"It is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests – that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians, still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine.
(Friedrich Nietzsche)
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
16 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Science and religion encourage free questioning, doubt, and reliance on reason. Too often, religion opposes or discourages free thinking and intelligent doubt.
AlasBabylon
Level 8
May 6, 2019
0
We are products of our culture. So, what's new?
Sam Harris points out the cultural silliness of the term "atheism." We have no other term for not believing in other mythologies, such as fairies and leprechauns and dragons, oh my!
Heraclitus
Level 8
May 5, 2019
0
Well what he seems to be saying is that Christianity and science are derivative from Plato, and Plato's assertion was that god is truth and truth is divine. I don't really see how that follows in the way this quote, in isolation, seems to suggest that it does.
It is true that there are some base assumptions underlying science, but I'd argue that science is far more economical and minimalist in that regard, whereas religion is quite lavish.
More broadly, of course, there is no such thing as 100% objective and certain knowledge. Science is not a denial of this, it is simply the best vehicle to get as close to 100% objective and certain as is possible. Religion invests zero effort in thinking about what is real and how to work against what is not. Instead it simply declares what is real by fiat and rejects contrary evidence.
mordant
Level 8
May 4, 2019
2
Even atheists of today take their fire from a flame lit THOUSANDS of years ago. Philosophy, religion, science, they all arose from that divine spark of conscious awareness or “truth”.
That’s how I read it.
Some people are so zealous in their atheism that they see attacks on their non-belief everywhere, even from Nietzche, who was a severe critic of religion.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
May 4, 2019
1
"Gott ist tot"... that's all I needed to learn from Nietzsche
IamNobody
Level 8
May 4, 2019
0
@IamNobody You can’t pick and choose phrases and take them out of context. By doing that you can justify many erroneous ideologies.
@Geoffrey51 I can and I've just did. God is dead anyway, you can cut it any way you like.
@IamNobody Yes, you did. And clearly missed the whole context. How can god be dead if it didn’t exist in the first place? Or are you being metaphorical like the philosophers?
@Geoffrey51 Metaphorical indeed
@Geoffrey51 Philosophers generally do better when they're not metaphorical, in my opinion. Being metaphorical in serious discussions or in constructing arguments causes confusion and misunderstanding frequently.
@MST3K I agree totally, but this is Nietzsche! Marvellous ranting and ravings with a few gems hidden inside. An engaging literary romp!!
@Geoffrey51 Which is perfectly fine! Life isn't much fun if we try to be logical and literal all the time 
Well, I think that ultimately all of our beliefs and worldviews boil down in the end to beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven, substantiated or whatever. In that sense, all thought, even scientific thought, rests upon metaphysical foundations.
Just to throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, how do you know you aren't a brain in a jar on a shelf somewhere?
Or what if all this is a sophisticated computer simulation being run by beings we can't even imagine?
Or what if God really does exist, and he's just an extreme a** and he's f** with you?
You assume that you exist as you seem to exist. You assume that the world is as it appears to you. Everything else you think is based on that, and those are metaphysical assumptions.
There is absolutely no scientific reason to think that the world is as it appears to you, and actually good scientific reason to think that it's not . Consider this. Is the world you perceive the same world that a honey bee perceives?
Sure, science works. It's the best thing we've got going for learning how the world works and how to control it. But just because we understand how it works, to a point, doesn't mean we understand what it is.
You don't know what you don't know.
Metahuman
Level 7
May 3, 2019
2
Quite right. TV and radio technology would have been proof of metaphysical and religious truth 500 years ago and also deemed heretical. The context is different but the cosmic law to make it happen was there, just not discovered. We don’t invent the laws we uncover them and adopt technology to that uncovering.
Nietzsche's ideas are certainly original, and certainly fascinating. But this is what he says in the same chapter: He simply propounds this as being obviously "true":
"Precisely this conviction could never have originated if truth and untruth had constantly made it clear they they were both useful, as they are. So, the faith in science, which after all undeniably exists, cannot owe its origin to such a calculus of utility; rather it must have originated in spite of the fact that the disutility and dangerousness of 'the will to truth' or 'truth at any price' is proved to it constantly."
- Book Five: We Fearless One, the Gay Science."
The problem is somewhat linguistic. What he means by "the truth" is in reality "the closest approximate to the truth." Given that definition, "truth" has certainly shown far more utility than "untruth."
In fact, Nietzsche isn't interested in "proving" that there has to be a "faith in science" because for him it undeniably exists. What he wants to impart is what if that belief in truth was misplaced?
After the passage you quoted, Nietzsche goes on to say: "But what if this were to become more and more difficult to believe, if nothing more were to turn out to be divine except error, blindness, the lie - if God himself were to turn out to be our longest lie?
AtheistReader
Level 7
May 3, 2019
0
Sure I guess, but the whole point of science is to not need faith. It is being demonstrated as I type this.
indirect76
Level 7
May 3, 2019
1
Nonsense. I don't put faith in science. I don't have to. Science gives me evidence.
Fit50something
Level 7
May 3, 2019
0
Gmak:
Evidence has to be interpreted with a model of some sort. How do propose to choose among all the alternative interpretations? Science proves nothing.
@Gmak possibly a bit extreme. Maybe science doesn’t prove everything as many of the laws we hold today will be superseded tomorrow but uncovering a bit more of the principle.
Gmak:
@Geoffrey51 Nope. Not extreme. Just the basics of the philosophy of science.
@Gmak I do agree with you as research results, depending upon the discipline, can be interpreted in different ways, depending on sample size, interventions, whether cross-sectional or longitudinal and the context in which meta-analysis is undertaken. Unfortunately there can also be reporting bias which is why peer review is important.
Gmak:
@TheAstroChuck I have never heard any philosopher or scientist claim that scientific theories could be proven! Where in the heck did you get your information????
Gmak:
@TheAstroChuck Evidence is interpreted by scientists, some of whom call their ideas theories and others who call them models. Read the literature much?
Gmak:
I think Thomas Kuhn would disagree with you about being able to prove a theory. Indeed, I think most science philosophers would! Granted, at times, the evidence is so overwhelming that we can accept that it's true, but that doesn't constitute proof. It's irksome when members of the public cite one piece of scientific literature as proof. There is little understanding among the public of consensus building! And when is consensus among scientists final? Don't we always develop new instruments and methods that can uncover new evidence that overturns the previous consensus? Kuhn would say so! Your ideas don't leave much wiggle room for folks like Einstein! You claim that I'm ignorant. But your remarks suggest to me that I'm not the one who is ignorant!
That "God is truth" is a baseless assumption, an a priori assumption with no basis.
wordywalt
Level 9
May 3, 2019
0
Which God is that , the one that sparked science, Christianity, philosophy? THAT god is truth. (The truth of existence revealed by conscious awareness)
It’s metaphor, not an argument for the existence of God.
It is true to a point, yet faith with a captial F tends to be an excuse to belief stuff you 'know ain't so" according to Mark Twain.
Those converting from Christianity often adopt a faith in science which can be equally devoid of understanding, as if they need something to fill the gap, the God shaped hole.
chazwin
Level 6
May 3, 2019
5
It’s what I’ve been saying all along. That Nietzsche guy must have been pretty smart.
Without the probing curiosity and sense of awe sparked by conscious awareness of reality science would never have been born. Without continuous metaphysical speculation science would advance no further.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
May 3, 2019
1
The trouble with Nietzsche was that he was an obscurantist old windbag. And many of his pronouncements can be contradicted by his own words.
@chazwin thank you...so true
@Matias No I just basically disagree with most of what he says. I think his legacy is highly significant to the history of 20thC philosophy, and I rate him one of the four most significant thinkers of the 19thC. I even included him in a sculpture. But he was a nasty little shit, and his text is endlessly repetitive and full of hot air, and unnecessarily flagrant, polemic and decoratively wordy.
Bandying about words like 'divine' is not the job of an atheist.
@chazwin Nietzsche takes the box we live in and punches holes in it to let some daylight in. If someone thinks that he thought Plato was a ‘christian’ then they miss the essence of what is being suggested. His writing challenges our thinking. It is not presenting you with a one stop shop philosophy. That is his gift; not what is said but what it challenges you to consider.
@Geoffrey51 Yes, but ambiguity is a constant factor here. This strategy makes sure that the audience is wider since interpretation is wider. Colourful language and flowery words might be an entertainment, but it can lack courage.
Nietzsche was incorrect.
Plato was dead a good 300 years BEFORE the invention of Jesus and chrisitianity.
There was no chance that Plato was ever a "christian".
I checked the veracity of the quote, and it is attributed to him, even though it's
completely incorrect.
KKGator
Level 9
May 3, 2019
2
I think you are misreading it. Nietzsche is talking about that common fire that sparked the Christian faith as well as the philosophy of Plato., and it sparked science as well. He calls that fire divine truth.
I think of it as deep conscious awareness.
@WilliamFleming Perhaps I'm more literal.
Perhaps I just know vainglorious bullshit when I hear it.
I have NO use for most philosophy and philosophers.
@KKGator What about all those eminent physicists who have said similar things? Are all of them vainglorious bullshitters?
@WilliamFleming You can try to drag me into a debate about this, but I do not have to participate.
I see philosophy and physics as two different things. That's as far as I intend to take this "discussion". Everything doesn't have to become an argument.
You have misread the quote.
He knew far better than you when Plato lived. His PhD thesis was on Greek Philology.
@KKGator Madam I have no desire to debate with you, my Georgia neighbor.
Have a very nice day.
Faith isn't necessary in science. Scientist don't pray to Sir Francis Bacon or Isaac Newton. Scientists don't sing praise to gravity. Faith in as close as science gets is accepting a reasonable explanation for natural phenomenon until a better explanation is found. Science is exactly the opposite of faith.
JimG
Level 8
May 3, 2019
1
JimG:
@Ragamuffin With the scientific method, we trust it because it has been shown to work. In my opinion that's different from faith. An example of faith is believing that prayer works, even though you know it often fails. We believe in cause and effect because it works in a reliable and predictive manner, but if another explanation proves to work better that concept will be abandoned. That is antithetical to the nature of faith.
Yes, I think faith is the wring word. Trust, which is almost synonymous would be a better way to describe it. As Newton said, we need to stand on the shoulders of others to see further. That requires some trust in the findings of others, trust in our instruments, and trust in the methods of reason and discovery.
Trust can be take too far, and Newton was basically wrong about most things. The difference is that were we to have faith in Newton we would still believe the crap he wrote, But since we trust the method we have only remembered all the useful stuff he said, as we can use that.
Newton wrote a million words on theology, another million on alchemy and a similar amount on maths and science.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.