The Catholic Response to Feuerbach's "Man created God"?

[EZweber]

It invariably is with religion. With other matters…not so much. Look at science. Any scientist, if he’s honest (and they pride themselves on this so they invariably are) will say: ‘As far as I know…this answer is the correct one at this moment in time’.

I disagree. Scientists have unequivocally made incorrect statements since science began to exist. People in general have views, whether religious or not, that they hold without doubt. Just look at politics.

 

[EZweber]

Religious people call this thing “God”.
But it does not have to be a ‘being’.

If you prefer thing, I am fine with that word.

It is just something that is perpetual. For example, “math”. Or “logic”. Or “space/time”. Or “vacuum fluctuations”.
One could simply say that the logical foundation of existence is fundamental, noncontingent, and perpetual. You do not need to create ‘God’ to satisfy your premises.

One definition of God is “that from which all things receive their existence.”

 

[EZweber]

Religion by definition is man-made.

Exactly how do you define religion?

The concept of “God” is man-made.

Is the concept of triangle man made, or is it a truth that exists whether we have a concept of it or not?
Edit to add:

Whether an actual, conscious, intelligence being exists beyond our plane of observation can never be known.

Unless that intelligence attempts to communicate with us.

If that being somehow interacts with our plane of existence, we should be able to detect it. But we have not yet.

If you are saying we should be able to detect it scientifically, I disagree. We may be able to detect its effects, but not it if it is not physical.

Your question (where does God come in) is why Christianity (and most religions) use death and suffering as wedges and links to increase faith. Specifically, you may not need God now, but you WILL when you die. Or you will when things go bad and you suffer, That is the foundation of all modern religions

Wrong. I need God here and now, for my very existence, whether I suffer and die or not.

Regardless, cosmological arguments are flawed and have been refuted for centuries.

That is an assertion, not an argument. I obviously don’t think so.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It invariably is with religion. With other matters…not so much. Look at science. Any scientist, if he’s honest (and they pride themselves on this so they invariably are) will say: ‘As far as I know…this answer is the correct one at this moment in time’.

I disagree. Scientists have unequivocally made incorrect statements since science began to exist. People in general have views, whether religious or not, that they hold without doubt. Just look at politics.

The very basis of science is: This is what we know from the evidence that we have and is the best explanation for said evidence.

Nuff said.

 

[LateCatholic]

One definition of God is “that from which all things receive their existence.”

Then you are a Deist not a Theist.
Completely different positions.
Christianity is Theism not Deism.
If you are justifying Deism, you definitely have firmer ground to stand on. However, most Christians (if not all) do not want to take that position.
But - and you just acknowledged it - is that even IF you prove a cosmological argument as valid, you have proved a Deist position, not a Theist position.

 

[LateCatholic]

We may be able to detect its effects, but not it if it is not physical.

Just to be clear, you are describing exactly what observation is. Nothing can be detected or observed directly. So saying we should be able to observe “God” interacting with reality by noticing the effects is exactly what observation is. So we don’t disagree. But we haven’t observed any such effects.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Religious people call this thing “God”.
But it does not have to be a ‘being’. It is just something that is perpetual. For example, “math”. Or “logic”. Or “space/time”. Or “vacuum fluctuations”.
One could simply say that the logical foundation of existence is fundamental, noncontingent, and perpetual. You do not need to create ‘God’ to satisfy your premises.

Regardless, cosmological arguments are flawed and have been refuted for centuries.

The argument just serves as a basis and isn’t complete in of itself.

 

[LateCatholic]

Wrong. I need God here and now, for my very existence, whether I suffer and die or not.

Can you clarify why you need God right here and now? I don’t necessarily disagree, but my point is that if you were not suffering, would not die, and had anything you could ever want, you would not “need” God.
Consider this. Why do you pray? Is it because you want something? Is it because you want special favors from God? Are you thanking God? Why does a supreme omniscient, omnipotent being need to be ‘thanked’?
These are questions you ask in religious theory (not just Christianity). These tend to lead people to the understanding that religion is man-made, and often used by those in power to subjugate others using the fear of death and suffering, or - at the very least - unhappiness.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The very basis of science is: This is what we know from the evidence that we have and is the best explanation for said evidence.

Nuff said.

Science is the only thing that is objective so I wouldn’t say that religion is the special one. It’s more vice versa.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

often used by those in power to subjugate others using the fear of death and suffering, or - at the very least - unhappiness.

Not really.

 

[hvizsgyak]

These are questions you ask in religious theory (not just Christianity). These tend to lead people to the understanding that religion is man-made, and often used by those in power to subjugate others using the fear of death and suffering, or - at the very least - unhappiness.

Unfortunately, vices do make us feel happy but eventually they hurt us or others. This is why Gd gave us commandments so we could live together peacefully. But our envy and jealousy controlled us and we wanted more and more for ourselves hurting others to get what we wanted. Those trying to guide the envious and jealous back away from their vices usually get pushed aside and ridiculed. After being pushed around and ridiculed for so long, even some of the nicest people respond sternly. Gd gave us the Church and the commandments to better our lives. Jesus personified Gd’s pathway for a good life. And Jesus is not a created character made up by a group of people to control the lives of others.

 

[LateCatholic]

often used by those in power to subjugate others using the fear of death and suffering, or - at the very least - unhappiness.

What do you mean? Are you seriously claiming religion has not been used throughout history to subjugate the masses? Come on. Look at Trump. The man is NOT religious. He is twice-divorced and brags about the sins he commits. Literally NEVER goes to Church (the inauguration Mass was his first he could remember). He lies multiple times daily. He has cruel policies. He has anti-Christian policies. Yet many Christians love him. He knows he can use religion to get what he wants. Islam is worse. Islamic leaders get people to blow themselves up for it.

 

[LateCatholic]

Gd gave us the Church and the commandments to better our lives. Jesus personified Gd’s pathway for a good life. And Jesus is not a created character made up by a group of people to control the lives of others.

The Church and the Commandments are obviously man-made. What makes you think otherwise. Moses gave us the commandments, not God. Peter started the Church, not God. You can claim these things were inspired by God, but that doesn’t mean they are not man-made. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. And regardless of Jesus’s historicity or divinity, it is clear that persons in power today use what he says, often twisting it, for their own benefit and agenda.

The point is that because religion is man-made, we need to be skeptical. I am not a blindly obedient Christian. I would think the pedophilia scandal has already taught everyone that. Bad actors in the Church used the man-made rules and culture to hide some horrible acts.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The man is NOT religious. He is twice-divorced and brags about the sins he commits. Literally NEVER goes to Church (the inauguration Mass was his first he could remember). He lies multiple times daily. He has cruel policies. He has anti-Christian policies. Yet many Christians love him.

It’s more likely his politics were what they wanted. There are abuses of anything, oh well. Looks like you’re right.

 

[Gorgias]

So saying we should be able to observe “God” interacting with reality by noticing the effects

In order to ‘notice’ the effects, one must be able to predict when and where the effects may be observed. Do you have such a method? Without it, you can’t rationally suggest that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”

But we haven’t observed any such effects.

I would disagree – how would you characterize the reports of miracles, or of the ministry of Jesus, or the witnessing of His post-resurrection appearances?

Are you seriously claiming religion has not been used throughout history to subjugate the masses?

Not sure what this is supposed to prove. The unscrupulous will use anything at their disposal to further their goals, even those means which put others at a disadvantage relative to them.

Moses gave us the commandments, not God.

How do you figure? At best, you might claim “Moses communicated the commandments to us”, unless what you’re really claiming is that Moses was a con artist…

Peter started the Church, not God.

Same objection here: unless you’re claiming that Peter was a charlatan who convinced the ten other apostles to go along with him, how do you justify this claim (let alone substantiate it)?

The point is that because religion is man-made, we need to be skeptical. I am not a blindly obedient Christian.

Who says that the Church is looking for “blind obedience”?

 

[SerraSemper]

Very simple. If you are a philosophy student, then read and understand St. Thomas Aquinas’s five ways as a beginning to a solid refutation of Feuerbach’s theory. I have read both Feurbach and Aquinas and there are some very strong problems with Feuerbach’s ideas. Nevertheless, I think he has one of the strongest positions for atheism. Only by believing in objectivity, and reality can one get out of the mind-trap Feuerbach presents. Ultimately Feuerbach’s ideas go to Descartes ideas of the mind-only trap and as Aquinas says so beautifully in his Pange Lingua, faith supplies where senses are deficient. You either believe your senses and that you can reason from them, or you will forever be trapped in your mind. If you believe you are born with a tabula rasa and the senses help you to reach truths, then you know that Feuerbach can’t be right because proper philosophy brings you to an unmoved mover, etc. I don’t have time to discuss this further so this is a quick post on the run and I don’t plan on discussing further. A solid philosophy course should adddress this kind of thing.

 

[LateCatholic]

In order to ‘notice’ the effects, one must be able to predict when and where the effects may be observed. Do you have such a method? Without it, you can’t rationally suggest that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”

Do you believe prayer is effective? Then it is easy to predict where the effects will occur.

I would disagree – how would you characterize the reports of miracles, or of the ministry of Jesus, or the witnessing of His post-resurrection appearances?

I strongly question miracles. Not a good idea. Putting faith in them only leads to disappointment, when none is necessary. That is why the Church is so cautious. Consider the Shroud Of Turin - a “miracle” originally backed by the Church, and now a disaster. Also, there are just as many miracles for Islam, Buddhism, and even the Greek Gods. Perhaps more.

In terms of Jesus, that is a question of historicity. The evidence is actually very much against a historical Jesus, at least the one we aggregate from the Gospels.

Moses gave us the commandments, not God.

My point is obvious. Moses CLAIMED God gave him the commandments. God does not convey anything to us directly. Peter CLAIMED he was working through God. Of course they could be lying. Why do YOU think otherwise? 7 billion non-Christians clearly think they were lying.
I am not saying they were. But if you look at the facts, it is OBVIOUS that men created the commandments, wrote the Bible, started the Church. Religion is man-made. It’s so obvious to be trivial.

 

[LateCatholic]

The point is that because religion is man-made, we need to be skeptical. I am not a blindly obedient Christian.

You must not have gone to Catholic School.
Why do you think terms such as “sheep” are floated around.
We are not to question the Church.
For example, the Church wanted to police its own in terms of sexual predators. Look where that got us.
Times are thankfully changing - but if you don’t think historically the Church has discouraged questions, you are blind. I can still remember getting in trouble for asking the tough questions in Catholic school.
I will always remember the day I was brought to the Principals office to meet my mother after I asked a nun why being gay was wrong. And I’m not gay. I just wanted to know why.

 

[EZweber]

Can you clarify why you need God right here and now? I don’t necessarily disagree, but my point is that if you were not suffering, would not die, and had anything you could ever want, you would not “need” God.

I need God to exist. If God ceased to will me into existence, I would depend for existence on the material He created me out of, namely, nothing.

Consider this. Why do you pray? Is it because you want something? Is it because you want special favors from God?

Not that I am this spiritually advanced, but if I were perfect I would pray to:

1. Praise God for His goodness, which would in no way benefit Him, but is a vital part of human nature.
2. Grow in a relationship with God.
3. Open myself to God’s graces.

Why does a supreme omniscient, omnipotent being need to be ‘thanked’?

As I implied before, He does not need to be thanked. I need to thank Him.

 

[LateCatholic]

Not that I am this spiritually advanced, but if I were perfect I would pray to:

1. Praise God for His goodness, which would in no way benefit Him, but is a vital part of human nature.
2. Grow in a relationship with God.
3. Open myself to God’s graces.

These all prove my point. You are praying because YOU want benefits. You want grace. You want a better relationship. You must satisfy your needs. God does not need prayer. You do.
My original point, which is getting lost, is that IF you had all of those things you need, you would not need religion. In other words, religion IS man-made, and stems from our fear of death, suffering, or desires and wants.