atheism vs. existentialism and nihilism
Actuary X
I've been pondering the relationship between atheism and nihilism.
Existentialism came up along the way. I have questions for
discussion.
Does atheism imply nihilism?
Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
and senseless? If so, is that a bad thing? Would a meaning imposed
from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
better in any way? If there is no objective grounds for a particular
morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
want, or to live immorally?
Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
Does atheism imply existentialism?
Theism, it seems to me, in its usual forms, is Platonic. God, and
more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul, existence
must precede essence; what it means to be a particular person is
something that is created by the act of living, not something fixed
that is then acted out over a life.
Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
--
Deja News is very weak.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Automort
No. The notion is religious propaganda, hatched by people whose lives are
structured by religion.
>Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
>and senseless?
has a structure. Meaning may well be a limited, subjective concept created or
demanded by brains that function in certain ways.
> Would a meaning imposed
>from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>better in any way?
rather than reason.
>does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>want, or to live immorally?
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
>
>Does atheism imply existentialism?
No.
>
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
Zooey_G
attach to it, is up to you. I've met Buddist atheists, Jesus loving
atheists, existential, nihilistic, anarchic, the works... Atheism is the
belief that any god does not exist.. thats it... figure the rest out for
yourself... For me? the meaning of life is what you choose. When I die, I'm
dead. All I know is that I don't want to be like Van Gogh, scorned in life,
adored after death. If people are going to like me, I'd rather it be before
I die so I can feel their emotion. People could piss on my grave for all I
care. As long as I go to the grave thinking I did good for me and the rest
of the world... who the **** cares what people think of me after I die.
Zooey_G
Actuary X wrote in message <7kdi9m$hij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>I've been pondering the relationship between atheism and nihilism.
>Existentialism came up along the way. I have questions for
>discussion.
>
>
>Does atheism imply nihilism?
>Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
>and senseless? If so, is that a bad thing? Would a meaning imposed
>from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>better in any way? If there is no objective grounds for a particular
>morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>want, or to live immorally?
>
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
>
>
>Does atheism imply existentialism?
>Theism, it seems to me, in its usual forms, is Platonic. God, and
>more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul, existence
>must precede essence; what it means to be a particular person is
>something that is created by the act of living, not something fixed
>that is then acted out over a life.
>
IC
wrote:
>
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
Existensialism is a by definition a rejection of nihilism.
There are religious and atheistic existensialists.
Atheism only refers to a lack of belief in a creator god.
There are plenty of other supernatural belief systems that do not
include such a belief.
Nihilism is almost impossible for a sane person.
Lars Lundgren
>
>
> I've been pondering the relationship between atheism and nihilism.
> Existentialism came up along the way. I have questions for
> discussion.
>
>
> Does atheism imply nihilism?
No.
> Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
> and senseless?
It depends on what you mean by "meaningless" and "senseless". You don't
need to be given a purpose for living from a god. You can find your own
purpose, or you can just enjoy the ride (My prefered choice).
> If so, is that a bad thing? Would a meaning imposed
> from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
> better in any way?
No, I don't think so.
> If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
> want, or to live immorally?
>
Hmm, humans are social creatures. If you want to be accepted within a
group you probably need to adjust to their rules.
> Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
>
Yes. I am a living example!
I object to the idea that existence would be senseless and useless. I
can't say that it is plain wrong, but it seem to imply that I could just
as well kill myself. That is far from the truth. I find life worth living
and I enjoy (almost) every minute of it.
When you say that "existence is meaningless" then it sounds as if there is
a lack of something that should be there.
>
> Does atheism imply existentialism?
> Theism, it seems to me, in its usual forms, is Platonic. God, and
> more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul, existence
> must precede essence; what it means to be a particular person is
> something that is created by the act of living, not something fixed
> that is then acted out over a life.
>
> Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
>
I think so, but I am not sure I understand exactly what existentialism
means.
According to websters:
a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines
but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable
universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate
responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of
what is right or wrong or good or bad
I object to the "must assume ultimate responsibility...". To me, that
sounds as if we had a lot of obligations *as humans*. I do not think that
we have many obligations as humans. Instead, we have a lot of
obligations as parts of our society, but that is something else.
/Lars L
Terry
nihilism.
>Existentialism came up along the way. I have questions for
>discussion.
Well, I'm an atheist, so I'll take a stab with my personal point
of view.
>
>Does atheism imply nihilism?
>Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively)
meaningless
>and senseless? If so, is that a bad thing? Would a meaning
imposed
>from without, rather than one subjectively created from within
be
>better in any way? If there is no objective grounds for a
particular
>morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral
structure we
>want, or to live immorally?
>
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
>
Well, it all depends on what you mean by "meaning" >;) Maybe I'm
just being inconsistent, but I certianly don't find life to be
"senseless." In fact I feel quite liberated by the fact that I
and others are free to make whatever we want out of our lives and
provide our own meaning to it. I would certainly feel opressed
if the meaning of our lives was imposed from some higher power.
Just because no one is telling us what to do doesn't mean that we
can't come up with things to do that are enjoyable and worthwhile
(such as making our society a better place and searching for
knowledge.) Perfection is not possible, but a worthy goal
nonetheless...
>
>Does atheism imply existentialism?
>Theism, it seems to me, in its usual forms, is Platonic. God,
and
>more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul,
existence
>must precede essence; what it means to be a particular person is
>something that is created by the act of living, not something
fixed
>that is then acted out over a life.
>
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
>
I'm not sure I really understand existentialism, but I'll take a
stab. The meaning of essence is not at all clear to me. As I
see it, there _is_ such a thing as an essence in the sense of an
idealized conceptual construct (a "circle" for example.)
However, I think that this is all an essence is: a simplified
intellectual construct -- an abstaction. As for existence, I
would say that existence precedes everything, including thinking
and conciousness, and that trying to figure out the precursor to
existence is like trying to figure out the cause for something
that doesn't need a cause. Does that make me an existentialist??
-Terryo
"There's no use trying," said Alice. "One can't believe
impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice,"
said the Queen. "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six
impossible things before breakfast." >> Alice in Wonderland
Hah! Made you think! Nyah, Nyah, Nyah
..
Jason Friesen
writes:
>Does atheism imply nihilism?
Perhaps I'm not the best to offer my $0.02 as I am not an atheist, but I'll try
to be objective. In my view, the answer to this is yes. Many will try to
distance atheism from nihilism because of the uncomfortable feelings generated,
but these are artificial constructs.
>Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
>and senseless?
Objectively, I think the answer is yes.
> If so, is that a bad thing?
The term "bad" tends to become a very fuzzy thing as well...
> Would a meaning imposed
>from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>better in any way?
In ANY way? The answer, I think, is yes. An external meaning would be
independent of our subjectivity and thus be more stable. In this way it is
superior to subjective meaning. OTOH subjective meaning, presumably, would
never be in opposition to our personality as we would have created it in the
first place. Many would argue that this is superior to a hard external system.
> If there is no objective grounds for a particular
>morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>want, or to live immorally?
The tough answer is yes, IMO. I've heard many try to explain why we should
follow a moral structure even in a subjective, atheistic, system of belief, but
I don't buy it. If this life is all we have, it would benefit us to look out
for ourselves as much as possible. In the comparison of who is happier, the
one who follows the conventions of society, and the one who doesn't, I think
the answer is a third category, ie. the person who appears to follow the
rules, but doesn't. This person reaps all the altruistic benefits of socity,
while contributing as little as possible (and keeping those resources for
himself.) An example would be someone who cheats on his taxes.
Just as a semantics issue, in your question, I think it would be better to ask
if we could live "amorally" not "immorally".
Jason
Dreading the new found bonds of AOL...
James Martin
>Does atheism imply nihilism?
No.
>Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
>and senseless?
It has as much meaning as it ever had (which can be plenty or none,
depending upon your perspective). You'd be better off looking for
function than meaning. Plants, animals, rocks, elements have functions.
Meaning comes from your head--meaning is what you make of things, not
things in themselves. Existentialism (and plenty of other philosophies)
give you ground rules for determining how you might want to live you life
(and, along with that, what you might want invest with meaning)>
>If so, is that a bad thing? Would a meaning imposed
>from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>better in any way?
There would be absolutly no way to tell. You'd have to experience both
situations or have a population in one and a population in the other and
compare the outcomes. But you'd still have to devise a scale to judge
which is better or worse (and who would devise that? the person in the
meaningless or meaningful group? some third group?).
>If there is no objective grounds for a particular
>morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>want, or to live immorally?
Try it. See how far it gets you. The social context you live in will
enforce some ethical standard on you, whether you like it or not.
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
Yes.
>Does atheism imply existentialism?
No. But it's not a bad mix, IMHO.
>more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul, existence
>must precede essence; what it means to be a particular person is
>something that is created by the act of living, not something fixed
>that is then acted out over a life.
Been reading your Sartre. I quite agree (with you and Sartre).
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
Sure. You could be an atheist who believes that all of your actions are
predetermined by biology, for one. I'm sure there are lots of ways to
work it.
Wheat
Charles Fiterman
Actuary X wrote:
> I've been pondering the relationship between atheism and nihilism.
> Existentialism came up along the way. I have questions for
> discussion.
>
> Does atheism imply nihilism?
> Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
> and senseless? If so, is that a bad thing? Would a meaning imposed
> from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
> better in any way? If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
> want, or to live immorally?
Polytheistic gods act like drunken pirates fighting over a curb side sex
worker while monotheistic ones act like Caligula on a bad hair day. Any
meaning imposed by such creatures would be worse than no meaning at all.
We create our own meaning or do without. I can't imagine a worse source
of ethics than gods.
The divine Caligula married his own sister and when she became pregnant
by him slit her open lest the child become a greater god than he. The
Christian god made his only son die on the cross to avenge his own anger
against a man and woman four thousand years dead. This is all typical god
behavior.
Gods are beings made of myth, distant relatives of Roger Rabbit. Roger
Rabbit is a cartoon character who as a condition of his existence can
only do things when they are funny. Gods must sustain their own myths or
vanish. Thus they must agree with your most deeply held beliefs. That's
why God loves everyone at one church and hates almost everyone at the
church down the street. How are you more moral for having an all good,
all powerful Roger Rabbit on your shoulder telling you your most deeply
held beliefs are perfect? You may think it makes you more moral but it
only makes you more certain and that is generally the opposite of moral.
At any given moment God will have a dozen bastards, in both senses,
running about. It makes sense for a religious confidence man to claim
decent from God and God can be relied upon not to sue for defamation of
character. These people come to bad ends and accepting their teachings is
madness. Every bastard makes God's reputation scumier and he is his
reputation. When their cults survive them an explanation must be found
for the bad end and those explanations are by their nature insane. And
since God is his reputation that makes him insane.
> Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
We have ethics for the same reason we have toes, we are that kind of
animal. Gods allow you to explain things like ethics or sunrise prior to
knowing the real reasons. But the sun can rise without an explanation and
we can have ethics without an explanation. Centipedes walk quite well
without conscious knowledge. I can accept not having all the answers and
not invent any.
> Does atheism imply existentialism?
> Theism, it seems to me, in its usual forms, is Platonic. God, and
> more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul, existence
> must precede essence; what it means to be a particular person is
> something that is created by the act of living, not something fixed
> that is then acted out over a life.
>
> Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
We are obviously created by the act of living and I don't see how a bunch
of powerful violent maniacs would change that and a single violent maniac
is no improvement.
Buck Field
news:7kdi9m$hij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Does atheism imply nihilism?
No.
> Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
> and senseless?
Rephrase of question 1 answer = "Still no."
> Would a meaning imposed
> from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
> better in any way?
Yes. Objectivity is the only method that brings people together over time,
and may ultimately represent our only hope for avoiding extinction.
> If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
> want, or to live immorally?
Not unless we are mindless of environmental consequences.
> Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
Yes.
> Does atheism imply existentialism?
No.
> Theism, it seems to me, in its usual forms, is Platonic. God, and
> more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul, existence
> must precede essence;
Correct.
> what it means to be a particular person is
> something that is created by the act of living, not something fixed
> that is then acted out over a life.
This "meaning" is, (as all meanings are), created by the subjective analysis
process, and could be a valuable line of inquiry, but should not be taken as
absolute. It is merely an observation from a particular perspective.
> Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
Yes.
-----------------------------------------------------
"All character training and religion must be
derived from faith . . . we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]
-----------------------------------------------------
Unsolicited commercial use of in...@fieldoperative.com
constitutes agreement on the part of the sender that
recipient is entitled to $1000 pursuant to violation
of Title 47, Section 227 of the United States Code.
-----------------------------------------------------
Buck Field - Database and Web Solutions
www.fieldoperative.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Elkington
>Existentialism came up along the way. I have questions for
>discussion.
Important questions, well put. As a theist I've been meaning to ask them
myself of this group with an interest in unpacking some of the philosophical
ramifications of atheism (as opposed to just point-scoring).
>Does atheism imply nihilism?
>Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
>and senseless? If so, is that a bad thing? Would a meaning imposed
>from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>better in any way? If there is no objective grounds for a particular
>morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>want, or to live immorally?
By "without" do you mean God? Is there any other possible "without"?
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
>
>Does atheism imply existentialism?
>Theism, it seems to me, in its usual forms, is Platonic. God, and
>more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul, existence
>must precede essence; what it means to be a particular person is
>something that is created by the act of living, not something fixed
>that is then acted out over a life.
One definition of Platonic is "stressing especially that actual things are
copies of transcendent ideas and that these ideas are the objects of true
knowledge apprehended by reminiscence."
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Christianity, for example, claims to be more than just a "hard copy" (if you
like) of transcendent reality, but a reality in its own right. For example,
God becoming man as Jesus and dying sacrificially has no transcendent
counterpart. Earth is where it's at.
>Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
Not without getting depressed :-)
Mark Elkington
Mark Folsom
> Existentialism came up along the way. I have questions for
> discussion.
>
>
nope.
> Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
> and senseless?
No. Just like creation problems, meaning problems just move a step away
from us with the addition of god. Viewed as a system that includes god and
us, a theological world has just as big a meaning problem as a material
world, unless you shut off your mind at the second step.
> If so, is that a bad thing? Would a meaning imposed
> from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
> better in any way?
Having god give us meaning is a sham. Maybe god would need to make us to
give her life meaning.
>If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
> want, or to live immorally?
It leaves us with the problem we've always had, except without god we have
to face it directly.
>
> Is it possible to be an atheist, but to reject nihilism?
>
>
> Does atheism imply existentialism?
In which sense?
> Theism, it seems to me, in its usual forms, is Platonic. God, and
> more importantly the soul, are essences. Without a soul, existence
> must precede essence; what it means to be a particular person is
> something that is created by the act of living, not something fixed
> that is then acted out over a life.
>
> Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
Sure. Even if one logically implies the other, a person can just decide to
hold inconsistent beliefs. Theists do it all the time.
--
Mark Folsom
David Cantrell
said:
>In article <7kdi9m$hij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Actuary X <d_ho...@pipeline.com>
>writes:
>
>>Does atheism imply nihilism?
>
>... I am not an atheist, but I'll try to be objective. In my view, the
answer to this is yes.
I'm curious, what (objectively) leads you to believe that atheism
implies nihilism?
>>Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
>>and senseless?
>
>Objectively, I think the answer is yes.
That's my opinion too. However, 'meaningless' and 'senseless' does
not equal 'worthless'. Objectively, life is no more than a complex
chemical structure, but damnit, I LIKE that chemical structure. And
if anyone tries to disrupt this particular complex chemical structure
they'll find that its bite is a LOT worse than its bark.
>> Would a meaning imposed
>>from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>>better in any way?
>
>In ANY way? The answer, I think, is yes. An external meaning would be
>independent of our subjectivity and thus be more stable. In this way it is
>superior to subjective meaning. OTOH subjective meaning, presumably, would
>never be in opposition to our personality as we would have created it in the
>first place. Many would argue that this is superior to a hard external system.
It also has the advantage of being flexible, so the 'meaning' we
perceive can change to suit circumstances. Horribly utilitarian, I
know, and not exactly taking the moral high-ground; but that doesn't
matter - atheism makes no claims or demands about morals.
>> If there is no objective grounds for a particular
>>morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>>want, or to live immorally?
>
>The tough answer is yes, IMO.
Of course. Although it is important to point out that we actually
have very little choice - if we are to live together we have to
interact. That interaction requires rules if we are to avoid a
bloodbath. Random killing would certainly not be in my interests, so
I choose to live in a particular way which allow me to co-operate with
my neighbours - this can range from 'agreeing' not to rape my
neighbour's daughter and steal all the vegetables from his garden, to
keeping an eye on each others' homes when on holiday.
The particular rules I choose are largely shaped by the existing rules
my neighbours ALREADY live by. The advantage I have over a theist is
that a theist believes the rules are externally imposed and
inflexible, whereas I am free to bend my own rules whenever I choose.
We (both atheists AND theists) ARE free to choose to live immorally -
the evidence is all around us, particularly concentrated in the
prisons and tabloid press. However, those who choose to ignore the
rules of their society are punished BY society as a defensive
measure - taking that defensive measure is one of our rules. That
defensive measure can range from mild expressions of disapproval to
long-term imprisonment.
> I've heard many try to explain why we should
>follow a moral structure even in a subjective, atheistic, system of belief, but
>I don't buy it. If this life is all we have, it would benefit us to look out
>for ourselves as much as possible.
Nope. I would not benefit from raping my neighbour's daughter,
stealing my neighbour's car, or burning peoples' houses. No doubt it
could be fun at the time, but when weighed against the inevitable
consequences, it becomes a DISbenefit.
> In the comparison of who is happier, the
>one who follows the conventions of society, and the one who doesn't, I think
>the answer is a third category, ie. the person who appears to follow the
>rules, but doesn't.
IOW, the person who goes along with society but bends the rules.
S'me!
> This person reaps all the altruistic benefits of socity,
>while contributing as little as possible (and keeping those resources for
>himself.) An example would be someone who cheats on his taxes.
An example would be most priests then.
>Just as a semantics issue, in your question, I think it would be better to ask
>if we could live "amorally" not "immorally".
Quite. 'Immoral' is the opposite of 'moral'. 'Ammoral' is neutrality
and implies that morals are irrelevant.
--
David Cantrell, part-time Unix/perl/SQL/java techie
full-time chef/musician/homebrewer
http://www.ThePentagon.com/NukeEmUp
David Cantrell
said:
>>If so, is [lack of meaning] a bad thing? Would a meaning imposed
>>from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>>better in any way?
>
>There would be absolutly no way to tell. You'd have to experience both
>situations or have a population in one and a population in the other and
>compare the outcomes. But you'd still have to devise a scale to judge
>which is better or worse (and who would devise that? the person in the
>meaningless or meaningful group? some third group?).
The nihilists, perhaps?
Actuary X
"Terry" <terry...@cwix.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I really understand existentialism, but I'll take a
> stab. The meaning of essence is not at all clear to me. As I
> see it, there _is_ such a thing as an essence in the sense of an
> idealized conceptual construct (a "circle" for example.)
> However, I think that this is all an essence is: a simplified
> intellectual construct -- an abstaction. As for existence, I
> would say that existence precedes everything, including thinking
> and conciousness, and that trying to figure out the precursor to
> existence is like trying to figure out the cause for something
> that doesn't need a cause. Does that make me an existentialist??
I think it depends on what you mean when you say "there _is_ such a
thing". An essentialist takes that literally; essences exist somewhere,
and physical objects are just instantiations of that ideal. To an
essentialist, a circle is a real thing, that existed before anybody
thought about circles. Essentialism is necessarily dualist; there is a
physical realm, and a separate abstract realm.
If you take the essence to be a mental construct, an abstraction from
objects that exist (before the essense does), then I think it would be
fair to call you an existentialist.
Where it's relevant to atheism is when it's applied to people. Current
theistic ideas seem to resolve around a soul that goes to heaven, or is
reincarnated, or whatever; it doesn't end when the person dies. But the
soul isn't a material object (as far as I can tell); it's an
abstraction, an essence.
To me, the essentialist view of the universe is incoherent.
Actuary X
>
> > If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> > morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure
> > we want, or to live immorally?
>
> group you probably need to adjust to their rules.
So the *only* reason to follow a set of rules is because
you might get caught breaking them?
There's no reason one shouldn't go around killing people,
say, except that one might get caught and go to jail?
Seems to me like there has to be more to it than that. It
seems to me that we don't kill, steal, etc., because we
have accepted that it is morally wrong to do so. That
the morality is enforced by law (or other social means)
strikes me as almost irrelevant.
Does morality come down to "That's how I was brought up"?
It it really no more than being polite?
> I object to the idea that existence would be senseless and useless.
> I can't say that it is plain wrong, but it seem to imply that I
> could just as well kill myself. That is far from the truth. I find
> life worth living and I enjoy (almost) every minute of it.
As you know, that you don't like a particular idea is not
always a good indication as to whether it is true or not.
Life can be objectively meaningless, but subjectively you could
still construct a meaning for yourself. That you enjoy life
may be enough, even if that isn't 'meaning' per se. It can
be worth living with or without meaning.
In the words of Bootsy Collins, "Ain't nothin' but a party, y'all."
If you accept that you have no soul, and when you die, you
are just dead, then life is meaningless and useless; it
will all turn out the same in the end (with your death).
Nothing you do can ever change that. Some people find
this idea depressing; some find it liberating. Some
try to transcend it by leaving something behind that
will live on after they die, whether that is some
brilliant work or some children.
> When you say that "existence is meaningless" then it sounds as if
> there is a lack of something that should be there.
Well, it's really an answer to the question "What is the meaning
of life?" Answering that it's meaningless tells you that it's
the wrong question to be asking. The question isn't really
well-formed. (At best it's a kind of a koan.)
> According to websters:
> a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse
> doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in
> an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who
> must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will
> without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good
> or bad
>
> I object to the "must assume ultimate responsibility...". To me,
> that sounds as if we had a lot of obligations *as humans*. I do
> not think that we have many obligations as humans. Instead, we
> have a lot of obligations as parts of our society, but that is
> something else.
I think that one must accept ultimate responsibility for
one's actions because there is no place else to *put* that
responsibility. There is no certain knowledge, but so
what; you have to go live your life anyway, make decisions,
do things. Some of those things will turn out to be good,
some bad. You can't know how things will turn out, but
you are still responsible for it.
Chloe Pajerek
> >Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
> >and senseless?
>
> Objectively, I think the answer is yes.
"Objectively?" If you want to be objective, let's do some analysis.
First of all, let's propose that terms like "meaningless" and "senseless" have
no "objective" meaning. These terms refer to subjective states of mind
which are not objectively verifiable. We depend for our evidence entirely
on individual testimony. IOW, we have to take peoples' word for whether
or not they find life meaningless.
In the usual scientific sense, a theory can no longer be entertained
once a significant body of evidence accumulates to contradict it. Your
theory here is that life without god is meaningless and/or senseless.
If, however, I can locate some reliable people who can testify that they
are atheists who find their lives to be meaningful, then your theory
fails.
We have already seen several articles to this effect, and I'll happily
contribute another. It's more than possible for a person to find meaning
in their life without relying on a god to provide it.
What it comes down to is *your own personal* inability to find
meaning without god, not any general rule or tendency.
> Jason
- Chloe
Lars Lundgren
> In article <7kdi9m$hij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Actuary X <d_ho...@pipeline.com>
> writes:
[snip]
>
> > Would a meaning imposed
> >from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
> >better in any way?
>
> In ANY way? The answer, I think, is yes. An external meaning would be
> independent of our subjectivity and thus be more stable. In this way it is
> superior to subjective meaning.
I dont follow, why would this be better?
> OTOH subjective meaning, presumably, would
> never be in opposition to our personality as we would have created it in the
> first place. Many would argue that this is superior to a hard external system.
>
> > If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> >morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
> >want, or to live immorally?
>
> The tough answer is yes, IMO.
> I've heard many try to explain why we should
> follow a moral structure even in a subjective, atheistic, system of belief, but
> I don't buy it. If this life is all we have, it would benefit us to look out
> for ourselves as much as possible.
I see no harm in that.
> In the comparison of who is happier, the
> one who follows the conventions of society, and the one who doesn't, I think
> the answer is a third category, ie. the person who appears to follow the
> rules, but doesn't.
If the person is forced to choose his actions so he appears to follow the
rules, then he is not completly free to live immorally. Alas, the
no-so-tough answer is no.
> This person reaps all the altruistic benefits of socity,
> while contributing as little as possible (and keeping those resources for
> himself.) An example would be someone who cheats on his taxes.
>
Confession time: We all do that, don't we? I think there are very few
people who would pay more than they have to. I think very few would pay
there taxes if there were no control at all.
/Lars L
If a trainstation is where the trains stop, what is then a workstation...
mwi...@my-deja.com
drfr...@aol.comNOSPAM (Jason Friesen) wrote:
> In article <7kdi9m$hij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Actuary X
> <d_ho...@pipeline.com> writes:
> >and senseless?
>
I agree. The challenge of life is to define your own meaning and make
your own sense of it. There is no objective Ultimate Purpose(tm), but
there are millions of good subjective purposes.
[SNIP]
> > Would a meaning imposed from without, rather than one subjectively
> > created from within be better in any way?
>
> In ANY way? The answer, I think, is yes. An external meaning would
> be independent of our subjectivity and thus be more stable. In this
> way it is superior to subjective meaning.
It is also easier. There's no intensive soul-searching involved in
taking the meaning offered from on high. There's a predefined goal and
methods for trying to achieve it imposed from without. Goals that
derive from within take determination to pursue, and paths that you set
yourself upon take perserverence to follow.
> OTOH subjective meaning, presumably, would never be in opposition to
> our personality as we would have created it in the first place. Many
> would argue that this is superior to a hard external system.
Of course, for an external system of goals and meanings to have any
value to us in the long run, we'd have to internalize it anyway (which
brings in the above-mentioned soul-searching, determination and
perserverence). In any case, this is very much a circular path - our
personality shapes our meaning and purpose, yet our experiences, our
meaning and our purpose also shape our personality. This affects the
theists as well - exactly how many "One True Faiths" are there?
> >If there is no objective grounds for a particular morality, does
> >that leave us free to construct any moral structure we want, or to
> >live immorally?
>
> The tough answer is yes, IMO. I've heard many try to explain why we
> should follow a moral structure even in a subjective, atheistic,
> system of belief, but I don't buy it. If this life is all we have,
> it would benefit us to look out for ourselves as much as possible.
> In the comparison of who is happier, the one who follows the
> conventions of society, and the one who doesn't, I think
> the answer is a third category, ie. the person who appears to follow
> the rules, but doesn't. This person reaps all the altruistic
> benefits of socity, while contributing as little as possible (and
> keeping those resources for himself.) An example would be someone who
> cheats on his taxes.
Are you familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons? As an example, assume
there is a farmer living in a community. This farmer owns a plot of
land, and he also spends time working a collective plot owned by the
entire community. In his own plot, he puts in 1 unit of work and
produces 1 unit of food. Assuming there are 10 people working the
community plot, our farmer puts in 1 unit of work and produces 10 units
of food. In a purely selfish reasoning, it makes sense for the farmer
to take those 10 units of food from the collective plot rather than
share them among the group. In a selfish view, it always benefits the
individual to steal from the group.
However, with the development of rational thought comes the ability to
predict outcomes and forsee consequenses. With a little bit of
foresight, the farmer might see the immediate danger in stealing from
the group: He might get caught and be punished. So with a little bit of
reasoning, it always benefits the invididual to steal from the group, if
he can get away from it.
With more foresight, the farmer might do some benefit analysis. If he
steals all 10 units this year and doesn't get caught, he'll be up 9
units over what he would have had if he'd played along. But remember
TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Those nine units
didn't come out of thin air, he stole them from his neighbor's pockets.
Anything any thief has ever stolen has come directly out of *somebody's*
pocket. Even if he doesn't get caught, his neighbors are gonna be
angry, and they're gonna stop contributing to the community plot. His
theft alone might not do it, but there are more thieves waiting in the
wings - perhaps Farmer Brown is incensed at being shorted this year, and
will steal the whole harvest next year. In any case, theft of the
community resource will eventually destroy the resource. That leaves
the farmer up 9 units this year, but down 1 unit every year for the rest
of his life. He'll break even in nine years (earlier than that, since
his 9 units will probably rot before he uses them), and take a loss
after that.
In the long term, it doesn't benefit the individual to steal from the
group, but it takes quit a lot of foresight and insight to see why. In
our own society, the individual is dependent on the group for his own
survival - how long would you last if the utilities went out, the trucks
stopped delivering food and supplies to the stores, the factories
stopped making goods, and you had nothing you couldn't make by yourself?
Even if you have the skills and equipment to survive, which life would
you rather be leading? Which life would you rather leave for your
children? As an individual, I benefit greatly from my membership in the
group, and it is against my interest to harm the group, or allow it to
come to harm. The Tragedy is in how difficult this point is to see.
--
Visit us at Dreamshadow today! -
telnet: dreamer.telmaron.com 3333
http://homestead.dejanews.com/dreamshadow/Dreamsha
dowMain.html
Tony Griffin
>> If there is no objective grounds for a particular
>>morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>>want, or to live immorally?
>The tough answer is yes, IMO. I've heard many try to explain why we should
>follow a moral structure even in a subjective, atheistic, system of belief, but
>I don't buy it. If this life is all we have, it would benefit us to look out
>for ourselves as much as possible. In the comparison of who is happier, the
>one who follows the conventions of society, and the one who doesn't, I think
>the answer is a third category, ie. the person who appears to follow the
>rules, but doesn't. This person reaps all the altruistic benefits of socity,
>while contributing as little as possible (and keeping those resources for
>himself.) An example would be someone who cheats on his taxes.
A little too simple, I think.
Many would be very unhappy about cheating society (or scared of
getting caught) and therefore would be much happier following the
rules.
The fact is, that most people tend to obey the rules (whatever they
conceive them to be), regardless. Which makes me wonder how much
religious morality is in fact due to religion.
Tony
jesse l nowells
On 21 Jun 1999, Jason Friesen wrote:
> In article <7kdi9m$hij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Actuary X <d_ho...@pipeline.com>
> writes:
>
> >Does atheism imply nihilism?
>
> Perhaps I'm not the best to offer my $0.02 as I am not an atheist, but I'll try
> to be objective. In my view, the answer to this is yes. Many will try to
> distance atheism from nihilism because of the uncomfortable feelings generated,
> but these are artificial constructs.
atheism is explicitly nihilistic. nihilism is the theory that traditional
values are based on groundless assumptions & "artificial constructs".
>
> >Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
> >and senseless?
>
> Objectively, I think the answer is yes.
wouldn't that be "subjectively" since to say that life is meaningless
objectively would assume that such a value judgement can be objectively
proven. jainist are atheists but they believe that there is a purpose to
life. because there are instances where meaning can be found by people
without god or the god of the status quo it can't be said that it's
universally understood that a godless world is meaningless. the term
nihilism is from the german word nihilismus which is from the latin word,
nihil which means nothing. it apparently came into use in the early 19th
century & was a term used to describe the terrorist actions of a
particular russian party that advocated terrorism as part of its political
platform of their particular brand of revolutionary politics. since the
term grew out of a particular milieu it carries too much baggage to be
applied universally without suspicion. mainly, the christian culture has a
bias against values that are based on different world models & doesn't
give different points of view contrary to its own any credence. in other
words any philosophy or ideology not based on the christian model could be
labeled nihilistic.
> > Would a meaning imposed
> > from without, rather than one subjectively
> > created from within be > better in any way?
>
> In ANY way? The answer, I think, is yes. An external meaning would be
> independent of our subjectivity and thus be more stable. In this way it
> is superior to subjective meaning. OTOH subjective meaning, presumably,
> would never be in opposition to our personality as we would have created
> it in the first place. Many would argue that this is superior to a hard
> external system.
it's a fact that there are values but values are not facts. a value can
have strength by virtue of it being accepted by some consensus but such a
value wouldn't necessarily be superior because no values are above
suspicion. on the other hand, autocratic values don't lend themselves to
consensus or social democracy. autocratic values can also be taken up by
groups that give themselves special status & act on other people without
any regard other than their own program. the nihilistic terrorists were a
reaction to such an environment.
>
> > If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> >morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
> >want, or to live immorally?
>
> The tough answer is yes, IMO. I've heard many try to explain why we
> should follow a moral structure even in a subjective, atheistic, system
> of belief, but I don't buy it. If this life is all we have, it would
> benefit us to look out for ourselves as much as possible. In the
> comparison of who is happier, the one who follows the conventions of
> society, and the one who doesn't, I think the answer is a third
> category, ie. the person who appears to follow the rules, but doesn't.
> This person reaps all the altruistic benefits of socity, while
> contributing as little as possible (and keeping those resources for
> himself.) An example would be someone who cheats on his taxes.
an alternative third instance would be someone who deals with the needs of
society & deals with the needs for the self & strikes a balance. being
anti-social doesn't necessarily enhance one's life not just because of the
possible opposition by others but also the internal alienation &
depression as a result of the conflict with others & a conflict with
oneself. the happier person would tend to be the one that gets along with
others without coercions on either side. your description of the third
instance seems dysfunctional.
Skirnir
>
> In article <7kdi9m$hij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Actuary X <d_ho...@pipeline.com>
> writes:
>
> >Does atheism imply nihilism?
>
> Perhaps I'm not the best to offer my $0.02 as I am not an atheist, but I'll try
> to be objective. In my view, the answer to this is yes. Many will try to
> distance atheism from nihilism because of the uncomfortable feelings generated,
> but these are artificial constructs.
In what way? i.e. Being an atheist merely implies a lack of belief in a
God. Nihilism means one believes in nothing. These are different
things. Nihilism says a lot more than just if one believes in a God or
not.
> >Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
> >and senseless?
>
> Objectively, I think the answer is yes.
I have to disagree here. We each find our own meaning in life. Some
find meaning in helping others, or in pleasing their God being, or of
just trying to be a good person, or some find meaning in learning all
they can and educating others.
> > If so, is that a bad thing?
>
> The term "bad" tends to become a very fuzzy thing as well...
>
> > Would a meaning imposed
> >from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
> >better in any way?
>
> In ANY way? The answer, I think, is yes. An external meaning would be
> independent of our subjectivity and thus be more stable. In this way it is
> superior to subjective meaning. OTOH subjective meaning, presumably, would
> never be in opposition to our personality as we would have created it in the
> first place. Many would argue that this is superior to a hard external system.
My response would have to be no. Taking a meaning externally is similar
to taking one from within, except one can take an external meaning
without thinking about it easier. This is the one danger in being a
christian or other god believing religion, or from taking ones meaning
from others in general. They can all lead to discouragement. In taking
meaning from within, one has to think and decide for themselves what
they want to do with their lives, what they want to find value in. This
can lead to a very strong personal sense of worth. Of course, so can
taking an external meaning, if one thinks about what one is doing and
does not just take the meaning their parents taught them.
> > If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> >morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
> >want, or to live immorally?
>
> The tough answer is yes, IMO. I've heard many try to explain why we should
> follow a moral structure even in a subjective, atheistic, system of belief, but
> I don't buy it. If this life is all we have, it would benefit us to look out
> for ourselves as much as possible. In the comparison of who is happier, the
> one who follows the conventions of society, and the one who doesn't, I think
> the answer is a third category, ie. the person who appears to follow the
> rules, but doesn't. This person reaps all the altruistic benefits of socity,
> while contributing as little as possible (and keeping those resources for
> himself.) An example would be someone who cheats on his taxes.
There are other ways to obtain morals than some book, or some religion.
Even with a religion, we still all choose our own morals. As a
christian, i have chosen to make the morals of the NT as I interpret
them my morals. But again, I have done this with thought, that is the
important thing. Everyone has to think about and choose their own
morals.
Why doesn't this lead to chaos? Because we have the rule of law. Law
regulates our actions and keeps us from chaos as a society. Even on top
of laws is peer pressure and the people around us (societal pressures).
Skirnir
alc...@execpc.com
David Cantrell
<melki...@ness.com.au> said:
>Actuary X wrote in message <7kdi9m$hij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>>Is it possible to be an atheist, but reject existentialism?
>
>Not without getting depressed :-)
Good thing that I'll be reading alt.tasteless.jokes next then.
Terry
Actuary X wrote in message <7kqjjn$5b5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
[snip]
>
>I think it depends on what you mean when you say "there _is_
such a
>thing". An essentialist takes that literally; essences exist
somewhere,
>and physical objects are just instantiations of that ideal. To
an
>essentialist, a circle is a real thing, that existed before
anybody
>thought about circles. Essentialism is necessarily dualist;
there is a
>physical realm, and a separate abstract realm.
>
>If you take the essence to be a mental construct, an abstraction
from
>objects that exist (before the essense does), then I think it
would be
>fair to call you an existentialist.
>
[snip]
Thanks. I think we agree (I wasn't clear, but what I meant was
that I think that essences are nothing more than mental
abstractions and existence precedes *everything* and in fact is
everything.) Anyway, since I'm an existentialist now, do I win a
prize? A plaque? Just kidding :)
One more thing. I think Occam's razor immediately does away with
dualism. Why have a "prototype class" that is instantiated
rather than just the instantiation? This seems to be a good
example of multiplying entities unnecessarily. Isn't it ironic
that Occam was a Christian monk!
Automort
>values are based on groundless assumptions & "artificial constructs".
I beg your pardon. Values are based on the social and natural actions that give
the best results to the largest number.
Nihilists are driven to despair and self-loathing when they find the particular
values they have areen't universal or perfect. I find the oservation a
challange. I am neither a nihilist nor sunken in despair.
Chloe Pajerek
> drfr...@aol.comNOSPAM (Jason Friesen) wrote:
>
> >The tough answer is yes, IMO.
>>... the person who appears to follow the
> >rules, but doesn't. This person reaps all the altruistic benefits of socity,
> >while contributing as little as possible (and keeping those resources for
> >himself.) An example would be someone who cheats on his taxes.
>
> A little too simple, I think.
>
> Many would be very unhappy about cheating society (or scared of
> getting caught) and therefore would be much happier following the
> rules.
>
> Tony
Indeed. Mr Friesen uses the phrase "look out for ourselves as much as
possible", which on the surface means "cheat", but he overlooks the
massive complexity that is hidden in this phrase. There are all kinds of
things that make people happy, not just getting as much as possible
for as little effort as possible. Consider, for example, the various
disciplines in which *denial* of comfort is the main objective.
- Chloe
Chloe Pajerek
> Life can be objectively meaningless, but subjectively you could
> still construct a meaning for yourself.
I'm curious: what would an "objective" meaning look like? I imagine
that such a thing would allow us to tell a person, "your life has this
meaning", and that person would have to accept this statement even
if s/he does not perceive it. Kind of like the way scientists have
persuaded us that quarks exist, even though none of us will ever
see one.
- Chloe
Mark Folsom
> Lars Lundgren <d95...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
> >
> > > If there is no objective grounds for a particular
> > > morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure
> > > we want, or to live immorally?
> >
> > group you probably need to adjust to their rules.
>
> So the *only* reason to follow a set of rules is because
> you might get caught breaking them?
That's plainly not what he said. Following rules to be accepted in a group
certainly does not imply that criminal penalties are required to enforce
conformance.
>
> There's no reason one shouldn't go around killing people,
> say, except that one might get caught and go to jail?
It's interesting that you would reflexively substitute this worn out straw
man for the actual argument offered.
>
> Seems to me like there has to be more to it than that. It
> seems to me that we don't kill, steal, etc., because we
> have accepted that it is morally wrong to do so.
Firstly, it may well be that we have an innate sense that it is wrong to
kill, steal, etc., and we haven't had to "accept" anything (as if there were
someone to give it). Further, it's obvious historically that many who had
an absolute sense that the morality they had "accepted" was right performed
some of the most monstrously immoral acts ever. Hundreds of thousands of
innocent old ladies were mercilessly tortured then burned alive on the basis
of what amounted to social hallucinations. Only a belief that one possessed
absolute truth and morality could so deform a normal person's sense of right
and wrong so as to allow him to "righteously" perpetrate such crimes.
> That
> the morality is enforced by law (or other social means)
> strikes me as almost irrelevant.
Actually, it's very relevant. It allows us to believe that we won't be
screwed for doing right. In communities where effective law enforcement is
withheld, violent gangs often form and a kind of jungle law prevails. One's
sense of fairness and decency can be overwhelmed by experiencing a few
rapes/muggings/beatings or having some family members or friends
murdered---without the prospect of justice for the perpetrators.
>
> Does morality come down to "That's how I was brought up"?
> It it really no more than being polite?
It's more in the way of an implicit contract. Are you willing to forego a
behavior which can give you a significant advantage and that no one else in
your society forgoes?
>
>
> > I object to the idea that existence would be senseless and useless.
> > I can't say that it is plain wrong, but it seem to imply that I
> > could just as well kill myself. That is far from the truth. I find
> > life worth living and I enjoy (almost) every minute of it.
>
> As you know, that you don't like a particular idea is not
> always a good indication as to whether it is true or not.
>
> Life can be objectively meaningless, but subjectively you could
> still construct a meaning for yourself.
HOW can life be *objectively* meaningless? If I'm able to discern some
import through my senses and my thoughts, how would you go about
*objectively* denying that there was any such import?
> That you enjoy life
> may be enough, even if that isn't 'meaning' per se. It can
> be worth living with or without meaning.
>
> In the words of Bootsy Collins, "Ain't nothin' but a party, y'all."
>
> If you accept that you have no soul, and when you die, you
> are just dead, then life is meaningless and useless;
Not so. Meaning doesn't require permanence. Actually, the fact that this
is all there is gives this life a great deal more meaning than it would have
if it were just a rehearsal for eternity. Besides, if life is useless, to
whom is it useless? Certainly not me. I use it for lots of nifty things.
>it
> will all turn out the same in the end (with your death).
The fact that it ends the same doesn't mean that it *is* the same.
> Nothing you do can ever change that. Some people find
> this idea depressing; some find it liberating. Some
> try to transcend it by leaving something behind that
> will live on after they die, whether that is some
> brilliant work or some children.
Others try to live well.
>
>
> > When you say that "existence is meaningless" then it sounds as if
> > there is a lack of something that should be there.
>
> Well, it's really an answer to the question "What is the meaning
> of life?" Answering that it's meaningless tells you that it's
> the wrong question to be asking.
Looks like your sentence composer is melting down.
>The question isn't really
> well-formed. (At best it's a kind of a koan.)
If I answer that life is meaningful, does that then make "What is the
meaning of life?" a well-formed question?
>
>
> > According to websters:
> > a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse
> > doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in
> > an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who
> > must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will
> > without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good
> > or bad
> >
> > I object to the "must assume ultimate responsibility...". To me,
> > that sounds as if we had a lot of obligations *as humans*. I do
> > not think that we have many obligations as humans. Instead, we
> > have a lot of obligations as parts of our society, but that is
> > something else.
>
>
> I think that one must accept ultimate responsibility for
> one's actions because there is no place else to *put* that
> responsibility.
It isn't the case that one must accept responsibility. Taking
responsibility is part of a moral or ethical system which one can accept or
reject. Responsibility is not real stuff that is conserved and therefore
has to have somewhere to go. It's an idea that depends on a social context
and a system of values and beliefs. The question is: what should we value
and what should we believe?
>There is no certain knowledge, but so
> what; you have to go live your life anyway, make decisions,
> do things. Some of those things will turn out to be good,
> some bad. You can't know how things will turn out, but
> you are still responsible for it.
Nothing in the above paragraph is true.
Mark Folsom
Jason Friesen
>I agree. The challenge of life is to define your own meaning and make
>your own sense of it. There is no objective Ultimate Purpose(tm), but
>there are millions of good subjective purposes.
A tough question here, which can lead to arguments had before on this group
would be "are all subjective purposes good?" If some are better than others it
appears that we are comparing them to some objective "Ultimate Purpose(tm)" to
which you deny. Is my subjective purpose to memorize every episode of Jerry
Springer (SHUDDER) on an equal footing with a purpose of treating sick
children?
[snip the good example of the Tragedy of the Commons]
A strong example, but I think it has a flaw. In the example given, it seems
obvious if the farmer steals 9 units. However, this doesn't make for a very
smart thief. Like you said, the smart thief is the one who doesn't get caught.
If he can steal even a little and not get caught, he is ahead.
Jason
Jason Friesen
l nowells <jnow...@ccsf.cc.ca.us> writes:
>
>On 21 Jun 1999, Jason Friesen wrote:
>> >Does atheism imply nihilism?
>>
>> Perhaps I'm not the best to offer my $0.02 as I am not an atheist, but I'll
try
>> to be objective. In my view, the answer to this is yes. Many will try to
>> distance atheism from nihilism because of the uncomfortable feelings
>> generated, but these are artificial constructs.
>
>atheism is explicitly nihilistic. nihilism is the theory that traditional
>values are based on groundless assumptions & "artificial constructs".
Let the record show that on this date Jesse I Nowells and Jason Friesen agreed
on something. (At least it appears that way, I'm reading Jesse's reply over
and over trying to figure out how he was proving me wrong. :))
>> >Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
>> >and senseless?
>>
>> Objectively, I think the answer is yes.
>
>wouldn't that be "subjectively" since to say that life is meaningless
>objectively would assume that such a value judgement can be objectively
>proven.
I would take "meaningless and senseless" to be the equivalent of an objective
baseline of zero. If you cannot find an objective meaning (by proving it is
there), then you fall back to the default position that life is objectively
meaningless and senseless.
jainist are atheists but they believe that there is a purpose to
>life. because there are instances where meaning can be found by people
>without god or the god of the status quo it can't be said that it's
>universally understood that a godless world is meaningless.
Can you talk about this a little more? How do jainists find meaning? Perhaps
they are mistaken. Or give an example of meaning without god or the god of the
status quo. I need an example to evaluate.
Jason
Jason Friesen
Lars Lundgren <d95...@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
>> > Would a meaning imposed
>> >from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>> >better in any way?
>>
>> In ANY way? The answer, I think, is yes. An external meaning would be
>> independent of our subjectivity and thus be more stable. In this way it is
>> superior to subjective meaning.
>
>I dont follow, why would this be better?
Stability is generally better in the long run. A changing meaning would be
like trying to hit a moving target, a stable meaning would be easier.
>> > If there is no objective grounds for a particular
>> >morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>> >want, or to live immorally?
>
>> In the comparison of who is happier, the
>> one who follows the conventions of society, and the one who doesn't, I think
>> the answer is a third category, ie. the person who appears to follow the
>> rules, but doesn't.
>
>If the person is forced to choose his actions so he appears to follow the
>rules, then he is not completly free to live immorally. Alas, the
>no-so-tough answer is no.
Well, let's compromise. The tough answer would wind up being "kinda".
>Confession time: We all do that, don't we? I think there are very few
>people who would pay more than they have to. I think very few would pay
>there taxes if there were no control at all.
And this is my point. In most theistic systems (but perhaps not all), there
would be guidelines which would tell you to obey just laws. I cannot think of
a congruous precept in atheism. Therefore the answer appears to be that we are
free to "not pay taxes" if we want to try to get away with it. (Forget what
the law says. It's at a more basic level than that. Theism would tell you to
follow the law, atheism would leave it up to you to decide.)
Jason
Jason Friesen
Cantrell) writes:
>>>Does atheism imply nihilism?
>>
>>... I am not an atheist, but I'll try to be objective. In my view, the
>answer to this is yes.
>
>I'm curious, what (objectively) leads you to believe that atheism
>implies nihilism?
>
>
Perhaps its my definition of nihilism. Quickly put (out of the dictionary),
nihilism is the "denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth or
the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion, etc."
Atheism seems to point in that direction if it does not get there itself. The
rest of your post more or less agrees with the "rejection of customary beliefs
in morality, religion." You said that atheism is Amoral. I agree. Now,
perhaps a denial of any "basis for knowledge" is a little strong. Atheism can
probably come up with an epistemology of its own.
Jason
David Cantrell
>I have to disagree here. We each find our own meaning in life. Some
>find meaning in helping others, or in pleasing their God being, or of
>just trying to be a good person, or some find meaning in learning all
>they can and educating others.
I fail to see how ANYTHING can provide a 'meaning' to life. Sure,
various things can provide a 'sense of purpose', or pleasure, or
security, but meaning?
Maybe you're using a different definition of 'meaning', but I take
that word to mean (sorry) a form of explanation - for instance, the
*meaning* of "vino" in Italian is "wine".
Jason Friesen
writes:
>> >Does atheism imply nihilism?
>>
>> Perhaps I'm not the best to offer my $0.02 as I am not an atheist, but I'll
try
>> to be objective. In my view, the answer to this is yes.
>In what way? i.e. Being an atheist merely implies a lack of belief in a
>God. Nihilism means one believes in nothing. These are different
>things. Nihilism says a lot more than just if one believes in a God or
>not.
I will partially agree. Nihilism is more encompassing than atheism (a point
which you make here). However, I do feel that atheism is just the first step
down a path that ultimately leads to nihilism if correctly thought out. In
that way atheism does IMPLY nihilism.
>
>> >Does the lack of a god imply that life is (objectively) meaningless
>> >and senseless?
>>
>> Objectively, I think the answer is yes.
>
>I have to disagree here. We each find our own meaning in life. Some
>find meaning in helping others, or in pleasing their God being, or of
>just trying to be a good person, or some find meaning in learning all
>they can and educating others.
But you miss the word OBJECTIVELY in the questioners query. If I find a
subjective meaning in learning all I can, I have still not gained an objective
meaning unless there is an objectively reality in which knowledge confers
meaning. I have a very difficult time deciding how atheism can lead to
OBJECTIVE meaning.
>> > Would a meaning imposed
>> >from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
>> >better in any way?
>>
>My response would have to be no. Taking a meaning externally is similar
>to taking one from within, except one can take an external meaning
>without thinking about it easier. This is the one danger in being a
>christian or other god believing religion, or from taking ones meaning
>from others in general. They can all lead to discouragement. In taking
>meaning from within, one has to think and decide for themselves what
>they want to do with their lives, what they want to find value in. This
>can lead to a very strong personal sense of worth. Of course, so can
>taking an external meaning, if one thinks about what one is doing and
>does not just take the meaning their parents taught them.
I think at the end of your paragraph you realized that you were saying the same
thing as I was. Of course you need to think over any meaning (external or
internal, i.e. objective or subjective), but what I was saying was that
objective meaning is superior in the quality of stability. An objective
purpose is less apt to change over time than a subjective purpose. This
appears, to me, to be "better in any way" in the long haul.
>
>> > If there is no objective grounds for a particular
>> >morality, does that leave us free to construct any moral structure we
>> >want, or to live immorally?
>>
>
>There are other ways to obtain morals than some book, or some religion.
>Even with a religion, we still all choose our own morals. As a
>christian, i have chosen to make the morals of the NT as I interpret
>them my morals. But again, I have done this with thought, that is the
>important thing. Everyone has to think about and choose their own
>morals.
However, the question was are we free to construct ANY moral structure under
atheism. While you think it is important to think things through (and I agree
with you), would atheism have any precepts that would prohibit someone from
gathering their moral structure from the back of a Corn Flakes box? I don't
think there are. Most, if not all religions, would provide a framework or
foundation for a moral structure. (not to argue here whether that foundation is
"good") This is a fundamental difference between most theisms and atheism.
Jason
Jason Friesen
Pajerek) writes in the quoted material below:
Chloe, I think you defeated your own argument. The question was, "does the
lack of god imply that life is OBJECTIVELY meaningless and senseless?" I
argued that it does because we could not point to anything other than
subjective experience for meaning. You counter that if I ask a bunch of
atheists if they have meaning and they respond "yes", that I am wrong. How
could their answers be any more SUBJECTIVE? The way you try to weasel out of
it is to define away any possible objective answer:
>First of all, let's propose that terms like "meaningless" and "senseless" have
>no "objective" meaning. These terms refer to subjective states of mind
>which are not objectively verifiable. We depend for our evidence entirely
>on individual testimony. IOW, we have to take peoples' word for whether
>or not they find life meaningless.
Of course you are going to then find meaning then. You continue...
>In the usual scientific sense, a theory can no longer be entertained
>once a significant body of evidence accumulates to contradict it. Your
>theory here is that life without god is meaningless and/or senseless.
>If, however, I can locate some reliable people who can testify that they
>are atheists who find their lives to be meaningful, then your theory
>fails.
First you misquote me. What I did say was that life without god is OBJECTIVELY
meaningless and/or senseless. (IMO) You say that if you can locate some
reliable people who can testify that they are atheists who find their lives to
be (implied SUBJECTIVELY) meaningful, then my theory fails. Of course now you
can see how this is false...
>What it comes down to is *your own personal* inability to find
>meaning without god, not any general rule or tendency.
>
I think that OBJECTIVELY my personal inability to find meaning without god
doesn't matter one bit.
Jason
Terry
Jason Friesen wrote in message
<19990625130219...@ngol08.aol.com>...
>In article <3774abb4...@news.insnet.net>,
Nuke...@ThePentagon.com [snip]
>Perhaps its my definition of nihilism. Quickly put (out of the
dictionary),
>nihilism is the "denial of the existence of any basis for
knowledge or truth or
>the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality,
religion, etc."
>Atheism seems to point in that direction if it does not get
there itself. The
>rest of your post more or less agrees with the "rejection of
customary beliefs
>in morality, religion." You said that atheism is Amoral. I
agree. Now,
>perhaps a denial of any "basis for knowledge" is a little
strong. Atheism can
>probably come up with an epistemology of its own.
>
>Jason
that it applies to pretty much anybody. Certainly, you can
accuse atheists of generally rejecting customary beliefs in
religion anyway. The rest, I'm not sure I agree with. First of
all, rejecting customary beliefs about religion definitely does
not imply the rejection of customary beliefs about morality
(especially if you believe as I do that morality is *not*
dependent on religion.) Second, does one have to reject _all_ of
these customary beliefs, or just _some_ of them to qualify as a
nihilist? If it is a latter, then I would guess that the
majority of the human race falls into that category, as most
people reject one customary belief or other, particularly if it
isn't their local custom. Third, being an atheist certainly does
not imply the "denial of the existence of any basis for
knowledge" as you freely admit (can we say observation and
science?) And finally, debating the existence of a basis for
truth is kind of missing the point (the wrong question). truth
is not a noun. It is a (I can't remember correct grammatical
term -- verb? adjective? third person subjunctive
participle?) -- it exists only as a concept, a mental
abstraction. Even if you are talking about the dualist concept
of "Truth" with a capital 'T' as a sort of idealized Platonic
thing, then the rejection of this doesn't necessarily follow from
being an atheist either (although, it does seem kind of
ridiculous to be an atheist who believes in dualism -- but it
could happen! Atheism doesn't necessarily imply logic either.)
One other thing. Doesn't "amoral" mean literally "no morals?"
If so, then I strongly disagree that atheists are amoral. Most
atheists are very moral, although most reject the notion that
morals come from religion. It is entirely possible (and probable
too) to arrive at a set of morals without any need to resort to
religion. In fact, I find that secular morality is far superior
to religious based morality because it can adapt and change with
increasing knowledge and experience (i.e. civil rights, women's
suffrage, abolition of slavery are examples of these changes --
religious people participated too, but they did *not* arrive at
these new ethical concepts on the basis of their religion.)
David Cantrell
said:
>In article <3774abb4...@news.insnet.net>, Nuke...@ThePentagon.com (David
>Cantrell) writes:
>
>>>>Does atheism imply nihilism?
>>>
>>>... I am not an atheist, but I'll try to be objective. In my view, the
>>answer to this is yes.
>>
>>I'm curious, what (objectively) leads you to believe that atheism
>>implies nihilism?
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps its my definition of nihilism. Quickly put (out of the dictionary),
>nihilism is the "denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth or
>the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion, etc."
Fair enough. Seems a rather odd definition of nihilism though, with
which many nihilists would take issue. Or perhaps not - they might
argue that the definition of nihilism is unknowable :-)
According to dictionary.com (which is in turn based on the 1913
Webster's dictionary):
nihilism \Ni"hil*ism\, n. [L. nihil nothing: cf. F. nihilisme. See
Annihilate.]
1. Nothingness; nihility.
2. The doctrine that nothing can be known; scepticism as to all
knowledge and all reality.
3. (Politics) The theories and practices of the Nihilists.
>Atheism seems to point in that direction if it does not get there itself.
Atheism is not even a part of 'The doctrine that nothing can be known;
scepticism as to all knowledge and all reality'. Agnosticism is, as
it is the 'doctrine' that nothing can be known about any possible
divinities.
> The
>rest of your post more or less agrees with the "rejection of customary beliefs
>in morality, religion." You said that atheism is Amoral. I agree. Now,
>perhaps a denial of any "basis for knowledge" is a little strong. Atheism can
>probably come up with an epistemology of its own.
Actually atheism _can't_ come up with anything of its own (IM!HO, of
course :-) It is simply a convenient way of describing a _lack_ of a
particular property - that of believing in gods. An atheist draws his
morals and knowledge from the things that he _is_ rather than as a
result of what he is _not_.
Ummm ... I'm not sure if that makes a great deal of sense - it's hard
to explain.
David Cantrell
said:
> In most theistic systems (but perhaps not all), there
>would be guidelines which would tell you to obey just laws. I cannot think of
>a congruous precept in atheism.
Of course you can't. There are NO precepts of atheism. Atheism is
not SOMETHING, it is a LACK of something.
> Therefore the answer appears to be that we are
>free to "not pay taxes" if we want to try to get away with it. (Forget what
>the law says. It's at a more basic level than that. Theism would tell you to
>follow the law, atheism would leave it up to you to decide.)
Quite. But it's funny how atheists turn out to, in general, obey just
laws and to disobey unjust laws, just like the godders.
Does that make atheists better people, because they have decided FOR
THEMSELVES to do that, whereas godders claim to do so because they've
been told to by someone who could (they reckon) give them a right good
kicking if they don't?
IOW, atheists are good people anyway, godders claim that they
themselves are only good under threat of eternal damnation.
Tony Griffin
>Chloe, I think you defeated your own argument. The question was, "does the
>lack of god imply that life is OBJECTIVELY meaningless and senseless?" I
>argued that it does because we could not point to anything other than
>subjective experience for meaning. You counter that if I ask a bunch of
>atheists if they have meaning and they respond "yes", that I am wrong. How
>could their answers be any more SUBJECTIVE? The way you try to weasel out of
>it is to define away any possible objective answer:
I would approach this from a different direction. Before we can decide
if the lack of god implies that life is objectively meaningless, we
must establish that life is objectively meaningful *with* god.
Now, I would suggest that god's concepts of meaning would be just as
subjective as ours. Therefore, with god, we are just surrendering
ourselves to a "higher subjectivity" (whatever that may mean :) ).
Tony
Tony Griffin
>And this is my point. In most theistic systems (but perhaps not all), there
>would be guidelines which would tell you to obey just laws. I cannot think of
>a congruous precept in atheism. Therefore the answer appears to be that we are
>free to "not pay taxes" if we want to try to get away with it. (Forget what
>the law says. It's at a more basic level than that. Theism would tell you to
>follow the law, atheism would leave it up to you to decide.)
How about empathy? This apparently built-in ability tells us that if x
hurts me, then it probably hurts you and therefore I don't want to do
it to you.
Humans seem to possess it to a varying extent, which is why we have
laws rather than guidelines.
It does not depend on a god IMO (unless you define it as "the voice of
god within us" or some such).
A comment on your second sentence: what supplies the guidelines on
which laws are just? If the theistic system defines it, then it seems
to come down to "just do what I say". If the followers decide, then
we're back to deciding for ourselves again (at least partially).
Tony
Automort
>particular property - that of believing in gods.
Not necessarily: since there are no gods, denying that they exist is redundant.
(0+0=0) It is not, however, negative.
Paul Filseth
> atheism from nihilism because of the uncomfortable feelings generated,
Or maybe because they like accuracy.
> but these are artificial constructs.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? All arguments are
artificial constructs.
When you say atheism implies nihilism, what do you mean? Are you
claiming all atheists are in fact nihilists and those who deny it are
lying? (Or they're nihilists without realizing it and just don't know
themselves as well as you do even if you've never talked to them?)
Or are you merely claiming the correctness of atheism would imply
the correctness of nihilism and therefore all of the vast number of
evidently non-nihilistic atheists in the world hold inconsistent views?
> > If there is no objective grounds for a particular morality, does
> > that leave us free to construct any moral structure we want, or to
> > live immorally?
>
> The tough answer is yes, IMO. I've heard many try to explain why we should
> follow a moral structure even in a subjective, atheistic, system of belief,
> but I don't buy it.
Let's back up a step. What in God's name does the notion that
there are no objective grounds for a particular morality have to do with
atheism? Some atheists subscribe to subjective moral theories, some to
objective ones. Same with theists. Except that as near as I can count
them, the proportion of atheists with objective moral views is vastly
greater than the corresponding proportion of theists. I've heard many
try to explain why we should follow a moral structure even in a
subjective, theistic, system of belief, but I don't buy it.
Of course, not _all_ theists are moral relativists. I once heard
a Baha'i expounding an objective theory (although I got the impression
it was a minority viewpoint.) And Jainism seems to go in for objective
morals (although some people deny that it's theistic.) But I can't
recall any time I've ever heard a Christian or Moslem argue for an
objective view. Care to be the first? Here's a hint: if you believe
morality lies in obeying God, then you're a subjectivist. That a whim
is God's whim does not magically transform it into something more than
a whim.
--
Paul Filseth That's a hard question. I don't answer hard questions.
To email, reverse lisl. - Justice John Paul Stevens
Chloe Pajerek
> Chloe, I think you defeated your own argument. The question was, "does the
> lack of god imply that life is OBJECTIVELY meaningless and senseless?" I
> argued that it does because we could not point to anything other than
> subjective experience for meaning.
Then we agree; there is nothing other than subjective experience to go
on, either way. If someone says to you that their life is meaningless, nothing
you can say to that person can convince them otherwise. The reverse is
also true; if someone believes that their life has meaning, you will be unable
to persuade them that it doesn't. This is because meaning, in the sense
used here, grows out of personal experience, and nothing else.
We're not talking here about something that can be demonstrated
scientifically. A person who has doubts about gravity can be shown
various demonstrations of how gravity works, but no such demonstration
is possible where "meaning" is concerned. IOW, there is no such thing
as an "objective" meaning to life. This, however, doesn't mean that there
is *no* meaning. We experience meaning subjectively, and for most
people, including most atheists, this is sufficient.
- Chloe
Jason Friesen
Griffin) writes:
>
>Now, I would suggest that god's concepts of meaning would be just as
>subjective as ours. Therefore, with god, we are just surrendering
>ourselves to a "higher subjectivity" (whatever that may mean :) ).
'higher subjectivity' may very well be synonymous with objectivety. Theism, in
general, is dualistic and thus allows for the possibility of such things as
Truth (in a platonic sort of way). If God is the seat of this Truth, then any
purpose or meaning that comes from him would be as "objective" as possible.
Perhaps it does come down to semantics (I understand your idea that God's
meaning is subjective to him), but I don't think it would be unfair to claim
that such a purpose would be an objective purpose to us.
Jason
Jason Friesen
Cantrell) writes:
>
>IOW, atheists are good people anyway, godders claim that they
>themselves are only good under threat of eternal damnation.
This is more or less a second graders understanding of religion. There are
plenty of other reasons a theist could be "good". It is also interesting that
many theisms leave their moral precepts flexible enough that they require some
thought by their followers. (Jesus' summation of the law as "do unto others as
you would have them do unto you" being the ultimate example.)
Jason
Eric Stevenson
: I will partially agree. Nihilism is more encompassing than atheism (a point
: which you make here). However, I do feel that atheism is just the first step
: down a path that ultimately leads to nihilism if correctly thought out. In
: that way atheism does IMPLY nihilism.
No. Atheism is an element of nihilism. It is neccessary, but not
sufficient, for nihilism. As evidenced by many atheists, nihilism is not
the neccessary end result of atheism. "Correctly thought out" needs to be
much better explained if you want to put your notion of atheism up
against actual atheists.
David Cantrell
>One other thing. Doesn't "amoral" mean literally "no morals?"
>If so, then I strongly disagree that atheists are amoral. Most
>atheists are very moral, although most reject the notion that
>morals come from religion.
To say that atheISM (the abstract concept) has no morals does not
imply that atheISTS (real solid flesh and blood) have no morals.
Atheism per se is an inanimate abstract concept; it can not be either
moral or immoral in much the same way that a piece of paper or the
colour blue can not be described in such a way.
Immoral, incidentally, is an entirely different word to amoral. I
think that you mean 'immoral' above.
Paul Filseth
> Jason Friesen wrote:
> > Actuary X <d_ho...@pipeline.com> writes:
> > > Does atheism imply nihilism?
> >
> > In my view, the answer to this is yes. Many will try to distance
> > atheism from nihilism because of the uncomfortable feelings generated,
>
> values are based on groundless assumptions & "artificial constructs".
Of course, by that definition practically all social reformers are
nihilists, including the founders of Christianity. I don't think it's
a useful definition.
James Martin
>I'm not sure I really understand existentialism, but I'll take a
>stab. The meaning of essence is not at all clear to me. As I
...
>that doesn't need a cause. Does that make me an existentialist??
Sartre's phrase that "existance preceeds essence" is meant to stand the
religious notion of a soul and/or divine purpose on its head. For Sartre
(an atheist, existentialist, marxist), whatever we have that can be called
purpose or essence comes as a result of our actions: a man is what he has
been. The idea is that we constantly recreate ourselves through careful
choosing among whatever are the available options. Christianity teaches
that our essence predates our existence and that we have a purpose before
we've conscously chosen any action. For Sartre, that's nonsense.
Wheat
James Martin
>According to websters:
>a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines
>but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable
>universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate
>responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of
>what is right or wrong or good or bad
This is a really horrible over-simplification and distortion of what, in
some of its variants, is a very noteworthy philosophy. This is closer to
being a definition of what was once called "cafe existentialism," a pose
adopted by people who thought Sartre and Camus were cool but didn't bother
to read much of either (much less the people *they* read).
Wheat
James Martin
>Perhaps I'm not the best to offer my $0.02 as I am not an atheist, but I'll try
>to be objective. In my view, the answer to this is yes. Many will try to
>distance atheism from nihilism because of the uncomfortable feelings generated,
>but these are artificial constructs.
Well, like you said, you're not the best person to answer this particular
question. And since we have a virtual room full of atheists here, it
might be better to hold you tongue instead of ascribing beliefs to them.
Wheat
James Martin
>atheism is explicitly nihilistic. nihilism is the theory that traditional
>values are based on groundless assumptions & "artificial constructs".
Time to buy a new dictionary. Nihilism is the belief in *nothing.* It is
the belief that meaning and value are impossible constructs. Since
atheism is correctly defined as the lack of belief in gods, how does it
"explicitly" imply nihilism? Answer: It doesn't.
Wheat
James Martin
>>compare the outcomes. But you'd still have to devise a scale to judge
>>which is better or worse (and who would devise that? the person in the
>>meaningless or meaningful group? some third group?).
>The nihilists, perhaps?
Yeah. But why would they want to? :)
Wheat
James Martin
>Perhaps its my definition of nihilism. Quickly put (out of the dictionary),
>nihilism is the "denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth or
>the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion, etc."
The problem is, that's a bad definition. The first half of it ("denial of
the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth") is nihilism. The
second half of it ("the general rejection of customary beliefs in
morality, religion, etc.") is the way many christians have used it against
atheists, as an insult.
It's similar to the definitions of atheism you'll find which imply
immorality: Christians often use "atheistic" to mean "immoral" but that
is an insult, not proper application of the term.
Wheat
James Martin
>I will partially agree. Nihilism is more encompassing than atheism (a point
>which you make here). However, I do feel that atheism is just the first step
>down a path that ultimately leads to nihilism if correctly thought out. In
>that way atheism does IMPLY nihilism.
Slippery slope fallacy. It is certainly possible that atheism could lead
to nihilism. But, in the vast majority of observable cases, this is not
the case. Quite a few well-functioning people are atheists, very few
nihilists. Atheism doesn't imply nihilism any more than smoking pot
implies taking heroin.
I would put the issue another way: nihilism is the result of atheism not
correctly thought out, not the other way around.
Wheat
Skell Rad
> We're not talking here about something that can be demonstrated
> scientifically. A person who has doubts about gravity can be shown
> various demonstrations of how gravity works, but no such demonstration
> is possible where "meaning" is concerned. IOW, there is no such thing
> as an "objective" meaning to life. This, however, doesn't mean that there
> is *no* meaning. We experience meaning subjectively, and for most
> people, including most atheists, this is sufficient.
It's unjust that atheism should be seen as lacking for not having a
snappy response to the question "what is the meaning of life?" The
response is always defensive, as the atheist has to deal with the
question's built-in assumption that there is an external purpose common
to all lives. But theists have no snappy response either. Isn't the
standard line that they don't know the meaning of life, but believe it
will be revealed to them once they're dead? Atheists at least give
intelligible answers to a question that is unnecessarily complex.
-- Skell Rad
Skell Rad
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.990623...@bayta.dtek.chalmers.se>,
> Lars Lundgren <d95...@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
>
> >> > Would a meaning imposed
> >> >from without, rather than one subjectively created from within be
> >> >better in any way?
> >>
> >> independent of our subjectivity and thus be more stable. In this way it is
> >> superior to subjective meaning.
> >
> >I dont follow, why would this be better?
>
> Stability is generally better in the long run. A changing meaning would be
> like trying to hit a moving target, a stable meaning would be easier.
What exactly is this objective meaning that you find so admirably
stable?
[snip]
> And this is my point. In most theistic systems (but perhaps not all), there
> would be guidelines which would tell you to obey just laws. I cannot think of
> a congruous precept in atheism. Therefore the answer appears to be that we are
> free to "not pay taxes" if we want to try to get away with it. (Forget what
> the law says. It's at a more basic level than that. Theism would tell you to
> follow the law, atheism would leave it up to you to decide.)
Atheism isn't a system. Atheism doesn't tell you to decide for yourself,
the idea is that everyone is free (from God's Law) to decide for
themselves whether they admit it or not. It's not an imperative, it's a
description of the situation. Theism may tell you to follow the law, but
will expect you not to because everyone is a born sinner, so when you do
break the law you ask for forgiveness (and get it) or otherwise figure
God will understand that you're a good theist, so you'll still be okay
when He sorts things out in the end. Or if you're a complete bastard,
theism tells you that anything you do to infidels doesn't count against
you.
-- Skell Rad
mwi...@my-deja.com
drfr...@aol.comNOSPAM (Jason Friesen) wrote:
> In article <7kqum3$9vm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mwi...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>> I agree. The challenge of life is to define your own meaning and
>> make your own sense of it. There is no objective Ultimate
>> Purpose(tm), but there are millions of good subjective purposes.
>
> A tough question here, which can lead to arguments had before on this
> group would be "are all subjective purposes good?" If some are better
> than others it appears that we are comparing them to some objective
> "Ultimate Purpose(tm)" to which you deny. Is my subjective purpose to
> memorize every episode of Jerry Springer (SHUDDER) on an equal footing
> with a purpose of treating sick children?
Hi Jason! Nice debating with you again! :)
The truth of the matter is that I have no definative answer. I can only
judge these things based on my own subjective values, and if you're
honest with yourself you'll realize that you must do the same.
That seems to tie in with what the original poster was getting at. Does
atheism imply that there is no Objective Ultimate Rule that we can judge
these things against? I think it does. An objective rule implies
some external point of view that might as well be defined as God.
I don't think that lessens the value of my own subjective judgement. I
have struggled hard to develop my own values and morals, and I believe
in them just as firmly as you do yours. But one of the prime tenets of
my own value system is a recognition that, while I try to be objective,
fair, and impartial, I cannot be certain that I am always successful,
and so it wouldn't be fair to impose my belief structure on others. I
am not Perfect, I am not Objective, and I am not God.
To your last question, there are therefore two answers: "No", and
"You'll have to decide that for yourself". According to my own belief,
they are not equal, but I am not qualified to make that decision for
you.
> [snip the good example of the Tragedy of the Commons]
>
> A strong example, but I think it has a flaw. In the example given, it
> seems obvious if the farmer steals 9 units. However, this doesn't
> make for a very smart thief. Like you said, the smart thief is the
> one who doesn't get caught. If he can steal even a little and not get
> caught, he is ahead.
On a temporary basis, yes. But theft, even in a small enough amount to
be disguised as waste, is detremental to the community. Perhaps there
comes a point where an individual realizes that there are things beyond
himself that hold value - things that benefit his friends, family,
neighbors, and children. When you realize that "community" isn't some
nameless, faceless group of other people, but the people you care about,
and the people they care about, then the good of the community outweighs
the small benefit you could make through stealing.
--
Visit us at Dreamshadow today! -
telnet: dreamer.telmaron.com 3333
http://homestead.dejanews.com/dreamshadow/Dreamsha
dowMain.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jason Friesen
writes:
>> but these are artificial constructs.
>
> What the heck is that supposed to mean? All arguments are
>artificial constructs.
:) artificial seemed a nicer word to use than "fallacious".
>
> When you say atheism implies nihilism, what do you mean? Are you
>claiming all atheists are in fact nihilists and those who deny it are
>lying? (Or they're nihilists without realizing it and just don't know
>themselves as well as you do even if you've never talked to them?)
>Or are you merely claiming the correctness of atheism would imply
>the correctness of nihilism and therefore all of the vast number of
>evidently non-nihilistic atheists in the world hold inconsistent views?
I am claiming that in my opinion the correctness of atheism implies the
correctness of nihilism. In other words, atheism is nested within nihilism.
(I think nihilism is more encompassing than atheism). It does appear that
there seem to be a few definitions of nihilism. I was using the simple
definiton out of my Webster's New World Dictionary:
nihilism - the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion,
etc. The denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth.
I think it is easier to get to the first part of the definition. But I also
think that atheism does lead to solipism. (This was touched on months ago, but
I never got a reply from someone as to how atheism avoids solipism.)
I do know from experience that you are an atheism who believes absolute morals
exist. I joined the argument too late to see your initial logic. I'd like to
see it again.
. I've heard many
>try to explain why we should follow a moral structure even in a
>subjective, theistic, system of belief, but I don't buy it.
I don't either. I would be closer to an atheist that believes in objective
truths than a theist that believes in subjective truths.
> But I can't
>recall any time I've ever heard a Christian or Moslem argue for an
>objective view. Care to be the first? Here's a hint: if you believe
>morality lies in obeying God, then you're a subjectivist. That a whim
>is God's whim does not magically transform it into something more than
>a whim.
Incorrect, to an extent. To believe in an objective view (purpose, morality,
whatever) you have to believe that such things would still exist even if we did
not. In other words, these things are independent of us. That is the basis of
objectivity. It does not matter if the seat of these things is found in God or
not. (I am a Christian, I believe they are found in God. It is possible to
say that objective views are not found in God (although I think it is a doomed
argument).
I can understand how you can feel that a Christian is a subjectivist (I believe
that MY God is the seat of truth, not YOUR god.) However, if it is the truth
(and we have to allow for that possibility), then it turns out that a Christian
can be an objectivist.
Jason
Cynical, just your way. You play the doubting Thomas, feel the scars and wipe
the stains. So you fight and retreat. And talk yourself out of believing in
any peace that you can't see.
--Blind, Jars of Clay
Automort
>many theisms leave their moral precepts flexible enough that they require
>some
>thought by their followers. (Jesus' summation of the law as "do unto others
>as
>you would have them do unto you" being the ultimate example.)
>
How does it apply to sadists and masochists?
Paul Pfalzner
A lack of anything is NOT the same as a denial of something.
David Cantrell
said:
>I am claiming that in my opinion the correctness of atheism implies the
>correctness of nihilism. In other words, atheism is nested within nihilism.
Just because a _part_ of a larger whole is correct does not imply that
the _entire_ larger whole is correct. You need to look at your logic
again.
jesse l nowells
this is a matter of interpretation. your term "impossible constructs"
poses a problem for me. are you saying that the constructs have no
objective ground or are you implying that the constructs are just
impossible to make? seems to me that people are always free to make
impossible constructs but they can't provide these constructs with
concrete evidence or what they call objective ground. maybe you should get
a more comprehensive dictionary.
but maybe you're really objecting to the big bad word nihilism.
it's like saying satan or satanic. atheism points directly at the void.
some guy sent me an e-mail the other day talking abt the latest
multi-dimensional god-building stuff some people are into with drawing
metaphysical conclusions from theoretical physics & near-death
experiences. people don't want to deal with the void. the void is a big
nothing. they want aliens to explain their existence if they can't have
god or god directly. if they can't hang with oral roberts, it's art bell.
>
> Wheat
>
>
>
jesse l nowells
On 29 Jun 1999, James Martin wrote:
> Slippery slope fallacy. It is certainly possible that atheism could lead
> to nihilism. But, in the vast majority of observable cases, this is not
> the case. Quite a few well-functioning people are atheists, very few
> nihilists. Atheism doesn't imply nihilism any more than smoking pot
> implies taking heroin.
>
> I would put the issue another way: nihilism is the result of atheism not
> correctly thought out, not the other way around.
pot & heroin do imply stoneness. i can be nihilistic but i'm not blowing
up trains. i might be wrecking parties by talking abt atheism though.
have we stooped so low as to suggest now that there is a correct atheism
as opposed to an incorrect one? well, if that is really the case here are
some suggestions as to why atheism is at least nihilistic if not explicitly
so & how we could learn to embrace nihilism instead of shunning it in the
manner of our theist brethren:
"a viewpoint that traditional values & beliefs are unfounded & that
existence is senseless & useless." ---> doesn't contradict atheism except
for the "senseless & useless" part for some.
"a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth & especially of
moral truths." -----> atheism would contradict the basis for
traditional morality.
"a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so
bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any
constructive program or possibility." ---> some atheists might not
go along with that but all atheists are accused of destroying the
foundation of the moral order one way or another.
believing in nothing is an interesting paradox. how does one go abt
in the belief of believing nothing?
jesse l nowells
On 29 Jun 1999, James Martin wrote:
> It's similar to the definitions of atheism you'll find which imply
> immorality: Christians often use "atheistic" to mean "immoral" but that
> is an insult, not proper application of the term.
>
are you really that worried abt insults? i'm atheistic. some people
consider that immoral. the right wing likes to use liberal as an insult.
of course a lot of liberals consequently try to call themselves by other
names. i think that all this conservatism is making everybody wimpy.
Jason Friesen
Martin) writes:
>Slippery slope fallacy. It is certainly possible that atheism could lead
>to nihilism. But, in the vast majority of observable cases, this is not
>the case. Quite a few well-functioning people are atheists, very few
>nihilists. Atheism doesn't imply nihilism any more than smoking pot
>implies taking heroin.
>
>I would put the issue another way: nihilism is the result of atheism not
>correctly thought out, not the other way around.
Interesting analogy. Many studies show that pot is a "entrance drug" which
eventually leads to more serious drugs of abuse. (However, I'm not saying that
everybody gets there, I'm just saying there is a definite link.)
I would like to hear a clear, concise, short (if possible) argument for how
atheism can avoid:
solipism
amorality
To me, the trio of atheism, solipism, and amorality make up a triad which is,
for all purposes, nihilism.
Jason
Jason Friesen
>What exactly is this objective meaning that you find so admirably
>stable?
Here is the ironic thing, it doesn't matter. I'm not so arrogant to assume
that the particular meaning I personally hold is synonymous with the objective
meaning we all have. What is important is I realize there is an objective
meaning which I try to hone my personal meaning to coincide with as much as
possible. This system allows for a few important abilities:
I can compare meanings (or moral codes, we seem to be interchanging the two
ideas here). If one has a good idea what the objective code is, then one can
measure Code X against it. One can also compare Code X and Code Y and
qualitatively say which is "better" (closer to the objective code).
Personally I feel this code is found seated in the essence of God. I also feel
that Christianity does the best job of approximating this code. (I do feel
that modern Christianity probably also fails on many levels to attain a true
facsimilie.) Some of these things are held on faith, many are held after
looking things over and trying to use my rational brain to deduce what is best.
I don't expect everybody to agree. I do expect to one day either find out if
I was right or not or to cease to care (exist).
Jason
Automort
>correctness of nihilism.
Your opinion is wrong.
Tony Griffin
>'higher subjectivity' may very well be synonymous with objectivety. Theism, in
>general, is dualistic and thus allows for the possibility of such things as
>Truth (in a platonic sort of way). If God is the seat of this Truth, then any
>purpose or meaning that comes from him would be as "objective" as possible.
>Perhaps it does come down to semantics (I understand your idea that God's
>meaning is subjective to him), but I don't think it would be unfair to claim
>that such a purpose would be an objective purpose to us.
Hmm, if its objective then (as I think you said elsewhere) it exists
independently of us (and God, surely). Then God would just be
*stating* it, rather than "owning" it in some way. However, I'll go
with "semantics" if you like.
Incidentally, I see Paul Filsner is arguing something similar. As he
has indeed argued for an objective morality, I'll be interested to see
how the thread progresses.
Tony
Tony Griffin
My apologies, Paul.
Tony
Terry
Skell Rad wrote in message <377896...@nolink.net>...
[snip]
>Or if you're a complete bastard,
>theism tells you that anything you do to infidels doesn't count
against
>you.
There sure are a hell of a lot of complete bastards out there!
-Terryo
Buck Field
news:19990628102422...@ngol06.aol.com...
> In article <377fd6d0...@news.insnet.net>, Nuke...@ThePentagon.com
(David
> Cantrell) writes:
> This is more or less a second graders understanding of religion. There
are
> plenty of other reasons a theist could be "good".
YHWY doesn't just extort obedience with infinite punishment and torture, he
offers bribes of limitless bliss too!
> It is also interesting that
> many theisms leave their moral precepts flexible enough that they require
some
> thought by their followers. (Jesus' summation of the law as "do unto
others as
> you would have them do unto you" being the ultimate example.)
Following this law as opposed to others is important when? The Bible is
silent on that. Which biblical rule do I follow? Unknown.
-----------------------------------------------------
"All character training and religion must be
derived from faith . . . we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]
-----------------------------------------------------
Unsolicited commercial use of in...@fieldoperative.com
constitutes agreement on the part of the sender that
recipient is entitled to $1000 pursuant to violation
of Title 47, Section 227 of the United States Code.
-----------------------------------------------------
Buck Field - Databases following Boyce-Codd Rules of Normalization
www.fieldoperative.com
-----------------------------------------------------
jesse l nowells
On 30 Jun 1999, Jason Friesen wrote:
> In article <377896...@nolink.net>, Skell Rad <dea...@nolink.net> writes:
>
> >What exactly is this objective meaning that you find so admirably
> >stable?
>
> Here is the ironic thing, it doesn't matter. I'm not so arrogant to assume
> that the particular meaning I personally hold is synonymous with the objective
> meaning we all have. What is important is I realize there is an objective
> meaning which I try to hone my personal meaning to coincide with as much as
> possible. This system allows for a few important abilities ...
the def. of meaning that apparently is being used or alluded to here is:
"something meant or intended". that's always subjective so the term
"objective meaning" is meaningless. do you mean to say "truth"?
jesse l nowells
that is up for further debate.
Chloe Pajerek
> In article <377896...@nolink.net>, Skell Rad <dea...@nolink.net> writes:
>
> >What exactly is this objective meaning that you find so admirably
> >stable?
>
> Here is the ironic thing, it doesn't matter. I'm not so arrogant to assume
> that the particular meaning I personally hold is synonymous with the objective
> meaning we all have. What is important is I realize there is an objective
> meaning which I try to hone my personal meaning to coincide with as much as
> possible.
>
> Jason
One of the characteristics of "objective" is the notion that the entity in
question exists outside of our minds. Something that exists objectively
is able to assert its existence irresistibly. The usual example here is
gravity. I can deny gravity all I want, but if I jump out of a 10th story
window I will fall, quite possibly to my death. I cannot wish gravity
away.
In order for "meaning" to be objective, it must have this same quality;
it must impress itself upon the mind regardless of the mind's inclinations.
Clearly this is not the case. There is no objective meaning impressing
itself on *my* mind, such that I cannot deny its existence. I can, figuratively
speaking, jump out the window without falling.
Therefore, your "objective meaning" is not objective, period.
- Chloe
Eric Stevenson
: Interesting analogy. Many studies show that pot is a "entrance drug" which
: eventually leads to more serious drugs of abuse. (However, I'm not saying that
: everybody gets there, I'm just saying there is a definite link.)
That's good, let's bring up gun control while we're at it. Hell, how
about abortion too?
: I would like to hear a clear, concise, short (if possible) argument for how
: atheism can avoid:
: solipism
: amorality
Shit, we've been through all this before, but since there's nothing new
under the sun, I'll give it another go.
Solipsism is something each individual has to decide on. All sensory
evidence can be viewed as illusionary. The way atheists (not atheism)
avoid solipsism is the same way theists do: they just don't beleive it.
Ditto for morality. Atheists typically either make up their own moral
code or take someone else's. Some of them, I think Paul Filseth is one,
do actually believe in an objective morality.
: To me, the trio of atheism, solipism, and amorality make up a triad which is,
: for all purposes, nihilism.
Sure, why not? As we have been trying to tell you, though, the one
doesn't always lead to the other two. In fact, in most cases, atheism
isn't the result of careful logic. It's a (lack of) belief. We typically
don't have any choice in the matter, any more than you do about theism.
It is the same for solipsism and morality.
JeffMo
>Interesting analogy. Many studies show that pot is a "entrance drug" which
>eventually leads to more serious drugs of abuse. (However, I'm not saying that
>everybody gets there, I'm just saying there is a definite link.)
I doubt that you have any clear picture of such studies. All the
surveys I have seen w.r.t. such research tends to indicate that many
"serious drug" abusers have previously used cannabis. However, they
also show that the "link" you assert is correlative and not causative.
Also, if pot can be labeled an "entrance drug" (the usual term is
"gateway", I believe) solely on this basis, then why not classify
alcohol, mother's milk, or water similarly? Even MORE serious drug
abusers previously used those things...
Since this is off-topic, why not respond in rec.drugs.cannabis, or
some other relevant newsgroup. Send me an email at the address in the
headers (yank the "dipstick." first) to let me know in which ng you
care to discuss the issue, if any.
>I would like to hear a clear, concise, short (if possible) argument for how
>atheism can avoid:
>solipism
>amorality
This is quite simple for me. "Other people exist" is WAY simpler than
the alternative, at least in my experience, so solipsism fails simply
on the basis of pragmatism.
Scientific evidence that points toward evolutionary advantages for
some kinds of observed cooperative behaviors, coupled with my own
desire to live peacefully with others, takes care of amorality well
enough for my tastes.
JeffMo
"[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to bottom."
-- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the Philippines
Automort
>in the belief of believing nothing?
>
By holding a different opinion from the person who says that's what you do.
James Martin
I (jema...@comp.uark.edu) said:
>> Time to buy a new dictionary. Nihilism is the belief in *nothing.* It is
>> the belief that meaning and value are impossible constructs. Since
>> atheism is correctly defined as the lack of belief in gods, how does it
>> "explicitly" imply nihilism? Answer: It doesn't.
Jesse replied:
>this is a matter of interpretation. your term "impossible constructs"
>poses a problem for me. are you saying that the constructs have no
>objective ground or are you implying that the constructs are just
>impossible to make?
I'm not impliying anything, I'm telling you what nihilism implies. A
nihilist take would be taht there is no objective ground for any sort of
construct (i.e. no Truth); therefore, making any truth claim is absurd and
so too, life. It would be perfectly possible to believe the first part
(i.e. no objective grounds) without believing the secong (i.e. life isn't
worth living and/or nothing has value).
>seems to me that people are always free to make
>impossible constructs but they can't provide these constructs with
>concrete evidence or what they call objective ground.
I quite agree, though not everyone does. Plenty of people in this
newsgroup believe in objective moral grounds, for instance. And while I
don't believe in objectivity with a capital "O," I do think we can have
some relative certainties (science is handy for that) even if we don't
have the luxury (if if is a luxury) of "Objective Truth" (tm).
>maybe you should get a more comprehensive dictionary.
No reason not to; I love dictionaries. Maybe I'll spurge and get the OED
on CD-ROM.
> but maybe you're really objecting to the big bad word nihilism.
I'm not objecting to its existence. I'm objecting to your claim that
atheism and nihilism are somehow tragically linked. That's a claim you
haven't supported--and with good reason, as it isn't supportable except by
playing games with non-standard definitions.
>it's like saying satan or satanic. atheism points directly at the void.
Perhaps. Perhaps all things tend toward, the void, as you say. But
that's a rather poetic phrase, capable of supporting many readings. And
you haven't supported it. Does living a full life and happening to be an
atheist make ones life less valuable than living a full life and happening
to be a believer in some religion? I don't think so, perhaps you do. So
what.
>people don't want to deal with the void. the void is a big
>nothing. they want aliens to explain their existence if they can't have
>god or god directly. if they can't hang with oral roberts, it's art bell.
While I'm sure this is true for some people (perhaps for many or most
people) it isn't true of everyone and it isn't at all true of most
atheists I've ever met. Perhaps you're projecting your own fear of death
on everyone else. While I'm not particulary looking forward to death, I
don't see any reason to feed irrational fears of it--especially as those
fears tend to take away the enjoyment of living. Death is a bridge I'll
cross when I get to it. The irrational fear of death/nothingness is
something I've gotten past.
Wheat
Automort
>
I ain't no *(((*&%&$ wimp.
Automort
Fewer atheists, even proportional to their numbers, are arrested and convicted.
The amorality is an illusion in the minds of persons whose natural bent is to
be anti-social and aggressive and who must be controlled by bigger people
shoving them around. Reasonable people, brought up reasonably well, are not
immoral -- ESPECIALLY if they are atheists.
Here atheism is akin to Islam and old time Protestantism. The atheist himself
is utterly personally responsible for his/her own behavior, like the first two
before "God." No mediation. Most other religions provide infinite pretexts for
rationalization and mental anodyne. That's why Christians are the majority in
prisons.
Once I had a former "Jesus Freak" girlfriend. Her friends shoplifted, used
drugs, screwed everything in pants, etc. They always asked themselves "How
woulf Jesus handle this..?" etc. They made a big thing of being Christians. It
disturbed my girlfriend how they rationalized it: Since God knows everything,
He knows everything you're going to do as well as everything you've done, so
when you're baptized, you're forgiven all future sins as well. This is your
morality.
James Martin
>"a viewpoint that traditional values & beliefs are unfounded & that
>existence is senseless & useless." ---> doesn't contradict atheism except
>for the "senseless & useless" part for some.
Atheism simply means either one of two things (though some will argue with
my choice of the word "belief" in this definition):
1) The belief that there are no gods (i.e. "strong" atheism)
2) The belief that there is no compelling reason to belive that there are
gods (i.e. weak atheism). Or, put another way, the lack of belief in
gods.
If that "contradicts traditional values" fine. But atheism, per se, has
no position on values, traditional or otherwise.
>"a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth & especially of
>moral truths." -----> atheism would contradict the basis for
>traditional morality.
This would be either subjectivism or Rorty's neo-pragmatism. But you
should bear in mind that it is quite possible to be a theist and *still*
not believe in objective grounds for morality. Atheism, as I said (as
everyone who knows what they're talking about will tell you) has no
position on morality. It only has one position, if you can call it that,
a lack of belief in something for which there is insuficent evidence.
>"a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so
>bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any
>constructive program or possibility." --->
This seems to me a fairly good, non-contraversial, definition of nihilism.
>go along with that but all atheists are accused of destroying the
>foundation of the moral order one way or another.
And who accuses them? Mostly fundamentalist believers in some form of
religion. And do those accusers have any moral ground to stand on from
which to make such an accusation? And what does that prove? Antisemites
accuse the Jewish people of many crimes, how does that imply anything
negative about follers of Judaism? Atheism has nothing to do with any
"moral order." Atheism has to do with a lack of belief in something. Do
you believe in Zeus? If not, you are an atheist as far as ancient greek
religion is concerned.
I've heard this said here, and it's worth repeating: Atheists believe in
one less god that most religious people do.
Perhaps you should buy a history book to go along with your new
dictionary.
>believing in nothing is an interesting paradox. how does one go abt
>in the belief of believing nothing?
There are actually two things:
1) Not believing
2) Believing in nothing
Only the second one has anything to do with nihilism. I'm sure you don't
believe in lots of things (the tooth fairy, invisible cars on the highway)
because you lack a compelling reason to believe in them. Atheists merely
don't believe in any god that's been thought up so far because they don't
see any compelling reason to do so. As soon as there's some compelling
evidence of the exitence of dieties, I'll consider revising my beliefs
(they are open to revision in light of new evidence. Which,
unfortunately, is not the case for many religions).
Wheat
James Martin
>are you really that worried abt insults?
I'm worried about inacurate definitions of atheism. That sort of
misinformation makes my life harder than it should be. If I weren't
perceived as "immoral" just for being atheistic, I'd be more open with my
atheism. As it is, I don't like being accused of crimes I've not
commited. Call me crazy.
>the right wing likes to use liberal as an insult.
>of course a lot of liberals consequently try to call themselves by other
>names. i think that all this conservatism is making everybody wimpy.
For the record, I'm a liberal. And I prefer to be known as such. And I
don't like the term "liberal" being used as an insult when it's merely a
description.
Wheat
James Martin
>Interesting analogy. Many studies show that pot is a "entrance drug" which
>eventually leads to more serious drugs of abuse. (However, I'm not saying that
>everybody gets there, I'm just saying there is a definite link.)
To say, as you do, that it is an "entrance drug" is not the same thing as
to say that "all who smoke pot wind up addicted to harder drugs" (as some
people, in contradition to all known evidence, contend). But I appreciate
that you appreciate the difference (as your parenthetical caution
implies). Hence your version is not a slippery slope argument but a
statement bassed on some evidence (slippery slope assumes a connection w/o
evidence).
>I would like to hear a clear, concise, short (if possible) argument for how
>atheism can avoid:
>solipism
>amorality
I'll try to be of service. The second is easier than the first. To avoid
amorality, you merely need to subscribe to some moral system (or come up
with one) and live according to it. Morality/imorality are value
judgements. People from rival beliefs will tend to judge you from their
standpoint (so one could be a perfectly moral moslem and still be judged
"immoral" or, for sake of rhetoric, "amoral" by a perfectly good
christian). Put it another way, how do christians avoid amorality? By
living according to their moral principles. Atheists do the same thing.
We just have a different means of arriving at moral principles (and
atheism itself, as I have said elsewhere until I am blue in the face, has
no position on what are and are not moral prinicples. it is merely a
starting point).
Solipsism is harder to contend with, but it's not a philosophical problem
relevant only to atheists. If you want to start stiring up doubts in your
own head (whether you are a believer or not) which lead to potentially
solipsistic conclusions, just ask yourself over and over again questions
like these:
1. "How do I really know that other people exist in the same way as I
do--as a sentient being--and are not merely automatons or figments of my
imagination?"
The answer is, you don't know. But there's plenty of evidence which would
lead most people to be willing to make the assumption that members of the
same class--i.e. human beings--tend to have similar characteristics
(ability to experience joy/pain/etc.). And there very little evidence to
suggest that other people are automotons or figments of our imagination,
so why believe it? How do you know you're not the king of france?
2. "How do I really know that everything before me is not part of some
huge VR experiment?"
The answer to this one is to stand the entire question on its head "Do you
have any compelling evidence that everything before you *is* part of some
huge VR experiement?" If the answer is "no" then reject the groundless
assumption. That's the beauty of healty, rational skepticism. You don't
have to spend your life disproving things that might possibly be true
(everything you can imagine might possibly be true).
In the last analysis, you can't really know for certain that other minds
exist, but there's no reason to assume that they don't. We also don't
know beyond doubt that there aren't invisible angels controlling all of
our actions, but lacking any evidence to believe that there are such
things, it's more reasonable to wait for some proof (and in the meantime
assume the absense of such).
A philosophy book I have _Thinking from A to Z_ (more of a dictionary of
argument and falicies) calls the sorts of statements I posed (1 & 2,
above) "pseudoprofundities" and maintains that real wisdom comes from
being able to answer such questions, not merely pose them (in fact, they
are easy to generate: "Why are we all here?" "Does anyone really know
anyone else?" "Does life have a purpose?" These are not profound
questions. They are vague questions. But the answers to them can shape
us in significant ways).
If you're interested in a more philosophically weighty answer to your
question, you might want to check out the writings of Richard Rorty,
especially his _Philosophical Papers_ series (three short, very readable
volumes). The first is called _Objectivity, Relitivism, and Truth_. Rorty
is an atheist and a neopragmitist (Paul would probably call him a
subjectivist), but he's very intersted in how much we can know, the nature
of knowing, and how we go about living and making choices without
absolute, objective truth. Good stuff. Rorty also thinks we do students
a disservice be continually proposing such improbable things as the
"problem of mind" senarios i dredged up above. I'll try to find his quote
on this subject.
Have a good day. Thanks for your very civil reply to my post. I'll be
happy to try to answer any questions you might have (that is, if you
really exist). :)
Wheat
Jason Friesen
Cantrell) writes:
>>I am claiming that in my opinion the correctness of atheism implies the
>>correctness of nihilism. In other words, atheism is nested within nihilism.
>
>
>Just because a _part_ of a larger whole is correct does not imply that
>the _entire_ larger whole is correct. You need to look at your logic
>again.
Point well taken, but in this case, I think it is true anyway. I'm still
waiting for arguments to the contrary in how atheism avoids solipism and
amorality.
Jason
Jason Friesen
(Automort) writes:
>
>>I am claiming that in my opinion the correctness of atheism implies the
>>correctness of nihilism.
>
>Your opinion is wrong.
Is that subjectively wrong or objectively wrong Auto?
Jason
Jason Friesen
>In article <19990625130216...@ngol08.aol.com>,
> drfr...@aol.comNOSPAM (Jason Friesen) wrote:
>> In article <7kqum3$9vm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mwi...@my-deja.com writes:
>>
>>> I agree. The challenge of life is to define your own meaning and
>>> make your own sense of it. There is no objective Ultimate
>>> Purpose(tm), but there are millions of good subjective purposes.
>>
>> A tough question here, which can lead to arguments had before on this
>> group would be "are all subjective purposes good?" If some are better
>> than others it appears that we are comparing them to some objective
>> "Ultimate Purpose(tm)" to which you deny. Is my subjective purpose to
>> memorize every episode of Jerry Springer (SHUDDER) on an equal footing
>> with a purpose of treating sick children?
>
>Hi Jason! Nice debating with you again! :)
Hey, thanks. I moved from New York to Virginia and had to switch accounts to
this crappy AOL one. Anyway...on with the bloodshed.
>
>The truth of the matter is that I have no definative answer. I can only
>judge these things based on my own subjective values, and if you're
>honest with yourself you'll realize that you must do the same.
In a sense you are correct. It can get confusing. I do not deny that I have
subjective values and use them subjectively. That's part of what makes us
human. However, I happen to believe in objective values as well and this
shapes my system of belief. What I attempt to do is shape my subjective values
as closely to what I believe the objective values are. Of course we all know
that we aren't perfect and I'm sure I make some mistakes in either
interpretation, insight, or even just don't want to. So yes, I do judge things
through subjective values, but if I'm good, these values with me the same as
objective ones and therefore the distinction will disappear.
>
>That seems to tie in with what the original poster was getting at. Does
>atheism imply that there is no Objective Ultimate Rule that we can judge
>these things against? I think it does. An objective rule implies
>some external point of view that might as well be defined as God.
In this we both agree. I think it does as well. It makes no sense for me to
argue that there are objective values with an atheist. It would be more
fundamental to a common understanding for me to argue first that there is a
God. However, Paul Filselth would disagree...
>...it wouldn't be fair to impose my belief structure on others. I
>am not Perfect, I am not Objective, and I am not God.
Unfortunately, as many times as I've seen this claimed, I've never met a person
who is able to carry it out. We are constantly imposing our belief structure
on others. Theist or atheist. That is the way we are. This is no more clear
then when we believe we have been wronged.
> When you realize that "community" isn't some
>nameless, faceless group of other people, but the people you care about,
>and the people they care about, then the good of the community outweighs
>the small benefit you could make through stealing.
>
>
So are you saying that "the good of the community outweighs the small benefit
you could make through stealing" (probably known as utilitarianism) is an
objective value? or is this just a subjective one that you hold and has no
inherent superiority over my supposition of the opposite. (Uh oh. :) Either
you say, "yes" and admit objective values, or you say "no" and admit to
imposing your belief structure on me.
Jason
David Hodges
>
>To me, the trio of atheism, solipism, and amorality make up a triad which is,
>for all purposes, nihilism.
I find it hard to take any solipsistic argument seriously. If anyone
is arguing solipsism, I assume they are joking or trying to be
annoying or something.
What I've seen argued here is generally cultural moral relativism,
rather than amorality.
--
David Hodges YJP #4
1998 CB750 Nighthawk
"It seems like it is now time to party in
such a manner as to suggest that is indeed 1999."
- Slimfast
Automort
>
>
>that is up for further debate.
>
jesse l nowells
On 30 Jun 1999, Jason Friesen wrote:
> I would like to hear a clear, concise, short (if possible) argument for
> how atheism can avoid:
>
> solipism
> amorality
>
> To me, the trio of atheism, solipism, and amorality make up a triad which is,
> for all purposes, nihilism.
do you mean "sophism"? every ideology has its sophists. conciseness
starts at home. i don't buy into this notion that all of any group is bad.
does that answer your question?
Paul Filseth
> No. Atheism is an element of nihilism. It is necessary, but not
> sufficient, for nihilism. As evidenced by many atheists, nihilism is not
> the necessary end result of atheism. "Correctly thought out" needs to
> be much better explained if you want to put your notion of atheism up
> against actual atheists.
While we're at it, let's put it up against actual nihilists too.
Atheism isn't an element of nihilism and isn't necessary for it. The
original Russian nihilists were agnostics, not atheists.
--
Paul Filseth That's a hard question. I don't answer hard questions.
To email, reverse lisl. - Justice John Paul Stevens
Automort
>not believe in objective grounds for morality.
I wasn't aware that many of them DO believe in any objective grounds for
morality. I thought they followed moral codes, or pretended to, because some
supernatural guy was going to torture them forever if they didn't, or make them
reincarnate as a worm, or whatever. I thought they just assumed this guy made
up these rules, no question, no explanation, that's that.
Automort
>do actually believe in an objective morality.
There is a basic morality that has evolved among social creatures. It exists in
the behavior and minds of creatures, but is independant of any particular
individual because it is generated by their need to rely on others.
Paul Filseth
> I am claiming that in my opinion the correctness of atheism implies the
> definition out of my Webster's New World Dictionary:
>
> nihilism - the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion,
> etc. The denial of the existence of any basis for knowledge or truth.
>
> I think it is easier to get to the first part of the definition.
According to that part, the early Christians were nihilists.
Would you agree with calling them that? It's an irrelevant definition.
(Accurate though. But only in the sense that Webster's is doing it's
job and reporting use. In this case, use by unenlightened people to
abuse those who disagree with them. Webster's probably provides a
definition of "jew" as a verb, too.)
I think in philosophy nihilism basically refers to the view that
there's no such thing as right and wrong. You can reject customary
beliefs and not be a nihilist as long as you replace them with
noncustomary beliefs.
> But I also think that atheism does lead to solipsism. (This was
> touched on months ago, but I never got a reply from someone as to
> how atheism avoids solipsism.)
Did you explain why you thought it would? I'd have thought atheism
avoids solipsism pretty much the same way birds avoid bumping into the
moon.
For the most part atheists seem to be people who take appearances
at face value unless there's a good reason not to. "Hey, look at the
dirt; I'll bet it's dirt." It's theists who say "Hey, look at the dirt;
I'll bet it's the Earth Goddess." Solipsism is very much a case of not
taking things at face value. Why would you connect it to atheism?
> I do know from experience that you are an atheism who believes absolute
> morals exist. I joined the argument too late to see your initial logic.
> I'd like to see it again.
See Deja News from pretty much any time in the last couple years,
if you want details. The quick summary is that the alternatives appear
to be moral realism, nihilism, and subjectivism. Subjectivism I reject
due to internal incoherence. Nihilism appears to be inconsistent with
the facts of human and animal behavior. Process of elimination...
> > Here's a hint: if you believe morality lies in obeying God, then you're
> > a subjectivist. That a whim is God's whim does not magically transform
> > it into something more than a whim.
>
> Incorrect, to an extent. To believe in an objective view (purpose, morality,
> whatever) you have to believe that such things would still exist even if
> we did not. In other words, these things are independent of us. That is
> the basis of objectivity.
Incorrect. I believe in objective human eye color, and it wouldn't
exist if we didn't. Contrariwise, things tasting good or tasting bad is
subjective, yet that would still exist even if we didn't. (My cats don't
all like the same foods.) Objectivity means a question isn't a matter
of preference; there are correct and incorrect answers to it. What those
answers depend on is a separate issue.
> I can understand how you can feel that a Christian is a subjectivist (I
> believe that MY God is the seat of truth, not YOUR god.) However, if
> it is the truth (and we have to allow for that possibility), then it
> turns out that a Christian can be an objectivist.
It's not an issue of which god. It's an issue of what kind of a
thing a moral claim is. If it's just an order, an arbitrary demand with
nothing behind it but the fact that somebody wants things that way, then
why the heck should anybody care? Why is the fact that God wants you
to do something philosophically more significant than the fact that Joe
Blow wants you to do it? God says X is right, Joe says Y is right,
who's right? God? Why, because God says so?
If the only criterion an act needs to satisfy to be moral is that
God prefer it, then it follows that morality is a matter of preference.
That's why Divine Command Theory is necessarily subjectivist. Even if
your God _is_ the One True God.
Automort
>
The first depends on the individual, the second is independantly correct.
Automort
Maybe he means "solecism."
jesse l nowells
is it exactly perfectly spherical?
jesse l nowells
would you consciously say to yourself i believe in nothing when you are in
fact believing in a something even if it's to believe in nothing.
On 2 Jul 1999, Automort wrote:
> >how does one go abt
> >in the belief of believing nothing?
> >
>
jesse l nowells
well, that's you. some liberals do have a wimpy response to conservatives
in my opinion & call themselves by other names or call themselves liberals
with qualifications. like i'm liberal but i'm for fiscal responsibility.
or i'm liberal but i'm for a strong defense & so on. then look at the
communists in different spots. a lot of them just change their names so
the other side can't refer to them as communists. their opposition has to
try to diss the "social democrats" or whatever.
anyway, are you going to deny that this trend doesn't exist?
mao, that "evil communist" used to say that it was a good thing when your
enemies are attacking you because it signifies your effectiveness in your
opposition to them. or some such words to that effect.
jesse l nowells
On 2 Jul 1999, James Martin wrote:
> jesse l nowells <jnow...@ccsf.cc.ca.us> writes:
> >this is a matter of interpretation. your term "impossible constructs"
> >poses a problem for me. are you saying that the constructs have no
> >objective ground or are you implying that the constructs are just
> >impossible to make?
>
> I'm not impliying anything, I'm telling you what nihilism implies. A
> nihilist take would be [that] there is no objective ground for any sort
> of construct (i.e. no Truth); therefore, making any truth claim is
> absurd and so too, life. It would be perfectly possible to believe the
> first part (i.e. no objective grounds) without believing the secong
> (i.e. life isn't worth living and/or nothing has value).
no, you're saying what nihilism implies to you. the russian nihilists who
though were irrationalists believed that blowing up stuff & assassinating
people was worth doing in order to anticipate a new order. that implies
a belief in life worth living under the proper circumstances which they
believe they were pushing society in the direction of with their violence.
i'm not trying to justify their actions but you want to insist on your
particular definition of nihilism & define it too narrowly. all because
someone dare assert that atheism & nihilism can be or is in fact linked.
many people accused of nihilism were in fact atheists & they profess a
belief in a new system of values which brought the wrath of people who
believed in traditional morality. for example the bolsheviks. you may
attempt to write off the bolsheviks as being amoralists but that would not
be accurate since they had a concern abt values though not the ones that
you yourself might believe in.
> >seems to me that people are always free to make
> >impossible constructs but they can't provide these constructs with
> >concrete evidence or what they call objective ground.
>
> I quite agree, though not everyone does. Plenty of people in this
> newsgroup believe in objective moral grounds, for instance. And while I
> don't believe in objectivity with a capital "O," I do think we can have
> some relative certainties (science is handy for that) even if we don't
> have the luxury (if if is a luxury) of "Objective Truth" (tm).
if you question objectivity however way you spell it then maybe that's
what the problem is. that's why you are insisting on foisting your
definition on a matter that has many definitions & qualifications.
> I'm not objecting to its existence. I'm objecting to your claim that
> atheism and nihilism are somehow tragically linked. That's a claim you
> haven't supported--and with good reason, as it isn't supportable except by
> playing games with non-standard definitions.
i wouldn't characterize it as being "tragically" linked. in my opinion
they are linked & whether it's tragic or not is a matter of opinion.
friesen wants to paint atheism as inherently evil. why should i get into
some kneejerk reaction to prove that a thing doesn't have the property it
appears to have in order to appease someone who has it as their mission to
undermine a value system to discredit it in the first place? i've
supported "my" position, you just want to insist on yours as if the two
couldn't coexist some level.
>
> >it's like saying satan or satanic. atheism points directly at the void.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps all things tend toward, the void, as you say. But
> that's a rather poetic phrase, capable of supporting many readings. And
> you haven't supported it. Does living a full life and happening to be an
> atheist make ones life less valuable than living a full life and happening
> to be a believer in some religion? I don't think so, perhaps you do. So
> what.
i've given support to my assertions, you just don't accept or like them.
you're taking one definition of nihilism & trying to assert that because
one can have values with no objective ground & still feel that life is
worth living that therefore one is not a nihilist. by my definition you
still are a nihilist. finding that life has an aspect of absurdity does
not lead one to the conclusion that any act is permissable or desireable.
it only means you see no agency that is the ultimate judge in terms of
certainty.
>
> >people don't want to deal with the void. the void is a big
> >nothing. they want aliens to explain their existence if they can't have
> >god or god directly. if they can't hang with oral roberts, it's art bell.
>
> While I'm sure this is true for some people (perhaps for many or most
> people) it isn't true of everyone and it isn't at all true of most
> atheists I've ever met. Perhaps you're projecting your own fear of death
> on everyone else.
everyone has a fear of death. are you trying to feign a blissful cocksure
composure like some of our theist brethern?
> While I'm not particulary looking forward to death, I
> don't see any reason to feed irrational fears of it--especially as those
> fears tend to take away the enjoyment of living. Death is a bridge I'll
> cross when I get to it. The irrational fear of death/nothingness is
> something I've gotten past.
i doubt it. why are you saying this anyway? to fear death is only human.
no one would think less of you unless they were on a power trip.