By Ajit Krishna Dasa
Atheists commonly argue against the existence of God by claiming that theists only believe in God due to psychological reasons. For example, Sigmund Freud, founder of the psychoanalytical school of psychiatry, claimed that religious belief is an obsessional neurosis, that God is nothing more than a psychological crutch, an illusion, a form of wishful thinking caused by human weakness.
Freud claimed to be able to trace back the illusory concept of God to an often subconscious, childish desire to be protected. In this scenario Freud reduced God to a substitute for the perfect father that the weak religious person never really had. In addition, the atheists often argue that the religious people use God as a crutch when they cannot deal with the tough realities of life, or when they refer to Him as the explanation for things otherwise inexplicable. Theists also believe that God listens to their prayers, and that these prayers makes God take away their sins when they have committed something that they imagine to be morally wrong. According to many critics of religion it is only mature and rational human beings, that have risen higher on the evolutionary ladder who are above the phantasmagoria of religion. According to these critics we need to guide the psychological energy that is directed towards the illusory God and heaven, back to the real, material world.
The Psychogenetic Fallacy
The Genetic Fallacy is committed when it is claimed that the origin of a specific proposition has an inherent bearing on it’s truth-value. And when the origin is said to be of a psychological nature the fallacy is called the psychogenetic fallacy. This atheistic argument commits this fallacy since it claims that the proposition “God exists” is false or unjustified due to its alleged origin in the psychological needs of theists. There is clearly no warrant for such a conclusion, since it is entirely possible that God exists, and that theists have a psychological need for Him. Just because theists have a psychological need for God it does not follow that such a psychological need is the one and only reason they believe in Him. Theists usually offer additional reasons. But even if, for the sake of argument, psychological needs were the only reason for believing in God, it still would not disprove the existence of God. Just like our psychological needs for loving relationships with other people do not disprove the existence of these other people, so our psychological needs for God do not disprove the existence of God.
Is Atheism a Psychological Crutch?
Further, the atheistic argument is like a double-edged sword, because if a proposition can be declared false if it’s held due to psychological reasons, then theists might as well argue that atheism is false, since it is founded on the presence of psychological needs in atheists. Let us examine some of the psychological mechanisms that could cause atheists to try to psychologically suppress the idea of God:
Everything is Permitted
If God does not exist, then everything is permitted. There is no absolute moral standard against which we can measure our acts. Morality is created on the basis of the individual’s likings. The atheist can justify all kinds of abominable actions with claims such as: ”Somebody may think my actions are morally wrong, but that is just their subjective opinion. In reality I can do whatever I like”. In this way atheism gives people the possibility to ignore the dictates of conscience and live a life of full self-indulgence. Atheism could thus be considered a psychological invention aimed at eliminating all moral obligations. God becomes a threat to the atheists’ egocentrism and consequently they wish to deny Him out of existence.
Removal of guilt
If everything is permitted then there is no reason to feel guilty when thinking, feeling or doing something which we normally would consider immoral. Again the atheist can claim, “you might think I should feel guilty about this action, but that is just your subjective opinion. There’s no need to feel guilty about anything.” The idea that one day we have to settle our ethical account with an all-knowing, almighty God could no doubt be such an intense psychological stress factor for the atheist that he prefers to psychologically suppress the idea of God’s existence.
Hankering After Power and Control
If naturalism is true and God therefore does not exist, then the universe simply functions according to the laws of material nature. Consequently there’s nothing which can’t, at least in principle, be subjected to human control. It is only a matter of us gaining the necessary knowledge, then we can manipulate it and use it for our own selfish gratification. It could no doubt be tempting to dream of such a materialistic universe where everything that exists, in principle, either now or in the future, can or will be under human control. This idea of gaining power and control over the world could easily be another motive for atheism.
Aversion Towards Authorities
If the human being is simply a combination of chemicals, then no human can be said to be more of an authority than anyone else. Everyone is on an equal level. On an atheistic worldview the atheist can therefore easily tell himself that no one is better than him, or is in a position to tell him what is good for him, and how he should do, think and behave. The existence of God naturally becomes a big threat to anyone who suffers from aversion towards authority, and such a person might very well do everything within his power to fabricate a worldview that eliminates God’s existence.
To sum up, atheism paves the way for a worldview that allows the atheists to conclude the following:
- Nothing is really morally good or bad, so in principle I can do whatever I feel like, when I feel like it, where I feel like it, and to whom I want. And no one has the right to stop me or punish me for my behavior.
- Since nothing is morally good or bad there is no reason why I should feel guilty about anything I think, feel or do.
- There exists nothing that cannot, at least in principle, be subjected to my control, or to the control of those I favor.
- No one is in a position to be my authority, no one can claim to be better than me, in a higher or more important position than me, and thus no one has any right to instruct or order me to do anything, or to stop me from doing anything.
In this way the atheist creates a universe in which he becomes his own god. This could, obviously, be a very tempting fantasy. But if the above psychological reasons for being an atheist are true, then it is quite easy to see how deep-rooted psychological and emotional problems atheists have.
The Need for God – a Proof for God’s existence?
Critics of religion have no methods to show that God can be reduced to a psychological phenomenon, and that this phenomenon is brought about by human weakness. That assertion is nothing but an unsubstantiated speculation. It is based on data which might as well point in the direction of the existence of God. If we study the human species there’s no doubt that it as a whole is endowed with a strong urge towards the divine, and why not interpret that to mean that therefore the divine probably exists? When we observe the human need for water, then it would be ridiculous to argue that we imagine the existence of water because we are thirsty. It would also be ridiculous to argue that we imagine the existence of food because we’re hungry, or that we imagine the existence of our family and friends because we feel a need for social relations. That would be really poor explanations. Our physiological and social cravings coexist with an awareness that there exist real things in the real world that can satisfy these needs. If we feel a need for God why not see this that as an indication that there exists a real thing in the real world, God, that we can find? At least the atheist should see this as a possibility worthy of serious investigation.
The Scientific Perspective: Are Religious People Really Weak?
Sigmund Freud’s so-called scientific studies have long been outdated. Recent social-scientific studies show that religious people are more psychologically strong than non-religious people. One such study concludes: “There is increasing research evidence that religious involvement is associated both cross-sectionally and prospectively with better physical health, better mental health and longer survival.” [1] In his book “Is Religion Dangerous?” Keith Ward mentions a number of scientific studies about the relationship between religion, happiness, mental illness, and altruism. These studies shows that religious people are neither weak-minded nor mentally ill. On the contrary, religious people are usually more psychologically strong than non-religious people, and they also tend to be happier, healthier, to live longer and to be more altruistic. They tend to be less likely to suffer from hypertension, depression and criminal delinquency. Young religious people tend to lower levels of drug and alcohol abuse, criminal delinquency and attempted suicide. In conclusion, there’s no scientific basis to support the atheistic claim that people are religious because the are weak or that religion makes them weak. [2]
References:
[1] Religion, psychology and health, Peltzer, Karl; Koenig, Harold G., Journal of Psychology in Africa, Volume 15, Number 1, January 2005 , pp. 53-64(12) [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/nisc/jpa/2005/00000015/00000001/art00007]
[2] “Is Religion Dangerous” by Keith Ward, Lion, 2006, Chapter 9.
An Aspiring Krishna Dasa 