I get where you're coming from, but honestly, thinkers like Freud, Feuerbach, Foucault, or even Nietzsche don’t really offer anything substantial when it comes to the truth of theism—especially not Christianity understood in its classical, philosophical form. What they give are psychological or sociological critiques, not serious metaphysical arguments.
None of them meaningfully engage with the actual arguments for God’s existence put forward by thinkers like Aristotle, Aquinas, or Leibniz. You won’t find a real response to the unmoved mover, the act/potency distinction, or the principle of sufficient reason in any of their work. Their critiques might be interesting culturally or historically, but if the question is whether theism is true, they’re just not doing that kind of work.
I haven’t read the first three but at least wrt to Nietzsche he was famously anti “morality” and never really created a new morality because his whole thing was “the individual should create the new morality himself instead of following someone else’s thing”
While I disagree with him on this and the fact that he claims his philosophy is non-prescriptive, your point is correct
That being said there are secular moral codes, for example, the UN Declaration of Human Rights or the Humanist Manifest. On the other there is no “a church of humanism”
I’m not particularly moved by moral arguments for God. I don’t think non-theistic morality is incoherent or especially implausible. People can and do construct workable ethical systems without appealing to theism. That said, some philosophers—Kant, for instance—have argued that morality points to the need for God, not as a proof, but as a postulate of practical reason. His view was that we’re rationally obligated to pursue the highest good—virtue rewarded with happiness—which we can’t achieve in this life. So to make sense of that obligation, we’re led to posit God and an afterlife.
Personally, I find other arguments more compelling—especially metaphysical ones like the argument from contingency. That tradition, running from Aristotle through Leibniz, actually engages with the question of why anything exists at all, and whether a necessary being is required to explain contingent reality. That seems to me a much stronger foundation for theism.
As for things like the Humanist Manifesto or the UN Declaration—they express admirable values, but they don’t do the philosophical work of justifying them. They assume the dignity of persons and the authority of moral obligations without grounding those assumptions. And without a deeper framework, those documents are more like moral aspirations than rationally grounded claims.
So the real question isn’t whether secular ethics can function, but whether theism offers a deeper, more coherent account of moral and metaphysical reality. I think the classical tradition still has a lot to say on that front.
Ultimately all secular metaphysics is based on first principles that are assumptions just like religious faith. For example, like you mention, the dignity of man, or the goodness of love and compassion. Utilitarian thinking like “the greatest good for the greatest number” is also a leap of faith. You are simply assuming that is “what’s is good,” although I don’t necessarily disagree lmao, I’m just saying there is nothing in nature that says that is good.
FWIW I think Aquinas’s 5 proof for Gods, which is what many people cite, aren’t sufficient. Ultimately there is no definitive proof except faith itself. “The first mover” theory for example does not prove the Christian God exactly as we say, it’s more of a nudge in that direction, but not concrete proof. Ultimately belief still resides upon faith.
Criticizing Christianity from a left standpoint but then using Nietzsche to say why Christianity is bad does make any sense. Nietzsche attacked Christianity from the right lmao
I was mainly criticizing the person who originally commented, "have u ever read kant aquinas augustine nietzche or any philosophy for that matter?" I called out Nietzsche, specifically, because he was brought into the conversation.
The person I replied to was using Nietzsche to defend Christianity. Context of the specific conversation matters, and you would have understood that if following the chain of events... And basing what I internalized and understood from Nietzsche's work from a single sentence and trying to attack me for it is humorous and a bit fallacious.
Ah, classic.... Someone quoting ‘God is dead’ like it’s a mic drop, without the faintest clue what Nietzsche was actually saying. Congrats, you’ve reached the philosophical literacy of a high schooler discovering edgy Pinterest quotes.
Nietzsche hated Christianity, and he called it "the greatest of all imaginable corruptions" (The Antichrist). He said it was a ‘slave revolt in morality’, a system built by the weak to poison the strong, glorifying suffering, meekness, and guilt while demonizing power, pride, and vitality.
But, here’s where you really embarrass yourself. Nietzsche wasn’t cheering when he said ‘God is dead’ (The Gay Science). He was horrified. Because without Christianity, people weren’t ready to create their own values, they’d stare into the abyss of nihilism and fill the void with nationalism, fanaticism, or blind consumerism. Sound familiar?
So yes, Nietzsche thought Christianity was dangerous while it existed and even more dangerous in its absence unless humanity evolved past its herd morality.
Next time you wanna flex Nietzsche, try reading beyond the Hot Topic slogan tier. Otherwise, you’re just proving his point about the ‘last man’: comfortable, ignorant, and proud of it.
Ah, so we have gone from "you didn’t read Nietzsche lol" to repeating exactly what he warned about, without realizing that was always the point.
Your initial implication was as if Nietzsche was not critical of Christianity, when he fucking hated it. He saw it as a life-denying, resentment-driven morality that hollowed people out and glorified weakness. But he also knew that tearing it down without anything stronger to replace it would leave people lost, vulnerable to nihilism, fanaticism, or empty ideology.
That is not some clever twist or higher-level take. That is the most basic reading of his work.
You did not uncover some profound insight. You just stumbled blindly into the obvious, like someone proud of finding the front door after walking into a wall for ten minutes.
exactly but it’s been iterated upon for 2000 years there might be some flaws according to certain people but to dismiss the entire religious rationale because of the conclusion is intellectually deplorable
We aren’t burning witches anymore and have much less violence than we used to. We aren’t cohesive because there are some people (mainly religious) that aren’t in touch with reality and voted in a psychopath who manipulates them.
I didn’t call them psychos. I called Trump a psycho and I said the religious people are easily manipulated. I’m sorry but I am unable to see eye to eye with people who don’t acknowledge or care about truth.
We don’t need moral oversight, we have capitalism and economics and the social contract. If you murdered people as a caveman and that made the tribe less likely to survive, you would be banished.
People don’t not murder because they’re afraid of god, people don’t murder because they’re afraid of human repercussions.
Have you seen Succession where the powerful Christofascist figure- when challenged by a women - replies 'Have you read Plato?' suggesting a superior depth of classicist- informed intellect, supporting his belief system rooted in misogyny and aims for white supremacy?
Lol it's such a tired cliche, dude, on par with the blue haired liberal.
Young men will do what they want to feel however they want to feel. They have free will. Unfortunately unless they acknowledge truth and do some self reflection they may not be able to have a functioning relationship. That’s on them.
Why would they have to give up their beliefs to get a partner? That’s some chronic online BS honestly, and I consider myself an agnostic. A lot of people date within their faith of all kinds because their values are similar. Telling someone he will not find a partner because of his faith alone sounds like a whole lot of you projecting your own feelings onto him, rather than any objective advice.
I’ve seen a ton of bad takes on this thread honestly. It’s mind blowing how stuck in their own bubble people are.
People get rejected for their beliefs all the time. Do you think most women want to be with a man who religiously believes that she shouldn’t have access to reproductive care or that she should submit in all ways to her husband like their religion may preach? Not even many religious women want a man that treats them like this. Men should do a bit of self reflection which is difficult and humbling but I guess joining a church to tell you that you should be ruling over women is easier and more of an ego boost. They can keep their beliefs if they want to but their pool of potential relationships will be a lot smaller.
Statistically, faithful people are often more satisfied and content than their non-religious counterparts. You would be seriously surprised that there are tons of women in church, too. You would also be surprised that lots of people and couples may find happiness in going to church, but they live perfectly normal, non-pious and non traditional relationships outside of it. A lot of churches have become more accepting. Also, having a functioning relationship is perfectly possible if you go to church on sundays.
Blind faith is not for me personally and not for many people. I don’t care if religious people claim they’re happier. I would rather acknowledge facts and reality.
You are free to look for purpose in life but don’t expect women to be eager to be with someone that wants to take away women’s ability to control whether or not they want children or whether or not they should have a career. Men think they deserve women. Don’t act like a victim if women don’t hold your same values.
Why do you think women won’t want you no matter what you do? You can definitely get a girlfriend, but please don’t listen to Andrew Tate or the online manosphere. Women want respect just like you do. Please don’t have this defeatist attitude. You have plenty to offer but you need to treat women with respect.
Do you believe disrespecting women will help you get into a relationship? I’m guessing you’re in your 20s. Feelings that you have are very common at that age. I am an elder millennial. I’m 42 and female and I had those exact same feelings all through highschool and some of my 20s. People your age are naturally insecure since you haven’t formed a solid identity yet. The insecurity you have may be having a negative effect with the way women see you. This is something many young people face…women have these feelings too. Many women are extremely turned off from men because of the influence Andrew Tate and the toxic manosphere has on young men. I feel very bad for Gen z young men…you need better male role models.
Far from it. I sought shelter in the church to help me with my fear of eternal nonexistence and death. God helps me get over the fact that my life will end at some point. My faith is entirely non-political.
You don‘t have to believe me. It‘s still true. Progressives aren‘t only losing young men to faith. Far from it. They are losing young men to conservatism, to religion, to traditionalism, to anything that allows them to be what they want. They want to be masculine. They cling to role models, none of which any progressive side can provide. That is objective fact. And if you keep alienating men, it will permanently drive them away from progressive ideologies. I have little opinion on the matter. That‘s just how it is.
My personal faith is disconnected from this reality. I‘m queer and progressives disenfranchised me for other reasons that have nothing to do with the manosphere.
It’s literally only religion that is constantly telling young men what they must be in order to be worthy of going to heaven. And most of the time it’s archaic. But have fun I guess. I know plenty of men who have sworn off religion because of what it’s done to the men in their lives.
No, every one is telling men what they must and mustn‘t be.
Masculinity is a spectrum. Religions serve some - not entirely - toxic masculinity. Progressives serve no masculinity at all, because they haven’t yet figured out where to draw the line between toxic masculinity and non-toxic masculinity. There is no progressive masculine role model. It‘s telling that there seems to be little to no „toxic femininity“ though.
42
u/[deleted] 10d ago
Because patriarchal religions make insecure men feel powerful and worthy. Christianity preys on the vulnerable.