Friedrich Nietzsche on God

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

And there, where your understanding has sprung a leak, you quickly
stick the poorest of all plugs: his name is "God."

Und wo euer Verstand eine Lücke hat, da stellt ihr flugs den ärmsten
aller Lückenbüßer hinein: „Gott“ ist sein Name.

https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> And there, where your understanding has sprung a leak, you quickly
> stick the poorest of all plugs: his name is "God."
>
> Und wo euer Verstand eine Lücke hat, da stellt ihr flugs den ärmsten
> aller Lückenbüßer hinein: „Gott“ ist sein Name.
>
> https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com
>
>

A friend of mine had bought a used GSX-R (750?) and when he tore it down
for some dumb reason he noticed a previous owner had put a penny in the
place of a freeze plug. Sounds apt now given Fritz’s comment.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

In England 40 years ago we bought a washing machine cheaply from the
previous occupants of our apartment. For some reason I decided to check
the wiring (after we'd been using it for a while without problems) and
was appalled to see that it was connected to the plug in a way that
broke all the rules. If I'd seen it before using it I would have said
that it couldn't possibly work and that if it did it would be very
dangerous. However, it did work and I'm still around to tell the tale.
(It was a long time ago, so my memory may be inaccurate, but I _think_
it had the live connected to the neutral, the neutral to the earth, and
the earth to the live.)

[Zen Cycle]

Something like that might work if the the chassis of the machine is electrically isolated. It isn't correct and is obviously very unsafe, but it's plausible that it might function.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2021-07-15 16:34:08 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>> And there, where your understanding has sprung a leak, you quickly
>>> stick the poorest of all plugs: his name is "God."
>>>

>>> Und wo euer Verstand eine Lücke hat, da stellt ihr flugs den ärmsten
>>> aller Lückenbüßer hinein: „Gott“ ist sein Name.

>>>
>>> https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>> A friend of mine had bought a used GSX-R (750?) and when he tore it down
>> for some dumb reason he noticed a previous owner had put a penny in the

>> place of a freeze plug. Sounds apt now given Fritz’s comment.

>
> In England 40 years ago we bought a washing machine cheaply from the
> previous occupants of our apartment. For some reason I decided to check
> the wiring (after we'd been using it for a while without problems) and
> was appalled to see that it was connected to the plug in a way that
> broke all the rules. If I'd seen it before using it I would have said
> that it couldn't possibly work and that if it did it would be very
> dangerous. However, it did work and I'm still around to tell the tale.
> (It was a long time ago, so my memory may be inaccurate, but I _think_
> it had the live connected to the neutral, the neutral to the earth, and
> the earth to the live.)
>

Are you saying God is a poorly wired and dangerous appliance?

To get coolant carrying passageways into a cast engine block they use sand
and the holes left over served an initial function of letting the sand out.
So a penny is a cheap kludge to fill a God shaped hole. Great metaphor for
religion, but so is the poorly wired dangerous appliance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_plug

[Bill]

Poor Nietzsche, no wonder he went mad.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

You’ve been the one beating a horse here and that was his final straw.

[Bill]

So, like all sophomoric misunderstanders of Nietzsche, you merely cite his
name with no idea of what he might be talking about.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 15:34 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>...like all sophomoric misunderstanders...
>
My IronyMeter just pegged and started to smoke.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[*Hemidactylus*]

That God is a stopgap to make up for a lack of understanding? That freeze
plugs keep fluid from leaking out of a block due to currently functionless
holes sounds roughly similar. Instead of a freeze plug, substitute a penny.


Gould had attributed the important distinction between historic origin and
current utility to Nietzsche. Gould’s bread and butter per exaptation and
concomitant functional shift based on this often overlooked distinction. A
hole in an engine block is there as a means of removing sand after casting.
Now it serves no purpose so must be plugged with something. An idol of
commercial exchange will do, debased as it may indeed be.

Now our brains have certain aspects that arose for a given reason but not
their current utility. Cortical size and complexity may have arisen for a
multitude of reasons. An nonaptive effect may be that people became aware
of personal mortality, an idea Gould attributed to Freud. That we die and
we knew not what the reason for that fear-inducing problem nor what we were
here on our patch of land for is an example of a hole in our understanding
that invites all kinds of freeze plugs or debased coinages (ideologies)
that need to be shattered with a hammer. The idols of an age.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 15:34 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
>> ...like all sophomoric misunderstanders...
>>
> My IronyMeter just pegged and started to smoke.
>

Given there are no facts, referents, correspondences, truth, or objectivity
in Freon’s world, what is there to be misunderstood in the first place? He
is the poster boy for performative contradiction. He undercuts himself at
every step along the way to nowhere.

[Matt Beasley]

Bill wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> [...]

> > You’ve been the one beating a horse here and that was his final straw.
> So, like all sophomoric misunderstanders of Nietzsche, you merely cite his
> name with no idea of what he might be talking about.

-----------
In order to vindicate the dignity of such a leader's
position for Socrates, too, it is enough to recognize
in him a type of existence unheard of before him: the
type of the theoretical man whose significance and aim it
is our next task to try to understand. Like the artist,
the theoretical man finds an infinite delight in whatever
exists, and this satisfaction protects him against the
practical ethics of pessimism with its Lyncaeus eyes that
shine only in the dark. Whenever the truth is uncovered,
the artist will always cling with rapt gaze to what still
remains covering even after such uncovering; but the
theoretical man enjoys and finds satisfaction in the
discarded covering and finds the highest object of his
pleasure in the process of an ever happy uncovering that
succeeds through his own efforts.

There would be no science if it were concerned only
with that one nude goddess and with nothing else.
For in that case her devotees would have to feel like
men who wanted to dig a hole straight through the earth,
assuming that each of them realized that even if he
tried his utmost, his whole life long, he would only be
able to dig a very small portion of this enormous depth,
and even that would be filled in again before his own
eyes by the labors of the next in line, so a third
person would seem to do well if he picked a new spot
for his drilling efforts. Now suppose someone proved
convincingly that the goal of the antipodes cannot be
reached in this direct manner: who would still wish to
go on working in these old depths, unless he had learned
meanwhile to be satisfied with finding precious stones
or discovering laws of nature?

Therefore Lessing, the most honest theoretical man,
dared to announce that he cared more for the search
after truth than for truth itself--and thus revealed
the fundamental secret of science, to the astonishment,
and indeed the anger, of the scientific community.
["If God had locked up all truth in his right hand, and
in his left the unique, ever-live striving for truth,
albeit with the addition that I should always and
eternally err, and he said to me, 'Choose!'--I should
humbly clasp his left hand, saying: 'Father, give!
Pure truth is after all for thee alone!'"--Gotthold
Ephraim Lessing (1729-81), Eine Duplik, 1778.] Beside
this isolated insight, born of an excess of honesty if
not of exuberance, there is, to be sure, a profound
illusion that first saw the light of the world in the
person of Socrates: the unshakable faith that thought,
using the thread of logic, can penetrate the deepest
abysses of being, and that thought is capable not only
of knowing being but even of correcting it. This sublime
metaphysical illusion accompanies science as an instinct
and leads science again and again to its limits at which
it must turn into art--which is really the aim of this
mechanism.
-
-
-----

[Matt Beasley]

, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> And there, where your understanding has sprung a leak, you quickly
> stick the poorest of all plugs: his name is "God."
>
> Und wo euer Verstand eine Lücke hat, da stellt ihr flugs den ärmsten
> aller Lückenbüßer hinein: „Gott“ ist sein Name.
>
> https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com

------------
ANAGRAMS of Athel Cornish-Bowden:
Dr. Cash blew the onion!
Shine the world, Bacon!
When Dr. Loona bitches!
Dr. Who isn't clean, Hobe!
-
-
-----

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:34:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

His continual refusal to acknowledge how science actually
works, in contrast with his sophomoric characterizations of
it, prompted my comment. I suppose I could have generated a
CW...

[*Hemidactylus*]

Belamy teats
Blasty me ETA
Bayles Matte
Blasty me tea
Blasty me eat
Stably me tea
Stably me ETA
Blasty ma tee
Stably ma tee
Abysmal tete
Amytals beet
Beastly me at
Beastly team
Beastly tame
Beastly meta
Beastly meat
Beastly mate
Tymbal tease
Stately be ma
Stately ab me
Maybes latte

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:24:17 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>And there, where your understanding has sprung a leak, you quickly
>stick the poorest of all plugs: his name is "God."
>
>Und wo euer Verstand eine Lücke hat, da stellt ihr flugs den ärmsten
>aller Lückenbüßer hinein: „Gott“ ist sein Name.
>
>https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com

It seems to me that having to resort to Nietzsche to attack belief in
God simply reflects how little science you have with which to attack
it.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Philosophy is sufficient to the task. Are you promoting scientism?

[broger...@gmail.com]

Abysmal tete, definitely

[Ernest Major]

Perhaps I lack knowledge of the context in which Nietzsche wrote that,
but I don't see why you interpret that as an attack on belief in God. It
looks more like an attack on the practice of using God as a substitute
for an explanation.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I also lack knowledge of the context, but I agree that your
interpretation is likely to be correct.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 05:18:38 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:24:17 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> And there, where your understanding has sprung a leak, you quickly
>>> stick the poorest of all plugs: his name is "God."
>>>
>>> Und wo euer Verstand eine Lücke hat, da stellt ihr flugs den ärmsten

>>> aller Lückenbüßer hinein: ?Gott? ist sein Name.

>>>
>>> https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that having to resort to Nietzsche to attack belief in
>> God simply reflects how little science you have with which to attack
>> it.
>>
>Philosophy is sufficient to the task.

Sorry, this is the Science & Religion room, the Philosophy room is
somewhere further down the hall

>Are you promoting scientism?

You'll need to explain to me how pointing out that science doesn't
have anything to offer in a particular area equates to promoting
scientism.

[Martin Harran]

My comment wasn't directed at Nietzsche, it was about Athel's reasons
for posting the comment in this newsgroup. It came across as a rather
feeble attack on belief in God; Athel, of course, can easily correct
me if I am wrong by explaining why he thought it relevant here. (I
can't ask him directly as he informed me a while back that he wouldn't
respond to any more of my posts.)

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 19 July 2021 at 00:26:10 UTC+3, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 05:18:38 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:24:17 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> >> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And there, where your understanding has sprung a leak, you quickly
> >>> stick the poorest of all plugs: his name is "God."
> >>>
> >>> Und wo euer Verstand eine Lücke hat, da stellt ihr flugs den ärmsten
> >>> aller Lückenbüßer hinein: ?Gott? ist sein Name.
> >>>
> >>> https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems to me that having to resort to Nietzsche to attack belief in
> >> God simply reflects how little science you have with which to attack
> >> it.
> >>
> >Philosophy is sufficient to the task.
> Sorry, this is the Science & Religion room, the Philosophy room is
> somewhere further down the hall

But why there is only one religion allowed? Friedrich Nietzsche was
quite controversial in his philosophy but I think he was kind of
religiously atheist. No wonder that he considered God to be bad
explanation to things what we do not understand.

> >Are you promoting scientism?
>
> You'll need to explain to me how pointing out that science doesn't
> have anything to offer in a particular area equates to promoting
> scientism.

Indeed, when we do not know something then saying that science
does not explain it does not help at all ... we still do not know that.
We may believe one way or other if we feel that we need
to have some position but science is not religion so not knowing is
normal state of affairs for it.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 16:16:59 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

>On Monday, 19 July 2021 at 00:26:10 UTC+3, martin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 05:18:38 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:24:17 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> >> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> And there, where your understanding has sprung a leak, you quickly
>> >>> stick the poorest of all plugs: his name is "God."
>> >>>
>> >>> Und wo euer Verstand eine Lücke hat, da stellt ihr flugs den ärmsten
>> >>> aller Lückenbüßer hinein: ?Gott? ist sein Name.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It seems to me that having to resort to Nietzsche to attack belief in
>> >> God simply reflects how little science you have with which to attack
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >Philosophy is sufficient to the task.
>> Sorry, this is the Science & Religion room, the Philosophy room is
>> somewhere further down the hall
>
>But why there is only one religion allowed?

There are an estimated 4,300 religions in the world [1] so anyone who
is saying that only one religion is allowed is clearly not having much
of an impact.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2006/10/06/the_odd_body_religion/

>Friedrich Nietzsche was
>quite controversial in his philosophy but I think he was kind of
>religiously atheist. No wonder that he considered God to be bad
>explanation to things what we do not understand.
>
>> >Are you promoting scientism?
>>
>> You'll need to explain to me how pointing out that science doesn't
>> have anything to offer in a particular area equates to promoting
>> scientism.
>
>Indeed, when we do not know something then saying that science
>does not explain it does not help at all ... we still do not know that.

Recognising that we don't have answers is much better than trying to
convince ourselves or others we do have answers when we clearly don't
have them.

[Öö Tiib]

Notice that religion #3 is secular/agnostic/atheist that I think
Friedrich Nietzsche was.

> >Friedrich Nietzsche was
> >quite controversial in his philosophy but I think he was kind of
> >religiously atheist. No wonder that he considered God to be bad
> >explanation to things what we do not understand.
> >
> >> >Are you promoting scientism?
> >>
> >> You'll need to explain to me how pointing out that science doesn't
> >> have anything to offer in a particular area equates to promoting
> >> scientism.
> >
> >Indeed, when we do not know something then saying that science
> >does not explain it does not help at all ... we still do not know that.
>
> Recognising that we don't have answers is much better than trying to
> convince ourselves or others we do have answers when we clearly don't
> have them.

Exactly, and I think Nietzsche was saying that one issue of lot of
theologists is that they try too hard to convince themselves and
others about everything that they do not understand was caused
by God.

The result is that such theologists often have to eat their words
or to deny things what are apparent. That is pity as the dispute
was usually dealing with unimportant details of workout of our
reality that their scripture anyway addressed briefly. It
discredits them, makes them to look backwards and shows that
they do not know their God. And that further discredits also the
important and good teachings of theologies (that are IMHO well
put forward in their scriptures) and lets likes of Nietzsche to say
that God is dead.

The good teachings IMHO are that we are all ignorant, weak,
fallible, careless and sinful ... and start more or less equal in that.
So everybody should work a lot to become more kind, righteous,
trustworthy, polite, prudent and wise. I think it is universally true
but is more question of strategy and not science.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 02:50:57 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

I doubt that there are *a lot* of theologians who fall into that trap
but there are probably some who do so. Just as there are some
scientists who think that science has eliminated God. Both groups are
equally wrong.

>
>The good teachings IMHO are that we are all ignorant, weak,
>fallible, careless and sinful ... and start more or less equal in that.
>So everybody should work a lot to become more kind, righteous,
>trustworthy, polite, prudent and wise.

Be careful … you are starting to sound like a Christian :)

[Abner Mintz]

Öö Tiib wrote:
> >So everybody should work a lot to become more kind, righteous,
> >trustworthy, polite, prudent and wise.

Martin wrote:
> Be careful … you are starting to sound like a Christian :)

No, he didn't say anything about hating gays or about other people going to Hell if they don't believe in Jesus.

A bit less tongue in cheek response: none of those things he mentioned are specifically Christian traits, and so many Christians pretending they own those ideas - that anyone in favor of them is somehow following Christian ideals - can be quite irritating to non-Christians after a while. Christians did not invent kindness, righteousness, trustworthiness, polite behavior, prudence, or wisdom. They not only don't have a monopoly on those traits, they aren't even known among non-Christians for being particularly good examples of them.

[Zen Cycle]

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:26:10 AM UTC-4, Abner Mintz wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
> > >So everybody should work a lot to become more kind, righteous,
> > >trustworthy, polite, prudent and wise.
> Martin wrote:
> > Be careful … you are starting to sound like a Christian :)
> No, he didn't say anything about hating gays or about other people going to Hell if they don't believe in Jesus.
>
> A bit less tongue in cheek response: none of those things he mentioned are specifically Christian traits, and so
> many Christians pretending they own those ideas - that anyone in favor of them is somehow following Christian
> ideals - can be quite irritating to non-Christians after a while. Christians did not invent kindness, righteousness,
> trustworthiness, polite behavior, prudence, or wisdom.

There's plenty of research into the influences of Buddhism in Jesus' teachings. Here is one from a quick google search:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236695640_Was_Jesus_a_Buddhist

> They not only don't have a monopoly on those traits, they aren't even known among
> non-Christians for being particularly good examples of them.

Ghandi was paraphrased as saying "I like your Christ. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ".

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 07:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Abner Mintz
<abneri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Öö Tiib wrote:
>> >So everybody should work a lot to become more kind, righteous,
>> >trustworthy, polite, prudent and wise.
>
>Martin wrote:
>> Be careful … you are starting to sound like a Christian :)
>
>No, he didn't say anything about hating gays or about other people going to Hell if they don't believe in Jesus.

Funny, I know and engage with *lots* of Christians and very few of
them hate gays or think other people are going to Hell if they don't

believe in Jesus.

>
>A bit less tongue in cheek response: none of those things he mentioned are specifically Christian traits

I didn't say they are.

> and so many Christians pretending they own those ideas

Again, I know very few Christians who think that way.

>- that anyone in favor of them is somehow following Christian ideals - can be quite irritating to non-Christians after a while.

Dickheads can be very irritating whether religious or not. We
shouldn't fall into the trap of letting that irritation cloud our
wider picture.

>Christians did not invent kindness, righteousness, trustworthiness, polite behavior, prudence, or wisdom. They not only don't have a monopoly on those traits, they aren't even known among non-Christians for being particularly good examples of them.

You sound like someone falling into the trap of letting that
irritation cloud their wider picture.

[Zen Cycle]

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 4:31:11 AM UTC-4, martin...@gmail.com wrote:

> Funny, I know and engage with *lots* of Christians and very few of
> them hate gays or think other people are going to Hell if they don't
> believe in Jesus.

I know many - My sister and her husband, for starters, then there is her circle of friends. She lives in georgia and goes to some 'independent' church. I've had many co-workers in the past with similar sentiments - ironically here in very liberal massachusetts. Here are some memorable quotes:
"sometimes I think hitler had the right idea" - a young man who kept a bible at work, commenting on the asian assembly line workers. He was fired shorty after for refusing to take training from an asian woman.
"If they let one of those in here I'm quitting" - a middle aged man who actually proselytized at work, for which he was fired.
"what the fuck is that?" - a young woman - newly hired - upon seeing an effeminate gay male co-worker who was well-liked. She made comments about him being an abomination. She didn't last long.

I know what you're thinking...'they each got their just rewards - fired'. While true, I think it's a safe assumption it did nothing to change their attitude, and probably solidified their attitude with a healthy dose of martydom.

>
> >
> >A bit less tongue in cheek response: none of those things he mentioned are specifically Christian traits
> I didn't say they are.
> > and so many Christians pretending they own those ideas
> Again, I know very few Christians who think that way.

Again, my sister, claiming to be filled with the love of jesus, thinks america should be an exclusively christian country with homosexuality outlawed.

> >- that anyone in favor of them is somehow following Christian ideals - can be quite irritating to non-Christians after a while.
> Dickheads can be very irritating whether religious or not. We
> shouldn't fall into the trap of letting that irritation cloud our
> wider picture.

Non-religious dickheads are indeed irritating. Religious dickheads are more so due to their self-righteous dickheadery.

> >Christians did not invent kindness, righteousness, trustworthiness, polite behavior, prudence, or wisdom. They not only don't have a monopoly on those traits, they aren't even known among non-Christians for being particularly good examples of them.
> You sound like someone falling into the trap of letting that
> irritation cloud their wider picture.

To be clear, Most devoutly religious people I know are not bigoted. However, I keep seeing it often enough such that I can't be as dismissive about it as you appear to be.

[Martin Harran]

In my experience, people who exhibit the traits you describe above
tend *not* to be religious but we clearly mix in different circles; as
I have noted in a response elsewhere to Abner Mintz, the prevalence of
links between such traits and religious belief seems very different in
the USA compared to this side of the Atlantic.