Q: Doesn't atheism inevitably lead to nihilism?
A: No. Atheism doesn't lead inevitably to anyplace, any more than starting in St. Louis inevitably means you have to end up in New York. It's a starting place, not an entire route; the final destinations at the end of the trip are as many and varied as there are atheists.
Regarding nihilism specifically -- the general philosophical position that our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning -- it's certainly possible that someone starting out with "I don't believe in god" might end up there.
But that's just one possibility among uncountably many other ones.
For instance, an atheist might believe that while there is no God, there are other planes of existence to which we might be able to aspire, and thus continue our lives as trans-humans. Or they might believe that we humans are capable of creating our own meaning, which gives our lives purpose and direction. Or that there certain actions are more aligned with the natural order of the universe, and that acting in accordance with those rules is healthier. Or that they live on in their children, and this is the meaning for which they live.
You get the idea -- there are lots of different ending positions you might arrive at after beginning with a lack of god-belief. To argue otherwise would be like someone telling a theist "Ah, since you believe in a god, then your fondest wish must inevitably be to die so you can go join Him, and therefore this life has no real meaning for you."
In general, whenever you hear someone say "Atheism means ...", swap out "atheism" for "theism" and see how much sense it makes. Atheism and theism are both very, very broad terms; trying to tie either of them down to very specific positions generally leads to errors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
There is no grand purpose as everything that is, was, and will be is an accident. We are nothing more than cosmic residue. As Professor Richard Dawkins said: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
We are merely delaying the inevitable.
That's one way you can look at life, but certainly not the only one. All the wildflowers in our yard are there by accident, but they're still beautiful. I met my wife accidentally, but I still love her. I was an accidental birth, but my life is still meaningful to me.
Even if the universe has no intrinsic "meaning" or "purpose", I can still provide it with my own. Indeed, one way of looking at it is to say that it becomes even more important and vital for us to provide meaning if we aren't just handed one.
This is what I mean when I say that a given starting point is no guarantee of a destination.
"we humans are capable of creating our own meaning, which gives our lives purpose and direction."
I found this a good explanation of why some atheists choose to live their live according to values.
I still don't understand why atheists, as people who don't believe in any afterlife and consequences for leading a bad life don't live lives stealing and acting as they wish because lets face it the vast majority of people DO NOT have an purpose or direction and 'immoral' acts which nihilists would not have an issue with can really improve ones standing.
Interesting post and blog mate, you should resurrect it.
Thanks Michael. I ran out of frequently asked questions!
It's been my experience that people are pretty much going to live according to their inner moral sense regardless of what system is put on top of that. You can get Catholics who think "Well I might as well be as bad as possible here, because I can just confess before I die and it's all good." I am sure there are atheists who do exactly as you describe, and get away with whatever then can, however they can, simply because they want to.
Just like there are lots of theists who are the same way.
In other words, I haven't found in general that someone's professed belief system (whether one of belief or non-belief) is a very good guide as to how they're going to live their lives or treat other people. It wasn't atheists who flew their planes into the World Trade Center, after all :-)
But basically aren't you just asserting that "meaning" is purely subjective and relative to an individual's feelings? There is no real meaning but only what you want it to be...can't this be a dangerous path for someone who has violent, narcissistic tendencies? It seems that the only way for this to really work (sustain a cohesive, civilized society) is if humans are naturally good, obedient, and compassionate. I think humans have done a fairly good job proving that this just is not so.
Dhimmi, you said:
... can't this be a dangerous path for someone who has violent, narcissistic tendencies? I
Well, yes, but you could stop at "someone who has violent, narcissistic tendencies" and you're already in a lot of trouble. Take that person and put them in a hardcore Christian sect that believes it is our duty to bring about the End Days as soon as possible and you've got just as big a disaster. The problem with such a person is not their philosophy, it's that they're violent and narcissistic.
I struggled a long time with the notion of meaning and purpose and ultimately it was the scientific reality of the finitude of time and space that has pushed me over the edge out of atheism. If cosmology has compelling evidence, which seems to be the case, that universe will die out, ultimately humans will cease to exist at some finite point in the future. With that truth in mind, I just can't to find a legitimate basis for assigning meaning to my life. Assuming that there is no physically transcendent eternity, then no action, achievement, or mindset could possibly change that final reality. I suppose even if the energy of the universe reformed into another universe (which seems probabilistically near impossible) it would not change the situation, as potentially "new humans" would not have any knowledge or relation to us. What is particularly peculiar to me is that there is this drive in me to live on past this truth. Looking back, I think it could have only been some sort of intrinsic knowledge that eternity exists that allowed this drive to live on. So, all in all, I was just wondering if others have thought of this. I guess this goes back to what Jeff said about other realms of existence outside of the physical world. Anyone with thoughts?
I guess to me, the ultimate demise of the universe isn't much different from knowing that you yourself are inevitably going to die, as well. Either way, existence as you know it, personally, is over. If religious faith makes you think there's "something" after your own death, then why is it any different after the universe's death?
In other words, I don't think knowledge about the universe -- from a scientific understanding of the behavior of gases to quarks to everything in between -- can either confirm or deny the existence of a god (or gods), or what happens outside the bounds of what we can experience. It can invalidate certain conceptions of god, of course, but not of the vaguer "is there something after nothing" questions.
I don't think the idea that humans have wanted there to be something after nothing is evidence that there is in fact something, though. We've also long wanted something FOR nothing, and yet there are no free lunches, either. The desire for a thing to be true does not mean that thing is so.
If you're looking for a reality-based reason for hoping the universe doesn't necessarily end, there are theories out there that might give you comfort. We're in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction to a singularity and back out again ... there are multiple universes and this is but one of an infinity ... etc.
That again doesn't say anything one way or another about a god. But, if what you're thinking is that because billions and billions of years from now things might ultimately end for everything, that's not necessarily true. And even if it is, it's irrelevant to my way of thinking because your personal universe comes to an end some time in the next hundred years anyway, so what's the difference?
I suppose the definition of atheism may bear on the question of whether or not it leads to nihilism. The "atheist" who believes in consciousness outside the human brain would not seem to me to be very ardent in their "atheism". So those who believe in ghosts for example, but not a supreme being could be atheists under this broader definition, but I should expect they would not be as nihilistic as atheists who deny any bodiless sentience.
Even an atheist who does not believe in a consciousness outside of the physical mind (like me) is not necessarily a nihilist. You're concluding a destination based on the starting point, which is unwarranted. Just because you start with no belief in any god, and further that everything that is, is all there is, even that doesn't inevitably lead to nihilism any more than a specific kind of theism leads necessarily to predisposition.
The key part of the question, and the underlying assumption of your comment, is that "inevitably" word. Conflating atheism with nihilism is simply incorrect. One MAY lead to the other, but it might not, either. Just like with theism -- you can start in one place with one assumption and end up in an infinity of destinations.
I think nihilism is indeed a natural consequence of atheism.
If there is no god or indeed no higher power/creator that defines what is right and wrong, just and unjust, then we can assume that the morality we feel comes simply from the wiring of our own minds.
It is evident that humans (and other species) must have developed a sense of morality (via evolution) in order to allow cooperative communities to form easily. (i.e. those individuals who where able to cooperate survived and passed their morality to their offspring whose successive generation added to in the same manner).
This explains why we feel the moral urges we do and where they come from. We can see that a bad thing is only considered bad because we are "programmed" to avoid it because it is (or was) disadvantageous to our survival.
In reality a bad thing is not judged as bad by anything but ourselves and can be disregarded.
On the topic of existence itself, it can also be disregarded because it simply exists and nothing more, there is no divine creator who can ascribe reason and purpose to anything.
So I think all atheists are also nihilists. If they don't know it then they just haven't been introduced fairly to what nihilism is and/or haven't thought about it.
In other words, Dylan, any atheist who isn't a nihilist is either ignorant or wrong. Nice.
Frankly I wasn't able to make any sense out of your comment, it was like a word salad.
When I was a child I learned right from wrong through a combination of methods: from receiving praise when I behaved well, from receiving discipline and incurring my parents' disappointment when I behaved poorly, and via explanations that went something like "you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you, so you shouldn't do it to them." I grew up in the northeast which is relatively secular and I tend to think that most of my peers learned their morality through a similar method. I don't think I was ever told "because god will punish you" or "because it is what Jesus would want you to do". As I got older, I learned that, although there are plenty of exceptions, generally if you are nice to people, they'll be nice back. If you are generous (without being a sucker or a pushover) people will be kinder, more generous toward you. If you lie, cheat, or steal, you might get away with it occasionally, but usually it comes back to bite you in the a**.
There are many who believe that atheism inherently means a lack of a moral code, which I think goes sort of hand in hand with the nihlistic view of "no meaning". But I tend to think that in the secular parts of our country, regardless of what people state to be their religious beliefs, most people's moral code and moral (or amoral) behavior doesn't really derive from religion.
I'm not entirely sure I've made a point here, I've just been sort of thinking out loud... :)
You not only made your point, you made it well :-)
You can look at countries that are largely secular and see that they are hardly hell-holes of immorality and rapine. In fact, they score rather better on most quality of life issues than more religious nations.
A Christian would usually respond that even if, as this sort of thing seems to indicate, we have an innate moral code, that code derives from God even though we don't admit it or know it. Which always makes me wonder, if He could build such a thing right into us, why not install a Divine Radio or something as well so we could chat? And why make this moral sense so inchoate and vague, so variable and general? It would make more sense, it seems to me, to have a super-duper moral code that would shout at us rather than whisper, if He really wanted us to have a guide as to what He wants even when we live in a society that is not centered around Him.
Regardless, yes, I agree, it doesn't seem to be disputable any more that our moral sense derives from pre-existing biological imperatives, both in light of the kinds of secular societies you mention and from continuing research into the world of animal behavior.
Nihilism posits that our existence holds no intrinsic value or meaning.
Therefore, nihilists may still adopt their own values throughout their lives. For instance, one may accidentally stumble upon wildflowers, a beautiful woman, or realize the improbability of their own existence. They then assign meaning to these things.
The question is: Are wildflowers, spouses, life, etc. intrinsically meaningful OR do we assign meaning to them?
Now, for my opinion. I'd like to hear what you think.
The answer to the question should be straightforward to both theists and atheists. The theist would say that meaning is intrinsically assigned to our lives by some type of deity. And the atheist would agree with the nihilist viewpoint; Life could not possible hold intrinsic meaning. Rather we create that meaning for ourselves.
John,
I think most of the time when an atheist is asked this question, "nihilism" has a much harsher connotation than the simple definition would give it. In general, what's really being asked (usually by a theist) is, "Doesn't atheism mean that without God there is no meaning in life and so you might as well shoot yourself or someone else in the face?"
In other words, I think what's being got at is that for a theist, a universe without God is fundamentally meaningless, scary, and leads inevitably to chaos, death, horror, and suffering.
Setting that aside, as I mentioned in the original article, you can't really start from atheism and end up with there being no intrinsic meaning. Buddhists are atheists, essentially, yet believe the universe does have intrinsic value and meaning, granted not by a conscious god but simply through the structure of reality. Helium has certain properties due to its atomic structure, and so do actions -- whether or not to kill a wildflower has meaning because it affects your own spirit's evolution as it travels through the Ninefold Path.
If you're talking about metaphysical naturalists, though, then yes, all meaning is assigned by us, without having any particular "meaning" in the sense that a theist would usually mean.
Theists might say everything has meaning because God tells us it has meaning, in which case meaning is subject to change as God tells us different things. Or the theist might say that God created the world such that everything has meaning, so it's intrinsic in the same way the properties of atoms are intrinsic.
In other words, as I've argued elsewhere, it's very, very difficult to start with such incredibly broad terms as "theist" and "atheist" and know where you're going to end up along any particular philosophical spectrum. Because humans can rationalize pretty much anything, you can start with one or the other and end up in exactly the same place.
If you're asking about me, personally, I think to a large extent the entire exercise of whether existing has meaning or not is fairly pointless. It's like the free will debate -- it's not knowable, so spending time arguing about it fairly masturbatory -- it feels good but doesn't really get you anywhere.
But atheism is intrinsically nihilistic isn't it? I made the connection on my own about atheism and nihilism because I just finished the Woody Allen film, "Match Point", and I thought what a nihilistic view of the world. Then I thought of other famous atheist film makers with a voice...Robert Altman, Roman Polanski, and Stanley Kubrick...and their films are extremely nihilistic. So, there's four of the world's most highly regarded atheist storytellers basically showing us how atheists view the world...the nihilism is evident.
There's also the fact that no matter how much atheists would like to place an emphasis on the meaning in life, it really sums up to nothingness in the grand schemes of the universe. Love is just a man made fallacy, as phony as any religion or God. And if atheist cling to "love" and morality then they are living in a delusion as much as anybody who believes in spirituality because love and morality are not quantifiable things. Morality only exists because humans made it up. It's not any more real than the Santa Claus. That atheists would cling to morals and love is silly just as people of religion cling to God. In reality humans are just a BLIP in the evolution timeline of the universe. In the atheist world, it doesn't matter what humans do because when humans are gone, that's it. What difference does it make what anyone does? That's the truth if there is no afterlife and there is no God. Atheists just want to float through life pretending that things matter, when they don't. It's sad really, because atheists are pretty hard on people of faith. But the truth is, because atheists cling to "love", they are living a delusion too...they just won't admit it. "Love" isn't really any more REAL than God. I can see why nihilism is rampant in atheism.
So both Christians and atheists have finite mortal lives that are blips in the face of a universe lasting billions of years, but love only exists for Christians because the magic sky man says it exists, whereas atheists make crappy movies and therefore can't really love.
Riiiiiiight.
The evidence that humans experience love is pretty overwhelming. The evidence that a God exists is virtually nonexistent. If you can't wrap your head around how an atheist see that, then there's not much point in talking to you.
I can see why incredibly naive and insulting "thought" like this is rampant in Christian apologetics.
I tend to believe that nihilism is the only rational conclusion if one accepts atheism. The atheist is forced to concede that morality is subjective at best... being relative to the individual, society and numerous other personal experiences.
Not just morality, but all aspects of life such as beauty, love and many abstract human concepts are simply artificial fabrications of our mind. If we atheists truly wish to be rational, we must not delude ourselves and believe these things are real when there is no physical or objective evidence to posit such an argument. We are committing the same error we accuse theists doing when we hold on to unprovable fallacies.
I believe that to be a true atheist, one must embrace nihilism.
I am not suggesting we do away with love, morality, art and culture. Evolution has made us the way are to survive. I am simply suggesting that we have evolved to the point where we should be able to distinguish between what is real and what is not. What I mean is that love and morality may not be real, but it feels as though it is and we should go on acting as though it is because evolution brought us thus far, however we should know better.
#naturalistcfallacy
Post a Comment