1. Friedrich Nietzsche An insight into his attitude towards religion through Westphal Secularism Enlightenment Marx Yes Yes Kierkegaard No No Nietzsche Yes No

2. What does Nietzsche say about religious belief? FUNCTION/PURPOSE/FOUNDATION/RELEVANCE Nietzsche’s contemplation of the function behind religious belief derives from the ‘slave revolt in morals’, the way in which religious belief incorporates self-interest and self-deception to an extent in which moral superiority is based on the internal corrupted workings of the fundamentals concerned with religious workings. The purposes of religious belief, according to Nietzsche were wrong because… -We must go beyond the simple Christian idea of Good and Evil -There is no universal morality -Christianity is the morality of paltry people as the measure of all things. -It is the morality of a herd, a slave morality. Thus he believed a Christian’s morality, a slave morality, was killing everyone. The smugness of western society was maybe his biggest motivation to handle the intellectual hammer. Our culture generates weak and decadent tendencies. Our culture is closed for really free minded autonomous individuals. We live in a moral of slavery. Nietzsche is strongly opposed to the idea that people are determined or limited due to race or other physical / cultural aspects. The real Ubermensch is someone who understands that there is no God and there is no Life after dead. And he or she has to live his life the best way. Make all of it and accept your Destiny and live life if you have to live this life for ever and ever again.

3. What does Marx say about religious belief? Man created religion to explain stuff they didn’t know “comfort blanket” as there was a greater seperation of classes religion became means for rulers to justify the system, bourgouise. Religion’s purpose is to create illusiory fantasties for the poor “opium of the people” therefore preserving political and economic status quo. For Marx “Religion is primarily a matter of social privilege seeking legitimation and of the oppressed seeking consolation” Marx added with his theories an insight about the structural inequality between social classes in western capitalistic society. The lower / poorer classes are being exploited by the rich ones. These differences resulted in cultural differences too. according to Marx, religion is opium for the poor. It is used as a instrument by the wealthy to control the hard working poor. Although we think we are sophisticated in the end economy (money) is leading regarding to the most (political) decisions.

4. How does Westphal use them in his article? Westphal’s depiction of Nietzche’s beliefs are highlighted in paragraph 18 following Marx in paragraph 17 which states the two as involving “self-interest and self deception” being “basic themes in the hermeneutics of suspicion”. Westphal uses Nietzche and Marx to follow on from Hume’s dissatisfaction with historical Christianity but shifts the focus from the social to the psychological implications of religion. In regards to Nietzche, his progression from what Westphal explored through Hume critiques even the kernal of religion, religion is problematic and the source of social implications. Moving away from ‘dissatisfaction’ to ‘disregard’, as if Westphal is showing the progression in philosophising about religion to anti-theism. Nietzche’s concept of “the slave revolt in morals” addresses the matter psychologically, he suggests a pattern in which religion follows in order to please one’s own self wants as “divine perfection” is defined as the one who will punish our enemies’ he suggests the manipulations man can pose because of follows these ‘rites’ in according to slave morals. “Seeking revenge”. Nietzsche writes that the philosopher “has a duty to suspicion today, to squint maliciously out of every abyss of suspicion.” Westphal describes Nietzsche’s goal as one to demonstrate how belief in God could arise and acquire its weight and importance. This is why his critique is called a genealogical. Need for religion, much as in Marx, arises out of sociologically conditioned drives, and out of a spirit of resentment, Christianity is born. Even Reason comes under suspicion, because he sees the Enlightenment Rationalist project as an ersatz god through which secularism seeks to salvage as much of god as possible. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NIETZSCHE AND KANT.

5. Differences between each other and Hume Marx and Nietzsche both assert that religion is a fraud in the present tense. In the case of Marx; religion exists solely as a way to control the masses. It has no inherent truth. For Nietzsche, God is gone now, and religion is just a habit. The difference is; Nietzsche believed that God was real, but just in the past tense. Marx doesn't believe that God ever existed at all. In relation to the article, Marx depicts religion like a drug, used for humanity where as Nietzsche is more concerned with its slave driven fundamentals. In comparison, Hume is concerned with the irrationality of the husk where as Nietzsche disregards all concepts of religion. Hume = “problem might not lie at the very heart of religion and not in the disposable husks” “Piety is primarily a flattering of the Gods grounded in selfish hopes and fears” “sacred is nothing but means to its own end” IMPLICATIONS What makes religions different is the irrational husks, how can you say Christianity consummates religion? Universal Religion  IMPLICATION The separation of the kernel from the ‘irrational husk’ could make religion itself less appealing to the masses. Evolving society, need for this husk to reach intrinsic value, embellishment needed?

6. IMPLICATIONS OF MARX, NIETZSCHE AND HUME IMPLICATIONS What makes religions different is the irrational husks, how can you say Christianity consummates religion? Universal Religion The separation of the kernel from the ‘irrational husk’ could make religion itself less appealing to the masses. Evolving society, need for this husk to reach intrinsic value, embellishment needed? Belief in Marx and Nietzsche would lead to mass of non-believers, this “comfort blanket” would be non-existent, nothing to strive for? Could lead to collapse of community values associated with religion, striving for equality without the rules and paths religion strives for so much?