NIETZSCHE AND NIHILISM: THE DENIAL OF OBJECTIVE TRUTH

 Nihilism is basically the same thing as moral relativism and postmodernism. They all deny the objective reality of any moral or spiritual truth. Instead, they are just a matter of what we subjectively choose for ourselves. The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, said it this way:

• “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”  

However, this statement and all of the statements of postmodernism are logically incoherent; they don’t make any logical sense. How so? Nietzsche had claimed that there was no “correct way.” However, by making this dogmatic statement, he had claimed that there was a correct way – HIS way!

Well, what is his way? His insistence that the correct way “does not exist!” (How does he know this?)

I’m not picking on his wording or phraseology. The incoherence is part of his nihilistic postmodern worldview. He asserts that everything is personal and subjective. However, in order to make this assertion, he must resort to using an objective statement of truth, something he claims that we cannot do.

How do you talk to someone like Nietzsche, and there are many Nietzsches around? I would simply ask him:

• Are you absolutely and objectively certain that a “correct way… does not exist?”

If he answers “yes,” then I would point out that:

• Well, doesn’t your assertion just reflect your OWN thinking?

If, instead, he answers that “no” and that he is merely just expressing the way he feels or sees things, then I would respond:

• If this is just the way you FEEL, well, who cares!

The Hubris to Judge: Moral Relativism and Secularism

 

The more Western culture rejects its Christian roots, the more we will hear disparaging remarks like:

·       The Bible is no basis for morality. Just look at the treatment of gays, women, and the Canaanites. The Bible should not be taken seriously by anyone!

In effect, they are saying:

·       The Bible does not agree with our modern norms and values. Therefore, it is wrong and must be rejected.

Instead of the Bible, the current norms have become the new authority and every other religion or value system must be measured against these current norms. If they fall short, then they must be rejected.

This “tyranny of modernity” is no less dogmatic than the values that they seek to replace and, in many cases, it is more intolerant. Just look at a recent Federal decision to criminalize schools that forbid a boy, if he deems himself “transgendered,” to enter a girl’s bathroom. The entire school is made to conform to the whims of one child. Reasonable? Not in the slightest!

This cultural/moral relativism is unreasonable in many ways. For one thing, this philosophy is a denial of any higher, absolute values. Instead, relativists claim that morality is just something that we create. And yet, they will defend their decisions by invoking an appeal to innate human rights – that Transgenders have an innate human right to choose any bathroom that feels right to them.

Well, what gives them this human right if there is no higher objective law to which we must adhere? If instead morality is subjective – just something that we create – how then is it possible to appeal to the higher principle of an intrinsic human right when, according to their own assessment, none actually exist.

If there is no God to confer human rights, based upon His overriding concern for humanity, then “human rights” is just an idea that we create, and if we create it, we can just as easily retract it. Consequently, “human rights” are just a useful and temporary tool to argue for our own set of non-existent rights.

In fact, such human rights advocates acknowledge that the values of society are evolving. Therefore, this made-up concept of “human rights” is also evolving. But if it is evolving and based on nothing more than societies passing whims, then on the basis of what can the relativists claim that the morality of the Bible is wrong? All they can coherently say is that the Bible violates their own created standards.

It is like grading a math exam and failing certain students despite the absence of and  correct answers. As the teacher needs correct answers in order to fairly and objectively grade an exam, the relativist also needs objectively correct moral laws to judge the Bible. However, they admit that they lack such a thing. Instead, they admit that they judge by a relative and subjective standard of their own liking.

It’s equivalent to the teacher saying, “I don’t have any correct answers, but I will fail you anyway!” This is the predicament of the relativist. He wants to judge, but with only his own arbitrary and subjective answers, he knows that he cannot judge.

It would be one thing to say, “I don’t like the morality of the Bible.” Logically, at least, that statement is acceptable. However, when the relativist charges that the morality of the Bible is wrong because it doesn’t conform to his subjective, relativistic, and evolving standards, he is acting illogically. If his moral standards are merely something that he created, he has no right to insist that others conform to them!

If fact, if  morality is just something that is humanly created, then they cannot coherently criticize anyone, not even Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Of course, the moral relativist will not admit that his subjectivism has placed him outside of the realm of responsible moral discussion. Therefore, the Christian should remind him:

·       You cannot make objective critiques of the Bible’ standards once you have rejected objective moral law and are left with only your own created standards.

Postmodernism, Logic, Love, and Truth

As soon as you mention something about “truth,” feathers begin to fly. You’ll hear responses like:

1. The only truth is change itself.
2. Everyone’s got their own way. It’s not a matter of one-size-fits-all!
3. The idea of truth is just too rigid.
4. The only truth is what is true for you alone!

We live in a postmodern age. Consequently, these statements seem to be so well-established that they are beyond questioning. They are as acceptable as the statement, “I exist” or “I like chocolate.”

However, postmodern thinking has become so much a part of our culture that it is as familiar and unnoticeable as the ocean is for a lobster. We have become so comfortable with this worldview, we fail to see that these assertions are illogical.

For instance, if the only truth is change itself (#1), then this statement is also subject to change and therefore contradicts itself. Therefore, this assertion cannot be true, at least not for long!

Statement #2 also contradicts itself. If “everyone’s got their own way” and there is no truth that is common to all of us, then this statement also is illogical, because it too is a statement of truth that pertains to all. Meanwhile, it rejects the notion that there is any truth that does pertains to all, while asserting the “truth” that it is all simply relative.

Statement #3 is equally illogical. If “the idea of truth is just too rigid,” then this statement is also too rigid, since it too is a statement of truth.

Statement #4, while claiming that we cannot assert what is true for other people (only what is true for us), implies that this principle is true for everyone, thereby contradicting itself.

The problems of incoherence do not stop in the realm of ideas. They also infiltrate our lives like stealth ninjas. For instance, just about everything that we say is a truth statement. Just think of the following instances:

1. That was a great movie.
2. My son goes to a wonderful school.
3. Bill is really a nice guy.

All of these statements have embedded value judgments. They suggest that, according to a universal standard, there is something objectively of value about the movie, school and Bill. However, if you were to press the postmodern about these implicit objective standards, she would retreat and redefine what she had stated:

• I only meant that I really enjoyed this movie. I’m not implying that there is anything superior about this movie.

However, this is the very thing that her statement implied. In fact, we cannot but speak in terms of objective truth statements. If we instead reduce all of our statements to merely personal feelings and tastes, we also reduce life and make it unlivable.

One guy tried to do this in regards to our conversations. When I would make truth statements, he would correct me:

• You can only speak for yourself and your own feelings. You can’t speak of truth in general, because, when you do this, you are also speaking for me, and I won’t allow you to do this!

Do you see the incoherence here? While forbidding my truth statements, he invoked many of his own, even requiring us to submit to the same rules. He eventually terminated our conversation.

However, the problems don’t stop here. One postmodern young lady informed me that she had recently found the meaning of her life. She would now devote herself to loving others.

I applauded her commitment to this noble cause. However, she then reassured me that her decision had nothing to do with truth or the inherent virtue of love. Instead, it was all about what personally worked for her! Consequently, she refused to say that what she had found had any relevance for anyone else, since everyone had to find what was right for themselves.

I therefore asked her:

• Since you do not believe in any objective moral law or the inherent goodness of love, do you tell these people that your intention is not really to love them but love yourself?  After all, you stated that you committed yourself to this cause because it works for you and not because of any higher calling. Therefore, isn’t you commitment inherently selfish? And, in order to be transparent, wouldn’t you have to tell the “objects of your love” that you are merely acting out of selfish motives?

How can love be love if it is done primarily out of selfish concerns? Can I pledge myself to my wife for only as long as the marriage works for me? In a world where there is no truth, there is also no real virtue, integrity, honor, justice or anything else that we cherish. Instead, everything is reduced to whether or not it works for us.

When I contrasted her stance with my Christian orientation, she replied, “That’s just too rigid for me.”

In a sense, she is right. Truth is rigid. It makes demands on us and tells us when we go astray, but we need truth nevertheless. I need to know that, when I’ve morally failed and feel the weight of guilt, that my Lord forgives and cleanses me from all of my filth (1 John 1:9). Without this confidence, I would remain consumed by my feelings of guilt and shame.

When I share this with others, they usually respond, “Well, that’s just your faith!” I retort that it’s not a matter of blind faith but substantiated faith. I need evidential assurances that God forgives me. I cannot believe simply because it makes me feel good. For my faith to give me the joy and confidence that I need, I have to be assured of its truth.

How will this postmodern young woman be able to maintain her love commitment once it stops feeling good to her and no longer works for her? I don’t think that she will be able to! We need to not only feel that something is “right”; we also need to be convinced that it is truly right. Only this kind of conviction will carry us through! Otherwise, we retreat into the unstable and juvenile life where feelings alone reign.

Can God Do All Things?

Sophists are people who deceptively used logic to derive illogical conclusions. They’d often do this to stump and confuse their opponents. We have no shortage of sophists today. Here’s a popular piece of sophistry:

• If God can do anything, can he create a mountain so large that he can’t move it?

The “logic” goes like this: If God can’t create such a mountain, then He can’t do anything. If He can create such a mountain that He can’t move, then, here too, He can’t do anything. Conclusion: He can’t do anything!

At first glance, there doesn’t seem to be any way out of this conundrum. However, there are many of these “logical” conundrums. Take this statement: “I always lie.” If this statement is true, then it refutes itself. If the liar “always lies,” then this statement is also a lie. If this person doesn’t “always lie,” then this statement remains a lie. Consequently, it’s always a lie and can never be true.

Nevertheless, it is logically possible that some people always do lie. And so why can’t the liar ever coherently state that he always lie? Well, he can by rephrasing the statement: “I used to always lie!”

Perhaps the sophist’s challenge against God must also be rephrased so that it makes some logical sense. In fact, the Bible itself would require some rephrasing of the sophist’s challenge. This is because Scripture is clear that, while God can do anything, He can’t do it in any way. He too is bound – by His Word, His promises, His character, and perhaps even by logic. This means that there are certain things that He can’t or won’t do:

• When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. (James 1:13-14)

Nevertheless, our God can do all things but these will be done in His way. You can trust Him entirely!