Transcript Spinoza vs. Nietzsche - Philosophy@Utah State

Spinoza vs. Nietzsche
How to handle the collision between
ancient religion and modern science
My basic argument
1. Most ancient religions have at their core
doctrines about creation, the soul, and
providence (God’s concern for us).
2. Scientific naturalism does not allow for
any of these things.
3. So, if we accept naturalism, something
about religion must change.
What about denying science?
• Radical fideism denies the legitimacy of natural
knowledge
• “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise” (1 Cor. 1:27)
• “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with
God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their
own craftiness” (1 Cor. 2:19)
• Pascal, Kierkegaard; CH has nothing to say about
this.
What about doubting science?
• Popperian skepticism: we never prove a
theory; at best, we try and fail to falsify it,
and suppose that it is true
• Scientific revolutions are always possible
• But: do we have any reason now for
thinking our scientific theories are wrong or
fundamentally incomplete?
No.
Even if we did…
• Bringing in a “god of the gaps” does not
amount to explanation; it says only
“something we don’t understand explains
this in a way we don’t understand”
• Simpler to say: “we don’t understand”
• History of science suggests these gaps
always get filled by natural entities: gravity,
magnetism, biological functions, etc.
Scientific naturalism
“better living through science”
• All of nature “plays by the
same rules” (laws of nature)
• Scientific method
(hypothesis, test, revision)
reveals those laws, forces
• Seeming violations of those
laws can be explained
through complications,
psychology
Naturalist critique of religion
1. For every supernatural explanation (“God
did it”), there is a natural one.
2. It is rational to prefer natural explanations
to supernatural ones.
•
Which is more likely: that magic happens, or
that we are somehow ignorant/deceived?
3. So, supernatural explanations shouldn’t be
accepted.
Naturalistic explanations
Religious
concept
Natural replacement
Creation
Big Bang; Darwin; quantum
mechanics
Soul
Cognitive science;
neuroscience
Providence
None.
I. Spinoza’s response
• Bible filled with error,
superstition
• But also contains worthy
moral principles, wisdom
• Bible should be read as guide
to life, not metaphysical or
scientific treatise
Following Spinoza
• Accept religion as powerful, transformative
myth:
– Not literally true
– Inspirational way of interpreting experience
• Truths vs. facts
• Perhaps: metaphysics can be described to
allow for this (Bultmann)
• But: no going back on mythological status
Possibility: Whitman
“…And I know that the hand of God is
the promise of my own,
And I know that the spirit of God is the
brother of my own,
And that all the men ever born are also
my brothers, and the women
My sisters and lovers,
And that a kelson of the creation is love,
And limitless are leaves stiff or drooping
in the fields, …”
-- “Song of Myself”
II. Nietzsche’s response
• “God is dead”
• Individuals must create
meaning for their lives
• There is nothing
intrinsically worthy of
reverence (overman)
• Only eternal recurrence
redeems the world
Morality?
• Natural account:
– Our sympathies result from generations of
natural selection
– If conditions were different, our sympathies
would be different
– No higher obligation
• What do we say to the “overman”?
Conclusion
• Scientific naturalism precludes the
miraculous objects of belief of ancient
religions
• We can follow Spinoza: invest the natural
world with quasi-religious significance (but
drop the miracles)
• We can follow Nietzsche: abandon religion,
and face the consequences.