faith is not separate from reason, but inseparable.
....only on a "just because" basis. Nowhere in your post is it described just how it can be proven that god created the universe. And again, this is why I say that "natural law" is just an attempt to take atheistic morals and put the stamp of god on them. Even the most religious of people have to contend with common sense. And the way they deal with these feelings of common sense is by calling them common god sense. Even if secular humanism wasn't a recognized movement at that time, "natural law" is still just plagiarism of atheism because atheism is just another term for common sense.
Serial killers are not crucial to the survival of our species. You see them as a threat. That is why you do not feel empathy for them. Again, it has nothing to do with "innocence".
....only on a "just because" basis. Nowhere in your post is it described just how it can be proven that god created the universe. And again, this is why I say that "natural law" is just an attempt to take atheistic morals and put the stamp of god on them. Even the most religious of people have to contend with common sense. And the way they deal with these feelings of common sense is by calling them common god sense. Even if secular humanism wasn't a recognized movement at that time, "natural law" is still just plagiarism of atheism because atheism is just another term for common sense.
Serial killers are not crucial to the survival of our species. You see them as a threat. That is why you do not feel empathy for them. Again, it has nothing to do with "innocence".
Well, I do not believe it is necessary to "prove" God's existence like Aquinas did.
God is God, "I am who am." What else is there to say? Because I know Him, he exists. Is it necessary for me to prove your existence by showing you your family tree? Or can't I just realize that you are typing to me from a computer and I could meet you face to face, probably. Right?
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Well, I do not believe it is necessary to "prove" God's existence like Aquinas did.
God is God, "I am who am." What else is there to say? Because I know Him, he exists. Is it necessary for me to prove your existence by showing you your family tree? Or can't I just realize that you are typing to me from a computer and I could meet you face to face, probably. Right?
Right, in fact god is posting to this message board as we speak. If the only basis for "natural law" is that it is created by god, and that god exists because you just know that he does, then all you really need to do to explain your sense of morality is just say "because god said so."
But, I was under the assumption that this discussion was about more than "because god exists." It's about whether or not it's possible to have morals without having a deity to worship.
Your answer to that is simply "no" because god = morals because our reality was created by god. And by using that rationale, you are simply saying that your acknowledgement of god's existence makes you more moral than someone who doesn't acknowledge god's existence.
But, the way I see it, if god's reality really equated to morality, then we should all be capable of being moral with or without acknowledging his existence. The belief that we need to acknowledge his existence in order to be moral means that his reality has limitations. Of course, the problem with that is that a true god should have no limitations.
Then there's the belief that god purposely made it so that we would have to "discover" him in order to be moral, but I don't see how that doesn't equate to some form vanity. He waited a few thousand years before exposing us to his reality? Why?
Anyway, my guess on morality is that primitive societies with behavior patterns that we would call "moral" gained an evolutionary advantage because of those behaviors and were thus more likely to pass along their genetic material, which would account for why children too young to have absorbed any sort of religious teaching can be seen displaying compassion for others.
BINGO!!! You said it hippiemom, just what I was so ineloquently trying to get across! What a great mind you have.;)
in order for it to be pased along, it had to begin somewhere. How did morality evolve? How did it get there to begin with? Maybe i'm misunderstanding you, but it doesn't seem you are addressing that question.
So way, way, back when my relative crawled out of the swamp it killed something and had a bad physical reaction to what it had done then when it passed on it's DNA that program was written into it's cells so that it's offspring already equated killing as something bad. Not a particularly scientific sounding explanation I know, but I am trying!
If I saw a serial murderer catch on fire and there was nothing I could do about it, I would not feel bad. Nonetheless, if I could put him out, I would. Still, I would not have compassion for him. I would feel he deserved his fate. I think most people would feel that way.
And most people would feel quite a bit differently about that flaming serial killer if he were their son. People who bond with their children and protect them are more likely to pass on their genes than those who don't. Societies that work together and help one another are more likely to survive and pass on their genes than those who don't.
Anyway, I'm not going to invest a whole lot of time here. I'll just say that it's the truth because it IS. What else is there to say? I don't believe it is necessary to "prove" any of it. I have faith in it, therefore it is true.
Wow, I'm really starting to see why people like religion! It makes things so much easier!
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
i dont know about their morals, but i do know there aren't any of them in foxholes. i checked.
i've always wondered about this saying. being an atheist i've always taken exception to it. but reading it now i can honestly say i am one atheist you wouldn't find in a foxhole in the first place. me being a pacifist and all, as well as an atheist. but somehow i doubt that's the sentiment being conveyed with that statement.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i've always wondered about this saying. being an atheist i've always taken exception to it. but reading it now i can honestly say i am one atheist you wouldn't find in a foxhole in the first place. me being a pacifist and all, as well as an atheist. but somehow i doubt that's the sentiment being conveyed with that statement.
I think you can look at "foxhole" metaphorically and say that it's any situation where there's a strong likelihood that you won't survive ... at least that's how I've always interpreted it, the message being that people tend to "find god" when they think they're about to die. I've no doubt this is often true, but I know for a fact that it is not ALWAYS true.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I think you can look at "foxhole" metaphorically and say that it's any situation where there's a strong likelihood that you won't survive ... at least that's how I've always interpreted it, the message being that people tend to "find god" when they think they're about to die. I've no doubt this is often true, but I know for a fact that it is not ALWAYS true.
It only makes sense really for people to suddenly 'find god' when faced with death. It's a way to trying to somehow extend life. It's hope and insurance and not necessarily a lie to oneself because we don't know anything for sure.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It only makes sense really for people to suddenly 'find god' when faced with death. It's a way to trying to somehow extend life. It's hope and insurance and not necessarily a lie to oneself because we don't know anything for sure.
I agree, it makes perfect sense. People 'find god' for a lot of different reasons, and they define god in an almost infinite number of ways. I understand that completely. It's not universal though, as the saying makes it out to be.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I agree, it makes perfect sense. People 'find god' for a lot of different reasons, and they define god in an almost infinite number of ways. I understand that completely. It's not universal though, as the saying makes it out to be.
I agree, it makes perfect sense. People 'find god' for a lot of different reasons, and they define god in an almost infinite number of ways. I understand that completely. It's not universal though, as the saying makes it out to be.
Agreed.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh my GOD...lol..no pun intented !..haha...wow...I'm an Athiest and
I believe in morals and have some as well and I'm like the easiest going guy on the planet but one thing I cannot stand are religions that preach to everyone else about this and that..Catholics, Protestants, whatever etc..you believe what you believe and that's great but don't turn around and look down on me or anyone else for what we believe in or don't believe in..anyways..I'm just ranting here...
Anyhow..why can't we just all get along !!
oh yeah...and another thing..lol..I'm an Atheist but I do say Merry XMAS...not Happy December days or whatever they wanna call it now..
If some stranger says Merry Xmas to you....just smile and say thank you...don't talk back and say it should be this it should be that...lighten up people....LOL
ZEN
Oh my GOD...lol..no pun intented !..haha...wow...I'm an Athiest and
I believe in morals and have some as well and I'm like the easiest going guy on the planet but one thing I cannot stand are religions that preach to everyone else about this and that..Catholics, Protestants, whatever etc..you believe what you believe and that's great but don't turn around and look down on me or anyone else for what we believe in or don't believe in..anyways..I'm just ranting here...
Anyhow..why can't we just all get along !!
oh yeah...and another thing..lol..I'm an Atheist but I do say Merry XMAS...not Happy December days or whatever they wanna call it now..
If some stranger says Merry Xmas to you....just smile and say thank you...don't talk back and say it should be this it should be that...lighten up people....LOL
ZEN
You seem to be a secularist. Congratulations.
Yea, though you may walk through the shadow of death, you fear no evil, for Jerry Falwell is in Virginia.
I think the key to understanding morality is understanding that immorality could not exist without deceitfulness. It is not possible for a person to be truthfully immoral. If it was possible, then that person is naturally immoral. And, I am someone who believes that no person is naturally immoral.
Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".
What makes people evil is their denial of their true selves. They learn to wear masks in order to appease society's "norms". They learn to believe that their natural selves are "wrong" and "disgusting". They carry these feelings with them wherever they go until those feelings turn them into machines who are programmed to appease. Machines have no empathy. Without empathy, there is no morality.
I am under the assumption that it is impossible to kill or bring harm to a person whom you completely trust. You cannot lie to someone you completely trust. So, without lies, we would all be forced to trust one another. And in a world where everyone trusts one another, evil and immorality would cease to exist.
The problem with religion is that it typically excludes those who do not subcribe to its beliefs. This exclusion creates a environment of distrust. And, again, distrust is the root of all evil.
But, there are those who say, "Without the threat of exclusion, people would not be motivated to follow the moralistic guidelines of the church." But, my opinion is that under that rationale, people should then only be motivated by the prospect of inclusion.
In which case, the moral foundation of that system is that a person's morality is defined by that person's desire to be included with the "group". But, the problem with that is that morality isn't morality at all. It's merely what is accepted by the majority. And if that is all we are, then it is no wonder that our society is so heavily pocked by deciet and dishonesty. We're not being moral at all. Instead, we're just trying to fit in.
I think the key to understanding morality is understanding that immorality could not exist without deceitfulness. It is not possible for a person to be truthfully immoral. If it was possible, then that person is naturally immoral. And, I am someone who believes that no person is naturally immoral.
Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".
What makes people evil is their denial of their true selves. They learn to wear masks in order to appease society's "norms". They learn to believe that their natural selves are "wrong" and "disgusting". They carry these feelings with them wherever they go until those feelings turn them into machines who are programmed to appease. Machines have no empathy. Without empathy, there is no morality.
I am under the assumption that it is impossible to kill or bring harm to a person whom you completely trust. You cannot lie to someone you completely trust. So, without lies, we would all be forced to trust one another. And in a world where everyone trusts one another, evil and immorality would cease to exist.
The problem with religion is that it typically excludes those who do not subcribe to its beliefs. This exclusion creates a environment of distrust. And, again, distrust is the root of all evil.
But, there are those who say, "Without the threat of exclusion, people would not be motivated to follow the moralistic guidelines of the church." But, my opinion is that under that rationale, people should then only be motivated by the prospect of inclusion.
In which case, the moral foundation of that system is that a person's morality is defined by that person's desire to be included with the "group". But, the problem with that is that morality isn't morality at all. It's merely what is accepted by the majority. And if that is all we are, then it is no wonder that our society is so heavily pocked by deciet and dishonesty. We're not being moral at all. Instead, we're just trying to fit in.
Excellent post.
I'm not agreeing that it is necessary to trust each other and that is the solvent that expires the good will intended by law.
I think the key to understanding morality is understanding that immorality could not exist without deceitfulness. It is not possible for a person to be truthfully immoral. If it was possible, then that person is naturally immoral. And, I am someone who believes that no person is naturally immoral.
Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".
you think being predatory is being sneaky?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
......Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Hitler was able to perpetrate evil because the good men and women of the world saw what he was doing and stayed silent. He wasn't sneaky, he was completely transparent but people didn't want to believe that what he was doing was real. The same with serial killers, plenty of good people, who have been the parents, spouses, children, workmates of serial killers are in complete denial and stay silent because of fear or because they override their instincts.
This "evolutionary theory of morality" holds absolutely no water. Let's quash it right now. It goes against science, namely.
Do you mean it goes against the physical sciences?
There is no scientific basis to believe that genetic material has been coded to give moral reasoning to any human being. Take a Aborigene (sp?) from Australia and raise him in a Catholic family and he'll grow up with Catholic morals, regardless of what his genetic information "says." Morality is not a scientific concept at all. Science cannot explain why humans find certain things moral and immoral.
There are sciences beyond the physical sciences that have indeed studied the evolution of morality. It may or may not be physical and genetically coded that we know of just yet, and still it comes across as real just the same. As a matter of fact, it was Richard Dawkins, evolutionary scientist who coined the term "memes". The word was originated in referring to a unit of cultural information. Apparently those who study and back such ideas consider that memes evolve via natural selection. "Proponents of memes suggest that memes evolve via natural selection — in a way very similar to Charles Darwin's ideas concerning biological evolution — on the premise that variation, mutation, competition, and "inheritance" influence their replicative success. For example, while one idea may become extinct, other ideas will survive, spread and mutate — for better or for worse — through modification." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
edit: because I messed up in posting prematurely.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Morality is not a scientific concept at all. Science cannot explain why humans find certain things moral and immoral.
Morality is scientifically studied, within levels of human awareness.
further: In Ken Wilber's book "A Theory of Everything" he talks of the growth and development of the mind (on all levels, including moral) and how varying theorists find some basic similarities in models of human development through time. He says "But it should be remembered that virtually all of these stage conceptions--from Abraham Maslow to Jane Loevinger to Robert Kegan to Clare Graves--are based on extensive amounts of research and data. These are not simply conceptual ideas and pet theories, but are grounded at every point in a considerable amount of carefully checked evidence. Many of the stage models, in fact, have been carefully checked in first-, second-, and third-world countries. The same is true with Graves model; to date, it has been tested in more than fifty thousand people from around the world, and there have been no major exceptions found to the general scheme."
A basic model used in the book illustrates these base stages and shows the emergent unfolding or evolution of human awareness, which includes morality/spirituality. Author Ken Wilber asserts that while we have natural law on one hand, we have varying levels of human awareness of such natural law, each with it's own particular worldview.
Such study maps the evolution of human psychology including cultural/moral/spiritual aspects in time over the long-term, as well as within an individual lifetime.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Morality is scientifically studied, within levels of human awareness.
further: In Ken Wilber's book "A Theory of Everything" he talks of the growth and development of the mind (on all levels, including moral) and how varying theorists find some basic similarities in models of human development through time. He says "But it should be remembered that virtually all of these stage conceptions--from Abraham Maslow to Jane Loevinger to Robert Kegan to Clare Graves--are based on extensive amounts of research and data. These are not simply conceptual ideas and pet theories, but are grounded at every point in a considerable amount of carefully checked evidence. Many of the stage models, in fact, have been carefully checked in first-, second-, and third-world countries. The same is true with Graves model; to date, it has been tested in more than fifty thousand people from around the world, and there have been no major exceptions found to the general scheme."
A basic model used in the book illustrates these base stages and shows the emergent unfolding or evolution of human awareness, which includes morality/spirituality. Author Ken Wilber asserts that while we have natural law on one hand, we have varying levels of human awareness of such natural law, each with it's own particular worldview.
Such study maps the evolution of human psychology including cultural/moral/spiritual aspects in time over the long-term, as well as within an individual lifetime.
Thanks angelica, this book sounds very interesting.
Comments
....only on a "just because" basis. Nowhere in your post is it described just how it can be proven that god created the universe. And again, this is why I say that "natural law" is just an attempt to take atheistic morals and put the stamp of god on them. Even the most religious of people have to contend with common sense. And the way they deal with these feelings of common sense is by calling them common god sense. Even if secular humanism wasn't a recognized movement at that time, "natural law" is still just plagiarism of atheism because atheism is just another term for common sense.
Serial killers are not crucial to the survival of our species. You see them as a threat. That is why you do not feel empathy for them. Again, it has nothing to do with "innocence".
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Only atheism allows for the understanding of that safety.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Well, I do not believe it is necessary to "prove" God's existence like Aquinas did.
God is God, "I am who am." What else is there to say? Because I know Him, he exists. Is it necessary for me to prove your existence by showing you your family tree? Or can't I just realize that you are typing to me from a computer and I could meet you face to face, probably. Right?
-Enoch Powell
Right, in fact god is posting to this message board as we speak. If the only basis for "natural law" is that it is created by god, and that god exists because you just know that he does, then all you really need to do to explain your sense of morality is just say "because god said so."
But, I was under the assumption that this discussion was about more than "because god exists." It's about whether or not it's possible to have morals without having a deity to worship.
Your answer to that is simply "no" because god = morals because our reality was created by god. And by using that rationale, you are simply saying that your acknowledgement of god's existence makes you more moral than someone who doesn't acknowledge god's existence.
But, the way I see it, if god's reality really equated to morality, then we should all be capable of being moral with or without acknowledging his existence. The belief that we need to acknowledge his existence in order to be moral means that his reality has limitations. Of course, the problem with that is that a true god should have no limitations.
Then there's the belief that god purposely made it so that we would have to "discover" him in order to be moral, but I don't see how that doesn't equate to some form vanity. He waited a few thousand years before exposing us to his reality? Why?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
BINGO!!! You said it hippiemom, just what I was so ineloquently trying to get across! What a great mind you have.;)
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
So way, way, back when my relative crawled out of the swamp it killed something and had a bad physical reaction to what it had done then when it passed on it's DNA that program was written into it's cells so that it's offspring already equated killing as something bad. Not a particularly scientific sounding explanation I know, but I am trying!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Anyway, I'm not going to invest a whole lot of time here. I'll just say that it's the truth because it IS. What else is there to say? I don't believe it is necessary to "prove" any of it. I have faith in it, therefore it is true.
Wow, I'm really starting to see why people like religion! It makes things so much easier!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i've always wondered about this saying. being an atheist i've always taken exception to it. but reading it now i can honestly say i am one atheist you wouldn't find in a foxhole in the first place. me being a pacifist and all, as well as an atheist. but somehow i doubt that's the sentiment being conveyed with that statement.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
It only makes sense really for people to suddenly 'find god' when faced with death. It's a way to trying to somehow extend life. It's hope and insurance and not necessarily a lie to oneself because we don't know anything for sure.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's also called psychology.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Agreed.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I believe in morals and have some as well and I'm like the easiest going guy on the planet but one thing I cannot stand are religions that preach to everyone else about this and that..Catholics, Protestants, whatever etc..you believe what you believe and that's great but don't turn around and look down on me or anyone else for what we believe in or don't believe in..anyways..I'm just ranting here...
Anyhow..why can't we just all get along !!
oh yeah...and another thing..lol..I'm an Atheist but I do say Merry XMAS...not Happy December days or whatever they wanna call it now..
If some stranger says Merry Xmas to you....just smile and say thank you...don't talk back and say it should be this it should be that...lighten up people....LOL
ZEN
You seem to be a secularist. Congratulations.
Yea, though you may walk through the shadow of death, you fear no evil, for Jerry Falwell is in Virginia.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Hitler could not have killed six million jews if he wasn't deceitful about it. Serial killers and rapists would not even bother carrying out their evil deeds if they were forced to do so without being "sneaky".
What makes people evil is their denial of their true selves. They learn to wear masks in order to appease society's "norms". They learn to believe that their natural selves are "wrong" and "disgusting". They carry these feelings with them wherever they go until those feelings turn them into machines who are programmed to appease. Machines have no empathy. Without empathy, there is no morality.
I am under the assumption that it is impossible to kill or bring harm to a person whom you completely trust. You cannot lie to someone you completely trust. So, without lies, we would all be forced to trust one another. And in a world where everyone trusts one another, evil and immorality would cease to exist.
The problem with religion is that it typically excludes those who do not subcribe to its beliefs. This exclusion creates a environment of distrust. And, again, distrust is the root of all evil.
But, there are those who say, "Without the threat of exclusion, people would not be motivated to follow the moralistic guidelines of the church." But, my opinion is that under that rationale, people should then only be motivated by the prospect of inclusion.
In which case, the moral foundation of that system is that a person's morality is defined by that person's desire to be included with the "group". But, the problem with that is that morality isn't morality at all. It's merely what is accepted by the majority. And if that is all we are, then it is no wonder that our society is so heavily pocked by deciet and dishonesty. We're not being moral at all. Instead, we're just trying to fit in.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Excellent post.
I'm not agreeing that it is necessary to trust each other and that is the solvent that expires the good will intended by law.
I know that sounds confusing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That's perfectly reasonable. It all comes down to what you mean by the word 'god'.
Pagans, for example, believe in many Gods.
you think being predatory is being sneaky?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Good on you Byrnzie, it's about time some one brought up the Pagans!!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Hitler was able to perpetrate evil because the good men and women of the world saw what he was doing and stayed silent. He wasn't sneaky, he was completely transparent but people didn't want to believe that what he was doing was real. The same with serial killers, plenty of good people, who have been the parents, spouses, children, workmates of serial killers are in complete denial and stay silent because of fear or because they override their instincts.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
There are sciences beyond the physical sciences that have indeed studied the evolution of morality. It may or may not be physical and genetically coded that we know of just yet, and still it comes across as real just the same. As a matter of fact, it was Richard Dawkins, evolutionary scientist who coined the term "memes". The word was originated in referring to a unit of cultural information. Apparently those who study and back such ideas consider that memes evolve via natural selection. "Proponents of memes suggest that memes evolve via natural selection — in a way very similar to Charles Darwin's ideas concerning biological evolution — on the premise that variation, mutation, competition, and "inheritance" influence their replicative success. For example, while one idea may become extinct, other ideas will survive, spread and mutate — for better or for worse — through modification." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
edit: because I messed up in posting prematurely.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
further: In Ken Wilber's book "A Theory of Everything" he talks of the growth and development of the mind (on all levels, including moral) and how varying theorists find some basic similarities in models of human development through time. He says "But it should be remembered that virtually all of these stage conceptions--from Abraham Maslow to Jane Loevinger to Robert Kegan to Clare Graves--are based on extensive amounts of research and data. These are not simply conceptual ideas and pet theories, but are grounded at every point in a considerable amount of carefully checked evidence. Many of the stage models, in fact, have been carefully checked in first-, second-, and third-world countries. The same is true with Graves model; to date, it has been tested in more than fifty thousand people from around the world, and there have been no major exceptions found to the general scheme."
A basic model used in the book illustrates these base stages and shows the emergent unfolding or evolution of human awareness, which includes morality/spirituality. Author Ken Wilber asserts that while we have natural law on one hand, we have varying levels of human awareness of such natural law, each with it's own particular worldview.
Such study maps the evolution of human psychology including cultural/moral/spiritual aspects in time over the long-term, as well as within an individual lifetime.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Thanks angelica, this book sounds very interesting.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!