The discussion of various religions, their values, and the patterns of behavior that the values foster could go on much longer. But I feel this is a good place in which to reiterate a main point that is crucial to any reader's understanding my theory of cultural evolution, which is central to understanding why I think it is reasonable to choose to believe in God. 

A few prime values have been found valuable by all societies on this planet. That means that these idea sets, when they are used to inform a society's code of conduct for its citizens, lead to better odds of that society's survival over the long haul. I claim that they work to achieve this desirable effect because they are designed to match human behavior, over centuries, to the forces of physical reality. 

A balance of courage and wisdom is the large, general response that humans have developed in order to deal with entropy. Freedom and love, in balance, are the large, general response to uncertainty, non quantum and quantum. 

If we are rational, we should be trying to cooperate in writing a moral code for all of humanity that deeply incorporates these values. Right now. Consulting, listening to arguments, making our own, and coming up with a code of conduct that we can teach to our children so as to maximize their odds of surviving through the crises that are coming and then teach this code to their children. 

I believe that what puts many people off the whole idea of moral realism and the project that it points us toward is the thought of how hard the composing of this moral code is going to be. What that tells us is that people in most walks of life in most parts of the world really don't want to know how free they are. Instead, they want a code to live by that is clear and, unfortunately, also familiar. 

The Existentialist philosophers were right to claim that humans don't like to look at how free they really are. Freedom is terrifying. How could one individual possibly weigh and consider so many factors that should be included in his larger decisions, and how could we stand the responsibility of possibly having to answer at some point in the future for our choices? 

But the Existentialists also insist that the fact of the matter is that we are already that free; we just turn away from having to face it. We hide in our cultures, religions, and political parties and cling to what we know, because at least its miseries are familiar. If we stepped out of our familiar roles and really took a chance, who knows where that might lead us? 

All of this is leading up to my saying again, that I know many people don't like thinking about our freedom and responsibility in this modern age, but we have no other path to survival. Our old ways of xenophobia and war, if we adhere to them, are going to finish us. We have to smarten up. 

So what values must be given primacy in that code if we did decide to get started and try to argue our way through to consensus on a constitution for homo sapiens? The first one is pretty clear. It is the one that enables me to write this blog and you to read it. Freedom.

As much as is possible for citizens in a democratic society, and that is a wide range of possibilities, leave me alone. Let me be me, and I'll let you be you. Then, if we both choose to associate in a business relationship, or a personal one, we can negotiate terms for our relationship that we can both agree to live by. This constitution I'm envisioning has to guarantee that or it is not going to endure, nor will its adherents. 

Then, if two individuals do find a mode of communication and maybe even a bond, it's beautiful.