Posted on 01/03/2008 8:33:44 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Ping
“I think you are somewhat confusing Nietzsche with Kierkegaard.”
not likely
I am not surprised that the church of Rome disagrees with Nietzsche - they have the problem of the filioque which is a basis for the problems that Nietzsche saw in some Christian religions.
Tell me, how does Nietzsche’s criticism of the “herd mentality” differ from Freepers criticism of “PC”?
Actually, the “God is dead” thing is actually only muttered by two of Nietzsches fictional characters - never by Nietzsche himself.
Excellent, excellent post.
Anyone who has read Nietzche, agree with him or not, knows he fully broadcast a blueprint for a moral order. I have no problem with Chuck Colson, but I am stunned by his ludicrous comment concerning Nietzsche. Colson does nothing other than hurt his own argument, not to mention credibility, by displaying such a poor understanding of Nietzsche.
Agnostic is a useless term, and historically it originated in the polemics over Darwin’s theory. Hyuxley was opposing his position to the “gnostics,” who were mainly clergymen with scientific interests who until his time dominated discourse. So it is sort of like Marx claims that his socialism was scientific—founded on facts— whereas, the “utopians” were not.
That said. Einstein spoke of God when he meant something like what Plato /Aristotle/the Stoics meant. The god of the philosophers that Pascal disclaimed. But Einstein also rejects the skepticism of a Lucretius, because some sort of ontology is needed for modern science. Even a radical unbeliever like Russell was a realist, who did not accept that rational order is a delusion. Likewise, the Darwinists who however, push an atheism that risks the acceptance of the skepticism from which the Scientific Revolution rescued an educated class disgusted by religious bigotry.
Wow. Do you claim this as your own thoughts or are you going to provide a citation?
This is a caricature of the divine economy. The hell against which the Church warns us is more like the final situation of a Macbeth who makes decisions that end up destroying him. There are some concepts of God which are more like that of the devil in Faust, and indeed I think of Mephistopheles as the very image of a pagan god like Zeus. As I read the Bible with the notion in mind that I am reading about an "evolving" concept of God, by which I mean a progressive revelation of Him through the history of a single people, culmination is a "final" revelation of His character in the person of an obscure holy man who is executed by the Romans but who is shown by events to be the very God.
You may find this simply fabulous, but please do not assume that your reading is the "right one." In rejecting this reading, rationalists has gone to fantastic links to create an alternative story, somewhat in the way that a rebellious adolescent chooses to read the story of his father. At the time this that he rebels, however, this teenager may decide to live a purer life than his father. That was the course of the Enlightenment, in many cases. Consciously or not, he accepts as a given the morality of the rejected father as something build upon. HIS son, however, finds that underlying the father's morality is absolutely nothing. That is the way to nihilism.
Well, both. Charleton J.H, Hayes, provides in more than one place, for example in a chapter of “A Generation of Materialism, (1941). an account of the evolution controversy. In it or another place I have read a discussion of the famous debate between Huxley and Wilberforce, which asserts that it was as much as anything a rebellion of lay science against the clerics, with the laymen being the new generation. There is a part of Einstein’s Relativity, an appendix, I think, in which Einstein rejects the simple Baconian empiricism that was a foundation of classical physics. It has been a long time since I read such stuff, and imuch of this is probably somewhat inaccurate. I think Russell’s views are well-know. A great man, and something of a moral monster. I think I owe my general view to a reading of Whitehead’s little history of science.
“Actually, the “God is dead” thing is actually only muttered by two of Nietzsches fictional characters - never by Nietzsche himself.”
Thanks, more to the point.
If you had said something like that, that would have been great, but you said "Einstein didn't believe in God." Now, you can make all the noise you want about a capital G, but when one says "X doesn't believe in God" there is no significant number of people who walk away from that thinking "X doesn't believe in Jesus Christ or follow the Torah, but he might believe in some other form of a Supreme Being." The concept you communicated was that Einstein did not believe in a Supreme Being, so it looks like you need to learn to write.
Oh my...are you actually saying that you can prove a complicated genetic process just because an atheist and a Christian are involved in the same act? Is that science to you?
Actually, this is the statement that's true:
4. Steve-b should immediately invest in a logic course at his local community college.
Now, part of the reason you got that wrong was because you misread what I meant; perhaps I could have put it better. The atheist may not recognize the lawgiving God. He may completely believe that his morals have no connection to any religion. But the bottom line is that his morality has no underlying justification at all.
Let's say that the atheist says "It's morally right for me to give blood and morally wrong for me to steal." Well, why? Why isn't it OK to look out for number one? Why is there any obligation to society?
That kinda sorta suggests the answer (you believe that Hammurabi’s Babylonian gods were, in fact, real), but isn’t clear. Can you work on that?
You listen to the first guy and ignore the second guy.
Well, why? Both of them equally invoke the authority of God, so God cancels out as a basis for decision. Why isn't it OK to listen to the other guy instead?
“Apparently, Dawkins doesn’t know the definition for the word ‘altruism.’”
I would say that Dawkins has decided, as many philosophers have argued, that there is no such thing as “altruism” - that it’s all just self-interest. I do things for the good of strangers because it makes me feel good. That argument actually rings somewhat true to me.
If that is the case, then Dawkins is either a very inept at communication or being purposefully deceitful in his communications.
Good question. I'll have to look for the verse, but there is Biblical backup for the idea that people will be judged on how they responded to what they could divine about God from His creation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.