8.0.3.5 An Imaginary Conference

Version 1.2 December 2016                          (Previous Version)

John Rawls in his influential book “A Theory of Justice� suggested a thought experiment in which the laws which govern a society are to be written by the people who will live in it, before anyone knows what their status will be regarding their gender, wealth, health and so on.  His view was that when people are ignorant in this way of their future status they will design the laws to be reasonably fair to the less able while providing some rewards for those who do good works.

Imagine us bringing the world’s academic, religious and political leaders together:

● Leaders from the world’s major traditional religions: Shamanism, Yoruba, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha’i, plus some sceptics, agnostics and Atheists, (though we may need to asks the literalists not to come);

●  Leaders from the world’s major regions: India, China, the European Union, Indonesia, Russia, and perhaps Egypt standing for the Middle East, Vietnam for South East Asia, Nigeria for Africa, the USA for North America, Brazil for South America, and New Zealand for Oceania;

●  Leaders from the major areas of expertise: philosophy (epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics), science (physics, chemistry, geology, biology, sociology, neurosciences), history (archaeology, ancient, medieval and modern history), art (literature, visual and performing arts) and media (print, broadcast, internet), personal development and politics.

We can expect most of these people to be educated and sane.  Imagine they were forced to sit in one large room until they came to a consensus, a basis for cooperation that most could live with. No-one has a veto.  What would they come up with?  Apart from opinions regarding the supernatural, can we expect most of these attendees would agree on most of the issues?

●  Many of these leaders would not agree on the nature or existence of God, whether there was one God or many, whether God had different aspects, whether God made the world, how much God now controlled or acted in the world, whether any Gods inspired any sacred book or whether any set of moral guidelines or religious practices have been defined by God(s).

●  But surprisingly, many of these leaders would agree on many points about God: that God is indefinable; that no religious text has a monopoly on morality; that all religions have their regrettable elements; and, most importantly, that our values can be based on our shared humanity, regardless of what we believe is the ultimate source of that humanity. 

●  Most of these leaders would agree on most of the other high level propositions presented in these pages.  Most will agree that we can strive for the truth, that there is a reality out there, that goodness is possible without belief in a god, that the big bang and evolution are the currently best scientific explanations of our origins, that history is the result of human ingenuity reacting to geographical and social contingencies, that artists should be largely free and the media controlled to some extent, that we are all responsible for ourselves, our families and communities, and that we must resolve interpersonal and international conflicts peacefully.

●  Many of these leaders will agree on most of our core values: truth, reality, diversity, life, love, beauty, responsibility, equality, hope.  This is the basis for a modern, global society.