Real World Philospohy

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by deccan:
I would also agree that anybody who reads Nietzsche for the purpose of formulating a rational argument against organized religion is looking in the wrong place. In fact, much of Nietzsche's work appears to disparage the rational, or Apollonian, approach to life in favor of the emotional, or Dionysian approach, though I would say that after his relationship with Wagner soured, Nietzsche started to shift in the opposite direction.

There's a lot of truth to this. Nietzsche would probably have disparaged the very idea of trying to formulate rational trends in his writings. But there are those who have followed him, in spirit if not exactly to the letter (Foucault comes to mind immediately), and I believe that the conclusions they draw from him are well-founded in his texts

Nietzsche's strength was never in appealing to the intellect but in appealing to intuitions and emotions. This is emphasized by his approach in "Thus Spake Zarathustra" which imitated the style and lyrical prose of the Bible for Nietzsche's anti-Christian agenda. Of course, the fact is that for many people, Christian parables and lessons appeal to the emotions and the intuitions as well, and being very aware of that, Nietzsche probably did it consciously.

Again, there's a lot of truth here. Nietzsche was not an idiot - far from it. But, speaking as a rationalist, that's exactly where his arguments fall to the ground. The anthropological proofs of his "slave-caste" origins of religion are - to put it charitably - thin.

So to sum up, I agree that Nietzsche would be an atrocious example of a detached starting point, but only the unintiated would even expect Nietzsche to be one.

Which is why I am very grateful to my teachers for not just telling me about Nietzsche - but actually having me read him for myself.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by DavidG:
WOW!! Am I interpreting this wrong or are you implying that becuase I don't believe in a devine creater that I don't know right and wrong? If so what a load of friggen BS!! You think the only thing keeping me from raping my neighbour or stealing her car is that I might get caught??? Not only is this completely wrong is is hugely insulting!

A belief in God is NOT required to know what is right and wrong.

In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
In an intuitive sense, this is certainly correct - people of all stripes do make similar distinctions between right and wrong. But these standards are not completely universal - some religions bid you love your neighbors, some bid you to eat them. And having an intuitive sense of right and wrong still does not answer why it is right or wrong, nor does it give any compelling external reason to insist on what is "good" in the face of desires for the opposite.

I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Sure standards of what is right or wrong vary sure, but my point is it IS possible to know what is right or wrong without religion. And it is not even hard to figure out why these things are wrong. Would I be pissed if John Doe stole my car? Yea. So would it be wrong for me to steal his? Yea.
The implication that all athiests don't know it is wrong to rape or murder and don't know why is just ridiculous.

[Andrés]

It's not intuition, it's judgemnent.
In some aspects it looks like religions say, don't think, this is what God commands, all you have to do is obey.

[Erax]

It is possible to develop morality without religion, but it is definitely harder. It is much easier to do it by instilling supernatural fear in people, but that does not mean that this is the only way.

The main incentive for behaving morally is that everyone profits from it. Supposing everyone in my immediate area began to behave morally tomorrow, there would be huge savings - less taxes, less insurance, no expense with private security services, and so on.

[Fyron]

Oh, you were just taking a jab at Fyron, refering to some long dead post that nobody remembered. Gotcha. Keep up the good work.

He was bound to do something like that sooner or later. Wildly misquoting an old argument out of context that has nothing to do with the current debate is certainly not good work.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
That particular one is a relatively recent, specific case where actual documents fairly clearly lay out what happened.

Yes, but the example you cited wasn't accepted by scientists worldwide, just by the ones who would get shot for not following the party line...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
For example, racism was happening before evolution became popularized; once evolution became popularized, the racists then had a fairly straightforward justification.

Again, you example isn't about science per se, but about people mis-using science for political reasons. The science of evolution is sound, reliable, and as close to proven as you can come in a theory. The fact that people were drawing fallacious social inferences from it, as the racists you mention did, does not make the science bad.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes: ..."

This is a great example of immoral behavior. It, unfortunately, has nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy of science.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

For more modern political reasons, consider what a lack of a Creator would mean:
Without God, you can't really have a universal standard of behavior resting on any foundation beyond temporal power.
No divine authority to make rules for you to follow pretty strongly implies you can do anything you can get away with, as there won't ultimately be consequences for it

Just for clarification, you need both a Creator and a Creator that provides these rules. I take it you mean a Christian God, since not all the gods were so forthcoming with imperatives as He.

In any case, you are wrong, since there are consequences for behavior in a secular society: Jail, for one.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
This leaves you free to lie, cheat on your spouse, steal, murder, rape, or what have you, as long as you don't get caught

Ironically, you are free to do those things even with a Christian God. You just need to be sure to repent and accept Jesus as you savior sometime before you die. (at least according to some interpretations...)

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Well, if it is expanding, and it has been around long enough, then unless the expansion is a recent phenomina things must have come from a point. Getting out of that point required some driving force, and hence the Big Bang theory was born.

You see conspiracy, I see deduction...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

There's lots of problems with BB theory and evolutionary theory as a method of describing how we got where we are today, but those are usually either not brought up, quietly kept out of journals usually considered credible, dismissed as minor

Not so. The problems with the Big Bang model are well documented, and are currently being researched and studied and speculated on. The reason that the model is accepted today is because it does such a great job in explaining other factors...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
or brushed off with "the re-evaluation of the theory is still on-going" with the implication being that all will be answered if it is just given enough time.

which seems like a valid thing to claim. Why is that a brush off?

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
For stuff about the distant past, which by definition usually involves unrepeatable, happened once phenomina, they tend to argue details, mechanisms, order, specific path, and the like, but they don't dispute the basic thesises, at least, not in the standard set of journals usually considered credible. Those that do don't usually get research grants or published in the journals.

That's mainly because, in the case of evolution and the Big Bang, the vast majority of the details and mechanisms seem to support the theory. There is a lot of money in Christianity, if someone had an idea that would overturn the thinking on evolution, I don't think they'd have a hard time getting money for it...

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
(what's the plural of thesis?)

theses