The Validity of Ludwig Feuerbach's Theory of Religion

This debate is over the validity of Ludwig Feuerbach's Theory of Religion given in his work, "The Essence of Christianity." Feuerbach subjects his own theory to questioning in his explanation. Feuerbach's General Thesis of Religion is as follows: 1. All religion is egoistic - arises out of and focuses on human needs and concerns 2. Originally, religion personified forces of nature. They became Gods - and humans relate to these with both a feeling of fear and love. Monotheistic religion began when humans became aware of their difference from other parts of nature - when humans began to develop self-consciousness - then self-consciousness embodied the idea of God. Feuerbach's Thesis on Monotheistic Religion is as follows: 1. The value of religious ideas lies in the truth they can reveal to us - the truth of our own human potential - this is revealed in the idea of God. - This idea has 3 functions: a. to express our self-consciousness b. to clarify our self- consciousness c. to inspire us to reach our human potential 2. The problem with religion lies in the falsehood it promotes - belief in the existence of God as a real being distinct from humans - causing us to lose touch with our human potential expressed in the idea of God, and causing us to lose motivation to achieve out potential. Feuerbach then states several "proofs" for his thesis: First proof: 1. Religion (and the idea of God it gives us) is unique to humans. 2. Therefore, religion must arise from some trait unique to humans. 3. That unique trait is self-consciousness 4. Therefore, religion (and the idea of God it gives us) must arise from human self-consciousness. Clarification of terms: A Is a necessary condition of B If B cannot exist or occur without A. A is a sufficient condition of B if A alone is enough to produce B. Self- consciousness is a sufficient condition of the awareness of God, but perhaps only succeeds in showing it is a necessary condition. STOP: I would like to pause for a second here at the end of Feuerbach's first proof to shed light on the falsehood of his points. First, I would like to play devil's advocate and give attention to a somewhat mysterious topic. Religion is defined as the worship of a controlling force greater than or superior to oneself. A dog worships and obeys his master because his master controls his food source and in essence, his life. Would it be correct, by definition, then to say that the dog is religious? Yes, it would, though not in the terms we traditionally like to refer to. So, it is important to understand that the concept of religion - the worship and obedience to a higher power - is NOT restricted to humans alone. Simply, the definition to human thought. Thus, all of the following points are null and void. However, to gain further evidence I will continue. Secondly, Feuerbach's third point in his first proof supporting his thesis should also be evaluated. Recently, an article by national geographic indicated that animals such as elephants, dolphins, magpies, and some great apes were capable of self-recognition which could indicate a deeper level of self-consciousness. Therefore, this trait has a large possibility of not being unique to human beings. Thus, point 4 is deemed void. The least "humanized" version of the definition of God is "a person or thing of supreme value." So, it might be correct to say that to a dog, a human is God. There is more to this argument but I would like to allow the Pro/For speaker to have a chance to speak on the first proof before i continue into the second one. --------------------------------- CITED --------------------------------------------- 1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 2. https://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. https://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. Handout/Notes on Ludwig Feuerbach's Theory of Religion from a college Philosophy course ----------------------------------------------------------------------------