UKC

Having read this wee ditty by Will Self...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28705174

...I was wondering how secular people here abouts define there "values" and codes of practice for living?

One way I suppose is to align yourself with one of those branches of philisopical thinking, all those "isms" but from the little wiki descriptions I've read, most of the famous ones seem all a bit too unpragmatic to be very useful in navigating lifes daily trials. I mean, nihilism is all very well as an idea but if you kill a policeman just because he inconveninced you while you were speeding to work in the car your day isn't going to go well, is it?

So, without a God, what's your guide for getting through the day and coming to terms with your eventual colapse back to cosmic dust?

Personaly, I've got one of those meanless cobbled together belief systems with not foundation what-so-ever that Will describes. I was wondering if anyone has found a better secular alternative I could adopt.

Scientologists need not reply.

In reply to JLS:



Er, no it isn't, it's silly teenage posturing.

In reply to JLS: Is this one of those 'how can expect to be a moral person without the moral teachings of the [insert holy book]' threads?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I hope not. I'm not into holy books.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

>"it's silly teenage posturing"

Really, no more to it than that?

In reply to JLS:

I'd class myself as one, based on the Wiki definition at least.

And no, I'm not teenage, or posturing, maybe a bit silly at times though.

In reply to JLS:

Law, the norms of society (some of which are influenced by religious sensibilities), human empathy, safety, common sense

pretty much the same stuff that went into setting the religious values etc, but minus the holier than thou attitude

In reply to JLS:

Have you tried common sense? It's due for a revival.

Martin

In reply to JLS:


Here you are, as told by Stephen Fry (who explains it much better than I could).

youtube.com/watch?v=Tvz0mmF6NW4&

(By the way, no-one is a nihilist, it's a strawman position, which is why the article you link to discusses it in terms of a fictional character.)

In reply to maisie:



In its most practiced form, it is highly overrated .

In reply to maisie:

Like.

In reply to The New NickB:


That's a frivolous opinion.

Martin

In reply to maisie:



No it isn't. Common sense is generally a collection of prejudices, superstition and ignorance.

In reply to The New NickB:

You forgot smugness and reactionary nostalgia.

In reply to JLS:

Well, I feel bad when I'm aware of someone suffering, worse when it's someone closer to me, or more severe suffering, or longer lasting.

I feel especially bad when I've caused this suffering, or missed a good chance to reduce it.


I feel good when I see someone happy; more so when it's someone closer to me, greater happiness, or something lasting.

I feel especially good when I've caused this happiness, or created a chance for it to happen.


I also value the truth, as knowing how things are and how they work makes it easier for people to better their position.


Most of it comes from that, really.

I appreciate this doesn't work so well for with people who don't care about others, but they're a minority; I suppose the rest of us have to try to persuade them that there's more benefit in cooperation than in conflict, and make sure there are sanctions for unacceptable behaviour.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Nothing there I'd argue against but it is a bit thin on how you might go about finding anything meaningful to you. I love climbing but I can't help thinking it's just filling in the time... It would be nice to feel like there was more. I accept the possiblity there isn't anything else.

In reply to JLS:


Missed this bit.

I deal with that by not viewing it as negative.

It's inevitable, so pretty much irrelevant. I'm just trying to enjoy myself and savour experiences while I can, and see no reason why there needs to be some underlying 'point', or 'purpose'.

In reply to skog:

Like.

In reply to JLS:




Ex nihilismo nihil fit.

In reply to JLS:


Isn't it rather hubristic and egocentric for anyone to think that there is "more" in the sense of them and their life actually "mattering" in more than the sense of mattering to themselves, their friends and their family?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Famously repeated by King Lear (in first scene, at the story-inducing incident), except he says, prophetically, 'nothing shall come of nothing'. The central theme of the whole play (apart from hubris and blindness of all kinds) is perhaps the dangers of nothingness and negativity. Nietzsche takes the idea further with his terrifyingly true aphorism: 'Man would rather will nothingness than will nothing.'

In reply to JLS:

It is rather expected that people would like to "feel there was more".

I would argue that it was adaptive to attribute agency to natural phenomena we experienced in our everyday life. If you associated the sound of a breaking twig with a cave lion sneaking up on you you would have had a better chance of escaping.

Doesn´t mean that someone moves the sun or a weather god is responsible for wind.

In a way religion could be thought of collateral damage of this eveolutionary adaptive tendency to attribute agency. Doesn´t prove whether there is or isn´t a fundamental meaning in life, but can explain why we are looking for one regardless.

CB

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Perhaps it is, but isn't it ok to dream sometimes?

Is your work in science just paying the bills and without any meaning or are you hoping to add to the sum of human knowledge? Isn't that "something more" for you.

In reply to cb294:

>"In a way religion could be thought of collateral damage of this eveolutionary adaptive tendency to attribute agency."

Like.

In reply to JLS:


More?!! Goodness, what more do you want? Maybe what you actually need is less, so that your life is consumed with the struggle to stay alive and then it would feel more meaningful?

In reply to skog:

True. But humans are a weird bunch and seem to value animals more than humans in some cases. So this (Zoo shoots Giraffe and feeds it to Lions):

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/09/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe/

received very much more coverage than this: (Syrian conflict)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17258397

Clearly this is bonkers. In a world devoid of spiritual organisations, is there a mechanism for teaching that we should perhaps value each other a little more sometimes?

In reply to tlm:

Perhaps. Sport climbing does sometime feel like just the way I've found to add difficulty to an otherwise easy life.

In reply to JLS:


Something more than what? It is indeed meaningful and important to me and to other humans.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

>"It is indeed meaningful and important to me and to other humans."

So you are sorted, you've found something meaningful to hang your life around. What are we dumb asses to do?

In reply to JLS:


Follow your interests! Take an interest in the world, and then you'll find it interesting.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

>"Take an interest in the world, and then you'll find it interesting."

Meh.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Not if there *is* more.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


If.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

>"Not if there *is* more."

Right, that's it, you're barred!

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Well, it is certainly hubristic and egocentric to adopt the attitude that "there *must* be something more, it can't be the case that I just die and that's the end of me, because I'm too important for that".

In reply to ByEek:


Maybe - that's way beyond me!

I try to value everything I think might be able to value itself; this scales down for less intelligent or aware creatures (and, I suppose, therefore has to scale up if we encounter more intelligent or aware ones).

Optimistically, with better understanding of the world, we can afford better lives for everyone and reduce conflict. Pessimistically, there will always be conflict caused by misunderstanding and self-interest.

Note, though, that the examples you provide are -not- happening in a world devoid of spiritual organisations - such organisations certainly don't prevent these things.

In reply to JLS:


I've got my own philosophy on life, which has actually been very practical and helpful to me. It's a mixture of all sorts of bits and bobs and I often find echoes in other places, as though people are explaining the same ideas in their own way (in things like CBT, Buddhism and neurology). I must say that for me personally, it has been a life changing thing, and when I first thought of it, I was very evangelical about it (as old folk on here will know!) as I wanted everyone else to have the benefits that I had gained!

But now I think that people don't always want to know and besides, I've got more used to it... but I still always want to spread my own philosophy to those I love if I see them unhappy.... It has made my life much more joyous and I haven't felt that black, heavy, emptiness of a lead weight inside since I started thinking this way (about 10 years or so now) for which I will be eternally grateful!

In reply to JLS:



Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a good, general maxim and none the worse for having been used by many religions.

Or if you prefer: "Be excellent to each other"

In reply to DaveHK:


This can fall down quite badly, due people enjoying and wanting different things, and to it often being quite hard to tell. Though it probably works quite well on the most serious matters.


That one's better!

In reply to skog:

Also when people don't reciprocate it fails.

In reply to skog:


True. It's not perfect but it's a good starting point especially if you take it to mean that you should not do anything to others that they would see as negative.

In reply to MG:


It depends how badly they 'don't reciprocate'!

Helping someone selfish, but mostly harmless, still feels good to me - it isn't a zero sum game.

I'm not inclined to go too far out of my way to help such people, though!

In reply to JLS:

What is meaningful to you is individual to you. You say the video is thin on the ground about finding meaning but to me it is the very essence of it. Your very existence is your meaning, your thoughts are your meaning and any meaning you find beyond that will be a reflection of those two.

But as to values my values are a product of my experience, I have lifted them from various philosophies, friends and life experiences and forged them into system for living that gives me guidance and support.

In reply to MG:


only if you expect them to reciprocate. A good deed is its own reward

In reply to JLS:

Morality is a relatively recent feature of "spiritual organisations" and it is likely that morality predates any of these organisations. It seems to have emerged out of the rules that governed early hunter-gatherer societies, based on the needs of living together. It is not even uniquely human and in simpler forms also appears among groups of chimpanzees.

These were some of the ideas that came out during a talk I attended at the Edinburgh Book Festival last week by Matthew Kneale, author of a book called An Atheist's History of Belief. Seems sensible to me.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes. But I don't know anyone who adopts this attitude. Still, don't let facts spoil your fun. By all means blaze away at straw men if it pleases you.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Oh come on, the attitude "there must be something more than this" is very common.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I agree but its more often born of fear and hope than egocentrism like you suggested.

https://members.scouts.org.uk/supportresources/959/the-scout-law
In reply to JLS:

These days Scouts don't insist on religion.

The Scout law may be a basis for doing the rigbt things

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Do you know *everybody*? And bearing in mind the openness of your views, are you certain that anyone would admit such attitudes to you? Ironic that you'd speak in terms of facts when considering people's attitudes to our position in the wrinkly firmament.

Martin

(FWIW, I don't think for one moment that your god exists, but whilst my science can explain pretty much everything attributed to him/her/it/other, it can't refute his/her/its/whatever's existence. Which doesn't bother me at all)

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Mere assertion, no evidence.

In reply to JLS:

Pragmatism. I'm here, I've got choices, what are the pros and cons of each one?


Just as Steven Fry says, if you want meaning in your life, do something you believe in. Family, work, art, sport, whatever you think is worth doing. Meaning isn't something that exists out there - a search for that kind of meaning is going to be disappointing.

If you want a religious experience, a sense of awe at the universe, then find out about the unbelievable stuff that the world is made of. Find out about the complexity of a single living cell, or about the way that the very fabric of space and time is bent leading to the stars and galaxies in the sky.

Human beings have evolved to need this sense of 'meaning' amongst a whole host of emotional needs. If you find yourself living with no family, no friends, no meaningful work, and nothing urgent like running away from a lion to occupy you, then it's likely that you won't feel well. So I would advise understanding these needs and making sure that they're met. Looking out into the world in search of some externally provided meaning is either going to lead in disappointment, or falling into the religious trap.

In reply to JLS:



Whenever life get's you down Mr S...


youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk&

In reply to Tim Chappell:


My RE teacher had that attitude.

In reply to JLS:


Sybil Fawlty: You seem very jolly, Basil.

Basil Fawlty: Hm?

Sybil Fawlty: You seem very jolly.

Basil Fawlty: Jolly?

Sybil Fawlty: Yes, jolly. Sort of happy.

Basil Fawlty: [with feigned reminiscence] Oh, happy. Yes, I remember that. No, not that I noticed, dear. Well, I'll report it if it happens, though.

Sybil Fawlty: Well, you look happy to me, Basil.

Basil Fawlty: No, I'm not, dear.

Sybil Fawlty: All that dancing about, singing and rubbing your hands.

Basil Fawlty: No, just my way of getting through the day, dear. The, uh, Samaritans were engaged.

In reply to JLS:



Take inspiration from Sommersby (The Return of Martin Guerre).

When facing death, you want better company than a hangman, or even a priest; you want someone who believes in you. Belief implies respect, love and acceptance. This is the same regardless of wealth, religous belief or fame. None of these will help you as will the company of just one person who really believes in you.

Now work backwards, remembering that any day could be your last. Do what you must to make your own existence credible to yourself and everyone else - your family, friends and neighbors. And remember that we now live in a global village.

PS. Try not to finsih life by getting hung

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Wow. Pots and kettles. How about some evidence to back up your "not if there is more" conjecture. Without evidence statements like this are meaningless.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


I meant fails in the sense that you get done over. For example you stop to help someone who is hurt and they take the opportunity to steal your wallet.

In reply to JLS:

The idea that morality derives from god leads to a conclusion that most believers wouldn't agree with.

-All morality derives from god.
-Therefore god is the sole arbiter of what is "good" and what is "evil". The statement "This is good." could be replaced with the statement "This is what god wants.".
-So to say "God is good." becomes no more than saying "God is what god wants." God becomes the arbiter of his (sorry about the male pronoun) own morality. Reductio ad absurdum.

You can replace "god" with any purported sole arbiter of moral authority (the church, government, Tony Blair etc.) with the same result and for the same reason. All fail to cope with self referential statements. There can be no sole arbiter of moral authority, and personally, as an atheist, I find it mildly offensive when religious people ask me how I can be a "good" person if I don't believe in god. A person I know once asked me that then told me that if he didn't believe, he'd probably go and kill "some f**£er". I think that said more about him than about me.

In reply to MG:

Ah but you didn't say that originally.
Still I take the point. I take the view that my default position is to help if I can but help should always be tempered by a good assessment of the situation so helping up an old lady who has fallen is relatively low risk (unless you put your back out) while helping up a drunk on a Saturday night might entail some measure of risk and should be undertaken with that risk in mind. In the help stakes I am the priority helpfulness is not weakness and doesnot leave you any more exposed than you let it.
Of course there are things that you don't see coming but that is the same for anything

In reply to MG:


Yes but the question was about what code of morality you use. The moral standards of others are irrelevant to that.