Debating a Nihilist...

[prodigalson2011]

I've been having conversations with an old friend of mine who is perhaps the most cynical individual I've ever met. I don't know exactly what you would call his philosophy.. I suppose "spiritual nihilism" would sum it up quite well. While he tends to agree with me that the universe was probably created by something intelligent, that is pretty much the end of our philosophical convergence.

I would like to hear from some of the more experienced theistic "philosophers" here at the forums on how you would respond to some of these kinds of arguments. I will try my best to summarize his positions:

a) all human activity (including and especially religion) is based on fear. From technology to entertainment, it is all an attempt to delay death or distract ourselves from awareness of it. Religion is viewed as the pinnacle of this drive.
b) Fear of hell is the key factor of religion. This fear is extended into a system of social control.
c) People, along with the rest of the world, are inherently destructive and evil and thus the product of a force that is either malevolent or apathetic. Any "goods" we achieve or pursue are acts of deception aimed towards maintaining an environment conducive to survival; true human nature is exemplified by our vices.

That should be a good grounds to start with. I would also like to stress that I'm not looking to open debate on this subject. I'm only interested in responses sympathetic to orthodox Catholic philosophy. My goal here is to gain some new perspectives from which to address these objections. As responses are received, I will play the role of "devil's advocate" for clarification if necessary.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

a) all human activity (including and especially religion) is based on fear. From technology to entertainment, it is all an attempt to delay death or distract ourselves from awareness of it. Religion is viewed as the pinnacle of this drive.

If all human activity is based on fear all his conclusions are based on fear!

b) Fear of hell is the key factor of religion. This fear is extended into a system of social control.

Then his belief is based on fear of religion and social control!

c) People, along with the rest of the world, are inherently destructive and evil and thus the product of a force that is either malevolent or apathetic. Any "goods" we achieve or pursue are acts of deception aimed towards maintaining an environment conducive to survival; true human nature is exemplified by our vices.

Then his argument is inherently destructive and an act of deception!

All his arguments are self-destructive.

Scepticism undermines itself because it is self-contradictory.

[littlestsouls]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

a) all human activity (including and especially religion) is based on fear. From technology to entertainment, it is all an attempt to delay death or distract ourselves from awareness of it. Religion is viewed as the pinnacle of this drive.
b) Fear of hell is the key factor of religion. This fear is extended into a system of social control.
c) People, along with the rest of the world, are inherently destructive and evil and thus the product of a force that is either malevolent or apathetic. Any "goods" we achieve or pursue are acts of deception aimed towards maintaining an environment conducive to survival; true human nature is exemplified by our vices.

a.) When you say that "religion is... the pinnacle of this drive", I'm assuming that you mean the drive to distract ourselves from awareness of death, and not that "religious fear" 'causes' us to distract ourselves from the awareness of death. If the latter were true, it would mean that the belief in religious truths is essentially universal (in order for it to be the pinnacle...), which is obviously not the case.

Religion cannot simultaneously embrace fear (e.g. the fear of death) as a motivator, and attempt to distract ourselves from awareness of it. On the contrary, Jesus repeatedly said "Do not be afraid..." and that "Perfect love casts out fear." It is love, therefore, that should motivate us. If this is not so in reality, it can only be because we do not understand or practice our religion; emotions and human weaknesses aside. Consequently, it could be said that the Christian religion is anti-fear; the fear OF (in) Hell, for example, is far worse than the fear of (going to) Hell.

b.) I quote St. Teresa of Avila- a woman who understood her religion: "I would rather suffer a thousand Hells than commit a single venial sin." This is a fine example of love driving our actions; fear is accidental/secondary (the fear of offending the One you love), but it is not the driving force. Besides, even IF it could be said that all religions use fear as a motivator, couldn't it also be said that this reflects our intrinsic sense of Divine justice; something to be rightly feared? It would therefore be our sense of justice that compels us to do good; fear is accidental (understood in the philiosphical sense as being a consequence of a prior cause).

c.) Martyrdom, sacrifice, "victim-souls", self-denial, mortification... Your friend's empiricism is failing him.

A Catholic response: Our corrupt human nature is a JUST consequence of mankind's injustice/sin, which is a misuse of free-will- something quite good in itself, but which necessarily allows for the possibility of choosing evil. Original sin provides a reasonable explanation for human selfishness, but it is only one part of the picture, so to speak. By the grace of God, our human natures can be perfected and restored to their intended purpose, thus demonstrating that God is not an "apathetic" force, but instead is merciful and loving. If this were not the case, how and why is it that He offers to restore our privileges that not even justice (and much less so apathy!) entitles us to?

[Qoeleth]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

I've been having conversations with an old friend of mine who is perhaps the most cynical individual I've ever met. I don't know exactly what you would call his philosophy.. I suppose "spiritual nihilism" would sum it up quite well. While he tends to agree with me that the universe was probably created by something intelligent, that is pretty much the end of our philosophical convergence.

I would like to hear from some of the more experienced theistic "philosophers" here at the forums on how you would respond to some of these kinds of arguments. I will try my best to summarize his positions:

a) all human activity (including and especially religion) is based on fear. From technology to entertainment, it is all an attempt to delay death or distract ourselves from awareness of it. Religion is viewed as the pinnacle of this drive.
b) Fear of hell is the key factor of religion. This fear is extended into a system of social control.
c) People, along with the rest of the world, are inherently destructive and evil and thus the product of a force that is either malevolent or apathetic. Any "goods" we achieve or pursue are acts of deception aimed towards maintaining an environment conducive to survival; true human nature is exemplified by our vices.

That should be a good grounds to start with. I would also like to stress that I'm not looking to open debate on this subject. I'm only interested in responses sympathetic to orthodox Catholic philosophy. My goal here is to gain some new perspectives from which to address these objections. As responses are received, I will play the role of "devil's advocate" for clarification if necessary.

Maybe you should get your friend to read "The Labyrinth of the World" by John Comenius. It's was written in the 1600's and possibly outdoes most modern nihilists in terms of uncompromising negativity about the human condition. But it is a deeply Christian devotional book. It's an allegory about some guy who finds everything and everyone in the world corrupt, empty and meaningless, but then turns to God in his heart.

[littlestsouls]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Maybe you should get your friend to read "The Labyrinth of the World" by John Comenius. It's was written in the 1600's and possibly outdoes most modern nihilists in terms of uncompromising negativity about the human condition. But it is a deeply Christian devotional book. It's an allegory about some guy who finds everything and everyone in the world corrupt, empty and meaningless, but then turns to God in his heart.

That sounds like a good read! Thanks for the recommendation (even though it was not specifically for me)!

[fred conty]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

I've been having conversations with an old friend of mine who is perhaps the most cynical individual I've ever met. I don't know exactly what you would call his philosophy.. I suppose "spiritual nihilism" would sum it up quite well. While he tends to agree with me that the universe was probably created by something intelligent, that is pretty much the end of our philosophical convergence.

I would like to hear from some of the more experienced theistic "philosophers" here at the forums on how you would respond to some of these kinds of arguments. I will try my best to summarize his positions:

a) all human activity (including and especially religion) is based on fear. From technology to entertainment, it is all an attempt to delay death or distract ourselves from awareness of it. Religion is viewed as the pinnacle of this drive.
b) Fear of hell is the key factor of religion. This fear is extended into a system of social control.
c) People, along with the rest of the world, are inherently destructive and evil and thus the product of a force that is either malevolent or apathetic. Any "goods" we achieve or pursue are acts of deception aimed towards maintaining an environment conducive to survival; true human nature is exemplified by our vices.

That should be a good grounds to start with. I would also like to stress that I'm not looking to open debate on this subject. I'm only interested in responses sympathetic to orthodox Catholic philosophy. My goal here is to gain some new perspectives from which to address these objections. As responses are received, I will play the role of "devil's advocate" for clarification if necessary.

He seems locked in doubts and despair contrary to what Jesus wants for him.

Explain the hunger of not knowing where we belong or if we belong or not making sense of it all. We wonder in circles and find no answers. What is it all about? How do I fit into the total picture, and what is in store for me? Buzz him with those types of questions. Then explain that there are answers to all those questions.

Then build up the love of Jesus.
Ask him, "how many people have died for you?"
How many people have real answers that change life?
How many can prove it?
How many people can tell us what we need to know?
How many can make sense of it all?

Then fill in some answers.

It sounds as though he has given up on life and himself. You can explain a few things that will help him to see the goodness of God to help lift him up. A few rays of sunshine are always welcome on a cloudy day.

Just a few thoughts and that is a good thing your are doing.

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by Qoeleth

Maybe you should get your friend to read "The Labyrinth of the World" by John Comenius. It's was written in the 1600's and possibly outdoes most modern nihilists in terms of uncompromising negativity about the human condition. But it is a deeply Christian devotional book. It's an allegory about some guy who finds everything and everyone in the world corrupt, empty and meaningless, but then turns to God in his heart.

Thanks for the recommendation! I'll definitely look into that.

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by littlestsouls

a.) When you say that "religion is... the pinnacle of this drive", I'm assuming that you mean the drive to distract ourselves from awareness of death, and not that "religious fear" 'causes' us to distract ourselves from the awareness of death. If the latter were true, it would mean that the belief in religious truths is essentially universal (in order for it to be the pinnacle...), which is obviously not the case.

Religion cannot simultaneously embrace fear (e.g. the fear of death) as a motivator, and attempt to distract ourselves from awareness of it. On the contrary, Jesus repeatedly said "Do not be afraid..." and that "Perfect love casts out fear." It is love, therefore, that should motivate us. If this is not so in reality, it can only be because we do not understand or practice our religion; emotions and human weaknesses aside. Consequently, it could be said that the Christian religion is anti-fear; the fear OF (in) Hell, for example, is far worse than the fear of (going to) Hell.

b.) I quote St. Teresa of Avila- a woman who understood her religion: "I would rather suffer a thousand Hells than commit a single venial sin." This is a fine example of love driving our actions; fear is accidental/secondary (the fear of offending the One you love), but it is not the driving force. Besides, even IF it could be said that all religions use fear as a motivator, couldn't it also be said that this reflects our intrinsic sense of Divine justice; something to be rightly feared? It would therefore be our sense of justice that compels us to do good; fear is accidental (understood in the philiosphical sense as being a consequence of a prior cause).

c.) Martyrdom, sacrifice, "victim-souls", self-denial, mortification... Your friend's empiricism is failing him.

A Catholic response: Our corrupt human nature is a JUST consequence of mankind's injustice/sin, which is a misuse of free-will- something quite good in itself, but which necessarily allows for the possibility of choosing evil. Original sin provides a reasonable explanation for human selfishness, but it is only one part of the picture, so to speak. By the grace of God, our human natures can be perfected and restored to their intended purpose, thus demonstrating that God is not an "apathetic" force, but instead is merciful and loving. If this were not the case, how and why is it that He offers to restore our privileges that not even justice (and much less so apathy!) entitles us to?

You raise some excellent points. I already countered his claim (a) with my own personal testimony to love as the basis of my faith. I offered examples of how this is so, but I didn't think of the obvious contradictions in the contrary argument. I'll be sure to bring those up next time, as well as the rest of them.

On a side note, I'm currently reading "Lift Up Your Heart" by Fulton Sheen. In this book, her argues that the biggest impediment to belief or acceptance of God is not a lack of intellectual understanding, but a refusal to acknowledge one's sinfulness. I think he is right. I, myself, viewed religion in a very similar way as my friend when I was an unbeliever, and what initially converted me was not theological or philosophical arguments, but a feeling of desperate need for forgiveness and transformation. From there, my perspective on religion (and particularly Christianity) took a complete 180. I was then surprised to find myself becoming convicted as much intellectually as emotionally. To paraphrase Bishop Sheen, our souls are like windows and God's truth is like sunlight: If the window of the soul is filthy with sin, the light will not penetrate it. Before we can be filled with His truth, we must clean our "windows" with repentance.

But I digress. Thanks again for your reply.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

You raise some excellent points. I already countered his claim (a) with my own personal testimony to love as the basis of my faith. I offered examples of how this is so, but I didn't think of the obvious contradictions in the contrary argument. I'll be sure to bring those up next time, as well as the rest of them.

On a side note, I'm currently reading "Lift Up Your Heart" by Fulton Sheen. In this book, her argues that the biggest impediment to belief or acceptance of God is not a lack of intellectual understanding, but a refusal to acknowledge one's sinfulness. I think he is right. I, myself, viewed religion in a very similar way as my friend when I was an unbeliever, and what initially converted me was not theological or philosophical arguments, but a feeling of desperate need for forgiveness and transformation. From there, my perspective on religion (and particularly Christianity) took a complete 180. I was then surprised to find myself becoming convicted as much intellectually as emotionally. To paraphrase Bishop Sheen, our souls are like windows and God's truth is like sunlight: If the window of the soul is filthy with sin, the light will not penetrate it. Before we can be filled with His truth, we must clean our "windows" with repentance.

But I digress. Thanks again for your reply.

It's an anomaly of the English language that "convicted" has only one meaning whereas "conviction" has two! The noun equivalent for "convinced" should logically be "convinction".