If you’re unable to grasp this simple counter-factual method of reasoning, then your science education has failed you in a truly spectacular way. A science educator who doesn’t understand an argumentative strategy like reductio ad absurdum needs to step back and recognize the massive hole in his own education.
Please educate me how you can use a reductio ad absurdum from a strawman fallacy to make a significant point, I’ll be waiting…
You build a flawed framework of an argument and then dismantle it with an reductio ad absurdum to let it crash down, congratulations.
We can have a look at your argument, shall we?
The Freudian psychoanalytic analysis of religion is an attempt to explain religious belief as a form of wish-fulfillment and of satisfying an underlying desire for a father figure. These ideas, commonly characterized together as the security blanket concept of religion, are common claims made by many prominent atheists today, claims that deserve to be seriously examined.
First of all, where is the evidence for this claims? Citations from atheists (in context please) are insufficient and at best anecdotal evidence. You do not even provide that. Unless you do a study/survey over atheist beliefs, you are already talking out of your anecdotal ass. Furthermore,
What I aim to show is that if belief in a God is indeed a mere comfort blanket for believers around the world, then, by the atheist’s own criteria, atheism itself has deep psychological roots that manifest themselves in the atheist’s rejection of the divine.
Suddenly, the many nuanced arguments from atheists are even further reduced that to the (perceived from your side) sole contemption that the “security blanket” is the only psychological explanation that atheists are offering.
When at best we say that this might be a contributing factor, people feel better/save when they believe, so it might nudge them to belief unproven shit.
And when we raise this point, we sure as hell don’t have our ideas from a 100-year-dead viennese dreamcatcher or refer to him.
So why use Freud’s questionable (and scientific irrelevant) metaphors and represent them as if they’d be some kind of cornerstone of atheistic philosophy? Hello strawmen.
I would really like to see some data on how many atheists derive their “atheism rebellion against the divine” from the ideas of Freud, rather than from the simple fact that they just do not want to believe in shit when there is no evidence for it.
But no, by your argumentation, when an atheists suspects that the “security blanket” idea has some merit in why people believe, his atheism must then be equally flawed.
Instead, my purpose is to show that if you accept the security blanket concept of religion, then accepting it can only be done on the basis of embracing certain Freudian psychoanalytic ideas, and if you accept those, then, by Freud’s own criteria, you must then accept that atheism is also a form of wish-fulfillment
That is a lot of bullshit, also somewhat of an argumantative slippery slope fallacy, as your premises do not necessitate (=logically demand) your conclusion. Let us just have a short look, okay?
Instead, my purpose is to show that if you accept the security blanket concept of religion, then accepting it can only be done on the basis of embracing certain Freudian psychoanalytic idea
Why? How do you come to that conclusion? Why does me saying: “I think (one of many reasons why) people believe is because it makes them feel save” necessitate me to embrace Freudian psychoanalysis? Clearly, there is a manifold of scientific and psychological frameworks that would allow me to make the statement and still hold that Freud’s theories have no traction, without running into any logical contradiction. Your argument that if you hold “premise A” then you need to accept “conclusion B” is idiosyncratic of your wish to steer into a certain direction, but it sure as hell is not logical. But then you even continue:
and if you accept those, then, by Freud’s own criteria, you must then accept that atheism is also a form of wish-fulfillment
Even if you were to accept Freud’s (now mostly debunked) psychoanalytic ideas, there is no logical argumentation to come to the wish-fullfilment conclusion in an exclusive manner. Again, your premise does not necessarily yield to your conclusion.
Put in more formal terms, Freud’s argument goes like this:
(1) The development of the human mind through natural history has provided those minds with a number of special properties.
(2) When considering the natural and social world, these properties encourage humans to believe in gods.
(3) Therefore, the development of human minds has produced belief in gods (i.e., God).
(4) Therefore, belief in gods is false, as it is an accident of evolution.
You rightly claim that this line of argumentation yields to a wrong conclusion, as things can be true irrespective if we believe in them or not. That’s one reason why we have science, you know, it works even if you don’t believe in it.
However, even if we ignore his fallacious reasoning, isn’t it possible that belief in God really is caused by a longing for a father figure? After all, many people admit that their belief gives them strength; that without God, their lives would crumble and lose all meaning.
So it seems as if there is some truth to what Freud observed.
Hey there, are you still on the same topic? You just throw in Freud’s hypothesis “belief in god is caused by longing for a father figure” and suddenly accept it as true. Where is the exclusivity coming from? The truth value of his hypothesis is not effected by whether or not people believe that their lives would crumble and lose all meaning. How do you assess that there might be truth to it? Your personal feeling?
And again, you have transformed the original atheist argument of “Some people belief because it makes them feel save” into something quite distinct, the Freudian “Belief is necessarily and solely caused by longing for a father figure”. People who might agree with the first statement sure-as-hell are neither logically required nor likely to agree with Freud’s statement; yet your argumentative framework implies just this. That is deeply dishonest and at the core of your strawmen fallacy.
Yet, we can ask, is it possible that atheism itself comes from a deep, unconscious childish desire?
Now you just start speculating within a Freudian framework that nobody even followed you into; worse than that, you bring in the Oedipus complex and the rest is the equivalent of mental masturbation (or diarhea) from Vitz and yourself. I tried to phrase it nicely as dimwit closet theologians.
I have nothing against philosophy, I love and enjoy it. But the moment a philosopher has to go back 100 years to pick an irrelevant argument he can mentally masturbate upon to drive his agenda, I am happy to be a scientist again.
Ultimately, this type of psychological theorizing proves nothing. The philosophical question of God’s existence cannot be solved by examining how we ourselves come to believe or disbelieve in some form of deity.
You mean your type of theorizing proves nothing but for the fact that humans can pull all kind of junk out of their asses to fit their narratives. Real psychological researchers have a name for that, confirmation bias.
Maybe first gain some real knowledge about how the brain works, before you continue with philosophy of psychology; just a friendly advice from a scientist.