Does Metaphysical Naturalism equal Ontological Nihilism?

[ReapReason]

Does Metaphysical Naturalism equal Ontological Nihilism?

 

[jmjconder]

Does Metaphysical Naturalism equal Ontological Nihilism?

**For all those of us that are not educated to your level…what excatly are you asking?

BTW I have a Master’s in Tehology from a highly regarded university and still did not understand your question.**

 

[Hokomai]

I like trying to translate this sort of thing. I think it asks if there is no spiritual reality, is it not pointless to think of ourselves as real individuals, since we are just matter arranging itself in response to other matter? To me, the answer is “no”, but all us unbelievers have a tough time explaining why.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I would say it does not equal ontological nihilism, but it does equal existential nihilism. Ontological nihilism is the idea that there is, essentially, nothing that exists. Metaphysical naturalism is essentially materialism, which holds that matter is all that exists. So, in that sense, the two are starkly opposed. Existential nihilism, on the other hand, holds that life has no intrinsic value or meaning, so here we see the inevitable conclusion of materialism, or metaphysical naturalism. I think many atheists attempt to deny that they are nihilists because it is associated with a gloom-and-doom disposition. While the two can easily go hand in hand, it is not necessarily the case. Existential nihilism just holds that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. If life is an accident which came about for no apparent reason and will someday cease to be (for instance, when the sun dies or, providing for life elsewhere in the universe, when the universe undergoes heat death) it can have no real objective meaning.

 

[ReapReason]

**For all those of us that are not educated to your level…what excatly are you asking?

BTW I have a Master’s in Tehology from a highly regarded university and still did not understand your question.**

Academic philosophy is not the be all and end all of philosophy. In any case, another poster pointed out that I was wrong to say “ontological nihilism”. What I really meant was existential nihilism.

 

[ReapReason]

I would say it does not equal ontological nihilism…

Agreed

…Existential nihilism, on the other hand, holds that life has no intrinsic value or meaning, so here we see the inevitable conclusion of materialism, or metaphysical naturalism. I think many atheists attempt to deny that they are nihilists because it is associated with a gloom-and-doom disposition. While the two can easily go hand in hand, it is not necessarily the case. Existential nihilism just holds that life has no intrinsic meaning or value.

I agree in general with what you say here also. However, I think there are rational consequences and implications insofar as we choose to hold certain views about the beings around us and how we relate to them.

If one says that it is only rational to have a point of view and express a particular kind behaviour if it corresponds reasonably to the reality of things, then I think there inevitably arises an intellectual problem when we speak of things such as moral maturity, virtue, moral-civilisation, and the fact of why we choose to exist in light of existential nihilism.

For example, I feel remorse, guilt, and demoralised if I think I have done something wrong or if somebody has done wrong to me. Not only do I think that a wrong has been done, I believe it is “true”. Thus I will attempt to change my behaviour according to my belief that it is true that I have been wronged or have wronged someone; and so I will react in a manner that I consider to be a rational response to that experience.

However, if it is not “true” that I have done wrong or have been wronged, then it is irrational to respond to the feeling of guilt or demoralisation with any behaviour or admission that would suggest that it were true that I had in fact been wronged or have done wrong. Any time that you felt that you were owed something or felt that you were disrespected in some way, you were in fact being irrational since insofar as objective truth is concerned there is no such thing as being disrespected or being owed something since that would suggest that there is an objective standard by which you ought be treated as a being. This is obviously false given metaphysical naturalism. An atheist should know that existential nihilism has rendered these commonly felt experiences as being delusional at best insofar as they relate to objective reality.

Therefore In-order to be rationally consistent with reality I would have to avoid any actions or beliefs that did not reflect the nihilistic-reality in which I exist. And so it is my conclusion that in a world where atheists choose to be rationally consistent regarding their emotions and behaviour, there can be no virtuous acts.

This is the problem of virtue in a meaningless world. It is irrational to think that one truly acts virtuously if there is no objective standard by which this is true. If we do recognise true virtue in some human acts, then Metaphysical naturalism is false.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Agreed
If one says that it is only rational to have a point of view and express a particular kind behaviour if it corresponds reasonably to the reality of things, then I think there inevitably arises an intellectual problem when we speak of things such as moral maturity, virtue, moral-civilisation, and the fact of why we choose to exist in light of existential nihilism.

Those who hold either position cannot talk of having any kind of virtue,morality, etc. because they reject natural law which is the basis for objective virtue and morality.

For example, I feel remorse, guilt, and demoralised if I think I have done something wrong or if somebody has done wrong to me. Not only do I think that a wrong has been done, I believe it is “true”. Thus I will attempt to change my behaviour according to my belief that it is true that I have been wronged or have wronged someone; and so I will react in a manner that I consider to be a rational response to that experience.

You have no reason to regard anything as rational, you have rejected any basis for rationality when you rejected the spiritual soul and reduced the mind to the random motion of atomic and sub atomic particles.

However, if it is not “true” that I have done wrong or have been wronged, then it is irrational to respond to the feeling of guilt or demoralisation with any behaviour or admission that would suggest that it were true that I had in fact been wronged or have done wrong. Any time that you felt that you were owed something or felt that you were disrespected in some way, you were in fact being irrational since insofar as objective truth is concerned there is no such thing as being disrespected or being owed something since that would suggest that there is an objective standard by which you ought be treated as a being. This is obviously false given metaphysical naturalism. An atheist should know that existential nihilism has rendered these commonly felt experiences as being delusional at best insofar as they relate to objective reality.

Again, it is illogical for such a person to speak of rational and irrational. With such a world view guilt should be regarded as random accidents and ignored. You have no basis to speak of " objective truth," nor of " objective standard. " Right, they are delusional.

Therefore In-order to be rationally consistent with reality I would have to avoid any actions or beliefs that did not reflect the nihilistic-reality in which I exist. And so it is my conclusion that in a world where atheists choose to be rationally consistent regarding their emotions and behaviour, there can be no virtuous acts.

Again, they cannot speak of " reality " because they have rejected the only basis for reaching such a conclusion. Right, no virtuous acts, no morality, no good or bad, no reason to feel resentment, joy, etc.

This is the problem of virtue in a meaningless world. It is irrational to think that one truly acts virtuously if there is no objective standard by which this is true. If we do recognise true virtue in some human acts, then Metaphysical naturalism is false.

Yes, either false or illusory. In both philosophies the end is a totally meaningless world. A pretty depressing thought. So why not come in out of the darkness?