Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Natural Selection Points to God
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2023
- Support the channel by visiting brianholdswort...
According to modern theories of #biology and #evolution, it is the fittest who survive - it is those who are best adapted to and integrated into their environment and who have been most conditioned by the world or reality and therefore best conformed to what is true and real.
It is those who are most incompatible with the world and with reality that struggle to survive. They are, according to the theory, the weakest. And the surest sign of vitality and strength, is the ability to successfully reproduce.
Furthermore, the adaptations that species have are evidence of something that is external to them. For example, a bird with a long beak, like a hummingbird, directs our attention to something external to it in the real world, like nectar hidden in small and hard to reach places which can only be retrieved with that long beak.
A giraffe’s long neck directs our attention to the kinds of vegetation which makes them uniquely adapted for certain environments. The blubber of a seal points to the extremely cold climate and conditions that they inhabit.
It tells us something, not just about the organism who lives, survives, and reproduces, but about the nature of reality that they inhabit.
So what do we make of the fact that the samples of human beings that are most invigorated in their existence, most enthusiastic about being alive, and most enthusiastic about reproducing are religious?
Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Podcast Version: brianholdswort...
"You will know them by their fruits."
This is one of the stranger, yet deeply fascinating and pleasantly amusing arguments I've heard for God's existence.
Amusing?
This is also an argument against the existence of God. It's basically saying Religion developed as a social survival mechanism which is the main theory by most paleo anthropologists as to why religion developed in the first place. Brian has drawn a different conclusion using the same argument. It's not a good argument for God's existence considering the emergence of religion happened to also coincide with the establishment of larger social groups during human evolution which was necessary for survival. Every Darwinian evolutionist would be on board with Brian's explanation that Religion makes you historically more fit for survival but would disagree that its evidence for God but is in fact evidence to the contrary.
@@paulohara4153that's not an argument against God. That's an argument for why religion is beneficial sociologically. Nothing to do with God.
@@newglof9558 Are you asserting this 'God' you've mentioned is a _reality?_
@@paulohara4153hah why should religion result in a survival benefit. Think about that.
You had me hooked as to where this argument was going until the very end, and I think that it holds up. Good job
It goes along with what Jesus famously said in his Beatitudes, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.” It requires a lot of meekness to marry, remain married til death due them part, and have many children, big families! To care for, discipline, and instill Christianity in one’s own children despite the natural tendency for children to rebel against their parents requires a lot of meekness and patience! But they do and they or more accurately their values will be passed on to their posterity, and will inherit the Earth! Contrast that to the more atheistic, liberal, narcissistic people who are way too individualistic to do those things. They will have no descendants to leave their hedonistic so-called “values” to! Their values will die off! Some like Dr. Steve Turley speculates that’s the reason why traditional religions will be back in the upswing and atheism/secularism will be in decline! We’ll see! It seems hard to believe given the circumstances with atheism on the rise and decline of religion going on right now. But though it may be a while before we will finally see the results but I bet Dr. Turley will be proven right going by Christ’s famous Beatitude aforementioned!
Ehh, I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical. I don't think most atheists necessarily have/had atheist parents, they're raised by their host culture and media and school system to be a certain way. Very few elements of our culture in the West are even remotely spiritual in nature, most kids learn about the world through their experiences and what their screens tell them, and what they're being taught is obviously not Christian at all, aside from very basic moral values.
0:45 It's not just the "surest sign". _Nothing but_ the ability to reproduce can have an effect on future generations.
Very based. I shall marry and produce eight kids immediately 🗿🦍
This is classic Holdsworth
I agree!
I've had this sentiment/observation for quite a while, so I appreciate you putting it out there for us to ponder. A couple of questions/observations though:
1. Are there any data sources you can provide? I've seen studies that show that non-believers actually have better social outcomes, such as lower divorce rates, lower suicide, lower poverty, lower teen pregnancies, etc. However, I am skeptical of these studies because of how these terms are defined. Mainly, that there are a lot of people that, when asked, will say they believe in God (or some other higher being, or spirituality or something). However, usually that's as far as the inquiry goes, and I have found that a lot of people that "believe" in God are functionally atheist as their "belief" does not inform their values or behaviors in any significant way, beyond coping with the inevitability of death. In this regard I do actually have a bit of respect for atheists because it takes a degree of courage to stare into the abyss after one has come to that conclusion. In other words, the category "atheist" is a self-selected group and not necessarily representative of all people who hold similar views. Any thoughts on this?
2. As much as I would like to gloat about how believers in general, and Christians in particular, do a great job in creating families, I'm afraid several observations dampen my enthusiasm. Mainly that a lot of atheists/left wing leaning people I've met come from conservative Christian backgrounds, but I rarely, if ever, see devout Christians come out of atheist backgrounds. It seems that although atheists don't reproduce, they still have a steady stream of converts from disaffected Christians. Clearly, as Christians we are doing something seriously wrong as this has been going on for a long time. I see otherwise devout and good parents let their children go study at left-wing universities all the time, and the children return unrecognizable from their former selves. For some reason we seem to be unwilling to grapple with this fact because we prioritize material wealth over spiritual well being and no one wants their children to miss out on lucrative economic opportunities by not going to a prestigious university. Perhaps a topic for a different type of channel but I would like anyone reading this to share their opinions. Thank you.
Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman - well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population. Christians are second, at 2.7 children per woman. Hindu fertility (2.4) is similar to the global average (2.5).2 Apr 2015
The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections ...
Pew Research Center
The UK has a fertility rate of 1.56 births per woman (2020) Sources include: World Bank. Only 20% of UK are Christian.
The research i seen only counts pepole who go to church once a month or more as christian. Action not words were taken as prof of religion. Weekly goers are the most fertile. Less than once a month fertilty was the same as the Agnostic and nones.
Hi provided some data. Your observation that pepole start religious and move to be athiest or a none is true. The mainline churches in UK and America are terrable in making strong lay pepole. I am a christian who noted my Anglian church provided no moral guidence or values when i was becoming a christian. I had to read the bible for some clues. My sociology studies at collage said the Religion of a society provides the morals, norms and values of the society. If you teach happy stable famaly are valuable then pepole will want it or work to create it. Same goes for the rest of the values.
In the UK the lack of open guidence in public is amazing. I have compaired UK Muslim and Christian preachers on Utube and the difference is amazing! It matches what i grew up with. My Muslim friends expected to be happaly marryed and tryed not getting into "trouble" with the elders. My none firends half wanted to only F**K girls the other half be in a "relationship". My none friends had no worrys about elders or being caught doing stuff. Looking back at the numbers i must have been the 1 in 5 christian out of my friends LOL.
The major role that a religion has in creating your society is amazing. The lose of religion means your socity will change in some way often colapse in three generations. Pepole have to have Morals and Values else they suffer from Anome or worse Nialism. Both bad mental states very painful psycholocically!
Also having good Values heals Depression and Mental illness. Was an amazing finding in psycology.
This perdicts Low rates of good values will increase mental illness and Dression in society. Curent trends in mental health show this to be true.
40% of 16 year old girls in the uk now have a mental illness. Use to be 5% 50 years ago.
My psycology studies in values do show there are 24 Values in humans but the strength is uneven in inderviduals. Good Values are not relative and do exist.
Most relgions tell pepole what good values are explictly and to the whole comunity. So creat stable and healthyer societys.
The 7 virtues taught in tradional Christianty are 7 of the values shown to heal mental illness and make you happier.
There is a quite change in Psychology as Values have been researched for the last 20 years. They exsist and some are instinctual and universal in humans.
Here is link. Values are called chartcter strengths in Psychology. www.viacharacter.org/
VIA means Values in Action.
Anyway my studies in psychology and sociolgy show no good for the none beliver. Devorece rates are an example. The power of money does show up in the data. The devorce rate of rich (top 10%) in the USA is close to 20% but for the normal (the 70%of the population) it is close to 70% divorce!. If your a church goer every week it is closer to 30% regardless of money. Only 17% of usa Muslims divorce in there life.
Effect of divorce on kids is worse than what they said back in the 1960s
Your observation of studys showing better results for non belivers would be selecting grad students and proffesionals to study (I think they may be lieing). But the high number of religous Uni students in the UK most show up the posative effects of religion here? 32.5% of University students are christian comapired to the 20% of the normal population in the UK.
You increase your chance of getting to uni in the UK if your christian. Was not expecting to read that today.
source: HESA statistics show around half of all students reported having a religion or belief (50.2%). The majority of these were Christian (65.5%), followed by Muslim students (17.8%).17 Mar 2020
Research Insight: Religion and Belief in UK Higher Education
Also the working class only have a 15% chance of going to Uni so do not show up in the numbers. The working class 50% of the population are only 7.5% of the University population in the UK.
I also think political and socal activists Lie to get there way. For example when no fault devorice was introduced in the UK 1969 activists said there is little effect on children they still say "A bad marrage is worse than divorce on kids". After 50 years of easy divorce The studys are in. kids from marrages have a 10% chance of life long poverty. Kids from devorced famalys 30% chance of life long poverty! The actavist types still Lie about this today! The divorce effects on kids get worse when you read up on them.
The stagaring rates of devorce in the USA will lead to 30% of the kids living in life long poverty so driving down the standard of living for communitys as a whole. It will affect long term mental health, Law and Order and GDP per capita in the citys. Sociology can predict but most pepole dont want to LOL.
I will have to think on your second question.
Thanks for the video. I have some points to make.
There seems to me to be there it too much guessing in these arguments. When a human tells me that he knows what his dog thinks/knows of the world I feel compelled to ask how ANYONE can know this. Likewise, when phrases like 'seems to point to' are used I wonder whether they seem this way to EVERYONE or just the person who uses the phrase. And does the phrase itself mean SUGGESTS or PROVES?
Also, how do we know the world is 'so fine tuned'? Surely you would need something to compare it with. Or the word of the person who created it. Maybe we are only half as 'fine-tuned' as we should be.
You also say "If all your hope is in this life alone then hope is ...irrational" But there was no explanation as to why this is true. Isn't it possible to HOPE for a good life even though you disagree with a life here-after? I agree it may be irrational to religious people but they don't OWN the word HOPE (if you understand my meaning).
I'll stop here. These are only MY thoughts and Im not trying to be unpleasant.
I realized six months ago that secularism will lose to religion based sole on birth rates. Optimism my boi!
Yeeee
You'd have to be retarded to believe that as you'd have to know nothing of the world or history. There is nothing encouraging for christians to look at in terms of birthrates / belief. Simply look where christianity was in terms of population to where it is know. Are we seeing more churches being built and higher attendance or less? Given that the overwhelming majority of individuals were already born into christian families why have we ended up here?
Secularism is a religion, my friend: it's just losing to the right religion
The key is, we have to stop our kids from converting to secularism via public school, university, poor Catechism, dysfunction in the family, hypocrisy, etc. Almost all my childhood friends/classmates grew up "Christian"...I think less than half still are today. I think it's an issue with both Catholics and Protestants.
They don't believe in God,
but they believe in astrology, zodiac signs, numerology, eastern philosophies and many other weird things.
So then you could say that by choosing the contraceptive way of life our society has chosen death.
Yes (in Chad meme voice)
this video is so based and awesome
Hmm my BMI suggests otherwise...
Never too late to start lifting and running 😉
Or just eating a bit less when you don’t need to. Even small changes will add up you just have to be persistent.
Take what ever ur doing normally and try reducing by some small amount and work to more.
You may find just one idle soda is the difference
Then I would suggest respect the body God gave you more. I don't mean that in a mean way at all. I really mean it. God gave us real quality food, humans put junk in there bodys. God gave our body an amazing way of moving and adapting to how we use it. Respect that
@@jhoughjr1Yes, exercise and diet are both important, and by far the easiest way to lose a little weight is to cut the sweetened drinks!
I'm gonna say the f word
fasting
Your understanding of evolution is a bit simplistic, at least as stated. Evolutionary success isn't just about whether or not an individual's direct lineage survives. And it's certainly not about how many branches their downstream ancestral tree has. It's about survival. And in a world with dwindling resources and that we're impacting in dramatic and negative ways choosing to have fewer or no children can be a means of helping our species survive, overall.
Take, for instance, an ant nest. It'd be pretty hard to argue that ants aren't successful as a species. But while ants as a whole are quite numerous there's only one female ant in the whole nest that has offspring. And there are usually only a small handful males. Every single other ant in the nest will die childless. Indeed it's not even possible for them to procreate, physically. And if they were all competing to procreate the nest would likely die off in a generation. They're working toward the reproductive success of the colony and the species at large, not just per individual ant.
In terms of population there are countless species that engage in behaviors that regulate their populations in response to environmental stresses and scarcity. And plenty of cases where species have driven themselves to local extinction by outpacing their resources, thus starving themselves or destroying their own habitat. More kids is not always the best biological answer in a situation.
You should read _The Selfish Gene,_ I'm pretty sure he explains why ants (and similar animals) work well within a evolutionary framework: They share their genes.
Could I have a link to some of these studies? Because at least in the United States, divorce and religiousity are very strongly correlated.
Most data indicates that increased development (HDI), not increased secularism, results in a decline in the fertility rate of a country. That explains why North Korea (1.82), a country with literal state enforced atheism, has a fertility rate twice that of South Korea (0.84), a country with a large Catholic/Buddhist population. Although, you may still be on to something, Idiocracy was right about the popularity of crocs after all.
4:20 I'm sure you know the saying about correlation and causation.
This is the best argument for god ive heard all month.
*God. It was an argument for God? I didn't notice...what was the argument?🤷
Not really a direct argument for God, just more like pointing out that Christianity/theism wins even on the atheists' own terms.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxySMH, you obviously didn't listen to the video.
@@joanl.7543Do you think the position of atheism is a rationally justified one?
Nah, all he did was twist the theory of evolution to fit his narrative. You can increase child birth rates without god, yet that will never be brought up since it doesn’t fit his narrative.
If you truly believe that the purpose of life is to have children. Then you should not be doing the majority of things you do in life. That includes being on the internet at all.
Go forfeit all your rights and become an animal to be artificially inseminated. There’s no need for you to even be speaking.
Brian, may I offer some advice? I've noticed the views on your brilliant videos have went down, and I think it might be because of the long outro at the end. People probably stop watching at that point, click off the video before it ends, and that will effect the algorithm. It might be an idea to do it at the beginning of the video right after the intro.
Last time I looked into this, CZcams apparently was counting a view (of videos over 30 seconds long) when a person had watched 30 seconds of the video. A long closing thus wouldn't affect the view count.
This is so fascinating! Great work, Brian. This video could bring certain souls to Our Lord for sure.
yeah this is true there's a lot of Truth in this video, Christianity and religion in general tends to win over Atheism in their own rules.
Atheist (irreligious) needs to convert theist children in order to keep from slowly going extinct.
What on earth are you trying to say?
🐂💩 🙄
@@duncanbryson1167 Who is having more kids? Also not too long ago a city in the U.S. has been overtaken by Muslims and now having public prayers.
@@Teutonic__Knight
Relevance to the original comment?
I can't tell if you just have a really really bad understanding of how natural selection works, or if you twisted the concept just to suit your belief. Either way, every argument you make is invalidated by your faulty understanding of the concept of evolution broadly and natural selection specifically.
In many cultures the religious people do well, especially in ancient times. Does this mean all those religions are true? Of course not. So this indicates that religion is indeed an invention of man that does provide some sort of benefit, at least for the masses. When you have no hope in life because you’re poor and ugly, it’s nice to have a religion that says being poor and ugly is good and you should be humble and wait for an afterlife instead of caring about things in this life. This gives people strength to keep going.
But one day there won’t be any more need of this, and natural selection will point to finding meaning in this world.
Brian says: Evolution leads us to crave for sugars and fats. This points to Truth, so we should all eat as much sugar and fat as we can.
As a European, I would tend to say that atheism only came after the slowly beginning decline in the birth rate (from around 1975).
While in particular those born after 1935 tended to have only 2 to 3 children, their children tended to have 1 or 2 children. The first decline is more due to the general "uncertainty of supply" (housing, work, etc.). Imagine that up until the 1960s, in areas particularly hard hit by bombs, families often had to share their homes with others (not just their own more distant family) or lived in homes that the health authorities themselves classified as uninhabitable .* my own parents lived with grandmother, great aunt and grand cousin + dog and baby in a 2 room (= 1 bedroom) basement apartment because there were hardly any apartments. My mother lived there with her family for almost 10 years (1954 to 1963). I was only born because my parents were given a bigger apartment. ;)
And yes, it wasn't that noticeable at the time because a large number of children were still being born up until 1965.
My father had 12 siblings and except for 4 (3 children each) of them, all the others only brought 2 children into the world.
And if I follow his genealogical list, even our ancestors had 4+ children rather seldom.
The 19th century was an epidemic of atheistic revolutionary violence with quite a lot of success. Most respectable people, by the turn of the century were practical atheists or at least philosophical empiricists who had accepted Kant's rescue of religion by relegating it to the margins of private sentiment. IOW, nobody took religion very seriously at that point, which far precedes 1975. The 20th century was the age of secular rule and it was a moral and humanitarian disaster (100s of millions of deaths just due to political conflict).
@@BrianHoldsworth
what was secular about the shoa?
Great video, Brian! Greetings from Calgary lol
3:30 You know what would be _really good_ evidence for the existence of a god? A Universe that's *not* finely tuned and could consequently *not* have life, and still does.
Seriously, what other than a Universe able to carry life would you expect under a materialistic worldview?
I gave this argument once to someone who thought “morality” was just a product of evolution. I corrected them and said “our self consciousness is the product of evolution. Morality is the part of nature that makes consciousness advantageous. A bird’s wings are useless without the objective existence of air and gravity”
What exactly is your point?
"You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything."
I'd argue that there was intelligent designer rather than evolution.
@denisohaichir2721 Evolution is a fact. Biological evolution is no exception. Intelligent design is an argument, and in my opinion, a poor one.
@@Theo_Skeptomai fossil record doesn't support Darwin's theory.
About the main hypothesis: _At most_ it points to spirituality as an evolutionary advantage, not to a god. In any case, humankind did most of its survival without monotheism, so that particular type of spirituality seems to be particularly unlikely to exist.
Of course there are no sources given, so I have no reason to believe anything Brian said about any studies.
I think Darwinian Evolution is perfectly compatible to Catholicism. Catholic Darwinism FTW!
The atheophysiognomical argument for God is sound
Saludos desde argentina tu contenido la verdad que es muy gratificante y edificador para la virtud hermano muchas gracias te mando un abrazo grande bendiciones
Atheism Lost
At what?
As did wokeism
I predict you will get a lot of dislikes on the video. Either because Christians will say the thumbnail is blasphemous, or by the regular atheist push back
The thumbnail is not blasphemous to any reasonable person.
Family:::*dawning light*:: "the inescapable love of God" by Thomas Talbot
3:15 @Brian: Please avoid the topic of evolution until you've grasped the basics. I recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" By Richard Dawkins.
Hi what is the name of the music in the intro, HALLELUUIA, please
The meek shall inherit the earth
How's that been working out?
@@pottingsoil I don't understand your question. The word "shall" merely indicates a future tense, and the verse does not specify exactly when this event shall occur. Christian theology tends to place this event after the second coming of Christ, which is clearly indicated to be unknowable before it happens. The second coming of Christ has not yet occurred, so one would not expect it to have produced any fruits yet.
@@reaganmorris7903 "The second coming" a silly unbiblical invention. The second coming was supposed to happen in the lifetime of the apostles, and yet here we are. Strange, huh?
@@pottingsoilI have no idea what you're talking about. I know that the early Christians frequently theorized that the second coming was to occur within the lifetimes of the Apostles, but I don't know any sources that explicitly state that idea to be an official teaching. The second coming is, however, quite explicit in the gospels. Chapter 13 of Mark's gospel is entirely dedicated to it, and the interpretation that Christ is the one coming is reinforced by chapter 3 of Second Peter.
What does "meek" mean?
"Natural Selection Points to God"
I am looking at the laryngeal nerve on giraffes.
Is your god
1) Incompetent
2) Evil
3) Both Incompetent and evil
Or is it that Evolution by natural selection is a natural process without your imaginary magical sky daddy?
*:*:*by outstanding catholic scholar illaria ramelli*:*:*" a larger hope?" by illaria ramelli
My not so analytical ear just heard: _Hey we should make more kids! Let's not follow Paul or Jesus or these ascetics._
You can never make a statement without making some other statements too.
Interesting.
Yet none of the great apostles had any children accounted in the bible. Peter might from historical research have been a widower. However Paul even said if you are called as single it is better to remain this way. This is his private opinion and ofc God wants us to be blessed with familys and at least relationships. He said be fruitful and reproduce.
However not everyone is called for this either as lutherans or catholics. The logical meaning of life is reproduction. But the gospel is a folly to the world.
Ps. I pray to God for a family❤ and wife
God loves all his children. Fat or thin.
You saw the thumbnail and commented without reading the title, watching the video, or reading the description.
He loves the worst of sinners as well. Doesn't mean He condones their behaviors. We are meant to take care of both our souls AND our bodies. To intentionally neglect our physical health goes against virtue.
@@connorperrett9559 saw the video, the title is meant to attract views and my comment is meant for the people that feel terrible just looking at the thumbnail.
4:00 I'm not quite sure how to respond. Such a bleak, sad, miserable outlook on life.
3:45 If that's something you seriously ask yourself, you should keep on believing in a god. I'm afraid you might hurt yourself or others if you ever stop.
Listen, homie. First things first. You make many and many claims. You do not provide a single source for any of these, and so as far as I am concerned, your claims are empty.
Secondly, to claim that being atheist is to have a bleak and hopeless view of the finality of life is distinctly wrong. Some people can handle existential crises. I constantly view the guarantee of my wants and final death as a relief and nothing to fear. One word that struck out to me is that you said it would end, and everything we gained would mean nothing. I don't live this life for gain. I understand that everything I do is directed by natural law and that, realistically, I don't have any free will. Many atheists acknowledge this and are ok with it. Many of us move on with our daily lives, with no hint of wanting to commit suicide and with a very hopeful view of the future.
My morality is dictated by what I would not desire done to me. I will not hurt anyone, because I do not want to be hurt. I don't steal from anyone because I don't want things stolen from me. I don't lie to people because I hate being lied to.
I live life for the joy of living and for the amazing and wonderous experiences I can have within it. I know in the end it will be over and as far as I can tell, nothing else will ever happen for me again. That's fine. I keep a pet dog and love him and cherish him, even though I know he will die in only a fraction and a very small fraction at that of my life. It's not about anything lasting. It's about loving the opportunity to experience.
I truly wish that we could have a vanishing of this theist idea that if you don't believe in God, then your life sucks. It's a weak excuse that you are taught by those above you, and you convince yourself of, despite all contrary evidence.
We are humans. Not monkeys. Not demon possessed. Not worshippers of Satan(except in very few cases.) most of us have no agenda for the destruction of faith. We just want to live and be respected like we want to respect everyone else. Insisting that we are depressed and hopeless and lost and lesser than you, because you follow God is not only insulting, but a vastly contrary belief to what the Gospels teach.
I've caught myself ranting. And I'll end off by telling you why.
The happiest I've ever been is deconverting from Christianity. I don't feel depressed anymore and I don't feel lost anymore. I was depressed and lost at the peak of my faith, because the more I sought out God, and the more I wanted to learn about God, the more I realized I only believed because it gave me a community to belong to. The "facts" of Christianity fell apart, and I was left with lies that had broken me as a person over my lifetime.
People create their own purpose in life. You don't need to believe in supernatural superstition to be happy or optimistic. One can live in the world, to better himself, the earth and leave in world in a better condition for the future generation. One doesn't necessarily require to believe in fairy tales to live a good life.
We can tell the Christians that till we are blue in the face. They won't have any of it. Let them wallow in their bias,arrogance and ignorance.
Purpose is another word for teleology, and to say "people create their own purpose" is akin to saying "people create their own final cause".
Do people create their own efficient, material, and formal causes as well?
@@newglof9558 "final cause", "purpose of life" is man made. People create it. It's not something universal.
Some choose to create their own "purpose", some let their dogmas do the selection.
@adampower9757 you didn't answer my question.
Do humans create their own material, formal and efficient causes as well?
@@newglof9558 humans can create new materials: create elements, art and new structures. They do it by transforming raw materials into final products. The difference due to transformation makes something new.
And define efficient cause in your words. It seems like a subjective belief, than a universal inherent reality.
And instead of using philosophical word salad and jargons, talk normal. So that your words actually mean something rather than being a tool for evading the topic at hand.
Similar arguments for objective morality have been made by appealing to mankind's 'moral sense'
Morality is a bad argument to make if you're religious. Nearly every evil act imaginable has been committed by the christian god.
@@pottingsoil What do you mean by "evil"? What makes an act evil?
@@wambaofivanhoe9307 My question was prompted by the poster's contention about morality, religion and evil acts. My question's not as simple as you may have been led to believe. I'm currently reading "Right and Reason" by Fr. Austin Fagothey, SJ but I'll take up your recommendation on reading more about the "Golden Rule." Thanks.
@@pottingsoil
quote: _Morality is a bad argument to make if you're religious._
Why is morality a bad argument? God granted you mortality, not immortality[1]. Those who claim or wish otherwise have the problem, that they find themselves in a finite reality, while they desire an infinite reality, and thus need someone to blame.
[1] take heed what you wish for!
quote: _Nearly every evil act imaginable has been committed by the christian god._
So you believe that that god exists?
Don't worry , others have bio-weapons also .
WOW. So well put
Based! Shinzo Abe would be proud
Crucial considerations!!!!!!!!
I like your videos but this argument is not really convincing. Natural selection would reward child bearing regardless of whether god existed or not. Our rational faculty developed to help us better understand our environment and how to control it to ensure our survival, this is why it's beneficial evolutionarily. The fact that we use reason to question whether childbearing is worth it may just be an unfortunate side effect, which is not at all rare in evolution. Pretty much all mental and physical illnesses are perversions of healthy and evolutionarily advantageous traits. Cancer is a perversion of the cell's ability to reproduce and renew the body. Anxiety is a perversion of our natural instinct to avoid danger. Likewise, nihilism may just be a danger/side-effect of being able to objectively calculate costs and benefits (ie to reason). But most people don't dwell on these practicalities and have kids regardless, because regardless of whether there is a god or not, there is real joy in raising your offspring and this is why reason as a trait may have prevailed despite the fact that it can reach anti-natalist conclusions
From this point of view childbearing may be the end all be all of existence. Even if we have no reason to get out of bed our brain can produce chemicals to get us out of bed regardless. Even if we have no reason to live, our attempts at suicide may be curbed by pure survival instinct. No external real reason to live is required. Our basic, subconscious desire to live and reproduce overrules the protests and doubts of reason.
So basically, you think that if people don't enjoy life it would be better to have never been born? I'm pretty sure there is a book called ecclesiastes about this very issue, you should look it up. Its pretty obscure though, not many have read it.
Now do one that explains how biology will defeat modernism in the church :)
Same basic principles. The modernists in the church are typically (not always, though) less religious, not attending Mass as much, waiting longer to get married, having less children, etc.
Human beings function best with Love and humility. A lack of love leads to suicide and disablement.
No, this argument -- that natural selection responds to and addresses solely external prompts -- is absurdly superficial. Natural selection makes the developing organism resistant to death by infection. That's not external.
Nor is an argument by popularity of belief at all persuasive by its own measure. What if the majority of people in some near future forsake any theist belief? Would that refute all religion (I would say it does not; but that's the argument advanced by Mr Holdsworth here) ?
Well, no that's not what natural selection is merely - that's absurdly reductionist. That would require that infection is the only threat to survival - when that's obviously not true of the natural world. Further, did you just argue that infection is not something external? So if I get HIV, you're saying I had it all along? The definition of infection is when a microorganism "enters" a person's body and causes harm. A thing must be external for it to "enter" and become internal.
ah the massextinctions of the gods.... we need some serious spiritual archeoholydiggers here.
@@BrianHoldsworth You know, you can get human immunodeficiency virus from your mother. The fetus shares bloodstream with its host. The definition of 'external' and 'internal' gets a bit fuzzy there.
But I admit, Mr Holdsworth, that I understood your use of 'external" to involve predators who eat you, not half-alive infectious agents.
When we consider the whole complex of immunological defense networks within the human body, however, they are capable of detecting and suppressing all sorts of treats that arise from both internal and external sources.
We survive cancer-free for many years in large measure because the few cells which go haywire within our bodies are health with by our leukocytes.
Errors in DNA reproduction have correcting mechanisms within the cell.
And so on. Natural selection is by no means inherently external-directed.
Faith hope charity
codswallop
Yup, not at all surprised Brian. And the Protestant nations are the most advanced and the most prosperous. Just visit any country in Latin America and you will see what I mean.
Catholic Europe was prosperous and advanced until it rejected the faith. Canada was largely Catholic too.
Which Protestant countries.. the ones that have now become secular and falling apart in morality and social issues like USA, England and Australia.
Thank you, brother, thank you.
You keep misrepresenting atheism, over and over and over again. All atheism is, is not believing the claim that a god exists. Atheism believes nothing and claims nothing. And atheism has got nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of life.
That is a claim.
@@commonman9782 Yes that is a claim, but the comment itself isn't a claim of atheism. The original comment is, however, still incorrect. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. The rejection of the claim that God does exist while also not claiming that he does not exist is traditionally called agnosticism. It is effectively saying: "I do not know whether there is a God or not, and as such I make no concrete statements on the matter one way or the other."
@@reaganmorris7903 No that is agnosticism. Atheism is the positive belief that there is no God.
Sorry, but this is simply false. It might be how you feel, but no standard definition of atheism agrees with you. Further, there is a comprehensive tradition of atheistic philosophers who make a LOT of claims and that's what I tend to focus my attention on when I address atheism and I'm always explicit when I do. Lastly, in order to "misrepresent" atheism, I'd have to represent it in some way, which I did not do in this video. I didn't make any claims about atheistic beliefs. I just stated that people who have embraced secularism, culturally, are now suffering plummeting birth rates that aren't reflected in religiously practicing populations. That's an empirical fact.
That's what I said. Looking back, I think I phrased it oddly, but I was making the same distinction you are.@@gunsgalore7571
Humanism is a self correcting problem. There are some guys who are very vein and very successful and they have a whole boat load of kids and don't care about them and they grow up into dysfunctional people. For the most part however they don't reproduce and when they reproduce they prefer to reproduce like animals and if they bring a child into the world they don't facilitate circumstances for a good upbringing i.e. 2 parent home
If you're honest about it, everything proves God.
Good, but why are all of us playing the dishonesty game, and how come you do not play by the rules of the game?
Have you ever heard of something called the ‘naturalistic fallacy’?
Serious mistake 1) 1.40 min in “human beings are the most highly evolved” there is no such thing as higher or lower evolved creatures we are all just evolved.
2) 1.55 min in, we are not the most likely to survive. With all the different catastrophes that could befall our species e.g Astroid impact, Super volcano, plague and nuclear war, we would likely be one of the first to go extinct. Bacteria would outlive everything els.
3) 3.20 min in, there is no appearance of design. One of the biggest blatant lies perpetuated by the religiously beguiled.
4) 6.20 min in, “ most people who have lived and who are alive today” believe in something other than a naturalistic existence. And 99%+ of them by your faith were condemned to eternal purgatory.
3) You have to be extremally embittered or blind to not to see the design in the universe, just look for ex. biological cell and computer which is designed by human mind, if cell is not designed then computer is also not designed.
You make some interesting points. First, I'd have to agree that even though Darwin spoke of the "Ascent of Man", natural selection itself only deals in survival. However, the history of life is one of advancement; we are more than bacteria and that's just an objective fact. I'd say that's a weakness in Darwinism.
Number 2 is true, but it is an interesting question how humans are massively more populous than any other primate. We do have some capabilities that have enabled us to thrive in a way that the species most similar to us simply don't.
Regarding 3, what sort of hypothetical evidence would you have to see to recognize a reality created by God? Is there any sort of scenario that would have you saying "yes; I guess God does exist after all"?
Regarding 4, you are attempting to present beliefs of Catholics but I don't see you as understanding our Faith at all.
@@nieustraszonywujek8538 I do not know whether you have any knowledge of development or design? But to assume that a thing is designed you have to have something (not designed) to compare it to. Simply saying a computer is complex and is designed and a cell is complex therefore it is also designed is not sufficient, they are complex in totally different ways . The computer can only be produced (at this time) by human intervention, Cells are made by observed natural processes. For one we can show or even meet the designer for the other you hypothesise one. To you “ everything in the universe was designed (including the cosmos)” therefore you have a sample of “one” and nothing to compare it to. You would have to show a universe that wasn’t designed in order to compare this (alleged) designed one to it. You are only partially right A) I am bitter. B) I am not blind.
1) False. While "highly evolved" is not well defined here, there are many different ways of measuring which species have evolved more than others.
2) False; category error. Individual humans are far less likely to die prematurely than other species, and groups of humans demonstrate remarkable abilities to survive severe adversity and cataclysmic events. Comparison to humans can only be made with a specific species, not an enormously broad category of species.
3) False. Most natural systems are intrinsicly self-ordering--for the periodic arrangement of atoms, to arrangement of flower petals, to currents of interstellar media. This is just definitionally what it means for something to appear to be designed.
4) False. Purgatory is transient by definition, not eternal.
@@jonathanstensberg 1) false is false. As I said (and you agree) humans are not more highly evolved.
2) false is false . If you said all humans are mammals and all mammals would if faced with cataclysmic conditions be more likely to go extinct rather than bacteria.
3) false is false. “Self ordering show’s design” do you understand the meaning of self and design?
You are committing a non sequitur fallacy. The fact that religious people tend to be more adapted to their environment and having more children than unbelievers, even if true, doesn't imply that God exists. At best, it would only show that natural selection favors behaviors which provide more fitness pay-off, from an evolutionary perspective, regardless of the truthfulness of the beliefs on which these behaviors are based.
Thank you 🙏
Please don't tell me the thumbnail is true.
"Christians are more fit"
if you speaking mentally I might give it to you but just strength and skill? NO. If it is true then I would say that is a coincidence.
I mean....
@@Teutonic__Knight It really is true?
Imma actually watch the video some time.
I find this too hard to be true.
and don't think I'm trying to debunk an argument for Christianity. I'm Christian I just find this way too hard to believe.
@@chubbyclub2502 That's not actually what the video is about, the thumbnail is meant to be humorous
@@ckcez Oh ok. And thank you I almost forgot to watch it.
@@chubbyclub2502 Np 👍God bless
Ah-boot
I am a fit TRAD CATH who does Muay Thai and drives a V8. CHRIST IS KING
Don't drive fast in the road you'll kill someone. The faster you drive the less room for error you have.
@@Killer_Chaun so true!
Now all I need is a gf...
Great video.
Christianity is true, in America. Islam is true, in Arabia.
How does that work? How could Jesus have risen from the dead but also not risen from the dead?
I agree, it doesn’t make sense. Really though, I was just satirizing his use of evolutionary theory.
@@jacobvictorfisher How so? I don't follow.
Christianity is true in America.
Christianity is true in Arabia.
Christianity is true in Europe.
Christianity is true on the moon.
Christianity is true.
@@markpugner9716 The fitness of a species is always fitness for a specific environment. To the extent that Christianity has proved itself more fit in some places, like America (historically), Islam has similarly proved itself more fit in Arabia. I guess the point is, Islam appears more fit than Christianity in Arabia. It's not actually about being true (I admit, I was being satirical--hyperbolic and a little absurd--in my original comment). To put it another way, when he compared atheist and religious people and their difference in fitness, I could also compare Islam and Christianity in Arabia and conclude that in that cultural environment, Islam is more fit (and Christianity is more fit in America).
Grasp for straws much? Sheesh.
It's not a straw man when the irreligious are among the worst group to produce offspring.
How so?
total non sequiturs , its interesting that brian states that we have a " rational ability " yet doesn't display that trait lol.
And yet your only rebuttal is an ad hominem fallacy?
False , Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument….. I’m calling you out for the non sequiturs you’ve produced. The fact that you state we have “ rational ability “ yet you choose not to display that isn’t name calling , that’s a fact
@@hereticairsoft4918 Indeed, but I think that misses the point. The jab was unnecessary and unhelpful. Besides, your claim of Brian's arguments being non-sequiturs is currently undefended. It is, however, possible to interpret your comment as a proposition followed by evidence. Under that interpretation, your comment could be summarized as such: "Brian's arguments are non-sequiturs because Brian is being irrational in the video." If interpreted so, then it would indeed be an ad hominem. But interpreting your comment more charitably, it is at best an unsupported claim followed by an unsupported insult.
hi , so .... 1) Indeed, but I think that misses the point.... i don't. things like when he asserts at 1:35 he states "might even argue that if human beings are the most highly evolved organism if we are the most capable of survival" ....this clearly shows he misunderstands evolution as there is no " higher evolved " this is evidence he is misguided 2) The jab was unnecessary and unhelpful..... again , i don't. 3) Besides, your claim of Brian's arguments being non-sequiturs is currently undefended..... because brian doesn't rebut them and just avoids them , however ever i'll run through a couple ...a) "the samples and demographics of human beings that are most invigorated by their existence most enthusiastic about being alive and most enthusiastic about
reproducing are religious people".... this is an assertion and a non sequitur. he has to prove that religious people are "most invigorated by their existence", it doesn't follow that just because you are invigorated by your existence that it therefore follows your group is the most invigorated by their existence. the same goes for reproduction b) "successfully Traverse the obstacles
between them and the goal of pairing off with someone who will actually return their affections and then persevere
through all the challenges of a monogamous relationship long enough in order to reproduce and actually be happy" .... again this is the same point as point a. he has to not only demonstrate the case but show that being religious is the cause. with polls showing that divorce is just as high as in religious people as non... brian just seems to pull assertions from somewhere. c) "several studies have confirmed that religious couples are far more happy and satisfied in their physical
intimacy they are far more likely to reproduce and that religious adherence especially to the Christian religion
protects against suicidal ideation"..... again he has to prove that rather than assert it. he also has to show being religious is the cause. anyone can make stuff up. if i asserted (several studies have confirmed that non religious couples are far more happy and satisfied in their physical intimacy they are far more likely to reproduce) you'd rightfully ask me to back that up 4) at It is, however, possible to interpret your comment as a proposition followed by evidence..... that's your inference 5) Under that interpretation, your comment could be summarized as such: "Brian's arguments are non-sequiturs because Brian is being irrational in the video." If interpreted so, then it would indeed be an ad hominem. But interpreting your comment more charitably, it is at best an unsupported claim followed by an unsupported insult.... since its not then its cool. to be clear , because brians arguments are assertions , unsound and non sequiturs , it is therefore reasonable to judge them as irrational . since the argument side has been addressed , then it isn't an ad hom because an ad hom is defined as : an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by personally attacking them, rather than discussing the argument itself..... I'm calling out his arguments and stating a fact so no ad hom... we are less than half way through the vid so there's a ton more stuff to pull apart.@@reaganmorris7903
@@hereticairsoft4918
quote: False , Ad hominem means “against the man,”
So Holdsworth is right. What you deny is that you wanted to hit him personally.
Remember when you can't tell killing from murder, then ask yourself: why are people after me?
You could have adressed his argument without sticking your sarkasm into his back, right?