← Back to Library

Religion and nothingness

Stephen West of Philosophize This! challenges the modern assumption that religion is merely a crutch for the weak or a transactional ticket to heaven, arguing instead that its true power lies in a radical, ego-dissolving confrontation with nothingness. While most discourse treats faith as a tool for comfort or social cohesion, this piece posits that authentic religious experience requires the terrifying dismantling of the self—a concept that feels increasingly urgent in an era defined by algorithmic isolation and utilitarian thinking.

Beyond the Security Blanket

The commentary begins by dismantling the two most common, yet shallow, perceptions of faith. West notes that skeptics often view religion as "a type of mythology that simplifies reality down for scared, weak people that either are too busy or unwilling to affirm reality in all of its complexity." This framing is effective because it acknowledges the validity of the critique before pivoting to a deeper layer. The author argues that even the devout often miss the mark, viewing their faith as "the one and only ticket they have to salvation" rather than a transformative practice.

Religion and nothingness

West draws on the work of Keiji Nishitani to suggest that both the atheist dismissal and the believer's transactional approach suffer from the same flaw: they view religion through a lens of utility. "These are all attempts to describe what religion is by framing it in terms of its utilitarian function, or in terms of what use it serves a particular person or to a society," West writes. This is a crucial distinction. By applying Martin Heidegger's concept of "technological enframing," the piece argues that modern society has reduced even the sacred to a resource for self-improvement or social stability. The commentary lands hard here, forcing the reader to ask if their own spiritual life is merely a sophisticated form of ego maintenance.

Critics might note that dismissing the "security blanket" function of religion ignores the genuine psychological comfort and community cohesion it provides for millions, potentially alienating those who find solace in tradition without undergoing a mystical crisis. However, West's point is not that comfort is bad, but that it is incomplete.

The Emptying of the Self

The core of the argument shifts from what religion is not to what it could be: a "reformulation of the self and its whole relationship to its reality." West describes a profound internal movement where an individual transitions from a dualistic worldview to one where the self is "emptied" to reveal an "interdependent network of being." This is not a gentle adjustment of habits; it is a fundamental restructuring of consciousness.

A religious quest truly begins then for Nishitani when you stop framing religion and the world around you in terms of 'What use does this serve to me?' and start framing it in terms of 'For what purpose do I exist?'

This distinction is the piece's most potent insight. It reframes the religious quest from a quest for answers to a quest for a new mode of being. West illustrates this with a sharp, perhaps provocative, observation of modern churchgoers: "Far from this being a weekly exercise in rethinking the self and its relationship with the world, for a lot of people this becomes an emboldening of the self and the ego." The author suggests that many religious practices have become a way to "wield" authority and shut down complexity, rather than embrace the mystery of existence. This critique is biting but necessary, challenging the reader to distinguish between performative piety and genuine transformation.

The University Analogy

To address the baggage of the word "religion," West employs a striking analogy comparing modern religious practice to the modern university system. He notes that for most, college is "essentially personal salvation for the career world—I'm just doing it for the certificate on the wall so I can make more money." Yet, we do not discard the concept of the university because of this; we recognize that a small percentage of students engage in a "transformative experience" that connects them to an intellectual tradition.

Similarly, West argues, religion remains the unique gateway to this specific relationship with being, even if the majority of practitioners are only skimming the surface. "It would be silly for us to not use the word religion, call people contemplatives or some [other term]," the argument implies, because the structure of the tradition itself is designed for the deep dive, even if few take the plunge. This defense of the terminology is strategic, preserving the historical weight of the concept while acknowledging its current dilution.

Bottom Line

The strongest element of this commentary is its refusal to let the reader off the hook with a comfortable definition of faith; it demands a confrontation with the "nothingness" that underpins true spiritual maturity. Its biggest vulnerability lies in its potentially elitist tone, which risks alienating the very communities it seeks to elevate by labeling their experiences as "shallow." Readers should watch for how this framework of "emptying the self" applies to non-theistic spiritual practices, as the piece hints at a universal human need that transcends specific dogmas.

Sources

Religion and nothingness

by Philosophize This! · · Read full article

Hello everyone. I’m Stephen West. This is Philosophize This!

Practically everyone has heard of when Nietzsche declared that God is dead at the end of the 19th century. And when you hear a statement like that it can sound like it’s something that’s hostile towards religion.

Imagine Nietzsche jumping up from his desk river dancing on amphetamines. Religion is stupid. It’s outdated. It leads people to lives that aren’t good for them or the world.

But as we’ll see by the end of this post, through the eyes of someone like Keiji Nishitani, the statement God is dead is not an anti-religious statement in any sense. In fact, to him it is a foreshadowing to what you could call a golden age of religious participation that may come about in the near future.

It’ll make more sense by the end of this.

And the way we get there is to talk about religion along the same lines that we talked about nihilism in the last post. Remember to Nishitani, it’s a mistake to only consider a piece of what something is to people, and then to pretend to understand the essence of the thing in its entirety.

We talked about how it’s possible to have a shallow relationship with nihilism and death, and how it’s possible to experience these things more deeply if you examine the ways that people usually frame them in an incomplete way.

Well, what would happen if we did this same thing when it comes to religion?

For the sake of covering as many sides of this as we can today let’s start with what an atheist might say about religion in the kind of world we live in.

Similar to the person from last time that sees nihilism as a problem to be solved, this person might think of religion as something that’s mostly just a security blanket for people.

That religion is obviously a sociological construct designed to not only control people but to give people easy answers to difficult questions in a complicated universe.

Things like morality, for a religious person under this view, aren’t difficult problems—just listen to what God has to say about it and then it’s objective and easy.

Who you are, identity, isn’t a complex or difficult thing—just read the book of Job or Matthew and it’ll more or less tell you who you should be.

In other words, ...