she said, Don't walk through the valley of death. RUN!
And always remember, a stick has two ends. Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Fine words butter no parsnips. First things first (not last as Jesus said).
I love how theists always make the same terrible non-arguments. Makes my life a lot easier. They say that without god we can’t have objective morals but neither can they. You could just pick whatever god you want, or interpret his “word” and you can make anything moral. It’s still subjective.
Idk how you didnt flip out at him comparing your morals to Hitler
The dumb Hitler point where they take someone who isn’t even behaving according to society’s subjective rules and try to apply it to a moral absolute. dumb
If there is a God, how do you know what it thinks is right and wrong? How do you know what God thinks about anything? The bible says kill AND don't kill. It says steal and don't steal.
Thanks
This was painful. He definitely did not see this coming.
It hurt itself in confusion.
"I'm not conceding anything."
Ya did. You didn't want to, and may not even realized you did, but you agree with Matt almost 100%, but still want to stick god in there somewhere like square peg into a round hole.
😂 right? People forget that conceding a point isn’t only through volition; if your point has been successfully rebutted or countered, YOU HAVE CONCEDED THE POINT. 🤦♂️
What is wrong with throwing stones at your neighbours, friends and family ?
I think the answer is so obvious, it's not worth the time to argue about it.
Matt is a very clear thinker.
sitting around arguing who's God is best is a waste of time (using coercion, conversion or conquest), but we can sit around & discuss what's in our best interests - such a simple concept, yet so difficult for the superstitious to grasp
Here's the answer. Think of something which isn't written about. For example, cheating but not stealing. If one person says it's right and the other thinks it's wrong and they are both either Christian or atheist, then how is it possible they could arrive at a conclusion without God? If it is God, then how could they arrive at different conclusions?
DEUTERONOMY chapter 23 is brilliant. I could read it everyday, without getting bored.
I must tell you that I get a great deal of my ethics from that chapter.
For example, I have never moved a sickle unto my neighbour's standing corn.
And I always carry a paddle upon my weapon, just in case of a little accident.
Unfortunately, you'd have to go back in time 2000+ years to make a case against a law no longer established.
It is a fact that Christians can't agree on the wishes of Jesus.
And your subjective opinion on what he wants us to do in regards to topics like assisted suicide, capitol punishment, abortion,
homosexuality or cloning can't be confirmed as Christians can't and don't agree.
_It's just your subjective opinion on what he wants us to do._
I know this is sort of an old video, but is this David Pakman? Does anyone know who that is because it sounds a lot like him.
Ask the caller if he condones slavery. His moral master does condone it in Exodus 21:20.
I dont see why people have to appeal to gods to justify morality. People have to establish rules not to live in a jungle-like society.
6:18 intuitive ethics
"I don't have to demonstrate ... "
"Goodbye!" 😂😂😂
God is not an object and thus not objective, God cannot be used for any "objective morality".
His argument keeps going back to “if God”. “If” anything, then yes, something is possible. “If morality comes from bird crap” is just as good as an argument - a foundation based on nothing. Except for the fact bird crap actually exists.
"God is good because he says so."
11:50 headshot
Only complaint i have is Matt waits until hanging up to explain why the guy is wrong.
It has to do with target audience; Matt will be the first one to tell you that the caller will almost never be deconverted over the phone. The target is a 3rd-party listener who may benefit from the conversation.
Im getting reaaally big Darth Dawkins wipes from this
I just said the same thing. This sounds def about him just on a softer scale.
@@thickerconstrictor9037 Same shite, different aroma 😂
Isn’t this a younger Darth Dawkins?
I'm sure someone has already made this point with regard to the moral reference point and his 'floating in space' analogy.
We ARE floating in space on a big ball. And we have AGREED reference points as to which way is up- North, South etc. Therefore this analogy holds AGAINST his argument and holds better for Matts argument of a subjective (but collectively agreed) basis for things which can then be objectively assessed - ie. are we travelling up or down (north or south)
I got more excited during this video than any in a while.
Although it's probably because Matt's alarm is the same as my ringtone.
Not this time Satan.
Nothing more subjective than some random dude’s interpretation of an ancient book of horrors
I would agree we can objectively determine which actions maximaze wellbeing and which dont, and therefore first we call good and the later bad/evil. But would you say that this objective morality is relative as history shows? Would you say that in the past people did certain things which we would say are bad because it wouldnt maximaze our wellbeing today but in those day it did maximaze their wellbeing so it was good then. Or would you say it was bad because it actualy didnt maximaze their wellbeing back then, it was just unecesery suffering?
Premise 1, most of the people that live or have lived in the past, don’t or didn’t know the Christian God. Premise 2, most of the same people seem to share the same basic moral norms about well being and properties . Conclusion, there is no need for the Christian God to exist, to have morality.
Can something then be immorally moral?
If an action that is clearly bad for one persons well being but is good for other groups well being.
Is that action moral or not?
"Human wellbeing" refers to humans in general. Another common phrasing to clarify this is "human flourishing". Using slavery as an example, being enslaved is worse than not having a slave, so freeing the slave is better for human wellbeing.
There's also the matter that slavery is bad for society in general because freedom and equality turn out to be more efficient and beneficial to society than having a class of slaves. There's lots of game theory and economics minutiae which can demonstrate this, but I like to avoid that by a simple question: "Would an individual American be better off if everyone in Europe were enslaved and working for the benefit of Americans?" The answer is obviously no. If anything, I think most Americans would be worse off if we enslaved all of Europe.
You can then evaluate any individual action, rule, or policy based on this principle of human wellbeing/flourishing. Often you will find there are tradeoffs and uncertainty, like how freeing someone from slavery means taking the property of another (as the slave is presently property), but for most things the answer is quite clear once we have agreed upon the basic facts and premises of what we care about.
Matt is assuming that well being is objectively good. It's the same mistake Sam Harris made in his book. We know that well being is good, and I know why well being is good, but Matt cannot justify it.
What do you mean it good or not good in this context?
@@Imrightyourewrong1 We know that well being is a good thing. The question is why is it a good thing? Is it objective or just human opinion?
@@BerishaFatian If it's indeed the case that all members of our species desire well-being (not just all existing ones, but all future and past ones as well), and goodness in defined in terms of desirability, then it's objectively embedded as a property of the species. "Cats like to hunt" is an objective description, for example, even though it requires cats to exist as subjects with desires to hunt. "Humans value well-being" is at least an objective claim about the observable world capable of being tested. I suspect the claim is true since if humans didn't value well-being of any form, they'd quickly perish.
If that claim above is indeed true, then you're recursing beyond what is already a closed question to ask why something good is good.
I find many philosophers tripping over this and I suspect due to a common belief in mind-body dualism and the notion that the human mind is immaterial rather than something rooted and constrained by the material world. Something can objectively be a constant property of our species at the species level, even psychological properties, provided that all members of our species (or at least the vast majority excluding explainable anomalies such as people with polydactyly possessing six fingers) share those traits.
That said, I don't find these well-being arguments for objective morality very practical because well-being is highly ambiguous. Well-being for whom? What type? There are many like financial well-being, social well-being, physical well-being, mental well-being.
An objective basis for morality should be grounded in anthropology and observable tendencies of the social interactions of our species.
This has been tested. Social species inherently strive for the well being of the group. Therefore maintaining the well being of the group is objective, just like how me having 5 fingers is objective. It's literally something every social species is born with outside of anomalies
I wonder if David, the caller, still thinks the same way? At some point theists have to understand that the core of their belief in “objective” morality is their agreement to believe in - to accept - the idea, not the god thingy in which they have also decided to believe.
How many times does he have to ask if “wellbeing” is subjective? As long as well-being is the standard for morality, then definitions can be objective. God is removed and wellbeing is substituted.
That caller's bone helmet is as thick as a brick.
Is he sitting under Matt's desk?
This guy sounds suspiciously like that Darth Dawkins presup troll, I don't think it is, but he does definitely sound similar.
This guy talks but doesn't listen, he is like a record stuck in a groove. He goes round and round stuck in the same place.
I hope I never have to argue against you, Mr. Dillahunty.
"That's just your opinion! Now here's my gods opinion, checkmate Atheists"
If morality is subject to god's will, then it is subjective. Unless you claim god is your "object", in which case you need to demonstrate your object even exists before you get any deeper.
Exactly. If I define morality as the contrast of right and wrong, in order for it to have objective foundation, we must include well being. Cutting off one's hand is contrary to their well being, thus is objectively immoral.
"Slavery is wrong" = morally true
"Slavery is right" = morally false
"Slavery is good" = subjective opinion
"Slavery is bad" = subjective opinion
If I ask you "Is slavery evil"? you can answer No, but it wouldn't be your opinion. You would just be wrong. You can answer Yes, and you would be correct.
If you ask me "well Is evil bad"? I would answer Yes. THAT you can say is just my opinion. Then the question becomes "How or what would it take to reach the unanimous conclusion that evil is bad and unacceptable"?
He claims he doesn't believe in the first premise when he actually does, since he says objective morality does not exist whether or not there's a god and "anything implies true". That is, "If there is no god, then objective morality does not exist" is true because objective morality does not exist regardless.
Morality has always been a matter of opinion.
At the beginning of the 20th century, it was against the law to be gay, but fox hunting was legal.
Now, it's the other way around.
There is a pattern to a lot of these apologist arguments which starts off with an assertion that they can prove God's existence. Yet half way through they resort to the following "If God exists then..."
Is this caller Inspiring Philosophy? His bullshittery sounds alot like him
The caller is not helping himself and loses the argument by saying. “If god exists”
I never understand why Matt can’t just say goodbye rather than just hanging up mid sentence.
They have to fill a minimum of 90 minutes of airtime and they get very few calls from theists which are the most dramatic calls. So hanging on and stretching a call out is just good content. But of course many theists also just won’t shut up, sothere’s that too.
@@DoctorShocktor also, why the shit does Matt owe a polite goodbye to a dude who said “I don’t have to prove what I’m saying is true”. Well, godDAMN, you just wasted both our time! 😂 🤦♂️
Listening to this is so painful. The caller agreed that well-being is a good basis for morality. He agreed that once this basis was agreed upon we can make objective evaluations of actions. They were done. Yet he wanted to then throw that basis away in favour of a basis that he has no way of proving, a basis that Matt does not accept, a basis that even if Matt did accept they would have no way of accessing, and a basis that even if none of these huge problems existed still wouldn’t solve the problem he has with Matt’s view on morality.
All because he feels like the word “objective” has to be shoved into the discussion.
I’ve never understood why people are so insistent that in an interaction between two people, the opinions of those people about how they want to be treated are irrelevant. They’re convinced that what really matters in that human-to-human interaction must be something non-human. It’s nuts.
Religion has a lot to answer for for making people think this way.
Well-being leads to better quality of life, can increase longevity... that is not subjective. Better quality of life is evidenced by less illness, lower crime rates, and better performance from the work force.
Better quality of life and illness etc aren't objectively good though. It's subjective if I didn't care about these things then they aren't good or evil they just are.
@@DaddyAZTLcan you then define a different methodology that would intake that then
@@ARINOXMUSIC what do you mean?
@@DaddyAZTL you say better quality of like does not necessarily mean there could be objective good....what other measurement is there then ?
@@ARINOXMUSIC only if agree on on something that is subjective good can we use that to have objective standard to judge things by. I.e telling the truth , loving others or a better standard of living. But all those things are subjective. There is no objective standard of morality. Everything is just how you feel about them. A lion would kill you if you stepped into its encloser it won't stop and think if thats a good or bad thing to do it just does. If a man comes to you with a gun and threatens to do something to your wife you won't be thinking if its right or wrong to harm him would you? Might makes right morality is subjective and doesn't matter when the gloves come off.
I wonder why god expected the people in his garden to obey him.
(Note:- I don't expect the birds in my garden to obey me)
Besides, he knew they wouldn't.
Nobody would climb if they knew they would fall.
I disagree with Matt; there is an objective moral foundation (template) from which humans can operate in order to best discern whether a behavior is moral or not. An objective foundation only requires two parts:
Definition: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Guiding Principles: well-being; fairness; equality
The principles may be incomplete but it is, as it is, an objective template (free of bias). The subjective part is the dishonest, arrogant, or ignorant ways people will interpret or apply the principles to various circumstances.
Picking the foundation is the subjective part.
I am treating the origin of the universe as unexplained.
Like many dishonest religious apologists(Yeah, I know that's redundant), this caller likes to try to change the subject even before he starts trying to present his lame arguments. Matt's opinions on objective morality have nothing to do with whether the caller's argument is valid and correct. Many people who are ignorant of basic logic try that tactic.
There is only one thing I disagree with Matt on here, and it's the idea that you have to have a subjective foundation of morality before you can make objective evaluations of actions with respect to the foundation. Subjectivity refers to preferences that are outside of the bounds of necessity, like what your favorite color is or what your hobby is. However, humans caring about their own well-being is an objective necessity for their own survival, and the fact that we can feel and perceive the affects of actions that are harmful to our Well-Being or our Survival, means that considerations of well-being is an objective Necessity for humanity to have as a basis for morality, for as Matt even said, to prevent our own self-destruction.
Dictators can kill millions of people to massively increase their own survival and avoid self-destruction, nothing objective against murder there at all. So no, it’s entirely subjective until a group of people define it as wrong and evaluate it objectively.
Fish, dead bodies and guests smell after three days.
A good fence will help you love your neighbours.
He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
If my well being is what matters, can I kill and eat someone if I am starving to death? If we are not intrinsically valuable than I suppose I could.
I suppose you have not got a fucking clue what you are talking about. Another theist with listening problems.
Surprised Matt didnt go with the slavery thing.
That is so sad that it all came back to “well I don’t have to show that god exists…” You’re getting a glimpse into the indoctrination this person endured.
Yeah but well being is subjective so everyone can come up with thier own well being
Captain Abez In what way is well being subjective?
When you're trying to reason with an automaton.