morality within evolution

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Thanks Juan, but somehow I don't feel so good about posting them...

Magnetman, you are entitled to your opinions, and I think them valid from your perspective, and enlightening to me. Indeed, you have points and arguments that I would truly hope is the truth for all of us. (it would be so nice for all).

I say this, because I must admit I deliberately set out to dispute every point you had made... for the wrong reasons. And for that, I apologise.

I also did not realise Magnetman, that you were a published author, and I am most interested in finding and reading your book(s). Please tell me the title(s).

v/r

Q

Iappreciate your fairness. All the religious points you make were once very much a part of my own earlier consciousness. I am an orphan and was brought up by an institition run by the Church of England and grew to manhood believing and thinking exactly as you do. I turned atheist at 21. At 33 years of Age I had a series of inexplicable meta-physical encounters (much like Paul) that changed not only my religious outlook, but also the whole course of my life. Other than during my period of atheism, I never lost reverence for our Christian culture - its just that I see it and its deeply revered founder in a new, and I believe, more holistic light. Hence my book which you can find at www.psyche-genetics.org

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Yin/Yang of Taoist thought does not correspond to "good and evil", per se, rather, it corresponds with the passive/active aspects of awareness. often, the terms are masculine/feminine or light/dark etc. remember, Taoist thought comes from China where the world view is drastically different than is found in the west, which essentially have Greek world views. for the Taoist, the entire cosmos is Li.. organic pattern.. everything is part and parcel of the universe as an organic whole. seperating things into "good" or "bad" are derivations from the Way and are sicknesses of the mind.

Forgive me if my comments are late (I only was directed to this topic lately), and if they are lengthy.

I'll get back to Paganism and the relationship of Nature's laws to human morality in a bit.

To begin, though, the views expressed above are *very* similar to the Pagan worldview.

Although I'd say that Pagans are more likely to see dividing the wold up into good vs. evil as just simplistic (perhaps a sign of intellectual laziness) rather than a sickness of the mind. For us, evil is *intentional and avoidable* causing of harm.

And the worst kind of evil is *doing* evil and then justifying it rather than taking responsibility for what you've caused.

More later.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by alexa

Here is something about right and wrong in native american ethics :

Concepts of right and wrong in traditional Native American societies tend to be attached to actions that either promote or diminish the even flow of life -- the balance -- that must be kept at all times. Human beings have obligations to behave in certain ways toward all other aspects of creation. If these obligations are honored, harmony and balance are preserved. Poor relationships of any kind -- relationships that fail to follow patterns laid down in mythic time -- destroy the balance, whether it is a relationship between human and human, human and spirit, human and animal, or human and plant. The Navajo word hozho points to all of this. Although it is difficult to translate into English, its sense is of balance, harmony, beauty, and completeness. Wrong actions are those that disrupt balance and harmony, jeopardizing the wellbeing of a people and the cosmos as a whole.

Very close to Paganism. Excepting perhaps that bit about "patterns laid down in mythic time".

Most Pagans, even strict reconstructionists, realize that things are not now as they were in neolithic times.

********

Note: There have already been at least a dozen posts I'd like to respond to, but before I go any further, I'd like to clear up what i think is a misperception here.

Nature is not the sole source for Pagan morality, nor even the primary source. Morality doesn't apply to Nature. Nature is not evil, nor is She good.

Certainly we revere Nature, and feel that we have MUCH to learn from Her. We see that we are, in part, pack animals with hard-wired pack animal reactions. We also recognize that we have the ability to both adapt to our environment in ways that many other animals do not, and very specifically we have the ability to adapt our environment to suit ourselves (usually in pursuit of suvival; as individuals, as a "tribe" or as a species).

The primary ethic of Paganism is personal responsibility.

We don't have a list of forbidden actions.

We also don't have a list of "do these things" as many other religions do.

That's neither better nor worse; it *is* decidedly different.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

On the subject of morality, it seems pagans can't make up their minds, whether they do or don't have a moral code. Some point to the rede and say it is a basic moral code, like what I said about the golden rule. Others modify the rede to suit their personal preferences. Still others steadfastly insist paganism has absolutely no moral code whatsoever. Confusing. No mean spirit intended, but I really think some of them don't really know what they are talking about. Or if they do, they sure aren't letting others in on what they think they know. Some of the sites I visited were very paranoid, more so than any other religious sites I have visited. It makes me wonder...if there is nothing to hide, why hide? Why so scared to share?

This made me chuckle. There a lot of folks out there in the wide world who join Neo-Pagan groups because they think it's "cool" or becasue they are rebelling against something, or some equally odd reason. ~shrug~ There's a LOT of misinformation out there, too.

One thing to keep in mind is that Paganism has more than one tradition; as mentioned earlier, there's "schools" of Pagansim, usually culturally-related.

So there's a lot of varity of opinion, as well as variety of actual practice.



I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify something about the Rede ("An it harm none, do as you will").

This is something that has spawned a lot of disagreement within the larger Pagan community, and even in the Wiccan community.

Some say it boils down to "Harm none".

Others say it boils down to "Do the least harm" (in recognition of the fact that it's not always (ever?) possible to do NO harm, unless one doesn't do *anything* at all - and that can certainly be harmful too).

This is my understanding of those eight words.

1. It is expressed in the terms of an "If...then" statement.

Here's another example of an "If...then" that might serve as an example:

"If it rains today, then I'm going to make soup for dinner"

With just the information above, what will be for dinner if it does NOT rain today?

1. Soup.
2. NOT soup.
3. No way to tell; it could be soup, it could be something else.
4. No way to tell; we can't even tell that there will BE dinner.

Let's get responses to that before I go on.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hello, I hope you do not mind my chirping in here. The conversation is very interesting!

Reading the OP I thought of the book The Moral Animal. I read it several years ago and promptly passed it on, so I don't have it on hand. But, I recall that its hypothesis was that morality is rooted in biology and subject to evolution/natural selection pressures. The chapters that left the deepest imprint on my somewhat hard head were those about how morality is linked to child bearing/rearing and that much of what we think of as morality can be putatively explained by the large amount of energy it takes to successfully raise a human to reproductive age.

I will have to get a copy of this book, thank you for mentioning it.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Can nature based religions rightfully claim scientific justification for nature based moralities, and are such moralities valid in a modern civil social setting? How does the concept of spirit figure in, if science looks beyond spirit? Can nature based religions still justify spirit if they claim scientific validation?

First I think we'l need to define our terms.

Which nature based relgions do you assert derive their morality from nature?

And, what on this good green Earth do you mean by the question "Can nature based religions still jutify spirit if they claim scientific validation"????

That one has me completely lost.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Natural evolutionary mechanisms for morality could well be the processes of social co-operation, which in itself instill some form of "value system". You can clearly see this latter aspect in studies of social apes, and would certainly be a sound foundation to extrapolate a lot of issues of morality - which in itself, in its bare rationalist form, is about the sustainable preservation of the group.

Of course, human thought and creativty complicates the picture - but my personal suggestion would be that the foundations of morality already have a clear biological and evolutionary source. How much of a role Divinity plays a part in the process after is obviously a matter of faith.

Or - did I miss the question completely?

I'm just quoting this so I can find it again; I'll respond whe I have more time.

Side note: GOSH, what a lot of posts on this topic!!!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for adding your input!

For what it is worth, we started a new thread based on this one on the belief and spirituality board, called "Knowledge of Good and Evil". Since it is new, it should be a bit easier to get a fresh start.

I hope you will not mind if I carry my responses to that thread. Sorry if there is any confusion created by this, the intent is to make things a bit easier. You are welcome to continue looking at the other responses here if you like, and if you prefer I will respond here instead.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Kathe!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for adding your input!

For what it is worth, we started a new thread based on this one on the belief and spirituality board, called "Knowledge of Good and Evil". Since it is new, it should be a bit easier to get a fresh start.

I hope you will not mind if I carry my responses to that thread. Sorry if there is any confusion created by this, the intent is to make things a bit easier. You are welcome to continue looking at the other responses here if you like, and if you prefer I will respond here instead.

*chuckle* I have no idea what would be easier - I'm only up to page 6 of 27 so far. Well, no; I think that it will be easier for me to stick with this thread rather than jump between two of them.

I suspect that my responses are somewhat disjointed at this point, as it's taken me this long to actually "get" what you're gettin' at, so to speak. It's thought-provoking, to say the least, and I'm going to be happily busy, thinking about the issues raised/questions asked/answers proposed, for days on end.

Please be patient with me as I slog though all of this.

[Käthe]

Originally Posted by alexa

Witchcraft has its roots in ancient folk ways and beliefs, usually following the seasonal cycle. There are several forms of worship which may vary from elaborate rituals in ritual circles to simple meditation. A lot of witchcraft’s religion was lost in the middle age. Many witches were burned or hanged. They believed in one god and one goddess, but worshipped them as many gods. The Goddess is the mother of all things, of nature and the earth. She is represented by the Moon and her power is greater from May to October. The God is symbolised in the wood lands, in the sun and in the hunt with a greater power from October to May. Witches believe the divine is in all things which partially explains their deep respect and affinity with the nature.



Here you have a scene of drawing down the Moon:



http://library.thinkquest.org/28111/_borders/drawingdownthemoon.jpg





People disillusioned with the present religions had returned to the nature based religions, as these religions had sustained the world for centuries before the appearance of the Christianity.



There are several forms of Neo-paganism including Wicca, Neo-druidism and Astrau. Neo-pagans are usually polytheistic or duo theistic. As a lot of the ancient religions were lost, the new religions have new concepts, which had modified the ancient tradition.



The human is the only being that has realised his life has an end. The appearance of Gods and the spirits in the ancient world was the result of fear of death. Those who hunted had created hunting gods; those who till the earth had created crops gods and so on.



Alexa

I don't know where you got this, but it is well cone.

A minor (well, maybe not so minor) divergence here - Gods arising from a fear of death. yes, some of them.

Others have nothing to do with the fear of death, but the joy of living, the bounty of Nature, the rose rather than the thorns.

[Käthe]

*wry smile* I'm reasonably certain that this got lost in my other posts today, so I'll re-post it:

Here's another example of an "If...then" that might serve as an example:

"If it rains today, then I'm going to make soup for dinner"

With just the information above, what will be for dinner if it does NOT rain today?

1. Soup.
2. NOT soup.
3. No way to tell; it could be soup, it could be something else.
4. No way to tell; we can't even tell that there will BE dinner.

Let's get responses to that before I go on.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Käthe

*wry smile* I'm reasonably certain that this got lost in my other posts today, so I'll re-post it:

LOL, Soup will be made for dinner. Why? On any given day on earth it rains somewhere. It may not be where one that made the statement lives, but by the very statement, they intend to make soup because of the inevitable rain that will fall somewhere on the surface of our home planet...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Käthe]

Funny, Q.

Anyone else want to take a stab at it?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Käthe

Funny, Q.

Anyone else want to take a stab at it?

I choose 4. If it's nice out we might go for a hike instead.

lunamoth

[Käthe]

Lunamoth,

I *like* that answer!

To put this into more familiar terms for anyone who has taken logic classes (and thereby, I hope, clarify):

If A, then B.

If not-A, then _______

The answer is "No way to tell".


So, back to the Rede. Again:

"An it harm none, do as you will".

If A, then B.

If what you're considering doing won't cause harm, don't waste any brain-sweat on it, just do it, if that's your will.

That's the "If A, then B".

But what about not-A?

The Rede is silent about that. It has no guidance to give about causing harm/doing harmful acts.

You're on your own. It's your choice. It's your responsibility. You will own the consequences.


Sounds simple, right? *evil grin*