Arkouda @ Arkouda @lemmy.ca

No one could ever hate me more than I hate myself, so save your self some t

---

Read more

Posts

23

Comments

1,433

Joined

1 yr. ago

Glad you took the time to read this.

I live to learn. haha

The paragraph “Religion likely evolved by building on morality, introducing supernatural agents to encourage cooperation and restrain selfishness, which enhanced group survival. Additionally, emotions like disgust play a key evolutionary role in moral judgments by helping to avoid threats to health, reproduction, and social cohesion.”

What I don't like about this argument is it must separate Humans from animals in order to make "Morality" and "Premoral behavior" different things, when it is clearly the same and we don't call other species exhibiting those traits "moral". It seems disingenuous when discussing precivilization humans living in small groups to not compare them to other animals in the same situation today and call what we had "premoral behavior" instead of calling it "morality".

We are just a species of animal at the end of the day, and should study ourselves with that lens.

You say that it’s required to bring together larger populations, but plant cultivation - the beginnings of farming will be far more significant.

This is also very important, but without the ability to maintain larger groups, plant cultivation is a hard skill to maintain an oral history for.

As a slightly sideways thought, take a look at e.g. African tribal social structures - relatively small population groups (villages) may exists with low/intermittent positive interaction (not fighting over resources), but can still share similar or near identical spiritual beliefs and moral codes. I.e. one does not automatically determine the other. They can develop side by side or independently.

They do not exist in isolation, and do interact with one another peacefully as you said.

I would argue the shared beliefs result in that lasting peace between tribes, and likely was negotiated in blood before it was in language.

I know you aren't. Yet you are still dying ignorantly on this hill. Again, thanks for the laugh sweetums. I won't waste further time with you, have a good one snookiepoo.

We are in a time now where morality does not require spirituality or religion. My point is that it was required to get our species to the point we are at now by unifying a "moral code", and all evidence we have supports that idea.

I am not arguing for religion or spirituality in the modern age, I am saying it served a purpose.

Then I don't see why you are wasting your time and mine.

I’d disagree with that as well. I believe that “why did that storm happen?” “Why did drought kill everyone?” Etc - “the spirits and gods are angry!” As an answer in the absence of the level of scientific knowledge to expain it is the starting point.

Bear in mind that these questions will have existed before complex language developed. And you can’t develop a widespread religion without consistant communication. You can’t form the concept of a spirit or god without generations of discussion.

My point is you cannot form a consistent "morality" in a species without first developing spirituality and religion through generations of very small groups of people making shit up to explain the world around them, and all evidence we have suggests that all early humans had spiritual practices and the unifying of those practices caused our population to grow with a "universal morality".

Again, you underestimate idiots.

This sounds like you agree with me.

The first time something hurt me and I didn’t like it.

I did not say that.

You may want to answer my question "When did you learn that hurting was wrong and who taught you?" again considering you were a baby without definable consciousness.

There are, believe it or not, more things besides empathy that determine human behaviour. Weird, complicated creatures.

You are free to provide examples if you want me to agree with you.

That just means humans akso have an inherent wish to understand and explain things, even when they don’t have the necessary means yet.

Which means that spiritual and religious belief structures would have been required for us to advance to where we are today, which was my entire point, based on your idea of "inherent". Even though again, nothing is "inherent" regarding moral belief.

Feel free to argue that whenever you are ready.

But “I don’t like…” is still the starting point for pretty much any discussion about morals as far as I believe.

I think we agree but we are misaligned on the wording.

Would you agree with the following statement:

The Human species can use the basic idea of "like and dislike" to form rudimentary "premoral behavior", but require the ability to communicate that information efficiently with a large group of humans and historically with the evidence we have this was done through spiritual and religious belief structures.

I agree, which is what I was hoping for. haha

My point is it isn't found in all group species. Our species is obviously, and clearly, different.

That being said, other species have been observed doing what appear to be spiritual practices. These species usually exist in larger groups than other animals.

Take Elephants as an example. They stop in the spots that their matriarchs died in and pay tribute. They have been seen bowing at specific trees and landmarks along their migration paths. Is it elephant Religion? I don't know because I am not an Elephant. But it looks spiritual to me.

Ants are also interesting in this conversation, as they seem to operate in a "God king" like society. Power is obviously centralized, they have agriculture, territory and borders, take slaves and have wars over resources. I have seen studies on observations on strange behavior some ants have exhibited that seem "cultural" or "spiritual" in nature.

Then look at wolves. Family units, small packs, exhibit high levels of intelligence but don't seem to exhibit "spiritual" behaviors.

Considering our example as the biggest species on the planet currently, and the fact that spirituality and Religion have always been a part of our societies, it seems to me that some idea of "bigger than me" is required to truly unify a species and allow for larger groups.

I believe we are now at the point where both Religion and Spirituality have become redundant because the debates have been had, the evidence is in, and all of it suggests we made that shit up. It served its purpose, and now we need to move on.

We can still learn from all of that debate and history though. A lot of "Answered questions" are interesting to ponder in their own right.

If a unified morality is required for our species to coexist in ever larger groups, and evidence of spiritual belief has been found in every documented group of Humans, why wouldn't it be safe to assume that spirituality was a requirement for our species to move beyond small family units?

Yes I am sure the first time you were hurt as a baby, before conscious thought even kicked in, you suddenly knew what was "morally correct".

There is no such thing as "inherent" traits. If that were true no human would hurt another human because we all would be coded not to do that and wouldn't need someone to tell you what is wrong and right.

If all evidence suggests that groups of humans have all had a spiritual belief structure I think it is safe to assume that as a requirement for a consistent, and easy to communicate "moral code".

I don't think that and never said that.

Not at all what I am doing, thanks for being helpful.

With or without Religion we seem to, as a species, not inherently think raping and killing is wrong considering all of the raping and killing that goes on.

My point is all documented human groups had a spiritual belief structure so evidence suggests that belief structure was required for a consistent, easy to communicate, "moral code" that exists today.

Go back 10,000 years if you want to see what "inherent human morals" look like.

I would urge you to look at the fact that every documented human group we have evidence from had a spiritual belief structure, and that it is safe to assume that a spiritual belief system was required for our species to form larger groups and bigger populations.

This does not argue the existence of God, just our species constant and persistent belief that something supernatural is behind that shit. Which also happens to be the driver of early scientific study.

If you assumed I was Religious based on my post I also urge you to check your bigotry.

I agree.

People are incredibly intolerant of anyone who they believe to have "spiritual" or "religious" beliefs, so I get it.

What is sea lioning?