moral relativism

[popeye1945]

Lots and lots and lots of different people will claim to know lots and lots and lots of different things about abortion. Then fiercely heated debates will ensue regarding the best of all possible worlds.
 
Arguments are made pro and con: https://www.britannica.com/procon/abortion-debate

So, taking all of that into account what, in your view, is the optimal moral assessment?

Besides, pain and suffering can occur for those on both sides of the issue. Consequently, what government policy would you propose to minimize the pain and suffering? 

After all, both pro-choice and pro-life arguments often start with the assumption that political prejudices must give way to objective assessments. Their own, of course.

Establishing that the proper subject of a system of morality is the biological subject, its survival, and well-being, would eliminate much confusion. Morality based upon our strongest commonality, that of species, gives us all insights into what would probably be life-sustaining and that which would undermine life's processes. This makes us the natural agents of the system to be established in our self-interest, and enables the maintenance of a given society. The optimal system is the knowledge we all have of being human; this common sense is, of course, to be concretized in our outside world, so that we all might know the qualifications and limitations of our behaviours towards others of our kind, imprinted by our very natures. This way, we have a reflective reassurance of our innate feelings. It is wrong to think that the establishment of a moral system would be of an objective nature. We are subjective beings through and through, and the physical world as an object is our subjective experience; again, we cannot escape our subjectivity. If one is to live, one is to suffer. Morality should be a conscious attempt to minimize our common sufferings. This system of morality must realize at the outset that biology/human life is the measure and the meaning of all things; we are the creators of meaning, and there is no other source.

The moral system of a legislator as legislator should be utilitarian. However the moral system of a private person should not be utilitarian but a combination of tradition and personal virtue.

In the case of legislation about elective abortion rights, the greatest happiness of the greatest number is clearly best served by the criterion that the pregnant woman's welfare is more important than that of her foetus. The viability of the foetus matters too and some foetuses should be accorded more rights than others.

Life is struggle and suffering with a few perks along the way. Morality is, or should be, about smoothing the road ahead until we can rest in peace. Perhaps in trying to work this out, we should focus on how many things stand in the way of reducing human suffering, with the focus necessarily on suffering, or there is no point in dialogue. Again, the logical foundation of any morality is the survival and well-being of biological subjects.

[Belinda]

Establishing that the proper subject of a system of morality is the biological subject, its survival, and well-being, would eliminate much confusion. Morality based upon our strongest commonality, that of species, gives us all insights into what would probably be life-sustaining and that which would undermine life's processes. This makes us the natural agents of the system to be established in our self-interest, and enables the maintenance of a given society. The optimal system is the knowledge we all have of being human; this common sense is, of course, to be concretized in our outside world, so that we all might know the qualifications and limitations of our behaviours towards others of our kind, imprinted by our very natures. This way, we have a reflective reassurance of our innate feelings. It is wrong to think that the establishment of a moral system would be of an objective nature. We are subjective beings through and through, and the physical world as an object is our subjective experience; again, we cannot escape our subjectivity. If one is to live, one is to suffer. Morality should be a conscious attempt to minimize our common sufferings. This system of morality must realize at the outset that biology/human life is the measure and the meaning of all things; we are the creators of meaning, and there is no other source.

The moral system of a legislator as legislator should be utilitarian. However the moral system of a private person should not be utilitarian but a combination of tradition and personal virtue.

In the case of legislation about elective abortion rights, the greatest happiness of the greatest number is clearly best served by the criterion that the pregnant woman's welfare is more important than that of her foetus. The viability of the foetus matters too and some foetuses should be accorded more rights than others.

Life is struggle and suffering with a few perks along the way. Morality is, or should be, about smoothing the road ahead until we can rest in peace. Perhaps in trying to work this out, we should focus on how many things stand in the way of reducing human suffering, with the focus necessarily on suffering, or there is no point in dialogue. Again, the logical foundation of any morality is the survival and well-being of biological subjects.

Yes but i don't limit survival and well being to humans. Animals should have rights too. Obviously they cannot vote but insofar as they are sentient we should accord them rights.

I am angry at Israel's bombing of the prison in Iran **and I am angry about pigs transported to slaughter while being trampled and thirsty on long distance transports.
**

Israeli airstrikes on Monday morning struck the gate of Evin Prison in Tehran, severely damaging the adjacent courthouse and damaging several prison wards, including the women’s political ward.

[popeye1945]

The moral system of a legislator as legislator should be utilitarian. However the moral system of a private person should not be utilitarian but a combination of tradition and personal virtue.

In the case of legislation about elective abortion rights, the greatest happiness of the greatest number is clearly best served by the criterion that the pregnant woman's welfare is more important than that of her foetus. The viability of the foetus matters too and some foetuses should be accorded more rights than others.

Life is struggle and suffering with a few perks along the way. Morality is, or should be, about smoothing the road ahead until we can rest in peace. Perhaps in trying to work this out, we should focus on how many things stand in the way of reducing human suffering, with the focus necessarily on suffering, or there is no point in dialogue. Again, the logical foundation of any morality is the survival and well-being of biological subjects.

Yes but i don't limit survival and well being to humans. Animals should have rights too. Obviously they cannot vote but insofar as they are sentient we should accord them rights.

I am angry at Israel's bombing of the prison in Iran **and I am angry about pigs transported to slaughter while being trampled and thirsty on long distance transports.
**

Israeli airstrikes on Monday morning struck the gate of Evin Prison in Tehran, severely damaging the adjacent courthouse and damaging several prison wards, including the women’s political ward.

I quite agree that morality should involve all of life, for concern for the survival and well-being of all forms of life would be a higher level of human consciousness. We cannot escape the reality that life lives upon life, but we can participate in the process with greater compassion and humane practices.

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

The English philosopher John Stuart Mill raised a further criticism, by addressing those who claim that God, although the creator of the world, is not responsible for all the evils found within it. It seems hard to square a benevolent creator with the infliction of physical suffering, the permission of moral evil, the prosperity of the wicked, and the misery of the innocent.

And around and around we go. However hard it might seem to any number of us squaring a loving, just and merciful God with all the numbing pain and suffering endured by all of the truly innocent given "acts of God", what's the alternative? It's either God's mysterious ways making it all righteous in the end or you have to somehow come to grips with a world where all of the terrible things that happen just happen for no ultimate reason or purpose. 

To say that such a creator is ‘good’ seems to be using the term in a different way than when it is used to describe human actions.

Perhaps that's because mere mortals have no capacity to provide other mere mortals with moral commandments, let alone immortality and salvation. So, being bad around them might result in a mere mortal lecture or a mere mortal scolding or a mere mortal shunning. Or even a mere mortal prison sentence or a mere mortal execution. But that is still almost nothing at all compared to what God has in store for the "sinners". 

Yet if ‘good’ for God means something different than ‘good’ does for humans, how can we base our morality on such a being? Mill wrote:

“Whatever power such a being may have over me, there is one thing which he shall not do: he shall not compel me to worship him. I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures, and if such a being can sentence me to Hell for not so calling Him, to Hell I will go.” [J.S. Mill, Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, 1865]

Of course, it's often easy enough to confront God in this manner when existentially one is not "here and now" in the vicinity of death...the abyss, oblivion. Some will insist this is the only manner in which one can sustain either one's intellectual honesty or integrity. Those like me, however, are willing to roll the dice and accept any terms an actual existing God imposes on mere mortals in order to attain immortality and salvation.

By raising the issue of eternal punishment, Mill leads us to the third question that divinely-sanctioned morality must address: Why should we follow divine commandments?

Yeah, okay, if avoiding eternal damnation in Hell isn't enough incentive for some to follow divine commandments...good for them?

[Belinda]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

The English philosopher John Stuart Mill raised a further criticism, by addressing those who claim that God, although the creator of the world, is not responsible for all the evils found within it. It seems hard to square a benevolent creator with the infliction of physical suffering, the permission of moral evil, the prosperity of the wicked, and the misery of the innocent.

And around and around we go. However hard it might seem to any number of us squaring a loving, just and merciful God with all the numbing pain and suffering endured by all of the truly innocent given "acts of God", what's the alternative? It's either God's mysterious ways making it all righteous in the end or you have to somehow come to grips with a world where all of the terrible things that happen just happen for no ultimate reason or purpose. 

To say that such a creator is ‘good’ seems to be using the term in a different way than when it is used to describe human actions.

Perhaps that's because mere mortals have no capacity to provide other mere mortals with moral commandments, let alone immortality and salvation. So, being bad around them might result in a mere mortal lecture or a mere mortal scolding or a mere mortal shunning. Or even a mere mortal prison sentence or a mere mortal execution. But that is still almost nothing at all compared to what God has in store for the "sinners". 

Yet if ‘good’ for God means something different than ‘good’ does for humans, how can we base our morality on such a being? Mill wrote:

“Whatever power such a being may have over me, there is one thing which he shall not do: he shall not compel me to worship him. I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow creatures, and if such a being can sentence me to Hell for not so calling Him, to Hell I will go.” [J.S. Mill, Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, 1865]

Of course, it's often easy enough to confront God in this manner when existentially one is not "here and now" in the vicinity of death...the abyss, oblivion. Some will insist this is the only manner in which one can sustain either one's intellectual honesty or integrity. Those like me, however, are willing to roll the dice and accept any terms an actual existing God imposes on mere mortals in order to attain immortality and salvation.

By raising the issue of eternal punishment, Mill leads us to the third question that divinely-sanctioned morality must address: Why should we follow divine commandments?

Yeah, okay, if avoiding eternal damnation in Hell isn't enough incentive for some to follow divine commandments...good for them?

There is a problem of evil in a world ruled by a benevolent and powerful being.
Either this being is not all-powerful, or it's not all-benevolent , exclusively.

In human affairs it's not hard to recognise which god is worthshipped and by whom; the power god or the benevolence god.

There are also minor gods such as ancestral traditions , revered places, and revered artefacts; some of which are benevolent but others (such as the corrida) are very much subject to consciousness/conscience.

If there is a being which made and continues to make everything we must judge for ourselves which of the two we prefer-----power/fear or benevolence/courage.

I see little harm in the superstition that there be a loving heavenly father because sometimes this world is unbearable without something to help us to hope.

[popeye1945]

To survive as a species, we need to shake off archaic religions. A frightening prospect for most, but a necessary evolutionary step. It is time for humanity to grow up and not let fear define the species. The spirit of the times is often considered the advancement of technology, but, as long as society bends to the will of the majority, the lowest common denominator, religion as belief without evidence, this remains the spirit of the times. This does not belong to the modern world, except as the history of the species. If this can't be done, let's acknowledge that human consciousness is treading water in stagnant waters. Let's face it, belief in the supernatural seems to be the path of least resistance for the majority struggling with their head down for life's sustenance, with little time for creative leisure or self-enrichment. Moral relativism, mainly derived from a variety of these archaic religions, is divisive globally and in one's nation, the opposite of a commonality among our species, which is needed. Overcoming moral relativism must become humanity's conscious goal in its evolutionary advancement. The first step in this is to remove the special privileges afforded to religion against criticism, its ignorance maintained as sacred and untouchable. Our common biology is not only the proper subject of human morality, but its significance holds the truths of social cohesion in general; no thyself, is knowing the intricacies of our biological nature. Moral relativism is something humanity needs to overcome.

[Belinda]

To survive as a species, we need to shake off archaic religions. A frightening prospect for most, but a necessary evolutionary step. It is time for humanity to grow up and not let fear define the species. The spirit of the times is often considered the advancement of technology, but, as long as society bends to the will of the majority, the lowest common denominator, religion as belief without evidence, this remains the spirit of the times. This does not belong to the modern world, except as the history of the species. If this can't be done, let's acknowledge that human consciousness is treading water in stagnant waters. Let's face it, belief in the supernatural seems to be the path of least resistance for the majority struggling with their head down for life's sustenance, with little time for creative leisure or self-enrichment. Moral relativism, mainly derived from a variety of these archaic religions, is divisive globally and in one's nation, the opposite of a commonality among our species, which is needed. Overcoming moral relativism must become humanity's conscious goal in its evolutionary advancement. The first step in this is to remove the special privileges afforded to religion against criticism, its ignorance maintained as sacred and untouchable. Our common biology is not only the proper subject of human morality, but its significance holds the truths of social cohesion in general; no thyself, is knowing the intricacies of our biological nature. Moral relativism is something humanity needs to overcome.

Is a reasonable religion possible, do you think, Popeye?
A reasonable religion would overcome moral relativity while at the same time not offending rational sensibility.

In order to discover our biological nature we use the specialised social sciences of history, social anthropology , personal and social psychology, economics, and politics. A reasonable religion would have to satisfy all of those. It's not as difficult as it may sound.
A reasonable religion holds

*a constantly reviewed and democratic moral code

* foundation myths that are not nationalistic or racist , but that can inspire universal brotherhood/sisterhood.

* toleration of ritualism in all its forms as long as the rituals don't offend the moral code.

[popeye1945]

To survive as a species, we need to shake off archaic religions. A frightening prospect for most, but a necessary evolutionary step. It is time for humanity to grow up and not let fear define the species. The spirit of the times is often considered the advancement of technology, but, as long as society bends to the will of the majority, the lowest common denominator, religion as belief without evidence, this remains the spirit of the times. This does not belong to the modern world, except as the history of the species. If this can't be done, let's acknowledge that human consciousness is treading water in stagnant waters. Let's face it, belief in the supernatural seems to be the path of least resistance for the majority struggling with their head down for life's sustenance, with little time for creative leisure or self-enrichment. Moral relativism, mainly derived from a variety of these archaic religions, is divisive globally and in one's nation, the opposite of a commonality among our species, which is needed. Overcoming moral relativism must become humanity's conscious goal in its evolutionary advancement. The first step in this is to remove the special privileges afforded to religion against criticism, its ignorance maintained as sacred and untouchable. Our common biology is not only the proper subject of human morality, but its significance holds the truths of social cohesion in general; no thyself, is knowing the intricacies of our biological nature. Moral relativism is something humanity needs to overcome.

Is a reasonable religion possible, do you think, Popeye?
A reasonable religion would overcome moral relativity while at the same time not offending rational sensibility.

Well, I think a more reasonable religion is possible. I think it has to have a degree of poetic licence to deal with wonder and the great mystery.
It needs to embrace the science and general knowledge humanity has gained in the past two or three thousand years. Weirdly, humanity creates a god as perfect, while reality, apparent reality, is imperfect, and imperfection is the engine upon which reality is reality. Also, as you probably remember, I believe the proper subject of morality is life itself or our common carbon-based biology, embracing all life forms. The idea of a perfect being/god in Christianity is due, I believe, to Plato's influence on Christianity. His idea about the mystical archetypal ideas is a form of nihilism, denigrating the value of life on earth to that of an imaginary life in the clouds.

In order to discover our biological nature we use the specialised social sciences of history, social anthropology, personal and social psychology, economics, and politics. A reasonable religion would have to satisfy all of those. It's not as difficult as it may sound.
A reasonable religion holds. [/quote]

Yes, all disciplines need to be incorporated, as reality itself is not divided into all these categories; the categories are tools to aid our limited intellectual powers. We live in an interrelated, interdependent world, and borders and categories are human imagination and limitations. Perhaps sometime in the future, the mind could better deal with entertaining the whole in some degree, perhaps with the aid of AI.



*a constantly reviewed and democratic moral code
* Foundation myths that are not nationalistic or racist, but that can inspire universal brotherhood/sisterhood.
* toleration of ritualism in all its forms as long as the rituals don't offend the moral code[/quote]

A review of a future morality would be much easier to do if based on our common biology, just the term common indicates its immediacy of the concern. A morality based on our common biology should make racism and nationalism archaic concepts. Ritual seems essential to in-depth communication; there are no cultures without them. It is an imprinting used in both positive and negative ways.

[Belinda]

To survive as a species, we need to shake off archaic religions. A frightening prospect for most, but a necessary evolutionary step. It is time for humanity to grow up and not let fear define the species. The spirit of the times is often considered the advancement of technology, but, as long as society bends to the will of the majority, the lowest common denominator, religion as belief without evidence, this remains the spirit of the times. This does not belong to the modern world, except as the history of the species. If this can't be done, let's acknowledge that human consciousness is treading water in stagnant waters. Let's face it, belief in the supernatural seems to be the path of least resistance for the majority struggling with their head down for life's sustenance, with little time for creative leisure or self-enrichment. Moral relativism, mainly derived from a variety of these archaic religions, is divisive globally and in one's nation, the opposite of a commonality among our species, which is needed. Overcoming moral relativism must become humanity's conscious goal in its evolutionary advancement. The first step in this is to remove the special privileges afforded to religion against criticism, its ignorance maintained as sacred and untouchable. Our common biology is not only the proper subject of human morality, but its significance holds the truths of social cohesion in general; no thyself, is knowing the intricacies of our biological nature. Moral relativism is something humanity needs to overcome.

Is a reasonable religion possible, do you think, Popeye?
A reasonable religion would overcome moral relativity while at the same time not offending rational sensibility.

Well, I think a more reasonable religion is possible. I think it has to have a degree of poetic licence to deal with wonder and the great mystery.
It needs to embrace the science and general knowledge humanity has gained in the past two or three thousand years. Weirdly, humanity creates a god as perfect, while reality, apparent reality, is imperfect, and imperfection is the engine upon which reality is reality. Also, as you probably remember, I believe the proper subject of morality is life itself or our common carbon-based biology, embracing all life forms. The idea of a perfect being/god in Christianity is due, I believe, to Plato's influence on Christianity. His idea about the mystical archetypal ideas is a form of nihilism, denigrating the value of life on earth to that of an imaginary life in the clouds.

In order to discover our biological nature we use the specialised social sciences of history, social anthropology, personal and social psychology, economics, and politics. A reasonable religion would have to satisfy all of those. It's not as difficult as it may sound.
A reasonable religion holds.

Yes, all disciplines need to be incorporated, as reality itself is not divided into all these categories; the categories are tools to aid our limited intellectual powers. We live in an interrelated, interdependent world, and borders and categories are human imagination and limitations. Perhaps sometime in the future, the mind could better deal with entertaining the whole in some degree, perhaps with the aid of AI.



*a constantly reviewed and democratic moral code
* Foundation myths that are not nationalistic or racist, but that can inspire universal brotherhood/sisterhood.
* toleration of ritualism in all its forms as long as the rituals don't offend the moral code[/quote]

A review of a future morality would be much easier to do if based on our common biology, just the term common indicates its immediacy of the concern. A morality based on our common biology should make racism and nationalism archaic concepts. Ritual seems essential to in-depth communication; there are no cultures without them. It is an imprinting used in both positive and negative ways.
[/quote]


A morality based on our common biology had been done both as idea and as political system: communism. Marxism./Leninism.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

[popeye1945]

Is a reasonable religion possible, do you think, Popeye?
A reasonable religion would overcome moral relativity while at the same time not offending rational sensibility.

Well, I think a more reasonable religion is possible. I think it has to have a degree of poetic licence to deal with wonder and the great mystery.
It needs to embrace the science and general knowledge humanity has gained in the past two or three thousand years. Weirdly, humanity creates a god as perfect, while reality, apparent reality, is imperfect, and imperfection is the engine upon which reality is reality. Also, as you probably remember, I believe the proper subject of morality is life itself or our common carbon-based biology, embracing all life forms. The idea of a perfect being/god in Christianity is due, I believe, to Plato's influence on Christianity. His idea about the mystical archetypal ideas is a form of nihilism, denigrating the value of life on earth to that of an imaginary life in the clouds.

In order to discover our biological nature we use the specialised social sciences of history, social anthropology, personal and social psychology, economics, and politics. A reasonable religion would have to satisfy all of those. It's not as difficult as it may sound.
A reasonable religion holds.

Yes, all disciplines need to be incorporated, as reality itself is not divided into all these categories; the categories are tools to aid our limited intellectual powers. We live in an interrelated, interdependent world, and borders and categories are human imagination and limitations. Perhaps sometime in the future, the mind could better deal with entertaining the whole in some degree, perhaps with the aid of AI.



*a constantly reviewed and democratic moral code
* Foundation myths that are not nationalistic or racist, but that can inspire universal brotherhood/sisterhood.
* toleration of ritualism in all its forms as long as the rituals don't offend the moral code

A review of a future morality would be much easier to do if based on our common biology, just the term common indicates its immediacy of the concern. A morality based on our common biology should make racism and nationalism archaic concepts. Ritual seems essential to in-depth communication; there are no cultures without them. It is an imprinting used in both positive and negative ways.
[/quote]


A morality based on our common biology has been developed both as an idea and as a political system: communism, Marxism, and Leninism.
" from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
[/quote]

I don't think that is quite what I had in mind. Christianity also indicates a commonality: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." In both cases, it is not a morality based upon our common biology; both kinds order on it, but with differing agendas.

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

Must we follow these divine rules out of compunction? If we break them, will we be punished eternally in some fashion? This is surely a powerful sanction for inculcating moral codes. But it also seems to imply that one follows these rules out of fear. Yet if this is so, what does it say about humans? Are they not capable of taking responsibility for their own actions without constantly looking up over their shoulders to see if God is watching?

Basically, the adult rendition of this:

He's making a list,
He's checking it twice,
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town!

He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake

On the other hand, the stakes are a bit more draconian for...the infidels? What's no present this year compared to eternal doom and damnation in Hell?

As Mill pointed out, evils occur even with religion. Why assume that its absence would lead to even greater atrocities? The absence of religion would present an opportunity for people to take full personal responsibility.

Right. And what are moral commandments, immortality and salvation for all of eternity compared to taking full personal responsibility for one's life down here for 70 odd years? And at least Mill wasn't fractured and fragmented in regard to evil. 

If morality, then, is not founded on the dictates of some divine source, from where does it arise? Perhaps it is perfectly natural. The desire to act kindly toward others, and to try to see the world as they might see it, could have arisen as a consequence of human beings’ biological and social characteristics.

Please. If you are going to extrapolate a deontological moral assessment from the remains of human history...? The desire to be kind, sure. But kind to who? And given what particular world understood in what particular way? Then, for some, the desire to be unkind to those they insist are the evil ones. Of course, as likely as not, that's exactly what any number of others will be presuming about them.

As for the interaction of the biological and the social, I'm still convinced that political economy explains that the best.

[iambiguous]

The Basis of Morality
Tim Madigan on scientific versus religious explanations of ethical behaviour

Darwin’s writings revolutionized the field of biology. Yet he avoided public discussions of religion, since he knew that it would be difficult enough for his theory to be accepted by the scientific community.

More to the point, of course, are the difficulties posed by the religious communities themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptanc ... concerning

Some denominations finding it more acceptable than others. In other words, just one more example of the gap between all that is at stake on both sides of the grave and the fact that there are so many conflicting assessments of what it takes to acquire them. They can't all be correct yet each denomination will insist that is exactly what they are...an embodiment of the One True Path.

Thus...

The general public, weaned on the age-old teachings of Christianity, would be even more reluctant to accept that the human species was not specially created. 

Cue the evangelical Christians among others. All the creationists who insist that "the earth is young, and that organisms are fixed, every organism that we see today is the same organism that God created a few thousands of years ago. Adam and Eve are the beginning of the human race, and we are separated from every other species by the soul that God gave us."

Try convincing them that they are little more than "naked apes".

In a letter he wrote in 1880, Darwin spelled out his own views on religion and science:

“Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity or Theism produce hardly any effect on the public, and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual advancement of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science.”

That might be because the public is largely interested only in what science can provide them in the way of, say, extraordinary engineering feats and dazzling technologies. Then those who are able to convince themselves that things like dinosaur fossils were deliberately planted by God in order to test the faith of mere mortals. 

It's got to be all about saving their souls.

In fact, I only wish I could find one to save myself.

[popeye1945]

For any rational person, Darwin killed God in 1859 with the publication of" The Origin of Species." The fact that humanity has been beating this dead horse ever since to keep it working says volumes about the nature of the psyche of mankind.

[MikeNovack]

For any rational person, Darwin killed God in 1859 with the publication of" The Origin of Species." The fact that humanity has been beating this dead horse ever since to keep it working says volumes about the nature of the psyche of mankind.

Not even "intelligent design". Wouldn't you say creating life incorporating an adaptive/self correcting control mechanism was very intelligent design?
<< just arguing for "intelligent design" does NOT get the intelligent design folks to a justification of the existence of their sort of deity -- that's simply cheating on their part thinking "intelligent" means a designer who prefers constant tinkering with creation rather than a designer whose creatios is able to dust fine hands off >>

[Belinda]

This morning's Guardiahttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/ ... -of-reachn carries a piece by Simon Tisdall on moral relativism.

From Gaza to Ukraine, peace always seems just out of reach – and the reason isn’t only political
Simon Tisdall (better link)