History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Darwinists suckers for Nietzschean oversimplifications

December 28th, 2009 · No Comments

Do Human Rights Require Religious Beliefs?

What difference would it make if we accepted what Bernard Williams has called “Nietzsche’s thought”–“there is, not only no God, but no metaphysical order of any kind”?

One consequence, Nietzsche suggested, is that we could no longer believe that human beings were created by God in His Image and thus endowed with equal dignity. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche wrote: “The masses blink and say: ‘We are all equal.–Man is but man, before God–we are all equal.’ Before God! But now this God has died.” The modern morality of human equality is secularized Christian morality that cannot be continued after the death of God.

It seems that Darwinists are condemned to be Nietzsche suckers, unable to extricate themselves from the multiple fallacies that animate his thinking.
Nietzsche is so extreme that he wishes to decree a universe that guarantees his atheism, but that tactic backfires (and it evident in the New Atheists_).

If we examine the eonic effect we can see that without any theism or atheism (both tend to be sterile thought orphans) we can find an ‘idea for a universal history’ that demonstrates the evolutionary emergence of liberalism (and rights philosophies) in a non-random fashion. This powerful evidence simply can’t enter the narrow psyches of those brainwashed by Nietzsche’s oversimplifications, and second-rate travesty of Schopenhauer (thence Kant, with his powerful concepts of liberal rights)

Tags: Kant · liberalism · The Eonic Effect

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment