I'm Ludwig Feuerbach and I'm exceptionally intelligent...

Ok, here’s the nature of this entry–at, umm, 10:34pm on a Monday night. I’m going to try and do a post in 300 words or less (not counting the preface of course). Here we go:

I was just reading about how Ludwig Feuerbach claimed that all theology is anthropomorphic, since God is essentially a projection of unfulfilled human potential. And remember that an anthropomorphism is basically a human tendency to see other things as analogous to ourselves. It’s kind of like when people sometimes see their pets in overly anthropomorphic ways—like my mother (sorry mom ).

Anyhow, Feuerbach might have a point to a certain degree, but I believe his assertion is basically fallacious. Why? I’ve got two reasons out of many….

First, God has revealed himself most basically and profoundly through his Son Jesus, the Christ. We see God through the incarnation of his Son, Jesus, who is both 100% man and 100% God, according to Christian theology and the Creeds of the Church. Thus, Feuerbach’s sampling is a little skewed because he’s actually got the wrong perception of true humanity. Indeed, true humanity is demonstrated through the person and work of Jesus. For example, the Apostle Paul understands this concept when he refers to Jesus as the second Adam. Whereas the first Adam brought death through his sin and disobedience, the second Adam (Jesus) brought life eternal and an example of true humanity, love, and compassion. Simply stated, Feuerbach’s actually got the whole thing backwards. All human potential is fulfilled through Jesus—the true human—and thus our problem is projecting ourselves as our own false gods. Basically, Feuerbach’s point is really just another definition of idolatry…

But this is easy considering Feuerbach’s premise, right? His premise assumes that Jesus is not the Christ. But why should I accept his premise? Has he given me any substantive reason to reject the person and work of Jesus? No, he hasn’t. Most people don’t really want to talk about Jesus as much as they want to talk about themselves.

Second reason: How pray tell does Feuerbach know what constitutes fulfilled human potential? Regarding this question I believe Feuerbach’s proposition implodes and is essentially self-defeating. Here’s what I’m thinking. Feuerbach says that “God is nothing but a projection of human imagination.” But all “nothing-but” statements presuppose “more-than” knowledge. Basically, how could he know that God was “nothing but” unless he knew “more than” that himself. In short, the central statement of Feuerbach’s system is fallacious and self-defeating because it implies more knowledge than it allows.

Additionally, Feuerbach never considers that perhaps his own atheism is a projection of his own imagination. Maybe Feuerbach is simply imagining that there is no God. I recall there being a verse in the OT that says something to the degree that only a fool says in his own heart there is no God. Feuerbach may well just be foolish, kind of like Don Quixote, haha.

In any case, it’s always amazing that these exceptionally “intelligent” minds can always assert something without adequately defending their position in light of their own assertion. My points above, I believe, illustrate my own assertion rather simply in both a theological and philosophical manner. The first assumes that God has indeed revealed himself in the person and work of Jesus. Either take it or leave it. You either believe (i.e., have faith) that Jesus is who he said he was or you do not. In a very practical way, C.S. Lewis states this trilemma well: Jesus is the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. Without playing word games and taking Lewis out of context, which some people try and do, make your pick. The second point is purely philosophical and is not dependant on any faith commitment from either theology or inductive reasoning. This last point deductively demonstrates the logical absurdity of Feuerbach’s thesis based on his own categorical syllogism. His argument simply doesn’t work from a purely logical perspective.

Ok, that’s it… This is a blog post after all and nothing more. Oh ya, I’m at 625 words…

7 Responses to “Feuerbach’s Fallacy”

1. J.R. Diener says:

   February 9, 2010 at 11:04 pm

   I’m not all too familiar with Feuerbach, but I enjoyed reading this. I would like to think that all Christians would agree with your points, and reject Feuerbach. However, one of the biggest problems with Philosophy is that people seem to think they can rationalize anything, such as agreeing with two beliefs that are in conflict with one another (Christian theology and Anthropomorphism).
2. Phil says:

   February 11, 2010 at 11:52 am

   Hi Josh:

   I read Feuerbach a little in my undergrad days and heard him quite a bit when Barth bashed him within his Dogmatics. In the end, he’s got some good points but actually misses the point when it comes to how we relate to God and vise versa. You should come to the theology group next week. I think you would have liked it this week…
3. Geoff says:

   February 13, 2010 at 5:04 pm

   Hey Phil,

   Just to play devil’s advocate a bit – I think Feuerbach’s response to the first point would probably be simply to say something like: You’ve got your premises, I’ve got mine… i.e. it seems like ultimately a debate over two views, neither of which can be logically resolved by logical discussion. Like you said, you either believe Jesus or you don’t.

   I think the second point is more interesting, as it points out an apparent logical contradiction in F’s own assertion. In the end, any absolute statement either requires the ability to see the whole perspective from “outside” (God’s eye view), or it really means that the statement is not meant as an absolute statement, but rather as a “this seems so objectively true based upon X that we might as well call it absolute”-statement. And those sorts of statements are typically open to the charge of incoherency.

   Of course, that creates a dilemma for many Christians who take it for granted that there is adequate “evidence” for belief in the truth of Jesus’ divinity/resurrection/etc. If no human being has the ability to know the correct status of “more-than” statements, we are all going to have to be a lot more modest in our assertions. And a quick look around should make clear that Christians make a lot of immodest claims! Thankfully, faith still has merit in the midst of inadequate assertions…
4. Phil says:

   February 15, 2010 at 1:07 pm

   Thanks for the comments, Geoff. You make good points and I think they supplement/qualify some of my brief points in the post. However, as a response to F’s hypothetical assertion about premises, I think that would really be the only way out of his assertion. But I’m thinking that his own assertion excludes this point, so thus I think he’s just being a little unfair and smug, haha. Not sure, but I think this is why Barth just despised him. Barth said something to the degree that, “F is not doing philosophy at all, but theology, and certainly not good theology at that.” Haha. That’s my paraphrase of Barth, but I think he’s pointing out that F is saying something out of ignorance without perhaps realizing that he’s just ventured into the realm of theological discourse, the very realm that he’s dismissed in his premise. Even so, it’s an axiom, even if a bad one, hehe.

   On another note, I suppose that assertions like F’s lead me to prefer inquiries into epistemology more than anything else. And this is where Plantinga’s epistemology of warrant is somewhat helpful for me. It doesn’t promise any certainty or guaranteed perspective, but just a coherent way to look at how a Christian might look at epistemology after the enlightenment. But back to the point, I like what you said about being “modest in our assertions”. We all need to work on intellectual modesty, me first…. I suppose modesty is part of a good Christian epistemology isn’t it? Further, I think that’s why Barth knew without a shadow of a doubt that the revelation of God in Christ was an essential starting point for the Christian faith. I think that’s a good starting point in apologetics instead of “evidence”–which oftentimes is just tendentious rhetoric. Although there’s probably a place for that too. Consider the gospels and the miracles of Jesus to authenticate himself and his mission. Oh well, so much to discuss and think about, but so little time…
5. Geoff says:

   February 16, 2010 at 4:05 am

   “I suppose modesty is part of a good Christian epistemology isn’t it?”

   Indeed! Good stuff… And you’re right, so little time!

   You know, Barth, Bonhoeffer, etc, were all so good at pointing to the centrality of Christ. What’s been fascinating to me recently is noticing, unfortunately, the way we often define Christ according to who we are (or what we like), rather than using Christ to define ourselves.

   I’ve been really thinking about this a lot recently – I am not sure that we should call much of what goes on in American churches today “Christianity”, since Jesus was pretty obvious in the Gospels as to what “following Him” entails… and let’s face it, most of us aren’t doing a very good job of that! (I mean, even on my best days, I’m not really living the way Christ asks!) So, maybe we should say, like Kierkegaard, that we are hopefully “becoming Christians,” rather than actually “being Christians.” I think that sort of honest humility could do us all a world of good.
6. philhigley says:

   February 16, 2010 at 12:53 pm

   Ya, I noticed in your blog write up the point about always ‘becoming a Christian.’ That’s a very precise perspective and a great way to say it. I hope to always become a Christian in my being and being a Christian in my becoming (paradox? perhaps…). In any case, and since I don’t believe there’s any such thing as Wesleyan ’sanctification’ here and now, I suppose that’s why I/we always have to go back to the cross over and over.

   Thanks for the comments, Geoff. They definitely get me thinking, and hopefully doing.

   On another note, do you think it’s only American churches, or just human nature in general throughout the church. Just a thought… I agree with what you’re saying but was just thinking about that.
7. Geoff says:

   February 16, 2010 at 10:42 pm

   Yeah, it’s most likely human nature in general, but I think it makes sense that in a nation like the US, where there are a greater number of distractions due to wealth and leisure, people are able to rationalize their actions so that they don’t have to love God and love their neighbors. I mean, it’s just easy here. People in Haiti, for example, are willing to turn to God because they don’t have any other options. But it’s amazing how quickly we turn away when we have other options. And that’s pretty much the story of Scripture as well. Yikes. Guess that makes God’s grace even more amazing!