Nietzsche's Atheism vs. Contemporary Atheists: A Comparative Analysis

The debate over atheism often centers on contrasting philosophical and ethical frameworks. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, among others, promote a specific worldview called Ontological Naturalism. Meanwhile, Friedrich Nietzsche offers a more radically nihilistic perspective that challenges modern atheism. This article aims to elucidate the differences between Nietzsche's atheism and contemporary atheism, focusing on their motivations, philosophies, and implications.

Ontological Naturalism: Dawkins and Harris’ Worldview

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their contemporaries subscribe to the philosophical stance of Ontological Naturalism. According to this view, only science can provide credible knowledge, and the physical universe (matter, energy, space, and time) is all that exists. This position extends to deny the existence of the mind in its traditional sense, aligning with the ancient Greek notion of a "Mind" as the first cause or prime mover of the universe.

Nietzsche’s Nihilism: A More Radical Perspective

Friedrich Nietzsche stands out in the philosophical landscape of modern atheism due to his more radical and direct approach to nihilism. While contemporary atheists like Dawkins and Harris may have aspects of nihilism in their arguments, Nietzsche’s stance is more comprehensive and rooted in a deep philosophical understanding.

Relativism and Nihilism: Nieitzsche sees modern atheism as a form of relativism, which often leads to nihilism. Dawkins’ advocacy for relativism ultimately results in a lack of objective values, and Harris’ deterministic views further contribute to this nihilism. Absence of Universal Morality: Nietzsche argues that there are no good or bad actions, only interpretations. He challenges the very notion of moral absolutism, which is a central tenet of both religious and contemporary atheistic thought.

Nietzsche's Critique of Modern Atheism

In his work, Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche provides a profound critique of the modern approach to atheism. He identifies modern critics of Christianity as 'pale atheists, anti-Christians, immoralists, nihilists, and skeptics.' These critics, while seemingly opposing religion, still adhere to beliefs that are rooted in values and ideals, some of which are the very ones they claim to refute.

"These Nay-sayers and outsiders of today who are unconditional on one point2—their insistence on intellectual cleanliness these hard severe abstinent heroic spirits who constitute the honor of our age all these pale atheists anti-Christians3 immoralists nihilists these skeptics ephectic4 hectics of the spirit they are all hectics in some sense or other these last idealists of knowledge in whom alone the intellectual conscience dwells and is incarnate today5—they certainly believe they are as completely liberated from the ascetic ideal as possible these “free very free spirits” and yet to disclose to them what they themselves cannot see—for they are too close to themselves: this ideal is precisely their ideal too they themselves embody it today and perhaps they alone they themselves are its most spiritualized product its most advanced front-line troops and scouts its most captious tender intangible form of seduction—if I have guessed any riddles I wish that this proposition might show it!—They are far from being free spirits: for they still have faith in truth."

Nietzsche argues that these modern critics of religion still hold onto fundamental beliefs and ideals that they claim to reject. The pursuit of 'truth' is itself a belief based on faith, not a straightforward scientific fact. By placing the search for truth as a guiding principle, they are engaging in a form of faith.

The Irrationality of Belief in Truth

Nietzsche contends that the belief in the inherent value of truth is irrational. There is no scientific proof or empirical evidence to support the claim that truth is inherently beneficial or real. By assuming the value of truth, contemporary atheists like Dawkins and Harris are making unfounded assumptions that Nietzsche criticizes. Nietzsche argues that there are no absolute truths, and thus any belief in such truths is circular and contradictory.

Furthermore, the concept of ‘truth’ as a metaphysical entity is itself an assumption. Nietzsche suggests that this assumption is not verifiable and is merely a product of human thought and perception. Therefore, the dogged pursuit of truth as a value is itself a form of faith, which is incompatible with the atheistic claim of reason and objectivity.

Implications and Future Research

The implications of Nietzsche’s critique are significant. It challenges the very foundations of modern atheism, highlighting the inherent contradictions and beliefs that underpin the movement. Nietzsche’s ideas are particularly relevant to contemporary discussions on morality, ethics, and the search for meaning in a world devoid of god.

Further research could explore how contemporary atheism might evolve in light of Nietzsche’s critique. The debate between classical and contemporary atheism continues to be an intriguing area of philosophical inquiry, with Nietzsche’s work offering a profound and thought-provoking perspective.

In conclusion, Friedrich Nietzsche’s atheism offers a more radical and comprehensive critique of modern atheism compared to figures like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. His work challenges the very foundations of rational and faith-based beliefs, inviting us to question our most fundamental assumptions about truth, morality, and the nature of reality.