Atheism and nihilism

[Strathos]

How would giving away your livelihood prevent you from winning souls? Isn't that what a bunch of the apostles did?

Things are a bit different these days.

 

[Moral Orel]

Things are a bit different these days.

How do your possessions help you to win souls for Christ?

 

[Strathos]

How do your possessions help you to win souls for Christ?

Well my computer lets me reach people all over the world, for one thing.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well my computer lets me reach people all over the world, for one thing.

Sure, that makes sense. So that's one possession.

 

[Redac]

Like I said. You are redefining the words so God and Good mean the same thing.

This is the second time you've said this and I'm honestly not quite sure what your objection here is.

I will point out that there are many who have conceived of God in such a way that His goodness, His nature, His essence, His will, etc., are, metaphysically, the same thing. It's not like those people are just redefining words and patting themselves on the back, either.

 

[Redac]

As for the OP, I'd say it sort of depends on what you mean. If you're approaching the question as is from a Christian perspective, then you likely already go into it believing that meaning and purpose are irrevocably tied to God's existence and our own creation. In that sense, one might then argue that atheism, which at least functionally means rejection of that God (and any other god, for that matter), is nihilistic.

This, however, is the practical equivalent of Anakin telling Obi-Wan "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!" Neat, but what is anyone really supposed to do with that?

If what you're asking is whether or not atheists are nihilists, then no, not always. Some are, but many aren't, and the two aren't the same thing. Many atheists end up taking positions that trend closer to nihilism, but the one does not in itself necessitate the other.

 

[Kylie]

This is the second time you've said this and I'm honestly not quite sure what your objection here is.

I will point out that there are many who have conceived of God in such a way that His goodness, His nature, His essence, His will, etc., are, metaphysically, the same thing. It's not like those people are just redefining words and patting themselves on the back, either.

My objection is that when you frame your argument as, "If we redefine X to mean Y, then we can show that X exists," it means we can prove anything we want as long as we claim it means the same thing as something which we can demonstrate exists.

 

[KCfromNC]

Christians don't generally commit suicide or give away their livelihood because it would prevent them from winning souls for Christ.

This approach seems to be predicated on the idea that those finite thing (lives here on earth, money) do have a value after all.

 

[stevevw]

All that does is reorder the question slightly. Rather than asking "Is Yahweh in control of what is moral?", the question becomes "Is Yahweh in control of his own good nature?", and the horns of the dilemma remain the same.

For anyone reading along, this video explains it pretty well,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=206&v=UY_zGA8pQLI&feature=emb_title

First of all thank you for providing a challenging argument. Unfortunately, the objection that using God's nature as being good only pushes the dilemma back a step is also a false analogy. It refers to God's nature in the wrong way, like God has this type of nature that creates good. Nature doesn’t create good or recognize anything, "it just is" so this is an illogical claim. When you are talking about the nature of God it is about His essential properties.

So the Nature of God neither creates or recognizes anything at all. God's nature is the "Good" and this simply determines what good is. Asking why is God's nature good or His nature creates or recognizes good doesn't understand the alternative option.

It's like asking is the 'good' good because it creates the 'good' or because it recognizes the 'good'. It's neither one because the 'good' is good because it is the 'good'. It defines what is good, it is the standard and it makes no sense to ask this further question. The objection is that God's nature creates or recognizes the good so it can be arbitrary. This question/objection doesn’t even make sense. Nature doesn't create or recognize anything.

The objection is questioning God's nature and sort of making it some personal thing itself that can create or recognized things. What we mean by God's nature are his essential attributes or properties like elements that make up the nature of something. Elements cannot recognize or create good morals.

The idea of a "yardstick having some nature that can recognize and make decisions about morality is also a false analogy and doesn't even make sense. If 'good' existed as some abstract object apart from God then that negates the moral argument as abstract objects are not bearers of moral values. An abstract object is not "Just, merciful or kind" and cannot stand in causal relations. So paradoxically the good (or good nature) would not be good and is seemingly incoherent. Moral values are embodied in persons and God is an ultimate person. God is the metaphysical ultimate, He defines what is goodness by His very nature.

Plato’s original solution to the Euthyphro dilemma was to say that there was “The Good” which just existed as a sort of idea or abstract object. It would be similar to mathematical objects like the perfect circle or triangle. Plato thought that there had to be a sort of abstract object called the good which determines what is good and what is evil and existed independent of the gods and humans. Belief in God was polytheistic so there were many gods who differed in their morality.

So that is why there was this infinite regress with the Euthyphro dilemma as there was no ultimate stopping point and Plato was trying to work this out. He was trying to fix morality in what he thought was "the good" some abstract idea of good. That is why the Christian God works so well as the stopping point for morality.

Another problem for placing the good in some abstract object is that it cannot be a source of moral duty or obligation. Why am I obligated to do this or that? Why am I forbidden from doing that? What is the source of moral obligation or duty? Having some abstract object for good doesn’t lay any foundation for moral duty or obligation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI

This article seems to sum up what the issue is with the argument that using God's nature only rearranges the Euthyphro dilemma.

The Euthyphro dilemma requires God to actually declare something moral, whether he is recognizing an independent morality or creating his own. As Christians understand God, his innate nature is morality itself. Furthermore, God is eternal and did not create himself, so he could not have created morality (nor his nature emphasis added). God appeals to his uncreated and eternal nature to find morality and then reveals it to the world. He cannot act in a way that opposes that morality, nor can it be created or changed.

Which brings us to your final question:

What came before God's Nature? If it has always existed, then nothing came before. That's the point of the argument. God doesn't have sovereignty over that which he doesn't choose.
The Euthyphro dilemma is resolved by realizing God as a self-evident, metaphysically necessary being. We can argue this all day long, but for Christians, who see God as a necessary being, his moral nature is eternal and unchanging.
Why the Christian Apologetic to the Euthyphro Dilemma Falls Short. : DebateAChristian

Yes, experts do tend to know more than laypeople, such as you and I. My objection to this proposed way around the dilemma - pointing out that it all it does is reformulate the question posed by the dilemma - was first articulated, as far as I know, by philosopher Michael Martin, in response to Greg Bahnsen. It's probably much older than that, but that's who I first heard it from. Philosophers disagree with one another. That's kind of the nature of the beast.

Yes and it is good we can have this debate and exchange ideas and arguments to gain a deeper understanding with the help from those who are more in the know. Certainly, the debate will go on.

An act is morally good if it increases wellbeing, reduces harm, or does both. And act is morally bad if it increases harm, reduces wellbeing, or does both. An act is amoral if it concerns neither. Wellbeing and harm are objectively quantifiable.

The idea that moral right and wrong can equate to pleasure and pain or any naturalistic objective has long been refuted. Morality doesn't equate to natural sciences. It is grounded in the metaphysical.

Philosophers have long noted an “is/ought distinction,” which delineates facts from values. Our values—what we feel to be good and bad, right and wrong—can never be straightforwardly observed in the world around us. I can observe the properties and regularities of the natural world. But the universe has no special particles, no unique forces, that can inform me what is the right thing to do.
https://arcdigital.media/morals-are-objective-d647dc5bf12a

Science cannot determine what morality is. Natural science tells us what is and not what ought to be. As philosopher Gerry Foder writes “Science is about facts, not norms. It might tell us how we are but it cannot tells what is wrong with how we are. In particular, it cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to human flourishing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

Again though, the standard is only half the equation. The other half is whether you actually value that standard, and that will always be subjective, and dependent on an "if" clause. That is true even if it is granted that Yahweh exists, has a certain moral code, and that you have a reliable means of gleaning what that code is.

You cannot get an ought from an is, without introducing an "if" clause.

And to take things back to the OP
As Thomas Aquinas explains in his Summa Theologiae Law is in ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has care of the community and is imposed on others by way of a rule and measure. But this necessarily presupposes a being of intelligence and volition who can know the rule and impose it.

Therefore, if the evolved order of human nature that determines what’s good for us is to be a law that morally binds us there must exist a being superior to humans who has intellect and will and ultimately has care over the human community.

Without such a being like God, there could be no moral obligation. So unless someone is willing to say moral obligation doesn’t exist one should reject the idea that evolution is sufficient to explain morality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGxraj3ULg

 

[stevevw]

Like I said. You are redefining the words so God and Good mean the same thing.

I would refer the answer to this in Redac's reply which I think sums things up quite well here #285
I don't think it is redefining anything. This has been the understanding for millennia. The old saying was God is good, add an o to God and we get good. God is the essence of goodness. These go hand in hand and even atheists are familiar with this.

 

[durangodawood]

Yet you use words like happiness, satisfaction, misery which are all feelings. We cannot base morality on feelings as feelings are subjective.

Yes, feelings are felt subjectively. But as I already said, and you havent denied, we can tell from the outside when people are generally happy or miserable. We can study this just like any other aspect of animal behavior. The wise among us have known how to distinguish misery from satisfaction among the people. And at the core, most people share the same set of general conditions for happiness: health, material security, friendship, some self autonomy, etc. Wisdom-based morality promotes those, enabling a society people are invested in, which can endure.

But who said happiness and misery equate to moral right and wrong.

No one had to decide that they prefer happiness over misery. It comes naturally. And so for a society to endure it has to discourage behaviors that make people miserable.

I named a number of situations where the line is blurred. I can name many more if you want.

Absolutely. In no way is every single issue crystal clear. For your issue of environmental damage, divine command morality isnt clear either, as there's Christians on both sides of that issue.

 

[durangodawood]

....If you want to use science as a basis for morality....

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about what I want. Wisdom based morality is my explanation for the origin and endurance of human morality. Its an explanation, not a desire.

Also I wouldnt call the collection of human wisdom over history "science", although science may contribute some factual findings that affect our moral evolution going forward.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's your show, buddy. I'm curious why something is good from your perspective. So you tell me what the presuppositions are.

Well.....here's the kicker! I'm not a 'Presuppositionalist'; rather, I'm a Philosophical Hermeneuticist. This means that whatever presuppositions I might spot as being present within my own subjective view of the world are there (I think) by either cultural default and/or by active, existential supposition on my part. They're not necessarily universal (althought unbeknownst to me, they might be). They're not even necessarily easily transferable or explainable to other people.

Unlike presuppositionalist type thinkers, I'm not going to propose that there is a clearly delineated system in the hermeneutic method, even if there are initial, generally applied principles. So, I can start if I want with how I feel about and perceive the world on a prima facie, existential level, but once I do so, I begin to engage reality on its terms (Objectivity?) as best as I humanly can while stuck in my Subjectivity. Morally, this means to me that I "start" with a little Carl Sagan and a little Thomas Hobbes, but then move in social life and find that there are some useful ideas in religion, useful to explain the world, morally and ontologically, even if without final "proofs."

Does any of this ring a bell for you in what I've talked about before?

 

[Moral Orel]

Does any of this ring a bell for you in what I've talked about before?

Yes, you say this a lot. But "why is something good?" is a very straightforward question. I understand it doesn't have a simple answer, most things that are interesting don't. Instead of talking about how expansive the conversation would need to be, try to summarize your answer in a few sentences and then expand as necessary. It seems your answers never get past the stage of talking about how complicated it is to talk about things.

I tell you what. I'm going to do my darnedest not to even argue with you. I'll ask questions as you explain, and you'll probably feel like they're leading questions, but I genuinely just want to hear your explanation for why something is good so I'm not going on the attack.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, you say this a lot. But "why is something good?" is a very straightforward question. I understand it doesn't have a simple answer, most things that are interesting don't. Instead of talking about how expansive the conversation would need to be, try to summarize your answer in a few sentences and then expand as necessary. It seems your answers never get past the stage of talking about how complicated it is to talk about things.

Ok. So now we come to it: Some "thing" is "good" because God made it that way, and without God, that "thing" would not exist and/or have potential for "goodness." [And notice, I didn't say any of this would be explainable, provable or easily transferable.]

I tell you what. I'm going to do my darnedest not to even argue with you. I'll ask questions as you explain, and you'll probably feel like they're leading questions, but I genuinely just want to hear your explanation for why something is good so I'm not going on the attack.

Well, the above is my initial statement. Of course, then I'll just follow up with a little Jens Zimmerman (again) ...

 

[zippy2006]

The question is "Why is something good?"

Goodness is being under the aspect of the desirable:

Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea; which is clear from the following argument. The essence of goodness consists in this, that it is in some way desirable. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. i): "Goodness is what all desire." (ST Ia, Q5, A1)
​

(I realize I am wading into an issue that is vaguely connected to Euthyphro over hundreds of posts)

 

[Speedwell]

Ok. So now we come to it: Some "thing" is "good" because God made it that way, and without God, that "thing" would not exist and/or have potential for "goodness." [And notice, I didn't say any of this would be explainable, provable or easily transferable.]

Well, the above is my initial statement. Of course, then I'll just follow up with a little Jens Zimmerman (again) ...

Good, clear statement. How do find out what is good?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good, clear statement. How do find out what is good?

Comprehensively? You don't. So, we'll each have to rely upon our moral intuitions and cultural conditioning. And if we're lucky, we might even bump into a thing called "the bible" [and/or some thing called "Christianity"] to add to or modify what our intuitions and conditioning don't enable us to conceive about "the Good."

 

[durangodawood]

That really is contingent upon a whole host of factors, isn't it? I suppose I could make an overly general statement about what I think is "morally good," but it wouldn't REALLY tease out the specific situations that we all have to navigate through each day we live our lives, especially as we move in a not so hospitable world environment.

One could say that human survival is generally good, as is human well-being, but this will depend on who is asserting this overly general statement, as well as why they do so and how they propose it should be done. General ethical principles all by themselves don't necessarily reflect moral realities or prescribe to us what moral reality we are all engaged in.

As a Christian, I'm going to say that what is "Good" is that which comports with God's own Being, and His Design and/or intention for human existence. I don't expect that what God thinks (or knows) is good will be easily understood or administered by the human mind without complication. In sum, my own idea of the Good won't necessarily, or naturally, be what God fully knows to be 'Good.' They will be two different concepts, even if there will be some overlap.

So the essence of the good is defined by the nature of God and as a Christian you strive to know that nature, if I'm understanding you right.

Something about that seems to make the origin of human morality too cosmic or something. My sense is the evolution of morality responds to the conditions of being human beings on earth, and thats it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So the essence of the good is defined by the nature of God and as a Christian you strive to know that nature, if I'm understanding you right.

Generally speaking, yes.

Something about that seems to make the origin of human morality too cosmic or something. My sense is the evolution of morality responds to the conditions of being human beings on earth, and thats it.

Sure. I can understand that and this is why I stated above to various people that my axiological position as to what constitutes "the Good" will be difficult (maybe impossible) to explain or prove. I personally don't expect anyone to just agree or to perceive it all automatically as I do ... which isn't to say that I think it's "ok" if they don't.

Anyway, the short of it is that my hermeneutical view of "the Good" is partially informed by what might be called "Creation Ethics" along with some variation of "Ethics of Care," a view that is apart from and different in some aspects from Divine Command Theory as it is traditionally conceived.