meningococcal bacteria 



Today, I will pause and take stock of what I have said in the last three posts about the new moral code that I am trying to get people to join with me in creating. 

The whole point of monotheism as far as the cultural evolution of our species is concerned is that we are going to have to come up with one code, at least in its most general guidelines, for all of humanity. A single moral code to live by is the most important consequence that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were supposed to provide for their adherents. In practice, what arriving at such a code means is that you must judge yourself and your friends by the same standards that you use to judge strangers and even to judge your enemies. If you believe in many gods, you can play them off against one another. Freya will protect you from the wrath of Thor. Athena can give similar protection from Poseidon, and so on. And people will use any out they can seize upon rather than keep doing the hard self-discipline of themselves. This is our primitive nature. Xenophobia and hostility then violence. But if you believe in one God, you have to pause over and over and study your case and your opponent's case. On whose side does justice truly lie? Logic, restraint, moderation, and tolerance all become more and more needed under a monotheistic belief system. These prime values then work to make a strong society, one that survives over the long haul. 

We can have such a society without being believers in any deity if we can draw up a single, rational, evidence-based moral code for us all. This path, I know, some of my atheist friends far prefer. My contention is that once we have such a code, and we really do live by it because we believe that in the long haul, the code works, we have a kind of faith, no matter what we call it. But more on these subtler matters in a few days.   

What is more glaringly obvious at this point in the reasoning is the realization that resorting to Jesus as your "lawyer" in the next life is the exact kind of thing that Abraham was trying to put an end to when he had his giant monotheistic insight. God, in the all encompassing view, doesn't play favorites in the human family. All must obey the same rules. I think today we can say that God doesn't even favor humans in general over other living things, even meningococcal bacteria or trichina worms. We just aren't that special. But Christians, in their worst excesses, because they think they have special influence in the next world, also think they just don't have to be nice to "others", if those "others" are people who have not been "saved" and who keep refusing to be so. This is one more instance of the exact thing we were not supposed to do.   



                             
                                                                             trichina spiralis 



So one of the first rules we can derive from studying the strengths of the major religions of the world is the one that directs us to create a single moral code for us all to live by. Of course, the adherents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, much of the time in history, did not behave in ways that were very equitable when they were dealing with people of other cultures, but this is only an indication of the rationalizing nature of humans. The codes were quite clear. Welcome strangers. Be a good Samaritan. Don't judge others by any standard other than the one that you are willing to be judged by. All of this simply means that what you need to do in reaction to those who are different from you, as long as they and their differences are not harming you, is leave them alone. 

It is worth noting here that a major feature of the monotheistic idea is that it goes against what nations/tribes had been doing for centuries in reaction to other, noticeably different nations. Monotheism offered a new and, as it turned out, better way. One set of rules for all, a set of rules that mostly tells us to let others be themselves, however quirky their ways may seem. 

The other main thing I hope I have made clear from my discussion of the commonalities among the major religions of the world is the exhortation to believe in abstract principles held in the mind and sometimes not observable in their effects on human behavior for decades. That is why we have been ordered not to make idols and bow down to them. Put stuff over ideals, and soon you will lose both and probably your life into the bargain. 

Note that whether you are an atheist or a theist of one of the Abrahamic religions really doesn't matter as far as this rule of living goes because its wisdom is sound regardless of whether you think it came to us by the slow process of trial and error called "cultural evolution" or was revealed to us in divinely inspired scriptures. The bottom line is that a long-term functioning and stable society with a productive economy and a population who support and believe in their system of governance can't occur in a place where people take whatever they can readily grab anytime no one is watching them. Once people start placing goods above their ideas of good, the decline of their state and its economy becomes inevitable. 

To sum up our discussions of the last few days:

First, get to work on writing a universal code of right and wrong that all humans can live by. In this century, I believe, we are going to have to work that code out by debate and compromise among ourselves. Our primary foundational principle of love requires that the code we draw up be worked out democratically. Otherwise, it will not be accepted in the hearts of the people. This democracy business is long, hard, and slow. But it is infinitely preferable to any of the alternatives.  

Second, put principles above material things. Show that in the way you live your life. Principles must inform the actions that enable us to make and exchange goods. The making, trading, and accumulating of goods must never become the main point of our lives.

In the shadow of the mushroom cloud, nevertheless, have a nice day.