If there is a God, why is there so much evil? How could any God that cares about right and wrong allow so much bad to happen? And if there is no God, who then determines what is right and what is wrong? The answers to these questions, as Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft explains, go to the heart of ethics, morality and how we know what it means to be a decent person. 
Donate today to PragerU! [ Ссылка ]

Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. [ Ссылка ]

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

iPhone: [ Ссылка ]
Android: [ Ссылка ]

Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! [ Ссылка ]

Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! [ Ссылка ]

Do you shop on Amazon? Click [ Ссылка ] and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.

VISIT PragerU! [ Ссылка ]

FOLLOW us!
Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
Twitter: [ Ссылка ]
Instagram: [ Ссылка ]
PragerU is on Snapchat!

JOIN PragerFORCE!

For Students: [ Ссылка ]
JOIN our Educators Network! [ Ссылка ]

Script:

I'm going to argue for the existence of God from the premise that moral good and evil really exist. They are not simply a matter of personal taste. Not merely substitutes for "I like" and "I don’t like."

Before I begin, let's get one misunderstanding out of the way. My argument does not mean that atheists can't be moral. Of course atheists can behave morally, just as theists can behave immorally.

Let’s start then with a question about good and evil: ‘Where do good and evil come from?"

Atheists typically propose a few possibilities. Among these are evolution, reason, conscience, human nature, and utilitarianism.

I will show you that none of these can be the ultimate source of morality.

Why not from evolution? Because any supposed morality that is evolving can change. If it can change for the good or the bad, there must be a standard above these changes to judge them as good or bad. For most of human history, more powerful societies enslaved weaker societies, and prospered. That’s just the way it was and no one questioned it. Now we condemn slavery. But based on a merely evolutionary model, that is an ever-changing view of morality, who is to say that it won’t be acceptable again one day? Slavery was once accepted, but it was not therefore acceptable. And if you can’t make that distinction between accepted and acceptable, you can’t criticize slavery. And if you can make that distinction you are admitting to objective morality.

What about Reasoning? While reasoning is a powerful tool to help us discover and understand morality, it cannot be the source of morality. For example, criminals use reasoning to plan a murder -- without their reason telling them that murder is wrong. And was it reasoning -- or something higher than reasoning -- that led those Gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust? The answer is obvious: it was something higher than reasoning -- because risking one’s life to save a stranger was a very unreasonable thing to do.

Nor can conscience alone be the source of morality. Every person has his own conscience and some people apparently have none. Heinrich Himmler, chief of the brutal Nazi SS, successfully appealed to his henchmen’s consciences to help them do the ‘right’ thing in murdering and torturing millions of Jews and others. How can you say your conscience is right and Himmler’s wrong if conscience alone is the source of morality? The answer is you can’t.

Some people say ‘human nature’ is the ultimate source of morality. But human nature can lead us to do all sorts of reprehensible things. In fact, human nature is the reason we need morality. Our human nature leads some of us to do real evil, and leads all of us to be selfish, unkind, petty and egocentric. I doubt you would want to live in a world where human nature was given free reign.

Utilitarianism is the claim that what is morally right is determined by whatever creates ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number.’ But to return to our slavery example: if ninety percent of the people will get great benefit from enslaving the other ten percent, would that make slavery right? According to utilitarianism it would.

We’ve seen where morality can’t come from. Now let’s see where it does come from.

Fo the complete script, visit [ Ссылка ]

свернуть