"Atheists Have No Morals" | Goodness Without God
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice05241
Over the years a consistent claim has emerged from both some theists and some atheists that morality is untenable without the existence of a God. But is this true? Today I will explore three variants on the position that "Atheists have no morals" to see which ones hold water and which are simply unfounded assumptions.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice...
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Papers cited:
For claim that people harbour a distrust of atheists: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22059...
Benefits of group camping trips: www.frontiersin.org/journals/...
Relationship between religious attendance and generosity (an example of pro-social behaviour): news.gallup.com/poll/122807/r...
A paper questioning the relationship between atheism and pro-sociality. and the correlation sometimes found: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22925...
For Investigations between the religiosity of societies and their levels of anti-social behaviour: www.amazon.co.uk/Society-with...
Relationship between prosociality and religion: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38407....
On Atheists being more interested in consequentialist ethics and Theists being more interested in Group Cohesion: journals.plos.org/plosone/art...
Article on Moral Anti-Realism: plato.stanford.edu/entries/mo...
00:00 God and Morality
01:20 "Atheists are Bad People"
07:57 "Morality Needs God"
14:09 The Atheist's Conundrum
19:09 Post-Theistic Morality
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/unsolicitedadvice05241
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS:
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
CLARIFICATION: Just in case I did not make it clear in the video, I am massively simplifying the literature around pro-social behaviour and religiosity. As I said in meta-analyses there is a slight correlation but a lot of what I looked at suggested we should be careful about blowing the effect out of proportion or saying that atheists are necessarily more anti-social. There is a complex relationship here that is difficult to summarise in a few minutes.
Not sure about some of the arguments. It would depend on the definition of God with respect to your section on "morality needs God". If God were defined as the ultimate good in the universe, or a "maximal good being". Then it follows that God would already know what is moral, that the definition of moral would then be static. If the definitions of moral are not static, then God is not maximal (as morality would then have superseded God), and would not be God. The contrapositive implication is that morality cannot exist from a material world view. Only dualism or idealism can solve for morality. Not atheism (materialism). The atheist must argue for materialism, and ultimately the idea that morals are constructed, or at the very least epiphenomenal.
Yr proof J e s u s energy wash Enjoy ✨
I am curious on your perspective of Alan Watts…
Carl Watts is a man who grasped for redemption when it was far far too late. His mind might change, but his crimes will always remain. The only strange things about the story is why did he willingly confess? This is a question that cannot be answered materially if I understand the point of your question correctly. In any case a man is subject to morality. And he has been deemed a criminal. And our laws do not come from material necessity. We do not marvel when a lion kills his cub. The lion is an animal. But a man is held to a moral law. Such action not only makes him worthy of prison, but even Carl Watts' own mind cried out against him for justice.
@@leocilliers4346 ALTHOUGH I LOVE THIS INTERPRETATION, I MEANT ALAN WATTS IM SO SORRY YOU HAD TO WRITE THAT💀💀
As a religious person, atheists offer a very important lesson to believers BECAUSE of their morals. It shows us that these people, despite believing in no higher power, no greater cosmic judgement, still choose to be good simply for the sake of being good. They have morals when no morals are technically enforced on them from a divine being from their viewpoint. And that's whats so important to learn. The ability to be a good human simply for the sake of being a good human.
👏
Is that how you describe the atheist treatment of the palestinians? Choosing to be good by supporting genocide?
One thing I've always wondered about, and i apologize in advance if this is a bad question, what do theists think about evil theists? If a priest turns out to diddle kids, do Christians think the priest wasn't a believer in the first place?
It just seems absurd to me that someone thinks god is always watching, and still decides to do things they'd never imagine doing in plain view of, say, their own father.
Being a good human is its own reward. It feels good and makes one happy to be good. Morality is a choice in my absurdist atheistic worldview.
Believing is like an application. No one who does not apply will get the job, but not everyone who does will get him eather. @@user-nr3fq7ji1u
Yours is one of the only channels that both theists and atheists can watch without feeling attacked for their beliefs.
There are plenty
I feel attacked by his looks. He's so pretty is very distracting!
As an atheist myself I recognize the social and "spriritual" function of god in a civil society. People do need to know why historically and in modern times religion/spirituality is important. It is man's sense of purpose made manifest.
Marx told everyone about its function. They just refused to and still refuse to listen.
There is nothing more ironic than atheist knowing the important of things and then proudly reject it. The stupidity is truly astonishing to see.
@@DJWESG1 Marx was biased and we've seen obvious indications that blind dogmatism extends beyond the scope of religion.
I agree and I am a catholic
I'm a conservative atheist.. go figure. It's not a contradiction. It's an older and wiser matter of gratitude and respect. I used to harbor so much resentment it blinded me to my own mislead beliefs. I was an angry democrat. LOL... we see those everywhere lately. Well.. leftists.. marxists, narcissistic moral posturing, virtue signaling ignorant useful idiots.
It’s easy to be moral when you are afraid of something unseen. That’s the basis of religion. But real morality is being moral for the sake of it, knowing that nobody is judging you or holding you accountable for anything. That’s when your true self can be seen
Understanding a true religion is very very tough....
@Caped_Crusader03
The religion which has infinite life
@Caped_Crusader03
The religion which is led by the Spirit.
@@George_Gabriel_Nothing you said narrowed it down by much.
@@victornieves1794
Still exist layers to be peeled!
Personal experience
I grew up in a society that considers itself religious (India)
Growing up I did rather call myself atheist than say I am religious
Reason is Truth
Humans all fall to the same traps of human mind weather a believer or a non believer
Example
Scripture - love everyone, hate no one
Preacher - love only god, annihilate those who do not worship the same god (to give rise to their followers)
Follower - hate everyone that is different
Scripture - knowledge is the path, knowledge is infinite keep learning be a student
Preacher - knowledge is nothing in front of god, our history makes us teacher (though we never had the thirst to learn), never question me
Follower - just do the rituals (they dont know its just to promote business) and dont bother learning
It will go on, preachers would use the name of god , people would fear the god and be mislead and also
People - I will live however I want and sin as I please but my sins would not matter if I just take the name of God and convince society I am on their side
Sorry I vented a little but I do really want others to realize that no matter your religion
Have a thirst for knowledge
Also learn about logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to keep yourself safe
Thats the best comment I have seen so far
@@laurentarrelle-rivest8565 thanks 😊
As an Indian myself, I highly approve of this message. I am actually a deist that believes in a higher power but doesn't necessarily follow any religion myself. I also understand that in reality individual thought is very important especially when it comes to being a reasonable person with their own moral code. It's best to be people first and foremost like you mentioned with their own mindsets willing to learn and evolve Going forward. Great comment.
scripture - You're created from Mouth and other are lower castes so equality man nothing in your argument proves anything stop justifying your stupid religion your jain na? some of you leave children at young age to do some spiritual bs making the child life miserable for personal pleasures.
@@connyslayer4661 Dude India is poor due to religion grow up no one needs religion now.
this guy is one of the smartest people ive ever seen on this platform
At least he know how to look like one for sure
Sure, he is.
he isnt even he admits that
It's literally just your programming, to hear specific accents as more educated.
Yes, he is very smart and funny.
As an orthodox christian i am looking forward to watch this video. It is nice to see more and more christian/god centered videos on your channel.
I disagree. Of all the fictions man has ever come up with, this one has been the most over-analysed. Let's try another one for diversity's sake.
@@Victor_Andrei You are on youtube not reddit.
@@skurt9109 shit, you're right. My bad.
@@Victor_Andrei No worries brother👍
@@Noname-lw6hp not religion as a whole, just this flavour of this version of this personification of the universe aka the Christian diety of Yahwe or however you're meant to spell it. I reckon a video on norse mythology could takle much the same lines of reasoning, but in a far more interesting manner perhaps!
I think empathy is what keeps me in check
Just live your life however you want to so long as you don't harm others
And when it comes to others just don't make them feel uncomfortable or hurt
Obviously cant say for anyone else
I guess that works for most of us. Should be aware of becoming an overbearing mother or a tyrannical father though. Both are fed by their empathy and care for others.
t one can also have empathy for their fellow borthers in robbery
Many people lack empathy, hence they dont see the world this way.
Saame
Jesus taught empathy thats the whole point of parables but why do we need to believe the rest if you live morally why do we need to believe in a jewish storm God?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
Goodness needs no justification, because Good is its own justification, and so is Evil.
Humans possess an instinct for "compassion" and an instinct for "cruelty". This is what we perceive as good and evil respectively.
We are trying to express the instincts inherent within us, and every instinct follows its own logic and justifies itself with its own logic.
If I was a naturally compassionate person, I could say "Suffering is inevitable, therefore I should help others as much as possible."
If I was a naturally cruel person, I could say "Suffering is inevitable, therefore I should abandon others and focus on myself."
None of these logic chains prove anything! They only reveal a person's natural proclivities!
Agreed 💯
Very good
Highly agreed! Beautiful comment! Regardless of what you believe in goodness needs no justification. It is what it is. 💯🔥
Are these "instincts" present from the moment we're born, or are they learned? (nature vs nurture).
Do we judge people differently and/or enforce different punishments for people with different instincts?
Good point
To me something is evil/good like chocolate is poisonous for a dog's health. "Poison" doesn't describe some object, chocolate isn't intrinsically poisonous, but rather it's a description of a natural object's effect on a being's constitution. The poisonous aspect "supervenes" over the chocolate.
In that sense I see wrongness as something that supervenes over an action that negatively effects ones character and constitution.
You never can say that some action has negative effects only in our dual relative reality. You learn most (positive effect) from actions which originally might have effected you negatively.
My favorite arguement "western civilization is founded on judeo-christian values" despite the fact democracy comes from Hellenic Greeks, who experimented with senates, and egalitarianism comes from Pagan Celts, who were so varied in their practices that some consider them a myriad of peoples as opposed to a singular culture; and ethnic secularism comes from Norse Scandinavians, who are infamous for assimilating into whatever culture they encountered beyond their homelands.
Democracy, egalitarianism, secularism... These are the values of westen civilization. Conservatives will say things like "the nuclear family" or "traditional gender roles", but i would argue that the idea of the "nuclear family" as in, a husband, a wife, and their biological children"... didnt event EXIST as a cultural norm until the mid 19th century.
Prior to the peak of the Pax Americana, it was incredibly common for children to be raised communally, either by a village, a workhouse, or the neighbors along one's city street. Prior to Industrialization, it was incredibly common for not just children, but entire towns, to live communally, most often under the authority of a Feudal Lord or Monastery.
As for "traditional gender roles", well that's literally every culture in the world its just that the tradition is different.
I'm learning English and I really appreciate that the video has subtitles, which makes me understand better. Good video :) 👍
I have thought of 3 semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought logical fallacy:
1. It appears that only living beings have the experience of goodness. It is their experience of goodness that causes them to behave in the way they do. Therefore, it stands to reason that if we want our morality to have an effect on the material world, it must deal with prescriptions for the behavior of living beings.
2. Any existing thing which destroys itself more than it propagates itself ceases to exist. This applies to all things: stars, animals, and morals, etc. In the case of inanimate objects like stars, they do not directly spawn from one another (at least not consistently), but the same underlying process produces them. In the case of living beings, they spawn from similar living beings who came first. Morality is like a living being in this respect. The morals that are best at propagating themselves will endure. If we care about our morality being widely adopted, it must be structured in such a way that it is good at spreading and maintaining itself.
3. It feels good to feel good, and we are motivated to do those things that feel good. Therefore, if something is good to do, it is good to feel good while doing it, so that it can be done more often.
These are only semi-good ways of getting around the is-ought fallacy, because they still require moral suppositions. The first requires the moral supposition that we care about our morality having a material effect on the world. The second requires that we do not want our morality to be successful rather than to destroy itself. The third requires that we care about doing good things (although this seems to come from the definition of goodness itself). But they are not entirely weak either, because the first is based on sensory observation, the second is based on logic, and the third is based on our experience of what goodness means. This is not a coincidence, because my metaphysics (based on phenomenology) treat sensory information (the basis of facts), logic, and values, as elements of faith from which we build ALL of our other experiences.
So, the correct morality according to this line of thought is prescriptions for living beings which will tend to spread the morality that they practice (and also the living beings themselves, if that was useful for spreading the morality), that feels good to those who practice it.
This fits in nicely with my other moral view that all existing things are good. In order for living beings and things that act like living beings (such as morals) to exist, they must struggle to act in their own interests. So, it is in the nature of morality to prescribe actions that allow morality to exist.
I have written books about this kind of stuff, but so far failed to get more than just a couple people to read even the first page.
Nicely done 👍 Broad overview for the short format, brought in contemporary sources & props for philosophy of science and naturalistic fallacy mentions.
In my not so humble opinion.
Morals are no more then social laws.
I do not know of any moral that has not been broken by one culture or another.
What do you expect from objective morals? Being instantly smitten for transgression?
true but some people suggest that following certain norms leads to better results
@@user-ci2fd8vc2fI think that's why morality even exists in the first place. Evolutionarily, it has set informal norms for our species for the sole purpose of keeping us alive and happy.
My internal response to the thumbnail was "That's why being agnostic is the morally superior move."
The cope is strong with this one 😅
This is why I should wait until the end of the video to make responses, I was making a joke about how I'm coping with my agnostic religious position and then you mention pretty early on that you are also agnostic and I don't want you to think that I think you are the one coping....🤦♂️
@@tylerwarwick7975 lol
You're a brilliant dude. I enjoy listening to you weave your way in and out of philosophies of the old, keep at it, the absolute truth is the goal. Also, did you purposely make this vid 24:24 or am I reading too much into it?
Wow, this was pretty great. I have spent much of my time since deconvertion wrestling with what morality is. You managed to sum up most of what I have found in this brief video.
Good job.
I read the title and I knew it was about the brothers Karamazov, it's such a great book honestly and your take on the thesis and arguments seemed all impartial enough that I believe both an atheist and a religious person can enjoy this video
I learned years ago that the Golden Rule exists, in some form, in every major religion in the world. Reflecting on that, I realized that it doesn't require a god to exist in order for it to be valid, because it's entirely about how one person relates to others.
It’s kinda what Kant’s categorical imperatives boils down to. The golden rule, although grounded a bit differently
"Exists in every major religion" - "doesn't require god". Sus
The golden rule does not exist in every major religious system.
Especially if you extend the idea to “replacement religions“ which tend to pop up in post Christian/antichristian societies like Nazi Germany, communist Russia, communist China, communist Cambodia etc.
Pre-Christian Viking and Germanic societies did not believe in the golden rule. Pre-Christian Greek and Roman societies did not believe in the golden rule.
Any resemblance to believing in a “golden rule” applied only to those within the tribal group and no one outside the tribal group.
When we talk about golden rule being applied universally, you are talking about the Judeo Christian tradition, as humans are considered to be a value and sacred because they’re all created equal in the image of God and our beloved of God.
The universality is what is different and what has led to modern western liberal Democratic Society.
@@mbmurphy777I think what they're saying is that there's a pattern.
@@alias_crouton2671 I agree that this pattern holds up for many traditional religions, but is mainly applicable to the people in that religious tradition, rather than universal.
I’m sure a lot of Muslims believe in the golden rule *for other Muslims*, not necessarily universally (with the exception of Sufi and other similar sects). Probably most Sunnis would not extend the golden rule to shia Muslims and vice versa.
I’m not sure about Hinduism. Historically they seem pretty chill, but the BNP is currently trying to re-organize Indian society along Hindu nationalist lines.
I suspect Buddhists are universalists in terms of the golden rule.
Then you look at atheist “religions“ like nationalism, Nazism, communism, and woke authoritarianism. These are all explicitly founded on the idea that people are not created equal (in other words, group or collective goals are more important than any particular individual) and that individuals are not worthy of dignity and respect, and are suitable to be used as a means to an end.
Judeo Christian ethics believe that all humans are created equal in the image of God ,and are beloved of God, therefore inherently sacred and worthy of dignity and respect, etc. That’s the Golden rule applies universally. The universality does come with the price that evangelists can be a little obnoxious because they’re always trying to convert everyone. But the United States has demonstrated that you can have a secular government modeled on Judeo Christian ethics… at least while the populace is mainly following Judeo Christian traditions. It’s unclear if that can continue without those traditions.
We saw what happened in Europe after dechristianization.
Malthusian ethics, social Darwinism, scientific racism, Nazism, communism, nationalism all superseded, or took the place formally held by the Judeo Christian ethics.
Great video again!
Pertaining to secularism vs religious societal benefits: The most intriguing argument I've heard for the benefit of religion/theism is the difference in how people are likely to act when there is no one to witness a wrong-doing.
For religious, god's omnipresence/omniscience plays the role of witness when no other sentient beings are there to witness the act.
For secularists, they usually claim to have an internal guilty-conscious, which plays a similar role to god in this sense, and can incentivize them to change how they behave as well.
Notably however, the god witness can be used to deter behaviors of malicious people through threat of condemnation, while the same does not necessarily apply to a malicious secularist. For secularism, we have to hope there is some human witness to deter the behavior of an individual or hope that the individual's guilty-conscious will do it themselves.
I'm defining malicious here as: the willingness to put others in harms way for sake of ones own benefit (kinda similar to rejecting Kant's categorical imperative). Also, the theory for why secular people do good things when no one is looking (a.k.a. guilty conscious) is an intriguing conversation topic as well.
Pertaining to moral relativism and how we may be able to criticize other cultures: I think we can criticize other cultures via epistemic responsibility.
This is similar to the reasons why we aren't inclined to believe a conspiracy theorist with sketchy sources of information as opposed to an authority on the subject with more reliable sources. While we may not necessarily always trust a person with authoritative status, we at least know that they are knowledgeable, which cannot be rationally inferred for the conspiracy theorist. To critique another culture in the relativistic world-view, we wouldn't exactly be critiquing their morality so much as we would be critiquing their sources of information.
Many atheists try to strawman or simplify why a Christian pursued good. They think we just “pursue good so we don’t go to Hell or because there’s a God watching.” I’m gonna keep it straightforward with you, from my experience, most long-term Christians aren’t motivated by the very concept of God or judgement being a thing. That’s a very superficial view, one that only children or those who stay in the faith for a little hold.
We pursue good because good is God in itself, such as the view attempts to show. We pursue it because it’s the only thing we truly have.
But yeah, it does play a role, but it’s typically not the drive that moves us long-term.
There’s many other big causations, like our relationship of God and other concepts that directly cause this big motive, but Hell and judgement aren’t typically that crazy. My view on it is whatever happens, I know that God has made the right decision. Can’t sit there and argue with Him, I’m not even supposed to be going to heaven in the first place. But He cares for me, very much so, and that simply becomes another drive to pursue good.
@@christopherlabbe6543 Does god care about what relationship you have with him? For example, how does god judge these different types of believers:
1. Someone who is a devout believer and has never committed a sin since being born.
2. Someone who frequently sins, but repents.
3. Someone whose belief occasionally wavers.
4. Someone who doesn't care for god but abides by Pascal's wager.
Does god have favorites amongst his believers? Also, do these factors even influence your chances of getting into heaven? To me, it sounds like your relationship with god is something that you do for yourself rather than something god cares about.
I think you’ve straw-manned the Abrahamic God entirely and that you have a lack of comprehension regarding Him, which is fully fine, however, don’t use that centric knowledge to enforce something about my prepositions and philosophy that is far from true.
For the first question, regarding if God cares about what relationship you have with him, yes, this is self-evident in Christian ideology. A non-indifferent God has been proposed in an advanced, complex manner for centuries, in fact, that is what Christianity is dependent on. God love us so much so that He sent His only son, Jesus, to die on a cross for us. He is not an indifferent God, and an indifferent God is not one worth worshipping.
For your different “plausibilities”, we are to know God judges accordingly and there’s an entirely complex, developed philosophy in the topic of judgement, one that Paul introduces well. However, you’ll likely not listen to that, so I’ll simplify my answers to your questions.
1.) That doesn’t exist, such is what Christianity is dependent on, all men have sinned except He who knows no sin, Jesus.
2.) Very complex, can’t water this down, however, He loves them just as much as those who don’t sin in a repeating manner.
3.) Very complex, however, know that this is the majority of Christians. This isn’t a deal-breaker that stops them from the faith. And this is also talked about biblically, something of the sort is seemed to be expected. Christians are not robots, we are human, I promise you, the most basic, superficial answer is enough for this.
Someone who doesn’t care for God but abides in Pascal’s Wager: We go into heaven by faith not works, although this is complex too. A man who has a superficial faith, one that isn’t genuine, can’t believe He is saved. And therefore, won’t be able to be accepted into heaven as, He hasn’t accepted God’s saving Himself. How can God save someone who declines wanting to be saved. And if you know of the Christian God, in a non-strawmanning way, and believe that you are saved, how could you not care about God and do His will.
Does God have favorites?: The most basic, superficial answer could suffice for this too. Like I said, we go to heaven for faith, not works. So no man can boast.
I promise you, Christianity isn’t dependent on judgement, because Christians on judgement have a mediator, Jesus, who intercedes on their behalf and dies for their sins, so that they might receive the gift of salvation.
Another great video
Love this channel you made which makes people question and look for answers
4:50 || I find this topic very interesting, especially since I'm from Scandinavia. I once did a report in sociology class on how religion impacts Danes and Americans, where the guy named Phil Zuckerman claimed that "The more you struggle, the easier you turn to religion" whereas I believe that to be true, seeing as we in Denmark have a welfare system that will catch us if we fall, unlike in the US where it's a "to each their own" kind of deal, where the government will not catch you if you fall.
Another thing Phil Zuckerman brought up was the fact that America, unlike Denmark, has state and church separately, meaning the churches funds themselves, while in Denmark we have the state funding our churches. But for some reason, despite the churches being funded by the government, Denmark still manages to be the least religious country in the world (as far as I'm concerned), whereas it would make more sense if we were more religious since church is accessible for everyone (I hope that made sense). In short: Because we know the government will help us if we're in need, we don't feel the need to rely on religion or pray. Me personally, I'm atheist.
3:25 You're probably not wrong here though I think both camps have a wide array of differing ethical theories and, in many instances, have some overlap. Personally, I'm a theist (Catholic) and a virtue ethicist (with a more Platonist bent than many Catholics) and see goodness as the primary object of ethics (as opposed to rules, duties, rights or consequences), with excellence of character being effectively a reflection of goodness itself, the ultimate goodness, God. That said, many theists are divine command theorists, which is mirrored in many atheists in a kind of "legal commend theory" that conflates legality/from the state and morality. As a theist, my response is that "theists aren't necessarily 'bad people', atheists aren't necessarily 'bad people', but if atheists are to be honest, any goodness they perform should be seen as effectively arbitrary if they're to be honest, since there's no reason to conflate pro-social behavior with goodness."
4:57 I'd argue that Scandinavian atheism is the end point of its historical Protestantism (which itself devolves into "liberalism" and a kind of "liberal theology" in the 19th and 20th centuries). So atheism aside, there remains an egalitarian Protestant ethos among the Scandinavian and many Western countries
5:20 In principle, yes, but in reality, they don't. "Atheistic churches" have been tried before to fill this gap (starting from the Cult of Reason to the current day) but they simply just don't withstand the test of time. With that said, religious institutions should not be relegated to merely pro-social clubs. I go to Mass to commune with the transcendent, not get coffee with baby boomers after.
9:12 emphasis on "some". Christianity and voluntarism (i.e. that God's will is prior to His intellect, and that wills as such are prior to the intellect) shouldn't be conflated. I subscribe to intellectualism (i.e. that the intellect is prior to the will, in God and humanity), with good things (or actions) being not because God commanded them to be good, but because they're a reflection of God's perfections in some way
10:54 interesting argument from G.E. Moore. He effectively mirrors my own take on this (that goodness itself should be seen as the "highest good", despite that such a notion might be "vague")
12:01 I suppose it depends what is meant by "God" here. Perhaps the atheist could say it's tautological, but the theist could quip back at the atheist saying his morality is functionally arbitrary. The atheist serving at a food bank and Joseph Stalin are functionally put in the same category (in fact, the latter could be viewed as more ethical as he's more reflective of an ubermensch who has made his own values, whereas the former remains a slave and living in the shadow of Christian slave ethics)
12:55 ah, the Euthyphro dilemma. I'd posit that it's a false dilemma - good things are good insofar as they're reflections of God and act in accordance with their nature as given to them by God.
Have to get back to work - good video. I'll listen to the rest later.
I agree to your last point. It's a false dichotomy.
@@oggolbat7932 He's raised up some interesting points in this vid, I quite like this channel
The problem discussed in the second part of the video I think, is born of peoples attempts to find an example which taken state has the property of goodness, instead of searching for an explanatory definition. What is good? = which actions and items have the properties of goodness, what is the the property to which the label good is applied.
The reason you use skill share is the reason i watch your vudeo haha its something to watch or invest myself in that actually benifits my brain and time!
I'm Muslim and I enjoy your videos and perspectives. It's broaden my views about how other ppl understanding religions, the philosophy aspects in life
I'm thinking the people who think a book that endorses slavery, misogyny and homophobia is the holy word of gawd and use that to derermine right from wrong are ACTUALLY the ones without a valid moral compass.
During the whole video I was thinking about a gospel passage that says: "By their fruits you will know them" and meditating on it a little bit is that it evokes a series of questions, in the case of Scandinavia, for example, (which we know that despite being one of the most secularised regions in the world, it is also one of the richest, most developed and with the lowest crime rate), to what extent are these "fruits" related to its centuries of Christianity? And what about the "fruits" of the atheist regimes that humanity saw during the 20th century?
This naturally leads to the next question, namely what would the "fruits" of moral realism as opposed to its counterpart moral anti-realism be?
This is such a well made video and it is remarkable how you managed to remain so unbiased in your discussion. The things you did say were very well thought out and logical but you left out what I think is the most important part of this morality discussion. In discussing whether there can be morality without God, the thing to focus on is the belief that God made every human in his own image and likeness and therefore every person has an objective dignity. It is not useful to focus on the belief that what God says is true and moral, since that obviously doesn't make any sense to an atheist. The truth of the matter is that there is no reason to treat others "morally" without the idea that every person has dignity. And, no person has dignity unless they were all created equal in the eyes of God. For example, if someone is smarter and stronger, then they are objectively superior to somebody who is dumber and weaker. Therefore, this bigger smarter person has no reason to treat the other with kindness unless for an ultimately self serving need. Of course, every person needs to combat the temptation to be selfish which is ingrained in us (concupiscence), but someone who does not believe in God literally has no reason to.
Many of your videos are well explained and easier to consume. Perhaps the limits of my language skills are showing again because I struggled to fully understand this one.
"Show me one atom of good, one molecule of justice"
It's from Santahog
'Hogfather - Terry Pratchett'
I fell down the meta-ethics rabbit hole a number of years ago, and from where I stand the problem is not whether atheists can be moral, but rather how we can continue to speak of ‘morality’ when we know that moral language has no inherent meaning. I can see how a religious person might use a god-entity as a kind of anchor, but this is a problem largely because a divine conception of morality cannot be expected to be in any way understandable or applicable to mortal beings.
I can never remember who wrote this (I think it was Ayer) but sometimes we have a word without anything to which it refers. We assume that there *must* be a referent - why else would we have the word? - but there is no reason why such a referent must exist. Morality is an example of this: areferential language.
This was an enjoyable pondering.
I love your work. Keep it up ❤❤
it's my basic understanding that everyone is born an atheist then some are taught to believe because that is how their moral framework is given.
as an atheist my moral lessons came in the forms of real world applications from my parents, for example don't hurt others because you yourself wouldn't like being hurt and so on, if i would punch my dad he would grab me and pinch me very hard so it hurt real bad and made the logical connection for me that what i was doing was hurtful and so what i disliked being done to me i did not do to others.
and with time there was more difficult questions being asked and so i had to dive deep into logic behind these basic statements that i was taught in order to form new logical reasoning to these difficult morality questions. which i just sum up to self preservation as in survival and societal good as in survival. my survival and everyone elses survival and finding the line of where is too cautious and where is too reckless.
Okay, but what happens to your morality if you grow up in a violent society. Without an appeal to a source of objective morality, you’re more likely to swept away in the chaos.
@@DesOttsel self preservation is still there, it's just not extended to anyone you don't value, meaning morality flies out the window at the first sign of trouble like it often does because you have very little moral framework if not properly established or followed.
incidentally this is why i think religion was first founded, when chief is away someone else has to be the arbiter and you can't let the person who has the most to say about it be the judge so they leave it to a power higher than them, namely a god.
but that's just my theory about it.
emotions overrule any morality or rationality we have and we are left with whatever mayhem we cause.
i'm sure you've heard the term crime of passion. this happens regardless no matter how moral a society becomes.
that's the fear of losing grip on morality in a world of humans, humans doing as their basic instincts tell them. showing us how little difference there is between us and animals.
I think that morals evolved as we became more dependent on staying in a group to survive so this is something that’s been with us for millions of years
You're blowing up man, thanks for some intelligent content to consume 👍
Great video!
When I’m asked about where I base my morals without god I say that we have to have a tribe mentality to survive. Working together makes survival more likely. It’s that simple.
Very simple and elegant. But then they’ll say something like why is survival more favorable than not surviving without the epistemic foundation of a god or some such similar nonsense. They refuse the Brute facts of our evolutionarily driven morals.
@@apimpnamedslickback5936 ape together strong
10:50 If i remember correctly, The Open Question argument isn't just for naturalism, but also supernaturalism. The question applies when ascribing good to a fact, natural or supernatural.
Uploading these videos is the ultimate moral good 💪
Very good. To be able to discern is divine, and being able to discern atheism and natural empiricism was a valid thing to clarify the relationship between atheism and lack of morals. Well done, thanks.
Maybe the best channel
The is/ought dilemma fails because it assumes, not _objective_ morality but _absolute_ morality. An example of this is the problem of defining goodness itself. As most people consider it, "goodness" is _absolute,_ always the same for everyone at all times. Most who follow theistic religions even think Good™ is an actual force that's active in the world, in opposition to Evil™. But that's demonstrably false - goodness certainly relies on context. The same action can be good (e.g. killing in self-defense) or evil (e.g. random murder) depending on the circumstances. (There's always more to any given context than my simple statements, but they make the point.)
That's not to say that morality is relative. Conclusions drawn from a full context are objective because the facts comprising the context are definite and unchangeable. Therefore, moral judgments based on full context are as objective as anything can be, so long as logic and reason are the only assessment devices employed. (Then again, not to use logic and reason is to drop context, therefore not objective.)
Another case of assuming absoluteness is that what is good for one is good for all no matter what (i.e. _without_ context). That, I think, comes from Kant's categorical imperative, which should be scrapped altogether because the imperatives are defined as applying to all, regardless of context, which is absurd. Instead, the idea should be more like his _hypothetical_ imperative. That is to say: what is good depends upon the nature of who is taking action and what the actor's goal is. For example, _If_ you want to _be_ (the _is)_ alive, you _ought_ to eat food that is nutritious for a human being. Eating such food is _good_ for living entities. Note that, say, horses (a different species) ought to eat different food that's nutritious for a horse, by _their_ nature, if they want to stay alive (which, generally, they do). So the _ought_ (eat stuff in line with your particular nature as a living entity) depends directly on the _is_ (being alive) and the goal (remaining so).
Note that there is no necessity for a god to be involved. If a god or gods exist, their only role might have been to create living beings, therefore determining their natures. After that, things are just what they are, no more intervention necessary. Certainly no diktat about morality - it's already baked in.
But we know from scientific fact that life developed via completely natural processes, so the gods didn't even do that. If they exist. Which they don't because there is absolutely no actual evidence that they do. And by definition there can't be, since we are unable to detect them in any manner, according to all religious writings. (We also know what the "Big Bang" was, if not yet precisely how it worked. So no gods needed there, either. And it's not "everything from nothing." No reputable physicist says that.)
In summary, goodness is not Goodness™. It's not absolute, it's contextual. It depends on the nature of the being taking action and the goal of that action. And no god is necessary to define it or make judgments based on it.
A proper morality is objective without gods. What it's not, as I stated above, is absolute.
It comes down to this: the good is that which benefits a living entity, the evil is that which harms a living entity.
There are infinite actions that can do either, and infinite contexts that apply to those. So there are infinite × infinite possibilities. Which is a lot.
Each living entity has a nature, in effect and in general according to its species. That's an indisputable fact. An _is._ What a living entity _ought_ to do is live according to that nature, choosing among all the possibilities that benefit it.
Some might object that such a morality allows actions that cause harm, for example, robbery. This is false because as soon as you engage in robbery with the expectation of no consequences, you're granting that _you_ can be robbed with impunity because there's no way to justifiably claim that your actions should be treated differently than anyone else's. (Jefferson nailed it with his famous "created equal" statement in the Declaration of Independence.) Robbery does _not_ benefit you because you too can be robbed. Since the entire context must be taken into account, that "robbery reciprocity" must be addressed. The only rational conclusion is that robbery is wrong, given all the facts in the full context of a human life. Therefore it belongs on the evil side of the ledger. Objectively, being based on facts, logic, and reason.
The same reasoning can be applied to every other possible action, with an equally objective assigned moral status. Thus morality, the _oughts,_ are objectively determined by the facts, the is-es.
You have a faulty logic. Natural processes CAN be governed by the "gods" still. Just because you see how natural processeses function on some low level doesn't mean you have the full grasp of these processes on all levels.
@@Norbyyyyy18 I see your point. It still stands, though, that there is absolutely no actual evidence for anything supernatural. Also, there is no _need_ for anything supernatural for valid explanations/descriptions of reality. Adding gods just makes things more complicated for no good reason. Occam might have something to say about that.
Positing gods with zero evidence is arbitrary, and arbitrary claims with no evidence to back them up (which arbitrary claims don't have) can be rejected out of hand because there's no substance in them to even acknowledge. So says the tiny blue elephant on my shoulder.
P.S. Norb is my Minecraft name. 😁
@@MichaelPizis their evidence against the supernatural and god
@@durrangodsgrief6503 To my knowledge, there are two ways to look at that. It's the responsibility of the one making a positive claim to provide evidence to support that claim. It's not anyone's responsibility to disprove that claim. If that weren't the case, one could claim that anything at all is true and others would have to accept it if they couldn't prove the claim false. The tiny, blue elephant on my shoulder is incorporeal, so it cannot be detected in any way. Since it is impossible to detect it, it would be nonsensical for me to demand that anyone accept its existence (despite poor Jumbolita's hurt feelings from not being believed in). Because gods are unverifiable, the claim that they exist is arbitrary and can be rejected in the same way. This is not evidence or a claim that gods don't exist, it's merely remaining agnostic on the question.
Second, note that it is the responsibility of the one making a _positive_ claim to provide evidence for it. It can be argued that the claim that gods _don't_ exist is a positive claim, specifically a claim of their explicit nonexistence. This is different than simply dismissing an arbitrary (unverifiable) claim, since the one doing the dismissing need not take a stand either way on the claim's truth or falsehood, thus has no responsibility to provide any evidence. But by taking the definite (positive) stand that gods definitely do _not_ exist, it is incumbent on _that_ claimant to prove it. I don't know what direct evidence can prove that claim, though many have made evidentiary arguments for it. My own argument is based on indirect evidence plus reasoning. I've never explicitly stated it, so I admit that, though I'm satisfied with it, it must be at least a little nebulous and needs to be fleshed out.
another great video man!! Can I ask what got you into philosophy?
Nice question
Curiosity lol
I want to relate a story that actually happened to me several years ago. It is a little long, but it is an incredible story. I am a Christian and would be interested in your opinion as an atheist as to how this happened.
It was a very hot summer day; nearly one hundred degrees. My daughter and I took My son to a park where he was playing a soccer double-header. Two back-to-back games in extreme heat. Shortly before the end of the first game, my son ran out of Gatorade. He was borrowing sips from his teammates. (This was obviously pre-covid) At the end of the 2nd game he was "dying of thirst." I said, "Son I'll drive to the 7-11 down the street and get you a Gatorade. As we were pulling on to the freeway onramp, he said, "Dad, I thought you were going to get me some Gatorade." "I'm sorry, I forgot. I'll get off at the next offramp and get you some." As we were passing that offramp, someone in the car said, "I thought you were going to get off and get some Gatorade?" We kept passing offramps and remembering AFTER passing each one but could not remember in time to get off. We did that for seventeen miles. Finally, we pulled into our neighborhood, and I said, "I'm sorry son, we'll get you something to drink at home."
As I turned down the first street, I noticed a car up ahead, backing out of a driveway. He was about to run over a "Big Wheel." I little kids toy bike. It had two little wheels in the back and a big wheel in the front. There was no kid on the Big Wheel, so I didn't think much of it, UNTIL I noticed a small child UNDER the car about to be run over. I simultaneously, slammed on the brakes, ripped the door open and screamed as LOUD as I possibly could, "STOP, STOP, STOP." The driver heard my frantic screaming and stopped the car. I ran over to help the little kid. He was face down. The car had LITERALLY stopped two inches from his little head. He was perfectly lined up for the car to run over his head, then his neck and then his spine...
If we had just arrived at that time, you could say, "WOW! What a coincidence!" But that does NOT explain how we absolutely could not REMEMBER to get off at seventeen miles of offramps UNTIL we passed each one of them.
I believe God had different plans other than a senseless death at that tender age for the little kid, and along the way He bolstered our faith in Him.
You might say, "What about other kids who did get run over, or what about kids born with this or that disease. Why didn't God spare them?" God is God. He is All-knowing and All-powerful He does His will. AND He is infinitely more intelligent than we are. In this life we very well may not understand why things happen as they do, but God knows, and we just have to realize He still sits on the Throne and one day will rectify all the problems we face here on this sinful earth.
do you think religion is insignificant? edit: sorry for not clarifying, i was specifically referring to the abrahamic religions
Define religion please that would help
If you are talking about the social gatherings of people where a preacher or political leader use the love of the people for the creator ( at least the shared idea of the creator ) for their own benifit and promote propaganda and demotes the search for reason and knowledge
Yes it's significant
It impacts the life of many after all
I do not believe in god, but I really do understand that Religion is an exceptionally important part of human life. It had formed the basis for various traditions and festivals. It was a moral guiding force, a judgement for evil, a pastime, peaceful feeling, sense of belonging and so much more for so long.
Though I am an atheist myself. It is the understanding that different ideas can coexist that make the basis for modern science.
Yeah I know this question wasn't asked towards me but I just felt the need to clarify the massive significance of religion even in today's world.
@@hemantjain2387 hi so sorry for not specifiying i was talking abt the abrahamic religions
@@parisafarin6686 hi, let me also elaborate on the questions I had
What does religion mean to you
As in is it the scriptures or the people
The reason I am putting it as different is because the scriptures teach people good things like beware of arrogance (great advice ) love everyone , be grateful
But people mold it mainly the preachers and political leaders and say things that are lies and propaganda
(Learning logical fallacies and propaganda techniques can save the Believers)
@@parisafarin6686 yes religion is significant positive and negative ways
Like all things it has its good and bad
Some people are saved by the mere idea of God while others may be fooled by the rulers of society.
Have a nice life.
Morality does not require god.. all it needs are feelings, empathy and suffering, those 3 elements that are naturally inherited by human beings in this cruel world will lead to morality as a byproduct.
Something immaterial, abstract and universal cannot be grounded in merely mortal men. You need Christ to justify morality. He is the Lawgiver with an All-knowing Mind that put a conscience into all of us, praising us when we do right and blaming us when we do evil.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy
What if I don't think morality is immaterial abstract and universal?
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Shut up
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy morality does not exist outside humans, for it is a perceived tool granted by the bias of their beliefs, experiences and feelings.
it's very nature is subjective, and has been the cause of war and death.
but humans are also foolish enough to grant the status of something like the divine to a lowly cause such as morality.
alas, the pinnacle of human arrogance.. so that gods would order existence and life and structure it around morality, which is indeed blasphemy.
@@calebr7199 Well then you are stupid because you can't observe morality with your five senses. It's not an action, it's an ideal.
Very interesting lesson. As a food for thought I like to apply naturalistic thought to knowledge since it is a metaphysical category what provide the basis for believing that knowledge is a thing ?
love listening to the weekly podcast of Lucifer. You are mesmerizing, no wonder so many followed you :P
The idea of Lucifer is quite interesting. Let’s say this if Lucifer does indeed exist then why would a “Good God” permit such a being to interact with his creation? Why not snuff him out or destroy him? Unless god Knew that he would fall and temp people away from God so God has justification to destroy or send people to hell! And since god is all knowing he knew who he wanted to destroy or get rid off so in conclusion humanity has no free will only God’s will! See how bad that is? God made Lucifer so people would be tempted and God could destroy them with the justification that they had “turned away”
As an Agnostic, I just go with "Treat others how you want them to treat you"
Unfortunately, there is a lot of selfdestructing psychopaths out there - and they are also going by this.
@@alena-qu9vj
Lol and........ there are a lot of _"self destructing psychiopaths"_ out there even if your specific subjective God exists dear
@@trumpbellend6717 So??
@@alena-qu9vj
SO... many of them use your "God" as their moral reference standard dear. Indeed tell me, how could Adam or indeed mankind make moral choices without being able to differentiate good from evil ?? Without knowledge of 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!!
We have names for people who do not know how to differentiate right from wrong and we lock such people up in concrete boxes or execute them. Yet this is how your "God" wanted mankind to be (and we would still be if not for the Serpent) and you think him a perfect moral reference standard 😂😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@trumpbellend6717 Have no idea how your lecture relates to what I remarked and honestly have no interest to find out.
If there is no God.. Good or bad simply doesn't exist..the powerful can do all sorts of bad things and not face any consequences..
God 'exists' because we acknowledge both good and bad things (from our perspective).
To explain these opposites, we created a new 'whole'.
What does that have to do with god existing or not?
the powerful already do all sorts of bad things and face almost no consequences
Well Good and Bad are Subjective if no sentient Beings Existed would Good or Bad exist plus I think the God of the Bible is Evil foul Malavelalent pile of Dung and people who worship God are Children afraid of death
@@fabiolorenzatti4755 he’s talking about “judgement day” from the abrahamic religions
I like the difference between your on-camera voice and the editong voice xD
really like your contend. could you upload it to spotify so i can listen to it while working?
What about empathy and the need for external approval/validation? Couldn't they form the foundation of a natural moral system? They discourage you from harming others or even letting them get harmed, and encourage you to help people and make them happy.
Empathy is not an universal characteristic, and there are plenty of stories (fictional and real) where external validation was only found in groups like the KKK (for example) or criminal gangs.
Evolution has engraved all species with some version of social contract theory
Damn, 18 seconds and I'm already here. Finally, my notifs don't take a century to ping me
Haha! That was speedy
I take a position similar to Sam Harris: love is logical and science allows us to act better aligned with our ethics along with its continued advancement. Because through scientific discoveries we find cures to alleviate suffering, we invent tools to protect life, to have better food, etc.
It's also because we love as most are chemically wired(please don't get pedantic about my wording here), unless you have a condition like psychopathy, we gravitate towards care and kindness. Though this comes in different forms, it is similar in how we react to others. We share and offer food. We respond to sadness, we feel when another is lonely. These things, as wired into us are natural occurences. We are ethically inclined to love and care. Gods are not necessary for this
Hey man, I'm wondering, do you type all of these subtitles yourself? Do you use some tool to make it faster? Thanks
The fundamental issue is that it is ineffective to claim that one can have objective morality or be moral without religion. Even if you are an atheist, you remain true to the book simply by nature of being from a western country. I'm not a Christian, but we live in a Christian culture. Examining different civilizations or religions would have been better to understand mortality or what is an objective morality.
This. Most atheists, especially young atheists, fail to realize that even though we no longer live in a Christian hegemony, our culture and upbringing is still enormously coloured by our religious past.
@@Psyshimmer Yeah so ? one day it will be overshadowed by atheistic culture it proves nothing culture is changing continuously.
@@Psyshimmer Thats true but christians use this point to argue dominion over justification over athiest morality when they aren't even using the same starting point they just share similar principles due to cultural influence and personal exerpeience
Honestly, motality is a balancing act between 3 things: desire, practicality, and truth/fact/logic/etc ( how things can reasonably be desribed as accurate and real). The first thing is deciding which should take priority, as each have benefits and detraments. desire often conflicts with truth, as our brains often try to simplify and exagerate and fantasise things ultimately leading to falsehood. Practicality is often highly restrictive to desirability, and sometimes to truth, for the sake of stability and cohesion, which would leave miserable and clueless but practical/ efficient to the given goal induviduals in its wake. Truth can be great for understanding and advancement, but will involve undesirable and destabilising practices and discoveries by its very persuit as well.
I know a staunch believer who today told me proudly of his side hussle (how I describe it) and I confronted him that it sounds like legal but immoral business. I had to explain it to him via analogies and he still struggled to understand but did finally realize what was so wrong about it.
I have to say that stupid people have the moral of their own. No faith can make you a better person if you cannot yourself tell good from bad.
To me there's something strange and unsettling about people that behave in a moral way only because they are scared to be judged by a god. 😮
There are people that behave morally for the fear of being judged?
Wow man I have mostly been familiar with people breaking law and getting away with it because they said something like
Hail the lord
And get social approval as being their own
@@hemantjain2387 I have personally talked to people that confirmed what I said in my opening post.
It's a bit of a dilemma. It's similar to how some people told me they love god because god commanded that they did. It's like love me or else.
@ulrichenevoldsen8371 I agree. It makes me wonder if religious people's goodness comes from a sincere place. Moreover, being good in order to secure a place in heaven is also unsettling.
Then you have misunderstood christianity.
@@ulrichenevoldsen8371 this is really unsettling, they seem to be the type of people I talked about
People who run their own personal law and trouble anyone who doesn't align with their ideas and get away with it if the majority is Believer.
I was an atheist from 18 to 26, I was brought up in seventh day, Adventism and saw what any child could see that it was false. I am entering the Catholic Church in 2025 and I am totally head over heels for Catholic moral reasoning, and their conception of God. My atheism brought me to nihilism and hedonism pleasure was the highest good for me in practice, and when there was no pleasure, there was crippling depression. It took me years to understand my scientific materialism/empiricism was leading me to focus more on sex and what I could get from others rather than a higher purpose that transcends my desires. I am 29 now with very clear purpose and a desire to pick up my cross and suffer for those around me, even those who oppose me.
How did scientific materialism and empiricism lead to you focusing more on sex ?
I'm on a similar journey; interesting how so many people are finding that materialist reductionist worldviews inevitably evolve into nihilism.
@@Psyshimmer sometimes you gotta live it to know it 😅, I will guide my children better than I was guided 🙏🏾.
@@miguelatkinson in my experience, reducing everything to scientific raw facts made it so the moral landscape was something that was more relative and socially built. Where can you empirically find what is right and wrong? How do you measure that scientifically? My intuition told me if something was right or wrong but what if my intuitions were just molded by a social construction? That means they are not Absolute. This frame of mind personally allowed me to prioritize what felt best for me and in my relations with women it expressed itself in sexual pursuit. I wasn’t nearly as bad as some of my other friends, but I hurt a woman who I believed I loved dearly. But my worldview could not give me the ability to love in the truest sense. Not just emotions, not just affection, but transcendent and selfless love. I left Christianity because I thought there was no good reason to believe it, I came back because In my atheist materialism there was no reason to love and sacrifice for another. My atheism wasn’t an issue of intellect, it was an issue of moral decay and the corrupt will that followed.
@@Nrev973 you aere never an atheist, you were agnostic and when you saw you could use religion as a shield to do whatever you want to anybody you dont like you dodnt hesistate to use it to enact hate upon athers because you get off from it. I do not consent to your weird roleplay
Also love your video thank you so much
I was an atheist, I would say becoming an atheist is like a freeing experience at first, you see the world in a very sceptical and rational way and only examine people on how they behave with you. After sometime I felt I lost something to hold me together, it felt like I was falling piece by piece. Then I turned to God and now I have peace within me. I feel whole and I can improve and be better.
This is ridicolus. I am an atheist but I believe that morality has an origin in nature. In parenthood, group evolution and symbiosis. Also, morality needs to be relative, and take into account the war and peace game, and the need to punish evil.
I should clarify I don't support the title statement. That's why I have put it in quotes :)
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Yes I know. I just got fired up because it is an argument you often hear from religious people.
I was wondering about this. If morality is simply a Natural habit in us, would it be alright if somebody rejected their own Nature? I mean, say Morality = a way of optimizing preserving the species. On what grounds does a person accept the preservation of species as something to protect? See this:
1) When you look at atoms or molecules moving around, say hydrogen ones, you don't say "Wow that's evil hydrogen" or good hydrogen. Atoms in motion are just atoms in motion.
2) Humans are just atoms in motion.
3) Therefore humans have no morality.
Why does morality need to be relative?
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 By the way, I am working on a project you might find interesting. I am trying to create an atheistic version of Christianity, that is based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a fictitious character created by Titus Flavius the roman emperor. This also means that Christianity is a true slave morality both in nature and purpose, as Nietzsche had half figured out. So to strengthen this Christianity and make it viable, we need to add an equal part of master morality and acceptance of violence, based on the War Peace game. This creates a duality of cooperative and competitive morality. The whole ide is to create a super-based form of atheism that is nothing like nihilism, and that also ties into Christianity. Jesus Christ is still a holy figure in this religion, because he shows us the way towards cooperative morality.
According to my atheistic religion, there is good and evil, based upon what we have chosen to be good and evil. Evil is lack of reciprocity and parasitism, and when someone does not allow others to be free. Freedom is a fundamental right, because without freedom, we cannot search for the truth. And if we cannot search for the truth, we cannot judge and create a better world
Here are some links. It is all work in progress, so all clips on my channel are unlisted:
czcams.com/video/VVGF723-Wdw/video.html (there is a draft of my "Bible" in the description to this clip)
hard to be moral when everyone is rotten
Which is why secular humanism is a joke. Human nature is inherently rotten
Which is why secular humanism is incorrect. It trusts far too much in human nature as being good.
No one ever said it was easy. If anything you have been provided the best opertunity to stand out as moral.
He who endures to the end shall be saved.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy Amen brother☦️
I believe being a good person without needing a god to hold you accountable is better than following a religion simply to enforce your morals or "stay on track" like many people do
Pride in your own ability to do good without needing to flaunt it or think you are above others can bring happiness to yourself and them
Most people either lean way too far into reason and become cold or lean way to far into morality and become irrational, the ability to mix both and weigh morality while acting as if others are above you simply to be nice without the need of an outside source to motivate you is an important skill that nearly noone has, and the ability to use knowledge of how your own mind and personality works to trick your brain into giving dopamine for tasks that bring you nothing material is also an integral skill, when you can trick your subconscious into wanting the same thing as your conscious, you have control over your emotions and get a free source of motivation to do anything you want, even if it would logically be a cost to you
amazing video as always. weirdly enough, atheist and theist who uses rationality is rare these days. What is your take on attack on titan? possibly greatest narration of humanity ever produced.
except the ending
@@josephkias you are just not smart enough to understand yet. Give like 5years and rewatch again.
Attack on Titan is average in my mind it's just your personal opinion like mine stop insulting others as stupid not able to understand lol otherwise there always a bigger toxic one
@@GIGADEV690 again you will understand when you get older.
Nah I really feel like it isn't the greatest narration of humanity. I am biased, but the narration, direction and character development is excellent but not perfect.
The greatest story and execution in my opinion about humanity is one punch man, but maybe someday something greater may come up.
Ex-atheist here. Recently became a believer. Back when I was an atheist a man once said to me that I was the "most Christian atheist" he had ever met.
Why did he say that?
Damn. They got you too huh? Sorry for your loss 😅
@@inquisitionagent9052 cringe
Taking practicallity over fact. Its a fair position nonetheless
Crazy atheist = funny
Crazy religious person = terrifying
"Crazy atheist = funny" - try to say it to the victims of atheistics bolshevics...
@@alena-qu9vj Soviet Union had no direct connections to religious prosecution. You could get sent to gulag if you are not "loyal to the regime".
@@gibbobux1033 That was exactly my point - atheistic bolshevics /mostly of other than slavic ethnicity) had no connections to religious prosecution. Their atheistic prosecution has been terrifying and no fun all the same.
@@alena-qu9vj what im trying to say is, it wasn't really about religion. Mostly ideology.
@@gibbobux1033 What I am trying to say that yours:
"Crazy atheist = funny
Crazy religious person = terrifying"
is nonsence.
You can have crazy religious persons as well as crazy atheist not funny at all.
my late night show for today !!
Good point. Goodness really depends from the one who defines it.
If there is no goodness ideal / standard / template: There is nothing to compare yourself to.
In that regard you see yourself as one who is better, with better self-control, with better choices made throughout your life. In other words: You have relative morality, measuring to the average, to not stand out too much in debauchery. If there is more criminals among religious people: atheists are kings... or it only means that atheists are better in getting away with it, or it doesn't mean either of these things. Maybe looking into warped mirror: you won't see morality, (or immorality) of your deeds. If you put a collective (atheists) into room full of warped mirrors: You won't be closer to the truth of the matter.
Christians have another template to measure against: Life of Christ, and his Saints.
Such a comparison offers true visions of our lacks in the same way like when we compare ourselves with heroes who jump into burning building to rescue a child. We see that such a person had a superior courage, and if we are honest we arrive at a conclusion that it's unlikely that we would do that. We wish we could, but would we?
We doubt, we bow our head and thank God that we could see hero in action, that he somehow did this.
Saints of the early Christianity, who died for what they saw to be the truth offer us one of the dimensions of the comparison, but there are those who although uneducated exemplified heroic virtues of the highest kind, led simple life, but were as beacons of light, like athletes crushing world record, showing that it's possible.
Belief in a god, or lack there of doesn't not cause us to be instantly good, but believe in the God may offer us a way, trajectory to start the race against ourselves, world, and evil.
The fact that people ask the question about "goodness", or "morality" of one side, or the other point that there has to be a standard, that there is something higher. Some of the conclusions point to "no man is perfect", and that we fail miserably when we compare ourself to brilliancy of the perfect life.
Now, we can compare number of criminals (percentage wise), or number of completely average people... but I think it's a wrong way to do it.
I would rather point to Saints, and look for equivalents of such people in atheistic world view.
It's not about slightly better, or worse average personal moral achievements within a specific group, but about the fact that this specific group produces moral gold-medalists.
*"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told....*
*Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right"*
Bingo!
Completely inaccurate, there is no objective morality without God
@@mcfloridaman2192 There is no objective morality with god either, that would merely make god the subject....
and it would be dependent on your subjective opinion that it's moral to do what god says
very well said
@@antve1618 depends on your objective/persuit
According to science Either something IS good or bad IS completely subjective, as It IS a mechanism in our brain created because if millions of years of Evolution that mainly destroying, harming and other actions are bad as they can inderectly harm you or your close ones, that's a very important behavior as if we wouldn't have it, we would harm each other without caring and the species would go extint.
The problem with God's morality is, he does everything he is said to tell humans not to do, he is jealous, he murder, lie and steal and then tell humans it's wrong to do those things.
My take on morality as an athiest is that ultimately it all leads back to how we feel about what happens and is done to us and eachother and thats influenced by many things both in and out of our control, this is no different for the religious person as it is for the non religious one.
about the is and ought to gap specifically:
is there a reason to think that there even is an "ought to" on the other side of the gap to the "is"? an ought would imply (to me at least) that to the "is" there is also the "ought to" as a part of it.
there are problems and conflicts in the world after all that go beyond good and evil. with which I don't mean that within those conflicts good and/or evil don't occur within them, but more specifically that for in order to find a solution or to solve said conflict in question it may be misleading and possibly also contra productive to approach it only with a good and evil binary.
What is wrong with murder? Better question, why is murder considered wrong by most? But something like killing in self defense ain't?
the difference tends to be very often context.
one is a crime that doesn't just harm an individual but also a state in the long run, if it weren't prohibited or attempted to be lessened. The other isn't and can be seen by both states and individuals as an act self preservation.
of course things become more complicated and conflated the more specific a moral situation or act becomes. Murdering a Tyrant or a dictator for example doesn't exactly hold the same weight of wrongness to most people than murdering your neighbouhr, some random bystander or especially a child.
Genocide for example is considered by most as bad. not just ought to, it *is* bad. I could now say it is inherently bad, but earnestly, that is a stupidly difficult thing to establish and not something that should be up for debate in the first place or even worthy of being debated, if I wish to stop genocide from happening. Or assuming one does value human lives. No, genocide is bad, for I think it is a false simplistic solution to a problem that needs a different one, one that also has a tendency to create even more problems and conflicts to solve down the road.
A debate about figuring out how to try and stop genocide from happening, ending just on "genocide is bad" instead of starting out with that, is a disappointing outcome of said debate and renders the purpose of the debate itself pointless.
additionally, I also think that "ought to" outlook of morality tends to overlook both the context and the specifics of a situation a moral or amoral action has been taken within. In a dilemma where there is neither an easy to see better or at least less worse option within it, I don't think it would be exactly sensible or even nearly morally sound either to accuse the choose after their choice of having chosen wrong, heck even expecting them to choose better. If all outcomes of a dilemma are going to be terrible in one way or another, by one definition or another, it would make way more sense to get rid of that dilemma in the first place (if possible) than to judge a person having made a choice within one.
thoughts of a freethinker atheist. Otherwise, I just happen to like being kind to people, especially friends in my life (at least I try to, no gurantee when it comes to unkind or uncaring people), and I earnestly don't need a moral justification for that. Doesn't make me inherently better or worse either, that's just how I try to approach things and actions and choices in my life.
otherwise sincerely:
I liked the video.
As an atheist I never understood why people need a reason to be "good". For me being good is the default not the exception.
you do not know what good is.
@@L1_L2to say that is unbelievably ignorant. It's appalling
Naturalistic empiricism is also based on a metaphysical assumptions much like morality. One of its fundamental axioms, that what cannot be proven is false, is itself unprovable and therefore self-contradictory. This isn’t to say that empiricism is bad or useless. It very clearly is a very good epistemology that has built much of the world around us. But rather that it’s important to understand that these epistemologies are axiomatic systems and, as was proven by gödel’s incompleteness theorem, these systems are inherently imperfect, as any system that can justify and prove its own axioms must also be contradictory. Reasoning is only structured by these systems and not generated as a product of them (see how mathematicians create axioms for a better idea of what I’m talking about). Similarly, people already have an intuition about morality much like how people can intuitively understand the direct proof or proof by contradiction. From what I see, divergence only starts when the moral propositions get more complex. You absolutely could compile a bunch of moral axioms that you could use to construct a system. With more complex propositions e.g. ‘is it wrong to kill people who disagree with you’ and moral concepts e.g. deontology and teleology they can be reduced to these more fundamental axioms through inquiry about the motivations behind the diverging opinions.
I started the video, in the first second it talked about the brother kamarazov and i just started the book so i had to pause....i'll have to watch the video for after the book 😢
Morality is survival mechanism you don't God to know that pissing other people off is bad for your health.
bible says everyone has a conscience. believer or non. that is the law written on the heart that you will be judged by, even if u deny a deity. u know its wrong to lie, murder, steal, cheat on your wife etc. everyone knows.
Objective morality is analogous in math to having a number line with positive and negative integers. Not accepting God but accepting objective morality is then analogous to not accepting infinity, that there is no higher number than the one you've chosen. What then is that highest number and why?
We all move towards something, choosing your 'what ought to be'. If we reach it, time allows for it not to always be the case. Say yours is to never murder, you worship the deity of not murdering. A rose by any other name.
if you need god to be good then you are not a good person, you just fear about the 'consequences' that might happen by not following the saying of 'god' that you believe
Have you make a video about "the grand inquisitor" from dostoyevsky's the brothers karamazov?
This video reminds me of a little loop a buddy of mine and I would go through in high-school when we talked about theology. And it always started with two statements he would make.
"Without objective morality, society would fall apart."
And
"There's no reason that Evolution would result in Morality."
He didn't understand that these points refute each other. If society can not function without objective morality, then it's evolutionarily beneficial to develop. If it's not possible to develop objective morality, then a species wouldn't evolve to require it.
It's basically like saying "well you can't have a chicken without an egg first, and you can't lay an egg without a chicken." And concluding that God did it
Morality definitely has an empirical feeling to it though, doesn't it? When you help someone, when your actions lead to someone being hurt, you feel those things appropriately as they happen. We could look at morality as a social contract when it doesnt fit into the "feelings" category 😅
Religons have waged more war pushing beilefes then any atheist has done. This is why I like budahhaisim and just the practice of meditation
We are a social species, whose survival niche is cooperation with others in our society. We would never have survived if murder and theft were widespread and permitted.
It is the intricate and complex evolved instincts that we call morality. Religious people think god put it in our hearts, atheists know it evolved that way.
Not so simple. As beings with the genom of apes practically, cooperation helps to the survival of one specific group only, but not to the species as whole - on the contrary - the strong survival instinct of a group demands hostile behaviour towards other groups. Many a civilization perished exactly because of this, and humanity as a whole has never been so near to extinction in the known history because of the same reason.
There always seems to be at least one cooperating group thinking of themselves as the "chosen ones" and with the right to go over dead bodies towards their goals.
@@alena-qu9vj strong is not always the evolutionary path. “Survival of the fittest” I think is the most misunderstood quote of the 19th century. It is fitness as in puzzle fit, not fitness as in strength. Evolution happens to populations not to species, if the same species get sales rated by a mountain range they will in time become two separate sub species and no longer be able to breed. Similarly if one group of humans cooperates allowing better resources gathering and protection. They are going to survive. We see that with melanin in skin. Due to diet and agriculture changes. We are all still human. But if we were separated we may have gone down different paths. I recommend you read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins it explains this very clearly.
Three books that might be of help 'the sociology of religion' , 'religion and capitalism' and 'the protestant ethic'. All fairy old books, some of the content may not even be relevant to todays perspectives, but they are helpful.
Can you feature Baltasar Gracian next? thank you
I honestly believe that morality is not an objective and tangible thing, but rather a human projection that varies not only from person to person, but also from society and time period. Of course this does not make morality useless or worthless in the slightest, but makes it human. That's why you should not go against your morals, it is like going against your humanity, it would only cause suffering and complications, not only for others but for you as well. Of course there are exceptions to this (sociopaths, psichopaths etcetara), but they really are only exceptions, most people want order, and they want to do what's more suitable not only for them, but for others as well.
I think this is where philosophy, and particularly ancient philosophy, are useful. You can get into certain theories, such as that atheism is actually a specifically Christian viewpoint and generally stands on top of a materialistic philosophy that is itself grounded in Judeo-Christian philosophical assumptions and falls without it. That's one way to go. But whether you're talking to Aztec, Greek, or Yoruba philosohers, they would all have found the idea of atheism puzzling, and the idea of a self-sustaining, morally practical atheism even more puzzling. But then you could argue that those are merely more gods that have been slain by atheism. As a purely historical matter, I don't think you find a coherent, living moral theory independent from religious belief. One that actually is practiced and communicated across time and succeeds across a culture. Rejection of the gods, historically and culturally, would not be distinguishable from rejection of the moral order.
I live in Mississippi, it has ALWAYS baffled me when im told im not a good person for not believing, when i PROMISE ive done more for homeless veterans than any of these cultists ever have, to this day ive gotta three homeless veterans off the streets by just letting them sleep on my couch for a month or two, and all three of them come over from time to time to bbq with me, they bring food, beer and sometimes weed lmfao no i dont care if the state says its illegal i shall partake in it cuz down here 10 year olds fuckin drink beer and no one says a word.....
Could you please analyze the principles behind Zen Buddhism?
I'm religious but lots of respect to you, bro. You're one of the only Atheist channels I can watch without feeling attacked for my beliefs. 🫡🫶
After this video, I went to wash the dishes and floated this disturbing idea I need to cook for a bit (@ me some time later):
What if "goodness" is just whatever makes people like you?
I'm testing many scenarios in my head and it seems to hold in many of them, but I only thought of it 10 minutes ago and I need to go to work now.