Analyzing the Merits of Religion in Frederick Nietzche and Iris Murdock's Work

Friedrich Nietzche's "Morality as Anti-Nature" alludes to the concept that to have restrictions and the Christian need for peace is a fallacy.

One of his ideas, being the need for enemies, in his words "Almost every party understands how it is in the interest of its own preservation that the opposition should not lose strength; the same is true of poser politics." In where he implies that the practice or activity of conflict is needed to absolve a meaning to one's own existence or merit in this world. That the presence of an enemy, be it that if it were imaginary or not, is necessary to make something else necessary. That he legitimizes the propagation of conflict, in order to achieve a worthy cause. He mirrors this unto an "internal enemy", being us, ourselves. That we have to fight and achieve and vie for position within this life, thereby make any sort of meaning to it. This can be assumed that he means competition among people, to effect change in a person, by making oneself better through conflict, or challenge. This, as however merit worthy it is for it's result of forced innovation and improvement, does not make it absolutely necessary to then make effect purposeful confrontation in near consistent basis, as Nietzche puts it.

He does, however, convey the continuance of the fight or to "keep on fighting", as well as impart a sense that it should occur naturally, where there is always an opposing force to any force applied. In a way, it's good that you should never give up even at such high risk or detrimental odds. But even if it were natural that something like a war does occur, it does not excuse the suffering of so many people- people that could very well be innocent of any wrong doing. That Nietzche is only defeating his own proposal or reasoning about conflict, by giving reason for imposed or orchestrated conflict. Meaning someone could cause conflict, just for the sake of conflict or for an ulterior aim. This is no where close to be being "natural", in that it takes a man to say someone else is an enemy for the sake of making one, rather than seek peace and defend that peace.

He fails to recognize that people, the human race, alone has no need to be assisted into conflict with others, because naturally people, in general , won't have the same opinion on any given issue, thus rise conflict. The real legit question is: about how far you would be willing to escalate such differences? Another idea of Nietzche, is that the "moralists" try to impose and have adhere to virtuous ideals to near impossible measures, and Nietzche sees this as more harmful than good. Nietzche paints man as being all encompassing, in that it is great by itself and divine. That to force any change is counterproductive to progress. It is true that mankind, through institutionalized religion has established doctrine or rules that would force people into uncomfortable self masochistic ritual, but this can be interpreted also as man's making institutional or ritualistic ideas conveyed into physical form, and taking it a step too far. That those who've went to give a message in a text, lecture, or has verbalized a thought, may have had the meat of their message lost in people's attempts in setting order to an established faith or set of principals.

On the other hand, when reading "Morality and Religion" by Iris Murdock, it becomes an argument for and against religion. Pointing out many the benefits as well as the many cons that are also associated with the issue of religion, and in a way, it takes a middle ground, leaving to the reader to decide the merit of religion itself. A particular idea is the fact that she legitimizes religion for the very fact that it has been "a well known well tried procedure of rescue" from one's self- from guilt, remorse, and obsessions of any kind. That was the "mystery of religion", in that it is "a source of spiritual energy". No matter whether the method is through lengthy ascesis (self imposed punishment) or through magical insta-salvation, or both, it helps the person to overcome. But there is also dire warning, in that religion itself may breed superstition and ignorance at some level, as well as be an enemy of morality, freedom, and free thought, "guilty of cruelty and repression" in it's most organized and institutional form. In a way, I think I can't argue totally otherwise, in that yes, religion should be taken with an educated and well informed mind as well as with a note of wariness. I think it would best make sense to always be wary of the preacher at the pulpit, because though he may be teaching directly from the same book; there is no question that it is only a matter of interpretation that a preacher could convey his or her agenda through a sermon.

Much of the reading, especially for Nietzche, there was much to argue against and contend in terms of ideas. In particular, Nietzche seemed to imply that having any moral background is a sign of weakness, and the inability of self control, which is true. And if it were possible that man can achieve a "super-moral and therefore a non-moral sphere" of consciousness, there would be no need for faith or religion, but that isn't the reality of the man kind. That the human race has many problems and has many shortcomings, despite much of what it is praised for and what it has achieved. Though his ideas seemed logical, it seemed as though he aimed to far, for himself, of a high goal, even to where his criticism of theologians of their standards seem rather unrealistic and perhaps to adverse. Whereas Murdock, who also had her criticisms of religion, made it clear that religion isn't an absolute necessity for those who can function without it, and if needed, can be of some use, but also inserted that it does have its problems. I personally think and feel that Murdock seemed the most agreeable in resembling to my own stance on morality. In that religion, like any other institution made by humans, is liable to failure and misuse, however well intention the cause may be.

There are people out there, in the world, that can function without a religion and not feel as though there is something missing in their lives and not miss a beat in whatever they are doing, and there are those who see it as a necessity. And for those who do have a need for religion, must, within an era and in a country consisting of many faiths, understand that all faiths have as much a right to exist as they do, be it better or worse. And that religion should not be a criterion to one's own judgment of other people of differing faiths or of the legislation of laws. What ought to be understood is that as a person, you can accept and reject both the best and worse of your surroundings, and interpret them in the best way you can with the best of your judgment. That to accept or reject certain principles taught to you by your family or your religion, and to come to a compromise, as much as society has come to compromise and accommodate for your beliefs. That the importance isn't the truancy of a story within the Bible or the Koran, but the merits of the lessons learned from those stories that you take with you, and the knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. Of what is acceptable and unacceptable within a society. That religion, as it is applied, does not work, and should focus more as more of a community center or meeting for that sense of community rather than as a podium to drive for certain aims, be it personal or not.

SOURCES:

• "Morality as Anti-Nature", Frederick Nietzche, A World of Ideas, Lee A. Jacobus, Bedford/St Martin, Boston, 2006
• "Morality and Religion", Iris Murdock, A World of Ideas, Lee A. Jabobus, Bedford/St Martin, Boston, 2006