In defense of nihilism

But nihilism doesn't care about peoples grief. There is no objective right and wrong so whether people live in harmony or in conflict matters not to nihilism. Whatever is, is. Nihilism doesn't offer anything 'beneficial' it just attempts to describe what is from the standpoint of no God. It says that you feel authenticated by living in harmony with others then fine. If being a serial killer is your gig then that is equally authenticating. Nihilism doesn't care one way of the other.You say it is impossible to get rid of moralistic schemes but nihilism permits that any behaviour at all is valid so the whole idea of morals becomes moot. If I can define my morals any way I like, I may not be free of them but who cares - if they don't suit I can change to suit. And no nihilist can tell me I'm wrong. There is no such thing as objective wrong for the true nihilist.But I'll bet they'd still scream bloody murder if some self-authenticating burglar robs their house

When I said 'they' I referred to that said previously: "a true nihilist". Which goes to show... there is no such thing as a true nihilist. Every nihilist lives as if his subjective beliefs about good and evil are in fact, objective. Which makes a bit of a mockery of his belief system. He cannot hide behind universalism - for he believes there is no moral truth, only moral convention - for which there is little reason for anyone to adhere to other than to suit themselves I agree. Subjective truths, subjective right and wrongs. Each to their own and let no one complain - objectively.

With 'honest' being as moveable a feast as authentication then I would agree. "There are no objectives", (whilst holing itself below the waterline being, presumably, a statement which claims to be objective) means there is no objective honesty - only that which is self-defined. Any way is okay, whatever it is so long as you want to live that way Why on earth not? I'm good at it, ain't never been caught. Only need to work 10 hours a week and I have a large house and a vacation home and a beemer 645 parked outside. It helps pay for the heroin to supply my teenagers (I'm getting sick of them) If there is any reason for me not to it would only be that its not worth my while to do so

I would have thought the stance of nihilism is not so much proving there is a moral right/wrong but that there is no moral right/wrong to prove. And given that no one can live nihilism in practice, why would anyone say they are a nihilist. A nihilist cannot be a nihilist. HmmmThe opposing corner, say Christianity, doesn't suppose anyone can live up to the ideal. It doesn't expect it of the person. It predicts and acknowledges they won't in fact, live up to the idealIn that sense, the 'philosophy' of Christianity is spot on. It matches the situation as we find it. It is not abstract and completely devoid of practical application like nihilism.A Christian can at least be a Christian

I would think it more accurate to say he believes the code is subjective. His choosing which elements of the code to don may be subjective, but the code itself may or may not be subjective.The curious thing is that the nihilist is as much in need of a code in order to live his life as is the Christian. He needs to offset his beliefs in order to get on with the more important business of living. Much as in the same way that the hippies in the 60's needed the very culture they we're dropping out of, to survive.The nihilist, it appears, needs to return dog to it's vomit-like, to the pseudo-belief that the code is objective. Thus a nihilist cannot consistantly live as a nihilist. He most certainly wouldn't go hoping his beliefs become too widely applied anyway if he we're in his right mind. You go on a little in this vein but don't actually point out anything to particularily support this Total Accidental more-likely-than God-Ordained. Except to suface-speculate as to why God would make it appear as it appears.There are very good reasons why it is the way it is (hint: free-will) If it is all accidental, it is a remarkably beaufiful and wonderously complex accident. I think you have got the order of things the wrong way around Robin. It's not you who overturns your belief - its him. If he was to demonstrate himself to you then doubt would be about the very last thing on your mind. Think of Moses when he came down from the mountain after his encounter with God. His face was glowing like a piece of nuclear fuel.You don't get a say in that part. When he rips the curtains in two you better hang onto your chair!!Question: what kind of proof are you talking about anyway. What would float your boat?

Thus we can say the christian believes there are objective values and the nihilist needs to believe there are objective values. One or other is the lie that is closest to the truth Sometimes the consequences of our exercising free will are quite profound. True, from your perspective it is acceptable to suppose that it is all accidental but if it weren't and it is the result of an exercise of certain persons free will then it would give a remarkable picture of mans place in the scheme of things. It would provide us some explaination as to why God sacrificed his son for us. Like, if we stood back for a minute and took a look at ourselves we would have to wonder at that.

There's a problem there Robin. If God just showed up or did anything so as to make it certain to you that he existed (not weeping statues or other such things which can be explained away as hoaxes (which they may well be)) then you would have no choice but to believe in him. Despite your current misgivings and lack of belief - you would have to believe. Would you not?But a central aspect of the whole gig, the reason I would suppose, as to why it had to be done the way it was done, was in order to provide us with choice. God could have chosen to create automatons who would obey every command. He could have even programmed them to hate the taste of apples. He chose otherwise and in making us in his image and likeness, he gave us choice too.There is an obvious reasons why he should do so (hint: love). So him turning up uninvited is a non-runner.Is there anything else that would float your boat besides that?

Its not a game. It is the most deadly serious thing you could imagine. There is an apparent dilema. As I explained above God cannot force you to believe in him, by appearing at your doorstep uninvited. You cannot believe in him without a higher quality of evidence than that which may in fact lie all around you.An apparent Catch-22. But God is rather good at resolving Catch-22's And the ball is in his court. All you have to do is want him. It's essentially down to that. He can provide you with proof a-plenty. Proof that would surprise you - coming as it would in from an unexpected quarter. But if you don't want him to he won't of course. He does respect you and will honour that which you want. Either way.(p.s. both wanting and not wanting are played out in the heart so it's not like a person can work it up through conscious effort)I think the nihilist is being the most honest of all the no-God camp. He is facing what reality is if there is no God. I wonder though: he has no particular reason to think there is no God. No hard evidence - only a philosophy. Now why would someone, who had to pick from one or other of these two (apparently) unprovable positions, choose for the one devoid of hope?We could modify the previous discussion to suppose that the nihilist 'believes' for large portions of his life, that there are objective values and it is only in his more philosophical moments when he comes to his senses, that he remembers there are in fact none.He could just as easily play both sides of the coin in relation to a belief in God. He could 'believe' there is a God and have all the benefits that would come with that (in that he is free to design a God that suits him - just as with he can with morals). Only in his better moments would he have to face the fact that he doesn't actually believe it and, like the nihilist, face the lonely moments that that may bring.Yet he picks the "no hope" option.Is this because for all it's downsides, it is the one that allows him, Adam-like, to be independant of God?

You would have to be free of the shadow of sin and guilt and damnation in order to appreciate what it feels like. The error here is in the presumption that the shadow is for man to impose on himself. Not believing in something, as in so many areas of life, influences not the existance of something.

Never heard of it m8. How does it go? I agree wholeheartedly. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: "You cannot believe in something you have no concrete evidence for". That would be irrational. Irrational as nihilism probably The old "driving around the spiritual roundabout" problem and wondering which exit to take? There are clues of course

As I pointed out to Robin (Robinihilism anybody?), a nihilist cannot live as if there are no objective morals. He must 'believe' there are such things in everyday life. Robin agreed with this. And he would I think, agree that the nihilist is completely free to chose whatever value system he likes for himself - just like the belief systems you pose above seem to. I don't see how one differs from the other in that sense. My point was that the one offered at least hope of an afterlife. So if one was going to chose when there is no concrete evidence apparent to the person, why chose the hopeless option?

If God provided irrevocable (as opposed to the completely subjective 'strong') evidence as to his existance then there would be no such thing as free will. Everybody would have to believe in him. Thus, we do not agree at all it would seem.

What I meant was that a nihilist acts as if there are objective rights and wrongs - even though he says there is no such thing. And the nihilist relies on the fact that others act as if there were objective rights and wrongs. The nihilist who acted as if there weren't would end up in jail. A nihilist, for all his philosophy, is as trapped in and objective morality as the next person. In practice.Objective morality FACT or objective morality FICTION. It makes no practical difference. So far, both are on a level par. The nihilist is free to do the same. So far, both are on a level par. The nihilist is free to do the same. Why does one require positive evidence. A belief system is a belief system. You can chose either one without any positive evidence. So far they are on a level par There is nothing preventing you enjoying this life to the full and believing in an afterlife. There are plenty of religions without particularily onerous requirements...or you could make up your own.The point was, given no evidence either way, why would one not choose to believe there was an afterlife which involved everything that was pleasant in this one and none of the bad. It would seem to make more sense to me.This message has been edited by iano, 29-Nov-2005 12:04 PM

On what grounds do you make that case? If (as it turns out to be) the choice to put faith in God - even though one cannot actually believe (for want of irrevocable proof) - is the criteria by which God provides irrevocable proof then there would be immense value in that choice.

I'm not sure what you mean Paul. "Choosing a belief in a factual manner" Could you elaborate on what that means. Analogy maybe? One has to include the context of any verse - for it is easy to pluck a line from the bible and form a doctrine. Especially to arrive at the works = faith/belief/salvation/damnation doctrine. But only by ignoring the bits that show it is not.There are two types contrasted in the NT (and in the OT but less clearly) Righteous/Unrighteous, Saved/Unsaved In Adam/In Christ, Citizens of heaven/non-citizens of heaven, sons/enemies. In deciding how things like law and obedience work one has to understand the position and characteristics of the person who is being addressed. A particular item, say Law, has different connotations for one that the other.I'm wondering how to put a nihilistic slant on this....