16.
A criticism of the Christian concept of God leads inevitably
to the same conclusion.—A nation that still believes in itself holds fast
to its own god. In him it does honour to the conditions which enable it to
survive, to its virtues—it projects its joy in itself, its feeling of
power, into a being to whom one may offer thanks. He who is rich will give
of his riches; a proud people need a god to whom they can make sacrifices.
. . Religion, within these limits, is a form of gratitude. A man is
grateful for his own existence: to that end he needs a god.—Such a god
must be able to work both benefits and injuries; he must be able to play
either friend or foe—he is wondered at for the good he does as well as
for the evil he does. But the castration, against all nature, of such a
god, making him a god of goodness alone, would be contrary to human
inclination. Mankind has just as much need for an evil god as for a good
god; it doesn't have to thank mere tolerance and humanitarianism for its
own existence. . . . What would be the value of a god who knew nothing of
anger, revenge, envy, scorn, cunning, violence? who had perhaps never
experienced the rapturous ardeurs of victory and of destruction?
No one would understand such a god: why should any one want him?—True
enough, when a nation is on the downward path, when it feels its belief in
its own future, its hope of freedom slipping from it, when it begins to
see submission as a first necessity and the virtues of submission as
measures of self-preservation, then it must overhaul its god. He
then becomes a hypocrite, timorous and demure; he counsels “peace of
soul,” hate-no-more, leniency, “love” of friend and foe. He
moralizes endlessly; he creeps into every private virtue; he becomes the
god of every man; he becomes a private citizen, a cosmopolitan. . .
Formerly he represented a people, the strength of a people, everything
aggressive and thirsty for power in the soul of a people; now he is simply
the good god...The truth is that there is no other alternative for
gods: either they are the will to power—in which case they are
national gods—or incapacity for power—in which case they have to be
good.