The great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche first stated the phrase “Gott ist tot” in his 1882 collection The Gay Science. The Death of God was a poignant motif that haunted Nietzsche until the day he died – inspiring him so that he became almost prophetic in heralding his gospel.  In Nietzsche’s view the Death of God didn’t mean the literal demise of a concrete deity, rather it conveyed his view that the static, unmoving God of the western world was no longer a definitive moral source for mankind – in our unrelenting progress. We must now realize that we are culpable of egotistical deicide and that we must recreate a moral compass to rectify this outrageous crime. And we may be closer to that realization than Nietzsche could have predicted.
Critics of Religion Midterm 2. Although Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas and work have long been associated with atheism and even the antisemitism that would eventually lead to the Holocaust, I think a slightly more fitting description of his point of view in The Genealogy of Morals might be “anticlerical”. While I believe there are good arguments that can be made for both atheism and anticlericalism, Nietzsche seems to focus most of his energy on critiquing religious clergy such as priests as well as organized religion and its impact on morality, rather than critiquing belief in God. The first essay includes an etymology of the words “good” and “bad” and how they underwent a transvaluation at some point due to religious clergy, which ultimately lead to a morality system that he argues is not natural or innate within us. The second essay deals with guilt and
The superego, or the conscience as we call it, is where the battle is fought between our old carnal nature and our new godly nature. Freud thought the superego was created specifically by social influence. Christians, however, believe that our morality comes from God more than social influences. The psychoanalyst’s goal is to bring the unconscious to the conscious which sounds like revealing the “thoughts and attitudes of the heart” we read about in Scripture (Hebrews 4:12). Though Freud claimed that self-awareness and ego strength are enough to make us healthy individuals, we know that true holistic health only comes through God and His
In Experience and Nature (1925) maybe his greatest work, Dewey defended his naturalistic view of mind and knowledge, and criticized the philosophical norm for its hypothesis of false divides between mind and matter, thought and object, theoretical and practical. The philosophical norm is overwhelmed by dualisms which guide to fake troubles, problems of establishing contact between realms that should never have been set against each other in the first place. The source of these dualisms is a split in being established by the ancient Greeks, a split between the perfect, permanent, self-possessed and the defective, changing,
However, there are new religions and new gods being brought up quite frequently. A specific religion is christianity. Christianity was very unlike other religions, particularly because of their monotheistic views. Christians were seen as threat to the Romans at this time prior to around 381, which is around when Christianity became a common religion. Although Christians were good citizens, and people who wanted to follow Jesus, they were constantly impacted by aspects of the Roman culture.
One of the main points of debate during the Renaissance and Reformation was the issue of who held the ultimate authority in the church. The intellectual leaders, called Humanists, of the Renaissance, the reformers of the Reformation, and the Roman Catholic Church each had their view, and each believed they stood on the word of God in defense of said view of that authority. Much debate occurred, friendships were lost, lives were lost, popes asserted their power, kings pushed back, the world was changing, Protestantism was growing, and people were looking for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The Humanists of the Renaissance did not challenge the truth of Christianity, but instead focused on man’s ability to achieve excellence through his own effort, like the Greek word arete, meaning human excellence. In northern Europe, humanism was very religious and remained deeply attached to the Holy Bible and the church.1 The Renaissance brought about a spiritual revival to northern Europe.
According to “Utopia and Anti-Utopia” it says “That a loss of individual freedom is the cost of utopian striving.” I agree with this statement, the characters in the book possess no freedom therefore, how is it a perfect society? To go along with that statement “Freedom necessarily means that many things will be done which we do not like. Our faith in freedom does not rest on the foreseeable results in particular circumstances but on the belief that it will, on balance, release more forces for the good than for the bad” (The Giver’s Dystopia). Freedom is something we all possess in this world. Our freedom does sometimes result in negative actions, but without it we cannot be the person we want to be.
Christians aspire to seek holiness like God, so forgiving is one step closer to attaining eternal life in heaven. In relation to Doctor Faustus and The Tempest, forgiveness is one of the main topics debated between the two books and, subsequently, the two authors. The Tempest is Shakespeare’s attempt to out-perform Marlow in his book Doctor Faustus. Shakespeare steals ideas from Marlow, but he changes parts enough to underline his own thoughts on the matter. Mainly, Shakespeare’s and Marlow’s opinion differs in relation to the topic of
When encountered early in the book, the implication of this religious imagery is not fully apparent. However, once viewed in the context of the later Christian allusions found in A Clockwork Orange, it becomes clear that this is the proclamation of Burgess’ intent in this novel. Burgess views humanity as an organic thing, full of great potential to please God, and he sees the implication of conditioning, specifically, or more generally anything that would sap the essential ability of humans to choose, as a detriment to God’s
Freedom and safety are ideals in one’s perfect world but as everyone knows this is not possible in the world we live in today. According to Cambridge Dictionary Freedom is “the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited” while Safety is “a state in which a place where you are safe and not in danger or at risk.” Where we live now freedom is a gift and something precious that not everyone can receive. Everyday it seems that governments seem to limit our freedom for safety yet people protest, does that mean that all people refuse safety for freedom. These changes like increasing more security in areas or preventing people from going somewhere dangerous limit our freedom.