### Cogito ergo sum- But everything else I must prove. My very messy Philosophical framework. Written up between the hours of 1 and 3 AM. Need to edit and revise. While science, in theory, can elucidate every empirical aspect of reality, metaphysical claims—such as those concerning ethics—are essential for enriching and guiding human experience beyond the realm of empirical verification. In the same way science cant explain existence, but only the causes and causality leading to our existence, science can explain the neuro chemical processes that are purely responsible for thought, and even how exactly that thought will be experienced (due to determinism requiring a single possible outcome), it can't explain experience itself. Intuitivly I feel like I should disagree with this statement, but when remembering that science is a human tool to find the underlying rules of reality, I cannot, as science is therefore itself an aspect of human experience, regardless of the factual state of realities rules is explores. therefore we can describe science as our most powerful tool to get as close to reality as possible. Determinist argument that reality includes nature and nurture, as all human behaviour, thought and therefore nurture, as well as all circumstances of nature are determined causally. Just as we will never develop a better tool to understand reality than science, we will never develop beyond requiring metaphysics to enhance human experience. Every position we hold morally at a precise moment of time is normative. normative claims are synthetic a priori. Therefore every human action is influenced by these underlying principles, whether the influence is conscious or unconscious. The normative frameworks serve as the backdrop for all judgments and actions. From a deterministic standpoint, all actions—including simple sensory tasks—are influenced by the normative frameworks that guide cognitive processes. These frameworks shape how sensory information is interpreted and how actions are performed, integrating both sensory input and normative considerations into a coherent system. All im saying is if higher intelligence life forms come around, we can hold them to at least our moral standards assuming that 1. Nature has no intrinsic metaphysical goals or purposes, 2. normative claims are a priori, 3. Beings capable of a certain level of intelligence will always develop metaphysical thought as they necessarily develop concepts of existence and perceptions they can examine independently, 4. The higher the intelligence, the deeper the understanding of perception and existence, the deeper the understanding of varying perceptions as a result of nurture ( viewing higher intelligence as a development of existing cognitive functions aligns with the idea of cognitive continuity and evolution. This perspective allows for the possibility of finding common ground and understanding, though practical communication challenges may still need to be addressed.) On epistemics: Epistemic foundations refer to the underlying principles and assumptions that guide our understanding of knowledge and how we acquire it. To validate one’s own epistemic foundation, one must gather as much pure information (facts of nature) and ensure that one’s epistemology does not conflict with these facts. This is a sound approach in epistemology and philosophy of science. This means that the principles guiding one’s understanding should align with what is known about the natural world through observation and experimentation. We do this by collecting empirical data—facts derived from observation, measurement, and experimentation. This data serves as a basis for testing and validating epistemic principles. As we can't soundly apply this independently to the entire world, we rely on science. Scientists employ the scientific method by forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analysing results to ensure that knowledge claims are based on reliable and replicable evidence. Assuming that all the information is available and we know the scientist and publications are acting in good faith, we can adopt the a simple summary of the results of the experiments without understanding the underlying mechanisms or methods. We only put our "faith" in these claims as we could in theory access, understand and partake in all of these experiments ourselves and come to the same conclusions, we are simply limited by time and intelligence. This is not the same as religious faith or faith without any sort of accessible proof. I cannot just take another person with me to meet God. God might be non falsifiable but he is also not provable and should therefore either be dismissed or proven (this is why I hate apologetics as they assume a third way, logic-ing and rhetor-osizing God into existence. We already know Logic can be used to arrive at many epistemic foundations, this doesn't ascribe them the same value). ANY CLAIM MADE ABOUT THE WORLD MUST BE PROVEN, apart from foundational axioms such as Cogito ergo sum. 1. Pure information is crucial, it’s important to recognize that not all aspects of knowledge are purely empirical. Philosophical, ethical, and conceptual considerations also play a role in shaping epistemic foundations. 2. Epistemic foundations should be subject to ongoing evaluation and revision based on new information and discoveries. This involves continuously integrating new empirical data and adjusting one’s framework to maintain consistency. 3. We should value being right, and being right can only be arrived at consistently by sound epistemic foundation. 4. Applying critical thinking and scepticism helps in assessing the validity of one’s epistemic foundation. This involves questioning assumptions, examining evidence, and considering alternative explanations. 5. We must also try and distinguish between the facts themselves and the theoretical interpretations or models used to understand them. 6. The complexity of reality and imitated human capacity for knowledge means that no single epistemic framework can account for all aspects of knowledge. This all is complicated due to normative claims being a priori. The complexity of reality means that no single epistemic framework can account for all aspects of knowledge. ONly by being hyoer awre of these rules can we arrive at valid epistemic foundations Therefore I take the Philosophical position that even though every aspect of reality follows strict rules of reality in hard deterministic fashion, and therefore Humans and by extension human experience follows strict rules, metaphysical claims as a concept by virtue of existing in experience, exist in realty. Therefore exploring metaphysical claims such as those concerning ethics—are essential for enriching and guiding human experience. As this position acknowledges epistemic pluralism (as the process of epistemology involves cognitive processes that rely on the a priori normative framework and are therefore metaphysical itself, BUT THIS DOES NOT DETERMIN THE VALUE OF EVERY EPISTEMIC FOUNDATION AS EQUAL, RATHER SIMPLY EXPLAINS THE LIKELYHOOD OF VARYING EPISTEMIC FOUNDATIONS AS INVEITABLE) and constructivism, but also Deterministic Materialism and philosophical Naturalism, and as we know that Ethical positions taken by groups of people have real impact on our experiences (take discriminating against a minority group), we must adopt a science based approach to understanding the rules of reality, in order to make pragmatic choices ethically to reach our normatively defined goal. There is no intrinsic goal to any human or humanity as a whole, as the term "goal" implies purpose that in turn must be defined normatively to justify its existence as purpose and must be given from a source other than humans so it is not a metaphysical experience of reality but rather a fact of nature, however there is no proof or proof based position that reality has intrinsic values. Remember I can make this claim as I view metaphysics (and philosophy) as a product of nature and human cognition that exists in reality rather than a necessary fact. As nature is only one aspect of our experience of existence and for nature, apart from intelligent life that has perception, existence is not a purpose or goal, but rather a fact, we can conclude that when investigating the existence of intrinsic goals as non-metaphysical as a falsity. the biological imperative of reproduction, survival and expansion of the human race is not an intrinsic goal. It is reasonable to assume the goal of human existence is to exist in itself, as we have no born coded instruction that we must necessarily fulfil and will attempt regardless of its impact on our continued existence (take a machine that has an arm that will necessarily descend upon its activation, even if this movement destroys the arm or the machine.). so as positive experiences make us want to experience more, they should be defined as normatively good. I would argue that the majority of humans agree on what are good and bad experiences, as our biology hardly differs and as thought and perception is a result of nature and nurture, any randomly chosen foetus (DNA) given the same nurture from conception to death as a lived human would experience reality extremely similarly to another randomly chosen foetus, given a miniscule and neglible amount of foetuses, even then these extreme outliers (take extreme disability) would often find themselves having similar values. Therefore we can define normativity as that a good outcome is a experience the vast majority of people experience as positive, as long as it doesn't obviously causaly lead to a worse outcome (take extreme drug use). So we should construct societies so that they allow as many humans as possible to have experiences we have defined as normatively good. How do we come to understanding what is normatively good and bad? So I believe that epistemics are a result of human thought, in itself a product of cognitive processes that are determined by reality. However certain outliers exist that do not share these same epistemic processes. Do I therefore reject universal epistemic truths? - I believe that epistemics (knowledge and ways of knowing) are products of human cognitive processes, which are themselves influenced by reality. This suggests that our understanding of knowledge is deeply tied to our cognitive structures and experiences. - Universal Cognitive Basis: If cognitive processes are a universal feature of all beings capable of conceptualizing epistemics, you might argue that there is a universal aspect to how knowledge is constructed, even if specific epistemic frameworks vary. - I acknowledge that there may be outliers who do not share the same epistemic processes. This introduces variability in how different beings conceptualize and understand knowledge. This doesn't reject universal facts, it simply establishes subjectivity as cognitive functions vary and therefore epistemic processes vary. So why aren't we just doing whatever we want as individuals damned be society? As I propose universal epistemic truths of normative claims about reality are inevitable consequences of epistemic practices, themselves products of therefore one consistent ethical framework applies to every human Possible consequences: Murder any being not intrinsically capable of standard moral thought or not comparable to that of human consensus. Yea, why not? Perhaps compassion for intelligent life is a valuable trait. Perhaps the inconsistency in allowing some killing and not other without consistent moral justification reinforces harmful epistemic practices. I would tentatively agree that if there was a perfect test that could separate "psychopaths" capable or likely to commit harm to a "normal" person, as that psychopath has totally divergent normative values deriving from missing or damaged cognitive functions, it should be acceptable to kill this person as a morally good act, as they would not be under consideration for our shared moral framework and would pose a threat to existence, the condition that precedes everything else. Practically, this will likely never be possible, and as anything we consider impossible must not be considered in our moral system, I for now don't need to commit to a system. Such a machine would imply a deeper understanding of cognitive functions that might also allow rehabilitation to a "normatively normal" human. A key consideration is that my moral framework doesn't only apply to humans- it could apply to any intelligent life from capable of epistemic practices that lead to normative claims about the world (conscious concept of morality). There are probably no animals in the world that have the required cognitive functions to have concious moral thought, but if a higher lifeform were to appear, assuming higher intelligence must be a superior development of foundational cognitive processes of human brains and not extremely divergent, they would be considered in our moral framework. As life seams to express itself similiarly in its existence lacking any intrinsic goal and simply existing because it exists, it would be likely that a higher lifeform would place a similiar importance on a moral framework to ensure survival, the normative claim made on existence, and as to be succesful enough to develop from amoeba to higher intelligence one might assume it to not be naturaly hostile if not threatened, avoiding conflict if the outcomes are better. Also they would probably grant us some moral consideration as valueing life is a positive trait. Lets hope. Treat those who have standard moral thought but less potential to survive as lesser. Perhaps this is true. I would argue most people already agree intuitivly. If you had a choice between sacrificing a healthy 7 year old or a cancer idden 85 year old, most would choose to save the 7year old. Take the case that the choice is between a 10 year old child and your obese 45 year old realtive. Seeing as ascribing normative value to an action is determined by the experienced outcome on the individual, one could justify sacrificing the child as the person that makes the choice takes action they define as morally good. So what if that person doesnt feel bad about sacrificing 10 children for one older realtive? I would argue that human is either knowingly acting against what they would describe as the morally good action, or their moral framework is so out of touch that either way they should be punished according to the evaluation of the framework. My system simply justifies this. At a point in the future we might be hasty to strip away individual rights as the upset to society might be weighed lower than the downside and backlash. My future vision paints a picture of a society where shared epistemic practices, living standards rising towards a high mean, and education improved by technology, pedagogic practices and further scientific research would lead to a more harmonious, tolerant, and liberal society. Religious extremism would fade, replaced by more moderate, personal expressions of faith, and personal liberty would be paramount. This would allow individuals to pursue their own paths, resulting in a society that values diversity of experience while maintaining common moral standards. Conflict is a necessary tool to protect ones way of life. If there is no threat to a societies value system, there is no need to protect it though active conflict with opposing ethical systems. As people’s understanding of reality (epistemology) becomes more refined and aligned with universal truths, this shared understanding influences their moral frameworks, leading to a more deliberate and less intuitive evaluation of what is good. In this framework, the evolution of moral understanding is tied closely to the development of epistemology. As human knowledge becomes more accurate and widely shared, moral progress follows, resulting in fewer conflicts over ethical principles and a more deliberate, evidence-based approach to morality. In theory we should want every action to be morally good. But as human beings we are limited to truly caring about our immediate circumstances, the further away the less we "feel" bad for an event, unless it is signalled to us we should feel bad by for example relating this event to us. So i am aware that right now someone somewhere is being murdered, and while I Idealy would like that not to happen, it doesnt directly impact my "will" to exist. Luckily universal epistemic truth connects all people, so to the person being murdered and people directly impacted that action is normativly bad. As long as this problem is being tackled, we should not have to worry.So why dont we invade countries like Iran, where the regime enforced ethical system severely clashes with ours? Well its a simple qustion of: If we take such an extreme action, can we guarantee it is the normativly good action to take? When we are faced with small actions, we are not expected to apply the action with the absolut universally best outcome. Rather the issue passes through our moral framework. We note our possible actions. We consider the outcomes of the actions and assign normative claims by considering moral impact vs limiting effort vs probability of moral righteousness. Morally desirable = epistemic practices that are informed by normative synthetic a priori claims, so one doesnt asign normative claims to ones knowledge of something after becoming aware of an issue but before taking an action, rather the normative claims are allready asigned through experience and perception of comparable allready held knowledge. Normative claims are inherently tied to our understanding of the world, even before we consciously address specific moral issues. Therefore ought is not separate from is, rather our understanding of what ought to be is informed in how we have perceived "is" as it "ought". the assumption that normative claims are synthetic a priori implies that our normative framework is grounded in both the structure of human cognition and our experiences of reality. Thus, when we perceive the world, our cognitive framework already assigns moral value to it, connecting is to ought. Existence is enabled by people coming together. Positive experiences of existence that guarantee a "will to exist" are more common in advanced societies. This we can measure empirically, as life expectancy, disposable income as a tool to further personal choice of experiences, education enabling liberal values that enable diversity of people coexisting and less war etc etc etc. . Why are rising suicide rates not an argument against this? First of all it is one data point versus an overwhelming ammount of evidence, also if we consider mental illness in its totality the offers for care and support have never been better. When society changes there are often unexpected consequences. We progree our societies with positive goals in mind, but bad things can still happen. Some methods or societal structures turn out to be bad. We should obviously lok to remove or improve upon these. We should directly tackle these issues. But that doesnt mean we should give up our societies and regress in order to adress a comparitavly tiny problem. In fact, scientific progress in all fields has led to a more stable, richer, longer living world with more individual potential to experience good things. My system demands an individual has epistemic humility, as they should be aware of the validity of epistemology is given simply by those practices happening (determinism + monoism necessitates that anything that exists is valid as a concept) and does not determine the value of the epistemic practices. Also only existence being a given and everything else needing to be proven, the importance of epistemic consistency to building a solid framework, as a framework is only solid if it can be proven to be solid. THE SOLIDITY OF THE FRAMEWORK IS WHAT WE TRUELY VALUE, MORE THAN THE VALIDITY OF THE PRACTICES!! THEREFORE WE MUST ANSWER ANY GLARING HOLES AND CHANGE PRACTICES WHEN DISPROVEN. No solid framework, no solid understanding of reality and no tools for truth finding. Of course most people don't care to pursue truth. So its up to those few that do ground out their epistemology to lead the debate on wider societal ethics. If you froze a moment in time you could inspect every last detail of the physical world down to the closest detail. So you would not have to know what precpipitated this scene to know what you are seeing. If the object is falling, you do not know if or how it has been pushed, you can still see it as falling. If the object had a mind, and thought, would it be possible to somehow inspect and anaylyse the thought in the same detail? Could an observer figure out the exact thought happening? Would inspecting the brain down to its smallest components, noting which neurons are activated and communicating, understanding which cognitive processes were happening in that moment, be sufficient to conclude the exact thought? My framework demands of a person to take the action they arrive at to be morally good, as defined by our shared ethical framework based on epistemic practices, employed by cognitive processes caused by nature and universaly true as normative claims about reality are a de facto result of intelligent life capable of being aware of epistemology, and experienced as perception where everything and action is presrcibed by normative synthetic a priori claims, normativity for a monist (materialist), hard determinist; If normative claims are analytical and normative assumptions are derived from various environmental factors, and through observing that the vast majority of societies share certain underlying values and generally make the same normative assumptions about the world, even though normative claims might vary drastically, there most be an underlying optimal moral approach to existence that could be defined as universal moral truth and therefor moral realism? Moving away from synthetic normative claims: 1. Hard Determinism: Everything is Causally Determined Hard determinism posits that everything, including human thoughts, choices, and behaviors, is determined by prior causes in a chain of events governed by physical laws. In this view, there is no metaphysical free will—all human actions, including reasoning and moral judgments, are causally determined outcomes of biological, environmental, and social factors. 2. One Reality Under Determinism If everything is causally related in a single, unified system, then there is only one reality—a single, fully determined universe where everything exists and happens for deterministic reasons. In this single reality, truth and existence are not matters of subjective perception but are objective facts. For something to be "real," it simply needs to exist as a fact or event in this deterministic chain of causality. 3. Normative Claims and Cognitive Processes Normative claims (e.g., "you ought to do X" or "this is good") are not arbitrary or free-floating in this framework. Instead, they are products of the brain’s cognitive processes, which are themselves causally determined. Just like any other thought or behavior, normative claims are real because they exist within the deterministic framework of the brain’s function. If these claims arise due to a chain of causally determined events—like evolutionary pressures, social conditioning, and individual cognition—then they are part of the real world. 4. The Reality of Normative Claims If normative claims (and the cognitive processes that produce them) are causally determined, then they are part of the causal chain of reality and, by that fact, are real. Since these claims exist and influence human behavior in predictable, causally explainable ways, they can be treated as objective features of the world, just like other phenomena in a deterministic universe. This leads to the conclusion that normative claims are real because they are facts about how human beings, as part of the natural world, think and act in response to their environment and biology. 5. Moral Realism as a Necessary Conclusion If normative claims are real because they arise from cognitive processes determined by prior causes, then moral realism naturally follows. Moral realism is the view that there are objective moral truths or facts, independent of individual opinion. In a deterministic framework, moral facts would be part of the causal structure of reality, just like physical facts. Since normative claims are the outputs of a causally determined process, they reflect real facts about human behavior, social organization, and well-being. These facts are not subjective or arbitrary; they are part of the objective reality that determinism describes. 6. Objective Normative Truths in Determinism In a hard determinist framework, it makes sense to argue that there are objective moral truths—moral facts that are true in virtue of the way the world works. For example: Human beings, due to their nature and evolutionary history, thrive in cooperative societies. Therefore, moral principles that promote cooperation (such as fairness or reciprocity) are not arbitrary but are objective features of what is best for human flourishing. If determinism governs human behavior, then the moral principles that promote the optimal functioning of human societies—minimizing harm, maximizing cooperation, promoting well-being—can be seen as real, objective features of human life. 7. No Room for Moral Anti-Realism In a deterministic framework, it would be hard to justify moral anti-realism (the view that moral claims are just subjective or socially constructed) because everything that exists, including moral reasoning, is part of the causal structure of reality. Since normative claims and the values they express are determined by physical, biological, and social causes, they cannot be dismissed as merely subjective preferences or cultural constructs. They are real facts about human thought and behavior, grounded in deterministic processes. In short, a hard determinist must conclude that normative claims are real because they are the inevitable outcomes of deterministic cognitive processes. If they exist as real phenomena within a single, causally determined reality, then moral realism follows. Conclusion: Determinism and Moral Realism In a monist, hard determinist framework, it seems necessary to adopt moral realism because: Normative claims are part of the causal chain of events that make up reality. These claims reflect real facts about human cognition, biology, and social structures. In a fully determined universe, the only prerequisite for something being "real" is that it exists. Since normative claims exist as products of cognitive processes, they are real and must be treated as part of the objective reality of human life. Thus, under hard determinism, moral realism is the most consistent and logical conclusion. Objective moral truths emerge as features of the deterministic processes that shape human behavior and social systems, and these truths are as real as any other causally determined fact. Normative claims are not inherent to humans- they are programmed by cognitive processes that interact with their environment. They are developed and adopted. Rather the threshold to hold normative beliefs is not existance- its the existance of certain cognitive proceses that necessarily lead to normative beliefs being aquired from social factors, those beliefs themselves being developed from millenia of humans interacting with reality and analysing those interactions to determine optimal Oughts. If morality is a result of the natural world, there is less and less room for a god. Assuming science further develops in this direction and education improves along with the developing of better living standards, it is a fair assumption to make that societies will become more and more atheistic If morality is a result of the natural world, there is less and less room and need for a god. Assuming science further develops in this direction and education improves along with the developing of better living standards, it is a fair assumption to make that societies will become more and more atheistic That’s an interesting perspective! Many argue that as societies become more educated and science provides explanations for phenomena previously attributed to the divine, reliance on religious frameworks for understanding morality may diminish. However, others believe that morality can be deeply intertwined with cultural and spiritual values, which might persist regardless of scientific advancements. The relationship between education, living standards, and belief systems is complex. While some studies suggest higher education levels correlate with atheism, many people find meaning and ethical guidance in religious traditions. It raises questions about how societies define morality and whether a secular framework can fully replace the role that religion plays for many. What do you think is the best way to approach morality in a more secular world? You said: do anthropolgists and sociologists believe that the prevelance of religion is due to a need for moral framework or to understand and rationalise reality and existance? Anthropologists and sociologists offer various perspectives on the prevalence of religion. Many argue that religion serves multiple functions, including: Moral Framework: Religion often provides a set of moral guidelines that help regulate behavior and foster social cohesion. Many societies look to religious teachings to define right and wrong. Understanding Reality: Religion can help individuals make sense of existential questions—like the meaning of life, suffering, and death—by providing narratives that explain the unknown. Community and Identity: Religious groups often create a sense of belonging and community, which can fulfill social and emotional needs. Coping Mechanism: In times of crisis or uncertainty, religion can offer comfort, hope, and a way to cope with difficult situations. Different scholars emphasize different aspects based on cultural contexts, so while the moral framework is significant, the quest for understanding and meaning plays a crucial role as well. It’s a rich field of study with no single answer! What aspects of this do you find most compelling? You said: is there a academic consensus on the most important factor? Could you weigh them each with a percentage? There isn’t a clear academic consensus on the exact importance of each factor in the prevalence of religion, as it varies widely across cultures and contexts. However, researchers often emphasize different factors based on their specific studies and frameworks. That said, if we were to hypothetically assign rough percentages based on common themes in the literature, it might look something like this: Moral Framework: 30% – Many see religion as crucial for establishing moral guidelines and social norms. Understanding Reality: 30% – Religion provides explanations for existential questions and the nature of existence, which is a fundamental human concern. Community and Identity: 25% – The social aspect of religion is vital for fostering a sense of belonging and shared identity. Coping Mechanism: 15% – While significant, the role of religion as a means of coping with life’s challenges might be seen as a secondary function to its other roles. These percentages are speculative and would vary greatly based on individual studies and cultural contexts. Different disciplines may also weigh these factors differently. It’s a complex interplay, and researchers often look at how these factors interact rather than isolating them. What do you think influences you the most when considering religion's role in society? arent the latter 2 factors less foundational? Of course they are important in a continuos societal context but they might be viewed as less foundational to how and why humans adopt ideologies You make a valid point! The last two factors—community/identity and coping—could indeed be viewed as more contextual or secondary, especially when considering the foundational reasons for the emergence of religious ideologies. From a more foundational perspective: Moral Framework and Understanding Reality are often seen as core drivers because they address fundamental human needs for ethics and meaning. The community and coping aspects might be more about how these ideologies manifest and persist in society, rather than why they were adopted in the first place. So, if we’re looking strictly at foundational reasons for adopting religious ideologies, it would make sense to prioritize moral frameworks and existential understanding more heavily. How do you think these foundational aspects influence contemporary beliefs, especially in increasingly secular societies? Seeing as humans analyse reality through normative assumptions, mostly subconcious and assumed, understanding reality necessitates some sort of moral framework That’s an intriguing perspective! The idea that our understanding of reality is intertwined with normative assumptions suggests that our perceptions and interpretations are often influenced by the moral frameworks we hold, even if subconsciously. In this view, a moral framework shapes how we interpret experiences, understand justice, and make decisions. It could be argued that our values guide us in making sense of the world, determining what we consider meaningful or significant. As societies evolve and develop more secular or diverse moral frameworks, the challenge becomes how to navigate different value systems while still seeking a coherent understanding of reality. It raises important questions about how shared values can be maintained in pluralistic societies. What implications do you see this relationship between morality and understanding reality having for the future of belief systems? the better we understand reality through science, the less need there is for a god that determines normativity. However, most humans do not engage in a deep analysis of there moral framework or even epistemology. They adopt their beliefs and values from social surroundings- this is supported by their underlying normative assumptions that they must be employed to analyse reality being adopted at an early age when engaging in deep philosophical and scientific analysis is not yet possible, but normative assumptions about reality are necessary for survival. So the shift away from religion will still be slow as most people will not fundamentally question their assumed beliefs. However, their will be less social benefits to converting to religion, and less loss from converting to atheism as atheism is as accepted due to it being viewed as a more and more legitimate stance. You’ve articulated a compelling view on the dynamics of belief and moral frameworks! The interplay between societal norms, early conditioning, and the gradual shift in belief systems is complex. Early Normative Assumptions: As you noted, many people form their beliefs based on the values and norms they encounter in their social environment during formative years. This foundational layer often operates subconsciously, influencing how they engage with the world. Science and Understanding: As scientific literacy increases and provides clearer explanations for natural phenomena, the reliance on divine explanations may diminish, especially among those who engage with scientific concepts. However, as you mentioned, many people may not deeply analyze or question their inherited beliefs. Social Acceptance: The growing acceptance of atheism and secular values can indeed reduce the perceived social costs associated with shifting away from religion. As societal norms evolve, the stigma around atheism lessens, potentially making it easier for individuals to reconsider their beliefs. Gradual Shift: This suggests that while the movement away from religious frameworks may be slow, it is occurring alongside a broader cultural acceptance of diverse belief systems. The challenge will be how communities balance these shifts while maintaining social cohesion. Your insights raise important questions about how societies adapt and how individual beliefs evolve in the face of changing norms. What do you think will be the biggest challenges or opportunities as these shifts continue? So I am a moral realist but importantly I believe morality is purely a consequence of cognitive proceses, not some divine given truth. If a person does not want to engage with philosophical concepts, it is basically impossible to change their mind (beliefs) through discussion or argumentation. If they don't engage in an epistemic evaluation they can simply dodge cognitive dissonance by changing facts around. Only a consistent and grounded foundational moral framework allows normative claims to be evaluated honestly. AND REMEMBER: WITHOUT A FOUNDED MORAL FRAMEWORK NORMATIVE CLAIMS CAN ONLY BE ANALYSED BY THE APLLIED POSITIONS HELD, AS DEEPER ANALYSIS REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF NORMATIVITY. SO VALUES STILL MATTER, BUT AS THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY APPLIED POSITIONS, NORMATIVE CLAIMS ARE THAT DESCRIBE HOW TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN VALUE ARE CONFLATED WITH APPLIED POSITIONS, EVALUATED NOT BY THE OUTCOME, WHICH WOULD BE THE CORRECT META ETHICAL PROCESS, BUT BY THE APPLIED POSITION THAT CORRELATES WITH THE NORMATIVE CLAIM. IF WE HAVE A METHAMATICAL EQUATION, WE HAVE MULTIPLE COMPONENTS: x (coefficient) y (Variable) + (or other operator) z (constant) = r(constant) so LEFT SIDE (multiple Terms (Expression)) equals RIGHT SIDE (single term) Apply this to moral question. xy (complex situation) + z (normative claim) = r (situation with normatively beneficial outcome) so logically we know what xy is, we can agree what r should be, and therefore come to an understanding of what action z we should take. But if a person has no moral framework and no desire to engage, they could argue that z could be any action that fits their world view, as they simply do not care that in their equation 2+2=5, as they don't care about the outcome r, they simply care about slotting in their preferred normative claim, be it to virtue signal or whatever. So I conclude, just as when we attempt to teach children why complex mathematic formula work, we must first explore foundational mathematical principles. THe same is true for moral questions. Methods to manipulate the equation : generally r (outcome) is hard to manipulate. One might ascribe different normative evaluation to the facts of a situation, but this then would just lead to a meta analysis of these separate normative claims. One might describe r in terms that do not describe the actuality of that outcome. ( say the outcome is 5,and I describe this 5 as 2 separate lines that run perpendicular connected by a single line centrally IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A WELL FOUNDED MORAL FRAMEWORK, I WILL GIVE 0 VALUE TO YOUR NORMATIVE CLAIM. IT IS SOARROGANT TO THINK YOU CAN MAKE SWEEPING MORAL JUDGEMENTS WITH 0 FOUNDATION. INUITION IS A TOOL WE USE TO SURVIVE. IT IS NOT A RELAIBLE TOOL TO MAKE GOOD MORAL DECISIONS. REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME, YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO MAKE THE CORRECT FUTURE CLAIM. VALUES as guiding principles of morality. Single actions in a vacuum aren't moral or immoral. The action is moral if it furthers the held value. It is immoral if it demeans the value.