moral relativism

[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.

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 >>

The cosmos and the earth are imperfect; why would a perfect god create an imperfect world, or better, why would people create a god that has no relation to reality? That is the real problem here: trying to understand the total irrationality of believers. Sometimes I feel their heads should be held under water until the bubbles stop---lol!! Religions of peace, one and all!! No, if the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 did not awaken the civilized world, nothing will. Irrationality to the point of insanity is something political correctness won't allow to be recognized by a term like religious insanity; the phrase is unacceptable, and there is always a wonderful soft-shoe dance around it. Reminds me of a saying: if the majority of the population is insane, they will just redefine insanity. That is the merry-go-round we are on. Well, it is the path of least resistance, no thought, just believe. Perhaps humanity's head is still too bent down with the burdens of struggling for sustenance to expect much more, one day!

[Belinda]

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 >>

The cosmos and the earth are imperfect; why would a perfect god create an imperfect world, or better, why would people create a god that has no relation to reality? That is the real problem here: trying to understand the total irrationality of believers. Sometimes I feel their heads should be held under water until the bubbles stop---lol!! Religions of peace, one and all!! No, if the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 did not awaken the civilized world, nothing will. Irrationality to the point of insanity is something political correctness won't allow to be recognized by a term like religious insanity; the phrase is unacceptable, and there is always a wonderful soft-shoe dance around it. Reminds me of a saying: if the majority of the population is insane, they will just redefine insanity. That is the merry-go-round we are on. Well, it is the path of least resistance, no thought, just believe. Perhaps humanity's head is still too bent down with the burdens of struggling for sustenance to expect much more, one day!

Your answer, Popeye , is in Matthew:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34, ESV)

[popeye1945]

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 >>

The cosmos and the earth are imperfect; why would a perfect god create an imperfect world, or better, why would people create a god that has no relation to reality? That is the real problem here: trying to understand the total irrationality of believers. Sometimes I feel their heads should be held under water until the bubbles stop---lol!! Religions of peace, one and all!! No, if the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 did not awaken the civilized world, nothing will. Irrationality to the point of insanity is something political correctness won't allow to be recognized by a term like religious insanity; the phrase is unacceptable, and there is always a wonderful soft-shoe dance around it. Reminds me of a saying: if the majority of the population is insane, they will just redefine insanity. That is the merry-go-round we are on. Well, it is the path of least resistance, no thought, just believe. Perhaps humanity's head is still too bent down with the burdens of struggling for sustenance to expect much more, one day!

Your answer, Popeye, is in Matthew:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34, ESV)

Hi Belinda,

You need to fill that out a bit more. the bible has lots and lots of smiting. How is it relevant here?

[Belinda]

The cosmos and the earth are imperfect; why would a perfect god create an imperfect world, or better, why would people create a god that has no relation to reality? That is the real problem here: trying to understand the total irrationality of believers. Sometimes I feel their heads should be held under water until the bubbles stop---lol!! Religions of peace, one and all!! No, if the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 did not awaken the civilized world, nothing will. Irrationality to the point of insanity is something political correctness won't allow to be recognized by a term like religious insanity; the phrase is unacceptable, and there is always a wonderful soft-shoe dance around it. Reminds me of a saying: if the majority of the population is insane, they will just redefine insanity. That is the merry-go-round we are on. Well, it is the path of least resistance, no thought, just believe. Perhaps humanity's head is still too bent down with the burdens of struggling for sustenance to expect much more, one day!

Your answer, Popeye, is in Matthew:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34, ESV)

Hi Belinda,

You need to fill that out a bit more. the bible has lots and lots of smiting. How is it relevant here?

A sword means that Jesus is not a simple man of peace but believes evil must be fought by actively contending with evil and putting oneself at risk of death to do so. Yes, there is a lot of smiting going on in The Bible much of which does not apply to people here and now. But Jesus is different in this quote from Matthew where Jesus doesn't imply any particular tribal warfare or personal battles, but implies contending with evil in general. In other words, Jesus is not promising that following his example will be peaceful and safe.

[MikeNovack]

The cosmos and the earth are imperfect; why would a perfect god create an imperfect world, or better, why would people create a god that has no relation to reality? That is the real problem here: trying to understand the total irrationality of believers.

1) Why do YOU believe the Earth and Cosmos are imperfect? What is wrong with it as created or evolved

2) I did not think YOU believed in a God so why ask " why would a perfect god create an imperfect world" ? And if you just meant to be asking this of a believer, you have to first determine that THEY consider the Earth and Cosmos to be imperfect.

3) Why would people conceive of a God WITHIN material reality? OIf they are going to conceive of a God, of course outside material reality.

Look folks, one entire book of the Bible is devoted to "why do bad things happen". Written late, already feeling the influence of Hellenism (which "school" of Greek philosophy does each consoler represent -- eg, who is the Stoic, etc.). Now look closely at the words of the voice from the whirlwind. Most of it "look how big/powerful I am and you can't understand" but none of those lines about why bad things happen. The last three lines are different. Job is expected to understand that if the lion cubs are to be fed, the lioness will have to kill and rip apart some prey. Very bad thing happens to some antelope but good for the lion cubs and the young ravens get fed from the scraps.

Are you imagining that "evolution" could result in a world without "evils" like predation? What would the constraint be like?

[popeye1945]

The cosmos and the earth are imperfect; why would a perfect god create an imperfect world, or better, why would people create a god that has no relation to reality? That is the real problem here: trying to understand the total irrationality of believers.

1) Why do YOU believe the Earth and Cosmos are imperfect? What is wrong with it as created or evolved
2) I did not think YOU believed in a God so why ask " why would a perfect god create an imperfect world" ? And if you just meant to be asking this of a believer, you have to first determine that THEY consider the Earth and Cosmos to be imperfect.
3) Why would people conceive of a God WITHIN material reality? OIf they are going to conceive of a God, of course, outside material reality.

All of creation functions on imperfection, with one imperfection ever adapting to the larger realm of imperfection. Why ask about a god that is supposed to be perfect and all-loving, consistency in logic? In what other human endeavor is belief reasonable on no evidence or even a mountain of evidence to the contrary? What makes you think there is an outside of material reality? Again evidence.

Look folks, one entire book of the Bible is devoted to "why do bad things happen". Written late, already feeling the influence of Hellenism (which "school" of Greek philosophy does each consoler represent -- eg, who is the Stoic, etc.). Now look closely at the words of the voice from the whirlwind. Most of it "look how big/powerful I am and you can't understand" but none of those lines about why bad things happen. The last three lines are different. Job is expected to understand that if the lion cubs are to be fed, the lioness will have to kill and rip apart some prey. Very bad thing happens to some antelope but good for the lion cubs and the young ravens get fed from the scraps. Are you imagining that "evolution" could result in a world without "evils" like predation? What would the constraint be like?
[/quote]

Anyone who understands what nature is understands the harsh reality of life, that lives upon life. There is no expectation of morality that does not arise from life itself. What exactly is your argument, or difficulty with what has been stated? I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.

[MikeNovack]

I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.

I believe I enough of what I have posted would justify your conclusion that I am likely Jewish.

But what have I written lets you conclude that I believe in a supernatural realm? Christianity might require belief, but Judaism does not. It is a practice, not a "faith".

I wasn't the one saying that the Earth and Cosmos were imperfect.

Oh, and people can/have conceived of god or gods not OUTSIDE of material reality. How about coincident with reality. The "there is only god" of Spinoza.

[popeye1945]

I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.

I believe I enough of what I have posted would justify your conclusion that I am likely Jewish.
But what have I written lets you conclude that I believe in a supernatural realm? Christianity might require belief, but Judaism does not. It is a practice, not a "faith". I wasn't the one saying that the Earth and Cosmos were imperfect.
Oh, and people can/have conceived of god or gods not OUTSIDE of material reality. How about coincidental with reality. The "there is only god" of Spinoza.

I am not that familiar with Judaism, but I always sensed there was something more intelligent than blind faith to it. How is it that the other desert religions didn't follow suite with the lead of Judaism? To me, that is what makes Christianity and Islam so dangerous. It's mindless, and there does not seem to be many things as appealing to the lazy mind as faith. It is impervious to reason, which is frightening. Oh, I do say that the cosmos, earth, and biology are imperfect; imperfection is the engine of creation. Without it, there would be no change, no necessity to adapt to the larger realm of imperfection. Adaptation through reaction where the reaction of the organism becomes a cause to its outer world, to its larger imperfect context. I have no problem with Spinoza's god; it stays well within the bounds of sanity. My problem with moral relativism is that the subject of religious morality has the wrong centre, and many religions with differing centres create chaos. All hold that the source of morality is the supernatural; when the proper subject of morality is our common carbon-based biology, its survival and well-being are the foundation for a reasonable, read sane system of morality.

[iambiguous]

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

Still, in his private writings, Darwin offered telling criticisms of the moral teachings of Christianity. In his Autobiography he repeats the objections to the Divine Command Theory raised earlier. Why, he asks, should one accept the Bible as divinely- inspired, rather than other holy books, such as the Koran, the Analects of Confucius or the teachings of the Buddha?

Exactly my point. 

Suppose hypothetically you went around the globe and everywhere you went you found that everyone worshiped the same God. Now, that might not be enough to demonstrate His actual existence, but, in my view, it would be far more intriguing than going around the globe [as it is today] and noting all of the many, many, many different [and often conflicting] Gods and religious paths. 

Still, no Gods have ever actually been proven to exist. Or none that I am aware of. And, basically, this is what allows all the various denominations to insist that a God, the God is their own God. After all, it's not like anyone can demonstrate otherwise, right?

And if one does decide that the Bible is superior, how can it be understood?

Again, however, for all practical purposes, it can be understood in any number of ways. Christianity alone has hundreds and hundreds of denominations around the globe:

https://www.livescience.com/christianit ... tions.html

Then the part where capitalism precipitates the Protestant Reformation and Christianity accommodates itself to the bottom line. Prosperity gospel, for example. The emphasis shifts from an "other world" to "this world". From the social to the individual. The more successful you are the more that indicate God's own...blessing?

Are the stories of miracles to be taken literally or only figuratively? He critiques specific doctrines of Christianity, especially the doctrine of Hell:

“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

The hell if it's damnable?! After all, if you run Darwin's conjectures by any number of Christians today only those who deserve punishment are damned they will insist. It's God's will. End of discussion.

So, is Darwin, along with his "father, brother and almost all his best friends" now writhing in agony. In Hell?  

[Belinda]

The cosmos and the earth are imperfect; why would a perfect god create an imperfect world, or better, why would people create a god that has no relation to reality? That is the real problem here: trying to understand the total irrationality of believers.

1) Why do YOU believe the Earth and Cosmos are imperfect? What is wrong with it as created or evolved
2) I did not think YOU believed in a God so why ask " why would a perfect god create an imperfect world" ? And if you just meant to be asking this of a believer, you have to first determine that THEY consider the Earth and Cosmos to be imperfect.
3) Why would people conceive of a God WITHIN material reality? OIf they are going to conceive of a God, of course, outside material reality.

All of creation functions on imperfection, with one imperfection ever adapting to the larger realm of imperfection. Why ask about a god that is supposed to be perfect and all-loving, consistency in logic? In what other human endeavor is belief reasonable on no evidence or even a mountain of evidence to the contrary? What makes you think there is an outside of material reality? Again evidence.

Look folks, one entire book of the Bible is devoted to "why do bad things happen". Written late, already feeling the influence of Hellenism (which "school" of Greek philosophy does each consoler represent -- eg, who is the Stoic, etc.). Now look closely at the words of the voice from the whirlwind. Most of it "look how big/powerful I am and you can't understand" but none of those lines about why bad things happen. The last three lines are different. Job is expected to understand that if the lion cubs are to be fed, the lioness will have to kill and rip apart some prey. Very bad thing happens to some antelope but good for the lion cubs and the young ravens get fed from the scraps. Are you imagining that "evolution" could result in a world without "evils" like predation? What would the constraint be like?

Anyone who understands what nature is understands the harsh reality of life, that lives upon life. There is no expectation of morality that does not arise from life itself. What exactly is your argument, or difficulty with what has been stated? I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.
[/quote]

Do you think that people generally yearn for life to be safe from the sabre tooth tiger and other dangers? To be safe from the sabre tooth tiger people have to cooperate to build defences. How do you get people to cooperate when they belong to rival families ,or clans , or tribes?

[MikeNovack]

Anyone who understands what nature is understands the harsh reality of life, that lives upon life. There is no expectation of morality that does not arise from life itself. What exactly is your argument, or difficulty with what has been stated? I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.

Do you think that people generally yearn for life to be safe from the sabre tooth tiger and other dangers? To be safe from the sabre tooth tiger people have to cooperate to build defences. How do you get people to cooperate when they belong to rival families ,or clans , or tribes?
[/quote]

'I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm'

Why do you believe that (of me)? I'm not aware any of my postings would give you evidence of that (belief in a supernatural realm or no such belief). I have given evidence that I am Jewish, but that's not enough to conclude beliefs. Judaism is a practice, not a "faith". You aren't required to BELIEVE anything, just do or not do. OK, you are required to love god, but we humans seem able to love things that do not exist.

But its that 2nd paragraph quoted that I really want to discuss in terms of "what is morality", because I think that is the right starting point, how we humans have lived for 99.5% of the last million years, during which time we evolved into "modern humans" (biological sense). First some definitions.

1) Morality refers to the "right" or "wrong" of decisions/actions. It is a guide to how we SHOULD act, and therefor the decisions/actions must be possible and decidable at the time of the decision/action << in other words, I would argue that strict consequentialism cannot be used since whether the eventual outcome good or bad not certain until some later time. Probabilistic consequentialism could be used, as the eventual outcome does not change what the probability of a good outcome was >>

2) It is usual to assume that if two situations do not differ in any morally relevant regard, we must get the same moral answer of proper decision/action. I am about to argue not so. I am about to argue that there is a NON-MORAL relevant difference we need to take into account. We evolved as a social animal, an omnivorous animal. For 99.5% of our existence we lived in bands of about 50 individuals. So we knew all of them personally and could expect to interact with the same individuals repeatedly. We interacted with other humans only rarely.

This is not how we live today. We live in much larger groups, interacting with far more individuals than we could know personally. And many of the individuals with whom we interact we will never encounter again. THIS is the moral universe we know live in, one very different that the one in which our species evolved. Evolution has resulted in our brains coming with SOME initial settings, settings evolved to promote our brains learning, as children growing up, a set of moral rules << neural nets learn/are trained >> BUT, this evolution took place with humans living as we did before, not as we do now.

I am claiming that we do have an "intuitive" morality BUT it is one suited the small bands we lived in during the time we evolved. It gets triggered to a greater or lesser degree depending on how well the situation matches situations possible in that small band, If pattern matched, pull up relevant rule. If pattern not matched, not triggered, no rule found, so need to fall back on rational thought to come up with the answer. Use intuitive answer for some situations, rational for others. IWe expect the same answer if/f the two situations are the same in all morally relevant respects AND on how well they match human society during evolution of intuitive morality. The latter is a difference, but not a moral difference.

The reality is that when the rational answer differs from the intuitive answer (we try to use the rational answer in a situation where the small group pattern was matched) we feel uncomfortable, feel something is wrong with our rational answer, even though can't explain why. But this ids not so simple because it is pattern matching. We are unlikely to understand WHY something in one of the situations matched while in the other it did not.

OK so far?

[popeye1945]

1) Why do YOU believe the Earth and Cosmos are imperfect? What is wrong with it as created or evolved
2) I did not think YOU believed in a God so why ask " why would a perfect god create an imperfect world" ? And if you just meant to be asking this of a believer, you have to first determine that THEY consider the Earth and Cosmos to be imperfect.
3) Why would people conceive of a God WITHIN material reality? OIf they are going to conceive of a God, of course, outside material reality.

All of creation functions on imperfection, with one imperfection ever adapting to the larger realm of imperfection. Why ask about a god that is supposed to be perfect and all-loving, consistency in logic? In what other human endeavor is belief reasonable on no evidence or even a mountain of evidence to the contrary? What makes you think there is an outside of material reality? Again evidence.

Look folks, one entire book of the Bible is devoted to "why do bad things happen". Written late, already feeling the influence of Hellenism (which "school" of Greek philosophy does each consoler represent -- eg, who is the Stoic, etc.). Now look closely at the words of the voice from the whirlwind. Most of it "look how big/powerful I am and you can't understand" but none of those lines about why bad things happen. The last three lines are different. Job is expected to understand that if the lion cubs are to be fed, the lioness will have to kill and rip apart some prey. Very bad thing happens to some antelope but good for the lion cubs and the young ravens get fed from the scraps. Are you imagining that "evolution" could result in a world without "evils" like predation? What would the constraint be like?

Anyone who understands what nature is understands the harsh reality of life, that lives upon life. There is no expectation of morality that does not arise from life itself. What exactly is your argument, or difficulty with what has been stated? I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.

Do you think that people generally yearn for life to be safe from the sabre tooth tiger and other dangers? To be safe from the sabre tooth tiger people have to cooperate to build defences. How do you get people to cooperate when they belong to rival families ,or clans , or tribes?
[/quote]

It is distance itself, geographical differences, forms of living in environmental contexts, and resulting isolation of peoples and their cultures. This, along with the individual society's developments of mythologies, reflects the differences that have emerged due to independent development. We must recognize our commonality over the differences of time and space. This is also true of the many forms of life that inhabit different geographical regions and niches, yet share the same essence as all life does. We are all in this together, quite literally. Recognize the common self in all living things from the massive to the microscopic. We are all forms of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which are both necessary for the survival of all life forms. With this expanded concept of the self, one is enabled to identify oneself with the self in all other selves, making the rise of compassion possible and thus a larger community of humanity in great but not absolute harmony. Our common carbon-based biology is our commonality with all life; the essence of life is struggle, joy, and suffering. Let us respect all life as something sacred. The logical basis of any moral system is the survival and well-being of all life forms, but in keeping with the dictates of nature.

[Belinda]

Anyone who understands what nature is understands the harsh reality of life, that lives upon life. There is no expectation of morality that does not arise from life itself. What exactly is your argument, or difficulty with what has been stated? I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.

Do you think that people generally yearn for life to be safe from the sabre tooth tiger and other dangers? To be safe from the sabre tooth tiger people have to cooperate to build defences. How do you get people to cooperate when they belong to rival families ,or clans , or tribes?

'I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm'

Why do you believe that (of me)? I'm not aware any of my postings would give you evidence of that (belief in a supernatural realm or no such belief). I have given evidence that I am Jewish, but that's not enough to conclude beliefs. Judaism is a practice, not a "faith". You aren't required to BELIEVE anything, just do or not do. OK, you are required to love god, but we humans seem able to love things that do not exist.

But its that 2nd paragraph quoted that I really want to discuss in terms of "what is morality", because I think that is the right starting point, how we humans have lived for 99.5% of the last million years, during which time we evolved into "modern humans" (biological sense). First some definitions.

1) Morality refers to the "right" or "wrong" of decisions/actions. It is a guide to how we SHOULD act, and therefor the decisions/actions must be possible and decidable at the time of the decision/action << in other words, I would argue that strict consequentialism cannot be used since whether the eventual outcome good or bad not certain until some later time. Probabilistic consequentialism could be used, as the eventual outcome does not change what the probability of a good outcome was >>

2) It is usual to assume that if two situations do not differ in any morally relevant regard, we must get the same moral answer of proper decision/action. I am about to argue not so. I am about to argue that there is a NON-MORAL relevant difference we need to take into account. We evolved as a social animal, an omnivorous animal. For 99.5% of our existence we lived in bands of about 50 individuals. So we knew all of them personally and could expect to interact with the same individuals repeatedly. We interacted with other humans only rarely.

This is not how we live today. We live in much larger groups, interacting with far more individuals than we could know personally. And many of the individuals with whom we interact we will never encounter again. THIS is the moral universe we know live in, one very different that the one in which our species evolved. Evolution has resulted in our brains coming with SOME initial settings, settings evolved to promote our brains learning, as children growing up, a set of moral rules << neural nets learn/are trained >> BUT, this evolution took place with humans living as we did before, not as we do now.

I am claiming that we do have an "intuitive" morality BUT it is one suited the small bands we lived in during the time we evolved. It gets triggered to a greater or lesser degree depending on how well the situation matches situations possible in that small band, If pattern matched, pull up relevant rule. If pattern not matched, not triggered, no rule found, so need to fall back on rational thought to come up with the answer. Use intuitive answer for some situations, rational for others. IWe expect the same answer if/f the two situations are the same in all morally relevant respects AND on how well they match human society during evolution of intuitive morality. The latter is a difference, but not a moral difference.

The reality is that when the rational answer differs from the intuitive answer (we try to use the rational answer in a situation where the small group pattern was matched) we feel uncomfortable, feel something is wrong with our rational answer, even though can't explain why. But this ids not so simple because it is pattern matching. We are unlikely to understand WHY something in one of the situations matched while in the other it did not.

OK so far?
[/quote]
I think it was Popeye not I who wrote that first paragraph you quoted.I wrote the bit about the sabre tooth tiger.
You wrote

Judaism is a practice, not a "faith". You aren't required to BELIEVE anything, just do or not do. OK, you are required to love god, but we humans seem able to love things that do not exist.

'Belief' is sometimes not well defined. Which senior Jews or Jew defined 'believe' as in "I believe paracetamol relieves most headaches" ? Is there not a senior Jew or Jews who define 'believe' to mean trust as in " I believe in Donald Trump!" ?

Concerning the optimum size for a cooperating group , We need to refer to proper social scientific studies .

I agree that humans now evolve culturally not biologically ; or at least not much compared with the rapidity of humans' cultural evolution. However I trust that the Old Adam , or the innocent child, is a better guy than he who intransigently clings to some learned religious faith.

“In every cry of every Man,
In every Infant’s cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forged manacles I hear.” (William Blake)

[popeye1945]

Anyone who understands what nature is understands the harsh reality of life, that lives upon life. There is no expectation of morality that does not arise from life itself. What exactly is your argument, or difficulty with what has been stated? I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.

Do you think that people generally yearn for life to be safe from the sabre tooth tiger and other dangers? To be safe from the sabre tooth tiger people have to cooperate to build defences. How do you get people to cooperate when they belong to rival families ,or clans , or tribes?

'I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm'

Why do you believe that (of me)? I'm not aware any of my postings would give you evidence of that (belief in a supernatural realm or no such belief). I have given evidence that I am Jewish, but that's not enough to conclude beliefs. Judaism is a practice, not a "faith". You aren't required to BELIEVE anything, just do or not do. OK, you are required to love god, but we humans seem able to love things that do not exist.

But its that 2nd paragraph quoted that I really want to discuss in terms of "what is morality", because I think that is the right starting point, how we humans have lived for 99.5% of the last million years, during which time we evolved into "modern humans" (biological sense). First some definitions.

1) Morality refers to the "right" or "wrong" of decisions/actions. It is a guide to how we SHOULD act, and therefor the decisions/actions must be possible and decidable at the time of the decision/action << in other words, I would argue that strict consequentialism cannot be used since whether the eventual outcome good or bad not certain until some later time. Probabilistic consequentialism could be used, as the eventual outcome does not change what the probability of a good outcome was >>

2) It is usual to assume that if two situations do not differ in any morally relevant regard, we must get the same moral answer of proper decision/action. I am about to argue not so. I am about to argue that there is a NON-MORAL relevant difference we need to take into account. We evolved as a social animal, an omnivorous animal. For 99.5% of our existence we lived in bands of about 50 individuals. So we knew all of them personally and could expect to interact with the same individuals repeatedly. We interacted with other humans only rarely.

This is not how we live today. We live in much larger groups, interacting with far more individuals than we could know personally. And many of the individuals with whom we interact we will never encounter again. THIS is the moral universe we know live in, one very different that the one in which our species evolved. Evolution has resulted in our brains coming with SOME initial settings, settings evolved to promote our brains learning, as children growing up, a set of moral rules << neural nets learn/are trained >> BUT, this evolution took place with humans living as we did before, not as we do now.

I am claiming that we do have an "intuitive" morality BUT it is one suited the small bands we lived in during the time we evolved. It gets triggered to a greater or lesser degree depending on how well the situation matches situations possible in that small band, If pattern matched, pull up relevant rule. If pattern not matched, not triggered, no rule found, so need to fall back on rational thought to come up with the answer. Use intuitive answer for some situations, rational for others. IWe expect the same answer if/f the two situations are the same in all morally relevant respects AND on how well they match human society during evolution of intuitive morality. The latter is a difference, but not a moral difference.

The reality is that when the rational answer differs from the intuitive answer (we try to use the rational answer in a situation where the small group pattern was matched) we feel uncomfortable, feel something is wrong with our rational answer, even though can't explain why. But this ids not so simple because it is pattern matching. We are unlikely to understand WHY something in one of the situations matched while in the other it did not.

OK so far?

I think it was Popeye not I who wrote that first paragraph you quoted.I wrote the bit about the sabre tooth tiger.
You wrote

Judaism is a practice, not a "faith". You aren't required to BELIEVE anything, just do or not do. OK, you are required to love god, but we humans seem able to love things that do not exist.

'Belief' is sometimes not well defined. Which senior Jews or Jew defined 'believe' as in "I believe paracetamol relieves most headaches" ? Is there not a senior Jew or Jews who define 'believe' to mean trust as in " I believe in Donald Trump!" ?

Concerning the optimum size for a cooperating group , We need to refer to proper social scientific studies .

I agree that humans now evolve culturally not biologically ; or at least not much compared with the rapidity of humans' cultural evolution. However I trust that the Old Adam , or the innocent child, is a better guy than he who intransigently clings to some learned religious faith.

“In every cry of every Man,
In every Infant’s cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forged manacles I hear.” (William Blake)
[/quote]

Cultures adapt to the physical world, or they are monstrosities. If cultures fail to adapt to the physical world, then so do their inhabitants once removed as they are. This is still the physical world at work, indirectly. Presently, the arrangement of cultures as monstrosities is a recipe for the extinction of both cultures and their inhabitants.

[iambiguous]

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

Darwin broadened the argument raised by Mill. There is certainly much evil in the world, but it is not just evil for humans – why did the deity create so many species and why for millions of years preceding the emergence of humans did they suffer?

“That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. [...] But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentient beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.”

In other words, back to the "brute facticity" of an existence -- of a universe -- in which, ontologically, there is no teleological foundation upon which mere mortals can encompass an essential meaning and morality. So, over the centuries, Gods and any number of other One True Spiritual Paths were invented. Then all that one needed to do is simply believe what one is told by the ecclesiastics regarding before and after one dies.

As for the fate of all the other animals...? It's like everything else revolving around conflicting goods. Attitudes are rooted historically, culturally and invariably revolve around the particular personal experiences one might have had in regard to animal welfare.

For human beings, there are the pros and the cons pertaining to many issues related to animals:

1] consuming animal flesh...hunting...factory farming

2] medical research and other experiments performed on animals

3] putting animals in zoos or in aquariums

4] making animals pets

As for nature at its most brutal and savage point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_anim ... References

For all of this, Darwin remained wary of grand speculations, holding that the human mind cannot be completely trusted when it draws such grand conclusions. Scientific thinking insists that one’s theories not outrun the evidence that is needed to support them.

In other words, scientific thinking, embedded in the scientific method is far more likely to come down out of the theoretical clouds and engage the physical, material, phenomenological interactions in a world ever awash in any number of moral and political conflagrations.