It has occurred to me recently the hidden importance of culture. I’ve previously seen culture more or less by its anthropological definition,

“The sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.” – dictionary.reference.com.

This definition is well formed in the phrase “sum total,” because it suggests that culture isn’t necessarily how any individual chooses to live, but none the less, collectively, the way one’s cultural group “transmits” as the “ways of living”. The word “transmitted” is also cleverly selected because indeed, our culture is constantly being transmitted, directly (physically through media), and indirectly through modeling (no not the runway type, behavior modeling from our peers, etc.).

Now that culture in this context is defined, there are two more components to my recent enlightenment, the constricting domain of free will, and a divergence between technology and morality.

Starting with the constricting domain of free will, what I mean by this is as understanding of the world and it’s extremely complex systems are better understood, and as the complex biology of the brain are better understood, I see the realm of what most consider to be free will has little will associated with it at all. In fact, in many cases I believe a strong case can be made for little to no presence of free will at all in some cases.

Next, the divergence between technology and morality… however much our morality has increased or decreased over the last decade, or moral advancements have been completely dwarfed by our technological advancements. Technology, like mathematics, can abstractly be further developed upon its own framework, independent of opinions and rhethoric, debate or propaganda. Comparable transitions in moral behavior unfortunately do not have sufficient abstraction to develop as rapidly, nor can principles be agreed upon or adopted in a swift manner. Needless to say there are far less people devoting serious effort to expanding the principles of morality, metaphysics, philosophy, etc. as compared to the enormous human effort being poured into advancing technology. This is clearly the result of the objective vs. the subjective and the financial incentives associated with the two camps.

So all this begs the question… do we need God or a similar concept to provide a simple framework for morality? It would appear yes because of the fact that we have not developed the moral agility necessary to keep pace with technology. Religions have not provided a suitable adaptive framework for moral living, especially as technology and the sophistication of society advance so rapidly. Does law fit the bill? Not really, because the speed at which any global government or institution can create law also dismally slow in contrast to the speed of technology. So, what do we have left, humanism perhaps, or some type of secular rationalism? Although the rate at which these types of movements can react seems a little faster, they too are still too slow in adapting to technological change.

What we need is an all of the above solution / convergence between philosophy, religion, science, rationalism, etc. where the collective effort may be able to keep pace with technology. In its current form, these areas of philosophy indeed have areas of overlap, but also often stand against one another in both function and form, and draw completely contradictory conclusions and sometimes they even serve as antagonists to one another.

So what philosophical and rational mechanic may bring together the various schools of thought? I believe the only viable candidate for this convergence would be the focusing of intellectual inquiry on the creation of the world and universe, and then applying this knowledge to the betterment of mankind… I personally believe true morality is the application of knowledge of nature to the benefit of all of humanity, I call this morality “Technology Philanthropy.”

I am not a believer in the Christian version of God or any other version I’ve encountered in my lifetime, and if I was forced to pick a label, I’d have to choose Atheist. But I do believe there is a profound nature within us not completely understood that compels us all, to various degrees, to ponder our universe and emotionally connect with it. With that said, I’ve spent a large amount of time in my life trying to rationalize the world around me and when I imagine God and how God would interact with us, I find myself coming back to the same simple answer –creation. Creation is the unified theory of all religions, sciences, and culture.

The only mechanic viable in its capacity to represent the mind of God (or nature) and speaks to everyone at all times, not through a book or a prophet, or through an earthly begotten Son, this is ridiculous… God speaks to everyone at all times with the same message, the creation (nature) of the universe itself! This message is equally available to everyone, it does not discriminate, empower anyone or any group, doesn’t require a book, or fear of damnation. All we have to do is observe the stars, or pour grains of sand through our hand to contemplate and experience the creation (nature)… this contemplation will bring us closer and closer to God / Nature, and understanding the creation (nature) and its underlying principles we improve ourselves, increase our capabilities and live a more profound and meaning lives. This understanding is the philosophical unification we so desperately need to allow our moral framework to keep pace with technology.