Is Non-Nihilist Atheism Possible?

A reader with the servile, dovish yet doglike name of Malcolm the Cynic writes and says:

I am not saying Stoicism is nihilism, but rather that it will lead to the same place whether it wants to or not.

Nihilism is just more honest about it.

(Not that I think stoics are actually lying, just wrong).

Basically, what I think is that any coherent atheist philosophy will ultimately have to deny that there is meaning in the universe.

My response:

I understood what you said. As someone who had coherent atheist philosophy for over four decades of his life, I would appreciate being allowed to examine your argument to back that assertion.

I am frankly fascinated by the assertion, since I have heard theologians I respect make the statement, but none, so far, to my satisfaction, have proved his case or even given his argument. If you are in a position to do so, I invite you to.

To start: “(1) Atheism implies a belief that the universe is entirely natural with no supernatural part to it, set in motion by blind and indifferent natural forces. (2) Nihilism is the belief that there is no final truth, no ground of being, no objective morality, no difference between virtue and vice, nothing worth doing.”

I submit that there is no way to deduce statement (2) from statement (1). The one does not logically imply the other.

I moreover submit it is as easy to deduce the existence of an objective moral code, even absent the supernatural, as it is to deduce the existence of logic itself.

The argument in both cases is the same. In order to deduce whether or not logic is useful, one must use logic. Hence, it is inescapable, part of the human condition outside of which no human can step, not even for the brief moment it takes to ask a hypothetical question. Likewise, in order to deduce whether or not morality is objective, one must face the question with the honesty, humility, and perfect integrity of a philosopher, that is, one must adhere to at least these moral imperatives. Again, it is inescapable.

Nothing in the above argument presupposes the existence of a god or gods. Hence I submit that it is possible to deduce the existence of rules of logic and rule of morality that govern all men, all life. And if rules of morality exist, virtue and vice exist, are meaningful terms, and apply to real objects and events.

A meaningful life is one lived according to virtue. Hence, if virtue exists, life can be meaningful, even for an atheist.

I welcome a rebuttal from your or from anyone who cares to pick up the gauntlet.

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.