A Natural Religion

Perhaps seeking an end to the “endless” disputes would be like asking for an end of all change, when some change may be beneficial to one or all. A naturalistic religion would probably include all changes noted in scientific prognostications about future events. It could not die with dogma, which is the ailment of current world religions. It would accept change as human growth and development within the ecosystems that continue to sustain us. In short it would be concerned with eugenics and ecosystems.

When is ‘change’ growth and development, and when is it counterproductive or gratuitous?

Ok look. James wins, cause, when you zoom onto a River at the molecular level, it is no longer Identified as a river. It is just a bunch of spheres.
So at the Zoom level of a river being a river, The river maintains a consistent identity within it’s word paramaters.
Zooming in the River Nile, to where you only see spheres, it is no longer the River nile.
James wins, Prismatic loses.

Doesn’t science daily deal with such distinctions?

No. Science only say that something happens a certain way. It doesn’t say if it is good or bad. Which is why you can kill millions of people with the science of a nuclear fission or you can heat and light their homes and keep them alive.
Science does not say if a country should change from a monarchy, to a republic, to a dictatorship.

A natural religion would ask of science that it relinquish its amoral stance about the consequences of events science causes. It could no longer pretend to be the innocent bystander or the toddler in a room with a loaded gun.
Should no scientists have a conscience?

But how can it do that if morality cannot be measured? Science depends on measurement of quantities.

I’d say morality can be measured. It can be the measure of well-being given to living beings.

Meditation
Utilitarianism
Morally Defensible Capitalism
The Protection Of Free Speech
An Equality With Other Species
The Concept Of Personal Responsibility
Altruism [ Both Reciprocal And Non Reciprocal ]
The Promotion Of Collectivism Over Individualism
Space Exploration With Regard To Finding A Second Earth

You are absolutely right and very perceptive too as not everyone would actually get this so well done you

Morality cannot be measured by science and it is wrong to think that it can

In what way wrong? J. Huxley believed that the scientific method for addressing claims about physical realities could be used to justify religious claims.

I just read part of this thread, so apologies…

Yes, everything changes, identity doesn’t hold… right? Well if everything changes, “everything changes” is an identity…

There are tenured professors all around the world who study a branch of philosophy called “continuity” it may be continuity of consciousness or some other continuity.

Continuity is a fact of life.

Religious claims extend beyond the physical into the realm of the metaphysical so cannot be investigated by the scientific method

Huxley disagrees. He proposes religion that denies the supernatural. As for the metaphysical, science goes there in projections of what the physical could become or even might be. When it comes to physical reality, science provides our best guess yet.

all the huxleys have worked for the ‘brave new world’ or the planetary depopulation agenda. There is only one immutable Law/Code, and which is that holding the cosmos together, and which is called Electricity.

Denial of the physical in attempts to reach some spiritual level of experience is to destroy the very equipment necessary for turning sight into insight. We progress spiritually from the known (physical) to the unknown (Extensions of the physical).
A natural religion would be involved in the study of man for the purpose of achieving communities beneficial to all; it would have as its goal the well-being of all people. Bifurcate the physical from the spiritual and you would see this goal denied. That some aspects of this goal are evident in todays culture, in some parts of the world, gives us hope that the splintering of the human psyche into warring parts will have had its day.

Not true of the Huxley’s. Aldous eschewed the “brave new world” mentality in favor of rugged individualism. Julian proposed a religion that would enhance human destiny.

No elite gets a pass with me, after 2000 years of their medicine, the world has now enough of it. The devil lies in the details. Since when advocating for the drugging of an entire population to mold society is considered moral?

wiki
Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS was a British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and internationalist. He was a proponent of natural selection, and a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century modern evolutionary synthesis.

all the huxleys are into eugenics, intellectual and darwinian form of it (infectious globalism). And preach for the absolute control of the masses. This vid makes it crystal clear.

Aldous Huxley - The Ultimate Revolution (Berkeley Speech 1962)
youtube.com/watch?v=2WaUkZXKA30

I agree that only natural laws shape spirituality

Thanks for the Huxley video. I still have difficulty believing that, just because Huxley envisaged certain futures he approved of them morally. The hero of Brave New World is a savage, is not the sheep of some futuristic mind manipulating
social elite.