Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[Alex K]

Others (Esquilax) seem to believe reality to be a sufficient objective framework upon which to hang morality. This I don't understand.

No it isn't, because there isn't... but why do you insist on an objective framework? That's bound to be futile.

[Cato]

So it seems that at least for some of you ethics shift from person to person from group to group and from generation to generation. This seems consistent with the logical conclusions of atheism (and the nihilism that follows). This I understand.

Others (Esquilax) seem to believe reality to be a sufficient objective framework upon which to hang morality. This I don't understand.

Nihilism does not follow! Here, go learn something:

Virtue Ethics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

Deontological Ethics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Consequentialism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

After, you might be able to have a conversation instead of just trying to find an occupation for your unemployed god.

[Angrboda]

Can one be a moral nihilist but not an existential nihilist?

I tend to flip those around and postulate a nihilistic approach to morals, but that existence itself is not, and cannot be, meaningless. (existential nihilism) Meaning, for me, is an a priori category which we find ourselves 'thrown into' by virtue of the nature of our minds.

Is that a consistent position? I'm not sure. It would seem existential meaning might ground ethical meaning. And I don't hang these beliefs on my theism, btw.

[Mudhammam]

So it seems that at least for some of you ethics shift from person to person from group to group and from generation to generation. This seems consistent with the logical conclusions of atheism (and the nihilism that follows). This I understand.

Others (Esquilax) seem to believe reality to be a sufficient objective framework upon which to hang morality. This I don't understand.

That's because Esquilax (as I interpret him) is working off the conception of what most people understand to be the good things in life: freedom, security, happiness, etc.; from that common agreement, we have a framework by which to analyze actions objectively.

Until you come up with your own framework, Steve, your usage of moral concepts is vacuous. And trying to ground them in an equally vacuous notion of deity does not help you.

[Pizza]

Christians use the word moral nihilist do so for it's negative emotive connotations. Moral philosophers don't use the word moral nihilist much anymore. In contemporary metaethics terms it's called moral anti realism and comes in different flavors ranging from error theory to relativism to noncognitivism to non-objective absolutism

[Simon Moon]

Others (Esquilax) seem to believe reality to be a sufficient objective framework upon which to hang morality. This I don't understand.

Do you think that you and I and the rest of the human population have to contend with the same physical laws of the universe, with very similar bodies and minds?

Do you think that: life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, freedom is preferable to slavery, not having your stuff stolen is preferable to having it stolen?

Do you think that, based on the above, that what I require for my well being is very similar to what you require? And it would also what the majority of humanity requires for their well being?

Do you think that living in a society, and on a planet, that also values these things is preferable to one that doesn't?

What don't you understand?

[pocaracas]

Can one be a moral nihilist but not an existential nihilist?

I tend to flip those around and postulate a nihilistic approach to morals, but that existence itself is not, and cannot be, meaningless. (existential nihilism) Meaning, for me, is an a priori category which we find ourselves 'thrown into' by virtue of the nature of our minds.

Is that a consistent position? I'm not sure. It would seem existential meaning might ground ethical meaning. And I don't hang these beliefs on my theism, btw.

Isn't that what Catholics do?

[wiploc]

No, it does not.

That does not seem like a defensible position.

It's easily defensible. What I don't understand is how one might defend the claim that religious morals are more defensible than atheist morals.

Can you explain where anything could get intrinsic meaning, value or purpose if there is no god?

Intrinsic meaning is an oxymoron, so we can set that aside.

I can explain where we get value and purpose at least as well as you can. But you go first, so I'll know what kind of explanation you're willing to accept: How do you get meaning, value, or purpose if there is a god?

Whatever answer you give, I'll give one at least that good.

In the excerpt below from the article I mentioned in the OP, WLC discusses the "noble lie". I would like to hear if this analysis is wrong and if so, why.

My experience with reading articles, and analyzing them for other people, goes like this: Over a period of hours, I read the article, make notes, form rebuttals, and draft totally devastating responses.

Then, after hours of work, I get told that I refuted some part of the article that wasn't interesting to the person who set me the task.

And Dr. Craig isn't here anyway. So, if you have a point, why don't you make that point in your own words. I can't talk to Craig, but I can talk to you.

While we wait for your point, I'll make one myself. Craig said that he doesn't know of any reason not to rape, aside from the fact that an invisible eccentric tells him not to. It seems to me that the commands of an invisible eccentric are no reason to do anything. So how should I distinguish Craig's morality from nihilism?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So it seems that at least for some of you ethics shift from person to person from group to group and from generation to generation.

A better way to phrase this is that morality shifts from person to person, and advances from one age to another, and from one stage of an individual's life to another.

And that includes you. As you grow older, your understanding of morality will grow ... hopefully.

---

Others (Esquilax) seem to believe reality to be a sufficient objective framework upon which to hang morality. This I don't understand.

Do you think that you and I and the rest of the human population have to contend with the same physical laws of the universe, with very similar bodies and minds?

Do you think that: life is preferable to death, health is preferable to disease, freedom is preferable to slavery, not having your stuff stolen is preferable to having it stolen?

Do you think that, based on the above, that what I require for my well being is very similar to what you require? And it would also what the majority of humanity requires for their well being?

Do you think that living in a society, and on a planet, that also values these things is preferable to one that doesn't?

What don't you understand?

Taking philosophers to task for their abstractions is akin to taking a whore to task for her business: they both do what they can to get through the day.

---

While we wait for your point, I'll make one myself. Craig said that he doesn't know of any reason not to rape, aside from the fact that an invisible eccentric tells him not to. It seems to me that the commands of an invisible eccentric are no reason to do anything. So how should I distinguish Craig's morality from nihilism?

Fuckin' brilliant.

eta: for some reason the rate/rep button isn't working, but yeah, this point rates that much in my mind. Will rep will I can.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Can one be a moral nihilist but not an existential nihilist?

I tend to flip those around and postulate a nihilistic approach to morals, but that existence itself is not, and cannot be, meaningless. (existential nihilism) Meaning, for me, is an a priori category which we find ourselves 'thrown into' by virtue of the nature of our minds.

Is that a consistent position? I'm not sure. It would seem existential meaning might ground ethical meaning.

That sounds about right to me, if I understand you correctly. Reality itself must first be capable of supporting meaning if there is to be the possibility of minds that can assign value.