Is God Just a Psychological Crutch for the Weak?

Paul Copan:

[pk_box width=”600″ align=”center” text_align=”left”]1. Freud himself acknowledged that his “psychoanalysis” of religion had no supporting clinical evidence.
2. The argument commits the genetic fallacy, which is the error of attributing truth or falsehood to a belief based on its origin or genesis.
3. We need to distinguish between the rationality of belief and the psychology of belief.
4. It is odd and arbitrary to claim that whatever brings comfort and solace is false.
5. The incurably religious nature of human beings could just as likely indicate a divinely placed void that only God can fill.
6. A comforting father figure, while unique to the biblical faith, is not at the heart of the other world religions.
7. The attempt to psychologize believers applies more readily to the hardened atheist. [/pk_box]

Read the whole article and Copan’s explanation of each point here.


1 reply
  1. Tom Joad
    Tom Joad says:

    Hmmm… I never really considered that statement to be a commentary on the TRUTH of religion. I always just thought of it as a statement of partial but independent fact. The fact that God is not there doesn’t really follow at all from the statement. But the fact that God is not there leads us to consideration of why people think he is. I think you could probably argue that ‘the weak’ may tend to be more credulous with respect to religious claims –  Christianity in its simplest forms presents, evidently to some people, palatable and digestible answers to difficult questions. 

    Also, the qualifier ‘just’ seems to indicate that a ‘psychological crutch’ is a negative characteristic of faith. To me, it’s one of the only positive characteristics – in certain circumstances. 

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *