Moral Nihilism

[Charles]

Hello all, my name is Charles and I recently came across these Bertrand Russell quotes and have a question for atheists regarding them:

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in Hell. I do not myself feel that any person that is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence.

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs.

I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

The question is, assuming atheism is true, why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists? If we are just colonies of bacteria in a purposeless universe, it matters not if Christ believed in Hell, or if Christians are wicked and cruel. Indeed “moral progress” is just as meaningless as anything else. I don’t see how an atheist can say with a straight face, as he ought, that Hitler’s gas chambers at Auschwitz or Stalin’s mines at Kolyma, have the same moral import as say Mother Theresa’s charitable work. Atheism logically entails moral nihilism, yet I have encountered few atheists willing to assert it.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Oh dear here we go again. THAT old canard "atheists are immoral/amoral."

Atheists have one and only one thing in common: a lack of belief in god(s). There in no such thing as an "atheist position" on any other subject whatsoever.

I don’t see how an atheist can say with a straight face, as he ought, that Hitler’s gas chambers at Auschwitz or Stalin’s mines at Kolyma, have the same moral import as say Mother Theresa’s charitable work

Straw man fallacy.I have never made such a claim,nor seen,heard or read of any other atheist do so.

From Wiki

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1]

Atheism logically entails moral nihilism,

No does not.. Atheism implies (suggest) or infers (concludes) NOTHING apart from a disbelief in god(s) I speak for myself. I do not speak for other atheist nor they for me. I'm a moral relativist.That means I reject the notion of absolute moral imperatives,not the notion of morality.Day-to-day ,I live within what would be called a Judaeo-Christian moral/ethical frame work: I obey the law pay my taxes (I have never cheated on my taxes in my life because I believe it's morally wrong) I don't lie, steal, harm other living creatures nor sleep with other mens' wives.These are all moral prohibitions,a based on my guiding life philosophy which is egoism,(moral,rational and psychological).

I assert that there are exceptions to every absolute moral law of which I've ever heard. THAT'S what I mean by moral relativism.Be thrilled if you can give me an exception without appealing to revealed text,which I reject as a moral authority..

To come to this forum and accuse me,others members and atheists generally of amorality is arrogant, ignorant and offensive.

[Charles]

Hi Padraic.

Oh dear here we go again. THAT old canard "atheists are immoral/amoral."

Atheists have one and only one thing in common: a lack of belief in god(s). There in no such thing as an "atheist position" on any other subject whatsoever.

Well, my question was “assuming atheism is true, why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists?” I did not assert that "atheists are immoral/amoral." I’m asserting that the whole question of morality is absurd for the atheist.

Straw man fallacy.I have never made such a claim,nor seen,heard or read of any other atheist do so.

That’s the point. If morality is merely conventional or preferential, why don’t atheists make such a claim?

No does not.. Atheism implies (suggest) or infers (concludes) NOTHING apart from a disbelief in god(s)

Ethics is a meaningless concept for the atheist. Morality is a meaningless concept for the atheist. They are merely matters of opinion or tradition, which are both meaningless. The universe doesn’t care what meat-machines do to each other. Why should you or I?

I speak for myself. I do not speak for other atheist nor they for me. I'm a moral relativist.That means I reject the notion of absolute moral imperatives,not the notion of morality.Day-to-day ,I live within what would be called a Judaeo-Christian moral/ethical frame work: I obey the law pay my taxes (I have never cheated on my taxes in my life because I believe it's morally wrong) I don't lie, steal, harm other living creatures nor sleep with other mens' wives.These are all moral prohibitions,a based on my guiding life philosophy which is egoism,(moral,rational and psychological).

Why bother living within such constraints? When you die you’ll cease to exist and the universe could care less how you lived your life. Live a moral life, live an immoral life, both are absurd and meaningless notions. Why the pretense that you live a moral life?

I assert that there are exceptions to every absolute moral law of which I've ever heard. THAT'S what I mean by moral relativism.Be thrilled if you can give me an exception without appealing to revealed text,which I reject as a moral authority..

“Moral law,” “moral relativism,” and “moral authority” are absurd and meaningless concepts.

To come to this forum and accuse me,others members and atheists generally of amorality is arrogant, ignorant and offensive.

All of which are absurdities in an atheistic universe. Again, I am accusing no one. I just asked the question “assuming atheism is true, why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists?” My intention is not to be personally offensive, but to underscore the inevitable result of atheistic presuppositions regarding ethics. Just as I have little patience for Christians who deny the doctrine of Hell because they find it distasteful, so I have little patience for atheists who make a great show of affirming the existence of moral standards in a universe where there are none, and indeed wherein the very concept of morality is an absurd one.

[Tiberius]

Well, my question was “assuming atheism is true, why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists?” I did not assert that "atheists are immoral/amoral." I’m asserting that the whole question of morality is absurd for the atheist.

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.

That’s the point. If morality is merely conventional or preferential, why don’t atheists make such a claim?

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 )

Ethics is a meaningless concept for the atheist. Morality is a meaningless concept for the atheist. They are merely matters of opinion or tradition, which are both meaningless. The universe doesn’t care what meat-machines do to each other. Why should you or I?

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.

Why bother living within such constraints? When you die you’ll cease to exist and the universe could care less how you lived your life. Live a moral life, live an immoral life, both are absurd and meaningless notions. Why the pretense that you live a moral life?

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.

“Moral law,” “moral relativism,” and “moral authority” are absurd and meaningless concepts.

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

All of which are absurdities in an atheistic universe. Again, I am accusing no one. I just asked the question “assuming atheism is true, why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists?” My intention is not to be personally offensive, but to underscore the inevitable result of atheistic presuppositions regarding ethics. Just as I have little patience for Christians who deny the doctrine of Hell because they find it distasteful, so I have little patience for atheists who make a great show of affirming the existence of moral standards in a universe where there are none, and indeed wherein the very concept of morality is an absurd one.

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.

[Giff]

Atheism logically entails moral nihilism

Think that is a quite ignorant statement. I have accutally never heared about Nihilism before you wrote the thread here. But what I understand by reading from Wikipedia is that it is a philosphy that says that there are no meaning with life and there morailty doesn't exists.

Since atheism don't have common point of view is it flase to say atheists as a group are nihilistic. If I get you tight.

i for an istant do think moral and ethics exists, we know what is right and wrong. Most of it comes with how your raised but also it's something your born with. To say atheist don't believe in moral is a wrong statment.

But you don't need a bible for knowing that killing another person is wrong.

don’t see how an atheist can say with a straight face, as he ought, that Hitler’s gas chambers at Auschwitz or Stalin’s mines at Kolyma, have the same moral import as say Mother Theresa’s charitable work

Have never heared anyone saying that, never heared any atheist say that either. As a side-note where acctually Mother Theresa quite sadistic. The "Hoptials" she had didn't really help people and she wanted the patients to suffer so that they would be closer to God. That something I find morally wrong.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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

why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists?

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.

If morality is merely conventional or preferential, why don’t atheists make such a claim?

I'm sure some atheists do. But I repeat,there no such thing as "an atheist position" .

Why bother living within such constraints? When you die you’ll cease to exist and the universe could care less how you lived your life. Live a moral life, live an immoral life, both are absurd and meaningless notions. Why the pretense that you live a moral life?

I think you are conflating (1) "moral" with "altruistic",(2) persisting with the notion that the word "atheist" has connotations other than a lack of belief (3) making an argument from personal incredulity:IE "It makes no sense to me,therefore it's wrong.

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.


It's also likely that some forms of morality are hardwired as a survival advantage.Moral behaviour has been observed in recent years in other primates.

There's an excellent lecture about morality available on line (given Jonathon Haidt). Along the lines of psychological /rational egoism. I think he makes a pretty good case for atheist morality.Worth a look;


http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonat..._mind.html


From wiki :Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism[1]) is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people do only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds merely that it is rational to act in one's self-interest). These doctrines may, though, be combined with ethical egoism.

from Wiki utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome: put simply, the ends justify the means. Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.

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.

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.

That's all I have to say to you on this matter,(I'll post a link to the video if I can find it)

[Edwardo Piet]

Welcome Charles.

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.

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.

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

[Kyuuketsuki]

The question is, assuming atheism is true, why do atheists such as Russell feel any need to complain about the alleged immorality of theists? If we are just colonies of bacteria in a purposeless universe, it matters not if Christ believed in Hell, or if Christians are wicked and cruel. Indeed “moral progress” is just as meaningless as anything else. I don’t see how an atheist can say with a straight face, as he ought, that Hitler’s gas chambers at Auschwitz or Stalin’s mines at Kolyma, have the same moral import as say Mother Theresa’s charitable work. Atheism logically entails moral nihilism, yet I have encountered few atheists willing to assert it.

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. 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.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

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)

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

I call, I cling, I want ... and there is no One to answer ... no One on Whom I can cling ... no, No One. Alone ... Where is my Faith ... even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness ... My God ... how painful is this unknown pain ... I have no Faith ... I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart ... & make me suffer untold agony.

So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them ... because of the blasphemy ... If there be God ... please forgive me ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. I am told God loves me ... and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.

[leo-rcc]

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.