I had an online chat with a 'freethinking' Darwinist friend who believes that people believe in God to fulfil some psychological needs and somehow that shortcircuited their reason. Basically this is an excerpt:
In fact, I do agree with most of the things you said... Freud's analysis of religion as man's attempt to subdue fear of natural forces ie storm, by giving such elements a personality that can be negotiated, manipulated and pacified etc. Marx's analysis of religion as tool of oppression, opium of the masses.
Jesus reserves his harshest words for the oppressive religious leaders of his day. And the prophets' term for projecting our psychology on God is "idolatry", making god in the image of man or a creature.
You're right that most (if not all) people come to a discussion table 'deeply in love' with his/her own view, the atheist not excluded. I dun expect people to dialogue with a blank sheet... and since a worldview is intensely personal, neither do I expect them to be disinterested, uncommitted observers. Even talking abt football and share market can evoke lots of passion... since God is so much more than a set of cold propositions to be debated, I think I can accept the 'desire' if it doesn't skew the mind's thinking beyond warrant.
Psychology gives some pretty interesting answers to the question, "If there's no god, why are there religions?" But to convict a criminal, we've got to go beyond motives… we've got to offer evidence. Let's say that my pastor lost his bible and I happen to be a bible-freak, so I have sufficient motivation to steal it. But to prove that I did steal it, we have to go much further than psychology.
In response I'd throw in 2 cents...
Firstly psychoanalysis can be used against the atheists just as easily as studies also show that the desire to kill the father-figure and be autonomous provide motivation for rejecting God. Marx and Nietzsche are examples of people having a bad childhood experience with Daddy. Could it be that atheists resent the moral responsibility attached to God's existence so much that Darwinism has to be true because 'they desire it to be true'? "They are so desirous of autonomy apart from God that they wouldn't have it any other way? It would be unthinkable to think even for a moment that God does exist?" So the analogy of the fat lady who rationalizes away the chocolate cake works very well for the non-theist as well.
Secondly, if I were to invent a deity that would comfort, make me rich with a jackpot, love and protect me, the God of the Bible would be the last invention I'd make. I mean, look at Him... absolutely holy in the moral sense that puts my moral failures in such a bad light... you can't negotiate with Him to judge us based on a curve... you can't hope that He would change His mind... or escape His all-knowing gaze (atheist Sartre's idea of hell is being watched by others) I'd rather go for some pantheistic Force which is impartial towards good or evil... when I feel small in the vastness of an impersonal universe, I can get a boost from being ONE with the divine energy... when I did something against my conscience, it's OK... a force cannot be a judge... nothing to prick my conscience there. That wud be perfect!
Why create a god so terrible that he traumatizes my conscience to escape from the much lesser fears of life? Pressing the point a lil' further... I agree with you abt the indictment of some theists who let their thinking cap down when it comes to religion (I've made similar point in my church) but I’d suggest that the atheist has the reverse problem of not being able to live consistently with his intellectual beliefs... ie. if God is dead, there is no universal moral law... only human-made conventions... but try to cut queue in front of an non-theist and he'd wax eloquent abt why you *should not* do that. Why should I be expected to obey his conventions?
As for social Darwinists who try to explain morality in evolutionary terms, I'd like to point out the horror of how Hitler borrowed some Darwinism in Mein Kampf. For example, he talked about contamination of superior genes of the Arian with inferior races through inter-marriage, about survival of the fittest and might-is-right morality clothed in Roman Catholic terminology for good measure. I mean, if everything came about by ‘chance’ plus time plus matter, there can be no moral absolutes to live by.
In fact, I do agree with most of the things you said... Freud's analysis of religion as man's attempt to subdue fear of natural forces ie storm, by giving such elements a personality that can be negotiated, manipulated and pacified etc. Marx's analysis of religion as tool of oppression, opium of the masses.
Jesus reserves his harshest words for the oppressive religious leaders of his day. And the prophets' term for projecting our psychology on God is "idolatry", making god in the image of man or a creature.
You're right that most (if not all) people come to a discussion table 'deeply in love' with his/her own view, the atheist not excluded. I dun expect people to dialogue with a blank sheet... and since a worldview is intensely personal, neither do I expect them to be disinterested, uncommitted observers. Even talking abt football and share market can evoke lots of passion... since God is so much more than a set of cold propositions to be debated, I think I can accept the 'desire' if it doesn't skew the mind's thinking beyond warrant.
Psychology gives some pretty interesting answers to the question, "If there's no god, why are there religions?" But to convict a criminal, we've got to go beyond motives… we've got to offer evidence. Let's say that my pastor lost his bible and I happen to be a bible-freak, so I have sufficient motivation to steal it. But to prove that I did steal it, we have to go much further than psychology.
In response I'd throw in 2 cents...
Firstly psychoanalysis can be used against the atheists just as easily as studies also show that the desire to kill the father-figure and be autonomous provide motivation for rejecting God. Marx and Nietzsche are examples of people having a bad childhood experience with Daddy. Could it be that atheists resent the moral responsibility attached to God's existence so much that Darwinism has to be true because 'they desire it to be true'? "They are so desirous of autonomy apart from God that they wouldn't have it any other way? It would be unthinkable to think even for a moment that God does exist?" So the analogy of the fat lady who rationalizes away the chocolate cake works very well for the non-theist as well.
Secondly, if I were to invent a deity that would comfort, make me rich with a jackpot, love and protect me, the God of the Bible would be the last invention I'd make. I mean, look at Him... absolutely holy in the moral sense that puts my moral failures in such a bad light... you can't negotiate with Him to judge us based on a curve... you can't hope that He would change His mind... or escape His all-knowing gaze (atheist Sartre's idea of hell is being watched by others) I'd rather go for some pantheistic Force which is impartial towards good or evil... when I feel small in the vastness of an impersonal universe, I can get a boost from being ONE with the divine energy... when I did something against my conscience, it's OK... a force cannot be a judge... nothing to prick my conscience there. That wud be perfect!
Why create a god so terrible that he traumatizes my conscience to escape from the much lesser fears of life? Pressing the point a lil' further... I agree with you abt the indictment of some theists who let their thinking cap down when it comes to religion (I've made similar point in my church) but I’d suggest that the atheist has the reverse problem of not being able to live consistently with his intellectual beliefs... ie. if God is dead, there is no universal moral law... only human-made conventions... but try to cut queue in front of an non-theist and he'd wax eloquent abt why you *should not* do that. Why should I be expected to obey his conventions?
As for social Darwinists who try to explain morality in evolutionary terms, I'd like to point out the horror of how Hitler borrowed some Darwinism in Mein Kampf. For example, he talked about contamination of superior genes of the Arian with inferior races through inter-marriage, about survival of the fittest and might-is-right morality clothed in Roman Catholic terminology for good measure. I mean, if everything came about by ‘chance’ plus time plus matter, there can be no moral absolutes to live by.
Comments