Rant: Own your Morality

My sociology readings are becoming like an annoying rash. I argue, I debate, I scream till I am blue in the face…yet academia demonstrates to me that society is unwilling (or unable) to accept morality as biologically inherent to the individual. We let outside sources direct our lives, but society’s mainstream view of reality is not the end-all-do-all to each individual life experience. Society becomes a factor when the individual allows the authoritative voice to overshadow the subjective.

It is within the ability of the individual to be good without external direction. Accepting morals and ethics is natural for a human organism, and listening to the demands of society is truly the coming together of individuals in a grand compromise to ensure that many can live together. Humanity cultivated morality and ethics so that “we can all get along.” I think this is a grand action on the part of natural selection, these adaptive qualities of species flexing from individual into the collective. Each individual is part of that shift, it is not a melting of many but a grouping of diverse experience. And who is to credit? …Nature, as nurture is a result of modified species.

 

Picture c/o:  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aA0MfYafBwE/Upc3XlGw6JI/AAAAAAAADSA/5ItsgaGG5fA/s1600/Lovely+Quotes+for+life2.jpg

@MmePhilosopher #Dionysian

Advertisements

Science & Religion

Science was filtered or directed by those who signed the check – this is not a new concept as history itself was victim to the designs of the victors. Yet, science seems to take personal offense to being limited by funds. I wonder if the attitude of the scientist is that the experimentation and research that they need funding for benefits the whole of society, and not just the scientist/field? Or is it capitalism in general that science disagrees with?

Seventeenth and eighteenth-century scientists wanted to demystify accepted thought; they abandoned traditional scholasticism for empirical experimentation – the scientific method. One way to humanize the New Science was to make it readable and available to the public; the process of discovering truth needed to be understood so that the outcome would be accepted.[1] Science did not want to hide behind smoke and mirrors – yet something changed because modern scientists do not appreciate other fields attempting to understand their procedures.

Religion and science, prior to the Scientific Revolution, did not necessarily oppose the other. Darwin’s discovery of natural selection, however, directly challenged the church’s theory of divine creation. In “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Natural Selection as an Algorithmic Process,” Daniel C. Dennett discussed the algorithmic process of evolution that has created Us; he said, “No matter how impressive the products of an algorithm, the underlying process always consists of nothing but a set of individually mindless steps succeeding each other without the help of any intelligent supervision; they are ‘automatic’ by definition: the workings of an automaton.”[2] Nature as automaton removed the need and purpose of God – the church was shaken. The more science revealed natural means to explain existence, the less authority the church could rightfully demand.

Bibliography

Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. 2005. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Dennett, Daniel C. “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Natural Selection as an Algorithmic Process (1995).” Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition. 2005. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 489-93.

Picture c/ohttp://40.media.tumblr.com/702dc6c21e963c18370e86f3f605b986/tumblr_n81k83wQij1s50vg8o1_1280.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 45.

[2] Dennett, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea,” p. 493.