Can Evolution Fully Explain Human Behaviour?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 бер 2023
- Clip taken from Within Reason episode 22 with Bishop Robert Barron: • A Bishop and an Atheis...
Within Reason is a weekly podcast hosted by Alex O'Connor (CosmicSkeptic). Episodes are released every Sunday.
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/16wUbvD...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Catch full episodes and more videos on the main UA-cam channel: / alexjoconnor
If you like Within Reason content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
The bishop's "I just don't buy it" and "I find that ludicrous" are nothing more than arguments from incredulity.
I can't find anything more ludicrous than the Abrahamic tradition. It's hilariously ludicrous from start to end. The bishop is throwing stones inside a glass house. Everything is crashing loudly around him and he just doesn't notice.
The universe doesn't care what the Bishop thinks.
@@Andre_XX
Neither do I. And no one should. He is just sugaring the same old same old one more time. Intellectual references come out weak when you try too hard. Shakespeare or Donald Duck - it doesn't matter with this guy.
It's funny when you ascribe purpose and yet reject his argument based on purpose because you don't understand it@@NN-wc7dl
Given you can't prove your scientism by science then he's right in what we have left
"I don't think you believe that" -A christian that once again tells an atheist that what they "actually" believe.
Well that was the worst, 15 minutes of :
"Actually we can explain that"
"Well I don't like it so it's a ludicrous position"
ffs
It doesn't really matter if you think it is "reductionist" that values, preferences and ideas are biologically and culturally evolved. It's still true. Unlike the metaphysical claims of religion.
It does matter if one's reductionist approach refuses to consider essential facts and ideas, because then your reductionism risks leading you to exactly the wrong place.
Isn't the claim from evolutionists that "evolution answers every question regarding the development and present state of life on earth" metaphysical? Clearly, evolution cannot hope to make such claims scientifically (unless we resort to the shady ground of scientific theory") because the evidence - clear, scientific evidence - simply isn't there? And, I don't remotely believe in any religion (including evolutionism).
@@thomasthompson6378 What facts and ideas did that view not take into consideration?
"I've never found that convincing, it's just hopelessly reductionistic" - sorry, is he talking about an unevidenced, i'll defined concept of something that is a single source of all things that exist? -- Bang! Take that foot.
Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there, and finding it. · -Oscar Wilde
I don't think it's reductionist.
While painting the Mona Lisa doesn't exactly provide direct benefits to survival/passing on genes, that same intellectual prowess and creativity DOES help us pass on our genes. The art is a byproduct of the benefits of a creative mind. Problem solving and creativity, seems to have been passed on in our genes precisely because it helped us survive.
Also, in the meta way, works of art (and a passion for them) inspire people, in some cases they may even move a person enough to save their life, such as in times of deep depression. This is directly adaptive, and provides a literal direct benefit to human life.
So on the surface, the tangible benefit isn't apparent, but it doesn't mean that is doesn't exist.
Also, painters are commissioned and paid to paid. Which puts food on their table. Which necessary for one's survival
I don’t think humans behaviour is just caused by evolution 🧬 , but you can learn all about human behaviour by learning human evolution 🧬, because it is a very important input.
I’m not sure god is a viable mechanism for resolving infinite regress.
Sure it is. Some people are incapable of admitting they don't know things. They find it intimidating or scary. So saying "well obviously it was god/magic/aliens" makes them feel safe.
I don't think the Bishop believes the universe is utterly explicable in terms of supernatural impulses because, to me, that's such a ludicrous position to hold, and it's animated, let's be honest, by religion.
a debate with a man of faith or religious leader is a fruitless exercise. when you believe in god and additionally believe YOU have the answers, OF COURSE you’ll inflate absolutely everything with some celestial sense of meaning. All the selfless acts simply originate in our brain matter. We make these selfless decisions because we have an amazing mental capacity to empathize. Why the hell does god have to take the credit for everything?
We get it, dude... you like Plato. You've read Plato. Got it.
Shakespeare needed to sell tickets to (popular) plays to buy food, shelter and shoes in order to allow himself and his family to survive, there, solved it for him.
That makes no sense most famous artists made no money only after they died did they become famous for what reason most artist's never get seen again
@@davidevans3223 I think there are 2 main factors that drive us -
1. what we "want" to do (want here being driven by a multitude of factors we don't have control over)
2. What we "need" to do: Eat, sleep, shelter security.
Also, just because some/most don't succeed doesn't mean people don't pursue things with the hope/expectation it will turn out well for them.
@@murphygreen8484 if you're an atheist you'll be to closed mind to even consider an alternative but the truth is people are very different to all over animal's in many ways i used to paint at no point did i even consider anyone else seeing it or it even lasting it didn't was just a faize wasn't very good using powder paints when i was a kid but it did mean alot to me for no other reason but i enjoyed doing it like lots of hobbys people do i think sometimes when other's enjoy it like Harry potter for example it's a bonus but not at least most of the time for any reason
So, biological reductionism of "why-why-why?" is not convincing but moral reductionism of "why-why-why?" is convincing?
The Aquinas 'final causality' argument of an iterative process of asking "Why?" (something many parents of young children will recognise as common human behaviour) is a process of reduction in and of itself. So isn't the natural consequence of this process a product of reductionism, perhaps even hopeless reductionism? The uncaused cause that you reach - whether that is "Because god or gods" or "because reasons unrelated to a god or gods" seem equally reductionist. To me, human behaviour is something that starts from that human's mind - a product of sensation, situation, memory, signals/cues, capability to act, and the effect of social power on the individual. Religion acts on those decisions as a form of social power. Should a divine presence be detectable in human moral behaviour outside of codified religion? What about the apparently moral behaviour of some members of the animal kingdom?
He said the most important question to ask about any person is "what does that person worship" and "once you know that, you know the rest of that person's life pretty well", but that's just wrong. A person's religious beliefs only tell you their religious beliefs. It doesn't tell you anything about that person's character or how they treat other people or anything else. What someone believes can steer them towards certain directions in life, but that doesn't mean you know how they will live their life based on what they believe in. The most religious people can be kind to other people, but they can also be very abusive and there is just no way to know either way just by knowing their beliefs.
Chris Hitchens explained such things as Beethoven’s Fifth, Hamlet, and our ability to do differential equations as “surplus value” brought to us by evolution. They don’t enhance reproductive fitness, but it’s what you get from creatures evolved like us.
7:25
Did he actually say he de-bunks the idea of the mentioned evolution chain merely by his subjective experience ?
Doesn’t seem beautiful to me so ill deny it.
Thats actually is his whole and only argument, not beautiful to me so not true (hidden in a whole lot more words)
Something something Plato something some reductionist... Hamlet.
Thank you for this excellent conversation!
I am sorry father for stretching it so thin.
In the bishop's example, it's just as easy to explain from evolution. But furthermore, if one believes in a heaven, it's not even much of a sacrifice and certainly less heroic.
Just because you don't understand something, it doesn't make it untrue. I can easily say to the bishop that I don't think he truly believes in a talking snake or people made from ribs, or even a god. 'I just don't buy it'
Thomas Aquinas glows brightly in this conversation. Great stuffs
10:50 Isnt this "stretching it thin" expected? Bishop Barron brought the example up exactly because it is an outstanding case of self sacrifice. It is not common that we see someone sacrificing their life for a strange so we expect the evolutionary explanation to also be an edge case.
Exactly! It's true that it's stretching it thin - but the effect is also weaker as you move further away from your in-group. It also needn't be the case that self-sacrifice be as simple as "its good for our genepool/survival instincts if you sacrifice yourself for a stranger" - we are complex creatures and our motivations can be fueled by ego, greed, etc. Those things would also be explained by evolution, of course, but perhaps it's a more satisfying phrasing.
But I would also note that it's entirely possible for us to have sub-optimal behaviors caused by evolution, which came about as a consequence of selecting for other optimal behaviors. Even should it not be optimal for your genes to sacrifice yourself for strangers, it may be extremely optimal to do so for your own children and the circuitry required to create that motivation may also cause sacrifice for strangers as an edge-case. We have all sorts of weird shit going on in our brains which create sub-optimal outcomes (e.g. anxiety disorders) which also map on to very optimal behaviors (worrying that the beast will jump out of the bush at any moment) in other situations.
We want to see a debate with Dr Avi or Askyourself vs Cosmicskeptic. Make it happen
Agree
Can I be Christian while supporting atheist beliefs and goals?
Can you be against factory farming while paying for it to happen because it’s n or convenient for you to not
If you close your eyes you can listen to Will Ferrell playing a Bishop.
i really dont see how you were stretching it... you simply just explained it
He wasn't. But I think or this pastor and for some other religious people it's the intuitive thinking that's doing the explanation of such acts. So if by hearing an evolutionary based explanation of psychosocial mechanisms that aided our survival in groups and our development his intuition pulled a stop sign, then it's " stretching it" ig.
The pastor seems peculiarly preoccupied with his 'Summum Bonum'
"I don't think you believe that."
K.
"Because it's such a ludicrous position to hold"
This coming from a guy who believes in a virgin birth being more likely than a bronze age girl lying, who believes in a talking snake, a talking donkey, resurrection from the dead, and various magic acts from a conflicting series of books that purport themselves to be inerrant and perfect...
I am motivated by chemistry, thermodynamics, etc.
Lol yeah exsplain way no animal's can suffer so much it commits suicide or enjoy a sunset or climb a mountain because it's there enjoy the arts etc none of that makes sense in evolution of course you can make excuses but dying trying to climb a mountain for no other reason but a view goes against all sence in evolution
@@davidevans3223 No, it doesn't. Evolution isn't some perfect survival machine, always "selecting" the most beneficial for survival for individuals, but generally "selecting" for the survival of the the genes. Also, various behaviors emerge from the interactions of traits... The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, synergy and all that.
@@Voidsworn nope you don't want it to be true so will say what you want to be true the truth is if you knew you'd be able to exsplain in a very clear way why you're right you don't believe that's all of course if we had a soul that can operate outside of science the rest of course is chemistry.
We have lots from our evolution we hiccup from gills it's a reflex from when we were short of oxygen before lungs or about that time of course we don't know 100% about evolution but you don't have anything it's not in any way an exsplantion
@@Voidsworn one thing for sure is we evolved as hunters we can eat very few plants without ill effects and we can eat most meats we can outrun all other animals not faster but we were smarter we lost our fur and started sweating so when our pray collapsed and died from over heating we ate them.
We also have forwards looking eye's like lions and claws not hoves like sheep we were cat like when we climbed the trees to eat eggs and birds and started eating grubs etc in fruits so we came from carnivores we are nothing like any other apes but we evolved with them to very recently and they never go on holiday for example only move to find food they do eat meat etc when they can but still have tiny brains they don't do anything dangerous if it's not got a food or reproduction reward.
You can think it's evolution and if so like all animal's behaviour you could exsplain it
@@davidevans3223 Whatever you say, Mr. Run-on. Furthermore, I think I explained it adequately from a layman's perspective, but I'm not here to convince you. I offered an explanation that could work with what we've got. If you want a better explanation, go chat with an expert in the requisite fields.
If there was a god, why would it need worship except for ego?
I would argue that evolutionary survival is only something that's necessary to live for transcendental purposes. To me, survival is actually rather something uncomfortable to strive for than something that gives me complete satisfaction.
Reducing evolution on survival is a bit like reducing economy on the profit motive. Of course, we all maximize profits to some degree, but it's not what we live for, it's what we have to.
‼️ FYI ‼️ our species EVOLVED this incredible survival capacity to REASON & ANTICIPATE, giving rise to IMAGINATION. And only AFTER that took place, did our species INVENT RELIGIONS as a form of making SENSE of their world, prior to the development of EVIDENCE BASED SCIENCE.
.
For example: Most children invent their own explanations for what they observe and fabricate IMAGINARY friends. It’s part of what makes us human.
Why do I have an itch? I don't know why I have an itch, but I scratch it. My motivation is that I have an itch.
How is the “survival instinct” any less convincing than you just surrendering your existential concerns on your god?
At least my survival instincts actually exist.
-"I just don't think it honours the integrity of the act".
Ok, but the evolutionary hypothesis is not trying to "honour" anything. That's the difference between trying to understand the world though logic and doing it through religion, or any other biased point of view. An answer doesn't have to be satisfactory in order for it to be true. Nobody claims that it is nice that empathy is meaningless, we just claim that it would make a lot of sense if it was, because there is nothing "special" about humans biologically, chemically and physically speaking: we are composed of the same atoms that make up everything around us, so you would expect us to not be any more remarkable than any other object or being in the universe. That makes sense, whether or not you feel like it justifies the warm feeling you feel when you understand a mathematical equation, or when you do something good for others. Given this assumpion, you can go ahead and try to explain empathy and everying else that has been discussed in this video, but the point is that the meaninglessness of our existence is a starting point, not a conclusion. What you think is important has no impact on the laws that govern our universe: the fact that you feel that your actions or sensations are special doesn't make them special to anyone but you and you alone.
-"I don't think you belive that".
The fact that I belive everything I said to be true doesn't necessarily mean that I let it affect me in any way. I act as if life has a meaning other than survival, like all humans do, but I know this to be an illusion. And that's fine: no one has ever said that your life has to be dictated by the absolute, cold truth of our universe. The truth is just an useful instrument to have, as a lot of the things that we use to make ourself happy and keep the illusion up depend on laws and interactions that only a logical and unbiased view of the universe can let you fully understand. The truth is not "better" than the lies we call morals, because the term "better" is something we made up. Because nothing has intrinsic value, you are free to tell yourself that what you perceive as valuable is the most important and special thing in the universe and no one will stop you. If you are truly unbiased, you come to realize that the words "right" and "wrong" do not carry any moral connotation. They are just two states. Valuing the wrong things isn't bad, so I continue to do so without a care in the world. So, when I say that your religion is wrong, I do not intend to pass any moral judgment. I am just stating a fact. Your religion is not in any way worse than the lies I tell myself, I just think it is useful to recognize them as such for their own sake, and for ours.
What if I told you that the meaning of life is dopamine?
Plato let me back in the cave, please!
Object Petit a !
so the religists are still trying to make god real by talking a lot.
Its not reductionist....its a testament to how we rose up......we are the gods now.
I find the priest sacrifice for others basically the same as father for his children as the people call the priest "father" and if you take the rest of the teaching that a priest is the father/leader of a community then in the priests mind all is his children and his instinct whould guide him to rather let himself be sacrificed before the others. That is if it is not a corrupt priest and the priest takes his duties to the community seriously. This would also make it make sense that the priest would sacrifice himself for anyone no matter his religion because he sees himself as the father of the community. I am not saying that sacrifice is not amazing. Any for of sacrifice that would put another life before your own is heroic to me. It is pretty easy to find a reason why it might happen on a evolutionary instinct level. Note a reason not the reason there could be a lot more reasons. I believe there is a God/s But you can't take one religion and say this is the only one that is right. Because I find that religion is a way to control/guude a population. It's like saying that self help books are a religion on it's own. Religion is a self help book on a community scale. It gives a way to get along and what roles people do. I personally like Christianity because it has a base in love and forgiveness. Yes there is a lot of violence in the bible and pieces that aren't very moral, but I see it as a better way forward then some others. I mean it could of been a reason why we don't currently have Vikings. That is a positive in my book. I don't mind other religions as long as they don't harm the people that believe in them or the people that don't. In the modern age, my belief is choose the one that works for you and don't push others into it. If you are forced to convert others you need to change your religious leader. Most of the religions mention we have free will. That means we can choose. The old reason they do force you into one is because they lose power with less followers
One point I don't understand yet: why did revelation came so late, why are there so many very different revelations which are incompatible (Hinduism, Christianity, etc.), and why do we have a gradual evolution of human species with different mental variations and capacities, why should God gradually create humans through evolution when we've been created as a copy of himself? So many strange selective argumentations.
The capacity these religious guys have for self-deception knows no bounds.
The general problem with the theory of evolution here is that it reduces the purpose or reason behind all beings/things to a survival, what makes survival itself the core reason why something exist, so it completely ignores or doesn't clarify the reason why something exist in the first place. Survival is crucial in case of the tradition, or method by which we verify the authenticity, and works in case of the plants/animals which are serving their purpose in the ecosystem by only following their instinct, but it doesn't work in case of the human beings, because we're not limited to the instinct, or we don't serve any specific purpose in the ecosystem itself.
Have you ever met humans 👥👥👥👥? They mostly just follow their instincts of self validation, and retroactively make up explanations.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Obviously, we rely on the instinct about 50% of the time, whenever we base our decisions on pure emotions, but we normally recognize such decisions as either weakness or degenerate behaviour, so we normally rely on our mind/rational thought.
So you deny it because you wish for more meaning in your life. That is by far the weakest Argument ever
@@ivanos_95 Source 📑?
@@sH-ed5yf My point was, that survival doesn't clarify why a being exist in the first place and have the purpose of survival, especially in case of humans, who are based on the rational thought and naturally seek reason for everything.
I feel super dumb after listening to this priest
sure ask a priest that lol
What's the point of this video?
To prove how stupid Bishops are.
Bishop Barron is a sophist.
"I don't like it so it must be false." Grow up
Nice enough dude, but it seemed nothing more than repeated arguments from incredulity.
There is unnecessary friction between these two perspective. The Bishop misses that all evolutionary forces and processes are part of the completeness of God's divinity and love.
When we say "Evolution shaped you to be able to sacrifice yourself, to be able to recognize the beauty in truth itself.", we can just replace evolution with "the hand of God".
There seems to be an ideology here that seeks to make a distinction between animal and man, to justify human superiority, which of course is unjustifiable. To the one who looks at animals as primitive being which are in the eyes of God inferior to humans, will of course feel uncomfortable at the recognition that human beings are nothing but animals. But the one who recognizes the complete divinity and love in even the most humble creature, will have no problem recognizing the self-evident.
Maybe Bishop Robert Barron should read up on Saint Francis of Assisi.
I think he derseves to be the next pope
Alex, the standard for your guests is getting real low now.
The bishop is spot on.