Does Atheism Imply Existential Nihilism?
A philosophical inquiry
(This is more of a formal philosophical discussion, and I readily acknowledge that I am no philosopher, and I have not even researched the topic in academic resources. Nevertheless, I wanted to get my thoughts out and I figured that a formal format will be more rigorous on these kinds of topics.)
It has often been asserted that unless one believes in God, life is inherently meaningless. This post will break this down to attempt to ascertain its validity. I will not be addressing the issue from a psychological standpoint since that is empirically false, as demonstrated by the vast numbers of atheists whose lives are meaningful to them. Rather I will be addressing it from a philosophical standpoint.1 Absent a God, is this sense of meaning justified, or is it merely illusory? If we are merely complex arrangements of particles bouncing back and forth, does anything really matter?
Who is to say that meaning exists for the theist, and can this apply to the non-theist as well? This tends to be very difficult, as most explanations seem to eventually end up being circular. However, the very experience of meaning implies the existence of such a notion, and therefore constitutes a direct knowledge of its existence. Hence, the notion of meaning can justifiably be considered axiomatic. Therefore, I will not be presenting a defense of meaning, merely a definition of its components.
Meaning can be described as the sense of fulfillment of a given purpose. Assuming this is true, a formal argument can be presented against nihilism in three steps.
Premise 1: Sentient beings (defined as entities capable of positive and negative experiences) exist.
Premise 2: Sentient beings possess a will that can be projected onto given experiences.
Conclusion: Given P1 and P2, it is possible for a sentient being to experience fulfillment of its will through certain experiences, or in other words, it is capable of experiencing meaning.
There are three objections commonly offered from a theistic perspective.
Since many atheists assume reductionism2, there is no inherent value judgement on any experience, therefore, there are no truly positive or negative experiences (i.e. P1 is false).
Although we may possess a will, being that there is no cosmic purpose to anything, these desires are merely subjective feelings but do not reflect any intrinsic purpose in the world, therefore the fulfillment is illusory (i.e. P2 is false, or at the minimum is insufficient to establish the conclusion).
Assuming that our existence is finite, fulfillment of finite purposes cannot truly be considered meaningful (i.e. the definition is lacking).
I will first address objection #1. Although the theist may reject that material existence contains value judgements, even he must accept that experiential existence implies inherent value. Otherwise, how does the existence of God allow us to introduce concepts relating to value? However, he may still assert that if God is the ground of being, since God is inherently experiential (as He is described as analogous to a mind), His ‘experience’ (i.e. will) can dictate what is truly positive and what is truly negative. The theist may then argue that this can infer value to our own experiences, as they can contain the qualities of a Godly experience or the converse (such as through bringing us closer to God).
While reductionism posits that all phenomena can be explained by their most basic physical components, this does not preclude the validity of analyzing human experiences at a lower level of resolution. This approach, known as resolutionism, acknowledges that emergent properties arise from complex systems. These emergent properties, such as consciousness and subjective experiences, cannot be fully understood by examining their constituent parts alone.
Therefore, even if reductionism is true, it does not negate the existence of our own experiences. Our experiences exist, and within a resolution that only zooms in to the level of our experience, we can indeed assign value judgments to various experiences, based on whether we respond positively or negatively to them. Thus, the assertion that reductionism invalidates the existence of truly positive or negative experiences is unfounded.
This leads us to objection #2. The theist will maintain that there is an inherent teleology in nature, as defined by God who created it, and therefore purpose is objective and not merely subjective. However, being that our experiences are sufficient to establish true positive and negative value, it is irrelevant that they are subjective and only true relative to us as beings. The theist as well must concede that this value is only relevant to us inasmuch as it relates to us directly, as explained above. Therefore, whether subjective or objective, the end result is the same: Our own existence can be meaningful.
Objection #3 is a bit harder to understand. Why should it make a difference if we are indeed finite, or if we survive death? Our experiences are real, and as long as they last, they can either fulfill the purpose imposed either by God or by ourselves. However, it is an empirical fact that many do feel this kind of existential dread or recognition of the futility of something that comes to an end. Is this merely a psychological failing, or is it a real obstacle in the search of meaning?
This would seem to depend on theism itself. If God dictates objective meaning and meaning is embedded into the fabric of the universe itself, then one may argue that finite experiences are rendered moot so long they do not relate to this objective reality. On the contrary, any experience which contradicts the ontological experience of God is necessarily illusory as it is presenting a meaning which opposes a higher meaning. However, if nihilism is true in a cosmic sense, that would allow for the validity of our own constructed meaning, and those who utilize existential dread to argue for nihilism are themselves experiencing an illusion which obstructs their perception of meaning within their own lives.3
I have seen many debates on this topic between theists and atheists, but they almost invariably seem to be talking past each other. Theists generally focus on the philosophical justification, while atheists point to the psychological reality. I have attempted to address the theistic points as I have understood them when I was a theist, and I have spoken to numerous theists as well to understand their position. I believe I have done a fair job at presenting their arguments.
There are atheist ontologies which do not assume reductionism, but since the prevalent atheist view aligns with this, for the purposes of this discussion I have equated the two.
There are many philosophers who use existential dread to develop their existentialist philosophies, most notably Jean-Paul Sartre through his thesis of absurdism.
>>I am no philosopher
Simon Furst -
On the one hand, you are arguably the best qualified of all people to judge that.
But on the other hand, nothing I have read so far of everything you've written, including and especially this article, suggests to me that you are not a philosopher.
(Is there an objective test by which we can determine whether someone is or isn't a philosopher?)
Agree with your general thesis - but the situation is far more problematic once you question what Theistic meaning is actually supposed to be, rather than the defensive justifying meaning making for the atheist.
Ask a theist what is meaningful in their life and much of what you will hear are the temporary high value salient features any atheist can value....their family, being loved, loving another, contributing to society, work that is fulfilling in that it Enhances skills & virtues, having children, ability to trust others in relationships.....just brain storm what most Theists find meaningful - most of these are embodied, contingent, worldly experiences.
What maybe meaningful to a Theist that isn't available to an atheist ? Prayer ?
Perhaps rituals performed as part of community ?
Perhaps there are secular type rituals that can be part of communities - at the end of the day its still worldly gathering of people sharing aligned values.
(Eg keys say waving Lulav, putting on tefillin, lighting shabbat candles)
However, I think the religious obsession with the other worldly & afterlife type theology CREATES nihillism - that nihillism is an invention created and formed by the ultra religious mindset.
This is the Nietzschean critique that Christianity itself created the requisite structures for nihillism to be possible.(Quite heavy on this in the Anti-Christ)
This is because theistic focus on the afterlife & otherworldly creates a vacuum and negation of this world, the very veridical real manifestation we actually live in as illusionary.
This is very specific to ascetic aspects of religion, very critical of Christianities notion of original Sin and this world as fallen but has plenty validity in Judaism with notions such as this world mearly a corridor waiting for the Palace.
Chapter 4 Mishna 17
Rabbi Yaakov would say: this world is like a corridor (hallway) before Olam Haba (the World-to-Come). Prepare yourself in the corridor (hallway) in order that you enter the Palace.
What if ask why is the Palace meaningful ?
What is meaningful about "Olam Habah" as some perpetual reward ?
Why is perpetual reward meaningful and doesn't collapse into Nihillism ?
Rewards are outcomes of goals and benchmarks in successful teleological pursuits.
Rewards are never perpetual but dynamic and contingent on virtuous activity eg study for exams and the reward is passing or some prize for achievement.
What is meaningful about PERPETUAL or Eternal Rewards, especially for limited practices "in the corridor" of an illusionary reality that's a puppet show Orchestrated by a master engineer ?
Vice versa - what's the point of PERPETUAL punishment in an afterlife?
Failing to achieve a goal [missing the mark] is also a dynamic activity that is worldly with feedback of failure and sometimes ability to learn & grow.
If cannot learn & grow with no agency in an afterlife, what's the point of the suffering.
If can learn & grow with agency in an afterlife, then it's just continuation of this world "corridor" - corridor all the way & no Palace.
My basic point in this long rant, is that once thr notion of a "Palace" in thr afterlife is incoherent and Nihillistic then EVERYTHING in the religious theistic world view is nihilistic- including the corridor (this world)
The Nietzschean sees this world is your reality, become an Ubermensch to make the most worthwhile life NOW, affirming LIVING LIFE as Amor Fati (love of one's fate)
- not wanting life as a nihillist seeking a Palace in some mystical world that when contemplate and analyse it, ends up a figment of the imagination.
I part from Nietzschean view in some respects by affirming we have a high degree of agency but acknowledge that we are also thrown into the world that impinges itself on us forcefully in such a way that we are entangled and part of the world not seperate from it.
The "corridor" in Pirke Avot is our existence and we can choose to make it as much as possible our Palace, and if we don't, the corridor will be a nihillistic void of superficiality and suffering.
The funny thing - much of what makes the corridor of our existence meaningful & valuable are exactly the same as the most religious Theistic values such as raising kids, loving relationships, family values, productive work - even defending your terrorory from invaders & terrorists.