Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The foundations of morality
3 views
Skip to first unread message
M Winther
Nov 4, 2012, 10:00:07 AM11/4/12
to
"The foundations of morality"
Must morality be rooted in the Bible, or more generally, in a worldview
of faith, or does morality depend on "common sense", as is the claim of
"Humanist associations" and atheists of different schools of thought.
It boils down to the conflict between the spiritual worldview and the
ideology of materialistic physicalism, embraced by the atheists. A
scientific worldview cannot take into account moral, spiritual, and
psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without relation to the
human soul. It implies that the scientific paradigm is not quite
adequate as a worldview on its own. For instance, medieval paintings
have a value perspective in which important persons look larger than
others. This is a moral perspective that is equally relevant as the
optical perspective, and it is not a sign that medieval man was
ignorant. Science and faith ought to be viewed as parallel worldviews
that aren't quite self-sustaining, in themselves, and therefore must be
brought to completion by their counterpart.
The medieval painter wasn't realistic in the optical sense, but neither
are today's scientistic materialists realistic in the moral sense.
That's why there is today no morality of the heart. People instead
follow ideological tenets which they have programmed into their heads.
This gives rise to an awkward and hypocritical ethics which is neither
rooted in the heart nor in the instincts. The consequences are very
destructive. For instance, empathy is today viewed as the function by
which you donate money to the poor people of the world, to subsidize the
growth of vegetative and meaningless human life. This is a robotic
definition of empathy. In truth, empathy is the feeling you have for
creatures in your vicinity, including your cat and your pot plants.
The distribution of material resources to people who don't deserve it is
by the atheists viewed as the epitome of goodness, which shows that
physicalism and atheism cannot function as a groundwork of morality. The
moral perspective comes skewed, perverted, and robotic. The
materialistic form of goodness has in the end evil consequences, because
it is not founded in the heart, nor in our natural instincts. It is
merely a product of the intellect. The foremost example is Marxism,
which was created during an epoch in the 19th century when suffering due
to poverty and inhumane working conditions was immense. The appalling
situation was documented by Friedrich Engels and Charles Dickens.
But Marxist goodness was merely a product of the intellect. The ideal of
goodness was "from each according to his ability, to each according to
his needs". Atheists, Socialists and Communists programmed this tenet
into their heads, aiming to do good, but the result was the opposite. It
gave rise to the greatest evil and suffering in world history. Many
people still believe in this tenet in some form. According to the
American Declaration of Freedom, every person should have equal
opportunities to build a good life of their own, but they do not have
the right to have all their needs satisfied, which is a Marxist
doctrine.
As soon as we program ideological tenets into our heads, and stop
listening to our heart, we draw the wrong conclusions. Suddenly we start
thinking that millions of Third World people have the right to immigrate
to our country, and with time take over our country, causing the demise
of our civilization. But if we listen to our heart, we realize that it's
not right to give away our country and undermine the civilization that
we have inherited from our ancestors.
The conclusion is that atheistic morals don't work, because it is based
on mere materialistic premises, just as Marxism.
The biblical creation story is another bone of contention. Richard
Dawkins and the British Humanist Association repudiate it as
unscientific. But it is relevant in the same sense as the value
perspective of the medieval painter. The biblical creation story relates
a truth that is complementary to scientific truth. The creation that
took place before man's emergence on the sixth day, is handled
concisely. It took only a couple of days. The underlying message is that
history only began at the origin of human consciousness, at the day when
we became modern human beings. If the whole timeline is laid down,
mankind only emerges in the last minutes, from a geological perspective.
Although it is historically true, it doesn't relate a truthful picture
of this remarkable event. In a sense, the emergence of human ego
consciousness is a world-creating event. Only at this moment there is
full awareness of creation. Only at this point, when Adam and Eve opened
their eyes, God begins to truly relate to his creation. So, from a
religious perspective, this is where history begins.
What took place before, such as the age of dinosaurs, etc., can't really
compare with the emergence of the human ego, which is the greatest
marvel in the history of the universe. The religious authors had a
different perspective than the mere scientific. What if the earth is the
only place in the universe where an ego-consciousness has developed? It
means that the earth remains at the center of the cosmos, not
geographically but morally. Viewed from this perspective, the biblical
creation story is highly relevant. From the standpoint of faith, history
before man can be summarized as five days of divine creation. The
authors of the Pentateuch conveyed the spiritual truth, since history
only begins at the moment when we become aware of God. So remarkably
important is this event. God sees himself through his relation to man,
and so mankind mirrors God. The notion that man was created in the image
of God relates an important truth. Had they written about the historical
and geological truth, things would get the wrong proportions.
Of course, what perspective you are brought up with is highly relevant
to the moral development of the individual and of society. In certain
quarters of life, the scientific paradigm is unable to give us the right
perspective, and things are given the wrong proportions. What is
insignificant from the perspective of the human soul is blown out of
proportion, whereas what really matters, namely the improvement of the
individual soul, is deemed insignificant by comparison with material
betterment and the maximization of the human population on earth.
That's why the scientific paradigm, despite being a success story, is
deficient. In the end, it must be complemented by a spiritual paradigm
that sees things differently. It should be possible for the two
paradigms to exists side by side, if they both give up their ambition of
world hegemony. A scientist must realize that there is some sense to the
mythological creation stories and a spiritual worldview. On the other
hand, creationists must realize that the scientific version of creation
is unshakable scientific truth. It should be possible for two complete
worldviews to exist side by side, while giving due admission to the
alternative worldview. They are not competing worldviews anymore, but
alternative aspects of reality. This is called complementarity.
Mats Winther
Must morality be rooted in the Bible, or more generally, in a worldview
of faith, or does morality depend on "common sense", as is the claim of
"Humanist associations" and atheists of different schools of thought.
It boils down to the conflict between the spiritual worldview and the
ideology of materialistic physicalism, embraced by the atheists. A
scientific worldview cannot take into account moral, spiritual, and
psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without relation to the
human soul. It implies that the scientific paradigm is not quite
adequate as a worldview on its own. For instance, medieval paintings
have a value perspective in which important persons look larger than
others. This is a moral perspective that is equally relevant as the
optical perspective, and it is not a sign that medieval man was
ignorant. Science and faith ought to be viewed as parallel worldviews
that aren't quite self-sustaining, in themselves, and therefore must be
brought to completion by their counterpart.
The medieval painter wasn't realistic in the optical sense, but neither
are today's scientistic materialists realistic in the moral sense.
That's why there is today no morality of the heart. People instead
follow ideological tenets which they have programmed into their heads.
This gives rise to an awkward and hypocritical ethics which is neither
rooted in the heart nor in the instincts. The consequences are very
destructive. For instance, empathy is today viewed as the function by
which you donate money to the poor people of the world, to subsidize the
growth of vegetative and meaningless human life. This is a robotic
definition of empathy. In truth, empathy is the feeling you have for
creatures in your vicinity, including your cat and your pot plants.
The distribution of material resources to people who don't deserve it is
by the atheists viewed as the epitome of goodness, which shows that
physicalism and atheism cannot function as a groundwork of morality. The
moral perspective comes skewed, perverted, and robotic. The
materialistic form of goodness has in the end evil consequences, because
it is not founded in the heart, nor in our natural instincts. It is
merely a product of the intellect. The foremost example is Marxism,
which was created during an epoch in the 19th century when suffering due
to poverty and inhumane working conditions was immense. The appalling
situation was documented by Friedrich Engels and Charles Dickens.
But Marxist goodness was merely a product of the intellect. The ideal of
goodness was "from each according to his ability, to each according to
his needs". Atheists, Socialists and Communists programmed this tenet
into their heads, aiming to do good, but the result was the opposite. It
gave rise to the greatest evil and suffering in world history. Many
people still believe in this tenet in some form. According to the
American Declaration of Freedom, every person should have equal
opportunities to build a good life of their own, but they do not have
the right to have all their needs satisfied, which is a Marxist
doctrine.
As soon as we program ideological tenets into our heads, and stop
listening to our heart, we draw the wrong conclusions. Suddenly we start
thinking that millions of Third World people have the right to immigrate
to our country, and with time take over our country, causing the demise
of our civilization. But if we listen to our heart, we realize that it's
not right to give away our country and undermine the civilization that
we have inherited from our ancestors.
The conclusion is that atheistic morals don't work, because it is based
on mere materialistic premises, just as Marxism.
The biblical creation story is another bone of contention. Richard
Dawkins and the British Humanist Association repudiate it as
unscientific. But it is relevant in the same sense as the value
perspective of the medieval painter. The biblical creation story relates
a truth that is complementary to scientific truth. The creation that
took place before man's emergence on the sixth day, is handled
concisely. It took only a couple of days. The underlying message is that
history only began at the origin of human consciousness, at the day when
we became modern human beings. If the whole timeline is laid down,
mankind only emerges in the last minutes, from a geological perspective.
Although it is historically true, it doesn't relate a truthful picture
of this remarkable event. In a sense, the emergence of human ego
consciousness is a world-creating event. Only at this moment there is
full awareness of creation. Only at this point, when Adam and Eve opened
their eyes, God begins to truly relate to his creation. So, from a
religious perspective, this is where history begins.
What took place before, such as the age of dinosaurs, etc., can't really
compare with the emergence of the human ego, which is the greatest
marvel in the history of the universe. The religious authors had a
different perspective than the mere scientific. What if the earth is the
only place in the universe where an ego-consciousness has developed? It
means that the earth remains at the center of the cosmos, not
geographically but morally. Viewed from this perspective, the biblical
creation story is highly relevant. From the standpoint of faith, history
before man can be summarized as five days of divine creation. The
authors of the Pentateuch conveyed the spiritual truth, since history
only begins at the moment when we become aware of God. So remarkably
important is this event. God sees himself through his relation to man,
and so mankind mirrors God. The notion that man was created in the image
of God relates an important truth. Had they written about the historical
and geological truth, things would get the wrong proportions.
Of course, what perspective you are brought up with is highly relevant
to the moral development of the individual and of society. In certain
quarters of life, the scientific paradigm is unable to give us the right
perspective, and things are given the wrong proportions. What is
insignificant from the perspective of the human soul is blown out of
proportion, whereas what really matters, namely the improvement of the
individual soul, is deemed insignificant by comparison with material
betterment and the maximization of the human population on earth.
That's why the scientific paradigm, despite being a success story, is
deficient. In the end, it must be complemented by a spiritual paradigm
that sees things differently. It should be possible for the two
paradigms to exists side by side, if they both give up their ambition of
world hegemony. A scientist must realize that there is some sense to the
mythological creation stories and a spiritual worldview. On the other
hand, creationists must realize that the scientific version of creation
is unshakable scientific truth. It should be possible for two complete
worldviews to exist side by side, while giving due admission to the
alternative worldview. They are not competing worldviews anymore, but
alternative aspects of reality. This is called complementarity.
Mats Winther
DonH
Nov 4, 2012, 1:20:22 PM11/4/12
to
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:509682fe$0$4129$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
# Lots of lovely words, justifying a preconceived conclusion : the relevance
of Religion.
True, Science is about facts of our natural world, but one finding of
science is: that Man is a Social Animal. Our ethics derive from that, be
they based on Religion, Marxism, Humanism, or Capitalism (dog-eat-dog).
Traditional Religion is obsolete in that its cosmology has been
superseded by that of Science, and its primitive morality (Ten Commandments)
supplemented by all the laws, democracy, justice, and politics, since.
Yes, modern ethics is distorted by economics, and we are forced into
competition with each other by capitalism, when co-operation would be our
natural tendency.
Socialism is the answer, but will global Plutocracy allow it?
As Eurotopia demonstrates, Austerity isn't working; nor is Pax
Americana, and fundamentalist Islam is no answer either.
As for Art, and the Old Masters, portrait painting was the only way of
preserving a likeness (with sculpture) prior to photography, and we have no
way of objectively assessing the Mona Lisa, if we can't compare the result
with the original (person).
Cynics will note that Rise of Modern Art occurred with advent of
Photography.
news:509682fe$0$4129$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
of Religion.
True, Science is about facts of our natural world, but one finding of
science is: that Man is a Social Animal. Our ethics derive from that, be
they based on Religion, Marxism, Humanism, or Capitalism (dog-eat-dog).
Traditional Religion is obsolete in that its cosmology has been
superseded by that of Science, and its primitive morality (Ten Commandments)
supplemented by all the laws, democracy, justice, and politics, since.
Yes, modern ethics is distorted by economics, and we are forced into
competition with each other by capitalism, when co-operation would be our
natural tendency.
Socialism is the answer, but will global Plutocracy allow it?
As Eurotopia demonstrates, Austerity isn't working; nor is Pax
Americana, and fundamentalist Islam is no answer either.
As for Art, and the Old Masters, portrait painting was the only way of
preserving a likeness (with sculpture) prior to photography, and we have no
way of objectively assessing the Mona Lisa, if we can't compare the result
with the original (person).
Cynics will note that Rise of Modern Art occurred with advent of
Photography.
M Winther
Nov 4, 2012, 2:00:18 PM11/4/12
to
The fact remains that the scientific paradigm studies nature and its laws as
wholly independent of the human soul. Prior to this, people thought that
calamities would happen if they had kicked over the traces, for instance. So
there was a connection between the soul and the universe. The autonomy of
the material world is central to science. There is no magics anymore. That's
why science is unfitted for matters pertaining to the human soul, as it can
only relate to the world objectively. The subjective relation is equally
important, which means that the spiritual paradigm is not obsolete. Science
can take us a long way towards an understanding of the world and the human
condition, but in the end it proves inept since it cannot take into account
suggested in my articles The Complementarian Self and Critique of
Synchronicity, and elsewhere. We must accept both worldviews although they
are mutually exclusive. This is called complementarity, a paradoxical
principle invented by Niels Bohr. He suggested that it be used outside the
field of quantum physics, which is what I am trying to do now.
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-73784/compself.htm
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-73784/synchronicity.htm
Mats Winther
"DonH" wrote in message
news:Ulyls.688$Ow3...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
wholly independent of the human soul. Prior to this, people thought that
calamities would happen if they had kicked over the traces, for instance. So
there was a connection between the soul and the universe. The autonomy of
the material world is central to science. There is no magics anymore. That's
why science is unfitted for matters pertaining to the human soul, as it can
only relate to the world objectively. The subjective relation is equally
important, which means that the spiritual paradigm is not obsolete. Science
can take us a long way towards an understanding of the world and the human
condition, but in the end it proves inept since it cannot take into account
moral, spiritual, and psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without
relation to the human soul.
So we must adopt a complementarian perspective of the world, which I have
relation to the human soul.
suggested in my articles The Complementarian Self and Critique of
Synchronicity, and elsewhere. We must accept both worldviews although they
are mutually exclusive. This is called complementarity, a paradoxical
principle invented by Niels Bohr. He suggested that it be used outside the
field of quantum physics, which is what I am trying to do now.
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-73784/compself.htm
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-73784/synchronicity.htm
Mats Winther
"DonH" wrote in message
news:Ulyls.688$Ow3...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
Andy Wainwright
Nov 4, 2012, 2:56:49 PM11/4/12
to
Socialism, including Communism, Fascism and Islamism has a fundemental flaw.
It can be summed up by the saying "convince a man against his will,
leave him of the same opinion still". Imposing values on people doesn't
work in the long term. Quite the opposite in fact, taking away choice
lessens citizens' abilities to make important life and moral choices for
themselves. More laws, worse behaviour. In fact it's known that those
brought up with a draconian, closed sense of sexual values are more
likely to be sex offenders.
Evidence suggest it's much better to build a government around people
than try to fit people around a government.
There does indeed exist a universal morality independant of all human
cultures. It is simply to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Take the crime of murder- almost everybody believes such an act is
criminal, and most murders get caught, due to public support for such a
law. Same with theft. Same with phsyical and sexual assault.
However, when you make silly laws like what you can grow in your garden,
put in your cigarette or which hole you can poke your penis in, these
laws are very poorly enforced and tend to be used for political rather
than criminal reasons. Much easier for a bent- corrupt- politician to
persecute gays - homosexuals - thus deflecting the attention from his
own moral failings. Ditto drugs.
Notably sex and drug laws have been used extensively against the
artistic community. The far left and far right both hate artists because
they mix with different classes and cultures, thus damaging a corrupt
politician's ability to turn one faction against another and divide and
rule.
It can be summed up by the saying "convince a man against his will,
leave him of the same opinion still". Imposing values on people doesn't
work in the long term. Quite the opposite in fact, taking away choice
lessens citizens' abilities to make important life and moral choices for
themselves. More laws, worse behaviour. In fact it's known that those
brought up with a draconian, closed sense of sexual values are more
likely to be sex offenders.
Evidence suggest it's much better to build a government around people
than try to fit people around a government.
There does indeed exist a universal morality independant of all human
cultures. It is simply to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Take the crime of murder- almost everybody believes such an act is
criminal, and most murders get caught, due to public support for such a
law. Same with theft. Same with phsyical and sexual assault.
However, when you make silly laws like what you can grow in your garden,
put in your cigarette or which hole you can poke your penis in, these
laws are very poorly enforced and tend to be used for political rather
than criminal reasons. Much easier for a bent- corrupt- politician to
persecute gays - homosexuals - thus deflecting the attention from his
own moral failings. Ditto drugs.
Notably sex and drug laws have been used extensively against the
artistic community. The far left and far right both hate artists because
they mix with different classes and cultures, thus damaging a corrupt
politician's ability to turn one faction against another and divide and
rule.
0 new messages