Please don't forget to check out Fishers Network and consider starting a crew in your parish to address this urgent need in the world today: www.fishersnetwork.com.
Please don't lie like this. Its disingenuous and manipulative, and is immoral by definition. It reflects poorly on Christians everywhere, and it harms our faith. You are harming the process of proselytizion and ultimately dooming the Christian faith by doing this. Evolution 100% explains morality. All social animals demonstrate moral structures which relate to their living and survival conditions -- wherein acting within those structures improves their group cohesion which increases the odds of their survival. Mutual cooperation is a force multiplier for survival. Moral code is culture or religion claiming credit for something evolution did to insist that its worth your time -- even though the religion adds lots of disadvantageous behaviours because as it turns out almost every holy scripture in every faith also wants humans to turn on each-other (see: every holy war in history and every family broken by faith without moderation). Why? Because at some point, the meme that constructs a faith wants to proliferate even at the cost of its hosts life. Instead, you should consider evolution itself and its beautiful intricacy part of God's plan. Why the gift of faith exists. How it works. The fact that humans eons ago didn't understand the word of god when they transcribed it and did their very very best to understand with the tools and understanding available in their own time should not shock you. You shame the faith with your inability to recognize beauty and truth where it exists with the gifts which have been given to you. Shame on you. Be a better Christian.
I was vehemently anti-Catholic and borderline atheist with no religious affiliation. One day I woke stirred by the spirit to go to the Catholic Church which I thought was so weird. But I went. That very day they announced RCIA starting the next day. So I went. And I kept going. But at the end around February I was still unconvinced of the real presence of Christ in Eucharist. So I prayed and said God if you give me a Eucharistic miracle I will tell everyone how real it is. And I kid you not, on my birthday March 5th a Eucharistic miracle was granted. You can google it. It was the first in the USA. And I’ve been attending the Latin mass every single week 1-2 times per week with weekly confession. I believe 100%. I truly pray everyone who is on the fence or unsure just give it a try and pray with an open heart.
That can't be true , looks like that was at a Norvus Ordo Parish 🤔 Sorry so sorry I had to throw that jab in there. Are they a TLM parish ? But anyway it is wonderful that you have come to the Church . May our Lord continue to bless and guide you.
@@lonniestoute8762 I actually started and did RCIA at novus ordo. I don’t personally have anything against NO mass since that’s where I was formed. However, after RCIA I somehow learned about the TLM and was compelled to go and try. And my wife and I fell in love with it. I know this sounds kinda weird, but I almost feel like the Lord is going to use me somehow as part of the remnant church. I say that because I was truly Anti Catholic. Like ANTI catholic. And yet, somehow I had the most overwhelming feeling of the holy spirit working in me and overcoming me to go to the church that day in a way I probably wouldn’t have believed if someone else told me it happened to them. And to go from that to regularly praying the rosary, devoting to our lady, and somehow ending up in the most traditional form of Catholicism honestly just puts a smile on my face. The Lord knows what he’s doing.
One thing I want to add to the story that I didn’t say… I was going through a hiatus from religion but I had been studying Islam for about 3 years. And I came to believe it was a false religion. And I felt spiritually homeless and sort of just fell into a life of sin and debauchery. But I did say a prayer a couple of times before the spirit moved me to go, where I simply prayed “God, I will go wherever you want me to go. I don’t care if it’s a mosque a synagogue or a church I just want to be near you. Please don’t let me go down the wrong path.” I wanted to know God, I just didn’t know where to find him or what it would mean or where he would guide me. I’m so thankful he answered my prayers and I truly believe that he will answer anyone who asks in true faith. I had no agenda. I was a very broken sinner living in extreme sin. But I did want to change.
Not one of your strongest. I struggle to understand the argument. 1. It seems like the first examples significantly undermine the entire argument. It appears evident that there is no mind-independent way of parking correctly, although it elicits strong emotions. Clearly depends on reducible normative facts (how to park). Atheists can simply respond in the same manner regarding moral realism. 2. The assertion seems to rely on a heavily contested empirical premise that 'Evolution and natural selection do a really poor job of accounting for why a person should make those kinds of sacrifices since it competes with our survival and our reproduction'. This represents a misunderstanding of evolution, evolution can clearly explain why people sacrifice themselves in wars. 3. The term 'rational perception' is quite loaded and seems insufficient for a full explanation. Furthermore, how does your theory address the fact that people, including experts, often have profound disagreements about moral issues? Are those who disagree with your perspective simply less rational, or is there another explanation for these discrepancies? Rational perception doesn't do any explanatory work. 4. The argument simply assumes that moral realism is true. Fine. Well then, sir, please tell me where these facts reside, how we have knowledge of them, and how God is relevant to them.
I think you seriously misunderstand evolution. 1) “Evolution favors selfishness” - usually, yes. But humans are super-social beings, that form large group that allow them to survive better. Morality is an adaptation to social life. Cohesive groups comprised of moral individuals could collaborate, survive & outcompete fractured groups. 2) Humans have evolved from lower, unsocial animals, who acted individually and whose instincts are thus wired towards selfishness. Even chimpanzees aren’t as extremely social as we. We still possess the lower, selfish, animal nature; but above it, we have a relatively recent layer of human prosocial adaptations, which we call “conscience”, “super ego”, “the spirit” (as opposed to the flesh). I highly recommend evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind”. He delves there into the evolution of morality, & has some important (and, surprisingly enough, conservative) insights about politics, religion & the social order.
Everything that Brian said in this video, has clearly demonstrated to me, how morality has not evolved. Hence I reject your unproven allegation (speculative counter theories) because you have not satisfied your own burdens of proof.
Another problem with evolutionarily explanations of morality is that in a purely material universe there is simply no place for free will. Atoms and molecules in our brains undergo chemical reactions according to strict rules of physics and thermodynamics, they go they go from a high free energy state to a lower one. They can't choose which way they go. So the idea of any of us making decisions is an illusion, the decisions happen as a result of internal conditions and external stimuli and we appear to choose them. That undermines any idea of morality and undermines the very foundations of science itself, since the greatest science is not the result of conscious thought but of purely arbitrary processes and circumstances.
I don't see, why this worldview should be a problem. It would take a calculatory power, that has to be in a system, which is bigger than the universe, to calculate predictions about the universe. So even if technically everything would be predetermined, noone could ever use that to flawlessly predict the future. So the illusion will always be there. Also not every scientist believes in this scenario. We don't even know yet, if the universe is deterministic (predictable by the physical processes). There are some theorems, that indicate, that quantum mechanics might be non-deterministic.
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️You are all missing the point. Point is that evolution is a weak dumb funny primitive dated theory which was already debunked & only the heretical "Thomistic" institute holds on to it
*_"in a purely material universe there is simply no place for free will"_* As opposed to...? What? Souls? How could souls interact with our brains exactly? Being immaterial and all. But since we have free will and no evidence for anything immaterial like souls or anything supernatural, your point is moot anyway. *_"making decisions is an illusion, the decisions happen as a result of internal conditions and external stimuli and we appear to choose them."_* These two statements are in direct conflict. *_"since the greatest science is not the result of conscious thought but of purely arbitrary processes and circumstances."_* Yes, your strawman from ignorance undermines the foundations of science. Maybe study neuroscience and psychology before writing your nobel prize acceptance speech.
We've evolved to be a social species. Cooperation is highly beneficial for fitness, otherwise we'd each be fending for ourselves. These moral theories and moral abstractions are built on top of intuitions about fairness and empathy, which are found in many animals besides humans. These moral intuitions aren't strict laws, that is why there is such variation in moral opinions based on the specific circumstance. Example: You said lying is wrong, right? What if I see a man with a knife chasing a woman. At a crossroads the woman goes left and the man asks me which way she went. I know there are police officers the way I came, where I could easily direct him but I would be lying. Should I lie or be truthful? The point here isn't to get you to say I should lie, but for me to say my intuition says lying is the morally correct thing to do here
From the purely darwinistic perspective, two competing goals need to both be accomplished to pass on your genes: Your tribe must survive and exterminate all other tribes they compete with, and you must dominate within your tribe. The first goal requires cooperative instincts, while the second goal requires selfish machiavellianism. The fact that humans exhibit both of these is a consequence of this balancing act. Further, the rest of your tribe is part of your environment. If your tribe is unstable and you are more likely to be backstabbed, it's better to be more suspicious and less trusting, but if your tribe is generally kinder to eachother, it pays to be at least seen as more of a team player. This also explains why the social environment a kid grows up in greatly affects their adult personality. Victims of abuse are less trusting because the existence of violence is a strong indicator of a low-trust tribe, therefore the brain is built to adapt to this by being less trusting. Sociopathy can be induced in a child through abuse and neglect, precisely because in a hellish society, being sociopathic might be the only thing that keeps your genes alive, however a kid raised in a "healthy" family with lots of support will be more trusting and gullible, but also generally more intelligent and productive as an adult, because they don't need to waste as many mental resources doubting everyone all the time. Generally, ethnocentrism is selected for. Positive ethnocentrism is selflessness specifically towards those genetically similar to yourself, and negative ethnocentrism is noncooperation with those genetically dissimilar to yourself. Most humans throughout most of history were proudly ethnocentric, however a group that is too aggressively genocidal will generally fall to a coalition of groups that stand to oppose them (see the fate of the Assyrian Empire for an example), therefore some ability to, at least in the short term, cooperate with other groups is preserved. This ability was taken to it's extreme in Western (christian) civilization, and allowed that civilization to conquer the whole world. I think there's more to it than that, obviously, because I believe in the genuine divinity of Jesus and his holy Catholic Church, however my point is that a non-religious explanation does exist. Violent, genocidal ethnocentrism was generally how the world operated before Christ. God's chosen people were not an exception to this, as can be seen by their strong ethnocentrism and genocidal wars recorded in the old testament. I think this goes to show the unrivalable genius of God's plan, that through this people he brought forth himself to form a new covenant, that would make brothers in Christ of all who would choose to follow him. Christianity is the cure to the endless genocide and barbarism that was how the Pagan world operated, because Christ is our Lord and Savior.
As someone who does believe evolution can fully explain morality I have a couple of issues with this video. You make an analogy with physical traits evolving by saying that all organisms in a particular environment have the same physical traits as those that have evolved to fit that environment, however this is not true. Evolution can work with small differences and to take the beaks of a certain bird species as an example, not all members of a species will have the same beak, in fact very few to maybe even none of the birds will have the exact same beak. This is the variety and individual differences that are the engine of evolution. If all members of a species were the same then evolution could not occur. So evolutionary theory doesn't predict that we would find members of a species to be the same, in fact the opposite is true, we would expect all kinds of differences between individuals in a population of evolving organisms. Secondly you use this idea of members of a species being the same as a jumping off point to talk about morality however, you never actually defined morality in your video so I am unsure exactly what you mean by morality. One definition of morality that I like is an interconnected system of moral standards and principles. Taking this definition of morality it seems that only humans have this since nonhuman animals don’t have espoused principles or standards. This leads me to my second critique, morality is largely a social construct and not something that we should be looking for evolutionary answers too. Human beings are a complex interplay of genes and environment interacting and very few things we do can be simply boiled down to one or the other. You mentioned that many different cultures have some sort of ethical principle of truthfulness and not lying, but that people break such ethics, I don’t think this is unexpected, as people can and do act in their self interest all the time even if it doesn’t benefit society. Lastly I do think evolution does explain one thing though, what I will call moral feeling, things such as empathy, reciprocity, love, anger, jealousy and revenge. These seem to be largely genetic and universal among humanity and also appear to exist among nonhuman animals too. All of the same brain regions that light up when we feel love or empathy or revenge also light up in animal brains. I think it is this universal genetic moral feeling that evolved and our systems of moral principles and standards are built on top of and try to correspond to our moral feelings. Thank you for reading!
As a Christian, I’m a little skeptical. We may not see morality performed universally simply because we have traits that allow us to choose good in most situations, but also to choose evil in situations that might benefit our survival. Philip Kitcher lays this out in The Ethical Project. Now, again, as a Christian, I am informed enough to see that he fails to show that evolutionary morality can be truly objective-his argument begins to fall apart at the end. Under the pragmatic naturalist view, we can explain to some extent why humans have morality, but we have no way of proving that this morality has any real meaning. We need God for that, and I think that’s what we as Christians should be focused on. An atheistic worldview cannot defend objective morality, or probably even any meaning at all.
I don't hold to moral realism, but I don't see why I, as an atheist, couldn't defend that position. An atheist, moral realist could simply say there are moral facts that are binding. End of. To say that the existence of God makes the moral facts objective would be a contradiction in terms. Moral facts are objective exactly because they are independent of minds like, say, the mind of God.
@@BrewMeister27 I do understand the moral realist position, though. A moral realist might say: "Harming another person for no other reason than to cause them suffering is bad for that person and objectively hurts their interests. As a rational agent, your capacity to understand that fact compels you not to cause another person suffering." If you then ask: "But why should I care about other people's suffering?" To the moral realists, it's like asking: "Why be moral?" There simply is the brute fact of the objectivity of suffering and you being the type of rational creature capable of moral reasoning is compelled not to inflict sufferng on another person. This account of morality doesn't really work for me, but there it is.
God doesn't give objective morality, either. "It's good to do what God says," is no more objective, and no less subjective, than "It's good to do whatever leads to the greatest good for the greatest number" or any other moral principle. Similarly, the presence of a God doesn't confer meaning. "The meaning of my life is to glorify God" has no stronger or more "real" status than "The meaning of my life is to help others" or "The meaning of my life is to bask in the sun". You may personally feel that basing morality or meaning on a God is more convincing or more satisfying than basing it on anything else, but that personal feeling of yours is just that; a subjective feeling.
@@davidchess1985 everything you said, however, is only true if God does not exist. I believe God exists; therefore, I believe that what is good by God’s nature is, in fact, objectively good. If we assume instead that we don’t know whether God exists, then we do not know whether God’s morality is objective or subjective. That’s why we discuss whether to believe in God.
Very well argued, Brian. Most of the time people point out how Darwinian evolution is geared toward survival, not truth. Refreshing to hear another equally good critique from another angle.
Darwinian evolution is no longer relevant. Look up "modern synthesis" for the first and most famous of its replacements. "Truth" is not the question at hand, morality is. Both morality and truth however tend to increase the chance of our gene's survival however.
Its easy to see that morality has definitely not "evolved" . Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve mankind has the same concupiscence towards sin. Its been the same sin and the same Solution for thousands and thousands of years. Man kind has not "evolved " in the sence of morality .
We’re a bit different then were back then. Not that we don’t sin, of course we do. But I’d argue that society in antiquity was much more violent than today. It was so bad God gave Jews the 10 commandments. Like the basics of morality to work on setting them apart from other societies there However the more secular societies descends into paganism and Gnosticism I suspect society will get worse morally. Which has been going full steam ahead since COVID
@@catholicguy1073 I dunno , we are pretty violent. I don't know if we are more or less violent than those in antiquity , I guess we would have to narrow down a time in history . I just simply see Pride , Envy , Greed, Anger Lust , Gluttony has not changed since antiquity. Same old sins , Same old tactics by the devil.
@@lonniestoute8762 I’m just saying the 10 commandments is like basic math. God started there with the moral law. Today we take that for granted And yes we still do sin a lot
@@catholicguy1073 yup I can 💯 agree , ten commandments that outline love of God and neighbor was and still is the solution to our sins . Sin has not changed neither has the solution.
You are straight up wrong about so much... First of all, the reason morality is the product of evolution is because the judgements we create are based on things we've experienced in context to our own survival. Part of our moral judgements, we've evolved to adapt from out parents. Because we EVOLVED a behavior to adapt those from our parents. Another half of our moral judgement comes from defending a world view we are already comfortable with, to ensure our egos remains comfortable with their lens of the world. Most of the morals judgements spring up from survivalist situation... We despise things that we see disservice us and approve of things that bring us pleasure and we see as in our favor. A moral judgement CANNOT be an objective truth, by its nature, there are no objective truths in morality. Ethics is a matter of choosing between consequences you want and don't want, and morality is what dictates what you will choose... A moral judgement is just an opinion, it's a feeling someone has about a particular thing, and those feelings we have and why we have different feelings about different things, are the product of navigating through evolutionary circumstances.... evolution; adapting to the environment we have to survive against.... We have feelings to keep us alive, its why touching fire hurts... it's because fire can kill you, and our body has developed systems to warn us that is bad... The systems which we derive our morals from, are complex versions of that, which we make even more complex by tying language into things. Pretty much all normative ethical systems, systems of ethics which try to dictate "correct" decisions based on some "norm" or "standard" dictated by which definition we are trying to enforce "good" decisions with, are derive from the way we use the words "good" and "bad" in language, and because we use those words under multiple contexts, there are many normative ethical systems derived from it. The objective truth is, morality IS subjective. Whether that plays well with how we currently interpret society or not, nature does not care... it's our job to adapt to that because it's true, not deny it and pretend something else is true because the truth is hard to look at... You can apply all these normative ethical system to help you make decisions that keep you alive, in a world of chaos and unpredictability.... Your job as a living thing is to survive, whether you're intelligent enough to adapt to the nature of your environment, is up to you. Calling it "lazy" to have this take is you just trying to discredit an argument you can't disprove or properly falsify. You are objectively wrong. That question of whether morality is or is not subjective is not an ethical problem, it is a linguistics problems, it's a question about the nature the language we use to discuss moral judgements exists under. It in itself is a linguistics problem, NOT an ethical one.... Even if it was a higher power like god to dictate judgements, his judgements would still be subjective because of the nature of which the language/words "subjectivity", "objectivity", and "morality" exist under. We evolved these words to describe a concept in our society, the human race was not born with these words... They emerged... through language evolving and morality emerging because groups of people started living together throughout time, and needed to learn to communicate what they were feeling... Today's dillema is about asking ourselves what circumstances these words emerged under, and how their natural definitions apply to our interpretations of each others feelings in context to our worldviews we have today. We're not lazy, you just start at conclusions like god, and have to wrap your entire world view around that conclusion. If it doesn't fit with that, it can't be true. I've learned that debating with people like you is a waste of time, because all you do is produce mental gymnastics to defend your faith as the absolute dictator of morality not only for yourself but other people. That is a game of power, and you sir, you suck for playing it. YOUR method is lazy because it is constantly trying to concede to a world it is already comfortable rather than spending the energy to adapt to a world it's scared to admit it doesn't understand.
I've watched a number of half of Brians videos before I give up because of the sheer number of fallacies, dishonest arguments and plain stupidity. I'm not even going to start this one. Morality is simple and even obvious in an evolutionary context. Who on Earth can have difficulties understanding the evolution of morals?
Keep in mind that morality was not created by evolution when humans lived in modern huge cities, nor when we live in ancient small cities. It's origins are far older than our species, as we can witness moral behaviour in other primates. In humans, it was enhanced when our ancestors lived in family groups. Almost everyone around you was a close relative, so every trait that increased the survivability of them, increased the survivability of your genes.
The question is: does the mind/morality/ etc. emerge from lower micro principles? physical quanta -> molecules -> ... -> organisms -> societies Is there strong/weak emergence? Is there a optimizing principle for adaptive multi agent systems explaining morality? These are nice questions ...
Morality is a projected construct. Think of it as a table cloth thrown over an invisible bridge so you know where your steps can be, where the tablecloth is the cognitive gifts humans have been given. Instead of looking at things as strong/weak or more/less, go beyond dichotomy and start looking at networks with no clear middle (only relative locations), no up, and no down. Think rhizomatically, and recognize your very act of thinking is in itself, a consequence rather than a causality. You'll start making truly beautiful determinations.
Basic morality appears through evolution almost in every social animal. There are countless examples of selfless acts of kindness among animals without visible genetical benefits, in laboratories and wild. "Bad for close one/or even whole specie is bad, good is good" was created because it was profitable for genes, if individuals in group benefits from each over - group survives, if individuals are selfish - whole group dies. Further evolution of morality is already product of culture, you may or may not consider cannibalism immortal thing to do, but as a human you almost certainly consider "bad for individuals in group is bad". In case of example with lie: "lie is bad" is product of culture, it doesn't really do harm to other (not always), so more powerful evolutionary "bad for group is bad" don't activates. With muгdеrs - another thing: 1) Some cultures are f***d up. They separate close one (group) and everyone else (others), so that any atrocities towards other groups are not perceived as something bad. 2) They are exceptions, as with everything else
You are fundamentally misunderstanding how evolution works. You claim that evolution always results in a normalization and uniformity of traits across species (all birds of a particular species have the same beak, all fish have gills, etc.), but that is incorrect. A good example is personality traits. The strength of the various personality traits (extroversion, openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness) are seemingly normally distributed from individual to individual across a population; all cultures have extreme introverts and extreme extroverts, highly agreeable and highly disagreeable people, etc. This is because no single personality trait is purely beneficial in all times and all places, so evolution has maintained a balance. Essentially, evolution will either force a trait to be distributed according to an exponential decay distribution, which is what you are talking about with beaks and gills, or a parabolic distribution, such as personality. The former is for those uniform traits that are always beneficial in a given environment; 99% of fish of a species have identical gills, those that don't are suffering some mutation that is probably harmful. The later distribution is for those traits which are not always beneficial. In some situations being highly agreeable is an advantage, is some situations being highly disagreeable. So the average person will exist in the middle, with a small percentage on both extremes. Evolutionary, morality would fit a normal distribution and makes complete sense from an evolutionary perspective. In terms of survival and reproduction, both altruistic and immoral strategies can be successful under the right conditions. I am Catholic by the way and agree with you on a lot of issues, which is why I am pushing back on this one. I think you would agree that an argument, no matter how appealing it may sound, should be disregarded if it is demonstrably wrong.
I'm uncertain if this is a desperate attempt for content or if this guy genuinely believes he is on to something. Either way, it is a terrible objection to evolution explaining the emergence of morality. The argument is akin to claiming because we don't observe everyone running everywhere all the time, therefore evolution cannot explain a human's ability to run. The consistency is not based on behaviour, rather the consistency is in the human ability to comprehend moral values and duties.
A very insightful description on why morality cannot evolve. The distinction you made by comparing the constants of physical laws versus how we have all disobeyed moral laws strongly demonstrates your point very firmly and clearly yet eloquently. Well done thanks and blessings.
@@paulburns6110 Morality being succinctly explained by evolution is not a new thing. No gods necessary. Here you go: ruclips.net/video/GcJxRqTs5nk/видео.htmlsi=JXFSAGDgkOgJk1hq
@@joshbrown1397 thank you for sharing. However as you have miserably failed to even remotely satisfy your burden of proof I shall be logically justified in rejecting your claims. God bless
The part from 2:40 to 3:00 severly misunderstands the way evolution is brought up to explain morality... Since the start of civilizations, darwinian evolution has had little to do with morality. However, before that, because humans had been a social species, abilities (or maybe a better word, instincts) to empathize and cooperate with their group were selected for. From what I understand, the way brain can develop to allow those instincts is at least to some extent rooted in genetics. This is why to this day people share a common feeling of distaste towards actions they harm their people even if the sets of actions they consider harmful vary from person to person (and if someone does not, it's usually, if not always, because of brain development). So, darwinian evolution laid the foundarion for morality, but the specifics are more of a product of cultural evolution within societies. Whenever apologists make the moral argument, they need to establish objective morality, and it's usually through pointing out something everyone sees as awfully immoral. However, everyone whom I've seen trying to do that, never considered that the said action might be something we all react to with an instinct which is ultimately a product of evolution (and we all happen to agree) rather than 'objectively immoral'.
You don't need to establish objective morality to make the moral argument, you can just take out objective morality and establish the need for it. For example, let's say it's true that morality it's just a mix of biological instincts and socially constructed expectations. Well, we are rational beings, so what's the rational argument that compels you to follow those instincts and expectations? What happens when a biological instinct and a socially constructed expectation contradict each other? What should we follow then? Past a superficial level, we either have objective morality, or none at all. Only objective morality can justify itself, because it's grounded in transcendental reality (God).
Absolute nonsense. Your first argument boils down to: obviously it was God, not nature, that made us fickle and susceptible to peer pressure. Your second argument boils down to: obviously it was God, not nature, that made us imperfect at executing honesty (also, natural selection is the applicable law - there is no posited 'Moral behaviour arises' law - so you are making a strawman). Further, any evolutionary trait has various levels of expression (penetrance and expressivity). Your third argument boils down to: people die in war so obviously war couldn't evolve which is absurd because war has convergently evolved in several species and we observe war in our near relatives the chimpanzees. The fourth argument boils down to: normative statements can't be derived from objective statements therefore the existence of normative statements proves that there is an objective normative standards abstracted from the universe around us - which is absurd because it means that a universe wherein the only statement that is made is 'I like red more than blue' can also prove the existence of god. If you're too ignorant of evolutionary biology don't comment on it. The Catholic church - however much you hate the current incarnation of the Catholic church - holds that there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Even if you managed to prove that evolution couldn't evolve morals then all you've managed to do is prove that we should be preaching to even the warring ants - because clearly they've evolved something that is impossible to evolve and so they must be given morals by god.
Um, evolution does explain morality. We are a social species and individuals that can interact well with one another tend to be the most successful at mating and having children and keeping those children.
My understanding of the pre-requisite criteria (for something to be objectively true) - is that it must universally apply “at all times”. Therefore If morality has evolved, then I sincerely struggle to understand how it could be defined as objective morality. Eg its very own evolutionary aspect clearly contradicts one of the prerequisite criteria - in order for something to be objectively true in the 1st place. Hence it seems IMHO, that the notion of “moral evolution” is disqualified before even getting onto the starting line
You need to distinguish between moral ontology (Does it objectively exist out there?) & epistemology (How do we know of it?). Evolutionary psychology explains moral epistemology - how humans ended up being moral creatures. It has nothing to say about the objectivity of morality, which is a discussion for philosophers.
@@טמוציןבורגיגין As I have not come across any evidence or good arguments- that even remotely infers that evolutionary theory has anything to do with “how humans have become moral” I will politely and logically reject your claim because you haven’t satisfied your burden of proof.
@@טמוציןבורגיגין Thanks for recommendation. While I’ve a well reasoned justified suspicion of psychological books authored by Non-Christians (especially faithful atheists such as Jonathan) it’s remotely possible that I may indeed add his book to my reading list. In the meantime I recommend any book authored by any catholic saint. Especially anything x St Thomas Aquinas. Peace and God bless.
I don’t think it’s too difficult an idea to briefly state: just as humans have taken millennia to uncover the mathematical rules of the universe, we’ve taken millennia to uncover the moral rules of the universe as well (with a lot of help from its creator).
Is it moral to falsely believe in something for financial gain? Now that religions have been overwhelmingly disproved is it moral to take advantage of the trusting & ignorant for profit? Morality is a social concept for groups to thrive with common benefits. Evolution & assumed gods do not provide true morality
10:40 You juxtapose "morality" and "evolution", as if these are two conflicting explanations for a phenomenon. That's not the case. The question at hand is whether or not morality was _caused_ by evolution, not whether evolution can _replace_ morality.
Yes it does because. If you act like a complete monster, you will not only make people feel bad. You will develop a lot of hatred towards you, and people who are hated by a lot of people tend not to do well.
Why in the world should I care about other accidents of life and their feelings? Maybe in a world where the strong dominates the weak it’s our feelings of empathy that are actually an illusion.
@@connerdozier6689 Maybe because it increases the chance of YOU surviving and thriving in the long run. Even if it' s for purely self-serving reasons, it will serve you better to be good, or at least not be a menace to your fellow man. Because acting like a predator will earn you a lot of hatred and that will increase the chance of you meeting a premature and awful fate. This comment of yours shows you are not just only a sociopath but also lacking even basic survival instinct. Anti social behaviors creates instability while pro-social behaviors creates stability.
Nah, I think it actually does explain morality. At the very conception of our species we had all those Neanderthals running round the place. They were much more solitary, physically stronger and even had bigger brains. Point is - they did not need venturing cooperation to hunt and basically survive. But then, the fire nation attacked: Homo Sapiens came from all sides, highly organized and more adapted for language, abstraction and thus for coordinated tactics. They wiped out the disunited smaller diasporas of the Neanderthal, obviously mixing with some of them genetically (that is why we seem to have a certain percentage of genetically tracable post-neanderthal patterns within our populations). Morality is nothing more than a set of ideas and internal structures that are linked to our choices, social approaches and actions. Due to some being more self-sufficient than others, they never really developed it as much, alongside their frontal lobes (in neanderthal we see much greater potential for motor functions, visual cortex and basic memory rather than moral judgement, which is discovered to be linked more to the frontal lobe rather than common memory or systems that are placed in the backs of our heads - at least seemingly, as once again - brains are far, far more complex for such simplification and narrowing down of their functions - each is usually more spread with links all across rather than to be localized solely in one place). Despite being better equipped in all other matters for individual survival, group justice flourishing and mutual survival happened to be much more important in the end-game. To put it in Tywin Lannister terms: „The house that puts family first will always defeat the house that puts the whims and wishes of its sons and daughters first.” In sociology we know that amongst all sorts of different societies across the globe that has usually been the case that a small, yet more organized group would end up ruling over larger and disunited populus, that would be constantly engaged in struggles of a lower type of aspiration against each other, while those at the top usually lived by more principled stances of conduct towards each other group member. Think about previous timocracies, Roman senators, aristocracies in the middle ages and current big business cartels - it is exactly how it always has been, except that our current societies seem to be more viscious about promoting socially loyalty sabotaging and group-dissolving traits and modes of thinking. I believe it could also be seen as yet another step of evolution, as it serves the higher purpose of further easing up the art of governing - it is a part of royal arts to expand on squezzing out as much as possible from people that are just unitable enough to be hyperproductive and have their serotonin levels somewhat stabilized while simultaneously keep them from posing any sort of realistic threat to the exploitative nature of the status quo. Progress of technological advancements in terms of communication and education simply had to be followed by widespread moral dissolution, increaced moral relativism and tribalistic division within society with marketing of all sorts of purely anti-social behaviours and mindsets to become more seductive, else society could spiral into another age of mass-scale organized religious wars and throne instability just like it was after the invention of the Gutenbergs press. The threat isn’t in the self-sabotaging and disunited public as much as it is in the united one. We don’t want another Nika riots, or local lords leading their strongly loyal personal armies of thousands shattering empires. Cuius regio eius religio as they say… This rant is already faaar tooo looong 😂 Simply put - there is far more to the historic evolution of the current only seemingly schizophrenic, double-think style of moral conduct than people might realize. If you don’t know the past, you can’t understand the present, and if you can’t make sense of the present, you can’t win the future. Such strong neuro-biological evolution that you seem to speak of was not a matter of a couple years, but it is a result of a process that has been conducted throughout thousands of years… … … That being said: I totally agree that there is also another deep-dive level of the spiritual and metaphysical aspect to it 💜
Neanderthals absolutely were not solitary, or even more solitary than modern humans, also larger brains does not mean they were more intelligent. Where did you get any of this from?
Macro evolution is flat out wrong. It is useful for the micro but that is it. Evolution has bled into everything, church teaching, human knowledge, and general perception of ourselves. I would say that degradation, not evolution, is more common among the human condition. How do we go from long lifespans to maybe 70 quality years with modern technology? This is a RUclips comment so I am not fleshing out my argument in any real detail. I just don’t agree with evolution, at least not macro evolution.
What many people call "evolution" they really mean "natural selection." "Evolution" loosely defined, simply means change over time. And by that definition, evolution is true. But the definition of "evolution" today generally implies microbes-to-mankind, which is false.
5:50 On the one hand, we _do_ see much more consistency than you describe. The consistency is not in specific reactions to all situations (lie/don't lie), but in a specific _pattern_ of reactions to _similar_ situations. On the other hand, evolution can work very well with inconsistencies. To name one very obvious example: Humans have very "inconsistent" sexual organs; shouldn't one of them provide an evolutionary advantage? That's not the whole story though: species like wolves have distinct roles in different individuals (eg. "alpha wolf"). Shouldn't one have an advantage over the others, making them extinct? No, because _evolution does not work on individuals,_ it works on populations.
I see morality as determining cultural evolution, a higher order fitness landscape that determines the success of human societies. Only God can see in its totality (as He created it); we mere mortals are trying our best to navigate it, equipped with a low resolution, evolved intuition and set of heuristics to find the most moral action for any given circumstance as well as reason to help us deliberate.
yes, but it is at the level of spiritual values and communion, not deterministic access to physical resources in the ecological niche. A whole new level.
It doesn't matter if you find it convincing or unconvincing: it just is, and doesn't require your credence to be true all the same. The fossil record makes absolutely clear that the creatures here on Earth at present are related to earlier forms that were less sophisticated than present forms. It is not beyond God's ability to use strange and odd methods to create us, but when we find the tangible genetic, cladistic, and genetic evidence to definitively know he did it that way, we should not reject it - St. John Paul the Great said about this, "Truth cannot contradict truth", and St. Augustine warned Christians in "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" in 415 AD not to try and ply people with ascientific nonsense likely to turn unbelievers away from the gates of the faith. That God used a patience-requiring process for creation that took 4 billion years rather than using a Hogwarts wand just goes to show He is much bigger than the anthropic Gandalf-like wizard some people imagine God to be. He is Holy, and far greater in time or scope than we are even capable of understanding.
The problem is thinking that evolution completely explains morality. Just as the brain does not fully explain our intellect, evolutionary instincts do not fully explain morality. It requires a rational soul or spirit. Otherwise, the angels would not be moral creatures, since they are not a result of evolution. As well, morality could change over time, just as evolution continues. But morality doesn't change.
3:30 That requires an _insane_ (or dishonest) simplification of an environment. Not even in the deepest of deep seas, where a single factor is overwhelming all other concerns, life is uniform. Wikipedia's category "Deep sea fish" has more than a hundred entries and four subcategories, and that's just the fish. Following your oversimplifying argument, only a single species should exist. Surface environments are _much_ more complex, by the existence of orders of magnitude more lifeforms alone. The idea that an environment this complex only allows for a singular solution ("law", "replicable") boggles the mind.
Morality isn't derived from Darwinian evolution, I don't know who is arguing for that. It is however a useful tool in society building, maintaining cohesion, and rallying a populace in a united goal, which does ultimately make for a worthwhile "survival strategy". There are certain social cues that we are born innately with - humans are not born as blank slates - which could be chalked up to genetic memory, but following that foundation nurture begins taking charge. You could argue from that standpoint that morality is derived as a form of governance. This tracks with the question of why we can't find a society without liars: Lying can be advantageous in the short term, it subverts the governance of a society but not necessarily one's position in it if you escape its consequences. Christianity argues that there *is* no escape from these consequences, that God knows your sin no matter how you try to weasel around it, and the punishment can become as severe as Hell if the transgressions keep coming. This is what makes it an effective tool for morality enforcement, and why historically it was a key part of governance. 10:00 This is why I have to disagree with this. Morality as it stands today is a kind of technology, which took hundreds of years for our societies to slowly develop into the cohesive, stability inducing force we have today. Many grave errors were made along that road, paving it with blood and those present time's good intentions. For example, the American address of rights as derived from God is an important invention on that path, because no human is capable of challenging (and thus removing) those precepts without challenging first the very bedrock of western society and its religious foundation. Ultimately, you are correct, Darwinian evolution does not explain morality, and nor does it seek to. It explains what it needs to explain: The biological development of species throughout time.
Atheistic Evolution has no pattern unless one cuts out the parts that are inconsistent & point out The Pattern Of Creation. Pattern Objectivity is a source of morality, just as Instinct is, whilst contending sources of morality such as Love as Dogma & "Balance" aka Mono-Heirarchy are also worth mentioning in order to cope with.
at "untethered from cause and effect", we dropped into dualism. you are equivocating when you say "account for". physical causes dont "account" for things. *we* account for things, by examining causes. the fact that we cant trace the physical causes of a given thing does not mean it doesnt have them. we can probably agree that examining physical causes is not the right way to account for the content of moral claims, but behavior occurs in the physical world, and is by no means "untethered" from physical cause, any more than your mind is "untethered" to your brain. it is imagining that the physical and the spiritual are separate "parts" that amounts to dualism. to the point: of course evolutionary theory cannot tell us moral statements, but the *process* described by evolutionary theory is no less the cause of moral behavior than of anything else. you are equivocating theory with its subject.
The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on this planet. Were you under the mistaken impression that evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that explains morality?
If morality were an evolutionary advantage, then 1/12th of Asia would not be descended from Genghis Khan (or our conceptions of what is moral should be based on his actions)
Dude, morality is not the way that we act, it’s the way we wish people to act. Morality is simply a result of people acting in relationship with other people. There are ways that we want others to act. No god required.
7:40 Brian, please stop making arguments about evolution until you've learned how it works. Please, dear reader, do yourself a favor and read "Introduction to evolution" on Wikipedia. Over and over again it talk about "populations" and "generations", because these are the things that evolve, *NOT* individuals.
Wrong. Morality absolutely can be explained by evolution. It's how we survived as a species until we had so much extra time as to make up gods and muddied the waters.
Can you please sprove the existence of morality (according to your faithful and speculative comment)? Otherwise I and others are logically justified - in rejecting your claim, because you have failed to satisfy your own burden of proof. Thanks.
@@paulburns6110 LMAO.... This tells me that you have been told exactly that many times, yet you don't understand what you are saying. ruclips.net/video/GcJxRqTs5nk/видео.htmlsi=XlsTJs7Jm5rD65XI
Though I agree with you, I'd like to point out that, whether morality sprang forth from evolution, spontaneous (divinely inspired) revelation, or revelation over a prolonged period of time via trial and error which morphed into tradition, all truths are God's truths. If the scientific method leads us to a true conclusion, though it's often an ongoing process that simply leads to more questions, there can be no contradiction between that and God. The source of morality makes for an interesting discussion but, even if it happens to be a materialist (evolutionary) source, God still preceeded it.
Someone who claims morality is subject is denying their experience of reality, and they’re only doing it for the sake of bringing their atheism world view to its logical conclusion. Nobody who gets their house broken into and robbed, for example, will hold the view they were deeply wronged, while simultaneously holding the view that their feeling of being deeply wronged is only their opinion and not grounded in objective fact.
Do you think that God didn't know exactly what evolution would bring intelligent design is complimented by evolution although looking at the moral standards of society some would beg to differ
Look at all these immensely intellectual beings using them big words. This is one of thous conversations that is completely useless, because everyone pick one group and then that is the ultimate right group of victory. And yet... ALL miss the mark, even with their immense, overpowered, surperior intellect that only they themselfs can wield.
A biological trait is not the same as a social construct. Our morality is much more complex than other species. And yes, other species have morals. Just not ours. Morality is a social construct tied to empathy, reason, logic, ability to see pattern and act on them. Our empathy and ability to see pattern is passed on as biological traits. But morality is purely debated on a social level. Because we can. its the reason why we have cililization, not tiny tribes that still cheer at fire. *_"compare it to a standard we didnt observe"_* Do you live in a cave and never talked to another human being in person before? We literally INSTANTLY see the consequences of our actions. Thats how standards evolved! *_"there is absolutely no point in discussing what should occur"_* Yes, if you are an anarchist and nihilist and dont care how you treat others then there is absolutely no point in discussing morality or any topic related to human interactions WITH YOU. Other people care and its worth discussing with them. Maybe study psychology for a decade before you make another embarassing video because you have no clue about the implications of your ignorance.
This is perhaps the silliest of all the silly arguments on this channel. First off, evolution is not a theory about morality. It doesn't set out to explain morality, so we shouldn't expect it to. But being charitable to your interpretation of other people's arguments, your own argument is still silly. Here's what you say: "But if morality is the result of evolutionary conditioning, we should see the same consistency and uniformity, and yet we absolutely don't see anything even approaching that." This is transparently nonsensical. Things like skin, hair, and eye color are undeniably the result of "evolutionary conditioning," as you put it. And yet it's obvious that we don't see consistency or uniformity in those traits. In fact, there are a wide variety of traits that people can have for each of those categories. Evolution does not result in uniformity; to the contrary, evolution depends on the LACK of uniformity. So your claim is actually totally wrong, and thus your argument falls apart. Because evolution actually results in and depends on variation, differing moral outlooks are completely consistent with evolution.
@@philiphumphrey1548 Which scientists? Can you give specific names? Of course, that's not the point of my criticism. My point is that Brian's addressing of the question demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not lead to uniformity as Brian claims.
While the theory of evolution has not yet satisfied its burden of proof, it nonetheless relies heavily upon the undeniable evidence of the type of uniformity that Brian very eloquently and firmly demonstrates. Hence I am logically justified in accepting the premises and conclusions of his helpfully insightful commentary. God bless.
@@paulburns6110 No scientific theory ever fully satisfies its "burden of proof", there are always more experiments and tests to be done. Scientific theories are by their very nature provisional, the last until somebody disproves them or thinks up a better more economical theory.
I deeply admire you Brian. And I respect your Catholic faith. You're an authentic Believer who cultivates the life of the mind. This is a rare and appreciated combination.🖖🏻
In so many ways I agree with this video precisely because morality involves free will, requires spiritual nature and is based on laws that are perennial but involve circumstances. People are applying evolution to everything precisely because this is their mindset. It’s important to point out that the world has an evolutionary mindset and most people just take it for granted that it is true when in fact it is false. But what’s more is that we call things evolution which are not evolution like adaptation within species. Even in regular day jargon people say this project evolved in such and such a way, and is abuse of the word furthering the confusion. Most times people mean to say development or adaptation, and they shouldn’t be saying evolution. Evolution is something becoming another thing entirely different (Darwin). There is so much that needs correction in our language besides mortality, theology and ways we interpret science. Evolution which is about creation of things through death and destruction is an ideology, not a science and that is destroying our society and eroding the very Church because so many Catholics are trying to compromise it with Divine Revelation.
That's not entirely right. Evolution isn't about "something becoming another thing entirely different". Darwin certainly never used those words. Evolution is about change over time. Evolution through natural selection, which is a subset of evolution, is about things changing over time as things which are more able to survive and propagate naturally become more prevalent. Evolution of living beings through natural selection in the presence of genetic variation does eventually lead to speciation (which may be what you're thinking of when you say "another thing entirely different", although no two species are *entirely* different), and is the best scientific explanation for the current state of Earthly life. Evolution through natural selection can also be applied to social behaviors and societal structures, although since those don't have well-defined individuals and reproduction events it's somewhat less rigorous. It's pretty plausible to account for morality in terms of evolution both genetic and societal, and "evolution" is a perfectly reasonable word to use there. If a particular property (a gene, a standard of behavior) gives some entity (an animal, a society) a larger chance of continuing into the future (through offspring, or later generations of the society), then that property will tend to become widespread, all other things being equal. This is pretty undeniable; it's simple logic. Whether that effect is enough to account for the world that we see around us, either in the forms of living beings or the moral behavior of people, is another question. I think so, or at least that it's the most plausible explanation that we have. You are of course free to disagree. :)
you complain that morality doesnt correspond to a universal observation, yet proceed to say that we *all* have experienced shame, have lied, etc. so which is it? and no, evolution does not determine what always occurs, it determines what typically occurs. people are in fact typically moral. behavior is evolved, unless you would say that beavers building dams has nothing to do with evolution. morality is an aspect of behavior, therefore it has evolved.
It hasn’t evolved. It has been given to us by God. We see how his morality has led to an explosion in virtue and saints in the Middle Ages. He has also built us with a conscience that tells us right from wrong. The pagans noticed this. Evolution seeks to remove God and say that we are always progressing to something better. It is the antithesis of tradition and destroys through its ideas of progression.
@@thomasmcanerney1534 you are equivocating evolution with the theory of evolution, and more importantly moral behavior with the content of morality. these are different things. behavior evolves, progressing toward the good. why would the fact of evolution mean something is not from god? do you disbelieve the facts of the water cycle because you know that rain is given by god?
If it is evolved as a result of survival within a society then you would be a fool not to adopt Machiavellian manipulation for gain. Any pangs of guilt can and should be suppressed like you would suppress an irrational fear of the dark. A situation WILL arise where you will be faced with a decision to compromise these "evolved" morals for something like....maintaining a moral public image. This would directly pit the main social driver of, in your view, morality against true God based morals. Would you sacrifice the possibility of appearing less than noble to do the right thing? What if some hacker threatened to leak deepfake videos of you committing some heinous acts unless you privately refused to report a real crime you witnessed?
I taught those. I would make the distinction between micro and macro evolution. I am fine with micro to a certain extent. Macro is false. Evolution implies that genesis is wrong. It would also counter the flood as we explain the fossil record as a long time instead of a quick instance, a global flood. Finally it would imply that three immaculate conceptions occurred. Adam and Eve were without sin. Evolution would dictate that they are from a common ancestor with apes. This would mean they were conceived immaculately just like Mary. She is the immaculate conception, not just one of three. Finally, your water cycle analogy is a poor analogy. I can’t think of another one at the moment but it is poor. It isn’t equivocal.
You seek to deny the natural moral order brought about by evolution and insert your flawed morality that you claim comes from a higher place or as you say 'God'. Now you and Brian Holdsworth both know your church sexually abuses children. How come your moral code does not stop you supporting such people and such acts? Evolution says children are not sexually ripe so one doesn't have sex with children. Evolution gives people sexual desires so you only have sex with people who desire to have sex with you. Your morality says there is a certain class of people that are beyond criticism and can break every evolutionary moral for a greater good, ie God. Rats have no gods yet they. as a social species, have morals. And the period in history to which you refer was known as the dark ages, famous for instruments of torture and ignorance about the world. @@thomasmcanerney1534
Catholic convert and fan of evolutionary psychology here. In social species (chimps, corvids, etc.) evolutionary explanations of morality can't get past tribalism and tit for tat.
But what you might call antecedent, primordial moral behaviour in our primate cousins and avian friends is still pretty good evidence for the evolution of morality, no? It's no surprise that social creatures living in small groups don't have need of a anything more complex than tribalistic or reciprocal interactions for social cohesion. This maps on to how the 10 Commandments offer pretty simple rules fitting a small Bronze age society where patriarchal, clan-like, tribal units are its basis. As empires emerge, vast structures encompassing multiple nations, you start to see the concept of universalism being built into moral theories for the purposes of social cohesion. These universal ideals have greater difficulty to grab a hold of us because we as a species have evolved to function in these tight knit communities composed of perhaps no more than a few scores of people. As such, evolution makes perfect sense of moral sentiment and why mores change.
@@infamyguy3187 2 things 1. Evolution doesn't create morality in the way we think of it (objective morality/moral reasoning), evolution creates what you might call ”friend instinct". There might be cooperation within the tribe, but anyone outside the tribe is a predator/pray. Think "I love my family, & we don't trust outsiders". There's no reasoning there, just feelings. 2. If you want to say that morality is "cultural evolution" (memetics), then for Darwinian reasons we should be xing atheists. All historical evidence of civilization that has survived were theistic civilizations, the largest atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheistic nations, atheists have lower birth rates and higher self delete rates than theists. All evidence points to atheism being a lethal meme/idea aka "knowledge hazard". Especially compared to the beneficial memes (best performing religions) on offer today. I don't believe that, but if you want to treat Darwin as God, then that's where the logic goes. Evolutionary psychology gives me a good set of tools to identify "original sin" inside my self and others. In evo psyc terms "original sin" can be thought of as "environmental mismatch". Like I said. I'm a fan of it, but it's not my religion.
@@joesouthwell4080what if in the same way that modern technology shields people from many physical evolutionary pressures (nearsighted people survive at the same rate as those with 20/20 vision now), it has shielded modern civilizations (for a time) from evolutionary pressure against atheism and relativistic morality?
@@samurguy9906 well then from a Darwinian perspective, times up. Modern civilizations are below replacement levels with fertility. Basically the only groups replacing themselves are the super poor, super rich, and super religious. So if religion is "just an idea", it's an idea we're dependent on unless we want to go back to tribes of 150 members (Dunbar's number) with constant warring between tribes. The worst part of me wants that for my enemies, the best part of me wants us all to do better. We can argue over whether "is God true?" and probably will forever. But "Is God good"? Science has answered this with almost absolute certainty. Assuming any definition of "good" includes "pro human", all evidence points toward yes. I don't need faith to believe "God is good", I've got the science to back it.
Sorry brother, but all the available evidence in biology and archaeology supports the theory of evolution, and morality can be explained within this framework. A more thorough engagement with this topic would have revealed this to you.
How archeology support evoultion yet we see species coming suddenly in the fossil record and not gradually as Darwinism suppose like the cambrian explosion and other 18 examples of entire species and phyla coming suddenly without any transitional fossils
But there is objective morality. Cannibalism is wrong. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Objective morality means that we are ontologically distinct from animals.
The Spartans use to throw babies with mild defects into ditches to die. The Spartan culture accepted it. Morality says that all humans are endowed with an inalienable right to life which is not dependent on any culture or people or time
One things for sure; "Natural Law" which just boils down to glorified table manners or an overly nuanced divine command theory does not explain actual morality.
Thank you! I read an argument the other day that evolution caused morality, and I knew that didn't make sense, but I couldn't really explain why. Now I do!
Brian, once again you have put forth a massive straw man. Almost no one argues that morality is based on an individual's personal preferences. That is a ridiculous argument. What morality is... Is the rules made by a group to achieve a goal. You are once again completely misrepresenting science. Literally no one says that human behavior should or does follow the same types of scientific laws that govern the motions of the planets. When studying people, scientific observations describe characteristics of populations. This should be obvious to you. You are equivocating on the definition of scientific laws. Human behavior when studied can be characterized by patterns and averages. For heaven's sake, read some anthropology. Start with the book Sapiens by Harari. Whether or not morality is objective is pretty much irrelevant. We don't have a magic way to discern the universe's decrees, if there even are any. And inserting God into the mix doesn't buy you anything. You just end up speaking for God when you don't know if you really are. Like it or not, it is arbitrary. Those of us who are not psychopaths will continue to not murder. And it doesn't have to be spaceless or timeless either. Try watching Shelly Kagan clean William Lane Craig's clock in their famous debate.
Evolution doesn’t have to explain morality. What is not explained is how God in all his horrific immoral acts and demeanor can still be considered moral by believers.
*now that I’ve listened 10 mins in, I’m rather shocked at how simplistic and kissing the point this video is. There is biology-genetics and sociology-conditioning. Don’t be so black and white.
@@kevinkelly2162My point is merely that there are numerous explanations for morality. Sure, one can look at evolutionary development as an explanation, but there are other approaches. In any case, that’s not my contention here.
There might be numerous explanations for morality but if we had not developed it through evolution we would not be here to talk about it.@@BigIdeaSeeker
scientifically speaking, evolution did occur. this is basically a fact that is unable to be called a fact straight foward. this isn't a good argument because evolution can explain morality in many different ways. this doesn't change the fact that god could have acted in a natural way throughout time. don't fight science and faith. that is rule #1.
Brian isn't arguing that evolution didn't occur. What he's arguing is that while evolution can be a good explanation for instinctive behaviors which are shared between members of the same species in the same environment, it's not a good explanation for ideals which are held but not consistently acted upon, because ideals can't be selected for separate from behavior.
@@christopherfleming7505 In other words, you have no idea what the evidence is. It's easy to learn the basics, just take the time. Then, you will see whether your prejudice is justified.
Brian, altruism is a thing in biology and it has evolutionary advantages not for the individual but for the group. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_%28biology%29?wprov=sfla1
The two aren't mutually exclusive, and there are degrees of altruism. Universal charity and true altruism is from God. Without universal altruism there will be equal pressure of competing groups interests. A benevolent King who is fair with his subjects and harsh to his enemies is how this would manifest if it is not UNIVERSAL.
Please don't forget to check out Fishers Network and consider starting a crew in your parish to address this urgent need in the world today: www.fishersnetwork.com.
Please don't lie like this. Its disingenuous and manipulative, and is immoral by definition. It reflects poorly on Christians everywhere, and it harms our faith. You are harming the process of proselytizion and ultimately dooming the Christian faith by doing this.
Evolution 100% explains morality. All social animals demonstrate moral structures which relate to their living and survival conditions -- wherein acting within those structures improves their group cohesion which increases the odds of their survival. Mutual cooperation is a force multiplier for survival. Moral code is culture or religion claiming credit for something evolution did to insist that its worth your time -- even though the religion adds lots of disadvantageous behaviours because as it turns out almost every holy scripture in every faith also wants humans to turn on each-other (see: every holy war in history and every family broken by faith without moderation). Why? Because at some point, the meme that constructs a faith wants to proliferate even at the cost of its hosts life.
Instead, you should consider evolution itself and its beautiful intricacy part of God's plan. Why the gift of faith exists. How it works. The fact that humans eons ago didn't understand the word of god when they transcribed it and did their very very best to understand with the tools and understanding available in their own time should not shock you. You shame the faith with your inability to recognize beauty and truth where it exists with the gifts which have been given to you. Shame on you. Be a better Christian.
I was vehemently anti-Catholic and borderline atheist with no religious affiliation. One day I woke stirred by the spirit to go to the Catholic Church which I thought was so weird. But I went. That very day they announced RCIA starting the next day. So I went. And I kept going. But at the end around February I was still unconvinced of the real presence of Christ in Eucharist. So I prayed and said God if you give me a Eucharistic miracle I will tell everyone how real it is. And I kid you not, on my birthday March 5th a Eucharistic miracle was granted. You can google it. It was the first in the USA. And I’ve been attending the Latin mass every single week 1-2 times per week with weekly confession. I believe 100%. I truly pray everyone who is on the fence or unsure just give it a try and pray with an open heart.
Wow! Thank you for sharing that.
Where was the Eucharistic miracle? (City and parish). Were you a member of the parish where it happened?
That can't be true , looks like that was at a Norvus Ordo Parish 🤔
Sorry so sorry I had to throw that jab in there.
Are they a TLM parish ?
But anyway it is wonderful that you have come to the Church . May our Lord continue to bless and guide you.
@@lonniestoute8762 I actually started and did RCIA at novus ordo. I don’t personally have anything against NO mass since that’s where I was formed. However, after RCIA I somehow learned about the TLM and was compelled to go and try. And my wife and I fell in love with it. I know this sounds kinda weird, but I almost feel like the Lord is going to use me somehow as part of the remnant church. I say that because I was truly Anti Catholic. Like ANTI catholic. And yet, somehow I had the most overwhelming feeling of the holy spirit working in me and overcoming me to go to the church that day in a way I probably wouldn’t have believed if someone else told me it happened to them. And to go from that to regularly praying the rosary, devoting to our lady, and somehow ending up in the most traditional form of Catholicism honestly just puts a smile on my face. The Lord knows what he’s doing.
One thing I want to add to the story that I didn’t say… I was going through a hiatus from religion but I had been studying Islam for about 3 years. And I came to believe it was a false religion. And I felt spiritually homeless and sort of just fell into a life of sin and debauchery. But I did say a prayer a couple of times before the spirit moved me to go, where I simply prayed “God, I will go wherever you want me to go. I don’t care if it’s a mosque a synagogue or a church I just want to be near you. Please don’t let me go down the wrong path.” I wanted to know God, I just didn’t know where to find him or what it would mean or where he would guide me. I’m so thankful he answered my prayers and I truly believe that he will answer anyone who asks in true faith. I had no agenda. I was a very broken sinner living in extreme sin. But I did want to change.
Not one of your strongest. I struggle to understand the argument.
1. It seems like the first examples significantly undermine the entire argument. It appears evident that there is no mind-independent way of parking correctly, although it elicits strong emotions. Clearly depends on reducible normative facts (how to park). Atheists can simply respond in the same manner regarding moral realism.
2. The assertion seems to rely on a heavily contested empirical premise that 'Evolution and natural selection do a really poor job of accounting for why a person should make those kinds of sacrifices since it competes with our survival and our reproduction'. This represents a misunderstanding of evolution, evolution can clearly explain why people sacrifice themselves in wars.
3. The term 'rational perception' is quite loaded and seems insufficient for a full explanation. Furthermore, how does your theory address the fact that people, including experts, often have profound disagreements about moral issues? Are those who disagree with your perspective simply less rational, or is there another explanation for these discrepancies? Rational perception doesn't do any explanatory work.
4. The argument simply assumes that moral realism is true. Fine. Well then, sir, please tell me where these facts reside, how we have knowledge of them, and how God is relevant to them.
What about sacrificing yourself for the enemy?
I think you seriously misunderstand evolution.
1) “Evolution favors selfishness” - usually, yes. But humans are super-social beings, that form large group that allow them to survive better. Morality is an adaptation to social life. Cohesive groups comprised of moral individuals could collaborate, survive & outcompete fractured groups.
2) Humans have evolved from lower, unsocial animals, who acted individually and whose instincts are thus wired towards selfishness. Even chimpanzees aren’t as extremely social as we. We still possess the lower, selfish, animal nature; but above it, we have a relatively recent layer of human prosocial adaptations, which we call “conscience”, “super ego”, “the spirit” (as opposed to the flesh).
I highly recommend evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind”. He delves there into the evolution of morality, & has some important (and, surprisingly enough, conservative) insights about politics, religion & the social order.
Everything that Brian said in this video, has clearly demonstrated to me, how morality has not evolved. Hence I reject your unproven allegation (speculative counter theories) because you have not satisfied your own burdens of proof.
Another problem with evolutionarily explanations of morality is that in a purely material universe there is simply no place for free will. Atoms and molecules in our brains undergo chemical reactions according to strict rules of physics and thermodynamics, they go they go from a high free energy state to a lower one. They can't choose which way they go. So the idea of any of us making decisions is an illusion, the decisions happen as a result of internal conditions and external stimuli and we appear to choose them. That undermines any idea of morality and undermines the very foundations of science itself, since the greatest science is not the result of conscious thought but of purely arbitrary processes and circumstances.
I don't see, why this worldview should be a problem. It would take a calculatory power, that has to be in a system, which is bigger than the universe, to calculate predictions about the universe. So even if technically everything would be predetermined, noone could ever use that to flawlessly predict the future. So the illusion will always be there. Also not every scientist believes in this scenario. We don't even know yet, if the universe is deterministic (predictable by the physical processes). There are some theorems, that indicate, that quantum mechanics might be non-deterministic.
It also undermines the notion of justice which our legal system is based on for many of the same reasons.
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️You are all missing the point. Point is that evolution is a weak dumb funny primitive dated theory which was already debunked & only the heretical "Thomistic" institute holds on to it
*_"in a purely material universe there is simply no place for free will"_*
As opposed to...? What? Souls? How could souls interact with our brains exactly? Being immaterial and all.
But since we have free will and no evidence for anything immaterial like souls or anything supernatural, your point is moot anyway.
*_"making decisions is an illusion, the decisions happen as a result of internal conditions and external stimuli and we appear to choose them."_*
These two statements are in direct conflict.
*_"since the greatest science is not the result of conscious thought but of purely arbitrary processes and circumstances."_*
Yes, your strawman from ignorance undermines the foundations of science. Maybe study neuroscience and psychology before writing your nobel prize acceptance speech.
Tell me one thing you can make a free choice about using your free will.
We've evolved to be a social species. Cooperation is highly beneficial for fitness, otherwise we'd each be fending for ourselves. These moral theories and moral abstractions are built on top of intuitions about fairness and empathy, which are found in many animals besides humans. These moral intuitions aren't strict laws, that is why there is such variation in moral opinions based on the specific circumstance.
Example: You said lying is wrong, right? What if I see a man with a knife chasing a woman. At a crossroads the woman goes left and the man asks me which way she went. I know there are police officers the way I came, where I could easily direct him but I would be lying. Should I lie or be truthful? The point here isn't to get you to say I should lie, but for me to say my intuition says lying is the morally correct thing to do here
From the purely darwinistic perspective, two competing goals need to both be accomplished to pass on your genes: Your tribe must survive and exterminate all other tribes they compete with, and you must dominate within your tribe. The first goal requires cooperative instincts, while the second goal requires selfish machiavellianism. The fact that humans exhibit both of these is a consequence of this balancing act. Further, the rest of your tribe is part of your environment. If your tribe is unstable and you are more likely to be backstabbed, it's better to be more suspicious and less trusting, but if your tribe is generally kinder to eachother, it pays to be at least seen as more of a team player.
This also explains why the social environment a kid grows up in greatly affects their adult personality. Victims of abuse are less trusting because the existence of violence is a strong indicator of a low-trust tribe, therefore the brain is built to adapt to this by being less trusting. Sociopathy can be induced in a child through abuse and neglect, precisely because in a hellish society, being sociopathic might be the only thing that keeps your genes alive, however a kid raised in a "healthy" family with lots of support will be more trusting and gullible, but also generally more intelligent and productive as an adult, because they don't need to waste as many mental resources doubting everyone all the time.
Generally, ethnocentrism is selected for. Positive ethnocentrism is selflessness specifically towards those genetically similar to yourself, and negative ethnocentrism is noncooperation with those genetically dissimilar to yourself. Most humans throughout most of history were proudly ethnocentric, however a group that is too aggressively genocidal will generally fall to a coalition of groups that stand to oppose them (see the fate of the Assyrian Empire for an example), therefore some ability to, at least in the short term, cooperate with other groups is preserved. This ability was taken to it's extreme in Western (christian) civilization, and allowed that civilization to conquer the whole world. I think there's more to it than that, obviously, because I believe in the genuine divinity of Jesus and his holy Catholic Church, however my point is that a non-religious explanation does exist.
Violent, genocidal ethnocentrism was generally how the world operated before Christ. God's chosen people were not an exception to this, as can be seen by their strong ethnocentrism and genocidal wars recorded in the old testament. I think this goes to show the unrivalable genius of God's plan, that through this people he brought forth himself to form a new covenant, that would make brothers in Christ of all who would choose to follow him. Christianity is the cure to the endless genocide and barbarism that was how the Pagan world operated, because Christ is our Lord and Savior.
As someone who does believe evolution can fully explain morality I have a couple of issues with this video.
You make an analogy with physical traits evolving by saying that all organisms in a particular environment have the same physical traits as those that have evolved to fit that environment, however this is not true. Evolution can work with small differences and to take the beaks of a certain bird species as an example, not all members of a species will have the same beak, in fact very few to maybe even none of the birds will have the exact same beak. This is the variety and individual differences that are the engine of evolution. If all members of a species were the same then evolution could not occur. So evolutionary theory doesn't predict that we would find members of a species to be the same, in fact the opposite is true, we would expect all kinds of differences between individuals in a population of evolving organisms.
Secondly you use this idea of members of a species being the same as a jumping off point to talk about morality however, you never actually defined morality in your video so I am unsure exactly what you mean by morality. One definition of morality that I like is an interconnected system of moral standards and principles. Taking this definition of morality it seems that only humans have this since nonhuman animals don’t have espoused principles or standards. This leads me to my second critique, morality is largely a social construct and not something that we should be looking for evolutionary answers too. Human beings are a complex interplay of genes and environment interacting and very few things we do can be simply boiled down to one or the other. You mentioned that many different cultures have some sort of ethical principle of truthfulness and not lying, but that people break such ethics, I don’t think this is unexpected, as people can and do act in their self interest all the time even if it doesn’t benefit society.
Lastly I do think evolution does explain one thing though, what I will call moral feeling, things such as empathy, reciprocity, love, anger, jealousy and revenge. These seem to be largely genetic and universal among humanity and also appear to exist among nonhuman animals too. All of the same brain regions that light up when we feel love or empathy or revenge also light up in animal brains. I think it is this universal genetic moral feeling that evolved and our systems of moral principles and standards are built on top of and try to correspond to our moral feelings. Thank you for reading!
As a Christian, I’m a little skeptical. We may not see morality performed universally simply because we have traits that allow us to choose good in most situations, but also to choose evil in situations that might benefit our survival. Philip Kitcher lays this out in The Ethical Project. Now, again, as a Christian, I am informed enough to see that he fails to show that evolutionary morality can be truly objective-his argument begins to fall apart at the end. Under the pragmatic naturalist view, we can explain to some extent why humans have morality, but we have no way of proving that this morality has any real meaning. We need God for that, and I think that’s what we as Christians should be focused on. An atheistic worldview cannot defend objective morality, or probably even any meaning at all.
I don't hold to moral realism, but I don't see why I, as an atheist, couldn't defend that position. An atheist, moral realist could simply say there are moral facts that are binding. End of. To say that the existence of God makes the moral facts objective would be a contradiction in terms. Moral facts are objective exactly because they are independent of minds like, say, the mind of God.
@@infamyguy3187What's your evidence that objective morality exists?
@@BrewMeister27 I do understand the moral realist position, though. A moral realist might say: "Harming another person for no other reason than to cause them suffering is bad for that person and objectively hurts their interests. As a rational agent, your capacity to understand that fact compels you not to cause another person suffering."
If you then ask: "But why should I care about other people's suffering?" To the moral realists, it's like asking: "Why be moral?" There simply is the brute fact of the objectivity of suffering and you being the type of rational creature capable of moral reasoning is compelled not to inflict sufferng on another person.
This account of morality doesn't really work for me, but there it is.
God doesn't give objective morality, either. "It's good to do what God says," is no more objective, and no less subjective, than "It's good to do whatever leads to the greatest good for the greatest number" or any other moral principle.
Similarly, the presence of a God doesn't confer meaning. "The meaning of my life is to glorify God" has no stronger or more "real" status than "The meaning of my life is to help others" or "The meaning of my life is to bask in the sun".
You may personally feel that basing morality or meaning on a God is more convincing or more satisfying than basing it on anything else, but that personal feeling of yours is just that; a subjective feeling.
@@davidchess1985 everything you said, however, is only true if God does not exist. I believe God exists; therefore, I believe that what is good by God’s nature is, in fact, objectively good. If we assume instead that we don’t know whether God exists, then we do not know whether God’s morality is objective or subjective. That’s why we discuss whether to believe in God.
Very well argued, Brian. Most of the time people point out how Darwinian evolution is geared toward survival, not truth. Refreshing to hear another equally good critique from another angle.
Darwinian evolution is no longer relevant. Look up "modern synthesis" for the first and most famous of its replacements.
"Truth" is not the question at hand, morality is. Both morality and truth however tend to increase the chance of our gene's survival however.
Its easy to see that morality has definitely not "evolved" .
Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve mankind has the same concupiscence towards sin.
Its been the same sin and the same Solution for thousands and thousands of years.
Man kind has not "evolved " in the sence of morality .
We’re a bit different then were back then. Not that we don’t sin, of course we do. But I’d argue that society in antiquity was much more violent than today. It was so bad God gave Jews the 10 commandments. Like the basics of morality to work on setting them apart from other societies there
However the more secular societies descends into paganism and Gnosticism I suspect society will get worse morally. Which has been going full steam ahead since COVID
@@catholicguy1073 I dunno , we are pretty violent. I don't know if we are more or less violent than those in antiquity , I guess we would have to narrow down a time in history .
I just simply see Pride , Envy , Greed, Anger Lust , Gluttony has not changed since antiquity. Same old sins , Same old tactics by the devil.
@@lonniestoute8762 I’m just saying the 10 commandments is like basic math. God started there with the moral law. Today we take that for granted
And yes we still do sin a lot
@@catholicguy1073 yup I can 💯 agree , ten commandments that outline love of God and neighbor was and still is the solution to our sins . Sin has not changed neither has the solution.
There never was an Adam or Eve. That's not how evolution works.
You are straight up wrong about so much... First of all, the reason morality is the product of evolution is because the judgements we create are based on things we've experienced in context to our own survival. Part of our moral judgements, we've evolved to adapt from out parents. Because we EVOLVED a behavior to adapt those from our parents. Another half of our moral judgement comes from defending a world view we are already comfortable with, to ensure our egos remains comfortable with their lens of the world. Most of the morals judgements spring up from survivalist situation... We despise things that we see disservice us and approve of things that bring us pleasure and we see as in our favor. A moral judgement CANNOT be an objective truth, by its nature, there are no objective truths in morality. Ethics is a matter of choosing between consequences you want and don't want, and morality is what dictates what you will choose... A moral judgement is just an opinion, it's a feeling someone has about a particular thing, and those feelings we have and why we have different feelings about different things, are the product of navigating through evolutionary circumstances.... evolution; adapting to the environment we have to survive against.... We have feelings to keep us alive, its why touching fire hurts... it's because fire can kill you, and our body has developed systems to warn us that is bad... The systems which we derive our morals from, are complex versions of that, which we make even more complex by tying language into things. Pretty much all normative ethical systems, systems of ethics which try to dictate "correct" decisions based on some "norm" or "standard" dictated by which definition we are trying to enforce "good" decisions with, are derive from the way we use the words "good" and "bad" in language, and because we use those words under multiple contexts, there are many normative ethical systems derived from it. The objective truth is, morality IS subjective. Whether that plays well with how we currently interpret society or not, nature does not care... it's our job to adapt to that because it's true, not deny it and pretend something else is true because the truth is hard to look at... You can apply all these normative ethical system to help you make decisions that keep you alive, in a world of chaos and unpredictability.... Your job as a living thing is to survive, whether you're intelligent enough to adapt to the nature of your environment, is up to you.
Calling it "lazy" to have this take is you just trying to discredit an argument you can't disprove or properly falsify. You are objectively wrong. That question of whether morality is or is not subjective is not an ethical problem, it is a linguistics problems, it's a question about the nature the language we use to discuss moral judgements exists under. It in itself is a linguistics problem, NOT an ethical one.... Even if it was a higher power like god to dictate judgements, his judgements would still be subjective because of the nature of which the language/words "subjectivity", "objectivity", and "morality" exist under. We evolved these words to describe a concept in our society, the human race was not born with these words... They emerged... through language evolving and morality emerging because groups of people started living together throughout time, and needed to learn to communicate what they were feeling... Today's dillema is about asking ourselves what circumstances these words emerged under, and how their natural definitions apply to our interpretations of each others feelings in context to our worldviews we have today.
We're not lazy, you just start at conclusions like god, and have to wrap your entire world view around that conclusion. If it doesn't fit with that, it can't be true. I've learned that debating with people like you is a waste of time, because all you do is produce mental gymnastics to defend your faith as the absolute dictator of morality not only for yourself but other people. That is a game of power, and you sir, you suck for playing it. YOUR method is lazy because it is constantly trying to concede to a world it is already comfortable rather than spending the energy to adapt to a world it's scared to admit it doesn't understand.
I've watched a number of half of Brians videos before I give up because of the sheer number of fallacies, dishonest arguments and plain stupidity. I'm not even going to start this one. Morality is simple and even obvious in an evolutionary context. Who on Earth can have difficulties understanding the evolution of morals?
Keep in mind that morality was not created by evolution when humans lived in modern huge cities, nor when we live in ancient small cities. It's origins are far older than our species, as we can witness moral behaviour in other primates. In humans, it was enhanced when our ancestors lived in family groups. Almost everyone around you was a close relative, so every trait that increased the survivability of them, increased the survivability of your genes.
The question is: does the mind/morality/ etc. emerge from lower micro principles?
physical quanta -> molecules -> ... -> organisms -> societies
Is there strong/weak emergence? Is there a optimizing principle for adaptive multi agent systems explaining morality?
These are nice questions ...
Morality is a projected construct. Think of it as a table cloth thrown over an invisible bridge so you know where your steps can be, where the tablecloth is the cognitive gifts humans have been given. Instead of looking at things as strong/weak or more/less, go beyond dichotomy and start looking at networks with no clear middle (only relative locations), no up, and no down. Think rhizomatically, and recognize your very act of thinking is in itself, a consequence rather than a causality. You'll start making truly beautiful determinations.
Basic morality appears through evolution
almost in every social animal. There are countless examples of selfless acts of kindness among animals without visible genetical benefits, in laboratories and wild. "Bad for close one/or even whole specie is bad, good is good" was created because it was profitable for genes, if individuals in group benefits from each over - group survives, if individuals are selfish - whole group dies.
Further evolution of morality is already product of culture, you may or may not consider cannibalism immortal thing to do, but as a human you almost certainly consider "bad for individuals in group is bad".
In case of example with lie: "lie is bad" is product of culture, it doesn't really do harm to other (not always), so more powerful evolutionary "bad for group is bad" don't activates.
With muгdеrs - another thing: 1) Some cultures are f***d up. They separate close one (group) and everyone else (others), so that any atrocities towards other groups are not perceived as something bad.
2) They are exceptions, as with everything else
You are fundamentally misunderstanding how evolution works. You claim that evolution always results in a normalization and uniformity of traits across species (all birds of a particular species have the same beak, all fish have gills, etc.), but that is incorrect. A good example is personality traits. The strength of the various personality traits (extroversion, openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness) are seemingly normally distributed from individual to individual across a population; all cultures have extreme introverts and extreme extroverts, highly agreeable and highly disagreeable people, etc. This is because no single personality trait is purely beneficial in all times and all places, so evolution has maintained a balance.
Essentially, evolution will either force a trait to be distributed according to an exponential decay distribution, which is what you are talking about with beaks and gills, or a parabolic distribution, such as personality. The former is for those uniform traits that are always beneficial in a given environment; 99% of fish of a species have identical gills, those that don't are suffering some mutation that is probably harmful. The later distribution is for those traits which are not always beneficial. In some situations being highly agreeable is an advantage, is some situations being highly disagreeable. So the average person will exist in the middle, with a small percentage on both extremes.
Evolutionary, morality would fit a normal distribution and makes complete sense from an evolutionary perspective. In terms of survival and reproduction, both altruistic and immoral strategies can be successful under the right conditions.
I am Catholic by the way and agree with you on a lot of issues, which is why I am pushing back on this one. I think you would agree that an argument, no matter how appealing it may sound, should be disregarded if it is demonstrably wrong.
I'm uncertain if this is a desperate attempt for content or if this guy genuinely believes he is on to something. Either way, it is a terrible objection to evolution explaining the emergence of morality. The argument is akin to claiming because we don't observe everyone running everywhere all the time, therefore evolution cannot explain a human's ability to run. The consistency is not based on behaviour, rather the consistency is in the human ability to comprehend moral values and duties.
A very insightful description on why morality cannot evolve. The distinction you made by comparing the constants of physical laws versus how we have all disobeyed moral laws strongly demonstrates your point very firmly and clearly yet eloquently. Well done thanks and blessings.
Word salad to be very wrong.
@@joshbrown1397 the tired old “word salad” cliche, when you have no argument . 🥱🙄
@@paulburns6110 Morality being succinctly explained by evolution is not a new thing. No gods necessary. Here you go: ruclips.net/video/GcJxRqTs5nk/видео.htmlsi=JXFSAGDgkOgJk1hq
@@joshbrown1397 thank you for sharing. However as you have miserably failed to even remotely satisfy your burden of proof I shall be logically justified in rejecting your claims. God bless
@@paulburns6110 ah, the old game of pigeon chess. Classic religious cop out when they have nothing. Hello pigeon
The part from 2:40 to 3:00 severly misunderstands the way evolution is brought up to explain morality... Since the start of civilizations, darwinian evolution has had little to do with morality. However, before that, because humans had been a social species, abilities (or maybe a better word, instincts) to empathize and cooperate with their group were selected for. From what I understand, the way brain can develop to allow those instincts is at least to some extent rooted in genetics. This is why to this day people share a common feeling of distaste towards actions they harm their people even if the sets of actions they consider harmful vary from person to person (and if someone does not, it's usually, if not always, because of brain development). So, darwinian evolution laid the foundarion for morality, but the specifics are more of a product of cultural evolution within societies.
Whenever apologists make the moral argument, they need to establish objective morality, and it's usually through pointing out something everyone sees as awfully immoral. However, everyone whom I've seen trying to do that, never considered that the said action might be something we all react to with an instinct which is ultimately a product of evolution (and we all happen to agree) rather than 'objectively immoral'.
You don't need to establish objective morality to make the moral argument, you can just take out objective morality and establish the need for it. For example, let's say it's true that morality it's just a mix of biological instincts and socially constructed expectations. Well, we are rational beings, so what's the rational argument that compels you to follow those instincts and expectations? What happens when a biological instinct and a socially constructed expectation contradict each other? What should we follow then? Past a superficial level, we either have objective morality, or none at all.
Only objective morality can justify itself, because it's grounded in transcendental reality (God).
Absolute nonsense.
Your first argument boils down to: obviously it was God, not nature, that made us fickle and susceptible to peer pressure.
Your second argument boils down to: obviously it was God, not nature, that made us imperfect at executing honesty (also, natural selection is the applicable law - there is no posited 'Moral behaviour arises' law - so you are making a strawman). Further, any evolutionary trait has various levels of expression (penetrance and expressivity).
Your third argument boils down to: people die in war so obviously war couldn't evolve which is absurd because war has convergently evolved in several species and we observe war in our near relatives the chimpanzees.
The fourth argument boils down to: normative statements can't be derived from objective statements therefore the existence of normative statements proves that there is an objective normative standards abstracted from the universe around us - which is absurd because it means that a universe wherein the only statement that is made is 'I like red more than blue' can also prove the existence of god.
If you're too ignorant of evolutionary biology don't comment on it. The Catholic church - however much you hate the current incarnation of the Catholic church - holds that there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.
Even if you managed to prove that evolution couldn't evolve morals then all you've managed to do is prove that we should be preaching to even the warring ants - because clearly they've evolved something that is impossible to evolve and so they must be given morals by god.
Are our consciences of divine origen?
they are a property of the spiritual soul, "immediately created by God at conception"
7:56 almost as if... It can be an advantage, and that's why we evolved to do that as well
Um, evolution does explain morality. We are a social species and individuals that can interact well with one another tend to be the most successful at mating and having children and keeping those children.
My understanding of the pre-requisite criteria (for something to be objectively true) - is that it must universally apply “at all times”. Therefore If morality has evolved, then I sincerely struggle to understand how it could be defined as objective morality. Eg its very own evolutionary aspect clearly contradicts one of the prerequisite criteria - in order for something to be objectively true in the 1st place. Hence it seems IMHO, that the notion of “moral evolution” is disqualified before even getting onto the starting line
You need to distinguish between moral ontology (Does it objectively exist out there?) & epistemology (How do we know of it?).
Evolutionary psychology explains moral epistemology - how humans ended up being moral creatures. It has nothing to say about the objectivity of morality, which is a discussion for philosophers.
@@טמוציןבורגיגין As I have not come across any evidence or good arguments- that even remotely infers that evolutionary theory has anything to do with “how humans have become moral” I will politely and logically reject your claim because you haven’t satisfied your burden of proof.
@@paulburns6110
Read “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt. Obviously I can’t condense an entire book to a RUclips comment.
@@טמוציןבורגיגין Thanks for recommendation. While I’ve a well reasoned justified suspicion of psychological books authored by Non-Christians (especially faithful atheists such as Jonathan) it’s remotely possible that I may indeed add his book to my reading list. In the meantime I recommend any book authored by any catholic saint. Especially anything x St Thomas Aquinas. Peace and God bless.
I don’t think it’s too difficult an idea to briefly state: just as humans have taken millennia to uncover the mathematical rules of the universe, we’ve taken millennia to uncover the moral rules of the universe as well (with a lot of help from its creator).
Is it moral to falsely believe in something for financial gain?
Now that religions have been overwhelmingly disproved is it moral to take advantage of the trusting & ignorant for profit?
Morality is a social concept for groups to thrive with common benefits.
Evolution & assumed gods do not provide true morality
10:40 You juxtapose "morality" and "evolution", as if these are two conflicting explanations for a phenomenon. That's not the case. The question at hand is whether or not morality was _caused_ by evolution, not whether evolution can _replace_ morality.
Also, evolution cannot explain our natural desire for beauty.
Mates always try to attract each other.
To breed to carry those genes.
So life can multiply..beauty is definitely part of evolution.
@@KyleTheDalek Last time i checked I didn't want to mate with a sunset or a Rembrandt painting
@@digitalbath6057 You are egregiously misunderstanding the argument. It's not talking about physical attraction, its talking about transcendent beauty
@@paulshimkin2713 ya all that made up stuff you talk about is also part of evolution.
Yes it does because. If you act like a complete monster, you will not only make people feel bad. You will develop a lot of hatred towards you, and people who are hated by a lot of people tend not to do well.
Why in the world should I care about other accidents of life and their feelings? Maybe in a world where the strong dominates the weak it’s our feelings of empathy that are actually an illusion.
@@connerdozier6689 Maybe because it increases the chance of YOU surviving and thriving in the long run. Even if it' s for purely self-serving reasons, it will serve you better to be good, or at least not be a menace to your fellow man. Because acting like a predator will earn you a lot of hatred and that will increase the chance of you meeting a premature and awful fate. This comment of yours shows you are not just only a sociopath but also lacking even basic survival instinct. Anti social behaviors creates instability while pro-social behaviors creates stability.
Nah, I think it actually does explain morality.
At the very conception of our species we had all those Neanderthals running round the place. They were much more solitary, physically stronger and even had bigger brains.
Point is - they did not need venturing cooperation to hunt and basically survive.
But then, the fire nation attacked: Homo Sapiens came from all sides, highly organized and more adapted for language, abstraction and thus for coordinated tactics.
They wiped out the disunited smaller diasporas of the Neanderthal, obviously mixing with some of them genetically (that is why we seem to have a certain percentage of genetically tracable post-neanderthal patterns within our populations).
Morality is nothing more than a set of ideas and internal structures that are linked to our choices, social approaches and actions.
Due to some being more self-sufficient than others, they never really developed it as much, alongside their frontal lobes (in neanderthal we see much greater potential for motor functions, visual cortex and basic memory rather than moral judgement, which is discovered to be linked more to the frontal lobe rather than common memory or systems that are placed in the backs of our heads - at least seemingly, as once again - brains are far, far more complex for such simplification and narrowing down of their functions - each is usually more spread with links all across rather than to be localized solely in one place).
Despite being better equipped in all other matters for individual survival, group justice flourishing and mutual survival happened to be much more important in the end-game.
To put it in Tywin Lannister terms: „The house that puts family first will always defeat the house that puts the whims and wishes of its sons and daughters first.”
In sociology we know that amongst all sorts of different societies across the globe that has usually been the case that a small, yet more organized group would end up ruling over larger and disunited populus, that would be constantly engaged in struggles of a lower type of aspiration against each other, while those at the top usually lived by more principled stances of conduct towards each other group member.
Think about previous timocracies, Roman senators, aristocracies in the middle ages and current big business cartels - it is exactly how it always has been, except that our current societies seem to be more viscious about promoting socially loyalty sabotaging and group-dissolving traits and modes of thinking. I believe it could also be seen as yet another step of evolution, as it serves the higher purpose of further easing up the art of governing - it is a part of royal arts to expand on squezzing out as much as possible from people that are just unitable enough to be hyperproductive and have their serotonin levels somewhat stabilized while simultaneously keep them from posing any sort of realistic threat to the exploitative nature of the status quo.
Progress of technological advancements in terms of communication and education simply had to be followed by widespread moral dissolution, increaced moral relativism and tribalistic division within society with marketing of all sorts of purely anti-social behaviours and mindsets to become more seductive, else society could spiral into another age of mass-scale organized religious wars and throne instability just like it was after the invention of the Gutenbergs press.
The threat isn’t in the self-sabotaging and disunited public as much as it is in the united one.
We don’t want another Nika riots, or local lords leading their strongly loyal personal armies of thousands shattering empires.
Cuius regio eius religio as they say…
This rant is already faaar tooo looong 😂
Simply put - there is far more to the historic evolution of the current only seemingly schizophrenic, double-think style of moral conduct than people might realize.
If you don’t know the past, you can’t understand the present, and if you can’t make sense of the present, you can’t win the future.
Such strong neuro-biological evolution that you seem to speak of was not a matter of a couple years, but it is a result of a process that has been conducted throughout thousands of years…
…
…
That being said: I totally agree that there is also another deep-dive level of the spiritual and metaphysical aspect to it 💜
Sorry it was too long to read the whole thing.
Question. How would you see morality adapting?
Neanderthals absolutely were not solitary, or even more solitary than modern humans, also larger brains does not mean they were more intelligent. Where did you get any of this from?
Macro evolution is flat out wrong. It is useful for the micro but that is it. Evolution has bled into everything, church teaching, human knowledge, and general perception of ourselves. I would say that degradation, not evolution, is more common among the human condition. How do we go from long lifespans to maybe 70 quality years with modern technology? This is a RUclips comment so I am not fleshing out my argument in any real detail. I just don’t agree with evolution, at least not macro evolution.
What many people call "evolution" they really mean "natural selection." "Evolution" loosely defined, simply means change over time. And by that definition, evolution is true. But the definition of "evolution" today generally implies microbes-to-mankind, which is false.
Darwin didn't agree with our present concept of macro evolution, either.
It's a tool devised by ideologues, not a scientific observation.
The book of his is called origin of species. How is that not macro evolution? How is that not that one cell led to all the life we see now?
It is Hydrostatic pressure.
Well said! 👌
5:50 On the one hand, we _do_ see much more consistency than you describe. The consistency is not in specific reactions to all situations (lie/don't lie), but in a specific _pattern_ of reactions to _similar_ situations.
On the other hand, evolution can work very well with inconsistencies. To name one very obvious example: Humans have very "inconsistent" sexual organs; shouldn't one of them provide an evolutionary advantage? That's not the whole story though: species like wolves have distinct roles in different individuals (eg. "alpha wolf"). Shouldn't one have an advantage over the others, making them extinct? No, because _evolution does not work on individuals,_ it works on populations.
We literally see morals in social animals.
Yeah morals like incest, eating and having sex with dead corpses yeah great example of morality. 😂😂
I see morality as determining cultural evolution, a higher order fitness landscape that determines the success of human societies. Only God can see in its totality (as He created it); we mere mortals are trying our best to navigate it, equipped with a low resolution, evolved intuition and set of heuristics to find the most moral action for any given circumstance as well as reason to help us deliberate.
yes, but it is at the level of spiritual values and communion, not deterministic access to physical resources in the ecological niche. A whole new level.
It doesn't matter if you find it convincing or unconvincing: it just is, and doesn't require your credence to be true all the same. The fossil record makes absolutely clear that the creatures here on Earth at present are related to earlier forms that were less sophisticated than present forms. It is not beyond God's ability to use strange and odd methods to create us, but when we find the tangible genetic, cladistic, and genetic evidence to definitively know he did it that way, we should not reject it - St. John Paul the Great said about this, "Truth cannot contradict truth", and St. Augustine warned Christians in "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" in 415 AD not to try and ply people with ascientific nonsense likely to turn unbelievers away from the gates of the faith.
That God used a patience-requiring process for creation that took 4 billion years rather than using a Hogwarts wand just goes to show He is much bigger than the anthropic Gandalf-like wizard some people imagine God to be. He is Holy, and far greater in time or scope than we are even capable of understanding.
The problem is thinking that evolution completely explains morality. Just as the brain does not fully explain our intellect, evolutionary instincts do not fully explain morality. It requires a rational soul or spirit. Otherwise, the angels would not be moral creatures, since they are not a result of evolution. As well, morality could change over time, just as evolution continues. But morality doesn't change.
3:30 That requires an _insane_ (or dishonest) simplification of an environment. Not even in the deepest of deep seas, where a single factor is overwhelming all other concerns, life is uniform. Wikipedia's category "Deep sea fish" has more than a hundred entries and four subcategories, and that's just the fish. Following your oversimplifying argument, only a single species should exist.
Surface environments are _much_ more complex, by the existence of orders of magnitude more lifeforms alone. The idea that an environment this complex only allows for a singular solution ("law", "replicable") boggles the mind.
6:05 Why can we feel shame if we have a supernatural sense of morality telling us what's right and wrong?
Morality isn't derived from Darwinian evolution, I don't know who is arguing for that. It is however a useful tool in society building, maintaining cohesion, and rallying a populace in a united goal, which does ultimately make for a worthwhile "survival strategy". There are certain social cues that we are born innately with - humans are not born as blank slates - which could be chalked up to genetic memory, but following that foundation nurture begins taking charge. You could argue from that standpoint that morality is derived as a form of governance.
This tracks with the question of why we can't find a society without liars: Lying can be advantageous in the short term, it subverts the governance of a society but not necessarily one's position in it if you escape its consequences. Christianity argues that there *is* no escape from these consequences, that God knows your sin no matter how you try to weasel around it, and the punishment can become as severe as Hell if the transgressions keep coming. This is what makes it an effective tool for morality enforcement, and why historically it was a key part of governance.
10:00 This is why I have to disagree with this. Morality as it stands today is a kind of technology, which took hundreds of years for our societies to slowly develop into the cohesive, stability inducing force we have today. Many grave errors were made along that road, paving it with blood and those present time's good intentions. For example, the American address of rights as derived from God is an important invention on that path, because no human is capable of challenging (and thus removing) those precepts without challenging first the very bedrock of western society and its religious foundation.
Ultimately, you are correct, Darwinian evolution does not explain morality, and nor does it seek to. It explains what it needs to explain: The biological development of species throughout time.
7:55 ....and in the following winter, we all die of pneumonia because we murdered everyone who would otherwise nurture us back to health.
Morality has to do
with CHOSEN behavior
and there WILL be
consequences even
if never caught by
others in this life
Atheistic Evolution has no pattern unless one cuts out the parts that are inconsistent & point out The Pattern Of Creation. Pattern Objectivity is a source of morality, just as Instinct is, whilst contending sources of morality such as Love as Dogma & "Balance" aka Mono-Heirarchy are also worth mentioning in order to cope with.
at "untethered from cause and effect", we dropped into dualism.
you are equivocating when you say "account for". physical causes dont "account" for things. *we* account for things, by examining causes. the fact that we cant trace the physical causes of a given thing does not mean it doesnt have them. we can probably agree that examining physical causes is not the right way to account for the content of moral claims, but behavior occurs in the physical world, and is by no means "untethered" from physical cause, any more than your mind is "untethered" to your brain.
it is imagining that the physical and the spiritual are separate "parts" that amounts to dualism.
to the point: of course evolutionary theory cannot tell us moral statements, but the *process* described by evolutionary theory is no less the cause of moral behavior than of anything else. you are equivocating theory with its subject.
The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection explains the diversity of life on this planet. Were you under the mistaken impression that evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that explains morality?
I think it does, and I'm far from the only one.
If morality were an evolutionary advantage, then 1/12th of Asia would not be descended from Genghis Khan (or our conceptions of what is moral should be based on his actions)
Based on
Dude, morality is not the way that we act, it’s the way we wish people to act. Morality is simply a result of people acting in relationship with other people. There are ways that we want others to act. No god required.
well said!!
7:40 Brian, please stop making arguments about evolution until you've learned how it works.
Please, dear reader, do yourself a favor and read "Introduction to evolution" on Wikipedia. Over and over again it talk about "populations" and "generations", because these are the things that evolve, *NOT* individuals.
Wrong. Morality absolutely can be explained by evolution. It's how we survived as a species until we had so much extra time as to make up gods and muddied the waters.
Can you please sprove the existence of morality (according to your faithful and speculative comment)? Otherwise I and others are logically justified - in rejecting your claim, because you have failed to satisfy your own burden of proof. Thanks.
@@paulburns6110 LMAO.... This tells me that you have been told exactly that many times, yet you don't understand what you are saying. ruclips.net/video/GcJxRqTs5nk/видео.htmlsi=XlsTJs7Jm5rD65XI
Though I agree with you, I'd like to point out that, whether morality sprang forth from evolution, spontaneous (divinely inspired) revelation, or revelation over a prolonged period of time via trial and error which morphed into tradition, all truths are God's truths. If the scientific method leads us to a true conclusion, though it's often an ongoing process that simply leads to more questions, there can be no contradiction between that and God. The source of morality makes for an interesting discussion but, even if it happens to be a materialist (evolutionary) source, God still preceeded it.
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️Take it back, since what you just said is heresy. The dumb theory of evolution can NEVER be compatible with Scripture!
Someone who claims morality is subject is denying their experience of reality, and they’re only doing it for the sake of bringing their atheism world view to its logical conclusion. Nobody who gets their house broken into and robbed, for example, will hold the view they were deeply wronged, while simultaneously holding the view that their feeling of being deeply wronged is only their opinion and not grounded in objective fact.
Morality is entirely subjective.
That's all it is and has ever been.
2:30 I wonder why you invoke a 150-year-old scientific theory that wasn't used by biologists for about a hundred years.
Do you think that God didn't know exactly what evolution would bring intelligent design is complimented by evolution although looking at the moral standards of society some would beg to differ
Look at all these immensely intellectual beings using them big words.
This is one of thous conversations that is completely useless, because everyone pick one group and then that is the ultimate right group of victory.
And yet... ALL miss the mark, even with their immense, overpowered, surperior intellect that only they themselfs can wield.
Evolution kind of does explain morality.
The proof is crime statistics.
A biological trait is not the same as a social construct. Our morality is much more complex than other species. And yes, other species have morals. Just not ours.
Morality is a social construct tied to empathy, reason, logic, ability to see pattern and act on them. Our empathy and ability to see pattern is passed on as biological traits. But morality is purely debated on a social level. Because we can. its the reason why we have cililization, not tiny tribes that still cheer at fire.
*_"compare it to a standard we didnt observe"_*
Do you live in a cave and never talked to another human being in person before? We literally INSTANTLY see the consequences of our actions. Thats how standards evolved!
*_"there is absolutely no point in discussing what should occur"_*
Yes, if you are an anarchist and nihilist and dont care how you treat others then there is absolutely no point in discussing morality or any topic related to human interactions WITH YOU. Other people care and its worth discussing with them.
Maybe study psychology for a decade before you make another embarassing video because you have no clue about the implications of your ignorance.
Evolution and morality? What?
This is perhaps the silliest of all the silly arguments on this channel.
First off, evolution is not a theory about morality. It doesn't set out to explain morality, so we shouldn't expect it to.
But being charitable to your interpretation of other people's arguments, your own argument is still silly.
Here's what you say: "But if morality is the result of evolutionary conditioning, we should see the same consistency and uniformity, and yet we absolutely don't see anything even approaching that."
This is transparently nonsensical. Things like skin, hair, and eye color are undeniably the result of "evolutionary conditioning," as you put it. And yet it's obvious that we don't see consistency or uniformity in those traits. In fact, there are a wide variety of traits that people can have for each of those categories. Evolution does not result in uniformity; to the contrary, evolution depends on the LACK of uniformity.
So your claim is actually totally wrong, and thus your argument falls apart. Because evolution actually results in and depends on variation, differing moral outlooks are completely consistent with evolution.
But some scientists who really should know better have attempted to claim that it does explain morality. That's why Brian is addressing the question.
@@philiphumphrey1548 Which scientists? Can you give specific names?
Of course, that's not the point of my criticism. My point is that Brian's addressing of the question demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not lead to uniformity as Brian claims.
7:22 Well said Mr Martin...he's taking complete nonsense.
While the theory of evolution has not yet satisfied its burden of proof, it nonetheless relies heavily upon the undeniable evidence of the type of uniformity that Brian very eloquently and firmly demonstrates. Hence I am logically justified in accepting the premises and conclusions of his helpfully insightful commentary. God bless.
@@paulburns6110 No scientific theory ever fully satisfies its "burden of proof", there are always more experiments and tests to be done. Scientific theories are by their very nature provisional, the last until somebody disproves them or thinks up a better more economical theory.
I deeply admire you Brian. And I respect your Catholic faith. You're an authentic Believer who cultivates the life of the mind. This is a rare and appreciated combination.🖖🏻
To be fair, the theory of evolution really doesn't explain anything.
You may not agree that evolution explains morals, but that just makes you wrong.
In so many ways I agree with this video precisely because morality involves free will, requires spiritual nature and is based on laws that are perennial but involve circumstances. People are applying evolution to everything precisely because this is their mindset. It’s important to point out that the world has an evolutionary mindset and most people just take it for granted that it is true when in fact it is false. But what’s more is that we call things evolution which are not evolution like adaptation within species. Even in regular day jargon people say this project evolved in such and such a way, and is abuse of the word furthering the confusion. Most times people mean to say development or adaptation, and they shouldn’t be saying evolution. Evolution is something becoming another thing entirely different (Darwin). There is so much that needs correction in our language besides mortality, theology and ways we interpret science. Evolution which is about creation of things through death and destruction is an ideology, not a science and that is destroying our society and eroding the very Church because so many Catholics are trying to compromise it with Divine Revelation.
That's not entirely right. Evolution isn't about "something becoming another thing entirely different". Darwin certainly never used those words. Evolution is about change over time. Evolution through natural selection, which is a subset of evolution, is about things changing over time as things which are more able to survive and propagate naturally become more prevalent. Evolution of living beings through natural selection in the presence of genetic variation does eventually lead to speciation (which may be what you're thinking of when you say "another thing entirely different", although no two species are *entirely* different), and is the best scientific explanation for the current state of Earthly life.
Evolution through natural selection can also be applied to social behaviors and societal structures, although since those don't have well-defined individuals and reproduction events it's somewhat less rigorous. It's pretty plausible to account for morality in terms of evolution both genetic and societal, and "evolution" is a perfectly reasonable word to use there. If a particular property (a gene, a standard of behavior) gives some entity (an animal, a society) a larger chance of continuing into the future (through offspring, or later generations of the society), then that property will tend to become widespread, all other things being equal.
This is pretty undeniable; it's simple logic. Whether that effect is enough to account for the world that we see around us, either in the forms of living beings or the moral behavior of people, is another question. I think so, or at least that it's the most plausible explanation that we have. You are of course free to disagree. :)
you complain that morality doesnt correspond to a universal observation, yet proceed to say that we *all* have experienced shame, have lied, etc. so which is it?
and no, evolution does not determine what always occurs, it determines what typically occurs. people are in fact typically moral.
behavior is evolved, unless you would say that beavers building dams has nothing to do with evolution. morality is an aspect of behavior, therefore it has evolved.
It hasn’t evolved. It has been given to us by God. We see how his morality has led to an explosion in virtue and saints in the Middle Ages. He has also built us with a conscience that tells us right from wrong. The pagans noticed this.
Evolution seeks to remove God and say that we are always progressing to something better. It is the antithesis of tradition and destroys through its ideas of progression.
@@thomasmcanerney1534 you are equivocating evolution with the theory of evolution, and more importantly moral behavior with the content of morality. these are different things. behavior evolves, progressing toward the good. why would the fact of evolution mean something is not from god? do you disbelieve the facts of the water cycle because you know that rain is given by god?
If it is evolved as a result of survival within a society then you would be a fool not to adopt Machiavellian manipulation for gain. Any pangs of guilt can and should be suppressed like you would suppress an irrational fear of the dark. A situation WILL arise where you will be faced with a decision to compromise these "evolved" morals for something like....maintaining a moral public image. This would directly pit the main social driver of, in your view, morality against true God based morals. Would you sacrifice the possibility of appearing less than noble to do the right thing? What if some hacker threatened to leak deepfake videos of you committing some heinous acts unless you privately refused to report a real crime you witnessed?
I taught those. I would make the distinction between micro and macro evolution. I am fine with micro to a certain extent. Macro is false.
Evolution implies that genesis is wrong. It would also counter the flood as we explain the fossil record as a long time instead of a quick instance, a global flood. Finally it would imply that three immaculate conceptions occurred. Adam and Eve were without sin. Evolution would dictate that they are from a common ancestor with apes. This would mean they were conceived immaculately just like Mary. She is the immaculate conception, not just one of three.
Finally, your water cycle analogy is a poor analogy. I can’t think of another one at the moment but it is poor. It isn’t equivocal.
You seek to deny the natural moral order brought about by evolution and insert your flawed morality that you claim comes from a higher place or as you say 'God'. Now you and Brian Holdsworth both know your church sexually abuses children. How come your moral code does not stop you supporting such people and such acts? Evolution says children are not sexually ripe so one doesn't have sex with children. Evolution gives people sexual desires so you only have sex with people who desire to have sex with you. Your morality says there is a certain class of people that are beyond criticism and can break every evolutionary moral for a greater good, ie God. Rats have no gods yet they. as a social species, have morals. And the period in history to which you refer was known as the dark ages, famous for instruments of torture and ignorance about the world. @@thomasmcanerney1534
Atheist discussing morality - 'I don't need God to tell me that killing an innocent life is wrong'
also atheist - 'abortion is Okay'
It's all emotionally driven, don't expect rationality.
But it is.... Also Bible says life doesn't begin until first breath soooo. Not killing an innocent life. Just aborting the development of a life
@@ceciltaylor9319 If you are referring to Adam in Genesis. He was not born of a woman, so isn't really comparable.
@@ben0298 That assumes he is even real.
@ceciltaylor9319 nice strawman, ladies and gentlemen the "reasonable" atheist.
Catholic convert and fan of evolutionary psychology here. In social species (chimps, corvids, etc.) evolutionary explanations of morality can't get past tribalism and tit for tat.
But what you might call antecedent, primordial moral behaviour in our primate cousins and avian friends is still pretty good evidence for the evolution of morality, no? It's no surprise that social creatures living in small groups don't have need of a anything more complex than tribalistic or reciprocal interactions for social cohesion. This maps on to how the 10 Commandments offer pretty simple rules fitting a small Bronze age society where patriarchal, clan-like, tribal units are its basis.
As empires emerge, vast structures encompassing multiple nations, you start to see the concept of universalism being built into moral theories for the purposes of social cohesion. These universal ideals have greater difficulty to grab a hold of us because we as a species have evolved to function in these tight knit communities composed of perhaps no more than a few scores of people. As such, evolution makes perfect sense of moral sentiment and why mores change.
@@infamyguy3187 2 things
1. Evolution doesn't create morality in the way we think of it (objective morality/moral reasoning), evolution creates what you might call ”friend instinct". There might be cooperation within the tribe, but anyone outside the tribe is a predator/pray. Think "I love my family, & we don't trust outsiders". There's no reasoning there, just feelings.
2. If you want to say that morality is "cultural evolution" (memetics), then for Darwinian reasons we should be xing atheists. All historical evidence of civilization that has survived were theistic civilizations, the largest atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheistic nations, atheists have lower birth rates and higher self delete rates than theists. All evidence points to atheism being a lethal meme/idea aka "knowledge hazard". Especially compared to the beneficial memes (best performing religions) on offer today. I don't believe that, but if you want to treat Darwin as God, then that's where the logic goes.
Evolutionary psychology gives me a good set of tools to identify "original sin" inside my self and others. In evo psyc terms "original sin" can be thought of as "environmental mismatch". Like I said. I'm a fan of it, but it's not my religion.
@@joesouthwell4080what if in the same way that modern technology shields people from many physical evolutionary pressures (nearsighted people survive at the same rate as those with 20/20 vision now), it has shielded modern civilizations (for a time) from evolutionary pressure against atheism and relativistic morality?
@@samurguy9906 well then from a Darwinian perspective, times up. Modern civilizations are below replacement levels with fertility. Basically the only groups replacing themselves are the super poor, super rich, and super religious. So if religion is "just an idea", it's an idea we're dependent on unless we want to go back to tribes of 150 members (Dunbar's number) with constant warring between tribes. The worst part of me wants that for my enemies, the best part of me wants us all to do better. We can argue over whether "is God true?" and probably will forever. But "Is God good"? Science has answered this with almost absolute certainty. Assuming any definition of "good" includes "pro human", all evidence points toward yes.
I don't need faith to believe "God is good", I've got the science to back it.
Sorry brother, but all the available evidence in biology and archaeology supports the theory of evolution, and morality can be explained within this framework. A more thorough engagement with this topic would have revealed this to you.
How archeology support evoultion yet we see species coming suddenly in the fossil record and not gradually as Darwinism suppose like the cambrian explosion and other 18 examples of entire species and phyla coming suddenly without any transitional fossils
Brilliant! Such an intelligently reasoned and superbly argued point 👏👏👏👏
The issue here is morals are all different, some countries have very different morals.
But there is objective morality. Cannibalism is wrong. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Objective morality means that we are ontologically distinct from animals.
There is objective morality. Cannibalism is wrong. Murder is wrong. R@pe is wrong.
The Spartans use to throw babies with mild defects into ditches to die. The Spartan culture accepted it.
Morality says that all humans are endowed with an inalienable right to life which is not dependent on any culture or people or time
One things for sure; "Natural Law" which just boils down to glorified table manners or an overly nuanced divine command theory does not explain actual morality.
Thank you! I read an argument the other day that evolution caused morality, and I knew that didn't make sense, but I couldn't really explain why. Now I do!
Brian, once again you have put forth a massive straw man. Almost no one argues that morality is based on an individual's personal preferences. That is a ridiculous argument.
What morality is... Is the rules made by a group to achieve a goal.
You are once again completely misrepresenting science. Literally no one says that human behavior should or does follow the same types of scientific laws that govern the motions of the planets.
When studying people, scientific observations describe characteristics of populations. This should be obvious to you. You are equivocating on the definition of scientific laws.
Human behavior when studied can be characterized by patterns and averages.
For heaven's sake, read some anthropology. Start with the book Sapiens by Harari.
Whether or not morality is objective is pretty much irrelevant. We don't have a magic way to discern the universe's decrees, if there even are any.
And inserting God into the mix doesn't buy you anything. You just end up speaking for God when you don't know if you really are.
Like it or not, it is arbitrary. Those of us who are not psychopaths will continue to not murder.
And it doesn't have to be spaceless or timeless either. Try watching Shelly Kagan clean William Lane Craig's clock in their famous debate.
But, have you considered the Roof Rabbit theory?
Evolution doesn’t have to explain morality. What is not explained is how God in all his horrific immoral acts and demeanor can still be considered moral by believers.
*now that I’ve listened 10 mins in, I’m rather shocked at how simplistic and kissing the point this video is. There is biology-genetics and sociology-conditioning. Don’t be so black and white.
Evolution does explain morality. As a social species we must adopt rules to make it possible to live together. These rules we call morality.
@@kevinkelly2162My point is merely that there are numerous explanations for morality. Sure, one can look at evolutionary development as an explanation, but there are other approaches. In any case, that’s not my contention here.
There might be numerous explanations for morality but if we had not developed it through evolution we would not be here to talk about it.@@BigIdeaSeeker
scientifically speaking, evolution did occur. this is basically a fact that is unable to be called a fact straight foward. this isn't a good argument because evolution can explain morality in many different ways. this doesn't change the fact that god could have acted in a natural way throughout time. don't fight science and faith. that is rule #1.
Brian isn't arguing that evolution didn't occur. What he's arguing is that while evolution can be a good explanation for instinctive behaviors which are shared between members of the same species in the same environment, it's not a good explanation for ideals which are held but not consistently acted upon, because ideals can't be selected for separate from behavior.
Just look at Trump.
BH talks absolute non-sense. If evolution doesn't account for morality then what does?
To be frank, I don't think the theory of evolution explains anything. As far as I'm concerned, it's a fairy tale for adults. But nice video.
amen
How do you explain that scientist make successful predictions based on the Theory of Evolution?
@@korbendallas5318 I don't know what you're talking about. Please elaborate.
@@korbendallas5318 science.. Ah yea.. Maybe he was lucky. And evolution theory is just a theory.
@@christopherfleming7505 In other words, you have no idea what the evidence is.
It's easy to learn the basics, just take the time. Then, you will see whether your prejudice is justified.
Evolution is silly period. If you need the real science go to Kent Hovind. Your welcome
True, but Kent who?😅
Brian, altruism is a thing in biology and it has evolutionary advantages not for the individual but for the group. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_%28biology%29?wprov=sfla1
not actually for the group, rather for the gene and by extension for the lineage.
but yes.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, and there are degrees of altruism. Universal charity and true altruism is from God. Without universal altruism there will be equal pressure of competing groups interests. A benevolent King who is fair with his subjects and harsh to his enemies is how this would manifest if it is not UNIVERSAL.
Nonsense. Genghis Khan has more offspring than any other male in history.
That makes no sense. Genghis Khan has more offspring than any other man. That's evolutionary biology at work.
@@SydneyCarton2085 agree they aren't mutually exclusive. Just to point that the premise of the video is pretty weak if not totally fallacious