Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Nihilistic Theism

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:08:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's perfectly coherent to accept both an omnipotent, omniscient creator, and to accept moral and existential nihilism. Given that morals are some nebulously ill-defined concept for which the definition gets squabbled over by philosophers and ecologists alike.

Please, I welcome you to the club of nihilism. Do what your opposition (atheists) refuse to and embrace a rational view on how things "ought" to be in nihilism.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:09:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 1:08:43 PM, Envisage wrote:
It's perfectly coherent to accept both an omnipotent, omniscient creator, and to accept moral and existential nihilism. Given that morals are some nebulously ill-defined concept for which the definition gets squabbled over by philosophers and ecologists alike.

Please, I welcome you to the club of nihilism. Do what your opposition (atheists) refuse to and embrace a rational view on how things "ought" to be in nihilism.

Theologians*
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:32:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, are you arguing that even if some objective standard of morality existed it would be meaningless because morality is an ill-defined concept?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 1:37:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 1:32:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
So, are you arguing that even if some objective standard of morality existed it would be meaningless because morality is an ill-defined concept?

No. But I do agree with that notion.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 1:37:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:32:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
So, are you arguing that even if some objective standard of morality existed it would be meaningless because morality is an ill-defined concept?

No. But I do agree with that notion.

Even assuming that objective morality is poorly defined, the objective truth of it would still be true. It'd be like having a poor conception of what Gravity was during the Stone Age. Just because our understanding of an objective feature of reality is limited or incoherent to us doesnt make the objective reality of it any less true.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:11:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 2:02:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:37:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:32:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
So, are you arguing that even if some objective standard of morality existed it would be meaningless because morality is an ill-defined concept?

No. But I do agree with that notion.

Even assuming that objective morality is poorly defined, the objective truth of it would still be true.

The objective truth of *A* concept of morality would be true. There lies the problem. It's just one concept of it, and there exists many others, be it other theistic concepts or secular.

It'd be like having a poor conception of what Gravity was during the Stone Age. Just because our understanding of an objective feature of reality is limited or incoherent to us doesnt make the objective reality of it any less true.

The difference is that the manifest concept is not uniform in both cases. We can come up with a plethora of theories of gravity, which would explain essentially the same facts (that masses attract by virtue of having mass), but the same manifest facts are not the same in morality. We have manifest facts of "moral sense" "altruism" "utilitarianism" "kanthanism" "objectivism" "egoism" etc. etc. and it's not even aparent which, if any or all of these would refer to so,etching that is "objectively moral".

So while a theory of gravity can explain observations, a "theory of morality" does no such thing. And an objective notion of morality is just one set of observations. Just declaring it by fiat to be "true" doesn't get you anywhere. I can just state I don't care what your objective truth States and just drop the use of YOUR moral concept, and use other ones which remain more useful.

Thus, embrace nihilism and drop the use of useless moral terminology altogether. It's much more useful to refer to things in non-moral terms.