SPEAKER_01 0:05

Universally Personal.

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Welcome back to Universally Personal. I'm your host, Greg Allen. Today we're sitting down with an Evansville neighbor who spends his days looking at the physical pathways of the human brain, but spends his free time thinking about the moral pathways of our society. Dr. Luke Barr is a board certified neurologist, but on this episode, he's stepping outside the clinic to look at what he sees as a pending cultural crisis. He challenges us to look at why humans struggle to make sound moral assessments, why we deeply need a return to codified sacred ethics, and how a reintegration of faith might just save society from unraveling. But don't worry, it's not all nihilistic and heavy. There are solutions. They start right in our local communities. Let's dive into a conversation that is deep, challenging, and beautifully universally personal with Dr. Luke Bar.

SPEAKER_01 1:33

Universally personal.

SPEAKER_03 1:44

That human beings aren't even really capable of understanding, quote unquote, right, quote unquote wrong, you know, what's morally, quote unquote, good or morally, quote unquote, bad. Because we don't have the information. You know, so so the way I see it is it's it's impossible to know. Like you can't make a moral judgment one way or the other.

SPEAKER_02 2:05

We don't have the information.

SPEAKER_03 2:07

Now, that's not the same as saying that you don't have a humane inclination to behave one way or another, or believe one thing or another. But it is to delineate that you can't judge somebody as far as their existential value based on your own perspective of how they should act. So we don't have the information to really understand what the full ramifications of any individual decision we make actually is. We don't have the information. You know, the kind of rightness or wrongness, I think, is forcing people into positions that they become attached to and can't really modify easily. I think that that illustrates the point, at least the way I see it, that without being to fully understand the totality of our consequences, how can you actually make a judgment whether something was quote unquote right or quote unquote wrong, other than again our humane inclination? If some were to say, okay, you can jump in a time machine, go back, kill Hitler before he becomes, you know, Hitler, so to speak, 12 years old or whatever, many people are like, geez, you know, maybe avoiding World War II is is is worth it, right? But now let's say World War II never happens, but then 2030 rolls a little wrong, and now we got like a total global catastrophe that's a million times worse than World War II ever was gonna be, because you know, we didn't really learn that lesson of you know industrialized warfare. So you're like, well, ooh, it sounds like it was a pretty bad idea now. You know, like I caused a lot more moral harm than I did moral good. You know, so we don't have the information to really understand what the full ramifications of any individual decision we make actually is. And I think that applies to everything. You know, we took like a crazy, fantastical, theoretical example, but I think that that illustrates the point, at least the way I see it, that without being to fully understand the totality of our consequences, how can you actually make a judgment whether something was quote unquote right or quote unquote wrong, other than again, our humane inclination that's you know hardwired or culturally kind of integrated or combination or whatever you want to call it, that we feel it's like, you know what, it doesn't seem right to go and kill a 12-year-old boy just because he may do something terrible in the future. You know, maybe if you gave the guy a bagel, you know, he'd be you know much happier and like you'd be like, you know what, uh, I love everybody, you know, like whatever. You know, you know, we don't really know. So we don't have the information to really understand what the full ramifications of any individual decision we make actually is. We get one lifetime, but you can't necessarily experience all of life in that one lifetime. You know, like you're never gonna know what it was like to be, you know, a feudal peasant in the dark ages in, you know, France, right? Neither am I, you know, so so like, you know, how how can we take those lessons that we never experienced and somehow apply them to our current situations? You know, the kind of rightness or wrongness, I think, is forcing people into positions that they become attached to and can't really modify easily. It's my personal opinion that human beings aren't even really capable of understanding, quote unquote, right, quote unquote wrong, you know, what's morally, quote unquote, good or morally, quote unquote, bad. Because we don't have the information. You know, so so the way I see it is it's it's impossible to know. Like you can't make a moral judgment one way or the other. That's why I see it.

SPEAKER_00 7:09

That's a little unnerving to think about, but it certainly tracks with what we see playing out in the world today. Fortunately, Luke doesn't leave us with the problem. He points to what we might call a rule book for getting things headed back in a better direction how society is going to behave and how you must behave to be a part of that society.

SPEAKER_01 7:51

Universally personal.

SPEAKER_03 7:56

Most people have a cost-benefit analysis where they, you know, might put their otherwise morals kind of aside. Well, it's like, you know, with $50 million, I can set my family up for generations, never have to think about it. You know, even if I go to jail and I feel really guilty and terrible about it for the rest of my life, well, like my kids, my grandkids are going to be fine. You know, it's like, you know, there's that calculation where it's like, you know, well, 10 grand, it's not doing anything. I can't buy lunch nowadays, you know. So so, you know, so there's there's no this these dynamics are always at play in our mind. And it also kind of touches back to what we were talking about with the basic material reality of our existence, you know, like we have to eat, we have to drink, we have to stay warm, you know, we have to be clothed. So those dynamics, obviously, you know, there's an ideal metaphysical world that, you know, we would hope to one day achieve or to approximate and, you know, ideally be admitted into paradise or heaven or what have you. And then there's the fact that, you know, the world is cold, you know, like there's not enough food. There's not enough like, you know, it's like, you know, and how do you how do you balance these two conflicts within yourself, let alone within society of you know, billions and billions of people? There's an ideal metaphysical world that we would hope to one day achieve, and then there's the fact that the world is cold. There's an ideal metaphysical world, and then there's the fact that the world is cold. Even if you're not quote unquote religious or you're not spiritual, put all of that aside, if you look at you know any of the books, the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, the Upanishads, you know, you look at any of these things, they're ways to allow people that may not have, for whatever reason, the propensity to ever actually do the thought experiment. How do I behave in a constructive manner so that we can actually have a society and actually improve the lot of everybody? It allows people that may not be wired in a way to kind of build the society, it gives them a fallback that's like, you know what, I'm actually supposed to behave this way. There's an ideal metaphysical world, and then there's the fact that the world is cold. Right? So even if you just you know forget about you know warship or any of that stuff, if you look at it just as a tool of behavioral parameters, so that even somebody who may be kind of criminal proclivity, so to speak, you know, it's like, oh geez, you know, I definitely don't want to, you know, burn in hell for eternity, so I guess I ain't gonna kill that guy, even though he really pissed me off. A tool of behavioral parameters, even outside of the metaphysical component of, you know, love of God and following Jesus, and allowing people that may not be able to come up with that understanding on their own because of like I said, you know, intellectual issues, just the way that they're put together to have those those rules. You need to have some baseline uh expectation and understanding of how society is going to behave and how you must behave to be a part of that society. And these books, the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, give those to people, you know, and in a very easy way, you know, through parable symbolism, you know, direct, you know, direct commands, etc. It allows people that may not be wired in a way to kind of build the society. It gives them a fallback to like, you know what, I'm actually supposed to behave this way. You need to have some baseline expectation and understanding of how society is going to behave and how you must behave to be a part of that society.

SPEAKER_00 12:41

Having a shared model of appropriate behavior certainly seems helpful, but that leaves us with a big question. How is it practically possible to incorporate concepts and principles from a source beyond human creation into a governing system based strictly on man-made laws? Next, Luke explores some examples in previous societies to see what worked and what might not have worked.

SPEAKER_03 13:16

Whatever we've been doing clearly isn't stable.

SPEAKER_01 13:23

Universally personal.

SPEAKER_03 13:44

Western Europe, the United States, you know, various parts of Africa, Asia, South America, you know, we're really kind of teetering in a lot of these areas. Uh, you know, people call it moral decay, call cultural decay, you know. So whatever whatever we've been doing clearly isn't stable. State worship and materialism is not really conducive to stable societies. Religion, and possibly even sort of like semi-state-sponsored religion, is probably gonna make a comeback, if I had to guess. It's apparently something that was never really tried before, you know, where there was this complete break of society and religion. You look at most of history, there's always, you know, some intermeshing of a ritualized metaphysical component, or you want to call it, you know, religion, church, what have you, and the state apparatus. And with within that overall society, this breakaway from that where the state is becoming the kind of deity, or for instance, in like the USSR, and now more and more in the West, where it's kind of state power, material power, those are obviously very, very rapidly degrading. Whereas, you know, you know, like, you know, uh kind of you know, uh society that was based around these metaphysical components, ritualized components, religions, you know, would persist for thousands of years. Now we're seeing our societies collapse, you know, in a couple of hundred or a few decades. Where there was this complete break of society and religion. Our societies collapse, you know, in a couple of hundred or a few decades. But, you know, I'd rather be building for a thousand years than building for a hundred years. You know, it's like, you know, America, that kind of split really kind of began to occur probably, I don't know, some 80s, 90s, somewhere in there, where that, and that drift is kind of accelerated. And we see that our society is deteriorating more and more rapidly. Same thing in Western Europe and other places in the world. Look at the USSR, it was very, very rapid because it was a hard break, you know, right from the beginning. So obviously, this experiment that humanity has tried, you know, consciously or subconsciously, is demonstrating that it's not conducive to a stable society. So I anticipate a reintegration, a reintroduction of those kind of ritualized, you know, quote-unquote religions, or, you know, for lack of a better term. I mean, most of them are religions, of course. They all had that sort of religious integration with their society and with their state structure, and you know, persisted a lot longer or a lot more stable. Of course, societies changed, they failed, they collapsed. So I anticipate a reintegration, a reintroduction of those kind of ritualized, you know, quote-unquote religions. There's kind of a last resort, you know, thing that you can point at about how our society is structured and how we're supposed to behave. It's like, well, you know, as you can see here, you know, like you gotta do this. Sorry, you know, there's there's like there's no debate. Like, we, you know, we've kind of worked around the edges, we bent the rules a little bit, but ultimately, like, this is this is what it is, you know. And it's not me saying this, it's you know, the thing outside, completely outside of human control. And I think that that component is what forces people to think a lot more long term and more tightly regulate their behavior. And, you know, I'm all for doing what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody. But there's something to be said for propriety, there is something to be said for politeness. But, you know, I'd rather be building for a thousand years than building for a hundred years. Without, apparently, without some of those external factors that are metaphysical or religious or what have you, that have some non-material consequence, it seems like a lot of that begins to rapidly degrade. And obviously, as that occurs more and more frequently across the population, the society becomes more and more unstable, and then it collapses. So I anticipate a reintegration, a reintroduction of those kind of ritualized, you know, quote-unquote religions, or, you know, I mean, most of them are religions. Yeah, and I think that they would be less likely to, you know, default to kind of outright negligent behavior if there's that additional social pressure and again, ultimately that, you know, non-material or you know, transmaterial consequence. You know, even if you look at the robber barons, they were like, yo, I better give away 10% of the stuff I stole. And even if it's purely selfish, right? And it's like, I want to be remembered for posterity for doing this, you know, like I think you're more inclined to be having those long-term thoughts. Even if you don't necessarily believe that, you might still point to the to the good book and be like, oh yeah, the good book, it's all right here. You know, like I'm pious, you know, but you know, if you even even if you don't actually believe and you think it's all mumbo jumbo, you know, and that you know reinforces it for other people to you know maintain that standard of behavior, even if they may also believe it's mumbo jumbo. It's apparently something that was never really tried before, you know, where there was this complete break of society and religion. You look at most of history, there's always, you know, some intermeshing of a ritualized metaphysical component, what do you want to call it, you know, religion, church, what have you, and the state apparatus. Religion and possibly even sort of like semi-state sponsored religion is probably gonna make a comeback. Whatever we've been doing clearly isn't stable. I'd rather be building for a thousand years than building for a hundred years.

SPEAKER_00 21:13

Well, that's a lot to take in, Dr. Barr. I deeply appreciate how you handled such a delicate but essential topic today. Listeners, I'd really love to hear what you think about Luke's ideas. If you could share this episode with someone in your circle, it would help us gather feedback and open up a constructive dialogue with people from a wide variety of opinions. As always, hit that follow button so you never miss an episode, and leave your thoughts by clicking the fan mail button. Finally, I have to say it is an honor to encourage you with our sign-off. Leave it, stay sharp, and listen closely.

SPEAKER_01 21:58

Universally personal.