Can Atheists & Religious people share common values?

Interesting reminder.

Of course, a religious person might say that those atheists who share similar values are merely succumbing to the "Law" the the Almighty has given to each of us in our "hearts".

That is neither here nor there. When one defines values and virtues, without appeal to a higher power, it is easier to find agreement. Theists shouldn't be too put out by appeals to reason or other sources to explain virtues and values which coincide with their views. This is b/c the Almighty, presumedly, has given us the ability to find what is "right" on our own, so we'd be more susceptible (open) to the Almighty and what is "Right".

.. show that there can be a consistency of values between people who occupy different quadrants of the Secular/Religious, Liberal/Conservative axes.

Sometimes, that gets drowned out in the heat of the debate.

IMO, politicians could benefit by INCREASING their vote blocs if they look for commonly shared American values upon which to base their positions.

This is not just the right thing to do, I think that it would actually lead to electoral success.

I believe that the (R) party would be attractive to centrist (D) voters - if the (R) party stressed economic values and American self-interest.

Shameless blog plug time!

"IMO, politicians could benefit by INCREASING their vote blocs if they look for commonly shared American values upon which to base their positions."

Well said!!
I am repelled by politicians waving their religiosity.

I'd vote for a party that stressed economic values and economic self interest.

Common ground that doesn't end in "bi-partisanship" I am all for.

I can't help it, VOR, I enjoy your posts, and have to look for something to argue about, even though I agree with your approach.

"So, the 'pursuit of happiness' (per se) cannot be defined as a universal 'virtue'"

But, by definition:
"Values: that which an individual seeks to obtain or retain.
Virtues: actions taken to obtain or retain values.
Joy: achieved when one succeeds in obtaining or retaining one's values."

So the pursuit of happiness is: an action that is taken to achieve something that occurs when one succeeds in obtaining one's values. This would indicate that the value was there first.
Sure sounds like a virtue. (although I know that you'll tear this apart.)

I would also argue that it is nearly impossible to separate ones values from their source. Without a solid source for those values, they become arbitrary, and are easily influenced by outside forces.

This was touched on in a response to your post Why we need Political Atheism Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:15 PM by G8R Head on Thursday, May, 24, 2007 10:29 AM.

I don't understand
"it is nearly impossible to separate ones values from their source. "

I suppose I got my values from my parents, not the Bible, Koran, or the Vedas. Why does it matter if my source is different than yours?

It does not matter if the source is different, by VOR's argument.

My point is that if there is not some concrete source for your values, then they are likely to become arbitrary, and will blow with the breeze.

You say you got your values from your parents, as many people do. What if you did not have that foundation? What if you did not want to be like your parents, and rebelled? You would be open to outside influences, some place to root your values. Whether that be the Bible, the Koran, or the Democrat party, would be open to the first person to present something to you in a way that meant something to you.

Redhead,

Note that I said: "So, the 'pursuit of happiness' (per se) cannot be defined as a UNIVERSAL 'virtue'" [emphasis on the word UNIVERSAL]

The Declaration of Independence lists "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" among the "unalienable rights" of man.

No doubt, individuals have a right to the pursuit of happiness - so this isn't attempt to refute the DOI. However, if one is functioning without a 'good' value system (definitions may vary), the pursuit of happiness, while an inalienable right, ceases to be good - either for the practitioner or for the community.

Case in point: if one values an intoxicant-fuelled lifestyle, one is free to pursue it in America. And it may lead to happiness (for those so inclined). But, as Billy Joel said "you pay for your satisfaction, somewhere down the line".

This brings us back to a discussion about whether there can be an objective set of 'good' values - even if those are derived from different sources.

I believe that there could be a fairly long list of objectively 'good' values which would be supported by religious & secular people. One criterion that seems to work is to ask the question "does ____ improve, enhance or support human life?".

No doubt, there would also be values that would fall into the either/OR category, supported by either religious OR secular people, but not both. My contention is that the second list would be a shorter one than the first!

When it comes to virtues OTOH, namely the ACTIONS that different people take to obtain those values, there may be more significant differences between secular and religious people. However, it would be an interesting exercise to tabulate the 'common values' shared by religious/secular and liberal/conservative Americans.

BTW, a similar logic applies to conservatives and liberals in America. They may share values, but not virtues! For example, both sides believe in eradicating poverty (since poverty is inimical to human life) - but disagree on the methods.

I am afraid I've had my years of rebellion, but if the source is reason the value cannot change.

I can say this better if I'm specific, please excuse - for example, the ethic of reciprocity or Golden Rule is found in many(most?) world religions, this commonality is due to the simple rationality of it. (I guess I should state that I see this reciprocity as a value).

Even those who have a strong foundation can be led astray.

"I believe that there could be a fairly long list of objectively 'good' values which would be supported by religious & secular people. "

I agree.

I have conservative values from being raised in the military melieu, not from religion. My religious upbringing was actually non-existent.

VOR, I think you're on the right track, but disagree with your basic postulate as you outlined here - "This brings us back to a discussion about whether there can be an objective set of 'good' values - even if those are derived from different sources."

Objective values are by their very nature "good", as you later qualified as "..does ____ improve, enhance or support human life?"

Value, being defined as that which maintains or furthers life, can only be an objective reality, as a subjective reality may or may not maintain or further life. Some subjective values may coincide with objective reality, but that is only through probabalistic occurrence, not because the subjective values were conceived in a rational, objective fashion.

Further, life itself is happiness, so any value which brings happiness is by definition a "good" value.

In your example of a suicide bomber, whom you characterized as attaining joy , his value was not an objective value - rather it was a mistaken, subjective goal that did not further his life, or happiness. True, he may have felt subjectively happy about it, but as you point out again, the long-term consequences do not tend to his survival.

Nor does an anarchist-type atheist who robs and kills have true values. He may delude himself to imagine they further his happiness, but as Bonnie and Clyde could tell you, happiness was not the ultimate consequence.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that all true values exist only as objective entities, and subjective, imagined "values" are not really values at all.
Your proposed exercise to tabulate values of conservatives vs. liberals, or atheists vs. religionists is an interesting one; it would point out those supposed values which have no basis in reality (subjective ones), and help rational people to not only self-exam their own presuppositions, but to be on guard against those trumpeted by liberals.

To answer the first part of my reply to you, yes, there not only can be, but there is an objective set of good values. Its only source is rational thought applied to reality, determining what maintains or furthers life. Other sources (religious texts, etc.) may arrive at the same conclusion as to what is a good value, but it is not a legitimate, logical conclusion.

http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com

You and I are in agreement .. thank you for posting a detailed and well-reasoned response.

My statement: "..whether there can be an objective set of 'good' values - even if those are derived from different sources." is a rhetorical construction - to which I provide the conclusion in a subsequent paragraph.

BTW, I have added http://www.countrymanscorner.blogspot.com/ to my blog roll.