Backtracking a little...
I think this whole "morality" debate is a bit flawed, as it seems to revolve around "human morality"....
Well, humans are not the sole custodians of morality on this planet. In fact, research indicates that all social animals show some sense of morality, in their own particular way.
The mechanism is well explained in The Selfish Gene, but essentially, individuals are subject to their genes and the genes survive as individuals survive and breed. Genes compel individuals into survival and breeding. In a social setting, the genes which produce empathetic individuals will tend to breed more than the genes which produce individuals that perturb the social well-being.
This means simply that, in any social population, individuals that behave properly will eventually outnumber those that don't, but not necessarily lead the others to "extinction".
Enter man... a late-comer into this whole biological social experiment... Man has developed its social behaviors within a tribal setting, a group of perhaps 50 to 100 individuals. From that setting, we gained out intrinsic "morality". The morality we all share.... well... all... like I said above, variations in this intrinsic genetic trait are to be expected, that is... psychopaths are to be expected... granted, they will be a minority, but they will surface once in a while. In a tribal setting, these psychopaths will be rare and far apart.... in a big city of several thousands, a few are likely to be around at all time.
The need to keep psychopaths in check arises... at the same time, other minor variations to the optimum tribal behavior become prevalent and in need of some regulation.
The urban center poses some extra requirements on the individual's behavior.... but not enough time is provided for evolution to work at the genetic level.
Rules need to be imposed on the people. Rules thought out by the people in charge of these urban centers, with the goal of keeping the urban center peaceful and prosperous (not to mention, keep the ruler where he was
).
Through fallacy after fallacy, in time, the religious gain access to that power, incorporate the rules into their own code and, with more time... come to claim to be the sole origin of those rules.
And now, humans discuss a morality provided by the all-mighty unevidenced creator of the whole cosmos. Devoid of proper context, such notion seems to make sense to the believers in the creator god. For such belief is itself mostly the fruit of faulty mental processes... the same that led religions into power so very long ago.
--- of course, this is a pretty picture, but it has little evidence for it... mostly common sense and a few nuggets from archaeology and biology. Still, it is a far more believable picture than the one proposed by any religion.
Prayer, is nothing more than communion with the god in people's minds. Things happen independently from that god, of course, but the prayer makes the believer feel good about it, as the god is seen acting upon the world. The things that happen, seemingly so random, must have some element of control from said god... so, the communion thus achieved is well perceived, regardless of the outcome.
I have no qualms with people praying... I don't see it as dissonant... down deep, it's just a way to cope with some of the randomness of this world.
And there go my![[Image: twocents.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.robinsfyi.com%2Fimages%2Fmain%2Ftwocents.gif)
I think this whole "morality" debate is a bit flawed, as it seems to revolve around "human morality"....
Well, humans are not the sole custodians of morality on this planet. In fact, research indicates that all social animals show some sense of morality, in their own particular way.
The mechanism is well explained in The Selfish Gene, but essentially, individuals are subject to their genes and the genes survive as individuals survive and breed. Genes compel individuals into survival and breeding. In a social setting, the genes which produce empathetic individuals will tend to breed more than the genes which produce individuals that perturb the social well-being.
This means simply that, in any social population, individuals that behave properly will eventually outnumber those that don't, but not necessarily lead the others to "extinction".
Enter man... a late-comer into this whole biological social experiment... Man has developed its social behaviors within a tribal setting, a group of perhaps 50 to 100 individuals. From that setting, we gained out intrinsic "morality". The morality we all share.... well... all... like I said above, variations in this intrinsic genetic trait are to be expected, that is... psychopaths are to be expected... granted, they will be a minority, but they will surface once in a while. In a tribal setting, these psychopaths will be rare and far apart.... in a big city of several thousands, a few are likely to be around at all time.
The need to keep psychopaths in check arises... at the same time, other minor variations to the optimum tribal behavior become prevalent and in need of some regulation.
The urban center poses some extra requirements on the individual's behavior.... but not enough time is provided for evolution to work at the genetic level.
Rules need to be imposed on the people. Rules thought out by the people in charge of these urban centers, with the goal of keeping the urban center peaceful and prosperous (not to mention, keep the ruler where he was
).Through fallacy after fallacy, in time, the religious gain access to that power, incorporate the rules into their own code and, with more time... come to claim to be the sole origin of those rules.
And now, humans discuss a morality provided by the all-mighty unevidenced creator of the whole cosmos. Devoid of proper context, such notion seems to make sense to the believers in the creator god. For such belief is itself mostly the fruit of faulty mental processes... the same that led religions into power so very long ago.
--- of course, this is a pretty picture, but it has little evidence for it... mostly common sense and a few nuggets from archaeology and biology. Still, it is a far more believable picture than the one proposed by any religion.
Prayer, is nothing more than communion with the god in people's minds. Things happen independently from that god, of course, but the prayer makes the believer feel good about it, as the god is seen acting upon the world. The things that happen, seemingly so random, must have some element of control from said god... so, the communion thus achieved is well perceived, regardless of the outcome.
I have no qualms with people praying... I don't see it as dissonant... down deep, it's just a way to cope with some of the randomness of this world.
And there go my
