Do you see the logical end to atheism being nihilism? If not, why not?

[PatienceAndHumility]

Dear forum (especially dear atheist friends) I want to better understand the heart of atheism and it’s consequences idealogically. I have a dear friend who is an atheist and we often have this discussion.

My question to him is why he isn’t a nihilist- i.e. nothing
really matters. To me, that is the logical conclusion of atheism. Now I must apologise as this does come across direct! But it’s hard to convey this charitably so bear with me!

If one professes there is no God, creator or afterlife (following classical definitions), then we are the products of chance. Altruism is the highest calling of existence. Altruism serves for ultimately utilitarian goals at best. At worst it serves our bodily appetites at the mercy of the weakest in society. Consequently the latter scenario leads to a rapid degenerative state of humanity, leading ultimately to nihilism.

Grateful for your views. Peace !

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

I’m not an Atheist, but I don’t think that means purely nihilism. Obviously most people don’t think this way. In my opinion however, it does lead to relativism.

If I was an Atheist I’d probably say I find meaning in my job (if I like it), my family (if I like my family), my goals and aspirations (whatever they are for me)…see what I’m getting at? Its not “meaningless” but it’s purely determined by what I deem to be important. To me this is the real crux of the argument: what makes my life meaningful to me? Nobody determines this other than myself, but the same can be said for other people. So if two people are directly opposed in their aspirations…who is right? and what is the more just decision between them? and how do you define that? In my opinion you can’t because you have no greater authority over your neighbor in terms of morality or justice…because there isn’t morality when everyone defines it for themselves and thus morality is subjective which leads to a whole host of problems.

To your point, because of this, a meaningful life is subjective and if everything is subjective, there really is no true definition of something having true meaning. But it hinges on the argument of what is moral or good (in the sense of what is worth pursuit in life).

 

[Dan_Defender]

Good question! maybe only atheists here on CAF have disowned Nietzsche. Because in real life I know atheists who are nihilist and advocate for anarchy.

 

[Freddy]

Dear forum (especially dear atheist friends) I want to better understand the heart of atheism and it’s consequences idealogically. I have a dear friend who is an atheist and we often have this discussion.

My question to him is why he isn’t a nihilist- i.e. nothing
really matters. To me, that is the logical conclusion of atheism. Now I must apologise as this does come across direct! But it’s hard to convey this charitably so bear with me!

If one professes there is no God, creator or afterlife (following classical definitions), then we are the products of chance. Altruism is the highest calling of existence. Altruism serves for ultimately utilitarian goals at best. At worst it serves our bodily appetites at the mercy of the weakest in society. Consequently the latter scenario leads to a rapid degenerative state of humanity, leading ultimately to nihilism.

Grateful for your views. Peace !

I’d guess that we both live our lives the same. We love our family and we find meaning in the happiness they bring us. We get satisfaction from our work. We enjoy the company of friends. We take pleasure in learning new skills. We like good food and watching the footy or the basketball. We enjoy a round of golf or a day at the beach or a beautiful sunset. There’s a lot to enjoy in life. A lot to give it meaning.

An atheist simply doesn’t believe in ultimate meaning. That we are here for a purpose. Yes, we are an accident of nature. So we take pleasure in our good luck and try to make the best of the time we have.

And true altruism (if it really exists) means helping others do the same. It’s not ‘what do I get out of it?’ It’s a means of sharing. It certainly doesn’t mean taking advantage of the weakest in society. Just the opposite in fact.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m not an Atheist, but I don’t think that means purely nihilism. Obviously most people don’t think this way. In my opinion however, it does lead to relativism.

If I was an Atheist I’d probably say I find meaning in my job (if I like it), my family (if I like my family), my goals and aspirations (whatever they are for me)…see what I’m getting at? Its not “meaningless” but it’s purely determined by what I deem to be important. To me this is the real crux of the argument: what makes my life meaningful to me? Nobody determines this other than myself, but the same can be said for other people. So if two people are directly opposed in their aspirations…who is right? and what is the more just decision between them? and how do you define that? In my opinion you can’t because you have no greater authority over your neighbor in terms of morality or justice…because there isn’t morality when everyone defines it for themselves and thus morality is subjective which leads to a whole host of problems.

To your point, because of this, a meaningful life is subjective and if everything is subjective, there really is no true definition of something having true meaning. But it hinges on the argument of what is moral or good (in the sense of what is worth pursuit in life).

I have a few problems with your scenario.

We all live within a society as well as living in our own heads. I believe we as a society decide how we want that society to function and define our moral dealings with each other. I know it’s not all about me. I have to live with my neighbors as much as they have to live with me.

Atheists tend to like using reason and evidence to form their values. It’s why we can look at the golden rule and easily agree with it. How do I want my neighbors to treat me? When society is peaceful and happy, what are it’s values and rules that helped it achieve it and keep it. What works and what fails.

All of define what makes us happy to a large extent…and we pursue it throughout our lives…by the jobs we take, our families, friends and by the goals we set for ourselves. Just because we find no purpose in the universe doesn’t mean we…ourselves…don’t have any either. Our brains have evolved to give meaning to patterns and our lives. We are empathic as well. We can visualize ourselves in another’s shoes and share their pains and pleasures. We realize that other people’s happiness increases our own.

Good question! maybe only atheists here on CAF have disowned Nietzsche. Because in real life I know atheists who are nihilist and advocate for anarchy.

I’m not going to fully doubt this but who are you hanging out with? I’ve never met a totally nihilistic atheist…and I’ve know quite a few. I’d be interested in talking with them.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

To clarify I said I wasn’t an atheist, I do believe that there is inherent good and that we do have meaning to our lives. What I was saying is that taking an atheist approach means that the atheist cannot say what is truly right or wrong because the atheist is defining those values by himself subjectively.

Just because we find no purpose in the universe doesn’t mean we…ourselves…don’t have any either. Our brains have evolved to give meaning to patterns and our lives.

This is exactly my point, your own perspective may very well give YOU a meaningful life. But if you don’t believe in an ultimate authority that defines right and wrong, then you really cannot say that someone who thinks the exact opposite of you is wrong either. There is no moral standard (from the atheist perspective) because there “is no God.”

What if a different more powerful group said that you are in the way, you are impeding their happiness, and you have to be removed along with your whole neighborhood. You say: “that’s wrong! that’s against my pursuit of a meaningful existence”. If there is no God, who is to say who is right or wrong? No God, No definite moral compass…it’s just the way it is.

 

[AlNg]

Atheists tend to like using reason and evidence to form their values.

There is something called atheistic humanism according to which people are encouraged to lead meaningful lives promoting personal fulfillment, peace and the greater good of humanity but without belief in God.

 

[Hume]

Dear forum (especially dear atheist friends) I want to better understand the heart of atheism and it’s consequences idealogically. I have a dear friend who is an atheist and we often have this discussion.

My question to him is why he isn’t a nihilist- i.e. nothing
really matters. To me, that is the logical conclusion of atheism. Now I must apologise as this does come across direct! But it’s hard to convey this charitably so bear with me!

If one professes there is no God, creator or afterlife (following classical definitions), then we are the products of chance. Altruism is the highest calling of existence. Altruism serves for ultimately utilitarian goals at best. At worst it serves our bodily appetites at the mercy of the weakest in society. Consequently the latter scenario leads to a rapid degenerative state of humanity, leading ultimately to nihilism.

Grateful for your views. Peace !

Hey ya!

For this atheist, all it means is that I don’t think there’s a god. This isn’t something I know, per se. I guess you could say that I have “faith” that there’s probably no such thing as god.

I can understand that nihilism might be an inevitable conclusion if religion was the only place were we can obtain a value system. However, I don’t think that’s true.

I believe in peace, justice, fairness, beauty and a host of other ideals and I can argue for them without appealing to a deity. They and others are genuinely good ideas on their own merit.

On altruism - I think it evolved because it increased our chances of survival. Working together, we are able to conquer countless challenges that we cannot conquer alone.

 

[Hume]

At worst it serves our bodily appetites at the mercy of the weakest in society.

Hmm, as an atheist that believes in the Golden Rule, I don’t want the weak in society to be treated any differently than I would want to be treated.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Do you see the logical end to atheism being nihilism? If not, why not?

No, because it is your own presupposition that it ends in nihilism.

 

[Hume]

No God, No definite moral compass…it’s just the way it is.

Moral relativism does describe the reality in which we live.

It’s wrong to murder someone, right? If truly so, we’d have outlawed executions and war. Just an easy example. Another thread, I guess

 

[Freddy]

What if a different more powerful group said that you are in the way, you are impeding their happiness, and you have to be removed along with your whole neighborhood. You say: “that’s wrong! that’s against my pursuit of a meaningful existence”. If there is no God, who is to say who is right or wrong? No God, No definite moral compass…it’s just the way it is.

The golden rule has been around since societies began to form. They wouldn’t have done so if reciprocal altruism hadn’t been a guiding force. It’s an excellent rule by which to live. Effectively, live as you wish to live as long as it doesn’t have a negative impact on others and grant others the same opportunity.

Then we can decide as to what is right and wrong. So if the heavy mob roll into my neighbourhood and tell us we have to move out then it’s simply a matter of asking them if another group asked them to move on next month, would they consider it perfectly acceptable.

They obviously wouldn’t so we can class that as being wrong. Of course, it won’t stop them turfing me out, but they’d do that anyway. But we’d be justified in using a certain amount of force to…deter them, shall we say. As per the Catholic concept of a just war.

And in any case, who is to say that someone is right simply because they say that God is on their side. Got Mit Uns has been used by many people.

And if you say that you’d follow church teaching then we have another problem. The first being that the church allows for a certain amount of interpretation - by necessity. It can’t offer specific solutions for all moral problems. So you have to decide. And as we can see even within this forum, people differ widely on moral matters. So who is right?

And secondly, if it is a specific solution the church offers, then you either decide if the church is right or not - in which case we’re back to the first problem, or you accept it whether you think it’s right or wrong.

 

[otjm]

What I was saying is that taking an atheist approach means that the atheist cannot say what is truly right or wrong because the atheist is defining those values by himself subjectively.

Ethics is a study of good and evil, and was around in cultures which believed in many gods - often identified either by natural elements, of figurative “good and bad”; and in those societies there were plenty who did not have a belief in a god, but could define what was good and bad, along the line which we call natural law.

So the case is not made that atheism automatically means an individual cannot define good and evil in specific (as opposed to general, amporphus and shifting) concepts and rules.

Buddhism does not posit a god, but most certainly =has clear ideas of good and evil.

 

[Theban]

My question to him is why he isn’t a nihilist- i.e. nothing
really matters. To me, that is the logical conclusion of atheism.

When I was an atheist, this is exactly what I believed. I would justify whatever I wanted to do on the basis that everything is just atoms anyway, and any notion of consciousness or morality is a delusion.

Still, most atheists don’t think like that. I would argue that that is because most people have a natural affinity for truth, and it is obvious to anyone that there really are such things as morality and goodness and the like, atheist or not.
In my case I also recognized these things, although I argued that they were delusions and could safely be ignored, but more sensible people than me can find ways to reconcile them to their worldview, if they wish.

I don’t think it’s illogical for a materialistic atheist such as I was to be a nihilist, but I do think it is equally logical to not be, and a lot more sensible. The real problem of atheism in regards to nihilism isn’t so much that it encourages people to be nihilists, but rather it is that it doesn’t discourage it.
So most atheists aren’t going to be nihilists, and they are quite logical, but the weakest ones like me will fall down to the lowest level possible in religion, and in atheism there is nothing to protect them from becoming nihilists.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

I agree with you in that a rabbit hole of relativism fills the void of a lack of absolutes. But wouldn’t you say that nihilism supersedes this relativism you describe? Ultimately relativism doesn’t really “matter” in the context of real meaning.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Thanks. Yes I think that is in part why Nietzsche deserves commending- to me his nihilism logically follows as the heart of the argument.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Agree with you- as a Catholic, I share many common motivating factors with those you have outlined. The key difference however is in the very heart of these factors- the heart of them being altruism for atheist friends and for Catholics being serving Christ (His commandments, the formation of our souls, the afterlife etc.).

And it is this highest purpose of altruism which in my opinion follows from/to (depending on perspective) utilitarianism. In turn the logical conclusion is nihilism. If you take ‘common good’, ‘happiness’ etc. as highest purposes, why does that truly matter? An illustration of this is if you put such a philosophy as arbiter of a society. What decisions would follow in regards to those pertaining human life? If there are no absolute moral truths, and only altruism matters, subjective views will be used as justification. In turn, nihilism is the logical conclusion as a defining philosophy

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Its not an easy example. As an Atheist you may feel that way, but if there was no God and I murdered a hundred people so that a billion could live happily without problems for a 1000 years then I would probably be justified doing it. Who is going to say otherwise? and even if they did what would it matter…they aren’t the rule makers…because if there is no God then nobody is.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Freddy the point I’m making is not that people don’t come up with systems of morality on their own. They do, and I agree with you that they tend to work pretty well.

The point I’m making is they have no ground whatsoever for determining with is 100% good. That is relative based on the person/group. Without God morality is subjective, because you have no basis for determining what is actually good.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

What makes the Buddist right over anyone else? I’ve already answered your response in a similar way above.

I agree with you in that a rabbit hole of relativism fills the void of a lack of absolutes. But wouldn’t you say that nihilism supersedes this relativism you describe? Ultimately relativism doesn’t really “matter” in the context of real meaning.

Yes I agree. I was simply saying that atheist don’t feel that life is meaningless but the subjective nature of moral relativism does indeed make their interpretation of a moral system meaningless (nihilism I suppose) if there is no God to determine said values of good and evil.

In short: they don’t think that way, but logically it is that way.