1.B) “Yes, I agree that from within that view we can ‘make ourselves significant’ not by overcoming that reality — that’s impossible — but by thinking of “significant” in an entirely different sense all together!” I gave three levels of ‘significance’, all of which are valid, even the least of them, right from the beginning of the discussion. And at least the least of them (us towards the planet) CAN be overcome if we PUT FORTH THE EFFORT TO overcome it.

1.C) And with that, you ignore completely that, because one level can be overcome, and because it is the most pressing and direct level of those I presented, a point or purpose to one’s life can be created on that level. This exists without a “god” to dictate “significance”, and hence shows that atheism does not NEED TO lead to nihilism. In short: with modern knowledge, nihilism is no longer THE ONLY logical conclusion of atheism; there are many.

1.D) Likewise, the above is on a ‘level of significance’ that is not the most pressing possible: person to person. This is where ethical systems come from, and is able to exist without a god because a god is not necessarily involved. Hence this level could be used just as logically as, if not more-so than, ‘us to the planet’. And shows even more that atheism does not LOGICALLY need to conclude in nihilism.

2.A) Let me rework your claim. “If theists are right, and God existed, I agree that God can and would squash us like ants and it would have the same ‘moral ramifications’ as us killing ants, thereby proving beyond doubt that Kantian morals are wrong.” Isn’t that amazing what critical thought does? Your own point used against you.

2.B) Rework again: “But then this makes sense because there are no moral ramifications *at all* in a theistic universe beyond what God decides arbitrarily for us.” That is strike two.

2.C) Reworking again: “If God decides it’s ‘moral’ to kill us all and he has the power to do it, then that’s moral reality in a theistic worldview by fiat.” Strike three, which is why I didn’t respond until now.

2.D) Also, you seem to ignore that there are many more ethical systems than simple Kantian ethics. Your original claim for my 2.C only works IF KANT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, which 2.A shows is not the case. Strike four.

—

@ August 6th response:

First, premise 1 of your proposition is merely a generalization of premise 2. P1 for simplicity, and is indeed rational. But P2 is more-correct in any philosophical sense. Hence while Russel and Lovecraft (and indeed most scientists, myself included) “buy #1″, we do not conceed that it is absolutely true and stay on the side of caution in phrasing lest our words be misinterpreted.

Second, I am an “atheist” because I do not believe that there is a god. That is all. You yourself are an atheist towards dozens of pantheons and hundreds of personalities and descriptions of monotheistic gods.

Third, while I technically do utilize P2 as one of many supports for my atheism, its own premise is false. Any god (let us assume [incorrectly] that a ‘god’ is simply a ‘divine’ entity or force) if it ACTUALLY EXISTED would be able to “logically from our science” AND from “some new science” as science is devoted to discovering the truth. For this reason it is on the theist to prove their god, and by extension makes atheism REGARDLESS OF ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS “true”.

Fourth, quantify “survive forever”. The matter that I am made of has existed at least as long as this planet has (about 4.5 billion years) and will continue to exist until it reconverts from matter back into pure energy, this galaxy collapses in on itself, this galaxy is replaced by another galaxy, the universe collaspes in on itself, or the universe is replaced by another universe.

Fifth, it is a technicality but the ‘end of the universe’ could be a ‘heat death’, a ‘cold death’, or a ‘big crunch’. Depending on if the universe reaches a finite size and stops expanding, the universe expands indefinitely, or if the universe expands to a finite point and then begins to collapse. Just a technicality.

Sixth, “the fact that Lovecraft felt hopelessness over the fact that life was going to die out no matter what we did informed his feelings that he put into his writtings. *You* are labeling those feelings as “insignificant.””
I’ll summarize the problems:
1) The end of the universe is on the scale of BILLIONS of years, to assume it comes early. When there are more-pressing matters such as the present, yeah those fears are pretty much insignificant.
2) Before the above objection to you, I never referred to his FEELINGS as ‘insignificant’. I referred to his ‘feelings of insignificance’, but that was the closest I ever got to ‘feelings’ and ‘insignificance’ in this discussion.

Seventh, “*You* are then pointing out that ‘atheism’ doesn’t have to feel ‘insignificant’ because, as life, they can affect their environment in positive ways for themselves, and therefore are ‘significant.’”
Yes, and no. Using the level of the environment: humans can affect it POSITIVELY REGARDLESS OF HOW IT AFFECTS MANKIND, so that when humans give way to the ‘next stage of evolution’, at least we would have contributed to extending the environment’s life, and hence on that level having significance. (And even possibly allowing that ‘next stage of evolution’ to exist at all.)
However my more-pressing point is that significance is subjective. I provided in the example how a person can affect: the planet, the galaxy, and the universe. I left out on purpose other people, other living organisms, the ecosystem, the environment, and other environments. I left them out because they are self-evident. Yet they are all LOGICAL AND VALID quantifications of “significance” and as such “significance” can apply to all of them.
*** And since you seem to need it spelled out: nihilism “is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life”. Simply, a nihilist posits that there is no meaning and hence no significance in life or reality. Hence if a position CAN apply significance to ANYTHING then it is not intrinsically nihilistic. ***

Eight, “You are only saying that you prefer not to call that “insignificant.”” I am not saying that the inevitable end of existence isn’t “insignificance”. I AM, however, saying that just because we don’t make an impact on some random planet 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 light-millenia away does not mean that we have NO ‘SIGNIFICANCE’ AT ALL. This means that nihilism is not THE ONLY “logical conclusion” of atheism; and even more, it means that Lovecraftian nihilism is far from logical. ESPECIALLY given modern knowledge.

Ninth and final, “And I do not see myself disagreeing with you at all. I just don’t feel it’s a very significant point.” Actually it is relatively significant (especially to the level that your rant is directed to: the mass of all people) because your entire rant (that is what it is) is based on proving a FALSE CONCLUSION and fills itself with false claims. It purposefully spreads ignorance, which harms society and by extension creates a mental barrier that prevents people from seeing the falsehood of the claims made.

Let me compare it like this: Lovecraftian Nihilism is one side of a ten-story concrete wall that everyone is trapped on. Ignorance leads to people trying to jump the wall and/or hitting it with sticks and stones. Knowledge leads to bulldozing the wall, blowing it up, and/or using the available tools to actually scale it.
Lovecraft tried to scale it and got high enough to see the view on the other side before his rope broke. But that doesn’t mean that everyone has to stop where he did. Some people (including atheists) before Lovecraft in fact did scale it successfully. Others simply went around and/or avoided it (more often than not this is what the theistic response to nihilism does). But now we can bulldoze it and use the remains to build more important buildings.

I am curious about something.

Take a proposition and please assess it for me:

Proposition: All life will eventually be erradicated from the universe. By heat death (2nd law of thermodynamics) if not sooner by something else.

Please assess this proposition as follows:

1. This follows logically from our science. Therefore it is true.
2. This follows logically from our science. Therefore it is the most likely outcome baring some new science being discovered.
3. It’s possible, however unlikely, that we might survive forever.
4. I accept that life will go on forever.

I think the key thing here is that Lovecraft bought #1. He was willing to phrase it as #2, however. (Much as Bertrand Russell was willing to leave some outside chance, but thought we should accept #1 as rational.)

When you label yourself an ‘atheist’ I’m assuming — and there is good reason for this assumption — that you mean either #1 or #2. In fact, if you don’t accept either #1 or #2, I have pretty good reason to believe that ‘atheist’ is the wrong label for you just based on the tautological definition of atheist. (i.e. “divine” doesn’t have to mean a personal God, it just implies the centrality of life, that life will not end, etc. Consistent with Buddhist or Hindu teachings, for example.)

If you consider yourself an ‘atheist’ but you accept something more like #3 and #4, then I will not argue labels with you, but you should understand why I think ‘atheist’ may not be the best label in all cases.

If you do accept #1 (or #2) then my point is this: the fact that Lovecraft felt hopelessness over the fact that life was going to die out no matter what we did informed his feelings that he put into his writtings. *You* are labeling those feelings as “insignificant.”

*You* are then pointing out that ‘atheism’ (and here I assume #1 or #2) doesn’t have to feel ‘insignificant’ because, as life, they can affect their environment in positive ways for themselves, and therefore are ‘significant.’

Do you see the equivocation here? It’s as plain to me as the nose on my face. There are two uses of the same word (or their antonyms anyhow) with slightly different non-mutually exclusive meanings. You are not denying that life will be wiped out of existence – thereby nullifying any ‘progress’ made. You are only saying that you prefer not to call that “insignificant.” Or at least this honestly seems to me to be your entire point. And I do not see myself disagreeing with you at all. I just don’t feel it’s a very significant point. (Pardon the joke here.)

You are agreeing with me! With every comment you prove my point more fully. Lovecraft really did just take atheism to its logical conclusions.

Consider our points of agreement and how they demonstrate this.

Points of agreement:
1. Yes, if atheists are right, there are (at least) two legitimate definitions for ‘significant’ whereby — and simultaneously — atheists see humans as both significant in one sense and insignificant in another. Lovecraft’s point that we are insignificant (your word, not his or mine) in that we’re going to be wiped out of existence — by heat death or probably much much sooner — by a hostile uncaring reality. This is atheistically correct and spot on. I do not see you arguing this point.

Yes, I agree that from within that view we can ‘make ourselves significant’ not by overcoming that reality — that’s impossible — but by thinking of “significant” in an entirely different sense all together! This is what you are doing and not one whit more. You are merely equivocating on the word “significant.”

Note that this confirms that Lovecraft was following atheism to it’s logical conclusions and you are proving my/his point.

2. Yes, if atheists are right, and also Cthulhu existed, I agree that Cthulhu can and would squash us like ants and it would have the same ‘moral ramifications’ as us killing ants, thereby proving beyond doubt that Kantian morals are wrong. But then this makes sense because there are no moral ramifications *at all* in an atheistic universe beyond what we decide for ourselves. If Cthulhu decides it’s ‘moral’ to kill us all and he has the power to do it, then that’s moral reality in an atheistic worldview by fiat.

Thus you are proving my point entirely here. Note that this means Lovecraft was following atheism to it’s logical conclusions in his stories, just as stated. I appreciate all your support in proving my point.

–

“But for those that are wondering, if “significant” means something objective in this context, what does it mean while still staying rooted in atheism?” Subjective traits can in fact hold the appearance of objectivity. But since you don’t seem to understand that, I’ll rephrase my original sentence.
[If anything, the lack of our ability to have any lasting positive impact on our planet, let alone any impact on our galaxy or universe, should be what drives us to establish a lasting positive impact if not towards our galacy or universe at least towards our planet.]

Good enough for you? Or do you want a version of it about providing long-term impacts upon society in general and our descendants specifically. Or some other level of meaning to the word “significance”?

–

“While you feel free to side with Cthulhu based on anti-Kantian moral arguments” This is completely misreading my comment. I shall put it in perspective, then. From a Kantian perspective, ants do not have to obey the same moral obligations that humans do (assuming of course that ants have the rationality to support moral obligations to begin with). Do you agree to that? If not, then you aren’t worth discussing this with.

To the Lovecraftian entities, humans are parallel to ants. Our level of rational thought, our moral obligations, does not apply the them. Why should our morality apply to the Great Ones if the morality of ants does not apply to us? And that is Lovecraft’s point in questioning Kantian ethics.

“It’s a fair guess — like 100% — that it’s the second since if you didn’t you probably wouldn’t be identifiably human many more and would be in a jail.” There are more moral frameworks than just Kant’s. Additionally even an immoral person can follow laws; there’s a reason that RPGs can have “Lawful evil”.

–

“More likely you really do feel morality is a fact about reality. We are all Kantians.” I openly admit that moral thought is a fact. I also openly admit that it is evolutionary beneficial. I even openly admit that principles held by Kantian ethics are principles held by other moral systems.

But not everyone follows Kantian moral frameworks.
But no single moral system is always reliable.
But every moral framework has problems.

If we take your claim that “We are all Kantians” as true, we must also take “We are all Confucians” as equally true.

–

I could answer everything else but I won’t because it is dealt with by what I have stated above.

Didn’t notice your comment until now.

Actually, you are putting a postive spin on the very points I made. Other than that, we agree.

Consider, for example, your statement here: “If anything, our present insignificance is one of the most fundamental supports for the argument that we should become significant.

Do I need to point out the obvious rational problems with this statement? Hopefully not.

But for those that are wondering, if “significant” means something objective in this context, what does it mean while still staying rooted in atheism? If it’s just a subjective term, then don’t we already have significance if we choose? So it’s still not clear what it means.

I do not doubt that atheists are not Lovecraftians. I do not doubt that Lovecraft was not a Lovecraftian except when channeling his atheism for the sake of a good story. I doubt Lovecraftians exist outside of maybe asylums where we label them mentally ill — which is what they are.

What I think is in doubt is if atheists really and truly don’t believe in something very much like-unto-God in their heart of hearts. Your statement about ‘becoming significant’ has deep religious non-rational overtones of faith. In fact, that’s exactly what it was: a faith-based religious pronouncement. So are you realy an atheist then? I guess it just depends on how you happen to be defining the term at the moment. In any absolute sense, certainly not.

While you feel free to side with Cthulhu based on anti-Kantian moral arguments, I have to honestly wonder if you really live your life beliving such a thing or if (as C.S. Lewis points out) you fail to act that way in real life when the shoe is on the other foot.

It’s a fair guess — like 100% — that it’s the second since if you didn’t you probably wouldn’t be identifiably human many more and would be in a jail. The fact is that our brains are not wired to really believe that morality is just a subjective thing the way you are so coolly saying here. We can say it but we can’t believe it much less act on it. Are you really capable of believing in non-Kantian morality ‘in real life’? Is any one that we haven’t rightly labeled a psychopath? (Do even they?)

More likely you really do feel morality is a fact about reality. We are all Kantians. So I predict a massive gap between what you are saying here and what you really believe via your own actions. Care to deny it? Right or wrong, I’m sure you know that it’s what it means to be human.

Second, Kantian morality is justly questioned, especially in light of interactions with the world as a whole. Sure, a human can consider what a human would do. But Cthulhu sure as hell wouldn’t need to consider how his actions would affect us any more than we need to consider how our actions affect a colony of bacteria. To not get into problems with how Kantian morality is still subject to Lovecraft’s raised problem with morality.
Additionally, Lovecraft’s understanding of morality is valid and supported in light of today’s standards; “good” and “evil” are human constructs to explain otherwise-inexplicable actions and in even MILD research reveals that [“good” is a relative & variable quality, depending on ancestry, chronology, geography, nationality, & individual temperament.]

There is more I could tear into this, but these should be enough for now.

…and his cyniscm toward Kantian moral philosophy, shows his own immaturity of thought…

Well I’d like to think lots of people are cynical towards Kantian moral philosophy without being immature. I sure am. (Cynical that is, not immature)