Nietzsche himself predicts years of bloodshed noting that the entire system of Western Europe is predicated on Christian values and codes. — Tom Storm

Christian values, are essentially democracy. Giving people, who have no right or reason to have such a freedom, the ability to live and rule alongside those who do. "Salvation". Thoroughly abused, as history shows. Aka "liars".

Theism often seems to behave as barbarism on crystal meth. — Tom Storm

See above, liars. There is no less hesitancy for a soldier of fortune to kill an unarmed person he has been indoctrinated to perceive as a threat under the guise of "God's will" than there is under the guise of "national interest", both have been set in such a way they interconnect with the only intrinsic and universal plea men of all walks of life are capable to understand. that being self-interest and survival.

Was Nietzsche correct that the ‘death of God’ would usher in a time of meaninglessness and bloodshed? — Tom Storm

Nietzsche is not talking about something that is yet to happen. God is already dead. A time of meaninglessness and bloodshed could describe much of history.

Yes I know - which is why I mentioned the 20th Century.

What you've explicated, incidentally enough, is the quintessence of Jordan Peterson's interpretations of theistic utility (with the same, underlying historical evidence). If one were to momentarily discount Anti-theistic arguments altogether, there is a demonstrable meaning attached to the bequeathing of metaphorical parables, scriptures, and myths - all of whom consolidate each other, into unified meta-representations (since they're abstract) of an organized belief. Nevertheless, I don't concur with the narrative's misapprehensions of Secular Atheism; Stalinism and Maoism shouldn't be ascribed in entirety to Godlessness, and any saccharine mode of existence shouldn't be ascribed to its contrary (Godliness) either. Moral values and virtues don't have to stem from faith; deriving them from first principles is tedious, but nonetheless far more tenable - insofar as they distill ethics insulated from a codified, doctrinal and often authoritarian system of thought.

God is already dead. — Fooloso4

Oh but of course. Because if this were to be false... we surely are. And that's not something the mind wishes to comprehend. So it won't. Nothing wrong with such a perspective in the grand scheme of things. Surprises are after all, the spice of life.

I don't equate morality with god or religion. As argued in another thread about the law, I think Natural Law is a morality innate to man (and maybe animals, since they generally, though not always, abide a certain morality in their conduct, sometimes superior to our own) and which religion, like the law, uses to bootstrap itself into our lives; like it was their idea or some shit. :roll:

I think it is better handed from generation to generation with ostracization, consequences and cancel culture; that and other peaceful ways of social engineering. As we leave off those ways of conveying morality then sure, we are going to have "issues." The downside compounds itself when we fail to make a virtue of anything. For instance, we like to say that integrity is "doing the right thing even when no one is looking." But it sure doesn't help when some one tries to do the right thing and he's dissed, demeaned or marginalized. And it doesn't help when a whistle blower blows the whistle and gets ignored instead of honored. People then see what they perceive to be "the good guy never wins, and the bad guy gets away with it." And then bad becomes good and lies the truth and truth lies, and we exalt fascist and greed and etc.

On the other hand, I think people, especially young people, are observant. And they have natural morality in their bones. And they know an asshole when they see one. But no one wants to see another peaceful Tom Hanks dragged out of a classroom, teaching, and sent to some foreign land to kill another asshole and end up dying in the process. It's our job to head that off long before it gets to that point. And we don't need god or religion to do it. God and religion are welcome to tag along and do their part, but when they are put out front, they can be part of the problem. Look at all the bible thumpers who spit on Jesus with their conduct.

Long story short, no, I do not think we are on downward spiral without god. Remember the meme circulating some time ago about what all the person saw who was born in 1900? These are the salad days, my friend. All the arcs, including justice (MLK), are bending, albeit slowly, in the right direction. There may be a step back here and there but if the Earth itself can handle the weight of the whole human race until we check ourselves, then the death of god and the rise of All (as I've described it elsewhere) will be a good thing.

Thanks. I am well aware of Peterson's work and I always find it fascinating how just about the only atheist embraced by believers is Nietzsche. Generally it is because he supports the view that the death of God leads to catastrophe. Orthodox theologian and social critic David Bentley Hart is very eloquent on this.

Remember the meme circulating some time ago about what all the person saw who was born in 1900? — James Riley

My Dad was born in 1923. What he saw is bad enough. Still living - no thanks to 2 years in a German (WW2) camp.

My Dad was born in 1923. What he saw us bad enough. Still living - no thanks to 2 years in a German camp. — Tom Storm

:victory:

Was Nietzsche correct that the ‘death of God’ would usher in a time of meaninglessness and bloodshed? — Tom Storm

Of nihilism. So perhaps "meaninglessness" but not necessarily bloodshed. I personally think he got it right -- the Christian church is losing its grip even more. But it seems like science has largely replaced it, and our reactions against Christianity still keep us Christians, in a strange way.

I wish he touched on the economy more, as Marx did. Because it appears that the real power in the world today is now in the hands of those with wealth, the business class -- or, more specifically, big business: the corporate sector. The owners of these corporations, the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), are making the decisions that shape the lives of billions of people. They own the future of humanity. What is their worldview? Are these people Christian? What tradition were they raised in? Where have they been educated? Since it's a global phenomenon (multinationalism), I think it has more to do with science and technology than the death or existence of God. Their ideology is one of greed and accumulation of wealth -- which is a kind of "will to power" in its own right, which again Nietzsche doesn't discuss much (from what I've read).

Is this nihilistic? Yeah, I'd say so. So the world, in a sense, is being directed by a small class of human beings, whose brains have been shaped by a Judeo-Christian tradition and culture, but educated in a mainly secular way, and have earned their place within a segment of the world (business and economics) that operates within its own system (capitalism). So whether you believe in God or believe God is dead, it really doesn't matter -- because to play the game (and especially to rise to the top of it) you have to internalize the rules of the game. This game is based on a particular variant of the will to power: accumulate wealth, personal gain, greed, etc.

So perhaps there will be bloodshed, but not from war. It'll be from this group of people, acting on their particular will to power, playing this particular capitalistic game, who will eventually cause the destruction of the species. Look no further than the environmental disaster currently underway, and the reactions to it, for all the evidence you need about where we stand.

I don't think even Nietzsche could have predicted that.

Exactly. JP's a brilliant thinker, but he can be reductive in his interpretations. It doesn't help that he's evasive in pinpointing what God even entails for him, which is why his conceptualizations (literally) span across psychological, biological and metaphysical domains. It's nearly implausible to be consistent on that scale, and successfully refute an atheistic synthesis of moral being. And lastly, there emerging a nihilistic catastrophe in the aftermath of God's death isn't actually an argument for God's existence (I think you'll agree).

Yes, what I sometimes hear from JP and even Jung is that God is not real but s/he may as well be (and this is a crude summary) because humans have been hardwired for worship/devotion/contemplation and our entire cultural meaning is constructed around the theistic proposition. It's FN again.

With Nietzsche context is always important. "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him ... Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

The death of God can lead to either the last man or the overman.

Nietzsche is often accused of being a nihilist This is wrong. From "The Uses and Abuses of History" through Zarathustra Nietzsche battled against nihilism. He does not reject value. It is for him of fundamental importance. The invention of new values, which he sees as necessary in our time, is only possible with the death of God.

The death of god seems only to have changed the excuses we use to justify our excesses.

Was Nietzsche correct that the ‘death of God’ would usher in a time of meaninglessness and bloodshed? — Tom Storm

I don't know. But people have been predicting the end of the world since it began.

The death of god seems only to have changed the excuses we use to justify our excesses. — Banno

:up:

But people have been predicting the end of the world since it began. — Zophie

:up:

Was Nietzsche correct that the ‘death of God’ would usher in a time of meaninglessness and bloodshed? — Tom Storm

His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces God’s death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism. In fact, the madman despairs of the mere atheists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become. — David Bentley Hart

left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become. — David Bentley Hart

I would argue the uncertain resources of our will are uniquely designed and qualified to deal with an infinity of meaninglessness. God, are we good at it!

By what measure are we 'good at it'? How do you ascertain that?

By what measure are we 'good at it'? How do you ascertain that? — Wayfarer

The measure would be presence. As opined elsewhere, there is agreement and disagreement and the fact that neither matters, itself does not matter, so we press on, and that is all that matters. I used "ideas" but the sentiment applies equally to the physical, the stone and the knife, etc. In short, we keep on keepin' on.

As I said - it is easy to see why Bentley Hart likes FN. But the question remains for all of DBH's amplifications of FN's basic premise. Is it accurate?

It's not so much that he likes him, but that he seems him as someone who is really prepared to grapple with the momentous nature of the so-called 'death of God' and is prepared to consider the consequences. Unlike the current crop of atheists whom he thinks have no grasp of what it is they're denying.

... left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become. — David Bentley Hart

The resources of our will are all we have ever had. With these resources man invented God. Man created the myths of creation and purpose. Man created meaning. The universe has always been meaningless.

The three metamorphoses of the spirit in Zarathustra is about doing this again and again. Rejecting those values that no longer promote our health and replacing them with new ones. Over and over again. The eternal return of the same.

I am well aware of Peterson's work — Tom Storm

JP's a brilliant thinker, — Aryamoy Mitra

anything is permitted (Zizek has made this point) — Tom Storm

Zizek and Peterson. This is what we spend our time reading? Good heavens.

Zizek and Peterson. This is what we spend our time reading? Good heavens. — Xtrix

No and it's interesting that you jump to conclusions like this. Is your high horse conveniently tethered nearby?

They were mentioned because they happened to be apropos. Why not add someone better? Christ knows I am sick of both those.

Man created the myths of creation and purpose. Man created meaning. The universe has always been meaningless. — Fooloso4

That is a belief, also - practically the defacto belief in today's world. But a belief nonetheless.

Please be careful, while scaling down that mountain of sanctimony. It's fairly high.

Zizek and Peterson. This is what we spend our time reading? Good heavens. — Xtrix

JP, albeit first a professor, has spent the entirety of his career devising advisory doctrines, reconstituting mythological interpretations, and interweaving a multiplicity of academic domains whilst doing so (encompassing evolutionary biology, cognitive/social psychology and even metaphysics). He's laid forth a substantive, and profound set of arguments that underpin the utility of Theistic beliefs - pinpointing how entrenched they are in the recesses of Western Civilizations, in an era bereft of thinkers like him. He's not infallible; there are assertions that he imparts that are overly abstract, or without a concrete and practical realization - but neither of those warrants a trivialization.

Zizeck, on the other hand, is an academic philosopher - and while several individuals interpret him as being solely a Marxist, he's been tremendously contributory towards Hegelianism (and certain psychoanalytic fields). Again, he has thousands of critics - many of whom label him a polemicist (and perhaps he is), but he's been crucial in the sustenance and teaching of Hegelian values.

If you extricate each individual from the political overtones they're construed as embodying, perhaps you might find yourself being less incorrigible - and willing to learn, before deriving value (as opposed to resorting to unfounded denigration). Irrespective of whether you're holding them in contradistinction with philosophical savants or not, there is no utility - whatsoever - in adopting that stance.

Ultimately Nietszche is impelled to not only deny God, but also science, because science originates with the acceptance an order, and Nietsczhe is compelled to deny that also.

"But you will have gathered what I (Nietsache) am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests — that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from... that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine."

Following his own logic, Nietzsche necessarily comes to the point where God must be eradicated from his belief system, which is the antithesis of faith:

— But what if this should become more and more incredible... if God himself should prove to be our most enduring lie?

This forms the bedrock for Nietzsche's comments:

"The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity chaos—in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms... Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands, nobody who obeys, nobody who trespasses. Once you know that there are no purposes, you also know that there is no accident; for it is only beside a world of purposes that the word "accident" has any meaning."

Thus, the denial of God has driven Nietzsche to deny science, the laws of nature, the existence of order and even of causality. There is no purpose in the world, only chaos. Instead of "law," Nietzsche substitutes "necessity." But what is this but another name for "law"? Likewise, biologist Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity (1971), denied the purposefulness implied by "teleology" only to exchange it with an almost identical word, "teleonomy." What is gained by substituting one word for another if both are intended to describe the same thing?

Henry Bayman - Nietszche, God and Doomsday.

My take is that the modern world has lost all sense of the dimension against which the sense of a 'higher intelligence' can be calibrated because the metaphors by which it is presented are no longer intelligible to us. The modern world is a flatland as far as values are concerned, because, as a later philosopher was to observe:

The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world
everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no
value exists--and if it did exist, it would have no value. — TLP

That's why we think the universe is meaningless. It is consequence of a loss of perspective which arises from modern empiricism, which only trusts sense-data.

ltimately Nietszche is impelled to not only deny God, but also science, because science originates with the acceptance an order, and Nietsczhe is compelled to deny that also. — Wayfarer

I think this is critical. The post-Enlightenment's zest for and confidence in proofs and reasoning comes right out of Christianity. Much nihilism these days seems less ambitious :razz:.

My take is that the modern world has lost all sense of the dimension against which the sense of a 'higher intelligence' can be calibrated because the metaphors by which it is presented are no longer intelligible to us. — Wayfarer

Nice work, W. That is a succinct and juicy way of putting it. This could be a thread of its own.

By the way, when I said DBH 'likes' Nietzsche, I didn't mean it to sound like a high school relationship - I guess I meant he 'respects' FN.