Hitch focuses on children to answer the question, "is morality innate?" Sourced from Hitch's talk at the 'Festival of Dangerous Ideas' at the Sydney Opera House, October 2009. Full video: • Christopher Hitchens a...
Fuck I miss him. It's simple yet underwhelming. We're animals. Our moralities are based on our species' survival. Nothing more but nothing less either. Combine that aspect with our vivid imaginations and presto! Religions are invented.
Species' survival is about preserving oneself, so you don't care about others. How could the moral standards we have now, come from such a selfish start?
@@ujwh2498 to an extent, but only because they want to have a preservation of offspring to carry on their lineage. This model just shows how selfish we are
Morality is what is "good" and what is "bad". Something that you should or shouldn't do regardless of how much you want to do it. Saying "it's for species survival" isn't a reason to do something regardless of how much you don't want to do it, because this "reason" doesn't apply to someone who wants to work against this supposed "survival of species" Furthermore, your principle (which is subjective and arbitrary) can be used to justify killing a man walking down the street and then taking his belongings as this would help with "survival" (you have more resources and less competition). You're either not fine with this (and therefore not consistent with your principle) or you are fine with this *With atheism there is no objective morality*
Or....he didn't. No-one knows if they are right about what happens after death until they die. Of course, once you die, No-one knows if you were right.
Its very interesting that he used the example of care for children. Our society now believes in gender affirming care, which involves the mutilation of children. Funnily its spoken of from a moral high ground. So you tell me whether morality is innate or dependant on your society. Maybe there is a utility in religion ...
Wokism is a religion in itself. Well, maybe not technically speaking. But it definitely is an ideology. And ideologies are not compatible with reality.
First example: he brings a case of a someone doing something horrible and says that we wouldn't do that, completely has ignored the fact that someone has done this horrible thing that no one supposedly does and does not explain why its "horrible" in the realm outside of religion. Then says its self evident why we wouldn't do the same thing. that's an appeal to self evidence (aka logical fallacy)
@@downey2294 does religion such as Christianity lead people into doing bad things or do people within the religion lead people into doing bad things? Just because a Christian does something bad doesn’t mean the religion told them to do that.
@@downey2294 But that makes the argument for religions Objective morality claim to be meaningless as it's all down to subjective interpretation anyway. The point is that Religion has caused and justified many acts throughout history that people these days claim atheists would do because we lack some 'objective' morality that constantly god damn changes anyway. Killing the 'infidel' was often considered an act of duty, not murder. Bible and Quran say not to murder, but killing for the righteous cause is not murder but duty and is for the good of humanity. Is being gay morally wrong? What about abortions? Eating pig or cow? How about drinking alcohol? Showing too much skin? What does your OBJECTIVE morality tell everyone in the world to do? And more importantly which religion owns the truth?
@@millennial_falcon2240 - Not sure I have an example. I’m saying that the notion that we’re moral creatures because of self-preservation and the avoidance of discomfort, is insufficient in justifying morality. The aversion to pain does not speak to right and wrong. It only speaks to pain or the benefits of not feeling it.
@@NCC2087 I believe right and wrong are subjective and made up terms. There are no right and wrong actions in the universe, only actions. Why aren’t we all Neanderthals walking around killing each other and taking what we want? Because we know there will be consequences, not because it’s “right or wrong.” Just my opinion
What is the right thing to do ? And what will be the purpose of doing this "right" thing if there were no consequences attached ? I really do want answers, besides getting "of course it is what it is without religions whatsoever" being a critical thinker that should cross your mind as well.
@Stephen Ritger Because when they tell us Christians why we believe in God, they will mention 1. a desire for gain (heaven) and/or 2. fear of hell. Never do they consider love as a reason, which by the way is the true reason.
@@matthewtenney2898 A compulsory love that states you must love a raving narcissist who proclaimed himself a God in the first century more than your family, friends, and spouse. And if you don't, you go to hell.
i don't quite understand what he is trying to say. is he saying our morality does not come from religion because religion makes people do things that he considers to be bad? doesn't that just mean morality is inherited from people their environments belief system. but that would mean that for some people, religion is the source of their morality. and therefore religion would play a large role in morality. but on the other hand if he is saying that morality is just a natural part of human nature and we just have it. then why would religion make people do "bad" things. it would go directly against our human instincts. it doesn't make sense. he also doesn't say a great deal about where the source of our morality comes from. which to me, would seem like the ultimate way to disprove that morality comes from religion.
dutch and you sir have won the Internet for today. Exactly. These bottom level atheist do not think critically. They find the simples thing they can cling to and run without thinking deeply. The world needs more people like you. God bless
let me help you out: 1)through religion any action can be deemed as moral or immoral without the consideration of human emotions, for example, the bible condones slavery, but it would be immoral as treating another human as inferior is wrong. refer to the last point for where morality comes from. 2)yes religion does play a large part in morality. in both positive and negative ways, just compare some middle eastern country to someplace like Finland, clearly its effects are drastic. Finland being irreligious and most of middle eastern countries being extremely religious. so religion isn't always a good thing per se. 3)yes, in the first and second point explains so. before regarding an action as moral or immoral the said action must be analyzed first, to make sure that the reactions are not negative. religions are an ideology of one or few people, hence they are not very reliable. by civilized debate and embracing our human emotions we can clarify and classify any action. 4)the source of our molarity is through innate human nature and emotions. we are social creatures and we depend on our high intelligence and social skills in order to protect ourselves. this nature has carried through since the ice age and before. we cooperate with each other for our collective growth. questions?
@@adamthearmadillo8894 why does religion make us do "immoral" things if morality is innate to us? what dictates what is immoral and what is immoral. even if reactions are "negative" some people might still consider something to be moral or immoral. regardless of religion. also who or what dictates when a reaction is "negative" is morality subjective or is it objective. and why.
@@downey2294 that indeed is a very sticky question that ethics professors have pondered for a long time. when religion classifies something as moral, which in present day can be immoral, its beliefs start to deteriorate. this happens as the religion is usually independent of the common community and its morality is determined by a small group of people or sometimes just one man. this leads to inevitable mistakes as without having the perspective of both sides of the action, the result may inherently be biased. the reason why some people might consider a reaction to be negative s when it negatively affects them. for example, same sex marriage, which is yet illegal in many countries. as a wise man once said "god didn't create love to make more generations, but to bring people closer together". the 'who' is no one but us. we sit down, and talk with each other, trying to include the perspectives of people from all sides. by doing this we are triggering our innate response for empathy, nd thus reach a compromise, so that everyone benefits from the decision, or at the very least, it doesn't harm the other. this process was very rare back in the middle ages, and as soon as the 1800's were slavery was common. its not a prefect process, as it takes time and effort, but its better than sitting and doing nothing. this eliminates the need of a religious belief, and helps in clearer more rational thinking. which brings us to your last question- is it objective or subjective? truth is, no-one has a clear cut answer. I believe it could be a mixture of both. our emotions of empathy and compassion can be explained through science quite easily, however from a philosophical or even a religious standpoint, they could be regarded as of divine nature, and put there by an intelligent being. this is acceptable as, most cannot relate to scientific reasoning, but the idea of a god can provide them width a much easier explanation, that they are put there for a purpose, which is completely fine and understandable, unless of course, radicalistic ideas evolve out of it. but, in a way, the decision also lies with us, as an individual, and a community and as a species. we communicate and find a common goal, we establish laws after furious debates, we respect and cherish are loved ones, and sometimes that helpful stranger we might meet in the subway. these are our decisions that we choose to make when we do something good or bad, knowingly or unknowingly. in this nature of our common body and mind, lies our true humanity. you can find survival journals and papers from philosophy teachers and ethical experts on the internet to understand more about our morality, because frankly its gong to take ages, and this comment is long enough already. Questions?
Morality comes from culture and our essential humanities and our intellectual state of various philosophical and empirical discourses. We don’t need religion to produce morality.
@@dean8642 Culture and essential humanities existed before religion, and there are plenty of philosophical and empirical discourses that did not come about through religion. For example, the Renassiance period of the Enlightenment Era featured an entirely secular movement spreading secular ideas and philosophies.
You have not explained morality here at all. All you did, with a bunch of fancy vocabulary, is say, “We’re evolved creatures that just KNOW.” If all that exists is the material world, than there is no right or wrong.
the definition of religion is what you act out. how you act in the world is your religion. if u believe throwing rocks 24 hours a day at a wall is worthwhile and you act that out in union with your beliefs. that is your religion. therefore everyone is religious. by definition.
Then it’s exactly that “instinct” it’s something animalistic and evolved into us. To save a child if it’s not our is not moral at all but a random instinctual evolutionary trait hardwired in our minds. It’s not moral at all it’s just instinct.
I arrived here by following the link from CosmicSkeptic video, The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens , ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fopo9E7UAVQ.html As pointed out in that video, Hitchens doesn't answer the question that needs to be answered. Of course, many people answer the question in slightly different forms. The question that is a real challenge for the atheist or maybe more specifically (although I'm not sure where the difference lies, if there is one) the materialist is, what would ground a objective morality? If all that exist is atoms and their constituent parts, there is no external 'ought' or 'ought not'. The atheist is often (but not quite always) quick to smuggle in some unsupported foundation. For example they might choose to say that it is obvious what actions lead to human flourishing. But there is no way that materialism (atoms are all that exist) can give any support to the idea that human flourishing is something that one 'ought' to value. I am very sure that Hitch knew what he was required to answer. He didn't have the courage to answer before a large audience what the only answer can be for the materialist. That answer is that a morality that is compulsory on all can in no way be construed from materialism. Here are a few atheists that at least on occasion answered this question without obfuscating. Michael Ruse, a noted philosopher of science, explains, "The position of the modern evolutionist is that morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when someone says, 'love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory." A theist’s moral epistemology need not differ broadly from the humanist’s own moral epistemology. Epistemological objections are thus red herrings which need not detain us. I’m contending that theism is necessary that there might be moral goods and duties, not that we might discern the moral goods and duties that there are. As Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation (if they really exist). If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?” William Lane Craig The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me…. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of fact, will not take you to morality. Kai Nielsen
It's all actually rather simple. Humans are social creatures, we evolved to live and die off of the backs of our 'tribe'. We hunted as a group, foraged as a group and lived together as a group for almost all of our history as sentient animals. It's easy to tie the success of the group to the success of the tribe, if the tribe can survive you are also more likely to survive. If you allow members of the tribe to freely murder other members then the safety of any member of the tribe is at risk. Therefore, the best way to ensure individual safety is to ensure societal safety. It doesn't require any great purpose or deep beliefs. The value in morality is in the stability and safety it creates for the individual. That is a far more stable basis for morality than the ever changing interpretations of a religious dogma. Religion has been used to justify a multitude of immoral and vile acts, has been the driving force behind massacres and torture and rape. But it's easy for a religious person to step back and say they weren't following the 'correct' interpretation and beliefs behind the scripture in order to protect themselves form any criticism. Any morality easily controlled and manipulated by figures of religious authority is prone to corruption and abuse. That's not even addressing the fact that in modern society and for thousands of years humans have had another basis for morality. Empathy. A powerful tool that allows us to think about the wellbeing and suffering of others and rationalise a reason for morality rather easily. You wouldn't want to be murdered, you wouldn't want things stolen from you, you wouldn't want to be raped, so don't do it to other people either, for if you perpetuated the acceptability of such behaviour you're only putting yourself at risk if it became acceptable. The breaking down of a society wouldn't benefit most of us. Or you can be religious and have your empathy twisted and dampened by being taught that certain people deserve to suffer for their beliefs or their perfectly harmless actions, that some people are lesser than you because they don't believe the same things you do. Religion is one of the key driving forces of hatred and division in the world today. I don't need to be threatened with hell or promised salvation just to not be a shitty person, I can recognise the value in that on my own. In the end it doesn't even matter, atheists don't believe in God, the basis for your morality to us is the as the basis of our morality, created and shaped by human culture and society. A man wrote those moral rules you follow, not a God, and accepting that means you can far more honestly examine and embrace morality as a system created by ourselves to stabilise our society for the betterment of all and thus make an active choice to adhere to that morality for the betterment of everyone rather than for some selfish spiritual gain.
Right off the hop he is making a generalized assumption that people are inherently born with the need to protect kids. And sure the wide majority do. However there are people who don't feel that way. And to only look at religion as a reward system is asinine. I was raised christian, rebelled and called myself an atheist for a while and I discovered that it's incredibly hypocritical. He says that it shouldn't matter what we believe as long as we act according to society. Yet I never actually met a theist that threatened me to try and convert. So why does it matter if someone prays to the flying spaghetti Monster to help them act that way??? Really like what about this guy's life changed so much because of what other people believe. Not the people just the belief. There's bad people everywhere. But this idea morality didn't start in theology is completely false because culture and theology developed with eachother not against eachother. It's like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first even though we live in a world with both and both are necessary for the chicken species. Hypocritical Atheism at its finest.
Empathy and sympathy are just feelings. How do we know that the empathetic and sympathetic actions are the moral actions? If we have a standard by which we can measure the empathetic and sympathetic response then why do we need to rely on empathy and sympathy?
We know that they are moral and sympathetic actions cause they are the ones that we carry ourselves with in order to cause the least amount of pain to others and ourselves and to progress towards a better future
@@zoom-zip3473 what is "better" if there is no truth or goal? And avoiding all pain is not an object truth. Some pains have benefits survival, endurance, personal growth. Ect
In 2019, you half expect to hear (in a Canadian accent) “you saved the child because you subconsciously believe in god, as you cannot act morally w/out god. It’s like the hobo mouse archetype in ‘An American Tale”....or like Raskolnikov in ‘Crime And Punishment,’ and if you don’t know what I mean, buy my books. Oh, and the birth control pill....” I’d give up my disbelief if whatever gods there be would resurrect Hitchens for just one Hitchslap of Jordan Peterson
@@matthewtenney2898 they was referring to the instinctual actions you mentioned, as for nature’s morals i think he meant to say the morals that every human being has in their head regardless of religion, faith in a higher being or fear of going to tortureland otherwise known as hell.
Regardless of what Hitchens says, morality is NOT innate, or instinctive. He likes to use the animal kingdom to make points, but in the animal kingdom, morality does not exist--only the will/need to survive. I'm not a follower of any religion, but it seems to me Hitchens cannot make his point without attacking religion, which to my mind makes his argument weak--if it could stand on its own, it would. But it can't.
Our morality came from the will/need to survive. Morality IS innate and instinctive. Humans are so greatly successful because of our natural inclination for a social existence. We are terribly weak and vulnerable in our natural state and would not stand a chance against any solo apex predator, nor would we easily hunt/gather enough food on our own without tools that we created because of our social structure. Morality arises from the need to maintain these social structures that enable us to survive, even thrive. If there was a society where it was okay to murder someone for their property or just a minor annoyance then the whole society would collapse to the point of being unsalvageable. This is the same with all social animals. Wolves are too weak to survive for long on their own so they instinctively create a social structure, which means a sense of morality has to exist. They don't just kill their pack mates for minor inconveniences, or just leave their sick to die; doing so would mean the end of their pack and a premature to death. Basically all moral values have at some point in history arisen because of a need for guide lines to protect the social order. Now some archaic rules may seem silly by contemporary standards but when communities had a fraction of the population and knowledge than we do now, these moral rules probably made quite a bit of sense. You disagree with this notion? Then how about next time actually providing a rational explanation of why. Instead of just making statements without corroborating them.
@@rakkatytam, the need for a social existence is not morality. Your arguments aren't corroborated...just a lengthy screed about what you believe. Now go fuck yourself.
If your defense for a naturally occurring moral code is that it’s a primal instinct, think about this: Cats, if they give birth to sickly kittens, will leave them to die. Male ducks will rape female ducks in order to “mate.” Female praying mantises will eat the male’s head after mating with him. These examples are all things that the vast majority of humans generally consider to be immoral. So then why would an animal commit such things? If morality is a primal instinct that most, if not all creatures should have, then why do these kinds of things happen in the animal world? Would different animals have different moral compasses? But then if that’s the case, it wouldn’t be a primal instinct, but a learned practice. So then if *thats* the case, where did that morality come from? The story of how the Ten Commandments came to be in Exodus chapter 20 says this: “Then Moses climbed the mountain to appear before God. The Lord called to him from the mountain and said, give these instructions to the family of Jacob; announce it to the descendants of Israel”(v.3). The commandments were not formulated by Moses and given to the people, the Bible says that God himself have the commandments to Moses to give the the Israelites, thus the first moral law.
We also would leave our children to die when they were sick, male humans would have raped female humans too at some point in history, never heard of human cannibalism, but I believe apes have been seen eating each other before so there's a good chance we did that too. The reason these things stopped is because we grew smarter than animals, even then we would largely abandon sickly young, a thing that only really changes once a species starts to become capable of understanding illness and treatment and resources start to become more readily available. Monkeys don't tend to leave their young to die much though, they don't tend to rape females either and they don't eat eachothers heads. Most animals don't engage in cannibalism, Most animals don't 'rape' and a lot of animals won't abandon their young. Elephants will sometimes stay with their young if they get trapped and starve themselves in the process. It's easy to cherry pick examples and easy to ignore the entire history of human evolution. But the fact is, we stopped being murderers and rapists long before Christianity was born. Most of the things in the commandments were already illegal in Rome and Greece and many other nations across the globe at the time. Why was that the case if God made morality? Why didn't the people of Rome spend all their time just killing each other? Why not, there's no morality. How were there rich and poor when there was no morality about thievery?
i think it is interesting that atheists argue that morality is something everyone should have naturally, and not adhere to because of fear of divine punishment. almost everyone adheres to morality because of fear of punishment. you could have a craving to drive away without paying for petrol but you wouldn't do it because it is illegal and you would face punishment. when really, what is stopping you from driving away? that petrol was already there, ready to be used by someone and the billion dollar oil companies arent going to miss your £30, nor are you taking away from anyone's wages. as an atheist, you would fear punishment, the same as a theist when committing a sin. how are these situations different
I don't steal petrol because I know I'd hate anyone stealing from me, so why should I steal from someone else? And there is a difference between moral and legal wrongs. If you needed that fuel to get to your dying wife but couldn't afford it, nobody is going to say stealing it was a moral wrong but a legal wrong. In every day life, if you can afford to buy it then why steal it? If everyone stole what they want because they felt they deserved it more then everyone would be worse off and society would collapse and we know that. Fearing prison is not why I don't steal, don't murder and don't hate gay people and want to stone them to death or throw them from buildings.I don't do these things because I'm not a hateful cunt looking for any excuse to treat other people in a way I would hate to be treated.
@@BlargSmarg okay, but if you look at a bigger picture, the situations are kind of imcomparable. the richest oil companies in the world would still be rich without your money but someone stealing from you would put you at a loss, but i digress. the last sentiment is nice and ideal but you're probably a nice person lol because if you give humans power, they always always abuse it. by power, i mean the ability to do what they want without fear of punishment- that is power. some people don't think about how they would be treated since they've never been abused by anyone else and think they have the upper hand. its cliche but look what happened to them men in the stanford prison experiment and how they abused the "prisoners". people are hateful and learn prejudice and sometimes the consequences of their actions, i.e. punishment is the only thing stopping them
@Iaza Hussain so we should stone or burn certain people to death for their offences and also own slaves then? Genocide also can't be so bad if god commits and encourages it in the "good" book.
@@damienschwass9354 whats the 'good' book and when did God commit it? and no, humans should not have the power to stone or burn people as they choose, my referring to punishment in the comments above refers to the afterlife
We all know what the expression "mother tongue" means. I now announce to the world for the first time a new expression "mother morality". These expressions indicate the origin of language and morality respectively.
All he used was examples of people doing terrible things, these terrible things can not be defined as such without any basis of reasoning without a God. Just because we have an innate response to it does not mean anything except for that it can be seen that this person we desire to protect is valuable to us. Why are they valuable to us, and how does a personal value of something or someone make it important in the broad spectrum of things? The one that has a predisposition to drugs does he not find the drug valuable? Yes it is clear that there is a negative effect that comes about from the use of a drug and not so with the protection of child, but with no line to govern life who is to not say that the drugs are positive? Our entire lives of information are simply that, information. Just because our science seems to depict that there are holes created from inactivity in the brain and the pleasure recaptures are worn out from the use of drugs, what makes that bad? The entire basis of atheism is establish on religious concepts that are stripped away to appeal to a persons already governed idea of right and wrong, the only difference is there is no accountability to a God. Science will only lay out cause and effect situations for us to analyze, but the underlying problem of distinction between the many results that can be found will never have a moral stance to say about anything. Even death without an establish moral law means nothing, it would be but simply an event showing that things deteriorate over time. I am very sad to hear Christopher Hitchens died, I never actually knew that until now. Please do be careful of the ground you tread. Just because someone may be sincere does not mean they can't be wrong (that is including me). Thus we should be careful, for what we may least want to be true may be the exact thing that is true. Our minds and hearts will do anything to make us comfortable if we are not careful. God Bless.
Just because morality exists doesn't mean we got it from god so where exactly did we get morality? Its probably the fact that species that cooperate are more likely to survive in the wild helping each other hunt and caring for each other over all but lets assume for the sake of argument that we dont know, how would that imply that some kind of super natural being gave it to us? its like finding an eaten apple and you say: jack ate the apple. and then i say: where is your evidence? and then you ask me: who ate it then? I answer: i dont know. and then you say: you dont know so it must be jack. even though there are billions of other possibilities. And if i find some biblical stories immoral doesnt this imply that my morality is different from the morality of god which you claim is the same as mine and if you answer that it could be corrupt then why make it in such a way? Btw your very well spoken
The fact that we believe in protecting defenseless children does not mean morality is innate. As Hitchens was raised in a Judeo-Christian society, could it not be that he was raised with morals that owe their origin to the society he was raised in? The morals he claims are innate would actually be instilled because of religion (whether that religion is true or not?) Stalin and Mao and their armies starved millions without having any religious underpinning so where was their innate morality? Why did Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun slaughter millions?
@@dontforgettolike7127 - where does he demonstrate that our "intuition" to protect defenseless children is innate or instinct? All he presents is anecdotal - i.e. "I see it therefore it is."
@@MrRhomas913 I was referring to your comment about Stalin and so forth. The innate morality in us (at least I believe) is partly selfish, partly empathy. For instance, saving a child like he says, part of your motivation is the empathetic in the sense of, "if that was me...". But that could also be considered selfish. If you really think about why you don't want people to suffer, it's because it makes YOU unhappy, or uneasy. If I saw a child get run over, I would feel sick, be in shock, have nightmares, imagine the pain if I myself was run over, things like that. Maybe that's why psychos have no morality, something in their brain didn't connect right, and nothing bothers them. Life is selfish. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a balance, right? It would cease to exist.
So if I gave you evidence that cultures that come before judeo-christian socities were even around that they were to protect defenseless children would that weaken your belief that morality comes from god?
vincent flannigan Adam and Eve (the first humans) eating from the tree in the Garden of Eden called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the first example of humans realizing their sinful nature, and that was far before the Judeo-Christian societies. I highly recommend you research the connection between Adam and Eve’s story, the law of Moses, and Jesus’s purpose in the Bible.
He destroys nothing. Morals are nonsense without religion. If there is no God and therefore no meaning, no value no purpose with life why the hell should we respect morals then??
3:20 if you cannot affort to fly there and you are in europe then come to Poland. It already have such standards. Which are actually an official standard proposed by antimoral world wide crime organisation, the Catholic Church
Hitchens gives an example of what he thinks is innate morality, i.e. keeping a child from running into oncoming traffic. If that instinct for saving a child is innate, why do we allow children to starve to death in Africa? I think we do have an instinct to protect children but unless we consider a life to be sacred, then our reason will come to the opposite conclusion.
You completely misunderstood his point. Instincts are actions that we don't have to think about doing, we just "instinctively" know what to do. Like stopping a child that's running towards traffic. That is not the case with starving children in Africa. That's a tragedy and we should do something about it (which btw, we do) but it has nothing to do with instincts.
Check the figures and you’ll see that secular organizations and charities provide far more aid than religious ones. I don’t want to denigrate the work of, or intentions of donors to, religious charities. They’re fine people doing great work. But the difference is that (with a few honourable exceptions) their charity comes at a price. ‘Accept Christ if you want our help’. It might not be forced but it’s presented to people at their very most needy and vulnerable. I don’t dispute their good intentions but you can’t claim the moral high ground when you’re the one seeking something in return and the others just want to help.
At 2:48 Hitchens says "most of you I imagine are thinking yeah but I wouldn't do that I wouldn't do that I wouldn't and and I would no one needs to tell me why I wouldn't have either so that's all I want to say about that." But we would do that. I grew up in a neighborhood where they would and did do that. The riots back in the 60's was just vicious evil coming out. And the New York blackout of 1977 (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j-7ZOzx1bks.html) (start at about 41 sec). Hitchens says that he and most normal people would return a wallet left in a taxi. My dad ran a repair shop and he once told me that most of his customers would steal but they would be embarrassed being caught stealing a small amount. Atheist morality is founded on feelings, the thinnest of ice. Feelings of empathy, feelings that encourage social cooperation. But mere feelings won't stand the storm. We shouldn't trust people who tell us that their sense of fairness and justice is grounded in how they feel that day.
Moralit doesnt come from religion but a trsanscendent being above us . If it doesnt it is just in our minds and a matter of opinion. Murder isnt anymore wrong than having an icecream
"you see a child trying to rush into the traffic if you're not a parent SOMETHING tells you what you probably ought to be doing about it" What is that something? Why not just let the child get run over? A parent can claim this "instinct" based on their evolutionary desire to continue their bloodline. But you can't, so what tells you not to just let the kid die? This is a terrible attempt to "destroy" objective morality from God.
*This "something" is The Golden Rule.* Empathy. You'd know it if your parents would teach you about morality properly. _Treat others as you would like others to treat you._ _Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated._ _What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself._ Written by Confucius and therefore older than the Bible.
@Sirena Well, Sirena, some people were obviously raised to be selfish and do good deeds only if they can expect some rewards, either from other people or in afterlife. I know a fairly large and influential country where having "a selfish wish to succeed" as a virtue, "a dream". Empathy isn't in their vocabulary, they have never heard about The Golden Rule either, the Bible is used only to exclude those which they don't like. Do you know this country too?
The odd thing is that Hitchens by arguing that morality is innate goes directly against Darwinism or the survival of the fittest; and seems to agree with the Catholics who believe that man is good as man is made in the image of God who is love. Darwinism does not allow for universal morality - we may see value in protecting our family, our clan, our tribe, our nation - but how does it evolve into a universal morality - i.e. that we would value the life even of our enemies?
That's not what "Survival of the fittest" means. Again......WHY is it so hard for you Theists to LEARN about these things BEFORE posting? It's no different than "how can I believe that we evolved from apes?" Nobody EVER said we did. Not ONCE! Darwinism isn't about morality, it's about the instincts inherent in all living things. Biological drives. The same solidarity and communal spirit we see in humans is mimicked across hundreds of animal species who are quite willing to put their own lives at risk to protect others within their group (and even those of OTHER species). I can't explain it, and neither can you, but with no discernible answer, you can't sit there and say "God did it."
@@sladegrey9272 - ??? "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest well I am not a theist. Just a thinking being trying to figure things out and focusing on the holes in arguments. I notice that you say "put their own lives at risk to protect others within their group" with "group" being the controlling word. Chimpanzees will viciously attack and kill the children of those outside their group just as humans will decimate other tribes, clans, or nations. The question is why do humans have the concept that all human life has value, even human life that is harmful to you. Darwinism can get us to all members of our tribe or clan or nation have value, but not that of our enemies. www.livescience.com/57714-chimps-kill-mutilate-cannibalize-other-chimp.html phys.org/news/2010-06-chimpanzees.html news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140328-sloth-bear-zoo-infanticide-chimps-bonobos-animals/
It seems that the basic purpose of all religions, their laws and their Divine Educators is clearly a moral one. That is "to bring man nearer to God, and to change his character, which is of the utmost importance." ~ Baha'i Faith
And yet religion is the ultimate human meat-grinder, responsible for the worst and most horrifying atrocities and bloodshed in history. If you can square that, be my guest. Those of us with functioning moral compasses and rational mindsets cannot.
I easily see your point. There is true faith & false. But beyond a fixed progressive period for their timely social teachings, old religions will lose spiritual vitality, become man-made & irrelevant rather than Prophet-made. Their Springtime is over and their death of winter is apparent in them. Youth spurns them. Then, man must look for the Return of the New Star of the East who appears about once in 1000 years. "All the great prophets, ancient philosophers and heavenly Books have been the harbingers of peace and monitors against war and discord. This is the Divine foundation; this is the Celestial outpouring; this is the basis of all religions of God." - Baha'i Faith, 1863
@@francismausley7239 - I don't see what any of this has to do with anything. It's a claim, and claims are not evidence in and of themselves. How many times have we heard similar prophecies? They never come true, for a reason.
Well, look at your self reflected in your moral compass & the social results of today's "rational mindsets" that are reflected in the news of the day. I prefer each progressive Divine Educator who was a Light and the Way for His age; that is Manifestations & Messengers of God: Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah and their promises and covenants. Clearly they are recognized as superior above all men.
@@francismausley7239 - So you've now listed several diametrically opposing God characters, and attempted to conflate them as the same being. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously. It's astonishing!
I can see where Mr. Hitchens is going with this argument, but he's also overlooking the context. In the example of Abram attempting to sacrifice the child at God's request, it only happened to test the spiritual strength and will of Abram. Why? Because he was about to be given free reign and access to the priesthood. It's powers and implications are immense. It's like being given free reign and access to nukes. You don't want a guy who capitulates to the circumstances to be in charge, but instead be someone who will choose to do what's right and necessary no matter what.
How about a quote from Dawkins: "Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." Hear that? "born selfish".
Actually, we aren't "born selfish." Yale University ran studies showing that babies as young as 6 months old will choose a kind, generous and moral action 80% of the time. Pretty strong track record.
@@sladegrey9272 Your argument is then with Dawkins. But if we're going to consider non-rational behavior that helps others as moral, then both my car and my vacuum cleaner are moral.
@@matthewtenney2898 - That's the most ridiculous line of reasoning I've EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE :) I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be crazy! Does your car or vacuum cleaner act selflessly to save your life, of their own accord? What NONSENSE!
@@sladegrey9272 rationality (n.) the state of having good sense and sound judgment. A six month old baby does not have good sense and sound judgment any more than my car or vacuum cleaner. Morality is doing the right thing for the right reason.
@@matthewtenney2898 - NON. SENSE! :) Across the board, one hundred and fifty MILLION percent, with no margin for error. A six month old baby chooses a moral action an average of 80% of the time. That is CONCRETE PROOF that we are born with a sense of communal spirit and solidarity. Meanwhile, YOUR idiotic self rants about vacuum cleaners and cars, in the WORST excuse for a deflection tactic that I've ever seen in my life. "Do I ever get tired of debating the religious? No, because you NEVER KNOW what they're gonna' say next!" - CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
@@gives_bad_advice how do you know that God does? There is zero evidence to prove, or even suggest, that any God exists. We don't need to prove that God doesn't exist when there is zero evidence or reason to believe that he exists in the first place. It would be like if we needed to prove that unicorns and fairies don't exist.
He didn't prove anything accept that the religion of Islam has some similarities to the Hebrew religion. Nothing he said proved that morals do not come from God. He is very smart, but not very good at proving his own point.
As for his rant on Abrabam: his point of view is now in a world where morals exist and everyone knows them. Back in Abraham's time, however, G-d was a new concept who introduced with Himself the concept of morals. The whole argument that morals come from G-d is based in the understanding that only a divine being that knows the objective truth can say what is right and wrong. And G-d would never tell you to do something wrong, therefore if G-d tells me to sacrifice my son, it must not be immoral to do so. Also, he is forgetting the end of the story; G-d never had any intention of killing Isaac (or Ishmael) the test was for Abraham to show he understood that morals come from G-d and therefore he must listen to anything G-d tells him. Furthermore, this "genital mutilation" has turned out in today's day and age to be a safe and actually healthy medical procedure. It is frustrating when people practice ignorance by equating Islamic pedophilia aka actual genital mutilation with the covenenat G-d made with Abraham.
If you think killing a child is moral because someone told you to than you don’t understand how morals actually work. Morals, in my opinion, are a societal behavior. People kill each other and commit crimes all the time in video games and it’s not a big deal. Why? Because you’re not hurting anyone. It doesn’t matter. God didn’t have to tell you that one. Anyone who can’t understand whether or not their actions will have negative consequences on somebody else is borderline sociopathic at best. When your a baby you cry, poke people in the eyes, throw up on people etc without any regard to the other person. Yet, regardless of your religion, when you grow up and start understanding your surroundings you learn to not do these things. You don’t learn it from god, it’s strictly learned behaviors. To quote Jim Jefferson’s rather out of context, “we’re not animals, we live in a society”
I agree with you. He obviously could not prove his own point. Than it was over! I was surprised by how short his speech was! It explains nothing of the origin of morals.
It’s ironic because you’re arguing for a might-makes-right and completely subjective morality. In your view there is no higher standard or objective morality (which by definition would be unchanging and timeless); It’s simply whatever God says goes. In fact, most Christians unknowingly admit to their morality being subjective when they speak of the New Covenant. They believe that God held ancient Israel to different morals and standards than they (the gentiles) are beholden to. That is clearly a subjective (changing and temporal) morality.
I'll disagree with him on this. Morality is not inherent to anyone, that's what we call empathy. Morality is a code of ethics, while empathy is innate in almost every living thing.
Empathy contributes greatly to what we as humans perceive to be ethical. So long as a nation state/organisation/group of people can amass a 'code' of ethics then a shared morality has been reached. Perhaps given the disagreement globally over what this is there may well be no absolute morality but certainly the concept and existence of morality relies on the good in people, not the God in people.
Sam Howard but then who's to say that killing people is wrong? By removing God from the equation, you make everything entirely subjective. You may say that killing innocent people is wrong, the nazis disagreed with you.
@Jonathan I disagree that Empathy and Morality are hardwired. Being empathetic maybe, but what you consider moral and immoral are typically cultural. Case in point. In the west, it is immoral to marry an 11 yr old girl. In the Middle East, it isn't. Morality is subjective to the culture in which you are raised. And most cultures have been formed by religious tenets. So yes, Morality does have roots in religions.
Cole Blackman there are mkre instances of god telling people to kill others then not. So im sorry what does the nazis have to do with this moral arguement? Okay doll bye bye. Your arguement has easily been dismamtled amd trashed. Like the idea of a god even being possible.
For the FIRST example! Does he know that some parents abondon their new borns for worldly reasons? That fact is that people are not perfect and them proposing moral guidlines is not the best
@@BigDaddySlug well this example is exteme and we all can agree with. What about the not so obvioust things such drinking alcohol? Where many docter today believe that if alcohol was discovered today, it would have been illegal.
@@Teyrxq8 ive never heard or seen of that study, if it implies that achohol serves no purpose and is damaging to the person why dont we also ban cheese.
@@BigDaddySlug you think alcohol is equivalent to cheese? Just type at google,"problems related to alcohol" after youre done,search for "problems related to cheese" Im assuming that youre refering to store bought cheese
@@Teyrxq8 obviously alchohol isnt great for you and im not saying it is but things in moderation isnt bad for you the problem with alchohol is how addictive it is same with how processed food is adictive to others...moderation . And you should be fine. Of course alchohol isnt equivilent to cheese but the need to indulge in both products is equivelent alchohol does have propertys that make you crave so do sodas people battling with obesity have a hard time quitting soda alchohol may be harder to cut off bu the effect they have on your brain is equivelent not the same.
blackcore11 ya, like the latest "health reason" being that if you cut off your foreskin you will be immune from hpv. Thats like saying if you cut off your nose you wont get a cold. Absolutely fucking retarded. Totally mindless bull shit agenda to drive the jewish agenda.
The protection of offspring is beneficial to the survival of a species. Evolutionarily it makes perfect sense that species that did this were more likely to have offspring that survived long enough to reproduce.
@@taylorh5113 That's all fine and all, but why should we guide our actions by that? For example, religion itself is an evolved trait in humans, yet Hitchens decided it should be fought, so obviously something being evolutionarily evolved does not make it justified. What is the justification for acting "morally" when you benefit more from acting immorally?
@@natanaellizama6559 Excellent response. I can add two other evolutionary evolved traits, panic and rage, that we should also be fought for they almost never end well.
Will you go to heaven when you die? Here's a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used Gods name in vain? Jesus said, "whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Have you looked with lust? Will you be guilty on judgement day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous adulterer at heart. If you are guilty you will end up in hell. God, who the Bible says is "rich in mercy" sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for guilty sinners. You broke Gods law but Jesus paid your fine. That means He can legally dismiss your case. He can commute your death sentence. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Then He rose from the dead and defeated death. Please repent (turn from sin) today and God will grant everlasting life to all who trust in Jesus. Then read your bible daily and obey it.
I REPENT!!!! I now drink lower-calorie beers, and I have reduced my whoring down to three per week - and I never lie to them! My stealing is reduced by 30% I wish Jesus had paid my speeding tickets, but he never thought of that, I guess. Still....I am not worthy.
Tim Williams Please don't make fun of God's Word. It's very serious. The Bible also says, "what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead. So that they are without excuse."
I'm not making fun of god/s word. YOU are making the claim that there IS a god, who has "a word". So I'm making fun of your CLAIM, just as you would make fun of my claim that there is a dragon under my bed. My proof is written in the Grand Book of All Truths! To make fun of my Book is to risk eternal perdition watching Chinese soap operas for eternity! Do you want to risk THAT! The person making the least believable claim has the burden of proof, not the other way around. What is your actual proof that your god/s exist? No evidence, no belief.
Is Hitchens preaching a sermon supporting this "myth"....??? By saying that morality obviously is something we as humans have within us, he is furthering the argument that God made us with a general sense of morality as a pointer to Him as the creator and final say of what is moral. I'd agree that religion is not the ultimate source of morality, and I don't know any religion that claims that. In fact, that's the claim atheists make... Odd that Hitchens is attempting to disprove atheistic claims, but hey, I'll take it. "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, ... they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" -Romans 1:14-16, ESV.
Imagine meeting a stranger for the first time. This stranger says to you “You, your family and your friends all deserve to be tortured forever. When this happens, and it will happen, I will not lift a finger to save you, and I will not say a word in protest.” Can you imagine anything more offensive than this? Yet this is precisely what Christianity teaches, and what you just subscribe to if you’re a Christian. Jesus says “The non-believers will be harvested up like wheat, then burnt”. I may strongly disagree with Christians, but I would NEVER want them to be tortured forever, and you can bet I would protest if someone tried, and do everything in my power to stop that. Yet they apparently would not extend this to me. This is not a nuanced situation- it’s not a close call. Christians are compelled by their indoctrination to look the other way and stay quietly reverent, while atheists are free to access their innate sense of fairness and compassion. On a 3D moral landscape, the atheist occupies higher ground than the Christian.
This is great and explains a lot, but I want to highlight Christian stories and belief here. If morals are created and religions stem from these morals, why is it the “heroes” in the Bible are so immoral? Abraham cheats on his wife as does Jacob. Moses literally isn’t allowed in the promised land, Noah gets drunk, Samson is a serial killer, David instigates adultery and murder. The list goes on. Paul: another serial killer who writes most the second half of the New Testament. How can we call these people heroes when they are blatantly immoral? It only calls that there is a higher moral being which instigates these morals because people obviously can’t follow the basic morals for civilized structure. If this does play along to the evolution argument of humans and morals, why is the world more immoral than it ever has been? Meaning humans don’t want to follow these moral codes for success. Simply, there is a possibility that their is an intelligent designer with an objective moral code which when practiced, warrants the highest success of humanity
Morality is not hardwired. Being empathetic might be, but so can being a Psychopath. What you consider moral and immoral are typically cultural. Case in point. In the west, it is immoral to marry an 11 yr old girl. In the Middle East, it isn't. Morality is subjective to the culture in which you are raised. And most cultures have been formed by religious tenets. So yes, Morality does have roots in religions.
Daegon Immorality is in the roots of religion. Every society will have some morals, in fact being social is equal to being moral as one can maintain a society by only deriving morals. Immoral things can be derived from freedom one takes away from another person. But it doesnt means there should be any such thing like "freedom to kill" , in that case if a person takes away someone's freedom to live is murder which is immoral. Hitchens said about moral relativism if you didnt notice this was never the way christians or muslims used to think and they draw conclusion that the other beliefs are barbaric but in fact their own belief was barbaric. But christopher leaves a space for discussion while religious fanatics used to chop the neck of infidels.
Cart before the horse, Daegon. It was an innate sense of culturally "right and wrong" that incubated religious-ness within cultures. Innateness came first....THEN "religion", based upon these evolutionarily nascent sensibilities. When towns or cities are first formed, we, out of a sense of bad vs. good, devise laws against the bad and for the good. The "laws" are like mini-religious doctrine.
All you have to do to point out how immoral the religious are is ask them to renounce the horrible acts of God in the Bible. For that matter, just get them to renounce eternal punishment for not accepting Jesus. That's immoral behavior. And Christians accept it as OK. If God does it, it's good. Um...all atrocities may be justified in this way.
The funny thing about all this is. Where do you think instincts come from? If you believe that we all have the same Instincts then you believe that there’s something that gives order to all of us to follow these instincts. In order to have this order. There must be an orderer. It all leads back to a creator
Faulty Logic based on an assumption of a creator to start with. Nevermind that the laws of physics allow for complexity to arise from less complex arrangements.
@Dean Evolution you moron. Can't believe 7 people liked this nonsense. We protect our kid because of our parental instincts to further our species like any other. Do you think animals are commanded by God to care for their young and often display altruistic behavior?
He "destroyed" nothing, except exposing his lack of Biblical literacy (irrelevant, but one thing: Isaac wasn't a child, he was an adult)...this "speaker" needs to read Kierkegaard (leaving his arrogance and assumptions behind)...thanks for strengthening my faith in Christianity.
Josef H. You obviously didn't read the link I provided. READ it and then ask a question...what you ask is answered in the link, which my opinion is in agreement with the link YOU NEED TO READ.
+Richard B - That's a pithy answer, but it doesn't make sense out of those concepts, which what I'm looking to do, if possible. Can you make sense out of Judgment Day, for example? I understand how deferred judgment works from a human perspective; a father doesn't know what his son will do in advance, so he needs to wait until his son has actually sinned in some way before he can fairly judge and punish him for it. If God is this omnipotent, omniscient first cause, who created everything that ever existed though, then the idea of him waiting till some point in the future to pass judgment doesn't make sense. Such a being would've known of every sin humanity would commit before he brought us into existence in the first place. It follows that these sins must have been part of God's own design in fact, since nothing could exist save God himself and that which he both knowingly and willfully brought into existence.
wait why is he speaking hes not supposed to speak or think we have to eat shit and mate thats the dna only purpose not according to me but according to darwinism
Because language allows us to cooperate and deal with problems together giving us a greater chance at surviving and passing on our DNA, and thinking allows us to think up a solution to a problem which again gives us a greater chance of passing on our DNA, and that’s not according to me that’s according to Darwinism.
@@TheS1ickness no according to darwinism we are just something that came from nothing with only the purpose to repreduce we are animals we arent supposed to think or talk (at least according to darwinism) no wonder that theory is dying
Gabriel Jericho according to Darwinism we came from a chemical reaction which created an amino acid that would bind to other particles that would be used to create more of it self, then it started going through evolution and would use energy and chemicals to reproduce and if you skip forwards enough one of these organisms begins to contain a chemical that harnesses the energy from the sun allowing it to reproduce more making plants, we also get some organisms that start consume other organisms thus starting the evolution race between predator and pray of surviving and getting more energy to have more offspring, fast forward and you get humans a species that evolved to live together in a form of reciprocity altruism in which they help each other to better all of their chances of reproducing and it turns out this leads to language which requires a big brain so we also develop complex thinking, at least to Darwinism no wonder the number of people that accept Darwinism is growing at least to www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/06/how-highly-religious-americans-view-evolution-depends-on-how-theyre-asked-about-it/
@@TheS1ickness www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/february/1-000-scientists-publicly-sign-lsquo-dissent-from-darwinism-rsquo-statement life cant come from nothing pal sorry to burst your bubble but your little theory doesnt even explain what its built on how life was made an intelligent creation requires a creator if i were to tell you that the internet your using came from nothing you would call me crazy yet your theory still cant explain the start of life somehing creationsim does now go eat drink shit and fuck cause thats all what you are a worthless sack of dna that serve no porpuse but breeding (not according to me according to darwin and evolution)
Gabriel Jericho technically I did by saying how it was a complex reaction that created an amino acid that was self replicating but I know what you mean, we are still investigating what caused the reaction, but that doesn’t really disprove it it just means we are still investigating the cause and just because something claim it has the answer doesn’t make it true, it still has to provide evidence for why it’s true which it doesn’t, also an intelligent design doesn’t require an intelligent creator it just needs materials and time to create it, also I wouldn’t call ya crazy for saying the internet came from nothing I would tell you your wrong as the internet came from electricity and wave lengths, also for the link you gave it doesn’t really provide arguments against Darwinism it just states that some scientists are sceptical and want it investigated more which doesn’t disprove it, also the site states that they don’t subscribe to creationism so not really helping your cause either also in context of things if we are weighing amount of scientists for and against Darwinism (which is dumb and doesn’t really add much to the debate) majority still accept Darwinism compared to those that don’t.
