An excellent, balanced survey article, comprehensible also for those not versed in legal and moral philosophy like myself.

THIS POINt needs developing

<<..How does this debate
and the ordinary,..everyday *values it draws on
relate to arguments..>.which appeal to religious authority

STUFF RELIGIOUS 'AUTHORITY'
WE Each god the personal good god of grace/mercy/LIVING WITHIN EACXH AND EVERY ONE OF US/DURECT..WHAT WE NEED 'any auTHORITY..WHEN WE are the embodyment..of the highest author

we each living are the enjoined material/MORTAL LIVING EMBODIEMENt..of the ETERNAL IMORTAL OMNIPRESENT..HOLY SPIRIT

does not the creator..of the asset
hold hIGHEST CLAIM/..OVER ITS values?..[us]?

but by TRICKERY/COLUSION DESIGN/AUTHORITY HAS CREATED IGNORANCE/THUS dependance

<<..The choice of words is deliberate;>>

TOO RIGHT..THOU ART GOD BECOMES A Son..of the sun

<<.>>IMAGRY =IDIOlitry

I<<..

'ordinary' is better than 'secular' because the latter is widely understood to deny the existence of God, whereas the values in point are, if not universal, at least ubiquitous - they figure in the arguments of believers, agnostics and atheists alike.

'Quotidian' may be a better term,
but it is not one familiar in this context.>>

but the thing is this is DIRECTLY RELATED
TO THE QUESTION..of que warrento

[bY WHAT RIGHT]
http://rss.infowars.com/20140327_Thu_Alex.mp3
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/this-common-core-math-problem-asks-kids-to-write-the-friendly-answer-instead-of-the-correct-one_032014
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6293&page=0
h
SEs THE SNOWDEN/THREad
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152&page=0#178808

is close enough good enough?..WHAT ARe the moral implications?
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/this-common-core-math-problem-asks-kids-to-write-the-friendly-answer-instead-of-the-correct-one_032014

IS THERE A CORRECT RIGHT MORAL/ANSWER
HOW WRONG DOES doctrine NEED TO BE..RIGHT..NOT WRONG
is the right answer..MORALLY..the only wrong religious one.

is it a moral/math test or doctrinal/English comprehension
does PROPER value relieve angUwish ..assist materialistic /COMPREHENSION..of the higher unseen moral values/seen only in works..not words

ANYHOW THE ONLY CORRECT Answer..is one under THE GUIDANCE
OF THE ONLY TRUE GOOD [GOD]..IE THE HOLY LIving spirit/live all the time..direct..onE TO ONE..WITH AND WITHIN EVERYONE

HAVE FUN..the true answer..lies ..WITHIN..NOT DOWN-UNDER
[under reflects the respect]..inherent in BEING ..friendly YET IMMORAL?..IMMORAL Yet correct..[satan and demons are miss teaching our kids..into convoluted thinking

taught what to think
not how to think
what ya think?

Unfortunately One Under God I find your writing to be not of my liking, I feel worn out just by glancing my eye over it, nothing against you, as that is the way you write, but I do like the clearer and more precise writings of others.

What this seems to boil down to is that most of those who profess to follow a religion make the vast majority of their decisions on the basis of reason and common sense like everyone else, while those who do actually act in accordance with the precepts of religion are rightly regarded as dangerous, and quickly killed or placed in protective custody. Nothing new there, but it's nice to see it recognised. Why the weasel words at the end, however?

"I hope it is clear from this last comment that nothing in the paper is intended to question a religious view of the world or the role of faith in supporting it."

I don't think you could 'question' the religious view of the world much more effectively, Max, than by pointing out that all sane people eschew it almost entirely for the purposes of everyday decision-making.

Indeed George, an excellent, balanced and comprehensible article: thank you Max!

Now to the ultimate question as presented:

<<where do our values come from and why are they important?>>

Our essential values come from us - that is from nowhere. One could perhaps tell you: "if you value X then you should logically also value Y and not Z", but the essential value X has no other source but ourselves - that's what makes them important, to us!

Now there are those among us who value God, who love God and want to come closer to Him. This is an essential, primary value that we either have or we don't. Note that a concept of 'God' is not required: it may give us an intellectual understanding of our values, but it's quite possible to value God without conceptualising or trying to explain it.

A competing value would be of satisfying the body's desires, including for comfort, pleasure, safety and esteem.

Among those who value God, were sages who previously scouted and mapped the path to Him, then documented it producing travel-guides, which we call 'scripture'.

There happens to be a significant overlap between those travel-guides and common, ordinary morality. In other words, sages have concluded that for those who seek God, following common morality is most of the time a good idea. We could delve into the reasons for that, and there are good reasons, but for now suffice that this overlap exists, but is partial. Society and religion tend to travel together for a stretch of the road, wherein they can be good companions, but as they are not heading in the same direction, as they are different values, there is a point where they must separate.

Blaming those with different values as 'insane' is itself insane: if you like chocolate ice-cream, would you accuse another who prefers vanilla or strawberry as 'insane'? It's all about values, different values!