GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - If you believe in evolution(only) you are an idiot

Lazonby · 01-15-2007, 05:24 AM

God simply is, and all of creation is simply the result of his existence.

On the Issue of ?Human Purpose?

Throughout much of history, those human beings who were afforded the luxury of leisure have wrestled with the philosophical idea of ?human purpose.? These considerations were enabled only by the ability of humanity to reach a point in socioeconomic evolution where effort and energy were no longer exclusively required for securing subsistence and survival. While there can be great disagreement as to the driving mechanism of this ?need for purpose,? there can be no doubt that most modern religions and philosophies pertain at least some measure to the identification, codification and fulfillment of ?human purpose.?

Religious faiths, particularly modern ones, have tended to define ?human purpose? as something externally imposed on mankind by the creator god. But from the viewpoint of the scientific pantheist, there can be no external imposition of either purpose or meaning.

Humanity is only one of the many current results of the operation of unvarying natural law. As such, man can be expected to have no more or no less extrinsic purpose or meaning than any other entity, from mangrove to manatee. However, blessed with a seemingly unique combination of intelligence, consciousness and self awareness, humans are able to define and develop an intrinsic ?purpose? which no other organism obviously enjoys.

Each individual human being maintains ultimate responsibility for determining, defining, accepting and fulfilling their own ?purpose? according to the dictates of their conscience and the shared values of their community. Whether such ?purpose? is directed inward or outward, whether it is measured by personal or community benefit, whether it is trivial or profound? all of these are individual and personal choices.

But each individual human being likewise maintains ultimate responsibility and accountability for the tangible affects of that purpose as expressed through any resulting action. And it is such action that extends the sphere of personal responsibility into the realm of community responsibility.

On Ethics and Morals

?Purpose? implies action, though it does not demand it. But it is the outcome of action, not unemployed ideas, that is subject to social contract. Any community of individuals possesses shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And any community of individuals will experience events and instances where individual prerogatives and desires compete, impinging on those interests.

A community can be anything ranging from two consenting adults negotiating a sexual encounter, to the family, to the economic business organization, to the city, to the nation/state, to the global community with shared interests in global assets such as clean water and the ozone layer. Each individual operates within overlapping and different sets of morals and ethics relevant to the communities to which that individual belongs.

Human ethics and morals are codified agreements among the members of a community designed entirely to secure those shared communal interests, at the least possible violence to the individual. They are not eternal. They are not ?sacred.? They are not absolute. They can and must evolve along with knowledge, technology and the specific circumstances of existence in time and place.

As they are absolutely communal by nature, ethics and morals can only be evaluated on a communal basis. Their ultimate ?goodness? or ?badness? rests entirely on a utilitarian assessment of their outcomes, not on the specific impact to the individual. There can be no ethical or moral implication to the private act of an individual, but there is always an ethical or moral implication of any act that involves or affects two or more.

To this end, communities can and will define ?norms,? or laws for the purpose of securing the shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And the community has full recourse to enforce such norms in that pursuit. But the presumption must always remain with the individual freedom of choice in the absence of any competing community interest, and coercion to conform would theoretically only be proportionate to community risk.

Scientific pantheism recognizes the reality and authority of community structures designed to enforce the morals and ethics of those communities. But it also holds a presumption of individual freedom, maintaining an essentially ?libertarian? prejudice. ?Moral? or ?ethical? frameworks that exceed their rationale of community interest are illegitimate, and are ironically neither moral nor ethical.

If there is no real community interest, there is likewise no moral or ethical component to an individual?s behavior.

01-15-2007, 05:24 AM
Lazonby Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,262	God simply is, and all of creation is simply the result of his existence. On the Issue of ?Human Purpose? Throughout much of history, those human beings who were afforded the luxury of leisure have wrestled with the philosophical idea of ?human purpose.? These considerations were enabled only by the ability of humanity to reach a point in socioeconomic evolution where effort and energy were no longer exclusively required for securing subsistence and survival. While there can be great disagreement as to the driving mechanism of this ?need for purpose,? there can be no doubt that most modern religions and philosophies pertain at least some measure to the identification, codification and fulfillment of ?human purpose.? Religious faiths, particularly modern ones, have tended to define ?human purpose? as something externally imposed on mankind by the creator god. But from the viewpoint of the scientific pantheist, there can be no external imposition of either purpose or meaning. Humanity is only one of the many current results of the operation of unvarying natural law. As such, man can be expected to have no more or no less extrinsic purpose or meaning than any other entity, from mangrove to manatee. However, blessed with a seemingly unique combination of intelligence, consciousness and self awareness, humans are able to define and develop an intrinsic ?purpose? which no other organism obviously enjoys. Each individual human being maintains ultimate responsibility for determining, defining, accepting and fulfilling their own ?purpose? according to the dictates of their conscience and the shared values of their community. Whether such ?purpose? is directed inward or outward, whether it is measured by personal or community benefit, whether it is trivial or profound? all of these are individual and personal choices. But each individual human being likewise maintains ultimate responsibility and accountability for the tangible affects of that purpose as expressed through any resulting action. And it is such action that extends the sphere of personal responsibility into the realm of community responsibility. On Ethics and Morals ?Purpose? implies action, though it does not demand it. But it is the outcome of action, not unemployed ideas, that is subject to social contract. Any community of individuals possesses shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And any community of individuals will experience events and instances where individual prerogatives and desires compete, impinging on those interests. A community can be anything ranging from two consenting adults negotiating a sexual encounter, to the family, to the economic business organization, to the city, to the nation/state, to the global community with shared interests in global assets such as clean water and the ozone layer. Each individual operates within overlapping and different sets of morals and ethics relevant to the communities to which that individual belongs. Human ethics and morals are codified agreements among the members of a community designed entirely to secure those shared communal interests, at the least possible violence to the individual. They are not eternal. They are not ?sacred.? They are not absolute. They can and must evolve along with knowledge, technology and the specific circumstances of existence in time and place. As they are absolutely communal by nature, ethics and morals can only be evaluated on a communal basis. Their ultimate ?goodness? or ?badness? rests entirely on a utilitarian assessment of their outcomes, not on the specific impact to the individual. There can be no ethical or moral implication to the private act of an individual, but there is always an ethical or moral implication of any act that involves or affects two or more. To this end, communities can and will define ?norms,? or laws for the purpose of securing the shared communal interests of stability, security, justice and opportunity. And the community has full recourse to enforce such norms in that pursuit. But the presumption must always remain with the individual freedom of choice in the absence of any competing community interest, and coercion to conform would theoretically only be proportionate to community risk. Scientific pantheism recognizes the reality and authority of community structures designed to enforce the morals and ethics of those communities. But it also holds a presumption of individual freedom, maintaining an essentially ?libertarian? prejudice. ?Moral? or ?ethical? frameworks that exceed their rationale of community interest are illegitimate, and are ironically neither moral nor ethical. If there is no real community interest, there is likewise no moral or ethical component to an individual?s behavior.