morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

Hi Alexa, All,

I will try to find the book again at the library and refresh my memory so I can add to the conversation.

I believe that morality is rooted in our spiritual self. I read Atlas Shrugged around the same time I read The Moral Animal and both seemed similar to me: they seem very reasonable and rational, (one a hypothesis about moral behavior, the other a philosophy about rational behavior), but both left out the intangible reality that I attribute to soul. I'm afraid I am not being terribly clear here. However, soon after reading both of these, after many years of agnosticism, I returned to prayer. As convincing as these logical ideas may be, The M.A. lacks an explanation for why we feel gratitude and A.S. philosophy lacks compassion. And neither can answer the question: Why am I here?

my two cents

[alexa]

Hi lunamoth,

This is really interesting. We took in consideration till now only the morality in all religions.

I'll wait for juantoo3's comments on it. I'm sure he'll be a little mixed up.

Regards,

Alexa

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

Hi lunamoth,

This is really interesting. We took in consideration till now only the morality in all religions.

I'll wait for juantoo3's comments on it. I'm sure he'll be a little mixed up.

Regards,

Alexa

Hope I'm not sidetracking your conversation...if so just ignore me.

I will try to re-read all the posts and see where I got lost.

[alexa]

Lunamoth,

All members of CR are welcome to participate. If you have the time to re-read the posts you'll find we have asked participation at the beginning.

We took it like an interesting challange and there is no reason to panic if the conversation sidetracks a little. Just relax and enjoy with us.

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

You've been busy indeed! My time has been really precious lately, and I'm afraid this will get worse before it gets better. So by all means, you and any others are more than welcome to continue the conversation. I'll join in when I can.

Originally Posted by alexa

The Kluckhohn-Murray aphorism (1953):

Every human is in certain respects
a. like all other humans.
b. like some other humans.
c. like no other human.

I like this.

Christianity: 2 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million
Buddhism: 360 million
Chinese traditional religion: 225 million
primal-indigenous: 150 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 14 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 6 million
Jainism: 4 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 3 million
Tenrikyo: 2.4 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 700 thousand
Scientology: 600 thousand
Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand

This is a pretty impressive tally. I am curious though, if China has about 2 billion people, and India another billion, making half of the world's population between those two countries, why the Eastern religions would not have a higher count? Maybe I am missing something in the tally. I am not sure if Christianity accounts for fully 1/3 of the world's population...Oh well, in the end, I suppose it's not that important.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Ciel!

Thank you for your participation here!

Originally Posted by Ciel

It's a fine balance in conception of understanding happening here.

Thank you. That is the intent of this exercise.

Juantoo3, you wrote;" I wonder where and how "spirit" figures into the equation."
Spirit enters when there is respect.

I agree, in practice, which is why the sincere attempt at remaining respectful in consideration. My observation had to do with the principle of spirit to morality. Since science and logic look past spirit as an unquantifiable element, and religion in general accepts spirit as a given element, my concern was to how spirit relates to morality.

It is necessary to have depth of feeling and empathy for the natural worlds.

On a personal level, I agree. But not all do. Not all religions. Not all sciences. Not all philosophies. Dare I say, not all moralities.

But also to realise that humanity is able to see a greater overview, when there is balance in the soul and spirit, a balanced natural environment is created, and respect is born from both sides. The spiritual and interlect of morality in humanity and the unassuming morality of nature. The importance in the understanding that all things were made to work together in illumination.

Maybe I misunderstand you here. I want to believe the first part, about "when there is balance in the soul and spirit." But a balanced natural environment is a subjective point of view. I don't know that I see nature as having an "unassuming morality." Which has been my point pretty much all along. Afterall, nature is not just flowers and trees, songbirds and honeybees.

Nature can be a very cruel mistress. The morality of nature, if nature can truly be said to have a morality, seems to be in opposition to human morality, especially in a modern civil society. What of the examples I presented concerning parenting and mating among animals? Natural morality displays what society calls "deadbeat dads" and "runaway moms," and it encourages harems (polygamy). I might add, that while animals "kill" almost exclusively for food only, the ways and means of killing are quite gruesome sometimes. It is seldom quick, clean and painless. Suffering is the rule of nature, not the exception. Handicapped babies are either killed outright, or they are left to die of themselves. I have also seen several examples of two or more healthy babies, the strongest is fed and nurtured while the other is left to starve (Stellar eagles). Often, the dominant male kills a baby that gets within his reach (Patagonian mountain lions). I don't think any of these examples serves well as moral examples for humans, most especially in civil society.

But maybe it all becomes a little too complex untill it is seen as a whole.

Yes, I agree. That is the reason for this discussion.

There is God also outside the boundaries of religeon.

Yes, I believe this personally. Yet even the different religions view "God" in different ways.

Yes God is seen in many different ways and many different interpretations.There is no question on the validity of connection.

Again, I agree, because of personal experience. But there are many who question the validity of the connection. An atheist who does not accept the validity of God would question the connection with nature. And the atheist may be just as moral than any who does recognize "God" in whatever form.

I see morality as heartfelt, filtered through God, soul, spirit.
...this can be called the science of life.

I want to believe something like this, but I am not sure. That is the reason for the original question. Where does this come from? Nature? Natural selection? Evolution?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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

We don't mind at all, welcome aboard!

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.

I am intrigued. I have heard of such claims in certain circles, but I haven't seen anything to support it. Thanks.

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 wonder if this relates directly to what Brian suggested earlier about social apes? Some of this makes sense at a surface level, we still learn "right and wrong" from mom. Is that to say that right and wrong are subjective according to what mom says?

I believe that morality is rooted in our spiritual self. I read Atlas Shrugged around the same time I read The Moral Animal and both seemed similar to me: they seem very reasonable and rational, (one a hypothesis about moral behavior, the other a philosophy about rational behavior), but both left out the intangible reality that I attribute to soul.

I did read Atlas Shrugged. I agree that Ms. Rand overlooked, if not deliberately dismissed, the concepts and inherent value of spirit and soul.

I'm afraid I am not being terribly clear here.

I share your concern. I am not certain I have been clear in my line of questions.

However, soon after reading both of these, after many years of agnosticism, I returned to prayer. As convincing as these logical ideas may be, The M.A. lacks an explanation for why we feel gratitude and A.S. philosophy lacks compassion. And neither can answer the question: Why am I here?

I haven't gotten that far in my reasoning. I am still unclear why I am here. Silly me, at this point I kinda figured I would make a reason for myself as I went along...

Hope I'm not sidetracking your conversation...if so just ignore me.

I don't see how you've sidetracked the discussion, you have added another angle to it. In my opinion, that enriches the discussion.

[Ciel]

Hi Juantoo3 and all.
Re: The Kluckhohn-Murray aphorism {1953}
Perhaps it's not possible to base where we are now in evolutionary religious process on where we were half a century ago. The vision of religion changes with the consciousness of our ever changing world, eg; we do not follow the same thought process of fifty or five hundred, or five thousand years past. Because of a greater world view, we are more able to have a balanced perception of communication on a moral level, choosing that we would wish a truly civilised society undivided. Since the fifties there has been a far more open allowance in respect of freedom of speech and self chosen religious practise, many carry God with them constantly, he/she is as much part of them as themselves, named or un-named. When a moral code of humanity operates through love, compassion and understanding of other beings, we live in all possibility of a better world for all.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards again, Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

... try to find the role of nature in evolution and its basic moral code. The purpose is to understand the evolution of the morality and not to judge any religion.

Yes, you've got it!

The morality in society evolves like any ordinary science. And this is exactly what we try to follow.

Well, this is a big part of the question. Did morality evolve out of nature? Or is morality, by its essense, something beyond the reach of science to explain? Which is why I asked how relevent nature-based moralities are to modern civil societies? 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?

I know you have seen most of these before, Alexa, so I am reposting these for the benefit of others who join the discussion.

This is really interesting. We took in consideration till now only the morality in all religions.

I think Lunamoths contribution is valid and timely. A big part of the question deals with the claims of science that morality developed out of nature.

I guess in the end there are implications. Can science, by laying claim to morality, hold sway over religion? I want to believe intelligent, respectful, thoughtful people hold science and religion apart, realizing that the two can not answer the same questions to the complete satisfaction of the other. There are components science overlooks, and there are components religion overlooks. In this instance, both science and religion claim some hold on morality. Can they both be right? Is this a point of the human experience that merges the two disciplines together? Or is this yet another point of contention between the two?

Can a person without morals (if such truly exists) be genuinely religious? Can a person without morals be genuinely scientific? Can a person without religion or science be moral?

I have so much more to say, but time right now is precious. The next week is going to be hectic for me, so please feel free to pick up and carry on. I will return as soon as I can. I would be very interested in other people's opinions on these things.

Many thanks to all who have participated so far!

[Ciel]

Juantoo3,
Thank you for your response. Our lines were crossing as I was posting as you were posting.
Just a small point on the unassuming morality of nature. In this context taken from the concise oxford dictionary, to mean;'not prentious or arrogant,'for nature is simply nature. A wave does not consider if it is part of the ocean and what it should do next, it just is. A human is a highly complex system, given choice.
Regards Ciel.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Ciel!

A quick response before I go.

Originally Posted by Ciel

Re: The Kluckhohn-Murray aphorism {1953}

If I understood Alexa correctly, she was referring to this:

Every human is in certain respects
a. like all other humans.
b. like some other humans.
c. like no other human.

Which I would find difficult to disagree with.

Perhaps it's not possible to base where we are now in evolutionary religious process on where we were half a century ago. The vision of religion changes with the consciousness of our ever changing world, eg; we do not follow the same thought process of fifty or five hundred, or five thousand years past.

Because I agree with the other, does not mean I disagree with this. As the world seems to grow smaller to us as individuals, meaning that we become more and more familiar with it and all within, our worldviews, societies, norms, and mores all begin to reflect these things. Science plays a big part in expanding our awareness. So does cross-cultural communication, which includes comparative religion.

Because of a greater world view, we are more able to have a balanced perception of communication on a moral level,

Yes. Thank goodness for places like this forum. And for religious and social leaders (Gandhi comes to mind, and MLK jr.) who try to make people aware of this more balanced perception, and integrate this moral perception into modern society.

choosing that we would wish a truly civilised society undivided.

Here though, I am torn. It seems to me a core teaching of religions around the world is that they are not only right, but that they are the only right. So many religions dream of a world united under their particular flavor. That alone, has been a source of discord for millenia. "Let's have a one world religion, ours!"

Since the fifties there has been a far more open allowance in respect of freedom of speech and self chosen religious practise,

This is one gift bestowed on the world by the formation of the US. It has probably grown exponentially since the '50's. Of course, if one cares to look closely enough, they will see that that is as much a result of world economic policy as anything else.

many carry God with them constantly, he/she is as much part of them as themselves, named or un-named.

Has this not been throughout history, since the dawn of modern humans at least, not just since the '50's? One could even ask, isn't God carried with the animals constantly as well?

When a moral code of humanity operates through love, compassion and understanding of other beings, we live in all possibility of a better world for all.

I want to believe this very much. Yet, if God is with nature, and nature can be a cruel mistress, how can natural morality benefit modern society? If suffering is a natural state, how can natural morality cure suffering? In other words, is "love, compassion and understanding" as presented here a natural state, or is this something that has evolved with humanity out of "nature" and necessity? Can humanity create a "better world" by regression into natural "base" morality? Or must humanity develop its morality as time goes on for the benefit of the greater good of the whole world's inhabitants? Can we progress by looking to nature, or to ourselves?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards again, Ciel!

Originally Posted by Ciel

Just a small point on the unassuming morality of nature. In this context taken from the concise oxford dictionary, to mean;'not prentious or arrogant,'for nature is simply nature. A wave does not consider if it is part of the ocean and what it should do next, it just is.

This helps to illustrate my quandary. Should a human be turned loose to "not consider if it is part of (humanity) and what it should do next, it just is?"

Now that I think about it, is it realistic to equate a human with a wave? A wave has no mind to consider with. An animal, while it may have a mind, has no conscious (rational) thought to consider with. Humans have conscious rational thought to consider with. It is with that conscious rational thought that we consider right and wrong, and develop our moralities.

A human is a highly complex system, given choice.

Absolutely agreed. So, does "simple" morality have a valid place in modern civil society? Or should the complex moralities be built upon further?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Juan:

Have you ever read Erne Ness's writings on "Deep Ecology"?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Thank you for your post!

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Have you ever read Erne Ness's writings on "Deep Ecology"?

No sir, I haven't. Would you be interested in providing a synopsis?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Thank you for your post!


No sir, I haven't. Would you be interested in providing a synopsis?

It's been a few years since I read his works but here's a thumbnail sketch. Anyone more familiar is invited to clarify or correct this description as they see fit.

Ness deals with what he calls a true "ethic" of ecology that he refers to as "Deep Ecology." Interesting that I think it will look very familiar to Gnostics, Taoists and Buddhists in this group.

Essentially, what Ness says is that any "ethic" that posits a human goal or "good" as its purpose is out of step with "ecology" - i.e. out of step with the experience and knowledge that we humans (and our "ethics") are an inseparable part of the whole living world. Thus, the ideas of conservation or "stewardship" are anathema to the goal of harmony and balance because they posit a human end as their goal. What we really need is a spiritual or psychological transcendence of ethics and morality so we can reconnect with the joy of simply being a part of the living universe. Hence, Deep Ecology.