morality within evolution

[alexa]

Dear Juan,

I'll begin with a quote from William Shakespeare ( Hamlet) :

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Are you looking for a black and white theory about evolution ?
There is nothing about doutheist and polytheist beilefs. Just because we have a monotheist religion, this doesn't mean the others don't exist or have no value at all.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I recommend the full quote, but as the subject matter does consider racism in relation to evolution, I edited those portions. I do think the subject is handled tastefully, and with a minimum nod to politics, but it treats the overall subject of morality in relation to evolution in a very respectful manner, IMO.

I cannot accept in any way the racism as a result of evolution. The racism, in my opinion is the result of ignorance.

Please do not answer yet, to this. I have no time left to finish. I'll be back this evening.

Regards,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

We have a big storm coming, so responding tonight will likely not be possible. So please forgive me, otherwise I would abide by your request.

Originally Posted by alexa

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I love this quote, it is so appropriate!

Yes, I know I cannot dream it all, that is why I began this thread to find what others have considered in this subject.

Are you looking for a black and white theory about evolution ?

I don't think so. Evolution can only explain so much about morality, then it falls short with collective experience. So unless there is mass delusion that affects (effectively) all humans since the dawn of civilization, there is a spiritual component to morality that evolution cannot dare to properly address. Even in drawing upon the concept of memes (Vaj will understand), memes readily explain the subjective components of morality, but do not adequately address the universal components.

There is nothing about doutheist and polytheist beilefs. Just because we have a monotheist religion, this doesn't mean the others don't exist or have no value at all.

I agree, certainly. Of course, that is a side benefit to this discussion. I accept, in a spirit of tolerance, that all paths lead to the same end. This discussion is an opportunity to demonstrate that, an opportunity to test the theory.

I cannot accept in any way the racism as a result of evolution. The racism, in my opinion is the result of ignorance.

Nor do I accept racism. The problem with pulling a quote from the middle of a discussion is in not knowing what went before. In pulling the quote I did from the middle, the conversation had moved on from racism as a specific example to morality in general, in relation to evolution.

Nature, including human nature, is not all "cut flowers and chardonnay." Nature, including humanity, has an ugly side that is difficult to look at, but important to consider if we are to be genuinely truthful to ourselves as seekers. Humanity has a natural tendency to be un-moral.

This is another quote from further in the conversation:

What you may be overlooking is the extent to which this "subjective system of emphatic morality" could simply be the transcendent system expressed through the hearts and minds of all men. One of the important ideas expressed in Christianity is that G-d did not just communicate His laws to Christian believers. On the contrary, He gave everyone an innate understanding of the *spirit* of His moral law. Consider the following passage from our scriptures:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Romans 2:14-15 KJV

For a moral system to be truly transcendant, we should expect to find it outside the philosophy that described it, and that is exactly what we do find. That you feel secure in the "subjective system of empathic morality" is due entirely to the transcendant nature of G-d's law.

Russell T. Cannon

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0262.html

It is kinda nice to see someone else quote a passage I use a lot myself.

Evolutionary science can only go so far in describing morality. There are components to morality that evolutionary science dares not address without some type of compromise, and it is there that I have focussed this discussion. A great deal of morality is subjective, no argument. But it seems there are components that tend to be "universal", accepted by (effectively) the whole of humanity since the dawn of civilization. If nature is amoral, or somehow immune to morality, it seems to me evolution cannot properly address the whole of morality. If humans have a tendency towards un-morality, why are certain components of morality universal? It seems to me an essential core to morality is outside of nature, or at least nature as we tend to view it from the eyes of evolutionary science. Why are we moral, or at least cling to the trappings of morality, if it is against our nature, if we have a tendency towards un-morality?

Morality is either the convergence point of science and religion, or it is the divergence point of science and religion, I cannot say which. I think Mr. Gould was quite right.

[PersonaNonGrata]

Im quoting this down because i want the others to understand what Vaj. understood about the memes ;

The term "meme" (rhymes with "dream") was coined by zoologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book about evolution, The Selfish Gene. Dawkins doesn't claim genes are selfish in the same way as, say, kids who won't share. Rather, he explains, the genes carried by each individual are the driving force behind evolution. As sentient beings we consider ourselves masters of our own fates, but in reality we're just the battlebots in which competing genes slug it out--determining, through the impersonal workings of natural selection, which will survive.
Dawkins proposes that the meme is to culture what the gene is to biology. A meme is a reproducible idea and as such is the basic unit of cultural transmission. In his words: "Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation."

A meme isn't just any fleeting impression or random thought. One defining characteristic of a meme is that it reproduces itself with a fair degree of fidelity. A joke is a meme; so is the alphabet. One can argue that language is the ultimate meme (or "memeplex," as some call it). The sum of all memes is culture, transmitted from generation to generation, just as the genome is.

Meme theory proponents argue that, just as we're the pawns by which our genes compete for dominance, so are we the creatures of our memes. You've heard such expressions as "The concept took on a life of its own" or "Never underestimate the power of an idea whose time has come," right? To memeticists, these aren't mere conceits but rather reflections of the true state of affairs.

You're saying: Get out. I'm the boss of my ideas; they aren't the boss of me.

Don't be so sure. Few doubt that genes are real, and I venture to say the notion of the selfish gene is now the accepted scientific view. But genes are really coded bits of information more than they are tangible things, and though they happen to be embodied in the physical substrate of DNA, their essence can also be conveyed symbolically. Memes are much the same, and their substrates can be as varied as a book or someone's memory. Granted, some memes (a chain letter, an urban legend) are trivial or short-lived. But think about the memeplex of organized religion, instances of which have endured for millennia and to which many devote their lives.

Memes arguably have shaped our biology. Some think the human brain has evolved a built-in faculty for language acquisition. Memeticists say language offered an advantage to our early ancestors because it can transmit memes: for instance, how to make a stone ax. Memes thus tipped the evolutionary balance in favor of individuals with language skills. Through this mechanism they may even be responsible for our big brains.

What do memes add to the conventional understanding of the propagation of culture? Just this: They remove the element of conscious choice, making the process purely mechanical. Just as natural selection accounts for mankind's origins without invoking God, meme theory accounts for our cultural edifices without positing a "self" or a "soul." That solves a long-standing philosophical conundrum: If we accept the idea of an unbreakable chain of cause and effect at the molecular level and take the materialist view that our brains are just complicated arrangements of molecules, there doesn't seem to be any room for free will. Susan Blackmore, in The Meme Machine (1999), argues that with memes there doesn't need to be. Free will and the sense of self are illusions. I'm not an independent actor, just an assemblage of memes (a "selfplex"). Things happen not because "I" make choices but because of interaction between the memes of which this "I" is composed. One objects: So how did you write your book, lady? Blackmore's response: Creative types don't create; they're merely vehicles by which evolving memes manifest themselves. ("The book wrote itself.") Sounds like the woolliest college bull session ever, I know, but even if you don't buy it you've still got to think: Whoa.






which nationality are you Juan?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But it seems there are components that tend to be "universal", accepted by (effectively) the whole of humanity since the dawn of civilization.

Such as?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Why are we moral, or at least cling to the trappings of morality, if it is against our nature, if we have a tendency towards un-morality?

Fear? Does everyone cling to the trappings of a universally accepted "morality?"

[Abogado del Diablo]

Juan:

Have you ever read "The Brothers Karamozov" by Dostoyevsky?

[PersonaNonGrata]

but couldnt help myself when someone refers to a writer that i praise to, his 'Notes from underground' is one of the most adorable books ive read so far, though A. Camus' "The Stranger"s anti-hero character Meursault can compete with Dosteyevski himself..




p.s for juan im aware that these have nuting to the with moralitythruevol, sorry pal .






ItAly is a nice country

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Such as?

I am glad you asked! It seems like most of the material I went through yesterday made some claim like the following:

Peter La Casse wrote another review of the same debate:
(begin quote):
Dr. Craig stated that without God, there is no reason why objective moral laws must exist. That is not to say that people who do not believe in God cannot live moral lives; the question is, are there objective moral standards without God? The answer is no: without God, there is no reason to believe in objective moral standards. Yet we all (or most of us) recognize that there are objective moral standards: rape, murder, etc. are morally wrong.

Allow me to draw to the attention of the reader, that this is an atheist speaking to a christian. An atheist noting "...we all (or most of us) recognize that there are objective moral standards: rape, murder, etc. are morally wrong." (emphasis mine-jt3)

Fear? Does everyone cling to the trappings of a universally accepted "morality?"

Fear, for clinging to trappings of morality? I guess I can see that, fear of the larger community.

But I don't think fear applies to "universal" morality. At least, not the conventional anglo-european conception of the term "fear." Either universal morality exists, or it doesn't.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Have you ever read "The Brothers Karamozov" by Dostoyevsky?

No sir, I haven't, although I understand that to be a classic.

I have read The Art of War a while back, and some thinking I did today reminded me of it.

If I may have permission to play devil's advocate, in order to explore the subject. I might get a little naughty , but I will be very respectful.

A former military person might appreciate a hypothetical that tests where morality, and possibly love, enter the equation. Such as the following:

What can we say of cunning? Cunning is moral to the side that uses it, the side that is on the defensive/done-to/yin end of the bargain considers the matter immoral or un-moral, depending I would think. Essentially, subjective morality in action, even though it can at times such as war countermand such "universal" morals as "thou shalt not murder." In fairness, war is a trying time, particularly for the vanquished. But it is under adversity such as war that human nature shines, or so the philosophers and poets tell us.

For example: Is not espionage a form of cunning? I don't recall any quotes off-hand, but I seem to recall Sun-Tzu addressing the matter of espionage, and its relevance to and necessity for successful campaigns. Of course, there are certain political overtures , meaning I don't care for this example. Yet a glimpse at our "ugly" side every once in a while is a good thing, to help keep things in perspective.

Maybe better to focus on other aspects of cunning. Bravado? What did Sun-Tzu say about bravery? Many, many things I vaguely recall, if not about bravery of the troops directly, then in how to provide circumstances to best procure bravery from your own troops. Even so far as pointers on how to upset your enemy's bravery. Is it moral/ethical action to incite bravery in your troops? The other side might not think so, but the other side's thoughts really don't count. Especially since morality is ultimately up to the individual. It is moral for a group of like-minded individuals to be patriotic to each other for the sake of the whole group, for the selfish reason of self-preservation. Is this ethical action? Politics aside. Animal nature seems to be the will to survive, self-preservation. How does this compare with a mother bear and her threatened cub? Where does love figure into the equation?

Is love the driver for patriotism? Or maybe just the raw energy? How, or does, Kundilani (sp?) enter the equation? (maybe how closely tied to "spirit?", or "animal?") And which end of the spectrum is it? (which way is up?)

Where does "spooky action at a distance" tie into the flow of the river of life? What is at the source of the river of life?

Is ego natural? Is natural "good?" Else, why rise above ego? Or have I missed something, unless the destination is the super-ego?

Maybe I just think too much.

[PersonaNonGrata]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

No sir, I haven't, although I understand that to be a classic.

I have read The Art of War a while back, and some thinking I did today reminded me of it.

If I may have permission to play devil's advocate, in order to explore the subject. I might get a little naughty , but I will be very respectful.

A former military person might appreciate a hypothetical that tests where morality, and possibly love, enter the equation. Such as the following:

What can we say of cunning? Cunning is moral to the side that uses it, the side that is on the defensive/done-to/yin end of the bargain considers the matter immoral or un-moral, depending I would think. Essentially, subjective morality in action, even though it can at times such as war countermand such "universal" morals as "thou shalt not murder." In fairness, war is a trying time, particularly for the vanquished. But it is under adversity such as war that human nature shines, or so the philosophers and poets tell us.

For example: Is not espionage a form of cunning? I don't recall any quotes off-hand, but I seem to recall Sun-Tzu addressing the matter of espionage, and its relevance to and necessity for successful campaigns. Of course, there are certain political overtures , meaning I don't care for this example. Yet a glimpse at our "ugly" side every once in a while is a good thing, to help keep things in perspective.

Maybe better to focus on other aspects of cunning. Bravado? What did Sun-Tzu say about bravery? Many, many things I vaguely recall, if not about bravery of the troops directly, then in how to provide circumstances to best procure bravery from your own troops. Even so far as pointers on how to upset your enemy's bravery. Is it moral/ethical action to incite bravery in your troops? The other side might not think so, but the other side's thoughts really don't count. Especially since morality is ultimately up to the individual. It is moral for a group of like-minded individuals to be patriotic to each other for the sake of the whole group, for the selfish reason of self-preservation. Is this ethical action? Politics aside. Animal nature seems to be the will to survive, self-preservation. How does this compare with a mother bear and her threatened cub? Where does love figure into the equation?

Is love the driver for patriotism? Or maybe just the raw energy? How, or does, Kundilani (sp?) enter the equation? (maybe how closely tied to "spirit?", or "animal?") And which end of the spectrum is it? (which way is up?)

Where does "spooky action at a distance" tie into the flow of the river of life? What is at the source of the river of life?

Is ego natural? Is natural "good?" Else, why rise above ego? Or have I missed something, unless the destination is the super-ego?

Maybe I just think too much.

i maybe able to help you with all those bullies going on in your brain juan, but moral or immoral i dont know but, theres smthng that i couldnt get used to your style. theres smthng that wanted myself to stay away from you,
so i will.
kundalini... had its tatoo on my back when i achieved it ))



Zuzu doesnt make me sleep with all that murmuring its making whilst sleep.(ing)

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

I am glad you asked! It seems like most of the material I went through yesterday made some claim like the following:

Allow me to draw to the attention of the reader, that this is an atheist speaking to a christian. An atheist noting "...we all (or most of us) recognize that there are objective moral standards: rape, murder, etc. are morally wrong." (emphasis mine-jt3)

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that because an atheist admits of a "universal" morality that demonstrates there is one. I'm not sure I agree with that. There are lots of instances where rape and murder would be considered laudible given the right cultural and historical circumstances.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Fear, for clinging to trappings of morality?

I should have put a line break in there. Those were two different questions. First, I propose - questioningly - whether the motive for subjugating oneself to a moral code is really simply motivated by fear. That could be a fear of reprisal or consequences in the here and now and it could be a fear created by the perception of truth in a judgment in the afterlife (or subsequent lives, etc.). Do you perceive that those with less to fear are more likely to "violate" what you perceive as "uiversal morals?"

The second question is "does everyone cling to the trappings of a universal morality?" It seems that many do not. It also seems that one would be hard pressed to find words to express or describe a universal morality.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Either universal morality exists, or it doesn't.

It does as a concept, certainly. The question is - does it exist aside from the concept? If so, what is the mode of its existence? What is the description of its attributes? How do we know of its existence or its attributes? And what is its source? That's why I asked about "Karamazov." In Book V, Chapters 4 and 5, Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamozov utters some of the most brilliant prose I've ever read on the subject of morality.

Thank you for this very challenging discussion. I am enjoying it greatly.

[Abogado del Diablo]

You can read the two referenced chapters from Karamazov here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...chapter35.htmland here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...chapter36.html

Enjoy.

[alexa]

Hi Abogado,

I would like to thank you for bringing back in my life Dostoyevsky.

In front of him, I have no choice than to incline and be silent.

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

That was awesome! Thanks!

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

You can read the two referenced chapters from Karamazov here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...chapter35.htmland here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...chapter36.html

Enjoy.

[alexa]

Dear Juan,

As promised, I'm back to continue my dissertation on Glenn. R.Morton's opinion.

As you have had the time to post again (this is not a reproach ), I'm a little confused about the subject.

I agree with Glenn when he says we have to do the distinction between what we know, independently of our beliefs, and what we can prove.

This was a good beginning. It was harder to follow him after.

A Christian ethicist doesn't (or at least shouldn't) claim that she
can epistemically PROVE the existence of an objective, universal moral code.

Do you understand what he's talking about ? What Christian ethicist tries to prove the existence of an universal moral code ?

As you said later :

there are components that tend to be "universal", accepted by (effectively) the whole of humanity since the dawn of civilization.

So, you do believe we have a ground for an universal moral code.

I agree a Christian theism offers an ontological ground for morality. Still, Christianity is only one among other religions of the world.

Than Russell Stewart says "the Christian morality fails to recognize this critical distinction between ontology and epistemology." Hhm We talk about a religion and not a science.

But the ONTOLOGICAL connection between an atheistic philosophy and having sufficient grounds for universal moral obligation cannot be found.

In the Christian religion the 10 commandements are laws for their beilivers. If we accept the equation : moral = law, even an atheist who believes in law (judiciary system) can be a moral person.

I'll pass over the passage about monotheist and atheist. I don't like the "prove right and wrong to my own satisfaction" 's part.

as Glen Morton does by scenario, does NOT mean that universal morality has been given an evolutionary and sufficient basis.

I think that's why we have this challenge on line.

It seems Glen didn't take at all in consideration the eastern religions.

Is he an adept of eugenics ?

I'll wait for your comments.

Regards,


Alexa

P.S. I have realised I was out of connection on Internet , so it's possible my post will have some discrepancies. I apology for any inconveniance due to it.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that because an atheist admits of a "universal" morality that demonstrates there is one. I'm not sure I agree with that. There are lots of instances where rape and murder would be considered laudible given the right cultural and historical circumstances.

Ummm, that was actually just an example. Being pressed for time, I didn't pull similar quotes from other sources. I found very few who challenged that assertion. As for "rape and murder being laudible" under certain circumstances, I thought I touched on that with my example of patriotism. I admit, that example (patriotism) did begin to make me question the concept of "universal" morality, but I am still open to consideration on the matter.

I should have put a line break in there. Those were two different questions. First, I propose - questioningly - whether the motive for subjugating oneself to a moral code is really simply motivated by fear. That could be a fear of reprisal or consequences in the here and now and it could be a fear created by the perception of truth in a judgment in the afterlife (or subsequent lives, etc.).

That is why I offered the caveat, perhaps not fear in the traditional anglo-european sense. I do hold in my mind and heart a concept of "fear of God", but I am not sure that fear in this sense is the same. Yours is a valid point.

Do you perceive that those with less to fear are more likely to "violate" what you perceive as "uiversal morals?"

Perhaps a lack of that specific "fear of God." I understand "God" in this sense to be a relative term, depending on the culture and tradition.

The second question is "does everyone cling to the trappings of a universal morality?" It seems that many do not. It also seems that one would be hard pressed to find words to express or describe a universal morality.

Everyone? No, that would be an absolute. Effectively everyone, yes, but that allows for a host of exceptions.

It does as a concept, certainly (Either universal morality exists, or it doesn't.). The question is - does it exist aside from the concept? If so, what is the mode of its existence? What is the description of its attributes? How do we know of its existence or its attributes? And what is its source?

Philosophically, this is the million dollar question.

I am also left with a haunting feeling that if it doesn't, the whole of humanity has been deceived for a very long time indeed. I am also left to wonder, if this should indeed be one of the poles between which humans operate in the tension, without it there would be no tension in which to exist. In other words, if no "universal" morality, what is the other pole? What purpose does love serve in that situation or environment? And it still does not answer why morality exists in humanity to begin with.

Thank you for this very challenging discussion. I am enjoying it greatly.

Glad to be of service, and thank you very much for your contributions in this quest! I look forward to more!