The Validity of Ludwig Feuerbach's Theory of Religion

I would like to point out first and foremost, that religion has not always been primarily associated with religious texts. Tribal religions existed long before today's modern monotheistic religions. Also, I would like to point out that you gave no means of justifying your argument. Considering that while you don't believe that God is a physical being others may say that God - if taken in human form (Jesus) was real, then he does exist physically. Someone could also argue that it is scientifically supported that human beings have souls or spirits and as such one could recognize the spirit of God as a physical element of life. Setting aside personal opinions of religion, is Ludwig Feuerbach's Theory of Religion valid? The answer is No because of the format and content of his proofs. Since I have no more to counter your opinion - not really an argument - on Ludwig Feuerbach's Theory of Religion, I will continue on to his second proof: His second proof is as follows: The only way we could form a concept of a perfect being would be to reflect on what we admire as the perfect aspects of human existence. (This implies that the reality of God depends on our way of perceiving. It is important to note that there are several religious objections and a few of them are worth mentioning. It is also important to note Feuerbach's responses to these objections. All of which are as follows: - Religious Objection to Feuerbach's second proof: There could be more to God than what our idea of God describes. THE reality of God does not depend on our way of understanding. The more radical form of this argument has been called the "via negativa" (way of negation) this says that the only way to approach the knowledge of God is to deny any assumed characteristics of God. -Feuerbach's response to the religious objection: To adopt this position undermines the purpose of belief in God, because via negativa results in a God who is meaningless in everyday life. (Here, I would like to give credit to Feuerbach because this counter argument is valid in all rights.) - Less radical form of religious objection says there is some truth to our human descriptions of God - it's not necessary to negate the predicates of God but these don't capture the entire reality of God. There may be more to God than we can know. (Here, I would like to state that this is what the majority of people would claim as a religious objection.) - Feuerbach's response: If we only know of God in terms drawn from human existence, then we have no grounds for saying God is more than this. (Here, I would like to say that if the claim that God transcends all human knowledge is true then there are grounds for saying that God has the potential to be more than this. Also, we can only use so much of our brains - how are we to know that these are the only terms of human existence?) - The last religious objection relies on the faith of the believer. - Feuerbach's response: Faith does not prove the existence of God - it only tells us what we want to be true - it reveals our nature to us not God's Nature. That is the end of his second proof and it is where I would like to begin my analysis. Firstly, Feuerbach claims that "Faith only tells us what we want to be true." If that is the case then Feuerbach just debunked his entire theory in one statement. Feuerbach referenced us to human self-consciousness in the beginning of his first proof. Feuerbach's assumption and the implication were that human self-consciousness was an advanced trait that we evolved into. Feuerbach was relying on his own faith in human evolution and denied the possibility that human self-consciousness could have been created within us by the design of God. Feuerbach had no scientific evidence to back up this implication considering his book entitled "The essence of Christianity" was written in 1841 and Darwins book "The Origin of Species" was published in 1859. Darwin's work was the first major contributor to this THEORY. So, Feuerbach - having no scientific evidence to back up his assumption that human self-consciousness derivative of the human mind and not blessed upon us by a divine power was in and of itself, a faith. Which as Feuerbach says: "does not prove the existence" of an evolutionized human self-consciousness but simply tells us what he "wants to be true." Between the content of his proofs being false and/or questionable and the format that he follows in supporting his proofs, he negates himself and proves his theory invalid. Remember this was not a debate on whether what he said was true or not but in the validity of his argument. (Though, I believe that he fails in both categories.) -------------------------CITED------------------------------ 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 2. Notes/ Handout on Feuerbach's Theory of Religion via a Philosophy Course on World Religions. 3. https://www.marxists.org... 4. http://literature.org... ----------------------------------------------------------------