The Archnox Irregular: 27 June 2021



ARTICLE GOES HERE

I have recently had multiple debates with both an ex-Muslim nihilist and Christian. I think it is interesting how their arguments are quite similar. Both focused on proving that all values, morals, reality, etc. are baseless and purely subjective. The goal of the nihilist was to fall into a pit and stay there, while the Christian sought to show how God is the only objective. Both find humanity insufficient and pursue inhuman perspectives. The difference is mainly one of attitude: the Christian copes while the nihilist basks in darkness.

The perspective of the nihilist is psychologically understandable. Islam gave her absolute morals, values, and assurance of reality. When she stopped believing, she tried searching for this objectivity independent of religion and found nothing. She discovered that the value of human life and the principle of not committing murder are human constructions rather than transcendent. She finds that our belief in the reality of our world and experiences is baseless. The nihilist is ultimately correct; these values and morals and beliefs are not transcendent, but distinctly human. But she does not find this simple explanation satisfactory.

My rebuttal is simple: nihilism is not possible. If one were to truly be agnostic about everything, they would be nothing more than a floating head constantly doubting what they see and think and feel. Such a person would be admitted into a mental institution and would have to be force fed in spite of their agnosticism on the reality of food. Nihilism is antithetical to humanity.

The Christian propounds distinctly similar points. He levels attack upon attack on any claim to value, morals, or trust in our experiences. He especially enjoyed using a simulation argument. “But what if we all live in a simulation?” This argument is not far off from Descartes' argument about us possibly being in a dream or under the spell of an imp. Descartes constructs a rationalist argument to prove God is real and thus disregards such doubts. The Christian however would not accept any argument. He wanted to show faith in God was the only answer. All reasonable argumentation can be undermined, so there is nothing more reasonable than to submit ones self to God.

Both the nihilist and the Christian absurdly look at humanity through a non-human eye. One appeals to the vast and uncaring universe to highlight our insignificance, while the other appeals to God to show the universe in all its vastness does care.

As a human, I find the human perspective satisfactory. I see no reason to abandon morality and values simply because they are not objective. They require no logical grounding in the first place. My instincts compel me to feel that strangling a kitten is wrong. It requires no more justification than that. A practicing moral nihilist only exists in psychopath. I don't need proof to know that what I experience is real. Even the radical skeptic must have some degree of faith in her perceptions to know when to get out of bed and take a piss. The Christian shoots too high. He cannot accept the reality of being a mere human and copes by pretending he knows the nature of God. Stop asking questions that no man needs to know the answer to: simply accept humanity.

Ironic Vainglory - Columbus, Ohio By Vacatio Libertas "Gray smokestacks bellow from brownish steel pipes Cold smog drowns life with the compassion of a shark Black bags in yellow grass, plastic on the roads A blue Pepsi truck smashes a squirrel's black carcass

A pot hole on the street-- and a real hole in the soul"