I really enjoyed reading this article. I agreed with perhaps 2/3rds of it.

For one thing, simply believing that something is true, does not make it true. Agreed. However, just because there are contasting beliefs on a matter does not mean that none can be absolutely correct.

If person A and B have a different opinion on issue C, perhaps A is correct, perhaps B is correct, perhaps both are partially correct, and perhaps neither is correct (correct me if I've missed out a few possibilities here). But the thing is, it is possible for at least one of these people to be [even absolytely] correct.

Belief does not make something true, but it is possible to believe something that happens to be true. If the only reason you believe something is purely for the fact that you believe it, then yes, you should have a lot of humility in talking about your point of view. But I don't think a lot of people operate like that. Most people will seem to believe something almost innately, whether due to nature or nurture, and then look up for "evidences" to back up their belief system. I think very few people are truly unbiased. But I also think, the more you are willing to look into reasonable, rational reasons to defend what you believe, the more of a right you have to try and convince others likewise (so long as you graciously allow them to try and convince you of their point of view as well).

I like your idea that all people are equal regardless of their belief system. Totally agree. But that doesn't mean all belief systems are equal.

Also, one minor squibble, I didn't like the generalisations you made about females. Whether in my favour or not, I don't like my opinions/attitudes/behaviours to be judged on the basis of my sex.

One more thing. Australia is a polycultural society (multicultural has had too many political references of late). That means we are welcoming more and more people from different belief systems. These people are mingling and teaching/learning from others. As I mentioned on another forum, most of my Gen Y friends who converted to Christianity have non-Christian parents. So I think the nature/nurture debate will become more and more irrelevant in the future as we're exposed to lots of different points of view. People will just decide for themselves.

Thank you Chris - but I doubt that too many will take note of your thesis.

Reality is a social construct - my reality would have been constructed by the environment into which I was born whether in Ethiopia or Australia, whether a male or a female - my life would have been charted from that moment - an accident of history.

Perhaps Chris could have explored a little more deeply given the title of his essay - opinion, or our 'world view', is delivered much by experience but is also tempered by what we might hope given our personal experience.

In other words, a starving male orphaned shortly after birth in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan might likely be led by the circumstances of what is on offer - not much other than a slave for the local warlord - well he has to keep alive and has no education.

And for those who might disagree you might explain how you would have survived.

Chris says -

"In order to advance as an intelligent, functioning society, we need to cherish our strongly held personal worldviews and be prepared and able to shout them from the rooftops if need be - but always with a touch of radical doubt, knowing that there is no chance we alone can have got it right. It is lack of humility that leads so many to absolutist positions and general intolerance of others."

There lies a fundamental problem - those who hold strong personal worldviews within the roofshouting category are most unlikely to hold any radical doubt. Is it really an issue of lack of humility or is it more an issue of the nature of the human condition? Why are there so many beliefs and worldviews - often contradictory? Why is it that people who believe strongly in an issue cannot usually be persuaded to change their minds? It is not so much an absence of humility as it is the need to believe strongly in something bigger, better and beyond ourselves.

The issue of gender is curious. I agree with Chris that yes, more men have led ideological flag waving. But is that because they are male per se - possessing the xy chromosomes - or is it because of the way in which society has been constructed and the role of women in the public sphere? I think it is the case of the latter - and it is not so much an issue of gender but an issue of gender roles.

But I agree with Chris' sentiments and the need for a more mature society. It is disheartening to see though that people of the iGeneration - 18 to 30 - are largely ignorant of politics (at least in the state of WA). As reported recently in our daily rag, some here think that Beattie is our premier ...

For an article that purports to steer clear of the nature v nurture debate this seems to swing solidly on the side of nurture.

Paradoxically I think the question about religious beliefs simply illustrates a flaw in your logic. Sure, depending on where you a born determines what religion you will adhere too but it's the bigger question: why are religious beliefs adopted universally? Cultural? Or is there really a gene for religiosity as some (including Robert Winston) suggest. Perhaps the same for all our other beliefs. They may be culturally expressed but are they genetically determined?

On the question of why so many men are commentators. I see two answers in this: firstly I don't think that the percentage of men is as high as you a seeking to claim. I simply see that as your internalised sexism: why haven't you listed the Beatrice Faust’s. Miranda Divine’s, the Eva Cox’s, and any number of ABC/SBS commentators?

The other aspect as to why so many men: I'd reverse the question a to be "why so few women?" and the answer to that is simple: we still live in a patriarchal society that---ironically, given the article---is dominated by religious dogma.

On the issue of why so few women - is it because women are still the primary caregivers to the family? What time and energy is there left to participate in the public sphere after washing clothes, cooking and looking after children and home?

I think some values we have do not need to be re-assessed. They are values we as a nation have arrived at after over 200 years of European settlement and over 100 years of stable Government. The lessons we have learned and enshrined in our Laws are indicative of our nature. The essence of who we are.

Here are the words that describe our basic nature. They are words enshrined in our legislation.

'The freedom of all Australians to express and share their cultural values is dependent on their abiding by mutual civic obligations. All Australians are expected to have an overriding loyalty to Australia and its people, and to respect the basic structures and principles underwriting our democratic society. These are: the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, the rule of law, acceptance and equality.'

Now of course these basic structures and principles have derived not just from our own experiences but from the experiences of most Western Nations and have developed over many centries. (A single common language is central it need not be English). Our expansiveness in adopting the above allow for us to express ourselves in a myriad of ways. Many are different to the commonly accepted 'Australian way'. I think it self-evident we as a people tolerate those differences.

What we shouldn't accept is any tampering with the above underlying principles and structures.

They define us more that the clothes we wear, the food we eat, our accents, our religions, ouir skin colour or other superficial cultural attributes.

I think many of those participating in any discourse upon what makes us Australian tend to overlook and unintentionally call into question the basic structures and principles of our Australian way of life. Any discussion on Australian culture should automaticaly assume these structures are not questioned. They work.

Of course many on this forum reject the adherence to the above basic principles and structures. This they do when they decry our policy of Multi-culturalism...but that's simply not the view of the majority and is plainly merely bigoted and uninformed comment.

The Author said:

"what can possibly make our own worldview superior to anybody else’s?"

Can we puh-lease get OFFFF this idea that to be passionate about ones own identity or culture automatically means that we regard it as SUPERIOR ! YES.. I'm shouting, because I'm sick to death of being told I feel my culture is superior than others simply because I defend it. What a load of codswollop !

It is NOT a matter of 'superiority' its a matter of FAMILIARITY. Its "ours" as opposed to 'theirs'. Weaknesses in our culture will be chipped away by exposure to strengths in others.
We will be reminded of what we have LOST in the shameful post 60s decadence that other cultures find so abhorrent (permissiveness and moral relativism)

KEITH quoted

"The freedom of all Australians to express and share their cultural values is dependent on their abiding by mutual civic obligations."

Amen x 7 and it is those 'civic obligations' which we should be inculcating into all migrant groups along the following lines.

1/ The language here is ENGLISH and to turn your ghetto blaster on at full volume in a public place playing music which is culturally and linguistically foreign is a NO-NO. Its rude, insensitive and plain bad manners.

2/ Treatment of people at beaches... cannot kick sand in peoples faces, beat up life guards, spit in peoples food, nor hurl insults at girls in bikini's nor block off sections of a beach to enforce by thuggery our own little kingdom for 'our' women.

For existing Aussies, we have to educate/educate/educate about how to accept others differences within reason.

Our values are pretty much summed up in our laws.. as Keith said. Quite true. But most of those laws are based on the simple "Do unto others" guide. Unfortunately, that summary of the last 6 commandments, cannot exist enduringly apart from a strong degree of connection to the first 4 which when summarized are "Love God with all our hearts".

Perhaps reconnection is the first step in a better future ?

May I add that recent neurological finding suggest that early childhood enables the formation of a system of belief and behaviour by pruning the less used neurones and enhancing those used, a pathway. Nutritive deprivation in childhood imposes permanent limitation on the brain and thus behaviour. The brain is however plastic so that though harder, behaviour can be changed in later life and use aids continuing brain function into old age.

Sure where one is born and the cultural system imparted is paramount but not necessarily all embracing. Free inquiry and a good source of correct information is vital to change, thus propaganda, thus Herman Goering oft quoted saying.
A child from a home with much stimulation and books, discussion is generally better balanced to function co-operatively than one who resides in an impoverished home. There are exceptions but the generality seems to be mal social adjustment from poverty.
How then 9/11? Middle class from a privileged background perpetrateing a horror? But such is not isolated, Nicaragua contras imposition of the Shah, Vietnam, Iraq and many more.
Were the perpetrators brain washed (early training or a vision) or just outliers on the pattern of human behaviour?
But George Bush appears to believe along with a substantial number of Americans that America must provide the moral control of the world (or is it the American Century?).
Did he believe this when playing round in the oil fields business ventures and days of good time? Has power become so desirable or being wrong so personally cruelling as not to be admitted?
Is this why we have the Government we have? Token females in a hierarchy of males?
How then Condalizza Rice, Thatcher or Meir or Albright?

As a deeply thinking veteran, apart from TV documentaries, one takes newspaper reports with mixed feelings knowing that they are mostly edited by corporates whom unfortunately hold such a sway over our world today many people still wanting to keep their minds active, prefer to go back in history as regards the Middle East in particular, where one finds that the real miscreants in the ME since WW1 have been the US and the UK.

One finds even after WW1, when Britannia neatly double-crossed her favourite son, TE Lawrence, moving into Iraq and occupying oilfields, that even in those days the works had been set up by the Germans in cooperation with their allies the Ottoman Turks. Also the writer historian did remark that also even in those days, that when big companies are involved with governments, especially in regard to important units of colonial contraband such as oil, the governments usually play second fiddle.

The point is after nearly one hundred years, it could only have got worse, as proven by behind the news desk reports, in Iraq right now we have Chevron, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, all there supposed to be fixing up and modernising the Iraqi oilfields, under undercover contract to the US Vice President Dick Cheney.

With George W’ Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard prattling so much about the coming democracy in Iraq, you can make a safe bet it will be a dyarky democracy, well known in colonial times, as a double-rule demo' - meaning each important Iraqi government position matched by a commissiarit even today as far away as the White House.

After a deep interest in history as well as the nature of the average conqueror, we can work such things out pretty well for ousurselves. And even if we finally convince local people, the answer usually is, oh well, the Muslims wouldn’t be able to run the oilfields, anyway - too much like our Abo’s. Nothing about the Iraqis deserving anything, though there’s probably enough oil there to make every citzen wealthy.

David

Our democracy is based on the ideas of the Greeks not the Hebrews.

The Hebrews were devoid of democratic practice.

I also mentioned acceptance and equality, those values were never Hebrew values, and on the evidence still they are not, unless of course you are a Hebrew male.
Very little of the underlying structures, which are our cultural structures, derive from the Hebrews.

Only a few of the commandments of the Hebrews and little of Christ's new testament are enshrined in our laws. You suggest and may think the bible and the Sermon on the Mount exclusively underlie our law but that is wrong for many of those values were and are universal values.

You need to read the Greeks to add some balance and perspective to your fundamentalist ideas David. For they too outlawed murder, theft and adultery but I'm not sure about bearing false witness, coverting their neighbours home, wife, goods, slaves, or animals, but it is likely they did. :-)

Dear Keith

All I'm saying is that the basic idea of 'Do unto others' is what underlies most law except in totalitarian countries. It is indeed the Greek idea of democracy which allows that idea to flourish.
But bear in mind, it flourished in Israel when it walked with God in covenant relationship.

This is abundantly clear from a read of the book of Kings and Chronicles. (have you read them lately ? :)... it all goes back to the point where the Israelites WANTED an earthly king, and from that point on, they 'got' what they wanted. Those kings, with few exceptions, ruled with an iron and undemocratic fist, for sure.
The very existence of the 'Prophets' like Isaiah and Jeremiah and others is testimony to the bad rule of the kings.

But if I may, please look at the exceptions, to see how life went under their rule... those of a reformist and repentant nature..Josiah is a good example.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=23&version=31
(seriously... please read this chapter)

When you read that chapter.. you will see just how far paganism had taken hold in the religious life of Judah.. and this is the classic 'make_it_up_as_you_go' version of religion:

"10 He (Josiah) desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in [b] the fire to Molech."

Are their occasional grounds for government to destroy the symbols of some types of paganism ? I think this indicates there are. But what would the likes of Bob Brown and 'MultiCulturalists' say about that ?

Why are our laws prohibiting child_sacrifice to pagan_deities not subject to challenge by post modernist moral relativists ? :) Well, the only thing I can point to is the revealed truth of the Bible. Humor me with some other source :) Clearly 'human_concience' did not work for the Jews who worshipped Molech nor for Pol Pot.

Government should come from the people. But if the people are going after 'Molech'...how would the government be ?

Socrates regarded 'slaves' as a lower form of life :) Touche.

Someone told me once that he thought that difference would not exist one day and everyone would enjoy the same values and religion, but which values and which religion will be adopted? Humans need a code of values with which to identify, and these do not come solely from nature nor from nurture. Our opinions and values come from a combination of gender, environment, socialising and the power structures that we experience in our lives. We are also affected by our education or lack of it and also by our own thinking. All religions have different levels from fundamentalists at one extreme and non-practising at the other. We also have certain ideals that we want to live by and they affect our opinions. Also, and not least our opinions are often formed and shaped by the media. As for women not being involved as much as men in influencing opinions, one important reason is that they are still considered irrational, emotional and primarily as objects. They are not in positions of power even though they perform the most important roles in a stable society.

Good article.

It never ceases to amaze me how passionately some people will blindly defend certain points of view which fly against all logic and evidence. Sometimes the more unproven and illogical an idea is the more passionately people defend it.

I often see people viciously defending points of view that have been scientifically proven as false.

Take the whole drug issue for example. A few short minutes of net surfing will reveal an endless list of medical experts and studies which confirm that if many of the currently illicit drugs were legally available they would in fact be much safter than tobacco or alcohol (not to mention the social benefits). Yet the prevailing view in todays society is that currently illicit drugs are scheduled as they are based on them being more harmful than alcohol or tobacco - this is factually incorrect. But many people (beer in one hand, cigarette in the other) will agrue it anyway.

The problem is many people base their views on 60 minutes reports and A Current Affair without actually considering the facts.

In such cases I think that one view clearly has a better basis in fact than another. In that sense I think it does become 'superior' or a better quality point of view for use of a better term.

"Why are our laws prohibiting child_sacrifice to pagan_deities not subject to challenge by post modernist moral relativists ? :) Well, the only thing I can point to is the revealed truth of the Bible. Humor me with some other source :) Clearly 'human_concience' did not work for the Jews who worshipped Molech nor for Pol Pot."

...yet

I read recently that in the Netherlands or somewhere a post modernist moral relativistic court has ruled in favour of recognising a paedophile political party. When ethics are eroded from a society and the yardstick is not divine moral absolutes but relativistic rationalisation the wheels keep turning.

Chris Harries:

I Don't share your sweeping statement regarding masculine dominance in the media, nor your list of popular commentators i.e Andrew Bolt, Pilger etc as anything out of the ordinary. It depends on what you read and who's view you eventually side with. One would think with all the visceral drama over discrimination in the work-place, equal opportunity, and women's emancipation, such antiquated, sexist attitudes and popular sentiments still find a niche in this forum ??

Gender bias is an anachronism of the 60's - pity Germain Greer, Kathy Noonan, Quentin Davis don't read Forum.

There's a saying : ' opinions that deviate from the ruling zeitgeist always aggravate the crowd ' !

Psychologist will tell you the Twin-factor is fraught with inconsistencies. It will take another generation to unravel the complexities of Social behaviour in identical twins. We are only now scratching the epidermis. Ironically, that demonic WWII physician Dr Mengele carried out ground-breaking psychological & anatomical research on numerous incarcerated Twins, among his other nefarious diabolical experiments in the Death Camps.The deeper Social Scientist delve into the DNA conundrum, the more complex it becomes.

The Human genome is like an autobiographical record of all our vicissitudes and inventions that have characterised the History of our species and ancestors, since the dawn of life.

Quote: " our National attempts to define a set of criteria ( common values).. all Australians etc." Actually, accentuates our ambivalence defining what exactly is our National character, come persona ? Aust literature is replete with similar innuendoes !Larrikinism, mate-ship, red-necked ockerism, womaniser..what ? High profile persona-grata Dame Edna E, Paul Hogan, Steve Irwan, Caroline Jones, Peter Hollingworth, Shane Warne, Wendal Sailor..Paul Keating..who or what typifies our psyche or National character ? The who's who of National pride and Iconic symbolism, is manifestly bereft of any one person who befits the mythical image ?

As a Nation we suffer chronic-cultural-cringe. It is more important to most - how the World perceives us on prime-time. Particularly the US of A.We have always harboured an Identity psychosis - an inferior complex of gargantuan magnitude. Possibly, reaching

as far back as the First Fleeter's and Sydney Cove's penal settlement days.

Your contentious pick of symbolic cohort's: Mother T and Adolf Hitler defies serious comment. Suffice to say each was born individuals, with ipediments and grossness.

Genetics defines who we are - not education, conditioning or enviornment.

Hitler could never manage an orphanage of destitute women and waifs in the slums of Calcutta, nor would he aspire to. His consumate obsession with Power and World domination was the fatal flaw that lead to his pusillananimous suicide in a Berlin bunker. Whereas MT, possibly embodied with the same passionate zeal would never entertain hurting a fly, much less preside over a fascist racially-inhibited regime with delusions of racial-grandeur, and self aggrandisement fuelling the oven's of Auschwitz with 12 million humanoids, in a profanity that resonates the penultimate in depravity ? From a Historical standpoint the outcome's wouln't be any different.

Everyone who strives for recognition ultimately exemplifies a pride in themselves and their origins. Forgiving ' conscientious objector's is anathema. Do we expect neighbour's to defend the Motherland ? It reeks of hypocrisy, sentimental garbage and betrayal. It's a violation and insidious erosion of our National character. It suggests an undermining of our Social fabric and values.

I should hope this elitiest rhetoric is viewed ' tongue-in-cheek 'and reader's assign this jingoistic putrescence to the sin-bin, where it belongs.

Ciao

Bon Appetit.