Consensus

Just some thoughts percolating, vaguely tied to the Anarchy post from a few days back, and inspired by this older post referenced in today's post over at Daylight Atheism.

The title is "No Commandments." For some reason, this makes me flash on Terminator 2. "No Fate." More specifically, "No Fate but what we make." I object on principle to the idea of any rule that we must follow because of who made it. Most specifically, even if it were possible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a creator god had laid down a certain rule, that, in itself, is not sufficient reason to follow that rule. Ever. If it is a rule that seems to be "good" and makes sense to you, then follow it. If it is not, then break it. The source of the rule is nearly always irrelevant. It would be relevant if the source were an expert on some matter directly related to the rule: floods and weathermen; contaminated food supply and biochemists; etc.

Theists say that abandoning the inflexible approach of religious dogma risks a headlong plunge into the swamp of moral relativism. But the reality is that a consistent, objective secular morality can easily be constructed from just a few basic principles. If anything, I would venture that atheists are, for the most part, more in agreement with each other than theists are. While religious groups are forever arguing about what God's will is and how to interpret ancient books that are self-contradictory to begin with, we are broadly united by a commitment to justice, happiness, and human welfare.

Arguing about "God's will" does not put food in a child's mouth or bring a murder victim back from the dead. It serves no purpose but to delay, divide and distract. It also often serves as an excuse to do nothing. It's the same old rule-based-paranoia: if we alleviate the consequences, no one will obey the rule! Oh, the horror! Without hell, how can we make people obey the "rules" that get them to heaven?

Sorry, but if you're stuck on the "rules," you've missed the point entirely. It's not about rules. In taiji, there are principles of bodily movement that we follow. There are reasons for each of them, yet all of them are violated here and there in the forms, but with good reason. They are not absolutes, nor are they meant to be. Worse, following them absolutely results in a horribly stiff, unnatural form. We always start beginners with "the squared off form," meaning that it is stiff and unflexible. Then as they improve, we start working on "rounding off the corners" so that the movements flow more naturally. Absolute rules and commandments are for children and beginners who don't yet have the skills to work out how to apply them as needed.

But the most important part of these principles is not the principles themselves. It's what they can teach you. Absolute obedience teaches nothing.