It is widely assumed that religion is needed to justify a Moral Code which comes with bite, i.e. a Moral Code which prescribes and expects rigorous observation.  But this sequence can be reversed, by realising that religion was from the beginning based on airy generalised thinking about how the vast, structured physical world, in which our ancestors found ourselves, came about. This was —at the end of the day— reasonable speculation. Moral Code was much more immediate, physical, demanding and serious. It is probable that a universally accepted Moral Code, which had already been in place for more than two millennia, spurred the monotheistic revolution which happened around 2 – 3 millennia ago. After the monotheistic revolution had occurred, it was a no-brainer to think that the universe must be the handiwork of an infinite supermind. Khufu had masterminded the Great Pyramid, and Alexander’s supporters had planned Alexandria, but a creative mind of much greater (infinite) power was obviously needed as the postulated architect of the universe.

This is generalised, synoptic thinking. It can lead to Belief, but only in the case of saints, does it sometimes result in practical behaviour… its effect mainly takes the form of talk, sentiments, rituals and prayer.

It was the arrival of the earliest conurbations around five millennia ago which seems to have been the turning point prompting the emergence of properly organised Moral Codes… which were needed to civilise (pacify) thousands of lively, striving, bustling egos living in close proximity. Without a compelling Moral Code in place, there would inevitably have been a lot of criminality and violence.

The conversion to belief in an infinite supermind was a probably a development gradually inspired by the success of centralised currencies, efficient arithmetic and standardised building materials. After a postulated infinite supermind had been established, He could be credibly cast as the original author of the Moral Code, thus turning its imperatives into something like compelling personal exhortation.  It took a long time, though, for the abstract idea of monotheism to dominate these early civilisations. (Experts think that even after the conversion of  Imperial Rome to Christianity, about 70% of the population remained quasi-pagan.)

The original Code “worked” very well, in the sense that it ended up being  successfully transmitted from generation to generation for more than 2,000 years. For this extraordinary length of time it was widely treated as the timeless, unquestionable, norm. But eventually, against all the odds, this norm began to fracture in the 20^thcentury.

After 1900 a creeping disintegration of the Code began to happen. In the1920s, as a reaction against the horrors of WW1, a defiant hedonism appeared, especially among the “young” and the “idle rich”. After the recovery from the financial crash, it re-appeared. It was mostly overlooked by both the religious and secular authorities: it was treated at first as being only an aberration.  WW2 interrupted this trend, but by the 1950s, a new hedonistic mood had resurfaced.  Soon the four whammies were being seen as mind-blowing triumphs of science and setbacks for religion. A low point occurred 1972 when the conceits of ‘modern maths’ were finally shown to be a mistake. This was disconcerting.  The post-modern pandemonium had begun.

The history of the last fifty years has been associated with a marked and relentless decline in the numbers of people committed to rigorous Moral Code in the Advanced and Anglophone countries.  The Code-followers have mostly been older believers, and Belief, we know, has now begun to shrink ominously… in inverse proportion to the growth of dazzling modernity-magic.

In spite of this trend, though, almost everyone is willing to concede that some kinds of personal behaviour are “wrong”, and others are “right”…   So a residue of non-rigorous Moral Code is still around, but when painful dilemmas arise, those involved often turn out to be surprisingly permissive.

So it is increasingly clear that the busted, non-rigorous Moral Code being followed by the masses today is not up to taking the social strain… the ‘social strain’ being that civilisation can only exist and thrive when there is sufficient reliable inter-personal trust in play.  (It is pretty clear too that a considerable amount of inter-personal trust is needed to underpin a thriving economy.  A warning sign here has recently appeared in the form of an official wariness about prosecuting shoplifting. (This, if left unchecked, risks effectively wiping out the sensibility and aspirations which underly ordinary commerce.) So today’s society may be approaching a crisis state, where the full weight of internalised trust a community can muster, may be insufficient to prevent frequent outbreaks of snatch-and-grab, violence and criminality.

It is not necessary to adopt a monotheistic explanation of the universe-and-us to see the full force of the urgent need for a compelling modern Moral Code. The absolute social necessity for strict Moral Code is commonsense. It is just as necessary now as it was in the first conurbations 5,000 years ago. This should be part of today’s Social Contract. Unfortunately the urgency of this has, so far, been wantonly missed in the corridors of power.

The root of the trouble is lost intellectual confidence. Any credible explanation of the universe-and-us will tend to re-kindle basic reasoning confidence, which has been gradually petering out for more than a hundred years.  The sudden loss of generalised intellectual confidence around 1900 was a dreadful setback for civilisation. Classical physics had unexpectedly collapsed, and so had set-based mathematics (a much hyped development in the 1900s). Both problems were eventually propped-up and fudged with inadequate solutions. Awareness of this  inexcusable failure eventually seeped through to the masses. It seemed to imply that our best brains were never going to be able to make sense of the universe.  The “century of the disillusioned intellectual” followed… with the most dreadful, brutal events in human history.

The whole point of this blog and its mathematic counterpart is to air thoughts which can help to renew reason. A gobsmacking discovery has occurred… Anti-Maths. It is the most extraordinary, and most unexpected, discovery in the history of science.  It offers a future of fantastic intellectual lucidity… far more mind-bending and exciting than the confidence we have lost during the weary post-modern, post 2008 crash, post pandemic years.

There is also a scandal of the most serious kind: that the UK state spends about 90 billion pounds a year on an ‘Educational System’ which not only fails abysmally to educate, but which is also making no attempt whatever to instil into the head of every youngster that they have a primary obligation to contribute to their society. Making sure that every child realises this, should be the no. 1 priority for schools.  It is the chief way in which each young individual can signal that they are authentic. (If they rebel against it, this makes the statement that they cannot count as  helpworthy.) They have been born into, or have immigrated into, a society which provides them with priceless facilities and freedoms… every one of which came about solely as a result of our ancestors working incredibly hard, contributing to the common good.

This is a fundamental truth which a multi-cultural society cannot afford to disregard:  arrangements must be made to make sure that it becomes the plainest of accepted public knowledge… or such a precarious state risks implosion.

Conclusion: the campaign by some right-wing commentators to ridicule the concept of ‘the commongood’ is deceptive, self-serving and reprehensible.  It should be the central pillar of any open society, and it should be the no. 1 priority in schools, to transmit this perception to every child.

YOU CAN COMMENT on themes on this website: email your thoughts to  per4group@gmail.com   CHRISTOPHER ORMELL 1^st November 2024 >> chrisormell@aol.com