God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

[Daylight63]

Ethics is not about God. Something Christians cannot understand.

It doesn't have to be about God. And I don't think Cypress was necessarily saying anything like that. The part that humans add on is when we bring in the moral philosophers (regardless of religious affiliation or lackthereof).

 

[Hume]

It doesn't have to be about God. And I don't think Cypress was necessarily saying anything like that. The part that humans add on is when we bring in the moral philosophers (regardless of religious affiliation or lackthereof).

No, Cypress is a fundamentalist Christian. For some reason, he lies about it.

 

[Daylight63]

No, Cypress is a fundamentalist Christian. For some reason, he lies about it.

Oh I don't know about any of that. I'm just looking at what he's talked about on this thread.

 

[Hume]

Oh I don't know about any of that. I'm just looking at what he's talked about on this thread.

Cypress said, "What is unique among humans is the psychological potential to universalize moral truths into objective absolute concepts of right and wrong."
This is fundamentalism.

 

[Lao Tse]

That is what I already said fifteen billion times before in this thread. Altruism based on reciprocity and mutual advantage is a well understood Darwinian evolutionary adaptation in nature.

no that's what I've been saying.

What is unique among humans is the psychological potential to universalize moral truths into objective absolute concepts of right and wrong

this is something new in the discussion.

some new bullshit you made up.
objective absolute concepts of right and wrong?


that's not the same as helpful pro social rational morality based on empathy.

this is the beginning of the oppressiveness and authoritarianism of organized religion.

you're injecting absolutism out of nowhere.

you're doing exactly what I always say masons do.

keep religion totalitarian.



the war machine hates empathy.

TRUMP 2024!

 

[Cypress]

Cypress said, "What is unique among humans is the psychological potential to universalize moral truths into objective absolute concepts of right and wrong."
This is fundamentalism.

I believe there is a moral law imprinted on the human conscience that supersedes human opinion or human fiat.

That's how I can say what the Nazis did to Jews was absolutely and objectively wrong.

Otherwise, disbelief in a universal objective moral law means the Nazis just had a different opinion than you; you cannot say they were objectively wrong.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I believe there is a moral law imprinted on the human conscience that supersedes human opinion or human fiat.

That's how I can say what the Nazis did to Jews was absolutely and objectively wrong.

Otherwise, disbelief in a universal objective moral law means the Nazis just had a different opinion than you; you cannot say they were objectively wrong.

I've never seen evidence of moral law being imprinted on humans. Human history is written in human blood...along with the blood of any animals that got in our way. Under the thin veneer of civilization we're still animals.

What exists, IMO, is only the natural laws of the universe. If we look at human society as a game like Conways's game of life, chess or Go, then we can see that certain natural rules exist if the society is to thrive. Rampant murder, rape and robbery will cause the society to fall apart. Mutual cooperation for defense and hunting/foraging will help the society thrive. There's nothing imprinted there. It's the laws of nature.

@ThatOwlWoman has studied anthropology. Comparing human societies, especially those from a few hundred years ago when there was no contact between many of them and no mass communication, is a good way to see what works and what doesn't. Some societies thrive and some die out for one reason or another. The disappearance of societies such as the Anasazi, Easter Islanders and the Roanoke colony are examples of social collapse.

Play John Conway’s Game of Life

Play the Game of Life online, a single player game invented in 1970 by Cambridge mathematician John Conway.

playgameoflife.com

Go Browser Game COSUMI - It's Free!

www.cosumi.net

Here’s Why These Six Ancient Civilizations Mysteriously Collapsed | HISTORY

From the Maya to Greenland’s Vikings, check out six civilizations that seemingly disappeared without a trace.

www.history.com

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I've never seen evidence of moral law being imprinted on humans. Human history is written in human blood...along with the blood of any animals that got in our way. Under the thin veneer of civilization we're still animals.

What exists, IMO, is only the natural laws of the universe. If we look at human society as a game like Conways's game of life, chess or Go, then we can see that certain natural rules exist if the society is to thrive. Rampant murder, rape and robbery will cause the society to fall apart. Mutual cooperation for defense and hunting/foraging will help the society thrive. There's nothing imprinted there. It's the laws of nature.

@ThatOwlWoman has studied anthropology. Comparing human societies, especially those from a few hundred years ago when there was no contact between many of them and no mass communication, is a good way to see what works and what doesn't. Some societies thrive and some die out for one reason or another. The disappearance of societies such as the Anasazi, Easter Islanders and the Roanoke colony are examples of social collapse.

Play John Conway’s Game of Life

Play the Game of Life online, a single player game invented in 1970 by Cambridge mathematician John Conway.

playgameoflife.com

Go Browser Game COSUMI - It's Free!

www.cosumi.net

Here’s Why These Six Ancient Civilizations Mysteriously Collapsed | HISTORY

From the Maya to Greenland’s Vikings, check out six civilizations that seemingly disappeared without a trace.

www.history.com

Good point about cooperation vs cultures based on violence. Violence only works for a little while. As social animals, we prosper best when we have peaceful communities with mutual defense, sharing of resources, and cooperative behavior.

We used to watch that Doomsday Preppers program on National Geographic some years ago. Virtually all of the preppers stockpiled guns, food, and water in fortified bunkers. They talked about shooting or booby-trapping anyone who got close in the event of some cataclysmic disaster. Only a couple of them formed small groups of friends and neighbors with various skill sets, and stockpiled survival books and medical supplies along with food/water. My bet for long-term survival would have been on those latter folks.

 

[Cypress]

I've never seen evidence of moral law being imprinted on humans. Human history is written in human blood...along with the blood of any animals that got in our way. Under the thin veneer of civilization we're still animals.

What exists, IMO, is only the natural laws of the universe. If we look at human society as a game like Conways's game of life, chess or Go, then we can see that certain natural rules exist if the society is to thrive. Rampant murder, rape and robbery will cause the society to fall apart. Mutual cooperation for defense and hunting/foraging will help the society thrive. There's nothing imprinted there. It's the laws of nature.

@ThatOwlWoman has studied anthropology. Comparing human societies, especially those from a few hundred years ago when there was no contact between many of them and no mass communication, is a good way to see what works and what doesn't. Some societies thrive and some die out for one reason or another. The disappearance of societies such as the Anasazi, Easter Islanders and the Roanoke colony are examples of social collapse.

Play John Conway’s Game of Life

Play the Game of Life online, a single player game invented in 1970 by Cambridge mathematician John Conway.

playgameoflife.com

Go Browser Game COSUMI - It's Free!

www.cosumi.net

Here’s Why These Six Ancient Civilizations Mysteriously Collapsed | HISTORY

From the Maya to Greenland’s Vikings, check out six civilizations that seemingly disappeared without a trace.

www.history.com

Unlike all other animals, the human conscience can be appealed to by a higher moral agency, can reflect and reconsider. That's why human prophets, sages, and philosophers have been at center stage for three thousand years. To me that points to a psychological potential in humans to grasp universal concepts of absolute right and wrong.

The fact that the vast majority of humans fall short of the mark does not make those universal principles dissappear

The Nazis thought they were unequivocally doing the right thing by murdering Jews - but they still tried to hide evidence of their deed, understanding at a basic level this was a violation of universal human objective moral decency.

 

[Cypress]

some new bullshit you made up.
objective absolute concepts of right and wrong?

Okay, so you don't believe in absolute concepts of right and wrong .

Your moral relativism is a postmodernist 20th century concept that has never made sense to me. I don't think even Einstein, the father of relativity, thought morals were relative.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Unlike all other animals, the human conscience can be appealed to by a higher moral agency, can reflect and reconsider. That's why human prophets, sages, and philosophers have been at center stage for three thousand years. To me that points to a psychological potential in humans to grasp universal concepts of absolute right and wrong.

The fact that the vast majority of humans fall short of the mark does not make those universal principles dissappear

The Nazis thought they were unequivocally doing the right thing by murdering Jews - but they still tried to hide evidence of their deed, understanding at a basic level this was a violation of universal human objective moral decency.

If that were true, then why did it take 290,000 years to form civilizations which could generate a society that produces philosophers, sages and prophets?

Yes, homo sapiens sapiens has a high functioning brain but I'm not convinced we were the only species to do so. We're simply the only ones that survived. Either by luck, e.g. Mount Toba, or by killing off the competition.

Sorry, but that fact the vast majority of humans do fall short of the mark is exactly the reason why I strongly doubt we have a genetic "higher moral agency". Consider the election and how the nation is split. Consider the personality differences between those supporting Harris vs. those supporting Trump. IMO, the "higher moral agency" is learned behavior, not innate.

The Nazis only started hiding their actions when the Allies were closing in on them. They didn't give a shit in the 1930s.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Good point about cooperation vs cultures based on violence. Violence only works for a little while. As social animals, we prosper best when we have peaceful communities with mutual defense, sharing of resources, and cooperative behavior.

We used to watch that Doomsday Preppers program on National Geographic some years ago. Virtually all of the preppers stockpiled guns, food, and water in fortified bunkers. They talked about shooting or booby-trapping anyone who got close in the event of some cataclysmic disaster. Only a couple of them formed small groups of friends and neighbors with various skill sets, and stockpiled survival books and medical supplies along with food/water. My bet for long-term survival would have been on those latter folks.

Agreed on that those who cooperate with others increase their chances of survival. The loners will exist only as long as their food and water holds out...if they can prevent others from taking it.

 

[Lao Tse]

I believe there is a moral law imprinted on the human conscience that supersedes human opinion or human fiat.

That's how I can say what the Nazis did to Jews was absolutely and objectively wrong.

Otherwise, disbelief in a universal objective moral law means the Nazis just had a different opinion than you; you cannot say they were objectively wrong.

it's the law of reciprocity. I was thinking empathy wasn't exactly the right word. but its close.

empathy plus an expectation of reciprocity.

nazis should have considered whether they would like to be shoved into ovens.

empathy and reciprocity, or "imagine turning the table", nearly always works to point the way.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Agreed on that those who cooperate with others increase their chances of survival. The loners will exist only as long as their food and water holds out...if they can prevent others from taking it.

And/or they'll band together with other loners to raid those who still have stuff. And get shot. lol

 

[Dutch Uncle]

And/or they'll band together with other loners to raid those who still have stuff. And get shot. lol

Loners will act out of self-interest. While they may band together for a raid, in the end, they'll end up shooting each other. LOL

While there may be some genetics involved with loners and cooperators, I think most of it has to do with their socialization when they were being raised. On another thread there were MAGAts who were bitching about Gen Z. It's both funny and sad to watch selfish geezers whine about others.

 

[Cypress]

If that were true, then why did it take 290,000 years to form civilizations which could generate a society that produces philosophers, sages and prophets?

Yes, homo sapiens sapiens has a high functioning brain but I'm not convinced we were the only species to do so. We're simply the only ones that survived. Either by luck, e.g. Mount Toba, or by killing off the competition.

Sorry, but that fact the vast majority of humans do fall short of the mark is exactly the reason why I strongly doubt we have a genetic "higher moral agency". Consider the election and how the nation is split. Consider the personality differences between those supporting Harris vs. those supporting Trump. IMO, the "higher moral agency" is learned behavior, not innate.

The Nazis only started hiding their actions when the Allies were closing in on them. They didn't give a shit in the 1930s.

During the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, I think the Nazis tried to conceal open evidence of mass Jewish oppression from the international media - obviously recognizing a need to seem relatively more benevolent to outside observers.

Reportedly, more than half of married men cheat on their wives. Trump cheated on all of his wives. The number of people who are incapable of clearing the moral bar doesn't change the fact that betrayal is objectively wrong, for me anyway.

When you hear cases of contrition and regret from criminals, it's almost always that their conscience was appealed to and finally was convinced they should have lived a more decent life. I have heard very few cases of criminals on their deathbed say they should have killed and stole more.

The fact that the human conscience can be appealed to points me to the conclusion there is something innate to us that moral decency can be recognized.

Are there sociopaths and psychotic killers lacking a conscience that can be appealed to? Obviously yes.

I don't know enough about humans 100,000 years ago to compare their psychology to anatomically modern humans. The best I can do is speculate about human psychology as it came to exist in the late Neolithic and Bronze age and beyond.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

During the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, I think the Nazis tried to conceal open evidence of mass Jewish oppression from the international media - obviously recognizing a need to seem relatively more benevolent to outside observers.

Reportedly, more than half of married men cheat on their wives. Trump cheated on all of his wives. The number of people who are incapable of clearing the moral bar doesn't change the fact that betrayal is objectively wrong, for me anyway.

When you hear cases of contrition and regret from criminals, it's almost always that their conscience was appealed to and finally was convinced they should have lived a more decent life I have heard very few cases of criminals on their deathbed say they should have killed and stole more.

The fact that the human conscience can be appealed to points me to the conclusion there is something innate to us that moral decency can be recognized.

Are there sociopaths and psychotic killers lacking a conscience that can be appealed to? Obviously yes.

I don't know enough about humans 100,000 years ago to compare their psychology to anatomically modern humans. The best I can do is speculate about human psychology as it came to exist in the late Neolithic and Bronze age

The Chinese did the same when the elections were held there. It's not that they knew they were in the wrong, it's that they knew of the international condemnation should their oppression of religion were openly revealed.

Again, I disagreed on there being a universal morality. Trump cheating on his wives is immoral in a Christian sense. Other societies, not so much.

Criminals are often remorseful when caught. Not so much before they are caught. If they were, then they wouldn't be criminals. Consider MAGAts who believe "Might makes Right". That's a belief, not a genetic imperative.

Again, I've never seen evidence of a genetic moral imperative in humans. All we have to do is study two-year-olds to see the basic nature of human beings. LOL

Mentally ill humans exist. In such cases their social indoctrination doesn't work.

Anatomically modern humans have been around for 300,000 years. Modern thinking humans are harder to study since human bones or fossils don't show what or how they were thinking. You and I have discussed the collapse of the Bronze Age and the rise of the Axial Age. It's still not understood why the collapse of the Bronze Age gave way to the Axial Age. What we do know is that a mental change did happen about 3000 years ago but not the why. Again, humans have been around for 300,000 years but the Axial Age only happened 3000 years ago. To me, that's a social change, not a genetic one.

 

[Cypress]

we prosper best when we have peaceful communities with mutual defense, sharing of resources, and cooperative behavior.

I agree with that completely, but what I am saying is that is a type of ethical system based on reciprocity and mutual advantage.

What the ancient prophets and sages seemed to be saying is that humans have the psychological potential to universalize concepts of absolute right and wrong, independent of reciprocity, mutual advantage, or the natural laws of biology and survival.

 

[Lao Tse]

And/or they'll band together with other loners to raid those who still have stuff. And get shot. lol

or they are just another group

The Chinese did the same when the elections were held there. It's not that they knew they were in the wrong, it's that they knew of the international condemnation should their oppression of religion were openly revealed.

Again, I disagreed on there being a universal morality. Trump cheating on his wives is immoral in a Christian sense. Other societies, not so much.

Criminals are often remorseful when caught. Not so much before they are caught. If they were, then they wouldn't be criminals. Consider MAGAts who believe "Might makes Right". That's a belief, not a genetic imperative.

Again, I've never seen evidence of a genetic moral imperative in humans. All we have to do is study two-year-olds to see the basic nature of human beings. LOL

Mentally ill humans exist. In such cases their social indoctrination doesn't work.

Anatomically modern humans have been around for 300,000 years. Modern thinking humans are harder to study since human bones or fossils don't show what or how they were thinking. You and I have discussed the collapse of the Bronze Age and the rise of the Axial Age. It's still not understood why the collapse of the Bronze Age gave way to the Axial Age. What we do know is that a mental change did happen about 3000 years ago but not the why. Again, humans have been around for 300,000 years but the Axial Age only happened 3000 years ago. To me, that's a social change, not a genetic one.

you're the one constantly talking about patsying people.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I agree with that completely, but what I am saying is that is a type of ethical system based on reciprocity and mutual advantage.

What the ancient prophets and sages seemed to be saying is that humans have the psychological potential to universalize concepts of absolute right and wrong, independent of reciprocity, mutual advantage, or the natural laws of biology and survival.

Agreed on the survival advantages of reciprocity and mutual advantages. My point is that such societies are grown, not innate.