The Conflict of Religion

The Conflict of Religion

In our last session we discussed the views of four individuals who oppose religion: Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and, Bertrand Russell. Nietzsche explains, “If God exists then Nietzsche can not, but Nietzsche is, therefore, God is not”. He also held that if Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is true then the idea of an existing God cannot be true. Karl Mark expressed, “religions are addicting, and therefore, we use them as power.” He also believed that “we follow religions to alleviate problems, however, because religion is nothing more than an addiction it can not fully solve the problems.” Marx also held that “because religion is an addiction it is dangerous”. Sigmund Freud expressed the idea that, “God is a man made creation”. He believed that, “man created God to witness their daily activities”. In addition, he said, “The creation of God was important to the survival of mankind.” Bertrand Russell held the view that, “the problem with religion is that it gives one a sense of empowerment that we don’t need. Therefore, religion is dangerous”.

In order for me to form an opinion of my own, I had to examine both sides of each claim. Take for example Nietzsche’s idea “because He exists God can not”. What if one were to turn this thought into “because I am, God is” or better yet because god is, therefore, I am. One can also give is and am meaning by saying something like, “God is perfect, therefore, I cannot be perfect.” All these sayings can be true but also false logically; therefore, this claim cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. The claims of Marx, and, Russell are similar, however, these ideas are based on the idea that religion is man made. Marx believed that religion is an addiction that we use as power. Russell believed the idea of religion gives us too much power. His idea is based on the question, “do we do God’s work”? He does not believe that we do God’s work, but his claim suggests that his answer to that question would be that we do. If Russell would have answered the question by saying no, then he would have come up with a conclusion like, “because we don’t do gods work religion is not dangerous”. But to say we don’t do gods work that religion is dangerous does not make sense to dispute. Because if we don’t do gods work then why would religion be dangerous? Therefore, the only way that one can conclude that religion is dangerous is if you believe that one does gods work. Freud has the idea that we use God as a parent. That is too say that everything that we do means nothing if it is not witnessed. In a certain manner that is true. For example, if one was to write a book but no one has read it, such a book is just a collection of words. Similarly, if God has created us, and no one acknowledges it, then does that mean that Gods creation did not exist or was useless? To assume that a book was written to be read but was not is therefore a useless book, is to exclude the possibility of the writer writing the book to bring out desires, anger, pressures, pain, or any other emotional feeling. Therefore, if the writer achieved those goals by writing the unread book then it was useful. Comparatively, to say that an action that is not noticed is useless can be proven false in a spiritual sense and can only be true when it comes to acquiring material goods or receiving compliments from material beings. The same thing holds true with Nietzsche’s idea that “if evolution is true then God is not. It is very possible that evolution is the product of a divine plan. If God is perfect then why wouldn’t he / she or “it” plan for evolution?