Nihilism for dummies

[Wiccan_Child]

Can you explain then why most life-forms have defensive tactics and or physical ability if not for Survival?

Evolution by natural selection .

 

[quatona]

Purpose is not a good word to describe the motivation behind the survival of a species.

I think that was Mark´s point exactly, and you seemed to dispute it in your response. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[ragarth]

I admit I'm a dummy when it comes to Nihilism. Is there something about nihilism that makes it inherently atheistic? It seems to me that nihilism can as readily be applied to an atheist as to a theist philosophy since nihilism makes no explicit statements about the existence or non-existence of divinity.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I admit I'm a dummy when it comes to Nihilism. Is there something about nihilism that makes it inherently atheistic? It seems to me that nihilism can as readily be applied to an atheist as to a theist philosophy since nihilism makes no explicit statements about the existence or non-existence of divinity.

Not explicit, but if you can conclude that nihilism can only be true in a universe without gods, then it is inherently (if indirectly) atheistic.

For example, some people believe that the plans of deities (our God-given destiny, and all that) is what defines the Grand Ultimate Purpose of the Universe™ (GUPP). Thus, if nihilism is true and there is no GUPP, then there there are no deities, and atheism is true: nihilism becomes necessarily atheistic.

 

[ragarth]

Not explicit, but if you can conclude that nihilism can only be true in a universe without gods, then it is inherently (if indirectly) atheistic.

For example, some people believe that the plans of deities (our God-given destiny, and all that) is what defines the Grand Ultimate Purpose of the Universe™ (GUPP). Thus, if nihilism is true and there is no GUPP, then there there are no deities, and atheism is true: nihilism becomes necessarily atheistic.

While some religions may exclude nihilism from their beliefs, this does not mean that nihilism and deity cannot both be believed. Let's take a look at this:

If life has meaning it is intrinsic to our existence. If it is intrinsic to our existence then we cannot exist without that meaning.

Now we insert religion:

God gives life meaning, god gives humanity free will. If we have free will we can choose not to follow god's meaning for our lives. If we can choose not to follow god's meaning for us then that meaning is not intrinsic to our existence. Therefore life has no intrinsic meaning.

Further, there's nothing stating that one cannot have a religion that does not put forth an inherent meaning to life. All a belief needs to be theistic is the belief in a god or gods. All a belief needs to be nihilistic is no belief in an intrinsic meaning to life. Therefore one can believe in both things without conflict. This is the conundrum I see, because nihilism is generally viewed as an atheistic belief, but I can find nothing within it to make it inherently atheistic.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

While some religions may exclude nihilism from their beliefs, this does not mean that nihilism and deity cannot both be believed. Let's take a look at this:

If life has meaning it is intrinsic to our existence. If it is intrinsic to our existence then we cannot exist without that meaning.

Now we insert religion:

God gives life meaning, god gives humanity free will. If we have free will we can choose not to follow god's meaning for our lives. If we can choose not to follow god's meaning for us then that meaning is not intrinsic to our existence. Therefore life has no intrinsic meaning.

Further, there's nothing stating that one cannot have a religion that does not put forth an inherent meaning to life. All a belief needs to be theistic is the belief in a god or gods. All a belief needs to be nihilistic is no belief in an intrinsic meaning to life. Therefore one can believe in both things without conflict. This is the conundrum I see, because nihilism is generally viewed as an atheistic belief, but I can find nothing within it to make it inherently atheistic.

As I said, there are some people who believe that purpose is implied by the existence of deities (and, thus, purpose doesn't exist without them). While you may not consider that to be the case, others do.

I guess it's all to do with how ill-defined 'purpose' is. You can define it in such a way to make nihilism inherently atheistic, or compatible with theism, or however you want.

 

[Taure]

Opinions and preferences can´t be objective, because, well, they are by definition what a subject holds. Be it a human, a god or the tooth fairy. By definition they can´t exist independently of a subject.

This is a simplification.

The content of any one opinion X is subjective in that it exists in relation to its subject, Y. There is a relation there between X and Y that makes X subjective.

Now introduce another subject, Z.

The existence of Y and Y's opinions are objective from Z's perspective. It is the case that Y believes X. This belief is an objective truth.

It's a subtle distinction. Similar to this: If I believe that I am sitting on my bed, this is uncertain. However, the belief that I believe I am sitting on my bed is certain.

So too with this. The contents of your beliefs are subjective. That you have that belief is objective.

Thus, God's belief in a morality can be subjective for him. But from our perspective it is an objective truth that that is the belief that he holds.

With morality, taking into account God is the ultiamte "law maker" of the universe, what he holds as a subjective opinion is binding for us.

So where, for example, your subjective opinion that "Scarlett Johansson is smoking hot" would be objective but not binding for me (It is objectively the case that you think that Scarlett is hot, but I could disagree with your assessment), as God is law maker, were he to believe that "Scarlett Johansson is smoking hot" it would be objective and binding (It is objectively the case that God thinks that Scarlett is hot, and as God is the arbiter of truth, as he is the law maker, he decides what is hot and what is not, thus I can't disagree).

Replace "Scarlett Johansson" with "adultery" and "hot" with "wrong" and you have an example of the same with a moral position.

This is why I said that your opinion stems from a disbelief in God. You're not fully accounting for God's position as law maker. It is this law making attribute which makes the objective truth of God's subjective opinions binding for us, whereas the objective truth of each other's subjective opinions are non-binding.

In short: you can't disagree with God, but you can disagree with your fellow man (or rather, since we - supposedly - have free will, we can disagree with him but we will be wrong).

 

[tanzanos]

It is all about probability. There is no destiny and there is no purpose as such.

 

[quatona]

sorry, double post.

 

[quatona]

This is a simplification.

The content of any one opinion X is subjective in that it exists in relation to its subject, Y. There is a relation there between X and Y that makes X subjective.

Now introduce another subject, Z.

The existence of Y and Y's opinions are objective from Z's perspective. It is the case that Y believes X. This belief is an objective truth.

It's a subtle distinction. Similar to this: If I believe that I am sitting on my bed, this is uncertain. However, the belief that I believe I am sitting on my bed is certain.

So too with this. The contents of your beliefs are subjective. That you have that belief is objective.

I see. In this respect, however, every belief held is objective to everbody. The fact that I believe X is objective for myself as well. There´s no difference between god´s and my opinion, neither for god nor for me. The fact that god or I hold an opinion is an objective fact - independently whether and who observes it.
That´s, however, not what I understood we were discussing initially.

Thus, God's belief in a morality can be subjective for him.

The content is subjective, while the fact that he believes in a certain morality is objective for him as well. "Objective for..." is a contradiction in terms if there ever was one, btw.

But from our perspective it is an objective truth that that is the belief that he holds.

Just like it is an "objective truth" that I hold the beliefs I hold and you hold the beliefs you hold, independently who is the observer.
Thus, if you insist on this line of reasoning, we may agree that god´s preferences are objective (in that it´s a fact that he holds his opinion), but it isn´t anymore objective than mine or yours or anybody´s. The content is subjective - independently of the observer.

With morality, taking into account God is the ultiamte "law maker" of the universe, what he holds as a subjective opinion is binding for us.

No, it isn´t. I can disagree, and I can act according to my preferences instead of his.
But that´s besides the point, anyways: "Binding" is not a synonym for "objective". Thus, even if we could agree that they are binding this wouldn´t render them objective.
Objective is a word to describe "what is", not "what should". There are preferences of god that result in "what is" and thus become objective. Gravity would be a preference of god that is objective, in that its content exists independently of the observer. It´s what we call "descriptive laws". Prescriptive laws ("shoulds") will always be subjective.

So where, for example, your subjective opinion that "Scarlett Johansson is smoking hot" would be objective but not binding for me (It is objectively the case that you think that Scarlett is hot, but I could disagree with your assessment)

Ok.

, as God is law maker, were he to believe that "Scarlett Johansson is smoking hot" it would be objective and binding (It is objectively the case that God thinks that Scarlett is hot, and as God is the arbiter of truth, as he is the law maker, he decides what is hot and what is not, thus I can't disagree).

Except that I can disagree, and since above you introduced "can be disagreed upon" as the criterium for "not binding", god´s preferences are demonstrably not binding for me (except if we assume that everything that happens happens according to god´s preferences and plan - in which case there is no way to act against god´s preferences, anyway).

Replace "Scarlett Johansson" with "adultery" and "hot" with "wrong" and you have an example of the same with a moral position.

Exactly. I don´t find SJ hot, and I don´t find "adultery" wrong. Conclusion: god´s preferences are not binding in the way you defined the word.

This is why I said that your opinion stems from a disbelief in God. You're not fully accounting for God's position as law maker.

Of course I am accounting for it. I accept that god can make laws and that he has the power to make these laws objective in that there is no way to violate them. These laws are what we call descriptive or natural laws. Everything that is is the way it is because god has made it so and determined to be that way.

You make it sound like there´s only one agreed upon god concept, whilst in fact there are countless of them, frequently contradictory.
I am accounting for god´s omniscience, god´s omnipotence, god´s authorship of everything - and the logical result is that there can´t be anything that god didn´t or doesn´t want. These are three major properties of god that are largely agreed upon by theists. The fact that there are also other alleged properties that are irreconcilable with one or several of these is not my problem. Despite being willing to accept a coherent god concept for the sake of the argument (and as far as I can see the above described one is perfectly coherent), I am not willing to accept illogicalities. Plus, I am not willing to discuss on the basis of mumbojumbo terms such as "arbiter of truth". God is the author of everything that is.

It is this law making attribute which makes the objective truth of God's subjective opinions binding for us, whereas the objective truth of each other's subjective opinions are non-binding.

Just like "objective" "truth" is a word to describe "what is" and not "what should".

In short: you can't disagree with God, but you can disagree with your fellow man

The simple fact that quite obviously I do can disagree with god (else there would be no need for god´s prescriptive laws, morals, shoulds, in the first place) blows your entire argument out of the water.

(or rather, since we - supposedly - have free will, we can disagree with him but we will be wrong).

Now your argument has become circular. The rest of your post rested on the claim that gods preferences are objectively wrong if, when and because we can not disagree with them, now you say that they are wrong even though we can disagree with them.
All that´s left is "They are wrong because they are wrong".