For the atheists: If you are truly honest doesn't atheism lead to nihilism?
Only if you assume that purpose is synonymous with belief in God and a lack of belief in God is synonymous with a lack of purpose. I don't actually take that view, but you seem to. In my opinion, a belief in God results from a desire for purpose in someone who finds it difficult to find purpose from anywhere else.
I'm not a believer in the Abrahamic version of "God", and I feel like I have purpose. I think atheists can have purpose, too. That I don't believe in God does not mean that my life lacks meaning. Quite the contrary.
Sure, we're all essentially, at a root level, the exchange of electrons in various ways, but it doesn't logically follow that we're inherently worthless, or that life is inherently meaningless. Think: Out of the infinite length and depth and breadth of space with its countless molecules, stars, galaxies and planets, how many particles do we know of that have come together to form conscious life? Out of all the countless atoms, I am made of some of the exceptional among them.
The particles in my right eye come from different stars than the particles in my left eye.
So, yes, I might be "just particles" to you, if you try to assimilate my worldview, but you'd be wrong that such a view leads me to conclude there's no meaning. What you mean is that there's no existential meaning, no given purpose, no life-path objectively set out. That's why life is rare, and why it's valuable, and why it's precious. Knowing that the universe is utterly oblivious to me, knowing that I am made of the exceptional molecules among all the infinite stars, and knowing that the arising of consciousness is as improbable as it is -- yet here I am -- gives untold meaning to my life. I mean nothing to the universe, and in knowing that, life and those who have it are what mean everything to me.
Originally Posted by only a sojourner:
Q. How can there be an objective morality?
There can't be an objective morality. But there can be a morality based on common human desires, for instance, the innate desire to be happy. And by constructing such moralities, we can try to ensure that such desire is met fairly and evenly.
The consequences of an action are not "morality". The motives for the action, the ruminations regarding that action, and whether that action (or thought) is "right or wrong" to undertake, are morality. And distinctions of right and wrong vary.
For some Christians even, the death penalty is "right" in some cases. Thus, they say that the action of taking a murderer's life, is right, while for other Christians it is wrong. Differing moralities, based on differing subjective opinions.
Morality is not cosmically objective, logically. It is considered objective by people who arrive at that conclusion by subjective means. It is, ultimately, subjective, because it is influenced by human feeling, emotion, desire and belief.
That doesn't mean that morality has no grounding. Buddhist morality, for instance, has grounding in the idea that no human or sentient being likes to suffer. So to the Buddhist, the core of all morality should be to help suffering in oneself and others.
I would call that a pretty good morality. It takes into account cause, effect, motive, consequence and shared desires. Contrast that with Leviticus instructions to stone an adulteress. Where's the common human desire in that? Vengeance, perpetuation of suffering, violence. Not good things, in my opinion. Nobody wants to die without consent, at the hands of others, and very few wish to kill, actually.
Some might think it is objectively "better" to punish a thief for stealing bread for his family. Others my think it is objectively better not to. The common denominator there is that to think something is objective doesn't make it so. Both people believe what they believe, yet believe different things, yet assert their belief as objective.
Belief about right and wrong is totally subjective. It can't be objective, but it CAN be grounded in shared human desires.
You and various others may come to some consensus that you would prefer to live under some form of "humanism" but even here there is wide diversity among atheists as to what this means in practical application. A Marxist and a follower of Ayn Rand would come to very different conclusions on many aspects of how society should be arranged and how people should treat each other.
How to treat and not treat people are subjective opinions. I don't necessarily think Stalinism was beneficial for the people who were killed during his reign, but it worked for Stalin, subjectively. I also don't think an educational system purposed to indoctrinate human beings into believing money is inherently and inextricably a part of human existence and that the pursuance of it must drive the bulk of personal endeavour "works" on some objective scale, but it "works" subjectively for bankers and those who issue currency and those who are rich. It has form, function and mechanism, that doesn't mean it's great for everyone, nor does it mean it's "good" or "bad".
Everything is relative. Christian societies in the middle ages worked for priests, not so much for the people they were torturing.
Originally Posted by only a sojourner
But behind it all there is absolutely nothing extrinsically wrong with cutting a persons throat for the sheer pleasure and exhileration of doing so.
I disagree. I would not like to have my throat cut against my will. You would not like to have your throat cut against you will. That's a common desire everyone shares. Why not base morality off this idea, then?
You don't want your throat cut, and nor do I. I won't cut your throat, and you won't cut mine. I don't want you to sleep with my wife against my will, and so I won't sleep with your wife against yours. I don't want you to beat me up, so I won't beat you up. I don't want to be raped, so I won't rape. I don't want to be murdered, so I won't murder. I don't want my things taken against my will, so I won't take yours.
The most common, universal human desire is this: "I do not want to be violated, unconsensually and against my will".
That's what morality should be based upon; it's the closest thing we have to an objective standard.
