Why do we identify with and care for children if there is not evolutionariliy adapted brain module or predisposition for it? Nietzsche calls into question the "opposition" between egoism and altruism, the view that a selfish agent cannot act altruistically. For instance, caring for something smaller and weaker doesn't threaten us, thereby allowing us to validate our own competence an worth. Isnt this what the unconditional and utterly dependent love of a child for the parent accomplish? — Joshs

Social life co-operation, caring for the young are possible for Nietzsche, not because of either an inherited gene for altruism or a divine inspiration, but out of pragmatic necessity. — Joshs

The goalposts keep moving look. Before it was pragmatic necessity, now it's selfish agents can act altruistically. Neitzsche's arguments are very difficult to read - it's quite possible he said both, in which case I would urge you to take the matter up with him, only "Nietzsche is dead" (God.)

The small tribes were either absorbed by the larger tribes, or annihilated by the larger tribes.

Please look at the history of North America, a well documented historical event not lost in the mists of time. The larger more powerful tribe of Europeans annihilated the less numerous and less powerful native peoples, and then absorbed the few natives that remained once the invasion was complete. The native Americans did much the same thing among themselves before the Europeans arrived. The big fish ate the little fish.

(see above)
— Jake

The question I'm hoping might be addressed is...

Can any human invented philosophy which conflicts too much with the laws of nature survive?

Before Karl argues too much, please note you've made essentially this same point all over the forum. — Jake

Given that I've argued above that the fundamental law of nature is truth, and that we need to accept a scientific understanding of reality in common as a basis to address global scale threats like climate change, no!

However, at the same time - we are who we are, and have to 'get there' from here. This is where the principle of 'existential necessity' is such a vitally important limit upon, and justification of, science as truth. We need to accept that science is true, but limit the implications to matters of existential necessity.

How the coming together happened is that the smaller tribes were vulnerable, so they joined bigger tribes to be safer. — Jake

Decent conjecture, but if so, why didn't civilization happen earlier, given that evidence of a truly human intellect - as evidenced in cave art, burial of the dead, improved tools, jewelry - can be found in a 'creative explosion' dated to about 50,000 years ago? (according to Phieffer) But civilization only occurs from 15-20,000 years ago at most. That gap requires explanation - and bunching together for safety doesn't suffice.

I think your intuition about tribes needing new religious myths and deities might be right, but it is generally believed that this came as a result of these tribal people having to live and organize themselves within the walls of the first cities. Civilization is the process of developing the kind of culture needed to make cities work, and that implied an evolution of our divine pantheon in the direction of ever more abstract and less tribal deities. This said, the Göbekli Tepe ruins, that predate any other religious building by several millennia and were built way before the first small cities were erected, might change this theory and give your hypothesis a good chance. Who knows! — DiegoT

I'd push that back a lot further - to explain how hunter gatherer tribes joined together. It's not merely an intuition, but an informed guess at an event lost in the mists. It occurs to me that the idea of God must have had a first occurrence. So, really - we are asking when that idea first occurred, and what the consequences were. I'd like to place it right at the dawn of a truly human intellect, but that seems a bit ambitious - even for God. At some point though - it seems likely to me, that some primitive human being - making a stone hand axe, wondered who made him, and who made the world? How long that occurred before hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form societies and civilizations - is open to conjecture, but I cannot imagine cities occurred first, and religion came after.

My informed guess is based on study of chimpanzee social hierarchy and 'morality' - not an explicit moral code, but an ingrained sense, promoted by the reciprocal sharing of food, grooming, and defense of the troop. The troop is naturally ruled by an alpha male and his lieutenants, a dynamic that projected onto human tribal arrangements suggests it would be very difficult for two such tribes to join together. Any dispute over food or mating opportunities leads to the division of the multi-tribal, fledgling society. Only by outsourcing moral authority to God, could the two smaller hierarchical triangles exist within the larger hierarchical triangle of a multi-tribal society - where all were subject to laws attributed to the authority of God. This then might suggest that pyramids are representations of society - and go some way to explaining why both Egyptians and Aztecs (?) built them. Pyramids both represented society, and demonstrated the awesome power of social cooperation.

Because social cooperation was necessary to build in this manner, and given the nature of naturally occurring tribal hierarchy, it seems impossible to me that cities came first and religion afterward, and impossible that multi-tribal society could have occurred without knowledge of God. Then you can relate all this back to Nietzsche and the transvaluation of values, God is dead, the ubermensch, and the Nazis sawing off the tree branch on which they unwittingly perched.

No, I did not say demonic but daemonic, as in the Greek meaning as used by Greek philosophers. I did not use immoral either, but amoral. These deities were symbolic apprehensions of the laws of Nature, as they are manifested in socio-natural phenomena. The idea of moral and immoral as "natural laws" is known from the late Iron Age onwards, the last centuries of the Age of Aries. — DiegoT

I must bow to your superior knowledge of Ancient myths. I assume only they served useful social purposes in the evolutionary development of humankind. It is perhaps for someone learned like yourself, to seek to understand what these purposes were.

My core philosophy addresses one main useful purpose - that of uniting hunter gatherer tribes. I sought to explain the 35,000 year gap between evidence of a truly human intellect, and the earliest civilizations. It was clearly very difficult for hunter gatherer tribes to join together, and adopting common religious symbolism - I argue, is how it eventually happened, and is consistent with the occurrence of religion as a foundation of civilizations, developed in isolation of eachother all the world over. It also explains the 'transvaluation of values' in other terms, and Galileo's arrest and imprisonment for heresy, and our mistaken relation to scientific truth, that prevents us from applying technologies we have available.

Contrasting and comparing with Nietzsche - with whom I have some familiarity, has caused me to go beyond my core arguments, and now you tempt me further beyond my knowledge base. I cannot follow.

Clearly, the fundamental law of nature is truth
— karl stone
Thjs resounds with me, because it is in accordance with Greek philosophy and Egyptian philosophy (Maat) — DiegoT

I'm delighted to hear that. My philosophy is also consistent with a sustainable future. I discussed it at some length with Jake in my thread 'How to Save the World' on this forum.

Gotta be honest here Karl, I'm growing weary of reading this in every post you share. Everything in all of time and space can not be shoehorned in to this pet theory of yours. — Jake

Then don't read it, or suffer weariness. My philosophy. Your choice. But my philosophy knocks Nietzsche's into a cocked hat.

I´m not sure that hunter gatherers appointed any supernatural being as authority for morality. It is difficult to guess and impossible to settle what people in prehistory really thought and believed. However, from the Ancient literary sources that were based on long oral traditions, we can deduce that their gods were not moral. They were daemonic creatures: that is, the "spirit" or functional structure that Ancient people recognized in natural and social phenomena, with both positive and negative traits (from human point of view). For example, the daemonic traits of electricity are that it is awesome and more powerful than many other things, but very dangerous and deadly, just like Thor or Jupiter were. When Zeus, the daemonic symbol of lightning manifested himself at the request of misguided Semele, she was carbonized. From her body was rescued Dionisos, who carried the yang energy of his father Zeus but manifested it in more mortal-friendly ways (up to a point).

Zeus or Ra were sacred, but not moral. If you go to West African gods or Mesoamerican gods, you will notice that this amoral condition was even more obvious. There is no point in appeasing and sacrificing to moral and good gods; you make sacrifices to daemonic entities that are hungry and need to be tamed or kept satisfied.

We don´t have evidence of deities with moral atributions prior to the Axial age. — DiegoT

Spoken like a true Judeo Christian farmer, but Gods of hunting and war were not demonic. Their "morality" fed and defended primitive societies. What's immoral about that? Let's not do theology here. I'm not trying to analyse the myth by adopting its dogma. Rather, given the fact of evolutionary development, it follows that such ideas occurred in the course of the evolutionary and intellectual development - from animal ignorance into human knowledge over time, and served useful social purposes. Or perhaps frivolous ones. After all - what's life without a little whimsy?

The question I'm trying to get to is, how far beyond the laws of nature can human beings go? — Jake

It depends on what you think the fundamental law of nature is. If you think it's "big fish eat little fish" - then you run into your problem, but it isn't. It doesn't explain very much at all. The fundamental law of nature is truth.

Consider the structure of DNA - a twisted ladder that splits down the middle, to attract matching chemical elements from the environment to replicate.

Now consider the fact that a bird build's a nest before it lays eggs, not because it knows and plans ahead - but because the behaviour is ingrained into the organism by the necessity of being correct to reality, (in this case a temporal dynamic), or be rendered extinct.

Now consider humankind, who reject a scientific understanding of reality in favour of religious, political and economic ideological conventions - in relation to the theoretical possibility, that we could accept science is true, apply technology on the basis of scientific merit, and overcome global scale threats - caused by acting on the basis of ideological conventions, and that currently appear intractable for ideological reasons.

Clearly, the fundamental law of nature is truth - physiological, behavioural and intellectual. The observation that "big fish eat little fish" is necessarily subsequent in the order condescendi, and unnecessary to a valid relation to reality.

It's simply indisputable that in nature the big fish eat the little fish. In human affairs as well we can see that the big people typically dominate the little people. Judeo-Christian ethics attempts to establish another rule book in which the weak are protected by the strong. How far can this new paradigm be taken before it collides with long standing natural law which is beyond our ability to edit? The Nazis are just an example of one group of people who concluded that Judeo-Christian ethics are an idealistic fantasy in conflict with the laws of nature. The Nazis just did what all the other great powers were doing, without the Christian and Marxist rationalizations layered on top. We are the predator, and you the prey. No bullshit involved. — Jake

You miss the essence of Nietzsche, which was his discovery that truth, rather than being sovereign, is handmaiden of the will , and will is non-self aware, a product of perspective, which itself is arbitrary. Social life co-operation, caring for the young are possible for Nietzsche, not because of either an inherited gene for altruism or a divine inspiration, but out of pragmatic necessity. He was the first radical relativist. He understood Darwinism better than Darwin did. — Joshs

Please explain. What is the pragmatic necessity for an individual described as ubermensch in Nietzsche's philosophy, to spend the vast personal and economic resources to raise the young? Particularly in a state of nature it would seem entirely counter productive. One easily imagines the crying infant attracting predators, and hampering defense - as well as requiring food and many years of patient tutelage. What's the overriding pragmatic necessity?

I'm sorry, I don't have time for a full response at the moment, so just this for now...

I just think they didn't really understand Darwinism. We still use the idea of "survival of the fittest" today, but what Nietzsche and the Nazis thought that meant was brutal, selfish and violent behavior was natural - and therefore moral. That's wrong - and just couldn't have been the case - because hunter gatherers raised children, and because the economics doesn't work.
— karl stone

Well, brutal, selfish and violent behavior is normal. That's how nature works. And that's how most of the human world is ruled to this day, Russia and China come to mind. The economics do work. We stole North America from native peoples with ruthless force, and now we are prospering from the stolen bounty, while native peoples typically live in poverty. If the economics of conquest don't work, why did the British Empire dominate the world for hundreds of years? Why did the Romans dominate for so long in their time? — Jake

Is it? I go outside, and I don't see that. I see millions of people getting through almost everyday without killing anyone, or even having a fight. If the episodes you describe were grounded in human nature - it's not universally evident. If however, those behaviors are grounded in beliefs, that justify us, while dehumanizing the other, it might explain why the Conquistadors, for example - were entirely civilized on one side of the Atlantic, yet somewhat less so on the other.

If hunter gatherers had not discovered God, and appointed him as an objective authority for social morality - such that, tribes could overcome their natural tribal hierarchies without slaughtering eachother
— karl stone

Really? Have you read any anthropology, zoology, ecology... basically anything on the subject ever? The natural world is absolutely abundant with cooperative behaviour and intra specific murder remains relatively rare. Are you suggesting that wolves have found God too? — Isaac

Yes, I have read extensively. No, I don't think wolves have found God. Thank you for your post.

The Nazis wouldn't have been possible if hunter gatherers had not invented religion to overcome the aplha male problem, and join together to form societies and civilizations, Nietzsche and the Nazis did not understand this. Were it not for the "transvaluation of values" inherent to Judeo-Christian morality - we'd still be running around naked in the forest with sharp sticks.
— karl stone

I don't think I agree with this. We were long past running arround naked with sharp sticks when Judeo-christian morality came around. — ChatteringMonkey

Great point CM. It suggests you really understood the argument. Judeo Christian morality occurred quite a long time after hunter gatherers first discovered God as an objective authority, to allow them to overcome the alpha male problem and join together. The first religions were not Judeo Christian morality, but created a template for how civilization works. This template was applied and reapplied, reworked and re-developed over and over again. It's important to note that this says nothing about the existence of God, but it does tell us a great deal about religion's role as the foundation of societies and civilizations.

If hunter gatherers had not discovered God, and appointed him as an objective authority for social morality - such that, tribes could overcome their natural tribal hierarchies without slaughtering eachother, the civilization that gave rise to the Nazis could not have occurred, and we'd still be running around in the forest with sharp sticks. This seems absurd, but human evolutionary history is millions of years, and civilization is but a few thousand years. It could easily have been the case. Thus, the Nazis essentially sawed off the tree branch upon which they were perched.

It's awfully rude - and I mean no disrespect, but can I please direct your attention to my response to Jake above. I would have to reproduce everything I've just written to him, to answer the points you raise, and while it's an imposition upon you, I know - if you revise your questions and beat Jake to the punch, I'll do the same to him next time! Or not - but it does make sense on this occasion. I was fairly definitive in my response to Jake, and I have nothing more to say than I said there.

Good points Karl!

Ok, so those humans who came together in larger groups out competed the smaller groups, and we saw tribes become villages become cities become nations. Religions and morality do seem to be part of this unifying process, though probably not the only factor.

So we see that the Soviet Union, a larger nation, defeated Germany, a smaller nation. But, how did the Soviet Union become a larger nation? Through the application of the law of the jungle. Same thing with America. Same thing with the British Empire. All these larger powers were built through a sustained campaign of ruthless conquest. Today, the world's largest nation China is held together by the application of centralized systematic fear. The United States was held together in the 19th century by a horrific war imposed upon those who wished to leave the union. — Jake

Those are indisputable historical facts, but like I said earlier, we are developing from animal ignorance into human knowledge over time. Social morality as religion was invented, causing the 'transvaluation of values' Nietzsche identified - but misunderstood, and biological evolution trails behind intellectual and social evolution, and furthermore, that ingrained moral sense can be perverted by ideas, to justify both the good, i.e. society, and unimaginable evil with considerable equanimity.

Then, you have to consider the jurisdiction issue, and the fact that our religious morality is not their religious morality. Both are inward looking, self congratulatory, soft constraints, that justify us relative to them. We demonize them, because they are not us - and we're right, such that therefore, they must be wrong and undeserving of moral consideration. It's not wrong to kill them - even while it would be murder to kill one of us.

Maybe it wasn't morality which held the primitive societies together, but rather fear of neighboring societies? Maybe the alpha male problem was solved by killing off competing alpha males, just as has been the pattern in nature for a billion years? — Jake

But human beings are moral creatures. They must have been to raise children. The same in group / out group moral dynamics that applied to nations going to war with eachother, is the same hunter gatherer tribal morality played out on a much larger scale - in relation to ideas like religion, nation, and economic ideology. Inward looking moral systems that make us good, and them bad.

With regard to your other question, it doesn't scan. I don't doubt there was inter-tribal conflict - but the idea that society and civilization was achieved through murdering the men and taking the women of other tribes fails economically. Consider the burden it would create, to guard against enemies from within and without. We watch the borders and trust those at our backs - and that's how it had to occur, and did occur. If it hadn't, then why the 'transvaluation of values' Nietzsche identified - but misunderstood?

Hunter gatherer tribes joined together by adopting in common, God as an objective authority for social morality. That's the transvaluation, and the only way it works economically; that is, with regard to the resources they had, including human resources - to perform the roles necessary to a functioning and developing society. And because we know that all primitive civilizations developed art, architecture, jewelry, pottery, agriculture, clothing - all the same things, all the world over, but in culturally distinct ways, it's safe to assume God as objective authority for social morality is also a universal.

It seems to me the Nazis were pretty realistic about how the human realm and the natural world it arises from actually works. Perhaps they were unrealistic in not grasping the important role the illusion of morality plays? — Jake

I just think they didn't really understand Darwinism. We still use the idea of "survival of the fittest" today, but what Nietzsche and the Nazis thought that meant was brutal, selfish and violent behavior was natural - and therefore moral. That's wrong - and just couldn't have been the case - because hunter gatherers raised children, and because the economics doesn't work. Human beings are moral creatures - like chimpanzees groom eachother and share food within the tribe, and remember who reciprocates and who doesn't. There's a naturally occurring inward looking morality - that was built upon by agreeing a common idea of God, essentially, the alpha male, or Ubermensch in the sky - to whom both tribes agreed to bow, eventually forging a common identity, that as they grew, then came into conflict with other such religious, political and economic identities - and off we go again.

Back to Nietzsche, and the Nazis - essentially they killed the Ubermensch in the sky, and took divine authority unto themselves. But they didn't understand the implication from the Darwinian tree of life, that all organisms are related, that all human beings are members of the same species - and virtually identical in evolutionary terms. It's said that if the whole of evolutionary history were mapped onto your wingspan, human history would be a but shaving from a fingernail. The idea of racial differences is thus in truth, an idea that can only occur within a single frame, at 16 frames a second, from a movie that lasts all week. So to imagine that survival of the fittest implied total warfare and racial eugenics is factually wrong; an erroneous belief that perverted the naturally occurring moral sense to justify unimaginable evil.

Here - you may recall from the other thread, I would cite the significance of recognizing a scientific understanding of reality in common. But that's another argument, and I'm not going to hijack this thread merely to explain again - "how to save the world."

The Nazis wouldn't have been possible if hunter gatherers had not invented religion to overcome the aplha male problem, and join together to form societies and civilizations, Nietzsche and the Nazis did not understand this. Were it not for the "transvaluation of values" inherent to Judeo-Christian morality - we'd still be running around naked in the forest with sharp sticks.

One might therefore speculate that, Nietzsche declaring "God is dead" undermined moral values justified by divine authority, and thereby allowed for the 'uncivilized' behaviors of the Nazis.
— karl stone

Nietzsche didn't declare 'God is dead' himself, it was a description of what had allready happened at that time... but people generally didn't fully realise the ramifications of it yet. If the cornerstone 'God' falls, so must the morality that is build on it eventually, it's a package deal of sorts. Scientific inquiry killed God, or in other words the search for truth killed God.... or ultimately, Christianity killed God itself because truth was one of it's core values. — ChatteringMonkey

Reasonable remarks overall there CM, but of course - declaring God is dead only had the effect it did, insofar as Nietzsche's philosophy influenced Nazism. No-one is suggesting Nietzsche was the sole factor responsible for the Nazis, nor that the conflict between science and religion began and ended with Nietzsche. Arguably, it began with Galileo's imprisonment and trail for heresy in 1634 - which somewhat contradicts your assertion that truth is a core Christian value. If you think Christianity is truth then sure, it's a core value. But it moves!

I would say right back at you - because your post is very well written, but I have some problems with your argument.

It seems to ignore the fact that we are evolving, from ignorance into knowledge over time - from a state of nature to become civilized beings, from agrarian to industrial, from local to global and so on. You therefore omit that different systems of government and economics developed in isolation of eachother, grew and came into conflict - to thereby imply that we choose to practice a big fish eat little fish ethos, where we might not.

Power dynamics naturally exist, but the larger part of religious, moral, legal and political philosophy is dedicated to defining the legitimate limits of power, and that's only possible insofar as ideas have jurisdiction - which is far from global. Economics also naturally exists - it can be applied to the way in which troops of chimpanzees groom eachother and share food, and they remember who is selfish, and then refuse to reciprocate. Practicing economics within and between the limited jurisdictions described has the consequence that little fish are eaten by the big fish, but it is not something we choose in every moment, as Hitler chose it - based on Nietzsche's philosophy. It is a developmental problem.

Overwhelmingly, in the west - economic outcomes are defined by the random distribution of talents by nature, and industriousness. Certainly, there are questions of equality of opportunity that follow from the socio-economic class status one happens to be born into - but we do not, for example, have the racial hierarchy policies that Hitler adopted, and that persist in some parts of the world. We have developed beyond that, even if many would argue there's still a long way to go.

All that said, it is in my opinion a mistake, and counter productive to project backward in time - the moral values we have developed in the present, to earlier stages of development - or, in denial of those claims of injustice, choose the big fish eat little fish ethos that Hitler chose.

Science is the Lying Game. A good lie must mix facts with the lie; and it must really hard to expose. In Sweden they give annually the prizes to the best lies of the year. Isaac Newton invented a lie that was only exposed four centuries later, that is why we consider him one of the greatest scientists in History. When you expose a great lie, you get to try to say another whopper; and Einstein took advantage of this rule to tell his own lies. They were so damn good they gave him the Swedish trophy as the best fabrication in Chemistry. Many physicists today dream of exposing Einstein´s relativistic lie; but it´s hard because Einstein was so good a concocting falsehood. Karl Popper helped to improve the Lying Game by introducing new rules. — DiegoT

Are you serious, or making a joke? Either way, it's funny.

Does the spherical Earth cast doubt upon Popper’s claims about scientific theories never been confirmed? — Craig

The degree of confidence that a spherical earth exists is very high, but we could all be brains in jars. We could all be plugged into the matrix in an entirely different kind of reality, and when we wake up - find that the spherical earth we thought we experienced was an illusion. If that happened that would be new information that falsified the spherical earth hypothesis.

Here's where it gets interesting. Occam's razor, basically states that the simplest adequate explanation is the best - and so the possibility that, just maybe - we are brains in jars, has to be considered in terms of how likely it is - and in those terms can be dismissed. So, while there remains a doubt - as expressed in Descartes Meditations, that some evil demon may be deceiving us in everything we seem to experience, that doubt is subject to a probability test - and all this feeds into scientific method, and empiricism.

Empirical proof does not follow from the facts per se - but from independent confirmation of the experimental methodology, and findings. It's considered proof, but held to be contingent on the possibility of the improbable variable turning up. A variable that might be foreseeable - but considered too unlikely to factor into the hypothesis, or an entirely unforeseeable variable, in light of which the proof is falsified. So the answer is both yes and no. Can we have proof? Yes. Can we have absolute proof? No!

Tell us more about how you gained/regained use of your eyes. Were you completely blind and can now see? How did you get your sight back, and how does it make you feel? Is the world what you thought it was, and does this explain your interest in philosophy?

It's not directly information on Nietzsche's effect on Hitler, but I can tell you why Nietzsche was wrong about one of the core ideas that manifested in the Nazi regime; that of the Superman, or Ubermenschen, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–5), with reference to the facts of human evolutionary history.

"Elaborating the concept in The Antichrist, Nietzsche asserts that Christianity, not merely as a religion but also as the predominant moral system of the Western world, inverts nature, and is "hostile to life". As "the religion of pity", it elevates the weak over the strong, exalting that which is "ill-constituted and weak" at the expense of that which is full of life and vitality." (wikipedia: transvaluation of values.)

What Nietzsche didn't know is that, for the vast majority of our evolutionary history, human beings were hunter gatherers - living in tribal groups, headed by an alpha male and his one or two lieutenants. The earliest human societies only date back around 15,000 years or so; while evidence of a truly human intellect as evidenced in art and artifacts, improved tools and burial of the dead dates back around 50,000 years. Thus, for around 30,000 years - intelligent human beings lived as hunter gatherers - a fact that requires some explanation. Why did society not occur earlier?

In my view, the difficulty was the aforementioned naturally occurring hierarchy, and this is where Nietzsche's ideas enter the picture, but not in the way he thought. His claim was that naturalistic morality was overthrown as a consequence of the weak fooling the strong with religious morality. That's a misunderstanding. Religious morality is actually social morality necessary for hunter gatherer tribes to join together.

Imagine, two tribes both headed by alpha males, trying to join together to form a society. Any dispute over food or mating opportunities would likely lead to violence, and split the society into its tribal components. What was needed was an objective authority for moral law, and God served as that objective authority for an explicit set of moral laws (see Moses, and his tablets) that would apply equally to all.

Thus, Nietzsche identified a real phenomenon - but misunderstood it, and passed that misunderstanding onto the Nazis. The 'transvaluation of values' occurred not because the strong were fooled by the weak - but rather, because both tribes agreed to an explicit set of moral laws justified by the authority of God, to overcome tribalism and form multi-tribal society.

One might therefore speculate that, Nietzsche declaring "God is dead" undermined moral values justified by divine authority, and thereby allowed for the 'uncivilized' behaviors of the Nazis. World war II and the holocaust are thus understood as man taking divine authority unto himself - an idea you'll find explored in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, where the protagonist, Raskalinkov - imagines himself above the herd morality, and in his own mind justifies the killing of an old woman pawnbroker and her sister with an axe.

Raskalinkov gets away with it, but eventually breaks down under the weight of his own troubled conscience - and this is psychologically accurate, and true to the facts of evolutionary history, for in fact - morality is a sense, ingrained into the human organism by evolution in a tribal context. The idea of evolution as survival of the fittest - where fittest means brutally violent is also mistaken. Rather, both the moral individual within the tribe, and the tribe made up of moral individuals, would tend to prosper relative to a tribe of selfish individuals, because the moral individual would share food and fight for the tribe, unlike the selfish individual. Thus a tendency to morality would be promoted through sex and survival.

Nietzsche, and the Nazis assumed that evolution implied natural morality was merely brutal and selfish, but when you consider that they brought children into the world, protected mother and child through a prolonged gestation period, and raised children through to adolescence, that's obviously false. Human beings are moral creatures, but that ingrained moral sense can be perverted by ideas, to justify both the good, i.e. society, and unimaginable evil with considerable equanimity.

Ok, but where in the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" has any working scientist argued for limiting science research? With a few exceptions isn't the science culture dogma mantra full speed ahead on almost all fronts? — Jake

The distinction I'm trying to make is between science for power and profit, and - to put it very crudely, science for science sake. Scientists currently operate very much in the former context precisely because we fail to recognize the significance of a scientifically valid understanding of reality. Recognizing the authority of scientific truth in very certain respects, can alter the economic rationale such as to align profit and with a common interest in sustainability.

Where in your writing have you argued for limits on scientific research, any limits at all?

Or is the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" a utopian vision which you wish to present? If yes, then how do you propose to sell this vision to the scientific community, those who fund them, and the culture at large? — Jake

Currently, science is pursued almost solely for profit. The profit motive provides the rationale to do science, and to apply technology. I'm arguing for a different rationale, in certain key areas, one that follows from a straight up, scientifically bald description of the world. I do not imagine a utopia. I'm merely describing a useful tool.

There are legitimate limitations, I have argued should apply to the authority of a scientific understanding of reality, and both the legitimate authority of science, and a legitimate limitation upon that authority follow from the idea of existential necessity.

In scientific terms there's a really quite obvious series of technologies we need to apply on a global scale, in the immediate future. I would argue we must begin with renewable energy, clean fuel and clean water - all existentially necessary and well within our grasp.

The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future
— karl stone

No, with about 8000,000,000 of us on the planet today, and we have done nothing to slow the rate at which that becomes 9000,000,000, and 10,000,000,000 of us soon after that, there can/will be no future for our species, sustainable or otherwise. We have consumed too much. The root of the problem revolves around capitalism and greed, I think. — Pattern-chaser

Actually, in terms of population and natural resources, we are rather quite well placed right now to secure a favourable outcome. We have the knowledge, technology, the design capability and the industrial capacity to set ourselves, and future generations on a solid foundation. The obstacle is us; and the irony is - that the distance it seems from plausible is a precise measure of how far off the path we've gone. For it follows naturally that an organism crafted from the DNA up, to be correct to reality or die out, would welcome the ability to establish truthful knowledge, would revere and pursue such knowledge, and act accordingly. Does it not?

If we were to give a 10 year old access to ever more power without limit catastrophe would inevitably be the result sooner or later.

Same for a 15 year old.

..

Same for a 50 year old.

Are you starting to get where this is going, or should I spell it out a little bit more? — Jake

I understand what you're saying. But my actual argument is that the human species faces an existential challenge, and recognizing that science describes an understanding of reality provides a rationale for the application of technology necessary to secure sustainability. And, it seems to me, applying technology in relation to a scientifically valid understanding of reality would address your concern about 'power without limit.'

You sounded like you were lamenting how much more we could be doing if we embraced science, is that what you intended? It seems like the world at large HAS done that... — DingoJones

The distinction I make is between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. Our problem is, we have used scientific tools without reading the instructions.

I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment.
— karl stone

And you would in fact argue that in almost every post in every thread. — Jake

The degree to which I've elbowed the subject in to other topics is over-estimated by those who do not appreciate the full scope of the argument. At its core is the relationship between life and causal reality, as a definition of truth, it proceeds through evolution and anthropology to history and unto politics - to explain the current state and nature of our civilizations relative to intellectual evolution. It's not even, nor merely that we now know better - that's debatable in many ways, but the emergence of a qualitatively distinct and superior form of knowledge in scientific understanding that is significant. Imagine we chose to recognize it as such. The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future; and begins with harnessing vast amounts of renewable energy. 450 solar farms, one kilometer square, floating on the surface of the oceans would double the amount of energy available every year. Used to produce fresh water and hydrogen fuel - it would allow for habitation and agricultural production in previously inhospitable areas - thereby protecting natural resources from over-exploitation. In theory, all this is possible - and quite possibly, infinitely more. It would be remiss not to point it out.

To answer your opening question, no, I am not.
As for your other comments, they are not related to anything I said. — Mariner

Maybe I misread your post. Let's have another look.

Mariner
316 "Science" (which is pretty much amorphous these days) is not an epistemic standard. Science is a method (i.e., a way). Epistemic standards are presuppositions of science, but for that reason they are not to be confused with the theory and practice of scientists (which depend on those standards). — Mariner

If the fundamental questions epistemology seeks to answer are 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it'? science, particularly relative to religious, political and economic ideology - constitutes a conception of reality with higher epistemic standards.

Science as a practice is a human activity. Were Pasteur not such a slob he left a cheese sandwich around to go moldy; if Newton had not been goofing off in the orchard... Methodically, science is a way of thinking - demonstrated to establish reliable knowledge, leading to general understanding. The sum of scientific knowledge is a conception of reality, to compare to the conception of reality proposed by ideology.

I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment. Acting from an ideological identity is inescapable - but acting upon those ideas, like some theological over extension of metaphor - has equal and opposite effects. By the same principle, acting upon (not from) a scientific conception of reality will manifest a functionality in the real world - that follows from a truthful relation between the knowledge bases of action and reality. It is a lever - a key, a means of organisation with the potential for massive benefits - and in face of dire need.

Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.
— karl stone

No, of course they're not barred, but they'd be penalised through no fault of their own by having their win rendered invalid and by being exposed to the risk of losing again. Moreover, don't you think that there ought to be suitable restrictions regarding the length of time between a referendum and a rerun? Otherwise there'd be nothing from stopping a government, if they so decide, from having one every couple of years until they get the result that they want. — S

So you're telling me that the amorphous sense of 'winning' an individual might have as a result of his or her opinion being confirmed by a slight majority of others who cared to express an opinion two years ago, is more important than the actual consequences of the policy now we know what it is?

You do realise that over 30 million people voted, right? And I actually think that it being a relatively close call would, in a sense, make it even worse to rerun it, because that would mean that it was hard to win the first time. And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won. — S

Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.

"Science" (which is pretty much amorphous these days) is not an epistemic standard. Science is a method (i.e., a way). Epistemic standards are presuppositions of science, but for that reason they are not to be confused with the theory and practice of scientists (which depend on those standards). — Mariner

So you're with the 'there is no truth' squad - that band of people who undermine any scientific claim to authority with subjectivist and metaphysical relativism? The fact you're ignoring is that science works; it establishes generalized principles that can be applied over and over, and produce reliably valid results because the principle is true of some facet of reality. From the accumulation of true principles, over the past 50 years particularly, a highly coherent picture of reality has emerged - and it's that scientific picture of reality we need to take into account where necessary and appropriate to do so.

Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it!
— karl stone

Belief in God is also entirely useless in tuning the carburetor on a 57 Chevy convertible. So buh! Bah hum bug! Phooey! What foolishness! Etc ad nauseam infinitum!! — Jake

It's the epistemic standard, or lack thereof, that follows from belief in God - and pervades societal institutions, that's the problem when it comes to economic and industrial strategy - not God as such! In my view, putting the science out front is simple common sense, but philosophy requires more of us than common sense. For the argument to have any authority it has to be proven true, insofar as it can - or at least justified by sufficient reason - particularly if that argument is that we should value scientific method and understanding. Hence the need to examine critically.

Having looked at the matter, I rather suspect it's those who believe in God who object to recognition of science, because it places an undue burden on religion to justify its claims, rather than the objection of scientists to the fact that people believe all sorts of things. I certainly have no objection to what people choose to believe, but the political ill-effects of the unfounded fear that religion would have no raison d'etre without an uncontested claim to truth, need to be rectified. It seems we are sophisticated enough to encompass the contradiction.

An obvious flaw with the deterministic model of the brain is that the stimuli it is exposed to are non deterministic. Like me reading your post - the OP. The concepts it contains stimulated responses in the brain that may be reducible to material effects, but the 'cause' is not deterministic, even if what you wrote is a consequence of activity in your brain - words are not definitive of meaning. They are signifiers that have a more or less different meaning for different people, based on experience. That so, the act of communication is inherently non-deterministic.

You may say what you mean. I hear, or read what you say, but what I understand it to mean, is particular to me. So you can never be in complete control of what you say to me. What I understand as a consequence of what you said, is only the same as what you meant, insofar as we share a common lexicon and concept of reality. Otherwise, it's inherently non deterministic.

I don't understand how anyone can claim a second referendum would undermine democracy when the first referendum nullified 40 years worth of democratic decisions at a stroke, and was as crooked as a dog's hind leg!

So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality.
— karl stone

I should've been clearer, sorry. I believe that God exists, in some sense, but I stop short of the more-concrete claim that God exists in the 'real' world. There is no evidence, after all. So I am happy to say what I believe, but not to make claims that might appear scientific or 'objective'. That's going too far, for me at least. — Pattern-chaser

Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it!

Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable?
— karl stone

For me: no. I believe that God exists, because I choose to. I find the concept beneficial in many different ways, which is why I make this choice. But I accept, openly and consciously, that this is wholly a faith position. — Pattern-chaser

So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing. — Jake

That's a contradictory claim. Nothing has no dimensions!

And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point.
— karl stone

Aha! A miracle has occurred! We find a point of agreement! :smile: Let's build on it...

It's of course true that agnosticism is almost always seen as a mid point between theism and atheism. However, that is not the only possible way to look at it. The "regular agnostic" concludes that neither theists or atheists have convincing proof, and so they remain undecided as to which of these positions they will adopt for themselves.

The "regular agnostic" is still within the theist vs. atheist paradigm. As example, they still accept the assumption shared by theism and atheism, that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, the "regular agnostic" just isn't sure which of the answers offered by theists or atheists is the best.

It's possible for a "regular agnostic" to reason their way deeper in to agnosticism. They can, for example, discard the theist vs. atheist paradigm entirely, being neither theist, atheist, nor between the two, but instead outside of the entire God debate framework.

As example, what I call a "fundamentalist agnostic" can decline the assumption that the goal of such investigations should be to find an answer. What if what the God inquiry has discovered is that we are ignorant, and....

That's a good thing!

Here's a little story to begin to illustrate....

You met a girl at the bus stop and she invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand with her in to her bedroom. What will make this an experience you are likely to remember the rest of your life? Ignorance!

Now imagine that you marry the girl, and 37 years later are again walking in to the bedroom with her. What will make this an experience you won't remember until next Tuesday. Not enough ignorance!

Ignorance can be the enemy when we are dealing with matters of survival. Other than that, ignorance is often what keeps life fresh and makes it magical.

The fundamentalist agnostic rejects the simplistic assumption that ignorance is automatically a bad thing. In those cases where ignorance is inevitable and abundant (such as the God debate), the rational act is to embrace ignorance, and mine this abundant resource for every value which it can provide.

But, but, but.... You're very concerned with reality you say? Ok, great.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing. — Jake

It's important to science to admit what you are and are not able to know - and that's why I'm agnostic. I don't know if God exists, or does not exist. I'm okay with not knowing. I see no reason to form an opinion. The requirement of faith is a religious one; and the unfaith of atheism is its mirror opposite. The agnostic who admits what he can and cannot know for reasons of scientific epistemology is not within that paradigm, because reality is not defined by religion or irreligion. It's defined by science!

If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy.
— karl stone

I'm sorry, I dispute that. I think you mean "...you're not doing scientific or logical philosophy." Philosophy is about thinking, and there is more to thought than logic and evidence. But, as you say, this thread asks whether science is inherently atheistic, which it is not. Science cannot comment on any aspect of God, because there is no evidence at all to work with. — Pattern-chaser

I accept there are important branches of philosophy - I'm thinking of political philosophy, that speak to concepts like justice, that have no material existence. It's a psychological and inter-subjective phenomena. Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable?

OK, let's not get side-tracked. I accept what you say. :up: For myself, I use "believe" to describe something I think is true, but accept that others may not. I use "know" to express facts, whose truth can be demonstrated in some more or less formal way. The important point is to know whether what you say or think can be logically justified, or not. It doesn't matter if it can't, it only matters that you know this when you say whatever-it-is. IMO — Pattern-chaser

If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy. At least, not epistemology. You might be doing theology, in which case - you can claim to believe anything you like. Theology isn't fussy about standards of proof. Science is. And the question here is 'Is science atheistic?' Not necessarily. Science is methodologically anti-faith - and yet, cannot entirely dismiss the God hypothesis because it cannot explain the first cause, in the progression of cause and effect relationships that describe the universe. It would be the claim, "I believe God is the first cause" - that's disallowed by a scientific epistemology.

So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist.
— karl stone

Nitpicking, I know, as I agree with nearly all you say. :smile: But I think it's OK to say "I believe that God exists", as long as I don't go to the next step and assert that God exists. But this does depend on how we define "believe", and then proceeds to get even more confused as we delve deeper. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

It depends on how we define knowledge. If we define knowledge as true justified belief - as I have say, in the existence of Australia, then saying "I believe God exists" is a claim to knowledge. If I were to say, 'I believe Australia exists' I'm saying Australia exists - though I've never actually seen it. I'm not making a statement about my beliefs, but about what exists. In short, I don't think you can make that distinction - because belief has to claim something in the world is real.

[ Edited to add: Of course, if I did say "I believe that God exists", and I do, I should be clearly aware that I am working outside logic, based on faith, and probably little else. I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief. None at all. And I'm happy with that. But it does need saying explicitly, so I'm going to say it again: I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief because there is no such justification.] — Pattern-chaser

Why do you believe? Why not just hope God exists? If you admit there's no rational justification for your belief, are you not really hoping that God exists, and yet construing that hope as belief? In doing so, you make a claim to knowledge - and existence, whether you intend it or not. Unless you would put your belief in God in the same category as the caricature of a patient in an insane asylum who believe's he's Napoleon. His belief is about his beliefs.

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence.
— karl stone

Exactly. :up: Science (and the logic that underlies it) demands that we not reach a conclusion if the evidence is less than conclusive. We must suspend judgement (i.e. actively avoid drawing any conclusions) until such time as there is sufficient evidence available to justify a conclusion. — Pattern-chaser

That's correct. So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist. Theism and atheism are both unjustified conclusions. It's an argument that might work with some atheists; because they will recognize the limits rational argument places upon what they can and cannot claim to know.

But there's other atheists who insist atheism is not a belief; while effectively maintaining a belief that God does not exist. Similarly, theists refuse to recognize the epistemological principle. They would say - 'My faith is not based on evidence' and 'What kind of faith would it be if it required proof'? You cannot rationally argue someone out of an irrational position in which they are emotionally invested. And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point.