EVOLUTION OF MORALITY

[◊ Weezer ◊]

If you compare the evolution, or development, of morality, to individual human development, I am convinced we are overall about the level of pre-adolescents, to adolescents.  Many of us still believe in "magic" of some kind.  We still want a sugar daddy to take care of us, but give us the freedom to do what ever we want.  We basically still have a sense of entitlement. We look for flamboyant, bragging, self assured heros to lead us, instead of listening to the wisdom of the ages, considering all angles,  and thinking rationally for ourselves.  We join groups and are quick to make fun of those who do not look like us, and think like us.

 

How many hundreds, or thousands of years do you think it will take for society to "grow up."

[♦ Fuego ♦]

This is related to the other thread about will we ever evolve out of religion. Some of us see through it, and I think there have always been people that see through it. Otherwise there would have been no punishments for atheism in ancient societies. In America, it seemed like fundamentalism was declining until the 1980s when it had a huge resurgence in seeing demons everywhere, and requiring the intervention of spiritual warriors. What a marketing magnet! Suddenly there were all kinds of books, tape series, lectures, multimedia presentations, even demonstrations that made all of the hooey seem like critical real-life information and you - YES YOU!!! are a powerful force of the kingdom of God. So we got labels on records, political hearings on lyrics and video games, all by believers who were intent on exposing the Aquarian Conspiracy to lead humanity into a Satanic undermining of culture (which is still echoed in Q Anon). 

 

So some of us still see through the hooey, and choose to be kind and good to others and take responsibility for our actions instead of blaming invisible demons or other energy beings. Will this ever catch on and become dominant? It doesn't appear to be. Fundamentalism provides both a disease and a cure, along with lots of emotional tidal waves for believers to experience. People are far more attracted to emotional zings than to facts, and love thinking they are in with the in-crowd. At least until they get burned enough by the religion to want out. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I did not see the other thread before posting this one, or I would not have duplicated.  

 

You made some excellent points above!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

When a man reaches the age of having true wisdom to share, his son reaches the age of not wanting to listen.  My observation as a dad, anyway.  What I mean is that it takes a lot linger for societal changes to take place because of miscommunication between the generations.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I know what you mean.  In our society it seems kids have to veer off the path for a while and try other ways, but eventually most turn out very similar to the Old man.  We had a daughter that had us pulling our hair out, but in a few years she became an upstanding cirizen.  Dont give up.

 

Hopefully humans will wake up some day and say, Hey, this ain't workin!

[pantheory]

On 1/29/2021 at 1:16 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

When a man reaches the age of having true wisdom to share, his son reaches the age of not wanting to listen.  My observation as a dad, anyway.  What I mean is that it takes a lot linger for societal changes to take place because of miscommunication between the generations.

 

This reminds me of a joke. A man's son behaved like a smart-ass who never listened to his dad, mom, teachers, elders etc. At age seventeen the boy wanted to joint the Navy although he never finished high school. His dad figured that what the boy needed most was strong discipline and some world experience so he signed for him to join the Navy at age 17. When his son came home from the Navy six years later after traveling the world, he kept in touch with a Navy buddy who he corresponded with.  In communication with this friend his son said: I just can't believe how much my dad has learned over the six years that I've been gone.

[tiredofwork]

https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/10/religion-for-the-nonreligious.html

 

 

Warning - long read linked. The TL;DR is that sentience is a continuum, and we as individuals should strive to cultivate higher sentience, or at least a more evolved experience of our own, and that this will result in a better outcome for everyone. I like the idea, and I bought his Truthism shirt, but I don't know it will catch on, the way I don't expect "Brights" to catch on (no offense to Truthists or Brightists). 

 

As for the historicity and reliability of the religious impulse in humanity, I'd argue that the data is not clear, and that there hasn't been enough study of religiosity of society. There was one metadata study done that showed a correlation between advanced religious concepts and population density over time, but it is very generalized, and already has many opposing analysis showing otherwise.

 

There's a major problem of definition involved as well - how do we define true religiosity, how do we define spirituality, what role does ritual play in social identity, etc. I'm not qualified to really get into any of those, but I'd think that even though there are quite a few people who if pressed would say they are Christian and go to church, would only go to church for a funeral - and only believe in God when rent is due, and the paycheck is extra tight right now. Not that there's anything wrong with that - it seems like magic was an important part of ancient cultures and even ancient paganism was more contractual - stemming from the thought of trying to contract with or somehow control or shape external factors to improve everyone's lives/society. 

 

I'd argue that there were some key realities that shaped religiosity historically, and these variables have changed over time, and so the rationalization of religiosity has adjusted to an extent - however - it does not have the flexibility needed anymore for the conditions we are in. I'd argue that instead of religion going away, our definition will change, and the majority viewpoint will adjust to a point where religion is more about doing things to increase one's luck in life, or to at least psychologically improve oneself, or cope with the hardships of life. I also think that superstition will likely never go away, although the religious underpinnings will change. Instead of this being a new phenomenon, I think the key change will be definitional from a scholarly perspective. 

 

An example of a society where there are hints of general secularity/non-theistic thought would be ancient Scandinavian society. Looking at the Havamal (https://pitt.edu/~dash/havamal.html) the first 79 verses are not religious at all, and are typically dated to be the oldest part of the Havamal, with everything else being added on to it. As former Christians I'd think we are all familiar with Ecclesiastes (and the awkward ending it has). I'd propose that we will also have a more secular society at some point. Something more non-theistic and eclecticly luck-based spirituality, housed in broadly religious rituals (i.e. agnostic about God, doesn't go to church, does yoga, prays to/in nature, reads world myths, keeps a journal, has a weekly spiritual meetup or volunteer group, etc.). Again, nothing new - it seems to be a thing throughout history from my very limited knowledge. At the end of the day, I just don't think there will be a major revolution in religion the way some hope for, kind of like how everyone thought Deism would be a thing in the 1700s. 

 

https://www.epoch-magazine.com/post/unless-i-see-these-things-i-will-not-believe-atheism-in-medieval-europe <- another good read for non-religiousness in societies of the past. So I guess as far as morality goes, I'd argue that our existing paradigms are changing for the circumstances we find ourselves in. I think we will return to a digital version of trabalism/nomadism that humanity has had at numerous points in time, and that our definitions of in group and out group will change. I do not think our underlying societies will change very much at all, i.e. "nothing new under the sun..."