I don't dwell on these types of arguments, for my own sanity, but they can feel cleansing. I've never read it, but "The Consolation of Philosophy" seems to be a good title for a book.

Hi everybody. I am catholic a priest, and I support Dr. Maitzen's call for philosophers in ethic commissions. Morality based on authority is at its best only second rate. To do do the right thing in the right way you need to understand what you are doing. That's not possible with rationality shut down. I hope the theologians sent to those commissions have a solid background in philosophy, otherwise they are useless. On the other hand, I wish the same of those delegated by atheists. I find the philosophical quality of this lesson wanting. If Dr. Maitzen read anything about philosophical doctrine of god not written some critics of it, he doesn't use that knowledge. A reliable philosophical doctrine of god starts with some evidence and follows that path until it reaches a distinct attribute of god. By that procedure one builds a rational understanding of that attribute. Thomas Aquinus sketches his five ways, because every way explains a different attribute of god. Philosophical doctrine of god as I was taught works bottom up. Using it top down as in this lesson, starting by some idea created from the common usage of some word yields nothing reliable. The god of which Dr. Maitzen speaks is neither the god of the philosophers nor the god of the bible. If I accept his concept of god I have another question. Either harm or a good god, both can't exist simultaneously? If that's true I need a proof of the existence of harm. Common sense is not enough. We know: Common sense can agree to false statements. Common sense thought for centuries earth being fixed and the sun moving. Does Dr Maitzen proof harm not being an illusion? If harm is just an illusion even his strange construct of a god could coexist with morality. If harm is an illusion what is suffering?

@Woof45

8 ай бұрын

Aquinas five ways are full of logical flaws, outlined in the most basic year 1 philosophy text books. A good god would not create sentient beings without their consent. Because you feel love for God does not mean God is real or good.

"Subservient to the Invisible." Found both in atomic theory and theology. Then again, no one will ever see thoughts.

The world cannot be without a designer! It is the Ontological argument which helps us to re-assert our faith in God.

I think God wins this battle 10/10 times

@Philosophy_Overdose

9 ай бұрын

And therefore morality loses.

@CandidDate

9 ай бұрын

...by definition.

@farazahmad7229

9 ай бұрын

@philosophy_overdoes Your claim is so dumb that i had to unsubscribe your channel. If there is no God then Morality is just a tool of the weak to protect themselves from those who are mighty. I mean if there is no God then there is no difference between Sinners and the saints. Buddha is no better than Hitler. Just cry but nothing can happen.

@farazahmad7229

9 ай бұрын

Those who are pussy fear God hence they deny God because it limits them from craving out their sensuous desires

@mega4171

9 ай бұрын

So no morality. W theist

the logic that suffering can arise for the net benefit of the suffering person is mutually exclusive to the arising of anothers obligation to cease that suffering is not at all well drawn.

"The theistic religions teach a doctrine of heaven" 7:46 Immediately off to a terrible start. So we're not discussing theism vs atheism, we're discussing atheism vs established theistic religions. That's a pretty dishonest way to set things up if your argument is about the relationship of theism and atheism to morality, because one can easily be a theist without believing in established doctrines. "What happens to the morality of killing, then?" 7:57 Nothing, because a pleasant afterlife existing doesn't justify cutting our lives here short in order to get there. I may not be in eternal bliss here on Earth, but that doesn't mean that experience here is without value. You'd have to be an extreme utilitarian to believe that dying early is a good idea simply because the afterlife is a nicer place. "There's also an empirical question here..." 8:33 I think it's a sign of dishonesty when people raise questions like this without any intent to answer them, especially when they follow them up with phrases like "I think the signs are not good". First of all, how the hell would one even begin to quantify how moral a certain period of time was? You'd have to first agree to an idea of morality. "Distant reward and punishment have a very weak regulatory effect." 8:50 So? Heaven and Hell aren't the only two factors in theistic religions. The three most famous theistic religions all describe temporal punishments for a wide variety of crimes. The punishment is not so distant, and neither is the reward, because these religions also emphasize virtues that objectively improve a person's wellbeing. We know that patience, charity, temperance, etc. are good for you not simply because God says so or something, but because it's a scientifically proven fact now. Our immediate wellbeing is improved by these things, and committing "sinful" acts like murder, theft, and adultery are all scientifically proven to be detrimental to the mental health of the perpetrator, except in abnormal cases like sociopathy. If you're going to argue against theistic religions - which you shouldn't be, because you're meant to be arguing against theism itself here - then you ought to take into account all doctrinal beliefs, not just that of the afterlife. Of course, none of this would be a problem if you didn't try to quietly assert that theists are quantifiably less moral than atheist. "Religious violence..." 9:09 Religious violence is effectively a myth. Be it the crusades, the inquisitions, or the terrorist attacks of modernity; It's all primarily politically motivated even when the participants are highly religious individuals. Nothing in the Bible compelled the crusades, just like nothing in the Quran compelled Hamas to attack Israel this weekend. The religious elements are almost never the driving factor, they only serve as justification for political action. If it weren't religion, it would be something else. If you don't believe me, look at how America was constantly on crusade against communism during the Cold War. "How does belief in God effect the personal responsibility that people are willing to accept?" 9:29 The quote he gives here does not reflect the mindset he says it does. When someone says that something was God's decision like that, they don't mean to say that they're absolved of all responsibility. They're saying they believe that God put them in the position to make the decision they're making, not that God made the decision for them. There's a very big difference. It's not at all common for people to try and absolve their responsibility by suggesting God made them do it. That mindset is explicitly condemned by most religious people, at least in my experience. "I'll simply point out that others say theism's glorification of our species encourages immoral treatment of non-human animals." 10:45 More dishonest behavior here. He can say he's not making the argument, but he nevertheless is. He just as easily could have left it out of his talk. I see a lot of people do this kind of thing when they give talks like this, and it infuriates me every time. If you're not going to talk about something, then don't talk about. The only reason people do this is to try and undermine the opposing argument by throwing out a series of points that they're not obligated to support in any meaningful way. That's why I call it dishonest. Anyway, it's a dumb argument, because theism doesn't inherently glorify humanity, and even if it did there's no reason to take that as justification for harming animals in some immoral way. In fact, I'm fairly certain that in Ecclesiastes - a book which has a place in all three most famous theistic religions - it is explicitly stated that man and beast have no advantage over each other because they share the same spirit. In those faiths it is also explicitly stated that man is meant to be a steward of the earth and care for the beasts therein. And again, even if it what he said was true about these faiths, it still wouldn't be an argument against theism itself. "For example in factory farming..." 10:52 I cannot stress how tremendously dishonest this kind of emotional manipulation is. Theism has NOTHING to do with factory farming or the testing of cosmetics. It's just as easy to make an atheistic justification for those things as it is to make a theistic one. "Our most serious moral obligations conceptually depend on atheism; On the claim that no perfect god exists." 11:18 Well, that isn't atheism. Atheism is the claim that no god exists, but I digress. "In theism God is as good as is it is possible to be..." 11:45 No, not necessarily, but for the sake of argument I'll allow it. "I happen to think God can't exploit any non-volunteer." 15:44 Why? You can't base your entire argument off a statement like this without justifying it, especially considering that you're arguing against the "God of monotheism", and in the Bible it is explicitly stated that God DOES exploit non-volunteers. He does so frequently. So you're going to have to explain why you think that's immoral. You can't just state it as a matter of fact and expect theists to go along with it. I believe that if some being has perfect knowledge then they're more than justified in exploiting someone against their will for some sort of greater good, even if that greater good ultimately harms the person they're exploiting. Hell, I'd argue they're justified in doing so even if there if morality is entirely subjective, because the most we can expect from anyone is that they adhere to what they believe morality to be, and I don't think there's any evidence to conclusively suggest that such a thing exists as a perfect knowledge of morality. "Here I have support from a number of sources, including a prominent Christian philosopher." 16:19 I do not care. "If a good God allows evil, it can only be because the evil in question produces a benefit for the sufferer, and one that God could not produce without the suffering." 16:30 All of this shit presupposes the idea that suffering is a moral wrong. It puts all the focus on the sufferer, where it frankly does not belong. The focus of morality should be on the actor. The man who tortured that child was immoral, not because the child was hurting, but because he actively sought to hurt the child. His desire to harm others is what makes him immoral, not the suffering caused. He would still be an immoral person if he hadn't gone through with the act. God allowing suffering isn't the issue. It isn't even that he permits immoral acts to be done. The issue lies at the source of the immorality, which is in the thought process of the individual. So why doesn't God stop people from having immoral thoughts? Well, if we're presupposing that God is all good, then there may not be an answer. However, as a theist, I don't believe God is all good. I think he's equal parts good and evil, because you can't have perfect knowledge without knowing what it's like to be evil. But I digress. "So this is from a major Christian philosopher, but I don't want to appeal to her authority." 17:02 That's nice, but you did anyway. You emphasized her faith and prominence twice. You didn't need to quote her to make these arguments, nor did you need to mention the support you have from "a number of sources". It's made infinitely worse by the fact that you're essentially taking Christianity and calling it theism all the while. "So God can't exploit children." 17:13 Lmfao, sure. I mean, you haven't done anything to actually argue that point, but whatever.

@tiredidealist

8 ай бұрын

"But if that's the case, we can't have the obligation that morality says we have." 18:20 Morality doesn't say anything. If it did, this discussion wouldn't be necessary. You never established that we actually are morally obligated to prevent someone's suffering, this is just another baseless assertion. I could go through the rest of it, but I'm not going to. The whole thing is effectively a strawman of theism, and a piss poor critique of Christian morality. I've watched other talks on this channel and this is by far the worst. If people are morally obligated to prevent suffering, then this guy should never speak again. I'm joking, of course, he's welcome to do whatever he pleases.

The most atrocious things in the history of humanity have been committed in the name of God. -- Dalai Lama

@matterasmachine

9 ай бұрын

Nuclear bombardment? Chemical weapons / holocost? I would say those were made in the name of science.

@jamesvail4927

9 ай бұрын

This really is not an argument against the validity of God’s existence. It really means that human beings misinterpret their poor judgment as holy behavior or actions done “in the name of God”. It’s an argument against our own understanding of what God is.

@sweeps6089

9 ай бұрын

@@matterasmachine No they were not in the name of science, science was used sure. But they were all caused by a fervent belief in an ideology God being one of the most common.

@matterasmachine

9 ай бұрын

@@sweeps6089 nonsense. Without scientists there would be no any nuclear bombardnent.

@Khuno2

9 ай бұрын

Particularly by the Tibetan aristocracy themselves. An evil that the people of Tibet are well rid of.

the entire concept of god is created on hypothetical grounds. You can say there is god and start arguing what ever you like. We should not have to justify actions of god if he exists it should be a justification its self.