Why we can be rational but not nihilistic

The nihilistic view that there is no objective way to measure the value of anything is definitely unsatisfactory and self-defeatist, so that even extreme atheists do not appeal to rationalism alone.  At some point, most people recognize that while the human experience might not matter to the universe, it matters to humans, and that is a good starting place.

But even if we reject nihilism as a defining world-view, it is still possible to use it to justify the formation of any kind of belief, no matter how unmotivated it may be.  This is, I think, common ammunition against atheists, and against outspoken atheists in particular.  An atheist decries religion as irrational, but an astute theist can easily show, nihilistically, that the atheist's concern for rationality is itself irrational.  "So, you think it is bad for me to be irrational?  OK, then - by what objective standard do you say that irrationality is bad?"  Of course, there is no objective standard, and the atheist is shown to be, to some extent, irrational himself.  The atheist's concern for rationality is thrown right back into his face.

The presumption in this case is that all irrationality is created equal.  Nihilistically, I suppose that is true.¹  After all, if you say that being only a little bit irrational is better than being highly irrational, you are making a non-objective value judgment.  So the atheist cannot respond by saying, "well, I am being less irrational than you, and that is better."  In any event, that kind of playground response does not seem befitting for so deep a question.

There is something unsettling about appealing to nihilism to justify religious belief, if for no other reason than it is a somewhat paradoxical construction - "I am OK with my own irrationality because it is irrational for me to care that I am being irrational."  It is as if nihilism is recognized as the fullest extent of rationalism, and that there is therefore no real reason to care about being irrational, so that somehow, absolute rationalism cannot say anything bad about irrationality itself.  Weird.

The solution to the problem is, I think, to recognize that value judgments are a human invention, and to embrace the fact.  While nothing can be shown to objectively matter to the universe, things can definitely be shown to matter to people, to humanity.  Every possible question that we can ask, scientifically or religiously, is inseparably rooted in the human element - even reason itself is human.  To place rationality in a sphere where human beings are not part of the picture is to render it altogether useless.  Rationality, as a system of human thought, must recognize its human origins to avoid careening off toward nihilistic oblivion.

So, perhaps an atheist might defend his own irrational insistence that rationality has intrinsic value by appealing to the human experience itself.  The value of rationality stems from the human need for it.  This doesn't seem too hypocritical: if rational thought is a human institution (it is), then using the human experience to define value seems rational enough.  That's what I meant to suggest by saying that "the human condition matters to humans."

1. Actually, saying that all irrationality is equal is itself a value judgment that cannot be supported objectively.  It would be more proper to say that no amount of irrationality is demonstrably worse than another.

Rationalism and Nihilism

Over the course of several years, I somehow grew into the idea that rationality is sort of the holy grail when it comes to truth-seeking: it is rigorous and procedural, it takes care to minimize the effect of human emotion, and it is open-minded and self-correcting.  Given all these strengths, it seemed a perfect tool.  I learned to apply it in all particulars of my life, from work and school to relationships and religion.

I was shocked, disappointed, and annoyed when I discovered that religion and rationality don't get along.  There is place for reason in religious circles, but when it comes to belief in deity... there is simply no rational way to arrive at that kind of belief.  There is no evidence.  And the experience that usually leads people toward God is subjective and logically unsound.

There was a sort of crisis of belief, when I contemplated what it might mean to turn my back on the religion in which I was raised.  I didn't feel like I could honestly remain an active church member when everyone around me was saying stuff that I didn't believe in.  It was all so irrational, yet everyone was OK with it.  I sort of hovered in this half-interested state, where I went through the motions to keep the peace and avoid confrontation.

Later, while contemplating the exact nature of rationality, I realized that it, too, has limitations: pursuing rationalism alone leads to an unsatisfactory nihilistic view of the world, where nothing matters because there is no rational basis for establishing a standard to measure good and evil, right and wrong, and better and worse.  Reason alone cannot provide an objective method for determining value, establishing morals, and giving meaning to life.

Nihilism is the end result of my previous posts about assumptions - we make assumptions in order to form our own world-views, but there is nothing to recommend one set of assumptions over another.  As someone pointed out to me, even the idea that we can know anything at all is itself an assumption.  The idea that life has meaning is an assumption.  Unfortunately, these basic assumptions about knowledge and meaning aren't strictly rational.  They are motivated by the human desire to know things and to feel like the human experience somehow matters.  But for all we know, the universe doesn't give a rat's about us, and when we are gone, we are gone.

The implication?  If we want any real meaning in life, if we want to feel like we know anything at all, then we have to be irrational.  Somewhere along the line of reason, we have to take an irrational leap and build our world-views on it.  The only alternative is nihilism.

This realization is at once disconcerting and liberating for me.  It is disconcerting because it puts us poor humans in a position that basically forces either irrationality or despair.  On the other hand, it is liberating because it recognizes that the human experience is subjective to the core - it recognizes that what really matters is what matters to me, to us, not what matters to the universe.  Since the human experience is subjective anyway, we have license to build a world-view that appeals most to our biological brains.  That world-view could either include or exclude God, and the rational universe wouldn't care.  Only people care.