8.0.6 Reasonable Personal Responses

Version 1.0 March 2013                                    (Previous Version)

In the introduction, we raise a number of critical global and national issues (here).  These are existential issues: they concern our survival as prosperous, stable, life affirming societies. 

There, we said that:

“On a personal level, aware and informed people don’t know how to respond.”

In this page we look at how this reasonable way provides guidance on our personal responses to these critical issues.  We look at each of those inadequate responses in turn.

 

§      Many are confused by a mix of cultural relativism and post-colonial anger or guilt.

We have developed a set of values that are not “relative”, that can be adopted by everyone.  We show there is no justification for cultural relativism.

We acknowledge the evils of Europe’s colonial expansion.  We explain how it was enabled by the idiosyncratic differences in technological development. 

We emphasis our common humanity, that colonised peoples are not inferior or weak, and that colonisers are no more evil than the people they conquered.  The evils of the Spanish conquistadores in the Americas can be held against the evils of the Aztec religious sacrifices.  We put it in the historical context of other expansions, such as imperial China, the Muslim Caliphate, and the Mongol empire.  We adopt an optimistic view of history, that we can discern progress.

In our action now we must address inequality regardless of its cause, without guilt, based on current needs and our universal core values, not ancient history.

§      Many are confused by the rapid change in science and technology.

We have summarised the body of scientific knowledge into a coherent narrative.  In the process of explaining our origins we cover the essentials of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology and neuroscience. 

We have also summarised the growth in technology, showing how it has promoted increasing prosperity but also how, if uncontrolled, it enables us to destroy our environment at an ever quickening pace.

Many followers of traditional religion don’t accept modern science, so in contrast to this reasonable way, can’t properly use or control it.

We show there is no need to be overwhelmed or frightened of science or technology or how it is used.  We suggest ways to promote appropriate regulation of industry and government.  We have shown how science must be used in effecting policies that are based on core values, not scientific fads.

§      Many are entrenched in parochial views, their perspectives limited in time and space.

We have outlined our origins from the perspective of the whole human race.  We have shown how we acquire our parochial perspectives, but we have provided a view of the whole of history since the Big Bang. 

We have shown how societies collapsed if they did not adapt as their environment changed, because their leaders were too short sighted or self interested.  We have outlined actions to promote the survival and welfare of the whole of humanity, rather than a single country or alliance.

In contrast, those who promote short term solutions, looking at only a few decades, or nationalistic outcomes, can’t address these issues reasonably.

§      Many are restricted by religious doctrines or allegiance which conflict with reason.

We have respectfully considered the major religious traditions of the world, to identify what we can learn from them, and to show how adherents raised in these traditions can honourably take their traditions into account in their lives.

We acknowledge that many do not have access to a wide range of views.  We promote a broad understanding of all domains of knowledge, including religion.

Many adherents of traditional religions live in fear, and even dread, of eternal damnation in the afterlife.  Man who don’t believe in such a hell still live in guilt because they have the natural temptations that flesh is heir to. 

We show that there is no reasonable basis for this fear and guilt.  We show there is no intrinsic conflict between reason and religion, provided religion is permitted to reach new insights, as all other knowledge domains do.  We have outlined a reasonable way that allows for religious motivations and experiences but also incorporates philosophical, scientific and historical validity.

§      Many non-religious people unthinkingly accord religious views unwarranted respect.

We reinforce the view that religious people, those who sincerely seek the truth, compassion and justice, are deserving of our respect, but we also assert that it is our right and duty to publicly refute incorrect and harmful religious doctrines. 

We propose universal values against which religious views can be assessed.  Some religious views are incorrect and lead to harm, while others can be helpful.

While we can respectfully disagree with many religious adherents on issues of metaphysics and theology, we can agree that these issues matter and we can agree on core values such as truth, life, love, responsibility and hope.  In a world of lies, violence, hate, apathy and despair the areas in which we can co-operate with traditional religious followers can outweigh the areas where we disagree.

§      Many people are unwilling to re-examine cherished beliefs despite the apparent need.

We show that that it is not only the religious and the non-religious, but also secular politicians, so called practical business leaders, and professionals such as economists, who need to re-examine beliefs that are no longer tenable.  Ordinary people who are racist, sexist, ageist and nationalist also must change their minds.

It is no use to simply berate people or become cynical.  We must use effective means, based on realistic assessments of human nature, to persuade people. 

We understand the psychology of people who are reluctant to adapt to a new reality, especially when they have arrived at their current beliefs conscientiously, and when they are unaware of the contradictory evidence. 

A key political conclusion is that we must promote a broad, liberal, humane, scientific and religions education.  We must use all means to promote this reasonable way, including all artistic and cultural endeavours.

§      Many are ambiguous about sexual morality, family life, business ethics and values.

We have developed a set of core values against which we can assess behaviour: truth, diversity, life, love, beauty, responsibility, equality and hope.

We show that the supposed moral guidance from traditional religions is inadequate: incomplete, out of date, harmful, and perhaps threatens our survival.

Sexual morality is not based on gender or specific acts, but rather respect for the other person, consent, consideration for the feelings of those directly affected, and an awareness of the likely and possible consequences.

Family life is not always happy.  Often it is an onerous duty caring for children, siblings and ailing parents.  We show that parents have a responsibility to guide children, with love, but firmly, otherwise children do not learn.  We encourage family support of siblings and parents – where they are suitably appreciative.

We show that most people are not driven by purely selfish instincts.  We show that free market capitalism based on that notion is fraudulent: inefficient, inequitable and incoherent.  Long term profitability is based on a sound business case, not unreal expectations.  Business ethics must be honest and transparent.  Deception in business is a short term strategy, and is also immoral.

We show that religious doctrines that welcome the end of the world are baseless and the more influence they have the more destructive they can be.

§      Many feel a strong need to belong to some group, and this can cloud our judgements.

We all have multiple identities, based on gender, race, age, sexual preference, wealth, education, (dis)ability, ethnicity, nationality, religion and so on. 

If you know a male, white, mature, heterosexual, affluent, educated, able-bodied, Anglo-Australian atheist then you think you know a lot about them.  Consider a female, black, young, lesbian, poor, uneducated, blind, Ibo-Nigerian Muslim.

We are also children of our parents, parents to our children, siblings, friends, sports team members, lovers, work colleagues, bosses, employees, and so on.

Some of us don’t deny our roots.  Others want to reject or rise above them, being disillusioned by violence, poverty, insecurity, stupidity and hypocrisy.  We can’t deny our multiple identities: we are defined by them even as we reject them.

Identity does cloud our judgements.

We show that, by taking a global perspective, many of the characteristics supposedly attributed to various groups are historical accidents, idiosyncrasies not as relevant as we thought.  We can overcome prejudices and be more tolerant when differences are seen as trivial or irrelevant to the issue at hand. 

On the other had, we can acknowledge our differences and be entertained by them.  It is a delight to learn about other people’s culture, because it makes us more aware of our own. 

We show in these pages that most of us have more in common than we usually think.  We will all be affected by the major crises that the world faces: over population, gross inequality, pollution, climate change and financial crises.  Many of us will be affected by war, civil unrest, epidemics, religious oppression, state oppression, corruption and commercial exploitation.  We share all this.

We show that concerted action is required, which means that we must rise above the interests of our multiple identities and consider future generations.

§      Many turn to drugs or other risky behaviour to escape their sense of alienation.

We show that the universal narrative that is provided by science and history, from the big bang to modern liberal democracies, allows us to see a path for ourselves, and a path for humanity as a whole, which gives us hope. 

We show how our philosophical analyses takes us to the point where we can reasonably choose positive values – truth, diversity, life, love, beauty, responsibility, equality and hope, which we can express in religion and culture.

We base guidelines for our personal lives on these values, showing how we build life affirming connections, to our own physical and ‘spiritual’ selves, and through relationships with friends and lovers, family and the community.

These all minimise the sense of alienation that often pervades drug culture.

A traditional religious approach is usually based on denial: denial of the realities that we face, and calling on us to deny ourselves any escape, against our nature.

We do not disparage the need for adventure – for the young especially to challenge themselves physically, mentally and emotionally, in sporting, academic, social and business pursuits. 

Nor do we deny the appeal of recreational drug use which pervades all cultures – caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, as much as marijuana, ecstasy, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and so on.  We promote personal responsibility and appropriate legal controls based on the principle of harm minimisation, allowing for society to continue in stability and security and for all individual to flourish.

§      Many flounder in local, state or national politics, knowingly avoiding these big issues.

We show that it is reasonable to be hopeful for human progress, especially when we view it from a global and long term perspective, despite local oppression, the continuation or reimposition of inequality, parochialism and corruption (especially in affluent countries) and plain political stupidity.

We show that mass movements can and do have a major impact on society, despite ongoing denials by conservative political leaders.  We show that concerned individuals can have an impact on these movements.

Traditional religious approaches – often based on teachings that are centuries or millennia old – require extensive ‘interpretation’ to be able to address modern issues, such as preservation of the environment and bioethics.  Simplistic responses from conservative religions leaders alienate most of us.

This reasonable way provides analyses of

·         business and economics in which reason and the evidence, combined with our core values, support mixed economies;

·         global trends, in population growth, resource usage and climate change, that support greater environmental activism;

·         political trends, of the conflicts between capitalism and communism, the so called clash of civilisations, and the (in)effectiveness of national and global government responses, indicating the need for more global non-government organizations to directly support individuals and monitor area governments.

All of these provide political direction: the basis for policy development, advocacy and political action.  There is no need to flounder, but a need to act.

§      Many escape into fantasy worlds in literature, art, movies, computer games or travel.

We do not deny the need to occasionally escape from what is often harsh reality.

Beauty is a core value in this reasonable way.  We revel in our diverse cultural heritage, from ancient cave paintings to classical Eastern and Western literature, visual and performing arts.  We also revel in sport, board and card games, and interactive computer games. 

Travel can lead us to appreciate our shared humanity in our diversity.

Cultural engagement with these distractions is not all escape or running away from reality.  Sometimes it is a way of embracing reality.  It can be informative, inspiring, uplifting and provide insight.  It is often simply delightful.  We value art, culture and the media in part because it helps us to keep calm and carry on.

We address above the sense of alienation, political impotence, group identities, and the various obstacles to increasing awareness and understanding. 

Traditional religious approaches are themselves often escapes into unreality.  Belief in the supernatural is often motivated by the perception that the natural world is empty of meaning, a complicated materialistic mechanism which has no intrinsic value.  Because of this misunderstanding of the natural reality many feel compelled to assume a supernatural source of value: goodness and beauty.

We show that reality is liveable, for most of us, most of the time.  We all need periods of relaxation, rest and recuperation, time out from a demanding world.  Rather than ‘escaping’ from reality this can be how we acknowledge its demands and accommodating ourselves to it. 

§      Many despair and just don’t know what to do.

This reasonable way provides hope. 

It provides reasonable guidance in personal and political spheres.

It is based on reason and the evidence.

The hope that is promised by traditional religions is a false hope in the afterlife and the incomprehensible.

We acknowledge that individuals have to accept some personal responsibility.  We cannot throw a bunch of facts at a person – however optimistic the make some of us feel – and expect them to lift themselves out of their despair.  Medical treatments such as drugs and counselling can help.  But ultimately everyone has to respond to the cards they have been dealt in life’s game.

Despite our despair, we need to accept our responsibility to do what we can, however limited it may initially seem to be.  All the evidence suggests that making positive choices and following through with action is the path out of despair.  We have shown what choices are reasonable for core values, what personal behaviours lead to positive connections to ourselves and others.

Ultimately we all make choices about which way our life will go.

We can merely present a reasonable way.  The choice is yours.