A Compromise about ID in Biology Classes

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if you are a reader of Altizer or Van Buren (who were both trendy for a time)?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

My position is that Freddie's philosophy produces what I was talking about in this thread - if God doesn't exist we are beyond good and evil and should therefore abandon teleology and morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you call him little Freddie. Any special reason for that?

Anyway, you are correct about his views on teleology and morals, with morality being equated with religious doctrine, though that is only the beginning of his philosophy, certainly not the end.

It is a huge mistake to assume that he was a nihilist. In fact, that is a complete misunderstanding since he saw one of his main goals -- if not his entire goal -- as the overcoming of nihilism. Basically all of his late works are attempts at an overcoming of the nihilistic view you are attributing to him.

He saw the same consequences you repeat here -- no god equals no absolute morality -- though he had the belief that mankind could create their own values, and that in fact that is what we had been doing all along. In that regard, his views on humanity in the absence of God are much more noble minded than simply assuming we would reduce ourselves to mindless nihilism and end up in chaos, as you seem to do in nearly every thread.

I'm curious to know what you think his philosophy was, since at first glance you appear to have completely misunderstood what he wrote about.

[ QUOTE ]
My position is that Freddie's philosophy produces what I was talking about in this thread - if God doesn't exist we are beyond good and evil and should therefore abandon teleology and morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure Nietzsche's philosophy produces this exactly.

Nietzshe was himself primarily a moralist. It's not the existence of god, but rather the platonic-christian concept of god that bothers Nietzsche.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I like how you call him little Freddie. Any special reason for that?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's something about him that evokes my strongest feelings of contempt. I think much of it is his prose style which truly sets my teeth on edge. I have a similar reaction to Sartre, but not to Dostoyevsky. And not to most other philosophers except maybe Berkely, but I haven't read a lot of him.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious to know what you think his philosophy was, since at first glance you appear to have completely misunderstood what he wrote about.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, though I do try to read him occasionally. I classify him in general as an existentialist and an atheist. If that's all I knew about him that would be enough to make the comments I've made. He may claim that he isn't a nihilist but given the premise that God doesn't exist nihilism is the only logical conclusion, assuming a working definition that "nothing matters". If I've misunderstood his position on the existence of God then I retract, otherwise what I've said is true for atheism. I believe all non-theistic world views are fundamentally irrational. It's obvious they would have to be if theism is true. And the logical conclusion of irrationality is nihilsim.

What is it you think I got wrong about him? I'm always ready to correct my errors, which are plentiful.

[ QUOTE ]
He may claim that he isn't a nihilist but given the premise that God doesn't exist nihilism is the only logical conclusion,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you obviously understand nothing about his work and would be better off moving on to another topic since his work is about destroying that infantile statement you keep repeating.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Nietzshe was himself primarily a moralist. It's not the existence of god, but rather the platonic-christian concept of god that bothers Nietzsche.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would surprise me if he was a pantheist but I admit I can't say he wasn't. I have read some of his work and some criticisms and never saw a hint of a belief in anything higher than man. I'm willing to remove him from my list of nihilists. Though as I just posted elsewhere all non-theistic roads lead to nihilism, I will try to be more precise about Nietzsche.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I like how you call him little Freddie. Any special reason for that?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's something about him that evokes my strongest feelings of contempt. I think much of it is his prose style which truly sets my teeth on edge. I have a similar reaction to Sartre, but not to Dostoyevsky. And not to most other philosophers except maybe Berkely, but I haven't read a lot of him.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious to know what you think his philosophy was, since at first glance you appear to have completely misunderstood what he wrote about.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, though I do try to read him occasionally. I classify him in general as an existentialist and an atheist. If that's all I knew about him that would be enough to make the comments I've made. He may claim that he isn't a nihilist but given the premise that God doesn't exist nihilism is the only logical conclusion, assuming a working definition that "nothing matters". If I've misunderstood his position on the existence of God then I retract, otherwise what I've said is true for atheism. I believe all non-theistic world views are fundamentally irrational. It's obvious they would have to be if theism is true. And the logical conclusion of irrationality is nihilsim.

What is it you think I got wrong about him? I'm always ready to correct my errors, which are plentiful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche devoted his life to showing how it was that humans could live a meaningful life despite the absence of God, and he railed against resorting to nihilism as a way out. When he wrote "God is dead" he didn't write it with the glee of a psychopath who felt he could now do as he pleased, he wrote it as a very concerned human who wondered how it was man could go on living after such a massive loss.

I find it unfortunate that someone like yourself, who certainly understands where he is coming from on this topic, cannot take the next step and see where he goes with it.

It is much easier to say, "Without God, life is meaningless, therefore I devote myself completely to my religion" than it is to say "God no longer exists? Well, let us use our human penchant for creativity and overcoming great hardship to press on and find a new way in which to live."

You should consider which view is indeed the nihilistic view. The view that believes man can indeed overcome the loss of God and formulate a way in which value can be created and life can be celebrated. The view that sees man for what he is, an animal who by chance sprung into existence and is self aware enough to know that his existence is quite trivial in cosmic terms, yet still has the strength, imagination, and audacity to proclaim himself important and worthy of life. Or the view that without God, man is lost in a sea of chaos, lacking in absolute morals and Gods guiding hand, weak, petty, and incapable of taking care of himself, wherein resorting to clutching ever more tightly to an antiquated metaphysical crutch through the most perverse applications of logic is the only way out.

[NotReady]

You say several things that beg the question. I think N.'s philosophy is indistinguishable from nihilism even though he may have hated that idea as much as he hated the idea of God. The real issue is WHETHER life can have meaning without God. Stating that if God doesn't exist life has no meaning isn't nihilistic. I suspect I would be nihilistic if I was an atheist. Perhaps I would try to ignore the logical consequences of my position for practical purposes. Stating that God doesn't exist but I'm going to believe life has meaning is blind faith emotionally, a kind of whistling past the graveyard, but nihilistic logically.

Perhaps N. wanted the "God is dead" part but couldn't abide the logical conclusion, "all is permitted". Perhaps Sartre and Co. are the supermen, the brave ones, those who unflinchingly accept the logical end of the existentialist process, the going-over ones. N. was just the bridge.

[ QUOTE ]
I think N.'s philosophy is indistinguishable from nihilism

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of debating with you? You said he was a nihilist and were told that he railed against nihilism. You still can't let go of the idea that without theism there can be anything for humans to live for, hope for, strive for. How can one debate with someone who takes this stance and refuses to consider any other alternative? If you want to believe that there is nothing for us to live for without your little book and its quaint little stories, fine then believe it. But don't try to keep pretending that this is the only logical conclusion and we should all kill oursleves or each other otherwise. EVERY THREAD YOU MAKE ENDS IN THIS SAME "CONCLUSION" -- IT IS YOUR FALL BACK TO EVERY ARGUMENT MADE AGAINST YOUR REASONING AND IT'S WORN OUT! It is YOUR philosophy that is indistinguishable from nihilism -- you keep stating that basically we live at the pleasure of some supreme being or we should just all murder each other. I don't have to know how or why we're here , but I know that we are here nonetheless and thus able to set our values to our existence. But there's no point in going this discussion path as to how humans can have values because we've done it with you a dozen times and you refuse to consider any value to anything without resorting to it being a gift or law from God.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
The real issue is WHETHER life can have meaning without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, man can create his own values, which is what he has always done, despite the illusion that he was simply doing Gods will.

[ QUOTE ]
Stating that God doesn't exist but I'm going to believe life has meaning is blind faith emotionally, a kind of whistling past the graveyard, but nihilistic logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this is not what Nietzsche said, what does suppositional apologetics look like in comparison?

What he said was since God does not exist, what can we make of the systems of meaning that relied on God's existence that man had arrived at in the past. Then, going from there, what perspective can mankind take that will continue to give his life meaning, now that the metaphysical crutch has been removed. Since God never existed, yet people who lived in eras where belief in God did exist and those people lived meaningful lives, it is not difficult to see that man can indeed find meaning in the world without God; if the man made illusion of God is capable of giving meaning, then a man capable of seeing through that illusion is certainly capable of imagining for himself a life that is meaningful.

[NotReady]

Thanks. I thought I might have read N. wrong. I'm sure now I had him right. And the point I keep drumming on is that if God doesn't exist there are no absolutes. If chance is ultimate, reason is absurd. I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've quoted from Bertie Russell to the same effect. I can find where Sartre also says this. It's famous as the "pessimism of the 20th century". London wrote novels about it. This is not new. This is the question. How can there be meaning in a meaningless universe. The finitude and relativity of man, which MUST be admitted by anyone who can think at all, precludes the possibility of man giving absolute meaning.