Philosophy without Revelation

[Rosarium]

No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.

If it weren't for the grace of God and His word revealed, where do you think you would be? It is sometimes hard to determine what it is, but I think we all have a "base" philosophy from which we fall back to.

Personally, if it weren't for the saving grace of the Church, I'd be as Friedrich Nietzsche taught in Also sprach Zarathustra. Without revelation or knowledge of Truth, I find it very hard to have "beliefs" except things which are known to be beneficial. The will to power is something I think is the most base human quality and without any knowledge of God, or self delusions (like most atheists who constantly state that "Morality is indepedent of religion" or whatever). I would also probably lapse into nihilism, as a journey with no purpose is without purpose.

Yes...without the Church, I'm a not a happy camper. I thank God for revealing His truth to me through the Church.

[Pilgrim]

The seniors at my school read Nietzsche in their senior year.  Luckily, I've given them some grounding in Aquinas in tenth grade.   

Whenever I challenge anti-theists on-line about their understanding of morality and ask them how there can be a standard of moral law without a Moral Legislator, they usually respond with some kind of convoluted argument involving primate behavior... 

[Melita]

Stuck in a solipsistic nightmare, probs.

[Rosarium]

The seniors at my school read Nietzsche in their senior year.  Luckily, I've given them some grounding in Aquinas in tenth grade.   

Whenever I challenge anti-theists on-line about their understanding of morality and ask them how there can be a standard of moral law without a Moral Legislator, they usually respond with some kind of convoluted argument involving primate behavior... 

When I confront atheists, I easily accept perspectivism as being the only real way a person can be if they choose not to follow God and find their self delusions to be pitiful. They are so confused. "Well, homosexual behavior is found in many species. It is natural. Thus, it isn't something humans should say is "wrong"." That is their argument. Do they forget or ignore that these same animals routinely kill, rape and do things that they find "immoral"?

[Pilgrim]

When I confront atheists, I easily accept perspectivism as being the only real way a person can be if they choose not to follow God and find their self delusions to be pitiful. They are so confused. "Well, homosexual behavior is found in many species. It is natural. Thus, it isn't something humans should say is "wrong"." That is their argument. Do they forget or ignore that these same animals routinely kill, rape and do things that they find "immoral"?

I remember an earlier thread with an article about how self-control is unnatural.  As you say, so many people claim that "natural behavior" is the same as "moral behavior"...

[Rosarium]

When I confront atheists, I easily accept perspectivism as being the only real way a person can be if they choose not to follow God and find their self delusions to be pitiful. They are so confused. "Well, homosexual behavior is found in many species. It is natural. Thus, it isn't something humans should say is "wrong"." That is their argument. Do they forget or ignore that these same animals routinely kill, rape and do things that they find "immoral"?

I remember an earlier thread with an article about how self-control is unnatural.  As you say, so many people claim that "natural behavior" is the same as "moral behavior"...

They are selective too.

If there is no God, as they claim (without evidence), then there is no good or bad. It is all relative to what can be done, or what cannot be done. The implications of this are too terrifying for them.

[kjvail]

No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.

If it weren't for the grace of God and His word revealed, where do you think you would be? It is sometimes hard to determine what it is, but I think we all have a "base" philosophy from which we fall back to.

Personally, if it weren't for the saving grace of the Church, I'd be as Friedrich Nietzsche taught in Also sprach Zarathustra. Without revelation or knowledge of Truth, I find it very hard to have "beliefs" except things which are known to be beneficial. The will to power is something I think is the most base human quality and without any knowledge of God, or self delusions (like most atheists who constantly state that "Morality is indepedent of religion" or whatever). I would also probably lapse into nihilism, as a journey with no purpose is without purpose.

Yes...without the Church, I'm a not a happy camper. I thank God for revealing His truth to me through the Church.

Nietzsche argues for an "animal" morality in Beyond Good and Evil. His master morality is an exhortation of strength and power, the antithesis of Christian (slave) morality.
I guess you could argue that Nietzsche is presenting a kind of default moral philosophy of man, at least in the Western conception (the East thinks very differently). It's very close to what you find in ancient pagan societies (Rome particularly).
I've always been more interested in some other aspects of his thought tho.
The interesting thing Nietzsche does open up, and this is what postmodernism has focused on, is a denial of a valid universal reason which is exhorted by the Enlightenment, liberalism and modernism as a whole.
This goes in two directions.
One way is deconstructionism, which quickly reduces itself to absurdity.
The other is to acknowledge that our understanding, even our reasoning process itself, is conditioned by the cultural narrative. Language is a limiting factor and conditions thought. This doesn't mean that all truth claims are equally valid, one can still be true and the rest false, but what it does mean that there is no human reasoning that "proves" its own first principles (see Godel's theorem).
Revelation is it. There has to be something "outside" the system to verify it as a whole.

[Rosarium]

Nietzsche argues for an "animal" morality in Beyond Good and Evil. His master morality is an exhortation of strength and power, the antithesis of Christian (slave) morality.
I guess you could argue that Nietzsche is presenting a kind of default moral philosophy of man, at least in the Western conception (the East thinks very differently). It's very close to what you find in ancient pagan societies (Rome particularly).

Well, without God, such discussions are very silly. It is all personal. If he was right in his basic thought, further discussion is a waste of time, except as a way to gain power. For the weak, a system of control and artificial morality makes sense. For the strong however, such a system is useless.

[kjvail]

Nietzsche argues for an "animal" morality in Beyond Good and Evil. His master morality is an exhortation of strength and power, the antithesis of Christian (slave) morality.
I guess you could argue that Nietzsche is presenting a kind of default moral philosophy of man, at least in the Western conception (the East thinks very differently). It's very close to what you find in ancient pagan societies (Rome particularly).

Well, without God, such discussions are very silly. It is all personal. If he was right in his basic thought, further discussion is a waste of time, except as a way to gain power. For the weak, a system of control and artificial morality makes sense. For the strong however, such a system is useless.

His argument is rooted in his notion of entelechy. What's the point of life? This can only be understood by grasping his "eternal return". If time is infinite and matter is not then everything repeats itself eventually. So live as if you had to relive the same life over and over for all eternity.
The fascinating comparison is between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. In someways they say the same thing but since Kierkegaard is rooted in Christian thought they diverge on very key points. The morality is of course, very different but there are many points where there is overlap. Particularly in linguistics and on the futility of purely human reason.
These two are a great comparison of reason with God and without.

[Rosarium]

His argument is rooted in his notion of entelechy. What's the point of life? This can only be understood by grasping his "eternal return". If time is infinite and matter is not then everything repeats itself eventually. So live as if you had to relive the same life over and over for all eternity.

Yes, but I don't think I'd go that route. Nihilism is what I think I'd "follow" although surely not deliberately. Who says "I think I'll be a nihilist."? Ewige Wiederkunft is a sand castle on a beach. Humanists are the worst though.

Without God, we are animals who have become self aware, trapped in a futile existance.