Nihilism and Atheism

[Leela]

No, it’s not a “belief in the absence of a belief”; it’s the absence of a belief.

Look, I’ll make it real simple. I don’t have a belief in Bigfoot in the same way that I don’t have a belief in your god, or any other god.

Wouldn’t you say that you have doubt about the existence of God? Whether you call your doubt a lack of belief or a disbelief does not seem like an important distinction to me. Does someone who believes that God does not exist behave differently in some way from someone who has an absence of belief in God? This sounds like a difference that doesn’t make a difference. Why do you find it important to draw this distinction.

Best,
Leela

 

[o_mlly]

No, it’s [atheism] not a “belief in the absence of a belief”; it’s the absence of a belief. …

The conventional definitions, I think, are the agnostic claims he cannot know God; the atheist claims God does not exist; the nihilist claims nothing exists. All nihilists are atheists; not all atheists are nihilists.

 

[AntiTheist]

Wouldn’t you say that you have doubt about the existence of God?

Well, obviously I have doubt in a god, the same way that I “have doubt that gremlins live under my house.” If you present me with any claim for which there is no evidence, I’m going to doubt it.

But the question before us is whether someone believes in a claim. If belief is “the acceptance of a proposition as true,” then I do not have belief in any gods. We might say that “not accepting a claim” = “having doubt that a claim is true.”

In the same way, I do not accept the claim that “There are no gods.” I don’t accept that proposition as true. I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to affirm that belief.

Very similarly, I don’t accept that gremlins exist, but I also am not willing to accept the claim that “no gremlins exist at all.”

Now, granted, there are different contexts. In everyday speech, in the context of treating reality as the common experience that is shared by us all, I would probably employ a shorthand and say that “There are no gremlins.” But I acknowledge that I have no absolute evidence that there are no gremlins and cannot claim absolutely that they do not exist anywhere.

The distinction I’m making – between “weak atheism” and “strong atheism” – is actually not a terribly important distinction to make. It only becomes important when believers try to claim, “Atheists have faith too!” or “Atheism is a religion!” or that “Atheism posits X, Y, or Z!” or “Atheist dogma states X, Y, or Z!”

None of those claims is true, and none of them can ever be true, because atheism is defined as the absence of a belief.

It might be possible to state that “most atheists think X,” but it is not possible to state that “atheism claims X” because atheism isn’t a claim. I don’t know how much more clearly I can explain it.

 

[AntiTheist]

The conventional definitions, I think, are the agnostic claims he cannot know God; the atheist claims God does not exist; the nihilist claims nothing exists. All nihilists are atheists; not all atheists are nihilists.

Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. Someone who is agnostic “does not know” whether there is a god.

Theism and atheism deal with belief. Someone who is atheist “does not believe” in a god.

They are obviously not mutually exclusive. One can easily be an agnostic atheist.

I acknowledge that not everyone defines terms in this way – merely that most atheists use the terms in this way. If there are any agnostics out there horrified at the idea that they are considered atheists under my definition, they are under no obligation to accept my definitions or start calling themselves atheists.

I’m merely explaining how these terms are actually used, so as to facillitate conversation.

A nihilist obviously isn’t someone who thinks that nothing exists. The existence of nihilism refutes the claim that nothing exists, so if a nihilist actually thought that “nothing exists,” it would be the stupidest philosophy ever.

Nihilism is a broad term for various kinds of philosophical positions, all revolving around the idea that there is no ultimate purpose or value to the universe – notice that individuals can still find personal value in the universe…the claim is simply that the universe does not have an objective meaning or purpose outside of the minds of humans.

 

[Leela]

Well, obviously I have doubt in a god, the same way that I “have doubt that gremlins live under my house.” If you present me with any claim for which there is no evidence, I’m going to doubt it.

But the question before us is whether someone believes in a claim. If belief is “the acceptance of a proposition as true,” then I do not have belief in any gods. We might say that “not accepting a claim” = “having doubt that a claim is true.”

In the same way, I do not accept the claim that “There are no gods.” I don’t accept that proposition as true. I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to affirm that belief.

Very similarly, I don’t accept that gremlins exist, but I also am not willing to accept the claim that “no gremlins exist at all.”

Now, granted, there are different contexts. In everyday speech, in the context of treating reality as the common experience that is shared by us all, I would probably employ a shorthand and say that “There are no gremlins.” But I acknowledge that I have no absolute evidence that there are no gremlins and cannot claim absolutely that they do not exist anywhere.

The distinction I’m making – between “weak atheism” and “strong atheism” – is actually not a terribly important distinction to make. It only becomes important when believers try to claim, “Atheists have faith too!” or “Atheism is a religion!” or that “Atheism posits X, Y, or Z!” or “Atheist dogma states X, Y, or Z!”

None of those claims is true, and none of them can ever be true, because atheism is defined as the absence of a belief.

It might be possible to state that “most atheists think X,” but it is not possible to state that “atheism claims X” because atheism isn’t a claim. I don’t know how much more clearly I can explain it.

If we say that we doubt that God exists it seems to me that it would be really hard to construe such doubt as faith. Do you run into this problem often? If someone is willing to go so far as to consider doubt about religions itself a religion maybe the best thing to do is just shrug and say, if that’s all you mean by religion in that case doubting God’s existence is a way of being religious and then ask if there is some point to that claim. I suppose though for such a person with such an idiosyncratic ways of using words that for her doubt is a sort of faith then for her a dog may be a type of cat. It is probably not worth the effort of trying to engage such a person in conversation.

You said, “If you present me with any claim for which there is no evidence, I’m going to doubt it.” Does doubt not need its own justification?

Best,
Leela

 

[AntiTheist]

You said, “If you present me with any claim for which there is no evidence, I’m going to doubt it.” Does doubt not need its own justification?

The default position is always doubt (not accepting a claim) until there is evidence for the claim.

The reason for this is that I value having as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. If I didn’t care about that, then I might start accepting beliefs that don’t have sufficient evidence. But I do care, so the defaul position is not to believe until there is sufficient evidence.

 

[Syntax]

The default position is always doubt (not accepting a claim) until there is evidence for the claim.

haha…you know that’s not true. That position only works in the context of academia, in a court of law, or in your own private intellectual musing, not in the context of everyday life. The default position in everybody’s everyday experience is belief. If you operated from the principle that one ought to doubt everything at all times until there is sufficient evidence to be justified in believing X, you would never be able to function. Most of our activities proceed on force of habit, speculation, trial and error, flimsy guesses, and an implicit trust in the regularity of the world–that it won’t drop off and cease to exist all of sudden.

 

[o_mlly]

Gnosticism and agnosticism deal with knowledge. Someone who is agnostic “does not know” whether there is a god.

Theism and atheism deal with belief. Someone who is atheist “does not believe” in a god.

They are obviously not mutually exclusive. One can easily be an agnostic atheist.

I acknowledge that not everyone defines terms in this way – merely that most atheists use the terms in this way. If there are any agnostics out there horrified at the idea that they are considered atheists under my definition, they are under no obligation to accept my definitions or start calling themselves atheists.

I’m merely explaining how these terms are actually used, so as to facillitate conversation.

A nihilist obviously isn’t someone who thinks that nothing exists. The existence of nihilism refutes the claim that nothing exists, so if a nihilist actually thought that “nothing exists,” it would be the stupidest philosophy ever.

Nihilism is a broad term for various kinds of philosophical positions, all revolving around the idea that there is no ultimate purpose or value to the universe – notice that individuals can still find personal value in the universe…the claim is simply that the universe does not have an objective meaning or purpose outside of the minds of humans.

I think my post tersely cogent; yours tiresomely long.

 

[AntiTheist]

haha…you know that’s not true. That position only works in the context of academia

And we’re discussing an academic question – the existence of a particular being for which there is no evidence.

In our daily life, we do obviously make various assumptions – but they are usually based on evidence (for example, my belief that my car is still likely parked outside is based on the fact that it was there when I last saw it and on my knowledge of the relative lack of crime in the neighborhood, etc.). When we accept claims of others, a lot of times we do so on the basis of convenience when the claims are ordinary. If you claim to own a car, for example, I’d be glad to accept it as a matter of convenience because it’s such an ordinary claim.

But when people make extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required and the default position is disbelief until evidence is produced. For instance, if you claimed to own a flying car, I would not accept this as a matter of convenience – I would expect some really extraordinary evidence.

This standard applies to your god, the Hindu gods, Bigfoot, pixies, Cthulhu, and other entities that people claim are real.

o_mlly:

I think my post tersely cogent; yours tiresomely long.

It’s not surprising to me that you would make that judgment.

 

[Leela]

The default position is always doubt (not accepting a claim) until there is evidence for the claim.

If someone who works in a windowless office is told by a coworker that it is sunny outside, is the default position still incredulity? If the office worker is not sure how trustworthy the coworker is, should the first office worker say, I’m not convinced, you haven’t presented any evidence? (This is actually what happened that day. Then the coworker said, “I don’t care very much whether you believe me or not,” and walked away.)

The reason for this is that I value having as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. If I didn’t care about that, then I might start accepting beliefs that don’t have sufficient evidence. But I do care, so the defaul position is not to believe until there is sufficient evidence.

I don’t think anyone can claim a default position in a conversation. If a believer says, I’d like you to also believe that there is a God, then that person is the one who needs to kick things off by saying why the nonbeliever ought to believe that there is in fact a God. Likewise, if a nonbeliever says, I’d like you to doubt that God exists, she has the burden of being the first to suggest why the believer ought to doubt that God exists. And then regardless of who started things off, once the conversation has begun, both the believer and the nonbeliever are playing the evidence game. If the nonbeliever wants to play the extreme skeptic, the brain in a vat type, she can always just say she doubts what the other is presenting as evidence, but then she is not participating in the evidence game in good faith.

If both people are playing the game properly, then they both need to justify their doubts as well as for their beliefs. The “burden of proof” notion is only about who needs to be the one to start things off. In the office worker scenario above, if neither party really cares about what the other believes, then neither has any burden of proof. In any conversation where both participants would like to convince the other of something, the burden of proof is shared. the two have entered into a joint project of trying to come to consensus.

“Evidence” is not a notion that floats free from this joint project and appeals to some outside standard as you seem to be suggesting. Since you are an atheist I would think you would be skeptical about the existence of any authority that stands apart from the world that could ever establish what should and should not count as evidence. Without some Final Arbiter to appeal to, evidence in such a conversation is whatever might help the two come to consensus. Note that for one playing the “brain in a vat” skeptic, nothing is ever evidence of anything. Someone who is not convinced that he is not a brain in a vat is probably not worth trying to convince that it is sunny outside or that God exists.

I see you as implying that you can just sit back and say, no, no, no, to everything that is suggested as evidence as if your “no”'s need not be justified to the other suggesting the evidence. (This is not what I actually see you do al the time in conversation, but this is a pose you tend to strike from time to time.) I’m suggesting that both parties, once they have engaged in a conversation to try to convince one another of something equally have a burden to justify their assertions as well as their doubts with evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[Syntax]

In our daily life, we do obviously make various assumptions – but they are usually based on evidence (for example, my belief that my car is still likely parked outside is based on the fact that it was there when I last saw it and on my knowledge of the relative lack of crime in the neighborhood, etc.).

But this passed judgment requires an assumption that regularities always obtain, and for which you have no sufficient evidence. Citing past-case regularities does you no good because the frequencies which you have observed are limited within an incredibly finite range of infinite possibilities, any one of which could happen differently. So your justification is moot until you can account for some kind of natural necessity–which, I might add, science is incapable of doing. This is precisely the reason for David Hume’s skepticism about science; and to make matters worse, Hume was even a thorough-going empiricist operating on thoroughly empiricist principles.

When we accept claims of others, a lot of times we do so on the basis of convenience when the claims are ordinary. If you claim to own a car, for example, I’d be glad to accept it as a matter of convenience because it’s such an ordinary claim.

Yes. That’s precisely my reason for emphasizing different contexts.

But when people make extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required and the default position is disbelief until evidence is produced. For instance, if you claimed to own a flying car, I would not accept this as a matter of convenience – I would expect some really extraordinary evidence.

First, “flying cars” are presumably empirical objects which *do *submit to the demands of physical evidence because “that cars some cars can fly” is an empirical kind of statement which is, in principle, verifiable.

On the other hand, you think “God exists” is an “extra-ordinary claim” because you just presuppose that it *ought to *submit to the demands of empirical evidence just like the claim that “some cars can fly” ought to do. But “God exists” is not, in principle, verifiable because it is not an empirical kind of claim. For this same reason we do not demand empirical evidence to justify mathematical axioms, metaphysical claims like “the external world exists” or the claim that “we are not brains-in-a-vat,” or moral claims that “torturing babies for fun is wrong” either.

Finally, the needed evidence sufficient to justify our beliefs in the truths of scientific theories is not directly accessible empirically either; the theories that explain the evidence that we do already have are simply postulated for purposes of future prediction and control. Scientific Theories, quite arguably, are actually false theoretical devices to help us get along in the world–but being “successful” in this regard is far from being a measure of truth, and the history of constant scientifc-theory change so far directly shows this.

 

[Syntax]

If both people are playing the game properly, then they both need to justify their doubts as well as for their beliefs. The “burden of proof” notion is only about who needs to be the one to start things off. In the office worker scenario above, if neither party really cares about what the other believes, then neither has any burden of proof. In any conversation where both participants would like to convince the other of something, the burden of proof is shared. the two have entered into a joint project of trying to come to consensus.

"Evidence" is not a notion that floats free from this joint project and appeals to some outside standard as you seem to be suggesting. Since you are an atheist I would think you would be skeptical about the existence of any authority that stands apart from the world that could ever establish what should and should not count as evidence. Without some Final Arbiter to appeal to, evidence in such a conversation is whatever might help the two come to consensus. Note that for one playing the “brain in a vat” skeptic, nothing is ever evidence of anything. Someone who is not convinced that he is not a brain in a vat is probably not worth trying to convince that it is sunny outside or that God exists.

I see you as implying that you can just sit back and say, **no, no, no, to everything that is suggested as evidence as if your “no”'s need not be justified to the other suggesting the evidence. **(This is not what I actually see you do al the time in conversation, but this is a pose you tend to strike from time to time.) I’m suggesting that both parties, once they have engaged in a conversation to try to convince one another of something equally have a burden to justify their assertions as well as their doubts with evidence.

Yes! Nicely expounded, Leela! I can’t believe we actually agree for once!

I get tired that some just assume they already know what counts as appropriate evidence and then demand it from others all the time as if this empistemic constraint were a given normative principle that someone just pulled out of thin air. Circumscribing that “ONLY X,Y, and Z counts as evidence” itself needs to be justified. Where does this “only” come from?

 

[o_mlly]

…o_mlly: It’s not surprising to me that you would make that judgment.

Thank you. God is unified and simple; the devil is divided and complicated.

 

[Darryl1958]

You defined “subjective” as relative to the tastes and wants and desires of the person and “objective” as existing outside of the personal. Do mean “personal” to mean all persons or one individual person?

Is the desire for food objective or subjective? Is the desire to be in a relationship with God subjective or objective?

Best,
Leela

I am not sure what your question is. I am not using the words outside of their usual definitions.

 

[Darryl1958]

Nature and “the state” really do exist, so there is in fact a “reality to sustain their value.”

Trees and rocks also exist. It is not a question of the existence of things, but a question as to why such things are given the status of an ultimate concern. When the universe is seen as created, it is imbued with purpose as a result of being created. When random chance is the creator, there is no ieason to believe that anything has any more value over anything else. To value the life of a favorite pet over the life of a stranger becomes a valid choice. The authority of Catholic revelation deems a human life objectively sacred. Materialism can make no such claim, for nothing is sacred. There is no foundation for the sacred in a world without God.

Isn’t there? But I agree with you that the distinction that theists need to argue is not that others have no concern (that they are nihilists) but rather that non-theist’s ultimate concern is not really ultimate, though I doubt that theists will make a convincing case for true ultimacy to anyone who is not already a theist. At any rate, it is important to note that all people (those who are not sociopaths) share a concern for other people whether as part of a true ultimate concern or part of an ultimate concern that is not really ultimate or makes no claims to be ultimately ultimate.

In a post-Christian world, many of the humanistic values developed out of Judeo-Christian philosophy will still be a norm until the values of the world reassert themselves with a vengeance. What were once held to be indicators of sociopathy 50 years ago are considered to be good and normal today.

there is no reason to think that the values of humanism, developed as they were out of Christian concerns for the ‘least of our brothers’ will be permanent features of a post-Christian world.

Collectively, for example, we may all still prefer that men ought not to have sex with children. 700 years ago, even a man considered God’s holy prophet would not have been considered a sociopath for engaging in such behavior.

Outside of God existing as an objective reality in our world, no value can be deemed as having the status of objectivity, such as both theists and athiests consider trees to have. Both theists and athiests normally give material reality objective status. Only theists consider values and judgments to be based in an objective reality.

Do you have any statistics on nihilism as related to belief in God? I don’t know any nihilists, and I’m unconvinced that nihilism is a real problem (except for the suicide bombers you mentioned).

Nietzsche made the arguments. My own observations can only note the reality of many theists who are indifferent to the affairs of a fallen world that to them have no value.
I would say for the most part that nihilism normally will not be as much of a potential problem for a theist as an atheist. It was Nietzche, himself an atheists, who especially recognized the enormity that the death of God entailed for a society. When the necessary grounds for value die, nihilism is a threat.

I asked in a separate post about this distinction between personal and objective. I’ll wait to respond until I understand you better.

I cannot give you anything that a dictionary will not. There is nothing out of the ordinary that I am alluding to in terms of how I am using these words.

The heroin addict certainly does have an ultimate concern, it’s just a really really lousy one. She and everyone around her would be better off if she had a better ultimate concern.

Best,
Leela

That is a value statement. When the human body is deemed to be the sacred temple of God, as is the case in religion, that value statement, insofar as God exists, is based in God as an objective reality.
Otherwise it is a question of my body, my choice.

Neither necessarily are, but both *potentially *may be. Ultimately, it is difficult to see how a reality defined in terms of materialism will speak to our own human nature. Neither were any of the beasts of the field a suitable mate for Adam, nor was the serpent a suitable mate for Eve. Denying even the possibility of a reality for our human spirituality does not do anything to change the (submective) reality. Even if it is merely a by-product of evolution, we are something other than mere animals.
The organic health of any individual can keep those spiritual longings at bay however. Just as the spirit is not a concern of animals, so too can mankind live according to the energy of the inner beast, for a time. and after, euthanasia becomes an ultimate personal value.
Nevertheless, be it theistic nihilism which denies this worth of our world, or the nihilism of having life defined solely in terms of material concerns, Catholic theism is the only type of theism I would be an advocate for of course.

Lord knows, the further one strays from the teachings of the Church, the more we stray from the values that alone can sustain life in its fullest.

 

[Darryl1958]

You defined “subjective” as relative to the tastes and wants and desires of the person and “objective” as existing outside of the personal. Do mean “personal” to mean all persons or one individual person?

Is the desire for food objective or subjective? Is the desire to be in a relationship with God subjective or objective?

Best,
Leela

What I am saying is that for a theist, God is held to be objectively true. That this is held as a faith statement makes no difference. For the most faithful, God is more real to them than even the rocks and the trees and the sky. God’s values, his commandments for all who love him, hold the same objective reality as God does.

We value matrimony as a sacred union between man and woman, for example, not because we do not find the idea of sex with others to be desirable, but because to the extent that God states what marriage is and isn’t, that value is not based on our own subjective preferences, but on God’s word. The objective reality of a God makes his values foundational. Sex outside of matrimony may seem desirable, reasonable, and even good to us (especially those of us who consider ourselves God’s gift to women), but it is not our reasoning that takes precedence here. To the extent that we understand God to be as real as the trees and the sky, then we do not act according to our own preferences and will, but to his will be done.

An atheist on the other hand, by definition, has no such foundation to his or her value system. Values are subjective to them. They are fully byproducts of being human, and based in human desires and human institutions. In a word, they are based in human biology.

Without God, what else could they be based in?

What makes one set of values objectively true, and the other only subjective held, is simply the belief in God. When God is deemed to be of the same— or even of a greater reality than even the trees and stars—then his values are as objectively real as he is.
For an atheist, there is no God, and therefore, values almost by definition must be defined as being subjective, subject to our own biology and institutions.

…

Now just to further the argument, atheist and theist alike, we are all part and parcel of this same secular, post-Christian society. There is no sharp dividing line between theist and atheist here, for the truisms and beliefs of the greater society enter our minds and become a part of us. We are not immune to each others beliefs any more than we are immune to a flu virus or HIV. We are all exposed and must guard against.

So back to Tillich and ultimate concern, and the existence of nihilism in a society such as ours. We may all have our values in life, but the question is whether or not such values will stand in opposition to the constant barrage of nihilistic forces, which serve to persuade us that our values are more fictional than real, nay, less than fictional even, not even worth the read.
And back to your general question as well, Leela, as to the statistical proof for nihilism; specifically for theists, but more generally, as I am defining it now, in terms of our secular society too.

I would think that the larger proof would not be the example already given of the suicide Islamists. Although this is a powerful example of what is meant by theistic nihilism, the larger proof would be the 50 million slain unborn removed from American human life in the past generation and a half. The statistical proof would be in the birth rates of Canada and the European community plunging well below replacement levels, in the order of 1.6 to 1.8 live births per woman.

In the end, the ultimate concern of for all humans is, well, human life!! The ultimate denial of human value is therefore to actively or even passively choose against perpetuating human life.

That which we value, we magnify, we glorify, we defend, we strive for, we desire to perpetuate.
That which we despise, we annihilate.

The fundamental concern that we can all agree on, whatever our relative position is on God, is that human life itself is at the center of all human value. To the extent that life itself is being denied, a society becomes, by definition, nihilistic.

Ergo, statistically speaking, in terms of the numbers alone, our societies, if not fully nihilistic, are well along the path to that kind of absolute nihilism.

 

[Leela]

Trees and rocks also exist. It is not a question of the existence of things, but a question as to why such things are given the status of an ultimate concern. When the universe is seen as created, it is imbued with purpose as a result of being created. When random chance is the creator, there is no ieason to believe that anything has any more value over anything else. To value the life of a favorite pet over the life of a stranger becomes a valid choice. The authority of Catholic revelation deems a human life objectively sacred. Materialism can make no such claim, for nothing is sacred. There is no foundation for the sacred in a world without God.

The authority of the Catholic Church to say so doesn’t make anything so, so whether or not the Catholicism holds that human life is objectively sacred is a separate issue from whether or not human life is objectively sacred. The materialism is a red herring here because materialism is a way of understanding what is rather than what ought to be. This is a question of whether of not there can be any truth to the matter of how humans ought to treat one another. If you phrase the issue as you have as whether or not humans ought to be regarded as sacred (worthy of religious veneration) then it is a given that without any religion nothing is sacred. But if you say that humans ought to be treated with dignity, then this is an assertion that perhaps may be true independent of the question of the truth of any religion. Why do you think that there could be no truth to the statement “humans should treat one another with dignity” if God does not exist? Your answer from above seems to be, because “there is no reason to believe that anything has any more value over anything else” if God does not exist. Is it sufficient to say that no reason exists because you have never been convinced by anyone else’s reasons for having the values we have?

Also, do we even need a reason to love one another? Does the fact that God says you ought to love others make you love your children more than you otherwise would?

You know who really needs an answer to the question “but why should we love one another?” Some one who does not already love anyone else–the sociopath. The rest of us grew up already loving others before we learned how to ask any questions about why we should do what we ought to do.

People like that exist, of course, but psychology has given us some ideas about what this pathology is and how this pathology comes about. A sociopath’s self-conception contains no relations to others, either due to genetics or because of absent or abusive parents or some combination of genetics and upbringing. What no psychologist ever asserts as far as I know is that the sociopath is not a person who has given up on certain ideas about ultimate reality–that was never taught that God says that he ought to love others. Instead psychologists tell us that a sociopath is a person who never developed trust for loving parents in early childhood as human beings almost always do. Children do not grow up to be sociopaths because they lacked the right metaphysical foundation for ethics, but rather because they had some wires crossed as a function of genetics or because lacked loving homes.

Psychologists tell us what we parents need to do if want our children to develop morally. Instead of telling our children that they will be punished for hurting others–that their behavior towards others has consequences only for themselves, we should rather ask them, “how do you think you would feel if someone did the same thing to you?” We should convince them that we need to be concerned about hurting others because it has consquences for others. It is the power of human imagination to put ourselves in another’s shoes that will help us progess morally. Psychologists tell us that teaching children only about the threat of personal consequences for their behavior toward others results in sociopaths. Teaching our children to do what a Church commands out of fear of personal punishment by eternal damnation (not that religious people actually do that), would be one way of doing just that. That is the sort of moral teaching that results in sociopaths, people concerned only for their own well-being or their own souls rather than people with a capacity for empathy for other human beings. Hell keeps people in line just like our legal system but it doesn’t make them more moral. That is why religious people teach their children about how to love others in the same way that nonreligious people do, by trying to get their children to imagine what it would be like to be in another’s shoes.

It turns out then that this sociopath–this nihilist that atheists are apt to become–is a lot like the Cartesian skeptic–a philosophical boogie man that we are supposedly supposed to have to answer for, but who doesn’t need to scare us anymore. If we really were sociopaths, then we would indeed have no good answer to the question of “why aren’t we all thieves and murders and rapists,” but thank goodness we are not sociopaths. Our self-conceptions do include relations to others. Caring for those close to us comes naturally to us. We love at least some others as we love ourselves–not “like we love ourselves” but “as ourselves” in that some others literally are ourselves to some degree. The more we can expand and deepen this web of relations that we identify as part of ourselves, the more morally developed we are. We don’t need to think of ourselves as sociopaths that need to be properly restrained or grounded in a metaphysical foundation, but rather humans concerned with relating to other humans who need to be nurtured, especially when we are young, in order to develop the trust in other humans that makes progressive expansion and deepening of this web of relations possible.

Best,
Leela

 

[Oreoracle]

Thank you. God is unified and simple; the devil is divided and complicated.

That sounds like an excuse for people to put on their blinders and believe whatever they fancy. The truth is that the world is complex. Individual minds are complex. The psychological conditions that cause beliefs and desires to develop is complex. The fact that complexity makes you uncomfortable is irrelevant. Interestingly enough, the causes of your discomfort are also complex.

 

[Syntax]

**That sounds like an excuse for people to put on their blinders and believe whatever they fancy. **The truth is that the world is complex. Individual minds are complex. The psychological conditions that cause beliefs and desires to develop is complex. The fact that complexity makes you uncomfortable is irrelevant. Interestingly enough, the causes of your discomfort are also complex.

Wow, you have such amazing insight into the motivations for people’s beliefs. You just blackballed this individual without inquiring any further about his or her thoughts. Your charity is rotten and your attitude presumptuous.

 

[Oreoracle]

Wow, you have such amazing insight into the motivations for people’s beliefs. You just blackballed this individual without inquiring any further about his or her thoughts. Your charity is rotten and your attitude presumptuous.

And o_mlly blackballed all of humanity, not to mention the fact that they spat in the face of reality. People are complicated, and to say that the devil is complicated is to imply that being complicated is “evil” or “sinful” or “imperfect.” My conclusion, then, is that o_mlly either despises our complexity or is blissfully unaware of it. I think the former is more likely. The constant bleating of “simplicity good, complexity bad!” is just an excuse for people to remain simpleminded and ignorant. People do this because they don’t like the idea of being obligated to learn or to understand the positions of those they disagree with.