Nietzsche, "God is dead."

Or Sagan,

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. That God is an emotionally unsatisfying God. It doesn't make much sense to pray to gravity."
Goodreads › quotes › 166452-the-i...
Quote by Carl Sagan: “The idea that God"

?

There you go again, treating two very different ideas of "God" as if they are comparable.

They aren't.

A false dilemma dissembling as enlightenment.

Carl Sagan seems to be talking about Spinoza's god.
Fun fact, some christians claim that Albert Einstein believes in the jewish god. Nope, he does not.

http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm
'The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
In a letter from January 3, 1954
- Albert Einstein

From the same site
I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a god who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in a god?" quoted in: Has Science Found a god?, by Victor J Stenger

------------------Spinoza's god does not have a personality. It is just the universe. It is called naturalism, I think.


~~~~iceman9090

Whee!

Meet the pantheist apologetics, same as the old apologetics.

I thought apologists were banned from the board.

Shroedinger! The God of Apples and Oranges!

Let every knee bend. Let every head bow.

How can something that was never alive be dead ?

If you listen to Nietzsche, understand what he's saying, it's a profound insight.

"God" is the cultural and ethical spirit or ideology of a society. It is not a supernatural being but a superhuman aspiration or goal. God is"dead" when the higher impulses of a society have ceased to inspire its people, who are wandering around like sheep looking for a new shepherd. Nietzsche was therefore saying that the European peoples were lost, looking for new gods (god in the sense of a slaveholder, a master) that they would find in totalitarianism. Nietzsche's call was for a new person or people to come up with a new and ideally atheistic inspiration to strive for higher culture and greater individual initiative.

My beef with Scat is that he always ignores the definitions of words like Tao, Goddam Particle, Logos and God to create conflicts that don't really exist. Nietzsche's ideas are profound and worthy of study, a point that gets lost in the haze of scatological equivocation.

Scat is merely trolling.

Yes. He doesn't realize it, but that is an apposite description.

Scat, as used here, is the funniest goddam word I've heard all week. It has two meanings, both of which are hysterical and applicable.

+1

I think it was originally EOD who coined that name.

NO! Kathleen did it and claimed it was a typo!!

That’s how twisted she has become.

I’m in awe...

What is the world coming to?

You and I are used to being stuck on the stool in the corner with dunce caps on, but now the imperturbable Nightingale and summer have occasionally been roused to take one for the team and the genteel Kathleen has begun devising epithets to whose clever prurience I can only aspire.

The signs are apparent, EOD. The end is nigh.

Well said.

As an aside, I accidently stepped in some scat once.

I’ll try to squeeze out a response.

LW already addressed your bias against Nietzsche. They were both right. That’s the thing about God. Whatever you believe about God, you are right. God is that kind of thing. It’s like water that fills the vessel you make for it. That’s because the higher part of you can’t interfere with the free will of the lower part. So if you disbelieve in God, your experiences will confirm that.

One thing you can be sure of is that Sagan was a man for his time, as was Nietzsche. And Bob Dylan, cuz the times they are a changin’.

Although having just dreamed about it, this could just be so much diplomacy. If something can plainly be seen then it’s ultimately better to distinguish sh*t from shineola.

It doesn't matter at all.

Clearly there is no God, in the sense of a creator being who influences the universe contrary to the laws of physics. Therefore no need to worry about him/her/it.

Sociology is much more interesting than theology or even philosophy.

Also there's plenty of good literature to read and music to listen to and comedians to laugh at instead of endlessly pondering God.

I'm going to wade into this a little. First you attributed the quote to Carl Sagan via good reads. I'm sure he said it but it is lacking context. I have traced it back to a US New and World Report issue on December 23rd 1991. I haven't read the article because the internet doesn't have the issue online, or at least I can find it.

So lacking in context here's what I read.

"But if by 'God,'" (Sagan here states that he is going to redefine god. He isn't using the definition that we are all used to.)


one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe,(His definition of god for the purposes of this discussion. The operative word being IF.)


"then clearly there is such a God." (A statement of fact. Let me restate so that the statement is clear. There is a set of physical laws that govern the universe. He isn't saying that these laws are god he is saying that if you define god this way than of course there is a god.)


Stated a different way. But if by Burrito, one means a roll, a quarter pound of beef, pickles, lettuce, tomato, mustard, and ketchup. Then clearly there is such a Burrito.

It is hard sometimes to argue semantics because it seems like nit picking. But one shouldn't latch on to a contextually ambiguous quote and then base an entire world view on it.


One other point, again nit picking. Those physical laws aren't laws. They are descriptions. They aren't governing the universe, they are describing it. Deifying descriptions or even laws seems counter intuitive to Sagan's contextually ambiguous goal of demystifying the concept of god. Which is what I take out of the quote.

Which is ironically what I get out of Nietzsche's quote as well.

This is good.

I once used Fruit Loops as a metaphor for God in the scatological context but your burrito analogy is better.

Scat's next name should be "Oblique".

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scat's next name should be "Oblique".
The first one to resort to ad Hominem attacks, loses the debate.

He who writes the rules, rules.

Whiner, whiner, chicken diner.

Interesting insights, I appreciate all.
I waited to give my opinion because I wanted to hear others.
The first thing I said after 9-11, to my self, was,"Nietzsche was right. God is dead."

But now, a generation later, I think it depends upon what you mean by the word, "God".
If you mean it in a Judeo Christian setting, it means White Jewish God. If you are in an Eastern setting it can mean one of millions of gods and goddesses. I don't believe in any of them.
But I do believe in Hawking's, "god" (little 'g') which is Einstein's god, and Spinozas, Buddha/Lao Tzu', Nature.

Wordstar macros us again.

> . . .Hawking's, "god" (little 'g')
> which is Einstein's god, and Spinozas, Buddha/Lao
> Tzu', Nature.

Off the rails again.

+Lot's Wife:
"Off the rails again."

==What do you mean?
schrodingerscat is just giving us her POV.

~~~~iceman9090

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > . . .Hawking's, "god" (little 'g')
> > which is Einstein's god, and Spinozas,
> Buddha/Lao
> > Tzu', Nature.
>
> Off the rails again.


Hawking's, "god" -

"When I use the word, "god", I mean it in thee same way Einstein used it, in the impersonal sense of the word, to mean, the laws that govern nature, as in, 'I want to know the mind of god.' So to know the mind of god is to know the laws that govern nature." Stephen Hawking, Is There A God?, Brief Answers to the Big Questions

Einstein's "god"

"Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Michio Kaku on Einstein's god,

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god


"In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”


Like I said, it depends upon how you define the word, 'god'.

I choose to go with the working definition of the cosmologists and string theorists, as in, nature, or the way of nature, which is the same as Tao.

How you define it is up to you.

How I define God is up to me, yes. And how Laozi might have defined that word, if he had, would be up to him; so too the Buddha.

You write, "I do believe in Hawking's, "god" (little 'g') which is Einstein's god, and Spinozas, Buddha/Lao Tzu', Nature."

You can't possible equate Laozi's Tao with the scientists' God for the simple reason that Laozi was opposed to education of all sorts. He thought scientific endeavor and education distorted humanity and drove it further from its true character. How can an opponent of science agree with science that God is the summation of science?

Likewise, Buddhism and its sister Indian religions contend that there is no material reality and hence no world, so solar system, no black holes, no singularities, no particle physics, no "God Particle," and no Einstein, Spinoza, Scat, or LW. Oh, by the way, there is no God.

As I have said far too often--which means about 1/10th of the times you have repeated yourself--you cannot equate the God of scientists with that of religious leaders who deny the possibility of that God.

Or, more correctly, you cannot equate those things and still have any credibility.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How I define God is up to me, yes. And how Laozi
> might have defined that word, if he had, would be
> up to him; so too the Buddha.
>
> You write, "I do believe in Hawking's, "god"
> (little 'g') which is Einstein's god, and
> Spinozas, Buddha/Lao Tzu', Nature."
>
> You can't possible equate Laozi's Tao with the
> scientists' God for the simple reason that Laozi
> was opposed to education of all sorts. He thought
> scientific endeavor and education distorted
> humanity and drove it further from its true
> character. How can an opponent of science agree
> with science that God is the summation of
> science?
>
> Likewise, Buddhism and its sister Indian religions
> contend that there is no material reality and
> hence no world, so solar system, no black holes,
> no singularities, no particle physics, no "God
> Particle," and no Einstein, Spinoza, Scat, or LW.
> Oh, by the way, there is no God.
>
> As I have said far too often--which means about
> 1/10th of the times you have repeated
> yourself--you cannot equate the God of scientists
> with that of religious leaders who deny the
> possibility of that God.
>
> Or, more correctly, you cannot equate those things
> and still have any credibility.

Yeah, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and Kaku were all crazy AF!
And you're the sane one, in your version of reality!
Got it!

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and Kaku were all
> crazy AF!

I never mentioned, let alone derided, any of those men. You are just tossing another bright shiny object into the air.


---------------
> And you're the sane one, in your version of
> reality!

I merely suggested that you should let Laozi and Buddha express their ideas themselves rather than ascribing your views to them. Is that a reasonable "version of reality?" I think so.


---------------
> Got it!

Apparently not.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and Kaku were
> all
> > crazy AF!
>
> I never mentioned, let alone derided, any of those
> men. You are just tossing another bright shiny
> object into the air.
>
>
> ---------------

You said I was 'Off the rails again' to suggest that Einstein's 'god' (little 'g') means, Nature, like Hawking/Sagan/and Kaku said.

I think Nietzsche was bad at defining what he meant by the word, God. If he had defined it the way Spinoza defined it, as Nature, maybe he wouldn't have concluded it was dead.


> > And you're the sane one, in your version of
> > reality!
>
> I merely suggested that you should let Laozi and
> Buddha express their ideas themselves rather than
> ascribing your views to them. Is that a
> reasonable "version of reality?" I think so.
>
> ---------------
> > Got it!
>
> Apparently not.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao#Taoist_interpretations

Taoist interpretations

To Taoists, tao meant 'the way the universe works'; and ultimately something very like God, in the more abstract and philosophical sense of that term.

That's the same thing Einstein/Hawking/Sagan and Kaku meant when they used the word, 'god'.

> You said I was 'Off the rails again' to suggest
> that Einstein's 'god' (little 'g') means, Nature,
> like Hawking/Sagan/and Kaku said.

Nope. You went off the rails when you threw out Taoism and Buddhism again as if you had any idea what those worldviews are.


------------------
> I think Nietzsche was bad at defining what he
> meant by the word, God.

Nietzsche was great at defining the word God the way he wanted to use it. EB indicated that as well.

But yes, if Nietzsche defined God the way you do, he would agree with you. And if Laozi held the same views as you, he too would agree with you.

Unfortunately, they didn't.


--------------
> If he had defined it the
> way Spinoza defined it, as Nature, maybe he
> wouldn't have concluded it was dead.

Why would he want to do that? He disagreed with Spinoza.


-------------
> To Taoists, tao meant 'the way the universe
> works'; and ultimately something very like God, in
> the more abstract and philosophical sense of that
> term.

You wouldn't cite Wikipedia if you knew who Arthur Waley was. But if you had read him, or the Taoist classics themselves, you would know that 1) there are a dozen different views on what the Tao is, 2) Laozi himself said it was incomprehensible, and 3) all those schools agree that scientific endeavor is a mistake and leads humans away from the truth.


-------------
> That's the same thing Einstein/Hawking/Sagan and
> Kaku meant when they used the word, 'god'.

Yeah, except your scientists meant scientific reality and the Taoists meant exactly the opposite.

So there's that.

The corvid approach to philosophy: OOOO, a shiny bauble!

I can’t quote anyone unfortunately. Often I feel the need to believe in something outside of myself so sometimes I say kind of a prayer to the universe. It’s similar to when I do yoga but I’m not a Hindu. Usually when I’m about to walk into the hospital for a shift I do it. I’m not there at the moment but when this pandemic hit us I was doing it before each shift. It’s absolutely nothing like the messed up prayers I said to the Judeo-Christian god. But I remember how that faith did really help me when I left mormonism. Maybe I’ll grow out of this as well? I don’t know.

Maybe this means I’m taking the unpopular stance of supporting the OP? I can’t really tell. But does this mean I’m a pantheist? I’ve no idea; I just came up with it on my own when I was pondering on the meaning of life and the wonders of the universe. If there is a god, then to me maybe god is the universe somehow. But not in anyway as I’ve previously understood the concept.

I know this could be torn to shreds by critical argument and normally I play devils advocate with myself, yet this time I feel this vague notion does me no harm. It’s like a form of spirituality rather than anything religious. And does it mean I’m an apologist who shouldn’t be here? I hope not!...

Third of Five Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe this means I’m taking the unpopular stance
> of supporting the OP?

You aren't supporting him. In my opinion you are just another contributor who isn't as tortured as he is.

> I know this could be torn to shreds by critical
> argument and normally I play devils advocate with
> myself, yet this time I feel this vague notion
> does me no harm.

Playing with oneself usually does no harm. Just don't get your factory going too fast or your will be as tortured.

"No harm" fits the first 10 times you tell us your view.

But what about your 25th thread stating your personal imprecise opinion?

Um...this is probably the first time I’ve mentioned it (?!)

He is describing Schrodinger's Cat, not you. SC is the one who posts the same thing so frequently that some of us get frustrated.

Ah, right, gotcha.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He is describing Schrodinger's Cat, not you. SC
> is the one who posts the same thing so frequently
> that some of us get frustrated.

Because he's an idiot.
I've NEVER brought up Nietzsche and Sagan by way of comparison.

Perhaps you should reread your OP--or perhaps even the subject line under which you are writing--before asserting that you have never compared the two men.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2020 04:37PM by Lot's Wife.

Gravity killed Nietzsche's God.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravity killed Nietzsche's God.

Nietzsche never really defined what he meant by the word, 'God', which is the problem with leaving it open for interpretation.
It seems like Nietzsche used a very narrow, Judeo Christian, Western meaning of the word, and failed to address the possibility that Spinoza was right and Nature and god are one and the same.
If Spinoza was right, then saying, "God is dead" is like saying, "Nature is dead." when Nature is what created life and has sustained it, continuously, over the past 3.5 Billion years that we know of.

I think this has it right about Nietzsche's view of God.

"Nietzsche, as a mid-19th-century German philosopher, first declared God dead in the context of this idealism. He might just as well simultaneously have declared "reason" dead. Indeed, he did just that. For reason, in the idealist context, was not just some capacity of mind to prove propositions about experience true; it was, for Hegel, a supernatural force out there, moving the world towards progress. Nietzsche's rebellion was a way of saying that no great metaphysical forces governed human life and created a framework for meaning, every individual faced the possibly absurdity of existence alone. Yet this was hardly the only meaning of his "death of God".

Nietzsche was as much a German writer as he was a philosopher. His father, who died when he was four, was a Protestant minister, and Nietzsche was brought up in an atmosphere of gloomy Lutheran piety by his mother and sister. It was against the oppressive weight of Christian moralising on his sensual being that he passionately rebelled; and this rebellion was fired all the more by chronic illness, which further limited his chances to love life.
To this personal rebellion must be added a Nietzschean fury with the condition of a Germany newly united under Bismarck, who was pursuing an official "cultural struggle", a kulturkampf, to unify German culture as Protestant and national. Nietzsche despised the church as an institution and politically and culturally he was a free-thinking European far ahead of his days.
So, "God is dead": you, men of power, can't take his name in vain to shore up your institutions. That would be the political message."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/07/political-message-nietzsche-god-is-dead



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2020 12:19PM by Elder Berry.

Both are dead, so what does it matter.
If there is an afterlife both are in it by now.
If there isn't, it does not matter to them now.

Which weighs more? A pound of rocks or a pound of feathers?

African or European feathers?

Horse feathers. And I define horse as tapir.

Look a baby tapir!

Ah...

https://www.today.com/pets/spotted-dublin-zoo-welcomes-adorable-baby-tapir-6C10604263

Divergent reasoning:

I love a nice green lawn. I wonder what dandelions taste like? Do aliens have sex? Our dear heavenly great attractor.

Convergent reasoning:

I love nature. I love reading. I love reading about nature. Our dear heavenly great attractor.

African or European dandelions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uio1J2PKzLI

Well you have to know these things when your a king.

Who would win? Bruce Lee or Muhammad Ali?

At what ages?

We are on a journey to become Gods ourselves.
Maybe JS got that part right.
Once we have all the Scientific knowledge there is to be had we may be able to walk on water and move mountains ourselves.
The beauty and symmetry of natural laws in no accident in my opinion. An ultimate intelligence exists somewhere, in some form.
Either the laws of nature have existed forever or they were constructed by some intelligence. Either way it does seem to fit a definition of God.

This sounds an awful lot like Scat.

You'll always be a god to me, EB.