Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

well today on the program I'm joined by Frank Tourette keys a Christian apologist speaker and radio host and author of books including I don't have enough faith to be an atheist and stealing from God he was on the show a few months ago talking to David Smalley he was the atheist guest then today it's Alex O'Connor returning he's the atheist YouTube channel cosmic skeptic it has over a hundred thousand subscribers he's appeared on the show a couple of months ago to debate the fine-tuning of the universe well today I've got Frank and Alex joining me in studio Frank has been in the UK doing some speaking dates you can find out more about him at his website cross-examined org and Alex as I say cosmic skeptic is the YouTube channel he runs back to debate with Frank today because Alex released a video a while back critiquing a YouTube video by Frank now Alex's video is titled sorry Frank's video is titled it may just be that evil disproves atheism well Alex had a critique to make of that and we're going to be hearing what Alex's response is and that's really the subject of our discussion today does evil prove that God exists that's the claim in a sense that Frank Tirek makes in this video something we've discussed before but I think we're going to be doing it from some unique angles today and I'm really looking forward to today's conversation so Alex and Frank welcome along to the program don't care oh yeah wonderful being here in person just well it's lovely to have you in person Frank we've had you on the Skype a little while back earlier in the year talking about your new book stealing from God and as I say in debate with David Smalley and it's so it's lovely to actually have you in person when I heard you were coming to the UK I wanted to make sure we could we could actually having me on and you know well I just had you on my program for your new book yes and a believable I'm flogging it far and wide so huh it's a wonderful book Justin I won't let you leave without copy as well by the way XO but yeah thank you and well it's very glad that you were able to endorse it as well Frank but but you're here to talk about yourself really today and your ministry and obviously some of the videos and books that you've written yourself how long have you been kind of involved in in the sort of apologetics ministry you've established well we've established a ministry in 2000 six but I went to seminary from 1993 on I was on the Moses plan it took me eight years to get through no we suit I'd been speaking for quite a while prior to 2006 but we started in 2006 with cross-examine or primarily to go to college campuses because as you know the college campus is a breeding ground for skepticism and agnosticism and atheism so we wanted to go there and present evidence as to why Christianity was true from our book I don't have enough faith to be an atheist and some of the most popular videos actually that go go on YouTube that you produce er actually some of your interactions with some of the students on these campuses and I think that's people like to hear if they're kind of the to and fro in a way right and you're very good actually at thinking on the spot and responding you know see well actually you don't have to do much thinking because you hear the same 20 questions over and over again you know I mean there are the standard objections which are good objections in fact the evil is a good objection that Alex brought up so it's good to try and unpack these things in more than two minutes which is why I appreciate this show so much Justin because look I can do a two-minute video Alex can do a two-minute video and you're really not going to you're not going to cover the topic adequately but when you have a program like this you can really interact on it well it's a pleasure to have you with me Frank and again the most recent book you've you've altered is stealing from God do you just want to quickly give us an encapsulation of what you can find in that sure the book stealing from God the subtitle is why atheists need God to make their case the books not about tightening Christians you know it's about but I've noticed it seems to me that atheists are stealing aspects of reality that would only exist if God existed in order to say he doesn't exist and we have an acronym in the book crime CRI mea es and each of the letter stands for a different aspect of reality that I think atheists are stealing from God to say he doesn't exist one of them the e in there is evil and that's what we'll talk about today I think as we'll see that evil actually shows God does exist rather than he doesn't exist mm okay well we'll obviously be digging into that in the course of today's show lovely to have you back Alex love to be here and I'm in awe because you're actually and I don't know how you get away with it really but you're midway through your exams at the moment and yet you've made time to come and record a discussion and and these are of course a a level exams as well you're relatively young person but wise beyond your years I think you did a fantastic job last time you came in debating the the fine-tuning argument so I thought this would be fun to have you back in and so first of all exams going ok they're going Ellicott Kelsey what my nerves are going fine because I was pretty much familiar with most of the subject matter already so I could kind of get away with not revising for that one well and that's that's that's good obviously I guess you interact with philosophical ideas quite regularly on your videos anyway I think Charlie so it's it's a good way of getting into it and and the cosmic skeptic channel as I mentioned last time only been going about a year but already over a hundred thousand subscribers so that's right what's the secret to your success like I said last time if I knew I would do it again so they're all fantastic every one of my subscribers early some ones that I interact with are incredible they're they're very willing to consider different ideas and I get messages from people of all faiths things that they're grateful for a voice that isn't just isn't just castrating religion right yeah but is going in there for a discussion not to defend a worldview that - well I was really encouraged actually when we had the discussion last time here in the studio that you were very you reached out to atheists and said we need to have these discussions we can't just you know poopoo and dismiss religion and the claims we need to engage in an honest conversation which is certainly what this program is about I mean humor and ridicule have this placed hmm but if you want to make a change then you have to take them seriously I think well thank you very much for coming back on the program today and far the reason how to use courses because you regularly respond to other online videos that are out there and of course one of the ones that you've responded to is one of Frank's videos and as I say that video was titled it may just be the evil disprove atheism and so we're going to get into that in the course of today's program and why you disagree with Frank there's a number of issues that you develop from the video we won't play the audio of the video this time rather we'll let you explain for yourself but some of the things that we're going to try and tackle is at the outset you say you can't disprove ATS and it's not a belief system we're going to be talking about objective morality why would it be grounded in the Christian God's not something else you also talk about the evolutionary or social adaptation type of view of how morality came to be and another issues we'll see how much time we have in the course of the discussion and I'm looking for two really good conversation well let's maybe start with you Frank just to lay out you know briefly at least what the case is that you're making on the video that Alex was responding to right it's a two-minute video and I say in the front you can't cover this whole issue in two minutes but my main point is this is that if evil exists then good must exist and in order for good to exist God must exist because by definition what we mean by good is the nature of God that's what goodness is so you can't have evil and less good exists because evil is a privation or a lack in good evil and like rust in a car you know if you take all the rust out of the car you got a better car to take all the car out of the rust you've got nothing in other words evil only exists as a parasite in good and so I think we all agree evil exists the question is if evil exists then how can it exist unless there's a standard of good and good won't exist unless God exists so evil doesn't disprove God evil may prove there's a devil out there but evil doesn't disprove God because there'd be no such thing as evil unless there was good there'd be no such thing as good unless God existed now the second question there of course is okay well if there is a good God why would he allow these evil things to occur then another question right which we spend a lot of time and in the book stealing from God but my main point is is that if if evil exists God exists and it would sounds counterintuitive it does sign consecutive to the average person I'm a how how do you get from one to the other but but as I understand it this is a if you like this is the idea of what's often called the the the moral argument yes that you if we all agree that real right and wrong exist real good and evil in list then there has to be some kind of a moral lawgiver or some kind of reference frame that beyond just the material universe right that a naturalist perhaps in fact CS Lewis famously said that as an atheist my argument against God was that the universe seems so cruel and unjust but how would I how would I got this idea of justice and injustice a man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line what was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust you see unjustice can't exist unless justice exists and justice can't exist unless God exists because again by definition that's what we mean by Jew and so it's your view that if an atheist wants to claim that justice and injustice exist well they can't really because that's just on their framework an illusion kind of just a sort of something that we've come up with a very helpful way of thinking about things but not something that actually exists objectively right typically and I think that's what Alex said in his video that it's an illusion that these idea this idea that we have these moral objective moral values is is illusory well let's come to Alex for this and we'll we'll try and sort of take the points that you raised in the video in a kind of sequential manner as far as possible Alex but I mean let's start at the beginning because in the video the first point you wanted to make was that there is this question mark around disproving ATS and that's obviously the title of the video it may just be that evil disproves ATS and you have a problem with that very concept to start with Dania to an extent yeah it's not particularly pertinent to the discussion but I think it's important to remember that that according to me atheism isn't a worldview and I know this is something you disagree with Frankfurt the way that people get around this law at the time is they'll say well many atheists do believe that there is no god but not all atheists do so if you meet a person who does believe there is no God they are an atheist but that's not what atheism is that's sort of a subset of atheism I'm what you might call an agnostic atheist and a lot of people think that agnosticism and atheism are on the sort of same spectrum but to me they're absolutely not agnosticism Matt Dillahunty is good on this agnosticism is a claim to knowledge atheism is a claim to belief so to say you're agnostic is to say well I don't know if there's a God which I think is the rational position to take I mean can anybody really know for sure and all I'm saying is because I don't know agnosticism I therefore don't believe in that say theism but there are people out there who do actively believe there's no God and those people do have a burden of proof I mean people such as them he only did it on one occasion I've seen but Christopher Hitchens usually would say you know we would never say there is no god but when talking to William Lane Craig he said of the Christian God that he's quite dangerously I think that he said and that he's in a position where he thinks he can actively say that God does not exist and in that case yes he had to burn the brick but as far as I'm concerned atheists in general or atheism isn't a worldview and doesn't isn't something you can therefore disprove in them yeah in the sense and also atheism one of the phrases that I've heard you use Frank ISM on atheism if atheism is true but to me atheism isn't something that can necessarily be true or false anymore than say veganism you know is veganism true it's not really okay to whether it's true or false it's a case of the tenants on which you are you are grounding this veganism is perhaps maybe you think it's wrong to eat animals that can be true or false but not object that can be true or false but then to say is veganism itself true or false that doesn't make any sense it's not whether it's true or false it's are you a vegan or are you not okay yeah well I would say that if are you saying that atheism is just a lack of belief in God because it is for me as far as I can well then that would be just a statement about your psychological state yeah it wouldn't be a statement about the real world well because this book is an atheist then because it lacks a belief in God but then we're really trivializing what the word atheist means then yeah because you could say any of this microphones an atheist then if it just lacks a belief in God so if somebody wants to say that okay fine but I don't see a theist just saying that what I see is a theist saying oh I lack a belief in God and here's how I explain the universe multiple universes evolution quantum vacuums materialism well those are positive beliefs that need to be defended in other words you just can't say I lack a belief in God and therefore I have no burden of proof to have a conversation about why reality is the way it is now if you're going to say that multiple universes are evolution or materialism or quantum vacuums explain how we got here then it would seem to meet your need reasons for those if those are positive beliefs you see what I mean absolutely in certain cases for instance if you're talking about the variety of life and somebody says to me that they think it was good and I said oh no I can explain this revolution I suddenly have a burden of proof I I have to I offer some evidence right but atheism in general if you're just an atheist and you're not taking part in debate I think you don't necessarily have to judge what you do with the problem that that makes cats and rocks and microphones atheists well it depends on your definition for instance if we define a vegan as someone who doesn't eat meat then this book is also a vegan right yes but that isn't that the point that that makes it difficult to understand what what the content is I think it makes a directive on the plant I think you I think it is something which applies to humans you can call a human an atheist if you want to call the book an atheist and then be my guest because by my definition an atheist is someone who does not believe in God hmm and so a book sure cooler than a tea if I said well but then we wouldn't have any any reason to converse about anything if you're just saying you lack of belief in God and I don't have any burden of proof to explain reality or why reality is the way it is then we're not really having a conversation right well there's two types of an atheist speakers you might say the first is people who will have a burden of proof who come out and there are two people trying to prove their opposing world views against each other in the other case there's somebody like me who in the in the face of certain aspects of Christianity I've found to be not particularly compelling or particularly I'm trying not to use moral terms here but and so what I will do my mission isn't is very smart and what is it my mission is not to come out and convert from 280s is rather to say well here's a his a belief system that I don't agree with and here's why I'm not on then leaving it open perhaps if I'm debating with a Christian I might say well says well I think Christianity isn't true now go and do your own thing maybe you want to be a Muslim maybe you want to be an atheist like me let me ask you this though let's just say that you say you think Christianity is false because of X whatever that is right sure aren't you implying that non X then is true not necessarily again it's a it's a very subtle distinction between believing there is no God and not believing there is a God it sounds like the same thing it sounds like with the in pedantic but really in in all honesty it is a semantic thing it doesn't particularly matter because for instance what we're discussing today the idea of evil proving or disproving God I don't I don't think it particularly matters how you're defining atheism or Christianity because what we're trying to talk about is a particular concept and so for this discussion I might just be a skeptic not necessarily an atheist but I might just be somebody who's who you are trying to present a worldview to and I'm just saying well let me let me criticize that and see if I can get at the main countries where when I've had this conversation on Twitter and on the show with people sometimes what's emerged is that they will say you know they'll go with that 18 is just a lack of belief in God view but then when you press some of it they will come out with other things that they do have positive beliefs about so that there is no such thing as objective moral right or wrong the universe has no purpose and the universe is matter and motion ultimately and those kind of things so do you subscribe to in that sense to something like for instance materialism naturalism and well for me it's a case-by-case basis so I wouldn't call myself a naturalist I wouldn't call myself materialist because all of a sudden you you're giving yourself a burden of proof what I would say is if you pressed me to put some money I'm not a gambling man but in me if I had to put some money on either is say Christianity yeah or naturalism a better explanation for the universe I'd put my money on naturalism okay so when I have discussions like this I will argue in that mindset yeah but I'm not going to bet you're agnostic effectively as to water that clearly was talking about a claim to knowledge absolutely I would never be so arrogant as to say that I know that there is no God or I would never say that I know that there is someone up there and I know who he is I know his Jen I know his nature and I know what his plan is and what he wants for me yeah I think we're dealing in the burden we're dealing more with probability than we are with absolute certainty and you remember Richard Dawkins famously said this on a scale of one to seven where yes one is sure God exists to seven I'm sure there isn't a god he said I'm a six and a half to his credit he says look I can't say with absolute certainty there is no God okay so we're all dealing in the realm of probability so where would you be on that scale I'm in the same place as Dawkins I'm in number six I map equals it a de facto atheist which i think is the perfect time for lintel you assume there is no God for all intent all intensive versus what I would say is rather than I assume there is no God rather I think that everything seems to work without the assumption that it got is there but wouldn't an agnostic be about a 3.5 agnosticism again is a claim to knowledge rather than to beliefs so agnosticism to me if you don't call yourself an agnostic then I I can't quite understand what knowledge you have that I don't I mean I don't know if you're the sort of person to say I know there is a God again it's the realm of probability am I absolutely certain know that I'm not a fairly certain that I exist you know I mean I guess I have to exist to say it but I mean we could be you know the famous famous thought experiment we could the universe could have been created five minutes ago we're an experiment in a scientist laboratory and you know we just have all these memory and little people like Elon Musk you do think I guess I'm kind of education intelligence another time yeah right I wouldn't pay though is them I like to categorize it and of course this is against semantics it's just my web category world what I would say is if you think of full boxes like a table across the top you have theism and atheism and on the side you have Gnosticism and agnosticism you say you're not a hundred percent sure that there is no God so I put you in the agnostic box then I put you across on the theism box because you believe there is a God and that's where you sit you're an agnostic theist as far as I'm concerned now you can reject that label because you might have a I know that the word agnostic carries weights and we ought to stop talking about labels and start talking about evidence absolutely well maybe yeah let's move let's move it on it's been a fascinating discussion so far talking about the definitions of atheism and agnosticism so on but yeah we should get into the the meat of the subject today which is the question of whether evil is evidence actually that God exists counter-intuitively that's the claiming that you sort of sketched out for us earlier on Frank so let's move on to sort of the second issue that you bring up in your response video Alex which is um well even if objective morality does exist why would it be grounded in the Christian God and not something else you want to just explain out a bit and we'll be what Franklin well again this this isn't and what this is one for to the video that I'm not really making an actual claim but rather on a genuine question I'd add more out of interest in anything is how do you arrive at the Christian God although I would say that I might have seemed that your answer might be something along the lines of well this argument just proves a god and then other arguments spread the Christian God and that is fine by me but I wonder do you think you if you say no this doesn't disprove your position in any shape in any way shape or form but do you think that for objective morality it must be the Christian God no it could be another God right yeah after you're absolutely right that's what I was going to say that there are other arguments you don't get all the way to the Christian God with the moral argument too but with other arguments I think in my opinion anyway you arrive at the grounding for morality as God and that God happens to be the creation God let me put it the other way against you Alex if objective morality did exist and would it at the very least disprove ATS and which is actually what leave the title of the video is well this is this is a tricky thing because form or naturalism let's say okay sure and then so we don't do that so much perhaps cushon guys it would be it would be an compelling I I would see it as a compelling argument if you could prove to me the objective morality did exist I would certainly consider it a good I'm kind of exposed naturalism would not be able to explain that phenomena I mean perhaps it would and we just don't have an understanding right but I would submit that yes we do not have in our current understanding anyway Sam Harris has tried the moral landscape yeah what I found is that I I don't quite understand what he what he's getting at because he says he wants to prove objective morality using science but what he does is he proves that objectively speaking certain moral guidance leads to prosperous societies but then that's assuming that prosperous societies is a good yelling it's inhuman he makes the ought is fallacy in my opinion he he assumes that what is what science describes is something we all need to be heading for and of course that begs the whole question of his project sure I I think he's a brilliant thinker but on this issue I just I cannot bring right up to agree with him yeah well fair enough I mean I think we'd be more let's cover that issue because obviously you're not saying this is a wholesale argument for the Christian no it's just part of a cumulative all right exactly and that point in the video is more for people who were watching perhaps yeah who we're thinking along those lines sure well look that's a good point at which for us to take a quick break and I think it's to grab the bull by the horns Frank and Justin again reiterate why you believe first of all that morality does have this objective nature to it so that there is a real realm of moral right and wrong good and evil because fundamentally you're saying if if evil does exist as much as that may be a problem for why a loving God would allow evil nonetheless it's it's a signpost that something beyond the material world has to have to exist to allow this realm of good and evil in fact I think Alex recognizes that signpost because on his website he rails I think rightfully against some of the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church where he talks about how priests have sexually abused children and obviously that's a great wrong but my question is Alex if you really think that is a great wrong why would you deny objective morality I mean is that really wrong or is it just a matter of personal opinion well I think that we agree in in one sense that evil doesn't necessarily disprove God I'm with you on that what I would say is is talk to your question and objectively know it is a subjective thing morality to me isn't how is entirely subjective why do you say that well because firstly a thing to note is that objective morality well let's talk about what objective actually means I suppose objectivity to me if you want my definition would be to say and that it is true regardless of human intervention regardless of human consciousness for instance the Earth orbits the Sun that would be true if all humans disappeared right every single one of them it would still be an objective fact but to say that murder is wrong if every human disappeared that couldn't still be wrong surely that wouldn't there would be a non sense concept without some kind of human psychology the only way that you could argue that perhaps it would still be wrong is if there was some kind of transcendent being but then you need to have that being in order to prove the existence of the objective morality that you're then using to prove the God so what we're doing is we're reasoning from effect to cause that we have this effect known as this moral law that is pressing on us as you admitted in the video and look videos too many videos and minute videos you can't expound on all the nuances so if this is wrong correct me but you seem to say that we in fact I think you quoted that the quote was let me just quote you accurately on this because in the video you said this you said you said moral truths are so deeply ingrained it in in us that they feel like they are objective right okay so my question is why would you doubt their objective if they're so in deeply ingrained in well because this is where I think Sam Harris is right in a sense flat if you have certain assumptions so let's say that we could assume that human well-being was a good thing well we'll discuss why shortly but I say we assumed that we could then say that is it is objectively true and that we should act in certain ways for instance trying not to murder people and that would then become an objective morality no because evolution has instilled within us through our through genetics as a drive to stay alive and then we can derive objective moral truths about how we should act in order and that complies with this inner nature which i think is coming back to revolution so even if you even if you don't subscribe to the idea that certain moral actions such as not killing or not stealing have come about for evolution the instinctual nature within us to stay alive causes us to think of those as objective troops but it's a technicality so to all intents and purposes you could say they're objective truths if you grab a hundred people off the street and ask them is rape wrong 100 of them will say yes but that doesn't mean it's objective I mean for instance I I put it to you would you say that chocolate is tasty yeah I would but that's a subjective right some people may not like choices yeah yeah yeah oh so that's all a vote yeah are can be nurses as tastier chocolate but and that's definitely proper a that's that's no problem whatsoever so when you say something along the lines of morality subjective so so what Hitler did being wrong was just an opinion well yes but in the same sense that chocolate tasting as good as tar here's an opinion I think what we'll do make a difference oh no I think it does because it's much more obvious that say sexually abusing children is wrong than atheism is true right so why would you say that atheism is true in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that sexually abusing children is wrong you already know sexually abusing children is wrong now if you want to use an evolutionary argument the problem is is that undercuts everything you think because of everything we think is the product of evolution the product of the laws of physics or biology whatever it is then why should we believe anything we think forget about morality for a second why should we even believe that atheism is true or that Christianity is true if we're completely if we're sorry I'm suffering from jet lag here if if if our thoughts are the result of some random evolutionary process why should we believe anything we think is true well the first thing is that evolution isn't isn't a random process but that aside it's like let me put it this way it's either it's either directed by an outside intelligence or it's not sure okay if it's not directed by an outside intelligence then it's random yes so so if it's directed by intelligence then perhaps God exists if it's not directed by intelligence why should we believe anything we think because I mean this is the the old argument from against naturalism that then people like CS Lewis Lewis and indeed modern practitioners like planting have put forward which as I understand it is effectively saying if evolution effectively is meant for the propagation of our DNA it's not it's not aimed at us receiving true beliefs it's not aimed at us actually it's not aimed at reasoning no and ultimately you could even go as far as say that the the actual processes of matter in motion atoms bang into each other electrochemical processes those are those are non rational why would we assume that they produce rational thinking because ultimately I mean and your argument here I guess Frank is it undercuts the whole project this idea it's almost sort of existential you know why should we believe anything no if there's no guidance and to me it's like asking the question like you said earlier about you know how do we know that we're we even exists or that the universe wasn't created last Thursday for me it's it's somewhat based on consensus it doesn't prove it's true but reason is one of those things that we need to assume in order to get anywhere in the same sense we need to assume that we exist in order to have a philosophical discussion is a very wise point I agree with you the question is how do we explain reason on a naturalistic worldview well reason and consciousness can be explained as coming about through evolution our the way in which we sense the world but let's stop there for just a second Oh Alex if that's the case why should we trust it oh well we don't necessarily have to again it's a subjective thing but every single person but that would mean reasons subjective yes it well it is well if reason is subjective then if reason is not subjective and how do you and I come to different conclusions using both using reason because we have free will we if reason subjective we couldn't even communicate if there weren't these objective unchanging laws of life well yes there are there are objective rules and tenants of reasons but reason itself is subjective in the same way that morality you can say under certain assumptions there are objective truths of a morality if you have a certain assumption about Russia about reason then yes there are objectives well that's what I mean these these immaterial laws of logic that aren't made of molecules how do we explain those on an naturalistic worldview how do you mean how do we explain why are there laws of logic why are there what else of mathematic they're a product of consciousness and laws of mathematics are not a thing in themselves but rather a way to explain universe so the laws of mathematics would not exist without human being so they are subjective but the things that they describe would on a whole whole when you talk about logic when you talk about reason these things aren't ends then means their means to understanding certain things so we use reason to understand that the earth goes around the Sun we use the laws of math to understand how that happens but you just said the laws of mathematics or human conceptions basic yes it's a language oh well let me ask you this let's say there were no human beings on the earth and there were just two rocks on the earth was it true there are two just two rocks on the earth well it turns what you mean by two I mean short like you if everyday sense of the word this is where this is where things get confusing because for instance you what you're asking something similar to the question is does two plus two still equal four if there are no humans and to me the case the case is you have to think about what you're describing when you say two plus two so for instance if you're saying if there were two rocks and you added two more rocks with there be four rocks absolutely but to say that two plus two equals four is like it is a it's a good way to bring in the idea that mathematics is a language because in the same way that I can say but it's not an arbitrary language well it is in fact language itself is based on mathematics and that's not arbitrary I'd say it's absolutely arbitrary Amathus arbitrary no masses but the language we use to describe it is it evolves and changes well yes but they're they're referencing objective facts if we want to call this one book there is only one book here yes okay that's an objective fact if we wanted to call it ain't like in Deutsch that this is one book okay that's a different word but it's representing the same objective fact and if if we're going to say that reasoning is objective then there's no way we can come to any conclusions about anything there are different ways even within the laws of mathematics as I say objective or subjective is that record we're going to say we're going to say reason is subjective then there's no way we can come to any illusions about anything but that's self defeating because when I say that I'm making a truth claim that if reason is subjective then we can't come to any true conclusions about anything that actually is a truth claim well I would say that even with something as objective as maps there are subjective ways in which to understand it the language we use even though it seems that it wouldn't be the case for instance if you want to find the roots of a quadratic equation you can do it by using the quadratic formula you can use do it by expanding the bracket and you get to the same answer but the reason you're using to get there a subjective so the answer is is a fact of nature it's true that would still be the answer even if humans didn't exist but the language we used to get there okay by reason that we used to get there wouldn't yeah but that's now the reason is objective but the the there's different levels here you have ontology which is the study of being sure okay you have a pistol mala gee that's how we know the study of being then you might have semantics which is how you describe the epistemology to get to the ontology so this can be arbitrary but it's still tethered to objective facts it's ultimately tethered to an objective ontology so what are the tenants of objective reason to you well start with the basic laws of logic that they're from the loyal of the included middle like that law of non-contradiction law of excluded middle of love inference law of identity those are the essentials of the laws of logic and you start with those and then you use your sense perceptions to draw conclusions about the real world using those tools those objective law or logic they are that tools and this is the thing that I see when we're talking about where the reason exists the reason is a method and so it almost it helps us in epistemology but if they weren't tethered ontological ii-if if they weren't tethered to reality there'd be no way we could know I mean I'm a gonna claim that this realm exists that we call the laws of logic or so on and and it's it really is something that we discover in that event yes and it's an element of the the reality we live we don't know when they're going to discover that exactly whereas you're making the case obviously we're not something we've going to produce it's it's something we invent because it helps us but we see that's an objective truth claim right there that's see that's why it's self-defeating alex is saying it's objectively true that reason is subjective and the same applies to the moral argument and well which is you're saying there's this realm of real right and wrong good and evil and you're saying no these are just concepts we we invent we don't discover them but we invent them and I know many people whose part whose journey to belief in God has been based on the fact that they came to the view that there really is a realm of right and wrong that I discover I no longer believe that it's all subjective that and obviously others who take your view as well Alex I mean fundamentally is that where we do we just come to an impasse where you say Frank there is real rounds of you know these objective laws of logic and there's real realm of good and evil and you just say no in my opinion it can all be explained as a subjective because ultimately I believe in objective morale good and evil because for me I see that as a bit like I see racism is wrong is the same as one plus one equals two that that but you say no that's that racism doesn't exist when humans die I agree with you that I see it as the same to me they are both as instinctual yeah but that one plus one equals two is again it's a mathematical language but if you're talking in the set in the literal sentient that one thing and another thing equals two things and yes that is objectively true but to say that racism is wrong although it feels just as inimitably true it doesn't have the same objective failing value were living out a few hundred years ago in the American South and maybe racism is kind of just part of the culture that's the accepted way of things at least within the white population let's say would because that's the generally accepted the fact you know way of people think about it would that mean racism is okay in that culture because that's well it's a difficult question I would say I would say no if you dropped me in that culture I would say no but if you had grown up in that culture you'd probably say yes because it's subject you'd put you you might find people who would argue that it is and it is a subjective opinion but I think now because we have it's not just a case that we've we've we've developed our understanding for morality we've made it better we now we now have an you just you're dropping in a moral immoral claim of that you said it is better which suggests is Travon again well when I think a metal object is when is it I do admit I make only assumption that we are striving for human prosperity which is an absolute sumption that that isn't objectively good but it's instilled with us within evolution I can't explain why this thing is good but it just when I say good I don't need your money it'll just you'll practice a good you happen good and evil the words we use for mere just emotional translations of the word beneficial and detrimental I like what Louise Anthony said in her debate with William Lane Craig Louise Antony's an atheist but she admitted something about morality and atheism that I think is very insightful here's what she said this is her quote she said any argument for moral skepticism will be based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves so here she is as an atheist saying I have this sense of more obligation that is so strong that any argument you give me for atheism or moral subjectivism will be based on the weaker premises than just the sense that I have that objective moral values and obligations exist so that was my question originally to you Alexes why would you deny the strongest belief that you have intuitively and adopt a weaker belief in atheism agnosticism I admit that there are assumptions I can say that I have an objective sense that these things are wrong on the assumption that I mean for human prosperity right but you already pointed out that sam harris is begging the question on that that is his human flourishing and and that's a conflation of epistemology and ontology and as you pointed out rightfully so and 18 years old he's already figured this out which I didn't know this is 18 that sam harris is confusing epistemology and ontology he's assuming what he's trying to prove but the prob the problem with sam harris his argument is he's going in there trying to show that certain things are right or wrong based on science what i'm trying to do is say why people experience things is right or wrong based on science which can be done so i can say the reason that i feel that this is right and wrong is because of this what i can't say is that this is right or wrong right cause of this i mean does this mean is it a problem for you then telling people what they ought to do because there's a sense in which you know if you see a society being racist or drinking women unequally or whatever it might or a catholic priests yeah and children like you and ii website you say that's wrong for me the problem has always been for the the 80s to denies objective morality is what right do you have to tell someone else because they're just acting according to their subjective preferences objective preferences i find in these cases we often agree so for instance if i if i meet a member of the Ku Klux Klan we can find common ground in the sense that I might say okay so why is this wrong why is that wrong why why why until we get to the final point in they say well I think that it's because my worldview is better for better for Humanity and I say well hang on so do I think my will tease out if it means that humanity so let's go on the assumption that what we want is to get what's best for Humanity and here's what I think my worldview leads to that so even people but if they say but I don't believe black people are human what what do you say - well that's the thing then the discontent doesn't but then the discussion becomes trying to prove how they are right that it you sort of remove the need for a basis once you find out what the basis of their beliefs are once you find that common ground for instance me and you agree you and I agree that for instance we assume that we would agree that human flourishing is a good thing oh sure but you would you would say that that's because you have that in you because of God I say that I have that in me because it's just because it's in me but because there's an objective standard of good outside of our cells and so when you say that we can agree that we want to have a better society as Justin pointed out earlier you're implying a best because in order to say something's better or worse you have to imply a best well what is that best what is the ontological grounding like that necessarily you don't have to have and this is this reminds me of one of Thomas Aquinas is famous five ways the degrees of perfection that doesn't need to be an absolute perfection to have an idea of something which is more perfect than something else and tortes your references you know I think there would have to be a standard of perfection or a standard that you're aiming for to say you're getting closer to that standard or further away better or worse like you'llyou'll reference to CS Lewis and you can't know a crooked line without having some idea of straight anything else true for instance think of it that way that's true it's not a case if you're talking about good and evil and you don't need evil to know good if you think about say you have a flaps are absolutely right about I think about you have a flap you don't need able to no good I agree with you so need good to know evil though I don't think so either if you have a flat plane you can you can see a like a hill like an indentation on that flat plane now the rest of that plane is not a valley you don't need the valley to understand the hill you just need the hill in comparison to what is neutral so you can have evil compared to what is neutral you can have good compared to what is neutral well we don't need the two it won't be your definition of evil my definition of evil well that's that's a very broad thing but if you're asking me again subjectively and anything I would say that unwarranted ly elicits human suffering or animal suffering to it okay so that would imply that it to the opposite of human flourishing so it's very difficult to define evil without reference to early it's not it so it may be the opposite of human flourishing but it's also just the absence of like of no no suffering not necessarily good but no evil okay then I don't know if I'm getting my point across very well I know I think about doing a great job at representing your different sides I guess the the thing that I'm really interested in putting out there just to bring us back to that racism example is uh oh can you sort of say that race you would you say racism has always been wrong was wrong in every culture time and place where it was practiced in the past I would not actually say that your I would say if we're assuming that human prosperity is a good thing and by good we mean best for human prosperity then yes racism has always been wrong yes right but only on that assumption yes of course I'm surely for the racist with an Asian we all share maybe the racist but no no that the racist does share the assumption that humanity human prosperity is a good thing they may not they may think my own prosperity I want to live a selfish life that you know disregard Leslie true but if we did have a racist but problem is how do you again all I'm saying is and I think you're agreeing with me is it simply that there's no objective way of sorting between these different preferences like there's no actual sort of thing that cell yes this is the correct way we should all be you know wanting this human flourishing it's a harsh reality I don't like there's no way around it can make me uncomfortable the idea that there is no objective as far as I'm concerned so do you understand Frank's view here which is he sees that such an obvious thing that you would have to the the premises against that if you like would have to be much much stronger than they are no I do take away he sent a selective view that this is really actually an objective reality and I think about think about hunger mmm hunger is within all of us yeah and it is such a strong thing we like if somebody is is dying of starvation that is all they care about it is within them but it's still a process of evolution it's still a subjective psychological experience it's not some kind of it may just ask you a question about that because it's Justin pointed out in his interview with Richard Dawkins a number of years ago which is by the way in the new book I don't need a proposition Candace dude right Justin rightfully said well you tell the story Justin about how you say I was typing outside of the other line I had this interesting conversation in my very first encounter with Richard Dawkins and and I asked him why you know whether if all our morality is essentially a product of undirected evolution whether he can really say that rape is wrong and he says well I I do believe rape is wrong now that may be a product of my evolutionary past but that's a value judgment I'm going to make and I said but how do you make that value judgment you have to step outside of this evolution process to say that wrong and he said well maybe but it doesn't show that anything supernatural exists and I said but as far as you're concerned the fact that we've believed rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact we've evolved five fingers rather than six and he said yes basically and and I I agree on naturalism that is true but most people recoil at that idea that that our morality is essentially arbitrary but in the same sense this is what frustrates me about atheists a lot is they'll do the same thing but the opposite they look okay and they'll think of the evil they listen to Hitchens talk about some celestial North Korea and ago we call it that and they'll say that's a horrible thing yeah imagine that reality but I'm sorry just because you don't like a reality doesn't make it not real and so if they're objectively if there are are no objective morals then unfortunately what Joseph Stalin did in us in the USSR was not objectively wrong but that's not a shocking thing to say if we're under the assumption that nothing is objectively do you understand then why for many people the moral argument is so powerful because because they cannot get themselves to a point of view where those kinds of act are sure only really about pieces but I don't think that's what Frank is necessarily doing because I think you're right that a lot of people do just recoil in horror the idea of there being no objective standard but I think that's what you're doing I wouldn't say that you're you're being clever than that you're understanding that yes this is a bad idea but more than that you're saying that there's some way to prove that there is an objective reality right now as because you don't like me I want to get beyond that or maybe I should say underneath that going back to just this point and it's this if you said this is all the result of evolution you have to get outside the evolutionary process to believe that thought is true because if that thought is the result of the evolutionary process as well why believe it but again it's it's existentialism we have to have certain assumptions what I'm saying this isn't just an assumption this is what we would call a properly basic belief it's not just an assumption that I believe that torturing babies for fun is wrong I think that's really true it's not not my assumption well in I would say that for instance my belief that torturing babies is wrong it's also a belief but that's a belief based on the assumption that human flourishing is a good thing we're going to go to a break guys and we'll come back to this fascinating stuff today and I hope it doesn't sound too much like it's two against one in this one Alex but it's one where I i I've always found the moral argument a fascinating one because it does likewise whereas I guess cosmological arguments there about what's out there I think this is very much about what's in here into our personal response to evil and good and so on but anyway great stuff does evil show that God exists is the debate today Frank Turek and Alex O'Connor joining me in studio come back again in a few moments time and we'll conclude today's discussion I mean let's maybe just in the final minutes we have here gentlemen talk about one other issue raising in your original video Alex morality often is blurred you say you know you raise examples of abortion and sexuality these tend to be though questions involve involving humans and whether things bring harm or good along to them and therefore you that showed you that ultimately the morality is human centric it's subjective in that sense this is my burden of proof this is what what I'm saying by it is simply that my argument in general is to say that again I'm not explaining this very why things are right or wrong but why we experience them as such and certain places where we find moral ambiguity ambiguity is such as issues like abortion like you say the problem with if you ask me isn't we're not deciding here is it okay to kill a human life on the the Horsham debate this around around is that a human life or not if it is and it's wrong to kill and to me that's based upon the assumption of human human flourishing which again I think is insert by evolution so it seems to me that this assumption of human flourishing that can be perfectly well explained through evolution through the evolutionary process seems to be a very compelling grounding for the experience of morality especially when you consider things such as these moral ambiguities where they are based upon whether or not we're harming life on them same thing with animals yeah again I'd like to just reiterate that if the evolutionary process gives us our moral ideas it also gives us all of our ideas so why should we believe any of them but secondly not every issue needs to be crystal clear on morality for God to exist you know scientists disagree over aspects of the objective world but that doesn't mean there isn't an objective world that's a difference between again epistemology and ontology we all agree there's an objective world we may not agree on certain aspects of that objective world inside this is the very kind of coma say I had a bit of a Twitter spat last week Mohammed an atheist we were talking about objective morality and one of the things he said was the fact that people disagree about morality means that it is subjective and I know into them so you don't buy into no no you know if that's often as the assumption then we disagree about something it must be subjective it's it's silly under it it can be confused I'm not trying to say that because we disagree on things because people disagree on things like sexuality and abortion therefore morality must be subjective what I'm saying is that if you want to if you are trying to propose the view that morality can't be explained to revolution this is bolstered by the fact that the certain things that we do have moral ambiguities on seem to align with that we're not we don't discuss whether or not murder is right or wrong because and to me the reason for that is because of the fact that it involves human flourishing human survival if something if the question is will this act cause humans to suffer will this act cause a human to die in the instance of abortion that's why that moral that moral ambiguity exists so to me that the point is basically that this this is evidence of an evolutionary basis for morality well no I would say as you mentioned earlier on abortion if it is a human being you don't kill it that's not that's not mysterious at all the only question is is it a human being and I think scientifically we can show it as human being people just don't like that I think many times the reason people disagree on morality is not because they don't know the right thing to do they just don't want to do it in fact there are some on the other side of the pond in my country who are saying now yeah we know it so it's a human being but that's okay we get to kill it anyway there are even those who have proposed infanticide you know Peter Singer saying I've made the case that because a newborn baby doesn't have any of the faculties that we develop as we go on in terms of our mental abilities and so on they shouldn't be counted necessary as having the same kind of rights for personhood that you know a three-year-old would say now that's obviously again he's just shifted but the issue into like not whether we're human or not but whether we have this quote-unquote person to issue yeah this is this is incredibly is perhaps no one isn't one of the one of the issues perhaps with proposing objective morality because what we're saying with something like this there there's always going to be exceptions to the rule for instance when we talk about hunger earlier being a natural instinctive thing within us there are people who are anorexic there are people who are obese and there are exceptions but that doesn't mean that evolution can't explain how we experience morality it doesn't necessarily mean that these things are right or wrong is the thing I think which is agreeing I'm not saying because of evolution killing human is wrong I'm saying that because of evolution the reason that we don't want to kill humans can be explained but but do you see or maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly Alex do you see that if evolution has given you your moral beliefs it's giving you all of your beliefs including the idea that evolution is given your moral beliefs so why should you believe it it's either random on evolution or it's designed but though I mean it is if it's designed you can trust it if it's random you can sew again if all your thoughts are the result of the laws of physics why should you believe any I might be talking about hind here but is is that not similar to saying well the reason that you you're saying the reason I got from evolution I also got everything else from evolution - why should I trust it well the reason that you've got from God you about everything else from gold so why should you trust go because God has given us the rational ability to to make reasonable claims or discover truth about reality hasn't evolution given me the rational ability to uncover truth about reality as well what the difference because our minds are trustworthy if they're made in the image of the great mind why would they be trustworthy if they're a product of random forces how which how you know it's a great mind unless the great mind has instilled that reason with the detail using that it is great because I'm going from effect to cause right if I have I using reason yes by using the reason God gave you so using the reason that God gave you to prove the reason that God is the ontological foundation of the laws of logic which allows us then to discover truths about reality of things that you seem to be doing the same things I am you're saying God is giving you this reason to reason that God is the most reasonable being God has given us the tools of reason which are objective they're immaterial and he's given us the freewill to either follow him or reject him based upon what we learn about reality and whether or not we want to follow I mean as I understand Frank's argument it's it's again it's one of those what's the best explanation we both acknowledge we are completely dependent on these laws of logic this rear a tional capacity we all have is it it does it is that it can we explain such a thing on a naturalistic worldview or is it better explained on a theistic worldview and obviously Frank's view is yes it makes sense that we would be able to trust our rational abilities if there is a rational mind behind the universe I think we're in a non rational universe a non rational process by which came to be there's no fundamental reason to assume that we are aimed at knowing right from wrong truth and falsity doesn't make certain or something like this like it does frustrate me that I will never know if I test yeah that gets on my nerves I'm so sick who's that immigrate is always wondering every sort of sub really gets on my nerves but they are just unanswerable yo-chan whose nerves what do you mean easy to just sort of pedantic little things in Norway I don't think they're pathetic I don't think like reason uh-huh I submit that okay you could make the argument that if comes from evolution how can we use that to them reason about evolution sure but I'm saying it's that not the same thing with God no because God is a rational creature or not creature he's if he's the ground of rationality doesn't it gives rational because we're reasoning from our rationality but at using the rottens that came from well well of course his ontological nature is given us these laws of logic to discover true how do you know that three reason right there's it you can't defend reason by reason because that would be circular response right but what we're saying is once we have reason what better grounds it naturalism which which couldn't explain the laws of logic to begin with or a mind whose very essence ground to these law at your sight what you've just said is you said okay so we assume that reason exists what's the best grounding when I give you a grounding you then say but how do you know that reason even exists how can you say that reason existed is just a process because it works so I can put the same thing to you I could say a reason does exist what's the best grounding and you say God and then I could say the same thing and say well if you're getting that reason from God how can you use that reason to then prove God because that's how you prove anything right that's okay not sorry for you again again no no no no because in evolution everything is predetermined there is no free will we're just saying we judge the real also the laws of physics no no every God is on this any no it's a few chinos may be free because knowing the future doesn't mean he's causing it to occur well is he not causing it to occur in he's in primary coil now in our get different education evolution offered a whole nother show like that some of the show will happen you know I'm not a five-point Calvinist if that's right leave it there we've lived before we open up to many more big topics I don't have to agree to this away we often do on this show as we often do look guys I've really enjoyed the conversation oh it's a great like thank you so much and you you are a gracious combatant Alex thank you for coming in again to do that and frankly great great stuff from you as well if people want to find out more about you cross examined Don Borg for Frank and of course the book stealing from God Alex O'Connor he can be found as cosmic skeptic with a K on the YouTube channel he runs and hey I think this will turn into a video as well at some point as well perhaps you have something I'd like things I think great well thank you both for being with me thank you for the show today really great entirely one look forward to maybe getting you guys together again at some point in the future but at the moment if you want to get in touch we'll be giving you the ways to do that again in a moment time here on the show that brings Christians and non-christians together and we'll be hearing some of your feedback to recent programs great thanks guy and little way to go you

Channel: CosmicSkeptic

Views: 1,117,386

Rating: 4.8085852 out of 5

Keywords: Alex O'Connor, cosmic, skeptic, cosmicskeptic, Frank Turek, debate, atheism, moral argument, god, religion, faith, cross examined, unbelievable, premier, radio, Sam Harris, moral landscape, objective morality, subjective, Christianity, evil, problem of evil, philosophy

Id: b5a3MxIqZOs

Length: 58min 36sec (3516 seconds)

Published: Sat Jun 10 2017

Reddit Comments

[u/TinkerGrey]

I can't bring myself to watch anything with Frank Turek in it. He's a tool. Good on Alex for taking him on.

[u/Slumberfunk]

This was actually worth watching. Civil discussion ensued and Frank was less of a retard than he usually is.