“Without God what can act as a moral anchor”– Diana This is a common confusion

–“Without God what can act as a moral anchor”– Diana

This is a common confusion between the claims of religions and the evidence of god’s word and deed in the universe. In most cases we find people defending their scripture and presumption of god, rather than the evidence of god.

A more exacerbating problem for humans is the sex differences in cognition and valuation, where men comfortably systematize regardless of emotion, and women comfortably empathize regardless of consequences. This means that there is a greater demand for an anthropocentric god among women and cognitively feminine men than there for a deist god and his set of law s for men and cognitively masculine women. In fact, sex differences in systematizing vs empathizing, predator vs prey, over-time vs in-time, capital seeking vs consumption seeking, and responsibility for capital seeking and irresponsibilty for capital seeking … these few variables account for all human variation in behavior. As such all human variation in behavior is variation in sex differences in perception and valuation. So of course we have variation in our moral intuitions. That does not mean that our intuitions are right so to speak, as much as it m eans that some of our intuitions are for ‘now’ and some for ‘later’.

Now, that said, The Natural Law of Cooperation is what it is. It’s a function of the laws of the universe, and the laws of the universe it turns out consist of just one (presssure results in the ternary logic of evolutionary computation), and the rest are its consequences. (And yes I can enumerate them but I”ll save you that tedium for the moment…) 😉

So whether you say a) god is a being that gave us the laws of the universe, or b) whether god is an anthropomorphism of the universe, or c) whether the material universe has always existed in a permanent cycle of rebirths, the laws we observe in that universe are the same.

So whether you take the position of fundamentalism, the position of deism, the position of simple materialism, the Natural Law of Cooperation just lke the physical behavioral evolutionary and logical laws are the same.

And while you may prefer your anthropomorphism (fundamentalism), and I my Deism (spirituality), or others their materialsm (physical science) – if we agree on the natural laws of cooperation then the excuse for doing so is irrelevant. In fact, we’d need an immoral reason to force others to hold the fundamentalilst, deist, or materialist origin of these laws for reasons that are selfishly psychological and divisive.

And under the those laws of nature, under that natural law of cooperation, all moral and immoral claims are in fact decidable. And people are simply right or wrong. Even if they do not grasp that being right at small scale and political scale are usually opposites, because information at small scale is avaialbe to us and consequences of our actions determinable, while the opposite is true at political scale.

So given that there is a set of laws to the universe at all scales, and given that we know the natural law of cooperation, there are no moral claims that cannot be stated as amoral (irrelevant), moral (contributing to capital) or immoral (consuming capital). And the means of conducting our lives results in the natur law, tht given the want, utility, and need of self determination by self determined means, by sovereignty in demonstrated interests, by reciprocity in display word and deed, and by duty to insure all in all of the above, limiting us to markets for cooperation (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, polities, and war), and markets for dispute resolution(argument, duel, courts etc), resulting in meritocracy, productivity, prosperity, and evolution in defeat of a unvierse, solar system, sun, planet, flora and fauna that seem to desire to kill us with regularity. Or, stated inversely, what we really mean is the suppression of oppression in every dimension abailable to man, so that both individually and collectively we have the greatest freedom to make the most of the lives we are born with.

There is no more relativism. Only differences in moral intuition that serve as terms of our cooperation. Even then some terms are immoral, some amoral (neutral) and moral.

So we have united science, morality, and god – at least the three variations on god – as consistent … and relatively simple it turns out.

And as far as I know it is not possible to argue against this unification of science philosophy and religion. ALl that is required is that we update our religions so that they no longer contain the immoralities that they do, and add the moralities that we have discovered.

And FWIW: there is nothing in my work, or my organization’s work that god would disagree with or object to – and if he did, or someone claims he did, then he is not and cannot be god, because as such he would state a contradiction – falsifying himself as not god but evil, demon, or devil.

I hope this helps.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @makda_b03