What is "morality"?

[CSharp]

What if there is an objective basis for morality that man has simply misinterpreted?

Look at man and animals. What is the real difference? Isn't it the ever increasing desire and increase in effort spent trying to change what is? What if "morality" is simply "reality"?

One of the problems with the creation/evolution dialogue is that neither accounts for matters apparent tendency toward disorder. What if our increasing "intelligence" -- our "progress" -- is nothing more than a tiny blip in the universe's transition from order to chaos?

Look at the ten commandments. Aren't they simply instructing man to accept what is? Don't kill, don't take, don't even want, and don't shop around for a God that serves you i.e. your desire to have what isn't.

The more "intelligent" man gets, the less he seeks to understand and the more he seeks to alter reality to suit himself. And the more endangered he becomes. But just try to convince him he'd be better off letting things happen according to universal laws instead of his ideas about how things should be. He'll laugh in your face.

It always amazes me that evolutionists ignore the very "laws" science depends on and creationists ignore the omnipotence of their Creator. Science thinks it can do better than the universe that's been operating just fine, without man's help, forever and ever, while religion thinks it can do better than a Creator with the exact same credentials.

What is, is. If you do "this", "that" happens. Whether the "this and that" are created by universal laws or by universal laws that are self-aware, what difference does it make? What are the chances that we know better than these laws, how things should be? I'm guessing the chances of that being the case are pretty slim.

Am I making sense to anyone?

[CSharp]

Apparently, in my effort to carve my post down to a reasonable size, I rewrote it so many times that it makes no sense to anyone but me, eh?

I'll try to avoid that in the future.

[Susma Rio Sep]

CSharp writes:

The more "intelligent" man gets, the less he seeks to understand and the more he seeks to alter reality to suit himself. And the more endangered he becomes. But just try to convince him he'd be better off letting things happen according to universal laws instead of his ideas about how things should be. He'll laugh in your face.

That's why also I wonder maybe we would be better off like ants or worms or cockroaches. They have been around I think much earlier than us; and at least in the case of cockroaches will be around after the nuclear holocaust for which nations are stocking up radioactive materials -- to blow all of us to smithereens, rendering the survivors genetically defective to continue breeding withal.

Yet, I am an optimist, intelligence in man consists in his capacity to improvise, revise, and devise to make life easier and safer and more pleasant. The downside is the risk of greater danger in the mis-use of human inventions for violence and war.

Do you notice that things are not as bad as in the days of the cold war when a push of the button could spell worldwide disaster. Now we seem to be worried only about minor nuclear players like India and Pakistan.

What about North Korea? Another very minor player. The U.S. should exercise wisdom, it being the only super power and the strongest one in the whole history of mankind; it can afford to bend a bit. That is why I think that Bush guy is a disaster.

You and I, and all of us here, should continue talking about peace and good will among men and nations.

How's that for simplistic thinking. Nonetheless, solutions to problems are most of the time very simple, it just takes a bit of humility and accommodation.

If there is such a thing as transcendental immorality, I think Bush should reap the top prize.

If you ask me, I will say that our moral rules are myopic and subterranian. It is still in the peasant village stage of life.

Susma Rio Sep

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Yet, I am an optimist, intelligence in man consists in his capacity to improvise, revise, and devise to make life easier and safer and more pleasant. The downside is the risk of greater danger in the mis-use of human inventions for violence and war.

I am not at all optimistic.

The more "intelligent" a superpower is, the less likely the people in that superpower are to "back up". And, in my opinion, that is man's only hope.

You can't have Americans hauling their kids to soccer practice in their minivan twice a week and have peace on earth. People in other places have to die, in wars and of starvation and disease, to make this superpower's way of life happen.

To simply stop doing what they're doing isn't acceptable to Americans. They would gladly throw a party if someone found a way for them to keep all that they have without exploiting other human beings. But that isn't going to happen and they are too far removed from the source of their comfort to sacrifice anything which leaves only one way off this merry-go-round.

I don't know what the granddaddy of all "natural" disasters is, but it seems inevitable to me and must be well on its way, by now.

Look at the dinasaurs. They were too big, consumed too much and lived too long. They took more than they contributed. And they're gone. Call it God or call it nature, but whatever it is, it has a way of balancing things out. Whether one is scientific or religious there is nothing in either idea to suggest that man is immune to the universal laws that maintain the balance required to support this form of his existence.

It doesn't have to be "morality", as man understands it. But something keeps things balanced as if on the head of a pin. Science already understands that the basic physical laws of nature are so finely tuned that if any one of them were to deviate just a bit, life-as-we-know-it wouldn't be possible. There's a piece on the Counterbalance site about the Anthropic Principle. http://www.counterbalance.net/intro/purpodes-body.html

At any rate, cockroaches not withstanding, I don't think we're going to be "allowed" to "progress" much further and man, in my opinion, is far from willing to take the only other direction available.

I'm going to leave this as it is, in hopes it makes sense.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Cheer up, my good man, CSharp.

At least we are enjoying our simple pleasure of message exchange with the blessing of internet technology.

You observe:

To simply stop doing what they're doing isn't acceptable to Americans. They would gladly throw a party if someone found a way for them to keep all that they have without exploiting other human beings. But that isn't going to happen and they are too far removed from the source of their comfort to sacrifice anything which leaves only one way off this merry-go-round.

If it is any consolation to you, for being big and consuming extravagantly then the U.S. is slated for extinction like the dinosaurs.

My hope and prayer is however that it will be around for a longer time, and grow kinder and gentler as it continues in its military might. Is that a fool's wish? I don't think so; there are good men in the U.S., many.

If the end is coming to mankind, we now here must delay it as far as possible. In the meantime, say some thanks to the God above, for His indulgence allowing you and me to still engage in this simple pleasure of internet exchange.

Best regards,

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Cheer up, my good man, CSharp.

At least we are enjoying our simple pleasure of message exchange with the blessing of internet technology.

If it is any consolation to you, for being big and consuming extravagantly then the U.S. is slated for extinction like the dinosaurs.

My hope and prayer is however that it will be around for a longer time, and grow kinder and gentler as it continues in its military might. Is that a fool's wish? I don't think so; there are good men in the U.S., many.

If the end is coming to mankind, we now here must delay it as far as possible. In the meantime, say some thanks to the God above, for His indulgence allowing you and me to still engage in this simple pleasure of internet exchange.

Best regards,

That's a lovely sentiment but I must admit, I'm a little hurt that you think me so dense that you would need to repeat your remark regarding "us" enjoying "our simple pleasure of message exchange" and the "blessing" of the internet. I understood you, quite clearly, the first time.

You are right, of course. I have internet access and have even been known to purchase items at Walmart and so, naturally, this automatically invalidates anything I might say on this particular subject.

I'm not very good at this type of phony exchange so I hope you'll forgive me while I learn the ropes.

One thing I would like to know is what it was, exactly, that offended you about my post.

[CSharp]

Cheer up, my good man, CSharp.

I neglected to say that I'm not a man. I am not offended when it is assumed I am a man, but I am curious as to why.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by CSharp

I neglected to say that I'm not a man. I am not offended when it is assumed I am a man, but I am curious as to why.

Because you're capable of rational thought?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste csharp,

thanks for the post.

in my opinion, a better explanation of the Anthropic Principle can be found here:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

under the lecture called Quantum Cosmology, M-Theory and the Anthropic Principle.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by bob x

Because you're capable of rational thought?

ROFL! Come on, girls, LET'S GET HIM!!!

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by CSharp

That's a lovely sentiment but I must admit, I'm a little hurt that you think me so dense that you would need to repeat your remark regarding "us" enjoying "our simple pleasure of message exchange" and the "blessing" of the internet. I understood you, quite clearly, the first time.

You are right, of course. I have internet access and have even been known to purchase items at Walmart and so, naturally, this automatically invalidates anything I might say on this particular subject.

I'm not very good at this type of phony exchange so I hope you'll forgive me while I learn the ropes.

One thing I would like to know is what it was, exactly, that offended you about my post.

I can't imagine any offense in your posts, CSharp.

But there are always invitations in posts -- that's the way I see them --here for me to enter also my own opinions.

Susma Rio Sep

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste csharp,

thanks for the post.

in my opinion, a better explanation of the Anthropic Principle can be found here:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

under the lecture called Quantum Cosmology, M-Theory and the Anthropic Principle.

Thank you Vajradhara.

I find your name kind of appropriate in a thread mentioning Professor Hawking.

I think his achievements are the result of a search for an explanation of what is as opposed to the more popular search for support of what is believed. No truth can ruin him because he is not confined to belief.

The best scientist knows the assumptions underlying his work are just that. Assumptions. The best scientist is wide open to discovery. Which, in my opinion, is what science is all about. Or was all about.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by CSharp

I neglected to say that I'm not a man. I am not offended when it is assumed I am a man, but I am curious as to why.

Are you a woman, CSharp? Sorry for the mistake.

I practically worship women, because they are the ones who bring mankind into this world, raise them for life, take care of them, attend to them in their last hours, and bury them properly.

And women are a sorce of delights and pleasures and services.

But I love them for everything they represent like my mother, and my wife, and my sisters, and my daughter, and my aunts, and my grandmothers.

Susma Rio Sep

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I can't imagine any offense in your posts, CSharp.

But there are always invitations in posts -- that's the way I see them --here for me to enter also my own opinions.

Susma Rio Sep

Thank you for responding.

I'm really more interested in the logic on which you base your opinions. If you disagree with me, tell me where and how I went wrong in my thought process.

I can understand wishing things weren't as they appear to be, but what is accomplished by refusing to look at them? Or talk about them?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by CSharp

Thank you for responding.

I'm really more interested in the logic on which you base your opinions. If you disagree with me, tell me where and how I went wrong in my thought process.

I can understand wishing things weren't as they appear to be, but what is accomplished by refusing to look at them? Or talk about them?

Some things are beyond logic, the way I see them, specially in matters of religion, and of course, taste. In many instances my opinions are based on my upbringing and inured background of religion, of social habits in my own ethnic or cultural or academic or recreation group, or on pure biases which I always try to moderate when I know them to be unfair and even unkind to other peoples.

But I want you to know that I respect other people's views and tastes and specially their religious or irreligious or a-religious preferences.

Susma Rio Sep