Is Nihilism the Only Rational View?
By: Kim Fung
Tags: Philosophy, Religion, Morality, Ethics, Science

Photo by Sven Scheuermeier on Unsplash

I believe that nihilism, which is the belief that nothing in the world has a real existence and that there are no principles or beliefs that have any meaning or can be true, is not the only rational view that exists in this world.

Now, there are some people such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett who argue that all that exists in the world is physical. They are generally perceived as Hard Materialists who believe that there are no religious aspects to the world such as God, heaven, soul, and spirit, and more, and thus conclude that consciousness and free will are both an illusion. Their view, that only physical truth is objective and is the only authority, is convincing to some people because it is somewhat logical and rational to only believe in what we see physically on a daily basis and what we perceive through our senses, as opposed to the mind. Hence, they are rejecting morality and all goodness as they believe that there is no objective truth other than the physical. It is fair and logical to thus conclude that because free will is an illusion, that all our choices are and will only be determined by preceding events. As there are no sets of objective principles, our judgment of others can only be subjective; as morality is only a matter of preference, we may prefer some things over others, and that is just how it is. The same applies also to how we perceive beauty among ourselves. They also believe that the nature we live in is just a collection of atoms and has no value. So what matters? Essentially nothing. We just exist because we do. Another strength of this view is that reality does not appear to have a clear designer or leader. Why? That’s because there is no such need for one; clearly, no one has admitted that they are one; and that there is a lack of evidence for such belief, and hence, there are no set rules for morality and no objective truth in anything else too. These are examples of how they believe that it is only logical to reject all religious beliefs and to view everything from the perspective of an atheist view. But, one could argue that nihilism itself is not rational because it can’t explain how we, humans, and the whole universe could exist. Although some people theorize that we could be living in a multiverse or that the reason behind such a “finely-tuned” universe was that we were very lucky that it just existed as it did, humans cannot prove that this universe was bound to exist at any point because of a multiverse or that it is “finely-tuned” at all because we don’t have another universe to compare to, so we definitely should not be surprised that it exists as it does. This argument also branches off to the debate of whether science is able to answer all the questions about the physical universe. Some people such as Stephen Hawking believe in Scientism, the promotion of science as the only objective means by which society should determine normatively. He argues that everything that has ever existed, currently exists, and will exist can all be explained using only scientific concepts, such that there is no need for any other objective means. These apparent strengths are not convincing, however. This is because not only is the scope of our scientific knowledge very minuscule, but also because science doesn’t prove whether this universe was found to exist in the first place, why we exist, and whether the science we know if is true at all.

Although there are people who believe that nihilism is the only rational view, I believe that nihilism is not the only rational view, as mentioned earlier. To explain further, some people such as Ken Ham and other Young Earth Creationists argue that all kinds of truths (physical, moral, spiritual, and aesthetic) are objective and that they can be found within the Bible as it is the key authority (source of truth). He is one of many who believe that God essentially created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. This view is more convincing than the alternative because the Hard Materialists do not explain the origin of the belief that physical truth is the only objective truth and there is absolutely no reasoning as to why this is possible: they have not proven that science can answer all questions, therefore, it is more logical, for most people, to believe that there is another factor that can influence the answers to all questions. More specifically, they believe that anything related to the time before Jesus’ birth is considered “historical science” and is part of the Bible; therefore they object to the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution, but they consider “observational science” to be true because it doesn’t interfere with religion in any way and they also help the development of modern medicine and technology. Other people such as Karl Barth and Alister McGraft believe respectively that the Independence Model and the Dialogue Model describes the relationship between science and religion. The Independence Model and the Dialogue Model differ from Young Earth Creationism in that the first two both state that science is the authority of physical truth and separately, the Bible is the authority of spiritual and moral truth, whereas Young Earth Creationism is about how the Bible is the key authority of any kind of truth. The Independence Model is about how both science and religion are useful but they do not overlap as we use them as authorities for different cases: science to learn about the physical universe, and God’s revelation of Jesus and Bible to learn about God, but not human faculty including reasoning and philosophy to learn about God because humans are too hindered and corrupted by sin innately. One strength of this view is that the separation of science and religion reduces the conflict the two may have if a question can be answered from both views equally but in different ways, but this is not as convincing because we have nothing to justify the validity of the Bible as well as the fact that they are not able to inform each other in any matter. Adversely, the Dialogue Model is about how science and religion can both answer the same questions often in different ways but also how they can both be independent and overlap with each other in some matters. Some examples would be how psychology can inform human ethics, and how religion can inform scientific practice by establishing moral boundaries to experiments. One strength of this view that places this over the Independence Model is how humans usually correlate interdisciplinary views together to resolve a problem corresponds to how science cannot live on its own without religion, and how religion cannot do so without science; therefore they should work symbiotically to inform each to compromise the missing knowledge gaps. Some people argue that science can inform religion in that it helps develop our world view more by bridging gaps between modern “observational science” and “historical science” found in the Bible, however, others believe that God’s word is unchanging therefore science will never be able to influence religion. Conversely, this compatibility between science and religion is seen in Idealism where consciousness precedes matter. Some people such as Richard Swinburne and Keith Ward believe in this. Idealism is about how science strongly supports, and sometimes even compels, religious belief, but goes further than the Dialogue Model in that it states that science can strong compel religious beliefs specifically in cosmology, which shows how fundamental values of the universe are arranged in a way that allows humans to exist. Both of them believe that consciousness influenced the creation of the universe: Swinburne believes that it’s more reasonable for one to believe that these values were set by design rather than the chance because the probability of this to happen is very small, and Ward thinks that quantum physics is preceded by consciousness for sure, and thus a conscious being must have created the universe. This is another example of a rational conclusion that could make nihilism, not the only rational view that exists.

One aspect that makes this more convincing is that if we think about it, humans should surely be more than just a collection of atoms. We all share a common human nature and the way we perceive things. We all have our own identity as ourselves, so we can also say that our consciousness and mind exist objectively, and thus, as we are influenced so much by our surroundings and circumstances, we too have a true will. As we experience life and education further and further, we have a better understanding of the existence of goodness and badness and what things are objectively good or evil. Since morality exists objectively from a Theist’s view, human rights, judgments, beauty, the meaning of life all exist. We try to stop injustices and morally good behavior nationally and internationally; we try to experience and understand the beauty everyone innately has a capacity for; we try to build good relationships with all beings and interpret the meaning of life; thus this is why everything essentially matters. Since the values of the universe are all exactly as they need to be, the likelihood of this being the result of such a pure chance is eminently and surprisingly small. Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe that the universe was arranged by design, given the microscopic likelihood that it happened by chance. As the designer doesn’t physically exist, it must be a non-physical being that also must be out of time and space and not brought into existence by something else, as it is its own explanation. As we also concluded that non-conscious things cannot cause anything to exist at any point, we can derive from this that it must also be conscious.

In conclusion, I believe that nihilism is not the only rational view that exists. Although on the one hand, some people could say that technically, we will never know whether what we know is ever going to be true or not and that we don’t have a clear designer who created the world as there is no such scientific evidence, therefore it is only rational for us to reject all principles and believe in nihilism, however, there are more truths to the world than physical truths that we haven’t discovered yet, so we can’t conclude that nihilism is very rational on the other hand. Hard Materialists such as Daniel Dennett notably think that science will answer all questions because he sees religion as something out-dated. But in contrast, there exists in fact other beliefs in this world that include more than just the physical truth, such as moral and spiritual truths, of which several models stated that it is the key authority to such objective matter. In particular, some people such as Alister McGrath believe that science and religion and both be independent and overlap, informing each other in some matters, but scholars such as Richard Swinburne believes to a further extent than science could possibly support and even compel religious belief. Ultimately, scientific findings such as cosmology could show us how humans were able to exist in the first place because of the arrangement of the fundamental values of the universe, which many believe, what they call reasonable, were set by design.

Yes, science doesn’t prove whether this universe was found to exist in the first place, why we exist, and whether the science we know if is true at all. But neither does religion on its own. So that’s why I believe it is very helpful to have multiple sources of authority we can refer to and have science and religion inform each other, and hence why nihilism is not the only rational view.