I personally think when the declaration about "God is Dead" was first made it was more a statement of sociological fact, perhaps even psychological fact, than it was a pronouncement on cosmic reality, what do you think?
The death of God
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
I think 'god' is a name that can be used with a lot of scope
So for example if we are all beneath all our societal conditioning just pure consciousness which is co-creating this reality then it could be said that we in our totality are 'god'
So i think when it was said that 'god' was dead it was really meaning god in the sense of a psychological crutch...god as an old man looking down from the heavens who dictates to us how to live
i think a person who sees themself as part of infinate consciousness doesn't need a crutch and begins to make their own decisions about how they want to live; for them the old conception of god is dead but a whole new reality opens up in its place
So for example if we are all beneath all our societal conditioning just pure consciousness which is co-creating this reality then it could be said that we in our totality are 'god'
So i think when it was said that 'god' was dead it was really meaning god in the sense of a psychological crutch...god as an old man looking down from the heavens who dictates to us how to live
i think a person who sees themself as part of infinate consciousness doesn't need a crutch and begins to make their own decisions about how they want to live; for them the old conception of god is dead but a whole new reality opens up in its place
Yes, Nietzche mean it in a dogmatic sense. He daclared that the idea of God, the concept of God in mankind's mind is dead.
That is, philosophically, God is dead, He is not considered to be a alternative.
Hovewer, Nietzche was wrong in his prophecy. In the XXI century, in the last 50 years, there had been a enormous growing interest among eminent secular/atheist/agnostic/theistic philosophers concerning the idea of God.
There are very important, in fact the most important philosophical questions and problems, that can not be solved without posing the possibility of the existence of God. For example, there are problems in ontology, with regard to the nature of necesity, or the nature of existence itself. If there is no God, very important abstract laws are precluded, meaning that would have impact on the practical or concrete world.
Now that was on the abstract or dogmatic level. On the practical level, or "cosmic reality" like you said, things are going really well. God shows His glory through man like Nietzche and others like him. Everything that exist, even the realm of ideas works for the glory of the One who is Everlasting.
Stephen Hawking, the most respected mind alive in the world today, has harsh criticisms for philosophy. He essentially explains that modern philosophy is obsolete because it has failed to keep up with developments in science, and human understanding in general. In short, he's telling philosophy those problems are internal, and don't have much relevance to the world today.
Who cares what someone else believes?
Why should the fact that there is or is not a God change who I am, and how I behave?
I don’t think it does.
Even if there never was religion in the world...there would still be those who side with the more conservative moral ideas like Christians and then the reverse.
Nothing changes.
Why should the fact that there is or is not a God change who I am, and how I behave?
I don’t think it does.
Even if there never was religion in the world...there would still be those who side with the more conservative moral ideas like Christians and then the reverse.
Nothing changes.
What Stephen Hawking is doing is science, not philosophy... Lets see:
1. "Philosophy is dead" - that is a philosophical and abstract proposition, meaning Stephen Hawking has contradicted himself;
2. "Science is not dead" - that is again a proposition that is philosophical in nature;
3. "Modern philosophy is obsolete because it has failed to keep up with developments in science" - this is again self-contradictory; you can't use philosophy to dismiss philosophy;
Scientism is the view that that knowledge can be aquired only by means of science. But this is self-contradictory, because for the proposition to be true it has to be proven scientifically, but that is impossible. Its like you would put a idea into a lab (or a fridge) and work on it to see if its true.
While Stephen Hawkings is a genius in science, naive is the word that would be ascribed to him in philosophy. There are even atheist philosophers who are strongly criticise his total ignorance when it comes to philosophy.
I personally think scientists do pretty good with philosophy. Specially the space scientists. I could be wrong.
Science and philosophy are very different studies.
Science is very practical and concrete, based on close and persistent observation of the physical processes.
Philosophy is the study of methaphysics, the study of ideas, of concepts, of truth, matters of ontological and epistemological existence. Its something much more abstract and vast than science.
That's why scientists and philosophers are two different breeds of men and thinking. The nature of each discipline of study is very different in their approach. Not only these two matters of study are different in nature, but each one of them aims to different objectives, different goals, and each of them have different starting premises. That's why scientists make awful philosophers, and philosophers make awful scientists.
Also, from a logical standpoint, philosophy is prio and more important than science, for science need philosophical assumptions to make possible its advancements and discoveries.
For example, the law of causuality is of a philosophical nature. The law of causuality is the most important law of science, yet its origins are metaphysical.
DO you believe in God? If so which one? If the Christian God, the term, "God is dead." Really means that he may or may not be dead but the end result is the same so what difference would it make if you say, "God isnt listening" compared to, "God is dead."
I kind of read it in an anthropological and psychological sense.
God is not patterned on the human brain today as he could have been considered to have been in, say, the era of the crusades or even earlier, the contemporaneous search for God or philosophical considerations of God are a little different, more intellectual or academic (I dont mean that in any prejorative or minimising sense of either word) than my meaning.
I think this video puts it well:
[video=youtube;l7AWnfFRc7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g[/video]
Nietzche is probably best remembered for it but there were a lot of thinkers, artists and poets reaching the same conclusions around about that time, and in the first world war and its aftermath too.
There's been some good writing about how "God" in this sense, as a patterning of the brain, could be considered the "superego" and there is a sort of death of the "superego" taking place now too, bringing about greater cultural and ethical confusion and crisis of conscience or declines in conscience per se.
I have a lot of respect for Hawking for many different reasons. I wonder do you think he would have achieved as much as he has in theoretical physics if he wasnt trapped in his body as he is?
I think there is a category error in proclaiming God is dead in a sense other than the anthropological or psychological or sociological. It would be a little like saying "Gravity is dead".
There is only one God, do I believe in God? I dont doubt God's existence if this what you mean, also the question of whether you believe in God is more multifaceted than that, I've heard people say they dont doubt the existence of God but that they cant believe in God, they dont feel that they can depend upon God. The search for God and the consideration and contemplation of God and what I would understand as Godliness is probably what the greater part of my life and thinking is given over to, its what I enjoy thinking about, reading about, writing about and discussing the most. It is a source of joy for me. As is the consideration of humankind, history and mind. Among other things too.
It is possible that God exists but does not enter into dialogue with humankind, or creation, I think it is more terrible to think that God created the universe, including humankind, and then abandoned humankind after time and again attempting to redeem humankind and failing, that the earth is just a rock spinning in space. Although if this has been the case the "divorce" which has been effected was effected by humankind rather than God and I dont believe that its impossible for individuals or humankind to bridge the gap once more.
I have a lot of respect for him too. Also for many different reasons. I'm not so sure about his work, though. My personal understanding about the structure of the universe strays a bit from Big Bang theory and stuff like black holes, dark matter... But ya! I wonder about that too. Being in a chair certainly gives someone plenty time to think! I would say yes, I imagine it did play a role in how much effort he put toward work.
I dont understand this. In one sense it sounds like you do believe in "God" in another I cant tell. When you say, "There is only one God" it seems as if you are saying you do believe and you believe there is only one.
What is your question?
Are you asking if God exists? If you are asking if God exists I would say yes.
The thing is that the question "Do you believe in God?" means something different to me to "Do you believe in the existence of God?".
"Do you believe in God?" to me is more like saying "Do you believe in your country?", "Do you believe in justice?", "Do you believe in Liberty?" than do you believe in "existence". The questions arent quite the same. Do you understand me now?
Are you asking if God exists? If you are asking if God exists I would say yes.
The thing is that the question "Do you believe in God?" means something different to me to "Do you believe in the existence of God?".
"Do you believe in God?" to me is more like saying "Do you believe in your country?", "Do you believe in justice?", "Do you believe in Liberty?" than do you believe in "existence". The questions arent quite the same. Do you understand me now?