Nobody Agrees with Anybody.

Physics has no way to measure the number of occasions an individual will be wrong in their lifetime, since every living organisms’ concept of right and wrong is unique.  Morality is determined by ideology.  Ideology is founded on theory and opinion which are in turn. formed through profound personal experience.  Thus, morality will always be relative.

Cosmologist William Lane Craig expresses that objective moral values can only be explained by the existence of an omnipresent, interdimensional architect.

Neuroscientist Sam Harris assures us the human conscience is a natural by-product of our phenomenal evolution and that definitive morality could be accomplished through the “flourishing of conscious creatures”.

A sadomasochist deems that to administer and experience pain is imperative to physical and mental flourishing.

A female praying mantis believes the survival of her own species depends on devouring her spouse.

The flourishing of Sam Harris is achieved by consuming meat, abstaining from recreational narcotics, denouncing religions, placing his health in the hands of conventional doctors offering traditional treatments approved by accredited authorities.  Compiling, clarifying and publishing his views by aid of the latest Macbook and entering into debates with those of an opposing persuasion.

He also declares that one country attempting to forcibly liberate another from a savage and oppressive regime the on the grounds its primary intention is to affect a positive change based entirely on what its political majority perceives to constitute “humanitarianism”, can be morally justified, provided its society’s fundamental ethics broadly coincide with his own.

He conveyed this view, with far greater eloquence in his first book “the End of Faith”,  and emailed the 3500 word passage to Professor Noam Chomsky, whom he had accused of overlooking the distinction between collateral damage induced by military aggression with inherently good intent, and acts of terrorism in which universal damage is critical to success.

Noam Chomsky argues that a super power’s intervention invariably harbours selfish ulterior motives, that the autocracy it aspires to overthrow is shrewdly supported until of no further economic interest and that its desire to minimize innocent casualties is vastly overstated.

He’s also adamant the only thing preventing the Unites States and other countries with a semblance of civility from mutating into full blown “police states” is the passionate activism perpetuated by their populations at least, those portions who whose ideals reflect his.

I first heard about Noam Chomsky on the most right wing radio station in the UK, a fact he might put down to a silent tyranny’s desire to brand him a dangerous heretic, as opposed to the comparative freedom of expression western society permits.  I don’t agree with either theory, though I find Noam more interesting than the source that informed me of his existence.

Richard Dawkins claims that contemporary medical science offers the safest and most effective remedies.

Deepak Chopra insists that historical medical science is responsible for an array of ailments that contemporary medical science is presently engaged in eliminating.

Christopher Hitchens’ philosophy was akin to Sam Harris, save for an addiction to tobacco which he knew might cause him terminal harm, though in order to mentally flourish, he was compelled to risk physical decline.

Of the world’s religions, both have asserted, “They can’t all be right”.  Though the probability that either has once conceded their own teachings to be erroneous is likely to be zero in a lifetime.

They, the others and those yet unborn, will instinctively alter, adapt, abridge, and revise their respective “Magna Cartas” to achieve apparently seamless continuity, and keep them perfectly synchronized with their individual notions of good and evil.

David Icke believes all of the above are lizards….including the praying mantis.