Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[Pizza]

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?

Is there a point to this? We have moral obligations to women and an obligation to stop over population as well.

[Mister Agenda]

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

All philosophies require axioms. If you take 'good outcomes for people being healthy, happy, free, and safe' as an axiom; you can build an objective framework on it.

[Esquilax]

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?

What, do you think I've never come across this little pro-forced birth trap before? Infants have a consciousness, they do think, even if it's not particularly complex thought. Fetuses do not have that, and their potential doesn't enter into it; if we're just going to speculate about the future then there's plenty of ridiculous places I could take that.

The issue is consciousness and thought: not the potential for thought, not biology, just those two things. Self aware beings are the only things capable of being moral actors, therefore morality requires their existence, and must focus on their well being. Otherwise, there isn't any point to morality.

[SteveII]

All the arguments based on "it is not really in our best interest to be selfish" only provides subjective morality and not any objective framework that goes beyond a certain sets of conditions. Depending on the society we live in, you can get wide variations of opinion between the "morality" of a host of actions.

How do you define "good" as in someone as a "good person"? In other contexts, we define something is "good" by how well it achieves its purpose. With naturalism, people have no intrinsic purpose--they are an assembly of atoms that experienced an unlikely chain of events. Morality becomes a matter of opinion and is relative and/or subjective. You can't leap from the "is" to the "ought".

In our evolution, was it always wrong to murder, rape or steal? Animals do these acts every single day without being "evil". Did the unlikely leap to self-awareness suddenly endow us with a moral framework when a moment before it had not (or not to the same extent)? Would this not be proof of the subjective nature of morality.

Some of you have mentioned societal goals (or any goals) that can help get from the is to the ought. What if someone does not want those goals--has no desire to do what others consider "good"? There is no objective grounds for saying that person is "bad". Of course everything goes smoother when everyone cooperated and does not kill, harm or steal. But that does not define what is good and thereby create an "ought".

For these reason, atheism seems to me to lead you to moral anti-realism (moral nihilism).

However, we all ACT like there is objective morality. Baby studies indicate that we are born with a rudimentary moral sense. Why do people engage in self-sacrifice for others (even to the point of death)--sometimes for people he/she has not met? This is certainly not biological evolution speaking.

Do we all act like there is objective morality because it is convenient or expedient or is there really objective morality? If there really is objective morality, it did not come by naturalistic means.

[abaris]

Do we all act like there is objective morality because it is convenient or expedient or is there really objective morality? If there really is objective morality, it did not come by naturalistic means.

Dude, seriously. Do some reading besides the bible and watch some videos about scientific discoveries. In short, try to broaden your horizon.

Recent research, and by that I mean within the last 20 to 30 years, has shown that social animals also act "morally" within their group. The reason why this happens isn't that hard to get. It provides advantages when living together. No supernatural influence needed. Only nature.

The problem with your bible people is that you don't look over the rim of your tea cup. Some iron age guy from the desert rambled something about a chosen people and humans being special and 3000 years later you're still there. You wouldn't light a fire the way these people did, but for some reason their legends stuck in your brains like glue.

Do a simple search on youtbe. "Cognition animals" should do the trick. Look for Brian Hare, who's one of the leading researchers into the dog mind. Look also for Frans van der Vaal, who worked with great apes. And if you're not humbled by what you learn, you're just a hopeless case.

[Esquilax]

All the arguments based on "it is not really in our best interest to be selfish" only provides subjective morality and not any objective framework that goes beyond a certain sets of conditions.

And you think christianity is any better? God's subjective opinions are still subjective, dude. You don't get to call them objective just because you think they're really, really authoritative.

Depending on the society we live in, you can get wide variations of opinion between the "morality" of a host of actions.

Which is why I make recourse to objective reality, and not society. It's really funny that you'll say reality isn't objective, but you'll say god's opinions are objective; it just tells me that you don't really know what either of those words mean.

How do you define "good" as in someone as a "good person"? In other contexts, we define something is "good" by how well it achieves its purpose. With naturalism, people have no intrinsic purpose--they are an assembly of atoms that experienced an unlikely chain of events. Morality becomes a matter of opinion and is relative and/or subjective. You can't leap from the "is" to the "ought".

And what is the intrinsic purpose of a person under christianity? How much they worship and obey god, right? So totally by coincidence, the "objective" morals that god gives you center solely around pleasing god. Gee, it's almost like the entire system is a self serving set of opinions, and has nothing to do with objectivity!

In our evolution, was it always wrong to murder, rape or steal? Animals do these acts every single day without being "evil". Did the unlikely leap to self-awareness suddenly endow us with a moral framework when a moment before it had not (or not to the same extent)? Would this not be proof of the subjective nature of morality.

Self awareness and cognition are what imbue us with the ability to consider morality at all. Like I said, morality requires a sufficient threshold of consciousness to even exist.

Some of you have mentioned societal goals (or any goals) that can help get from the is to the ought. What if someone does not want those goals--has no desire to do what others consider "good"?

Okay, look: if you won't take someone being unwilling to obey the morality of christianity as evidence against the efficacy of the christian moral system, do not think you can take people being unwilling to follow secular morality as evidence against that. I am so tired of hearing this same old crap, these problems that theistic morality also has in abundance and doesn't solve, as if your unwillingness to answer the questions you ask of us somehow means the problem is only with us.

However, we all ACT like there is objective morality. Baby studies indicate that we are born with a rudimentary moral sense. Why do people engage in self-sacrifice for others (even to the point of death)--sometimes for people he/she has not met? This is certainly not biological evolution speaking.

Because self sacrifice provides a net advantage to us as a species. You could at least try understanding what biological evolution is before you tell us what it is and isn't.

Do we all act like there is objective morality because it is convenient or expedient or is there really objective morality? If there really is objective morality, it did not come by naturalistic means.

How does it come from a god? How are god's subjective opinions somehow objective? You need to stop thinking that you can just poke holes in whatever anyone else believes without justifying your own beliefs, as though what you agree with is the default state that everyone else is departing from. It's simply not.

[Cato]

All the arguments based on "it is not really in our best interest to be selfish" only provides subjective morality and not any objective framework that goes beyond a certain sets of conditions. Depending on the society we live in, you can get wide variations of opinion between the "morality" of a host of actions.

How do you define "good" as in someone as a "good person"? In other contexts, we define something is "good" by how well it achieves its purpose. With naturalism, people have no intrinsic purpose--they are an assembly of atoms that experienced an unlikely chain of events. Morality becomes a matter of opinion and is relative and/or subjective. You can't leap from the "is" to the "ought".

In our evolution, was it always wrong to murder, rape or steal? Animals do these acts every single day without being "evil". Did the unlikely leap to self-awareness suddenly endow us with a moral framework when a moment before it had not (or not to the same extent)? Would this not be proof of the subjective nature of morality.

Some of you have mentioned societal goals (or any goals) that can help get from the is to the ought. What if someone does not want those goals--has no desire to do what others consider "good"? There is no objective grounds for saying that person is "bad". Of course everything goes smoother when everyone cooperated and does not kill, harm or steal. But that does not define what is good and thereby create an "ought".

For these reason, atheism seems to me to lead you to moral anti-realism (moral nihilism).

However, we all ACT like there is objective morality. Baby studies indicate that we are born with a rudimentary moral sense. Why do people engage in self-sacrifice for others (even to the point of death)--sometimes for people he/she has not met? This is certainly not biological evolution speaking.

Do we all act like there is objective morality because it is convenient or expedient or is there really objective morality? If there really is objective morality, it did not come by naturalistic means.

If you watch two people engaging in what you would define a moral act, how could you possibly tell whether the person was acting on an objective moral or a subjective moral? Seems to me you are just tagging everything you observe as moral with the 'objective' tag.

Let's back up shall we? If I'm not mistaken your argument goes something like this:

1. There are objective moral facts
2. God is a reasonable explanation for the existence of objective moral fact.
3. Therefore, God exists.

You can't demonstrate the existence of moral facts; therefore, your argument is valid, but unsound.

Be careful about your comparisons to other animals. Strong arguments can be made that our behavior and morality is closer to chimps than chimps are to barnacles. Our infants possessing the rudiments of moral decision making buttresses an evolutionary origin more than it does a divine origin.

You should think some of this through.

[pocaracas]

All the arguments based on "it is not really in our best interest to be selfish" only provides subjective morality and not any objective framework that goes beyond a certain sets of conditions. Depending on the society we live in, you can get wide variations of opinion between the "morality" of a host of actions.

Indeed, it's not a fixed, worldwide measure... your point?

How do you define "good" as in someone as a "good person"? In other contexts, we define something is "good" by how well it achieves its purpose. With naturalism, people have no intrinsic purpose--they are an assembly of atoms that experienced an unlikely chain of events. Morality becomes a matter of opinion and is relative and/or subjective. You can't leap from the "is" to the "ought".

A good person is one who does no unjustified purposeful harm to others. This harm can come in various shapes and forms which depend on the society.

In our evolution, was it always wrong to murder, rape or steal? Animals do these acts every single day without being "evil".

No... to the other tribes.
But it was always wrong to your own tribe.
Nowadays, a sort of global awareness exists, so a global ethics is developing. I'd say it's a noteworthy evolution of our species.... and, clearly, not all individuals are on par, there...

Some of you have mentioned societal goals (or any goals) that can help get from the is to the ought. What if someone does not want those goals--has no desire to do what others consider "good"? There is no objective grounds for saying that person is "bad". Of course everything goes smoother when everyone cooperated and does not kill, harm or steal. But that does not define what is good and thereby create an "ought".

Let's just say that the "objective" good is that which is agreed upon by the society.
An individual acting against this "objective" societal good is considered "objectively" bad and is punished, typically, by keeping him/her away from the rest of society, in jail.

For these reason, atheism seems to me to lead you to moral anti-realism (moral nihilism).

However, we all ACT like there is objective morality. Baby studies indicate that we are born with a rudimentary moral sense. Why do people engage in self-sacrifice for others (even to the point of death)--sometimes for people he/she has not met? This is certainly not biological evolution speaking.

Poor risk assessment, perhaps?
I'd say that each case is a case and they are not easily bundled into a neat answer.

Do we all act like there is objective morality because it is convenient or expedient or is there really objective morality? If there really is objective morality, it did not come by naturalistic means.

Convenient and expedient seem like two nice adjectives, here.

[Mudhammam]

Perhaps a definition of nihilism is in order: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.
synonyms: skepticism, negativity, cynicism, pessimism;
IN PHILOSOPHY: extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.

Theism does in no way lead to nihilism since God would be the source of meaning and of course there would exist realities beyond the physical.

If God does exist and he did declare a "code" it would be objective for our perspective because our individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings would not affect it.

I reject all religious principles because I'm skeptical of claims that lack rational or experiential justification. I embrace moral principles because they establish the order which allows our species to thrive in a capacity that maximizes our distinctly human disposition for thought and the pleasures derived from a life of opportunity and social interaction.

Your appeal to theism fails in the same way it would if you were to proclaim God as the "source of nutrition" when trying to convince us that cow shit belongs in a healthy diet. God's "code" is no more objective than the Code of Hammurabi and sorry to burst your bubble, but it is every bit as subject to "individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings," otherwise we wouldn't have mutually exclusive claims within the same religion, to say nothing of the differences between them. Clearly then, using evidence, reason, and argument to establish moral guidelines is far less arbitrary than appealing to your feelings and citing their justification as the rules your invisible tyrant decided upon for us.

All the arguments based on "it is not really in our best interest to be selfish" only provides subjective morality and not any objective framework that goes beyond a certain sets of conditions. Depending on the society we live in, you can get wide variations of opinion between the "morality" of a host of actions.

Of course we have wide variations. Once again, your appeals to religious "morality" does nothing to abate that situation, although it does in fact worsen it by causing opponents to dig their heels in whatever absolutist faith they prescribe to and shun the reasoning process which is what actually sets us towards objectively better ways of living. If you simply admit that we can agree on some ways being objectively worse, then we can begin philosophy. And you can deny that's the case in speech, but not action.

How do you define "good" as in someone as a "good person"? In other contexts, we define something is "good" by how well it achieves its purpose. With naturalism, people have no intrinsic purpose--they are an assembly of atoms that experienced an unlikely chain of events. Morality becomes a matter of opinion and is relative and/or subjective. You can't leap from the "is" to the "ought".

This is all very redundant. "Ought" means "is" in the context of the objectively better ways I already (and hopefully rightly) said we could agree on. To say you ought not to murder your spouse means that there are consequences to such actions that if accepted would cause a society to denigrate into a state no one would find conducive to their well-being. Like everyone keeps repeating, your God doesn't succeed here either because we can simply keep pushing the question of purpose further and ask what God's purpose is that is different from chance. Your answer must be "I don't know," which renders it moot.

In our evolution, was it always wrong to murder, rape or steal? Animals do these acts every single day without being "evil". Did the unlikely leap to self-awareness suddenly endow us with a moral framework when a moment before it had not (or not to the same extent)? Would this not be proof of the subjective nature of morality.

Some of you have mentioned societal goals (or any goals) that can help get from the is to the ought. What if someone does not want those goals--has no desire to do what others consider "good"? There is no objective grounds for saying that person is "bad". Of course everything goes smoother when everyone cooperated and does not kill, harm or steal. But that does not define what is good and thereby create an "ought".

For these reason, atheism seems to me to lead you to moral anti-realism (moral nihilism).

However, we all ACT like there is objective morality. Baby studies indicate that we are born with a rudimentary moral sense. Why do people engage in self-sacrifice for others (even to the point of death)--sometimes for people he/she has not met? This is certainly not biological evolution speaking.

Do we all act like there is objective morality because it is convenient or expedient or is there really objective morality? If there really is objective morality, it did not come by naturalistic means.

There was no moral responsibility as there was no reasoning process to establish moral statements about human flourishing. It's like your asking if it's right for a person to murder because they did it while they're sleep walking, or for a small child to pick up his dad's hand gun and shoot him. Of course it's not right from the vantage point of intelligent subjects using logical thought to advance the good in life.

"If there really is an objectively better way for governments to rule their subjects, it did not come about from people trying different systems and figuring out which better achieved their desired interests... therefore magic."

Come on, man. THINK.

[bennyboy]

However, we all ACT like there is objective morality. Baby studies indicate that we are born with a rudimentary moral sense.

No. We don't ALL act like there is an objective morality. Most of us do. And the reason we do is that this intrinsic morality is really just a social adaptation-- it's how our species has survived and thrived. Obviously, the instinctive actions of members of a species, and the emotional motivators that mediate those actions, are going to be common, in varying degrees, to all members of the species.

Also, you have to understand that our judgement of WHAT is moral is based on those instincts, so we have a circle: we are familiar with our own feelings about things, and call them moral. Then we discover that we have those feelings about things, and call ourselves intrinsically moral. But that means about as much as discovering that we have hair, or that most of us have ten toes: it's just a description of what it is like to be human. There's really no room for "so God" in there.