"The Benefits of Belief" - Video

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

Hans Kung argues that atheism leads to "cosmic nihilism to the reductio ad absurdum of denying all significance to human life and reducing human beings to despair."   

This is from The Specter of the Absurd, by Donald A. Crosby.  I would recommend reading chapter 3.  I have not completed reading it yet myself, but much of what I read aligns with how I perceive atheism and modern science ultimately lead to the inevitable conclusion of cosmic nihilism. 

I think this kind of thinking is based on the mistaken belief that meaning is or ever could be anything but subjective.

 

Quote

Think about it, if science is our new religion and culture, and culture defines morals, values, and meaning, what can science objectively tell us about morals, values, and meaning?

Nothing. 

Correct. But why would atheists want to rely on science for their morals and values? Some of them try to but it's a mistake. Morals and values are always subjective, part of the process of moral reasoning. God may or may not enter into the picture.

 

Quote

Morals, values, and meaning, are cosmically absurd to consider. There can be no confidence in the meaning of life. "Human civilizations and all its accomplishments, to say nothing of mere individual attainments, must be seen as peripheral and insignificant, regardless of how important they may appear from purely human perspective.  If nothing else, the incredibly vast spatial and temporal sweep of the universe disclosed to us by science makes the history of the earth and of human beings upon the earth seem trivial and ephemeral by comparison."

Must be seen as peripheral and insignificant? Says who? This is just opinion. I can very easily give the opposite opinion. Human civilization might be small in physical size, but so far as we have discovered it is totally unique. This is just the equivalent of liking Van Gogh or not. Totally subjective.

 

Quote

The universe is indifferent.  You are a part of that indifference. There is no justifiable reason to be anything but indifferent to the plight of man, as a product of the indifferent universe. There can be no more cosmic meaning or significance to mankind that a pile of dust floating in space. 

Why should anyone be bothered by that? You mean a great deal to your parents, and to your children, no matter what the universe does or does not think about you.

 

Quote

"Human beings have no more importance on the cosmic scale than do the lowliest of nature's living creatures or inorganic productions.  Specks of dust, bacteria, the human species-all alike result from a reckless profligacy of indifferent forces and mechanical operations that grind aimlessly on as long as the universe endures."

https://books.google.com/books?id=9VnPgFiW0CIC&pg=PA38&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=true

Humans are very important to humans. Also to dogs! Isn't that enough?

Edited September 7, 2018 by Gray

[Glenn101]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I've tried, but it seems like this exchange is going to be fruitless because you're not willing to try and understand what seems obvious to me.  I'm done with trying. 

I really cannot see where you have tried. You have made vague references to inaccuracies. I have asked you to name a specific inaccuracy but you will not do so. I am going to list the points that Professor Kreeft made and I would like for you to show how they are inaccurate. (Now Remember, Professor has a Ph. D in Philosophy and teaches at Boston University. He is highly respected in his field and has authored seventy-five books, so his opinion should be respected.)

If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, we are not here by chance.
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, we are living in an epic story.
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, it will all eventually make sense.
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, it will have a happy ending.
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, the presence of evil makes sense because God allows itto preserve our free will.
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, God will reconcile all injustices.
If God does not exist,, life is one big crap shoot. (We pretty much are at the mercy oc chance, with there being more losers than winners by a huge margin.)
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, morality is a real objective feature of the world.
If God does not exist morality is just the laws and rules that we make up in this life.
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, Love is the nature of an eternal reality.
If God does not exist love is just a series of chemical reactions in the brain
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, everyone is of infinite value
If God does not exist, each of us is insignificant as a rock on an unknown planet.
If God as taught in current Christian theology exists, death is conquered. There will be a life after death.
If God does not exist, death is final. We are no more. Everyone and all that matters to them are consigned to oblivion. Life is pointless. Everything that is achieved will ultimately be in vain. (Bertrand Russell will be correct.)

Glenn

[Glenn101]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Humans are very important to humans. Isn't that enough?

Some humans are very important to other humans but there are millions that do not seem important to millions of others.

 

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Some humans are very important to other humans but there are millions that do not seem important to millions of others.

 

 

Yes, a sad reality. I think where the notion of a loving God might be most helpful are for those who feel they don't have love in their lives.

[Glenn101]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

Correct. But why would atheists want to rely on science for their morals and values? Some of them try to but it's a mistake. Morals and values are always subjective, part of the process of moral reasoning. God may or may not enter into the picture.

If Christian God exists, morality is objective and eternal. If there is no God, you are correct, morals are entirely subjective. Morals will be determined by societies around the world and those that place little or no value on human life are just as valid as those that do.

 

[Glenn101]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

Yes, a sad reality. I think where the notion of a loving God might be most helpful are for those who feel they don't have love in their lives.

Well, I have love in my life, but the idea of a loving God is much more appealing to me than the cold despair pointing to the end of a dying universe.

[Gray]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

If Christian God exists, morality is objective and eternal. If there is no God, you are correct, morals are entirely subjective. Morals will be determined by societies around the world and those that place little or no value on human life are just as valid as those that do.

 

Would it really follow that morality is objective, if the Christian God exists? I know that's what Christians say but it's paradoxical, and IMO impossible.

In Mormon theology God cannot create or determine morality. God simply must follow rules he didn't create. So in Mormonism even if God ceases to exist, morality does not.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

Well, I have love in my life, but the idea of a loving God is much more appealing to me than the cold despair pointing to the end of a dying universe.

Does "more appealing" to you imply that those who don't believe in God must inevitably become nihilists?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Correct. But why would atheists want to rely on science for their morals and values? Some of them try to but it's a mistake. Morals and values are always subjective, part of the process of moral reasoning. God may or may not enter into the picture.

If they don't look to science and culture, where do they look for their morals and values? I would argue that morals and values are intrinsic to culture.  So, what does the culture of science have to say about morals and values?  Once we erode the foundational societal values and morals found in the Judeo-Christian culture of the West, on what foundational basis do we form new cultural morals and values from when science can tell us nothing?  Where do we turn as a people, and not just individuals, for cultural morals and values, and meaning?  There can be no cultural cohesiveness in morals.  Moral anarchy would result.  You could not convince anyone of your superior morals, because there can be no superior morals.  There is no foundation! There is no reason!  There is no universal purpose! 

How does one justify "moral reasoning" when there is no justifiable reason for one moral or another?  Yes, morals and values are always subjective, but within the Judeo-Christian paradigm they are anchored in the concept of constancy and the infinite existence of life, law, purpose, order, and ultimate cosmic meaning.  This permanence, absolute order, and universal purpose of life justifies the subjective morals in their attempt to align with the divine.  From the theistic perspective - In mortality our perspectives (which define our morals) are relative to the divine order.  Without a belief in that order, there is no justifiable reason or purpose.  It is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant - While each of the perspectives of the blind men are relative and subjective, they are all anchored to the absolute existence of the elephant.  Take away the elephant (God and cosmic order), then relativity and subjectivity have no basis or reason, or purpose, no truth to discover, no big picture to find, no puzzle to solve, and no cosmic relevance whatsoever. 

It is the mere belief in a universal cosmic purpose and meaning to life that anchors the mortal subjective nature of human existence to something worth living for.  Without that universalist perspective, the subjectivity of meaning looses its anchor and becomes absurd. 

Quote

A radically subjectivist view of values like that taken by Satre and Camus can be related to the nihlistic outlook on life in the following way.  If no objective standards are available to distinguish responsible from irresponsible uses of freedom, then it seems to follow that no way exists to distinguish a meaningful life from a meaningless life.  And if not, then it does not make sense to speak of any human life as having meaning, because to speak in this manner implies the availability of stnadrads on whose basis such an assessment can be made.

Edit to add: Sorry if this sounds jumbled and hard to follow.  It will likely require further clarification before my point is understood.  I am just spitting out my thoughts without much time to give more clarity to my position.
 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Humans are very important to humans. Isn't that enough?

Why should it be enough?  The universe has no “should’s“, as a child of the universe why “should” I care? Humans don't have to be important to other humans. There is no good reason for us to believe that humans are important.  In fact there is no such thing as good or evil in the universe .  There is only what I want and what you want - and neither of us (or both of us) are “right” (whatever that means).  Anarchy.  The Judeo-Christian values which we base our laws and judicial system upon will crumble.  There can be no justification for penalizing anyone for anything they want to do.  You have to completely remove the foundation of all values as they currently exist in our culture.  What are you left with?  Nothing. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If Christian God exists, morality is objective and eternal. If there is no God, you are correct, morals are entirely subjective. Morals will be determined by societies around the world and those that place little or no value on human life are just as valid as those that do.

 

Not really. Have you read the bible, compared the morality expounded in the bible over time and then looked at modern morality? Do we stone adulterers? Do we kill people who mix the fabric of their clothes? Native American's were conquered and enslaved in the name of Christianity. Genocide is taught in the old testament as legitimate. It seems to me that morality from the Christian God is pretty subjective and has changed quite a bit over the years.

Edited September 8, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is the mere belief in a universal cosmic purpose and meaning to life that anchors the mortal subjective nature of human existence to something worth living for.  Without that universalist perspective, the subjectivity of meaning looses its anchor and becomes absurd. 

This is patently ridiculous and I would recommend that you get out more. For an atheist it is true that the universe doesn't care. This seems to match reality very closely. Just ask any of the 200k people wiped out by the Indonesian tsunami. But that changes nothing about the fact that humans (for whatever reason) care a lot. May I suggest Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Well, I have love in my life, but the idea of a loving God is much more appealing to me than the cold despair pointing to the end of a dying universe.

This is what I got most from the video. There was one statement in there about believing whatever is truth. But the rest was all dedicated to believing what makes me feel good inside. Believe whatever is more appealing to you. Is it more appealing to believe in a Supreme being that cares or a universe that doesn’t (where we humans have to do all the caring ourselves). Truth doesn’t enter into it. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

Would it really follow that morality is objective, if the Christian God exists? I know that's what Christians say but it's paradoxical, and IMO impossible.

In Mormon theology God cannot create or determine morality. God simply must follow rules he didn't create. So in Mormonism even if God ceases to exist, morality does not.

Yes, if God were to cease to exist, there would still be an objective morality according to LDS theology although it would seem theologically impossible for that to happen. But that is not the same as there never being a God, no creation, and only the laws of physics. A universe created by a random alignment of atoms and devoid of life would be devoid of morality. Add animal life, even sentient human life and that would do nothing to make anything moral or immoral. Only when sentient, conscious life forms decide to make rules would some sort of subjective morality arise. That morality would be defined totally by the life forms based upon their emerging desires and though processes.

Glenn

 

[Glenn101]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is what I got most from the video. There was one statement in there about believing whatever is truth. But the rest was all dedicated to believing what makes me feel good inside. Believe whatever is more appealing to you. Is it more appealing to believe in a Supreme being that cares or a universe that doesn’t (where we humans have to do all the caring ourselves). Truth doesn’t enter into it. 

I did not get that from the video, i.e. believing what makes one feel good inside. The main thrust was that believing, faith in God is beneficial to people.

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is patently ridiculous and I would recommend that you get out more. For an atheist it is true that the universe doesn't care. This seems to match reality very closely. Just ask any of the 200k people wiped out by the Indonesian tsunami. But that changes nothing about the fact that humans (for whatever reason) care a lot. May I suggest Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

I am fairly familiar with Sam Harris.  I like him.  I agree with his conclusions about the self and free-will in a Godless universe.  Sam concludes that they don't exist.  There is no such "thing" as a self or free-will.  

Nietsche position is that with the demise of Christianity and collapse of belief in God, people in the West now must come to the realization that "There is nothing to life that has value, except the degree of power...".  "Nietzche's position closely resembles that of Stirner, who concluded from his own stance of radical atheism that there are no general patterns or norms to guide human life or to be used in appraisals of the meaning of life, leaving only the willful acts of each unique and completely isolated ego."

Now, when Nietzsche and Stiner conclude that in radical atheism, there is not guide to appraise meaning, value, worth, except for the "willful acts of each unique and completely isolated ego", the atheist could at least hold to his on will.  Unfortunately for them, now Sam Harris, and many other's, have rightly taken away the idea of free-will from them.  He has taken away the very concept of the self.  What is left?  THE INDIFFERENT UNIVERSE.  There is no escaping it.  I don't deny that atheists can live moral, happy lives, and find value in humanity, but that simply means that they have not followed the implications to the inevitable end of an empty, indifferent universe.  They are children of the universe.  There is no escaping it.  They are no different from it.  It is them and they are it.  There is no difference.    

Edited September 7, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is patently ridiculous

This assumes that there is a standard by which we can measure the meaning of what is ridiculous and what is not.  Take away God and there is no standard to look towards.  All communication, words, meaning, etc. would be equally "absurd".

Quote

A radically subjectivist view of values like that taken by Satre and Camus can be related to the nihilistic outlook on life in the following way.  If no objective standards are available to distinguish responsible from irresponsible uses of freedom, then it seems to follow that no way exists to distinguish a meaningful life from a meaningless life.  And if not, then it does not make sense to speak of any human life as having meaning, because to speak in this manner implies the availability of staadrads on whose basis such an assessment can be made.

While I don't believe that an "objective standard" independent of subjective interpretation exists.  I do hold that it is the mere belief in a universal standard (a belief that the elephant really exists) that gives subjectivity value.  Take away that standard from belief, and all value based conclusions of subjectivity are "absurd". 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Why should it be enough?  The universe has no “should’s“, as a child of the universe why “should” I care?

Human beings have plenty of shoulds. Our lives our structured by them.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Humans don't have to be important to other humans.

But they are. And for the most part, we do have to be important to other humans.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

There is no good reason for us to believe that humans are important. 

Sure there is. Humans are important to us because that's the way we feel. That's a great reason.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

In fact there is no such thing as good or evil in the universe . 

Sure there is. Atheism doesn't imply that good and evil don't exist.

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

There is only what I want and what you want - and neither of us (or both of us) are “right” (whatever that means).  Anarchy.  The Judeo-Christian values which we base our laws and judicial system upon will crumble.  There can be no justification for penalizing anyone for anything they want to do.  You have to completely remove the foundation of all values as they currently exist in our culture.  What are you left with?  Nothing.  

Oh dear. Atheist-majority countries must be crumbling into anarchy as we speak. There isn't an eyeroll big enough.

You don't have to convince me that religious belief and practice can be beneficial. But none of your conclusions follow from your premises.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

May I suggest Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

Quote

 

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris published in 2010. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.

Challenging the traditional philosophical notion that humans can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".

 

As Much as I like Sam, I obviously don't agree with all of his conclusions. 

Science can determine human values? 

I like this part:

Quote

Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures

How exactly can he objectively and scientifically demonstrate the "worth" or "value" of that framework using science, and that it is the only one worth talking about?  His entire premise is based on a value judgment which no foundation.  By giving subjective value to his foundational framework, he betrays his premise.   

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

This assumes that there is a standard by which we can measure the meaning of what is ridiculous and what is not.  Take away God and there is no standard to look towards.  All communication, words, meaning, etc. would be equally "absurd".

While I don't believe that an "objective standard" independent of subjective interpretation exists.  I do hold that it is the mere belief in a universal standard (a belief that the elephant really exists) that gives subjectivity value.  Take away that standard from belief, and all value based conclusions of subjectivity are "absurd". 

 

 

 

And yet it moves. It is interesting to contemplate what you are saying, but it all ultimately falls flat.  Millions of atheists wake up every morning, have meaningful interactions with those around them, and find joy and purpose in their lives. You can shout all day long about how this shouldn’t be so based on the arguments of some guy whose been dead for well over a hundred years, but the earth still rotates around the sun, and I have a meaningful joy filled life. Despite the fact that the universe doesn’t give a s*** whether I exist or not. At some point, you are going to need to update the underlying assumptions you are making

Edited September 7, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Human beings have plenty of shoulds. Our lives our structured by them.

To say that atheists have should's, and to say that those should's have any sort of justifiable or rational foundation to stand on are 2 different things.   

I am not arguing that atheists can't have should's, or values, or meaning, I am arguing that there is no justification for it.  If one follows atheism to it's rational end, it can only point to nihilism.  Everyone else is basing their reality on irrationality and emotions - exactly what science and the secular world caution us against!  

 An atheists cannot justify the "why's".  When you follow up every answer with another why, it leads to nihilism. Example:

Why do you value human life?

- Because human life matters?

Why does human life matter?

- Because I am happy when other's are happy

Why do you value happiness?

- Because it makes me feel good.

Why does feeling good matter?

- Because that's what I want.

Why do you matter?

- Because I said so.

What if I don't believe you?

- Ummm, I guess you are free to believe whatever you want. 

What if I don't value your life and want to kill you and steal your possessions, why should I not do that?

- Because I have the UNALIENABLE right to life and property.

So you believe in God then?

- No.

Then what gives you "unalienable" rights?

- The government, I guess.

No, they claim that God does and that the government is only here to protect those God given rights.  So, again I ask, what gives you these unalienable rights?

- .......Oh ****!

Boom!

Little by little chaos ensues. 

Anarchy. 

Remove God and you remove justification for those unalienable rights that we value most as Americans.

Remove those rights, and you remove any justifiable reason for the government to exist.  Civilization will crumble.

Nietzsche was right that the corrosive effects of Nihilism will eventually erode all morals and precipitate the great crisis in human history.   

Atheism has no logical way to defend the law and government as it exists to defend our "God given rights".

Here is the only logical conclusion that atheism offers.  We are children of the universe.  I am the universe and the universe is me. The universe is indifferent.  There is no other logical conclusion if one begins from the foundation of an indifferent universe.   

Edited September 7, 2018 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

To say that atheists have should's, and to say that those should's have any sort of justifiable or rational foundation to stand on are 2 different things.   

I am not arguing that atheists can't have should's, or values, or meaning, I am arguing that there is no justification for it.  If one follows atheism to it's rational end, it can only point to nihilism.  Everyone else is basing their reality on irrationality and emotions - exactly what science and the secular world caution us against!  

 An atheists cannot justify the "why's".  When you follow up every answer with another why, it leads to nihilism. Example:

Why do you value human life?

- Because human life matters?

Why does human life matter?

- Because I am happy when other's are happy

Why do you value happiness?

- Because it makes me feel good.

Why does feeling good matter?

- Because that's what I want.

Why do you matter?

- Because I said so.

What if I don't believe you?

- Ummm, I guess you are free to believe whatever you want. 

What if I don't value your life and want to kill you and steal your possessions, why should I not do that?

- Because I have the UNALIENABLE right to life and property.

So you believe in God then?

- No.

Then what gives you "unalienable" rights?

- The government, I guess.

No, they claim that God does and that the government is only here to protect those God given rights.  So, again I ask, what gives you these unalienable rights?

- .......Oh ****!

Boom!

Little by little chaos ensues. 

Anarchy. 

Remove God and you remove justification for those unalienable rights that we value most as Americans.

Remove those rights, and you remove any justifiable reason for the government to exist.  Civilization will crumble.

Nietzsche was right that the corrosive effects of Nihilism will eventually erode all morals and precipitate the great crisis in human history.   

Atheism has no logical way to defend the law and government as it exists to defend our "God given rights".

Here is the only logical conclusion that atheism offers.  We are children of the universe.  I am the universe and the universe is me. The universe is indifferent.  There is no other logical conclusion if one begins from the foundation of an indifferent universe.   

But adding God into the equation doesn't help anything. Read the old testament. Canaanite: Why are you killing me? Israelite: God told me to. Add God and you can justify anything. Ultimately people have to come together and decide together how they want to be governed. A perfectly rational basis for this is the Sam Harris's is increasing the well being of conscious beings. Killing others is wrong because we as a society decided we want to live in a place where killing others is not allowed except by the state. God enters in nowhere into this. Again God at various times appears to be a-okay with the killing of innocent people. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Millions of atheists wake up every morning, have meaningful interactions with those around them, and find joy and purpose in their lives

Do atheists believe in unalienable rights?

The meaning that many atheists have are borrowed from the dominant Judeo/Christian culture they belong to cannot stand up to scrutiny.  Once those foundational values are questioned, they will find there are no answers or justification for them.  Science cannot give us values, as Sam Harris pretends.  Our entire civilization is based on Christian values.  Once God is removed from the picture, those values cannot rationally stay.  The cultural belief in God gives meaning to atheists, whether they intellectually accept that yet or not.  We are just seeing the beginning of a cultural shift to a place of no return.  When rational scrutiny takes precedent over our emotionally based and structured values, reality, and rights, it will not be a good day.     

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do atheists believe in unalienable rights?

The meaning that many atheists have are borrowed from the dominant Judeo/Christian culture they belong to cannot stand up to scrutiny.  Once those foundational values are questioned, they will find there are no answers or justification for them.  Science cannot give us values, as Sam Harris pretends.  Our entire civilization is based on Christian values.  Once God is removed from the picture, those values cannot rationally stay.  The cultural belief in God gives meaning to atheists, whether they intellectually accept that yet or not.  We are just seeing the beginning of a cultural shift to a place of no return.  When rational scrutiny takes precedent over our emotionally based and structured values, reality, and rights, it will not be a good day.     

Which Christian values? Can you sight where in the Bible it talks about inalienable rights? I can point to lots of Biblical teachings that are incompatible. How does God ordered genocide fit with the idea we have a right to life? How does killing heretics square with a right to life? Jefferson who penned the words in the declaration was a deist who rejected the Jesus found in scripture. From my standpoint they are rights because we decided they are rights. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

When rational scrutiny takes precedent over our emotionally based and structured values, reality, and rights, it will not be a good day.     

I hear Norway has more atheists than theists. Can you point to some problematic trends over there? Japan has no Judeo / Christian values and it’s people are as irreligious in practice as they come. Can you point to problems over there?