“The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!” It’s all many Young Earth Creationists, and other Fundamentalists need to know! They are completely satisfied with the simple statement of faith. I am not.
Michael Spencer keeper of the popular webblog, Internet Monk, recently entered a post on the meaning of “post-evangelical”. In describing his own post-evangelical approach to belief, Michael writes,
“I reject any notions that Christian belief falls from the sky as a magic book that exists apart from other components of human experience.”
I’ll leave it the reader to decide whether or not I qualify as “post-evangelical”, but I do resonate with with Michael on this point. For many believers, the Bible is the starting point and the ending point for their belief in God; I find it necessary to consult those “other components of human experience.”
Thus, when I ask the ultimate questions about whether there is a God, my starting point is the evidence in creation, that place where the Apostle Paul declares that the invisible things of God can be clearly seen (Romans 1:20).
But if anything is clear, it is that not all see those “invisible things of God” with equal clarity. Hence, the question of my previous post about whether we are intrinsically theists or atheists, or whether any such default setting exists. The responses were mixed, as I expected, and made for some fascinating reading for me. Thank you to all who participated.
No one denies that God-consciousness is wide-spread in humankind. But the explanations for religious belief vary.
Commenting on the previous post, Psi suggests that a tendency to see purpose and intention in our world was a survival tool, perhaps necessary in the early development of our species. Thus, religious belief is a product of evolution, though less genetic than memetic. He cites Lewis Wolpert's Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief in which Wolpert traces religious belief, like many such superstitions, to our tendency to assign causation to phenomena.
Isaac points us to the work of British psychologist Bruce Hood who believes that humans are hard-wired for religious belief:
“Humans are born with brains designed to make sense of the world and that sometimes leads to beliefs that go beyond any natural explanation.... We are inclined from the start to think that there are unseen patterns, forces and essences inhabiting the world ...”
This intrinsic human inclination lead to superstitions of all kinds, including (in Hood’s view) belief in God.
Of course, in order to be evolutionarily explained, the human tendency to believe in God must have adaptive value, and those evolutionary scientists who doubt God’s existence have gone to great pains to explain how fanciful notions about gods could have helped our species in its evolutionary struggle. We hear about things like hope and purpose, necessary to drive us forward, even if they were false to the core! “Belief in a supernatural Being served the species well (it must have!)” they tell us, “but of course now we have outgrown its usefulness.”
But when the dust settles around the skeptics’ evolutionary explanations for religious belief, what emerges is this salient observation: religious belief is so universal that it demands an explanation. And of course, the skeptic rejects out of hand any suggestion that this ubiquitous inborn belief in the supernatural might be borne out of supernatural reality.
But the Hebrews had a simpler way of viewing things. The Creator himself, Koheleth instructs us, has “set eternity in the hearts of men”. I cannot say that I’ve never experienced doubt about God. But neither can I deny the reality of Ecclesiates 3:11 in my own experience: eternity is solidly set in my heart, and it is unshakable.
These two competing ideas, 1) the contention of the Bible, that God-consciousness is inborn, irrepressibly written upon the human soul, and 2) the notion that religious belief is merely an adaptive step in our evolutionary history are not mutually exclusive constructs. When we understand evolution as the Creator’s chosen mechanism, it ought not surprise us that an awareness of God would arise developmentally. RBH points us to evolutionary anthropologist Justin L. Barrett, who traces belief in God through its evolutionary stages, finding “adaptive value” in our own evolutionary history along the way. And Oxford researcher Barrett is a professing Christian, one with whom I think I would get on quite well. Together with others, he has helped to establish “the Cognitive Science of Religion” which seeks to study and explain the phenomenon of near ubiquitous religious belief. He writes, “CSR is often associated with evolutionary science and anti-religious rhetoric but neither is intrinsic nor necessary to the field.” Evolution provides little shelter for the atheist in his contention that belief is passé.
Pervasive religious belief remains for me evidence of a default human setting. It appears to me that people widely believe in supernatural causation based upon the witness of nature, and the witness of their own heart and mind. To be sure, many of the forms of this belief, and the early rationales, appear quaint and strange to us today. For me, this is no justification to abandon the implications of God-consciousness. Rather, it compels us to allow our understandings to be refined. Early beliefs were often based upon mysteries in nature (weather, astronomy, etc.) now more fully understood. But the witness of nature today is no less compelling.
And thus the starting point for my personal theology, the launching pad for my exploration of God, is this inner witness, this deep inclination formed by observation of nature and listening to my own heart. I find belief in God to be natural and irrepressible. I experience its renewal every time I step out on my front porch and breath in the fir scented air, and gaze upon the Oregon sky, and the dazzling array of living things that greet me. Yes, eternity is indeed set upon my heart.
113 comments:
Forsooth upon the ready morrow I spyest a subtle typo;
"humans are bard-wired for religious belief"
To correct or not correct, that is the question. . .
(sorry)
Psi
Hi Cliff,
Does that mean that any other human universal must also be true?
There are rather a lot of them you know.
Cheers,
Psi
Psi,
Just last night I was talking with my 14 yr old daughter (who has been enjoying reading Shakespeare's plays) about the Bard, and told her that I considered his writings the best in the English Language. I guess I have now really put him up there next to God. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll fix it later.
Does that mean that any other human universal must also be true?
Fair question. Of course I would answer "No"; I have no personal experiential corroboration on many of those.
Interesting question, I like the concept post evangelical, I might be one! I will have to check out Internet monks blog.
I sometimes refer to myself as a 'recovering fundamentalist"
I cannot believe some things anymore, but I still want to believe something. I have thought about rejecting all religious faith, but have a need to believe there is hope in eternity, that we really have some purpose,and there is really justice. Mabye it is evidence of eternity in my heart you mentioned, I hope so! I know if it is not so, all the hope in the world will not make it so, but if there is no hope after death, why do I even want to know?
Michael,
I know you to be a serious and active follower of Jesus, more engaged in the work of God's Kingdom than most believers ... and yet you are refreshingly candid about your very personal faith struggles. I like that about you!
You ask "but if there is no hope after death, why do I even want to know?"
I think some skeptics might say you should buck up and take the leap, that non-belief requires more courage, so you need to be brave. The problem is that we do all need hope and purpose. Secular evolutionists tell us it was the need for hope and purpose that made religious belief adaptive to earlier member of our evolving species, that hope and purpose and a sense of continuity were necessary for humans to survive and thrive. The trouble with the argument, I think, is that the same need is very much alive and well today. The result is that some honest atheists (Nietzsche and Hemmingway come to mind) go crazy or take their own lives. (But let's be fair: athiests do not have a corner on insanity and suicide.) Other atheists have found some success in constructing their own sense of purpose, and hope, and continuity. Personally, I applaud them. Indeed, eternity is still on their hearts. But they have settled for a time-bound and finite "eternity", a human progeny that cannot live on into perpetuity. Thus, the best hope you might possess if you abandoned your faith is a greatly diminished hope.
That does not, of course, establish the truth of theism. But it is better than the alternative on many fronts, from my where I view things.
Hi Michael,
You said;
"but have a need to believe there is hope in eternity, that we really have some purpose,and there is really justice."
Well make it yourself. Carefully, with great thought and effort, and never think you have it quite right. And so struggle on to get it more right.
Does me nicely.
Perhaps you need to get good at being comfortable with "not knowing" at the same time as trying to find out - a tricky balance for some.
Regards,
Psi
Then there is C. S. Lewis' 'Argument from Desire', which can be found here:
http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/03/longing-for-joy-in-cs-lewis-part-1.html
Rich G.
Thanks, Rich!
I've read that before, years ago. It was good to be reminded.
Psi writes, "Perhaps you need to get good at being comfortable with 'not knowing' at the same time as trying to find out - a tricky balance for some" and I say, "Amen!"
Hi Cliff, thanks for your reply!
"I think some skeptics might say you should buck up and take the leap, that non-belief requires more courage, so you need to be brave. The problem is that we do all need hope and purpose"
I think it is even worse than that.
why be brave if there is no such thing as justice. i can be viruous person, or I could be a total feind and in the long term it wont matter. the universe will not care one wit, and even if I become a world renown hero, or a notorious evil doer, after a few generations I will be forgotton, consigned to non existence for ever...
Psi writes, "Perhaps you need to get good at being comfortable with 'not knowing' at the same time as trying to find out - a tricky balance for some" and I say, "Amen!"
And another amen from me!
Funny thing is, the more I accept 'not knowing', the more irritating I find people who think they DO know!
MT
Michael:
"I think it is even worse than that.
why be brave if there is no such thing as justice. i can be viruous person, or I could be a total feind and in the long term it wont matter. the universe will not care one wit, and even if I become a world renown hero, or a notorious evil doer, after a few generations I will be forgotton, consigned to non existence for ever..."
That's the abyss that so many atheists of my acquaintance look into only briefly, then turn away toward the unrealistic optimism of 'you make your own meaning'. If I make my own meaning, then it is so limited, and pointless, since there is no external purpose or advantage to be gained.
"Funny thing is, the more I accept 'not knowing', the more irritating I find people who think they DO know!"
I think that's why the book of Ecclesiastes is included. In part to remind us not to become certain, self-righteous prigs.
BTW, When I lead an adult Bible study verse-by-verse through Ecclesiastes a couple of years ago, one of the senior participants said that was the first study of that book he had heard in his 35 years at tat church! I think it messes with some people's presumption and certainty.
Rich G.
Cliff > Secular evolutionists tell us it was the need for hope and purpose...
Which secular evolutionists tell us about that "need" and where do they tell us?
Cliff > some honest atheists
Is that in contrast to dishonest theists?
Cliff > But let's be fair...
Yes, we should remember that theists hold no monopoly on homicide or bigotry.
Cliff > Pervasive religious belief remains for me evidence of a default human setting.
The default human setting - "all intentional agents have super knowledge or perception".
"... 3-year-old children assume
that all intentional agents have super knowledge or perception and as
children mature they learn that people and some animals (but not neces-
sarily god) have mental limitations" p8 Barrett
So children correct their beliefs about people - how are they to correct their other beliefs?
Michael Thompson > why be brave if...
As circumstances arise how will you be other than you are when they arise?
Michael Thompson > I could be a total fiend and in the long term it wont matter...
As long as you evade punishment in this life.
Michael Thompson > after a few generations I will be forgotten
All is vanity.
Hi Issac
As circumstances arise how will you be other than you are when they arise?
MT----I would like to think I have somewhat of a choice about who I am, I am not the same as I was twenty years ago, and I may not be the same tomorrow. Do I know for sure, not really. mabye I am just like popeye, I ams what I ams and thats all that I ams! :)
Michael Thompson > I could be a total fiend and in the long term it wont matter...
As long as you evade punishment in this life.
MT---- Yeah there might be a fragment of justice if I get punished in this life, but that is why I wrote Long term. Hitler got punished with defeat and death, but he still got to live longer than his victims, Hitler, his victims, and the heros that saved some of them, they all get the same, they are all equally dead.
Michael Thompson > after a few generations I will be forgotten
All is vanity.
MT--- Bingo! :)
“No one denies that God-consciousness is wide-spread in humankind. But the explanations for religious belief vary.”
I wouldn't necessarily contradict this, but I do think many of us take for granted just how true this statement may or may not be. I think that, measured by numbers of individuals who believe in a god who is a creator or some vastly powerful governing agency of any kind, this is true, but if we were to measure this belief by cultural variance, we find that only about half of recorded cultures (in so much as a culture can be quantified or defined) include a belief in such a god. I was actually VERY skeptical about this number when I first heard it in my Cultural Anthropology class, so I've been reading as much as I can find on the topic. I've been genuinely surprised. I would have thought that the vast majority of human culture included some form of a god, even if we were to loosely define it, but it doesn't appear to be so. Which leads me to...
"And of course, the skeptic rejects out of hand any suggestion that this ubiquitous inborn belief in the supernatural might be borne out of supernatural reality."
I wouldn't reject it out of hand. If there was very much consistency between human cultures concerning the supernatural, this would indeed build a strong case for me. I think that it's the marked lack of uniformity in supernatural interpretation that lends itself to the belief that humans have a tendency toward explanation and an aversion to saying “I don't know.” This is what makes me lean toward believing that supernatural explanations are ultimately arbitrary and that the only base nature we have is the need to explain. That explanation need not include a creator, uber-powerful agency, or supernatural elements at all. Taken as a whole, the only thing that's consistent between all cultures is that they all have an internally logical framework with which to interpret their environment.
For example, as I understand human experience, all but the first sentence of the following quotation from the OP is universal, while “God” is culturally interchangeable with anything from “gods,” to “majesty,” “goodness,” “beauty,” “Love,” “ancestor spirits,” “the Force” (yes, from Star Wars. I hear Jedi's one of the most popular religions in New Zealand. Equal time is only fair).
"I find belief in God to be natural and irrepressible. I experience its renewal every time I step out on my front porch and breath in the fir scented air, and gaze upon the Oregon sky, and the dazzling array of living things that greet me. Yes, eternity is indeed set upon my heart."
Hi Rich G
"That's the abyss that so many atheists of my acquaintance look into only briefly, then turn away toward the unrealistic optimism of 'you make your own meaning'. If I make my own meaning, then it is so limited, and pointless, since there is no external purpose or advantage to be gained."
MT----Why would some atheists say that it is fine to make up a meaning for yourself, but it is not ok to make up a "god" to believe in, if it makes them happy and helps them get through this hard life a little easier?
If i was a total unbeliever, I wouldn't try to stop others from believing, if i saw it helped improve their lives.
Now if their god belief was of a destructive sort, then mabye i would try to get them to doubt it, but thats another story I guess!
Hi BP
"For example, as I understand human experience, all but the first sentence of the following quotation from the OP is universal, while “God” is culturally interchangeable with anything from “gods,” to “majesty,” “goodness,” “beauty,” “Love,” “ancestor spirits,” “the Force” (yes, from Star Wars. I hear Jedi's one of the most popular religions in New Zealand. Equal time is only fair)."
MT----What? you don't believe the "force"? I find your lack of faith disturbing! :)
"I find belief in God to be natural and irrepressible. I experience its renewal every time I step out on my front porch and breath in the fir scented air, and gaze upon the Oregon sky, and the dazzling array of living things that greet me Yes, eternity is indeed set upon my heart."
MT---- Yes, here in minnesota, those greeters can be mosquitoes, black flies, and wood ticks! yikes!
The “make it your own” argument for the meaning of life may be the only argument the atheist has, but is it not the only thing in the theist’s argument, too?
Tom:
"The “make it your own” argument for the meaning of life may be the only argument the atheist has, but is it not the only thing in the theist’s argument, too?"
Only in the eyes of the atheist observer.
Rich G.
Michael:
"Why would some atheists say that it is fine to make up a meaning for yourself, but it is not ok to make up a "god" to believe in, if it makes them happy and helps them get through this hard life a little easier?"
If there is a real God, then would it be OK to make up an imaginary one of your own?
"If i was a total unbeliever, I wouldn't try to stop others from believing, if i saw it helped improve their lives.
Now if their god belief was of a destructive sort, then mabye i would try to get them to doubt it, but thats another story I guess!"
Now this wouldn't be so bad, except for the popular "new atheists" who view any and all such belief to be destructive.
Rich G.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
CR Darwin
Rich G. > Only in the eyes of the atheist observer.
Also in the eyes of those many theists of different belief.
Cliff > And of course, the skeptic rejects out of hand any suggestion that this ubiquitous inborn belief in the supernatural might be borne out of supernatural reality.
And of course, it isn't true that the skeptic rejects out of hand...
Several books examining the issue have already been mentioned, for example -
"Leaps of Faith: Science, Miracles and the Search for Supernatural Consolation" Nicholas Humphrey.
Do you wish to argue for the "supernatural reality that "all intentional agents have super knowledge or perception" - as evidenced by the understanding of 3-year-old children?
Rich said,
Only in the eyes of the atheist observer.
There was a time when I believed, Rich. Like Cliff, I stepped out onto my front porch and felt the fresh day and gave thanks to God for it. Belief has its upside, to be sure. Nevertheless, every day that passes, I make it what it is. I have good days and I have bad days. Many are rather mundane.
My question is quite simple. What do you predict or hope for in an eternal life? I have yet to find anyone that can give me an answer even though it is every believer's hope and expectation. They have no idea what heaven may be and what eternal life is. There is just this vague assumption (faith) that God will nurse the spirit in perpetuity. But what is the spirit in absence of the body? How will we feel and express love and happiness outside of our material frame? What use and purpose will it mean for a bodiless spirit to exist day in, day out, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, millenia after millenia? If you can answer me this question, then you will, indeed, have something special that is hidden from the materialist's view. From my vantage point there is no special agent nursing my thoughts and feelings, and I make today my own.
Isaac:
"Also in the eyes of those many theists of different belief."
No, I was responding to Tom's "is it not the only thing in the theist’s argument".
While it is true that many religions look to others as 'made up', the "made up" argument isn't the *only* thing the theist has for the God-or-no-God debate.
Tom:
"My question is quite simple. What do you predict or hope for in an eternal life? I have yet to find anyone that can give me an answer even though it is every believer's hope and expectation. They have no idea what heaven may be and what eternal life is."
I have little idea. I know that the popular images convey little substance to me. I expect to understand upon stepping beyond the limits of time and space.
"There is just this vague assumption (faith) that God will nurse the spirit in perpetuity. But what is the spirit in absence of the body? How will we feel and express love and happiness outside of our material frame?"
Good points to think about.
"What use and purpose will it mean for a bodiless spirit to exist day in, day out, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, millenia after millenia?"
This is one of the popular images of eternity that I have come to reject - that of an unending existence bound to a linear timeline. "day in, day out, year after year, decade after decade, century after century, millenia after millenia" sounds simply boring and pointless. How a being can exist in eternity, we have no words for. How can a Flatlander describe becoming unbound from his 2-dimensional universe and move through 3 or 4 dimensions? Also, we cannot describe the experience - whether it is an end point or a phase change - of our consciousness leaving this space-time.
"If you can answer me this question, then you will, indeed, have something special that is hidden from the materialist's view. From my vantage point there is no special agent nursing my thoughts and feelings, and I make today my own."
If what you mean by "nursing" is an ongoing, active support, like an external current that keeps an electric circuit energized, then I agree. I believe that the consciousness I have was given to me as a delegated agent, and I am free to use it as I see fit while remaining under responsibility for the results.
Isaac,
Which secular evolutionists tell us about that "need [for hope and purpose]" and where do they tell us?
In all the literature I’ve read in the last week, I did read the statement about religious belief evolving because our species needed hope and purpose to thrive and survive. I thought it was a consensus and that my statement would be non-controversial, but the difficulty I have had in trying to track down the quote convinces me otherwise, and I retract the too-broad-brush statement. But if this did not make belief adaptive, what did? Or is it unnecessary, in your view, to find an adaptive function that theism would fill?
Is that [statement about “honest atheists”] in contrast to dishonest theists?
Yes, I suppose that statement was in contrast to some who are not honest. But I do not mean by that that they are deceitful. I am talking about internal honesty, which is rare to find in any group, theists, and atheists alike. Most of us shield ourselves from the more unpleasant or uncomfortable implications of our belief system. We might call it denial. But it takes many forms, and is not always blatant. Nietzche has been praised by some for his unvarnished atheism, the philosophical ramifications of which he faced head-on. And, of course, we know where that lead him. I make no judgments about atheists who do not go crazy. I do not mean to imply that they are in denial. I was only making a positive assessment of Nietzche’s atheism which was, in my view, honest.
BrownPanther,
Thank you for your contribution here. Do I understand you correctly, that the vast majority of people have been theistic (at least up until the “Age of Reason”) but that among cultural groups, only about half have included a belief in God? meaning that many apparently very small cultures have not been theistic?
Tom,
Is that really what your church taught you? that we exist forever in some bodiless form, our immaterial souls "nursed" eternally by God? Oh, how utterly unimaginative and boring!
I do not know what an eternal state may be like. Burt I have a few thoughts about it. I do believe it may entail many more dimensions than we experience now. Perhaps three dimensional time, for example, as opposed to the one dimensional and unidirectional time we experience now. Try to wrap your mind around that! I believe we will have material bodies (though in spacial dimensions beyond our three, we cannot imagine what material bodies might be like.) I suspect we will be terrestrial. I do not imagine we will ever run out of fascinating, challenging, extremely meaningful things to do. I believe there will be responsibilities, growth, development, deepening relationships, etc. Though the forgoing might suggest otherwise, I actually don't think about this question much. I have no problem leaving it in the "I-do-not-know-but-I'm-sure-it-will-be-rich-and-fulfilling" category.
I am so sorry someone sold you such a dreary bill of goods. If that's what I believed, I'd join your apostasy in a heart-beat.
I was sold a variety of bags of goods, and never really understood the appeal for golden streets and playing the harp, so I'm happy to hear you thinking outside the box. Albeit, the multidimensional me never looked good in the mirror.
I do not imagine we will ever run out of fascinating, challenging, extremely meaningful things to do. I believe there will be responsibilities, growth, development, deepening relationships, etc.
You nailed it, Cliff! Making life meaningful requires meaningful things to do. Sounds like evolution.
Rich G. > I expect to understand upon stepping beyond the limits of time and space.
"All shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of things will be well."
Cliff > ...an adaptive function that theism would fill...
Hypersensitive agency detection "is active in the first 5 months of life and only requires self-propelled and purposeful-looking movement for it to identify colored disks as agents" p6 Barrett
The question would be - what is the adaptive function of hypersensitive agency detection?
As far as I can tell, the proposed functions should be equally adaptive for a large number of other organisms - how could that be tested with white rats?
Do you see how far this is away from speculating about "an adaptive function that theism would fill"?
Cliff > Nietzche has been praised by some for his unvarnished atheism, the philosophical ramifications of which he faced head-on. And, of course, we know where that lead him.
Is it your honest opinion that Nietzsche was driven insane by his philosophy?
Presumably you also think that as Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran minister, his father's religion was responsible for his death from "a brain ailment"?
Cliff > ...Nietzche’s atheism which was, in my view, honest
Oh so you'd agree that - "There is a sense in which replacing a transcendent God with an omnipotent humanity alters surprisingly little, as Nietzsche scornfully pointed out. There is still a stable metaphysical center to the world: it is just that it is now us, rather than a deity" ?
p15 Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate
Hi Rich G
"If there is a real God, then would it be OK to make up an imaginary one of your own?"
MT---- well, that would depend on the identity of of this real God, and what he expects from us, and whether or not he revealed himself to us in any way.
Is it your honest opinion that Nietzsche was driven insane by his philosophy?
Yes.
Presumably you also think that as Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran minister, his father's religion was responsible for his death from "a brain ailment"?
Is this an attempt at humor?
Careful now guys!
We can talk about evidence for why people might have a tendency to have an opinion - but not about evidence for the christian god - that is a topic for another time *
Psi
* may be even another dimension ;-(
PS
Intentional jogging of elbow and coughing
Cliff > Is this an attempt at humor?
It's an attempt to follow your logic.
Appropriately to this discussion it's about hypersensitive jumping to cause-effect conclusions.
Your stated opinion is that somehow Nietzsche's philosophical investigations caused his dementia.
Why wouldn't you be of the opinion that somehow his father's religiosity caused his "brain ailment" ?
Of course that wouldn't fit conveniently with your other opinions.
Isaac,
The question of whether Nietzche's nihilism contributed to his mental breakdown is debated by scholars. My personal opinion, in which of course I could be mistaken, is that it did.
I have never heard of anyone making a serious argument that religious beliefs can lead to encephalitis.
Let me elaborate upon my earlier point, which was simply that hope is vital, that it promotes health and well-being. and that both Nietzche and Hemmingway were led by their athiesm to a nihilistic abandonment of hope, which led them to despair, and at least contributed to a mental breakdown and/or suicide. To me, this appears to be a natural progression; substantiating the claim that hope is essential for our species. Anyone care to argue to the contrary?
I dare say that my atheist contributors in this discussion have not embraced nihilism, and have found purpose in life which includes hope in some form. (And, of course, this is a good thing IMO.) Correct me if I am mistaken.
And if hope is essential, this would lend credence to the contention of some evolutionary anthropologists that the need for hope may have helped to drive the nearly universal belief in god(s) among the ancients.
Hi All,
I would point out another difference between atheism of theism.
I'm not aware of anyone deliberately sacrificing their own life in the cause of not believing in a god.
Regards,
Psi
Cliff > debated by scholars
Which scholars? Where?
What caused Nietzsche's insanity and death?
Richard Schain. The Legend of Nietzsche's Syphilis.
Cliff > encephalitis
Where did you see anything more specific for his father's cause of death than '... the cause of Nietzsche's father's death, a "brain softening," has no counterpart in today's medical lexicon'.
Cliff > and at least contributed to a mental breakdown
"contributed"? You said it was your honest opinion that he was driven insane by his philosophy!
Isaac,
I know you like to have documentation for every claim, and you are perfectly just. The problem is, I honestly do not have time to retrace everything I read to find and source every claim. This is a discussion blog, and you are free to disagree. You are free to fully document your rebuttals. And I do appreciate your efforts to provide source material.
I will try to do a better job of sourcing the things I read, but sometimes I read things, make mental notes, and discuss them on this blog. Trust me, I don't just make them up. But to find again where, e.g. I read that Nietzsche's father died of encephalitis is something I haven't time to do. A google search should give you more information. And of course, any diagnosis of a disease occurring 150 years ago would necessarily involve some speculation.
Some think that Nietzsche himself also died of encephalitis. (Sorry, no source, but again you can google it, I'm sure). I certainly would not claim that his encephalitis was related to his philosophy (though some speculate it was related to his profligate lifestyle). Whether his mental breakdown was related to his nihilism is another question. It is, IMO, a reasonable possibility that the two were related. And I am certainly not the first to make this claim. (The Wikipedia article on Nietzsche says as much, though it identifies this as a minority opinion).
All of this aside, my kernel point here is that hope is essential for human health and for the vitality of our species. Care to make a contrary claim?
Cliff > Trust me, I don't just make them up.
Trust and verify. Perhaps you read a lot between the lines that isn't there.
What has been interesting to me is your eagerness to make forceful statements without thinking that such statements need the support of evidence.
Cliff > hope is essential for human health
Where is your evidence that Nietzsche was without "hope", without friendship, without thoughts of marriage?
"He believed in life, creativity, health, and the realities of the world we live in, rather than those situated in a world beyond."
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Isaac,
Where is your evidence that Nietzsche was without "hope", without friendship, without thoughts of marriage?
I didn't think those things needed corroboration. The following excerpts are from the Wikipedia article on Nietzsche:
“... Nietzsche had few remaining friends ... maintained his solitude, though he often complained about it ... plagued by suicidal thoughts ...”
As for his thoughts of marriage, I know he was disappointed in romance, but his sex life has been variously described as homosexual and/or that he regularly visited prostitutes. I assume again that descriptions of Nietzsche's less than satisfying sex life are common knowledge.
There may have been moments of joy and fulfillment for Nietzsche, but everything I've read suggests that he was not a happy man. Some of his loneliness and unhappiness were due to the abuse heaped upon him (which was unfair and unfortunate), but to suggest as you apparently do that he was happy and fulfilled borders upon ludicrous. Do you really believe that?
OK,
My mum's mate's auntie's friend, who once baby sat their goldfish, thinks evangelicals have a higher divorce rate than atheists.
Your move. ;-)
Psi
PS That is actually true.
Psi,
Embarrassingly true. And evidence to me that many who call themselves "evangelical" are clueless about the teachings of Jesus, or make no attempt to follow them.
It is also documented by studies I've read and heard about that long-term monogamous Christians have more fulfilling sex lives.
Your move. ;-)
Actually, I don't think either statistic is very telling.
First, I thought ... my, Psi is up really late! Then I realized it's tomorrow morning over there!
Which leads to ...
Happy Thanksgiving Day everyone!
Even you British who don't do Thanksgiving Day.
Cliff said;
"It is also documented by studies I've read and heard about that long-term monogamous Christians have more fulfilling sex lives."
I think you just stumbled upon something that could convert me on the spot - you need to point me to this evidence.
Cheers,
Psi
Ah yes, the ultimate theistic argument!! :~)
I am serious - what is your evidence!
Psi
(and mrs Psi)
(well mainly mrs Psi)
Psi,
I can find lots of references like "studies have shown that ...." such as < http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091122205613AAlEvYF >One commentator said "79 studies have shown that Christians have better sex. Books have been written declaring that Catholics have the best sex such as < http://www.mycatholicstore.com/holysex.html>. I have heard of such studies on Dr. Dean Edel's radio talk show (a secular M.D. advice show popular here in the States). But it is difficult to actually find the studies; I have not been able to locate them online.
If there is anything to this at all, I think it would have to do with life-long monogamy, faithfulness, and waiting until marriage. And we know that Christians do not have a corner on those behaviors! This would be a fascinating topic for a future post! Well, maybe on another site.
Thanks Cliff,
I will cast my suicidally atheist eye at the evidence i.e. ignoring op eds and books and looking at the papers.
Will report back.
Cheers,
Psi
Drew a blank so far.
But as you know I am doing a degree and the uni library does get me into most journals that aren't available free online.
I just need a paper name or journal reference or stud title.
Have you found any of those?
Cheers,
Psi
No, not yet. Just claims that the "studies" exist. But I'll try again a little later today. I heard reports of such studies like 10 years ago or more, so they may not have been reported online.
Cliff > I didn't think those things needed corroboration ... plagued by suicidal thoughts ...
I just removed "plagued by suicidal thoughts" from the Wikipedia article because it seems to be unsourced editorializing.
Cliff > ... his sex life has been variously described as ... I assume again ...
Described by whom? Where?
As I said, what is interesting to me about this discussion is your eagerness to justify one assumption with another assumption.
Cliff > but everything I've read suggests
Which books or articles or ... about Nietzsche have you read?
Cliff > to suggest as you apparently do that he was happy and fulfilled borders upon ludicrous.
Which words do you think suggest that? Quote me!
I've been asking you to make clear how you came to the opinions you've been putting forward - and so far it seems that you have just assumed and assumed and assumed.
Isaac,
Before you cavalierly edit wikipedia (based on personal assumption), perhaps you should peruse the 41000 articles that appear in a google search for “nietzsche suicidal thoughts”
Just a couple for you here ...
“In the face of renewed fits of illness, in near isolation after a falling out with his mother and sister regarding Salomé, and plagued by suicidal thoughts”
http://www.readeasily.com/friedrich-nietzsche/index.php
http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/8012/Friedrich-Wilhelm-Nietzsche.html
And from Nietzsche himself:
“The thought of suicide is a powerful solace: by means of it one gets through many a bad night.”
HI Cliff,
Consider the following results of exhaustive research;
"cliff martin makes things up" 594000 articles.
Psi
PS I didn't write any of them and Isaac only wrote a couple
;-)
Oh Cliff!
No results found for "nietzsche suicidal thoughts"
Notice how many of 41,700 for nietzsche suicidal thoughts refer just to nietzsche thoughts, notice how many refer to the fictional movie and novel "When Nietzsche Wept", notice how many refer to the original Wikipedia article.
For example, both the web pages you refer to copy the original Wikipedia article!
Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Portions of the summary below have been contributed by Wikipedia.
Cliff > And from Nietzsche himself
You seem to be reading Nietzsche's aphorism as a literal description of his state of mind - rather than philosophical musing.
Do the other aphorisms in "Beyond Good and Evil" read as literal descriptions of his state of mind?
There are 48 occurrences of the word "love" in "Beyond Good and Evil" - how many times do you think the word "suicide" occurs?
Psi and Isaac,
I realize, gentlemen, that a large google article count does not in itself lend weight to an argument. You were both mistaken (and unfair) to assume that was my point. Yes, Isaac, I did see that one article was a similar Wiki article. It was late last night, and I did not have time to note every article I read. Many of the search finds were from books, quotes that are more difficult to locate. So, rather than to spend another hour offering documentation, I merely suggested you may might consult some of those articles before you presume yourself sufficiently informed to edit the wiki entry.
I'll stand by that statement.
... and by the way,
No results found for "cliff martin makes things up".
But over 2 million found for Issac uses poor logic, without quote marks.
The difference, of course, is that a very high % of the Nietzsche hits are referring to Frederick himself, and that a substantial number of those hits are from sources that link the man to thoughts of suicide.
And Isaac, it would not surprise anyone to learn that Nietzsche also thought about love. I've know several suicidal people, all of whom over a lifetime thought about love far more than suicide. What was your point?
I'll be glad to open this question up for reconsideration (I really will!) if you can offer some citations from Nietzsche authorities, or from the man himself, denying that he struggled with thoughts of suicide.
I believe he was plagued by such thoughts precisely (and only) because I have read it often from multiple sources. Yet you declare that I make things up. Can you tell me why you believe he was not plagued by thoughts of suicide, or is that just an assumption on your part?
Cliff > before you presume yourself sufficiently informed to edit the wiki entry
Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
Isaac,
I know how Wikipedia works. I've done edits myself. But who is the arbiter of whether a claim that Nietzsche was plagued by thoughts of suicide "is likely to be challenged"? The original author probably considered it accepted knowledge. Do you have any source that would suggest this is a controversial statement, other than your own (apparent) dislike for it?
Cliff > a very high % of the Nietzsche hits
A very high % of the Nietzsche hits are to pages that quote aphorism 157 from "Beyond Good and Evil" and you have yet to answer whether you think the other aphorisms on the same page are literal descriptions of Nietzsche's state of mind.
Cliff > ... if you can offer some citations from Nietzsche authorities, or from the man himself, denying that he struggled with thoughts of suicide.
Do you understand that you are demanding that your burden of proof should be someone else's burden of disproof?
Cliff > ... because I have read it often from multiple sources
We can agree that you read it in a Wikipedia article that did not itself provide a source - but when I ask "Which books or articles or ... about Nietzsche have you read?" there's no reply.
Cliff > Can you tell me why you believe he was not plagued by thoughts of suicide...
Which words do you think suggest that is my belief? Quote me!
Cliff > Yet you declare that I make things up.
Where do I declare that? Quote me!
Cliff > I know how Wikipedia works
Then you know that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..."
Hey Cliff,
Just because Isaac is asking you questions, this doesn't define his answers.
If you have no sources just say so.
Cheers,
Psi
Psi,
Just because Isaac is asking you questions, this doesn't define his answers
True enough. But when he ventures off to edit a Wikipedia entry, I'd say I am safe in assuming a few of his answers; do you agree?
Isaac,
Cliff > Can you tell me why you believe he was not plagued by thoughts of suicide...
Issac > Which words do you think suggest that is my belief? Quote me!
You bothered to go to a site claiming that Nietzeche was so plagued, and edit the claim out, without a shred of evidence or a single citation to show that the statement is considered controversial. Excuse me for jumping to the conclusion that you do not believe he was plagued by thoughts of suicide. So, in fact, you agree with me?
Cliff > Yet you declare that I make things up.
Isaac > Where do I declare that? Quote me!
Okay ...
“As I said, what is interesting to me about this discussion is your eagerness to justify one assumption with another assumption.”
Excuse me for assuming that your accusation that I was merely assuming is materially different from an accusation that I am making things up. Would you kindly explain the difference? Psi (apparently) and I both thought you meant “assuming” was the rough equivalent of “making things up”. I forget how semantically precise you are.
“It was a dark period of time and the Overbecks, in Basel, feared that Nietzsche was suicidal.”
http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/Humanities/Beckman/Nietzsche/reading/Also.html
“In the face of renewed fits of illness, in near isolation after a falling-out with his mother and sister regarding Salomé, and plagued by suicidal thoughts, Nietzsche fled to Rapallo, where he wrote the first part of "Also sprach Zarathustra" ("Thus Spoke Zarathustra") in just ten days”
http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_nietzsche.html
“Nietzsche goes into a massive depression, and hints at suicide.”
http://rsleve.people.wm.edu/FNLAS_1882.html
In the Chronik zu seinem Leben contained in the Kritische Studienausgabe, we read about the devastating effects the relationship to Lou had on Nietzsche: "In December, the crisis in the relationship to Lou and Rée becomes more acute. The specifics of this crisis have only spotty documentation. Suicidal thoughts. The abuse of narcotics." Nietzsche's draft letter from Rapallo dated December 20, 1882 confirms this observation as it enacts the masochistic, destructive drama that was unfolding: "Tonight I will take so much opium that I will lose all reason," and then arrives at a "higher insight" in his relationship to Lou by way of an enormous dosage of opium taken "out of desperation." Unable to master in himself the destructive impulses and forces he demanded that his readers overcome, unable to reinvent himself as he forcefully reminded us that such reinvention was a fundamental condition of life, Nietzsche fell, by all accounts, into a severe depressive state.
http://rsleve.people.wm.edu/FNLAS_1882.html
From Daniel Ahem, Nietzsche as a Cultural Physician, page 145:
“Though he was attracted, in the end Neitzsche fought the temptation to commit suicide”
And in the footnote on the same page, “Ronald Hayman suggests that Nietzsche did, in a manner of speaking, commit suicide to the extent that he actually chose to go insane. See Hayman’s Nietzsche: A Critical Life (New York: Penguine, 1984).
From Richard Hinton Thomas, Nietzsche in German politics and society, 1890-1918, page 53:
“Contemplating suicide, he [Nietzsche] is saved by a woman who ...”
“In 1882, Nietzsche began to show depressive symptoms with suicidal ideas.”
http://www.actaneurologica.be/acta/download/2008-1/02-Hemelsoet%20et%20al.pdf, page 10
Want more?
Have you found a single citation suggesting that there is any controversy about the matter of Nietzsche's suicidal thoughts?
Cliff > Excuse me for jumping to the conclusion that you do not believe he was plagued by thoughts of suicide. So, in fact, you agree with me?
I forgive you.
It isn't something I have a "belief" about - it's an open question in want of evidence.
Cliff > Would you kindly explain the difference?
Intent.
Cliff > Have you found a single citation suggesting that there is any controversy about the matter of Nietzsche's suicidal thoughts?
You still seem to think others have some kind of burden to disprove what you claim.
Cliff > Want more?
Are they primary sources? Are they even secondary sources?
# “It was a dark period of time and the Overbecks, in Basel, feared that Nietzsche was suicidal.”
And the writer knows that because?
# "In the face of renewed fits of illness, in near isolation after a falling-out with his mother and sister regarding Salomé..."
Don't you think that is word-for-word from the Wikipedia article?
# "Though he was attracted, in the end Neitzsche fought the temptation to commit suicide"
And the writer knows that because?
# "Contemplating suicide, he [Nietzsche] is saved by a woman who ..."
No, not [Nietzsche] - read it again and see that "he" who is saved is a character in a novel by Gustav Landauer.
Isaac,
You asked me for some sources I had read which referred to Nietzsche's suicidal tendency. I actually do not keep a trail of all my reading, so I could not possibly take you back to my sources of information. So I spent a few minutes collecting such references from a simple internet search (obviously, I was in a hurry and included one article which was sourced in the Wikipedia Nietzsche article, and misappropriated one quote), several of which are from scholarly works (I notice you did not mention these, except to ask "how do they know?")
I really do not have any more time to devote to this question. From my reading, I assumed (and still do) that it is generally accepted knowledge that Nietzsche was suicidal at times. I note (as you did) that the scholarly works do not cite sources. You may interpret this to mean the claim is unfounded. I interpret it to mean that the scholars deemed the claim not to be extraordinary, and thus not requiring documentation.
One way we could settle that question is for you to do as I have repeatedly asked: show me where the question of Nietzsche's suicidal tendency is denied by a scholar, or treated as a controversial claim.
To date, I have not found the claim to be controversial (except with you, of course). I am willing to be corrected. But until that time, I will assume that the many authors and academics who take Nietzsche's battle with suicide for granted are probably correct. You've offered no reason to think otherwise.
Cliff > ...so I could not possibly take you back to my sources...
I'm puzzled why you didn't take Psi's hint and just say so?
Cliff > So I spent a few minutes collecting such references...
I'm puzzled what help you thought references which themselves don't provide a source for that particular claim would be?
Cliff > I note (as you did) that the scholarly works do not cite sources.
Oh yes they do! I'll return to this later.
Cliff > One way we could settle that question is for you to...
Do you really not understand what's wrong with this?
#1 You are demanding that your burden of proof should be someone else's burden of disproof.
#2 'An Inability to Disprove Does Not Prove.' p124 Being Logical
#3 It wouldn't settle the question - why should we think such a scholar is correct?
Cliff > I will assume that the many authors and academics who take Nietzsche's battle with suicide for granted are probably correct.
'But it is argument, not just the word of the experts, which should be carrying the authoritative weight...' p116 "The Uses and Abuses of Expertise" Being Logical
'The "democratic fallacy" is the assumption that the mere fact that most people believe proposition X to be true is sufficient evidence to allow us to conclude that proposition X is true.' p114 Being Logical
Isaac,
I'll stand by what I wrote ...
"One way we could settle that question is for you to do as I have repeatedly asked: show me where the question of Nietzsche's suicidal tendency is denied by a scholar, or treated as a controversial claim."
Simple. Straightforward.
I'm not trying to prove that Nietzsche was suicidal. I'm merely trying to ascertain whether the question is disputed among scholars. Are you aware of such a controversy? Please, I would like to know.
I'm not putting a burden of proving a negative upon you. I am merely asking you to demonstrate that there is any reasonable doubt among those who studied the life of the man whether he was suicidal at times.
All your handy logical errors have no meaning in this discussion. I am not trying to prove anything. I am not asking you to disprove anything. It is quite simple, Isaac. Are there scholars who object to the widely held assertion that Nietzsche was suicidal? Why do you continue to avoid this question?
Until you raised the issue, I had never heard anyone express a contrary opinion on the matter.
Cliff > One way we could settle that question is ...
You seem to be suggesting that if I show you where someone wrote Nietzsche never had suicidal thoughts then on the basis of that opinion you will conclude that Nietzsche never had suicidal thoughts.
Otherwise I don't see how what you suggest could be said to "settle that question".
Is that really what you mean to say?
Isaac,
No, you miss the point entirely. I'm only asking you to show me that there is any significant disagreement among scholars on the question, other than in your own mind.
Then, I will not say the case is proven either way. But I might then agree that you did the right thing in removing the reference from Wikipedia.
Cliff > No, you miss the point entirely.
I've been interested in what you thought was needed to justify the opinion you expressed - Nietzsche was driven insane by his philosophy and "...led by their atheism to a nihilistic abandonment of hope, which led them to despair, and at least contributed to a mental breakdown and/or suicide".
What significance does "disagreement among scholars" have to our knowledge of whether Nietzsche was driven insane by his philosophy and to our knowledge of whether Nietzsche was suicidal ?
Isaac,
Are you intentionally changing the subject?
“I've been interested in what you thought was needed to justify the opinion you expressed”
Even though the first part of the “opinion” you cite was in your words, not mine, it is my opinion, based upon what I understand about the hopelessness of nihilism. It would seem that you have a different opinion on the subject. Do you? And if so, what do you think is needed to justify your opinion?
“What significance does ‘disagreement among scholars’ have to ...”
None. The significance would not reside in such a disagreement. The significance lies in the lack of such disagreement. I will happily stand corrected if you can show me otherwise (I’ve asked you to do this now 4 or 5 times), but I cannot find any disagreement at all (with the exception of you) to the generally held opinion that Nietzsche was suicidal at times, and that his depression may have been related to his worldview.
Hi Cliff,
Would you be surprised that I am starting to feel a little surprised with your line that being atheist makes you suicidal?
I would be surprised if you weren't and even more surprised if given a moment reflection that you then felt a little embarrassed.
Psi - not likely to feel suicidal any moment now.
PS being a created slave who needs to jump through hoops to avoid eternal agony might make me feel suicidal but then your god has that avenue of escape covered as well doesn't he?
- - -
I think that If I did believe in your god then I would have to join the resistance.
Psi,
When did I say that being an atheist makes one suicidal? I would be embarrassed if I had said that. I do not think for one minute that you are suicidal.
Cliff > Are you intentionally changing the subject?
No - I'm not changing the subject I've been discussing.
Cliff > the “opinion” you cite was in your words, not mine
Based on your "we know where that lead him" comment I asked - "Is it your honest opinion that Nietzsche was driven insane by his philosophy?" and you replied unequivocally - "Yes".
Cliff > what I understand about the hopelessness of nihilism
Do you understand Nietzsche's philosophy to be nihilist or "anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, anti-nihilist" - "one takes delight in oneself and one's own activity" ?
Cliff > The significance lies in the lack of such disagreement.
What significance would "lack of such disagreement" have to our knowledge of whether Nietzsche was driven insane by his philosophy and to our knowledge of whether Nietzsche was suicidal ?
Isaac:
"Do you understand Nietzsche's philosophy to be nihilist or "anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, anti-nihilist" - "one takes delight in oneself and one's own activity" ?"
Why go to a book about Schopenhauer? I thought this was about Nietzsche?
Anyway this selection drives me back to Chesteron:
"Do not enjoy yourself. Enjoy dances and theaters and joy-rides and champagne and oysters; enjoy jazz and cocktails and night-clubs if you can enjoy nothing better; enjoy bigamy and burglary and any crime in the calendar, in preference to the other alternative; but never learn to enjoy yourself." - The Common Man
Isaac,
"What significance would "lack of such disagreement" have to our knowledge of whether Nietzsche was driven insane by his philosophy and to our knowledge of whether Nietzsche was suicidal?"
None.
Rich G. > Why go to a book about Schopenhauer?
Just convenience - the author quoted Nietzsche's "anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, anti-nihilist" comment and put it in context.
"What significance..."
Cliff > None.
Yup - it really isn't relevant.
So your repeated insistence that I address this irrelevant issue has been quite puzzling.
Now what would be relevant to those questions?
Medical notes? Diaries? Letters?
Isaac,
"Yup - it really isn't relevant. So your repeated insistence that I address this irrelevant issue has been quite puzzling."
No Isaac. It's just a clear indication that you do not, and have not ever understood why I have repeatedly asked you to offer evidence that the question of Nietzsche's suicidal tendencies is remotely controversial. You don't get it, and I give up.
Cliff > ... you do not, and have not ever understood why I have repeatedly asked you...
True.
And your confirmation that neither "such a disagreement" nor "lack of such disagreement" have significance does nothing to help me understand.
Perhaps you could at least try to explain why you have repeatedly asked...
Isaac,
This is not rocket science.
I do not have the time or the resources to do original source studies on the life of Nietzsche. But from everything I've read, I have come to the conclusion that there is an uncontested consensus that Nietzsche was suicidal. That's good enough for me.
I have asked you to show me otherwise, and you refuse to do so. As I have already said, I will stand corrected if you can demonstrate for me some controversy over this question.
I'm not asking you to prove that he was not suicidal. I'm simply asking you to demonstrate that (besides yourself) there is a significant number of scholars who contend that he was not suicidal.
I've been saying this as clearly as I know how. I am at a loss to understand why this is so complex for you.
Cliff > I'm simply asking you to demonstrate that... I've been saying this as clearly as I know how.
I understand what you've repeatedly asked - my question is why you've asked since you've also said that neither "such a disagreement" nor "lack of such disagreement" has significance?
Cliff > ... there is an uncontested consensus ... That's good enough for me.
So now you do think "lack of such disagreement" has significance - if not how could it be good enough for you?
What significance?
Isaac,
I never said that “such agreement” or “lack of such agreement” has no significance. Reread your question!
You and I both accept thousands of historical events, biological information, etc. based upon what we have read, and based upon the general consensus of historians, etc. I accept the general consensus that six million (or so) Jews were killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust. Do you? On this question, there is some dispute, but I consider this disagreement insignificant. Do you? What I find instead is that there is substantial consensus. I have never done a full study of original sources. Have you? I feel no need to do so, because I see significance in the general lack of controversy among scholars on the question.
Are you a Holocaust denier?
I accept the general consensus that Nietzsche was suicidal during periods of his life. Do you? If you reject the conclusion, is it because you do not see the same general consensus that I do? Or do you have other reasons for rejecting the premise. If in fact you have information that could show me that there is no consensus on the question, please clue me in.
Cliff > I feel no need to do so, because I see significance in the general lack of controversy among scholars on the question.
I'm sure you can think of many examples where a general lack of controversy among scholars, for centuries, was followed by controversy and rejection of the previously uncontroversial idea.
Was the lack of controversy significant?
Not having the time or the resources (or frankly the interest) to study Nietzsche is completely understandable.
Not to remember where you read something about Nietzsche is completely understandable.
However, when you don't seem to know why any of the "Nietzsche scholars" you rely on reached their conclusions, are you expressing blind faith when a more tentative conclusion would be appropriate?
When you can't remember where you read something doesn't that suggest you may also have misremembered what you read?
Isaac,
I'm not following you at all. No, I do not remember the first article I read which discussed Nietzsche's suicidal tendencies. Or the second. Or the third. Or fourth. But I did offer several citations for you.
When you can't remember where you read something doesn't that suggest you may also have misremembered what you read?
Huh? I honestly cannot remember where I first read about the Holocaust. Does that mean whenever I discuss the Holocaust, and write as though it actually happened, I am possibly guilty of misremembering? I don't get it.
I asked you several questions re. the Holocaust, how you know what you know. Why did you not answer them?
Cliff > But I did offer several citations for you.
You offered a very strange observation which turns common practice on its head - "I note (as you did) that the scholarly works do not cite sources".
No. Scholars writing scholarly work cite sources.
Cliff > I asked you several questions re. the Holocaust
And I charitably ignored the accusation that was included as one of those questions.
Cliff > I'm not following you at all.
Can you think of an example where a general lack of controversy among scholars, for centuries, was followed by controversy and rejection of that previously uncontroversial idea?
Isaac,
I made no accusations, concealed or otherwise. My point is you accept the fact of the Holocaust without requiring personal first hand study of original sources. So do I. When people speak of non-controversial, accepted historical facts and events, there is no need to cite original sources. They surely exist, but I haven't the time, resources, or energy to seek them out for you. I merely accept the consensus that my reading gives clear indication about.
I accept what I have read frequently from various sources: Nietzsche suffered from suicidal tendencies. As far as I can see, this is not disputed. I doubt very much that it ever will be.
If you have a different opinion, you are entitled. But you have not cited a single source for your opinion. I'll give you the last word ...
Hey guys:
As entertaining as the debate has become lately, I think it has gotten sidetracked. As I see it, the central question shouldn't really be "was Nietzsche suicidal?" (for I think anyone can be) but rather "was Nietzche's depressed by his philosophy?" There seems to be (to me at least) abundant evidence that both his physical health and his personal world view reinforced each other to put him into a downward spiral from which he was unable to recover.
Rich G.
Rich,
Entertaining?!?
Well said, and I agree. I have made clear my opinion that Nietzsche's nihilism led him to despair, is the probable cause of his oft-reported suicidal tendencies, and likely contributed to his mental instability.
Are all atheists nihilists? No.
Do all nihilists go mad? No.
Are there lots of examples of people going crazy while embracing some theistic worldview? Certainly.
Do Christians commit suicide. Yes.
I think Isaac (and perhaps Psi) are reading too much into what I have written. However, to me, Nietzsche represents a full-blown completely consistent atheistic philosophical worldview. His is quintessential atheism. I believe he plumbed the full depths of his atheistic worldview, tried valiantly to develop a meaningful existence for himself and his fellow atheists, and failed in the effort.
Of course, these are all my opinions. Folks are free to disagree. I hope to write a blog soon about hope, and the necessity of hope for individual and societal well-being. Maybe then we can get more to the real kernel of the question ... is atheism ultimately devoid of real hope? I'm sure we will see many varying opinions on that one!
. . . real hope?
Of eternal salvation.
Yes.
Duh! That's what makes life so special.
Regards,
Psi
Actually, Psi, I was not thinking about "eternal life", though I suppose that is part of the Christian hope. If you really think that is what hope is all about, you might want to read the New Testament again.
Hi cliff,
why? Won't you tell me?
Or do you get points for getting non believers to read it?
Or is that jehovahs witnesses?
What is it I am missing cliff?
Thanks,
Psi
Psi,
Must be the JWs.
It's just that you sometimes reflect the simplistic notions about Christians that are common among non-believers ... and I give you more credit than that. Surely you know that the Christian hope goes beyond merely living forever. The highest hope for believers is knowing God in the same way he knows us. Close behind is what the N.T. calls "the restitution of all things," that justice (a rare commodity in our present order) will be fully restored when heaven and earth merge into one. There is the hope of the complete overthrow of death which, while it certainly includes people living forever, goes way beyond that. The potentials for joy, so far exceeding anything we experience here, is an unimaginable hope.
So yes, these things will be enjoyed forever. But an eternal existence sans these other aspects of our hope might well be a rather dreary existence.
I understand how your acceptance of the finality of death can inspire you to highly value life. But try to imagine all that is good and wonderful about life, multiplied many times over, to be fully enjoyed in increasing measure forever.
Cliff > I made no accusations, concealed or otherwise.
"Are you a Holocaust denier?" is accusatory.
Cliff > My point is you accept the fact of the Holocaust without requiring personal first hand study of original sources.
Again you argue from ignorance.
What do you know of my family history? Do you know I'm not the child of a Holocaust survivor?
What do you know of my reasons for accepting the fact of the Holocaust?
Is there anything at all that you know about my reasons for accepting the fact of the Holocaust or on that topic is your ignorance profound and complete?
Rich G. > ... "was Nietzche's depressed by his philosophy?" There seems to be (to me at least) abundant evidence that both his physical health and his personal world view reinforced each other...
There is abundant evidence that, from childhood, Nietzsche suffered chronic ill-health, which worsened and worsened and worsened.
"Chronic headaches of the fiercest sort, which lasted for days. Vomiting on an empty stomach, for hours on end. In short the machine seemed to want to disintegrate, and I won't deny having wished several times that it would do just that. Great fatigue, difficulty getting about, hypersensitivity to light."
To Carl Von Gersdorff [Basel, June 1875]
Where is your abundant evidence to answer "was Nietzche's depressed by his philosophy?"
"My existence is a terrible burden. I'd long ago have chucked it were it not for my having done the most illuminating psychological and moral research in just this state of suffering and almost absolute renunciation. My joyous thirst for knowledge brings me to heights where I can triumph over all torment and despair. On the whole I'm happier than ever before in my life. And yet! - constant pain, a feeling much like seasickness several hours each day, a semi-paralysis which makes speaking difficult and, for a change of pace, furious seizures (the last involved three days and nights of vomiting; I lusted for death). To be unable to read! And barely able to write! No human contact! No music! ..."
To Dr Otto Eiser [Naumburg, January 1880]
Isaac:
"(the last involved three days and nights of vomiting; I lusted for death)"
Thank you.
Now will you rescind your Wikipedia edit?
Rich,
!!!!!
Have you been following this or not?
Psi
Rich G. > Now will you rescind your Wikipedia edit?
That January 1880 letter is 2 years too early to be a source for the very specific comment I removed.
Apart from that, do you understand that "I lusted for death" can be used as melodramatic emphasis rather than as literal statement of intent?
Now will you provide your evidence that "his personal world view" drove Nietzsche into a downward spiral?
How is your opinion supported by Nietzsche's "joyous thirst for knowledge"?
Cliff > I have made clear my opinion that Nietzsche's nihilism led him to despair, is the probable cause of his oft-reported suicidal tendencies, and likely contributed to his mental instability.
Which is simply to ignore whatever evidence is inconvenient to your opinion:
- Nietzsche's anti-nihilism,
- Nietzsche's own testimony that chronic headaches and vomiting on an empty stomach for days on end, led him to despair,
- the similar symptoms experienced by Nietzsche's father and the father's death age 36 after two years of mental illness.
Which is simply to ignore whatever evidence is inconvenient to your opinion
Um, no. It is merely to accept the consensus of opinion which I have read from many sources. I readily admit that I have not (and probably will not) engage in a prolonged study of this question. It is frankly not that important to me. But I accept the commonly held opinion about the relationship of Nietzsche's worldview and his mental state.
Cliff > But I accept the commonly held opinion about the relationship of Nietzsche's worldview and his mental state.
Rather than assume your comments over the past weeks tell us all we need to know, I'll ask.
Please point to something that shows that "consensus of opinion" "about the relationship of Nietzsche's worldview and his mental state" which you rely upon.
Hi Cliff,
Some great promises there;
"Surely you know that the Christian hope goes beyond merely living forever. The highest hope for believers is knowing God in the same way he knows us."
What does that mean? I have no idea. I don't want to know the "person" who presides over such evil and suffering and who, if we take the OT as true, delighted in such slaughter himself.
"Close behind is what the N.T. calls "the restitution of all things," that justice (a rare commodity in our present order) will be fully restored when heaven and earth merge into one."
How on earth could that work? Take Xmas for example - my wife would like our kids to be here with us every xmas all the time. Not unnaturally they don't want to be here all the time.
What happens in heaven then?
What about unrequited love? Surely justice can't be done to both parties, not unless God brainwashes one of them?
Where would the justice come in that?
I don't think you have thought this through Cliff.
"There is the hope of the complete overthrow of death which, while it certainly includes people living forever, goes way beyond that."
Just humans? What about microbes? Viruses? Pets?
"The potentials for joy, so far exceeding anything we experience here, is an unimaginable hope. "
Wow this all sounds wonderful!!
Problem is every other religion promises something else as well - any actual, whats the word? Oh yes, evidence?
"I understand how your acceptance of the finality of death can inspire you to highly value life."
Thanks.
PLUS I have lots of evidence it is true!
"But try to imagine all that is good and wonderful about life, multiplied many times over, to be fully enjoyed in increasing measure forever."
Sounds brilliant indeed! Great advertising - but I want the product details before I buy. Especially as lots of other products make the same claims whilst also claiming you are lying to me about yours.
What is a rational person to think?
Happy Newtonmas for tomorrow ;-)
Regards,
Psi
PS still, as ever, happy to discuss any kind of evidence for your particular faith, but starting to think that you don't have any you want me to know about.
s
Psi,
My friend, methinks you need a basic primer on Christianity!
I don't think you have thought this through Cliff.
Actually, Psi, I have. And as I have thought through the teachings of Jesus as they relate to heaven, it becomes obvious to me that heaven is totally unlike your imaginings. Heaven is not that place where “everybody gets what they want”. Psi! Have you ever read Jesus? The examples you give, of a mother getting her wishes, or a lover always enjoying requital, are both centered around the fulfillment of self-centered desires. That is not here, nor will it be in heaven, the path to joy and fulfillment. Surely your own experience will bear this out. If I thought of heaven (and Christianity) in the (excuse me) juvenile terms you use, I’d reject it, too! If you want, I’ll explain the path to joy, but I’d rather you figure that out on your own. Hint: Jesus makes it abundantly clear. No, I don’t get points for getting you to read the Bible. But if you are a serious dissenter, you really should understand better that from which you are dissenting.
What about microbes? Viruses? Pets?
I don’t know, and I really don’t care. I trust God with the details. This is really just a red herring.
Wow this all sounds wonderful!! ... Oh yes, evidence?
You know I will not be bringing in the latest scientific journal with a peer-reviewed study on heaven. I can’t prove matters of faith ... they would then cease to be faith. But I can tell you that I have tasted heaven. I am typically as selfish as anyone! But when I move into genuine unselfish love, to acts of complete service, when I thus experience the stuff of heaven, the joys are boundless. I have personal first-hand experiential verification that the teachings of Jesus about revolutionary love are true, true, true. And the cool thing is, you are always free to try them out for yourself! Ultimately, heaven is not some “place” or some future state of existence only. Heaven is the place where the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven described vividly by Jesus are reality. Can happen (to some degree, at least) in the here and now, if we choose to let it.
What is a rational person to think?
A rational person might begin by getting a clue about Christianity! Or, he can persist in his ill-informed imaginations, and blow down the straw man over and over, and feel good that the opposing worldview (as he defines it) is irrational.
Cliff > Have you ever read Jesus?
Are there some newly discovered writings that claim to be written by Jesus?
Cliff > Or, he can persist in his ill-informed imaginations, and blow down the straw man over and over...
Where outside your imaginations is that "consensus of opinion" "about the relationship of Nietzsche's worldview and his mental state" ?
Cliff > ...this question. It is frankly not that important to me.
Whether or not you can show evidence to support your oft stated opinion on "this question" doesn't seem important to you.
However your apparently fixed opinion on "this question" does seem important to you because of what you say Nietzsche represents to you - "Nietzsche represents a full-blown completely consistent atheistic philosophical worldview".
Nietzsche as straw man atheist.
Hi Cliff,
Thanks for this but you haven't answered my questions.
Your faith makes exactly the same claims as many, many others.
Your faith has just as much evidence as many, many others.
Why on earth do you think that you are so lucky at to be in the only true one?
What are the odds?
?
Your faith looks just like that strawman to me. I have asked you to flesh it out but you refuse.
I say what I see and I am seeing straw.
Psi
PS It's rather annoying that on several previous occasions you told me that this wasn't the time or place to discuss the evidence for your faith but now you just say that there isn't any.
You must surely have thought about why you are right and the other faiths are all wrong?
When did you get your faith? Or were you just brought up never to even think seriously about this?
Psi,
"It's rather annoying that on several previous occasions you told me that this wasn't the time or place to discuss the evidence for your faith but now you just say that there isn't any."
In earlier discussions, the question was God or no God. Frequently in that context, you would pose the "comparative religions" question, which had little or no bearing on the larger theism question, and seemed rather like a diversion. That is when I told you, more than once, that I'd be happy to tell you why I am a Christian and not a Buddhist as soon as you and I resolved the question of whether there is a God or not.
Do you understand why I consider your questions about Christianity vs other religions less than sincere when you are starting out on a premise of atheism?
But I actually have offered you evidence. And at the same time stipulated that which should be obvious to all ... that the evidence which points me toward Christ and confirms my faith once I'm there is not the sort rises to the standards of scientific proof. I've never pretended otherwise.
Cliff,
"Do you understand why I consider your questions about Christianity vs other religions less than sincere when you are starting out on a premise of atheism? "
Not even got the beginning of an inkling there Cliff.
I'll just shut up then seeing as I am not sincere as I am an atheist.
Bye,
Psi
Psi,
Okay, maybe I misjudge your sincerity. But please explain to me why you would be interested in how I choose one faith over another when you are convinced that they are all bogus. Why would it matter?
And don't get so jumpy ... I've never suggested atheists are insincere.
Post a Comment