Morality: God-Given or Evolved?
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
[Thanks to Jon for inspiring this one.]
Our intelligent design show sparked so many comments that it made us think there might be an interesting follow-up show to do.
In the comment thread, Jon pointed to an interview on NPR’s Morning Edition (4 August 2005), in which Senator Rick Santorum was asked why what he calls holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution matter to him as a Senator: “It has huge consequences for society. I mean, it’s where we come from. Does man have a purpose? Is there a purpose for our lives, or are we just simply, you know, a result of chance? If we’re the result of chance, if we’re simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us — in fact, it doesn’t put a moral demand on us — than if in fact we are a creation of a Being that has moral demands.”
Philnick and fanya responded by saying that evolution favors organisms that cooperate in a kind of enlightened self-interest — which is uncannily similar to the Biblical “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
So here’s the question for the hour: is it possible to envision a world full of meaning and morality without God — or do they have to come from God? Put differently — in fanya’s words — do meaning and morality come from the top down or do they percolate from the bottom up?
Some of you suggested people on the evolution side (Robert Wright, Martin Seligman), but we’re looking for good guest suggestions on the religious side, too. We’ve put in a request for an interview with Rick Santorum but haven’t heard back yet. Thoughts?
Chelsea here, picking up where Katherine left off. Our Hannah Arendt and the Banality of Evil broadcast had us thinking that this is the perfect time to revivify this show after a long hibernation or — as some of you would have it — gestation.
Much like New Year’s eve, I fear that the anticipation for this show (and it’s sprawling, infinite comment thread) will transcend the show itself. Nonetheless we will try our darndest to give you a provacative, thoughtful conversation — or at the very least one adorable elephant calf (gestation 22 months).
Joshua Greene
- Assistant Professor of Psychology, Harvard University
The Very Reverend Samuel T. Lloyd III
- Dean, Washington National Cathedral
Peter Singer
-
Utilitarian Ethicist, teaches at Princeton University
Author, Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, and most recently, The Way We Eat, written with Jim Mason
- Extra Credit Reading
-
CliffsNotes: The Morality Comment Thread (Part 1), Open Source, April 9, 2007.
CliffsNotes: The Morality Comment Thread (Part 2), Open Source, April 13, 2007.
Marc Hauser and Peter Singer, Is morality God-given or simply human intuition?, The Taipei Times, January 10, 2006: “One problem is that we cannot, without lapsing into tautology, simultaneously say that God is good, and that he gave us our sense of good and bad. For then we are simply saying that God meets God’s standards.”
Peter Singer, Reason with yourself, The Guardian, March 20, 2007: “Greene’s work helps us understand where our moral intuitions come from. But the fact that our moral intuitions are universal and part of our human nature does not mean that they are right. On the contrary, these findings should make us more sceptical about relying on our intuitions.”
Samuel T. Lloyd III, Strange Fruit, Palm Sunday Sermon, delivered April 1, 2007: “One billion of the world’s people aren’t sure they will live until tomorrow. And our world has the capacity to end this, but doesn’t. There is strange fruit hanging from the tree, the fruit of our selfish, fearful, violent ways. We human beings have a lot to answer for.”
Stephen Law, The dependence of morality on religion, Stephen Law, April 13, 2007: “True, there’s evidence that religious belief can have a positive impact on social behaviour. Statistics suggest that U.S. cities with high church membership rates have lower rates of crime, drug and alcohol abuse than those with low membership rates. But that’s not yet to say religion is necessary if morality is to survive. It’s not to suggest, as Kristol and Strauss do, that without religion, society will, or will probably, fall apart. That’s a much stronger claim.”
Daniel Marquez, Ladner’s Thought Experiment, Daniel’s Journal, April 15, 2007: “Without any appeal to religion, everything must be rationalized, and tested to make sure it works. I believe this would further frustrate humanity. (Which by the way, makes the author’s of religious texts not just geniuses but hypergeniuses, because they got it right the first time–assuming there is no God).”
Ray Cotton, Morality Apart From God: Is It Possible?, LeadershipU: “A consensus of ethical norms apart from the supervision of God will eventually erode. Power begins to take over in determining our actions. Look at our government today. It is controlled for the most part by special interest groups vying for influence.”
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen
August 18th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
This is not a new problem philosophically. There’s a Moral Reasoning course at Harvard called “If there is no God, then All is Permitted”: Theism and Moral Reasoning You might talk to the Professor Jay Harris.
The course web site is
http://my.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?course=fas-mr54
August 18th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
So here’s the question for the hour: is it possible to envision a world full of meaning and morality without God?
Of course it is possible. Planet Earth does just fine — where God is nothing but a figment of man’s imagination. It is for man to create meaning and morality — we’ve been doing it for thousands of years. We’ve invented God as a way of legitimizing whatever we want to do.
As an atheist I am morally offended by those who claim to have a monopoly on morality. A good system of morality should incorporate our collective wisdom, and not the narrow minded demands of a small minority.
Do you believe that morals come from God? Abraham says no! Check out:
http://thebridget.blogspot.com/2005/05/where-morals-come-from.html
Is it a violation of biblical principles to deny a dying person food and water? No! Read the story of Jacob and Esau. Jacob is not punished for un-brotherly act. Instead, Jacob is rewarded. He even receives God’s covenant for cheating his brother.
I am morally offended by stories where reveredbiblical leaders commit acts of mass murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:56 am
There is no proof or verfiable evidence of the existence of “god” and “god” is not needed to derive morality. Our lack of understanding of nature does not constitute evidence of god. Morality derived from”god” rings hollow in that it is externally imposed (by religious doctrine/dogma) and not chosen for it’s own sake.
Morality can be derived from any number of other sources. I prefer biology. A strong “do unto others” can be derived from two conditions of humans. The first is that we, as individuals, require society to survive. We require at least the accumulated knowledge and, practically speaking, the accumulated wealth. The second condition, that I believe is unique to humans, is that the physically weaker members of our society have the capability of killing the stronger, through planning and/or technology.
The implication of the second is that we all are equal in terms of our potential to harm each other. The reality of the alpha male may be an echo of our biological past but we can no longer coherently derive our social organization nor our morality from that type of social organization.
Add to those two human conditions the desire to create a universal set of rules of behavior we call “good” (or bad) that apply to everyone i.e. morals. We now consider the ultimate equality of power between each other (our threat to eachother) and our need of each other when we think of rules to live by. It then starts to make sense that we agree not to harm eachother in various ways, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Because in the end, everyone is capable of exacting the ultimate revenge if we don’t, or they don’t.
This argument ignores the practical reality of state prohibitions on murder but that is irrelevant to the derivation. The morality comes first, the laws derive from our agreement on how to implement morality.
It is not a righteous derivation, not romantically good, or high-minded or in any way glorious. Those aren’t requirements for deciding the rules of good or bad behavior. The doctrines of socially sanctioned bogeymen, high-minded or otherwise, are not required either.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:08 am
Surely human society predates the hierarchical systems of male privilege we call religion (which as a concept isn’t much more than 2,000 years old). And clearly, early human clan-societies predate the contemporary dominant patriarchal monotheisms that arrogantly claim exclusive parentage of ‘morality’. Just as surely, the ’social glue’ of small early human societies wasn’t a code of behavioral edicts from a proto-Yahweh, but the manners most likely taught to siblings and first cousins by mothers. And I can’t imagine that those hard-working primal mothers cared to limit the love in their societies by proscribing all the natural sexual impulses that male-god religions so pathetically obsess over.
They’d have taught, through example, traits like kindness and sharing, not the callousness necessary for the objectification of persons, and certainly not your tedious, garden-variety evangelist’s medieval notions of ’sin’.
They’d have understood selfishness and have chided their children against it. They’d have recognized cruelty and done their best to protect their small clan-societies from its ravages (while likely and rightly attributing its evil existence to unmannered males). Thoughtless, selfish emotions had no place in the few scattered clans cooperating to maintain their cultures in the varied and often hazardous environments of the Pleistocene.
Any decently thoughtful human can tell you which emotions are vile and which are desirable. Attraction isn’t vile – but avarice sure is. Innocent lust isn’t vile, but jealousy sure is. It seems to me – a man, by the way – that only after men used physical size and petulant selfishness to wrest control of their clans from the mothers and grandmothers who had tried to teach them their manners did our ancestors need to begin promulgation of strict behavioral codes. (Like the last century’s arms-control treaties after too many nations got the H-bomb.)
‘Sin’ wasn’t original; it’s recent. Not to mention lamentable – as a concept, that is. A world without religion – at least as the ‘my god is bigger than your god’ crowd now practices it – is a world worth striving to create. Decency is a natural human virtue, not a religious artifact. And besides, as we see daily in the news from all around the globe, religion as currently proselytized in most of this benighted world is causing vastly more atrocities than it can ever claim to avert. Some morals.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Wow, I appreciate the wide diversity of thought. I’m new to open source, so I submit the following humbly in spirit of this blog/show. Though I don’t like to label myself, I generally accept the term ‘Christian,’ in spite of all the baggage that goes with that.
At the forefront of my thoughts is that many times the morality and religion argument is an attempt at the proof of God. This, to me, is the wrong place to start. To answer the question up front. I believe that morality is the natural outflow of personhood, which ultimately finds its roots in God. We as persons can ‘discover’ a lot of morality by looking at other people, because they are made in the image of God. To keep it short, though I’d be happy to dialog on this further, in Genesis 9 ’shedding another’s blood is wrong because humanity is made in the image of God. In the book of James you should not bless God and curse man, who is made in the image of God. However, because morality at the root is related in what it means to be persons in relationship to one another and God, this doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that you can prove God because morality exists.
In response to ChrisTover, to assume that the patriarchal stories are always about ‘teaching morality’ is a basic interpretive flaw committed by many people, Christians and non-Christians alike. Many times Biblical narrative is describing something completely different. For instance, the Jacob and Esau story isn’t about Jacob being morally superior, but perhaps it is about the importance of inheritance customs and Jacob’s desire for it. He had been deemed a greater position from a divine revelation at his birth, but still tried to maneuver and manipulate to get it. Ultimately it is a divine encounter that changes him rather than his own subversive acts at getting ahead. I guess there is some stuff about morality in there
However, many times our distance from the ancients and their culture obscures the message of the scripture.
In response to some of the evolutionary developments proposed not just of morality, but of religion itself, I think another error is being committed, similar to the first one that I addressed. Just because people are religious or are affiliated with a religion does not mean the religion caused the war. Just because hierarchical power has often oppressed doesn’t mean that hierarchy is naturally evil. To state so is to assume that there is a moral standard to judge those things by. If evolution of biology, society, and religion is true, shouldn’t the most dominant one be celebrated (as long as it remains dominant) because it has proven its superiority? We’re back to the battle of the gods.
To attempt to conclude, one of the most beautiful things about the Jewish and Christian depiction of God (these are the ones I feel most qualified to comment on) is that the essence of God’s character is not his superiority or sovereignty, or even His justice or morally, but rather his compassion, mercy, and love. For instance, when Moses asks to see God, but is told that no one can see God’s face and live, God still reveals himself, but embedded in this story is not something many expect from the Hebrew Scriptures. “I have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Thanks for allowing me these few words. I know I glazed over a bunch of stuff and would be happy to elaborate, or to shut up.
Marshal
August 19th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
“God Without Religion” - Sankara Saranam
Powerful and intlligent; a must read for all of us.
August 19th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
I was going to say with Kenneth Miller, you don’t have to settle for either/or, but you’ve had him on the original show.
So, I would then take a look at Panda’s Thumb, a group blog on evolution, and see if anyone strikes your fancy (http://www.pandasthumb.org)
A recent article by Jason Weisberg @ Slate entitled “Evolution vs. Religion: Quit pretending they’re compatible” garned quite a bit of discussion there and elsewhere — you might want to speak to Mr. Weisberg about appearing.
Also, PZ Myers, a biologist and professor in MN, hosts a blog called Pharyngula (http://pharyngula.org) and is both deeply knowledgable as well as very opinionated — and for this, I read him “religiously.”
I would attempt to suggest some people for the religious side, but a) I’m not religious at all, and b) I’m a rabid, fervent holder of the view that science and religion have nothing to really say to each other. And for me, that’s OK.
But lest I seem completely useless, you may want to look at recent research on altruism in primates (e.g., sharing, feeding, grooming) — to me, this gave a glimmer into human behavior such that “morality” (or at least living with concern for others in some small way) may indeed be more than nurture. There was a good article in the April 2005 Scientific American (How Animals Do Business by Frans B. M. de Waal) touching on some of this at least tangentially — if you can’t get it let me know I’ll send it to you.
And one more — Dr. E.O. Wilson, emeritus from Harvard, would be an interesting guest on this topic.
Sorry this is so long, but this is a topic rather near and dear to my head if not my heart.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
There has been an attempt at a universal global ethic–the Parliament of World Religions (http://www.cpwr.org/resource/global_ethic.htm.) Hans Kung, Roman Catholic Theologian has written several books in the past few years dealing with the need for a global ethical foundation–especially in the face of the forces of globalization and rapid economic transformation. Also, check out Tikkun.org and their new effort to form a network of spiritual progressives and the desire to reorient our economic system based on universal ethical principles–a new “bottom line” for our society–they are inviting religious and non-religious activists to enter into conversation about this new ethic.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
I would like to chime in. I concur with mmorse. I think you explained things quite well and wish you, or anyone, not to shut up. I think it can only be helpful for all points to have a say. I, too, am a Christian. I will even go farther and call myself a born again christian. I find it amazing how polorized people can be.
I know morality is not a proof of God. I have friends that do not know Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, who have a definite sense of right and wrong, and act accordingly. We need only to watch the news to see and hear people professing a belief in God and acting in a very immoral way. Proof of God is a spiritual thing that can not be measured through science. It is something a person “knows” inside. Knowing Him helps a person make right choices, but we only need to look as far as ourselves to know we have a free will and can decide to ignore right and do wrong, or vice a versa.
Having said that I would like to say I am a science buff. I love studing the different sciences, looking at the stars, nebulas, and what not through my telescope, and learning about all the new discoveries mankind makes. They in no way lessen my belief in God. Rather, they increase my respect and awe for His abilities. Science, as far as I’m concerned, explains how God did what He did.
As far as Evolution goes, I believe individual species can evolve to adapt to their surroundings. I have yet to see anything that PROVES we came from apes. Lots of theories, very little (if any) proof. There are no inbetweens still around; few examples of their exsistance at all as a matter of fact. Dinosaur bones seem to be in abudance though. I definitly believe they exsisted and am very glad they are not here now :O)The thought that we are all an accident seems hopeless. Looking at the way cells function, atoms hold together, or how the stars move leaves me in awe of the attention to detail that is required for all these things to happen. The chance of them happening on their own is so small that it is amazing that they happened at all.
So, where does that leave morality, God, and evolution? I believe morality is a personal choice (free will), encouraged by religions (for the most part), not a product of evolution (we can’t seem to do a lot with out some sort of gauge to measure right and wrong. I would like to submit for thought that prior to the Holacaust, most Germans would have thought killing a group of people just because was wrong. As Hitlers regime continued, more people were willing to go along with the killings because it became more “OK” or socially acceptable. After the Holacaust, everyone is shocked and discussed by the killings. Other genecides confirm the same thing. I wish I could remember the man’s name that ran a series of studies to see how much society pressures can influence a persons belief in what was right and wrong. The studies showed people who were out numbered in their opinion changed their opinion whether they were right at the start or not. I saw it on a PBS show earlier this year. Anyway, societal pressures can influence group behaviors to the good or bad is the point this long insert is trying to make. Since we seem to do this sort of thing over and over, evolution seems lame.) and not a proof of God’s exsistance (an individual need only look inside to discover a need for Him).
August 21st, 2005 at 8:43 pm
Most of the writers have said things I generally agree with, but no one seems to have precisely made the point that morality comes from reason. That’s my belief.
Exactly how reason leads to moral rules is very complicated. As societies have increased in size and sophistication, morality has “evolved.â€? Murder and other forms of physical harm must have been an issue from the outset, but incest wouldn’t have been an issue in small families living isolated from others (it would be necessary for perpetuation of the species). As population groups grew to the hundreds, the prohibitions against doing unjustified harm to others, lying, stealing, and sexual transgressions were established. However, exactly what constitutes infractions under each of those categories has continued to evolve. I don’t mean to imply that moral principles must be negative. Morality tells us to love others, and to forgive them; but the exact parameters of these are complex.
By the way, I don’t consider the Golden Rule a good example of moral principle. In some situations it may be appropriate, but we definitely wouldn’t want gays or masochists to apply it to us unless we happen to share those traits. The Golden Rule does, albeit very inadequately, give a hint of the reasoning process that leads to moral standards.
If reason is the source of morality, then obviously morality comes from God only if reason does. Assuming God exists, with regard to a given moral principle, I would say God commands it because it’s right, as opposed to it being right because God commands it. So I have no problem with atheists being moral.
Finally, religions incorporate morality, as well as theories of origins and other secular thinking. Moral principles incorporated into a religion become doctrinally mandatory, which relieves believers from analyzing or doubting moral rules. Religious authorities don’t necessarily have more insight or intelligence than anyone else, and so I tend to refrain from blind acceptance of religiously dictated morality. However, that doesn’t prevent me from appreciating the moral principles taught by religion. For example, I think one of the greatest moral lessons was taught by Jesus in the parable of the prodigal son. I believe the profound truth expressed in the parable is supported by reason, and doesn’t owe its validity to the fact that Jesus asserted it.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:55 am
” … we’re looking for good guest suggestions on the religious side, too.”
Here are two:
Ravi Zacharias — http://www.rzim.org/ravi.php — is a well regarded speaker and author that would fit in very well with your topic. I have heard him speak and read his book “Can Man Live Without God.” He has an intriguing background and excellent presence.
John Polkinghorne — http://www.polkinghorne.org — is a well regarded physicist turned priest. I have not heard him speak, but have read his book “Belief in God in an Age of Science.” He has an especially credible scientific background.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:41 pm
I cannot even believe that we are seriously considering this religion vs. science debate in the USA. This phenomenon, the funding decrease for the National Science Fundation, and other anti-science positions recently taken up by the Bush administration are taking the USA back to a European Middle Ages. We have seen what religion dominion over science has done to most Middle Eastern countries; lets hope the same does not happen in the USA.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:30 pm
If there is a God, to ignore God is the greatest moral, ethical, and rational blunder we could possibly make. If God does not exist, then to believe in him/her is going to lead to moral, ethical, and rational blunders. Either way, I believe this question is of great importance. Because I think that morality is linked to personhood (and, contrary to manning120, it must go beyond rationality in order to actually account for morality related to self sacrifice that does not necessarily benefit the group) I think an important question to ask is ‘can personhood arise from non-persons?’ (I’ve heard this voiced somewhere before, so if anyone knows the source, please remind me where this thought originates.) On the one hand I think that humans can create complex machines that blur the boundaries, but on the other hand I think there is a mysterious element that confers a high level of sentience. (An interesting pop-culture reference dealing with this topic was a STTNG episode called ‘The Measure of a Man,’ where Data is put on trial to see if he has certain rights even though he is an android.) Science may be able to tell us where life begins and ends, but can it tell us where personhood begins and ends? It is those who are in power who tend to label others as objects rather than persons which leads to moral collapse. Mass slavery, genocide, and common prejudice all find their roots in the same objectification of people. Lest you think this allows for cruelty to the environment and animals, think again, as the way we abuse other forms of life and environment actually diminishes our own personhood.
For me, morality and personhood both flow out of viewing God as person(s), which is found in the highest form of Christian theology in the beautiful articulation of the Trinity. This ancient doctrine has often been misunderstood and relegated as a dusty relic of the past. However, I think God as articulated this way is the most beautiful and true basis for personhood, and thus morality. Sure, I can imagine a morality without God, but it is ultimately going to be very difficult to convince a generation that has been told over and over again ‘you came about by chance’ that ‘if we just work together we can at least make something of this mess.’ The failure of this message to work is evident in the fact that spirituality is at an all time high. A failure of modernist ‘church’ to see any growth as a result of this spirituality is probably connected to the fact that we have failed to provide a true encounter with the person of God. I just saw an interesting article on another major news magazine that dealt with this last topic and included the statistics. I’ll provide a link if that is ok.
August 25th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Mmorse (8/22/05) asserts “morality is linked to personhood (and, contrary to manning120, it must go beyond rationality in order to actually account for morality related to self sacrifice that does not necessarily benefit the group).� This appears to argue that morality results not from a reasoning process, but from something non-rational. Religion, or religious inspiration, is the best candidate, although perhaps mmorse can explain exactly what “beyond rationality� means.
The quoted statement assumes that “self sacrifice that does not necessarily benefit the group� isn’t rational. In my post I didn’t, and I still don’t, adopt that assumption. I did discuss the idea that incest wouldn’t be immoral within a small family group needing to perpetuate the human species. Actually, what I said was that the prohibition against incest “evolved� as human groups became larger. That’s an argument that moral standards are fixed, like mathematics. But I digress.
Mmorse also says, “Science may be able to tell us where life begins and ends, but can it tell us where personhood begins and ends?� My answer is that science can provide some of the clues needed to answer this question, but the question ultimately is philosophical, not scientific. I believe personhood is defined in terms of memories. Every person’s set of memories differentiates him or her from everyone else. Other traits, such as physical appearance and psychological characteristics, because they can be shared among different people, don’t differentiate them as memories do. We can then define a (human) “person� as a human being capable of memory. Memory involves both establishing memories and recalling them. Without those abilities, a human being cannot be considered a person. The fetus, before it has the capability of memory, is a potential or developing, but not yet actualized, person. A brain dead individual isn’t a person.
This formulation doesn’t exclude God from being a person, although I wouldn’t describe God as a human person.
Mmorse then says, speaking of morality without God, that convincing people that working together will solve problems will be very difficult if people believe they came about by chance. My position is instead that by viewing morality (and the related field of ethics) as the result of reasoning about moral issues, we have a chance of persuading everyone to work together to “make something of this mess.� This is because reason is universally understood and accepted by all humans, from fundamentalists to atheists, regardless of gender, race, or nationality.
With respect to “coming about by chance,â€? the word “chanceâ€? is used to distinguish things that happen without the intervention of intelligence (human or animal or divine) from things that don’t. I fail to see how it makes any difference, if morality results from a reasoning process, whether human beings came about by chance. That’s why I think Rick Santorum’s quotation at the top of this column — “If we’re the result of chance, if we’re simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us — in fact, it doesn’t put a moral demand on us — than if in fact we are a creation of a Being that has moral demandsâ€? – is nonsense.
August 26th, 2005 at 1:01 am
BobH wrote, “…the physically weaker members of our society have the capability of killing the stronger, through planning and/or technology…The implication of the second is that we all are equal in terms of our potential to harm each other.�
Your reasoning here is flawed; mere capability does not imply full equality of potential or likelihood. From there, much of the rest of your argument falls apart.
Nikos, your imaginative portrayal of pre-history reminds me of Daniel Quinn’s “The Story of B,�… a wonderful story, entertaining and quite believable, but still infinitely short of factual.
Manning120, I don’t think that the Golden Rule suggests that if you are a masochist (your example), you should extrapolate your own desires onto others. Instead, authentic application of the Golden Rule would begin with understanding the needs/desires of others, and then meeting their needs (doing unto them) as you would wish your own needs to be met [i.e. in like manner], without assuming that their needs are the same as yours. Your illustration is self-centered, where as the GR is ‘other’-centered.
Manning120, although I respect your extensive rebuttal to mmorse, I don’t know how you can claim that “This is because reason is universally understood and accepted by all humans.� Perhaps I could introduce you to a few people I know… .J -ha! On a serious note, though, there is a lot to be learned by going “beyond rationality,� but to do so, you’ll have to loosen your grip on reason (I’m not suggesting that you need to forsake it)… and although that may sound like intellectual suicide, I guarantee a Neo-escaping-the-Matrix-like awakening into a realm where meaning and morals are rooted… but I’m getting ahead of myself.
ChrisTover wrote, “It is for man to create meaning and morality.�
There is a problem with Chris’ proposition: If man is the sole origin of his own meaning and morality [and value], then mankind not only has the power to create man’s meaning/morality/value, but ALSO to destroy them… This philosophy empowers governments (for example) to endow some with human rights, and then later take them away, or deprive minorities of those same rights… I think many of us hope that meaning, morality, and value are rooted in a more objective substance than Chris purports.
We can solve this problem by declaring that meaning, morality, and value dwell intrinsically within us and are inalienable. But that still doesn’t solve the problem of where they came from… are they emergent properties of our evolution, or where they instilled by a Designer/Creator?
Spawned in chaos, evolution [as I understand it] is initially blind to the potential advantage a mutation might offer. No creature ever thought, “Hey, I don’t know what an eye is, but it sounds like a handy thing to have, so I’ll mutate a pair… I’ll bet they will increase my chances for survival.�
This means that evolution (at least initially) is not intentional. Existence is a prerequisite of intention (not the other way around). Therefore an organ or organism’s own intention/meaning/purpose cannot be the causal force initially driving the initial evolution of that organ/organism. In fact, since intention/meaning/purpose were not part of the original evolution equation, evolution has the daunting task of explaining when/how, if ever, they entered the life-equation.
And yet intention is central to our discussion of morality. We admire moral people who, like the Buddha, intentionally forsake advantages available to them, and choose what is often a more difficult path. We admire those like Jesus, who laid down their lives in sacrifice for others. We admire organ donors, who put their own survival in jeopardy for the chance to save the life of another.
Evolution calls these people “Suckers!� while many of us consider the self-less to be the moral elite!
Since evolution/mutation initially occurs at the DNA/cellular level, evolution certainly can’t be considered to behave in a socially consciousness manner. The (hundreds of-?) thousands of extinct species are monuments to the fact that evolution does not rise in defense of the weak, as most moral codes require of us.
Moral behaviors/attitudes, such as compassion, which mmorse so eloquently wrote about above, do not arise from the cold laboratories of chaos or evolution…
So, are we willing to selflessly consider the alternative: a Personal Creator of us, and our meaning and morals?
I don’t know. Some of us would rather die with white-knuckled fists full of nothing than open our hands and minds to something or Someone greater than ourselves.
August 26th, 2005 at 9:28 am
I find the last line of the previous post — “some of us would rather die with white-knuckled fists full of nothing than open our hands and minds …” — condescending and offensive. I did not grow up with religion and so have been free to figure out a lot of things on my own. I have a very highly developed moral sense — more so than so many so-called christians (um, Bush?!) — that just keeps developing as I get older. It is based for the most part on the golden rule and how I think a pleasant and civilized society should work — in other words, let’s be nice to each other, let’s be generous and thoughtful and try to help each other when possible, let’s think more of the greater good than our own individual gain and immediate gratification.
So, contrary to what Think seems to think, I don’t have an empty existence. I *have* opened myself to something greater than me — society in general, the health and well being of the planet and future generations. That’s enough for me, thank you very much.
August 26th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
I think things are getting a little too heated. A friend of mine has a saying that goes something like this: “Conflict is inevitable, combat is optional”.
By choosing our words more carefully, we can have a discussion.
I am a Christian and I believe Christians do a lot of good in this world. To be continually beaten down is silly, and might I add, immoral (that is if we can see kindness at the root of morality) Every religion, including secularism, has it’s fanatics and hypocrits. Let’s just leave it at that.
Think does bring up a good point (although I think you would get farther by using a less condesending way of expressing your views) I would like an evolution minded individual to address. We admire those who are selfless, but evolution is not in anyway selfless, how then can morality come from evolution?
I would also like to know if we keep repeating genecide, how is evolution at work there? We must be really slow learners.
August 27th, 2005 at 12:22 am
Morality: God given or evolved?
Provided that by the term “God given� we convey a deterministic component to morality, then I would say that perhaps both possibilities of morality being God given and evolved are quite plausible and in some ways the same! If morality is, in Spike Lee’s terms, “Doing the Right Thing!� then many organisms, depending on their degree of socialization, do exactly that. They tend to do those things that are not only “right� for themselves but also right for their species as a whole. This may indicate a natural tendency for morality. Survival of the fittest doesn’t simply apply to individual organisms in those cases. In highly socialized animals and insects such as bees, ants, and many mammals including the higher apes (yes, including but not limited to human beings) altruism is a byproduct of their nature. Here, a soldier ant, wasp, or bee may sacrifice itself for the sake of the colony. This seems counterintuitive from an evolutionary sense, where natural selection depends on the survival of the gene. But the higher calling in these cases is beyond that of an individual organism, it is a function of the species as a whole.
So, although social Darwinism alarms us of the horrors of natural law, this may not necessarily apply to human nature. Of course, within us are plenty of examples of humans not living up to their human ideals. I’m sure it’s true among ants, bees, and wasps as well, where some soldiers may go wondering on their own, abandoning the ways of the colony. But as a whole, there maybe a direction to our sense of morality and deep down, most of us may already know what “doing the right thing” entails.
Another interesting example of this source of innate knowledge comes from the archives of genetics. In mammals, there are specific genes in mammals that allow for caring for the young. These genes amplify feelingsthat regulate the feelings of parents towards their offspring. This has been demonstrated in mice, where a knock out of that specific gene in experimental animals results in indifference towards the offspring (mice push away the litter trying to nurse, do not nest and cuddle, and otherwise recognize them as “unrelated”).
So, given these facts, I rather paraphrase the question of God-Given vs. Evolved to the question of nature vs. nurture. Rather than comparing the Gospel of a designer against the mechanisms of science, we need to ask ourselves the following questions: Are we born with a sense of ethics or do we learn such concept as a result of culture? And leaving things to our own nature, would we act like beasts or would we have an inherent sense of fairness? Of course, higher morality is learned. But we first need to answer such fundamental questions irrefutably before moving on to the details. This way, we may end up with more debatable questions, rather than debating questions that lead to the dead end of faith. Debates that compare religion and science eventually lead to the concept of faith, where rational reasoning succumbs to the notion of blind belief. Comparing apples with oranges has never resulted in a meaningful debate unless you are a farmer or a food engineer.
August 27th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Well said, Endoman! I started to write something similar, but you’ve said it much better than I ever could.
Another example, albeit slightly strange — cannibalistic tribes that clearly outlaw the practice within the tribe. Not acceptable to harm those within your smaller society, but certainly desireable when dealing with other tribes or individuals who are perceived to be a threat. Basically the same as our moral system dictates (though we don’t have the post-fight BBQ).
Which brings me to another thought — most of the current debate is based on the idea of a modern, christian-based god. How to explain the fact that our most basic mores have survived the millennia and been reinterpreted via countless theologies? Back to the cannibals — their beliefs obviously weren’t handed down by a christian god.
This is a GREAT discussion.
August 28th, 2005 at 3:40 am
The question of the hour, which Catherine wanted us to discuss in this comment thread was described as,: “is it possible to envision a world full of meaning and morality without God — or do they have to come from God?�
This clearly is an important question, something that countless philosophers have pondered and attempted to answer with pure analysis. Kirkgaard asked the following loaded question: “Why wake up in the morning?!� It’s interesting to wonder about how ethically we would live if there existed no omnipresent, pleuripotent divine being deserving of our worship. And when we look at it that way we begin to see that the question of morality goes far beyond the notion of fairness in our daily interactions, it goes hand in hand with the question of meaning in life. Why are we here? and what does it all mean? Perhaps that’s why religion is so attractive to many people; while science attempts to explain the how in things; religion aims to answer the why in them. This makes religion a powerful remedy to our insatiable appetite for knowing our place in the universe in a more meaningful way than our physical distance from extrasolar planetary objects.
However, I think that although religion had an important role in forming the early fabric of society, codes of conduct, morality, or ethics aren’t necessarily linked to the existence of a God. Even the Godless communists lived their daily life fairly and ethically. The society did not break into chaos just because they abandoned the need for a God. The Codes of Hammurabi were written by cultures that did not practice the brand of monotheism fashionable today. Monotheists, Polytheists, dualists, pantheists, and even atheists and pagans live for the most part according to the ethics of common sense. Social principals that encourage us to live ethical/moral lives aren’t the exclusive property of organized religion; they are common sense principals of rational thinking that allow us to live with our fellow human beings under the same roof.
Martin Luther King said: “Justice was created for the sake of peace, not peace for the sake of justice!� If this statement is true it becomes clear that we reap the benefits of our morality in this life in the form of social justice, which results in peace, not in some abstract afterlife where we are rewarded for being just.
As I mentioned in a previous post there may even exist an inherent sense of ethics in all of us. This could in fact be a byproduct of us being social animals, living in packs and our tribal mentality. This has never been truer than today, as we live in large, complex cities. Ironically, a city works in a similar fashion as a living organism. Every component has a function like a body comprised of cells, tissues, organs, and systems. If each individual is a cell, it’s the collective function of each cell in various levels of organization (tissue, organs, systems) that allows for the survival of the body as a whole. In this urban setting, interactions among the members follow a set of ethics as described by the law of the land, so peace is maintained and the city flourishes as a whole. This is why many people live in the city, do not believe in any form of devine presence, act philanthropically and ethically, and contribute to the advancement of the city. On the other hand, many free-riders take advantage of the system. This is not due to the absense of God, it’s probably due to the weakness of human beings. Afterall, prists, ministers, rabi, and imams, as well as many other religious leaders are fully capable of less than moral behavior.
August 29th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
Wow, this is quite the forum. Manning, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I would like engage in some further conversation related to Manning;s post, to return to the original question, and to posit a friendly challenge or two.
First off, I can imagine morally virtuous situations that go beyond rationality. For instance, in a classic ‘lifeboat’ situation, would it be rational that a young professional doctor jumps out of the boat so that an uneducated unemployed 60 year old could stay in it and live? I argue, that it may not be rational in any sense that she do so, but she would be most virtuous to give her life for others, particularly if they were not willing to do the same. In this way, I am suggesting that morality must go beyond rationality. Perhaps virtue goes beyond morality, as I might not deem her immoral for not wanting to sacrifice her life. At any rate, it is food for thought.
I do think that memory is a very risky thing to base personhood on. If memory is lost, is the person lost? Should we treat the mentally deranged as less than true persons? This seems like dangerous ground. Perhaps if you could expound more I would be more open to this possibility.
I do think of chance as related to randomness, and ultimate absurdity in the philosophical sense. How can we say that to exist is better than to not exist? How can we say that diversity is better than uniformity, unless we think that we must keep certain gene pools around in case we need them for future evolutionary or social development? And, once we master genetic engineering, why would we even need anything other than our elite selves. It appears to me that again the ‘one in power’ is the only one who can set morality in such evolutionary / chance based systems. How can we say there is good and bad, if we are merely doing what we are programmed genetically or socially to do? I’m not into biology too much, but maybe I’ve completely misunderstood survival of the fittest. (BTW, I hope you understand the nature of the tone that I ask the questions above, it is because I truly don’t understand the answers, not because I’m attempting to say that it isn’t possible through rhetorical method.) If there is a set of universal rational morality we should be able to diagram it with mathematics .. which sounds really fun!
To answer the initial question, and to pose my challenge: I believe it is may be possible to imagine a moral system without God if we can answer the questions posed above, but I do think the moral system would look very different, and would probably favor the strong. Through all this we must keep in mind that even if we can imagine a moral system that theoretically could function without God, ultimately if there is a God then to operate in a self-made moral system without him leaves us treating the ultimate Person as a Non-Person.
Just to avoid flames let me acknowledge that people who don’t believe in God can have meaningful lives and relationships, and even be very good and harmonious people in society. I think this because human personhood reflects Divine personhood, and therefore we have capacity for this even if we don’t acknowledge its ultimate source.
Oh, one more thing. I read a great article last year about monkeys having an inbuilt sense of fairness, but unfortunately the only examples given had to do with the monkey that was given a cucumber instead of a grape being upset…evidently the one who got the grapes didn’t worry about fairness so much. Really!
August 29th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
To KeepMoving, who wrote:
“We admire those who are selfless, but evolution is not in anyway selfless, how then can morality come from evolution?”
I would offer only this: perhaps morality stems from empathy, which, if it isn’t unique to humans, is certainly pronounced in our species. Empathy must surely stem from consciousness, which is also certainly pronounced in our species. And consciousness is an organic outcome of stardust, water, and sunlight combining becoming not only complex but self-aware — that’s the earth, including us — and therefore is one varation (of many) of evolutionary process.
Ergo, morality, through empathy and consciousness, indirectly comes from evolution. It’s not ‘an evolutionary goal’ (because nothing is), but it’s certainly one of evolution’s outcomes. And, like coral reefs, or gardens, and anything else we might deem beautiful, it’s an outcome worth treasuring — and weeding. ‘Morality’ that denigrates others is nothing ‘moral’ IMHO. The world’s major religions seem to differ with that humble opinion, however.
God? No, just us, I’d say. Although by ‘us’ I prefer to think of the earth in its wholeness, and not the isolated, orphaned ‘us’ of the Adam and Eve paradgim. Morality, warts and all, is an earthly product. A human product.
August 29th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Nikos, can self awareness and empathy arise from dust without external forces? Can personhood arise from non-persons? Do we have any actual examples of this rather than hypothetical? I think such complexity might arise that we may not be able to determine if it is truly conscious (AI) … , but the greatest forms of life seem to be born of or created by things that are alive and sentient seem to come from things that are already alive. I’m just thinking ‘out loud’, I’m not familiar enough with cloning & biology, perhaps there are examples there you could refer too.
August 30th, 2005 at 12:51 am
mmorse Says:
“…can self awareness and empathy arise from dust without external forces?”
Thanks, mmorse, for a chance to articulate this a little further (and I hope someone else will pick up the thread where I leave it, and take it to heights of articulation I can’t hope to reach. Please! Somebody!)
The late philosopher Alan Watts liked to point out that just as apples cannot come into being without and apple tree, the idea of a stupid universe creating intelligence is nonsensical. In other words, the potential for intelligence is inherent within the universe, and just because we haven’t yet devised methods to scientifically discern and and quantify this potential doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. (Didn’t germs and virsuses exist before microscopes? Or galaxies before telescopes?) In this, many of us on seemingly oppositional sides in this blog-debate might find common ground: the universe isn’t blind and stupid, and humans aren’t a bizarre, randomly improbable accident. Every speck of life originates in an environment that births it. An environment that creates it. But that doesn’t validate the concept of ‘god’.
Like most of us, I’ve seen slivers of the cosmos revealed by telescopes, and slivers of the microscopic cosmos. The idea that some quasi-human ancient-king-like mind created all that staggering infinity is, in all honesty, as prespoterous as the notion that the sun, moon, and planets revolve around the earth. (Thank-you Liz Tracey!)
I was raised with weekly exposure to two different strains of christianity, and was sent to two different Sunday-schools. I’m not wholly ignorant of this country’s dominant religion and its many claims. But the sort of universe that science has shown we’ve grown within, the sort of universe that has come into self-awareness (us) by combining its energies and substances as has happened on this particular globular nook we call home, bears no plausible relationship to the gods of the morality-police called clergy. Especially not the relationship of a ‘Divine Father’ to His (o-so-wayward!) progeny. (And just so you know: the clergy I was intoduced to were kindly, caring people — although their gods, as their holy books described them, weren’t. It didn’t take any genius on my part to eventually understand that the god of the bible was a stern father archetype crafted by human monarchs in their own images.) Anyway, that sort of petty, jealous god — more interested in restricting and policing women and their natural sexual instincts than much of anything else (besides insisting that all non-beleivers convert or die) — doesn’t fit the universe I’ve been lucky to see through the gifts of human-made technology.
As an attempt to give it a sense of proportion: would you expect a two-year old to be write a novel? That’s pretty close to the sort of difference I see in the world described as ‘made’ by the bible’s ‘Almighty Creator’, and the universe we’ve discovered since.
And look, I’m not saying it isn’t mystical or magical. But ‘He’ didn’t craft man from clay — the magic of evolution did it.
The universe did it. All by itself.
Stardust, water, and sunlight transformed itself into increasing complex interactive organisms — and not machines like our unimaginative technologically-dependent similies say — but ORGANISMS. Not artifacts put together by a stern-father mega-mechanic, but living processes that grow from within. Living processes that then procreate in ever increasing diversity. I mean, what else are the all countless variety of species this planet has spawned if not variations of stardust, sunlight, and water? They began and evolved from the solar system’s inherent potential for them.
They SELF-Created. We are their progeny, blessed (and somtimes cursed) by self-awareness.
No, in the universe I see around me — the universe that is at once my parents, my sibling, and my-SELF — intelligence, consciousness, and empathy don’t need an external god. No one mind could have created all this wonder. Everything, and everyone, you see and feel is the universe looking in a mirror. Everything. And ultimately, the most persuasive moralities take this as their starting points: that harming another for anything less than self-preservation is immoral because it’s essentially the same as harming your sibling, or mother.
Not to be preachy or anything…
August 30th, 2005 at 5:14 am
Allow me to practice jujitsu on this juggernaut, but first I must deliver a blow to Santorum’s bs: “If we’re the result of chance, if we’re simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us — in fact, it doesn’t put a moral demand on us …” Ah, grand PooBah, if the Designer has perfected the Universal Machine, then why is it imperfect? How about: My . Dad . Was . Chance, but that’s the last time you’ll be callin’ me a mistake, cowboy.
Is anyone else outraged that we have this rhetorical retard guiding policy? Does my future happiness depend on how many angels dance on the head of a pin, or whether God wrote the rules, or whether a big bang started it all? Where the hell is that good old ‘merican pragmatism that says “I can see what you done ain’t been good for the most of us?” ‘Stead were caught up in some funky monky deliberations about whether “chance” precludes morality. LAY OUT YOUR ARGUMENT, Santorum baby. Prove to me that chance and preference can’t build structure, can’t craft beauty, can’t find harmony. Better yet, WHAT DOES MORALITY MEAN TO YOU? Perhaps we’d do fine with less theory and more INVESTIGATION!
RANT OFF
Now for the jujitsu. Let’s go social-scientific on this dude. Morals must be defined more broadly than “what the bible says,” otherwise we gots us a clear-cut case of a theocratic tautology. Thank God Satan didn’t write that Bible. So if we look at moral and immoral atheists, and we look at moral and immoral (what! no such thing?) theists, which has a higher steady state morality over the generations? Which transmits morality better? I’m serious ’bout this! I really want to know!
August 30th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Thank God Satan didn’t write that Bible.
What makes you so sure his minions didn’t? (While disguised, of course!)
August 30th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Nikos, your description of a self creating universe was so very…spiritual sounding. You seem to want to claim an intelligence without personhood and rationality without mind. A place that just ‘is.’ The ‘God’ you are rejecting certainly sounds small, and seems to warrant rejection, but He/She is not the God of Christianity, the Bible, or of me. Perhaps you are rejecting a perverse modernist or even medieval misrepresentation of God, but not the kind of God that I have experienced.
In spite of the rant I also agree a bit with Grandabound…morality must think more broadly than what the ‘Bible Says’ because all too often it has been those in power who have misconstrued scripture to twist it to their own ends. As a professional Biblical theologian (but not the fundamentalist type) I am quite often upset with how often scriptures are misinterpreted from people on both ends of these types of debates. However, I’ll save my lecture on interpretive methodology for another group.
I’m going to take yet another shot at the initial question and to provide some logic for why I feel chance leads to destruction of meaning and morality. I am not saying that an evolved universe would lacking order, but rather that it would be difficult to find meaning in an ultimate sense. For instance, either matter/energy, or God/gods is eternal (perhaps other non-western religions could contribute other options.) If matter is eternal then meaning would arise through the evolution of consciousness, particularly (as suggested so far, in memory and empathy). I see a couple of difficulties with this:
1. the basic idea of complexity arising from inert matter
2. consciousness arising from non-consciousness
3. with the death of memory and existence, significance would also go away. IE, if everyone affected by an immoral act was gone and forgotten, then the significance/meaning of that act would disappear. So, morality can exist only among those with memories. Therefore, meaning is only transient, and ultimately when the universe returns to baseline, will disappear. The act of murder and the act of love are ultimately left on the same ground. As long as persons exist then meaning can continue, therefore, in this system one of our greatest significant acts would be to perpetuate memory…so maybe the ancients had this part right with their high concern for posterity.
However with an eternal God, because personhood and the actions of each individual have a more profound impact. Personally I think this shows that the theist conception of morality is higher than that of a socially evolved moral system.
I am open to critique, as I feel as though I am learning a lot through this whole process. Please avoid the rants though.
August 30th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Nikos wrote: “But the sort of universe that science has shown we’ve grown within, the sort of universe that has come into self-awareness (us) by combining its energies and substances as has happened on this particular globular nook we call home, bears no plausible relationship to the gods of the morality-police called clergy. ” I would like to address your comments on this “sort of universe”. I am currently taking college courses and have just finished several science courses. I think you would be interested to learn that if the earth was a little closer to or farther from the sun it wouldn’t exsist as we know it. This does bear witness to the clergy but to a God who did take the time to make sure we were safe and sound and wanted us to find out more about how he did what he did. Taking science classes, which is my absolute favorite subject, only leaves me in awe of his great power. And on a side note, becareful not to judge God based on mankind. He’s perfect, we’re not. Because we chose to interpret the Bible to fit our needs doesn’t make him flawed. Were so flawed that we make excuses for genecide. Some blame it on God’s Word. Which honestly sounds like an attempt to NOT accept responsibility for our own actions, since it is the interpretation that is flawed. I blame it on the flaw of man’s selfishness apart from God’s word. As far as women exploring their own sexuality, well, with all the STD’S out there, maybe keeping sex in a marriage isn’t a bad thing. Some of your interpretations of the God of the Bible are off too, but that is another blog:O)
This brings me back to one of my original questions. How can evoution be responsible for morality? Evolution claims we began as premortial (excuse my spelling, I really do like science a whole lot more than english!) goo. Eventually we became what we are. If evolution is responsible for our morality, we are really really slow learners. Genecide has taken place since the beginning of time. We have not stopped it, no matter how often it horrifies us. It is almost always based on some sort of predjudice. And now is being played out in a much more horrific way in suicide bombings. People are targeted based on the area they live in or frequent, and they are killed just because someone has a prejudice against them. No group is exempt from this behavior. So, again, how has evolution affected that? I can say, I have seen amazing changes in a person who based their relationship with Jesus Christ on Jesus Christ and not on what someone else told them they should believe about Jesus Christ. A person who was once angry and hateful learns tolerance and acceptance based on their relationship with Christ, not the clergy, and not a genetic switch over. In this way, I have seen morality God given.
September 1st, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Wow, this is kind of a phenomenal comment thread. It may take us another little while to get this show on the radio, but we’re working on it with your help.
September 9th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
The debates about whether or not ethics are “God Given” or human derived is thrown into sharp relief when it comes to environmental ethics. Environmental ethics asks simply: “As humans, how should we act in the ecosystem?” Or to phrase it in a slightly more extended form:
“As a participant species in an intricate and complex system, which we are only beginning to understand, how should we behave as responsible citizen-creatures in a system we did not create, we cannot control and we must not destroy?”
Environmental ethics challenges the validity of all existing ethical systems and forces us to reconsider all received wisdom from the ethical traditions of the past.
As Bill Coffin has pointed out repeatly, “Nobody has the authority to destroy the world. All we have is the power to do so.”
How. then, can we devise ethical norms to inspire effective forms of self-imposed, self restraint to keep us from destroying the environment that supports us? This is the great ethical challenge of our day, and we will be exploring this with students from all over the world via the Internet in this semester’s online course on “Environmental Ethics and Land Management” — see
http://ecojustice.net/2005-ENVRE120/
The events surrounding hurricane Katrine clearly indicate that we have a lot of serious thinking and public discussion to engage in very, very soon if the ethical fabric of western civilization is to be seen to have any meaning whatsoever.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Think (8/26/05) objects to my statement that the Golden Rule is not a good example of moral principle.
“I don’t think that the Golden Rule suggests that if you are a masochist (your example), you should extrapolate your own desires onto others. Instead, authentic application of the Golden Rule would begin with understanding the needs/desires of others, and then meeting their needs (doing unto them) as you would wish your own needs to be met [i.e. in like manner], without assuming that their needs are the same as yours. Your illustration is self-centered, where as the GR is ‘other’-centered.�
The Golden Rule (I believe it goes, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you�) doesn’t say you begin with understanding the needs/desires of others. It says you begin with what you want others to do to or for you. I think its necessary to understand that “the needs/desires of others� may differ from your own, but the Golden Rule doesn’t say that. Furthermore, the Golden Rule leaves it to the individual to determine what’s right or wrong according to the formula. I think we need more than just leaving it to the individual; we need the individual thinking rationally about circumstances and consequences and making considered, coherent judgments as to what should be done. Again, the Golden Rule doesn’t expressly call for these things.
If you want the Golden Rule improved upon, then I think you should re-right it instead of trying to read into it what the words clearly don’t say.
September 14th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
Those who suppose that morality or moral obligation is ultimatedly rooted in God’s nature or will (from Tolstoy, to Keirkegaard, to Aquinas) would suppose that goodness cannot exist if God doesn’t exist. Yet, the way that the question is posed here doesn’t offer an exhaustive disjunction. Morally might easily be both God-given and evovled. The many theists who suppose that evolotion is compatible with God’s existance might well argue that the values that govern our flourishing just are the ones evolution has selected. The either or your looking for might be Morality: God-given (or bases) or not. Tolstoy, of course, said that trying to found morality without God is like trying to get a flower to grow without its roots. The question you might be getting at is that if evolution fully explains moral value, then we need or don’t appear to need any other explanation, i.e., we don’t need God to support morality. It might be interesting to have a philosopher like Robert M. Adams (Yale, now Oxford) on who defend what is called divine command theory, a view that supposes moral obligation must ultimately be based in God’s commands. Such a position clearly would imply that Morality is God given. Here is some information on Adams: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/robertadams.html
C. Steven Evans at Baylor has also just written a book on Divine Command theory. there is a jumble of thousghts on this topic
September 16th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Holding seemingly conflicting beliefs is something we do all the time and probably cannot avoid. Our very reasoning is by reference to models and metaphors that are necessarily indirect or incomplete insofar as such models themselves are not equivalent to whatever might constitute non-tautological truth.
While our scientific models have come to have considerable “how to� utility, even they have not seemed amenable of logical unification. And, it seems even more clear that our spiritual models (about God and/or morality) have not come to unified appreciation or guidance for what should be the “why to� for our moral choices.
Even our interpretations of sensations are indirect — thus, models. The very idea of an “I� is a model; whether “you� have existence in correspondence with Truth or God or Existence may be naught but a notion or model. “You� might be naught but an expression of Truth’s imagination.
While our various models serve various utilities, none combine into any unified, exact representation or correlation with non-tautological Truth. So, the more interesting question might not be whether we can envision a belief in morality without a belief in God. Of course we can!
Rather, the more interesting question might be whether morality itself can exist without an existing God. To “answer� that question, human logic will not take us very far. To “answer� that question may require a spiritual, not consistently definable kind of faith, insight, intuition, or vision. But, how can purpose, meaning or definition be attributed to words such as “meaning,� “morality,� “spiritual,� or “intuition�? Do such fuzzy concepts somehow spill over from appreciating that “something� seems to synchronize our experiences of disparate models that seems beyond logical unification within mortal reasoning? Maybe God might know, not me.
From mortal perspective, I see no more logical rationality for believing that morality may exist than for believing that God may exist. In other words, IT HARDLY MAKES MORE LOGICAL SENSE TO BELIEVE IN MORALITY WITHOUT GOD THAN TO BELIEVE IN MORALITY WITH GOD. Rather, insofar as we have no choice but to act on (or believe in) models, the choice for what model (to leap to believe in) may be defended or tipped based upon utility.
If the desired utility is to promote forums for working out common, civilized appreciations for what is moral, then the church forums that arise in respect of a Golden-Rule-God-belief would seem to win the tip. Against anyone who would profess that morality exists but that God does not, simply ask: how can it be rationally supposed that any supposed evidence for an existence of morality is better than any supposed evidence for an existence of God? Or, how can one scrupulously believe that we are better off not be believe in any basis for scruples?
September 17th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
OK, I’m guessing no one can address the fact that if morality comes from evolution, why do we keep killing and harming each other. If morality really came from evolution, why do we have to pass laws to make it clear we expect moral behavior to continue? I think that proves the point that morality must come from some place other than evolution.
September 17th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Dlanorrenrag (9/16/05)says the difficulty of proving that morality exists is as great as the difficulty of proving the existence of God. This appears to lead dlanorrenrag to the conclusion that we ought to choose whatever “model� is more useful (“. . . insofar as we have no choice but to act on (or believe in) models, the choice for what model (to leap to believe in) may be defended or tipped based upon utility�). Dlanorrenrag accordingly finds that “the church forums that arise in respect of a Golden-Rule-God-belief� offer the proper vehicle for resolving moral issues.
The existence of morality and the existence of God are very different things. Morality is a set of concepts (rules or principles) governing how one should think and behave with regard to oneself, other human or non-human beings, and the environment. While people can disagree as to whether any proposed moral formulation is correct, no one can deny that moral formulations exist. God, on the other hand, is a being encompassing much more than concepts, and controversy about the existence of God has continued for centuries.
I think the most useful position is one of agnosticism as to whether morality arises from God. As I asserted before, the immediate source of morality is reasoning. It’s not necessary to get into unresolvable disputes about how we got the ability to reason. We should focus on addressing moral issues by using our power of reason, however we got it. We need to convince people like Rick Santorum to do this.
By the way, I apologize for the Freudian slip in my 9/13/05 post (I meant to say, “If you want the Golden Rule improved upon, then I think you should re-write it instead of trying to read into it what the words clearly don’t say�).
September 18th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
The trouble with “God given” ethics is that it is very difficult, indeed, perhaps impossible, ever to know what they could possibly be. The issue is not trivial. It goes to the root of theology. What is it that we mean by “God?”
As Voltaire is reputed to have said: “If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated.” In short, the only kind of God that humans customarily accept as recognizable looks a great deal like themselves.
From what other source, then, might we derive legitimate principals of moral behavior? This is what many people from different religious and secular traditions will be exploring through an online course in environmental ethics:
http://ecojustice.net/2005-ENVRE120/Environmental-Ethics-Announcement.html
Is it ever possible for humans to develop a non-anthropocentric ethic? Is it ever possible for them to survive in an ecosystem for long without one?
Tough questions but we have to address them, and we need to begin with asking, “What is the appropriate context for Environmental Ethics?”
http://ecojustice.net/2005-ENVRE120/Earth-in-Space.htm
I hope many will join in the conversation.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:09 pm
“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
John Stuart Mill
Mill goes on to write that this idea of utility extends to are tendency to promote “general happiness.” We tend to promote a general happiness in our society through a feeling of “duty” and a hope of pleasing. This idea reminded me of something Sartre wrote in “Existentialism and Human Emotions.”
“Existentialism’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.”
Jean-Paul Sartre
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:14 pm
are? uhhh… our!
October 12th, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Whether behavior exists in a consistently definable moral sense seems debateable. Regardless, we tend generally to “leap to believe” that morality is a real, valid, or practical concept. But, for us to agree to “correct” or “best” ways to answer specific moral dilemmas, I doubt cold reason, logic, or science can lead us where we want or need to go. Rather, I suspect moral answers tend to arise out of a participatory process. People seem to need to take their concerns to a participatory forum. For a forum to attract participants, it needs a commonality for inspiring participants.
It may not matter so much whether the commonality is comprehended as that it is appreciated. It may not matter so much whether a point of common moral reference (such as God or Higher Decency or morality) can be proven or comprehended as that it can inspire and be appreciated and respected. A society can more likely cohere regardless of inability to prove either God or morality, provided the society appreciates a fundamental moral reference.
For many, it may be enough that God cannot be disproved, especially when, to some, God seems intuited.
One problem with utilitarianism is that it is merely an impersonal concept, which tends not to inspire one to wish the greatest good for the greatest number when the cost is borne by one personally.
October 21st, 2005 at 8:06 pm
I would like to suggest Dr. Michael Shermer as a guest speaker for this show. He is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, and has a long list of credentials. Dr. Shermer does speaking engagements on and has authored several books on the psychology of religion and science-vs.-religion type issues. According to the Skeptics Society website, http://www.skeptic.com, Dr. Shermer’s book, The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Share, Care, and Follow the Golden Rule, is about “the evolutionary origins of morality and how to be good without God,” which seems to sum up the basic subject matter of this debate. There are directions on the Skeptics Society website on how to invite Dr. Shermer to speak. http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/invite_to_speak.html
October 25th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
Is an action wrong because God forbids it or does God forbid it because it is wrong? Also a person doing a good deed without God in the equation may be doing it with greater purity of heart - simply because it is the right thing to do. While the religious person’s motivation may be clouded by fear of punishment or hope of reward.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
All of these arguments were gone over in my phil 101 class and i can tell you i found the answers we came to easy enough. god given morality has so many holes in it you could use it to strain noodles. a simple run scenario…
Jesus (the real not fake jesus) comes to you and says “stab your child till they die”
do you do it? If you dont you are violating a direct order from god, because if god told you to do it, its a “good” thing to do.
Most of us would not stab their own child, no matter who told them to do it. Hence morality is not based on faith or god or any super natural power.
As far as an evolved “morality” i can tell you this, human kinds biggest threat is to its own kind. other humans use the same resources you do, take up the same nich in the environment that you do, and compete for the same reproductive population that you do, hence it is only natural that we would fight with each other over things. the same way monkeys and insects and bacteria do. morality is a function of human invention. much in the same way that airplanes and cars are. we invented morality because it is useful. it keeps us from killing each other (too much), and allows us the time to get things done.
November 1st, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Ian Barbour, retired professor of both religion and science and winner of the Templeton Prize, is always worth hearing on the interrelationship between scientific theory and religious beliefs. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9342050?tocId=9342050
November 21st, 2005 at 7:27 pm
There was a very interesting article on precisely this topic in the December, 1989 Atlantic Monthly. Written, I think, by Glenn Tinder. That would be a person to talk to. As to the topic itself, I fear it is just another way of asking if God exists. I also think there is a strong possibility that whoever you book as guests will talk past each other. Religious and secular people define morality or “goodness” in ways that pre-judge your question. Still, just listening to them try to come to a common understanding of terms would be interesting.
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Is it possible to envision a world full of meaning and morality without God — or do they have to come from God? Not only is possible to envision a world full of meaning and morality without “God�, we have empirical evidence from which to draw this conclusion.
Consider Buddhism; an avowedly atheistic tradition established on the precept of moral behavior. An ancient and enduring tradition that predates Christianity (i.e. the teaching of Jesus the Nazarene) by several centuries.
Morality is a conceptual construct of human necessity, deriving from the needs of, and benefiting the development of society (i.e. the clan, tribe, village, city, nation, state – that which permits and perpetuates the existence of the individual). Morality is therefore appropriately viewed as ancillary to, not derived from or produced by, evolution.
Consider the epistemology. The English word “mores� is defined as the customs and habitual practices that a particular group of people accept and follow. It derives from the Latin mos; referring to the will and inclination. The word “particular� suggests the relative nature of morality. It is concerned with the nature of right and wrong within the context of human relations (to each other, the environment and divinity) within a specific culture at a certain time.
Senator Santorum’s statement is primarily an existential one that seeks (confusedly) to associate morality with “purpose� in an attempt to postulate “a Being that has moral demands� on us. This is the hallmark of egocentric-anthropomorphism that misapprehends the true nature of being.
And finally to address the question, “Morality: God-Given or Evolved?� To what do you refer when you say “God�? Can someone please define “God� for the purposes of this discussion? For what has evolved more in the previous 6000 years than the human notions of God? And if morality exists at all, how could it not evolve?
November 26th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
I am a refugee from the Intelligent Design shows. I can’t believe I read this whole thread! There are some very interesting thought- provoking posts here.
So here are my two cents worth.
If you hold a literal or non-metaphoric interpretation of the Bible you might take offense so forgive me. The God that some here ( and R. Santorum) speak of seems anthropomorphic in the sense that this God is created in the image of humans by humans. This God is imbued with human traits like intelligence and the ability to design as well as give laws, a sense of morality purpose and give solace. In other words this is God serves as a parent- guide.
Evolutionary biologists would hold, I believe, that humans created God out of a need after evolving to a degree of self consciousness or awareness from lower forms . Existential questions arising from that awakening are still very much with us and unanswered but for the answers that come from God and religion/s. The questions; Who are we (who am I)? Where did I/we come from?, Why are we here?. Where are we ( am I) going?, sentiments echoed by R. Santorum quoted above, invoke a fear and trembling in some about the possibility of life being meaningless. God and religion give to some answers that calm and give guidance bring us back from that bleak, unbearable, possibility.
Many manage to find answers within themselves without this concept of God, outside of religion. As “flow” above says there are other ways to calm the soul such as the Buddhist way through meditation. I disagree with “flowâ€?’s conclusion however that “morality is therefore appropriately viewed as ancillary to, not derived from evolution”. If God, the need for God, comes into the mind of man from an evolutionary awakening,which I believe it does, then morality must be a result of evolution as well.
I have trouble with the question posed because I have trouble with the dichotomy “God-given” and evolution. For me they are the same, from the same source or Source. The Source from which God as well comes, a source that embraces or includes all that we know and do not know, all that is.
The questions ( Morality: God-Given or Evolved? Is it possible to envision a world full of meaning and morality without God — or do they have to come from God? Do meaning and morality come from the top down or do they percolate from the bottom up?) imply it seems, a definition of God, a God or even a process that is incompatible with evolution. I reject that division.
Santorum and others view evolution as threatening: chaotic, random, meaningless. This idea of what evolution implies then brings back all the anxiety that belief in God relieves. So no wonder we are having this problem.
If you see this all as a whole, you do not have a problem with evolution or anything else we may come to know in an honest way such as through scientific inquiry.
Maybe the Dalai Lama can help us. ( Robert Thurman, our expert on Tibetan Buddhism)
November 29th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Oops! please replace the first sentence of the 4th paragraph of my previous post that reads “Consider the epistemology” with “Consider the etymology”. (Must have been a floydian slip).
Thanks,
Floyd
December 21st, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Have any philosophers or scientists considered whether Homo erectus or earlier forms had moral systems? If you go back far enough, for example back to when our lineage was still squarely in the prokaryote camp, I suspect morality wasn’t high on the agenda. And some of my best friends are prokaryotes, I should add.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:14 pm
I would be interested in making sure the Jewish right, not just the Christian right is heard from on this show. I find their positions fascinating and unpredictable and, frankly, I want them engaged in the debate so that I can figure out how to debate with them. So, how about inviting David Klinghoffer. He wrote, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. And, he has a new book coming out on the 10 Commandments. And he has written countless essays on the Talmud and morality for conservative magazines. I want to learn how to talk to people like this.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:30 am
“Put differently — in fanya’s words — do meaning and morality come from the top down or do they percolate from the bottom up?”
I am going to take morality out of my comments: As someone who believes in God, I think that meaning goes both ways. I believe that God’s purpose is to help us progress in the eternal scheme of things, but our finite understanding stymies our ability to comprehend sometimes why things happen the way that they do (like death and when bad things happen to good people (and vice versa)). Personally, I believe that God is only happy when we progress, and He is saddened when we choose to digress. Also, I feel that in order for us to progress beyond this state-of-being, we need God. He is the ultimate source of our ability to grow and continue on beyond this life. Thus, He is also a source of meaning — just as we are a source of meaning for Him.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Daniel Dennett (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/~ddennett.htm) deals with this subject also in his book Freedom Evolves.
January 14th, 2006 at 1:07 am
>> So here’s the question for the hour: is it possible to envision a world full of meaning and morality without God — or do they have to come from God?
January 17th, 2006 at 1:53 am
Yes Grasshopper, I do think it is possible to both envision and live a moral and meaningful life adopting a non-theistic philosophy. Unlike western religions Buddhism does not involve an overiding deity.
In a public talk I heard the Dalai Lama give in Vancouver BC he talked about the importance of teaching ethics to our children regardless of our belief system or lack of belief system. He said, you would not expect someone who has never been taught to sit down and play the piano perfectly or instantly do complex mathmatics without being taught. In the same way people need to be taught ethical behavior. He often talks about developing secular ethics. The benefit of kindness is recognized in the reality of our interconnectedness.
For me personnally as a lay practioner of Tibetan Buddhism deep looking into reality through meditation, the effort to cultivate commpassion, studying the dharma, these practces bring meaning to my life.
January 17th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Here are a few direct quotes of H. H. Dalai Lama that I thought seemed relevant to this discussion. They are from his book, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality.
on darwinisn…
“I feel that this inability or unwillingness fully to engage the question of altruism is perhaps the most important drawback of Darwinian evolutionary theory, at least in its popular version. In the natural world, which is purported to be the source of the theory of evolution, just as we observe competition between and within species for survival, we observe profound levels of cooperation (not necessarily in the conscious sense of the term). Likewise, just as we observe acts of aggression in animals and humans, we observe acts of altruism and compassion.
Why does modern biology accept only competition to be the fundamental trait of living beings? Why does it reject cooperation as an operating principle, and why does it not see altruism and compassion as possible traits for the development of living beings as well?”
p 114
on the ups and downs of consciousness…
“I said to one of the scientists: “It seems very evident that due to changes in the chemical process of the brain, many of our own subjective experiences like perception and sensation occur: Can one envision the reversal of this causal process? Can one postulate that pure thought itself could effect a change in the chemical process of the brain?â€? I was asking whether, conceptually at least, we could allow the possibility of both upward and downward causation.
The scientist’s response was quite surprising. He said that since all mental states arise from physical states, it is not possible for downward causation to occur. Although, out of politeness, I did not respond at the time, I thought then and still think that there is yet no scientific basis for such a categorical claim. The view that all mental processes are necessarily physical processes is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact. I feel that, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, it is critical that we allow the question to remain open, and not conflate our assumptions with empirical fact.”
p 128
H. H. Dalai Lama - The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Thank God for the Dalai Lama’s voice of reason
January 20th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
I question whether it is so that modern biology only accepts competition and rejects altruism and compassion…..
I also question whether all scientists feel that it is not possbile for downward causation to occur from mental states to physical states. I believe for instance that it is at least suspected if not proven that trauma/post traumatic stress disorder/ anxiety disorders do change the brain and that these changes can be reversed or healed somewhat through medication/meditation-stress reduction techniques.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Potter: “I question whether it is so that modern biology only accepts competition and rejects altruism and compassion…”
I think it’s due to the “life is a machine” metaphor that even medical doctors — who, if anybody, should KNOW BETTER — unconsciously believe.
“The Human Body: The Incredible Machine” was a PBS series a few years ago. Talk about misiniformation!!!
Life isn’t a machine. It isn’t constructed — it grows from the inside out. It’s ORGANIC.
It’s LIFE, not mechanics. It is capable of empathy and of empathy’s offspring altruism. Machines, no matter how we try to anthropomorphize ‘em, can’t do that. So why the hell do we continue to equate life with machines?!
SHEESH!
Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves — but for very good reason.
See ya, pal.
January 24th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Great question, and great thread. Intelligent Design is often discussed in the context of science - i.e. is it scientifically valid, and should evolution and ID be taught side by side? Less discussed are the implications of ID for religion.
It seems to me that in framing itself as a scientific theory, ID brings along a lot of the baggage of science: it would reify God just as science reifies the external universe. In both cases, there is held to be an existence outside ourselves, whose “realness” supercedes our perceptions and subjective experience.
I think the advocates of ID - fundamentalists and bilblical literalists, for the most part - would also like to give moral laws the same immutable “objectivity” as natural laws.
In my opinion, religion consists of a moral dialogue - with each other, and with God. We do not “know” God through experimentation and hypothesis testing. Rather, God becomes part of our lives through worship, through our own rituals of belief, and by our appreciation of others’ ways of believing. Do we need an objective God to exist apart and aside from our beliefs?
At another level, the “objective” nature of science is, itself, a product of an ever-changing dialogue that takes place according to certain fixed rules (the scientific method). No modern scientist would assert that we “know” nature with any certainty. Our knowledge consists of provisional statements, always subject to change. Nature is no more certain than God.
The ID advocates say that science leaves no room for morality. I think what they mean is that it leaves no room for moral absolutism. Science in no way impedes our ability to discuss moral questions, practice moral behavior, or direct our hearts, minds and prayers toward God.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:19 am
Morality is merely archaeic ethical notions frozen in widespread cult behaviour, induced by a vast conspiracy of artful con men, in service of their personal and cult-collective greed for power.
Morality would be of no consequence if it were not for the fact that like news and fish, ethical standards need to be fresh to avoid being toxic. Morality, because it seeks to freeze social norms in a time warp 2000 years behind the contemporary world. is inevitably hoplelessly out of step with real modern problems.
Consider, for example the moral resistance to birth control and abortion rights and the unrestrained overpopulation of the planet that they foster. Morality’s con men in a blind competion for world domination through unfettered birthrates among the faithful, are leading us straight toward a world where we can only subsist by drinking our own urine.
January 25th, 2006 at 2:40 am
I just finished reading Edward O. Wilson’s book Consilience, in which he addresses this very issue. Wilson’s way is admirable because he seems interested in a conversation. As a previously devout Xian who was converted to Darwinism in his 20s, Wilson understands the transcendental POV, and he understands the fear transendentalists have of a moral vacuum and moral relativism. But he has a solution.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:27 am
George Robertson: Yur a JEEN-yus!
Right On!
(And i thought I was incendiary. HA! I bow to you. Good work. Let’s see more of it, please.)
My only quibble with your otherwise spot-on sacred-cow slaying is that the bulk of the moralists aren’t so much interested in power as simply making a living. To hear what I mean, check out the ‘This American Life’ website and look for a December (or wuz it November?) show about bishop Carlton Pearson: American Heretic. Give it a listen.
It’s both moving and amusing.
And terribly enlightening. (And I chose that last adjective quite deliberately.)
January 25th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Mr. Robertson, may God bless and keep him and all iconoclasts, is referring to an absolutist morality, which he correctly sees as being manufactured by a power structure for the purpose of social control.
But we don’t need to accept that definition of morality. From his political views, I’m going to guess that Mr. Roberston is a moral person. He believes, perhaps, in the rights of the oppressed, in freedom of choice. He feels compassion for people who suffer. He is upset by poverty and violence, especially when they result from the abuse of power and the drive to accumulate wealth. These are moral positions.
There are those who wish to lock up the moral dialogue, to exclude views like those I’ve attributed (I hope not wrongly) to Mr. Robertson.
We can’t let them do it. We can’t bow out of the conversation. We need to show that it IS a conversation, that morality is not a fixed set of laws that someone else writes. Religion is too powerful to leave to right-wing ideologues. There is a need for progressive and radical religious thought.
What does God expect from man? We do not need to accept the answers Rick Santorum or Gerry Falwell would give to this question.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
What does God expect from man? The premise of that question reflects a patriarchal worldview excluding women altogether. It is worth noting that fundamentalist theologies across the board tend toward a so-called morality that seeks to control and deny power to women.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
peggysue:
RIGHT ON!
January 27th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
The Questons:
Morality: God Given or Evolved?
Whose morality? God’s? Whose God? (Your name here?) Whose Evolution? Darwin’s?
The answers: YOURS, YOURS, YOURS
Note: All the content herein is my not so humble opinion (which is part of my current worldview but is always open to emendation), except where it jibes (jives) with other’s so that qualifying “IMO�’s will be unnecessary.
Morality is basically (sans nuance, Nikos) the value judgment of right (good) and wrong (bad) actions (adjectively it can apply to abstracts, conditions and objects.) These valuations are part of the larger set of polar or opposite principles that seem to be fundamental in physical reality.
(True/False, Positive/Negative, Yes/No, Love/Hate, Pleasure/Pain, God/Devil, Righteousness/Evil, Arrogance/Humility, Black/White, Straight/Gay, Male/Female, Rich/Poor, Sick/Well, Something/Nothing, 0/1, Wave/Particle, et al.)
Based on their beliefs about reality, humans tend to sort their ideas & experiences into this binary system. As can be seen some of the pairs lend themselves to “Good/Bad� value judgment and some do not (they’re just complimentary – the reason I include these pairs is so you can examine and reflect on your individual beliefs about them.) As Nikos notes, one’s 1st exposure to applying values to these binary principles (particularly right/wrong & good/bad) is from one’s parents, extended family, elders, teachers, clergy, etc. who have their own beliefs/prejudices as to how you and humanity at large should behave. For a child, this information is necessary for physical survival and must be handed down from parent to child in order to protect it from dangers that are obvious to the adult (these beliefs are the parent’s/adult’s concept of the nature (and perils) of existence – e.g. early man says to children: Predatory animals (or humans) are dangerous (bad) – don’t go out alone, don’t tell lies (wrong) (insert archetypal “moral� object lesson: The Boy Who Cried Wolf.) Modern man says: Don’t take candy from or talk to strangers (bad) they probably are less than well intended. Streets are dangerous (bad) – don’t cross the street without an adult. Don’t disobey me (wrong) - I know what’s best for you and I am only concerned for your wellbeing. To an adult, ideas about right/wrong are generally more akin to behavioral guidelines than absolutes, but to a child dogmatic acceptance of these beliefs is a biological (not evolutionary) imperative. To a child adults are LARGE, certain, and seem godlike, and unquestioned acceptance is usually (preferably) the norm. As young peoples’ conscious minds become mature, it is natural (and necessary) to question ALL beliefs and to assess their relevance in relation to themselves, others, and their environment. Beliefs are merely structures in which various kinds of experience can be weighed or tested as to their validity. The preponderance of adults ignore or gloss over this process and still hold a vast number of childhood beliefs unexamined or questioned. The idea that morality is “God Given� predominates in many (most) peoples’ belief systems today. In all but the Eastern philosophies, this is primarily due to Judeo-Christian or Islamic dogma. (In the west this was/is especially reinforced by the Roman Catholic Church dicta for the last 1000 years/Protestant – (RC Lite) for 400 years.) For this reason, I refused to expose my 3 children to organized religion. The origin of these “Religious Morals� comes from “Creation (Creationist’s?) Myths�
Creation myths have a common thread. They represent the transition from the collective unconscious (animalistic instinctual focus) to conscious (reflective, self-aware, human ) being, with free will, and choice - the qualities crucial to physical survival, absent instinct.) The God/Lucifer (Bearer of Light or Prince of Darkness?) separation, “Original Sin� and Adam & Eve’s fall from grace are familiar to most modern (western) people. The “eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge� is the birth of “morals�, ignorance is no longer bliss, the knowledge of “good & evil� and the responsibility for one’s actions is mandated. (This must mean that morality is, heaven forefend, “God forbidden� then grudgingly allowed to be retained after it was usurped by those disobedient rebels (duped by that crafty snake) – not exactly freely given!!!)
The fact is: YOU create your own morality through choice, design, or default.
All life with the exception of humans is innately moral. It operates instinctively with its own neutral (natural) logic and “just is�. Any attempt to infer moral behavior arising in other than humans is a projection of the beliefs of the inferrer. (I am aware that there is altruistic appearing behavior in various animal groups – but I maintain that this is also a projection (Hello Dalai?) This obviates Darwinian Evolution - assuming it actually exists however I reject this faith based (baseless) belief (Darwinism is as faith based as ANY religion’s beliefs) as a source of morality. Man does tend to create “his� (grammatically rendered with gender-neutral PC intention) God in his own image and humanity and consciousness does evolve (in the etymological sense – unrolls i.e., changes and refines its beliefs to become more aware of its role in the “Multiverse�) so one could say that morality in that narrow sense evolved (is evolving.)
In other posts (E.O. Wilson, 12/21/05) I separated the Morality definition into 3 three categories: 1.) Religious, 2.) Ethical, and 3.) Absolute in order to distinguish among putative God Given directions (as variable as each religion’s concept of God’s proscriptions), Secular societal customs (again variable by each social group’s consensus) and a meta-category which applies to ALL humans irrespective of Religious or Societal affiliations. For the purposes of the following, I am equating “Morality� with 3rd. As previously implied, I consider the other 2 categories’ “moral values� neutral except when they coincide with the 3rd (as with ALL values; individual and mass beliefs charge the concept.) As Shakespeare notes in Hamlet “There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.� (A neutral value judgment.)
Morality also spawns the sense of GUILT so people may reflect on the results of their less than ideal actions. Morality requires memory of the results of one’s past actions so that the individual in the present may anticipate (project) the results of similar actions in the future. The purpose of GUILT (not the Jiminy Cricket, Parental, or Religion based conscience type of guilt) is to remind us: Don’t repeat this less than IDEAL action again. As humans have traded instinctive behavior for conscious, and have free will, a moral code is necessary (again in the 3rd absolute sense.)
I’ll attempt to alleviate the fears of Andrew Schamess and George Robertson regarding my absolutist beliefs. (Even if these beliefs were to be forced on the populace they could no be abused (stated by Andrew Schamess interpreting George>> “by a power structure for the purpose of social control.�)
Aside to George: I’m not so sure that the >>�vast conspiracy of artful con men, in service of their personal and cult-collective greed for power� are that artful or conspiratorial – I’ll give you the self-serving greed for power. However, if they believe that >>�blind competition for world domination through unfettered birthrates among the faithful� is viable, they are conning themselves (although the Western secular form of democracy (dictatorship of they that care to vote) could easily become a casualty.)
This is my proposal for the Absolute Morality: (I resist the urge to prepend facetious “Thou Shalts� onto these propositions.)
1) Do Respect and Honor ALL Life/Nature.
EVERYTHING in the universe has purpose, meaning, and an innate right to exist. (No need to invoke God or Evolution)
2) Do EMPATHIZE with others in all transactions. (Thanks for the concept, Nikos).
Consider the effect of your actions vis a vis others. Don’t take advantage of people via trickery or superior intellect. This is the root of the Golden Rule – no tit for tat.
3) Do not kill more than is needed for physical sustenance.
I believe that most people would agree that the deprivation of life for gluttony (1 of the 7 “Deadly Sins�) is less than ideal and should be discouraged.
4) Do not commit violence on yourself or others, life, or the environment.
As Nikos quoting Isaac Asimov notes: Violence is the last resort of the incompetent (or ignorant.) I would add that violence also is produced by a feeling of powerlessness (actual or perceived) on the part of the perpetrator. It also is the product of aggression that has been built up over time instead of naturally expressed when appropriate. Aside to George Robertson: I would consider overpopulation a violation of this “rule.� Overpopulation is unsustainable and is frequently balanced by such less than ideal measures such as genocide and disease locally, wars and pandemics globally.
5) Do not attempt to attain an IDEAL by violating any of the above propositions.
The “All of the above� Meta-rule - IDEAL ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY LESS THAN IDEAL MEANS.
Salutations and Peace to ALL – Ramen to Nikos
January 28th, 2006 at 2:03 am
First we need some definition. Morality is how we treat other people. Holiness is how one keeps the tenets of one’s particular religion.
To evolve is to change. One can see change in morality in the Bible itself, from the Old Testament to the New. The focus of morality in the Old Testament is on how one treats one’s family and tribe and keeps the Commandments of God, and its God is a jealous god. The focus in the New Testament is on how one treats one’s neighbor; its God is a loving and forgiving god. The God of the Old Testament puts holiness and obedience above morality. Jesus puts morality above holiness and on a level with obedience to God.
Constantine conquered Jesus’ Church by taking advantage its divisions over dogma, creating the Holy Roman Catholic Church. For the next thousand years or so, obedience to state and church was obedience to God and placed way ahead of morality, which ranked somewhere below holiness. With the rise of Protestantism, and later secularism, Catholic doctrine began to put obedience to church and God slightly ahead of obedience to the state, but morality still trailed behind.
Still, throughout, morality itself remains relatively unchanged; it is based on treating others as one would wish to be treated. It is inherent in our nature as human beings. No one wishes to be assaulted, murdered, stolen from, cheated, lied about or lied to. As time goes on, our circle of concern has widened or narrowed, and our relative emphasis on morality has waxed and waned. But morality remains eternal. For those who believe in God, it must be god-given, but it is given to all.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:09 am
Rycke: when you say: “morality itself remains relatively unchanged; it is based on treating others as one would wish to be treated. It is inherent in our nature as human beings. No one wishes to be assaulted, murdered, stolen from, cheated, lied about or lied to”, are you saying that morality is linked more to empathy than to a god’s decrees?
(It seems so — especially this: ‘It is inherent in our nature as human beings’ — which, to us non-god-believers, is spot on.)
I’m grinnin’ from one ear to the other.
(Thanks!)
January 29th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
A problem with morality being handed down from God is how God’s morality is interpreted and how human beings enforce that interpretation. For example, there are today learned religious men who might perceive my wearing fingernail polish as immoral and take it upon themselves to do God’s will and cut off my fingers. In cases like this, where morality is handed down from “Godâ€? morality does not equal empathy.
In Europe during the middle ages many thousands of mostly women, but also gays & gypsies were tortured and killed by “men of Godâ€? according to those men’s interpretation of God’s handed down morality. If morality is handed down from God, to whom is it handed? Who is qualified to interpret God’s handed down morality? As they tie me to the stake and light a fire beneath my feet do I say, “Hey! wait a minute! Are you sure that’s what God meant? What about empathy?â€?
January 29th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Talk with Tom Clark, the Center For Naturalism.
recently quoted in WSJ
http://www.naturalism.org/
Talk with Colin McGinn
He appeared in Jonathan Miller’s BBC Rough History To Disbelief
http://philosophy.rutgers.edu/FACSTAFF/BIOS/mcginn.html
Talk with Hector Avalos
http://www.geocities.com/rpfa/aveng.html
author of Fighting Words: The Origins Of Religious Violence
http://www.prometheusbooks.com/catalog/book_1682.html
Talk with Pascal Boyer
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/index.html
author of Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/basic/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0465006965
January 30th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
In my rush to post on Friday night, I omitted a key word in the explanation of Absolute #2. It should read no “vengeful� tit-for-tat. (The vengeful JHVH of the OT take note. The “God the Father� of the NT has obviously mellowed after having a kid (they often have that effect) and “turn the other cheek for tat� is now preferred.)
February 2nd, 2006 at 10:57 am
Having read many interesting thoughts and comments about morality on this forum, I still think that the both ’scientific’ and ‘religious’ viewpoints avoid to go to the core of the question.
Question to the ’scientists’: you don’t accept religious foundation for morality, but how can you distinguish between good and bad based on rationality? In absence of such a basis your moral is in the same ‘belief realm’ as religious morality.
Question to the ‘believers’: how can you combine the concept of the ‘good’, ‘loving’, ‘omnipotent’, ‘omniscient’ creator with so much ‘evil’ in the world? Why did supreme being create such an universe where ‘evil’ exists and reigns?
I know, these are old and trivial arguments but I haven’t read any clear, reasonable answers on them…
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Elric: at the risk of exposing myself as a simpleton, I would answer you by restating this.
Would you care to be raped? Stolen from? Beaten for someone else’s fun? Jeered for how you look? Stoned to death for showing an attraction to someone?
Such questions I think must have come first in morality’s most ancient evolutions; sacred sanction/codification followed later, to give these ‘empathy-products’ (for lack of a more imaginative/poetic phrase) cultural weight.
Only later, it seems to me, after hunter-gatherers had evolved into pastoralists and farmers did their ancestors’ original ‘golden rule’ kind of morality become subsumed under the rubbish detailed in textual barbarities like Leviticus. Only later, I think, did morality come to include unending male obsessions over female sexuality — which, looked at analytically, can at BEST be called barbarisms. (And at worst: sanctified atrocities.)
February 2nd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Elric: just to be clear, what I’m trying to posit (while multi-tasking) is that proto-morality must have existed in the homonid species prior to the (questionably named) H.sapiens — but since ‘property’ as a concept is possibly (or probably) a H.sapiens invention, we must imagine that these proto-moralities didn’t include rules against theft, but probably focused on simple issues of manners — of interpersonal conduct.
“Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” is a cliche, sure, but it probably formed the foundation of pre-sapiens hunter-gatherer proto-moralites.
Also, it is posited (albeit questionably) that earlier hominids couldn’t make the link between sex and reproduction. This is probably condescending rubbish, but it’s a possiblity nonetheless. After all, heterosexual doesn’t INVARIABLY produce pregnancy, so perhaps pregnancy was considered an outcome of sex + divine intervention. Later, perhaps, agriculture offered to the increasingly dominant men the famous and unfortunate paradgim that Woman is Man’s furrow. (Yech. Of course none of them could know that the ovum is a relative giant waiting only for a jolt of DNA from a puny little sperm.)
Anyway, much of what passes in patriarchal cultures as ‘morality’ is, in this view, a very recent layer of sexual obsession — and of worries over property too, which couldn’t have been much of an issue to nomadic hunter-gatherers (as we know from contact with such cultures recently).
I know this is terribly incomplete, but I gotta get back to my little ole life for a few hours.
February 2nd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
oops: that was meant to be: “After all, heterosexual SEX doesn’t INVARIABLY produce pregnancy,”
sorry
February 2nd, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Nikos, thanks for your reply, but what I like or don’t like doesn’t have to do anything with the truth values of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’… (This reminded me a joke when missionaire asks an aborigen about what’s good and what’s bad. Answer was: if I kill that guy and take his wife it’s good and if he kills me and takes my wife it’s bad). How current morality evolved is a minor issue. Most important is the metaphysical aspect of the question: does good and bad ‘really’ exist? Do they have any inherent values? The thing that I don’t like to be beaten or ridiculed doesn’t mean that beating or ridiculing etc. are ‘bad’!!
So, I think that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are just our arbitrary, mental projections and the ‘moral’ is just a set of relative rules to keep the society in some kind of power balance i.e. the rules are for the weak.
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Elric:
yeah, I reluctantly have to agree. Conservatives scorn what they call ‘moral relativism’ with the same ferocity that Muslims excoriate blasphemy, but both those examples are entirely products of self-serving perspectives: i.e., the Universe revolves around my God (and therefore around me and my beliefs).
Anyway (and nothwithstanding that this thread’s topic is whether morality is ‘god-given’ or a product of evolution), here’s one my favorite personal solutions to what I take to be your unanswered query (It’s from Phillip Lieberman’s ‘Eve Spoke’ - a book about the evolution of human brains and language):
But the time of Eve is long past, in terms of both human life and of human culture. And the question that currently faces us is, What use will we make of speech and language? Evolution itself has no direction. The old creation myths will not suffice. We are not the lords of creation, made in god’s image because we talk, masters of the birds and beasts, which cannot speak. The purpose to human life is surely that we must use the gift of speech, language, and thought to act to enhance life and love, to vanquish needless suffering and murderous violence—to achieve a yet higher morality. For if we do not, Eve’s descendants will reach their end, marking another brief, failed “experiment� in the long evolutionary history of our planet.
And no other creature will be here to sing a dirge or tell the story of our passing, for we alone can talk.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 pm
One last crack at it (for now, anyway):
Priestess, priests, prophets and prophetesses are all, like it or and believe them or not, voices of their deities. To a secularist like me, it’s pretty darn obvious that these voices create their deities to serve, by sanctification, what they deem to be the needs or morals or righteous causes of their peoples. As I’ve suggested above, ethical interpersonal behavior was surely the mother of ‘morality’, which, as Jazzman insists, is a religious product. That’s fine. Yet the deities live entirely in the minds of their voices and believers, making morality a human product. And therefore evolved.
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Yes, I can say that the search for the ‘Truth’ has brought me to relativism/nihilism and that’s why I can’t be satisfied with inconsistent and not thorough assumptions and ideas: even the topic of this thread is not really clear and rational and lies in the realm of belief. As everybody would agree God and God-given morality is mostly matter of belief but let’s don’t forget that evolution is still a theory, successful and kind of rational but still a THEORY (especially the so called progressive evolution) and in order to accept it we still need to BELIEVE in it!! So there is no big difference if we base our morality on religious BELIEF or scientific BELIEF, neither gives us the understanding of the truth values of good vs. bad.
And Nikos, you as well operate with the ‘a priory’ notions which don’t have any foundation except belief: e.g. ‘higher morality’, ‘gift’(this word implies giver: do you mean God?), ‘love and life’ vs ’suffering and violence’…
And in one we have to agree with the critics of the evolution theory: if there was no Supreme Being - Creator, the Meaning-Giver and the universe is just a product of a blind chance than there is no Purpose and Meaning for our lives and if we are vanquished or not from the face of this planet, it really DOESN’T MATTER!
February 2nd, 2006 at 7:29 pm
To you last crack Nikos:
Not only priests but ALL of us create our deities and beliefs and than we start to serve them, make them our way of life, fighting for them, imposing them on others as ultimate truth etc.
Only way out from this ‘evil’ circle is the razor of nihilism which will expose and free us from these illusions…
February 2nd, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Elric wrote:>>So, I think that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are just our arbitrary, mental projections…>> Elric, well stated, I agree, and that’s the crux of the point I was making in the 1st part of my rather lengthy analysis above - nice and tersely put. Because I read OS posts during my lunch, and can only post once on weekdays about 7PM EST, I attempted to explain my concept of the “origin of human’s moral beliefs� in 1 fell swoop, rather than put out controversial conversational squibs in a running dialogue of posit, wait for critique, refute, and explain. Consequently this makes for lengthy expositions and I apologize if they are tedious.
I expected a rebuttal from Nikos but perhaps he agrees with my analysis, or is too busy opining on other OS topics. (With all your blogging, how do you find time to work on your novel, Nikos?)
Elric says: >> the ‘moral’ is just a set of relative rules to keep the society in some kind of power balance i.e. the rules are for the weak.>> I would venture that the “Morals� (1st & 2nd definitions) are a set of rules to keep the UNbalance of power in the favor of the “moralizers� (they don’t consider THEIR morals relative at all.) I would also emend the i.e., to state “the rules are for they that do not question them!!!� or “the rules are for the weak as they FEAR without rules, they and everyone else would run amok!!!� Note: These rules are purported (not by me) to be either provided by God or Evolution and conditions seem to be quite amok despite people’s fear of retribution for the failure to observe them. I would close by again submitting that the Absolute Morals address the metaphysical aspect of not good and bad (as you already know that these attributes are personal projections or beliefs) but “Ideal� and less than “Ideal�.
As I went to post the above I see that Nikos has misquoted me and states that I insist that “Morality� is a “religious product�. I stated that Religious Morality is tautologically a religious product (foisted on the believers) as opposed to ethical morality a secular societal product (usually backed up by the LAW except in loopholes (semantic ethics/justice)). Merely labels for differing moral origins. I see that Elric is not convinced that Evolution is an indisputable fact or Proven (hah) science as Potter believes. Give me a chance and I’ll have you questioning it as well, Nikos. I don’t have time to address the Nihilistic/Existential aspect of reality/illusions, however I have definite opinions. Home beckons – later y’all.
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Elric: I wouldn’t know an ‘a priory’ from a ‘b movie’, so I fear you lost me there. But don’t answer yet.
First let me say that I find meaning enough in human existence by my comprehension that I’m simply one (of billions) of entities comprised of stardust and water and powered by sunlight, and aware of itself as something we’ve arbitrarily distinguished as ‘human’. You and I are the universe aware of itself. Moreover, I don’t think this is unique to this planet – hell, I don’t think dolphins or dogs are unaware of themselves either, ftm. But we humans not only have the ability (it’s a ‘gift’?! are you sure?) to communicate about this, we obsess over it too. In this obsession, we wonder how our parents came into being, confer supernatural characteristics to these miraculous beings (and grandparents too), and then as we mature become jaded and partially forget our parent worship, substituting archetypes we call deities to make up for the sense of loss.
(You ever heard of a creation god that was an Uncle? Or Aunt?)
Anyway, I, like you, don’t believe in what you called ‘progressive evolution’ either (if I understand what you meant, that is). This is putting the cart before the horse, just as someone earlier in this thread did by marveling that God had made the Earth’s orbit exactly what it is to keep us safe from freezing or roasting. As if ‘he’ created the solar system millions of years early, in anticipation of his human likenesses one day emerging from clay to take on the serious business of suppressing our natural instincts and stoning our wayward women in order to earn our free pass to an invisible paradise.
Yech.
Evolution isn’t a pyramid with humans on top. The human form was not predestined in any way.
Is that what you meant by ‘progressive evolution? If so, I’m with you, pal.
Anyway, as the universe aware of itself, it seems to me only decent to treat my fellow beings with the same respect I’d like shown to me. Which makes Phillip Lieberman’s passage from ‘Eve Spoke’ something I’m quite happy to aspire to.
That good enough? You don’t have to agree—I’m not out to convert you. I just hope to make clear my appreciation of life-on-earth something sublime and glorious yet not divinely given—unless said ‘divine’ is pantheistic, in which case I’m already on the bandwagon.
Jazzman: sorry if I misquoted you. Sometimes I think that I know what you mean, but having packing peanuts for brains is, to understate it, an impediment. It’s not your writing, I don’t think, it’s my cogitation, or lack thereof.
‘Opining’? How nice. Polite. ‘Embarrasing myself’ is more like it.
As for my novel: it’s in a ‘fallow period’. Which is what? – a euphemism for ‘if I gotta look at that friggin’ page of junk again I’m gonna upchuck!’
But no worries, it’s actually quite a decent effort, it’s just that beginnings of novels are harder to get right than middles, and I’ve been trying to perfect the beginning lately because the middle is already quite good. The first dozen pages are a whole nother issue.
So, ROS is my opiate. And blogging, I’ve found, allows me to write in a freer voice, which ultimately helps the first-person narrator of the novel. So there!
Anyway, I’ve ‘absorbed’ your offerings more than consciously ‘accepted’ them, and will not quibble any further. But forget trying to disabuse me out my appreciation for evolution: I see its evidence all around me every day, whether I’m cutting and splitting wood (we live in mild western WA, and heat with electricity plus a woodstove) or running through the forest behind the property. Although I don’t believe we understand the whole business yet. And that’s fine too – some future genius with incisive knowledge of DNA will win likely a Nobel Prize for working out the minutia.
Does your ‘Ideal’ vs. ‘less than Ideal’ jibe with the Lieberman quote above? I want to assume so, but, well, my packing-peanuts problem always give me cause to wonder.
Finally, I appreciate most of what you write (even where I quibble) and think you should know it.
Oh, and I’m still someday gonna wrestle with my fuzzy thinking on that issue still left hanging on the E.O.Wilson thread, but now I’m not sure where I’ll post it. Maybe I’ll post it in that same archived thread and give you a heads-up here (since I don’t think Santorum’s ever gonna follow through after his staff has surely discovered that this site is populated by the likes of infidels like me—this thread will be open for months!)
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Nikos wrote: >>having packing peanuts for brains is, to understate it, an impediment. It’s not your writing, I don’t think, it’s my cogitation, or lack thereof. ‘Opining’? How nice. Polite. ‘Embarrasing myself’ is more like it. >> An aside chide: Lay off the self-deprecation, there’s nothing wrong with your brain – being opinionated/and sharing those beliefs is not a cause for embarrassment. It’s a process – how else will you reach disabusement? As you stated, you have empathy for the abused (I may have something on that later) and have been on the receiving end of abuse – you’re definitely in need of DISabuse.
BTW why should I forget trying to shake your FAITH in “Darwinian Evolution� i.e., “Progressive Evolution�, since that topic (Intelligent Design actually) was the catalyst to cause me to join ROS, over the last couple of months, you, Elric, and ALBY (so prolific but a tad cynical at times), seem to be the most open minded of the bloggers. I doubt you are too immune to reason that you won’t entertain the possibility that it is a faith-based belief of the Religious Aspect (Cult) of Science – albeit a deep seated and widely accepted dogma in western culture. Off topic: What kind of woodstove do you use? As a W/S aficionado I used to prefer Ashley or Jotul. I was living on a farm in Vermont with my friend Eric Darnell when he invented the FreeFlow stove which thru physics and “evolution� combined the best aspects of both stoves with the firebox enclosed in a heatilator matrix made out of diesel truck exhaust pipes, it was/is fantastic. Check it out!!! No time – gotta go – check you next week.
February 4th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Re: self-effacement: thanks for your concern, Jazzman, but it really isn’t necessary. My ego isn’t hurting, and, besides that, it’s shielded by the relative anonymity of my ROS-tag (‘Nikos’).
More importantly my self-reproach is apt for two reasons:
1. On at least of couple of recent occasions I fully deserved it.
B. I’m actually hoping to demonstrate (however lamely) that like Car Talk’s Click and Clack, those of us with the audacity to offer opinion or ‘expertise’ to a national (or global) audience ought to have the ability to laugh at ourselves. Otherwise we regulars of the ROS blogs take ourselves much too seriously, pouting and fuming and writing juvenile insults to other nearly anonymous ‘foes’ whose (equally shielded) egos often seem as fragile as our own. Others feel insulted enough to ‘drop out’ because the tenor of the debate gets too heated: ripostes go quickly from (quasi-) humorous to toxic. It’s as silly as it is regrettable.
III. So there.
We don’t know what the woodstove make is! It came with the house. It’s big, black, and cast iron. It’s a square box that I’d estimate at about three feet to a side. (Is that nine cubic feet capacity? No, more isn’t it? Math isn’t my forte!) I love it though, because we can burn fires in it continuously for six or seven weeks before the ash-build up necessitates a shoveling-out. Nice, huh?
I gotta run for now, but I’m looking forward to your nihilism offering—if only because the concept is incomprehensible to me! Explain, please!
And stay warm.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Nikos, I think, with your selfaware universe concept you are entering into religion from the backdoor
(Something like Spinozian pantheism?!)
Nikos wrote: “Anyway, as the universe aware of itself, it seems to me only decent to treat my fellow beings with the same respect I’d like shown to me. Which makes Phillip Lieberman’s passage from ‘Eve Spoke’ something I’m quite happy to aspire to”
Although I can understand and maybe like what you say, still in order to be consistent, clear and rational I can’t help but call your statement a BELIEF! And have to repeat again: religios, scientific, personal or whatsoever beliefs are just personal mental projections, nothing else… (and mostly induced by background, education, society, masmedia etc.)
p.s. Nikos wrote: “Anyway, I, like you, don’t believe in what you called ‘progressive evolution’ either (if I understand what you meant, that is). This is putting the cart before the horse, just as someone earlier in this thread did by marveling that God had made the Earth’s orbit exactly what it is to keep us safe from freezing or roasting. As if ‘he’ created the solar system millions of years early, in anticipation of his human likenesses one day emerging from clay to take on the serious business of suppressing our natural instincts and stoning our wayward women in order to earn our free pass to an invisible paradise..”
Those guys have point there. At lest from ’scientific’ point of view. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
February 6th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Elric: Belief?
If I am not cosmic material (condensed subatomic energy), and powered (like all life on this rock) by sunlight, then WHAT AM I?
Imaginary?
By the way, I don’t believe in ‘the soul’, which to me is a meme signifying a product of wishful thinking: an eternal ego-consciousness; but not a real, measureable entity. If I have an eternal ’soul’, it’s the subatomic energy making up my atoms and molecules — subatomic energy that mutates in form and pattern, but can never be destroyed.
In other words, I don’t consider myself an entity with a body — I AM this body.
Please ponder this before replying (and yes, I WANT to read a reply!).
Then add to your conclusion the equally indisputable fact that I am self-aware — parochially, yes — but aware of myself, and of the planet, and of the nearby stellar neighborhood. (At least.)
I am the universe aware of itself, not as a self-deluded deity-entity, but as single little consciousness-center on this rock in this stellar system. (So are you.)
Either that, or a figment of your imagination, I guess.
(But I don’t think so.)
As far as your concluding point goes, I guess I’m unclear. Are your suggesting that humans were somehow predestined?
Thanks.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Elric writes:>> with your selfaware universe concept you are entering into religion from the backdoor.>> What do you mean by “religion�? If you are using the common definition of a belief in a supernatural (no doubt anthropomorphic) deity external to its creation, then a self-aware universe needn’t acquire a religious connotation any more than you do as a self-aware human entity unless it is worshipped as such. The same goes for pantheism although the word is a Greek hybrid meaning loosely “God is in all� (hmm Nikos is of Greek heritage – could it be hereditary?) and my belief (Nikos’ possibly) as stated above as respect/honor ALL nature could be considered pantheistic but I don’t worship nature, I just prefer to believe by choice (conscious reasoning) that all that is has meaning. Aside: Nihilism is strongly predicated on a BELIEF in Darwinesque Evolution (blind-with-no-purpose-save-survivalism) and fails if there is innate purpose or meaning. ALL held tenets are beliefs whether induced by external hypnosis (naïve acceptance) or internal hypnosis (conscious choice.) The anthropic principle (strong or weak) is just that: Anthropic (humanized) as is the entire subjective universe.
Nikos writes:>> I am the universe aware of itself,>> (YES) >> not as a self-deluded deity-entity >> (YES YOU ARE) >>, but as single little consciousness-center on this rock in this stellar system. >> (NOT SINGLE – MULTIPLE) >>(So are you.)>> (SO ARE ALL OF US) Either that, or a figment of your imagination, I guess.>> Think Again: YES Nikos, you and Elric and I are ALL figments of each other’s imagination. We all hold nebulous idea constructs of each other based solely on a collection of 1/0 bit representations in cyberspace. These constructs/figments are molded and shaped by us by each our personal beliefs and our EMPATHETIC reactions to each other. Nikos’ me and Elric’s me and My me are all separate distinct creations as are my and your yous. Chew on that till we create again.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:09 am
Jazzman: I must confess to knowledge of the ‘reality is imaginary’ idea. I just don’t find it particularly valuable. Nonetheless, here’s how I understand it: every iota of my awareness of the universe comes through my five senses, whose stimuli are synthesized by my brain, which then, through cultural concepts plus instinct, helps me order the inundation of sensory input by means we call consciousness, which then decides which of the zillion simultaneous stimuli are worth noting and responding to. This includes my suppositions (and presuppositions) about me and of you, and of most every other segment of reality…
Which can reasonably be called an act of imagination.
Is this what you meant?
Elric and Jazzman both:
I’ve wondered lately how to phrase this, and here’s the best version I’ve got so far:
I no more take evolution as a matter of ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ than I do the supposition that I was born from my mother’s womb and not spawned—even though I have no memory of birth (or of my possible spawning). My existence as a human and my infant bond with my mother (not to mention our shared aspects of appearance) are enough to convince me of my birth and of her maternity. Likewise, the many fundamental similarities of living creatures and of PLANTS (which I see a whole helluva lot of every day) coupled with the mountains of written results of decades worth of scientific investigations, plus the newer accruing mountains of DNA evidence are enough to convince me that the combination of interstellar dust and rock, plus water, plus sunlight, stimulated what we call life. Which immediately began to mutate. Because otherwise it would have stagnated and died off.
It didn’t need a ‘god’ any more than my body requires a ‘soul’ to operate it. Adding the ‘necessity’ of such an invisible and ineffable entity only adds an unnecessary (and unverifiable) layer of complexity to the question.
And I no more wish to argue the issue any further than I wish to discuss whether the Moon’s substance is provolone or Roquefort (I prefer the later).
Or whether the sun is a star or a god (I prefer the former).
Or whether the sun revolves around the galactic center or around the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I prefer the later. And I’m hungry.)
I think the difficulty many Americans (not Europeans, btw) have with evolution is due to our inadequate educational systems compounded by the human propensity to differentiate – to perceive differences more readily than similarities (which must be a useful evolutionary trick, or we’d not have developed this tendency).
(Actually I’m slightly lying: I’d love to write more, but it’s after midnight PST, and I need to sleep. But I wanted to posit this puny and somewhat rushed reply in hopes of stimulating this thread’s next counter-argument, if one (or more) is appropriate.) So have at it, please! Take me to task!
February 7th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Elric and Jazzman:
Another thing I’ve been pondering is how to articulate ‘my’ pantheism, which probably isn’t Spinozan. Here’s my best (to date) attempt:
Since subatomic particle energy cannot be destroyed, it serves the role, in my mind, of the ‘divine’.
Now, Spinoza apparently claims that ‘god is IN everything’ (right?).
Which is therefore sort of true for my pantheism – but not quite, because subatomic particle energy IS everything – everything that counts as ‘matter’ anyway (which, if it means ‘solid stuff,’ is now probably an obsolete concept).
Therefore, in my pantheism: ‘Everything is Divine’.
Which is nonsense in polarized conceptual systems where the divine needs the profane to BE divine.
But I’m a ‘ the glass is half-full’ kind of guy, and prefer my universe to be fundamentally divine…
Well, except where its confused individuations (like genocidal murderers and religious terrorists, to name but a few) egocentrically arrogate ‘divinity’ only to their own parochial and misbegotten conceptualizations of it, making therefore profane (not to mention ‘obscene’) both themselves and their beliefs.
So, my ‘divine universe’ couches profanity within it, but isn’t defined by it.
And my ‘glass half full’ assumption means additionally that I don’t think humans are inherently ‘evil’ and in need of a god’s moral code. I DO however think that most of our species is sadly misguided; but ignorance itself is a condition, not a crime. Yes, the ignorant often commit atrocities in defense of the laws and creeds that codify and sanctify their ignorance, but that’s a problem for a later post (should this thread carry on that far).
I’ve probably left a few holes in my logic that you are welcome (and encouraged) to point out. Thanks in advance.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Nikos: Yes your imaginary synopsis is close to what I mean, although I would maintain that there are internal stimuli apprehended/synthesized e.g., (dreams, hunches, gut reactions, pure thought, creative imagination etc.) as well as the aforementioned 5 mostly externally oriented senses (they are also internally oriented by the consciousness during memory recall/creation.) Your observation that this view of things isn’t particularly valuable TO YOU is a fair statement – you make your own value. I find it valuable to remember that ALL external appearances are the result of my/ones’s internal processes and our own imagined creations no matter how “real� these seem (optical illusions are a case in point which demonstrate the perils of perception.) Any “solid� object is physically mostly empty space composed presumably of various patterns of atomic energy and yet it is usually perceived as solid. Potential problems arise when one BELIEVES that one’s imagined creations are the same as another’s imagination of SIMILAR objects/events. Agreement as to their similarity is the best we can achieve.
Nikos writes: >>I no more take evolution as a matter of ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ than I do the supposition that I was born from my mother’s womb… >> I have no reason to doubt you are the product of your mother (or even that the mother you BELIEVE to have issued forth from isn’t), we all are products of our mothers (facile tautology.) Just to be argumentative (a personal penchant) not a few I’ll wager, labor under the illusion of that belief (Jack Nicholson’s “sisterâ€? was actually his mother and his “motherâ€? was actually his grandmother – so much for familial appearances) but I digress. Just because “livingâ€? things share similarities in no way validates the “Theory of Evolutionâ€?, as I previously stated that is a scientifically meritless “look at it, it’s obviousâ€? argument. If you have had the inclination to wade thru the “mountainsâ€? of reports and DNA evidence you’ll find that the preponderance of proofs of Darwinian Evolution rely on the fallacy of “begging the questionâ€? – i.e., the Theory of Evolution “provesâ€? the Theory of Evolutionâ€? As I wrote to Potter, there is more contravening evidence for the theory than for it. Science is so sold on that theory that they discount any anomalic evidence as immaterial then mostly proceed to forget that it exists. I venture to say any truth-seeking scientist would state while he BELIEVES that Darwinian Evolution is a “factâ€? (accepted myth) that it has not been proven per se but expects that it will be in the future.
Nikos write:>> [I am convinced that] the combination of interstellar dust and rock, plus water, plus sunlight, stimulated what we call life. Which immediately began to mutate. Because otherwise it would have stagnated and died off. >> If it were that simple, there’d be biogenesis up the yin/yang (come to think of it, it was until Pasteur doubted it.) Sunlight is more likely to destroy life than create it, especially without oxygen to absorb it – life is needed to generate the quantities of oxygen necessary to mitigate ultraviolet radiation. Mutations in the main result in offspring less suited to survival than the “stable� parent that spawned them. However the mutations that are favorable to niche exploitation merely exploit the niche – they don’t create a chain of successively “farther from the original species� mutations until they are an entirely new species. This “a posteriori� (I know you secretly love Latin despite your b-movie protestations) effect has NEVER been observed by ANYONE. How many stubby armed reptiles mutated a succession of longer and longer limbs and then mutated successively aerodynamic bodies and alar appendages and died cliff jumping until both male and females survived, mated and produced flying offspring? In all the varieties? The illusion that given enough time all things are possible is from Infinity Theory (A monkey typing infinitely will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare.) 300 million years is hardly infinity. It’s amusing to note that your faith/cosmology allows for the coalescence of inorganic matter (stardust) into a living creature that is conscious, dreams and can map its own DNA can randomly be produced in 4.5 Billion years.
Kali Nicta Nikos
February 7th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Oh, Jazzman, despite the many smiles and chuckles your last post awarded me, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree. We obviously ground our conflicting opinions in different sources (mine, for the record, are folks like Watson and Crick, Richard Dawkins, the Leakeys, and various and sundry professors and teachers I can’t name off the top of my head) whose logic and ratiocinations do nothing to raise my skepticism’s alarms.
Add to that my own observations of, say, the ongoing speciation (and occasional re-hybridization) of Blue-winged and Golden-winged warblers, which breed in my old Michigan stomping grounds, or the notably similar morphology but different habitats of Western hemlock and Mountain hemlock out here in my new Olympic Peninsula stomping grounds, or the obvious similarities — and differences — between eastern Sugar maple and western Big-leaf maple…etc., etc…well, by now you must appreciate my contentment, even if you disagree.
Each of these cases of divergent species shares common ancestral forms – it’s plainly obvious to me. Should you or anyone else provide me with convincing evidence that these examples of speciation stem from ‘mechanisms’ (I hate this unimaginative scientific mechanistic terminology, btw) other than niche-driven evolution or sexual-selection pressures, I’ll happily modify my worldview. Otherwise, I’m quite content with it. Thanks for trying, though.
I liked your development of the imagination/reality thingie, btw. I may have a modifying reaction to it later, but probably not.
I don’t really love Latin so much as I like to use the few fragments of it I know. Lends an ‘authoritative air’ to one’s opinions, after all!
So what’s ‘Kali Nicta’? (Is this ‘Kali’ the same meme-name as my favorite Hindu Triple Goddess?)
See ya, pal.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
JAZZMAN! I got it!
While standing over the sink in that infamously contemplative state known as Wa Shing Di Shes, I caught myself wondering over the Latin ‘Kali Nicta’ and why it seemed so familiar, even though my Latin is so limited. ‘The “Nicta”‘, I thought, ’sounds suspiciouly like the Greek word for night. Was he teasing me in Latin that I’m benighted?’
Then I got it.
Good work, pal.
(advice from a former fluent speaker: put an ‘h’ after the ‘c’ in nichta. Or, spell it ‘nixta’.)
To finish the possibilities: ‘kalimera’ is ‘good day’ (which doubles as ‘good morning’), and ‘kalispera’ means ‘good afternoon’ or ‘good evening’.
Yet somehow I think you already knew that.
See ya!
February 7th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
One last tidbit for Jazzman (and anyone else slumming through this thread, ftm): my sister (the Greek Fire Goddess) contends that the Hindu ‘Kali’ and the Greek word for ‘good’ aren’t identical by accident. She reckons that the proto-Greeks and the proto-Indians shared the original Indo-European tongue, and that what meant ‘goddess’ to one divergent group changed only little over the millenia, meaning ‘goodness’ to the equally divergent Greeks (which Graves says means ‘worshipers of the Grey Crone’). I dunno whether she’s right, but I like it anyway.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:34 am
Jazzman: I’m (entirely coincidentally) reading my way through Daniel Dennett’s ‘Breaking The Spell’ (Viking, 2006) in anticipation of his upcoming (though yet to be scheduled) hour of ROS. (And, more importantly, because I find the subtitle – ‘Religion As A Natural Phenomenon’ — utterly compelling.)
Here’s a paragraph I just read that’s germane to our discourse, from page 120 (the upper case letters represent italics, which I can’t seem to reproduce here on ROS):
Evolution is all about processes that ALMOST NEVER happen. Every birth in every lineage is a potential speciation event, but speciation almost never happens, not once in a million births. Mutation in DNA almost never happens—not once in a trillion copyings—but evolution depends on it. Take the set of infrequent accidents—things that almost never happen—and sort them into the happy accidents, the neutral accidents, and the fatal accidents; amplify the effects of the happy accidents—which happens automatically when you have replication and competition—and you get evolution.
I find this nicely representative of my personal understanding of it (and much better articulated than I could hope to do on my own), and so thought it worth sharing.
Do with it whatever you will.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I took an AMAZING course at Lawrence University in Appleton, WI titled “Morality, Rationality, and Self interest” and it ended up opening a door to a world of ethical philosophy that I have comletely fallen in love with. The professor who taught that show, Prof. John Dreher, is a brilliant mind also blessed with the ability to articulate the most erudite and intricate of thoughts in concise, easy language; he also happens to be blessed with a sharp wit and very tactful sarcasm which he uses with the finesse of a balet dancer to argue both sides of every argument. (I have a hunch he invented the phrase - Devil’s advocate!). He would DEFINITELY be an excellent addition to your guest list.
I feel the topic could be greatly enhanced with a discussion on whether God created man in His own image or whether Men (and Women too ofcourse!) created gods in their own image.
I hope you are also able to find someone to articulately discuss whether there REALLY IS a conflict between creation and evolution - is it not possible that a supreme being (call Her God if you will) said “Let there be light” at which point all the strings in the universe proceeded to emerge from a giant explosion, thus forming our universe, and millions of years later, on a lonely planet called Earth somewhere on the edge of a galaxy, Darwinian evolution and natural selection entered from the left of the stage? I have long been convinced that many of the APPARENT contradictions between the biblical creation and science stem from the futile attempt to use a spiritual tool to do the work of science and vice versa. The debate often sounds like what you’d hear if an art lover and a scientist specialising in chromatics were to discuss the qualities of the Mona Lisa:
Art Lover: “It’s absolutely beatiful. The Artist’s brush strokes capture her virtue and portray a sense of sainthood, while He also paints tones of insecurity into her posture. He manages to capture every aspect of human character, eg.conceit and insecurity, with a several subtle flicks of his brush.”
Scientist: “Nonsense. You’re just speculating. I can tell you that the colors in this painting are composed of a unique compound of paints that is composed of a perfect mixture of pigments and resins that allow the colors to…”
Science and religion can look at the same world and see two different things. like describing two different sides of the same coin. I see no need of a contradiction, if you factor into the creation story the idea (written by Moses) in Psalm 90:4 that “To the Lord a day is like a million years, and a million years is like a day”.
String theorists have often suggested that as we travel backwards (using mathematical equations) towards the beginning of time (quite an apt choice of words), we see at “time zero” that time doesn’t really make sense. that before matter came into being, there could have “existed” a kind of timelessness which would be consistent with the Psalm quoted above.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
The bible is after all filled with metaphores and parables and was intended as a spiritual guide to God and not an all encompassing history book. at the same time science ought to recognise her own limitations.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Nikos wrote:>> It didn’t need a ‘god’ any more than my body requires a ‘soul’ to operate it.>> I don’t know what you think operates your body, but it certainly isn’t your intellect, or conscious mind. What ever allows it to respire, pump blood, dream, secrete hormones, repair itself and react unconsciously to all matter of stimuli internal & external is certainly SOMETHING. If “SOUL� is too charged a term for you, how about “SUBCONCIOUS� or subliminal self. You obviously would not be able to function very smoothly if your conscious mind or intellect were in charge of the myriad (more Greek for you – BTW I used to live with a 1st generation Greek family so I am slightly familiar with the language – food mostly) bodily functions that are so taken for granted that they largely go unnoticed.. If you mean “soul� in the immortal sense, I have the sense not to argue the point as I claim agnosticism in that regard. However, sooner or later we will have to address the issue of how your “sub-atomic particle energy divinity� (BTW I agree with that concept) manages to go from non-living to living (after all the difference between these states is just where matter/energy meets the arbitrary criterion that we have defined to qualify as living.) and then to consciousness then to self-consciousness and finally to a collection of electrons, protons, and neutrons in a “special� arrangement that refers to itself as Nikos. Also if the “divinity� is within all matter/energy (may we stipulate that Einstein was correct when he stated in his famous equation that matter and energy are interchangeable? Matter is really just frozen light), then the profane is divine as well. As I stated previously the binary or “polar� nature of value judgments appears to be a root assumption in our Jungian “collective unconscious� (what could THAT be composed of? – what is a thought composed of? Electromagnetic impulses?)
BTW MY idea-construct re your sister, from the bits and pieces that you have posted, seems like she would be a welcome addition to ROS, see what you can do – I believe she is spot on solid linguistic ground with the Indo-European cognates.
Nikos writes:>> [My sources] are Watson and Crick, Richard Dawkins, the Leakeys >> With all due respect to their DNA work, W&C aren’t really Evolutionists per se, more high priests of the Church of Science. Dawkins is as misguided as Stephen Jay Gould although I was briefly intrigued by meme theory in my younger days until I realized that it is as tautological as Darwinism. He has a definite ax to grind and a DEEPLY vested interest in Darwinian Evolution. To be charitable, if he actually believes that his theories have basis in scientific method and not “a priori� assumptions “because IT JUST HAS TO BE, IT�S SO LOGICAL, SO PREFECT,– THERE�S NO OTHER EXPLANATION� he’s sadly deluding himself to the point that ANYONE that doesn’t BELIEVE as he is not worthy of debate. The Leakeys are palentologists or fossil hunters – good luck on finding ANY links, missing or otherwise. Mr. Dennett believes that HIS consciousness is a chemo/biological (sociobiological) epiphenomenon and falls into the same trap as Dawkins. To wit: The preponderance of evidence is AGAINST evolution but as EVOLUTION is a FACT these 1 in a zillion “happy accidents� (miracles) are on what evolution depends. I.e, Evolution depends on Evolution – Evolution proves evolution. Yada yada yada – nihilism’s house of cards. There are none so blind as they that will not see. BTW your observation of similarities in “life� is quite good evidence of micro-evolution, i.e., changes within a species, however you still ignore the TOTAL LACK of macro-evolutionary evidence, i.e., intermediate forms of any sort (not to mention total violations of the laws of Entropy.) In fact the macro-evidence (fossil record) supports the theory of CREATIONISM more closely than Darwinism. It would seem that you actually do believe in a God when you marvel at the wonders of your natural environment but name it evolutionary science, and do not question the dogma of its high priests. Tell me where I’m inaccurate, my cyber friend!!!
February 9th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
So much written since my last visit… Sorry that I dont reply to everything.
Nikos sayes:
“Elric: Belief?
If I am not cosmic material (condensed subatomic energy), and powered (like all life on this rock) by sunlight, then WHAT AM I?
Imaginary?”
I don’t know what you are Nikos, or what am I… And nobody in this universe can ‘tell’ us… Whatever we ’see’ in this world, it’s
1. result of our sensory input
2. biased from our superstitions, ideas, beliefs etc.
3. and we can’t be sure that’s ALL is not just our imagination, dream. As we take for real our dreams.
To clear up my point: I don’t know what am I; only thing I am aware of is that I (whatever it is) exist, one way or another. I dont take anything granted, I just suppose (since I am aware of my existance, which itself implies that something exists) that there exists Something, but it’s Unknown to me… And to go back to the thread’s topic, since I don’t know the cause or purpose of existance than moral has absolutely no value, it’s as vain as everything else (and the language adds its ambiguities to this…:(:( )
February 9th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Sorry for my orthography:) English is not my native language you know;)
February 10th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Nikos: I apologize for the brusque ending to my last post. It was running quite late for me and I wanted to submit my disquisition and go home and it occurred to me that given the sources you named, you are placing your faith in dubious hands. Let me rephrase: You adduce, Nikos:
>>�similar morphology but different habitats of Western hemlock and Mountain hemlock out here in my new Olympic Peninsula stomping grounds, or the obvious similarities — and differences — between eastern Sugar maple and western Big-leaf maple…etc., etc…well, by now you must appreciate my contentment, even if you disagree. Each of these cases of divergent species shares common ancestral forms – it’s plainly obvious to me.�>>
as proof of the Darwinian view of evolution. While this may be good enough and proof for you, “look at it� evidence hardly constitutes SCIENTIFIC proof and there is NO PROOF (in my numerous assertions of this at ROS, no one has offered any “hard� evidence, just personal opinion.) – NO scientist has adduced “a posteriori� evidence, only hypothetical “a priori� assumptions that ignore contravening evidence (of which there is a multitude.) Darwinian evolution comports with your preconceived notions of “how things come to be, obviously� (Just So.) Therefore absent “proof� you are content with your worldview – i.e., you have FAITH in the correctness of Darwin’s theory – echoed and reinforced by your highly prejudiced sources. This is no different from someone who believes that the bible is the WORD of God. They have no proof but it comports with their BELIEFS echoed and reinforced by their HIGH PRIESTS so they accept it on FAITH. Just as a religious ZEALOT starts with a premise of the existence of God and views all events/phenomena thru that lens, your sources, particularly Dennett and Dawkins start with the premise that Darwinian Evolution is a FACT and attempt to explain natural history (Just so) thru their own myopic lens. The quote from Dennett is as blatant an example of fallacious “begging the question� as I’ve seen recently. Admittedly he’s a philosopher and not a scientist so he may be excused from the burden of scientific rigor but should know better than to entertain fallacy. It seems to me that the more these “HIGH PRIESTS� become entrenched in their own philosophies, the less likely they are to entertain anything that falls outside their preconceived purview. They should borrow a page from Wittgenstein’s book or study quantum mechanics, one of the more open minded sciences. Philosopher: Break the bonds of your preconceptions. Again no ill will or value judgment implied, – only observations from my philosophical slant.
Elric: What is your native language? From your posts, I thought the typos were just rushed expression. You seem to think in English at (least partially) and express yourself better than many native speakers.
February 11th, 2006 at 5:51 am
Thanks a lot, Jazzman!:):) You made my day:):) Those were indeed typos but I wouldn’t be surprised if I make real mistakes as well!:) I’m from Georgia(the Caucasus) and my native language is Georgian.
Back to the topic. I found a nice definition by Kingsley in his ‘Reality’:
‘There is nothing that exists except what can be thought or perceived. In other words, the world is not at all what we think it is; or rather it’s exactly what we think it is but only because we think it. And whatever we think it’s not, that is what it is as well.’
February 11th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Hi jazzman. I admire your willingness to critique and undermine orthodoxy. If you’ve read any of my constitutionally-critical rambles on other threads, you’ll know I’m a minor provocateur (gadfly?) in my own pet obsessions. So keep up the effort.
However, I’m not yet convinced by your critiques of evolutionary theory, for a couple of reasons.
The lesser of these reasons is that I DON’T view the scientific community as a ‘secular church’, even though I agree that some overly credulous scientists can fairly be called ideologues. But hardly all, and hardly all the time.
Sciences search for underlying patterns and causal chains by careful measurement – the more cautious and refined, the better. Religions, by contrast, simply assign to the their deity agency for causal chains and patterns. Who made the warbler’s pretty colors? God did, dummy!
And to conflate Darwinian notions of causality with a deity’s agency is no different than conflating that same deity’s agency with the causal link of sunshine-creates-daylight.
Oh, yeah? Prove it pal! Daylight begins BEFORE sunrise! They’re obviously independent phenomena! The only reason that they both start in the morning and end in the evening is cuz the Flying Spaghetti Monster holds ‘em together by the scruffs of their necks and makes ‘em walk across the sky until night!
The larger reason you’ve failed to convince me is the absence of any offer of an alternative cause for evolutionary change. I’ve explained repeatedly how I understand the evidence, how I find it convincing in multiple cases (and many more than I’ve mentioned), and I’ve jovially tolerated your critique that my interpretation is based on sloppy thinking. Fine, that’s your opinion, but not mine. Nevertheless, let me posit one of my own: is it possible you find the theory unconvincing because of the inherent difficulty we humans have in genuinely comprehending geologic timescales – and therefore the evolutionary timescales that piggyback the geologic?
Maybe not, but I’m suspicious.
Consider citing sources that support your critique.
And I hope you enjoy the weekend. We here in the Great Northwest are ‘blessed’ by spectacular weather. Sunny and blue, ever since last weekend. It’s not, I don’t think, god’s work however. Our local scientists attribute it to El Nino.
And I believe them.
See ya, pal.
February 11th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Ahoy, jazzman! I just now stumbled across a passage that (metaphorically) explains the impasse between our two points of view:
“Most of us know of atoms and germs only by hearsay, and would be embarrassingly unable to give a good answer if a Martian anthropologist asked us how we knew that there are such things—since you can’t see them or hear them or taste them or feel them. If pressed, most of us would probably concoct some seriously mistaken lore about these invisible (but important!) things. We’re not experts—we just go along with ‘what everybody knows’…�
That’s it, I think.
To you, I’m uncritically ‘just going along with what everybody knows’.
To me, the evidence for the ‘atoms and germs’ of evolution are right before my eyes every day.
Yet I cannot ‘prove’ their existence to you any more than your skepticism can ‘disprove’ their existence to me.
I accept that I am comprised of atoms comprised of subatomic energy, and that since the original expansion of energy within space-time, everything has evolved. I accept that life on earth is simply one miniscule individuation of the universe’s greater post-inception evolutions.
And I accept that I cannot ‘prove’ this to you.
No matter how many more impassioned and mutually amusing posts we exchange hereafter, this impasse will likely prevail.
Now get back to enjoying your weekend.
February 12th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Oh, I wish I had joined this thread earlier. What fun. I haven’t read through all the posts, as I don’t have the time. In the end here, though, it seems that the discussion has floundered in the land of “what are we?” and can we prove evolution. Perhaps, I missed it, but where is the discussion of morality in relation to all this.
If you can’t prove what we are and how we got here, can you still discuss the origin and/or need for morality? And whose morality? How does one rank morality codes in a world of so many different perspectives? Or do we need to?
Those who believe in a god/goddess will claim that their morality is spelled out by their deity. But if I don’t believe in your metaphysical being, I still have my own morality code. So, how do we get to our own morality. Whether we attribute it to a “higher” being or not, we all seem to have them. Is it a biological imperative. Can we prove by the fact that a moral code always seems to develop in a group, regardless of the presence religion, that morality is not metaphysically handed down to us, its innate?
I could go on with the questions, but I’d like to see if the thread gets moving again and if it can get off the philosophical debate of defining our being (a conversation I’d love to have somewhere else) and back to the question of the origins and value (or lack thereof) of morality.
February 13th, 2006 at 2:16 am
allison, feeling of the morality code in you and in general, in modern secular society is an inertia from of religious moral from the old times. The feeling of good/bad we acquire in our childhood, inducted by our parents, school etc. And when you are adult it seems natural, although it doesn’t have any rational basis at all…
February 13th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Elric: Spasibo balshoye for the 411 (forgive me I know no Georgian at all y’all - except y’all.) I have a Ukrainian friend who also is quite good with English having picked it up entirely from life in the U.S.A. Too bad we’re so English-centric and chauvinistic.
Alison: Elric states the origin of morality quite succinctly. Morality is a product of each HUMAN mind i.e., you create your own morality. In an earlier post and in other threads I attempted to place morality in an historical human context (as does Elric - i.e., authoritarian inculcation), demonstrate to people that most moral/ethical value judgments are neutral and it is one’s beliefs regarding them that creates the positive/negative dichotomy, and offer a simple code of absolute moral conduct (Meta-morals) that I believe most people would find acceptable. Due to this thread’s title, and the condition that I believe in neither the either/or conditions and consider both the existence of GOD and DARWINIAN evolution faith based “just so� stories with no evidence to support either, I have tried to show the flaws in the Darwinian Theory. The existence of God/gods is generally not purported to have a scientific basis (with the possible exception of The Intelligent Design Theory - which as most of the bloggers here agree has no scientific merit.) so it stands on its faith only basis and needs no deconstruction. Darwinistic Dogma almost without exception is accepted by the non-religious masses and the ROS bloggers without question even though there is not a shred of hard scientific evidence to support it. The only one so far except myself is Elric who isn’t 100% convinced that Darwinian evolution is an “a posteriori� fait accompli. The God camp believed morals are God’s holy how tos – and no amount of evidence is going to change their opinion. The Darwin camp may be able to change their faith based beliefs if sufficient negating evidence is adduced, however it’s a Sisyphean Task eh Nikos?
Now for you friend Nikos: When scientists worship the Cult of Science’s alter with faith instead of skepticism, with fallacy instead of scientific method they belong to your “secular church.� I would not paint ALL scientists with that broad brush, just the ones that forsake their vocation and forget/disregard the principles that originally captured their imagination and spurred them to be SEEKERS of TRUTH – no matter where the truth may be found.
Nikos writes: >> Sciences search for underlying patterns and causal chains by careful measurement – the more cautious and refined, the better. Religions, by contrast, simply assign to the their deity agency for causal chains and patterns. Who made the warbler’s pretty colors? God did, dummy! >> The cause is assumed and the measurement/data acquisition does not support the theory. Darwinists simply assign to their deity agency (EVOLUTION) causal chains and patterns. Who made the warbler’s pretty colors? Natural selection did, dummy! (They also will go further and ascribe the prettiest colors to successful mate acquisition (the more polygamous – the better. I guess monogamy is a failed concept by Darwinian standards!) and the mindless striving of DNA to replicate more of itself – the BIOLOGICAL IMPERITIVE.) You’re absolutely correct:>> And to conflate Darwinian notions of causality with a deity’s agency is no different than conflating that same deity’s agency with the causal link of sunshine-creates-daylight. >> it IS no different and that is exactly what the Darwinists are doing with their deity of “Natural Selection.�
Just because I don’t offer an alternative explanation doesn’t mean Darwinism is a prima facie explanation. It’s still built on tautology, fallacious assumptions, not falsifiable, and is not capable of scientific rigor and will not stand up to scientific methods. Atoms and Germs are demonstrably falsifiable, usefully predictable and the mechanisms are well understood. The hypothesis regarding the unseen (atoms and germs can now be seen with modern instruments) is now in the quark realm and they are supposedly predictable even without direct evidence. Time is an illusion but even if it weren’t, the amount of time for Darwinian evolution to occur in the development of “higher� life forms say 300 million years of accidental mutations is highly unlikely. Even Dennett admits this. Sources? I don’t got no sources!!! I don’t need no stinkin’ sources. Darwin needs sources not tautological assumptions. Check out the links in Intelligent Design. I don’t think you’re sloppy, just unscientific and to blinded by your unquestioned faith in appearances. Doesn’t it seem strange to you that with all this technology and widespread belief in an unfounded concept that there is SO MUCH contravening evidence (conveniently ignored by yourself and others) and as yet no supporting evidence? Dennett, Dawkins and Gould all ASSUME that Darwin was correct and are (were in Gould’s case) making a living trying to plug the leaks (Leakeys?) in a theory that only holds holy water for the faithful. Gotta run.
February 13th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
For a religous person, just call the Catholic Dicese in Boston?
February 13th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
How about Boston College? A Catholic sponsored University must have at least one Philosophy Prof / Theologican capable of speaking on this subject.
Don’t for get to search the official archives in the Catholic Library. I ahve some surprising stuff there.
February 14th, 2006 at 12:13 am
Speaking of evolution, there’s lots of fresh hate-mail at:
http://www.venganza.org/email_neg.htm
Expect a need to laugh.
Don’t have your cat in your lap.
S/he will claw your legs in her/his need to escape the hyena that just possessed her mummy/daddy.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Wow, many people certainly do write alot of words about religion.
The Blogger-in-chief should compare the average post length here to other issues, both “contentious” and “less contentious” - presuming such criteria could be established. I’m not sure if this will get noticed by anyone, but this show, at its best, bucks the droll trends of discourse and reinvigorates one’s curiosities.
So getting back to the first point: there is no way that I am reading everything posted here. I’ve read many, scanned many more. People are writing several paragraph position papers to satisfy themselves that they have “weighed in” and established a proper (or comfortable) existential context. This isn’t bad, however. It seems quite sensible that people care very much about religion, if only to reject the cosmic implications of it, or the constraining moral demands of it. But does the espousing point to a saying like “if we didn’t have religion, we might have to invent it?” We would have to preach, that is, and establish some existential context, a memetic rallying point to make sense of what even today science cannot make any sense of: “Why are we here?” “Why is there anything at all, let alone things with brains?” “What of the collision of consequences if and when I get hit with a double whammy of too much syrup in my latte and a meteor that sheers earth in two, along with all its grand grey matter?”
Here I go on the espousing, I suppose…
I thought it was on the Darwin and Dover show where EO wilson mentioned evolutionarily stable strategies as being an interesting explanation for the epidemiological mechanism and “purpose” of religions. But what is the individual agent logic which produces these epidemic-proportions? Perhaps it lies in its appeal? At one point part of this appeal was explanations of the natural world. Additionally, and more importantly, I would say that many religions provide the first forms of psychotherapy, proferring coping mechanisms galore on an impossible multitude of struggles that humans would be forced to make in any given lifetime. Of course the value of such therapy is highly dependent upon the interpretation, whether by priest or laiety. Where does morality play into EVS’s? There are probably codified rules that produce better adapted populations of humans. What happened to the utopian communities that barred sex? Well, having not invented a fountain of youth, they’re conspicuously absent from our present memetic fauna. Was it Jung who suggested that the act of confessing to a priest allowed one to perhaps achieve a satisfactory peace with some human social misbehavior or conflict and go on living as an advantaged member of the given population?
Religions are interesting and provocative strategies, and they are certainly in constant competition with more secular EVS’s - though I’m hardpressed to see “Darwinism” as an EVS, though only because I understand it as an evinced scientific explanation and not a mushy, somewhat ambiguous doomed-to-subjectivity “way of life” that may describe the less secular strategies around us.
Its worth pointing out that EVS’s can co-exist, even contradictorily - this idea may be central to understanding what has changed in our memetic ecology and will likely become far more “rich” during globalization. Visionaries who profess a tragic uniformity and ubiquity of the “global rule set” need only look at bio diversity of eco systems to see an interesting alternative.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
also,
a man wiser and smarter than me told me quite simply that “religion is supposed to make you happy”
something to consider
February 14th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
scalperkinch: Allow me to reccomend Daniel Dennett’s ‘Breaking The Spell’ (Viking/Penguin; 2006), which focuses on much if not most of your post’s ideas and implied questions.
You’ll have to hold your nose while reading page 21, however.
This indefensible ’shoot-itself-in-the-foot’-ness aside, it’s rather illuminating and will hopefully be the primary focus of a future ROS hour featuring Mr.Dennett himself. (They haven’t scheduled it yet, however.)
February 14th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
What does EVS stand for?
February 15th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Elric wrote: allison, feeling of the morality code in you and in general, in modern secular society is an inertia from of religious moral from the old times. The feeling of good/bad we acquire in our childhood, inducted by our parents, school etc. And when you are adult it seems natural, although it doesn’t have any rational basis at all…
Yes, I understand that my personal moral code has to do with the inputs (both postive and negative) of my upbringing. I can even questions such things as whether it is really wrong to murder. I am not so naive, as that.
But my questioning was more along the lines of: why does morality even exist? Do we need it? Beyond the simple reasoning that I, as an individual, have to come up with some matrix to help me with decision making or I would not be able to move through a life. You can extrapolate that out to the need for groups of people to develop a similar moral code in order to function. But why do we even need to function?
And, then, there is the question of what happens when people with differing moral codes collide? How do you establish the heirarchy, if not by force.
And if we determine that all of this is inherent in the nature of being, where does this nature come from. Can it simply be that for no darn reason at all, somehow atoms and molecules have been combing over time to create human beings which for no reason at all are social creatures and for no reason at all they have the capacity to consider these things?
that’s one possibility. that this whole existence is just one meaningless happenstance of a meaningingless physcial universe. But, if that’s the case, I’m drawn back to the question of why we need a morality.
I think it is this thinking loop that drives people to consider other possibilities for the origin or meaning of life. The loop where there is no higher meaning and we just happen to be here for no reason at all doesn’t have a logical conclusion of: well, we need to have a moral code. It is more likely to support absolute anarchy. Or a species wide suicide. (Which one could argue that we’re engaged in with all our wars and enviromental destruction.)
So, why help others? Why care about the suffering of others? Why live? Why can we ask why? Just another happenstance of physcial circumstance? I don’t think people end up with having faith in something just because they want to be happy, or because their stupid or they need someone to tell them what to do. We seem to be compelled, as a species to question the meaning of life. Not just our individual lives, but Life. We have the capacity to come up with the questions without the capacity to let it go. Even if you question the questioning, you are engaged in a thinking process that is well beyond that needed for physical survival. And why bother? I mean, we could be living with the simple stresses of survival like other animals do.
And then, I ask - If you don’t have a morality code what do you have? You suggest that morality is ‘just’ an inertia from of old religious codes. And I infer that you see it as so, well, old hat, passé, even scoffable because its not ‘rational’. So, are you saying that you have no moral code? You can’t be simply judging mine as coming from old religions when you don’t know what it is. You seem to be saying that having a moral code is irrational. So, how do you decide what you should and shouldn’t do each day? And how do you decide what is an acceptable response to stimuli from others? And whatever the matrix is behind that decision-making process is, what do you call it? And why do you have it?
February 15th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Nikos:
He is actually coming to speak at my school (University of pittsburgh) this coming Monday the 20th. How serindipitous of a recommendation… ; D I’m not quite sure why I typed “EVS” instead of “ESS” for evolutionarily stable strategies.
Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategies
February 16th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Nikos and Allison: In the 2/13/06 Gary Hart, Peter Beinart and Richard Perle, Nikos and Allison wrote:
Nikos:>> Afghanistan was a worthy intervention. As peggysue said in a different thread, we Americans always seem content to live in happy ignorance of the suffering of others. In this instance, the nearly inconceivable suffering of the women of Afghanistan was by itself a reason worth the military incursion. Most others cite the Taliban’s hospitality for bin Laden — and until a couple of years ago, this rationale was good enoug for me, too. Rooting those sanctimonious killers out of their lairs was enough reason for me to ease my instinctual pacifism. (And I’d feel the same if we could do it to the neocon ‘collateral-damage’ killers too, btw!)>>
Nikos: I thought we’d settled this in the E.O Wilson thread with the ATM (Assignation Time Machine) discussion. Again I ask: Under what moral authority or principle do you maintain that it is “worthy� to use the military to enter a sovereign nation, force them to kowtow to OUR belief/value systems, murder the misogynistic bastards who resist or get in the way, and collaterally murder children and women (the very same ones that are supposed to be liberated from this “oppression� whether they wish to be or not???) Not to mention champing at the bit for the violent demise of those sanctimonious 9/11 perpetrators and neo-cons. BTW in a Darwinian paradigm, pacifism is an anathema to the putative instinctual (mindless) “struggle to survive.� Pacifism is hardly instinctual (especially if Darwinism is in fact the “Prime Mover�), animals rely instinctual behavior, whereas humans have a conscious mind (although Dennett would claim that it’s a derived epiphenomenon from some “special� arrangement of chemicals, neuronal architecture and cognition.) with which to choose their behaviors – pacifism is a CONSCIOUS choice that is made (or not) by each of us. A true pacifist loves peace but doesn’t hate war, as hatred of anything binds you to the object of hate. BTW and this is not a criticism but an observation: I’ve noticed in many of your posts you evince a deep empathy for the various plights of the y-chromosomally challenged. While laudable and I certainly don’t condone or justify unequal treatment and abuse, the excessive identification with the “apparently� negative group aspects (which are actually peculiar to each individual’s situation,) seems to cloud your thinking at times. Anger, no doubt generated by E.O.Wilson’s and Dennett’s evolutionary sociobiological chemicals or perhaps it’s only amoral hormones.
Allison: >>:I don’t disagree. I was really pointing to the dismal aftermath. And I wish that the plight of the women had been the motivation for going in there, and not 9/11. Though, yes, it did seem appropriate to go after Bin Laden and he was harbored in Afghanistan. I think we could have gone after him a different way. And I think the world would be better off if the focus of moving in and ostensibly creating change in Afghanistan had been the humanitarian mission of protecting the innocent victims of the oppressive culture there. Perhaps, then we would be doing the right follow through. As it is, we have abandoned them. They have no reason to be anything but cynical of us and those poor victims have, perhaps, less hope than before.>>
Allison: I ask you the same question: You state that you wish that we had been motivated to use the military to assuage the plight of the Afghani women instead of punishing the ones harboring the “Mastermind� (and everyone else who gets in the way.) You say we could have gone after him in different way. What would going after him at all do other than possibly satisfy the “eye for an eye� crowd that demands “righteous retribution?� You ask Elric what informs his morality – while I can’t answer for him, I believe he agrees with me that we each create our own morality by what we rationalize as acceptable for us which may or may not coincide with secular or religious codes (old or new.) What informs your morality? I agree with parts of your statement the world would be better off without oppression but external diplomatic pressure and working from within to help the oppressed liberate themselves from the ideological and psychological fetters that are their challenges. That is the only just way to affect change in a society. You seem to be allied with the “ends justify any means� to accomplish what you deem to be acceptable ends. The world is rampant with examples of man’s inhumanity to man. Would you advocate military might to right all of the perceived wrongs? The only way to legitimately solve these problems is to start with one’s self and provide an example to others as how you believe a “moral� person should behave. There is no true freedom but the freedom of ideas as there is no other bondage than the bondage of beliefs.
February 16th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Sorry the sentence above should read:
I agree with parts of your statement - the world would be better off without oppression but external diplomatic pressure and working from within are the ways to help the oppressed liberate themselves from the ideological and psychological fetters that are their challenges
February 16th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
jazzman: You keep tryin’ ta drag me back into that dang evolution deabate, ain’t ‘cha boy?
Harumph.
More later.
I’m slowly formulating another question concerning humanitarian/foreign policy foundations and priorities.
But my cogitational cobwebs have moved back into my brain depsite another wonderful afternoon run.
But hey, I’m not so foggy that I can’t say that my questions aren’t rhetorical but genuine. What DO we do if we happen across a country of slaveholders?
‘Diplomacy’ isn’t gonna help, let alone save, the girl buried feet-first to her chest to make an easy and motionless target for the grapefruit sized stones that will burst her face, shatter her skull, and eventually snap her head from her neck.
This isn’t such a cut-and-dried issue, imho.
We’re humans. How do we tolerate the existence of such atrocities (and the ideologues who make them endemic) under the excuse of the ‘national sovereignty’ of the arbitrarily-constructed patchwork of tribes now called Afghanistan?
February 19th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
morality is a matter of taste
February 20th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
If that’s true then stick a fork in this thread. As we all know - de gustibus non est disputandum.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Pozhaluista, Jazzman!:) (or ‘arapers’ in Georgian;) ) Actually I’m not in US, but in Europe, completing my phd studies.
Allison, I’ll try to explain my point and answer your questions.
1. Why does morality exist? my answer: our plane existance is a power play. Since nobody is allmighty to impose his will completely on others some set of rules is required to maintain power balance i.e. in very general terms moral exists because we are weak.
2. Do we need it? my answer: who are ‘we’? you mean humanity? to answer this question we have to find purpose and goal of our existence which is impossible task for secular society.
My point is that secular people, the atheists, who want to maintain moral values are inconsistent and their position cannot be called rational which they claim to. So they fall in contradiction.
Religious people on the other hand cannot explain why Allmighty and All-loving God allows existence of the ‘evil’ etc. So they fall in different kind of contradiction.
So this leaves people like me just to question everything and anything, and not to accept any belief, be it ’scientific’ or ‘religious’. I don’t need any psychological comfort and and security which this beliefs provide.
Me personally, if you want to know, I do not have any moral code, and if in ‘real’ life I seem to be a nice guy :):) and do not do immoral/amoral deeds it’s caused by 1. the inertia of my Christian background 2. realization that ‘immoral’ actions are as vain as ‘moral’ and there is no sense in doing them.
You say “So, how do you decide what you should and shouldn’t do each day? And how do you decide what is an acceptable response to stimuli from others? And whatever the matrix is behind that decision-making process is, what do you call it? And why do you have it?”
I perceive this illusionary reality as vanity. I have no idea who I am, why I am here or what I should be doing. Consequently whatever I do is as good/bad as anything else. So I accept everything as a sort of game i.e. I do whatever I do but I am fully aware that it’s not ‘ultimate reality’, so I am detached from it. How I choose what to do? Well, I do whatever pleases me
(in my limits of course) and I am fully aware of this and do not need to justify my actions to myself or to anybody else. It’s exactly like playing any other game be it chess or football. When you play them you are IN the game but you are aware of the reality beyond the arbitrary rules of the game. Same is with this ‘Life game’ for me and only difference is that the ‘reality’ beyond this game is completely Unknown, Unperceivable and Mysterious for me.
February 20th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Jazzman calls me out: “Allison: I ask you the same question: You state that you wish that we had been motivated to use the military to assuage the plight of the Afghani women instead of punishing the ones harboring the “Mastermindâ€? (and everyone else who gets in the way.) You say we could have gone after him in different way. What would going after him at all do other than possibly satisfy the “eye for an eyeâ€? crowd that demands “righteous retribution?â€? You ask Elric what informs his morality – while I can’t answer for him, I believe he agrees with me that we each create our own morality by what we rationalize as acceptable for us which may or may not coincide with secular or religious codes (old or new.) What informs your morality? I agree with parts of your statement the world would be better off without oppression but external diplomatic pressure and working from within to help the oppressed liberate themselves from the ideological and psychological fetters that are their challenges. That is the only just way to affect change in a society. You seem to be allied with the “ends justify any meansâ€? to accomplish what you deem to be acceptable ends. The world is rampant with examples of man’s inhumanity to man. Would you advocate military might to right all of the perceived wrongs? The only way to legitimately solve these problems is to start with one’s self and provide an example to others as how you believe a “moralâ€? person should behave. There is no true freedom but the freedom of ideas as there is no other bondage than the bondage of beliefs.”
I stand heightened. You are right. I don’t agree that a military response is the right response. I was answering in the context of having already gone in. At that point, I could only wish for a better motivation. But, I do think that diplomacy and working within is the truly best route. If I could run the world, we wouldn’t have a military so much as a peace force. And the central focus would not be on violent action, but non-violent conflict resolution and prevention. A “Do no Harm” policy throughout everything we do.
My vision of how to help oppressed women around the world: embrace them with a human circle of women and men that stands so deep around a nation and starts to march in refusing to allow anyone to harm another. A formidable showing of peaceful force that inhabits the culture.
Of course, there are other ways. This is a fantastical vision that stands as a metaphor for refusing to accept destructive behavior. But given that we can’t even do that in our families and local communities, I don’t see it happening at this level. I can only hold a vision as inspiration.
February 20th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
So Jazzman has convinced me that morality is parochial, not universal.
‘Who’s morality?’ he asks. And he’s right.
But SOMETHING about it is universal.
And that ‘something’ is what bleeding hearts like me misname ‘immoral’ when we rail against inhumane treatment.
It’s the inherent lack of compassion for victims that’s missing from the victimizers.
I looked up ‘compassion’ in my American Heritage, and found that its strongest synonym is ‘empathy’.
It’s stronger even than compassion itself. It implies direct emotional relating to the victim.
It’s the root emotion of the ‘golden rule’.
And it’s what humanists need to define morality within a context of internationally recognized human rights. (‘Humanist’: one who is concerned with the welfare of human beings. – A.H.)
In other words, do some moralities deny basic human rights, and if so, how can these be defined and then discussed?
More importantly, how can these discussions carry the necessary weight to perhaps convince inhumane moralists that their morality needs more humaneness, more kindness, more generosity, more simple interpersonal VIRTUE, to retain or to gain international respect?
So perhaps we might benefit from discussing whether human morality ought to have a new super-root (whether or not I’m right that proto-morality originated in interpersonal ethics).
An internationally accepted antecedent that can be used to judge the humane worthiness of any parochial morality.
Morality: the quality of being moral. (American Heritage)
Empatheticality: the quality of being empathetic. (Nikos’s Fantasy New Word Dictionary) (supercalifraigilistic…? I could use some friendly editorial help, anyone. Help! Anyone!)
Used in a sentence: “The United Nations hereby warns the nation of Nikosland that its new Nikos-the-god morality affronts the basic human rights of children and is inempathetical. Unless the Nikos Gospel is brought into compliance with internationally recognized empatheticality, the UN’s member states will have no choice but to introduce sanctions. We will no longer buy your silly words.�
Moral: (adj.) of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. (A.H.)
Empathetic: 1): of or concerned with empathy (A.H.)
2): a characteristic or principle of humane virtuousness (N.F.N.W.D.)
Moral: (noun) a rule or habit of conduct; moral practices or teachings: modes of conduct (A.H.; Wikitionary)
Empathete: 1): an example of empathy
2): a mode of conduct founded on an empathetic reaction, and corollary to the noun form of ‘moral’. (N.F.N.W.D.)
Used in a sentence: “Officer Jones meant to ticket me for my burned out headlight, but instead had an empathete when he saw beside me my wife in the first stages of giving birth. He then led our car through traffic to the hospital.�
This, additionally, is an example of the virtue of ‘empatheticism’. (see below)
Empatheticism: the principles of virtuous conduct founded on empathy; example: ‘Do nothing to others that you would not wish done to you.’ (N.F.N.W.D.)
One final thought: as I look this over, I feel with heartfelt certainty that I’m on the right track. This preliminary work-up however, strikes me as rather clumsy. It might only be the unfamiliarity of the new words in comparison to their roots. Or it may be because the words need brevity. (Probably.)
So please, anyone, feel free to tear this up.
Like a lump of copper, it’s gonna need a damn good pounding before it’s a vessel worthy of the “necessary weight to convince inhumane moralists that their morality needs more humaneness to retain or to gain international respect.�
Consider how great ideas often have humble roots – and then help! I’m not worthy of birthing great ideas (but maybe you are!).
Feel free to take it over.
February 20th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Elric: Why does morality exist? my answer: our plane existance is a power play. Since nobody is allmighty to impose his will completely on others some set of rules is required to maintain power balance i.e. in very general terms moral exists because we are weak.
and Elric, again: How I choose what to do? Well, I do whatever pleases me
(in my limits of course) and I am fully aware of this and do not need to justify my actions to myself or to anybody else. It’s exactly like playing any other game be it chess or football. When you play them you are IN the game but you are aware of the reality beyond the arbitrary rules of the game. Same is with this ‘Life game’ for me and only difference is that the ‘reality’ beyond this game is completely Unknown, Unperceivable and Mysterious for me.
So, you operate under the assumption that we are weak. That this existence is all about vying for power. And that life is a game with an perceivable reality. These are your axioms. Your morals, you say are based on your whims - though you have limits. So, what are your limits? And how did you determine them? Anyway, all of these things inform how you resond to things and the choices you make and how you see other people. Aren’t these, particularly your limits, the foundations of your moral code?
As for the secular vs relgious morass you entered, I don’t get your logic. You claim that secular people cannot claim that their morals come from anything rational. Why? That they can’t define a meaning to life. Why?
And that religious people operate in the contradiction of an all-loving god that allows evil. Well, not all religious people. And are those with a spirituality that is not defined within the confines of any religion included in these two limited categories? And do you understand the difference between a contradiction and a paradox? The Mystery that you identify, may well lie in the paradoxes.
And why is rationality, and how you define it, the measure of someone’s morals?
You see, no matter how logical, rational, whatever we call it, each one of us believes that we are, our logic is not infallible. Therefore, in my world, I end up realizing that I cannot ever think that I have The Answer, The Right Answer. I must honor everyone’s answer to the best of my ability. And, paradoxically, there will be times when I will fight for my perspective. Usually because I feel that someone is threatened and I instinctively act to protect.
Ok, so then there’s instinct. How does that fit into an analysis of morals.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:30 am
Allison- “instinct” - nice subject. Emerson had something to say about it in his essay “self reliance.” I come away from his essay with that idea that to be self reliant, one must have “self-trust.” Trusting yourself is about trusting your instincts.
When I read the following passage by Emerson I think about the beautiful improvisation of jazz. When he writes “The magnetism which all original action exerts” visions of Coltrane improvising with sheets of sound, dance in my head.
“The magnetism which all original action exerts is explained when we inquire the reason of self-trust. Who is the Trustee? What is the aboriginal Self, on which a universal reliance may be grounded? What is the nature and power of that science-baffling star, without parallax, without calculable elements, which shoots a ray of beauty even into trivial and impure actions; if the least mark of independence appear? The inquiry leads us to that source, at once the essence of genius, of virtue, and of life, which we call Spontaneity or Instinct.”
Nietzsche writes that “we must in fact seek the perfect life where it has become least conscious (i.e. least aware of its logic, its reasons, its means and intentions, its utility) . . . the demand for a virtue that reasons is not reasonable.” Perfection does result from instinctual action; “genius resides in instinct; goodness likewise. One acts perfectly when one acts instinctively. Even from the viewpoint of morality, all conscious thinking is merely tentative.”
Personally I think a good example of the power of instinct is in making love with a loved one. If you’ve ever had moments of bliss while making love, you probably didn’t get to that point through a conscious reasoning with your partner. You arrived there by thinking less.
The same could be said for dancing. If you think about the times you’ve been lost in dance (and I sincerely hope you have) you arrived there by shedding your consciousness. The times that I find myself dancing badly (too often the case) are the times that I’m breaking down my body actions in my head: Ok now bounce up and down, stop moving my arms so much, bob my head, do the moonwalk, keep to the beat. Just joking I never do the moonwalk, at least not in public. At least not in public in the last ten years.
February 21st, 2006 at 7:05 am
Alison, moral code and the ways one acts are not the same. A moral code implies that you evaluate your deeds (or deeds of others) as good/bad dichotomy. When I say I do whatever I like in my limits, I only mean that wahetever I do is not good or bad for me. I do it because it pleases me, but I don’t say to myself that what I do is good. To repeat, I accept any my deed as vain and empty as anything else.
Morality is an irrational concept, that’s why I think that secular people who claim to be rational are falling into a contradiction.
In religious morality I meant, in the first place Judeo-Christian and Islamic ethics with strong good/bad division in moral. But no other religion, cult or spiritual movement to my knoledge can explain why this universe is like it is either. (meaning existence of evil or purpose of life etc.)
In being rational first of all I mean to be consistent. So if a secular person defies religion on the basis of being rational then he cannot claim in same time to be moral, morality being an irrational concept from the realm of beliefs. That is what I call contradiction and inconsistency.
Secular people claim that the existence is a result of a blind chance, so you tell me what kind of meaning of life a secular person can have. In the terms of consistency if one claims that everything exists just because of blind chance should claim as well that nothing has a meaning, hence no morality!
You mention instincts. Well, that fits very well with the power play scenario.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Elric: I’m sorry. Perhaps I’m daft, but could you explain the basis of this comment: “morality is an irrational concept”?
And I’m not sure how rational=consistent.
And I don’t understand how you can say that you don’t have a moral code? Do you kill people just because you feel like it? It sounds to me like your morality is “whatever pleases me is ok.” The idea that you label all actions as vain and empty does not make you devoid of a morality. But perhaps, there is a semantic issue here. How do you define morality? I define it as a code of conduct. Whether conscious or unconscious we all have some underlying code. You say that you only do what pleases you. Really? You’ve never done anything that didn’t please you? Are you lonely?
February 21st, 2006 at 11:48 pm
nother: I love the imagery of being lost in dance. Dance is something that I definitely do for my own enjoyment. Iget lost in my own world and I find it euphoric. I have been this way since I was a child.
I like the discussion of the instinctual and self-trust. That could lead to an exploration of the need for a super-imposed morality because we don’t trust ourself or others. And then an exploration of what causes self-trust to break down. Perhaps we would find that if we could establish a moral code that prevented the destruction of self-trust, that we would eventually have no need for a moral code.
I like these loops. Like non-profits whose mission should be to put themselves out of business. A difficult proposition because those executing the mission then have to figure out their role in society if the current role is no longer needed.
Enough of this thinking stuff for the eve. I’m off to spin around the room and imitate my daughter’s “interpretive dance” technique. May I reunite with my aboriginal self…
February 21st, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Alright, I had another thought:
Elric, you say that human existence is about a power play. Why? Why do we need power? Why do we care about power?
I don’t disagree that I see of lot of vying for power. I’d like to explore why.
For that matter, why do we even care to stay alive?
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:17 am
Elric, you write: “Secular people claim that the existence is a result of a blind chance, so you tell me what kind of meaning of life a secular person can have.�
Considering the fact that I’m a “secular� person, I’ll give you my humble perspective Elric. I find meaning in the dance I danced with my mother in Key Largo two months ago. With a man playing guitar next to us we danced to her favorite song “Kokamo.� We danced as mother and son and as two adults. I had always been too shy, to embarrassed to dance with my mother, but I decided on my bar stool that life is too short for that. I soaked in every second of that dance, every gleam of my mother’s teeth as she smiled her broad smile. I soaked in the glamourous pride of a lady. The guitar player and I made her feel like she was the only woman on earth – and she was. Oh ya, and I “got down� a little myself.
I bring this story up Elric because the beauty of moments like that is the only meaning of life I need. The only religion I practice is a constant striving to live in the moment. To milk moments like that for every once of love and pleasure I can. Yes I believe that existence is blind chance and I feel like that I won the lottery with that chance. Am I going to take my winnings (life) and sit in a dark room? No, I’m going to seize the day! In my spiritual world (and I do feel a spirituality) I will live by one commandment, the Golden Rule, I will treat others the way I want to be treated.
Elric, tell me why I need more. I really want to know.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:52 am
Allison- I should have known that you appreciate dancing. As serious as you are, you seem to be someone who doesn’t take themselves too serious, which I think is a special quality – and one that lends itself to an appreciation of dancing. I’m not sure why I see that connection, I just do. What is your favorite music to dance to, if you don’t mind me asking?
I thought about both of your comments last night in bed and decided that I find it hard to connect to this conversation directly because I don’t live my life in terms of moral codes, at least not consciously. When I hear talk of morals I itch (to use Brendon’s word) because I smell judgment in the air. I avoid judgment like the plague, both the judging of me by others and the judging of others by me.
So when you write: “Perhaps we would find that if we could establish a moral code that prevented the destruction of self-trust, that we would eventually have no need for a moral code.� I propose that our new code should include an avoidance of judgment. The less anxiety we have at being judged by others, the more courage we will have to trust in ourselves, to have self-trust. When you dance Allison, where do you dance? Do you dance and “get lost in my own world� in public? How conscious are you of the people around you?
I think confidence plays a key role as well and I’d like to hear your ideas on that sometime. And I like your idea about loops. Way past my bedtime.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:42 am
Hey jazzman: my curiosity got an unexpected boost today by a drive-time Day-to-Day report from Dahlia Lithwick’s SCOTUS summary. (This would have gone to the Hart-Beinart-Perle thread, but on reflection belongs here, I think.) So, please consider the following from one of your favorite hotheaded ‘galahads’…
SCOTUS today allowed the legality of the hallucinogenic tea of a Brazilian-originated religion (which I’ve no quibble with), but it struck me as a classic ‘majority morality vs. minority morality’ issue.
In other words, the US government’s hope to outlaw this tea was defeated:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/21Feb20061230/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
So, with this law-of-the-land example of religious tolerance as background…
Let’s say I have a vision from God in the woods behind my house (like the Mormon founder in New York). This vision first inspires me to establish a legal religion, and to attract congregants.
This vision of God also informs me that women are inherently deceitful, and prone to satanic impulses. God informs me – directly – that I should preach the incarceration of wives within homes, and that any who try to escape must be beaten – for their own good, because the impulse to escape isn’t really theirs but an example of Satan’s presence.
Then, despite having established a legally recognized religion, some damned do-gooder interloper turns me in.
What is the government’s obligation?
Whose morality prevails?
And before you consider this, let me posit the following: the government’s body of ‘rights’ as a ‘state’ is a European invention, not something ‘god-given’. Likewise, Afghanistan’s status as a state was a European creation – because the entire European structure and fiction of ‘statehood’ was literally forced onto the non-European world – and only where and when convenient for the colonialists.
So please don’t duck my query behind the shield of ‘sovereign rights.’
(Afghanistan’s ‘state’ was non-existent in 2001. It had all been destroyed. The ‘government’ weren’t legislators or executives or judges, but ‘Crips’ in Imam-drag.)
When do responsible humans say: ‘no more’, and stop the brutalization of people who never voted for the men incarcerating them in their homes, and beating them for arbitrary (and paranoid) violations of ‘morality’?
Would we let kids do it?
Are illegitimate quasi-governments left over in the residue of ruined, foreign-imposed states any different from orphaned children?
I honestly can’t anticipate how you’ll reply to this — to this as it’s posed precisely, anyway.
(And anyone else can feel free to offer their opinions too.)
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:54 am
Another way to put it:
Should a plane load of rescuers have left alone the new society of Golding’s ‘Lord of the Flies’?
Or should they have stepped in and said, ‘no more’?
February 22nd, 2006 at 5:48 am
Dang it: one last thought.
I essentially agree with jazzman that ‘violence begets violence’.
Yet what does this imply for a lack of will to STOP violence?
Do we allow a sadistically violent culture to perpetuate itself, permanently consigning its people to a birth-to-death cycle of violence?
Or do we at least TRY to arrest the cancer?
What’s worse: intervention, or perpetual violence against victims in a culture we helped to create before abandoning it for more lucrative exploitations?
Answers are welcome from one and all: this is, after all, the nearly permanent ROS Morality thread!
(I’m kinda hoping it never airs. I like having it around.)
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Yes Yes Yes we try to “arrest the cancer” Nikos. The question is not “ifâ€? but “how.â€? Violence must be the ABSOLUTE last choice. There are many ways to be active and not passive without the destruction that breeds resentment, even by the originally oppressed. The world is becoming smaller with technology. With this globalization we have a chance to spread the ideals of our democracy by example instead of muscle. We will shine the light on them through the media. Will will shine the light on companies that do business with the oppressive regime. We will blog on the websites of their people. The indigenous people of these countries will eventually rise up and grasp freedom on their own.
We have our own house to clean (poverty/lack of health insurance) before we can barge into our neighbors house. Hey! Your house is bringing down the property value around here, we’re going to go in and clean it up ourselves, the way we like it!
MLK: “If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolute night of bitterness and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos.�
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Allison, morality is a set of beliefs which makes it irrational.
Can you give me an example of incosistent rationality?
Whatever pleases me is as ok as it is vain. I say, whatever I do I do because it pleases me. I do not evaluate my deeds as good or bad. They are just what they are. And If I have to do what doesn’t please it’s because I am not an allmighty character in this game called our existence. But anyway, to clear the point, things which please me and things which do not are still the same: empty and vain. So there is no contradiction in my argument.
No, I am not lonely or depressed (if u meant that)!:):):) I could describe my state as happy, calm and problem free and there is a huge social network around me.:)
Powergain is the main goal of our common game our plane of existence. Don’t ask me why!:) That’s how it is. This question should be directed to the developer of our game (you can call him God).
Allison says - “For that matter, why do we even care to stay alive?”
Who realises the vanity of everything, for him life or death doesnt really matter.
On the other hand those who take our existence game as an ultimate reality cling to life with all their desperation.
Nother, as you admit yourself, the meanings of life you have are important for you because you like/need them. So you should agree that they are RELATIVE! There is no ultimate truth in them and in this way they are as empty (or full if you like) as anything else.
Don’t you see the inconsistence in believing in blind chance and your spirtual experinces?!
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:49 pm
nother: “Violence must be the ABSOLUTE last choice”
I agree.
It’s just that I think in 2000 (let alone 2001) Afghanistan was overripe for a UN organized intervention. (And I believe it was discussed, although not seriously and without any interest from the US. And I’m not sure whether that’s worth a fact-check — let alone where to begin such a fact-check!)
Europe said ‘no more’ in the former Yugoslavia, whose jackals were hardly any different from Taliban. And the blood-enemies of the former Yugoslavia are living together reasonably well these days. So, interventions seem in fact to have a chance to stop the violence-begets-violence cycle. We’ve at least that specific precedent to ponder, however we might seek to improve on its imperfect model of action.
Look, I know from reading everyone’s posts herein that we’re all pretty much ‘peaceniks’ (and with a conviction that makes the Reagan-revisionists look absurd!), but each instance of atrocity is unique. Conflating Afghanistan to Iraq is a mistake: Afghanistan was unique. Uniquely inhumane.
Its only corollary is Darfour.
And who of would have complained if blue-helmeted Arab League forces had simply and bravely — and without firing a shot — filed into protective rings around those concentration-murder & rape-camps, and choppered in supplies until the janjoueed (sp?) had given up and gone home? It’s just a guess, but I don’t think the black Sudanese would have, oh, say, complained.
I know this highly speculative, but it’s worth pondering.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Dang it. When typing in this little box (instead of in Word like I should) I consistently omit fairly important verbs, like:
“I know this *is* highly speculative, but it’s worth pondering.”
Sorry all.
February 22nd, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Oh, nother! Sorry. My real life distracted me away from my originally envisioned end to my latest drone — I didn’t want to end on a seemingly contentious note.
I think that even though the possibility of intervention should be tolerated, it’s up to people like jazzman (and you and allison and anyone else) to say ‘NEVER!’ — because that chorus of ‘no violence ever’ is necessary to limit the frequency of intervention.
Otherwise any international convention allowing humanitarian intervention would almost surely become just another (nother!) tool for imperialist designs.
So: all you peaceniks: Keep it up!
Just know that one of your kin will quietly hope that SOMEBODY occasionally steps in between the abuser and the abused.
Over and out.
February 22nd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Oh, dear, where the devil are my manners?
Re my ‘Over and Out’ above – it’s not complete without a big and sincere Thank You to those voices whose contributions helped me sort the wheat from the chaff in my obvious conflict between principle and reality.
Most specifically: thank you Potter, nother, Allison, and especially the astonishingly consistent jazzman.
Lastly thanks to ROS, both in concept and in people, for establishing this forum.
Where else can we find so many articulate, principled, and laudably passionate voices? And all linked to a consistently excellent public radio show?
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
February 22nd, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Oh, jazzman: my ‘Over and Out’ obviates any moral or ethical compunction you might feel to reply to my post of Feb 22 at 4:42 AM (it wasn’t nearly that late out here, btw). Nother’s 12:20 PM offering was just the sort of closure I think I needed to drop it finally (and you all might want to thank him for it too!) – although it took a couple of hours to sink in.
On reflection, I’m not sure my 4:42 post was anything more than unconscious, reflexive swatting at the gathering flies on an already very beaten-to-death horse.
For whatever it’s worth, I’ve a dearly loved family member whose charming first husband turned out to be a serious and serial violent abuser – which makes every instance of that crap in the world very personal to me.
In the decades before domestic violence legislation, wives not only suffered beatings in private shame, but many actually died at their husbands’ hands, although the matter was usually hushed up and not prosecuted (an across-the-street childhood neighbor of mine, for instance).
So, I instinctively rail at inaction. I hate feeling like I’m part of a country that turns its back on the man-beating-the-life-out-of-his-wife-next-door.
And now I’m finished, again and for good. (Please, dear god, please.)
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
1st let me say that I’m encouraged by the recent tenor of this thread since my last diatribe. Due to the amount of activity, I’ll make a few observations and address the most recent discussion in a later post. I’ll start with Nikos’ definitions and say that most are circular – but the gist is morality involves value judgments and empathy boils down to the golden rule. As I have stated ad infinitum, I only make moral value judgments in terms of MY definition of absolute morality which is a superset of conventional morality. I attempt to live my daily life in the context of those precepts and try to champion those values aggressively during daily interpersonal contact (when appropriate) and in the philosophical discussions on the threads here.
Allison: Regarding “instinct�: I define instinct as the survival mechanism that guides animal behavior and they are not able to contravene their instinct (I admit that this can be construed to be tautological but so be it.) They instinctively find food, avoid pitfalls, and reproduce etc. I believe humans have “traded in� their instinct for free will, intuition and conscious choice and by those attributes CAN (I wish I knew how Potter got those italics) contravene what may be considered instinctive behavior. Your motherly instinct toward protection notwithstanding, I would say that it’s a combination of imagination (projecting yourself into the “threatening� situation) empathizing with the potential recipient of the threat, and making extremely quick assessments of the appropriate action (based on your experience, beliefs and emotions) and acting, however I don’t ascribe this complex gestalt as instinct.
Nother, I’m glad you like ‘trane, one of the more “spiritual� improvisers, I see our existence on the physical plane to be a form of jazz expression and hope I create exuberant improvised “music�, pleasing to the “ears� of those attuned to it. The great thing about jazz is that it’s made fresh in the moment and always allows huge leeway for the player to perform better than before (and also worse.) Bliss or transcendence in Emerson’s parlance is that emotional “aha� moment when one loses one’s self to the metaphysical and becomes aware of their connection with the universe and all that is. (I’m part and parcel of God. R.W.E.) Listening to or playing jazz (which encompasses a wide range & genres – I have a theory the reason newer “modern� (non-traditional) jazz is not more widely appreciated is that almost everyone has had the experience of hearing music to which they couldn’t relate and were told that it was jazz, thereby evoking distaste when they hear the term jazz, eh Nikos?) provides that connection for me as you state the “dance� does for you (life is as much a dance as jazz.) If you haven’t already, check out Gary Zukov’s The Dancing Wuli Masters.
Elric: You state:>> In being rational first of all I mean to be consistent. So if a secular person defies religion on the basis of being rational then he cannot claim in same time to be moral, morality being an irrational concept from the realm of beliefs. That is what I call contradiction and inconsistency.
Secular people claim that the existence is a result of a blind chance, so you tell me what kind of meaning of life a secular person can have. In the terms of consistency if one claims that everything exists just because of blind chance should claim as well that nothing has a meaning, hence no morality!>>
I agree that religious morality is a concept of beliefs, and that may seem irrational to non-believers, however it may or may not be consistent in their system of logic. (RWE again: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds or Kurt Godel: Complex systems can be complete and inconsistent or consistent and incomplete NOT both – take your pick.) You may not have a formal system of “morals� but you have an innate sense of what you term your “limits� and lines that presumably you will or won’t cross (possibly calculated as in your “game theory� as advantageous or disadvantageous to the outcome. I also agree that if everything exists because of accident or “blind chance� morality has no meaning (save the meaning with which each of us endows it) which is why Darwin’s dangerous idea is dangerous. If one accepts it as factual then one has a difficulty in ascribing objective meaning to anything as subjectivity is all that remains. This lack of meaning (worth) leads to the justification of the most reprehensible acts against nature and humans in the name of “survival of the species�, the individual has no meaning either except in furthering the existence of the species. This is one of the many reasons I don’t accept Darwin’s idea (besides my numerous adductions which have yet to be refuted here by any other evidence) - it devalues ALL THAT IS.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Nikos: I just read your above post and wanted to let you know that I am champing at the bit to reply to your 4:42 post but maybe not tonight.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Nikos writes:>>…In other words, the US government’s hope to outlaw this tea was defeated… >> This is an encouraging sign from the SCOTUS who finally upholds the 1st Amendment – but what about the Rasta’s communion tea? LDS polygamy (which would still be practiced (and is by fundamentalists) except for being blackmailed out of it in return for statehood?)
BTW reading the SCOTUS opinion you thoughtfully provided took me way back. I did botanical research on ‘huasca’ in college and its components harmine and harmaline among others from the Banisteria Caapi vine (see William S. Burrough’s The Yage Letters) It has a number of interesting and unique chemical properties. If one has a doubt as to the origin of reality, ayahuasca would doubtless disabuse that doubt.
Nikos writes: >> Let’s say I have a vision from God in the woods behind my house (like the Mormon founder in New York). This vision first inspires me to establish a legal religion, and to attract congregants. This vision of God also informs me that women are inherently deceitful, and prone to satanic impulses. God informs me – directly – that I should preach the incarceration of wives within homes, and that any who try to escape must be beaten – for their own good, because the impulse to escape isn’t really theirs but an example of Satan’s presence. Then, despite having established a legally recognized religion, some damned do-gooder interloper turns me in. What is the government’s obligation? Whose morality prevails?>>
The 1st Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
If the religion is comprised of consenting adults, where’s the beef? OTOH if adults are incarcerated against their will or beaten against their will then our society has allowed (for better or worse) the “legal�(legality is the tyranny of legislators – just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s “right� or illegal “wrong�) intervention by any governmental agencies deemed appropriate and if they will testify against their abusers then the abusers may be held criminally liable as well. By my Aztec definition of morality, the religion’s morality prevails, by my we are our own victim morality then absolute morality prevails.
The definition of what constitutes a “state� or “sovereign rights� is that it is a “state� of mind (each individual has different borders) and because it’s difficult to settle the provincial mental territorial disputes abstractly we define them by spatial (GPS now) borders and fences (good fences make good neighbors - R. Frost) to remove some of the abstraction but as you may have noticed this system isn’t foolproof and also is largely responsible for the vitrtual extinction of the nomadic lifestyle. Not to mention our own aboriginal population who had the concept of territorial claims but not land ownership. As long as people hold the belief that they have “sovereign rights� over or “own� property (see Kelo vs. New London or PLO vs. Israel) and that belief is challenged or refuted by others who claim “rights� to the same space, there (obviously) is a conflict. This may be settled peacefully with compromise or by wresting the space and holding by force. The only “moral high ground� that the US can claim in these types of disputes is that “usually� we settle domestic territorial questions peacefully. (Ruby Ridge, Waco?) What constitutes a “legitimate� government? Is democracy the “only� legitimate claimant? Is a Hamiltonian “Republic� preferable to a Jefferson “Direct Democracy?� Hamilton believed that a representative system would serve as a hobble against emotional mob hysteria - the idea being that the representative would altruistically vote against his ill-advised constituents’ wishes at the peril of his seat. Jefferson believed that men (no suffrage yet) would vote for enlightened self interest. Why do we need government? To protect us from ourselves? Against hegemony? To settle grievances? To punish the guilty? Because humans are “evil� and must be kept in line? We need government because we believe we need government because we mistrust our own intentions and must be regulated (oppressed) or we will run amok. That and a sorely needed public works dept.
More Later – Peace - Jazzman
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Hi, I am new to the thread, and completely enthralled by the debate. Unfortunately, I skipped some of the early posts, skimmed the less ancient ones, and read some of the most recent ones. Caveat: Of course, I come down on one “side” (which will become clear), and of course carry most of the accompanying baggage requisite for one on my “side”. Meanwhile I look at the other side and say “And you’re completely ignoring your baggage!” I love the debate more than the solution because the dialogue matters more to me. So, I apologize for any inadvertent insults - I sometimes get pretty pedantic and often get vehement.
“Darwinistic Dogma almost without exception is accepted by the non-religious masses and the ROS bloggers without question even though there is not a shred of hard scientific evidence to support it.”
Jazzman, you do refer to the evidence which negates the Theory of Evolution, and I was wondering if you could give me (and other newcomers) a quick overview of it. I don’t want to assume you are saying something you are not, and I get the sense that intelligent design doesn’t satisfy you.
As for hard scientific evidence to support evolution, I submit the simplest and most obvious proof: bacterial resistance. Most bacteria that people interact with divide at an fast rate. In a nutrient-rich environment (like a dead person), there are more generations of bacteria in a month than there are human generations ever - no matter whose clock you use. Bacteria generally do two things, and well: eat, and divide. When they divide, they make exact copies of themselves… ideally. So, in theory, the first bacterium introduced to the closed system should be identitcal to all the bacteria that are taken out of it a month later. They aren’t. Because of the nature of DNA replication, mutations appear, and some of the bacteria come out different. Of course, all their offspring will ALSO have the new genes (assuming the mutations aren’t harmful to the bacteria). Introduce a bacteria-killer like penicillin, and the bacteria all die. But if one single bacterium, which had an accidental change in its DNA, doesn’t die, it is resistant.
Now, people often ask, why didn’t that mutation exist earlier? Wouldn’t all the bacteria have been resistant before? Potentially, but doubtful. If a single bacterium with a (thus far) non-favoring mutation has to compete against a billion relatives, it is living on the precipice of extinction, which can easily come at the wipe of a nose. It needs to survive at least a few generations before it can get a foothold on survival. On the other hand, if all the other bacteria dead, this bacterium (in that nutrient-rich environment) can father a whole new race a resistant bacteria. And that is what has happened.
With the prevalence of antibiotics in everyday life, bacteria are getting harder to kill because resistant strains are being favored for. Humans applied an evolutionary pressure, which is nothing more than predation, and that pressure opened a previously-filled niche for a species which could withstand the predatory pressure.
This is important… Evolutionary pressure doesn’t come from within, or from some random “chance.” Evolutionary pressure is external - like the temperature of Earth’s oceans rising by a degree. Humans, rats, and pigeons are extremely effective at accidentally applying evolutionary pressure. Frogs aren’t supposed to have three eyes, yet our actions affect the sensitive genomes of unfertilized and fertilized eggs in rivers, jumbling up the DNA. Evolutionary pressure doesn’t “make” things appear, either. Because there is lots of copulating (and dividing) in the world of life, there are lots of chances for DNA to mis-copy. And when it does, it is either harmless, harmful, or beneficial. If it is harmless NOW, it may fester in the gene pool of species for generations. If pressure is applied on a species due to events on earth that make that harmless mutation beneficial, those individuals with the mutation will be more successful and become more dominant within the niche. (said differently, giraffes didn’t MAKE their necks long, but the longer-necked ancestors were more successful in the drier savannah environment).
Nevertheless, concrete, hard, evidence abounds. If one accepts that we have a rudimentary understanding of nuclear properties (and nuclear weapons indicate as much to me), then we have an entire avenue of radioactive dating. Through the fossil record, if there are distinct and obvious steps between the oldest fossil with DNA similar to a horse, and the more recent fossils with DNA that much closer to a horse, we have concrete evidence that’s more compelling than a bloody leather glove.
If gathered data show that humans didn’t exist on earth at a certain point, but certain larger apes did, that data stands on its own. But then, if gathered data also shows that things sort of human-like existed a little later, but those apes didn’t, and they were filling the same niche, there’s something extremely compelling about that. And then, if gathered data show that humans existed later, filling the niche that these human-like creatures did, there’s continued compelling hard evidence. And then there’s the DNA. If taken from these three creature groups, and the DNA say that the more ape-like thing shares less DNA with humans, and its niche-replacement more, then we have two separate streams of hard, scientific evidence.
Finally, there’s the scientific definition of “theory.” Theory means, basically, “a hypothesis that has yet to be disproven in a repeatable experiment.” Evolution is falsifiable. Evolution is also a description of an observed phenomenon, which scientists have tested countless times over for over 150 years. Intelligent design is not science because it is not falsifiable. It asks to prove a negative.
Okay okay, I know that is not exactly about morality, but since a premise of one side is the existence of evolution, and the premise of another is the lack thereof, I at least needed to go to bat for evolution. Most importantly, my arguments for evolution do not negate God, god, gods, or other higher beings. I am simply defending a system which most adequately explains all the observed understanding in science about “how we got here.” It (and I) meticulously avoid the question of “why we got here.” For the sake of length, my comments on morality will appear in my NEXT post.
Thanks for reading, all. This is a wonderful discussion.
February 24th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Okay, here ya go! These are my colorful guests suggestion:
A) Rabbi Michael Lerner Ph.D., a Harvard graduate with a doctorate in political science from Yale, was a member of the political science faculty of Yale before he moved to California. He is the editor of Tikkun, http://www..tikkun.org
and author of many books. His forthcoming The Left Hand of God: Reclaiming Our Country From the Religious Right & coauthored Why Spirit Matters: A Path to Healing Society (Dialogues at the Chopra Center for Well Being)
B) Cornel West, was a member of the Faculty of Divinity at Harvard University’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute of Afro-American Research and taught primarily in the fields of Afro-American studies and philosophy of religion. He had also previously taught at Yale University, Union Theological Seminary, and Princeton University, where he was chair of the department of Afro-American studies. Presently Univ. Prof. Religion & Philosophy @ Princeton, author of Democracy Matters, like MLK he calls us to organize and mobilize the nascent leaders, all us among them, to bring pressure on the status quo.
C) Ken Wilber, backgrounds in microbiology, evolution (Darwinian and Consciousness States- Zen, Tibetian, etc.), his model “The Four Quadrants of the Kosmos” and others articulate the evolution of consciousness form slime to Godhead (see “Spectum of Consciousness, The Atman Project and Up From Eden for starters). He’s generally regarded as the world’s most influential integral thinker. He is the first psychologist-philosopher in history to have his Collected Works published while still alive; draws heavily on the German idealists like Schopenhauer. Rarely gives interviews though.
Pres/Founder of http://www.integralinstitute.org/
D) Joel Osteen is a ‘Mega-church’ phenom and a leading voice for a new generation of Christian ministers. After becoming Senior Pastor in 1999, Lakewood Church has more than quadrupled its weekly attendance. He has a weekly television broadcast on numerous national cable networks, including Discovery, USA Network, ABC Family, Black Entertainment Television (BET), and even internationally in over 100 nations including CNBC Europe, Vision Canada, CNBC Australia and Middle East Television. His recent book, Your Best Life Now gives readers the ultimate ’seven principles’ tool to improve their lives spiritually and materially. http://www.joelosteen.com/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage
February 24th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Neglected the link for Dr. Cornel West…
best-selling books Race Matters” and Democracy Matters (only two in an amazing array), brought into the national spotlight his ongoing mission for racial equity and recognition of democracy as a spiritual force.
http://www.cornelwest.com/
February 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
vijitable:
You’re late to the party, but thanks for showing up. I’ve been staking a claim for evolution’s credibility for months but as a layman never had the scientfic goods for the argument. (Look in the archives for the E.O.Wilson thread [I think it was there and probably elsewhere too] in November or December — or at any thread with ID or Christianity in its title: it’s likely to have bits and pieces of our discourse on evolution in it)
And more than once I PLEADED for an evolutionary biologist to chime in.
So: THANKS! (even if you’re not an E.B.)
My pal jazzman is a tough nut to crack however.
So good luck!
February 24th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Nikos - If you’re interested in irony, I guess I embody it. I am not an evolutionary biologist. In fact, I focused on religious studies in college and spend most of my free time learning about religious beliefs. That said, I bristle at claims which speak to science, but don’t accurately reflect scientific data. There’s one more piece that I have - the numerous vesigial organs which serve no purpose on the bodies of different animals (snakes have tiny legs/fins in their skeleton, whales have a pelvis, humans have the appendix).
But I said I’d address morality in this post. I’ll keep it short. For morality to be god-given, it does not require that evolution did NOT give it. Given that I am a strong defender of evolution, I believe that morality, such as it is, MUST have evolved (god notwithstanding).
By our very brain structure, we are “wired” to be social. This is why autism is considered a disease - austic people, while often very smart, are unable to process the emotional and social cues that “normal” people take for granted. If we are wired to be social (and sympathetic), then it is automatically in our best interests to have sympathetic and protective feelings towards each other. Call them reasoned emotions, call them morals, we are forced to face our reality as a “pack” and we’ll protect our pack.
An exception that proves the rule is the way people interact with corporations. When the “other” has no face or notably sympathetic aspect, people are willing to steal from it. For instance, people who steal from corporations feel little remorse. Why should they - it’s a rich company. Likewise, corporations who affectively steal from people have little remorse as well, because people are aggregated numbers affecting the bottom line. Remove the social and sympathetic aspect of humans and we remove clearly moral behavior.
Another thing, which relates to the political figures who most vehemently yell and scream aboout morality and god. When I look at these political people who espouse that the Bible is Truth, I ask myself how much do they follow its morality? In the end, not much.
They covet their neighbors’ belongings (oil), they steal (oil), they are not meek, they steal from the poor to give to the rich (new bankruptcy laws), they don’t accept others (gays), they judge others (gays, women, poor, minorities), they obfuscate and lie (environment), they weaken education, they kill (war), and they claim that they are right (isn’t god the actual decider of these things?).
I can easily reject their claims to morality because they are immoral in countless ways. In addition, if the Truth is that they ARE moral, and their’s IS god’s will, then I have to reject that god as a tyrant. And, therefore, I have to reject claims that morality is god-given. If god’s values are so tyrannical and unjust (basically, immoral), that leaves evolution as the ONLY possible avenue for morality to have arisen in humanity.
If god’s morality is instead what we conventionally think is morality, then I am willing to entertain that god(s) gave it to us. But, even if it came from god, the functional aspects of morality must have evolved in us.
More later…
February 24th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Vijatble, intersting arguments, but still, how do you define what’s good and what’s bad?
February 24th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Vijtable: 1st of all welcome to ROS and this thread. I’ll try to be concise to your queries as not to bore Nikos et al. as I have previously answered similar issues regarding the Darwinian theory of Evolution. See my posts above at Feb 7 @8:33, Feb 8, @9:08, Feb 10 @8:32 all PMs
Vijtable writes:>>Jazzman, you do refer to the evidence which negates the Theory of Evolution, and I was wondering if you could give me (and other newcomers) a quick overview of it. I don’t want to assume you are saying something you are not, and I get the sense that intelligent design doesn’t satisfy you. >> I doubt anyone (many have tried) can negate or prove Darwin’s theory as it’s not falsifiable despite your claim to the contrary and yet to be proven. It’s an attempt to explain the diversity of “Nature� or a “Just So Story.� (Doesn’t it seem strange that for almost 150 years that such a widely accepted (well perhaps only widely accepted since Scopes) theory has resisted a posteriori scientific proof with the amount of energy devoted to the process? Now it’s such dogma that most of Evolutionists take their a priori assumptions (Darwinian Evolution) as fact and try to adduce mechanisms that account for the anomalies that they don’t conveniently ignore.) I’ll suspend the question of how “life� arose from “non-living� material and stipulate a primitive form such as a bacterium or virus has somehow managed to emerge.
V:>>for hard scientific evidence to support evolution, I submit the simplest and most obvious proof: bacterial resistance>> I agree with your analysis of the bacterial resistance mechanism. While this is definite (i.e., hard evidence) proof of mutation and of what I call micro-evolution i.e.,changes within a species but bacteria remain bacteria no matter how much they mutate.
V:>> Evolutionary pressure is external - like the temperature of Earth’s oceans rising by a degree. Humans, rats, and pigeons are extremely effective at accidentally applying evolutionary pressure. >> This is an extension of Gould’s punctuated equilibria attempt to explain the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, i.e., catastrophic external events cause evolutionary pressure and rapid mutation occurs so that (like the bacteria) successive radical mutations survive and look like an entirely new species and their forbears become extinct. External pressure in the early stages of earth (i.e., intense UV radiation as well as a lack of oxygen until “special� chlorophyll endowed plants (blue-green algae) was more likely kill off any life than support it. Chlorophyll based life needs sunlight to survive but would have had to develop huge quantities of itself in an absence of solar radiation until it could withstand the pressure to create enough oxygen to protect it. The symbiotic relationships of myriad life forms can not be explained by mutation or evolution.
V:>> Through the fossil record, if there are distinct and obvious steps between the oldest fossil with DNA similar to a horse, and the more recent fossils with DNA that much closer to a horse, we have concrete evidence that’s more compelling than a bloody leather glove. To my knowledge fossilized DNA can not be acquired much less studied. Amber incased animals/insects are not suitable for DNA studies and how can you adduce the totally discredited American Museum of Natural History’s EOHIPPUS descent of the equine canard as concrete evidence?
V:>> If gathered data show that humans didn’t exist on earth at a certain point, but certain larger apes did, that data stands on its own. But then, if gathered data also shows that things sort of human-like existed a little later, but those apes didn’t, and they were filling the same niche, there’s something extremely compelling about that. And then, if gathered data show that humans existed later, filling the niche that these human-like creatures did, there’s continued compelling hard evidence. Humans do not fill niches unless landmass is a niche. Just because there is similar morphology in primate DNA is not evidence of any sort of evolution. This is circumstantial evidence which is another tautological form of survivors surviving.
V:>> Finally, there’s the scientific definition of “theory.� Theory means, basically, “a hypothesis that has yet to be disproven in a repeatable experiment.� Evolution is falsifiable. Evolution is also a description of an observed phenomenon, which scientists have tested countless times over for over 150 years. Intelligent design is not science because it is not falsifiable. It asks to prove a negative. A theory is hypothesis used explain observations and make predictions which are tested to see if they are consistent with observations. Anomalies that are not explainable by observation cast serious doubt on the theory. You say scientists have tested this over and over for 150 years – yes and still there’s no hard evidence. I agree that ID is not science and not falsifiable but neither is Darwinian Evolution. It is not disprovable either and as yet NO proof exists. Like the existence of God it has been accepted by the believers on FAITH. BTW I always use the term Darwinian to distinguish micro from macro evolution. You conflate micro into macro without qualification as yet – benefit of the doubt)
V:>>I am simply defending a system which most adequately explains all the observed understanding in science about “how we got here.�>> As I have stated before given a choice between Creationism/ID and Darwinian Evolution, beings who consider themselves rational and not given to superstition usually would opt for the latter. The problem is you have only2 choices and neither of them anymore than a “Just So Story� O my best beloved. Science would be well advised to stop bandaiding Darwin’s flaws and studying the quantum nature of reality, evolution and how we or anything else in the universe actually “got here.�
.V:>>There’s one more piece that I have - the numerous vesigial organs which serve no purpose on the bodies of different animals (snakes have tiny legs/fins in their skeleton, whales have a pelvis, humans have the appendix). Just because vestiges of structures exist within a creature doesn’t mean that they once were historically full blown structures that correlate to the their appearances nor that they serve no purpose (just because one can live without an appendix or tonsils or a little toe doesn’t mean that they don’t have a function.)
V:>> Given that I am a strong defender of evolution, I believe that morality, such as it is, MUST have evolved (god notwithstanding). Evolved memetically in the micro-sense perhaps (but you seem to be describing what I call religious or ethical morality See my post of Jan 27 8:30 PM)
V:>> By our very brain structure, we are “wired� to be social. This is why autism is considered a disease Ants and Bees and are wired to be social does their very brain structure mimic ours (or ours theirs?) Socialization is a learned experience and that is why it is so variable. The parent/child bond is undoubtedly a form familial “wiring� which could be called a limited society. Many individuals are often quite antisocial and prefer an isolated experience but maybe they are not wired properly.
I have an acquaintance with persons pigeon-holed in the catchall net that well meaning psycho/medical establishment term Autism It is not a disease (except in that the “autistic� person is ill at ease due to the treatment that they receive) they experience a reality that is outside of the box that is deemed socially acceptable. I’d say that generally they have concluded that social contact is best avoided for any number of reasons and communicate that quite effectively.
The rest of your post seems to be a religiously based moral screed against the evils of mankind as defined by your notion of “morality� and curiously reject the “immoral� persons’ less than your sense ideal morality as the same morality handed down by “God� and reject the “god given premise� on that basis. This is an observation, NOT a personal attack and I welcome your voice here and on ROS.
Nikos: ’Sup? Until next week - Peace - Jazzman
February 24th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
I thought I had the font stuff down. I guess I’ll have to practice my shutting off the italics! Sorry for my ineptness at bulletin board techniques.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:22 am
At least some of the tendencies we classify as moral - honesty, straightforwardness in dealings with others, a willingness to cooperate, an unwillingness to take unfair advantage of the cooperative behaviors of others - are shown to be successful strategies in a broad variety of situations, sitautions which can be modeled by an iterative prisoner’s dilemma. (An iterative prisoner’s dilemma is a prisoner’s dilemma with a chance of facing off again against the same partner.) Such, at least, is the contention of Robert Axelrod (see his book, The Evolution of Cooperation). Do other people here think Axelrod’s simulations, or thinking in terms of the PD more generally, useful to understanding the origin of morality?
February 26th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
“Just know that one of your kin will quietly hope that SOMEBODY occasionally steps in between the abuser and the abused.”
I think I lost something in this line of thought. I wholeheartedly proclaim the label of ‘peacenik.’ This does not mean, however, that I do not support intervention. I was the kin that for 14 years quietly hoped.
Ultimately, I struck back. Literally. One solid, calm punch while I asked, “How do you like it?”
Now, in the ideal, I can see that the world would be a better place if we all could forego using violence, even at great risk to ouselves, to resolve conflicts, oppression, etc. Gandhi embodied this. He was willing to stand up the well-armed British and speak his truth to power, risking his own life while committing himself to non-violence. And he convinced a lot of others to do the same. Of course, the reality was, that he would never have been able to out-power the colonists. So, this was an extremely clever strategy. Great PR for his cause. No opponent can look justified to others if they are using violence, especially deadly force, against a group that poses no physical threat. Still, his movement stands as an example of the human potential.
Now back to my sub-atomic example. At the age of 14, I didn’t know of Gandhi or the concept of non-violence. I had been subjected to violence for as long as I can remember. The non-violent parent in my household was less than non-violent. That parent was passive. I learned that passivity was my death. I had a desire to survive and without forethought (I do think we’d call this instinctual) I used violence to end my suffering. It was one blow. The shock factor and unusual living circumstances combined to make this a successful strategy. One little blow. Surely, that can’t be bad. One smidgeon of violence to end a boatload of it. The violence is over and I can go on with my life in physical safety. I am no longer a victim.
Six years later, I’m in a bar. A man is bothering me. He won’t leave me alone. He badgers me to dance. He wants to buy me a drink. He wants to stand over my seat and breathe down my neck. Nothing I said would get him to move on. I quietly pulled back my chair, stood in front of him and punched him in the jaw. As a 5′11″ competivite athlete at the time, I had some pretty good torque working for me. I don’t think I broke his jaw, but he was hurting pretty bad. He left me alone after that.
Two years later, I’m dancing at a club in NYC with some friends. Two guy friends. Just friends. We’re all out on the floor together when some jerk starts trying to dance with me. He won’t go away. He’s leaning on me. Putting his head on my shoulder. My friends don’t help, they create room for him. I turn my back to him and he moves up behind me. I step forward, lean over and give a nice back kick into his belly. He lands on the floor unable to breathe for a moment. I’m kicked out of the club.
So, why do I tell this story. I was raised in a culture of violence. Though, I knew how much I hated being the victim of it. How wrong it was. How much I wanted to prevent violence in the world. When I felt threatened, I resorted to it. Without thinking. My surface personality would always act justified. Inside, I was shocked. Traumatized. Sure, I knew that I could protect myself to some extent, but at what cost? My power felt destructive and frightening. If I could create such pain, as a slender woman, then what is the energy of the human race when I extrapolate that out over the entire population. The vision was not something I could bear. I was afraid of myself. Of what I might do to someone. Especially given that I didn’t control these impulses. They just happened. It took years of therapy for me to accept that I could have a child and not kill it.
So, I know the reality of the human beast and the violent impulses that can be triggered if survival feels threatened. I know what it is to be at the receiving end of violence. At least at the receiving end I feel innocent. It is worse being the perpetrator. Worse in you soul. You become what you loathe and fear. But I understand that there are moments when it feels necessary. I don’t begrudge anyone for exercising that “necessary” option.
Yes, I believe in intervention. I believe in finely tuned early warning systems. I also believe that intervention doesn’t alway warrant violence. Had someone simply stood between me and my parent, Wrapped arms around my parent to disable, I would have had a healing experience. I would have been removed from harm’s way and would have been taught how to do that wihout perpetuating violence. I might have never known the overwhelming, powerful surge of energy that is violent rage in my body. I might never have needed to exercise the “necessary” option. I might have found peace long before I hurt someone else.
Now to morality. Out of my experience, I realized that I didn’t like being subjected to violence. I didn’t like being the perpetrator of violence. It wasn’t because I lived in a particular culture, or had been taught by some religion that these things were bad. I simply experienced them as such. I knew viscerally that acts of violence against one another don’t create a world that we really want to live in. You can’t get food if war is afoot. You can’t have shelter from the cold if your neighbor is constantly tearing down your house. You can’t think about much of anything else if you are in a lot of pain, or are struggling for survival. To me, the only reasonable approach to living this life is to rid ourselves of violence. As I have to work at it to rid myself of the violent instint, I guess this is a moral code. But is god-given? Evolved? Totally subjective? Without universal merit? I don’t know.
If we’re speaking about a rational, logical train of thought, I’ll try this: if we don’t need any universal moral code and we are to allow every individual to do whatever pleases them, or is instinctual, at every moment, we are unlikely to survive as a species. Our ‘instinctual’ proclivity towards violence is self-destructive. (Now, perhaps this would be better for the environment!!) Perhaps, we create moral codes, not because we feel powerless, but because we have too much power. The power of self-destuction. Perhaps, our instinct to survive drives us to create codes of behavior that curb that power. Yet, it all brings me back to the question: why survive? I mean, we have to work to avoid death. Its so easy to die. So, why survive?
This answer doesn’t mean anything to me: Who realises the vanity of everything, for him life or death doesnt really matter. On the other hand those who take our existence game as an ultimate reality cling to life with all their desperation.”
If life or death doesn’t really matter to those who ‘enlightened’ ones who realize the vanity of everything, why are they working to live? Why have we, for 20,000 years, continued to work for survival? It is spurious to argue that everyone who is tyring to survive is doing to because they see this “game” as an ultimate reality. Even if it is the ultimate reality and there is nothing more to experience, why bother?
Oh my, I’ve just realized how much time I’ve taken to write this. And how there is so much more of this thread that I want to engage and how I could get lost here. Research a dissertation or something. I need to stop now. I wish this were a retreat….
February 26th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Allison:
1. Great post.
2. The ‘lost something in this line of thought’ is my fault in that I imported to this thread the tail end of a discourse jazzman and I had been sussing through on the Hart, Beinart, & Perle thread – and I ought to have mentioned that. I thought that the argument had become a question of morality (as so many do), and perhaps an illustration the fuzzy proto-thinking I began in the post dated Feb. 20th, 2006 @ 8:25PM. Still, I ought to have mentioned its antecedents in the HB&P thread.
3. Your tale, aside from our differing genders, mirrors my life in several ways, so: a profoundly empathetic ‘Thanks’ from this always appreciative reader of yours. (Apart from also having an abusive family-tyrant, my only ‘bar-fight’ in 19 years of tending bar was provoked by the flying fists of an idiot filled with more bravado than beer, who never struck a blow but fled the scene on feeling the first punch I landed on his jaw. And then, instead of waxing ‘triumphant’ or any of that other macho bs, I agonized over it for days! Typical liberal, huh?)
4. At the very least I’d like to point out that your tale nicely illustrates that victims don’t ‘provoke’ their victimization – which is a Social Darwinian canard long overdue for a sound and impassioned debunking.
It’s the very definition of Blame The Victim, in fact.
5. I expect to offer you some further feedback – but by no means ‘blowback’! – (positive reaction, not negative, I mean), but not until after the import of your contribution settles in a bit more.
So thanks again.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:25 am
Very short post responding to a few aspects of Jazzman’s points (I’m still parsing most of them)…
1) I conflate micro and macro evolution because there is no functional difference between them. Genetic drift of any kind is evolution; evolution does not imply a new species is created, biologically speaking. The difference between “macro” and “micro” is an arbitrary division based on human classification systems. Using that logic, the single base-pair mutation that causes Tay-Sachs disorder is equivalent, genetically, to the extra chromosome required for Down’s Syndrome. In terms of the genome, one is a “micro” change and one is a “macro” change. However, both are genetic drift of some sort (in this case, with negative results). Most importantly, according to the framework of evolution, acceptance of genetic drift of any sort is acceptance of evolution. It is those who mis-define evolution that choose to make the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. “Micro” and “macro”, therefore, is a straw man.
2) Niches - While today, humans are capable of filling more niches, it is upon the shoulders of our built-up human history and technological development that we do that, not because of some innate ability to adapt to every land and environment. In fact, we transform the land to reflect the types of climates our bodies can withstand - 20-25 degrees centigrade, 20-50% humidity, near sea-level atmospheric pressure. Which is what we find in most buildings. Our “niche” is temperate climates with fresh water and vegetation. Our ability to adapt “landmass” to fit our needs allows to live in uninhabitable regions (such as Siberia or Arizona). As such, I think my argument about niches stands.
3) “This is an extension of Gould’s punctuated equilibria attempt to explain the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record, i.e., catastrophic external events cause evolutionary pressure and rapid mutation occurs so that (like the bacteria) successive radical mutations survive and look like an entirely new species and their forbears become extinct.”
I think you misunderstand me, Jazzman. The lack of a complete fossil record is easily explained in geologic terms - most things living things decay without leaving any trace. Everyday pressures lead to everyday change. Catastrophic pressures also exist (such as a meteoric event which killed the dinosaurs), but they are rare, at best. Something extremely simple can be a pressure enough, and purely biological. For example. a certain species of cicada has a seven-year dormancy period, and certain other cicadas have a thirteen-year dormancy period. The fact that, once every 91 years, they are breeding the same summer can devastate plant life that year. Given one other simple factor, like a randomly wet summer, fungi can be in high populations. Certain plant species can be devastated by the coincidence of these factors, opening a niche for other, until-this-point, less-successful plant life to flourish. The only reason this plant life was able to flourish was its ability to resist (maybe because it didn’t bear the brunt of the “attack”) the pressure applied by cicadas, other cicadas, and mold.
In all honesty, I reject Gould’s explanations because most papers by evolutionary biologists (that I ahave read) consider these specific arguments of Gould’s to be dubious, at best. The idea that only catastrophic pressures can push a gene pool to drift is inconsistent with observed data.
Jazzman, while I’m still exploring some of your specific points, it troubles me that you say, definitively, that there in NO hard scientific evidence. The very acceptance of “micro” evolution is acceptance of some of that very evidence you claim there is none of. I look forward to your response.
Next post… Responding to Eleric about HOW I define good and bad…
February 27th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Hey Nikos, you seem to be so good at tracking the many parts of the thread here. Able to point to a particular post, etc. How do you do it? I’m struggling to follow things here in a cohesive manner. By the time I scroll down to respond to something, I’ve forgotten whose post I’m responding to, much less any other thoughts I wanted to engage.
Are you printing this out?
February 27th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Allison: I’d love to help but I doubt that I can.
Only on rare occasions have I web-surfed on computers other than my trusty Gateway; I’ve learned in those instances that web pages don’t necessarily look the same from one computer to another.
I believe it depends on ‘the settings of the web browser’. (These include incomprehensible but essential geek terms like ‘Java Script enable/disable’ – but I wouldn’t know a java script from a lava flow.)
And unless we could somehow set up our two computers side by side, I’d have no way to know how the information appearing on your screen differs from mine.
Worse, any possible remedy would be nothing but guesswork.
So, my (probably) entirely useless advice is this:
Take the mouse pointer down to the lower right hand corner of this page, and, for speed, click it not on the arrow itself, but in the apparently empty ‘gray’ space just above the arrow. Holding it there will dramatically speed the scroll action. You probably know this already. You may or may not also know that if your mouse has a wheel in between the left and right buttons, you can spin it to scroll much more slowly.
Again, I expect that you already know all this, but every now and then I find that a friend or acquaintance doesn’t know as much as I do (which ain’t much, hon) and I’m always happy to share the single iota of geek-arcana that I knew and that he or she didn’t.
Now, having said all this: does your version of the ROS page show the dates and times of posts?
If not, then I’m willing to blindly wager that the problem is an easily remedied browser setting – and quite possibly that Java Script nonsense that geeks understand but we don’t. You can monkey with it in, for example, the Explorer ‘Tools’ ‘Reset Web Settings’ drop down option, but you’d need telephone assitance, I’m willing to guess. Otherwise, who knows what your web pages will look like? Will you see anything?
Finally, although I expect this was a waste of otherwise valuable ‘electronic paper and ink’: I hope it shed at least a tiny ray of light!
Good luck, and please continue your contributions (& I’m quite sure I’m speaking for more folks than myself.)
February 27th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Hi Nikos,
Thank you for taking so much time attempting to help me. And, hey, nice to see your face!! Its great to have a face to go with a name.
Unfortunately, I know how to scroll. I’m an ex-geek. Used to program computers. But I find it unwieldy to manage this long linear block of text. Reading through it, going back to find particular bits, etc is challenging my “mommy-memory” brain. So, are you just spending a lot time to compose your responses?
Perhaps, this conversation should move to a different thread, so we can get back to morality here….
February 27th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Allison: Great post. You realize that pacifism is a choice and not instinct (that’s the 90% of the way there) and make the tough decisions to remain peaceful unless pushed beyond your limits which vary according to circumstances. I would urge you to attempt to remove yourself from the circumstances rather than risk injury or worse in a confrontation with less than ideal humans. I realize that women attract men in atavistic ways that most men don’t and I can’t walk in your shoes but I since I have chosen to become a pacifist almost 35 years ago I can honestly say I have not had other than verbal confrontations and have either diffused potentially confrontational situations or extracted myself from them. IMO meeting violence with violence is NEVER necessary I would not perpetrate violence on another to save myself (I’m not to proud to appeal to someone’s better nature) and I arrange my affairs so as not to bear bait or occupy the time/space coordinates that demarks such a situation. Pardon me if I interpret Elric again but I think he means vanity as “in vain� as all for naught (given his nihilistic bent.) If that was your reading, please excuse the presumption. I keep a MS Word document of each thread in which I participate, this makes it easy to search for points or individual replies. Just copy and paste the additions as they become available.
Nikos: Any kind of Darwinism is a canard: Neo, Social, or good old fashioned Natural Selection. The victim also bears the responsibility of victimization - although I agree with Allison: The perpetrator bears a greater responsibility but many times the victim provokes their victimization by not taking steps to avoid it. I was a “victimâ€? of abuse that today would have me in State Social Services custody had it been reported, but chose to leave home at 14 instead. It was “my way or the highwayâ€? at home (a devout Christian family who believed in the “spare the rodâ€? philosophy) so I took the highway. It wasn’t easy but I wasn’t going to take it anymore and somehow (because of or in spite of the situation) with the help of many charitable people, I turned out okay and have a reasonably workable relationship with my parents today. BTW Where’s this face Allison has had the privilege of viewing?
Vijtable writes:>>1) I conflate micro and macro evolution because there is no functional difference between them…“Micro� and “macro�, therefore, is a straw man. >>: Au contraire mon ami: Micro evolution is defined as change within a species. Macro evolution is defined as one species changing into another and consequently losing the ability to interbreed with members of the original species. I repeat there has been NO evidence in the fossil record of any intermediate forms and no examples of any “missing� links ever found and even today with all the recombinant DNA science no new viable species have been created. Bacteria remain bacteria Fish stay fish and don’t become amphibians Birds are birds and didn’t evolve from lizards. As I asked Nikos, how many unsuitable mutations did it take before the 1st flying birds evolved a wing structure that was aerodynamic? If Darwin were correct in his theory there should be plenty of intermediate forms not only in the fossil record but NOW especially if your “external pressure� thesis is correct.
2) Niches: The world is in fact a human niche as we have raped and exploited practically every ecosystem we touch. But that is not as you so aptly note due to evolution but technology.
3) The not a lack completeness in the fossil record, it’s the lack of ANY evidence of macro-evolution in the record. The “tree of life� has no branches whatsoever. It shows species arise, continue with minor variations, and disappears from the fossil record. There are many species that remain impervious to external pressure for millions of years. I don’t accept Gould’s epicyclical explanations either, but he evidently felt the need to plug a gigantic hole in the available evidence Darwin’s theory. This is a huge problem for evolution science as they have no adequate explanation for the TOTAL lack of intermediate forms or the problem of Entropy (which states that in a closed system the likelihood of order decreases with time – the exact opposite of Darwin which postulates increasing order – higher life forms from lower.) Your external pressure is demonstrated handily by the sooty moth example. They come in a sooty gray-black variety and a gray-white variety the sooty variety was successful in not being eaten while the environment was polluted with coal fire ash as their camouflage made them hard for birds to see. Their white mutations were not as fortunate. When the environment was cleaned up the tables were reversed and the sooty ones were easy prey. Again this is micro-evolutionary niche exploitation. If you can show me the evidence you use to conflate variation with speciation, I’m all ears (eyes.)
I repeat that to date, there is absolutely NO hard evidence (adduce some if you can – 3 eyed frogs are still amphibious FROGS) to support Darwin’s “Just So Story.� If there were there wouldn’t be such a controversy. It’s no different than your religious studies (I’m no stranger to the comparative varieties of religious experience and I was also a biology major for a time.) The things that are nonsensical to our logic and have no evidence or proof for the postulates are accepted on faith. My “faith� is that someday science will understand that the world of “maya� is a construct of consciousness and that when one violates the principles of what I term absolute morality, one is not only lessening the quality one’s own life experience but all of nature’s as well. I look forward to your response - Jazzman
February 27th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Hey Jazzman, I guess I should have pointed out that the stories I related were more than 20 years ago. I chose pacifism about that long ago. I’m in my forties now. Haven’t succumbed to violent tendencies in two decades. To be clear, i didn’t relate the stories because I am struggling with any of that now, I used them as a way of getting to a point of discussion.
More later, gotta get the kid to bed now.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Elric (apologies for the misspelling last post)…
In a basic sense, I think morality does come from humanity’s evolved social nature. Morals are typically defined in relation to “other,” and are thus social norms. Fundamentally, it comes from mommy. (I say “mommy” not to insult males like myself, but because the mother is typically more present in a child’s rearing, and always more present during fetal development.) A child is communicating and relating with its mother long before it can speak. There is an intrinsically dependent relationship between THAT mother and THAT child. When a child is reared, s/he is reared to be social in THAT community with certain norms, whatever they may be.
Putting social nature aside for a moment, let’s look at morals themselves as simply a phenomenon. Morality is inherently dualistic, self-other oriented. They relate to certain behaviors, specifically between self and other. Often, morals are attached to consequences, again handed down by a collective of selves (which I will call the “interself”). The morals of one interself and another interself are often rooted in similar themes, but are sometimes differently understood. The unique quality of the interself is that it functions by agreement of a group of selves. So morals are relational, between self and other, and typically depend on a collection of selves, the interself, to enact and enable them.
Of course, the “interself” is a name for a family, or a community, or a society. If, as I said, humans are innately social, then it would behoove them to have ground rules and norms for interacting. We are not snakes, and are not self-sufficient, and that evolved pack-like behavior requires modes and boundaries of conduct. The basic, most fundamental, and least-changing norms are the morals.
Now, if you were to ask me where a specific moral idea came from, like altruism, I can say it is to the species’ evolved collective benefit. But then, as Allison and Jazzman (appropriately) ask, why is there violence in our lives? I think it comes down to a fundamental Buddhist notion - ignorance. The best demonstration of that ignorance is the way we treat our government like an external actor, outside of our control. We become ignorant that it is merely an interself, and depends on all the selves for it to exist as an interself. So when we blame the government for its misdeeds, we are treating it like an other when it is an interself. We bear some (SOME) responsibility for its actions.
Likewise, when we do not see other people as part of an interself, we are capable of acting violently toward them. That patron of that bar did not see Allison as part of an interself, and when his ignorance and arrogance led him to act inhumanly to the interself between Allison and him (or the bar and him, or humanity and him), Allison was able to see him that way. She was the interself handing down a consequence for an “other” rejecting the norms of the interself (indeed, various interselves). Was Allison’s counter-violence moral, then? If the norms of the interself dictate that hers was an appropriate response, then yes. In absolute terms? I don’t know. But I don’t know if morality is absolute.
I can already sense that someone will say that I am being purely relativist. In a sense, I am, because I am trying to reconcile how certain violent choices may be appropriate ones. To use a tired, but useful, example - would it have been better to stop Hitler in the 1930’s by whatever means necessary? Yes. His rejection of the communal interself required action in a serious way. But as I said, there is a vague amount of responsibility that the interself bears, for allowing Hitler’s rejection of it to flourish at all. In the 1920’s, the German manistream political parties ignored the Nazis as crazy extremists - in essence, putting Nazis outside of the political interself. The Nazis, meanwhile, decided that they were representatives of the German interself, other-izing the political mainstream as non-German. This “sale,” enabled by the willful ignorance of the mainstream politicians to the Nazis, and by the promotion of xenophobia as a moral mode of the German interself, allowed the Nazis to rise to power.
So, to me, morality is purely the question of whether you are in the clan or not. What decides whether you are in the clan is arbitrary - for some, being gay is enough to kick you out of the clan; for others, owning guns is. For some, neither is significant.
That big collective “moral” that we shouldn’t kill each other, present in EVERY religion and EVERY culture, has been violated in EVERY religion and EVERY culture. This moral’s basis is in the space between people, not within people. If you decide somebody is outside the circle, it is easy to mistreat them. The ignorance wildcard is the knowledge that we are only one species on the only planet that we know can support us (and the only one we can travel to); the interself should include everything that it takes to keep us going.
Side note: so if ignorance is the basis of behavior that doesn’t support the interself, what is it that we need to be aware of, beside the big, fuzzy fact that we all need to get along? That’s the Buddhist rub. We don’t know enough about enough to accurately assess what is “good” and what is “bad,” no matter what the ends are. If the end is all people being healthy, we can endlessly debate about the best insurance scheme, which is a moral argument, but we don’t know enough to say we know which answer will be right.
More in a little bit…
February 28th, 2006 at 2:26 am
Jazzman, thanks for the quick reply. Nikos, I would love to know what you think of the below…
I understand where you are coming from with respect to “micro” and “macro,” but these definitions are non-standard, and, as I previously noted, arbitrary. What defines a “species” is highly variable, and is NOT the basis of analysis in evolution. Simply put, evolution is “change over time.” ANY genetic drift is, by definition, an evolutionary process. Speciation is simply a side-effect. Therefore, it is not central to demonstrating the mechanism of evolution, and the fact that the mechanism exists (which is what we are arguing).
But, to the point that evolution IS THE mechanism by which speciation takes place, I will admit that you have not been convinced by my points thus far. So, I will try to convince you. “Bacteria are still bacteria,” you say, but there are literally millions (if not billions) of species of bacteria. When an e. coli “microevolves” to interact with its environment in a new way, IT is a new species. This is variation AND speciation. Moreover, one could say that a child with Tay-Sachs disorder IS a new species - they never interbreed with humans.
The “lack of intermediate forms” you invoke ignores the intermediate forms. Your argument is a logical dead-end, because it is non-falsifiable. It is ONLY asking for what is in between what we know. When something is found, it is no longer unknown, and no longer applies. For example, the intermediate form of Merychippus, which happens to slot nicely (morphologically, geographically, genetically, and temporally) between Eohippus and Equus, is an intermediate form. If you are not satisfied with three steps, another two have been discovered, which slot in the spaces (Mesohippus and Pliohippus). The intermediate form of Archeopteryx slots nicely between raptor dinosaurs and birds. There are countless other examples of intermediate forms in the fossil record (whales, homonids, pollinating flowers, insects, spiders).
So, I have demonstrated that the mechanism of evolution takes place (you call it “microevolution” but I object to the term as misleading), and the fact that speciation takes place and there are transitional forms in the fossil record. With bacteria, I demonstrated that variation IS speciation. I have not yet demonstrated that with animals (or plants). This is where I lean on two facts:
1) The fact that “ontogony recapitulates phylogeny,” that DNA has a direct relationship to traits
2) The simply vast volumes of data which support the two things I have demonstrated (mechanism of evolution, and transitional manner of speciation).
These facts in hand, I can make the following assessments: The fact that DNA is directly related to traits means that changing DNA can change traits. The fact that traits are more different from the oldest as time passes (in the “lineage” of horses, for example) means, therefore, that DNA has become more different over the years, by some means. Observed data confirms that more difference in traits typically implies more difference in DNA, and vice versa. So far, in nature, the ONLY explanation for how DNA changes over time is the mechanism of evolution. Until some better explanation appears, Occam’s razor dictates evolution is likely the answer. That millions of people smarter and more intellectually rigorous than me can also say with certitude that evolution is the best explanation so far also adds to my comfort.
Going even further, IF evolution is the means by which all species came to exist, then a way to falsify this is to see if vastly different species share ANY traits. If they don’t, then there are various hanging threads that evolution cannot explain. If they do, then speciation by evolution is at least not disproved. Indeed, they do. Hence, homologous structures, vestigial structures, similar cell construction. We even share with the banana half of its genes. There may be another explanation for how this is, but this fact also supports evolutionary theory.
Is there a smoking gun? I don’t know. To me, all of the above is equivalent to bullet matching a gun in the possession of the one with the blood on his clothes, fingerprints at the scene, and the car that had the same plates as the one leaving the scene. On top of that, add a few ear-witnesses, and a few people who heard the person brag about it later. Is it possible that it didn’t happen a certain way? Sure. But it would be a great story.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:53 am
One last bit about morality and Buddhism, a story which typically grounds me in terms of how to act morally. The story is heavily paraphrased and simplified, but I think it still holds the kernel I’m trying to get across.
In Mahayana texts, a man approached Buddha and said that all his (philsophical questions) questions must be answered before he would consider learning the path that Buddha teaches.
Buddha responds with a parable of the poisoned arrow. Imagine, that somebody is hit by a poisoned arrow. A physician comes to treat the victim, but refuses to treat the victim. Imagine, Buddha teaches, that the physician insists on knowing everything he can related to the arrow before it is removed: why the person shot that arrow, where that person came from, what he did, how he made the arrow, what the poison was, what material was the bow that shot the arrow, and so on. The victim would die. The physician will not have accomplished his goal.
To answer all the philosophical questions of single person would not only take the length of an entire lifetime, it does not help the person resolve the root problem of suffering. The physician, the teacher, need to act mindfully and thoughtfully.
In the first moment, we first need to remove the most direct cause of suffering, the poisoned arrow. The only way to do that is not only to think, but to act. Only after direct causes of immediate suffering are removed can the mind be bothered to focus on the root causes of endemic suffering, namely ignorance. Letting the physician remove the poisoned arrow is like
I think morality can and should function this way. Sometimes the solution to a problem is to give a man a fish, so he can ignore the hunger and THEN learn how to fish.
Framed in this sense, that morality’s goal is the end of suffering in a mindful manner, I think morality allows for “moral-yet-violent” acts. (And, of course, I believe morality is an evolved social norm-set.)
February 28th, 2006 at 5:12 am
Vijtable: My first comment is that your excellent back and forth with jazzman provides the articulation for my intuitive comprehension of evolution that I couldn’t offer him in my many responses.
So again: welcome aboard the good ship ROS; and I’m delighted that your first stop appears to be the ship’s Morality Deck.
Vijtable and jazzman both: it seems to me that ‘micro’ evolution as described by jazzman isn’t distinct from ‘macro’ since ‘speciation’ occurs in exactly the same range of increment as ‘non-speciation’ – in truth, I believe this all a continuum, with poles distinguished artificially simply for the convenience of discussion. And as such, I suggest that the articulated concepts are flawed, although the genetic and evolutionary occurrences the concepts attempt to describe are every bit as real as the sun. (Course, I’m only intuiting, not intellectualizing.)
I must repeat, as one simple example, the ongoing yet still incomplete ‘speciation’ of Golden-winged and Blue-winged warblers I’ve had the privilege to observe through my very own binoculars.
Oh! I just now read vijtable’s “Speciation is simply a side-effect� which is essentially the point I tried to make above.
Jazzman: I’ve a small dispute and a big one.
Small: I don’t believe pacifism is purely a ‘choice’. Instead I believe it more humanly natural than truculence – but I’ve no doubt that environmental stressors stimulate truculence. Allison’s tale and my feedback illustrate this: neither of us ‘went looking’ for fights to slake our ravenous truculence!
My support for this position is the anthropological, ranging from South Pacific islanders to many (but by no means all!) hunter-gatherers.
Agricultural societies, by contrast, are new and very different: vastly more prone to stress induced truculence and violence than the hunter-gathering societies that typified our species for most of prehistory.
And this is the very problem with the Eurocentric lens of our nascent attempts to empirically comprehend human nature: we project our cultural norms onto the societies we study, misunderstanding and misnaming the reality of others. (And Social Darwinism is the ‘poster boy’ for this phenomenon.)
Big: this assertion that “The victim also bears the responsibility of victimization� is bunk.
It’s Social Darwinian if not socio-biological bunk, at that.
It’s Blame The Victim.
And it’s not worth arguing.
(It’ll just piss me off to no good end. And I don’t much like myself after one of my ROS rages. Nevertheless: sincere congratulations for escaping your childhood tormenter (and for your willingness to share the tale), but please don’t think that everybody [especially the young and female ‘everybody’] is just as free to escape as you were. And to discount or downplay the deceitfulness that abusers employ to enchant their victims before the onset of the abuse is flatly disingenuous. I won’t buy it ever, and won’t waste another word on this nonsense.)
Now, for the silly photo: it’s hidden in the site somewhere, but since it makes my face into a 50% larger than life-size moon of Jupiter, you might as well not bother to look for it. Its only redeeming quality is that it keeps me ‘obscured’ while nicely picturing David, the producer who accompanied Chris to Seattle, who sits to my left at the beer-bottled table.
Incidentally, Jazzman, I’ve more than once relayed to my sister your suggestion that she join the blog party (because she’s awesome and would contribute great stuff like allison’s) but she always declines. Not from disinterest so much as from the discomfort the typing would inflict on her arthritic fingers. (She suffers from Lyme disease – misdiagnosed for so many years that the antibiotic doses necessary to cure her are nearly strong enough to kill her instead. We’ve got to reinvigorate her internal organs before resuming the antibiotics. It’s sort of a circular chicken-and-egg problem though: the untreated Lyme weakens her organs like the treatment does! Even so, I’m hoping she’ll recover sooner than later – and eventually bring to the ROS threads her razor-like talent for detecting logical fallacies. I, for one, could use a lesson or two from her, and that’s for sure.) Thanks nevertheless for asking!
Well, it’s happened again: I’ve typed while weary, and well past the hour I should have slipped into the jersey sheets of bed. Thanks, guys.
February 28th, 2006 at 5:52 am
I hate it when I’m in bed and realize a better way to make a point than whatever I’d just used.
Re the speciation thing: ’speciation’ isn’t a bigger evolutionary ‘jump’ than ‘micro’ evolutionary jumps. In other words, it takes many generations of reproduction, and isolated development for a ‘new species’ to solidify as such from its original ancestral stock. The reason the two kinds of warbler I used in example can still hybrize is because they haven’t been isolated long enough from one another. So, where their habitats overlap, they can produce hybrized offspring.
In other words, speciation is a very long multi-generational happening, not a sudden genetic bolt from the blue. The mutation might be sudden, but the makings off that mutation into a distinguishable species is anything but sudden.
I hope this made sense — I’m too tired to parse it for coherency.
Later, all.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
uh-oh. I’m an idiot. Something was bugging me about my victim rant as I dozed off but I couldn’t see it till just now in the bright light or morn: the ‘flatly disingenuous’ wasn’t jazzman but the Blame The Victim ideology I so despise.
Sorry jazzman. That’s what i get for typing while tired. It looks like I meant it personally — but I didn’t. I’m just a hotheaded nincompoop. Sigh.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Oops… One mistake I made. I don’t know why it came out at all, but it was late, and I quoted the wrong pithy evolution phrase.
Ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny. This is Haeckel’s erronious “proof” of evolution through embryonic development.
I meant to say: Phenotype reflects genotype. All that other stuff about DNA and traits, and their relationship, it stands.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Vijtable: I enjoyed your “morals� post and the thought you put into it. I call the interself a gestalt and the rather than self-other dualism, I regard it as self applying dualistic value judgments to the “other� (events & nature / abstract and concrete.) Violence exists because we (humans) choose to create it – and I have said that it is a mostly a function of FEAR and improperly expressed aggression. The rest of nature is instinctive and expresses its aggression spontaneously however things appear and doesn’t repress or engage in tit for tat vengeance. I believe most morality is imparted from LARGE looming adults to each child, rarely questioned or examined by the holders of those beliefs or the receivers of the inculcation. Most dicta were for reasons of survival, as young humans without benefit of life experience are vulnerable in many circumstances to less than ideal actions. I also believe (ad nauseum) that there is a meta-morality that I call absolute morality that if adhered to there would be no need for other “morals.�
V:>>To use a tired, but useful, example - would it have been better to stop Hitler in the 1930’s by whatever means necessary? Yes. His rejection of the communal interself required action in a serious way. This is yet another “ends justify any means� argument - I bet the Buddhists would say that the ends justify means ONLY if undertaken in a non-violent way. Advocating violence to prematurely end one of the best (and sorely needed) examples of how humanity should not act and form an edifying meme in human consciousness, is ignorant and it is by no means certain that had it not happened the world would be in a “better� condition today. If this sort of misguided idealism had been erased and it were to reappear in say a nuclear power with similar ideals the results could be far worse. The memes of the holocaust are a strong deterrent to similar atrocities recurring not only in Germany but worldwide however the lessons of violence begetting violence are still being learned.
V:>> We don’t know enough about enough to accurately assess what is “good� and what is “bad,� no matter what the ends are. Absolute morality is a place to start. Most good and bad value judgments are neutral in the larger sense, and the Buddhist principle of right action goes along way to cancel the “rub� See my post above: January 27th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
V:>>If the end is all people being healthy, we can endlessly debate about the best insurance scheme People use health or lack for their individual purposes. People who are healthy or unhealthy are so because of their personal challenges, psyches and beliefs. The mind/body connection is rarely disputed today. In primitive societies a witchdoctor was as effective (possibly more) in his own gestalt as a “medical� doctor is in ours. Our medical system believes in disease as an enemy and treats it violently in many cases. Sometimes it appears to be effective and is. However, if people believe that the doctor cannot cure them or the “disease’s� root cause (in the psyche) is not addressed, they will not improve or will simply contract other illness. I’m not condemning medical science as most doctors are natural intuitive healers and hypnotists. They believe in the efficacy of their nostrums and impart that belief to their patient despite the actual physical reactions (many times due to the placebo effect) but it is the patient’s belief or lack thereof that is responsible for individual results. No amount of insurance or money will be of any use unless the person confronts the true reason for the illness.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Vijitable writes: >>I think morality allows for “moral-yet-violent� acts. (And, of course, I believe morality is an evolved social norm-set.) Not mine nor any pacifist’s morality but as all but absolute morality is relative, your morality may permit misguided means to your perceived “moral� ends. It is relatively evolved as “change over time� and a social-norm but that does not make it anything but relative to that particular bandwagon. Aztec morality is an evolved social norm-set but I wouldn’t want to be part of that “interself.�
Vijtable Writes:>>What defines a “species� is highly variable, and is NOT the basis of analysis in evolution. Simply put, evolution is “change over time.� ANY genetic drift is, by definition, an evolutionary process >> In asexual reproduction it may be variable as each individual is a clone of the original with the exception of mutations, not in sexual reproduction. Species and their varietals can interbreed and produce offspring capable of reproduction. If this cannot be done, then the species is sterile or incompatible with another i.e., a NEW species. You can quibble with my “labels� but the definitions are clear. The fact that you ignore the definitions and attack the label “straw man� is beneath you. The speciation may be a side affect in your parlance and in the monadic world where it’s a grey area but examples of species changing into other species are NEVER seen in “higher� sexually reproducing life forms to say nothing of the KPCOFG diversification. We are not arguing about a “mutation� mechanism or change within a species which obviously occurs as you well know. I’ve never maintained that mutation doesn’t happen, hard proof abounds.
V:>>But, to the point that evolution IS THE mechanism by which speciation takes place >>That mechanism can not be shown to account for the huge diversity of extinct or extant life. And we haven’t gotten to the problem living beings created from “dead� inert matter.
V:>> Moreover, one could say that a child with Tay-Sachs disorder IS a new species - they never interbreed with humans. This is patently disingenuous and a straw argument. They are genetically challenged human beings that are not reproductively viable and a poor choice to support your evolutionary argument.
V:>>The “lack of intermediate forms� you invoke ignores the intermediate forms.>> The horse intermediate forms you adduce have been discredited as I mentioned before, to say nothing of the fact that these are not intermediate forms but species in their own right. They have been sorted by similar morphology and geological strata but are not products of DNA mutation. You are being seduced by your phenotype reflects genotype “look at it� assumption. Just because things look similar does not mean they are. Sea mammals are not fish but their phenotypes are similar. Bats are not birds or birds flying reptiles just because they are all aerodynamic and “share� wing like appendages. Again these are not intermediate forms but distinct species.
V:>>1) The fact that “ontogony recapitulates phylogeny,� that DNA has a direct relationship to traits>> I’ll let this one go as at least this canard has been repudiated by yourself et al. Boy I remember in Biology that “fact� was redundantly iterated over and over repeatedly.
V:>>2) The simply vast volumes of data which support the two things I have demonstrated (mechanism of evolution, and transitional manner of speciation). Volumes on minute varietal mutations (no argument) but not transitional speciation – If this was the mechanism then why can’t science create new a species or genus or order or class not to mention “life?� This should be fairly trivial if it works as advertised.
V:>>The fact that DNA is directly related to traits means that changing DNA can change traits. Yes again it changes intra-species traits but not inter-species traits.. The DNA in the varieties of species was formed discretely by some as yet undiscovered mechanism.
V:>>So far, in nature, the ONLY explanation for how DNA changes over time is the mechanism of evolution. The only explanation that science has FAITH in but the evidence does not bear it out.
V:>> Until some better explanation appears, Occam’s razor dictates evolution is likely the answer. That millions of people smarter and more intellectually rigorous than me can also say with certitude that evolution is the best explanation so far also adds to my comfort. Occam’s razor would dictate Creationism as the likely answer. It is the simplest explanation, the data support Creationism better than Darwinism. The only problem is the unscientific nature of Creationism which is an anathema to empiricists that leaves only evolution. Evolution is more comforting than Creationism especially to scientists; hardly millions of rigorous scientists, in fact they are decidedly irrigorous when it comes to accepting Darwin’s theory – all of them KNOW it’s an unproveable theory, yet as they can’t come up with something better, they accept it as “fact� and try to see how it “could� be (plausible hand waving) and band aid the holes, ignore or disregard them altogether which has the effect of not looking for another explanation. Quantum Mechanics has clues to the “true� nature of reality as do Tibetan Buddhists. They may meet someday in a more palatable theory to science.
Nikos: I’m sorry my replies to Vijtable have taken more time than should have been necessary. I’ll address your issues tomorrow.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:22 am
Here’s a bit of magnificence from a paperback I picked up last night at the wallet-and-purse vacuum cleaner called Elliott Bay Books, on S. Main in Seattle.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Secularism – the doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all consideration drawn from belief in God or in a future state.
As an avowed secularist with no use (or any patience) for unverifiable supernatural beings (who seem suspiciously disinterested in the atrocities committed in their names and against their scriptural injunctions), I find this definition not merely refreshing but a nearly ideal answer to the question in this thread’s title.
Caveat: the quote came directly from a footnote on page 3 of Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers: A History Of American Secularism (which Elliott Bay has on its overstock bargain book table near the front desk, for less than 6 bucks. And which, as I delve deeper and deeper, seems like an outright steal.)
March 1st, 2006 at 9:51 am
Really quickly.
I’m seriously unconvinced, Jazzman (of course), and I think we can go around in circles endlessly. Many of your arguments point to lacks in science’s abilities - whether the mechanism is evolution or not, “creating” new life or species is still beyond human control. That argument is red herring. (For example, I know HOW plants respirate using carbon dioxide, it doesn’t mean I can do it.)
That you don’t trust reputable scientific data is beyond my control, and I have laid out the argument in the best way I could. That you claim to know what “science” is thinking, and how scientists feel, makes me think you might be more concerned about character assassination than the discourse. (What would Tibetan Buddhists like myself think of that?) It also demonstrates the simplistic idea that science is an order of people, not simply a functional expanation of the natural world.
Your lack of trust in the horse data tells me two things: first, whatever data you are working from is not established, vetted, scientific data. Second, your definition of “intermediate forms” is self-defeating - you want to see intermediate forms BETWEEN species, but they also have to be the same species. That reflects a unique (and unscientific) understanding of genetic drift. And, as I said before, the geologic record is not going to have all members of all species. More importantly, “species” is a loose term in science for the purposes of HUMAN categorization. Thinking them to be really real is an error most scientists don’t make. Finally, the principle Occam’s razor asks for the most straightforward and likely explanation given what we know, not simply the simplest. (The simplest answer to everything is “god,” but that doesn’t make it the right answer.)
The irony of this all, is I agree there are fundamental truths to be learned from Buddhism and Quantum Theory. However, as Quantum Physics rejects Newtonian Physics, does that mean gravity does not exist? No…. This is where the idea of Complexity comes in. In aggregate, things self-organize naturally (against entropy) and have emergent properties… Jazzman, I think you would be (if you are not already) a fan. It bridges all sorts of apparent contradictions, and is documented in nature.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:20 am
Following the thread I observe the avoidance to go to the core of the question of morality: what is it? and where it comes from?
Evolution proponents: the theory of evolution is true or false doesn’t really matter for morality issue, but if it’s true and our universe is just a result of a blind chance and the humans evolved from animals, then one cannot argue in favor of having morality, for good/bad dichotomy. Yes, you can bring fancy arguments about social behaviour and preferences in common survival, but you should admit that it doesn’t have to do anything with the feeling of guilt and other manifestations of morality…
March 1st, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Elric, I completely disagree about evolution not having anything to do with guilt, etc. Because of that, I think the argument over evolution is central. In fact, I don’t think it’s anything fancy either.
As psychology demonstrates, those who have dissociative disorders are unable to sympathize or empathize (a feature of social animals), and they also happen to not feel guilt. I have seen this first-hand in the classroom (I used to be a teacher). If the evolutionary trait of “society” is stunted in one’s brain, equally stunted is one’s ability to see “self” in the other. This was the whole “interself” idea - we agree on a gestalt (thanks, Jazzman) self.
Further, as members of the military tell you, they are taught to see the other side as inhuman specifically because they are not supposed to feel the moral weight of serious actions. If you’re not part of the clan, then you are not entitiled to the morality that I afford members of the clan.
Me? I feel tremendous guilt at the slightest error, and have been quoted back to me by my kindergarten teacher “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Where would I have been instilled with those values and that moral compass? Obviously, at home, in the first society I dealt with.
BECAUSE of that, I believe collective morals are fundamentally important to humanity (because we either make it together, or we don’t make it). However, I also admit freely that there is not base core of moral values that is innate (”in-born”). It is instead, to use a Buddhist term, “dependently co-arisen,” arisen by virtue of things it arises between. In science (complexity), it is the simple fact of emergence - a whole (society) is more than the sum of its parts (persons). The essence of both these philosophies is that the key to self-organization and order is not within, but between.
For the sociological argument supporting this, I recommend “The Sacred Canopy” by Peter Berger, highly respected sociologist. The main crux of what I’m saying is in the first couple chapters of the book.
Side note: I wanted to apologize to Jazzman if I “sounded” angry. In re-reading what I wrote, I feel that it was harshly-worded.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Vijtable writes:>>Many of your arguments point to lacks in science’s abilities - whether the mechanism is evolution or not, “creating� new life or species is still beyond human control With genome decoding and recombinant DNA technology at least it should be possible to understand speciation scientifically and not by assuming that genetic-drift is the mechanism.
V:>>That you don’t trust reputable scientific data is beyond my control, and I have laid out the argument in the best way I could. That you claim to know what “science� is thinking, and how scientists feel, makes me think you might be more concerned about character assassination than the discourse. (What would Tibetan Buddhists like myself think of that?) It also demonstrates the simplistic idea that science is an order of people, not simply a functional expanation of the natural world. I claim only to know that orthodox science (obviously a gestalt of scientist’s beliefs) thinks that Darwinism is the most likely mechanism to explain speciation (again in higher sexual reproducing forms – species has a hard not loose definition) having only Creationism for another explanation. I do not impugn their character; most scientists are searching for the “truth.� I merely point out that they ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit the theory which is true. Having reread my answer to you I see no character assassination and what would a Tibetan Buddhist such as you think of your accusation that I engage in such a demeaning behavior. I bet the Dalai Lama doesn’t believe in Darwinian Evolution or “moral-yet-violent� acts. If you are a truly a Tibetan Buddhist, how does the cycle of Samsara fit in with your Neo-Darwinism not to mention a belief in many concepts totally beyond scientific inquiry? As for Occam, what if God IS the answer? Again this is not a personal attack; just observations and questions.
V:>>Your lack of trust in the horse data tells me two things: first, whatever data you are working from is not established, vetted, scientific data.>> The horse data is not scientifically vetted and not trusted by many scientists (who still believe in Darwinism BTW.) It assumes (a priori) that horselike creature fossils from later strata evolved from increasingly less horselike creatures from earlier strata. There is no causal link between these forms other than superficial morphology. Intermediaries are not stable species as are each of your examples, they are partially formed links which (unless you are postulating something like a non-alar reptile lays an egg and hatches a flying example of itself due to DNA mutation in 1 generation) should abound given the diversity of life that has existed and exists. Your claim that external pressure creates speciation should be born out in millions of species today with a plethora of partial forms. As a trained biologist I understand that genetic-drift is gradual and most mutations do not favor the species, the ones that do favor it so that the mutant DNA is passed on to future generations also drift gradually. In sexual reproduction, to change species, to say nothing of genera, the same jumping genes would have to occur more or less simultaneously in both sexes in the same way to be viable. Given the immense diversity over the relative short span of higher life forms this would have to be occurring rampantly to account for all the species, and should have left at least some evidence of this process. Drosophila with their simple genome and millions of generations under external pressure and manipulation may develop wings for feet or antennae and eyes elsewhere but they remain Drosophila. Also how do you explain the myriad symbiotic relationships in which it is impossible for one to exist or reproduce without the other? How do they arise in Darwin’s view?
V:>> The irony of this all, is I agree there are fundamental truths to be learned from Buddhism and Quantum Theory. Ironic in the true sense as you ignore those fundamental truths when it comes to trying to fit Darwinism into their realm.
V:>>However, as Quantum Physics rejects Newtonian Physics, does that mean gravity does not exist? >> Quantum physics refines the “incorrect� aspects of Newtonian Physics as regards the atomic realm. Newtonian Physics is correct in the macro realm and discrepancies while real are negligible. It doesn’t reject gravity as one of the fundamental forces, only states that when dealing with tiny mass, gravitational effects are negligible.
V:>>This is where the idea of Complexity comes in. In aggregate, things self-organize naturally (against entropy) and have emergent properties… Jazzman, I think you would be (if you are not already) a fan. It bridges all sorts of apparent contradictions, and is documented in nature. You are partially correct. I have been aware of Chaos and Complexity theories for at least a decade, have read books (geared for a layman) on them and agree that it is a superior approach to studying phenomena - holistically rather than reductively. It is a systems approach and I believe a more useful way to look at phenomena and in that sense I am a fan. Complexity exists: Therefore it is tautologically documented in nature. By what mechanism does self-organization occur? I agree that it is against entropy so either entropy as Boltzmann posits is wrong or there is an explanation of how the law is defied. Back to Darwin: Complexity theory demonstrates that self organization is mediated by cooperation of the component parts in living organisms or ANY complex system. Systems from the simplest cell to most complex organ or society or Gaia herself exist solely because of cooperation and altruism on the part of each component. If components do not cooperate the system can not function. This is fundamentally against the competition demanded by a Darwinian survival system. Where I part company with Complexity theory and am no fan, is the “begging the question� fallacy that given a complex adaptive system, thru Darwinian competition with other species, the species can adapt by “learning� to utilize its environment more efficiently. In other words, the adaptability is by self actuated DNA mutation because the system “knows� even if only by trial and error what mutations will make it more efficient. This is closer to Lamarckism than Darwinism and implies a “will� on the part of the system to be “efficient� within its environment at all costs. This again is predicated on the belief that Darwinism is a fact and because it is believed that we evolved from bacteria this “has to be� the mechanism responsible – a fallacious assumption.
March 1st, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Nikos Writes:>> Vijtable and jazzman both: it seems to me that ‘micro’ evolution as described by jazzman isn’t distinct from ‘macro’ since ‘speciation’ occurs in exactly the same range of increment as ‘non-speciation’ Huge distinction, huge increment required. See response to Vij
N:>>I must repeat, as one simple example, the ongoing yet still incomplete ‘speciation’ of Golden-winged and Blue-winged warblers I’ve had the privilege to observe through my very own binoculars. Not speciation – variation. Speciation is a hell of a side effect and doesn’t occur by random mutation.
N:>> I don’t believe pacifism is purely a ‘choice’. Instead I believe it more humanly natural than truculence Got history? How many humans would rather be killed than kill (if they were able) in self defense? When Tibet was invaded by China, many lamas (those who were unable to avoid confrontation) chose death rather than fight the invaders. I agree with your assessment we project our cultural norms onto the societies we study, misunderstanding and misnaming the reality of others. but think this is a phenomenon that occurs with most people/cultures vis a vis other cultures.
N:>> this assertion that “The victim also bears the responsibility of victimization� is bunk It takes 2 to tango and as I said to in response to Allison’s post that the perpetrator bears a greater responsibility, I agree. That still doesn’t absolve the victim of complicity. As I stated to you in EOW: Admittedly if your worldview supports the belief that randomness is the prime mover and that so-called victims are innocent bystanders who unluckily find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time this makes absolutely no sense. So if good fortune (luck) is the difference between victim and non (I don’t believe in luck) I guess you and all victims are unfortunately “unlucky.� Social Darwinism not withstanding, I believe the “blame the victim� solely ideology IS disingenuous but nobody but a pathological misanthrope (or lawyer) would do that. (This obviously doesn’t apply to self-victimization.)
N:>> Incidentally, Jazzman, I’ve more than once relayed to my sister your suggestion that she join the blog party >> I’m sorry your sister is challenged by her condition. (I try not to name disease as it gives it “moral support� in my belief system as do well meaning advertisements for disease remedies or prevention) While it would obviously be better to recover flexibility, voice recognition S/W is not terribly expensive these days so she wouldn’t have to type much. You could give us her opinions on intractable topics in Italics oops I mean Grecoics.
N;>> In other words, speciation is a very long multi-generational happening, not a sudden genetic bolt from the blue. The mutation might be sudden, but the makings off that mutation into a distinguishable species is anything but sudden. This may be possible (I think unlikely) for varieties of a species to no longer hybridize, but for the “common non-aerial ancestor� of a hummingbird and a condor to mutate into these and all the species in between “genetic bolts from the blue� are demanded. You never answered my poser about cliff diving bird ancestors. The ability to fly and reproduce flying creatures from non flying ancestors would take a great genetic leap as well as flying instinct which would have to be produced concurrently, or taught to fly by non-flying adults.
N:>> As an avowed secularist with no use (or any patience) for unverifiable supernatural beings (who seem suspiciously disinterested in the atrocities committed in their names and against their scriptural injunctions), I find this definition not merely refreshing but a nearly ideal answer to the question in this thread’s title I have for some time now believed you fit the description of a Secular Humanist with your own idiosyncrasies. I guess I might be called one as well (I’ve been called worse) however I’m not sure how it fits in with my repudiation of Darwinism or absolute morality or pacifism.
Elric Writes:>>Following the thread I observe the avoidance to go to the core of the question of morality: what is it? and where it comes from? Again “morality� is an individual’s belief system which decides the pros and cons of actions, abstracts or conditions. It comes from each individual by the acceptance or rejection of those beliefs. Guilt is message from the sub-conscious mind to the conscious mind. It should impart the idea that whatever action caused the guilty feeling is not a desirable one and should be avoided; in other words don’t do it again!!!
March 1st, 2006 at 11:32 pm
“I have for some time now believed you fit the description of a Secular Humanist with your own idiosyncrasies. I guess I might be called one as well…â€?
That’s why we get along so well, pal.
But I’m still befuddled by your anti-evolution reasoning.
I see the very same evidence and understand nearly perfectly the evolutionary paradigm — although not the ‘mechanistic’ conceptualization of it, which reduces living entities to constructed ‘machines’ and is therefore not merely inadequate but self-sabotaging. It’s self-defeating because it implies a constructor — which is exactly counter to its premise! How stupid is that?
Some day a scientist, or a clan of them, will grasp this and substitute an explanatory conceptual framework based on an organic paradigm in place of the mechanistic one, but I’m not holding my breath because scientists seem to uncritically swallow the mechanistic view of life and of the universe as a whole. They don’t seem to understand that their understanding is based on an Industrial Revolution-era view of the world, and just go along with it despite the incredulity of the lay-public who intuit the contradiction but can only choose to ‘disbelieve’ evolution instead of asking for a more appropriate explanation.
So, expect from me a plea regarding this nonsense on the eventual Daniel Dennett thread.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Jazzman, thanks a lot for the wonderful definition of morality!
Allison says, “If life or death doesn’t really matter to those who ‘enlightened’ ones who realize the vanity of everything, why are they working to live? Why have we, for 20,000 years, continued to work for survival?”
One possible answer would be that humans are programmed for survival like other life organisms in this universe.
But what I mean is to break out from this evil spell which blinds and chains us to illusion!
Yes, I do work to have food in order to survive, but there is no contradiction here, because I am detached from the process of survival. I am aware of my inevitable death which can come any moment and this leaves no time for worries about survival. To repeat again, life or death doesn’t really matter for those who realize the illusion of everything.
To make my point clear: I admit the ‘existence’ of ‘ultimate reality’. Illusionar nature of everything we experience implies the exisetnce of ultimate reality: if the universe as we know it wouldn’t be illusionary we wouldn’t have the feeling of unsatisfaction, we would perceive everything as natural and there would be no place for a doubt. But since I have no direct knolwedge of the ultimate reality only thing I can do is to be alert and deny everything as illusionary and non-existent. I do not need to believe in anything just to feel secure and comfortable, or to invent my own illusions in order to believe that my life makes sense. ‘Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas’:)
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Elric: if the universe as we know it wouldn’t be illusionary we wouldn’t have the feeling of unsatisfaction, we would perceive everything as natural and there would be no place for a doubt.
Really? How do you know that? That’s a big assumption. It is possible that whatever reality is, it is unsatisfactory. Perhaps that’s a condition of existence.
(I hope you realize that I’m playing a bit a of devil’s advocate here. I’m not jabbing at you, I’m pushing at the logic.)
I happen to love buddhism. Well, some sects of buddhism. But when you talk about people having beliefs and these beliefs are unreasonable, I see beliefs in your comments.
You claim this reality to be illusionary. That is a belief. It might be illusionary. It might not be. I believe it is both.
You claim that this illusion stems from some “evil spell”. Now that’s a belief. For me, I can sense the illusion of it all, but it not necessarily evil. I’m not sure I even believe in the concept of evil.
Do you see that you have your own religion? And that your engagement in this dialogue is skewed by this religion?
BTW, I hope you didn’t take my “Are you lonely” question the wrong way. Again, it wasn’t a jab. I should have expounded. I was responding to the premise that you do whatever pleases you and nothing else. I have found that, at times, maintaining human relations requires that I do things that don’t please me. I suppose the maintenance of the relation pleases me, or whatever I am trying to obtain by maintaining relations pleases me. But the actions themselves don’t please me. I do them for someone else’s sake. And if i didn’t, I’d find myself without relations, lonely. This is what I was getting at.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:21 pm
This from Elric, incidentally, is a sterling example of the mechanisitic paradigm at work:
“humans are programmed for survival like other life organisms in this universe”.
(I’m not taking a shot at you, Elric, but at the language of science.)
We’re not computers.
We’re organisms.
Not constructed but self-generated.
More ‘magic’ than ‘artifact’.
And when scientists eventually recognize and address the self-sabotage of this pervasive set of mechanistic metaphors, the scienctific world-view might well begin — finally — to surpass the religious in popular appeal.
March 2nd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Allison, why would reality be unsatisfactory?!
My claim of illusionary reality is not a belief, it is derived from a conclusion that we don’t have any means to test the reality of reality. Sorry for language game.
‘evil spell’ was just a metaphora! sorry for that…. I do not accept evil or good, things are they are: empty and unknown.
I do not have any religion either. I like some buddhist concepts as well but buddhist cosmology fails the scrutiny as well, so I can’t accept it. (Exception would be some schools of zen which negate everything and teach direct perception of reality, whatever it might be).
Following the abovementioned ideas whatever we do in this universe is a game, i.e. absolutely relative. So, I don’t care about having any relations or not having any relations. When I have them, I act according the gamerules or sometimes break them, but none of this matters.
Nikos, I was just replying to Allison about the possible nature of our behaviour sourse and our crave for survival.
But anyway, don’t you find striking similarities between reflexes and instincts of ‘organisms’ and programming?!!
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Elric:
Similarities, yes, but the Sun is similar to a nuclear explosion. A building shares properties with caverns. (Nature is inherently more beautiful than artificiality.)
The point is that we reduce ourselves to inhuman entities when we lazily allow the mechanistic paradigm to underpin our scientific analysis of the universe in general and life in particular.
I know one thing: I’m not a machine, no matter how much fun we can have comparing ourselves, say, to cars in need of tune-ups or fuel!
Look for a long explanation of my discontent of the eventual Daniel Dennett thread.
See ya.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Jazzman, thanks for the response… A few points, kind of organized in a hodge-podge manner…
“Having reread my answer to you I see no character assassination and what would a Tibetan Buddhist such as you think of your accusation that I engage in such a demeaning behavior”
I think a Tibetan Buddhist might object if I said that you engage in that behavior, but I don’t think one would object if I tell you that I perceived A specific behavior to have been demeaning. It may be semantic, but semantics are VERY important to Buddhists, and to me. Nevertheless, maybe I didn’t use the right term. You are CERTAINLY putting words in scientists’ mouths (and minds), explaining why they think what they think, and how they are (self-consiciously) defending an untenable proposition against overwhelming data to the contrary. At least, that’s how it reads. If the data exists, the scientists would have seen it and tried to replicate it. There is no “orthodox” in science. It’s just data, and what the data imply. Treating the scientific community like a gestalt (for this purpose) is dismissive of the work that they do. The statistics demonstrate that the vast majority of scientists (more than 95%) across all fields believe evolution, more or less as it’s stated, does happen.
“I bet the Dalai Lama doesn’t believe in Darwinian Evolution or “moral-yet-violentâ€? acts.”
The Dalai Lama has said in no uncertain terms that evolution is not in conflict with Buddhism. Buddhism rejects the supernatural as “really real” - it is simply real by agreement. The notion of dependent co-arising, central to Mahayana Buddhism, says nothing in the universe arises on its own or can arise on its own. Reality is by cooperation and agreement. Existence is by interaction, pure and simple.
Also, altruism does not need to have ANYTHING to do with complexity (dependent co-arising) - when the emergent behavior of water crystalizing less dense than its liquid form occurs, tht is simply an emergent property. There is no altruism there. Likewise, the flies on the back of a rhinocerous (which eat other insects and molds which grow there) feel no altruism to the rhino, nor the rhino to the flies. This is emergent behavior - behavior that arose from the FACT of the interaction.
As for “moral-yet-violent” acts, I doubt that he would support violence in any aspect, but he (and Buddhism in general) says that there are no truly “right” actions. There are “appropriate” ones. Like the story of the poison arrow above, sometimes the “truth-giving” can only take place once individuals are in a place to learn truth. I equate Hitler’s regime with the poison arrow - it needed to be removed before we could discuss truth. Buddhists are very careful to say that they will not take violent action, but the NEVER say that other shouldn’t. The Dalai Lama has said, very clearly, that Buddhists monks and initiates should never take up arms against China. But he never said India shouldn’t nor that Buddhist laypeople shouldn’t. Because the monks and initiates made vows (which they strongly believe in) to follow the higher teachings, they are precluded from taking such action. The Dalai Lama has also said he doesn’t support violence (but he never said he opposes it in all cases). Would he commit a “moral-yet-violent” act? No. Does he say others shouldn’t? No.
“If you are a truly a Tibetan Buddhist, how does the cycle of Samsara fit in with your Neo-Darwinism not to mention a belief in many concepts totally beyond scientific inquiry?”
Samsara is simply “reality by agreement.” My guru has another term for samsara which he likes to use: life. The “cycle of samsara” is a transplant from Hinduism. In Buddhism, it is a way of visualizing reality. Things ARE cyclic, but because we make them so. Unfortunately, we have made things so because we tie ourselves down with attachments to non-existent fundamentals, such as self. This attachment (to self, and to desires) allows us to consistently believe that samsara (life we live in) is fundamentally real. In Tibetan Buddhism, there is a strong acceptance of a fundamental notion: samsara IS life, but it is not ULTIMATELY real. This is because we cannot perceive without filters, and the filters inform our interpretation, so when we actually see another human being, we see a mental construction of what we think this human being may look like, especially in comparison to other human beings, and how this person fits certain categories. That mental image becomes the one we think is “real.”
As for the many concepts which are totally beyond scientific inquiry - Buddhist are not attached to them. These concepts are mental constructs, and therefore well within the ignorant and attached world that is samsara. If they help people understand their interaction with the universe, so be it. What matters to Buddhists, fundamentally, is the notion of ignorance - what it is and who has it. They’ve concluded: ignorance (by this I don’t mean simply intellectual ignorance, but belief and action ignorance) of the nature of life (samsara) as a collective reality-construct, and evryone except Buddhas has ignorance. Even the Dalai Lama. And ANY god. And all Bodhisattvas. Only a realized Buddha REALLY understands all this.
“As for Occam, what if God IS the answer?”
If there’s falsifiable evidence in favor of it, then sure. I doubt there will be. I think the Rabbinic and Catholic interpretation is the most realistic - however god may work, science is how we describe and come to understand it.
“Ironic in the true sense as you ignore those fundamental truths when it comes to trying to fit Darwinism into their realm.”
The fundmental truths of Buddhism? The Four Noble Truths are in no way in conflict with Buddhism. Samsara, understood in the Buddhist context, is not in conflict with evolution. Dependent co-arising supports, in fact, evolution.
Speciation: While you have claimed that species are a “big” leap, you have not made any concrete defense of this claim. What defines “big”? We do. Because you are not discussing MECHANISM but rather, human categorization and perception (over which there is tremendous debate WITHIN evolutionary biology), your claims to have made a clear distinction between macro- and micro-evolution fall flat.
“Species” is simply a human-made arbitrary categorization made by ancient Greeks. I can argue, Jazzman, with as much scientific backing as you have, the Algonquin notion that all life is one, and all animals are my relatives. Explaining mechansm and explaining categories are two vastly different things. Your acceptance of the mechanism and rejection of human categorization is not logically inconsistent. What is logically inconsistent is your acceptance of the mechanism of evolution and then saying it doesn’t happen beyond the boundaries of a human categorization.
“Systems from the simplest cell to most complex organ or society or Gaia herself exist solely because of cooperation and altruism on the part of each component. If components do not cooperate the system can not function. This is fundamentally against the competition demanded by a Darwinian survival system.”
First, complexity does not require cooperation, just interaction. We interact with grass, or trees, or birds, or bears, on a daily basis, whether we “cooperate” with them or not. Therefore, complexity and evolution are a perfect fit. Complexity requires interaction, evolution is a mechanism of chemical and macrobiological interaction.
The biggest problem with the idea of evolution is that people say “survival of the fittest” without understanding what is actually meant by these ideas. Cooperation is fundamental to suvival. Survival occurs when a creature and create a balance with its surroundings to survive. If changes (new creatures arrive, climate change occurs) makes it so that certain species cannot survive in competitive balance with everything else, that species is doomed. If another group, less adapted to the old system, but barely surviving, can compete in the new order, it may flourish. If a species becomes overwhelmingly dominant, the “balance” of things may make it so that species that do not work with the evolutionary pressure of this one species will dies. “Nature” isn’t something else, it includes us. And, evolution isn’t survival of the fittest, it’s simply survival under pressure.
Morality: morals need not be altruistic to be agreed-upon. A collectively-drawn line between sacred and profane norms is yet common - hence the different morals between different cultures. The tendency toward moralization (existing in all cultures) is evolved. And society primes these tendencies with specifictities. Voila, morality.
March 2nd, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Man… This is what happens when I get high-octane coffee put in my system (please excuse the techno-organic metaphor).
Elric, where do you think moralities come from, then? I’m intrigued by your “reality” comments…
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Vijtable, I do not question so much the origins of moralities as discussed on this thread. Moral code in us is mainly a result of our background, education and is constantly biased by society we live in. Moral is a kind of compass humans tend to look for, because it gives them feeling of security in this mysterious world, it justifies their deeds, makes sense to their lives. God-given moral seems more rational and consistent than self-contraditory moral code of the atheists who refuse the Creator and then create their own beliefs and mythology…
But my point is that God-given or evolved morality is just an arbitrary, relative system of beliefs. It is an illusion, a mirage, just like anything else…
Nikos, I am afraid that we will have to go into deeper discussion here… So: how do you distinguish between humans and machines?
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Vijtable writes: >> Treating the scientific community like a gestalt (for this purpose) is dismissive of the work that they do. The statistics demonstrate that the vast majority of scientists (more than 95%) across all fields believe evolution, more or less as it’s stated, does happen. >> In the case of Darwinian Evolution (DE) only not the other work and I believe they mean well. What do the 5% believe? What about the scientists who are embarrassed to admit that they have doubts? This is the bandwagon fallacy. They accept it on faith as there is no proof other than it is their belief that evolution does happen. Irrespective of what you may perceive me to saying about scientists, I doubt you will find one (with out an axe to grind) that will unequivocally state that there is proof of DE other than what I will hereafter call variation within a species (VWS) as you dislike the label micro-evolution. They may (hypothetically – obviously I can’t speak for them – and am putting words into hypothetical mouths) say that they believe the data supports their belief even though it’s a priori and that they cannot say how or at what point “life� occurred or for how species diversity actually occurs but DE is the best explanation that they have (as you also say) and they accept it on that basis. After a time beliefs are accepted as fact and many forget that they are not proven facts but beliefs (this is true of all beliefs.) Many scientists know that there are unexplained problems with DE but as they believe it to be correct they assume given enough data they will be explained. As they can’t explain them currently they don’t try (in the main) BTW I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt and NOT saying they are fooling the public or themselves deliberately, just out of ignorance. You have yet to address the intermediate form problem and why with perhaps greater external pressure today than in the past, we see no speciation or viable partial forms which should be rife. Similar fossil morphology is not evidence that there is a common ancestor, it’s possible but that doesn’t mean it’s probable.
V :>> The Dalai Lama has said in no uncertain terms that evolution is not in conflict with Buddhism. >>An important semantic distinction. He says it isn’t in conflict with Buddhism. That doesn’t mean he believes it is a fact. Many beliefs (or religions) aren’t in conflict with Buddhism but doesn’t mean that Buddhists accept them as fact.
V:>> Buddhism rejects the supernatural as “really real� - it is simply real by agreement. >>1st of all agreement by whom? 2nd if the supernatural exists at all then it’s natural. Is the Bardo supernatural? Is it real?
V:>> Existence is by interaction, pure and simple.>> Existence is: Pure and simple.
V:>> Also, altruism does not need to have ANYTHING to do with complexity (dependent co-arising) - when the emergent behavior of water crystalizing less dense than its liquid form occurs, tht is simply an emergent property. There is no altruism there. Likewise, the flies on the back of a rhinocerous (which eat other insects and molds which grow there) feel no altruism to the rhino, nor the rhino to the flies. This is emergent behavior - behavior that arose from the FACT of the interaction.>> When I say altruism I mean the spontaneous joyous cooperation that forms a gestalt (I view any cooperative aggregate as a gestalt and the whole is always greater then the sum of the parts.) I wouldn’t term ice an emergent property of water any more than steam or sublimation. It’s one of the physical states of matter (I suppose if you say any transformation of a gestalt is emergent then I have no problems with labels.) If one feels altruism (only humans would feel it), it’s not altruism and the flies that are in symbiosis with the rhino cooperate altruistically as is their nature and both benefit. Again emergent behavior is a label and is the part which is greater than the sum (nothing special, it’s mundane.)
V:>> Buddhists are very careful to say that they will not take violent action, but the NEVER say that other shouldn’t. Disingenuous semantics: If violence isn’t appropriate for a Buddhist it isn’t appropriate for ANYONE in those terms. This is an attempt to avoid responsibility for condoning inappropriate action, passing the buck by omission. I’ll be shocked if the Dalai Lama believes that it is appropriate for others (simply because they have taken vows against it or for any other reason) to engage in violence.
V:>> The Dalai Lama has also said he doesn’t support violence (but he never said he opposes it in all cases). Would he commit a “moral-yet-violent� act? No. Does he say others shouldn’t? No. Other Buddhists? Just because he doesn’t dictate how others should behave, doesn’t mean that he believes violence is appropriate, nor do I (but I’ll say others should practice non-violence.)
V:>> In Tibetan Buddhism, there is a strong acceptance of a fundamental notion: samsara IS life, but it is not ULTIMATELY real. This is because we cannot perceive without filters, and the filters inform our interpretation, so when we actually see another human being, we see a mental construction of what we think this human being may look like, especially in comparison to other human beings, and how this person fits certain categories. That mental image becomes the one we think is “real.� >> I agree wholeheartedly with the above, but meant how does the cycle of samsara fit in with DE as this cycle is perhaps “true� evolution.
V:>> The Four Noble Truths are in no way in conflict with Buddhism Duh! Forgive me, I couldn’t resist I guess this doesn’t sit well with right speech however that is not what I meant by irony. I meant “The mental image of DE is not necessary or perhaps even desirable in your religion.� It is also unneeded in quantum mechanics which will obviate DE in time when we are ready (I have faith!!!)
V:>> As for the many concepts which are totally beyond scientific inquiry - Buddhist are not attached to them. These concepts are mental constructs, and therefore well within the ignorant and attached world that is samsara. If they help people understand their interaction with the universe, so be it. What matters to Buddhists, fundamentally, is the notion of ignorance - what it is and who has it. They’ve concluded: ignorance (by this I don’t mean simply intellectual ignorance, but belief and action ignorance) of the nature of life (samsara) as a collective reality-construct, and evryone except Buddhas has ignorance. Even the Dalai Lama. And ANY god. And all Bodhisattvas. Only a realized Buddha REALLY understands all this. >> I also agree in principle with most of this. I don’t know what you mean by ANY god but Buddhists ARE attached to the cycle of samsara and between cycles to the bardo and after enlightenment, (freedom from ignorance) nirvana. We all are ignorant or we wouldn’t be here, some are more ignorant than others, and some are more attached to worldly illusions such as DE than others.
Nikos writes >> The point is that we reduce ourselves to inhuman entities when we lazily allow the mechanistic paradigm to underpin our scientific analysis of the universe in general and life in particular.
I know one thing: I’m not a machine, no matter how much fun we can have comparing ourselves, say, to cars in need of tune-ups or fuel! >> Nikos, Darwinism is mechanistic (or claims to be). To sociobiologists and Darwinists you are a machine. Rage Against the Machine!!!
Peace - Jazzman
March 5th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Vijtable says ‘Further, as members of the military tell you, they are taught to see the other side as inhuman specifically because they are not supposed to feel the moral weight of serious actions.’
This is not a good argument: those guys in military (as everyone else) were already inducted with moral code, that’s why they need to be ‘rehypnotized’ not to feel guilt.
But I am talking about full rejection of morality, as of illusionary and arbitrary concept.
March 5th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
(I can’t believe I read the whole thread, but don’t test me on it please.)
Jazzman:
Vijtable says:“Species” is simply a human-made arbitrary categorization made by ancient Greeks. I can argue, Jazzman, with as much scientific backing as you have, the Algonquin notion that all life is one, and all animals are my relatives. Explaining mechansm and explaining categories are two vastly different things. Your acceptance of the mechanism and rejection of human categorization is not logically inconsistent. What is logically inconsistent is your acceptance of the mechanism of evolution and then saying it doesn’t happen beyond the boundaries of a human categorization.
Darwin says: ( paragraphs chosen by E O Wilson- “From So Simple A Beginning” p. 482 and there are other passages elsewhere):
Certainly no clear line of demarcation has yet been drawn between species and sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. These differences blend into each other in an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage.
Hence I look at individual differences, though of small interest to the systematist, as of high importance for us, as being the first step towards such slight varieties as are barely thought worth recording in works on natural history. And I look at varieties which are in any degree more distinct and permanent, as steps leading to more strongly marked and more permanent varieties; and at these latter, as leading to sub-species, and to species. The passage from one stage of difference to another and higher stage may be, in some cases, due merely to the long-continued action of different physical conditions in two different regions; but I have not much faith in this view; and I attribute the passage of a variety, from a state in which it differs very slightly from its parent to one in which it differs more, to the action of natural selection in accumulating (as will hereafter be more fully explained) differences of structure in certain definite directions. Hence I believe a well-marked variety may be justly called an incipient species; but whether this belief be justifiable must be judged of by the general weight of the several facts and views given throughout this work.
From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species, as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake.
Please read E. O Wilson on the subject bringing it up to date. There are too many passages to quote here from this excellent interview. Speciation and Biodiversity
E.O. Wilson is not an atheist or an agnostic, he calls himself a “provisional Deist�. I do not get the feeling that he sees humans as machines at all.
March 5th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Sorry. let me try again for that link.
Speciation and Biodiversity
March 7th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
One quick correction: Above, I wrote, “The Four Noble Truths are in no way in conflict with Buddhism” What I meant to write was “The Four Noble Truths are in no way in conflict with evolution.” Obviously, this is a more controversial statement.
One response to Jazzman. “…but Buddhists ARE attached to the cycle of samsara and between cycles to the bardo and after enlightenment, (freedom from ignorance) nirvana.”
That is a lay-reading of Buddhism. I recommend Jay Garfield’s translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika (called “The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way”) as an explanation of the Buddhist breaking-down of Buddhist conceptions. EVERY concept is constructed and subjective, and, barring some enlightened nature (of which they are vague), EVERYTHING is subjective. Objective Truth is very much in the air. Further, Buddha, if he were enlightened (an article of faith that Madhyamika people are skeptical of), he would still have needed to have used language (a subjective, conceptual format) to communicate his ideas.
Thus, Buddhism, and all its tenets, are not True. They are simply conceptual frameworks. The breaking of articles of faith (such as “Buddha was enlightened”) are what make later Buddhist forms so interesting - Buddhist philosophers successfully self-destructed BuddhISM. By doing so, all questions, including those which question fundamental Buddhist tenets, are open for discussion.
Just to note, Madhyamaka philosophy is integral to all Mahayana thought. To sum its arguments with a pithy Mahayana phrase, “Nirvana IS samsara.” (This leads naturally to the later, Eastern, phrases including, “Buddha is a shit-stick.” Where nothing is sacred, NOTHING is sacred, not even the greatest teacher.)
Tibetan Buddhists practice a synthetic form of Tantric Buddhism, which emphasizes the philosophical mode of Madhyamikans, and a conceptualization of mind of the Yogacarins. Given that, ALL conversations happen on a conventional and conceptual level, and the phenomenal world is up for grabs. This is why semantic questions are important to Buddhists - the way words are construed does affect people.
All that said, evolution does not conflict with the Buddhist construct of a conventional reality which includes samsara and the Four Noble Truths.
Elric: I’m not sure what you’re asking for. I believe that the moral code is socialized. That it can be de-programmed by de-humanizing other people is exception that points to the rule. That morality doesn’t exist universally among all cultures (with the same morals) is another exception which points to the rule. That it is subverted by anti-social diseases is yet another exception.
As for the tendency toward moralism, I think it is evolved. This is where the idea of “humans are social” is critical - we thrive when we cooperate, and wilt when we don’t. Therefore, we need “rules of engagement” to assure the cooperation doesn’t turn into something negative. I do not think there is such thing a Good or Bad, but there are many social goods and bads.
I hope that clarifies.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Vijtable writes:>>That is a lay-reading of Buddhism. I recommend Jay Garfield’s translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika (called “The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way�) as an explanation of the Buddhist breaking-down of Buddhist conceptions. EVERY concept is constructed and subjective, and, barring some enlightened nature (of which they are vague), EVERYTHING is subjective. Objective Truth is very much in the air. Further, Buddha, if he were enlightened (an article of faith that Madhyamika people are skeptical of), he would still have needed to have used language (a subjective, conceptual format) to communicate his ideas.
As I am not a Buddhist I admit to being a layman, however the philosophy, as I understand it, is the closest that any organized philosophy comes to my personal belief system and IMO it is the closest to apprehending the true nature of reality (which is why I say science (quantum physics less so) is barking up the wrong tree in many (most) cases involving physical phenomena.) I have a number of friends who ARE Buddhists and when we discuss the major aspects of Buddhism we seem to agree in principle on the concept, if not the exact mechanics. Are you saying that my lay interpretation is incorrect?. I agree that ALL things within our perception are subjective and that statement is perhaps the only objective truth that exists (I could be wrong.) That being said, if you are so skeptical, how is it that you are so attached to the illusion of DE when it is a product of your “filters� and subjectivity? Why do you resort to semantic tricks to reconcile DE and violence with respect to the Dalai Lama and Buddhism? The illusion of the material universe is one of the major tenets of your faith yet you materialistically believe it to be objectively real. How would your guru answer these questions? You say ALL conversations occur on a conventional and conceptual level and the phenomenal world is up for grabs. I say the conventional is only conceptual and the phenomenal world is what you grab or grasp (actually create) it to be. From that standpoint if it is your contention that DE is a fact in your reality then so be it. I fail to see whether it is a “fact� or “fiction� that it makes a difference in the Buddhist belief system. If the belief system has a basis in reality as I believe it does, then Occam would opt for the simpler proposition.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
I seem to be a Darwinian Buddhist and think of evolution and our biological roots as the “bottom up” approach to understanding human beings and Buddhism as the “top down” approach addressing our tendency toward spirituallity and trying to make ethical structures for our society and personal behavior. I’m in my late 60s and not sure whether it really comes together but it seems to work pragmatically. I do feel personally that my morality is given much more oomph and commitment because it is linked so strongly with my spirituality and would not be as strong if it were based only on reason.
I would recommend Lama Surya Das for the program. He is a Westerner, ordained as a teacher of Tibetan Buddhism and a marvellous communicator. I have not heard him speak but his books are excellent in helping Westerners understand this Eastern nontheistic religion or philosophy.
Not having a God is such a relief (I was brought up in the Church of England) but I know much of my morality and integrity grew out of that upbringing (in spite of all the problems) and, after many years without faith, I was gradually drawn to Buddhism.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Vij and Jazzman:
I’ve been very much enjoying your exchanges. Thank you both.
I’m terribly tired and stressed in the past few days, so I’ve no confidence in the lucidity of what I’m about to post. Nevertheless, here’s the old college try:
I suspect that what lies behind Jazzman’s inability to take seriously contemporary theory describing speciation by genetic drift or by sexual selection is at root the same as my own problem with the metaphoric underpinnings of the evolutionary biologist’s conceptual toolbox.
To put it another way: I’ve no doubt that the happenings that evolutionary science attempts to describe are physical-world realities (please don’t bother me with issues of reality vs. imagination – it’s an impractical waste of philosophical synapse-energy for me) – but science’s silly reduction of life to mechanisms is faulty.
Stupidly faulty.
For example, we say that ‘synapses fire’ – but it’s really a biochemical secretion, not a sparkplug acting on a piston.
Evolutionary triggers are similarly described in mechanistic metaphors, but the reality is biological, not mechanical.
Perhaps Buddhism’s allure is that its metaphoric contribution to human self-understanding is more eminently sensible to human intuition than science’s stuck-in-the-Industrial-Revolution’s metaphoric nonsense.
I will dare to suggest that if scientists ever grasp this foolishness and rectify it, Jazzman’s skepticism just might begin to wane.
Well, maybe!
See ya.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:59 am
“Dann man gerade nur denkt, wenn, das woruber man denkt,
man gar nicht ausdanken kann”
(Then only are we really thinking when the subject on which we are thinking cannot be thought out)
- Goethe
March 10th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Morals are evolutionary. If Grog the caveman kills his friend, he might get killed by his friends clan, therefore it is in Grog’s best interest not to kill his friend. Grog doesn’t need a god to tell him not to kill his friend, his friends weapons tell him that. god came in secondary. Same with stealing, cheating and all that.
March 10th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Potter, thanks for bringing Darwin’s words RE species. I don’t know how else to convey that people made us species because our minds can’t cope without categories. We’re constantly categorizing: What did “red” mean before wavelengths were understood? How can we tell that a beanbag and a church pew function in the same way for our bottoms? Etc. Species is yet another illustration of categorization.
trimm, I agree with you, except what do you say to those people who don’t believe Grog existed? There are people who don’t believe that there was “less-evolved” version of humans. If god made the earth this way at a certain point, Grog could not have existed. This is why the question of evolution, of the big bang really, become critical to the debate. At the same time, you definitely summed up my belief.
Jazzman, again a super-long response… Apologies to all for that. I’ve been so busy at work, I’ve had too much time to think about this.
Are you saying that my lay interpretation is incorrect?
Somewhat. It essentializes ideas which do not have irrefutable reality. Differently stated, your interpretation is too declarative. When you say “Buddhists ARE attached to the cycle of samsara and between cycles to the bardo and after enlightenment, (freedom from ignorance) nirvana.” You draw the line too clearly, and too definitvely. These ideas which you speak of are concepts to help frame the mind, not reality. These ideas are “expedient means” to help people break down conventional conceptions of, and conventional attachment to, conventional reality. Below are more explanations of what I mean, among the responses to your other questions (out of order).
You say ALL conversations occur on a conventional and conceptual level and the phenomenal world is up for grabs. I say the conventional is only conceptual and the phenomenal world is what you grab or grasp (actually create) it to be. From that standpoint if it is your contention that DE is a fact in your reality then so be it.
I see; I didn’t explain myself clearly. From my standpoint, the conceptual, conventional, and phenomenal world are different ways to refer to “conventional reality”. When I say “up for grabs,” I mean no statement to the conventional reality’s properties will harm Buddhist philosophy.
Why do you resort to semantic tricks to reconcile DE and violence with respect to the Dalai Lama and Buddhism? The illusion of the material universe is one of the major tenets of your faith yet you materialistically believe it to be objectively real.
It bears noting that Buddhism is not a “faith.” It is a functional, changing, epitemological approach to problems in the world.
In Buddhism, there is the notion of the Two Truths. There is the ultimate truth - where things have substantive and eternal meaning; and there is conventional truth - where things have subjective and relative meaning. There is no way to access ultimate reality without stripping away all conventional conceptions. Conventional conceptions are tied to human sensory organs and mind functions - when you “see” you see what the brain constructs of visual percepts, you do not actually see the phenomenal world. When you think, you are further removed from the phenomenal world. All this makes it clear why there is skepticism as to the fact of Buddha’s enlightenment.
The “illusion of the material world” is a Hindu notion. In Tibetan Buddhism, that is a surface reading of the philosophy. Going deeper, the material world isn’t illusory, it is simply not Real. It is instead real. Patterns which occur in the material world are materially real, but do not represent some underlying Truth. Gods don’t Exist, demons don’t Exist. They are constructs of the material world, and that is their downfall.
To answer your questions directly, there is nothing semantic or (otherwise) tricky about my point. Since the human world is, by its nature, linguistic, language is important. Exploration of language (and its limitations) is therefore important. So, what you call “semantic tricks” are critical Buddhist inquiry methods, and central to Tibetan Buddhism. That the Dalai Lama doesn’t support something does not mean he endorses its opposite. You are implying he operates using simple dualism. He does not.
So if there’s no underlying Truth, why do Buddhists believe in not killing? Because it is not good for the social human materialistic (conventional) world, not because there is underlying Truth to it. They cannot act on underlying Truth because, and they freely admit this, they don’t know what it is! All actions therefore become questions of enabling contemplation of reality(ies). Like the poison arrow story.
Now to violence, evolution, Buddhism, and morality. I am convinced of evolution’s material existence. I also asked a question: can there be “moral violence”? I speculated that there might be such a thing. You (appropriately) asked how this all can fit within my worldview which prominently includes Buddhism. I explained that evolution (a mechanism you accept exists, I reiterate) is not inconsistent whatsoever (the universe is in constant flux). As for moral violence, I asked myself, if there is a threat to the extent that humanity will not be able to contemplate existence, how would Buddhists respond? Buddhist “gods” can (and have) responded violently to those who would shroud the world in ignorance; would not a Buddhist do the same if push came to shove? Very maybe, I concluded.
That being said, if you are so skeptical, how is it that you are so attached to the illusion of DE when it is a product of your “filters” and subjectivity?
I don’t see what is “illusory” about evolution, a mechanism which you freely accept. It is a functional explanation of a pattern in the phenomenal world. My perspective is indeed subjective (whose isn’t?), but my acceptance of evolution isn’t simply because it is a product of my filters - it is the product of rigorous inquiry, something Buddhism appreciates and encourages. Moreover, it is consistent with two Buddhist ideas: “dependent co-arising”, and “the universe is in constant flux.”
If I am to argue that evolution is the root of morality, then I should explain my perspective the best I can. If someone were to argue Buddhism is fundamentally opposed to it, I can (correctly) explain that it is not. The Dalai Lama discusses the conventional world all the time. His simple tenet “Be nice,” doesn’t reflect some underlying Truth, but the fact that we all live in a conventional phenomenal world, and have to live together.
How would your guru answer these questions?
My guru believes wholeheartedly in evolution, and also believes wholeheartedly in the evolved socialization of morality. All this is consistent with dependent co-arising. I haven’t discussed the morality of violence question, mainly because morality is an evolved/socialized phenomenon, and, like everything in Buddhism, in flux. The question of violence as a moral or not becomes absurd. Violence perpetrated by Buddhists is well-documented.
I fail to see whether it is a “fact” or “fiction” that it makes a difference in the Buddhist belief system. If the belief system has a basis in reality as I believe it does, then Occam would opt for the simpler proposition.
Again, when it comes to conventional truth, it is worth understanding conventional patterns, and trying to understand “samsara,” life, appropriately. “Fact” is a conventional term. If someone who clearly did not spill the milk claims to have done so, that is still “fiction,” and a source of ignorance and delusion, if conventional ignorance and delusion. If the goal of Buddhism is removing ignorance and those things which lead to ignorance, then causality and correlatives are central. And if there is no evidence of humanity’s access to “ultimate truth” (there is not, except heresay from a guy named Siddhartha), we can only be certain that the conventional, malleable, truth in which we live can be explored deeply. Here again I plug Jay Garfield’s translation of a Buddhist book, the Mulamadhyamakakarika.
As for Occam, is the simplest proposition that some heretofore unseen and empirically unaccounted-for creature created all life on earth using some heretofore unseen power while simultaneously hiding all evidence of this existence and power? Or is it that interaction between “stuff,” an empirically observable fact, has led to emergent interactions (interactions bewteen interactions), also empirically observable, led to life and its diversity? Given your acceptance of the mechanism of evolution, Jazzman, I think the simplest explanation is clear, especially given the arbitary nature of “species.”
I look forward to everybody’s responses.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Vijtable: Out of order: 1st I do NOT accept the mechanism of evolution as you define the word. I accept the mechanism of DNA mutation which I called micro-evolution and agreed to label it change within a species. Due to our discussions I have done some research on evolutionary biology and find that micro and macro evolution are indeed standard terminology (field jargon perhaps) that denotes the 2 evolutionary mechanisms as I have described them: Species and Genera level change. I have also turned up some other interesting data and will address the subject later.
IMO it would be a gross oversimplification to lump all the diversity of life into a continuum of speciation to avoid categorization as well as denigrating to the individuality of entities living or extinct. However if you want to categorize it as a living gestalt at what point does the “living� category become part of the picture? How did the inert become ert? Is it an emerging property that is a function of complexity? If that is so, then what about complex inert matter? Dependent co-arising? What constitutes the co?
From my standpoint “conventional reality� is an illusion produced by one’s perceptions. Rather than being created by the brain, it is created by the mind (which I presume you believe to be an emergent property of the brain) and is then apprehended by the brain and becomes a 2nd order creation. BTW faith in the appropriateness of the Buddhist method as the way you choose to approach existence is faith by my definition (you could be wrong.)
It would seem that I have less faith in Darwinism than you and more faith than you do in the Buddha’s enlightenment.
V:>> That the Dalai Lama doesn’t support something does not mean he endorses its opposite. I’m implying that the Dalai Lama doesn’t support violence by ANYONE. As for duality I also imply that he endorses its opposite PEACE.
V:>> why do Buddhists believe in not killing? Because it is not good for the social human materialistic (conventional) world Says who and why do they make that assumption? What do you mean by good?
V:>> I don’t see what is “illusory� about evolution, a mechanism which you freely accept. It is a functional explanation of a pattern in the phenomenal world. My perspective is indeed subjective (whose isn’t?), but my acceptance of evolution isn’t simply because it is a product of my filters - it is the product of rigorous inquiry Again I only accept micro-evolution. I agree that it is an explanation (just so story) of a perceived (illusion) pattern in the phenomenal world (you chose to be in as a participant in samsara) and it IS a product of your filters AND inquiry but not rigorous inquiry. Just because a theory happens to comport with other illusory principles doesn’t make it correct. YOUR perception is in a constant flux and YOU are a co-creator of the universe and arising is dependent on YOU.
V:>> The question of violence as a moral or not becomes absurd. Violence perpetrated by Buddhists is well-documented. Not absurd to me and fallacious. Just because someone is called a Buddhist and ignores the teachings and misbehaves does not justify anything.
V:>> Or is it that interaction between “stuff,� an empirically observable fact, has led to emergent interactions (interactions bewteen interactions), also empirically observable, led to life and its diversity? Now that really is absurd not to mention complex and a non-explanation except in the ‘just so� sense and is clearly in error and species is arbitrary to you, not species. BTW regarding the poison arrow. To conflate saving a dying person by removing the cause of his discomfort with assignation of anyone for some putative greater good Hitler or not is an egregious, fanatical act and anti Buddhist principles. Run that by the Dalai Lama and I bet he agrees with me. Gotta go,
Peace to ALL - Jazzman
March 11th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
It’s been a long time sinced this thread began, originally referenced to Senator Rick Santorum. Lots has happened in the interim. In recent weeks the Syrian-American, Dr. Wafa Sultan, has ascended the international stage–initially from her contributions in the blogosphere (ROS, take note) and subsequently through her very strong presence on Al Jazeera in which she deals with the deepest issues of morality and their relation (or lack thereof) to religious principles in the case of Islam. I think Dr. Sultan would be an important voice to include in this discussion–either as part of a broad look at this issue within a single program, or perhaps as a stand-alone program.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Jon: I agree about Dr. Wafa Sultan. She is probably going to get a lot of offers (as well as threats). The NYTimes had her on it’s front page today and it is the most emailed article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html?incamp=article_popular_1
Jazzman- If you have not, please read the E.O. Wilson’s interview - the one I linked above on Speciation and Diversity here:
http://www.radioopensource.org/morality-god-given-or-evolved/#comment-6808
E.O Wilson discusses how murky and variable the lines are between what is a species and what is a variation, or subspecies in more detail than Darwin quoted above.
Regarding “just-so stories” referring to Rudyard Kipling’s famous children’s tales, they are “fantastical accounts of how various phenomena came about”, delightful stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_so_story
You use the “ just so story� to describe Darwinian evolution.
DE is the product of a hundred and fifty years of “rigorous inquiry” ( quote Vijtable), science being a discipline. How can you compare fairy tales and fantasy to the results of scientific inquiry?
The rigor of science comes in to make this anything but a “just so story” and more than the results of collective blind influence and filters. Do you question the discipline and the rigor?
March 11th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Not to pile on or anything, but since Vijtable asked for multiple responses, I can only add to this thread by saying that Vij provides the intellectual ‘filling’ for the ‘pie crust’ of my afore-mentioned intuitive comprehension of evolutionary reality — and the real-world ambiguity of the catagories and lingo through which we try to conceptualize it.
(I must be hungry. And no wonder my four- and five-mile daily runs can’t quite erode that pesky extra fifteen pounds!)
Thanks, V. Thanks Potter too, for your recent contributions.
And especially thanks to Jazzman for providing the necessary ‘chaff’ for my pie crust’s flour.
March 12th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
A savory Vijtable pie for Nikos. (I selfishly had to take #200 again.)
March 13th, 2006 at 3:35 am
Nikos, Potter, thanks for the kind words. Jazzman, thanks for the excellent and lively debate! I am going to respond to three comments (by, logically, Jazzman).
I have done some research on evolutionary biology and find that micro and macro evolution are indeed standard terminology (field jargon perhaps) that denotes the 2 evolutionary mechanisms as I have described them: Species and Genera level change.
It doesn’t “denote.” It “implies,” at best. There is only one evolutionary mechanism - change. As I (and Potter, and Nikos, and EO Wilson, and Darwin) have explained, “species” is an arbitrary human categorization. The use of “micro and “macro” in evolutionary biology is a means to communicate further humn categorizations. The only people (that I know of) who see a substantive difference between the two are intelligent design folks, and you. These categorizatons are useful, yes, but not Real. Same goes for the entire classification system (or more precisely, systems). Also, Jazzman, if you accept small-scale change can happen by means of, basically, external pressures combined with mutation, then you accept the mechanism of evolution. You can call it “micorevolution” if you like, but there is no scientific basis for these categories; that term is simply means of communication.
Not absurd to me and fallacious. Just because someone is called a Buddhist and ignores the teachings and misbehaves does not justify anything.
The context of that was: did you ask your guru about moralty of violence. I explained that his (very Buddhist) understanding of the universe was such that the question was absurd. Assuming my guru is right for a moment… If morals do not make up some substrate of humanity, and are neither given nor acquired, but socialized and highly malleable, the morality of anything becomes absurd. Thus the question doesn’t come up.
Let me illustrate using your terminology, Jazzman: If you are Buddhist, there are certain “rules” you must follow, such as not killing. If you are to become a monk in the Buddhist sangha (community), you are vowing to follow certain additional rules without fail, on top of the standard rules. ALL of these rules have equal value to a monk. The Dalai Lama took these vows. Among the vows, for example, is vegetarianism. So far, so good. However, the Dalai Lama has, from time to time since taking these vows, eaten meat. Not in any special Buddhist ritual, either. By the standard of “rules”, the Dalai Lama is not a good Buddhist, even though he is a central leader of Tibetan Buddhism. All the rules have equal value, and the Dalai Lama is, in the end, no more than a monk.
So why has he eaten meat? When visiting someone’s home, he eats what is offered to him, out of respect for the host. Is that according to the “rules” of Buddhism? No. However, when the compassion of respecting the host is weighed against the compassion towards all life, the monk has to make a reasoned decision based on what best he knows. Given the metaphysical backdrop of Buddhism where, as I have explained, there is no ultimate truth (of what’s right and wrong), things must be weighed conventionally by the practitioner. In fact, the “rules” of Buddhism are not rules at all; Buddhism is not doctrinal as a religion. From a Buddhist perspective, there are no hard-and-fast morals. However, there are some “best practices”. To be clear, “best” means things that have worked well (and therefore likely will work well), conventionally, in helping enable the end of ignorance. “Practices” means approaches to interact with this conventional existence in which we live. Indeed, among the best practices is “don’t kill.” Another is vegetarianism.
In Buddhism, it is not only “okay” to question the best practices, it is encouraged. If there is a situation where there is absolutely no choice except between the suffering of many or the suffering of few, a Buddhist should ask him/herself if violence is an appropriate response. A Buddhist who gets attached to moral values as rules is no better than a person who gets attached to greed. A Buddhist who gets attached to a conclusion is no better than a stubborn child.
To conflate saving a dying person by removing the cause of his discomfort with assignation of anyone for some putative greater good Hitler or not is an egregious, fanatical act and anti Buddhist principles. Run that by the Dalai Lama and I bet he agrees with me.
First, to answer a question with questions: does the fact that the Dalai Lama ordered the Tibetan army to protect Tibetan territory against Chinese encroachment mean he was “fanatical and anti Buddhist”? He was certainly sending at least some people to their deaths. Does the fact that he ate meat, in clear violation of Buddhist principles, mean that he was fanatical and anti Buddhist? As I said in a previous post, everything is up for grabs in Buddhism, including “morality” of acts. I am reminded of yet another sutra: A man approaches Buddha, looking to join his order. As per the rules of Buddhism, Buddha asks for the man to get the appropriate orange robes and a begging bowl, and then come back. The man leaves the group, and is immediately mauled to death by a bull. Buddha is unperturbed. His followers are shocked, because Buddha knows the future, and surely saw this coming. One says to him, “We are supposed to end suffering, and promote compassion. Why did you send him out to his death, when we could have easily provided him with these sundries?” Buddha responds, “He was already enlightened. Continued presence in the world of suffering would not help him.” The Mahayana lesson: sometimes there is a hidden good from an apparent bad.
To directly answer your question: I do not know what the Dalai Lama would say. If the world is dying, and a single individual is the cause of the discomfort, and the only way to remove the discomfort is to kill that individual, it will certainly be a conundrum for a Buddhist to face. Is it potentially a “moral” act? That’s the wrong question. The useful question to ask the Dalai Lama is not about Buddhist principles or morals, because “principles” do not have any self-existence, and Buddhism rejects morals as such. Buddhist “principles” and “morals” live in context, and all situations are contextual. So, I would ask him about that situation (Hitler simply being the most obvious example of a person who could be that individual). A mindful decision is neither right or wrong, ultimately. In a conventional sense, with “morals” generally meaning “for the greater good of ending ignorance and suffering,” could it potentially be a moral act? Maybe. He has not condemned the war in Iraq (much to my chagrin) for the very reason that I have spoken of, that it could potentially be for the greater good. He also takes a similarly nuanced view to the issue of abortion (one I agree with). There is no doctrine which can be held as “true” or “incorruptible” in Buddhism because it simply isn’t how Buddhism works.
So, in sum, I am convinced by evolutionary theory. That state of belief is highly consistent with Buddhism. I am unconvinced by some externally-given moral code. That state of belief is also highly consistent with Buddhism. It is highly consistent with evolutionary theory as well, and theories about the social construction of reality. What I am saying is, I am on sound philosophical footing, and that footing is internally consistent. In addition, Nikos, Potter, and I have tried to explain the internal inconsistency of belief in “micro” and disbelief in “macro” evolution, given what “evolution” means in science.
So, on the question of the actualy show, a Tibetan Buddhist monk or Mahayana Buddhism professor might be a useful person to include in the debate. On the other hand, the question of “evolved” is such a hot-button, maybe the show should be split into two. “Evolution” and “Morality” on successive days.
March 13th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Vijtable: I read with interest your well thought out responses to Jazzman.
And thank you Jazzman for the depth of discussion and expressing resistance and doubts so intelligently.
Vijtable: To pick up where you left off…. Evolution and morality are linked in this topic because there are some who feel that accepting evolution leaves life without meaning. Senator Rick Santorum expressed this sentiment. That is what started this discussion. So though I see evolution and morals as one, and I have no problem finding some meaning in every day while accepting evolution, and that ends it for me, others, maybe most, do not. Therein lies a clue to what separates us from one another in discourse. This topic, including acceptance of evolution theory, threatens. It causes fear, despair, discomfort (suffering).
Accepting the scientific truth of evolution asks one to let go not of everything but to let go of some pillars, for instance, of attachment to some of the absolutes religious dogma.
There are those who are equally unwilling or uncomfortable, though not necessarily attached to a religion, a particular set of moral principles, or philosophy, to allow science to have a final say, on matters, for various other reasons. I am trying to understand.
I bring up Daniel Dennett,(I think Nikos has as well) –he who wrote the well titled “Darwin’s Dangerous Ideaâ€?, who I understand has been called an “evolutionary fundamentalist”. He has been declaring outright that there is no God. That’s going to war, so to speak. (He may cause the opposite effect- more resistance.) This tactic is like a zen master’s slap or bopping on the head, Dennett’s a form of (non-physical) violence. But he is getting right to the heart of the matter (I think) by attempting to clear the path of cobwebs.
For some to accept evolution, either something else must replace God or the definition of God redefined and/or religion must evolve from it’s “desert kingdom/ iron age”( E.O. Wilson) form and the accumulated and crystallized dogmas/doctrines. These sacred concepts and rituals ( however beautiful) no longer really work completely to help us deal with the world. They can hold us back, twist us and cause immense suffering.
I think this is one reason why Buddhism is so attractive at this time to many in this country and in Europe. I also think that because evolution theory (and scientific inquiry in general) is not inconsistent with Buddhism that countries where it is practiced will have an increasing advantage over those that cling to the un-evolved, un-modernized forms of these religions. Witness the Middle East.
Vijtable: A mindful decision is neither right or wrong, ultimately. In a conventional sense, with “morals” generally meaning “for the greater good of ending ignorance and suffering,” could it potentially be a moral act? Maybe. He has not condemned the war in Iraq (much to my chagrin) for the very reason that I have spoken of, that it could potentially be for the greater good.
I would be surprised if the Dalai Lama has supported the war in Iraq either, ie I suppose him neutral, not knowing if the greater good is or has been served. My question is about the time frame on that. This “greater good conceptâ€? can as well, be something to hide behind. Maybe in a hundred years (and I am not sure even then) this might be seen as serving the greater good. At the moment and looking into the near future, this move is hard to see as being for the greater good. Nor do I hear you saying that the D.L. is saying that this goal could have been accomplished, should have been at least tried in a less destructive way. So the whole house of cards rests on “greater good” which one could keep pushing into a presently unknowable future for the results. Ultimately, you can say everything is for the greater good or might be.
March 13th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Potter: great post.
My only worry with the potential historical revision of the “Iraq war’s greater good” is that in history tends to evaluate all developments as somehow ‘inevitable’ — yet only because of the train of events that follow decisive moments of decision.
For example, we don’t genuinely know how much longer the USSR might have endured without Gorbachev feeling pushed by American nuclear-arms expansion — we can only speculate.
And we don’t know how many Ghandis, Mother Teresas, or Martin Luther Kings might have died in their childhoods because of our choice to invade Iraq instead of continuing to push the Baathists by international sanction.
We just don’t know — even though some or even most historians will inevitably frame the Iraq war as an inevitable tragedy with an ultimately ‘greater-good’ outcome. It’s a circular logic, but written history is full of such things.
Another example: Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece – who knows how it might have turned out had Pericles not been felled by plague? And the outcomes of any number of foolish decisions – especially the intrigues surrounding Alcibiades – might have led to a very different train of historical ‘inevitability’.
All we do know is that many people died – including youths – who might in their maturity have influenced human history very differently.
March 13th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
PS: I think, essentially, that I’m agreeing with Potter (which is hardly surprising!)
Secondly: apologies for the sloppy writing and editing of the post above!
March 13th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
I am struck anew as I re-read the original quote of Rick Santorum: “in fact, it doesn’t put a moral demand on us” [if we have evolved, rather than been put on this earth as "a creation of a Being that has moral demands"]. What a shame that Santorum (and countless others) cannot conceive of a moral compass if this were not inextricably tied to a particular mythology. And of course the particular mythologies vary widely. On the other hand, it is pointless for Santorum or anyone else to think they would have to re-build the compass from scratch upon coming to grips with the overwhelming scientific evidence favoring evolution. Even though humankind built its great religions at at time when understandably there was simply an ignorance of modern science, a whole lot of deep thinking went into these traditions. The trick–and it’s certainly by no means an easy one–is to harvest the fruits of these millenia of shared traditions, while no longer linking such participation with outmoded beliefs that no longer provide a very reasonable fit to our more scientifically based understanding of the world. Perhaps many of our laws and our moral principles arose from questionable cause-and-effect suppositions, with a good measure of superstition mixed in. What is so valuable, though, are opportunities for groups of people to discuss these principles, relating principles to modern day challenges. Although this practice is often done routinely in some religious congregations, the process is more transcendant, and is not intrinsically dependent upon a theistic basis. Is this such a difficult concept?
The problem word, recited by Santorum and many others, is “purpose”. Is there a purpose to our lives? Did the occurrence of this event or that event reflect some mysterious purpose that we poor humans are incapable of understanding? I can empathize at the pain one must feel in considering moving from a belief that there is some supernatural force in the world instilling purpose, to a belief that events simply keep moving along based upon a gazillion influences in a complex world. Yes, I think a deep belief in evolutionary processes does tend to bring one closer to the latter conceptualization. For, if you do believe in evolution, and you don’t believe that at the final moment that humans evolved the whole process abruptly changed, then you’ve got to apply all those same questions to the lives of fruitflies, E. coli, slime molds, and algae. To seek “purpose” every time an insect smashes against a windshield while one is driving a car at dusk begs credibility. In like manner, I’m afraid that to seek a more cosmic “purpose” in what happens to any of us similarly begs credibility. But if, instead, we focus on “purpose” in the sense of real human community, then this takes on great meaning–both in our own lifetimes and in our legacies. As does our morality, which in this context I’d describe as humanity-given.
March 13th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
I enjoyed the discussion but I would like to see a slightly different focus.. The issue for me is to study how emotions evolved from our animal heritage. Chimps are a pretty war like group but their cousins the Bonobos are more conciliatory. How did our emotional set evolve? and from who? Does it have its roots in aggression - protection, enlightened self-intgerest and altruism? Emotions derive from our animal past and morality is the refinement of emotions under the pressures of communal living.
I would love to hear a program that dealt with the evolutionary roots and mechanisms of emotions and morality without bringing in extraneous factors.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Potter: (I can underline!) I read the interview with E.O. Wilson and I believe he is sincere in his beliefs and well intended, however misguided he may be. I would love to have a 1 on 1 discussion with him but I believe that he is likely a willing prisoner of his own dogma, training, and life’s work and less likely to be open minded regarding DE. This is a quote from E.O. which seems to imply that man has no free will and in effect is little more than a gene propagating machine.
�Man does what he does, paints the pictures that he does, writes the books that he does, fights the wars that he does, thinks the thoughts that he does, primarily in an effort to achieve an evolutionary advantage that will allow his genes to live on in the future.� Hogwash!!!
Potter:>> The rigor of science comes in to make this anything but a “just so story� and more than the results of collective blind influence and filters. Do you question the discipline and the rigor? I call it a “just so story� as it purports to be THE Scientific explanation of how we got here and how diversity arose just as Creationism/Intelligent Design (C/ID) does, therefore they are of the “Just So� genre. Yes I do question the discipline and the rigor (not the intent – they suffer from tunnel-vision) because not one of the DE proponents starts from a neutral open minded background (why would they? – they have been brainwashed by the school system from an early age) and they all accept DE hook, line and sinker (as I used to do as well.) Once you accept DE as fact, you ignore all the evidence that doesn’t support it and the rigor and discipline goes out the window. As I state below there are only two theories DE & C/ID and NO scientists (even if they have doubts) dare to challenge the orthodoxy and risk losing funding, status and heaping of ignominy from their peers as surely would happen due to extreme prejudice on the part of the establishment.
I have spent several hours on the web trying to ascertain the current state of thought on the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. I found that ROS opinion on this subject is a microcosm of the prevailing opinions on DE (at least on the web.) E.g., if one doesn’t believe in DE then they are at best ignorant and at worst a Creationist or a fool (which are considered synonymous in the eyes of most Darwinists.) I naively believed that if an open-minded reasoning person examined the evidence for which DE cannot account, doubts would arise as DE being the correct interpretation of the origin of life and diversity and they would at least agree that it’s possible that DE may not be the answer. I find after researching the issue, that my original assertion that the main reason I believe that DE is the prevailing dogma is that C/ID is the only alternative. After all we appear to be here on a naturally diverse sphere in the cosmos, so life had to come from somewhere in some manner. I was unable to find any opinion that rejected DE that wasn’t in the C/ID camp. This is unfortunate as it causes almost instant ad hominem rejection of any arguments that challenge DE however valid or not they may be. I (again naively) believed that due to the dearth of hard evidence that supports DE that simple logic (the same logic used by Darwinists) would be sufficient to dispel the notion that the DE was a likely mechanism. Orthodox science’s explanation of how we came to exist is that the Universe materialized from nothing or a dimensionless something in a Big Bang, the evidence for which is that galaxies appear to be receding from our viewpoint. (E.O.’s rationale for his provisional Deism) however there are physicists who question that model. That pure explosive energy (electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravitational forces) “cooled�, transformed into matter (quarks), formed stars which exploded after eons of nuclear elemental fusion until the elements were too dense to fuse and their shards coalesced into planets. Once the planets cooled, some unknown mechanism was responsible for (perhaps thru vijtable’s emergent features) abiogenesis occurred, DE took over and here we are. Most of the evidence for this explanation is derived by deduction (a priori) and is compiled by combining hypotheses that fit with their preconceptions and of hypotheses or evidence that question it are rejected or ignored. Evolutionists assume for example that because DNA diverges in organisms more or less by different degrees, that when extrapolated backwards in time DNA would converge in a “common ancestor� which if true supports DE and if false doesn’t. The backward convergence is not testable, hence not falsifiable. Because they accept DE, the pieces fit in with it, and as they have no other explanation for why things appear as they do, they tautologically assume DE to be correct. I am an agnostic (neither fairytale convinces me) and not a C/ID or a DE proponent. I find that the subject is so threatening to both sides that until an explanation that accounts for all the anomalies is adduced there is little hope of consensus. I have NO hope of C/ID EVER agreeing with Science, but have hope that Science will someday serve up a more appetizing theoretical pie. I know that the respondents here are committed to DE and have no desire to question it but I include a link I found while researching the above that raises many of the same questions (with no DE explanations) I raised over the last few months but with references and sources. Please do not reject the content based author’s conclusions that this evidence supports Creationism (it’s the only other choice if DE is rejected) but as legitimate inquiry. From here on (after I respond to Vijtable) I will only reference DE as it may be used to justify less than ideal behavior IMO as that is my chief pragmatic objection to the theory.
Cases Against Darwinism
March 13th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
The link is http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
March 13th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Vijtable writes: if you accept small-scale change can happen by means of, basically, external pressures combined with mutation, then you accept the mechanism of evolution. I accept the mechanism of mutation not the mechanism of DE and all that you attribute to it. It’s your definition NOT mine and only logically inconsistent with your logic which ignores that which doesn’t fit within your belief system. You are a mental prisoner of the either DE or C/ID dichotomy and make the giant leap from micro to macro which has no basis other than a priori assumptions of the form: Small changes occur in species therefore small changes over a long time add up to large changes. Why do we never see the evidence of large change which should be constantly on going?
V:A Buddhist who gets attached to a conclusion is no better than a stubborn child. How about an attachment to DE? I could be convinced of DE if it could account for all the contravening questions beyond a reasonable doubt. BTW I also bet that the Dalai Lama sees no conflict in C/ID with Buddhism either.
V:All the rules have equal value, and the Dalai Lama is, in the end, no more than a monk. I’m TOTALLY disillusioned Does the fact that the Dalai Lama ordered the Tibetan army to protect Tibetan territory against Chinese encroachment mean he was “fanatical and anti Buddhist�? He was certainly sending at least some people to their deaths. Yes, he believed that the ends would justify the means and used violence to those ends (and accomplished very little), he is being anti Buddhist and fanatical in this respect (I would have hoped he would have been more Buddha-like than he seems by your lights but humans will be humans despite many lives or he wouldn’t be here.) Does the fact that he ate meat, in clear violation of Buddhist principles, mean that he was fanatical and anti Buddhist? No, just breaking his vows and rationalizing the decision – he could have politely declined and if the host were in a position to entertain the Dali Lama then I daresay no feelings would be hurt by polite refusal. If one is respectful and committed to the sacredness of ALL life then consuming plants or animals for sustenance is not immoral. Vijtables are equal to animals in this way and should be respected as well.
V:Buddha responds, “He was already enlightened… If he were enlightened than he would also have known the Bull would kill him and co-operated in this venture to provide the Buddha with an object lesson for the unenlightened.
V:If the world is dying, and a single individual is the cause of the discomfort, and the only way to remove the discomfort is to kill that individual, it will certainly be a conundrum for a Buddhist to face. First the world is illusory and hardly dying. 2nd If it were determined (by whom?) that the world is being killed by a single entity (GWB?) then it still may be for a “greater good� and that doesn’t give some one the right to kill any person. That is the position of a fanatic.
V:In a conventional sense, with “morals� generally meaning “for the greater good of ending ignorance and suffering,� Whose good? How is one to determine the “greater good� with out being certain of the future? Hitler thought that purging non-Aryans was for the greater good. GWB thinks ending the ignorance and suffering of Iraqis by killing Americans and Iraqis alike is for the greater good. Fanatics always believe their ends justify any means. This is because the fanatic doesn’t have the patience to wait for situations to resolve themselves by peaceful means. The Dalai Lama should speak out against the war in Iraq no matter if it serves the “greater good� or not – even if he can see the future he’s being less than ideal about this. If you also believe this, I consider that you are fanatical in that belief (as well as a less than ideal example of a Buddhist.)
V What I am saying is, I am on sound philosophical footing, and that footing is internally consistent. As I said to Elric, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds� - Emerson and “a system can be complete but inconsistent or consistent and incomplete NOT both consistent and complete�- Kurt Godel. If you believe you are on sound philosophical footing (sounds like a stubborn attachment to me) then who am I to attempt to disabuse you? The beauty of the cycle of samsara is that you get as much practice as you need to achieve enlightment. Enjoy the path and try to eschew violence along the way.
Peace – Jazzman.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Nikos: I just read and enjoyed your post but hve no time.
March 13th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
It’s interesting how quickly the debate turned quickly to modern events and the current secular or fundamentalist guard positions. I would repeat mention of the code of Hammurabi ca. 1780 bc predating modern monotheism and a concept of singular god by quite a long while. What word could be used as a proper substitution for ‘god’ to re-ask the question without inviting a specific interpretation of ‘god’? –ben
March 14th, 2006 at 3:08 am
Jazzman’s most recent reply to Vijtable prompts me to suggest that we might greatly benefit by pondering the implications of this link off the Wikipedia ‘Humanist’ entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
Needless to say, I, for one, am eager for appropriate feedback.
Thanks in advance.
March 14th, 2006 at 3:14 am
S’cuse me — that was the ‘Humanism’ link!
)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
(Which I’ve been exploring extensively off my many struggles to show our beloved but wayward Winston Dodson the error of his boyish infatuation with rightwing ideo-dung.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:53 am
This is a hard place to jump into a conversation, and I’m afraid I’ve only just scanned through the 213 comments above…
I agree with the posts above that mentioned how this discussion could just be a repetition of arguments over God’s existence. After all, morality can hardly be God-given if there is no God. For this reason, I think a philosopher of religion would be a good addition to the show. I think either Nicholas Wolterstorff (emeritus, Yale) or Hilary Putnam (emeritus, Harvard) would be very helpful on this.
Also, many posters in this thread have indicated interest in not limiting a discussion of God to Chrstianity (or for that matter to Protestant or Catholic Christianities). With this interest in various religions, perhaps a scholar in the history of religions would add to the discussion. In an hour, it is impossible to cover more than a couple religions - and at that, with very little detail or complexity - but perhaps a comparitavist scholar (such as, say, Francis Clooney - Harvard Divinity School) could add some helpful perspective on the varieties of “God-given” morals.
Anyhow, there’s my two cents. Clearly there is a lot of interest in this topic. Looking forward to the show…
March 14th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Ben you ask What word could be used as a proper substitution for ‘god’ to re-ask the question without inviting a specific interpretation of ‘god’?
I don’t see how, if you change the word, you avoid defining, accepting or rejecting the concept (of God) for the purposes of anwering the question. We need to understand what we mean by the words we use.
For me the question posed above is a conundrum of sorts. It folds back into itself. It begs all this discussion.
The answer (for me) to the question “morality: God-given or evolved?” is “yes”.
The other question this provokes is : Do we ( did we) need God to have morality?
As you can see we have gotten off on evolution as well. This simply worded query was loaded.
March 14th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Nikos: Thanks for the excellent links - I had no idea that there was a whole school of absolute moralism. I’ve been developing my precepts in the dark. I should get a computer and see what else is out there that I’ve been missing. (I probably won’t though - it’s too powerful a drug for the likes of me!)
March 14th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Jazzman- thanks for your response. Atcha later. Glad Nikos found you some company.
March 14th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Jazzman: you’re welcome.
But boy am I an idiot for slurring poor Winston.
Sheesh.
Brendan, feel free to excise the paranthetical enclosure of my 3/14 3:14AM post.
Sheepish in Western WA,
N
March 15th, 2006 at 12:15 am
I think the Wikipedia entry is brief enough — and relevant enough — to warrant its own post in this thread:
Moral universalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moral universalism is a moral view, often related to humanist philosophy, which claims that the fundamental basis for a universalist ethic—’universally’ applicable to all humanity—can be derived or inferred from what is common among existing moral codes. It stands as a compromise between moral absolutism, and moral relativism, where situational human factors, like culture, dictate moral value.
Moral universalism finds that moral actions are tied to the act itself, not regardless of the cultural context, but in respect of the basic ethical standards that exist in all cultures. As there are those not bound by the Judaic Ten Commandments, or Eastern religious traditions, and since there is substantial disagreement between people of different religious traditions, a standard which describes the essence of all human moral thought is considered a necessity. A universal morality applies to all people in a secular way without basing its ideology in religious traditions.
The world court, human rights, international law, and crimes against humanity are all new terms that are part of global efforts to bring a universalist, equal, and common moral justice to all peoples.
There is, however, some form of universal absolutism as a moral stance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights being an example of this.
Moral Universalism first appeared as a formalized ethical theory amongst the Stoics of ancient Greece (it continues to be a central premise within modern Stoicism, as well). Stoics believe in the supremacy of some form of divine plan or natural order which stands inviola