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.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 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.
Post a Comment