What philosopher since Nietzsche is able to reject God's existence and yet still find objective meaning for life? — Ron Cram

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

As an atheist, who has embraced nihilism as the nature of the universe, where’s the problem? It is the ultimate freedom.

We spent centuries learning that humans are not the center of the universe, yet we still want to put ourselves there. Humans cannot resist the need to find patterns in noise.

That doesn’t mean we ignore the subjective social constructs we build.

I understand that some people have followed Nietzsche into nihilism, but most people are not willing to do so. I knew I would get some answers like this.

Do you see any philosophers who have attempted to embrace atheism while avoiding nihilism? Has anyone been successful?

That isn't an answer to my questions. I'm asking for the names of philosophers who have shown that the two are not mutually exclusive.

No one has. It would require metaphysical evidence not available to us. With the evidence we can gather there is no objective meaning to life.

We come from a random process - evolution. Where does objectivity fall into a random process?

I don't see a problem here either. One can be an atheist and accept ideas that arose in theistic or non-theistic religion. One can be an atheist without being a nihilist. Of course, I wasn't brought up as an atheist, nor was I an 'early adapter'. I carried many theistic ideas into atheism.

Physics would seem to pose at least as much of a threat to old-time philosophy as the philosopher Nietzsche did. Now we have a universe with a beginning that didn't involve a god. We know we are creatures on a continuum with all other creatures. We now know that our future may be foreshortened by our own efforts (global heating beyond the tolerance of our natural support systems). What was once explained by the intervention of the gods is now explainable (much more often than not) by physics, chemistry, biology, or cultural knowledge.

I've been told that the history of philosophy since Nietzsche has been a search for a philosophy that can embrace atheism while avoiding nihilism. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? — Ron Cram

I am inclined to agree. I recall the famous Time magazine cover in 66, ‘Is God Dead?’ which canvassed this very question. I had grown up in a non-religious family and was pretty indifferent to church, but was never atheist. But I thought the discussion was basically uninformed, as whatever 'God' might be, he/she/it was by definition not subject to death. What could die, I felt, were society and culture's representations or idiomatic understanding. In other words, I thought religion/s could definitely die, but not God.

I went on to develop a strong interest in alternative spirituality - Eastern philosophy and the like - and studied both comparative religion and philosophy. I never studied Nietzsche formally, but I have a strong antipathy towards him; I often think his sacred cow status in post-modernism is ironic in light of the glee with which he customarily slaughtered sacred cows. (I was perhaps influenced by Russell's imaginary dialogue between Nietzsche and the Buddha in History of Western Philosophy.)

In answer to your question - actually there is an exceedingly dense and erudite book from a couple of years back, Culture and the Death of God, by Terry Eagleton. Eagleton is not at all a religious type, actually he's a cultural critic and leftist public intellectual. But he was dragged into commenting on religion after his scathing review of Dawkin's 'The God Delusion' (a review which actually attracted coverage in the print media in its own right). Thereafter he commented at length on the cultural significance of the idea of God; the book I mentioned is an account of how various philosophies and ideologies have tried to compensate for 'the death of God' in the period since.

Personally, I don't see how you can anchor any idea of a 'true good' without some form of either belief in a transcendent God or at least a transcendent moral order (e.g. as Buddhism, Taoism and pre-Christian Greek philosophy do). Evolutionary biology has stepped into the vacuum created by the receding religions, but it is emphatically not a philosophy as such. Every day, on philosophy forums, numbers of people join who are actually nihilist, whether they understand that or not; I guess they haven't got to the point where they understand why it matters yet.

Has the search for such a philosophy ever been successful? — Ron Cram

[...]

What philosophers have tried and failed? How did they fail? — Ron Cram

Well, what you are asking here is about the utility or function (at accomplishing a certain goal or purpose) of believing in a certain philosophy. Correct?

Personally, I don't see how you can anchor any idea of a 'true good' without some form of either belief in a transcendent God or at least a transcendent moral order (e.g. as Buddhism and Taoism do). — Wayfarer

That is pretty much it as far as "higher moral ground" goes.

A lot of people just think their opinion is the objective moral reality everyone else should abide by.

Well, what you are asking here is about the utility or function (at accomplishing a certain goal or purpose) of believing in a certain philosophy. Correct?

Not at all. I'm asking about a quest for truth. That's what philosophy is all about, right? It is a quest for truth, reality, wisdom and how to live best.

Philosophers have attempted to show that it is reasonable to believe the state of affairs is that God does not exist but objective moral good and evil do exist and that it's possible for one's life to be lived in a way that is objectively good and so has purpose.

What philosophers have attempted to show this? Has anyone succeeded? Who has failed and why?

Not at all. I'm asking about a quest for truth. — Ron Cram

First, let's get the idea out of our head that philosophers are like prophets that have access to The truth. That's just a delusion some philosophers like to believe themselves and then go about trying to convince the folk to that matter.

So, my point is that you should be wary of philosophers who claim to know the truth, as Nietzsche described.

Philosophers have attempted to show that it is reasonable to believe the state of affairs is that God does not exist but objective moral good and evil do exist and that it's possible for one's life to be lived in a way that is objectively good and so has purpose. — Ron Cram

Yeah, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

What philosophers have attempted to show this? Has anyone succeeded? Who has failed and why? — Ron Cram

How do you evaluate those qualitative terms you have used? Such as 'succeeded' and 'failed'?

How do you evaluate those qualitative terms you have used? Such as 'succeeded' and 'failed'?

I use the terms in the usual way. For example, logical positivism has been shown to be false. Even philosophers who were influential in it gave it up. It is recognized in the history of philosophy as an idea that was wrong.

Not forgetting that krisis in Greek means 'judgement', or the moment of decision (in medicine: the moment where the patient hovers between life and death and a course of action must be decided upon), it's probably fair to say that Nietzsche did throw philosophy into crisis - a moment of decision: continue to wax nostalgic for some other-wordly paradise so as to better secure the triumph of nihilism, or affirm instead the joyful immanence of this world, freed from the stifling and deadening (non-)sensibilities of Platonism. A very welcome crisis.

Well-stated for a nihilist perspective, but the vast majority of philosophers are not nihilists and never will be.

My sources tell me that Erik Wielenberg is one atheist philosopher who has tried to embrace moral realism and purpose in life. But his is only one name. I'm looking for more.

Its not a nihilist perspective. Nietzsche actively fought against nihilism all his life.

If nihilism is supposed to be the idea that there can be no such things as values, then Nietzche was very definitely not an explicit nihilist. But as far as I am aware he did embrace nihilism towards the values contemporary for his time, their bases having been undermined by the intellectual advance of mankind, nothing was left to support them. He believed, I think, that it was possible to come out the other side of that nihilism in one piece, but I'm not sure what he thought that side of the tunnel would look like. I've heard some people say that he thought mankind's principle motiviation should be the creation of great works of art, but that seems to be a little simplistic.

We come from a random process - evolution. Where does objectivity fall into a random process?

Evolution is not a random process, and no evolutionary biologist would say that. Gene mutation is random, natural selection is non-random.

+Ron Cram

Though Spinoza came before Nietzsche, I think Nietzsche's 'death of God' doesnt apply to Spinoza's God, because Nietzsche's attack on God is a attack on a transcedent God, while Spinoza's God is immanent. So an argument could be made that Spinoza argues for a objective morality based on an immanent God, which survives Nietzsche's critique.

I don't think Nietzsche was anti-God, he was anti-human, or more correctly anti-(most) humans. The beauty of Nietzsche lies in his relevance to those whom he considered non-fools, the uberman and the Philosopher of the future (not the past or the present).

The 'philosophers of the future', these enigmatic souls are out there but they remain confined to the minority.

Nihilism is a self contradiction. Thought cannot be annihilated, even by thought itself.

One cannot reject God and continue to exist oneself, this is impossible. A rejection of God entails a rejection of existence. One strives at all times to understand what this God is? And avoid the various fashionable opinions and the 'books for all the world' as a source of this knowledge. As Nietzsche writes "the stench of small people clings to them"

M

Gene mutation is random, natural selection is non-random. — Nop

Can you think of a more descriptive term for natural selection than "non-random?" If it isn't random, what is it?

So an argument could be made that Spinoza argues for a objective morality based on an immanent God, which survives Nietzsche's critique. — Nop

That's an interesting thought. Can you think of any followers of Spinoza that have published that idea?

Evolution is not a random process, and no evolutionary biologist would say that. Gene mutation is random, natural selection is non-random. — Nop

Your rebuttal would have merit if "evolution" meant "natural selection." It does not.

The theory of evolution seeks to explain how we went from our LUCA to the current biodiversity found in our world, and given that you already ceded the argument to me. Genes are passed along via heredity through some reproductive process with new traits occurring through, that's right, genetic mutation, a random process.

Simply focusing on natural selection does not even help when it is done so vaguely. The actions of the participants in natural selection are not random. However, the circumstances the participants find themselves in are random, because they come from passing genetic traits along, not choice of the participant.

If you and I survive by eating coconuts, and I can eat them faster, thus growing stronger and reproducing faster, allowing my genes to box you out, then me utilizing my advantage is not random. The fact I have the advantage is random.

Getting back to my point, what in evolution dictates that I have to be "fair" and let you consume coconuts at the same rate I do, so that we may compete fairly?

Though Spinoza came before Nietzsche, I think Nietzsche's 'death of God' doesnt apply to Spinoza's God, because Nietzsche's attack on God is a attack on a transcedent God, while Spinoza's God is immanent. So an argument could be made that Spinoza argues for a objective morality based on an immanent God, which survives Nietzsche's critique. — Nop

I feel it's a good argument. Spinoza isn't alone, of course. The Stoics thought that God was immanent and that moral conduct could be determined "objectively" thousands of years before Frantic Freddie began to write the seemingly endless series of rhetorical questions and exclamations which make up such a large part of his work. John Dewey thought it possible to make moral judgments on what I think would be called an "objective" basis without bringing God into play. I find it hard to believe that any "crisis" exists, myself, though I don't doubt some do.

I thought the challenge was embracing atheism with nihilism.

No, most people find nihilism repugnant and unlivable. The crisis is to find a way to embrace both atheism and purpose in life. James Sire, in his book The Universe Next Door, wrote that existentialism, post-modernism and new age are all attempts to embrace atheism while transcending nihilism in some way. But it doesn't seem that any of these attempts have been successful.

I apologize. I meant “without” instead of “with.”

A rejection of God entails a rejection of existence. — Marcus de Brun

How so?

@Nop Nietzsche and Spinoza had very different conceptions of God. Nietzsche's attacks were (as I understand them) against the Christian notion of a personal god, and that is very definitely not the kind of god Spinoza's monism involves. Nietzsche seemed to have a great deal of respect for Spinoza (Della Rocca's recent book on Spinoza has a section on this).

A Spinozistic argument would be: God = substance, no substance then no existence, therefore no God no existence. That's valid, although it may not be sound and I'm not sure if it is what MdB had in mind.

A rejection of existence requires the application of or validation of the same faculty upon which or within which.this God entity is manifest.

If we dehumanize god as Spinoza has done, and as reason would beg us to do, it follows then that a dehumanised god can never be negated by the application of the faculty 'thought' as thought becomes or remains as the fundamental basis of dehumanised god.