Does Survival Explain Morality? (feat. Scott Clifton) (Greg Koukl response)

Greg Koukl was asked why the idea that “we develop morality out of our desire to survive” fails to stand as a basis for morality. But Scott Clifton joins me to discuss why Greg's attempt to find failure is itself a failure.
#STRask - October 29, 2020
www.str.org/w/...
Scott Clifton (Theoretical Bullshit)
/ theoreticalbullshit
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.amazon.ca/...
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord

[@EatHoneyBeeHappy]

Greg Koukl accusing others of contrivances is really rich.

[@MrAustrokiwi]

my immediate thoughts!

[@MythVisionPodcast]

The evolutionary model for morality is better than the biblical model. Great video Paul!

[@goldenalt3166]

For explaining the existence of morality. Both are horrid as a basis for determining moral rules.

[@goldenalt3166]

For explaining the existence of morality. Both are horrid as a basis for determining moral rules.

[@ZebidiahChaos]

@@goldenalt3166 _For explaining the existence of morality. Both are horrid as a basis for determining moral rules._ Why? I'm particularly interested in your reasoning why the evolutionary model is bad.

[@gamingdragon1356]

There is a model explaining morality ? wth . Two people in the same house can have different opinions on morality .

[@goldenalt3166]

@@ZebidiahChaos Using either evolution or the bible as examples for morality violates most established moral rules.

[@mattwilliams100]

'He's writing cheques that his meta-ethical framework can't cash!' 😂 Excellent stuff!

[@jursamaj]

Oh yes, Scott can turn a phrase. Not kidding, he hardly puts anything up on his own channel, but if you haven't watched his catalog, I strenuously recommend it.

[@recellenc4690]

NO EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE REJECTING THE FREE GIFT of 💛➕SALVATION ❗ ACTION SPEAKS 🔈 LOUDER 🔈 THAN WORDS ❗JESUS CHRIST IS THE LIVING WORDS OF GOD 👍👌👌 💯 % Philippians 2: 5 - 8 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death- even death on a cross! ACTION SPEAKS 🔈 LOUDER 🔈 THAN WORDS. Jesus Christ is the living word/logos of God

[@jursamaj]

@@recellenc4690 Preaching at us and quoting your bible isn't going to convince us that your beliefs are anything more than mythology. Neither is SHOUTING AT US! Try bringing some evidence.

[@raineriorentor6110]

James 1:22 But prove yourselves doers of the word [ actively and continually obeying God's precepts ], and not merely listeners [ who hear the word but fail to internalize its meaning ], deluding yourselves [ by unsound reasoning contrary to the truth ]. New American Standard Bible But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not just hearers who deceive themselves.

[@raineriorentor6110]

Romans 5:12 ...,and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned - Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death,... Revelation 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. John 10:9 I am the door; anyone who comes into the fold through me will be safe.... Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood. Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

[@cuzned1375]

Pretty sure Scott is the first guy you’ve animated here that you _didn’t_ make more handsome. Which… Fair enough, how could you?

[@GrrMania]

That’s true. Probably the best looking dude on KZbin really lol

[@shanewilson7994]

Ryan Reynolds Jr is dead sexy.

[@DenisLoubet]

Definitely man-crush material.

[@Kyeudo]

Animated Viced Rhino is horrifying.

[@hitesh8383]

@@GrrMania That would be Genetically Modified Skeptic

[@dienekes4364]

Greg is doing what apologists do. They cherry-pick a statement made by some random person, and shoe-horn their prejudices and ignorance into it, then make it the center-point of their argument. Greg never tries to _understand_ the statement or find deeper meaning, but rather as a bludgeon to try to defend his own self-imposed stupidity about a subject.

[@codeyamos]

Don't forget the whole 'twisting the truth till it looks like a pretzel' thing. Personally I just call it lying because they are intentionally doing it to benefit themselves, but then other people start arguing technicalities.

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@codeyamos Agreed.

[@shanen8031]

I dont even think they cherry pick statements, or actually have the conversations (with atheists) they say they do. I think they just make shit up!

[@dienekes4364]

@@shanen8031 All too often, definitely.

[@ojskiipojski]

This frustrates me because to me it's so obvious how it's so well explained through evolution that I can't fathom how they can't understand it. How can they explain altruistic behaviour seen in other species?????

[@nathanjora7627]

How can they explain self generated altruistic behaviors in neural networks whose survival depends on the survival of the overall group ? We can generate basic moral-like behaviors, and make them disappear later on, through the application of the laws of evolution to neural networks, by merely changing the strategy needed for the individuals in the group to survive. That’s to my knowledge one of the best demonstration that the moral phenomenon is nothing more than an evolutionary phenomenon.

[@xNazgrel]

I think that is clear. The thing is that if you don't follow the path of evolutionary altruism you are not really "bad" from an atheistic point of view.

[@codeyamos]

You obviously haven't watched/heard many apologetics. They have this thing about separating humans from the rest of the animals, because 'YHWH' made us special. They refuse to acknowledge that animals are capable of anything outside of instinct, and will lie and deny till they are blue in the face that animals can think or feel emotions.

[@elawchess]

@@xNazgrel even on a theistic moral framework are you really bad if you don't do altruism?

[@nathanjora7627]

@@xNazgrel You aren’t bad or wrong form some atheistic and theistic points of view, the point is that nonetheless the behaviors that we call « morals » and the behaviors we call « immoral » are perfectly explained by evolution. It’s not to say that « therefore » it’s moral to be altruistic, it’s to say that the reason why altruism is a trait that’s so present in humans is because of evolution.

[@CaseAgainstFaith1]

OMG! TheoreticalBullshit! I sure wish he was more active still. But thanks for having him on today.

[@peterpackiam]

Thanks, Paulogia, you stump these apologists BIG TIME, Cheers to you.

[@waterblonk]

Scott Clifton, soap actor by day, destroyer of pseudo-Intellectual polemics and grifters by night

[@Bill_Garthright]

What a superhero! :) Too bad he doesn't seem to have time to post videos on his KZbin channel anymore. I miss them - and I'm not even a huge fan of philosophical arguments. But, like this one, they were always very interesting.

[@taowaycamino4891]

No evidence Scott has ever destroyed any argument ever.

[@justthefacts7414]

@@taowaycamino4891 Just watch his responses to William Lane Craig. All Craig could do is misrepresent Clifton in order to "rebut" him.

[@taowaycamino4891]

@@justthefacts7414 Can you give an example where Craig does this?

[@jtalistair6725]

@@justthefacts7414 They're in the videos. Watch them

[@thinboxdictator6720]

2:55 if entity A does good without expecting eternal life and entity B does good because it is threatened by hell .. which entity is more moral?

[@gamingdragon1356]

None , because there is nothing called good in this world . Every one has their own criteria of good . But with respect to your question both are equally moral because it is the act that matters .

[@pagedprawn3760]

Any entity that is both threatened by hell, believes the threat and understands what hell is is going to do good whether or not they wanted to do good before they got threatened.

[@thinboxdictator6720]

@@pagedprawn3760 brilliant apologetic answer by not answering the question :)

[@Julian0101]

For me both are equally moral, doing something in expectancy of a reward and doing something to avoid an expected punishment are equally moral.

[@thinboxdictator6720]

@@Julian0101 I think you misread. A is without expectancy of reward and B is to avoid punishment.

[@munstrumridcully]

Theoretical Bullshit (Scott Clifton) is one of my favorite youtubers. I wish he made more videos...

[@veganatheistandmore]

Me too! I wish he was more active on youtube.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Sadly I think he said about all there is he wants to say more than a decade ago

[@nonna_sof5889]

"So did Lenin." Lenin got shot because he liked to go talk to average people without a bodyguard during a civil war. Why does it not surprise me this guy doesn't know the first thing about history.

[@Nixeu42]

Yeah, and most of the rest of them didn't live the most fulfilling of lives either. They had to live their lives with the constant specter of assassination, uprising, or betrayal at their back, and it definitely weighed heavy upon many of their minds. They decided to take up riding tigers for a living, and that's not exactly a relaxing career.

[@joseph-thewatcher]

The final point Scott made was the first thing that came to my mind when listening to Koukl's argument. It's really amazing how Christians aren't self aware. They act as though their positions, claims and arguments are some how unassailable or above reproach.

[@SwolllenGoat]

TBS and Paul? Oh my............... Nice to see Scott still getting involved now and again.................

[@jursamaj]

I did an Atheist Experience episode recently too. I really hope this is a sign he's going to be here more, even if only as a guest.

[@jursamaj]

I *really* wish Scott would do more on YT. I realize he has a pretty successful career now, and a family, so time is limited. But I really miss seeing new vids from him.

[@WolforNuva]

I agree wholeheartedly. He has a great insight and ability to explain his ideas that I've yet to see anyone else match.

[@Dragoderian]

One of his attempts at return was immediately marred by blatant plagiarism by a fellow atheist; which, I understand, helped push him away from KZbin content for a time.

[@bengreen171]

I notice that these apologists never use kings and emperors as their examples of self serving masters - I wonder if that has anything to do with the uncomfortable similarity between human royalty, and royalty of a more 'divine' origin....

[@codeyamos]

Don't forget that, for hundreds of years, Christianity supported the 'God given right' for royalties of whatever title to rule over others.

[@bengreen171]

@@codeyamos yep - and i've noticed a somewhat strange trend among American conservative Christians (especially on the extreme end of hte scale) to support the idea of monarchy. They justcan't seem to help themselves - they just wanna bow down to someone.

[@harrispinkham]

You got Theoretical BS on??? May non existent God bless you, Paul!!

[@chonwarren9941]

I was watching viced rhino earlier and he mentioned you as someone he admires i feel the same

[@jasonsabbath6996]

Greg's premise presupposes that all humans want or need for survival and morals pertains to the individual and not us as a group. My want for survival isn't just about me, as I want other humans to live and thrive especially my friends and family.

[@goalski134]

i personally think that caring for others and wanting them to be happy, healthy and safe is a far more commendable motivation than doing something because a) a deity told you to or b) fear of hell.

[@letstrytouserealscienceoka3564]

Altruism is not part of any "moral project", it is an evolved trait just like empathy.

[@sobertillnoon]

My only problem with the "will you damn yourself to hell to ensure I go to heaven" thing is that family annihilators use this excuse to murder their children.

[@josephpatterson2513]

But a Christian who murders her child would only have to confess her sin, ask God for forgiveness , and then back to heaven she goes.

[@goldenalt3166]

Pinecreek likes to ask if a Christian give up eternity to saw him from hell.

[@mr.c2485]

@@goldenalt3166 Pinecreek is one of my favorite shows. He even gives pinepoints!

[@archapmangcmg]

Kind of, anyway. Their rarity is part of Scott's argument.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@mr.c2485 I'm curious if he'll end up really giving out that joke trip.

[@rodoxag9117]

I find quite interesting how empathy isn't often stressed enough when people talk about morality and its origins. First of all, we 'know' that suffering is unpleasant. When we're injured and in pain for example, most of us don't like that feeling, it is a biological reality. No one has to explain to other person that pain is unpleasant. Now throw empathy to the mix, with this trait we can (sort of) feel what we believe the other person is feeling, and empathetic people can't help to 'feel' this way, they just do, it's not a switch that you can turn on and off. So, when someone is in pain, the brain of most of us mirrors that feeling onto ourselves, and since we generally want to avoid pain on us, it is inevitable that we will also try to avoid inflicting pain on others. This also would explain why more empathetic people (empathy is a gradient) not only don't want to cause any harm to other human beings, but also feel bad by causing pain or fear to other animals, and I don't think that animal well-being is a moral statement in the Bible.. Heck, some people even feel bad by killing a plant. Although there could be much more to it than this, I think that the naturalistic explanation is the best to account for the basis of 'morality', and I don't think it's that difficult to understand. It's not just about survival, it's also about avoiding pain and empathy.

[@Tacklepig]

Avoiding pain IS a survival instinct though. I don't even think that morality is survivalist, but everything you said is explainable through survival instincts.

[@NirielWinx]

Just a tiny add-on: not only is empathy a gradient but it can be learned. I didn't have empathy for animals until I was 27, even though I lived with pets. I just never paid attention to them. It's only in the past 15 years of playing with goats and birds and everything I could boop that I got to relate to them. That's it. Just a small parenthesis.

[@rodoxag9117]

@@Tacklepig Sure, pain has adaptative value, and so it can be viewed as an evolutionary advantage because it aids your organism in detecting possible threats to your survival. But there are other instincts that are part of our 'moral' code, and that causes us 'suffering' but are not a threat to our survival. For example, stealing your child; I might take good care of him/her, but still you'll suffer because you love him/her and you miss him/her, which also has adaptative value as far as I can see. That's why I also don't believe that morality is purely 'survival', but in my opinion the basis for morality is empathy, mixed with survival and suffering (and not necessarily just 'physical' suffering, but also emotional). Of course, we are a very complex social species. The fact that we have speech and can transmit complex ideas to each other enables us to evolve our moral codes as our civilizations get more complex. I can sit down with someone believing that X is immoral, and walk out of the conversation having my mind changed, which shows that morality is not entirely about empathy/survival/suffering and it's a more complex issue, but I do believe that (at least) these 3 things are the basis upon which we build our morality. Ultimately, I believe that every moral code can be traced down to these 3 things, and all 3 can be explained by evolution.

[@GrrMania]

Scott Clifton! The OG atheist KZbinrs ❤️

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Clear and lapidary as usual, both of you! BTW, I keep hearing Cuckold... My fault.

[@_a.z]

It's so obvious that we don't get our morality from the bible! We set our standards very much higher!

[@WaskiSquirrel]

I enjoyed Mr. Clifton's channel and I've missed his videos very much. Glad to hear from him!

[@Paulogia]

Me too!

[@mugglescakesniffer3943]

Wouldn't buttering up Grandma to get an inheritance be the same as buttering up people to go to church to get butts in the seat and more money in the offering plate?

[@headnsand9353]

Yes.

[@Marconius6]

This is actually the coolest part of The Selfish Gene: it's not about individual survival, not even species survival, it's about the survival of certain genes. So yes, a gene that makes you altruistic (to a degree), and another gene that finds altruism attractive, will naturally lead to those genes propagating. It makes perfect sense, if you go past the very surface level understanding.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

I recommend the lecture series "Human Behavior Biology" by Robert Sapolsky, on the Stanford YT channel. Biology predicts our moral tendencies to an _incredibly_ specific degree. Those who try to explain morality with theology are missing out on an _entire realm_ of fascinating interactions within the natural world. They don't know what they are missing. I really like his comparison of tournament and pair-bonding species (from the end of the second lecture). Simply by comparing the relative sizes of a female and male skull of a species, you can predict lots of information about their social behavior tendencies.

[@frogandspanner]

4:40 "Moral project". A project is (OED): "An individual or collaborative enterprise that is carefully planned to achieve a particular aim." The God-botherer (GB) is assuming an aim. Implicit in his statement is the assertion that there is an aimer.

[@galacticbob1]

I feel like "moral project" also presumes some universal aim, some "absolute" moral correctness that humanity is progressing towards (or regressing from) at any given point in time.

[@frogandspanner]

@@galacticbob1 i.e. a goal. It assumes a moral correctness, for which there is no evidence. This is where god-botherer arguments about morality fail.

[@ryrez4478]

roundly and soundly defeated koukls argument. my favorite paulogia video for sure!

[@alexlarsen6413]

Even his religious superstition, is also in part, a result of evolution.

[@qzh00k]

No, this stuff is taught. You can excuse the reasons but the trash that hides in gods kilt needs some sunlight.

[@goldenalt3166]

Not only that, but religious beliefs themselves are also evolving and, for the most part, not intelligently designed.

[@qzh00k]

An evolving god? This craps not real but the memo got lost.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@qzh00k I'm not convinced that religion has anything to do with God.

[@qzh00k]

Ideas are fun to play with, but supernatural explanations explain nothing and will destroy conversations and debate. Like pollution, nuclear waste, sea level rise and landing on the gosh darn flat moon. Not gonna excuse them, #not12

[@mistyhaney5565]

Excellent as usual! Great to hear from Scott again, I really enjoy his videos as well. I don't do Twitter so it's been a long time since I've heard anything of his, thank you.

[@enmanuelsan]

What Greg gets wrong is that it is not the case that a female cat protects her kittens because she wants her DNA to be replicated but that evolution will oftem create animals that care about their offpring because the ones that don't care have less probability of having their genes replicated succesfully of course not all species do that but that's because they developed other traits like having an extremely high number of offpring per pregnancy

[@joshuacadavid871]

Hello my fellow hominids! I come from a distant land to bring you a message that might change the face of the Earth as we know it! clears throat Hear all, come all! I have this urgent message to give! Under the decree of his highest authority you shall bow down to the great Panthera tigris in all his glory and if you dare defy him you will be...OOPS! wrong speech. UMMM...... oh yeah! clears throat again As I was saying, if you dare ask me who I am I will tell you I am simply a Mandrillus sphinx on the camera image, but am much more then such. If you also dare call the class a youtubing scratt you will be suspended to the highest degree of authority under the great Panthera leo. However, before such level is given to thee you will be judged by the ALMIGHTY and GREAT court of Pan troglodytes, and if you don't pass, all power will be stripped from you and you will be sent to the land of Homininae as you came. However, changes could be made if necessary -- under a high bargain of course. Anyways...*clears throat once more* in conclusion, I finish this message by bringing to thee this marvelous vessel from the land of Pongo pygmaeus, or for you colloquial types, Sumatran Orangutan. So, as I go I leave that gift for all to cherish... leaves through portal and leaves time warp open to all who touch it

[@Slum0vsky]

Koukl's argument would be good if he'd explain why our human genocidal dictators are different from OT god. The Amalekites don't know.

[@Roedygr]

Morality is playing fair with others. Societies that encourage everyone to play fair tend to proper.

[@falsexgrindx378]

"but why would anyone play fair unless a giant man in the sky tells them to?"

[@taowaycamino4891]

That is your claim...but no evidence that is true.

[@falsexgrindx378]

@@taowaycamino4891 You ever seen a society that prospered without playing fair? It's a pretty solid correlation.

[@falsexgrindx378]

@@taowaycamino4891 You ever seen a society that prospered without playing fair? It's a pretty solid correlation.

[@taowaycamino4891]

@@falsexgrindx378 You ever seen a begging the question statement as fallacious as yours before? It's pretty solid correlation that you are engaging on a fallacy.

[@__Andrew]

The saddest part about Scott's example of "would you go to hell so i could go to heaven" is that this is why Andrea Yates killed her own kids. In her view, in the Christian view, what she did was the ultimate sacrifice a person can make. She doomed herself to hell to assure her children a place in heaven. Iv seen plenty of Christians condemn what Yates did, but they cant refute the logic behind her actions.

[@kdietz65]

Damn. That's some serious argument-analyzing shit right there. Well done. My head hurts now. I need to lie down.

[@sonnyfleming904]

6:26 This seems like a fair point on the evolutionary model. Not everything that is conducive to my survival is moral. Not everything that is moral is conducive to my survival.

[@scattershotbrain8029]

I think the thing that gets forgotten is that evolution favours the groups of individuals that survive, not the survival of individuals Think of it this way, a group of hunters and gatherers have a better chance of survival than an individual hunter, even though that individual won't have to share they also won't be able to take the same risks the group will, and of course they won't be able to reproduce as an individual Even though the group may lose a hunter or gather here or there to dangerous prey or poison plants, as a group they are more successful and so traits that facilitate cooperative behaviour are favoured

[@Martial-Mat]

Scott is a youtube legend. His argumentation videos are inspirational.

[@dreffed]

Self sacrifice / morality question is why I started my exit from religion.

[@avi8r66]

Rape and Murder are not only consistent with god's character, in their stories he ordered those actions of his loyal humans, several times.

[@chemtrooper1]

Euthyphro’s dilemma strikes again!

[@shanen8031]

Paul... i think you need to include eye rolling into your avitar

[@Paulogia]

it would be constant

[@robwhythe793]

My granddaughter (age 7) was looking over my shoulder while I watched this, and asked why Pinocchio was on the screen. I told her it was because they were explaining why lying was wrong. So she asked "Why is it wrong?" My wife (who wasn't watching) explained "Would you want anyone to lie to you?" "No", she said. "That's why lying is wrong" said my wife. Easy, really.

[@Ansatz66]

There are far better answers than that. Perhaps that's the best answer to give to a 7-year-old, but really lying isn't wrong merely due to us not liking it. A woodpecker tapping on a tree in the early morning is also something most people wouldn't like, but it's not immoral. Lying is far worse than that. Lying also breaks down social cohesion and cooperation while enabling selfishness and treachery. A woodpecker just annoys us, but lying causes all of our lives to be worse in ways that maybe a 7-year-old would struggle to understand, but still that's the real answer.

[@jacksonpercy8044]

@@Ansatz66 I'm pretty sure a 7 year old would probably get bored and stop listening if you told them that.

[@tonybanks1035]

If species survival explain your morality, you should have no issues murdering if it serves the species. Period. Paulogia's post hoc reasoning that mass murderers are bad for survival and peace is good is a bunch of unsuported crap. Few centuries of history is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. And besides, the fact that those events keep happening is almost an indication that despite their small duration their overall long term effects are good. Nice try Paul. Paulogia: an ex-christian takes a look at the claims of christians (but isn't very smart, so he only makes sense to his camera) Clifton's take is even worse (if that's even possible). He argues that survival explains the presence of some moral behaviour in us but doesn't tell us what morality is, which seems to be implying moral realism, which on atheism is completely ungrounded. Then he claim's that "wrong in itsef" is different from "wrong because it deviates from God", before submiting us to a crappy version of the good old one million times debunked euthyphros dilema. Gosh, who wastes his time in this garbage channel. (me I guess)

[@RoninTF2011]

Well then, explain how a social group where everybody murders, is able to survive, let along thrive. "Few centuries of history is a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. " ...and? the "moral" system based on functioning social groups is much older then the history of homo sapiens....

[@FerrariKing]

Wouldn't those that get their morality from the bible end up in prision?

[@heliboy8762]

Mr Koukl - please demonstrate that god actually has the attributes (moral perfection being one) you claim. How do you prove this? And on a more fundamental level, please demonstrate that your deity actually exists, and then we can have a conversation about what attributes it may or may not have

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

In order to do this, he would need to first be able to define what "moral perfection" is, and show that this definition is not ill-defined and not inconsistent with itself.

[@hillside21]

The self-interest of a single individual is Objectivism, isn't it? More loosely. Libetarianism?

[@galacticbob1]

Objectivism holds that acting in self interest is always moral. Libertarianism would say it is moral as long as it doesn't interfere with other's ability to achieve their own self interests.

[@martenw757]

If god is beyond human understanding, how does Crack Cooky know his nature let alone his morals? 😬😩😧

[@Roedygr]

Scott: I am so glad to see you again I check every few months to see if you have done anything new.

[@thewick-j1837]

How you remain, just so jovial is incredible

[@mr.c2485]

That’s the residual Christian in him...

[@hank_says_things]

“Greg Koukl has been added to your playlist: Slick Used-God Salesmen”

[@megafire7]

Hearing Scott's voice again sure is a treat! Thanks you two!

[@jaynajuly2140]

I've yet to see a model of purely altruistic love that makes sense - although feelings of love can be triggered in a few different ways, it always seems to involve SOME degree of oneself (such as joy, lust, duty, identity, compassion, etc.)

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Well, ironically, it is impossible to be any level of selfless without having any level of selfishness. Total and absolute selflessness is actually just as harmful and demented as total and absolute selfishness.

[@jaynajuly2140]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 I couldn't agree more!

[@jackbarman7063]

I appreciate having his perspective on your channel, especially cause I felt that this metaethical framework had been missing from this channel in previous discussions of morality.

[@guiagaston7273]

Even Joey in friends figured out that there are no selfless acts. But for these Christians it's impossible to get that

[@mr.c2485]

Selfless acts are void of malice. Each must define malice for themselves.

[@imjessietr29]

Many years ago I realized it was far more moral to be fine with hell than scrambling to get to heaven

[@lovespeaks777]

Subjective morality is unreasonable. If morality is subjective, a woman providing food, clothing, and education for her children would be no different morally than a psycho stealing, raping, and torturing children for fun. And if you’d argue, a group can agree on what’s moral and they can make laws that would be objective. If a group decides something is moral or immoral, that would mean they collectively came together with their opinions and chose something they agreed upon. A group of people could come together and agree that pedophilia is good, and that would be their subjective opinion. Subjective opinion doesn’t solve the ontological question of what grounds morals objectively. Because subjective morality is unreasonable, objective morality is reasonable. Because objective morality is reasonable, there would be an objective standard for morality. This standard would have to be a being because only beings can be moral. This being would have to be perfectly moral. I would call this being God. But God’s moral law would be subjective. God is a subject, and morality would be based on His opinion. ​​⁠Morality is not subjective for God because His commands are in accord with who He is. It’s not that God just doesn’t like evil, He isn’t evil. It’s not that God doesn’t like lying-He isn’t a liar. So when He commands people not to do evil, it’s in perfect harmony with His character. And if you want to argue that what I said is about objective morality is absurd, morality would be subjective. ​​⁠Subjective morality would mean morals are based on opinions, not facts. Meaning there are no objective moral values or duties. If you accept this, you have to willfully live a delusion. You would live pretending there is right and wrong, when you know there is no such thing. I don’t advocate people lying to themselves. This is worse than blind faith. With blind faith you believe something is true even if it isn’t, but with subjective morality you know something isn’t true but you act like it is. If you want to argue your view is more reasonable, I’m listening.

[@ScotHarkins]

I've long taken a very oversimplified view that allowing the murder of the best flint knapper would result in reduced calories per person. The murder of the midwife would mean fewer children successfully born and fewer mothers surviving with them. Murdering the most experienced forager would reduce total calories and reduce nutrient acquisition for the family or tribe. Over time this would select for protecting family or tribal members as a means of protecting the self.

[@Ansatz66]

Protecting the self isn't even really relevant. All that matters is protecting the family in the sense that the family is what causes the DNA to be passed on. Since they're all related, they probably all have the bits of DNA that is causing them to behave morally, so individual survival of any one member of that family is not going to matter if the question we're asking is why did morality develop in humanity. It developed because we have DNA that causes our brains to form in a way that makes us care about morality, and that happened because families and tribes with that DNA were more likely to thrive and grow than families and tribes without that DNA, even if that DNA may sometimes have caused some people to not be protected. We might even suspect that our DNA is optimized to ensure its own thriving and survival at all costs, because any less-optimized DNA would not have won out. Humans are notorious for not giving moral consideration to people of other tribes. If people are being oppressed and killed in far off places, most of us will say that's terrible and then do nothing about it. Our DNA gains nothing by sacrificing to help other tribes. But if we find someone who doesn't seem to have the morality-giving DNA within our own tribe due to their immoral actions, we feel enormous outrage. We'll do terrible things to immoral people. We'll kill them. We'll imprison them. We'll exile them, and we're very unlikely to help them thrive. It's an emotional response programmed by our DNA to encourage us to destroy competing DNA. Obviously this impulse to punish can also result in destroying people who have that same moral DNA, but that doesn't matter because it serves the top priority which was eliminating the foreign DNA from the tribe.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

Good case in point: Hitler was so evil, his last surviving relatives got together and agreed not to have children, voluntarily ending his bloodline. They didn't want anyone around who might be worshiped by his followers. His genes are not getting passed down.

[@gamingdragon1356]

Pretty sure they were forced to do so and no hitler wasn't evil that's just crap .

[@jacksonpercy8044]

@@gamingdragon1356 Even if getting millions of people killed isn't considered evil by some definitions, that doesn't mean we should condone it.

[@WilbertLek]

So..... Human beings = 250000 years old. "christianity" = 2000 years old. Yet a "christian" wants me to "believe" that his flavor of "gods-believing" has benefitted us.....

[@elephant_888]

Truly great content. Always refreshing to hear honest discussion. And by honest, I’m excluding Greg Koukl’s incredibly self-unaware objections to the subjectivity of morality.

[@richardmooney383]

I noticed that this bloke ran out of bad guys after Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pohl Pot. Perhaps I could help him out; what about Torquemada, Hitler's pal Pope Pious XII, England's "bloody" Queen Mary, Benedict Arnold, crusade-crazy Louis IX of France, and Norman Bates? Christians all.

[@budd_skully]

3:00 Did he forget to mention popes?

[@robertfelton8374]

Morality is learned; it is not innate(written on your heart)

[@sybariticcupboardrat3763]

It's both. You're born with a certain about of empathy hardwired into your genetics and neurology. But the neurology of a person is highly impacted by the experiences the person has in their life. Like a seed that will grow if given the proper conditions, but die off without them. Some seeds start off hardier than others. But if there's no seed in the first place, nothing can be grown.

[@facundocesa4931]

Paulogia, species don't want to survive. And I'm not splitting hairs here. It would benefit you to read The Selfish Gene. 🙂 And it would be great if you listened to Paul Bloom's lecture "Against Empathy", available here on KZbin.

[@theonlysumireharafanboyint6919]

The Mormon answer to your question would be: Uh, Jesus already did that.

[@TheoreticalBullshit]

Jesus is in Hell for eternity?

[@theonlysumireharafanboyint6919]

@@TheoreticalBullshit He kinda felt the collective guilt and/or pain and/or punishment for for every last bit of human sin/suffering from the past, present, and future, so it's pretty comparable.

[@artimusbranesample9072]

I don't know you especially well but, I'd be willing to bet my 2nd favorite dog that you and I aren't as far apart morally as we are geographically, if every variant equated to +/- 58 miles per occurrence. Maybe THAT's why we aren't closer friends. ;)

[@raineriorentor6110]

Romans 5:12 ...,and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned - Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death,... Revelation 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. John 10:9 I am the door; anyone who comes into the fold through me will be safe.... Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood. Romans 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

[@lucideandre]

I’d absolutely give up a place in heaven for someone who wants it. I mean, heaven (if you’ll pardon the joke) seems like hell. Eternal worshiping? Sorry, doesn’t seem any fun. And if the devil is in charge of hell, he’s probably sending up false reports of what’s going on. Saying that “yes yes, lots of torturing here, Sir!”, but it’s actually a pretty chill place. Anyone can have fun however they want. Well, that is, if any of it existed. Probably doesn’t...

[@urbanspaceman7183]

Doesn't God use his power to do what most people would consider, terribly wicked acts?

[@doranku]

How dare you impose your mere mortal human ideas on the morals of gods! /s

[@urbanspaceman7183]

@@doranku God made me do it!

[@chewyjello1]

10:04 Koukl messed up here by arguing for objective morality instead of absolute morality. If he would have argued for the later then at least he would have a point. And to that point I would say "Congratulations! You've imagined up an absolute moral system that's CRAP and unable to adjust to new evidence or factors. No thanks!!"

[@markcostello5120]

02:05 I'm pretty sure Greg Koukle just debunked Pascale's Wager with his grandma analogy. A partial debunk

[@RobotProctor]

If Scott Clifton wrote a book, I'd buy it

[@Seapatico]

This Koukl video is such a good example of why the Moral Argument for God is so deeply flawed. Apologists seem incapable of differentiating personal morals from general humans morals, and of differentiating moral beliefs from moral actions. Like, to say that morality has to come from God because Pol Pot hurt a lot of people is perhaps the most illogical, absurd sentiment in all of apologetics, because 1000 out of 1000 atheists would say mass murder is wrong, so what are you even talking about?

[@kdietz65]

Here's a little thought experiment I like to do sometimes. Suppose I'm wrong and there really is a God and now it's judgment day and I have to defend my life, my worldview, and my decisions. But, luckily, I don't have to do it all myself, I get to have my own hand-picked dream team of lawyers, scholars, philosophers, and scientists on my side. Scott and Paul are both on that list!

[@juniusluriuscatalus6606]

Religious morality is just sanctified evolved morality. Trying to make evolved morality look bad comparing it to egocentrism is either arrogance (lying) or lack of understanding. And egocentrism comes to play when we make natural phenomenons holy to justify religious, which is actually just sanctifying ourselves. I got 4:30-ish into this one and had to comment. Because my view is holier... or to boost my ego... whatever, I'll laugh to myself.

[@mr.c2485]

Why can’t we simply stay with simple facts? Fact: we ALL want/need the same thing...soundness of mind. No one is exempt. Fact: The use of malice, in any form, disqualifies personal soundness of mind. If these premises are true, then our responsibilities to each other are clear. Simply consider the motives/needs/desires of self and apply them to others. Even if their methodology is not the same as yours, it changes nothing. We still know the M.O. What I’m saying is of course on a personal level only. I seriously doubt that any of this can be applied to the masses. Note: soundness of mind should not be confused with “well being” or “pleasure”. Both of those often use/require malice as a methodology.

[@erin1569]

I think the guest is incorrect at 13:50 I think a better question would be: "Would you still follow God if the wicked were put in heaven and the holy were put in hell?" That puts me in a bad spot, I'm sure an overwhelming majority of christians would still decide to follow God, even if they were punished by him for doing so. I guess an answer would be to just assume something like the Stockholm syndrome. Maybe loyalty? I really don't know. I guess I'll have to ask some christians.

[@munstrumridcully]

Of _course_ survival explains morality. Without question. To put it at its simplest--we are a social (but not _eusocial_ ) species we tend to engage in reciprocal altruism, where we do things for ithers but ecpect others to return the favor if need be. To survive, we most definitely have to work together in social groups, thus we have evolved to see social behavior as generally moral and antisocial behaviors as generally immoral. Notice how even the supposedly divine law giver keeps to tjis trend--antisocial behaviors are generally considered on the bad side of things, only in the context of an in-group (the Israelites) vs out-group (gentiles) dynamic.

[@Amoth_oth_ras_shash]

''mao '' pool pot ' stalin' ...yada yada..... yes as individuals , but also..... they where not examples of the vast majority of humans they where exceptions.. i wonder who's trying to muddy the water here..

[@wadegruber2119]

One example I heard from Thunderf00t is this: When you see piranhas in a feeding frenzy eating an animal, They don't eat each other. Why not? That said, it's pretty clear to me that morality comes from 3 things, biology, logic, and society. Biology gives us the concepts of pleasure, pain, and fairness and group behaviors like altruism, logic gives us unavoidable conclusions about how others would prefer we behave, and society, driven by the first two and its own imperative for bringing order, comes up with insights and ideologies.

[@pdoylemi]

A simple though exercise can be taken from looking at animal behavior. Bird parents put a lot of effort into nurturing and protecting their young - because their survival strategy involves few hatchlings at a time, and the survival of each is important - if you do not care for your young, you are an "immoral" bird. But sea turtles have a different strategy - numbers. They lay dozens of eggs, bury them, and leave. Usually, a few make it to the sea, and survive to adulthood - mission accomplished. That is sea turtle "morality".

[@OzienPlays]

It's impossible for everyone to be self-sacrificing. The correct overall formulation would be to be equally selfish and sacrificing. Give and take. If all you do is take, then people will stop giving or find ways to use force to stop you. If all you do is sacrifice, then you would never have anything, never eat food, drink water, etc... you don't survive in either scenario long term.

[@TheRobdarling]

Why is it so hard for people to understand what THE WORD FICTION MEANS...?

[@infinitedragonbellyx.x]

Still upvoting because I enjoy Paogias content. But I absolutely loathe Philosophy. I feel like its a circlejerk of our minds "look at me sound so smart, what if I over think this situation and its not A but B? Im right and you are wrong" its just arrogance and overanalyzing nonsense. The world is complicated, but not in the way alot of Philosophers try to make it. Calm the f down

[@robertplatt643]

Yes, don't mystify your final life choices. If you are a humane parent, be open with your adult kids about finances. That's moral. Bill Gates said "kid, you ain't getting too much of this."

[@letsomethingshine]

Monkey morality or sheep morality... one of this things is fleeced and eaten far more often. Talk more about contrived zombie fish religions. subject versus object grounding... so that is why Hindu sages came up with ideas of Karma. God as the message/angel of Goodness.

[@justaguy6100]

I feel that when apologists make this argument, they completely over-simplify the concept of survival. As noted, we have the capacity for a more far-reaching empathy that makes conceiving things like rape as immoral simply through evolution. We have the ability to find genders comparable, for example, instead of hierarchical, thus making women simply here for men's amusement rather than having equal humanity with men. Really good discussion and analysis.

[@shriggs55]

Doing charity to earn brownie points with God;to show to others what a special and important person you are;to give you assurance of making it to heaven and/or avoiding hell;or because you were commanded to do it by God--all are based on self-interest.I would say,that there's a minority of individuals that do charity work just for the sake of doing it or,for goodness sake.But that shouldn't matter to non-theists.Self interest or not,even if you do it because you "want" to(self interest),at least you don't do it because you're commanded to(even against your true desires.) It's all on you.

[@byron2521]

Today you can say 1 thing to describe the moral shortcomings of Christians...... MAGA

[@rogerroger5649]

Scott does not get NEARLY enough credit or exposure. I'd bet he has better things to do in his life than putting out YT videos but, the few he has out there are pretty damn interesting. If you haven't I highly recommend perusing thru the videos on his channel.

[@DRayL_]

11:08 As per "god's nature", if we consider the Biblical "god", the "god" of the Bible lied. It may be difficult to see where, but it has to do with concepts such as "an omniscient god who sees the future and knows what it will already do". Then just go through some of the more popular Sunday School level Bible stories and you'll probably see what I mean. This was a very good video and will be saved to give to those who argue this "morality" issue from the theist side of "atheists get their morality from god"....or "have no moral grounds for morality". I also liked what you said about "sacrifice" and "reward". I have often wondered how many people would actually be "a Christian" if there were no "promise of Heaven" or "fear of Hell".

[@ColinRixon]

I wouldn't say we develop morality out of our desire to survive, as that implies a level of deliberate individual decision making. I think it's more accurate to say our ancestors developed morality, because groups that didn't, did not survive. Fight or Flight didn't evolve because animals got tired of being eaten, rather the animals that either run or fight survive more than ones that go, "ok, eat me." (Yes, I know playing dead is a thing - biology is complex)

[@timeshark8727]

So... did anyone else start laughing in the intro quote where the apologist talks about how the "evolutionary moralists" _contrive_ ideas about morality? The irony of his statement just struck me immediately and I couldn't stop laughing, I had to rewind the video and go back so I didn't miss Paul.

[@eccentriastes6273]

That last bit was on point. I would argue appeals to self-interest are inherent in most ethical systems (and that's actually a good thing because pure altruism is a toxic idea), but Christianity is hypocritical by pretending to be selfless. Here's a similar thought experiment: If God decided (for reasons that beyond your limited mortal comprehension) to send sinners to reward sin and punish virtue? In fact, let's get specific, what if all you had to do to go to heaven is steal something from a supermarket one time, but if you refuse you go to hell? It's still in conflict with God's moral and loving nature, so it's still "morally wrong," but he's decided that doing this is the only way to get to eternal paradise and avoid eternal punishment. I think the only people in hell would be some very stubborn theologians.