Moral Nihilism

[Tiberius]

Damn, there goes my theory that it takes a Christian to be a ruthless coldhearted wench and still be honored as a good person.

Hitchens apparently makes a good case for her being controlled by the Vatican almost against her will in his book "The Missionary Position". Why do you say she was a "ruthless coldhearted wench" though?

[leo-rcc]

She advocated suffering as cleansing, and did not allow family to visit sick people in her hospitals. What else would I call her?

[Tiberius]

Ah, well I didn't know anything about that.

[leo-rcc]

There are few people I have no respect for, and she is one of them.

"The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering"

According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ". Once she tried to comfort a screaming sufferer: "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!"

And to those that want to say that this is just atheist propaganda, plenty of Christians report the same thing about her and want to distance themselves as far as they can from her position.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think I also heard Stephen Fry on QI mention she was a bitch or something like that...or was that somewhere (and perhaps someone) else.

[Giff]

She was an atheist in the later part of her life, as was revealed in her personal letters when they were published:

Damn, there goes my theory that it takes a Christian to be a ruthless coldhearted wench and still be honored as a good person.

Bullshit with Penn and Teller had her as a topic on there program ones. It didn't seem like she were a specially nice person, it was quite the oppiste. More and twisted and sadistic person.

[Edwardo Piet]

I only learnt recently (like a week ago I think) that apparently GHANDI! Was a racist? is that right? I guess more people were those days tho.

[Giff]

I only learnt recently (like a week ago I think) that apparently GHANDI! Was a racist? is that right? I guess more people were those days tho.

He where racis, which we can tell by his letters, during his younger years in southafrica. He still had them when he went to India, but it seemed like later on that he started to be more tolerant towards africans, even though he used to say that there is a destinct diffrence between indians and africans.

How he felt during his later days can I not answer. But it would suprise me if he didn't change his opinion.

[Tiberius]

even though he used to say that there is a destinct diffrence between indians and africans.

Well there is a distinct difference. They both live in completely different continents.

</lols>

Ok I'll be serious now.

[Charles]

Tiberius said

Same thing isn't it? If morality is absurd for the atheist (as you assert) then how can an atheist possibly be moral? Morality exists in the world, we know this, we have people studying it. Absolute morality doesn't exist, and if you look at the past 50 years you will see how different countries have adapted to social change, and the morality we had back in the 60's is not the morality we have today. Biblical morality falls under the same rules; sure there are some good ones "Thou shalt not kill/steal" etc, but there are some rubbish ones like the ones involving adulterers (especially if you use the "lust is adultery of the heart") and homosexuals. Furthermore, the Bible advocates slavery, which thankfully today's society has classed as almost worse than murder.

The study of morality exists in the world, sure, but I am arguing that it is a futile study given atheist presuppositions. Without culturally-transcendant moral laws, the atheist has no ground to condemn the butchery of a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.

Atheists don't make the claim that Hitler's gas chambers have the same moral import as Mother Teresa's (she was a good atheist btw) charity work, and we shouldn't "ought to". In our society, the gas chambers are considered very morally wrong, and Mother Teresa's work morally right. However in Hitler's society the roles were reversed, he thought his gas chambers were very very good things. (I'm not sure how he would have felt about Mother Teresa though )

Yes, Hitler thought they were a good thing. I do not since murder is a violation of God's law. You do not because your cultural values tell you so? Change your culture, change your values, eh?

No they aren't, they are matters of nature. Our moral code is part of how we survive as a species, and even animals have a certain moral compass (although by all accounts it is probably instinctual). In order to survive as a species we have evolved a conscience that adapts to certain situations and helps form a society morality. If you really have to ask the question "Why should I care about other humans" then I suggest you think about what would happen if we all suddenly decided murder was ok. Chaos, that is what would happen. Are you honestly saying that without the Bible or without God you wouldn't be able to tell right from wrong in your society? That is a very scary prospect. Thank goodness I'm an atheist.

You're committing the is/ought falacy, if morality is simply a function of human nature. But beyond that, atheism entails not only moral nihilism, but ontological nihilism. So what if we all decided murder was okay? Life is meaningless, devoid of purpose, significance, or dignity. The universe doesn't care if all the homo sapiens kill each other, why should you or I?

Living a moral life is the only way society can function. We depend on society, and society asks only one thing of us: to uphold a certain moral code. People who don't live moral lives get sent to jail (removed from society) so that society can function.

Society is an absurd concept for the nihilist.

No, and I'm surprised that you would state "moral law" is absurd seeing as you are the one advocating it from the Bible.

Its only absurd for the nihilist, which atheism entails.

A moral law is any restriction we impose on society based on ethical grounds (i.e. do not murder). These laws are not set in stone, they can be changed or removed completely (as with the legalization of homosexuality in Britain a few decades ago). This also defines moral relativism, that any moral law can be viewed as immoral by another society, and indeed not enforced by that society if they so wish. For instance, in the UK it is a crime to stone adulterers, but in the Middle East this is seen as just and fair. The moral authority is whoever dictates the morals. In a dictatorship, this is usually the government, but in a democracy, it is usually the collective mind of the people.

So there are no irreducible moral truths for you, since they're all culturally-dependant? Then you cannot honestly condemn the mass-murders of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

No, no, no, no. This is all repetition so please read the above. There are no moral standards of the universe itself, but there are moral standards of societies and groups. To deny this obvious fact would be to be absurd. I suggest you read some of Daniel Dennett's work, a man who is an ethical philosopher and works on explaining such concepts.

And since all of our moral "standards" are culturally-dependant, cross-cultural moral criticism is verbotten. So again, the atheist cannot condemn the mass-murders of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

---

padraic wrote:

The atheist makes no claims of truth. He makes a simple assertion,nor more.

Is he making a true assertion, or a false one? Presumably he is putting forth a true assertion.

viz: "I do not believe" There in no burden of proof on the atheist.The burden is solely with the believer who asserts his beliefs to be true.The statement "'assuming atheism to be true" is without meaning; such an assumption may not be made.

When I say "assuming atheism to be true" I'm mounting an internal critique of atheism.

I have no idea, you'd need to ask them. I'm not really interested why,I'm interested in the "what"; What are the criticisms and are valid? Attempting to defend Christian immorality by judging the behaviour of atheists is Tu quoque ,yet another logical fallacy. (look it up) Also contained is the irrational implication that religion tends to make people moral,and the lack of religion makes people moral.

I never made such an implication.

I think you are conflating (1) "moral" with "altruistic",

No, I'm consciously avoiding such an error.

(2) persisting with the notion that the word "atheist" has connotations other than a lack of belief

Yes, I am persisting with that notion since that's my argument: that atheism entails moral (as well as ontological) nihilism.

(3) making an argument from personal incredulity:IE "It makes no sense to me,therefore it's wrong.

Indeed the argument does make sense to me, which is why I'm making it.

I mentioned my positions is based on egoism,a term with which you seem not to be familiar..In essence the argument is I'm moral because it's my best interest to be me moral and that human beings DO as a species ,generally act from self interest. Many atheists thinkers and philosophers use the common good as the basis of morality. One school is called "utilitarianism'.

Also worth looking at hedonism,stoicism epicureanism.

Thanks for the ethics lesson. I'm familiar.

That you are unable to see the point and insist that there must actually be a point is a personal belief to which you are entitled .My belief that there IS no point seems to freak out some theists, which concerns me not a jot or a tittle.

Then we are in agreement. There is no point. To ethics, life, the universe, and everything. So long and thanks for all the fish.

I left my last post as I had to go out.I was able to spend some time thinking about this.I guess I could continue,but I'm not willing to put anymore time into this discussion with you. My position is that metaphysical arguments are unprovable.It's an academic excercise for me,not about being right or wrong.

The statement "metaphysical arguments are unprovable" is self-refuting. You're assuming a certain metaphysic when you make the statement.

---

EvidenceVsFaith wrote:

Welcome Charles.

Thanks, EvidenceVsFaith!

I cannot say much other than what has already been said...

Atheism by definition is simply not believing in God. Its possible for an atheist to therefore believe in absolute morals...

I don't though. On the morality I do not know of any evidence of any absolute morals. However it seems quite clear and obvious to me that morality exists! Some people are nicer than others, some people care more than others, some people are less bad people than others...

There's this thing simply called empathy that helps us see right from wrong...the gold and rule that that Jesus guy was so fond of describes it. But empathy isn't even only in us humans and it was around a LONG while before Jesus.

Yes, Moses wrote about the Golden Rule long before Jesus.

Others thought of it before Jesus was said to. Confucius thought of it for example - he just put it in a slightly different way. Sometimes called the silver way; also moral but more conservative.

Rather than "Do on to others as you would have them do on to you" it is "Do NOT do on to others as you would NOT have them do on to you".

Anyway people cared and had empathy well before Jesus was supposed to have existed! And the fact is that morality exists because people care (some more than others) and empathy exists, thank goodness.

But empathy is a feeling, not a moral standard. If all of our moral "standards" are culture-dependant, than cross-culture moral criticism is unavailable to us, and if that is so, we cannot condemn the mass murder committed by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Are you willing to affirm that?

I find it quite profound actually that wonderful, bright, moral people can come simply out of a process of blind, yet totally natural selection and some mutation and a little bit of genetic drift (i.e evolution).

I find it awesome.

Anyway, again, welcome Charles.

EvF

You find it profound, but the consistent nihilist finds it absurd. Atheists need to face the logical implications of their view that life is meaningless, without purpose, without dignity. The universe simply doesn't care how you feel, how you live, if you live, etc. Its all very depressing. But that too, is absurd.

---

Kyuuketsuki wrote:

Why would atheism, "be true"? It isn't a philosophy, it makes no statement about anyone except that they don't believe in past/current claims to the existence of gods.

Then the statement "they don't believe in past/current claims to the existence of gods" is a false statement? Atheists make assertions which they hope and pray are true.

As for Mother Teresa and Hitler, the former was simply buying her way to heaven (she really wasn't the icon of good many try to portray her as) and the latter was far more influenced by religion (including the Christianity of his birth) than many like to admit (including many atheists .. my view is that he was primarily Christian but it's been argued ad nauseum here with no clear victor).

Atheism implies nothing of the sort because to make that claim you MUST prove first that morality (or some aspects of) is absolute and if so demonstrate the moral arbiter that supplies it. Have fun on that.

I'm not attempting to defend the existence of a transcendant moral law at this point. I'm merely arguing that without one, the atheist has no warrant to condemn the mass murder of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Are you willing to affirm that?