Category Archives: Morality

Why We Lie

I was talking to a friend earlier today, and I asked him if he was watching the show “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” tonight.  He replied, “No, I’ve only seen one or two episodes.”  I didn’t mean to call him on his bs, but I quickly correct him and told him that the first episode of the show was coming on tonight for the first time.  He backtracked and said, “Oh I must have been thinking of something else.”

He could’ve been telling the truth there except for one thing.  I know that I do this sort of thing all the time.  When someone asks me if I’ve heard of something, or seen a show or classic movie, or heard some popular band.  My impulse is to be hip, and in the loop by pretending that I know exactly what they are talking about, regardless if I actually do.  What is this impulse?

It’s harmless, of course.  Telling someone that you’ve seen Scarface when you haven’t hardly matters.  It might hurt your credibility when discovered, but not much.  We all understand this impulse.

I am reminded of another friend once who was chiding his friend for having never seen The Godfather movies.  When asked what they were about, my friend said he also had never seen them.  It was peculiar.

Another funny scenario I am reminded of is the numerous times I’ve been watching a movie and some punchline will get played.  Everyone in the theater laughs and I didn’t get the joke or didn’t hear it, but I laugh anyways.  My friend leans over quietly to me and says, “I didn’t get it, what was so funny.”  I’m caught off guard. “I don’t know,” I say.  It’s so silly.

Again, these are harmless lies.  But why?  I think we have a need to be “in the know” and “on top of things”.  Whether we know it or not, we value the opinions of others highly.  We don’t want to be the one guy in the room who didn’t get the joke, or can’t see the magic eye illusion.  Being the 1/10 dentists that didn’t recommend a brand of toothpaste kind of scares us.

We live in a society where the majority rules, and the majority is often right on things.  If we’re confused, we’re prone to just play along and go with the flow rather than risk being the odd man out.

I think this contributes to a lot of religious pressure.  For sure there is a lot of pressure directly from others to think, feel, or believe a certain way, but there’s also a lot of internal pressure to not be different.  This is why Christian comedian, Tim Hawkins get laughs making fun of “Christian hand signals”.

This is also why we hear an abundance of the same stereotypical phrases.

I hope you enjoyed this blogpost.  I don’t really have a solution to this problem except that it’s okay to be honest.  It’s okay to have never seen scarface or to have to think about what you’re going to say before you say it.  You can tell people you read this blogpost and didn’t lie about it!

Advertisements

Part 2 of my Analysis of “Letters from a Skeptic” by Greg and Edward Boyd – Correspondence 1

In my first post on this book, I covered the introduction and opening letter.  Today, I’ll be examining the first correspondence back and forth between Greg and his father.

Part 1 of this book is titled “Questions About God” but the first few questions don’t really deal with God’s existence.  Instead, Edward asks questions about the consistency of reality with attributes of God given to him by theists.  Correspondence 1 is titled “Why has Christianity done so much harm?”

A few things to point out about this before we even get into the question.

1.  This to me points out that Edward is not the “master skeptic” that Greg painted him to be in his introduction.  If your first objection to the existence of God is “Christians are sometimes big meanies” then that shows to me that this is not something you have been thinking or discussing with others a great deal about.  And for a book written in 1994 about events that took places probably not too long before, I understand completely why this is the case.  I believe that in the late 80’s and early 90’s it was probably extremely difficult to have discussions about being a non-believer.  Apologetics, and thus counter apologetics didn’t start getting popular until the age of the internet where people could anonymously discuss their honest opinions about God and religion without being chastised or preached too.

So I am not putting down Greg’s father, or trying to paint him in a negative light.  I’m simply trying to make the point that his skepticism is based on a more personal, common sense approach rather than a rigorous study of the ideas presented.  I completely understand that approach, but Greg is wanting to have a rigorous intelligent rational discussion with his unstudied father, and Greg comes to the table more prepared.

2.  Even people who are well-educated in apologetics take this approach, and I honestly don’t like it.  The idea behind questions like this and more prominently “The Problem of Evil” is to take observable facts in reality, such as “evil exists” and try to contrast them with qualities of God, such as “God would not allow evil to exist.”  The problem with this type of argument is that the nature of reality is not in dispute, and theists won’t likely argue the point about evil existing, but they will change the qualities of God to squeeze their way out of the apparent contradiction, and honestly, there is nothing that a skeptic can do to disprove them on this.

Here’s a quote from a discussion I was having with someone on facebook about these types of claims.

“Let’s use an analogy. My friend Bob believers perfectly moral unicorns exist and also eat babies. The conversation might go something like this:

Me: How can unicorns be moral and eat babies.
Bob: Well unicorns get a special moral juice from the blood of babies, that allows them to be on a higher plane of moral existence.
Me: How could you possibly know that?

As extreme as that may seem, it highlights the ease in which someone can spout off utter bullshit to reconcile an internal inconsistency.

I think that last contention, “how could you possibly know that?” is a question better aimed at the overarching claims of theism concerning the origin of the universe and the supernatural realm than talking about some very specific, non-integral doctrine.”

I just don’t think it’s useful to question the qualities of a being that hasn’t been shown to exist yet.  Show me he exists first, then we can talk about his qualities.  “How could you possibly know that?” is the first question that should be asked of anyone making a claim.

Okay, after that somewhat long introduction, let’s examine the actual correspondence.

Edward shows my first point when he replies to Greg’s invitation with this:

“My belief (or lack of it) is not based too much on any positive position I hold, but rather, on a host of negative ones.  I can find plenty wrong with most religious and political views, but I am not at all firm on what I personally believe — as least not on religious mattes.  I really don’t have a “faith” or “worldview’ of any sort.  I only know for sure what I don’t believe.  Also, unlike you, I’m not a trained philosopher, so if you write to me like you wrote in your dissertation, forget it!  I won’t be able to follow you.  So you’ll have to keep it simple.”

Edward admits that he’s outmatched in philosophy, but also that his lack of belief isn’t really based on positively applying skepticism, but more of a common sense understanding of bad claims.

Edward makes his first two objections to Christianity.  The first is

“…how could an all-powerful and all-loving God allow the church to do so much harm for so long?  Isn’t this supposed to be His true church?  His representation on Earth?”

While this may be a valid question, I admit that it’s a weak objection.  After all, if God exists, the idea of how he feels about the church can be justified in an almost infinite number of ways that I can think of.  The church being bad isn’t a really good reason to not believe a God exists.

His second objection is:

“And it was the church, was it not, that decided which books were ‘divine’ and should constitute the ‘Holy Bible.’ As far as I am concerned , this is itself enough to reject the Bible as a joke.”

I was actually glad this objection came up.  I wish it were his main objection because Biblical inerrancy and divinity is a central tenant to, specifically Christian-based, God belief.  Let’s see how Greg handles these objections.  Bear in mind I am wading through all the pleasantries and such to get to the meat of the argument.

Greg applauds his father’s willingness to interact in this discussion.  He spells out his intentions:

“these beliefs, I argue, are more substantiated, and far more fulfilling, than any other worldview one could hold.  And my goal, quite frankly, is to convince you of the truth of these beliefs and bring you into a relationship with Christ.  I know firsthand the fullness of life, the peace, and the joy that this relationship gives, and I want to share it with you.”

Theists really don’t get how insulting this mindset is.  It boils down to “my life is better than yours, and I want your life to be as good as mine!”

Also, you’ll notice here that Greg has stated his intentions are to convert his father, not to have his beliefs questioned and possibly proven wrong, but only to prove to his dad that he’s been right all along.

Greg’s answer to his father’s first objection is the exactly the type of response I saw coming.

“I don’t think God can be held responsible for what the Catholic Church — or any church, or any religion whatsoever — has done or shall do.”

You know what, I actually agree with him here.  I think his father’s question was weak and unfounded.  If God exists, there’s no reason to believe that he is the God that controls Christians in any way.  But again, I would much rather be arguing about God’s existence in the first place than what qualities he might or might not have.

Greg continues…

“From my perspective, the God whom the Bible talks about, and whom Jesus Christ incarnates, is a God of love, and this entails that He is a God of freedom, for you cannot have love without freedom. We were created with the ability to choose love, and thus with the potential to choose its opposite — evil.”

Again, I see his point.  This might be a plausible view of God, but notice that he qualifies it by saying “from my perspective.”  I could make a strong case against his perspective of the Bible, using the Bible as well.  Yahweh was arguably a violent war-loving God.  But again, who cares?  Why argue about the attributes of God given to us from the Bible, let’s substantiate the Bible as good evidence of God’s attributes first.

Next he addresses the problem of evil:

“To assume that God is responsible for our evil –even the evil committed “in His name” –is, I suspect, to assume that humans are robots who simply act out of divine preplanned program.”

No it’s not.  If the Christian God exists, He ultimately is responsible for our actions.  He created us with his omniscience.  He understood what was going to happen upon our creation.  If God created us, then he is either fully aware of what we were capable of doing, thus ultimately responsible for it, or he created us without knowing of our actions, and thus not omniscient.

Imagine that you and your spouse are going to conceive a child.  Before you do though, you are given absolute knowledge that your child will be a serial killer.  If you go ahead and create that child, you are not just a willing accomplice, you are responsible.

The obvious objection is that “God doesn’t know what we are going to decide to do because he gave us free will.”  Well if God didn’t know something, he’s off the hook, but that also means God isn’t all-knowing.  The two qualities of God, not responsible for our actions and all-knowing, are mutually exclusive.  Theists have to lose one of those beliefs to have a consistent God concept.

The rest of the chapter deals with Greg defining “Christian” and how a church can’t be “Christian”.  This blog is already too long, so I’ll grant him that.  I will point out that he didn’t address his father’s concerns over the formation of Biblical canon, a much more important question in my opinion.  I wonder if his response was edited out.

Thanks for reading!

Debate with William Lane Craig

I would like to formally announce myself as an atheist with this blogpost, and I think I have found a very creative way to go about doing so.  I have studied the arguments for and against God for the better part of 12 years, and I feel like I have a good grasp of the concepts.  I would like to explain to you the reasons why I am an atheist in a formal debate rebuttal with Dr. William Lane Craig.

The reason why I think this would be interesting is because Dr. Craig seems to be the best that theists can offer in terms of arguing for the existence of God.  He is an excellent debater, and often times his debate style alone causes atheists to lose the debate (despite my belief that they are more correct in their thinking).  They simply aren’t prepared to meet him point for point.  I think if you’re an atheist, you should understand the theist arguments, and be able to refute them.

For this exercise, I will be using Dr. Craig’s typical debate performance opening and rebutting it.  Obviously doing responses would be difficult because he responds specifically to his opponents, so I will leave it at the opening statements.  If any theist wants to respond to my opening, feel free and I will respond in kind.

I will use Craig’s opening with Christopher Hitchens because he seems to cover the broadest range of arguments in a relatively short amount of time.  You can view the opening here, and subsequently see how NOT to debate Craig if you watch the rest of the debate.  Hitchens fails miserably in a formal debate format, in my opinion.

Protip:  Skip ahead to the 13 minute mark to avoid all the introductions and get to what I am rebutting.

Without further ado!

“Thank you to everyone who hosted the fake debate.  I’d like to thank my brain for inviting me and hosting the event.  Thank you to Dr. Craig for not agreeing to have his opening used in this manner.

Tonight, I’m defending atheism. The lack of belief in a god or gods.  Atheism is not a belief system, it’s not a claim of truth.  It’s the disbelief of a claim. Therefore, I hold no burden of proof tonight, EXCEPT to rebut the arguments of Dr. Craig.  A lack of belief can’t be proven, or demonstrated except by tearing down the arguments of the belief itself.  Atheism can’t be proven, or demonstrated except by tearing down the arguments of theism.  If we remove the reasons to believe, we are left with no reason to belief.  This is what atheism claims.  We have no reason to belief.  Therefore, in order to “prove” atheism is true, and build up a case for atheism, we merely have to show that theistic arguments are not reasonable.  Atheism is the ground floor and theism is the building on shaky stilts, so to speak.

You may think this is a cop out, but allow me give an example.  Alien abductions are a claim made frequently in our society.  These people claim to have physical evidence, physical experiences, supernatural experiences.  Sound familiar?  In order to disbelieve these claims, we do not need to prove that the opposite is true (that aliens don’t exist).  We need merely to cast a looming shadow of doubt on the claims made by these people.  We need merely to have no evidence in their favor.

In an age where many God claims and various other supernatural claims are made, such as the existence of aliens, it is paramount for us to be doubtful.  All of the god claims in the world can’t be true.  Many of them are mutually exclusive.  This isn’t to say that none of them are true, but it is to say that the burden of proof is on the ones who are making the claims, not on the disbelievers to prove another explanation.

Tonight though, I make it my burden to discredit and tear down Dr. Craig’s claims.  If he hopes to be successful, he must prop them back up.

1.  Kalam

I will start with Dr. Craig’s first claim.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument.  Dr. Craig claims the the universe must have had a beginning, and that this is scientifically agreed upon to be the big bang. The beginning of our universe.  I agree.

My first point of contention is when he claims that there was “nothing” before the big bang.  First, this is not scientific.  Most scientists claim not to know what was before the big bang.  In fact, the phrase “before the big bang” may not even make sense within the context of our universe.  The Law of causality may not apply because we’re potentially talking about a “time” before there was time.  It’s up to Dr. Craig to demonstrate, using evidence, that there is such a thing as “before the beginning of time”.

My next contention is that even if we grant Dr. Craig that there was a “before the beginning of time” we don’t know very much about it.  Dr. Craig claims that we do.  He makes several claims about it.  He claims that the cause of the universe must exist in this “before the beginning.” That this creator must be is a being.  That it is uncaused.  I’m not even sure what basis this claim has.  That because it is outside of our time, space, and matter, it is therefore timeless, spaceless, immaterial. How does he know ANY of this?

It’s at least possible that if there was something that caused our universe to exist that it was not any of those things.  We don’t know that a cause had to be outside of all time, space and material, just our observable time, space and material. It’s possible that our universe came from the matter, time, and space of another universe.  If that were the case, the cause of the universe wouldn’t necessarily be a being, wouldn’t necessarily be outside of all time, all space, all matter.  Just the time, space, and matter of our observable universe.

I’m not asking you to accept this as an explanation, but only as a possible explanation.  Dr. Craig’s assertion is that it HAS to be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, yet I’ve given a plausible explanation in which uncaused, timeless, spaceless and immaterial are not definitive, proven traits of whatever caused our universe to begin.

So in summary, Dr. Craig must first demonstrate that there was a “before the beginning of time”, and then he must demonstrate that whatever was “before the beginning of time” couldn’t possibly have existed inside a separate plane of existence with time, matter, and space.  This is a heavy burden, and if Dr. Craig can manage to prop up his claims, he will definitely have surprised me, and the entire scientific community that disagrees with him.

2. Teleological Argument

This is a much simpler rebuttal.  Dr. Craig has not given any evidence in support of this claim except the improbability of life arising naturally in this way.  We can excuse this argument without evidence because it was given without evidence.  Improbability does not imply design, HOWEVER I think that this universe permitting life is less probable than Craig claims.

His figure is based on OUR life.  What are the odds that any particular universe could sustain any kind of life?  I’m sure they are much lower.  We are eager to look at our needs for life because it’s the only life that we’ve experienced.  It’s entirely possible that different kinds of life, requiring different universal conditions could’ve arisen from different universes.  It seems entirely possible that we have a need for the condition that the universe provides simply because the universe provides these conditions.

Consider a pothole filled with rainwater.  We might look at the shape the rain formed and say, “how improbable!  This water was designed to go in this hole!”, but it’s much more rational to believe that the water was molded and conformed to fit inside the hole.

In fact this is made more plausible by the fact that the universe was around for such a long time before conditions permitting the life we have knowledge of arose.

Dr. Craig must prove that the entire universe was designed to support our life, and that we did not arise naturally from the conditions of the universe.  Another heavy burden.

3. Morality

With secular morality, the moral standard relies on us.  I think that our moral standards are not ultimately objective in such a universal way of thinking about it, but I think they are objective in that they are an attempt at maximizing the overall well-being and survival of our species.  The survival instinct that is ingrained in us through natural means is the driving force for this.  In that sense, it may not be considered objective, but it is meaningful.

In theological morality, I don’t believe that objective morality exists in the way that Dr. Craig proposes that it does.  Let’s examine the words.  Objective, meaning something true apart from a mind, and value, something that requires a mind.  Values don’t exist if minds don’t exist.  Never mind the fact that we have seen no evidence yet for God’s mind, but even if we had, moralities based on God’s nature, or his commands would not be objective, but rather subjective to his standard of morality.  Even if God is moral perfection, who’s to say that God’s moral perfection is desirable?  It would still be a merely subjective idea of morality.  It would not only be subjective, but arbitrary in that morality is not defined in a way that is beneficial to anyone, but God perhaps.

Craig must demonstrate that morality is objective in the way that he claims it is, outside of minds (while relying subjectively on God’s), and that it’s also meaningful in some way.

4. Jesus  This is where he has completely derailed from reason and evidence and is content to rely on hearsay.  While the Bible may have some historical accuracies, there is no evidence for the claims made within the Bible other than hearsay.  This can easily be dismissed.  There’s no physical evidence for Jesus, for his acts, for his death, or his resurrection.  Dr. Craig must present this evidence rather than rely on baseless assertions and hearsay.  No reasonable jury would convict a defendant based on hearsay, so why should we believe things on hearsay.  Especially such extraordinary claims that fly in the face of what we know about the observable universe.

5.  Holy Spirit

Lastly, Dr. Craig continues this train wreck of a reasonable argument by appealing to his own senses and experiences as infallible.  The Holy Spirit, which speaks directly to him, and to everyone, yet he can’t demonstrate any real basis for this claim.  This is easily dismissed as well unless Dr. Craig can give us an example of this Holy Spirit.

So I have laid out my argument.  In summary, Dr. Craig has a lot of ground to cover.  He must provide evidence that:

There was a “time before time”.

There is a being outside of our universe.

It is not possible for a separate plane of time, space, or matter that exists outside of our universe.

The universe is explicitely designed for us.

Objective Morality exists, in the way that he describes it. As being dependent on the mind of God.

That this kind of morality is meaningful.

Jesus existed.

Jesus performed miracles, and was God.  This included resurrecting from the dead.

The Holy Spirit exists.

If Dr. Craig can not demonstrate these unreasonable assertions that he has made, then atheism, and doubt is the clear winner here.  We must not accept any of Dr. Craig’s claims without good reasons.

Thank you.

Morality Revisited

My 3rd post talked about morality and why it’s important, but I have been doing a lot more thinking on morality and I would like to cover what morality actually is, and how we determine it.

I’ve actually done a good bit more thinking about this, and I’ve been watching debates and discussions about morality.  Let me cut right to the chase.  Theism vs. Atheism is right at the heart of this matter.  You simply can’t talk about morality without talking about God in the current time period.

Full disclaimer here, although I haven’t come out and said it yet, many of you know that I am an atheist.  That informs my opinion heavily on the issue of morality so you should understand that before reading on.  I will explore my atheism more in future blogposts, but for now, just know that it informs what I am about to write.

I would highly recommend watching this debate about morality between William Lane Craig (a Christian apologist) and Sam Harris (an atheist neuroscientist) fully.

The debate explores a lot of important aspects of morality that we need to consider, and while I applaud the mental gymnastics of WLC, I think Sam Harris has this right.

My position on the matter is that value requires a valuer.  Meaning that morality is dependent on conscious minds to determine if things are moral.  We create the meaning of morality because it relies on us to exist.  We have biological functions that help us to create these values.  Pain, pleasure, life, death, health, etc.

We are (mostly) biologically prone to avoid pain, avoid death, avoid sickness, and to be drawn to pleasureful acts, acts that promote life and health.  These biological functions are built around survival and well-being.

Part of this process is that in order for us to be more prone to survive, it is important for us to create a society in which these values exist for all.  The most efficient way of doing this is to promote these values amongst each other and create boundaries for the way that we behave.  We decide collectively that in order to survive and promote the well being of ourselves, we must also promote the survival and well being of others so that they will hopefully reciprocate.

This is not quite objective, in that it relies on us to exist.  But it’s also not quite subjective, in that it’s not simply a matter of opinion.

Morality, as I see it, is all about promoting life, and survival.  So when we talk about the “objectivity” of morality, isn’t there an objective way to go about promoting life, and surviving?

I will discuss the religious idea of morality in a later blogpost.

Truth and Good – Part 2: Good

I actually had to do a good bit of additional thinking about this subject to refine what I actually believe about it.

So in a previous post, I talked about “truth value” but there are other kinds of values that we place on things.  There are actually 3 that are kind of important generic kinds of values that we place on things in my opinion.  I’ve already covered “truth value” in the previous blog.  This post will deal with “moral value” and then somewhere down the line I will tackle something I like to call a “satisfaction value” or maybe a “pleasure value.”  It’s kind of a tricky thing, but the value we place on pleasure can actually usurp the value we place on truth and morals.  It’s a very human thing and it’s a subjective value that fights our natural inclination towards truth and morals.

Anyways, onto moral value.

2.  Good

The nature of morality is pretty tricky, because we all live and behave as if there is some form of moral “ought-ness”, but the actual code of conduct, and the source or reason for that is widely debated.  To get started, let’s just define what morality is.

Morality is basically a way of determining things that are “good” and things that are “bad.”  Favorable or unfavorable.  Beneficial or malevolent.  It is a determination of a moral code on how we “ought to act.”

The tricky part is that the moral code is hard to define for everyone because everyone has their own idea of a moral code and their own idea of how they “ought” to act and how things “ought” to be done.

So a pretty big question needs to be asked right away:

Is morality absolute?

This is extremely important, and I will explain the question.  If morality is absolute, that means that all people should adhere to the same code.  We should all behave in a morally exact way that does not differentiate between people.  For instance if two people have an argument over how to behave.  There is a higher standard of measure to which we can judge their statements.  It’s not “just an opinion.”

If it is not morally absolute, then what’s good for one person may not be good for another person.

What I will say about this right now is that we all behave and live in a society that exists as if morality is absolute.  We live in a society that has laws punishing people for moral injunctions, and we all generally agree on these.  Murder, rape, theft, etc are all pretty widely accepted as morally wrong.  But not everything is like this.  Some people believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong, and others do not.

So there are things that we can probably say are widely accepted as morally absolute, but there are also many, MANY issues on which we are vastly divided.  So we have a dilemma.

We all behave as if there is a moral compass, and we all largely agree on the general direction the compass is pointing us, but we disagree on the exact bearing.

So, in my opinion that gives us a couple of options:

1.  Morality is completely 100% absolute.

  • In one case, humanity, in general, could be separated from the knowledge of all moral truth.  We can only grasp some of it, and we kind of guess at the rest.  We are morally flawed.
  • In another case, perhaps humanity is pretty close to full knowledge of moral truth since we agree on the major moral truths (murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc.), but we are trying to apply generic moral values to things that are morally neutral (such as drinking is bad, homosexuality is bad, etc.)

2.  Morality is completely 100% subjective.  In which case, we have just decided that it is beneficial as a societal tool to keep murders from happening, keep rape from happening, etc.

This is an important decision to make, so let’s hash it out a bit.  Where does morality come from?  Is it God?  Is it just internal?  Is it innate?  Is it cultivated by society and upbringing?  These are really good questions to be asking.  To be honest, this is probably one of the most important questions in the world.  I am not going to pretend to answer it because I also believe that the answer at this moment is far to complicated for this blogpost, and I wouldn’t pretend to be smart enough right now to know the answer.

BUT, I think you run into some real problems when you try to put forth the idea that morality is not absolute.  In the same way that you can’t make a truth claim while claiming that truth is subjective, you can’t really make any moral judgements or claims to anyone else while claiming that morality is subjective.  You can’t tell me that I’m behaving immorally if you don’t believe your morals are the same as my morals.

To give you an idea of what I mean, we can simply ask the question of “why?”  Most people would agree that murder is wrong.  Why is that?  Well, you might say it’s because it is wrong to end the life of another person.  We can again ask “why?”  Why is it unfavorable for a person to die.  Well, then you might say that life is valuable.  Why is life valuable?  and you can continue on and on and on, until you just eventually reach the conclusion that “it just is.”  Morality just is.  It exists.  So in that sense, it seems to be absolute and distinct from our perceptions of it.

My thought on the matter currently is that morality is absolute (no matter the source), and that the reason for our moral ambiguity and diversity is that some of us try to apply moral qualities to things that are not morally relevant. I will make a post later about what that is, and what things constitute moral qualities, and why we shouldn’t try to apply moral qualities to things that are morally neutral later.

For now, I think the main point I wanted to bring to this blog is that we all ultimately subscribe to some form of “goodness” and I think that is important.  Whether your idea of “good” and my idea of “good” line up perfectly isn’t necessary.  It is simply enough at the moment that we all try to strive for the two most important tools in decision making – Truth and Good.

More on all this later.