He sees religion as intensely nihilistic – it’s all about denying life and being negative. Nietzsche feels that the New Testament is also like that.
We have to go beyond this. If Christianity and Schopenhaur are based on denying life we must go to the extreme – affirm the world and life.
Nietzsche contradicts himself here. He says that Christianity denies life, but earlier he said that if believing in God gave a poor man some home and helped him live a better life, then he should carry on believing it.
If you pursue pessimism far enough you might find optimism but the only way to move on from concepts like God and religion is to get complete acceptance and affirmation of everything in the world which must come about from our will to keep everything just as it is.
He wants to get to a world where these concepts mean little to us – we’ll go beyond it.
One factor of Christianity that Nietzsche dislikes is the symbol of the cross. He says we have lost the radicality of the vision of the cross and take it for granted.
Nietzsche wants us to think about it. Worshipping a man on a cross, humiliated is not powerful for us or for the God we are worshipping. It is unique of Christianity and Nietzsche doesn’t like it. We used to sacrifice things to God, now God is sacrificing himself for us – and we are still worshipping him even though he is bringing himself down to our level.
Christianity is based on a paradox of God on a cross because the two things are opposites but now they are seen as the same thing. It brings the two together -- the Cross equals humiliation and God equals what is worshiped and powerful. God himself becomes sacrificial and we shouldn’t be worshipping someone who is willing to sacrifice his power.
It symbolises the essence of Christianity – sacrifice of all freedom, self-mutilation and self-mocking. The turning of will to power against itself. Nietzsche characterises self-mutilation as a mental illness.
When you see religion there are three things associated with it – solitude, starving and sexual abstinence are praised. In all religions these three things occur.
We don’t know whether religion causes these or vice-versa or if there's no cause and effect at all but they do mark religion.
Christianity marks Sainthood. He says the saint is he who can renounce his will. How is this possible?
The saint comes from belief in opposites – good from evil. The saint is a bad one who’s become good. someone who becomes good is based on the idea of pure oppositions. Nietzsche doesn’t like this – why do people follow the saint?
Philosophy has been anti-Christian because it has made us question the soul. Even Christian philosophers undermine Christianity eg. Descartes. Before people believed in souls like they believed in grammar. The modern philosopher has put doubt in his belief in grammar. It makes us question our belief in grammar and without realising we've dismissed our belief in souls.
Nietzsche talks about the ladder of religious cruelty which has many rungs, but he focuses on three:
- The sacrifice of the most beloved person.
- Then they move on to sacrificing what's strongest in themselves (what the saint does) – that is your instinct.
- By the third stage all you’ve got left to sacrifice is God himself
Nietzsche thinks religion can have some advantages for people. For example, it avoids the will to escape and reinforces people’s authority which is ideal for masters. It is a means for overcoming resistance for the masters. It provides lessons in self-disciplining and self-mastering for the masters which are indispensable for those who want to become masters or who are rising on the social scale and for ordinary men it provides a comfort. If you live your life in drudgery, it gives your life meaning and purpose it would otherwise lack.
However, it becomes disadvantageous if religion is the sovereign ie., religion is an end in itself as opposed to a means to an end. It is OK if you exploit religion but not good if you believe it yourself.
Nietzsche also says that religion preserves what should die out, such as the weak and ailing.
One objection to Nietzsche’s critique of religion is to question whether his critique is philosophical. It glosses over the most important aspect of religious belief – whether it’s true or false. Are his remarks any more than a series of psychological or sociological observations? Nietzsche’s account focuses on the motives of believers, but philosophically speaking, what’s most important is the truth or falsity of a belief, not the motive for holding it.
A counter-argument to this would be to say that it doesn’t affect everything he says about religion and religious believers if God exists or not. It depends on your definition of philosophy if God exists or not. Nietzsche is attempting to create a new kind of philosophy in which psychology and sociology are important components.
Another argument against his critique is that he views religion from the outside, so doesn't this make it a one-sided story?
But obviously Nietzsche will think that his critique is one-sided. He is a perspectivist. Why is a view from outside any less valid than a view from inside?
Is the ladder of religious cruelty a complete account of religious development. What about a sacrificing himself for humanity? This doesn’t get mentioned.
However we could say that Nietzsche rejects that because he obviously doesn't believe in God and insofar as God is ‘one of the suffering’. This confirms Nietzsche’s negative view of religion / Christianism.
Nietzsche said that religion shouldn’t How can religion not be an ‘end-in-itself’ for religious believers?
A counter-argument to this would be to say that religion as an instrument is not a religion.
