Atheism- Wish Fulfillment

Joanne McNeill, Northern Advocate, March 15, 2011

Joanne bewails the rising crescendo of earth’s dilemmas (earthquakes, civil unrest, nuclear meltdown, economic global collapse, starving people) and (by her own reluctant admission),sounds like a proper Jeremiah. The next writer Nickie Muir- (March  16, 2011) similarly speaks of the end of the world, crazy weather, earthquakes, and berates “doomsday Christian fundamentalists”? What is common to both is their sense of uncertainty in the world (with which I fully accord) and their mutual disdain for anything that smacks of Christianity (with which I do not agree).

Joanne said, “It’s no good blaming God either. Gods were invented by humans who can’t bear the idea of facing the unknown alone.”

It was Sigmund (born- Sigismund) Freud (1856-1939) the father of Psychoanalysis who popularised the idea of God as a “wish fulfilment”.

Eduard von Hartmann said nearly a century ago: “it is perfectly true that nothing exists merely because we wish it, but it is not true that something cannot exist if we wish it.”

Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and senior research fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford says: “Freud's atheistic view of the origin of religion comes prior to his study of religion; it is not its consequence.”

In his brilliant allegorical tale “The Pilgrims Regress”, C.S. Lewis tackles this widely accepted cliché. Madam Reason had just rescued John from the Giant through a series of riddles* and now he questions her on the meaning of the second one:

“‘It has two meanings,’ said she, ‘and in the first the bridge signifies Reasoning. The Spirit of the Age wishes to allow argument and not to allow argument.’

‘How is that?’

‘You heard what they said. If anyone argues with them they say that he is rationalising his own desires, and therefore need not be answered. But if anyone listens to them they will then argue themselves to show that their own doctrines are true.’

‘I see. And what is the cure for this?’

‘You must ask them whether any reasoning is valid or not. If they say no, then their own doctrines, being reached by reasoning, fall to the ground. If they say yes, then they will have to examine your arguments and refute them on their merits: for if some reasoning is valid, for all they know, your bit of reasoning may be one of the valid bits.’

‘I see,’ said John. ‘But what was the second interpretation?’

‘In the second,’ said Reason, ‘the bridge signifies the giant’s own favourite doctrine of the wish-fulfilment dream. For this also he wishes to use and not to use.’

‘I don’t see how he wishes not to use it.’

‘Does he not keep on telling people that the Landlord is a wish fulfilment dream?’

‘Yes; surely that is true- the only true thing he did say.’

‘Now think. Is it really true that the giant and Sigismund, and the people in Eschropolis, and Mr Halfways, are going about filled with a longing that there should be a Landlord, and cards of rules , and a mountain land beyond the brook, with a possibility of a black hole?’”

Then John stood... to think. And…then…he began to laugh…

‘You had better hear the rest of the argument,’ she said at last. ‘It may not be such a laughing matter as you suppose.’…

‘You see now the direction in which the giant does not want the wish-fulfilment theory used?’

‘I’m not sure that I do,’ said John.

“Don’t you see what follows if you adopt his own rules?’

‘No,’ said John, very loudly: for a terrible apprehension was stealing over him.

‘But you must see,’ said Reason, ‘that for him and all his subjects disbelief in the Landlord is a wish-fulfilment dream.’

*“Now hear my second riddle. There was a certain man who was going to his own house and his enemy went with him. And his house was beyond a river too swift to swim and too deep to wade. And he could go no faster than his enemy. While he was on his journey his wife sent to him and said, You know that there is only one bridge across the river: tell me, shall I destroy it that the enemy may not cross, or shall I leave it standing that you may cross? What should this man do?”

Intent Prior To Content

Joanne McNeill wrote (Nth Adv May 10) ‘… surely for avowed Christians…the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” should be fairly clear cut’ quoting from Exodus   and then she alludes to Jesus teaching to turn the other cheek. It’s great that you are reading the Bible but a word of advice is in order.

A text taken out of context is a pretext for proof-text, its a post-modern idea that everyone has become her/his own authority; and people think that they can make any verse mean whatever they want it to mean.

Intent is prior to content. Your intention was to give people the idea the Bible is internally contradictory and thereby give ground for dismissal as the inspired word of God.

 The word given in Exodus was civil law by which to govern the people, just as our laws dictate how to live. Far from abrogating the law, Jesus raised the bar, if you so much as looked at a woman with lust you had committed adultery in your heart, if you even got angry with another without cause you had as good as committed murder. He affirmed his intention not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

We all know if people cannot rule their own lives, sooner or later the law will step in to rule it for them and over them. This is ruling imposed from the top down. Jesus came that we might have power to rule our own lives (even excelling the law) from the bottom up, from the inside- out.

If in doubt of the meaning of a text- consult the Author.

(John 8:45, 47) And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. He that is of God hears (understands) God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation- George McDonald

Bankruptcy of Secular Humanism

 Nickie Muir (Northern Advocate 4/05/2011) airs that tired old song yet again. How does she know the rejoicing madmen were Christians? Does she not see the difference between some misguided religious fanatic claiming to be a Christian burning a Koran; and the fanaticism of one who masterminded the Twin Towers holocaust resulting in 3000 or so dead and who has reportedly cost $2.4 trillion dollars to the economy?  

The world has changed since Bin Laden.

All the Christians I spoke with condemned and were disgusted with the rejoicing over an evil mans death. On a local radio station a Christian woman was interviewed who had lost her husband in 9/11. She also condemned any rejoicing over his demise.

But let’s bring the issue closer to home. I have written before- that the stability of NZ society has for years been underpinned by a broad-ranging Judeo-Christian worldview and the goodness you enjoy in Godzone today is largely thanks to borrowed moral capital from a vestigial “Christian” culture. 

Nickie’s world-view, summarized “secular humanism” or “philosophical naturalism” and personified in people like Richard Dawkins has made huge inroads in the way people think and relate today.

I could almost guarantee that there is a direct proportional relation between youth suicide, depression, family breakdown and all the associated ills common to today with the ascendancy of Nickie’s worldview. It undermines any sense of intrinsic value (we are just advanced animals) and purpose (there is no higher destiny other than what you choose), no absolute morality (make it up as you go) and gives no satisfactory answer for our origin. (The result of a cosmic accident)

Hubbard’s View on it correctly laughs at our problems in relation to America’s- but take a leaf out of England’s history-book. The world-view Nickie promulgates is even deeper rooted in Europe now and just look at what’s happening there!