THE “SPIDER OF PURPOSE”

In all history of human thought, the most compelling argument against God as the unquestioning answer to all questions facing man, was made by Nietzsche. It is contained in the following short passage of his final confession-autobiography Ecce Homo (Why I am so Clever, Section 1):

“God, immortality of the soul, redemption, beyond -- without exception, concepts, to which I never devoted any attention, or time; not even as a child. Perhaps, I have never been childlike enough for them? I do not by any means know atheism as a result; and even less as an event: -- it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questioning, too exuberant to stand for a gross answer. “God” is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers, at bottom only a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!”

God as the answer to all questions? Too simple, too crude!

Nobody who is familiar with how Nietzsche’s mind works, will accept this as a straightforward admission of him being an atheist. Too simple, too crude! This is rather a philosophical challenge thrown at the reader, designed to shock, in order to make the reader think. No wonder I have been repeatedly quoting portions of this amazing paragraph in various places, including earlier in this section. In my entry God As An Answer Versus God As A Question in the Nietzsche section, I will be quoting it again, in full, posing this pertinent question: Why should any philosophically-minded person consider God only as the answer, thus precluding all intelligent discussion, that necessarily includes questioning? Yes, it is true that most Christian Churches have historically held the position of You shall not question! which, indeed, amounts to Nietzsche’s abominable interdiction: You shall not think! But this is not an argument against God per se, but only against the misguided religious ban on philosophy, and on free thinking as such. But God himself would never have imposed such a ban on man. Quite the contrary, He has given man the most important tools for philosophical thinking, including the Freedom to doubt God’s own existence. It is therefore too hasty and inadequate to see God as an answer, whereas it would be much more challenging to see Him as a Question addressed both to Him by us and to us by Him (see my earlier entry Fiat God!).

But other than in this, no one should fight Nietzsche on his own turf: He is right, from his own perspective, and this is it. “Gott ist tot” doesn’t mean that God does not exist. It properly means that the God of religion has been destroyed in people’s minds by the failings of religion. Those who have read my explanation why the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 had triumphed in Russia, are familiar with my explanation regarding the necessity of saving religion in Russia by turning it into an object of harsh persecution, having been the key rationale of the Russian religious mystics in their wholehearted welcoming of the purifying fire of the 1917 Revolution. It is important, furthermore, to appreciate the consistency of the Russian religious mind deeply affected, mind you, by Nietzsche’s Gott ist tot, in having the déjà vu experience of the dead God, glorified in a promised, and inevitable, Resurrection.

Yes, I said it before and I will say it again that all later Russian thinkers and, most remarkably, the devout Christians and religious mystics, have found a particular affinity with Nietzsche, and a source of inspiration in his writings. Needless to say, I am included in their number, and, like them, who were, remember, by no means inclined to tolerate any kind of atheistic nonsense, I, too, see absolutely nothing wrong in what he is saying in the passage above.

There is, however, yet another passage in Nietzsche, superbly metaphoric, a masterful refutation of the so-called teleological proof of the existence of God, which, I confess, used to be the most compelling of such arguments to me, the argument concerning purpose. There has to be a Purpose in the Creation, it argues, ergo, there has to be a causality chain, from cause to effect, effect becoming cause of another effect, and so on, and, going backwards, to the “first cause,” we can identify it as “God,” therefore, God exists, quod erat demonstrandum.

The proponents of the teleological proof of God’s existence, seem to misunderstand the difference between an axiom and a theorem. In their estimation it is so easy to prove that one plus one equals two, that this is in fact a proven thing, whereas the problem is so basic that we have nothing more basic to back it up with, and without the latter we simply cannot prove anything. Anything truly basic in mathematics has to be accepted axiomatically; and in our case there is nothing more basic than the concept of God, therefore God cannot be proven either.

It’s hubris for us to assume that by attributing purpose to God we can turn him into the First Cause and thus solve the theorem of His existence. This is exactly what Nietzsche says in the passage, which I am about to quote, another particularly spectacular metaphor from him but not for God, mind you, but for our attitude to God, which is a world of difference apart from the blind misapprehension of a first impression:

“Our attitude to God as some alleged spider of purpose and morality behind the great captious web of causality, is hubris.” (From Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals; 3rd Essay #9.)

Nietzsche’s intrepid claim here must be taken seriously enough to demand a dramatic reconsideration of our attitude toward God. It goes without saying that there is nothing wrong with our approach to the “God of Religion” as the object, or, rather, the subject of worship. It is when we start to philosophize about God, that we are bound to become victim to the hubris of our own cleverness. That is why I see the need to rethink the philosophical concept of God to make it more consistent with His Absolute Unity and Universality which transcends all religions, and Nietzsche’s critique in the above quote of our proud hubris toward God provides me with additional encouragement.

And, above all, let us not forget that Nietzsche’s brilliance in every quotation is not intended to, and must not outshine our own original thinking. He offers us his personal perspective as a challenge to us, but there are other perspectives as well, and first and foremost among them is our own. As I have quipped elsewhere, let the fish enjoy its water, but let it not convince us to abandon the firm ground. We ought to address our criticism, and also present our counterarguments along these lines.