
  Freud vs. Trueblood on the Question of the Cause of Man's Religious Nature.


	Freud and Trueblood have practically opposing views on the cause of

  man's religious nature.  The following is a short synopsis of Frued's 

  arguments on the three Claims of Religious Experience and  the four Tests

  of Veracity.

	Religous experience refers to an object.  Therefore, the God of many 

  must in itself be a physical object.  Perceptually, believers of God

  create in their head a vague physical object of what they would like God

  to be like.

	On a cognitive level, the knowledge in a religious doctrine cannot

  be claimed as true because it is derive fom a human wish.  In that, no

  substantial evidence is given to the truth of the knowledge.

	If God is not a person, His relation to you as a person is clearly a

  human invention.  This personifies a being that, if did exist, would not

  be human and therefore not operate by human mores and customs.  How can a 

  non-physical object relate to a person as another person would?

	So millions of people say that they believe in God.  But millions

  believe that children are sexless (using Frued's example), and that is
 
  merely an illusion derived from human wishes.  Believing does not make a

  wish true; you could wish all you want that a belief were as you saw it,

  but it would not change its real meaning.  Also, believing has no effect on

  making a clear judgement of a matter.

	But who is to say that the quality of the reporters is of a high

  value?  Insanity or mental illness is not always apparent or measurable.

  Quality cannot be measured without some sort of scale, and a reliable

  means of measuring.

	The reports don't match, either.  There are hundreds of different

  groups of organized religion in the world, and in those distinct, different

  groups, each person has his/her own perception of a God.  And since none

  match in exact accordance, does it not disprove the veracity of the argument?

	A belief in religion does not make a noticable affect on a person, at

  least none with any relevence.  A cause is needed to be a valid argument.

	Freud's argument is strong and completely opposes Trueblood, but it

  can be seen that Freud does not take time to even consider the possibility

  of a God, and looking back at St. Anselm's argument, it holds its ground

  through Frued's comments on Theism.  Trueblood's argument may not be a

  strong one, as it is entirely empurical, but he has the right idea.



  
