The Moral Argument Still Works: Response to Recent Critiques

[@TheCounselofTrent]

Thanks for the response Gavin! I wish more people who engage in the scholarly Catholic-Protestant debate (on both sides of the issue) also had an interest in engaging robust, philosophical atheism.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks! I am hoping to do more philosophy and general apologetics over the next year or so -- it will be fun to interact, Lord willing, on topics of agreement for change!

[@rickydettmer2003]

Clearly this is a sign that Trent and Dr. Ortlund should do a tag team discussion with joe schmid 🤷‍♂️. Y’all would be a strong force to be reckoned with just saying

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@TruthUnites Yes, updating Romans 1:20 would be strongly appropriate, for one... (maybe, also, showing the angelic version - too?)

[@TheCounselofTrent]

@@TruthUnites YesI I'm especially heartened that you defend divine simplicity. I think that's key to making a good case for theism.

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

@@TheCounselofTrent I love watching your channel. Although I am Protestant (Episcopalian to be precise) I enjoy watching you defend the Catholic Faith at the Scholarly level, refuting the "Popular Apologetics" that caricatures Roman Catholicism, and even Christianity, while also justifying the Magesterium for what it actually says.

[@tardigrade8019]

I’m an atheist and I often find apologist videos difficult to watch due to misrepresentations and straw men (something I also get frustrated by with some atheist channels), but I really enjoyed this video and think you presented the ideas very well. I’ll be checking out a few other videos from your channel.

[@TruthUnites]

thanks a lot, great to hear!

[@highroller-jq3ix]

Look into Taoism or Buddhism if you want to consider traditional, non-western philosophical systems that refute the moral argument out of the gate: no god required.

[@natebozeman4510]

This was great! Mere Christianity was the book that got me interested in apologetics - based on Lewis' moral argument! So because of that, this argument has a special place in my heart, but i also believe it's very powerful! It alone turned a friend of mine from atheism to theism. We shouldn't shy away from this argument!

[@repentantrevenant9776]

*The Abolition of Man* was the book that *really* made me respect C.S. Lewis as a thinker, once I learned that he wrote an incredible philosophical book explaining objective morality, something he summed up in a few sentences in *Mere Christianity.*

[@velkyn1]

consideirng how lewis said that christians should lie to potential converts about the religion, it seems that Lewis isn't much of a moral standard. "And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son." - preface, Mere Christianity intentionally lying to someone so they can't make an informed decision isn't moral. And unfortuantely, for lewis, we know that humans dont' automatically know any morals, from the cases of feral children.

[@natebozeman4510]

@@velkyn1 The moral argument doesn't require for theists to be moral or perfect persons. It simply requires the existence of objective moral values and duties to be dependent upon God.

[@natebozeman4510]

@@repentantrevenant9776 Abolition of Man is my favorite book from Lewis, and one of my favorites of all time. It's genuinely great.

[@velkyn1]

@@natebozeman4510 Yep, I agree, the moral argument doesn't require anything from humans. Since you christians can't show that your god supports any set of moral values, you are all just liars when you claim this god wants "x" and that this god is the source of objective morality. "The moral argument doesn't require for theists to be moral or perfect persons. Lewis's claim in The Abolition of Man" is a baseless claim: "He says that there is a set of objective values that have been shared, with minor differences, by every culture, which he refers to as "the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christian, the Pagan, and the Jew..."." Curiously, commonality doesn't show that christians own or started what we know of as common moral ideas. Those are far older than the ignorance of Christianity, and are common because they help civlization exist. As often is the case, the presupposition of christian are just their greed to try to claim everything "good" came from their cult. It simply requires the existence of objective moral values and duties to be dependent upon God."

[@joelmohrmann]

You quote Erik Wielenberg as a leading proponent of the view that objective morality does not need God as its foundation. For a response to Wielenberg's "brute ethical facts" line of thought, Adam Lloyd Johnson, a philosopher, has written a response to Wielenberg defending the moral argument in his book "Divine Love Theory." He has also debated Wielenberg on the question.

[@TruthUnites]

helpful, thanks for mentioning that

[@wet-read]

And I'm over here thinkin too much is made of the notion of objective morality and objective standards.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

As a Catholic I find this content very relevant...

[@Duarte1298]

When mad man are at the door, broken brother unite ;)

[@KrazyKittyKatKatcher]

As an Atheist, he is mischaracterizing the modern position on this. If you want something relevant you should listen to the actual arguments of Atheists and not strawmen.

[@wmarkfish]

People arrive at a brute explanation of things simply because they are tired of thinking about it...that’s a brute fact.

[@lanceindependent]

Pretty much, yea. What's weird is that the discipline doing this is philosophy. A discipline that's all about examining and reflecting and analyzing, and secular moral realists frequently just fall back on "it's intuitive," "it's obvious," and "it's primitive" and "it's a brute fact." This is hardly the kind of compelling position that's going to win over skeptics.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

I wouldn't say its because they are tried of thinking about it, I would say it is because they know where their thinking is leading them and they don't want to go there.

[@enzoarayamorales7220]

@@lanceindependenthow far do you expect people to think until there is nothing more to think about due to a lack of knowledge and experience that won’t be obtained in a lifetime

[@scythermantis]

Maybe in the modern "regime of truth" we should critique the very idea of an "explanation" as the construct of a Fascist hegemon, borne out of anxiety at any potential change to the status quo that could unseat their system of power.

[@fanghur]

@@jackplumbridge2704 No, it's because they recognize that the alternative is an infinite regress.

[@msmd3295]

Morality is a Social phenomenon. The proof of which is right before your eyes and one “proof” is secular law. From the very beginning of the formation of human groups in which individuals had individual motives social groups had to form standards to sustain cohesion and civility. Because social groups are stronger and can provide more to individuals than individuals operating solely on their personal motives. Ancient groups may have chosen a deity as originator but that was sometimes necessary as a method to “favor” one leader over another that would be difficult to challenge. Further proof is available simply by examining the social orders of all the different nations and culture of the planet. Those societies choose certain standards, expectations and formulate law to limit what is acceptable behavior. There is no need and never has been any real need to connect morality directly to any deity.

[@theosophicalwanderings7696]

I think essentialism is their strongest bet.

[@wesleybasener9705]

Your video has been up for ten minutes and Joe is already half way through his three hour response

[@blamtasticful]

As he rightfully should. This isn't a great take by Gavin.,

[@MACHO_CHICO]

@@blamtasticfulWhy?

[@blamtasticful]

@@MACHO_CHICO Because it doesn’t make sense to say something is moral because God said so.

[@bendecidospr]

@@blamtasticfulThats not what the moral argument says. And, about halfway through this video, nowhere has he said that, either.

[@blamtasticful]

@bendecidospr It claims that if God does not exist that moral values and duties do not exist. When asked why the reasoning comes down to commands (and something isn't right or wrong just because someone commanded something) or it comes down to the nature of goodness itself which is good or bad independently of a God saying so. Attempts to say God is the good are laughable as God is not at all identical with the good. If the good is a part of God then it is this part of God that justifies itself and would so regardless of whether it was contained in God or approved by God or not.

[@FLAYYMz]

To cultivate your children's curiosity, you could try responding "I don't know, why don't we try to find out!?" May lead to a fun little research project together. Keep up the great work Gavin!

[@predatorcrush3341]

⁹9io9i

[@Georgem7307]

Gavin Ortlund: Pastor and theologian by day, philosopher by night. This guy is amazing lol.

[@HearGodsWord]

And apologist at lunch time

[@Cori761]

​@@HearGodsWordlol

[@brando3342]

Interesting observation: The more comfortable of an existence a society has, the easier it becomes to claim moral values and duties are “just brute facts”. Introduce some serious conflicts, and all of a sudden these “brute facts” become extremely difficult to parse out. It is also interesting to recognize that many, if not most, of the arguments for “brute moral facts” come from those who have benefited greatly from the Christian worldview, and now live an excessively comfortable existence. Last observation: This idea of “brute moral facts” is severely challenged when us religious folk question the standards of the day. For example, the abortion debate. Since this is very hard to justify moral stances on the “brute fact” view, we see most people simply wanting to ignore that which is morally and ethically questionable. “Out of sight, out of mind” becomes the dominant resolution; which is not really a resolution at all, but what else can we do when there is no agreement on what is a brute moral fact or not? Appealing to an abstract concept seems to hold very little judicial authority. Since abstract concepts are impersonal, there is no real reason to accept someone else’s claim to what is or is not a “brute moral fact”. I would argue a society could easily “brute fact” themselves into complete destruction, before they even realized it was happening.

[@enzoarayamorales7220]

Yeah what you said is why the moral argument doesn’t work for many people

[@brando3342]

@@enzoarayamorales7220 That's true. I still think it works, personally.

[@juliusbreuer5329]

In my variation of William Lane Craigs argument, i replace God with Santa Claus: 1. If Santa Claus does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Objective moral values do exist. 3. Therefore, Santa Claus exists. Should we believe in Santa Claus because we can't have morals without him? Besides, how do you decide which christian denomination/church has "true" moral values? Are homosexual relationships against gods will and therefore immoral or is god OK with it? In the old testament, god told the israelites how to treat their slaves. Is slavery therefore moral? Christian slaveholders in the USA justified the "peculiar institution" on biblical grounds! Was that just baloney made up to rationalize an inhuman system ruled by some greedy white christian men? Is waging war moraly justified? Some christian churches like the Mennonites are strict pacifists while others are convinced its a moral obligation to defend your homecountry by serving in the military (e. g. Thomas Jonathan Jackson aka "Stonewall" and George Smith Patton). What about the death penalty? The Roman Catholic Church opposes it, many other christians believe it's a neccessary evil. And the list of controversial issues among christians goes on: abortion, assisted suicide, evolution vs. creationism, climate change, guns, nationalism, antisemitism and racism... If god has moral standards, why did he never make them clear? The so called "christian morality" seems to be VERY subjective to me.

[@FinnMcCarthy-uj8ui]

Firstly, why do you think God is comparable to Father Christmas? Secondly, my understanding is not that the moral argument states that all Christians are united on every moral issue, but rather that Christianity provides a basis for morality that goes beyond mere emotions or social conventions. While Christians may disagree on a whole host of moral issues, they fundamentally agree that humans are made in the image of God, that human life has intrinsic value, and that morality is grounded in God. By contrast, naturalists (who also disagree widely on moral issues, of course) have no such foundational agreement and reduce morality to preference. One person prefers not to murder, another prefers to murder, and there is no independent standard by which we can evaluate their preferences, any more than there is a standard to evaluate one person's love of Indian food and another's distaste for it.

[@CharlieKraken]

I'm not a very empathic person (and I do personally know a sociopath, who is also a Christian fun fact. It doesn't equal beyond saving like some people think), but even then I find the moral argument compelling in the sense of, God gives me reason to do good when my natural emotions don't really push me towards that. Objective morality gives me a logical reason to do good, which by the grace of the Holy Spirit then guides my emotions. I don't find any other argument to do good remotely compelling. Why should I do good purely for the sake of society/other people when I don't naturally feel an obligation towards either of those things? Why should I do good "cause it feels good" when it doesn't feel like much of anything to me if its lacking God? But doing good because its objectively right as decreed by God is extremely compelling for me. Because I can logically conclude that God exists via other arguments for His existence and evidence for The Bible, I can then conclude that objective morality exists. As I see it, I have zero obligation to do good if God doesn't exist, as I am not intrinsically bound to a randomly-occurring system, or to emotions, nor the happiness of other people. But I am intrinsically created to serve God, who made me in His image, even in my fallen nature, thus doing good is objectively right. I apologize if this is a bit sloppy or rant-y, but I am passionate about this topic as someone who is fully aware of how awful I am inherently, and how I can only do good by the grace of God and presence of the Holy Spirit. EDIT: A funny thing about the topic of "essences". They really are just a fancy way to say that they feel emotionally inclined towards those things being the way they are. I recently got into a debate with my sociopath friend about 5 being an odd number, when he insisted that it is even cause it "feels right" that it is even. I don't intend to mock him in any way by bringing this up (he knows how math works he just for some reason disagrees with the definition of an even number), but I was unable to convince him otherwise, as he felt no emotional pull towards defining an even number the same way as everyone else does, just because people do it. Of course, it is objective that 5 is an odd number, but it is shockingly hard to argue that it is when emotions are out of the picture (trust me I've tried). Yet, this same friend believes in the whole truth of The Bible and has grown in his faith massively over the time I've known him. His morals do not come from essences, but from God. And the fact that he is both largely unemotional and literally cannot wrap his head around the philosophical concept of essences, to me, shows that essences are just a fancy way of saying "cause it feels right". Making them arguments built on emotion rather than logic.

[@makeda6530]

This was a great perspective to read, thanks~.

[@CharlieKraken]

@@makeda6530 Glory to God entire!

[@chrissonofpear1384]

And just no more 2 Samuel 12 repeats...?

[@blugaledoh2669]

What do you mean by essence

[@benmetzger7040]

Great comment

[@SotS1689]

Love this type of video. Thanks for putting in the time to dig into this!

[@jonathanwestrum9345]

Atheist here. First off, I enjoyed the video, thank you. The problem I have with all objective morality arguments is the presupposition that human well-being or some similar variant is objectively “good” or true. There is simply no evidence for this outside of a human-centric worldview making morality, at least initially, subjective. Second, I believe you have your brute explanation example backwards. Theism seems to rely far more on brute explanations - ie. "you just have to have faith", "God did it", etc. Atheists reject those explanation and seek answers beyond them. Finally, allow me to address some common theist misunderstandings of atheism. Atheism is a faith position not a religion. Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods. This requires a theistic faith position. Atheists reject the claim that a god(s) exist - that is the atheist faith position. There is nothing religious about it. While it is true that evolution is often a typical atheist counterpoint in debate for how we as a species have arrived at where we are now, it has no direct relationship with atheism. Most atheists tend to believe science provides the best explanations for the natural world, but it isn’t some requirement. You don’t have to accept evolution to reject a god(s) claim and identify as an atheist. Historical atheist arguments, like any other, were only as good as the knowledge and information available to them at the time they made those arguments. Unlike theism, atheism does not have many years of apologetics to help defend, explain and refine their arguments. Have there been some bad atheist arguments in the past - you bet. Just like there have been all sorts of bad arguments in the past when we view them through a present day, greater knowledge available to us lens.

[@joneill3dg]

I've really been chewing on this idea of trying to account for moral facts on Atheism. The idea that moral facts are just "brute" or "obvious" just really hasn't been sitting well with me. It's get's arbitrary really quick. But even if moral facts were brute, or we could account for them based on our acquaintance with them, that really only solves the problem of Moral epistemology, which the theist using the moral argument will gladly grant. It does nothing to answer the question of why those things are wrong in the first place. I find it very difficult to accept that morality can be ontologcally grounded in ones acquaintance with a moral fact. It only gets us as far as the Atheist who says "So you're saying I can't know right and wrong unless I believe in your sky fairy?" Great video Gavin, looking forward to the inevitable responses :)

[@jrhemmerich]

It also seems to follow that just because one affirms as an atheist that murder is wrong as a brute fact, that this is sufficient to give it meaning in the broad sense. Moral meaning seems to entail, not just the judgment “that is universally wrong for everyone in the same circumstance” but also a sanction for the violation of morality. God as a judge provides the full range of moral meaning, because he supports not just a universal standard, but also the power to enact punishment and reward which reach beyond the partial justice found in this life. Do you think it’s better to categorize this broader moral meaning as ontological rather than epistemological? I could see one saying it’s ontologically grounded in God, but that it’s “epistemological” because it’s a question of known meaning. I guess I’m wondering if moral “meaning” leans more toward ontology or epistemology?

[@macysondheim]

Christianity is a fairy tale though. It’s literally 1st century European mythology, they has talking snakes, dragons, and zombies in it 😆🤣🤣

[@jrhemmerich]

@@macysondheim, I’m not sure that you have spent much time reading or thinking about this. Genesis is ancient Hebrew literature, not European. There are various views on the talking snake-it may have been a snake, but the Hebrew word can mean a creature of light, a type of angelic creature. It seems this creature became associated with chaos, as that’s what snakes came to represent in ancient mythology. If it was a just a snake, it is odd that it’s punishment was to go on its belly. Likely, it was called a snake because of this description, but that association doesn’t mean that it was an actual talking snake. The “dragon” is a water creature of some kind known to the ancients. It’s not a fire breathing cartoon. It appears in the hebrew poetry of the Bible. Like the snake it takes on the symbolism of struggle against the chaos of nature as well as malevolent evil. The Bible uses the real creatures that humans have encountered and sometimes turns them into symbols. It’s really not a childish thing to do. Some of our greatest literary and ethical achievements have fairy-tail like qualities (“All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights…” etc.). But we see through them like we should to their deeper meaning. Don’t pass over a good wine just because it’s a learned taste and requires intelligence. There is deep beauty and meaning in these histories and parables if you sit with them and let them speak what they say and not what you would have them say. All the best.

[@MartinGentile-fv5sk]

Morals are determined by societies. If morals are prescribed by a deity from a text, then they are not objective rather subjective according to his/her edict. The god of the bible changes morals frequently in the old testament.

[@coltoncauthen8696]

Fantastic video, thank you! After watching 5 or 6 of your videos I was impressed by your clear thinking, charitable approach, careful distinctions etc. Finding out in this video that you have a background in philosophy explains a lot of that! Keep up the great work.

[@tomscrace6571]

If indeed there are objective moral facts, then why, in the absence of God, would human beings have evolved to respect them? It seems incredibly unlikely that the set of brute moral facts would happen to perfectly coincide with the moral instincts imbued in us by an evolutionary process that favours traits according to their survival value alone. Either morality is not objectively true, and merely an adaptive trait, or God exits.

[@joelancon7231]

I love that you and Trent are becoming real frenemies it's like Tolkien and Lewis reincarnate

[@Will-wu1gb]

Yes more apologetics!

[@MajorMustang1117]

As someone who was an agnostic, I dont understand a moralist view from athiests. Never will.

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

Before I was Saved by Jesus Christ, I was a full blown Ethical Nihilist Anti-Theist. Even then I knew that Morality couldn't be Subjective. But now I know the Objective Morality of God, and am thankful that I have been forgiven for persecuting Christians, as St. Paul was forgiven.

[@RobRod305]

Well of course you can’t, it’s logically impossible

[@davecorns7630]

@@realDonaldMcElvy im happy for you man

[@eduardoan777]

I was a humanist bro, nothing more illogical than that 💀

[@bengreen171]

@@realDonaldMcElvy so now you just persecute non Christians and LGBT folk?

[@stephengray1344]

So basically both sides have to ground objective morality in some sort of brute fact. It's just that the theist's brute fact also happens to be a brute fact for existence/reality itself, whilst the atheist's brute fact is entirely standalone.

[@jackplumbridge2704]

"So basically both sides have to ground objective morality in some sort of brute fact." - No? How did you come to the idea that God is a brute fact?

[@HearGodsWord]

​@@jackplumbridge2704 I wondered the same!

[@exargyromeno3648]

I find that atheism always raises more questions philosophically than it attempts to answer. Every atheist becomes a skeptic (sometimes an absolute skeptic, which can be self-defeating) and reality just doesn’t hold itself together well.

[@jeffdowns1038]

See: How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren't Skeptical Enough, by Mitch Stokes (Crossway).

[@blamtasticful]

Zero evidence for this claim.

[@exargyromeno3648]

@@blamtasticful You’re welcome to present your worldview, but you seem more like the type to say, “zero evidence,” and think that’s enough to shut down an argument.

[@blamtasticful]

@@exargyromeno3648 It is when you actually aren't providing evidence for the claims YOU made. Stop trying to shift your burden.

[@exargyromeno3648]

@@blamtasticful All I said was I find that atheism tends to end up as more skeptical than theism in more issues and doesn’t really provide concrete or confident conclusions. You’re welcome to present an atheist worldview and we can discuss it. I wasn’t attempting to make a definitive statement without proof and have everyone take it as absolutely true, just raising my own conclusions on this issue.

[@matt8637]

Gavin, I assume you are familiar with the presuppositional arguments of Van Til and Greg Bahnsen, etc? They are interesting in what they say about this topic.

[@gardengirlmary]

Great presentation. Morality is interesting to consider from an atheist point of view. I am a little rusty on persuasion on this topic Good to see this topic in video form

[@HauxYZ250]

Thanks for the video! I listened to the Joe Schmidt video and I was surprised by the particular claim that atheists can ground objective morality without issue. I thought maybe there had been some major shifts in the area since my time studying ethics in college.

[@MajestyofReason]

Thanks for the video, Gavin! You’ve contributed lots of valuable thoughts here, and I hope my comment can contribute value, too! These are not *all* my thoughts - that would involve a multi-page essay, haha! - but they’re some salient ones that will hopefully help people think critically about these matters :) Part One: Bengson, Cuneo, and Shafer-Landau’s account At 14:30, you say: “it seems to boil down to saying that’s just the way it is” I admit, however, that I don’t share this sense; the account here provides a *unifying, illuminating explanation* of normative facts in terms of essence-facts concerning normative properties. As Bengson, Cuneo, and Shafer-Landau argue in the article, this is not a vacuous, unilluminating account which merely adverts to the very fact in need of explanation (as happens in the case of you saying to your kids ‘that’s just the way the world is’). It cites a categorically different kind of fact altogether - non-normative facts about essences - to explain normative facts. And it’s a plausible one, by my lights - once one grasps what the normative property of badness is, there’s no mystery as to why, e.g., intense suffering is bad. This is characteristic of a good explanation: once one grasps the explanans, there’s no mystery as to why the explanandum obtains. So while I think you offer valuable insights and reflections here, I don’t think they successfully rebut the Bengson/Cuneo/Shafer-Landau non-theistic grounding of morality. You also appear to raise another worry for the account: it lands in brute, unexplained facts. But I don’t see how theism is in any better position. It, too, lands in brute, unexplained facts in its account of morality. God is good. Why? What explains God’s goodness? In virtue of what is God good? I currently see only three plausible answers: (1) You could say the explanation is that God is loving, kind, and just, and that these (sorts of) attributes make God good. But the non-theist can then make the same move: what makes certain acts and states of affairs good? Their lovingness, kindness, and justice. Both accounts end in the same sort of explanation, and so theism enjoys no explanatory advantage. (2) You could say that God is good by nature - what it is to be God is to be good. But then you’ve cited an essence-fact as the ultimate explanatory stopping point for morality, which is precisely the same thing Bengson, Cuneo, and Shafer-Landau do. Once again, theism enjoys no explanatory advantage here. (3) You could say that there’s no explanation for God’s goodness. But then you’re saddled with primitive, unexplained normativity, and hence you have no ultimate ground for morality. Your explanatory stopping point in explaining other moral facts would *itself* be a moral fact (that God is good), and so you haven’t even given a grounding for morality as such. By contrast, Bengson, Cuneo, and Shafer-Landau cite non-normative, non-moral facts to ground the fundamental normative/moral principles, and hence they *do* supply a grounding for morality. [Moreover, it’s hardly an objection to their account that essence-facts are themselves primitive if your account likewise ends in primitivity.] Finally, you say: this account raises a new question of how do we have essences in a “reductively physicalist, or naturalistic worldview”? There are several points to make here. First, Bengson, Cuneo, and Shafer-Landau are not reductive physicalists (and neither am I), and their account of morality is non-naturalist. They don’t take essence-facts, or even normative facts, to be reducible to physical, scientifically investigable facts. So even if there’s a tension there, it doesn’t actually address the non-theistic account you’re supposed to be criticizing. Second, it’s not clear why there’s a tension between naturalism and essences. Water is essentially H2O; water couldn’t have been anything other than H2O. Heat is essentially mean molecular kinetic energy. Lightning is essentially electric discharge. These claims pose no challenge to naturalism. Natural things can have essences and essential properties; essences are simply *what it is to be* a certain thing. What it is to be water is to be H2O; that’s the essence of water, and that requires nothing supernatural. Third, it’s not clear how God could explain essences. Note that there’s at least one essence God can’t provide an explanation of - namely, the divine essence itself. God couldn’t explain his essence without pulling himself up by his own metaphysical bootstraps. Since God’s essence also doesn’t depend on anything apart from God, theism already grants that there’s nothing objectionable *in itself* about unexplained essences. As for other non-God essences, it’s hard to see how God could explain those. Of course, God can explain why there are some *concrete things* with a given essence; but it’s unclear how God could explain *essences* themselves, which aren’t concrete things like tables and chairs and platypuses. Essence-facts are necessary truths over which God has no control; for instance, God couldn’t have brought it about that water is H3O instead of H2O. Indeed, nothing about God himself seems to provide any resources for predicting what essences there would be. So again, it’s not clear how adding God to the picture secures an explanation for essences.

[@MajestyofReason]

Part Two: Wielenberg’s account You say it’s much more parsimonious to give God the role as the unexplained explainer, rather than Wielenberg’s fundamental moral truths/principles, since God is singular whereas such truths are plural. But there are eat least two problems with this: (1) First, in terms of the number of things posited, *you* are also positing Wielenberg’s moral truths; you’re simply not taking them to be *fundamental* but instead grounded in God (in some way). Thus, you’re committed to everything Wielenberg is, *and then more* , since you add God to the picture. It’s therefore not at all clear that you have a simpler account; in fact, Wielenberg’s seems *far* simpler, since his commitments are a *proper subset* of yours. One way to get around this point is to say that, when comparing the simplicity of hypotheses, we should only take into account *fundamental* things and posits. This methodological principle is called Schaffer’s Laser. I don’t have the space to go into this here, but suffice it to note that (i) you would need to justify that principle, and (ii) lots of metaphysicians reject it, since it suffers from very serious problems. (E.g., we use simplicity to assess hypotheses about who committed a crime, even though these hypotheses only concern non-fundamental entities like humans, knives, blood, etc.) Another point to make here is that you also have a significant cost in *qualitative* complexity, since you posit a radically different *kind* of thing in your ontology (a non-spatiotemporal, necessary, unlimited God), which is a kind that non-theists don’t posit. This is yet another massive complexity cost of your explanation that you did not discuss. (2) Second, Wielenberg doesn’t actually need to commit to *multiple* fundamental moral truths; one can develop his account in a way that there’s only *one* fundamental moral principle, thus reducing his fundamental posits to a single case. (That principle might be, for instance, that the moral properties of acts, states of affairs, etc. are determined by their maximization of the welfare of sentient beings. This is a popular fundamental principle which many take to explain all other moral truths, but one could employ a different fundamental moral principle if one wants.) Finally, you demur that this response is explanatorily brute - as you say, “in his words, ‘basic ethical facts come from nowhere, and nothing external to them grounds their existence’”. But again, theism’s account of morality is also explanatorily brute; God’s goodness comes from nowhere, and nothing external to God grounds God’s goodness. If it’s a problem for an account of morality that it ends in explanatory bruteness, then your theistic account is also problematic on this front. If it’s *not* a problem, then your objection to Wielenberg’s account on the basis of bruteness doesn’t hold water.

[@MajestyofReason]

Part Three: Chimpanzee war I didn’t find this section convincing; there are pretty compelling non-theistic explanations for why human morality is different from the social behavior of animals. You essentially ask what explains why we appropriately blame, praise, hold accountable, punish, etc. humans for their behavior but not chimpanzees. The explanation is that humans have various morally relevant intrinsic features that non-human animals lack. In particular, humans have the capacity to understand, deliberate about, and act on the basis of reasons. Animals aren’t sensitive to the range of reasons bearing on their actions, and this explains why they aren’t morally culpable for their actions; they can’t be held accountable since they can’t be privy to the range of specifically *moral* reasons counting for or against their actions. But humans are different. We have various intrinsic rational capacities, like capacities to apprehend and base our actions on reasons. This means that we’re liable to praise and blame if we act for bad reasons or overlook good reasons. None of this cites God; it’s a perfectly kosher explanation of the difference between human morality and animal behavior in terms of our inherent capacities as the kind of beings we are. You also say that the alleged inability to explain the difference between human morality and animal behavior makes non-theistic morality arbitrary. On the contrary, it is precisely the *theistic* view which, by my lights, suffers from arbitrariness. God either has some reason for endowing us with the relevant form of dignity/worth/value, or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, then our having that dignity is arbitrary, since God has no reason at all for endowing it upon us. If he does have such a reason - say, because of the intrinsic features of humans, like the previously mentioned rational capacities - then it’s quite plausibly *that very reason* which accounts for our having dignity/worth/value, and God is simply serving as an intermediary here. At the very least, the non-theist will then have a perfectly adequate account of our dignity/worth/value simply by citing *that reason*, and the charge that atheism cannot account for dignity/worth/value vanishes. So, then, either theism suffers from arbitrariness, or else the non-theist has an account of the phenomenon, contrary to what you appear to claim in the video.

[@TruthUnites]

Thank you Joe! I have read through your comments once, but will want to read them again more slowly when its not the end of a busy day and take some time to digest them. In the meantime, you make a fair point that Bengson, Cuneo, and Shafer-Landau are not reductive physicalists. I suppose I was making a sort of aside there, drawn from my reflection from reading of Lowe's book. On the chimpanzee war section, we need to probe the qualifiers I used for the distinction between human and animal morality, like "qualitatively" and "in the way we intuit" and so forth. I will also be curious to talk more about older atheists and evolutionary psychology sometime. Hopefully more to come. Thanks for your thoughtful comments here.

[@catkat740]

@@MajestyofReasonan you give an example which illustrates the Bengson & co approach in a moral argument? I’m sorry, lowly non-philosopher here 🤓 It makes so much sense in the mathematical realm (“3 is a number”) but that’s because it’s an easy fact to explain with very clear defining qualities. It’s always a number. There are no known circumstances in which it is not a number. I just would like to see an example in the morality realm which is as clear cut so I can understand how this approach works. Thanks!

[@jeramybarry2013]

@@MajestyofReason Speaking of qualitative complexity, how are non-naturalist essence facts and normative facts not a qualitatively different kind of thing in your ontology? On a non-naturalist account of morality, it seems the qualitative complexity is the same since both have to posit a different kind of thing.

[@JW_______]

C.S. Lewis's moral argument has preserved and defended my faith against all intellectual challenges. Now that I have a better grasp of the ontological/cosmological arguments I see how firmly grounded the theistic worldview truly is, but the moral argument is still my utmost favorite.

[@michaelmather8694]

I find it interesting that apologists can ignore the moral behaviour of God. This is being that killed almost the entire human and animal populations, who encourages genocide in his chosen people, who fails to proscribe slavery. Why should we ground an ‘objective’ morality in this being?

[@maxm2639]

Okay, I'm going to listen to this video, but the idea that the way that a group of intelligent apes on a random planet choose to classify and rank human behavior according to desirability must stem from some objective "laws" of the universe like gravity and the speed of light, just seems understandable only if one is already convinced that there is a God who cares about what we do, or, on a more likely level, the human desire to have one's opinions confirmed by some kind of external authority.

[@PaulRezaei]

This is fascinating because atheists who conclude that objective love and justice are brute facts about our reality are, in essence, acknowledging the existence of a nonphysical reality. Since theists believe these nonphysical moral facts are attributes of God, it seems that atheists who hold this view are, in a way, recognizing aspects of what theists call God.

[@kevinfancher3512]

As any sin that can be forgiven can be committed without fear, christian morality cannot be trusted.

[@sophirette]

More philosophy videos please

[@brendangolledge8312]

When I saw this video, I was planning on making a comment at the end, because I've thought about this a lot, but the video basically covered everything. I will still make some minor points. I think God acts a material, logical, and moral "first-mover". As discussed in the video, in order for any logical process to begin, it has to start somewhere without a cause. So I agree entirely that if morality is "real", then its beginning must be a brute fact, whether it's somebody positing that his personal preferences are a brute fact (like Sam Harris), or whether somebody posits that God is that brute fact. I think the Is-Ought fallacy described by Hume demonstrates that there can be no material basis for morality. Evolutionary explanations for morality (as discussed in the video) do not demonstrate objective eternal morals, but only "good strategies" and "bad strategies" for certain circumstances. In this case, morality is not different from game theory.

[@Inspired_JG]

Great video. New to apologetics but have done quite a bit of research on the cosmological argument. Can’t you combine additional arguments like the intelligent design, contingency and or causality principles to further emphasize the existence of an absolute moral giver?

[@Inspired_JG]

@@DaneilT solid feedback. Thanks!

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

Any metaphysical system that can ground morality also points to God, imo. A consistent atheist materialist should be an error theorist.

[@Oscar.AnangeloftheLord.Perez.1]

You don't need God to explain Morality but you need God to have Morality.

[@bsm9908]

I enjoy Gavin’s videos and thoughtful approach His main critique of atheistic objective morality is that it hinges on base moral sentiments (like human flourishing or not causing unnecessary suffering) being called brute facts. He regards this as unsatisfying. I agree that making the concession that there are objective moral facts and then immediately stating “they are brute facts” seems to move the conversation no further. At the same time, the main argument for the existence of objective moral values is that “their existence is so intuitively obvious that we need no affirmative case.” So objective morality is justified by the brute fact of our intuitions. No further argument needed. If Gavin and others need no further grounding to establish that morality is objective, why should we expect further grounding as to why morality is objective? It begins and ends with intuitions. Once we’ve agreed to the basic intuitions, then moral arguments can take place.

[@branchleader73]

Yeah, I agree morality is Inter-subjective not objective.

[@bencook6585]

Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors, and he covers so clearly the idea that without God, all things are moral (See Ivan (as you mentioned) in the Brothers, and Raskolnikov in Crime & Punishment). It seems so obvious at its face that we cannot create our own morals.

[@WhiteScorpio2]

"It seems so obvious at its face that we cannot create our own morals." That seems obviously wrong to me. If someone else created morals, they wouldn't be OUR morals.

[@bencook6585]

​@@WhiteScorpio2​ No, not necessarily, unless you're playing a pedantic game on the definition of "our". Our in my comment means the morals which are applied to us. The morals written on our hearts. It's entirely possible that another being (God) could create a moral value set, and write them onto our hearts. Those morals while not created by us would be our morals

[@WhiteScorpio2]

@@bencook6585 I would have appreciated if you chose to formulate it more precisely than "written on our hearts". Now, while it is, indeed, possible that our morals were infused in us by some external being with a power to do so, but it would be far from "obvious" that such a thing happened, especially given that no such being have been demonstrated to exist or even to be possible to exist. Additional point: people have different moral values, goals and opinions. That would mean that either this being infused us all with differing morals, there are multiple such beings or that indeed we CAN and DO create our own morals in addition to the ones "written on our heart". I don't think any of these options allign with the idea that one being infused us all with the same moral law and we cannot create our own. If that idea was true, wouldn't everyone without exception have the same moral opinions? Yet we don't. Your idea is just completely contrary to the observable reality, thus I say that it is obviously wrong. How exactly do you justify saying that is is obviously correct?

[@bencook6585]

@@WhiteScorpio2 You make a claim here that "no such being [has] been demonstrated to exist or even be possible to exist", which funnily enough is not supported by evidence, and requires a willful choice to ignore the evidence that exists. Historical evidence of Christ for example, including the gospel narratives, exists. Logical proofs proposed by multiple different thinkers throughout all time. The claim there which you proposed has very little foundation. To your second point, I would point to shared moral codes among multiple people groups. Throughout the world the majority of individuals intuitively know murder (not necessarily killing), theft, etc. to be intrinsically wrong. The reason for differences around the edges, in my observation, would be human proclivity to sin and corruption. Despite that, the most basic moral laws remain across civilizations. This is why we don't all hold the same moral code universally word-for-word. These things are not at all contrary to the observable reality. The alternative, that human morality was created over time by humanity, is not at all observed, and therefore is pure speculation. Some moral codes are revealed over time (i.e. the teachings of Christ were revealed during the incarnation and not explicitly before) but they remain revealed, not created.

[@WhiteScorpio2]

@@bencook6585 "You make a claim here that "no such being [has] been demonstrated to exist or even be possible to exist" We are discussing the moral argument, that is to say, we are in a position in which the existence of God has not been established. "Historical evidence of Christ for example" Historical Jesus existing is not the same as transcendant supernatural God existing. "Logical proofs" Logic never proves anything about reality by itself, you still need to apply logic to availible evidence. So what evidence do you have aside from stories written in a book? Stories being written in a book are not automatically true. "the majority of individuals" But not ALL individuals, right? So are you saying that God has written morals on the majority of people's hearts, but not on all of them? "murder (not necessarily killing)" Well, yeah, murder is defined as a killing that is wrong. So, saying that murder is just semantically true, nothing else. Now, try and ask if abortion, capital punishment, some particular war or war in general are wrong, good or permissible, and you will find out how maleable human ideas about morality are. "The reason for differences around the edges, in my observation, would be human proclivity to sin and corruption." Did God also write the proclivity to sin and being corrupted on our hearts? "The alternative, that human morality was created over time by humanity, is not at all observed" You have never observed human moral opinions changing and developing? The opinion towards homosexuality, for example, has changed drastically just over my single lifetime, and you are saying that it isn't observed? "were revealed" So are morals revealed or written on our hearts? Was human opposition to slavery 1) written on our hearts; 2) revealed by Jesus; 3) developed in and by human thought?

[@teravega]

Great video!! Love this channel

[@maximgruner]

Honestly I think the fact that the spirit of atheism was forced to bend the knee and accept that morality is objective is proof that God is real and it is an amazing testimony to the goodness and love of the church. The church is so amazing that we forced the atheist people of the world to concede to our terms. They had to accept that morality was objective, even though they resisted it for centuries we won, and now all they can do is just shrug and say “welp, morality is objective, guess that just is how it is”. It’s similar to how they used to deny God given rights and now are just like “welp, human rights just exist I guess, that’s cool”. This shows how we as the church don’t just improve ourselves but everyone around us. We even make unbelievers better. Even the Muslims ended slavery because of our love of humanity, even the atheists accepted the existence of goodness because of our devotion to the good, even the Hindus abolished widow burning because of our love for women, even the Japanese have submitted to international law because of our pursuit of peace. Never forget my brothers and sisters in Christ that we are the sons and daughters of heaven. We are a chosen people, a superior priesthood. The Bible says we should only boast in the Lord, and frankly I think we should do that more often. We should be adamant is bragging about all of the good things we’ve done since Abraham through faith gave rise to the nation of Israel until today where through faith we continue to usher in progress, peace, justice, women’s liberation, equality, kindness, and love wherever we march. We are the bride of Christ, we will build the kingdom and the gates of hell will not stand in our way. FOR THE GLORY OF GOD AND FOR ALL MANKIND, HOOYAH!!!

[@EnglishMike]

Almost got me...

[@BurningHearts99]

Great video Gavin! Very clear, engaging and compelling. You do get to the heart of the problem. Thanks!

[@psylegio]

Why do atheists and agnostics seek objective morality? Is it of any higher value than subjective values - which seems to have a lot more face validity given that different people have such different view on what is the moral take on issues at hand? Is there a higher status to it or what?

[@lanceindependent]

No. There is nothing better about moral realism.

[@pavld335]

What do you mean they seek objective morality?

[@Thundawich]

How can we show that objective moral values and duties actually exist in the first place though?

[@billbrock8547]

Humans live in groups, and like all social animals we've evolved a system of cooperation that makes group living possible. We call our system morality. And morality doesn't "change when you get to human beings." We may not apply our moral standards to chimpanzees, but all primate groups exhibit moral behaviours that are very similar to ours.

[@tonyisnotdead]

how do you know the intentions of animals? also morality is only a "system of cooperation" when you change the definition of morality to "a system of cooperation"

[@opinionate-by-thesyllogist]

Thanks for the video! Is this your basic argument in syllogism? 1. Moral truths are objectively, ontologically independent of humans. 2. Athiests have no good explanation to why moral truths are objectively, ontologically independent of humans. 3. Whatever best explains the validity of premise 1 is the most likely true. 4. Theism best explains the validity of premise 1. Therefore, theism is more likely valid than atheism.

[@trumpbellend6717]

Please define "moral truth" ? Indeed simply define the words "morality" and "good" ? 🤔

[@andrewfisherman3811]

Even if God doesn't exist, from a human perspective, right would still be right, and wrong would still be wrong. We don't need God to come to that conclusion, irrespective of whether or not we can trust any of our neighbours to do what is right, when it is to their advantage personally to do otherwise.

[@EnglishMike]

Yeah, I think that something Christians often don't grasp when they argue that the world would be so different without God's objective standard of morality. Atheist are actually arguing that the world as it is, morality and all, is _better_ _explained_ as the result of natural and evolutionary forces. Whether or not God exists, the world as we know it remains the same. Differences would only happen if, in the wake of a definitive answer to the question of God's existence, people start acting differently. Even then, I doubt much would change, either way.

[@Jackie.2025]

Great video!

[@EthanTripodi]

I’ve recently been doing a lot more campus evangelism and the moral argument comes in handy a lot. Your video gives me a lot more confidence in asserting which answers are insufficient and why God is STILL the best explanation for objective moral values.

[@JCMcGee]

Jeez.... There is no such thing as objective morality* There, saved you an hou egg. Let it go. *No, it isn't, it's a statement about them, before you make that error.

[@djpeacannon8461]

I was gonna say lol. This discussion is painful between all 4+ involved

[@romans1229]

Great food for thought! You’re an excellent orator!

[@arock155]

I wonder how people who accept these explanations deal with human groups having very different moral conventions at different times. Say in the Roman empire a child askes his Patrician father why it's ok to beat and kill slaves on a whim but no ok to beat and kill free people, and his father answers, "It's an inexplicable, brute moral fact. Everybody knows that, it doesn't require an explanation. That's just the way it is, son."

[@HearGodsWord]

The simple answer is culture and individualism. These, of course, sit below what God commands

[@charlesbrown8117]

It also kinda seems like, to me at least, that moral realism without God as a grounding suffers an epistemic nightmare. Like if one grants that, sure, morality can exist by brute fact then how in the world can we be confident that what we believe to be truely right and wrong are actually that? I remeber hearing a debate where one guy said that, basically, we ask ourselves what would a perfectly rational person do and we use that as a kind of guide. But that's the problem, absolutely no one is perfectly rational so how can we even begin to hazard a guess as to what a perfectly rational person would do? It seems that even if moral facts can exist without God, you need some type of revelation in order to even confidently begin to say that x is actually wrong

[@stephengray1344]

That guy was misunderstaning what rationality is, anyway. Rationality means you make decisions based on logic and reason, rather than emotion and bias. But logic and reason merely enable us to determine that A necessarily follows on from B, but is incompatible with C. It can't tell you things like whether it's better to pursue your personal well-being or the well-being of your society.

[@blamtasticful]

People already aren't perfectly rational even if God does exist so they can still make moral error. What's worse, if God's decrees make something moral not our inclinations about morality then God could order us to do something that seems truly immoral such as killing children and we wouldn't have any basis to say that this was wrong.

[@lanceindependent]

It's not clear to me how God helps with moral realism. What does God add to the picture that makes sense of moral realism and makes it more plausible?

[@charlesbrown8117]

@@lanceindependent If we assume moral realism is true, then, as I see it, a good explanation of morality will be able to account for these features: it's objectivity, how we come to know it, and how it accounts for the intrinsic value we place on each other. So I'll say right off the bat that I can see how if one says that morality is just this brute fact about the universe, then sure, the first two criteria are plausibly fulfilled. It's objective because of brute force and we come to know it through reason (although imperfectly). Where the rub comes for me is the last one, why is it that people are intrinsically valuable on naturalism? It actually seems to me that we start with value in human beings and work our way from there, but the question remains for me why think we are intrinsically valuable? On a purely naturalist worldview it seems that we're basically a product of time, matter, and chance. We're a cosmic accident without a rhyme or reason for our existence outside of what we decide for ourselves or what others tell us. God explains the last thing that helps to make up morality for me. Because if we're made in God's image (from whom beauty, truth, justice, and reason flow) then it makes it way more easy for me to understand where this innate sense of value comes from. Hopefully that makes sense. Really like I said it's that last point that really sticks out for me, I've just never heard a convincing account of why we're valuable on naturalism. And for me it's that value we seem to have that makes morality even make sense in the first place

[@lanceindependent]

​@@charlesbrown8117 Thanks. One worry I have about your remark is that not all atheist moral realists are naturalists. At least among professional philosophers there are about as many non-naturalist moral realists as there are naturalist moral realists. Atheism does not entail naturalism.

[@rogerparada4995]

A welcome surprise to see you jumping into the ring here, Dr. Ortlund! While I disagree about grounding moral values strictly in God, I agree with an argument from moral knowledge and moral obligation as best explained by God. (Siding with Swinburne, take one of the horns of the euthyphro dilemma). Despite that minor disagreement, I throughly appreciated to seeing you set the example as a pastor and Christian thinker in diving into these topics. Hope to see other videos on philosophical topics from you in the future! 🙂

[@pavld335]

So there are feelings of guilt and obligation so god?

[@CMartin04]

What do you think about aristotelian eudaimonia as a way to establish an objective moral? St. Thomas Aquinas will take this from Aristotle also. Men should be what it is. You must develop your potencies based on your human nature. Therefore you have an objective moral there

[@mottgirl13]

Thanks for this! I have been mulling over the source of objective morality….

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

The Knowledge of Good and Evil is the cause of the Original Sin... Subjective Morality!

[@kriegjaeger]

Yep, deciding good and evil on our own terms, which is whatever is most convenient for us.

[@highroller-jq3ix]

No, the moral argument doesn't "still" work because it never did. While a strong majority of philosophers are moral realists (strangely), an even more substantial percentage are non-theist. The conclusion: when the best trained philosophical minds contemplate the concept of moral realism, it does not lead to theism, let alone to a monotheistic god proposition, let alone to Christianity.

[@catkat740]

Good stuff. More philosophical videos, please! I would argue that the moral argument is implicit in Aquinas’ argument from gradation (4th way) and that this is also a useful pushback against the brute (as you call it) line of argumentation used. 3 being a number because that’s its essence is completely different from something being good or bad. I’ll have to listen to the original argument because it seems so absurd. Is he arguing for a moral action or a quality like kindness, or for goodness itself? What is the thing he’s comparing to with the 3 is a number analogy?

[@tolleetdialogum4463]

Loved this video Gavin! You got my philosopher brain hyped!

[@danielboone8256]

Fascinating video, Gavin. To avoid the claim that God existence is seen as a brute fact, do you think it’d be reasonable to say that God not only necessarily exists, but exists by logically necessity? So, perhaps God’s non-existence would be equivalent to a square circle existing?

[@MegaVincenzo13]

Without a God there would be no purpose or meaning to life, so I pretty much agree with you.

[@trumpbellend6717]

You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case. My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags". I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear. I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning" But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life. *A child killer however* so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless of course those children also found the "evidence" for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡

[@MegaVincenzo13]

@@trumpbellend6717 FIRST off I am not your dear. You seem to be bitter and have a need to justify yourself. Why does it upset you that others believe in life after death? Christ says we will be judged on our conduct so justice will be done. When I look at a child I know that wonders like them didnt happen by accident. It may really upset you to know that this life is like preschool compared to the life to come.

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@MegaVincenzo13 / "Christ says we will be judged on our conduct so justice will be done" // Lol no dear under Christian soteriology one is "judged" not by their actions I life but rather upon their "BELIEF" or lack of ( something they have no more control over than the colour of their skin at birth ) That is the determining factor between eternal paradise or eternal torture. *John 5 24* “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and *"BELIEVES"* in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and *SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT,* but has passed from death into life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, *"Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation"* (page 44, paragraph #161). Centrality in the doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. The doctrine of sola fide asserts that Gods pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and *received through faith alone,* excluding all "works" (good deeds). *John 14 : 6* _Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me_ *Acts 16 : 31* _So they said,_ *"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved,* _you and your household"_ *EPHESIANS 2 : 8* _"For by grace_ *you have been saved through faith* _And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God"_ *SHALL I GO ON* ????

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@MegaVincenzo13 What does "justice" actually mean to you my friend ? 🤔 You see for me justice is all about "fairness", responsibility, equality, accountability, and consequences all of which can be negated under Christian soteriology by one's acceptance or rejection of extraordinary supernatural claims. Scholars of ethical philosophy such as national humanities medal winning moral and legal philosopher John Rawls described "justice", and especially distributive justice, as _"a form of_ *FAIRNESS"* The dictionaries define it as follows... *M Webster* JUSTICE _noun_ *1* _the maintenance or administration of what just especially by the_ *impartial* _adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments_ *2* _The quality of being just, impartial, or_ *fair* *Cambridge English* JUSTICE _noun_ ( _FAIRNESS_ ) ... _the condition of being morally correct or fair_ _He accused the police of false arrest and demanded justice_ Our societal conception of "justice" in in direct conflict with the *unequal punishment* based on the accused "beliefs" prescribed by Christian theology. Moral properties such as responsibility are supervenient on actions and attributes of moral agents, and cannot be transferred between them. As such vicarious redemption ( scapegoating ) could never and should never be regarded as either logical or moral. The idea of sin, or morality however you define it, being a tradeable commodity is at odds with how I define morality. Particularly when it involves the suffering of an innocent, even if it is inflicted with 'love" and accepted with 'gratitude'. I am responsible for my good and bad actions, people can't 'take' my bad deeds any more than they can my good nor should they. PS Your God cannot be both perfectly merciful and perfectly "JUST" as "mercy" is the suspension of "justice" by definition. 😜

[@trumpbellend6717]

@@MegaVincenzo13 // "When I look at a child I know wonders like them didn't happen by accident" // Tell me dear when you look at a child suffering from "BONE CANCER" do you think "that didn't happen by accident" do you think it also can only have arisen as the result of a PERFECT omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent loving God? 🤔 It causes untold suffering and death to millions of innocent children and their families. ? Just what "purpose" does it serve ? Did God not have a "choice" to create a world without bone cancer? How about the multitude of other Diseases, Tsunamis, Viruses, birth defects, Earthquakes, Floods, Famines, ect ect. ?? I think Epicurus put it much better than I ever could........ _"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able_ ? _Then he is not omnipotent_ _Is he able, but not willing_ ? _Then he is malevolent_ _Is he both able and willing_ ? _Then whence cometh evil_ ? _Is he neither able nor willing_ ? _Then why call him God"_ ? Epicurus

[@jeffdowns1038]

Great thoughts. Greg Koukl has also done some good work on this particular argument.

[@RaqiEsguerra]

yess

[@pauldavid2407]

Loved this Gavin, I’m looking forward to more of these

[@ProfYaffle]

Found this helpful. I like the "a creation must have a creator" argument, but apparently that isn't the best. I'm no philosopher

[@hamontequila1104]

this is also my favortite argument, the best oart is it pounts to the christian god because the ultimate creator has to perfect

[@Sundayschoolnetwork]

Why is good, good? and evil, bad? I like to ask, "Says who?" Apart from God, it becomes a matter of opinion, "my truth."

[@blamtasticful]

You are literally saying it's according to God's opinion.

[@Sundayschoolnetwork]

@@blamtasticful not opinion, his nature. He is good, he is love. We are made in his image.

[@blamtasticful]

@@Sundayschoolnetwork If his nature is goodness itself than the nature of goodness itself without a God is sufficient to ground moral truth. Thanks for playing. Also if it's not his opinion than you are admitting that right and wrong exist regardless of God's opinions, feelings, and desires. That's just admitting that the existence of moral truth is what is informing God's proclamations and as such is true in and of itself rather than dependent upon God.

[@Sundayschoolnetwork]

@@blamtasticful the question remains, "says who?" I believe good is good, because God is good. His nature defines right and wrong. "Thanks for playing"? You know it's possible to have a discussion without being snarky.

[@agenttex5748]

​@@blamtasticful"Goodness" cant have a nature if it doesn't have Being. God is the Being of Goodness. He is the ontological perfection of Goodness because he is the Perfect being and thus lacks any privations. He is not moved to be good by anything external to himself, his nature just IS Goodness. Without God, goodness does not actually exist. Arguing for goodness without God is like arguing for Goodness without goodness. Its a non-starter. Also, God doesn't have opinions or emotions. He doesn't process information like you and I because He is not a contingent creature. What he knows and what he does are not dependent upon anything other than himself because God is simple, and thus nothing he knows or does can be arbitrary.

[@clichedan7812]

How do we know objective morality exists without knowing god exists? I believe in objective morality because I know god is real, but I can't really see in any way, shape, or form how you can prove there is an objective moral law without presupposing a moral law giver. That's why I don't find this argument all that compelling because if the atheist just says, "No, objective morality isn't real and what I determine to be right and wrong is entirely based upon what derives me the most pleasure." You're argument has been effectively destroyed. They're entirely consistent and none of what they believe denies reality or requires god to exist.

[@johnmarkharris]

“But religious people do a lot of evil…” “So you admit there’s evil?”

[@ChrisMusante]

The moral arguement would not be possible with out a moral compass - which required EATING from the Tree of Knowledge. Sorry, but Captain Jack Sparrows 'compass' doesn't work unless you KNOW what you want - even if you WANT to be 'like' GOD. ~ Musante (Musa / Etna) 'the prophet like Moses'

[@WaterCat5]

I gotta disagree when you say the epistemological concerns don't influence ontological. How can you assert moral duties require god when the way we know them does not interface with god (saying "natural revelation" does not count)? If the epistemological does not point to the actual source of something, how can you claim you know the source? At best, the moral argument merely points to something that grounds morality. This clearly does not have to be god.

[@Moltenstardeath]

Isn't it possible there is no qualitative difference between our morality and other animals? It is intuitive, but wouldn't we assume that's true also for chimps? It also seems myopic to just say chimps are brutal savages, when for most of our history, so were humans. In many ways we still are. Not to mention chimps have a strong sense of morality. They can feel cheated, lied to, and in some ways they're more moral than us by our own standards. When chimps get into fights (amongst they're own troop), they will rapidly make up, like, a half hour would be an uncomfortably long time for a chimp to go without reconciliation; humans can stew for days, sometimes we hold grudges indeterminately. Not to mention bonobos are clearly morally superior to us. Their societies are free from murder and SA. I'd pose the reason we intuit our morality is qualitatively different is because we're BIASED.

[@brucewick8121]

Human morality has changed over time. Not long ago, both slavery and torture were widely practiced. Now, both are proscribed by international convention (though imperfectly suppressed), Did the legal prohibitions of slavery and torture require a god, or may they be attributed to human reason alone?

[@NoN0-eb8lj]

GOD

[@markbirmingham6011]

In my limited understanding/view: a naturalism that contains essences is getting ontologically spooky. Unless by essences they mean certain probabilistic descriptions of a physical phenomena like it seems to help this ‘dog like’ creature grow when it eats so therefore it’s good for the dog to eat. But that seems to beg the question of why is it good that this ‘dog like’ (I say dog like bc biological substances are hard to pin down in a reductionist frame) phenomena grow? As opposed to just a base objective non normative description of changes in the physical world upon the dog eating? I’m with Gavin to have all the essences and normative facts that flow from them be brute is a lot of bruteness. For me, The divine simplicity, being/goodness transcendentals model with some version of natural law morality seems more parsimonious. At minimum there’s an ultimate explanation and reduction in bruteness. (Again, in my limited understanding)

[@celestialsatheist1535]

Morality is no mystery. Human beings in order to survive formed society and in order to continue to survive humans work to maintain and improve society. And because of living in a society we evolved few psychological traits like sensing fairness, experiencing empathy, and judging others’ harmful and helpful actions, mutual benefits. And these basic traits breeds other moral attributes. If you strip down all moral characteristics into parts than you will find these reoccurring patterns. These characteristics traits makes society more functional and there by ensures the survival of it's members so by natural selection we are moral . It's not that hard

[@anticommutative]

Well put. This also provides a better explanation (as far as I can tell) for why morality varies considerably across time and cultures.

[@NoN0-eb8lj]

Absolutely ridiculous comment.

[@celestialatheist]

stunning rebuttal @@NoN0-eb8lj

[@scythermantis]

Sartre and Nietzsche will be remembered long after the likes of Sam Harris or even Christopher Hitchens. I think that single fact tells a lot about their relative honesty.

[@KRGruner]

God is NEVER and explanation for ANYTHING, including morality. God is a SUBSTITUTE for an explanation. Besides, objective morality as part of the Natural Law is really no mystery. But of course it is completely missed here. Sigh...

[@JACover-by6kp]

Candidate reply to your request for some story about why some philosophers are pleased to go with brute facts [where ‘brute’ means, roughly, “primitive, basic, fundamental, not based on or explained by something else that’s explanatorily prior, more basic, more foundational”] is this: the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false - indeed, necessarily false. (Why? Because if it were true, we’d face a modal collapse, i.e. all truths would turn out to be necessary [not possibly false]. Peter van Inwagen sketches this somewhere; Alex Pruss surely lays it out somewhere in his book on PSR.) in short, there is at least one true proposition, the truth of which doesn’t owe to some other [truth].

[@landonpontius2478]

Well-being is a sufficient ground for morality because conscious experience is the only source of intrinsic value. I'll also make the bold claim that well-being is also the actual grounding of theistic morality, despite how often theists try to ground it in God's nature. The mistake in the apologetics position is not recognizing that moral truth is INTERSUBJECTIVE. You are right to recognize the importance of a moral standard that exists outside of each individual but it must be grounded in intrinsic value within each individual or else you're simply describing an authoritarian system that has no inherent appeal. Moral truth is a structure of value that is INTERSUBJECTIVE in nature, objective because it's born of our social nature and rationality and subjective because it's grounded in the intrinsic value of wanted conscious experience. I think apologists get away with this flaw in logic because they assume "god is good" so the downsides of the system they're describing stay hidden. But imagine that god happened to be evil, couldn't your entire argument remain intact? But that would be absurd because you'd be forced to say that things we currently rightfully consider to be evil are "moral" and "good" in this new reality...which undermines the entire reason we care about morality in the first place. Critiquing well-being as a grounding for morality is like me critiquing christianity by saying "but what makes heaven good? It is OBJECTIVELY true that heaven is better than hell?" etc But we don't make those arguments because we're actually in agreement on the practical grounding of ethics being well-being, the theist just defines it as "heaven" or "the kingdom of god" or anchors it in "god's nature" with the implication that acting in line with his nature is what we want to do because it gets us the outcome that we want.....which is well-being. I would love feedback on this. Thanks for the thoughtful video.

[@DonRobertson-v4s]

I disagree with the notion that the biblical god is moral. According to the standards set in the Bible. God is whimsical on morality at best. The Bible is all about obedience. Society sets standards for flourishing and wellbeing of all which in turn progresses the Moral landscape. When those criteria are absent in a society. Then that society is doomed to break down. The Bible is a Bronze Age Orwellian concept. We have learned better ways to coexist. Thank you for your perspective.

[@EarnestApostate]

Hey, I wanted to say that I appreciate the respectful way you addressed this point of disagreement. I think you handled the criticisms in a fair manner. Most of these points are why I consider myself a moral anti-realist, though I have heard one compelling argument for realism which grounds human morality in humanity itself. The argument that such a morality is contingent is simply a bullet that I have to bite if I were to take that option. But whether morality is objectively grounded in all humanity or subjectively grounded in humans is a border so fuzzy that I haven't been compelled to delve too deeply into it. I do find this as a sufficient answer to why human morality is not leveled at chimpanzees, though perhaps more to the point is simply that humans are not the victims of such violence, and so we don't care much about the morality of it. I also agree that essence vs accident seems weird sans theism. It seems such a thing is how Catholics justified transubstantiation of the elements by saying that the accidendals of the elements are still bread and wine, but the essence is now the body and blood of Christ. While an onlooker just sees... nothing appeared to change. This is to say that leveling accident as well as contingency at such a morality is not going to land with me. I have to say, I was reluctant to click on this video as so many Christian channels handle the moral argument more as a weapon than a tool, but you earned my upvote.

[@stormburn1]

Idk if I missed it, but what's the answer to moral anti-realists and people who think animal morality isn't fundamentally different from ours? Evolutionary variation doesn't pose an issue in that case. The idea of objective, universal morality seems driven by intuition and human ego rather than being derived from evidence. It's like saying the rules of chess are objective and universal because it's your favorite game that feels intuitively perfect.

[@Brucec-x6r]

Morality is a bunch of dreamt up concepts,part of the show,the movie,the dream of life.we are not human.wr are the infinite playing human roles.think for a change for yourself.seek within

[@jeremyhansen9197]

I see no reason why God escapes the brutality of moral. As great god would be, their existence would be just that, a discriptive fact. In other words it's another is fact, and you can't get an ought from an is.

[@Oscar.AnangeloftheLord.Perez.1]

What is Morality. Positive and Negative. Life contrary to death. Health contrary to illness. Truth contrary to lies. We live in a duality. Humans are neither good nor bad, we are a mixture of both, however only God is good. I think everyone else is a mixture of because we're not perfect like God. That is why it is said only God alone is good, because he's perfect. EDIT: That is why God is the standard. He is the straight line. God is objective because he's perfect. He's the perfect line, where everything is crooked compared to him. He is the compass where all decisions are made because of his perfection.

[@ghostlyyt9167]

Gavin how do you answer the question of evolving morality with Christianity? With moral objectivity from God, how does it make sense that God can allow things like slavery or even divorce when he sees them as immoral, and then later repeal these? Was God being immoral by allowing immorality to not be a sin?

[@stevenhoyt]

are there objective moral obligations, duties, and responsibilities? are there moral facts? does the former require the latter? what would make god the best explanation for anything related to human social sentiments and reasoning? i think rorty said it best in "trotsky and the wild orchids" ... there's simply no common ground by which the nazi and everyone else can suggest the nazi or everyone else is right or wrong. for any moral disagreement of that sort, each sees the other begging all the wrong questions. for the sorts of disagreements where there is common ground, doesn't overcoming disagreement entail the magic sauce is common ground (e.g. already shared sentiments and thinking, such as culture, history, circumstances)? craig might gladhandingly claim that even though nazism might have become status quo, the holocaust was still wrong. but there's no difference between craig's question-begging and the nazi who today might still claim that though nazism isn't the status quo, the holocaust was right despite popular gainsay. as for lewis, he at least gets one thing right. we don't differ in general in how we feel or think about moral states of affairs. but therein is the grounding of human objective moral sentiment and reasoning, no god needed. we are social creatures, and that is the sufficient condition for grounding morality without need of appeals to gods. moral realism fails to point out any moral facts, but seems to merely belie the expressive nature of making moral judgments instead. again, craig is a perfect case in point.

[@blakehalley1612]

I think you are right about atheistic accounts of morality, but theistic accounts of morality are also not satisfying. The Euthyphro dilemma is still alive and kicking it seems. You can't seem to have God as morality's ground and at the same time have morality not be arbitrary. If you're thinking that you can solve the problem by appeal to goodness being grounded in God's character, then check out the following paper by Jeremy Koons. 'Can God’s Goodness Save the Divine Command Theory from Euthyphro?'. It is important to realize that you hardly ever are going to have completely satisfying views in philosophy.

[@vex1669]

If the moral objectivity is both derived from biblical morality and used as evidence for the truth of biblical morality, that's a circular argument.

[@scythermantis]

If you REALLY want to get in deep, read the 19th-century German philosopher Philipp Mainlander and also the book, "The Conspiracy against the Human Race" by Thomas Ligotti. Here there is an inversion, moral realism taken to its conclusion when twisted around to the other side: Existence itself is evil, life is nothing more than suffering, etc. I think this says a lot about these things although caveat emptor, these are heavy things.

[@jimpict]

I enjoy your videos, but what you addressed here are hardly the most important or popular metaphysical positions. There's no consideration of any kind of consequentialism or virtue ethics at all, and I would suggest that these are far more popular than even the most popular deontological approaches discussed today. My main problem with the moral argument is that it does not actually do what it is purported to do. Let's say that I am not a naive moral realist, but someone who has carefully considered my position. I believe there are objective moral facts in the world, and I'm grounding my belief in some way other than God. Let us say that I also do not believe in God, either. How can the moral argument possibly convinced me that God exists? If you manage to persuade me that God is necessary for objective morality, all you have done is undermine that belief. Without some further argument that God exists, now, I simply don't believe there are objective moral facts along with still not believing that God exists. You haven't actually demonstrated that God exists. All you've done is convince me that God is necessary for objective morality and thus convince me that there are no objective moral facts about the world. While while the moral argument may persuade naive moral realists, those who have not considered the question, that is hardly evidence that the moral argument works. The moral argument, the argument for reason, and other similar arguments do not actually do what they're supposed to do at all. All they can do is convince someone that the thing they previously accepted does not actually have any legitimate grounding. They do not actually show that God exists.

[@methodbanana2676]

It doesn't much help to complain that atheist moral realism is brute when you've acknowledged that atheists might say the same about God. I know you think there are reasons to prefer God here, but if you don't explain that - it's just in another video - why should the atheist be moved by the second half of this video?

[@Justinsweh]

Hey Gavin, if we take seriously the fact that normative facts and descriptive facts are utterly distinct, then it must be the case that, so long as both categories obtain, one cannot be explained in terms of the other. That is inescapable. While some normative facts can be explained in terms of others, there will be at least some normative facts that have no further explanation. While some descriptive facts can be explained in terms of others, there will be at least some descriptive facts that have no further explanation. God and his nature are non-normative, descriptive facts. Some will claim that God's nature -- a descriptive fact - IS ALSO the normative fact upon which all other normative facts are built. However, when we ask why God's nature (a descriptive fact) is the way that it is or why God's preferences are the way they are, there is no explanation. God just is those things. Period. It's brute. Similarly, as Mackie points out, God's commands only ground our obligations if there is already a general obligation to do what God commands. However, there is no non-circular explanation possible here. Explanatory bruteness should be avoided when unnecessary. We have common ground there. However, the atheist's acknowledgment of bruteness gives the theist an advantage ONLY IF they, in the same breath, ignore the many ways in which their own view posits bruteness.

[@richardhunter132]

what about when the universe was in its very early times and there was no life at all, just dust floating around; was it morally wrong to take a life - even though there was no life at all? if you believe in objective moral values, i guess it was; but it's hardly intuitive

[@KrazyKittyKatKatcher]

I would love to know if your "atheist friends" say that you characterize their argument correctly. To me you vastly misrepresent arguments to make them strawmen or you say it doesn't matter what new atheists say with a more nuanced argument when the majority of history has other atheists that weren't as developed in their arguments. Maybe you are just preaching to the choir and you don't care about converting atheists but you certainly turn me away. I try to watch opposing views to see what the other arguments are but your so far behind where we are today I fear you may never catch up. Anyway, best of luck in your search for the truth :)

[@Brucec-x6r]

Sounds convincing.which is part of the game.still all made up,dreamt up.