The seventh argument presented by some atheists is based on the theories of some European philosophers that the concept of God is no more than a product of the human mind. They believe that whereas a child has a powerful bond of love with his father, is naturally inclined towards him, admires him, and feels protected by him, a child also fears his father and considers him to be a danger. But the child does not harbour such feelings about his mother, as he gets food directly from her. Its sentiments of love for his mother are greater and warmer and prevail over all other sentiments. The child never regards its mother as a source of fear or danger and runs to her under all circumstances. Therefore, an ingenious and ambitious son may develop sentiments of jealousy and rivalry subconsciously towards his father, but never against his mother. Western philosophers have termed it ‘the Oedipus complex’ on the basis of an old Greek story about a young man who killed his father inadvertently and then married his mother unknowingly. These philosophers believe that a child develops a kind of jealousy and fear for his father and at the same time has innate love for him and regards him as a means of protection. Consequently, as he grows up and out of his father’s shadow, he feels a vacuum in his mind in which the ‘father-son’ image is firmly established. This vacuum leads him to an imaginary being to replace his father figure and that imaginary being ultimately develops into a god.
This theory is largely presented by a renowned European philosopher and scientist, Sigmund Freud, who was born to a Jewish family in Austria in 1856 and later migrated to England and died in 1954. He wrote many books and is considered an authority on human psychology. From this viewpoint, he raised many objections about the concept of God and the philosophy of dreams. On the topic under discussion, he writes:
In this way the mother, who satisfies the child’s hunger, becomes its first object of love and certainly also its first protection against all the undefined dangers which threaten it in the external world; its first protection against anxiety, we may say. In this function [of protection] the mother is soon replaced by the stronger father, who retains that position for the rest of childhood. But the child’s attitude toward its father is coloured by a particular ambivalence. The father himself constitutes a danger for the child, perhaps because of his [father’s] earlier relation to its mother. Thus it fears him no less than it longs for him and admires him. [...] When the growing individual finds that he is destined to remain a child forever, that he can never do without protection against strange superior powers, he lends those powers the features belonging to the figure of father. He creates himself the gods whom he dreads, whom he seeks to propitiate, and whom he nevertheless entrusts with his protection. Thus, his longing for a father figure is a motive identical with his need for protection against consequences of his human weakness. The defence against childish helplessness is what lends its characteristic features to the adult’s reaction to the helplessness which he has to acknowledge—a reaction which is precisely the formation of religion. (The Future of an Illusion, pp. 41–42, Sigmund Freud)
Freud has further elaborated his theory in his writings and has also written a great deal about the Oedipus Complex. Though many Western philosophers have rejected Freud’s theory, it is necessary that we analyse it briefly.
First of all, it should be realised that this theory is an offshoot of another theory which we have discussed in the beginning in the context of ‘universal acceptance’ and is based on what is generally known as, ‘Inferiority Complex’; i.e. a feeling of weakness and inferiority before a superior and more powerful being. We have already sufficiently dealt with this in the aforementioned discussion and need not repeat it. However, it is particularly remarkable in that although a Jew himself, whether he was aware of it or not, Freud seems to have borrowed this idea from Christianity as he spent his life in Christian surroundings. Jesus, in contrast to the dry and philosophical religious teachings of Judaism, presented God metaphorically as a father figure. The Christians later on started believing in God as Father and Jesus as the real son of God. This ‘father-son’ concept is well-known and publicised amongst Christians everywhere. In spite of being a Jew, a competent scientist, and an authority on human psychology, Freud’s mind could not resist the effect of his surroundings. As he was not a Christian, it would not be surprising if he might have thought that Jesus, too, suffered from an inferiority complex! O sagacity, you have become a calamity for me!
The problem is that sometimes even sensible people do not distinguish between the possibility of something happening and that which has actually happened. During their intellectual pursuits, they look for the grounds for a possibility, and when they are convinced that something could have happened in a particular way, they blindly jump to the conclusion that it must have happened that way. Obviously, possibility is one thing and something actually happening is quite another. There are millions of things that can happen in this world, but how many of them actually happen? It is naïve to argue that something has happened just because it can. Let us assume that jealousy can develop subconsciously in a son at times; and that, consequently, he feels a vacuum in his mind when he grows up as he keeps looking for his childhood father-figure; and that this mental vacuum sometimes leads him to the idea of a Higher Being to replace this father-figure. In spite of all these remote possibilities, how can it be proved that all these things actually happened this way amongst all the nations, who were at least initially isolated from each other, in different parts of the world, at different times?
Strangely enough, even if we accept that all these possibilities are valid, they are vague and far-fetched compared to other possibilities. For instance, even if it is correct that the son can develop jealousy towards his father under certain circumstances, it is obvious, as our experience shows, that it happens very rarely. By and large, the son remains loving and faithful to his father. Even if he excels his father, he remains humble to his father with innate love and devotion. Thus, the assumed possibility is far-fetched and the same applies to other possibilities understood by the Western philosophers. Thus, generally speaking, the theory of jealousy and a mental vacuum is no more than mere conjecture. To adopt an unnatural walkway in preference to a natural highway and deny God, who has been accepted by every nation throughout the ages, on the basis of a far-fetched possibility, is no more than wishful thinking. Evidently, those who present such arguments have first denied the existence of God and then devised these arguments.
The inferiority complex presented by some scholars as an argument against the existence of God is, in fact, a weighty argument for the existence of God. Muslim scholars have always presented it as such. Hazrat Ali(ra), the fourth Caliph of the Holy Prophet(saw), said:
Meaning that, I have recognised God by the failure of many a firm resolve and sound plans.
This brief statement of Hazrat Ali(ra) is full of profound insight and incorporates the philosophy otherwise referred to as ‘inferiority complex’ and used by those who are unaware of spirituality to argue against the existence of God. Hazrat Ali(ra) means to say that man sometimes makes a firm resolve, devises a solid plan, and acquires all the necessary means to achieve something and thinks that he is almost there. Then suddenly, out of the blue, something happens that unravels all his plans and shatters his resolve. It is then that man realises that his resolve and his plans are not the whole thing but there is a Being higher than man’s plans and stronger than his resolve. Compared to Him, man, with all his intelligence and wisdom and all the material sources, amounts to nothing. It is this realisation of inferiority that always leads the wise to God, but, regrettably, Western scholars have chosen the same concept to stumble upon.
The core of the theory put forward by Freud and the likeminded scholars is that man has innate quest for a Higher and more Powerful Being, to be a model for him, whose superior knowledge and power should be awe-inspiring and whom he might take as his protector. This central point of their theory argues in favour of existence of God, not against it. As stated in the beginning of this book, the Holy Quran has presented it as evidence of fitrah supporting the existence of God. Thus the claim that as the child grows up the father-figure leaves a vacuum, which is then filled by an imaginary god is absurd and contrary to human nature and our observation. It is true, of course, that without belief in God, human nature does experience a vacuum which ultimately attracts fortunate ones to God. Hence, from whichever angle we look at it, this argument presented by Freud and other like-minded people is no more than a philosophical conjecture. The fact is that this argument is in favour of God’s existence rather than against it, and that is why many other Western scholars have rejected it.
These were the seven basic arguments presented by atheists to support their doctrine. However, all these arguments originate not from one but several schools of thought and, therefore, some of them contradict each other. I have put all such arguments together as I intended to refute all of them. I hope that after understanding the refutation of these seven basic arguments, every learned person would be able to respond to atheists. The atheists really have no arguments and the basis of their denial is that they think they have not come across any strong evidence of the existence of God to convince and satisfy them. The more prudent among them do not positively rule out the existence of God for that shifts the onus, the burden they cannot cope with. They take the stand that they have no evidence for the existence of God. Those who have gone through my book carefully, with good intentions, must have realised that logical arguments for the existence of God are so strong that no wise person can continue, at the very least, to deny God after understanding them. As I stated in the beginning, the logical arguments can only provide us with elementary level of certainty about the existence of God, but not the utmost certainty. For the latter, we need different types of arguments which pertain to experience and observation; we come to know them through miracles and signs of the Prophets and the Righteous.