Nietzsche vs Christianity: Are Christians Nihilists? (The Meaning of Life Series, #5)
Along with "cabbage-head", "nihilism" was one of Nietzsche’s top favorite cusswords. He hurled it most often, and most vehemently, against the Christian religion. To Nietzsche, Christianity is a life-negating belief system, and as such it ought to be ditched.
In my book, I wonder what Nietzsche means by "nihilistic" or "life-negating". If he's saying that Christian values oppose life, then I feel compelled to ask, "What kind of life? The contingent life we live today? Life two thousand years ago? Life two thousand years from now? Life in water? Life on land?"
What hinders survival in circumstance X (I contemplate) might aid survival in circumstance Y. I can easily imagine a great many circumstances in which Christian values promote survival. In medieval Europe, for instance, it did not pay to have a heliocentric view of the universe, to use only a stock example (favorite among us atheists). William James offered many reasons why it might pay to have Christian values (James often talked of the "cash-value" of a belief). Researchers have in recent years hypothesized and theorized on the evolutionary and psychological advantages religious faith might have conferred in the past, or continue to confer today.
So it looks like hurling the accusation of nihilism at Christians is problematic. Here are some of my other arguments against the idea that Christian values are nihilistic:
It's not currently possible to evaluate values according to their consequences
According to Nietzsche, a value or set of values is nihilistic when it leads to the species' extinction. This, however, opens Pandora's box of consequences that so troubles utilitarians. The problem is: How do we determine the consequences? It's currently practically impossible to calculate them.
For my purposes, then, since no one can accurately predict the consequences of holding on to a particular value, the truly nihilistic is simply that which negates all values: you have to lack values altogether in order to count as a nihilist in my view.
Evolution didn't eliminate Christian values
Whatever values we actually encounter in the real world, have managed to get here through the long weeding-out process called evolution. If these values have managed to survive, it is improbable that they have succeeded in doing so purely by accident: they must have, or have had, some survival benefit. It's therefore pointless to dispute the life-affirming properties of a belief, when it has proven itself against so many competitors in the merciless battlefield that is evolution. True: a belief may have conferred some evolutionary advantage in the past, but might no longer do so. But, in a changing world, we cannot predict whether a value that is today life-affirming will not become life-negating tomorrow, or vice versa. We may do well simply to take for granted the idea that all the values we hold dear today are in some degree life-enhancing.
Isn't what's true about Christian values, true about all values?
Every value is potentially nihilistic (or life-negating, to use Nietzsche's infectious term), because for every value there corresponds a possible external situation which opposes (or negates) it. And in the same way, for every value there corresponds a possible external situation which supports (or affirms) it. In other words, every value is life-negating in some possible world, and it's life-affirming in some other possible world. For example, whether you value honesty or deception, both can prove advantageous or disadvantageous in different circumstances. (This can be proven mathematically using game theory.)
What's this "possible world" nonsense? Talk to me about the real world!
I claim that a value is nihilistic only if it negates life in all possible worlds, and so I deny Nietzsche's assertion that Christian values are nihilistic. The question may be raised, however, "Is a value not nihilistic if it leads to death just in this actual world?" I believe Nietzsche would not want to say that a value can be nihilistic merely because it happens to have fatal consequences in this actual world. (In other words, I believe Nietzsche would agree with me when I say that the value of an idea cannot be reduced to its survival-value.) I can imagine a Christian fundamentalist becoming so infuriated by Nietzsche's writings that he decides to shoot him dead. Would this action make Nietzsche a nihilist, simply because his values, by being given expression through his writings, ultimately led to his death?
In the Middle Ages, it was rather difficult to be an atheist. In fact, one put his life in danger simply by virtue of being one. Does this mean that the atheists of the Middle Ages who expressed their true beliefs openly were nihilists, simply because they valued the truth over their life? What about the astronomers? Was Giordano Bruno a nihilist? What about those who put their faith in medicine, and who agreed with the then common, now disfavored, practice of bloodletting? Bloodletting, at that time, was simply the logical thing to do. Were they nihilists because they chose the logical thing to do?
Conclusion
If we deny that a value is nihilistic simply by virtue of it having fatal consequences in this actual world, then the only course that remains is that of saying that it is nihilistic if it has fatal consequences in all possible worlds, i.e. if its life-negating properties are not a consequence merely of the adverse situation in which the value happens to find itself in, but that it is necessarily life-negating. But I have argued above that this can't be said of Christian values.
Having said that, I believe what Nietzsche is arguing essentially is that Christianity has outlived its usefulness. I can't not agree with that: given the world as it is now, and the value it places on truth, Christianity can only act as an impediment to its further progress, and hence can be deemed, in a loose sense, "nihilistic".
I leave you with a phone pic of an entry from the book:
Next episode
In the next installment of the Meaning of Life series, I will examine whether it's possible to love without hating!
Have you read Nassim Taleb? An antifragile system must be composed of fragile components... and smaller systems are nested as components in larger systems. Interesting enough, most fans of Nietzsche I know are religious -- religious existentialists -- like Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, Shestov, and Gabriel Marcel.
Nietzsche believed in eternal reoccurrence, the idea that with infinite time and a finite number of events, events will recur again and again infinitely. His beliefs aligned well with the concept of samsara and cyclical history of the universe in Hinduism and Buddhism. The Christian existentialists interpreted this as faith: the highest passion to make the same choice over and over again, even if you have to live infinite life times. This faith is identical to amor fati. One who eliminates living in "bad faith" as defined by Sartre, can be considered a Buddha. Sartre also considered himself to be an atheist, yet the same themes are found in Dante's Divine Comedy.
When Nietzsche said that "God is dead", he didn't think that was a good thing. He simply interpreted as part of the cycle of history that all value systems must die eventually, and that a new value system will arise after its inevitable fall. Spengler's Decline of the West described such lifespans of civilization spheres following Nietzsche's thoughts. Nihilism is in the context of cultural sentiments of the era it occurs in. The lack of value, as with any other value, is impermanent.
Nietzsche's ideas, as with most existentialists, are basically identical with Vajrayana Buddhism. He's nothing like the modern "New Atheists." At this point, even the word "religion" is incredibly ambiguous and lack much practical utility. It's only useful for these who believes in a literal sky daddy, and these who get their panties in a bunch to actively oppose the imaginary sky daddy because they are rich and bored. Everyone else is in the middle and are fluid depending on the circumstances.
Not yet. Had him in my wish list for ages tho, and lately he's been cropping up in conversations recommending him.
Dostoevsky came before Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a fan. Kierkegaard also came before Nietzsche, Nietzsche was aware of him I think, but I don't think he ever read him.
Well Nietzsche's early idol was Schopenhauer, and Schopenhauer was an avowed believer in many core Buddhist concepts, and one of the first to popularize Buddhism in Europe. But when Nietzsche broke with his intellectual mentor (as he did with all his idols), he rejected Buddhism I believe on the same grounds as Christianity: i.e. he accused it of being nihilistic.
Yeah Nietzsche wasn't as "rationalist" or as "absolutist" as they. Or maybe I should say "we". 😄 I am one of those people who think religion causes a lot of harm in the world. At any rate, if the claim that the literal sky-daddy doesn't exist wasn't controversial, it wouldn't be so vehemently opposed and reacted to whenever it's made.
I'm aware of the history. I over-condensed my sentence there. I didn't mean that they were fans of Nietzsche, but their religious fans tend to also be fans of Nietzsche.
Even in Nietzsche's time, people in Europe did not understand all the views in Eastern thought. Vajrayana and Zen rejected the views that influenced Schopenhauer and what Nietzsche interpreted as Buddhism. It's like how the Existentialists had many disagreements among each other. There were Buddhist schools that had ideas that were basically identical to Nietzsche and Heiddegger, but there are others that had completely different views.
See this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/4tjgqz/what_are_your_thoughts_on_existentialism/#bottom-comments
There is also this book, Nietzsche and Zen: http://amzn.to/2uMJSaj
I'm more pessimistic... even if you get rid of religion, people will still refuse to think and come up with other excuses for their negative actions. I think rationalism is impossible. We are all ultimately just rationalizers.
My knowledge of Buddhism is restricted to Theravada Buddhism, because that's what I decided through my research was the most original form of Buddhism and the closest one to the real historical Buddha, so I didn't bother with other schools: that could easily take up a lifetime!
So I've no idea about the other schools of thought, but regarding the Buddhism I know, I am of the opinion that it's indeed antithetical to life: the states that must be attained in Nirvana are impossible for living things, you literally have to be dead to attain them.
The book looks good, I've added it to my wish list!
The thread is long! I only read the first comment, that kinda reads like you! It's certainly interesting, makes you want to drop everything else and embark on that same journey. It reminds me of what it's like reading Buddhist sutras - the rhyming, the repetitions - they are a meditation unto themselves. I don't think I've ever read anything that made me feel calmer than the Buddhist sutras.
Yeah I worry too that might be the case.
I see. I'm also largely opposed to Theravada. I've read of a few Zen scholars who wrote excellent critiques against Theravada... and it makes sense, since Zen is really a combination of Taoism and Buddhism. Most people would consider it a form of Buddhism, but I would actually consider it to be more like Taoism with a lot of the superstitions striped off (and sometimes replaced with other superstitions). Vajrayana goes even further than Zen. Zen can be quite minimalist, austere, and militaristic, but Vajrayana is like a complete celebration of the colors of life. There are some schools of thought that are almost like a combination of Heidegger and Terence McKenna. People can craft their own ways of thinking and living in a lot of creative ways.
This is the view I take and It's also pretty much the same as the existentialism/radical empiricism of Lev Shestov: https://approachingaro.org/no-holiness-vastness
Are you threatening me!? My bungole will not wait!
Very good post. Two critiques: I always understood Nietzsche being critical of Christianity and viewing it as non-life affirming having to do with it's reliance on its followers to live this life only with the anticipation of the after-life. I recognized it, not so much as literally non-life affirming, but as his disgust with the Christian religion "sacrificing" living in this life, on Earth, in order to appease God and transition into the next life, which he viewed as living only partially now, with the hopes of being granted a better life, after death?
The second question is on nihilism. I always viewed nihilism as empowering the individual instead of adhering to the moral sanctity of idols (such as priests and even God). It's not that nihilists do not believe in anything (and that true nihilists should not care about getting side-swiped by a car), but that they can embrace the values that they choose and deem worthy; as opposed to the antiquated Europe culture and moral structure of NIetzsche's epoch. Nietzsche is a tough read though and I will welcome any input. I have upvoted and will follow. Great piece.
You're right that I'm not representing Nietzsche's views very accurately. In the book, I am merely using his ideas to talk about mine: about whether nihilism is even possible, about the idea that any value can be life-affirming or life-negating depending on external factors, etc. What you're saying is a spot-on (but partial, given the multifacetedness of Nietzsche's critique) interpretation of what he was saying about the followers of Christianity.
About nihilism: It's true that there are many kinds and definitions of nihilism out there. I'm using a very specific definition of my own (though it's not by any means idiosyncratic; Daniel Dennett for instance says, in his book Elbow Room, "if it were true that we ought to take the possibility of nihilism that seriously, then nihilism would be false, for if we ought to do anything then nihilism is false", and that's usually how professional philosophers view nihilism: as a starkly negative and absolute denial of X - and X can be anything). The first thing you must do when you attempt to give a positive account of the meaning of life, is to deny nihilism. That's a tall order. So my "trick" - the way I circumvented this issue - was to outright deny there are any nihilists. (I do believe it's impossible for any living thing to be a nihilist, it's not really a trick!)
The way you define nihilism, I got no problem with that, and in that sense I might even be a nihilist. You could call that kind of person a rebel or an existentialist just as easily.
I'm following you too, you have some good stuff in there!
I think you are right, it is hard to understand what a life that believes in nothing, literally nothing, would even consist of. Thanks for the follow!
I suppose you have to ask what kind of life is worth living. You use the word "survival" several times, which connotes a biological impulse to exist, an instinctual desire to be. I would think that most, if not all, world religions would say that this isn't enough, that some greater purpose gives meaning to our lives beyond mere existence.
Maybe Nietzsche would say that the "will to power" is or should be the driving force that gives life/existence/survival meaning - that we exert our selves on the world, and this creates an internal drive that keeps us from nihilism. Yet all Nietzsche has done is replaced the Christian God with himself as God (Ubermensch - "Beyond-Man"). A faith in a divine being has been replaced with a faith in oneself.
I really appreciate the challenge of Nietzsche, and I believe he should be more widely read by Christians. But I don't fully understand his deep scorn for religious faith, as if it is the very thing that makes us sub-human. I think that everyone has faith in something or someone - Nature, God, Yahweh, Allah, Self - and you have to make a specific and deliberate choice to believe and put your faith there. For me, that isn't weakness, but courage.
Nietzsche has already decided what kind of life is worth living, and so anything that runs counter to that is by definition "nihilistic" - amounting to nothing. I think his critique in The Antichrist against weak, mealy-mouthed Christians that use their religion as a crutch is a good challenge. I think that many Christians do use their "faith" to evade the difficult places of life, remain in their weakness, and never learn to think for themselves. But this doesn't represent all Christians, or even Christianity as it was meant to be (from my own view).
I think that nihilism is really the giving up on life's potential, when mere existence is the ultimate goal. Some may find glory in that, or maybe peace or understanding of one's place in this world. However, I think this view falls far short of what Life is really about.
Thanks for the post! Good stuff to chew on!
Thanks for the reply!
Some of the issues you raise will be addressed in later posts on The Meaning of Life. But it might take a while!
For instance, a biological impulse to exist, I will argue, does not exist! All we have is our values. There's no "will to live". There's not even a biological survival instinct. So, in a way, "faith" as you put it is all we have.
I believe faith in gods causes harm, whereas the other kinds of faith you mentioned don't as much. Also, it's possible to lack faith in gods, but I don't know if it's possible to lack faith in the self, or something deep like that.
Just to mention one of the harms that I believe belief in gods - or specifically Christianity - causes: I believe it's possible right now, with adequate funding, to discover scientific immortality. However, for people who already believe in immortality, that would be a waste of resources. So, people are dying, in what could be described as a mass genocide, because people literally don't take death literally! So we have this paradox where you sit down with someone and try to convince them for hours that (scientific) immortality is desirable, and he just doesn't see why he should care: and that's the same person who believes in a religion that has immortality as one of its cornerstones, and it's one of the main reasons he believes, and finds comfort in, his religion.
To put all that differently, and more broadly: The hopes behind Christianity are valid. Who wouldn't want a perfect, just, all-good God, punishing the wicked, rewarding the good, etc.? But, if you believe such a being already exists, you're less likely to do everything you can to make the world a better place (why would you? heaven already exists), since at difficult times you can fall back on God, your big brother who will take care of the bullies that harass you.
So Nietzsche similarly, I think, saw Christianity as a kind of "deep sleep", or laziness, or a fake satisfaction of human desires, like Marx's "opiate of the masses".
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Alexander Alexis from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.