Divine Command Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #33

[@jeka8826]

Hank, I really appreciate how respectful you are in these videos. You say "in this worldview" or "Plato said" objectively, without passing judgment on people who do or do not hold a certain philosophical view. In the comments, people will judge each other for their theist/atheist beliefs, but you don't go there in your videos. Thank you for explaining the topic without taking sides, so we can all use philosophy to investigate and test our own ideas without feeling that philosophy has already solved a problem once and for all. It's a much stronger way to learn and to think for ourselves.

[@jackharmon1]

The Ten Recommendations: 1. I would suggest you don't have any other gods. 2. Please don't make any graven images. 3. It kinda bugs me when people take my name in vain. 4. Sundays are pretty cool 5. Be nice to your mom and dad, if you can. 6. I'd like it if you didn't kill people. 7. Adultery is not that cool. 8. If could not steal, that would be stellar. 9. Please don't bear false witness, if that's cool. 10. Please just generally leave your neighbor uncoveted, it's not a huge deal but c'mon, please.

[@siraeonjay]

ok..?

[@davidostos506]

Thank you for the recommendations, God.

[@guyfawkes7949]

Number 4 is Saturday. You show superficial understanding of the Ten Commandments.

[@fymf00100]

How about "You should take a break once a week. Maybe come over to my house for a few hours and hang out, or call me if you can. It'll be great."

[@UltimateWaifuXD]

And if you break any of these rules, you go to hell. No big deal.

[@joshbethinkin]

All I know is, God would like us all to call bananas ChomChoms

[@andrewxu4078]

Anyone spot Kurzgesagt at 5:33?

[@asterixgallier8102]

Ahhh! Nice

[@patrickwheeler6362]

Yup.

[@sunildjd26]

Hahaha awesome

[@junesept234]

'didn't saw that until I read this.

[@isa_apricot]

U a real g if u spot kurzgesagt

[@PennyDreadful1]

"Thou shalt commit adultery" was a famous Bible typo in a Bible from 1631.

[@MrJr1976]

I love when Crash Course makes me think. Coming from a theist, this is a very good video. Thank you.

[@christominded4726]

see my reply.

[@studentxcmu]

Have you come up with any conclusion? I would like to hear, thanks a lot!

[@jamesteranov5978]

and coming from an atheist I think the same.

[@brittkelly9878]

@@studentxcmu I agree if there was a change of thought pattern I would like to know as well just because I'm also curious

[@williamnathanael412]

Agree, I'm a Christian and I find this quite interesting.

[@ezravoss]

It's crazy to imagine that all this discussion was before the world's top 3 religions were "discovered".

[@CaidenCowger]

Actually, Judaism had already been "discovered," because it predates other religions and time of origin is unknown.

[@anapaulapedro7025]

Caiden Cowger Hinduism is arguably the oldest that is still practiced.

[@CaidenCowger]

Ana Paula Pedro, Judaism predates Hinduism, because they went according to the Oral Torah, prior to written documentation.

[@anapaulapedro7025]

@@CaidenCowger Its hard to know the actual date but considering how old India is, Hinduism could be just as old.

[@solomon.powell]

​@@anapaulapedro7025 If Moses was a true prophet, and Genesis is accurate, the first two humans followed and actually talked and met daily with the God of the Bible. Their names were Adam and Eve and the location is given, including the river Euphrates being mentioned. That dates to around 3700 B.C. if the genealogies are accurate. It was not until the tower of Babel in chapter 11 that people even scattered to different parts of the world and started having more than one language (again, if Genesis is accurate). Eventually people settled in the Indus Valley (India, etc). The oldest Hindu vedas are believed to have been written about 1700 years, which is still very old though! Older than Moses and the writing down of Genesis. Even if not older than the practice of people following Yahweh (the God of the Bible). The more important question, imo, though, is which God has shown he is the most interested in communicating and being in relationship with us. So far, (as all Hindus will tell you), no single one of the Hindu gods has ever sent a message to the human race with any kind of personal message in it, or naming himself, or telling us anything about himself. All we have are the Vedas and none of the Hindu gods claim responsibilty for it. Same with Zeus, Poseidon, Amun-Ra, etc. We have no messages from any of those gods. So if any of them truly cares about it, they have a strange way of showing it. Then we come to Yahweh, and we have dozens of messages-- 66 total, spread out over 1500 years, and all preserved for us today thousands of years later (most in museums but obviously we have copies printed in English). If any god gets the prize for trying to talk the most, I know who I'm giving the prize too! I love that about him! People in every generation rebel against him and ignore him, but he keeps reaching out, keeps speaking. Of course, the final messenger he sent was his own son, and we killed him. And there haven't been any more messages after that from him. He said that though. He said his son would be the last attempt he makes to speak to us in a special way like that. I can't blame him. That was literally the most valuable gift he could have sent. Well, omw look at me ramble on! Pfew!

[@taylorbritt499]

his mug that says "I drink therefore I am" is amazing and I want it XD

[@camiloiribarren1450]

Thank God!! You used one of the Platonic dialogues with Socrates.

[@Theo_Caro]

We have discussed the Republic in the passed, which also has Socrates as a main character.

[@2toasty]

it doesn't. Phadeo is the last of Plato's Socratic dialogues. Edit: Scratch that

[@kostpap3554]

except maybe the Laws, all the other feature socrates as one of the main characters

[@Theo_Caro]

Kumail Are you kidding? Socrates is the narrator and main speaker. Yes that conversation didn't actually happen. But it is a "platonic dialogue with socrates."

[@2toasty]

T. H. Caro yeah, youre right

[@PatrickHogan]

When I took Ethics my instructor spent six weeks on Divine-Command Theory because he felt it wholly proved God and would not let it go until someone either proved him wrong to the point he changed his belief or everyone in the class accepted God's existence. He was fired and replaced. Not sure why.

[@TryinaD]

God’s Not Dead but the Opposite

[@jacobw7454]

"Is all of modern culture a violation of God's word?" Most of it is, yes

[@tofu_golem]

Yes, for example, we don't beat or slaves to death, nor do we sell our daughters into slavery.

[@PairsOfDuals]

@Cameron Can you show me this fabulous, golden age in the past where that wasn't the case for most of humanity?

[@nickick8498]

Paul are you trying to critique Judaism here?

[@christianvelezvelez8224]

@@tofu_golem the old testament although read and followed, hold little merit in terms of LAW(s) followed by Christians today, the new covenant(jesus' ultimate sacrifice) freed us as sinners from the laws of the old covenant.

[@toddsmith8029]

@@tofu_golem scriptural slavery doesn't allow anyone to be beaten to death or raised in slavery. I think you were thinking of a specific culture.

[@siggyincr7447]

Wow, the mental gymnastics displayed here in the comments are really impressive.

[@merikijiya13]

Siggy in CR 🧠 🤸‍♀️

[@ValentinoNuzzoli_Art]

Socrates is just straight up legendary!

[@sebastienbusque2312]

Watching all of those videos reminds me of a piece of philosophy I found in a Belgium comic strip called 'Le Chat' (or 'The Cat') by Phillipe Gelluck. The character in question said in a short strip: "Man made God. As a way to thank him, God made Man."

[@Bogonavt]

Thanks Hank! I love this course. I study the course because as a Christian i want to know where different beliefs come from. In the Bible commandments are tied to covenants, and the Old covenant was only for jews before Christ, so it's not a thing today. I hope it helps. Commandments like prohibition of mixing different types of fabric in the context of that age and place were given because mixing different fabric types was a part of pagan cults with human sacrifices surrounding jews. Thus it meant don't practice cults. Most problems with the Bible are removed by knowing its context.

[@sebili0n99]

pretty sure those laws (deutoromaty, leviticus, etc) are ceremorial laws given to the peopel of isreal for where the messiah will come from, and when jesus said he came not to abolish but to fufil, he meant that we dont have to follow the ceremonial laws, but the moral laws (ten commandments) are still applicable. im pretty sure thats it.

[@hunterterrell9930]

the three issues introduced at the beginning of the video, while, at first glance and out of context can seem confusing, really are all things that make sense when read into. The ancient israelites made a covenant with God, before the coming of Christ. In this covenant were hundreds of rules for man, and hundreds of promises by God. The rules included the practical, or "humans dealing with humans" such as washing your hands before you eat, and not eating rotten meat. Also there was moral and social practicality, like don't kill and don't steal, take care of widows, etc.. These helped keep a peaceful society. Then there were rules that were meant to distinguish the israelites from the pagan countries, rules such as dress codes and circumcision, symbolic things which identified the Israelites as God's people. The second kind of rules were rules on how to approach or worship God. Very specific, symbolic instructions on building a tabernacle and ceremonies. All of these rules were assigned a purpose, their purpose was as a mirror. Time and time again the new testament asks "can the law save you?" or says "if you keep the whole law, but fail in one way, you are guilty of it all." The purpose of the law was to put humans in their place. Pagans and the tower of babel were examples of people trying to reach God, instead of having faith in Him to reach them. The law, which no one could follow, highlighted the need for a saviour. Enter: Jesus. The old Israelite commandments are not binding to anyone other than the ancient people group that entered a covenant. Jesus eliminated the need for human sacrificial atonement because Jesus came as the intercessor for us all, the intermediary between us and God. All of us are "sheep lead astray" and Jesus "bore the transgressions (wrongdoings) of us all" as an eternal atonement (appeasement) As for the reason that modern Christians still follow the 10 commandments, we don't, not all of them, it just so happens that 9/10 of them were repeated in the new testament. Jesus came to fulfil the law. Jesus also kind of exploded the idea of the Sabbath, and most Christians do not hold a holy sabbath (saturday). When asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus responded with the first commandment, more or less, by saying "Love God with all your heart, soul and strength." and then he gave a second, "love your neighbor as yourself" We learned much of the symbolic meaning of the law in the new testament. For instance with murder, "you say do not kill, but I tell you that any man who has hatred has commited murder in his heart." or with adultrey "any man that looks at a woman with lust commits adultery in his heart." learning to follow the spirit of the law above the letter. As for the new testament laws he gave, wearing gold chains was a sign of vanity, and vanity isn't good if you back up in the timothy passage, it starts by saying that people should be modest, and then gives examples how.. and you shouldn't gossip. Anyways, my point is that there are still people, myself included, that truly do believe that the entire Bible is literal and true, moral and practical. I try very hard to live by it, and I do not dress funky or do anything religious. The entire misconception is this: People believe that for God to love them they have to do stuff to appease Him. The whole message of the Bible is that there is nothing that you can do to work your way to heaven. "For it is by Grace (undeserved favor, mercy) that you are saved, through Faith, and not of works...) -Ephesians. I hope that helped, if you have any questions let me know

[@tarababcock]

NOOOOO! I'm on the last one! Make more!

[@JonnesTT]

I think the divine command Theory is just a moral free card, "you don't have to think, god/s will do it for you".

[@EvansRowan123]

Sure, maybe, if you don't count all the thinking that immediately follows about the nature of God's will and such.

[@EvansRowan123]

@Dabi Flame_Quirk I think that was meant to be a response to a comment that's since been deleted.

[@ryanc1045]

I hate to be that guy, but clearly you never heard of the headache that is theology

[@bentoth9555]

If the "ten recommendations" seems to fall short, how about the "eight I'd really rather you didn'ts?"

[@Charmhole]

I'm pretty atheist but "The Ten Recommendations" does actually sound pretty good to me on about all levels.

[@bo0tywizard798]

You think someone should be punished for thoughtcrime? That's pretty radical...

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

Half of it it about religion lul

[@SecularMentat]

I've always enjoyed the Euthyphro Dilemma and it's horns. I can't wait to see the next response to this dichotomy.

[@lambusaab]

I am an agnostic. Whenever I'm aggravated ,I hear myself saying OH GOD. It just feels good to cry out for someone.

[@monte6371]

Well done with the explanation of the Euthyphro, my favorite text in philosophy!

[@joshtroufield]

"God did" - Divine Command Theorist, DJ Khalid

[@90benj]

I would really really love a short series, maybe 2-3 episodes, in this Crash Course for Seneca. I read many things from him when I was too young to understand, but he stuck with me ever since.

[@johnarbuckle2619]

Matze K. ++++++++++

[@007xhejms]

Matze K. +

[@teragoldenmoon4092]

Matze K. try searching for the school of life vid on seneca on KZbin

[@johnarbuckle2619]

I love TSOL

[@zmail8566]

Seneca was certainly remarkable, although it would be odd for them to devote so much time to a particular thinker since they didn't do such a thing in this series. Although I second a 3 part episode on Stoicism in general, or at least one episode

[@douglasmartin5492]

All your videos are so well done, its aesthetically pleasing to watch as well as having the capacity to blow my mind.

[@journeyman171]

I like this video. It is worth mentioning, though, that the handling of those biblical references made them seem ridiculous. Context is king. Some mild investigation into theology reduces the absurdity. Of course reasonable people could still disagree, but wrenching excerpts from ancient texts, heck even some modern ones, can make sensible things seem ridiculous.

[@aperson22222]

There was an edition of the Bible in the Jacobean Era that included the typo "Thou shalt commit adultery."

[@dothinkfree]

In regards to the Euthyphro Problem I believe the 2 questions are indeed two ways of asking the same thing. The question attempts to prove that the reason or cause of God's commands must exist outside of God but the key to answer is to understand the nature of God. So the answer to Euthyphro's first question is yes because "God's commands" permits and enables "right actions" which results in harmonious existence with God which by definition is "good". The answer to Euthyphro's second question is yes because "right actions" result in "good" in that they permit harmonious existence with God and harmonious existence with God require "God's commandments". This is made clear when you break down the meaning of these 4 ideas. Firstly, God is NOT the supreme being WITHIN existence but is the ESSENCE of existence. Secondly, "good" is anything that is in harmony (consistent) with God's intentions/will and since God is the essence of reality all things consistent with God's will do indeed exist. Thus "good" is same as "existence" or "that which continually exists". Evil is the absense of good which is to say that evil is non-existence or "anything" transitioning into non-existenence (ie, decaying, diminishing, dying). Thirdly, a command from God not only grants the permission/authorization to perform the command but also the ABILITY to perform it. This is because God is in perfect harmony with Himself and thus He would not (1) will/intend for something to be and then (2) permit/authorize for that something to be but then (3) NOT enable/empower that something to be since this would be a contradiction on God's part. So when God commands us to do something he authorizes and empowers us to fulfill that command. Fourthly a "right action" is simply a "good action" which is an action that permits harmonious existence with God and thus continued existence period. So when "God commands" He permits and enables "right action" which results in continued, harmonious existence with God which, by definition, is "good". So again, the answer to Euthyphro's first question is yes because "God's commands" permits and enables "right actions" which results in harmonious existence with God which by definition is "good". The answer to Euthyphro's second question is yes because "right actions" result in "good" in that they permit harmonious existence with God and harmonious existence with God require "God's commandments".

[@JeshikaKazeno]

It is nice to see a mystic on here. :D

[@dothinkfree]

Hmm, what makes you say I'm a mystic?

[@boblorna5933]

You have said this far more eloquently than I could have, +Do Think. Thank you.

[@christiandauz3742]

Thank you for your circular reasoning

[@dothinkfree]

All rational reasoning is circular reasoning. Point conceded.

[@Jotari]

“One day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I'm sure you'll agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen. Mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that is when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.”

[@dragonsdraughts8382]

Nice Kurzgesagt reference in the "Though Bubble." My two favorite channels on KZbin!

[@Monochromicornicopia]

This problem predates the Christian religion by over 400 years.

[@Monochromicornicopia]

Anthony L Very few people read the description

[@oskarhenriksen]

He basically says so in the vid - what with crediting Plato and all

[@jaxup1985]

I mean, to be frank there are many problems with Christianity, but this one is simply answered in the text. God cannot command anything that is sinful, as he is the personified opposite of sin, whether you call that righteousness or something else. In that way he is not omnipotent. This is the reason God must turn away from Christ on the cross, because Jesus has become sin personified when he dies. Also, God stops Abraham from murdering his son so I think that's a pretty bad example.

[@Monochromicornicopia]

Oskar Henriksen Very few people know when Plato lived

[@Monochromicornicopia]

jaxup1985 You're ignoring the point of the video. If everything god says is good *because god says it*...

[@gFamWeb]

I'm just going to make a comment. I'm not going to start a debate by making some bold claim. I'm not going to participate in any of the other debates. I'm just here to say hi. Hi!

[@gFamWeb]

Pan Raphael hello back!

[@gFamWeb]

Christian Flaherty hello back, again!

[@fep_ptcp883]

Noah Gregory your name is Noah, you must be a stupid believer who takes as true the myths and legends the of the old testament

[@gFamWeb]

fep_ ptcp Hello! How are you?

[@gFamWeb]

Crystle Ninja Please do not start a debate in this thread.

[@shaterproofblosm]

Lol when did CC get 5 Million subs? Congratulations!!! WOOO!!! CRASH COURSE!!!!! I really like you guys :)

[@heymrhimr]

So here's a challenge to theists (not a troll I want to genuinely know this for the sake of argument). How do you convince people that it's rational to believe in a divine entity and that you're right about it?

[@spencersessions]

I can't convince a single person what is right and wrong, I can't take that "agency" from someone to find out for themselves if something is truthful or if it is false. This is a principle God lives by, He will not slap you in the face with the truth (hence taking away your agency). This life is a small portion of eternity and we are asked to "Learn of Him" and seek his council. As we are obedient to his will we come to understand his doctrine and what each piece of the puzzle means. Its like a massive puzzle and we are born colorblind, as you come to know him we begin to see the color and purpose of life, all the pieces begin to make so much more sense if we desire to look at things though "His" eyes. Also, our bodies aren't perfect vehicles to understand all the pieces since we forget which piece goes where so we continually try and try and have faith that there is a "solution" to the answer, AND THERE IS A SOLUTION. We aren't intended to know ALL things in this life, but we can figure out a good enough portion of the puzzle where we feel confident we know what it's supposed to look like.... but it takes massive effort and work on our part and the F word. Faith. I know you hate the word but sorry, it's the first thing we need before looking at the puzzle. I won't have all the answers but I'll try as best I can to figure it out.

[@jakovvodanovic9165]

It is just a being you can choose to believe in or not, but I think I would go crazy if there wasn't some justice system after death. It is great also always to have someone to talk to.

[@elanmorint]

Spencer Sessions I have a debate tip for you. When you're trying to convince someone about something - anything - DON'T do it by referring to other things they don't agree with. That's not going to work.

[@bensjammin9]

crippling sexual tension There's no level of rationality nor any evidence for or against the existence of a deity. The nature of metaphysics/deities is that which is outside our frame of reference/understanding. Therefore, no evidence nor logic can properly argue either side of the argument on God's existence. I choose (attempt) to believe, but I cannot justify it. Nor could I justify not believing in God (I've been there as well). The only decent attempt at justifying/rationalizing either side of the argument, that I have seen, is Pascal's Wager (however shallow of a theory it is).

[@bensjammin9]

It's a truly difficult topic, and it truly comes right down to faith. If you do not wish to believe, I will not try to change your mind. Neither the theist nor atheist is capable of providing any actual evidence in their own favor--as I said, due to the nature of the issue. This sounds like a cop out, but this is honestly how the debate on God goes. No matter how many religious verses or feelings/experiences the theist provides, and no matter how many scientific figures the atheist provides, there will still be no progress for either party. While this has not provided a clear cut answer, I hope it helps you and anyone else understand the core of the problem better. :-)

[@Waniou137]

Everyone's busy arguing about religion and I'm just here like "Wow, Euthyphro sounds like a really hard word to say correctly. Good work, Hank!"

[@TheMonarchAmathen]

I’ve spent some time looking at religious philosophy and I’ve come up with a pretty solid solution to the issues he has mentioned. The issue is how people view god especially from a biblical perspective

[@SapienSafari]

THIS SHOULD HAVE MORE VIEWS.

[@eekeey]

This video reminds me of "The Grand Inquisitor." It's an awesome read.

[@Krotas_DeityofConflicts]

Brothers Karamazov itself is amongst the greatest novel, imp😄😁

[@PcGamerHero]

Loved the Easter egg in the thought bubble. For anyone who did not get it - look at the 3 pictures on the right of the window.

[@legoinsomniac]

Nice Kurzgezagt reference in the thought bubble.

[@musiclover762]

I'm so glad this series is still going.

[@SealMeall]

What's crazy is people ignoring these collections of logic by no legit/valid counter arguments, and expect people around them to take them seriously; as on the same legitimacy of scientific belief or the philosophical approaches towards our reality.

[@sengkai9144]

I listen to Dear Hank and John. I know your voice long before I know your face. But one listen is enough to clue me in who you are. Thanks for all your work. Best wishes to you and John in 2024.

[@jriceblue]

I'm re-watching this today, and noticed for the first time that the Thought Bubble segment has Kurzgesagt (In A Nutshell) birds as paintings on the wall when God commands the faithful to reverse the 10 commandments. Awesome!

[@visionplant]

When I was a kid I always heard my mother say "what's right is right and what isn't right, isn't"

[@stiimuli]

That's one of those explanations parents give kids when they don't really know the answer =P

[@MikkoHaavisto1]

Either ignorant or lazy. Why don't they just say "I don't know and you have to find out yourself."

[@Nilguiri]

Not very helpful at all, really.

[@visionplant]

Indeed. But I don't recall it ever being an answer to something.

[@TheOtherNeutrino]

That's pretty much a tautology.

[@jonleary4107]

I think the thing I find most interesting is that the videos do a great job of painting a very simple, clear scenario and approaching it from both sides. But when reading the comments, there's a major element of additional assumptions that were never even a part of the scenario to begin with. I'm not to trying to criticize people for diving in and exploring the problem, but if you try to include all things in your argument, you effectively argue about all things at once. One of the biggest strengths of the series is breaking out questions and beliefs to be considered individually instead of throwing everything into a pile of confusion. Although, I suppose it could be seen as a measure of success that people have taken the original scenario and stretched it so far in every direction.

[@kostantinos2297]

I just noticed Schrödinger's cat in the opening. You now have my absolute trust.

[@0xBADFECE5]

CC Philosophy is destroying religious dogma, politely, gently, and effectively. I love it.

[@_amberdoll]

I feel he forgot to include that God also claims to be forever unchanging so the 1st one is correct because he will never change what is considered good.

[@elliearmitage2222]

However, there are passages in the Bible where it seems that God changes. For example, when Moses is on Mount Sinai ( Exodus 32) and the people are below commuting idolatry, God says that he will destroy them for doing so because they turned away from him in such little amount of time. However, Moses pleads him not to and then God relents and does not kill them. Is this not an example of God changing his mind? Sorry this reply is three years late, just curious to see your response.

[@ceruleancenturion]

@@elliearmitage2222 In all seriousness, that could just mean that God has a thing for messing with his prophets. That's a funny thought, God having a dark sense of humor.

[@solomon.powell]

​@@elliearmitage2222 Not sure if this will help, but I'll try. Changing who you are as a person, changing what is right and wrong, and changing your course of action are three different things. Of these 3 different kinds of "changes", I wonder which change occurs in Exodus 32?

[@noorbadran5563]

@@elliearmitage2222 I think the point in this story is God's mercy, He knew Moses would ask for mercy and that God would agree, I think he just wanted to point out that what they were doing was wrong but he was giving them a chance

[@robloxgod4209]

@@noorbadran5563 If God knew that Moses is going to ask for mercy then why do it if he knows what's gonna happen.

[@LifeInspector]

Thank you so much, Crash Course! I am teaching this next week, and this video is gonna be great to help my kids understand it!

[@noelam4128]

Thanks, this answers a lot of questions. Studying this in ethics!

[@alyssasloneker5126]

thought I'd point out that the verses that you pointed out in the intro were read very much out of context. The verses read out of the Old Testament are no longer binding on Christians considering that we no longer live under the Old Covenant with Israel that the Jewish people still live under because of Jesus of Nazareth establishing the New Covenant. Secondly, the verse read in Timothy is not a literal decree to not wear braids, jewels and gold, it is a general warning against vanity/pride and promoting spiritual wealth rather than physical wealth. Thought I'd clear that up :))

[@Sidecutt3]

That doesn't make the problem go away, who gets to decide what commands you still have to obey and what passages you have to take literally?

[@alinasharipova7180]

thank you so much for this video this made me undestand my whole philosophy course in 5 mins!!!

[@kevinhuang8763]

I was disappointed that your description of Plato was not ""fun to play with, not to eat"

[@ammonal01]

I absolutely love this series.

[@danny6276]

" I AM THAT I AM" except u forgot one thing, God is the standard of morality. Morality or Goodness doesn't come outside of God. One of the common repeated phrases is God is Good. It doesn't mean that there's this standard of Good which he meets. HE JUST IS. " I AM THAT I AM"

[@danny6276]

www.google.com/amp/s/gotquestions.org/amp/divine-command-theory.html here's more info on why this doesn't apply to Christians

[@Amigo21189]

So, horn one.

[@danny6276]

Jachra first of all, the first thing that shows that u guys don't know anything about the Christian God, is that you always picture him as a old man in the sky. Totally inaccurate. Secondly, the link I posted shows a clear difference. And thirdly, according to the Bible, the law of God is imputed into our hearts, and I think that's called a conscience. And fourthly, the reason I said, "I AM THAT I AM" is very significant if u wanna know how the Christian God, doesn't fall in that dilemma. And Ik u don't believe the Bible, and probably thinks every it says it foolish, but at least don't say it teaches something it doesn't. For example picturing God as a Greek god, with grey hair. Idk where yall getting that picture from

[@Amigo21189]

Danny Dalmacy Look, I understand that this is pretty hard to engage with, and I'm _really trying_ to play nice here on a Nerdfighteria channel, but if you'd rather condescend to the effigy of me you've just built rather than actually talk to _me_, then I don't really need to be here, do I? I really don't care about the Renaissance paintings of old bearded men on golden thrones. It's really so completely irrelevant to the discussion that frankly I'm gobsmacked as to why you even brought it up. I'm even more confused as to why you think I have such a view of (your) God when literally the first word of my comment to Jachra is (a misspelling of) "no." I addressed gotquestion's assertion of a difference in my second post, and explain what's wrong with it, and why it doesn't solve the problem. I even broke it down to a specific instance with which we can engage and discuss. Skipping your third point because neither does it seem particularly relevant nor do I care. You and I can dig into that one as well, if you want to do so. But fourth, and this one seems to offer another chance to actually intellectually engage; What do you believe that "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה" means to this conversation? What does it imply about morality and ethics, and what does it assert about God's nature? Does it mean that, because God says that He is Himself, therefore morality is grounded in His being Himself? Should one interpret it as God claiming to be the Ground of All Being, as Tillich asserts? Lastly, as to saying the Bible teaches thing that it doesn't: What part of the Book tells us that morality is grounded in His nature? Is this an explicit statement made in the Bible, or must it be interpreted from a passage's (or several passages') poetic, philosophical, or metaphorical meaning?

[@Alexaflohr]

So you're going with the second horn then?

[@amysvideologs]

"Hi, I'm Hank Green and I don't understand historical or Biblical context, nor do I understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law! Now I'm going to explain Divine Command theory to you!"

[@flyingmonkey3822]

A dilemma is of the form A vs Not A. It is a false dilemma if it is of the form A vs B vs C. Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dilemma that can be resolved by seeing that God's nature IS the good. The good is not arbitrated by God bc he cannot defy his own nature (A), and the good doesn't exist outside of God (B). It also doesn't mean that it's impossible for God to do evil, it's just that He *would* not. No dilemma, no internal inconsistencies, Divine Command Theory still stands but at least we are all educated on the traditional attacks. Thanks Crash Course!

[@happyturtle8653]

I really loved this video cant wait to do my reasearches on the theories and all ...but moreover cant wait for more videos of this caregory ...Thank you so much crash course💕✌🏾️

[@jayskiv4125]

4:32 whoa whoa whoa. hold up there. God didn't actually make anyone kill anyone here, it's a test of loyalty. Abraham did not actually kill his son in the bible.

[@mavortius8388]

Jay Skiv If God knows the hearts of men, he has no need to test Abraham's loyalty. Abraham actually failed the true test: Is God the kind of person to demand a human sacrifice? If he is, he is not worthy of worship. If he is not, then God was not the one who demanded the sacrifice, and the only correct response should have been: "Depart from me, for YOU ARE NOT MY GOD!"

[@KohuGaly]

no? what about that sheep Abraham killed that day?

[@mavortius8388]

As the story tells it, Abraham WOULD have killed Isaac if God's angel had not stopped him. That makes him blindly obedient, not moral.

[@jayskiv4125]

No Google, I don't want to use my real name. never said God killed anyone. I just said he got the story wrong

[@vitamindubya]

Jay Skiv the story of jeptha is a lot like Abraham father killing daughter, except god didn't stop him that time.

[@Aziraphale686]

I admire your restraint when tackling these theistic claims. It's easy to dismiss theistic arguments as the intellectual garbage that they are, but hopefully your more reasoned approach will help some people start to question.

[@nickylewis6285]

I feel like crashcourse must have been eavesdropping on me in junior high XD Great video!

[@MrSigmaSharp]

This was the greatest video of the series yet. The part that talks about god changing his opinion is just like the rise of a new religion and that how do we know what god said. Fantastic guys.

[@ldohlj1]

5:40 , "In a nutshell (kurzgusekt???)" channel icons back there on the wall

[@RanbirDas]

I like this series but after this episode I'm just curious why is the syllabus purely Greco Roman and Old Testament-ish, there were other older civilizations with records of great philosophical works completely detached from these ideas, is there a reason they are not covered other than it might be some work to research? Middle Eastern, Indian, Indigenous American, African, Buddhist, East Asian come to mind, I understand it might be because of the language barrier as in the last few episodes the ideas like meta-ethics or aesthetics are modern English words themselves hence easier to grasp, but then maybe label the series as Western philosophy :)

[@JeshikaKazeno]

I would love to see time devoted to issues surrounding karma, arguments for and against various balances of chaos and order (I think of Hinduism and maybe also Norse mythology), etc.

[@654pedro123]

Help! I don't really understand why the second choice of the dilemma causes any trouble. Why are we assuming that God can't command bad instead of assuming he doesn't want to? What I would think is reasonable to assume is that God created a moral code that he wants to follow. Entering the thought bubble: a painter wants to paint a black and white image. Is he imcable of using red or does he just not want to use it?

[@MichaelHopcroft]

You are implying that God is capable of commanding evil acts if He so wishes, in which case how do we know He hasn't commanded evil acts, and that He isn't commanding them now?

[@mattlambert3118]

I love the reverse ten commandment part, "kill, steal, commit adultery, and so forth..." Add in honoring parents and false witness and you have all the commandments that have anything even arguably to do with morality.

[@mross250]

I appreciate the fact that you guys don't completely trash religion like many other channels would good job crash course :)

[@corenlavolpe2676]

Strange, in my religion it's PREFERRED if women wear braids. And it's mandatory to wear a braid during prayer, too. Really interesting...

[@aaronsmith5864]

Cura Kira Coren which religion is that if you don't mind my asking

[@Amina-vy6yx]

Aaron Smith braidarastianism

[@aaronsmith5864]

Oh yeah I've heard of that Bob Marley was one right

[@Amina-vy6yx]

Aaron Smith lol no I made that religion up. Bob Marley was a Rastafarian.

[@shanachayadavison5857]

That is really interesting! I really do love how different cultures and religious can develop different rules of morality and status quos. Like, in my religion, we're told never to take the word of a teacher on its own, and taught to question everything no matter the ethos involved. When I started being exposed to different religions and cultures, and saw students waiting patiently at the end of a lesson to privately ask a teacher a question or express a dilemma instead of just asking publically for the teacher to defend a stance... it was really weird for me, but also cool. Made me feel like some super spy or scientist observing some other realm.

[@Yessentuki4]

the thought bubble (4:56) is simply answered by Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" God is good, He is light, and He doesn't change. This question would only come from someone who is not familiar with the Bible's teachings .

[@benrifkin1981]

Andrey Lukashev so you think everyone who wears polyester deserves the death penalty? or everyone who commits adultery? Or slaves who are insolent to their masters? wow...

[@Yessentuki4]

@@benrifkin1981 What are you trying to accomplish by displaying your ignorance on the subject... presenting talking points to someone from a certain walk of life will never be confused with genuine care and a desire to learn

[@icy1260]

What if your parents are abusive how do you respect them

[@ryuichitenkyu]

Rylan Patry Then they aren't obeying God therefore you have the right to protect yourself.

[@stiimuli]

But according to the bible God not only allows child abuse but even commands it to extremes, instructing followers in how to sell their own daughters into slavery and even that unruly children should be stoned to death.

[@ryuichitenkyu]

stiimuli That's on the old testament, right? Give me the verse.

[@ryuichitenkyu]

Roni N It is? I didn't know that. Give me the verse.

[@ryuichitenkyu]

Roni N I see. But that's not child abuse if you ask me.

[@dayswillburn777]

The way you can answer some of these questions, like any book, starts with quoting more than just one line from each chapter...i was raised on the Bible, though I don't really read it anymore. But I can say that it's easy to take things out of context

[@elgodric]

This episode is very important, its has reasons why i believe in god but not in scriptures (religions)

[@miller0079]

Same here . Most religious scriptures are interpreted already

[@moritzl7065]

I honestly don't mind people believing in a religion (unless they're fundamentalists), however I have to say that by not believing in a religion your life would be a lot simpler. Non-religious people have morals too, and we don't need a "guidebook". Plus, if you ask me where morals originate, then I'd say the social environment. Just like viral trends, they show up and then they become popular. As there are tribes where human sacrificing and cannibalism is a thing, I don't believe that all mankind has a "set of basic rules".

[@FirstRisingSouI]

If someone isn't a fundamentalist, they're not really religious. They're just wibbly wobbly believe-whatever-I-feel-like-ists. In my experience, fundamentalists actually think in a more similar way to rationalists and empiricists than religious moderates do.

[@gandaruvu]

FirstRisingSouI care to explain?

[@gandaruvu]

Moritz L simplicity in life is subjective. Living in an epicurean commune is also much simpler than living in a modern life in a city with all its problems from politics, jobs, livelihood, etc. If that's too much work to deal with, why don't we all live like what Epicurus told us to?

[@bensjammin9]

Moritz L I'm a theist, but I'm not super religious. I'm pretty flexible and tolerant. I usually try to make moral judgements based on my own feelings and reason rather than the Bible. Especially since the only "rules" in the Bible I find any value in (many were written in by humans at the time, including their bigotry. As many historians would tell you, the church even inserted and deleted passages in the Bible in order to rule their own way) are pretty easy to agree with--no killing, no stealing, etc.

[@stephenandersen4625]

if morality is merely a social convention than, ultimately, any action can be justified. that is a potentially very slippery slope. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your point but are you saying human sacrifice or cannibalism can be considered OK given the right social environment and are of no more import than a viral trend?

[@K4R3N]

"figure out morality for ourselves"👍

[@anaselassal3322]

Nope.. bad idea.. very bad idea.. Who is to design a moral code?.. Who is to restrain anyone from doing anything and why?

[@yasminebidiga8469]

Im pretty sure that most of what you said (the braids, the colthes...)is based on the old bible and not the new testament with the venue of Jésus, and where God loosened Up most of his rules, prmotting tolerance, because he founded that the most important thing was the human hearts and not their culture, coming from the saying : if someone slaps you, give your other chick and pray for his soul.

[@departmentofpoetry1416]

re - 0:45 ...NOT the oldest ethical theory in the world when you factor in continuing indigenous civilizations and peoples (Maori, Native American, Austrlian Aboriginal etc etc etc) with their own constructions of morality and ethics deriving from spiritual sources predating monotheism by tens of thousands of years.

[@moscanaveia]

"I only read one book, but it's a good book don't you know. I act the way I act because the good book tells me so. If I wanna know how to be good, it's to the good book that I go, because the good book is a book and it is good and it's a book. I know the good book is good because the good book says it's good. I know the good book knows it's good because a really good book would. You wouldn't cook without a cookbook so I think it's understood: You can't be good without the good book because it's good and it's a book." Tim Minchin, The Good Book.

[@joshuaholton7547]

Cute.

[@daniellbondad6670]

5:06-Look.Kurzgesagt on the picture.

[@eruno_]

My religion doesn't really have a book of morals. The most important thing is harmony with others & nature. Also clean soul.

[@benrifkin1981]

ユーネポ / Yuunepo but what if other people are evil? and nature is arbitrary? If you were a single celled organism on Europa you might have a different idea of ‘harmony’ and ‘clean soul’.

[@keisings]

The third option is that good is based on God’s nature. God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good, and then reveals what is good to us. It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), not because God had to discover lying was wrong or that he arbitrarily declared it to be wrong. Therefore, for the Christian, there is no dilemma since neither position in Euthyphro’s dilemma represents Christian theology.

[@oskarhenriksen]

Isn't that a blow to God's omnipotence? Not sure if it solves the problem anyway; God will have to decide that his own nature is the basis of good, right? On what grounds does he make that decision?

[@keisings]

Sorry my wording is just a mess: what I mean isn't that God is not able to lie, it is that God does not, what the verse says as well. Also, my point is that God doesn't "decide his nature", he just is, if that makes sense. I'm sure I'm gonna get a lot of flame for this, oh well, I was just trying to point out the third way out.

[@oskarhenriksen]

whispering colours No need to go full victim, this of all comment sections should be a civilised one. The problem with the "just is" thing does seem to be that God is a slave of his own nature That "what is good is God's nature" doesn't seem to be a solution, because you'll need to argue that said nature is good, no?

[@keisings]

If we're going to talk about the nature of God, "I am that I am" from Exodus 3:14 means that "My nature, i.e., cannot be declared in words, cannot be conceived of by human thought. I exist in such sort that my whole inscrutable nature is implied in my existence. I exist, as nothing else does - necessarily, eternally, really. If I am to give myself a name expressive of my nature, so far as language can be, let me be called 'I am.'" p.s. I think nature is amoral, actually.

[@oskarhenriksen]

I believe that's pretty much the message of Thomas Aquinas? Anyways, this seems like a cop-out; The solution to the whole issue is that we can't really talk about it?whispering colours

[@avb5335]

The BEST video series! Thank you for all you guys do.

[@theophilus749]

The correct response to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to point out that God just _is_ goodness. God's nature is goodness itself, as it is love itself. To say that God commands that we do good is just to say that goodness demands it. Thus, there is neither anything sovereign over God (such as an God-independent standard of goodness) nor is there anything arbitrary about about God's commands _making_ something good.

[@jacobmatthews4714]

Now all you need to do, is prove your god exists. If you cannot, any claims pertaining to God is moot.

[@BrownHairL]

4:57 Love the Kurz Gesagt frames.

[@Gregoryzaniz]

For some reason these comments are worse than the ones which actually argued about the existence of god

[@Gregoryzaniz]

hahaha

[@ktkatte6791]

I'm Christian, and the simple fact is God is good, and goodness stems from God. if he orders you to kill your son, or frame your father for murder, that is good. The thing is, God is not a whimsical Loki-like God that does this. Abraham's obedience was being tested. The shift in divine nature came from the sacrifice of Christ. This is beside the point however, euthyphro's problem simply assumed a very... well... Athenian interpretation of Godhood. And yes, it rips apart the greek pantheon. The God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims is a very different being than what Plato imagined in this story. If he's omnipotent, all knowing, your creator, and your savior, then as far as you're concerned you can only accept that goodness comes from Him and He is good. The problem makes assumptions about the nature of Godhood that died with the greek and roman pantheons.

[@willcowan7678]

Testing someones obedience does not make ordering murder a good thing. Furthermore, to give us free will, and then seek obedience, which is tested by acts of murder, is pretty deranged.

[@ktkatte6791]

sorry dude, but if there's a god, and he knows more about what is, was, and will be, and he commands you to do something, you do not have the knowledge, right, or position to make a value judgement where you can claim to know better than God what is right or wrong, simply due to the fact you will always have less information than God.

[@ktkatte6791]

If God is good, good flows from him. If man makes the choice to defy, deviate from, or otherwise go against God, that is evil, he is not the source, we are. Soooory buddy

[@Elfos64]

I was just talking about this to someone last week. If I have a follow-up this week, I can now direct them to this video.

[@eatbeans168]

In the context of the old testament, many of the rules that the Israelites were instructed to follow were to differentiate them from other tribes around them, like the Egyptians. The mixing of pork and milk, braiding of hair, engaging in orgies, holding slaves, etc. Were general practice for Egyptians and surrounding groups. In regards to Gods Covenants it's understood that God will honour all his covenants but they must be followed as they are given, so being circumsized for example allows entry into Abraham's covenant but it's rules should all be followed. Many Baptists denominations of the church cite these passages as a means to percecute same sex couples. Issue with this is that they're Citing doctrine that doesn't actually apply to them, if so they better not shave, Pierce their skin, or mix means and milks or they're massive hypocrites. General things that most who claim to love thy neighbor forget about. (Practicing Catholic) Thanks for the video, really helping me wrap my head around philosophy.

[@SuchingYan]

THANK YOU !!!!!

[@futuregreatestpresidentale1221]

Let's do a little survey of the CrashCourse audience. Click "View all Replies" to participate.

[@futuregreatestpresidentale1221]

Thumb up if you're a theist.

[@futuregreatestpresidentale1221]

Thumb up if you're an atheist.

[@wojtekimbier]

"I don't know so I guess I'm neither"

[@danjoshmass]

"I don't know" is technically atheism, since that means you don't actively believe in God. It's just passive atheism.

[@futuregreatestpresidentale1221]

Yeah guess I shoulda included agnostic in there. Oh well.

[@TheMan83554]

NOTE! My OPINION on the subject. God IS the source of morality, however, OUR INTERPRETATION is flawed. It's why there are some weird terminology stuck in theology. In particular, God is our Father, and we are his bride, are two phrases you hear a lot in the bible. But they don't really make sense together. Marrying your own kid is rather weird. The thing about them is that it's as close as we as flawed humans ca really get. It's close, but not quite right. It's the same with the odd rules in Leviticus in particular. With out modern forensics and law, gossip because irrefutable evidence against someone, usually resulting in their death. So don't gossip and you won't spread false accusations. Don't wear mixed clothes, because you don't know what it's mixed with. Or how it was made. If there's mould in your house, call a priest and have them remove it, they know what to do and how. If someone gets sick with these symptoms, give them supplies and send them into the wilderness for x amount of time, they either get better and are safe. Or die and are safe. Just taken on their own, each law seems weird in our time frame, BUT without what we know and use now they could be the difference between an innocent being killed, you getting sick, or a plague killing everyone in your village. Not to mention, in the New Testament, particularly Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." The law has fulfilled it's purpose and is recorded, and you can still follow if you feel the need to, but it isn't required anymore. That's my take on it at least. Do what you want. I'm a commenter, not a cop.

[@nightwish672]

God is the source of morality? How can you make such claims? Oh wait, you're talking about the Bible, why do you not refer to the God of the other Religions? Even though there is technically only 1 God, each Religion has their own interpretation of what God is like, what he did, and what is right and wrong. So at minimum, one Religion is correct. So before we get into the question on whether or not God is real, the actual question is, why choose the God of a specific Religion?

[@caliph20]

Not necessarily the bible. IF god exists, he is the font of all goodness. and If all things that are good are moral, means that god is the original font of all things moral. Absolute morality would originate from god because it was absolutely good.

[@TheSpamReaper]

The easy answer to choosing a God of a specific religion is null because the question is flawed. My father chose me and as such I'm bound to him in a way that others who have not been chosen could never understand. There are things about God that are hard to put into words. Simply put, how does one take a simple AI and guide it to understand space time in a non-linear fashion so that it can contemplate that in one day (not on this timeline) light filled the void of space and was separated between energy and mass? Even today people ask, "how could there be day and night if God didn't create the sun, moon and stars until the 4th day?" But the puzzle has a piece that fits perfectly. God existed somewhere before creation was made, and that plain of space-time has its own days apart from an internal creation, or much like how most online RPGs have a time scale roughly 2-4times faster than ours, and if we were the creators of such a virtual realm, we could reset the world to a safe state, edit and alter it, and perform feats that were far beyond the capacity of normal players. If you completely removed players for artificial intelligence, then the system would operate exactly as programmed. If this world was like the one described, there would be no evil in the world, but as it stands, we were given the capacity to rewrite our programming and rise above our instincts to make our own choices. Since we have choice we must be held accountable to that choice through moral laws. Simple programs wouldn't be able to understand empathy until years of conditioning themselves to abide by laws for a time to see the benefits of such morals, once established, the world could see the advantages and would apply the advantageous laws to their societies since moral laws permit society to function. The only laws left that are 'weird' like not wearing mixed clothes, not working on Saturdays (it was never changed), and other such laws that don't seem to apply the golden rule 'treat others as you would have them treat you,' those laws are designed to set apart God's people from the world to love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind, strength, and soul. Also, when people are out doing good, nobody asks them 'why are you being nice to people?' nearly as often as they would ask 'why do you do [insert weird law here]?' If you would like I will ask my father to choose you as well and send you an invitation, but I'll let you know in advance that it costs absolutely everything you have to follow, and it's far less painful to be in ignorance and disobey his teachings than it is to be in knowledge and be wracked with shame and guilt when you go against his ways, for in knowing him, you realize that he is absolute love and the violation of his commands usually boils down to selfishness (putting our own desires above others). tl;dr: it's not important for those who don't have the time.

[@firesong7825]

+Mintish Always interesting reading religious nonsense.

[@deliciousdishes4531]

Even if god is the source of morality (ignoring what that brings with it), why whould you follow that morality? In what way is it "binding"? There is no answer to support that claim. Calling a god the source of morality is just as arbitrary as calling a completely random person the source of morality.

[@DerickTherving]

The biblical new testament verse about chains and other stuff you just took out of context.

[@bkylecannon]

Let us assume he did. Doesn't matter. One bad argument doesn't make the other side correct.

[@DerickTherving]

Morton's Fork I never said it did, nor did I present an argument for divine command theory.

[@whichever-godyou-prefer1640]

there it is! the excuse for everything you took it out of context. When is it in context when you agree with it?

[@gimmickgotbored7157]

I'm going to have to bring this video up at my church.

[@narcoticchaloopaful]

Morality is the product of psychological evolution. Different moralities are methods of survival. The best fit moralities remain within the population as the population evolves.

[@northeastoperations]

Dilemma: two buttons meme

[@minhajul2756]

wait, so we are going back to religion¿

[@MonzennCarloMallari]

Min Hajul well, if we are talking about ethics, one of the ethical pillars that some are leaning on is their religion. So we will have to take at least a detour there.

[@minhajul2756]

that makes sense

[@wojtekimbier]

Here, you can copy a question mark: ?

[@minhajul2756]

My keyboard has a regular question mark, I just didn't use it

[@sexybeast7728]

then use it

[@wmcbarker4155]

the Holy Spirit is within me

[@blinkx1070]

Is it actually though? Or do you just want to think that because you've invested so much of your identity into such a belief?

[@wmcbarker4155]

I feel the Holy Spirit my entire body [ as it is now as I type this reply ] becomes covered with truth bumps, you could say I'm Turned On Totally by GOD and can be seen, I glow too

[@wmcbarker4155]

say this; " Father I thank thee for thy Love, for thy Blessings & Creation" and become enlightened with the Holy Spirit, be Blessed; works for me every time. you will too feel the truth bumps & glow

[@Nilguiri]

¡Joder, lo que hay que oír!

[@jspr2k5]

what the hell are truth bumps lol

[@87ericmartinez]

Hope to see some Kierkegaard in the next few to help solve the problems you dressed today. Especially to counter any Hegel or Kant you might purpose.

[@bethgadamali9127]

this episode definately hits me right in the feels; this is what has been bothering me about religion for a long time