If Christianity and Schopenhaur are based on denying life ... ... middle of paper ... ...itique is that he views religion from the outside, so doesn't this make it a one-sided story? But obviously Nietzsche will think that his critique is one-sided. He is a perspectivist. Why is a view from outside any less valid than a view from inside? Is the ladder of religious cruelty a complete account of religious development.
His arguments’ inherent contradictions undermine his own assertions and do nothing to lessen the validity of objective claims to truth either. This is again not to agree with Aquinas, but to point out that Nietzsche is still working in a system correspondence in order to refute the correspondence theory of truth. Nietzsche’s primary contribution to ethical theory is the realization that we no longer truly believe in God, that we must confront the consequences of this moral and spiritual gap in our lives and look for something to replace Him. His writings contain criticisms of these new replacements such as skepticism, nihilism, feminism, democracy, utilitarianism and scientific positivism, but these criticisms I don’t believe justify the demarcation of ‘False’ by Nietzsche’s own standards.
The whole concept would sound foolish to Nietzsche, in spite of the fact that he recognized asceticism in religion already. Nietzsche believe that those who lived ascetic lives were “surrounded by such a lavish growth of nonsense and superstition” (Nietzsche, Good and Evil, 60) and thus were absurd and achieved nothing. William James believed that asceticism was based in the “general good intention” (James, Varieties, 384) and that it could eliminate evil in the world. James believed that asceticism was over-all useless, but understood it as a way for religious people to eliminate the negativity in their lives. James would have understood Father Lazarus’ ascetic life just the same way.
These two values will be analyzed In greater detail later in this essay. The first part of this essay focus... ... middle of paper ... ...p support their natural drives. On Nietzsche’s view, then, the commitment to objective truth is inimical to the affirming force of life, because it denies the character of human passions. On the contrary, the ultimate purpose embedded in Christian morality consists in the blind faith in truth. The will to the belief in an unconditional and the overvaluation of truth both lead to an age of cynicism where people become more skeptical about the value of illusion as opposed to the Greeks.
In addition to harmfully encouraging mediocrity, Christianity (according to Nietzsche) dangerously denied the importance of the individual by proposing predefined paths to supposed greatness. Christianity, therefore, robbed humanity of the personal vitality of living. According to Nietzsche’s belief in the neces... ... middle of paper ... ...g that Christianity evolved to a point where it only ostensibly held real meaning concerning God, Nietzsche and the death of God theologians in effect asserted that Christian thought became a matter of nominalism. The name and concept of God only held import within the parameters of a society’s own thoughts, and God was meaningless in the context of contemporary America. The religious incorporation of secularization appeared in such contexts as the stress by Hamilton and others on Jesus Christ’s importance.
The emphasis placed on the beauty of divine forces by Chekhov scorns the ideas proposed by Nietzsche. The depiction of a man highly displeased with the fleeting quality of human life in The Bet is contrasted by Nietzsche’s belief in the power of humankind. Chekhov’s text proposes the idea that spirituality will always be the most essential form of guidance, as it is eternal. The Madman explores the idea that man can live independently of this divine force and govern society without it. Chekhov’s conclusions deride Nietzsche’s philosophies.
The inherent complexity of Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophical writing leaves much room for interpretive issues regarding its content. For example, one of the most common criticisms of his work in Concluding Unscientific Postscript is the interpretation that, fundamentally, Kierkegaard is an irrationalist. In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he argues that objective truth may only be grasped and appropriated subjectively, focusing specifically on the relationship between man and God in Christianity. Critics- noting Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the foundational paradox within Christianity- assert that Kierkegaard denies that that reality operates according to objective, rational principles. For many, this signifies an apparent destruction of reason in favor of arbitrary, irrationalist faith.
Nietzsche and Heidegger In this assignment, I will discuss what I have learned to perceive is the relevance of Nietzsche and Heidegger for theorizing religion. I will place great emphasis on Nietzsche's concept of the "Death of God," and how this concept is a challenge to modernity and religious consciousness. With the rise of science and empiricism, Nietzsche argues that it is practically impossible for a modern person to realistically believe in a Christian conception of God. However, the morality of Christianity lingers in the background, and, while still influencing people, Nietzsche predicts that the Europe of his time was soon to see a nihilistic sickness. However, contrary to a superficial reading of Nietzsche, he was not endorsing nihilism, but rather diagnosing it within a societal context.
In his argument, Pope draws on the idea that “new atheists hold that Christian morality proposes an impossibly high norm of love” (Only Religion Can Teach Morality and Ethics). Furthermore, stating “atheists regard Christian love as a completely unrealistic form of altruism” (Only Religion Can Teach Morality and Ethics), then going on to say the critiques apply to sectarian Christians. On the other hand, Kurtz says religious morality is contradictory and, citing evangelical capitalism, “values have shifted in favor of wealth” (Atheism Teaches Morality and Ethics). Pope is dreadfully wrong in this. I have never heard an atheist say anything remotely close to what he is arguing.
The nature of theological debate One difficulty that arises in writing about this subject is that the traditional view of God is ridiculous - as Hume's Philo says, it is fixed only "by the utmost licence of fancy and hypothesis", and the arguments put forward for it are transparently fallacious. In order to proceed with the debate at all, one must feign a deficit in the application of one's powers of reason, for if one relied exclusively on reason for deciding what to believe, then one would dismiss religion out of hand. It is well known that people hold their... ... middle of paper ... ...answers here. First, although the discharge of benevolent deeds is a good thing, it is not such a great thing that it is worth inflicting war, pestilence, and old age on mankind. Second, there are ample opportunities for people to do great works that do not involve other people's suffering.