Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[SteveII]

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma because there is a third option. When you are talking about the nature of God you are talking about his essential properties (the greatest conceivable being). God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for good.

You might notice that I tweaked the wording a little to specifically refer to god's nature, because when you appeal to god's nature you aren't actually answering the Euthyphro Dilemma at all, nor are you introducing a third option; you're just pushing the problem back one level.

Why is god's nature good? Is it good because god has deemed his nature to be so? Or is it good because it is a nature that conforms to some external notion of goodness?

Weird that I have to repeat myself like that. For that matter, how did you determine that god was good? If you're just going off of god saying that he's good, or that god gives you the understanding that he's good, then your reasoning is entirely circular.

God's nature is The Good (as the greatest conceivable being) and those properties simply determine what goodness is. So if God = The Good, to restate the dilemma would “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It does not make sense to ask this further--to keep pushing it back.

[robvalue]

Except god's nature is shit. You can read all about it.

[FatAndFaithless]

God's nature is The Good

How did you come to use that conclusion-in-need-of-justification as a premise?

[robvalue]

If god's nature is "The good" then "The good" is "Evil violent sadistic genocidal tyrant behaviour".

You can't get round the fact he's a monster by redefining good as something else. I understand the need to try and pretend he is something other than what he is described as.

[The Grand Nudger]

-ah, but it sounds like you can..provided you don't give it -too- much thought.

The question only becomes "Is it sensible to define what it is/does as -the good-?, or , conversely is -the good- to be assigned a positive value judgement?" -In either case my conclusion is (still, after this language scrubbing) no, of course. If it is -the good- to either engage in the acts attributed to your god, or to be responsible, ultimately, for all that we see in the world - then I'm not interested in the good, I don't positively value it (and as positioning that probably sounds, again it's all about how it sounds, like it would be a convenient position to place an opposing viewpoint in...but it's all window dressing, you and I both still know exactly what we're talking about even if a casual observer is asking themselves "wtf did rhythm just say...he's not interested in -the good-?").

I'd use different language (and in this case am simply going with what you give me), but it doesn't matter, because we use different words for the same concepts all the time (most notably in that we speak many languages). It's the same question, different language. That's the trouble, Steve - in that it's just as easy to ask the question again by changing a few words as it is to avoid the question by changing a few words. The question itself remains, no matter how many layers of obfuscation either of us chooses to add, and constantly positioning ourselves so that what we say sounds better doesn't actually address the issue. Essentially, we're giving a turd a few layers of gelcoat. It may be shinier afterwards, but it's still a turd-and obviously so.

[SteveII]

You need to add some pants to this "in the image of God" idea. Best we can tell, we're material beings from top to bottom. If you want to introduce something like a soul, you need to defend that assertion.

Rasetsu--I was looking for non-religious articles.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bio...e-says-yes

Additionally, I read somewhere about a neurosurgeon stimulating a conscious patient to move a hand or some other action. The patient responded " I didn't do that or I didn't make that sound". There is no place in the brain where you can stimulate a person to decide to do something.

---

I'm happy for people to give me opinions, and I will take them under consideration.

I decide my own morality, and I'm very happy with it.

It's almost as if Steve just crawled out from under a rock and discovered civilization yesterday. Has he not considered that moral philosophy has been an engagement of thoughtful minds for at least 2,400 years, none of which has depended on his or anyone's conception of God? Does it really pass him by unnoticed that we can talk about the good in the same way as deity yet to a far greater advantage, as in being intelligible, when we drop the silly metaphysics? It's funny how the things they make sacred never have any remote bearing on real-world events when the entire basis of sanctity as a conception lies in our experiences.

Far greater advantage?? So subjective morality is superior to objective morality--even though we all pretend that there is objective morality?

---

God, being the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good.

The bible contradicts that statement. Regardless, why would a god differentiate between good and bad? What would it's baseline be? If god is "necessarily good", then would not all things be good, including Satan, evil, death, suffering, etc.?

Free will

---

-ah, but it sounds like you can..provided you don't give it -too- much thought.

The question only becomes "Is it sensible to define what it is/does as -the good-?, or , conversely is -the good- to be assigned a positive value judgement?" -In either case my conclusion is (still, after this language scrubbing) no, of course. If it is -the good- to either engage in the acts attributed to your god, or to be responsible, ultimately, for all that we see in the world - then I'm not interested in the good, I don't positively value it (and as positioning that probably sounds, again it's all about how it sounds, like it would be a convenient position to place an opposing viewpoint in...but it's all window dressing, you and I both still know exactly what we're talking about even if a casual observer is asking themselves "wtf did rhythm just say...he's not interested in -the good-?").

I'd use different language (and in this case am simply going with what you give me), but it doesn't matter, because we use different words for the same concepts all the time (most notably in that we speak many languages). It's the same question, different language. That's the trouble, Steve - in that it's just as easy to ask the question again by changing a few words as it is to avoid the question by changing a few words. The question itself remains, no matter how many layers of obfuscation either of us chooses to add, and constantly positioning ourselves so that what we say sounds better doesn't actually address the issue. Essentially, we're giving a turd a few layers of gelcoat. It may be shinier afterwards, but it's still a turd-and obviously so.

I understand your point.

If you really want to read a thoughtful discussion on this, try the podcast transcript: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/did-god-c...-testament

Regarding what people do to each other..that is the consequence of free will.

---

God's nature is The Good

How did you come to use that conclusion-in-need-of-justification as a premise?

If God exists, he would be the greatest conceivable being. It is far greater to have in his nature the definition of good than to dream up a subjective morality for humans.

[wiploc]

[quote='Esquilax' pid='897735' dateline='1426267481']
God's nature is The Good (as the greatest conceivable being) and those properties simply determine what goodness is. So if God = The Good, to restate the dilemma would “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It does not make sense to ask this further--to keep pushing it back.

Police: "How did you get in here? Did you come in the door or the window?"

Best of all possible burglars: "No, neither is true. I'm here because it's my character. It doesn't make sense to ask this further, to keep pushing back.

[FatAndFaithless]

If God exists, he would be the greatest conceivable being. It is far greater to have in his nature the definition of good than to dream up a subjective morality for humans.

That doesn't make any sense. How is being the most powerful conceivable being = good?

[Esquilax]

God's nature is The Good (as the greatest conceivable being) and those properties simply determine what goodness is. So if God = The Good, to restate the dilemma would “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It does not make sense to ask this further--to keep pushing it back.

So, first of all, nuh uh. Not gonna happen. I'm not going to let you get away with ending your argument by just defining god to be good by fiat assertion, that's an absolutely lazy, bullshit excuse for an argument and I'm not having it. You can't just say "god is good because god is good and that's that," that's a tautology, a circular argument that I can't believe you would actually think someone would take seriously. The question: is "The Good" good because god says it is, or because it conforms to a prior notion of goodness? is still one that requires answering, and if you don't want to answer it, if you seriously want to hitch your wagon to the utterly insulting circular argument you've made here, then my morals are objective because they are objective, and it doesn't make sense to ask further questions. That gets us nowhere, Steve, and the sad thing is that you started us down this path because simple, reasonable answers weren't enough for you.

But then, the double standard is also on full display here now too, I've noticed. See, when we make recourse to axioms- please note that I never did, I was able to provide an actual decent reason for the basis of my morality that didn't rest on an axiomatic statement... that you then dismissed outright for no reason- you say that's not good enough, not objective enough in comparison with your god. But when you're pushed into a corner regarding your god, you respond with a fucking axiomatic statement. So it's okay when you do it, but not when we do it?

This is the problem, the huge glaring flaw at the heart of what you're doing here: you're privileging your own position for no good goddamn reason, and dismissing whatever else we say because it doesn't match up to the undemonstrated, largely imagined authority you've imbued into your argument. You don't have any evidence that what you're saying is true, you don't even have any better justification, as you've just demonstrated by relying on a circular, fiat axiom as your ultimate answer, but because you've decided that your god answer gets this special, mystical authority that nobody else can have, therefore it's superior. Well, until you stop assuming your answer is better because magic, nobody else has to take that seriously. You don't just get to invent this special "The Good," as a catch all panacea for the obvious problems in your argument and then stop talking.

[Steve Wilson]

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.

Ethical nihilism, if established, may serve to stop the slide into nihilism proper but it does so only by radically downgrading what most people understand their moral perceptions to be about. I don't know of many who would consider that raping a baby was merely a morally neutral unsocial act. In fact I would say most people would react in horror to such an amoral view of a gross immoral act against an innocent human being. Though it is true that raping a baby is very bad for the baby, the parents and for society, to assert as Ethical nihilism does, that morality is only about judging what detracts or contributes to the flourishing of society is woefully inadequate. Ethical nihilism fails because it does not comport with the reality of our perception of moral values. If anything it wants to tell us we are all deluded.