Atheist Professor Left Actually SPEECHLESS By THIS Response (Jordan Peterson & William Lane Craig)

I think on a naturalistic world view you would be justified in talking about moral change but the word progress smuggles yeah a standard Socrates asked a priest Youth of the ancient Athenian religion um uh tell me what is it that makes something good and I'm using Pro answered that God that God loves that uh God it's God's attitude or the God's attitude uh that that makes it good and Socrates asks um well does God love the good because it's good or is his loving it what makes it good um if it's the first that God loves giving to the vulnerable to the victims to the orphan to the Widow because it's good then there is something independent in virtue of which God loves these actions that makes them good and that constitutes the reason uh for the goodness if God hates genocide and loves a charity then there is a reason in virtue of which God has these moral attitudes and if God himself has no reason for it if it's just when if it's Caprice then is that really satisfying our answer as to what makes good acts good and bad acts bad that the addition of God doesn't ground things at all it leaves it it it makes what seems to us mysterious and answers it with another mystery technically but is the pious loved by God because it is pious or is it Pious because it is loved by God I hope that makes sense let's let Dr Craig answer this I'm really surprised to hear you Trot out the old youth of fro dilemma because this has been answered over and over again by contemporary Christian philosophers like Robert Adams William Alston and others the Youth of fro dilemma is a false dilemma it pauses two non-mutually exhaustive choices either the gods love something because it is good or uh it is good and therefore they love it the theist take alternative to the youthful dilemma is that something is good because it is identical with God God is the good God is what Plato referred to as the good um so that the the Reason God will something is because he is good and his moral commands to us reflect the goodness of his own intrinsic moral nature God is by nature essentially kind loving compassionate fair and so forth and this completely resolves the Youth of fro dilemma because it's a third alternative uh to the uh the question so in other words God's moral asks of us are not arbitrary they're not capricious they're not a whim like she said they're a direct byproduct of who he is of his actual unchangeable nature let's let's continue I also had an answer to your question I had a dream I had a dream once and I'm speaking psychologically here not not theologically I had a dream once I was in the cemetery of an old church an old Cathedral um surrounded by the graves and there were indentations in the grounds where all the graves were in all of a sudden the the grave started to open and it was a graveyard where great people great men of the past had been buried and so grave opened in a an armed King stood up and then another grave opened another armed King stood up and this happened all around me and these were very formidable figures right they were the Great Heroes of the past and after a number of them appeared on the scene they looked around and saw each other and being Warrior types they immediately started to fight and the question is what stops the great Kings of the past from fighting and I had a revelation after the dream I can't remember if it was part of it but in because it was part of the dream they all bowed down to the figure of Christ I thought and then I woke up and I thought what in the world does that dream mean what in the world could that possibly mean and then I I understood it I understood that if you have 20 Kings let's say and you took the thing that was most king-like about each of them and then you combined it into a single figure then you'd get a single figure of transcendent heroism of transcendent good and it's a tenet of the jungian School of Psychology let's say that that figure of transcendent good is symbolized by the image of Christ and the purpose of that image is so that even the tyrannical King has someone to bend his knee to and that's absolutely vital I mean does you don't have to approach it from a religious perspective although you inevitably do because when you speak of things at this level that's what happens but you need an image of the Transcendent embodied good to to serve as something that unites the great tyrants of the past it's something like that it's an emergent it's an emergent vision of embodied Unity and it's a psychological necessity it's a sociological necessity and I think it Bears very strongly on your question about why is it that people matter it's the the the classic Western answer to that the judeo-christian answer to that is because you have a spark of divinity within you and that Divinity is a reflection of this Transcendent good and it's obligatory for me to recognize that in you and vice versa if we're going to inhabit the same territory without Mayhem peacefully and with the ability to cooperate now you might say well the mere fact that a Transcendent image is necessary as a uniting figure doesn't prove the reality of that image but I would say well yes but it doesn't disprove it and it strongly hints at something more profound especially when you also Ally it with the observation that the encounter with something truly admirable produces the Instinct of awe and that's not a rational Instinct it's an irrational Instinct but it's a marker that you're in the presence of something greater than yourself and it's not something that you have voluntary control over it's something that overtakes you and it could easily be a reflection of the truth now you can make a biological you can make a biologically reductionistic argument about that but it starts to become extraordinarily difficult because you you you enter into the realm where these Transcendent experiences of religious significance and awe are uh phenomenological and psychological reality and it's not easy to explain why that's the case I can see in Dr Peterson the same curiosity and obsession with those archetypes with the mythology that Lewis had in the in the years right before Lewis's conversion so my prayer in Jesus name is that is that Peterson would come to Christ like Lewis did and have the same transformative impact on culture let's continue There is no reason to invest human morality with any more objective significance than that kind of behavior that evolution is programmed into other primate species because it's advantageous and the struggle for service that is not how we prep regress what civilization is what rural progress is progress oh yes a naturalistic worldview I think on a naturalistic world view you would be justified in talking about more moral change but the word progress smuggles yeah a standard you're talking now not just about what is which is the question that Evolution can answer but now you're talking about what ought to be and that's the question of progress that's the question of good naturalism can't get you there let's hear what happens next uh there is no way to justify to ground objective morality that's what happens right so since I don't buy that premise uh I do think that one because quotation and I want you to comment on it sure okay here's the clip before you do that we are running out of time because I hate to say it no please do that statement the scientific Outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world the tastiness of fruit and the foulness of carrion the scariness of heights and the prettiness of flowers are features of our common nervous system and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes our reactions could go the other way now if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring why should we believe it any more real and if it is just a collective hallucination how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone rather than just distasteful to us that's a statement by Stephen Pinker well oh speechless as the title as the title indicates but it is such a compelling point to be made that if I mean exactly like Stephen Pinker said if everything that we perceive to be of a moral nature is really just of a biological nature than how can you actually argue that rape that child rape that that genocide pick whatever it is that you find to be the most disgusting and heinous on a naturalist view you can really just say that that's your personal opinion but you can't ground your objection against any action in anything transcended because you don't believe in Transcendence it is heavy to acknowledge that but that is simply The Logical conclusion of a naturalist worldview which should lead us to understand that that worldview is reductionistic that atheism naturalism materialism however you want to slice it is simply not sufficient at explaining to us the real world that we live in which we know is filled with Rights and Wrongs not just with Isis but also with auths with that being said I hope you guys enjoyed this video like subscribe comment all the things to tell YouTube that you do like it I hope you did and I'll see you guys in the next one peace bye foreign [Music]

Channel: Daily Dose Of Wisdom

Views: 905,741

Keywords:

Id: kW-hVcrnpfs

Length: 12min 53sec (773 seconds)

Published: Thu Jul 06 2023