No grabbing low-hanging fruit or owning philosophically illiterate people with vitriol, no super-out-there stuff, just Mike, Josh and Cameron doing a maximally great debate review. This is why I'm still subbed.
Non-Sequiturs, False Equivalences, blatant historical misinformation, assumed presuppositions, logical inconsistencies, cherry-picking Biblical Texts, etc. There was a lot wrong here. I have more information outlined in my comment.
@@JNB0723I think you are throwing the baby out with bath water while these things you bring up valid points but I am not so interested in the semantics of this argument but the path of logic these two use to come up with their beliefs. It is fascinating to hear these two deep thinkers bouncing ideas off one another. Do u not agree or are u blinded by the minutiae
Ben's claim (starting at 1h 2' in the original debate vid): "So to take the slavery example, there is no mandate to hold slaves in the Bible. [...] Is the verse attempting to woo people away from a tradition of slavery or to humanize the slaves, or is it attempting to reinforce that by making it harsher and more difficult." From the Bible, Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male slave or female slave whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may acquire a male slave or a female slave."
Shouldn't a "mandate" be "you must" or at least "you should" instead of "you may"? It's still disgusting nonetheless, but Ben maybe isn't incorrect technically speaking.
I am sorry but this podcast is not on the same level as the debate they are talking about. I could never in my wildest dreams debate Ben or Alex, but I could probably debate these 3 guys.
Maximally perfect by what standard? P.S. I know you're making a joke... but I'm making a joke at how apologists talk about morality.... and now explaining the joke about the joke has ruined the joke joke.
It’s hilarious when you put it like that😂 but for real though, that makes sense to me. I know some one who became vegan recently, don’t know why, and she still has a hard time giving up cussing or fowl language. Although it’s silly in comparison to practicing slavery but it does show me that giving up meat for her was easier than changing how she is used to speaking due to it being normal to her since childhood.
“One step at a time concerning slavery or rape etc - but let's put a stop to eating shellfish asap 😂” NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! Sorry but under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction there’s no such thing as slavers or rapists, that is there’s no such thing as “slavery” and “rape” as this presupposes freewill and a moral choice, that is it presupposes a conscious agent/moral accountability and moral responsibility right? But freewill and choice is “ILLUSORY” under your world view buddy isn’t it? That is freewill and choice is just an “ILLUSION” under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism right? Are you sure that you are batting for the right team? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted your self!! You’re actually claiming that Christians, that is your actually claiming that people such as the heroes of the civil rights movement such as the Christians Martin Luther king JR and Rosa parks were inspired by a book that does nothing more than encourage slavery and rape right? And the reason you know this is because your “shellfish” told you so? Atheism is “superior”, that is fatalism and muh epistemological nihilism is “superior” because my “SHELLFISH” told me so? Glad we cleared that one up!! You do know that the highest demographic in Christianity is [black and female] right? But according to you this specific group of people promote a book that encourages slavery and rape right? Wow!! Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! The irony is that I bet you fancy yourself as a “liberal freethinker” but your argument actually makes you both a racist and misogynist!! Now that’s beyond ironic!!
Sorry but it speaks volumes that you have no choice but steal from our world view in order to even formulate a moral argument against these ancient texts. All of these very ironic appeals to freewill and choice and objective morality whilst subscribing to the position that ultimately it’s all nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimiately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals just simply doing what they are determined to do right? Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! That’s a self own on multiple levels. Equally, the fact is that under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction you and your very ironic virtue signalling, that is your very ironic complaints about slavery and rape are nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the “ILLUSION” of “stable” or “unstable” patterns and regularities right? That is creating the illusion of moral accountability and moral responsibility because freewill and choice is “ILLUSORY” right? Sorry but look up special pleading fallacy, straw man argument and cherry picking fallacy or fallacy of incomplete evidence as it’s commonly known!! I like how you pat yourself on the back because you think you created an enormous “GOTCHA!!” when under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction you can’t take the credit for anything buddy as “you” don’t even exist because apparently the conscious agent/freewill that is rationality itself doesn’t even exist because apparently it is “ILLUSORY”. That’s another self own on multiple levels. The fact is that all the atheist has got in the end, that is all the fatalist and epistemological nihilist has (Gotcha!!) in the end is the MAGGOT INFESTED FERTILISER PIT/THE VOID/THE GRAVE/OBLIVION!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!
I was actually surprised that the rebuttal I thought of to Alex's argument against free will wasn't brought up (perhaps it's not as obvious as I thought). Randomness is indeterminism with no mind selecting the outcome. Libertarian free will (as many conceive of it anyway) is indeterminism but with a mind controlling which outcome is to obtain. For that reason if nothing else, indeterminism doesn't imply randomness.
Yes, this is exactly what I’ve been thinking. Rather than saying things are determined or random, we ought to say they’re determined or undetermined. Because when you use the word random, you imply mindless indeterminism which just precludes free will. The will is ‘random’ in the sense that one couldn’t predict a free will choice, even if they knew everything about a person. But it is by no means mindless.
@@MaverickChristianThe substance dualism part is clear. The interactionism part is also clear. What I don't get is how a mind could "select" the outcome of an indeterministic process. Would the act of selection not constitute a "cause" for the outcome, rendering the process deterministic?
@@antichrist.superstar _What I don't get is how a mind could "select" the outcome of an indeterministic process. Would the act of selection not constitute a "cause" for the outcome, rendering the process deterministic?_ Determinism says that there is only one possible outcome given the antecedent conditions. Indeterminism says that there are multiple possible outcomes given the same antecedent conditions. So given the same antecedent conditions, the mind has multiple possible options to select from. That's the sort of free will I'm talking about.
On a fundamental level your chemicals in your mechanical brain heard 'snickers' and put your taste buds into imagining the chocolate & nutty taste - hence you were always meant to choose it! Likewise, the folk who believe you could not chose another option and hard determinism are basically just determined so why care what they 'think' about your 'choice' when you actually just bought milk & skittles?
Edit: I should have kept watching lol. The third option I mention here is brought op a little later. Original: Two options were presented for the location of the"controller device": internal or external to us. But that leaves our the third option: we are the controller. That would be the soul-the controller device that controls the body. The example given was a device inside or outside an iPad. In this example, we are not the iPad, but the controller device.
If Alex demonstrated anything on free will, it is that free will is nonfalsifiable. A person’s conscious decision can either be caused by a.) an infinite regress of cause and effect b.) a process that at bottom is purely random c.) a free agent which is definitionally the first cause of a conscious decision. None of these are strictly provable. Even a random process cannot be proved to not have an underlying mechanistic cause. As an example you can observe the rand() function in excel and it fits the uniform distribution but it is generated by a mechanistic algorithm. I see no reason why a free agent is any more logically incoherent than something that is “random”. Both rely on there not being an antecedent cause.
I feel like it would be a finite amount of cause and effect. Since it seems out universe goes back into the past for a finite amount of time. In a deterministic view, this feels like the most likely cause. This might just be me, but a free agent seems incoherent. The only thing that could have free will would be a God that spawned in before reality could influence him. Funny that, it takes an incoherent idea (God) to make free will more coherent if you accept it.
We have an ever growing amount of data that show our behaviors are caused by events that came before. All we have to show for free will is our feelings about it. I know which one I'm going to be leaning towards
Here's another take on it that might help: do atoms have free will? We, and our brains, are only made up of atoms. At the fine-grained level we are no different from rocks, trees, animals, dirt. We just happen to have brains powerful enough to produce consciousness. Since the day of our coming into existence, every thought we've had, decision we've made, action we've taken, has simply been the result of the atomic construction of our brain. It's like a very complex program/machine with a lot of tiny pieces, constantly running automatically.
Yes, words can make you believe anything you already believed and think it's true and sound. Try this; Don't eat for a while, just a bit too long, look at your behavior and decisions. Eat well, really well in just the right dose, in a way that your body loves it, look at your behavior decisions. Eat well, but also too much, look at your behavior and decisions Then imagine not always being in control with what you eat when and how much. Like many people in our culture and other cultures Or to be in an environment where you're being abused for a decade or two. Then look at your behavior and decisions. How much of that is free will?
The "logical" pattern is something that comes up when you bring in conditional probability. Given that a random process has occurred, how does that change the likelihood of things that are causally related to that.
1:19:36 _"But I mean if you just go back and you read like Seneca or Aristotle they had no problem with slavery"_ When Aristotle talks about slavery in _"politics",_ doesn't he precisely respond to the sophists who were arguing AGAINST slavery ? Weren't the cynics against slavery ? Weren't anti-slavery positions already defended in ancient Greece ?
I have to agree largely with IP here, I feel that both sides completely missed the point of the debate. Really, it was a debate over free will and slavery.
The question is, why are we even talking about slavery? Only because atheists ever only attack some type of strawman Christianity. They have no clue about biblical exegesis. And especially Alex, who claims he studied theology, makes the impression that he slept through all his classes. Or only ever picked up the arguments he thought he could use later on to impress the CZcams atheists.
@@toma3447 That's not the definition most use for slavery. Slavery in the OT comes in three forms. Slaves between Hebrews. Slaves bought from foreign nations. Slaves of war. Slaves of war is the worst because these women were s@x slaves. Alex mentions, "Why kill the elderly non-virgin women?" I don't think anyone has given a good reply to this other than: *This was the culture of the time.*. Obviously culture doesn't make things right so there is no excusing the actions in the Bible that were at best condoned by God and at worst commanded by God.
1:14:40 _"And when the work of Kepler and Newton came out that you have this elliptical model the church was perfectly fine with that"_ REALLY ? And why were both Newton and Kepler's works put on the _"index librorum prohibitorum"_ then ?
Sources? I can’t find reference to Newton or Kepler’s work in the index librorum prohibitorum… Edit: found out that some of Kepler’s work (Astronomia nova, Harmonices Mundi and Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae) was initially added but removed from the index in 1835.
39:39 if your beliefs create causal differences in your behaviors, then it's your beliefs controlling you. If you make an argument that persuades me, that I believe, I can't choose not to believe it, if that belief directs my behaviors in a way I don't control, how can you say I have free will?
I dispute this part of the argument against free will: If a thought is random then we are not in control of it. To explain this, we first note that everyone agrees that consciousness exists, but we do not know the actual nature of consciousness. Since the nature of consciousness is unknown, I propose the following model: The mind (which is the seat of consciousness) acts like an filter for random thoughts (although not ALL thoughts need to be random for this model to work). Truly random thoughts are generated by some mechanism, and the unconscious mind throws out the "bad" ones, and only allows the "good" ones to surface into our consciousness. In this way, the mind is in control, but the thoughts in this case are truly random. It turns out, this this actually explains the nature of consciousness quite well. For example, it explains how some thoughts can surprise us. This is because some thoughts are actually random. And it also explains why we sometimes have to consciously reject some unwanted thoughts. This is the case, that our sub-consciousness mind failed to filter out a "bad" thought. :)
I find this line of thought interesting, however I do have one concern. You say that "the unconscious mind throws out the "bad" ones, and only allows the "good" ones to surface into our consciousness", this process to me doesn't sound like theres any room for the kind of control needed for free will. If it is the unconscious which by definition we are not aware of making the "choices" on what thoughts to filter out and which ones to keep, then I don't see how this can rescue free will in any meaningful sense. Perhaps unless you're defining the mind as the self in which I agree the mind is "in control" as you state but I think the task of defending that the self is reducible to the mind purely is tall one.
Very disappointed you were only providing clips of Alex’s points and essentially none of Ben’s. I saw the whole debate. Alex was losing and resorted to the same old tired tactics of quoting old testament law😂 Cameron, present both sides if you’re going to do a debate review
This is a bit below the belt but did you determine Alex lost? And by what measures? If God exists and he defines morality but was accepting of owning people, he isn't moral and if it was back then, Christian morality is also relativistic. If he couldn't do anything about it then he isn't the omnipotent being described in the Bible and that would make the Bible untrue. So the one defending an objective morality or a God-claim as true as in described in the text would by default have the losing position from a rational/logical standpoint. Now from a utility standpoint it's another ball game. So as a placebo effect... But usually that's not what people defending theism is claiming because that would implicitly entail some form of self deception.
20:23 At least in math, computation and physics, “random” is related to entropy. There isn't a pattern (if it's purely random), or it's not recognizable. For instance, the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,… is not random, because it follows a pattern. We can predict the next number. This is random: 32, 68, 11, 16, 7, 84, 63, 34, … I didn't pick those numbers manually. I used a random number generator and pick each number at different times. You can't predict the next number.
what if free will is similar to breathing in that it will happen automatically until being overridden by something with volition. probably doesn't make sense but it felt neat when i had the thought.
@@MrSeedi76 Did you read WHO rewarded him? Was it the church? Maybe the Pope? Maybe a nun? It was the RICHEST family patriarch on the planet at the time. Galileo was awarded and given an honored position BY the OWNER of Popes, manhandler of The Church, Director of what is Good, Leader of leaders: Cosimo de Medici. God is not great and the church even less.
Dr. Josh's "puppet argument" of free will seems to do the following: introduces a choosing agent whose decisions are not exclusively determined by external nor internal forces, nor are its decisions random. The existence of this choosing agent is introduced as an axiom. The introduction of this axiom is defended abductively--as necessary to any sound definition of free will. So we assume a choosing agent capable of free will exists as a premise to an argument that answers the question "do we have free will?" Dr Josh, isn't that just begging the question? If I assume there is a fundamental, irreducible agent capable of free choice, than I've solved the mystery of how do I assume the existence of the thing which I am trying to argue exists.
I'm on the free will side but I, too, had trouble understanding the purpose of his arguments. They didn't seem to be attempts to defent free will as much as define it.
@@danielcartwright8868 I don't understand a few things about free will. 1) If Adam and Eve were perfect and had free will, why did they eat of the tree? 2) Did the angels who rebelled against God have free will? What makes us different from them? 3) Will we have free will in Heaven? Is there thus sin in Heaven? These are some of my big questions for the Christian worldview and free will
@@malirk I'm not a Christian, but I asked the same questions. The problem is God is mysterious and they can make up anything. Additionally, they know God exists, because they believe Jesus resurrected. Here is the answer I've been given no matter how implausible it is: God knew Adam and Eve and the fallen angels would use their free will to go against him, but God uses all actions against him (and natural evils) to create a higher good like soul building for the people who will freely choose to be with him (are saved) and he does all this for his glory. For the free will in heaven part, the people in heaven have free will but have soul built enough to freely never choose to sin again and really enjoy being with God. This (according to God) is a higher good than people just being created to never want to sin. As I said, this implausible to me and morally repugnant especially if eternal conscious torment exists. It appears God uses people as means to an end. Lots of Christians deny ECT.
@@malirk1.) Adam and Eve were not perfect. They were made “good” but were corruptable. 2.) I don’t think there is much in the Bible that makes clear one way or the others whether angels have free will, but one clue may be in the book in Job where Satan only did the things to Job that God permitted him to. 3.) The Christian view is that once you come to faith you begin a process of sanctification which is the process of being made holy. You can think of it as a transformation of your Will such that more and more you begin to desire the things of God more and sinful things less. This is believed to continue in heaven though probably looks a bit different once freed from your corrupt earthly body. So it is believed that there is free will in heaven but your Will will be for worshiping and serving God.
It seems to me on the topic of free will that determined vs random is a false dichotomy. A thing may be determined, chosen, probabilistic, or random. To illustrate the difference, imagine three cards. For the draw of a card to be determined, they each lay on top of the other so you can only draw the top card. For it to be chosen, the cards lay face up side by side. For it to be probabilistic, the cards lay face down side by side. To be random, the cards must all be jokers. The crucial point is that we always seem to be picking from cards that lie face up. The problem is that for some reason philosophers want to say that this choice must be determined or random, but without justification. A choice is simply a choice. Just as randomness cannot be reduced twith determination, neither can choice. It is important that the choosing agent be something radically different from matter simply because we are not aware of matter being able to choose. That is all. Choice is the choice of a conscious being. It is neither random, nor probabilistic, nor deterministic. It has the option of regarding reasons or disregarding them and of deciding how much weight to give reasons. There you go.
Perhaps it is an error to think of free will and determinism in such binary terms. Rather, freedom of will is a spectrum where absolute free will is easily refuted by common sense and determinism is as well. Perhaps this forcing of a binary choice between the two ends of the spectrum is a result of philosophers spending too much time at the armchair and not enough time surfing. 🌊 any surfer knows that, when encountering a tidal wave, one has many choices regarding how to respond. He can surf or he can succumb to the undertow. Either way he will wash up on the shore. But it’s how he gets there makes all the difference.
I find Alex’s characterization of thoughts either being determined or not to be built on a presupposition that “thoughts cause thoughts.” Neo-realists, such as myself (as related to the foundation of thoughts/process of thinking), would reject this idea of our being in knowledge. Rather, a neo-realist would claim that there’s a transphenomenal (not subjected to thought) faculty, which is the very foundation from which thoughts precede. In other words, while temporally prior thoughts guide, they aren’t the causal basis for future thoughts (as Alex somewhat implies).
@@gabrielteo3636 1) Hopefully, I’m interpreting your question right. Sartre would argue that thoughts originate from this foundation of being (whether it be a brain or soul or both). If being is in our knowledge, Sartre argues that an infinite regress of conscious states towards the unknown would be the foundation of being. Such a foundation seems absurd. 2) I’m confused by this question. All thoughts are equal, insofar that they originate from the same faculty/foundation.
@@existential_o "2) I’m confused by this question. All thoughts are equal, insofar that they originate from the same faculty/foundation." I'll accept this answer...thoughts originate from the being/self. We can then ask, why theses thoughts of any other, regardless of any "outside" reason? Under LFW, my answer is, I don't know, seems random. In determinism, it is because of my biology and experiences.
@@gabrielteo3636 I’m tempted to claim all “reasons” are subject to our interpretation of them. Now you may respond, “is our interpretation determined or random?” To refer to Rasmussen’s response, they are controlled. Going from something is 100% determined to something is 0% determined (therefore, random) is an unjustified jump. Edit: I may be misunderstanding your stance, but you seem to equate all external events as causal to choice. Therefore, it isn’t a self choosing, but external factors. Swinburne, in his interview with Alex O’Connor, addresses this issue. Swinburne argues that it’s objects which cause objects, not events.
@@existential_o "To refer to Rasmussen’s response, they (interpretations) are controlled." How are they controlled? Deterministically or not deterministically? "Going from something is 100% determined to something is 0% determined (therefore, random) is an unjustified jump." Let's say someone thinks a choice is 70% determined and 30% random. Why think 70/30 vs 30/70 vs any other ratio? "Swinburne argues that it’s objects which cause objects, not events." Maybe I don't understand Swinburne, but isn't the self an object caused by other objects which causes other objects?
Random does not exist. This is what most programmers and electronical engineers understand. Saying "quantum" simply means we are unable to measure the reason for it with our current understanding, not that it's necessarily somehow mystically undetermined.
I have been thinking about things lately. I just thought of this a little while ago and haven't interrogated it yet, so I'm not sure how useful it is. It's kind of a definition of free will that I hope gets at what we are really interested in about free will. Definition: free will is that which is determined by a selection of future states. Mechanical causation is strictly past causing future. The water flows downhill. If you tell the water that it will be happier at the top of the hill, it still flows downhill. If you threaten to hurt the water at the bottom of your hill, it still flows downhill. In sharp contrast, what causes the farmer to plant the seed? The growth of future fruit. If you tell the farmer that there will be a flood that will wash the seed away and there will be no fruit, then he won't plant the seed. His actions are determined by the future state. When we are worried about punishing or not punishing for a crime, we are trying to change the future state such that it will push someone away from performing the action. If we want farmers to plant seeds, we will threaten to punish those who neglect planting. This does create a circular problem similar to the halting problem in libertarianism and determinism. Consider: Legislator A knows that Citizen B likes to break rules. A owns an apple tree and doesn't want B to take the apples. A creates a law that everyone must take an apple. Did B's behavior cause the law, or did the law cause B's behavior? It seems to me that the whole thing is circular: B's behavior causes A's behavior, A's behavior causes B's behavior, and back again forever. I'm sure this isn't the best example for what I'm trying to say, if you get what I'm saying and have an even better example I would love to read it. And like I said, I haven't had a chance to really pressure test this or think of better examples, so I'm sure it's possible to poke holes in the specific example I've given. Imagine it's the next iteration past that with a much better constructed example before just declaring it dead because the first examples is weak. Newton's first example of why the moon orbits was that he saw an apple fall. First examples often need a little work before they really work.
Free will is the option to have chose another action. You are talking about motivation and that sounds like retrofitting actions. Motivation is what lies behind actions and motivation is part of the process that leads up to free will, I agree. But motivation doesn't get sanctioned, actions do. You can work on motivation but it's not that easy. Isn't that what the self help is trying make bank on? Breakdown: Motivation is not action. Motivation can lead to action. Action is the thing that gets noticed. Free will is a sliding scale. I like Nexus Voids definition; we have competing free wills. So we have free will but depending on circumstances, we have different amounts. Resources can determine the amount as can intelligence, knowledge and creativity. You might have a core value based on you circumstances (EQ) and put a goal towards achieving something that accommodates that value (IQ) but you need the motivation and drive to do the action in order to "solve" that problem of achieving said goal (AQ).
@@justanothernick3984 Certainly motivation is part of free will, and I'm simply trying to focus on whatever component of free will connects to the question of libertarianism vs determinism.
I don't think the farmer's action are determined by the future state of something. Rather, they are determined by past seeds that he has seen turn into plants, then those memories got implanted into his brain, etc.
@@OviLazar If that were the case, then telling the farmer that this year the seeds won't grow and giving him an explanation why that he believes would only change the course of action if he had seen that thing before. That has not been the experience I've had with farmers. Farmers will learn that rotating crops will change the way they grow, and then start to rotate crops even though they've never seen it themselves. And it's not just enough to hear that someone does it differently. They hear all kinds of things that people do that don't come with a change in expectation, and don't incorporate them into their farming practice. It's not their memories that cause them to change, and it's not mimicry that cause them to change. It's their expectation of the future that causes them to change
@@sthelenskungfu But that explanation is based on other farmer's experiences and them watching the weather and forecasts, plus their past experiences with the climate and growing zone. It's still deterministic. Whether the initial farmer is stubborn and doesn't want to listen to Whatever farmers learn, whether from their own mistakes or from those of others and other bodies of knowledge, it's all deterministic and from the past. The farmer's imagination of that future state o the plant is merely a simulation in his own head based on the other plants that he's seen. Unless you can show me a farmer who can give more detail about the future plant whose seed is holding in his hands (exact height down to the millimeter, exact number of leaves), there is no reason to believe the future plant's state determines his actions. Not unless you're using a different definition of determinism which, in the context of the O'Connor - Shapiro debate, is all about series off causes and effects (and they both agree on that).
Why do people not understand relations? The reviewers, as well as Ben and Alex. It's not about what things are in isolation(spoiler, in nothing is isolated), which is what everyone is trying to do and isn't making any progress. Mental and physical are immanent to one another, subjective & objective, external & internal.
People love this argument that overcoming bad things is inherently good on its own, such that it's better to have something bad to overcome (and possibly fail, as many do) than to just not have had the bad thing to begin with. To people who believe this argument, I ask you what "good" means... The evaluation of something as "good" is the prediction of how well it's likely to align with our preferences/objectives/etc. The preference/objective here is to not have the bad thing, so not having it in the first place is much more likely to be aligned with the preference/objective than experiencing the bad and risking the possible failure to overcome. Thus, it is not more "good" to have bad things to overcome.
Ben clearly isn't a moral relativist. I think what you mean to say is that, if Ben were consistent in his claims/beliefs, then he would be a moral relativist. That is very different from claiming he is a moral relativist. So why do you think Ben is inconsistent?
@@jackplumbridge2704 He clearly says he doesn’t agree with the morality that was written down in the Old Testament compared to 21st century ethics & morality. That’s moral relativism. Up to 400 years ago, Christians thought it was perfectly moral to kill anyone who was accused of witchcraft as commanded in the bible. Does any Christian still think that’s a moral action?
@@stormhawk3319 "He clearly says he doesn’t agree with the morality that was written down in the Old Testament compared to 21st century ethics & morality. That’s moral relativism. " - No it isn't. Moral relativism is the view that there are no objective moral values. Ben does not believe there are no objective moral values, he believes there are objective moral values. Hence, he is not a moral relativist. "Up to 400 years ago, Christians thought it was perfectly moral to kill anyone who was accused of witchcraft as commanded in the bible. " - Maybe some Christians did. But so what? "Does any Christian still think that’s a moral action?" - Probably some. But again, what does that have to do with anything?
@@jackplumbridge2704 Again, he disagrees with morality written in the Old Testament which clearly condones slavery as well as taking the women from enemy tribes as your own. Now either that was written by those who translated the word of the Judao Christian god or it was simply written by men whose own idea of what was perfectly objectively moral in their eyes. Your flippant response over Christians who killed those they accused of witchcraft “Maybe some Christians did, but so what?” was as arrogant as it gets. What do you mean “Maybe”, there’s no question Christians did and in large numbers authorised by the church authorities no less in medieval Europe. They believed they were acting perfectly objectively moral because they went with the literal word of the bible. The human race as slowly become moral over the centuries, in the western world at least with the enlightenment of the 18th century which saw the first outspoken atheist philosophers such as Voltaire& David Hume and scientists such as Benjamin Franklin and humanists like Thomas Paine that fought against any theocratic rule but to the democratic rule of secular governments that as proved to be far more “objectively moral” than the self righteous rule when religious leaders had the whip hand. Religion and belief in a god certainly is not proof of objective morality. It’s down to millions of years of very slow evolution of us as a species where we gradually become better people compared to 400, 1000 or indeed 3000 years ago.
Surely the best argument in favour of free will is that its fundamentally instinctive just like conscious experience and the laws of logic. How can one instinct outweigh another as they all are implicitly a priori and the lens through which we interact with the world. Logic is no more reliable than free will, we assess reliability by reference to others also having a shared experience of that thing and its usefulness in the world. Both tests apply equally to induction, logic etc as much as free will. They are all real.
@@Cuhpri I think we experience will, not free will. Will would feel exactly the same as free will. A slug choosing to go left or right would sense free will, but we could in theory map out its decisions based on "reasons". Same for people.
@@Cuhpri The point is we intuitively feel like we have it, but our examination of the world makes it seem somewhat unlikely. I’m not saying we’re sure because we would need to know more about consciousness, but if you had to bet, bet on determinism.
I think we experience will, not free will. Will would feel exactly the same as free will. A slug choosing to go left or right would sense free will, but we could in theory map out its decisions based on "reasons". Same for people.
If I have a multitude of choices to choose from and I have to choose between them, but none of them are obvious to me, then what is that called if it's not free will? If I was able to live multiple lives so I could choose the other choices I wasn't able to in this life to see the outcomes of those decisions, I would. How can a mindset like that be reconciled with the determinist view? The reason I make most of the choices I do, is ultimately because I can't choose all or none of them, not because there is an obvious choice and I would never choose the other ones.
If God can see all outcomes does that mean God doesn’t have free will? To me it’s more like a computer has computational power to make choices based on the data it’s been given in the past. Humans are just messy computers with exponentially more data to interpret from with a variety of tools such as heuristics, bias, prediction, etc
The question still remains, was your decision to choose from multiple choices random or determined at the time of the decision? When looking back at a past decision in retrospect, we imagine we could have chosen otherwise, but why think that? If the universe was rewould and I had no memory of the consequences of the decision, I would make the same decision every time because of reasons. If i didn't make the same decision, i would just be acting randomly against the first decision.
I personally liked Dr Josh Rasmussen emphasis at the end of the video on the point about the progressiveness of history and religion which everyone was agreeing without realizing the deeper implications. The argument Ben Shapiro was using to say that God needed to ease people toward accepting His long term goal away from the institution of slavery works for progressive religious people. But for conservatives, accepting this argument would be a form of cognitive dissonance. It means that the past never offered an optimized context for human flourishing and that the turmoil through which societies must go through once in a while is what is necessary for humans to move toward God's intended goal. From a political stance that would render conservatism as evil because conservatism seeks an idealized moment of the past not the future of God's goal: anti God. Progressives therefore are the ones guided by the will of God even when some of them are lost or mistaken. So I'm not sure if Ben should want to hold too tight onto that argument.
I don’t think conservatives necessarily have to agree that the past offers an optimised context for human flourishing. I’m not strictly a conservative or a liberal, but I understand the conservative view to be more of one that wants to uphold certain values of the past, believing those values to be better than modernist ones. For instance, slavery isn’t a value of the past, it was a system that happened to be implemented but opposed the values that a conservative religious society would hold. Conservatism isn’t about blindly holding onto institutions of the past, but rather making change based upon traditions and core beliefs. It is possible to be a progressive conservative, for instance.
@@berserkerbard Well then it all comes down to how we understand what "conservative" means. Was Jesus conservative compared to his religious/political contemporaries? Was Paul a conservative compared to his religious/political contemporaries? I don't believe so. They went against the structures that preserved the previous traditions and by doing so were punished by death. Christianity probably felt like today's progressive liberalism (or even woke) in the context of their times. The persecution of Christians wasn't because they were conservatives but rather they were the progressives for their time. There are lots of parallels that can be drawn with today but because Christianity (or any religious tradition) now is the tradition, the roles are flipped.
@@Adaerus I would argue that Jesus was both conservative and liberal in values. He upheld Torah and tradition and pointed to it, but he also fulfilled the old law so brought about complete revolution. However, the new Christians of the time didn’t abandon the Old Testament or the laws of God that Jesus reconstituted, indeed, Jesus made marriage a binding covenant once again and taught that to divorce and ‘remarry’ was to commit adultery. This was how God originally intended things to be. That could be viewed as an ultra-conservative action of Jesus. Tradition and change can work well together without demonising one or the other, it’s only if you pull too far in either direction (ie. Tradition stopping progress or progress eliminating tradition) that it can be problematic. As a note, Conservatism in politics relates primarily to belief of personal property, free enterprise and upholding traditional values. Liberalism promotes civil liberties, individual rights and democracy. There isn’t a clash between these ideas unless they’re taken too far.
@@berserkerbard Of course they didn't abandon the Old Testament but they added to it, or improved on it. I can still argue that it was "the woke" thing of the times to call a slave as equal to a patrician in the Roman empire under any context. I'm sure there were extreme elements on the proto Christian side that might have gotten way overboard compared to their times similarly to what's happening to the left today. The extreme Christians would have been just wrong while the extreme of the tradition of the time (pagans) was just evil: it saw Christianity as a threat to the fabric of society. In today's terms the melancholiacs for traditional religion are the equivalent to the pagans that resisted the change before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. The manifestations are similar today but more humane because of the progress. In short, the extreme political right is evil while the extreme political left is wrong but not evil.
And then we have the argument, “consciousness”, and “it’s complex”. Look, the point is, if you’re not direct;y AWARE of where a choice comes from, it’s not a true choice - it’s “random”. If you want to hand wave and point to some black box as a source for a catalyst for choice/free will, that’s still not a choice or free will. It’s effectively the same thing as determinism and randomness. It’s something occurring outside your ability to consciously control with full awareness of what’s going on - it’s simply popping in your head as a full blown choice.
24:10 On free will and randomness, Cameron is talking about something that can be random but also someone is in control of it, and he gives the example of buying a candy bar. He doesn't have a preference, and so randomly chooses the candy bar type. The question is, was free will invovled then? If so, where? Cameron here seems to equate "free will" to "being in control". There are multiple seperate decisions being made here, so it is important to break them down. 1. Choosing how to decide which candy bar to buy. 2. Choosing which candy bar to buy. First Cameron decided that, since he doesn't have a prefernce he will buy a candy bar at random. This decision itself was not random, it was based on his candy bar preferences (or lack thereof). For choosing the candy bar, Cameron decided to reliquish his control and get a candy bar at random. Cameron is no longer in control of which candy bar he is going to get, and so free will is not involved in step 2. So Alex's point remains in tact, if something is random, it can't have been the product of free will. Theoretically somone can freely choose to do something at random, but the free will was in deciding to do something random, not the random action itself.
17:45...I don't know where exactly this sort of philosophy comes from, and I have never heard it before. However, I think that the obvious weakness would be in defining what those things (control instruments) are and whether or not they are commanded by you. Anything that controls your person and which you have no authority over indacates a lack of free will, however if you exercise authority over those instruments, free will survives. And if it survives within, external stimuli would still have to condend with your free will instruments. And we can reference The Word to back this up, although, this sort of evidence may not be acceptable to the heathen. So your tablet could well be controlled, but authority can be transferred. Like AI. Also, a cool thought to me, is that even if someone doesn't have free will, then it is enacting the will of the controller as a proxy. So there is a source that would necessarily have to have free will.
Alex may forget or ignore a question. Do deterministic events make him believe what he believes and draw the conclusions he draws? If they do, he might come to believe in free will because those events force him to do that. Whether determinism is true seems more fundamental than whether we have free will.
I feel like the two guys on the left have a more nuanced approach than the guy on the right. They seem to try to remove bias from the equation and try to understand and interpret the philosophical concepts regardless of whether they're theistic or not.
Tge premise of the debate includes the presupposition; that a condition of Absolute free will exists. And that after you exercise this Absolute free will you still exist to comtinue in that condition. Both of which are philosophically impossible.
Just imagine Inspiring-Philosophy with a headcovering that is worn by muslims with a thicker- fuller beard and imagine him adding "peace be upon him" after he mentions different prophets (Moses), you will find it hard to differentiate Inspiring Philosophy from an average Islamic Apologist. How peculier.
On "free will"... "you" are a system that processes input and output signals (simultaneously, constantly) and the experience of processing the inputs to decide the outputs is what we call "consciousness" and then "free will", as most commonly used, suggests that the processor could be given the exact same set of inputs (historically as well, because the processor is changed by its processing) and yet output something different AND that the variation therein is even partially "under your control" which would mean that the processor doing the controlling internally has some mechanism to "prefer" one of those variants over others and reliably produce the variant of output it "prefers", which would mean that the result could only ever be that which was most "preferred" (holistically) and that "preference" is necessarily either dependent on the inputs or not something that can be changed by the processor (i.e. it's "hardcoded"). Think of any software you've used. It executes decisions/choices, it executes a "will", but I don't think you would say that "will" is "free" in that the software itself could, say, suddenly tomorrow independently change its own inner logic (a.k.a. "preferences" to tie it back) such that it outputs some different response to what it would have done given the same inputs. Re: "moral responsibility"... it's necessary in the way that root cause analysis is necessary for debugging software/decision-makers, but "blame" or "judgment" or "punishment" are generally not helpful for resolving the issue of the undesirable outcomes (e.g. crime). The beneficial purpose we do see from those is a part of the social incentive structure for guiding behavior, but knowing this we can hopefully move towards a more compassionate and helpful version of this disincentivization structure. "moral judgments" are evaluations of alignment to the complex combination of "preferences" of the given agent/processor Side notes: nature can definitely give you prescriptions/obligations, like keeping yourself fed/sheltered/etc and potentially for children as well... Also, if the "objective" basis of morality is "personal", then that would make it subjective which is not "objective" (but imo nothing is, in the way most people use the term, just a collective subject perspective we adopt based on commonalities of the collective's preferences given that the preferences are determined). (Btw, posted this to test out this explanation with this audience)
Determined vs undetermined is a false dichotomy, leaving out the agnostic option, and crucially forgetting that randomness is simply a human perception problem and a modeling problem; there is no randomness on omniscience
How so? Either all of the universe is completely determined or not all of the universe is completely determined (thus giving rise to indeterminism to various degrees). Do you mean the false dichotomy that either everything is determined or nothing is determined, because then I’d agree.
Random just means not determined by anything, so yeah the perfect opposite of determined xD To clarify "made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision" is the first definition that pops up when you look up the definition of "random".
@@milantarbuk1039 But it’s “I” who determines in its “randomness”. Really they stumble upon consciousness, the most probable root of free will. It’s simply incomprehensible concept, while we clearly don’t understand how it functions and arises we also have no clue about free will as a product of it. And isn’t inside “I” you make conscious decision.
@@eugenehvorostyanov2409 I feel like this conversation is gonna go nowhere, not because you made any blatantly stupid argument or anything like that, but rather because I've been in so many of these discussions and heard those exact point many many many times. Wanna know how many examples I have of people actually changing their minds by the end of it? None, which makes sense given the nature of the topic. Because it is so unknowable we are left with nothing but our own personal opinions on the matter. Free will people will say you choose and make conscious decisions, determinists will say no you only have the illusion of making completely free choices while in reality all of your decisions were already determined by factors outside of your control, this includes the "I" as well. Can either of the two sides prove they are definitively right? If they could don't you think we would have stopped debating this ages ago?
“Source condition” of an agent. Ok, so dice have agency and free will. Is that it? Because the source of a choice between 1 - 6 is determined by the way a dice rolls. Wait, or by the hand that throws it. Wait, or by the conditions present in the room of the hand that through it. Wait, or the variables at play that determined the conditions in the room of the hand that throws the dice? You see where I’m going with this? You can’t remove the “agent” from the infinite set of variables that influence it, nor know them - therefore you are never certain or in control of the infinite number of unknown variables at play behind any “choices”, agent or otherwise.
Observation: I'd like to share an honest, objective observation I tend to witness in the sorts of debates these gentleman are discussing here, and I think Josh Rasmussen points to this same observation several times, albeit in a rather diplomatic way. When Ben Shapiro argues for his positions, he seems to do so because he wants them to be true, and/or he feels they NEED to be true, rather than because, objectively, it makes the most sense to him. Josh points out that he really enjoys the approach Alex O'Connor seems to be taking, because he seems only to be seeking the truth, rather than arguing for a position he feels ought to, or needs to, or would be better off if were, true. Does that make sense? The reason this is so important is that the former leaves little-to-no room for any significant objective reasoning, or logical shifts in perspective, due to evidence, where the latter quite literally starts from such a position, is the very nature of the position and where from it develops. What you see happening when you get two very logical, critical-thinkers on either side of such a discussion, is the person defending the position that they feel NEEDS or OUGHT to be true will often concede points because there is no logical way not to, but inevitably reverts to their original position despite any concessions they gave along the way; whereas the person driving at their position strictly because it seems the most logically sound, tends to be detached from any personal desire or feeling one way or the other, and is therefore able to shift in perspective as logic demands as a rule, along every step towards a truth.
I would have answered CS’s point about social justice developing despite the church’s best efforts a little differently than IP. I think it’s possible to grant for arguments sake that the church has historically done evil “shown Galileo the torcher instruments for having the temerity to suggest a capernican model of the galaxy” - without the corollary being “therefore religion isn’t a force for good” because a religions teachings shouldn’t be assessed on the behaviour of it’s apparent adherents but in the content of the actual teachings.
Would have been easier to point out that science and universities were kicked off by devout catholics, which includes galileo. Aquinas " faith complements reason" etc shows that adherence to reason is deeply embedded in catholic thought. The fact that galileo is trotted out so often shows how little actual anti science examples there are against the catholic church - 2000 years, and thats the worst example? 😂😂😂😂
@@gabrielteo3636 hmm. Big bang theory and genetics both came from catholic priests. An honest assessment of history shows a strong harmony between christians and science. Newton wrote more on scripture than physics. And you conveniently omit how many atheists readily reject truth in all its forms, seeing it as a product of power or invalid assumptions eg hume, foucault, derrideu, marx, satre etc etc.
@@jamessquire1770 I look at science as our best method for discerning if ideas in our heads somewhat corresponds to reality outside our heads using empirical means due to it's inductive success. Any of the over 4000 thousand Gods, demons or magical creatures people have invented throughout history can be evidenced by the scientific method if they were not hiding from scientists and their pesky tests. Isn't it amazing they would all choose to hide? I'm curious, what does a theist do when a new scientific discovery conflicts or there is a tension with their understanding of scripture from (insert holy book). Do they just reinterpret scripture to fit the scientific discovery?
I have to admit that after some thinking I found Alex's argument on free will to be solid, you can trace the source of decisions using the principle of sufficient reason all the way back to conclude that we as agents in the physical world do not have free will. This is also true for naturalism, but for theists, this may not be the end of the story. We may still have true free will granted to us by God beyond the physical world. This is possible because God is uncaused, so He is the only one for whom the principle of sufficient reason doesn't apply. He has true free will, and He may share that free with us, so that through him, our souls are capable of taking all our decisions logically prior to creation. Once the wheel is set in motion, we just experience our decisions in a deterministic manner, but in our state of ignorance this is equivalent to truly taking the decisions ourselves.
If it’s random and can be anything then why would an option not be for my free will to be what is that anything. This argument only works if you don’t make them give you definition.
@@GiftWrapGabe Alex's argument accepts free will could be wholly or partly random. Partially random is still random. On a theistic model, it might mean your salvation or damnation is random or partially random depending one which theology you ascribe. On a non-theistic model, it just means you will probably die quicker because of partly random choices.
@@gabrielteo3636but in a theistic view you have parameters you can work within to not guarantee salvation but improve you likelihood of it. Those parameters also lead to human flourishing I also don’t believe that free will is dictated by someone and that Alex model is totally correct. Funny we have the same name
What is an action that is completely independent of past experiences, environment, language, that is isn’t just reconstruction of a combination of those things? If you didn’t have the experiences and environment/components you have would you still be yourself? If your brain is damaged and you lose connection to some of those processing centers do you lose a portion of yourself? I view it as “characters” in movies have “free will” in movies contextually. But if you zoom out and see the greater world outside of the story it’s just something determined by the script. Seems to fit in both God in control and materialistic worldviews
Me choosing my clothing in the morning, deciding which film to see, and many other decision where I can pick whatever. It is not random and yet it is not predictable. Also independent does not mean disjoint, it can be completely independent while multiple factors are exercising pressures.
It seems like you are saying the boat is religion and the tide is society. If that is the case then I think it is quite clear that you have never studied history to any serious degree. Religion has shaped cultures massively over the years. Islamic countries are nothing like Hindu countries, and Hindu countries are nothing like Christian countries, precisely because those countries have been so massively impacted by their respective religions. To claim that religion has no impact on society, if that is what you are claiming, only reveals an incredible ignorance of history and sociology.
The question wasn't "doesn't religion have an impact on society", but "is religion good for society". These are two COMPLETELY different things!@@jackplumbridge2704
Also, we're not talking about religion in the past, we're talking about religion in the present, where it arguably doesn't have a strong (or good) influence on society. (At least in Western countries).@@jackplumbridge2704
@@j.a.n.e.n "The question wasn't "doesn't religion have an impact on society", but "is religion good for society"." - I know. So what? Did you completely ignore the fact that I am responding to the OP and not to the debate?
But do we really have intrinsic value, or do we merely place value on others because they happen to be of the same species or because we feel a special attachment to them? Also, a reinterpretation of the biblical text is just that…A reinterpretation based on our subjective perspective. Suggesting that the New Testament passages that mention equal worth is proof that the Apostle Paul was an abolitionist all along, sounds a little post hoc.
lol “if it’s not determined it’s not automatically thereby random…” what a silly thing to say. Yes, it is. If something isn’t determined then no matter what you come up with to call it, it may as well be random - because you’re not in control. Please.
(Edit: Let me begin by saying I appreciate this discussion and the people hosting it, regardless of my frustration expressed below. When I say, "shouldn't even be in the discussion," I am referring only to the specific concept being discussed in the moment, not the discussion in general. And by "shouldn't be in the discussion," I mean, by all rationale, should excuse themselves from taking any stance at all until such time as they are able to express a logical understanding of said concept, either way.) In response to free-will being non-deterministic/random, Upper-Left guy responds why he believes he has free will, this is his rationale: “I asked the philosopher friend of mine… what is meant when they use this term and he's like I don't know … and he's not like a philosopher that works in this area. He doesn't even know as someone who's like very fairly familiar with the area….” He says he does not understand the concept of non-determinism leading to randomness, then describes a story in which a philosopher (who shouldn't know, but he should know, and he DOESN'T know! huh?) does not even know, and then uses that as rationale for not being convinced, therefore feels justified in not believing it. He is literally stating that he is categorically incapable of understanding the concept, then rationalizes his opposition because of it. Wow. Now let’s take Ben Shapiro, who is arguably more knowledgeable about these subjects than Upper Left guy: Ben Shapiro also seems incapable of understanding some of the concepts discussed by Alex O’Connor, but Ben is able to make it seem like he DOES understand, yet has reasons to believe why he disagrees. And when pressed, says he has an 'escape hatch.' The real problem is that Ben also seems (pretty clearly to me) categorically incapable of understanding this concept (at least during his dialogue with Alex). He’s not even unwilling, he simply doesn’t understand. IMPORTANT:**Whether or not free-will is random, whether we have it or don’t have it, being incapable of understanding a thing IS NOT AN ARGUMENT against it. Period. That people don’t understand this, furthermore that they cannot even recognize when it’s happening right in front of them, is the real problem with discussions like this. If you CANNOT understand, you shouldn’t even be in the discussion.
I kept waiting for someone to be more charitable to Alex's argument about free will. He talked about determined or not determined. To be determined is to be the result of causes. It's not about some weird notion of "control." It doesn't even matter if it's internal or external. If a decision is caused by other things, then it is determined by those things. This is true even if those things are mental states like beliefs, desires, etc. And if your decision is just the result of all these other things, if it is determined by those things, it cannot be freely chosen precisely because it is determined by those other things. If those things had been otherwise, then your decision would have been otherwise. And if your decision isn't determined by anything, then it is random. That's what random means here, uncaused by anything. So, your decisions are either caused by other things, whatever those are, or they are not caused by anything. If they are caused, they are determined, and you do not have libertarian free will. If they are uncaused, then they are random, and you do not have libertarian free will. Consciousness doesn't save this. Being an agent does not save this. Nothing saves it.
"So, your decisions are either caused by other things, whatever those are, or they are not caused by anything. If they are caused, they are determined, and you do not have libertarian free will. If they are uncaused, then they are random, and you do not have libertarian free will. Consciousness doesn't save this. Being an agent does not save this. Nothing saves it." - Well I can save it extremely easily because you haven't addressed all of the options. The thing that is doing the causing of the decision is the agent themselves. So when you claim "if your decisions are caused then they are determined", which firstly, you seem to have changed the definition of "determined" here since you now seem to be talking about determinism whereas earlier you were using the term "determined" synonymously with "caused", but in any case, when you claim that a persons decisions are determined, and that therefore you don't have free will, you have completely neglected the fact that the decision is determined (caused) by the agent themselves, which is exactly what it means to have free will. You literally don't even respond to the actual position of libertarian free will in your whole comment, and yet you pronounce your comment as a crushing refutation of free will... So, to wrap up simply, you claim that our decisions are either caused or they are uncaused. That is correct. And the person who believes in free will will claim that decisions are caused by agents. So your claim that there are only two options, either determinism or randomness, fails to even respond to the position that people who believe in free will take.
Completely agreed, I think free will is a very powerful illusion, yet a logically incoherent concept no matter how people try to bend and shape it. Seems the only recourse is to redefine free will and play semantics games just to cling onto the belief that free will exists instead of simply admitting that free will is just an illusion.
This does not make sense. You can decide how you will respond to any event regardless if it benefits or harms you. After you choose, you can experience the effect of your choice, reflect on it and choose otherwise if you will it so. Beliefs and desires do not determine anything, they merely influence your decision. You can still act apart from them. Nothing truly determines how you act, something may influence you and influence you strongly.. however you still have to choose to act. Your choice is not a matter of dice rolling, it is clearly a matter of will and agency. You only choose to pretend that it is otherwise in order to justify determinism.
@@macmac1022 Oh macmac... Your response only proves that you are very confused on the issue of free will. "No, the thing doing the causing is the experiences and knowledge the person has." - No, Macmac, knowledge and experience does not cause a person to act. Knowledge and experience only influences/informs a persons decisions. In order for a person to act there needs to be volition of the will. A person who knows what a Ferrari is does not automatically ask for one. So no, it is not the knowledge and experience a person has that causes them to act, it is the agent who causes themselves to act through a volition of the will. Please stop strawmanning my position. "And you are neglecting the affects of everything has on that choice, aka, what determined you would make it." - No Macmac, I am not ignoring the things that AFFECT a persons choice, I am pointing out that it is the agent themselves who cause their decisions. Of course there are things that AFFECT a persons decisions. But those things do not deterministically cause the agent to make a decision. Again, stop strawmanning my position. "Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God." "Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise." - This is not what LFW is. To say an agent has LFW is to say that the agent is the originator of their own decisions, that they cause their own decisions, that their decisions are not deterministically caused by something other than themselves. "I am sorry but he refutation does crush it." - It very clearly doesn't. You haven't even responded to the free will position, you have simply misrepresented my position and then attacked your misrepresentation. So maybe you could try accurately representing my position instead of strawmanning it? Is that really too much to ask? "#1 If you were brainwashed would you know it?" - That depends on how I was brainwashed. "#2 If someone said they had a test for brainwashing, would you want to take it? " - Probably not. "#3 If they then said, if you cannot answer these questions, that means your brainwashed, would you be giving it 100% effort to answer those questions?" - No. Your questions 4-8 have no relevance to the question of determinism. If you can accurately represent my position and engage with it honestly, then after we are done of the above issues, ill answer these questions for you (I have actually answered similar questions presented by you before since you seem obsessed with copying and pasting the exact same comment through hundreds of different videos). "Now why would I have those stats on these questions if it was not determinism of avoidance caused by the beliefs of christians and muslims?" - Those numbers don't show anything about whether people are determined lol. "You did not refute anything he said." - Except... I did. "Prove that your choices are purely made from no life experience you have had before, can you do that?" - Why in the world would I need to prove such a thing? Do you seriously not even understand my position? Even after I laid it out so clearly and simply? Come on Macmac, its time to switch on upstairs and start thinking!
I like 2/3rds of this review quite a lot, both the host and Josh provided a lot of interesting views on what is being discussed and I particularly enjoyed Josh's analysis on the fact that a lack of free will doesn't equal a lack of being able to lake choices. I however had to stop just after the hour mark, i'm not sure if it's a mismatch of preferred style of information delivery, but Michael Jones came off pretty condescending and actually made me come away thinking Alex's arguments have even more weight to them than before. Perhaps he clarifies with the other 2 later in a way that clears things up in a way I would understand, but I lost the desire to continue listening by that point. Maybe it's just me though.
Exactly, looks like he heard some dudes argument online (I read it, it isn't a rock solid argument at all) and already had the bias so he had no ability to intuit why Alex was saying what he was saying.
“Alex Jones came off pretty condescending actually” “Alex’s O’Connor’s arguments have even more weight to them than they did before” NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! Was that a “rational” claim or was it just “determined”? Your actually claiming that Michael jones was “condescending” for strongly disagreeing with the idea that we don’t have freewill and choice right? Your actually claiming it’s “condescending” to show disdain for the belief that child rapists and child murderers are not responsible or accountable for their actions because they don’t have freewill or choice right? It’s “condescending” to strongly arguing against the idea that moral accountability and criminality is just “ILLUSORY” as we are all just completely determined machines right? Glad we cleared that one up!! Yeah makes great “sense” and perfectly “sane”. And they call other people deluded and “condescending”!! You can’t live this out for a second. Sorry but there’s no such thing as “condescending” under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction as this requires freewill and a moral agents, that is a moral choice right? Why are you even whining about Michael Jones being “CONDESCENDING” when under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction Michael Jones is simply just doing what he is “DETERMINED” to do? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself. Remember the good old days when thoughtful atheists, that is when “thoughtful” fatalists and “thoughtful” epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments [for] “MORAL” subjectivism and powerful and intelligent arguments [for] hard determinism??? NEITHER DO I!! Interesting fact, “NEW ATHEISM” that is fatalism, hard determinism and epistemological nihilism is exactly like the old atheism if the old atheism was bitten by two infected bats called Darth Deterministic and DARTH PROFOUNDLY POINTLESS and got a over Zealous strain of RABIES!! I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle2487 What in the world? Are you okay man? I was commenting about how I didn't like his style of Rhetoric and that his style of discussion left me feeling like Alex knew what he was talking about more. None of that has anything to do with who is actually right and who actually knows more.
@@shinyrainbowumbreon5156 “What in the world? Are you okay man? I was commenting about how I didn't like his style of Rhetoric and that his style of discussion left me feeling like Alex knew what he was talking about more” “None of that has anything to do with who is actually right and who actually knows more.” Smokescreen!! Sorry but I’m actually British buddy and the British aren’t so easily manipulated and so easily impressed by condescending elite Oxford graduate accents telling us they don’t have freewill and choice so apparently they are are not even responsible or accountable for their own actions? This has parallels with social Darwinism and social engineering which has historically been used to justify all kinds of atrocities. “Sorry your honour but I couldn’t help myself I had no freewill and choice I was just determined to do it” Of course the elites and the powerful want to get rid of all moral accountability and all moral responsibility by pretending they don’t have a freewill and choice. The fact is that no matter how much philosophical word salad you use it’s still nothing more substantive than sophistry that they learned from their buddies at Oxford and Cambridge. We are only scratching the surface of what secretly goes on in the halls of power, especially with the Jeffery Epstein case and prince Andrew and Jimmy Saville etc!! Imagine what would happen if these evil and depraved bar stewards convinced everyone that they never had freewill and choice when they purposely abused children? Wake up!! Can’t you see that we are a being cleverly groomed for the next wave of insanity and depravity? It’s no coincidence that this is coming out of Oxford!! Furthermore, in no way whatsoever was inspiring philosophy “condescending” just because he referenced the scientific data and had a bit of banter with the other two guests. You’ve totally mischaracterised him. What was your point again about rhetoric and being “CONDESCENDING”? By sheer coincidence I’ve actually got two new brands of pen right here on my desk which i use for writing down ultimately meaningless and ultimately purposeless comments a [Darth Dawkins pen] and a [shinyrainbowumbreon pen] they’ve got no POINT!!
And why is it framed like this? Either YOU are determined or you’re random. It seems intuitively ridiculous, because it is ignoring the entire point of self- which is only consistent for the materialist. Self is able to chose/ determine.
@@HJM0409It's framed this way for practicality. Doesn't matter if it is true, practically speaking, the idea of holding oneself accountable can absolutely be useful even if ultimately that's not a thing. We simply do not know HOW one's actions are determined/random even though they may very well ben, and very often this serves to grant the illusion that we have some control over it. I kind of like compare it to optical illusions- the very fact that you know it is an illusion doesn't- and very often can't- stop you from experiencing it.
"This is why it’s called self - control. The self- YOU - control you." The question is of "control". Is it controlled if determined or random. Neither works. If it is the "self" that has deterministic control, you can ask is the "self" determined or not determined (random)? Same problem.
The problem with the argument saying that God permits lesser evils because he knows the people won't completely refrain from the greater evil is that there are so many examples where a people are acting contrary to God's word and the response is not "oh, let them have this sin over here so they won't do the worse thing", but literally kills everyone in the city. Or world, if we are talking about Noah. His answer to wide-spread terrible sin is more often genocide rather than allowing slavery or other abominations. Romans 6:23 "For God shows no partiality." He's just rather inconsistent on the subject of how to deal with sin, at least during this life. Also, to say that, in order to lead the slave owner away from sin, the innocent slaves or specifically virgins or some other group can suffer at their hands under the permission of God seems bass ackwards in my opinion.
Alex said, Is the soul determined or not determined (random)? "we are at least in part in control" is that partial control deterministic or not deterministic? Reasons plus random chance does not help, because any choice could be random.
Most people have the subjective experience of having some control that refutes that nonsense. Also random and determined (in his peculiar use of meaning the absence of free choice) is a false dichotomy. The issue is that this experience of having some control is about a mental state so we cannot easily share it. Though it is true some people are not very self aware or have a weak sense of self, so much so they are unable to notice they are at the very least partly in control. Nevertheless, we should not indulge false statements on the basis they are plausible sounding when we have strong contrary evidence be it subjective ones.
@@dedalesigma6755 "Nevertheless, we should not indulge false statements on the basis they are plausible sounding when we have strong contrary evidence be it subjective ones." I have a strong subjective feeling the wood in my desk has no space in it, yet science shows the wood is mostly empty space. There are thousands of examples of this. People had a strong subjective experience the sun went around the earth, people had strong subjective experience evil spirits made them sick, etc. Let's not discount logical arguments so quickly on the basis of strong subjective experience?
The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8) Isn’t sounds like a free will. So we get it when we born of the Spirit.
I see your point. It could be the case random events occur (truely random with no explanation - ot just those with explanations we haven’t figured out) but it could also be the case that we don’t know how to explain some phenomena like quantum randomness enough to know how it works and thus we say it’s random. It’s an interesting topic.
Cameron's take on free will is so-called epistemic indeterminism. We cannot but live everyday lives according to the belief that there exists free will. Which says nothing about whether or not it actually does exist at all. The cited Peter Van Inwagen is an incompatibilist, i.e. he sees determinism and free will to be incompatible. Which by his line of reasoning Alex O'Connor assumes as well. So that doesn't solve the issue either. Harry G. Frankfurt does offer a philosophical solution by applying the "principle of alternate possibilities" (pap). This semi compatibilist argument can also be coupled with the Molinist idea that God has "middle knowledge", i.e. he does not need to know everything in a chronologically perfect order like memorizing every frame of a movie , instead, he only needs to know the starting conditions, the constraints and laws/ principles of reality to know (basically 100 percent prediction rate) what will happen. But baked into all of this is the assumption of time being fundamental. The laws of physics also work counterclockwise in principle. But the time arrow supposedly points only in one direction (entropy, you can't unbreak an egg). Now there's a lot of debate about the JWST imaging recently that seems to get cosmology into trouble because, well, cosmic expansion (a predicament of time and space) maybe doesn't fit as well to explaining the creation of the universe as commonly held. And to make things really fun, Lee Cronin's assembly theory suggests that backward in time determinism holds true, but that the future is fundamentally undetermined. In a nutshell, it's still an open debate whethere the universe is completely determined, whether time and space necessarily are the fundamental building blocks of reality, and even if so, whether a determinist universe would be completely incompatible with free will. So all sides of the debate can relax, maybe it's just like Peter Van Inwagen says, "free will remains a mystery".
So God sent plagues upon Egypt to end the slavery OF the Israelites, but not to end the slavery imposed BY the Israelites on others because the Egyptians were more open to it but the Israelites were not?
No wonder Theists cant move past (BUT you cant prove my God doesnt exist so I win) Joshs "Bayesians argument" feels like (but you cant take my God off the table) because we cannot exclude positively "a GOD" also we cannot exclude the " Sphageeti monster", Josh was explained this when he had a conversation with Tjump previously.
It was over the moment Shapiro fell back on “I don’t have to explain my position because god works in mysterious ways” after intentionally sidestepping that at the beginning of the debate. It’s just so circular and nonsensical, I know Alex is much more used to philosophical debates (obviously lol), and I do think Shapiro was at his best here, but I still think Ben got kind of rolled on numerous instances. Why would you ever place stock in a position that allows for a logical “escape hatch” in which you do not have to actually confront your own beliefs?
He does not need to prove his belief are valid to make his case. So you are correct in asserting he is indeed deflecting, at the same time Alex is going on a tangent so he is not owed an answer. There is simply not enough time to consider Judaism as a whole in a debate format.
There are so many religions, with various beliefs, how can they debate this logically. The debate should have just been Christianity since that is really the only religion Alex usually discusses.
Do believers see it as a red flag that their side isn't laser-focused on _"is it true?"_ If we had reasonable evidence of a god, why would anyone _ever_ evade off topic to mention the _utility_ of the idea? Just by doing that, believers are telling us this isn't an idea worth believing. 20:21 that's a reasonable question, because when we call dice "random" what we actually mean is "unpredictable": a human cannot accurately predict hand-thrown dice at the moment they leave the hand. But the event itself is deterministic (the dice obey the laws of physics, and therefore if you had an advanced computer with accurate info on the trajectory, speed, the materials of the surface/dice, then you _could_ guess the outcome; because it's deterministic. By contrast, non-determinism is _True Randomness._ You toss the dice and the universe implodes. You toss them again and they become a pair of ducks. Total True Randomness. A level of randomness way beyond anything we call "random". So it's actually a meaningfully different concept and it'd be great if we ended up coining a word/phrase for this sort of True Randomness. That's why Cameron's question of not knowing what it means is completely reasonable, because it's really just a staggeringly different idea than mere normal randomness. But you can see how in the non-deterministic scenarios where dice are becoming an ocean of water, three small moons, or a tomato seed, that clearly nobody could possibly exert meaningful control in that situation. Granted even my analogies fall short, because non-determinism means the effect isn't tied to a cause at all. So you don't even throw the dice. The pair of ducks just appears. Either way, clearly no intentional control is possible in a non-deterministic reality because effects are completely disconnected from causes (and this includes every conceivable way this might happen; like maybe no effects ever happen, or maybe they're the Truly Random examples I've gave (which honestly aren't as random as True Randomness would be).
55:08 - Michael says that it depends on the type of religion would have a god kill others and points to Jesus, conveniently totally forgetting about anything in the OT where god commands his people to go and kill. 🤷🏼♂️
Don't read the Bible like a fundamentalist, that is not how you study it. You should know that some of the things attributed to God in the old testament are merely nationalistic sentiments and misconceptions of the authors. Though divinely inspired, the authors still have their own biases, you are not reading the word of God unmediated. So take into account that humans are not exactly trustworthy as evidenced by the very narrative of the Bible, though the authors are trying to be truthful they are still writing the text from their limited point of view and using multiple literary genra. God is vindicated trough time as each book is a piece of a puzzle and helps understand what the character of God is really like. When you piece it out, you learn that God is gentle, faithful, and loving. And it's not like the authors were colluding to portray him as such, if you take the books individually some authors don't hesitate to malign God to further their goals, but the good character of God is what transpires from the many texts. The beauty of the Bible is in the multiple cross-references, that are a careful knitting many narratives to arrive to the truth that is the word of God.
I think that a talk between Michael Jones and Jordan Peterson would be very interesting. They can express their views on religion, and actually discuss why they have them.
John 8 “35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” Could it be that as long as we slaves of sin we don’t have a free will, it only given to us by Jesus through faith in Him.
God makes us slaves of sin with no free will, then gives some of us free will through Jesus? Does that sound manipulative to you? Additionally, any sin you may ever do is determined because you have no free will. Why would God blame people with no free will? Why would God blame Adam and Eve if they had no free will?
@@gabrielteo3636 Adam and Eve had free will and freely chose to rebel against God and lost free will in the process (became slaves of sin). God offered a cure, free gift by sending His son to die on a cross for our sins.
@@eugenehvorostyanov2409 God's punishment is to remove free will from A and E and their descendents and blame the children for not having free will. How can a person who has no free will choose to freely accept the gift? They cannot, because they have no free will. It doesn't matter how many sons he sends to get crucified. God's son died on the cross for the sins we had no free will not to commit? If God's son was fully man, then why was not Jesus a slave to sin with no free will?
I didn't understand their objection to Alex's free will argument. If you say the self is self determining, then I don't understand what is the self. The self is not the reasons like the biology or the experience or wants or intuitions or anything else I can think of. It was said we are our own first mover regardless of any reasons besides the self. I don't know what that is. It seems to be a black box that just chooses things regardless of any other reason besides the self. To me that is like a bind man in a dark room throwing darts at a dartboard that isn't there and claiming he hit a bullseye. In conclusion, the self is reduced to nothing if you subtract out reasons, because reasons are not the self.
If you don’t understand what the self is, then ask who wrote the post above. If that doesn’t work, you should get help. By stating that all actions are either determined or random, Alex merely defines free will out of existence since no concept of free will can fit into either category. In that way, he is using circular reasoning. It is a false dichotomy - or if true, no work whatsoever is done on Alex’s part to show it
@@TGoodie1717 It seems in the free will debate, the self makes choices regardless of ANY reason but the self. I don't understand what the self is under this conception. I understand what the self is in determinism, but not under LFW. In LFW, I'm just writing this exact sentence and I don't really understand why I didn't just choose to write a different sentence. In LFW I'm just choosing reasons regardless of reasons, but I could just choose other reasons regardless of reasons. This is just a mess. Ben said it best. He has no idea how LFW works.
@@travispelletier3352 "The self is the being that evaluates the reasons and makes choices based on but not causally determined by those reasons." ...but why does the self evaluate some reasons higher than others? Then ask why again.....
@@TGoodie1717 this is genuinely an incredibly dumb objection first off, definitions of "the self" SHOULDN'T make sense to you. Try to define rigorously what the self is. This is a question that has stumped philosophers for literally all of human history. The second you start thinking about it, it suddenly becomes much, much messier than it intuitively seems like it should be. The "If you don't understand what the self is" rhetoric is basically just anti-intellectualism. "If you don't know what the self is" you're in very good philosophical company, I would say. There's NOTHING circular about Alex's argument. It literally doesn't fit the definition of a circular argument at all. You just discarded the categories he's using them because you dislike them. What actions are NOT determined or undetermined? What actions are not A or not A? You're just arguing against the excluded middle here. Good luck.
I am an atheist, who actually recognizes a lot of his own philosophies in the similar philosophies that Alex has. Yet I'm still very intrigued to hear what other people have to say, and I do not mind organize discussions around intellectual thought. I might disagree with you guys but there is no disdain here. I will leave some thoughts below. 40:03 With secularization only really becoming a major idea in the past 300 years, since the Enlightenment period, it is true that we simply do not have enough empirical data- but I think there is a larger problem. The crux of my concern lies not in the potential benefits religion may offer to society, but rather in the assumption that nihilism entails detrimental effects. Many mistakenly equate atheism with nihilism, which is inaccurate, and view nihilism as inherently negative, which is equally unfounded. Ben's inability to grasp nihilism stems from his religious perspective, predisposing him to perceive it negatively. However, the absence of absolute control over our circumstances through free will doesn't necessarily dictate a shift in our actions; rather, it may alter our motivations. While some individuals might succumb to lethargy in a world devoid of inherent meaning, others may still strive to advance society out of a desire for the betterment and comfort of future generations-an inclination supported by principles in evolutionary biology. 42:40 Can please provide some ethos here. I would love to delve into these studies. It is also important you know the controls of the study, and share them with the audience. I am not saying you are lying, but you are being too vague. 50:10 Right. Haha. Improving language, learning speed and intensity of volume, etc. These skills are hard to master. 51:00 Emotivism is more of a "philosophy of language" (as Alex puts it) delineates the nature of ethical statements as expressions of subjective emotions rather than objective truths. Rooted in the works of philosophers such as A.J. Ayer and Charles Stevenson, emotivism posits that moral judgments lack cognitive content and instead serve as mere reflections of the speaker's sentiments or attitudes. In essence, ethical assertions, according to emotivism, function as emotive expressions aimed at evoking specific emotional responses or influencing others' behavior, rather than conveying factual information about moral reality. 52:15 An excellent argument against emotivism. I would not consider myself to be an emotivism "believer", even if parts of the philosophy are indeed curious. There does seem to be wrongs that are so ubiquitous that they seem to find themselves outside emotional expressions- ideas such as incest, baby murder, animal torture, etc. However, while the utility of these actions could be explained through evolutionary purposes, there are much more reasonable theories (at least for me). 54:35 Yeah, I mean, if you are working off of the presupposition that objective morality exists, then the idea of the ideal agent is a solid one. I simply do not support the premise. I think the development of socialization over time based on influences of evolution, natural selection, sociological construction of social animals, etc. could all play more definitive roles in aspiring influence in how we perceive our behavior. 56:35 If you could elaborate on this point, that would be great. 57:23 The first premise assumes the existence of a moral reality without providing evidence or justification for this claim. While many philosophical and ethical frameworks posit the existence of objective moral truths, this assumption is not universally accepted and is subject to considerable debate within moral philosophy. Without demonstrating the existence of moral reality, the argument's foundation is weak. You also failed to specify on any criteria as to why a moral reality is "more likely". Therefore, the proposition is a non-sequitur and fails. I would provide more construction for each premise than what you had initially done, at least to present the argument in a way that could be considered logical, even if it is still debated. 1:08:40 I mean, yes, Christianity influenced the foundations of Western Society, but that does not mean that it influenced the Enlightenment ideas... 1:09:18 You do not get to cherry-pick scripture to support your argument. The Bible is very clear where it stood on such issues, and examining suggestive passages is not helpful when explicit verses, such as those in 1 Timothy, are much more direct. 1:11:00 That is not true. The Church was not merely tolerated by monarchs; it played a central role in shaping the political landscape and governance structures of the era. Monarchs often sought the Church's approval and support to legitimize their rule, and ecclesiastical authorities held considerable sway over matters such as taxation, law, education, and even the appointment of rulers through the practice of investiture. A great example is The Investiture Controversy in the twelfth Century. The Investiture Controversy was a prolonged conflict between the papacy and secular rulers, particularly the Holy Roman Emperor, over the appointment of bishops and abbots. One of the most famous episodes occurred between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV. Gregory sought to assert papal authority by prohibiting lay investiture, the practice of secular rulers appointing church officials. This led to a confrontation between the two, culminating in Henry's excommunication and subsequent humiliation at Canossa in 1077, where he sought forgiveness from the pope. Also, mustn't I mention the Crusades here. The First Crusade, launched in 1095, saw not only the sanction, but indeed the participation of European monarchs, nobles, and knights who were motivated by religious zeal and the promise of spiritual rewards. The Crusades served to strengthen the authority of the Church, mobilize resources, and foster a sense of religious unity among European Christians. Again, you cannot cherry-pick historical events. 1:13:30 Again, this is 1. An oversimplification of historical events and 2. largely inaccurate. Galileo's heliocentric model challenged the geocentric cosmology endorsed by the Church, which was based on Aristotelian and Ptolemaic principles. The Church viewed the heliocentric theory as potentially contradicting certain biblical passages and theological doctrines, particularly regarding the immutability of the Earth and the centrality of humanity in the universe. Galileo's insistence on the truth of the heliocentric model, rather than presenting it as a mathematical hypothesis, exacerbated tensions with ecclesiastical authorities. He was persecuted by the Inquisition for proposing different ideas, and the Catholic Church even apologized for this error in 1992. 1:15:37 That is misinformation. Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, etc. 1:17:25"is because of the bible" A lot of issues here. 1. The Bible supported slavery, and as Alex later says, permitted a flat immorality. Therefore, it caused slavery to last a great deal of time. Heck, slave owners in the Antebellum South used the Bible as a source for protecting slaves. Thus, even if it was a cause of its end, at best you can say it contributed to both slavery and anti-slavery, which would point to requiring something else to causing the Antebellum Period to end. 2. Refusing to even acknowledge economic changes (Industrialization and the rise of Capitalism), Enlightenment ideas (which were heavily inspired by early secular thought), and political motivations is jarring to me. What about Liberalism? Humanism? 1:28:40 Moral Relativism is not a good argument when defending an objective being. The whole "leading away slowly" idea is unconvincing to me. Also, God outlawed common practices like witchcraft at the time... so why couldn't he outlaw other practices. A much more realistic recognition is... "well, these arguments were written in an era where slavery was allowed and so it was regulated, but now it is not" which of course, destroys "God's" objectivity and theism all together. 1:29:05 And what about the slaves in the meantime, the thousands upon thousands of "souls" subjugated to slavery during the thousands of years it took to get rid of it. Again, the argument feels weak. 1:34:35 No, not really. A scientific truth and an "objective" moral "truth" are two separate things. One will effect people more than the other. That is like saying, "God not revealing how stars are formed is the same thing as God not revealing that beating your slave with a rod is wrong." Foolish false equivalence. 1:41:40 Alex already explained the issue with "proactive morality" and I need not explain further. I do not know why they are still insisting this, it truly baffles me. I find the podium of proactive morality an excuse to explain away thousands of years of immoralities. 1:47:00 So, basically, you think that morality can be upgraded over time with human progress. A secular position, one that needs no room for any god.
I'll only respond to the Galileo part for now which I'm more familiar with, though I might come back to the rest. When the Copernican model first came out, it generated a lot of interest in Rome and there was no overwhelming majority consensus. There were scientists on both sides and theologians on both sides. Pope Clement VII was fascinated by the model and invited the German scholar Widmanstadt to give him a personal series of lectures. Many of Galileo's staunchest patrons were Catholic clergy and he was good friends with Pope Urban VIII before they fell out. The idea that the Church was super scared of the implications of heliocentrism on their religion is nothing but a myth, especially when allegorical interpretations of certain parts of Scripture existed long before Copernicus, and the Church has long accepted reason as compatible with faith since the times of Anselm and Aquinas. The Church eventually restricted the teaching of heliocentrism as fact because of scientific problems with the model that the likes of Galileo failed to resolve, and also partly due to Protestant pressure. I'm glad you acknowledged that Galileo was also trying to argue for heliocentrism theologically rather than scientifically, because that was the main reason he got into trouble. Not that the Church opposed science, but that the Church opposed personal interpretation of Scripture, being fresh from the wounds of the Reformation. The final nail in the coffin was when Galileo wrote a book calling the Pope a simpleton after promising to write an unbiased work. By our modern sensibilities, of course Galileo should not have been punished for what was essentially free speech, but to paint him as some martyr is nonsensical when he was treated exceptionally well and was an esteemed guest of many nobles in Rome during it. The showing of torture instruments was standard procedure, but he was at no risk of torture at any point due to his clerical status and age. The final sentence of house arrest as a punishment was actually unexpectedly harsh to Galileo who was expecting a lot less. So I don't think it's unreasonable to completely dismiss the whole Galileo affair as having anything to do with this supposed conflict between religion and science, which was simply non-existent in this event. Once again, was it wrong that Galileo was persecuted for what was essentially free speech? Undoubtedly, and the Church apologised as a result. What I am saying is that it had nothing to do with suppressing science whatsoever. P.S. Regarding Giordano Bruno, the reason he was executed was because of holding heretical beliefs on things like the Trinity and the Incarnation, which was of course despicable but it had nothing to do with being a martyr for science.
@@amu7379I understand that there is more nuanced to Galileo's story then what is commonly discussed, however I don't understand how any of those nuances derail the initial narrative. Instead, it just seems like you made a more detailed argument in my defense. Because in this case the pope was wrong and he was a simpleton, and just because Galileo used a scientific foundation for that doesn't mean that his persecution wasn't on a religious science conflict
@@JNB0723 Hindsight is 20/20 but Galileo did not have the scientific backing for his theories to win over the scientific community at the time, and resistance (and also support) towards geocentrism was both scientific and theological. He failed to solve problems with his model like the lack of stellar parallax and Earth's inertia and had ideas even wild for his time like claiming Earth's tides were caused by its movements. Yet he arrogantly insulted everyone he disagreed with him and demanded the Church change their theology over an unproven theory.
Virtually everyone who considers himself an intelligent free thinker will talk about how they must be allowed to understand a topic, why it is as it is, and not just given the bare fact or told "because I said so." Somehow atheists like O'Connor abandon this principle when discussing God and progressive revelation. Well, God should have just stepped in and intervened against all evil. He should have just stopped it, or forbidden it. As Josh and Michael point out, though, experience is, itself, part of the necessary development of people. Yes, God could have eliminated the chattel slavery that presented itself in the U.S., but it is seeing the fruit of that policy that shows people just how valuable freedom is. He could have stopped Communism in Russia before it got off the ground, but people have, if they are not to be automatons who do not really think and really love, must live through and see why certain actions are bad.
Ill just say this from a mind that is simple. Now dont get me wrong, im not stupid. But i think a consensus argument can be valid from a theistic framework. There is an outward cause that guides the consensus of people to a conclusion of self realization. I dont see that as deterministic. I see that as free. Why? Because the person can choose wether to believe that or not. I dont think someone needs to be well eductaed or a genius to fugure out the fundamental questions being asked, and I think thats quite evident. I think a person however needs to be well informed in order to know there is good reason to believe what they believe or disbelieve. That's what I think.
Is Alex's objection to free will that everything is determined by something? If we follow the causal chain we must reach a point where everything began. That point must be self determining. Either that or the causal chain is infinite and there is no determiner of this chain. Maybe he would say that the beginning point started randomly. But why?
He could go circularity on it and say it circles back on itself. He could just take a dogmatic view and say the first cause is a non-random event. He could just say, "I don't know if the chain has a start or what is at the start". I think Alex is working off empiricism here for his view.
I think a beginning is problematic, because you have to wonder how anything began happening where once everything was inert/inactive. The issue remains if a creator entity is assumed.
I think Alex thinks there is an eternal foundation of reality where all causal chains start and there is no more explanation or "why" questions, but to start a new independent causal chain at contingent beings seems wrong - or - the beings would choose things randomly or partially random if they are the source of a new independent causal chain.
@@wet-read The issue is solved by having a creator with free will, since a creator with free will can spontaneously initiate a new effect without any prior determining causes. Without free will you are left with only two options: 1) An infinite regress of causes. 2) A spontaneous beginning without a cause. Both of which are extremely problematic.
@@jackplumbridge2704 But a reason to create as opposed to not creating requires a cause, even if it is completely internal. A change, something to make the creator wish to create as opposed to continue without creating. Why did the creator choose to create? And why did It do so in the manner It did? If the creator is entirely self sufficient and perfect unto itself, nothing would be added by deciding to create as opposed to not creating.
People are forced to think and do what their type of genetics and their types of life experiences force them to think and do throughout their life. Who and how someone happens to be is an extremely unfair unjust lottery that is dependent on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life and the only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible.
It is evil for a god or for anyone else to force people or any other life form into the type of existence will they will suffer against their will and oftentimes suffer horribly against their will because they might not want to suffer against their will at all and that's why it's evil to force anyone into existence.
1:48:17 _"If we're being honest we are most like the Orcs"_ I really liked the middle earth analogy. But do you really think the only difference between orcs and elves is _"free agency"_ ? Elves have free will don't they ? So why didn't god create elves directly ?
Josh responds : 1:52:11 _"I'll voluntarily limit my my powers and my attention to shapes on a screen to play a video game in order to experience the gamification of making progress and it's like well you know why are you limiting your powers like that well I guess because I'm trying to access some experiences in states of limitation that are accessed precisely because those limitation give the possibility of certain ladders of progress which I think are valuable"_ That would be a good response if god were unable to create the end stage straight away, but isn't god omnipotent ? Isn't the whole point that god is pure act, and precisely require no potential (or has already accomplished all potential according to its telos), and therefore no _"progress"_ ?
No grabbing low-hanging fruit or owning philosophically illiterate people with vitriol, no super-out-there stuff, just Mike, Josh and Cameron doing a maximally great debate review. This is why I'm still subbed.
Non-Sequiturs, False Equivalences, blatant historical misinformation, assumed presuppositions, logical inconsistencies, cherry-picking Biblical Texts, etc. There was a lot wrong here. I have more information outlined in my comment.
@@JNB0723I think you are throwing the baby out with bath water while these things you bring up valid points but I am not so interested in the semantics of this argument but the path of logic these two use to come up with their beliefs. It is fascinating to hear these two deep thinkers bouncing ideas off one another. Do u not agree or are u blinded by the minutiae
@@NlNEFlNGERS and what geniuses are that? I see one incredibly smart man and four incredibly fallaciously argued ones.
Awesome! Loved it thanks guys 👍
I learned a lot from this, thanks for the great content
I'd love to see a review with Rasmussen (or Craig, if possible!) on the recent Loke/Lindford debate.
Ben's claim (starting at 1h 2' in the original debate vid):
"So to take the slavery example, there is no mandate to hold slaves in the Bible. [...] Is the verse attempting to woo people away from a tradition of slavery or to humanize the slaves, or is it attempting to reinforce that by making it harsher and more difficult."
From the Bible, Leviticus 25:44-46:
"Your male slave or female slave whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may acquire a male slave or a female slave."
Shouldn't a "mandate" be "you must" or at least "you should" instead of "you may"?
It's still disgusting nonetheless, but Ben maybe isn't incorrect technically speaking.
I am sorry but this podcast is not on the same level as the debate they are talking about. I could never in my wildest dreams debate Ben or Alex, but I could probably debate these 3 guys.
Im a fan of alex but no your over confident
Maximally perfect review. I personally enjoyed very much. Thank you guys.
Maximally perfect by what standard?
P.S. I know you're making a joke... but I'm making a joke at how apologists talk about morality.... and now explaining the joke about the joke has ruined the joke joke.
@@malirk by the standard of making a debate review.
Yes I am also making a joke.
CHICKEN!!
You didn't expect that, did you?
@@unamusedmule 😢
A lot of Non-Sequiturs, False Equivalences, Presupposed premises, logical errors, historical errors... a lot wrong with their review.
@@JNB0723 I know you don't like sources, but you'll get over it. Also I don't get your claim of logical errors
One step at a time concerning slavery or rape etc - but let’s put a stop to eating shellfish asap 😂
It’s hilarious when you put it like that😂 but for real though, that makes sense to me. I know some one who became vegan recently, don’t know why, and she still has a hard time giving up cussing or fowl language. Although it’s silly in comparison to practicing slavery but it does show me that giving up meat for her was easier than changing how she is used to speaking due to it being normal to her since childhood.
LMAO, exactly! There was little indication in the Bible of even a gradual abolition of slavery. It literally says you can beat your slaves in Exodus.
“One step at a time concerning slavery or rape etc - but let's put a stop to eating shellfish asap 😂”
NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! Sorry but under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction there’s no such thing as slavers or rapists, that is there’s no such thing as “slavery” and “rape” as this presupposes freewill and a moral choice, that is it presupposes a conscious agent/moral accountability and moral responsibility right?
But freewill and choice is “ILLUSORY” under your world view buddy isn’t it? That is freewill and choice is just an “ILLUSION” under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism right? Are you sure that you are batting for the right team? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted your self!!
You’re actually claiming that Christians, that is your actually claiming that people such as the heroes of the civil rights movement such as the Christians Martin Luther king JR and Rosa parks were inspired by a book that does nothing more than encourage slavery and rape right? And the reason you know this is because your “shellfish” told you so? Atheism is “superior”, that is fatalism and muh epistemological nihilism is “superior” because my “SHELLFISH” told me so?
Glad we cleared that one up!!
You do know that the highest demographic in Christianity is [black and female] right? But according to you this specific group of people promote a book that encourages slavery and rape right? Wow!!
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally nihilistic, totally fatalistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
The irony is that I bet you fancy yourself as a “liberal freethinker” but your argument actually makes you both a racist and misogynist!! Now that’s beyond ironic!!
Sorry but it speaks volumes that you have no choice but steal from our world view in order to even formulate a moral argument against these ancient texts. All of these very ironic appeals to freewill and choice and objective morality whilst subscribing to the position that ultimately it’s all nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimiately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals just simply doing what they are determined to do right?
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
That’s a self own on multiple levels. Equally, the fact is that under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction you and your very ironic virtue signalling, that is your very ironic complaints about slavery and rape are nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the “ILLUSION” of “stable” or “unstable” patterns and regularities right?
That is creating the illusion of moral accountability and moral responsibility because freewill and choice is “ILLUSORY” right? Sorry but look up special pleading fallacy, straw man argument and cherry picking fallacy or fallacy of incomplete evidence as it’s commonly known!!
I like how you pat yourself on the back because you think you created an enormous “GOTCHA!!” when under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction you can’t take the credit for anything buddy as “you” don’t even exist because apparently the conscious agent/freewill that is rationality itself doesn’t even exist because apparently it is “ILLUSORY”. That’s another self own on multiple levels.
The fact is that all the atheist has got in the end, that is all the fatalist and epistemological nihilist has (Gotcha!!) in the end is the MAGGOT INFESTED FERTILISER PIT/THE VOID/THE GRAVE/OBLIVION!!
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!
@@matthewzang6688Would you please provide the location of that Bible verse? I’m interested in taking a deeper dive on the subject.
I was actually surprised that the rebuttal I thought of to Alex's argument against free will wasn't brought up (perhaps it's not as obvious as I thought). Randomness is indeterminism with no mind selecting the outcome. Libertarian free will (as many conceive of it anyway) is indeterminism but with a mind controlling which outcome is to obtain. For that reason if nothing else, indeterminism doesn't imply randomness.
How can a mind control the outcome of an indeterministic process?
@@antichrist.superstar
Via interactive substance dualism.
Yes, this is exactly what I’ve been thinking. Rather than saying things are determined or random, we ought to say they’re determined or undetermined. Because when you use the word random, you imply mindless indeterminism which just precludes free will. The will is ‘random’ in the sense that one couldn’t predict a free will choice, even if they knew everything about a person. But it is by no means mindless.
@@MaverickChristianThe substance dualism part is clear. The interactionism part is also clear.
What I don't get is how a mind could "select" the outcome of an indeterministic process. Would the act of selection not constitute a "cause" for the outcome, rendering the process deterministic?
@@antichrist.superstar
_What I don't get is how a mind could "select" the outcome of an indeterministic process. Would the act of selection not constitute a "cause" for the outcome, rendering the process deterministic?_
Determinism says that there is only one possible outcome given the antecedent conditions. Indeterminism says that there are multiple possible outcomes given the same antecedent conditions. So given the same antecedent conditions, the mind has multiple possible options to select from. That's the sort of free will I'm talking about.
Damn Cameron, I started watching this and now I'm gonna have to stop to go buy some snickers, you robbed me of my free will.
On a fundamental level your chemicals in your mechanical brain heard 'snickers' and put your taste buds into imagining the chocolate & nutty taste - hence you were always meant to choose it!
Likewise, the folk who believe you could not chose another option and hard determinism are basically just determined so why care what they 'think' about your 'choice' when you actually just bought milk & skittles?
Edit: I should have kept watching lol. The third option I mention here is brought op a little later.
Original: Two options were presented for the location of the"controller device": internal or external to us. But that leaves our the third option: we are the controller. That would be the soul-the controller device that controls the body.
The example given was a device inside or outside an iPad. In this example, we are not the iPad, but the controller device.
That would ignore the fact that changes to our brain make us act and think in different ways.
Love these guests! Great job
It would be helpful if you could include the link to the videos that you react to in the video description or as a pinned comment.
If Alex demonstrated anything on free will, it is that free will is nonfalsifiable. A person’s conscious decision can either be caused by a.) an infinite regress of cause and effect b.) a process that at bottom is purely random c.) a free agent which is definitionally the first cause of a conscious decision. None of these are strictly provable. Even a random process cannot be proved to not have an underlying mechanistic cause. As an example you can observe the rand() function in excel and it fits the uniform distribution but it is generated by a mechanistic algorithm. I see no reason why a free agent is any more logically incoherent than something that is “random”. Both rely on there not being an antecedent cause.
I feel like it would be a finite amount of cause and effect. Since it seems out universe goes back into the past for a finite amount of time. In a deterministic view, this feels like the most likely cause.
This might just be me, but a free agent seems incoherent. The only thing that could have free will would be a God that spawned in before reality could influence him. Funny that, it takes an incoherent idea (God) to make free will more coherent if you accept it.
We have an ever growing amount of data that show our behaviors are caused by events that came before. All we have to show for free will is our feelings about it. I know which one I'm going to be leaning towards
Here's another take on it that might help: do atoms have free will? We, and our brains, are only made up of atoms. At the fine-grained level we are no different from rocks, trees, animals, dirt. We just happen to have brains powerful enough to produce consciousness. Since the day of our coming into existence, every thought we've had, decision we've made, action we've taken, has simply been the result of the atomic construction of our brain. It's like a very complex program/machine with a lot of tiny pieces, constantly running automatically.
Yes, words can make you believe anything you already believed and think it's true and sound.
Try this;
Don't eat for a while, just a bit too long, look at your behavior and decisions.
Eat well, really well in just the right dose, in a way that your body loves it, look at your behavior decisions.
Eat well, but also too much, look at your behavior and decisions
Then imagine not always being in control with what you eat when and how much. Like many people in our culture and other cultures
Or to be in an environment where you're being abused for a decade or two. Then look at your behavior and decisions. How much of that is free will?
The "logical" pattern is something that comes up when you bring in conditional probability. Given that a random process has occurred, how does that change the likelihood of things that are causally related to that.
1:19:36 _"But I mean if you just go back and you read like Seneca or Aristotle they had no problem with slavery"_
When Aristotle talks about slavery in _"politics",_ doesn't he precisely respond to the sophists who were arguing AGAINST slavery ? Weren't the cynics against slavery ?
Weren't anti-slavery positions already defended in ancient Greece ?
I appreciate Cameron's concise spot on summary of the argument. 13:24 How did he learn to do it so well?😅
I have to agree largely with IP here, I feel that both sides completely missed the point of the debate. Really, it was a debate over free will and slavery.
The question is, why are we even talking about slavery?
Only because atheists ever only attack some type of strawman Christianity. They have no clue about biblical exegesis. And especially Alex, who claims he studied theology, makes the impression that he slept through all his classes. Or only ever picked up the arguments he thought he could use later on to impress the CZcams atheists.
Everyone is a slave. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
@@toma3447 That's not the definition most use for slavery.
Slavery in the OT comes in three forms. Slaves between Hebrews. Slaves bought from foreign nations. Slaves of war. Slaves of war is the worst because these women were s@x slaves. Alex mentions, "Why kill the elderly non-virgin women?" I don't think anyone has given a good reply to this other than: *This was the culture of the time.*. Obviously culture doesn't make things right so there is no excusing the actions in the Bible that were at best condoned by God and at worst commanded by God.
@@toma3447So god has created everyone as a slave, cause god created sin.
It was never meant to be a debate it was a discussion
1:14:40 _"And when the work of Kepler and Newton came out that you have this elliptical model the church was perfectly fine with that"_
REALLY ?
And why were both Newton and Kepler's works put on the _"index librorum prohibitorum"_ then ?
Sources? I can’t find reference to Newton or Kepler’s work in the index librorum prohibitorum…
Edit: found out that some of Kepler’s work (Astronomia nova, Harmonices Mundi and Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae)
was initially added but removed from the index in 1835.
@@berserkerbardthis guy is a liar
39:39 if your beliefs create causal differences in your behaviors, then it's your beliefs controlling you. If you make an argument that persuades me, that I believe, I can't choose not to believe it, if that belief directs my behaviors in a way I don't control, how can you say I have free will?
I dispute this part of the argument against free will: If a thought is random then we are not in control of it. To explain this, we first note that everyone agrees that consciousness exists, but we do not know the actual nature of consciousness. Since the nature of consciousness is unknown, I propose the following model:
The mind (which is the seat of consciousness) acts like an filter for random thoughts (although not ALL thoughts need to be random for this model to work). Truly random thoughts are generated by some mechanism, and the unconscious mind throws out the "bad" ones, and only allows the "good" ones to surface into our consciousness. In this way, the mind is in control, but the thoughts in this case are truly random.
It turns out, this this actually explains the nature of consciousness quite well. For example, it explains how some thoughts can surprise us. This is because some thoughts are actually random. And it also explains why we sometimes have to consciously reject some unwanted thoughts. This is the case, that our sub-consciousness mind failed to filter out a "bad" thought. :)
I find this line of thought interesting, however I do have one concern. You say that "the unconscious mind throws out the "bad" ones, and only allows the "good" ones to surface into our consciousness", this process to me doesn't sound like theres any room for the kind of control needed for free will. If it is the unconscious which by definition we are not aware of making the "choices" on what thoughts to filter out and which ones to keep, then I don't see how this can rescue free will in any meaningful sense. Perhaps unless you're defining the mind as the self in which I agree the mind is "in control" as you state but I think the task of defending that the self is reducible to the mind purely is tall one.
Very disappointed you were only providing clips of Alex’s points and essentially none of Ben’s. I saw the whole debate. Alex was losing and resorted to the same old tired tactics of quoting old testament law😂
Cameron, present both sides if you’re going to do a debate review
This is a bit below the belt but did you determine Alex lost? And by what measures?
If God exists and he defines morality but was accepting of owning people, he isn't moral and if it was back then, Christian morality is also relativistic. If he couldn't do anything about it then he isn't the omnipotent being described in the Bible and that would make the Bible untrue. So the one defending an objective morality or a God-claim as true as in described in the text would by default have the losing position from a rational/logical standpoint. Now from a utility standpoint it's another ball game. So as a placebo effect... But usually that's not what people defending theism is claiming because that would implicitly entail some form of self deception.
I have free will! And with it I choose to love God because he’s a good good father. He’s perfect in all of his ways ❤
Do you remember the moments just before and just after your "decision" to love God? Could you have done otherwise?
Sorry but I proved long ago free will isnt real. Its an illusion.
You may choose what you are going to eat, but you do not choose when to get hungry.
Do you think you'll have free will in Heaven? Can you choose to not love God in Heaven?
@@malirkYes.
20:23 At least in math, computation and physics, “random” is related to entropy.
There isn't a pattern (if it's purely random), or it's not recognizable.
For instance, the sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,… is not random, because it follows a pattern. We can predict the next number.
This is random: 32, 68, 11, 16, 7, 84, 63, 34, … I didn't pick those numbers manually. I used a random number generator and pick each number at different times.
You can't predict the next number.
“The BEST”? That seems like an unjustifiably objective claim.
Could anyone refer me to rebuttals of josh Bowens work?
Some of his work definitely demands explanation better than Paul copan
William Webb should help, I'm reading his soon
what if free will is similar to breathing in that it will happen automatically until being overridden by something with volition. probably doesn't make sense but it felt neat when i had the thought.
IP fumbled this one. Galileo wasn't right because he was a Copernican. Galileo was right because he had a TELESCOPE.
Guess who rewarded Galileo an award for his discovery and guess who was convinced after looking through the telescope and who wasn't.
@@MrSeedi76 Did you read WHO rewarded him? Was it the church? Maybe the Pope? Maybe a nun?
It was the RICHEST family patriarch on the planet at the time. Galileo was awarded and given an honored position BY the OWNER of Popes, manhandler of The Church, Director of what is Good, Leader of leaders: Cosimo de Medici.
God is not great and the church even less.
IP fumbles constantly
Dr. Josh's "puppet argument" of free will seems to do the following: introduces a choosing agent whose decisions are not exclusively determined by external nor internal forces, nor are its decisions random.
The existence of this choosing agent is introduced as an axiom. The introduction of this axiom is defended abductively--as necessary to any sound definition of free will.
So we assume a choosing agent capable of free will exists as a premise to an argument that answers the question "do we have free will?"
Dr Josh, isn't that just begging the question?
If I assume there is a fundamental, irreducible agent capable of free choice, than I've solved the mystery of how do I assume the existence of the thing which I am trying to argue exists.
I'm on the free will side but I, too, had trouble understanding the purpose of his arguments. They didn't seem to be attempts to defent free will as much as define it.
He's not making an argument for free will. He is presenting Alex's argument again in different words. This time including an internal factor (soul).
@@danielcartwright8868 I don't understand a few things about free will.
1) If Adam and Eve were perfect and had free will, why did they eat of the tree?
2) Did the angels who rebelled against God have free will? What makes us different from them?
3) Will we have free will in Heaven? Is there thus sin in Heaven?
These are some of my big questions for the Christian worldview and free will
@@malirk I'm not a Christian, but I asked the same questions. The problem is God is mysterious and they can make up anything. Additionally, they know God exists, because they believe Jesus resurrected.
Here is the answer I've been given no matter how implausible it is: God knew Adam and Eve and the fallen angels would use their free will to go against him, but God uses all actions against him (and natural evils) to create a higher good like soul building for the people who will freely choose to be with him (are saved) and he does all this for his glory. For the free will in heaven part, the people in heaven have free will but have soul built enough to freely never choose to sin again and really enjoy being with God. This (according to God) is a higher good than people just being created to never want to sin. As I said, this implausible to me and morally repugnant especially if eternal conscious torment exists. It appears God uses people as means to an end. Lots of Christians deny ECT.
@@malirk1.) Adam and Eve were not perfect. They were made “good” but were corruptable.
2.) I don’t think there is much in the Bible that makes clear one way or the others whether angels have free will, but one clue may be in the book in Job where Satan only did the things to Job that God permitted him to.
3.) The Christian view is that once you come to faith you begin a process of sanctification which is the process of being made holy. You can think of it as a transformation of your Will such that more and more you begin to desire the things of God more and sinful things less. This is believed to continue in heaven though probably looks a bit different once freed from your corrupt earthly body. So it is believed that there is free will in heaven but your Will will be for worshiping and serving God.
It seems to me on the topic of free will that determined vs random is a false dichotomy. A thing may be determined, chosen, probabilistic, or random.
To illustrate the difference, imagine three cards. For the draw of a card to be determined, they each lay on top of the other so you can only draw the top card. For it to be chosen, the cards lay face up side by side. For it to be probabilistic, the cards lay face down side by side. To be random, the cards must all be jokers.
The crucial point is that we always seem to be picking from cards that lie face up. The problem is that for some reason philosophers want to say that this choice must be determined or random, but without justification. A choice is simply a choice. Just as randomness cannot be reduced twith determination, neither can choice. It is important that the choosing agent be something radically different from matter simply because we are not aware of matter being able to choose. That is all. Choice is the choice of a conscious being. It is neither random, nor probabilistic, nor deterministic. It has the option of regarding reasons or disregarding them and of deciding how much weight to give reasons. There you go.
Perhaps it is an error to think of free will and determinism in such binary terms. Rather, freedom of will is a spectrum where absolute free will is easily refuted by common sense and determinism is as well. Perhaps this forcing of a binary choice between the two ends of the spectrum is a result of philosophers spending too much time at the armchair and not enough time surfing. 🌊 any surfer knows that, when encountering a tidal wave, one has many choices regarding how to respond. He can surf or he can succumb to the undertow. Either way he will wash up on the shore. But it’s how he gets there makes all the difference.
Huh, I like this point a lot. Thank you for this! :)
I find Alex’s characterization of thoughts either being determined or not to be built on a presupposition that “thoughts cause thoughts.” Neo-realists, such as myself (as related to the foundation of thoughts/process of thinking), would reject this idea of our being in knowledge. Rather, a neo-realist would claim that there’s a transphenomenal (not subjected to thought) faculty, which is the very foundation from which thoughts precede.
In other words, while temporally prior thoughts guide, they aren’t the causal basis for future thoughts (as Alex somewhat implies).
Where do thoughts originate? Why one thought over another?
@@gabrielteo3636 1) Hopefully, I’m interpreting your question right. Sartre would argue that thoughts originate from this foundation of being (whether it be a brain or soul or both). If being is in our knowledge, Sartre argues that an infinite regress of conscious states towards the unknown would be the foundation of being. Such a foundation seems absurd.
2) I’m confused by this question. All thoughts are equal, insofar that they originate from the same faculty/foundation.
@@existential_o "2) I’m confused by this question. All thoughts are equal, insofar that they originate from the same faculty/foundation." I'll accept this answer...thoughts originate from the being/self. We can then ask, why theses thoughts of any other, regardless of any "outside" reason? Under LFW, my answer is, I don't know, seems random. In determinism, it is because of my biology and experiences.
@@gabrielteo3636 I’m tempted to claim all “reasons” are subject to our interpretation of them. Now you may respond, “is our interpretation determined or random?” To refer to Rasmussen’s response, they are controlled. Going from something is 100% determined to something is 0% determined (therefore, random) is an unjustified jump.
Edit: I may be misunderstanding your stance, but you seem to equate all external events as causal to choice. Therefore, it isn’t a self choosing, but external factors.
Swinburne, in his interview with Alex O’Connor, addresses this issue. Swinburne argues that it’s objects which cause objects, not events.
@@existential_o "To refer to Rasmussen’s response, they (interpretations) are controlled." How are they controlled? Deterministically or not deterministically?
"Going from something is 100% determined to something is 0% determined (therefore, random) is an unjustified jump." Let's say someone thinks a choice is 70% determined and 30% random. Why think 70/30 vs 30/70 vs any other ratio?
"Swinburne argues that it’s objects which cause objects, not events." Maybe I don't understand Swinburne, but isn't the self an object caused by other objects which causes other objects?
Random does not exist. This is what most programmers and electronical engineers understand. Saying "quantum" simply means we are unable to measure the reason for it with our current understanding, not that it's necessarily somehow mystically undetermined.
I have been thinking about things lately. I just thought of this a little while ago and haven't interrogated it yet, so I'm not sure how useful it is. It's kind of a definition of free will that I hope gets at what we are really interested in about free will.
Definition: free will is that which is determined by a selection of future states.
Mechanical causation is strictly past causing future. The water flows downhill. If you tell the water that it will be happier at the top of the hill, it still flows downhill. If you threaten to hurt the water at the bottom of your hill, it still flows downhill.
In sharp contrast, what causes the farmer to plant the seed? The growth of future fruit. If you tell the farmer that there will be a flood that will wash the seed away and there will be no fruit, then he won't plant the seed. His actions are determined by the future state.
When we are worried about punishing or not punishing for a crime, we are trying to change the future state such that it will push someone away from performing the action. If we want farmers to plant seeds, we will threaten to punish those who neglect planting.
This does create a circular problem similar to the halting problem in libertarianism and determinism. Consider: Legislator A knows that Citizen B likes to break rules. A owns an apple tree and doesn't want B to take the apples. A creates a law that everyone must take an apple. Did B's behavior cause the law, or did the law cause B's behavior? It seems to me that the whole thing is circular: B's behavior causes A's behavior, A's behavior causes B's behavior, and back again forever. I'm sure this isn't the best example for what I'm trying to say, if you get what I'm saying and have an even better example I would love to read it. And like I said, I haven't had a chance to really pressure test this or think of better examples, so I'm sure it's possible to poke holes in the specific example I've given. Imagine it's the next iteration past that with a much better constructed example before just declaring it dead because the first examples is weak. Newton's first example of why the moon orbits was that he saw an apple fall. First examples often need a little work before they really work.
Free will is the option to have chose another action. You are talking about motivation and that sounds like retrofitting actions.
Motivation is what lies behind actions and motivation is part of the process that leads up to free will, I agree. But motivation doesn't get sanctioned, actions do. You can work on motivation but it's not that easy. Isn't that what the self help is trying make bank on?
Breakdown:
Motivation is not action. Motivation can lead to action. Action is the thing that gets noticed.
Free will is a sliding scale. I like Nexus Voids definition; we have competing free wills. So we have free will but depending on circumstances, we have different amounts. Resources can determine the amount as can intelligence, knowledge and creativity.
You might have a core value based on you circumstances (EQ) and put a goal towards achieving something that accommodates that value (IQ) but you need the motivation and drive to do the action in order to "solve" that problem of achieving said goal (AQ).
@@justanothernick3984 Certainly motivation is part of free will, and I'm simply trying to focus on whatever component of free will connects to the question of libertarianism vs determinism.
I don't think the farmer's action are determined by the future state of something. Rather, they are determined by past seeds that he has seen turn into plants, then those memories got implanted into his brain, etc.
@@OviLazar If that were the case, then telling the farmer that this year the seeds won't grow and giving him an explanation why that he believes would only change the course of action if he had seen that thing before. That has not been the experience I've had with farmers. Farmers will learn that rotating crops will change the way they grow, and then start to rotate crops even though they've never seen it themselves. And it's not just enough to hear that someone does it differently. They hear all kinds of things that people do that don't come with a change in expectation, and don't incorporate them into their farming practice. It's not their memories that cause them to change, and it's not mimicry that cause them to change. It's their expectation of the future that causes them to change
@@sthelenskungfu
But that explanation is based on other farmer's experiences and them watching the weather and forecasts, plus their past experiences with the climate and growing zone. It's still deterministic.
Whether the initial farmer is stubborn and doesn't want to listen to
Whatever farmers learn, whether from their own mistakes or from those of others and other bodies of knowledge, it's all deterministic and from the past.
The farmer's imagination of that future state o the plant is merely a simulation in his own head based on the other plants that he's seen.
Unless you can show me a farmer who can give more detail about the future plant whose seed is holding in his hands (exact height down to the millimeter, exact number of leaves), there is no reason to believe the future plant's state determines his actions. Not unless you're using a different definition of determinism which, in the context of the O'Connor - Shapiro debate, is all about series off causes and effects (and they both agree on that).
Why do people not understand relations? The reviewers, as well as Ben and Alex.
It's not about what things are in isolation(spoiler, in nothing is isolated), which is what everyone is trying to do and isn't making any progress.
Mental and physical are immanent to one another, subjective & objective, external & internal.
People love this argument that overcoming bad things is inherently good on its own, such that it's better to have something bad to overcome (and possibly fail, as many do) than to just not have had the bad thing to begin with. To people who believe this argument, I ask you what "good" means... The evaluation of something as "good" is the prediction of how well it's likely to align with our preferences/objectives/etc. The preference/objective here is to not have the bad thing, so not having it in the first place is much more likely to be aligned with the preference/objective than experiencing the bad and risking the possible failure to overcome. Thus, it is not more "good" to have bad things to overcome.
Ben Shapiro whether he tries to talk his way out of it, is a moral relativist as Alex pointed out.
As humans situations seem morally relative because of our emotions. It's doesn't change the fact of a maximally good or bad thought
Ben clearly isn't a moral relativist.
I think what you mean to say is that, if Ben were consistent in his claims/beliefs, then he would be a moral relativist.
That is very different from claiming he is a moral relativist.
So why do you think Ben is inconsistent?
@@jackplumbridge2704 He clearly says he doesn’t agree with the morality that was written down in the Old Testament compared to 21st century ethics & morality.
That’s moral relativism.
Up to 400 years ago, Christians thought it was perfectly moral to kill anyone who was accused of witchcraft as commanded in the bible.
Does any Christian still think that’s a moral action?
@@stormhawk3319 "He clearly says he doesn’t agree with the morality that was written down in the Old Testament compared to 21st century ethics & morality.
That’s moral relativism. " - No it isn't.
Moral relativism is the view that there are no objective moral values. Ben does not believe there are no objective moral values, he believes there are objective moral values. Hence, he is not a moral relativist.
"Up to 400 years ago, Christians thought it was perfectly moral to kill anyone who was accused of witchcraft as commanded in the bible. " - Maybe some Christians did. But so what?
"Does any Christian still think that’s a moral action?" - Probably some. But again, what does that have to do with anything?
@@jackplumbridge2704 Again, he disagrees with morality written in the Old Testament which clearly condones slavery as well as taking the women from enemy tribes as your own. Now either that was written by those who translated the word of the Judao Christian god or it was simply written by men whose own idea of what was perfectly objectively moral in their eyes.
Your flippant response over Christians who killed those they accused of witchcraft “Maybe some Christians did, but so what?” was as arrogant as it gets.
What do you mean “Maybe”, there’s no question Christians did and in large numbers authorised by the church authorities no less in medieval Europe.
They believed they were acting perfectly objectively moral because they went with the literal word of the bible.
The human race as slowly become moral over the centuries, in the western world at least with the enlightenment of the 18th century which saw the first outspoken atheist philosophers such as Voltaire& David Hume and scientists such as Benjamin Franklin and humanists like Thomas Paine that fought against any theocratic rule but to the democratic rule of secular governments that as proved to be far more “objectively moral” than the self righteous rule when religious leaders had the whip hand.
Religion and belief in a god certainly is not proof of objective morality.
It’s down to millions of years of very slow evolution of us as a species where we gradually become better people compared to 400, 1000 or indeed 3000 years ago.
Let’s goooooo!!!!!
Surely the best argument in favour of free will is that its fundamentally instinctive just like conscious experience and the laws of logic. How can one instinct outweigh another as they all are implicitly a priori and the lens through which we interact with the world. Logic is no more reliable than free will, we assess reliability by reference to others also having a shared experience of that thing and its usefulness in the world. Both tests apply equally to induction, logic etc as much as free will. They are all real.
That is the best argument it just isn’t very good.
@@hrothgr52How? What else can better explain our actual experience of free will?
@@Cuhpri I think we experience will, not free will. Will would feel exactly the same as free will. A slug choosing to go left or right would sense free will, but we could in theory map out its decisions based on "reasons". Same for people.
@@Cuhpri The point is we intuitively feel like we have it, but our examination of the world makes it seem somewhat unlikely. I’m not saying we’re sure because we would need to know more about consciousness, but if you had to bet, bet on determinism.
I think we experience will, not free will. Will would feel exactly the same as free will. A slug choosing to go left or right would sense free will, but we could in theory map out its decisions based on "reasons". Same for people.
What is easier? To say to people "you shall not own other people" or "do not covet"? But this book only says one of these things
If I have a multitude of choices to choose from and I have to choose between them, but none of them are obvious to me, then what is that called if it's not free will? If I was able to live multiple lives so I could choose the other choices I wasn't able to in this life to see the outcomes of those decisions, I would. How can a mindset like that be reconciled with the determinist view? The reason I make most of the choices I do, is ultimately because I can't choose all or none of them, not because there is an obvious choice and I would never choose the other ones.
If God can see all outcomes does that mean God doesn’t have free will?
To me it’s more like a computer has computational power to make choices based on the data it’s been given in the past. Humans are just messy computers with exponentially more data to interpret from with a variety of tools such as heuristics, bias, prediction, etc
The question still remains, was your decision to choose from multiple choices random or determined at the time of the decision? When looking back at a past decision in retrospect, we imagine we could have chosen otherwise, but why think that? If the universe was rewould and I had no memory of the consequences of the decision, I would make the same decision every time because of reasons. If i didn't make the same decision, i would just be acting randomly against the first decision.
I personally liked Dr Josh Rasmussen emphasis at the end of the video on the point about the progressiveness of history and religion which everyone was agreeing without realizing the deeper implications. The argument Ben Shapiro was using to say that God needed to ease people toward accepting His long term goal away from the institution of slavery works for progressive religious people. But for conservatives, accepting this argument would be a form of cognitive dissonance. It means that the past never offered an optimized context for human flourishing and that the turmoil through which societies must go through once in a while is what is necessary for humans to move toward God's intended goal. From a political stance that would render conservatism as evil because conservatism seeks an idealized moment of the past not the future of God's goal: anti God. Progressives therefore are the ones guided by the will of God even when some of them are lost or mistaken. So I'm not sure if Ben should want to hold too tight onto that argument.
I don’t think conservatives necessarily have to agree that the past offers an optimised context for human flourishing. I’m not strictly a conservative or a liberal, but I understand the conservative view to be more of one that wants to uphold certain values of the past, believing those values to be better than modernist ones. For instance, slavery isn’t a value of the past, it was a system that happened to be implemented but opposed the values that a conservative religious society would hold. Conservatism isn’t about blindly holding onto institutions of the past, but rather making change based upon traditions and core beliefs. It is possible to be a progressive conservative, for instance.
@@berserkerbard Well then it all comes down to how we understand what "conservative" means. Was Jesus conservative compared to his religious/political contemporaries? Was Paul a conservative compared to his religious/political contemporaries? I don't believe so. They went against the structures that preserved the previous traditions and by doing so were punished by death. Christianity probably felt like today's progressive liberalism (or even woke) in the context of their times. The persecution of Christians wasn't because they were conservatives but rather they were the progressives for their time. There are lots of parallels that can be drawn with today but because Christianity (or any religious tradition) now is the tradition, the roles are flipped.
@@Adaerus I would argue that Jesus was both conservative and liberal in values. He upheld Torah and tradition and pointed to it, but he also fulfilled the old law so brought about complete revolution. However, the new Christians of the time didn’t abandon the Old Testament or the laws of God that Jesus reconstituted, indeed, Jesus made marriage a binding covenant once again and taught that to divorce and ‘remarry’ was to commit adultery. This was how God originally intended things to be. That could be viewed as an ultra-conservative action of Jesus. Tradition and change can work well together without demonising one or the other, it’s only if you pull too far in either direction (ie. Tradition stopping progress or progress eliminating tradition) that it can be problematic.
As a note, Conservatism in politics relates primarily to belief of personal property, free enterprise and upholding traditional values. Liberalism promotes civil liberties, individual rights and democracy. There isn’t a clash between these ideas unless they’re taken too far.
@@berserkerbard Of course they didn't abandon the Old Testament but they added to it, or improved on it. I can still argue that it was "the woke" thing of the times to call a slave as equal to a patrician in the Roman empire under any context. I'm sure there were extreme elements on the proto Christian side that might have gotten way overboard compared to their times similarly to what's happening to the left today. The extreme Christians would have been just wrong while the extreme of the tradition of the time (pagans) was just evil: it saw Christianity as a threat to the fabric of society. In today's terms the melancholiacs for traditional religion are the equivalent to the pagans that resisted the change before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire. The manifestations are similar today but more humane because of the progress. In short, the extreme political right is evil while the extreme political left is wrong but not evil.
@@Adaerus Being conservative does not mean being against change..
You believe what you believe, and you can't control what you believe.
And then we have the argument, “consciousness”, and “it’s complex”. Look, the point is, if you’re not direct;y AWARE of where a choice comes from, it’s not a true choice - it’s “random”. If you want to hand wave and point to some black box as a source for a catalyst for choice/free will, that’s still not a choice or free will. It’s effectively the same thing as determinism and randomness. It’s something occurring outside your ability to consciously control with full awareness of what’s going on - it’s simply popping in your head as a full blown choice.
24:10 On free will and randomness, Cameron is talking about something that can be random but also someone is in control of it, and he gives the example of buying a candy bar. He doesn't have a preference, and so randomly chooses the candy bar type. The question is, was free will invovled then? If so, where?
Cameron here seems to equate "free will" to "being in control". There are multiple seperate decisions being made here, so it is important to break them down.
1. Choosing how to decide which candy bar to buy.
2. Choosing which candy bar to buy.
First Cameron decided that, since he doesn't have a prefernce he will buy a candy bar at random. This decision itself was not random, it was based on his candy bar preferences (or lack thereof).
For choosing the candy bar, Cameron decided to reliquish his control and get a candy bar at random. Cameron is no longer in control of which candy bar he is going to get, and so free will is not involved in step 2. So Alex's point remains in tact, if something is random, it can't have been the product of free will. Theoretically somone can freely choose to do something at random, but the free will was in deciding to do something random, not the random action itself.
17:45...I don't know where exactly this sort of philosophy comes from, and I have never heard it before. However, I think that the obvious weakness would be in defining what those things (control instruments) are and whether or not they are commanded by you. Anything that controls your person and which you have no authority over indacates a lack of free will, however if you exercise authority over those instruments, free will survives. And if it survives within, external stimuli would still have to condend with your free will instruments. And we can reference The Word to back this up, although, this sort of evidence may not be acceptable to the heathen. So your tablet could well be controlled, but authority can be transferred. Like AI.
Also, a cool thought to me, is that even if someone doesn't have free will, then it is enacting the will of the controller as a proxy. So there is a source that would necessarily have to have free will.
Alex may forget or ignore a question. Do deterministic events make him believe what he believes and draw the conclusions he draws? If they do, he might come to believe in free will because those events force him to do that. Whether determinism is true seems more fundamental than whether we have free will.
38:38 🤯 Imagine that-if consciousness were vestigial!
I feel like the two guys on the left have a more nuanced approach than the guy on the right. They seem to try to remove bias from the equation and try to understand and interpret the philosophical concepts regardless of whether they're theistic or not.
37:15 "how much power we have over our brains" more like how much power the brain has over itself. Your consciousness is part your brain is it not?
Tge premise of the debate includes the presupposition; that a condition of Absolute free will exists.
And that after you exercise this Absolute free will you still exist to comtinue in that condition.
Both of which are philosophically impossible.
Just imagine Inspiring-Philosophy with a headcovering that is worn by muslims with a thicker- fuller beard and imagine him adding "peace be upon him" after he mentions different prophets (Moses), you will find it hard to differentiate Inspiring Philosophy from an average Islamic Apologist. How peculier.
WHAT
On "free will"... "you" are a system that processes input and output signals (simultaneously, constantly) and the experience of processing the inputs to decide the outputs is what we call "consciousness" and then "free will", as most commonly used, suggests that the processor could be given the exact same set of inputs (historically as well, because the processor is changed by its processing) and yet output something different AND that the variation therein is even partially "under your control" which would mean that the processor doing the controlling internally has some mechanism to "prefer" one of those variants over others and reliably produce the variant of output it "prefers", which would mean that the result could only ever be that which was most "preferred" (holistically) and that "preference" is necessarily either dependent on the inputs or not something that can be changed by the processor (i.e. it's "hardcoded").
Think of any software you've used. It executes decisions/choices, it executes a "will", but I don't think you would say that "will" is "free" in that the software itself could, say, suddenly tomorrow independently change its own inner logic (a.k.a. "preferences" to tie it back) such that it outputs some different response to what it would have done given the same inputs.
Re: "moral responsibility"... it's necessary in the way that root cause analysis is necessary for debugging software/decision-makers, but "blame" or "judgment" or "punishment" are generally not helpful for resolving the issue of the undesirable outcomes (e.g. crime). The beneficial purpose we do see from those is a part of the social incentive structure for guiding behavior, but knowing this we can hopefully move towards a more compassionate and helpful version of this disincentivization structure.
"moral judgments" are evaluations of alignment to the complex combination of "preferences" of the given agent/processor
Side notes: nature can definitely give you prescriptions/obligations, like keeping yourself fed/sheltered/etc and potentially for children as well... Also, if the "objective" basis of morality is "personal", then that would make it subjective which is not "objective" (but imo nothing is, in the way most people use the term, just a collective subject perspective we adopt based on commonalities of the collective's preferences given that the preferences are determined).
(Btw, posted this to test out this explanation with this audience)
You are 100% correct my man.
Determined vs undetermined is a false dichotomy, leaving out the agnostic option, and crucially forgetting that randomness is simply a human perception problem and a modeling problem; there is no randomness on omniscience
How so? Either all of the universe is completely determined or not all of the universe is completely determined (thus giving rise to indeterminism to various degrees). Do you mean the false dichotomy that either everything is determined or nothing is determined, because then I’d agree.
@@nonononononono8532 yes we agree. in this discussion they completely ignored many interesting cases of partial determinism and what that might entail
Yes, Cameron. That premise - random vs determined is very suspicious. Why should it be random if it’s indeed You, that miraculous “I” inside of us.
Random just means not determined by anything, so yeah the perfect opposite of determined xD
To clarify "made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision" is the first definition that pops up when you look up the definition of "random".
@@milantarbuk1039 But it’s “I” who determines in its “randomness”. Really they stumble upon consciousness, the most probable root of free will. It’s simply incomprehensible concept, while we clearly don’t understand how it functions and arises we also have no clue about free will as a product of it.
And isn’t inside “I” you make conscious decision.
@@eugenehvorostyanov2409 I feel like this conversation is gonna go nowhere, not because you made any blatantly stupid argument or anything like that, but rather because I've been in so many of these discussions and heard those exact point many many many times. Wanna know how many examples I have of people actually changing their minds by the end of it? None, which makes sense given the nature of the topic. Because it is so unknowable we are left with nothing but our own personal opinions on the matter. Free will people will say you choose and make conscious decisions, determinists will say no you only have the illusion of making completely free choices while in reality all of your decisions were already determined by factors outside of your control, this includes the "I" as well. Can either of the two sides prove they are definitively right? If they could don't you think we would have stopped debating this ages ago?
22:40 agrees with Alex then says he doesn’t agree because of what he agrees with Alex??? I’m not sure how you make that loop without connecting it
“Source condition” of an agent. Ok, so dice have agency and free will. Is that it? Because the source of a choice between 1 - 6 is determined by the way a dice rolls. Wait, or by the hand that throws it. Wait, or by the conditions present in the room of the hand that through it. Wait, or the variables at play that determined the conditions in the room of the hand that throws the dice? You see where I’m going with this? You can’t remove the “agent” from the infinite set of variables that influence it, nor know them - therefore you are never certain or in control of the infinite number of unknown variables at play behind any “choices”, agent or otherwise.
Can we change what we want ? If so then dont we have free will
Who is that “I” thinking about free will?
The human being.
Observation: I'd like to share an honest, objective observation I tend to witness in the sorts of debates these gentleman are discussing here, and I think Josh Rasmussen points to this same observation several times, albeit in a rather diplomatic way. When Ben Shapiro argues for his positions, he seems to do so because he wants them to be true, and/or he feels they NEED to be true, rather than because, objectively, it makes the most sense to him. Josh points out that he really enjoys the approach Alex O'Connor seems to be taking, because he seems only to be seeking the truth, rather than arguing for a position he feels ought to, or needs to, or would be better off if were, true. Does that make sense?
The reason this is so important is that the former leaves little-to-no room for any significant objective reasoning, or logical shifts in perspective, due to evidence, where the latter quite literally starts from such a position, is the very nature of the position and where from it develops.
What you see happening when you get two very logical, critical-thinkers on either side of such a discussion, is the person defending the position that they feel NEEDS or OUGHT to be true will often concede points because there is no logical way not to, but inevitably reverts to their original position despite any concessions they gave along the way; whereas the person driving at their position strictly because it seems the most logically sound, tends to be detached from any personal desire or feeling one way or the other, and is therefore able to shift in perspective as logic demands as a rule, along every step towards a truth.
I thought the debate accomplished absolutely nothing. It didn't even seem to be about God!😊
I would have answered CS’s point about social justice developing despite the church’s best efforts a little differently than IP.
I think it’s possible to grant for arguments sake that the church has historically done evil “shown Galileo the torcher instruments for having the temerity to suggest a capernican model of the galaxy” - without the corollary being “therefore religion isn’t a force for good” because a religions teachings shouldn’t be assessed on the behaviour of it’s apparent adherents but in the content of the actual teachings.
Would have been easier to point out that science and universities were kicked off by devout catholics, which includes galileo. Aquinas " faith complements reason" etc shows that adherence to reason is deeply embedded in catholic thought. The fact that galileo is trotted out so often shows how little actual anti science examples there are against the catholic church - 2000 years, and thats the worst example? 😂😂😂😂
@@jamessquire1770 We have today YEC and anti evolution Christians being anti science. How anti science were they for most of Christian history?
@@gabrielteo3636 hmm. Big bang theory and genetics both came from catholic priests. An honest assessment of history shows a strong harmony between christians and science. Newton wrote more on scripture than physics. And you conveniently omit how many atheists readily reject truth in all its forms, seeing it as a product of power or invalid assumptions eg hume, foucault, derrideu, marx, satre etc etc.
@@jamessquire1770 I look at science as our best method for discerning if ideas in our heads somewhat corresponds to reality outside our heads using empirical means due to it's inductive success. Any of the over 4000 thousand Gods, demons or magical creatures people have invented throughout history can be evidenced by the scientific method if they were not hiding from scientists and their pesky tests. Isn't it amazing they would all choose to hide?
I'm curious, what does a theist do when a new scientific discovery conflicts or there is a tension with their understanding of scripture from (insert holy book). Do they just reinterpret scripture to fit the scientific discovery?
I have to admit that after some thinking I found Alex's argument on free will to be solid, you can trace the source of decisions using the principle of sufficient reason all the way back to conclude that we as agents in the physical world do not have free will. This is also true for naturalism, but for theists, this may not be the end of the story. We may still have true free will granted to us by God beyond the physical world. This is possible because God is uncaused, so He is the only one for whom the principle of sufficient reason doesn't apply. He has true free will, and He may share that free with us, so that through him, our souls are capable of taking all our decisions logically prior to creation. Once the wheel is set in motion, we just experience our decisions in a deterministic manner, but in our state of ignorance this is equivalent to truly taking the decisions ourselves.
If it’s random and can be anything then why would an option not be for my free will to be what is that anything. This argument only works if you don’t make them give you definition.
Because you are just making random decisions and calling it free will. If you are fine with that, ok.
@@gabrielteo3636 you’d have to define free will and random and prove that it’s not possible for free will to be part of the random
@@GiftWrapGabe Alex's argument accepts free will could be wholly or partly random. Partially random is still random. On a theistic model, it might mean your salvation or damnation is random or partially random depending one which theology you ascribe. On a non-theistic model, it just means you will probably die quicker because of partly random choices.
@@gabrielteo3636but in a theistic view you have parameters you can work within to not guarantee salvation but improve you likelihood of it. Those parameters also lead to human flourishing I also don’t believe that free will is dictated by someone and that Alex model is totally correct. Funny we have the same name
What is an action that is completely independent of past experiences, environment, language, that is isn’t just reconstruction of a combination of those things?
If you didn’t have the experiences and environment/components you have would you still be yourself?
If your brain is damaged and you lose connection to some of those processing centers do you lose a portion of yourself?
I view it as “characters” in movies have “free will” in movies contextually. But if you zoom out and see the greater world outside of the story it’s just something determined by the script.
Seems to fit in both God in control and materialistic worldviews
Me choosing my clothing in the morning, deciding which film to see, and many other decision where I can pick whatever. It is not random and yet it is not predictable. Also independent does not mean disjoint, it can be completely independent while multiple factors are exercising pressures.
Asking if religion is good for society is like asking if a boat is good for the tide. The boat is moved as if it doesn’t exist.
It seems like you are saying the boat is religion and the tide is society. If that is the case then I think it is quite clear that you have never studied history to any serious degree.
Religion has shaped cultures massively over the years. Islamic countries are nothing like Hindu countries, and Hindu countries are nothing like Christian countries, precisely because those countries have been so massively impacted by their respective religions.
To claim that religion has no impact on society, if that is what you are claiming, only reveals an incredible ignorance of history and sociology.
The question wasn't "doesn't religion have an impact on society", but "is religion good for society".
These are two COMPLETELY different things!@@jackplumbridge2704
Also, we're not talking about religion in the past, we're talking about religion in the present, where it arguably doesn't have a strong (or good) influence on society. (At least in Western countries).@@jackplumbridge2704
@@j.a.n.e.n "The question wasn't "doesn't religion have an impact on society", but "is religion good for society"." - I know. So what? Did you completely ignore the fact that I am responding to the OP and not to the debate?
Dude, the OP literally starts with "Asking if religion is GOOD for society"!@@jackplumbridge2704
Hey, Can anyone tell me what software is used to make this video?
But do we really have intrinsic value, or do we merely place value on others because they happen to be of the same species or because we feel a special attachment to them?
Also, a reinterpretation of the biblical text is just that…A reinterpretation based on our subjective perspective. Suggesting that the New Testament passages that mention equal worth is proof that the Apostle Paul was an abolitionist all along, sounds a little post hoc.
lol “if it’s not determined it’s not automatically thereby random…” what a silly thing to say. Yes, it is. If something isn’t determined then no matter what you come up with to call it, it may as well be random - because you’re not in control. Please.
(Edit: Let me begin by saying I appreciate this discussion and the people hosting it, regardless of my frustration expressed below. When I say, "shouldn't even be in the discussion," I am referring only to the specific concept being discussed in the moment, not the discussion in general. And by "shouldn't be in the discussion," I mean, by all rationale, should excuse themselves from taking any stance at all until such time as they are able to express a logical understanding of said concept, either way.)
In response to free-will being non-deterministic/random, Upper-Left guy responds why he believes he has free will, this is his rationale: “I asked the philosopher friend of mine… what is meant when they use this term and he's like I don't know … and he's not like a philosopher that works in this area. He doesn't even know as someone who's like very fairly familiar with the area….”
He says he does not understand the concept of non-determinism leading to randomness, then describes a story in which a philosopher (who shouldn't know, but he should know, and he DOESN'T know! huh?) does not even know, and then uses that as rationale for not being convinced, therefore feels justified in not believing it. He is literally stating that he is categorically incapable of understanding the concept, then rationalizes his opposition because of it. Wow.
Now let’s take Ben Shapiro, who is arguably more knowledgeable about these subjects than Upper Left guy: Ben Shapiro also seems incapable of understanding some of the concepts discussed by Alex O’Connor, but Ben is able to make it seem like he DOES understand, yet has reasons to believe why he disagrees. And when pressed, says he has an 'escape hatch.'
The real problem is that Ben also seems (pretty clearly to me) categorically incapable of understanding this concept (at least during his dialogue with Alex). He’s not even unwilling, he simply doesn’t understand. IMPORTANT:**Whether or not free-will is random, whether we have it or don’t have it, being incapable of understanding a thing IS NOT AN ARGUMENT against it. Period.
That people don’t understand this, furthermore that they cannot even recognize when it’s happening right in front of them, is the real problem with discussions like this. If you CANNOT understand, you shouldn’t even be in the discussion.
I kept waiting for someone to be more charitable to Alex's argument about free will. He talked about determined or not determined. To be determined is to be the result of causes. It's not about some weird notion of "control." It doesn't even matter if it's internal or external. If a decision is caused by other things, then it is determined by those things. This is true even if those things are mental states like beliefs, desires, etc. And if your decision is just the result of all these other things, if it is determined by those things, it cannot be freely chosen precisely because it is determined by those other things. If those things had been otherwise, then your decision would have been otherwise. And if your decision isn't determined by anything, then it is random. That's what random means here, uncaused by anything.
So, your decisions are either caused by other things, whatever those are, or they are not caused by anything. If they are caused, they are determined, and you do not have libertarian free will. If they are uncaused, then they are random, and you do not have libertarian free will. Consciousness doesn't save this. Being an agent does not save this. Nothing saves it.
"So, your decisions are either caused by other things, whatever those are, or they are not caused by anything. If they are caused, they are determined, and you do not have libertarian free will. If they are uncaused, then they are random, and you do not have libertarian free will. Consciousness doesn't save this. Being an agent does not save this. Nothing saves it." - Well I can save it extremely easily because you haven't addressed all of the options.
The thing that is doing the causing of the decision is the agent themselves.
So when you claim "if your decisions are caused then they are determined", which firstly, you seem to have changed the definition of "determined" here since you now seem to be talking about determinism whereas earlier you were using the term "determined" synonymously with "caused", but in any case, when you claim that a persons decisions are determined, and that therefore you don't have free will, you have completely neglected the fact that the decision is determined (caused) by the agent themselves, which is exactly what it means to have free will.
You literally don't even respond to the actual position of libertarian free will in your whole comment, and yet you pronounce your comment as a crushing refutation of free will...
So, to wrap up simply, you claim that our decisions are either caused or they are uncaused. That is correct. And the person who believes in free will will claim that decisions are caused by agents.
So your claim that there are only two options, either determinism or randomness, fails to even respond to the position that people who believe in free will take.
Completely agreed, I think free will is a very powerful illusion, yet a logically incoherent concept no matter how people try to bend and shape it. Seems the only recourse is to redefine free will and play semantics games just to cling onto the belief that free will exists instead of simply admitting that free will is just an illusion.
@@johnchesterfield9726 See my response to the OP. There is nothing logically impossible about free will.
This does not make sense. You can decide how you will respond to any event regardless if it benefits or harms you. After you choose, you can experience the effect of your choice, reflect on it and choose otherwise if you will it so. Beliefs and desires do not determine anything, they merely influence your decision. You can still act apart from them. Nothing truly determines how you act, something may influence you and influence you strongly.. however you still have to choose to act. Your choice is not a matter of dice rolling, it is clearly a matter of will and agency. You only choose to pretend that it is otherwise in order to justify determinism.
@@macmac1022 Oh macmac... Your response only proves that you are very confused on the issue of free will.
"No, the thing doing the causing is the experiences and knowledge the person has." - No, Macmac, knowledge and experience does not cause a person to act. Knowledge and experience only influences/informs a persons decisions. In order for a person to act there needs to be volition of the will.
A person who knows what a Ferrari is does not automatically ask for one.
So no, it is not the knowledge and experience a person has that causes them to act, it is the agent who causes themselves to act through a volition of the will.
Please stop strawmanning my position.
"And you are neglecting the affects of everything has on that choice, aka, what determined you would make it." - No Macmac, I am not ignoring the things that AFFECT a persons choice, I am pointing out that it is the agent themselves who cause their decisions.
Of course there are things that AFFECT a persons decisions. But those things do not deterministically cause the agent to make a decision.
Again, stop strawmanning my position.
"Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God."
"Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise." - This is not what LFW is.
To say an agent has LFW is to say that the agent is the originator of their own decisions, that they cause their own decisions, that their decisions are not deterministically caused by something other than themselves.
"I am sorry but he refutation does crush it." - It very clearly doesn't. You haven't even responded to the free will position, you have simply misrepresented my position and then attacked your misrepresentation.
So maybe you could try accurately representing my position instead of strawmanning it? Is that really too much to ask?
"#1 If you were brainwashed would you know it?" - That depends on how I was brainwashed.
"#2 If someone said they had a test for brainwashing, would you want to take it? " - Probably not.
"#3 If they then said, if you cannot answer these questions, that means your brainwashed, would you be giving it 100% effort to answer those questions?" - No.
Your questions 4-8 have no relevance to the question of determinism.
If you can accurately represent my position and engage with it honestly, then after we are done of the above issues, ill answer these questions for you (I have actually answered similar questions presented by you before since you seem obsessed with copying and pasting the exact same comment through hundreds of different videos).
"Now why would I have those stats on these questions if it was not determinism of avoidance caused by the beliefs of christians and muslims?" - Those numbers don't show anything about whether people are determined lol.
"You did not refute anything he said." - Except... I did.
"Prove that your choices are purely made from no life experience you have had before, can you do that?" - Why in the world would I need to prove such a thing?
Do you seriously not even understand my position? Even after I laid it out so clearly and simply?
Come on Macmac, its time to switch on upstairs and start thinking!
I like 2/3rds of this review quite a lot, both the host and Josh provided a lot of interesting views on what is being discussed and I particularly enjoyed Josh's analysis on the fact that a lack of free will doesn't equal a lack of being able to lake choices. I however had to stop just after the hour mark, i'm not sure if it's a mismatch of preferred style of information delivery, but Michael Jones came off pretty condescending and actually made me come away thinking Alex's arguments have even more weight to them than before. Perhaps he clarifies with the other 2 later in a way that clears things up in a way I would understand, but I lost the desire to continue listening by that point. Maybe it's just me though.
Exactly, looks like he heard some dudes argument online (I read it, it isn't a rock solid argument at all) and already had the bias so he had no ability to intuit why Alex was saying what he was saying.
“Alex Jones came off pretty condescending actually”
“Alex’s O’Connor’s arguments have even more weight to them than they did before”
NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! Was that a “rational” claim or was it just “determined”?
Your actually claiming that Michael jones was “condescending” for strongly disagreeing with the idea that we don’t have freewill and choice right?
Your actually claiming it’s “condescending” to show disdain for the belief that child rapists and child murderers are not responsible or accountable for their actions because they don’t have freewill
or choice right? It’s “condescending” to strongly arguing against the idea that moral accountability and criminality is just “ILLUSORY” as we are all just completely determined machines right?
Glad we cleared that one up!!
Yeah makes great “sense” and perfectly “sane”. And they call other people deluded and “condescending”!!
You can’t live this out for a second. Sorry but there’s no such thing as “condescending” under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction as this requires freewill and a moral agents, that is a moral choice right? Why are you even whining about Michael Jones being “CONDESCENDING” when under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction Michael Jones is simply just doing what he is “DETERMINED” to do? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself.
Remember the good old days when thoughtful atheists, that is when “thoughtful” fatalists and “thoughtful” epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments [for] “MORAL” subjectivism and powerful and intelligent arguments [for] hard determinism???
NEITHER DO I!!
Interesting fact, “NEW ATHEISM” that is fatalism, hard determinism and epistemological nihilism is exactly like the old atheism if the old atheism was bitten by two infected bats called Darth Deterministic and DARTH PROFOUNDLY POINTLESS and got a over Zealous strain of RABIES!!
I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle2487 What in the world? Are you okay man? I was commenting about how I didn't like his style of Rhetoric and that his style of discussion left me feeling like Alex knew what he was talking about more. None of that has anything to do with who is actually right and who actually knows more.
@@shinyrainbowumbreon5156
“What in the world? Are you okay man? I was commenting about how I didn't like his style of Rhetoric and that his style of discussion left me feeling like Alex knew what he was talking about more”
“None of that has anything to do with who is actually right and who actually knows more.”
Smokescreen!! Sorry but I’m actually British buddy and the British aren’t so easily manipulated and so easily impressed by condescending elite Oxford graduate accents telling us they don’t have freewill and choice so apparently they are are not even responsible or accountable for their own actions? This has parallels with social Darwinism and social engineering which has historically been used to justify all kinds of atrocities. “Sorry your honour but I couldn’t help myself I had no freewill and choice I was just determined to do it”
Of course the elites and the powerful want to get rid of all moral accountability and all moral responsibility by pretending they don’t have a freewill and choice. The fact is that no matter how much philosophical word salad you use it’s still nothing more substantive than sophistry that they learned from their buddies at Oxford and Cambridge. We are only scratching the surface of what secretly goes on in the halls of power, especially with the Jeffery Epstein case and prince Andrew and Jimmy Saville etc!!
Imagine what would happen if these evil and depraved bar stewards convinced everyone that they never had freewill and choice when they purposely abused children? Wake up!! Can’t you see that we are a being cleverly groomed for the next wave of insanity and depravity? It’s no coincidence that this is coming out of Oxford!!
Furthermore, in no way whatsoever was inspiring philosophy “condescending” just because he referenced the scientific data and had a bit of banter with the other two guests. You’ve totally mischaracterised him. What was your point again about rhetoric and being “CONDESCENDING”?
By sheer coincidence I’ve actually got two new brands of pen right here on my desk which i use for writing down ultimately meaningless and ultimately purposeless comments a [Darth Dawkins pen] and a [shinyrainbowumbreon pen] they’ve got no POINT!!
This is why it’s called self - control. The self- YOU - control you.
And why is it framed like this? Either YOU are determined or you’re random. It seems intuitively ridiculous, because it is ignoring the entire point of self- which is only consistent for the materialist. Self is able to chose/ determine.
31:12 you got there. Thank you!
This is the same kind of logic as "The use of God Damn proves God is real because why would we say goddamn otherwise????"
history
@@HJM0409It's framed this way for practicality. Doesn't matter if it is true, practically speaking, the idea of holding oneself accountable can absolutely be useful even if ultimately that's not a thing. We simply do not know HOW one's actions are determined/random even though they may very well ben, and very often this serves to grant the illusion that we have some control over it. I kind of like compare it to optical illusions- the very fact that you know it is an illusion doesn't- and very often can't- stop you from experiencing it.
"This is why it’s called self - control. The self- YOU - control you." The question is of "control". Is it controlled if determined or random. Neither works. If it is the "self" that has deterministic control, you can ask is the "self" determined or not determined (random)? Same problem.
1:12:00 so you’re saying god isn’t above time?
Damn Josh is just such a likable lad
The problem with the argument saying that God permits lesser evils because he knows the people won't completely refrain from the greater evil is that there are so many examples where a people are acting contrary to God's word and the response is not "oh, let them have this sin over here so they won't do the worse thing", but literally kills everyone in the city. Or world, if we are talking about Noah. His answer to wide-spread terrible sin is more often genocide rather than allowing slavery or other abominations. Romans 6:23 "For God shows no partiality." He's just rather inconsistent on the subject of how to deal with sin, at least during this life.
Also, to say that, in order to lead the slave owner away from sin, the innocent slaves or specifically virgins or some other group can suffer at their hands under the permission of God seems bass ackwards in my opinion.
Am I missing something here? If we are, at least in part, our soul, then we are at least in part in control.
Alex said, Is the soul determined or not determined (random)? "we are at least in part in control" is that partial control deterministic or not deterministic? Reasons plus random chance does not help, because any choice could be random.
Most people have the subjective experience of having some control that refutes that nonsense. Also random and determined (in his peculiar use of meaning the absence of free choice) is a false dichotomy. The issue is that this experience of having some control is about a mental state so we cannot easily share it. Though it is true some people are not very self aware or have a weak sense of self, so much so they are unable to notice they are at the very least partly in control. Nevertheless, we should not indulge false statements on the basis they are plausible sounding when we have strong contrary evidence be it subjective ones.
@@dedalesigma6755 "Nevertheless, we should not indulge false statements on the basis they are plausible sounding when we have strong contrary evidence be it subjective ones." I have a strong subjective feeling the wood in my desk has no space in it, yet science shows the wood is mostly empty space. There are thousands of examples of this. People had a strong subjective experience the sun went around the earth, people had strong subjective experience evil spirits made them sick, etc. Let's not discount logical arguments so quickly on the basis of strong subjective experience?
The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)
Isn’t sounds like a free will. So we get it when we born of the Spirit.
My argument is there is nothing that's purely random.
I see your point. It could be the case random events occur (truely random with no explanation - ot just those with explanations we haven’t figured out) but it could also be the case that we don’t know how to explain some phenomena like quantum randomness enough to know how it works and thus we say it’s random. It’s an interesting topic.
Cameron's take on free will is so-called epistemic indeterminism. We cannot but live everyday lives according to the belief that there exists free will. Which says nothing about whether or not it actually does exist at all. The cited Peter Van Inwagen is an incompatibilist, i.e. he sees determinism and free will to be incompatible. Which by his line of reasoning Alex O'Connor assumes as well. So that doesn't solve the issue either. Harry G. Frankfurt does offer a philosophical solution by applying the "principle of alternate possibilities" (pap). This semi compatibilist argument can also be coupled with the Molinist idea that God has "middle knowledge", i.e. he does not need to know everything in a chronologically perfect order like memorizing every frame of a movie , instead, he only needs to know the starting conditions, the constraints and laws/ principles of reality to know (basically 100 percent prediction rate) what will happen. But baked into all of this is the assumption of time being fundamental. The laws of physics also work counterclockwise in principle. But the time arrow supposedly points only in one direction (entropy, you can't unbreak an egg). Now there's a lot of debate about the JWST imaging recently that seems to get cosmology into trouble because, well, cosmic expansion (a predicament of time and space) maybe doesn't fit as well to explaining the creation of the universe as commonly held. And to make things really fun, Lee Cronin's assembly theory suggests that backward in time determinism holds true, but that the future is fundamentally undetermined. In a nutshell, it's still an open debate whethere the universe is completely determined, whether time and space necessarily are the fundamental building blocks of reality, and even if so, whether a determinist universe would be completely incompatible with free will. So all sides of the debate can relax, maybe it's just like Peter Van Inwagen says, "free will remains a mystery".
1:48:07 to 1:50:00 - Great illustration of orcs and children.
So God sent plagues upon Egypt to end the slavery OF the Israelites, but not to end the slavery imposed BY the Israelites on others because the Egyptians were more open to it but the Israelites were not?
No wonder Theists cant move past (BUT you cant prove my God doesnt exist so I win)
Joshs "Bayesians argument" feels like (but you cant take my God off the table) because we cannot exclude positively "a GOD" also we cannot exclude the " Sphageeti monster", Josh was explained this when he had a conversation with Tjump previously.
And really the question is uninteresting
Exploring Reality had a better review imo. Much funnier
It was over the moment Shapiro fell back on “I don’t have to explain my position because god works in mysterious ways” after intentionally sidestepping that at the beginning of the debate.
It’s just so circular and nonsensical, I know Alex is much more used to philosophical debates (obviously lol), and I do think Shapiro was at his best here, but I still think Ben got kind of rolled on numerous instances. Why would you ever place stock in a position that allows for a logical “escape hatch” in which you do not have to actually confront your own beliefs?
He does not need to prove his belief are valid to make his case. So you are correct in asserting he is indeed deflecting, at the same time Alex is going on a tangent so he is not owed an answer. There is simply not enough time to consider Judaism as a whole in a debate format.
There are so many religions, with various beliefs, how can they debate this logically. The debate should have just been Christianity since that is really the only religion Alex usually discusses.
It's not his interlocutor's religion...
Do believers see it as a red flag that their side isn't laser-focused on _"is it true?"_ If we had reasonable evidence of a god, why would anyone _ever_ evade off topic to mention the _utility_ of the idea? Just by doing that, believers are telling us this isn't an idea worth believing.
20:21 that's a reasonable question, because when we call dice "random" what we actually mean is "unpredictable": a human cannot accurately predict hand-thrown dice at the moment they leave the hand. But the event itself is deterministic (the dice obey the laws of physics, and therefore if you had an advanced computer with accurate info on the trajectory, speed, the materials of the surface/dice, then you _could_ guess the outcome; because it's deterministic.
By contrast, non-determinism is _True Randomness._ You toss the dice and the universe implodes. You toss them again and they become a pair of ducks. Total True Randomness. A level of randomness way beyond anything we call "random". So it's actually a meaningfully different concept and it'd be great if we ended up coining a word/phrase for this sort of True Randomness. That's why Cameron's question of not knowing what it means is completely reasonable, because it's really just a staggeringly different idea than mere normal randomness.
But you can see how in the non-deterministic scenarios where dice are becoming an ocean of water, three small moons, or a tomato seed, that clearly nobody could possibly exert meaningful control in that situation.
Granted even my analogies fall short, because non-determinism means the effect isn't tied to a cause at all. So you don't even throw the dice. The pair of ducks just appears. Either way, clearly no intentional control is possible in a non-deterministic reality because effects are completely disconnected from causes (and this includes every conceivable way this might happen; like maybe no effects ever happen, or maybe they're the Truly Random examples I've gave (which honestly aren't as random as True Randomness would be).
55:08 - Michael says that it depends on the type of religion would have a god kill others and points to Jesus, conveniently totally forgetting about anything in the OT where god commands his people to go and kill. 🤷🏼♂️
Don't read the Bible like a fundamentalist, that is not how you study it. You should know that some of the things attributed to God in the old testament are merely nationalistic sentiments and misconceptions of the authors. Though divinely inspired, the authors still have their own biases, you are not reading the word of God unmediated. So take into account that humans are not exactly trustworthy as evidenced by the very narrative of the Bible, though the authors are trying to be truthful they are still writing the text from their limited point of view and using multiple literary genra. God is vindicated trough time as each book is a piece of a puzzle and helps understand what the character of God is really like. When you piece it out, you learn that God is gentle, faithful, and loving. And it's not like the authors were colluding to portray him as such, if you take the books individually some authors don't hesitate to malign God to further their goals, but the good character of God is what transpires from the many texts. The beauty of the Bible is in the multiple cross-references, that are a careful knitting many narratives to arrive to the truth that is the word of God.
I think that a talk between Michael Jones and Jordan Peterson would be very interesting. They can express their views on religion, and actually discuss why they have them.
Peterson is an idiot and a grifter.
Agreed !
John 8
“35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”
Could it be that as long as we slaves of sin we don’t have a free will, it only given to us by Jesus through faith in Him.
God makes us slaves of sin with no free will, then gives some of us free will through Jesus? Does that sound manipulative to you? Additionally, any sin you may ever do is determined because you have no free will. Why would God blame people with no free will? Why would God blame Adam and Eve if they had no free will?
@@gabrielteo3636 Adam and Eve had free will and freely chose to rebel against God and lost free will in the process (became slaves of sin).
God offered a cure, free gift by sending His son to die on a cross for our sins.
@@eugenehvorostyanov2409 God's punishment is to remove free will from A and E and their descendents and blame the children for not having free will. How can a person who has no free will choose to freely accept the gift? They cannot, because they have no free will. It doesn't matter how many sons he sends to get crucified. God's son died on the cross for the sins we had no free will not to commit? If God's son was fully man, then why was not Jesus a slave to sin with no free will?
@@gabrielteo3636 But the Son sent Holy Spirit and by His works in us we can freely accept or reject God’s offer.
@@gabrielteo3636 Its not through God’s punishment as such it’s through man rebellion we lost Eden.
I didn't understand their objection to Alex's free will argument. If you say the self is self determining, then I don't understand what is the self. The self is not the reasons like the biology or the experience or wants or intuitions or anything else I can think of. It was said we are our own first mover regardless of any reasons besides the self. I don't know what that is. It seems to be a black box that just chooses things regardless of any other reason besides the self. To me that is like a bind man in a dark room throwing darts at a dartboard that isn't there and claiming he hit a bullseye. In conclusion, the self is reduced to nothing if you subtract out reasons, because reasons are not the self.
If you don’t understand what the self is, then ask who wrote the post above. If that doesn’t work, you should get help. By stating that all actions are either determined or random, Alex merely defines free will out of existence since no concept of free will can fit into either category. In that way, he is using circular reasoning. It is a false dichotomy - or if true, no work whatsoever is done on Alex’s part to show it
The self is the being that evaluates the reasons and makes choices based on but not causally determined by those reasons.
@@TGoodie1717 It seems in the free will debate, the self makes choices regardless of ANY reason but the self. I don't understand what the self is under this conception. I understand what the self is in determinism, but not under LFW. In LFW, I'm just writing this exact sentence and I don't really understand why I didn't just choose to write a different sentence. In LFW I'm just choosing reasons regardless of reasons, but I could just choose other reasons regardless of reasons. This is just a mess. Ben said it best. He has no idea how LFW works.
@@travispelletier3352 "The self is the being that evaluates the reasons and makes choices based on but not causally determined by those reasons." ...but why does the self evaluate some reasons higher than others? Then ask why again.....
@@TGoodie1717 this is genuinely an incredibly dumb objection
first off, definitions of "the self" SHOULDN'T make sense to you. Try to define rigorously what the self is. This is a question that has stumped philosophers for literally all of human history. The second you start thinking about it, it suddenly becomes much, much messier than it intuitively seems like it should be. The "If you don't understand what the self is" rhetoric is basically just anti-intellectualism. "If you don't know what the self is" you're in very good philosophical company, I would say.
There's NOTHING circular about Alex's argument. It literally doesn't fit the definition of a circular argument at all. You just discarded the categories he's using them because you dislike them. What actions are NOT determined or undetermined? What actions are not A or not A? You're just arguing against the excluded middle here. Good luck.
I am an atheist, who actually recognizes a lot of his own philosophies in the similar philosophies that Alex has. Yet I'm still very intrigued to hear what other people have to say, and I do not mind organize discussions around intellectual thought. I might disagree with you guys but there is no disdain here. I will leave some thoughts below.
40:03 With secularization only really becoming a major idea in the past 300 years, since the Enlightenment period, it is true that we simply do not have enough empirical data- but I think there is a larger problem. The crux of my concern lies not in the potential benefits religion may offer to society, but rather in the assumption that nihilism entails detrimental effects. Many mistakenly equate atheism with nihilism, which is inaccurate, and view nihilism as inherently negative, which is equally unfounded. Ben's inability to grasp nihilism stems from his religious perspective, predisposing him to perceive it negatively. However, the absence of absolute control over our circumstances through free will doesn't necessarily dictate a shift in our actions; rather, it may alter our motivations. While some individuals might succumb to lethargy in a world devoid of inherent meaning, others may still strive to advance society out of a desire for the betterment and comfort of future generations-an inclination supported by principles in evolutionary biology.
42:40 Can please provide some ethos here. I would love to delve into these studies. It is also important you know the controls of the study, and share them with the audience. I am not saying you are lying, but you are being too vague.
50:10 Right. Haha. Improving language, learning speed and intensity of volume, etc. These skills are hard to master.
51:00 Emotivism is more of a "philosophy of language" (as Alex puts it) delineates the nature of ethical statements as expressions of subjective emotions rather than objective truths. Rooted in the works of philosophers such as A.J. Ayer and Charles Stevenson, emotivism posits that moral judgments lack cognitive content and instead serve as mere reflections of the speaker's sentiments or attitudes. In essence, ethical assertions, according to emotivism, function as emotive expressions aimed at evoking specific emotional responses or influencing others' behavior, rather than conveying factual information about moral reality.
52:15 An excellent argument against emotivism. I would not consider myself to be an emotivism "believer", even if parts of the philosophy are indeed curious. There does seem to be wrongs that are so ubiquitous that they seem to find themselves outside emotional expressions- ideas such as incest, baby murder, animal torture, etc. However, while the utility of these actions could be explained through evolutionary purposes, there are much more reasonable theories (at least for me).
54:35 Yeah, I mean, if you are working off of the presupposition that objective morality exists, then the idea of the ideal agent is a solid one. I simply do not support the premise. I think the development of socialization over time based on influences of evolution, natural selection, sociological construction of social animals, etc. could all play more definitive roles in aspiring influence in how we perceive our behavior.
56:35 If you could elaborate on this point, that would be great.
57:23 The first premise assumes the existence of a moral reality without providing evidence or justification for this claim. While many philosophical and ethical frameworks posit the existence of objective moral truths, this assumption is not universally accepted and is subject to considerable debate within moral philosophy. Without demonstrating the existence of moral reality, the argument's foundation is weak. You also failed to specify on any criteria as to why a moral reality is "more likely". Therefore, the proposition is a non-sequitur and fails. I would provide more construction for each premise than what you had initially done, at least to present the argument in a way that could be considered logical, even if it is still debated.
1:08:40 I mean, yes, Christianity influenced the foundations of Western Society, but that does not mean that it influenced the Enlightenment ideas...
1:09:18 You do not get to cherry-pick scripture to support your argument. The Bible is very clear where it stood on such issues, and examining suggestive passages is not helpful when explicit verses, such as those in 1 Timothy, are much more direct.
1:11:00 That is not true. The Church was not merely tolerated by monarchs; it played a central role in shaping the political landscape and governance structures of the era. Monarchs often sought the Church's approval and support to legitimize their rule, and ecclesiastical authorities held considerable sway over matters such as taxation, law, education, and even the appointment of rulers through the practice of investiture. A great example is The Investiture Controversy in the twelfth Century. The Investiture Controversy was a prolonged conflict between the papacy and secular rulers, particularly the Holy Roman Emperor, over the appointment of bishops and abbots. One of the most famous episodes occurred between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV. Gregory sought to assert papal authority by prohibiting lay investiture, the practice of secular rulers appointing church officials. This led to a confrontation between the two, culminating in Henry's excommunication and subsequent humiliation at Canossa in 1077, where he sought forgiveness from the pope. Also, mustn't I mention the Crusades here. The First Crusade, launched in 1095, saw not only the sanction, but indeed the participation of European monarchs, nobles, and knights who were motivated by religious zeal and the promise of spiritual rewards. The Crusades served to strengthen the authority of the Church, mobilize resources, and foster a sense of religious unity among European Christians. Again, you cannot cherry-pick historical events.
1:13:30 Again, this is 1. An oversimplification of historical events and 2. largely inaccurate. Galileo's heliocentric model challenged the geocentric cosmology endorsed by the Church, which was based on Aristotelian and Ptolemaic principles. The Church viewed the heliocentric theory as potentially contradicting certain biblical passages and theological doctrines, particularly regarding the immutability of the Earth and the centrality of humanity in the universe. Galileo's insistence on the truth of the heliocentric model, rather than presenting it as a mathematical hypothesis, exacerbated tensions with ecclesiastical authorities. He was persecuted by the Inquisition for proposing different ideas, and the Catholic Church even apologized for this error in 1992.
1:15:37 That is misinformation. Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, etc.
1:17:25"is because of the bible" A lot of issues here.
1. The Bible supported slavery, and as Alex later says, permitted a flat immorality. Therefore, it caused slavery to last a great deal of time. Heck, slave owners in the Antebellum South used the Bible as a source for protecting slaves. Thus, even if it was a cause of its end, at best you can say it contributed to both slavery and anti-slavery, which would point to requiring something else to causing the Antebellum Period to end.
2. Refusing to even acknowledge economic changes (Industrialization and the rise of Capitalism), Enlightenment ideas (which were heavily inspired by early secular thought), and political motivations is jarring to me. What about Liberalism? Humanism?
1:28:40 Moral Relativism is not a good argument when defending an objective being. The whole "leading away slowly" idea is unconvincing to me. Also, God outlawed common practices like witchcraft at the time... so why couldn't he outlaw other practices. A much more realistic recognition is... "well, these arguments were written in an era where slavery was allowed and so it was regulated, but now it is not" which of course, destroys "God's" objectivity and theism all together.
1:29:05 And what about the slaves in the meantime, the thousands upon thousands of "souls" subjugated to slavery during the thousands of years it took to get rid of it. Again, the argument feels weak.
1:34:35 No, not really. A scientific truth and an "objective" moral "truth" are two separate things. One will effect people more than the other. That is like saying, "God not revealing how stars are formed is the same thing as God not revealing that beating your slave with a rod is wrong." Foolish false equivalence.
1:41:40 Alex already explained the issue with "proactive morality" and I need not explain further. I do not know why they are still insisting this, it truly baffles me. I find the podium of proactive morality an excuse to explain away thousands of years of immoralities.
1:47:00 So, basically, you think that morality can be upgraded over time with human progress. A secular position, one that needs no room for any god.
Very informative, thanks for sharing!
I'll only respond to the Galileo part for now which I'm more familiar with, though I might come back to the rest. When the Copernican model first came out, it generated a lot of interest in Rome and there was no overwhelming majority consensus. There were scientists on both sides and theologians on both sides. Pope Clement VII was fascinated by the model and invited the German scholar Widmanstadt to give him a personal series of lectures. Many of Galileo's staunchest patrons were Catholic clergy and he was good friends with Pope Urban VIII before they fell out. The idea that the Church was super scared of the implications of heliocentrism on their religion is nothing but a myth, especially when allegorical interpretations of certain parts of Scripture existed long before Copernicus, and the Church has long accepted reason as compatible with faith since the times of Anselm and Aquinas.
The Church eventually restricted the teaching of heliocentrism as fact because of scientific problems with the model that the likes of Galileo failed to resolve, and also partly due to Protestant pressure. I'm glad you acknowledged that Galileo was also trying to argue for heliocentrism theologically rather than scientifically, because that was the main reason he got into trouble. Not that the Church opposed science, but that the Church opposed personal interpretation of Scripture, being fresh from the wounds of the Reformation.
The final nail in the coffin was when Galileo wrote a book calling the Pope a simpleton after promising to write an unbiased work. By our modern sensibilities, of course Galileo should not have been punished for what was essentially free speech, but to paint him as some martyr is nonsensical when he was treated exceptionally well and was an esteemed guest of many nobles in Rome during it. The showing of torture instruments was standard procedure, but he was at no risk of torture at any point due to his clerical status and age. The final sentence of house arrest as a punishment was actually unexpectedly harsh to Galileo who was expecting a lot less.
So I don't think it's unreasonable to completely dismiss the whole Galileo affair as having anything to do with this supposed conflict between religion and science, which was simply non-existent in this event. Once again, was it wrong that Galileo was persecuted for what was essentially free speech? Undoubtedly, and the Church apologised as a result. What I am saying is that it had nothing to do with suppressing science whatsoever.
P.S. Regarding Giordano Bruno, the reason he was executed was because of holding heretical beliefs on things like the Trinity and the Incarnation, which was of course despicable but it had nothing to do with being a martyr for science.
@@amu7379I understand that there is more nuanced to Galileo's story then what is commonly discussed, however I don't understand how any of those nuances derail the initial narrative. Instead, it just seems like you made a more detailed argument in my defense. Because in this case the pope was wrong and he was a simpleton, and just because Galileo used a scientific foundation for that doesn't mean that his persecution wasn't on a religious science conflict
@@JNB0723 Hindsight is 20/20 but Galileo did not have the scientific backing for his theories to win over the scientific community at the time, and resistance (and also support) towards geocentrism was both scientific and theological. He failed to solve problems with his model like the lack of stellar parallax and Earth's inertia and had ideas even wild for his time like claiming Earth's tides were caused by its movements. Yet he arrogantly insulted everyone he disagreed with him and demanded the Church change their theology over an unproven theory.
Alex went off the topic but ben did not held is tail to stick to the topic..he brought up slavery,he himself is a slave of the government...
Virtually everyone who considers himself an intelligent free thinker will talk about how they must be allowed to understand a topic, why it is as it is, and not just given the bare fact or told "because I said so." Somehow atheists like O'Connor abandon this principle when discussing God and progressive revelation. Well, God should have just stepped in and intervened against all evil. He should have just stopped it, or forbidden it. As Josh and Michael point out, though, experience is, itself, part of the necessary development of people. Yes, God could have eliminated the chattel slavery that presented itself in the U.S., but it is seeing the fruit of that policy that shows people just how valuable freedom is. He could have stopped Communism in Russia before it got off the ground, but people have, if they are not to be automatons who do not really think and really love, must live through and see why certain actions are bad.
Ill just say this from a mind that is simple. Now dont get me wrong, im not stupid. But i think a consensus argument can be valid from a theistic framework. There is an outward cause that guides the consensus of people to a conclusion of self realization. I dont see that as deterministic. I see that as free. Why? Because the person can choose wether to believe that or not. I dont think someone needs to be well eductaed or a genius to fugure out the fundamental questions being asked, and I think thats quite evident. I think a person however needs to be well informed in order to know there is good reason to believe what they believe or disbelieve. That's what I think.
Is Alex's objection to free will that everything is determined by something? If we follow the causal chain we must reach a point where everything began. That point must be self determining. Either that or the causal chain is infinite and there is no determiner of this chain. Maybe he would say that the beginning point started randomly. But why?
He could go circularity on it and say it circles back on itself. He could just take a dogmatic view and say the first cause is a non-random event. He could just say, "I don't know if the chain has a start or what is at the start". I think Alex is working off empiricism here for his view.
I think a beginning is problematic, because you have to wonder how anything began happening where once everything was inert/inactive. The issue remains if a creator entity is assumed.
I think Alex thinks there is an eternal foundation of reality where all causal chains start and there is no more explanation or "why" questions, but to start a new independent causal chain at contingent beings seems wrong - or - the beings would choose things randomly or partially random if they are the source of a new independent causal chain.
@@wet-read The issue is solved by having a creator with free will, since a creator with free will can spontaneously initiate a new effect without any prior determining causes.
Without free will you are left with only two options:
1) An infinite regress of causes.
2) A spontaneous beginning without a cause.
Both of which are extremely problematic.
@@jackplumbridge2704
But a reason to create as opposed to not creating requires a cause, even if it is completely internal. A change, something to make the creator wish to create as opposed to continue without creating.
Why did the creator choose to create? And why did It do so in the manner It did? If the creator is entirely self sufficient and perfect unto itself, nothing would be added by deciding to create as opposed to not creating.
People are forced to think and do what their type of genetics and their types of life experiences force them to think and do throughout their life.
Who and how someone happens to be is an extremely unfair unjust lottery that is dependent on what type of genetics that they happen to have and depending on what types of life experiences that they happen to have throughout their life and the only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible.
Superwordy, but exactly right.
It is evil for a god or for anyone else to force people or any other life form into the type of existence will they will suffer against their will and oftentimes suffer horribly against their will because they might not want to suffer against their will at all and that's why it's evil to force anyone into existence.
1:48:17 _"If we're being honest we are most like the Orcs"_
I really liked the middle earth analogy. But do you really think the only difference between orcs and elves is _"free agency"_ ? Elves have free will don't they ? So why didn't god create elves directly ?
Josh responds :
1:52:11 _"I'll voluntarily limit my my powers and my attention to shapes on a screen to play a video game in order to experience the gamification of making progress and it's like well you know why are you limiting your powers like that well I guess because I'm trying to access some experiences in states of limitation that are accessed precisely because those limitation give the possibility of certain ladders of progress which I think are valuable"_
That would be a good response if god were unable to create the end stage straight away, but isn't god omnipotent ? Isn't the whole point that god is pure act, and precisely require no potential (or has already accomplished all potential according to its telos), and therefore no _"progress"_ ?
alex o connor is like a stone in my shoe i cant deal with how smug he is