I was very fascinated by this article, Escape from Nihilism.  I think it speaks very clearly as to the logical outworking of a nihilistic worldview.  This is not an article that will argue philosophically against nihilism, but is rather a honest dealing from a professor, Dr. J. Budziszewski of Leadership University, who himself was an avowed nihilist.  We all need to realize that ideas do have consequences.  One of the lessons I learned in philosophy was that no one is ever neutral in the way they see the world.  The only people who are will be found in the cemetery down the street (which my university is surrounded by three).  Here is an excerpt:

As I mentioned above, I made two claims: first that we make up the difference between good and evil, second that we aren’t responsible for what we do anyway. My argument reversed this order, because first I denied free will. The reasoning was not very original. Everything we do or think or feel, I thought, is just an effect of prior causes. It doesn’t matter that some of those prior causes are my previous deeds or thoughts or feelings, because those would be effects of still earlier causes, and if we traced the chain further and further back, sooner or later we would come to causes that are outside of me completely, such as my heredity and environment.

Second I concluded that if we don’t have free will, then good and evil can’t make sense. On the one hand I’m not responsible for my deeds, so I can’t be praised or blamed for good or evil; on the other hand I’m not responsible for my thoughts, so I can’t have any confidence that my reasoning will lead me to the truth about good and evil. So far it may seem that my argument was merely skeptical, not nihilist. But I reasoned that if the good for man cannot be known to man, then it cannot be offered to man as his good; for all practical purposes, there is no good.

The holes in the preceding arguments are so large that one can see light through them. One hole is that in order to deny free will I assumed that I understood causality. That is foolish because I didn’t know what causality really is any more than I understand what free will really is. They are equally wonderful and mysterious, so I had no business pretending to understand one in order to attack the other. Another problem is that my argument was self-referentially incoherent. If my lack of free will made my reasoning unreliable so I couldn’t find out which ideas about good and evil are true, then by the same token I shouldn’t have been able to find out which ideas about free will are true either. But in that case I had no business denying that I had free will in the first place.