Best Christian responses to Nietzsche?

[Eudaimonist]

Nietzsche admitted it. A major point of saying "God is Dead" was to say that meaning had previously been derived from God, but that was over, so it's up to us to invent it for ourselves. "The Overman SHALL BE the meaning of the earth!" is what he said.

Then clearly he "admitted" no such thing. From the ashes of a Christian view of meaning would arise a new meaning of life. That was his point, not that atheists would forever have no meaning in life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is all or nothing. I already indicated I believe that if God does not exist life is meaningless. You don't have to be a Christian to recognize that, atheist philosophers have admitted it. You can deceive yourself if it makes you happy or helps you cope but there is no meaning to creation without an intelligent creator. IMO the ancient pagans knew this, and that's part of why they invented gods.

Then you've answered your own question: this is exactly how Christianity gives birth to nihilism. You are on the path to the nihilism he described.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When he said what exactly?

Parable of the mad man.

 

[devolved]

It is all or nothing. I already indicated I believe that if God does not exist life is meaningless. You don't have to be a Christian to recognize that, atheist philosophers have admitted it. You can deceive yourself if it makes you happy or helps you cope but there is no meaning to creation without an intelligent creator. IMO the ancient pagans knew this, and that's part of why they invented gods.

Nietzsche admitted it. A major point of saying "God is Dead" was to say that meaning had previously been derived from God, but that was over, so it's up to us to invent it for ourselves. "The Overman SHALL BE the meaning of the earth!" is what he said.

1) There tends to be plenty of "partisan hackery" on both sides of this argument, but we should be mature-enough to avoid lumping the groups and tagging labels. Otherwise you are arguing against your own constructed view of "Atheism", thus you are arguing with yourself, which is just a bit insane.

There is no "Atheist" worldview, just like there is no "Christian worldview". Usually what people have is a complex web of beliefs that contain a cocktail of culturally-slanted ideas and ideals that follow further personal trajectories.

You are saying "Atheist philosophers admitted it" like these atheist philosophers made decision on behalf of every person who rejects religion. It's a pointless argument to make.

2) Nietzsche's philosophy was never set in stone, and neither is any philosophy or a worldview of any person ever lived. People mature and grow. They take in and discard views and ideas. If I hear myself speak 10 years ago, I'd probably slap myself into some sense.

Thus, the quote mining game is pointless when it comes to the broader scope of personal journey that any given person took in context of their cultural environment and era.

 

[Chesterton]

Then clearly he "admitted" no such thing. From the ashes of a Christian view of meaning would arise a new meaning of life. That was his point, not that atheists would forever have no meaning in life.

It's not a question of having a view of meaning, it's having the view that meaning is not merely a view, not merely an opinion. Imagine you're Pinocchio. You're a bunch of matter which has come to life, become conscious, self-aware and intelligent (which is in fact what you are). Either you've been made that way by another intelligence, in which case there may be a reason you were made, a meaning for your existence. Or, there is no intelligence which created you, in which case no matter what happy fictions you dream up, there can be no actual meaning to your existence.

Then you've answered your own question: this is exactly how Christianity gives birth to nihilism. You are on the path to the nihilism he described.

Well if you look at it that way then everything leads to nihilism. Which is how the old atheists (like Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Mark Twain) looked at it, and I think they were honest. They recognized the gloom and despair of a godless universe, whereas the new atheists try and paint a happy face on it by saying "just get rid of religion and science and reason will lead us on to a brighter future!" Yeah, right.

But blaming it on Christianity is weird. The only kind of idea which doesn't lead to nihilism leads to nihilism only if it's not true. Kind of like saying "if my car doesn't run I'll have to walk, therefore cars make people walk".

1) There tends to be plenty of "partisan hackery" on both sides of this argument, but we should be mature-enough to avoid lumping the groups and tagging labels. Otherwise you are arguing against your own constructed view of "Atheism", thus you are arguing with yourself, which is just a bit insane.

There is no "Atheist" worldview, just like there is no "Christian worldview". Usually what people have is a complex web of beliefs that contain a cocktail of culturally-slanted ideas and ideals that follow further personal trajectories.

You are saying "Atheist philosophers admitted it" like these atheist philosophers made decision on behalf of every person who rejects religion. It's a pointless argument to make.

There is a Christian worldview we can speak about. If there's no atheist worldview that only proves my point, because if atheists had some meaning to agree on we'd probably be discussing it here.

2) Nietzsche's philosophy was never set in stone, and neither is any philosophy or a worldview of any person ever lived. People mature and grow. They take in and discard views and ideas. If I hear myself speak 10 years ago, I'd probably slap myself into some sense.

Thus, the quote mining game is pointless when it comes to the broader scope of personal journey that any given person took in context of their cultural environment and era.

I agree it was never set in stone. One, because he sometimes gave contradictory ideas, and two, he was vague (which is one aspect of him that G. K. Chesterton attacked). Then you add to that he sometimes opted for an unusual writing style involving word play which doesn't translate well in English and can be confusing, and all that stuff combined makes him difficult, or possibly insane. But if you want to talk about some other aspect of him go ahead.

 

[anonymous person]

It's not a question of having a view of meaning, it's having the view that meaning is not merely a view, not merely an opinion. Imagine you're Pinocchio. You're a bunch of matter which has come to life, become conscious, self-aware and intelligent (which is in fact what you are). Either you've been made that way by another intelligence, in which case there may be a reason you were made, a meaning for your existence. Or, there is no intelligence which created you, in which case no matter what happy fictions you dream up, there can be no actual meaning to your existence.


Well if you look at it that way then everything leads to nihilism. Which is how the old atheists (like Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Mark Twain) looked at it, and I think they were honest. They recognized the gloom and despair of a godless universe, whereas the new atheists try and paint a happy face on it by saying "just get rid of religion and science and reason will lead us on to a brighter future!" Yeah, right.

But blaming it on Christianity is weird. The only kind of idea which doesn't lead to nihilism leads to nihilism only if it's not true. Kind of like saying "if my car doesn't run I'll have to walk, therefore cars make people walk".


There is a Christian worldview we can speak about. If there's no atheist worldview that only proves my point, because if atheists had some meaning to agree on we'd probably be discussing it here.


I agree it was never set in stone. One, because he sometimes gave contradictory ideas, and two, he was vague (which is one aspect of him that G. K. Chesterton attacked). Then you add to that he sometimes opted for an unusual writing style involving word play which doesn't translate well in English and can be confusing, and all that stuff combined makes him difficult, or possibly insane. But if you want to talk about some other aspect of him go ahead.

Excellent rebuttals. Bravo!

 

[Chesterton]

Excellent rebuttals. Bravo!

Stop it. You'll just make them try harder.

 

[anonymous person]

Stop it. You'll just make them try harder.

Bah!

I have most of them on ignore status, and your rebuttals and insight are too great to deny compliment.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have most of them on ignore status, and your rebuttals and insight are too great to deny compliment.

Life is happier in the echo chamber?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well if you look at it that way then everything leads to nihilism. Which is how the old atheists (like Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Mark Twain) looked at it, and I think they were honest. They recognized the gloom and despair of a godless universe, whereas the new atheists try and paint a happy face on it by saying "just get rid of religion and science and reason will lead us on to a brighter future!" Yeah, right.

Those men weren't nihilists. The very reason this thread continues is because Christians like yourself cannot accept that the "old atheists" you've alluded to weren't the nihilists you think they were.

But blaming it on Christianity is weird. The only kind of idea which doesn't lead to nihilism leads to nihilism only if it's not true. Kind of like saying "if my car doesn't run I'll have to walk, therefore cars make people walk".

I don't know why think accusing Christianity of having nihilistic tendencies is weird. I've already pointed to the precursors of it, and you've already basically conceded my point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not a question of having a view of meaning, it's having the view that meaning is not merely a view, not merely an opinion. Imagine you're Pinocchio. You're a bunch of matter which has come to life, become conscious, self-aware and intelligent (which is in fact what you are). Either you've been made that way by another intelligence, in which case there may be a reason you were made, a meaning for your existence. Or, there is no intelligence which created you, in which case no matter what happy fictions you dream up, there can be no actual meaning to your existence.

In what way would that be better?

 

[Chesterton]

Those men weren't nihilists. The very reason this thread continues is because Christians like yourself cannot accept that the "old atheists" you've alluded to weren't the nihilists you think they were.

I'm not saying they were nihilists. I'm not even sure genuine nihilism is really humanly possible.

I don't know why think accusing Christianity of having nihilistic tendencies is weird. I've already pointed to the precursors of it, and you've already basically conceded my point.

Because your idea of "having tendencies" means "if it's not true it'd be replaced with nihilism". It's as if I said, if atheism turns out to be false, then you'd become a theist, therefore atheism has theistic tendencies. Doesn't make sense.

In what way would that be better?

I didn't say it was necessarily better.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not saying they were nihilists. I'm not even sure genuine nihilism is really humanly possible.

It appears that that's exactly what you're saying. Recall that you said, "They recognized the gloom and despair of a godless universe..."

Because your idea of "having tendencies" means "if it's not true it'd be replaced with nihilism". It's as if I said, if atheism turns out to be false, then you'd become a theist, therefore atheism has theistic tendencies. Doesn't make sense.

You basically conceded my point already when you admitted to believing that "if God does not exist life is meaningless."

I didn't say it was necessarily better.

Then what are you trying to say? Quit dancing around the idea and just say it.

 

[Chesterton]

It appears that that's exactly what you're saying. Recall that you said, "They recognized the gloom and despair of a godless universe..."

Those I mentioned had plenty of values, but they recognized they were man-made. It was all in their heads, they didn't claim to be in touch with any "real" meaning.

You basically conceded my point already when you admitted to believing that "if God does not exist life is meaningless."

But Christianity says God exists.

Then what are you trying to say? Quit dancing around the idea and just say it.

I'm not dancing. It's what I tried to say as simply and directly as possible with the Pinocchio analogy. If you were created with some intention, there could be a meaning to you. If not, then there's not, unless you can tell me how mindless matter can have intention or purpose or meaning. I didn't say what the meaning might be, or whether you or I would necessarily like it.

 

[anonymous person]

You know, I sit here and glance through these posts and I realize now how sad it is that a man can hate God so much that it actually drives him insane.

Frankly, we do him too much honor if we speak of him as anything other than a man who was quite full of himself.

 

[Chesterton]

You know, I sit here and glance through these posts and I realize now how sad it is that a man can hate God so much that it actually drives him insane.

Frankly, we do him too much honor if we speak of him as anything other than a man who was quite full of himself.

Aw c'mon, he was DY-NO-MITE!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Those I mentioned had plenty of values, but they recognized they were man-made. It was all in their heads, they didn't claim to be in touch with any "real" meaning.

I suspect that you are defining "real" as "God-given" here. No, they didn't have any God-given values. It doesn't follow that they therefore lacked real values.

But Christianity says God exists.

I've already addressed this...

I'm not dancing. It's what I tried to say as simply and directly as possible with the Pinocchio analogy. If you were created with some intention, there could be a meaning to you. If not, then there's not, unless you can tell me how mindless matter can have intention or purpose or meaning. I didn't say what the meaning might be, or whether you or I would necessarily like it.

So the only way in which life can have meaning is if it was designed for a specific purpose by someone?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You know, I sit here and glance through these posts and I realize now how sad it is that a man can hate God so much that it actually drives him insane.

Frankly, we do him too much honor if we speak of him as anything other than a man who was quite full of himself.

You have little appreciation for irony Jeremy.

 

[Chesterton]

So the only way in which life can have meaning is if it was designed for a specific purpose by someone?

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Davian]

Bah!

I have most of them on ignore status, and your rebuttals and insight are too great to deny compliment.

Rebuttals you will not see for those you actually have on ignore.