Confusion about morality

With young kids, it's been interesting to see how they have begun to develop a morality -- a feeling of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done.

Morality is a large reason why many people have found theism to be the only rational worldview. Arguments for the existence of God, and so forth, are commonly rooted in morality.

The only game in town for human morality origins from a naturalistic worldview is a bit strange -- assuming a naturalist accepts Darwinian evolution.  Assuming they do, morality can only be understood as not an evolutionary-created mirage, as some think, but as an evolutionary suicide pill.  Evolution, as correctly understood, "cares" about surviving long enough to have kids who are then fit to have their own kids, etc. To think of it was being concerned with the survival of a species, is not the same thing, or really even close. Morality, on a personal level, is actually anti-evolution.

Animals, on the other hand, just act. They are not in any way concerned with what they ought to do. They simply follow their biological impulses to survive. Surviving in herds is not game theory.

Of course, morality is often studied in higher animals. Seeing animals punished for "selfish" behavior, is not a rare observation. However, and this is a big however, morality is prescription -- how it can be studied by description is not an insignificant question and certainly not settled law. Simply stated, we are not describing physical interactions or chemical structures. Furthermore, and this is no small furthermore, we can describe what an animal or animals do in certain situations, but, that is not the same as what the animal thinks it "ought" to do?  This is morality, it is not the act by irrational beings.

But, all that being said, there is one concern that would really keep my up at night, if i had a naturalistic view. For the sake of argument, assume morality rushed on the scene say during the (also) mysterious emergence of human conscience. So then, why in the world would we need discreet moral laws to redundantly tell us what our natural impulses should?  Well, it does not take us long to realize that most people, if they can get away with it, will bypass what their morality will urge them if they can a) stomach it and b) understand it will give them some benefit. So, therefore, we need the laws of Moses or some other morally similar set of precepts to tell us what we ought to do, because our natural instincts tell us something quite different. Again, morality on a personal level, appears to be anti-evolution.

And, if I was a naturalist, even more daunting for me: Yes, this includes an appeal to emotion, but, we are emotional beings, so this should not seem to unusual. Thoughtful naturalistic atheists and theists alike accept without subjective morality, there is no grounds to say anything is truly good or evil; murder and doing worse is no more good or evil than picking a flower. But, if evolution is truly solely steering the morality game in whatever way, one can very much make the argument that, since evolutionary fitness is the only goal, not doing everything you can to increase your evolutionary fitness is the real evil. Not murdering and doing worse would be evil from nature's perspective if we were hindering our evolutionary fitness. Selfless lives of service to others, that for some reason many of us admire above all, would be the most evil. To be clear, though, just because this sound absurd does not make it not true. However, what for me makes this seem extremely unlikely to be true is that, it appears to provide a clear defeater to the naturalistic viewpoint (if one is to believe evolution to be true, of course. If a naturalist, does not, then they have no defeater. Just a ton of other problems).

This reminds me of the well documented reduction in number of children that atheists have compared to theists, which, means belief in God is consistent with reproductive fitness. In the same vein, but in a twisted way, morality has strong anti-evolution effects: If all people lived in the highest state of morality, selfless love, they would, as Jesus put it, lay their lives down for strangers. Want to get yourself out of the gene pool in a hurry? Go ahead and do that. But many make the simple argument that it helps our species survive when we have people performing moral acts. That is all fine and dandy, but even if you believe that, it has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. The undeniable fact that morality pushes back against many of our biological impulses that have allowed our animal ancestors to survive, and, obviously us as well, flies directly in the face of evolution. And for me, even if you can convince yourself that Stalin did no evil and folks that have died for human rights for others three continents away were not  heroes but evolutionary mistakes, the fact that morality pushes back on against nearly all our evolutionary instincts is yet another daunting obstacle to retain the naturalistic worldview.

Brady's reads

"The whole life lies in the verb seeing". Teilhard de Chardin

"Has the world gone mad or is it me? All these small things, they gather around, they gather around me. Is it so very bad? I can't see"... Ben Howard, "small things"

If you watch (given you most likely don't like) the Patriots, which is actually pretty easy since they are usually playing all the way through January, without knowing anything about football, you still may know this: Tom Brady sees things that only a percent of a percent of football people see, never mind the general population.

Football is a game of course, but one that Americans spend a lot of time with. Its (my favorite) distraction, but a distraction nonetheless. A distraction in an age of increasing distractions, of course.

Steve Jobs didn't like distractions. We thank him for one of other favorite distractions, the Apple brand. When Jobs died of pancreatic cancer a few years ago, he had lived a remarkable life. A self-made billionaire, whose legacy will live on for a long time through the Apple brand.

But for what purpose? The general advancement of the human race for sure is perhaps the noblest. And it is a noble cause. From a theist viewpoint.

From a materialistic viewpoint,  success and legacy could not logically be meaningful (as many have pointed out, if you start with no meaning (start of the universe and existence) and end with no meaning (sun death) there can be no meaning in between).

But, a different question is, does it matter? That may seem like an overlapping question, and it probably is, but it is also distinct. The iPhone matters to me, for sure. But does Steve Jobs' success (or anyones for that point) matter to me or someone (besides maybe one whom inherited apple's ceo  or Jobs' real estate) else?

It seems impossible. The now very well documented (press, movie starring the have you seen my car dude?" dude) life of Jobs is one of enormous material and intellectual success. Again, i like my iPhone and its improved the qualify of life of many, and obviously there were many other intellectual contributions.

But, on a materialistic viewpoint,  the whole existence of Steve Jobs has totally disintegrated into molecules drafting farther away from each other than Ashton Kutcher and his movie car. Jobs' (Our) civilization will be vanished from all record in  a few billion years, the universe to soon (well, not really soon, but comparatively speaking) follow, with a final swoop swallowing up any trace of this man's great contributions to civilization.  As the South African-now-Virginian Dave Matthews would tell you, "be drink and be merry, for tomorrow will die." That seems to be the only reasonable way to live.

But as brilliant as Jobs was, he seemed to make a bonehead move to not do that. Like a laymen like myself watching the Bills defenders lining up across from Brady, he couldn't see this very obvious thing. As de Chardin rightfully points out, it's all about the seeing -- which was really just a summation of much of Jesus' ministry.

It's not just the "small things that gather around." I mean, it is of course some of it. Nonsense like football, politics, jobs (small cap). We need to eat and sleep, sure. But it can't be at the cost of total vision.

And even if we can move past these small things that gather around, we still need to push them away for the right viewpoint. Advancing humanity is important. But it can't be at the cost of total vision. Another pats Super Bowl is important (seriously). But, it can't be at the cost of total vision. Raising mentally and emotionally healthy kids is (very) important. But, it can't be at the cost of total vision.

If the materialistic worldview is correct, successes should not be worth the work and suffering. Instead, we should all drink in our very limited time here, be merry, and manipulate as much as possible shredding our evolutionary guilt (sociopaths luckily don't have to deal with much of that). The smarter ones will continue to be the best manipulators, and they will continue to do the best, Darwinian speaking.

If the Theistic viewpoint is correct, then, similar to our materialistic friends, we must agree that successes should not be the focus.

If we are truly seeing then we must nod in logical agreement, one to another, worldview to worldview. That is of course, where materialists and Theists should part ways.

While it is our (Theists) explicit duty not to manipulate and lie, and take advantage of those which we can, as smartly deceivingly as we can, it is our explicit duty to be the hands of God. If we have the correct read (that is, most succinctly expressed in Jesus' ministry, but many parts found in other religions)  the small things can gather around, but we will look past them. The things that this world is transiently and intermittently obsessed with, like changing winds. we will look past them too.

In order to comfort others and not ask for comfort back, to love others and not ask for love back; to see, and not expect others to see. And realize that many of them will most likely never see.

And perhaps the hardest of all, not be distracted by that.

Its OK to be apolitical. It may even be TRiUMPhant, at this point.

There are a few Americans who I am really bothered by. Donald Trump continues to ascend that list for me, as he continues to refuse to put his Forzieris, or whatever ridiculous shoe he wears, in his mouth.  I gotta tell you, Lance Armstrong and Roger Goodell are not far behind (Brady will get the best of him any day now...).

I will vote. I hope whomever wins will increase the pathetic amount of federal funding given to Science.  Bill Clinton was the last President to have that foresight. But I am very apolitical -- and I don't think that makes me a bad American or Christian.

As a Christian, the complex mixture of today's pluralistic and tenaciously moving culture with our wonderfully dumb two-system political system, leaves Christians with absolute, polarizing views in both Democratic and Republican camps that are so obviously hypocritical with Christian viewpoints that, in my view, Church and State needed so obvious to be separated.  This wasn't more apparent when I watched two guys I have immense respect for, Robert George, a leading conservative thinker and Professor of Law at Princeton, and Cornel West, a leading intellectual and colleague at Princeton, discussed their different political views. Both George and West are vocal, compassionate and seemingly very genuine Christians, yet, disagree whole-heartedly on a lot. A lot.

 In "Uncompromised Faith: Overcoming our Culturalized Christianity", Michael Craven writes:

"... For one, politics has never been the means of actually changing the culture and, two, it is certainly not the means of which the Christian church- the most powerful social and cultural transforming force in history - has or should fulfill its mission and purpose."

Craven's quote is important because it makes me feel like being apolitical isn't a total cop-out.  One of the most quoted parts of Scripture is Jesus' words about the reigning Roman Empire and Julius Caesar. Simply, "Give Caesar what is Caesar's...." and then He moved on to Commission-level items.

Many Christians, whom I respect, guys like James Dobson and and ex-Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, couldn't disagree more. I just don't see it.  I think interest may be better divested towards insuring religious (alongside civil and as part of personal) freedom. There is nothing I can see that can matter on a political front if personal freedom is not intact -- and surely the Constitution and founding Fathers certainly support that notion.

And lastly, is being apolitical un-American? I don't thinks so. After all, by standing up for personal freedom for everyone, and personal respect for all people, you can be apolitical in a way in this country, yet very true to this country's notions of democracy and founding values.  At least, that is how I think about it.