Nietzsche opposed religion because religion allows people to muddle along

(translated from my Chinese blog)

This is my new project, “Nietzschean Philology”. In each installment, I’ll read a passage from Nietzsche’s original writings. By practicing text analysis, we can enhance our ability to understand the world.

"We Philologists" Section 3. Nietzsche’s critique of religion foreshadowed his later slogan “God is dead”. But unlike modern people who always refer to science, Nietzsche criticized not only religion but also the arrogant attitude of modern people toward religion. The masses, who once used religion as a way to avoid their responsibilities in life, now overthrow the old idols and erect a new “idol” called “the people”, thereby continuing to avoid their responsibilities.

The more strict religions require that men shall look upon their activity simply as one means of carrying out a metaphysical scheme: an unfortunate choice of calling may then be explained as a test of the individual. Religions keep their eyes fixed only upon the salvation of the individual . whether he is a slave or a free man, a merchant or a scholar, his aim in life has nothing to do with his calling, so that a wrong choice is not such a very great piece of unhappiness. Let this serve as a crumb of comfort for philologists in general; but true philologists stand in need of a better understanding: what will result from a science which is "gone in for" by ninety-nine such people? The thoroughly unfitted majority draw up the rules of the science in accordance with their own capacities and inclinations; and in this way they tyrannise over the hundredth, the only capable one among them. If they have the training of others in their hands they will train them consciously or unconsciously after their own image. what then becomes of the classicism of the Greeks and Romans?

The points to be proved are--

(a) The disparity between philologists and the ancients.

(b) The inability of the philologist to train his pupils, even with the help of the ancients.

(c) The falsifying of the science by the (incapacity of the) majority, the wrong requirements held in view; the renunciation of the real aim of this science. 

"We Philologists" 3, Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by J. M. Kennedy 

In his first statement, Nietzsche made no attempt to hide his hostility toward religion. But what were his reasons? Was religion unscientific? Useless? Hypocritical? Only the last point seems somewhat relevant. Nietzsche argued that religion assigns an ultimate goal and purpose to life—a “metaphysical” goal. The most common example of this is the Christian concept of heaven. As a result, everyday life becomes merely a backdrop for that ultimate, transcendent world. It’s like a “test” to determine whether one is worthy of entering heaven. What one does in this world, and to what extent, doesn’t really matter.

So, continuing from the previous two sections on making wrong career choices, Nietzsche also pointed out the most common way people try to avoid facing this issue: religion. In the first half of your life, due to a lack of understanding, you choose a career that doesn’t align with the purpose of your life. In the second half of your life, when you gain enough understanding, you realize that you made a wrong choice. What to do then? Either, as mentioned in the first section, “I’ve sailed along fine all along, but in the end, my ship sank.” This is the secular approach. Or, as mentioned here, “After all, I’ve worked hard in my job for many years and have repented of my sins. I deserve to go to heaven.” Even if I can’t go to heaven, it has nothing to do with whether I made the right career choice or not. Both approaches involve completely separating the goal of life (its meaning) from the process of life (choosing a career).

The question here isn’t whether heaven actually exists or not, but rather that heaven itself has become a means for people to avoid taking responsibility for their own lives. By placing the meaning of life in some otherworldly realm, one can avoid all personal responsibilities in this world. There’s no need to wonder whether one has truly pursued the career that’s most suitable for them. There’s no need to worry about one’s incompetence at work, nor to confront the inherent elements of luck in life. As mentioned in the first section (We Philologists 1), only those who are extremely lucky manage to pursue their “destined” career. To address this issue of luck, the most straightforward approach is to adopt the concept of eternal reincarnation. This was exactly what ancient people did. Almost all ancient civilizations believed in a cyclical view of history, believing that human life continued in a cycle, just like the seasons. Modern people, influenced by Christianity’s linear view of history, have rejected this concept of cycles. In other words, modern people don’t try to deal with the issue of luck in life by dwelling on endless cycles of repetition. Instead, they seek to eliminate the concept of luck altogether. They transfer the meaning of life from this world, which is filled with chance and uncertainty, to the “other world.” After all, the easiest way to achieve a life with definite values is to deny and to escape.

This psychological pattern isn’t unfamiliar at all. When faced with life decisions that aren’t completely certain, yet are crucial to one’s survival, people often don’t try to confront them bravely or handle them calmly. Instead, they simply bury their heads in the sand, pretending that the problems don’t exist. They create a “perfect world” for themselves and convince themselves that this perfect world is more real than the messy and imperfect reality around them. This is precisely why Nietzsche opposed religion. Religion pulls people away from the real world, allowing them to give up their own efforts to understand life and just to muddle along.

The hostility toward religion is also evident at the end of the first paragraph: “...[the masses] will train them consciously or unconsciously after their own image.” This is a mockery of God’s act of creating humans in His own image as described in the Book of Genesis. In other words, the masses have replaced Jehovah of the Old Testament as the new “god” of our time, and they will exercise tyranny over those who do not obey them. While opposing religion in the name of science, they yet revert to religious practices, thereby suppressing individual freedom to the greatest extent possible. After mocking this new “god” in the form of the masses, Nietzsche certainly wouldn’t lament those “people blinded by religion” (which Marx did). Nor did he show any sympathy for that “one percent.” What really mattered to him were the classical teachings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Why, those are just texts from over two thousand years ago!

Why did Nietzsche value these ancient things so much? Weren’t the ancient people more superstitious than we are? But Nietzsche criticized religion not because science opposes superstition, but because religion suppresses the vitality of the times. The purpose of studying the ancients is to revive that vitality. Modern people live in a fragile and illusory sense of security, unaware and unwilling to confront the possibility of sudden death at any moment. The ancients, however, had no means to protect themselves from the cruel world around them. They faced this cruel reality every day (the God of the Old Testament reflects this cruel reality). In other words, the ancients were braver and more aware than modern people. That’s why they believed in a “physical” view of history as a cycle, rather than a “metaphysical” view of history as progress.

The criterion for being “awake” isn’t about how much one believes in science or opposes superstition. After all, people today have already developed a far too superstitious attitude towards science. The real criterion for being awake is taking responsibility for one’s own life in the real world. No one knows whether there will be a next life, and no one can guarantee the existence of heaven or hell after death. The only thing we can be certain of is this lifetime. That’s why, in Nietzsche’s view, life’s calling become the central issue.

Linguists specialize in the study of ancient peoples. But Nietzsche said that there’s a “disparity” between linguists and ancient people. It’s like the difference between Chopin and Rubinstein. Rubinstein’s performances are like additional “flanking buildings” added to Chopin’s “temple.” No matter how brilliantly Rubinstein interprets Chopin’s music, he’s not actually expressing himself; he’s expressing Chopin. Rubinstein is an expert on Chopin, but Chopin isn’t an expert on anyone else. Chopin is simply himself.

We modern people, aside from living on the “crumbs” left by our ancestors and trying to become experts in various fields, who among us actually has the ambition or desire to simply be someone, without striving to become an expert on someone?