The Death of God

A poster wrote:

“God is Dead.” (The Gay Science) - Nietzsche

What people think it means

This quote might be interpreted as a proclamation of atheism.

What it actually means

Nietzsche presented this phrase as being new information for a group of atheists. So it’s not just a statement about atheism.

In this section of The Gay Science, Nietzsche discusses how many of the underpinnings of Western society, particularly our moral philosophy, implicitly rely on the concept of God. With the rise of atheism, everything that was built on the Christian faith is destined to "collapse" (GS 343).

Is this correct?

~

Alexander wrote:

I do not see it as a statement of atheism, but as a “statement of facts.” Since at least the 1700s but certainly by Nietzsche’s time, Western civilization entered a period where the sense of the sacred or holy had been evacuated of its value.

Let me see if I can explain what this means. Think, for example, of an aboriginal tribe in Australia. Or, think of the North American natives. Or, the Eskimo. Or, a tribe in Africa. All these cultures have one thing in common: an intrinsic value of the sacred.

They may call their priest by different names: medicine man, shaman, mystic, alchemist, philosopher, magician, witch doctor, seer... but they all have him. And, he occupies a special place in society.

This person has (real or imagined) knowledge of spiritual matters. In Judeo-Christian civilization, these are the prophets, the intermediaries between man and the divine. All the populace reveres this figure, goes to him for guidance and counsel, and believes in him.

This is just one sense of the “sacred.” Another is, for instance, blasphemy. This is something we do all the time today but was quite serious in the past. I say “Jesus Christ!” when I hit my foot (because what else would we say!) but in prior times that would be considered disrespecting a sacred figure.

The concept there is basically some figures (Jesus, Mary, saints, etc) are in some way “other.” They are holy, that means you aren’t supposed to refer to them in the same way you do profane or worldly things.

One other thought I had is I feel Nietzshe is definitely referring to European culture when he says God is dead. Europe’s wars of religion and the shift they went through after that changed them forever. It is interesting because my African friends I know definitely take the idea of piety (even if that isn’t the word they use) way more seriously: for example, not making jokes about Jesus. And if you compare with Muslims, they certainly still have a pious or religious culture.

Nietzshe was absolutely correct in my opinion and ahead of his time. There were still churchgoers in his age but he knew the shift had occurred in the hearts of people. And, the proceeding centuries proved him right.

These days I see people going to church and I think, “oh, that’s so nice and quaint,” but many of the religious I meet I feel haven’t fully processed the modern condition.

The death of God leads to a situation, according to Nietzshe, where we are left without any real values or purpose. This is the condition of modern man and what existentialism refers to. But, Nietzshe is very heroic about this, and says don’t despair, this is a great opportunity! Now, you will do like no other and create your own values!

Intelligence and Mysticism?

Jeff wrote:

IQ and deep meditation

Having a high IQ and discovering deep meditation might be related.  I happen to score in the top .1% of the human IQ bell curve.  While I knew that my IQ was above 145 during my freshman year of high school; nonetheless, I did not know until recently that my IQ was in the  top .1% of the human IQ bell curve. If I did my career would have been much different.  I also happen to be a polymath.

The point here is I stumbled across the deep meditation experience in my first year of taking up a contemplative life more than 40 years ago; whereas, most people who practice meditation never find the deep meditation experience.  Thus, I believe it is reasonable to consider that possibly all of the people who stumble upon the deep meditation experience might be geniuses.  So, it would be very useful if those posting their case histories here also posted their IQ, if you are comfortable with doing so.

Quote from: wiki

An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence...When current IQ tests are developed, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less...By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores an IQ between 85 and 115, and about 5 percent of the population scores above 125...IQ scales are ordinally scaled.[32][33][34][35][36] While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are 30 points, and so on, this does not imply that mental ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50 means half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points...The correlation between IQ test results and achievement test results is about 0.7.

2.1% of the population scores above 130, and 1% of the population scores above 140 and .1% of the population scores above 145. 

Related concepts are genius and polymath.

Quote from: wiki

A genius is a person who displays exceptional superior intellectual ability, creativity, or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge. A scholar in many subjects or a scholar in a single subject may be referred to as a genius.[1] There is no scientifically precise definition of genius, and the question of whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate, although psychologists are converging on a definition that emphasizes creativity and eminent achievement.

Quote from: wiki

A polymath (Greek: πολυμαθής, polymathēs, "having learned much")[1] is a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas; such a person is known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. The term was first used in the seventeenth century; the related term, polyhistor, is an ancient term with similar meaning.[2]

The term is often used to describe great thinkers of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment who excelled at several fields in science and the arts. In the Italian Renaissance, the idea of the polymath was expressed by Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472), in the statement that "a man can do all things if he will."[3] Embodying a basic tenet of Renaissance humanism that humans are limitless in their capacity for development, the concept led to the notion that people should embrace all knowledge and develop their capacities as fully as possible. This was expressed in the term "Renaissance man" which is often applied to the gifted people of that age who sought to develop their abilities in all areas of accomplishment: intellectual, artistic, social and physical. This term entered the lexicon during the twentieth century and has now been applied to great thinkers living before and after the Renaissance.

"Renaissance man" was first recorded in written English in the early 20th century.[4] It is now used to refer to great thinkers living before, during, or after the Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci has often been described as the archetype of the Renaissance man, a man of "unquenchable curiosity" and "feverishly inventive imagination".[5]

Many notable polymaths lived during the Renaissance period, a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th through to the 17th century and that began in Italy in the late Middle Ages and later spread to the rest of Europe. These polymaths had a rounded approach to education that reflected the ideals of the humanists of the time. A gentleman or courtier of that era was expected to speak several languages, play a musical instrument, write poetry, and so on, thus fulfilling the Renaissance ideal. The idea of a universal education was essential to achieving polymath ability, hence the word university was used to describe a seat of learning. At this time universities did not specialize in specific areas but rather trained students in a broad array of science, philosophy, and theology. This universal education gave them a grounding from which they could continue into apprenticeship toward becoming a Master of a specific field.

panegalli replied:

I don't know my IQ, since I have never been tested by a psychologist or psychometrician, IQ is not a big deal here in Brazil, I don't think I have ever met anyone personally that has taken an IQ test. I've done a Raven progressive matrices IQ test online and got a 120 score, not anywhere near what you guys report here, not really genius level, I hope that doesn't make me unsuited for experience jhana or to progress in the contemplative/mystical path.

Alexander replied:

I'm not sure if IQ is exactly the right term, but I definitely think making your way to a place like this, seeing, understanding, and valuing the accounts of mystics, and valuing the premise mysticism presents, is a function of intelligence.

I remember growing up, panegalli, intuitively understanding the premises of mysticism. I would be in the classroom and think to myself, "this is all pretend right?" or "this is like Plato said, we're in the shadow world or the false world, this isn't reality itself" or "as above, so below; just like we can play a virtual reality computer game, so too my existence in this body is the same."

I was constantly trying to find someone who perceived things in the way I did (I particularly hoped for an attractive young lady to think the same haha) but I found no one shared my views.

I remember when I studied philosophy in college, how far it went off-topic. In an academic setting I don't even know what "philosophy" means. Plato and Socrates were very clear philosophy was a preparation for death, that philosophy purified and elevated the soul, and that the goal of the philosopher was to separate from the corrupt body and to return to Reality.

And don't get me started about religious people haha. It is interesting how universal religion is, that it is inherently human to value it and have a sense of the spiritual. But how it is interpreted is amazing.

I find the symbolism of Christianity very heroic myself. Of Christ, the god-man and Crucified One (as Teresa called him), calling the Christian to forsake the body and embrace the life of the spirit. Yet this call isn't followed by any Christian I know. Particularly here in America Christians are so far removed from the life-negation and self-transcendence of Christ it is astonishing. They do none of the aid to the poor, sick, alienated or imprisoned. I expect most of these Christians will find themselves making their way right back here again.

So, I definitely get what Jeff is getting at when he says "IQ." It is certainly a faculty of intelligence to value these topics and come here. And, the fact your Inner Director brought you here is evidence you have what Jeff describes.

Discussion on the Bible

A poster wrote:

Why are there four different Gospels that cover much of the same material? What was the intended purpose, or who was the intended audience, of each Gospel?

~

Alexander (Shivaswara) replied:

The Gospels were all written at least 50 years after Christ (Mark) to 100 years after him (John).

We think the Gospels are inspired by works we have since lost. The most famous is the "Quelle" or Q source (Quelle means source in German), which is supposed to be a list of sayings of Jesus.

Basically what Bible scholars do is they read each text meticulously, line by line, then they compare what is similar and different between each. Doing this - it is pretty ingenious - they are able to reverse engineer earlier texts and even figure out what percentage of each text comes from each earlier work. We started doing this in the 1800s and it's persisted to present day Bible scholarship.

The other early work (other than Q) is Mark. Basically we think Matthew and Luke used Mark (the earliest Gospel) and Quelle as sources.

The first three Gospels are called "synoptic," meaning they have roughly the same presentation of the Jesus story.

The last Gospel, John, is considered anomalous so it gets its own category. It doesn't have the same sources as the others and Jesus goes on long, philosophical sermons in it which he doesn't in the others.

We call the authors of the Gospels the evangelists.

In the New Testament, Matthew was placed first because originally we thought it was the earliest Gospel. This conclusion came from its (mostly Jewish-oriented) perspective. More recently scholarship has accurately found Mark was the earliest, using the reverse engineering method I mentioned.

There is some division over how you can interpret each Gospel but I usually present it to my students as the following:

Matthew - The "Jewish" perspective on Jesus

Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism, so Matthew is often more concerned with interpreting Christ's teachings in relation to Jewish law and tradition. Matthew is also the only Gospel written in Aramaic, not Greek.

Luke - The "Gentile" (or Greek) perspective on Jesus

As time proceeded, Christianity began to attract adherents who were non-Jews (Gentiles) - mostly people from the Hellenic world - but there was much resistance to this as it was originally a Jewish sect. Luke's view is often focused on interpreting Christ to make it more accessible to non-Jews.

The next two are my views of the other Gospels and how I usually teach them (I like to keep it simple and clear), but just know you could dispute these and interpret them differently:

Mark - Emphasis on the "Humanity" of Jesus

As you know the Christian view of Christ says he has a dual nature, both human and divine. I base this reading mostly on the very interesting conclusion to Mark - the resurrection. The resurrection is left ambiguous in the original version of Mark. Jesus does not reappear to the disciples or overtly demonstrate his risen form. This Gospel also focuses on the "mystery" of who Jesus is. It is accepted he is a prophet, and he demonstrates miracles throughout, but it is unclear who he is.

John - Emphasis on the "Divinity" of Jesus

And this is how I usually frame John: as one in which the divinity of Christ is accepted - there is no "mystery" like in Mark. Focus on his godhood rather than his humanity. For example, he begins as a divine "Logos" which preexisted.

Getting back to your question - you raise a very interesting point about the unique situation in which there are four different accounts of effectively the same narrative in Christianity.

The Gospels do offer different versions of events, tweak the exact things said by Christ, and contradict each other at different points.

While in earlier epochs you might run into the danger of being accused of heresy, I feel it enriches the religion greatly and opens it up to many different analyses and lenses.

Perhaps it is also not the point we are supposed to get the exact version of what happened, but rather understand the overall synthesis or theme of Jesus' teaching.