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.
glad you likes it, on my site you will find extremely informative materials such as this one, in support of “mindset transitioning”.
I’m gonna check out the Huxley video and the links in your sig CelineNK… I like having to get my mind around things.
My religion of Exaltism is defined by its natural behaviors.
Think of this: there had to be an impersonal “thing” that created the Universe. Something at one point had the energy that existed before the big bang happened, and it somehow was allowed to make the Universe we are in right now.
Then think of this: the only reason why we are in the Universe the way we are, is things like the Universe itself, as well as the Milky Way’s center and the Sun, our star. Without these things the Earth couldn’t exist. Aren’t these Gods personal? The sun is more personal than the center of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is more personal than the Universe itself. No, I don’t have to deify these things - I could also deify any parent for directly involving the creation of you, but I see it as awe that these things were able to even exist.
So, under my umbrella turns, I’m a panendeist, who sees the validity of an impersonal God bigger than our Universe and many personal Gods inside of it. That would be considered henotheism. Besides that, I see all live forms as the ability to become divine, in something I like to call “Divine Selection”, which is the concept that natural and artificial selection will be replaced one day with. This is a natural theosis.
I like the concept of a natural religion, because I really don’t believe in the supernatural myself. Even my panendeism is just some naturally occurring thing that is outside our Universe. Also, I’m pretty strictly monist, type physicalism style. Hence, I can’t believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, anything outside mass and motion.
In conclusion, if you want a natural religion that believes in natural and species deifications go with the Faith of Exaltation, my religion. If this isn’t how you view the world, that is fine too. I would say most people are dualists anyways.
There was no Big Bang. But in what way is “Exaltism” a religion?
It’s a religion with no followers. I’m not charismatic, in fact I’m pretty creepy in real life. Nobody will probably follow me, unless I at least publish a book or make this faith my only goal. I thought that by putting an article on NRM Wikia that someone would see it and ask me about it, but the only people that ask me about it are my Internet friends, which I have few of. Even my Internet friends don’t agree with most of my stances.
Pity me. (Or join my religion, either way it fine with me.)
Well, I have asked you of it. But I have to say, that your description so far says that it isn’t actually a religion at all, merely a hopeful thought (although of what, I am not certain). Is there anything that you can add to what you have said to update that assessment?