Majesty of Reason | Why atheists can blame Trent Horn for his bad arguments @MajestyofReason | Uploaded April 2024 | Updated October 2024, 10 hours ago.
Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent) recently argued that atheists cannot blame Christians for anything. In this video, I explain why he's wrong.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid
OUTLINE
0:00 Intro
1:00 Definitions
1:48 Trent’s video
4:24 Are atheists blaming Craig?
6:05 ‘Should’ implies alternative possibilities?
8:14 Power to change the future
8:50 Linguistic incaution
10:39 Sapolsky
11:49 Trent’s core argument
16:11 What’s the difference???
20:12 Leeway freedom
24:22 Atheism and reductive physicalism
25:51 Humans vs. animals
28:24 Libertarianism and laws of nature
32:55 Does theism preclude moral responsibility?
38:56 Luck objection
42:43 Punishment and moral responsibility
47:07 Old Testament God = North Korea
48:53 Clarifying compatibilism
51:54 Trent contra compatibilism
54:19 Trent’s second argument
57:21 Frankfurt cases
1:04:20 Flickers of freedom
1:11:02 Resources and conclusion
CORRECTIONS
(1) In the section entitled "Should’ implies alternative possibilities?", I contest the idea that 'S should φ' implies 'S could do something alternative to φ-ing'. I think my counterexamples to that idea are correct, but I don't think they actually address Trent's claim in the preceding clip. In particular, Trent's claim was instead that 'S should φ' implies 'S could φ'. Importantly, though, many of my examples can be modified to motivate denying this claim too. For instance, just imagine the boulder-trapping-arm case to be one in which you're compelled *not* to hack off your arm by your psychology (maybe you're very queasy). Still, it seems like you *should* hack off your arm!
LINKS
(1) My Response Videos playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaNtpoOwEZm9fuJq423BUrW
(2) My Free Will playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka4SMFOH-KH-hdJoTz6fG5F
(3) My Common Mistakes playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK
(4) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4
(5) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid
Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent) recently argued that atheists cannot blame Christians for anything. In this video, I explain why he's wrong.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): patreon.com/majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid
OUTLINE
0:00 Intro
1:00 Definitions
1:48 Trent’s video
4:24 Are atheists blaming Craig?
6:05 ‘Should’ implies alternative possibilities?
8:14 Power to change the future
8:50 Linguistic incaution
10:39 Sapolsky
11:49 Trent’s core argument
16:11 What’s the difference???
20:12 Leeway freedom
24:22 Atheism and reductive physicalism
25:51 Humans vs. animals
28:24 Libertarianism and laws of nature
32:55 Does theism preclude moral responsibility?
38:56 Luck objection
42:43 Punishment and moral responsibility
47:07 Old Testament God = North Korea
48:53 Clarifying compatibilism
51:54 Trent contra compatibilism
54:19 Trent’s second argument
57:21 Frankfurt cases
1:04:20 Flickers of freedom
1:11:02 Resources and conclusion
CORRECTIONS
(1) In the section entitled "Should’ implies alternative possibilities?", I contest the idea that 'S should φ' implies 'S could do something alternative to φ-ing'. I think my counterexamples to that idea are correct, but I don't think they actually address Trent's claim in the preceding clip. In particular, Trent's claim was instead that 'S should φ' implies 'S could φ'. Importantly, though, many of my examples can be modified to motivate denying this claim too. For instance, just imagine the boulder-trapping-arm case to be one in which you're compelled *not* to hack off your arm by your psychology (maybe you're very queasy). Still, it seems like you *should* hack off your arm!
LINKS
(1) My Response Videos playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkaNtpoOwEZm9fuJq423BUrW
(2) My Free Will playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXka4SMFOH-KH-hdJoTz6fG5F
(3) My Common Mistakes playlist: youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRhaLyXxXkY8lCiJY7XZFkfBChK1VdMK
(4) The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy: amazon.com/Majesty-Reason-Critical-Thinking-Philosophy/dp/B086FW6XV4
(5) My Springer book: (a) amazon.com/Existential-Inertia-Classical-Theistic-Proofs/dp/3031193148 (b) link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-19313-2
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid
