David Foster Wallace wrote, “in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.”[1] In contemporary secular society, many increasingly worship atheism. The issue I take with contemporary atheism is its claim to be non-religious, to be free from worship and illusion.
Given this issue, I contend that humans are religious animals because the theist or atheist options are both willful wishes that defy definitive truth. Secondly, both posit a problem with the human condition, a related solution and necessary means to its resolution, which, when it works, fosters dogmatic attachment such that the position becomes a “state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary.”[2]
To make my case that man is a religious animal, I first explain William James’ notion of the religion hypothesis found in The Will to Believe toargue that the ultimate questions defy definitive truth as theoretical reason cannot determine the exclusive truth value of these subject matters, and so makes the position one comes to endorse concerning such options religious either way insofar that the individual requires at some point an assumption, a leap of faith, they wish were so. From here, I unpack Freud’s argument in The Future of an Illusion to show, as a case study, that his dogmatic atheism is as illusory as the religious beliefs he criticizes to not only support my thesis that man is a religious animal but also refute Freud’s conclusion that religious ideas alone are illusions. I lastly argue that man is a religious animal because, like faith traditions, atheism too submits a problem to the human condition, a related solution, and the necessary means to resolve it, which marks any religious tradition.
Part 1
In The Will to Believe, William Jamesargues that individuals are free to believe any hypothesis that tempts their will if and only if it is a genuine option. To qualify as genuine, it must be live, forced and momentous, as well as beyond resolution by theoretical reasoning.[3] He summarizes the work by writing that it is “an essay in the justification of faith, a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced.”[4]
The first condition of an option being genuine is whether an option is live or dead.[5] A live option is a possibility that could be actualized because of how one’s experiences have influenced their believing and valuing; conversely, a dead option is currently an impossibility. Dead options cannot be willed into live options but may become live through future experiences.[6] For example, the option to believe in atheism is a live option for most Westerners given contemporary secular culture, so much so that Christianity, the once liveliest religious option for most Westerners, is increasingly becoming dead.
The second condition of a genuine option is that it must be forced instead of avoidable.[7] A forced option is that which admits no middle ground. I cannot delay and remain in the suspension of belief. It is either I believe or I do not believe. James is here focused on those beliefs that are a “complete logical disjunction.”[8] The exemplar is between being a theist or an atheist, as undecided agnostics essentially qualify as atheists.
The final condition that must obtain for an option to be genuine is momentous.[9] A momentous option greatly impacts one’s life and is not trivial. For instance, to believe in some religion is momentous compared to endorsing beliefs about nuclear fusion, as the former impact every area of one’s life because they do not abstract away subjectivity, whereas the latter leaves the subject out of it. Hence, when considering its impact on my whole life, the belief in nuclear fusion is trivial.
To qualify as a genuine option then requires that it be live, forced, and momentous. The next condition that justifies one in endorsing some religious hypothesis that tempts their will is that theoretical reasoning cannot determine the exclusive truth value of such ideas. The primary candidates for such ideas are Kant’s transcendental ideas or “illusions” of God, the Self, and the Cosmos, as they are outside sense experience. James himself enumerates the plurality within this transcendent metaphysical domain of discourse as proof of the inability to know.[10] Given that theoretical reasoning cannot determine the truth of such ultimate ideas, James reasons that it licenses the individual to endorse whichever of the transcendental options they are inclined to because, unlike the Skeptics who advise suspension of judgment, he thinks it is not possible to withhold assent to forced options. Writing, “our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds.”[11] One must will the leap of faith to theism or atheism because it is not possible to determine the truth value of these ideas exclusively as they are outside sense experience.
Nevertheless, each can endorse, on this view, whichever hypothesis tempts their will and determine the truth value empirically by seeing what follows in their experience when holding such ideas.[12] For some, the theistic hypothesis will result in better outcomes; for others, the atheistic hypothesis. The key is that whether one chooses the theist or the atheist position, both are leaps of faith that foster becoming grasped by some ultimate concern as the better outcomes of x hypothesis for y individual makes all other concerns preliminary, which highlights the religiosity of humans, by definition. To conclude part one, James writes, “if a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that anyone can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong so much the worse for him.”[13]
Now, the objection at this point is that such reasoning opens the door to radical subjectivism. The critic claims that if one endorses these claims, one is licensed to believe anything is true if it feels right. This objection, however, is false, as one is only licensed in those domains where reason cannot determine the exclusive truth of specific ideas, namely that are outside sense experience which are genuine options. The nonsensical ideas – ideas without physical correlates – cannot be proven either way and allow individuals to endorse what they will. Those hypotheses that console, or foster better overall wellbeing, for an individual are better for them.
Secondly, critics will likely object that atheism and theismare distinct leaps on quantitative grounds. That is, there are far more rational grounds for God’s lack of existence than for God’s existence. The quantity is so distinct, which shows that atheists are less religious as they are not endorsing on blind faith like card-carrying theists. While I agree that the grounds for the hypotheses may differ, both are, if we focused exclusively on the quality and less on the quantity, willing a leap of faith as it is not possible to prove either position exclusively, and so requires some logical leap to the position. The choices made concerning these ultimate matters always follow a leap of faith, which makes either account religious, and humans religious animals.
Part 2
Moving forward, to better illustrate why man is a religious animal, let us consider Freud’s claim in The Future of an Illusion as it is a case study of the religiosity of atheists. Freud argues that religious ideas are illusions primarily because they are constructed to deal with the helplessness humans encounter once they realize their mother and father cannot protect them, and secondly, because they lack sufficient scientific proof.
Illusion here has a technical sense and does not mean being in error as usual. In his words, “an illusion is not the same thing as an error; nor is it necessarily an error.”[14] Freud here takes illusion to mean a belief that is rooted in wish fulfillment. Illusion signifies a belief someone endorses that they wish were fulfilled. He writes, “what is characteristic of illusions is that they are derived from human wishes.”[15]
Now, to more fully understand why he claims religious ideas are illusions it helps to unpack his views on the formation of civilization as he draws his conclusion about religious ideas primarily from this.
Freud reasons that in the state of nature, before civil society, our existence was chaotic as there was no order because animal instincts dominated. Through religious ideas, human society became possible as they established order by regulating not only oneself but also society amidst the instinctive urges to self-sabotage and sabotage others. These ideas employ reason in its regulative role, which means these ideas are not constitutive of anything independent of the mind. They are, in other words, mental constructs that would not exist if there were no human minds – they are nonsensical.
Freud further reasons that in moving from the state of nature into civil society, human instincts could no longer be expressed but were increasingly internalized. He writes, “it seems rather that every civilization must be built up on coercion and renunciation of instinct.”[16] And this is through “its religious ideas – in its illusions” as they are “the most important item in the psychical inventory of a civilization to deal with the individual that is in conflict with civilization.”[17] The internalization of instinct, which follows as man enters society, results in neurosis, which is why he thinks religious ideas are problematic. Thus, we should, Freud reasons, do away with religious ideas altogether – “civilization runs a greater risk if we maintain our present attitude to religion than if we give it up.”[18]
For Freud, religion “is comparable to a childhood neurosis”[19] because as children seek solace and protection from their parents, they, with time, come to realize that their mother and father are impotent in the face of the larger dangers that exist in Nature, and this recognition of helplessness against the forces of nature and the desolation associated with it are calmed through the construction of religious ideas like the almighty Father of the Judeo-Christian tradition.[20] Therefore, the first reason that religious ideas are illusions is that they were constructed to help humans deal with their helplessness against the forces of nature – their wish for solace amidst the suffering of life. He writes, “when the growing individual finds that he is destined to remain a child for ever, that he can never do without protection against strange superior powers, he lends those powers the features belonging to the figure of his father; he creates for himself the gods whom he dreads, whom he seeks to propitiate, and whom he nevertheless entrusts with his own protection.”[21]
The second reason religious ideas are illusions to Freud is that they are insusceptible to proof.[22] Being grounded for many on subjective feeling, or the “as-if” hypothesizing, which closely resembles James’ position above, they have “no binding force” – they do not compel assent.[23] In other words, the justifications are meaningless as they do not correspond to anything factual. Given that there are leaps in the logic that are filled in by wishfulthinking, anyone who endorses such beliefs, Freud reasons, lives in a world of illusion. It becomes clear that Freud may be equivocating between illusion as a wish and illusion as an error.[24]
Freud’s explanation of religious ideas is not without fault. What I primarily take issue with is the atheistic alternative as being free from illusion. The two reasons he levels against religious ideas can be turned against his own position. The atheistic alternative also lacks proof and is only obtained through a leap of faith – by wishful, illusory thinking. If one agrees with James’ analysis of the religious hypothesis, the atheist position is equally illusory, as it is outside the scope of empirical verification. James’ religious hypothesis shows that Freud when faced with the genuine options available to him, willed the hypothesis that God does not exist because that is what he wishes were so. If you ask him for proof, he cannot provide anything that is complete by itself. He may say something like, “but science has given us evidence by its numerous and important success that is no illusion,”[25] however, this does not warrant the first principle that there is no god, which he gets to through his willful wishing rather than his intellect. Hence, he too can be charged with wishful thinking that replaces the traditional commandment that “you shalt have no other Gods before me,” with the commandment that you shalt have no Gods at all, which explains why he vilifies religious ideas. This transformation come through when his interlocuter writes:
“If you want to expel religion from our European civilization, you can only do it by means of another system of doctrines; and such a system would from the outset take over all the psychological characteristics of religion – the same sanctity, rigidity and intolerance, the same prohibition of thought – for its own defense.”[26]
Freud even concedes this when he writes, “I will moderate my zeal and admit the possibility that I, too, am chasing an illusion. Perhaps the effect of the religious prohibition of thought may not be so bad as I suppose; perhaps it will turn out that human nature remains the same even if education is not abused in order to subject people to religion. I do not know, and you cannot know either.”[27] Human nature, whether one be a theist or an atheist, does remain the same – we are religious animals that become grasped by ultimate concerns. This is evidenced when Freud writes, “our God, Logos, will fulfil whichever of these wishes nature outside us allows.”[28] Freud was aware of the idol he was worshipping and his thesis shows the religiosity of humans is inescapable.
Part 3
Given parts one and two, humans are religious animals insofar as we postulate preferences to the religious hypothesis. I will now argue that humans are religious animals because whichever religious hypothesis one endorses helps them with some problem of the human condition. These preferences often result in being “grasped by ultimate concern,” of becoming rigidly, dogmatically, attached to the preference because they help resolve some problem of the human condition.
While I am still holding to Tillich’s definition of religion, I will extend it for my following point. Something also qualifies as religious if the four following characteristics obtain: it claims there is a problem of the human condition, a solution to that problem, a means to achieve it, and exemplar figures.[29]
Given this extended definition, the raison d’être that shows why man is a religious animal is that either fork – theism or atheism – falls under this categorization. The problem of the human condition and a related solution is evident in any faith tradition. To take two examples, consider the claim in Christian traditions. Humans are marked by original sin, and this disorders their will. Through divine grace, this problem of sin is solved as grace orders the will toward the highest end. This gratuitous gift from God increases if one follows the Catholic, Protestant, etc., form of life, which is inspired by Jesus, and his saintly followers. In Buddhism, the problem is suffering caused by clinging. The solution is, on the one hand, to stop clinging, but this depends on insight into the impermanent nature of all phenomena. Following the eight-fold path promotes this insight, and the Buddhist saints of the Sangha inspire the way.
This same pattern exists with atheists in that they claim the problem of the human condition is religious ideas as they cause an illusory view of reality. This is evident in the case of Freud. For “hard-headed” [30] atheists, the solution is to discard these illusions and adhere to the “right beliefs” – their orthodoxy – by cultivating the intellect to refute religious ideology. Religious studies scholar Stephen Prothero summarizes this when he writes, “atheists argue that the human problem cannot be solved by religion, because religion itself is the problem. Religious belief is man-made and murderous – irrational, superstitious, and hazardous to our health. The solution is to flush this poison out of our system – to follow the courageous examples of heroic unbelievers from Diagoras to Freud to the patron saints of New Atheism.”[31] My point is that if these four characteristics define something as religious, atheists are as religious as theists. Atheists, especially the “hard-headed” sorts, are grasped by an ultimate concern like their theistic brethren because the atheistic hypothesis helps them solve a problem of the human condition as they see it.
Theism or atheism then provides a solution, and when it works, fosters attachment to the consolatory effects, and worship ensues. While the beliefs may diverge, given this definition of religion, the general behaviours overlap sufficiently to claim that humans are homo religiosus.
As I hope to have argued, humans are religious animals because we all make the leap of faith to some postulate when faced with the religious hypothesis. Secondly, in attempting to deal with the problems of the human condition, humans come to endorse certain ideals and values, some doctrine or other that works for them, which results in being “grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary.” To wrap up, I will return to the quote from David Foster Wallace that I opened with as it intimates at a normative implication of what weworship:
“And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship – be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles – is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things – if they are where you tap real meaning in life – then you will never have enough … Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally plant you …Worship power – you will feel weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart – you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out … the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful; it is that they are unconscious. They are default settings … and the so-called “real world” will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called “real-world” of men and money and power hums along quite nicely on the fuel of fear and contempt and frustration and craving and the worship of self.[32]
[1] David Foster Wallace, This is Water Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion, about Living a Compassionate Life, (New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2009), 98-101.
[2] Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, (HarperCollins, 1957), 2-3.
[3] William James, “The Will to Believe,” in Pragmatism and Other Writings, ed. Giles Gunn, (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2000), 198.
[4] Ibid., 205.
[5] Ibid., 199.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 199
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 200.
[10] Ibid., 208.
[11] Ibid., 205.
[12] Neil W. Williams and Joe Saunders, “Practical Grounds for Belief: Kant and James on Religion,” European Journal of Philosophy 26, (2018): 1276.
[13] James, 218.
[14] Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, ed. and trans. James Strachey, (New York, W W Norton & Company Inc., 1961), 31.
[15] Freud, 31.
[16] Ibid., 7.
[17] Ibid., 14.
[18] Ibid., 35.
[19] Ibid, 53.
[20] Ibid., 17.
[21] Ibid., 24.
[22] Ibid., 31.
[23] Ibid., 28.
[24] Ibid., 51.
[25] Ibid., 55.
[26] Ibid., 52.
[27] Ibid., 48, emphasis mine.
[28] Ibid., 53, emphasis mine.
[29] Stephen Prothero, “Introduction” in God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World and Why Their Difference Matters, (HarperCollins, 2010), 23-24
[30] Thomas Nagel, “Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament”in Secular Philosophy and the Religion Temperament, (Oxford University Press, 2010), 3-19.
[31] Prothero, God is Not One, 318.
[32] Wallace, 102-115.