Some of the greatest minds to argue the existence of God with vigor were Sigmund Freud, Frederica Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell and Karl Marx. Each of these great minds gave several excellent arguments that could convince the believer that their beliefs center did not hold and therefore collapses. This paper will focus on a particular piece of theory that developed out of anti- religion arguments; “God is our construct. ” This statement on how humans have created the idea of God for comfort.
Sigmund Freud believed religion to be an ‘illusion’ of the people, which can seem Like he makes this statement from a wish more than from evidence. Freud gives the argument against religion based on the idea of totems beginning from Freezer’s essay. Then moving through his work he uses data from Drawler research on apes, slowly reducing humanity to nothing more than animals. He speaks about how a totem Is considered sacred in the totem clan and slowly describes the processes of the totem clans.
These descriptions have many elements of Christianity and Judaism; wowing his wish for the non-existence of God with little respect to the lack of understanding to these religions. This goes into the presumed theory of Freud that the Idea of God Is Just our own personal totem pole. The concept of God being our totem which has the qualities we admire in ourselves. Freud describes how the members of the totem clan claim themselves to be descended from the totem itself. Freud continues in his ideas of the human construct of God in the following way. As a human child grows, the child relies on the protection of Its father.
The father protects the child from the terrifying world around them. As the child grows up and moves out into the world, the child still holds onto his fears of the world and childish desires for fatherly protection. Thus humans project their ideas of a father who protects them into the concept of God. Threatening everyone that if they hurt another they’ll be punished with eternal damnation. Karl Marx sees the idea of God In a similar way, that people were miserable with the world around them. To deal with these miseries they projected the ideals they anted to see In the world around them into the Idea of God.
This Is Karl Mar’s theory of God being the escape of the people from the horrors of the world around them; God is the opium of the people. This relates to Sartre theory of hell existing in other people, because other people can cause you the most pain. Society it a world of horror and fear, a world where everyone lives In mutual hatred of one another. Thomas Hobbes says life Is brutish, solitary and short; which is shown by the state of the world that we live in here If there was no fear of greater retribution we would kill and steal other’s lives.
When trying to refute these arguments against God with the argument of morality Freud shows morality to be based off off humans evil desires. He then progresses into the taboo against incest as a result of the theory of the totem clan relations to each other and the totem. This Is the example he uses of morality as based In human 1 OFF sealers. Freud goes Into great telltale on now ten resentment Dallas Insole ten sons for the life of the father in order to take possession of the mother. Then how the rooters once done with the father, create the taboo on incest to ensure their own survival.
The brothers killed their father so they could have all the women, and to make sure that their brothers don’t kill themselves they create a taboo against incest. This is morality to Freud, that morality is based on one’s own will to survive. Frederica Nietzsche arguments against religion coincide with Fraud’s arguments of morality. Nietzsche sees religion as a slave-revolt morality; that religion is the oppression of the weak against the powerful. Nietzsche sees that the qualities which ere thought of as good; the rich and the powerful are in fact not the good, the good are the weak and the poor.
This morality is based out of resentment and fear. The powerful can easily commit injustices on the weak and get away with it; that is what makes them powerful. The week’s fear of this oppression by the powerful builds into resentment of the powerful. This resentment builds into an idea and hope to make the powerful on the bottom of the food chain and the weak on the top of the food chain. By turning the qualities that were thought to be good into the qualities the eek are suddenly the good.
This creates a law to protect the weak from the powerful, which oppresses the powerful by the weak out of resentment. In an attempt to refute Nietzsche argument; that the weak do not resent the strong. I took up conversation with illegal immigrants who could be considered the weak in our country. I came to the conclusion after a poll that the weak do not resent the strong by simple fact of statistics received from illegal immigrants not resenting those in power. However, this can be refuted by a point I am sure Nietzsche would make if he were present.
As we go through our day to day life we see people with an attitude to ‘stick it to the man or elites’. We saw this in politics in the last presidential election. The Republican Party was claiming to be on the side of the people and the slowly disappearing middle class. In attempts to show that the Republican Party was also willing to ‘stick it to the man’ they signed on Sarah Plain for Vice President due to her work in Alaska. Sarah was a direct hit against the ‘elite’ since she was disliked by them. This is an example of the resentment of the weak towards those in power.
Nietzsche could also use the following to show that the weak do resent the powerful. Take a closer look into the actions taken in the Rwanda Genocide in April 1994. The Hut military killed thousands of Tutsis tribe members, the Tutsis were the majority and were the powerful. The Tutsis had privileges and oppressed the Hut who were the weak. The weak resented the powerful, the Hut resented the Tutsis. There is no way around this example of the weak resenting the powerful. The argument of the weak not resenting the strong is easily refuted by Nietzsche.
If then morality is not the argument to refute these Masters of Suspicion as they were so smartly termed, then what will refute them? One may try to refute their statements with the idea of love. Love is to some a piece of heaven and of God when it is felt. When sharing love with another person, whether it is your mother, father, brother, sister, best friend, or even for a significant other. THat love is a glimpse into God, because God is love. If love exists then God exists, because for something like love–which is all good– exists, then a supreme good must exist.
That supreme good just be God since love is a glimpse into the supreme good and therefore is a look The Masters of Suspicion claim the non-existence of God and basis of Judea- Christian belief. God is not our construct, but we are the construct of God. However, should these great minds have had an opportunity to debate with me here they would find a way to turn my argument around. For you cannot convince someone of your truth when they are convinced of their own truth. If someone is convinced that their truth is not the reality then thy are living irrationally and no one wants to realize that they are irrational.