Showing posts with label practical atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label practical atheism. Show all posts

Thursday, February 17, 2022

“God is Dead”: What Did Nietzsche Mean?

The most widely known words of Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th-century German philosopher, are, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” What did Nietzsche mean by such a statement, and what relevance do those jarring words have for us today?  

What Nietzsche Wrote

Friedrich Nietzsche was born in 1844 in Leipzig, (now) in the eastern German state of Saxony. His father was a Lutheran pastor, and before his 20th birthday, Friedrich began studying theology at the University of Bonn with the intention of following in his father’s footsteps.

After one semester, however, Nietzsche lost his faith and stopped his theological studies. He wrote to his deeply-religious sister Elisabeth (b. 1846), ”. . . if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.”

(Sadly, Nietzsche was seemingly unable to grasp the fact that believing and inquiring are not mutually exclusive.)

Many years later, 140 years ago in 1882, Nietzsche authored a book published under the title Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, first translated into English as The Joyful Wisdom, but now, unfortunately, it is generally known by the title The Gay Science.

In that book, the “madman” spoke the above-cited words about God being dead. (They can be read in context on this website.)

Later in Thus Spake Zarathustra (which Nietzsche published in parts over several years, beginning in 1883), the central character exclaims the same words, “God is dead!”

But what did Nietzsche mean by having the “madman” and Zarathustra utter that shocking (at that time, if not now) expression?

What Nietzsche Meant

It seems quite clear that Nietzsche was not writing about the ontological existence (or lack thereof) of a supernatural being commonly called God in Western society.

Rather, Nietzsche was expressing his observation that the Age of Enlightenment had ended the centrality of the concept of God in Western European civilization and that the belief in the pivotal role of God in human affairs had ceased to exist (=been killed).

In other words, we might say that Nietzsche was one of the earliest thinkers to assert that secularism had become victorious over the Christian religion.

He was also a primary progenitor of postmodernism. Since God was now “dead,” he thought that there is no longer any basis for believing in a divinely ordained moral order. There are no absolute moral values. There is no objective truth.

Thus, Nietzsche’s thought led to nihilism, which he sought to counter with an emphasis on the importance of the subjectivity of individual persons. This is why he is also considered one of the most significant early proponents of what came to be called existentialism.

Why Nietzsche was Right/Wrong

In many ways, in his day as well as in this present day, God as the ultimate Being and ultimate concern seems to be “dead” to so many people who were reared in Christian homes and/or in an ostensibly Christian society.

There are many today, as in Nietzsche’s day, who give intellectual assent to the idea of God’s reality, but who live as if God does not exist. So in that sense, God is “dead” to them. This situation is what is sometimes called practical atheism.

There are distinct similarities—and vast differences—between Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard. (Some refer to the two seminal thinkers as if they were contemporaries, but Nietzsche was born the year Kierkegaard published one of his most important books, Philosophical Fragments.)

“Practical atheism” was certainly an apt description for many Danes in the 1840s and Germans in the 1880s—but perhaps no more so than for many North Americans and Western Europeans now. For many, there is religious form with little or no substance.

In the midst of rampant practical atheism, people can choose to follow Nietzsche’s proposal for creation of the Übermensch (Overman), who creates their own future without reference to traditional religious and/or moral beliefs.

Or we can choose, as one scholar wisely wrote, to see the “problem of religious downfall as . . . a chance to embrace the New Testament’s original teaching and return to a dynamic and living faith.”