The Self-Defeating Nature of Atheism: Frank Turek & Ben Shapiro Deconstruct Alex O’Connor

Popular Atheist Alex O'Connor defends his position that free will doesn't exist if Atheism is true, but also, it doesn't exist if theism is true either... Christian apologist Frank Turek and Jewish political commentator Ben Shapiro debate with Alex and share their views with him on why free will is both necessary and true, in addition to critiquing the incoherency of the atheistic view of free will and why reason is impossible without it.

Clips used:

My name's Ollie J, and my goal is to help you better understand the Gospel so you can more confidently live out your walk with Jesus. My secondary goal is to get Jesus back into the cultural conversation, so if you wanna help me on that mission, then smash the subscribe button & turn on notifications so you don’t miss the next one. However, if you're not yet a Christian and are currently exploring the faith, then this channel exists to educate and edify you on your journey. God bless you in Jesus glorious name.

0:00 - Intro
0:53 - Alex’s View On Free Will (Alex vs Ben)
8:28 - Short Commentary (Alex’s Fundamental Fallacy)
10:17 - Frank Turek’s Response To Alex On Free Will
13:09 - Why Atheists Need To Take Free Will Seriously

[MarkH-cuzi]

Sigh.... Turek's arguments are usually terrible. "How can I trust my own thinking to be true?" Turek and Lennox act like this is some sort of gotcha question.

1. We are made of atoms... there is no 'if' about it.
2. We don't have much option as you cannot outsource your thinking to a mainframe or someone else
3. We _mostly_ trust our thinking to be true because it has served us for most of our waking moments all our lives. Every time we go do to something we rely on our brains abilities. After passing millions of tests, we mostly trust it.

Nothing to do with gods here...

[Shimiphew]

I need help understanding the "If there is no free will we can't trust what Alex [anyone] says..." argument💭.

How does anything/everything being predetermined undermine any and all ability to make accurate statements and perceptions about the world?💭
Additionally, it seems like there's a lot of presuppositions going on about intelligent creators to resolve such a (would be) conundrum.

Finally how does introducing a soul get past the problem Alex raised in the intro? Are you expanding on Ben's argument of "deciding being"?

[James-reco]

Consider the amount of time and energy that has been expended debating this kind of stuff. Are we any closer to resolution? Has anyone changed the beliefs of the other in any way, shape or form?

[Lukorax]

This comment basically addresses the entire video as I watched it. I am an atheist and I do not believe free will exists. First off - atheism only has to do with whether or not you are convinced a god exists. Saying someone is "convinced of atheism" shows you didn't even bother to understand basic definitions. Also, how is Alex saying that if we don't understand something it must be untrue? Where did Alex commit the argument from incredulity? He gave an example that if you trace every thought to either an external cause or a random cause, it creates an endless loop of thoughts and actions that are either the cause of something external or due to random physical processes in the brain. Meaning free will is an illusion. With the airplane example, you are basically saying that optical illusions must be legitimate because we can perceive movement and therefore it is self-evident. That is not an effective way to determine objective truth. Most people throughout history had "intuitions" about deities and the supernatural because they didn't understand how anything worked. It also doesn't help to be born with your parents telling you that it is Zeus making the lightning because he is angry rather than actually trying to figure out what it is. It's almost like the less you know about reality, the more likely you are to attribute everything to the supernatural, which is why we see a decline in religion as knowledge increases. When it comes to atheism defeating reason, you could ask yourself the same question from a theist perspective. How do I know if anything I am experiencing is accurate? How do I know I am not just a brain in a jar on an alien planet being fed illusions to make me feel like I have a relationship with a god? There is no way for any of us to know if we are that brain, and it is just a cop-out for trying to act like your beliefs in fairy tales somehow makes you immune to these questions. How does belief in a soul make free will exist? Wouldn't that mean that from the beginning of time, god had an entire plan laid out for you that you have no control over and are completely subject to? That may make the argument for free will even worse. Final point - If I were to freeze the universe in place right now as I go to "decide" whether I should hit the like button or not, I could use a quantum computer to calculate the trajectories of every single electron moving down my synapses in my brain and the computer could tell exactly which neurons would fire and predict with perfect mathematical accuracy if I would click the like or not. That doesn't sound very free to me...

[malirk]

It amazes me how Frank forgets that God doesn't just know the future, God created everything. God also has a will that has a plan. So all things happen within God's will where God has created everything and God knows what will occur.

Frank and others often use the analogy of taping a football game. It's true that if you tape a football game, you didn't cause the events to happen even though they're now determined. However, you're not a God. God would have taped the football game and created all the circumstances for the football game to play out the way it does while knowing all the circumstances that would make it occur the way it does.

Alex is right and Frank's apologetics don't work.
In a world with the Christian tri-omni God, free will doesn't exist.

[waynefisher]

The reason Shapiro is “deconstructing” Alex now without him present is because the complete tool got his ass kicked in his debate against Alex. Being able to speak fast does not mean you are intelligent.

[switchie]

14:25 Okay, so, listen.
You want to be respected by atheists, at the very least, correct?
As an atheist myself, I find your statements in the next few seconds here apalling behaviour, on your part.
I don't get why you think that way of us, but it's uncalled for.
You said you praise Alex O'Connor for his intellectual consistency, and I just don't get why you seem to think that that doesn't apply to other atheists.
And the Bible verses about non-belivers?
Yeah, that's pretty disrespectful, if you ask me.
But what do I know?
I just hate God and want to sin, apparently.

[switchie]

13:22 I could be wrong, but I think what is meant by those biologists' assertions is simply the fact that, despite the processes of thought and other bodily functions being physical, and material in nature, is as follows; We can *choose* how to express ourselves.
We can *choose* what to wear.
We can *choose* what to eat.
We can *choose* how to live.
But ultimately, we cannot choose what we are convinced by.
We cannot choose the biological and psychological errors that may develop within us.
We cannot choose what gender we are attracted to.
We cannot choose whether the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old.
We cannot choose whether or not the stars in the night sky are lightyears away from us, or that they will eventually die out when they burn up the last of their fuel.
We cannot choose how fast the Earth rotates, nor the rate at which the Moon is drifting away from it.
We cannot choose whether or not Evolution is a fact of nature, as it is beyond our control.
We cannot choose to live in a different galaxy; Not only because it is currently impossible with the technology we have, but also because of how vast the Universe truly is.
So yes, lots of things are beyond control.
That said, not all those things are good.

[S.D.]

Free will SEEMS self evident but so does the idea all points in time aren't equally real sometimes the truth is counterintuitive I not only don't see any logical problem with free will not existing I don't see how it could logically exist

[brotherben]

I read your biography, mate. It said that you didn’t believe in God but hated him. I just don’t get it. It’s a logical contradiction.

Did you grow up in any tyoe of religious environment? Were you educated in Christianity from childhood in school, the church or in your community? It sounds like you have early childhood programming which you resorted back to, but forgive me if I’m way off.

[paulnz]

As an atheist who massively respects Alex, I do not agree with his notion that we lack free will. Whilst Alex correctly argues that you can logically regress all points in a chain of mental activity back to two factors which both lead to a termination in free will, he is suggesting that it is a linear regression with each point leading back to a single regress point. But there are usually multiple external and multiple internal reasons for someone making even the simplest decision (which extend out from each other akin to tree branches), and whilst each of those factors may terminate in a lack of free will, we have the free will to choose which of those pathways we choose to go down. Its like someone saying you MUST travel from L.A to New York but you can choose what route you take.

HOWEVER, I do not believe it follows that in order to have free will you must have a soul, and in order to have a soul there must be a God. To have free will you simply require multiple outcomes to a scenario and the autonomy to choose one of those outcomes based on a subjective set of preferences. We see animals do this all the time - a cat who wants to sleep has the option to sleep on its comfy bed in the shade or on uncomfortable concrete in the shade. It make the decision to sacrifice one variable in favour of another based on its preference for either comfort or warmth.

The problem is we, as self-aware humans, are arrogant enough to think a) we're special enough to be the only animals that possess free-will and b) that an all powerful being gave us that ability because of - see a)

Ollie, I found your analogy at 9:00 about the airplane interesting because you equate the aeroplane to free will, but the airplane is actually equivalent to _choice_ . Alex freely admits we makes choices, he just argues they are not _free_ choices. So your analogy is more like: You both agree there is an aeroplane in the sky (a choice being made) but Alex believes the plane is on autopilot whereas you believe a human pilot is controlling the plane - its ironic that if that pilot was a father he would be a "sky daddy" :) But where I disagree with you is that that pilot was divinely created and that actually the plane, and the pilot inside, is being guided by a giant invisible hand.

Occam's razor suggests, until there is evidence to suggest otherwise, that we, like many other animals on this planet, have developed enough intelligence to form subjective opinions based on learned experiences and modify our behaviour accordingly. We don't need any of the Gods created by man to help explain that.

[Theo_Skeptomai]

There is no such thing as 'objective' morality.

Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain dilemma).

Like all cognitive assessments, moral assessments always and necessarily involve the subject's own considerations. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE.

Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral, just as everyone else does.

[tomfrombrunswick]

What is this we are just atoms and molecules stuff. Are you saying that we are not animals which are made of matter? Are you saying that we are physical bodies which contains non material thing which does our thinking? What evidence do you have for it?
The debate has some stupid elements. When we speak of logic it is a construct that was developed by some Greek chaps long ago. it is largely a form of Rhetoric. That is a style of argument. Deduction is dead as a means of exploring reality. What we now use is induction. Rather than being an internal thought process this is a form of enquiry which is broadly a group process. it has evolved to overcome the shortcomings of the human thought process. So someone comes up with a theory they test it. They show the process to others. Others can duplicate the process cruise it etc. The end point of this is knowledge.
The way people navigate through life is not by following a series of syllogisms. People learn from others develop skills practice. This is something than you see every day. CS Lewis is an idiot who pickled his brain in alcohol. He in no way has insight into how knowledge works in a practical sense

[lordfarquaad]

Hey Ollie, I recently came across your channel. I truly respect you, as it’s clear you are an intelligent, eloquent, and open-minded individual (which is quite refreshing because dogmatism is far too common among theists and atheists alike).

With that being said, I do disagree with much of what you say—for context, I am an atheistic agnostic. I’d love to chat with you (or debate, whether formally or informally) about some of these ideas if you would be open to it. Of course, I fully consent to you recording and uploading/streaming if you’d like to get content out of it.

I’m primarily just interested in having a civil, intellectual discourse with a well-read person on the opposing side. If you think you might be interested, feel free to reply to this and I’ll share my email and we can go from there. I’d be more than happy to share a bit about my background so you know that this would be a fruitful conversation rather than a waste of time.

Let me know if you are potentially interested (and please ignore this account name and picture, I don’t have a YouTube account registered under my email I use for academia, ik Lord Farquaad isn’t the best look haha)

[reformCopyright]

The C. S. Lewis quote at 11:46 commits a black and white fallacy that theists often employ: "If God (why not some other god?) designed my brain for reason, then I can use reason to conclude that God exists. Otherwise, I can't trust my own brain, senses, and thought *at all".* He asks "How can I trust my own thinking to be true?", but doesn't stop to even try to answer that question. Yes, our senses are sometimes unreliable. But by cross-checking with others and by constructing clever instruments that help us yield reproducible measurements, we can be reasonable certain about many things and have a decent clue about many others. Why would thought being the result of chemical reactions in our brains mean that we *can't* trust our own thinking to be true (to a greater or lesser degree)? It doesn't follow. And merely *asserting* a god doesn't *change* the fact that or thoughts *are* the result of mere chemical reactions, as far as we can tell, even if there's a god behind everything.

[AlphaQ]

Ben’s example doesn’t make sense . Sleep occurs to all beings . it is the body’s
Way of rejuvenating and the same with waking because the senses get stimulated. Thee is nothing pre- deterministic about that . We appear to make choices about whether we stay in bed for another 5 minutes or whatever else.

[theoutspokenhumanist]

My take on free will is far more simple then that argued here. How can we have free will if the God of the bible is real?
Jewish, Christian and Muslim theology teaches that our sole purpose is to worship god and we will be punished if we use the freedom granted us in ways of which God does not approve. Therefore, the best we have is the illusion of free will granted by a tyrant. I can tell my slave he is free but if I still demand that he serve me and I beat him for something he does, he is not free.

These philosophical arguments are fascinating but ultimately of no use.
There remains one simple inescapable truth, that there is no verifiable, conclusive evidence supporting the existence of a god. The Theistic notion of God is based entirely upon the Hebrew bible, with later additions for Christians and Muslims, but we have no way to distinguish the stories therein from pure invention. They only seem convincing to theists because of their familiarity. Every culture around the world has always had some form of creation story, leading to mythological and then semi-mythological history and, that it seems is precisely what the bible does. Taken on their own merits and without bias, the best we can say of these competing ideas is that some seem more outlandish, to us, than others but we cannot say which, if any, of them is true.
Therefore, without any way to demonstrate the truth or facts of theism, atheism is a valid choice.

[KOH-gput]

Volume of words does not equate to volume of truth or wisdom. The truly wise pack massive information into bite size portions for the masses.

[JohanJonasson]

Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God. If God knows what you will do, then you can do nothing to the contrary of that knowledge. Many theologians have wrestled with this problem rather than just dismissing it like Turek did.

[Loverofjesus]

I appreciate Alex O'Connor's consistency in his atheistic views, but I pray for his soul, and hope one day he may see this differently.