Replies

We all have a "me and mine" drive inside our primate brains which we've inherited from our most distant ancestors, and a more science-based and less mystic-based understanding of our own behavior and biology would better serve humanity.

In what way? Are you saying if a scientist comes up with a theory about why humans behave certain ways that this will somehow change our behavior?

What if people do not accept that point of view (another aspect of human behavior)?

This is the reason all ideas of morality and ethics have always been looked at in a univeral and higher power point of view. Because any point of view attributible to man or a group of men will never be accepted. That is why we have had so many wars and so much death. That is why a belief in inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator gives of freedom from other men. No other formula does.

Even now many in America want to take away these rights. What has made it harder are the fact the rights are not granted by men, and cannot be taken away by men. And if they are taken away, the only solution becomes the establishment of a new government and reinstitution of those rights given us by our Creator.

We can learn to live with others and maximum happiness given our nature, but the blood of all the wars we have had since the beginning of our time should have taught us we cannot change our basic nature. If we fail to heed that lesson, we will continue to fight and die for the foreseeable future while someones view of ethics and morality is imposed on people and then deposed over and over.

The last 1000 years of Western Civilization has driven us to a belief in inalienable rights granted by our Creator and defended by government. This philosophy has created the greatest and most just civilization in the history of the world. Why argue with success?

You ask a lot of very good questions and I admit that I don't have "factual" answers to them except to explain the philosophical reasons for my previous assertions.

First, to understand our own biology and behavior in a science-based context rather than a mystic-based context means I prefer to look to natural explanations first.

As an example, I have read many articles put out by modern religious groups, and followed by millions of people in this country alone, who believe that when a 15 year old boy is sitting in class daydreaming about the cute 15 year old girl sitting next to him instead of paying attention to what the teacher is saying, that what is happening is Satan is influencing his thoughts and corrupting him and that his lust for her is morally wrong.

The science approach says that this is a natural emotion to feel and makes sense from an evolutionary basis as this type of thought serves to perpetuate the species.

Though the science explanation is morally neutral, the morality is imposed by society (as it should be) and if we assume that 15 year old Johnny knows intellectually that it's morally wrong to ravish 15 year old Jenny in class, whether or not they're married and can provide for children, it's still helpful for him to understand WHY he feels the lust he does when he needs to control it and I can't see how it can be anything other than harmful if he believes that his thoughts are inherently evil and that Satan has taken over a part of his brain.

Secondly, in response to your statement:

[We can learn to live with others and maximum happiness given our nature, but the blood of all the wars we have had since the beginning of our time should have taught us we cannot change our basic nature. If we fail to heed that lesson, we will continue to fight and die for the foreseeable future while someones view of ethics and morality is imposed on people and then deposed over and over.]

I agree with this 100%.

Our nature is dictated to us by ...nature. But our behavior is of our own choosing and my point is that science helps us to understand our nature and our immediate emotional behavior but then is silent. Science, by definition, cannot play a role in ethics or morality and I don't think I've ever suggested it could.

My own sense of morality and ethics is something that I've gotten the way most people do; I was taught it from childhood and refined it as an adult. I admit that it's different from many others' versions, but that is to be expected given how many versions there are across humanity. <?:^)