The article Daffy Duck cited contained this:

"Even a scientific theory like the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, though it is commonly believed, is not affirmed as absolute doctrine. Maybe the Big Bang theory will turn out not to be true after a few more observations, or will disappear completely in a few decades. Or maybe it will be given more support from continued research. In any case, it will still have the status of a theory, rather than the status of authority."

The above shows an ignorance of science. Science does not deal in absolute doctrine or authority. Any scientific theory is simply the best explanation available for a phenomenon at a particular time and is discarded if there is evidence that shows where the explanation it offers is inadequate. Religion deals in absolute doctrine. The problem with religion is the preservation of absolute doctrine by faith when it is no longer valid.

Dear David F.,

Following your last comment I looked up Daffy's article; and whether we agree with it or not, it nowhere claims that science deals with absolute doctrines or authorities: I think you have burst into an open door there.

As for your claim: "Religion deals in absolute doctrine", how can it?!

'Absolute' means it depends on nothing, neither time nor any object, nor even space itself can modify that which is absolute, yet doctrines depend on words, on language which interprets these words, and most importantly, on people and how they understand these words. Gone the people - gone the doctrine!

Speaking of "preservation of absolute doctrine [by faith] when it is no longer valid", a doctrine that can at times be valid and at other times be invalid, is obviously not an absolute doctrine!

.

As I understand it the notions of right and wrong are the basic elements of the survival instinct attributed to all living species by nature – right signifying positivity, and wrong signifying negativity.

The survival of each individual and each species depends on doing what is right for survival – either instinctively or as a result of (shared) experience.

There is no such thing as good or bad. There is just what is right or wrong.

The notions of good and bad relate to a system of evaluation of human conduct whose terms of reference are not just "whatever is necessary for human survival" but are largely inspired by religious dogma.

.

Well, transpose the term right and wrong with the terns good and evil. Where does conscience fit most comfortably? With the latter I would suggest.
And what better fits with the latter, is personal responsibility; and what better makes personal responsibility fit with the latter, is religious dogma.

The above extension to your more crude analysis of motivation and personal survival, is mans yearning for conscious meaning to life. So at this juncture, we can fit in the concept of truth.
What is truth to an animal is prioritised by survival instincts: What is truth to man cannot be denied as attachment to dogma.

Man is distinguishable from lower forms of animal life , by his inclination towards inspirational and inventive thinking. From this comes progressive society with inclusion of technology. Continuity of inventiveness from inspiration.

Mans attachment to survival is through his mammalian brain, where his natural survival instincts are hidden away underneath the higher order brain, which has invented the need for religion as a controlling mechanism for order and survival of the person and his society.

So what I seek to achieve here is a less simple explanation of human motivation and it’s unstoppable yearning for truth and meaning to overpowering urges of crude and powerful natural instincts of survival, and their negative outcomes.

I don't believe the universe created itself from nothing but was created from something, with an organizing intelligence overseeing the creation.

So, I believe in intelligent design and a creator. If that be God, then I won't pick straws between the labels.

I also believe that mankind are fallen angels trying to earn a return from whence they came. That computes for me.
Alan B.

We see it clearly in the rest of the animal kingdom.
There is a 'leader of the pack', and the others follow him.
This is programmed in to those animals. It is instinct.
There is a similar desire in the human animal.

When we are young, older persons control our life.
They are our 'pack leaders'.
As we grow, and move to the 'outer' world, we seek 'heroes' and 'heroines' to emulate.
We still need to 'follow the leader'.
It developed over time that leaders chosen were often fictional, as real life 'leaders' can be shown to be fallible.

Fictional 'leaders' can have any attributes you want them to have.
This is demonstrated by ancient peoples ascribing supernatural powers to large geological features.
Features such as mountains and rivers, and even the sun.
The humble 'totem pole' was in there somewhere too.

Somewhere along the way, it was realised that a totally fictional entity would be best of all.
It is not human, so it cannot be shown to be fallible.
It cannot be located or examined and, in that way, shown to be false.
It can be said to have any desired attribute or power.

The truth is that it is humans themselves who provide the entity with its reality.
It is humans who tell the stories and write the stories and print the stories.
One needs to turn to human resources to find out anything about the subject.
It is purely a product of human thought.

But education has saved us.
We are no longer slaves to fear and superstition.
We are able to see ourselves and our instincts as they really are.
We can use reason to control and direct those instincts.
So the need for a supernatural leader is far lessened, as we grow in wisdom and experience.

Truth has take over, and it will not be silenced.
Thought processes can now be logical.