David Hume

David Hume and Sigmund Freud were major critics of theology within human society. These writers essentially use their theories for the origin of religion to define the worth of religion as a whole – and that worth is nothing compared to the value of scientific knowledge. However supposedly moral and humanistic their intentions are in regard to enlightening humanity about religious credibility, I believe this “intellectualist” approach to theology is far too critical and condemning. The reasons why this approach is unsuccessful are due to the complete outsider slant of the “intellectual” method, which allows for overt bias and over-analysis.

Examples of this bias and over-analysis are found in both Hume and Freud’s attempts to create an all-encompassing

He argues that polytheism was the first expression of religion, and from there he creates a hierarchy within religion that dictates monotheism, specifically Christianity, as the most advanced theology. While he does not largely disagree with religion as adamantly as Freud, he is highly judgmental of most worshipers. He writes, “If by chance, the ignorant masses confine themselves to the notion of a perfect being… they coincide, by chance, with the principles of reason and true philosophy” (16). His value of religion is based upon the correctness of the theology as he philosophically views it. He believes that most worshipers are not believing in the right God, and for this reason their beliefs are invalid. If somehow they believe in the same deity that Hume does, it is for the wrong reasons. Through Hume’s origin of religion and his biased philosophical viewpoint, he groups many theologies together that he is personally ignorant of. His example of the “intellectual approach” to religion is the first example of how an outsider’s perspective limits the scope of the

Freud claims that religion was created in an effort to make communal life for intrinsically-selfish humanity possible. Along with the argument of inherent egotism in humankind calling for the creation of rules that allowed for communal life, he also claims that God was created by humans to satisfy their desire for a paternal figure. He states, “a man makes the forces of nature not simply into persons with whom he can associate … but he gives them the character of a father” (694-695). As Freud makes this connection, he is able to then reference his other psychoanalysis theory of his understanding of the father complex. There may be some surface similarities between the father-offspring relationship he describes and the God of traditional theology, but that is the full extent of the connection to the true nature of religion and why it is so pervasive in humanity. Freud, being an outsider to religion, judges the theology based upon its fundamental principles. These principles may be what the religion is founded on, but they do not account for the worth of the religion as a whole. Freud’s example of over-analysis shows the discrepancy between what intellectualists perceive as the entirety of a religion, and what that religion actually encompasses for the