I've been reading The Theory of Moral Sentiments (slowly!) lately and there is a concept in it that I think is interesting and relevant-The impartial spectator (observer). Although I'm not finished (and might not fully comprehend when I do) it seems to me the basic idea is that we should regulate our views of morality and moral decisions WITH regard to what would effectively be an impartial observer.

Now of course this isn't so easy to do, but I think we could do it in part by negation (by finding obvious instances of partiality that we previously claim to be impartial in our own views).

I'm not sure if the usefulness is obvious enough, but it seems the basic idea is this might guard us from our own conditioning, which blocks us from making optimal decisions and is related to using propriety as a regulator in a similar fashion.

I think this is very relevant to the topic of religion and many of the discussions here, especially if we consider the possibility that religion arose, through the evolutionary process (ie Dawkins view), to give a simpler instruction set to the average person, that might allow for a higher chance of survival (probably for the individual and the group since the individual must function within the group which is propriety).

It might be obvious where I am going with this. The concept of God or Jesus (probably we can use any religion as an example) then can be seen at a metaphorical attempt at the impartial observer and can be shown to actually have a purposeful, rational, and useful place in the evolution of man.

It seems Adam Smith's view supports the scientific introduction of the concept of a God for this purpose. But it also suggests that the perspective from which we look back on "religion" and its birth and use, actually corrupts our understanding of it. It was not designed in the forward looking manner from which we judge it to be.

The real trick here, to me, is that we have an inability to truly step in another's shoes or viewpoint, and we tend to not actually accept or realize the truth of this.

Somewhere in there,pragmatic utilitarianism but we are able to step into another's shoes and it is done all the time.

It appears correct, if you are saying this, that some but not all, judge the past based upon present mores. Comprehension of the past without judgment will clarify the past and in some way show that human morals are in evolution which might make some Darwinists giddy.

Religion we know today did not necessarily 'arise', although there were many different beliefs, religions, churches, etc. all swirling around for quite a while with older scripture, the Old Testament, etc. However, what we know today of religion was mainly 'formed' by a hierarchy of noblemen, with guidance from their Theological experts starting during the Roman Empire under the command of Constantine around 325A.D., in an attempt to better and more easily control their people. If they gave them a meaning to life and a purpose for living, which is turn made it easier for them control the masses.

It was started through First Council of Nicaea, which was the first of the 7 ecumenical councils. all called by Roman Emperor's. From there, is was literally a mess!

Concerning the work of these councils, William Penn writes as follows: "I say how do they know that these men discerned true from spurious? Now, sure it is, that some of the Scriptures taken in by one council were rejected by another for apocryphal, and that which was left out by the former for apocryphal was taken in by the latter for canonical." (Penn's Works, Vol. I, p. 302).

In regard to the character of these councils, Dean Milman writes: "It might have been supposed that nowhere would Christianity appear in such commanding majesty as in a council... History shows the melancholy reverse. Nowhere is Christianity less attractive, and if we look to the ordinary tone and character of the proceedings, less authoritative, than in the councils of the church. It is in general a fierce collision of two rival factions, neither of which will yield, each of which is solemnly pledged against conviction." (History of Latin Christianity, Vol. I., p. 226).

The Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, and Protestant canons, no two of which are alike, were fixed by modern councils. The Council of Trent (1645-1563) determined the Roman Catholic canon. While a majority were in favor of the canon of Augustine they were not agreed in regard to the character and classification of the books. There were four parties. The first advocated two divisions of the books, one to comprise the acknowledged books, the other the disputed books. The second party proposed three divisions-- the acknowledged books, the disputed books of the New Testament, and the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The third party desired the list of books to be named without determining their authority. The fourth party demanded that all the books, acknowledged, disputed, and apocryphal, be declared canonical. This party triumphed.

At a council of the Greek church held in Jerusalem in 1672, this church, which had always refused to accept Revelation, finally placed it in the canon. The Greek canon contains several apocryphal books not contained in the Roman Catholic canon.

Both divisions of the Protestant church, German and English, declared against the authority of the Apocryphal books. The Westminster Assembly (1647) formally adopted the list of books contained in our Authorized Version of the Bible.

Not that smooth of an 'evolution' of religion, was it?

Practically speaking perhaps, but we should all be able to admit there is some limitation in leaving behind our own bias's


looking to the past without judgement is more towards seeing the truth of it I think, but there should again, I think, be a realization of the limitation.

Are we going to agree religion predates this time by a (relatively) significant amount of "time"?

I don't know if you mean to suggest it didn't evolve. Furthermore it seems quite easy to suggest that it is subject of survival of the fittest. Quite smooth on the longterm...

Nonetheless I think my basic point here is that Adam Smith's works then is basically just an evolution of religion, touches closer than say the bible on the optimization of "impartial observer" rule set. This suggests the difference between science and religion in this regard is simply "time" and perspective.

It also suggests something game theoretical and mathematical imo, that the best way to deal with uncertainty is balance. Dunno if I went to far with that.

Of course. Like I said, I was referring to religion that most of us know and relate to today, which would be from the First Council of Nicaea. That is when they attempted to bring together and make sense of all of the different factions of Christianity that were out there with no real oversight or direction.

Ah yes! Relevant!