What for Nietzsche is the meaning of “The Death of God”?

What for Nietzsche is the meaning of “The Death of God”?

John Warren Antalika

2^nd Year B.A Philosophy

          “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him” [1]cried out the madman. If ever there was a statement that would forever bring to remembrance the life and work of an author, it is the latter. Friedrich Nietzsche is mostly remembered, both inside and outside the academic circles as the man who declared “The Death of God”. Nietzsche is without a doubt one of the most influential and widely read philosopher in the western world. His books are numerous and theses written on his works and life are abundant and continue to be so. Dr R.Albert Mohler said of Nietzsche in his book ‘Atheism Remix’ that [Nietzsche]… is one of the most celebrated figures in intellectual life today, a fact borne out by the sheer number of dissertations being written these days on Nietzsche…”[2] Although Nietzsche is widely known, yet he is one who is not highly revered, especially in the religious circles, Christianity in particular. A read of the beginning statement may explain why. His declaration that God is dead has caused decades of confusion over the real meaning behind it. Several papers have been written to present different nuances of this declaration, thus in this paper my aim is to present what Nietzsche meant behind the statement ‘The Death of God’ in light of the various interpretations. Finally in the end I shall posit the best way of understanding that statement. Just a note for the reader, when I use the word God, I am mainly referring to the Judeo Christian God.

.

We are first introduced to the ‘Death of God’ in Nietzsche’s book, ‘The Gay Science’. In book 3, section 125 entitled ‘The Madman’[3]. I think that Nietzsche meant a plurality of things when he made that statement. An understanding of the narrative is thus critical. Nietzsche begins by describing a madman entering the market place early in the morning yelling “I seek God! I seek God!”[4] The responses of those who were present at that instance were laughter and mockery.  This is a key passage for our understanding of this parable because firstly, we are specifically enlightened to the fact that those who were present in the market place “did not believe in God”.[5] Here we get a sense of the intellectual and epistemological conditions of the time as far as belief in God is concerned, particularly the Christian God.  In order to have an accurate understanding of Nietzsche’s most famous statement, I believe it is also critical to be aware of what sociologist would call the “plausibility structures” of thought of the time.

 

Plausibility structures are the socio-cultural framework of a society within which certain beliefs are credible to be believed in. For instance, in the pre-modern age, the existence of God was part of the structure of thought of the society. It would have been culturally inconceivable for someone to deny the existence of God because the conditions of beliefs were such that belief in God was necessary in order to make sense of the cosmos and everything in it. This is important to comprehend because Nietzsche lived in a time where those plausibility structures of thought were diminishing and l think completely diminished among the elites. Charles Taylor in his book ‘A Secular age’ makes the point that in the Western world, there have been three intellectual and epistemological phases in regards to belief in God, particularly the Christian God, which has shaped the society. The first one is “impossible not to believe”. [6]This is the period of time which we might refer to as ‘pre-enlightenment’ whereby it was impossible to not believe in God. In other words belief God was the axiom from which meaning, morality and anything pertaining to life and the cosmos were framed from. Furthermore, such beliefs were unchallenged since there were no rival theories to supplement belief in God as the explanation of everything.

 

The second phase that Charles Taylor clearly points out is ‘possible not to believe’. Charles Taylor wrote “Belief in God is no longer axiomatic. There are alternatives.” [7] This period of time would be the Enlightenment period where there was a rise in science and reason became the navigator of one’s life as oppose to adhering to revelation as the epistemological foundation. As a result of this intellectual and epistemological shift, the plausibility structures of the society began to change and there came rivals theories such as Darwin’s mechanism of Natural Selection as explanation for evolution which of course conflicted against the authority of the Bible. In reading the first part of the narrative, I think that Nietzsche was in a time where “possible not to believe” as a sociological phase was embedded in the society.

 

It is highly plausible that Nietzsche wanted to ensure that the reader had a sense of the reality that belief in God which was once the axiom of humanity ceased to be so, at least among the elites. The death of God in an ontological sense had already taken place in their mind. I think it is highly implausible to argue that Nietzsche was declaring that God does not exist. In fact Nietzsche in referring to the Death of God wrote, “The greatest recent event – that ‘God is dead’, that the belief in the Christian God has lost credence – is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe.”[8] Christianity as both a religion and a worldview was no longer credible. This is well expressed by Bernard Ramm who said “in a most general way the expression God is dead means the emasculation and evisceration of the Corpus Christianum. The Christian religion is no longer the presupposition of civilization”[9]

 

Christianity has been useful for society for a long period of time by given society values and a purpose to live by, on the other hand, with the rise of science, reason, personal autonomy, Christianity was no longer necessary. The fact that this occasion was a laughable matter for the atheist shows that not only was it no longer needed but it would be mad for someone to hold to it. It is interesting that they did not engage in a philosophical discussion to prove that God does not exist, they simply laughed. I think this again emphases the existence of God and an untenable belief to hold. Belief in God became so redundant it was a laughable matter. Charles Taylor third phase in his book “A Secular Age” is “impossible to believe in God” [10]and I think this is the plausibility structure that was beginning to take shape in the mind of the people, in particular the elites. To invoke God in any matter as the madman did would be totally mad and strange. Karl Marx famously said that religion is the “opiate of the Masses”[11] which thus must be taken out of the people and I think Nietzsche wanted to make it clear from the beginning that he was not trying to get the opiate out of the masses since they were already gone especially amongst the elites.

 

After this sudden intrusion from the madman Nietzsche writes: “The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? … Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”[12]  Here we have the famous quote from Nietzsche’ “God is dead”. It is important to establish at the beginning that Nietzsche was not making a purely theological claim. He was not asserting that God as a metaphysical entity died, since as any theologian would point out, God cannot die since He is eternal. Furthermore, Nietzsche was neither making an onto-theological claim namely that God as a transcendent being does not exist. The reason is simply because of the audience the madman was addressing – atheists. That being so, the question that comes then is why would the madman declare and emphasise that God is dead to those who already are in denial of the existence of such transcendent being?

 

On the other hand the claim I believe was metonymical. A metonymical claim is a concept or a name that is substituted for another which is closely related. When Nietzsche referred to the death of God he was, according to Graham Ward referring and I think rightly so to “Absolute Truth”, “Absolute Goodness”, “Absolute Reality”, “Absolute Reason”, “the origin and the measure of all things.”[13] If God is not longer the axiom of to what pertains to life i.e. meaning, purpose and values thus we are left with nihilism and furthermore as Dostoyevsky said “All things are permitted”.[14]

 

I believe Nietzsche claimed the death of God metonymically to those atheists because although as their essential a tenet is the claim that God does not exist yet they were living as theist. In other words, ontologically they deny the existence of God however they were living in accordance to that ontological premise. When one believes in the inexistence of the Christian God, essentially or by logical necessity, one has to also deny everything that hangs upon that premise. Any values, meaning and purpose that deductively come from that ontological premise must also be denied. I think is highly plausible that Nietzsche was trying to awaken those atheists to the ramifications and implications of their denial of God as a necessary being. This is well encapsulated in what Dr Albert Mohler mentions in a section of his book about the “Victorian Loss of Faith” whereby he states the British motto, “My mind is no longer a Christian even though my body is.”[15] Those atheists were living with the implied tenets of the Christian faith whilst rejecting the one from whom those tenets are deduced from.

 

The madman in declaring the death of God was trying to make those atheists realise what they have really rejected and where logically and ultimately that leads to. This is clearly evident as he metaphorically asked, “What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward in all direction? Is there still any up or down?…” What Nietzsche was emphasising is the reality that everything becomes relative as we have unchain God from reality. Therefore eschatologically we do not know where we are going. Once divine revelation was the source that gave people an eschatological hope, but now as that is gone we do not know where we are going. When the earth was unchained from its sun, objectivity was released with it too. Hence there are no such things as “up” or “down” in an objective sense. We are plunging in all direction because there are no absolutes, everything is relative. I believe this is what Nietzsche in a metaphorical sense was saying to those atheists of his day. They haven’t yet realised and comprehend the implications of their disbelief in the Christian God. In regards to morality, Franke William stated that “[Nietzsche] puts the choice before us: either God plus morality or no God and no morality. Since there is no God, the fate of morality is sealed… God, the prop of morality, has gone”[16] Martin Heidegger who looks at the death of God as the loss of the suprasensory ground and of all reality wrote “if the suprasensory world of the Ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above all its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself. That is why in the passage just cited there stands this question: “Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing?” The pronouncement “God is dead” contains the confirmation that this Nothing is spreading out. “Nothing” means here: absence of a suprasensory, obligatory world. Nihilism, “the most uncanny of all guests,” is standing at the door.[17] Here Martin Heidegger asserts and rightly so in my opinion, that the death of Death of God would inevitably take one to a sea of nothingness and those atheists had not think through those ramifications.

 

Nietzsche is also well known for his attacks on Christianity. In declaring the “Death of God” I think part of Nietzsche’s purpose was to liberate those atheists from the Christian values that negate life. It was clear to Nietzsche that those atheists were ensnared with Christian values. In his book “The Birth of Tragedy”’ Nietzsche wrote “Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in “another” or “better” life. Hatred of ‘the world’, condemnations of the passions, fears of beauty and sensuality…”[18] Nietzsche saw Christianity as a religion that negates life. Christianity with all its morality, rules and laws was an impediment to modern man. It had to go away in order to make way to this new intellectual age. Christianity in a sense was a barrier to the enlightenment and the progress of society. He later on wrote in his book the “Anti-Christ” that “Christianity has taken the side of everything weak, base, failed it; it has made an ideal out of whatever contradicts the preservation instincts of a strong life; it has corrupted the reason of even the most spiritual natures by teaching people to see the highest spiritual values as sinful, as deceptive, as temptations. The most pitiful example – the corruption of Pascal, who believed that his reason was corrupted by original sin when the only thing corrupting it was Christianity itself!”[19] Nietzsche knew that if he was to liberate people from the shackles of Christianity, everything pertaining to it must go. However those atheists were not helping whilst they still cloaked themselves with Christian’s apparels. They called themselves atheists but they were still operating within the Judeo-Christian framework. They were still living on the basis of the Christians values. Thus I think the death of God could also be seen from the point of view of Nietzsche trying to liberate people from the chains of Christianity by first appealing to the elite atheists to live in accordance with their atheism.

 

However, I think in the madman parable we see those atheists as not yet enlightened to what the madman was saying. The madman stated “There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us – for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.” However they could not comprehend this great deed and seeing that he was speaking in vain, he laments and says “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men.” Previously I mentioned that Nietzsche was looking forward to a “Post-Christian” culture whereby the tenets of Christianity are no longer the drives of people, whereby people are delivered from the shackles of Christianity,  however I think that near the end he sees this goal as not yet possible to be fulfilled. The ramification of this great deed will not yet come to pass. The lamentation from the madman could have been sparked due to the silence and astonishment of the listeners. They probably should not have been shocked since they were holding to the premise that God is dead.

 

To bring this essay to conclusion, I think that Nietzsche’s meaning of the “Death of God” have many plausible nuances which do not necessarily negates other interpretations. However, I think that understanding the “Death of God” in a metonymical perspective gets to the core of what Nietzsche was trying to articulate. The death of God in an ontological sense in the mind of people had already been pervasive in the society but what the existence of God encapsulate i.e. Absolute reality, values, meaning and purpose were still prevailing in people’s mind although the basis is denied. In a nutshell I believe Nietzsche in declaring the Death of God was trying to make those atheists understand that if God is dead therefore, so is morality, purpose, values and everything that pertains to life. As a result of that they have to shake themselves off of Christianity because of its negation of life. Thus it was necessary for Nietzsche to awaken those atheists out of captivity from Christianity in order that a “Post-Christian” might be ushered in for the liberation of humanity from that religion. Once that is achieved, there would have to be a revaluation of values and most importantly the discovery of foundation for those values.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Nietzsche Friedrich 1887, The Gay Science – Translated with commentaries by Walter Kaufmann: New York: Random House 1974

Mohler Jr, R.Albert. 2008. Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books

The Birth of Tragedy. Trans. Walter Kaufmann, in The Birth of Tragedy and The Case of Wagner. New York: Random House, 1967

Charles Taylor, A Secular Age – The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England, 2007

Ramm, Bernard. “The ‘Death of God’ Theology.” Is God ‘Dead?’ Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966.

Franke, William. “The Deaths of God in Hegel and Nietzsche and the Crisis of Values in Secular Modernity and Post-secular Postmodernity.” Religion and the Arts 11:2 (2007)

Heidegger, Martin. “The Word of Nietzsche: ‘God is Dead’”. The Questions Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row, 1977

Karl Marx, Marx’s Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843) trans. Andy Blunden. Oxford University Press 1970

Dostoevsky (1999) [1880]. The Brothers Karamazov. Constance Garnett, translator. Signet Classic.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols and other writings, ed. Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Cross References

[1] Nietzsche Friedrich 1887, The Gay Science – Translated with commentaries by Walter Kaufmann-pp 181

[2] Mohler Jr, R.Albert. 2008. Atheism Remix pp.22

[3] Nietzsche Friedrich 1887, The Gay Science – Translated with commentaries by Walter Kaufmann-pp 181

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid

[6] [6] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age – (The Belknap Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England, 2007) pp 3

[7] Ibid pp 3

[8] Nietzsche Friedrich 1887, The Gay Science – Translated with commentaries by Walter Kaufmann- pp 279

[9] Ramm, Bernard. “The ‘Death of God’ Theology.” Is God ‘Dead?’ Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966.

[10] [10] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age – (The Belknap Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England, 2007) pp 3-4

[11] Karl Marx, Marx’s Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843) trans. Andy Blunden. Oxford University Press 1970

[12] Ibid.

[13] Graham Ward, The Postmodern God: A Theological Reader. Blackwell Publisher 1997- pp. xxvii

[14] Dostoevsky (1999) [1880]. The Brothers Karamazov. Constance Garnett, translator. Signet Classic. pp. p. 312

[15] Mohler Jr, R.Albert. 2008. Atheism Remix pp.23

[16] Franke, William. “The Deaths of God in Hegel and Nietzsche and the Crisis of Values in Secular Modernity and Post-secular Postmodernity.” Religion and the Arts 11:2 (2007): pg 215,219

[17] Heidegger, Martin. “The Word of Nietzsche: ‘God is Dead’”. The Questions Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper & Row, 1977 p.p 61-62

[18] Nietzsche, Friedrich (1967) The Birth of Tragedy & the Case of Wagner, trans. Kaufmann, USA: Random House pp.23

[19] Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols and other writings, ed. Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman (Cambridge University Press, 2005) p.p 4-5