Mind Forums

Countless numbers of philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, theologians and many other thinkers have devoted their work to Religion and the profound effect it can have on a person’s life. The criticism on religion and heated debates about the origins of religious beliefs are as old as the belief systems themselves. Outrageous nonbelievers, theists and those neutrally trapped in the middle have gone back and forth in examining the true essence of religion and following its origins. Some believe the roots of any religion are found in the individual, other think the origins are to be found in the society; still others embrace the idea of a divine spirit, whose word is a command. In either case, however, the believer is often unaware of where that belief system is rooted for him/her. Such unawareness is potentially dangerous for the individual, as it equals being blind to the essence of what you feel to be your primal ‘intrinsic’ motivation in life and your ‘faith’.

There is no doubt in my mind that those who have denied religion’s divine origins and its positive effect on societies as well as those who embrace religion’s ethereal character have but the betterment, well-being and liberation of our species at heart. The first group of critics wishes to give humankind back its ‘true’ essence and liberate from any feeling of dependence. Further, such critics, like Freud, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Weber and Marx, wish to bring man’s infinite nature and personal limitations back to his own hands and land the study of human nature back to earth. The other group of ‘supporters’ wishes to acknowledge the higher, divine nature of our species and appreciate the power and variety of spiritual and religious experiences while showing the way to eternal life in unconditioned love and forgiveness.

Many thinkers, preoccupied with religion, have only considered it important as far as it can tell us more about the nature of human beings. I cannot hide, my personal interest and vigorous curiosity about religion is implanted in that same concept. Undoubtedly, religion has proved to be incredibly powerful, permeating into all levels of existence for the believer; arguably, it is here to stay. In such a scenario, atheists as well as theists can only benefit by learning more about Religion by contemplating its reflection in the lives of people, on both the intimately personal and interpersonal, social scale…and the reflections have many faces.

Religion is such an important and vital part of human history that we can hardly even try to think about who we are today, as societies, without considering religion’s prominent place. It is for such reasons, that Hegel, for example, views the different stages of development for human cultures as moments in the “progressive unfolding of Absolute Spirit of God.” On the other side, thinkers like Feuerbach view centuries of history centered on religion simply as a “detour” for human kind on its way to truer and deeper understanding of its own possibilities, fears, dreams and limitations. Similar to Freud, Feuerbach acknowledges the necessity of religion in the dawn of civilizations as it probably is the earliest form of self-knowledge. “Religion everywhere precedes philosophy,” Feuerbach explains. This is because man’s initial, almost reflexive response is to view and perceive his nature as one “out of himself, before he finds it in himself.” It is overwhelming to comprehend that there is so much in the hands of men, and yet so much more that we cannot put our hands on. Thus, religion appears to be the consciousness that a believer has of his or her own infinite, divine origin and nature. If this is true, examining the real origin of religion and the genuine nature of the individual is impossible for the believer, but can be accomplished by the thinker, only. For the passionately religious person, self-knowledge is achieved through contemplation of their nature, as if it is extrinsic to him/her and distanced from the present ‘here and now’. Logically then, no real self-examination is possible, as this requires investigating one’s own strengths and weaknesses without ascribing them to an external divine being, God. In similar context, Feuerbach argues that religious people are “alienated” as they transform their own creation, God, into an authority over themselves and thus “throw away their sovereignty and reduce themselves thereby to servile and miserable beings.” Feuerbach further describes religion as a “childlike condition of humanity”. God, then, is ‘reducible’ to human nature, human imagination, human desires and humans’ ability to project their own characteristics to natural forces. In his book “The Essence of Christianity” Feuerbach notes: “We have reduced the superhuman, supernatural nature of God to the elements of human nature and its fundamental elements. Our process of analysis has brought us again to the position with which we set out. The beginning, middle and end of religion is MAN.” Marx in his “Theses on Feuerbach” views theology as anthropology, as God is simply a projection of “unenlightened men and women.” My personal conviction is that, deprived of its followers, any religion will soon lose its character and will die out. It is men and women that breathe real life in a religion and give it its significance. Then, an anthropological perspective may not be far from accurate in studying religion.

Freud contributes to the idea that religion is nothing but fiction that acts as a defense mechanism, preventing humans from “arriving at a clear understanding of the world in which they live.” Freud explains that religion arose as a practical need of understanding, controlling the surroundings and feeling protected in an alien and hostile world. Even more, Freud recognized the root of “religious authority as lying in the parental complex”. Being ‘natural atheists’ Freud, alongside with Freuerbach, believed that religion was the result of “projection onto external reality” and, therefore, no more but a psychological process. Just like an infant is a bundle of intrinsic, uncontrollable desires that require immediate satisfaction, early societies had the same burning desires. That is when, according to Freud, religion was “invented”, serving as immediate satisfaction for the needs of security, closeness and love. Quite simply then, some people never grow up. Even in an age of rapid scientific advance and accomplishments, some people keep their “infantile” response to the world, leaning on religion as a way of dependence, Freud believes. Religion, then, is wish-fulfillment and an illusion that delays the progress of human kind, as it deprives us of our free will and sense of personal responsibility. Certainly, such an approach would not apply for all religions or all believers, but it may offer us many insights as to why certain types of personalities would be attracted to one religion, instead of another. Despite its limitations, this rather ‘negative’ view on religion can tell us a lot about the potential dangers and threat that religion can hide. Certainly, any authority that deprives the individual of the sense of personal responsibility and moves towards an external locus of control is potentially dangerous. There are far too many sad and tragic examples in human history when a legitimate authority ‘figure’ eventually caused more damage and pain that thousands of ‘independent’ individuals might have inflicted. In this context, what is the monotheistic God and religious doctrines if not a legitimate ‘authority figure’ that is to be viewed from below, in pious silence and respect. Conformity, compliance and obedience or deindividuation are far from being the best reasons to embrace a religion, and certainly, following religious norms because of these is, to say the least, not fair to the individual and negates the whole idea behind a religion – having faith. John Stuart Mill reminds: “Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it way be called.” Is this how religion is meant to be? My personal response is irrelevant to others; it only means something to me. Therefore, millions of different responses are valid here, but only for the individual. It is quite clear now, I support the idea that religion is truly healthy if it is an intrinsic one. The opposite would simply imply that there is unconscious egoism behind the religion. Adopting certain religious believes in order to be part of an ‘ingroup’, or following a religion so that an eternal happiness in the afterlife is granted are arguably the most admirable reasons to be a good and assertive individual who can make a difference and bring about positive changes in the lives of others.

As fascinating as Freud’s explanation of the origins of religion is, I think there are many limitations to it and, therefore, it does not furnish the whole picture. His thinking is based almost entirely on Christianity and Judaism and he does not discuss religions that worship the feminine and does not touch polytheism or the non-theistic forms of religion. Besides, I feel Freud is strictly focusing on an ugly, more negative aspect of being religious. Sadly, in wiping out all good that is in religion, Freud also deprives humans of any spirituality, proclaiming it ‘childish’, ‘immature’ or simply an ‘illusion’. As much as it is true that science brings about more validity to what we know to be truth, there are still things in our earthly lives that cannot be captured by the scientific method only. When Elizabeth Kübler-Ross first focused on studying death and dying with purely scientific ‘means’, she had no doubts or reserves that this is possible. However, it later became clear, that there are certain aspects of existence that cannot be simply observed dispassionately and then expressed analytically in percentages. There are certain ‘occasions’ it seems, that call for human spirituality, and it quickly arises on the surface, even in a non-religious individual. On the basis of her observation, Kübler-Ross described five stages that commonly accompany death and dying. Among them, “Bargaining”, usually referring to “secret pacts made with god, regardless of whether patients have been religious earlier in life.” That is why I feel that appreciating the variety of religious and spiritual experiences and viewing these as phenomenological facts is wiser that simply seeing one side of the issue. This, of course, leads us closer to thinkers like Jung, James and Maslow, whose ‘humanism’ is expressed is appreciating whatever can be found in a person’s inner, emotional, mental, spiritual and religious baggage.

I cannot help but think about religion from a predominantly psychological perspective. Being an intricate field among the helping profession, psychology should proclaim understanding and acceptance. There is no reason why there should be exception when it comes to Religion; no reason why certain doctrines should be disdainfully rejected and their followers nearly mocked over. Only a century ago we did not have such huge volumes of knowledge about neurotransmitters, different structures of the brain and so on and so forth. Maybe a century from now, there will be volumes of scientific knowledge on religion and spirituality. Maybe there will be none, as people will settle down with knowing that some things are to be left on mystical experience alone; or maybe Nietzsche was right – we “killed” God – and we have sunk in a false misunderstanding of religion and faith, but we are not yet ready to assimilate that we are alone⁽¹⁾. In ether case, being impatient now will not resolve any controversies, and scientists need not hurry since religion is here to stay. The best we can do is accept it and appreciate it as an integral part of life and the human psyche.

1. “Have you not heard of the madman who on a bright morning lit a lantern and ran into the market place and cried out unceasingly ‘I seek God, I seek God!’ As many of those who do not believe in god were standing around he provoked much laughter. ‘Why, is he lost?’, said one. “Has he lost his way like a child?’, said another. ‘Or is he hiding?’ Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and transfigured them with his glances. ‘Whither is God?’, he cried. ‘I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up and down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothingness? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? … God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. What was holiest and most powerful of all the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not have to become gods merely to seem worthy of it?…’ Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his hearers, and they too were silent and looked again at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground and it broke and went out. ‘My time is not yet come. This tremendous event is still on its way … It has not yet reached the ears of men…’ It is further stated that the madman made his way into different churches on the same day and there sang his requiem in aeternam deo. When led out and called to account he always gave the same reply: ‘What are these churches now if they are not the tombs and monuments of God?”