Are there any loopholes to a nihilistic existential crisis?

If you have ever found yourself of a path toward a logical truth to your own meaning for existence, how did you get through it? It would be especially helpful to me if you do not mention any particular religion, because religious beliefs are not based in a logical reality but rather a complacent faith in the unknowable.


0|1
1|1

Most Helpful Guy

  • "It would be especially helpful to me if you do not mention any particular religion, because religious beliefs are not based in a logical reality but rather a complacent faith in the unknowable"

    This isn't actually valid. This notion preconceives that logic is a unquestionable norm without questioning it's basis. A great scientist of Oxford John Lennox once asked his atheist colleagues a simple but broken down analogy reinestated by many before him.

    The atheist worldview is that "matter gave rise to mind", the other worldview is that "mind gave rise to matter". We know scientifically that matter had a beginning. Pr. Lennox asked his materialist atheist friends asking "How do you do science?" The atheist colleague would respond "I have this big machine in a labratory, microscopes etc" before he could finish, Lennox would ask... "no... how do you do science, i'm not talking about the materials. How do you do science here (referencing the head)".
    The atheist scientist would respond "you mean with my m... brain".

    Well.. how did the brain get to where it is? the materialist atheist would answer. "my brain is the result of an evolved mindless process" Lennox would answer "and you trust it?"

    Now before the common new atheist dismissal of this come out, keep in mind that this is a common held notion. Dawkins reinstated this "you're brain is nothing more than mindless molecules in motion, dancing to the tune of your DNA".

    Darwin wrote "the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-13230

    Or the great Noble Lauriette Francis Crick "You, you're joys and your sorrows, your sense of personal identity and free will are no more than a mindless collection of atoms operating on a mechanistic mindless process."

    Logic does NOT exist from within an atheistic naturalist principle. Only within the Christian worldview can it have a grounding which is why I am a Christian because I believe in logic and reason

    Most people here aren't going to know what nihilism is. Moral nihilism, which is also known as ethical nihilism, is the view that within ethics nothing is inherently moral or immoral. "Nihilism" means "nothing," so with such nihilists there is no right and wrong other than what is assigned by people.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I suppose in that context... if we believe in relativism. There is nothing wrong with nihilism. It IS what you decide it to be because you're worldview is free to define it.

      The philosophical problem with moral nihilism is that it cannot justify its arbitrary moral assessments; and when it does make moral assessments, it does so based on what "ought" to be done, thereby refuting itself. Moral nihilists would say that murder is to be avoided because the end result is negative since it injures a person and/or society. In saying this they are assigning a value to the result and in this case a negative value based on the effect of the action: murder. But, why assign that negative value? If they say it is because it hurts people, then they are saying that there is an intrinsic value to not hurting people--and that is inconsistent with their position. If they say that they just choose to assign a negative value to murder and yet they also deny intrinsic value of that action,

    • then they are not able to justify their assignment as being anything other than arbitrary without inadvertently appealing to intrinsic value. If they admit that punishing a murderer is nothing more than an arbitrary decision, then they admit it is just as defensible to murder another because there is no intrinsic value to it.

      If the moral nihilist wants to say that the so-called ethical values are derived from that which increases harmony in society, then they are citing the goal and assigning value to it because there is an "ought" there; otherwise, they would not assign such a value to it in the first place. For immoral nihilists to be consistent, they should not assign any value to any action even if it increases or decreases harmony within society or one's personal life. But, if that is the case, then robbing them is neither right nor wrong. It is just inconvenient for the victim. And, can we jail someone for inconveniencing someone else?

    • Thanks for best answer

What Girls Said 1

  • Experience and a good dose of humble pie

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 0

The only opinion from guys was selected the Most Helpful Opinion!

Loading...