Agnostic.com

8 11

"All religions bear the traces of the fact that they arose during the intellectual immaturity of the human race before it had learned the obligations to speak the truth. Not one of them makes it the duty of its god to be truthful and understandable in his communications." Friedrich Nietzsche

Archeus_Lore 7 May 4
Share

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

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Not completely true!
1.No one present was there when those religions were created to tell us what circumstances have lead to the existence of gods/religions. Historians differ about these issues.
Assumptions = not science = religion!
2. Who said that the human race ever "learned the obligations to speak the truth" and what year/era exactly did it do that?
3. Go read some 'holy' scriptures and you'll see for example in the Quran that 'god' obligated himself quite often (to look fair😎) to be clear in his communication and the language he uses : " Surat Youssef, verse 2" among ofcource being just, mercyful, rewarding,,,

The said obligation itself was a prevarication . . . . you are taking it all to seriously, first religion, and then Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was in need for some good Ol weed!

0

Since when does the belief in a god make any sense ,then or now

0

Oh !!! intellectual immaturity of the human race. Whatabout Sun Myung Moon; Dianetics, + many more. The old con is still going on.
is the time of "intellectual immaturity of the human race" right now ?

1

If truth is a means test, humans will never pass, religion or not.

0

At what point does humanity consider itself mature?
For now, I would go with the development of the scientific method, but perhaps in a thousand years time, that will be laughed at as being immature.
Further to this, what is a god? Many cultures have 'man-gods' - the late Emperor of Japan, Hirohito was a god (got demoted in 1945). But then, that notion is quite different to the all powerful one true god concept. Then the pantheonists who have many differing levels of gods.
Take a look into religions via Max Weber.

2

I’m a fan of Nietzsche but I think this blanket statement is overly simplistic in its scope. If one takes a look at Native American religion/spirituality they are very concerned with the truth as part of the path.

i believe so also

Consider it a starting point for argument. From there Fred opens the door to dialogue. I'll have to read more about him as my studies have only skirted his perspective.

It would be highly improbable that he was making a blanket statement, if you look at most of his work, the vast majority is attacking ONE religion, and that one religion is Christianity.

2

Seems to me, that folks turn to some kind of god, out of the understanding that:

  1. There seems to be a simply correct solution to each problem we face.
  2. We often are not certain what that solution is.
  3. Sometimes, we see a great solution, but have trouble convincing others that it's a great solution.

Imagining a god who always knows the correct solution,
that gives us an ally, as we either search for these solutions,
or, try to convince others to listen to us.

That is, in my opinion, the reason folks turn to a god,
whether thousand of years ago,
or nowadays.

Does anyone agree?

3

Religions arose because human beings could not tolerate the condition of understanding so little and being so powerless. They created religions which purportedly explained things, and which gave them sense of being in control and protected by worshiping non-existent gods who would then favor them. It also created a sense of group power and identify which also added to the false power in the community of believers. Neitzsches explanation, in and of itself, was shallow.

As is yours. Just because you have an alternate view does not make your view any deeper than Nietzsche's . . .

@Archeus_Lore My position is strong and goes back to deeper philosophers like Feuerbach. Instead of being aggressive and my stance as weak, do me the honor of showing me how your stance is any better

What I am seeing is the use of the word "deeper" in a sense so as to claim a superior position, yet what you have said carries no more weight than the post itself; it is more likely just arrogance than substance, because I see nothing that indicates that it goes "deeper" than the original post.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:492568
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.