Best Christian responses to Nietzsche?

[CN_999]

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?

 

[Chesterton]

Other than what you mentioned I can't think of much, but here's a little essay by William Lane Craig, kinda basic, not real in-depth: The Absurdity of Life without God. And Fyodor Dostoevsky provides contrast to Nietzsche.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Other than what you mentioned I can't think of much, but here's a little essay by William Lane Craig, kinda basic, not real in-depth: The Absurdity of Life without God. And Fyodor Dostoevsky provides contrast to Nietzsche.

I don't think I'd use the essay by Craig in talking to atheists, unless you want to be chided for promoting the same fear mongering dribble that can easily be brushed away as the nonsense it is.

 

[FireDragon76]

I see Nietzsche criticizing impressions or caricatures of Christianity that mostly existed in his own mind. I'd psychologize the man to death to discredit him. A very flawed individual. Not all "politically correct". Maybe that appeals to some people (a certain angry young male atheist?), but there was little decent about the man. He was pretty misogynistic and icky, and died mentally ill, probably from syphilis.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I see Nietzsche criticizing impressions or caricatures of Christianity that mostly existed in his own mind. I'd psychologize the man to death to discredit him. A very flawed individual. Not all "politically correct". Maybe that appeals to some people (a certain angry young male atheist?), but there was little decent about the man. He was pretty misogynistic and icky, and died mentally ill, probably from syphilis.

I think an intelligent atheist is going to recognize an Ad Hominem fallacy when they see it...

 

[durangodawood]

I think an intelligent atheist is going to recognize an Ad Hominem fallacy when they see it...

Im afraid youre guilty of the Fallacy Fallacy.

That is: you are wrongly assuming the game is limited to rational argument, and so you wrongly presume that ad hominems are actually fallacies.

But in an appeal to intuition or emotion, ad hominems are excellent, especially if they are true.

 

[Chesterton]

Im afraid youre guilty of the Fallacy Fallacy.

That is: you are wrongly assuming the game is limited to rational argument, and so you wrongly presume that ad hominems are actually fallacies.

But in an appeal to intuition or emotion, ad hominems are excellent, especially if they are true.

Yeah you're exactly right. And theoretically if you could show the ideas came from a sick mind, you'd have to discredit the ideas. Like if you're ever in public and a stranger strikes up a conversation with you, and at first he seems normal, then he gets to going on about David Icke type stuff and you realize "this guys nuts!" and you'd discredit pretty much whatever he says. I think you can get away with being a "mad genius" type if you're creating something, like an artist or a poet or maybe even a scientist. But not a philosopher. If your business is solely thinking you've got to be thinking clearly about reality.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Im afraid youre guilty of the Fallacy Fallacy.

That is: you are wrongly assuming the game is limited to rational argument, and so you wrongly presume that ad hominems are actually fallacies.

But in an appeal to intuition or emotion, ad hominems are excellent, especially if they are true.

Nooooo, I'm not making the claim that since the original argument contains a fallacy that any conclusion must be incorrect (which is what the fallacy fallacy is). I'm saying that if you present any argument containing such an obvious fallacy to an intelligent person, they'll think you're an idiot.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yeah you're exactly right.

Exactly wrong actually...

And theoretically if you could show the ideas came from a sick mind, you'd have to discredit the ideas.

No, that exactly what you can't do.

 

[Chesterton]

Exactly wrong actually...

No, that exactly what you can't do.

Trying to decide if I want to debate the value of clear thinking with a person calling himself Todd Not Todd... No, I'll just say you can get your morals from madmen if you want and leave it at that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Trying to decide if I want to debate the value of clear thinking with a person calling himself Todd Not Todd... No, I'll just say you can get your morals from madmen if you want and leave it at that.

Lol. I'll accept that answer.

 

[FireDragon76]

... But not a philosopher. If your business is solely thinking you've got to be thinking clearly about reality.

Yeah, that's my point. Nietzsche was not thinking clearly most of the time. Character matters a great deal when you start making assertions about reality based on experience. And Nietzsche made a lot of assertions. Character is what the rhetors of ancient Greece called ethos, along with feeling and reason its important to making a good case for anything.

I think Dostoyevsky is excellent... but his vision of Christianity is much more "Eastern". That doesn't make it totally irrelevant but he's on the other side of the page from somebody like Craig. Lewis would probably be a good choice as well, there's a tremendous amount of depth to his work. Craig is basically one note, working from a conservative Reformed Baptist perspective. That doesn't mean he's not helpful, I took his arguments seriously at one time in my life.

You don't just want rational argument in any apologetic, otherwise you end up with the garbage that some Presuppositionalists in the Reformed camp churn out.

 

[variant]

Yeah, that's my point. Nietzsche was not thinking clearly most of the time. Character matters a great deal when you start making assertions about reality based on experience. And Nietzsche made a lot of assertions. Character is what the rhetors of ancient Greece called ethos, along with feeling and reason its important to making a good case for anything.

The reason you are critiquing what Nietzsche says is because his arguments were clearly influential and would not have become so were he regularly thinking in an unclear manner, so you if you go about it this way you are not only committing fallacious argument you are ignoring your task by disrespecting the seriousness of the subject.

If you think his assertions are incorrect and that is a good way to critique the argument then you are free to reveal where his assertions lack clarity.

 

[FireDragon76]

The reason you are critiquing what Nietzsche says is because his arguments were clearly influential and would not have become so were he regularly thinking in an unclear manner, so you if you go about it this way you are not only committing fallacious argument you are ignoring your task by disrespecting the seriousness of the subject.

I actually don't see how Nietzsche was all that influential. He inspired some German anti-semites and some Wagner and some angry white males to gravitate towards his rhetoric, but in the wider culture I believe people like Freud were far more influential than Nietzsche.

 

[variant]

I actually don't see how Nietzsche was all that influential. He inspired some German anti-semites and some Wagner and some angry white males to gravitate towards his rhetoric, but in the wider culture I believe people like Freud were far more influential than Nietzsche.

Then you simply don't understand the seriousness of the subject.

I'm not a big fan of Nietzsche but to say he didn't influence western thought is pretty off.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I actually don't see how Nietzsche was all that influential. He inspired some German anti-semites and some Wagner and some angry white males to gravitate towards his rhetoric, but in the wider culture I believe people like Freud were far more influential than Nietzsche.

"I am no man. I am dynamite." - Nietzsche

 

[FireDragon76]

"I am no man. I am dynamite." - Nietzsche

The average rock musician says the same type of stuff.

I see Nietzsche as less an influential philosopher and more a prophet of atheism. He grasped the implications of atheism in a way that secular humanism does not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The average rock musician says the same type of stuff.

I see Nietzsche as less an influential philosopher and more a prophet of atheism. He grasped the implications of atheism in a way that secular humanism does not.

That's what the religious often say: that he "grasped the implications." What they usually mean is that they have (mis)interpreted Nietzsche as a nihilist, when he actually connects religion to nihilism.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's what the religious often say: that he "grasped the implications." What they usually mean is that they have (mis)interpreted Nietzsche as a nihilist, when he actually connects religion to nihilism.

I don't see how religion can be equated to nihilism. To be nihilist means to believe that nothing exists, or that nothing of value exists.

But that quote from Nietzsche proves my point- Nietzsche was a rebel. He just chose to rebel against his childhood upbringing by engaging in polemics. If he was to be a proper rebel, Jesus had to be a wicked man who turned vice into virtue. From there, the rest of his philosophy follows.

I have similar issues with Kierkegaard, BTW. So much of early existentialism was dominated by angry males.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't see how religion can be equated to nihilism. To be nihilist means to believe that nothing exists, or that nothing of value exists.

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

But that quote from Nietzsche proves my point- Nietzsche was a rebel. He just chose to rebel against his childhood upbringing by engaging in polemics. If he was to be a proper rebel, Jesus had to be a wicked man who turned vice into virtue. From there, the rest of his philosophy follows.

I have similar issues with Kierkegaard, BTW. So much of early existentialism was dominated by angry males.

It's not his childhood upbringing per se. The subtitle to Twilight of the Idols makes clear his aim: "how to philosophise with a hammer."