8.0.3 Reasonable Convergence

Version 1.0 March 2013                                    (Previous Version)

8.0.3.1 A Convergence of Beliefs

As scientists investigate more, devising new theories and alternative ways of looking at things we expect that the process of open discussion will lead over time to a convergence of views.  Scientists from all backgrounds – regardless of religion, nation or ethnicity – accept the value of the scientific method and the central theories of modern science: relativity, quantum and evolution.  There is inevitably divergence on major questions, currently on issues such as what happened before the big bang, how life evolved, the validity of string theory and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.  But scientists typically expect these questions will be resolved over time, and new issues will arise to be resolved in the future.

We expect a similar convergence in the study of history.  As many historians investigate a topic, from different perspectives and at different times, we expect that their work will contribute to getting us close to a universally accepted narrative.  Post modernism denies that this possible, supposing that we have no grounds for preferring one story over another and no grounds to amalgamate individual stories.  But we disagree with this pessimistic approach and see history as a method of approaching an underlying historical truth.

We also see a similar convergence even in philosophy.  If philosophy has a direction, it seems to be moving away from supernatural explanations to naturalistic explanations.  It seems that decreasing numbers of practicing philosophers believe in a supernatural god.  Philosophers seem to approach ethics as an exploration of the choices we make rather than seeking some external source of goodness or self evident axioms.

Despite the disparity evident in religion, there are “liberals” in all the world’s religions working to reconcile their tradition with modern science and contemporary values.  Some liberal Christians, having abandoned anachronistic explanations of our origins and anachronistic moral guidelines, suggest that the notion of god is also anachronistic, and that we should focus on the teachings and example of Jesus without the god bits.  We recognise that other Christians, Muslims and Hindus, reject these modernising movements and have returned to the fundamentals derived from their sacred texts.  But is it totally vain to see a convergence among liberal and reformed religious groups?

Even in politics and economics, we can see convergence.  The great communist empires of Russia and China have changed from centrally controlled economies with state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, towards a more capitalist, free enterprise system, with private ownership of large and small business.  Many argue there has been too much of a swing to the free market, and we support mixed economies, where markets are regulated and some services delivered by the state.

In the nations around the world there are still major differences in governance, the accountability of the ruling party, the separation of powers (into legislative, judicial and executive) and the rule of law, but most political leaders now claim to support some form of human rights and refer to themselves as democratic.

These global beliefs summarise quite orthodox views of leading philosophers, scientists and historians.  They are consistent with the approaches of religious liberals.  Our personal guidelines and political approach conform to secular  liberal democracy.  Here we join all the dots and explicitly link the beliefs from each ‘knowledge domain’ into a comprehensive way.  We expect citizens of the world to be on a similar path.

Progress is not inevitable.  We are aware that many advanced civilisations have collapsed and knowledge has been lost.  We are aware of the insidious attraction of the supposed certainty of single minded patriotism and blind religious faith.  We are aware of the inherent weakness of excessively tolerant liberalism and moral relativity.  But we address all these concerns as we form our beliefs about history, religion and politics.

So we conclude that it is not unrealistic to hope for a general convergence of reasonable views over the long term.  We are not weird: we are not expecting the world to follow us down a peculiar or narrow path.  We are hoping for a broad consensus amongst people who base their beliefs and values on reason and the evidence.  And ultimately, there is reason to believe that such people are the majority.

8.0.3.2 Convergence of Values

We have adopted core values based on our understanding of the nature of reality.  We no longer impose apparently arbitrary rules sourced from supernatural deities.  Although some religious fanatics and nationalists still hold to extreme views and destructive values, many organisations – for profit and not-for profit – are declaring values that are consistent with those we have adopted.  We can illustrate this with a few examples.

Example: Garvan Institute

A small example of ‘convergence’ in values is the Garvan Institute.  This is a medical research institution based in Sydney Australia.  In a fund raising pamphlet it declares its values to be:

Excellence, Justice, Dignity, Compassion and Unity. 

There is no explanation of these values in the pamphlet – and they can’t be found on the Institute’s web site.  But we can compare them to the core values of our reasonable way:

Excellence:          Implied in our core values of Truth and Diversity.  Excellence is very much an action based value, as our core values reflect our core choices.

Justice:                 1. Implied in our core value of Responsibility.  We assign responsibility where intervention may be potentially effective in changing behaviour.  The legal system creates law that defines inappropriate behaviour and applies penalties when the law is breached: this is justice.

                            2. Implied also in our core value of Equality.  It is unfair – unjust – for people to be treated inequitably, to have unequal access to basic rights.

Dignity:               Implied by our core values of Equality and Love (Compassion) and  Diversity (which implies Uncertainty).

Compassion:        Identical to our core value of Love (or Compassion)

Unity:                  Allowing for diversity generates a kind of unity.  Unity is consistent with Equality and Love (or Compassion).

So the Garvan Institute’s values are restatements of our core values of Truth, diversity, Love (or Compassion), Responsibility and Equality.

The Garvan Institute’s values do not include beauty: it’s into medical research, not art.

The Garvan Institute surely do value Life and Hope, the remaining of our core values, but don’t say so.  Perhaps these values are all too obvious for a medical research group.  Their whole purpose is to promote life and make it more fulfilling, to give people hope of medical cures, and their work is founded on the justified hope that it advances medical knowledge.

Example: BHP Billiton

BHP Billiton is one of the largest resource companies in the world.  We may be cynical about their motives for expressing these values, and dubious of their implementation.  But this is what they say on their web site (our formatting, our comments in italics) (http://www.bhpbilliton.com/home/investors/reports/Documents/2012/BHPBillitonSummaryReview2012.pdf):

We are BHP Billiton, a leading global resources company.  Our purpose is to create long-term shareholder value through the discovery, acquisition, development and marketing of natural resources.  Our strategy is to own and operate large, long-life, low-cost, expandable, upstream assets diversified by commodity, geography and market.

Our Values

Sustainability Putting health and safety first, being environmentally responsible and supporting our communities.

These all value Life, and they all require Truth (in analysis), Love (Compassion), Responsibility, and Equality.

Integrity:        Doing what is right and doing what we say we will do.

Doing what is right requires Truth and Compassion and Responsibility.  Being honest – doing what we say – is a variation of our core value of Truth.

Respect:        Embracing openness, trust, teamwork, diversity and mutually beneficial relationships.

Openness and trust are aspects of telling the Truth.  Teamwork is an effecting strategy.  Diversity is one of our core values.  Mutually beneficial relationships are an aspect of Equality and Responsibility.

Performance: Achieving superior business results by stretching our capabilities.

This is an effecting value, not a core value to the general public.  To a business, encouraging employees to strive is central to success.  Of course, it must not go to exploitation, and BHP’s  values are silent on this.

Simplicity      Focusing our efforts on the things that matter most.

A correct focus requires the Truth.  Simplicity is an effecting value, not a core value to the general public.  But to a business, efficiently attending to what matters most, is central. It is Responsible to avoid wasted effort; The more efficient production of goods and services promotes prosperity.  It is not the company’s role to focus on distributive Equality in the wider world.  This is consistent with the values of our reasonable way.

Accountability:  Defining and accepting responsibility and delivering on our commitments

This is a variation fo our core value of Responsibility.  Delivering on commitments requires speaking the Truth,

8.0.3.3 Apparent Divergences of Values?

Many see those who adopt different values as evil.  Some people will willingly fight for their own country but see others fighting for their country as evil.  Many religious people who believe in the literal meaning of their sacred texts see others, whether believers or non-believers, as evil.

False Beliefs

These differences in values are often a result of differences in understanding of the nature of the world.  We make the choices that reflect our values based on what we know about the world.  Often our understanding of philosophy, science and/or history is simply incorrect.

For example, a racist is likely to believe their racism is justified because the members of the hated race are innately inferior and they cause harm.  We can show that there is no essential difference between the supposedly different races, there is no reason to believe one large section of humanity is inferior or superior to another, and no large section of humanity is innately prone to causing more harm than another: we are all equally guilty.  We oppose racism by countering these false beliefs.  We may be able to counter these false beliefs by bringing the racist into contact with people they supposedly hate: racism is often due to ignorance – simply not being acquainted with people of that race.  Racists often justify their views by referring to particular historical events, which we can counter by presenting a broader scope of history, which demonstrates that the links seen by the racist are false. 

Other Choices

Some people will look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. 

Many people look at the world and see it as materialistic, devoid of value, and hence believe in a supernatural god as the source of value.  Others look at the same material world with reverence, seeing its mystery, wonder, beauty and the ubiquity of love and compassion. 

Many religious people value their connection to the supernatural, contrary to what we have concluded is reasonable.  But do we need to be concerned?  If these religious people also value similar core values to us, then we can co-operate.  If their values also result in some quirky behaviour, such as praying, avoiding certain foods and wearing certain clothes, that does no harm to themselves or others, then we need not be concerned. 

Some religious people hold values that we think are bad but don’t actually act on them so we still need not be overly concerned.  We can still debate with such people the basis of our values.

 

8.0.3.4 Real Divergences of Values

We don’t need to be concerned with people who

●   hold only innocuous irrational beliefs that don’t lead to harming others;

●   hold potentially harmful irrational beliefs but treat them as “personal” and have no intention to act on them (whether out of fear, uncertainty, inertia or laziness).

But we must acknowledge that some people choose different values that are of concern to us. They may appear to have similar understandings of philosophy, science and history, but make different choices because:

·         they deny the need to be rational and ignore reason and the evidence; or

·         they simply don’t care: they are psychopaths.

We need to be concerned about people who hold potentially harmful beliefs who may for whatever reason act on them and cause suffering.

Our response to these people is based on our self preservation (truth, life, love, equality), on their responsibility for their views (tempered by our compassion – despite their unreasonableness – and our uncertainty, which both lead to mercy)

 

8.0.3.5 An Imaginary Conference

Imagine bringing the world’s academic, religious and political leaders together:

● Leaders from the world’s major religions (eg Shamanism, Yoruba, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam);

●  Leaders from the world’s major countries (India, China, the European Union, perhaps Egypt to represent the Middle East, Indonesia and Vietnam to represent South East Asia, Nigeria to represent Africa, the USA to represent North America, Brazil to represent South America, and perhaps New Zealand to represent Oceania);

●  Leaders from the major areas of expertise: philosophy (ethics, aesthetics, epistemology and metaphysics), science (physics, chemistry, geology, biology, psychology, neuroscience), history (archaeology, ancient, medieval and modern history), art (literature, visual and performing arts) and media (print, broadcast, internet, etc).

We can expect most of these people to be educated and sane.  Imagine they were forced to sit in one room until they came to a consensus, a basis for cooperation that most could live with, and no-one had a veto.  What would they come up with?  Apart the supernatural, from most of these attendees might agree on most of the other issues.

●  Many of these leaders would not agree on the nature or existence of God, whether there was one God or many, whether God had different aspects, whether God made the world, how much God now controlled or acted in the world, whether any Gods inspired any sacred book or whether any set of moral guidelines or religious practices have been defined by God(s).

●  But surprisingly, many of these leaders would agree on many points about God.  Many would agree that God is indefinable.  Many would agree that no religious text has a monopoly on morality, all religions and philosophies have their regrettable elements, and our values can be based on our shared humanity, whatever we believe is the ultimate source of that humanity.  So many will agree on many issues, even those related to god(s).

●  Most of these leaders would agree on most of the other propositions presented here.  Most will agree that there is a reality out there, that goodness comes from within, that the big bang and evolution are the scientific explanations we should work with, that history is the result of human ingenuity reacting to geographical and social contingencies, that artists should be largely free and the media controlled to some extent, that we are all responsible for ourselves, our families and communities, and that we must resolve conflict peacefully.

●  Many of these leaders will agree on our core values:

Truth, diversity, life, love, beauty, responsibility, equality, hope.

But of course there is still plenty of room for disagreement on the lower level issues.