I have what for me, is a tough question put to me by a fella who apparently doesn’t believe in God and feels that morality arose through an evolutionary process, (I’m not sure if he believes it’s a biological process, or simply a brain development issue where so called primitive brains lacked the frontal lobe region to process ‘moral’ issues. He feels that chimps display a ‘lower form of morality’ or perhaps more appropriately, a primitive precursor to morality, and this issue is pretty easily refuted- (at least I hope I’m doing an ok job refuting the claims), however, the tougher point that he makes is that folks with damaged frontal lobes who have been extensively studied, have shown a lack of ‘ability’ to act in a moral manner, even in regards to their own safety/well-being, according to some researchers (although I’m not sure if it’s a lack of ability, or a lack of desire).
I’m having trouble countering this, as most of my attempts seem to go in a circle and end right back up at the frontal lobe controlling the processing of morality which leads to decisions based on the universal moral standards. It appears to me, that although I of course don’t believe the fella’s assertion, that he has a strong case for the fictional primitive man and the decreased frontal lobe region which resulted in less and less moral consideration on their part.
now, I realize that God’s character is the source of morality, and I as a born again Christian, don’t doubt that for one second, but either the fella has a strong case which will unfortunately bolster his own rejection of God, and strengthen other folks resolve to explain everything in biological terms, eliminating God’s involvement altogether, or there is just something I am not seeing/understanding.
I’ve gone through quite a number of articles mentioning morality, and they are quite good, but I can’t seem to discover anything that addresses this frontal lobe controlling our ability to act in a moral manner question other than articles mentioning it in a purely naturalistic manner. I realize that folks with damaged frontal lobes still know right from wrong, but they apparently are incapable of acting upon that knowledge. The argument for the naturalist could be made I guess that as brains increased in size and complexity, the mind’s reasoning power expanded to a point where it could then reason that acts that are good are beneficial to others and therefore good on the whole, and from their, it could be argued that good acts expanded from being self-centered/beneficial, to where they became self-less, and good for others, or moral so to speak. If this argument can be made, then it throws God out of the equation altogether, and lays it at the feat of minds that developed to the point where they were able to reason
I’ve corresponded with a think-tanker/Christian on this subject, but haven’t really received a satisfactory counter logical reasoning argument to the evolution of morals issue.