Good and Evil

Epicurus? - Beliefnet:

"Human social structures originally tribes and later villages and parishes decided definitively what was good and what was evil. Basically what was good was what created trust and cooperation within the tribe and what was evil was that which weakened the tribe by causing divisiveness and intra-tribal strife. Shamans quickly discovered that using God as a super cop not only gave them power as the interpreter for the super cop, but allowed them to add control rules to the natural good and evil recognized intuitively by the tribe.

As societies got larger the God interpreted good and evil was no longer effective as inter-tribal warfare was the norm for God, and the society needed to control this with secular laws and punishments for transgressions in this life not the next.

Good and evil were still defined by what created trust and cooperation and evil was still that which created divisiveness and strife. One important advancement in larger societies was recognizing that God inspired intra-tribal strife was an important evil and must be controlled."

A Secular Society Example

moral training....stealing-right or wrong? - Beliefnet :

"An example of a non-religious society might be a modern high level research university. Certainly there will be a few religious people in that society, in fact there may even be a religious studies department as part of the university. But the ideals and the mores are defined by academic standards, not by some religious authority even in the Religious Studies Department.

When I mention an extended face group, the extension is to all that might in some way become part of ones face group. A physics freshman's university face group might be herm dorm mates and class mates that hesh studies with. But it is a real possibility, if not a probability that hesh might eventually be a post doc in the lab of one of the Nobel Laureates. So that Nobel Laureate is part of the extended face group. But in order to get there hesh must comply with extensive written and unwritten rules and mores that if violated will forever exclude him from the extended face group. As a simple illustration all papers must be based on research by the person writing the paper and must contain the original thinking of the author and no other.

A university culture is in many ways much more rigidly structured than a typical church culture. There is no GOOHF card for mistakes, even inadvertent ones. And selection for the face group is an arduous and demanding process. One can't say I love the Bears or the Wolverines and get in. One must demonstrate skills in a variety of disciplines to even have a chance.

Natural Behaviors.

If Man is the Measure - Beliefnet

LOL! No one is capable of 100% consciousness.
Wendyness

LOL! or even LOL!!!!!! is not an argument. An assertion without support can be dismissed without comment.

However, one of my weaknesses is to comment anyway.

While many autonomous processes don't need to rise to the level of consciousness to function, they are not immune to conscious manipulation. Placebos as an example.

One would not generally aspire to 100% consciousness.

A centipede was happy quite,
Until a frog in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?"
This raised her mind to such a pitch,
She lay distracted in the ditch
Considering how to run.
-- Anonymous

"However, one can be 100% conscious of behavior influencing activities of the mind/brain. The fact that you believe Jungian therapy can give you some control over the shadow is evidence that such control is possible. The real question is what belief system, and it takes a belief system to mask behavior influencing activities from the consciousness, causes the shadow? In a different post you noted that touching yourself 'there' is bad or something like that. Why? Touching yourself 'there' is natural. See any dog. What belief system other one that is trying to control your sexuality would suggest such an unnatural attitude?"

It is the control over sexuality and other natural human behaviors like following the leader, among others that gives religion its power for good and for abuse. The control over sexual expression was used as the dominant sin expression by Paul. See Romans 1.

If the natural sexual expressions as seen in our simian relatives were free to be expressed by humans, one would see a considerably different human evolutionary pattern. I suspect that the two female family structure would be dominant, with the women choosing mates from the males based dominance and power to provide a stable society and for their intelligence and ability to provide a suitable dowry for the anticipated child. The men would still play their political power games not for genetic continuity but for dominance over the social structures supporting the female dominated reproductive needs for the society. The harem would be a self chosen group adhering to the rich, intelligent and powerful. Low status men would probably touch themselves "there" a lot.

Cosmopolitan Communities.

The Basis of Human Morality - Beliefnet

We live and move and have our being not only as individuals but in community. [edited for readability]
teilhard

J'C: "Historically our community has been imposed on us typically by religions, and more recently by other social units like universities, companies, and civic clubs. Perhaps a major change in "Community" is that the world is so large and interconnected that the "Community" is no longer defined by institutions, but by ad-hoc associations of like minded people, who may for instance be members of a church, a company, on the board of an arts organization, participate in alumni activities from their University and of course on the internet. These associations may be international in scope, but the important thing is the cosmopolitan nature of the association. People are not defined by where they live, go to church, work, recreate, but what they contribute to the association. I see this as a fundamental change in human social organization, and a hopeful one. It is hard to work up a good hate if there is no group to hate."

This may in fact be the direction of evolution for humans. Couples are breeding later in life after establishing themselves in the various groups that define their "community." Modern medicine has pushed back the female biological clock to the point that age is no longer a consideration for contributing to the gene pool. It is still common for couples to form in a university, but normally the other associations are established and the larger "community" they will be a part of is clear. But the pressure for the MRS degree in the university is off, and men and women feel confident that once established in their "community" the appropriate mate will come along to do their part for replacement fecundity. Note, the child(ren)are never accidents, and are assured of a supportive home to grow from.

I see a ring speciation going on here. The traditional communities will continue the present breeding pattern of a few kids in late teens or early 20s divorce at 25 and mom struggles to give the kids a good life. Enough dads will stick around to keep the community together, but the centrifugal force of the single mom driving her kids to succeed any way they can, sports or academics usually, seems to me to be fatal to the traditional community. Certainly they will never be comfortable with the cosmopolitan communities, and interbreeding will be rare.

Connections

My puzzle over "something larger than ourselves" - Beliefnet

To me, you're connected to society just by being born into it and growing up a part of it; what kind of society it is, is immaterial.
BlackWingBlueSky

J'C: "It used to be that way. And still is in many places. One of the major changes in modern society is that the most intelligent leave their home society to attend the University. At the University they are forced to assemble a totally new society that may have little resemblance to the one they grew up in. There are of course some established social values but they may be quite different from home. And there is more choice. The geeks, the athletes, the social clubs, and they may overlap considerably for those so inclined. The social changes continue after graduation. People seldom go home again. Again the choices are limitless, but must be limited. But the key for many is they choose their society in which they wish to be connected. Liberating, but in most cases God stays home and can't help."

Yes this is certainly a change in which new connections are formed. Yet I somehow feel it is still superficial compared to deep connections that one could potentially feel. A loss of a loved one, deep love, profound beauty... tend to move me more.
Myownpath: followup

J'C: "The new connections are certainly not the only connections. Selected ones remain and are an integral part of the new society. As noted elsewhere the "J" in J'Carlin comes from a childhood nickname that I abandoned, lock stock and barrel, when I went away to school. And yet the people who call me J'Carlin because they can't won't think of me as Carlin are some of the most cherished people in my life. Many of them taught me of deep love, profound beauty, the love of the infinite universe. I can trace most of my most special moments to one or another person who uses J'Carlin or used to. At my age many are no longer physically able to reinforce them, but I can still live their moments in my living memory. Any time I want to I can hear my sister play the Rachmaninoff C#Minor Prelude. If I am angry, it is the violent version and once she gets to the second theme beautifully life is once again good.

Chosing One's Society

My puzzle over "something larger than ourselves" - Beliefnet

To me, you're connected to society just by being born into it and growing up a part of it; what kind of society it is, is immaterial.
BlackWingBlueSky

J'C: "It used to be that way. And still is in many places. One of the major changes in modern society is that the most intelligent leave their home society to attend the University. At the University they are forced to assemble a totally new society that may have little resemblance to the one they grew up in. There are of course some established social values but they may be quite different from home. And there is more choice. The geeks, the athletes, the social clubs, and they may overlap considerably for those so inclined. The social changes continue after graduation. People seldom go home again. Again the choices are limitless, but must be limited. But the key for many is they choose their society in which they wish to be connected. Liberating, but in most cases God stays home and can't help."

J'C I wonder if this is simply evolution in action. Certainly the ones that choose their society and values as adults, have a real leg up on those that are stuck in their milk society. Some will of course make the wrong choices, but that is part of being human. But enough will make the right choices that a cosmopolitan, knowledge based society will become dominant.

The humanitarian in me cries for those that will be left by the wayside, and they won't all be third world, but I see no way to change the blind, pitiless workings of the evolutionary process. My hope is that the de facto leaders, they won't be politicians, will find a way to provide for those that cannot keep up. Perhaps we are seeing it now with meaning free entertainment and sterile social networking. But I wonder. Are the overweight people serving and eating at "MacFriendly's" and selling and shopping at WalMart inexorably weeding themselves out of the gene pool? Will God help them? If so how?

Labels, Prayers and Wishes.

Antitheism? - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community:
"If wishes were prayers and all worth a penny we would all be rich. People cling to labels, and prayers and wishes because they cannot or will not deal with the reality of a changing world where wishes, prayers and labels are holdovers from a time where ones local social group membership was all important, and ignorance was rampant. Today we can choose our social group(s) ignorance is dispelled with a click on Google, and all who chose can find out anything they want on the net.

Those clinging to labels are desperately refusing to adapt to the modern human ecology. This is known as evolution in action. (Thanks Niven and Pournelle, if you haven't read Oath of Fealty it is worth the price.)"

Is the Internet the Global Village?

For those whose local village or parish does not work for them for whatever reason my tentative answer is yes. I think of those in my graduating Class at Stanford, scattered all over the map, and found that although we could keep in a semblance of contact through reunions and mail, it wasn't until the blogs and social networking sites opened up that I was able to regain the intellectual contact that made Stanford so special. The inclusion in my village of those who never were face friends and probably never will be, has expanded my village to a proper size and enriched my world to share the joys and sorrows of those who would certainly be in my village if we weren't scattered all over the globe.

A beliefnet friend just completed a PhD in England, and shared her thrill at being awarded a post doc she was hoping for. I shared in the thrill and joy that I have missed in my local village where most do not have that academic level.

The village of retail marketing where I have spent most of my recent work life, has very little in the way of intellectual stimulation that I didn't create on my own, and I was huddled in my ivory tower reading my books and listening to my music with no one to discuss it with. There were compensations, but there was a huge hole in my life that has been filled with facebook, blogs and social networks that basically self select for people like me.

It is early in the life of the social net, and few have as yet discovered the village that awaits them there. But when they do I suspect that for much of the world the social milieu will be totally changed back to a small socially tight village where the people happen to live in far flung places in the world.

Do Facebook Friends Work?

The Human Condition : Friends With Benefits: Do Facebook Friends Provide the Same Support as Those In Real Life?: "Numerous studies have shown that a strong network of friends can be crucial to getting through a crisis, and can help you be healthier in general. But could virtual friends, like the group of online buddies that reached out to Sue, be just as helpful as the flesh-and-blood versions? In other words, do Facebook friends—and the support we get from them—count? These questions are all the more intriguing as the number of online social-network users increase. Facebook attracted 67.5 million visitors in the U.S. in April (according to ComScore Inc.), and the fastest-growing demographic is people over 35. It’s clear that connecting to friends, both close and distant, via the computer will become more the norm than novelty."

A good intro to something I have been working on recently: For those of us with an unusual demographic, in my case highly intelligent, spiritual atheist, choral musician, cosmopolitan with friends and family scattered all over the US and classical music literate, will on-line social networking take the place of the village or parish that historically has been the source of our social support for all of the important crises in life. Whether it is a stubbed toe or the death of a loved one, seeing a butterfly or falling in love, we need a touch of a friend.

If my local parish or village is an unpleasant place where I feel totally outcast due to my demographic not fitting in with the rest of the village, must I give up hope of a touch, or can a virtual touch work just as well.

As a related issue, is a real "touch" a necessary condition for the virtual touch to work?
As a single data point, a beliefnet friend who I never met, and who I had no contact with outside of forum posts died. I grieved as if he was a face-friend, and created an appreciation thread as soon as his absence from the boards was noted as I knew he was terminally ill. An obit was found and posted and the threat turned into a virtual atheist celebration of the life of. A donation to the hospice with a copy of the thread, generated a beautiful post by his daughter filling in details we (the virtual group of friends) would have known had we had face contact.

What makes a social animal.

Brain Cells for Socializing | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine:

"Allman likes to show a clip from a documentary about a group of African elephants that adopted an orphaned calf. When the baby elephant falls into a water hole, the matriarch quickly marches in, followed by the others. Together she and a second female use their tusks, trunks and legs to free the calf from the muck. Another animal paws at the steep bank with its foot, building a ramp the youngster uses to climb to safety. 'It's really remarkable,' says Allman of how the elephants rapidly sized up the crisis and worked together to save the baby. 'It's a very high sort of functioning that very few animals are able to do. And,' he adds with a chuckle, 'humans can do it only on good days.'"

An amazing article on a particular high speed nerve cell in the brain that seems to facilitate the recognition of social signals in a few highly social intelligent species like higher primates, elephants, whales, dolphins, and orcas.

Why should an atheist be moral

Unlike theists an atheist cannot appeal to a God to override these prevailing moral standards, and therefore must be, if anything, more careful to know and understand them and comply with them carefully. There is no leeway for even minor breaches as hesh cannot pray for forgiveness nor expect any from a theist who distrusts herm in any event.
Prejudice v Evidence - Beliefnet Forums

Prejudice in modern society.

Prejudice is a normal and powerful coping mechanism for humans dealing with people who are not in their village or parish.Prejudice v Evidence - Beliefnet Forums: "Beliefnet Forums > FAITHS & PRACTICES > Discussion, Dialogue and Debate > Discuss Atheism > Prejudice v Evidence"

Morality is a village.

The atheist belief system constitute a new religion - Beliefnet Forums I am a member of a society with well defined moral and ethical standards that are accepted, internalized, and enforced by all members of that society. These moral and ethical standards have been developed to facilitate safe productive living in a global, pluralistic, interdependent society. Although they are a distributed resource, in that there is no single entity or guy in a fancy dress telling us what to do, they are nevertheless strongly maintained by law, custom, and personal interaction. Even a minor transgression will be confronted, by anything from a raised eyebrow, to a lawsuit. The reasonable Gods in this society have adopted these ethical and moral structures and overlaid a gloss of their particular theological tenets.

But when God transgresses these standards, by for example by preaching hatred of minority groups that are respected members of the society, we will and indeed must call the God wrong. And we will be right to do so. A dysfunctional God gets no free pass in a reasonable society simply because someone has faith in Herm. Even a supernatural omnipotent alpha humanoid has to wipe Herm feet when coming in out of the mud, say "thank you for your hospitality" to Herm host, even if that host is a hated minority, and generally comply with the host's moral standards.

Your Christian God the Son would probably fit in quite nicely His Father would be better off staying out there in the supernatural ether which I call Hell.

I am not sure that how we treat each other does not encompass all human interactions. I agree with KW that morality is universal. Nodding to a stranger on the street is a moral interaction. As is giving a person a wide berth on the sidewalk. It is actions like these that define "my society."
[QUOTE] As I have it, moral absolutism and moral relativism are both mistaken arguments [/QUOTE] The problem comes in the definition of "my society" in a diverse, pluralistic community. I spent many years in old Greenwich Village in NYC. Certain people could leave their car parked and running on the curb while they went into the barber shop for a trim or a shave. If a cop came by someone would jump into the car as if to move it to avoid the ticket. Any one who was not a member of that society would have to find a legal parking space, carefully lock and alarm their car to run into the deli next to the barber shop for a bagel. In both societies the morality of parking a car was absolute, although quite relative depending on which society one accepted as their own.

I have to go with KW here. I think the common moral tendencies have nothing at all to do with don't do this or that to another unknown human (which is my argument with the moral sense tests.) The common moral tendencies are of the form do whatever is mandated by the (fairly local) society the individual is a part of.

I think it is no accident that the village or parish is the basic unit of human society. Our monkeysphere is about 150-200 people whose behavior we can affect with the subtle social cues (the raised eyebrow, frown, or quick smile ) to say that behavior is or is not in accordance with the morals of the society. That is, what our common moral tendencies tell us is right. The morality of the village is pretty well solidified by Fulghum's Kindergarten but is malleable with difficulty at any age, but it usually takes God to make a major change in the adults. But to do so the belief in God must be part of the toddler's conditioning. Or, per the Jesuit maxim: "Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man.

Where these groups are local, isolated and stable almost anything can be moral, witch burning, infanticide, child sacrifice, killing everybody in the next village. Whoops, almost forgot, except the virgins.