Best Christian responses to Nietzsche?

[Archaeopteryx]

Here's how it usually works:

Q, followed by A.

Not,

Q, followed by Q Q Q.

Are you comparing Yahweh to a roach?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All we agree on is that there are beings capable of contemplation. Due to that, these same beings are also capable of imagination and fiction. One, we have no way of knowing whether roaches are the same, and two, even if they're not capable of contemplating their meaning, meaning could still exist for them.

According to the criterion you specified earlier, they could only have meaning if they were designed for a specific purpose. Yahweh doesn't satisfy this criterion because, according to you, he was not designed for any purpose.

 

[Davian]

What did I misrepresent?

My views on determinism, free will, and my comments on the actions of the members of the wolf pack were twisted into being about a meal having meaning.

Other than that, you were spot on.

The Secret Thoughts of Dogs

• Davian
• Jun 6, 2016

 

[Chesterton]

My views on determinism, free will, and my comments on the actions of the members of the wolf pack were twisted into being about a meal having meaning.

Other than that, you were spot on.

We've discussed your views on determinism at length before. So what were you saying with your comment about the wolves?

 

[Davian]

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.

Interesting to see that your confidence in your mind-reading skills permits you to extend it to detecting and evaluating the physiological and psychological states of those that died long before you were born.

 

[bhsmte]

Interesting to see that your confidence in your mind-reading skills permits you to extend it to detecting and evaluating the physiological and psychological states of those that died long before you were born.

That dude should have his own mind reading television show.

 

[Davian]

We've discussed your views on determinism at length before.

I do not recall where I might have said something that would be represented in your earlier comments.

So what were you saying with your comment about the wolves?

Going back to your opinion that, if your particular "God" does not exist, life is meaningless; we observe the members of the wolf pack to behave in a manner that can be perceived that there is worth - meaning, if you permit - in feeding and protecting their young, rather than treating them as a quick meal, or keeping the food for themselves.

While we cannot look into the minds of the wolves (or our fellow humans), I can observe similar behaviour in myself, and those around me with children. There is no talk of gods, or afterlifes, yet life has joy and meaning, just in the raising of our children. Like myself, our teenage children have only known of gods as characters in books.

Now back to your opinion about gods; why do we need them?

 

[Chesterton]

I do not recall where I might have said something that would be represented in your earlier comments.

Going back to your opinion that, if your particular "God" does not exist, life is meaningless; we observe the members of the wolf pack to behave in a manner that can be perceived that there is worth - meaning, if you permit - in feeding and protecting their young, rather than treating them as a quick meal, or keeping the food for themselves.

While we cannot look into the minds of the wolves (or our fellow humans), I can observe similar behaviour in myself, and those around me with children. There is no talk of gods, or afterlifes, yet life has joy and meaning, just in the raising of our children. Like myself, our teenage children have only known of gods as characters in books.

Now back to your opinion about gods; why do we need them?

Again, you haven't actually said anything. Worth = meaning? What is a wolf worth? It's hard to even address this without being snarky because it seems you're trying to suggest that wolves contemplate meaning and then make a moral decision based on it, whatever it is.

Romance and rationalism mix like oil and water - they don't. I assume you understand natural selection. Any behaviors you observe in animals (or engage in yourself) are being done because the animals which didn't do them didn't survive. That's all. Most wolves come with a limited variety of fur colors, usually a grey-ish color. Why are there no wolves with pink fur? Because if there ever were, they didn't survive. So the fact that they feed their young has as much meaning as their color - none.

And if you have emotional feelings about such things, that's because your ancestors whose brains didn't generate such feelings didn't survive to pass their brain chemistry on to you. Very clear-cut and simple.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are anthropomorphosizing wolves. Meaning seems to be something only human beings do. That seems to be the consensus of anthropologists. Perhaps higher apes have some of this ability in a nascent form, but only human beings really are self reflective and think in symbols.

What's my point? We as rational creatures can never be like wolves. We have to wrestle with meaning. It's just who we are. No species as physically helpless as our own can survive with "Buddha's brain", just accepting the world as it is, at least not for long. We could be sitting blissfully in denial of our physicality and a saber-toothed cat would come along and eat us and make that sort of thing a quick meal. So we, as a sapient species, have had to develop systems to repent of our primal consciousness, because we cannot call that home. It's just not who we are.

No human being will be satisfied for long with the answer "this is all there is". Not without a lot of physical or philosophical opiates and bromides.

 

[Davian]

Again, you haven't actually said anything. Worth = meaning?

Sure. Meaning is what makes it worth getting up in the morning. It makes it worth all of the risk, cost and effort that goes into raising offspring.

What is a wolf worth?

As the offspring of an older generation? It's the most precious thing. Without them... extinction.

It's hard to even address this without being snarky because it seems you're trying to suggest that wolves contemplate meaning and then make a moral decision based on it, whatever it is.

In the absence of some sort of mind reading apparatus, all I can do is form tentative conclusions based on observation, whether it be humans or wolves.

Romance and rationalism mix like oil and water - they don't. I assume you understand natural selection. Any behaviors you observe in animals (or engage in yourself) are being done because the animals which didn't do them didn't survive. That's all.

Sure. And this behaviour (as inherited traits) fits the description of deriving meaning from what we do as living organisms.

Most wolves come with a limited variety of fur colors, usually a grey-ish color. Why are there no wolves with pink fur? Because if there ever were, they didn't survive.

I have no idea where you were going with that one. Does colour add meaning to your life?

So the fact that they feed their young has as much meaning as their color - none.

I think you are confusing inherited traits with the means by which traits are selected for. I am not saying that meaning is derived from natural selection.

For an organism such as a wolf, the raising of their young is the most important meaning in their lives.

And if you have emotional feelings about such things, that's because your ancestors whose brains didn't generate such feelings didn't survive to pass their brain chemistry on to you. Very clear-cut and simple.

To be pedantic, those potential ancestors, the ones that did not find meaning (or found less) in raising their offspring, had fewer, or no offspring, and they effectively took their own bloodline out of the gene pool.

Now back to your opinion about gods; why do we need them? What is a god anyway?

 

[Davian]

You are anthropomorphosizing wolves. Meaning seems to be something only human beings do.

No, what I am doing is describing the actions of living organisms without all of the window dressing, without that pedestal we would like to put ourselves on.

That seems to be the consensus of anthropologists.

<citation missing>

Perhaps higher apes have some of this ability in a nascent form, but only human beings really are self reflective and think in symbols.

That is not incompatible with what I am saying, from what I understand of modern philosophy of mind and cognitive science.

"The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)

From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)"

From http://www.beinghuman.org/metzinger

What's my point? We as rational creatures can never be like wolves. We have to wrestle with meaning. It's just who we are.

Or that internal narrative experienced by our phenomenal self is a construct of the brain.

No species as physically helpless as our own can survive with "Buddha's brain", just accepting the world as it is, at least not for long. We could be sitting blissfully in denial of our physicality and a saber-toothed cat would come along and eat us and make that sort of thing a quick meal. So we, as a sapient species, have had to develop systems to repent of our primal consciousness, because we cannot call that home. It's just not who we are.

I don't see this as incompatible with my position.

No human being will be satisfied for long with the answer "this is all there is".

I have never believed any different.

Not without a lot of physical or philosophical opiates and bromides.

You speak for yourself, of course. Are you really that unsettled by the idea of "this is all there is"?

 

[Chesterton]

Sure. Meaning is what makes it worth getting up in the morning. It makes it worth all of the risk, cost and effort that goes into raising offspring.

If meaning is that important you should be able to tell me in a sentence or two what it is.

As the offspring of an older generation? It's the most precious thing. Without them... extinction.

As a rationalist, I'd like a dollar amount please.

In the absence of some sort of mind reading apparatus, all I can do is form tentative conclusions based on observation, whether it be humans or wolves.

Those are called "beliefs".

Sure. And this behaviour (as inherited traits) fits the description of deriving meaning from what we do as living organisms.

How so?

I have no idea where you were going with that one. Does colour add meaning to your life?

Traits are traits, whether they're physical features or physical behaviors.

I think you are confusing inherited traits with the means by which traits are selected for. I am not saying that meaning is derived from natural selection.

That's exactly what you're saying.

For an organism such as a wolf, the raising of their young is the most important meaning in their lives.

Source?

To be pedantic, those potential ancestors, the ones that did not find meaning (or found less) in raising their offspring, had fewer, or no offspring, and they effectively took their own bloodline out of the gene pool.

Seriously? Run that thought by an evolutionary biologist. See if they laugh at you as hard as I'm laughing now. Or just post it in the Science forum here. The atheists there should find that a hoot.

------------
You're a hopeless romantic. Notice at the end of this video the unintentional poetic statement. The camera pans out and you realize the performance was fake, all mechanistic illusion. The exact same with the lyrics romantically describing the killing, eating and mating of the wolf. There's no "there" there.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

According to the criterion you specified earlier, they could only have meaning if they were designed for a specific purpose. Yahweh doesn't satisfy this criterion because, according to you, he was not designed for any purpose.

Bumping for @Chesterton.

 

[Chesterton]

Bumping for @Chesterton.

I thought I was being gracious in letting you off the hook for your repeated blatant avoidance, and now you bump the issue. Strange. Well, my internet bill's paid up for another month so take your time, answer when you can.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I thought I was being gracious in letting you off the hook for your repeated blatant avoidance, and now you bump the issue. Strange. Well, my internet bill's paid up for another month so take your time, answer when you can.

I already did. Working within the parameters you set, the roach has meaning (assuming it was designed for a particular purpose), and Yahweh does not, because he was not designed for any purpose.

 

[Chesterton]

I already did. Working within the parameters you set, the roach has meaning (assuming it was designed for a particular purpose), and Yahweh does not, because he was not designed for any purpose.

The question was does the roach have meaning assuming it was NOT designed for a purpose.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The question was does the roach have meaning assuming it was NOT designed for a purpose.

Do you concede my point or not? In terms of meaning, you have elevated the roach above Yahweh.

 

[Chesterton]

Do you concede my point or not? In terms of meaning, you have elevated the roach above Yahweh.

It was a yes or no question. Man, I'd hate to be behind you in line at McDonalds when the guys asks "want fries with that?" Must take like hours.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It was a yes or no question. Man, I'd hate to be behind you in line at McDonalds when the guys asks "want fries with that?" Must take like hours.

Yes, it was a yes or no question. Are you prepared to concede my point? Yes or no?

 

[Davian]

If meaning is that important you should be able to tell me in a sentence or two what it is.

I just did. Meaning is what makes it worth getting up in the morning. It makes it worth all of the risk, cost and effort that goes into raising offspring.

As a rationalist, I'd like a dollar amount please.

You mean, economist, do you not?

And tell me, how can you be both a rationalist and a religionist?

Those are called "beliefs".

Not with the baggage the word 'belief' has in these forums; as I see the term used here, it means to hold tightly, unwaveringly, and when challenged, entrench. That is not what I mean by "tentative".

How so?

I am not sure what you are asking here. Can you be more specific?

Traits are traits, whether they're physical features or physical behavior.

Okay.

That's exactly what you're saying.

Not at all. Take the example of two similar groups/populations, in competition for the same resources, where one finds greater meaning - worth - in the raising and protecting of their young - giving one group an advantage over the other, sufficient that it results in the extinction of one of the groups.

I am not talking of the advantage, or the extinction. It may be that the more effort put into raising the young actually puts that group at a disadvantage; that is why it is not the same thing.

Source?

Allow me to rephrase. For an organism such as a wolf, the raising of their young is one of the most important meanings in their lives, if "life" is defined as the ability to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce. If an organism loses one of those abilities... extinction.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life

Seriously? Run that thought by an evolutionary biologist. See if they laugh at you as hard as I'm laughing now. Or just post it in the Science forum here.

I have used that example dozens of times in these forums, and received no such reaction. Are you an evolutionary biologist?

The atheists there should find that a hoot.

Does the disbelief in god claims qualify one as an evolutionary biologist?

------------
You're a hopeless romantic. Notice at the end of this video the unintentional poetic statement. The camera pans out and you realize the performance was fake, all mechanistic illusion. The exact same with the lyrics romantically describing the killing, eating and mating of the wolf. There's no "there" there.

I had trouble making out the lyrics, and the visuals did not seem to match your description of it. Do you have a better example?

And what about your opinion about gods; why do we need them? What is a god anyway? Or are you trying to sweep that under the rug?

Sweep It Under The Rug

• Davian
• Dec 19, 2015