I could have cared less over what they say, when their biggest influencer admits he would rather live in a society with a Christian culture after all his work to dismantle said Christian culture
Agreed. Dawkins said outright he wants Christianity... but he doesn't want Christ. In other words, he wants all of the benefits, but none of the responsibility that comes with it.
It's not so much that Christians have a responsibility that others don't, inasmuch as it is that Christians observe a responsibility that others won't - to worship God and give Him the honor that He is due.
@@avishevin1976Christians in baptism recieve the call to be saints. If you look what kind of lives the canonized saints went through, that's something to chew on isn't it? So if you want a christian society without being a christian yourself, you want to benefit from the love of neighbor the saints are trying to have, withoit giving them back what they're due. That's morally bad. It's also morally bad to reap the benefits of God's love to you, like existing, without loving Him back by recieving baptism, that's why you have the responsibility to get baptized and recieve that call too.
@@bucksfan77 That is an unfortunate trait of the author and his works. Late last year, “Crisis” magazine published an online article by Darrick Taylor that goes into the topic. It’s worth checking out.
Just finished the book. Don't remember reading that first part, but yes Ivan believes the 2nd part. Worth the read, not for its answers but for its questions.
And that's a stupid quote from Dostoevsky. It presupposes that morality or moral obligations cannot exist without theism, a position overwhelmingly rejected by most professional ethicists.
As a former atheist, I didn’t, at first, realise the blatant hypocrisy of the atheist position on these matters. When I look back at some of Hitchens’ arguments, for example, they’re embarrassingly poor. And I feel some shame in parroting them. That said, I also understand that I had to go through that stage in order to later truly appreciate Christ as our real and living God. I can only strive to right those former wrongs. And so in some way I wish I never doubted to begin with.
@@Dram1984 Oof… same! That sense of feeling so much smarter and wiser than those who are and have been duped, only to later realise your own foolishness and arrogance… priceless feeling that is🤣
@@avishevin1976 Sure, one that is on topic and which I think is my favourite one, is where he does a complete revisionism of history and modern politics, and makes the claim that North Korea, the USSR etc., are always examples of theism, as opposed to atheism and the moral bankruptcy that follows it.
Trent, I think you’re underrated as an opponent to atheism. Of all the topics you discuss, refuting atheism is one of your best skills. Much love from an orthodox Christian.
@@ChristineVress Please go into detail on each one and provide timestamps, if you could. I'm deeply skeptical of "fallacy mongerers" and don't think of them as particularly intelligent.
@@glof2553 Well right at ~3:00 the start of the first claim “this seems to contradict.” Notice the soft language, he isn’t willing to strongly get behind the claim, it just seems to, to Trent. But it isn’t a contradiction. Telling someone that they can be better or do better and hoping for that outcome does not imply that they must have some free will choice to do so. The criticism, if heard, just becomes one more data point in a vast sea of the variables informing future reasoning.
@@ChristineVress Except if you little liar actually read it, you'd know it's talking about people who lost the real faith and follow things of the world, which perfectly describes atheists. Nice try, though.
@@ChristineVress if you are bothered to comprehend, it is referring to people who have moved away from god. If you think that the letter is only for the christians in rome, why it is included in bible?
@@thejuiceking2219 You are deeply historically illiterate. Christianity was born of a POLYTHEIST world. You cannot grasp what God means and is without first grasping what gods meant and were. That requires a full Classical Education. Do you have one? Obviously not. Go get a real education.
Maybe that’s because Calvinism truly sounds awful, and has lead a lot of people to either universalism (yes Unitarian Universalism) or atheism. lol. Limited atonement and double predestination in particular are a hit job against God’s character. It’s why I have more respect for Lutheranism. Despite being Augustinian, Luther clearly understood why these points were bad and very unbiblical.
I'm a former pagan looking into Catholicism. Thanks for the videos you made and will make. You're a huge help with healing past religious trauma and false information.
I used to be pagan too! I’ve been Catholic for two years now this year and people have been so welcoming and kind to me even after telling them what I converted from. God bless you on your journey! :)
@@gatsbygoodwood2575Well, the Church does have a bad history. Secrecy? They've been very open about their beliefs from the start. The Papacy is fine, but Papal supremacy is neither biblical nor historical. And Catholics and Orthodox do not worship Mary. We simply venerate her because she gave birth to God in the flesh, or Jesus. However Catholicism just has so many theological issues and inconsistentsies that that's why I encourage people to look to Orthodoxy which has remained unchanged since it was established.
@@LilySage-mf7uf I think that's where the OP was headed. According to atheists, Christians are programmed to be Christian. We cannot believe otherwise, even if we wanted to, and even our wants are programmed, so ultimately, according to the atheist, we are not responsible for anything we think, do, or feel. We are literally dancing to our DNA. It's like blaming a rock for not giving a treatise on the laws of Thermodynamics.
@LilySage-mf7uf Being convinced and agreeing are 2 different things, a madman could eloquently convince you that murdering people is a good cause, that doesn't mean you'd voluntarily agree
I disagree, you can still argue that the actions of a nondeterminative force (like God) are moral or not whether you believe you are ultimately in control. Free will is concerned with the responsibility, not morality of an action. For example, if you are on medications that make you go into a psychosis and you kill someone you have objectively committed an immoral act, even if you are not responsible due to your lack of "free will". The better argument for Trent to make is not that the lack of free will removes your ability to object to God's morality, its the lack of a non arbitrary moral standard that does. Under atheism there is definitionally no objective standard of right and wrong, and so if you are critiquing God's morality you are doing so under a completely arbitrary moral position. Whether you are capable of acting one way or another only affects your ultimate responsibility for your actions, the quality of the actions themselves being moral or not is nonsensical if you do not believe in a natural objective moral law grounded in God
@@jonathanw1106 Contemporary ethicists don't hold that definition of morality. So, it wouldn't be 'by definition' that atheists, in virtue of not having a god in their worldview, couldn't have an objective standard of morality. In fact, it's quite an unpopular position the one that says moral realism requires God to exist. I can elaborate more on that if you want.
@@jonathanw1106 Under theism there is _also_ no objective standard of right and wrong. Not one that any single person has ever adhered to, at any rate.
@avishevin1976 uh are you sure about that? It's one of the most popular arguments for God's existence and a topic of countless scholarly works, the foundation of natural law principles that led to the Bill of rights and our present state of government, it's literally the dividing principle that separates post modernism from classical ethical theory, and I could go on. I'm not sure I have ever heard a theist claim their is no objective morality, ever
I do find Rovert Sapolsky's account of no free will interesting. During his conversation with Alex O'Connor he did mention that he only practices the philosophy of no free will for something like 3 minutes a month.
Usually the proponents of "no free will" do some pretty nefarious things behind the scene, (Stephen hawking). So it makes sense why they push it so much
@@tonyl3762Free Will may not exist, but that does not mean it's obvious that it doesn't exist. We may be able to know that in any kind of ultimate sense, uou are not 'responsible' for your actions, but even in that case, if you tried to kill someone, it still looks as though you wanted to killed them. No free will does not mean that feeling is immediately alleviated. The way I put it is by comparing free will to optical illusions. There are tons out there you can try, and even though you may be hyper aware of the fact that it is an illusion, you see them nonetheless. I can be knowledgeable in the idea that free will does not exist, though that doesn't render me unable to feel as though it was I who created an artpiece and still feel proud about it.
@@Eliza-rg4vw Or perhaps you don't really ultimately know that but merely have a desire to avoid responsibility for something or anything? (You certainly did NOT provide a demonstration or argument, lol.) Are you choosing to believe free will is an illusion like an optical illusion? You might as well disbelieve anything and everything (including your own "knowledge" regarding free will) if you are going to choose to believe reality is inherently deceptive and illusory. But that itself is self-defeating/self-refuting. Imagine a world of deception/illusion and contradiction all you want, but don't claim to have any "knowledge."
@@tonyl3762 Perhaps! I do think you'd need to provide evidence for that, as as far as I can tell, I am not saying what I am now in order to avoid responsibility. If free will does exist, I'd take as much responsibility then as I do now. I'm aware my actions have a lot more non-me things than I'd like to the point where I don't have free will, but that doesn't mean I don't have the illusion of responsibility either. If I say something to someone that hurts them, sure, I said that because of some external stimuli that had me say that, but it still looks and feels as if I said those things to hurt the person, and I would take responsibility for it. From what I can tell, free will is, in effect, like an optical illusion. You can try inserting words like "choose" there all you want to make it sound like free will needs to exist for this to happen and / or like it's not a serious option, but it's just more simply the conclusion I'm currently at given what I know about our decision-making processes. Does the analogy at least make sense? P2 is a slippery slope and quite frankly I don't really care for it at this time.
It's funny when the atheist who doesn't believe in freewill seems to get angry at the theist's actions or beliefs. It's like dude, but I couldn't believe anything else...
To be fair, I think an atheist who does not believe in free will wouldn't be mad at the person, but at the ideology. Something like I wouldn't hate the Germans in 1945, but I would definitely hate the Nazi ideology. As such, since you assume people have no blame for what ideologies they choose, you only try to change or remove toxic ideologies.
Yes and if we evolving by means of survival of the fittest, then surely evolving in such a way as to obtain eternal life is the ultimate survival instinct. Must be a natural process!
@@wordforever117 Yeah... several issues with that. The belief that you have it despite not having it can help soothe the mind but it doesn't help you survive beyond that. If you actually aim to get eternal life then recognizing you don't have it and striving to attain it will yield better results than simply believing you have it when you don't. In the context of actual evolution would say the inclination towards supernatural beliefs was fostered and the much more common aversion to death with that is what amounts to making up a supernatural eternal life. So it is more of a byproduct of what early minds did rather than directly evolution itself.
@@Boundless_Border It is an interesting theory but I don't think there is any evidence to back it up. Man has been religious since pre-historic times. All civilisations at all times have been religious. It transcends cultures and societies. The evidence point much more to man being instinctively religious because even self proclaimed atheists. They will consistently appeal to a higher power or external measure of goodness, or make statements of absolute truth for which there must be a transcendent arbiter. All instincts within man have two things in common.... the thing they strive for exists, and the same thing is required to sustain life. Food, water, oxygen, reproduction, even fight or flight...and prayer. When it comes down to it, when a crisis gets too much to bear, when there is no hope left.... *everyone* prays
@@LilySage-mf7ufyeah so if I believe something you find morally evil, you can’t blame me because I didn’t choose it. Your position is like a perverted sort of reverse-calvinism
@@LilySage-mf7uf OH, so your position is just "a given"? Ever heard of begging the question? Circular reasoning? Assuming what you should be trying to prove/demonstrate? People often choose not to be convinced, even in the face of air-tight logic/arguments. People often don't want to be convinced for various selfish reasons (the examples are endless). People are not machines that have to follow logic to its natural conclusions.
@@LilySage-mf7uf yes, you can make a judgement, but not a rational one. For it to be rational, there would need to be free will, as well as real values of good and bad. I appreciate the example of the tree you used, but it still "falls" short, lol. I'll see myself out, but before I do, can you show that the tree falling is bad? Sure it could be harmful, but why is harm bad? Is it because we just don't like it? What if someone does like, and prefers the tree to fall and hurt someone? Is it then good? I don't believe this framework can account for any moral choice in terms of judgement, as the only judgement or conflict would be conflicted feelings.
@@LilySage-mf7uf you haven’t answered my question. Why is harm or causing pain a bad thing in an atheistic world. Do you just not like it? Did we deem it bad because the majority doesn’t like it?
This is a stupid understanding of the abscence of free will. The fact that someone is not free of his choices doesn't mean they cannot be influenced by environmental pressure. Saying "you should do better" is hoping that the sentence will play as environmental pressure and make the person act in the way we intend in the future. You can simulteanously have no free will, and influence people's action.
@@core-legacy They are refuting Trent tho. Trent claims that under determinism trying to influence people with notions of morality, guilt, responsibility etc is like trying to do the same with lightning bolts or earthquakes. That however is absurd since lightning bolts or earthquakes can't be influenced through social and interpersonal tools, while people absolutely are influenced by those, and that's why we use them. If people's thoughts and actions are determined by brain states and brain states can change as result of interpersonal dynamics there you have it.
@@core-legacy You're simply not following at this point. The problem of free will is far from being solved but the issue here is wether Trent's arguments against determinism are valid. And they aren't.
@@lordbendtner9328 Someone disagreeing doesn't mean they misunderstand or "miss a point," and as of yet: you've failed to mention what point I've supposedly missed. Trent's response is not as I would present it, but the commenter certainly is not accurate either.
I lived in Paris for 5 years as a young person, a city full of atheist smarty-pants. While eating in Resto-U, a system for subsidized food open to university students, I would regularly encounter people who wanted to discuss the idea that there is no right or wrong, ie morality is imaginary. This was in the context that I am an Orthodox Christian, so this was a natural response for them. Each time, I stipulated that therefore the Nazis were perfectly justified in putting the Jews in ovens: There is no right and wrong and they felt like it. Oddly, this put them in knots every time, as though they had never considered this implication of their ideas. They were all quite committed to moral outrage at the Nazi crime. This (existence of good/evil) isn't the exact same issue as whether or not free will exists but I would claim that it is closely related.
I'm an agnostic so I'll have a crack at this. I think there is a right and wrong, it's just that rather than dictated by a god who isn't personal despite claiming to be, it's dictated by the balance between empathy, compassion, logic, evidence and democracy. Why are Nazis bad according to me? Well, they hurt people. There isn't logical justification. It was unnecessary agony and suffering, and that's why they're evil. It's the good old "I wouldn't want to be treated badly by Nazis, so I wouldn't like others being treated badly either"
a consistent atheist will usually have to concede that the concentration camps and the ghoulags are only subjectively wrong, in their opinion, but not objectively wrong.
@@BornAgain223 I think they're fairly objectively wrong, because of the disastrous observable impacts on human health which you could measure objectively by simply talking to a sample size of survivors or reading testimonies, analysing the conditions etc. This is my subjective view of the evidence to reach what I see as an objective conclusion, but other people can look at the evidence and see if they agree with me. You can also look at what trained people like in a courtroom might say. My question is: Is the Bible opposed to concentration camps and ghoulags? Is there specification on what sorts of prisons are permitted and what abuses are / are not allowed?
@@BornAgain223 If one denies the possibility of objective morality, that would follow logically. I'm not really that worried about consistency: I am glad that they felt confusion, did not hold to their theory and continued to reject the crime.
“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” -Prof Haldane via CS Lewis
It's even worse than that. If your mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in your brain, then you don't even objectively *have* beliefs with content that can be true or false, and there isn't even any "you" to have them. So it's not just that you have no reason to suppose that your beliefs are true under materialistic reductionism, but that it's an impossibility, as the entire category of truth is completely eliminated under that view.
@@ianb483you're begging the question. I think therefore I am. And I also think that I am chemical reactions without a soul. You're just claiming it's a-priori impossible for me to be thinking chemicals.
@@nsinkov So chemicals/molecules/atoms can think? How does mere matter in motion create thought? What does "I" and "me" and "you" even mean in a universe of mere matter without any souls?
@@nsinkov How do you define the term "think" and what does it mean to "think chemicals"? Chemicals, as everything empirical can only be experienced, not thought of. Similarly, you cannot physically experience a logical argument, you can only think of it. That's why your argument is wrong. The cogito argument you're implying was (much ironically) used by Descartes to prove the existence of the rational soul you despise.
This is the main reason I'm not atheist. There is no foundation for objective moral obligations or free will. It is manifestly untrue upon observation of the world
@@avishevin1976 "All morality is subjective", as the vast majority of societies agree and have arrived to this morality independently. I think you know that you don't actually believe this.
@@newglof9558 The most significant moral issue in the US today is abortion. There are vehement disagreements, sometimes leading to violence, over the morality of the practice. Explain how morality is objective if there are two camps at polar opposite positions, with a whole spectrum in between. And that's just the most obvious example. People disagree on the morality of minor acts all the time. Morality is subjective.
Or if you see it my way, moral truths and conscienceless is inherit in every aspect of reality and more broadly the understanding of the whole and therefore the Whole is a directing mind, as truth, morals, perfection, beauty, make no sense unless they are inherit in the nature of the Whole, and moreover they are understood truths and therefore require a trinitarian conscienceless as the directing Whole.
No it can't, my lack of a belief in Gods has got nothing to do with the problem of evil😭. I just don't believe it because I haven't seen any decent evidence that suggests the God's any religion describe exist, That is the main argument for atheism (the lack of beliefs in God not the truth statement "there is no gods" btw)
@@mattstiglic My bad, but I still disagree. I'm sure these pop up atheists which are probably smarter then me can come up with better arguments then the problem of evil.
What is an objective authority? If an atheist, a Muslim, a Christian and Satanist were sat around a table and had to agree on an objective authority, how would they do it?
Thanks for making this Trent. I came to the same conclusion 3 years ago, glad to be Catholic now. There is no epestemic justification for morals and logic in a naturalistic worldview
I disagree. Evolution explains it fine enough. Morals exist because we are a social species. So, by helping others in a society we ourselves survive. So, we got empathy and compassion to help us do this. This same empathy and compassion is how you can know things are right or wrong. But of course, people can still choose right from wrong because evolution requires variation to act on, so there must be variation in how individuals behave and react differently to different things. With logic, this is because we have big brains, and solving tricky situations helps us to get past obstacles to help us survive and reproduce. Loads of other animals show logic. Crows for example using tools to get food, for example
@@hydraph4843 Except both are not possible in a naturalistic worldview. And to add, empiricism is circular and self-defeating, it relies on non-empirical things (logic) to work. And your conception of morals is just an ad populum, which is a fallacy. Morals reflect man choosing between good and evil, which cannot be justified outside a theistic worldview. Thats the real epestemic and philosophical problem. You might wanna dig up som philosophy and metaphysics. To add any kind of comparison involves smuggling in a standard, which by your own logic cannot even be known let alone justified. I have been here 3 years ago and I see that you have not taken naturalism/atheism and darwinism to its logical conclusions. Watch Thomistic Instititute and their video against reductionism it shows the problems of your reasoning.
@@berserker9682 "Except both are not possible in a naturalistic worldview. ". I literally explained how it is. "And to add, empiricism is circular and self-defeating, it relies on non-empirical things (logic) to work. ". I had to look up what empiricism is, and I don't know what you are on about. The whole point of it is literally to use empirical evidence to discover truth: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism " And your conception of morals is just an ad populum, which is a fallacy.". How is it? I came to this conclusion on my own. I read what people thought on it yes, but I applied my own critical thinking and whether it makes sense rather than blindly accepting it. An ad populum would be where I say it is true because this scientist said so. No, I am arguing this with my own logic because I personally think it's true. Just because a lot of people had thoughts on it you agree with doesn't make it ad populum. For example, lots of pastors have spoken on the Bible. Does that mean your interpretation of the Bible is an ad populum because a lot of people have said that thing before you did? No, of course I wouldn't say that. "Morals reflect man choosing between good and evil, which cannot be justified outside a theistic worldview. ". Yes, it can, because a variety of strategies is favoured by evolution, so all animals show a variation in how they approach situations in different ways. If we didn't have variation in how we act, we wouldn't be able to adapt. I think the perspective outside a theistic worldview makes more sense because other animals can actually help each other out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology) So, it's not just people who can choose whether to do good things or not. "To add any kind of comparison involves smuggling in a standard, which by your own logic cannot even be known let alone justified. ". What do you mean? A moral standard? In which case, mine is weighing up empathy, logical understanding, evidence and what opinion is to reach a conclusion you agree with. I am not saying my opinion is correct. But, I am valid for having that opinion, and through talking to other people we can try to come to some agreements like a middle ground based on what we all agree with. "I have been here 3 years ago and I see that you have not taken naturalism/atheism and darwinism to its logical conclusions. ". I literally study zoology, which includes quite a bit on evolutionary biology, so I think I am fairly confident in my knowledge for the most part. "Watch Thomistic Instititute and their video against reductionism it shows the problems of your reasoning.". I don't feel like watching a video. Could you summarise it?
@@hydraph4843atheistic worldview tells you how things are. But it cant tell you why you should live the “right” way. Its all up to relativism. You cant tell me why the great evil people in history were in fact “evil” without borrowing from our God. If morals are so relative, you should be able to justify them and provide why you chose those specific value judgements. We’re waiting…
I already know how the anti-free will types will respond to that first point. They'll say "It's true that we don't have free will and people can't choose a different path, but we're saying 'be better' to make them go down that determined pathway instead."
That’s interesting to me. At what point does the question of whether we “actually” have free will matter, if at all certain point not having a choice is indistinguishable from what having a choice looks like.
I don't believe in free will. I believe the chemicals in my brain determine my choices. The chemicals in my brain respond to external stimuli - so if you give me more data and logic then I will respond to it and "be better". No free will is needed.
So right! I woke in the middle of the night with that podcast running through my mind. I couldn't sleep while my mind, over and over again, ran through the very argument you make here.
4:32 The conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises. And no, atheism doesn't make a statement about free will and lack of free will doesn't mean we shouldn't hold people responsible.
To steelman it, Orthodox Jews don't actively proselytize like Christians do. So while I'm sure they would be happy to bring the argument up in a debate with an orthodox Jew, Jews are not the primary group of people telling atheists "you need to believe this book."
cause if you put blame on Jews then you anti-sematic and a Nazi, which is mind boggling given that somewhere around 1-3 million Catholics also died in the holocaust
I have been an atheist for 20 years and always believed in free will. Not sure where the rejection of free will came from. Even if you believe that we are programed for certain desires you can still stear away from them. We may have an innate desire to want to eat fries, a burger, and lava cake for desert but you can still say " can't do it. I am on a diet"
"you can still say " can't do it. I am on a diet" Yes. But there is a reason why you are on a diet, right? And there is a reason why you choose to follow the diet rather than indulge in your desire for food, right? It's all cause and effect, there is no place for us to put this "free will" into anything. The only reason we feel that we have free will is that contemplating all the network of causes and effects is to complicated in most cases.
@WhiteScorpio2 so because you had a reason to make a choice means you did not make a choice? That makes no sense especially when you realize people make decisions contrary to their wellbeing or to their nature.
@@nickdesanto6119 "so because you had a reason to make a choice means you did not make a choice?" You made a choice, you just had no free will in making that choice. "That makes no sense" The idea of free will makes no sense. So how is this "free will" making decisions? Something happening either is determined by pre-existing causes or isn't, thus being random, but free will is somehow neither? That's logically impossible. Please elaborate how you imagine free will works. Let's say someone offers me a choice of apple or orange juice. Please describe the process of me choosing one or another without appealing to deterministic causes or randomness. "people make decisions contrary to their wellbeing" So? There are more causes to human behavior than care about their wellbeing. "to their nature" I have no idea what you mean by "nature" and how you determined that someone made a decision contrary to it. Are you just assuming that there is some magical "higher nature"? Why?
@WhiteScorpio2 No, I do not believe in a Devine or magical nature.for example, would you say it is natural for someone to try to preserve their life? Yet people choose to give their lives for strangers, ideals, and hopeless causes. People chose an option that is not rational or determined. We are not robots following the most logical path. Also you can not change your life if there was no free will. If you are that hedonistic person that takes drugs, sex and fine food and drink you can't change because you can not freely choose to listen to that friend that says you are killing yourself, choose to keep a clean life, choose to struggle against your habits. If you say the contrary in a world view with out free will you either have to assume that some how this person was always the pleasure seeking fool and the person predisposed to clean up his act or personality is itself random.
@WhiteScorpio2 No, I do not mean a transient or Devine "human nature." Would you not agree that humans naturally will take choices to prolong or improve their life. If so, why would some people be determined to give their life for a stranger or act irrationally. It make sense if they had a free choice. Also, say you are a hedonistic person who likes drugs, sex, and fine food and drink. How can one change their life without the free choice to listen to their friend telling them they are killing themself or freely choosing to refrain from their desires and tendencies? Are they both determined to be the hedonistic and the person wanting to improve their life at the same time, or did the person have free will and chose to be a different person?
Atheism is the world's biggest dead end mistake. The person who denies says there is no Creator, but imagine a big disaster is coming, drought, war, hunger or an accident. Let's say I am in a difficult situation, who will help? Of course, you pray to the Almighty Creator and billions of people pray. It is Allah who answers prayers and relieves the troubles. The person who denies this denies the truth is that man is weak and in need of help at all times. Islam commands people to have good morals and good deeds.
@@Galaksyxxxht rasulallah was fra ud. He invented verses to suit his needs. Ex: when companions of rasulallah accused him of ste aling red velvet under garment, he pretend to get quran revelation 3:161, saying "it is not for the for prophet to embezzle". If allah was real god, he would have shown who stole the red velvet, instead of telling that rasulallah is not thi ef. Do we really need to take him seriously? Is allah real god?
@@Galaksyxxxht Yes people all randomly start praying to Allah in wars and hard times, we really see this in ww2 all those people instantly started praying to Allah. Come on you know this isn't true, most people for most of history have been religious and pray to the God they personally believe in in hard times whilst atheists wouldn't pray they would hope their situation gets better or do some other mechanism to cope.
@@JustADudeGamer Oh a lot of things can go wrong, thus why we live in a fallen world. Without God’s grace we are lost. We have the free choice to follow him and forever have everlasting life if we repent for our misdeeds.
@@JustADudeGamer Anyone can do bad things out of the blue, but it does not mean it's good that they do it. Certain people can have mental issues which may give us less of a reason to punish them societally but it does not change the fact you can punish people for what they do because they out of their own free will did it. There are certain reasons and desires that make us act a certain way yes, but that does not mean it was the only thing making us do what we did. Ultimately we can decide what we do.
@@trompette4485 His words certainly had an effect, but ultimately it was me who decided to press the button and subscribe. You ever heard the classic saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink? Same principle.
If you're inclined, it can get even simpler: If you don't have free will, and all your thoughts including propositions are determined, then you eliminate the possibility for propositions to have any truth value to them including the proposition, "I have no free will". It is self defeating because if it is true then it cannot be true. So atheists have to accept free will, the only question is whether they can justify free will.
You are not logical. There is nothing inherently contradictory in the claim "I have no free will", therefore it can absolutely be true if free will does not exist.
“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” -Prof Haldane via CS Lewis
@@avishevin1976if you say “I have no free will,” then I don’t believe you. After all, if you had no free will, then you would have no other choice than to say that. To say “I have no free will,” is to say that there is no such thing as reason. This means that even if it were true that there is no free will, it would also mean there is no good reason to believe it.
16:51 this just made me think, there’s 2 different charges for undeadly physical harm to a person ~ attempted murder and aggravated assault, even though the victim didn’t die in both, each charge carry a different weight. Also there’s murder, kill, and manslaughter. They all are physical harms where someone dies, but all 3 carry different weight/ moral responsibilities
Not really. He doesn't understand what makes people make choices. He just thinks we are made of magic or something and have complete control of everything all the time. Let me ask you this. If you are hungry do you get more easily upset? You do no question about it. Thats because our body and brain is lacking nutrients wich effects our mood and mental state. We are slaves to things our body needs not slaves to morality, morality is a made up concept the reality is people act and work differently because their mind and body works differently. You in reality have 0 control over yourself. You can regulate these changes in a more negative mindset like eating in the previous example but in the end you can't stop that from happening if you don't eat you are guaranteed to get more angry and upset if you are on an empty stomach meaning you don't have free will, you have the power to prevent the situation of getting hungry from happening and in extension getting angry but you don't have the power to go without food and and control how your emotions and how you act. This means that no we don't have complete control of our actions only the power to prevent that situation from occuring. We don't have complete free will. We have a lot of free will but not complete
@@skigui9078 Uhh, If there's freewill then there's some transcendence, no two ways about it. It's like an ocean that delivers water to a tap which delivers water to a household. The ocean symbolizes the much bigger complex transcendence of the consciousness of the soul, while the tap represents the body and the household represents the physical world. If the tap is damaged(body is damaged) then the water supply to the household(how you perform in the world and interact with the world) is affected despite the fact that the ocean is doing just fine( so a damaged body manifests negatively despite the soul being intact). Likewise, if the ocean becomes salty, there's nothing the tap by itself can do, so we have a negative outcome from the tap despite the tap being completely functional (a healthy , well fed, educated person can still make bad decisions and do evil). So you see, it's a mutual interaction, the soul needs the body to interact with the world and so if the body is damaged or needs something, it can inhibit the workings of the soul, our thoughts, our choices. However the body can be perfectly catered for but we still make bad or detrimental decisions. So it's not either body or soul, it's body and soul involved in the equation here.
Atheists also believe that artificial intelligence can think and learn and become sentient and make it's own choices, etc. It has free will in other words. But humans don't, we are binded to determinism via materialism.
Atheism is the world's biggest dead end mistake. The person who denies says there is no Creator, but imagine a big disaster is coming, drought, war, hunger or an accident. Let's say I am in a difficult situation, who will help? Of course, you pray to the Almighty Creator and billions of people pray. It is Allah who answers prayers and relieves the troubles. The person who denies this denies the truth is that man is weak and in need of help at all times. Islam commands people to have good morals and good deeds.
Because it's very difficult for atheists to demonstrate that free will actually exists within the parameters of materialism. Outside of Providence, there's very little indication that free will exists. It would seem that it is all chemicals in our brains reacting to stimuli. Thus being deterministic. It's much more consistent for an atheist to reject free will than presuming it and not give a coherent reason. I'm sure it can be done. But I haven't actually found a good argument that doesn't have some incoherency within itself.
I am dumb - This is because free will is a result of chemical reactions in your brain or the synapses that happen before an action or thought. So there is no way about it. There is no Free-Wi cir Aethiests. No god. Then the rational explanation is science. Unless you dont believe in Science.
When I find some food horrible to taste, I'm not implying that this food had made a free choice to be horrible to taste. Being horrible to taste does not require an ability for free will. Likewise, when I'm saying that WLC is morally repugnant, I'm not saying that he has made a free choice to be morally repugnant. Being morally repugnant doesn't require an ability for free will.
This reminds me of the moral dilemma that Joker sets up for Batman in The Dark Knight (spoilers; if you haven't seen it, you should stop reading this and watch it). When the Joker is being interrogated by Batman, he reveals that not only has Harvey Dent been taken captive, but also Harvey's fiancee (and Bruce Wayne's secret love interest) Rachel Dawes, whom the Joker suspects Batman is romantically involved with due to dramatic actions he took to rescue her earlier in the film. He gives Batman their separate locations and tells him that he doesn't have much time before they're both killed, so he has to choose. Batman decides to save Rachel, and gives Harvey's location to the police, hoping to outsmart the Joker and save both. The Joker has already outsmarted Batman however, because he swapped the addresses, and he knew the police wouldn't be able to respond in time anyway. If Rachel dies, Harvey and Batman are devastated, and if Harvey dies, Rachel is devastated along with Gotham's ray of hope. Batman shows up to save Rachel, and finds Harvey. Gotham PD shows up right as Rachel is killed. Should Batman feel guilty about not saving Rachel? Perhaps, but he TRIED. And that's the important part.
Why didn't you just make this video a direct response to Richard Dawkins instead of lumping Alex O'Connor into this? Alex never made the argument that WLC is morally reprehensible for his defense of biblical slaughter, but was rather challenging Craig on whether his viewpoint is consistent with his own views on morality and his moral argument for God, and how we can reconcile his defense with our own moral intuitions which Craig himself places such a high level of importance in. This video is the apologist equivalent of some atheist doing a take down video of Ken Ham and throwing some clips of Trent Horn in there to get a 2 for 1 special.
Determinism isn't an atheist argument. It's held by many people of different beliefs surrounding the subject of belief in gods. You can hold people responsible while still believing in determinism.
Great timing! I'm currently working on a paper defending free will for my philosophy class. I'd like to use your burning building example for my paper to demonstrate the necessity of moral responsibility in society, if that's okay.
In fairness, determinism is not a unique idea to atheism nor did it come up with the theory. Reformed theology and Islamic fatalism both hold forms of this and have for centuries
@newglof9558 well obviously but I'm just pointing out that arguing that atheism is self refuting because it doesn't hold to free will is very bizarre apologetic. To me the better response Trent could have raised is the fact that atheists are entirely unable to make any moral judgments at all since they don't have an objective standard, and they can't fall back to making this an internal critique because Dawkins for example clearly argues against God and debating Craig due to his own perception of immorality in God's actions. The irony is that he has no basis to criticize God's actions since he can't say that anyone is responsible for their actions AND that actions have a moral value associated with them. For Dawkins, the problem is that his own moral intuitions (which are largely Christian whether he admits or not) are in his worldview completely arbitrary, and thus it makes no sense to criticize God for His allegedly arbitrary actions.
@@jonathanw1106 The point of the video is one element of atheism posited by many prominent atheists and why this element is inconsistent. That's it. It's like a 12 minute video. It doesn't promise much to you.
Atheists can have their own sets of morals that do not need to come from somebody else. I don't know why so many theists think they need to be told by somebody else what is moral. Atheists can judge by how they set their own morals how they feel about others' morals. Anything that is considered contrary to one's own set of morals is what is considered evil. And often, the atheists ask how theists can justify something that according to their own book is commanded and yet sinful.
Majesty of Reason refuted this demonstrably. I also wrote a comment showing the flaws in your argument. Firstly, atheism doesnt necessitate strict determinism. Free will is compatible with atheism. The inability to do otherwise doesnt entail ppl are not determined to like or dislike the actions of conscious agents. We can punish ppl for pragmatic reasons. Also, the argument is based on an appeal to consequences. Simply claiming there is moral responsibility does not prove there is. Therefore, as usual, theists using emotional appeal tactics to manipulate their viewers. Moral realism needs to be demonstrated to be true, not simply claimed to be true. On strict determinism, everything is necessarily determined. Necessitarianism is true. Also, ppl dont need to be morally responsible for their actions for others to take actions to prevent them from reocurring. Also, most ppl act on the beliefs that there is free will but this is because humans are incapable of tracking every chain of causes that leads to one's behaviours. We could say every current state is caused by the prior state.
he is just pointing out that top atheists dont believe in free will. and i dont see how saying there is moral responsibility is an emotional appeal. i just dont get the argument. ur morals are still arbitrary and determined and someone like hitler isnt evil. he is just a problem in the society he lived in who needed to be fixed. i mean could atheists stop acting like evil exists?
@@whitemaster3268 Jay Dyer doesn't own the concept of transcendentalism lol It's one of the first arguments for the existence of God that I'd ever heard in my life and its a pretty common one, even if not everyone knows the name of it.
@@newglof9558 he is not merely criticizing epistemology he is using TAG but maybe listen to your fellow Catholic friend, TAG is not exclusive to Orthodoxy or Jay Dyer, anyone can use it (ofc doesn't mean it works for everyone)
"Punishing people for purely pragmatic reasons". Wow, that's a mad man. I notice he's Machiavelian enough to stop short of finishing that thought, but how he behaved during and after COVID fills in the blanks for us.
What is incredibly ironic about their reactions is that they are moral relativists treating morality objectively. Do the rational and overtly logical skeptics suppose to subject their OPINIONS onto everybody else? Because according to them, I thought morality was subjective and determined by one's cultural affiliations and not objective? Unless genocide is the one exception, in which case I forgot to watch their videos about that....
I'm an atheist and have been watching your videos extensively lately. I am somewhat a determinist but only lean towards compatibilism on the premise that intuitions (feelings of being free) are evidence of freewill (since I intuitively feel so), although they are not as empirically demonstrable as academics do with neuroscience decision-making studies that show how unconscious decision making comes about. As such, I find it unnecessary to ignore them, which makes me feel somewhat "compatibilistic" although I have every issue believing in a concept like freewill in light of the evidence for determinism So just a quick question for Trent or any other respondents, do you agree (or think) that there is zero empirically demonstrable evidence for freewill and that the best you can do is argue for it as you did in this case?
Hi Trent! Could you do a episode about the government banning contraception (all/just the bad for health/just the abortifacient) or banning civil divorce (all/whiches?)? Sometimes these themes are discuted and I don’t think there is a Church’s document about this. Thanks!
There are multiple sources and documents from the Catholic Church regarding divorce and contraception. As for divorce only being allowed in situations of danger, divorce can also be granted in cases of adultery.
advocating for discrimination and dictatorship is the religious way it seems. removing free will is what religiously immoral people seem to want to do.
@@thejuiceking2219 because causes are effects from previous causes but the first effect's cause cannot itself be an effect from a previous cause, so therefore there must be an initial cause that is uncaused which started the chain of causation that led to the current state of affairs.
Question: couldn't one undermine this argument by accepting Determinism (under an Atheistic/Naturalistic viewpoint), but point out that it's untenable for free will to exist under Theism (i.e, if God knows everything, doesn't that mean all events are predetermined/couldn't have occurred in such a way so as to surprise God)? Wherever you go, free will seems to be absent irrespective of the existence (or nonexistence) of God, or so the argument would go anyways. Just curious. Cool video otherwise.
I’ve got a thought: Does being predetermined remove the variable of a human’s free will in their choices being known? I’d say the variable of free will still is part of the outcome, rather it happens through time as said choices/events occur. :)
I appreciate the thought! :) With that being said, I'm unsure as to how experiencing free will ("it occurring through time," as you say) renders it real, when from God's perspective, we couldn't have chosen otherwise (given that God's knowledge is infinite, and consequently, nothing should surprise Him, lest that show gaps in His knowledge). Provided that an all-knowing deity exists (God), how can free will exist? It may feel like it does for us, but that's merely a qualia espoused by fallible and ignorant creatures like ourselves. (If I'm misunderstanding your thought, I apologize. I may lack the cognitive wherewithal needed to engage your point. I'm uneducated in matters pertaining to theology).
@@S.Awasstolen "With that being said, I'm unsure as to how experiencing free will ("it occurring through time," as you say) renders it real, when from God's perspective, we couldn't have chosen otherwise (given that God's knowledge is infinite, and consequently, nothing should surprise Him, lest that show gaps in His knowledge)." I understand the concern, but I feel like such a binary puts God as limited to time itself rather than being outside of time. I'd say we run the risk of, by our limited faculties, faulting God for our own inability to levy said critique. So, can you maybe help me out understand such a critique is reasonably possible for such truly infnite, timeless Being? :/
@@S.Awasstolen " It may feel like it does for us, but that's merely a qualia espoused by fallible and ignorant creatures like ourselves." I actually like this point a lot since I'd say this exact same concern would apply to being able to critique God as He is. And no, you are engaging more thoughtfully then probably 99% of folks I engage with. Thank you for this. :)
>> "So, can you maybe help me out understand such a critique is reasonably possible for such truly infinite, timeless Being? :/" No problem! Regardless of God's position to time (within or outside of it), assuming God is all-knowing, that'd entail His foreknowledge of events (past, present, and future). Wherever He's situated, He should know everything (including events that have yet to occur). He could be outside of time, and still be all-knowing, right? To be free is to be able to choose otherwise, but how can this be if God already knows what you'll choose (and moreover, you cannot surprise God, for that'd illustrate blanks in His knowledge). I'll grant you this: when considering the volume of conceptions of God (whether it be of an Judiastic type, Christian type, or Islamic type), it may be the case that one of these "conceptions" of God somehow allow for free will (like, for example, maybe under Judaism's theology, God's nature is less anthropomorphic, and more representative of "Goodness" as an abstraction. I'm just spitballing, but I'm sure you understand what I'm conveying: different theologies offer different natures of God, and maybe, one of these purported nature's solves this dilemma of free will). >> "I actually like this point a lot since I'd say this exact same concern would apply to being able to critique God as He is." Absolutely. Presuming (somehow) that human perception, for as rational and moral as it can be, is ALWAYS such (or even usually such) is an error made too frequently (and most astonishingly, by intelligent and well-reasoned people in most regards). >> "And no, you are engaging more thoughtfully then probably 99% of folks I engage with. Thank you for this. :)" You're too kind. I shudder thinking of what sort of company you keep if "99%" aren't as thoughtful as this meager post of mine. Nevertheless, thank you.
Devils Advocate here: Could this same argument be used against Theism? Theism holds that predestination and free will are compatible does it not? Isn't this the same as arguing that determinism and free will are compatible?
Thanks Trent always for defending/teaching our faith to those that are having a hard time comprehending God! I needed to hear this for such a long time. I just can’t fathom the mindset of atheists 😮God Bless you and your family ❤️🌎✝️
The question of free will is independent of theism or atheism. Atheists can believe in free will because it's only a lack of belief in gods. It does not inherently prescribe any particular metaphysical views about the laws of nature or human behavior. Atheists can believe in various forms of metaphysics, including those that allow for indeterminism or libertarian free will. Your argument that true moral responsibility requires free will, specifically the ability to have done otherwise is not universally accepted. Compatibilists, for instance, argue that moral responsibility is possible even under determinism, if individuals act according to their own reasons and desires, without external compulsion. But the dismissal of compatibilism as "unsatisfying" is a subjective judgment rather than a philosophical refutation. It holds that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive and that what matters for free will is not the ability to have done otherwise in any absolute sense, but rather the alignment of one’s actions with one’s internal motivations and rational deliberations.
When the final outcome, whether you’ve been the best person or the w0rst person, is the same, nothing matters. When it’s all just atoms moving, nothing matters. You also know that these atheists Trent is referring to believe in materialism, and I’m hard pressed to find any kind of such metaphysics that wouldn’t ultimately lead to a creator.
@@smidlee7747 i think you're confusing faith with trust. I have trust that i can trust person A for example because he has demonstrated that he is honest and sincere from my interqctions with him. Faith is when you believe something to be true in the absence of evidence, like when you trust person a to be honest even though you've never met the person
The whole "theres no free will" is so stupid. Most of the argument is based on a purposefully misinterpreted study from the 80s on the sub conscious and "readiness potential", which the researchers explain can be consciously cancelled by the person
All this raises a question for the philosopher - what are the implications of advances in knowledge about human decision-making for our conception of free will? Will scientific progress undermine our sense that we have free will? Will it eventually lead us to conclude that free will is an illusion? Take the following notorious real-life case from a decade ago. A once happily married middle-aged man begins to develop a fascination for child pornography and prostitution. Until this moment he has exhibited no unusual sexual appetites. Matters deteriorate, his wife becomes alarmed, and when he makes an advance on his step-daughter, his wife informs the police. Her husband is compelled to go and have therapy - but that doesn't deter him. Indeed, he harasses women at the centre at which he is being treated. A prison term seems inevitable. But just before he is due back in front of the courts, he begins to complain of headaches. He is rushed to hospital, where a scan reveals a massive tumour. Once this tumour is removed, his behaviour returns to normal. The story has a further twist. After several months, his aberrant behaviour returns. An investigation reveals that the tumour has not been entirely eradicated. A further operation sees the man back to his old self once again. In this case most people will probably feel that the man with the deviant sexual behaviour wasn't really free. It was, as it were, the tumour that was responsible. But we are all physical beings in a (largely) deterministic universe. Why is one physical cause - a tumour - different from any other? Might, in future, neuroscientists be brought into court to explain away all manner of transgressions, for example: "This man can't be held responsible for his shoplifting - it was due to his unusually high levels of dopamine." There is evidence that some people treated with dopamine for Parkinson's have problems with impulse control, sex and gambling, for example. Most of our philosophical concepts go back to the ancient Greeks. Not the concept of free will. The Homeric Greeks believed in fate, rather than freedom. They believed that circumstances were beyond their control. In the writings of Plato and Aristotle, there is no term that would naturally be translated as "free will". The emergence of the concept of free will can be dated to about the 4th Century AD, and was an ingenious solution of Christian theologians to the so-called Problem of Evil. If God is all powerful, and God is all good, how come there is evil in the world? The answer, said Saint Augustine, is that man has free will. ---bbc/news/Magazine "What can a brain scan tell us about free will?" 13 August 2013.
@nsinkov From that worldview you wouldn't, but since I know that isn't true, it's a moot point. All this is is an attempt to bring socialism to western nations, demorilization is step one for these snakes. There's a reason every socialist state removes God and calls faithful people stupid and antiquated. Yet the enlightened atheists have a much higher rate of depression, suicide, sexual degeneracy, early pregnancy, less productivity and general unhappiness.
the more I learn the more I am baffled by how one can be an atheist. sin truly blinds the intellect. Thanks be to God for His mercy and grace! Viva Cristo Rey
Hello Trent, can you please make a video refuting the claim that "Rome never fell, it just became a church". I hear that argument often, and protestants/athiest often point towards that fact that *most* Catholic countries in Europe today, where once part of the Roman empire.
Why does that need to be refuted though? If you believe in the church, that could be God placing his church within an institution that it could easily spread within.
The argument I gave below is another way to respond. As to free will, not only do we need a standard to call anything “good” or “bad” we need rationality and free will. On naturalism and evolution we don’t seem to have an account of either free will or rationality. Since evolution’s mechanism is on survivability rather than obtaining true beliefs there seems to be no way that true beliefs would survive the survival of the fittest function! The football players would always obliterate the chess team leading to brawns but not brains. For more see Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
first off, figuring out what's true and what's not true can be useful in regards to survival second off, survival of the fittest is sketchy in that regard, it's more a case of 'what works works', like butt fluff, scientists couldn't figure out the purpose of butt fluffy, so the general consensus as to why we have it is simply that there wasn't enough of a reason for us to get rid of it, not having butt fluff wasn't enough of an evolutionary downside to phase it out thirdly, just because those mechanisms weren't based on obtaining true beliefs but survival doesn't mean they can't be used for that, in the same way wood wasn't formed for the purpose of making fires, but it can be used for such a purpose
@@thejuiceking2219 But the problem is sometimes both can be true and you have to make utility based choice And even tho other thing could be less rational if it's more beneficial You will still have to accept it Statistically Religion is better And therefore since the position of God can't be falsified And We can take culture and Some morals from Religion Then we have to practice religion
@@thejuiceking2219Your third point That would be an intelligent Choice by the Organism And not Evolutionary gift by Nature I can also apply the same logic And then say similarly about religion and God
@@thejuiceking2219Survival of Fittest is not hard to understand There are cases where it's difficult to put things into places or understand them well But in most cases we can easily see what is happening And it's basically "Who adapts will survive,those who don't won't survive" I can say same things about non Religious and Atheist societies And make a Utility based claim
@@harsha6937 okay, just to be clear, when you say God can't be falsified, are you specifically talking about the christian God, or just any creator deity? because the christian God can be refuted, since the bible is the source of the christian God, so if you can refute the bible you can refute God for just any creator deity not defined by a religion, i'll be 100% honest, i don't think i could dispute that for any reason outside of 'i see no reason to believe that'
Hello! I am a hindu whos trying to learn about christianity. Could someone please help me? Could someone please explain to me simply what christians mean by "salvation"? Ie-jesus is the only way to salvation. Ive watched mr.jhon mccarthur,jhon pipers,voddie bauchams etcs videos on it and i have no idea what it means. Does it mean getting an afterlife? If so does it also mean anything else? Are there some christians who dont believe in afterlife? Or is the belief in an after life a mandatory belief to be a christian? Please help me. May god bless you for you re aid
Salvation means the cost of our sins was paid for by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and our souls after death will live eternally with him. “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”
Thank you so much friend! Could i ask you a few more questions if you dont mind? Must all christians believe in an after life or is it something thats debated? For example,ive learnt that in judaism not all jews believe in an afterlife. Some jews do and some dont. Is it the same in christianity?
It’s kind of like moksha which might make more sense to you, although the concept in Christianity is different. We also don’t earn it by our works alone, but in accepting the gift of Christ’s sacrifice for us.
God is perfect. Perfectly good and perfectly just. Man's imperfection is called sin. Sin is the thing which separates us from God. Death is the cost of sin. In order to heal the rift between God and man, the debt that sin incurs had to be paid. For this to occur, a sinless man must have died in order to pay a debt which is not his. This, of course, is beyond the abilities of man. So, God gave us his only begotten son, whose sinless death absolved us of our sin. After the death of our Lord, we need to profess our faith in Him and accept the gift of salvation. To be saved is to never die. Eternal life is the just reward for faith in Christ.
@@violetblythe6912 and could you tell me or direct me to some experts who can tell me a little bit about what this after life is like please? Do we remember/ get to meet our loved ones in heaven? Or is it more like the hindu continuation of consiousness , where our personalities are completely changed into a desireless entity that has no likes , deslikes etc
Another major problem with determinism is simply the absurdity of the fact that if your thoughts are simply the result of molecules in motion, then you are not "thinking" your thoughts in any meaningful way. They are things happening as the result of natural processes, not intentionality. If you do not intentionally think your thoughts, then "You" do not exist in any meaningful way. The very idea of personhood depends upon free will. There is no such thing as a person without will. There is no such thing as intellect or mind, without will. Thus the notion of determinism creates and absolutely absurd image of reality in which a person that does not exist, is thinking that another person which does not exist is morally blame-worthy for thoughts that person did not think, and actions that the non-existent person took, because the non-existent person had desires which are also simply the result of molecules in motion. And yet they have the gall to think of themselves as rational and the proponents of reason. Ironically, this just adds another layer of absurdity to their situation. A person who cannot think, and doesn't exist, considers themselves to be better at thinking in accord with reality, than a person who also does not exist, and can't think, who has different molecules moving in a different pattern. Also, a comment on the whole conquest of Canaan thing. One of the charges that is leveled against Christians who defend God's command to kill the children is that they believe "God commanded it therefore it is just." Which can be seen as a Voluntarist, arbitrary position whatever God commands becomes good. In the Euthyphro dilemma this would be the "it is good because the gods love it" option. In this view there essentially is nothing which is objectively good, good and evil are subjectively determined by God. However, there is another possibility here. Consider that God knows the good and does good, because it is good. We know imperfectly and can know the good, but we also acknowledge that God's knowledge of the good is infinitely better than ours. Thus it is possible that God's knowledge of the good and our knowledge of the good can conflict because he would know something to be good that we would think is bad. Given that reality, a wise person could say "I believe this is good because God commanded it" without meaning that goodness is arbitrarily determined by God's fiat. Rather in this case, the statement would simply be a statement of faith, that I trust God to know the good, better than I know the good, thus I will defer my judgement to his judgement. This is, pretty much, what the entire book of Job is about.
I have also heard it argued that the utter conquest of Canaan was likely war hyperbole not literal which was incredibly common in literature at the time. There are many different explanations of that event in the Bible and I'm honestly still thinking through it. Now I'll have to listen to Horns apologetic on it to compare
@@filler7149 What a brilliant strawman. How did you go from determinism to non existence ? Just because the universe is deterministic doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
@@trompette4485if everything is determined then imagination isnt real because imagination is a thought process and you as a robot cant think I was making a cheeky jab at the inconsistence You guys must hear strawmen in your walls
The problem for atheists runs even deeper that what you lay out here. Dawkins and co are mad at Craig because they think he was *irrational.* That is, they think he reasoned *incorrectly* and *should* have reasoned differently. But just as their determinism requires that Craig could not have morally chosen differently, so it holds that he could not have reasoned differently. In all cases, given the premises of atheistic materialism, one's decisions, choices, and conclusions are entirely determined by irrational, blind forces without remainder, and universal abstract laws of logic and objective truth have no actual part in it. As the atheists' primal anger suggests, morality and rationality are closely intertwined. In fact, man is a moral animal with free will *precisely because* man is a rational animal, and atheistic material determinism implies the non-existence of real moral choice only as a secondary effect, as it first and foremost implies the non-existence of real rational decision-making. So it's not just that materialist atheists have no grounds for condemning Craig morally. They have no grounds for holding that he's being any less rational than they are. In fact, they have no grounds for holding that a young-earth creationist or someone who thinks the universe is resting on an infinite pile of turtles is any less rational than they are. To be consistent with their view, they must accept that all of their views (including materialist atheism itself) are utterly arbitrary with no rational basis whatsoever.
Plus, you're actually arguing that given the factual account--without any mystical dressing--that genocide happened and could only happen. So you may be throwing a tantrum about what nobody could prevent, but you're not really providing that much more *opposition* to it--especially Sapolsky who thinks it's absurd to hate the Israelites for massive bloodshed, because it's not like they could do other.
The thing is, i think alex and other determinists would agree with what you're saying about free will. But i think what happens is that we simply preclude the our conceptions of free will so as to be able to engage in other discussions that build on foundational beliefs in free will and discuing issues in that context. For example i can argue with a utilitarian about morality using their assumptions, operating on the foundations of that view without being a utilitarian myself. The same applies here when making moral critiques even though someone might not believe in free will. Because if we focus on the fundamental disagreement, then it may impair the capacity to talk on subjects that presuppose free will and so we just preclude it for the context of a discussion.
There doesn't seem to be room for free will in a universe run by an all powerful, all knowing God either. How does theism better explain - rather than hide -- the mystery of free will?
that's because atheism is pretty broad, honestly it's very much a trap to depict it as atheism vs christianity the only requirement to be an atheist is to not believe in a god, everything else is on the table. there are atheists who believe in souls, an afterlife, reincarnation, objective morality, all that stuff, just not a god also, i'm not sure christians are ones to talk about inconsistent beliefs considering there's been multiple wars over varying christian beliefs
It's almost like atheism is not a religion and atheists are very diverse people who don't all believe the same thing because atheism is not a dogmatic religion that dictates how you should think. Shocker
There's just one problem with this argument. Sure some atheists might not believe in free will, but there are many of us who do. Our upbringing and circumstances might influences our choices but we still have free will. I don't believe in God. I believe in free will. I don't see the incompatibility. I clearly chose to write this comment right? I didn't have to. I am an agent with free will.
I've thought through this issue before. In an atheistic view, every particle was set in motion 14 billion years ago and follows a set of universal laws of physics. If our particles have been destined to do something from the beginning of time, we can't have free will.
@Christusregna but Judas had no choice. It was predetermined since creation, or God's plan wasn't a plan. So who really set that betrayal in motion? Judas or God?
Knowing something will happen and causing that thing to happen are two different things. I do not recall any scripture stating that Judas was predetermined to betray Christ, only prophecies that he would. Two different things.
@@patrickbarnes9874 I can wear a classics hat or a philosophy hat, I majored in both. "Prophecies that [Judas] would" is fatalism like you see in many Greek tragedies. Sophocles' Theban plays an obvious example. I'm not convinced that prophecies, ultimately grounded in the omniscience of the creator of the universe, can leave any room for Judas to do otherwise. Well, not without raising questions about God's character (like omniscience and omnipotence); not without taking on a heavy ontological burden somewhere else. If Judas had a choice, then God's plan for salvation wasn't airtight. And not every Christian is going to bite that bullet. If God had certain knowledge about Judas' betrayal, then Judas had only one path in front of him. He had a menu with one item. To "freely choose" the only thing available doesn't meet the stands for many philosophers' definition of free will. I think psychologists have a good understanding of how people internalise their situation and their choices, but that doesn't mean you can do otherwise. It doesn't mean Judas, had he wanted to not betray Jesus, could have taken that road instead. It gets even worse for free will because, at best, the Christian must suppose that God had so manipulated Judas' will that he would only want to the one option that he had open to him. That level of conditioning / brainwashing / indoctrination of Judas would not equal freedom. Put simply, if Judas had free will, God had to crush it so that he didn't. "But" you say, "God wouldn't do that! He'd choose someone already predisposed to betrayal and greed." That paints a picture of character development that sounds a lot like determinism and skewers you on the other horn of the dilemma: Judas didn't have free will in the first place, because it's not real. If Judas had free will then his betrayal would not be predictable. Perfectly certain predictions require a closed, deterministic system where we know all the relevant data. We could predict, for sure, that Judas would betray Jesus. If God in his omniscience knows it will happen, then to God it's perfectly predictable. There's no unknown. Free will would be an unknown. And yes, I used to be a devout Christian.
Well your point in the beggning about homosexuality and free will is a amazing point against you. Either god isn't all good and all loving if he sees something like homosexuality as a sin which we know today isn't a choice. Bad things happen because we are according to the bible blessed with free will. Why then punnish someone for the complete opposite, by that I mean of course why punnish someone who didn't make a choice. The other way to view it is the question we pose. that is of course that free will don't exist within the confinments of the bible. Because god is all knowing and all powerful meaning he had to have knowledge of what we did/do before we do it, that means that that choice had been made for eternity, an infinite amount of years before even the creation of mankind. That means of course we are simply slaves to choices predstined to be made. The bible says homosexuality is wrong and we have free will but these two can't coexist within the confinments of the bible. Either we have free will and you can change your viewpoint on homosexuals and change the future as you said. But if that is the case we choose to deem people as morally wrong for a choice never made that they couldn't control, with homosexuality you are doomed to whatever biology chooses. But the all loving and all knowing god says this is sinful and they need to change their behavior, which has only really been confirmed possible with electro shock therapy. If we don't have free will you are protected from your frankly imoral and evil views on regular people despite it contradicting Jesus own message (yet another problem with the bible, a lot of your "sins" don't make sense as sins if we actually look up to Jesus and strive to live like him). Either we have free will and your objective morality is that of a cold psychopath or we don't have free will and you are doomed to psychopathic morals. These two can't co exist with how god is described. I've seen some atheist claim we don't have free will because we are slaves to chemisty which I agree with. However with that viewpoint you would be considered evil because viewpoints aren't correlated to chemicals in the same way our behavior, what we do and act is. Viewpoints are more flexible and so is morality. I also want to point out your crazy straw man. Not all atheists belive we don't have free will. Atheism is just the beleif in a god. You can belive in free will without belief in god. If we go by your logic of we can't judge you because no free will exists then yes we wouldn't judge you, the thing you aren't getting is we are using your logic against you. Let's take his argument as an example. Humans are just like hurricanes and earthquakes and we do bad stuff because thats how nature works hence no morality exists. We could still judge you because your viewpoint is that we do have free will but you still see people as evil for choices never made. You have a massive doubble standard and that's what we are calling you out for. He wouldn't be saying "you are evil because you are a homophobe" he would be using your stance against homosexuality to disprove your religion. Your version of objective morality doesn't work withing the logic of the bible. Like I stated earlier that isn't even a requirment. Because homophobia isn't an action like murder or manipulation. Homophobia is a viewpoint. A person who manipulates are doing so because of how nature made them, homophobia has nothing to do with biochemisty or nature however. The same way comunism isn't determined by nature. A person agrees with comunism because of their worldview but a persons worldview isn't in all cases caused by nature. In some pretty rare cases it is, like a person who views the world as evil because of a mentall illness. But most people form their worldview from education by peers and institutions and personal experiences. A person decides to be comunist because of education and/or perhaps an experience for example being a worker and feeling misstreated. Worldviews aren't forced to be nature determined but happen due to societal factors and are hence changeable more easily unlike things determined by nature, some things determined by nature like homosexuality can change trough extreme meassures like shock therapy or a person acting erratic because of schizophrenia being treated with medication. But some things like psychopathy can't. I know this got very long but you clearly don't understand why SOME atheists say this, because they are consistent in their blelief unlike christians are. You simply juts don't understand the argument and that's fine but you are wrong in the end. Just to point out you kind ashow a lack of knowledge on how the brain works and what makes us do things. A brain tumour is just one of the many options. What you call a "healthy" arsonist might not be healthy but it just happens that we can't see it or know it. The person might have some form of chemical imbalance wich we don't even know the cause of yet. There are an immense amount of factors that play into the role of an arsoninst burning down a building. He might have sought revenge, underlying mental conditions that we don't know of, a different moral perspective someone who are aware of humans just being animals might not consider us above wild animals like lions and that it is only natural and okay for us to behave like one or it could be a personality disorder like sociopathy, someone who has a personality disorder isn't unhealthy they likely are facing mental issues but a personality disorder doesn't automatically deem you as unhealthy. Even yet it can be something we don't even know exists. Having the logic of "we don't know it so it must be supernatural" is extremely foolish. We know for a fact this has been used for ages as explanations for things we didn't understand. We used vampires like Dracula as a way of explanation to evil people specifiaclly Vlad the impailer. We didn't understand how a human they saw as just a normal person like everyone else could be so heinous could do such evil so the only explanation they had was that he simply wasn't human. We've seen this time and time again in history specifically with religion. Religion and supernatural beings have always been the explanation for the unexplained and everytime it's been proven later to not be the case. You also demonstrate a lack of knowledge on human emotions. People choose to be good because we have empathy wich makes us feel good when we are good. Being a caring indivdual releases oxytocin. We have this system because we are herd animals so we need to be caring to survive thats why we feel good when we are caring. Just like working out feels good and intercourse feels good. We feel good becuase we needed to be active, caring and procreate to survive and that system has stuck with us because we are still animals. Some people are born without these systems like psychopaths and thats one reason why some people commit arson. We needed emotionless people to exist as well because they were effeective at defending from other humans and animals without feeling bad about it. The idea of moralaty isn't real. We have made up it. We consider not killing and being caring as morally right becuase most of us are born with the system I described earlier that releases oxytocin. I want to add that we feel bad for killing others because our brain so primitive still it sees this as a risk of being abandonned by our tribe or even us killing the tribe. People with the empathy system need humans more in that sense to not have our mental sanity ruined because of how our primtive brain still works.
that doesn't make sense, of course they'd value their definition of morality over the morality of someone they don't believe to exist, by that same logic i could call you arrogant for believing your morals to be superior to those of, say, Allah
You would rather take morality from an ancient book written by people likely affected by socio-economic factors of the time long considered outdated over morality based on empathy, logical understanding and democratic opinion? Also, the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn pedophilia as far as I am aware. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me on that but if I'm right, know you worship a religion that doesn't condemn pedophiles
@thejuiceking2219 Since I root objective morality in the historical Christ and His teachings rather than solely my own reason your analogy does not work. Especially when compared to the a-historical claims made by Islam.
@@hydraph4843 pedophilia is explicitly contrary to Christian Doctrine on marriage since such unions are not oriented to procreation or the mutual partnership toward Holiness. Rather they are rooted in mere subjectively rooted justifications much more appropriate to individualist materialist atheism as paraded on campuses across the country. Your misunderstanding of christian teaching is not surprising given the apparent materialist bias you admit accreditting to history.
Trent, would love a video of you talking about the Baptist “Trail Of Blood” it was brought up in a conversation with some friends about church history.
I dont think i have a concise counter. But it just struck me, if an athiest makes this argument, they are also stating that "morality is a social game" in which they play along, and that moral judgement is related to the rules set of this game. There are two kinds of games that you can play, an outer game, and an inner game. Outer games have objective well defined rules that are easily cross referenced and so outward performance can be checked against. The rules only govern behavior. Inner games are set by a mixture of drives (which have rules for how to follow them and the corresponding feedback in your biology) and internal moral systems (which have intrinsic rewards and punishments). The inner game governs behavior, intention, thought and intentionality. And in a large way all of these are construed as inner behaviors to the individual. To me it seems like the atheist is arguing that they dont need god as long as they play the inner moral game. Even if the rewards are intrinsic, since the inner game relates to outer behavior, should they expose their inner game like by talking about an experience, they can be judged by those who also play the inner moral game. That is, regardless of the final source or end of moral ideas, an athiest just has to play the game enough to get what they want and that since it is a game with worldly consequences both for pleasure and social gain/loss, they can justify playing it even if there is no true moral justification. This obviously takes for granted the fact that man has moral drives, it lacks any desire to investigate purpose, and it ignores cases where men simply choose not to play any of those games or where they rebel against those games. Not being able to properly judge men who are openly and inwardly amoral is a big deficit. As a catholic this sort of athiestic idea is pretty unsatisfying. But it does not seem to me to be entirely so easy to dismiss. Maybe i am formulating it poorly. But to me this seems like the issue.
No one said all atheists deny free will. What we're saying is they cannot justify or prove that it exists. In other words, they make irrational claims that free will exists. If you know of a rational way for atheists to claim and prove free will, I'd be interested to hear about it.
@@tonyl3762 We evolved to be able to make choices. See Daniel Dennett. Compatibilism. What's funny to me, sadly, is that Christians say they believe in free will....but what does that mean? You picked your Catholic or Muslim parents? Being born to Catholic or Muslim parents, especially if they're reasonably nice, provide good resources, etc., means you have little chance to not be very influence to be Catholic or Muslim. Children are told "honor your parents" and in Islam, this is a command, to take care of your parents until they are gone. So, take a child, "train him up" and "he'll not depart from it," sort of disproved libertarian free will. Compatibilism is a good middle ground. I tend to lean towards Dennett away from Robert S.
@@michaelsbeverly Sorry, but the hand-waving magic of the term "evolution" is not an evidential explanation or demonstration that quarks, bosons, atoms, molecules, chemicals, etc. can become conscious and make choices. Please provide some actual evidence, logic, reasons. At least evolutionary biologists provide examples of intermediary organisms to demonstrate the evolution of physiological structures. Unfortunately, you won't find consciousness, thoughts, and choices preserved in fossils. I believe Dennett is one who believes that we are our brain and that our brain controls "us" rather than there being a person who makes choices. This view has been persuasively countered from what I've seen. You're showing a lot of ignorance and presumption.... Not all Christians believe in free will (e.g. Calvinists). You also totally ignore the widespread phenomenon of people abandoning the views of their parents, whether religious or non-religious, regardless of resources, etc. (shouldn't most atheists already be aware of this?). There are even liberal-conservative spectrums within religions. So your measurement of "little chance to not be very influence to be X" is wildly speculative and likely largely inaccurate, though I'm guessing there are some studies out there that do a fair enough job measuring shifting views. _"he'll not depart from it"_ lol, there are apparently no bounds to misinterpretation of the Bible.... Are you not aware that that verse is found in the book of PROVERBS? Do you know what a proverb is? Do you know what "context" is? That book/verse is not even trying to make a philosophical or sociological statement of fact.
question: if everything we say and do is all part of God's plan, which has all been planned out ahead of time, then can christians really say we have free will either? is it really free will if all we're doing is following the plan, whether we know it or not?
We don't have free will like driving on a four-wheeler going where ever you want but instead the Bible teachings is more like a train running on tracks and you can choice the track you travel but God ultimately is the one laying down the tracks. No matter which track you chose , rebel against God or repent and submit to God , God will carry out His plan.
@@smidlee7747 except if God is all-knowing then he already knows which of those decisions i'll make, which 'tracks' i'll choose, and so we end end up back at square one; either God's plan isn't how it's laid out to be, or free will for christians in ultimately just an illusion, where everything's already planned out for you and you only think you have a choice in the matter, you have all these difference choices, all these 'tracks', but also i know which tracks you'll choose
@@thejuiceking2219 You are assuming God is bound by time like you. The scripture clearly teach the opposite "Before Abraham was I Am" So it's not like God is looking in the future and see which track you chose , He is already there as well when you make your choice. Since God knows everything like you said He includes man in the judgment to judge himself. This is repeated many times in scripture. This is what we mean by free will , God steps back and allows man to judge. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah condemned themselves when they decided they would attack Lot who if it wasn't for him they would still be slaves. God could have judge them immediately for their sins yet He allowed them to judge themselves. This is why how you treat your fellowman is linked with your relationship with God.
God bless you brother i am a Christian but the way you explained that, it made me think if they really thought what God did to the Cannanites was wrong that means they have their own idea of how to deal with the Cannanites, what would that have been ? 🤔 If they have no problem with certain moral issues now i wonder what resolve they would have for that
This video proves that Alex'O' Connor is incredibily intellectual dishonest. There's no way he just doesn't know about these famous criticisms, especiay since he EXPLICITLY affirms predeterminism. He's not interested in having an honest debate. Only in virtue signaling, and feeling the need to tell others how great and morally righteous he is... even though morality is impossible if athiesm is true. It's ridiculous.
Willing to bet he's more than aware of these criticisms and just doesn't find them convincing. Plenty of views of morality don't have any trouble with these objections. More than that, though, there's very good reason to believe free will as a concept isn't just untrue but also logically impossible (a belief which Alex O'Connor personally seems to subscribe to) and none of these arguments really address that.
@@EpixAura "Plenty of views of morality don't have any trouble with these objections." Conveniently, you and none of the other atheist apologists here are capable of mentioning any of these supposedly numerous "views of morality". Opinion discarded.
@@chormerlyfuchs The obvious objection is to argue against the idea that moral accountability exists (The second premise in his argument) Trent's arguments for moral responsibility are: 1: It's obvious. Saying things are obvious is not an actual argument. 2: If it didn't, people would be justified in doing terrible things for the greater good. This really only applies to more hardline utilitarian views and is a pretty clear false dichotomy. The reason I didn't list in-detail viewpoints on morality is because pretty much everything EXCEPT this specific moral system doesn't have a problem this with. Disagreeing with Trent's definition of moral accountability also works, as he defines it as the ability to have done differently, which implies the existence of free will. Using a definition of "the ability to do differently in the future" gives us a definition that works just as well without having to imply that. This is the main objection I see being pointed out in the comments here.
@@EpixAura So what if he "doesn't find them convincing"? That's the personal incredulity fallacy, Matt Dillamonkey level argumentation. My point is that if you don't think free will exists, you can't hold any one morally culpable for their actions, because they were just predermined to do an evil action. So WLC can't be held morally "responsible" for defending "slaughter", because he was just predermined to do that, which makes Alex super dishonest. Also there is an pressupositional argument to be made for the neccesity of free will, but even if that wasn't the case i was just pointing out that Alex is dishonest for on one hand telling people that he doesn't think there's any logical reason to blame someone for their actions, but on the other, when it's convinient for him to get a bunch of views for condemning WLC for defending "slaughter", suddenly we don't notice a contradiction in his argumentation, and everything is fine.
@@Anderson-vj8sh If Alex publicly said something to that effect and acted as though that settled the matter, it certainly would be an argument from incredulity, but that's not what's happened. Realistically he likely has reasons for not finding them convincing, and while I don't have access to his thoughts on the matter on account of not being Alex, if the argument is specifically "Moral responsibility as Trent defines it is incompatible with determinism, therefore its logically inconsistent for Alex (or anyone who doesn’t believe in free will) to hold someone morally responsible” then there’s a few objections that can be raised. First is to object to Trent’s definition of moral responsibility. Rather than “someone is morally responsible if they can be blamed or praised for an action” something like “someone is morally responsible if they could feasibly have acted differently if they (A) have a sufficient understanding of morality and (B) could have been incentivized to do otherwise, with the amount of moral responsibility they have scaling inversely with the amount of incentive needed” still provides a working definition that lines up with all of Trent’s examples without excluding determinism. There are likely much better definitions but a lot of comes down to what you believe the purpose of moral accountability/responsibility to be and that’s an absolutely insane rabbit hole to go down. Second is to deny the existence of moral accountability entirely. Plenty of views on morality don’t necessarily need moral agents or moral accountability for their framework to be consistent. While my knowledge of this of this particular viewpoint isn’t even really surface level, emotivism (which Alex generally subscribes to) is one of these as far as I can tell. It may look as though he’s holding WLC morally responsible for his views, but from his perspective he’s just expressing the emotional opinion of “I dislike slaughter. Boo, slaughter.” which is a statement that doesn’t care about determinism or free will at all. On a more pedantic note, it can also be argued that Alex WASN’T condemning WLC or his opinions but simply playing Devil’s advocate which is generally what he does on the podcast. I don’t particularly care to push this point since I’m more interested in the philosophical part of the discussion and I’m not entirely convinced of this point myself and can’t fault anyone for being unconvinced by it, but I’ve seen enough people in the comments point it out that I feel a little bit obligated to say it.
Congratulations on missing the argument of, no free-will, Trent. Response to your video - • For all intents and purposes the will of us is not free. • It is idle to speak of free will in a man who is the slave of the objects around him. He is ever in bondage, he can exercise no choice; for though we may think of such a one as choosing to follow the path along which attractions draw him, there is, in truth, no choice nor thought of choice. So long as attraction and repulsion determine the path, all talk of freedom is empty and foolish. • To understand what freedom of will means, we must clear away a preliminary difficulty which faces us in the word: choice. • When we appear to be free to choose, does that so-called freedom of choice mean freedom of will.? Or is it not true to say that freedom of choice means that no external force compels us to elect one or another of alternatives.? • The important question that lies behind this is: what makes us choose.? Whether we are free to act when we have chosen is a very different thing from whether we are free to choose, or whether the choice is determined by something that lies behind. • No one denies the power of a person, physically unconstrained, to leave a room or to stay in it, to drop a weight or to uphold it. • The question is: why do I choose.? When we analyse the choice, we see that it is determined by motive. You can uphold or drop the weight, but if there is a valuable or fragile article underneath, you will not drop it. That which determines your choice not to drop it is the presence of that valuable or fragile object. Your choice is determined by motives, and the strongest motive directs it. • The question is not: am I free to act, but: am I free to will.? • In truth, this fact that the will is determined by the strongest motive is the basis of all organized society, of all law, of all penalty, of all responsibility, of all education. • In law, a man is regarded as irresponsible when no motive sways him, when no ordinary reasons affect him. • Apart from the previously-mentioned bondage to attraction and repulsion, we are bound within the channels made by our past thinkings, by our habits, most of all by our habits of thought, by the strengths and the weaknesses that were born with us, by our education and our surroundings, by the imperious compulsions of our stage in evolution, our physical heredity, and our national and racial traditions. • We know what motivated the atrocious acts of the church and we know what motivates every Chrstn to uphold the atrocious acts committed by the church. • Can a person who is bound by a virtue, criticize those, who are bound by a vice.? Yes. • Can a person who is bound by a virtue, in one area, be bound by a vice in another area.? Yes.
Yes, it was a Prussian slogan from the late 18th/early 19th century. Any adoption by any later regimes likely did it because it was Prussian and not due to any actual theological implications. Your point?
Counterargument: Lenin, Stalin, Mao. And Nazism would have eventually gotten rid of the Christians, too. The worldview behind that is a wack mix of 29th century pseudoscience, occult mysticism, and national worship. The Catholic Church had taken a stand against them, so they would have eventually removed the Church after the Jews and Slavs.
@@newglof9558 excuses excuses! "Faith" is required to "Believe in Lies" and that is why religions demand "Faithfulness" to maintain Power & Control over their followers and Force their Theocracy on everyone! "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries" - James Madison
@@thunderbird3694Faith is simply trust in something. You can trust in something that is true or false, the definition of faith does not inherently mean belief in that which is irrational. I have faith that the breakfast I eat every morning isn’t poisoned and going to kill me, so I eat it.
Spolsky is also one of these hacks who self exempts his own thoughts. So we need to get over the idea of hating any person for anything they've done because they have no free will, but we have free will in order to have to "get over the idea" of hating others for their predetermined actions. This is not logically consistent. It seems as though Sapolsky doesn't believe himself.
Your title is misleading. Atheists that defend free will can blame Christians. So, at best, you have 'some atheists can't blame Christians.' Slightly different, and totally uninteresting. Edit: Perhaps you don't title your videos, and if you don't, you should have a word with the person that does, because they're making you look like a disingenuous interlocutor who is willing to uncharitably generalise to suit your narrative. A sign of a really poor thinker failing to appreciate nuance and dialectics. Food for thought, Trent.
"A sign of a really poor thinker failing to appreciate nuance and dialectic" This is how I described my mom when she wouldn't listen to my argument on why I shouldn't have to eat vegetables
@@newglof9558 But his title is misleading. Similar to saying theists believe Mohammad is a prophetof God. No, some theists believe Mohammad is a prophet of God. If you were then going to criticise Mohammad thinking you're criticising theism, you're making a grave error. And it's not even similar, it's exactly the same.
