Moral Nihilism

[Sam]

Yes, I hoped I didn’t need to spell out everything. Are there any non-evolutionists on this forum?

Regardless of whether there are any “non-evolutionists” on the forum, your generalising that all atheists accept evolution and using that fallacy in an argument against atheism. So yes you would need to be very specific about that in order for your argument to have any bearing.

Really? Don’t evolutionists pride themselves on the thoroughly naturalistic mechanisms of the evolutionary process? To quote palaeontologist and evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson: “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” I’d say that’s a pretty good foundation. I’m surprised you’re contesting it.

I don’t think it’s correct to say that evolutionists “pride” themselves on any part of theory, they accept that it is correct and base their opinions off it. The fact that the forces behind the process are natural is key. It is correct to say that our existence is the result of a purposeless process and that for all account we are a random occurrence but this objective lack of purpose is not complete, something which came about by ‘accident’ if you will, can still have it own purpose (a subjective purpose) specific to the situation. In essence I contested what you said because I believe it is inaccurate, yes the force is self is purposeless it simply exists, but by bringing about life etc … it has a purpose to us.

I’m not stating what our purpose is, I’m merely stating that on naturalistic evolutionary grounds, and by inference on atheistic grounds, our life has no purpose. We’re random colonies of bacteria, without purpose, meaning, design, or dignity. Some atheists will readily admit this, why won’t you?

“This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”[/color]

- Richard Dawkins, River Out Of Eden

Do you care to correct Prof. Dawkins? He’s sounding pretty nihilistic there . . .

Yes, okay We are an occurrence of chance in the universe, we don’t have design but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have no meaning on a global societal level, On a universal timescale we are a mere flash in the pan probably unnoticed but we are not concerned with that kind of spatial or temporal scale in our day to day lives we exist in a (relatively) small global scale for a number of years and it is therein that we find our purpose not by trying to elevate ourselves to something grander by naming ourselves the favoured children of some intangible deity.

As for that quote, I think Adrian already pointed out that you have taken in slightly out of context but the same points apply the universe has no consciousness so of course it doesn’t care what happens to anything but there is no need to infer that we therefore should not care either.

I think you need to read up on some of the standard literature:

Please don’t patronise me Charles … I’ve been reading books about religion, secularism, atheism and so on for a good number of years but I have the presence of mind to take them all into consideration and come up with my own conclusion.

Earlier you chided me for not making explicit an implicit premise (re evolution), now I’m chided for making explicit and explicit premise. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t . . . oh . . . I probably shouldn’t use that phrase with atheists.

Your right, I should have respected that fact. I apologise.

Your moral values are merely personal or cultural preferences: X is praiseworthy because I like X. Why should I adopt your values? They cannot impose moral obligation on anyone who disagrees.

As an Atheist I argue that the authority for moral rules doesn’t come from God, my opinion is that the authority for moral rules comes from each member of a society. Each of us has a moral authority with respect to each other, of course that is not absolute. So this is a kind of moral claim making between the various members of a society in which we give each other the authority to act as moral adjudicators. This practice of reciprocal claim making allow us to develop sets of moral rules based on the principles of mutual accountability. If people refuse to heed these standards then they are restrained from carrying out their undesirable behaviours by the majority of society and they have no position to question this restraint as that would involve appealing the moral system which they flouted. (I should credit Elizabeth Anderson with some the key ideas here; she wrote a piece called If God is Dead Is everything permitted? Which I read some years ago and found to be very in line with my own thoughts on the matter)

Why? You’re a cosmic accident. A meat machine. A colony of bacteria. The universe didn’t design you to understand. It doesn’t care if you understand everything or understand nothing. And when you’re dead it still won’t care. Your life, Sam, is meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. These are the implications of your own evolutionary/atheistic presuppositions.

Again, of course the universe doesn’t care it’s not alive so how could it. I freely admit that I have no designer and that ultimately my life had no preordained purpose but here … in this life (my only life) the pursuit of understanding is key. The fact is this is the time I have available to me, and I plan to spend it doing something meaningful to me I think regardless of a logical implication about my position in the universe that gives my life purpose & meaning.

The Bible contains my moral standard, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say my moral standard is skewed by it.

What I was trying to imply is that the Bible and it representation of God are a poor basis of moral authority, if you read its passages it is littered with instances where God commands the breaking of his own commandments, orders his followers to commit the most heinous of crimes over innocuous offences and on occasion fixes a victims fate by “Giving them hearts of stone” to ensure their suffering … if you’d like I can give you a list of such instances for you to have a look at? So in this sense the moral standard you posses as a member of our society is seriously skewed by your religious affiliations.

I’m not saying that at all. Religious people do not assign value, God does.

From God. He is the Lawgiver.

So does God command things because they are right? Or does it command them, and so they are right? In the first instance God is surplus to requirement as we already make that judgement for ourselves, the second instance is more worrying because the bible and thus God permits acts which are unspeakable in a law abiding society … in which case how do modern religions decide which of Gods law they are still going with and which to cast aside if as you say “God is the lawgiver”?

International law is arbitrated by compromise and treaty. Its not like the UN or the ICC appeals to innate ideas.

Exactly, the UN is a creation of a society based on reciprocal moral claims, where each of us is accountable to one another. The UN and ICC are able to pass laws which appeal to the moral conscience of our planet because they have our support which is attained by appeasing our innate sense of right and wrong.

God’s law is certainly a cross cultural moral standard. The Ten Commandments, for example, are binding on all people of every culture throughout history. It wasn’t intended merely for the Jews 3500 years ago.

Yes, but you can’t elevate your own commandments beyond your own religion and the people who accept it and your God. To a Wiccan or a Hindu for example your 10 commandments are meaningless – a profession of a faith they do not accept. Just because you believe we will be held accountable by an intangible parent figure at some point doesn’t mean you can deem your commandments to have any cross-cultural authority.

Good discussion, Sam, thanks.

You’re quite welcome; I look forward to continuing it.

Sam