The Psychological Analysis of Theism and Atheism – Part Two

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

Sproul points out that any one of these psychologically different projections might possibly explain the origin of religion. To prove that it does, however, is a formidable task. The question of the origin of religion cannot be settled ultimately by the speculations of either the psychologist or the philosopher. The question of the origin of religion is ultimately a question of history, not psychology or philosophy. The psychologist may present us with data regarding what the human psyche can and does like to project. He can offer a multitude of possible psychological reasons why men “might” invent religion. But to show what men “can” do and “might” do is not to show what men “actually do”. For example, to prove that a man is capable of murder is insufficient evidence to convict a man of murder. We must be careful to note that the above arguments can never be used as proof for the non-existence of God. There are, obviously, other explanations for the existence of religion. In fact, all the agreements presented above really have no bearing on the issue of the existence of God. Freud, Marx, and the others were not attempting to disprove the existence of God. Their arguments already presupposed the nonexistence of God. They were dealing with the bias atheist question: "Since there is no God, why is there religion?" The issue of theism/atheism is not over the question, “Why does man believe in God?" The ultimate question is: Why are there thinking men in the universe fearing the problems of their existence? To show that men desire a God is not to demonstrate anything about whether or not there is, in fact, such a deity. The explanations last post do not touch on the issue of the existence of God. These are biased psychological analyses that begin and end on the psychological level. They may teach us much concerning man, but say nothing with respect to God’s existence. It is intriguing that many supposedly enlightened thinkers today base their unbelief or agnosticism on the above critiques, when, in fact, these critiques have no real bearing on the God question. Thinkers who often consider themselves liberal and open-minded often criticize Christians for holding to religious dogmas, yet unbelievers have dogma of their own. Sproul makes it clear that it is necessary to point out that classical theism does not rest its case on the existence of God on the phenomenon of religion. In terms of the debate, religion serves only as corroborative evidence for faith, not compelling evidence for the existence of God. Freud and other atheists offer a plausible "alternative" explanation to the “origin of religion” than those offered by theists.

1 Corinthians 2: 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The point is that it is one thing to argue that men can invent “religion” out of Psychological necessity; it is another to argue that he does. The former involves questions of psychological and intellectual ability (means and motive); the latter involves questions of factual history. There are limitations in all the theories of these great thinkers. Freud showed that man has a dimension of religious desire and helpful in relating the phenomenon of guilt to religious consciousness, but we cannot conclude that there is in fact no comforting reality such as God in the universe. A benevolent Father may be an attractive incitement to religious devotion. On the other hand, an angry Father may be equally inciting to move towards atheism.  Feuerbach called attention to the fact that men tend to portray their gods in their own image, giving their deities characteristics and attributes of themselves. That men are prone to fashion religions idols” in their own image is no surprise to the Christian. Feuerbach teaches us much about man, but precious little about the existence or non-existence of God. Marx’s critique of “religion” has great value, at the point of demonstrating the mis-use of religion to manipulate and exploit the poor and oppressed of this world, for the atheist, and the theist as wee. .  However, it adds nothing to the question of the existence of God. If life is ultimately without value and man’s basic characteristic is his lust of power, then Nietzsche has offered powerful reasons for negating, not only God, but religion as well. But this fervently anti-organized religion critique is not God-centered attributes and, again, these matters do not touch the issue of the existence of God, though they press heavily on the matter of religious behavior of man. While valuable insights may be gained with respect to human behavior by an analysis of the role psychological desires play in religion, the question of the existence of God cannot be solved by these considerations.

Exodus 20;1-4a “And God spoke all these things: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of slavery. You shall have no gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.

What is true can never be determined by an analysis of what men desire or do not desire to be the truth. The fact remains, of course, that many people do indeed base their unbelief on the psychological arguments of Freud, Marx, and the others. But there are just as many arguments showing that “unbelief” has its roots in the psychological needs and desires of man. The atheist may claim that people believing in God need a crutch to face the threats of the modern world, but fail to see that the shoe could be on the other foot or the crutch used for the other leg because atheist can’t face their Creator. The atheist desires that God not exist. The Bible sees not only atheism but natural man’s human-fabricated religion as being grounded in such apathy towards the true God, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. The New Testament maintains that unbelief is generated not so much by intellectual causes as by moral and psychological ones. The problem is not that there is insufficient evidence to convince rational beings that there is a God, but that rational beings have a natural hostility to the holy and sovereign being of God. This is precisely why the Word of God and the children of God through the indwelling Holy Spirit bear witness to the light of truth in a world in darkness of unbelief, that they may see the light and walk into it and live. God exists and His love, mercy, grace and providence abound. This side of heaven, the debate between theism (the light of belief) and atheism (the darkness of unbelief) continues.  A debate with eternal implications and ramifications. Shine your light.

Psalm 51:1-4 “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge.

In Christ, Brian