hopelesshappiness.com

Historically, some major characteristics of varying political states and structures include Liberty, Corruption, Class Struggle, Servitude, and Tyranny. The stated (though not always practiced) purpose of any political configuration is typically individual Liberty. What we often find is that the more the actual or perceived Liberty, the more the arrogance of the individual, and (if widespread) the more likely the whole will slide into Corruption, Class Struggle, the beginnings of Servitude, or (in some cases) Tyranny.

Machiavelli said, "It is better to be feared than loved if one cannot be both." Machiavelli and Socrates-through-Plato go on to suggest that as Liberty begins to disappear, the people will seek a restoration of their lost Liberties (possibly) by rallying around a powerful individual; one who understands Machiavelli. Once in power the cycle continues as this individual (or someone in that line of succession) will eventually be overcome by arrogance and the result will be varying degrees of tyranny. From here the possibility exists that the tyrant will be overthrown by a few powerful (arrogant) warriors and/or politicians, which ultimately (likely) becomes immediate Corruption and eventual Servitude. And from here, once again, the many will revolt in order to restore Liberty, and once accomplished will become comfortable, arrogant, and complacent, thereby allowing Liberties to slip from their grasp, and the cycle will begin again.

This is a simplified look at political possibilities. Reality is naturally more complex, often incorporating multiple characteristics into a political state, and even moving back and forth between these characteristics. Additionally, today politics reach beyond the official governing of a people and into every nook and cranny of our modern culture; from business to education to social organizations to science to religion to families to friendships to... If politics is defined as a struggle for power and control, these possibilities impact our every waking moment (and perhaps our sleeping moments) as we also individually struggle to know how best to advance our personal well-being.

Today it is easy to be led. Those who lead -those in control - those with power - in any arena, would like to keep the status quo. They are comfortable and arrogant and (probably) complacent. Today, those who are led, are also often comfortable and complacent, sometimes arrogant (believing what they are told), and sometimes apathetic. Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) said, "Through doubting we question, and through questioning we perceive the truth." Political states evolve or cycle by doubting and questioning. I feel I have broached this topic (of questioning) frequently.

This week I want to examine two areas: (1) how (or even if) one's internal politics (beliefs and struggles) can help us to know how best to advance our personal well-being; and (2) if we (individually and as a whole) are indeed doomed to a cycle dominated by some form of unrest, or if some degree of peace is possible.

One's internal political beliefs likely rest on the confluence of political structures most likely to grant the greatest amount of personal freedom leading to happiness, (or Happiness). Unfortunately, as history has shown, many of us are short-sighted seeking only happiness in the present and foreseeable future; i.e. one's own Lifetime. So if one lives in comfortable circumstance, one is likely satisfied, making it difficult to envision the extended cycle. Since (in the words of Machiavelli) "All human affairs are ever in a state of flux and cannot stand still" for us (individually or as a whole) to stand still is ultimately doomed to an erosion of individual Liberties; if not noticeable in our Lifetime, then in our children's. So to advance one's personal well-being through one's internal political beliefs, one must first avoid arrogance and complacency, and struggle with (i.e. doubt) the current state of affairs. One must begin with him or her self.

I believe the framework of the five previously-identified political characteristics (Liberty - Corruption - Class Struggle - Servitude - Tyranny) provide a structure and discipline from which we can logically examine inner political struggle; (as in what competing urges power personal decisions). Since we are discussing one's personal inner struggles as a necessary starting point we will (for the most part) confine the discussion to feelings and thoughts, excluding actions and behaviors.

Liberty - Since we are limiting ourselves to the realm of feelings and thoughts, Liberty would be the complete freedom to translate all manner of both Dark and Light feelings into intelligible thoughts. I believe this to be impossible if one desires to be functional and sane. If one allowed this in every moment it would overwhelm. Some restraint and control is necessary to ensure there is no harm. We are barely into Liberty and have already determined that it is corrupted by one's humanity. So the goal now becomes to maximize functional Liberty. From the individual's perspective, this must include constantly doubting and questioning one's own beliefs, study for purposes of learning and growth, and a long-term vision to avoid arrogance and complacency. This is particularly difficult in the face of comfort and happiness; and this difficulty reinforces the oft-repeated premise that one must seek Happiness over happiness. As previously stated, individual Liberty (in this case maximizing individual, inner functional Liberty) is the typical goal of any political system. What follows in the remainder of the framework is essentially my written thoughts describing each remaining characteristic to enhance my awareness and (maybe?) discover new or evolved personal politics, in order to achieve maximal Liberty.

Corruption - As stated above, in the most ideal state (maximal functional Liberty), we are already corrupted by our humanity. Once one recognizes the necessity of some corruption, it is not a stretch to realize the benefits of a little more corruption; benefits such as 'easy' or 'lazy' comfort. We are too often corrupted by a desire to avoid hard work. In fact many of us find hard work desirable only when we are forced into that decision due to empirical realities or peer pressure. When left to our own devices, (devices such as the microwave, the drive-thru, the TV, the smartphone, and the Internet), we too often choose 'easy'. This corruption of one's potential not only harms the individual on an intuitive or transcendental level, but also empirically by further empowering those in power, thus solidifying the status quo and allowing more and more Liberties to slip away.

Class Struggle - Once corrupted it is easy to adhere to a majority belief (go along to get along); but too often the majority is not an actual majority but a vocal majority. (Moving for a moment into the territory of actions and behaviors), the minorities (I am speaking specifically to perceived minority thought) must not be afraid to speak out, and if enough do so they may be surprised to find that they are an actual majority (in thought). The first step though is to realize that I (as an individual) am a minority and regardless of perceived agreement, disagreement, or neutrality, especially if I am constantly doubting and questioning (as I should be), there will never be a perfect consensus. Therefore I should embrace the inevitable role of minority and continue to doubt and question. Moving further inward, each intelligible thought that I have will be a minority thought and at some degree of odds with all other thoughts. (Once we get past the externally-triggered struggle described above) this is the actual internal Class Struggle - the perceived need to reconcile groups of thoughts into a majority, in order to establish consistency partially by repressing, subduing, and beating down renegade, discomfortable, minority thoughts; these 'police state' activities should be recognized as such and avoided. Each individual thought deserves respect, consideration, and further analysis. So in this sense Class Struggle inspires and helps us to keep our creative edge and our desire to learn and grow.

So far I see that maximal, functional Liberty is the ideal, Corruption is (to some degree) necessary, and Class Struggle can inspire. I am curious to see if I will also find redeeming qualities (other than growth from adversity and cautionary examples) in Servitude and/or Tyranny.

Servitude - Servitude is the repression of minority or unpopular thought in the interest of advancing a single school of thought - one belief; no doubt; no question. To make this thought congruent with everyday empirical reality, one may convince themselves (and work at convincing others) of the 'rightness' of this thought. It appears that Servitude is only justifiable if the master thought is indeed the one and only Truth; knowing that of all the 'one and only Truths' around the globe, they cannot all be right. (What if I pick the wrong Truth?) Additionally this works against the necessity of doubt and questioning. (So now I have to ask if I am guilty of being a slave to doubt? - Interesting dilemma.) And now that I am doubting doubt, am I once again a free man? I don't know. I am confident though (at this point in my evolution) that I would much prefer doubt and uncertainty over indoctrination, dogma, unquestioning loyalty, and Servitude.

Tyranny - A tyrant is defined as 'one with absolute power used oppressively or unjustly'. Our inner tyrant is intelligible thought (one or a like-minded group) that immediately shuts down any reflection, and gives in without question or struggle, simply because it is what it is. This may be the result of long-term indoctrination, fear, or simply an inability to comprehend otherwise. The difference (for this discussion) between Tyranny and Servitude is that Servitude is more active and implies buy-in, whereas Tyranny is completely passive and requires no thought. Any perceived activity under Tyranny is simply rote.

I see no redeeming qualities within Servitude or Tyranny other than the aforementioned growth from adversity and cautionary example, though some may argue their occasional necessity as the part of the cycle meant to move us toward the ideal of maximal, functional Liberty.

Just by examining this cycle of varying political characteristics from an inner perspective has helped to structure my thoughts on how to advance personal well-being; from an awareness of the necessity of some minimal corruption to avoid a harmful overdose of free thought, to the inspiration of outlaw minority thoughts, to the recognition of Servitude and Tyranny so as to discourage and reduce their likelihood and occurrence, I am better for it. I am not sure that this is a new politics but (for me) it is evolved in that if I empower Corruption and Class Struggle to control my flow of perceived and actual Liberties, I may reduce the degree of necessary Servitude and Tyranny and/or (at the least) reduce (or eliminate) any resulting harm. I believe this to be possible by learning from (my own and other's) past experience and by recognizing the limitations of my humanity.

This morning I realized that I have had 2 or 3 'good' days in a row. This awareness saddened me somewhat as it also made me realize that the give and take between peace and unrest is constant and I should embrace both. It is sad that all days cannot be 'good' days. Within periods of peace I must create some unrest so I do not become complacent and so I will continue to strive for peace. We are not doomed to a cycle dominated by unrest; it is a gift that makes peace possible. Unfortunately, many of us are doomed by an illusion of peace that circumvents this natural and necessary cycle.

It is easy to forget - all the world's connections do not begin and end with Me. I am but a tiny link in a global chain that includes all the things (living and non-living; known and unknown) of this world and beyond. I can make rules; I can change rules. I can follow rules; I can pretend that man-made rules matter. I can believe, and I can influence others to believe. I can be Good, and I can be vacuous. I can learn and grow; I can pretend to know. I can feel peace, and I can experience turmoil. I can rage against bureaucracy, and I can fear what I do not understand. I can pretend to control; (having learned from the past), I can live in the moment, for the future. I can acknowledge my ignorance; I can be oblivious to my ignorance. All the world's connections do not begin and end with me.

The following passage comes from 'The Girl Who Sang to the Buffalo' by Kent Nerburn. The context is a conversation about trust.

"'Nice' is about wanting people to like you. 'Good' is about doing what you're supposed to do, even if nobody likes you. When you're worried about being liked, it gives people too much power over you. They can lead you around like a dog chasing a bone. All they got to do is withhold their approval, and you'll piss down your leg to make them like you. You're an easy mark."

One can be nice and still be trusted if they are also doing Good. It is good to be nice to those who understand Goodness, but when one demands a servility and I accommodate their demand, my leg feels warm and wet. Some relish that control and laugh at my discomfort, and others simply don't care.

I too have been trained to expect a level of servility in certain circumstances, and, if it is not received, have found myself dissatisfied. Willing service is good. Compulsory servility however, puts a strain on a relationship or transaction, thus creating some tension and wariness, which in turn strains mutual trust. Then when an additional expectation of obsequious obedience is added to the equation, trust is smothered to death by the dishonest / artificial exchange that has been created; an exchange in which one party thrives on the power and the other party is reduced to a plaything.

Another quote from 'The Girl Who Sang to the Buffalo: "... there's good scared and there's bad scared ... Good scared is just respect turned inside out." (What follows below are my written thoughts as a result of the preceding quote and not a reflection or interpretation of the author's extended thoughts.)

'Good scared' is the beginning of an evolution from acknowledged ignorance to a greater wisdom. The greater the wisdom, the less the fear, which infers that 'no fear' equals maximal wisdom; and since maximal wisdom is an unattainable ideal 'no fear' is impossible, which in turn means that 'no fear' is delusional.

'Bad scared' begins as 'good scared' but becomes 'bad scared' through denial and oblivious ignorance. 'Bad scared' is characterized by any or (sometimes) all of the following:

• a claim of 'no fear';
• a verbal or behavioral belief that all the world's connections begin and end with 'Me';
• a verbal or behavioral claim of maximal wisdom;
• an attempt to make rules to control and/or to justify - (that ultimately leads to an exponential bureaucracy);
• an expectation of obsequious obedience;
• a lack of empathy, compassion, and/or Exoteric Goodness.

(This feels like a partial list, but it covers considerable ground within this week's realm of thought.)

And this leads me to revisit the first-paragraph statement above that "I can pretend that man-made rules matter." I have always liked structure and felt that rules were necessary for self-discipline; and discipline was necessary for learning and growth. I still believe this. What I am coming to realize is that man-made rules simply beget more man-made rules. The rules that really matter -- rules like 'Do No Harm' -- were here long before man codified them with hundreds and thousands of subpart, addendum, and interpretation. The rules that really matter are not man-made rules; they are basic moral tenets that come from within and beyond, and to identify them as such (in a very large majority of individual circumstance) need no more than to ask, "Would your Mom be proud?" ('Mom' could be Dad, Grandma, or any more-experienced, ethical role-model.) And anyone that wants to argue for the necessity of the current entanglement of man-made rules, is scared; and probably not in a good way.

To her fair works did Nature link
The human soul that through me ran
And much it grieved my heart to think
What Man has made of Man.
---William Wordsworth

With a nod to Plato and Aristotle, William Wordsworth observed in the 1790's what we must acknowledge today - we can create a greater Goodness (in quality and in quantity). From Wordsworth I stumbled into the 9 Muses of Greek mythology and after a 'little' research (Muse scholars, forgive me) I decided this week to explore each one and Her present-day potential to inspire us toward this Greater Goodness.

Euterpe: Traditionally She inspired and protected lyric poetry or song and was presented with a flute in her hand and other musical instruments nearby. Today she offers a path to enjoyment in the moment, be that in the form of actual music or simply areas of interest or entertainment. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a depth of Happiness found only through hard work (again) in the moment. We have an opportunity with each new moment to consciously choose to make a difference. As I said 'last week' my evolving conception of free will is the conscious output of work / effort that can be quantified and has impact. I look upon Euterpe to inspire and guide these choices in a direction that will create and expand Exoteric Goodness.

Erato: Traditionally She inspired and protected love poetry and was presented holding a lyre and love arrows and bows. Today she offers an opportunity to practice compassion on a larger scale. As technology has shrunk our world, it has enlarged our sensorial perception of global suffering which in turn places each of us somewhere along a spectrum from hardened senses to greater compassion. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a communal realization that global compassion is the next step in our evolution. I look upon Erato to inspire a rational, compassionate common ground large enough for us all.

Clio: Traditionally She inspired and protected history and was presented with a clarion in her right arm and a book in her left hand. Today she offers an opportunity to learn from the past, encouraging focus on history's great thinkers and on one's personal history. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a maturity that enables learning from our past glories and failings without the human inclinations to (respectively) gloat or regret, and she can encourage learning from those thinkers with whom we (think we) disagree; this latter can only be accomplished through the humility of acknowledged ignorance and a conscious decision to work hard at understanding. I look upon Clio to inspire openness to change (based on a historical perspective), and to encourage a keen ear able to pick up the echoes of long past clarion calls.

Terpsichore: Traditionally She inspired and protected dance and was presented with laurels on her head, and holding a harp, while dancing. Today she offers the same enjoyment and entertainment as Euterpe, but instead of strictly 'in the moment' she offers hope and a positive outlook for the future; and to this end, she encourages education. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a modicum of stability and some sense of control; though this latter must be tempered by reality. I look upon Terpsichore to inspire an active hope and the courage to get through my day.

Ourania: Traditionally She inspired and protected astronomy and was presented bearing stars, a celestial sphere, and a bow compass. Today she offers a methodical interpretation of the world around us, utilizing factual observation and experience. She encourages us to keep our feet planted firmly as our eyes, hands, ears, nose, and tongue provide empirical feedback. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to an appreciation of nature's harmony and a curiosity about unanswered questions; the latter to discourage rigid inflexibility and condescending lectures of fact, and to encourage one to fill the gaps. I look upon Ourania to inspire complexity in thought, and in turn simplify the practice of Goodness.

Polyhymnia: Traditionally She inspired and protected sacred song and harmony, and was presented looking up to the sky, holding a lyre. Today she offers traditional, faith-based religion, as well as many alternative expressions of spirituality. She encourages us to reach upward and inward in search of unknowable answers. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a transcendental yearning that will enable an occasional, fleeting glimpse of Truth and Wisdom; made even more possible if grounded by Ourania. I look upon Polyhymnia to inspire a meditative solitude and a communal peace.

Thalia: Traditionally She inspired and protected comedy and was presented holding a comic mask, a shepherd's crook, and a wreath of ivy. Today she offers that same active hope found with Terpsichore, but in story form. A comedy (in the traditional sense) is a feel-good story with a happy ending, typically involving ordinary people who have some degree of good fortune. In a larger sense Thalia offers Light amongst shadows. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to a port in the storm. She can lead our thoughts to such a desire for Goodness that our actions have no choice but to follow. She can lead our inner poet to positively influence others seeking guidance, and encourage them to positively influence still others, thus creating an exponential increase of Goodness - Light amongst the shadows. I look upon Thalia to inspire communal story-telling.

Melpomenee: Traditionally She inspired and protected tragedy and was presented holding a tragic mask, the club of Hercules, and a wreath or vine leaves. Today she offers pain and adversity to help us learn and grow. This suffering may be our own or that of others. This suffering is always nearby. A tragedy (in the traditional sense) is a story of suffering, often due to an error in judgment, that creates pity and fear in the surrounding characters and the audience. The resulting downfall of a typically good person (or at least one with some redeeming qualities) is meant to offer insight. In a larger sense Melpomenee offers shadows so we are not blinded by Light. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to an insightful compassion beyond the pity and the fear; made even more possible if we are all operating from the common ground inspired by Erato. I look upon Melpomenee to inspire journeys into the Shadows in order to seek out and know the suffering of others. I look upon Melpomenee to inspire a depth of insight into my personal suffering that will result in the pain of Wisdom and an ineffable sense of Truth.

Calliope: Traditionally She inspired and protected epic poetry and rhetoric, and she was presented holding laurels in one hand and two Homeric poems in the other hand. Traditionally She was considered the superior Muse. Today she offers a coming together of Humanity through a depth and complexity of varying arenas and qualities. From the bureaucracy of business, law, and politics to an ordered sense of fairness and justice to the basic tenet 'Do No Harm' to an ethical sense of fairness and justice beyond mere laws of man to a true synergy of the whole of Humanity to an inner peace satisfied by the surrounding global Goodness; Calliope takes us from base instincts of power and control to an ideal (unattainable) harmony of the whole. If we listen carefully, she can lead us to each of the other Muses which helps us to see that the sum of the whole is (and/or has the potential to be) much greater than the sum of its individual parts. This is as true for the whole of Humanity as it is for each person's inner Muses. I look upon Calliope to inspire an epic vision of a Greater Goodness that can be shared by all. And when I am challenged by disagreement, I look upon Calliope to inspire the humility of acknowledged ignorance and the Wisdom of patient perseverance based on a transcendent sense of fairness and justice.

Inspired by the 9 Muses, below is an alternative, actively-hopeful take on Wordsworth's grievous, relevant observation:

To work today in Love's sweet sweat
And for tomorrow plan
From yesterday we pirouette
Into a brand new span.

A ground that covers Light and Dark
And holds our global clan
In peace, from here we must embark
From where we once began.

Acknowledging the facts unknown
Horizons still we scan
A synergy, undone alone;
What Man can make of Man

Sam Harris has issued a challenge regarding his book 'The Moral Landscape'. He is expecting essays of 1000 words or less, each one being judged on "the degree to which it challenges the central argument advanced in The Moral Landscape." I will oblige. Below is the unedited version. To comply with the 1000 word requirement, the edited version (to be submitted to 'his website' tomorrow), consists of fewer Quotes from the book, a condensed introductory paragraph, and (in a couple of instances) more streamlined extrapolations. I appreciate the challenge in that it has been a very good thinking exercise.

Sam Harris is not an idiot. I agree that questions of morality and values must have right and wrong answers that fall within the purview of rational disciplined thought. I agree that rational disciplined thought demands one avoid behaviors that move us toward a 'worst possible misery' scenario. I agree that a scientific method is as applicable to rational disciplined thought in the arena of morality, as it is to any arena of science. I agree that to ascribe a visual representation of multiple peaks and valleys is an apt analogy for a moral landscape; though I believe multiple islands separated by varying depths and distances of seas, and with varying flora and fauna (as described here), may better suit the rational disciplined thought necessary for this discussion. I do not agree with Mr. Harris' assertion that "a clear boundary between facts and values simply does not exist" and I intend to show that many of the arguments proposed by Mr. Harris actually help to define that boundary.

1. Definitions: In his words, Sam Harris defines 'values' as "the set of attitudes, choices, and behaviors that potentially affect our well-being, as well as that of other conscious minds." (I agree that what constitutes well-being has a finite range of answers.) A fact is 'a truth known by actual experience or observation.' Contrast that with his definition above and you will see that we cannot predict potential outcomes of attitudes that cause choices that cause behaviors, and this in itself creates a boundary between facts and values; and while 'in principle' there may be definitive (biological-based) causes of attitudes, the fact that we cannot trace and define this (infinite?) pathway of cause and effect makes this reasoning a transcendental truth; i.e. an unknowable certainty, beyond human explanation or experience; (see last week's post). Transcendental, in turn, being beyond common experience is often (rationally) considered to be spiritual. Many go on to interpret spirituality in a faith-based context. The fact that there is a line from values to spirituality (and for some, on to faith), and the fact that (instead of a line) it is a leap from facts to transcendental truths, again solidifies that boundary between values and facts.
2. Science: In his words, Sam Harris argues "that the division between facts and values is intellectually unsustainable, especially from the perspective of neuroscience." Surely he must have meant 'only' from the perspective of neuroscience, because I see no other evidence; and even this evidence, (based as it is, on perspective), is shaky. Facts and values are clearly different, even by his own definition. And though I agree with his comment that facts and values do have something in common, this does not mean they share an identity. That would be like telling someone with a strong preference for Coca-Cola that Pepsi-Cola is exactly the same; or that they are both identical to RC and Shasta Cola and Kroger's generic cola. For many people, one cola clearly stands out as 'the' fact of cola and all others are value choices made by a less-informed individual. It is no wonder that facts and values look the same to neuroscience; my value is a fact, but if we disagree, your value is a choice. I know what I like and these individual preferences show over and over that perception (in practice and in principle) is reality, and the division between a fact and a value is based on perspective, thus creating an intellectually sustainable boundary.
3. Free Will: In his words, Sam Harris states "that though our choices depend on prior causes, does not mean that they do not matter." In the same paragraph, he goes on to say that "decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world;" and that "human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe." "Our choices ... do ... matter." This speaks for itself. And though I chose his words carefully, I did not twist them. Mr. Harris also writes "if I had not decided to write this book, it wouldn't have written itself." This exemplifies my evolving conception of free will: the conscious output of work / effort that can be quantified and has impact. These conscious efforts are a reflection of our personal values; and that being so, free will is (and should be) hard work. Mr. Harris also presents free will (or the lack thereof) as a never-ending line of cause and effect, portraying intentions as mysterious and their author as oblivious. Granted, there are many instances of illusionary control, but when I choose to walk six miles from work for my heart health, my intentions are not mysterious and I am not oblivious. As with Mr. Harris' book, my heart is not going to walk itself. And this example of free will (or not) again differentiates between fact and value.
4. Conflict: And finally, in his words, Sam Harris argues that "the goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reason and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory." In the same paragraph, he then goes on to describe faith as an "underlying condition" exemplified by "conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas obscured by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc." If he is arguing from science, his comments are valid and thought provoking; but if (as he states) Mr. Harris is arguing for "reason and educated discourse," his arguments would be more effective from common ground. Condescension and 'hot button' proselytizing will not encourage rational, disciplined thought and discussion. The adversarial nature of his comments further solidify the boundary between facts and values by making apparent the emotional 'sense of me' found in many values, including his own. In a disagreement, despite a preponderance of evidence in any direction, an unmoving sense of fact is, in actuality, a value. A combative stance re-emphasizes the boundary by laying barb-wire along its length.

I have argued that there is a clear boundary between facts and values. So what? So, instead of pitting science against religion, let's use this boundary to narrow the borders of a common ground covering rational, disciplined thought. So, if Sam Harris could bring himself to acknowledge 1) the existence of values (that may vary by belief but do no physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of spiritual speculation, and if Religious Activists could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the importance of valuing simple spiritual speculation (without the excess baggage of religious dogma or physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, then we have narrowed the borders to encompass a rational understanding of morality that utilizes the synergy of science and spirituality.

Mr. Harris claims that "some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life." This does not have to be. Once we have found common ground, and once we discipline ourselves to rationally find mutually beneficial Goodness (beginning with 'Do No Harm"), we can practice that Goodness instead of divisively discussing principle. We have the potential to evolve transcendentally, as we have empirically, thereby narrowing the varying degrees of 'right' and 'wrong' to a point where an increasing majority can actively accept these 'value' differences and admit to simply varying degrees of 'right'.

According to New Atheism God is no longer necessary because science now explains (or has the potential to explain) what God previously explained. If this is true, science and scientists are not doing an adequate job of explaining and/or filling the gaps. As a lay person, I certainly still have many, many questions, and I believe there are a number of transcendental truths (unknowable certainties, beyond human explanation or experience) and spiritual speculations (unknowable uncertainties) that will never be explained. To this point, it does not appear that science has explained away God; or eliminated the need to believe; or quashed spiritual speculations; or even eliminated that gray area of transcendental truth that lies between fact and spiritual speculation. (An example of a large transcendental truth would be explaining the unmoved mover in the argument of cause and effect; if the truth is The Big Bang, neither science nor religion can prove or disprove an ultimate, transcendental cause of said truth.)

While acknowledging the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, one must ask if the condemnation of spiritual speculation by New Atheism is valid or useful; and some may ask the same about any attempts to disprove (or prove) the existence of God.

According to many Religious Believers morality and good values depend on a belief in God; (57 percent of Americans agree). Yet there are many secular nations (including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and The Netherlands) that consistently rate better on life expectancy, crime, literacy, economic equality, education, political stability, and a number of other measures of societal well-being. And there is some statistical support for some circumstance in which religion may actually contribute to societal dysfunction. (Statistical information quoted with supporting citations from 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris.) At this point, it does not appear that religious faith has justified organized religion; or eliminated the utility of science; or advanced world-wide, synergistic Goodness; or even consistently raised societal / cultural levels of morality and good values.

While acknowledging the rational validity of spiritual speculation, one must ask if organized religion has outlived its usefulness; and some may ask the same about religious faith.

Mystery allows Scientists to research and Believers to rejoice; and both camps should be allowed to do so, rationally.

So, if New Atheists (in particular) and Skeptics (in general) could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the existence of values (that may vary by belief but do no physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of spiritual speculation, and if Religious Activists (in particular) and Religious Believers (in general) could bring themselves to acknowledge 1) the importance of valuing simple spiritual speculation (without the excess baggage of religious dogma or physical harm), 2) rational discussion of transcendental truths, and 3) the rational validity of scientific exploration and advancement, then we have narrowed the borders to enclose a common ground and we have reduced or (perhaps) eliminated animosity.

This common ground is not a stretch for Religious Believers or Skeptics and it should not be a stretch (but rather a beginning) for Religious Activists and New Atheists; if it is a stretch for anyone, they are not practicing rational, disciplined thought, thus becoming the irrational, undisciplined zealot as portrayed by their opposite number.