Friedrich Nietzsche: Not The Devil In Disguise

I've been reading and thinking a lot about Friedrich Nietzsche lately.

Nietzsche does not enjoy a good press among Christians. Those Christians who have any knowledge of his work tend to think of him as one of the great 19th Century humanist bogeymen, a vitriolic anti-theist who vilified the church, mocked faith, and made such outrageously provocative statements as "It's indecent to be a Christian these days" and, more famously, "God is dead".

So it's hardly surprising that Christians tend to take a dim view of Nietzsche. But I have a somewhat different view of poor old Friedrich; indeed, I think he is one of the most misunderstood and wrongly maligned figures in human intellectual history. And the reason why I hold this view is grounded in the social and historical context in which he operated.

By Nietzsche's lifetime, the church, in Europe and elsewhere, had come to be seen not as the agency through which society was challenged and renewed, but as one of the pillars of the establishment supporting the status quo. The church was middle-class, complacent, and conservative, smugly assured of its own moral superiority, and deeply suspicious of any move toward change or re-ordering. The country parson with his butterfly collection, the metropolitan priest with his well-made house, the bishops and prelates with their palaces and political privileges: all these were viewed as emblematic of a church that was out of touch with the reality in which most people lived, and indifferent to the fate of those for whom it should have been caring.

So it comes as no surprise that Nietzsche's devastating critique should have burst into this insular, self-satisfied world with the force of an exploding bomb. This was especially the case given he was himself the son of a clergyman; and although Nietzsche was devoted to his father, and later paid for a beautiful headstone to be laid on his father's grave, in which was inscribed a passage from 1 Corinthians 13:8 - Love never dies - Nietzsche was excoriated by the Christians of his time. Indeed, in the parish registry that records his birth, someone later wrote: Friedrich Nietzsche - a known anti-Christ.

But was this fearful, demonising reaction warranted? True, Nietzsche wrote many harsh and uncompromising things about Christianity, much of which can be arguably viewed as excessive or overstated. But within this excess and overstatement lay a core of legitimate criticism overlooked by Nietzsche's detractors; indeed, they often failed to see that this over-the-top style itself served an important purpose.

Firstly: what was Nietzsche's principle objection to Christianity? Well, he didn't object to Christianity as such, he objected to the platitudes and home-spun homilies to which he felt conventional, unthinking faith gave rise. For example, Nietzsche argued that traditional Christian consolations that experiences such as sickness, failure, and suffering were "all part of God's plan" or "would turn out for the best" were highly destructive, because they involved a denial of life and prevented humans from achieving their full potential. Nietzsche based this objection on his principle that the truly healthy person does not seek to avoid or minimise suffering or hardship, nor do they even accept it as part of the reality of being; instead, they actively embrace "negative" experiences as part of the totality of existence, a totality that needed to be engaged with as a whole in order for a person to live a truly happy life.

Nietzsche argued that the "religion of happiness", the view that happiness is either the absence or minimisation of suffering, was implicit in traditional Christian consolations. By arguing that negative experiences were all "part of God's plan", Christians of the conventional variety denied humans their capacity to respond to the vicissitudes of life, and thereby caused themselves and others to lapse into apathy and lassitude. Likewise, by suggesting that everything would "turn out for the best", they provided false comfort that only exposed people to even greater suffering once "the best" did not eventuate. Nietzsche argued that a far better approach was be to meet suffering and hardship head on; that instead of tying to console ourselves, we should appreciate the value of hardship, its capacity to add meaning and fulfilment to our lives. This was the attitude to life which Nietzsche attributed to the "superman", a concept later misappropriated and warped by the Nazis to justify their theories of racial superiority.

Nietzsche compared the complacent, self-satisfied Christianity of his own time with the faith of the early church. He argued that the early church, in its attitudes, had been much closer to the "superman", the truly healthy human being, because it enabled people to engage with life and deal with suffering in ways that added meaning to existence. By contrast, the conventional Christianity Nietzsche saw around all around him was content with platitudes and maxims that unhealthily restrained human nature, restricting its capacity to wrestle with suffering and emerge as something greater than it had been previously. In other words, Nietzsche believed that Christianity could only have value if it was direct, vigorous, and muscular, instead of timorous, conventional, and apathetic.

Secondly: what was the point of the hyperbolic language in which Nietzsche often couched his criticism? Simply, it was to get a reaction. But a reaction not for the purpose of attention-seeking or self-aggrandisement; on the contrary, Nietzsche was trying to rouse those whom he saw as fatally asleep, and he felt the best way he could do this was to alert Christians, through the medium of harsh language, to the existential danger of their condition. Nietzsche felt that once they were awake, and once they had sufficiently recovered from the shock of waking, they would be able to rationally analyse their position, and thereby be motivated to change their approach to life and faith.

Alas, he was only partially successful. He certainly shocked many Christians out of their complacency; but they never really got over the experience. Instead of turning the energy of their shock into reforming Christianity, they utilised it to attack Nietzsche and denigrate him as an "anti-Christ" and a subversive. Well, he may certainly have been a subversive, but it was a subversion that was desperately needed.

And how is any of this relevant today? Quite simply because there has been much discussion among Christians (and people of faith generally) as to how they respond to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins, and their loud and vociferous attacks on faith and religion. Some argue that they should be simply ignored. But I think this would be a mistake for two reasons; one, because it would leave the intellectual field to Dawkins and co, and I don't think they deserve it; and, two, because sticking our heads in the sand would do an injustice to both ourselves and our critics. Others believe we should use Dawkins' and Hitchins' own weapons against them, and deal insult for insult, gross generalisation for gross generalisation. But I also think this, too, would be a mistake, because descending into the sewer of ignorance is, ultimately, an ineffective weapon; you only end up tainting yourself.

So how should we respond? Quite simply, by adopting a Nietzschean approach, by becoming "supermen" who engage with and embrace our critics, who wrestle with their criticisms and incorporate them into our life experience in order to become something greater than the sum of our parts. That does not mean we must meekly accept any old calumny which Dawkins or Hitchins choose to throw at us, nor that we refrain from arguing back or pointing out the flaws, errors, inconsistencies, and downright untruths of their position. Rather, it means that we should see Dawkins and Hitchins not as our enemies, but as people doing us a great and necessary service; for beneath the hyperbole and prejudice are legitimate criticisms that should spur us to reform and renewal - without in any way compromising our opposition to their anti-theism.

Afterall, it was Karl Marx, that arch-atheist of all atheists, who, writing about Nietzsche, declared: "Shame on you, Christians! Shame on you that it took an atheist to demonstrate to you the essence of your own faith!".

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: Philosophy is common sense in a dress suit. (Oliver Braston)