Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


GOD AS A MORAL PROJECTION - YOU PRETEND YOUR MORAL PREFERENCES ARE SOMEHOW GOD
 
This study does not argue that people invent a God to worship as a crutch or psychological projection and that therefore there is no God. What it argues is that even if there is a God, nobody worships him but their own creation made to counterfeit him. People like goodness but only on their own terms. They care about good to suit themselves. It is not about good as it is in itself. Thus they create a God who reflects the values and prejudices they like and who is going to reward them for living out these values and prejudices.
 
Belief in God is not God. Belief in God too easily becomes one's god. When your faith is your idol it is really you who are your idol.
 
Those who worship God are projecting their interests into a God they imagine. There could be a real God and they could still be doing that. They are out of touch with him for they have made up - wittingly or unwittingly - a God of their own. It is about wish-fulfilment. The reason people may not outgrow God is because he is presented as the ultimate power in the universe and who knows all and sustains all. Fantasy friends such as Santa or the tooth-fairy are outgrown for they cannot compete with that. But if say Santa was presented as somebody who watches over you invisibly and who is there to guide you day by day it would be a different story. They could say that though Santa does not bring toys at Christmas he inspires people to do it. That would prevent the loss of belief in Santa.

 

CHRISTIANS: Objective morality is about what is really right and really wrong. It is opposed to the view that you can invent right and wrong. Objective morality will say its bad to needlessly hurt a baby no matter if you think its right or not. If there is no God then morality is not real. Its just opinion and its no big deal if somebody believes that murder is good and righteous. The need for objective morality is why we worship God despite the terrible things that happen in the universe.  We regard him as ultimately responsible for the damage done but not as criminally or morally responsible. His role is justified.  Without God we would have no reason to condemn such things.
 
SANITY SAYS: The Christians are pretending that you need God to really take morality seriously as a concept. But if we need God in order to believe that things are objectively right and objectively wrong, then the problem arises, "Do I believe in God because I need him?" If I do then my belief is irrational. Needing something does not make it real. And the answer to the question would be yes. God would then be a crutch. Belief would be a simulated belief rather than a real belief. 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
 
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist
 
3) Therefore, God exists
 
The trick in the argument is that 1 is a blatant lie. We recoil from what it claims.
 
Hurting a baby would be wrong whether there is a god or not. Denying that is trying to stunt our perception that its bad. We should be able to see its wrongness right away without even thinking of a God. The objective morality argument is not the big fan of objective morality it tries to pass itself off as.
 
1 is wrong and opposes objective morality despite its outward appearance of endorsing it.
 
3 therefore is the wrong conclusion.
 
The argument will be more concerned for justifying belief in God than in morality. The Christian believes that as God comes first it follows that if we have to choose between him and morality we must choose him. That would not make us immoral for its the only option. A dentist is not cruel for pulling teeth.
 
The argument is very confusing to most Christians who end up taking it for granted that it is correct. Christianity likes to promote that confusion for the argument by itself is ludicrous. You would need to be confused by it to consider it true.

At the end of the day, even if objective morality exists, what matters most is our perception that it exists even if we struggle to get the rules correct. Thus it does not matter if you believe in God or not EVEN IF objective morality is grounded in him. A level of confusion would be part of the human predicament.

 

So Christians are saying God is right to let so much evil happen and for moral reasons we need him despite the evil.  But those reasons are themselves antagonistic to the morality and the moral God they want to protect!