[Serious] Absolutes and Atheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

When Nietzsche wrote "God is dead," his point was clearly not simply that Christianity was unsalvagable but that its demise took with it any pretense of transcendant certitudes or absolutes. Was he right? Or are there absolutes that must be true in all possible worlds and true even if there were no physical universe at all?

[brewer]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

When Nietzsche wrote "God is dead," his point was clearly not simply that Christianity was unsalvagable but that its demise took with it any pretense of transcendant certitudes or absolutes. Was he right? Or are there absolutes that must be true in all possible worlds and true even if there were no physical universe at all?

What did you have in mind? I’m inclined to answer ‘no’, but this feels like a loaded question.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

since even purely ideal truth could ultimately only be assessed for validity in reference to the physical physical world, “true even if there is no physical world” has no meaning.   it is equivalent to would 6 be equal to 6 if there is neither 6 nor equal.

[Rev. Rye]

Nietzsche's remark about the death of God is less against "any pretense of transcendant certitudes or absolutes" and more about how the absolutes and certitudes that Western man takes for granted are all up for grabs; something that Nietzsche pointed out civilization hadn't come to terms with. And, even then, all those values being up for grabs isn't even the end goal for Nietzsche. What he's looking for is a new system of philosophy. He wouldn't be opposed to any transcendent certitudes or absolutes that ended up resulting from this new philosophy, but the ones people are working under now just strike him as hollow.

What exactly this new system of philosophy would look like, he never made clear. He underwent a complete mental collapse before he could actually elucidate what the transvaluation of values would look like. That said, one thing is clear; he wanted a system that actually valued and celebrated life. And before you start saying that Christianity does value life (or start making potshots at Planned Parenthood), just read The Antichrist, because in it, Nietzsche explained exactly why he ultimately considered it nihilistic (for one thing, it ultimately treats Earthly life as secondary to a potential eternity in Heaven.)

[Foxaèr]

Why didn't Nietzsche make himself clearer? Is it my job to assume he meant a particular thing when he worded something a certain way? And there's no way I'm believing someone else's interpretation just because they say so.

But here's the thing. Is philosophy meant to be poetic, is it meant to be filled with metaphors and similies that cause your brain to bleed trying to figure out what's literal and what's aliteral?

Therefore, when he says god is dead, I believe such a simple three word sentiment is rather goddamn clear. Is it an absolute? Seems to be.

God is dead.
The idea of god is dead.

Seems to be a rather easy distinction to make. Therefore, did the philosopher mean what he wrote with three words, or was he just too facking stupid to clarify his meaning?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Regardless of whether my interpretation of Nietzsche is correct, the question remains whether a commitment to atheism allows one to develop a philosophy that includes some absolutes. If so, what are they?

[Rev. Rye]

It does. Hell, the Golden Rule can be a good example.



Note that three of the religions in the right-hand column don't even really have deities. It's so universally known not because it's some ancient command from a Deity. It's simply because it's an intuitive cornerstone of thought just for living in a society with other people.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Hmmm...those are not really absolutes. My first candidates would be the Principle of Non-Contradiction and the existence of a Totality. And there are existential stances which cannot be IMHO justfied by either reason or appeal to experience. For example, the belief that reality has a rational order cannot be grounded in any more fundamental belief.

[Belacqua]

It does. Hell, the Golden Rule can be a good example.

[...]

Note that three of the religions in the right-hand column don't even really have deities. It's so universally known not because it's some ancient command from a Deity. It's simply because it's an intuitive cornerstone of thought just for living in a society with other people.

I think this takes us right back to the topic of moral realism, which we were discussing the other day. Some people do hold that moral assertions can be true or absolute, while others (e.g. Astreja) hold that they are always at best widespread opinions. 

The question then is whether "intuitive cornerstones" are in fact absolutes, or only things that are widely held. Anti-realists would say that even if 100% of people in a given society agree with something, it may still be wrong. Or not even wrong -- just a preference, like strawberry being better than chocolate.