My Unsatisfying Critique of Nihilism

[QuickTwist]

Nietzsche, Sartre, etc. People, you could say, do not really "believe" in meaning.

I'm thinking of this argument "on the fly," so forgive me if my argument isn't all that "tight."

First question to ask: Why shouldn't you kill yourself? No, really, why not? If there is no purpose to anything, then why put up with the dregery of all the fake crap in the world today? Why put up with all the suffering you will face? Relationships loss, health loss, independence loss, etc. If we all end up six feet under, who cares whether we live or die?

So... you have to live for something. Maybe not a purpose. Maybe you are scared of death. Whatever. You still need a reason to get out of bed.

Now, one popular answer for why you should keep living and have a reason to live is to create your own meaning for life. But this is actually a form of self-deception because, at bottom, there is no meaning. After humans go extinct due to nuclear war, or whatever else, nothing is going to matter from the PoV of the deceased. Sure, you can try to "live to be remembered" and try to create a legacy for your life, trying to put your name in the history books for as long as possible. That's an option. But it is still self-deception because, ultimately, metaphysically, it does not actually matter.

No, what the Nihilist really needs is hope, because he has none... if lived out authentically, that is.

But, I refer to my previous point... You still do not kill yourself because you prefer to live rather than die.

And that really is the answer... The answer is, "What if life exists after death?" Forget the institutions, forget the religion, forget those who look down on anyone who doesn't see things the same way they do in their moral superiority. Forget all of that.

What if I told you there is actually hard evidence of life after death? Okay, I imagine I lost some people with this, so let me explain.

There are some observations where an individual will have no heartbeat AND no brain activity, who end up reporting things they saw, in the tangible world, that would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to know in their current condition of no measured heartbeat OR brain activity. In fact, there are, to date, about 500 such evidenced sources for a phenomenon of this nature. That does not even count all the instances where people simply report floating above their body and seeing a white light at the end of the tunnel or something. One woman, who had no recorded heart rate or brain activity, when she was "dead," said she "saw" a very long digit number on a piece of medical equipment. Since she had OCD tendencies, part of her tic was that if she ever saw a long number like that, she had to memorize it. So, when she "came back," the first thing she did was to tell one of the doctors or nurses or something to write down the number she saw when she was dead. Some time later, the people who were operating on her ended up, by coincidence, finding the exact same number on a piece of medical equipment in the same room where she was operated on. The doctors literally had no idea the number even existed. That's about as good of evidence as you are going to get for someone's soul surviving their physical death.

And then you might rightly say, "Well, sure, maybe there is life after death. So what? It doesn't actually point to any specific religion." And I would agree with that assessment. So, perhaps some more investigating is worth it to find out IF there is a religion out there that is actually true? I mean, of course it is possible that there is no religion that is true, and the right idea is some kind of religious pluralism or panentheism or something like that. But let's look at the evidence...

Buddhism: Not a historical religion. Can't be verified with evidence.
Hinduism: Same problem as Buddhism.
Judaism: Well, you have to be Jewish...
Islam: More historical holes in it than Swiss cheese.
Christianity: This is the one we will take a closer look at.

What is the central claim of Christianity? It is that Christ has risen from the dead. Now, you could dismiss this and go with Hume's argument against miracles, but Hume is actually very circular in his reasoning. He was also critiqued in his own day for his writings. It wasn't until post-enlightenment that people started to take his arguments seriously, which are viciously circular. So, perhaps it is POSSIBLE that miracles can happen?

And here is where I would like to give, what I think, is the best evidence for the resurrection of Christ.

First, it should be understood that not every scholar who studies the NT is a believing Christian. There are many atheist, skeptic, agnostic, Jewish, etc., scholars of the New Testament, where Jesus' resurrection is recorded.

There is a man who actually makes a case for the resurrection of Christ based on the SKEPTICS' criteria for evidence. You see, skeptics do not dismiss the NT out of hand. They still believe the New Testament provides SOME historical basis for its claims, even if they may say that the New Testament, as a whole, is an unreliable source for history. However, what if I were to tell you that even if we have a New Testament that is completely unreliable historically, we could still get VERY strong evidence that Christ has risen from the dead? Let's look at Dr. Gary Habermas' Minimal Facts for the resurrection. These are more or less considered HISTORICAL FACTS that all align with the Skeptics' criteria for what can be considered historical to a high probability.

These are the historical facts surrounding the Resurrection of Christ:

• Jesus died due to the effects of Roman crucifixion.
• Jesus was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
• Afterward, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having their previous hope challenged.
• The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty very soon after his interment.
• The disciples reported experiences that they thought were actually appearances of the risen Jesus.
• The proclamation of the resurrection and appearances took place very early, soon after the experiences.
• These experiences accounted for the disciples’ lives becoming thoroughly transformed, even to the point of becoming willing to die for their belief.
• The disciples’ initial reports, preaching, and teaching of these resurrection experiences took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified and buried shortly before.
• As the number of new converts to the Christian community grew and began to gather regularly at approximately this same time, the gatherings frequently featured meetings on the first day of the week for group study, prayer, and worship, traditionally commemorating the same day on which Jesus rose from the dead.
• The gospel message centered on the message of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, was converted, most likely after he believed that he also saw the risen Jesus.
• Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) also became a Christian believer due to an experience that he also concluded was an appearance of the risen Jesus to him.

Habermas, Gary R. . On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences (pp. 688-689). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Alright, so we have our historical facts, so what? So, the question is how you explain all 12 of these facts? Without boring you with the details, the most probable answer, by far, is that the New Testament records Jesus' physical resurrection from the dead accurately. Now, you might say, "Well, then why don't atheist, agnostic, and Jewish New Testament scholars actually believe in the resurrection?" And the answer is actually quite depressing. The main reason? Apathy. They simply don't care if it is true or not. They will often say something like, "Yup. The facts look good. Don't think I have an argument against your case. But I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure what happened."

Okay, so what? Well, if Christ rose from the dead, then that means that Christianity is true. That means Christianity is the path to life after death.

Because, once you have the resurrection of Christ from the dead, you have the ultimate purpose for your life, because God created you because he loves you.

So, how do we get purpose from Christianity? The answer is simple. Christ gave two commandments. If you live out these commandments to the best of your ability, you will have more purpose for your life than you know what to do with. These are the commandments...

Matthew 22:37-40
"He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.”"

That is it. That is all you have to do as a Christian. The details are fleshed out in the rest of the Bible, but these are the two main things.

Now, there are other things that one must believe to be a true Christian, but they all basically stem out from the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And that is my antidote to Nihilism.

 

[Korg]

These are more or less considered HISTORICAL FACTS that all align with the Skeptics' criteria for what can be considered historical to a high probability.

Where are you getting this from? Specifically the note about all of this meeting a threshold of credibility for skeptics.

 

[John K]

I’m really happy that this works for you @QuickTwist. You are one of the very lucky ones who have the security of strong faith, and I hope too that the grace you receive gives you full relief for all you have suffered - it’s not like this for everyone. But the way you express it is very Si / Ti and that's a problem with intuitively oriented folks.

The problem is that emptiness is not simply an intellectual concept and a choice made, but the raw experience of people who have unexpectedly, and without intending, walked into it. This can be a profound life changing experience and can be terrifying, particularly if you don't realise what's going on. It’s not something chosen, but it’s like walking around an unfamiliar street corner and being mugged by it there. And once found it cannot be unfound by an act of will.

It's really difficult, particularly for intuitive types, to find a way out with rational persuasion, because that too is drained of value by the experience. I found myself facing 'the void' when I was 8 years old, and again more profoundly when I was 15. It has been the second most deeply felt experience of my life and was life-altering. It shaped my relationship to the world as something that seemed not to be real. My faith was of no use because there was no yesterday, no time, no history, nobody - it was all gone and the world was just one huge empty illusion. I was terrified, and got by by pretending it existed. I was good at that. I learned then to context shift at will and live in contradictory worlds as a survival necessity.

My own way out was around another street corner, again unexpected and unintended, and it seems to me that it takes an experience even more profound than that of facing emptiness to pass through to the other side of it. I can't emphasise enough that rational persuasion was useless for me - it only operated within the world that seemed unreal to me. I could go along with it if I pretended the world was real but that couldn't touch my heart.

I’m still aware of the void now, 55 years on - it’s strange because that emptiness is completely empty yet it’s also filled to the brim with blinding light and intolerable, glorious, sparkling love. It's that light that gives me back the meaning of the world, but its existence is an act of trust-faith for me, not an experienced certainty.

But this is all nothing I could have reasoned my way out of. All of it was what I experienced and was totally unexpected. I think everyone who falls into the void gets there in the same unexpected way.

 

[Umai]

I’m really happy that this works for you @QuickTwist. You are one of the very lucky ones who have the security of strong faith, and I hope too that the grace you receive gives you full relief for all you have suffered - it’s not like this for everyone. But the way you express it is very Si / Ti and that's a problem with intuitively oriented folks.

The problem is that emptiness is not simply an intellectual concept and a choice made, but the raw experience of people who have unexpectedly, and without intending, walked into it. This can be a profound life changing experience and can be terrifying, particularly if you don't realise what's going on. It’s not something chosen, but it’s like walking around an unfamiliar street corner and being mugged by it there. And once found it cannot be unfound by an act of will.

It's really difficult, particularly for intuitive types, to find a way out with rational persuasion, because that too is drained of value by the experience. I found myself facing 'the void' when I was 8 years old, and again more profoundly when I was 15. It has been the second most deeply felt experience of my life and was life-altering. It shaped my relationship to the world as something that seemed not to be real. My faith was of no use because there was no yesterday, no time, no history, nobody - it was all gone and the world was just one huge empty illusion. I was terrified, and got by by pretending it existed. I was good at that. I learned then to context shift at will and live in contradictory worlds as a survival necessity.

My own way out was around another street corner, again unexpected and unintended, and it seems to me that it takes an experience even more profound than that of facing emptiness to pass through to the other side of it. I can't emphasise enough that rational persuasion was useless for me - it only operated within the world that seemed unreal to me. I could go along with it if I pretended the world was real but that couldn't touch my heart.

I’m still aware of the void now, 55 years on - it’s strange because that emptiness is completely empty yet it’s also filled to the brim with blinding light and intolerable, glorious, sparkling love. It's that light that gives me back the meaning of the world, but its existence is an act of trust-faith for me, not an experienced certainty.

But this is all nothing I could have reasoned my way out of. All of it was what I experienced and was totally unexpected. I think everyone who falls into the void gets there in the same unexpected way.

Thankyou.

 

[QuickTwist]

Where are you getting this from? Specifically the note about all of this meeting a threshold of credibility for skeptics.

To see the inner workings of all this, with all the details and such, I suggest Dr. Habermas' series, "On the Resurrection". It is best to start with his first book, "On the Resurrection: Evidences," which you can find here:

On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences - Kindle edition by Habermas, Gary R. . Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences - Kindle edition by Habermas, Gary R. . Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences.

www.amazon.com

 

[QuickTwist]

I’m really happy that this works for you @QuickTwist. You are one of the very lucky ones who have the security of strong faith, and I hope too that the grace you receive gives you full relief for all you have suffered - it’s not like this for everyone. But the way you express it is very Si / Ti and that's a problem with intuitively oriented folks.

The problem is that emptiness is not simply an intellectual concept and a choice made, but the raw experience of people who have unexpectedly, and without intending, walked into it. This can be a profound life changing experience and can be terrifying, particularly if you don't realise what's going on. It’s not something chosen, but it’s like walking around an unfamiliar street corner and being mugged by it there. And once found it cannot be unfound by an act of will.

It's really difficult, particularly for intuitive types, to find a way out with rational persuasion, because that too is drained of value by the experience. I found myself facing 'the void' when I was 8 years old, and again more profoundly when I was 15. It has been the second most deeply felt experience of my life and was life-altering. It shaped my relationship to the world as something that seemed not to be real. My faith was of no use because there was no yesterday, no time, no history, nobody - it was all gone and the world was just one huge empty illusion. I was terrified, and got by by pretending it existed. I was good at that. I learned then to context shift at will and live in contradictory worlds as a survival necessity.

My own way out was around another street corner, again unexpected and unintended, and it seems to me that it takes an experience even more profound than that of facing emptiness to pass through to the other side of it. I can't emphasise enough that rational persuasion was useless for me - it only operated within the world that seemed unreal to me. I could go along with it if I pretended the world was real but that couldn't touch my heart.

I’m still aware of the void now, 55 years on - it’s strange because that emptiness is completely empty yet it’s also filled to the brim with blinding light and intolerable, glorious, sparkling love. It's that light that gives me back the meaning of the world, but its existence is an act of trust-faith for me, not an experienced certainty.

But this is all nothing I could have reasoned my way out of. All of it was what I experienced and was totally unexpected. I think everyone who falls into the void gets there in the same unexpected way.

All I will say to this is that it is a shame that evidence means absolutely nothing. My own faith is based on an experience as well, not really by analyzing the data, which I have written about here previously. Providing evidence is my feeble attempt to get people to know what I know, since I cannot actually give them the same experience I have had.

 

[John K]

All I will say to this is that it is a shame that evidence means absolutely nothing. My own faith is based on an experience as well, not really by analyzing the data, which I have written about here previously. Providing evidence is my feeble attempt to get people to know what I know, since I cannot actually give them the same experience I have had.

I didn't say that - mine is too. All I'm saying is that if someone has a nihilistic experience, where the world is false, then rational persuasion becomes part of that falsity. It's quite difficult to describe if you haven't experienced it, but for me it seemed there was no past so the evidence and reasoning about Christ's life and resurrection were not going to work. I'm sure there are other sorts of nihilism too, and they seem to have analogous problems with the validity of evidence and reasoning.

Most folks don't have this sort of thing happen to them, thank goodness, and for those I very much agree that rational evidence and reasoning can become an important and powerful persuasive tool. As I've said before, I think, one of the most impressive examples is how CS Lewis became a Christian, by reading the Bible to debunk it and found the opposite. Once I'd been brought out of the problem it became important to me too. I don't for a minute want to play down the importance of it, for many folks and for yourself. For example, I love the approach St Paul took at the Areopagus.

But we are talking horses for courses here - it was hope and eventually a real relationship with god that freed me rather than evidence for the truth of the New Testament, which wouldn't have helped. I stuck with the Church through all this, and found that it's formalism of worship and doctrine were a great help. Even if your mind and soul are just going through the motions, your body is still there - and you have the persistence of hope that something will haul you out of it. So one possible way out is persistent prayer, railing in the darkness like some of the Psalmists into the cloud of unknowing, hoping that someone is listening. But I'm very sure that people who face this kind of thing all face it differently.

 

[QuickTwist]

@John K,

Yes, I suppose I was projecting a little bit. I have had many conversations with atheists who "demand evidence," and then when you give it to them, it is never good enough, and the goal post is moved. This has happened more times than I can count.

I find evidence useful for many things. It is not useful for the wrong person. Some people put a high value on evidence. Others do not. It seems the kind of Nihilist you are talking about question evidence itself, which is a shame because if you don't have evidence, or reason, or logic, or [insert NT thing here], and all you have is some vague idea of "awareness" then evidence is going to be like trying to sell an eskimo ice--they don't need it and don't want it.

Honestly, your initial comment was somewhat upending for me, but also, a lightbulb went off in my head: Many people don't care about the evidence for many different reasons. It's not JUST the atheists who reject evidence. It's the agnostics, the people who find the Bible "boring," the people who don't even think about their own spiritual lives, the people who are "spiritual but not religious," the strong pragmatists, the relativists, the people whose vision is wrapped up in something entirely besides religion. In effect, it doesn't matter that the Gospel speaks to every single one of these issues. At root (and there are many hidden assumptions and presuppositions people have that prevent them from seeing the evidence), it is primarily that their heart is simply not ready to receive the message of the Gospel. This grieves me! I try so hard to make the message available, and so many people don't want it. I could get depressed about it, but for the fire in my heart, I can't keep silent.

 

[John K]

@QuickTwist

It’s worth looking at the psychological models to get some insight into what’s going on. For example in MBTI there are two completely different yet valid forms of rational choice - thinking and feeling, or head and heart. People, according to their temperament, can simply bypass either of these as irrelevant if they are coming from the centre of the other. For example if I loved Mohammed deeply and was convinced of my faith in the Muslim scriptures and was in love with god like Rumi was, then I could no more easily go over to Christianity than you could convert to Islam. It would only happen after a long gestation, if at all - Islam considers that Christian scripture is false based on the teaching of their own equivalent scriptures and traditions.

It's important too to see that things are not the same as in the first century. A lot of people reject Christianity because they have had bad experiences with Christians and Christian churches. Sadly there are many ways Christians behave and are seen to behave that Christ would condemn - ranging from social attitudes, exclusivity and Phariseeism to outright crime. No amount of evidence and debate by itself is going to easily persuade these folks that it's the right choice - more important is almost certainly for Christians to show in the way they live that they love one another and that their lives are immensely enriched by it.

These two examples are heart not head issues.

Then there are the three different orientations of head, heart and gut of the Enneagram. The first two are similar to what I’ve already said, but gut is a little different. For some, the idea of god, another unseen world, an afterlife is absurd - that's their experience of life and it's their anchor. At best, gut tells them that scripture and its evidence is a very clever fabrication - and given the incredible imaginary worlds built within modern fantasy tales, this is very plausible to them. They can attack the validity of scripture sources too. I haven't really gone into the atheist or agnostic intellectual analysis of scripture myself, but after nearly 2,000 years it's hard to actually prove that someone in the first or second centuries didn't modify little bits of Josephus, for example, in order to make his work a non-Christian reference to the existence of Christ: those versions would then be passed down as canon after Constantine and the earlier versions would be completely suppressed. This isn't my view and I'd tend to reject it on Occam's Razor grounds, but it cannot be refuted through direct evidence I think.

As well, I'm in the same position with scripture as the majority of folks who believe in global warming, but only on the say so of experts they trust. I have a fair layman level background in meteorology and climate history, but I couldn't justify or reject the established theory professionally myself. I'm like this with the analysis of the Bible and the surviving texts from early Christians - I have to have faith in the experts, but they are by no means in total agreement, particularly when their evidence is focused either on a Christian or an atheist agenda. If your gut tells you there is nothing beyond your present life then this is all fairy tales and people making a living out of them, and if your gut leads you to Christianity then it is the word of god.

My own view is that pushing Christianity hard at people in the modern Western world doesn't work for most of these and other reasons. For myself and my own personality, it makes more sense to me to get to know folks and where they are coming from, to listen to them and empathise with them, to see the world through their eyes. Be certain and enthusiastic in our faith, but not push it at them. Folks are pretty sophisticated these days and if it is for them, they will become curious and seek out more - but as I said above, different folks have different temperaments, and they are all starting from different positions on the path of life, so there's no one size fits all. It's such a privilege to find my road ahead travels in parallel with someone else for a while even if we are very different in type and belief, and we learn so much from each other. If we each give the other some fresh insight to ponder, who knows where this may lead. I find it's more about listening to other folks as talking ourselves. But I must emphasise this is my own path, and it will differ for others.

 

[QuickTwist]

Friendship is not enough, sadly. I know this personally.

Some people just hang onto certain views. Does not matter how close you are to the person. Sometimes they just do not want to see, like Judas.

 

[John K]

Friendship is not enough, sadly. I know this personally.

Some people just hang onto certain views. Does not matter how close you are to the person. Sometimes they just do not want to see, like Judas.

Have you ever tried joining a team that focuses on offering Christ to others? This organisation is very good - this is a link to the USA site:

Alpha USA - Equipping the Church

Alpha offers content and guidance for churches, ministries, and individuals to create a space for honest and open conversations about life's biggest questions.

alphausa.org

We have run a number of sessions at my church in the UK over the last 10 yeas and it has been very successful. It's as good for folks who have slipped away from their faith as people who know nothing about Christianity. It was set up by an Anglican evangelical group in the UK and has become worldwide and non-denominational.

There is something really inspiring about joining a team rather than going solo. You complement each other in strengths and weaknesses, and you support and learn from each other and cover for each other. It gives you comfort too when you find things hard going, and a team with which to share prayer.

I'm sure there are others, but this one has a very mature set of material, a well evolved agenda and formula, and a very good presence on the web. All the videos they use on the courses are available on YT for people to browse.

 

[QuickTwist]

Have you ever tried joining a team that focuses on offering Christ to others? This organisation is very good - this is a link to the USA site:

Alpha USA - Equipping the Church

Alpha offers content and guidance for churches, ministries, and individuals to create a space for honest and open conversations about life's biggest questions.

alphausa.org

We have run a number of sessions at my church in the UK over the last 10 yeas and it has been very successful. It's as good for folks who have slipped away from their faith as people who know nothing about Christianity. It was set up by an Anglican evangelical group in the UK and has become worldwide and non-denominational.

There is something really inspiring about joining a team rather than going solo. You complement each other in strengths and weaknesses, and you support and learn from each other and cover for each other. It gives you comfort too when you find things hard going, and a team with which to share prayer.

I'm sure there are others, but this one has a very mature set of material, a well evolved agenda and formula, and a very good presence on the web. All the videos they use on the courses are available on YT for people to browse.

Yeah, Alpha is great. I wish our church did this more often.

My "Alpha" is really just the Bible study I lead at my apartment complex.