Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[Anomalocaris]

To atheists, even the dumb theists are proof enough that value would be made by man and does not need God.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think it's possible to give value to yourself without their being value but it's illogical to give yourself value while not believing there is objective value. Why you chose to live and what you want to do in your life can be chosen by us freely sure...but I don't think you can believe something is morally wrong without believing it's objectively wrong to do so. You can't also give value to life without believing objectively there is value to life.

I disagree. It can be wrong for me to kill someone for no good reason, and right for you to do so given appropriate impetus -- say, I'm charging you with a knife. From your viewpoint, killing a person is right at that point, because you are defending your own life.

That means that the propriety of killing is subject to the conditions pertaining at the time of the killing; it is subjective.

As for the value to life, I don't believe that there is objectively value in living. It's just what I'm used to -- or as I tell the people I work for, "I've grown accustomed to breathing." I value that state because the alternative strikes me as pretty boring, and the transition to it seems a little unpleasant, mostly. That means that I value my life. It also means that if you charge at me waving a knife, I will shoot you if I can, because I value my life more than yours, and at that point, yours has no relative value to me at all.

This is why morality is both subjective and relative.

The Christians here sharpening their knives in reply need to pause and ask themselves why it is wrong for men to kill indiscriminately, but holy for their god to do so, before they post.

---

Objective value can come from within oneself, sure, why not?

Because that would be a subjective view. An objective value would be extrinsically defined, no?

---

[Neo-Scholastic]

I owe it to Whateverist to more fully support my claim that atheism leads inexorably to nihilism, or more precisely existential absurdity. This will be a long post.

Clearly, the term nihilism does encompass a large number of related concepts. Thus I do not think a single line of reasoning leads from atheism (as simply a lack of belief in God or gods) to nihilism, moral or otherwise. As Genkaus correctly points out, failure to find a solution to nihilism doesn’t make it false, which would be an argument from ignorance. At the same time, no one cannot justify saying they have a raison d’etre (if it matters to them) without having some way to ground the meaning of their life with three basic concepts: purpose, lasting value and significance. As I see it, atheism undermines all three. And without that solid foundation, all atheists are tacit nihilists no matter how adamantly they deny it.

To me, the truly honest atheist is one that accepts existential absurdity. When I was an atheist, I found myself able to counter the occasional moments of despair with a pleasing noble defiance of my fate, that “rage against that dark night”; the myth of Sisyphus; Zarathustra’s dancing; and all that sort of heady stuff. But there is nothing wrong with simply focusing on the mundane, just getting on with getting on, and “enjoying the ride.”

One of the actual joys of atheism is defining your own purpose in life. Such joy is an emotional response that doesn’t rationally counter nihilism. When someone defines purpose as that outcome towards which something is directed, then they are invoking Final Cause. Atheism, per se, does not exclude final causes, but the reduction of the world to purely efficient causes acting on material bodies does. Therefore ‘purposes’ are illusions born of viewing higher-order processes that are fully determined at lower levels of order. So while it would appear as-if intelligent agents have goals, in actuality there are no final ends and it is irrational to speak about any life having purpose.

When people talk about a life’s purpose they usually are thinking of a higher criteria that just goal-seeking behavior and final ends. What they really mean is that their life counted from something, i.e. their life has, or will have, lasting value. Value requires that someone appreciates and desires something which is valued. The value of life for the person living it, seems self-evident, since all other valuables require already having a life. But because life ends, the lasting value of a person’s life depends on their life having continuing value to those remain alive and future generations. Then the sun blows up and with it any value our lives once had. Thus at a bare minimum, for human life to have value there must be some enduring agent to whom human life is valuable.

So far I have addresses purpose and value. That leaves significance, or meaning, and will, I suspect be my most contested claim. Unfortunately it is getting late, so I’ll leave you with those two for now and return to significance later.

[bennyboy]

I'm sorry if I seem dense, but could someone please define nihilism for me? If it means only there's no objective purpose to life, then that doesn't really seem to be a "logical extreme," more like a statement of the obvious. And I can't imagine any atheists denying that meaning is purely subjective and largely arbitrary.

[Whateverist]

I'm sorry if I seem dense, but could someone please define nihilism for me? If it means only there's no objective purpose to life, then that doesn't really seem to be a "logical extreme," more like a statement of the obvious. And I can't imagine any atheists denying that meaning is purely subjective and largely arbitrary.

I'm probably not the best person to define it. But my reaction is similar. I would certainly agree that meaning is purely subjective. (That isn't to say you couldn't approach meaning as an objective phenomenon. But if you did I would have to say you're doing it wrong.) However I don't think it is entirely arbitrary. I think the subjective truth for many of us is fixed or at least has sufficient inertia to provide considerable stability.

It is easy to mistake that which seems arbitrarily up to you as something entirely undetermined. But I don't think we are born tabula rasa and I don't believe we respond randomly to choice. Living is an art more than a science. (Science serves the execution of that art.)

[Esquilax]

Clearly, the term nihilism does encompass a large number of related concepts. Thus I do not think a single line of reasoning leads from atheism (as simply a lack of belief in God or gods) to nihilism, moral or otherwise. As Genkaus correctly points out, failure to find a solution to nihilism doesn’t make it false, which would be an argument from ignorance. At the same time, no one cannot justify saying they have a raison d’etre (if it matters to them) without having some way to ground the meaning of their life with three basic concepts: purpose, lasting value and significance. As I see it, atheism undermines all three. And without that solid foundation, all atheists are tacit nihilists no matter how adamantly they deny it.

Bolding mine. How does that follow? And how are you defining your three concepts, more importantly? Why is a self-defined purpose insufficient? How long does value need to last before it crosses the threshold of legitimacy, and why? How significant does a raison d'etre need to be before it becomes acceptable to you?

Moreover, what is it about a god that resolves these issues? This seems to me a total non-sequitur: why must we gain those things from outside of humanity for them to be worth enough?

To me, the truly honest atheist is one that accepts existential absurdity. When I was an atheist, I found myself able to counter the occasional moments of despair with a pleasing noble defiance of my fate, that “rage against that dark night”; the myth of Sisyphus; Zarathustra’s dancing; and all that sort of heady stuff. But there is nothing wrong with simply focusing on the mundane, just getting on with getting on, and “enjoying the ride.”

This all seems needlessly melodramatic, to me. If you want to characterize the universe sans-god as something pointless and empty then that's on you, but personally I find plenty to be fascinated with in what we've got, nor do I find unlocking the mysteries of the universe to be a "mundane" task for a species merely because no magic was involved.

One of the actual joys of atheism is defining your own purpose in life. Such joy is an emotional response that doesn’t rationally counter nihilism. When someone defines purpose as that outcome towards which something is directed, then they are invoking Final Cause. Atheism, per se, does not exclude final causes, but the reduction of the world to purely efficient causes acting on material bodies does. Therefore ‘purposes’ are illusions born of viewing higher-order processes that are fully determined at lower levels of order. So while it would appear as-if intelligent agents have goals, in actuality there are no final ends and it is irrational to speak about any life having purpose.

Why the false dichotomy? Since when was externally derived, ultimate purpose the only legitimate form of it?

You're beginning with a premise that I don't buy, that if life is solely composed of material causes then matter is all there is. But that's a fallacy of composition, presuming that the whole must function exactly like its constituent parts. Why can't minds capable of deriving purpose arise from material bodies without being completely slaved to them? What makes you think that the base dictates everything that is extrapolated from it?

When people talk about a life’s purpose they usually are thinking of a higher criteria that just goal-seeking behavior and final ends. What they really mean is that their life counted from something, i.e. their life has, or will have, lasting value. Value requires that someone appreciates and desires something which is valued. The value of life for the person living it, seems self-evident, since all other valuables require already having a life. But because life ends, the lasting value of a person’s life depends on their life having continuing value to those remain alive and future generations. Then the sun blows up and with it any value our lives once had. Thus at a bare minimum, for human life to have value there must be some enduring agent to whom human life is valuable.

I wasn't aware that "temporary" and "nonexistent" were synonyms.

Just because something ends doesn't mean it has no legitimate worth. If you actually believed that you'd never see movies, or read books, or even talk to people. After all, you'll eventually forget things about them, therefore diminishing their value, right?

[Thumpalumpacus]

As I see it, atheism undermines all three. And without that solid foundation, all atheists are tacit nihilists no matter how adamantly they deny it.

Perhaps that was your atheism. It certainly isn't mine.

One of the actual joys of atheism is defining your own purpose in life. Such joy is an emotional response that doesn’t rationally counter nihilism. When someone defines purpose as that outcome towards which something is directed, then they are invoking Final Cause. Atheism, per se, does not exclude final causes, but the reduction of the world to purely efficient causes acting on material bodies does. Therefore ‘purposes’ are illusions born of viewing higher-order processes that are fully determined at lower levels of order. So while it would appear as-if intelligent agents have goals, in actuality there are no final ends and it is irrational to speak about any life having purpose.

The unquestioned premise here is that all atheists are materialist reductionists.

When people talk about a life’s purpose they usually are thinking of a higher criteria that just goal-seeking behavior and final ends. What they really mean is that their life counted from something, i.e. their life has, or will have, lasting value. Value requires that someone appreciates and desires something which is valued. The value of life for the person living it, seems self-evident, since all other valuables require already having a life. But because life ends, the lasting value of a person’s life depends on their life having continuing value to those remain alive and future generations. Then the sun blows up and with it any value our lives once had. Thus at a bare minimum, for human life to have value there must be some enduring agent to whom human life is valuable.

Death doesn't render life meaningless, that is a silly claim. You may as well argue that the period at the end of this sentence removes meaning from each and every word in it.

Your unquestioned premise in this segment of your post is that for meaning to hold true, it must be eternal. When you consider that the brain which ponders meanings is itself not eternal, you'll understand your own absurdity here.

[Mudhammam]

To me, the truly honest atheist is one that accepts existential absurdity.

Are there atheists who don't accept that? I always figured those who couldn't quite embrace such facts of reality became theists.

[fr0d0]

Frodo,

Let's say your god does exist and he did create everything, but lets change it so there is no promise of an afterlife. That is, there is no heaven and there is no hell, and anything to do with getting there is out. Once you die, that's it. Everything else in your religion is still in place.

How would this change your perspective on life, in regards to purpose?

ETA: I'm only asking this to clear up some confusion on my end. I have no "gotcha" motives.

Purpose hinges on posthumous justice in the Christian system. Removing an afterlife screw's that up.

I don't have to wait until after my life to make everything right. I have the opportunity right now to do that. Heaven and hell are current, not just posthumous. We live our own heaven and hell in this present moment, made by our own choices. We can limit our lives or our lives can be full. So my focus now is solely on my current health, in Christian dogma: my oneness with God.

We know that natural life is unjust. Taking away heaven and hell limits God to imparting justice in our natural lives, which would conflict with natural laws. Therefore we would have to conclude that there is no eventual justice, and no eventual purpose.

---

Dear Forest Gump,

If the purpose of life is life, would that meaning change depending on whether there is a god? How about if the purpose is to live a good life or a moral one? Because if atheists and theists reach the same conclusion, it would seem god is not necessary to the answer.

Hi Jenny

Yes. In my understanding, atheists operate on the premise that there is no ultimate justice, as that's the natural order of things. Reality. So an atheists morals are based upon an unfair system. The Christians morals are based upon a fair system, therefore our moral standards are different.

Life's a box of chocolates...

---

My feeling is that theism is the acknowledgement of purpose. In that respect I can view nihilism as it's polar opposite.

What of atheists who have a purpose in life?

They are further up the scale than the nihilists who are at the bottom

---

what would be the "objective purpose" of life for a theist? sing kumbaya for all eternity?

There can be none; that purpose is defined by a deity, and is inherently subjective, just as any morality derived from the same source must be.

(my bolding) That seems contradictory.

[genkaus]

Outside of intentional design in the internal structure of the physical Universe, which would seem to imply a mind somehow analogous to a human mind, and that has free will in the indeterminate sense and utilizes thought in bringing about a subsequent result through purposeful action, as in God, I can conceive of no other possibility for what might be considered objective meaning, purpose, or value.

Even this possibility is insufficient - if the result of human existence is brought about by god's will then the purpose, meaning or value of human life would be subject to god's will. That makes it subjective. Going by this definition, nihilism should be the logical extreme of theism, not atheism.

I think "atheism implies or necessitates existential nihilism" is a fair statement; as to whether or not God solves the existential problem is another matter

Buddhism provides an adequate counter-argument to that. Buddhists don't believe in a gos, but they believe in the law of Karma - a universal moral law inherent and intrinsic to human nature and one that provides your life with objective purpose, meaning and value. That is the problem with "atheism implies nihilism" argument - it assumes god can be the only possible source of objective meaning etc. whereas we know there are many alternate sources.