Has this happened?

[Catholig]

My question is "have there been any debates between Thomistic thinkers and Atheistic/Marxist/Nietzschian thinkers? If so can anyone cite any examples - maybe any online resources (transcript)? I think it would be fascinating to see who would win such a debate, and how different their outlooks would be. They might even be on different planes.

Catholig

 

[cpayne]

Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell debated once; Russell won the debate, but Copleston said later he had answers for Russell’s points. Russell caught him off guard on some questions.

 

[Mirdath]

I think a better question is ‘when hasn’t this happened?’

For what it’s worth, atheism, Marxism, and, uh, ‘Nietzscheanism’ are three very, very different things. You can be one of them without being either of the other two, and even within that one, there can be vastly differing ideas about what things are like, about what the philosophy entails or what needs to be done.

Here’s about how it goes:

Catholic vs. atheist – if they’re both good at it, stalemate.
Catholic vs. Marxist – depends on both the Catholic and the Marxist. The Marxist might even be Catholic, or the Catholic might subscribe to liberation theology. The Church officially doesn’t have much truck with the philosophy, but it’s a religion, not an economic theory.
Catholic vs. Nietzscheanismisticalifiermabob – again, depends. Nietzsche’s philosophy isn’t something you have to take 100% – I agree with him on human purpose, disagree on ethics. The Church doesn’t like his ethics either, but the only way to prove Catholic ethics requires proving God, and that’s a stalemate. On humanism, I suspect you’ll find the Church rather more amenable; although Nietzsche expresses it in an entirely secular rather than religious manner, the spirit of both is actually fairly similar.

 

[Catholig]

I think a better question is ‘when hasn’t this happened?’

For what it’s worth, atheism, Marxism, and, uh, ‘Nietzscheanism’ are three very, very different things. You can be one of them without being either of the other two, and even within that one, there can be vastly differing ideas about what things are like, about what the philosophy entails or what needs to be done.

Here’s about how it goes:

Catholic vs. atheist – if they’re both good at it, stalemate.
Catholic vs. Marxist – depends on both the Catholic and the Marxist. The Marxist might even be Catholic, or the Catholic might subscribe to liberation theology. The Church officially doesn’t have much truck with the philosophy, but it’s a religion, not an economic theory.
Catholic vs. Nietzscheanismisticalifiermabob – again, depends. Nietzsche’s philosophy isn’t something you have to take 100% – I agree with him on human purpose, disagree on ethics. The Church doesn’t like his ethics either, but the only way to prove Catholic ethics requires proving God, and that’s a stalemate. On humanism, I suspect you’ll find the Church rather more amenable; although Nietzsche expresses it in an entirely secular rather than religious manner, the spirit of both is actually fairly similar.

Mirdath,

I guess they aren’t all the same thing, but their also not mutually exclusive are they? In any case - the original question was basically has there been any debates between people schooled in Thomistic thought vs. people schooled in atheistic/marxist/Niezschean thought? I mean - I’m certain it has happened. I would just like to see how two great minds from two entirely separate schools of thought (one religious and one not) would debate each other. I would like to see where they agree (the base principles) and then how their views diverge.

Catholig

 

[Mirdath]

I guess they aren’t all the same thing, but their also not mutually exclusive are they?

Atheism with either of the others, sure, you can do that. Marx and Nietzsche, however, do not get along well.

It’s much like the way one can be a Catholic and a Thomist, or a Catholic and a Molinist – but not a Molinist and a Thomist. You can’t generalize non-theists any more than you can theists, and the Thomism/Molinism debate is hardly the first distinction one makes about those who believe!

In any case - the original question was basically has there been any debates between people schooled in Thomistic thought vs. people schooled in atheistic/marxist/Niezschean thought? I mean - I’m certain it has happened. I would just like to see how two great minds from two entirely separate schools of thought (one religious and one not) would debate each other. I would like to see where they agree (the base principles) and then how their views diverge.

Once again, agreement depends on who exactly you’re debating. Common ground between Catholicism and Nietzsche can be found in idealistic humanism – both assert ‘you know, we rock’, and that we are meant to better ourselves. The split comes when the Church says that that transcendence or betterment is by the grace of God, and Nietzsche says it is a product of human striving.

Marxism is a little harder. The ‘religion is the opiate of the masses’ quote is given entirely too much time in the limelight, and tends to provoke a kneejerk reaction from both sides of the debate. At its core, Marxism is an economic theory, having little if anything to do with God. It’s not really even in the same sphere as Catholic theology. Where you might find commonality is with Catholic social teaching. How many holy orders take vows of poverty and share a communal purse? How many Catholics practice monetary charity – ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’? You have more in common than you think; but then, we all do.

 

[inthecloud]

Marxism is a socio-economic theory. Is in another plane than religion.
There are many differents types of atheists. The basic problem debating atheists is that they just have to deny, deny and deny while a theist have to prove.
Nieztche is another bird, I actually know people that have said that reading Nieztche have make them better catholics.
His ethics were antichrisitan but his apraisal of the Church was better that those of the protestants (and he was a pastor’s kid), in fact he blamed Luther for the decadence of Christianty. He said nice things about Blas Pascal and Baltasar Gracian S.J. despite their christianty.

 

[cpayne]

His ethics were antichrisitan but his apraisal of the Church was better that those of the protestants (and he was a pastor’s kid),

Not to incline the thread a different direction, but just a suggestion: For a similar appraisal of the Church, similar time period, but from a Christian, you might try Soren Kierkegaard’s Attack Upon Christendom.

 

[Mirdath]

Not to incline the thread a different direction, but just a suggestion: For a similar appraisal of the Church, similar time period, but from a Christian, you might try Soren Kierkegaard’s Attack Upon Christendom.

My philosophy prof referred to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as ‘the bad boys of philosophy’