'Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Values in this sense are ideas about ethics, and are learned.'

CJMorgan, you have over reached yourself with this statement.

As you suggest, values, ethics and morality are refined by religious and cultural 'memes'. However, the underpinning foundation to all human behavious is biological. Let's look at the classic value of altruism. The famous biologist E.O. Wilson comments on this positive behavious thus;

'I have argued in previous chapters that such biases are to be expected as a usual consequence of the brain’s genetic evolution. The logic applies to religious behaviour, with the added twist of tribalism. There is a hereditary selective advantage to membership in a powerful group united by devout belief and purpose. Even when individuals subordinate themselves and risk death in a common cause, their genes are more likely to be transmitted to the next generation than are those of competing groups who lack equivalent resolve.

The mathematical models of population genetics suggest the following rule in the evolutionary origin of such altruism. If the reduction of survival and reproduction of individuals due to genes for altruism is more than offset by the increased probability of survival of the group due to altruism, the altruism genes will rise in frequency throughout the population of competing groups. Put as concisely as possible: The individual pays, his genes and tribe gain, altruism spreads.'

Consilience (1998), p 287

Monotheists would have us believe that their particular 'Holy Book' is the fountain of values and ethics and are therefore learned via religious instruction.

I would contest this and say that human genes are the fountain of values and ethics and they are therefore intrinsic to human nature. Culture or religion merely refines the effect of those genes.

Dear TR
please read this:

Acts 8:

1And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.(Stephen)
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.

Then, from the same man after his conversion:

1 Cor 13:1

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

..and then.. tell me its all genes :)

blessings.

Ironically, the above fatuous and moronic statement (2 June) by Irfan is indicative of Islamic cultural values! Indeed, my time in the Middle East taught me that disproportionate ad hominem insults are are part and parcel of the Islamic religion. And I would suggest that the ability of Islam to withstand sceptical criticism without tempers flaring is practically zero.

Irfan is indirectly arguing by his essay (because he is Muslim) that Australian society should clear a public space for Islam and place it on a par with modern Christianity. I say that we should wait and see first before concuring with such a dramatic suggestion.

My own experince and a mountain of data (eg Amnesty International reports) suggest that the current values and idealogy of Islam is NOT beneficial in the long term to any given society unless it is first transformed by proper sceptical inquiry.

One of Islams current weaknesses is that it perpetuates and accentuates misogynist practice. It is not difficult to see why. The following text (Dawood's translation) from the Koran has been abused by generations of husbands who have no choice but to interpretate the Koran literally because it is supposedly the eternal unchanged word of Allah;

'4:43 As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.'

I should point out that the odds of this verse coming directly from an omniscent god of the Universe would have to as near to zero as damn it. What is bleeding obvious is that the Mohammed was having more than a few marital problems with his miriad of wives and needed some divine clout - in more ways than one.

I'm sorry but current Islamic values are NOT worthy of Australian society and are demonstratably NOT on a par with modern Christianity.

So, what you are saying Boaz, is that two paragraphs written about 2000 years ago, written by different people at different times, one from the viewpoint of an observer and one written by the guy himself, is supposed to be some sort of evidence that the inheritance of social instincts, whether by gene or meme effects is not happening? That its all due to the grace of God and accepting Jesus......yeah, right, whatever.

TR, as you would undoubtedly be aware, Wilson's 'sociobiological' approach is controversial among social scientists, due mainly to its extreme reductionism with respect to complex sociocultural phenomena.

For example, altruism - as you (following Wilson) describe it - is a human behaviour rather than a value as such. While altruistic behaviour is certainly valued by various human cultures and individuals, the nature of this value varies widely between social groups and the individuals that comprise them.

I agree with you that the claims by religious proponents that their deities are the sources of human values are false - however, it's not necessary to engage in biological reductionism in order to refute such claims. Indeed, Dawkins' invention of the notion of memes was intended to avoid such reductionism, in that memes were proposed as cultural phenomena that behave in ways analogous to genes, rather than being attributable directly to them.

BUGSY..thanx for pointing that out.. No, I'm not saying genes have nothing to do with it.. and that accepting Christ is the total answer to human behavior transformation.

All I was doing is showing the dramatic difference in Pauls life pre-/post conversion, to underline that knowing Christ is sufficient to transform a person from violent malevolance to gentle love.

The biological reality of gradual change in outlook due to events at the genetic level? well..I would be loathe to argue against that.

I'm simply saying there is more to the picture and if we had our hopes based on gradual genetic improvement, we might be waiting a long time.

I'm pleased though, to note you picked the exact context of each of those 2 paragraphs. If you apply this same diligence to all the issues you speak about, you will definitely do well :)