Does Atheism Logically Implicate Nihilism?

[ENeGMA]

Do you not want the truth? You do glorify science, do you not, for its ability to predict the future to some degree?

"The meaning of life" is an issue totally divorced from "meaning (in general)."

My statement is about the former, not the latter.

This is another area of confusion: theists ask "Does life have meaning?" and I say "No" and they think I mean "Nothing means anything", which is ridiculous.

"The meaning of life" is asking "What's my purpose on this planet?".

That's totally different from questions about the predictive ability of science, or the reference relation, or about morals, etc.

I don't "glorify" science (something I think many atheists do, often because they don't understand science) but I do accept and use it.

[ENeGMA]

I want all of the theists in this thread to summarize the difference between the issues of whether or not our lives have some teleological end compared to the issue of whether or not there exists an objective reality which can be known by humans.

Saying that life has no meaning is a denial of the former, but NOT an admission of the latter.

[JeromeD]

I suppose I'll just take the answers I've been given, in their various and different forms. Hopefully Sartre and Sponville-Comte will try giving me real answers (not that I'm saying the answers given me aren't honestly held by those who proposed them, only that they aren't logically defended and are bare assertions, which I don't find... satisfying, even if others do).

Also, if you consider your meaning as important as what flavor of ice cream you like the most, then I wonder whether you really really love ice cream, or if you value meaning not very much.

I did ask my questions in earnest. If you don't believe me, fine. I was not seeking "God" for an answer from atheists (that would be silly), I was seeking, more or less, just an answer. If the answer given is the answer I will be given, okay then. But I will formulate my conclusions as I will based upon honest application of reason as best I know.

[Seasanctuary]

May not one take those statements to constitute some sort of nihilism or be typical of it?

Nihil means "nothing." I strongly disagree that just because something is not from a God that came before the whole world, then it is "nothing."

Now it appears that some definitions of nihilism apply to "no value" and some apply to "no value from God." This is equivocation. Trying to make Atheists admit to "nihilism" because part of the equivocation fits, just to conclude that Atheism is like the other side of the equivocation is extremely misleading.

[Seasanctuary]

(not that I'm saying the answers given me aren't honestly held by those who proposed them, only that they aren't logically defended and are bare assertions, which I don't find... satisfying, even if others do).

Meanwhile your own bare assertions win by default. I see.

[Augustine2004]

Nihil means "nothing." I strongly disagree that just because something is not from a God that came before the whole world, then it is "nothing."

That's hardly even an assertion. To those who want an explanation, here goes:

"If something does not come from a God that created the universe, then it is nothing."

Seas is literally saying that he does not agree with that statement. He may have another meaning in mind for the quoted passage above but I don't know what that is.

Maybe, "Plenty of stuff exists that does not come from a God that created the universe." Of course many atheists would nod in approval.

Now it appears that some definitions of nihilism apply to "no value" and some apply to "no value from God." This is equivocation. Trying to make Atheists admit to "nihilism" because part of the equivocation fits, just to conclude that Atheism is like the other side of the equivocation is extremely misleading.

Yes, I've already said we need to specify the meanings of our terms before we apply logic. The thread's subject is equivocal in the two important terms.

[Augustine2004]

I can point out that when a particular atheist was asked, “Does life have meaning?” he replied no. I don’t see yet, though, that it can be generalized or how to generalize that.

[JeromeD]

At B&N today, I was looking through the philosophy section, and found a book by an atheist that deals precisely with the issue of meaning in an atheistic worldview. His (I believe his name was Maisel, and I think the book was called The Atheist's Way) answer was that meaning is not found, but is to be made.

Is that the sort of answer that (some) atheists here would give?

A question (if I'm allowed to) that is more or less at the root of what I'm trying to find out; what is the meaningfulness of the meaning that a meaningless maker makes?

IOW, I'm asking how, if meaning is not properly found, how a priorly-meaningless person gains meaning through making meaning, since, if they only have meaning by making it, their actions and thoughts and deeds through which they would gain meaning are meaningless since they are, objectively and non-subjectively, meaningless?

My question has nothing to do with God. I'm simply wondering how a person that starts out meaningless gains meaning, since their actions will be by definition meaningless?

Allow me an analogy; let us suppose that there exists a person with absolutely no strength. Through exercise and lifting weights, we know that a person can gain strength. However, to initially begin exercising, one must have an already-existent strength, and this strength is cultivated or developed through the exercises. This person who has absolutely no strength would not be able to lift any weights in the first place, and so would not be able to build up strength.

How would this person gain strength, if they have none initially? In comparison, how would a person make meaning, if they have none that could be found? Or is it a false analogy (and why)? Please note: I am much more interested in the why of an answer, rather than just a "Yes" or "No," which are more or less worthless for helping me understand the logical structure of particular atheistic worldviews.

[bowmore]

Why would the two notions : "No gods exist" and "An absolute eternal meaning exists" contradict eachother?

[shunyadragon]

At B&N today, I was looking through the philosophy section, and found a book by an atheist that deals precisely with the issue of meaning in an atheistic worldview. His (I believe his name was Maisel, and I think the book was called The Atheist's Way) answer was that meaning is not found, but is to be made.

Is that the sort of answer that (some) atheists here would give?

A question (if I'm allowed to) that is more or less at the root of what I'm trying to find out; what is the meaningfulness of the meaning that a meaningless maker makes?

IOW, I'm asking how, if meaning is not properly found, how a priorly-meaningless person gains meaning through making meaning, since, if they only have meaning by making it, their actions and thoughts and deeds through which they would gain meaning are meaningless since they are, objectively and non-subjectively, meaningless?

My question has nothing to do with God. I'm simply wondering how a person that starts out meaningless gains meaning, since their actions will be by definition meaningless?

Allow me an analogy; let us suppose that there exists a person with absolutely no strength. Through exercise and lifting weights, we know that a person can gain strength. However, to initially begin exercising, one must have an already-existent strength, and this strength is cultivated or developed through the exercises. This person who has absolutely no strength would not be able to lift any weights in the first place, and so would not be able to build up strength.

How would this person gain strength, if they have none initially? In comparison, how would a person make meaning, if they have none that could be found? Or is it a false analogy (and why)? Please note: I am much more interested in the why of an answer, rather than just a "Yes" or "No," which are more or less worthless for helping me understand the logical structure of particular atheistic worldviews.

I think it is a false assumption that our human actions, without God, are in any way inherently meaningless. The natural rich world around use, our families, ancestors and the promise of future generations is rich with the potential of meaning in life, which is interpreted differntly from different world views..

I do not believe there is a valid comparison for a world view with meaning and without. For example Confucian world view of the Orient has within it great meaning for life, but without attributing this meaning to God(s).

[JeromeD]

I think it is a false assumption that our human actions, without God, are in any way inherently meaningless.

Certainly it would be a false assumption, but I don't think such a conclusion is by default an assumption. I would think that until its been proved that there is meaning in some logical fashion, or that there could be (for the theistic worldview doesn't guarantee meaning either), then mere skepticism withstands with the reply "I yet see no reason to believe that there is meaning."

The natural rich world around use, our families, ancestors and the promise of future generations is rich with the potential of meaning in life, which is interpreted differntly from different world views..

But from whence do these things get/make meaning?

I do not believe there is a valid comparison for a world view with meaning and without. For example Confucian world view of the Orient has within it great meaning for life, but without attributing this meaning to God(s).

A worldview does not make something possible just by existing. For instance, the fact that the theistic worldview exists does not make God exist, and so neither would a worldview that says there is meaning make meaning. It could very well be that the Confucian worldview in this respect is illogical and/or unjustified in saying that there is meaning.

[JeromeD]

Why would the two notions : "No gods exist" and "An absolute eternal meaning exists" contradict eachother?

They wouldn't necessarily contradict each other, but the proposition "There is meaning to existence" seems to be, by the atheistic worldview, unjustified. So, unless it can be logically demonstrated that meaning can and does meaningfully exist within the atheistic worldview, then it might simply be the conclusion that an atheistic worldview which includes the latter proposition is inconsistent.

As the statement "God exists" doesn't make God exist, so the statement "There is meaning to existence" doesn't make meaning exist.

[Augustine2004]

I think it is a false assumption . . .

You can say that you think that it's just an assumption. You can assert that something is false, but then you should demonstrate that.

[ENeGMA]

At B&N today, I was looking through the philosophy section, and found a book by an atheist that deals precisely with the issue of meaning in an atheistic worldview. His (I believe his name was Maisel, and I think the book was called The Atheist's Way) answer was that meaning is not found, but is to be made.

Is that the sort of answer that (some) atheists here would give?

Yes.

A question (if I'm allowed to) that is more or less at the root of what I'm trying to find out; what is the meaningfulness of the meaning that a meaningless maker makes?

IOW, I'm asking how, if meaning is not properly found, how a priorly-meaningless person gains meaning through making meaning, since, if they only have meaning by making it, their actions and thoughts and deeds through which they would gain meaning are meaningless since they are, objectively and non-subjectively, meaningless?

The question depends, obviously, on whether or not humans are capable of creating meaningful things.

That, to me, is beyond obvious. Look at music, or at literature, or even at language itself.

To say that human beings, by themselves, are incapable of creating meaning is just (to me) obviously wrong.

My question has nothing to do with God. I'm simply wondering how a person that starts out meaningless gains meaning, since their actions will be by definition meaningless?

Atoms don't have color.

How is it that things made of atoms have color?

How would this person gain strength, if they have none initially? In comparison, how would a person make meaning, if they have none that could be found? Or is it a false analogy (and why)? Please note: I am much more interested in the why of an answer, rather than just a "Yes" or "No," which are more or less worthless for helping me understand the logical structure of particular atheistic worldviews.

It's a false analogy for the same reason that a demonstration that my cat is colorless because the atoms that comprise her are colorless would be a false analogy.

It's not enough to look at the constituent parts, but rather you must look at how they interact with each other and with other aspects of the universe.

What if "meaning" (in the sense of the meaning of a text, or the meaning of life, or the meaning of a word) is not some inherent property, but rather is itself a social arrangement codified in human thought and action?

That is, interactions between humans must necessarily have "meaning" for the interactions to accomplish goals necessary for the survival of those humans.

[Augustine2004]

Clearly we need to define 'meaning' so that would be meaningful to this thread.

Anyway, atoms do have color, in that the spectrum of their emissions differ from that of the photons that impinge on them. The reason the sky appears blue is that the atmosphere's molecules act on impinging photons (principally from the sun) that way.

I would dismiss color as trivial as far as meaning is concerned. Most, if not all, of music. Most literature.

Mere survival--or even prosperity--is there any meaning beyond that?