People who don't believe in God can still be kind, warm and generous.....more so then most "Christians"....they don't eat their young! People have principles, they don't start killing people because they believe in Evolution.
What code of conduct do "atheists" live by?
by The Berean 105 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
quietlyleaving
narkissos, just to be clear evolutionary psychology doesn't seem to try to explain evolution from a westerncentric or human centric point of view but I haven't seen the film.
-
WTWizard
The simplest moral code, and the one that would have the best consequences if universally followed, is that any volitional act that is good for yourself and/or society is moral, and any volitional act that is bad for self and/or society is immoral. If everyone on the planet abided by that all the time, pretty soon we would have a world where all our problems would be solved, without so much as a church.
-
Witness 007
We live by the code.....You keep what you Kill!
-
Narkissos
Hey ql, I read your last post thrice and I think I finally got it: my movie recollection was not triggered your post (which I hadn't read yet) but The Berean's "fantasyland"... ;)
-
quietlyleaving
narkissos I thought you were commenting on social evolution
-
PrimateDave
I tend to believe that all humans are anarchist despite any verbal arguments they may make to the contrary. When it comes down to it, you make up your own rules. It just so happens that your rules may coincide more or less with those of society as a whole. For you believers, if there is a god, he is in your head, not mine. Your invisible friend (or foe, if you prefer) is created in your own image, and since he did not smite me as I wrote these words, he does not objectively exist.
Humans are neotenous apes, and the extended period of childhood gives young humans the time they need to be socialized into their respective families and communities. A human child intently observes, copies, and receives feedback from his parents, siblings, friends, enemies, etc. If a human child grew up with a tribe of bonobos completely away from any other human contact, assuming it survived, what "code of conduct" would it follow?
It is during childhood that you create your own code of conduct based on the knowledge and experiences of your youth. Granted, you may be indoctrinated with a religion, but with any luck you will be exposed to people of other religions and even those who profess none at all. As you get older and more mature, you may consciously change your own rules as your experience grows. A personal deity is optional, but certainly not required.
Most people get by with just enough knowledge of common law in order to stay out of trouble. Also, the needs for personal comfort and self preservation prevent us from causing harm to fellow humans at the very least. One does not need a law library to know that a fellow human who thinks he has been wronged can use the force of the government to make oneself rather uncomfortable.
Yet the letter of the law (or more accurately, statutes) does not present an impenetrable wall to the resourceful bipedal hominid desirous of technically illicit activity. For example, most cannabis users (I do not, but I respect those who choose to do so.) find ways to get what they want regardless of local and national statutes. A good portion of those same users believe in a deity based on a broadly Christian belief system. Nevertheless, they create their own code of conduct where and when it suits them.
This is a good example of the underlying anarchy of all human conduct. We all have the ability to create our own Temporary Autonomous Zones where we make spaces that elude formal structures of control. Whether or not we accept, believe in, or create a deity that goes along with our perceived need for freedom or asceticism is besides the point.
Dave
-
Narkissos
PD (assuming that no god has smitten you yet ;)
Interesting post.
My impression is that actually making up one's own rules is the exception. Or, to mimick a popular Christian slogan, nobody is born an anarchist (or, in less flag-waving but perhaps more radical terms, nobody is born free), but one may become such -- to an extent.
Our modern, Western individualistic worldview (which is a far cry from anarchy) is a small island in the ocean of human history (and geography). In most centuries and places the vast majority of people received not only a "code of conduct" but a complete life program from the cradle to the grave (including what occupation they would learn and practice, when and who they would marry, where they would live and die; religion and morals were part of the package). Only exceptionally would they deviate from it, generally due to crises and disasters which shattered the order they belonged to or separated them from it.
Individual "freedom" seems natural to us. But it is mainly, I think, freedom of choice, i.e. a kind of consumer's freedom. You are free to pick and choose from a large but strictly defined and limited panel of ideologies, ways of life, tastes, political and religious affiliations which are pre-packaged for you in the globalised social supermarket. (As a French humourist pointed out, there is a certain irony in seeing hundreds of thousands of people wearing the same "I am a rebel" T-shirts). The most "original" you can get is by combining items from different existing packages. Making one's values (even only a couple of them) is exceedingly rare, and creating them (ex nihilo) even more so -- if it ever happens.
Anyway I like your idea of "temporary autonomous zones". This is probably the best pattern we can look for if we are interested in developing and exploring freedom beyond that which is already sold and bought. But if it gets any successful it will soon be sold and bought as a new package for other customers...
-
PrimateDave
Thanks for reading, Narkissos! I'm still alive and well.
I understand your points, but we may be speaking about different things. Language can be so clumsy at times, and it is difficult for me to articulate some of my thoughts when they all come crowding in at the same time.
In effect I was trying to explore what happens in a human thought process. Our thought processes are hardly rational, and our emotions arise from our subconscious. Why do we feel a certain way about a certain thing? Often, we do not know why. In all likelihood we were conditioned to a certain response by our life experiences. Perhaps there is no free will after all, but neither is there a "code of conduct" by which theists or atheists strictly adhere themselves.
Let me rephrase that. Unless one has a rare mental discipline to do so, one does not review each thought and action against a list of do's and don'ts. One can develop a high degree of mental discipline using meditation techniques, and in some religious traditions this is an accepted path to enlightenment. One can count breaths, focus on a part of the body, clear the mind of thoughts, repeat a mantra, contemplate a positive emotion or a deity, etc. But I digress.
Perhaps what could be said about our mental processes is that our minds are adept at learning thought "recipes." Once we become accustomed to certain patterns of behavior, they become automatic. Whether it's learning to read, to ride a bike, to care for siblings, to respect the property of others, to play a musical instrument, to control one's emotions, etc., it is something that our brains have evolved the capacity to do.
It is also something that our extended period of childhood affords us to do. I have read anecdotal evidence that in some parts of the world childhood is of necesity much shorter than that of Western societies, and children from those parts display a maturity beyond their years. Does such maturity stem from being a confirmed atheist or theist with a signed and ratified "code of conduct"? Or is it a mental and social adaptation to environments and circumstances that many of us have never experienced even as adults?
Now, back to anarchy... There are so many social, economic, and political notions about anarchy that it can be a confusing term. Yes, on the surface our Western political and economic system appears to be anything but anarchist. In many ways and places there appears to be control just for the sake of control. Yet the human animal is by far the most resourceful and cunning on the planet. If an authority makes a rule that someone believes is arbitrary or harmful to his interests, he will seek a way to nullify the effect of that rule. This is the common anarchism (small 'a') which I believe exists in everyone.
Fortunately for most of us in "free" societies, we are able to satisfy our wants and needs more easily by following the rules. In fact I think that anarchism gets a bad rap because people assume that Anarchists (with a capital 'A') don't like rules. As I see it a principled Anarchist appreciates the spirit of the law and order while not wanting to be a slave to the letter of statutory code. The Anarchist ideal is that every person is a law unto themselves and their own police-person as well. An Anarchist is not the same as a common criminal. This type of self governance was once quite common among human tribal groups. If that ideal could be adhered to by modern, highly educated humans, only a minimal amount of government would be needed in order to settle common law disputes between sovereign individuals instead of the statutory police state and bloated nanny government we have today.
Since the ideal is all but impossible to achieve, one must create temporary autonomous zones (TAZ). This is not my idea, but that of writer Hakim Bey. I won't pretend to completely understand (or even completely agree with) what he wrote, but I like the concept anyway.
Dave
-
PrimateDave
Since I have accepted atheism, my "code of conduct" may have changed in some areas whereas my patterns of behavior have essentially remained the same.
For example, as a Witness I believed that having a blood transfusion was unacceptable because it was displeasing to god. My code of conduct therefore prohibited this activity, but since I have never required a blood transfusion, my resolve on this matter has never been put to the test. Now that I am no longer a Witness or even a theist, my code of conduct will allow me to accept a blood transfusion, though I may still view the procedure with distrust due to my previous indoctrination.
When I was a small boy, I stole a toy car from someone. When it was discovered what I had done, I had to return the toy which was extremely embarrassing to me. The point was well impressed on me that taking the property of others was not acceptable. While I'm sure my parents tried to include "how god must feel" into the lesson, it was really about learning to get along with fellow humans and treating others how one wants to be treated in return. Not stealing remains a part of my code of conduct and patterns of behavior.
As a boy I learned how to masturbate. I didn't feel bad about it at first, but in time I was taught that it was "displeasing to god." Problem was, I just couldn't quit doing it, not even for god! The code of conduct I was being taught said one thing, and my patterns of behavior were different. I struggled with this contradiction well into my 20's. That's when I began to rationalize my behavior based on increased knowledge. Since the word "masturbation" does not appear in the Bible, I reasoned that this rule was man-made. I learned about the Puritans and Victorians and concluded that the leaders of the WTS were products of a sexually repressed culture. They took the morality of the Bible to an unreasonable extreme. I was able to accept my patterns of behavior as "normal," and like a good little anarchist I made up my own rules contrary to the code of conduct that I had been taught.
I like to play video games. One of my favorite game series is called Silent Hill. The stories are based on a haunted town crawling with monsters and ghosts. This is definitely not acceptable entertainment for a Witness. But I played these games anyway. My old code of conduct taken strictly prohibited such activity, but by that time in my life I was making up my own rules. For what it is worth, on more than one occasion I have seen Witness children playing Grand Theft Auto, a game with adult themes. I can only guess that their parents don't know what is going on in that game. I also know of one little boy who is not a Witness who plays that game on his portable PlayStation, but he also seems to know that his grandfather (who I work for) would not approve of him playing such a game. This boy seems to already be aware of a code of conduct imposed by older people, not by god. Though nominally Catholic, his thinking and patterns of behavior are atheistic and anarchistic to the degree that he can get away with things. In other words, he is a perfectly normal human being.
Dave