Recent debate

[OpenMind5]

I recently started a new post where I said...

 

Science can tell us how the world works, but it does not form basis for establishing meaning and values.

 

 

I would like some outlook on this statment. I have my feelings, but I wish to hear others.

 

(the post it is from is "Get It Straight" which you can find from my Profile if you wish)

 

Thanks,

Op5

[Boerseun]

Morality is subjective.

Data is objective.

 

Morality does not fall in the scientific domain, in my point of view.

 

...and that's about it, I guess.

[Queso]

boerseun you accell in both content and deliverance.

[Boerseun]

boerseun you accell in both content and deliverance.

[TAKES A BOW]We live to serve, master :)[/TAKES A BOW]

[Buffy]

There were several threads months back where I yacked on and on about this, basically describing how I think morals can develop without being imparted by a deity: that is, trying to describe why people are nice to each other even if there isn't a God. There seems to be a real fear among some that there might be a logical, scientific explanation of why people have morals. Check out: the brothers karamazov and absolute freedom (and a second post a little further down the same page by me). I'll expound upon it more if people are interested, but to summarize, some of the things central to our intelligence and civilization that people find very "complex" and based on some "higher power" really can be seen as being completely inevitable and develop naturally based on the same evolutionary forces that cause species to develop biologically. I think a lot of what blinds people to this is the strong belief among many (most?) people that humans are "special" when animal behaviorists will tell you that "dumb" animals actually do act in very sophisticated ways with regard to intelligence and sociological processes. We really *aren't* as special as we'd like to think!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Interesting, Buffy.

 

I suppose it could be said that humans need a 'binding force' to let civilization come to the full. In order to make everybody pull in the same direction, so to speak.

 

I could also be said that religion serve(d) that purpose via laws and rules in a lawless society (think the prophets was probably technically the first lawyers!) to elevate society to a more ordered system where people followed the laws on pains of eternal damnation. In a society without an effective police force or court system, this worked spectacularly well. In ancient Egypt, the binding force was the person of the Pharao. A wasteful society is was, to be sure - most government resources went into the pharao's shrine; but see what an ancient society can achieve if there's a binding factor and enough motivation (being flogged to death for not working well is apparently motivation enough to come up with what was the tallest building in the world for over 3,000 years).

 

So it could be said that religion provides a widely accepted morality, and a widely accepted moral code is necessary for a humble crew of cave-dwellers to evolve into what we'd call civilization. Religion is being replaced now by the Rule of Law as the binding force and the agreed morality, so it could also be said that religion served its purpose, and is needed no more in developed countries.

 

The point is that religion isn't the only mechanism for providing an ancient people with a moral code. But it does seem to be the most prevalent one.

[Buffy]

I suppose it could be said that humans need a 'binding force' to let civilization come to the full. In order to make everybody pull in the same direction, so to speak.

Yep. Animal behaviorists can show lots of examples of this sociological 'binding force' in the vast majority of animal species from bees to lions and tigers and bears oh my. Its obvious that social networking is an elemental trait that develops early because it enhances survival very effectively. In "lower" species like ants and bees, the social hierarchy is programmed in, but in higher orders, it is "earned" somewhat, although the notion that heredity defines social position has persisted to this day (e.g. royalty, although thats really dying out fast!).

I could also be said that religion serve(d) that purpose via laws and rules in a lawless society (think the prophets was probably technically the first lawyers!) to elevate society to a more ordered system where people followed the laws on pains of eternal damnation.

That's the thesis. But again, this sort of order already exists in many species: the real advancement has been in sophistication of communications which allows the laws to be more sophisticated. I also see laws and political hierarchies as being highly intertwined through out human history and pre-history, although its interesting to note that these social structures exist in *parallel*and are symbiotic and are rarely one and the same: there's always the "chief" with the "medicine man" at his side. <digression>I could also bring in the "warrior" here to note the "charisma-brains-brawn" triumvirate that can be seen in most civilizations, with the accountants/bureaucrats following along with the more sophisticated economic structures that would develop later.</digression> I think this distinction is notable because religions are by definition dogmatic, whereas politics are highly fungible, and you need both to stay in power!

In a society without an effective police force or court system, this worked spectacularly well. In ancient Egypt, the binding force was the person of the Pharao. A wasteful society is was, to be sure - most government resources went into the pharao's shrine...

Army=police force. Its not like there wasn't one, and the religious hierarchy in most societies is the court system, thus we see in reactionary Muslim countries and certain conservative states in the US the desire to replace the judiciary with religious laws and even judges.

 

The progression through history too has been interesting where in early societies like Egypt, the leader had to be elevated to status of demi-God (arguably, Japan's Emperor still is to some), to simply being ordained or approved by God ("divine right of kings" to Iranian style theocracy to the "God is a Republican" folks), to the more meritocratic mechanisms in modern democracy. What I think you're getting to is that evolutionarially, history is showing that the mechanisms like heredity or social class that have defined political structures in the past are proving less efficient than the notion that "anyone can grow up to be president" which definitely lets the best of the cream rise to the top.

The point is that religion isn't the only mechanism for providing an ancient people with a moral code. But it does seem to be the most prevalent one.

And that is true: who knows what other mechanism might evolve to do this on other worlds? My argument is that this one is obvious:

 

[Clouds coming over horizon]

"It might be a good idea to do what I say, cuz you might piss off the Great Dudette in the Sky."

[Peasants grumble]

[Rumble]

"Hear that? Man, you pissed her off! You gonna listen to me now?"

[Peasants all nod]

"Okay, now, the Great Dudette sez we all need to plant our rutabagas over in that other valley"

[Peasants grumble]

[....a few months pass...]

"Well, now see: the folks that listened to me and farmed in the other valley have totally awesome rutabagas. You meat heads who didn't wanna move? Look at *your* rutabagas. They totally suck! See what happens when you don't listen to the dude who's the best friend of the Great Dudette? Now, next you need to sacrifice some of those rutabagas in order to make sure the Great Dudette does not trash your crops next year. Just bring 'em up right here to me and I'll take care of everything..."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Great post, Buffy!

 

It kinda makes you wish that you're immortal, if only for the opportunity of seeing (in another kazillion years) which moral system turns out to be THE moral system!

 

Then again, I'm planning on being immortal. And so far, so good.

 

Later,

Boerseun