nihilism

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

What you mean by nihilist, and what is most often meant by it, is actually a pretty bold assertion. It is the assertion that life has no meaning. Not that you do not know what the meaning is, or not sure whether life has meaning or not; no it is asserting definitely that life has no meaning.

And then asserting what you really mean by this is that, going all the way back to what you have no definitive grasp regarding how or why the human species exists at all, and given your own teeny, tiny speck of existence going all the way back to the stupefying vastness of "all there is"...?

Then the part where some here will confuse their very own self-righteous One True Path to Enlightenment with, what, an ontological and teleological meaning and purpose for...everything? The Ayn Rand mentality? The "it's in the Bible" mentality? The manifesto mentality? The "genes are us" mentality? In fact, the more you think these dogmas through the more preposterous they become. If only because there are hundreds of them from which to choose. And, in my view, it's the "psychology of objectivism" that motivates them by and large. It's not what you believe so much as that you believe what you believe really, really is the ticket to a comforting and consoling life.

And death?

Also, this is not asserting that a particular life does not have any meaning; it is asserting that no human lives have any meaning. Nothing in this world matters. Whether you torture a puppy or refrain from doing so is of equal value according to this position, because there is no such thing as value.

Of course: the distinction between existential meaning derived from our day-to-day interactions with others...meaning that all accept as the objective truth...and an essential truth that all of our subjective opinions can [philosophically or otherwise] be reasoned back to. It's just that for the objectivists among us this distinction is rejected.

[Iwannaplato]

What you mean by nihilist, and what is most often meant by it, is actually a pretty bold assertion. It is the assertion that life has no meaning. Not that you do not know what the meaning is, or not sure whether life has meaning or not; no it is asserting definitely that life has no meaning.

]And then asserting what you really mean by this is that, going all the way back to what you have no definitive grasp regarding how or why the human species exists at all, and given your own teeny, tiny speck of existence going all the way back to the stupefying vastness of "all there is"...?

Then the part where some here will confuse their very own self-righteous One True Path to Enlightenment with, what, an ontological and teleological meaning and purpose for...everything? The Ayn Rand mentality? The "it's in the Bible" mentality? The manifesto mentality? The "genes are us" mentality? In fact, the more you think these dogmas through the more preposterous they become. If only because there are hundreds of them from which to choose. And, in my view, it's the "psychology of objectivism" that motivates them by and large. It's not what you believe so much as that you believe what you believe really, really is the ticket to a comforting and consoling life.

Nothing here that responds to the point he was making.

Also, this is not asserting that a particular life does not have any meaning; it is asserting that no human lives have any meaning. Nothing in this world matters. Whether you torture a puppy or refrain from doing so is of equal value according to this position, because there is no such thing as value.

Of course: the distinction between existential meaning derived from our day-to-day interactions with others...meaning that all accept as the objective truth...and an essential truth that all of our subjective opinions can [philosophically or otherwise] be reasoned back to. It's just that for the objectivists among us this distinction is rejected.

Actually, every time you use the 'but you or I may think this only because we had to competelled by causes and effects going back to the Big Bang,' that distinction is rejected. So, you and the objectivist reject the distinction, though in different ways. In addition, they are consistant. You are not. Sometimes you assert the distinction, as you do here. Other times you close off a discussion with an 'argument' that denies the distinction. A left hand doesn't know... situation.

And, again, you didn't respond to him. His post reminded you of related issues, and you repeated points you've made again and again.

I know, it's gauche to point this all out. But I can't help it, you know, Big Bang. I hope unlike objectivist Christians, you'll give me a pass and not call me a Stooge, since you know I might be compelled. Call this giving me a pass...moderation.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

The problem with this assertion [above], as with most philosophically skeptical positions, is that it is asserting too much. By asserting that life has no meaning, you are also implicitly stating that you know what would give life meaning.

Too much...or too little? All the more reason to bring discussions revolving around philosophical skepticism down to Earth. What in particular are you skeptical about given your day to day interactions with others?

And perhaps there are some here who believe particular nihilists have convinced themselves there is an underlying meaning embedded in human interactions. But I'm not one of them. Or, rather, not "here and now". My contention is that in the absence of God I have not myself personally come upon the philosopohical or scientific -- or social, political and economic -- equivalent of Him.

Think you've found it? Then let's get started.

In order to get to this idea, simply ask the nihilist: “Why [do] human lives not have any meaning?” In this case the nihilist will most likely give one of the following answers:

“Well there is no God, so nothing matters”
“Nothing we value now, will not inevitably end when we die”
“The sun is going to burn out, so all humans will become extinct anyway”
“We are just chemical meat machines”
“Morality does not exist, it is just a human creation”
“The universe doesn’t care about me, or any other human beings”

The problem with all of these answers is that none of the intuitions behind them are any ground upon closer inspection.

That may well be your problem with them too, but I'm still more inclined to suggest that even your own "intuitions" here are no less derived existentially from dasein. And that none of our "closer inspections" seem able to establish objective morality much beyond positing one or another "my way or the highway" One True Path. Then "the gap" and Rummy's Rule.

[iambiguous]

What you mean by nihilist, and what is most often meant by it, is actually a pretty bold assertion. It is the assertion that life has no meaning. Not that you do not know what the meaning is, or not sure whether life has meaning or not; no it is asserting definitely that life has no meaning.

And then asserting what you really mean by this is that, going all the way back to what you have no definitive grasp regarding how or why the human species exists at all, and given your own teeny, tiny speck of existence going all the way back to the stupefying vastness of "all there is"...?

Then the part where some here will confuse their very own self-righteous One True Path to Enlightenment with, what, an ontological and teleological meaning and purpose for...everything? The Ayn Rand mentality? The "it's in the Bible" mentality? The manifesto mentality? The "genes are us" mentality? In fact, the more you think these dogmas through the more preposterous they become. If only because there are hundreds of them from which to choose. And, in my view, it's the "psychology of objectivism" that motivates them by and large. It's not what you believe so much as that you believe what you believe really, really is the ticket to a comforting and consoling life.

Nothing here that responds to the point he was making.

On the other hand, perhaps the problem is that the author is making a point that I am convinced ignores important points that I am making. Points that "here and now" I am convinced are crucial in discussing human interactions in a No God world. But even here I am quick to point out there may well be a God, the God...and thus access to objective morality. Also, that, philosophically, moral objectivists such as Plato, Descartes, Kant, etc., posited a critical transcending font [which most call God]. Take Him out of the picture and then what?

Believe that there is one? Well, let's get started.

Also, this is not asserting that a particular life does not have any meaning; it is asserting that no human lives have any meaning. Nothing in this world matters. Whether you torture a puppy or refrain from doing so is of equal value according to this position, because there is no such thing as value.

Of course: the distinction between existential meaning derived from our day-to-day interactions with others...meaning that all accept as the objective truth...and an essential truth that all of our subjective opinions can [philosophically or otherwise] be reasoned back to. It's just that for the objectivists among us this distinction is rejected.

Actually, every time you use the 'but you or I may think this only because we had to competelled by causes and effects going back to the Big Bang,' that distinction is rejected.

For nihilists of my ilk, however, a "leap of faith" "here and now" is made to determinism. Thus if "I" am correct about human autonomy [the lack thereof] then whether I am correct about human morality is moot. Then back to how I am unable to posit anything here my brain does not compel me to posit. How, according to particular compatibilists among us, I am still responsible for positing it anyway.

So, you and the objectivist reject the distinction, though in different ways. In addition, they are consistant. You are not. Sometimes you assert the distinction, as you do here. Other times you close off a discussion with an 'argument' that denies the distinction. A left hand doesn't know... situation.

Again -- click -- let's bring these points down out of the philosophical clouds. Mary and Jane. Assuming some measure of autonomy in a No God universe, how do philosophers [or scientists] go about establishing meaning in human interactions such that an essential, objective, one size fits all, universal morality is within the reach of mere mortals the next time [here in America] arguments are made at the Supreme Court?

I know, it's gauche to point this all out. But I can't help it, you know, Big Bang. I hope unlike objectivist Christians, you'll give me a pass and not call me a Stooge, since you know I might be compelled. Call this giving me a pass...moderation.

Not to worry. We are all off the hook here if how I have come to understand all of this is correct.

If everything that we think and feel and say and do we are never able not to think and feel and say and do....?

Talk about spooky!

[Iwannaplato]

t's OK, Iambiguous. YOu don't need to respond to my posts. I rarely find your responses actually intregrate what I write in them.
I often findthat you don't really respond to (or read?) our posts or even the posts of writers you quote.
You often think my reactions to your posts are problematic in a variety of ways.
So, my suggestion is you post however you like and ignore me.
I'll occasionally respond to posts where either I think there is something interesting and/or I think you are misreading what you quote.
This will keep our interactions to a minimum., which I think is best.
I will unilaterally continue with this as a plan.
You're obviously free (or compelled) to do whatever you want.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

So let’s pick them a part one at a time:

Well there is no God, so nothing matters. This is implicitly saying that if there was a God, then you would think that life would matter

Of course: What matters to whom and in what set of circumstances? Who in their right mind would ever argue that nothing matters? If nothing else, you can always ask yourself if that matters. Instead, many are confronted with their own speck of existence in the vastness of "all there is". They feel a need to somehow connect their own individual insignificance to an essential or universal meaning that encompasses, well, everything. After all, isn't that the antidote of choice for those who connect the dots further to immortality and salvation?

Yet even in regard to God, there are are so many renditions of Him. And with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, how can it not be absolutely vital that your God is the God?

As for this...

Suppose a higher intelligent being appeared on earth and explained that she had created the universe, and then moved on to explain to us humans that the meaning of life is to rape. That’s right, thou shalt rape! Would that suddenly make raping a meaningful pass time? Of course not.

Of course not? Either this God is dead serious when She announces that rape is the meaning of life, or She isn't. And by dead serious I mean that those who worship and adore Her either will or will not be confronted on Judgment Day.

And if the God said that we ought to be good to each other, then that would be meaningful but that’s because we would agree with that statement, not because it was stated by the God.

And, in regard to all of the conflicting goods that continue to plague the species thousands of years after the invention of philosophy...? Also, given all of the many, many One True Paths encompassing what it means to "do the right thing", what about all of the behaviors that prompt fierce disagreements instead?

I should add that I do not think that people who believe in God necessarily are absurd in their belief in God; I just I don’t think that a God is necessary or even sufficient for meaning or value.

What this revolves around by and large, in my view, is the fact that not a single religious denomination has ever actually demonstrated the existence of a God, the God, their God. So, they can say almost anything about Him or Her. They merely have to have faith. Or quote Scripture.

[Iwannaplato]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

So let’s pick them a part one at a time:

Well there is no God, so nothing matters. This is implicitly saying that if there was a God, then you would think that life would matter

Of course: What matters to whom and in what set of circumstances? Who in their right mind would ever argue that nothing matters? If nothing else, you can always ask yourself if that matters. Instead, many are confronted with their own speck of existence in the vastness of "all there is". They feel a need to somehow connect their own individual insignificance to an essential or universal meaning that encompasses, well, everything. After all, isn't that the antidote of choice for those who connect the dots further to immortality and salvation?

Yet even in regard to God, there are are so many renditions of Him. And with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, how can it not be absolutely vital that your God is the God?

As for this...

Suppose a higher intelligent being appeared on earth and explained that she had created the universe, and then moved on to explain to us humans that the meaning of life is to rape. That’s right, thou shalt rape! Would that suddenly make raping a meaningful pass time? Of course not.

Of course not? Either this God is dead serious when She announces that rape is the meaning of life, or She isn't. And by dead serious I mean that those who worship and adore Her either will or will not be confronted on Judgment Day.

And if the God said that we ought to be good to each other, then that would be meaningful but that’s because we would agree with that statement, not because it was stated by the God.

And, in regard to all of the conflicting goods that continue to plague the species thousands of years after the invention of philosophy...? Also, given all of the many, many One True Paths encompassing what it means to "do the right thing", what about all of the behaviors that prompt fierce disagreements instead?

I should add that I do not think that people who believe in God necessarily are absurd in their belief in God; I just I don’t think that a God is necessary or even sufficient for meaning or value.

What this revolves around by and large, in my view, is the fact that not a single religious denomination has ever actually demonstrated the existence of a God, the God, their God. So, they can say almost anything about Him or Her. They merely have to have faith. Or quote Scripture.

Again, not quite getting the point. I believe you have framed the issue in part as sans God, how can we have meaning. The implication has been that if there was a God, and we could somehow know this deities thoughts or wishes, then we would have meaning or morality. But no, unless, one is willing to do what one thinks is horrific, such as rape, because God said it was good. If so, then a deity might resolve for that person, morality.

His point is that God doesn't resolve the issue, at least for people who would refuse to rape. And then the point with the God that says be nice to each other, well, if that fits in some way your already existant morality, then, you didn't really need God for that.

So, he's challenging the notion that God somehow resolves our task of choosing what we think is good or want to do or prefer as a society, etc.

It doesn't matter that you see all these paths and no way to figure out which one. That's a false issue, he's saying. Even if you could know which one you'd still have to decide yourself what is moral or how you want to treat people.

Or, your just doing those acts - if it's a deontological religion - that get you on God's good side. That's practical, but it's hardly morality.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

Nothing we value now, will not inevitably end when we die

This I guess is debatable.

You bet your life it is.

I mean although I will not experience love myself when I die, love will likely live on without me.

This is really what it often comes down to...being able to "think yourself" into believing things like this. And when you are able to accomplish this [as many here have] you may well manage to embrace and then sustain this comforting and consoling frame of mind all the way to the grave.

And God surely knows I wish I could. If there is, one.

Yes, love and sex and friendship and family and music and film and food and all of the other things you cherish in life may be gone forever, but that's just for you. Others are still around reveling in them.

Again, if this works in providing you with peace of mind then that's all that matters, right? No, you can't actually demonstrate that what you believe about all this is true, but that's the beauty of the human condition...you don't have to!

You simply believe it? Absolutely. If you are able to convince yourself of something and, in believing it, it motivates your behaviors, isn't that always the bottom line? After all, it's your behaviors that will precipitate consequences.

At best, you might manage to configure your thinking here around something like this...

Anyway, it is true that the activity of me valuing things will end when I die. But so what? Me enjoying a nice piece of cake will also end when the cake is finished, yet the fact that I finished the cake took nothing from the value I received while I ate the cake.

On the other hand, you can always cut yourself another slice of cake. Once you've live your life, however, it's either praise the Lord or nothingness

Why should I only value eating a piece of cake if me eating the cake never ended? Upon reflection, this assertion that, that which we engage in is meaningless because it ends at some point in the distant future, is an absurd idea.

Of course, it's not an absurd idea at all for others. In fact, why on Earth do you suppose so many Gods were invented if not to assure the flocks that human life itself is meaningful for all of eternity. For millions, therefore, everything they think feel, say and do revolves around eating their cake and having it too until...the end of time?

On the other hand, existential meaning...?

Well, click, of course.

[iambiguous]

Again, not quite getting the point. I believe you have framed the issue in part as sans God, how can we have meaning. The implication has been that if there was a God, and we could somehow know this deities thoughts or wishes, then we would have meaning or morality.

No, it's more along the lines of, "how can we embody an essential meaning and purpose in living our lives such that through God we acquire both moral commandments and immortality and salvation".

The whole point of religion, some argue, is to provide us with an ontological and a teleological foundation. That way we're not stuck with "shit happens". That way we can subsume the "brutal facticity" of human existence in one or another One True Path.

But no, unless, one is willing to do what one thinks is horrific, such as rape, because God said it was good. If so, then a deity might resolve for that person, morality.

Exactly. Now, in regard to any number of human behaviors that precipitate conflicts [up to and including actual world wars] who gets to decide which behaviors are or are not horrific? Clearly, some behaviors like rape generate a more overwhelming consensus: it's immoral. But other issues like abortion will find millions insisting that killing human babies is horrific while millions more will insist that forcing pregnant women to bring a clump of cells to term is horrific.

My point though is that in the absence of God, how would philosophers go about establishing that it is inherently, necessarily, objectively, deontologically immoral?

Explain that to the sociopaths, to the psychopaths, to those who have actually been able to defend rape [to themselves] given their assessment of gender roles and "biological imperatives".

His point is that God doesn't resolve the issue, at least for people who would refuse to rape. And then the point with the God that says be nice to each other, well, if that fits in some way your already existant morality, then, you didn't really need God for that.

Okay, but what do any number religious folks here then tell us? Well, some assure us that only their own One True Path will provide us with the most enlightened frame of mind. After all, how can it not when it is in sync with an omniscient and omnipotent God. Or the No God philosophical/ideological equivalent of it.

In other words, the "or else" part?

Again, with God [most of them] there is no question of what either is or is not a Sin. Also, there's no possibility of anyone ever getting away with anything. Finally, there is no possibility that Divine Justice will not prevail.

So, he's challenging the notion that God somehow resolves our task of choosing what we think is good or want to do or prefer as a society, etc.

Well, from my frame of mind, given my own personal experiences, the real world doesn't work that way for most religionists. Instead, they are adamant that only their own Scriptures resolve conflicts revolving around good and evil. You simply do not challenge God.

It doesn't matter that you see all these paths and no way to figure out which one. That's a false issue, he's saying. Even if you could know which one you'd still have to decide yourself what is moral or how you want to treat people.

Uh, tell that to the hardcore moral and political and spiritual objectivists here? Tell them that their own dogmas are really just existential contraptions rooted in dasein?

[Iwannaplato]

No, it's more along the lines of, "how can we embody an essential meaning and purpose in living our lives such that through God we acquire both moral commandments and immortality and salvation".

The whole point of religion, some argue, is to provide us with an ontological and a teleological foundation. That way we're not stuck with "shit happens". That way we can subsume the "brutal facticity" of human existence in one or another One True Path.

But, again. The article is suggestion that we face the same problem with or without God. Even if there is a God we believe in we still have to take a stand on that deity's morals. You may not agree, but so far I don't see you responding to that.

But no, unless, one is willing to do what one thinks is horrific, such as rape, because God said it was good. If so, then a deity might resolve for that person, morality.

Exactly. Now, in regard to any number of human behaviors that precipitate conflicts [up to and including actual world wars] who gets to decide which behaviors are or are not horrific? Clearly, some behaviors like rape generate a more overwhelming consensus: it's immoral. But other issues like abortion will find millions insisting that killing human babies is horrific while millions more will insist that forcing pregnant women to bring a clump of cells to term is horrific.

You start with 'Exactly' but what follows is not about the point he is making. He's presenting the situation where God says rape is Good. You know or believe it is God and God tells you rape is good. I chose God because I assume you are anti-rape. My/His point is that, ok, you have a deity telling you this is not only permitted by something you should do. Do you do it? Sans God, Avec God, you still have a moral choice and morality is not clear at that point. I mean, unless you already think rape is good. But something else may be problematic for you. Of course some people simply do what they are told.

My point though is that in the absence of God, how would philosophers go about establishing that it is inherently, necessarily, objectively, deontologically immoral?

I know. And his point is in the PRESENCE of God, how would philosophers go about establishing that it is inherently, necessarily, objectively, deontologically immoral? What if God is a monster (to you)?

Again, you may not agree, but so far you haven't responded. You have presented why there is a problem proving the above in the absence of a God. He is raising the issue that even with a God present, the issue is not resolved.

Okay, but what do any number religious folks here then tell us? Well, some assure us that only their own One True Path will provide us with the most enlightened frame of mind. After all, how can it not when it is in sync with an omniscient and omnipotent God. Or the No God philosophical/ideological equivalent of it.

So, if somehow you came to believe in God, and that God wanted you to rape, you would?

Again, with God [most of them] there is no question of what either is or is not a Sin. Also, there's no possibility of anyone ever getting away with anything. Finally, there is no possibility that Divine Justice will not prevail.

But will it be moral? Oh, you're God, ok, I'll have sex with my infant daughter cause you said it was the right thing to do.

So, he's challenging the notion that God somehow resolves our task of choosing what we think is good or want to do or prefer as a society, etc.

Well, from my frame of mind, given my own personal experiences, the real world doesn't work that way for most religionists.

I am quite sure he understands that. But that doesn't mean you or I must think that way. People used to think Kings had divine right. Then someone came along and questioned that. Here he is questioning the idea that, yes, many religionists have, that one simply follows God's rules. I don't think that's a group you allow to control your thinking.

People skip steps all the time, that doesn't mean we have to. When you say we are in a situation sans God and it is specific to that situation and isn't present Avec God, you are now agreeing with the religionists on this issue. You're not convinced there is a deity or which one or how to figure that all out. But you are agreeing. The problem is present for those without God. If you know there's a God, the problem is over. You can just do what God says.

He is arguing, no. You may agree or you may not. But saying that religionists believe there is a difference isn't a response to his argument.

Uh, tell that to the hardcore moral and political and spiritual objectivists here? Tell them that their own dogmas are really just existential contraptions rooted in dasein?

OK, so you agree they are right about that part. If you believe in God and God says X is good you should just do it. There cannot be a moral dillemma there.

You're telling me to change other people's minds. I'm saying you didn't counter his argument, unless you are making an ad populum argument.

A lot of your posts, including in this thread, are about your particular predicament. And here you have written as if that predicament is contigent on you lacking a belief in God. But it's not. You still have a dilemma, even if you believe in God. Yes. religionists don't want to look at that. But that's a different issue.

[iambiguous]

No, it's more along the lines of, "how can we embody an essential meaning and purpose in living our lives such that through God we acquire both moral commandments and immortality and salvation".

The whole point of religion, some argue, is to provide us with an ontological and a teleological foundation. That way we're not stuck with "shit happens". That way we can subsume the "brutal facticity" of human existence in one or another One True Path.

But, again. The article is suggestion that we face the same problem with or without God. Even if there is a God we believe in we still have to take a stand on that deity's morals. You may not agree, but so far I don't see you responding to that.

Again...

With God [most of them] you acquire both an omniscient and an omnipotent One True Path. With God [most of them] you acquire both moral commandments and immortality and salvation.

In my view, there's simply no comparison between human morality in a God world and human morality in a No God world. No God and you can shift the focus from doing the right thing [re Judgment Day] to not getting caught doing what others insist is the wrong thing. Then cue the sociopaths and those who own and operate the global economy.

And, yeah, even though this God -- one demonstrated to actually exist -- can drag you to Hell, you still have the option of tellin Her to fuck off.

Just for the record:

If anyone here manages to convince me that their own One True Path to God and salvation is the Real Deal, I'm born again.

But no, unless, one is willing to do what one thinks is horrific, such as rape, because God said it was good. If so, then a deity might resolve for that person, morality.

Exactly. Now, in regard to any number of human behaviors that precipitate conflicts [up to and including actual world wars] who gets to decide which behaviors are or are not horrific? Clearly, some behaviors like rape generate a more overwhelming consensus: it's immoral. But other issues like abortion will find millions insisting that killing human babies is horrific while millions more will insist that forcing pregnant women to bring a clump of cells to term is horrific.

You start with 'Exactly' but what follows is not about the point he is making.

That again. There is the author's point as you correctly understand and react to it and the author's point as I incorrectly understand and react to it. Which from my frame of mind is rooted far, far more in dasein existentially than in anything philosophers have "thought up" over the centuries.

He's presenting the situation where God says rape is Good. You know or believe it is God and God tells you rape is good.

Then around and around we go. The real deal God reveals Herself to the world. She is omniscient so it is a given that rape is good. Why? Because the one all-knowing entity in the universe says that it is.

Yes -- click -- we are still free to "somehow" transcend Her omniscience and acquire free will, so, sure, some mere mortals may indeed actually choose to tell Her she is wrong about rape.

Or...rape Her?

I chose God because I assume you are anti-rape.

No, what I assume here [and that's all it is, my own personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein "here and now"] is that in a No God world, there does not appear to be a way for philosophers or scientists to provide us with a deontological/objective/essential assessment of rape. It is neither necessarily moral nor immoral.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong and someone here can link me to the definitive assessment.

In other words, this part:

This [the abuse of children] comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or, as I once did as a kid, defending racism, sexism and heterosexism. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?

My/His point is that, ok, you have a deity telling you this is not only permitted by something you should do. Do you do it?

And what does this take us back to but "or else". And the age old debate regarding whether God is moral because She is God or because even God is necessarily in sync with the laws of nature.

My point though is that in the absence of God, how would philosophers go about establishing that it is inherently, necessarily, objectively, deontologically immoral?

I know. And his point is in the PRESENCE of God, how would philosophers go about establishing that it is inherently, necessarily, objectively, deontologically immoral? What if God is a monster (to you)?

Look, some may be able to compare sins against God with mere mortals breaking the laws of man...but I'm not one of them. Clearly this all comes down to how one has come to understand God, Scripture, Commandments and Judgment Day. Though, sure, we can agree to disagree about that.

With an omniscient and omnipotent God, there's no question regarding how anything is resolved. Her way here in regard to rape. If someone is faced with accepting the wrath of God if they didn't construe rape as She did and are willing to accept either oblivion or Hell as a punishment, yeah, let them exercise their freedom to challenge God.

Okay, but what do any number religious folks here then tell us? Well, some assure us that only their own One True Path will provide us with the most enlightened frame of mind. After all, how can it not when it is in sync with an omniscient and omnipotent God. Or the No God philosophical/ideological equivalent of it.

So, if somehow you came to believe in God, and that God wanted you to rape, you would?

Well, first of course, I would ask Her why She believes this. Just how "mysterious" are her ways? Also, if She is omniscient how could She not be correct about, well, everything?

If, after She explains this all to me and reminds me again that I can accept it or not but if I don't, it's eternal damnation? Yeah, faced with that I would.

I think the real quandary here, however, is this: that we find out, indeed, She is a sadistic monster. And we have to become a sadistic monsters ourselves or face oblivion/damnation.

What then?

Again, with God [most of them] there is no question of what either is or is not a Sin. Also, there's no possibility of anyone ever getting away with anything. Finally, there is no possibility that Divine Justice will not prevail.

But will it be moral? Oh, you're God, ok, I'll have sex with my infant daughter cause you said it was the right thing to do.

With religion it's not what we can demonstrate is moral but simply what we believe is. If you believe that God embodies "right makes might" then over and over again you accept His/her moral commandments given those "mysterious ways". Or if you believe God embodies "might makes right" you might not want to do what God commands, but you don't want go to Hell or stumble over into the abyss that is oblivion either.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

The sun is going to burn out, so all humans will become extinct anyway

This mirrors the above intuition. Imagine standing in front of a child drowning in a pond (yes Singer’s example), and when the child screams for help you respond: “Well the sun is going to burn out in 4 billion years so you might as well die now”. Or, I recognize that I could stop a person from torturing a baby, but the sun is going to burn out anyway, so who cares.

This idea is absolute nonsense at best, and willfully evil at worst. Further elaborations really should not be needed.

You can't actually dismiss this however because it may well be true. And eventually for each and every one of us it will be true. But it's one of those truths that have almost nothing to do with how most of us think about death. For me, death is comforting in the sense that it is always an option. What if I had to endure accumulating mental, emotional and physical pain such that I was in sheer agony day after day after day...but I could not die.

As for those "elaborations", what about mine?

We are just chemical meat machines

In other words, all of us, not just henry quirk.

True, and those chemical machines created art, poetry, music and smartphones. Those chemical machines experience love and have the capacity to care about other chemical machines.

And, indeed, I'm more than capable myself of acknowledging that part of me which recognizes just how extraordinary mental matter can be. There's just no way [still] that I can figure out how to pin down unequivocally if I do have autonomy. In fact, that's why I come here, looking for the argument that does convince me of this. It doesn't even have to be true, does it? I just have to believe that it is like many others do.

And again, what else would you want us to be? Electric computers? Should we be made of lava? I’m open to more interesting suggestions. Until then, I find chemical meat machines pretty spectacular.

Of course, this is but another way of reminding us of "the gap". It's just that when the discussion shifts from describing the way things are to proposing how they ought to be instead, with hard determinism as some understand it, they are interchangeable.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

The basic idea behind this post is pretty simple. We often assert things that intuitively seem right and we therefore never engage with these assertions much further.

Exactly! The “Intrinsic Self” syndrome. The stuff of objectivism. When I propose to some here that over the years they might change their minds about any number of moral and political issues, they might own up to that. Yes, they once believed one thing about a particular moral conflagration, but they agree with me that, okay, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge they might change their minds.

But…

They almost never ever change their minds about things that “deep down inside” them they grasp “intuitively” through this emotional, mystical, spiritual Real Me self.

We may even find other people who assert the same ideas leaving us feeling even more sure as to their accuracy. Often it takes just one thought, from yourself or another person, to expose the flaws behind these intuitions and reflect upon them further.

Then back to the bottom line. Mine, for example.

It’s not what you profess to believe about any of this, it’s what you are able to actually demonstrate is in fact true for all rational men and women.

Instead, the objectivists among us cling to the assumption that there really is this Intrinsic Self “down there” derived from God or one or another ideological One True Path.

Nihilism disturbs people because it’s merely a hop, step and a jump from objectivism to becoming fractured and fragmented. And that is by far, in my view, why people become rattled. After all, given all of the paths there are to choose from in a free will universe, what are the odds that it, really, really is your own that will prevail?

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

The idea I want to end with here is that the assumption that we ought to have ultimate moral commands is an absurd assumption.

Indeed, millions and millions and millions of men and women around the globe who have taken their own leaps of faith to God can attest to that. Ask them how absurd this assumption is. Sure, they’ll fail to produce this God much beyond a leap of faith, but that doesn’t make sustaining their comfort and consolation any less the center of the universe.

It is neither really what we understand about morality, nor is it worth wanting. Thus the whole premise, which the intuition is based on, is flawed to begin with.

Worth wanting or not worth wanting based on what intuitive assumptions? Based further on what particular understanding of what particular moral conflict?

And, clearly, when the moral objectivists among us speak of flaws this invariably revolves around the fact that others refused to share their own dogmas.

An ultimate moral command is a moral command which cannot be questioned. If it could be questioned, and thus explained, it would not be ultimate.

Maybe, but from my own frame of mind, what would make a moral command ultimate is the capacity of those who embrace it to actually demonstrate empirically, experientially and/or experimentally that it is in fact essentially applicable to all rational men and women.

So, how about one of your own “ultimate” conclusions regarding a particular moral conflagration?

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

Morality does not exist, it is just a human creation.

As though the “rules of behavior” that all human communities must eventually come around to – prescriptions/rewards, proscriptions/punishments – can’t be called morality?

As though only philosophers get to define what that really means?

This implies that morality requires something outside the human scope. In this case one would have to ask: “What would morality look like outside of the human scope?”.

Or, perhaps, far more pertinent from my frame of mind, what happens when you inhabit a planet where morality is understood to be objective, but it’s undertood to be objective from literally hundreds and hundreds of at times hopelessly conflicting One True Paths. My way or the highway?

I asked my friend this question recently and got the following imaginative response: “Well, one would need an external being capable of empathizing with every single human being”. I then responded with: “Ok let’s suppose this external being came down to earth and proclaimed that morality is rape: “Thou shalt rape”. Would you then believe that it would be moral to rape?” He then responded: “Well, in that case I wouldn’t rape myself, but I would believe that it was moral”.

First of all, given the human condition as it is “in reality”, what is crucial here is that for the preponderance of us, simply believing something is true about things like rape is what makes it true. I merely suggest instead however that value judgments here are derived from dasein historically, culturally and in regards to our individual experiences.

On the other hand, with God and religion, it gets trickier. Here “leaps of faith” prevail. You believe what you do about rape because you believe that what God believes about rape is what all mere mortals are – in a Kantian sense? – morally obligated to embody.

Then many are taught that, "though we fail to grasp so much about the world we live in, our loving, just and merciful God, despite how mysterious His “ways” might appear to us, is there to provide us with the immortality and the salvation that we need to render oblivion and Hell the place where “one of them” go.