(March 10, 2015 at 10:53 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 10:41 am)Cato Wrote: Existential nihilism most certainly.
Ethical nihilism certainly not.

The problem you typically have in this discussion is someone either conflating the two or insisting that ethical nihilism necessarily follows from existential nihilism.

Can you explain why ethical nihilism does not necessarily follow?

Despite our assured demise, whether speaking of ourselves, our species, our planet or the universe eventually coming to a grinding halt, we have always created moral systems. If ethical nihilism necessarily followed, the ensuing free for all would have consumed our species long before your religion was created. Another demonstration is to notice that anyone that truly practiced ethical nihilism quickly winds up in jail or dead.

Quote: Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

No, it does not.

Theists like to think their morality comes from gods. They aren't used to trying to justify it logically. They can't think how that would work.

So they assume that, without gods, they would be without morality.

But the fact is that they would, usually, have pretty much the same morality without god as with god. There's a saying, something like, "In the metaphysical supermarket, most people select their morality before their religion."

"God said so," is hardly a moral foundation. Some theists assume that atheists have no foundation for morality, but anything would be as good as "God said so." We can always justify our morality at least as well as they justify theirs.

We have the same moral impulses they do. And our attempts to systematize and justify those impulses don't have to include blindly following orders like a guard in a Nazi extermination camp.

When William Lane Craig says that he doesn't know of any reason not to rape, aside from the fact that his god says not to, that puts him just a hair's breadth from nihilism. What will he do when he realizes there is no reason to obey his imaginary eccentric?

(March 10, 2015 at 11:44 am)wiploc Wrote:

Quote: Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

No, it does not.

That does not seem like a defensible position. Can you explain where anything could get intrinsic meaning, value or purpose if there is no god?

---

In the excerpt below from the article I mentioned in the OP, WLC discusses the "noble lie". I would like to hear if this analysis is wrong and if so, why.

Quote:In a remarkable address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in 1991, Dr. L. D. Rue, confronted with the predicament of modern man, boldly advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some "Noble Lie" into thinking that we and the universe still have value.11 Claiming that "The lesson of the past two centuries is that intellectual and moral relativism is profoundly the case," Dr. Rue muses that the consequence of such a realization is that one's quest for personal wholeness (or self-fulillment) and the quest for social coherence become independent from one another. This is because on the view of relativism the search for self-fulfillment becomes radically privatized: each person chooses his own set of values and meaning. If we are to avoid "the madhouse option," where self-fulfillment is pursued regardless of social coherence, and "the totalitarian option," where social coherence is imposed at the expense of personal wholeness, then we have no choice but to embrace some Noble Lie that will inspire us to live beyond selfish interests and so achieve social coherence. A Noble Lie "is one that deceives us, tricks us, compels us beyond self-interest, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, [and] race." It is a lie, because it tells us that the universe is infused with value (which is a great fiction), because it makes a claim to universal truth (when there is none), and because it tells me not to live for self-interest (which is evidently false). "But without such lies, we cannot live."

This is the dreadful verdict pronounced over modern man. In order to survive, he must live in self-deception. But even the Noble Lie option is in the end unworkable. In order to be happy, one must believe in objective meaning, value, and purpose. But how can one believe in those Noble Lies while at the same time believing in atheism and relativism? The more convinced you are of the necessity of a Noble Lie, the less you are able to believe in it. Like a placebo, a Noble Lie works only on those who believe it is the truth. Once we have seen through the fiction, then the Lie has lost its power over us. Thus, ironically, the Noble Lie cannot solve the human predicament for anyone who has come to see that predicament.

The Noble Lie option therefore leads at best to a society in which an elitist group of illuminati deceive the masses for their own good by perpetuating the Noble Lie. But then why should those of us who are enlightened follow the masses in their deception? Why should we sacrifice self-interest for a fiction? If the great lesson of the past two centuries is moral and intellectual relativism, then why (if we could) pretend that we do not know this truth and live a lie instead? If one answers, "for the sake of social coherence," one may legitimately ask why I should sacrifice my self-interest for the sake of social coherence? The only answer the relativist can give is that social coherence is in my self-interest—but the problem with this answer is that self-interest and the interest of the herd do not always coincide. Besides, if (out of self-interest) I do care about social coherence, the totalitarian option is always open to me: forget the Noble Lie and maintain social coherence (as well as my self-fulfillment) at the expense of the personal wholeness of the masses. Rue would undoubtedly regard such an option as repugnant. But therein lies the rub. Rue's dilemma is that he obviously values deeply both social coherence and personal wholeness for their own sakes; in other words, they are objective values, which according to his philosophy do not exist. He has already leapt to the upper story. The Noble Lie option thus affirms what it denies and so refutes itself.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absur...z3TzyUGzAm

And I'm wondering why nihilism is bad. Do you think your minuscule insignificant life cells have any special meaning in the universe?

We can have a serious and thoughtful discussion about nihilism and the necessity/lack thereof of nihilism in atheism (and we have before), but for the love of god leave WLC out of this. His grotesquely dishonest way of talking about atheism and atheists will only shift the focus of the discussion.

(March 10, 2015 at 11:12 am)Cato Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 10:53 am)SteveII Wrote: Can you explain why ethical nihilism does not necessarily follow?

Despite our assured demise, whether speaking of ourselves, our species, our planet or the universe eventually coming to a grinding halt, we have always created moral systems. If ethical nihilism necessarily followed, the ensuing free for all would have consumed our species long before your religion was created. Another demonstration is to notice that anyone that truly practiced ethical nihilism quickly winds up in jail or dead.

Are you saying there is some basis for a system of objective morality not discovered through logic or philosophy?

(March 10, 2015 at 12:02 pm)SteveII Wrote: Can you explain where anything could get intrinsic meaning, value or purpose if there is no god?

People get those values from within, of course, meaning that those qualities are inherently subjective and not intrinsic.

Yes, that includes believers in deities.

(March 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 11:12 am)Cato Wrote: Despite our assured demise, whether speaking of ourselves, our species, our planet or the universe eventually coming to a grinding halt, we have always created moral systems. If ethical nihilism necessarily followed, the ensuing free for all would have consumed our species long before your religion was created. Another demonstration is to notice that anyone that truly practiced ethical nihilism quickly winds up in jail or dead.

Are you saying there is some basis for a system of objective morality not discovered through logic or philosophy?

Are you saying there is any basis for objective morality discovered anywhere?

(March 10, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 12:02 pm)SteveII Wrote: Can you explain where anything could get intrinsic meaning, value or purpose if there is no god?

People get those values from within, of course, meaning that those qualities are inherently subjective and not intrinsic.

Yes, that includes believers in deities.

So, there is no intrinsic meaning, value or purpose to anything? We have to make it up? So...the "noble lie"?

(March 10, 2015 at 12:26 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: People get those values from within, of course, meaning that those qualities are inherently subjective and not intrinsic.

Yes, that includes believers in deities.

So, there is no intrinsic meaning, value or purpose to anything? We have to make it up? So...the "noble lie"?

There is no lie.
It's only a lie if you deny how you obtained your ethics.