Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[IATIA]

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.

Survival of the species. Cold and simple. Humans have attributed the word morality to such actions, but IMHO, I see it simply as survival of the fittest. Birds are not taught to build nests, it is in their genealogy. No nest, no baby birds, no species. So, yes, evolution has beset us with a basic set of 'morals'.

[Simon Moon]

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.

As several of us have explained to you, the objective framework is that we all live in the same physical universe, with the same bodies and brains. What prevents me from having well being or helps me have well being will almost surely be the same thing for you.

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

And those things can be judged to be moral or immoral. If certain society's moral behaviors has the intent to lead to harm the well being of certain groups, then I would deem their behavior as immoral. Just because a society decides female genital mutilation is moral, does not make it so. You know how you can tell? Ask the victim!

When your holy book condoned slavery, was it moral?

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".

We are a collection of atoms with consciousness that is able to decide our own meaning.

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

We are a social species. Murder, rape and stealing are a detriment to the survival of social species. Our survival strategy is not the same as lions.

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.

Do you really think that humans are the only species with self-awareness and morality?

Bonobo chimps, our closest relative has a pretty complex morality. Here are just a few of their behaviors that sound a lot like morality to me:

Share food with others, even when in short supply.
Adopt children when their mother dies.
Protect other members of their group, even at the risk of their own lives.
Show remorse if they do something wrong, show sadness if a member of their group dies.
Punish violent members of their group, including rapists. Yes, I said rapists. Female Bonobos give consent when they choose to have sex. If a male has sex with them without her consent, they get punished.

The list goes on...

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"?

They get punished. Or at least, there's the threat of punishment.

Yes, it sucks that bad people sometimes get away with being bad moral actors. Grow up an get used to it.

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".

If they intentionally harm the well being of others (kill, rape, steal), they are bad.

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

No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't become more true.

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.

It is certainly (at least to a large extent) biological evolution.

If our ancestors did not evolve a moral sense (altruism, kin selection, reciprocity) we wouldn't have survived as a species.

Lions, tigers, sharks, pythons do not need altruism, kin selection, reciprocity to survive. Humans, chimps, dolphins, gorillas, do.

If there really is objective morality, it did not come by naturalistic means.

The physical laws of the universe, the fact that we all have (more or less) the same bodies and brains, the fact that what is harmful to my well being is almost assuredly the same type of things that will harm your well being, sounds pretty close to objective.

[robvalue]

Steve, Steve... Atheists get along just fine and have happy, productive lives where they're not killing each other and raping everything in sight. That is reality. What's the problem?

You keep saying what atheism "leads to" yet where is the evidence of this in reality? If there is none, then I think you need to reconsider.

And to repeat myself again... atheism does not automatically lead to anything. Stop trying to make it into something you can dislike.

You've ignored everything I've sad so far, but maybe you could address this?

Please don't start talking about communists or nazis.

To me, you seem to be saying, "I can't undestand why atheists are not running around killing people all the time!'"

The answer is simple. Morality comes from us, not from a book or some abstract external being.

[SteveII]

So I have heard terms like instinct, survival, net advantage, cognitive threshold, chimps, same brains/needs. There are of course theories on how we arrive at our morality. Nothing to convincingly argue that morality is objective. If morality is subjective, you end up with moral anti-realism and that leads to the conclusion Dawkins wrote: "There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. … We are machines for propagating DNA. … It is every living object's sole reason for being." As I pointed out, no one lives that way--not many people even THINK that way; they partake in the "noble lie". This leads back to the OP where I linked to the article on Adam: "There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist" which he finds to be utterly depressing.

The statement has been made that any morality from God is also subjective. From your favorite Christian philosopher WLC:

God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-indis...z3UGxkM4uD

If these attributes necessarily flow from the greatest conceivable being, they are not subjective. If we are made in the image of God (having some of the same attributes: soul, personhood, sentient, capable of love, having free will, moral, etc.), we have within us an objective framework for moral values and duties.

Consequently, this is also the reason I don't think atheists go around killing people but rather explains why we feel we have intrinsic meaning, value and purpose; why we know what is right and wrong; why there is self-sacrifice; and why we feel there are such things as universal truths (what the "noble lie" otherwise provides).

[Mister Agenda]

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.

You seem to have 'objective' and 'universal' mixed up.

How do you define "good" as in someone as a "good person"?

A good person is a person who does good things. They help people, they exhibit virtues like patience and integrity, they don't treat people as means to their ends. Do you define a good person differently?

In other contexts, we define something is "good" by how well it achieves its purpose.

Do you know what equivocation is?

With naturalism, people have no intrinsic purpose--they are an assembly of atoms that experienced an unlikely chain of events.

Purpose isn't an intrinsic quality of anything. Conscious agents are the only things that can ascribe purpose to something, including themselves.

Morality becomes a matter of opinion and is relative and/or subjective.

Especially if you stop your ears and chant 'la, la, la' every time someone tries to impart a tiny smidgen of centuries of moral philosophy to you.

You can't leap from the "is" to the "ought".

You're right about that. You're wrong if you think a deity resolves that conundrum.

In our evolution, was it always wrong to murder, rape or steal?

Nope. In your posts, do you have to telegraph your next point from a mile away?

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)?

Nope. 'Sudden' isn't a good word to bring to a discussion about evolution, as a rule. It was a long, arduous, and painful process; and the inklings of our moral sentiments would have been present before we invented language.

Would this not be proof of the subjective nature of morality.

I'm really quite mystified at what your 'poof, suddenly we're moral' scenario would prove if it were true. Conscience gremlins?

Some of you have mentioned societal goals (or any goals) that can help get from the is to the ought.

I dare you to quote someone here saying that. I don't have much patience with people who misrepresent others.

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".

There are no ABSOLUTE grounds for saying that person is bad. There aren't any ABSOLUTE grounds for saying someone is tall, either, but we can objectively say one person is taller than another or one person is taller than most people, or one person is too tall to go on this ride. We don't need to know what 'absolute bad' is to know if someone is not so bad that we can't tolerate their selfishness or so bad we can't have them running around loose.

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".

You've suddenly become fixated on this 'is vs. ought' thing. Did you imagine this was news to us and therefore some way to get a 'gotcha' in on us? Science can tell us how to get what we want, it can even tell us what we should want to get what we want, but it can't tell us what to want in the first place. 'First Oughts' are axiomatic, they can't be derived empirically or logically, they come from our nature as human beings. It is self-evident that it is good for human beings to be free, happy, healthy, educated, fulfilled, and safe. I've found that axiom gets me pretty far, morally speaking.

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

The actual reason seems to be that any posts to the contrary can't make it past your blinders.

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

Thanks for mirroring a point we've made to you multiple times back at us.

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.

It most certainly is. If you misunderstand the field this badly, maybe you should read more about it. Surely you're aware that it's not only humans who will behave that way?

Do we all act like there is objective morality because it is convenient or expedient or is there really objective morality?

Their really is objective morality. Not absolute, not universal, but objective. Some things really are better or worse than others. Neither a degree in moral philosophy nor a degree in theology should be required to figure that out.

If there really is objective morality, it did not come by naturalistic means.

That's your claim, which you've failed to support.

[robvalue]

Steve: are you now trying to say atheists get their morals from God?

If God sets what is moral and what is not, then it is subjective to him. It is then of no guarantee that it will actually have anything to do with our wellbeing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If God sets what is moral and what is not, then it is subjective to him. It is then of no guarantee that it will actually have anything to do with our wellbeing.

Deny, deflect, confuse. You're just jumping from one objection to another without any idea of how they all fit together.

[Esquilax]

So I have heard terms like instinct, survival, net advantage, cognitive threshold, chimps, same brains/needs. There are of course theories on how we arrive at our morality. Nothing to convincingly argue that morality is objective.

Yeah, if you dismiss everything you've been told as "just a theory," based only on the fact that you don't like it and no evidence at all, then you have things that are just theories. Thank you for making your lazy, fiat dismissal also a tautology, that's extra irritating.

If morality is subjective, you end up with moral anti-realism

God's morality is subjective. You seem desperate to ignore this point, but if you're set on making this an issue then we're in the same boat. I don't necessarily take your completely baseless assertion that the one leads to the other seriously, but once again you're proposing a problem that your own religion doesn't solve.

and that leads to the conclusion Dawkins wrote: "There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. … We are machines for propagating DNA. … It is every living object's sole reason for being."

Yeah, nobody gives a shit what Dawkins says. You're not going to convince anyone by just quoting Dawkins out of context. It's an appeal to authority.

As I pointed out, no one lives that way--not many people even THINK that way; they partake in the "noble lie". This leads back to the OP where I linked to the article on Adam: "There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist" which he finds to be utterly depressing.

Why do you think just asserting what we've already dealt with, while ignoring everything you haven't just dismissed, is a compelling argument? You sound terribly ignorant, right now.

The statement has been made that any morality from God is also subjective. From your favorite Christian philosopher WLC:

Nah, I don't listen to WLC. I've got a self authenticating witness of WLC's constant incorrectness, which tells me that he's wrong whenever he says words. You just need to use the ministerial use of reason with regards to the presupposition that WLC is always wrong.

God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-indis...z3UGxkM4uD

So is god's nature good because he says so, or because it conforms to moral goodness? The Euthyphro Dilemma remains unanswered, and it destroys everything you've said here, Steve.

If these attributes necessarily flow from the greatest conceivable being, they are not subjective.

Bullshit. Subjective, by definition, means that they come from a mind, rather than from reality. God has a mind, regardless of how much authority you place in him, and that makes his opinions subjective. Unless he's just observing morality as it occurs in reality, in which case he's irrelevant to formulations of morality, and I'm right... Hmm. So you're either wrong, and I'm right, or you're proposing a system that your religion doesn't solve, and then lying by saying it solves it...

Incidentally, still haven't demonstrated that god exists, so saying where morality "necessarily" flows from is putting the cart before the horse.

If we are made in the image of God (having some of the same attributes: soul, personhood, sentient, capable of love, having free will, moral, etc.), we have within us an objective framework for moral values and duties.

"What god likes," is not an objective framework, and ignoring me when I say that doesn't make it go away.

Consequently, this is also the reason I don't think atheists go around killing people but rather explains why we feel we have intrinsic meaning, value and purpose; why we know what is right and wrong; why there is self-sacrifice; and why we feel there are such things as universal truths (what the "noble lie" otherwise provides).

So, isn't lying wrong? So, when you ignore me, and you're lying by omission... tell me again how we all know right from wrong because of god magic?

[pocaracas]

If these attributes necessarily flow from the greatest conceivable being, they are not subjective. If we are made in the image of God (having some of the same attributes: soul, personhood, sentient, capable of love, having free will, moral, etc.), we have within us an objective framework for moral values and duties.

That a whole lot of IFs.
And they still hinge on the extra IF: if such a being does exist....

Why not stick with what we can count on?

[Mister Agenda]

So I have heard terms like instinct, survival, net advantage, cognitive threshold, chimps, same brains/needs. There are of course theories on how we arrive at our morality. Nothing to convincingly argue that morality is objective.

In your far-from-humble opinion.

If morality is subjective, you end up with moral anti-realism and that leads to the conclusion Dawkins wrote: "There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. … We are machines for propagating DNA. … It is every living object's sole reason for being."

You keep saying things lead to things without showing your work. You started with:

1. Atheism
2. No step 2.
3. Nihilism

Now you're at:

1. Moral anti-realism (the conclusion that morals exist in minds, not 'out there' in the laws of physics or unconscious matter)
2. No step 2.
3. Supposedly relevant Dawkins quote.

There IS pitiless indifference at the bottom. But we're not at the bottom, are we? WE are not pitilessly indifferent, are we?

As I pointed out, no one lives that way--not many people even THINK that way; they partake in the "noble lie".

What way do you think we're supposed to live if we think people care but the universe doesn't?

This leads back to the OP where I linked to the article on Adam: "There is no escaping the nihilism as an atheist" which he finds to be utterly depressing.

Maybe you should stop trying to figure out what leads to what on your own. You're not very good at it. Why do you suppose Adam to be representative of atheists while you dismiss everything we have to say that doesn't fit in with your mental picture of us out-of-hand?

The statement has been made that any morality from God is also subjective. From your favorite Christian philosopher WLC:

I presume you describe that huckster as our favorite Christian philosopher ironically.

"God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression."

Thank you for another pile of assertions from WLC, the first problem with which is that there is no way he can know any of that.

If these attributes necessarily flow from the greatest conceivable being, they are not subjective.

If pigs could fly, they wouldn't have to get their trotters dirty.

If we are made in the image of God (having some of the same attributes: soul, personhood, sentient, capable of love, having free will, moral, etc.), we have within us an objective framework for moral values and duties.

If we're made in the image of God, God can't be as impressive as usually made out to be. And if the pigs could fly thing, too.

Consequently, this is also the reason I don't think atheists go around killing people but rather explains why we feel we have intrinsic meaning, value and purpose; why we know what is right and wrong; why there is self-sacrifice; and why we feel there are such things as universal truths (what the "noble lie" otherwise provides).

There are a lot of clues to the real source of all those qualities. It's understandable for that to be beyond the grasp of an iron age sage. The world was a much more mysterious place: it seemed like we often went somewhere else while we dreamed, leaving our bodies behind. We hardly knew the causes of anything that wasn't done by people or animals. Superficially, the sun seemed to rise in the East and set in the West while the earth remained still, and appeared like a giant disk if we went up to a mountain top and looked around. Everyone attributed the unknown to spirits and gods, which they hoped to placate, and often imagined to be like invisible mortal kings with super powers. But we lived in a society with rules and customs that were important and traditional even if we couldn't remember the purpose behind all of them. Writing them down would help make sure our descendants still followed the proper ways, and ascribing them to the gods would awe those descendants into being fearful of changing them. All of that is fairly reasonable, if not exactly rational, for an Iron Age sage.

Since then we've had millenia of trial and error to make improvements, despite those who clung to Iron Age scriptures trying to prevent every single one. We're not immune to any of those old crimes, but at least we've figured out that genocide, rape, and slavery are bad; something those old scriptures neglected to teach, because they actually did not have a real understanding that they were wrong or why they were wrong, because our moral philosophy was so undeveloped. When old Maori were asked why they wiped out all the inhabitants of a nearby island, they would say 'it was our way'. A lot of our moral behavior is instinctive, but much more of is learned and 'figured out'. It's one thing to care about the people we know, another to care about strangers. It's not all automatic. It's not 'written on our hearts'. It's a few chicken scratches on our brains, that give us a few pro-social impulses to go along with our anti-social ones, and we have to figure out the rest...and we seem to do a better job without supposed 'help from above'.