That's awesome, Chris! I love these conversations because if the reasonable, logical approach towards God and the Bible. I would encourage you, much more importantly than this, to seek a personal relationship with Christ. He'll speak to you through the Bible and by His Spirit. Keep going forward!
Rats, bats, elephants, wolves, chimpanzees, dogs and whales have all been shown to exhibit moral behaviour. If animals don’t require divine intervention for moral behaviour, what makes one think humans require this? Religious morality, although “objective”, varies depending on what religion you subscribe to and the religion you subscribe to may vary depending on social/geographic upbringing. To say that the ethics of Christianity are superior to the ethics of Islam because it “feels” right is subjective and to compare the 2 religious moralities means you would need a moral basis on which to compare them and that moral basis can’t be one of the religions. The only way to compare them is to subjectively compare which one “feels” better. The religious claim to objective moral values is ultimately based on a subjective recognition of a person’s claim to the superiority of their religion and the feeling, not the fact, that the morality of that religion is objective.
A morality based on evolution would support our attempts to improve the overall well-being of our species. The Nazis have argued the same in their escapades..
Evolution didn't "give us" moral thoughts or any other "thoughts" - it simply gave us the capacity for specific emotion (disgust, outrage, anger, etc) to remain loosely connected and reliably invoked after experiencing or being made aware of a person or group of people's unjust or selfish behaviour. I wouldn't call this a "thought" as much as I would call it a feeling, which I would also describe as a moral feeling (given the reason for its existence is genuine). The cognitive virtues of modern humans are the only reason these ever become something more than just feelings and emotions. The mind's faculty to conduct complex thinking-skills such as personal reflection, introspection, and pattern recognition, are the means by which we were able to identify and categorise interconnected emotions, feelings and experiences into a single system of right and wrong, only after which could we begin forming beliefs and opinions on the appropriateness of other people's actions.
@Jim Johnson If we don’t need God to live right then I hope you’re living with love and kindness and truth each day with your fellow humans, animals , do have a lovely day.
@Prince Kingston To be honest he don’t really nail most of the things he say. And I’m child of the ALMIGHTY not an atheist. What I do see mostly is that Christian TH-camrs and all others it’s all about money it’s not about bringing the truth to anyone. They all wrote books the Bible is good enough for me I personally don’t need their advise that’s written in their book. It’s either we believe or we don’t it’s no middle ground. The ALMIGHTY is my motivation everyday. I don’t hardly listen to the whole videos I actually look for the atheists that have vile things to say. They never disappoint. They actually infuse me with more love for the MOST HIGH.because of how vile and evil they can be with their words. And I don’t want to live that way because someone don’t agree with The Devine Almighty Power.
2:12 Also, if macro-evolution gave us our moral feelings, then there's this slight possibility that, for some individuals, their moral feelings may be different, hence we shouldn't call anyone evil (not even a serial killer); after all, it was fault of evolution, right? Why would we punish him/her if we could've also been evolved that way?
@@Ozzyman200 Because God says so, that’s their whole point. Doesn’t matter if it satisfies you. Maybe someone’s god wants them to conquer you? So what if you don’t like it if they win.
@@Ozzyman200 It’s not necessarily obedience, as if that’s even wrong. It’s just god of the gaps really. If someone wants something, if it feels right or wrong, they don’t owe it to you necessarily to justify their position. That’s what people call God.
I don't understand why morality being evolutionary would lessen it, all my thoughts come from evolution? Yeah so what? My thoughts coming from somewhere does not mean they are invalid.
@@MartTLS Absolute morality stands if you simply consider what morality is. If moral truths exist (ie A is wrong, B is right) then morality has to be as objective as the truth it stands on.
@@maow9240 I dont know any that says that, but if they do, then they are wrong. Evolution does not explain the origin of life either. That is a whole different branch of science
@@Chronicbadminton you talk to them enough and they will say morals evolved with the evolution of civilization. I never said evolution explains the origin of life.
@@maow9240 The science of Evolution explains the origin of species. When someone talks about evolution of civilization, what they meant is the development of civilizations. Moral values are developed with the advancement of civilization.
I'm a Christian, but this could be an objection: we see certain things as wrong, because evolution let those live whose brain chemistry tells them to not do things that are destructive to human race -> survival of those who can form a strong society that doesn't self-destruct. And the reason why we would still do otherwise (sin) would be because we tend to seek our personal benefit too to continue our own bloodline. Thoughts?
On the other hand, nazies tried to kill jews - why would we think a race trying to kill another race was bad if it was just natural? On the other other hand, there are racist people who don't think it's wrong. This is too much for my brain
@Mart TL1000S People murder lie steal rape because they want to. We all have a mind and heart to do good to love and respect others choose evil instead of love.
Subjective morality doesn't mean you agree with certain things like the holocaust or killing babies. It means that you know that morality is a somewhat arbitrary and subjective social/human phenomenon that doesn't exist outside of the human experience. To put it another way, the universe doesn't give two $hits about the "evil" things humans do--only other humans do. All because there's a near 100% consensus on the condemnation of certain human behaviors doesn't mean that the concept of that condemnation is etched into the fabric of the universe, or magically written into stone by the fingers of a deity.
If everyone in this world believed that torturing babies is good, does that make it good? If suppose Hitler won WW2 and brainwashed everyone into thinking that holocaust was good, does that make it good? Moral laws are objective laws that govern how humans ought to act. Even if every human thinks otherwise, these laws exist.
You can't go from "evolution gave us moral thoughts" to "evolution gave us all of our thoughts". That's like me saying "my friend gave me this pen, so my friend gave me all my pens". Evolution gives uspredispositions and tendencies towards certain behaviours, that doesnt mean that those behaviours (including thinking) lack agency and somehow arent 'yours'. Even assuming we could claim that evolution gave us all of our thoughts, including the thought that evolution gave us all of our thoughts, thats a claim about origin and not about truth-value, so that doesnt mean your thoughts any less valid if they have an evolutionary basis. Thatd be like saying "god gave me all my thoughts, including the thought that god gave me all my thoughts, therefore my thoughts about God are unreliable"...thats just not a good argument. I'm not trying to claim anything either way about god, and I dont consider myself an atheist, I just value critical thinking.
@@lawfulrecord2527 Also, as I said, my point isn't an 'argument against God', it was just a point about makingsure that an argument or particular line of reasoning is solid. Like I said, I'm not an atheist. I was saying that saying where your thoughts come from is not the same thing as saying whether or not they're true. If you want to prove that God exists then surely you'd want to prove it beyond all doubt, and therefore you'd want to make sure that your argument is valid and not open to criticism.
@@Notapizzathief if the materialistic evolution your talking about exists then all our thoughts are grounded by laws of physics; we don’t reason we merely reacts and we just have a brain and no mind. If we only have a brain and no mind that means all our thoughts are just the reaction of atoms bumping around in our brains. If that’s true we cannot even trust our own thoughts even that that thought is true.
@@lawfulrecord2527 Thank you for taking the time to reply to me, I appreciate it :) Yes but again, a claim about the origin of a thought is not the same as a claim about it's truth-value. If it was true that all we had was brains, and not minds, and that thoughts were therefore products of the brain and not the mind, that would say nothing about the content or trustworthiness of those thoughts. I'm not saying this is true, it's just a thought experiment, but imagine a perso that only had a brain and no mind - would you want to say that any and all thoughts that person had we false and/or untrustworthy? What if they had the same thoughts as someone with a mind - would the fact that they have no mind make their thoughts less trustworthy, even though they're the same thought? I don't think so. What if someone with only a brain and no mind thought that God existed? Would you want to say that their thoughts of God couldn't be trusted? Also, I'm not making the claim that evolution is only, or merely, materialistic - I don't think it's necessarily denies the existence of minds or dualism. Some scientists and philosophers think that consciousness is in everything (i.e. panpsychism), and I don't think that's too different from saying "God is everywhere". Evolution isn't incompatible with God's existence, and what's more impressive anyway - God creating everything as it is, or god creating organisms that can evolve into and make other organisms? I'd be more impressed at an inventor that made a machine that makes other machines, than just an inventor than made a machine that never changed. If there are limited resources (like a lack of food due to a flood, say), and there is variation amongst animals (some taller, some shorter, for example), then it's only natural that those animals best suited to the environment survive better than those who don't. In a flood where low lying plants are submerged, a giraffe would survive better than a horse because it can reach the higher up leaves that survived the flood, and when it survives it can pass on the trait of having a long neck. That's all evolution is - variation plus competition for limited resources.
If it was evolution which gave us morality, why not follow it? It doesn't matter where morality comes from, if something is wrong "because god says so" or because we evolutionarily developed an "ethical sense", in both cases morality is an axiom (like saying happiness is good)
Wrong to who? When you say the other person is just wrong, on what basis? This man has fancy word tricks that end in empty assertions, with no tangible evidence.
Yeah the whole topic of subjective versus objective morality is one of the main reasons I think atheism doesn’t make logical sense. We really should be happy when certain people die around us. Like if you have a parent who’s being a pain in your life because you’re trying to care for them, then you should be relieved when they die. But only a sociopath would think such a thing.
Kyle Rainer Kyle Rainer My mother suffered for many years from cancer, it tore her apart, as well as the family. She was in pain 24 hours a day and my father became depressed and heart broken to see her less able to do even the most basic things. When she passed there was a certain level of relief. As well as extreme sadness. I’m not sure of your point?
@@Kaymen1980 i think a true CHRISTIAN wouldn't be saddened by death. Since we don't know the date or hour of when our God is returning. Then of course it's normal to feel a little "loss" we're still human aren't we? But i would definitely cry of sadness for example if I know the person that died didn't know Christ. Hopefully that makes sense 👍🏻🙏 God bless
@@anamarier4791 No, I don't find it normal at all.. I act according to my beliefs, and I do so consistently.. Transitioning into the "eternal" is the greatest thing ever for christians. It's what you have spent your whole life waiting for, to die, so you can be done with this footnote of earthly existence and be with Jesus... And weirdest of all, the younger they are when they die, the sadder you seem to get.. Why? The sooner the better yes? A stillborn is on an express elevator to Jesus - yes? Yet you cry and you cry 🤷♂️
Can you guys please help me out. So he says “If your world views says the Holocaust isn’t objectively wrong, you just have the wrong world view.” I understand two wrongs don’t make a right, but I can’t imagine a world view in which God would put millions of Jews who did die in the Holocaust, into hell, just for not believing in Jesus or being baptized the right way. How can I reconcile that, to me as a Christian, it seems very petty, and not fair, that people who died as Jews in the Holocaust would go to hell since they didn’t put there trust in Jesus Christ.
In all fairness the Jews didn’t believe that Jesus was God and by some accounts that I know of, it doesn’t sound like they wanted to be with God anyway. This positions assume that everyone wants to be with God. What is more loving? Allowing the free will of human beings to make up their own mind, or for God to force people against their will into His presence for eternity? This can be related to criminals who go to jail and are freed only to go back to jail because they genuinely prefer prison over being free. By their own actions and will they put themselves exactly where they want to be and God honors their decision.
Why do you say "God would put..." as if it was God who did the holocaust? Has everyone forgotten about satan? Has everyone forgotten about human evil and attribute all wrong in this world to God? I'll respond to you. If God were to intervene then he would've taken Hitler's free will, and Hitler would no longer be a free being. But he will have his punishment.
Well , what I saw from this is a strawman fallacy. Yes it is a biological process and your brain and how it is structured is biological. And it's not moral thoughts , it's intuitions. How do you explain sexual desire, craving for food, thirst for whatever and inclination towards finding shelter? There's an evolutionarily derived psychological process in these. If these are evolutionarily derived , why can't moral intuition?
But there are a lot of things that we know are not morally right but at the same time they are just not right because they are mean but why would we care if our minds are only programmed for the survival of the human species
And also why doesn’t every single couple in the world want kids considering that it would be part of their “intuition “ since it would help preserve the speices
The key concept to keep in mind is, what may very well be the reality may not be a comfortable thought. What has been shown to be true is that the human species evolved from a social species of apes. It was innate in those apes to have impulses to watch out for each other and help each other survive. Go forward about a half a million years and what we now see is a social species, the human species, that has taken those impulses and given their various manifestations names such as kindness, compassion and even heroism. Turek says that if that is true, why believe what you believe when you are just a biological machine? Yes, in a very real sense we are all biological machines. All living organisms are.
Without God, morality ultimately breaks down into subjectivity and mere opinion. Only a God who is infinite and all-knowing can be an objective standard of morality as He will have objective answers to each and every moral issue.
@@bryanutility9609 You seem to be saying that if people disagree with God's morality, then this must mean that God doesn't have an objective standard of morality. Have you considered that these people are simply wrong about their disagreement? That God is right but people disagree with Him anyway?
@@EndTimesHarvest if people disagree with each other about what God wants you might as well take god out of the picture. I don’t need god to disagree I know what I want and I only care about winning.
Morality = process and thinking. "Morality" of animals = reflexes and instincts, i.e. NO thinking. Moral feelings has no evolutionary bindings, because it's TOO MUCH intellectual input into simple thought "i need to survive and preserve my people", wich no animals (even semi-social) doesn't have - it's just instincts. Empathy and evolution of morality is evolutionary scapegoat. And downfall.
Morality, a sense of fairness and social altruism have a survival advantage for social species so it is quite reasonable to explain morality as an evolutionary development. Sociual evolution is also the best way to describe the change in morality over time. For example, if we look at the morality of the Bible we see support for slavery, genocide, human sacrifice amd the subjugation of women, all things considered very immoral now. Morality evilves and it certainly does not come from the horror show of the Bible or any imaginary sky wizard.
I think we should start calling this the "Nature Of The Gaps Argument" Atheist can't explain where everything came from and why there is such precise intelligence in the universe and where morality came from there for nature did it.
Because there are people who torture babies. Human, child, sex trafficking is at an all time. Most people are appalled thus making illegal but it persists as a billion dollar industry.
Frank Turek's definition of objective morality is moral values that are dictated by god. The problem I have with this objective morality is that it eliminates all of our humanity out of the equation. It's a morality that's not concerned about our feelings, emotions, wellbeing, or anything else about us. So, when you encounter Bible passages where god is condoning rape, slavery, telling you to kill innocent people, discriminate against certain people, etc., your own sense of right and wrong are irrelevant. I know Frank Turek exalts his standard as this great standard that will match up with everyone's own sense of morality, but I also know that Frank Turek takes the good of the Bible without taking the bad.
Well yet again, these objections have been repeatedly answered. And the argument for God comes from a theistic stance and not a Christian one. The moral obligations are not dictated by God. They're built into his very nature. The very concept of a source of morality has to be a rational, unchanging, conscious, necessary entity. This source cannot be human because this poses a subjective view. This perfectly adds the third option to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Because the good is God. He is all-good by definition, and therefore the standard for objective moral values. Reading about biblical passages, you need to take account of their contexts in which they're spoken. I'll happily answer those objections you've got if you gimme scriptural references for them. We title them as rape and racism, when the context begs to differ, both within scripture and history. Tbh, a Jewish scholar would better help with these moral issues, but I can try.
Evolution is the way we got here. It's how we became who we are sociologiclaly. Think of all the religous people who've committed violent crimes against people.
@Samuel Rodriguez groovy. But that is merely your assertion that your god has demonstrated his love and power in your life. You haven't provided testable evidence to show these events are the result of a god and not natural occurrences. You also have yet to show spirits exist. Let alone that your god is why these spirits exist. The truth is demonstrated, not asserted.
We ARE social species - and social species tend to have some form of morality! Think of wolves, lions, hienas, apes and such - they all show some forms of moral behaviour. They could be different from our standards but those still are forms of morality. Biology doesn’t define our morality but it definitely pushes us to be moral. And for the ignorant people that don’t know a thing on this topic: Yes, evolution explains sacrifice, sympathy, cooperation and many other features that you would attribute to a moral person!
@@buffalobob2890 a community thrives when in a social setting, therefore societies that value well being over killing everyone will survive, pass on their genes, and so on, basically natural selection. the subjectivity comes in when what each society determines as promoting well being, ie one society may see treating women as half as important as men can be seen as promoting well being for one society, and a society treating men and women equally can be seen in their point of view to be promoting well being, so yeah, subjective
@@NEPtune-fy1ug that wouldn't be subjective but relative. Subjective makes reference to the individual, not a group. And you forgot to mention why these particular cultures are asserting that. That's what really tells you if their claim is objective or not.
@@camilobriceno8212 yes i agree its relative. but before a society can form, all actions comes from the individual, so a society's way of life is shaped around the consensus of the majority in the society, ie subjective feelings of individuals in the first place. why cultures assert their beliefs? well really anything can be justified. none of their claims are objective because no society objectively knows the best way a society can function, they just think they do, which is why we have completely different sets of morality in many different cultures now, and the entire history of humanity
@@NEPtune-fy1ug the difference of opinion is not a good reason to dismiss every cultural moral system. I insist, is not the fact that is claimed by a culture what tells us if a given moral system is objective or not. We can think about a lot of examples of cultural moral values that are not based on objective facts and then we can dismiss those values. But what if the base for that moral value is an objective fact? Example: a culture claims human torture is wrong. The basis is "humans are sentient beings" and that's an objective fact.
Evolution doesn’t “give feelings”. It is simply that during natural selection, humans are more attracted to generosity and morality and therefore will select them for procreating. Evolutionary ethics questions whether we do moral things for the sake of selection.
Just like evolution.... Pond scum to man..... We have witnessed very slight variations within genus or family but nobody's ever seen evolution across those barriers. This is an sumption used to support evolutionary theory... That is why it is still called a theory... If evolution from one genus or family to another genus or family would take hundreds of thousands or millions of years then it has never been observed. So criticizing another's belief because It's based on a theory would put you in the same category.
Theists define god to be good, but they have no justification for this. To them, good is whatever god says is good. If god says killing babies or slavery is okay then these must be good. This isn't objective morality, this is absolute morality
A Court Judge Who condemns a Killer father for dead penalty and leaves his child unprotected and fatherless. Who is Bad guy? the Father or The Judge . Who is the The Bad ? God The Judge or the Fathers who will do child sex slavery and Child Burning sacrifice for their Gods and what we have children’s that learned evil from their parent to harm society ??? That’s the bigger picture
@@24132juanjcr I'm not sure how what you wrote is even remotely relevant to anything I said. I was referring explicit examples where god commanded or sanctioned actions that most Christians today would regard as evil such as killing babies, ethnic cleansing and chattel slavery. How can a good god do things that most Christians say is evil. It makes no sense
Frank this is ridiculous. Atheism isn't based on morality. Atheism is defined as the disbelief in gods. It's one stance on one subject. What you consider moral and how are separate. And only the religious use the word evolutionist. And to be blunt it makes you look obtuse. The study of evolution is called evolutionary biology. Pointlessly putting ist at the end of words is silly. If you drive a gas powered car does that make you an internal combustionist? If you eat a hot dog does that make you a hot dogist? See how ridiculous that gets? And evolution does grant morality to an extent. Why do you think we observe social species like apes, dolphins, and hyenas working together better than solitary species? Because it benefits them. They establish norms that promote their well being by working towards the well being of the group. Help the pack get the food and you get a piece. The many do what the individual can't. If you don't help then you don't eat. That's a moral standard demonstrated by animals. And lastly we atheist don't remain atheists to avoid some heart felt aspect you perceive. We are atheists because you have yet to demonstrate your god exists with testable conclusive evidence.
@jason sims if someone showed the god of the bible to exist would I believe OF him? As in he exists? Of course. I believe in anything if there is sufficient credible evidence to support it. Now, would I believe IN him? As in follow his rules and worship him? Not even if you paid me. And why would I? The bible advocates for horrible things such as slavery, sexism, bigotry, genocide, ect. I ask for theists to provide testable conclusive evidence for their god because it is right to hold everyone to a standard of evidence. You want to claim your god exists? That's fine. You have a right to freedom of speech. But you now need to present demonstrable evidence to validate your claim.
@jason sims do I believe the material exists? Of course. Does that mean I'm a materialist? No. If I'm not mistaken a materialist believes the material is all there is. How could I say that is true when I can't demonstrate it to be true?
@@alanbaraka9800 What if someone cant go into the lab and prove something but makes a logical deduction based on the evidence at hand and whats already been proven by scientists before?
Natural selection killed off the colorful moths and left only the green moths because the green moths could camoflauge in the vegetation. Im just making up an example to show you that evolutionary psychology, the moths are not evolving psychologically but human societies evolved this way. All the ancestral societies that practiced cannibalism did not prosper they literally killed each other off, the same with societies that did not help each other, they couldnt protect themselves like the societies that stayed in packs and aided each other did. Why do you feel fear in presentations, job interview, or first dates? Is your life in danger? Are those settings harmful to your health? How do you rationalize that fear? You cant. Yet you still have it. Why? A piece of the brain called the amygdala. This is a part of the brain our ancestors used to alert us when a bear or lion was near and triggered the fight or flight response. Now its being activated for first world problems. This is a tiny example of how natural selection molded our thought patterns and yes, morality. I recommend you to read "introducing evolutionary psychology" by Dylan Evans.
Natural selection has not developed society. Natural selection takes hundreds of thousands of years. It culminated in civilization happening but the main forces on specificmorality politics and culture have been technology and economics not natural selection.
@lessur degreat Many animals have a sense of group survival. It is the precursor to what English speaking humans call "morals" in that it involves various forms of aiding members of the group. Most likely the reason for a cat "torturing" a lizard is yet another evolved instinct; a safety precaution so the cat will not be bitten by a poisonous prey. Keep in mind that the cat does not carry a book on the characteristics of lizards, nor does the cat carry an instrument for instant death of its prey.
@lessur dgreat I was trying to explain things to you scientifically. You are describing survival instincts involving a cat and another species. But you are free to disregard scientific explanations and believe what you want.
@Lessur dgreat Again, you can believe what you want. Cats are social species in that they feel an obligation to cooperate and even defend members of their social group. Cats feel no such obligation to lizards. Lizards are food or a threat. While I am at it I will tell you a few other things that may surprise you... a epileptic seizure is not caused by Satan entering the person's body. There is no scientific evidence that true witches exists, witches that are capable of magic spells. And there is no indication that any kind of weather phenomenon, or for that matter volcano eruptions are acts of God.
I believe in good and evil but here is something I don't understand: We know truth is reality but good and evil only exists in our minds, in our conscience and feelings, if somebody kills, it doesn't show a sign that says: "this is evil". It's simply mental and emotional. How can good and evil exist If they are not in reality?
Morality is not limited to our minds, and animals also have their own innate morality, and we know in science that by damaging certain parts of the brain, our moral sense can be completely changed or altered, so we can say that in relation to morality Evolution or God plays a role, but we can not prove morality with morality, or say that morality has a human structure, and even if we can explain all morality by science, we can never label our actions as good or bad. For example, if a person saves thousands of lives by making medicine, he has done only his evolutionary duty or it was his personal opinion. I might be wrong but for me morality is objective
@@darkpassenger789..animals do not have innate morality, however there are some species (like other primates and canines) who are more social like humans, and therefore have a sort of "proto"-social or proto-morality instincts to help them get along with other members of their tribe/pack. The difference is in complexity.
They exist merely as social constructs to help us get along with other members of our tribe/society--that's it. Theists and Christians try to make it out to be some universal & magical concept, etched into the fabric of the universe, that proves the existence of their deities.
It does affect other people because adultery is wrong to the person it touches. If it’s not wrong, then what is the source for coming to that conclusion? It’s wrong from the source of our Creator, God. Hitler knew the Bible says that, Thou shall not kill.” He knew what he was doing was wrong. He just choose not to believe it was wrong.
@@stephencoakley If something is beneficial to the survival of the human race, then it is "good" for the human race. I'm sorry, do you not believe that some of your behavior is guided by genetics?
Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride So our morals are based on the survival of the human race? Would you argue that reproduction is one of if not our sole purpose in life? If I rape a woman, aren’t I morally justified because I’m passing on my genes and offspring? I’m contributing to the survival of the human race am I not? If planned parenthood were to utilize eugenics in giving rise to the aryan race of super intelligent, super strength, blue eyed humans would they be morally justified in doing so? They are contributing to the survival and advancement of the human race no? If we chose a minority to be enslaved and forced them to become laborers and replace factories because pollution is bad for the environment and ultimately bad for us... Would we not be morally justified in doing so? Because ultimately society would flourish from it? Your basis of moral values only gives rise to more evil... is the moral foundation that many in history used to justify their own sadistic injustices to others. Even some Christians are guilty of this. Hitler was arguably catholic, but he was certainly not practicing principles of fundamental Christianity. It was Christ that first proposed we ought to love our enemies because we can reep the rewards of that relationship. But not only because it may be beneficial to us, but because we know deep down it’s the right thing to do.
@@ramoncales1210 You're oversimplifying a very complex issue and creating a strawman argument based on that oversimplification. My example of not harming each other and cooperating is not simply a gene that makes us not want to harm each other. The evolution of morality (from a whole population perspective) is based on several factors including genetics, a need for social acceptance, tribalism, indoctrination, parenting trends, etc. Humans evolved to cooperate in groups. We also evolved a fear of foreign traits. It is theorized this occurred to protect a small group from outsiders seeking to plunder. As a consequence, we see things that are foreign to our social group as dangerous, and thus we created an "inherent morality" that covertly excludes things like homosexuality, mixed race relationships, non-conformity, handicaps, etc. On an individual level, while heritibility of behavioral traits are strong (see Twin Study), it has been found that environmental differences can actually alter the genes behind these heritable traits and thus the expression of them. In your example of rape, rape causes psychological harm, and thus is contrary to cooperative attitudes. This same concept can be seen in other animals, such as dolphins. Rape can be seen as an expression of the need to pass on your genes, but it does not benefit the species as a whole, and thus rapists are excluded from social groups even in animals. It is evolutionary preferential for an animal to have inherited traits that allow it to function cooperatively in a group. To your example of eugenics, notice I did not say that morality does not exist. Eugenics causes harm to one group whole benefiting another, violating our need to cooperate. When one group of humans separate themselves from another group, they dehumanize them, making it easier for them to commit atrocities against the other group, causing one group to flourish and the other to be oppressed, and thus revolt in violence. I suggest you take a look at least at the first video of not all of them in my Human Behavioral Psychology playlist from Robert Sapolsky. You'd be surprised at how much sense it makes once you stop making categorical errors.
Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride But the reason why I included rape as an example is because a rapist does not suffer the slightest inconvenience from the psychological harm caused to their victim. In fact, they benefit from it. They pass on their genes and they satisfy after their own pleasures, which IS the SOLE purpose of life according to your worldview, and Richard Dawkins would approve of this. And you believe morality exists. Great. But why should one group stop themselves from flourishing over another? Is that not what evolution is all about? According to the majority of atheists we don’t have free will. How are we violating the deterministic biological processes of natural selection? By The very mechanism that drives evolution... we should be seeing the catastrophic demolishing of inferior life forms (weaker humans) by superior life forms... but we dont. Why is that? We have this deep intuition to provide for our neighbor in need of assistance. Also, funny you think we are evolving to become a more cooperative species. Seems like there’s less and less of that going around these days.
YHWH EN YHWH ALONE is above good en evil since he is THE SUSTAINER OF ALL THERE IS !!!!!! en HE gave us the moral laws en we know 100% in our HEART EN SOUL. to kill murder rape en so on is WRONG but for us believers its wrong en worse its A SIN
Stating that any moral view of an Atheist is a weaker argument is false. Having moral values which are implied without justification, or believing that this is true without evidence, is obviously a much weaker argument. Evolution DOES give us moral thoughts. Until the past few decades, We(the human race), as a species, have developed and prospered when we have worked together, treated each other as as well (or better) that we would like to have other people treat us. Those who were able to observe, comprehend, and attain this have lived long enough in a healthy environment, with a similar minded spouse, to create more humans being with the same or greater moral values than the generation before us. (we see this in the way that the church has 'dismissed' certain passages in the bible, bit by bit to help the church fit into a more reasonably moral world.) Along with the social system which accompany these ideals, we have been able to conquer and overpopulate this planet to the point of our own detriment. That is what we call 'inherent moral values', and being able to show this, disproves any validity of the claim that the moral values are derived from the blessing of any god, or from reading any book. If a specific god or scripture was responsible... we'd see drastic moral value swings in populations who worship various gods, participate in various religions, or live in different regions. The fact that the entire earth can agree on 99% of moral values, disproves any assertion of the influence of a particular god (or maximally powerful creator/entity).
David Donohue 99%? No that’s a joke. First. You haven’t said anything to prove why your morality is better than God’s. Second. You assert that evolution give us moral thoughts. Which you didn’t even bother trying to prove. Third. Most societies agree on certain basic things. Even cannibalistic tribes new murder was wrong. No group of people applaud cowardice in their warriors. God says that all men naturally know God’s moral laws because they are written on their heart.
Evolution? It's still a theory, which implies something unproven...yet many base all their understanding on this theory...you are limiting yourself by something unproven. I see your stance, but consider both sides...
@@discipletabitha1724 - No, A "Scientific Theory", is the most valid and proven proposition in science, given our understanding and testing of that theory by many people over time. What you are proposing is a theory in the literary non-scientific sense. If you want to argue this point, you need to be at least minimally educated in science itself. 'Flat Earth' is not a theory of any equivalence. It is a hair brained scheme that an uneducated person who disregards the overwhelming body of scientific facts theorizes -or proposed- without evidence or peer review. NOT a scientific theory. There is more evidence for evolution, than there is for gravity. It's not a loose proposition that one person came up with and a few agree with. Basically the only people who discount is in any way are those who believe one book the bible, More than they believe the hundreds of books written by experts for the last hundred years. Please do some research in basic science, what is a scientific theory, and the incredibly overwhelming body of evidence that supports evolution across many disciplines of science.
@@djdonohue ...why would I educate myself in science, when I know for a fact science cannot explain everything? Especially supernatural things, outside of our universe? To me, science limits me to mortal knowledge, whereas my belief rests in eternal knowledge. It seems you are very involved in your scientific way of thinking....but I use logic, and I know that something can't come from nothing...🤷♀️
2:05 we do act a certain way based off of evolution 😂 Humans act like humans Dogs act like dogs Cats act like cats Birds act like birds Fish act like fish And so on…. All life on earth is programmed biologically to act a certain way 😂.. the evidence is right in your face Humans on the other hand can act like other animals (if we wanted to) or do what we wanna do or decide what we think is right and wrong all because of our very complex way of thinking
I'm not a super super genius or anything, but what if morality came from the fruit of knowledge in genesis?, I may be wrong but i think when humans were primates there was no right or wrong, we were just living, but when eve at from the tree of knowledge and told adam to also eat the fruit, what if they than learnt of wrong and right and all this morality stuff... And what if that also triggered evolution cause the bible never told us what adam and eve looked like, maybe they were monkies and i believe in the bible but i don't believe everything in the bible should be thought of as 100% literal, but maybe we should see at as literal and metaphorical at once... As i said im not a super genius, or a genius at that, im just a normal guy trying to make the bible and science fit together...
Simba Questionador You can hold that position. No big deal. But I’m German. And if you say that, than me killing Jews isn’t wrong, it just depends on personal preference and you couldn’t offer me any argument to stop me from doing it.
Sunil Sunny Define objective morals and how many people would you need to agree with you ? We know individually that murder is wrong but that’s merely a subjective view shared by many or most people but not all . The next step is absolute morality but then that would be subjective too because it’s based on whether a god exists or not as only such an entity could uphold such standards. But you’d need to prove that such a god exists first .
Sunil Sunny But who decides what is morally wrong that’s just your subjective opinion ? If you ask someone else that is again subjective so how many people have to agree before something becomes objective ? It becomes a collective subjective opinion . Each incident would be contingent upon the circumstances so it’s not absolute and in order for something to become absolute you would require the ultimate arbiter presumably god but you can’t prove a god exists. Good or bad are just extremes of behaviour on a wide spectrum but again are dependent upon the situation and who is experiencing it. Morality can and does exist without a god and can vary from person to person and social group to social group and even one’s own morality can change it’s not set in stone. We are free to do anything up to a point but if you murder or commit other crimes you will be punished accordingly . Thanks for your reply .
The source of doubt originated in the Garden of Eden when the serpent the devil caused Eve to doubt what God said about not to choose to do wrong by eating of the forbidden fruit. Hence, the devil is the source of evil. He is the one who influences the Atheist.
Evolution is biology, not moral philosophy. Why do theists attempt to criticize evolution on this issue when it doesn't apply? Now worldviews do apply. Such as humanism which promotes well being for humanity...superior to biblical morality
Alan Baraka You have already made up your mind before any argument could be presented to you. With that stance, we could never. “Those that have ears to hear let them hear” You have to be open to it first
I'm not an atheist but the young man had a good point. Our sense of morality can be explained by human evolution. For example, ethical egoism could be a more refined survivalist instinct.
If what you say is true, then our whole system of justice is unfair! At best you could only say someone who does not follow the generally accepted morals has a birth defect. Because if it is genetic, they have no more control over it than the color of their skin. And I think we all agree it's wrong to put someone in jail or punish them because of the color of their skin.
@@milopepper2559 my point is that our system is not the only one. The fact the even if we can come up with "wrong" systems. The fact that we even attempt could be part of our brains evolving.
@@milopepper2559 again, I'm not debating that. What I am saying is that evolution can explain man's need to create a system of morality which can serve as self preservation. Such as ethical egoism. Lots of things fail through the process of evolution.
@@jamok3 "evolution can explain man's need to create a system of morality" No, it can't. And here's why. If humans evolved, then we are nothing more than matter following the laws of physics and chemistry. And the idea that you can even contemplate "Morality" is a delusion. Because in a universe that is nothing more than matter and energy, you do not have free will. In fact, everything you do is predetermined, as a program on a computer. The fact is, in a materialistic universe. You don't have a mind, you only have a brain. And that brain is just a bunch of chemical reactions, a simple way to think of it is like pouring vinegar onto baking soda. It's going to fizz and foam up every time, it has no choice! Neither does any other combination of chemicals.. And you may have far more chemicals in your brain, but they all interact with each other in a very, very predictable way.
Knock knock "Who's there?" "It's Jesus let me in" "Why do you want in?" "I want to save you" "Save me from what?" "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in"
@@austin7037 that's like asking me would I rather live in a goblins forest or a troll? You are asking me about what I believe are fantasies. Both would be torture but I suppose heaven...as it is in the story
@@austin7037 constant 24/7 surveillance. Thoughts aren't private...nothing is. Always have a boss. I don't know if it would be torture, but not desirable. For me
How would having a world view that the holocaust is not objectively wrong be a wrong world view? I am a multi racial human being so if I was in Nazis Germany I would have been is the concentration camps but I could not make an argument that the holocaust is objectively wrong because my morality argument would be based on helping the as many people as I could but also causing the least amount of harms to others, but there is no objective reason why someone would follow this morality. Sure many people agree with me on this moral argument, but there is no objective reason to follow this or any other moral argument so as far as I see, there is no world view that can objectively argue why the holocaust was wrong. Even with a god, you do not have an objective reason to follow that god, even if going against that god would be cause you to go to hell, if one would want to go to hell than it would be moral for them to cause the holocaust. There is no objective reason to follow a god basically.
In Exodus 21, Romans 13 (Paul)God gives details instructions in how to keep slaves, give them as property to our off spring. It is our brain and reason that has allowed us to set the Bible aside and ignore it and realize, using reason, that “God” was wrong.
Ethics evolved with us because social, empathetic, friendly, etc. ancestors were more likely to survive and reproduce, whereas antisocial, psychopathic ancestors were typically ostracized and couldn't reproduce. Ergo, our ethics evolved alongside our self-awareness.
From the very beginning you masseing several things into one: social evolution and ANCESTORS, WICH are the most important point. Human rights were mady from Bible, gladiatorial fights were banned in Rome because christians boycotted them. Nothing was evolving on it's own, and your ancestors were far from having much morality. Sorry, doesn't work. It's illusion of answer.
GOD created morality! Without HIM, we would ALL do whatever to whoever! You have to teach your kids, right from wrong. God's taught people from the beginning. Without HIS WORD, we would have already self-Destructed!
Melvin Hunt I already do . I’ve murdered all the people I’ve ever wanted to . And that would be none . And no sky daddy looking over me . And the fact that you wouldn’t behave without the fear of god says more about you than non-believers.
During the old testament times, genocide is not wrong as long as the perpetuators are the chosen people of God. Today, we don't eliminate and destroy race anymore. Even if we are the chosen people.
Sunil Sunny Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is imaginary? Presumably you do but why ? Are you god also ? Your god has as much credibility to me as the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to you .
Yo, instead of wasting your time with these irrelevant arguments, JUST ASK JESUS CHRIST IF HE IS REAL! Your questions will then be answered. Sheesh man. Stop with this pettiness.
Brandon Hopkins The semantic lunatic utterly destroys your evolutionary moral foundation. The very mechanism of evolution tells us that we ought to prevail over those who are inferior, if this is what’s deeply rooted in our genetics then how are we able to treat others well? Our morals are derived from something much deeper than just a random biological process. And this is not to say that evolution didn’t happen, but it certainly cannot account for our moral values.
historically we did do that, more often than not in the name of religon, classicism, racism, slavery, only in recent centuries have we overcome those things by our own trials and tribulations, our own choices and our own merit, we're evolving our own sense of morality, without the use of an ancient text
colby j I understand it quite well. Evolution is the gradual change of species through mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutations. You really think that our morals evolved based on a process that kills off species? Not to mention that most evolutionists don’t believe in free will. If that’s the case, we would be determined to fend for ourselves, not show empathy towards others. That’s the point I’m trying to make. You might say “Our morals have evolved to uphold values that contribute to the greater good of society.” Let’s think about that for a second. I’m sure if we were to enslave an entire race, and use eugenics to build super humans, super laborers, Einsteins, surely society would progress. So because civilization is flourishing should we accept that such a practice would be morally justified? Does the end goal justify the means? I don’t think for a second you would be okay with that. Truth is, there IS no naturalistic framework for Objective moral values that we ALL know exist. That shouldn’t even be up for debate whether or not they dont. We have intuitions oF right and wrong, and we have them because someone placed them within us.
I think i’m starting to become a Christian... I’m very glad I found Frank Turek.
Frank is amazing. Do the research and the evidence is there Chris....God Bless
That's awesome, Chris! I love these conversations because if the reasonable, logical approach towards God and the Bible. I would encourage you, much more importantly than this, to seek a personal relationship with Christ. He'll speak to you through the Bible and by His Spirit. Keep going forward!
My man listen to me, this guy is wrong. Don't fall for the trap!
Hope you continued down this path bro, god bless
Praise God 🙏🏻
Rats, bats, elephants, wolves, chimpanzees, dogs and whales have all been shown to exhibit moral behaviour. If animals don’t require divine intervention for moral behaviour, what makes one think humans require this?
Religious morality, although “objective”, varies depending on what religion you subscribe to and the religion you subscribe to may vary depending on social/geographic upbringing. To say that the ethics of Christianity are superior to the ethics of Islam because it “feels” right is subjective and to compare the 2 religious moralities means you would need a moral basis on which to compare them and that moral basis can’t be one of the religions. The only way to compare them is to subjectively compare which one “feels” better. The religious claim to objective moral values is ultimately based on a subjective recognition of a person’s claim to the superiority of their religion and the feeling, not the fact, that the morality of that religion is objective.
A morality based on evolution would support our attempts to improve the overall well-being of our species.
The Nazis have argued the same in their escapades..
@@donaldkeith139 What cogent explanation would convince the Jews that their abolishment would improve the overall well-being of the human species?
Evolution didn't "give us" moral thoughts or any other "thoughts" - it simply gave us the capacity for specific emotion (disgust, outrage, anger, etc) to remain loosely connected and reliably invoked after experiencing or being made aware of a person or group of people's unjust or selfish behaviour. I wouldn't call this a "thought" as much as I would call it a feeling, which I would also describe as a moral feeling (given the reason for its existence is genuine). The cognitive virtues of modern humans are the only reason these ever become something more than just feelings and emotions. The mind's faculty to conduct complex thinking-skills such as personal reflection, introspection, and pattern recognition, are the means by which we were able to identify and categorise interconnected emotions, feelings and experiences into a single system of right and wrong, only after which could we begin forming beliefs and opinions on the appropriateness of other people's actions.
And how do you know it didn't
Utter nonsense
As always,
Frank nailed it✌️
Jim Johnson
Lol 😂
@Jim Johnson If we don’t need God to live right then I hope you’re living with love and kindness and truth each day with your fellow humans, animals , do have a lovely day.
Chosen D Joseph
If we don’t we know the consequences. Just believing in god doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent.
@Prince Kingston To be honest he don’t really nail most of the things he say. And I’m child of the ALMIGHTY not an atheist.
What I do see mostly is that Christian TH-camrs and all others it’s all about money it’s not about bringing the truth to anyone. They all wrote books the Bible is good enough for me I personally don’t need their advise that’s written in their book.
It’s either we believe or we don’t it’s no middle ground. The ALMIGHTY is my motivation everyday. I don’t hardly listen to the whole videos I actually look for the atheists that have vile things to say. They never disappoint. They actually infuse me with more love for the MOST HIGH.because of how vile and evil they can be with their words. And I don’t want to live that way because someone don’t agree with The Devine Almighty Power.
He blew it, again.
The fool has said in his HEART, (NOT MIND) there is no God.
The fool is the one who believes extraordinary claims on bad evidence
Doulos of Christ Jesus
And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Matthew 5:22
@@MartTLS I'm not saying it, the Word of God is giving you the definition and I'm quoting it.
Doulos of Christ Jesus
And I’m just showing you one the many contradictions and discrepancies in the bible .
And the heart pumps blood nothing else .
Saint Michael Pray for Us
I have .
2:12
Also, if macro-evolution gave us our moral feelings, then there's this slight possibility that, for some individuals, their moral feelings may be different, hence we shouldn't call anyone evil (not even a serial killer); after all, it was fault of evolution, right? Why would we punish him/her if we could've also been evolved that way?
True I have actually never heard anyone make that point . But that’s very true
@@justinmontalvo2819 Thnx
We can't help but punish the person who kills since we evolved to detest it. That's also evolution's fault.
macroevolution (outdated term) doesn’t give you anything. It’s simply large-scale pattern among evolving groups.
Religious people individually can be moral, but faith can't give them a framework to explain why anything is right or wrong.
Old Testament framework = 10 commandments.
@@bryanutility9609 So how does that make an act right or wrong?
@@Ozzyman200 Because God says so, that’s their whole point. Doesn’t matter if it satisfies you. Maybe someone’s god wants them to conquer you? So what if you don’t like it if they win.
@@bryanutility9609 Yeah, that's pretty messed up. Suffering is irrelevant, it's just obedience.
@@Ozzyman200 It’s not necessarily obedience, as if that’s even wrong. It’s just god of the gaps really. If someone wants something, if it feels right or wrong, they don’t owe it to you necessarily to justify their position. That’s what people call God.
His first sentence already says it saying we are programmed . If we are actually programmed then there is a programmer
The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Look up at the sky and rejoice :D
Ooh a butterfly .
Hallelujah
Glory
Amen
I don't understand why morality being evolutionary would lessen it, all my thoughts come from evolution? Yeah so what? My thoughts coming from somewhere does not mean they are invalid.
You are irrati0nal
Subjective morality has no foundation
Samuel Hunter
Neither does absolute morality.
Well... that's just your opinion. /s
@@MartTLS Absolute morality stands if you simply consider what morality is.
If moral truths exist (ie A is wrong, B is right) then morality has to be as objective as the truth it stands on.
@@SojournerDidimus It's more of a logical conclusion.
Thomas
As is morality .
"Morality can be explained by Evolution," says no scientists ever. Dont confuse evolution with philosophy.
Yet most atheist say through evolution we have learned our morals. Funny thing
@@maow9240 I dont know any that says that, but if they do, then they are wrong. Evolution does not explain the origin of life either. That is a whole different branch of science
@@Chronicbadminton you talk to them enough and they will say morals evolved with the evolution of civilization. I never said evolution explains the origin of life.
@@maow9240 The science of Evolution explains the origin of species. When someone talks about evolution of civilization, what they meant is the development of civilizations. Moral values are developed with the advancement of civilization.
@@Chronicbadminton which according to atheist has only come about because of evolution.
I'm a Christian, but this could be an objection: we see certain things as wrong, because evolution let those live whose brain chemistry tells them to not do things that are destructive to human race -> survival of those who can form a strong society that doesn't self-destruct. And the reason why we would still do otherwise (sin) would be because we tend to seek our personal benefit too to continue our own bloodline. Thoughts?
Men are stronger together, and those who can form a strong group would kill those who couldn't - homo sapiens over neanderthals for example.
On the other hand, nazies tried to kill jews - why would we think a race trying to kill another race was bad if it was just natural? On the other other hand, there are racist people who don't think it's wrong. This is too much for my brain
@@original_golden_eggsomeone trying to kill my race is bad for me
If anyone wants to deny God he can find a million reasons.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
We as humans steal from God’s moral laws.
Bors de Ganys
So that’s why we murder .
@Jim Johnson No problem
You still steal from God
Prince Kingston
Prove it .
"We as humans steal from God’s moral laws."
Indeed, the slavery, murder, rape and genocide of the Nazis were straight from the good book.
@Mart TL1000S People murder lie steal rape because they want to. We all have a mind and heart to do good to love and respect others choose evil instead of love.
(Human from Evolution) God: Speaks to you. You: Meow.
(Human from Reality) God: Speaks to you. You: Worships.
I love that.😀
@@mikewasowski3573 Thanks Man.
He's basically saying "Any argument that makes me uncomfortable is based on weaker premises than the one's I like and are intuitive "
Morality is simply a survival instinct.. it makes us look after one another and makes our species survive
You see this throughout the animal kingdom….
Subjective morality doesn't mean you agree with certain things like the holocaust or killing babies. It means that you know that morality is a somewhat arbitrary and subjective social/human phenomenon that doesn't exist outside of the human experience. To put it another way, the universe doesn't give two $hits about the "evil" things humans do--only other humans do.
All because there's a near 100% consensus on the condemnation of certain human behaviors doesn't mean that the concept of that condemnation is etched into the fabric of the universe, or magically written into stone by the fingers of a deity.
If everyone in this world believed that torturing babies is good, does that make it good? If suppose Hitler won WW2 and brainwashed everyone into thinking that holocaust was good, does that make it good?
Moral laws are objective laws that govern how humans ought to act. Even if every human thinks otherwise, these laws exist.
Morality from a particular god is subjective.
You can't go from "evolution gave us moral thoughts" to "evolution gave us all of our thoughts". That's like me saying "my friend gave me this pen, so my friend gave me all my pens". Evolution gives uspredispositions and tendencies towards certain behaviours, that doesnt mean that those behaviours (including thinking) lack agency and somehow arent 'yours'.
Even assuming we could claim that evolution gave us all of our thoughts, including the thought that evolution gave us all of our thoughts, thats a claim about origin and not about truth-value, so that doesnt mean your thoughts any less valid if they have an evolutionary basis. Thatd be like saying "god gave me all my thoughts, including the thought that god gave me all my thoughts, therefore my thoughts about God are unreliable"...thats just not a good argument. I'm not trying to claim anything either way about god, and I dont consider myself an atheist, I just value critical thinking.
That argument would not work against God because we have free will, but evolution means there is no free will your really reason just react
@@lawfulrecord2527 Why does free will mean there is no evolution?
@@lawfulrecord2527 Also, as I said, my point isn't an 'argument against God', it was just a point about makingsure that an argument or particular line of reasoning is solid. Like I said, I'm not an atheist. I was saying that saying where your thoughts come from is not the same thing as saying whether or not they're true.
If you want to prove that God exists then surely you'd want to prove it beyond all doubt, and therefore you'd want to make sure that your argument is valid and not open to criticism.
@@Notapizzathief if the materialistic evolution your talking about exists then all our thoughts are grounded by laws of physics; we don’t reason we merely reacts and we just have a brain and no mind. If we only have a brain and no mind that means all our thoughts are just the reaction of atoms bumping around in our brains. If that’s true we cannot even trust our own thoughts even that that thought is true.
@@lawfulrecord2527 Thank you for taking the time to reply to me, I appreciate it :)
Yes but again, a claim about the origin of a thought is not the same as a claim about it's truth-value. If it was true that all we had was brains, and not minds, and that thoughts were therefore products of the brain and not the mind, that would say nothing about the content or trustworthiness of those thoughts. I'm not saying this is true, it's just a thought experiment, but imagine a perso that only had a brain and no mind - would you want to say that any and all thoughts that person had we false and/or untrustworthy? What if they had the same thoughts as someone with a mind - would the fact that they have no mind make their thoughts less trustworthy, even though they're the same thought? I don't think so. What if someone with only a brain and no mind thought that God existed? Would you want to say that their thoughts of God couldn't be trusted?
Also, I'm not making the claim that evolution is only, or merely, materialistic - I don't think it's necessarily denies the existence of minds or dualism. Some scientists and philosophers think that consciousness is in everything (i.e. panpsychism), and I don't think that's too different from saying "God is everywhere". Evolution isn't incompatible with God's existence, and what's more impressive anyway - God creating everything as it is, or god creating organisms that can evolve into and make other organisms? I'd be more impressed at an inventor that made a machine that makes other machines, than just an inventor than made a machine that never changed.
If there are limited resources (like a lack of food due to a flood, say), and there is variation amongst animals (some taller, some shorter, for example), then it's only natural that those animals best suited to the environment survive better than those who don't. In a flood where low lying plants are submerged, a giraffe would survive better than a horse because it can reach the higher up leaves that survived the flood, and when it survives it can pass on the trait of having a long neck. That's all evolution is - variation plus competition for limited resources.
If it was evolution which gave us morality, why not follow it? It doesn't matter where morality comes from, if something is wrong "because god says so" or because we evolutionarily developed an "ethical sense", in both cases morality is an axiom (like saying happiness is good)
Agreed. The problem comes when people disagree about morals, which happens all the time.
PREACH!! ❤️
Wrong to who? When you say the other person is just wrong, on what basis? This man has fancy word tricks that end in empty assertions, with no tangible evidence.
Yeah the whole topic of subjective versus objective morality is one of the main reasons I think atheism doesn’t make logical sense. We really should be happy when certain people die around us. Like if you have a parent who’s being a pain in your life because you’re trying to care for them, then you should be relieved when they die. But only a sociopath would think such a thing.
If Christians think that they go to a better place when they die, why do they mourn when they lose a loved one?
Kyle Rainer Kyle Rainer My mother suffered for many years from cancer, it tore her apart, as well as the family. She was in pain 24 hours a day and my father became depressed and heart broken to see her less able to do even the most basic things. When she passed there was a certain level of relief. As well as extreme sadness. I’m not sure of your point?
@@Kaymen1980 i think a true CHRISTIAN wouldn't be saddened by death. Since we don't know the date or hour of when our God is returning. Then of course it's normal to feel a little "loss" we're still human aren't we? But i would definitely cry of sadness for example if I know the person that died didn't know Christ. Hopefully that makes sense 👍🏻🙏 God bless
@@anamarier4791
No, I don't find it normal at all.. I act according to my beliefs, and I do so consistently.. Transitioning into the "eternal" is the greatest thing ever for christians. It's what you have spent your whole life waiting for, to die, so you can be done with this footnote of earthly existence and be with Jesus... And weirdest of all, the younger they are when they die, the sadder you seem to get.. Why? The sooner the better yes? A stillborn is on an express elevator to Jesus - yes? Yet you cry and you cry 🤷♂️
If morality evolved, what gene is responsible for it?
"I'm going to loudly misunderstand everything"
Try having morals with a lobotomy.
And this is how it's done.
Can you guys please help me out. So he says “If your world views says the Holocaust isn’t objectively wrong, you just have the wrong world view.” I understand two wrongs don’t make a right, but I can’t imagine a world view in which God would put millions of Jews who did die in the Holocaust, into hell, just for not believing in Jesus or being baptized the right way. How can I reconcile that, to me as a Christian, it seems very petty, and not fair, that people who died as Jews in the Holocaust would go to hell since they didn’t put there trust in Jesus Christ.
People dont go to hell because they dont believe Jesus people go to hell because they did wrong things they broke God's law.
In all fairness the Jews didn’t believe that Jesus was God and by some accounts that I know of, it doesn’t sound like they wanted to be with God anyway. This positions assume that everyone wants to be with God. What is more loving? Allowing the free will of human beings to make up their own mind, or for God to force people against their will into His presence for eternity? This can be related to criminals who go to jail and are freed only to go back to jail because they genuinely prefer prison over being free. By their own actions and will they put themselves exactly where they want to be and God honors their decision.
Why do you say "God would put..." as if it was God who did the holocaust? Has everyone forgotten about satan? Has everyone forgotten about human evil and attribute all wrong in this world to God?
I'll respond to you. If God were to intervene then he would've taken Hitler's free will, and Hitler would no longer be a free being. But he will have his punishment.
Hell doesn’t exist
You are right frank
no he isn't. Not even close.
Alan Baraka Mmmk let’s hear it... what’s your grand objection
@@alanbaraka9800 Tell me how, he's not even close. Explain yourself.
Well , what I saw from this is a strawman fallacy.
Yes it is a biological process and your brain and how it is structured is biological.
And it's not moral thoughts , it's intuitions. How do you explain sexual desire, craving for food, thirst for whatever and inclination towards finding shelter? There's an evolutionarily derived psychological process in these. If these are evolutionarily derived , why can't moral intuition?
But there are a lot of things that we know are not morally right but at the same time they are just not right because they are mean but why would we care if our minds are only programmed for the survival of the human species
For example raping somebody should be morally right since it is potentially going to produce a baby and ensure the human survival
And also why doesn’t every single couple in the world want kids considering that it would be part of their “intuition “ since it would help preserve the speices
And also just because our “intuition “ came from evolution still doesn’t actually mean that it is objective
The key concept to keep in mind is, what may very well be the reality may not be a comfortable thought. What has been shown to be true is that the human species evolved from a social species of apes. It was innate in those apes to have impulses to watch out for each other and help each other survive. Go forward about a half a million years and what we now see is a social species, the human species, that has taken those impulses and given their various manifestations names such as kindness, compassion and even heroism. Turek says that if that is true, why believe what you believe when you are just a biological machine? Yes, in a very real sense we are all biological machines. All living organisms are.
Without God, morality ultimately breaks down into subjectivity and mere opinion. Only a God who is infinite and all-knowing can be an objective standard of morality as He will have objective answers to each and every moral issue.
People disagree on God’s morals so there goes your objectivity.
@@bryanutility9609 You seem to be saying that if people disagree with God's morality, then this must mean that God doesn't have an objective standard of morality. Have you considered that these people are simply wrong about their disagreement? That God is right but people disagree with Him anyway?
@@EndTimesHarvest if people disagree with each other about what God wants you might as well take god out of the picture. I don’t need god to disagree I know what I want and I only care about winning.
Ah I still wish I had a better answer to this question.
Morality = process and thinking.
"Morality" of animals = reflexes and instincts, i.e. NO thinking.
Moral feelings has no evolutionary bindings, because it's TOO MUCH intellectual input into simple thought "i need to survive and preserve my people", wich no animals (even semi-social) doesn't have - it's just instincts. Empathy and evolution of morality is evolutionary scapegoat. And downfall.
@@sgorgardr227 That was (in my opinion) more satisfying than the answer Dr Turek gave.
What do you think about selfish gene?
@@a2m2j8 And what about magical tree and talking serpent?
Got em
Nothing can be explained by "evolution". Least of all biology.
-no biologist ever
@Anil
I can't believe your uneducated comment didn't get 50 thumbs up, given how pathetic the people on this channel are. LOL!
Anil G
That’s why there’s a theory.
Eclectic Media “How pathetic people on this channel are”. like yourself for instance? Another self defeating argument.
Mart TL1000S
You don't understand what 'theory' means. Not that I'm surprised.
A w e s o m e explanations !!!
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: it’s complicated...
Morality, a sense of fairness and social altruism have a survival advantage for social species so it is quite reasonable to explain morality as an evolutionary development. Sociual evolution is also the best way to describe the change in morality over time. For example, if we look at the morality of the Bible we see support for slavery, genocide, human sacrifice amd the subjugation of women, all things considered very immoral now. Morality evilves and it certainly does not come from the horror show of the Bible or any imaginary sky wizard.
You just made me more atheist and I didn’t think that was possible 😂😂😂😂😂
I think we should start calling this the "Nature Of The Gaps Argument"
Atheist can't explain where everything came from and why there is such precise intelligence in the universe and where morality came from there for nature did it.
I don't agree with your assertion
Lucid Vision
That’s why there are scientists. And morality is merely someone’s opinion.
@@MartTLS you sair morality is merely someones opinion which means there is no such as right or wrong
willie
Define right and wrong . No such things exist .
Mart TL1000S
Lol ok Dawkins
All morality is subjective.
Morality is also evolved.
And why do christians talk about torturing babies ?
Because there are people who torture babies. Human, child, sex trafficking is at an all time. Most people are appalled thus making illegal but it persists as a billion dollar industry.
Most people are sheep, & conform. Never thought I’d see chemically castrating children as a moral good 🏳️⚧️ but here’s the emoji.
So let me get this straight, we evolved from monkeys but theres still monkeys. Hmmmmmm. 🤔
Frank Turek's definition of objective morality is moral values that are dictated by god. The problem I have with this objective morality is that it eliminates all of our humanity out of the equation. It's a morality that's not concerned about our feelings, emotions, wellbeing, or anything else about us. So, when you encounter Bible passages where god is condoning rape, slavery, telling you to kill innocent people, discriminate against certain people, etc., your own sense of right and wrong are irrelevant.
I know Frank Turek exalts his standard as this great standard that will match up with everyone's own sense of morality, but I also know that Frank Turek takes the good of the Bible without taking the bad.
Well yet again, these objections have been repeatedly answered. And the argument for God comes from a theistic stance and not a Christian one. The moral obligations are not dictated by God. They're built into his very nature. The very concept of a source of morality has to be a rational, unchanging, conscious, necessary entity. This source cannot be human because this poses a subjective view. This perfectly adds the third option to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Because the good is God. He is all-good by definition, and therefore the standard for objective moral values. Reading about biblical passages, you need to take account of their contexts in which they're spoken. I'll happily answer those objections you've got if you gimme scriptural references for them. We title them as rape and racism, when the context begs to differ, both within scripture and history. Tbh, a Jewish scholar would better help with these moral issues, but I can try.
Nope!
Evolution is the way we got here. It's how we became who we are sociologiclaly. Think of all the religous people who've committed violent crimes against people.
No, evolution has no answer for anything.
Sure it does
can you demonstrate a god exists if you think otherwise?
@@alanbaraka9800 Christ has demonstrated his love and power in my life. Yes and given me his Holy Spirit. God is true to his word.
@Samuel Rodriguez groovy. But that is merely your assertion that your god has demonstrated his love and power in your life. You haven't provided testable evidence to show these events are the result of a god and not natural occurrences. You also have yet to show spirits exist. Let alone that your god is why these spirits exist. The truth is demonstrated, not asserted.
@@alanbaraka9800 it was testable to me and sufficient.
We ARE social species - and social species tend to have some form of morality! Think of wolves, lions, hienas, apes and such - they all show some forms of moral behaviour. They could be different from our standards but those still are forms of morality.
Biology doesn’t define our morality but it definitely pushes us to be moral.
And for the ignorant people that don’t know a thing on this topic: Yes, evolution explains sacrifice, sympathy, cooperation and many other features that you would attribute to a moral person!
evolution still perfectly explains subjective morality
Oh? How?
@@buffalobob2890 a community thrives when in a social setting, therefore societies that value well being over killing everyone will survive, pass on their genes, and so on, basically natural selection.
the subjectivity comes in when what each society determines as promoting well being, ie one society may see treating women as half as important as men can be seen as promoting well being for one society, and a society treating men and women equally can be seen in their point of view to be promoting well being, so yeah, subjective
@@NEPtune-fy1ug that wouldn't be subjective but relative. Subjective makes reference to the individual, not a group.
And you forgot to mention why these particular cultures are asserting that. That's what really tells you if their claim is objective or not.
@@camilobriceno8212 yes i agree its relative. but before a society can form, all actions comes from the individual, so a society's way of life is shaped around the consensus of the majority in the society, ie subjective feelings of individuals in the first place.
why cultures assert their beliefs? well really anything can be justified. none of their claims are objective because no society objectively knows the best way a society can function, they just think they do, which is why we have completely different sets of morality in many different cultures now, and the entire history of humanity
@@NEPtune-fy1ug the difference of opinion is not a good reason to dismiss every cultural moral system. I insist, is not the fact that is claimed by a culture what tells us if a given moral system is objective or not.
We can think about a lot of examples of cultural moral values that are not based on objective facts and then we can dismiss those values. But what if the base for that moral value is an objective fact? Example: a culture claims human torture is wrong. The basis is "humans are sentient beings" and that's an objective fact.
Look at women without having shaved or makeup
Frank is sharp! 💪🏽
hardly
Alan Baraka *Precisely
Frank seems sharp to you because you are dumb.
@atam mardes hahahaha!!! Oh goodness that was great.
@Ramon Cales care to demonstrate your god exists then?
Evolution doesn’t “give feelings”. It is simply that during natural selection, humans are more attracted to generosity and morality and therefore will select them for procreating. Evolutionary ethics questions whether we do moral things for the sake of selection.
Many of our actions have dysgenic consequences. We can devolve into a penguin like existence if not careful.
Explained by a THEORY?? 🤣😂🤣😂
Low hanging fruit
Just like evolution.... Pond scum to man..... We have witnessed very slight variations within genus or family but nobody's ever seen evolution across those barriers. This is an sumption used to support evolutionary theory... That is why it is still called a theory... If evolution from one genus or family to another genus or family would take hundreds of thousands or millions of years then it has never been observed.
So criticizing another's belief because It's based on a theory would put you in the same category.
Look! He doesnt understand science!! Look!
@@GSpotter63 i can show you evidence.
@@theespionageact5249 please do because Christians take everything out of context
Theists define god to be good, but they have no justification for this. To them, good is whatever god says is good. If god says killing babies or slavery is okay then these must be good. This isn't objective morality, this is absolute morality
Isn’t it atheists who claim the most that you don’t have to know everything about a topic to know something about it?
A Court Judge Who condemns a Killer father for dead penalty and leaves his child unprotected and fatherless. Who is Bad guy? the Father or The Judge .
Who is the The Bad ? God The Judge or the Fathers who will do child sex slavery and Child Burning sacrifice for their Gods and what we have children’s that learned evil from their parent to harm society ??? That’s the bigger picture
@@24132juanjcr I'm not sure how what you wrote is even remotely relevant to anything I said. I was referring explicit examples where god commanded or sanctioned actions that most Christians today would regard as evil such as killing babies, ethnic cleansing and chattel slavery. How can a good god do things that most Christians say is evil. It makes no sense
Frank this is ridiculous. Atheism isn't based on morality. Atheism is defined as the disbelief in gods. It's one stance on one subject. What you consider moral and how are separate. And only the religious use the word evolutionist. And to be blunt it makes you look obtuse. The study of evolution is called evolutionary biology. Pointlessly putting ist at the end of words is silly. If you drive a gas powered car does that make you an internal combustionist? If you eat a hot dog does that make you a hot dogist? See how ridiculous that gets? And evolution does grant morality to an extent. Why do you think we observe social species like apes, dolphins, and hyenas working together better than solitary species? Because it benefits them. They establish norms that promote their well being by working towards the well being of the group. Help the pack get the food and you get a piece. The many do what the individual can't. If you don't help then you don't eat. That's a moral standard demonstrated by animals. And lastly we atheist don't remain atheists to avoid some heart felt aspect you perceive. We are atheists because you have yet to demonstrate your god exists with testable conclusive evidence.
even if they somehow proved it would you be a christian?
@jason sims if someone showed the god of the bible to exist would I believe OF him? As in he exists? Of course. I believe in anything if there is sufficient credible evidence to support it. Now, would I believe IN him? As in follow his rules and worship him? Not even if you paid me. And why would I? The bible advocates for horrible things such as slavery, sexism, bigotry, genocide, ect. I ask for theists to provide testable conclusive evidence for their god because it is right to hold everyone to a standard of evidence. You want to claim your god exists? That's fine. You have a right to freedom of speech. But you now need to present demonstrable evidence to validate your claim.
@@alanbaraka9800 Are you a materialist?
@jason sims do I believe the material exists? Of course. Does that mean I'm a materialist? No. If I'm not mistaken a materialist believes the material is all there is. How could I say that is true when I can't demonstrate it to be true?
@@alanbaraka9800 What if someone cant go into the lab and prove something but makes a logical deduction based on the evidence at hand and whats already been proven by scientists before?
Natural selection killed off the colorful moths and left only the green moths because the green moths could camoflauge in the vegetation. Im just making up an example to show you that evolutionary psychology, the moths are not evolving psychologically but human societies evolved this way.
All the ancestral societies that practiced cannibalism did not prosper they literally killed each other off, the same with societies that did not help each other, they couldnt protect themselves like the societies that stayed in packs and aided each other did. Why do you feel fear in presentations, job interview, or first dates? Is your life in danger? Are those settings harmful to your health? How do you rationalize that fear? You cant. Yet you still have it. Why? A piece of the brain called the amygdala. This is a part of the brain our ancestors used to alert us when a bear or lion was near and triggered the fight or flight response. Now its being activated for first world problems. This is a tiny example of how natural selection molded our thought patterns and yes, morality. I recommend you to read "introducing evolutionary psychology" by Dylan Evans.
Natural selection has not developed society. Natural selection takes hundreds of thousands of years. It culminated in civilization happening but the main forces on specificmorality politics and culture have been technology and economics not natural selection.
Animals have also moral standard but no religion. The morals of religions are constantly moving in time.
@lessur degreat Many animals have a sense of group survival. It is the precursor to what English speaking humans call "morals" in that it involves various forms of aiding members of the group. Most likely the reason for a cat "torturing" a lizard is yet another evolved instinct; a safety precaution so the cat will not be bitten by a poisonous prey. Keep in mind that the cat does not carry a book on the characteristics of lizards, nor does the cat carry an instrument for instant death of its prey.
@lessur dgreat I was trying to explain things to you scientifically. You are describing survival instincts involving a cat and another species. But you are free to disregard scientific explanations and believe what you want.
@Lessur dgreat Again, you can believe what you want. Cats are social species in that they feel an obligation to cooperate and even defend members of their social group. Cats feel no such obligation to lizards. Lizards are food or a threat. While I am at it I will tell you a few other things that may surprise you... a epileptic seizure is not caused by Satan entering the person's body. There is no scientific evidence that true witches exists, witches that are capable of magic spells. And there is no indication that any kind of weather phenomenon, or for that matter volcano eruptions are acts of God.
@lessur dgreat Don't know what you are talking about.
A gazelle that's being eaten alive by lions might disagree with your animal morality argument.
My brain fries
I believe in good and evil but here is something I don't understand: We know truth is reality but good and evil only exists in our minds, in our conscience and feelings, if somebody kills, it doesn't show a sign that says: "this is evil". It's simply mental and emotional. How can good and evil exist If they are not in reality?
Morality is not limited to our minds, and animals also have their own innate morality, and we know in science that by damaging certain parts of the brain, our moral sense can be completely changed or altered, so we can say that in relation to morality Evolution or God plays a role, but we can not prove morality with morality, or say that morality has a human structure, and even if we can explain all morality by science, we can never label our actions as good or bad. For example, if a person saves thousands of lives by making medicine, he has done only his evolutionary duty or it was his personal opinion. I might be wrong but for me morality is objective
@@darkpassenger789..animals do not have innate morality, however there are some species (like other primates and canines) who are more social like humans, and therefore have a sort of "proto"-social or proto-morality instincts to help them get along with other members of their tribe/pack.
The difference is in complexity.
They exist merely as social constructs to help us get along with other members of our tribe/society--that's it. Theists and Christians try to make it out to be some universal & magical concept, etched into the fabric of the universe, that proves the existence of their deities.
I don’t get it
How about moral laws that does not affect other people? For instance sexual immorality.
It does affect other people because adultery is wrong to the person it touches. If it’s not wrong, then what is the source for coming to that conclusion? It’s wrong from the source of our Creator, God. Hitler knew the Bible says that, Thou shall not kill.” He knew what he was doing was wrong. He just choose not to believe it was wrong.
If you think sexual immorality does not effect a society you are gravely mistaken
Good stuff.
You can't see how it would be an evolutionary benefit for people to cooperate and not harm each other?
Why is evolutionary benefit "good"? Why ought we to do whatever benefits our evolution? There's still no obligation here.
@@stephencoakley If something is beneficial to the survival of the human race, then it is "good" for the human race. I'm sorry, do you not believe that some of your behavior is guided by genetics?
Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride So our morals are based on the survival of the human race? Would you argue that reproduction is one of if not our sole purpose in life? If I rape a woman, aren’t I morally justified because I’m passing on my genes and offspring? I’m contributing to the survival of the human race am I not? If planned parenthood were to utilize eugenics in giving rise to the aryan race of super intelligent, super strength, blue eyed humans would they be morally justified in doing so? They are contributing to the survival and advancement of the human race no? If we chose a minority to be enslaved and forced them to become laborers and replace factories because pollution is bad for the environment and ultimately bad for us... Would we not be morally justified in doing so? Because ultimately society would flourish from it? Your basis of moral values only gives rise to more evil... is the moral foundation that many in history used to justify their own sadistic injustices to others. Even some Christians are guilty of this. Hitler was arguably catholic, but he was certainly not practicing principles of fundamental Christianity. It was Christ that first proposed we ought to love our enemies because we can reep the rewards of that relationship. But not only because it may be beneficial to us, but because we know deep down it’s the right thing to do.
@@ramoncales1210 You're oversimplifying a very complex issue and creating a strawman argument based on that oversimplification. My example of not harming each other and cooperating is not simply a gene that makes us not want to harm each other. The evolution of morality (from a whole population perspective) is based on several factors including genetics, a need for social acceptance, tribalism, indoctrination, parenting trends, etc.
Humans evolved to cooperate in groups. We also evolved a fear of foreign traits. It is theorized this occurred to protect a small group from outsiders seeking to plunder. As a consequence, we see things that are foreign to our social group as dangerous, and thus we created an "inherent morality" that covertly excludes things like homosexuality, mixed race relationships, non-conformity, handicaps, etc.
On an individual level, while heritibility of behavioral traits are strong (see Twin Study), it has been found that environmental differences can actually alter the genes behind these heritable traits and thus the expression of them.
In your example of rape, rape causes psychological harm, and thus is contrary to cooperative attitudes. This same concept can be seen in other animals, such as dolphins. Rape can be seen as an expression of the need to pass on your genes, but it does not benefit the species as a whole, and thus rapists are excluded from social groups even in animals. It is evolutionary preferential for an animal to have inherited traits that allow it to function cooperatively in a group.
To your example of eugenics, notice I did not say that morality does not exist. Eugenics causes harm to one group whole benefiting another, violating our need to cooperate. When one group of humans separate themselves from another group, they dehumanize them, making it easier for them to commit atrocities against the other group, causing one group to flourish and the other to be oppressed, and thus revolt in violence.
I suggest you take a look at least at the first video of not all of them in my Human Behavioral Psychology playlist from Robert Sapolsky. You'd be surprised at how much sense it makes once you stop making categorical errors.
Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chloride But the reason why I included rape as an example is because a rapist does not suffer the slightest inconvenience from the psychological harm caused to their victim. In fact, they benefit from it. They pass on their genes and they satisfy after their own pleasures, which IS the SOLE purpose of life according to your worldview, and Richard Dawkins would approve of this. And you believe morality exists. Great. But why should one group stop themselves from flourishing over another? Is that not what evolution is all about? According to the majority of atheists we don’t have free will. How are we violating the deterministic biological processes of natural selection? By The very mechanism that drives evolution... we should be seeing the catastrophic demolishing of inferior life forms (weaker humans) by superior life forms... but we dont. Why is that? We have this deep intuition to provide for our neighbor in need of assistance. Also, funny you think we are evolving to become a more cooperative species. Seems like there’s less and less of that going around these days.
YHWH EN YHWH ALONE is above good en evil since he is THE SUSTAINER OF ALL THERE IS !!!!!! en HE gave us the moral laws en we know 100% in our HEART EN SOUL. to kill murder rape en so on is WRONG but for us believers its wrong en worse its A SIN
Stating that any moral view of an Atheist is a weaker argument is false. Having moral values which are implied without justification, or believing that this is true without evidence, is obviously a much weaker argument.
Evolution DOES give us moral thoughts. Until the past few decades, We(the human race), as a species, have developed and prospered when we have worked together, treated each other as as well (or better) that we would like to have other people treat us. Those who were able to observe, comprehend, and attain this have lived long enough in a healthy environment, with a similar minded spouse, to create more humans being with the same or greater moral values than the generation before us. (we see this in the way that the church has 'dismissed' certain passages in the bible, bit by bit to help the church fit into a more reasonably moral world.) Along with the social system which accompany these ideals, we have been able to conquer and overpopulate this planet to the point of our own detriment.
That is what we call 'inherent moral values', and being able to show this, disproves any validity of the claim that the moral values are derived from the blessing of any god, or from reading any book. If a specific god or scripture was responsible... we'd see drastic moral value swings in populations who worship various gods, participate in various religions, or live in different regions. The fact that the entire earth can agree on 99% of moral values, disproves any assertion of the influence of a particular god (or maximally powerful creator/entity).
David Donohue
99%? No that’s a joke.
First. You haven’t said anything to prove why your morality is better than God’s.
Second. You assert that evolution give us moral thoughts. Which you didn’t even bother trying to prove.
Third. Most societies agree on certain basic things. Even cannibalistic tribes new murder was wrong. No group of people applaud cowardice in their warriors.
God says that all men naturally know God’s moral laws because they are written on their heart.
Evolution? It's still a theory, which implies something unproven...yet many base all their understanding on this theory...you are limiting yourself by something unproven. I see your stance, but consider both sides...
@@discipletabitha1724 - No, A "Scientific Theory", is the most valid and proven proposition in science, given our understanding and testing of that theory by many people over time. What you are proposing is a theory in the literary non-scientific sense. If you want to argue this point, you need to be at least minimally educated in science itself.
'Flat Earth' is not a theory of any equivalence. It is a hair brained scheme that an uneducated person who disregards the overwhelming body of scientific facts theorizes -or proposed- without evidence or peer review. NOT a scientific theory.
There is more evidence for evolution, than there is for gravity. It's not a loose proposition that one person came up with and a few agree with. Basically the only people who discount is in any way are those who believe one book the bible, More than they believe the hundreds of books written by experts for the last hundred years.
Please do some research in basic science, what is a scientific theory, and the incredibly overwhelming body of evidence that supports evolution across many disciplines of science.
@@djdonohue ...why would I educate myself in science, when I know for a fact science cannot explain everything? Especially supernatural things, outside of our universe? To me, science limits me to mortal knowledge, whereas my belief rests in eternal knowledge. It seems you are very involved in your scientific way of thinking....but I use logic, and I know that something can't come from nothing...🤷♀️
David Donohue
Can a scientific theory change?
The implication of theism is that somehow its true
People call this a good refutation?
2:05 we do act a certain way based off of evolution 😂
Humans act like humans
Dogs act like dogs
Cats act like cats
Birds act like birds
Fish act like fish
And so on….
All life on earth is programmed biologically to act a certain way 😂.. the evidence is right in your face
Humans on the other hand can act like other animals (if we wanted to) or do what we wanna do or decide what we think is right and wrong all because of our very complex way of thinking
Turek is such a charlatan. And he’s a liar.
What did I just watch....
Yes it can and it is through evolution of understanding what works better in society and for the wellbeing of the human race
Jaybird Jetwings Everything really works morally right in society. We just need to look at the world evolution has given us.
@@evangelistkimpatrik I mean it's not perfect but it's an improvement from the past since humans are always developing through socialization
Evangelist Kim Patrik
Medicine, Oil and better crops?
Frank Fontaine What do these things have to do with morality? I look at the world and see a morally corrupt world 🌎
Jaybird Jetwings There are more wars than ever before if I am not mistaken. I don’t see that evolution is giving us any improvement morality wise.
I'm not a super super genius or anything, but what if morality came from the fruit of knowledge in genesis?, I may be wrong but i think when humans were primates there was no right or wrong, we were just living, but when eve at from the tree of knowledge and told adam to also eat the fruit, what if they than learnt of wrong and right and all this morality stuff... And what if that also triggered evolution cause the bible never told us what adam and eve looked like, maybe they were monkies and i believe in the bible but i don't believe everything in the bible should be thought of as 100% literal, but maybe we should see at as literal and metaphorical at once... As i said im not a super genius, or a genius at that, im just a normal guy trying to make the bible and science fit together...
Eden is a parable about mankind coming into self awareness. It isn’t literal. It teaches a concept.
Yes, it can. Btw its still subjective, so...
Simba Questionador
You can hold that position. No big deal.
But I’m German. And if you say that, than me killing Jews isn’t wrong, it just depends on personal preference and you couldn’t offer me any argument to stop me from doing it.
@Sunil Sunny i wont because i dont disagree with the dude here.
Sunil Sunny
Define objective morals and how many people would you need to agree with you ? We know individually that murder is wrong but that’s merely a subjective view shared by many or most people but not all . The next step is absolute morality but then that would be subjective too because it’s based on whether a god exists or not as only such an entity could uphold such standards. But you’d need to prove that such a god exists first .
@Sunil Sunny why do we need a creator for objective morality?
Maybe morality is objective naturally.
Sunil Sunny
But who decides what is morally wrong that’s just your subjective opinion ? If you ask someone else that is again subjective so how many people have to agree before something becomes objective ? It becomes a collective subjective opinion . Each incident would be contingent upon the circumstances so it’s not absolute and in order for something to become absolute you would require the ultimate arbiter presumably god but you can’t prove a god exists. Good or bad are just extremes of behaviour on a wide spectrum but again are dependent upon the situation and who is experiencing it.
Morality can and does exist without a god and can vary from person to person and social group to social group and even one’s own morality can change it’s not set in stone.
We are free to do anything up to a point but if you murder or commit other crimes you will be punished accordingly .
Thanks for your reply .
The source of doubt originated in the Garden of Eden when the serpent the devil caused Eve to doubt what God said about not to choose to do wrong by eating of the forbidden fruit. Hence, the devil is the source of evil. He is the one who influences the Atheist.
The problem is Frank doesn't have the ability to have any type of depth in his thought process.
Evolution is biology, not moral philosophy. Why do theists attempt to criticize evolution on this issue when it doesn't apply?
Now worldviews do apply. Such as humanism which promotes well being for humanity...superior to biblical morality
so where does morality come from if there is no God?
@@eishiba3916 morality comes from a mind(s). Morality is a judgement as to the proper way to conduct oneself. Morality existed long before religion
@@lawrenceeason8007 so since its a judgment on how to conduct yourself then it's opinion?
@@eishiba3916 you can look at it as an opinion. Well being is in all living things. As universal a moral standard as you can get
@@lawrenceeason8007 so everyone has their own morality.
"Atheists" are forced to know what a god is.
can you demonstrate a god exists?
Alan Baraka You have already made up your mind before any argument could be presented to you. With that stance, we could never.
“Those that have ears to hear let them hear”
You have to be open to it first
Ramon Cales
That’ll be a no then .
Funny how creationists always want to shift the burden of proof.
Mart TL1000S also Funny how atheists want to avoid it like the bubonic plague
@@alanbaraka9800 Who can't?
I'm not an atheist but the young man had a good point. Our sense of morality can be explained by human evolution. For example, ethical egoism could be a more refined survivalist instinct.
If what you say is true, then our whole system of justice is unfair! At best you could only say someone who does not follow the generally accepted morals has a birth defect. Because if it is genetic, they have no more control over it than the color of their skin. And I think we all agree it's wrong to put someone in jail or punish them because of the color of their skin.
@@milopepper2559 my point is that our system is not the only one. The fact the even if we can come up with "wrong" systems. The fact that we even attempt could be part of our brains evolving.
@@jamok3 Sorry, but without an objective set of morals, any "system" based on subjective morality will fail.
@@milopepper2559 again, I'm not debating that. What I am saying is that evolution can explain man's need to create a system of morality which can serve as self preservation. Such as ethical egoism. Lots of things fail through the process of evolution.
@@jamok3 "evolution can explain man's need to create a system of morality" No, it can't. And here's why. If humans evolved, then we are nothing more than matter following the laws of physics and chemistry.
And the idea that you can even contemplate "Morality" is a delusion. Because in a universe that is nothing more than matter and energy, you do not have free will. In fact, everything you do is predetermined, as a program on a computer.
The fact is, in a materialistic universe. You don't have a mind, you only have a brain. And that brain is just a bunch of chemical reactions, a simple way to think of it is like pouring vinegar onto baking soda. It's going to fizz and foam up every time, it has no choice! Neither does any other combination of chemicals.. And you may have far more chemicals in your brain, but they all interact with each other in a very, very predictable way.
The-only-ism you need to know
Terrorism.
Programmed? Needs a programmer doesn’t it?
Pretty much.
Knock knock
"Who's there?"
"It's Jesus let me in"
"Why do you want in?"
"I want to save you"
"Save me from what?"
"From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in"
Assuming they both exist would you rather go to heaven or hell?
@@austin7037 that's like asking me would I rather live in a goblins forest or a troll? You are asking me about what I believe are fantasies.
Both would be torture but I suppose heaven...as it is in the story
@@austin7037 So any reply to my answer?
@@lawrenceeason8007 why do you think heaven would be torture?
@@austin7037 constant 24/7 surveillance. Thoughts aren't private...nothing is. Always have a boss. I don't know if it would be torture, but not desirable. For me
How would having a world view that the holocaust is not objectively wrong be a wrong world view? I am a multi racial human being so if I was in Nazis Germany I would have been is the concentration camps but I could not make an argument that the holocaust is objectively wrong because my morality argument would be based on helping the as many people as I could but also causing the least amount of harms to others, but there is no objective reason why someone would follow this morality. Sure many people agree with me on this moral argument, but there is no objective reason to follow this or any other moral argument so as far as I see, there is no world view that can objectively argue why the holocaust was wrong. Even with a god, you do not have an objective reason to follow that god, even if going against that god would be cause you to go to hell, if one would want to go to hell than it would be moral for them to cause the holocaust. There is no objective reason to follow a god basically.
So wrong. Evolution is the answer.
In Exodus 21, Romans 13 (Paul)God gives details instructions in how to keep slaves, give them as property to our off spring. It is our brain and reason that has allowed us to set the Bible aside and ignore it and realize, using reason, that “God” was wrong.
Ethics evolved with us because social, empathetic, friendly, etc. ancestors were more likely to survive and reproduce, whereas antisocial, psychopathic ancestors were typically ostracized and couldn't reproduce. Ergo, our ethics evolved alongside our self-awareness.
From the very beginning you masseing several things into one: social evolution and ANCESTORS, WICH are the most important point. Human rights were mady from Bible, gladiatorial fights were banned in Rome because christians boycotted them. Nothing was evolving on it's own, and your ancestors were far from having much morality. Sorry, doesn't work. It's illusion of answer.
Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven!✝️
Wrong
Correct?
GOD created morality! Without HIM, we would ALL do whatever to whoever! You have to teach your kids, right from wrong. God's taught people from the beginning. Without HIS WORD, we would have already self-Destructed!
Melvin Hunt
I already do . I’ve murdered all the people I’ve ever wanted to . And that would be none . And no sky daddy looking over me .
And the fact that you wouldn’t behave without the fear of god says more about you than non-believers.
I need to get a slave
@@MartTLS how do you know whats right and whats wrong? whats your standard?
jason sims
We use our evolved brains. It’s common sense .
@@MartTLS look around, our society is Regressing, not Progressing!
wrong Turek, sorry, unsatisfactory answer
Nobody asked you.
@@acelinomckinzie1956 the title of the video is literally a question
@@ziyaadi It was summarizing what the person asked to Frank. So nobody asked you.
@@acelinomckinzie1956 then Turek shouldn't make videos if comments are sensored. Reminds me alot of religion: blasphemy... Lol.
@@ziyaadi Or you shouldn’t comment if nobody asked.
A double-talker with average intelligence.
You do not actually know unless you have the truth.
We don’t know the truth, we deduce the truth.
Alex
Haha good one
During the old testament times, genocide is not wrong as long as the perpetuators are the chosen people of God.
Today, we don't eliminate and destroy race anymore. Even if we are the chosen people.
*Evolution to Transhumanism*
Saint Michael Pray for Us
And you never found your imaginary friend .
Sunil Sunny
Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is imaginary? Presumably you do but why ? Are you god also ? Your god has as much credibility to me as the Flying Spaghetti Monster has to you .
Sunil Sunny
It is to me as is your belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Sunil Sunny
I’m not the one who has a problem with science it’s you creationists who believe pseudoscience.
Saint Michael Pray for Us
That would be the Flying Spaghetti Monster I’m guessing ?
wtf?
It's Frank's opinion that worshipping the abrahamic god is a good thing.
It's not?
strawman
@@samuelhunter4631
No? If Frank wasent of the opinion that worshipping God is a good thing, why does he do it?
@@Kaymen1980 everyone has an opinion, the thing is: who is right?
You cant be a relativist.
@@spectre8533
Sure, and Christians all agree that God is good, also when he drowns infants. It's their opinion.
More proof that Turek does understand evolution. Rather stick to your Bible stories and leave science to the scientists
What does science say about morality?
@@austin7037 read Frans de Waal
Yo, instead of wasting your time with these irrelevant arguments, JUST ASK JESUS CHRIST IF HE IS REAL! Your questions will then be answered. Sheesh man. Stop with this pettiness.
only a Christian would find this semantic lunatic logical, of course we evolve our own sense of morality
Brandon Hopkins The semantic lunatic utterly destroys your evolutionary moral foundation. The very mechanism of evolution tells us that we ought to prevail over those who are inferior, if this is what’s deeply rooted in our genetics then how are we able to treat others well? Our morals are derived from something much deeper than just a random biological process. And this is not to say that evolution didn’t happen, but it certainly cannot account for our moral values.
historically we did do that, more often than not in the name of religon, classicism, racism, slavery, only in recent centuries have we overcome those things by our own trials and tribulations, our own choices and our own merit, we're evolving our own sense of morality, without the use of an ancient text
@@ramoncales1210 I dont think you understand the theory.
@@smokingcrab2290 Why dont you let non theists have their own morals?
Stay out of everyone's life's....dont make laws against people you dont like.
colby j I understand it quite well. Evolution is the gradual change of species through mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutations. You really think that our morals evolved based on a process that kills off species? Not to mention that most evolutionists don’t believe in free will. If that’s the case, we would be determined to fend for ourselves, not show empathy towards others. That’s the point I’m trying to make. You might say “Our morals have evolved to uphold values that contribute to the greater good of society.” Let’s think about that for a second. I’m sure if we were to enslave an entire race, and use eugenics to build super humans, super laborers, Einsteins, surely society would progress. So because civilization is flourishing should we accept that such a practice would be morally justified? Does the end goal justify the means? I don’t think for a second you would be okay with that. Truth is, there IS no naturalistic framework for Objective moral values that we ALL know exist. That shouldn’t even be up for debate whether or not they dont. We have intuitions oF right and wrong, and we have them because someone placed them within us.