Why Nietzsche’s views on religion are flawed.
God is dead. When German philosopher Frederich Nietzsche made that statement back in 1882, he was referring to his belief that the enlightenment had disproven religion. According to Nietzsche, science had clashed with traditional Christian beliefs and therefore eliminates the possibility of a god. Nietzsche then goes on to say that this is not necessarily a good thing, as, for the most part, religion had provided humanity with certain values for them to follow, and fear of a higher power that would punish them if they didn’t comply with those values.
If you were to ask anyone who uses logic or rationalism in their thinking about how they make decisions, they would tell you that they first gather data from both sides, test that data against each other, and go with the option that makes the most sense. The problem with Nietzsche is that he took his minimal knowledge of a single branch of a single religion, and tried to generalize it for all theists. The enlightenment proved one thing in regards to theism; that the universe has laws that govern it.
But for many religions, they already knew that. Dharmic religions have been talking about the universe and its laws for centuries. In fact, not a single scientific fact or theory has disproven any dharmic belief systems, and if you trace abhrahamic religions back their core beliefs before all the different branches arose, you can generalize that statement for all religions. In knowing this, any rationalist would be hard-pressed to agree with Nietzsche in his belief that the enlightenment would disprove religion. He simply didn’t have enough data to make such an assumption.
Now, to give some food for thought, let’s assume that somehow all religions are proven false. Say we were able to find out what happens in the afterlife and we see that it doesn’t align with any religion. In this case, I would still make the argument that Nietzsche was false in his assumption that humanity would lose their morals.
Let’s imagine what such a world would look like. I think you would have three different groups of people. The first group would be the ones with blind faith. The ones who disregard science and choose to follow their religion otherwise. Let’s say they make up around 40% of the world’s total population (accounting for regions of the world without access to education or scientific information). For the most part, this group would maintain their morals. The second group would be nihilists. They would fail to see a purpose in life. After all, why live a life with good morals when you’re going to die the same way anyway? I think this group would also make up around 40% of the population. I also think a good chunk of this group would become suicidal, realizing the lack of meaning in their lives. They would certainly not maintain their morals. The third group, while still atheist, would take a more utilitarian stance. They would likely value societal utility over their own personal utility, and would therefore see value in helping others. I think this group would make up the remaining 20% of the population and would still maintain their morals.
So you have 60% of the population with good morals and 40% of the population with bad morals. But that last 20% could still be argued against. Who’s to say anyone would maintain their morals? Why wouldn’t everyone turn into nihilists? I think the answer to this question lies in history, specifically in the history of marxist revolutionaries.
Ah marxism, the creation of Karl Marx, and the failure of the Soviet Union. I think we can all agree that marxism is a flawed belief system, but for many people around the world, it seemed like a way out. One example of this is Bhagat Singh. An athiest, marxist revolutionary from Punjab. Bhagat Singh lived in an oppressive, british-controlled India. Seeing his community face death at the hands of the British ignited a spark within him to fight against them. He eventually gave himself up in order to bring light to his cause, at the expense of his hanging. During his time in prison, he wrote a book called “Why I am an Athiest”, where he goes into detail about the flaws of blind faith and religion in general. While his arguments and beliefs were flawed, it was his firm belief that god simply did not exist, and yet he still sacrificed his life for the freedom of his country.
Now why wouldn’t he just save himself? Why sacrifice yourself if you don’t believe in any afterlife or reward? Could it be ego? Maybe. But as he details in his writings, he believes it was his desire to support his cause that fueled his decision. An almost selfless act performed by someone with no expectation of a reward. According to Nietzsche, an event like this would likely not occur, and yet it did. Bhagat Singh’s story proves that morals don’t nessesarily have to come from a faith in god, but that they may also come from faith in a movement, cause, or humanity itself. In other words, the societal utility being greater than the personal utility is means enough to perform a selfless act.
But who knows, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m missing some key points in his argument, and if I am, please reach out to me and change my mind.
