Comment 27 by maxplastic1942

Philosophers like J Krishnamurti, whilst accepting the fact of physical evolution, deny that any psychological evolution has ever taken place, pointing out that we are just as tribal and caught in our own cultures and belief systems as were 20,000 years ago.

20,000 years is a relatively short period in evolutionary time scales.

He also made the point that if we examine ourselves honestly we will find that our so-called morality is actually no morality at all.

Personal reflection is not a good guide. Controlled experiments using scientific methods give much more reliable data.

Atheists may pin their hopes on technology eventually finding a way to cure the human condition, whilst religions hope for some kind of outside intervention from a hypothetical deity.

Cure for the human condition???? What is that??

Krishnamurti seemed to suggest that arguing about who is right is a meaningless intellectual exercise as the truth lies beyond mere verbal agreement and is to be found in the unbiased examination and understanding of our own nature as it really is,

That is why objective scientific research methods should be used. Arguing with people who have no idea what they are talking about does not help progress to accurate conclusions, although it may achieve political support for productive ideas if some of them are convinced. Peers reviewing science is quite a different matter.

if there is no psychological transformation of the individual, we are all doomed to a more or less meaningless life, (apart from the spurious meanings that we invent for ourselves) either until the sun gives out or we fall victims to our own inventions.

Life is meaningless apart from individual and group objectives we decide or invent for ourselves! Wider education in rational thinking and social empathy for others would be a psychological transformation for some, but no transformations are going to present "meanings" or "moralities" on a plate. Careful thinking and planning is required.