Can’t morality be explained by evolution?

⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔⬇⬇⬇

⬇⬇⬇𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦⬇⬇⬇

⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗨𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧⬇⬇⬇

#Morality #IntelligentDesign #Evolution

[PLATOLOSOPHY]

I think i’m starting to become a Christian... I’m very glad I found Frank Turek.

[Revion]

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.

[treksta]

The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim the work of his hands. Look up at the sky and rejoice :D

[mpleandre]

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?

[Jonas-glke]

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.

[oterosocram]

The fool has said in his HEART, (NOT MIND) there is no God.

[andywong]

If anyone wants to deny God he can find a million reasons.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

[original_golden_egg]

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?

[Ozzyman]

Religious people individually can be moral, but faith can't give them a framework to explain why anything is right or wrong.

[John-...]

His first sentence already says it saying we are programmed . If we are actually programmed then there is a programmer

[fishcrow]

Morality from a particular god is subjective.

[Chronicbadminton]

"Morality can be explained by Evolution, " says no scientists ever. Dont confuse evolution with philosophy.

[dadude]

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.

[redpillsatori]

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.

[dperkins]

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.

[hellonhead]

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?

[ifeelfine]

Turek is such a charlatan. And he’s a liar.

[ThomB]

We as humans steal from God’s moral laws.

[Gayboy]

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….

[PM-rhyq]

(Human from Evolution) God: Speaks to you. You: Meow.
(Human from Reality) God: Speaks to you. You: Worships.