morality within evolution

[MagnetMan]

I was taught that a small mind discusses people. A great mind discusses ideas. What say you?

I'm sorry. I find you far too evasive. (Just an opinion, nothing personal) Perhaps we will meet in another life.
Kwaheri Bwana

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, MagnetMan.

(Just an opinion, nothing personal)

No personal offense taken, I trust the same with you.

Perhaps we will meet in another life.

I would look for it, and once again welcome you with open arms, as a brother. As a peer.

Kwaheri Bwana

Thank you, and farewell to you.

Hágoónee’ Hosteen (Navajo)

Do-na-da-go-hv-i (Cherokee)

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

I broach this subject cautiously, I want to keep it strictly in the context of the development of religion and morality. If the mods feel this post is inappropriate, then please edit accordingly.

I am confused about blood sacrifice. Pagans of the past practiced animal sacrifice, as does Judaism of the past. By extention, Jesus, as the Lamb of G-d, serves the "fullfillment" of sacrifice for Christians.

At this point I hesitate to say all, but many animist cultures also practice blood sacrifice. Is there a key in connecting blood sacrifice to morality, and why?

What purpose does blood sacrifice play in the evolution of morality in Neolithic culture? It doesn't seem to me to hold any evolutionary advantage. It seems a rather curious artifact to influence so much of the world.

The hunt, it must be something to do with the hunt...

 

[MagnetMan]

Animism - a naive state of consciousness that experiences Nature as a soul, was practiced (lived actually) throughout the Stone Age. It forms the root of mankind's spiritual behavior. I have seen it in practice among the Bushmen of the Kalahari. It is innately moral, for it is based on the ethic of non-trespass and meticulous sharing. This divine trait underlies all subsequrent social distotions of its original purpose. And because we all lived in a hunter/gather milieu for more than 99%of our time evolving into higher states of consciousness, should we survive the trails of our current teenage, I believe our intuitive imprint with the spirit that underlies life, will inevitably resurface and redirect our spiritual behavior.

 

[Quahom1]

Animism - a naive state of consciousness that experiences Nature as a soul, was practiced (lived actually) throughout the Stone Age. It forms the root of mankind's spiritual behavior. I have seen it in practice among the Bushmen of the Kalahari. It is innately moral, for it is based on the ethic of non-trespass and meticulous sharing. This divine trait underlies all subsequrent social distotions of its original purpose. And because we all lived in a hunter/gather milieu for more than 99%of our time evolving into higher states of consciousness, should we survive the trails of our current teenage, I believe our intuitive imprint with the spirit that underlies life, will inevitably resurface and redirect our spiritual behavior.

The only "morality" within evolution is survival. If one animal's actions benefit the survival or comfort of another larger, predetory animal, then the predator will naturally allow the smaller one to survive, and may even show kindness towards it.

But it has nothing to do with actual morality (as an abstract thought), it is merely a logical decision based on convenience to the superior (physical/psychological/mental) life form. Or, it may be a case of necessity of survival for the greater life form.

Morality has nothing to do with evolution, because it most often counters evolutionary demand. I'm certain you are quite aware of this.

Morality for example is creating rules of war and engagement, that do not allow for total extermination of the enemy. That is totally contrary to evolution, which demands that the weak be erradicated by the strong. Or the defective be elliminated by the perfected. Morality is treating others as equal, when evolution demands that there is no equal, only inferior and superior camps.

The only concept even close to morality within evolution is mutual gratification. One animal needs his hide picked clear of parasites, and another feeds off of those parasites. Hence bird and rhino co-existed in a mutually satisfying relationship. The bird cleans the rhino's hide, and the rhino doesn't let anything happen to the bird, or the bird's eggs or nest. The rhino knows not to destroy what gives it relief from the parasites on its hide.

Man's morality is different, mostly because it counters evolution. (or maybe not so different). Man cares for the elderly and sick, the deformed, the mentally inferior. Why? A twenty fiver year old soldier in top physical shape, and all his life ahead of him, will jump on a grenade in order to protect an aged woman, or children not his own...why? That makes absolutely no evolutionary sense! Is it because in his mind he will be noted in history as laying down his life for those that might not have made it to begin with? Again, that thinking counters the survival of the fittest concept.

Now, once we domesticate animals, then the morality and evolution issue begins to cloud. Domestic animals tend to mimic the moral behavior of man. And that counters evolution as well, or does it? If I raise a dog for three years, and give him all the love, attention, food, time, etc., he can handle, then starve him for a week...what happens then?

I have read of humans feeding off of humans in desperation, in order to survive, however that has been rather rare (in non-cannibalistic societies). Most of the time the desperate find another food source, or die, rather than eating one of their own. Think a loyal dog who is starving would do the same thing? Maybe, but I doubt it. If so then morality supercedes evolution. It is a concept that surpasses the will to self-survive (if it can be demostrated in animals as well as man).

In summation, Morality does not exist in evolution, only convenience. Morality supercedes the natural order of nature, which is to survive at all costs. Morality often expresses itself at the ultimate cost, hence is beyond basic nature. Even Bushmen have moral values that override evolutionary requirements. And the key word is "override".

I hope I made some sense here Magnetman.

v/r

Q

 

[MagnetMan]

I hope I made some sense here Magnetman.

v/r

Q

With due respect (and I do respect your line of reasoning) I must say no. To begin with, you place human consciousness above and apart from nature. You see nature as a souless mechanical system that materialized piecemeal for no other reason than procreation and consumption without an iota of ethical consciousness. My view is entirely different. For all its good intentions,I personally do not subscribe to religious interpretations of Gensis. I go along with science and see the human primate as an evolutionary extension of Nature. My personal belief is that the reason for our super-natural ability to articulate universal consciousness has always been part of the Divine plan - a vast evolutionary effort, with a small touch of randomness added, designed to evolve a specie that is able to fully appreciaite and take glory in Nature's beauty and wonderful wealth of diversity. We, I believe, are the physical vehicle by which God can see and sensually experience Himself in social and spiritual realms that organic Nature cannot.

As for morality, that is a concept that can only come into being when there is deliberate trespass anywhere in Nature. The Laws of Cause and Effect are universal - without them. there would be no way to protect the integrity of any atomic association and nothing but chaos would result. Thus the wrath of a jealous God is real. For man to become a witness, he was allowed to trespass and domesticate Nature. He left Eden to toil in the soil. But there was a price to pay. Hence this huge moral confusion between science and religion which we struggle with today. Lasting answers will only come when Science explains the metaphsyical potentials within the nuclear equation. They will inevitably get around to it. In the meantime, as a practicing metaphsyician, I have taken the liberty of prempting science and have invested the last twenty years outlining the first draft of a unifying principle that fuses physics with metaphsyics. If you are truly interested in gaining further insight into an alternative line of thought, I suggest you check my profile.

The key words you missed in my original post were "meticulous sharing ." That is the foundation ethic that elevated humans above all other primates. It predates organized religion and is moral to the core. It did not come easy.

 

[MagnetMan]

Quahom1
Reading back over my previous post, I realize that it is presumptuous of me to accept that you would buy my book just in order to understand my answer to your rationale. It was the difficulty of finding a short answer that made me; give up and end my answer that way. Here is the best I can do.

Religion sees man as a special creation of God, unrelated to Nature.
Science sees man as a creation of Nature, unrelated to God.

I see God in Nature - literally and figuratively.
And Nature in God - literally and figuratively.

Everything in the cosmos made out of the same gases, liguids and minerals. All is conscious. All is Divine.

Man is the intermediary that, as our evolution continues to unfold and take us higher states of consciousness, will eventually bring it all together.

When both science and religion agree on this, our present moral delema will end. Peace.

 

[Quahom1]

Quahom1
Reading back over my previous post, I realize that it is presumptuous of me to accept that you would buy my book just in order to understand my answer to your rationale. It was the difficulty of finding a short answer that made me; give up and end my answer that way. Here is the best I can do.

Religion sees man as a special creation of God, unrelated to Nature.
Science sees man as a creation of Nature, unrelated to God.

I see God in Nature - literally and figuratively.
And Nature in God - literally and figuratively.

Everything in the cosmos made out of the same gases, liguids and minerals. All is conscious. All is Divine.

Man is the intermediary that, as our evolution continues to unfold and take us higher states of consciousness, will eventually bring it all together.

When both science and religion agree on this, our present moral delema will end. Peace.

My "religion" does not look at man that way. Man is in the world (in nature), just not of it (tied to it). The "science" I'm aware of has no conceptions of man's creation or relationship to a "God", only people do (the ones that use science for their own personal purpose or agenda).

The only "animal" on earth that strives to leave the element he finds himself in is man. And, he has succeeded. His success grows each day.

Yes, all is made of star dust (it is the building block of life). But stars do not bring forth the spark of life. Yes, man is a steward of this planet, but then that begs the question "who granted man stewardship of the planet?" Obviously we didn't make this marble. We were given it to maintain. We haven't found a single planet even close to this one (at least anywhere near us, relatively speaking). There is no planet nearby we can just fall to and start again (not without some serious terraforming on our part). The land is conquered, and so is leaving the confines of our planet. Now we are tackling the sea (which by the way, will teach us to survive on the surface of Venus).

If left to our own devices, we would plow through everything to get our own way. But, something within us (foreign to our natural state), checks us. It isn't part of our animal make up. It has been introduced into us from without. That is why we struggle with it every day, because it conflicts with our natural desire to take everything there is to take.

Which in turn leads us back to the original theme of this thread. Morality within evolution.

Man, is one of the weakest animals on earth (physically). Yet all animals wild, fear and suspect man...now why might that be? Perhaps it is due to the fact that animals sense in man his predatory nature, his total disregard for everything but himself. They (nature) do not see or sense outright, the "morality" of man. Quite the opposite. In fact it takes animals time to see the proof of morality in the animal called man, mostly because it takes a concerted effort for man to consistantly display that morality.

I submit, that if left to our own devices Magnetman, our natural "morality" would not stop us from firing our "nuclear guns". We got 'em and we know they work, and the enemy stops moving after we use them.

We don't even have to use fission bombs. We know how to make Neutron bombs, which kill everything but leaves buildings standing and land radioactive free. Yet we outlawed their construction let alone use (with alot of objections from other humans).

Your points about human growth? I happen to agree. But even they are artificial in the world of nature. (an opinion, not a slight towards you personally). Only man contemplates such abstract thought (and attempts to consciously apply it to his life). My horse, dog, cats and ferrets could care less about spiritual growth and morality. They only know few things, food, shelter, God (I strongly believe), and love (or kindness), and respond accordingly.

Man on the other hand is capable of reacting (or acting), totally opposite of what an animal might do for lack of the "neccessities" I just mentioned. There is nothing natural about that either.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

Some pretty good thoughts, Q!

 

[Quahom1]

Some pretty good thoughts, Q!

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

 

[MagnetMan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.