PDA

View Full Version : "God Is Still Dead"



Tabitha
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Perfect timing from Newsweek, just as the two great monotheistic religions get in a bun fight, here's a piece on Nietzsche and the new atheists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14872746/site/newsweek/

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, 07:12 PM
But Dawkins, brilliant as he is, overlooks something any storefront Baptist preacher might have told him. "If there is no God, why be good?" he asks rhetorically, and responds: "Do you really mean the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward? That's not morality, that's just sucking up." That's clever. But millions of Christians and Muslims believe that it was precisely God who turned them away from a life of immorality. Dawkins, of course, thinks they are deluding themselves. He is correct that the social utility of religion doesn't prove anything about the existence of God. But for all his erudition, he seems not to have spent much time among ordinary Christians, who could have told him what God has meant to them.

I was wondering that, why be good...

The obvious answer is biology. Anti-social people are less likely to pass on their genes, hence we all are conditioned to an extent, to be moral.

The problem with religion, is where do you draw the line between God's action and natural action, or you interactions with the world. It is just a recipe for irrationality.

OTOH, I do not like the militant atheists who are openly rude. The civilised course is to be sceptical of religion, but to keep an open mind.

Tabitha
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, 07:21 PM
I was about to ask exactly the same thing! It's been on my mind all day- that and the lack of chocolate muffins in my local coffee shop.

Nietzsche said "Being moral means being highly accessible to fear" so if one doesn't believe in God's vengeance ,why bother? Natural law?




I was wondering that, why be good...

The obvious answer is biology. Anti-social people are less likely to pass on their genes, hence we all are conditioned to an extent, to be moral.

The problem with religion, is where do you draw the line between God's action and natural action, or you interactions with the world. It is just a recipe for irrationality.

OTOH, I do not like the militant atheists who are openly rude. The civilised course is to be sceptical of religion, but to keep an open mind.

Tabitha
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, 07:23 PM
Oh good answer OFS,I was so impatient, I didn't finish reading your post!

OneEnglishNorman
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006, 07:32 PM
Oh good answer OFS,I was so impatient, I didn't finish reading your post!

God bless you.

Aupmanyav
Wednesday, September 20th, 2006, 05:27 AM
Nietzsche said "Being moral means being highly accessible to fear" so if one doesn't believe in God's vengeance ,why bother? Natural law?Hope you got your chocolate muffins. Why bother, because we are part of a society, we survive if the society survives. Hindu religion says 'Dharmo rakshata rakshitah' (duty saved saves, more clearly - If we sustain 'dharma', duty/right action, the action 'dharma' sustains us). Yes, natural law, even animals observe it. Preserve the society.
(Nothing obscene intended, software would not understand it, please fill in)

Karnos
Friday, December 8th, 2006, 06:46 AM
Hope you got your chocolate muffins. Why bother, because we are part of a society, we survive if the society survives. Hindu religion says 'Dharmo rakshata rakshitah' (duty saved saves, more clearly - If we sustain 'dharma', duty/right action, the action 'dharma' sustains us). Yes, natural law, even animals observe it. Preserve the society.
(Nothing obscene intended, software would not understand it, please fill in)

What he said is right on the money.

For better or for worse, we are social animals, and we're not fixed in our conception of morality; there really is no higher code or set of laws encrypted within our DNA or written somewhere on the Stars. Morals change, and it is reflected on the times, we just play by the rules to get along. Years ago people at the States didn't have any qualms lynching blacks, but today it'd be murder to do so, punished with imprisonment... morals changed, and nothing other than the hanging shadow of prison and a painful butt rape stop some people from actually going on a lynching spree.

And really, other than the system of laws and the moral brainwash societal life dictates in order for society to function, (as far as its limitations allow it) nothing stops you from being "bad", since there is no such thing as "good" and "evil" (there are a lot of sick nuts, though), everything's just a conflict of interests, that's all. By the end of the day, saints and sinners, we all go down the same bottomless hole of Nothing.

Taras Bulba
Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 02:43 PM
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
--Francis Bacon

AlbionMP
Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 04:14 PM
"One should not go to church if one wants to breathe pure air."

I think Nietzsche provides in "Beyond Good and Evil", a good analysis of 'Morality' and how it has enslaved the minds of the herd, particularly those who are attached to books like the bible and koran.

Questions: who or what is God:??: , and who or what is Dead:??:

SuuT
Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 06:07 PM
...
Questions: who or what is God:??: , and who or what is Dead:??:

(G)od is that which is dead.

(or)

Death is that which is (G)od.

The word order makes no particular difference: belief in the Christian god, itself, has ceased to be believable (although there are still 'believers'...) - confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of this god is - amongst other things - Reductio Ad Absurdum; but that is part of its ongoing gravitas.

The morality fused to this god ceases to be believable, therefore.

The question is, then: "Now what...?"

SuuT
Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 06:17 PM
I was wondering that, why be good...

The obvious answer is biology.

It is?

Anti-social people are less likely to pass on their genes, hence we all are conditioned to an extent, to be moral.

This does not follow. Rape as a reproductive strategy has only gone to a minimum as a result of 'civility' and 'sociability'.

Therefore, Pro-social people are only likely to pass on their genes in the context of a civil and social order that condemns rape: this is bound up in morality.

It would further follow that we are all moral to an extent to be conditioned.

...

... The civilised course is to be sceptical of religion, but to keep an open mind.

So then the religion of the Skepsis is...civility?

How open shall/should/ought our minds be?