The moral argument for God
Summary
TLDREste vídeo explora el argumento moral a favor de la existencia de Dios o un Creador. Se cuestiona la naturaleza de los valores morales y si son meras opiniones personales, culturales o parte de nuestra programación evolutiva. Se discuten las perspectivas de los evolucionistas y sus dificultades para explicar actos altruistas y la importancia de la objetividad moral. Se argumenta que solo un Creador podría ser la fuente de valores morales objetivos, y se desafía la visión subjetiva con ejemplos extremos como el Holocausto. Se concluye que la existencia de una moralidad objetiva apunta inevitablemente hacia la existencia de un Dios.
Takeaways
- 🧠 El argumento moral para la existencia de Dios o Creador se basa en la existencia de morales y valores universales.
- 🤔 Se cuestiona si los valores morales son meras opiniones personales, culturales o parte de nuestra programación evolutiva para la supervivencia.
- 📚 Charles Darwin intentó explicar las tendencias morales a través de la selección natural y la supervivencia de las especies.
- 🧬 Richard Dawkins y otros evolucionistas modernos ven la moralidad como un mecanismo de supervivencia genética, reduciendo la bondad a un mero programa genético.
- 🤝 La teoría del altruismo recíproco y la mejora del estatus social también son vistas como explicaciones evolutivas de la moralidad.
- 🚫 Los escenarios extremos, como el Holocausto, cuestionan la validez de la visión evolutiva de la moralidad, ya que no pueden explicar la naturaleza intrínsecamente mala de tales actos.
- 🌐 La diversidad de creencias morales entre culturas no invalida la posibilidad de una verdad moral objetiva; la desacuerdo no significa ausencia de verdad.
- 🏛 El utilitarismo, que sostiene que la moralidad de una acción depende de sus consecuencias, puede llevar a consecuencias éticamente cuestionables, como en los experimentos de los médicos nazis.
- 🤔 El dilema ético de Euclides plantea si algo es bueno porque Dios lo dice, o si Dios lo dice porque es bueno, pero se puede argumentar que Dios es la fuente de la bondad.
- 💡 La existencia de una moralidad objetiva puede llevar a la creencia en un Dios, ya que solo un ser perfecto y bueno podría ser la fuente de lo que es bueno y excelente.
Q & A
¿Qué es el argumento moral para la existencia de Dios según el discurso?
-El argumento moral para la existencia de Dios es la idea de que nuestras morales y valores no son simplemente opiniones personales o culturales, sino que tienen una base objetiva que solo un Creador o un Dador de normas podría explicar.
¿Qué es el subjetivismo moral y cómo se relaciona con la evolución?
-El subjetivismo moral es la creencia de que los valores morales no son reglas independientes, sino que provienen de dentro de una persona y no existen objetivamente. La relación con la evolución es que se cree que estos valores son el resultado de la selección natural y la supervivencia de los genes.
¿Cómo intenta Charles Darwin explicar las tendencias morales en su libro 'El Descenso del Hombre'?
-Charles Darwin intenta explicar las tendencias morales como un producto de la selección natural, sugiriendo que aquellos que ayudaban y defendían a otros se desarrollaban mejor y tenían más descendencia.
¿Qué dificultades encontró Darwin al explicar la moralidad desde una perspectiva evolutiva?
-Darwin tuvo dificultades para explicar comportamientos como el sacrificio de la vida por otros, que no parecen contribuir a la supervivencia de los genes, y también se cuestionó cómo la esclavitud, que él consideraba moralmente incorrecta, podría ser justificada desde una perspectiva evolutiva.
¿Qué es la altruismo recíproco y cómo lo utiliza Richard Dawkins para explicar la moralidad?
-El altruismo recíproco es la idea de que ayudamos a otros con la expectativa de recibir ayuda a cambio. Richard Dawkins lo utiliza para sugerir que la moralidad es un mecanismo de supervivencia genética, donde el comportamiento 'bueno' es programado para mejorar la reproducción y la supervivencia de los genes.
¿Qué es el utilitarismo y cómo se relaciona con el subjetivismo moral?
-El utilitarismo es una forma de ética que sostiene que la moralidad de una acción depende únicamente de sus consecuencias en términos de felicidad o bienestar humano. Se relaciona con el subjetivismo moral porque sugiere que no hay valores morales objetivos, sino que la moralidad es una cuestión de resultados y consecuencias.
¿Cómo responde el discurso a la objeción de que los valores morales varían entre diferentes culturas?
-El discurso argumenta que la existencia de diferentes opiniones morales en diferentes culturas no invalida la posibilidad de que haya una verdad moral objetiva. Se compara con la ciencia, donde puede haber desacuerdos entre expertos, pero esto no significa que no haya respuestas correctas.
¿Qué es la ética de la belleza y cómo se relaciona con la moralidad?
-La ética de la belleza es la rama de la filosofía que estudia lo que es bello y cómo esto puede ser bueno. Se relaciona con la moralidad porque la belleza puede ser vista como una manifestación de la bondad y la perfección, lo que sugiere una conexión con la objetividad de la moralidad.
¿Cómo se relaciona la existencia de una moralidad objetiva con la creencia en Dios según el discurso?
-El discurso sugiere que si existen valores morales objetivos, entonces debe existir un Creador o una fuente de estas normas morales. Esto se basa en la idea de que solo un ser perfecto y bueno podría ser la fuente de lo que es bueno y moral.
¿Qué es la dilema de Euthyphro y cómo se aborda en el discurso?
-La dilema de Euthyphro es una pregunta filosófica sobre si algo es bueno porque Dios lo dice, o Dios lo dice porque es bueno. El discurso argumenta que esta no es una verdadera dilema, ya que Dios es la fuente de la bondad y no simplemente un reportero de lo que es bueno independientemente de él.
Outlines
🤔 Argumento moral para la existencia de Dios
El vídeo comienza con Anthony Leam discutiendo el argumento moral a favor de la existencia de un Creador. Explora la cuestión de por qué existen los valores morales, como por qué consideramos malos el hurto, el asesinato o el engaño, y buenos los actos de ayudar a los demás. Leam plantea si estos valores son meras opiniones personales, producto de nuestra cultura o de nuestra programación evolutiva. Introduce el debate entre los morales subjetivistas, quienes creen que los valores morales son internos a la persona y no objetivos, y los morales objetivistas, quienes sostienen que existen valores reales que no dependen de opiniones, cultura o programación genética. Leam sugiere que solo un Creador o un emisor de normas podría explicar la existencia de valores morales objetivos.
🧬 Enfoque evolutivo en la ética
Leam examina el enfoque evolutivo de la ética, citando a Charles Darwin, quien intentó explicar las tendencias morales como un producto de la selección natural para maximizar la supervivencia de la especie. Darwin argumentaba que comunidades con miembros más empáticos se desarrollarían mejor. Sin embargo, Leam señala que Darwin tuvo dificultades para explicar actos como el sacrificio de la vida por otros, que no parecen favorecer la supervivencia genética. Posteriormente, el vídeo menciona a Richard Dawkins, quien en su libro 'La Ilusión de Dios', aborda la moralidad como un mecanismo de supervivencia genética, argumentando que la ayuda a seres cercanos y la reciprocidad altruista están codificados en nuestros genes. Leam cuestiona esta visión reduccionista y la crítica de que todo se reduce a programas genéticos, deshumanizando las acciones morales.
🤨 Críticas a la visión evolutiva y subjetivista
Leam desafía la perspectiva evolutiva y subjetivista de la moralidad, argumentando que estas no pueden explicar actos de altruismo desinteresado, como el sacrificio de Sócrates. Cuestiona cómo la teoría evolutiva puede justificar la autolimitación moral cuando se enfrenta a atrocidades como el Holocausto. Leam también critica la idea de que la moralidad es simplemente un programa genético, y señala la contradicción en afirmar que actos de amor y sacrificio son autolesivos a pesar de ser programados genéticamente. El vídeo también aborda críticas a la objetividad de la moralidad, como la diversidad de creencias en diferentes culturas y la acusación de intolerancia por parte de los objetivistas, a lo que Leam responde que la existencia de desacuerdos no invalida la posibilidad de una verdad moral objetiva.
🌟 La conexión entre belleza y moralidad
El vídeo concluye con Leam sugiriendo que la belleza del universo, que es independiente de nuestras opiniones, apunta hacia una bondad objetiva. Explora la relación entre lo que es hermoso y lo que es bueno, y cómo la existencia de una moralidad objetiva puede llevarnos a creer en un Creador. Leam argumenta que si la moralidad es objetiva, entonces debe haber un fundamento divino, ya que en un universo sin un Creador, no hay nada que dé sentido a la moralidad. Finalmente, el vídeo subraya la importancia de la moralidad trascendental y la necesidad de un compás moral que solo puede provenir de una fuente perfecta y buena, es decir, Dios.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Argumento Moral
💡Subjetivo
💡Objetivismo Moral
💡Selección Natural
💡Altruismo Recíproco
💡Utilitarismo
💡Estrategia Evolutiva
💡Cultural Relativism
💡Teoría de la Evolución
💡Argumento de Eudoxio
Highlights
The moral argument for God is introduced, questioning the source of our moral values.
Subjectivist view is presented, suggesting moral values are not independent but internal to a person.
Moral objectivists argue for the existence of real, objective moral values.
The necessity of a moral lawgiver is proposed to account for objective values.
Evolutionary approach to moral values is discussed, citing Charles Darwin's perspective.
Darwin's struggle to reconcile moral absolutes with the survival of the fittest is highlighted.
Modern evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are critiqued for reducing morality to genetic survival.
Reciprocal altruism is mentioned as a gene-based explanation for moral behavior.
The inadequacy of the evolutionary view is questioned through the lens of the Holocaust.
Matt Ridley's agreement with Dawkins on the genetic programming of selflessness is noted.
The reduction of moral values to genetic code is critiqued for its implications on human behavior.
Objections to objective morality based on cultural differences are addressed.
The intolerance of objectivist views is challenged as a misconception.
Utilitarianism is introduced as a subjectivist ethical theory with significant flaws.
The Euthyphro Dilemma is discussed in the context of God and morality.
The connection between beauty and goodness is suggested as pointing to a creator.
The logical conclusion that if objective moral duties exist, then God exists, is presented.
The importance of recognizing the transcendent nature of morality is emphasized.
Transcripts
hello I'm Anthony leam and I'm going to
give another talk on this series of
valid reasons for believing in God or
Creator and this one is the moral
argument for
God why do we have morals or values for
example we tend to think cheating in
exams is wrong or that stealing and
murdering are wrong we believe in
helping our neighbor is good are these
just personal opinions or are they based
on our particular culture or are they
part of our evolutionary hardwiring for
survival I'm going to go through these
options in this talk uh what I called
subjectivist in other words they claim
that moral values are not independent
rules but are from within a person not
there
objectively however those who AR argue
for OB objective moral values believe
that there are real values which are not
dependent on opinion or culture or
evolutionary hard wiring in our brains
you might call those who believe this
moral
objectivists they believe that stealing
and murdering are wrong in themselves
not dependent on what anyone thinks
why is this
important well if moral values are
objective out there if you like
independent of personal
opinion then we must ask where they come
from and what I hope to argue for here
is that only a moral Giver a rulemaker
if you like could account for such
objective values so let's look at the
different approaches that claim moral
values are purely subjective from within
a personal people
first of all there is the evolutionary
approach Charles Darwin in his book The
Descent of Man tried to account for
moral Tendencies by assuming that
natural selection has honed these over
many
generations to maximize the survival of
the species and I'll quote from him here
in however complex a manner this feeling
may have originated as it is one of high
importance to all those animals which
Aid and defend one another it would have
been increased through natural selection
for those communities which included the
greatest number of the most sympathetic
members would flourish best and rear the
greatest number of
Offspring now despite
this he had difficulties that he
acknowledges in accounting for the fact
that he believes personally that slavery
is just wrong even if it improves the
survival of those who practice it
he also struggled to explain behaviors
such as sacrificing one's life for
others for instance in battle how could
this lead to survival of one's genes
we'll come now to the modern
evolutionists view on such Behavior such
as Richard Dawkin in his book The God
Delusion who tries to answer the
question of morals in his chapter called
why are we
good well his first answer is helping
those related to us ensures survival of
the shared genes within that kin group
in other words if we protect our
immediate family who share our genes we
will encourage the copying of those
genes now notice here how he reduces us
really to machines merely obeying those
molecules called
genes it is the ultimate subjectivist
view there's nothing real about such
morals pure survival mechanism
his second reason is what's called
reciprocal
altruism if you help others they may
help you in return scratch your back and
you might scratch mine if you like this
too is to dkan somehow coded for in our
genes by the way no one has ever found
these
genes he adds to these other reasons
which are coded for in the genes good
actions ensure our reputation is
increased and good actions improve our
status or dominance in a society so this
is the neod darwinist view on morals
they're not actually real objective
values merely ways to improve your own
Gene survival it is a bleak view but
does it stand up to
scrutiny now sometimes it's important to
pose the hardest scenarios to test these
sort of views example was the Holocaust
wrong
now to the
evolutionist it was neither wrong nor
right and our views on this morality are
merely genetic programming do you buy
that or rape and torture of children is
this wrong or is our disgust at this
merely our genes selfishly requiring us
to think
so zoologist Matt Ridley in his book the
origins of virtue agrees with Dawkin and
I quote from him here if a mother is
selfless towards her Offspring only
because her genes are being selfish she
is still as an individual behaving
selflessly end of quote in other words
he maintains that a mother's
self-sacrificial love to her child is
programmed by genes but somehow this is
okay and indeed actually
selfless but how is it okay if such
motives are not due to anything other
than selfish programming
in this view all her feelings of love
and tenderness self-sacrifice are merely
like the software running your
computer are you disturbed by this
reduction of morals to genetic code well
I
am philosopher Anthony O'Hare in his
book beyond Evolution human nature and
the limits of evolutionary
explanation writes about The Death of
Socrates who willingly died rather than
giv up his beliefs I quote him here if
it is said that from The evolutionary
point of view Socrates was a failure and
that a no nation of socrates's would not
survive this still does not explain why
Socrates is so widely admired a figure
and why many people even today and in
quite different social and religious
circumstances feel that Socrates was
right to have done what he had
done you see ultimately the dmist
explanation fails to provide reasons for
such
self-sacrifice it cannot explain
altruism which is
selfless and not even related to your
own family or kin and has no bearing on
the survival of one's
genes it denies anything but real about
goodness and Badness just genetic hard
Waring making us think some things are
good and others bad or evil now now here
are some other arguments given by
subjectivists against the objective
value or objective
morals firstly it's true that different
groups hold different beliefs now some
groups feel that killing cows is wrong
in some cultures others that it's right
some groups of people think that
abortion is a good thing others see it
as wrong and so the subjectivist argues
that
there's no real right or wrong because
people have different
views it's a poor
argument disagreement about certain
things doesn't mean there no objective
truth or moral value in this case for
example brilliant physicists May
disagree about a fundamental physical
problem which is actually quite common
it doesn't mean there is no real true
answer and also subjectiv argument here
falls down on their own criteria they
cannot maintain that moral subjectivism
is correct when thoughtful people think
that morals are
objective another uh objection by
subjectivists is that the objectivist
view views are
intolerant and therefore dangerous in
other
words they say that objectivist people
condemn people with opposing views and
they lack acceptance of other
people but an objectivist such as myself
doesn't say that his or her particular
views are always right nor forced on
other people just that moral values do
have objective
truth in fact
subjectivism stifles proper debate
imagine if there was no debate about
slavery and if we say no particular
moral value is true then even the
Holocaust can be
defended now cus Lewis wrote The
Following the law of right and wrong
must be something above and beyond the
actual facts of human behavior in this
case besides the actual facts you have
something else a real law which we did
not invent and which we know we ought to
obey a little word about what's called
utilitarian ISM this is the principal
form of Ethics which flows very
naturally from
subjectivism it says that the morality
of actions is entirely dependent on the
consequences or results for human
happiness or well-being in other words
the ends justify the means of any action
even if the means may appear to be quite
evil now this is not the place to fully
discuss utility
arianism uh but it has Grave
consequences for instance the Nazi
doctors who experimented on and often
killed people in concentration camps for
research thought that the future
benefits of such research outweighed any
moral problem with their actions which
amounted of course to torture and murder
that's pure
utilitarianism and utilitarianism sadly
has a strong hold on many academic
ethesis
today another objection given by the
subjectivist is what's called The
youo
Dilemma Plato discussed what goodness is
by asking whether a thing is good
because God says it is good or does God
say it's good because it is good this is
known as ethro dilemma and the argument
is as follows I'll try and
explain firstly
if a thing is good because God says it
is good then it seems that God could say
anything is good even evil
things secondly they would say if God is
simply reporting a things goodness then
he is no longer the standard for any
goodness now it's amazing how many
people Trot out this so-called
dilemma of course it's not a dilemma at
all what is missed out is the obvious
alternative that God is the AL author of
goodness the very source of goodness as
the Bible says God is
love goodness does not depend on his
fickle opinion and he's not simply
reporting what is good independent of
him a little word about beauty I plan to
give another talk on beauty and how it
points to a creator of beauty but in the
context of moral values there is surely
a close link between what is beautiful
and what is good and if the world or the
universe is beautiful and it clearly is
independent of our opinions about it
then this also points to objective
goodness well the question is does
objective morality lead us to believe in
god let's look at the question from the
view point of there being no
God now if the universe is just matter
and energy with no Creator and no
purpose which is the atheist position
then everything that exists has no
meaning Beyond its mere
existence purpose of course entails a
conscious agent that has purposes and
therefore
values but if there's no deity then
there cannot be values or purposes
behind or foundational to our universe
morality then becomes a subjective or
cultural
discussion and cannot be based on
anything Absol abolute or
objective in the universe of the atheist
there's nothing out there that gives us
any rules about being good or bad
goodness and Badness become matters of
opinion and the concepts about them may
be linked to all sorts of evolutionary
survival mechanisms but these ultimately
are Mindless and have no ultimate
ethical
Foundation yet as we have seen I hope
going through this talk there are very
good reasons for believing in objective
goodness and
Badness the Holocaust was bad slavery is
bad not because of some arbitrary
utilitarian calculation but because of
the Holy evil nature of these things it
goes against every good purpose that we
intuitively
understand objective morals
exist and this leads inevit Le to some
form of God Peter S Williams in his book
a faithful guide to philosophy expresses
this in a well known form of logical
conclusion firstly if objective moral
duties exist then a God
exists secondly objective moral duties
do
exist thirdly therefore a God
exists this subject is really of vital
importance when there is a utilitarian
and and subjectivist mindset at large at
the moment in Western Society we seem to
have lost the Transcendent nature of
morality and are ultimately left to
making up our own rules there's no real
yard stick where is the moral compass
where is the
sacred understanding the reality of
moral
values which can only come from a
perfect and good source is a very
powerful way to return the doubting
skeptic to God who's the only reasonable
source of what is good and excellent
thank you for listening to this talk
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
¿Quién decide qué está bien y qué está mal? ¿La moral es relativa o universal?
Semester Ethics Course condensed (Part 2 of 2)
¿Quién creó al Creador? - Una respuesta de parte del Dr. John Lennox
El Argumento Ontológico
El SENTIDO de la VIDA
¿La existencia de Dios se puede demostrar? San Anselmo vs Kant | VI Filosofía medieval 6 | T06 E06
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)