What to make of Friedrich Nietzsche

As Timothy Robinson points out in his introduction to this chapter, Nietzsche makes some very vexing points, but provides very little argument to support them. This makes the meaning of his ideas ambiguous and calls for broader examination.

It seems clear that Nietzsche means to suggest that religion is nothing more than a mere tool to help the weak exert control over the powerful. This takes a purely psychological view and presupposes that God does not exist. What are we to make of this? Does he have the wrong idea? If he is right and there is no God, is a search for greater morality really so bad, and does it necessarily mean that the weak are only trying to gain a moral high-ground and a righteous superiority to allow them to debase and overthrow the powerful? The weak may be guilty only of attempting to find meaning in a life that they ultimately have little or no control over, searching for means to rise above the resentment that is caused by their poverty in comparison to the wealth of the powerful. If he is wrong and God does exist, then he is obviously neglecting, among many things, the pursuit of purity of the soul, boundless peace, and everlasting life.

Nietzsche also makes the striking claim that “God is dead” and that we are responsible for his murder. What exactly does he mean? Is he alluding to the idea that we are replacing God with science and looking for answers in the observable world and abandoning the teachings of divine creation? Why not say that God provided us with science to give us yet another path to discover and become closer to Him? Is he implying that religion as a vehicle of control is responsible, virtually killing God before He had the chance to be in the first place? His view on religion as a tool has problems already discussed and does not fundamentally prove the destruction of God. Perhaps he means that Priests, through the hate he so adamantly believes they bear, have corrupted and destroyed God, but that, again, appeals to his view that religion is simply an apparatus of supremacy. It is very apparent that God is alive and well and we see the evidence of such every day. While there are still many misguided individuals that do terrible things and claim to do so in name of God, there are countless more that do great things in God’s name as well. This proves that God, at the very least as an idea, is not dead. If, however, Nietzsche is right and God is dead, is it really the promising situation that he declares it to be? He states that the death of God is not a frightening and dark thing, but a good thing. Something that allows a new beginning and chance to see things in ways we never have before. While that may be true, if we accept that God is dead then we must certainly see things differently, is it really better? God provides solace and insight to many and there is no precedent that proves that the absence of God would be an improvement to their lives. Conversely, there may be much to gain by removing the constraints of God from our thought, as Nietzsche suggests.Without God, we may be able to achieve the moral autonomy proposed by Rachels, which is something that I believe Nietzsche would hold in high regard.