I take it that most (though not all) non-theists assume that atheism does not entail nihilism. More specifically, most non-theists don’t believe that denying the existence of God or the immortality of the soul entails that truth, love, beauty, goodness, and justice are empty words.
But as we’ve seen in numerous discussions, the anti-materialist holds that this commitment is not one to which we are rationally entitled. Rather, the anti-materialist seems to contend, someone who denies that there is any transcendent reality beyond this life cannot be committed to anything other than affirmation of power (or maximizing individual reproductive success) for its own sake.
The question is, why is the anti-materialist mistaken about what non-theists are rationally entitled to? (Anti-materialists are also welcome to clarify their position if I’ve mischaracterized it.)
I don’t speak for most, but I certainly do not take atheism to entail nihilism.
Recently, I’ve been wondering whether theism leads to nihilism. Many theists seem to kept from nihilism, only by virtue of their addiction to make-believe.
However, I’ll take issue with “anti-materialist” there. Personally, I am neither pro-materialist nor anti-materialist. I haven’t found any need to take sides on that issue. I think you should avoid making the suggestion that atheism and materialism are the same thing.
I certainly do not think that materialism and atheism are the same thing, and I’m quite certain that materialism is a straw-man position. That’s why I used “non-theist” and “anti-materialist” in my opening post — to indicate the depths to which the two positions are talking past each other. They are not even taking even different sides on the same basic ideas and beliefs.
That makes sense. Yes, as most often attacked, it is a strawman.
It’s not all that hard to find people who do hold that atheism entails nihilism. Probably the most prominent example among professional philosophers alive today would be Alex Rosenberg. (For a pragmatist criticism, with which I heartily agree, it would be hard to improve on Kitcher’s essay.)
The crux of Rosenberg’s nihilism — at any rate, the part of it that I find most intriguing and provocative — is his denial of intentionality. Briefly, his argument goes like this:
(1) original intentionality is committed to the existence of sentence-like representations of reality;
(2) if original intentionality exists in nature at all, the most promising candidate is how brains represent their environments;
(3) but cognitive neuroscience shows that brains do not represent their environments through sentence-like representations — rather, brains represent their environments by constructing maps of it;
(4) hence cognitive neuroscience shows that there isn’t any original intentionality;
(5) therefore, none of our thoughts are about anything — or, if aboutness is the very essence of thought, then we do not think. (Call this “global non-cognitivism”.)
I think that (3) is perfectly correct, though I leave it to the neuroscientists to tell me otherwise. But I think that both (1) and (2) are false.
The heart of my view is that “original intentionality” isn’t a single kind. Rather, there are two different kinds of original intentionality, what I call “discursive intentionality” (which essentially involves propositional contents shared between language-users) and “somatic intentionality” (which essentially involves perceptual-practical engagements with objects).
On that view, the most promising candidate for locating original intentionality in the order of nature isn’t the brain per se, but rather (a) the brain-body-environment relationship (for somatic intentionality) and (b) social-linguistic normative practices (for discursive intentionality). And given that view, accepting what neuroscience tells us about how brains represent their environments does not lead to global non-cognitivism.
An anti-materialist is one who thinks everything originates in antimatter 😉
I’m happy enough to wear the label ‘materialist’, provide it doesn’t lead to me being beaten up or refused entry to the best restaurants.
I don’t accept a connection with nihilism at all. Whether or not I get to heaven, hell, oblivion or someplace in between does not to me add or subtract one jot from life – this here, the thing we are currently doing. Things in this life matter because they matter in this life, not because something else might be coming along to give them ‘meaning’. Love, kids, friendship, laughter, music, literature, travel, discourse, running, mountaineering, cooking, eating, nature, science, a little light intoxication … these things are pleasurable and valuable to me. It mystifies me when people tell me how I should feel as an atheist. Oh woe is me, ’twill all be gone, no point in anything? Nah. I won’t be able to do much of that in the next life, if there is one. Hard to laugh without lungs, or play music with no fingers. Might as well make the most of this one.
Kantian Naturalist,
Yes, I’m aware of Alex Rosenberg. I almost mentioned him in my previous reply as a rare example of somebody who does fully embrace materialism.
I have not read his book, but I have read some online interviews. And thanks for the link to Kitcher’s response, which does seem about right.
Allan Miller,
I’m aware that I may be playing fast and loose with the concept ‘nihilism’ here. There are numerous flavours. Perhaps I should wait for the theist to tell me the kind of angst I should be suffering.
Allan Miller,
When theists detail what they think nihilism entails for us, they seem to be describing clinical depression.
These labels; atheist, nihilist, materialist, Darwinist, unbeliever, liberal, and many others of this genre always seem to originate among sectarian fundamentalists and religious conservatives. And the contexts in which such labels are thrown out leave no doubt that they are pejorative and meant to demonize and hurt.
It tells us more about them than it does about the internal lives and joys of those whom they label.
Asking the question is like asking if philosophy or theology can make sugar not sweet. It just such a mind-boggling non-sequitur that on wonder about the sanity of anyone who takes it seriously.
“I may be playing fast and loose with the concept ‘nihilism’ here.”
It’s not just a concept, it’s an ideology.
“These labels; atheist, nihilist, materialist, Darwinist, unbeliever, liberal, and many others of this genre always seem to originate among sectarian fundamentalists and religious conservatives.”
Please get out of Michigan. There’s a whole wide world of thought available that you seem completely unaware of.
‘Liberal’ is a globally active term. Not paying attention to Ukraine these days? Elzinga’s ‘skeptic’ brand of anti-sectarianism is a joke only fools or biologists-without-hearts would entertain.
I like your priorities. I’d take the beating, but not the exclusion from good food.
Be here now.
It’s amazing how hard that can be some days, not because my atheism depresses me but because there is so much I want to do in the time I have. It’s almost like I give my life meaning myself, without the need for it to be imposed by an absent father figure.
Yes — the theist conception of atheism is a fantasy based on what they would feel (or, more precisely, what they imagine they would feel) if they didn’t have the conception of the world that they have.
What I mean in this. The theistic conception of the world satisfies the human need to be rescued from despair by means of a vision of reality according to which the world of life, history, and becoming (the ‘immanent’ world) is not all there is — there is a ‘transcendent’ aspect to reality as well.
Since the theist’s need to be rescued from despair is bound up with this picture of transcendence, she imagines that if she abandoned or rejected that picture, there would be no rescue from despair. (And this might be so. I make it a point never to argue someone out of his or her faith, for I have no right to decide for her or him whether her or she needs faith in order to find life worth living. This is one of the many points on which I am deeply at odds with the so-called “New Atheists.”)
But, if the theist is sufficiently unreflective or uninformed, she might then project this fantasy onto those who live without a theistic conception of the world, and who satisfy the need to be rescued from despair in non-theistic ways and without participating in specifically religious forms of social practice. My hackles are raised only when the theist tries to show me that I have no reason for finding my life worth living, because I do not share the theistic conception of reality.
Kantian Naturalist,
…..and yet, you cleave to a fantasy of what theists feel.
To be sure, I do not see God as a father figure….although He wont turn down any request to fill that role for those in need of that comfort.
In fact GOD IMO would take exception to being pigeon holed into a singular role.
But if we must limit Him to one role, I’d say He is more akin to a mentor, at the ready to coach where perceptual roadblocks stunt personal growth. After all, He’s been there, done that.
Anyway, He’s just a cyber call away..no biggie….trick is though you gotta find the fone booth…..that friggin’ elusive fone booth.
How do you arrive at these statements?
My problem with nihilism is the same as my problem with existentialism. The failure to recognise the world we live in. Simply, biological, historical, and cultural realities.
Life is not meaningless because we are social creatures with similar bodies (including similar brains!) and shared history/culture… and so we have ingrained purposes, and shared purposes at that.
And when I find the booth, what’s God’s phone number?
Do you have a right to decide whether someone needs to avoid despair by believing that Kennedy and Nixon were men of impeccable character? Do you have a right to decide whether someone needs to believe that homosexuality is immoral? Whether they need a presentist notion of time? A Kantian conception of space? A belief in fairies?
Actually, KN, seeing as the subject is Nihilism, Heart Of Darkness. “The last word he pronounced… was your name.” Not only should that be what she hears, should it be what we are presented with? Culturally, don’t you think that cat is rather out of the bag? I can’t see the point in pretending it isn’t. We surely shouldn’t treat the faithful like little people.
If one takes existential nihilism means that life is without objective value or meaning, and “objective” means to have an independent existence outside of any individual mind;
And/or, if one takes moral nihilism to mean that morality doesn’t inherently exist, but is rather a subjective set of preferences;
Then I suggest that atheism and materialism both usually entail nihilism.
Nihilists may find meaning in life, but not of/to life. Life itself – the fact that there are living things, the fact that humans exist and the fact that humans can think and love and hate and do stuff – that would have no intrinsic meaning or value to rationally consistent atheist/materialists. Those are just happenstance facts of the universe. It might have some subjective or personal value or meaning, but not any objective/intrinsic value or meaning.
For example: for a rationally consistent atheist/materialist, the life of a child has no intrinsic value or meaning, nor are there any objective moral rules regarding that life.
For atheists/materialists, there is no meaning to the universe, to existence, to good; no inherent or ultimate meaning for any choice or act. That is all just how matter happens to dance to the tune of physical regularities.
That doesn’t mean anyone is depressed or sad; it doesn’t mean that one isn’t satisfied with their life.
Steve,
By all means, feel free to correct my interpretation of what theists think and feel. But please note: I didn’t say that the theistic satisfaction to our need to be rescued from despair took the form of a paternalistic deity, or even for that matter an anthropocentric conception of the deity.
What I had in mind, rather, was thoughts such as: the wicked shall be punished for their transgressions after death, needless suffering shall not be in vain, we will meet those we’ve loved and lost again, there is an underlying justice to the structure of reality, and so on.
If someone needs to believe something that I think false in order to have the strength to find life worth living, I would say, “that is someone I will never be able to understand”. However, unless that person’s (putatively false) beliefs hinder how other people pursue their conception of the Good, I make no objection.
My question is, since when is anyone 100% rationally consistent? Is that a required thing? Is it even desirable? Because I don’t know anyone, atheist or theist, who can claim that. Not even close, for better or worse. Human behavior is anything but rational and consistent.
KN,
How do you know whether someone needs faith to have the strength to find life worth living? Even they would not know.
I can’t see that the faithful (or anyone) should be treated like little people. That is surely repellent, and demeans everyone (as so perfectly illustrated in Heart of Darkness).
Also, when people decide to believe in a deity, they often take on a whole load of other religious beliefs that do hinder others. For example, that homosexuality is immoral.
William,
As long as we agree to value children’s lives, who cares whether they have objective value? They’re valuable to us, and that is enough.
The way I see “ultimate” meaning v meaning is like this:
Meaningful – Witnessing the birth of your daughter.
“Ultimately” meaningful – Witnessing the birth of your daughter while some authority holds up a sign saying “This is good and joyous.”
Substitute childbirth for anything meaningful, positive or negative, and the “ultimate meaning” (whether on a sign, whispered, held in the mind, or written in a book) adds nothing. If while living we paid attention to “ultimate meaning” rather than meaning, our lives would be parodies of meaning.
davehooke:
And even if the authority were God himself, how is his idea of what’s meaningful any more objective than mine?
William, can you explain why God’s opinion on this could be considered objective, if everyone else’s is merely subjective?
And William’s!
OT Hawking misquote?
Gregory,
Yeah, whatever. An ideology I don’t subscribe to, then.
William J. Murray,
If there is a ‘natural law’ that indicates that the child’s life has an extra kind of value beyond that on which we would all undoubtedly agree, it is still not intrinsic to the child. Theism simply adds another because … to the list of reasons to value a life. The worry would be if that were the only item in the list.
The question is about nihilism, and if it is entailed within atheism/materialism. What difference does it make to you if atheism/materialism entails nihilism, if you value your child’s life?
Are you speaking for everyone now?
I wouldn’t expect anyone to be 100% rationally consistent. What I’m doing is pointing out the difference between calling oneself an atheist/materialist, but not actually living or thinking as if those things are true. Mostly, A/Ms here haven’t really thought it through much as far as I can tell – they just call themselves that because they hate the god they are familiar with and dismiss the idea of the spiritual.
While it may technically afford one the title of atheist and materialist by denying god and the spiritual, until one embraces what those premises mean through and through, they are are only calling themselves A/Ms but still thinking and acting otherwise.
Which is still fine – there’s no law against it or anything. I’m just pointing it out. There’s a difference between calling oneself an atheist/materialist and living as if atheism/materialism is actually true.
This is just a failure on your part to understand what natural law means, and a failure to understand what humans are in reference to god, natural law, value and meaning.
The child is a manifest purpose of god – not a separate entity that god has decided to use for a purpose. The entity we know as the child is an aspect of god (child of god) making itself manifest in the world for a purpose. It “having” intrinsic meaning, value, and purpose is an euphemism; it **is** divine meaning, value and purpose. Those things are intrinsic to it.
This demonstrates the paucity of the concept of “meaning” for atheists/materialists. What does “good” mean, under atheism/materialism? It can only mean your personal preference. So, under A/M, the birth of a daughter means however it happens to make you feel at the time, and that’s the only thing you can imagine it can mean even writ large.
Objective meaning and value means that outside of your own mind, in a way that is intrinsic to the universe and existence, your daughter has purpose, value and meaning. She is not just a random mixture of available DNA and she is not going to be whatever happenstance interactions of molecules kludge together.
If her value and meaning **are** just whatever you happen to feel about it, then her value, meaning and purpose is just as a kludge of molecules for you to use to serve your own ends – as you just admitted by saying that her value is producing whatever makes you personally fell “good and joyous”.
I guess that if “good and joyous” is what you prefer, and your daughter doesn’t provide that, then she is of little value. Correct? Because she has no intrinsic value whatsoever, she’s only worth what you happen to feel at the time.
The Abrahamic religions place no intrinsic value on the lives of children.
Children, including fetuses, were wiped out indiscriminately by the flood. And killed indiscriminately at Jericho and at other battles. And Sodom. And, in the case of Job, to win a bet.
And in the case of Isaac, a child was placed in peril as an object lesson. In none of these cases was any intrinsic value placed on the lives of children, except as tokens in a theology game.
So, everyone should be left to pursue their own conception of “the Good”? Or are you saying that you can determine which beliefs are true?
The question is what does “valuable to us” mean to an atheist/materialist? IMO, it can only mean “how much I prefer they be in my life”. Left to that device, and under the KN maxim of not hindering others in their pursuit of “the Good”, if I do not prefer my child to be in my life, why not just kill it? It has no intrinsic value – the only value it has is that which it happens to afford my preferences – as an atheistic materialist.
Not that I think atheistic materialists actually think that way, because their actual behavior in life is irreconcilable with their premises. They act as if their child has intrinsic value beyond their own individual preferences – which is why they would intervene if someone was blatantly mistreating a child, and which is why they often object to childhood religious instruction.
Many A/M’s talk about letting their child make up their own minds and letting them be free to express themselves as individuals- something incongruent with the A/M perspective of children as kludges of happenstance influences. Why wouldn’t an A/M indoctrinate their child to be what they preferred since the child’s value isn’t intrinsic, but is only a matter of personal preference for the parents? Why complain or intervene when other adults treat their children as if their children are only there to provide them with joy or amusement?
When you were an atheist, what stopped you killing people?
Sigh. Back to ‘hating god’ is it? I would suggest that you still haven’t come to an understanding many (most, perhaps?) atheists’ thoughts and motivations. I am a lifelong atheist, but have never ‘hated’ god, just as you wouldn’t hate anything you don’t believe exists, I assume.
Again, your conclusion that A/Ms are ‘thinking and acting otherwise’ could be based on your own lack of understanding of A/Ms. I know that you have stated that you used to be an A/M, but your experience sounds so different than mine that I don’t believe it gives you much insight into my experience and why I think and act the way I do.
Nevertheless, what specifically do you suggest I do to embrace my atheistic premises right now? It’s the start of a new week, and I’m willing to try an experiment. Of course you don’t know me personally, but perhaps you could offer some suggestions for ‘atheists’ who want to be more rationally consistent.
Maybe, maybe not. Since you cannot reliably access this objective meaning and value, you have no way of knowing for sure. It could be, for instance, that the Lizard-God finds mammals icky and somewhat annoying, and will eliminate them all in the near future.
Well, I agree with this statement, thanks to the qualifiers you included. But I would add :
She is a random mixture of available DNA and she is going to be whatever interactions of molecules kludge together. In addition, she has purpose, value and meaning. These things are not mutually exclusive.
It seems to me that atheism makes no truth claims; it merely declines to accept the truth claims of theists. And if materialism makes truth claims, then I am not at all clear on what those are.
William J. Murray,
So if God decides to torture the child eternally for misdemeanours, how does BEING god’s manifest purpose help it? God doesn’t rate its ‘intrinsic’ value all that highly. Instead, God offers a value judgement.
I don’t see how the indiscriminate killing of infants and children by God or on the orders of God can be consistent with intrinsic worth.
William J. Murray,
You are making a truth claim which is beyond ‘there is a god’ – ie Theism Mk I, the thing to which atheism is an antonym. You are saying ‘There is a god AND this set of objects has intrinsic value because they are god’s manifest purpose. ‘.
Which objects fit into this category, and have ‘intrinsic value’, and which do not? Just a few examples.
William,
I’m still interested in hearing your answer to this question:
Who here is claiming that it is?
*chuckles*
I would suppose that most atheists in China or in the Netherlands don’t “hate god” either; but I doubt I’m talking to them. I’m talking to certain individuals in a certain forum that pepper virtually ever sentence that uses “god” in it with invective and scorn. These are the ones that are usually on the internet laughing at anyone that believes in “sky daddies” and “magic” and are quick to point out atrocities attributed to god in various holy books.
I’m confident that these people hate the version of god they keep responding to even if the person doing the talking has made it clear they do not believe in that kind of a god.
If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. But I’ve been around this forum long enough to know who and what I’m dealing with – at least for the most part.
I have no desire to promote or facilitate behavior that is rationally consistent with atheism/materialism.
Nothing.
William, I have no idea what you are arguing, but you seem to be asserting that atheists cannot tap into intrinsic worth, and theists can. Please explain.