Pope: sex abuse revelations were a 'shock'

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

What has happened now is the realization of Nietzsche's proclamation in Thus Spake Zarathustra... God is dead, we've killed him, but we don't know it yet etc...

Liberals knowingly killed off God or gods but didn't create something adequate to replace him. What was the replacement? General token compassion, the desire to accumulate material wealth and some form of safe atomized life.

God hasn't really been replaced.

Nietzsche also says,

"New struggles.- After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave-a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we-we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

In ways God has not been separated from culture at all. Nietzsche also argues that God is infused in language through the object-subject relationship. I don't really think we've vanquished much of religion if at all since Nietzsche's time. In fact in certain areas of the world it has to be argued that we've seen religious resurgence, arguably partially due to vast economic disparities between 1st and 3rd world. The religious resurgence in the US is more baffling to me.

But we also have to contextualize Nietzsche's position. He comes from the academy/University. In this arena I think you'll find a much greater degree of atheism than in broader culture. This has probably increase since Nietzsche's time but a similar increase hasn't been seen in wider culture. Nietzsche may have underestimated the extent to which religion really permeated popular culture in his own time given he concentrated so much of his attention on the products of the academy/University. I think in today's time with the internet, with sociology/anthropology we have greater access to information about how religion still permeates culture across the world to a large extent.

So I guess my point is that you appear to be arguing that liberal atheists have really killed off God in their culture, which I don't think is the case. You also seem to be arguing that nothing has been created to replace God, but I see many values and questions emerging that indicate we are struggling right now to replace him. The issue is complicated by the demands of society, the need to train and bring up people to keep our consumer/production culture going despite advances in industrial methods.

If we have replaced God in culture, he has likely been replaced by consumer culture and capitalistic mentality in many countires. Many would argue we will need to replace that as well. But many have struggled against those conceptions as well, searching for values beyond simply expansion and increase of wealth/prosperity, of keeping our systems going, etc.

[calumniate]

Please turn those nice fancy churches into bars, clubs and hotels as soon as possible.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

All of those cliches are pretty loaded. So let's unpack them, okay?

Bourgeois atheists
Christian atheists
Radical atheists

I pulled these groups literally from thin air, but in the interest of defending myself, I think that they mainly correspond with three streams of atheism that exist today.

The first group is the liberal group that I mentioned above.

Christian atheists or Atheist Christianity I think is articulated best by Nietzsche. I would put myself in this group. We recognize what we are killing and that the end of religion would have dire consequences for human life.

Last group thinks that god is a superstructure or oppressive tool used by elites to control public opinion.

That's all brutally insufficient, I know, but I think those are the three main groups.

An even perfunctory examination of popular media would indicate that the first group is the extreme majority.

Your last two make some sort of sense to me. The first includes a pretty loaded term that has very particular connotations in Communist philosophy and political science history.

Define the first group more extensively please. Who are these Bourgeois atheists? Why did you pick the word Bourgeois? Do you think that really helps clarify or does it actually merely serve to confuse your terminology? Do you really believe there is a socio-political grouping today that fits the term Bourgeois? Why use that term since it has so many other loaded meanings?

Do you not see how some of your terminology confuses? And this is coming from someone who's read quite a bit of Marx and Nietzsche.

[peter12]

Fine post. Although I think you sort of played into some of my earlier points, unintentionally. Perhaps what we needed to do is bring Nietzsche into the debate. Although I have to admit that Nietzsche is a strong deficiency in my personal education, I haven't read him nearly as much as I should. In fact, I haven't read most continental philosophy through the 18th and 19th centuries.

So with that disclaimer, I will continue.

God hasn't really been replaced.

Nietzsche also says,

"New struggles.- After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave-a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we-we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

In ways God has not been separated from culture at all. Nietzsche also argues that God is infused in language through the object-subject relationship. I don't really think we've vanquished much of religion if at all since Nietzsche's time. In fact in certain areas of the world it has to be argued that we've seen religious resurgence, arguably partially due to vast economic disparities between 1st and 3rd world. The religious resurgence in the US is more baffling to me.

I think when Nietzsche talks about shadows or horizons, in relation to God, he makes it pretty clear that the existence of God in the minds of humanity is quite possibly the greatest key to our existence that we have come across. Now, as you say, God is not easily removed from Western culture or language, but it is true, that to all intents, most people do not accept a theological justification for human action.

But we also have to contextualize Nietzsche's position. He comes from the academy/University. In this arena I think you'll find a much greater degree of atheism than in broader culture. This has probably increase since Nietzsche's time but a similar increase hasn't been seen in wider culture. Nietzsche may have underestimated the extent to which religion really permeated popular culture in his own time given he concentrated so much of his attention on the products of the academy/University. I think in today's time with the internet, with sociology/anthropology we have greater access to information about how religion still permeates culture across the world to a large extent.

I think you have read too much into progressive notions for what the academy actually stands for or should be. I think that the context of the university has changed substantially over the last half-century and I do not think that this has been for the better. Historically, the academy was intentionally set aside as a place for individuals of leisure and merit to contemplate and pursue pure knowledge. That is, knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Part of this pursuit is an active engagement with the Real. Philosophers rarely cloister themselves. Socrates, in my view, the model of a philosopher, spent almost all of his time in Athens questioning and talking to the people.

The social sciences, and now aided by the internet, has murdered the classical philosophic question. Replacing the poetic chaos that Nietzsche believed was essential to the human experience with the dull and mechanical atomized society that we have today. We may know a good deal about the spread of religion or the dogma of a religion, but I don't think we have the capacity to understand what religion really is anymore. We simply do not have the right tools. The places and myths that sustained it have been killed. I don't think that a lot of what passes for religion now, especially in the West, fits the traditional or even Real religious experience.

So I guess my point is that you appear to be arguing that liberal atheists have really killed off God in their culture, which I don't think is the case. You also seem to be arguing that nothing has been created to replace God, but I see many values and questions emerging that indicate we are struggling right now to replace him. The issue is complicated by the demands of society, the need to train and bring up people to keep our consumer/production culture going despite advances in industrial methods.

As I said, I don't think that liberals intentionally killed off religion, all except for a few select theorists, but that the road of rationalism, individualism, and materialism kills God off without anyone really knowing about it. Look at Weber's Protestant Work Ethic, a smooth blend of God and modern industrialism. Yet, nowhere in the tradition of Christianity does it say God was a capitalist. As you say, we have created a God that meets the needs of our society, but it is a God which reflects almost purely the needs of the bourgeoisie and not the theological requirements of an actual public God figure.

If we have replaced God in culture, he has likely been replaced by consumer culture and capitalistic mentality in many countires. Many would argue we will need to replace that as well. But many have struggled against those conceptions as well, searching for values beyond simply expansion and increase of wealth/prosperity, of keeping our systems going, etc.

I agree with this entirely. So did Nietzsche. In fact, the purpose of his project was to find someone who could come up with that replacement. That's where, I think, post-modernism fits in, but it has not done a good job of anything.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Not trying to stir the pot or pile-on or anything, but I had a conversation the other day that might relate to the exchange between peter12 and FDW. My buddy teaches guitar, and sometimes to very young kids. But even with Julliard grads and stuff he has a simple 'philosophy' about teaching. "If you can't or won't explain things using words a seven year old could understand then you're not teaching. Your jerking off in their face."

Yup.

I like this one the best: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself". Albert Einstein.

Works well for this thread.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm not arguing either side, in fact I somewhat agree with you.
But, that really doesn't change the fact that this guy is actually very qualified to be speaking on the posiblity of life in the universe.

However, I've always been of the opinion that being a jerk is being a jerk regardless of what side you are on. I was making the point that Cheese was using his old tactic of ignoring the majority of the article, and the qualification of the person making the statments that he's given no context to, and putting it in sarcastic statments like "Yes I wrote that right" just so he can bash religion. In my opinion, he's may be infinately more correct on most issues about science, but he's just as big of an intollerant blowhard as a lot of religious fanatics.

What you've done is make a well reasoned statment of your opinion, an I'm sure you'd be keen to have a rational debate about it were I so inclined. That's cool.

Cheese on the other hand will just throw out his usual statements of "I'm a humanist, I respect people. Even those stupid people who believe in fairy tales that are stupid, and especially the stupid ones who want to baptize aliens".

BS BBS! You just hate me, and thats ok...It doesnt matter what I say or how I say it, attacking the Catholic Church for any reason irks you to no end. Why dont you attack any of the other messages on here that are just as "inflammatory" <sic>. The fact is...you wait until I say something inflammatory, "in your mind", and jump on that regardless of the fact I may have had 25 decent posts before that. In other words you sir are just a "drive by" basher...and Im ok with that too, because no one takes you seriously.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think when Nietzsche talks about shadows or horizons, in relation to God, he makes it pretty clear that the existence of God in the minds of humanity is quite possibly the greatest key to our existence that we have come across. Now, as you say, God is not easily removed from Western culture or language, but it is true, that to all intents, most people do not accept a theological justification for human action.

Not sure exactly what you mean about key to our existence.

One of Nietzsche's major topics is morality. In particularly he made many arguments that our present morality was greatly influenced by the Christian religion in particular. As a philologist he widely read the Ancient Greeks and acknowledges the difference in morality between that culture, his own culture and the culture of the contemporary philosophers and writers that he read.

His relationship with religion is somewhat complicated. He professes great respect for Christ himself, but general contempt for Christians, Christianity and Paul. It would seem that he thinks a lot of the influence that Christianity had on morality was negative. He calls the Christian morality "slave morality" in several of his works.

So one of the areas in which we are unable to remove God is morality since he believes foundations of our current morality are based upon the Christian religion.

He definitely was not a believer in equality. My take is that he is more interested in ideas of nobility (not in blood, but in action), greatness, the pinnacles of cultural greatness in the arts, etc. He loved music, he loved great writers.

Anyways what I see when I read that quote about shadows, is that he doesn't think death of God was a singular event, or that it would work itself out in any short period of time. And in this I think he was prophetic, there isn't a strong compelling logical case to be made for God anymore and yet he lives on for arguably the majority of the world and will obviously continue to do so for centuries.

I'd be interested in hearing more about what you meant in your first sentence above. And you have to differentiate what he believes about different types of God. His thoughts on the monotheistic Christian God are a lot different than his thoughts on the God of the Jews or the many Gods of the Greeks.

[peter12]

Not sure exactly what you mean about key to our existence.

Yeah, that was a crappy sentence. Sorry. God is probably the best call to action. Does that make sense?

His relationship with religion is somewhat complicated. He professes great respect for Christ himself, but general contempt for Christians, Christianity and Paul. It would seem that he thinks a lot of the influence that Christianity had on morality was negative. He calls the Christian morality "slave morality" in several of his works.

Agreed, so it would probably be best if I replaced "Christian atheist" with theological atheist. Right? That is, rejecting God is rejecting the theological means of looking at ourselves.

I'd be interested in hearing more about what you meant in your first sentence above. And you have to differentiate what he believes about different types of God. His thoughts on the monotheistic Christian God are a lot different than his thoughts on the God of the Jews or the many Gods of the Greeks.

Well, I'm not making this about Nietzsche. In fact, my sort of primary view on liberal or bourgeois religion doesn't come from Marx of Nietzsche, but Rousseau.

I think his view of the liberal middle class is the most appropriate to our times.

[peter12]

I really fail to see where our miscommunication occured, FDW?

Does Nietzsche really have any current insight into the lives of most ordinary atheists? I mean, what you described as Nietzsche's view on religion counters the lives of many of the current atheists.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

He definitely was not a believer in equality. My take is that he is more interested in ideas of nobility (not in blood, but in action), greatness, the pinnacles of cultural greatness in the arts, etc. He loved music, he loved great writers.

That is an interesting concept. However, many great artists were nasty human beings, not to be admired at all, except for thier art. Ex. Miles Davis

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Yup.

I like this one the best: "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself". Albert Einstein.

Works well for this thread.

Smart people make difficult things sound easy. Dumb people make easy things sound hard. The world is very simple, its just that when you don't understand it does it get really confusing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Smart people make difficult things sound easy. Dumb people make easy things sound hard. The world is very simple, its just that when you don't understand it does it get really confusing.

This is a very silly sentiment. I don't understand how anyone could believe this other than having a very shallow idea of how things work. Also, the teacher can't be blamed for the stupidity or laziness of her students. The pedagogical relationship only works if the students have a desire to reach outside of their own perspectives and learn something.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

That is an interesting concept. However, many great artists were nasty human beings, not to be admired at all, except for thier art. Ex. Miles Davis

It underlays the difference between aristocratic and democratic societies. Only a democrat cares about how nice people are. It's a strange and soft virtue that comes about through natural egalitarianism. We don't really care about true art anymore, we just want to know who would be the best person to have over for a beer.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is a very silly sentiment. I don't understand how anyone could believe this other than having a very shallow idea of how things work.

Probably limited exposure.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

It underlays the difference between aristocratic and democratic societies. Only a democrat cares about how nice people are. It's a strange and soft virtue that comes about through natural egalitarianism. We don't really care about true art anymore, we just want to know who would be the best person to have over for a beer.

Aren't most of us democrats?

I think most us are able to seperate the art from the artist (Michael Jackson). Still, can your body of work alone make you "noble"?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is a very silly sentiment. I don't understand how anyone could believe this other than having a very shallow idea of how things work. Also, the teacher can't be blamed for the stupidity or laziness of her students. The pedagogical relationship only works if the students have a desire to reach outside of their own perspectives and learn something.

Yes they can. One of their primairy roles, perhaps even more important than instilling knowledge, is motivating.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Yes they can. One of their primairy roles, perhaps even more important than instilling knowledge, is motivating.

Yeah, I was idealizing the teacher.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

I really fail to see where our miscommunication occured, FDW?

Well I think your use of labels and broad generalizations early in this thread didn't help make your points clearer, they merely confused the issue. I find terms like "liberal" to be highly problematic due to the variety of uses they've been put to in different fields. Liberal can mean something different in philosophy of the 1600-1800 era than it can mean to political scientists, and it can mean something different to the average person. When using terms that span so many different fields and so many different times you really have to just drop them or very precisely define them. Because what you think is a perfect and very specific word that fits what you want to say will be read by others and those others will have very different connotations associated with that word based of their background. So yeah I find the use of terms like liberal, bourgeois, etc to be more confusing than they are clarifying.

Perhaps it is because you are more schooled in a certain period of philosophy. I have focused mostly on stuff from 1800-now, I find a lot of the older philosophy I've read to be too distanced from our current concerns, too closely tied to religion in some cases. There is a lot of interesting stuff from the last 150 years that to me seems more relevant to living in today's world. I've started Marcuse's Eros and Civilization which I find quite fascinating so far.

Originally Posted by peter12

Does Nietzsche really have any current insight into the lives of most ordinary atheists? I mean, what you described as Nietzsche's view on religion counters the lives of many of the current atheists.

Well Nietzsche touches on many issues that I think are relevant today. And I think he's contributed a psychological aspect into philosophy that was necessary and mostly lacking before him. Because when it comes down to it, we aren't purely rational, purely logical beings and that is one of the greatest errors a philosopher can make. We do many irrational things, and many of our motivations drive us to do things that we would not theoretically do if we merely considered doing those things in a vacuum. We have biological instincts and urges which cause us to do many an irrational thing. Aggression, vanity, attraction, love, and many other oddities of human existence can not be explained with mere logic, but a biological/psychological perspective needs to be brought in. Once you fuse psychology with philosophy you can start to look at what the good life might entail given the specifics of our own psychology. I think Nietzsche knew himself and humanity very well and he gets down the psychological roots of many issues. He's an honest philosopher.

As to how this relates to religion and contemporary atheism, I think his arguments about why certain peoples and people believe in Christianity, his examination of the roots of its psychological beginnings are very important to understanding it and why it persists. His arguments about what kind of psychological effects certain beliefs (like original sin) may have on a person are very profound as well. He examines a lot of issues through the lens of, is this positive for life? For example he has both respect and contempt for the ascetic life, respect because it demonstrates a mastery of oneself, but contempt because it denies life and natural urges through things like fasting (denying ourself energy through food), permanent abstinence (which denies our sexuality), seclusion (which denies us social contact). His arguments for what areas of life has been touched or intertwined with religion are quite powerful and his focus on morality is one of the most compelling.

The current atheistic rah-rah guys like Hitchens and Dawkins do not have the writing calibre, nor the power of argument that Nietzsche has. They use a few of his arguments but overall as a person who grew up in the church, I've found Nietzsche's argument against Christianity to be the most compelling I've read thus far. And because I grew up in the church and my parents are very much hard-core into Christianity, it is an issue that is very important to me. Nietzsche I think was somewhat ahead of his time, and the issues he focuses on are issues that we deal with today. His genealogical method of examining morality in "The Geneology of Morals" inspired people like Foucault to use that method more rigorously and take it to another level in his examination of topics like sexuality and madness.

His call for a re-evaluation of values and morals deals directly with your question of what we replace God with, a question that was very much on his mind as well.

[Traditional_Ale]

Idealizing = eye humping?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Idealizing = eye humping?

I wish.