4 ms·

Out of curiosity, why secular humanism vs existential nihilism? I don't think I'll switch sides and time soon, but if I did it would be to nihilism.

lovemenot 11y ago
I may not be reading you correctly, but I understand you to be coming from a position of faith and happy therein (for now). If so, your standpoint makes sense to me. I imagine you may feel it would take a good deal of momentum to cross the boundary at the edge of your faith. A nihilist alternative may also act as a warning of the scary outside to those still on the inside. Nevertheless, it is not actually necessary to go to extremes (see fallacy of excluded middle). The outside is closer to where you are now, than you might imagine.
- virmundi 11y ago
  I am happy with my faith. I've gone through a crisis of it. I've come out much stronger on the other side. Specifically to the extreme, during that time I re-evaluated possible philosophic systems. I am an absolutist. I think there is Truth. Without a god, I needed to see if there was any system that provided a similar world view. Existential nihilism does. It says that the only fact we have is that nothing fundamentally matters (I'm treating existential nihilism apart from the extreme skeptics that deny the existence of things). The universe will die, or collapse and re-expand. Regardless to the exact details, every invention and power of man amounts to nothing. Therefore since every man is within the group man, individual acts amount to nothing. I've not seen a more honest system than this. I want an honest system Most other systems are predicated on a quasi-Christian-like system. They believe that people are somehow different than everything else in the universe. That they have intrinsic meaning while nothing else does. Or they go to the other extreme that makes everything equally special, and as we're taught in the movie The Incredibles, nothing is special then. As we've seen in this thread, the view might boil down to "it makes me feel good to help people". The problem that I have with such systems is that they ultimately anchor to a feeling or some other arbitrary truth. Upon that rock an edifice is made from which various dogmas are shouted. If I were to throw away one system of belief with that behavior, why would I adopt another? As a result, I find that there are only two systems that could be true given what humanity knows: some form of theism or nihilism. I'm convinced of the former, specifically Jesus as the Christ, but I find no honest system possible other than nihilism if my feeling and beliefs were some how shown to be false.
  - lovemenot 11y ago
    >> If I were to throw away one system of belief with that behavior, why would I adopt another? You seem comfortable with the arbitrariness of your faith now. So why not any other? A hypothetical true-believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster would (by most reasonable criteria) be moving in the right direction if he/she were to become a Christian instead. Even though both faiths may be unanchored, there are wider considerations too.
    - virmundi 11y ago
      I do see how one can say it's arbitrary. There is a set of rules that we didn't make, that a god imposes on us. We may know why for some rules. We might not know others. The system could be called arbitrary. My reason is entirely based on experience. I have not felt the spirit of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor his noodlely appendage. I have felt the Spirit. This makes it not arbitrary. It's rooted in God. It's rooted in the absolute. That's why if I ever stopped believing in the Trinity, I would be a nihilist. It's a good starting point. It admits that everything is arbitrary. As such, I think we could build on it to a Utilitarian system. We all agree that core set of values is arbitrary, but that it's build on avoiding pain. Avoiding pain is an arbitrary metric, but well, the majority doesn't want to be kicked, so let's agree that we shouldn't do that to each other.
      - lovemenot 11y ago
        This is a cordial conversation and I have no desire to be the first turn it mean. So please read the following in the most charitable light. You seem to apply two standards. To yourself, your personal experience is sufficient. Yet from others, a more rigorous justification is expected. By analogy: if I were Japanese, I would definitely prefer Buddhism over Shinto. Yet, I am not Japanese, which rather undermines my argument. Under such hypothetical circumstances my perspective would surely be other than it actually is now. The reason I pursue this point is that, historically, people with faith have argued unreasonably that the only viable alternative to their unique faith is [name_a_specific_extreme_and_scary_philosophical_position_here]. To be fair, if you are doing this at all, you are doing so only subtly.
maxerickson 11y ago
Being good to people makes me feel good.

lovemenot 11y ago

I may not be reading you correctly, but I understand you to be coming from a position of faith and happy therein (for now). If so, your standpoint makes sense to me. I imagine you may feel it would take a good deal of momentum to cross the boundary at the edge of your faith. A nihilist alternative may also act as a warning of the scary outside to those still on the inside. Nevertheless, it is not actually necessary to go to extremes (see fallacy of excluded middle). The outside is closer to where you are now, than you might imagine.

virmundi 11y ago
I am happy with my faith. I've gone through a crisis of it. I've come out much stronger on the other side. Specifically to the extreme, during that time I re-evaluated possible philosophic systems. I am an absolutist. I think there is Truth. Without a god, I needed to see if there was any system that provided a similar world view. Existential nihilism does. It says that the only fact we have is that nothing fundamentally matters (I'm treating existential nihilism apart from the extreme skeptics that deny the existence of things). The universe will die, or collapse and re-expand. Regardless to the exact details, every invention and power of man amounts to nothing. Therefore since every man is within the group man, individual acts amount to nothing. I've not seen a more honest system than this. I want an honest system Most other systems are predicated on a quasi-Christian-like system. They believe that people are somehow different than everything else in the universe. That they have intrinsic meaning while nothing else does. Or they go to the other extreme that makes everything equally special, and as we're taught in the movie The Incredibles, nothing is special then. As we've seen in this thread, the view might boil down to "it makes me feel good to help people". The problem that I have with such systems is that they ultimately anchor to a feeling or some other arbitrary truth. Upon that rock an edifice is made from which various dogmas are shouted. If I were to throw away one system of belief with that behavior, why would I adopt another? As a result, I find that there are only two systems that could be true given what humanity knows: some form of theism or nihilism. I'm convinced of the former, specifically Jesus as the Christ, but I find no honest system possible other than nihilism if my feeling and beliefs were some how shown to be false.
- lovemenot 11y ago
  >> If I were to throw away one system of belief with that behavior, why would I adopt another? You seem comfortable with the arbitrariness of your faith now. So why not any other? A hypothetical true-believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster would (by most reasonable criteria) be moving in the right direction if he/she were to become a Christian instead. Even though both faiths may be unanchored, there are wider considerations too.
  - virmundi 11y ago
    I do see how one can say it's arbitrary. There is a set of rules that we didn't make, that a god imposes on us. We may know why for some rules. We might not know others. The system could be called arbitrary. My reason is entirely based on experience. I have not felt the spirit of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor his noodlely appendage. I have felt the Spirit. This makes it not arbitrary. It's rooted in God. It's rooted in the absolute. That's why if I ever stopped believing in the Trinity, I would be a nihilist. It's a good starting point. It admits that everything is arbitrary. As such, I think we could build on it to a Utilitarian system. We all agree that core set of values is arbitrary, but that it's build on avoiding pain. Avoiding pain is an arbitrary metric, but well, the majority doesn't want to be kicked, so let's agree that we shouldn't do that to each other.
    - lovemenot 11y ago
      This is a cordial conversation and I have no desire to be the first turn it mean. So please read the following in the most charitable light. You seem to apply two standards. To yourself, your personal experience is sufficient. Yet from others, a more rigorous justification is expected. By analogy: if I were Japanese, I would definitely prefer Buddhism over Shinto. Yet, I am not Japanese, which rather undermines my argument. Under such hypothetical circumstances my perspective would surely be other than it actually is now. The reason I pursue this point is that, historically, people with faith have argued unreasonably that the only viable alternative to their unique faith is [name_a_specific_extreme_and_scary_philosophical_position_here]. To be fair, if you are doing this at all, you are doing so only subtly.

maxerickson 11y ago

Being good to people makes me feel good.