The Confessions took a "Bridget Jones Diary" turn lately... so I'd not indulge in the misadventures i had in Bangkok last weekend and rein in more heavy-going stuffs today.
An agnostic friend in Cognizance once wrote: "The earliest religions were always polytheistic. There were great spirits inhabiting everything. There was lightning and thunder, so there had to be someone to do it.
That someone of course, since lightning is such a vast thing, must be a god. It's just a method of explaining things. Religions grew out of human need to know the unknowable.
The fact is that humans suffer spiritual agoraphobia. We can't stand wide open spaces. We're afraid to deal with the unknown. And so we invent something that's bigger than the unknown, and make him human.
But in the process religion the priests discovered that they could in truth rule the people by the threat of the God's displeasure. And they did. Religion was nothing more than a tool for control. And the people followed, were inspired, and fought like devils to get their king land, in the name of god... the result of which was a sudden interest in religion as a tool for conquest…
So, what is God? God is a creation of humanity to cover his spiritual agoraphobia. God is a creation of humanity as a tool for control."
I responded below, largely based on RC Sproul's Reasons to Believe:
"There is nothing original about this argument. Sigmund Freud, the psychoanalysis guy, came up with this theory - that religion is the product of primitive man’s imagination to help him cope with the elements he can’t control- like storms, flood and seasons. He needs to ‘invent’ a God he can negotiate with, bribe or flatter - some Deity who can explain and control these forces. But now, we know better than to believe these superstitions.
The second charge my friend gives is that religion is a tool of oppression.
Karl Marx gave a version of this theory. “Religion is the opium of the masses”
The powerful minority controls the poor majority by giving them this God who will reward them if they remain submissive. The ethic and after-life promise of religion keeps the majority from rebelling. Friend, there are numerous theories like these and we can’t possibly know them all but they all share a common argument...
A religious belief gets its beginning and power from psychological needs – be it fear of death, fear of revolution, fear of lightning, ad infinitum.
Here our friend speaks of the fear of the unknown or wide open spaces (agoraphobia) is the culprit. Again, it MUST be said, we do not contest that man has fertile imaginations and the ability to think up new religious theories.
Man does find comfort in religion, even in false ones. The prophets called it "idolatry", creating gods in our own image.
Religion has often been used as a tool of oppression so even Jesus condemned this practice among the Pharisees.
Does this in any way disprove theism?
Here our friend needs to display similar courage to maintain his intellectual integrity too. In EXACTLY the same way, he MUST ALSO admit that atheists and agnostics ALSO possess great speculative capacity to imagine weird theories to support their views.
During the Second World War, Hitler ALSO used his “God-is-dead” philosophy as a tool of oppression to justify his crimes. There are ALSO profound psychological, subjective reasons that motivate your friend to REJECT religion – maybe, bad encounter with hypocritical pastors or parents forcing religion down his throat, i.e. Marx was disillusioned by his “religious” parents and Nietszche had problems with father-figures in his life. (Paul Vitz)
The idea of a personal, Holy God may cause sinful man to be so burdened with a guilty conscience that he thinks up all kinds of theories to deny His existence.
Shall I then propose that atheism is just a product of man’s imagination to relieve his spiritual Deo-phobia (fear of God). And he needs to derive COMFORT from his theoretical postulations.
But does this in any way prove that atheism is false???
Actually, that is not a good refutation of theism or atheism!
Our friend assumed there is no God and then proposed theories to explain, “Since there is no God (assumption), why is there religion?” And I assumed there is God, and then proposed to explain, “If there is God (assumed), why is there atheism?”
Both arguments give us no proof to refute or affirm the existence of God. Both operated on presuppositions.
To illustrate using Sproul’s analogy, Pastor Joe took me to court for stealing his Bible last Sunday. If he can prove that I have the capacity and the motive to steal, he has a good case. I was in church on Sunday and I had been known to be a Bible-freak so I’m suspect.
But there could be a large number of people in church that day who ALSO had the means and motive to steal the Bible. In order to prove me guilty, the prosecutor must prove BEYOND the means and motives of the accused. He must show evidence that the accused actually did commit the crime!
So spending so much breath speculating on the origin of religion can devastate Christianity ONLY IF the we have ONLY ONE argument for God’s existence: namely, the existence of religion. But there are so many other reasons – moral, cosmological, ontological and from design, for example.
Why is God traumatic to sinful man?
1) An omniscient God knows all my darkest secrets and deeds. Don’t we dread that our deepest secrets are exposed to light?
2) A Holy God means that my moral standard is judged by an ultimate, perfect Standard? Aren’t we disappointed because my standard used to look terribly good when compared to rapists and murderers?
3) An All-powerful God means He has the ‘muscle’ to execute and implement His standards. Aren’t we afraid that God yields absolute power? Atheism offers a convenient “crutch” to relieve this fear.
4) A sovereign God means that our freedom is never absolute. We may want to live as we please but His law stands against it. Don’t we rather invent atheism to express, “Give me freedom or give me death!”
5) An unchanging God means that He won’t change any of these attributes. Doesn’t that destroy our hope that He might adjust His standard a little according to circumstance and time?
Now, my friend, if a superstitious man wants to relieve his agrophobia, why on God’s green earth did he imagine a Holy, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Sovereign and Immutable God to do the job and in the process, invented a MORE traumatic, fearsome and powerful Deo-phobia??
It doesn’t make sense that you conquer one fear by giving yourself a bigger fear. The agrophobia theory breaks down miserably at this point.
If I wanna oppress somebody, I’d create a religion of finite, maybe impersonal non-holy entities (The Force) that give me less fear!
Is atheism the psychological product of Deo-phobia? Nothing more, nothing less?
An agnostic friend in Cognizance once wrote: "The earliest religions were always polytheistic. There were great spirits inhabiting everything. There was lightning and thunder, so there had to be someone to do it.
That someone of course, since lightning is such a vast thing, must be a god. It's just a method of explaining things. Religions grew out of human need to know the unknowable.
The fact is that humans suffer spiritual agoraphobia. We can't stand wide open spaces. We're afraid to deal with the unknown. And so we invent something that's bigger than the unknown, and make him human.
But in the process religion the priests discovered that they could in truth rule the people by the threat of the God's displeasure. And they did. Religion was nothing more than a tool for control. And the people followed, were inspired, and fought like devils to get their king land, in the name of god... the result of which was a sudden interest in religion as a tool for conquest…
So, what is God? God is a creation of humanity to cover his spiritual agoraphobia. God is a creation of humanity as a tool for control."
I responded below, largely based on RC Sproul's Reasons to Believe:
"There is nothing original about this argument. Sigmund Freud, the psychoanalysis guy, came up with this theory - that religion is the product of primitive man’s imagination to help him cope with the elements he can’t control- like storms, flood and seasons. He needs to ‘invent’ a God he can negotiate with, bribe or flatter - some Deity who can explain and control these forces. But now, we know better than to believe these superstitions.
The second charge my friend gives is that religion is a tool of oppression.
Karl Marx gave a version of this theory. “Religion is the opium of the masses”
The powerful minority controls the poor majority by giving them this God who will reward them if they remain submissive. The ethic and after-life promise of religion keeps the majority from rebelling. Friend, there are numerous theories like these and we can’t possibly know them all but they all share a common argument...
A religious belief gets its beginning and power from psychological needs – be it fear of death, fear of revolution, fear of lightning, ad infinitum.
Here our friend speaks of the fear of the unknown or wide open spaces (agoraphobia) is the culprit. Again, it MUST be said, we do not contest that man has fertile imaginations and the ability to think up new religious theories.
Man does find comfort in religion, even in false ones. The prophets called it "idolatry", creating gods in our own image.
Religion has often been used as a tool of oppression so even Jesus condemned this practice among the Pharisees.
Does this in any way disprove theism?
Here our friend needs to display similar courage to maintain his intellectual integrity too. In EXACTLY the same way, he MUST ALSO admit that atheists and agnostics ALSO possess great speculative capacity to imagine weird theories to support their views.
During the Second World War, Hitler ALSO used his “God-is-dead” philosophy as a tool of oppression to justify his crimes. There are ALSO profound psychological, subjective reasons that motivate your friend to REJECT religion – maybe, bad encounter with hypocritical pastors or parents forcing religion down his throat, i.e. Marx was disillusioned by his “religious” parents and Nietszche had problems with father-figures in his life. (Paul Vitz)
The idea of a personal, Holy God may cause sinful man to be so burdened with a guilty conscience that he thinks up all kinds of theories to deny His existence.
Shall I then propose that atheism is just a product of man’s imagination to relieve his spiritual Deo-phobia (fear of God). And he needs to derive COMFORT from his theoretical postulations.
But does this in any way prove that atheism is false???
Actually, that is not a good refutation of theism or atheism!
Our friend assumed there is no God and then proposed theories to explain, “Since there is no God (assumption), why is there religion?” And I assumed there is God, and then proposed to explain, “If there is God (assumed), why is there atheism?”
Both arguments give us no proof to refute or affirm the existence of God. Both operated on presuppositions.
To illustrate using Sproul’s analogy, Pastor Joe took me to court for stealing his Bible last Sunday. If he can prove that I have the capacity and the motive to steal, he has a good case. I was in church on Sunday and I had been known to be a Bible-freak so I’m suspect.
But there could be a large number of people in church that day who ALSO had the means and motive to steal the Bible. In order to prove me guilty, the prosecutor must prove BEYOND the means and motives of the accused. He must show evidence that the accused actually did commit the crime!
So spending so much breath speculating on the origin of religion can devastate Christianity ONLY IF the we have ONLY ONE argument for God’s existence: namely, the existence of religion. But there are so many other reasons – moral, cosmological, ontological and from design, for example.
Why is God traumatic to sinful man?
1) An omniscient God knows all my darkest secrets and deeds. Don’t we dread that our deepest secrets are exposed to light?
2) A Holy God means that my moral standard is judged by an ultimate, perfect Standard? Aren’t we disappointed because my standard used to look terribly good when compared to rapists and murderers?
3) An All-powerful God means He has the ‘muscle’ to execute and implement His standards. Aren’t we afraid that God yields absolute power? Atheism offers a convenient “crutch” to relieve this fear.
4) A sovereign God means that our freedom is never absolute. We may want to live as we please but His law stands against it. Don’t we rather invent atheism to express, “Give me freedom or give me death!”
5) An unchanging God means that He won’t change any of these attributes. Doesn’t that destroy our hope that He might adjust His standard a little according to circumstance and time?
Now, my friend, if a superstitious man wants to relieve his agrophobia, why on God’s green earth did he imagine a Holy, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Sovereign and Immutable God to do the job and in the process, invented a MORE traumatic, fearsome and powerful Deo-phobia??
It doesn’t make sense that you conquer one fear by giving yourself a bigger fear. The agrophobia theory breaks down miserably at this point.
If I wanna oppress somebody, I’d create a religion of finite, maybe impersonal non-holy entities (The Force) that give me less fear!
Is atheism the psychological product of Deo-phobia? Nothing more, nothing less?
Comments