Pericles - pathetically - implores, "Could you help me here - where is the linkage between consensus and ethics?" I don't think so, Pericles. Your previous posts and the Bristol Technology affair suggest that nobody can.

BOAZ wrote, "If Ethics is nothing more than the current concensus, (or political flavor) then I feel we are prone to the rudderless ship syndrome."

No.

Humans have a genetic disposition to altruism towards their relatives and an inclination to punish cheats. Individuals vary in the degree to which they exhibit those traits. Hence we sometimes have totally unethical megalomaniacs on the one hand and, on the other hand, people who are prepared to lay down their lives for others ("saints" if they are Christian, "terrorists" if Muslim.)

The utilitarian philosophy school, which I mentioned in my previous post, is an example of a train of thought that builds on basic human psychology rather than inherited dogma.

BOAZ, I don't understand how Paul's letter, "is 'evidence' which can be scrutinized in terms of authenticy, date, author etc."

More to the point, does it matter?

I totally defend your right to believe what you do. Religious belief is also a genetic disposition (although one that I have been minimally endowed with). I hope you defend my right to my disbelief; we can exist peaceably in this country. More importantly, while we may disagree on some topics, I don't see this as a battleground.

You cannot sidestep the question with bluster, MikeM. Bringing up Bristol, a subject of which you know nothing more than you have selectively scavenged from the Internet, won't help.

meredith put it into perspective with her question “the vote is fairer than often unwanted idealism.... and isn't fairness the question here?”

This is the pragmatic approach. We collectively display a certain ethical approach that sits somewhere along the spectrum that MikeM describes as “totally unethical megalomaniacs on the one hand and, on the other hand, people who are prepared to lay down their lives for others”.

As with every process that involves an entire population, the extremes are averaged out into the middle, and we sometimes elect this mob and sometimes another lot.

In the process, it is only possible for the elected body to make those ethics-related decisions for which it has a mandate. These will obviously differ from those ethics held by the extremes.

The article asserts that this is exactly where we would all be better off. With formal training in ethics, we would, it is suggested, elect a more ethical mob.

But meredith also makes the point – isn't this about fairness? Which, in the political perspective, it is. But from the individual's point of view, ethics is not about fairness, but about “doing the right thing”. Which takes us right back to our mother's knee, where we complained “that's not fair”, only to get the response “it may not be fair to you, but it's the right thing to do”.

So I am still inclined to see consensus – the collective view of a society as to what constitutes fairness – as differing from the personal, character-based, almost visceral approach to ethical decisions that most of us exhibit.

Learning about utilitarianism, and the various other schools of thought that analyze man's disposition to make ethical decisions across a wide range of motivations, is a good and worthwhile activity if you enjoy delving into the world of philosophy. I still maintain that it has absolutely no impact on making an individual “more ethical”.

So Pericles. How does one person become more ethical than another? When and how is it learned or is it learned at all? Is person born ethical or unethical?

Is your "ethicalness" shaped by your experiences? Is education one of those experiences that might shape your "ethicalness?" Has thinking about what BOAZ and MikeM have written in this forum changed anything in the way that you see the world, and the way that you might make decisions? It has for me.

Dear Mike
Panic not, I wont be calling out the faithful with Torches one night to surround your house and lead you off to a dubious fate :)

You are indeed free to believe or disbelieve as you choose, but I will give it my best shot to persuade you (and Pericles and others) of the merits of belief, specially when all you have to do is 'change the chanel'err..I mean thread. Its not like I've got my foot in the front door waving a WatchTower at you....

Pauls letter is indeed evidence. In the same way that any historical document is evidence for the various figures of history and their personal exploits.

The Letter of Polycarp is extremely important, written around 150, which quotes many of the New Testament documents, including 1 Corinthians, and suggesting Pauls writings are well preserved.

This being so, it raises the question as to whether Paul was deluded or a liar...or.. that he spoke 'as it happened', in which case, you and I and all mankind are confronted by the good news of Salvation, through repentance and forgiveness, in Christ.

There remains the question of what we 'do' with that news. This is only something each person can answer. But let it not be without adequate information, lest we claim there was no 'warning label' on the packet when we are admitted to the "Peter McCallum cancer ward" of eternity.

So,it does matter, therefore I push,and prod,and argue and debate and seek to persuade.

Erric.

You are right, when a religion declares those who don't believe should be killed, the golden rule cannot apply at a State level, only at a personal. On the personal,I struggle terribly with this, waxing and waning between loving them and kicking their asses!

I know one thing though, walking in Christ does not leave much room for the ass kicking :) So,perhaps I sometimes walk outside the loop. Pray that I will walk only 'in Him'.

Sorry I'm not following the finer points of this thread often,

Perc,
my ref to fairness was written in sarcasm,

but basically how can one strive for a balanced "fair" point of veiw in an (by the very terms of the word fairness itself)unbalanced unfair world... ...

it's better and more honist to acknowlage reality and pick a side and fight for your preference on your future.

We live in a world influenced by ethics committees religions etc, some comfortable and sane and some not. We all have adgendas.

its not may the best man win, Mr Churchill, and yes even the atom bomb. Its the best man will win.

Life goes on out of our personal grasp after all of us are gone.

PS sorry for sloppy spelling.

Pericles randomly waves thoughts. A dying cockroach randomly waves its legs. Pericles, we have moved on.

BOAZ,

Of course I don't expect you to surround my house. We can have a reasonable discussion - and learn from each other, and still disagree.

There is established scientific evidence that human minds have capacity for spiritual experience. Christians can attribute that to God's work. Atheists have a different explanation. Both satisfy holders' beliefs.

The Dalai Lama provides encouragement to scientists to explore the state of mind of people when they meditate or feel the presence of a Greater Being.

Archives of science news magazine New Scientist come up with 18 hits on "Dalai Lama". In a May 1993 report, "The colour of happiness", Owen Flanagan writes:

QUOTE
... an interesting question for neuroscientists is how do the brains of Buddhist practitioners - or indeed any other wise, happy and virtuous people - light up? How are the qualities of happiness, serenity and loving kindness that arise from the Buddhist practice of mindful meditation reflected in the brain? ...

Neuroscience is beginning to provide answers. Using scanning techniques such as PET and functional MRI, we can study the brain in action. We now know that two main areas are implicated in emotions, mood and temperament. The amygdala - twin almond-shaped organs in the forebrain - and its adjacent structures are part of our quick triggering machinery that deals with fear, anxiety and surprise... The second area comprises the prefrontal lobes, recently evolved structures lying just behind the forehead. These have long been known to play a major role in foresight, planning and self-control, but are now crucially implicated in emotion, mood and temperament...

Buddhist meditation and mindfulness, which were developed 2500 years before Prozac, can lead to profound happiness, and its practitioners are deeply in touch with their glowing left prefrontal cortex and their becalmed amygdala.
END QUOTE

Christians, Muslims and devoted adherents of other faiths probably exhibit similar brain activity, although I know of no studies.

The studies provide no evidence either for or against existence of a God.