Is it true that Metaphysical Naturalism logically implies Nihilism?

[ChainBreaker]

Is it true that Metaphysical Naturalism logically implies Nihilism?

 

[JackVk]

Is it true that Metaphysical Naturalism logically implies Nihilism?

“Nihilists? Eff me, dude. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos” - Walter Sobchak, The Big Lebowski

To answer your question, yes and no. Not all naturalists are nihilists. I think a better way of saying it is that naturalism leads to nihilism. It is the logical conclusion of it.

I was convinced of this while reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft (yes, I mention him a lot in my posts, and my avatar and location are nods to his story “The Call of Cthulhu”). He was a hard-boiled atheist whose genre, called Cosmicism or Cosmic Horror, was designed to illustrate that given the size and age of the universe, the human race and its accomplishments are not truly important.

And I agree. If there is no God, then what is humanity? It’s the compost of the cosmos that was lucky enough to self-replicate, and nothing more. At best, the universe doesn’t care about us, and at worst it is actively trying to grind us into oblivion.

Of course, I think we need to establish what we mean my “nihilism”. It’s irrational to assume that nothing is true or that nothing exists. I think when people say “nihilism” they usually mean a worldview that says nothing in the world truly matters.

 

[GEddie]

Does it really matter?

If there is no higher being, couldn’t a “meaning” one makes up on the fly be as valid as any other?

ICXC NIKA

 

[ChainBreaker]

If there is no higher being, couldn’t a “meaning” one makes up on the fly be as valid as any other?

ICXC NIKA

Rationally speaking, no. No meaning is valid if metaphysical naturalism is true.

You can’t say “thats not fair” in a Universe where fairness has no meaning. Only irrational people say those kinds of things if the atheist is correct.

 

[dmar198]

Is it true that Metaphysical Naturalism logically implies Nihilism?

In a system that only admits the physical, perhaps morality can only exist if it is physical.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

You can’t say “thats not fair” in a Universe where fairness has no meaning. Only irrational people say those kinds of things if the atheist is correct.

Sure you can- it’s just that your definition of fairness is based upon agreed upon principles, rather than divinely dictated ones. Of course there’s substantial room for disagreement, just as there’s intra- and especially inter religious disagreements.

 

[JackVk]

Sure you can- it’s just that your definition of fairness is based upon agreed upon principles, rather than divinely dictated ones. Of course there’s substantial room for disagreement, just as there’s intra- and especially inter religious disagreements.

There’s only one problem: Sam the Sociopath can come along and say, “oh, you have principles? That’s cute, because I don’t. In fact, I spit on your principles”, as he proceeds to open your throat with a box cutter. Then what? Then playing by the rules earned Sam your stuff and you a dirt nap.

If there’s no God, then the only thing that arguably matters is power: who has the biggest guns, the most money, or the largest amount of minions under one’s control.

“You win or you die, there is no middle ground.” Cersei Lannister

 

[AnimalSpirits]

There’s only one problem: Sam the Sociopath can come along and say, “oh, you have principles? That’s cute, because I don’t. In fact, I spit on your principles”, as he proceeds to open your throat with a box cutter. Then what? Then playing by the rules earned Sam your stuff and you a dirt nap.

If there’s no God, then the only thing that arguably matters is power: who has the biggest guns, the most money, or the largest amount of minions under one’s control.

“You win or you die, there is no middle ground.” Cersei Lannister

And with a religious set of principles, Sam can still just opt not to care- even if he believes in a divine overlord, he might not care what said overlord thinks. Or worse yet, he or someone else might come along and say “Not only do I want your stuff, but I have a divinely appointed duty to take it!” The people of Canaan and the Americas should be particularly familiar with this notion.

Unless the divine overlord starts hurling a lightning bolt or two at the people who break the rules, it doesn’t really matter. Now, if you or someone else can convince the deity to impose some shock and awe, we might be in business.

 

[AyJSimon]

There’s only one problem: Sam the Sociopath can come along and say, “oh, you have principles? That’s cute, because I don’t. In fact, I spit on your principles”, as he proceeds to open your throat with a box cutter. Then what? Then playing by the rules earned Sam your stuff and you a dirt nap.

If there’s no God, then the only thing that arguably matters is power: who has the biggest guns, the most money, or the largest amount of minions under one’s control.

“You win or you die, there is no middle ground.” Cersei Lannister

Sam the Sociopath can also claim to have different historical views, and different beliefs about the chemical formula for water, or what sea otters eat, but simply having these beliefs doesn’t automatically validate them, or make them as equally valid and sound as what would be true beliefs.

Even truth statements like “Water is chemically comprised of two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen” require that we accept (without a supervising authority) certain fundamental presuppositions about reality. And we always do. Because if we didn’t, we would vitiate every realm of knowledge where anyone has ever claimed to know anything.

And so it is with questions of “meaning” and “purpose” - to say that life can’t possibly have them without a supervising being at the top is to argue that we’ve learned absolutely nothing about the types of conditions under which people best thrive.

 

[JackVk]

Both of you are missing my point.

I, for one, find it very unlikely that God would order me to take something from someone with deadly force and without any prior provocation, since those two things flatly contradict His 5th and 6th Commandments.

My point that that there is nothing in nature proving that there is any such thing as morality or rights. As Carl Sagan said, “nature is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be”. In other words, unless it is a physical thing, it does not exist.

Where is this secular morality you speak of? Can you mine it from the ground, or inject me with a serum of it? If not, it does not exist.

What is all this talk of “human rights”? Where did humans- the most polluting, overpopulated pestilence to ever plague this sorry mudball we call a planet- suddenly get privilieges? If there’s no God, then these do not exist. Or, at least they are granted by the authorities (as Saddam Hussein put it, “always in step with the revolution and its principles”).

Can you put “meaning” in a beaker, measure an idea with a ruler, or observe “purpose” under a microscope? If not, they do not exist.

If there is no God, then these things are just more primitive superstitions of a bygone era. Further, these things, according Nietzsche, are inventions of the weak to inhibit the strong, and therefore are hindering the evolution of the human race.

 

[Bahman]

Is it true that Metaphysical Naturalism logically implies Nihilism?

Add God inside the circle like another individual. Is it meaningful now? Everything is meaningless when it comes to mind hence nihilism is true if we judge everything with mind but it is wrong to judge feeling with mind since feeling is meaning and I wonder if we could ever understand feeling or meaning.

 

[AyJSimon]

Can you put “meaning” in a beaker, measure an idea with a ruler, or observe “purpose” under a microscope? If not, they do not exist.

You could easily say the same thing about emotional states like mania or depression. Or the general concept of physical health. If someone reports that they’re feeling miserable all the time, you can’t put that in a beaker, or measure it, or look at it under a microscope. Does that mean depression doesn’t really exist, or that we can’t do something about it?

And while you can measure certain aspects of your physical health (like blood pressure), a full-body checkup doesn’t result in a Health Number. If you take two 50-somethings, one who’s in a wheelchair and can barely breathe, and one who planning to run a marathon, would a doctor be unable to say that the 2nd guy is healthier than the 1st - all because he doesn’t possess a metric for the concept of physical health?

If there is no supervising Creator to grant us concepts like justice, and human rights, it seems to me we have two options. We can either say these concepts can’t exist. Or, we can grant them to ourselves. And the reason that the 2nd option is unproblematic is because we’ve actually learned enough about how human beings thrive (or fail to) in this Universe that we can begin to say what justice and human rights should be.

 

[JackVk]

You could easily say the same thing about emotional states like mania or depression. Or the general concept of physical health. If someone reports that they’re feeling miserable all the time, you can’t put that in a beaker, or measure it, or look at it under a microscope. Does that mean depression doesn’t really exist, or that we can’t do something about it?

And while you can measure certain aspects of your physical health (like blood pressure), a full-body checkup doesn’t result in a Health Number. If you take two 50-somethings, one who’s in a wheelchair and can barely breathe, and one who planning to run a marathon, would a doctor be unable to say that the 2nd guy is healthier than the 1st - all because he doesn’t possess a metric for the concept of physical health?

If there is no supervising Creator to grant us concepts like justice, and human rights, it seems to me we have two options. We can either say these concepts can’t exist. Or, we can grant them to ourselves. And the reason that the 2nd option is unproblematic is because we’ve actually learned enough about how human beings thrive (or fail to) in this Universe that we can begin to say what justice and human rights should be.

If they come from ourselves, then they are subject to change, which ultimately makes them arbitrary and fickle (see the Saddam Hussein quote above).

If they come from God, however, they have both a source and a purpose. They are not good because God arbitrarily says so, but because God is the Good itself. God is not only good, He is Goodness itself. Thus, His Law is, by its very nature, for our own good.

The same cannot be said if we attribute it to ourselves. Is something good because it works, or does it work because it’s true?

As for sickness, health, depression, etc. We have no other way of knowing those things are good or bad. A thing is not good by the mere fact that is desirable. We can say “I prefer health over sickness”, but we have no standard of “good” or “bad”.

Same thing goes for wars and disasters. If there’s no God, then what are they? If anything, they are merely natural selection on a greater scale. With that, we have no other reason to pity the 50something in a wheelchair. Death is merely an inability to adapt to nature’s fickle standards of survival. Granted, it seems like a tall order to be an immortal who can survive a bowling ball to the head, but that doesn’t seem to matter to nature.

 

[ChainBreaker]

You could easily say the same thing about emotional states like mania or depression. Or the general concept of physical health. If someone reports that they’re feeling miserable all the time, you can’t put that in a beaker, or measure it, or look at it under a microscope. Does that mean depression doesn’t really exist, or that we can’t do something about it?.

If emotional states have intrinsic meaning, then they don’t exist if metaphysical naturalism is true.

Also, If Metaphysical naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as dysfunctional, or deformed or health as these things presume that physical events ought to work in a particular way; but in reality you merely have a preference for things to act in a particular way because you are driven to that meaningless end by the chemicals in your brain. But they have no real significance.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

If they come from God, however, they have both a source and a purpose. They are not good because God arbitrarily says so, but because God is the Good itself. God is not only good, He is Goodness itself. Thus, His Law is, by its very nature, for our own good.

I’m sure those killed with divine approval (or worse yet, by the divine directly) in the Christian bible find this comforting.

Same thing goes for wars and disasters. If there’s no God, then what are they?

And with an all powerful deity, what are they? Signs that said deity is unwilling/unable to intervene?

 

[AyJSimon]

If they come from ourselves, then they are subject to change, which ultimately makes them arbitrary and fickle (see the Saddam Hussein quote above).

After Edwin Hubble discovered the red light shift, he calculated the age of Universe to be about 2 billion years. Over the last 80+ years, various astronomers and astrophysicists have been revising the figure based on new (and better) evidence. The figure has climbed from 2 billion, to 8 billion, to 9.5 billion, to 10 billion, to 12 billion, to 12.5 billion, to 14.8 billion, back down to what is currently the generally accepted estimate of 13.798 billion years. The figure may yet be revised again at later dates.

Does the fact that we keep revising the figure for the age of the Universe suggest, even for a moment, that the figure is arbitrary or fickle, or that that there’s nothing especially scientific about astronomy, cosmology, or astrophysics? No. It simply illustrates that our data is not yet complete. In principle, every known fact about the Universe is open to revision based on the quality of new future evidence. In practice, some facts are simply so well-supported by existing evidence that future revisions are so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. We’re never going to discover that water actually has a different chemical formula than H^2O.

I’m arguing that what we think of as “values” are just another type of fact. They don’t have to be tangible to be real. You don’t have to be able to bottle them, measure them, or directly observe them. And like other facts about our Universe, our understanding of values doesn’t need to be absolute and inflexible for all time.

Think about rocks. Are we morally obligated to behave well towards rocks? No. Why not? Because based on our current understanding of the Universe, rocks have no capacity to experience well-being or suffering. If you throw a rock in the ocean, it won’t drown. If you break one with a hammer, it won’t feel pain. If you bulldoze a bunch of rocks out of the ground to build a house, the rocks themselves don’t experience a loss from being made “homeless.”

But what if we somehow discovered that rocks could have those experiences? What would happen? Well, then our moral obligations toward rocks would necessarily change. Would the fact that they changed make the concept of human-based morality arbitrary or fickle? No more so than revising the date of the Universe (based on new evidence) suggests the same about astronomy, cosmology, or astrophysics.

As for sickness, health, depression, etc. We have no other way of knowing those things are good or bad. A thing is not good by the mere fact that is desirable. We can say “I prefer health over sickness”, but we have no standard of “good” or “bad”.

I disagree. Imagine a Universe where every conscious creature suffered as much as it possibly could for as long as it possibly could. That’s Bad. If the word “bad” means anything at all, it has to apply to that scenario. Now, you can try to play the “Who says?” card here, but that would be no different than Sam the Sociopath saying “Who says?” when told that George Washington was the first U.S. President. ‘Who says he was the first President?’ ‘Who says his name was really George?’ ‘Who says the President isn’t really a dogcatcher living in a nicer house?’ And so on.

At some point, you have to stop playing the ‘Who says?’ card. Some things are simply true. Nothing else makes them true. If we didn’t presuppose certain underlying truths in conversation, nothing would ever be agreed upon. Even the most banal, obvious assertion could be thrown into irreconcilable doubt by anyone with sufficient time to waste.

If someone claimed that Woodrow Wilson was our first President, we wouldn’t feel an obligation to respect that opinion. If someone convinced you that they preferred being sick all the time to being healthy, you’d suggest they be psychologically examined. And if someone said that every conscious creature suffering as much and for a long as possible was anything but Bad, I’m guessing you’d feel much the same way about that person as well.

But tell me if I’m wrong about that. Because if we can’t agree that a Universe where every conscious creatures suffering as much and for as long as possible was Bad, we really have no way forward in terms of conversation.

 

[JackVk]

I’m sure those killed with divine approval (or worse yet, by the divine directly) in the Christian bible find this comforting.

And with an all powerful deity, what are they? Signs that said deity is unwilling/unable to intervene?

The problem with both of these statements is that they assume that God’s primary concern is with out material well-being. I’m not going to “punt to mystery” here. But if it’s God’s job to prevent every disaster and war and keep everything hunky-dory in this world, then the highest good is not Goodness (that is, Himself), the highest good is pleasure. If the highest good is pleasure, then Charlie Sheen is a hero and war veterans are scoundrels.

Another problem: God is not a genie. God knows that people would attempt to use Him as a means to an end. He knows how treacherous people are.

Either way, you avoided the statement. Why should you, as an atheist, give a rip about your fellow man? What proof do you have that other people are equal in dignity? The only proof there could be would be potential. And if human dignity is based on potential, we have to exterminate cripples, the elderly, and the mentally handicapped.

(On a side note, I’ve noticed that disasters don’t typically make the survivors into atheists. If that were true, we’d see a lot more atheists in Africa and the Midwest).

 

[AnimalSpirits]

The problem with both of these statements is that they assume that God’s primary concern is with out material well-being. I’m not going to “punt to mystery” here. But if it’s God’s job to prevent every disaster and war and keep everything hunky-dory in this world, then the highest good is not Goodness (that is, Himself), the highest good is pleasure. If the highest good is pleasure, then Charlie Sheen is a hero and war veterans are scoundrels.

Would you say it would be “good” for me to save someone from drowning? To give them medicine and heal their illness? If so, then why exactly does the literal embodiment of “goodness” not deem these actions worth doing? If the embodiment of goodness declines to do something, when doing so is entirely costless, how on Earth could it be good.

Another problem: God is not a genie. God knows that people would attempt to use Him as a means to an end. He knows how treacherous people are.

If someone manages to pull a fast one on the all knowing eternal overlord, dare I say they deserve it.

Either way, you avoided the statement. Why should you, as an atheist, give a rip about your fellow man? What proof do you have that other people are equal in dignity? The only proof there could be would be potential. And if human dignity is based on potential, we have to exterminate cripples, the elderly, and the mentally handicapped.

Why do I enjoy food, music, massages, or altruism? Because these are hardwired in my brain- I’m “built” for ensuring the flourishing of my species in general and myself in particular.

(On a side note, I’ve noticed that disasters don’t typically make the survivors into atheists. If that were true, we’d see a lot more atheists in Africa and the Midwest).

Yes, and leads to one of the most (in my view) foolish expressions of religion- where people thank their deity for letting them live. As if said deity decided to allow the disaster to occur, allow it to destroy property and kill others, but then somehow intervene just enough so the speaker could get out of it. How generous.

 

[JackVk]

After Edwin Hubble discovered the red light shift, he calculated the age of Universe to be about 2 billion years. Over the last 80+ years, various astronomers and astrophysicists have been revising the figure based on new (and better) evidence. The figure has climbed from 2 billion, to 8 billion, to 9.5 billion, to 10 billion, to 12 billion, to 12.5 billion, to 14.8 billion, back down to what is currently the generally accepted estimate of 13.798 billion years. The figure may yet be revised again at later dates.

Does the fact that we keep revising the figure for the age of the Universe suggest, even for a moment, that the figure is arbitrary or fickle, or that that there’s nothing especially scientific about astronomy, cosmology, or astrophysics? No. It simply illustrates that our data is not yet complete. In principle, every known fact about the Universe is open to revision based on the quality of new future evidence. In practice, some facts are simply so well-supported by existing evidence that future revisions are so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. We’re never going to discover that water actually has a different chemical formula than H^2O.

I’m arguing that what we think of as “values” are just another type of fact. They don’t have to be tangible to be real. You don’t have to be able to bottle them, measure them, or directly observe them. And like other facts about our Universe, our understanding of values doesn’t need to be absolute and inflexible for all time.

Think about rocks. Are we morally obligated to behave well towards rocks? No. Why not? Because based on our current understanding of the Universe, rocks have no capacity to experience well-being or suffering. If you throw a rock in the ocean, it won’t drown. If you break one with a hammer, it won’t feel pain. If you bulldoze a bunch of rocks out of the ground to build a house, the rocks themselves don’t experience a loss from being made “homeless.”

But what if we somehow discovered that rocks could have those experiences? What would happen? Well, then our moral obligations toward rocks would necessarily change. Would the fact that they changed make the concept of human-based morality arbitrary or fickle? No more so than revising the date of the Universe (based on new evidence) suggests the same about astronomy, cosmology, or astrophysics.

I disagree. Imagine a Universe where every conscious creature suffered as much as it possibly could for as long as it possibly could. That’s Bad. If the word “bad” means anything at all, it has to apply to that scenario. Now, you can try to play the “Who says?” card here, but that would be no different than Sam the Sociopath saying “Who says?” when told that George Washington was the first U.S. President. ‘Who says he was the first President?’ ‘Who says his name was really George?’ ‘Who says the President isn’t really a dogcatcher living in a nicer house?’ And so on.

At some point, you have to stop playing the ‘Who says?’ card. Some things are simply true. Nothing else makes them true. If we didn’t presuppose certain underlying truths in conversation, nothing would ever be agreed upon. Even the most banal, obvious assertion could be thrown into irreconcilable doubt by anyone with sufficient time to waste.

If someone claimed that Woodrow Wilson was our first President, we wouldn’t feel an obligation to respect that opinion. If someone convinced you that they preferred being sick all the time to being healthy, you’d suggest they be psychologically examined. And if someone said that every conscious creature suffering as much and for a long as possible was anything but Bad, I’m guessing you’d feel much the same way about that person as well.

But tell me if I’m wrong about that. Because if we can’t agree that a Universe where every conscious creatures suffering as much and for as long as possible was Bad, we really have no way forward in terms of conversation.

I know you copied the “world of maximum possible suffering” argument from Sam Harris. The problem with that argument is that nothing in it implies that I have a duty to try and alleviate that suffering. Why should I? Maybe I gain power or money from this suffering.

You may think I’m nuts for suggesting that. But consider how Genghis Khan now has the most living descendants of any historical figure. We both know he didn’t accomplish that by the Golden Rule. Quite the contrary, he did so by annihilating any people he couldn’t rape or enslave. What humans call “evil”, lions call “dominance”.

Again, it presupposes the idea that the highest good is pleasure. Pleasure is good, yes, and pain is bad. But they are not the best thing and the worst thing, respectively. If that’s so, let’s all get drunk, have orgies, and “live fast and die young”.

Your rhetoric reminds me of the “Gospel of Thomas Jefferson”. Jefferson once edited out all the divine stuff from the gospels. What are we left with? A wandering carpenter giving terrible advice, like “turn the other cheek”, “forgive”, “love your enemies”, etc. From a secular viewpoint, all of these things are a great way to end up dead or marginalized.

 

[JackVk]

Would you say it would be “good” for me to save someone from drowning? To give them medicine and heal their illness? If so, then why exactly does the literal embodiment of “goodness” not deem these actions worth doing? If the embodiment of goodness declines to do something, when doing so is entirely costless, how on Earth could it be good.

Is it not possible that God could have something better than anything this world has to offer? In fact, isn’t that the whole point of His becoming human, dying, and rising from the dead?

Yes, and leads to one of the most (in my view) foolish expressions of religion- where people thank their deity for letting them live. As if said deity decided to allow the disaster to occur, allow it to destroy property and kill others, but then somehow intervene just enough so the speaker could get out of it. How generous.

This was meant less as a serious argument and more as a snarky jab at atheists who blame a God they don’t believe in for disasters, then don’t lift a finger to do anything about it themselves.