Does Theism Lead to Nihilism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Inspired by this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/does-atheism-lead-to-nihilism.191318/

Not all theism, but some... particularly the beliefs of certain mainstream Abrahamic groups.

From Wikipedia:

Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

Now... consider whether this passage suggests any intrinsic value or purpose in human beings:

Romans 9:20-21:
"20 But who indeed are you—a mere human being—to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?"

If our value and purpose is based on nothing more than the whims of God, can we really have objective value and purpose?

Consider also Divine Command Theory:

Various forms of divine command theory have been presented by philosophers including William of Ockham, St Augustine, Duns Scotus, and John Calvin. The theory generally teaches that moral truth does not exist independently of God and that morality is determined by divine commands. Stronger versions of the theory assert that God's command is the only reason that a good action is moral, while weaker variations cast divine command as a vital component within a greater reason.[3] The theory asserts that good actions are morally good as a result of their being commanded by God, and many religious believers subscribe to some form of divine command theory.[4] Because of these premises, adherents believe that moral obligation is obedience to God's commands; what is morally right is what God desires.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory

If morality is contrived by God, then morality is contrived. If morality is subjective to God, then morality is not ultimately objective.

I know not all theists ascribe to these ideas, but many do. Those who do: how do you avoid nihilism... or do you?

 

[निताइ dasa]

How do you define objective morality? I disagree with your position, but I think it due to different definitions of these concepts.

My definition of objective morality is a morality which exists independently of moral agents and is not dependent on their perceptions or beliefs. If God is the author and enforcer of moral laws (which is usually implied in many monotheistic religions) and He Himself is not a moral agent (also a common assumption) then morality which is created or based upon God is objective (because it exists independently of us moral agents). In other words, what a moral agent thinks is right or wrong, has no connection with what is objectively right or wrong. Just because it may be subjective to God, does not mean anything here, because God is not a moral agent. He is the author of morality. And the other hand, if God's moral laws are based on a higher standard (which is the other interpretation of DCT), then that also means that morality is objective. This how I understand it.

My view of course is a bit different. In which God Himself (i.e the attainment of God) is the goal of morality. Morality is based upon God, but at the same time steers clear of being whimsical.

Also remember nihilism does not mean "no objective morality". It is a stance which rejects all notions of morality and purpose (whether subjective and objective) as nothing has meaning apart from what is created. Nietzsche in his writings not only argues that all values are meaningless, but he actively rejects these values. Hence why Nihilism is often associated with an pessimistic view of existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you define objective morality?

Objective: independent of all observers.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong.

I disagree with your position, but I think it due to different definitions of these concepts.

My definition of objective morality is a morality which exists independently of moral agents and is not dependent on their perceptions or beliefs. If God is the author and enforcer of moral laws (which is usually implied in many monotheistic religions) and He Himself is not a moral agent (also a common assumption) then morality which is created or based upon God is objective (because it exists independently of us moral agents).

Why wouldn't God be a moral agent?

In other words, what a moral agent thinks is right or wrong, has no connection with what is objectively right or wrong. Just because it may be subjective to God, does not mean anything here, because God is not a moral agent. He is the author of morality. And the other hand, if God's moral laws are based on a higher standard (which is the other interpretation of DCT), then that also means that morality is objective. This how I understand it.

No - that's the opposite of Divine Command Theory. If morality is derived from standards external to God, then those standards are the ultimate source of morality, not God.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Objective: independent of all observers.

My definition is: independent to all relevant observers. When discussing morality and whether it is objective or not, we must limit our scope to moral agents only because moral laws only act upon them. When a there is a certain set of principles that apply to a certain group, it would make sense to evaluate those principles in reference to that group.

Why wouldn't God be a moral agent?

Because many religions (even Abhrahamics) believe that God is above morality by definition (being both its author and enforcer). A more reasoned explanation would be that moral laws only apply to a certain group of objects (in Abrahamic religions this is usually humans, not animals or inanimate objects). God is not human, therefore He is not a moral agent.

No - that's the opposite of Divine Command Theory. If morality is derived from standards external to God, then those standards are the ultimate source of morality, not God.

There are two horns of opposition to the DCT and theists usually have two responses. You are right, one of them is precisely that morality is defined off God's commands. The other view however is that God commands something because it holds to an external standard which only He can recognize (being omniscient etc).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have found the idea that theism leads to nihilism to be a very difficult sell here. Me, I take it a step further by pointing out they (particularly Abrahamic religions) paint this life to be ugly, nasty, and they place hopes on something they can only hope comes after death. They squander and deny this life, do not seek out meaning and purpose for themselves, and wait for a life that probably won't even come (with a good number insisting they would so sorely rather be there than here). Does it get anymore nihilist than that?

 

[Rival]

Is it moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it's moral? comes to mind here also.

 

[Rival]

I'm confused. First you say:

I have found the idea that theism leads to nihilism to be a very difficult sell here.

Then you say:

Does it get anymore nihilist than that?

?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm confused. First you say:


Then you say:


?

It would help if you read the sentences in between

 

[Rival]

It would help if you read the sentences in between

Still makes no sense? It reads to me like SW says it's hard to make theism lead to nihilism, then gives a view totally contrary.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Still makes no sense? It reads to me like SW says it's hard to make theism lead to nihilism, then gives a view totally contrary.

I think SW is saying she finds it hard to believe that theism in general leads to nihilism and her 'taking it a step further' would be to be much more specific with such an accusation - as in narrowing it down to a specific group of theistic beliefs i.e. the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Rival]

I think SW is saying she finds it hard to believe that theism in general leads to nihilism and her 'taking it a step further' would be to be much more specific with such an accusation - as in narrowing it down to a specific group of theistic beliefs i.e. the Abrahamic faiths.

But the OP already narrowed it down.

 

[Windwalker]

If morality is contrived by God, then morality is contrived. If morality is subjective to God, then morality is not ultimately objective.

But by definition God is seen as the Absolute. That would make it ultimately objective according to those who see God as the source of moral law. God is seen as unchanging, not full of subjective whims. They see those moral laws like the laws of physics, built into the foundations of the universe itself. I have different views that this myself of course, but that's the basic argument on their part.

Could this stance lead to nihilism if say someone lost their faith? If God no longer existed to them, would they throw all moral standards to the wind and become lawless? That certainly is the argument that many theists themselves make! I wonder why? How many times do you hear them say if someone doesn't believe in God then there would be no reason for them not just kill someone?

This argument has always mystified me as to what they are saying about themselves! Is the only reason they are nice to other people because they're being threatened by God? This is NOT the kind of person I want to know, who secretly hates others but is good because God scares them straight. That is not a moral person. I think they fear a complete abyss of themselves without this externalized entity holding them in check because they have a lack of any substantive self-knowledge. In reality if they did lose their faith, they are still moral people because that is not where their morality comes from.

 

[LuisDantas]

Spontaneous theism is perhaps unlikely to lead to nihilism.

But the proselitism of Christians and Muslims quite often teaches and even demands nihilism as the expected alternative to theism.

Out of peer pressure and social acceptance alone, I would say that it can easily lead to nihilism as a result. At least to those who are not naturally inclined to theism to begin with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it's moral? comes to mind here also.

If it's moral because God commands it, then morality isn't objective to God, and therefore not objective in general.

 

[Rival]

If it's moral because God commands it, then morality isn't objective to God, and therefore not objective in general.

Exactly.

 

[Windwalker]

If it's moral because God commands it, then morality isn't objective to God, and therefore not objective in general.

That would assume God is not Absolute, that there is something outside God. Most theologies don't teach that.

 

[Kirran]

But by definition God is seen as the Absolute. That would make it ultimately objective according to those who see God as the source of moral law. God is seen as unchanging, not full of subjective whims. They see those moral laws like the laws of physics, built into the foundations of the universe itself. I have different views that this myself of course, but that's the basic argument on their part.

What do you think then Windwalker?

 

[Willamena]

But by definition God is seen as the Absolute. That would make it ultimately objective according to those who see God as the source of moral law. God is seen as unchanging, not full of subjective whims... If God no longer existed to them, would they throw all moral standards to the wind and become lawless? That certainly is the argument that many theists themselves make! I wonder why? How many times do you hear them say if someone doesn't believe in God then there would be no reason for them not just kill someone?

This argument has always mystified me as to what they are saying about themselves! Is the only reason they are nice to other people because they're being threatened by God? This is NOT the kind of person I want to know, who secretly hates others but is good because God scares them straight. That is not a moral person...

I think perhaps you are looking at the wrong "thing that it says about them." They are not distinct from God, God is all. They are no more exempt from divine command than they are from God. So how is the divine command communicated? The "little voice" of conscience, the instinct that reaches to care about another, the affection that warms the heart, the stray thought that stays the hand. A million times a day we obey such command, it is written into the metaphorical fabric of the universe, of which we are integral. Now, try to fit a man "with no God" into that universe...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My definition is: independent to all relevant observers.

But your explanation ends up being circular: "God's not relevant because God's not relevant."

Because many religions (even Abhrahamics) believe that God is above morality by definition (being both its author and enforcer).

The are cases where human beings are both authors and enforcers of laws, but are still subject to them, so I don't think this argument works.

Also, we're not talking about law; we're talking about morality: right and wrong. "What is legal" isn't necessarily the same as "what is right."

A more reasoned explanation would be that moral laws only apply to a certain group of objects (in Abrahamic religions this is usually humans, not animals or inanimate objects). God is not human, therefore He is not a moral agent.

That doesn't follow. None of the reasons why animals don't have obligations under the law apply to God.

And again: we're talking about morality, not laws.

There are two horns of opposition to the DCT and theists usually have two responses. You are right, one of them is precisely that morality is defined off God's commands. The other view however is that God commands something because it holds to an external standard which only He can recognize (being omniscient etc).

Again: that "other view" isn't Divine Command Theory.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm confused. First you say:

I have taken the side here in the past that some religions are the real nihilists, and it's not a very popular thought here.

Then you say:

That is because when they degrade and devalue this life and would rather this life end so they can be in their religion's afterlife (Philippians 1:23), it's nihilism, as the ultimate goal isn't to live but to die.