Nihilism

What Hacker News says

1. rgrieselhuberSep 2022
   Indeed, Fr. Seraphim Rose is a great modern example of this exact process. His essay on Nihilism is like reading the last few centuries in reverse order.
   thread
2. lizardddApr 2022
   The world can't satisfy the human soul. You're having an Ecclesiastes moment. Therapists are secular pseudo-preists and can't solve a problem of meaning when they can only work within an a-teleological paradigm. I'd recommend the book "Nihilism, the Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age" by Fr. Seraphim Rose, an Eastern Orthodox convert who went on to co-found a monastery in California. There are pdfs and epubs available online, as well as an audiobook on YouTube.

   If you look for meaning you'll find what you're looking for, and not in an arbitrary intellectually dishonest way either like the evangelicals etc do

   Show morethread
3. axlproseFeb 2019
   > I was raised atheist and I've always felt like a believe in the supernatural doesn't mix with an intellectual, scientific view on the world. This is of course completely due to my upbringing; there are plenty of great scientists who believe. I think this is an interesting inner conflict which I'm sure I share with many others.

   Yep, this was pretty much me up until a year ago when I started actually studying theology and the philosophy around it more rigorously. What I realized was that this notion of science being in opposition to religion I had, was effectively at least as much of a faith based position promoted to me by modern society, as theism was to religious people. Because when taking a hard honest look at myself, I saw that I had never actually bothered to really study any religious literature to justify coming to such a bold conclusion, in large part because I had prematurely dismissed such an endeavor as being an uninteresting waste of time. But in reality, I should've known my position was questionable ages ago from my long time fascination with the history of science and mathematics. I had conveniently rationalized or outright ignored the fact that the giants upon whose shoulders modern science rests, have all been rather disproportionately theists, because "things are different now"/"we've progressed beyond that". Yet the more I thought about those excuses, the more I realized they were completely unjustified hand waving, because I couldn't find any compelling arguments for why that should be the case, nor why such smart people of the past couldn't have come up with the relatively straightforward arguments for atheism the likes of Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al. came up with (as I had read most of the "4 horsemen of atheism" books already). None of the best arguments for atheism actually hinged on time or technological/scientific progress, so why did many smart people like Leibniz, Newton, and Darwin not only fail to discover such simple lines of thought, but instead often times went in the exact opposite direction and made arguments for theism? Note that I'm not making an argument appealing to past greats being theists, but rather describing my own thought process that led me to question "wtf is going on here?". John Lennox has a lot of interesting books and talks relevant to this particular line of inquiry[0].

   But anyways, long story short(er), the watershed moment didn't actually come for me until I stumbled upon a small pastor's YouTube channel [1], and gradually started working my way through several books, including:

   - Man's Search for Meaning - Viktor Frankl

   - Miracles - C. S. Lewis

   - The Abolition of Man - C. S. Lewis [2]

   - Heretics - G. K. Chesterton

   - Orthodoxy - G. K. Chesterton

   - Nihilism - Seraphim Rose

   - The Experience of God - David Bentley Hart

   - The Critique of Pure Reason - Immanuel Kant

   I'm still technically somewhat agnostic and unaffiliated with any particular religious denomination, but I couldn't reasonably go back to my previous atheism after that rabbit hole. I think it's ultimately this illusury distinction between "the natural" vs "the supernatural" that our materialist society has, which makes it so easy to fall into atheism/nihilism. It lulls us into a false sense of confidence about what we "know" as being "natural", as if it were a well-defined "solved problem", all while the purpose of science itself explicitly acknowledges it's not. What makes the illusive grand unifying theory of physics less "supernatural" than a deity, the hard problem of consciousness[3], or the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics[4], for example? The mere assumption that it's more within reach of our understanding? Seems a bit unsatisfying for a premise to form such a large dichotomy around. In that sense, you could argue theism is partially an analogy of Gödel's incompleteness theorems[5] applied to world views. We might be able to kinda/sorta work around such limitations, but it seems silly to just completely ignore they exist, much less turn around and use them as some form of justification against theism a'la "god-of-the-gaps" argument[6].

   [0] for example: https://youtu.be/v0AKUTHcI04

   [1] https://www.youtube.com/user/paulvanderklay

   [2] here's a good series distilling it, since the book itself is a bit dense: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlZfP0L6b41iCKzdQt-Gk...

   [3] http://scholarpedia.org/article/Hard_problem_of_consciousnes...

   [4] https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.htm...

   [5] Gödel of course, was also a theist himself, and thought a lot about the implications of his discoveries. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

   [6] here's a good rebuttal to such arguments which may resonate with HN people: https://youtu.be/CltwD0Ek9Kk

   Show morethread