God doesn't seem to exist!

Post Reply New Topic

It's clear to me at this point that you are confusing philosophical justification, and justification in a legal setting. When you philosophically justify something, you establish that it is coherent, and that it has a reasonable grounding in epistemology/ἐπιστήμη.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

So it seems you are getting emotional about, and assuming that you are under accusation by, philosophical vocabulary that diverges from it's definitions in the popular vernacular.

Here, let's enjoy some music as we discuss this:



A deist does not believe in a personal creator. What deists believe in is a creator that is similar to a watchmaker. Technically speaking, a deist can be a theist or fideist, but for the most part they are theists. This is because theists believe that the existence of a creator is a provable notion, and fideists simply think that given no good grounds for a conclusion either for or against, it is more rational to err on the side of faith.

An atheist, on the other hand, is a person who believes that the notion of a creator can be disproved, while agnostics, like fideists, think that there are no grounds for a conclusion either way, so they rather argue that it is more rational to suspend judgement. Now people can define themselves however they like, and I'm sure a good number of "atheists" and "agnostic atheists" would heartily disagree, but what I am referring to you are the classical definitions and what the etymology supports. In order for us to have a discussion consistent with terminology used by Kant, Hume, Voltaire, Hobbes, or Kierkegaard, it behooves us to pay attention to classical definitions in philosophy. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a clue what they were actually saying.

Theists have a rich philosophical tradition in ethics. Just pick up a book and read about philosophers like Leibniz, Kant, Kierkegaard, Kripke, & Plantinga, all the way back to thinkers like Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, Al-Ghazali, Avicenna, Al-Farazi, Augustine, Viswanathan, Confucius, Laozi, etc. We have been discussing this for thousands of years and there is a mountain of modern theistic material on the subject as well, much of which would be grossly oversimplified by the claims that have been repeated ad nauseum by folks today, that all of theistic thinking including ethics is merely an anthropomorphism or an unqualified appeal to the validity of their own ideas because "God said so". If we can't even basically acknowledge and take stock of the literary mountain on this subject by theists, then we clearly aren't being intellectually honest with each other.

Atheists, on the other hand, have neglected this subject even with great philosophers like Bertrand Russell, Joel Feinberg, Alain Badiou, Simone de Beauvoir, Rudolf Carnap, etc. Carnap in particular noted that there really isn't enough atheist material on this issue and it warranted a lot of further study by his peers.

So, can you lay out in a more concrete manner the epistemological standing of your ethics? A great source for the history of philosophy is this: http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/ Peter Adamson really is a charming orator, well suited to such a gargantuan task in a podcast. His literary references are excellent as well, and you can leave him comments and discuss the material with him yourself. There is also a plethora of guests on the podcast who are specialists and can regale us with linguistic issues, as well as their unique take on famous arguments like Aristotle's Sea Battle argument on determinism.

Your argument is just that theists have written quite a lot more books about ethics than atheists have. I agree. But I also find it irrelevent to my own ethics.



Nope. I can't. I only took one philosophy class in college and that was >20 years ago. I could devote 10+ hours to reading what's in your links plus the wikis of relevant philosophers but I see no reason to. Only theists see the need for this (as evidenced by how little ink has been spilled on the subject by famous atheists) and I'm not one. Theists (better word than deists I guess) see a need to give their morality an external basis. This would seem to make the morality of atheists ungrounded in anything but it is grounded in the exact same thing that theist morality is- human created ideas. Is it really anthropomorphising when something actually does come from humans?

For all the deist talk (and writing) about the necessity for morals that come from outside mere human imagination, morals (that theoretically come from God) are inconsistent across time and geography. This is why I wondered if philosophers ever talked to anthropologists. If morals actually came from God, why the inconsistency? Why are things moral today that would be repugnant in the past (such as equal rights regardless of birth) and repugnant today but were moral in the past (slavery)? There is no consistency because each society makes it up as they go along. Some refer back to the writings of the past but there are inevitable tweaks and changes.

Atheists are just more honest about making it up as we go along.

Whew, I had my work cut out for me in this thread! But I'm glad I've finally gotten to this post as I was looking forward to it. You've presented me with some more challenging arguments, and for that pleasure I thank you, monsieur.

1. Your dilemma concerning foreknowledge is interesting. The reason that I believe this is not as problematic as you say, is that the behavior of an omnipotent being doesn't necessitate any conclusions about that being's abilities. By that I mean it is entirely consistent to suppose that such a being has the ability to change it's behavior, yet at the same time it chooses not to. It can know what it is going to do, and any necessary consequences of it choosing another course. This is called middle knowledge, that is: discernment people counterfactuals.

2. There's the rub: is "knowledge" an ability or an ontological reality, when we are discussing such a being? You seem to be suggesting that "knowledge", in this case, would be an ontological distinction that such a being possesses.

But this definition of "knowledge" isn't exactly common and I would argue that it doesn't say much of anything sensible, when we consider the import of having no restrictions when it comes to ability. Your ability to learn French is different from an omnipotent being's abilities, as such a being at first blush would seem to have the ability to do so instantly, that is: without a gap in time because there is no necessary process, a necessary process would fetter this being's abilities after all.

The basic ability to know something itself, if one is unfettered by any process of coming to know it, wouldn't make any sense unless such a being already knows. This is because such a being can be said to have three abilities; or to put it more succinctly if they are abilities, and an omnipotent being possesses any possible ability, this is a necessary conclusion give these three: A) the ability to consider anything, B) the ability to discern the truth value of any consideration, C) the ability to apply any such consideration. Now if A, B, & C are true there is no functional difference given my next argument.

Our kind of knowledge isn't ontological or ultimately creative. Given the state of our existence, the only form of knowledge available to us is a form of reflective imitation. But when you create something in the same manner as an omnipotent being can create, you are actively determining every aspect of that thing you have created. So it is logically inconsistent to say that you are unaware of any of those aspects when you are the one that actively determined them. Because such a created thing has no previous ontological reality, no direction whatsoever towards any of it's own aspects, it cannot somehow be created and then determine it's own aspects. Such completely new aspects would have to be inherent already.

Now let's assume hypothetically that this omnipotent being didn't create anything. Then maybe such a being wouldn't have knowledge of anything because it didn't create anything. But the sort of creating that it does makes omniscience of such created things a material inference. A material inference is a deductive inference derived from inherent qualities of objects; given that understanding such inferences are fundamental to empiricism, and hence the scientific method. The idea that our observation of a material can tell us of it's inherent qualities is necessary to practice science.

Yes, this is what I meant by 'justify'. I should have been clearer on this point.

Basically the problem is this: modern-day secularists and materialists (D. Dennett and S. Blackmore are good examples) like to go on about how there is no meaning to life, that all can ultimately be explained via recourse to naturalistic explanations (apparently 'evolution' explains practically everything for these people), and that because all we are and all we believe to be right is simply the end result of our genes, conditioning and so on, there is no room for absolute morality, because there cannot be. Life is inherently meaningless, and because we are living organisms and nothing more (no soul, for example), what we do and the way we live our lives count for nothing. After all, how could they count for something if life itself has no inherent value, if it is just chemistry?

Where does morality come in? It doesn't, and that's the problem. There is no explanation for it if one accepts the premise that life is just the happy result of a very long and improbable sequence of 'accidents', without design, teleological significance, or anything else that could actually bestow meaning upon it. What you are therefore left to play with is moral relativism, and since there is no absolute standard against which right and wrong can actually be calibrated within this - rather problematic - system of ethics (assuming one can even call it such), one can basically say that anything at all is right (ex. abortion, euthanasia) or wrong. Questions of right and wrong end up becoming irrelevant, useless and entirely redundant. Why be good, if being a sociopath is rewarded with riches, fame, power and popularity? Where does the concept of altruism come in? What about those who sacrifice their lives for the sake of some higher cause (ex. defeating ISIS), or to save another in danger?

Atheism can address none of this.

Okay, it's good that you don't want others to suffer, but why do you even care in the first place? After all, pain is just the result of damage to a purely material and complex arrangement of electricity and chemistry, with no free will, no soul, no value and no ultimate hope in anything other than the short time the organism in question has whilst alive. Shouldn't you be more like R. Descartes who liked to torture animals, and when they screamed in pain simply responded with something like, "What you are hearing is nothing more significant than when gears screech due to a lack of oil"? Wouldn't that be far more consistent with your materialist philosophy?

First of all, I am not ruling much of anything out. I know there is an existence of some sort but I can only guess at trying to explain it. I only know what I perceive. I don't know if there is free will. It may all be predestined by the laws of physics/fate. I see the soul as the ability to perceive. I believe anything that can perceive has value. I believe materialism is only a fraction of what exists. I believe we cannot comprehend all of what exists.

That's not quite what atheist ethics has to look like, my friend. Evolutionary ethics and moral relativism aren't exactly the same thing. Moral relativism is grounded in postmodern values, and it's based on the idea that we should be skeptical of the truth of pretty much any notion. Evolutionary ethics, on the other hand, is based on a limited kind of empiricism called naturalism/materialism. There are two main paradigms in evolutionary ethics: what is good for the individual person passing on his/her genes, and what is good for the propagation and evolution of the species.

The problem here is that evolutionary ethics still doesn't have any way to endorse what we typically consider moral behavior. Surely if we think along such utilitarian trains of thought, it becomes acceptable to make cruel and callous decisions in both paradigms. We would have to seriously split some hairs and perform great mental gymnastics in order to support ideals like altruism and equality using either paradigm. Evolution is harsh, and the different parties in a gene pool are not at all equal when we look at the process of evolution. Clearly certain genes and behaviors are superior and preferred, because they have more individual and collective value in order to survive and flourish.

Here, some more music to enjoy during our discussion. I like to listen as I read and contemplate:

My argument is that atheists and agnostics, for the most part, haven't even considered it enough of a subject to properly address it. It is inconsistent when such thinkers argue along moral lines, because they haven't established a satisfying reason why they have morals in the first place. The mere claim that they do, and we should accept that because we have the same moral feelings, provides zero epistemological justification and it invites contradiction. The reason it invites contradiction is that by those standards alone they can't tell a genocidal interlocutor why such behavior is wrong, so here we are left with a round square.

I have seen the argument trotted out that certain behavior is right because of the general consensus, so the answer to "what is right" is changing all the time and we have progressed from primitive times. This has no explanatory power because not only are there many places in the world where people don't agree with our basic values regarding human dignity and life, but it establishes no inherent reason why we are any more right about such issues today than people in the past.



Atheists and agnostics claim that we anthropomorphize an imaginary concept in order to endorse our own very human ideas. This is a gross oversimplification of theistic reason. Through teleological reasoning we discuss our design and purpose. So in our epistemology human nature comes second, not first. Merely saying that you don't have the same explanatory needs for your ethics, is no way of addressing the actual theistic explanations for their ethical philosophy.

It is your claim that our morality is based on the same thing as yours. But it is merely a claim. Repeating the same claim ad nauseum does nothing to establish that claim. We have an entire epistemological structure to our thinking on this subject and pretty much all that atheists and agnostics do to address it is make this grossly oversimplified claim about the whole thing, instead of rebutting any of the underpinning assumptions behind theistic ethics.

You can criticize our teleology, but our ethics are logically valid because they are consistent with that teleology. Everything in theistic ethics is ultimately centered around design and purpose. Whatever your reservations are has nothing to do with whether or not that is a rational model, so as I've said a number of times already when people reduce this to "it's based on humanity alone just the same" it is an exceedingly careless oversimplification. We understand that your reasoning is ultimately based on certain axioms, but on every side of the aisle we can't just take all of our assumptions to be foregone conclusions and judge the ideas of everyone else entirely from that frame of reference. No, what we must do to rebut or learn from each other in any satisfying way, is to take the entire frameworks of each other into account.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. Our system won't make a lick of sense to you if you take your own notion of atheism as a foregone conclusion and don't even bother to look at our whole framework. I've given the courtesy of a rigorous treatment numerous times for people on your side of the aisle, yet what I find little of is direct answers to our own reasoning. Instead I find characterizations and oversimplifications of our reasoning. None of them seem to understand that our ethics are rooted in teleology.

Also, I would argue that NT ethics were very progressive then and are still very progressive today. So it has nothing to do with the time period. Normally this is dismissed with "well your biblical ethics and interpretations are arbitrary anyways", which is also not a direct answer when I supply rigorous support for my reasoning.

This general attitude from much of your community that we aren't even your peers philosophically, is tiresome because we for the most part gave them many of their underlying principles of reasoning, such as empiricism, propositional aka "mathematical" logic, etc. yet they can't be bothered to directly address our arguments. There are truly great atheist names today and I don't see them being touted. No, we have to rebut your Dawkins, Sagan, and Hitchens, and when we make mincemeat of their arguments because it is child's play when they don't even use proper citation standards or steer away from the most basic fallacies, for the most part you guys just indignantly prove your confirmation bias like Otaku here or you hand us yet another coloring book to make mincemeat of.

To be honest, I feel that the most popular and widely published atheist arguments have gone from compelling to terribly pedestrian. Seriously, the God Delusion? It's a sad, true joke that anyone takes such a book seriously. I know you serious thinkers are out there and I appreciate you, but these popular names and the people touting them are giving you a bad rep in academic circles. And by "academic circle" I mean people who have been published by decent journals with peer review standards, not professors who give one dissertation and publish a few papers before they pontificate their dribble at students in public colleges.

But that only explains why some legal or moral framework, whether religious or secular is needed, and arguably how such systems might initially have evolved if one rejects a divine origin for morality, however that might be understood, not why one should regard the ethical or legal system that happens to be prevalent in one's own country or time as either normative, or if not on what basis it should be opposed. Evidently there are a number of philosophical bases for ethics; as has been indignantly pointed out in this thread, atheism does not require one to subscribe to moral relativism, hedonism, or a survival of the fittest ethos - all of those are only different philosophical approaches

And I do not know that there are many if any ethicists of either theist or atheist persuasion (of any variation of either) alive today who could truthfully claim to have "created" their own ethics, as one commentator appeared to be putting it. Value systems have history. Laws, and ethical principles that may or may not agree with laws, alike have a history. In terms of ethical content (i.e. actual behaviour) while there are a number of philosophical ethical systems, such as Stoic, Confucian or Kantian (I realise that those given here are not explicitly or implicitly atheist, but in terms of seeking a philosophical rather than religious basis for ethical conduct based on reason, I am not sure I see the relevance of the theologcial position of the ethical philosopher if one hypothetically rejects God's existence as inherently irrational) in practice many seem broadly compatible with Judaeo-Christian or Abrahamic ethics.

Of course, since anthropology has been raised, there are vast differences in terms of the specifics of morality and law on numerous issues, and our own times and places are not immune to this. So what is the basis for sound ethical conduct? Now obviously what people profess to believe and how they act in specific circumstances differ considerably; many profess a faith tradition like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam (or Hinduism or Buddhism for the sake of some non-Abrahamic examples, though the latter can be a form of atheist philosophy anyway) in theory and repeatedly and outrageously violate central tenets of that tradition's ethical teaching; conversely, one might in theory reject such teaching utterly and with vitriolic and rhetorical flourishes in theory, yet still follow the ethical content in practice.

Also, ethical views within groups of humans sharing a view as to the existence or otherwise and nature if existent of God obviously vary considerably, even in theory let alone practice. So how can one judge whether there is such a thing as a value system more ethical or righetous than the others? Yet consistent moral relativism would also be unpalatable for most humans as this would mean, if pursued to its logical extreme, that not only was no conduct inherently wrong, but neither would it be inherently wrong to judge harshly any conduct, or indeed any punishment a priori wrong, so we would be back where we started any way. The ethical question remains.

Ethics is a problem for all humans because we must live together with each other, as well as with other species and upon this planet. Also a slight pedantic correction to one of the posters; deist and theist are not synonyms, despite both deriving from a word (Latin and Greek respectively) for God or god. A deist is one who believes that God created the Universe and then left it to its own devices after establishing the laws of nature or physics, one who does not intervene.

Atheism is only a position on one question - the existence or not of God, godesses, gods, however understood. Not all or even most atheist philosophers reject meaning or ethics; in practice most humans continue to live as though there were some moral absolutes, even if we disagree as to the boundaries and frequently fall short of even our own standards. These sorts of question are perennial. Even theists have wrestled with why, if God or the gods are omnipotent and perfectly wise and good, is there evil and suffering, and why do good people suffer while the wicked, at least temporarily, seem to prosper? There is a lot of that sort of introspection in the Old Testament, the Mesopotamian wisdom literature, some Greek philosophers; also comes up in the Gospels and other New Testament writings. Rejecting God does not do away with the question. I have resolved that, while I may still struggle with many aspects of Christianity, I should strive to live in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. If one is going to adhere to a faith-tradition at all, one should try to follow its teachings, however imperfectly one may succeed at this; this is challenge enough for a life time.

Actually, at least a literal reading of many of the myths of many of the gods of the various ancient polytheistic religions could offer one hypothetical answer by denying that the gods are necessarily good, and also that any one of them is omnipotent either; the philosopher Epicurus was still able to use this argument as a basis for atheism, while other philosophers approached monotheism, in both cases rejecting to varying extents the traditional religious teaching of Greece.

Mesopotamian religion could be quite depressing - humans created not just as slaves, but as labour saving devices, so it is natural that the philosophy should be of a introspective and pessimistic cast - perhaps also why other aspects of the religion involved forms of hedonistic pleasure as consolation for the apparent futility of existence, though obviously there is more to these great civilizations than that. This is not the view of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob taken in the Bible - though for theists and atheists alike the recorded conduct can appear at least problematic if not repugnant - but nevertheless the same problem of evil and suffering is still confronted head on, in many Psalms, Job, and Ecclesiastes, for example. The question was still a hot issue in the time of Jesus of Nazareth on Earth.

By the way, I am sorry if some may have felt that it was being argued by some theists, falsely in my view, that being an atheist makes one inherently more immoral than any theist - personal experience and my study of history alike render such a view utterly false in my view, as well as ungrateful to some extent, as does the denial by others of any positive contribution by Jews, Christians or Muslims, or of the many polytheistic or non-Abrahamic monotheistic civilizations and individuals. That does not change the fact that our ethical principles do not emerge fully formed in modern times, they have a history, and for better or worse, that history has been shaped by or in response to (including rejection of) the history of religion.

Last edited by AlexandertheSolitary on 25 Jun 2015, 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bravo monsieur, I like that you make a case for the existential problem of ethics to compliment our epistemological quandaries. What does our understanding of ethics say about our human existence itself? Are we truly satisfied with the answers instead of merely understanding them? Like you've just mentioned there is this big problem of theodicy (aka "the problem of evil"). Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Spinoza first touch on this whole area of existentialism and C.S. Lewis and Martin Buber are greatly regarded as more modern existentialists.

I would highly suggest for anyone here who is interested to take a look at Martin Buber's Ich Und Du ("I and thou"). The distinction in it between "I and it" and "I and thou" relationships is of consequence to thinkers of many different theological stripes, and has been formative for thinking in the social sciences, philosophy, and theology for quite some time now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou

While I understand your reference to the importance of existentialism (which in many ways has roots as deep as Socrates and Job), everything becomes arbitrary without epistemology. "I and thou" and similar material is great when it comes to what ethical consideration means for us, but it doesn't justify the concepts.

In many ways we see the precursors for postmodernism being built, especially when Kierkegaard comes onto the scene discussing his idea of subjectivity. There are clear reasons why so many philosophers are fleeing from the face of postmodernism today, as it voids the meaning of language, contradicts itself at every turn, and appeals to the sole frame of reference of pure solipsism, which is neither coherent nor correspondent with reality. Perfectly sensible theories of knowledge and justification are thrown out the window and we end up in the purest epistemological limbo. Even the most renowned existentialists understood that they were creating a distinct subject in philosophy, but not an axiomatic or even provisionally axiomatic consideration by any means. Without support from elsewhere, in the traditional ladder of epistemology from metaphysics to ethics, they knew they could only blow smoke, nothing more.

I'm very glad I could inspire such anticipation, and hope I shan't dissapoint.



Granted, a being that has foreknowledge of its actions may well know the consequences of a differrent course of action. However, the point was not that said being wouldn't change its actions because it knew the resulting consequences of the second course of action but rather that, with foreknowledge, it couldn't. We humans move through time one way, and as such can only look backwards at what has already happened and, short of a time machine, we are unable to change it. Imagine to be able to "remember" both past and future. We have arrived at predeterminism, a fetter which I dont think you're arguing for.

And for that matter said being would probably also be unfettered by time, yes? Hence it could travel both backwards and forwards or move entirely independent of time, but unless it can change its own knowledge, it would still be powerless to alter course. And if it can indeed change its own knowledge, what good is any knowledge it possesses?




I would argue that knowledge itself is only data. The "ability to have knowledge" is just the property of being able to contain and retain data. We humans, as you say, have processes that we go through to obtain knowledge. Our knowledge is the data we gather, process and remember for future application. A being with the properties you propose would have all knowledge by virtue of existing, unfettered by the requirement of data gathering. In fact, I think it might actually be unable to learn by definition. What data could it gather that it did not already possess?




It seems the property of omniscience invalidates A) and B). Already knowing the answer means you neither have to consider nor discern the truth value of anything. "Considering" and attempting to "discern" are things humans do exactly because we are not omniscient, but rather have to strive to learn. Come to think of it, being omniscient would probably be intensely dull.




Ah, now I think I see what you're saying. Granted, but what if said being was creating some other way? Say, some sort of self-replicating process with an aspect of descent with inherited modifications?




So, this hypothetical being starts having no knowledge, then starts creating everything and learns all things in the process, and ultimately loses the ability to learn by virtue of having learned all there is to learn? Also, having foreknowledge, did it already know how it was going to create everything?

I'm also curious as to how a being would learn by creating. I envision a character creation from a video game, but even then there's a template. I don't have to invent the concept of strength in order to add it as a value to what I'm creating.



Thank you Alexander, for acknowledging this.

Looking out at how large the Universe is; looking at science and truly understanding how little of reality science is able to evidence and wrap 'its mind around'; it is the height of amusement to me to see folks attempt to fit God; ALL OF GOD; in the way humans think.

And by the way; humans are a spectrum of thinking differently; experiencing emotions that emote humans in action differently; as well as experiencing much different sensory experiences of life through senses that are much more comprehensive in practice among some humans than others.

Honestly, if anyone thinks that knowledge is just data; they are missing a substantial part of just the human being experience in greater human potential.

To suggest a human can wrap a mind around GOD is no less illogical than to suggest a flea can wrap its mind around a dog that the flea depends on for live giving blood.

So yeah; as metaphor humans, all humans truly see the force of all existence as blood; whether they see it or not with so called data or knowledge. Written down stuff is certainly data; however, lots of people cannot understand the simplest of metaphors or sarcasm, so obviously even written language is not objective.

Everything is subjective.

Subjective is the rule of human being, as even science now shows that humans filter most of their decisions through emotions first before words even come on the 'conscious front of mind'.

The truth is, some folks are aware of much more than words.

Words are just symbols for deeper meanings of the emotional and sensory experiences of human that range from numb to a 'full kaleidoscope' of emotional and sensory experience.

As another metaphor some folks experience life as shades of data and other folks experience life as hues of Art.

God is Art; one need look no further than a sunflower; a nautilus shell; a galaxy; or a curled cat to see the golden mean spiral that can flow from waves to the written metaphors of human being when flowing with GOD instead of against GOD in human contrived so-called 'data order'.

Order is the illusion. Science is the illusion.

The ART of GOD is Reality.

'Same reason' that in the movie 'Contact' when Jodie Foster sees 'God' for the first time, she suggests that they should of sent a poet instead of a scientist to more fully describe what the oneness of all things looks like in human abstract metaphors of truth. Science is a sketchy tool to describe what is observable by limited human emotions and senses.

God is the masterpiece of all that some folks sadly see much less of than others; and science proves this out.

It doesn't matter if one call 'it' GOD; the ALL; All that IS; the Force; the Great Spirit; Brahman; ONE; the Alpha and the Omega; or just everything put together and how it all works interdependently as connected; never the less, 'it is reality'; 'it' has always been 'reality' for the smallest of human 'eyes'; and long after human is gone this three letter metaphor abstractly constructed by a poet somewhere down the line in history will continue to exist; no matter what 'little blood sucking fleas' of human beings have to say about it in words of art and or science.

It will always be folly to attempt to describe GOD with science only eyes; fortunately some scientists like Carl Sagan understood and understand 'this'; and he while under the influence of weed gained greater access to his poetic side of mind; and puts 'it' into literature; and now 'it' exists forever as a kind of portal on YouTube and other sources in video way.

Anyway, here 'it' is for reference for those with deeper eyes like Carl Sagan to see greater truths than sketchy science can provide alone.

Some folks don't need weed to 'go to places' like 'this'; I for one am blessed this way, by all natural GOD as GOD lives in pArt within me; expressed as spiRit coming straight from the emotional and sensory heARt that fuels my sOul..



Some folks around here would love to shut me up; as they understand none of this; those that do, listen in the background, as all interpreting 'right-brain' minds do. I do both; LEFT AND RIGHT, as one FORCE; 'THAT' makes me 'special'..

Jodie Foster likely would have invited me on 'her trip', in 'real life'; and not 'the movie'..

Yes, and that was precisely my point. I may not have used the correct terminology, but whichever way you look at it neither system you mention (i.e. evolutionary ethics, moral relativism) can provide the solid and objective standard that is needed for a system of such ethics.