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 um Evolution isn't isn't a random process um but that aside uh it's well 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 there's an awesome back
and forth exchange you really see like the conversation unfold and go to deeper levels as it does so so without me talking anymore let's go ahead and dive in and then I'll give some of my thoughts on the back end enjoy 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 uh has has to exist to to allow this realm of Good and Evil to 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 uh I think that we agree in in one sense that uh evil doesn't necessarily disprove God I I'm with you on that um what I would say is is to answer your question
um objectively no it it is a subjective thing morality to me um is is entirely subjective why do you say that well because um firstly uh a thing to note is that um objective morality well let's let's talk about what objective actually means I suppose um objectivity to me if if if you want my definition would be to say um that it is true regardless of human intervention regardless of human consciousness for instance the Earth orits the Sun that would be true if all humans disappeared 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 that would be a nonsense 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 a Transcendent being um but then you need to have that being in order to prove Pro the existence of the objective morality that you're then using to prove the God so but what we're doing is we're reasoning from effect to cause that we have
this effect known as this moral law that is press pressing on us as you admitted in the video and look videos two-minute videos 10-minute videos you can't expound on all the nuances so if if this is wrong correct me but you seem to say that we in fact I think you quoted the the the quote was let me let me just quote you accurately on this because in the video you said this you said uh you said moral truths are so deeply ingrained in 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 us well because um this is where I think Sam Harris is right in the sense that um if you have certain assumptions so let's say that we could assume that uh human well-being was a good thing we we'll discuss why shortly but let's say we assume that we could then say that is it is objectively true um that we should act in certain ways for instance trying not to murder people that would then become an objective morality so because
Evolution has instilled within us um through our through genetics a a a a drive to stay alive um then we can derive objective moral truths about how we should act in order um that complies with this inner nature which I think has come about through Evolution so even if you're even if you don't subscribe to the idea that uh certain moral actions such as not killing um or not stealing have come about through Evolution uh the instinctual nature within us to stay alive causes us to think of those as objective truths um but it's a
technicality so to for all intents and purposes you could say they're objective truth if you grab a 100 people off the street and ask them is rape wrong a hundred of them will say yes but that doesn't mean it's objective I mean for instance I I I put it to you uh would you say that chocolate is tasty yeah I would but that's a subjective some people may not like chocolate sub oh soor T can be just as as tasty as chocolate mhm but and that that's no problem right that's that's no problem whatsoever so
when you say something along the lines of um oh so morality is subjective so so uh what Hitler did uh being wrong was just an opinion well yes but in the same sense that um chocolate tasting as good as tar is an opinion I I I think when when it doesn't make a difference well no I I think it does because uh it's much more obvious that say sexually abusing children is wrong then 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 if 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 I'm 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 um Evolution isn't isn't a random process um but that aside uh it's well let me 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 um
argument uh from against naturalism that that people like C Lewis and indeed um modern practitioners like planting have put forward which as I understand it is is effectively saying if if evolution if effectively it's 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 and ultimately you could even go as far as say that the the actual processes of matter in motion atoms banging 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 and your argument here I guess Frank is it undercuts the whole project it's this idea it's almost sort of existential you know why should we believe anything if there's no if there's no guidance um to me it's like asking the question like you said earlier about you know how do we know that uh we're we even exist or that the Universe wasn't created last Thursday um for me it it's it's somewhat based on consensus it doesn't prove it's true um 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 no that's 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 let's stop there for just a second though Alex if that's the case why should we trust it well we don't necessarily have to again
it's it's a subjective thing but every single person but but but that would mean reason's subjective yes well it is well if reason is subjective then if reason is not subjective then how do you and I come to different conclusions using both using reason because we have free will we if reason's subjective we couldn't even communicate if there weren't these objective unchanging laws of life well yes there are there are objective um rules and tenants of reason but reason itself is subjective in the same way that morality you can say under certain assumptions there are
objective truths about morality if you have a certain assumption about uh about reason then yes there are objective tend well that's what I mean these these immaterial laws of logic that aren't made of mules how do we explain those on a naturalistic worldview how do you mean how do we explain why are there laws of logic why are there laws of mathematics they're a product of Consciousness and laws of mathematics are not a thing in themselves but rather a way to explain the universe so the laws of mathematics would not exist without human beings so
they are subjective but the things that they describe would oh a so when you talk about logic when you talk about reason these things aren't ends they're means they're 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 are human conceptions basically yes it's a language 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 were two just two rocks on the earth well it depends what you mean by two I mean sure like you if if in the everyday sense of the word this is where this is where things get confusing because for instance you I suppose what you're asking is something similar to the question of does 2 plus 2 still equal four if there are no humans and to me um the case the case is you have to think about what you're describing when you say 2 plus two so for instance if you're saying
if there were two rocks and you added two more rocks would there be four rocks absolutely mhm but to say that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is like um is a is a good way to bring in the 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' I'd say it's absolutely arbitrary um math is arbitrary no math isn't but the language we use to describe it is it
evolves and changes well yes but they're they're uh referencing objective facts if we want to call this one book MH there is only one book here yes okay that's an objective fact if we wanted to call it uh a like in Deutsch that this is one book okay that's a different word but it's representing the 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 did I say objective or
subjective don't that if we're going to say we're going to say reason is subjective then there's no way we can come to anys 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 an objective truth claim well I I would say that even with something as objective as maths 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 uh the the the roots of a quadratic equation you can do it by using the quadratic formula you can do it by expanding the brackets and you get to the same answer but the reason you're using to get there is 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 and the reason that we used to get there wouldn't yeah but that's no 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 epistemology that's how we know the study of being then you might have semantics which is how you describ the epistemology to get to the ontology this can be arbitrary but it's still Tethered to objective facts it's it's it's ultimately uh 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 for instance the the law of the excluded middle things like that law of non-contradiction law of
excluded middle law of inference um 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 laws ofly they are they're tools and this this is the thing that I see when we're when we're talking about whether reason exists reason is a method um and so it it almost helps us in epistemology but if they weren't tethered ontologically if if if they weren't Tethered to reality there'd be no way we could
know anything you're making the claim that this realm exists that we we call the laws of logic and so on and and that it's it's it really is something that we discover in that sense it's an it's an element of the the the reality we live in we don't determine them we discover them exactly whereas you're making the case obviously Al re something we produce it's we invent because it helps us you 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 and the same applies to the moral argument as 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 of whose journey to belief in God has been based on the fact that they came to the view that there really is a a realm of right and wrong that I discover I no longer believe that it's all subjective that and and obviously others who take
your view as well Alex I mean fundamentally is that where we do we just come to an impass where you say Frank there is real Realms 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 as a subjective because ultimately I believe in objective moral good and evil because for me I see that as bit like I racism is wrong is the same as 1 plus 1 equals 2 that that but you say no that that
racism doesn't exist when humans don't ex agree with you that I see it as the same to me they are both as instinctual but that 1+ 1 equals 2 uh is again it's a mathematical language but if you're talking in the in the literal sense 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 instinctively true it doesn't have the same objective say you were living 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 um at least within the the white population let's say would because that's the generally accepted def fact you know way of people thinking about it would that mean racism is okay in that culture because that's well it's a difficult question okay pretty funny ending to the clip there but I want to kind of just break down really the substance of that conversation and it's actually very simple even though theyve went back and forth a number of times s there really are two options either
morality has been given to us from above by God in which case it is objective because God is actually able to say this is how things ought to be and therefore that is how things ought to be now I will grant to you that that implies that you I mean you must have a belief in God in order to believe in that but I'm saying if there is a God meaning an ultimate source of reality of truth of goodness of beauty of universe itself then he can say 2 plus 2 equal 4 and it is
and he can say that murder is wrong and it is or so that's the top- down method of morality which is the objective moral um understanding or morality has kind of evolved from the bottom up and Society has decided that murder is wrong Society has decided a b and c but if it is just from the bottom up then it will always be subjective you can't have something that is just a byproduct of time and matter and chance and biology and utility and darwinian theory and all these things it can't be a product of of
evolution in a sense in a materialistic model and be objective so either morality is objective and it is given to us by God from above or it is subjective and it has Arisen from the bottom up the problem is this we all know deep down that morality is not subjective we know that there are things that are absolutely wrong these things are wrong not just because the majority of people agree that they're wrong but they're implicitly wrong and we and we know this in the same way that 2 + 2 equal 4 whether or not
a particular society agrees if there is a society that says that it's three and a society that says that it's five it's still four it's objectively four it's ultimately for and this is the same thing with morality if Hitler took over the world and convinced the majority of people that Jews are animals and if everybody came to agree on that that they have no value that they don't have human rights and that the Holocaust is a morally justifiable um event in history it would still be a heinous evil even if 100% of people were convinced
to the contrary so morality is objective and and we know this at the deepest level so then finally because morality is objective and because objective morality requires there to be a moral lawgiver it follows logically that there is a moral lawgiver that there is actually a God and so ultimately objective morality this whole conversation about morality is is incredibly useful to illuminating the fact that there also must be a God and so ultimately I think this conversation is great um and I would love to hear I know people in the comments I'm expecting it I'm
anticipating it people are going to have um I think some disagreements with that and so I I welcome those I want to hear those I've seen those in other videos but I haven't really effectively seen anybody actually dismantle that that core um basically syllogism and so with that being said I'll see you guys in the next one don't forget to like subscribe comment turn on the notification bell all the things that tell the you YouTube algorithm that this content is the kind of content that you like to see I hope you do see you guys
in the next video peace bye
