Hi Peter,

As an atheist, I've always been impressed by the Good Samaritan story -that a stranger, not belonging to somebody's group, should help him at a critical moment. To me, as a universalist, the story, true or not - it doesn't really matter - is a massive evolutionary step above the tribalist approach: that we help only our own, that our 'community' is only for 'us'.

In turn, that universalist proposition points to the superiority of open societies over closed societies, the value of a vibrant civil society over a stunted, State- or religion-driven society. Universalism opens the door to genuine equality, while an exclusivist approach enforces and sanctions social inequalities, particular between men and women, and inevitably leads to ethnocentrism and denigration of 'outsiders' as less than human, less deserving.

I'm not saying that those outcomes or consequences have been deliberate let alone planned, but that although philosophies shape history, they do so in ways which were unforeseen and perhaps unintended.

So don't be too hard on yourself :)

Cheers,

Joe

The author wrote: "Geoff Thomson in his "Disturbing Much, Disturbing Many" has pointed out that the early Church admitted gentiles, a clear break with Judaism who could not contemplate such an act."

The above statement is not true. Jewish tradition has always admitted gentiles. The Book of Ruth in the Bible is an example. However, a gentile admitted to Judaism must follow the Jewish law. Paul broke with tradition by allowing a gentile to be a fellow worshipper of Jesus without following the Jewish law.

But where does virtue, and thus right living come from?
It comes from the heart-based asana of Prior Unity?

http://www.priorunity.org/excerpt-separateness-egoless-culture
Plus the essay Be Part of Humankind First

And where does the Teaching of Truth come from too? Certainly not from any of the usual double-mined Christian talking heads, ancient of modern. http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself

Like everybody else Christians are convicted of, and dramatize the three separative myths of ego-culture:
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/three_great_myths.html

Loudmouth.
Thank you for your considered post. My problem with universalism is that while it is a great and admirable idea it provides no training in virtue. As I have indicated in a previous post on secularism there is a vacuum here that is easily filled with idols that take away our freedom. A radical understanding of Christian freedom, contrary to the religious understanding, is that nothing can become an idol, even Jesus. When Moses asked for the name of god he replies "I will be whom I will be" i.e. a non-name that leaves the being of god to be determined by his actions and not as a projection of human religious need. This understanding has become a staple in theological circles but virtually unknown among the faithful.

David F.
Yes, thanks for the reminder, well spotted!

Hi Sells,

I suppose we can't expect something, a concept or an aspiration, to do more than it can: but universalism, the equal worth of every person regardless of origin, surely is, up to a point, a virtue ? To have respect for each other as equals is a pretty good starting-point. How a person, or a community, responds to the needs or troubles of others is a fair measure of its - dare I say it - level of civilization. Of course, the opposite is equally true.

Best wishes,

Joe

NOt really sure how to define Aussie values although what is very obvious that the values of secularism are totally sick. The fruit of trashing Christian values has been murder, perversion, irrationality, mental health issues, increase of child molestation, epidemic divorce, fatherless children, racism, violence. Yeah all in the name of ' freedom' and secular values.

Hi Jo,
If one was to look at the origins of then idea that all persons should be respected it is very difficult to find them other than in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Pete

Considering Census questions, with comments about the numbers who tick boxes, yet rarely attend services.

Next time ask on Census whether each person regards Christianity as either their

(a) Religious belief,

or

(b) philosophical outlook ?

.

Surely we all have 'values' ? One doesn't have to be a politician or a philosopher, we all have them ? Otherwise what do get up in the morning for ? What move us ? What do we find admirable, of despicable ? What do we tell our kids is right or wrong, good or bad, worthy or not ?

Maybe what we do need are school programs which stimulate moral or values program, to explore why slavery or second-class citizenship are bad, why dedication to others is admirable, and everything in between. As well, the basis for those values should be made explicit in schools - the equality of men and women (isn't that a 'value' ?), the history behind the need to keep religion and the State separate, the importance of the rule of law for all equally, and so on ?

It may be fun, like those ditzes on 'The Feed' to look blankly at the camera and say, scornfully, "Australian Values ?! What are they ?!" But even they have values, even if they are never thought about them. We all do. What are yours ? What would you stand up for ? March in the streets for ? That's 'values', like it or not.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Perfectly correct observation - we all have values.

Usually we have a mix of values that can be broadly classified into three categories: Dark, Ambitious and Serene (in Hindu tradition, Tamas, Rajas and Sattva).

It is common for people not to acknowledge all their values and even suppress some of them during the day - then these tend to come out at night in our dreams.

«Maybe what we do need are school programs which stimulate moral or values program»

Yes, we do, this is true education, it's noble and it's something that religion is supposed to do (when functional, I'm not talking about dead wood), leading us from darkness to ambition, from ambition to serenity, then from serenity to God (however, the last leg of the journey transcends all values, so is beyond the scope of this discussion).

In a way, your listing of values to enquire and refine is an attempt to create a new religion, but then you seem to contradict yourself when on the one hand you want the state to sponsor this religion while on the other, to separate religion and state.

Unfortunately, your new religion is controversial in the current climate and would be opposed as "politically incorrect" just like any other religion, by those who value the dark and want to remain there.

Hi Yuyutsu,

A J Phillips could easily rip into your false logic there, that

* value systems are religions;

* that the State supports any such value systems;

* therefore the State supports all religions;

* therefore it is contradictory to talk about the separation of religion and the State.

I would disagree with all of those premises, and of course, the conclusion.

As an atheist, and an ex-Marxist to compound the problem, I'm always trying to identify what I think are the best values that I can live by, or at least good ones, but I don't have any religious or political crutches to assist me, and I don't think it's a religious process particularly. No big deal, I just keep ploughing on, trying to weigh up the best options.

Almost every issue of daily general concern has a moral or value side to it, so it's a matter of constant decision-making. And I'm sure that very many of us go through that process all the time. I certainly hope so, because that's surely one way, at least, of becoming a better human being, a lifelong task.

Plus, I chuck in a bit of fun as well :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

Like yourself, I also disagree with the above four premises. Clearly, not every value system is a religion. What I suggested is that the particular process of education for introspection which you offered, constitutes an attempt to create a new religion.

«I'm always trying to identify what I think are the best values that I can live by»

To me this seems to be a religious act. Why otherwise try to choose good over evil?

«and I don't think it's a religious process particularly.»

People can, for example, take a cold shower and a jog in the morning without thinking that it is a particularly healthy process, yet it probably assists their health whether they think so or not.

Likewise, whether or not you classify your thoughts and actions as "religious" does not alter the fact that they are.

«And I'm sure that very many of us go through that process all the time.»

Indeed, religion is not the monopoly of those who believe in the supernatural, etc.

«because that's surely one way, at least, of becoming a better human being, a lifelong task.»

Becoming a better human being is indeed commonly a lifelong task as well as an important religious stage. I wouldn't stop there, but it's a great start in itself.

Hi Yuyutsu,

You're right, religion is not the monopoly of those who believe in the supernatural, one can believe in magic and fairies and sorcery without their forming a religion.

But you go a little too far: "To me this seems to be a religious act. Why otherwise try to choose good over evil?"

Agonising over good and evil is not a religious monopoly either. If there are no gods, there is still the world we inescapably (well, almost) live in, which we have to deal with constantly. We have to make judgments whether we like to or not, and - at least from an atheist's point of view - that has nothing to do with religion.

And I suppose from a religious person's view too: so much of the world involves making choices in an everyday way, just as a matter of fact, humdrum sorts of decisions, which even religious people may try to resolve without resorting to prayer or by imploring the involvement of their god. Not every good-or-bad, this-way-or-that decision has to be religious.

I'll probably never become religious - I'm reading Nabeel Kureishi's book on his conversion from Islam to Christianity at the moment - but I hope I never give up trying to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad.

Hey, I suppose that's 'values' !

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

It seems to me that the reason you will never become religious, is that you already are.

People were eating garlic long before they knew about germs, so they didn't realise that it was a natural antibiotic, nevertheless that garlic killed their germs whether they knew it or not.

Similarly, some people (and animals) tried to do good and avoid evil long before they invented concepts of God, gods, magic, fairies or sorcery. These attempts were religious, long before the word "religion" (or any other word for that matter) was invented.

Yes, you have to make judgements, but why agonise about making good judgements over evil judgements? why not instead make random judgements or pleasant/comfortable judgements? The fact that you do try your best to do good, indicates that you are religious. You can still be an atheist, yet a religious atheist - no problem at all with that.

On the other hand, you have people who profess to believe in God, but apart from holding this intellectual notion in the head, they don't give a damn about treating their fellow-beings as if they were anything less than God. This is inconsistent with religion, so these people are anything but religious.

"I hope I never give up trying to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad" is a Credo, loud and clear at least as the Credo of any established church.

Hi david f, You have a genuine point.

Hi Loudmouth.

I think you have a nice point. respecting each other is one of the most important thing.

I think you have a good point Yuyutsu.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I'll repeat: making decisions about good and bad, right and wrong, is NOT a religious monopoly, nor do those dilemmas have to be religious.

Simple as that.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Other than being religious at heart, why else would you care to do good and shun evil?

Good and bad, right and wrong, do not exist in nature because no physical property (e.g. charge, spin, colour, momentum, energy, etc.) was ever detected which renders a physical object good or bad, not even a hint of that.

Thus good and evil are supernatural.

Some claim that they do not exist, fair enough, but you are obviously not among them.

Some do not care, thus their decisions in life are not based on whether their action is going to be good or bad.

Yet you do care, very much so.

Though it doesn't prove anything, it may interest you to notice that Jesus identified God with goodness: "there is none good but one, that is, God" [Mark 10:18]. Obviously you do not identify goodness with God and this is no wonder because some commonly-imagined concepts of and myths about God do not match, indeed do not portray Him positively at all.

But in your own way you do worship goodness and you even reject notions of God/gods that defy this description. In doing so you are drawing closer to goodness. That you do not call your aim 'God' or the process of getting there 'religion', who cares, it's only semantics, you head there anyway!

without a common set of values every one makes up their own. That's why feminist promote guilt free slaughter of the unborn, husbands cheat on wives and children carry on like brats with n disciple. Secularism has shown that man left to his own devices and stupidity is a very poor way of determining values. Even the catholic church looks good compared with secularism.

Yuyustu,

We are natural. Therefore, concepts that we devise are also natural. There is nothing supernatural about the concepts of good and evil.

Supernatural"
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supernatural)

Hi Yuyutsu,

Interesting logic:

Premise A: good and evil do not exist in nature;

Premise B: ?

Conclusion: therefore good and evil are supernatural.

You may need to do some work on Premise B.

Then you make the leap, that supernatural means 'religious'.

Not that I'm interested by now, but you may need to work on that as well.

Abraham Maslow developed his theory of 'needs', which progressively morph from 'my needs' into 'the needs of others'. Nothing uniquely religious about all that. I love my kids, and would probably give my life for them, like most parents, but religion does not enter those relationships. Love also is rare in nature, but it's not necessarily supernatural.

A concern about 'how to live one's life' is NOT the monopoly of any religion, unless you define the word to include it, which is a bit circular: A is B because B includes A. I beg to differ :)

We all have values, whether we know it or no - even JaFra on 'The Feed' does, but she is probably also ready to declare 'Air ?! Who needs it ? There's no such thing !' but keeps breathing, blissfully unaware.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,
In my article I attempted to differentiate between the values we adopt as good things and the actual formation of character. It is very easy to approve of being charitable to others if your charity is never tested. Of course everyone has values but that is not really and interesting observation. I value a good bottle of red in the evening. The values we adopt say nothing about how our character produces action. We are all blind to what we do and why. Understanding ourselves takes bravery and focus and confession. This is how virtue grows and eventually effects how we act towards others.

A good Australian value is we pick on new arrivals. Weather they are Greek,Italian, far eastern it does not matter they all get the same treatment. Maybe that is Australian initiation.
Another good Australian value is we see through rediculous teachings about churches, and their set of rules regarding what is right and what is wrong.
A valued Australian value is the partaking of hot pies and cold beer, regularly.
Australian values are everywhere. We pride ourself with not having a book of rights as sitizens we are restricted by nothing.

Thanks Peter,

I hadn't thought much about what might be called 'personal values', as opposed, or distinct from, 'social values'. I assumed that 'values' meant 'social values', how we relate to and treat each other and society, what we expect from, and try to contribute to, each other and society as a whole, including its most vulnerable.

How we might 'value ' a bottle of wine, and how we 'value' the notion of helping others in need - seem to be referring to qualitatively very different things, using (perhaps inappropriately) the same word. If we have to use the same word to compare the values of James Halliday and Mother Teresa or Nelson Mandela, we really are up the creek [no offense to James Halliday].

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Premise B: they (good and evil) exist.

If you agree that the qualities of good and evil are not to be found in nature, yet they exist, then what other option is left?

Of course, there are many who do not agree with either premise: on the one hand you get those who think (without evidence) that good and evil do exist in nature and on the other hand you get those who claim that good and evil do not exist at all, who may or example say that it's all relative, all just an unreal idea in people's minds, etc. Postmodernism is well known for that.

Similarly, suppose for example that Maslow's "needs" indeed exist, then these too would be supernatural: that there is air (as per your example of JaFra, whoever that is) is an empirical observation. That without the oxygen which is in the air organisms die, is also an empirical observation, yet no empirical observation can show us that anyone "needs" air: you might as well call it a superstition.

«Then you make the leap, that supernatural means 'religious'.»

Certainly not! In fact I believe that there are supernatural phenomena that are anything but religious, things we should actually stay away from and better not waste our time on.

As religious, I only referred to the persistent conscious choice of good over evil, rather to any and all supernatural-driven activities. Doing so is religious because it helps you to come closer to God, which you seem to prefer to call 'goodness', to which I have no objection.

Hi Yuyutsu,

1. natural:

* natural, and reasonably well-understood;

* natural, but not understood, something for which, due to our ignorance, which in turn is partly due to our lack of knowledge technology, we don't have satisfactory current explanations just yet;

this phases easily into:

* supernatural.

2. not natural:

* man-made, manufactured, consciously fashioned;

* caused by human action, not necessarily by intent.

Does all that make sense ?

Joe

Yuyutsu,

Good and evil are labels that we put on human interactions and emotions.

There are human interactions and emotions that are generally preferable to others. There is nothing supernatural (i.e. beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature) about a label or a concept. There are certain actions and states which we can generally agree are consistent with the notions of good and evil (e.g. health is preferable to sickness, life is generally preferable to death). The supernatural, on the other hand, cannot, by definition, be investigated in any way.

<<That without the oxygen which is in the air organisms die, is also an empirical observation, yet no empirical observation can show us that anyone "needs" air ...>>

Ah, but you can if we can agree health is preferable to sickness and that life is generally preferable to death. Which most people do, even though you don’t (yet contradict this by still looking both ways before crossing a street).

A J Phillips wrote(I've added the numbering):

1.Good and evil are labels that we put on human interactions and emotions.

2. There are human interactions and emotions that are generally preferable to others.

3. There is nothing supernatural (i.e. beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature) about a label or a concept.

4. There are certain actions and states which we can generally agree are consistent with the notions of good and evil (e.g. health is preferable to sickness, life is generally preferable to death).

5. The supernatural, on the other hand, cannot, by definition, be investigated in any way.

MY RESPONSE:
1. True
2. True
3. True
4. Internal contradiction/confusion
5. True (b/c it is beyond the ability of science to do so)

The internal contradiction arising from
a. "the notions of good and evil": definite article implies a unique standard
b. Identifying good with what is "preferable" is a relative standard eg.health is good b/c "health is preferable to sickness". Sickness is good b/c "sickness is preferable to death". Sickness is not good and good. Contradition.

(b) impies there is not a unique standard. This contradicts (a).

So there cannot be a unique standard for good and evil if based on human perferences. Even if we assumed everyone had identical preferences or limited good and evil to things everyone agrees upon (which is silly but but let's pretend) there can be no unque standard (Point b).

If there is to be a unique standard then it must be "supernatural": something beyond what science can explain (AJ'S Point 5).

For convenience, let's call it "the will of god".

Over to you AJ

grateful,

I didn’t say sickness is good. (By the way, my post to Yuyutsu was written in the context of our past discussions, and so it’s not going to sound very comprehensive to someone who just stumbles upon it now.)

<<So there cannot be a unique standard for good and evil if based on human perferences.>>

I assume, by “unique”, you actually mean “objective”. That's the usual argument from theists, anyway. If so, then, no, my talk of good and evil did not imply an objective standard. I only spoke of general preferences.

<<If there is to be a unique standard then it must be "supernatural": something beyond what science can explain>>

No, the Euthyphro dilemma debunks this common misconception.

<<For convenience, let's call it "the will of god".>>

Sure, once you've gotten around the Euthyphro dilemma and provided reliable evidence for a god.

Over to you, grateful.

Grateful,

Just because science can't 'explain' something yet, in 2017, doesn't mean that it won't be able to in the future. OR of course, that it won't be able to, even then.

BUT this doesn't mean that 'therefore' there must be only a supernatural solution, or that there must be a 'god'. The problem with that smug 'solution' of course is that somebody's fall-back position of 'god' is blown out of the water as soon as science CAN explain what it couldn't explain before.

No it won't, you may say, 'god' will still be there as an explanation for whatever we still don't know. In that case, I feel a bit sorry for 'god', who is pushed more and more into the little corners of our ignorance by the discoveries of science in its myriad forms. He/she must be praying (to some other 'god' perhaps ? Do gods have gods ?) that humans don't discover much more, that they will prefer to remain in ignorance, wonderment and belief in him/her, and give him/her some breathing space.

Cheers,

Joe

To get back to topic: surely we all have some sort of values ? Not necessarily systematic, or thought-out, but some sort of guide for everyday situations at least ? Surely everybody feels strongly about something, that everybody has a sense of what 'ought' to happen, or to be done or not done, or to be condemned ? Surely everybody has goals, preferences, likes and dislikes, which could be shaped into 'values' ? I can't believe that there is an 'emptiness of the idea of values'.

If it were so, when it's all boiled down, why would any of us ever post anything on OLO ? Why would we care enough ? Probably not a single one of us agrees with any other poster on everything (our values differ too much), but each of us may be surprised sometimes to find themselves in agreement with the opinion of someone who they thought they had nothing in common with. We all have different and, dare I say it, strong values.

I suppose that's a sufficient reason why, for example, socialism is always going to be impossible - IF it means that everybody has to be on-side with the values of the 'working class' (or more so with those of its 'representatives', especially its executioners: one would not want to have different opinions or values from socialism's executioners). I probably wouldn't last a week.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I understand that the word 'natural' has several competing meanings - especially the technical/scientific sense vs. the ecological/green sense. The sense that I used was the scientific, so in that sense, for example, a nuclear bomb is considered natural.

Of course, we have different levels of understanding about different natural phenomena, but they all remain natural even when our understanding of them is little or sparse.

In my last post, I already explained that there are people who do not accept any (or both) of the two premises:

1. That goodness and badness cannot ever be found in the natural realm.
2. That goodness and badness actually exist (and by that I mean the actual goodness and badness, rather than related mental ideas and concepts).

I was not addressing such people in my post. Rather, I was under the impression that you do accept both premises - if that's not the case then we are back to square one.

AJ:
"I didn’t say sickness is good." True, you said sickness is evil:

"There are certain actions and states which we can generally agree are consistent with the notions of good and evil (e.g. health is preferable to sickness, life is generally preferable to death). "

AJ:

"I assume, by “unique”, you actually mean “objective”. That's the usual argument from theists, anyway. If so, then, no, my talk of good and evil did not imply an objective standard. I only spoke of general preferences."

What do you mean by "general preferences"? Is it what everyone agrees upon? Do you require 90% agreement? A simple majority? Have you come across Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?

AJ:
"Sure, once you've gotten around the Euthyphro dilemma and provided reliable evidence for a god."

Can you offer reliable evidence of a multiverse? If not, believng god created the universe is far more rationale than your position.

My understanding is that there is general consensus among scientists that the likelihood of this universe being the product of chance is effectively zero....unless it is but one of an uncountable number of 'experiments'. Where these experiments are supposed to have taken place is another question.

Regarding Euthypro's dilemma, its all good bro!.

Because of our desires being thwarted we presume bad. But in reality there is no inherent evil.

Who is more grateful? The person that has all that they desire or the person who has learned the true worth of things through deprivation?

A number of saying from the Prophet bear this out:

"How wonderful is the affair of the believer, for his affairs are all good, and this applies to no one but the believer. If something good happens to him, he is thankful for it and that is good for him. If something bad happens to him, he bears it with patience and that is good for him.”

"Great reward comes with great trials. When Allah loves a people, He tests them, and whoever accepts it attains His pleasure, whereas whoever shows discontent with it incurs His wrath"

“Nothing befalls a believer, a (prick of a) thorn or more than that, but Allah will raise him one degree in status thereby, or erase a bad deed.” 

“If Allah wills good for His slave, He hastens his punishment1 in this world, and if He wills bad for His slave, He withholds from him (the punishment for) his sin, until He requites him for it on the Day of Resurrection.”

...Over to you Mr Phillips

I didn’t say sickness was evil either, grateful.

<<True, you said sickness is evil:>>

My examples in brackets were demonstrations of how we can (individually or collectively) apply the label ‘good’. That didn’t mean sickness was then evil. Nor was I describing my views on morality. That being said, however, one could say that sickness was “bad”.

Sorry for the confusion.

My views on morality are far more complex than the examples I gave, and they're certainly more complex than theistic morality, which strips the individual of moral agency and dupes them into thinking that something becomes ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ simply because of an edict attributed to another being.

<<[Are “general preferences”] what everyone agrees upon? Do you require 90% agreement? A simple majority? Have you come across Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?>>

Not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
Yes.

Again, though, this doesn’t describe (and certainly not adequately) my beliefs on morality or the need, or lack of need, for a moral authority.

<<Can you offer reliable evidence of a multiverse? If not, believng god created the universe is far more rationale than your position.>>

Wow. Okay. You’ve just committed three fallacies here. Let’s unpack them:

1. Shifting the Burden of Proof (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof)

Firstly, no, I don’t have evidence of a multiverse, and asking me to provide evidence of a multiverse, in order to discredit your claim that a god exists, is a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof.

2. False Dichotomy (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white)

Secondly, your false dichotomy here assumes that a multiverse or a god are the only two options, and that they are mutually exclusive options.

3. Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

Thirdly, ignoring your above fallacies for the moment, my inability to provide evidence for a multiverse does not make your position the more rational one. I have no burden of proof yet, as I am still at the default position.

As for the Big Bang, even if your understanding is right, that doesn’t make your god more likely. Unless you want to fallaciously appeal to ignorance again?

Continued…

…Continued

<<Because of our desires being thwarted we presume bad. But in reality there is no inherent evil.>>

I don’t see how this addresses the Euthyphro dilemma at all, sorry. Let me simplify it for you:

The appeal to the need for a divine moral authority has two possible assumptions. Either:

1. what is right is right in and of itself, and a god relays that to us, or;
2. what is right is right because a god says it’s right.

You believe that objective morality is necessary, and that your god is required for it.

However, if 1 is the case, then we can just do what is right and cut out the middleman; God is not needed. If 2 is the case, then this god could change the rules tomorrow, which would mean they’re just as arbitrary as most theists would insist they are without a god.

Long story short, grateful: if your god exists, then he is either a useless middleman, or morality is still as arbitrary as what you claim it is without him.

<<Who is more grateful? The person that has all that they desire or the person who has learned the true worth of things through deprivation?>>

Deep. I’m not sure of its relevance, though.

<<A number of saying from the Prophet bear this out:>>

And Captain Kirk said, “What does God need with a Starship?” So what? What a book says means nothing, by itself.

Over to you, grateful.

Thanks, AJ, that wraps it all up beautifully.

Best wishes,

Joe

AJ, I have not shifted the burden of proof. Science has. Correct me if you think I’m wrong but my understanding is that the notion of multiverse is being proposed by scientists in response to the (effective) zero odds of this universe arising randomly …not because they have any evidence.

This alone suggests my position is rational. If I walk into a room and find a coin standing on its edge surely it is far more rational to assume the coin has been placed on its edge deliberately than to assume, without any evidence, that its position is the result of a random experiment repeated a large number of times.

In regard to the Euthyphro dilemma what I had in mind was more to do with god being a source of evil (under option 2). But your point can be addressed in the following way.

Assume there is a god and the Quran is the word of god. According to the Qur’an, “Allah will not burden a soul more than it can bear.” (2:286) If god were to arbitrarily change the rules this would be more than any soul could bear. Therefore, god will not change the rules if the Qur’an is indeed the word of god. The burden of proof then falls back on the Qur'an being the word of god (which I'm happy to discuss with someone with an open mind).

In other words, to go from god CAN change the rules arbitrarily to god WILL change the rules arbitrarily requires assuming a god other than what is described in the Qur’an. You seem to have a different god in mind.

cont....

continue...

In relation to your point about agency, consider any of the above-quoted hadith. For example,

"How wonderful is the affair of the believer, for his affairs are all good, and this applies to noone but the believer. If something good happens to him, he is thankful for it and that is good for him. If something bad happens to him, he bears it with patience and that is good for him.”

We are told that no matter what we experience in this life there is a response that will yield a benefit. In the face of good fortune benefit comes from being grateful. In the face of bad fortune benefit comes from being patient. Therefore, there is nothing that can happen to us that we cannot derive benefit from. It depends on our choice. There is agency.

Finally, you say:
"My views on morality are far more complex than the examples I gave, and they're certainly more complex than theistic morality, which strips the individual of moral agency and dupes them into thinking that something becomes ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ simply because of an edict attributed to another being."

Your argument is with a straw man of your own creation, not with me. This is a sign of a closed mind.

Unfortunately, I've overcommitted and I'm short of time so will have to leave it here.
All the best to you and Joe.

Hi Grateful,

What you propose is interesting, but perhaps you could try this as well:

"Assume there are no gods and that therefore no book, not even the Quran, is the word of any god."

Let's note that all religion are attempts by people, in circumstances which science is too rudimentary to illuminate, to make sense of the world around them in the context of their society, its power structure and mores.

In those circumstances, yes, the world is there, but basically unknowable. (After all, nobody knew about germs or bacteria until the invention of the microscope).

So of course, given that all pre-civilized societies put great store in magic, sorcery, spells, etc., it would be 'natural' [sorry, Yuyutsu] for the best minds in those societies to leap to the conclusion that the entire world is magic, under the control of some Great Wizard, manipulable only by sucking up to him. And in patriarchal societies, as most pre-civilized societies were, that Great Wizard is thought of as being in the form of a man and, for want of a better word, a God.

Perhaps we can begin the discussion from there :)

But we need to get BTT: 'values': I don't know how there can possibly be an 'emptiness of values': we all have them, we wouldn't get out of bed without them, our goals depend on them, even if we're not fully aware of them. They guide all our lives, from those of the most contemptible drug-dealer to those of Mother Teresa.

There are personal values, and values that we share with other people, and those on a national scale, that we broadly share with other Australians. Nothing empty about those.

Cheers,

Joe

grateful,

You have just committed all three fallacies all over again. What did you not understand about them before?

<<… my understanding is that the notion of multiverse is being proposed by scientists in response to the (effective) zero odds of this universe arising randomly …not because they have any evidence.>>

No, you’re wrong on both counts. This is the type of nonsense passed around in church pamphlets. Apparently Mosque pamphlets, too.

Firstly, there is evidence for a multiverse (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2454.pdf%3Forigin%3Dpublication_detail), but I’m happy to say that there isn’t, because it doesn’t matter.

Secondly, we don’t know what the chances of the universe arising “randomly” were, because we only have a sample size of 1. This is the Fine-Tuning argument again. We went through this at length in our last discussion. It is not scientific. It is nonsense passed around in theological circles.

Finally, and most importantly, it wouldn’t matter even if you were right because a lack of knowledge with regards to the origins of our universe is not evidence for a god, and it is a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance to suggest that is.

So, yes, you have fallaciously shifted the burden of proof, science did not do it legitimately.

<<If I walk into a room and find a coin standing on its edge surely it is far more rational to assume the coin has been placed on its edge deliberately than to assume, without any evidence, that its position is the result of a random experiment repeated a large number of times.>>

The is a type of Argument from Design fallacy (a form of the False Analogy fallacy). There are multiple problems with your analogy.

Firstly, you can conclude with a high degree of certainty that a person put the coin on its side because we can know that the chances of a coin landing that way are small. We can even test this. We can’t know what the chances were of the universe coming into existence because, again, we have a sample size of 1. Secondly, ‘small chance’ doesn’t mean ‘no chance’.

Continued…

…Continued

<<In regard to the Euthyphro dilemma … your point can be addressed in the following way.>>

For over 2000 years, the greatest theological and philosophical minds have failed to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma. I hardly think you’re going to do it now. But let’s see what you’ve got…

<<Assume there is a god and the Quran is the word of god. According to the Qur’an, … Therefore, god will not change the rules if the Qur’an is indeed the word of god.>>

You are side-stepping the issue in the same way that all Euthypho-dilemma newbies do.

Whether your god would change the rules or not is irrelevant. The fact that he could change the rules is all that is needed for the Euthyphro dilemma to be a problem, because it means that your god’s rules are arbitrary. Indeed, even more arbitrary than what many theists would claim morality is without a god.

Furthermore, having clearly chosen 2, your god could say that rape is fine tomorrow, and that would mean you would have to agree that it was (it doesn’t matter that he never would, I am simply following the logic behind blindly following the arbitrary rules of a god). That’s not moral, nor is that how morality works.

<<The burden of proof then falls back on the Qur'an being the word of god (which I'm happy to discuss with someone with an open mind).>>

Correct, and we went through this the last time. It didn’t go so well for you. I have an open mind, but I’m not gullible. There is a difference.

<<Your argument is with a straw man of your own creation, not with me.>>

No, it wasn’t a straw man. A straw man is an irrelevant argument used in place of legitimate argument to avoid addressing the issue hand. I had already addressed the issue at hand and was in the process pre-empting where I knew you were going.

I’ve been through it all many times before.

Dear Joe,

Thank you for your consideration of me.

First, I would like to re-acknowledge my agreement that everyone has values. I do however reject the idea of "national values" - that's cheap propaganda. Also, you omitted that one's values can change over their lifetime.

«it would be 'natural' [sorry, Yuyutsu] for the best minds in those societies to leap to the conclusion that the entire world is magic, under the control of some Great Wizard»

Nothing to be sorry for - this would indeed be natural. This is how minds in general work, they are curious, they want explanations and eventually they find some. Whether one's explanations are correct/accurate or otherwise is not really important: what's important is the values which drove them towards their findings.

With a broad brush, it boils down to some personal proportion, to what extent does one value nature and to what extent one's values are beyond.

If one is only looking to satisfy their minds with a plausible explanation to natural phenomena, then it's really no big deal whether they come up with gods/wizards or with science. They might as well come up with the latter because those who come up with gods and wizards are not one iota more religious than those who come with scientific explanations. Calling such people "religious" is just a bad habit. Those using 'God' to explain natural phenomena are like toddlers mistaking a crown for a potty.

«They guide all our lives, from those of the most contemptible drug-dealer to those of Mother Teresa.»

It is difficult to discern someone else's inner heart, but on the balance of probabilities, the drug-dealer is more likely to value nature much more that what is beyond while Mother Teresa is more likely to value the beyond more than nature.

There is one point of clarification I need to make, with regards to the Euthyphro dilemma, to avoid being accused of moving the goalposts later. I said:

“The fact that he could change the rules is all that is needed for the Euthyphro dilemma to be a problem, because it means that your god’s rules are arbitrary.”

In fact, not even that is needed. The idea of a god changing their rules is simply one way of demonstrating the arbitrary nature of the rules.

One could claim that their god somehow cannot change the rules they originally made, but, without some extrinsic reasoning as to why they were made in the first place, they would still be arbitrary. The only way around this is to switch to option 1 and claim that there is indeed some extrinsic reasoning as to why the rules were made to be what they are, which then renders the god a useless middleman.

So there you have it, grateful. Another reason as to why your argument, that your god would never change the rules, is irrelevant.

The dilemma is unresolvable and a problem for any theist who wants to claim that their god is required for objective morality. The only way to avoid the dilemma is to not claim that a god is necessary.

--

Yuyutsu,

You are not the arbiter of who is religious and who is not. You have no right to dictate to anyone what constitutes religiosity. While you certainly have the right to an opinion on the matter, it is dishonest of you to present that opinion as fact without providing evidence for that opinion.

We've been through all this before. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0

Hi Yuyutsu,

To the extent that every country has borders and a roughly similar history within those borders (give or take), and that distinctive cultures arise in different countries upon which different value systems are built, then yes, like it or not, I would suggest that there are indeed, very broadly speaking, national values'.

And of course, one's values change over time, often very quickly: compare the attitudes of the American people towards with Japan and Germany in the weeks before and after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I suppose I'm using the word 'values' in a broader sense than just in reference to nature: most importantly, it seems to me, values refer to how people interact with each other, how they 'value' each other, how they would treat each other.

So concepts such as fairness, mateship, observance of the law, reasonable freedoms, deference to the power of the state - although these are obviously not unique to Australia - may be distinctively recognisable to most Australians as 'Australian values'. Whether or not, as Peter Sellick asserts, drinking beer is an important value, is a bit of a straw man.

As well, each of us has distinct, experience and experience-derived values, particular relationships with others, goals and preferences which someone else may describe as our particular values. Good or bad, like it or not, we all have them.

So I suspect Peter's article is a bit of a beat-up, to somehow 'show' how superior his own values are to other peoples', as a really-truly caring person, and how Australian values should be down-played out of respect and compassion for migrants. But he does trivialise his own topic: no government would force anybody to like football or beer or even the beach: A.J. would suggest that this is an Argumentum Ad Absurdum. Good try, Peter :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

There is a difference between values and attitudes: although both can change, values are somewhat deeper and more persistent. Attitudes are derived from values plus circumstances. Attitudes can change due to circumstances while values change due to profound inner convictions.

A continent like Australia has drug-dealers and Mother-Teresa's and so many in between, how could they all possibly share the same values?

Is the behaviour of drug-dealers fair? OTOH, I find fairness to be highly valued all over the world (with individual exceptions and whether people succeed in following this value of theirs can again be a different story).
Are drug-dealers your mates or only mates of their own ilk?
Do they value observing the law, or they only observe it when they think that they might be caught by police? Myself, I do not value man-made laws at all.
"reasonable freedoms" can mean anything for different people, but as an exercise, look at this forum and see which freedoms are considered "reasonable" and by whom.
Deference to the power of the state is probably because police here is very effective and not corrupt as in other countries: that's due to necessity rather than to values.

Drinking beer is more of a stereotype, I actually think that it is more common in Germany. Again, that is more likely to be an addiction rather than a value, just because beer happened to be historically more available here than other spirits.

Dear Yuyutsu,

With her being more concerned with conversion than with treatment, her hobnobbing with dictators and her propagation of superstition I think most drug dealers are not as bad as Mother Teresa.

Hi Yuyutsu,

So many straw-mans ! What do you understand by "very broadly speaking, 'national values'." Of course, not everybody would have exactly the same values or to the same degree. Move on.

Of course there are differences between values and attitudes, although on could depend greatly on the other. There are differences between one' values and one's morals, and between the espousal of values and actual practice. There are differences between public values and policy. One can even define 'values', as does Peter, as, for example, preference for wine over beer. I suppose I'm thinking about issues that are a bit more general, more social rather than individual preference.

So yes, we can pick holes in any general statement. None of it changes the existence of a broad, general sense of national values, in any country.

Hi David,

One Australian 'value' is toleration of the freedom of opinion. You're welcome.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear David,

Though I haven't heard those particular allegations before, I have heard some other nasty allegations about her (which I never bothered to check). Nevertheless, whether true or otherwise, "Mother Teresa" has become an idiom which no longer refers to that specific person who lived in Calcutta.

Anyway, concerning the comparison to drug-dealers, these allegations can be quite serious, but we need to investigate them one by one as they all depend on context and are not necessarily negative. An example of positive hobnobbing with dictators is Moses (again, please take him just as an idiom) telling Pharaoh: "Let my people go!".

---

Dear Joe,

«None of it changes the existence of a broad, general sense of national values, in any country.»

I think that you are referring to conditioning or adaptation. Values come from within, conditioning comes from without. With sufficient pressure: social, emotional, physical, most people would yield, break down and accept what's expected of them.

Would you say that reverence for the "Dear Leader" is a value which somehow all North-Korean were born with?