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

[FiveLinden]

Re evidence- are you seeking empirical evidence for the classically defined western God? If so, what evidence do you think might suffice for you personally?

I would believe in the classically-defined western God were he to appear to me and show me his wounds, walk on water, multiply loaves and fishes and, especially, raise decomposing corpses from the dead. Such manifestations are possible, according to the Bible and Catholic tradition, but do not seem to happen. Miracles today are confined to things which (to me) are poorly attested or able to be replicated by natural processes, or human actions. I can’t immediately think of a possible observation of the natural world that could require the existence of such a God as an explanation. And I am here talking only of the level of certainty, say, we ascribe to continental drift.

Re “read God into the process” , I understand this position. Bringing us full circle back to the topic, I would ask you in turn (acknowledging the “God of the gaps” rebuttal) do you place Chance as the arbiter of Creation? If so, is Chance enough to explain the composition of your soul ( or whatever you might call the deepest components of your person)? And is Chance a more logical explanation than belief in a Creator?

I marvel constantly that matter should have come together in such a way that the bit of it I think of as ‘me’ should be alive, conscious and self-aware. The marvellous nature of this realisation is I think hugely increased by my understanding that nothing, nothing at all, made a decision for ‘me’ to be, or for anything to be the way it is. I am constantly aware of the vanishingly small probability that each of my ancestors, of this species and earlier ones, met and procreated in a chain of reproduction that culminated in ‘me’. And I am also aware that I am but one of literally uncountable living creatures of which this is true. I also often consider that there is nothing we know of in the nature of matter and energy that it gives rise, inevitably, to life. Such a thing may have happened only once, on this planet, and may never happen again. To be a part of such a thing, and to be aware of it is astonishing. Yes, I think chance is an excellent explanation. But chance is not actually a thing. It is simply a way of describing events that happen, contingent on other events in complex processes. ‘Chance’ needs a capital letter on at the start of a sentence.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

This would be the illogical position of relativism. I.e. the denial of the possibility of Truth in reality.

Not exactly. It’s more about whether truth (presumably absolute in your usage) is knowable. As a Catholic you believe you know the truth. Followers of other denominations and religions believe the same.

A dislike of kale wouldn’t define your diet, fundamentally anyway. To use your analogy, if a diet is akin to a life philosophy.

And there’s the difference. Belief (or disbelief) in God is not a life philosophy for me, but rather an opinion about reality. I understand for many it’s much bigger, and this is one of the most difficult things to properly convey to believers. If not for social & political impacts this topic…

Does belief (or lack of) in God underpin one’s life philosophy? Should it, if not? You could argue that in your analogy, belief in God would be akin to eating or not…

Perhaps it’d be more akin to vegetarian vs omnivorous.

 

[Thom18]

From atheism, you can come to two conclusions, one of which is authentic nihilism, life having no meaning being the basic belief, and this is actually a pretty rare belief. Anyone can call themselves a nihilist, but I’d dare to say that no one lives as a nihilist should, according to its belief, and so it shouldn’t be considered a possibility for one to fall into except in a rare and tragic circumstance I won’t describe here.

The other possibility is absurdism, which is essentially the recognition that there is no inherent meaning in life, and so inventing your own in an act of rebellion against this absurd drive of ours (which is to find meaning in a meaningless universe) is the best we can do. Absurdism would recognize some type of basic morality, urging its followers to allow others to pursue their particular rebellion against meaninglessness (so no killing, stealing, etc.). Most atheists are absurdists, I’d say, even if unfamiliar with its major figures or even the word.

An absurdist world wouldn’t be a post-apocalyptic, everyone-for-himself wasteland, but it wouldn’t be a utopia. If everyone lived in this way, we’d still be somewhere between the worst and best possible worlds to live in.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Is “optimistic nihilism” not a possibility then?

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

I would believe in the classically-defined western God were he to appear to me and show me his wounds, walk on water, multiply loaves and fishes and, especially, raise decomposing corpses from the dead.

Thanks for the reply , appreciate the discussion. And do you think that such a God would need to provide all these affirmations each time in order for anyone to justifiably believe in him? If so, why would those affirmations and suspensions of natural law mean that one is God, for you?

The marvellous nature of this realisation is I think hugely increased by my understanding that nothing, nothing at all, made a decision for ‘me’ to be, or for anything to be the way it is

The heart of your comment is this, whilst the faith you put on Chance should have a light shine on it I think. So do you propose that chance is the more logical explanation for the creation of life and the universe out of nothing than a creator? If so, why is not your ultimate conclusion nihilism? That is what I do not understand. Is the appeal of altruism sufficient to sustain reason d’etre? Utilitarianism would logically dominate such appeals to altruism i.e. as long as the general good is sustained. Thus begins the path to empty relativism.

 

[Thom18]

Is “optimistic nihilism” not a possibility then?

I’m not sure what that would look like. Any level of optimism for a strict nihilist sounds like it wouldn’t truly be nihilism.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve spoken with atheists who believed in an afterlife. For whatever reason they simply believed that life continues on, as the natural order of things. They don’t claim to know where that “order” came from.

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Not exactly. It’s more about whether truth (presumably absolute in your usage) is knowable.

Relativism when you boil it down denies the possibility of Truth. It is a lukewarm indifference. I think our definitions are in agreement?

Belief (or disbelief) in God is not a life philosophy for me, but rather an opinion about reality

It is a belief you hold on a metaphysical reality- and part of the fundaments of your being. Many root beliefs sprout from this- the moral issues of our time, a rejection of an afterlife, and indeed your understanding of creation all flow forth from this belief.

Perhaps it’d be more akin to vegetarian vs omnivorous

I would say that would be a useful analogy for the Abrhamic religions, very loosely speaking

 

[PatienceAndHumility]

Sounds like agnosticism to me

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I’m not sure what that would look like.

Something like this I suppose. Yes, I suppose it’s not “pure” nihilism.

 

[FiveLinden]

do you propose that chance is the more logical explanation for the creation of life and the universe out of nothing than a creator? If so, why is not your ultimate conclusion nihilism? That is what I do not understand. Is the appeal of altruism sufficient to sustain reason d’etre? Utilitarianism would logically dominate such appeals to altruism i.e. as long as the general good is sustained. Thus begins the path to empty relativism.

We have absolutely no evidence that before there was a universe there was nothing. We do not yet know enough about how life develops from unloving things to be sure of its origins but there are many entirely plausible hypothesis being discussed. I expect that soon life will appear as a result of scientific experiment and the ‘god of the gaps’ will retreat a little further.

‘Nihilism’ is a philosophy. I don’t share it. I think people can and should devise moral codes in the light of human instinct and rational thought. In fact, I think they must, since there is no absolute good out there somewhere: there is only the material world.

And do you think that such a God would need to provide all these affirmations each time in order for anyone to justifiably believe in him? If so, why would those affirmations and suspensions of natural law mean that one is God, for you?

well, I was just giving an example of what would convince me about the ‘western God’. I guess I would be convinced because the outcome was predicted, naturally impossible, and able to be replicated. This of course would not eliminate the possibility that we were dealing with but one of many gods but I would be willing to believe the entity performing such feats.