Responding to Ben Shapiro and Alex O'Connor

Recently, on an episode of The Big Conversation from Premier Unbelievable?, the well-known Daily Wire host and political thinker extraordinaire Ben Shapiro debated against Oxford graduate of philosophy and theology, Alex O’Connor. The resolution of the debate was the question: "Is religion good or bad for society?" Ben Shapiro is a monotheist who believes that the Judeo-Christian worldview, in particular, is good for society, while atheist Alex O’Connor, the YouTuber formerly known as "the Cosmic Sceptic," and host of the Within Reason podcast thinks otherwise. 

Moments after this debate was released to the public, Josh Klein and I delivered an initial response. Click here to view FTM: Ben Shapiro and Alex O'Conner Debate Reaction.

This was a lovely exchange of ideas with both gentlemen offering great points to dwell upon. In my opinion, however, given the specifically worded resolution of the debate, I believe that Ben Shapiro won as he continued to bring the conversation back to the topic of discussion: "What worldview is best for the flourishing of society?" Unless I missed something, I don't recall Alex O'Connor arguing that atheism was beneficial for society (he just thinks that atheism is true). In fact, at one point he made it clear that his job was not to "inspire optimism" because his worldview seemed so depressing. It's hard to see how such a depressing worldview can be good for society or anybody in particular, even if it happened to be true. 

On a side note, with the debate topic in mind, click here to view a discussion between Dave Rubin and Bret Weinstein. Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist, says:

"I think there was a terrible misstep with atheism . . . What it did was unhooked a set of protections . . . . If we could have . . . not temporarily flirted with the idea that simple atheism was somehow a sophisticated way of navigating through life, then maybe . . . who had long-standing Traditions that contained wisdom might have prevented this would have had more power when it mattered." 

Be that as it may, the arguments raised by Shapiro in this debate not only show that the Judeo-Christian framework is good for the flourishing of society, his arguments also provide reason to think that atheism is actually false, and that there is more to reality than merely physical matter and nature (the kinds of stuff studied and discovered by scientists). 

Of course, as a Christian theist, I recognize my biases (although I am careful to bracket them). With that said, although I believe Shapiro won the debate, I did not agree with everything he said. Moreover, sometimes, even when I agreed with him, I think he could have offered stronger arguments.

Disagreeing with Ben Shapiro

One point of disagreement I have with Ben Shapiro is around the 4:26 mark. Shapiro said that he does not think that we can prove or disprove the existence of God. Well, that depends upon what one means by “prove” and by “God.” Atheists have attempted to disprove the existence of God -- defined as a maximally great being (perfect in power, knowledge, and love) -- with different arguments based upon different problems of evil. Many philosophers, however, have offered defeaters to these arguments – and I have contributed to these counter-arguments in the academic literature and in academic publications (see A Molinist Response to John Schellenberg's Hiddenness Argument), and also my contribution to Faith Examined: New Arguments for Persistent Questions, Essays in Honor of Dr. Frank Turek).

Thus, given the defeaters offered in response to these arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5), the atheist’s attempts at proving that God does not exist have failed.

On the other hand, there’s a cumulative case of arguments (Alvin Plantinga has noted, “Two Dozen Or So”) that logically prove the existence of God – if the premises are true. These arguments seem to have strong premises – some stronger than others – so, in that sense, there is logical proof by way of valid arguments and deductive conclusions of the existence of God. Now, this is not necessarily the kind of proof that all find compelling, but, nonetheless, we see that it is possible to prove the existence of God. And, although it seems that none of the arguments from evil succeed, we see that if any of the arguments from evil were sound, it would be a disproof of the existence of God.

So, right off the bat I disagree with Ben Shapiro! I think it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of God, at least in a very important sense.

Agreeing with Ben Shapiro

Where I wholeheartedly agree with Shapiro is with what he refers to as “The Atheist Delusion.” Shapiro focused on three main points in which he highlights the fact that atheists cannot live consistently with their own worldview, and as Frank Turek wrote an entire book about, atheists need to “Steal from God” to argue against God (which is ultimately self-refuting). 

Shapiro focuses on three big issues that the Judeo-Christian worldview has logical access to, but atheism does not:

1- Free will

2- Morality

3- Reason

These are three topics that I have elaborated upon in published books and papers. I also discuss these issues extensively on this website and the FreeThinking Ministries YouTube channel. Let’s start with free will.

FREE WILL

At around the 4:52 mark, Shapiro says that,

“It is not possible for the atheist to live ideology purely in such a way that does not rely on faith principles.”

For example, he notes that the idea of free will – what these guys seem to have in mind is libertarian free will – is compatible and makes sense upon a Judeo-Christian framework, but it does not fit nicely with atheism or naturalism. J.P. Moreland and I elaborate in our recent paper An Explanation and Defense of the FreeThinking Argument: 

We are skeptical that some minimalist version of both naturalism and libertarian freedom are compossible . . . Moreland elaborates on this by adding that “the proper question is not, ‘Can a minimalist version of naturalism and libertarianism be shown to be logically consistent?’ Rather, it is ‘Given the most reasonable form of naturalism and theism as a rival worldview, is it more reasonable than not to believe that the existence of libertarian actions and agents are more at home in a naturalist worldview than a theistic worldview? What is the truth of the matter?’  . . . God creating humanity in his image and likeness with the power to be rational—and approximate to his perfect standard of knowledge—or not, provides a much better explanation than a robust naturalistic story of the world. With that in mind, libertarian freedom seems to be evidence pointing to the existence of God. That is a win for theism.

Be that as it may, everyone lives, thinks, acts, and talks as though they possess libertarian freedom. Thus, the atheist does not live consistently with his or her claims about reality.

I will discuss O'Connor's views of free will below, but the topic of free will is inextricably linked with the next two topics of rationality and morality. Let’s move to a discussion of right and wrong before circling back to free will issues. 

Morality

Like the concept of libertarian freedom, the idea of objective morality – objective goals in which we were created to attain and objective obligations we actually have the power to keep (or the power to break) – do not make sense on atheism or naturalism. I’ve recently advanced a new and improved moral argument showing that, despite the claims of overconfident critics on social media, the ideas behind the moral argument are strong, forceful, and ought to be appealed to when arguing for the existence of God.

Let’s look at an expanded version of the updated moral argument I like to offer:

1. If God does not exist, then humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.

2. If humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature, then objective moral purpose and obligations do not exist.

3. Objective moral purpose and obligations exist. (This seems more obvious than the existence of the physical universe.)

4. Therefore, humanity is not an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.

5. Therefore, God exists.

Here’s the deal: if the premises of this valid deductive argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. So, the question is raised, why think the premises are true? Let’s begin with a defense of the first premise: “If God does not exist, then humanity is an accident of nature and determined by nature.”

This seems true to most theists and atheists: If God does not exist, then humanity was not created on purpose or for a specific purpose. If that’s the case, and humans are a mere accident of nature, then there’s no objective standard, goal, or target toward which we were created to attain (no target we were created to hit). That is to say, if atheism is true, then there would be no objective standard – true apart from human opinion – which humans ought to approximate (when thinking or moving our bodies).

If that’s the case, and there’s no objective purpose to human existence, then it seems that you are entitled to your subjective opinion about what goals humans ought to have in mind, and Hitler is equally entitled to his subjective opinions on the matter. This is the case because if Hitler was not created for the purpose of loving Jews (and everyone else), then killing Jews (or anyone else) does not seem to violate any objective fact or teleological goal about his existence. This is a big problem for any atheist attempting to provide an account of objective morality.

But there’s more problems for the atheist. Let’s discuss objective obligations.

It seems that if God does not exist, then it’s likely true that humans do not possess the power and ability to think freely in a libertarian sense (this gets us back to Shapiro’s first point about free will – and it’s extremely relevant to morality). That is to say, if God does not exist, then it seems that humanity would probably be completely determined by antecedent (prior) conditions such as the laws and past events of nature. Moreover, these antecedent conditions would be (i) non-rational, (ii) non-moral, and – as Dr. Joshua Rasmussen has pointed out – (iii) “mindless stuff.”

Thus, if non-rational, non-moral, and mindless stuff determines Hitler to think (and how to think) about the Holocaust, want to undertake the Holocaust, and to actually follow through and kill six million Jews, then it is literally impossible for Hitler to refrain from thinking about, desiring to, and actually undertaking the killing of six million Jews. Hitler could not do otherwise – he could not even think about doing otherwise! The entirety of his thoughts and actions were all determined and necessitated by prior states of affairs (all mindless stuff).

But think about it. It’s absurd to hold persons responsible for the impossible.

Thus, if God does not exist, it doesn’t seem as if Hitler should be held responsible — or blamed — for the Holocaust. He was nothing but a passive cog or a caused cause. If anything, Hitler was a victim if atheism is true. Hitler was victimized by the mindless laws and events of nature. Indeed, if Alex O'Connor's views are true, then, just like tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis, the Holocaust was merely a natural disaster.

That doesn’t seem right, does it? 

However, if God exists, everything changes. This is because If God created humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose, then there would be objective facts about humanity irrespective of the subjective opinions from humanity. These objective facts would include moral facts regarding how we ought to think, live, and treat each other. So, if Christianity is true, then God not only creates humanity with specific purposes and teleological ends in mind, but He also endows humanity with libertarian freedom — the power to choose to approximate to the objective purpose of life (or not).

So, if Alex O’Connor is right, and we do not have free will, then morality goes down the drain. There is no objective standard – such as love or human flourishing – that we were created to attain and that we have the power to attain. That is, if O’Connor is right, then there is no objective Law above the Law. And if that’s the case, it follows from O'Connor's view that the Nazis were improperly convicted at Nuremberg. To be consistent, then, O'Connor should state that the Nazis were wrongly convicted (even if he subjectively doesn't like Nazis). 

That's quite the price tag to pay to keep one's atheism. Moreover, with the topic of debate in mind between Shapiro and O'Connor, it definitely does not seem that any view that entails that the Nazis were wrongly convicted is good for the flourishing of society. 

Speaking of which, the flourishing of humanity does not correspond to objective reality if atheism is true. And, on top of that, we have no control or power as to if we attain this subjective goal or not. No, if Alex O’Connor is right, then non-rational, non-moral, and mindless stuff determines if humans flourish or not. We are just matter in motion -- dust in the wind -- on his view. But as Shapiro pointed out, O'Connor does not live like that or talk like that – nor does the vast majority of humanity. Thus, we all seem to KNOW (call it a properly basic belief), that we do have libertarian freedom and the power and control to live according to the Law above human subjective opinion (which is the basis upon the legal conviction of the Nazis – or not. Thus, Alex O'Connor should drop his view.

So, Alex O’Connor’s views ultimately lead him to reject libertarian free will. That, in turn, leads him to not live consistently with the idea of objective morality that seems to be a self-evident truth (which is what Jefferson had in mind when crafting America’s Declaration of Independence).  

Finally – and even worse – O’Connor’s view leads him to self-destruction and an inability for O’Connor to rationally infer and reasonably conclude things like “atheism is true,” and that “we do not possess free will,” and much more. Indeed, O’Connor does not have access to that which he seems to hold dear: the ability to reason. Which, ironically, is at odds with the title of his Within Reason podcast. 

REASON

Shapiro made a great point and noted the following in his conversation with O’Connor, He said:

“Your entire podcast is based on the idea of reason . . .”

Now, the idea of reason is inextricably linked to that of libertarian freedom. In fact, in the essay referenced above, “An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument,” Moreland and I make this clear.  Basically, it can be summarized by noting that if humans do not possess the libertarian freedom to think -- if they are not the ultimate source of how they deliberate -- then this means that something non-rational, non-moral, and mindless exhaustively determines the entirety of human mental activity. Let’s just refer to this non-rational, non-moral, and mindless stuff as the laws and events of nature.

If the entirety of human mental activity is determined by non-rational, non-moral, and mindless laws and events of nature (which knows nothing of metaphysics), then we have reason to doubt our beliefs about metaphysical reality. This would include, but not be limited to the beliefs such as the idea that God does not exist or that humans do not possess the libertarian freedom to think. And if one does not have reason to believe we do not possess libertarian freedom, then one has not rationally inferred that he does not possess libertarian freedom. Indeed, he has no justification that he does not possess libertarian freedom.

So, if Alex O’Connor does not possess libertarian freedom, then he does not possess justification for his belief, and thus, he does not possess knowledge that he does not possess libertarian freedom. Indeed, if Alex O’Connor does possess knowledge that determinism is true, then determinism is false.

Heads I win, tails you lose!

But Alex O’Connor sure seems to think he possesses knowledge that determinism is true. Thus, he actually has justification to reject determinism and to affirm that he possesses the libertarian freedom to think. That is to say, Alex O’Connor is within reason to reject determinism and affirm that he is, indeed, a free thinker!

Make no mistake: affirming that the entirety of one’s mental activity is determined by non-rational, non-moral, and mindless stuff is utterly self-defeating.

Disagreeing with Ben Shapiro Again

Shapiro says:

"I think the arguments against God are fairly compelling and I think the arguments against atheism are fairly compelling. This is one of the things that I've said to Sam Harris . . . most people who believe in God have expressed doubts and a lot of people who are atheists tend to be more religious in this way."

While I agree that most atheists do seem to be "more religious" than many who affirm the existence of God, I have to disagree with Ben about his first sentence above. Arguments for atheism are NOT compelling! At least, I don’t find them to be compelling at all.

Let me be careful here and a bit more academic in my response. I guess, they might be kind of compelling at face-value. But, I have done the hard work in analyzing the premises of the best arguments raised against the existence of God, and they fail. I’ve published on what is supposed to be the toughest and most compelling arguments for atheism. See my paper co-authored with Jacobus Erasmus called, “A Molinist Response to John Schellenberg’s Hiddenness Argument” (linked above). See my contribution in a book entitled Faith Examined recently published by Wipf and Stock. My Chapter in the Faith Examined book is focused on defeating these so-called “compelling” arguments (also linked above).

So, I suppose I agree with Ben that at face value, these arguments might be compelling. I disagree with him, however, that these arguments – once carefully analyzed – continue to be compelling. With all that said, I do love what Shapiro has done here. He says he has not argued for God, but rather, against atheism. But, since God either exists, or He does not, if one can show that atheism is false, then some flavor of theism has to be true. Let’s entertain what Alex O'Connor said in response. 

At around the 8:38 mark, O'Connor said the following: 

"I am glad to begin on a point of agreement with you Ben. That yes, if there is no God, there is no free will. . ."

This is quite the admission from Alex O’Connor. If he believes this is true, then this means that if one can logically and deductively conclude that libertarian free will exists, then one has also concluded that God exists and that atheism is false. The argument would be structured like this:

1- If God does not exist, humans do not possess libertarian free will.

2- Humans do possess libertarian free will.

3- Therefore, God exists. 

Since O'Connor affirms the first premise, the heavy lifting will be found in supporting the second premise. Do we have reason to think that Premise (2) is true? Yes we do! Here’s one of many arguments J.P. Moreland and I advanced in the paper I mentioned earlier:

1 - If humanity does not possess the libertarian freedom to think, then humanity is never epistemically responsible.

2 - Humanity is occasionally epistemically responsible. (After all, to argue against this premise affirms it and to deny it raises a defeater against the denial of the premise.)3 - Therefore, humanity possesses the libertarian freedom to think.

Before proceeding it is vital to define what is meant by "epistemically responsible." An agent possesses epistemic responsibility if they have the control condition sufficient to necessitate the manner in which they think and deliberate when attempting to infer truth. So, a thinking thing (an active agent) is either sufficient to necessitate the manner in which one thinks, or something or someone else is sufficient to necessitate the manner in which one thinks. If it's the former, the agent is epistemically responsible. If it's the latter, something else is responsible for the manner in which one subjectively experiences sensations of deliberatings and ultimately what he or she believes. 

Now that epistemic responsibility is clarified, if this argument is sound, then, according to Alex O’Connor's claim . . . God exists! So, right off the bat, within O’Connor’s first few seconds of response, he shows that it's WITHIN REASON to reject his view of atheism.

O'Connor continues: 

 "The principal disagreement that I think I had with you Ben is that there was a subtle or not so subtle implication in my view that yes, with no God there's no free will, but somehow having God can solve this problem . . . . I suppose that I'm just confused as to what it would look like for somebody to act as if they believe there was no free will . . . you are essentially just a biological machine reacting to its . . . internal and evolutionary drives. That's what's happening. Now call that nihilistic if you like -- that's a separate question -- but as to the question of how this would make one act the idea that this might cause us to sort of lay around in bed all day or something

NOT SO FAST! Notice that Alex uses the words "make" and “cause.” He has determinism in mind. What is determinism? An event is determined if antecedent conditions are sufficient to necessitate said event. Now, Alex simply appeals to “drives” that determine us to eat breakfast, but this conversation is much more important than one's favorite cereal. We are discussing philosophical thoughts and ultimately our beliefs about ultimate reality. 

As I discussed in my book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism, choosing one’s beliefs based upon one’s greatest drives or desires is the epitome of irrationality! Ben Shapiro should have responded to O'Connor's claim that our greatest drives determine our choices by saying: “Facts don’t care about your feelings, your subjective greatest desires, or your greatest drives.”

Moreover, our beliefs definitely “cause” some things. For example, if you believe your dog died (even if he didn’t), then this belief causes you to cry and get depressed. As a result of this belief, you might even not get out of bed the next morning. Indeed, beliefs can have a huge impact upon our “drives.” What's more, thoughts and beliefs have actually been shown to cause the physical structure and chemical makeup of your brain to change – not the other way around (see, You Are Not Your Brain, by Dr. Jeffery Schwartz). But, yes, if one comes to believe that one has zero control of his thoughts, beliefs, actions, or behaviors, then it is sure to have a depressing impact upon most people. That does not seem to be good for the flourishing of humanity.

Moreover – as Shapiro notes in this debate -- studies have shown that those who believe that all things about them are determined by something or someone else, they are much more apt to cheat and be the kind of folks who are rather unsavory. So, this is important stuff. These ideas have consequences. They matter and it all has huge impacts upon our society. 

Agreeing with Ben Shapiro Again

Ben made a passing comment that shows that the same problems the naturalistic determinist possesses is also the same problems divine determinists (Calvinists) have. In fact, I just presented a paper at the EPS in San Antonio a couple weeks ago making this point. In fact, I go on to show how Calvinists have even more and bigger problems than the atheist who is a determinist.

I presented this paper in mid-November (2023) at the Evangelical Philosophical Society conference in San Antonio. Interestingly, during the Q&A I was asked if I was familiar with Alex O’Connor’s views on determinism. I said I was not, and when it was explained to me by the questioner I noted that my arguments served as a defeater against O’Connor’s position.

I then humorously cited Ben Shapiro and noted that rational folks don’t choose their beliefs based upon their greatest desires and that facts don’t care about O’Connor’s “greatest desires.” To my surprise, O’Connor debated Shapiro several days later on this very subject. 

Click here to see me deliver this paper to a room full of philosophers.

Let's continue analyzing their discussion. We finally get to hear O’Connor’s argument against libertarian free-thinking: 14:25

//It is in fact the case that Free Will doesn't exist. . . We can build an argument from a law of logic – the proposition that that P must either be true or false . . . . you can ask if mental activity is it determined or is it not . . . is it determined by anything else or is it completely undetermined by anything? if it's undetermined by anything then it's random and you're by definition not in control of that which is random. If it's determined by something then it's either determined by something further inside your mind or inside your brain or indeed inside your soul or it's determined by something external to your brain. If it's determined by something external to yourself. . . . exterior to yourself – if that's what's determining the action then clearly you're not in Ultimate control of that action. If it's something inside of yourself somewhere then all you do is push the problem back and you ask the question again is that thing determined or is it indetermined? it's random determined you keep going back until you either terminate in something outside of the self – something . . . undetermined and therefore random.//

Alex O’Connor offers the epitome of a false dichotomy. It is not true that if the entirety of your mental activity is not determined by something else, then you (the thing you refer to as “I”) are not in any control of the manner in which you think – and ultimately what you believe. Indeed, libertarians do not say that our mental activity is not determined by anything. We say that the manner in which I choose to think is determined by ME – the thing I refer to as “I”). As C.S. Lewis noted in his book Miracles (first published in 1947):

“Reasoning doesn’t ‘happen to’ us: we do it. Every train of thought is accompanied by . . . ‘the I think’.”

When a naturalist/determinist (like Alex O'Connor) says, "I don't believe in libertarian free will," the next question raised is: "what do you mean by 'I'"? Is this "I" in which you refer the *source* of the rejection of libertarian free will (LFW), or is the rejection of LFW determined by non-rational and mindless stuff? If it's the former, then you are a libertarian free thinker (by definition). If it's the latter, a huge defeater is raised against this rejection of LFW. It's self-defeating to argue against libertarian free thinking.

If determinism is true, then the entirety of O’Connor’s mental activity is caused, determined, and necessitated by non-rational and mindless stuff. The sensations of reasoning that O’Connor subjectively and passively experiences are “happening” to O’Connor, but he is not the one actively engaged or “piloting the ship” of reason. No, he’s nothing but a passive passenger who is simply along for the ride – not epistemically responsible for his thoughts or the ultimate destination (his beliefs) in which he finds himself. Thus, if O’Connor happens to have any true metaphysical beliefs, it’s the epitome of luck. And thus, any true metaphysical beliefs he happens to affirm do not count as knowledge as luck is the enemy of knowledge. 

With that in mind, consider another argument:

1- If Alex O’Connor’s view of atheism and free will is true, human mental activity is exhaustively determined by non-rational and mindless stuff.

2- If Alex O’Connor’s mental activity is exhaustively determined by non-rational and mindless stuff, then Alex O’Connor does not freely think in a libertarian sense.

3- If Alex O’Connor does not freely think in a libertarian sense, then Alex O’Connor is not rationally and epistemically responsible for his view of atheism and free will (rather, non-rational and mindless stuff is responsible for that much).

4- But, Alex O’Connor is rationally and epistemically responsible for his views of atheism and free will (this is the last premise O’Connor—or any rational atheist—should reject).

5- Therefore, Alex O’Connor freely thinks in a libertarian sense (O’Connor is a free thinker).

6- Therefore, Alex O’Connor’s mental activity is not exhaustively determined by non-rational and mindless stuff.

7- Therefore, Alex O’Connor’s view of atheism and free will is false.

Now, to be fair to O'Connor, after he made his claim that if God does not exist, then free will does not exist, he did go on to say that he believes that free will is simply impossible -- whether God exists or not. No matter, we can tweak the above argument ever-so-slightly to reach the same conclusions:

1- If Alex O’Connor’s metaphysical beliefs are true, human mental activity is exhaustively determined by non-rational and mindless stuff.

2- If Alex O’Connor’s mental activity is exhaustively determined by non-rational and mindless stuff, then Alex O’Connor does not freely think in a libertarian sense. (That's true by definition.)

3- If Alex O’Connor does not freely think in a libertarian sense, then Alex O’Connor is not rationally and epistemically responsible for his metaphysical beliefs (rather, non-rational and mindless stuff that knows nothing of metaphysics is responsible for that much).

4- But, Alex O’Connor is rationally and epistemically responsible for his metaphysical beliefs (this is the last premise O’Connor should reject).

5- Therefore, Alex O’Connor freely thinks in a libertarian sense (O’Connor is a free thinker).

6- Therefore, Alex O’Connor’s mental activity is not exhaustively determined by non-rational and mindless stuff.

7- Therefore, Alex O’Connor’s metaphysical beliefs are false.

So, although O’Connor’s metaphysical views on these matters are clearly false, the best he can accomplish here is to offer a tu quoque objection. Which simply means, “well, if it’s a problem for me it’s also a problem for you!” Which, as William Lane Craig once explained, is similar to kids on the playground responding “Well, so’s your old man!”

I should make a note that there seems to be different kinds of “luck problems” that apply to all people. But, although people are created equal, luck problems are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. Moreland and I discussed the best explanation and our best hope in our recent journal article (linked above):

"Ultimately, a person’s metaphysical and theological beliefs are either: (i) determined by something non-rational (and thus, untrustworthy), (ii) determined by a deity of deception (and thus, untrustworthy), (iii) random (and thus, untrustworthy), or (iv) caused by an intelligently designed free-thinking agent created in the likeness of a maximally great being (God) with cognitive faculties functioning properly (subject to no dysfunction) in an appropriate environment which can be aimed at truth if the agent is careful and handles his or her powers responsibly. The first three options leave us with skepticism and reason to doubt our metaphysical and theological thoughts and beliefs. Option (iv) is the best explanation and our best hope. However, the fourth option entails that one is free in a libertarian sense—not determined by something unreliable or someone who is untrustworthy.

If one believes that he or she is a rational free-thinker who is not ultimately mind-controlled by something (or someone) else, then one should reject the determinism that seems to follow from both . Instead, one ought to affirm that a supernatural God exists. Moreover, one ought to realize that he or she is a supernatural and immaterial active and rational free-thinking thing—a soul—created in God’s image and likeness, and who will survive the death of one’s physical body."

In other words, if Alex O'Connor's metaphysical beliefs are determined by non-rational and mindless antecedent conditions, then a defeater is raised against his metaphysical beliefs. If a deity determines Alex O'Connor's metaphysical beliefs, then a defeater is raised against his metaphysical beliefs. If Alex O'Connor's metaphysical beliefs are determined by non-rational, mindless, indeterminate, and random quantum events, then a defeater is raised against his metaphysical beliefs. 

However, if Alex O'Connor was created in the image and likeness of a Maximally Great Being who desires all people to know the truth about metaphysical reality (1 Timothy 2:4) and makes it possible for Alex O'Connor to carefully reason together (Isaiah 1:18) and actively take shallow philosophy captive before it takes him (Colossians 2:8), then the only reason to doubt Alex O'Connor's metaphysical beliefs is if it is clear that he is not being as careful as he should have been -- and could have been. 

But that entails libertarian freedom to think (which means O'Connor is simply wrong). 

Conclusion

In conclusion, many other points were raised during this fantastic discussion between Shapiro and O'Connor. For example, they began discussing slavery in the Bible and O'Connor asked why God could not make it clear that slavery was evil.

God did just that! Not only is selling others into slavery against their will one of the very first things the first book of the Bible makes clear is the epitome of evil (see, Can Anything Good Come From Slavery?), as we concluded above, on naturalism/determinism there is not anything objectively wrong with slavery, and those who sell others into slavery are slaves themselves to non-rational, non-moral, and mindless antecedent conditions. Slavery is nothing but a natural disaster on O'Connor's view -- exhaustively determined by the laws and events of nature. But if Christianity is true, as Genesis 50:20 makes clear, selling others into slavery against their will is the epitome of evil. 

Bottom line: I contend that the reason Christianity is objectively good for society is because it's objectively true and the teachings of Jesus correspond to reality! If atheism is true, however, there is no free will, there is no objective morality, and rationality goes down the drain. If biblical Christianity is true, then humans possess libertarian freedom, objective morality exists, and humans are rational and reasonable agents. Speaking of reason . . . 

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton