Christian Nihilism
Posted by GraceKathryn on September 15, 2009
If I were not a Christian I would be a nihilist, and I regularly have to keep my natural tendency toward existential nihilism in check. There is a reason Ecclesiastes is my favorite book. It is the most hopeless and nihilistic book in all of scripture. Despite my optimistic, idealistic, and altruistic nature, I thrive on hopelessness and despair.
If you do a quick inventory of my favorite movies (Dogville, Match Point, City of God, 28 Days Later, the Last Kiss, etc), you will see that they are ones in which there is no redemption and where people treat each other callously and without any remorse for the harm they inflict. They often get away completely guilt-free with murder. I would also personally act this way toward others if I truly embraced nihilism, as I am inclined to do – and I know there is real malevolent evil in my heart. That is why those films resonate so personally with me.
In a world completely devoid of any true or ultimate justice, this is truly the way things are. There is no reason at all for a rational person to not act consistently in a manner of complete and total selfishness, even to the point of murder and mean-spirited deception even for entertainment’s sake, so long as it maximizes one’s own rational self-interest. If a person can kill their mistress without getting caught and live with the guilt for the rest of their life because her death will ultimately bring them a far more pleasurable life in the long run (as happens in the plot of one of the films I mentioned above), this is completely morally acceptable. There is NO reason at ALL to condemn this action in the absence of moral values and ultimate justice.
Likewise, in the absence of any moral values or ultimate justice, there is no grounding upon which to condemn infant rape, instrumental rape during war with machetes, brutal female circumcision, animal mutilation and abuse, the torturing and murder of homosexuals going on right now in the middle east and still in our country, generations of racism and violence, or any other heinous and violent act that we consider to be a violation of justice. There is no grounding at all upon which to cry “FOUL!” The best we can do is to say that we just don’t like these acts, but we can never condemn them as truly wrong, because the very concept of ultimate, objective wrong does not even exist.
No humans will ever agree on exactly what actions should be defined as “right” and “wrong” in a moral sense – that has been culturally, religiously, and sociologically dependent even person by person for as long as humans have lived in society together. Even in a marriage no two people are ever going to completely agree on every moral and ethical issue. But if we can’t even agree that the concept of objective, transcendent moral values actually exist (meaning outside of our own collective human consciousness – in other words, outside of our own heads), then we’re really screwed.
I’m not arguing that we should go put up the 10 Commandments at any Capitol buildings. That’s just stupid. My point is much more philosophical and is far broader than any issue that encompasses any religion.
I would be a nihilist if were not a Christian and if I did not believe that objective moral values exist external to the human mind. I do not pass judgment at all on anyone else who believes otherwise, but if I did not believe what I do, I would personally lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, and live my life to fully maximize my own rational self-interest (in other words, completely selfishly). Yes, I might even murder if I thought it would benefit me in some way – and I highly doubt that I would feel a shred of guilt about it. The “guilt gene” seems to have skipped a generation with me. That is why I absolutely love this Aldous Huxley quote (and I also adore Brave New World, incidentally):
I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning–the Christian meaning, they insisted–of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”
[Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, 1937]
Huxley admits that he had reasons (namely his unrestrained sexual freedom) for believing that the world has no meaning. It seems that the Christians are not the only ones who start from a conclusion and then work backward to their premises. They just happen to get accused of it far more often. Hmmm…
The reason I am a Christian is not merely because I am convinced that objective moral values do exist, but also because of what I find to be an encyclopedic body of evidence in support of the basic claims of the faith‡, and because of the absolute lack of coherence and rationality I find in all alternate worldviews that I have explored. I was a sincere agnostic/atheist from about the time I was around 10 yrs old, through my entire teenage years, and into the beginning of my adult life. Not to mention that the horrors of the flipside of the ‘problem of evil’ are almost too much for me to handle. All of this hit me as a 14 year old atheist when I was writing death poetry in my own blood about how we will all ultimately be turned to dust, with no hope and no redemption.
The ‘problem of evil’ in this world is simply not a problem for me and it never was. However, the problem of no ultimate justice for the Holocaust is a HUGE problem for me, and it’s a huge problem for atheists as well. I guess their only answer is, “it sucks to be Jews.” At least believers in some semblance of a justice-fulfilled afterlife have a kind of response.
Additionally, personal experience is not at all why I believe (especially since it all happened after my conversion), but there have been some very odd coincidences in my life since summer 2001 when I officially “converted” or whatever you want to call it. Yes, granted, it is entirely possible that they are all just coincidences, but the statistical improbability of some of the things that have happened (on specific dates, etc) has been very strange.
Anyway, to sum it all up, I’m a Christian who struggles with nihilism. I still struggle with the evil in my own heart and mind and with the idea that I should care about anything in the world at all. Also I know that I am personally capable of truly heinous acts. People are NOT basically good. That statement is complete and total bullshit. I love the MGMT song Time To Pretend because it is sublimely true. The band has managed to write the ultimate anthem to nihilism. Here are the lyrics. Enjoy.
I’m feeling rough, I’m feeling raw, I’m in the prime of my life.
Let’s make some music, make some money, find some models for wives.
I’ll move to Paris, shoot some heroin, and fuck with the stars.
You man the island and the cocaine and the elegant cars.This is our decision, to live fast and die young.
We’ve got the vision, now let’s have some fun.
Yeah, it’s overwhelming, but what else can we do.
Get jobs in offices, and wake up for the morning commute.Forget about our mothers and our friends
We’re fated to pretend
To pretend
We’re fated to pretend
To pretendI’ll miss the playgrounds and the animals and digging up worms.
I’ll miss the comfort of my mother and the weight of the world.
I’ll miss my sister, miss my father, miss my dog and my home.
Yeah, I’ll miss the boredom and the freedom and the time spent alone.But there’s really nothing, nothing we can do.
Love must be forgotten, life can always start up anew.
The models will have children, we’ll get a divorce.
We’ll find some more models, everything must run its course.We’ll choke on our vomit and that will be the end.
We were fated to pretend
To pretend
We’re fated to pretend
To pretendYeah, yeah, yeah
_____________________________________
‡ Note that I said BASIC claims of the faith – if you get to know me you will find that I will only try to defend solidly 2 or 3 main issues. The rest of the doctrinal concerns are entirely debatable as far as I’m concerned. I’ll just be over here trying to feed the poor, care for the sick, and fight for those who don’t have a voice. Even if I’m doing a bad job at it, which I admit that I am most of the time.
Dwight said
Okay…here’s my response. I typed it up once and then lost it. Hopefully, I’ve hit upon all the points I originally intended to. Anyways…I offer it not to be necessarily argumentative, but to provide an opposing opinion and to better my understanding of a Christian perspective (and my own, of course). I am lacking in philosophy and theology, and haven’t thought about this issue nearly enough, so hopefully I am not too incoherent here:
I am an atheist who is NOT a nihilist. While I don’t think there is an objective morality, I think an adequate morality informed by society, culture, biology, history, philosophy, etc. does exist. There are reasons, beyond the existence of God, for us to follow a basic principle such as “do no harm.” One of the reasons, albeit not a complete one, is rational self-interest.
In my godless opinion, there are some false choices presented here:
Either there is an objective morality OR there is no morality.
Either there is an ultimate justice OR people can & will do whatever they can get away with and won’t be able to condemn those who do.
Either there is an ultimate justice OR Holocaust victims died in vain.
I think a morality exists that generally (but certainly not always) follows the dictum of do no harm. I think we have measures in place (the judicial system, for one) that address those who subvert that dictum. And I think the ultimate justice for Holocaust victims is not letting it happen again. It is not enough for me to hope that justice is meted out against the perpetrators in the afterlife. I lack faith. It doesn’t mean I don’t give a shit.
Some questions: What exactly is this objective morality that you speak of? Is it (specifically) knowable? Or is it enough to believe in the concept of objective morality and leave the specifics to God/faith? Is it even possible to be an atheist and still be concerned with redemption?
Sarah said
So are you completely rejecting intersubjectivity? (I think that’s what it’s called…the idea that there are many “truths,” but some are more “right,” or at least more commonly accepted, than others.) To me, this idea makes quite a bit of sense. You seem concerned with the difference between subjectivity and objectivity…but if multiple people share the same (subjective) truths, then doesn’t it, at some point, cease being “subjective” and start being “objective” (or at least, “intersubjective”)? I just can’t quite get on board with this dichotomy you seem to be setting out…that there is only One Absolute, Completely Objective Set of Truths on the one hand (the implication also being, I think, that these truths are somehow Divinely Inspired), and Total Relativism on the other. Are those really the only two options? Is everything really that black and white? Doesn’t that seem just a little bit…fundamentalist?
I also disagree somewhat with your characterization of rational choice. Even presuming that yes, we’re all simply out to maximize our self-interest…it still seems rather unrealistic (and a bit extreme) to presume that we’d all be running around wantonly killing people just for the fun of it. Isn’t it still in everyone’s best interest to play by certain rules? I’m not going to kill you, or steal from you, or punch your dogs in the face, because I don’t want you to do it to me (or to my dogs). I think that seems perfectly rational, and in my best interest.
Of course, there are always going to be the assholes who don’t play by the rules. Even when there are religious beliefs, or civil laws, in place to discourage behavior that’s harmful to others, some people are still going to be undeterred. I’m just really, really hesitant to start painting with broad brush strokes and presume that everyone is like this…or at least, that they would be if they could get away with it.
Finally, here is another binary option I reject:
However, the problem of no ultimate justice for the Holocaust is a HUGE problem for me, and it’s a huge problem for atheists as well. I guess their only answer is, “it sucks to be Jews.” At least believers in some semblance of a justice-fulfilled afterlife have a kind of response.
So the only two possible responses are either a) Hitler got what he deserved in the afterlife, or b) “it sucks to be Jews?” That’s it? I don’t think there’s an easy answer to questions like, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and I’m not sure I have any satisfying answer, but the two options you just presented don’t do it for me.
GraceKathryn said
Ugh. My school is getting in the way of my education! It may be a few days or even next week before I can adequately respond to either of these comments, though I am certainly not at a loss for words or stumped on what to say. I don’t want to give you shallow crappy sound bite responses, which is all I’m capable of right now due to outside forces, so I’ll just have to wait on typing up anything requiring a lot of thought. Sorry. I’m just not very quick on my feet!
Last night I had class until 10pm and was working on homework before that right up until I had to leave, then I passed out as soon as I got home. Tonight I have plans that will probably keep me out pretty late, not to mention that I have a substantial writing assignment due this weekend and I feel like I might be getting sick. So again, it may be next week before I post any kind of real response.
Just so you know, this original post was written from about 4-6:30am on Tuesday morning when I was having a severe bout of insomnia. I come off as a little more confrontational, pessimistic, and yes, maybe a bit more incoherent, when I’m in a state of mind like that. However, I still stand by nearly all of what I said… I just could have nuanced it a little (read: much) better. I also think I came off as making claims that I never intended to make, therefore much of what I said may have been misinterpreted. I will attempt to clarify when I post an actually substantive comment.
Jared said
Kathy,
I didn’t see this post until today. It probably suprises no one that I agree largely with Kathy.
I think that Dwight is correct that it is a false dilemma to say either there is objective morality or else there is “no morality.” I think the real dilemma exists between objective morality and subjective/arbitrary morality.
Subjective morality can carry you pretty far if you can convince most people to do “the right thing” (the thing that you want them to do, or the thing that “civilized folks” generally expect from others). But the choice is reduced to an arbitrary one–it comes down to personal taste. What kind of world do you want to live in and why? There isn’t really any appealing to some external standard for preferring one world to another. Instead, you would try to convince individuals that the best flavor is a world in which we consistently apply the golden rule, rather than selfish or violent or oppressive ethical systems. Maybe you re-inforce it a bit with police power.
But at the individual level, this become very problematic and the difficulties shouldn’t be so quickly dismissed.
Your neighbor might want everyone else to abide by the golden rule, but why should she personally adopt it? Or why should she personally employ the golden rule when she doesn’t stand to gain something from it and might even stand to lose something?
You may say to your neighbor “thou shalt not kill.” She may respond “why not?” To which you reply “Damn it, what about the abstract, universal moral maxim ‘do no harm’?” At which time, she turns on the broken record, “why not?”
I think that to appeal to some abstract principle like “do no harm” is to push back the question rather than answer it. Or else it is to ignore the question. Why should one do no harm? Especially consistently? For that matter, why should one do harm? Why should one do anything? There is no secular external standard for human behavior, it seems. Secularism isn’t immoral, it is amoral I think.
You might say to neighbor “Do no harm because it is illegal.” But your neighbor might reply, “By far, most crimes go unpunished and unprosecuted. What if I’m pretty sure I can get away with it? If I want to do harm, and I can escape the legal consequences, THEN WHY should I do no harm?”
You might reply “Because there is something in our biology–evolution has programmed us to get along, to follow the herd mentality so that we all benefit from our caring for our fellow human beings.” Your neighbor might reply “That isn’t a reason why I SHOULD behave a certain way, that is an explanation for why people tend to behave a certain way. There is no moral purpose behind evolutionary processess and evolution does not impose a moral standard on me, even if it programs me with certain instincts. And this is especially true if I am enlightened and can call into question instincts that may stand in the way of maximizing my own happiness. In fact, that is what the secularist believes about religion. Most secularists believe that religion is imposed upon us by evolution because it served some purpose in the past. They believe that we must throw off this instinctual, destructive tendency. Why couldn’t I also throw off the instinctual tendency to care for the well-being of others, particularly when it does not directly benefit me?”
I think it is important to note that atheists and non-theists are not immoral people (no less and no more moral than anyone else, generally). Most atheists are good, moral people by social standards. The point is, atheism doesn’t really offer an explanation for how it is that objective moral values exist. If even one principle of morality is objective and binding apart from anyone’s opinion (say, fairness, equality, “do no harm,” or any such thing), then it follows that there are objective moral values. Since most everyone affirms objective moral values, including atheists, the problem is accounting for objective moral values on atheism.
As for the Holocaust, is the Holocaust really rendered morally permissible, or “okay,” simply by our ensuring that it never happens again? It seems to me that our learning how not to send our neighbors, en masse, to the gas chamber does not come close to doing justice to what happened.
As for objective morality, it would be a standard for human behavior that comes from outside of human subjectivity. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t know it subjectively, but its source lies beyond us and informs us. I personally think we know what is right through moral intuition, informed by an objective standard. I think that the still, small voice inside all of us (which is sometimes hard to hear in the details and specifics) is not informed by the same the thing that informs my merely subjective preference for chocolate over vanilla.
Oh, regarding Hitler, it seems to me that the theistic option offers hope of more than merely punishing the fuhrer. It seems to me, and to many Christians, that if God exists, then there is also hope of real rehabilitation for those 6 million Jews wronged, given the unlimited time and resources available to God. Perhaps God can and will make it up to them in the afterlife.
Dwight said
I’m not sure what this is. Or why. A response to Jared’s comment, for sure. But, I don’t aim to change minds (or expect my mind to be changed…which is not to say that I think any of us is necessary closed-minded, just that we have different worldviews that lead us to different conclusions). Does that make any further discussion pointless? Perhaps. But, frankly, this sort of discussion is just kind of fun to have on occasion. So, I guess that’s why I continue.
I don’t quite understand the need for an objective morality. I mean I get that objective morality supports the idea of God, and God supports the idea of an objective morality. But, I still don’t understand its necessity.
What are you suggesting are the implications of a world without objective morality? That people will lie, cheat, murder, etc. without a care besides their own selfishness? Is the implication that without objective morality my neighbor can kill when it benefits her? Because of course we know she can. But that with objective morality she won’t? Or that with objective morality she is less likely to? Or simply that if she does kill, she is certain to receive punishment for her crimes (if not in this world, then the next)?
You say: “Since most everyone affirms objective moral values, including atheists, the problem is accounting for objective moral values on atheism.” I don’t affirm (truly) objective moral values. And I don’t find it necessary to account for them with atheism. Certain moral values approach something like objectivity. And as such, they are given perhaps more weight. For me, what a theist calls objective morality is still a matter of perception, and still subjective. To me, a theist, like my theoretical neighbor, would still be evading the question (of why she shouldn’t murder) because perhaps an answer doesn’t exist. I don’t know the answer to everything. Am I happy about that? Of course not. Is it problematic? Sure. But so it is. I am content with the world as it is.
On Hitler and the Holocaust: No, I don’t think the Holocaust is rendered “okay” by ensuring that it never happens again. It’s my view, however, that its about as much as we can do. Just because I would wish for every perpetrator of crime to be appropriately punished does not suggest that proper justice exists (or can exist for that matter). As for Hitler, I too hope (if God happens to exist) that he would make it up to the Jews as well. But, for me as for you, it is only a hope. We both hope for it. But neither of us is any closer to knowing that it’ll actually come true. Beyond this World of Wishing, the ultimate justice (now that millions of Jews AND Hitler are dead) can only be accomplished through things like never letting it happen again.
Jared said
Dwight (and Sarah),
Sorry for the length of this reply. I started typing and couldn’t stop. I sincerely hope this comment isn’t offensive. I enjoy discussing these things—and hopefully I can do it in a respectful way. If I seem adversarial below, I promise it is the result of (possibly very poor) efforts to persuade rather than to offend or argue. I actually would love to hear the other side of all this—even if it sounds like my mind is made up.
Why the need for objective morality?
I guess, from my perspective, objective morality is what we all seem to affirm in most every moral situation—if only by our behavior or assumptions. And since religious tendencies are the subject of focused scrutiny—not to be taken as true simply because a lot folks say they feel God—then why aren’t moral inclinations and feelings likewise scrutinized, with the grounding and rationality of such moral feelings called into question? It seems very plausible to me that the human tendency to feel that certain acts are “really right” or “really wrong” is as delusory as the human tendency to think that “an invisible sky god is talking inaudibly to me.” Presumably, both are the products of socio-biological evolution and nothing more.
I hear you when you say that you don’t quite believe in morality that is truly objective and I respect that. But I beg you to at least reconsider this for a moment. All I can do is appeal to what I think is shared human experience.
When you see injustice (think of a moral issue you are passionate about) and you feel very strongly, to your very core, that you are witnessing an insufferable wrong that simply must be righted . . . when you experience, say, moral outrage at female genital mutilation or child abuse or genocide, doesn’t something inside of you just inform you that these are not merely things that conflict with the particular world you prefer, but instead are moral abominations, the condemnation of which transcends our personal tastes?
If you’ve had this experience of moral outrage, and I suspect we all have, then you have to ask yourself about the grounding and meta-status of such feelings and intuitions. It seems to me that, if there is no objective grounding for such judgments, then when we casually appeal to a moral standard, we are in fact only appealing to “my standard.”
But to say that it is “my standard” is to say that it is subjectively derived. As crass as this might sound, it would seem that everything about our strongest moral passions and judgments is qualitatively the same as our strongest preferences for taste, smell, aesthetic, and so on. To demand that another “do no harm” is to demand of another that he prefer rock music to polka, or chocolate to vanilla.
Interestingly, it seems like moral activism of any kind is reduced to authoritarian control. Without a common standard to appeal to, activism amounts to demanding that others accept one’s own preferences and abandon theirs. This works similarly in cross-cultural critiques as well. (Postmodern theorists are quick to agree with me here.)
But when we condemn acts as immoral, we don’t think we are appealing to the supremacy of our own subjective tastes. Rather, we feel overwhelmed with the sense of a higher justice that “applies to you just as it applies to me.”
It seems like there are two explanations for moral judgments (unless someone can offer another?). Either we are delusional, at least to some degree, and we need to recognize that our sense of objective morality is as illusory as the sense of the divine or of the flying spaghetti monster (in that there ain’t anything “out there” that my inner passions actually correspond to), or else there is, in fact, a standard for morality that transcends individuals and cultures and informs those who listen.
The interesting thing is, if the first is true, it exposes a serious problem with atheism: it is unlivable in the practical sense. Atheists appeal to higher morality just like everyone else. But it is hard to see how a godless universe could possibly contain some extra-human standard for peculiarly human behavior.
What are the implications for a world without objective morality?
Assuming everything above is correct, I suppose the enlightened atheist would undergo a deconversion in which she acknowledges that higher morality is simply “made up,” so to speak. Morality is, in reality, reducible to power struggles between competing interests, with no real objectivity in the mix. For the individual, the moral thing to do is whatever I want to do. “Do what thou wilt” makes sense in the first instance, “do no harm” may or may not be a second level preference depending on the individual. The internal thoughts and feelings we experience on a daily basis—notions of “the way things ought to be”—would be honestly assessed and deemed illusory, a trick of nature just as much as the silly thoughts and feelings of the religious fruitcake who thinks he has a relationship with God.
Perhaps the rational atheist would then begin a de-programming process much like the process that occurs when one’s religion is abandoned—retrain one’s mind to ignore misleading natural feelings about supposed higher moral judgments. And disregard the appeals of others to higher morality—these are only efforts to wield authoritarian control. Look only within yourself, to your pure personal desires, freed of superstition. Let your self-interest be your one true guide. Do what thou wilt.
What do you think?
Dwight said
I still cannot accept objective morality. Truly objective morality. It seems unknowable. Perhaps its somewhat a matter of semantics. I can accept something approaching objective morality. I can accept that there is something beyond simply personal taste, perhaps a collective-subjective morality (I mean, c’mon, nobody prefers polka over rock ‘n roll). Perhaps I can accept (your) belief in objective morality. Or maybe its that I simply cannot accept objective morality as informed by God or the supernatural. But that would be to state the obvious and would only bring us back to whence we came. I’m frankly fine with that.
My secular world is not an adversarial one. Its not a world that requires me to conduct double-blind experiments on every last detail of life in order to rationalize our very existence. Its simply a world without god(s). I’m fine with that too.
Jared said
Dwight,
Thanks for replying. If you are still out there, a quick question. You mentioned that your life and beliefs are not based on abstractions like double blind experiments. I’m curious, does this mean that rational inquiry takes a back seat to something else when shaping our worldviews?
That sounds pejorative but I don’t mean it that way. I’m really curious.
Dwight said
Not quite true. Evidence and rational inquiry are quite important to my life and my beliefs. I’m not sure what would supercede them. That doesn’t mean that I’m as vigorous as possible in all aspects of my life though (say, love).
What I might have been getting at is that, in a practical sense, when I hear hoof beats behind me I first think horses and not zebras. And I almost never think unicorns.
Jared said
Interesting.
But in the case of God, is the difference reducible to personal disposition (or maybe credulity)?
That is, presumably for you the existence of God is about as likely as the existence of unicorns (or at least unicorn hoof beats).
For me, denying the existence of God comes close to denying some relatively uncontroversial fact about the world.
Do you think it all comes down to intuition?
Dwight said
I would say that personal disposition, credulity, and intuition all play their part in belief. But, I do think a distinction should be drawn between a belief in the existence of God [or god(s)] and the subsequent beliefs that are informed by dogma, etc. I think credulity, for one, plays a larger role in the latter.
Forgive the hyperbole but perhaps belief is a bit like an infectious disease. It spreads and spreads. People become infected. Some strains are fatal; some strains are benign. Certain populations, cultural/geographic/familial, are more susceptible and quick to become infected. Some indeed may have weak immune systems. Yet some people–although not because they are morally superior people–are immune. Perhaps I am just immune from faith/belief. Certainly, I don’t want myself or others to get infected. But that doesn’t mean that I think the infected are inherently bad people (though I grant that disease is too often seen as a character flaw in our society).
Wow. I think I may have just made the best argument for universal health care and/or vaccination policy that has been made since the onset of the Obama era.
Jared said
Dwight,
Would you say that there are also strains of atheism, some of which are fatal, some benign?
And if so, doesn’t this hint at the problem (of ideological “disease”) transcending the fact that an individual or culture is religious? Isn’t it true that bigotry, oppression, close-mindedness, violence, and authoritarian domination are primarily human problems, in the broadest sense, rather than religous problems?
I just don’t see a strong connection between social problems and belief in God or the supernatural. There is something to be said for the particular manifestations of certain, religious dogmas (say, Islamic martyrdom or the Spanish Inquisition), but there tends to be secular parallels to these (Japanese Kamikaze pilots, Pol Pot’s slaughter of millions).
It seems to me that depravity transcends metaphysical ideology altogether.
Whereas earlier, I mentioned that I thought atheists were no less good people than religious folks, it almost sounds like the implication of the notion of religion-as-disease is the moral superiority of atheism. Do you see things this way?
Dwight said
Wow. I guess hyperbole doesn’t translate well over the interwebs after all. I apologize for that. I should have emphasized the infectious part of the analogy more than the disease part. I was trying to get at the spread of belief/faith, not making a judgment as to the value of that belief/faith. It should have come off more as “belief as infectious” rather than “belief as disease.” Still, infectious, and even viral, can have negative connotations. Think of the spread of a happy (or value neutral) disease.
I totally agree that bigotry, closed-mindedness, violence, etc. are human problems and not strictly problems that are tied to a belief in God. They are often belief problems, to be sure, but problems that are just as likely to be rooted in religious dogmas as with its secular parallels.
I don’t think I ever said that all of mans problems are rooted in a belief in God. I don’t believe that I said that atheists were morally superior to believers either. I’m not sure where that came from. If it was from the infectious disease analogy, I hope my explanation above accounts for my intentions.
hoi polloi said
Nietzsche would say you are a nihilist because you are a Christian. He defined nihilism any belief system that is undermined by its own highest values. Since Christianity, following its Greek-side, makes truth the highest of values, it will eventually undo itself by testing the truth of its Hebrew-side mythologies.
I think your claim that you only follow morality because you belief it to be absolute, that is, guaranteed by a divine reality, is evidence of your truth-seeking undermining you own commitment to moral justice. However, I don’t believe you need throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Would not the history of Judeo-Christian moral thought be the same whether or not God exists? If so, how are you failed by a morality that lacks ultimate justice?