The final chapter of Dr. Mitch Stoke’s book. We want to thank Dr. Stokes for his work and for coming on our show (Ep.33 & 34). We also want to thank you all for watching/listening and sharing the links to such an interesting subject. Stay tuned for more!

We look at further implications of nihilism. If all life is pain, why not just end it now? What is an atheist to do with living nihilisticly? And of course, we cover the Christian theist response and the better explanation to the concept of moral truth.

We look at the consistent outcome of naturalism when it comes to morality – that of nihilism. Because definitions are important, we cover the definition of nihilism as there seems to be some misunderstanding of what it is and what it isn’t. We then look at why nihilism should result from belief in naturalism and the implications nihilism brings forth.

We look at Dr. Stokes’ take on the divine command theory to ground morality in an objective state and answer the objections to the infamous Euthyphro dilemma. The biggest argument is that the commands God gives appear to be arbitrary. In some ways that appear to be the case, however, God being God and not man requires us to look at the issue more closely.

We look at Dr. Stokes’ take on the divine command theory to ground morality in an objective state. This, of course, brings up the infamous Euthyphro dilemma. The argument is one that many bring up when objecting to the claim that God can coherently be the source of morality. In this episode, we cover the introduction to the dilemma and next episode we’ll cover the refutations of the objections.

We finish up this chapter with the discussion of Dr. Stokes’ critique of values when it comes to morality. If naturalism is true, there seems to be a lot of issues that result in understanding what values are and therefore what moral imperatives are. This is a lead up to his main argument of why the Christian God offers a better alternative to naturalism in making sense of moral reality.

We once again slow down to cover an important part of Dr. Mitch Stokes’ argument.  We want to be clear in our presentation of his arguments. While a non-careful reader could see Stokes going down the route of making a post-modernist argument this chapter and the next really set up his entire point of the need to ground morality in God and not in the case of naturalism.

In Chapter 15 we go over Dr. Stoke’s critique of Sam Harris’ well-being theory for objective morality.  It does appear that what Harris claims is objective is just another subjective standard.

In this second part of chapter 14, we continue to look at Sam Harris’ attempt to use well-being as an objective grounds for morality.  We look at well-being from a standpoint of whether it’s a moral good or more of a prudential good (a good thing to do rather than being good in and of itself).

We take this chapter a little slower since there are some big concepts to understand.  We look at Sam Harris’ attempt to define morality as being concerned with a creature’s well-being.  This measurable value gives morality a scientific component and allows it to be measured and objective.

Has Harris done what David Hume failed to do and given atheists a very big weapon in combating the claims of Christians?  That’s what we cover in this and the next two episodes.

Ethics is the principles by which people act morally. If the world is guided by evolution, where does morality come from? How do we make sense of what seems to be a strong desire to understand right and wrong? Does science hold the key to living our best atheist life now?

In this chapter, Mitch Stokes wants to clear up some misconceptions that both sides of moral realism seem to perpetuate.

Atheists need to provide a reason why anyone should be good. Some Christians insinuate that atheists should just go around being completely amoral. Both sides sometimes take part is talking past each other because morality is such an important and strongly felt topic.

We also get into what our friend, David Hume, attempted to form as his basis for a moral foundation. We then take that apart.

We come to the 3rd and final section of our book.  We open to the concept of morality and how the atheistic worldview deals with it.  With atheism, naturalism is the concept through which one looks at the world and all facts with.  Naturalism says nature is all there is – property and causes all have natural explanations.

So you can see where naturalism might have a little problem with the concept of objective moral standards.  How can one test that murder, rape, and lying are evil when those aren’t physical things?  And what is the Christian explanation?  Where should we stand?

We close the science section of the book with the discussion about whether or not science could even attempt to tell us whether or not God exists. But does the belief in God root itself scientifically and does it have an impact? We discuss!

Don’t worry – we start off explaining what metaphysics is and why it’s important. We then go in and discuss the failure of natural physicists to try and explain metaphysics using only a physics-based approach. We get partial and also discuss in what way people do come to their belief in God. Then we cap it off by asking the question, “Why does God allow us to fail in science?”.

Is this episode we attempt to explain…string theory! We also look at the strained relationship between general relativity and quantum mechanics and the trouble both are in. Oh, and that idea that scientists have this brilliant idea of making science look smart and logical – ya, seems like the best idea they have right now to find a working theory is to look for theories with beauty and elegance to them. A sober skeptic should have a correct understanding of how scientists work and look at their so call conclusions about God with skepticism if they can’t tell us what the physical universe looks like.

We take a look at the two most current theories of science, general relativity and quantum mechanics.  Those have to be the ones that are revealing truth to us!  Those are the cutting edge of discovery to how the universe functions and what it is made up of.  And those scientists tell us there is no God and no need for God.  Well except for the pesky fact that the scientists who came up with those theories don’t believe those theories are true…oh and both theories are diametrically opposed to each other. What was it they said about God again?

Alright, look!  Science may be hard and it may not be as sterile as we think it is, but look at what science has given us!  You can’t argue with success, right?  Well, sure, we have technology and answers that advance theories.  But – haven’t we always had that even when the theories turned out to be wrong?  Can a theory work without actually being true?  That’s the topic of the chapter we cover in this part one of two episode.