Best Christian responses to Nietzsche?

[FireDragon76]

Or that, unless something is imbued with theological significance, it has no significance at all?

All other significance would be contingent and not ultimate. The only joy such a world would offer would seem to be gallows humor by comparison. Again, it's not surprising that Nietzsche went insane, the implications of his philosophy are disturbing. A philosophy where any amount of pain and suffering is justified in the name of getting rid of the vestiges of false, bourgeoise values.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All other significance would be contingent and not ultimate. The only joy such a world would offer would seem to be gallows humor by comparison. Again, it's not surprising that Nietzsche went insane, the implications of his philosophy are disturbing. A philosophy where any amount of pain and suffering is justified in the name of getting rid of the vestiges of false, bourgeoise values.

There you go: the nihilism comes from religion, particularly Christianity. The implications you find disturbing are the implications Nietzsche diagnosed in religion; the very symptoms he sought to cure.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have similar issues with Kierkegaard, BTW.

So where do you disagree with Kierkegaard?

 

[FireDragon76]

So where do you disagree with Kierkegaard?

He seems like a pretty messed-up, angry, bitter person making sweeping assertions. His rejection of the state church just strikes me as the same brash rebelliousness as Nietzsche, as well. A volatile mix of testosterone and bitterness. Not my thing. Though I admit, he had some important things to say, I just think... how he said it is as important as what he had to say.

 

[Resha Caner]

He seems like a pretty messed-up, angry, bitter person making sweeping assertions. His rejection of the state church just strikes me as the same brash rebelliousness as Nietzsche, as well. A volatile mix of testosterone and bitterness. Not my thing. Though I admit, he had some important things to say, I just think... how he said it is as important as what he had to say.

I see. The way something is said is important, true. So do you favor a state church?

 

[FireDragon76]

There you go: the nihilism comes from religion, particularly Christianity. The implications you find disturbing are the implications Nietzsche diagnosed in religion; the very symptoms he sought to cure.

I'm still confused how this is a sign of nihilism. Caring about peoples wellbeing is nihilism?

Remember, it was Nietzsche that wanted to throw away the values, even though they seemed to have worked OK for most people and kept the lights on in European culture. Nietzsche was just an odd ball because he couldn't get it on with the ladies, and decided to rationalize that into a philosophy of superiority, as many narcissists do.

 

[FireDragon76]

I see. The way something is said is important, true. So do you favor a state church?

No. But I'm not opposed to one either.

In Lutheran terms, I think Kierkegaard had crossed the line from piety into enthusiasm/zealotry. And his individualistic take on the Christian life is wrong on so many levels.

Dostoevsky is actually much more relevant to modern culture.

 

[Mediaeval]

Who would you recommend?

B. P. Bowne's Philosophy of Theism https://archive.org/details/philosophytheis00bowngoog anticipated Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and Jason Lisle's use of the argument from the impossibility of the contrary.

 

[Resha Caner]

No. But I'm not opposed to one either.

I am ... at least the theocratic version most intend.

In Lutheran terms, I think Kierkegaard had crossed the line from piety into enthusiasm/zealotry. And his individualistic take on the Christian life is wrong on so many levels.

If you mean zealotry in the sense of where Zionism took Judaism, I would agree. And I'm not one for individualism either. I only know bits and pieces of Kierkegaard, and my reaction is often a mix of good and bad.

Dostoevsky is actually much more relevant to modern culture.

I like Dostoevsky as well.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you mean zealotry in the sense of where Zionism took Judaism, I would agree. And I'm not one for individualism either. I only know bits and pieces of Kierkegaard, and my reaction is often a mix of good and bad.

Years ago I read a critique by a feminist, basically she said existentialists like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were all obsessed with things that typically only concern males, and there's very little of value for women here in their experiences of the world. Yet they make sweeping generalizations about human experience based on very limited data. I would tend to agree, and I would add they were just simply emotionally immature.

Kierkegaard seemed to have forgetten about the whole "Body of Christ" bit. I've found in my own spiritual life, it's the only authentic way to actually be Christian. I know that's very un-American, of course. Almost always, we receive grace and work out our salvation in the messy world of human relationships, not apart from them. In that respect, both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were wrong.



I like Dostoevsky as well.[/QUOTE]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm still confused how this is a sign of nihilism. Caring about peoples wellbeing is nihilism?

No, I don't recall saying that and I don't recall Nietzsche saying that.

Remember, it was Nietzsche that wanted to throw away the values, even though they seemed to have worked OK for most people and kept the lights on in European culture.

But they weren't working; that was Nietzsche's point. The culture was in decline, at least from his perspective, and many had already given in to the very nihilism he was scrutinising and would later (unfairly) be associated with.

Nietzsche was just an odd ball because he couldn't get it on with the ladies, and decided to rationalize that into a philosophy of superiority, as many narcissists do.

Whatever his motivations, they are irrelevant to judging the merit of his ideas. In any case, I don't think he was a narcissist.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nietzsche's critique of Christianity seems to be very popular in certain corners of the internet, especially among younger atheists. I wondered which Christian writers or philosophers you believe responded best to Nietzsche.

None. Your own response is superior to anyone else's.

 

[Tree of Life]

Nietzsche's critique of Christianity seems to be very popular in certain corners of the internet, especially among younger atheists. I wondered which Christian writers or philosophers you believe responded best to Nietzsche.

(They don't need to have responded to Nietzsche by name; if they address very similar questions using similar lines of argument, that might work as well. They might even use Nietzsche's concepts in furtherance of Christian arguments.)

The closest I've found are probably:

(1) Alvin Plantinga - briefly addresses Nietzsche by noting that his critique relies upon the factual assumption that God does not exist. To the extent that Plantinga successfully disputes this, Nietzsche's subsequent reasoning is mostly deflected.

(2) David Bentley Hart - Builds an indirect case against Nietzsche by reading his critique against the narrative background of Christianity's replacement of paganism. At one point, he uses Nietzsche's arguments to attack atheism on what appear to be pragmatic grounds.

(3) G.K. Chesterton - Chesterton's most famous writings share stylistic affinities with Nietzsche: a fondness for paradoxical epigrams and rhetoric, vivid imagery, Victorian/Edwardian social concerns, a "life-affirming" philosophy, and suspicion of abstract metaphysics. I've heard that Chesterton appeals to people from the same age brackets where Nietzsche finds most success.

Who would you recommend?

I never saw Nietzsche as making a concentrated, organized assault on Christianity. Even his work The Antichrist, which would be his most polemical, wasn't really a logical or evidential assault on Christian faith. It was more of an existential, emotional rant against the weaknesses he saw in Christianity.

Nietzsche was way too aphoristic and continental to mount a logical argument. What from him is troubling you?

 

[CN_999]

I never saw Nietzsche as making a concentrated, organized assault on Christianity. Even his work The Antichrist, which would be his most polemical, wasn't really a logical or evidential assault on Christian faith. It was more of an existential, emotional rant against the weaknesses he saw in Christianity.

Nietzsche was way too aphoristic and continental to mount a logical argument. What from him is troubling you?

Personally, nothing Nietzsche said is very troubling to me. However, I do encounter other people who take him seriously as a challenge to Christianity, and it's helpful to know what the best approaches are to answering (their understanding of) Nietzsche's ideas.

 

[anonymous person]

Nietzsche's critique of Christianity seems to be very popular in certain corners of the internet, especially among younger atheists. I wondered which Christian writers or philosophers you believe responded best to Nietzsche.

(They don't need to have responded to Nietzsche by name; if they address very similar questions using similar lines of argument, that might work as well. They might even use Nietzsche's concepts in furtherance of Christian arguments.)

The closest I've found are probably:

(1) Alvin Plantinga - briefly addresses Nietzsche by noting that his critique relies upon the factual assumption that God does not exist. To the extent that Plantinga successfully disputes this, Nietzsche's subsequent reasoning is mostly deflected.

(2) David Bentley Hart - Builds an indirect case against Nietzsche by reading his critique against the narrative background of Christianity's replacement of paganism. At one point, he uses Nietzsche's arguments to attack atheism on what appear to be pragmatic grounds.

(3) G.K. Chesterton - Chesterton's most famous writings share stylistic affinities with Nietzsche: a fondness for paradoxical epigrams and rhetoric, vivid imagery, Victorian/Edwardian social concerns, a "life-affirming" philosophy, and suspicion of abstract metaphysics. I've heard that Chesterton appeals to people from the same age brackets where Nietzsche finds most success.

Who would you recommend?

Ravi Zacharias is highly recommended. Zacharias, Plantinga, Turek, Geisler, McAlister, Craig, Copan etc. etc.

 

[anonymous person]

Personally, nothing Nietzsche said is very troubling to me. However, I do encounter other people who take him seriously as a challenge to Christianity, and it's helpful to know what the best approaches are to answering (their understanding of) Nietzsche's ideas.

The key is to understand there is no one best approach to what you are speaking of. It might be best with a younger person, to point out those who followed Nietzsche while young, but later in life expressed regret in having done so. It might be best for you when speaking with another, to briefly sketch out what Nietzsche actually believed and highlight his errors. So it will all depend.

 

[FireDragon76]

But they weren't working; that was Nietzsche's point. The culture was in decline, at least from his perspective, and many had already given in to the very nihilism he was scrutinising and would later (unfairly) be associated with.

Ok... but I still see Nietzsche alternative to nihilism, the "Will to Power" as a descent into a romanticized paganism that never was all that "life affirming". Life affirming for the strong and powerful, perhaps, but not for those on the margins of society or the weak and defenseless.

Probably a good rebuttal to Nietzsche would be the work of David Bentley Hart, particularly The Beauty of the Infinite , which is a work on Christian aesthetics.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The key is to understand there is no one best approach to what you are speaking of. It might be best with a younger person, to point out those who followed Nietzsche while young, but later in life expressed regret in having done so. It might be best for you when speaking with another, to briefly sketch out what Nietzsche actually believed and highlight his errors. So it will all depend.

The problem is that people like you don't understand what Nietzsche actually believed well enough, so you are not in a position to highlight his errors.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok... but I still see Nietzsche alternative to nihilism, the "Will to Power" as a descent into a romanticized paganism that never was all that "life affirming". Life affirming for the strong and powerful, perhaps, but not for those on the margins of society or the weak and defenseless.

That's one interpretation. But I'm not convinced that Nietzsche was intent on outlining a philosophy that advantages those who are already powerful.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's one interpretation. But I'm not convinced that Nietzsche was intent on outlining a philosophy that advantages those who are already powerful.

Could you please explain your interpretation of Nietzsche, then?