That's easily explained by the very obvious fact that you really don't know what Christians are doing, any more than poor old Russell did. And that's okay: you can't be blamed for not knowing. But if you could find out, shouldn't you? At least, shouldn't you do so before believing Russell or jumping to any wildly off-base conclusions or issuing blanket condemnations?Obvious Leo wrote:I was speaking of belief in the context of Russell's statement, which should be self-evident to anybody with the rudiments of English comprehension. In my view a belief in god is indistinguishable from a belief in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, leprechauns, astrology or the healing power of crystals.
This is Freud's old saw. The problem with it is that it applies equally to Atheism. For if one argues that a person is a Christian out of some psychological need, one can say exactly the same for Atheism. It can be very soothing to believe that there is no God, and one can behave as one wishes; that there will never be a Judgment, and God will never call any of us to account for all the things we say and do, and that there is no Eternal State to follow. It makes everything here so light and temporary. I can easily see how that would fit a psychological yearning to escape apprehension and guilt.It is a psychological crutch which serves to fulfill an inner psychological need. We all have such inner psychological vulnerabilities but I prefer to deal with mine by way of a calming toke of quality home-grown washed down with a glass of red. It's simply a matter of personal preference.
So that argument is a complete wash, since it identifies nothing particular to religious belief. People like to believe what they find comforting: but so what? What does that say about the truth of their belief? Really, nothing.
And I can further understand completely that if one has lingering doubts about one's Atheism, it might well take the addition of a few brews and glasses or red to effect the sort of psychological consolation one requires.
