Charles Darwin gets apology from Church

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I am afraid I would be wasting my life trying to love God and my neighbour, when I could be devoting my worship time to exploiting my neighbour and enjoying all the pleasures that money and power afford.

Is that what you think you would become if you were an atheist? Would you not remain a person who is kind to your neighbour if the punishment or love of God were withdrawn?

wolfsbane wrote: »

It took a historico-grammatical interpretation of the Bible to persuade me that God is real and desires me to walk in His way. Just like I applied the same hermeneutic to your post and have answered accordingly. There is absolutely no warrant for anyone to treat the apparently historical narrative portions of the Bible as other than that.

Yes there is- there is such a vast bulk of scientific observation that contradicts a literal reading of that bible that 99% of it could be false and the literal bible would still be in massive trouble.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If He is, then my morality is just as relative/subjective as yours.

Is that not exactly what I've said twice now?

wolfsbane wrote: »

If He is real, then you are in deep trouble as you are living in opposition to both Him and His laws.

I'll take my chances. I have to say though that this sort of statement does not encourage rational debate. You know very little of my morality. To state so categorically that I live in defiance of God's laws assumes a great deal. The only law of His that you can be sure I have broken is that I reject His existence.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Not quite. I have concluded that the god that you think exists, does not. It's not an assumption.

Since you develop your own interpretation of the bible, your interpretation of what constitutes christian morality is yours alone. Hence, what you refer to as your "morality" is entirely subjective.

Atheists, on the other hand, are a co-operative lot. We get together and agree what we want and don't want in society. While that's as subjective as what you do, at least it has the benefit that we all agree on it.

Strange. Many atheists I know have their personal morality which departs from the others' in several respects. And from the wider world, I have gathered that Marxists, National Socialists and Humanists have widely differing moralities as groups, and within the groups there is also division.

My understanding of Christian morality does indeed differ from others, not only from false Christians but also from true ones. I differ from Roman Catholics about contraception; with Mormons about drinking tea and coffee; with true brethren about observing the Sabbath, for example.

But I thought we were speaking of the big picture, about what is normally meant by the term moral relativism, eg:
In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. In moral relativism there are no absolute rights and wrongs, only different situations.

Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the base of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity. from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Strange. Many atheists I know have their personal morality which departs from the others' in several respects.

I was referring to agreeing on a process to create rules for their society. You will get natural variation on what the individual rules are, but unlike religion, you tend not to get one person or group of people saying that their means of reaching a set of rules is better than everybody else's.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Is that what you think you would become if you were an atheist? Would you not remain a person who is kind to your neighbour if the punishment or love of God were withdrawn?

I would think it very irrational to remain as I now am. It would be a throw-back to feelings of guilt encouraged by Christian teachings.

Atheism would allow me to live my life entirely selfishly. That might mean putting on a moral show, if I was in a weak position to reveal my real amorality; but with increasing power I would feel logically compelled to use and abuse people to suit my pleasure.

You have a rational objection to that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It took a historico-grammatical interpretation of the Bible to persuade me that God is real and desires me to walk in His way. Just like I applied the same hermeneutic to your post and have answered accordingly. There is absolutely no warrant for anyone to treat the apparently historical narrative portions of the Bible as other than that.
Yes there is- there is such a vast bulk of scientific observation that contradicts a literal reading of that bible that 99% of it could be false and the literal bible would still be in massive trouble.

That's not an honest reason to alter one's hermeneutic. It's just keeping the show on the road at all costs. Better to honestly admit the Bible is man-made fairy-stories and give as much heed to it as to Through The Looking Glass.

To make it say what it plainly does not, so as to keep up the pretence that it is God speaking, what a waste of one's life!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If He is, then my morality is just as relative/subjective as yours.
Is that not exactly what I've said twice now?

Yes, and I'm agreeing with you - if your atheistic premise stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If He is real, then you are in deep trouble as you are living in opposition to both Him and His laws.
I'll take my chances. I have to say though that this sort of statement does not encourage rational debate. You know very little of my morality. To state so categorically that I live in defiance of God's laws assumes a great deal. The only law of His that you can be sure I have broken is that I reject His existence.

True, I know nothing of your actual behaviour. I just assumed that you are rational, and likely would find no objection to what I would call sexual immorality, occasional drunkeness, or any other sin common to our society.

If you are an ascetic, I apologise for my presumption.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

If He is, then my morality is just as relative/subjective as yours.

If He is real, then you are in deep trouble as you are living in opposition to both Him and His laws.

Christianity is all about love ... oh by the way, if you don't follow our religion you are in deep trouble

ummm

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:

I would think it very irrational to remain as I now am. It would be a throw-back to feelings of guilt encouraged by Christian teachings.

Atheism would allow me to live my life entirely selfishly. That might mean putting on a moral show, if I was in a weak position to reveal my real amorality; but with increasing power I would feel logically compelled to use and abuse people to suit my pleasure.

You have a rational objection to that?

You have a rational justification for that?

What is your reasoning for saying that it is rational to be a selfish bastard?

Even assuming that you are devoid of an normal internal emotional system (a psychotic), being selfish all the time would created a rather negative life for you in relation to how you relate to others around you.

So really you have the same problem you have as a Christian. You want to be selfish and uncaring at the moment but you aren't because you fear what will happen to you when you die (you want to go to heaven)

You think that as an atheist you wouldn't have this fear so you could do what you like. But you no doubt don't want to be completely isolated from people around you, and as such you still have a selfish motivation for being nice to people.

Either way, Christian or Atheist, there are rational reasons not to be a selfish uncaring person. A lot of Christians here have claimed that they lead selfish lives before "finding Jesus", but where miserable. Well, irrespective of Christianity, that would be a reason not to lead a selfish life. You don't actually need Christianity, you just need to not want to be miserable.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I would think it very irrational to remain as I now am. It would be a throw-back to feelings of guilt encouraged by Christian teachings.

Atheism would allow me to live my life entirely selfishly. That might mean putting on a moral show, if I was in a weak position to reveal my real amorality; but with increasing power I would feel logically compelled to use and abuse people to suit my pleasure.

You have a rational objection to that?

So what you are saying is that only your faith (or in it's place fear) keeps you from acting in a manner that most people would consider immoral. That's interesting. Much of the morality built within the context of your faith still has merit in a Godless world, unless the values you place on life and so forth are actually not in line with what would be required to sustain your basic morality in the absence of the carrot and stick of God.

I have to say my moral views changed very little when I rejected faith.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's not an honest reason to alter one's hermeneutic.

Well, you know my take on that. But the fact that you consider it an "all or nothing" situation underlines a problem with your personal faith. You are tenuously close to discarding it. No wonder you so vehemently reject evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's just keeping the show on the road at all costs. Better to honestly admit the Bible is man-made fairy-stories and give as much heed to it as to Through The Looking Glass.

To make it say what it plainly does not, so as to keep up the pretence that it is God speaking, what a waste of one's life!

Indeed.

wolfsbane wrote: »

True, I know nothing of your actual behaviour. I just assumed that you are rational, and likely would find no objection to what I would call sexual immorality, occasional drunkeness, or any other sin common to our society.

Well, rather than risk further moral judgement from you (thus causing you to sin by judgementalism), I'll decline to comment any further on my personal life.

wolfsbane

Nerin wrote: »

Deep trouble? Eh-why?Not all Atheists and other religions are out raping murdering and pillaging. If your god exists,when i die,i have no doubt he wouldn't have a problem with me. If he does,he is not a 'good' god,and i'd prefer to be elsewhere thank you

You have both too low a view of God and too high a view of your own morality. God looks on your heart - the intents, desires, the things you would do if you could get away with them. Raping murdering and pillaging begin in the heart. If you could honestly face that, you would not commend yourself so highly.

But leaving aside all the sins of commission and ommission we do towards our neighbours, you are living in defiance of the One who created you and to whom you owe every obedience. Such disrespect deserves His wrath.

As to preferring to be elsewhere, an eternity of outer darkness in hell-fire is not a rational choice. But many people make it, just as people choose to kill themselves by alcohol and drug abuse - they would rather enjoy the pleasure for a short time than save their lives in the long term.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity is all about love ... oh by the way, if you don't follow our religion you are in deep trouble

ummm

Where did you get this definition of Christianity? It is not a Biblical one.

The Bible is about both God's love to repentant sinners and His wrath against those who do not repent. The goodness and severity of God. Heaven and Hell.

The very concept of being 'saved' comes from this - that there is wrath to be saved from, and God's goodness in saving some sinners from it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Such disrespect deserves His wrath.

That statement is meaningless. If I said such disrespect doesn't deserve his wrath you would just point out where in the Bible it says it does, and say God decides what does or does not deserve his wrath.

As such you are not in a position to determine yourself if that statement is actually true or not.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

So what you are saying is that only your faith (or in it's place fear) keeps you from acting in a manner that most people would consider immoral.

Yes, my faith keeps me in God's way.

That's interesting. Much of the morality built within the context of your faith still has merit in a Godless world, unless the values you place on life and so forth are actually not in line with what would be required to sustain your basic morality in the absence of the carrot and stick of God.

In an Godless world most Christian morality is a hindrance, at least for those with ability. The less able would find value in mutual cooperation and in keeping a low profile, but the able should - rationally - only do so when they had to. Once they have enough power, they would be free to exploit their fellowman. They would of course have to cooperate with their fellow-exploiters, at least until they could overthrow them and take the spoil.

This is in fact how the world has operated throughout man's history. Morality is for the little-folk, in the minds of the elite.

I have to say my moral views changed very little when I rejected faith.

OK - but you are either too weak to change it or too guilt-ridden. I suspect it is the latter - you know God is real and you don't believe you are morally free of Him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That's not an honest reason to alter one's hermeneutic.

Well, you know my take on that. But the fact that you consider it an "all or nothing" situation underlines a problem with your personal faith. You are tenuously close to discarding it. No wonder you so vehemently reject evolution.

No, I'm very confident in my faith. I can't prove that to you, of course, but since you make the contrary assertion, I respond.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That statement is meaningless. If I said such disrespect doesn't deserve his wrath you would just point out where in the Bible it says it does, and say God decides what does or does not deserve his wrath.

As such you are not in a position to determine yourself if that statement is actually true or not.

Of course I'm saying so on the basis of the Bible being true! That is the Christian position.

I know it is true because God has revealed it to me. You like to think He hasn't, but that's your problem.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK - but you are either too weak to change it or too guilt-ridden. I suspect it is the latter - you know God is real and you don't believe you are morally free of Him.

No, I realise that I am not morally free from consequence. I value the love and affection of other people. It is that value system that I am bound to.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I know it is true because God has revealed it to me. You like to think He hasn't, but that's your problem.

Again that statement is meaningless. If you were wrong you wouldn't know.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK - but you are either too weak to change it or too guilt-ridden. I suspect it is the latter - you know God is real and you don't believe you are morally free of Him.

You appear to working on the assuming that everyone would act as you would. Thankfully that isn't the case

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

In an Godless world most Christian morality is a hindrance, at least for those with ability. The less able would find value in mutual cooperation and in keeping a low profile, but the able should - rationally - only do so when they had to. Once they have enough power, they would be free to exploit their fellowman. They would of course have to cooperate with their fellow-exploiters, at least until they could overthrow them and take the spoil.

This is in fact how the world has operated throughout man's history. Morality is for the little-folk, in the minds of the elite.

This suggests that your personal value system rates money, power or influence (or combinations of these) more highly than interpersonal relationships and personal happiness. Your value system is actually rather at odds with the Christian morality that you have adopted.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I would think it very irrational to remain as I now am. It would be a throw-back to feelings of guilt encouraged by Christian teachings.

Atheism would allow me to live my life entirely selfishly. That might mean putting on a moral show, if I was in a weak position to reveal my real amorality; but with increasing power I would feel logically compelled to use and abuse people to suit my pleasure.

You have a rational objection to that?
You have a rational justification for that?

What is your reasoning for saying that it is rational to be a selfish bastard?

Even assuming that you are devoid of an normal internal emotional system (a psychotic), being selfish all the time would created a rather negative life for you in relation to how you relate to others around you.

But I did not say it was rational to be selfish all the time - I specifically said one would need to put up a moral front if circumstances required it. Politicans do it all the time, and most people buy it.

So really you have the same problem you have as a Christian. You want to be selfish and uncaring at the moment but you aren't because you fear what will happen to you when you die (you want to go to heaven)

No, I want ot be loving to my fellowman because God commands that and has given me a new nature that loves to do His will, that loves Him and my fellowman.

You think that as an atheist you wouldn't have this fear so you could do what you like. But you no doubt don't want to be completely isolated from people around you, and as such you still have a selfish motivation for being nice to people.

Exactly - it is rational for the atheist to be nice to people when that serves your goals. But not when it does not serve them.

Either way, Christian or Atheist, there are rational reasons not to be a selfish uncaring person. A lot of Christians here have claimed that they lead selfish lives before "finding Jesus", but where miserable. Well, irrespective of Christianity, that would be a reason not to lead a selfish life. You don't actually need Christianity, you just need to not want to be miserable.

Being miserable as a sinner can indeed come as a consequence of misbehaviour bringing estrangement from our society. But it also comes from being estranged from God - and that is the cause of many people's misery, even if they don't consciously know it.

But the atheist can rid himself of human-related misery by buying himself friends and pleasures, while he informs his mind that the psychological needs of real friendships, etc. are only societal conditioning. Being his own boss he can coolly look back on his evolutionary origins and recognise the genetic make-up that gives such feelings and allows the race to endure. They are for the unenlightened or the unempowered. God-like, he makes his own mark on history.

Or so he thinks. Soon he shall die like a mere man and lift up his eyes in Hell. Then he will really see things clearly, and be truly rational, but too late.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This suggests that your personal value system rates money, power or influence (or combinations of these) more highly than interpersonal relationships and personal happiness. Your value system is actually rather at odds with the Christian morality that you have adopted.

No, I'm giving you the rational atheist position. Atheists may choose the Christian position, but they are being very irrational if they do so. They fear to look out on the darkness, so reason is carefully capped.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You appear to working on the assuming that everyone would act as you would. Thankfully that isn't the case

I'm just stating the rational course. I'm glad to agree with you that many atheists don't follow it through.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm giving you the rational atheist position.

Moral philosophies cannot be purely rational. They require people's personal values as an input. You've revealed either what your personal value system is or what you assume the atheist system to be. Why should an atheist have personal values any different to that of a Christian?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that statement is meaningless. If you were wrong you wouldn't know.

True, just like you would'nt know if you got up this morning. It could all be an illusion.

Wait. Am I real? [slaps face - ouch!]. Yes, I'm real. But wait, what if I only imagined the slap? What if I'm a molecule of oil in an engine? Or a key on Wickie's keyboard? Or?

No, I'll just go with the reality I experience.

You have to make up your own mind.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm just stating the rational course. I'm glad to agree with you that many atheists don't follow it through.

But you aren't though. As has been pointed out even from a completely selfish position it would not be rational, in terms of a selfish goal concerned only with oneself, to act as you describe.

Again I use the example of all the Christians on this forum (and there seems to be a lot) who claimed to be selfish egotistical, materialistic, criminal etc etc before they embraced Christianity, who were miserable while they were acting like this (the idea of simply not acting like that seems to have not crossed their minds).

Acting the way you believe atheists would "rationally" act doesn't make one happy, irrespective of the existence of God, so why if the goal is to keep oneself happy would it be rational to act that way?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

True, just like you would'nt know if you got up this morning. It could all be an illusion.

Again, very true. But then the consequences of that are rather irrelevant. If it is all an illusion I would keep doing the same thing.

On the other hand you claim to making massive statements about reality based on what you "know" purely from internal assessment. Which is a bit silly really when you think about it.

In reality you don't know. How could you. You believe sure, but that isn't the same thing.

The fact that you seem to be unwilling to think about could you be wrong, and how do you know you aren't wrong, would be even more worrying from the point of view of trusting you and what you claim your experiences are.

So by all means make statements about what you believe. But I wouldn't expect that many people are going to trust that you know what you are talking about without giving a lot more reason.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Moral philosophies cannot be purely rational. They require people's personal values as an input. You've revealed either what your personal value system is or what you assume the atheist system to be. Why should an atheist have personal values any different to that of a Christian?

The Christian's personal values flow from his belief in God and God's will. Strange if an atheist adopted those values.

But he is free to do so, if that's what he wants to do. Given his view of reality, he can choose to enjoy life in any manner, or restrict himself to this or that code.

What he cannot do is offer a rational defence for choosing a course that brings him less than his optimum interests - unless it is the defence that he enjoys self-harm.

Surely the atheist should not get his personal values from feelings of guilt or compassion - his worldview informs him that these are no more that evolutionary responses and he is able to rise above them and act rationally, not mechanistically.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I want ot be loving to my fellowman because God commands that and has given me a new nature that loves to do His will, that loves Him and my fellowman.

Again, a meaningless statement. You have no idea if God has or has not given you a "new nature". How could you possibly assess that

What is the point of these meaningless sound bytes?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Exactly - it is rational for the atheist to be nice to people when that serves your goals. But not when it does not serve them.

But your goal is to be happy is it not? It is rather short sighted to think that you can be horrible to people some of the time and not be negatively effected. Do you seem many people who lead lives like this who are now really happy in old age? I imagine not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Being miserable as a sinner can indeed come as a consequence of misbehaviour bringing estrangement from our society. But it also comes from being estranged from God - and that is the cause of many people's misery, even if they don't consciously know it.

You are just contradicting yourself now. By that token anyone other than a Christian will be miserable. So how can an atheist be happy?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But the atheist can rid himself of human-related misery by buying himself friends and pleasures, while he informs his mind that the psychological needs of real friendships, etc. are only societal conditioning.

But the "psychological needs of real friendship" aren't social condition. Quite the opposite in fact, they are an evolutionary biological phenomena. I've never heard an atheist claim this either

You seem to have a very peculiar view of what being an atheist is like. If you have to invent the "atheist position" what is the point. You just end up arguing with a nonexistent position that only exists in your own head?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Being his own boss he can coolly look back on his evolutionary origins and recognise the genetic make-up that gives such feelings and allows the race to endure. They are for the unenlightened or the unempowered. God-like, he makes his own mark on history.

Or so he thinks. Soon he shall die like a mere man and lift up his eyes in Hell. Then he will really see things clearly, and be truly rational, but too late.

Sorry you trailed off there with a bunch of nonsensical preaching ... :rolleyes:

Can you at least try and stay on topic.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

But you aren't though. As has been pointed out even from a completely selfish position it would not be rational, in terms of a selfish goal concerned only with oneself, to act as you describe.

Again I use the example of all the Christians on this forum (and there seems to be a lot) who claimed to be selfish egotistical, materialistic, criminal etc etc before they embraced Christianity, who were miserable while they were acting like this (the idea of simply not acting like that seems to have not crossed their minds).

Acting the way you believe atheists would "rationally" act doesn't make one happy, irrespective of the existence of God, so why if the goal is to keep oneself happy would it be rational to act that way?

If being selfish brings emotional pain to the atheist, he ought to ask himself why. Given his worlview, the answer is it is an evolutionary response. He is now able to go beyond any such mechanistic response and set aside these feelings.

If he finds he can't, the evolutionary imprint is too strong, he of course should go with what makes him happy, even if it irrational. What he shouldn't do is pretend he is following the logic of atheism.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Christian's personal values flow from his belief in God and God's will. Strange if an atheist adopted those values.

No evidence of that at all. You've already demonstrated that you equate personal happiness with material and influential gain. People's personal values are not a matter of choice. The moral code we adopt is the choice.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But he is free to do so, if that's what he wants to do. Given his view of reality, he can choose to enjoy life in any manner, or restrict himself to this or that code.

What he cannot do is offer a rational defence for choosing a course that brings him less than his optimum interests - unless it is the defence that he enjoys self-harm.

"Optimum interests" are dependant on personal values. You're making hard work of this Wolfie.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Surely the atheist should not get his personal values from feelings of guilt or compassion -

From all emotions. We can choose to try to discard them but what would be the point of that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

his worldview informs him that these are no more that evolutionary responses and he is able to rise above them and act rationally, not mechanistically.

What evolution teaches us is about what we were and how we have come to be. It should inform us in our decisions, but it compels us to do nothing.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

If being selfish brings emotional pain to the atheist, he ought to ask himself why.

I think most do. I certainly do.

The answer is actually very fascinating (hint, it isn't due to an "absence of God" :P)

wolfsbane wrote: »

Given his worlview, the answer is it is an evolutionary response. He is now able to go beyond any such mechanistic response and set aside these feelings.

If you have figured out a way of "set aside these feelings" I would be very interested to know. Are you talking about some form of lobotomy? How does one stop feeling guilty, or sad, or lonely. If that was possible why would anyone ever feel these emotions? The whole point is that you can't just stop feeling them. That is what emotions mean.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If he finds he can't, the evolutionary imprint is too strong, he of course should go with what makes him happy, even if it irrational.

That doesn't make sense. The sentence I mean.

If the goal is to be happy it is rational, rather than irrational, to go with what makes him happy. It is nonsense to claim that trying to be happy for the goal of being happy is irrational if the goal is to be happy.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What he shouldn't do is pretend he is following the logic of atheism.

What is the "logic of atheism?"

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Moral philosophies cannot be purely rational. They require people's personal values as an input. You've revealed either what your personal value system is or what you assume the atheist system to be. Why should an atheist have personal values any different to that of a Christian?

I agree totally with that.

I have never seen an atheist put forward a moral philosophy in the way that Kant would-not on this thread anyway.

I see loads of evolutionary stuff but nothing about moral issues. Mormans on tea coffeee and coca-cola. Catholics on contraception.

All there seems to be is I dont believe in God -think he might exist but then again no - really I would need to see God to believe in him.

I dont get this- need to prove or disprove?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, I realise that I am not morally free from consequence. I value the love and affection of other people. It is that value system that I am bound to.

Certainly you can rationally chose to enjoy the love and affection of other people, and to avoid unpleasant consequences that might come from not doing so. But when loving them gives rise to bad consequences, what rationality would require it? Only a blindness to reason would make one adhere to love and affection then, if atheism is true.

Also, murdering his Armenian neighbours would have given the Turkish citizen the love and affection of many Turks. Would that be less rational than your present value system?