Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[Alex K]

Steve, why should we have meaning?

I think we all live like we all have meaning (and value and purpose). The excerpt from the paper points that out. The question is: does atheism lead to existential and ethical nihilism? It so, and an atheist reasons and acts like there is meaning, value and purpose to life, an inconsistency exists.

---

Are you honestly claiming that atheists cannot have ethics? That's ludicrous.

I made no claim. I am asking what is the basis for ethics consistent with your philosophy?

You are trying to win the high ground by challenging me to do the hard work of a moral philosopher here on the spot, and I'm not having it.

[Silver]

The question is: does atheism lead to existential and ethical nihilism? It so, and an atheist reasons and acts like there is meaning, value and purpose to life, an inconsistency exists.

I imagine an atheistic outlook on meaning discounts the theistic notion of the meaning only sought through religious faith and a belief in god. From my perspective, the theist is more a nihilist than the atheist for the simple reason that the theist cannot imagine there being any meaning to life without faith when atheists daily find meaning in life without faith.

[SteveII]

So, there is no intrinsic meaning, value or purpose to anything? We have to make it up? So...the "noble lie"?

If that's what you call it, I suppose. I think of it as assuming responsibility for my own behavior, but we're quibbling words at this point.

"assuming responsibility" implies you have a standard by which you are measuring your (and presumably other's) behavior. Where do you get this standard?

[Neo-Scholastic]

If ethical nihilism necessarily followed, the ensuing free for all would have consumed our species...notice that anyone that truly practiced ethical nihilism quickly winds up in jail or dead.

That's a bit of a red herring. One can easily believe that their is no universal basis for determining right or wrong and still conform to societal norms and conventions.

---

Theists like to think their morality comes from gods...they assume that, without gods, they would be without morality.

I don't believe that. I say that God provides the conscience by which all people, believers and atheists alike, identify right and wrong.

[Minimalist]

My response is that WLC, two-bit fucking phony that he is, is making up atheist strawmen for himself. It's an old tactic.

[Esquilax]

So, there is no intrinsic meaning, value or purpose to anything? We have to make it up? So...the "noble lie"?

The claim that personally derived meaning and, to some extent, meaning and value derived by the people who care about us is, somehow, invalid or less valuable has not been demonstrated. You yourself are just assuming it to be true and, in fact, it's not a "problem" that is solved by your own beliefs, if you wish to continue this argument further.

If my meaning and purpose is self derived, and you have a problem with that, why is that? What are the actual issues at play here? I read the WLC article you cited, and he too seems to skip over actually explaining why what he says is true; he just asserts that it is, in a series of appeals to consequences that are rooted in baseless, unjustified fiat demands. One gets the feeling that no matter what we would produce in response, Craig would find that unsatisfactory, merely because it's not the god he's already hitched his wagon to. In fact, I recall a debate that demonstrates this quite clearly, where Craig makes essentially the same points he makes in his article, that without god we're just physical components, and his opponent replies by asking, essentially, how god makes that better. Craig's response was to repeat his original point.

The point is, what's the actual difference? In both cases, god-derived or human-derived, the meaning is resolved from a subjective mind and applied to reality; is there an actual difference between the two states that you can point to that wouldn't seem petty and insignificant without front-loading it with a lot of assumptions?

Is it that god's meaning comes prior to the existence of the thing, while human meaning comes after? In that case, the quality of the meaning is just temporal, and the content is irrelevant. Is it that the meaning comes specifically from our creator? Then it's dependent on the ability to create stuff, and the content is similarly irrelevant. In both of those cases, god could have decided to give you all no meaning, to purposefully give you nihilism, and you'd just be bound to that.

I don't think either of those points are why you're arguing this, though they do handily demonstrate what I'm getting to, which is that the reason you think godly meaning is superior is because it comes from god. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, if you have some actual reason that god meaning is better then just say so, but if all this comes down to is that it's better because it's god, then you have no case at all. It's just the authority you've imbued in god, making that meaning worthwhile, and you certainly can't justify giving that authority to him.

That's the problem with these discussions: the theist argument only stands if you assume a whole lot of hidden premises to be true. Taken from actually neutral ground, the theist can hardly justify their own meaning any more than the atheist, it's just that they've taken it upon themselves to be the interrogator rather than the interrogated.

[SteveII]

An how does an atheist obtain ethics?

I personally obtain my ethics from whether or not an action harms another person. If what I do causes someone harm, it is self evident that what I am doing is wrong. I do not need a book to understand that.

When an individual cannot discern right from wrong on his own, and must have a book to tell him how to behave, then clearly he is lacking empathy much in the way that a sociopath does.

So your personal ethics come from harm avoidance. Isn't that highly subjective? Is it harm for all humans? Animals? Plants? What if there is a conflict between two people's best interest? How about the interplay between humans and animals? Do things like justice or fairness enter in?

[robvalue]

Steve?

If there is a god, why should I care? What difference does it make to me?

[Esquilax]

So your personal ethics come from harm avoidance. Isn't that highly subjective?

God's opinions on morality are just as subjective as any human's.

What if there is a conflict between two people's best interest?

This question comes up a lot, and it has the same problem I pointed out in my last post, where if the theist stopped questioning the atheist for a second and allowed their own beliefs to be questioned, it'd become pretty clear that A: the theistic position contains no answer for the problem they poke into the atheist one, and that B: the theist already has an answer, not specifically present in their theism, that works.

What if there's a conflict between two theistic moral absolutes, Steve?

You're not supposed to bear false witness, and you're not supposed to allow the innocent to come to harm, so what if you're in a situation where not lying will directly lead to someone innocent coming to harm? Chances are you'll weigh the two options, think about the consequences, and- I hope- pick the one that saves the innocent from harm.

Why would that not be sufficient for an atheist, too?

[downbeatplumb]

Are you saying there is some basis for a system of objective morality not discovered through logic or philosophy?

Morality comes from society and the empathy that has evolved in us because we are a social ape.

In some counties it is immoral for a girl to go out alone.

It used to be "moral" to kill women if you could convince yourself they were a witch or to kill muslims by order of the pope.

Morality is a moveable concept.

Do you wear mixed fabric?
Do you kill people with tattoos?

I bet some adulterers you know remain unstoned.

See.

Biblical morality is no more fixed than any other. You just tipex out the ones you don't like.