The Issue of Atheism - Literature review Example

Atheism of the of the Atheism The Freudians attributed a psychological origin to belief in God. This constituted their principal criticism towards belief in God. In other words, the Freudians contended that God was merely the projection of intense individual and unconscious desires. Thus, God was deemed to be nothing more than a wish fulfilment that ensued from the childish needs for protection and security. Scant credibility need be attributed to any denial of such interpretation, due to these wishes being chiefly unconscious (Vitz, 1999). However, some scholars had contended that religion must be comprehended on the basis of the conditions responsible for it origin. These were the outcome of economic, political and social forces, as these factors effected human alienation at any specific location and period. Religion had been deeply challenged by Karl Marx. It was his contention that religion was a symptom that became an integral component of the corrupt social and political order, and that it served to preserve the very issue that it attempted to resolve (Wildman, 2010). As such, Feuerbach and Marx would have been in complete agreement with regard to the notion that religious self – alienation entailed a duplication of the world into a transcendental religious world and the reality of this secular world. It could also be presumed that they would have concurred that the humanly projected features of God were correlated to the needs of humans (Brien, 2009, p. 108). Furthermore, this correlation would have provided counterbalancing completion due to belief in a fictional divine entity. However, with regard to alienation arising from religious self – alienation, Marx and Feuerbach would not have been in agreement. Marx proposed that religious self – alienation was the symptom of tangible and traditionally conditioned situations, wherein humans were embroiled in highly materialistic class conflicts that brought about their estrangement (Brien, 2009, p. 108). In fact, Feuerbach had contended that God was sanctified human nature that had transcended the restrictions of the individual man, meditated upon and celebrated as a discrete presence. It was his considered opinion that early humans had been compelled to envisage the terrors of existence. Accordingly these individuals had projected a divine being with boundless reason, will and love. This entity could be relied upon, while encountering or undergoing the difficulties of life (Brien, 2009, p. 109). Moreover, these early humans had resorted to such a higher power, in order to find security and succor. The moralists contend that the fundamental authority of moral norms; namely that some things are wrong, whilst others are right, requires the presence of God. The source of these moral standards, according to such moral contentions, is God. There have been several proponents of this arguments and some of these have been philosophers like HP Owen. He is credited with having successfully employed this argument to convert CS Lewis, an erstwhile atheist (Ward, 2006, p. 83). On the other hand, Bertrand Russell had proposed a standard refutation to this conjecture. His objection was whether something could be considered to be right, merely because it had been willed so by God. This would render arbitrary, what was to be regarded as good. However, if a thing was to be accepted as right, on account of its intrinsicalness, then God would be subject to a standard of goodness that enjoyed a higher position than Himself (Ward, 2006, p. 83). It is the wont of the Christians to declare that whatever God says is right, as it is in conformity with His own nature. The atheists contend that what is good or bad is determined by the wellbeing of society. It is their firm belief that it would be superfluous to resort to the idea that moral values originate in God (Ward, 2006, p. 83). Atheism labors under a positive problem. This is with regard to the illusion that the non – acceptance or non – reliance upon God presupposes reliance on some other thing. With respect to individuals who have grown up in a non – religious atmosphere, no difficulty is encountered with regard to an existence that is devoid of God. Such people may not even consider the possibility that they have been existing without relying upon something (Eshleman, 2010, p. 104). Moreover, it has been the practice to examine the influence of piety upon mental health. On the other hand, it is difficult to find any material regarding the effect of atheism upon mental health. Atheism involves a worldview that follows a definite way of thinking, and this is frequently selected by those who profess it. The atheistic individuals tend to believe very strongly in the truth of atheism, and this is termed as positive atheism (Whitley, 2010, p. 192). During the recent past, the liberal Western democracies have been witness to the resurgence of atheism. This has been referred to as the new atheism. It has been contended that positive atheism deserves to be regarded as an important sociocultural variable in mental health studies. Positive atheism can provide a suitable realm for allied social scientists, and cultural and social psychiatrists who aim to examine the buffers and socio – environmental stressors pertaining to mental health (Whitley, 2010, p. 192). These considerations are equally relevant to physical health. In fact, there is indisputable evidence that religiosity has a protective and therapeutic value for the physical wellbeing of a person, in addition to that person’s mental wellbeing. In the domain of mental health, atheists constitute a group that has not been extensively studied. This absence of deep study also applies to physical health research (Whitley, 2010, p. 192). The metaphysics propounded by Emmanuel Levinas provides a solution to the crisis formulated by rational metaphysics. It declares a transcendent monotheist God and it does this by situating man in an atheist relationship with the expressed or understood deities. This metaphysics contends that if God is transcendental, then monotheists are necessarily atheists, as individuals do not live with their gods (Crumplin, 2012, p. 107). In the context of the divinity of rational metaphysics, Levinas argues that people are atheists, since this god is nothing more than a symbolic depiction of transcendence. Parmenides of Elea was an ancient Greek philosopher, who provided certain concepts regarding the reality and the world in which we live. His ideas have dominated Western philosophy (Crumplin, 2012, p. 107). However, Levinas has rejected these ideas, which translates into a rejection of the interpretative nature of Western philosophy. This rejection has the capacity to demonstrate that atheism is the correct correlation between humans and an ineffable and transcendent God. The nature of this God is such that it cannot be brought into being by mediation or direct revelation (Crumplin, 2012, p. 107). The religion followed by a person is essentially an accident of birth. Hence, it would be illogical to insist that a person will be consigned to the fires of hell, as he was following some other religion or did not believe in God. It is downright foolish to insist that non – Christians will burn in hell. People, in general follow the religion that they are born into. Consequently, God cannot punish a person for having been born at the wrong place at the wrong time, as that person does not have any control over his birth (Schulman, 2009, p. 333). These were the views of Locke, and in his Second Treatise he has applied this line of thinking to statehood and familial relations. Locke had described the church as a society that was formed on a voluntary basis. The purpose of this society was to conduct the public worship of God, in a manner that it deemed acceptable to God and which would result in the salvation of its members (Schulman, 2009, p. 333). The renowned Sigmund Freud, Austrian and founder of psychoanalysis, held certain views about God. He believed that upon hearing about God as a great, loving, limiting and protective father, the individual would be forced to confirm the veracity of such an entity. Such ideas tend to be false, to the extent that they had been fashioned by the limited mental capacity to perceive the earlier reality, and the degree to which these had been affected by personal desires (Blass, 2013). However, the extent to which these ideas transmitted the great truths regarding the most ancient and collective experiences of humanity, these ideas can be deemed to be veracious. Freud believed that God represented what individuals knew, in their heart of hearts, to be the truth. Faith, in his opinion, was a mystery and grace that emanated from God. However, people had been invited to be cognizant of the presence of God and to become receptive to it, via prayer, living the sacraments, reflection and love (Blass, 2013). Freud proposed that the conduct of individuals and mental illness were affected by unconscious thoughts. Such thoughts, in his opinion, could be accessed by analyzing a specific form of dialogue conducted between the practitioner and a patient. Some of the more significant notions of Freud’s work were the id or the inborn portion of the mind that was the center of passions and drives; the ego, which was the reality principle that promoted the preservation and wellbeing of individuals; and the superego, which disallowed the commission of transgressions and yielding to immoral drives (The Atheist Scholar, 2012). Furthermore, Freud proposed the theory of the concept of the libido or the inborn drive that induced individuals to endeavor and endure. He had identified the sex drive as a major component of the libido. Freud also provided a theory regarding the Œdipus complex, wherein a boy would entertain a desire for his mother and view the father as an unwelcome competitor (The Atheist Scholar, 2012). In accordance with the above discussion, it can be concluded that the concept of God was manipulated by humans for the sake of promoting emotional and physical wellbeing. Although there were contradictions with respect to this issue, there was considerable evidence revealing the fact that belief in God had rendered individual psychosomatically secure. Hence, it can be surmised that atheism based psychology had caused the people believe in God for considerations of emotional security. References Blass, R. (2013, June 13). Faith and the Psychologists: On how atheist psychology serves faith. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from Thinking faith: http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20130613_1.htm Brien, K. M. (2009). Rethinking Marx and the Spiritual. Rethinking Marxism, 21(1), 103 – 116. Crumplin, M.-A. (2012). Emmanuel levinas on onto-theo-logy: parricide and atheism. Heythrop Journal, 53(1), 100 – 110. Eshleman, M. C. (2010). An Atypical Response to Living Without God. Sartre Studies International, 16(2), 94 – 106. Schulman, A. (2009). The Twilight of Probability: Locke, Bayle, and the Toleration of Atheism. The Journal of Religion, 89(3), 328 – 360. The Atheist Scholar. (2012). Freud to Cognitive Psychologies. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.atheistscholar.org/AtheistPsychologies/FreudtoCognitivePsychologies.aspx Vitz, P. C. (1999). Intense Atheism. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from Catholic Education Resource Center: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0170.html Ward, J. (2006). The Challenge of Aggressive Atheism. Evangel, 24(3), 76 – 85. Whitley, R. (2010). Atheism and Mental Health. Harvard review of psychiatry, 18(3), 190 – 194. Wildman, W. J. (2010). Religion from New Perspectives. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme17.htm Read More