The super-ego (the part of your subconscious that encourages you to act morally it represses anti-social impulses such as killing, and by inducing fear and guilt, it is crucial for civilization) then takes the place Of the father as a SOL_Cree Of internalized authority, which is derived from the family, education and Church. God is a father substitute and a projection of the super-ego. Freud believed that man is dependent on religion to ‘make his helplessness tolerable’ and whilst he maintained this dependency he could never truly be happy.
Freud realized that a feeling of helplessness in the face of external dangers, inner impulses and death and society, were at the route of religion. He observed that many religious rituals were similar to obsessive rituals. These are to protect the ego (the more primal part of your subconscious) from fantasies, desires and especially sexual impulses which, are normally repressed. Whilst Freud had some valid point some philosophers disagreed with his ideas. Nelson and Jones disagreed with Freud opinion that the individuals relationship with God is dependent on their relationship with their father.
They found that the concept of God correlated more highly with a person’s relationship with their mother than with their father. Kate Elemental distinguished between projective religion (which is immature) and intrinsic religion (which is serious and relative) Freud assumed all aspects of religion were immature. Whereas not all religious beliefs are immature and can be considered serious and relative. Arthur Guardian believed Freud over played the connection between belief in God and psychopathology tendencies. He believed Fraud’s stance was just as neurotic as the religious preoccupations of others.
Freud has no solid verifiable evidence for his reasons and jumps to conclusions, the way that religious believers jump to conclusions about their beliefs. Adkins, a well-known atheist and scientist critiques religion in four different ways. Firstly he argues that religious belief is not necessary, he argues that a Dianna world view makes religion unnecessary. He dismisses the belief that there is any ultimate significance in the world or human beings, He argues instead that our existence is a coincidence, and there is no need for any greater significance, or explanation of how we cane into existence, and the point is that we exist.
Adkins also argues that belief about divine creation are essentially faith claims, they are blind, leaps of faith. He believes that religious belief keeps us from exploring the world further as, if we can say that God did everything, there is no need for another explanation. Moreover, he states that to assume that we were made for a purpose, and that there is purpose and meaning outside this world is wrong and an unwarranted assumption. Finally, most insultingly Adkins compares religion to a virus.
He compares the way religion spreads to a virus that affects the mind. He associates religion with things such as misleading education, prejudice and inciting fear. He argues that key religious beliefs come into existence purely because someone though of them. If the pope was to claim that something happened simply because God told him then everyone would accept it as a fact, because that is the way religion works, and is not reliable or even truthful in some cases. Does one of the arguments demonstrate that there is no God?
Neither arguments clearly demonstrated that there is no God however, most arguments for the existence of God don’t prove that there is a God, as it is hard to prove whether something does or does not exist if there is no solid verifiable evidence for or against it. Adkins argument that religious beliefs are unnecessary does not disprove the existence of God it merely states that a God does not have to exist. Just because he is not needed for humans to survive does not prove his non-existence.
Moreover to claim that religious beliefs are like a virus that effects the mind is not an effective way to disprove God. He argues hat its teachings are unreliable but this does not directly disprove God, most legend have a basis in facts, to simply say that all religious teachings are lies is inaccurate, and for someone with a scientific mind, to disregard all of the views is not a very scientific way of thinking, as a scientist you should consider all angles.
Adkins claims that do disregard scientific evidence and other views is narrow minded and not beneficial to humans, over he is guilty of the same things, to dismiss religious views so quickly with no solid evidence as to whether God does or does not exist, to simply dismiss the possibility of a God is narrow minded.