The 20th century skeptical Lutheran New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann stated that it is impossible for a person to live in the modern world—using “electric lights” and so forth—and still believe in spirits and miracles.  Now, quite obviously there are many intellectually sophisticated people today who continue to believe in the supernatural, and who believe that being a Christian doesn’t require a person to be intellectually dishonest.  However, this attitude or philosophical persuasion of modernity (as expressed by Bultmann) continues to be believed and championed by many still today.  And while Bultmann represents the modernist attack on historical Christianity from the disciple of New Testament studies, the assault can be seen in many disciplines.  In fact, one of the more influential attacks on belief in God from this past century came through the field of psychology—specifically, through the person of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).  But does Freud’s argument against God really work?

Freud’s impact on culture has been massive.  In his book, The Question of God, Dr. Armand Nicholi reminds us of Freud’s broad influence even in popular culture: “We use terms such as ego, repression, complex, projection, inhibition, neurosis, psychosis, resistance, sibling rivalry, and Freudian slip without even realizing their source.”  In a chapter on “psychotherapy,” from his book, Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis remarks that Freud had many profound insights into the discipline in which he was trained (psychology), but that he was sadly out of his depths when he ventured into fields in which he was not trained—philosophy and linguists (both of which Lewis knew quite a bit about). 

Freud’s explanation of God
In his book, The Future of an Illusion, Freud described belief in God as a collective neurosis, which he labeled a “longing for a father.”  His goal in this book was to explain the origins of religious ideas, and thereby reveal them as no more than a human projection.  Freud reasoned that as we grown up we discover our earthly fathers are not able to give us all the answers in life or protect us from a very dangerous and scary world.  And so, we created the concept of God by projecting up into the sky a sort of super-human father figure.  Therefore, we know that what we think of as “God” is only an illusion or projection growing out of a deeply held desire for all-knowing and all-powerful benevolent father who will take care of us.

With that in mind, I’d like to make a couple points which I believe reveal the unrecoverable weakness in Freud’s popular dismissal of God.

Four points against Freud’s argument against God
(1) Freud’s argument commits the genetic fallacy.
As stated above, Freud’s theory understands religious beliefs to be the result of deep psychological needs.  However, it does not follow from this (assuming he is right) that religious beliefs are then false.  If Freud is correct in his assessment that we come to our belief in God through a deep psychological desire, then all he has proven is that we humans have a deep psychological need to believe in God.  But such a need in no way tells us whether or not God actually exists.  In fact, philosopher C. Stephen Evans points out that the family structure (especially the role of father) might even be God’s intended means of building faith in people.  He writes, “Indeed, many religious believers would accept Freud’s account of the importance of early childhood experiences and the father in developing beliefs about God.  For them the human family is a divinely designed institution whose function may be in part to give humans some idea of what god is like and some inclination to believe in him” (Philosophy of Religion, 129).

To label a belief false on the basis of how a person comes to believe in that belief is faulty reasoning—in fact, it’s called the genetic fallacy.  This fallacy wrongly assumes that you can decide if a belief is false on the basis of its origin.  I may come to believe that the earth is round by reading it in a fortune cookie, or I make come to know about the multiplication table from my parents, but the origin of either of the beliefs says nothing about the truth or falsity of the beliefs.  After all, what if we discovered that Freud (or anybody else for that matter) had a deep psychological need to believe that religion is an illusion.  Does that then prove that Freud’s beliefs are false?  So, we see that Freud’s explanation of religious belief is a double-edged sword.

(2) Some religious beliefs are not comforting.
Freud argued that people hold to their religious beliefs because of the comforting nature of the belief.  This suggests that Christians invent their belief structures in order to be psychological reassured.  However, this doesn’t take into account that many ideas within Christianity are both unsettling and challenging.  So much so that the point of departure for following Jesus is repentance (Mk 1:15).  Remember that Jesus begins his message of the Kingdom with repentance as the only precondition.  Following Jesus insists upon the very uncomforting belief that you and I are dirty, rotten, sinners who don’t need reformation but heart transplants.  The gospel involves taking up my cross, denying myself, and allowing Jesus the helm of my daily life.  And while I believe that the Gospel is, in the end, ultimately comforting—in fact it is the ultimate comfort—it doesn’t begin with comfort.  Rather, it begins with dismay, sadness, even panic.  So, if Christianity were really no more than a wish-projection to satisfy deep psychological needs, we would surely see something that looks more like the self-help books of today’s pop-culture psychologists (“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like me!”).

(3) Freud can’t explain all religious belief. 
Freud’s explanation of religious belief as an expression of the longing for a father figure doesn’t explain all religious belief.  So, while his explanation might be able to account for theistic religions, it does nothing to explain non-theistic religious belief.  For instance, Theravada Buddhism is completely atheistic, having no use for a father figure to explain ultimate reality.  Instead, this school of Buddhism sees ultimate reality (Nirvana) not as offering any assurance psychologically.  After all, there is no self to survive death.  In fact, looking for such a psychological comfort is part of the problem which keeps one bound to karma and the cycle of rebirths.  Freud’s explanation goes nowhere in accounting for the completely impersonal concept of Nirvana. 

(4) C. S. Lewis’ argument from desire better explains all religious beliefs.
While I gave Lewis’ full argument from desire in en earlier post (click here to read), suffice it to say that Lewis offers an explanation of our innate, natural, and universal desire for God, which accounts not only for Christian beliefs, but even non-Christian religious beliefs.  Therefore, we ought to opt for Lewis’ argument over Freud’s, as it has greater explanatory scope—accounting fore more of the data.

Lewis & Freud
This is obviously not a full critique of Freud’s argument against the existence of God.  However, I hope that it has at least brought up some significant problems in his theory.  For a fantastic read which compares both the views and lives of Lewis and Freud, check out the suggested reading below.  This book provides a completely balanced evaluation of these two men and the answers they gave to the most significant issues that we wrestling with in life—God, love, sex, and the meaning of life.  And while it is an unbiased approach, I believe that the Christian worldview (represented by Lewis) comes out shining all the more in the comparison.

Suggested Reading:
The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life, by Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr.