Moral Nihilism

[Charles]

Sam wrote:

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.

Then we’ll exclude the 5% or 10% or whatever percentage you think is reasonable of those atheists who aren’t also evolutionists. The premise is valid for the vast majority of atheists, and we both know 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.

Purposeless artifacts of a purposeless universe create their own purpose . . . uh huh.

But your answer doesn’t surprise. The self craves purpose, meaning, worth, dignity, etc. and since naturalistic evolution can’t supply these, then it invents them whole cloth in defiance of the “facts” of naturalistic evolution.

Sounds like an argument I hear sometimes from atheists against theism: ignoring the evidence, blind leap of faith, God of the gaps, and all that.

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,

It doesn’t? Since the universe is purposeless, any purpose would have to come from “outside” the universe (e.g. God), but you deny anything exists outside the universe (let’s not get on a multiverse tangent, or some similar nonsense), therefore it necessarily follows that we (who are a part of the universe) have no purpose.

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.

You cannot find that which does not exist. Stop kidding yourself, Sam, there is no purpose (operating on evolutionary/atheistic presuppositions) in your life or in the universe.

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.

It doesn’t matter one wit if you care about your life or if you don’t. You may feel that it does matter or it should, but all of your caring amounts to nothing in a meaningless universe.

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.

Sorry about that, I must have been getting a little cranky so late at night.

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)

So you’re advocating an individual or cultural relativist ethic, which by definition has no more moral gravitas than anyone else’s individual or cultural relativist ethic. So if another culture develops a set of moral rules that includes gassing the undesirable elements of society, that would be perfectly moral for them, correct?

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.

“Regardless of a logical implication about my position in the universe.” How is that any different from a theist saying he will live his life as if God existed regardless of all the evidence (you claim) to the contrary? The theist believes God exists, is accountable to him, and lives his life accordingly. You, an atheist, believe that you have no designer and thus no purpose, but live your life in discord to that belief. Where the rubber meets the road of living your life, who is consistent with his beliefs, and who is not? And what does that livable consistency/inconsistency say about the underlying belief system?

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 fully aware of the Bible’s teachings; its something required of seminarians. By what standard is my morality skewed? Yours? Your standard, by definition, is no more superior or inferior than mine.

So does God command things because they are right? Or does it command them, and so they are right?

Because they reflect his own nature. The Law is a transcription of God’s nature as adapted to finite, sinful agents.

In the first instance God is surplus to requirement as we already make that judgement for ourselves,

No, he is the source of determining what is moral and what is immoral. His nature is the ground for morality.

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”?

All of God’s law applies, since they are a reflection of his nature. Some were temporary in nature, and some were situation-bound, but this is a theological discussion.

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.

Humans do have an innate sense of right and wrong, but how that works out is a matter of great debate in institutions like the UN and ICC, since different nations and cultures draw different and sometimes contradictory inferences from it. Should women be allowed to vote? Should they be veiled? Is capital punishment acceptable? What tariffs are permissible? Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Is Abkhazia an independent nation-state? Etc. The UN bureaucrats don’t appeal to innate moral intuitions to resolve these disputes.

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.

My response was in answer to your statement that “theism certainly doesn't affirm any cross cultural moral standards.” Christianity certainly does affirm cross-cultural moral standards. Whether or not you or anyone else agrees with them is another matter, but we do affirm cross-cultural moral standards since our moral standards are culture-independent, unlike yours.

Unfortunately that is wrong on so many levels ... the Nazis leadership where the minority who pushed through these acts (hence the targetted nature of the Nuremberg Trials) it was accepted by the rest of the world (a vast majority) that in commiting these acts the Nazis has stepped outside the bounds of the moral system we genertaed over many years and they where rightly held to account in the system of moral arbitration that they where once part of but flounted.

The Germans who took part in the Final Solution were a minority within the state of Germany, yes, but so what? It was the National Socialists' culture and moral standard which dictated it was their duty to exterminate the Jews and anyone else they deemed Untermenschen. They had their culturally-derived morality, other cultures have theirs. It’s a curious (not to mention counterintuitive) ethic which determines The Good by counting noses, which is what you’re advocating.

It would be rich for an avowed Christian to hand out moral judgemnts on genocide, they happened in the bible, God is the 'lawgiver' through his bible ergo genocide is okay? Is that not correct?

Only when God directly commanded it in that specific moment in redemptive history. All other cases are unlawful. I know this response will not satisfy you, and there is much more that could be said, but even if I could answer all of your objections to your complete satisfaction I’d wager that you would still remain an atheist, meaning that this issue is a tangential attempt to cast aspersion on biblical ethics and distracts from our current discussion.

Again Charles, it is not inconsistent for an atheist to reject nihilism ... your argument is based around proponents of evolution.

Are you not an evolutionist? If so, premise 1. of my argument is valid in this discussion.

Proponents of evolution have every right to reject nihilism if that is not where their understanding leads them,

“Rights” are a construct of a non-nihilistic worldview, so to appeal to “rights” assumes that nihilism is false to begin with. A fine example of circular reasoning.

Moreover, by appealing to a subjective “understanding” instead of logical inferences, you open the door to me (or anyone else) having a “right” to reject anything whatsoever if my personal understanding so leads me. What postmodern nonsense.

we don't live in a 'fairyland' or need the 'universe to give a shit' as you put it, the fact is that we exist by an action of chance and we create meaning in our life by our pursuits and actions.

A quick trip over to dictionary.com gives us the following definition of “meaning”:

1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.

2. the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?

Note “intended” in def. 1. That is a mental act, which the universe is incapable of. Note the “end” and “purpose” in def. 2. Those are teleological terms, which are inapplicable to the universe. Since there is no intentionality, end, or purpose to life in general and yours in particular, it is childish to pretend that we can make these up ex nihilo. You may claim your life has meaning, but it is an empty claim, no matter how much you may wish it to be so. You may even claim you have a “right” to this claim because your “understanding leads” you there, but those too are meaningless.

Nihilism is a black hole from which no meaning can escape.

Whereas Christians and religious types in general can't accept their own finite mortality,

How do you know this? Have you interviewed all Christians and “religious types” on Earth, or are you extrapolating from the tiny portion you know to all people in those categories?

Not only do I accept my own finite mortality, I take comfort in it.

you are simply too dependant on God to provide you with a free pass to validation of your life.

Me personally, or all Christians and “religious types?” Since there is no meaning in an evolutionary/atheistic worldview (I hesitate to use that word in this instance, but I think you take my meaning), there is no validation of life to be had. But since there is meaning in a Christian worldview, it is entirely appropriate to find that validation in the one who supplies meaning to the universe: God.

Proponents of evolution and atheist in general accept that this is the life we have and aim to make the best of it,

A meaningless concept in a meaningless universe, but live your life to its hedonistic full if you think that will provide the meaning and purpose you don’t have but earnestly desire. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die . . .”

many religious people are happy to accept the teaching of their paticular church and stop their pursuit of truth at it. I personally consider it a great waste.

And many atheists are happy to accept the opinions of their peer-groups and stop their pursuit of truth with them. Do all atheists and “non-religious types” in general habitually resort to such fallacious generalizations?

I think we're reaching a stalemate now Charles, you seem unable to accept that we exist (in our minds) without a creator God

I’m able to accept it (I once did), I just reject it.

so regardless of the nature of the universe in that it is a purposeless entity and that the forces controlling it have nothing paticular in mind (how could they? they're no concious) we are here and that allows us to ordain our own purpose.

Let me see if I follow your argument:

1. The universe is a purposeless entity.
2. You are part of the universe.
3. Therefore you have no purpose.
4. But you are part of the universe (“we are here”).
5. Therefore you have purpose (as you so “ordain”).

Is this a reflection on the current English university system?

---

LukeMC wrote:

Charles, you seem to be mixing up atheism and scientific naturalism. While the two of them commonly occur together, they are not synonymous. You

Hi LukeMC. I am compressing the two, since they’re on friendly terms, and are somewhat symbiotic, but I realize that they are distinct.

You are defining an atheist as somebody who rejects all supernatural claims, as opposed to someone who merely rejects the god claim. An atheist could reject god but at the same time believe in a transcendent set of morals with no author which spontaneously began to exist at the dawn of the universe. However this is probably rare

Indeed. My focus is on the mainstream evolutionary atheist, while understanding there are outliers.

For those who deny all supernatural claims, all transcendent claims, etc, I will agree with you that moral nihilism follows. There is no set of objective morals, the universe does not care and in the grand scheme of things it does not matter if you kill babies for pleasure. I agree with you entirely. By no standards can this be seen as intrisically wrong.

Refreshingly consistent. I appreciate your honesty, as absurd as that is.

However, for the sake of passing on our genes, it is vitally important that we do not eat our community. Humans born with a tendency to eat their community would be killed by the people in self-defence, an age-old instinct. As such, killing in general becomes counter-productive on the level of the community. This isn't transcendental or magical, it is just how events unfold. There is no wisdom nor moral championship in this basic level of understanding. If people aren't killing each other, their genes will be more likely to pass on, so it follows that those who do try to kill people won't pass on their genes and this trait (if containing a genetic link) will die out.

As people become more self-aware and realise they won't be able to function if J Stalin across the the street goes around killing them, they decide to make a set of rules prohibiting people from killing one another. Still not trancendental, still merely a cross between instinct and selfish thinking. A desire for preservation is ingrained in us.

As feelings such as empathy develop and we recognise other people have the same feelings as us, we come to understand that subjecting them to things we find unpleasant is not productive. It makes them angry, resentful, less likely to help the community hence jeopardising the genepool. Still not trancendental.

Now we are at a time where we can debate which tribe or civilization has the most useful set of prohibition and ideals. We look at the quality of peoples' lives and the better the quality, the more likely they will reproduce and/or serve the community. However, our sense of empathy has grown so strong that we want people to avoid suffering sheerly because we don't like suffering. We want people to be happy because our sense of empathy tells us that happy is a pleasant feeling, and we want other people to feel this. These are the grounds for which we set up international laws.

I understand and agree that this narrative is plausible given evolutionary/atheistic premises. It’s all still completely meaningless and absurd.

The thing is, killing a baby is not useful, and our sense of empathy tells us not to do it. It isn't intrinsically wrong, because no such moral guideline exists. To construct a subjective set of morals doesn't remedy this either, because as you said Charles, things vary across cultures. However, some cultures have a far better standard of living than others. These cultures will thrive and probably have a monopoly over whatever the planet's subjective moral code will ultimately be. This doesn't make anything rhight or wrong, because such concepts still don't exist objectively. But subjectively speaking, the cultures which exhibit the greatest quality of life will tend to be the ones which are empathetic and value other human beings. Due to their empathy, they consider happiness to be a success of the society and by this standard they create their subjective set of morals.

Being a human being myself, I feel empathy towards others. I enjoy feeling happy and therefore would like other people to feel happy too, as I know how pleasant it is. I would prefer the culture with the most empathy- the culture which treats people the most equally, without senseless massacres- to be the culture which dominates the planet. Having a planet unanimously agreed on the subjective moral standards of this culture would not make any action right or wrong, and in the grand scheme of things it would be meaningless and we might aswell stab forks into each other, but on the scale of the society, on the scale of human beings who feel empathy, it means something to us to preserve and protect ourselves.

It doesn’t mean anything at all, whether in reference to us or to any other referent. There is no meaning. What we take to be meaning is simply a biochemical process in our brain. We feel the emotions of having/wanting/needing meaning and purpose, but there is no meaning and purpose to be had.

It follows logically that in the rejection of the supernatural, we reject the notion that any moral absolutes exist, but this does not mean to say we don't have an ingrained and progressive drive to be happy for our own sakes. This is why we don't kill.

Logic is meaningless.

Morality is meaningless.

Happiness is meaningless.

Killing is meaningless.

This forum is meaningless.

Detect the trend?

That too, is meaningless.

I apoligise sincerely for the length of this as I'm sure you've heard most of this before and found it all somewhat boring and inconsistent.

No apologies necessary. This post isn’t boring, its just absurd for you to try to convince me when you have affirmed that “For those who deny all supernatural claims, all transcendent claims, etc, I will agree with you that moral nihilism follows.”

What I was trying to do was show how you are correct in stating that moral nihilism follows from rejecting the supernatural, and that objectively human life has no value, but that nontheless it is consistent for naturalists to behave in particular ways of behaving sheerly because we value our own lives and have the capacity to empathise and assign value to the lives of others.

Value is meaningless.

Life is meaningless.

Valuing your life is meaningless.

Empathy is meaningless.

Sounding like a broken record is meaningless.

Emoticons are meaningless.

I might aswell kill people, but I naturally value my happiness and naturally empathise with others. These feelings aren't moral or immoral, they are natural and I cannot escape them. I will call them moral or immoral, but I know deep down I am being subjective and that ultimately they don't matter. This won't override the electrochemical reactions so heavily ingrained in my brain though. It is out of my control. (In the same way I can know that the scent of manure is neither "bad" nor "good" objectively, but this doesn't stop me from finding the experience unpleasant, as it is naturally within me to perceive things in such a way.)

I hope you understood my points and I'd be happy for you input. Thanks.

You state your position well LukeMC, but if you agree that atheism entails nihilism, you are living your life inconsistently with your own beliefs; which in turn entails that either you don’t take your atheism seriously or you don’t really believe it entails nihilism. A consistent nihilist wouldn’t bother trying to convince anyone that his view is correct, because that would be meaningless.

---

Padraic wrote:

BINGO!

The purpose of life is itself. Period. That's enough for me.That it isn't for you is fine with me.Your feelings needs and beliefs supported by a bit of tired apologist sophistry changes nothing.

You became tedious after a couple posts.Congratulations you've reached stultifying.

Yes, the discussion has moved beyond bumper sticker sloganeering. Run along and let the adults talk.