A Critique of Ludwig Feuerbach’s Philosophy of Religion
© Kile Jones 2006
Storiestold1@yahoo.com
Abstract: Ludwig Feuerbach has had enormous influence upon the study of Religion.
From his post-Hegelian reductionism, to his ideal humanism, Feuerbach brings to light the
serious epistemic issues facing theology. This paper is an attempt to explain and critique
Feuerbach’s Philosophy of Religion. This paper analyzes Feuerbach’s theory of
displacement, projection, deep seated wishes, reductionism, and Atheism. The hope is that
by understanding the theories laid out by Feuerbach we may better understand the role of
epistemology in theology.
Keywords: Ludwig Feuerbach, Projection Theory, Deep Seated Wishes, Displacement,
Atheism, Post-Hegelianism.
The enlightenment had come sweeping through European academia with its grand
idealism and dogmatism; Kant had shown that reason leads one to Metaphysics; Fichte
grounded a true knowledge of science and human freedom; and Hegel constructed a
philosophy of history based upon the immanent actualization of the Absolute world spirit,
or Zeitgeist. It seemed as if philosophy had brought back the golden age of the Greeks,
combined with the progress of Baconian science, to the creation of an ideal worldview of
advancement, understanding, and creativity. This new and accepted paradigm was
somehow able to balance the theology of Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, with the
rationalism of Leibniz, Locke, and Newton. “Finally”, academia said, “we have succeeded
in what was once thought impossible, the joining of rationalism and theology”...or so they
thought. What these seminal Metaphysicians did not realize was that soon they would have
students who would not only part ways with them, but start a war that would last up to the
present day. The mission of this war was the final eradication of theology, organized
religion, and what was seen as their blindly assumed absolutism. Hume had laid the
groundwork for what Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Marx would impress upon the masses:
theology is delusional. Contemporary with this attack on theology, Ludwig Feuerbach, the
former Hegelian, would find himself the great champion of religious iconoclasm earning
the title of the “Father of Modern Atheism.”
All that to say, Feuerbach is a must read for philosophers as well as critical
theologians. His ideas mark the pivotal shift from broadly accepted Theism to critical
Atheistic Humanism. This paper will remark upon this very shift in thinking by examining
the central tenets of Feuerbach's critique of religion. Following this period of explanation,
arguments against his theories will be brought forth with the hopes of finding out not only
what is true but what is truly at stake. Feuerbach's influence has been tremendous,
specifically though Freud, who translated Feuerbach's philosophy into psychological
theories of human need. Similarly, Marx and Engels received Feuerbach with gladness to
the point that when Engels read Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity he said: ‘we all
became at once Feuerbachians’;1 and the famed New Testament scholar David Strauss
wrote of Feuerbach’s theory of religion: “It is the truth for this age”.2 Therefore Feuerbach
is a necessity for the student of philosophy of religion, psychology of religion, and the
history of philosophy, and anyone who takes religious epistemology to be of prime
importance.
Feuerbach’s Life and Influences
1
2
Friedrich Engels, On Religion, (Moscow 1957) 223
D.F. Strauss, Selected Works, pg 184
Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach was born in Bavaria in 1804, to a liberally minded
Protestant lawyer and professor, the famous Anselm Feuerbach. Anselm gained popularity
as the first Protestant to be elected to a chair at the Catholic dominated University of
Bavaria. Likewise, he is known for drafting, under the outside pressure of Napoleon, the
Bavarian Penal Code, which laid the groundwork for Bavarian law throughout the
succeeding centuries. Ludwig showed an enthusiasm for religious studies early in his
lifetime by studying Hebrew during High School and choosing to further his education by
attending the University of Heidelberg, where he studied theology. During this time
Ludwig sat under the Hegelian Theologian Karl Daub, and the famous Kantian and Church
Historian H. E. G. Paulus. It was at this time that Ludwig found himself captivated by the
philosophy of Hegel and ‘within a year, Feuerbach, was resolved to learn no more
second-hand and succeeded in gaining his father's consent to his transfer to Berlin, to the
centre of real thought where Hegel himself lectured.’
Having transferred to Berlin
Feuerbach increasingly accepted Hegelian philosophy, but like most of Hegel's students,
eventually came to part ways with his teachers doctrines becoming what has now been
titled ‘left-wing Hegelianism.’ This parting of ways was based primarily on Hegel's
interpretation of religion where religion was placed as a grand part of the dialectic
movement of history. Feuerbach rejected this notion of religion for a more Enlightenment
mentality which saw the passing away of religion as a key to the progress of scientific
society.
Feuerbach's main thesis, the "Projection Theory", reveals part of this
sentimentality and is the subject which will now be turned to.
Feuerbach’s Central Thesis
As was mentioned before, Feuerbach's central thesis was that the notion of the
"divine" or "God” was actually only a human projection; to quote Feuerbach:
The object of the senses is in itself indifferent-independent of the disposition or of the
judgment; but the object of religion is a selected object; the most excellent, the first, the
supreme being; it essentially presupposes a critical judgment, a discrimination between the
divine and the non-divine, between that which is worthy of adoration and that which is not
worthy. And here may be applied, without and limitation, the proposition: the object of
any subject is nothing else than the subject's own nature taken objectively. Such as are a
man's thoughts and dispositions, such is his God.3
What Feuerbach is saying is that the idea of God stems from mans separating and
projecting of his own nature, from humans turning their subjective nature into an object
which is independent and outside of themselves. The root of the objectification of human
nature into God is, according to Feuerbach, desire for comfort, security, and meaning:
‘God springs out of the feeling of a want; therefore conscious, or an unconscious need,-that
is God. Thus the disconsolate feeling of a void, of loneliness, needed a God in whom there
is society, a union of beings fervently loving each other.’4 In continuation of this chain of
reduction, the reason why humans have these desires is because they are "displaced", they
are coping with the realities of the physical world around them, the emotional drives within
them, and searching for their place in the world. The physical world can be hostile, so
humans seek shelter; the emotional life can be chaotic, so humans seek stability and
fulfillment; the search for meaning can become discouraging, so humans seek hope; all of
these, according to Feuerbach, are the reasons why humans project the fulfillment of their
desires, thus creating a God who answers them. Commenting on Feuerbach, Schilling
summarizes his position:
Man’s earthly existence is filled with pain, frustration, failure, anxiety, heart-breaking
injustice, and the awareness of his own finitude and approaching death. But he longs for
unlimited fulfillment, perfect happiness, and everlasting life. He therefore posits a God
who will realize for him in another world the wishes which are thwarted on earth and the
evils which are so devastating here. But this God is nothing else than the illusory
3
4
Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, (New York 1957) 12, italics mine
Ibid, pg 73
externalization of human hopes.5
It is obvious that Feuerbach constructed a web of interrelated theories which lead to
the logical conclusion that God is only a projection, but we must ask if these theories and
the conclusion they arrive at are plausible explanations of religious claims. Are humans
truly ‘displaced’, is God only a projection, does the concept of God stem from deep seated
wishes, is Religion confused Anthropology, and must we as Feuerbach end in Atheism?
Through the rest of this paper I will attempt to answer these questions and arrive at a quite
different philosophy of Religion.
Human Displacement
The starting point of Feuerbach’s philosophy of Religion is human nature. As an
anthropologist, Feuerbach saw that humans are constructed in such a way that they are
needy and searching, intelligent and learning, and able to be both subject and object (via
Metacognition). When discussing what the sine qua non of human nature is Feuerbach
answers with: ‘Reason, Will, Affection’, and says that man ‘is nothing without them’6 but
then continues to say that ‘Man is nothing without an [external] object.’7 Through external
objects (i.e. the physical world and other humans) humans discover themselves and
become conscious of their own nature, they realize that they are ‘species-beings.’
Progressively, humans reason, will, and love in relationship to external objects and become
self-conscious; this self-consciousness is described by Feuerbach as ‘a being becoming
objective to itself.’8 In this process of self-consciousness by which individuals become
both subject and object, they become confused. They mistake their own objective nature
5
S. Paul Schilling, God in the age of Atheism, (New York, 1969) 24
Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, (New York 1957) 3
7
Ibid, pg 4
6
for something distinct themselves (i.e. God or spirits), thus displacing themselves.
Is it truly the case that humans mistake their own nature for something beyond
themselves? If humans do then surely they are deluded by the ‘opium of the people’9 and
have been completely confused about who they are and what God is. Understandably
humans make mistakes regarding their identity and their place within the world, but to this
extent? As Max Stirner once said:
To God, who is spirit, Feuerbach gives the name "Our Essence." Can we put up with this,
that "Our Essence" is brought into opposition to us -- that we are split into an essential and
an unessential self? Do we not therewith go back into the dreary misery of seeing ourselves
banished out of ourselves?10
Stirner rightly notes that Feuerbach places our own natures in opposition to ourselves; it is
as opposed and different to us as God is to humankind. It seems troublesome to conclude
that because humans think of themselves as objects that this grand and elaborate projection
occurred; because I am conscious of something external to myself does not make me think
that this object is anything other than what it is, in fact, it does the opposite, it makes me
realize what it truly is and what it is not, what I truly am and what I am not. Couldn’t
humans have just as easily realized that their self-consciousness merely referred to
themselves and conclude that God does not exist? The difficulty for Feuerbach is
explaining how such a frequent practice as self-consciousness could spawn such a complex
web of Metaphysics.
God as Projection
The central thesis of Feuerbach, and the one which necessarily follows from human
8
Ibid, pg 6
Karl Marx Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1844, found at
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html
10
Stirner, Max, The Ego and His Own, Benj. R. Tucker: Publisher: New York, 1907, pg 40 found at:
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html#contents
9
displacement, is that God is only a projection of perfected human nature. He writes:
“Man-this is the mystery of religion-projects his being into objectivity, and then again
makes himself an object to this projected image of himself thus converted into a subject.”11
Religious persons, according to Feuerbach, see the positive elements of their nature and
through wish and imagination extend them to perfections; nature becomes supernatural,
power becomes omnipotence, and knowledge becomes omniscience. It is as if we are in
Plato’s cave, only this time the shadows cast are our gods and we are shining the light on
our own objectified natures.
What must be noted here is that Feuerbach says that
individuals are the ones projecting, but what they project is the consummation of all human
qualities; they project the potentialities of all the human species:
“God is the idea of the species as an individual-the idea or essence of the species, which as
a species, as universal being, as the totality of all perfections, of all attributes or realities,
freed from all the limits which exist in the consciousness and feeling of the individual, is at
the same time again an individual, personal being.”12
Feuerbach concludes that as part of the human species, self-conscious individuals view
their human nature abstracted from finitude and place upon it the title “God”, thus
projecting and attributing to God all perfected human qualities.
There are numerous critiques of Feuerbach’s projection theory, but only two will be
noted here. Firstly, the projection theory is not something strictly provable, is it only a
hypothesis which correlates the psychological aspects of humans with their theology. For
instance, one could just as easily presuppose that God created humans in such a way that
they would ponder abstracta and arrive at the knowledge of His infinite nature; as David
Beutel has pointed out:
Feuerbach’s aphorism that humans created God in their own image can easily be inverted: God
made humans in his image and therefore they—by virtue of their theomorphic nature—project out a
11
12
Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Christianity, Harper and Row Publishers: New York, 1957, pg 29-30
Ibid, pg 153
God who is personal, like them. 13
Secondly, Feuerbach ignores the evils and vices of human nature: why is it that humans
only project the good aspects of their nature and not the bad? If we are, as Feuerbach says,
projecting the totality of human nature onto God we must not forget the ills of humanity,
yet no one, including Feuerbach, could imagine humans believing in a purely evil, entirely
deceptive, and wholly wrathful God.
Deep Seated Wishes
Feuerbach’s answer to this dilemma would be something like this: ‘God is only a
projection of positive attributes of human nature because that is what humans want.’ This
comes back to Feuerbach’s foundation of projection theory: deep seated wishes. As was
noted earlier, Feuerbach says “God springs out of a feeling of want”, that is, God is nothing
but the fulfillment of our inner and most central desires.
Sigmund Freud, one of
Feuerbach’s great disciples, summed up this position succinctly: “religious ideas, which
are given out as teachings…are illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most
urgent wishes of mankind.”14 The questions before us are whether or not these human
wishes can provide a cogent argument against and reducibly explain Theism.
The first difficulty with Feuerbach's emotive foundation for projection is in its
misunderstanding of religion. Many religions, including Christianity, do not run as one
would wish for. For instance, it is difficult to see how humans could wish for being guilty
before a holy and wrathful God, or having to surrender one's self interests for the sake of
God's own glory. Commenting on Christianity, and more particularly on this subject, C.S.
13
Beutel, David, Intellectual Foundations of the Christian Faith, found at:
http://www.stu.lmu.edu/wbeutel/write/ifcf.htm
Lewis notes: "rendering back one's will which we have so long claimed for our own, is, in
itself, extraordinarily painful. To surrender a self-will inflamed and swollen with years of
usurpation is a kind of death."15 How could this be what humans actually wish for?
Secondly, even if in some strange way humans wished for this self-denial and
sacrificial obedience to God, would this prove that God does not exist? Feuerbach's theory
can again be inverted: God could have created humans in such a way that they ultimately
desire self-denial and to be obedient to him, thus proving God's existence. Thirdly, it must
be noted that not all people want God to exist. Atheism could equally be guilty of
following their deep seated wishes by having God not exist and interfere with their
lives. Armand Nicholi, speaking on the debate between Freud and Lewis over Feuerbach's
wish theory, notes:
Lewis astutely notes that Freud's argument stems from his clinical observations that a
young child's feelings toward the father are always characterized by a "particular
ambivalence"-i.e., strong positive and negative feelings. But if Freud's observations hold
true, these ambivalent wishes can work both ways. Would not the negative part of the
ambivalence indicate the wish that God not exist would be as strong as the wish for his
existence?16
Therefore it seems just as likely that God exists as it does that he does not in Feuerbach's
theory, thus leaving the argument inconclusive.
Religion Reduced To Anthropology
If Feuerbach's theories on human displacement, projection, and wishes hold true than
religion is simply confused anthropology. If humans are projecting their own natures onto
the idea of God, what follows is that when we understand religion we are not coming to
knowledge of God, but rather of ourselves. Feuerbach says this quite explicitly:
14
Freud, Sigmund, The Future of an Illusion, ed. and trans. J. Strachey, Norton Publishing: New York, 1961,
pg 30
15
Lewis, C.S., The Problem of Pain, HarperCollins: New York, 2001, pg 89
16
Nicholi, Armand, The Question of God, The Free Press: New York, 1957, pg 12
"Consciousness of God is self-consciousness, knowledge of God is self-knowledge. By
his God thou knowest man, and by the man his God; the two are identical." 17 What
Feuerbach is getting at is that the idea of God is reducible to humankind, it is in essence
anthropology. One leading scholar on Feuerbach, Eugene Kamenka, notes this reduction:
"Feuerbach presents each of these reductions so forcefully, with so much rhetoric, that he
appears to regard each of them as the true essence in terms of which the whole of religion
should be explained."18 If religion is, strictly speaking, anthropology than we must, if we
are religious persons, grow up and realize that God and man are identical. Yet if we do not
accept the theories upon which this conclusion is drawn then we must admit to something
other than humankind, which is irreducible to the material world.
Many problems come to light when religion is reduced to anthropology, one of which
is the demise of objective standards. If humans are God (in the Feuerbachian sense)
then humans are "the measure of all things" (epistemologically and ethically), as
Protagoras once said; 19 we as the standard determine what is true, false, good, and
evil. Feuerbach sums up his position on truth: "That is true which another agrees with
me-agreement is the first criteria of truth; but only because the species is the ultimate
measure of truth."20 Yet what is the outcome if someone diametrically opposes another's
thesis? Are they both true? What is the standard by which we can judge between
individuals? Feuerbach would answer that it is society or the human race as a whole that
judges in these cases. Yet it is obvious that different societies judge differently, who
judges between them? Similarly the whole of humanity is divided on matters of truth and
17
Feuerbach, Ludwig, the Essence of Christianity, Harper and Row Publishers: New York, 1957, pg 12
Kamenka, Eugene, The Philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, Praeger Publishers: New York, 1969, pg 56
19
Protagoras, 490-420 B.C.E.
20
Feuerbach, Ludwig, the Essence of Christianity, Harper and Row Publishers: New York, 1957, pg 158
18
ethics, so how could we depend upon them to judge anything? What happens, upon the
reduction of God to anthropology, is that there becomes no standard by which we judge
truth claims and ethics other than ourselves, we relativize all standards, or as Nietzsche put
it "transvaluate all values."21 As soon as there is a defensible materialistic standard by
which we objectively evaluate the world is as soon as Feuerbach's conclusion becomes less
perilous.
Feuerbach's Final Destination: Atheism
If God is man, than there is no "God" in the standard sense of the term. Feuerbach
himself acknowledge his Atheism: "If therefore my work is negative, irreligious, atheistic,
let it be remembered that atheism—at least in the sense of this work—is the secret of
religion itself.”22 The philosophical trajectory of Feuerbach is the elevation of humankind
and the reduction of anything considered "divine" to the hopes and aspirations of
humankind. Feuerbach lays the groundwork for later humanist traditions with the
promotion of his "new philosophy", which "makes man-with the inclusion of nature as the
foundation of man-the unique, universal and highest object of philosophy."23 It is at this
Atheistic Humanism where Feuerbach wishes to leave us that we may cultivate the
21
Nietzsche, Friedrich, The AntiChrist, translated by H.L. Mencken, 1920, pg 62, found at:
http://www.fns.org/uk/ac.htm
22
Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Christianity, Harper and Row Publishers: New York, 1957, preface pg
36
23 Feuerbach,
Ludwig, The Principles of the Philosophy of Future, Bobbs-Merrill: Indianapolis, 1966, pg 70
revolution from God-centeredness to Human-centeredness and lead others to a similar
location. What then are the problems with such a worldview?
Firstly, as was noted earlier, their are numerous problems with humans being
the ultimate authority on matters of truth and ethics. Secondly, there have been
numerous philosophical arguments launched against Atheism, but due to the scope of
this essay only a few will be brought forth. One argument, known as the Transcendental
Argument, reveals that Materialistic Atheism cannot account for laws of logic, since
within Materialism there cannot be immaterial, necessary, abstract entities existing apart
from the material world, which is what laws of logic are. Another argument consists of
needing a rational foundation for induction, or otherwise being left in inductive skepticism
(which is self-defeating). In laymen's terms everyone presupposes the Uniformity of
Nature when seeking to make sense out of it, and Atheism cannot provide any reason for
believing that the future will be like the past without assuming the Uniformity of Nature
and thus begs the question.24 Yet regardless of whether or not someone ends up believing
Atheism, it should be encouraged that this person should not do so on the basis of
Feuerbachian critiques, for they do not present any determinate arguments
against traditional Theism.
In Conclusion
If Feuerbach’s philosophy of religion is not adequate, you may ask, then what
contributions does he give to religious studies in general? Should we all together abandon
him to the ruins of post-Hegelian reductionism? I am of the opinion that we should not.
Feuerbach does contribute to the rise of inquiry into religious epistemology, philosophy of
religion, and psychology of religion, by posing the great questions regarding human
conceptions of God. Feuerbach challenges the religious experientialist’s to take a further
look and question whether they have made God in their own image, whether things seem to
good to be true, and whether they can provide any warrant for their theology. Likewise,
Feuerbach reminds scholastic theologians that humans are psychological beings,
attempting to cope with the world around them, and that many run to religion for these very
reasons.
On a pragmatic and ethical level, Feuerbach wanted men and women to center upon
their own earthly progress by getting rid of the other-worldliness which has for so long
characterized religion. Feuerbach wanted to convert Abbots to Scientists, Monks to social
activists and Ascetics to Economists by implementing a universal humanism that would
better society. It is for this position, I feel, that Feuerbach should be applauded and given
the place he deserves. Yet it must be noted that you do not need to be an Atheistic
Humanist to be humanitarian, you can also follow the greatest commandment to “love your
neighbor as yourself.”25 What Feuerbach was reacting to was the dualistic bifurcation that
characterized Medieval Christendom: spirit above flesh, heaven above earth, inner holiness
above socialism. If only Feuerbach could now see how this bifurcation has slowly
collapsed with the rise of social and humanitarian communalism within the Church. Yet
Feuerbach still speaks to those who would rather be having spiritual ecstasy than sitting as
Jesus did, in the midst of those considered unclean.
For a more in depth analysis of these arguments see "Atheism and Induction” by Greg Bahnsen, found at:
bellevuechristian.org/faculty/.../Apol_Bahnsen_Tabash_Induction.pdf - 79k, and " Does Induction Presume
the Existence of the Christian God?" by Michael Martin published in Skeptic, Vol. 5, #2, pp. 71-75
25
Matthew 22:37-38
24