John opens the show by saying that while we don’t know if there is a God, there is definitely morality in this world. Ken brings up Dostoyevsky, who says that if God is dead then everything is permitted, meaning that there is no distinction between right and wrong and that thus there is no morality. Dostoyevsky is dead, says John, and many modern philosophers don’t rely on God in their attempt to understand the essence of morality. But isn’t it much harder to establish the groundwork of morality when you give up on God, asks Ken? John then brings up a dilemma that goes back to the days of Plato: is murder wrong because God prohibits it? Or does God prohibit murder because it is wrong? Ken believes that the idea of a God gives us a chance to start understanding morality and that a secular world has no chance to explain absolute morality. John asks why he should care about such a creator of the universe if what he has created is quite a mess; the duo debate.

John and Ken welcome guest John Figdor, Humanist chaplain at Stanford University and co-author ofAtheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-First Century. Figdor is first asked what it is exactly a humanist chaplain does; he explains that his responsibilities consist of providing counseling for students on campus and advocating for a non-religious perspective, hosting large public events to educate the Stanford campus about atheism and non-religious belief, and hosting service projects like blood drives, park cleanups, and other charitable events. Ken asks Figdor why the humanist chaplain is included as a member of the Office of Religious Life? Figdor explains that religious programs should also include resources for students who have a different perspective or belief. John asks what one should think in the case of there being no God and thus no absolute morality. Figdor agrees that there is no such thing as absolute, objective morality; morality can only be subjective. This being said, not all opinions regarding the morality of acts are equally good. So is god the only possible source of morality, Ken asks? Figdor does not believe so.

How do we determine what is wrong? Can things justbewrong, a gut feeling, or is there a stronger basis for what we determine is morally acceptable? An example provided is the case of torturing children – isn’t there something objectively wrong about mistreating a child, regardless of circumstances? Figdor replies that such a situation is wrong, but not inherently, objectively binding; human opinions vary and must be taken into account in a discussion of objectivity. Ken expresses concern – is Figdor giving up the thought that it is objectively required for one to respect the child in question? John chimes in – perhaps there is no objectiverightview, but there are manywrongviews. John and Ken welcome audience participation, and the challenge of basing morality solely on secular roots, whether one needs God to live a moral life, and the question of whether there is an author to the laws of morality are further discussed.

• Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 7:45): Shuka Kalantari指的是特洛伊大学校长的声明——无神论导致道德堕落。舒卡与来自犹他州的福音派基督教牧师里克·亨德森(Rick Henderson)讨论了人们是否可以有主观的道德标准。里克解释说，正如克尔凯郭尔、萨特、C.S.刘易斯和加缪等许多哲学家和作家所主张的那样，人们的观点之间不存在客观的道德真理和价值差异。
  
• 60-Second Philosopher(翻到46点半):伊恩·肖尔斯(Ian Shoales)快速讲述了当前的文化战争，谈到了《美国狙击手》(American Sniper)，比尔·科斯比(Bill Cosby)强奸指控引发的推特羞辱事件，以及优秀的社交媒体的总体作用。