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

[Freddy]

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.

But why have you ignored the bulk of my post which references your last point? There’s no point in me responding to something you write if you ignore what I say.

 

[Freddy]

If you take ‘common good’, ‘happiness’ etc. as highest purposes, why does that truly matter?

So the common good is not something we should try to attain? What else could there be, whatever sytem of morality you subscribe to?

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

I’m sorry its hard to keep track because I just had to respond to 4 different people. I’m not trying to ignore what you are saying but I’m summarizing an answer of everything that I’m saying which is this:

Without God, you can not have an altruistic sense of good. Therefore in the end, any moral system without God is purely subjective, no matter how good or bad it may be.

 

[Freddy]

Without God, you can not have an altruistic sense of good.

Who told you this? It’s abject nonsense. Altruism is inbuilt. Everyone has a sense of altruism whether they believe in God or Shiva or have no belief in the supernatural at all. Whether they act on it or not is another question.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Yeah I know, cause God put it there.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

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.

And the logical conclusion here is that relativism rules right? So what if one person’s understanding altruism opposes yours? For example, one might say that the purest form of altruism is care for the planet and not humans. Therefore only nihilism is pure altruism.

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 ow

This is where I think the only logical conclusion is therefore nihilism. Nothing really matters as there is no Truth. Altruism is relativistic. Therefore utilitarianism is the best end, via altruism. But since it is all relative, nihilism rests at the heart.

Peace

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

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.

Thanks for the reply friend. I think that it is certainly possible and logical to hold those beliefs/values in the context of altruism, as an atheist. But fundamentally, when it comes down to it, why does it really matter for an atheist to believe in such things? If it is altruism, then why be altruistic? If it is because utilitarianism is the ultimate end of society, then who’s the arbiter? If it can be anyone, then on an individual level, why bother? This is where I find it hard to understand why nihilism isn’t the ultimate logical conclusion. Peace , friend

 

[Freddy]

Yeah I know, cause God put it there.

I think you missed the point. Which was that with altruism, one doesn’t need God to determine morality. So if even if God did grant us that ability, He made Himself redundant by that very act.

 

[StudentMI]

I don’t see the end of atheism being anything other than amorality. The only thing possible is some kind of natural ethics based on group solidarity ala Kropotkin. Or utilitarianism which presupposes happiness of the majority is somehow better than individual happiness.

I think if you’re going to study atheism not just Nietzsche but the Marquis de Sade and Georges Bataille are necessary. Pierre Klossowski as well.

 

[Freddy]

Hume:

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.

Thanks for the reply friend. I think that it is certainly possible and logical to hold those beliefs/values in the context of altruism, as an atheist. But fundamentally, when it comes down to it, why does it really matter for an atheist to believe in such things? If it is altruism, then why be altruistic?

One doesn’t believe in altruism any more than one believes in being hungry. Reciprocal altruism is an entirely natural aspect of human existence. One doesn’t decide to feel it any more than one decides to feel hungry. We have an ability to decide whether we act on it or not but we are aware of the negative impacts in the here and now if we don’t.

Do you think it’s worthwhile extending a helping hand to others? To share the work load? The food? Me too. And do you know why we feel that way? Well, it’s either that God intended us to have those feelings or they evolved naturally to enable us to form societies. You choose what best suits your understanding of the world.

Either way, we’re both on the same page. Do good. Look after your fellow man. Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

 

[Pattylt]

And the logical conclusion here is that relativism rules right? So what if one person’s understanding altruism opposes yours? For example, one might say that the purest form of altruism is care for the planet and not humans. Therefore only nihilism is pure altruism.

Because we don’t live in a one on one society. Any two people can disagree. I see Catholics do so all the time, even in moral dilemmas. Thats why we form societies. Thats why we form laws and courts…to settle our differences. If you are going to plop two people onto a deserted island, I guarantee what happens is the strongest wins. We don’t live in two people societies so a two person disagreement is moot.

Nothing really matters as there is no Truth.

Nothing really matters to who? Morality is relativistic. The religious just refuse to see it that way. They claim God is the author of morality but it is still men that interpret what that means. You just give God the credit. There are thousands of scenarios that require a moral decision. God never answers what we are supposed to do…we have to figure it out. Saying, “What would God want us to do” is no different than… What should we do. It just sounds more comforting to claim God directs your morality.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

I’m sorry but where does altruism come from? If you are agreeing that a definite sense of good is defined by God then I guess you believe in God. Which proves Atheism wrong.

Or

You have to tell me where a definite sense of good comes from that isn’t relative, if your assumption that God doesn’t exist is true. How do you explain it?

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

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

Of course- in no way do I question that most atheists share common values with Catholics. But my question is why do you? And why does it actually matter. If it is utilitarianism, then nihilism is but a short step away, in the context of atheism as ones fundament. And a society driven by subjective/relativistic utilitarianism will easy degrade to nihilism for the purpose of temporal ease/pleasure.

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

And other atheists too have seen nihilism as the logical conclusion. My question is why don’t you?

Peace

 

[Hume]

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.

As morality is relative, I guess it’s possible. Depends if it was a “righteous kill” or not. How many good, decent theists pretend to think they’d murder baby Hitler or Stalin so as to potentially save millions?

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.

That’s easy. Society says so.

You hopefully realize that during the Inquisition, the scream-inducing thumb screws weren’t being turned by God. They were being turned by a few men in uniform who thought they were enforcing the rules.

If society says you’re free to kill that 1000, or sacrifice a virgin to the rain-god or whatever, then you can do it with little to no moral consequence.

If society doesn’t agree, another man in a uniform makes serious trouble for you.

But fundamentally, when it comes down to it, why does it really matter for an atheist to believe in such things?

Because we generally want safe, functional societies. We also want to be treated well as individuals.

If it is because utilitarianism is the ultimate end of society, then who’s the arbiter?

I think the ultimate end of society is just continuity. We gotta have rules in place or the thing falls apart.

This is where I find it hard to understand why nihilism isn’t the ultimate logical conclusion. Peace , friend

For me, the ultimate aim is peace.

If it is utilitarianism, then nihilism is but a short step away, in the context of atheism as ones fundament.

I think “the common good” of utilitarianism and “the nothing” of nihilism are a bit further from each other than you do.

Regardless, I think your focus on utilitarianism and nihilism in the context of individual and societal atheism may be a bit misplaced - offered with no malice at all.

 

[Hume]

@Freddy
@Pattylt

Wish there was more I could add, but you two seem to be doing a great job explaining the associated ideas.

tip of the cap

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

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

To a moral relativist there is no absolute moral evil. Take our big moral questions as examples- euthanasia and abortion. A utilitarian, thus relativist, society would simply be swept by the tides of the times. For example ecology. Thus at an individual basis, nihilism seems logical. In other words; “there is no God so nothing really matters. The “zeitgeist” of the times is what matters. Of course, we’ll all hopefully try our best, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter.” To me this seems a logical deduction.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Depends if it was a “righteous kill” or not.

this is still a subjective characteristic with no God or perfect standard of morality.

How many good, decent theists pretend to think they’d murder baby Hitler or Stalin so as to potentially save millions?

This is yet another subjective topic that we indirectly have the choice to affect regarding abortion. With no supreme standard of morality, Hitler and Stalin (though many consider to be evil) are simply just people who defined their own sense of morality. What is to say that the millions of unborn children dying today could not change the world for the better or worse? But that’s a tangential topic.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

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

To a moral relativist there is no absolute moral evil. Take our big moral questions as examples- euthanasia and abortion. A utilitarian, thus relativist, society would simply be swept by the tides of the times. For example ecology. Thus at an individual basis, nihilism seems logical. In other words; “there is no God so nothing really matters. The “zeitgeist” of the times is what matters. Of course, we’ll all hopefully try our best, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter.” To me this seems a logical deduction.

Well, as far as abortion goes, I think my wife ought to have full, 100% control of what goes on both with and in her body - so yeah. I support it’s continued safety and legalization.

For euthanasia, I think if I get an inoperable brain tumor like that poor girl in Cali and I know it’s going to be an absolute terminal horror-fest both for me and my family, I’d like to have access to painless and effective ways to “check out” if I come to that decision.

this is still a subjective characteristic with no God or perfect standard of morality.

Absolutely. The society in which the kill occurs judges it. Some societies will think it ok, some won’t, some will oscillate between the two in time.

 

[Dan_Defender]

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.

I’m well traveled and have met many people. I don’t necessarily hang out with them, but you’d be surprised how many have different views than your own out there.

 

[Dan_Defender]

A utilitarian, thus relativist, society would simply be swept by the tides of the times. For example ecology. Thus at an individual basis, nihilism seems logical. In other words; “there is no God so nothing really matters. The “zeitgeist” of the times is what matters. Of course, we’ll all hopefully try our best, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter.” To me this seems a logical deduction.

I would add that there have been societies in history close to this. Take the Huns. They would go in, loot and kill, go back to their camp, eat, drink and be merry. Some atheists would say, yeah we are all dust anyway at least the Huns had an enjoyable life for a while. It worked for them.