Nietzsche On Religion

One must admit, however, that religion is not a faultless part of our society. To some, religion does answer the question of “What is life’s meaning,” (as Nietzsche suggests)—but for many people religion offers no literal truths. And while religion may slow intellectual progress for some individuals—for instance, interpreting the Bible literally can cause one to the theory of evolution—it often does not. Also, I acknowledge that a life sans the comforts and joys of religion (and other numbing faculties) does seem appealing. I am not denying Nietzsche the appeal of being perpetually mindful. However, the notion that one taints his life irrevocably by occasionally using a numbing outlet is severely judgmental. One need not have been wholly conscious
I think this is an egregious stretch: partaking in one activity does not reveal anything conclusive of a person’s nature. This also defies basic psychology. It is human nature to be dissatisfied. Psychologists have proven this via the adaptation level theory, which shows that people adjust their happiness levels to whatever situation they are exposed to. In other words, newfound happiness fades to an average baseline happiness. One can see that the happiness (or, more aptly, the reduction of worry) religion offers is adapted to as well. It not as though people can awaken every day and rediscover religion and be flooded by elation and peaceful
His main argument and premises are not diluted by the jump in reasoning he makes in his conclusion. His goal is largely achieved as readers are reminded to pursue the nobler aspects of life: wisdom and self-knowledge. So while suggesting that partaking in numbing activities means that one is living a less value-rich life is rash and pedantic, it does not destroy his argument. Also, an undesirable byproduct of this conclusion is that most people have a religious faith and/or enjoy numbing aspects of life, such as drinking, so Nietzsche’s work may be rendered unrelatable to a large segment of the