No such thing as God.

For example, if we accept that man is an evolutionary animal, then it's reasonable to suppose that the concept of God occurred to man as an explanation of his existence.

Once he came to realize the relationship between the artifact and the artificer - the made thing and the maker of the thing, man re-applied this conceptual scheme to reconcile perceptions of himself in the world, and asked 'who made the world?' and 'who made me?'

[Primitive man] applied the conceptual schemes available to him to infer the existence of a Great Artificer in the sky, a Creator God - the archetype of all subsequent God concepts.It's impossible to overstate the significance of this idea - for it changed man's understanding of reality, his conception of himself, and thus his behaviors and purposes. Where before it was impossible for hunter-gatherer tribes with hierarchies based on the threat and use of violence to join together, by employing the concept of God as an objective authority for law hunter-gatherer tribes could form multi-tribal and social groups without one tribe submitting directly to the will of the other. Instead, in the interests of providing better food, security and breeding opportunities than were provided by a hunter-gatherer way of life, they agreed to submit to the objective authority of God's will.

The immediate consequence of this agreement was theology - the practice of inferring social laws (more or less favorable to some than others) from assertions about the nature of God.

The Talmud, the Bible and the Koran - each one coming into existence as a refutation of the former, can therefore be understood as conceptual schemes reconciling perceptions of reality in different ways, the product of centuries of employing a social agreement to submit to God's will to serve political and economic ends.

Therefore, in terms of our theory, the pseudo-reality conjured into existence by understanding in these terms is the division of humankind into groups defined by one idea of the nature of God as opposed to another.

The Theory of Evolution proposed by Darwin answers the original question posed by primitive man, 35,000 years before. The concept of God occurred to explain the apparent artifact of man's existence by supposing the existence of an artificer. The quality of an artifact has, lacking in a natural object, is the quality of design. The theory of Evolution explains the appearance of design in nature - showing how plants and animals have become so well suited to their various ways of life without reference to an unseen artificer, or even a grand design. Rather there is a simple mechanism at work - natural selection, whereby the fittest survive to breed and pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations.

Before Darwin, the idea of a Creator may have been the best explanation man had for his existence, but because the concept of God is merely inferred, and cannot be proven to have this or that characteristic, the power structures have always been free to make assertions about the nature of God as a means of taking advantage of an agreement the individual finds themselves born into.

The pseudo-real divisions between human groups, defined by their conceptions of God, do not allow us to accept scientific knowledge, but require science be employed to create technologies of mass-murder, rather than, for instance, employing science, and applying the technology to provide humankind with a sustainable energy basis.

There are other extinction threats with the same root cause, and the same remedy; namely climate change, over-population and environmental degradation, but explaining these threats as externalities of ideological understanding as a basis for action requires a much fuller explanation of human conceptual development - particularly, the religious roots of capitalism, omitted from this treatment for the sake of brevity, and so as not to overcomplicate the argument.

third, rather like G.E.Moore - with his naturalistic fallacy, i don't think you allow for the scope of knowledge. psychology and sociology study scientifically the meanings and values held by people. further i would hold that 'function' is a value-neutral value that can be scientifically understood and achieved, particulalry where it relates to a human body, mind, society, an ecosystem.

fourth, just because nature is 'red in tooth and claw' doesn't mean that human society should be. we human beings have an exquisite intellectual appreciation of our existence - and couldn't function under such circumstances. ideas of social and psychological function, and ecological function can be said to underlie the 6 proposals of the constitution and these are quite justifiable scientifically.

1) an honest and unqualified acceptance of a scientific understanding of reality.

2) a commitment to the continued survival of the human species.

3) a global hierarchy organized on the basis of intellectual meritocracy.

4) a commitment to human equality:
a) material equality within the bounds of environmental sustainability.
b) equality of opportunity.

5) none shall bear arms but in the service of the global government.

6) a right to self replacement in two halves of two children subject to female consent.

solace, it seems to me that the word 'communism' is in someway frightening or disgusting to you - inherently bad for no reason that requires rational justification. that's the very quality religion lends to ideology - so difficult to describe. thank you for demonstrating it.
socially, politically and economically there are a limited number of possible concepts - that such systems do resemble eacother. principally, i'm talking about what's necessary for humankind to survive as a species, employing these concepts, but there are significant differences - particulalrly obedience to science and intellectual meritocracy as a principle of political organisation.
economically though, i concede, the pursuit of wealth - to unjust and environmentally destructive ends, would not be considered a social good, and resources would be employed to provide broad material equality for everyone. it's the only way to enable environmental sustainability - and afterall, this is about species survival.

These ancient relics of mundane social thoughts

I don't understand why duality is inherently dubious - particularly in relation to a concept. Many concepts are dualities: hot and cold, good and bad, in and out, creator and created. The logical relation is sound, even though it's not what actually happened.

Well, right back at ya - you miss the point. This argument explains how hunter-gatherer tribes formed social groups. You see, like chimpanzees, hunter-gatherer tribes likely had a shifting hierarchy headed by an alpha-male, his authority based on threat and use of violence, family relations and alliances maintained by bribery. Chimpanzees have strong social instincts within the troop, but the males particularly are violently xenophobic toward chimps of other troops. The alpha male eats first and gets the best and most food, and mates with more females than lesser males.
Therefore, in the absence of some higher justification for social organization, any two tribes could at best achieve separate co-existence, for otherwise, at the slightest provocation, the original tribal identities would reassert themselves, and every material and marital decision would become a bloodbath. But it did happen, hunter-gatherer tribes did form societies, and this requires explanation. This is another perception reconciled by the theory.

I think that you are historically incorrect, and conceptually incorrect. (This is from memory, so spellings and dates are somewhat approximate.)
Jesus, who was probably a real person, rather than, on the one hand, the Son of God, or on the other, merely a cipher, hated the religious orthodoxy. He spent half his life bemoaning the shortcomings of Judaism - and the other half attacking the Roman State, and consequently, the Jews conspired with the Romans to have him killed.

400 years later, Maxentius brought his troops to the Mulvian bridge outside Rome and is reputed to have had a dream in which he saw the sign of Jesus, and heard the words, 'in this sign you will conquer.' Next morning he told his soldiers to paint the Christian symbol on their shields, and the promptly defeated Lucinius - fighting under the imperial symbol of Sol Inviticus.

Maxentius untied Rome before he died, but never managed to reconcile the church in the west with the church in the east, on the question of the nature Jesus. (see: Council of Nicecea. 325 a.d.) The empire fell around 410 a.d., and split in half. The western half of the empire continued with the Son of God idea, while the Eastern half of the empire developed Islam, in which Jesus features as a minor prophet.

Again, you misunderstand. The pseudo-reality is the division of humankind - in denial of the fact that we are a single species. Humankind is divided into groups defined by their different conceptions of God, and adherence to the articles of that religion derived from assertions about the nature of God.

What Darwin fails to do is answer those questions in a way that is instructive - okay, we evolve, so what?

It's not just that we evolve - but that if we don't evolve we'll die.

No, the very essence of ideology - be it religious, political or economic is preventing change. Religious change is heresy, political change is revolution, and economic change is bankruptcy. That's why, if we carry on as we are, we aren't going to survive.

Well, I suppose it depends upon what kind of God you imagine. If you imagine a God who created the Heavens and the Earth - then evolution is a direct refutation. If you imagine a God who just lit the evolutionary firework, so to speak, and then stood back and watched, well maybe Darwin doesn't pose a direct refutation, but even this is contradictory. As I argued in the very beginning, the chains of cause and effect that tie reality together speak of a consistent reality in which everything that exists is consistent with the existence of everything else. Evolution couldn't have occurred otherwise. Because you have acknowledged that evolution did occur, a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient God can't exist. If you argue that He does, then open the door on every other bizarre skeptical possibility, as Daniel C. Dennett puts it, God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tinfoil.

I know what the moral meaning of the story of Adam and Eve should be - 'Son of Adam, you have eaten of the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Now swallow!' But, no. It's stuck in your throat. You refuse to see what you know. You're going to choke to death because you haven't got the courage to swallow

Hi again iconoclast.

Well, I do have some thoughts in direct response to a lot of your post, but after writing them, it felt like we might be begining to go in circles... I can post those thoughts if you want me to, but I'm not sure how helpful it would be. Also, I don't want to start reacting to what feels to me like a "Big Brother" scenerio, which might get us sidetracked too far.


SO, one issue at a time... Heres my problem with your claim that your ideas are scientifically based: Science observes. Ideologies direct. It's a matter of function. It's like expecting a compass to tell you what direction to take. First you need a desired direction, then a compass. Do you disagree?