Support for the title claim begins around 20 minutes.
Other than that, this is a very enlightening lecture. Yes, I had a superficial awareness of Nazi Germany and propaganda, but this lecture educated me to greater understanding. Despite it being rather long, I recommend watching the whole thing. It is one of his best, IMO.
Religion is a manifestation of biology as well.
21 replies on “Morality is a manifestation of biology, and not created by religion.”
By contrast, Christianity and Judaism have an external standard. You WANT us in charge as we believe there is a God to whom we must answer and therefore fear the repercussions if we don’t put your interests first. In fact, we’re supposed to love our enemies, which is antithetical to anything simple biology might contrive.
Islam? Not so much. Forcing me to join your religion or choose between death or second-class status is not the hallmark of a “peaceful religion,” and the only reason there’s anything “abrahamic” about it is the fact that Muhammad stole from the Old Testament when developing the Koran so as to attract Jews to his new religion. This was before he started raiding caravans and converting people by force including, among other things, personally threatening and beheading Jews.
And yet, history is riddled with events where even Christians did just that and took it too far, under the pretense that it was “the will of God.” Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, parts of the Crusades, Dungeons & Dragons in the 90’s. As a former Catholic myself (and quite the authoritarian in my youth), I believed it was right to force others to think and act a certain way, all because I believed that my understanding of God’s will was the correct one. I understand fully that the fear of God’s wrath is a powerful motivator, but the utility of fear to keep people in line extends beyond any one ideology; and it is all to easy to be abused by any ideology, including Christianity.
I don’t consider myself religious anymore, though my observation of history has maintained my respect for many aspects of the Judeo-Christian philosophy. Listening to Jordan Peterson’s analysis has only strengthened that respect, as it has given me a different perspective on what I felt I was missing when I went to church. Had he been my pastor, I would probably still be a believer. It has also given me a different lens to look through when I watch the Virtue Signal. Before, I would have rolled my eyes when AlfanZo started preaching about “the Word of God,” but now I can logically connect with what he is saying, and often agree with him.
I suggest you take another look. Most of the deaths in the Inquisition…total of 6,000 over 30 years and various inquistions…were dispensed by local magistrates unattached to the church.
Salem witch trials again a scant few and not necessarily in the name of Christianity.
Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim invasion and performed at the expense rather than the enrichment of the participants.
Show me anything in the Bible which commands you to force people to think or act in a certain way. The Koran does though.
The criticism of Dungeons and Dragons in the 80’s was incredibly overblown. No one who actually played the game, including myself as a product of Catholic education, every paid it any attention. Wasn’t mentioned once in 12 years of Catholic schooling.
Same with Tipper Gore and her desire to label certain music with “parental guidance” stickers. Way overblown by a leftist media seeking to end religion and traditional family values.
It’s the principles as outlined in the Bible, not our “interpretation” of them, which guides our lives despite the new liberal theologies which try to twist them to meet their own understanding such as the endorsement by God of homosexuality as a lifestyle.
Do I really need to get into the destructiveness of millions upon millions killed by atheism, the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire attempting two now three world conquests, abortion, divorce-on-demand, participation trophies and the self-esteem movement, the current attempts to criminalize religion most recently by eliminating REFRA in the “Equality Act” which passed the House and the erasing of gender while demeaning and marginalizing the nuclear family including the significance of mothers and fathers to a growing child?
It’s not even close.
Having said all that, I’m glad to hear that you have maintained your respect for many aspects of Judeo-Christian philosophy. If you’ve been willing to listen to Jordan Peterson, whom I also respect as a contemplative thinker and a judicious dispenser of advice, maybe you’ll be willing to consider these as well. They’ve certainly appealed me as a logical believer in Christ and the Bible…
Here’s one short video by Daniel Wallace on why we can trust the Bible. There are plenty of longer, more in-depth videos from him and others:https://youtu.be/NikVdhp0YFs
Plus Stephen Meyer on intelligent design in life and the universe. DNA didn’t evolve from anything, and our universe didn’t appear out of nowhere without being created by God as testified by Christ in the New Testament.
For more evidence on the fine tuning of our planet and the universe, look up The Privileged Planet on YouTube.
Daniel Wallace is good here : How Badly Was the New Testament Corrupted? | Veritas at SDSU (2018) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI
or Gary Habermas : The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars – Gary Habermas at UCSB : https://youtu.be/ay_Db4RwZ_M
or Paul Maier : : https://youtu.be/XAN3kQHTKWI
More condensed versions don’t go into as much detail yet still get the point across. Plenty of others. J. Warner Wallace, a former detective from “The Forensic Files” (or a similar show), is fun too. Takes a detective’s approach.
I attended Catholic school and, after I stopped attending Mass regularly in my 20’s, started digging into the reasons for my faith when my children were born so I could let them know why I believe. Everything I’ve found has only strengthened it.
Last thing. You hear about how there were all these other similar religions throughout history, but you don’t need to go very far into the details to see they were very different. Christianity is the only one with a resurrected Savior.
Hope this helps. God bless. Any other questions, ask away.
P.S. if you read the Old Testament, God only used the fear of Him as a last resort. He pardons the sinners among the Israelites repeatedly and only acts when it’s clear that they’re not going to listen to anything else. For heaven’s sake, the dopes built a golden calf while Moses was on the mountain talking to God himself. How stiffnecked and hardheaded can you be?
Such patience continues throughout. Read either Kings or Chronicles. They’re different tellings of the same history.
The institution of the Catholic Church has certainly not been perfect throughout the centuries, but I cringe at the one-sidedness with which it’s portrayed by the media. It’s still routinely characterized by the minority of priests caught in the sex scandal without any reporting on the many breakwaters which have been installed to prevent such things from happening again.
The politicization of the Vatican is a whole other story. I think I speak for most Catholics when I say that the Pope should refrain from commenting on political football issues, and I know I for one am sick of hearing during the petitions recited at Sunday Mass that we need to pray for an end to racism. The creep of social justice a whole half of the camel inside the tent of our religion which needs to be ejected post haste.
First, I owe you an apology. I missed the part of your statement: “if we don’t put your interests first.” I’m also not going to argue with your numbers, as my knowledge of these events are only cursory at best. I do agree that there are many people like yourself within Catholic society, but there are also plenty of people like my younger self still there as well, and this attitude can go all the way up the ladder. Those types of people can be dangerous. In the more sinister forms, that can lead to the type of incidents you mention. While the Crusades themselves may have been justified, that’s not to say everything done by the Crusaders was very “Christian.” Though if we look at the Old Testament, there are a lot of things that even Moses does that, I think, modern day Christians and Jews would find atrocious. Here is one example, following the battle against the Midianites:
Numbers 31:17 & 31:18
Now therefore kill every male among the little
ones, and kill every woman that hath known
man by lying with him. But all the women
children, that have not known a man by lying
with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I’ll add your suggested videos to my list, but it maybe quite a while before I get to them. Thank you for the insight.
I’ve watched you guys discussing this and for the most part your conversation has been civil and reasonable but …
Quoting Numbers 31:17-18 without historical context is the same thing as demonizing Christopher Columbus for the discovery of the New World and the ensuing impact on the indigenous people, or naming George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as evil men because they were slaveholders. It’s the same as tearing down their statues using those out-of-context historical aspects as an excuse.
I notice people who wouldn’t think for a minute of condemning Jefferson or Washington for something we would consider anathema today but was common back then — Have no trouble doing that with Biblical matters. The world was different in Washington and Jefferson’s day, as it was also different in the time of Moses.
It puzzles me why people don’t see the hypocrisy in applying that double standard. Or maybe in your personal case it’s not a double standard? The only way that works is if you also advocate and condone the character assassination of Great Men and the destruction of their edifices.
Regardless of your religious beliefs Moses codified Noahide Law and deserves a place at the head of the table of Great Men.
We all would today consider the fact of Jefferson, Washington and other Founders slaveholdings to also be “un-Christian”, but that is irrelevant to their greater works and only a matter of historical context. Today people don’t hold slaves or slay all the males and married women in conquered territory but those are the standards that apply today and cannot be laid upon historical situations.
If Jefferson and Washington lived today they would not hold slaves. It is unwise to subject historical personalities to modern mores. It’s also a sort of “cheap shot” to do so.
As far as the Numbers quote, that section details Moses’ war against the Midianites, even down to the spoils they take, and what they did with the prisoners. It’s not some liberal, atheistic professor’s interpretation on what happened, it’s a direct quote from the Bible; the very book that should be our guide to morality, according to Judeo-Christian believers. How is it taken out of context? I’m genuinely curious if there’s something I missed.
I don’t see how pointing this out is hypocritical or setting up a double-standard. If anything, I’m doing the complete opposite. I’m no fan of Islam or socialism, so how is pointing out an issue with the Old Testament creating a double-standard? Many non-Muslims are quick to point out how Muhammed was a pedophile and promoted beating women, among other things. True. Yet, how many of them know the Bible talks about Moses committing genocide and slavery?
I understand your point about judging history by today’s standards, but it’s not a concept I fully embrace. I don’t think we need to throw historical figures under the bus for things that were “normal” for their day, but that doesn’t mean we should bury the truth about them either. This, I think, is especially true if our moral standards are supposed to come from a book that has things in it that we would find morally reprehensible, even by today’s standards. Furthermore, if we can’t accept that what was done in the past is wrong, then what’s to improve?
Make no mistake, I’m not interested in “gatcha” statements or “cheap shots.” If someone is willing to have an honest dialog, as Jeremy here has done, I’m willing to reciprocate. But it also means I’m going to challenge their views (even if I agree with them). I was a very devote Catholic for the first 18 years of my life. Sunday School, Alter Boy (unmolested, I’ll add), Usher, the works. I even considered being a priest at one point. I have a lot of respect for Christianity, but I have my reasons for leaving. I still think that if any ideology should be in charge, it has the best (if still flawed) track record.
I didn’t make a “gatcha statement” or take a “cheap shot” and I laid out my reasoning very clearly. At least it seems to me that I was clear.
I said “out of HISTORICAL context“, not textually out of context. There’s a difference and you have conflated the two. I don’t know if you did that on purpose to try to reframe what I said or if you just don’t realize one is not the same as the other.
I never said anything about burying the truth about anything and it ticks me off a bit that you’d go there. In fact, what I’m advocating is the opposite of burying truth, it’s considering ALL the truth including the HISTORICAL context which applies to HISTORICAL situations and personalities.
I’m not the least bit interested in your “credentials” as a Catholic. Anecdotally most of the people that I have met in my life who claimed to be Christians yet are the absolute worst educated on Christian theology — have all been Catholics. It’s been my experience that Catholics know a lot about Catholicism and precious little about actual Christianity.
Sadly most Catholics do not realize it’s possible to be a Catholic and yet not a Christian and conversely there are a lot of non-Catholics that do not realize that it’s possible to be both Catholic and Christian. The Catholic Church is not the dispenser of the State of Grace. Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor any other institution on Earth has the power to grant or withhold Grace.
Additionally the great bulk of people I’ve known personally who have abandoned Christianity altogether have been Catholics. Obviously the Catholic Church is getting something wrong in order for that to happen — A fact historically supported by the Reformation.
Catholics and former Catholics seem woefully unaware of all these things and more. There’s a toxic egocentrism in Catholicism where any time someone mentions Christianity, Catholics automatically assume the subject is Catholicism. The two words are not interchangeable. There are as I said, Catholics who are not Christians and Christians that are not Catholics.
The point being that a Catholic upbringing and background do not make you a Christian any more than buying a violin makes you a concert violinist. Your claims of authority by dint of a Catholic personal history ring hollow in my ears and you would be better off not to cite that at all. To many of us it smacks more of vindictiveness against the Catholicism that failed you than a credential to cite yourself as your own authority.
So spare me the “fallen choirboy routine”, it’s disingenuous and just another form of “wokeism” as far as I’m concerned. You were a choirboy and an acolyte then “woke” to the “truth” and changed your course … Where have we all heard that before?
Back to historical context which I hope you will now respect rather than try to reframe —
Moses was not telling future generations to do those things that we would now consider barbaric. Moses was setting rules for that particular situation at that particular time. Moses did not say “Henceforth and forever when you defeat a hated enemy you shall blah, blah, blah …”
It was common in that era to do those things to a vanquished enemy; to kill every last man, woman and child, appropriate anything of value and divide up the livestock after a sacrificial ceremony of thanks for the victory.
Rather than turning a blind eye to the wholesale slaughter (or rape then slaughter) of every single Midianite, Moses was restraining and setting limits on behavior. Nothing in the Bible says that those sorts of behavior are to be perpetuated forever and there most certainly are things in the Bible that are commanded to be carried forth intact and unaltered into the future.
All of that behavior looks barbaric to us today but in that day and age it wasn’t considered barbaric at all. It was considered the right thing to do. Just as with Washington and Jefferson holding slaves was not considered horrendous and unthinkable in their day. Though actually holding slaves would today be grounds for the most severe societal punishments.
The situation with Moses, Washington and Jefferson are alike and vary only in particulars and degree. When you criticize Moses, Washington and Jefferson outside of historical context you are either ignorant or dishonest. Because you are not telling the complete story, you are not telling ALL of the truth and you are in fact burying part of the truth. Ignoring historical context is a lie of omission and especially when doing such is forwarded as an example of something that did not apply to them then or us now. It is an intentional skewing of the relevant facts.
I’m not saying that slaughtering every male or holding slaves is not and should not be abhorrent to us today. I’m saying that it was not abhorrent to those people at that time nor did it make it wrong for them to act in the manner they did. If we are going to accurately understand those people truthfully then the historical context of what they considered right and wrong must be included in our evaluation of them and their deeds. Did they act in a manner which was within the bounds of the rules they considered themselves bounded by? If so then for them applying the rules we today consider ourselves bounded by is nonsensical because they had no means to know what our rules would be. Nor did they have any reason to consider themselves bound by today’s standards even had such become known to them.
It is irrational to apply our standards to people who did not share them and that is a form of “burying the truth”. It intentionally skews the perception of those people in a negative manner that they do not deserve. It doesn’t matter if you do that to Washington, Jefferson, Julius Caesar or Moses — It’s the same fallacy and the same deception.
It is wholly unfitting for anyone to apply today’s standards to those people at that time exactly as it would be wholly unfitting for a Victorian Englishman all bundled up in wool trousers, shirt, vest, frocked coat, tie and top hat in the peak of summer heat to criticize you for wearing shorts and a T-shirt at a 4th of July barbecue. That historical Englishman would think your attire scandalous and even more amusing and irrelevant would be what he thought of today’s women’s clothing.
Those standards, be they ancient warfare or Victorian dress codes, do not transfer application across time and space and can only be rightly, accurately and truly judged in the historical context in which they occur.
My remarks about “gotchas” and “cheap shots” was in response to what I though you were accusing me of. I wasn’t trying to accuse you of that.
Your right that I wasn’t making a distinction between historical and textual context. Not because I was doing it intentionally, but because I didn’t think about the distinction. I’ll reflect upon that more, and keep it in mind in the future. As I stated before, my knowledge of events (or anything for that matter) is cursory at best. If I say something stupid, it’s because I’m utilizing what limited knowledge I possess. Though that can be said of anybody.
I wasn’t trying to use my former faith as proof of authority, nor to garner sympathy points, or anything of the sort. Rather it was an illustration of a common theme among some people who call themselves “Christian” or “Catholic,” even if you don’t think their actions reflect the true nature of Christianity. If anything, I’m trying to say, “Hey, there are people who think X and Y, for Z reasons. I know, because I used to think like that, too.”
I’m not looking for a fight here. However, I am willing to challenge anyone’s perspective or even play devil’s advocate, even if I agree with them. I’m not looking to troll here, on Bill’s site; that’s not what I paid for. And I’m more than willing to admit I’m wrong about something, if you can present a compelling enough argument. So, no hard feelings.
This all seems very reasonable to me and no, I have no hard feelings. In fact one of the things I like about this site is that most people at least try to be reasonable and I appreciate you doing that.
Like you, I try to avoid snark and trolling here on Bill & Co.’s website. Notice I said “most people” above. I give as good as I get and if someone makes the effort to be reasonable with me I’ll reciprocate.
I tend to at least make a serious effort to see things in as broad a context as I can grasp and I’m always trying to expand my grasp. I sympathize with your “I know because I used to think like that too” statement in this aspect. I used to omit things like historical context too, and I found that in doing so I was missing vital information needed to understand various things as best I’m able.
I see this sort of thing being applied to the Old Testament a lot and I try to help people understand the historical context because that is vital to understanding what is actually being said. I’m not trying to preach a sermon, convert anyone, or renew anyone’s lost faith. Because that’s none of my business. Those things are between that person and whatever Deity they choose to acknowledge or not acknowledge.
What I am trying to do is correct what amounts to a libelous misinterpretation of Biblical texts and principles. For instance —
Leviticus 20:9 says “If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.”
… and Deuteronomy 21:18-21 expands on that law by clarifying both the offense and the manner in which punishment is to be administered with “If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.
This punishment for grossly rebellious children is both culling and deterrent but clearly this is not something that is going to happen to a wayward child in the year 2021. Though I’m sure there are people who wish they could do this to deserving children … You just can’t.
Lots of things that applied for various reasons 2500 years ago solely to the Hebrew Nation no longer apply to today.
For one thing, and it’s an important thing, the Deuteronomic Code was never intended to apply to Gentiles. I.E. both Biblical and Rabbinic Law consider the Gentiles immune from the laws pertaining to ritual purity. Due to this and many other indicators we know there was a marked difference between Deuteronomic Code as applied to the Hebrew People and Gentiles (which is everyone but the Hebrews).
Therefor abusing Deuteronomic Code by applying it to gentiles is simply wrong.
Using the example you cited, it was not the default Israelite practice in warfare to kill every enemy male and all non-virginal females. That was a specific instruction for a specific situation for specific reasons. Taken in historic context those reasons rise to a higher level of validity as it applied to that action on that day in that era.
In this specific instance the Midianites carried a contagion transmitted by sexual intercourse, and the only way to avoid that contagion being introduced to the Hebrew people was to kill the non-virgin Midianite men and women. That was the only sure way to know that no one would have intercourse with them either legitimately through intermarriage or illegitimately through extramarital sex and re-ignite what amounts to a plague.
Far from being an example of barbarism, that situation taken in modern understanding shows that God understood the vector of biological pathogens even if the Hebrew people did not. Killing of all non-virginal Midianites would not be necessary in the modern world with antibiotics …
When you cite it as an example but leave those things out you take it out of its proper context which then skews the meaning.
If your religious instruction left out this kind of information then your religious instructors failed you. (Which is a situation I find disturbingly common in Catholics, btw.) I can see no other reason for you to cite the example you did in the way you did it.
I don’t think that’s your fault and I’m not being critical of you.
So as you say, you hadn’t thought of that before and I’m not slagging on you. In fact I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that if you knew more you would do the right thing. Because you’re a reasonable person trying hard to do what’s right.
All I’m doing is trying to help you increase your knowledge so that you don’t give the wrong impression to people who have no way to know any better.
I really like Jordan Peterson and have watched (or read) pretty much everything he’s published online. I’ve seen this video before but just out of courtesy and a bit of curiosity I watched it again. Just to see if I got the same information from it that you did. Being as I have never heard Jordan Peterson say anything remotely akin the words you strung together in that order — I had my doubts about your take on this classroom lecture. I was right to have those doubts as it turned out.
I have enormous respect for Jordan Peterson and would not presume to put words in his mouth, as you have done in your title. It is shameful to attribute things to him that he did not say and make him into a straw man, especially when it’s to shore up an agenda. Peterson isn’t liberal, he’s not really conservative and he does not trespass on areas outside his expertise. He doesn’t have to, his expertise is formidable. He does not hold himself forth as a theologian.
Peterson was talking about the biological components of things like, where “morality” is concerned – promiscuity. He never once said that because there are biological components there can be no other components, nor that biology rules out or negates religion. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive by dint of each in their own existence.
Peterson also did not address any other “moral” issues like theft, murder, assault, or even dishonesty. He most certainly did not say and from context he also did not intend to convey —
“Morality is a manifestation of biology, and not created by religion.”
That’s all your own extrapolation and you had to really reach for that much too.
What you did is analogous to “All doors have knobs so anything with a knob is a door.” So radios that have knobs are doors. Or “Camels have humps so anything with a hump must be a camel.” Which clearly then Humpback whales are obviously camels.
How does that relate to your title? Easy …
“Morality is a manifestation of biology, and not created by religion.” …… is the same as saying — “There are biological aspects of some morality so all morality is biological. So no morality can be derived from religion.” Radio knob doors and whale hump camels.
That’s an accurate analogy of your undeniable fallacy. It’s a patently ridiculous thing to say. Even if there were no deity there most certainly is/are religion(s) and there are religious moralities that have nothing to do with biological imperatives. Like honoring your father and mother, or the proscription against bearing false witness, or covetousness or …
I know you love playing with logical fallacies so there’s a softball pitch for you. I’ll be happy to play hardball if you prefer. I love exposing fallacies nearly as much as you enjoy committing them. After all, it was you who brought up logical fallacies in the first place during conversation with me. I’m sure you don’t mind me pointing them out 🙂
Try listening to Jordan Peterson as a psychologist and leave your confirmation bias outside his classroom(s). It’s probably not obvious to you but you’re being mildly pathetic trying to use Jordan Peterson unsoundly to advance your anti-theist narrative.
I understand you’re an anti-theist, we’ve already covered all that previously, I don’t care what you think and you don’t care what I think, at least on this topic. But I refuse to sit here and allow Jordan Peterson’s words be manipulated in this venue simply because you cannot or will not see the world through any filter but your “There’s no God and I hate Him!!!” lens.
Peterson’s endorsement of biblical views about good and evil, morality and living well together; his upholding of the Bible, God and Jesus openly and publicly, have made him very popular even for a non-believer. The very least you could do is emulate his position on this topic as civilly as he does. Peterson does not attack religion or the religious and he’s very open about his very good reasons for that. If you put so much stock in what he really says you might try that attitude on for size.
There are likely some people here who do not know Jordan Peterson or his work, or do not know him/it well. It’s not fair to them to use Jordan Peterson as a straw man, which is what you attempted to do.
According to their “morality” which is totally natural and logical, now calling someone a “mother” and acknowledging the fact that there are two genders and that the females among us are the ones who give birth is “hate speech.” Instead, we’re headed for upcoming “Birthing Person’s Day.”
Of course, this is absurd on its face and not backed by science. It’s a test to see how far they can push it before enforcing their “morality” with physical action which always results in “might equals right.” In other words, the inevitable result of the liberal academic’s “internal morality” and “biological religion” is a set of self-defined codes ultimately resulting in the strongest group beating the crap out of all opposing groups until they submit.
Doesn’t sound like morality or religion to me.
100 million dead due to the self-defined, internal “morality” of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, among others, would disagree.
Jim Jones.
Of what pertinence are Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others?
Obviously they were the “ubermensch”, the “supermen” described by Nietzsche, who could ignore conventions and define their own reality and their own ruleset. Men who place themselves outside of the common concepts of morality and beyond all religious constraints on their behavior. As such they become good examples of egocentric rationalism vs. traditional dogmatism. You do know that’s what Nietzsche meant by “ubermensch”, don’t you? People who could set their own rules, right? You know that, RIGHT?
I guess ‘biological morality’ failed to rise to the occasion, huh? Because if biology was all that drove morality we’d all be Stalins, Hitlers and Maos to one degree or another, all striving to reach the top of the hill and spread our genes as widely as possible.
Mankind would be like the rest of the animal kingdom where strangely enough your idea that morals are solely biological mechanisms don’t apply either. Ask any intact male dog overcome by the irresistible pheromones of a nearby bitch in heat what he thinks of biologically moral fidelity vs. promiscuity. Or a stallion and a mare, or a buck and a doe … etc.. If moral constraints on promiscuity are biologically founded and never a matter of socio-religious causes then it’s very strange that only the 3% of mammalians are monogamous, isn’t it?
To quote Creepy Joe (Biden), “Come on man!”
Here is a very good debate that helps flesh out the question more fully, and everyone can take what they will from both sides:
The second annual God Debate features atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris and evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig as they debate the topic: “Is Good From God?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
Transcript:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris-deba/
It’s a matter of definition. When Prager says “morality” it is a different meaning compared to Peterson’s.
This makes debate futile, as everyone is “correct” in their system.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71BdIuctADL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
Prager is referring to the external standard set out by the Bible. It’s not his own. Anyone constructing their own standard doesn’t measure up.
Heh, good one.
[His] refers to Jordan Peterson.