morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

Dear Juantoo3, Dear All,

Well, this conversation is getting quite complex! I must say that the nexus between evolution and religion is one of my very favorite topics.

[quote=juantoo3]
I haven't gotten that far in my reasoning. I am still unclear why I am here. Silly me, at this point I kinda figured I would make a reason for myself as I went along...
QUOTE]

Oh, I don't pretend to know the answer! It's a matter of where to look. I agree with Gould's statement in your OP, science and religion are two separate ways of examining our existence. You can't prove God using science and you can't base your science in religion. However, there may be a link between the two in the creative process that takes place in the human mind. What is inspiration?

[[An aside: I am currently reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God and I like her idea about mythos vs. logos. It explains why a literal interpretation of the bible kills religion for me. It also gives me permission to let the Gospels and the Passion of Christ inform my soul. If anyone is interested in further discussion we can start a new thread.]]

More on point: As I understand it one of the main questions being discussed here is whether "nature" can completely explain morality or whether there is a need for divine law/revelation. A second question seems to be what is the common denominator morality taught in all religions, whether they are "revealed" (Abrahamic), nature-based (Pagan/Aboriginal?), or "taught" (I'm thinking eastern religions here--forgive my unskilled manners!).

OK so far?

Then there is the question of the evolution of morality itself, either within or outside of a religious context. But I dont' think this is the main point of this thread.

I think Jtoo3 sums the second question rather well in post #17. Love God and Love Each Other. Some religions might not say "Love God," but I think another way of saying "love God" is "die to your ego self." Realize that there is a greater consciousness than yourself. Practically speaking I've read on this forum and elsewhere that in practice what this looks like is being obedient to God's laws. But what is it to be obedient to God's laws other than to say that you are willing to SACRIFICE something of yourself, to do something that might not be to your natural inclination or own interest or highest comfort? My deepest feeling is that this willingness to sacrifice comes from our soul and is nurtured by the religious practice we choose. I'm not sure that all religions teach this, but it is certainly there in all the Abrahamic faiths. Perhaps exercising our choice to love God teaches us how to sacrifice so that we are better able to live by the second great commandment, love thy neighbor.

So that leaves The Golden Rule as the common denominator for religious contribution to morality. All the other divine laws seem to be the specific details about how to achieve this kind of harmony and loving kindness for each other. So, can behavioural evolution/soiobiology fully explain this law?

Perhaps I'll have more to add to that part of the conversation after I get The Moral Animal from my library (should be in hand by the end of the week).

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

More on point: As I understand it one of the main questions being discussed here is whether "nature" can completely explain morality or whether there is a need for divine law/revelation. A second question seems to be what is the common denominator morality taught in all religions, whether they are "revealed" (Abrahamic), nature-based (Pagan/Aboriginal?), or "taught" (I'm thinking eastern religions here--forgive my unskilled manners!).

OK so far?

It depends alot on what you mean by the "morality" displayed in "nature." That's why I suggested Arne Ness as a good source. "Nature" suggests a "morality" of "amorality" - if you know what I mean. Isn't the transcendent experience of nature simply an experience of yourself as part of it and all of it as part of you? That's what Deep Ecology seems to be getting at even if it isn't the most eloquent expression of the idea. More to the point, when you get down to it - that's what almost every religion seems to be really getting at - moving beyond the dualism of good and evil, human and non-human nature, god and man, and reconnecting with the central experience of oneness.

"When people see things as beautiful,
ugliness is created.
When people see things as good,
evil is created.

Being and non-being produce each other.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low oppose each other.
Fore and aft follow each other.

Therefore the Master
can act without doing anything
and teach without saying a word.
Things come her way and she does not stop them;
things leave and she lets them go.
She has without possessing,
and acts without any expectations.
When her work is done, she take no credit.
That is why it will last forever. "

- Tao te Ching

"The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this."

- Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion"

I've read that Buddhists read the Lotus Sutra as a vision of the oneness of good and evil as well. I haven't read that source myself, but if anyone has further info I'd be interested in learning about it.

[alexa]

Hi Juan,

Well, I did my best to show you I'm not a lazy lady.

I know it seems endless, but I have finally a 'big picture' of all religions in the world. I'm not a specialist yet. I still have to learn a lot. There are some of them with words I'm not even able to pronouce, so to memorize them, I dare say it's impossible.

I need some time to put all the information in order in check the last religions on my list and then, I'll be ready to write my conclusion.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This is a pretty impressive tally. I am curious though, if China has about 2 billion people, and India another billion, making half of the world's population between those two countries, why the Eastern religions would not have a higher count? Maybe I am missing something in the tally. I am not sure if Christianity accounts for fully 1/3 of the world's population...Oh well, in the end, I suppose it's not that important.

Oh, this is no misterious at all. The problem in Eastern religions is they have many currents and a lot of schools. I'll give more details about this in my conclusion.

As I don't want to keep you curious, I'll anticipate and say the nature is rather a part of evolution in religion in the entire world.

Regards,

Alexa

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

It depends alot on what you mean by the "morality" displayed in "nature." That's why I suggested Arne Ness as a good source. "Nature" suggests a "morality" of "amorality" - if you know what I mean. Isn't the transcendent experience of nature simply an experience of yourself as part of it and all of it as part of you? That's what Deep Ecology seems to be getting at even if it isn't the most eloquent expression of the idea. More to the point, when you get down to it - that's what almost every religion seems to be really getting at - moving beyond the dualism of good and evil, human and non-human nature, god and man, and reconnecting with the central experience of oneness.

Well, I don't really think morality is displayed in nature. I think morality is a distinctly human trait. I haven't read about Deep Ecology, so perhaps I'm not quite getting your point. I agree with the rest of your statement: I think that a transcendent experience of nature and humanity, an experience of oneness and reconnection, is what religion is getting at. And thank you for the Tao poetry about dualism as the human experience. So dualism is the human experience and oneness is the God/Divine experience we attempt to have via religous practice, perhaps? You said a little about this in another thread and I enjoyed your quotes and thoughts on this there as well.

The question remains: do we need a Divine Educator to help us "rise above" our animals selves. I will refer to some Baha'i teachings that I think are very relevant. Please note that what follows is my understanding of Baha'i teachings and I am not backing myself up with quotes (unless pressed!). Baha'i teaches that we have three selves: animal, human, and divine/spiritual. Natural law dictates what our animal selves do, our basest survival instincts. Our animal selves are not bad or evil or to be denied, but they must be tempered by our human and spiritual selves. Our human self is that which depends upon our uniquely human qualities, primarily our minds, and it must be trained in the sciences and arts and technologies and govenment policies of our time. This elevates our existence above that of the animals. We recognize that educators are needed to teach each generation this accumulated human knowledge. It is so interesting to think about technologies that have been lost over time and now can't be recreated (this is true for example of a type of Chinese silk spinning found in 2000-year-old tombs and can no longer be recreated, but I digress ). And our spiritual selves require a spiritual education to be strengthened and trained. OK, I will go to a quote:

"Divine education is that of the Kingdom of God: it consists in acquiring divine perfections, and this is true eduation; for in this state man becomes the focus of divine blessings, the manifestation of the words, "Let Us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness. This is the goal of the world of humanity." Abdu'l-Baha' Some Answered Questions

The divine perfections are what are typically called virtues (truthfulness, loving-kindess, etc). The purpose of our life is to hone and strengthen these virtues. And, according to Baha'i, we can not do this on our own. The ultimate source of understanding of all these virtures throughout history has been the Manifestations of God, whether recognized by the people or not.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

Lunamoth,

All members of CR are welcome to participate. If you have the time to re-read the posts you'll find we have asked participation at the beginning.

We took it like an interesting challange and there is no reason to panic if the conversation sidetracks a little. Just relax and enjoy with us.

Alexa

Hi Alexa,

Thank you for inviting me in. I look forward to your summary.

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

It depends alot on what you mean by the "morality" displayed in "nature."

Taking another stab at this complex subject. What I was asking in the referenced post was whether natural evolutionary mechanisms can fully explain all morality, all human virtues. I think this is the crux of the discussion, no?

[I, Brian]

Natural evolutionary mechanisms for morality could well be the processes of social co-operation, which in itself instill some form of "value system". You can clearly see this latter aspect in studies of social apes, and would certainly be a sound foundation to extrapolate a lot of issues of morality - which in itself, in its bare rationalist form, is about the sustainable preservation of the group.

Of course, human thought and creativty complicates the picture - but my personal suggestion would be that the foundations of morality already have a clear biological and evolutionary source. How much of a role Divinity plays a part in the process after is obviously a matter of faith.

Or - did I miss the question completely?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi All,



Taking another stab at this complex subject. What I was asking in the referenced post was whether natural evolutionary mechanisms can fully explain all morality, all human virtues. I think this is the crux of the discussion, no?

That is certainly the main thrust of the discussion. Could that "evolutionary mechanism" be a result of divine design? Does it matter?

Paul seemed to think that written religious revelation was not the source of morality but that "the Law" was written in to us to be found and followed regardless of whether we are consciously aware of or studied the moral Law. From Romans chapter 2:

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

There are complex sociobiological explanations for moral impulses. Are those impulses things of the "body" - i.e. the "sinful nature" according to Paul? Does a moral code that divides the world into moral categories represent any moral truth? For example, is there any objective meaning to a distinction between the moral impulse that drives us to help a fellow human but makes a person blind to the suffering of non-human animals? Am I inherently predisposed by this moral impulse to give a favorable moral treatment to those who are ever more like me? Of my nationality, my religion, from my hometown, in my family and ultimately me? Or is there a transcendent experience being expressed in myths that goes beyond "morality?"

In Genesis 2 and 3, the myth clearly expresses the notion that it is our moral judgments that separate from each other, separate us from God and separate us from nature (the "Garden") and even creates a schism within ourselves. The way back to Oneness? Freedom from moral judgment. Freedom from the law even if we look into ourselves and desire to follow the law despite our freedom from it. As Paul writes in Romans 7:

"For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

What is the way into the Kingdom of God? Is it through acknowledging the sacrifice of Chirst so that upon your death you shall enter the Kingdom? Or are you in the kingdom already but your moral judgment prevents you from seeing it? The Gospel of Thomas concludes with the following:

113 His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Abogado,

Thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I've read that Buddhists read the Lotus Sutra as a vision of the oneness of good and evil as well. I haven't read that source myself, but if anyone has further info I'd be interested in learning about it.

well.. that is one aspect that it covers, however, that is a fairly minor portion of the Sutra. the Lotus Sutra is one of the longest in the entire Mahayana canon and covers the full range of Dharmas, of which "good" and "evil" play but a small role.

the interested reader is directed to this site to read the Lotus Sutra:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mah...otus-sutra.htm

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alexa,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by alexa

The problem in Eastern religions is they have many currents and a lot of schools.

Alexa

whilst this is true, this is also the case for the Semetic traditions as well. in point of fact, there are more extant schools of Chrisitanity in North America alone, than there are of extant Buddhist schools in the world. eh.. but that has never really bothered me all that much, though i do understand how that could be a problem for the Semetic traditionalists.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Abogado,

Thank you for the post.


well.. that is one aspect that it covers, however, that is a fairly minor portion of the Sutra. the Lotus Sutra is one of the longest in the entire Mahayana canon and covers the full range of Dharmas, of which "good" and "evil" play but a small role.

the interested reader is directed to this site to read the Lotus Sutra:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mah...otus-sutra.htm

Thank you very much for the link. I found a great deal by a "Nichiren" and a group called Soka Gakkai International ("SGI") on this subject. I know little to nothing about them but their writings seem to indicate that they place great emphasis on the Lotus Sutra and specifically on the Sutra's teachings regariding the false dualism of good and evil. Perhaps this is unique to SGI?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" [/color]
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

Wow, great post. Is it possible that an iconoclast and devil's advocate will lead me to a deeper understanding of Christianity? Or shall we go through Christianity to an even higher place? Not to fawn but I enjoy your clear exposition and command of scripture and literature.

Dualism and Oneness. Yes. It reminds me of something I read a long time ago, perhaps from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? About the philosophers' knife that is always slicing, dividing this from that. I'm starting to get a feel your point, I think. We seem to be mired in a world of dualism and maybe we have to abandon all attempts at making a moral judgement if we are to "see" the Kingdom all around us. Puts the spotlight on the excruciating plight of a conscious being that must make it's way in the world by making never-ending choices and realizing that the only satisfying thing for our soul will be to stop doing this. The goal of meditation then, to put our decision making apparatus on pause?

AdD said: "Could that "evolutionary mechanism" be a result of divine design? Does it matter?"

Exactly. Just as in matters of physiology, morality and behavior might be fully understood as functions of a selfish gene, but the question will remain about the Designer of the gene. And before that the Deisgner of the physical laws that govern the gene. And before that... As I, Brian reminds us it is ultimately a matter of faith.

AdD said: "What is the way into the Kingdom of God? Is it through acknowledging the sacrifice of Chirst so that upon your death you shall enter the Kingdom? Or are you in the kingdom already but your moral judgment prevents you from seeing it? "

Both. Neither. I believe that the Kingdom is all around us and we can be transported there in a "twinkling" (to borrow from Christian and Baha'i scripture). Whether suspending moral judgement is the best way to achieve that twinkling I'm not sure. Until we *know* that every human being/every sentient creature is our brother/sister, no, even closer, is ourself, we will have a veil between us and the Kingdom. Yes, that's a good metaphor, hundreds of thin veils (again borrowing from Baha'i), we keep removing them and pushing them aside and more remain. Perhaps a NDE or "mature" meditation practice or prayer can sweep the veils aside all at once to give us a glimmer. Maybe seeing a spectacular waterfall or your baby's smile takes you there immediately. Have you ever had that sense of falling out of yourself? Christ's sacrifice for me is real, but "how it works" is a mystery.

Another question: why would the selfish gene benefit from a human behavior that seeks God/The Ground of Being?

Pardon the rambling.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

whilst this is true, this is also the case for the Semetic traditions as well. in point of fact, there are more extant schools of Chrisitanity in North America alone, than there are of extant Buddhist schools in the world. eh.. but that has never really bothered me all that much, though i do understand how that could be a problem for the Semetic traditionalists.

Namaste Vajradhara,

I've just got through all the worlds religions from the past and nowadys . You are right. There are a lot of currents in Christianity also. In fact, I have realised how huge it is the diversity of belifs. I dare say we do not need to find aliens on other planets, as we cannot bore on Earth at all.

Alexa

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Abogado,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Thank you very much for the link. I found a great deal by a "Nichiren" and a group called Soka Gakkai International ("SGI") on this subject. I know little to nothing about them but their writings seem to indicate that they place great emphasis on the Lotus Sutra and specifically on the Sutra's teachings regariding the false dualism of good and evil. Perhaps this is unique to SGI?

ah.. yes. that would explain it. this group does, to the exclusion of all else, regard this Sutra as the "True" Buddhas teaching. Nichiren and Soka Gakkai are related but enimical with each other, each, essentially, regarding the other as a break away, heretical sect.

i'm not all that keen on stating that such and such isn't Buddhist or blue, for that matter, so i'm not going to do so here. what i will say is this.... a reading of the Suttas/Sutras themselves show what the Buddha viewed would be the correct method of Dharma transmission and the correct form of practice. in no place does it mention the praxis that these two groups are engaged in. i'll leave it to the discerning reader to decide what that means.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by alexa

Namaste Vajradhara,

I've just got through all the worlds religions from the past and nowadys . You are right. There are a lot of currents in Christianity also. In fact, I have realised how huge it is the diversity of belifs. I dare say we do not need to find aliens on other planets, as we cannot bore on Earth at all.

Alexa

to use some modern, urban parlance..

"true dat"