Christian moralists Essay

fit to Freud, they are fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and nigh imperative wishes of man openhearted the secret of their military force lies in the strength of their wishes (Pals 72). For him, the only course to test something is by the scientific method (Pals 72). The recallrs of holiness draw their piety from feelings and emotions (Pals 72). He mentioned that it was a given that godliness whitethorn swallow helped fortify civilizations however, since civilizations were already built, superstition and repression should non continue to be the foundation (Pals 72).According to Freud piety would thus be the universal obsessional neurosis of unselfishness (Pals 73). In his perception, mature population are those guided by crusade and science and not by true superstition and reliance (Pals 73). divinity, for this thinker, was not a being that was real (Pals 73). In fact, he apothegm matinee idol as an prank that was nearly projected by the self because they had a deep longing to over tote up guilt and to lessen their fears (Pals 73). Religion may be something that is rooted from the ego to be able to make sensory faculty of the struggles that are present in the piece.But it is more than sightly a bunch of feelings and emotions because those fade. Religion has been just slightly for centuries and that skunknot be because most of the mickle around the world meet felt like believing in theology for all these years. Hope has in fact been seen to be built on cryptograph but illusion in reality, it hold ups because of credence (Palmer 279). Faith advisenot exist with let kayoed piety. However, Christian moralists would free stay true to the fact that with hope in their lives, it would be evidential and exact moral worth (Palmer 279).Critics of devotion would secernate that morality would depend on the need of a psychologically hardheaded foundation that calls for human purposes (Palmer 279). Going back to the apparent movement posed earlier, if it was about feelings and emotions, hence godliness should have been replaced by money or by opposite things. Even though in this secular world, most of religions areas are penetrated by such things, it still prevails for a lawsuit because people have faith. Majority of the people in the world believe in graven image, does this mean only a part of the human existence are mature people?If the strength of religion lies in the strength of its wishers, how come faithless people have come to know God because of the things that happen in their own lives that they would consider nothing short of a miracle (Pals 72). If everything can be tried by the scientific method, it should have tested why people fall in love or why people can risk their lives to rescue someone else. How come students from the direst of neighborhoods can graduate from high school despite everything that could hinder him or her? Was it determination and hope? Where did those qualities come from?Is it the illusion of the people that God had always been able to leave for them even if they felt that all is lost and has ended? Is it an illusion that the sun rises in the morning and that planets are held in their axis and get around around there orbit? If religion is just something for a individual to overcome guilt, how come people have to place such emotions of God while there are a whole lot of other things that are more tangible that people can turn to? wherefore not you rely on something can see if that means having to have a better concept of that illusion. Religion from SocietyFollowing Emile Durkheims point of flock relating religion with sociology, morality was perceived to be the covenant of each other to others wherein it cannot be separated from religion (Pals 95). Religion and ethics mesh together in a social framework (Pals 95). nether his views, the success of the religious leader does not lie in the effect of converts he had brought in the co ngregation but the event that has reinstated a instinct of community amongst the people (Pals 95). Durkheim believed that Religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices sex act to consecrate things, that is to say, set apart and forbidden (Pals 99).When he talked about inviolate things he referred to unite in one moral community called per draw and those who adhere them (Pals 99). Sacred things referred to the issues of the community while those that are not sacred referred to the private things and the everyday things a individual encounters (Pals 99). Under Durkheims view of religion, it was more like a society. The idea of society is the soul of religion because the concept of religion needed the society in crop to exist. It was ground on creating a sense of belongingness.Society was formed by the bodied commitment of the individuals because without such commitment the society would fail to exist. In the selfsame(prenominal) way, religion exists merely because a lot of people are attached to the fact that it does exist. Like Freud, he referred to Totemism as an example of how society gave have to religion. Freud byword how religion is exactly just like society, in comparison, the rituals and the rites and the church leaders can be seen as a mere petty or surface part of religion because it is just a embody of collective beliefs and practices that are endowed by such some kind of authority.This thinker also believed that there was nothing neither divine nor transmundane because he maxim that it was just society that produced this concept in order to view as people in line and to give emphasis on certain things that the society should value as a whole. Society had survived from civilizations that have started in the gone. The question whether how religion was formed was important to answer because defines the promote need for it. Is it a mere creation of man that humanity exists? If not, then why did it exist because of the persever ance of the human spirit?Where did this perseverance come from, more than that, where did the spirit come from? These are things the society cannot really provide for them if the premise is society gave birth to religion. Alienation Karl Marx, of all the thinkers in the prehistoric may have presented one of the most scornful and sarcastic condescension at religion (Pals 139). Most of the discussion about religion from this philosopher referred to religion as alienation. He never really just concentrated on discussing religion alone but his full treatment have shown how he had handsome much a heavy opinion about it and that influenced the structure of Communism.It was ostensible and simple for Marx, religion is pure illusion (Pals 138). Similar to how Freud dictum religion, Marx saw it more than an illusion but something that was dangerous and something that should be eradicated from society (Pals 138). He considered religion as the worst kind of ideology because of how it expr essed a perceived bunch of excuses dressed as reasons in order to affirm society in the manner that their oppression would like them to stay as (Pals 138). Religion is then related to a in additionl of oppression sooner of being a liberating factor that most Christian ideals adhere to.Since he was consumed with how he taught a capitalist society brought about oppression he saw religion as merely another factor to keep people in line and to prevent them from having to go against the leaders of society. Since most of his arguments fall upon his hatred for the Capitalist society, he attacked religion saying it was amply determined by economics that made all the doctrines that was attributed to it to have no merits of their own (Pals 138). Since he had no respect for that kind of system, he did not see much of the structure and nature of religion as surface (Pals 138).Marx found a profound parallelism between religion and socioeconomics wherein he saw how both areas of society alie nated people from important move of who they were (Pals 140). While religion took moral values socioeconomics took productive jab (Pals 140-141). Religion took a way a part of the people, the morality part as humans and attributed it to a wholly imaginary being (Pals 141). Marx saw how it took forward the credit from the people and awarded everything to God (Pals 141). On the other hand, socioeconomics took away the fruits of the labor of the people and awarded it to whoever had the money to pay, mostly to the rich (Pals 141).Marx saw how these two concepts were too much alike because of how they were related to each other. Like Durkheim, he saw that the capitalist society created religion as economics was the base for everything. He then moved for the abolition of religion under the Communist ideology as this was considered an illusory happiness (Pals 141). According to him, the abolition of religion was in truth required for real happiness to occur (Pals 141). He saw that relig ion did not help the people, most especially the poor.For him, religion only created fantasies for the people that enabled them to ease the pain they felt from the oppression of society (Pals 141). He saw religion as the opium of the poor (Pals 140). He illustrated religion as nothing more than being addiction to any form of drug (Pals 142). It may be a form of escape that would make a person worry-free for a while but it does not serve anything (Pals 142). He saw religion as pure escapism (Pals 142). Religion, for Marx, only shifted the gaze of the people and their reliance on God instead of having to rely upon themselves for their own welfare (Pals 142).However, he also said that it blinded the people from the real disadvantage of the material, physical situation they had in society because they were much to focus on fixing their second life or their eternal life in heaven to be worried about their current stature on earth (Pals 142). The fact that religion was seen to oppress c an be reflected in erroneous leadership on the part of the Church in the past but it cannot generalize the whole body of believers. If a person works for this current life with disregard for the consequences of the next life, what is he to gain? Is he to be satisfied?No person had ever found the controlling satisfaction, no division how hard they work or how wealthy they are, this cannot be attained in the present life. Whoever says he or she can moldiness be fooling him or herself. Reliance on a supreme being is placed in the fiber of human nature for a reason, because they need God. It is not to oppress them to being helpless beings. It actually em roles them to be the best that they can become with the help from their creator. Conclusion No matter what such thinkers present regarding the false hopes and the perception of believers regarding religion, there are still so much areas that remain undisputed.There are still areas in the field of religion that remain to be untouched and simply ignored. The areas that cannot be explained cannot be test by scientific explanation. There are areas that can be denied that they exist even if they dispute that religion does not. If religion was birthed out of society, and there are a lot of atheists that can almost form a community out of themselves, how come they do not just create their own society that could affect the society of believers in the world?The argument about faith and the existence of God had been a long withstanding debate for centuries now and still, the world still contain a largish body of believers that are willing to put faith first beforehand reason. Does this make these people unintelligent beings? There had been thinkers as well who had defended the faith that had chosen to believe because they saw how reason cannot overcome everything, only faith can do that. The existence of religion cannot only be out of the desires of the leaders to keep society in line. It takes more than human power to be able to sustain this for centuries.If it was placed in the hands of mere humans, then there must have been a time wherein atheists have struggled for power and took the reigns of society to reverse the mindset. The protection around the concept of religion speaks tons for itself. It takes divine power to be able to stay significant for centuries for different peoples all over the world.Works Cited Pals, Daniel L. Seven Theories of Religion. New York Oxford University Press, 1996 Palmer, Michael. The question of God An introduction and Sourcebook. New York Routledge, 2001.