Does Morality Exist Without God? Professor and Student Battle it Out
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 дек 2020
- Clip taken from the debate, 'Morality Without Religion is Bankrupt': • Christian Professor vs...
If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
They later both went on to leave the room even though it wasn’t on fire
I read this comment before watching the video and was very confused.
I wonder what their reasoning was for leaving the room despite it not being on fire
The guy in the middle , is just sitting there … questioning his entire life
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
That's why I read RUclips comment 😮
So the moral is to never put a philosopher in charge of fire safety.
...nor Christian believer because if somebody is burning alive in a house that means that it was God's will, and God is always right and moral ;-)
Going to ignore the entirely fallacious and ignorant reply. I applaud your comment. Put an atheist or a philosopher who questions every logical conclusion in charge of fire safety, everyone would burn before he raises the alarm….. the crux of the atheistic outlook on life. Opens up the path to societal degradation.
@@haza9988 going to ignore the entirely fallacious and ignorant reply to the reply. I think he’s saying if the fire safety officer is Christian we will leave the room because he heard from an authority figure that fire is bad and we should leave. An atheist fire safety officer will have known fire is bad and we should leave the room.
@@haza9988 I guess it went right over your head.
@@TribuneAquila you clearly dont understand the moral constructs and the purpose of religion. Your ignorance emanates from the ignorance of your comment. Yes, everyone knows a fire is bad atheist or theist. The difference is an atheist has no solid reason or motivation to save the people inside (you can argue as much as you like), but a religious person has every reason to save the people inside. It’s his faith and his life to serve the creation of God. A solid construct of morality is totally needed otherwise who is to say in 100 years time murder or incest is considered a social norm and thus a potential moral virtue. Something no atheist can prevent. Religion is there as a guide to keep mankind on a moderate path. To prevent it’s true followers to not fall into destitution as time goes by…
Alex, simply u are legend. I'm Somali, Watching u from Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
I've spoken to many Christians from Africa a few justified slavery . completely foreign too me hearing people say my ancestors deserved slavery based in god
Hello 👋 wave from Ireland!.
Walaal ma nin Rasuulkii ilaahay caaya oona gaal Ilaahay aaminsaneen ah ayaad legend ugu yeereysaa? Wixiisa daawo balse fadlan ka fiirso qofka aad agree lanoqonayso oodna amaneyso Waa talo walaaltinimo ah.
@@Kkkkyaah caqliyad aan wax baa la caayey iyo waxbaa la ammaanay ahayn ma haysid miyaa walaal? Doodaha faraha badan ee dunida ka oogan iyo xoriyadda hadalka toonna miyaadan aqoon? Halkan dood baa taal logic iyo facts ku salaysan oo looga hadlayaa daawo ama aayar dhaaf. Anigana ha isku dayin Inaad wax ii yeedhiso. Mahadsanid.
So under the banner of logic, facts, and freedom of speech I could slander your parents and you’d have no problem with it? Waliba amaan ayaad iiraacin leheed?
Qiimo Yeelo waxna isku fal Hadaa tahay mu’mmin, hadaadse eheen no point in talking to you ✌🏾
Sir, you're both the Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens 2.0, but without the ego.
Excited to see the minds you shape over the next 20 years. You don't try to have a 'got ya!' moment for the sake of applause, you seem rather interested in deepening people's minds. Bravo.
yes. Respectful discussions elevate the level of discourse amongst people of differing views, which allows for meaningful progress. Alex is respectful unlike hitchens and dawkins etc, who seemed to rely on rhetoric rather than actual arguments.
@@a.d1287 Hitchens and Dawkins didn't use rhetoric at all. They use and used valid logical arguments in the face of absurdities. Dawkins has been rattled, but that's because he's had debates and discussions with people whom are obtuse, whom don't understand the subtle points he often makes. Hitchens suffered similar situations. In no sense did these two people become unnecessarily rude or resort to rhetoric.
Hitchens answers with questions when he fails to find an answer to the original question, Sam actually thinks Obama is smart and came up with an excuse to not sit down with hamza tzortzis.
@@reembagadi7875 Hamza isn't that famous he is mainly famous among Muslims
Sam talked with Much more famous big people like WLC,Jordan Peterson
@@stewartmoore5158 who not whom. He is to who as him is to whom
Professor said: "God commands things because they're good. (...) You define God in terms of good." in response to "Are things good because God commands them or He commands them because they're good". IMO it is a circular reasoning.
Bingo
That part confused me. He immediately said one right after he said the other. I wish Alex had called him out on it.
God is good
@@Giorginho Which God? I'm pretty sure you cannot be talking about biblical God...
That reasoning you just applied came from moral reasoning.
Otherwise the system that atheism functions upon is denying the idea of right and wrong existing beyond subjectivity.
But answering your question. God commands something to be good and what makes that something good is because there is a moral standard and quality to it which makes it good and good can sometimes make no sense if we take it out of it's context or situation that justifies why it was good
The only meat Alex is interested in is the philosophical meat of the argument.
Haha, love it👌😆
Don't worry, I will eat double the meat to make up for Alex.
@@miamimiami7415 Don't worry, I'll eat triple the beyond meat to make up for it.
@@miamimiami7415
Original comment/10
@@miamimiami7415 you gave such a disappointing troll comment
This channel is an absolute godsend.
how do atheists account for the creation of the universe?
@@a.d1287 How is the creation of the universe relevant to a lack of belief in GOD? Theistic explanations for the creation of GOD are not inherent or necessarily relevant to theism, just as atheistic explanations for the creation of the universe are not inherent or necessarily relevant to atheism. Just as it is possible to believe in GOD without knowing how the universe is created, it is possible to be an Atheist without knowing how the universe is created. Atheists don't need to provide an answer to how the universe was created, it makes their position no less valid.
Can atheists come up with any reasonable/rational reasons for how the universe was created?
@@a.d1287 Many atheists claim to, and I could try to provide one, but I am not sufficiently satisfied with any of the explanations.
*This does not reflect on the validity of atheism.* Theistic explanations for the creation of the universe can only be valid if you *already* believe in GOD, thus the ability of some theists to say they have an explanation for the creation of the universe does *not* make their belief in GOD any more valid.
@@a.d1287 atheism has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. Try asking cosmologists and other certified experts in the field instead of a RUclips comment section.
Also you're poisoning the well by assuming the universe was "created" in the first place.
I like the humility of this young man, even though being an intellectual. I think it is quite rare.
Rare to you
I always make this arguement much more simplified, but this was wonderful to watch, it explained it perfectly in detail.
Men created God in their own image, then wrote a book about him. Book permits murder, rape, incest, slavery and animal sacrifice and also forbids them. That's the funny thing about organised religion. People tend to drop it or enforce it whenever it's convenient or inconvenient for themselves. The character King David, a prime example. He raped Bathsheba, then murdered her husband Uriah so he could have her for himself. I have high moral standards myself, that's why i'm atheist and vegan.
You have high moral standards according to who? Yourself? What standard are you basing your morals against? That's the point. Without a standard beyond ourselves, it's just personal preferences and opinions.
With King David, that's kind of the point. He fell into deep sin, and had to repent. Note that the Bible doesn't condone everything that's in it, but it notes that it happens. Case in point, King David thought he was special, and could have everything as a result. But after his sin, he is rebuked by Nathan, and his son is killed as a result. David is not the prime example of human goodness, Jesus is.
YES! Well said
@@dataman6310Yeah so this great god killed innocent son because the father sinned… what great moral standards this god has.
*clapping sarcastically*
@nettaboyar9870 without God there is no objective morality. You can say "murder is wrong", but that doesn't make it true. God can take the life he gives, but we can't, since we did not create it. "The LORD giveth, and the LORD taketh away. Blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). Job is a fantastic book that deals directly with the issue of why God allows suffering, I suggest you check it out.
The thumbnail and title say it all. "Does morality exist without God?" and "why be good as an atheist?" Are completely different questions.
First prove that a God of the Bible exists would be the best place to start.I am still waiting for that to happen ?
@@Bugsy0333 a good place to begin is by looking at the world around you and thinking carefully and critically on this question: Does it make more sense that all the order, design and complexity around me came about as the results of unmanaged forces that burst into existence out of nothing, or does it make more sense that there was something prior to all this that designed it, and this something must have been timeless, spaceless, powerful and personal to have both the capacity and the will to create something so complex?
This will not necessarily lead you to saying God exists, but it's a good place to start. Check out the world around you!
@@sidwhiting665 I think you have the argument backwards. Nobody is claiming definitively that the Big Bang has no creator, only that no evidence for one exists. It is theists who claim that their deity has no creator, thus we rationally state, "If that is true of your creator, then it is logically just as plausible for the Big Bang".
@@sidwhiting665 By the way can i ask your age ? I am 60 years old !
Intuitively it makes sense; but intuition is not logically sound. The he simple truth is we don’t know the why for any of this stuff but what we do know is the concept of god has the same issue of “came from nothing” as everything else. Any kind of “he always existed” garbage is a unfounded claim that can be granted to anything with the same amount of justification as you would because we hold a lack of knowledge.
Have you read the Bible lol? It is quite clear to me that the Christian God is not in anyhow kind of way a representation of an objective "good".
Well said
The Bible was written by people who changed its original version and now there are different versions to it, so you can't really depend on it for accurate information.
Using the Bible as an objective standard to morality is a terrible stance. The Bible is full of genocide deemed good by a sky daddy because he said so…
Morals can come from a variety of sources, including cultural and social norms, personal experience and reason, philosophical and ethical theories, and human empathy and compassion. The existence of a god is not a necessary condition for the development of a moral code.
cultures were born from abrahamic religions and same goes for norms, you steal someone's wealth, off with your hand
You are correct that anyone can develop a moral code with or without god / the gods / God , but a superior definition is necessary for the justification of a moral code beyond might makes right. I cite one example among many: it was a societal norm, which you appear to have a high opinion of, around the world that slavery was the natural order of things prior to the 19th century. Only when Christian philosophers began to realize that all people are equal because they are made in the image of God did we see slavery start to fade and eventually be abolished. Earlier societal norms had to be replaced and reshaped by a moral law that transcended what people believed was correct for thousands of years.
By contrast, material secularists have no basis whatsoever for claiming that slavery is bad other than they personally don't like it. That's simply the most popular opinion of the moment, and it could change with no objective standard of reference.
@@sidwhiting665 I agree slavery is bad because it's degrading and harmful to others. Not because of your opinion that all humans are made in the image of God. Human sacrifices are bad too however that is what Christianity is based on. So the main take away I think is that morals can come from religious teachings however bad practices and ideas can come from religion as well. The Bible is a mixed bag.
@@sidwhiting665I would love to believe objective morality exists, sadly, it doesn’t exist no matter what. So what we REALLY have is people claiming they follow an objective moral standards when really, they are following something as subjective as my own.
@@sidwhiting665 Slavery was never an acceptable moral condition. No one genuinely thought slavery was a just cause with proper morals.
It’s actually abolitionists who had to create the idea that all men are created equal under god to get Christian to understand that racism is bad actually
Thank you for your videos!
Brilliant clip, thank you.
Alex nailed this dude. He doesn’t even realize all his “oughts” aren’t oughts, they are desires. Desires, according to Derek Parfait, can never be oughts. I’m hungry is not an ought, it’s a desire, and when I’m on a diet my desires and my ought are not the same.
Alex is respectful, but he's not answering questions he was asked. When other guy asked him if he can provide justification for his moral system, Alex only answered Christians can't do that either. So Alex is basically saying no moral system has a justification. So he didn't justify his own moral system, which he was asked to do.
@@goranmilic442 Neither can, which is why more and more people are becoming moral nihilists.
Well no. The christian(or anyone who believes in a god) can justify morality as objective because a transcendent god that created everything is by defintion the arbiter of everything. Anything that is good, or defined as good by said being is good. End of story. The thiest doesn't claim to have perfect moral understanding. They just claim that there is an objective right, and wrong, and that they strive to understand it better and better, and abide by it by doing good. The athiest has no such objective grounds to justify any moral belief they hold. They themselves claim morals are but a result of our evolved behaviours. And thus subject to any human opinion. The rules can be written, and rewritten in our accordance. That defintionally, and realisticly means that there is no such thing as "doing good"
@@anthonypolonkay2681 The atheist can easily point out that is it really a good act if you are being coerced by Heaven or threatened by Hell?
Doing good is set by humanity. The standards for it are by us and enforced through us. It is that simple. Do you argue semantics when discussing other aspects of life such as attraction. Would a conventionally attractive person be neither attractive or ugly? Since it is us humans who are setting the standards for it. You see the issue with that reasoning?
@@pulsegamin4790 you miss the point. It's not a threat of hell, or promises of reward that gives the meaning. It's the idea that theres a lack of arbitration on good, and evil. You dont get to twist the morals to fit what your wanting at the time like you do under athiesm/subjective morality. (I mean people can, and will attempt to, but trying to do so requires being inconsistent with the theistic worldview. If you have the integrity to be consistent with your own worldview, then all arbitration goes away under theism)
Like you have the ability to agree or disagree with moral ideals still. You are not forced to think any particular way. But you can be incorrect, and correct in your aggreance or disagreeance. When you do something wrong you do it wrong even if the entire human population was saying it was okay. And if you do something good, then it was still good even if the entire human population said it wasnt okay.
That's why theism, and the accompanying objective morality gives morals meaning. Because humans do not have the power to change the defintion of a "good" thing, and a "bad" thing to be most easily comfortable with whatever thier current selfish ideas, and desires are. Under athiesm, and subjective morality, that's all morals amount to. Opinion, and concenesus of opinion. Good, and evil are at liberty to change with our moods. Which makes it absolutely meaningnless.
Also I do tend to swear the semantics of other aspects like attraction,and stuff like that. So I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be getting at there.
Alex: Makes a valid point
Professor: Well, i disagree
It's worse than that:
Alex: Makes a valid point.
Professor: I agree with you, but here's why I disagree.
Well, thats kind of how philosophy works to be fair. All sides are generally "valid", it just comes down to which one has more persuasive arguments.
@@muddavadda religion isn't generally valid.
Excellent and polite exchange.
4:30 “I don’t agree with separating off the normative from the descriptive.”
Well that’s the problem!!!
I’m no philosophy major, but isn’t that totally ignoring the is-ought distinction? He doesn’t seem to be able to understand it or think it true.
@@Yameen200 I don’t see how a being with all knowledge changes anything.
@@Yameen200
You ought to be moral as it leads to making others happy, subsequently making yourself happy.
There's no necessity for God there. This is true regardless of faith.
Speaking to Humanity's ability to fulfill its moral obligation is an entirely different conversation.
Whether or not it is possible, does not change whether or not it is true.
@@TheGeopigMan Doesn't that mean that morality is objective, if it is an inherent property, not something we choose?
@@goranmilic442
Morality is objective.
@@TheGeopigMan If I understood you correctly, you believe in objective morality without God. I too. It's a rare combination, not many I found on RUclips comments like us.
Theism is no more than belief in some extra-natural entity (or entities) manifesting itself in/as natural events.
Religion , as the term itself suggests, is a communal venture presupposing: 1. such entity (or entities) to be open to interaction with humans, and 2. that there is already a set of moral values by which such humans interact with each other.
@Rooble Cali Sorry! RUclips is it for me.
The professor doesn't make this argument but it's what I thought of when I first started to hear him and it's this:
You both seem to be talking about reasons in the sense of philosophical justifications but I think that if you shift the discussion to reasons in the sense of motives/incentives, you get to an interesting point. That is, why should anyone be good? The best incentive that I can think of is if you are convinced that an all-powerful and all-knowing entity (or all-powerful process such as karma) will reward you immensely if you are and punish you equally immensely if you are not. Religion can provide that conviction. Can atheism?
I am an atheist. This argument is not a means for determining what is true nor for determining what to persuade someone you are convinced is capable of doing good regardless of the incentives to believe. Just a warning that teaching atheism to everyone indiscriminately may have unintended consequences.
It's impossible to detach moral sense from a human being because moral sense is fundamental to give a human being the sense to judge between right or wrong.
Take for example a 2 year old. Even at that age children are able to identify a wrong behaviour and respond with resistance, for example, try to steal something from a child and the child will notice what you did was wrong.
While they have no idea about moral standards or a God.
Alex is respectful, but he's not answering questions he was asked. When other guy asked him if he can provide justification for his moral system, Alex only answered Christians can't do that either. So Alex is basically saying no moral system has a justification. So he didn't justify his own moral system, which he was asked to do.
@@goranmilic442 It was a sort of talk past point. Alex was climbing from an Atheistic perspective that they’re not different. Which is exactly the problem with the debate as the axioms differ
From an agnostic perspective, I see a reason to be "good" it to fulfill the social contract. That is "Hmm, I could steal this amazon box from this guys but if that were a normative rule, it would suck when I order stuff from amazon" In that sense, it makes sense to do good as it will retain society where we collectively benefit. That said, if we were living in anarchy, one would either have to break the cycle of anarchy or this idea wouldn't apply as much, realistically speaking
Human 'nature' is to be alive, conscious, curious and to assign value; 'good' is value. 1:45 prof "defines god in terms of good"; so god isn't a necessary concept, but would be in our nature.
It's much more interesting seeing to opposite people somehow respect eachother while talking to eachother.
Alexi, I wish to know your take on Antony Flew's conversion, being a professor of philosophy at Oxford for a long time.
It baffles me that educated people still ask this question
I believe Alex made a video on why intelligent people believe silly things. It was beautifully made tbh.
So called educated people thinks that everyone follow their morality.
Hahahaha very educated that you can’t even define what is good and bad
ok redditor lol
why comment on the video?
The old man simply doesn't understand that he is completely wrong.
Also I love the statement that god sets the objective standard of good. Has anybody read the bible? The atrocities commanded by this god are outrageous in form and multitude.
You are severely misguided
the old man, also known as keith ward, a world renowned philosopher should somehow listen to you.
Specifically what atrocities are you referring to. You understand that just because an atrocity is in the Bible doesn't mean that God condones it?
God saying it is ok to own slaves .god saying to kill the whole populations and keep the virgins for sex slaves have you not read your bible .God says don't eat shellfish but can't say don't own people but instead gives instructions
Instructions saying you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die within 3 days .God killing millions of innocent babies with his great flood .your god is a moral monster and the best thing happening right now is the wave of atheism .less than 50% of Americans attend a church and that is all religion .it has sped up in the last 10 yrs and with trump as the face of Christianity that is also helping .it is hard to take the moral high ground with him as the head of Christianity in America
Have not seen the video but...OBVIOUSLY YES! Amazing that this is even a topic.
From the book ... The Final Inequality, by L. J. Ludovici. "Morals at any given moment have always been as good, or as bad, as our imaginations credit them, for the morals (from the Latin, mores: customs) means simply customs, and they keep changing all the time in all the corners of the world."
I always found it strange that some people would only act good underneath the presents of someone or thing. That says a lot about someone’s integrity.
God put good in all our hearts. without him everything is just opinion.
@@EATMAN888 All morals are opinion. It's weird that christians are psychopaths who have no concept of right and wrong and believe they only do as commanded because they can't have any opinions of their own. If morals aren't opinion, please indicate how we would ask your god questions about morality and get correct answers back or for even more laughs tell us how we could ask other humans what they think about morality and how that isn't exactly what opinions are? Good luck. Just take the L.
Day 3 of asking Alex what the J stands for in his name
Alex Justeatplants O'Connor
Jay
J for genius of course
Jesus
Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself
"Why be good?" Well, hold on.What is "good" and who can truly define what "good" is? Is there such a thing as "good"? (I believe there is)
Do not cause Injury, harm or loss.
The atmosphere of the room is amazing
I totally agree with you here Alex, as a religious person.
In Buddhism, the declaration of things being karmically good is simply an observation of reality. Gautama Buddha never dictated morality; he simply tells us what is good and why. So even in Buddhism, the concept of something being good is an inherent property of the action(relieves suffering). There's no need for something to be dictated to us as good, unless there are reasons for it to be good, which means that goodness is independent of God's input.
Sadly, a lot of recommendations by theistic religions on morality tend to be without valid reasoning, so people perceive many cruel teachings of their religions as "good" purely because they are told so, rather than because they can justify the goodness of that action.
When you write “Gautama Buddha never dictated morality; he simply tells us what is good and why” what do you mean by “never dictated morality”? Because I see the phrase “dictating morality” and “telling what is good” as interchangeable, meaning the same thing. How is telling someone “what *is* good” different from “dictating morality to them”?
To me your sentence read as “Buddha never said X, he simply says X” where X can be replaced with “dictated morality” or “tells us what is good” because both mean the same thing.
@@jpe1 When I said "telling us", I mean "informing us". The title Buddha just means "teacher", and his teachings are considered an elucidation of truth that we can choose to follow rather than as a diktat.
@@jpe1 I read that as one of those "ooh we buddhists are so different" whilst holding identitcal positions to other religious people. It's such a boring trope.
@@jpe1 I assume he means that the 'Buddha' gave cause and effect reasoning, as opposed to 'this is inherently bad' type reasoning. Then, it's up to you what sorts of effects you wish to cause. And people may choose different paths based on what they value.
@@yahyamohammed637 I agree that that distinction is meaningful. To say “this is path ‘a’ and these are the consequences of choosing ‘a’ (and ‘b’ and ‘c’ etc)” is different from saying “this is path ‘a’ and you must choose ‘a’ because ‘a’ is right and ‘b’ is wrong.”
The morals of biblical people have changed over time, for example slavery is encouraged within the Bible. If the religion you follow needs to be altered to keep up with the moral standard of the time, then surely that is proof that you can have moral standards outside of a religious context
sincere but amateur mistake. the slavery of the bible is not the same as the slavery we refer to in the modern era. in a way this is an equivocation fallacy. so your argument is Invalid. objective morals don't change with time (just like facts), only context changes how certain morals should be applied. don't confuse the 2
@@a.d1287 do you mean that slavery in the Bible did not consist of owning another human? It is though clearly stated in the bible that slaves can be purchased from foreigners, or POWs made slaves, and they were owned, and their descendants, by their master.
What is the difference with modern concept of slavery?
(Edit) forget about my question. I have just realized you are the troll who used to send few replies with assertions and no evidence. I already spent some time with you at no avail. You simply left when cornered. No need to reply, so.
@@chefchaudard3580 you can run away if you want
@@chefchaudard3580 btw there is a difference between the modern concept and the past concept of slavery. two completely different contexts. just go search it up to verify. not hard
@@a.d1287 ho! We agree! Morality, being subjective, constantly evolves with time. What was considered moral slavery 2000 years ago, was considered immoral 300 years ago. The concept of slavery is still discussed now. Today, the concept is partly extended to animals, for example, and some would like it to be fully extended.
So, to answer your assertion: the slavery in the bible is still part of the slavery the Lights refered to 300 years ago, and we refer to today. And it is considered as immoral for 300 years.
Morality is doing what is right despite what you are told.
Obedience is doing what you are told despite what is right.
People who don't need to be told what to do to be good or find purpose do not need religion. Unfortunately, not everyone is capable of this and those who are not tend to be incapable of comprehending those who manage without a master. Nonetheless, it works.
I ve came to the same conclusion, a few weeks ago if god all good how do you establish it?
Morality has always been a problem for religion. Whilst individual theists can be moral, they have no way to explain why any act is right or wrong through faith.
@@thevulture5750 Textbook circular reasoning. Bravo.
It has been a problem for theists and atheists alike, not only for the religious. It's why more and more people, and about 50% of philosophers, are essentially moral nihilists at this point.
@@yahyamohammed637 Indeed, but certainly more of a problem for theists.
@@yahyamohammed637atheism isn’t a dogmatic world view, but one way to explain morality is by what is expected by selection pressure acting on a social species that needs to be moral to reproduce or survive.
@@Ozzyman200 Not really, if you define God as ultimate goodness you can at least have ontological grounding. I don't see a way to have this grounding without some God-like metaphysical concession.
I think Alex absolutely destroys the professor here.
Professor should have been better equipped
@J w Why didn’t he?
@J w it's not a matter of being Atheist, it's just a technical point. The prof wanted to get an ought from an is, without justification whatsoever. The first 5 minutes are balanced, when he start with the example of the room on fire it gets quite one sided.
@J w Can you clarify on what points you disagree with Alex? I saw all his points as quite reasonable, and that’s rare since I tend to nit-pick quite a lot.
@J w Dude. You really like to jump to conclusions. I don’t always say my guy won in every instance. I criticize those with whom I disagree all the time. I just think in this portion particularly, Alex was clearly right.
You can’t create normative force out of thin air. Because that is quite literally what we are arguing about. You have to justify that you can bake in normative force into a description. That is equivalent to saying that it is possible to get an ought from an is with ONLY descriptive premises.
The professor does not explain why he can do this. He just says you can. But it seems like he fails to realize that assertion REQUIRES that you can get an ought from an is. But that is literally what we are arguing about - whether you can do that or not.
It seems like begging the question to me. Why am I wrong?
Whats a good book somebody can recommend about morality? (Particularly arguments for atheistic morality)?
the moral landscape by sam harris- I didnt read it, but its content fits your request. There are also debates between harris- and Jordan Peterson on yt if youre interested. I can also recommend Moral tribes by Joshua Greene and The Righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt is also brilliant but not specifically about atheistic morality
Contemporary philosopher A.C. Grayling writes a lot about morality from an atheistic point of view. I'd recommend "What is Good?". He writes very accessibly on the complexities of ethics and morality. I'd also suggest Stephen Pinker's book 'Enlightenment Now' which is more of an applicable look at ethics in the modern world. Others have mentioned Sam Harris's "The Moral Landscape" but I'd also add his book "Lying" which specifically looks at notions of truth and their importance to life (plus it's like 80 pages so a nice quick read).
If you want to get a bit heavier, Classical writers such as Marcus Aurelius, Cicero or Lucretia all wrote beautifully on morality from a pre-Christian stand point.
The myth of morality - by Joyce
The question: why be good if there is no God? Shows a lack of understanding about the human condition. Humans are programmed to survive, as are most creatures. We are hard wired by nature. For example, Deer are born with with an over-welling desire to stand. Baby joeys and born with the compulsion to climb into the mothers pouch. We're no different. Early on, we learn it's in our best interest to fit in, to co-operative and hopefully be accepted by those around us. If we're disruptive, argumentative , violent etc we can be ostracised and shunned. It's human nature to be good for our OWN benefit. The most dreadful acts are often committed by religious people. Most fanatics are religious fanatics. We shouldn't need to learn right and wrong from a book... and those that do are often too late.
I'm not sure if this is an accurate question.
Morality does exists without the existence of a god. If we are in agreement that there is no god, I have operated with moral values in my life.
This question then provides for doubt that there is a god. As we are making an assumption that god is controlling my moral behaviors.
the question should be is there a purity of good out there, does pure good exist in a sense that it is ultimate and undefiled standard of goodness, you can't take annything from it or add to it because it's full of that which is good. So if there is a planet where people exist that believed sacrificing a child every full moon, sexually abusing it and then drinking it's blood because the adrenalized blood gives them energy and makes them feel god which in the end gives them a ritualistic behaviour they put some meaning onto and it automatically is true, they can think they are transending their bodies entering these deep states of ecstatic hypnotic extasy, or making themselfs better for it and they reason themslef it's good to sacrifice one for the sake of many to feel good, and the acts of debauchery and orgy gives them pleasure, the question is is their action then good because many think it is good? are their actions justified and if not why not? why would human life have anny value outside of their/group context of life. So the question agins is if there is pure goodness we can align ourseflt to this straight line and see what we are doing wrong and there comes Jesus, which life testifies of truth beceause it's a life where he was giving himself to others in every aspect, teaching, healing , dying for others. A story of God stumbling upon his throne, a virtue being incarnated in flesh so it can actually be loved, something that you can have a realationship with to know it fully and to love it fully. without that you can love evil, you can love rape, you can love stealing, you can love, violence and that actions can make you feel good and why would that person care for "should" or "ought" he is doing what he thinks is good and he is his own standard, this person will not pay for his actions and he will enjoy sensuality or experience that he chose even if it has victims around him without anny consequences. And there lies the problem of not having God, it's a dance of randomness, chaos that we have illusion of taming with out rational minds but nothing is certain, it's all just emnpty concepts we make up. Sory for my English
I think you were talking past each other at this point: Professor Ward seems to think that you need to believe in some kind of theistic "karma" in order to be motivated to act morally, so the is-ought gap is somewhat irrelevant to his argument.
Yes, next question.
Morality only comes about when the basic survival needs are met, the bodies nutrients needs overrides it.
Hence when people addicted to heroin, they don’t have a choice wether to use once the brains survival system has been highjacked You get the resulting behaviour, stealing, telling lies anything to make you feel better, hunger, regardless of imprisonment or consequences the need is very real or you could die. Similar behaviour.
But that being sed, most of us don’t like to see another suffer, emotions are part of our care and our human survival evolved to not just ensure the survival of the individual, as it is rare that one could themselves, and survival is not thriving.
it’s actually survival of the family, and creating one, pack animals. Hence we’re most happy socialising in our chosen tribe.
Why be good as an atheist? simple. because we share space, we live in a society, and treating others decently and doing good things not only benefits those around you, but it benefits you as a member of that society. The golden rule, treat other people how you want to be treated. If we lived in a society based of the "morality" of the bible slavery would still be legal, women would have to marry their rapist and we would still be carrying out animal and human sacrifices to appease the gods strange blood fetish / blood magic.
I mean by all means, if you think I am wrong about slavery being immoral, feel free to tell me how slavery (as described in the bible) is actually a good moral thing?
Lol the golden rule is literally from the bible
So in the case a negative action benefits me, what is the moral argument against it? If morality is simply self interest
@@santimedina4443 No it isn't. It was used there, sure, but one of the earliest formulations is from Ancient Egypt.- circa 2000 BCE “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.” - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110.
Do you actually believe Jesus came up with the golden rule? You are daft.
@@netonnaagu924 Because it harms another. Selfishness being acceptable throughout a society has obvious negative effects on the community. The lack of trust, the betrayal, the manipulation, all widespread, will lead to mayhem.
@@pulsegamin4790 I see your point but I think it only work at a societal level. Most of what I do as an individual really has little to no effect on the society as a whole. Much like voting, my vote in a federal election doesn’t really count but the vote of the society counts. So what I do on an individual level doesn’t really matter. Does this make any sense to you?
There is no morality without an afterlife.
Why?
@@goranmilic442 because it's impossible.
@@dex1391100 Well, can you explain that more specifically, please?
@@goranmilic442 sure. Morality is completely subjective. Without an afterlife why would anyone try to live within a non existent measure of morals?
@@dex1391100 Because he subjectively wants to. And there is a difference between "no morality" and "no reason for morality".
Bloody Brilliant 👏
I dont think its about morality but more about our survival as a species and what would be the best course of action to do in the moment . as a species we typically try to survive from seeing what is of value or threat around us. so if there isnt a reason to do anything "bad" or cause harm to someone we just wont do it. everything kinda done to ensure our survival.
I disagree because there is something called respect, honour and integrity that human beings try to protect. For example, rape won't kill you and so why do we call it wrong to rape a women?
@@JohnJohn-pm9wq Because it harms you psychologically often times driving the person to suicide or severe depression. Chopping off your hands won't kill you, so why don't you want to happen to you?
Honestly speaking, are you right in the head?
It must be demonstrated by providing sufficient evidence first and foremost that an alleged god even exists before it can be reasonably claimed that anything exists as a consequence or condition of that alleged god.
how do you account for the creation of the universe?
@@a.d1287 Creation has to be demonstrated..
As for how the universe came to exist, I can't account with absolute certainty and I haven't seen ANY human be able to logically account for it with absolute certainty either.
I have also never seen anyone provide a good answer as for why it's even important to account for the existence of the universe.
In other words, how would knowing how the universe came to exist relevantly change my life or the life of most humans since even if the universe was "created" by something sufficiently capable of creating a universe, this doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that the thing that created the universe does anything else at all
@@LouisGedo If you claim to be an atheist, you should be able to account for the creation of the universe, or rather, at least try and offer a rational/reasonable explanation, since the universe cannot come into existence out of nothing (scientific impossibility).
Do you have any reasonable explanation to account for the creation of the universe?
@@a.d1287 My atheism is simply not being convinced by the alleged god claims of theists.
I have my opinions about the origins of the universe, but I see no good way to be able to account with absolute certainty that these opinions are the actual explanation since I see no way of falsifying ANY claims about how the universe came to exist.
You are wrong about science since science is not a method in which to make scientific determinations about possible events before the event of the Singularity. In other words, it's NOT necessarily true at all that it's impossible that a universe can come from nothing since science has no way to determine this.
Much more likely than not, our local universe is just an iteration of one possible consequence of the functioning of an infinite and endless cosmos.......a cosmos which may contain infinite universes.
I see no good reason at all for there to even be a need for some alleged god / creator of a universe......and no one ever has provided a cogent explanation why there would have to be.
@Mermaids love dick 'You are making an assumption that nothing existed before "something"'
so are you saying something existed before nothing existed? appears logically incoherent
What I think being good is mainly how actions contribute to the greater good. Most good actions contribute to the betterment of the species and thus being derived as good and eventually put into law.
Actions cannot occur unless there are intentions. Good actions can be done with good or bad intentions. Thats often what the materialists & subjectivists ignore.
Sure, but someone else could show up and say 'i think being good is mainly how my actions contribute to the elimination of the human species.'
@@Yameen200 No, you do not understand that because you are not really a good person. If you believe good actions always have intentions then your moral system is fucked and you probably believe in Jesus.
At a first glance, of course, because of the greater good and agreeance of civilized living.
Okay I'll watch the debate now
@cosmicskeptic God is redundant if, in absence of/independent of God, "good" can be conceived and practiced. People who need God as an enforcer of good (which somehow is independent and internal to God at the same time) are actually not good. Because for these people good is external.
To say that without god there’s no reason to be moral, is basically saying that the only reason you’re not a serial killer is because sky daddy told you not to be, which is a little disturbing…
Is it more disturbing than not doing because of fear of jail or because of some evolutionary developed instinct?
you could say the same thing about your own parents telling you not to murder so you don't. The moral code is inscribed upon us by God.
@@thomazmartins8621Uhh yes? Was this supposed to be a gotcha?
@@habe1717 Yes, because it isn't. He said that it is disturbing needing God to be moral. The problem is he forgot to provide a moral standard to base this opinion on.
Does this guy not believe in the is-ought gap?
He does, but cognitive dissonance stops him from applying it to the logic he uses in defense of his god as good because he would have to admit he is wrong and that he has no real basis for it. He simply believes it without evidence (on faith alone) and is thus being irrational. We are all susceptible to cognitive dissonance, but the mental gymnastics that theists pull makes them champions of it. I've seen people rationalize killing their own families if God commanded it. Deluded to the extreme.
Almost all Moral theory of Moral Cognitivism + Moral Anti-realism and Moral Cognitivism + Moral Anti-realism that I know of suffers from Hume's guillotine. Hence it seems like Moral Non-cognitivism is the only real way to avoid humes guilotine since the concept of Non-cognitivism is that moral utterance does not have a true value in them, in other words moral statement cannot be true or false, but they are just mere dislike or like or social construct. Another way to put it is that you can'not justify that slavery racism sexism animal sufferings and homophobia is morally false but rather they are just mere fluctuations of Emotion and social construct.
The question is do you really think that racism homophobia etc is can'not be morally false?
@@n4rzul If you think that humes guillotine is true then can you demonstrate to me how you can justify sexism racism to be morally false without committing humes guillotine?
If you can'not justify it to be so and think, feel, and really believes that sexism racism is truly morally false. Then perhaps you should re-examine yourself and that maybe you are the one who's suffering from cognitive dissonance.
@@azap12 I dont believe you can get an ought from an is no. Ultimately I believe we and the universe have no meaning. There are no oughts only what is. However, if I am to spend my time here on earth and not succumb to nihilism I do what we do in mathematics. I choose a set of axioms and live my life accordingly. Sam Harris has a talk on this. I am aware this does not solve the problem of humes guillotine, but at least I dont resort to "I dont know therefore God". Is it so hard for people to say "I don't know". So although I stated my personal position on this, it is subject to change if in the future we have better arguments to circumvent humes guillotine or proof of gods existence actualy materializes.
Did Alex say that his morality is solely based upon his intuition? That's makes him guilty of what he critiques Sam Harris for.
Embarrassing to think this man is an elder Theistic Professor at a prestigious University and he can't even grasp a very basic and ancient argument like this.
In your own words can you explain what exactly was Alex trying to put through
Jesus christ, this man is a professor? I could have mistaken him for a mop.
shouldnt we aim to elevate the level of discourse amongst different parties by being respectful, in order to make meaningful progress? your comment does not contribute in any way towards the goal and is actually an obstruction towards it.
@@a.d1287 my comment is an observation of the discourse.
@@Rave.- its an obstruction toward meaningful progress through discourse
@@a.d1287 I thoroughly disagree.
@J w Which makes his smooth, graceful mopping action across the floor by Alex that much more of a confuddling contrast.
Why being good without fear of hell? In my case, empathy. When I see people suffer I feel bad, specially if their sadness was provoked by me. That feeling has nothing to do with christian values or being learned, empathy transcends time and cultures. We can feel sad for seeing a person that doesn’t speak our language or even met just because we can see ourselves in their shoes.
Even if human knew the standards without GOD why as an atheist I Commitment to ethics for example killing maybe defined as a bad for other people and for other no how you solve this choice now
Given how immoral the god of the bible is portrayed, it's ludicrous to claim such a god - if it existed - could have anything to do with morality.
It's a beautiful thing when a student surpasses the teacher - especially when it's by several orders of magnitude...
All these ridiculously technical, long-worded debates are all good, but every theist out there is still failing to provide evidence of whichever god they’ve chosen.
That's because you can't logically prove that God exists. But you also can't logically prove that God doesn't exist.
If you compare a situation to where if an atheist was born into this world not knowing any laws, and a Christian born not knowing any laws, Who do you think will be a morally right person
The atheist.
We are all born atheists dear, it is only after parental and societal indoctrination that belief in invisible magic beings and talking animals occurs. 😜
The atheist.
Self-evidently the Christian, because our laws are based upon Christianity. Also atheism offers no reason to even impose moral obligations on us.
@@paulburns6110 not self evidently, unless you’re a Christian of course, but that’s false thinking, of which the Christian excels.
Only people who believe in god can be moral bollocks.
Does morality exist without God? In short, no. Let me attempt to explain:
God is the great "I AM." Whatever attribute God has, He is the embodiment of the perfection of that attribute. So, if God is loving, then He is perfectly, completely and properly loving. If God is merciful, He is perfectly, completely and properly merciful. If God is faithful, trustworthy, loyal, honest, etc. then He is the perfect embodiment of those attributes. In essence, God is the source and perfection of all that is good.
He is also the perfection of the proper application of every attribute. For example, even if God is "angry", then He is the perfection of the proper application of "righteous indignation." God resists all evil. There is no possibility of evil in God, else He ceases to be God. God is defined by his goodness, or in other words He is called Eh-weh ("I AM") or Ya-weh ("HE IS").
Does this mean that good exists outside of God? No. Mankind is the seed of the Divine (Acts 17:28), and the Divine spark lives in each being. That spark in each person is of God and is indeed a PART of God. So, while the atheist can truly "do good" and exercise moral character apart from specifically believing in God, they cannot do it apart from God. The Devine spark or influence inside each one of us is known as the light of Christ, "The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:9). This is akin to the concept of a conscience. This is the inborn moral that is given to "every man."
So what of God? Well, we are invited to cultivate that Divine spark and nature, and by the grace of God through faith and diligence, become "perfected in Christ" and "become one with Him" in nature and very being. Indeed, that is even a purpose for our existence.
There is an opposition in all things. It has been said that 'good cannot exist without evil, nor evil exist without good.' This is true. How could it not be? The most heinous evil imaginable can only be perceived against the background of the the most good imaginable. Well, this good is God.
As far as morality; it is only effectual in the eyes of justice. In other words, morality's foundations stand firmly upon the bedrock of justice. I find it very interesting that a common concept of all religions is the idea of ultimate justice. In this life, do we see justice meted out at every instance to every transgressor or evildoer? No!! Hence the popular saying "Life's not fair." Indeed, it's not! Some justice exists, but it is clearly not in full effect. Well, if there is no God, then there is no ultimate source of justice. But God, who knows the thoughts and intents of every heart, and there being none who can escape His all-seeing eye, will eventually be pierced by His glaze at some future point. Full and complete justice will be served. This cements and perfects morality. If not, then as long as you can "get away with it" and especially if "none is the wiser," one can justify away morality quite easily and conveniently. We often see this in the world already. Morality begins to lose it's power and luster with this mistaken view. What you are left with is a society that doesn't really love, isn't really honest, and doesn't really have integrity, but rather tends to ONLY be afraid of getting caught or looking unpopular.
If there is no God then there is no incentive to BECOME honest, true, upright in every instance. If the breaking of a moral code will yield something of interest to the person, then how easily and perhaps often will that code be broken!
Also, the logical outflow atheism is nihilism. There is no other way around it. If there is not God then there is no real meaning to anything, because nothing endures, nothing lasts. There is no real hope, only utter unyielding despair. There is no real love, only temporary feelings and commitments. There is no real joy, because tomorrow it's gone. How easy it is to say then "let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" (Isaiah 22:13). If so, there are no causes to fight for, for they are already lost. There are nothing meaningful to dedicate yourself to, for you are already come to naught, gone out of the world and out of utter existence.
Again, I would never say that atheists' are immoral. As much as the Divine spark is kindled by God in them and they love good rather than evil, though they may not believe in God, they actually are coming closer to Him then they realize. A person is pushed to cultivate the Divine inner spark only by God and His influence. In many instances they may not even realize it. This principle also applies to the religious. There are many who claim a belief in God, but who exercise no real faith in him. As much as they have allowed the Divine spark the be quenched, and love evil rather than good, they have removed themselves from God.
But there is a God. He IS good. He loves us perfectly. Life has profound and unsearchable depth and meaning. There is ever hope for each one of us. All have the Divine spark within them, which is a part of God. Ultimate justice will come and be carried out. We are to do more than to act moral, we are to BECOME moral and partake of the goodness and life of God.
Makes sense!
Who told you god isn't evil? Don't tell me it's the bible because that would be more of a circular reasoning!
But the idea that our existence is limited is also the greatest motivation to be moral...
If you need an incentive to do the right thing, is it really you being 'good'?
You lambast secular morality as being _"only subjective"_ whilst simultaneously being unable or unwilling to accept that YOUR morality is entirely a subjective matter. Its predicated upon the SUBJECTIVE ASSERTION that YOUR specific God that we should all adhere to. Yet you fail to recognise that a vast array of conflicting and contradictory moral conclusions are derived from christianity even assuming that the christian God exists is the only "God" and is moral.
If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion*
That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? )
Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality*
*CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ??
Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.
The theist has clearly been meeting with other theists to make things up about god as they go along to preserve their collective delusion. It's like comic book writers arguing over a hero character's super powers...
😂 Good one... They might have plagiarized on each other...
@@filibusteros.787 the bible did plagiarize
@@filibusteros.787 Daniel Dennett said the same thing before about how it's like dreaming up comic book characters in an interview before and it stuck with me. So now I see it often in these sorts of discussions with theists or in things I read (e.g. Augustine).
There are moral standards of fairness, equality and well being and justice, but there are no standards for what is simply "good" or "bad". This is all true with or without a god
Really interesting discussion. I check out Alex from time to time even though I am a believer, it's really interesting to hear his perspective. I did think the answer of why do good is pretty evident from a theological perspective. Sin separates us from a holy God. God has made a way of salvation for anyone who wants to come back into fellowship with him. And although we are not saved by good deeds, obedience to Christ is what it means to follow Jesus. God calls on us to love one another, and we do good out of our love for God and love for others.
No evidence that a God concept exists.
In your opinion what makes atheists ”do good”.
@@crue-xx Because they're not worried about receiving an award at the end of their life like theists.
@@Bugsy0333 No what is the motivation for doing good?
@@crue-xx
Please define "morality" and "good" for us all...... does it relate to human wellbeing or suffering and how we treat each other ? Is it relative or absolute ? Objective or subjective, if objective then *NAME THE SPECIFIC STANDARD* ? What purpose does it serve ie what the goal of a moral system ? 🤔
If these basic questions are beyond you then please don't waste either my time or your own in further discussion
Why even debate about something so obvious? Ofcourse there's morality without "god" smh...
Yeah , this is laughable. Morality comes from a God who sanctions slavery, incest, human sacrifice, and genocide, Have any of these kooks read the Buybull?
mostly agree but I wouldnt say incest is inherently evil though its definitely disgusting to most homo sapiens
“You believe it to be good”… “what’s the basis for believing that it’s good?” That’s a disturbing query, that ANY person could seem incapable of discerning the basis for “good”. It’s a dubious window into the minds of theists. That they can’t recognize good for the sake of good. And the obvious basis for that conclusion is “good” is largely based upon Social expectations and rules in order to sustain civility. Anyone unable to fathom that are likely “simple minded” and not very deep thinkers.
This is a loaded question since morality in itself is subjective. You only think something is good/bad because someone told you .. so religious should say why follow our subjective morality if not a believer
I've discussed now a few times in my own vids. You can be good without God. And you can be evil with God in your life. All religious wars have proven this. But does this battle of good vs non good come from a God vs the proverbial devil? Or dark force or whatever you want to call it. The argument can be given that it must come from a higher being and the argument can be given that it doesn't necessarily have to. As all atheists aren't in prison. Either way this argument can't be won by either side. Cheers,DCF
The purest responses come from a baby or toddler.
Can we not as intelligent animals establish what is right and what is wrong?
Being good is it's own reward. I don't want people to be murdered or raped because I don't want to be raped or murdered and knowing others are being raped and murdered causes me pain. Why do we need any more reason than that?
the thing people don't wanna understand or admit ... is that morals are either going to be based on the belief of god ... because god said so ... without any logical proof ... even if you don't understand it ... or it's going to be based on emotions ... because logically ... we failed to prove it's existence outside our human experience ... either because we are less intelligent than we should be to understand it ... or it's just gonna just an illusion ...
Around the start of the video, Alex states, "I want to do a good deed because I believe it to be good." This is a fallacy thinking that humans can define what is good, and we have many infamous examples from history. I will choose probably one of the more common, as it is easy to understand and most people have heard of it.
Hitler didn't kick off WW2 simply because he liked being bad. In his mind, he thought it would be good for the German people to have Lebensraum (living room). This led him to justify the annexation of Poland and Czechoslovakia prior to the outbreak of WW2. So now the question: was he wrong? Defend the answer without appealing to "society" and "what's best for the group"... because that's exactly to whom Hitler appealed and you're going to lose that unless your guns are bigger than his, in which case, the argument becomes "might makes right." We also cannot appeal to reducing or ending human suffering, because in many ways Hitler justified his takings as a way to end the suffering of German people due to the Allied imposed war reparations from the German defeat in WW1 and the crushing poverty of the Weimar Republic. "Human suffering" creates a sophisticated algorithm of appeals: Who suffers more? Is poverty worse that lack of freedom or vise versa? If we force a smaller group to suffer so that the larger group can thrive, is that ultimately good? Once again, we have only one way to solve it: might makes right.
Unfortunately, the prof fumbled the ball on defining good and God at first. Then he finally got around to it but not as directly as he should. The premise is that God is the standard of Good. In other words, what is Good is God and God is good. They are one and the same. But God is more than simply good; he is that and much more. There is no "Good" outside of God for him to measure his acts against or else Alex would be correct that God lacks something, and therefore is not God.
The bottom line is if you have no objective standard of good, then "good" becomes whatever the strongest group of humans agree on, and our history is filled with horrible examples of humans mistreating each other because each society had their own definition of Good. Even today, we see wars going on around the world because person A believes their "good" is right and person B's good is wrong or somehow not as good as their good. The Declaration of Independence authors got it right saying humans are endowed with God-given, inalienable rights. Human given rights can be removed by other humans. Only God-given rights are inalienable unless he (God) chooses to remove them.
Thank you for this reply, u did more for me than this video ever could
Let's explore this example. Hitler thought that he was doing good for German people. We might disagree with that & say that Hitler did wrong because of XYZ reasons. These two statements are enough to tell you that morality can only be subjective & not objective. Moral objectivists tend to commit two fallacies - 1) To take subjective morality at scale & mistake it to be objective 2) To believe that because morality is inherently subjective, we have to act in accordance with that. Let me clarify what I mean with an example - Cheating is wrong in a relationship. If you ask people, a large majority would say I subscribe to that & cheating is wrong. Does that mean cheating is objectively wrong or subjectively at a large scale it appears to be wrong? Answer that for yourself. Once we establish that something is subjectively wrong, what to do with it? Humans have created law for this exact same reason. Some of us intelligent humans realized that because morality is subjecive, it could create chaos in the society if not controlled. So, let's establish some objective rules to counter subjective morality & control humans
Doesnt this prove the morality is subjective?
@@arpit.sharma
Rather ironically Hitler was a self identified CHRISTIAN who repeatedly said that his movement was a Christian one and that he was "doing the lords work" with regards the Jewish people 🤢🤮
@@arpit.sharma
The German population at the I'm comprised approximately 93% Christians. Both they and the Jewish people held The Old Testament in common and it was only with regards jesus being the Messiah that differences occurred between these two groups and yet 6 million people were killed.
One group did the dying and the other group the killing but which group do you think was which ? 🤔
A couple of simple questions for you...
( 1 ) Do you think in 194'0s Germany the killing of six million people because they rejected jesus was disgusting and immoral like I do *YES or No* ?? 🤔
( 2 ) Do you regard a god and theology that deems those who reject jesus as deserving of eternal torment in a lake of fire upon their death to be disgusting and immoral like I do *YES or NO* ?? 🤔
Sounds like the issue is that you have to pretend to some sort of objectivity in order to philosophically justify your normative claims regardless of being atheist or theist. However, I don't think playing pretend is a necessary condition to recognize the weight of moral issues.
Yea, to me, morality isn't truly explainable. Like, that's why you have religion and philosophy.
Not sure what you mean.
@@evanstowers8529
That is because morality/moral sense is in the DNA of a human being. A small child with no idea of God or moral standards will still react with resistance to a immoral or bad behaviour.
Moral sense did not exist without the idea of God since conception of human beings and to explain morality without basing it on a super natural being be impossible as moral choices and sense would have no guide. The reason why atheist reject the idea of a God is because they don't want somebody to tell them what to do or have standards that creates obligations
I think the theistic position is that we should behave morally for the same reason cars should drive: it is the function for which we are made. But that only works in a theistic framework.
But why should we do that for which we are made? The difference with your example is that cars dont have agency and therefore cannot decide not to act out their function. But we can. So why should we act upon our function? You need a normative statement to justify doing so.
@@jzim5426 How do you define agency?
@@jzim5426 I'm atheist but I disagree with you. Cars have as much agency as humans. Free will is an illusion. We humans have the illusion of having choices but in reality, every action we produce is predetermined.
@@sel2230 I’m an atheist but I disagree
How is everything predetermined
If AI evolves to a level of consciousness we humans share, what would they base their morality upon?
Shared values,
@@trumpbellend6717 Would they not have laws governing them like irobot incase they decided to take over. Would they not see themselves superior and use their morality to decide what's best for humans.
Eliminating humans so they can be free.
@@trumpbellend6717Shared values with whom? Wherever the wind blows?
@@tylere.8436
Shared with humanity and society's as a whole dear. They can and do agree on a vast array of moral issues that have wellbeing and the values it incorporates at the heart. These are reflected in our laws murder rape theft ect are standard throughout societies (even secular ) For the most part, it's is only with respect to the concept of SIN ( percieved transgressions against the whims of subjective gods ) that the disagreement occur.
The vast majority of the world's population do NOT think the gathering of sticks on the sabbath is or ever was a crime worthy of execution nor do we think the same fate should await our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) we see no problem with the wearing of clothing of mixed fabric or the eating of shellfish.
Just as most of the world do NOT think a female showing her hair in public is being immoral. I'm pretty sure that you don't regard yourself as an immoral sinner because you don't face a specific landmark and pray five times a day or because you eat bacon 🤔
Well guess what dear you have no more right to impose the perceived whims of YOUR SUBJECTIVE invisible guardian upon me and mine than islamists have to impose THEIR subjective invisible guardians perceived whims in the form of Sharia Law upon you and yours. I suspect if they attempted to do so you would be more than a little unhappy dear 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I think atheist mistake the Christian concept there a little bit. It’s not that we believe that a quality of God is goodness. It’s that God himself is the actualisations of goodness. “Goodness in physical form” so to speak. It may sound subtle but it’s an important distinction.
Your words are nothing more than a subjective ASSERTION
@@trumpbellend6717 how do you mean?
Wouldn’t it make mire sense that what God commands is good and not what is good is commanded by God? If God is all mighty and God is good, then the first statement would be more correct I think. Following Sokrates’ idea (I think it was Sokrates), something good can not cause something bad, yet if God is all mighty, he surely would be able to do something bad. So God causing something bas would make him bad, but by definition he is good. Due to this I think, saying “What God commands is good, because he commanded it” would be more appropriate.
Sorry for the mistakes, english isn’t my first language.
Could a Christian say “the basis for willing what is good also comes from God who is goodness”? As in the Christian should be good because God is good and part of his goodness is in willing that we should be good as well. Both of which are goods that come from God.
Therefore both the good and the reason for being good both are located in God himself.
_"God is "Good""_ you say 🤔
What does "Good" mean to you?
Hint.... please don't engage in circular reasoning
I love a person
I ought to remove myself from their presence as it is unrequited.
It literally has no normative function without the hidden premise
@Embrace The Truth in my example it's not good, so your question is not only loaded but incorrect.
@@Omagadam1 how can a question be incorrect
I think that Buddhism provide an interesting angle on the issue that both theists and (scientific-materialistic-) atheists lack, but this angle is neglected in these discussions unfortunately. Buddhism claims that morality is based on an empirically-verifiable law found in the mind of each being (which doesn't necessitate a god, something akin to the laws of physics in that they weren't created by any god, yet they govern interactions throughout the universe and have a very strong predictive power). That's different from the theists' justification which is "because god said so" and from the scientific-materialistic atheists such as Alex which don't consider that a non-physical object like the mind and its constituents can be the subject of experimentation and be governed by laws just as the laws of physics govern interactions in the universe.
I think you're on to something.
Basically the morality in the theistic sense boils down to nothing more than blindly following in a God and what he commands. This in my view is closer to the *antithesis* of morality.
If you are only good because God told you so and needs the threaten you with hellfire or seduce you with heavenly reward then there's litle morality to be found there.
Being moral means doing the right thing out of your own being. Not because an extrinsic force told me.
Rather than questioning professor, Alex should have answered for what reason he ought to be moral (doing good) after all to him morality is subjective. What is the purpose of man to be moral or does he believe morality is purposeless??
To harm people as little as possible.
I hope a God isn’t the only reason you don’t go around stabbing people…
There are benefits for you if you act nice and in goodwill. Plus as social creatures we rely on each other not murdering and raping as that would inevitably lead to extinction.
@@grafdrakulaii7545 this argument of evaluating benefits and then being moral is highly flawed. Benefits can not be known before something happens (murder, rape etc). And even if we evaluate benefits of some acts and define morals for that, that will be subjective to those who have decided this.
@@sadamhussainshaikh5392 lol oh the hypocrisy, you clearly know nothing of morality. Surfice to say that the percieved whims of your imaginary friend are irrelevant.
@@sadamhussainshaikh5392 morality is BY DEFINITION subjective.
Morality is biological and goes hand in hand with evolution. Humans have evolved empathy to perpetuate the species.
Is anyone interested in the vatruvian man and a higher standard of living? Light sprinklings of the soul and sculpting the spine to spirit? Tangent thought
How foolish is it to believe morality can be based in imagination?
What is it based in if not our minds? Magical sky daddies? LOL
Yeah, it is possible to be a moral person as an atheist, but it is not possible for an atheist to objectively *justify* morality and why certain actions are moral and others are not.
Why does that matter? If it is possible to be moral or you are moral, why the need to justify it?
And why would I or anyone care about you claiming your moral view is justified because of your beliefs about your particular god?
@@damienschwass9354 Why does it matter? Because if you lived during WW2 you would have to justify why the Germans are objectively in the wrong rather than it just being wrong in your opinion.
@@baldwinthefourth4098 why would I need to? Just saying I need to isn’t an explanation.
You’ve said it’s possible for an atheist to moral. What you’re not saying is why that atheist needs to justify it. Appealing to horrible things that _other people_ have done is irrelevant to that question.
@@baldwinthefourth4098
Lol the irony 🙄 in 1930's Germany both the Jewish and the Christians held the Old Testament in common. The only thing that separated those being slaughtered from those doing the slaughtering was one groups ancestors rejected jesus as the Messiah. I will let you guess which group was which dear 😉 Did their subjective opinion "justify" the holocaust and somehow make it moral ??? I think not ...
@@baldwinthefourth4098
I prefer the flavour of vanilla ice cream over strawberry. Do we need an invisible being to provide an "objective" best ice cream flavour standard? 🤔 Are those who agree with my preference not "justified" in buying vanilla over any other flavour when we go shopping absent an "objective" standard or "meaning" to our preference ?? 🙄🤭
Morality existed before any Religion or any God
The theist is justified in believing his general instincts about morality because he believes he is created and thus has a purpose and thus a best way to function (that function maybe being the only purpose). He believes he is designed, and thus capable, of discerning right from wrong and obligated to chose the right, even when at a cost to himself.
The atheist finds no reason for intent in his existence and so his moral instincts are just the product of chance. They are little more than preference. For all he knows his instinct to care for others in a hinderance to his actual thriving. And from a purely materialistic view this is obviously the case.
It would also seem that the sociopath is the better adapted human. He, after all, will do whatever he can and must to thrive regardless of the cost to others. He may prefer to be kind at times based upon whimsy and he certainly doesn't want to incur the wrath of his fellow man if he gets caught by anyone who can actually punish him, but there is nothing to be gained from any purely internal restraint on fulfilling his desires.
Lol yet more Godsplaining nonsense George. I could dismantle the whole lot of this piffle but will just focus on one small part for now. You say the following .....
_"it would seem that the sociopath is the better adapted human"_
The very least one would need in order to make moral choices would be knowledge "Good" and "Evil" for without being able to differentiate between right and wrong every moral "choice becomes meaningless, choice *A* no more valid than the diametrically opposed choice *B*
And yet ...... dispite Gods foreknowledge of this he still decided to deny Adam and Eve this knowledge and to punish not only them for gaining this knowledge but also their descendants ?? 🤪 how utterly absurd and immoral!!
People who do not know right and wrong are as *YOU* pointed out are called *"SOCIOPATHS"* and "Psychopaths" we lock such people up in concrete boxes or execute them. Yet this is how your "God" wanted all mankind to be and you think him a perfect moral reference standard 😂😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
a theist might feel justified, but theists often do use their religion to justify horrible atrocities. clearly this is not a foolproof methodology.
@@zhou_sei What grounds do you have to say it's horrible or an atrocity besides your preferences?
@@georgechristiansen6785 is murder an atrocity? some things are just obvious. if it causes unreasonable and avoidable suffering, clearly most people are going to agree that it's bad.
quick aside... how do you feel about slavery?
@@zhou_sei Obvious to whom and based upon what?
You're projecting your modern liberal sensibilities onto others.
Was it obvious to the Mongols, the Greeks, the Soviets, ect, ect, ect.
Many, if not most people could not even agree on what qualified as murder through much of human history.
So GTFO with that "clearly" nonsense.
That old man is crazy af to think that he thinks.
Is anyone interested in the vatruvian man and a higher standard of living? Light sprinklings of the soul and sculpting the spine to spirit? Tangent...
damn.
Yeah... Morality is from and for Human.
Morality is subjective e.g what should the age of marriage b? . Mohamed married a 6yr girl . Morality changes over time and place.
I think an athiest can be motivated to be good. Becoz an athiest also has a conscience. Just becoz he is athiest doesnt mean he gonna go crazy and do evil things. The question is can humanity survive without believe in god?
Yes in fact we’d be much better off. It separates us. Brought us to war a few times.
@Anurag yeah… cuz there is no objectivity here… morals are subjective
it depends on what humans believe in other than God sweden is looking alright at least next to theocracies like the DPKR and saudi arabia but the soviet union and maos china were atheistic and they were absolute nightmares like worse than detroit maybe if you can believe it
The answer is yes.