Nietzsche and the Idea of God: Is God Good or Bad for your Psychological Health?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nietzsche tells us that he is more interested in the idea of God than in God as such.The idea of God is not a mind-independent entity; it is a human idea.He writes: "In former times, one sought to prove that there is no God-today one indicates how the belief that there is a God could arise and how this belief acquired its weight and importance." 1 He continues, "The 'kingdom of heaven' is a state of the heart-not something lying 'above the earth' or coming 'after death.'" 2 And finally, "the kingdom of God does not 'come' chronologicallyhistorically, on a certain day it is an 'inward change in the individual.'" 3 As one commentator writes, Nietzsche asks "a series of questions that concern the religious man, not religion itself." 4 Whether or not one believes in God, the fact that people do believe in God is still a phenomenon in the world for which we must account.Nietzsche's question is not 'does God exist?'It is: why do people believe in God, and what insight does this yield into human psychology?Under the influence of Feuerbach, he answers that "religion can be exhaustively accounted for by the psychology of error," 5 and he demonstrates how basic human psychology accounts for the idea of God.Hence, if naturalism is an attempt to account for phenomena without reference to the supernatural, then showing that human psychology accounts for the idea of a supernatural God is a quintessential instance of naturalism: the idea of God has its origins in nature.The number of interpretations concerning what Nietzsche means by the idea of God is dizzying; a brief catalogue is in order.One of my goals here is to
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".