Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

[Tassman]

1) Which "myth" to endorse?---the one that posits that "we" (humanity) always instinctively understood co-operation led to survival and therefore created myths to reinforce the idea---or one that posits that because we understand this concept (co-operation leading to survival) with both instinct and reason we no longer need the myths?.....and...does it really matter?

We no longer need the myths. They only arose as a way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age. But we often enjoy the stories, nevertheless.

2) Of the 7 billion or so people on earth, Christians make up only around 2 billion or so----globally---Christian ethico-moral principles are a minority view. Many Christian concepts such as Imago Dei are particular to Christians only and it would be unfair to generalize based on a minority view.

Religious “ethico-moral principles”, whether Christian or those of any other religion, are no longer relevant other than as examples of how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history.

[siam]

1) We no longer need the myths. They only arose as a way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age. But we often enjoy the stories, nevertheless.

Religious “ethico-moral principles”, 2) whether Christian or those of any other religion, are no longer relevant other than as examples of how humans behaved under certain circumstances at a certain time in history.

1) As long as humans create/imagine abstract concepts---myths will always be "needed". The nature of any abstract concept is that it is speculative, based on premises and/or "interpretation" of "fact". Abstract concepts such as right/wrong, justice, equality of humanity...etc are ideas created by the human imagination. The myth/idea that "myths" are not needed because of science is itself a story we tell ourselves. It may indeed be that some "myths" were created to make sense of the universe---and alternate, more plausible and/or reasonable explanations may win over those that tend towards speculative superstition---but the "myths" created for the purpose of defining "human" and explaining human existence, purpose, and meaning will remain so long as there is no better alternative to forming ethico-moral rules/laws that promote co-existence, co-operation, and non-violent dispute resolution....?....

2) I cannot speak for Christianity as their ethico-moral principles seem to have never been consistent?---but there may have been a few philosophies that have been able to harness the potential of the human imagination to create stable and consistent paradigms that attempt to build a framework for understanding and defining "human", to attribute meaning and purpose to human existence, and to build ethico-moral rules/laws for co-operation and co-existence.

[Tassman]

1) As long as humans create/imagine abstract concepts---myths will always be "needed". The nature of any abstract concept is that it is speculative, based on premises and/or "interpretation" of "fact". Abstract concepts such as right/wrong, justice, equality of humanity...etc are ideas created by the human imagination. The myth/idea that "myths" are not needed because of science is itself a story we tell ourselves. It may indeed be that some "myths" were created to make sense of the universe---and alternate, more plausible and/or reasonable explanations may win over those that tend towards speculative superstition---but the "myths" created for the purpose of defining "human" and explaining human existence, purpose, and meaning will remain so long as there is no better alternative to forming ethico-moral rules/laws that promote co-existence, co-operation, and non-violent dispute resolution....?....

No, myths will NOT always be needed. And rules of behavior, i.e., ‘morality’, are NOT abstract concepts. They’re functional. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, not theology or philosophy.

2) I cannot speak for Christianity as their ethico-moral principles seem to have never been consistent?---but there may have been a few philosophies that have been able to harness the potential of the human imagination to create stable and consistent paradigms that attempt to build a framework for understanding and defining "human", to attribute meaning and purpose to human existence, and to build ethico-moral rules/laws for co-operation and co-existence.

Ultimately, the ONLY “meaning and purpose to human existence” is (as per ALL living creatures) survival. Any “meaning” we accrue along the way, such as love of family and friends, is a by-product of the attachment and bonding necessary to form cooperative communities. These are necessary for our survival as an evolved social species and commonly found to a lesser degree among all the higher primates.

[siam]

No, myths will NOT always be needed. And rules of behavior, i.e., ‘morality’, are NOT abstract concepts. They’re functional. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, not theology or philosophy.


Ultimately, the ONLY “meaning and purpose to human existence” is (as per ALL living creatures) survival. Any “meaning” we accrue along the way, such as love of family and friends, is a by-product of the attachment and bonding necessary to form cooperative communities. These are necessary for our survival as an evolved social species and commonly found to a lesser degree among all the higher primates.

I do not disagree with your points...that is, if we are to view ourselves at the level of chimpanzees or some such---yes---social rules need not be abstract or require philosophies. However, there are limits to the size of the group with this level of social organization. The system of social organization and group size that humans have developed requires abstractions/philosophies---and therefore, myths. (at least according to the argument presented by Hariri in the video link I gave before).

Humans (individual) have an instinct for survival---I agree....but humanity (large group) needs to be persuaded for co-operation which is why we have developed sophisticated language skills and with these language skills combined with our imagination and creativity we can think in abstract terms. This is an inescapable quality of the human species that cannot be undone. Therefore---humanity will always make use of this ability. So...myths/abstractions/philosophies will always be a part of the human communications toolkit

[Tassman]

I do not disagree with your points...that is, if we are to view ourselves at the level of chimpanzees or some such---yes---social rules need not be abstract or require philosophies. However, there are limits to the size of the group with this level of social organization. The system of social organization and group size that humans have developed requires abstractions/philosophies---and therefore, myths. (at least according to the argument presented by Hariri in the video link I gave before).

We have virtually the same DNA as chimpanzees but with higher intelligence. Humans have developed beyond the basic tribal level of chimpanzees but this is merely an extension of the standard tribalism of all the higher primates. It incorporates many tribes (not just one) under the leadership of an alpha male reidentified as a chieftain or king etc.

Humans (individual) have an instinct for survival---I agree....but humanity (large group) needs to be persuaded for co-operation which is why we have developed sophisticated language skills and with these language skills combined with our imagination and creativity we can think in abstract terms. This is an inescapable quality of the human species that cannot be undone. Therefore---humanity will always make use of this ability.

Humanity does NOT need to be persuaded to cooperate. It instinctively does so as an evolved social animal.

So...myths/abstractions/philosophies will always be a part of the human communications toolkit

One can (and does) abstract, mythologize and philosophize about what we do at the social level, but this is not why we do it. We “do it” as a logical extension of the tribal social order characteristic of our species.

[seer]

Humanity does NOT need to be persuaded to cooperate. It instinctively does so as an evolved social animal.

And humanity does not need to be persuaded to murder, steal or war - it is instinctive.

One can (and does) abstract, mythologize and philosophize about what we do at the social level, but this is not why we do it. We “do it” as a logical extension of the tribal social order characteristic of our species.

Perhaps humans largely still need something more than the bankrupt existential nihilism of atheism.

[Machinist]

I think maybe it heavily depends on what juncture of technology mankind is at at that particular era. For instance, there would probably be less violence in the world today if say, there was no such thing as logging anymore, rather every single industry that once relied upon forest products now relied upon hemp. Like, a hemp economy would probably produce less violent regimes. We're gauging human nature here and trying to determine what it is exactly and what it's included to, but we need the right environment to test those behaviours. What's instinctive in one domain may not be so in another.

Then over time, it would seem that consciousness itself would evolve, even maybe the hard wiring of neuro genetic circuits (if I may use that metaphor).

[Diogenes]

Perhaps humans largely still need something more than the bankrupt existential nihilism of atheism.

People can find meaning in something as mundane as golf. There's nothing about "the bankrupt existential nihilism of atheism" that would prevent social creatures like humans from developing prosocial behaviour and using a collective force, such as the State, to punish behaviour detrimental to the group.

[Stoic]

Perhaps humans largely still need something more than the bankrupt existential nihilism of atheism.

Perhaps some humans. Especially those who have been promised more since they were too young to remember.

[seer]

Perhaps some humans. Especially those who have been promised more since they were too young to remember.

Some humans? You mean the majority of humans living on earth today?

[Stoic]

Some humans? You mean the majority of humans living on earth today?

You have statistics on how many humans couldn't live with existential nihilism?

[Tassman]

And humanity does not need to be persuaded to murder, steal or war - it is instinctive.

Indeed. But the overriding instinct is the preservation of the tribe or community and this restricts random acts of murder, or theft or war.

Perhaps humans largely still need something more than the bankrupt existential nihilism of atheism.

Certainly, humans still find comfort in the fiction of their gods in many instances. Although, it does not seem to provide much cohesion in terms of the gross social inequities, gun-violence and high incarceration rates found in the largely religious USA.

[Diogenes]

Indeed. But the overriding instinct is the preservation of the tribe or community and this restricts random acts of murder, or theft or war.

Ingroup vs outgroup, being tribal in nature, doesn't restrict war. If anything, ingroup vs outgroup mentalities would escalate confrontation.

Certainly, humans still find comfort in the fiction of their gods in many instances. Although, it does not seem to provide much cohesion in terms of the gross social inequities, gun-violence and high incarceration rates found in the largely religious USA.

US religiosity is largely cultural as opposed to people in the US actually being "religious".

[Tassman]

Some humans? You mean the majority of humans living on earth today?

The majority of humans find meaning in the day-to-day relationships with their loved ones and family plus their pursuit of special interests. There are no mass suicides of despairing existential nihilists who enjoy life in the present rather than seek future post-mortem glory with God.

[Tassman]

Ingroup vs outgroup, being tribal in nature, doesn't restrict war. If anything, ingroup vs outgroup mentalities would escalate confrontation.

Indeed. But tribalism has its own rules of acceptable and unacceptable behavior within the tribe which are enforced. As is unacceptable war-like behavior between tribal allies.

US religiosity is largely cultural as opposed to people in the US actually being "religious".

Well, the US’s “cultural religiosity” has nevertheless resulted in gross social inequities, gun-violence and high incarceration rates. This as opposed to say, Norway where in 2005 a Gallop survey in sixty-five countries, indicated that Norway was the least religious country in Western Europe. And yet has a very low crime rate with a wide-ranging social safety net and social equity.