A very touching essay, probably the finest that has ever been featured on this website.
Please also find an Illuminated Understanding of death, and therefore everything else too via these two references.
http://www.adidam.org/death_and_dying/index.html
The most beautiful set of words ever written/spoken on the topic
http://www.easydeathbook.com/purpose.asp

Please also find some practical Wisdom on serving the transition of dying/dead feathered and furry beings. And Black Ducks with attitude problems too.
http://sacredcamelgardens.com/wordpress/serving-dying-animals

.

Dear Shira,

.

As I see it, it makes no difference, so far as your father is concerned, whether you believe in God or not.

If it is of any comfort to you to believe in God, I see no harm in your doing so.

Illusions were made for that.

.

.

Dear Shira,

.

Death is not a problem for the dead, it is a problem for the living.

The dead no longer exist.

It's magic: now you are, now you're not. It puts our capacity to metamorphose to the test.

Death is irreversible. We can't restore life to corpses.

Your dad obviously had a purpose for you. He launched you in life because he wanted you to fly [... he urged (you) to leave his hospital bedside and return to (your) husband and young children because "they need you"].

We often wonder if there is a purpose in life, the answer is to be found in everything our parents say to us. It is our parents who give us purpose.

Many of us do not have a purpose. We just have a reason. Perhaps our parents were simply obeying the instincts implanted in them by nature to assure the survival of the species.

As we develop free will, our capacity to modify the trajectory imprinted in us by our parents increases. At some point, we are able, if we wish, either to continue to fulfil the purpose attributed to us by our parents or do something else.

We do not have a problem with the dead. We have a problem with death.

Death triggers an emotional reaction which can rise up and engulf us if we are not careful. It has nothing to do with the departed. It has to do with our own feelings. It is purely narcissistic.

I witnessed the case in a small country village here in France where I live, of a lady my wife and I knew well. She gradually entered into a deep depression when her father died. She reached the point where she persuaded herself that she could have done even more for him than she did, and if she had, he would not have died.

She had had an unhappy marriage and divorced. Her children were married and had children of their own. She lived with her father and her whole life revolved around him.

She was totally inconsolable.

.

.

Dear Shira,

.

Perhaps a musical comedy from some of my creepy fossil friends (who, like me, snuffed out a long time ago), Camille Saint-Saëns, André Kostelanetz, Ogden Nash and Noel Coward, might cheer you up:
.
At midnight in the museum hall
The fossils gathered for a ball
There were no drums or saxophones,
But just the clatter of their bones,
A rolling, rattling, carefree circus
Of mammoth polkas and mazurkas.
Pterodactyls and brontosauruses
Sang ghostly prehistoric choruses.
Amid the mastodontic wassail
I caught the eye of one small fossil.
"Cheer up, sad world," he said, and winked—
"It's kind of fun to be extinct."
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJXP1_tX44w

Or if you prefer the version without that raucous laughing jackass who can't hold his tongue ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGEf4urGNo

.

.

Dear Shira,

.

Though your silence is gold ... a little philosophy can't do any harm ...

.

... crossing the Jordan ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM

... to remember ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XceA18B8-Og

... a wonderful world ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43HYIB-9DlE

.

Hi Shira,

A nice piece.

As for atheism you'll find contradictions which are ably illustrated in the words of Banjo.

The first contradiction in Banjo's outlook is the notion that while evolving like any other animal, we are developing a "free will". Does this mean we'll stop evolving like other animals? Or does it mean all animals develop a "free will"? The reality is that there is no room for "free will" under atheism.

A second point relates to morality. An atheist may well lead a moral life but atheism can never provide a foundation for morality. When was the last time anyone passed moral judgement over an animal: would we judge a lion to be morally reprehensible if it were to kill one of its cubs?

Atheism forces us to take the position that there is nothing morally wrong with a parent killing their child. The issue cannot be one of morality, just utility. As Banjo states, it just depends on the instincts implanted in us by "nature" to assure our survival as a species. Wasn't that how Hitler saw things: the survival of our species entails survival of the fittest and it so happens that it was the Aryan race that was best suited for that job. I'm not suggesting that Banjo would subscribe to that viewpoint but that he would have no moral grounds for objecting to it.

My point is that atheism provides no basis for either free-will or morality. An atheist may say something is "right" or "wrong" but they'll find no grounds in atheism for such a claim. Banjo may like to claim to exercise greater free-will than his parents, but let him tell us how this does not radically contradict his view that we are simply highly evolved animals.

salaams

.

Dear Grateful,

.

You seem to deduce from my previous posts that I am an atheist. I hasten to assure you that I am more than willing to believe in whatever god or gods exist. Please let me know if you know of any.

You wrote:

"My point is that atheism provides no basis for either free-will or morality ... Banjo may like to claim to exercise greater free-will than his parents, but let him tell us ...".

I am not surprised that "atheism provides no basis for either free-will or morality". According to my Oxford English Dictionary, atheism means "the disbelief in the existence of a god or gods". It does not appear to have anything to do with free will or morality, or anything else for that matter.

Nor do I claim that I exercise greater free will than my parents. What I wrote in my second post on this thread was " As we develop free will, our capacity to modify the trajectory imprinted in us by our parents increases".

I am perfectly incapable of measuring the precise degree of maturity of the conscience or free will of any particular individual at a particular point of time, including those of my parents who are both dead.

Free will is a functional advantage developed by nature. It is autonomy, the autonomy of the individual. Its acquisition and development is progressive. It is an evolutive mode of functioning.

Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

As for morality, I cannot speak for others. I do the best I can to respect my ideals of humanity and personal responsibility.

Kindness, politeness and fairness are my standards.

.

Hi Banjo,

The “freedom” that you speak of requires an act of creation. If to say “I choose to be kind, polite and fair” and “to respect my ideals of humanity and personal responsibility” is to represent an expression of your freedom then it cannot be a result of evolution.

A robot made in your likeness would not be able to claim the freedom and responsibly that you are claiming. All its actions would be pre-programmed. Whatever the robot did, it would be innocent. But you maintain that you have freedom to choose and personal responsibility for your actions. This cannot be explained by evolution. It requires a Creator to grant you this freedom to choose between good and evil. Freedom in its true sense requires an act of creation.

Salaams

.

Dear grateful,

.

You wrote:

"Freedom in its true sense requires an act of creation".
.

Terms such as "creation, creationism and intelligent design" have distinctive religious overtones. Though "creation" also has application in art, architecture, etc.

Religion has no place in science, especially in the fields of biology and cosmology. It has demonstrated its incompetence on countless occasions. To such an extent that on November 4, 1992, Pope John Paul II finally declared :

" The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.... "

In 2000, he issued a formal apology for all the mistakes committed by the Catholic Church throughout its history, including the trial of Galileo.

As regards the origin of the universe, I refer you to the following article:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

The battle for the minds of children moved into top gear 23 years ago, in 1990, when a staunch Catholic, right-wing American journalist and (Republican) diplomat, Bruce Chapman, created a non-profit educational foundation and think tank called the Discovery Institute.

In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions". It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a re-dressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The most plausible explanation of the genesis of life appears to have been provided by the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus (460 BC – 370 BC) who is reported to have observed that “Everything in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity”.

Jacques Monod, the French biologist, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner, later accredited and developed that theory in his book “Le hasard et la nécessité” (Chance and Necessity) published in 1970. From this it is deduced that “Life is a spontaneous, evolutive, sensitive and reproductive process triggered by the fortuitous encounter of complementary elements of matter and energy in a favourable environment”. Chance in this context should be understood as meaning a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable” event.

Freedom is neither absolute nor infinite and if, as you affirm, it requires "an act of creation" (with its religious overtones) in order to exist, then, in my opinion, there is no freedom.

As it happens, there is, in reality, relative, limited freedom here on earth. That being the case, I conclude that it does not require "an act of creation" in order to exist.
.

You also write:

"A robot made in your likeness would not be able to claim the freedom and responsibly that you are claiming".

.

Robotics technology is advancing rapidly. It is anticipated that fourth generation robots, robots with human intelligence, will be available sometime between 2040 and 2050.

These robots will be equipped with artificial neural networks, mathematical models inspired by biological neural networks, and, like mankind, will dispose of similar relative, limited freedom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotics

.

Hi Banjo,

Thanks for the reply. Thoughtful and thought-provoking. Let me think about it for a while rather than rush in with a response.

salaams
Grateful [for not being made a robot :-)]

.

Dear grateful,

.

Let us cease our idle chatter,

.

Let the tears bedew our cheek,
For a man from Tallangatta
Has been missing for a week.
Where the roaring flooded Murray
Covered all the lower land,
There he started in a hurry,
With a bottle in his hand.

And his fate is hid for ever,
But the public seem to think
That he slumbered by the river,
'Neath the influence of drink.

And they scarcely seem to wonder
That the river, wide and deep,
Never woke him with its thunder,
Never stirred him in his sleep.

As the crashing logs came sweeping,
And their tumult filled the air,
Then M'Ginnis murmured, sleeping,
`'Tis a wake in ould Kildare.'

So the river rose and found him
Sleeping softly by the stream,
And the cruel waters drowned him
Ere he wakened from his dream.

And the blossom-tufted wattle,
Blooming brightly on the lea,
Saw M'Ginnis and the bottle
Going drifting out to sea.

.

(How M'Ginnis went missing)

.

.

To all & sundry,

.

A light musical interlude with some of my favourites ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es5fqw3wAxc

.

.

... and something a little more spiritual ...

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mrVZHPikqM

The mother was standing sorrowfully
next to the cross, tearful
as her Son was hanging.

Whose soul, groaning,
sad and sorrowful,
the sword has pierced through.

Oh, how miserable and afflicted
was that blessed
mother of an only Son.

She lamented and grieved,
the holy mother, when she saw
the pains of her glorious Son.

Who is the man that would not weep
were he to see the mother of Christ
in such distress?

Who would not be made sad
at the thought of Christ's mother
grieving with her Son?

For the sins of his people
she saw Jesus subjected to
torments and lashes.

She saw her sweet Son
dying, deserted
as he gave up his spirit.

O mother, thou fount of love,
make me feel the force of your grief
so that I may mourn with you.

Make my heart burn
with love for Christ the God
so that I may be reconciled with him.

Holy mother, grant this favour,
imprint the wounds of the Crucified
deeply within my heart.

Your wounded Son,
who deigned to suffer so much for me,
may he share his pains with me.

Let me truly weep with you,
and suffer with the Crucified
as long as I live.

To stand beside you at the cross
and join with you in lamentation,
is my desire.

O Virgin, pre-eminent among virgins,
do not be bitter towards me,
let me weep with you.

Let me bear the death of Christ,
let me share in his passion,
and contemplate his wounds.

Let me be wounded with his wounds,
intoxicated by the cross
and the blood of your Son.

Though I burn and am aflame,
may I be defended by you, O Virgin,
on the day of judgement.

Let me be protected by the cross,
fortified by the death of Christ,
strengthened by grace.

When my body dies,
let my soul be granted
the glory of paradise.
Amen.

(Stabat Mater, Pergolesi)

.

Shira,
I am a much older widower with a big family.

All of my children remember their deceased mother and hopefully they will remember me and be guided by the aims and principals we each, and together, tried to instil in them by both upbringing, education and example.

I know that those features I learned from my parents (probably the only husband and wife team to ever be life members of the same mainly female secular well known charity) and one or two other role models are a major part of the guiding influences in my life.

So we all leave behind us some of the influences which were part of our character.

Chance and nature can bring life to an early undeserved abrupt end so always seek to provide care and guidance for those you might unexpectedly leave behind.

We don't need an afterlife and I cannot think of anything worse than the religious concepts for such an existence.

.

Looking for Shira ...

.

Now look, you see, it's this way like,
You cross the broken bridge
And run the crick down till you strike
The second right-hand ridge.

The track is hard to see in parts,
But still it's pretty clear;
There's been two Injin hawkers' carts
Along that road this year.

Well, run that right-hand ridge along --
It ain't, to say, too steep --
There's two fresh tracks might put you wrong
Where blokes went out with sheep.

But keep the crick upon your right,
And follow pretty straight
Along the spur, until you sight
A wire and sapling gate.

Well, that's where Shira's old grey mare
Fell off and broke her back;
You'll see her carcase layin' there,
Jist down below the track.

And then you drop two mile, or three,
It's pretty steep and blind;
You want to go and fall a tree
And tie it on behind.

And then you pass a broken cart
Below a granite bluff;
And that is where you strike the part
They reckon pretty rough.

But by the time you've got that far
It's either cure or kill,
So turn your horses round the spur
And face 'em up the hill.

For look, if you should miss the slope
And get below the track,
You haven't got the whitest hope
Of ever gettin' back.

An' half way up you'll see the hide
Of Shira's brindled bull;
Well, mind and keep the right-hand side,
The left's too steep a pull.

And both the banks is full of cracks;
An' just about at dark
You'll see the last year's bullock tracks
Where Shira drew the bark.

The marks is old and pretty faint
And grown with scrub and such;
Of course the track to Shira's ain't
A road that's travelled much.

But turn and run the tracks along
For half a mile or more,
And then, of course, you can't go wrong --
You're right at Shira's door.

Ain't no guarantee you'll find her there
She's discreetly disappeared ...


(adapted from "The Road to Hogan's Gap")

.

.

I know why Shira ain't around
And even why she can't be found
Not much good just waitin' for
She's hung this sign upon her door …

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqdtzJvliMk

.

Lord, said David, since you do not need us,
why did you create these two worlds?

Reality replied: O prisoner of time,
I was a secret treasure of kindness and generosity,
and I wished this treasure to be known,
so I created a mirror: its shining face, the heart;
its darkened back, the world;
The back would please you if you've never seen the face.

Has anyone ever produced a mirror out of mud and straw?
Yet clean away the mud and straw,
and a mirror might be revealed.

Until the juice ferments a while in the cask,
it isn't wine. If you wish your heart to be bright,
you must do a little work.

My King addressed the soul of my flesh:
You return just as you left.
Where are the traces of my gifts?

We know that alchemy transforms copper into gold.
This Sun doesn't want a crown or robe from God's grace.
He is a hat to a hundred bald men,
a covering for ten who were naked.

Jesus sat humbly on the back of an ass, my child!
How could a zephyr ride an ass?
Spirit, find your way, in seeking lowness like a stream.
Reason, tread the path of selflessness into eternity.

Remember God so much that you are forgotten.
Let the caller and the called disappear;
be lost in the Call.

{Mewlana Jalaluddin Rumi "Be Lost In The Call"}

....How we experience life and death ...with humility or arrogance, gratitude or greed, patience or irritability...Is this not an expression of free-will? Or is this also predetermined?

salaams

grateful

....or is how we experience life and death a sequence of purely random mutations passed on too subsequent generations?

.

Dear grateful,

.

Thank you for introducing me to the 13th-century Persian poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic, Mewlana Jalaluddin Rumi.

Like many great men prior to the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th century, it never seems to have occurred to him to extract himself from the ambient belief in the supernatural and deity.

Even such exceptional scientific minds as Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and Albert Einstein (1879-1955) were deeply mired in such metaphysical beliefs.

In the case of da Vinci it is understandable in that his life's work and sustenance were totally dependent on powerful religious and political benefactors.

It is more astonishing in the case of Einstein who was post-Enlightenment. But his was a far more specialised mind. Perhaps he provided the explanation of this apparent contradiction when he noted:

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits".

Rumi's observation ...

"Why should I seek? I am the same as
He. His essence speaks through me.
I have been looking for myself!"

... reminds me of a similar observation of Helen Keller (1880-1968), but she was deafblind:

"What I am looking for is not out there, it is in me".

Rumi also said:

"When we are dead, seek not our tomb in the earth, but find it in the hearts of men"

I am tempted to update those words of wisdom as follows:

"When we are dead, seek not our tomb in the earth, nor in some hypothetical heaven or hell, but find it in the hearts of men and women".

Rumi is a monumental figure in the Persian and Islamic world. However, I respectfully beg to differ with him when he declares:

" Man not conscious of God is akin to an animal and true consciousness makes him divine".

A person of such intelligence and wisdom, had he lived today, may, perhaps, have declared:

"Man not conscious of God was originally akin to all other animals and later evolved to true consciousness of reality that, indeed, there is no God".

.

.

Dear grateful,

.

You wrote:

"....How we experience life and death ...with humility or arrogance, gratitude or greed, patience or irritability...Is this not an expression of free-will? Or is this also predetermined?
....or is how we experience life and death a sequence of purely random mutations passed on too subsequent generations?"

.

Your guess is as good as mine, grateful. Mine is that our attitude to life and death is fashioned by a cocktail of nature, nurture, opportunity and free-will.

As I indicated above, apart from the odd exception, the ideas and beliefs of the most brilliant minds - as well as those of some of the less brilliant - evolve with each new generation.

I doubt that anyone will believe in God by the end of the millennium - give or take a century or two. Time is running out on that, as evidence (or should I say, the lack of it) continues to build up.

Time will eventually hit that one on the head.

We'll have to think of something else to comfort the poor and needy and those in distress, also to provide a satisfactory outlet for our surplus love and affection, propensity for self sacrifice, obedience, devotion, and the need for somebody to take charge of our lives.

Drugs, alcohol and religion are being stretched to their limits and, as time goes by, I doubt that they will suffice.

Our religious inheritance will be a mixed bag of good and bad.

On the good side are to be found the foundations of most of our laws, an immense treasure of sacred music from Bach to Wagner, architectural marvels in the form of magnificent, awe-inspiring cathedrals embellished with the best craftsmanship mankind is capable of producing, art in all its forms (painting, sculpture etc.), song and dance, as well as important literary works. Religion also provides a number of appreciable social services, particularly in the domains of health and education , sometimes more effectively and efficiently than the State.

On the bad side, it will all be history so let us simply forgive and forget.

.

Banjo, you say

"As I indicated above, apart from the odd exception, the ideas and beliefs of the most brilliant minds - as well as those of some of the less brilliant - evolve with each new generation.

I doubt that anyone will believe in God by the end of the millennium - give or take a century or two. Time is running out on that, as evidence (or should I say, the lack of it) continues to build up."

I do not want to dispute the trend away from God, although i think one can dispute whether this trend is based on "evidence". The trend could well be explained by desires to indulge oneself materially without having to reflect too much on the morality of one's actions or those of one's government.

What I would say is that if there is such a thing as a process by which "beliefs" evolve then it must be one in which ONLY the consequences matter. It must be a process that is indifferent to justice and injustice, which of course is antithetical to the whole notion of us acting upon our beliefs.

Acting upon our beliefs requires a process of contemplation that defies your evolutionary model. It entails meditating on whether our actions are right or wrong, just or unjust, fair or exploitative. It cannot be deduced from the level of social development, knowledge, division of labour, material wealth or power (features of evolving civilisations).

How does Banjo Patterson (or, more generally, culture) fit into your evolutionary model? Are his poems mere chronicles or expressions of his inner experience?

salaam
grateful

.

Dear grateful,

.

As Richard Feynman (Nobel prize in physics, 1965) is reported to have said, "A great deal more is known than has been proved".

One of the things I feel I "know" is that human society pre-exited religion. Prior to religion, society developed customs, habits and traditions which constituted acceptable conduct.

Morality is a system of cooperation within the community based on those customs, habits and traditions. It is a code of conduct. Respect of the code is right and non-respect is wrong.

The first animist religions were invented as a means of defence against natural phenomena which terrified primeval man. He had no warning of them and no control over them. Through the evolutionary process he developed the ability to conceptualize, imagining that invisible, supernatural forces were the cause of the phenomena.

He attributed a God to each of them, to which he submitted himself, begging their forgiveness and mercy. When that didn't work, he offered gifts and sacrifices, including human sacrifices which today we call scapegoats, the sacrifice of one to save the many. The myth of Jesus of Nazareth is a notable example.

As religion developed it elaborated its own code of conduct (morality). The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) is a good example.

Please forgive me for being pedantic but It is important to recall this historical sequence of events in order to understand that it is possible for morality and religion to exist independently of each other.

Belief, or faith, is by no means a prerequisite for morality.

Indeed, I have known cases of fervent religious practitioners who most people consider to be perfectly immoral. Paedophile priests are a good example, but there are many others.

You may find the following article of interest:

http://fair-use.org/bertrand-russell/the-elements-of-ethics/section-iii

.

.

Dear grateful,

.

You observe:

["What I would say is that if there is such a thing as a process by which "beliefs" evolve then it must be one in which ONLY the consequences matter. It must be a process that is indifferent to justice and injustice, which of course is antithetical to the whole notion of us acting upon our beliefs.]
.

Of course beliefs evolve. Who believes the world is flat today? Who believes Galileo was wrong in declaring that the earth revolves around the sun, contrary to common belief and Catholic dogma at the time?

That was not indifferent to justice and injustice. The Church (morally) rectified the injustice many centuries later. As it did with its condemnation of Joan of Arc and her subsequent burning at the stake by the English, finally declaring her to be a saint.

Justice, as it is conceived today, bases its decisions either on conclusive material evidence, where it exists, or on concordant elements of irrefutable circumstantial evidence where they exist.

Beliefs based on blind evidence are not admissible for decisions of justice.

.

Hi Banjo,

You say:

"Morality is a system of cooperation within the community based on those customs, habits and traditions. It is a code of conduct. Respect of the code is right and non-respect is wrong."

Sure, all sorts of beliefs about what is right and wrong may evolve. However, the real issue is whether there is a right and a wrong, since there would otherwise be no need for a Creator to provide his creatures with guidance (through a fitra, “instinct”, and through Prophets).

And definitely, many of the non-religious are practicing what many of the more religious just preach. But the issue is whether this ‘non-belief’ can provide a foundation for morality.

Surely, in your definition of “morality” there is no foundation because there is no notion of right or wrong as such. For example, nothing would be inherently wrong with murder or rape... as long as its serves the community these acts can be "morally" justified. This is the path that your definition takes us, is it not?

Personally, I think your response actually reinforces the case that justice and injustice are purely relative and therefore meaningless unless you believe in a Creator.

Thank-you for the Bertrand Russell link. An excellent resource.

salaams
grateful

Sorry, a correction to the last sentence:

Personally, I think your response actually reinforces the case that justice and injustice are purely relative and therefore meaningless unless THERE IS a Creator.

.

Dear grateful,

.

In my previous post I was referring to morality as the "conformity to conventional standards of society of right, (or acceptable) conduct".

That, of course, does not prevent each and every one of us from developing our own, individual, code of conduct, which may or may not concur with that of society in particular circumstances.

This is the manifestation of the "free will" of the individual which I discussed on page 2 of this thread, concluding as follows:

"Free will is a functional advantage developed by nature. It is autonomy, the autonomy of the individual. Its acquisition and development is progressive. It is an evolutive mode of functioning.

Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

As for morality, I cannot speak for others. I do the best I can to respect my ideals of humanity and personal responsibility.

Kindness, politeness and fairness are my standards".

Here is the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15035#259828

There is no good or bad, right or wrong in nature. There is only what is most efficient for survival and development. However, with the emergence of free-will in human beings, we have developed a greater degree of consciousness which allows us to make a choice in accordance with our moral values and/or those of society.

There can, however, be no free will without the possibility of individuals to choose, deliberately or inadvertently, a course of action contrary to their perceived best interests and/or those of society. This possibility exists and may be freely exercised at all times and in all circumstances.

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

It was the French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who first suggested in 1893 that societies dispose of a common or "collective conscience", as a distinguishing factor similar to that of culture.

Carl Jung extended the concept in 1919 to what he called the collective unconscious. From there to suggest that it could also be extended to include a "collective free will" is a step some may be prepared to take at the risk of coining what others may consider an oxymoron.

There seems no reason, however, why a group of individuals or even society as a whole should not be considered as exercising free will if we accept the idea of free will as autonomy. Collective free will in this sense would designate the autonomy of the group or society as a whole to make its own collective decisions and take whatever action it deems appropriate without any outside influence or interference.

So far as justice is concerned, an individual over a prescribed minimum age is responsible for his or her acts, including individuals whose unconscious behaviour and failure to exercise due precaution is prejudicial to others.

Irresponsibility can be established by proving that the accused individual lacks a conscience or faculty of discernment due to a mental disorder and was incapable of wilful intent. This is achieved in less than one in a thousand of all criminal cases brought before the courts in most democratic countries.

Justice is the ultimate objective of democracy. It is what democracy is all about. John Rawls, defined justice as fairness. Fairness is a noble intent but an elusive target. Failure to achieve fairness is a failure of democracy. That makes justice the Achilles’ heel of democracy.

There are many obstacles to justice: political, legal, practical, technical, financial, or simply human. They may be the result of bigotry, dishonesty or collective outrage or emotions, or take the form of intimidation or corruption.

Not only is justice simply not possible in some cases, its decisions may even have the adverse effect of aggravating existing injustices or creating new ones.

.

.

Dear grateful,

.

You wrote:

"Personally, I think your response actually reinforces the case that justice and injustice are purely relative and therefore meaningless unless you believe in a Creator".
.

I have discussed human justice above and have nothing to add to that. As regards so-called "divine justice", I am afraid I have never found any evidence of its existence, though it is not for want of searching.

Nor have I found any evidence of the existence of any supernatural entity of any sort, let alone a deity - other than the hearsay of "believers".

Hearsay is rarely accepted as evidence in the courts of law of most democratic countries - for good reason - and I consider the question far too important for me to rely simply on hearsay as the sole basis of belief.

The problem, as I see it, is not in any lack of belief on my part, but of a lack of something to believe in. I am more than willing to believe in something which exists, not in something which does not exist.

Here is a link to hearsay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
.

You also mention the "... need for a Creator to provide his creatures with guidance (through a fitra, “instinct”, and through Prophets)".
.

I do not know what a "fitra" is. As regards "instinct", a few words of wisdom come to mind, such as:

“[On Schopenhauer in Black and White] Schopenhauer's views of love are flawed. Love can't be merely an illusion of the mind to aid in procreation, but the path to redemption for an otherwise violently selfish species. Past human greatness has proven that when challenged, love can overpower impulsive instinct, and in essence, the vilest aspects of our nature.” (Tiffany Madison).

Prophets are self-appointed, would-be gurus. As Karl Popper pointed out, " The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability". The hypothesis of God is unfalsifiable.

The best we can hope to achieve is to judge so-called prophets on the basis of the accuracy of any previous prophesies.

.

Banjo, you stated:

“I do not know what a "fitra" is. As regards "instinct", a few words of wisdom come to mind, such as:

“[On Schopenhauer in Black and White] Schopenhauer's views of love are flawed. Love can't be merely an illusion of the mind to aid in procreation, but the path to redemption for an otherwise violently selfish species. Past human greatness has proven that when challenged, love can overpower impulsive instinct, and in essence, the vilest aspects of our nature.” (Tiffany Madison).”

Fitrah describes a primal human nature that is contrary to Madison view of a “violently selfish species”. Fitrah is “good human nature, the simple and good moral responses of someone who is natural; the soul's primal capacity to know Allah” (Sheikh Nuh Ha Min Keller “Sea without Shore”)

For those who want to reclaim their “good human nature”, fitrah, will take a path that is contrary to what your evolutionary model would predict. They will find happiness by disentangling themselves from the material world:

“How should a heart be illumined whose mirror but reflects created things? Or how should it travel to Allah when manacled by its desires? Or how should it hope to enter the presence of Allah when unpurified from the stain of its forgetfulness? Or how should it hope to understand subtle secrets when it has not even repented of its wrongs?” [Ibn ‘Atta Illah, Al-Hikam (Wisdom)]

cont...

...Banjo, you say:

“There is no good or bad, right or wrong in nature. There is only what is most efficient for survival and development. However, with the emergence of free-will in human beings, we have developed a greater degree of consciousness which allows us to make a choice in accordance with our moral values and/or those of society.”

We are all free to choose to be honest or dishonest, to keep a trust or backbite, honour our word or otherwise, to be humble or to show off, to display compassion or indifference to others suffering. People who are the lowest of the low in terms of behaviour and manners succeed in raising themselves to the level of saints, while others go in the opposite direction and debase themselves. These are choices that have been with us from our very beginning. they have not “evolved”.

Your “free-will” cannot be the product of your evolutionary model. How can someone who slavishly follows their material desires (as your evolutionary model would have it) be able to exercise free-will. Happiness is found by freeing ourselves from these desires not indulging them.

Those whose aspirations do not go beyond satisfying their desires and exalting themselves may acquire knowledge but will not acquire wisdom. They will act as your evolutionary model suggests, like animals, forever acquisitive in the material sense, but will never acquire wisdom.

Banjo, what do you understand by the term “wisdom”?

.

Dear Grateful,

.

Welcome back.

"However, the real issue is whether there is a right and a wrong, since there would otherwise be no need for a Creator to provide his creatures with guidance (through a fitra, “instinct”, and through Prophets)."
.

To be guided "through a fitra, instinct and through Prophets", is to be guided, or, as you say, "enslaved", by external forces.

But, provided such submission or "enslavement" is voluntary, it is an act of free will. If it is not voluntary, then it is imposed on us by external forces which may take various forms, biological, psychological, educational, religious, cultural, social, etc.
.

"How can someone who slavishly follows their material desires (as your evolutionary model would have it) be able to exercise free-will."
.

The answer is contained in my statement on which you are commenting:

"we have developed a greater degree of consciousness which allows us to make a choice in accordance with our moral values and/or those of society."

This is not the case of most other animal species. Though some demonstrate remarkable qualities of altruistic behaviour.
.

["People who are the lowest of the low in terms of behaviour and manners succeed in raising themselves to the level of saints, while others go in the opposite direction and debase themselves. These are choices that have been with us from our very beginning. they have not “evolved”.]

There were no saints at the beginning, 4 to 7 million years ago, when mankind broke away from his common ancestor with the chimpanzee.

The first religions were animist religions which are still largely present today. But for the large majority, even the gods and religions have evolved. Once they were many, now they are one.

Evolution is a law of nature. It is called "life". If you look back on your own life, I am sure you will see signs of evolution everywhere.
.

" Those whose aspirations do not go beyond satisfying their desires and exalting themselves may acquire knowledge but will not acquire wisdom."

How right you are, Grateful.

.