The theory seems plausible because there are so many rules involved with religion. It also makes me think of the order of the universe and God as the architect. Additionally, I Often hear chaos associated with anarchy and deism definitely creates an hierarchy.
But Atheists like Slash and Glen don't seem to be assuming chaos/anarchy is, or should be, the climate of the world.
IS there any correlation between Atheism and chaos/anarchy?
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Eddie- As far as a template for a continuing society goes, I think the 10 Commandments is pretty good.
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
If atheism=chaos, someone please explain ancient Athenian representative government to me.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Eddie- True enough. I do equate much of our current morality as stemming from religious edicts. Maybe it's the other way around.
Mind you, I am assuming the edicts such as "thou shalt not kill" and "honour thy father and mother" required more than one's conscience to enforce. Thus, it required not only mortal punishment, but immortal punishment to deter the community members from killing each other and leaving their parents to fend for themselves.
The religious codified, preserved and enforced these rules, so each generation built on, rather than relearned the rules through trial and error. This speaks towards religion refining, if not defining, moral conduct.
I'd say that religion has taken many liberties with it's "refining" of moral conduct, but I applaud its preservation of morality.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Somewhat backward, eh? Chaos&Anarchy: gods make and break rules at will. Order: if there are no gods, then actions can only follow rules.
[ April 19, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Associating religion with rules doesn't work for most of the Eastern hemisphere.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I do equate much of our current morality as stemming from religious edicts. Maybe it's the other way around."
I would argue that it is, and that there are certain rules which societies must follow in order to remain societies. Since most individuals lack the sophistication to understand the necessity of these rules, it is necessary to dress them up with carrots and sticks in order to get them obeyed.
The atheists I know also tend to be among the most law-abiding and moral people I know; from personal experience, at least, there's no obvious correlation.
I think you're leading from your conclusion -- that laws come from God, and therefore Godless people are lawless. In this real world, this is clearly false.
The advantage of writing a fantasy novel, though, is that you can make it as true as you want. You can actually have your God show up and do things, for example. You can make all the atheists into enormous pig-people with upturned snouts and little beady eyes -- or, say, dwarves who hang out in smelly stables. Everyone in your universe trembles at the power of your polemic. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I like to think secular morality's far more orderly and decent than any code of morality that relies on the whims and prejudices of deities.
Making the equally erroneous leap of logic that these laws represent the whims and prejudices of deities and not reflections of their greater understanding.
Dagonee Edit: And it's not an "erroneous leap of logic" to assume morals can't exist without God. It's certainly a debatable point, but if any deists are correct about morality flowing from God, then the existance of moral atheists does not disprove the pemise.
[ April 19, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That only applies for the correct religion(s, assuming they're compatible), if such a one exists.
All the other religions are just men creating rules.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Richard-
quote:Associating religion with rules doesn't work for most of the Eastern hemisphere.
Would you elaborate?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That only applies for the correct religion(s, assuming they're compatible), if such a one exists.
All the other religions are just men creating rules.
No. When you look at the similarities between moral edicts across belief systems, it's certainly feasible to consider them either all vestiges of some dimly-remembered past where mankind was in full communion with God (to take a Christian view of it) or different facets of the same truth.
In other words, the idea that morality flows from God does not necessarily imply that humans have interpreted and expressed this flow identically.
Dagonee
Posted by Sal (Member # 3758) on :
This may sound a bit heretic, but it is a serious question:
Couldn't the whole thing be turned around? Isn't the number of rules somewhat correlated with the amount of rule violations? And wouldn't a lot of rule-breaking cause more chaos, at least regarding one's morality, than a stricter following-of-rules, albeit fewer, by an atheist with a minimum of integrity?
[ April 19, 2004, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Sal ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
LadyDove: religions like Buddhism, Hindu, Ba'hai, Shinto, and many others are more about personal self-discovery than about following external directives.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Not that they don't have their violent extremists.
Doesn't a religion that believes in free will necessarily sustain a certain amount of chaos?
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
*aggrees with Sal's post*
one can no more equate atheism with chaos than you can religin to it. The whole question is assuming that one or the other inevitably leads to eather order or chaos. This is most likely not the case. You can find examples all over the world of socitys that have tryed to strictly follow religon or atheism and most of them have failed, leading to a period of chaos.
there are however laws that cross all societys, universal rules of humanity, that even cultures who have never had contact keep. Some of these laws inclued negitivley looking at such things as insest and canablism. Of coures there are always exeptions (for example the royalty of the Aztecs, and Egyptions). But in general, every socity in the world leans away from things like these, regardles to wether it is religous or not.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Tom-
quote:I think you're leading from your conclusion -- that laws come from God, and therefore Godless people are lawless. In this real world, this is clearly false.
Logically, I agree with you. I look at Communism and it had plenty of rules. Never-the-less, it seems that deism demands order and atheism holds order as optional. My personal bias is that people are intrinsically good, Makers if you will, and that offered two equal paths, people will choose the path of morality and ethics. It’s when the ethical path gets difficult, that people lean on the carrot and stick of religion to keep them on track.
What keeps the atheist on track?
Richard-
quote:Buddhism, Hindu, Ba'hai, Shinto, and many others are more about personal self-discovery than about following external directives.
But don’t these rely heavily on reward or demotion in the next life? I think that in practice that creates some pretty specific rules about what is right and what is wrong in how one lives his life and interacts with not only his community, but his world.
Sal-
quote:Isn't the number of rules somewhat correlated with the amount of rule violations?
That’s an interesting thought. I absolutely agree that no rule would have been made if it hadn’t already been violated. Actually, it touches on one of my frustrations with organized religions- They take a perfectly understandable and common sense edict and flesh it out to include every possible way that edict may be violated. For instance, I grew-up a Nazarene. The Nazarene’s took “thou shalt not commit adultery” and decided that dancing may lead to temptation, which may lead to adultery. Funny thing is that not even married couples dance in this religion. Many of the members joked that the next rule would be “no sex; it might lead to dancing.”
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, Richard, the word is punctuated "Baha'i." While it's commonly pronounced buh-HAI in the States, I understand that it's actually closer to "buh-HA-ee."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What keeps the atheist on track?"
That's a good question. I think the answer, broadly, is socialization.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Never-the-less, it seems that deism demands order and atheism holds order as optional.
I don't really understand what this idea is trying to put forth, I guess. In what way are you saying that atheism holds order as optional? I would argue, as an athiest (agnostic, whatever), that while the general tendency of the universe is toward chaos, order is essential to our continued existence. The difference between my view of order and a deist's view is that I believe we must create our own order and a deist (I assume) believes that order comes from God.
If you're saying that in general atheists believe the natural state of the universe is chaotic and deist believe it is ordered then I guess I don't have a problem with that assertion, though I don't see how it's very controversial. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm started up a thread about humanism a little white ago where we talked about issues like this.
To make my position clear, I'm a humanist, an anarchist, and, while not technically an athiest, I reject the assumptions about the divine that come along with mainstram Christianity. I reject externally imposed moral sytems in favor of my own internal set of moral principles. And yet, depite all this, you'd be suprised at how seldom I go around robbing, raping, and killing people.
I did my detailed explaining on the other thread. Here, I think I'll through around a couple of images.
I honestly believe that viewing all order, meaning, and morality as coming solely from God is a terrible concept. Furthermore, it actually makes people less meaningful, ordered, and moral.
Morality can be seen as a skeletal structure for action. The question is, does it work like an exo-skeleton by preventing evil influences from getting in and stopping you from or like an endo-skeleton, that provides a flexible support for a person to live their life. Now, some people will say that people can't actually choose to be moral and that the best we can hope for is to stop them from doing immoral things.
Those people scare me. They are not describing me and they're not decribing the large majority of people, but I'm often afraid that they are describing themselves. Because they hold such an alienated, immature view of their moral nature, they will never develop into people that can stand on their own and choose to do the right thing because they want to and not because of some external reward/punishment structure.
There are different types of order, just as there are different types of chaos. In one type of order, everyone is the same. This seems to me to be what the concept of all order comes from God is about. Pretty much, God lays down an objective standard that everyone is supposed to fit. Perfection would be everyone being exactly in that standard. Of course, the other name for this is entropy.
There is another form of order, however. It requires believing that people are capable of appreciating and creating order on their own. A highly developed, mature person is a thing of great order, even if they don't unquestionly follow the dictates of your religion.
There is a fundamental question here about the meaning of life. Is life a test, where we are measured on how well we fit an externally imposed standard? I don't think so. Rather, I prefer to approach life as an art, the highest art possible for a human being to participate in. To create the most beautiful, meaningful, unqiue piece of art with what I've been given, that's my goal. I could care less if it doesn't look like what everyone else is making. Likewise, I love to appreciate and try to understand the works of art that other people are making with their lives, instead of rejecting them because they aren't conforming their life to mine.
It's a question of what you think is more meaningful and orderly, pouring you essence into painting a picture or singing a song or whatever way you express yourself or working on an assembly line with someone bossing you around.
---
In many mythologies, the trickster is a venerated, if never trusted, figure. This figure represents the expansive aspects of life like joy, creation, humor, etc. It's not that the trickster is a model to emulate. There are often very bad things that happen to him, largely because he deserves it. But still, the life as art things that he represents are held as integral to living a strong life.
Christian mythology has only one main trickster figure. It's the snake in the Garden of Eden.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:one type of order, everyone is the same. This seems to me to be what the concept of all order comes from God is about. Pretty much, God lays down an objective standard that everyone is supposed to fit. Perfection would be everyone being exactly in that standard. Of course, the other name for this is entropy.
No it's not, because you're assuming all actions within that homogeneous moral framework are identical. This is an unwarranted assumption.
Dagonee
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Christian mythology has only one main trickster figure. It's the snake in the Garden of Eden.
I know quite a few Biblical Storytellers who would disagree with you on this one.
Jacob comes immediately to mind.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Vorlons and Shadows...
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Squick-
quote:Rather, I prefer to approach life as an art, the highest art possible for a human being to participate in. To create the most beautiful, meaningful, unique piece of art with what I've been given, that's my goal. I could care less if it doesn't look like what everyone else is making. Likewise, I love to appreciate and try to understand the works of art that other people are making with their lives, instead of rejecting them because they aren't conforming their life to mine.
This is quite beautiful and a concept I embrace. Maybe my concept of order is skewed. When I think of order, I don’t think of conformity, I think of building and creating and preserving those things that have been created. When I think of chaos and anarchy, I think of a conscience effort to destroy what has been created. A need to ensure that there is no acknowledged order.
With a view like this, why are you an anarchist? What are the tenets of anarchy that draw you?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Ladydove,
(haven't read whole thread, just the hypothesis)
Even a simple system of local rules can give rise to behavior indistinguishable from randomness.
I don't think rules imply order in such broad terms.
fallow
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote:What keeps the atheist on track?
The show must go on?
fallow
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"When I think of order, I don’t think of conformity, I think of building and creating and preserving those things that have been created. When I think of chaos and anarchy, I think of a conscience effort to destroy what has been created."
Perhaps, then, you are conflating "order" with "good."
Obviously, you do not play Dungeons and Dragons.
Order is the rule of law: the need to construct, yes, but also the need to constrict. It seeks to regulate and rationalize, as well as build and blockade.
Chaos, on the other hand, is both the seed of destruction and the cry of freedom. It tears things down -- good things and bad -- and thumbs its nose at authority.
I'm more of an "order" guy, myself. But I can recognize when it sours -- and when chaos, itself, is appealing.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:It’s when the ethical path gets difficult, that people lean on the carrot and stick of religion to keep them on track.
What keeps the atheist on track?
I'm not sure I completely agree with your premise here. That is, I don't think that it's the "carrot and stick of religion," at root, that keeps people on track. Rather, it's the internal feeling of right and wrong that keeps people on track. Granted, I'm not an expert on the religious mind, nor on psychology in general, but I don't think that most ethical decisions for most people come down to "I will choose this because I am afraid of going to Hell/being reincarnated as something bad/etc." I think the real thought or feeling is more like "I will choose this because I feel it is right" or "I will choose this because I couldn't live with myself if I didn't" or something like that. This could be a limitation of my own perspective, but I just can't imagine an adult making an ethical or moral decision based on fear. In fact, according to Kohlberg's model of ethical development, making a moral decision based on punishment or reward is a "pre-moral" decision, i.e. not very developed.
I think what religion does in the tough moral/ethical situation is provide a map, a guideline by which a person can figure out what the right and wrong thing to do. What's important to recognize is that though religion does provide this map, it is not the only possible source of such a map. The atheist (or, to be more specific, me) is not without a map. The map just comes from different foundational principles.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Ladydove,
I would like to hear more of your thoughts.
fallow
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Tom-
quote: Order is the rule of law: the need to construct, yes, but also the need to constrict. It seeks to regulate and rationalize, as well as build and blockade.
Chaos, on the other hand, is both the seed of destruction and the cry of freedom. It tears things down -- good things and bad -- and thumbs its nose at authority.
After reading Squick’s post last night, I pictured his view of anarchy as an untended garden. When you say constrict, it seems that the definition of order could be extraordinarily broad or extraordinarily narrow, depending on who is laying the boundaries. For me, order would allow for anything that is capable of taking root and flourishing in this garden. Chaos would be an interloper letting himself into the garden and tramping down the plants, just to see them fall.
I recognize that decay and change are a necessary part of life that lay the foundation for continued growth, this is natural. Chaos seems have none but a malicious intent. I think this must be a blind spot for me- obviously, I’m having trouble thinking of chaos as a “necessary evil”. I’ll accept chaos, but only if it presents itself in an orderly fashion.
Mike-
quote: This could be a limitation of my own perspective, but I just can't imagine an adult making an ethical or moral decision based on fear.
Though I have tremendous faith in the intrinsic good of people, I believe that they are basically lazy. I think that when they contemplate taking the easy route, it IS fear that stops them. Whether it is fear of letting down their wife, disappointing their parents or not being able to look themselves in the mirror, it is still a projection of the pain that may come to them by doing something that isn’t quite right that keeps them on track.
Atheism is definitely a part of my experience gap. I have always been surrounded by people, or the children of people, who prayed and believed that their actions were being evaluated by a higher being. Though I have friends who are not deists, these friends were taught what is right and wrong by people who did believe. For these friends, it is not a matter of disappointing God, but a matter of disappointing “Nanna”. “Nanna” is the voice they hear as their conscience.
So whether directly, through a personal belief, or indirectly, through someone they respect; every ethical person I’ve known personally has been influenced by deism.
Oddly, I don’t have a fear of an afterlife Hell. I have a fear of Hell here on Earth. On the practical side, I believe that 9 times out of 10, a smile begets a smile and a kind word opens the door to a friendship. I also believe that cutting someone off in traffic will make me a target for that person if they are in a dangerous mood and stealing will land me in jail.
Spiritually, in my experience, kindness gives immediate rewards most of the time, anger and misplaced aggression are not fulfilling- like cookies without milk, and dishonesty causes me to doubt myself. When I make a choice that satisfies me spiritually, I feel warmth and pride as if a beloved were saying, “Well done.” Since I’ve never had a “Nanna” in my life, and only recently had a supporting parent figure, I believe that feeling comes from God.
Fallow- Thanks for the encouragement. I wish you’d write more than single sentence posts so that I could figure out the context of your questions/comments and not feel like I’m ignoring you when I simply don’t know how to respond. Your comments are interesting and I'd like to understand them.
[ April 22, 2004, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Since I’ve never had a 'Nanna' in my life, and only recently had a supporting parent figure, I believe that feeling comes from God."
As I'm in the same situation, but don't have a supporting God figure, either, I figure the feeling comes from an internal barometer of socialization, which we call "conscience."
Seriously, I think you're defining "order" and "chaos" too narrowly. After all, look at Islamic sharia and extreme Christian fundamentalism: both are dedicated to "order," and yet both are clearly restrictive, suppressive, and ultimately evil.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Christine,
I suppose I should be more specific when I talk about fear as a motivator. What I really mean is that I have a hard time with the idea that most adults base their moral decisions on fear of punishment. However, basing it on a "fear" guilt I can understand. I quoted "fear" because I use the term a bit loosely; rather than feeling intensely afraid I mean that people know the result of a "wrong" action will be that they feel guilty, they know how that feels, and they want to avoid it. The fear of disappointing someone else or oneself is really a fear of guilt.
So, really, we agree. When you said "the carrot and stick of religion," I understood that to mean "Heaven and Hell." And I don't think that most people do the right thing because of a direct fear of going to Hell. I think most people do the right thing because of a fear of guilt. The question, then, is from where does this guilt arise?
I think, in the broadest sense, I would tend to agree that most people are influenced by deism. If you go far enough back in anyone's family you are likely to find a deist, or at least a person of some religion. In the US, you don't have to go very far back to find these people. But there are still things to be considered. First, the further back you go, the smaller the influence. That is, I think a grandparent has less of a direct influence on a child's values than a parent does. So perhaps Grandma is a Christian, and raised Mom that way, but Mom decided to be an atheist and so raised her kid that way. I think Mom's influence in most cases trumps Grandma's influence.
And this gets to an even bigger point: people are capable of changing what they believe and why. No matter how I am raised, I possess the mental faculties to examine, evaluate, and re-evaluate my own beliefs. The fact that I am introduced to certain ethical and moral values, directly or indirectly, by religion does not mean that I hold that value because of the religion. I can say, "Yes, that makes sense to me," or, "No, I don't believe that." The reason that a person holds a belief is as important as the belief itself. Thus, for example, though I believe it is wrong to steal, it is not because I believe it is a commandment from God.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
LadyDove, I don't have the time to go into as full an answer as I'd life. Life's gotten really busy and I'm pretty much leaving Hatrack until I've got a much emptier plate.
I think that you're conception of anarchy only makes sense if you think that human nature is inherently destructive and that there is no possiblity of this destructiveness coming out without external restraint. I reject that completely. I think you are equating anarchy with the gloomy 15-year olds who wear all-black with the A in a circle logo on them. I am not one of these people.
Anarchy isn't defined by negativism or destructivenss. That's better termed nihilism. Anarchy, when combined with humanism, can be a very positive thing. Under my version, you assume, rather than deny, complete responsibility. That is, you are responsible for everything you do and also everything you could have done but didn't.
The main point is that this responsbility isn't forced on you. Forcing responsiblity on someone is to me a contradiction in terms. You can only assume responsibiltiy, and the level of freedom you enjoy is or at least should be determined by this responsibility.
In the Brothers Karamazov, one of the characters says "If there is no God, everything is possible." I pretty much agree with this statement and my relationship with the divinity isn't one of servant to master or child to parent. However, this statement gives me joy, because everything is possible and yet I choose to live the way that I do. What keeps me in line is me, my choices, my principles. I need no other force.
And actually, I am not "kept in line". I would choose no other way of living for myself than the way I do. I live taking as much responsiblity as I am able and trying to always make the world a better place. There is no part of me that I'm repressing or keeping from coming out. I fail sometimes, because I am not perfect, but I truely believe that the way I live is generally the fullest expression of who I am that I am capable. Any way else would pervert or at least diminish the work of art that my life is.
Other people may need a reward/punishment structure to, as you said, leep them in line. That, to me, is because they aren't taking full responsibility for their lives. When you do something only because you'll get a reward or avoid a punishment, you can't come to love or understand the beauty of that thing. You're treating it as a means to an end instead of an end in itself.
In sort of the same way, I believe that anarachy is both more responsible and more orderly than external rule following. I take responsiblity for what I do and for the reasons for what I do. My life is built, like the human body, around a complex unified structure. I contrast this to the idea of living a life where you follow thousands of rules whose principles you don't understand, but you follow them anyway because some authority who has the carrots and the sticks tells you to. I think that the first choice is much more ordered and more meaningful way of living.
----
I skteched kind of broadly there because I wrote this all in about 10 minutes. I'm leaving now. Don't know when I'll be back. I guess the best I can leave you with is that I'm a committed anarchist who credits his morality directly to his anarchism. When you predispositions conjour up images of whiny teenagers and bomb throwing radicals, put the person that I described along with it. The system encompasses both.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ok, really quick. I suggest an exercise. What's the first thing you think of when you think of unpredictable? . . . . . . . . . . . I'll bet that a large majority of people came up with something negative and/or scary. Trust me, that's not logical. Why did you think of what you did?
And with that, I'm really gone.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
LadyDove:
What book are you reading?
My first impression of your question was in terms of order and chaos in the laws of physics, not laws of man.
God, if he, she, or it exists, can bypass the laws of physics. It seems to me that this is a chaotic possibility that does not exist in a universe whose only governing agent is the laws of physics themselves. Therefore atheism operates under a sense of complete order, while deism/theism involves the possibility of chaos, provided God is willing to provide it. Isn't that why you pray for miracles?
As far as the laws of man are concerned: Whether they are codified by religion or society, atheists assume that laws are the result of human experience. This is summed up nicely in the "Golden Rule" Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you. That is, behave based on experiences you've had, in order to maximize the experiences you'd like to have. It's a simple equation, even if it doesn't "set the rules in stone" like the ten commandments. Since human experiences tend to be similar, we codify laws that are similar.
Rather than harping on "Leading from your conclusion," I'd just point out that from the atheistic perpsective, the world exists as it is without the presence of a god. There are rules, laws, morals and religions, and they all exist, despite the non-existence of god. So while theists/deists may have a correlation between chaos and order based on their personal religious beliefs, atheism is not correlated to a preference in either direction.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
LD,
I'd post longer, but "brevity is the soul" of something I ain't got - that gets in the way. I like reading your words and thoughts. They have some "life" behind them.
If there's something I could ponder that you'd like to hear me struggle with, I'd gladly do it.
fallow
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Humans are not born with an innate sense of right and wrong. We are born with an innate drive toward keeping ourselves alive long enough to procreate as much as possible.
The impulse to do good or partly stems from that drive as it intersects with the same interests in other people, but mostly morality is a cultural artifact, something learned, a memetic complex acquired by our brains at an early age (if we're lucky!) and then propagated into the minds of our childred (ditto) and often people we spend a lot of time with.
So where did this cultural artifact get its start? In the social rules that gradually evolved as groups of people spent more time together in tribes and then cities; these social rules were so inextricably bound up in the development of religion that it wouldn't be too far from the truth to say that, in effect, morality derives from religious belief.
None of this means that morality has to continue being strictly religious in nature, but to deny its origins is folly. As an atheist, I understand that the moral framework I live by is fraught and fretted through and through with theistic and spiritual assumptions that I don't necessarily share. But I would much rather shape pre-existing morals into something workable for my life than throw them out the window and try to reinvent the wheel.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)