The Naturalistic Fallacy and the Problem of God and Morality

by practicalspactical

It is clear that my intrinsic atheism needs to be revised if a broader definition of God is permitted, one that encompasses the First Cause, or Persistent Cause. Nevertheless, if God is existence, or it’s cause, then It either answers the naturalistic fallacy or is subject to it. If it answers it, it is because the dictates of morality – whatever they are – are in some ways features of the universe – in other words, existence would have an opinion on what is good and what is evil – i.e., a preference, perhaps for continued existence, or for sentience –

Still, this seems strange, since the world we are confronted with, the actual world, seems so totally and completely indifferent to us, even though we, as parasites or symbiots on the universe, seem to at least sometimes be protected by it. This protection is a cognitive error, like thinking the sun revolves around the Earth, a variant of the Anthropic Fallacy. We adapted to the world, and we seem blessed only through survivor’s bias.

Thus, the stronger view – that the First Cause is ontological, and subject to the Fallacy, and therefore amoral. What cares the universe if we live or die – life is one form, death another, so many configurations, one, then another.

Where then morality? Where then religion?

We may certainly revere the Absolute. Powerless before it, small, it is natural to fear it. Love though – love is a choice. The world is our Mother, and it is proper to love and cherish our mother. Love, however, can and never will be demanded.

Our morality, then, within or without religion, is simple, though it is not a thing that comes from God. Our morality is simply love, love of God, and in loving God, loving all of his creation, and hating evil only in that it detracts from the love. We cannot love the Mother and hate the children – our task, our choice, then, is to love. We do so because we are capable of it, and it is good for us to love, and to love without limits or end.

What though is love? The love of self seeks the good and takes delight in the being and continuation of the self. The love of others seeks their good and delights in their being. The universe has no good, no aim, but nevertheless we can delight in its being and continuation.

What the world lacks then is love. ZR lacks it. Pimple faced boys lack it, and fat girls lack it, and I lack it sometimes, and it’s why I talk to you, to feel it, to remain in it –

And evil then seems a lack of love, perhaps a lack of loving ones’ self, and in that lack, some false act of faith that will make you worthy of love – some redeeming act of a fallen and damned self reflecting being – a seeking of love, instead of loving. Anyone who wants to be loved first wants to be loved by themselves.

And those who feel love? Who feel the love of the universe? It is not the universe but the Self they feel, loving – (though we are part of the universe, and when the Self loves, so does the universe, a bit).

The Greater Part of the Universe, the Cause, is unloving. The Father, they call it, Creative Force. But the Lesser Part, the Universe-in-us, the Son of Man, that can love, and when it reaches it’s true self, cannot help but love. And morality comes not from existence, but from our Mind reflecting on existence, and loving itself (how could it not, in order to be here), loving the universe and the other.