Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nkelsch wrote:
Because if you do, there are consequences... If you lived before the dawn of civilization... and you wanted another human's stuff, and his wife, why would you not simply take it if you physically had the power to do so? Especially if food was scarce and you needed to provide for your offspring?

In a matter of survival, everything goes out the window. Within the context of modern western civilization, such situations are extremely rare indeed.

So how come it should be different for humans? You don't punch babies because another human will come along and harm you if you do, not because 'it is a mean thing to do'.

Mostly I don't punch babies because I have nothing to gain from it and it harms the survival of my species, not merely because another human will come along an harm me, though yes that is a motivator. I'm not saying that fear of consequences plays no role or shouldn't play a role. As I noted, social pressures are obviously a role, that includes consequences like another person getting mad at you. However, if it's only something so overwhelmingly powerful like the idea of *divine retribution* or *eternal reward* that can keep one in check, particularly in a modern context such as Western Civilization, there's probably something wrong with the individual.

In the survival of the fittest, anything which increases your survival and your offspring's survival is a 'good thing' for you. Without a civilization with a punitive civil system to lay down unacceptable actions... there is nothing preventing you from killing your neighbors, punching babies, plundering resources except someone bigger and stronger preventing you from doing so. Might makes right.

Why do we believe every human has the right to live and exist, and we are all equal when nature shows us the rest of the world operates in an exact opposite manner? We are not all equal (at least scientifically not morally) and there is no guarantee that we can live as people die all the time for various reasons. What 'changed' with Humans that I am supposed to respect your right to exist and not cease your life in a competition for food/territory/offspring, but the rest of the animal kingdom does it as needed?

And when civilization breaks down, we see true human nature, humans are jerkwads, looking out for themselves, and will murder you, rape your wife and eat your kids if they felt it would benefit them and there is no retribution.

Right, but that's when civilization breaks down and everything reverts to the lowest common denominator, and we're no longer talking about religion within the context of Western Civilization. Also, with a complete lack of civilization (as opposed to a more primitive civilization where religion forms central pillars of social and political power, stuff like dark ages europe), religion is unlikely to stop anyone.

 Ahtman wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
In the survival of the fittest

Darwin didn't apply that to humans, as he saw animals living in a state of nature where it was survival of the fittest, but humans live in a state of civilization where our ability to cooperate is more important to survival, or as he called it, empathy.

Animals have empathy... They also temper it to animals which they care about. They will have empathy to their podmates but be brutal and even torture and murder animals of rival pods.

Having the ability to feel empathy for other living beings or your species doesn't make one treat everyone of his species 'equally'.

If the argument is 'without civilization, we would still naturally have shared morals and not be smashing each other's heads in with rocks' I don't know if that is necessarily true. While forming cities lent itself to working together for mutual survival... that doesn't make ethics or morality... Just happens to be those humans did better when not murdering others. Others possibly continued to murder and pillage for success for their offspring. Working together for security was best for their offspring the same way smashing your head in with a rock and murdering your children was best for someone else's offspring.

 Ahtman wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
In the survival of the fittest

Darwin didn't apply that to humans, as he saw animals living in a state of nature where it was survival of the fittest, but humans live in a state of civilization where our ability to cooperate is more important to survival, or as he called it, empathy.

Civilization is based off of religion and has always been. Take away religion we are animals and they seem to have pretty bad moral standings.

Also think about what your "morals or what ever was said the reason you don't punch babies. From birth kids hit each other take from each other and well aren't nice to each other because it is against their best interest. Then adults tell them it is wrong and punish them for this mistake "take the item from them, time out ect" so they learn not to do it through punishment. Adults are the ones who punish them for these mistakes and "crimes". Lets have a child who has no boundaries can do as it wishes and poof we have that rich kid who killed those people and was givin 5 days in jail or what ever it was.

So why do you not do things? Because you fear the consequences if I asked you why don't you jay walk why don't you steal and so on. What would you say the reason behind you not doing it?

For some people are afraid they will be in trouble by their "piers" where others like myself that doesn't mean much. That's where the lord comes in with his teachings telling you what is right and wrong. Someone who is far smarter then I, and for the lack of a better word a leader whom which does no wrong "parent". By listening to him and following his rule I can live not only punishment free but become a good person. We follow the lord like you follow your parents which is why it tends to turn to a fight when you insult him quickly. I always see it like this the lord gives us rule so we do not hurt ourselves or others like a parent does with a child.

OgreChubbs wrote:


Civilization is based off of religion and has always been. Take away religion we are animals and they seem to have pretty bad moral standings.

Religion is largely an expression of civilization, rather than springing forth civilization from religion. The fact that multiple civilizations have transitioned through, been built upon, or incorporated multiple different diverse religions is a testament to that. The Romans began with their own versions of the classical Greek pantheon and conquered and incorporated peoples of many faiths and eventually transitioned to Christianity. The Mongols originally practiced various forms of local naturalism and shamanism but at the height of their power had Muslims, Christians, Manichaeanists, Buddhists, and their original naturalist beliefs amongst not only their conquered peoples but amongst the ruling Mongols themselves, and none of these religions did anything to stem their brutal slaughter that Central Asia and the Middle East has only largely recovered from within the last few decades in terms of population and agriculture (and may never in terms of worldwide social relevance) despite such religions largely having similar restrictions against mindless slaughter.

nkelsch wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
In the survival of the fittest

Darwin didn't apply that to humans, as he saw animals living in a state of nature where it was survival of the fittest, but humans live in a state of civilization where our ability to cooperate is more important to survival, or as he called it, empathy.

Animals have empathy... They also temper it to animals which they care about. They will have empathy to their podmates but be brutal and even torture and murder animals of rival pods.

Having the ability to feel empathy for other living beings or your species doesn't make one treat everyone of his species 'equally'.

What you are describing would have been called sympathy at the time. A more modern word would be altruism. He also believed that humans were moral creatures by nature, though not based necessarily on religion. Darwin believed that altruism was a vital and integral part of being human. He also didn't deny that other animals could have emotions.

 Ahtman wrote:

What you are describing would have been called sympathy at the time. A more modern word would be altruism. He also believed that humans were moral creatures by nature, though not based necessarily on religion. Darwin believed that altruism was a vital and integral part of being human. He also didn't deny that other animals could have emotions.

Isn't that belief the foundation of a 'religious ideology'? What makes morality and makes 'not smashing heads in with rocks' good and what motivates us as a species not to do it while others do it? It is a spiritual belief to think we were endowed by nature to be naturally 'moral' and distinct from other animals. May not be a formalized religion, but it is not at all supported by science.

What makes man 'not' kill other men outside of some sort of awareness? and how does that awareness not grow into some sort of spiritual belief in almost every circumstance or be an inherited belief based upon others previous civilization's constructs. A civilization is easy to 'teach this is taboo' once it is in place... When did two weaker humans banding together against a stronger one for shared security become 'we shouldn't smash his face in with a rock because it is inherently wrong'?

nkelsch wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

What you are describing would have been called sympathy at the time. A more modern word would be altruism. He also believed that humans were moral creatures by nature, though not based necessarily on religion. Darwin believed that altruism was a vital and integral part of being human. He also didn't deny that other animals could have emotions.

Isn't that belief the foundation of a 'religious ideology'? What makes morality and makes 'not smashing heads in with rocks' good and what motivates us as a species not to do it while others do it? It is a spiritual belief to think we were endowed by nature to be naturally 'moral' and distinct from other animals. May not be a formalized religion, but it is not at all supported by science.

Well considering there are other civilizations that didn't have these deities and they didn't smash each others heads in I don't think one needs spirituality or religion to have morality. When Confucius spoke of humans being inherently good and learning to be callous and distrustful it wasn't based on spirituality or religion, but observation of human behavior. There are a lot of things from non-Western sources that don't apply to much of what has been said in this thread about some fundamental things, but since this was supposed to be limited to Western civ I have avoided bringing it up, but since we are now painting humans and civilization with broad brushes encompassing all places and times it seems prudent to start including it.

 Ahtman wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

What you are describing would have been called sympathy at the time. A more modern word would be altruism. He also believed that humans were moral creatures by nature, though not based necessarily on religion. Darwin believed that altruism was a vital and integral part of being human. He also didn't deny that other animals could have emotions.

Isn't that belief the foundation of a 'religious ideology'? What makes morality and makes 'not smashing heads in with rocks' good and what motivates us as a species not to do it while others do it? It is a spiritual belief to think we were endowed by nature to be naturally 'moral' and distinct from other animals. May not be a formalized religion, but it is not at all supported by science.

Well considering there are other civilizations that didn't have these deities and they didn't smash each others heads in I don't think one needs spirituality or religion to have morality. When Confucius spoke of humans being inherently good and learning to be callous and distrustful it wasn't based on spirituality or religion, but observation of human behavior. There are a lot of things from non-Western sources that don't apply to much of what has been said in this thread about some fundamental things, but since this was supposed to be limited to Western civ I have avoided bringing it up, but since we are now painting humans and civilization with broad brushes encompassing all places and times it seems prudent to start including it.

All human civilization started out of the same place, and we are talking really early in human history... there is a difference between banding together for mutual survival and doing it because 'it is a morally correct thing to do'. And how long does behavior have to exist before we simply stop questioning it? How long was banding together so that other tribe of humans who want our stuff became 'maybe we shouldn't kill each other because it is probably immoral to do so?'

That belief has to believe it something, even if it is in the spirituality of man or that man is a unique or superior being to regular animals. That is all venturing into non-scientific beliefs and the foundation of spirituality and religion even if it is not in a deity... Superiority of man can itself be a deity.

nkelsch wrote:
All human civilization started out of the same place, and we are talking really early in human history...

Which at that point we are no longer talking about the effect of religion on western civilization, which is what the thread is ostensibly about.

nkelsch wrote:
there is a difference between banding together for mutual survival and doing it because 'it is a morally correct thing to do'.

That is because people don't think in that language, academics and philosophers trying to understand things do.

nklesh wrote:even if it is in the spirituality of man or that man is a unique or superior being to regular animals. That is all venturing into non-scientific beliefs and the foundation of spirituality and religion even if it is not in a deity... Superiority of man can itself be a deity.

You might want to read the book Moral Mind: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. It was a research study done that shows people, regardless of background and religion, almost all act and answer questions the same way. Spirituality need not determine helping each other or not letting babies drown.

 Ahtman wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
All human civilization started out of the same place, and we are talking really early in human history...

Which at that point we are no longer talking about the effect of religion on western civilization, which is what the thread is ostensibly about.

nkelsch wrote:
there is a difference between banding together for mutual survival and doing it because 'it is a morally correct thing to do'.

That is because people don't think in that language, academics and philosophers trying to understand things do.

nklesh wrote:even if it is in the spirituality of man or that man is a unique or superior being to regular animals. That is all venturing into non-scientific beliefs and the foundation of spirituality and religion even if it is not in a deity... Superiority of man can itself be a deity.

You might want to read the book Moral Mind: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. It was a research study done that shows people, regardless of background and religion, almost all act and answer questions the same way. Spirituality need not determine helping each other or not letting babies drown.

The only reason it is relevant is almost the entirety of 'western religion' was born out of stories from the cradle of civilization. And basically these were regional stories which became co-oped into religious stories. So when discussing the current 'morality' of the abrahamic faiths, you are looking to the middle east and what happened at the onset of civilization. And it is hard to find groups on this planet who have not already been impacted, influenced or overwritten by the learned result of the early civilizations.

It is very hard to say there are independent morality when the entire human race can be traced back to that region and a shared civilization and adopted morality. We really don't have an isolated independently grown human civilization to test if our behaviors were all learned due to a situation and propagated or inherent to our beings.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's as ludicrous to make claims about all white people across all of time based on Stormfront as it is to make claims about all religion across all of time based on Young Earth Creationists.

Yeah, good thing I did not.

Choice is important.

If people want to be religious let them, they can send there kids to religious schools etc. And live there lives by there teachings.

If people want to be non religious leave them alone, let them go to there non religious schools and live by there own code of ethics.

This sounds like segregation because it is, history teaches us that when the first takes control of a society it heavily persecutes the second, however the second doesn't persecute the first (with a few notable exceptions), religion should never govern a society, it can advise but never should it be allowed control, nearly all mainstream religions have committed horrible crimes against humanity and simply cannot be trusted to be tolerant of other views, sexuality, woman's rights, science, children's rights, cultural advance, all have contributes to stopping or stemming these things and all societies not just western, should stop or prevent these abuses.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's as ludicrous to make claims about all white people across all of time based on Stormfront as it is to make claims about all religion across all of time based on Young Earth Creationists.

Yeah, good thing I did not.

That's why the comment wasn't originally directed at you XD

I'm going to go with net neutral. It's hard to quantify something that has always been with us and what few examples we have of a religion free society are communist russia and the nazi regime (I think). Not good examples to go by.

On the plus, I have this. A whole bunch of Sikhs handing out free food and having a good time, even with mormon missionaries. Everyones happy, not really caring about differences in belief.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm going to go with net neutral. It's hard to quantify something that has always been with us and what few examples we have of a religion free society are communist russia and the nazi regime (I think). Not good examples to go by.

On the plus, I have this. A whole bunch of Sikhs handing out free food and having a good time, even with mormon missionaries. Everyones happy, not really caring about differences in belief.

Spoiler:

Huh? Neither we're non religious, anti religious yes but both populations had huge amounts on religious people, Adolf and Stalin were psychos because they were psychos, not because "God" told them so, a talking dog did.

Thing is when a person is insane and hearing voices in there head, claims it's the voice of God and persuades others to attack someone's else's home and commits acts of terrorism, rape, murder, theft... Well that's ok, cos God.
It was called the crusades, someone just forgot to tell the Muslims that were not playing anymore... Oh wait Bush declared a jihad on terror... Sorry crusade, now we're all annoyed that there fighting back in the name of jehovah, God, ala, Bob.

People will always kill each other, just want 1 less reason to do so.

nkelsch wrote:

It is very hard to say there are independent morality when the entire human race can be traced back to that region and a shared civilization and adopted morality. We really don't have an isolated independently grown human civilization to test if our behaviors were all learned due to a situation and propagated or inherent to our beings.

Apart from all those aborigional tribe groupings found all over the world, most of the north and south american civilisations, most of the african peoples, and most of indochina and indonesia? You know... everyone except europe and the middle east?

nkelsch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

There are giant pharmaceutical corporations, health offices, hospitals, and government organizations all making vaccines to give our children autism.

Imagine a world in which we had used these resources to cure autism instead.

Please be joking... Pleeeeeeeease!

Join the CIA, and join the waiting list for your free sarcasm detector.

@Nkelsch & Ahtman: wicked interesting exchange between you two.

 Formosa wrote:
People will always kill each other, just want 1 less reason to do so.

That assumes that the people who kill for religion, often being of a particular kind of mind, won't just rally behind some other thing.

Not to mention that were really boiling complex issues into a singular track when we say "he killed for religion."

The Crusades (the old ones) weren't just about religion. They were also about roaming bands of landless nobility pillaging the country side that the Pope and everyone else really wanted to be rid of. It was also about Italian merchants who wanted to seize control of trade in the Med from the Byzantines (and a whole host of issues with the Byzantines themselves but I'm not going into that XD). Even today, though radical Islam is the most apparent reason, Islamic terrorist rhetoric is also laced with an undertone of Pan-Arabism (technically Pan-Middle Easternism but that's a mouthful) and a healthy hint of racism.

Ignoring that you can't just make ideologies go away because you don't like them, you're likely to be disappointed that even if you could it probably wouldn't have much of an impact in the number of people killing other people.

I personally think that all religion is basically the closest thing to pure evil.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm going to go with net neutral. It's hard to quantify something that has always been with us and what few examples we have of a religion free society are communist russia and the nazi regime (I think). Not good examples to go by.

On the plus, I have this. A whole bunch of Sikhs handing out free food and having a good time, even with mormon missionaries. Everyones happy, not really caring about differences in belief.

Spoiler:

In communist russia stalin was not anti religion, he was trying to create relion around himself not God.
Nazi germany was pretty religious. Equal to modern day america.

Which is better?:

1. People giving free food to the poor because their religious agenda tells them to do so (also not trying kill members from the other religion while they are at it).
or
2. People giving free food to the poor because it is a good idea.

And if nobody were religious, how many people would give free food to the poor because they feel it's a good idea? Probably not as many as you'd like to think, humans are naturally selfish bastards.
EDIT: Also, the end result is the same, free food is given to the poor. Why the motive matters, I'm not sure is really obvious, going from your first sentence.
EDIT_2: Define pure evil, without bringing religion into your answer.

People giving free food to the poor because it is a good idea.

Why is it a good idea? Because it is moral? A religious person would agree. If you and a religious person reach the same conclusion, that giving food to the poor is a good idea, then any debate about why that conclusion was reached is academic. Practically it doesn't matter. Why jump to the conclusion that your moral process is superior to another's, when in the end the same conclusion is reached?

 jasper76 wrote:

So, my question is, is religion in general a net benefit or a net detriment to western society?

I would say it is a good thing for western society.

I don't know why, but religion is very similar to science (gun clicks). Its the truth. We have a lot to learn from religion, just like we have a lot to learn from science.

Heres a simple breakdown.
Science answers the How, but it cannot answer the why.

Religion on the other hand answer the Why, but it cannot answer the how.

These two will always be at odds with each other because people often forget that when I ask Why is the sky blue? I am not asking How is the sky blue? I am asking why is it that color? Why is it that particular color and no other.

If I wanted to ask How is the sky blue? You would say because of the water droplets in the sky.

Religion is more based on philisophies and ideas. I mean one of the best philosophies I know of is Jesus's Philisophy which is simply to love thy neighbor, be kind to others and to believe in jesus christ. Well I would put it up there with Kant's philisophies, but in all honesty its a good philisophy and apart from nitpicks here and there of the bible there is nothing wrong. In fact in all honesty, most people from Christianity often misinterpret what god says to do. It never says punish the gays, attack people because of this race, that is their misinterpretation and they are just using religion as a guise to do what ever they wanted.

I say one of the interesting points is that religion isn't particularly bad, it has the potential for great things, just like science. Most often religion brings people together.

An one of the interesting points is that people who misinterpert the bible who don't want to be apart of the society because society is evil are actually the cause of alot of social ills. Such as the Christian people who decide to picket gay rallies or hurt gay people because they don't like a gender and have no need to date them. Yet in the bible it doesn't say to do that. No where in the bible does it say to hurt others for being different. It never says purge the unclean, kill the mutant and the Heretic. But sadly that is mind frame of a lot christians. That people who don't follow their religion are immoral and don't understand anything and that they are right. Which is completely false. I say it is mostly because of entitlement these people are so entitled and feel like they could get away with anything, that they feel the need to damper someone's lifestyle because they don't agree with it.

But fundamentally, I believe science and religion are good. I think in terms of this argument I wouldn't necessarily say that Religion is evil, just the ones who wield it are. But lets look back and see the people who did something in the name of science and did terrible, terrible things, are they really representing the good of science? Of course not. No matter what they provided to science that is immoral and their research should be decided by the victims what best to do with it.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Heres a simple breakdown.
Science answers the How, but itcannot answer the why.

Sometimes the how is the why.

Religion on the other hand answer the Why, but it cannot answer the how.

I would suggest that religion doesnt actually answer anything. Given the immense number of differeny religions and different conflicting "whys". Especially since it generally boils down to some non-answer variation of "god(s) did it".

I am not asking How is the sky blue? I am asking why is it that color? Why is it that particular color and no other.

Because of the spectral output of our sun, themakeup of our atmosphere and the sensitivity of the rods and cones in our eyes to different wavelengths of light.

If I wanted to ask How is the sky blue? You would say because of the water droplets in the sky.

I would hope not, given that it is actually due to rayleigh scattering. If it was due to water vapour, wouldn't clouds also be blue?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

It is very hard to say there are independent morality when the entire human race can be traced back to that region and a shared civilization and adopted morality. We really don't have an isolated independently grown human civilization to test if our behaviors were all learned due to a situation and propagated or inherent to our beings.

Apart from all those aborigional tribe groupings found all over the world, most of the north and south american civilisations, most of the african peoples, and most of indochina and indonesia? You know... everyone except europe and the middle east?

All humanity came from the same region of the planet and spread out later. They did not independently evolve without a common source or early social orogins. If early civilization, even before the abrahamic religions formed had established a basic 'morals' due to necessity, that set of morals would have been adopted by any subsequent civilizations regardless how they migrated to where they were. There is no evidence of 'inherent morals' in the human race and no evidence of independent creation of such as every current group of humans who have 'morals' can directly produce the origin of them as being taught from the previous generation. All those other regions and civilizations came from africa and someone back then had to have said 'maybe I shouldn't smash his head in with a rock and teach my children not to... Oh since they don't understand, I will tell them the great mountain gobbles up bad children until they are old enough to blindly accept not smashing heads with rocks."

The assumption is that humans will instinctively not smash each others heads in with rocks and will not be chaotic or amoral behavior in a vacuum. I say we only have it due to adopted and forced morality due to civilization and that 'it is clearly wrong because someone before us said so'. Religion is one of the ways to keep the top on the can in regards to people questioning 'Why can't we all rise up and murder the rich? I mean, it would be easy right?' Humans do pretty horrible things and justify pretty selfish actions... If they didn't have skygrandpa or a stronger human authority who would punish them, they would smash your head with a rock like Piggy from lord of the flies.

However, human groupings spread all over the world long before even the pre-pre-pre-big three 'western' religions were a twinkle in the eye of some madman who had been out in the sun too long.

There have been humans living in australia for what, 45,000 years? Are you suggesting that they, developing in significant isolation for the majority of that time, retained the same kind of society and development as the other human groups who spread out from their origin point?

Hell, look at some of the differences in culture between even some of the modern human societies, which have significant interaction with one another. Look at how much culture and religion have changed in the last few decades, let alone centuries or 45,000 years. Or hell, 200,000 years since the first groups of our species came to be...

Your claim seems to be that because the populations of humans that exist once came from the same place, they can't be seperate populations. I can tell you for a fact that they can. Different human groupings are prone to different diseases, have different physiological ranges, and significantly different cultural values.

And this is ignoring the potential of certain early humans breeding and culturally mingling with other members of the homo family...

 SilverMK2 wrote:
However, human groupings spread all over the world long before even the pre-pre-pre-big three 'western' religions were a twinkle in the eye of some madman who had been out in the sun too long.

There have been humans living in australia for what, 45,000 years? Are you suggesting that they, developing in significant isolation for the majority of that time, retained the same kind of society and development as the other human groups who spread out from their origin point?

Hell, look at some of the differences in culture between even some of the modern human societies, which have significant interaction with one another. Look at how much culture and religion have changed in the last few decades, let alone centuries or 45,000 years. Or hell, 200,000 years since the first groups of our species came to be...

Your claim seems to be that because the populations of humans that exist once came from the same place, they can't be seperate populations. I can tell you for a fact that they can. Different human groupings are prone to different diseases, have different physiological ranges, and significantly different cultural values.

And this is ignoring the potential of certain early humans breeding and culturally mingling with other members of the homo family...

And all of that, there is no evidence of an intrinsic 'morality' of the human species. It is all 'learned' from previous generations. And for those who say 'everyone everywhere ended up moral so it must be intrinsic to our make up', I disagree as there is no evidence of that. Learned behaviors are learned behaviors even over 200,000 years. (we are only talking around 60,000 years as that is when humans migrated out of africa)

And the stories of the Torah/Bible reference neanderthals and the intermarrying of species when they describe the 'giants' who walked the earth. And scientists put that around 39000 years ago based upon a volcanic eruption driving neanderthals out of europe and into their extinction in the path of Homo sapiens. So these 'stories' from the dawn of human species were passed down tens of thousands of years... so if they can transfer stories that far, then learned morality would be too, even to these other places as humans migrated to them.

Isolation doesn't prove or even show evidence of instinctual morality, and it is pretty hard to discount in a species which is almost all 'learned behavior' that somehow morality would not be a learned trait.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Heres a simple breakdown.
Science answers the How, but itcannot answer the why.

Sometimes the how is the why.

Religion on the other hand answer the Why, but it cannot answer the how.

I would suggest that religion doesnt actually answer anything. Given the immense number of differeny religions and different conflicting "whys". Especially since it generally boils down to some non-answer variation of "god(s) did it".

I am not asking How is the sky blue? I am asking why is it that color? Why is it that particular color and no other.

Because of the spectral output of our sun, themakeup of our atmosphere and the sensitivity of the rods and cones in our eyes to different wavelengths of light.

If I wanted to ask How is the sky blue? You would say because of the water droplets in the sky.

I would hope not, given that it is actually due to rayleigh scattering. If it was due to water vapour, wouldn't clouds also be blue?

No not all the time. Science really doesn't have an answer for the why. Why is philisophical, not scientific. Religion often answers that.

Really your nitpicking that?
Wait what? Techincally water is clear, and clouds are made with a combination of dust and water molecules.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Heres a simple breakdown.
Science answers the How, but itcannot answer the why.

Sometimes the how is the why.

Religion on the other hand answer the Why, but it cannot answer the how.

I would suggest that religion doesnt actually answer anything. Given the immense number of differeny religions and different conflicting "whys". Especially since it generally boils down to some non-answer variation of "god(s) did it".

I am not asking How is the sky blue? I am asking why is it that color? Why is it that particular color and no other.

Because of the spectral output of our sun, themakeup of our atmosphere and the sensitivity of the rods and cones in our eyes to different wavelengths of light.

If I wanted to ask How is the sky blue? You would say because of the water droplets in the sky.

I would hope not, given that it is actually due to rayleigh scattering. If it was due to water vapour, wouldn't clouds also be blue?

No not all the time. Science really doesn't have an answer for the why. Why is philisophical, not scientific. Religion often answers that.

Really your nitpicking that?
Wait what? Techincally water is clear, and clouds are made with a combination of dust and water molecules.

Why does there need to be a 'why' why can't we be glad we just are? Why do we need to think we are special enough that something(s) had to create us and the way things are?

 Krellnus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Heres a simple breakdown.
Science answers the How, but itcannot answer the why.

Sometimes the how is the why.

Religion on the other hand answer the Why, but it cannot answer the how.

I would suggest that religion doesnt actually answer anything. Given the immense number of differeny religions and different conflicting "whys". Especially since it generally boils down to some non-answer variation of "god(s) did it".

I am not asking How is the sky blue? I am asking why is it that color? Why is it that particular color and no other.

Because of the spectral output of our sun, themakeup of our atmosphere and the sensitivity of the rods and cones in our eyes to different wavelengths of light.

If I wanted to ask How is the sky blue? You would say because of the water droplets in the sky.

I would hope not, given that it is actually due to rayleigh scattering. If it was due to water vapour, wouldn't clouds also be blue?

No not all the time. Science really doesn't have an answer for the why. Why is philisophical, not scientific. Religion often answers that.

Really your nitpicking that?
Wait what? Techincally water is clear, and clouds are made with a combination of dust and water molecules.

Why does there need to be a 'why' why can't we be glad we just are? Why do we need to think we are special enough that something(s) had to create us and the way things are?

Because if we didn't we wouldn't know things, it is good to ask why. It is always the one thing we always wonder about, why was I created? Why do I live? Why am I here?

Philisophy is interesting and should be talked about. It always asks interesting questions like What Ought I to do? There is more to life than working to get your bills in.