Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[robvalue]

Right. He has pretty much made it so that being a nihilist means rejecting theism. So by definition, atheism is nihilism. This just means he's using another word for atheism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

When I refer to an apple, I am referring to a particular object in reality, possessed of a set of characteristics unique to that object, that we have chosen to call an apple.

Every sensible body is in some way unique, i.e. particular. The problem arises when you group several particular bodies together and refer to them as each being an example of the same kind.

There is nothing subjective about the set of traits that an apple possesses, just the label we chose to place upon them…

In the case of apples, there are Delicious, Granny Smiths, apples with bites taken out, rotten apples, etc. Each person can have their own opinion about what necessary traits constitute an apple. Opinions are subjective.

The problem is more acute when dealing with abstractions, like triangles. Particular examples of triangles include three lines drawn in the sand, a piece of spanakopita, and three offset dots on paper. As sensible bodies they have almost no similarities. But the concept of what a triangle is is not a matter of opinion; although it is possible to debate the degree to which particular examples instantiate the kind.
If scientific knowledge is to be objectively true then people must be able to objectively classify things according to kind. What I am saying is that there is more to it than just applying a name to apparently similar objects. There must already be something essential about all sensible bodies of the same kind in order for them to be objectively considered such.

As it applies to ethics, consensus about what to name something is not sufficient grounds for a rational ethical theory. Another culture’s consensus opinion as to what constitutes a moral agent could exclude infidels, Jews, and women.

In your opinion, people have a moral responsibility to other thinking beings. And I agree. If your criterion for being part of a kind is having a set of similar traits then it is a matter of subjective opinion as which traits constitute a thinking being. What is the set of traits that constitute a thinking being? Surely we have a moral responsibility toward catatonics who are not currently thinking and the severely retarded or insane who do not think but act purely out of instinct. Infants have no developed rationality. Presumably we have moral responsibilities towards them because they have the potential to eventually become self-aware thinking beings. From my perspective, each of these examples fall within the kind of ‘thinking being’ even if any one of them only manifest it to some degree.

[Mister Agenda]

I read this letter directed to WLC from Adam, an atheist. In it he claims that while he is not ready to embrace Christianity, his own worldview leads to nihilism.

"I should have known better too, since the first time I read that paper of yours, I couldn't sleep for two days. It completely shattered my worldview. Let me mention here that I was a huge fan of the New Atheists, but I always sensed something was askew with them. Something seemed off about them because whenever they were talking about meaning, value, or purpose, they answered in such ways that only a person ignorant of the objections in your paper could respond. In short (too late), your paper never left my mind, even years after I wrote a "response" to it. I knew, deep down, that not only did I not, but could not answer your objections to atheism. What you say the atheistic worldview entails is true. There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist.

He references WLC's paper The Absurdity of Life Without God

I was wondering what your collective response is to the conclusion that atheism leads to nihilism.

If atheism led to nihilism, all atheists would be nihilists. Not all atheists are nihilists. Not even most, in my estimation. Q.E.D.

---

Existential nihilism most certainly.
Ethical nihilism certainly not.

The problem you typically have in this discussion is someone either conflating the two or insisting that ethical nihilism necessarily follows from existential nihilism.

Can you explain why ethical nihilism does not necessarily follow?

Can you explain why it would necessarily follow?

---

No, it does not.

That does not seem like a defensible position. Can you explain where anything could get intrinsic meaning, value or purpose if there is no god?

If there is a god, can you explain where this god gets its intrinsic meaning, value, or purpose?

---

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

I can't speak for Cato but yes: observation and experience. Some policies are objectively better than others, given the axiom that a better policy is one that has better results for humans, such as making them healthier, happier, freer, or more informed.

[robvalue]

Because this "god" spends all its time in people's imagination, they forget that it would actually have to answer a few questions before being a real thing.

[Mister Agenda]

There is no lie.
It's only a lie if you deny how you obtained your ethics.

An how does an atheist obtain ethics?

Mostly the same way as you, without tacking on 'because God said so' on top of it.

Human beings have inherent moral sentiments, like instincts for reciprocity and fairness. Thousands of years of trying a wide variety of social experiments have selected for cultures more successful in managing human cooperation. Every modern culture, including those with no roots in Abrahamic religion, teaches its children not to murder, rob, rape, or pillage; to the point that in most developed regions, it takes local societal breakdown or special training to get young men to kill each other en masse. We get our ethics from our parents, our peers, and our society in general. We may use moral reasoning to improve on those mores, but no one starts from scratch unless they were raised horribly.

[robvalue]

You'd think the fact that atheists are not in general running around murdering, raping and stealing would give theists pause for thought about this.

In their version of this world, do they see atheists with flamethrowers and nun-chucks outside their window or something?

It's also really sad that some theists feel the only thing stopping them from murdering and raping is a bunch of fairy tales. Obviously this is not true in the majority of cases, but the fact they think it is shows how damaging religion is to the mental faculties.

[Esquilax]

Every sensible body is in some way unique, i.e. particular. The problem arises when you group several particular bodies together and refer to them as each being an example of the same kind.

Honestly, at this point I just think you're being willfully obtuse because someone is disagreeing with you.

In the case of apples, there are Delicious, Granny Smiths, apples with bites taken out, rotten apples, etc. Each person can have their own opinion about what necessary traits constitute an apple. Opinions are subjective.

But all of those examples are unified by the objective fact that they are a fruit, grown from a specific kind of tree, possessing the characteristics of an apple (edible flesh, seeds, stamen, etc etc). That you can add further details and make sub-categories doesn't make the umbrella category subjective... and furthermore, you're actually wrong when you say people can have their own opinions about what the necessary traits of an apple are: if it's my opinion that apples, by necessity, are orange citrus fruits, then I am wrong. I don't simply become right because it's my opinion; we have an understanding about what an apple is, based upon the traits that an apple has. You are, in fact, restricted in how far you can push that collection of traits before you are no longer talking about an apple, which means it isn't subjective.

Besides, you're equivocating: Granny Smiths, rotten apples, and all the other examples you've listed, are still in the category "apple." Are you seriously arguing that it's a tenable position to argue that any of those things aren't an apple, due only to the difference between them and the weird ideal apple template you have in mind?

The problem is more acute when dealing with abstractions, like triangles. Particular examples of triangles include three lines drawn in the sand, a piece of spanakopita, and three offset dots on paper. As sensible bodies they have almost no similarities.

They do have the one similarity that defines a triangle, however; that being that they form a three-pointed two-dimensional shape. You're not actually saying anything of substance here; what, is the problem that different triangles are only united by what makes them triangles, rather than a whole bunch of other irrelevant commonalities?

But the concept of what a triangle is is not a matter of opinion; although it is possible to debate the degree to which particular examples instantiate the kind.

... Because we have defined that particular shape as "triangle."

If scientific knowledge is to be objectively true then people must be able to objectively classify things according to kind. What I am saying is that there is more to it than just applying a name to apparently similar objects. There must already be something essential about all sensible bodies of the same kind in order for them to be objectively considered such.

Which, again, is just an assertion you're making. You're demanding that a problem exists with no justification, and then asserting that only you have the answer to it. It's not something I need to deal with; to any reasonable person, the objective traits of an object in the physical world are sufficient to categorize those objects. Those traits are easily demonstrable; why do you think there needs to be some other magic thing- other than that you say so- to hold all this together?

Drop the assertions, and make with the evidence.

As it applies to ethics, consensus about what to name something is not sufficient grounds for a rational ethical theory. Another culture’s consensus opinion as to what constitutes a moral agent could exclude infidels, Jews, and women.

That's why I've never once used the term "moral agent," in this thread, instead opting for the objectively demonstrable "thinking agent."

In your opinion, people have a moral responsibility to other thinking beings. And I agree. If your criterion for being part of a kind is having a set of similar traits then it is a matter of subjective opinion as which traits constitute a thinking being.

No, because we have knowledge of those traits which constitute thoughts, beings, the act of thinking, etc.

What is the set of traits that constitute a thinking being? Surely we have a moral responsibility toward catatonics who are not currently thinking and the severely retarded or insane who do not think but act purely out of instinct.

It very much depends on the situation.

Infants have no developed rationality. Presumably we have moral responsibilities towards them because they have the potential to eventually become self-aware thinking beings.

There you go.

From my perspective, each of these examples fall within the kind of ‘thinking being’ even if any one of them only manifest it to some degree.

I think I pointed out that occasionally moral considerations can conflict, and that when this happens they must be rationally weighed. It's just a consequence of living in an imperfect world; the fact that there are problems doesn't mean the entire explanation is faulty.

[Mister Agenda]

Steve, why should we have meaning?

I think we all live like we all have meaning (and value and purpose).

Well, we do, don't we? There's nothing magical about the word 'intrinsic' that makes us more meaningful if the meaning is instrinsic. It doesn't even really make sense to talk about meaning in the absence of someone to ascribe the meaning. Meaning necessarily involves meaning something TO someone. Positing God doesn't make your meaning intrinsic, it just implies you have meaning to God, as well as to yourself and other people. If God exists, God's meaning isn't intrinsic either, God's meaning is what it means to itself and others.

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.

Atheism doen't lead to anything. It's an opinion, a conclusion at best. What leads someone to atheism may also lead them elsewhere. It might be better to ask where rational skepticism leads. At any rate, there is meaning, value, and purpose to life because we are here to ascribe meaning, value, and purpose to life. No inconsistency.

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

Atheism isn't a philosophy. Neither is theism. They are differing opinions on a very specific topic. Neither is a world view or a religion or 'belief system'.

---

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?

You speak like someone who understands how much easier it is to ask a question that necessarily has a complex answer than it is to give the answer. Are you familiar with the term 'JAQing off'?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Infants have no developed rationality. Presumably we have moral responsibilities towards them because they have the potential to eventually become self-aware thinking beings.

There you go.

Fetuses, which biologically is objectively human, also have the potential to eventually become self-aware thinking beings. Do we have any moral obligations to them?

[Mister Agenda]

So what "inspires us to live beyond selfish interests and so achieve social coherence...and compels us beyond self-interest, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, and race." Why don't we live only for self-interest like evolution taught us to do?

For one thing, that's not what 'evolution taught us to do'. We're a social species, we survive as individuals by cooperating effectively. Even chimps and gorillas have social mores, and enforce them. It's in our own best interest to have a well-functioning society that keeps most people safe and healthy and content. And we've evolved innate sentiments that help with that. One of the most satisfying feelings we get is from helping those less fortunate than us. We have evolution to thank for that feeling.

---

So, a different set of parents and a little less empathy would yield a different set of ethics? That does not seem shaky to you?

It seems to comport closely with observed reality, with the caveat that children come equipped with varying predispositions that must also be taken into account. A resilient child can turn out okay with bad parenting whild a fragile child might need 'extra good' parenting to get a similar good outcome.