弗洛伊德對基督教的批判——信仰純粹是幼稚慾望的投射嗎？

很多人認定宗教是「心靈的寄託或安慰」，儼然宗教只不過是弱者心理上的扶杖。這種思維受到弗洛伊德的投射說所影響，它基本上說宗教信念只不過是人內心幼稚的慾望的投射，宗教本質上只是一種心靈不成熟所導致的慾求信念，是不值採信的。弗洛伊德甚至認為宗教是一種普遍的執迷精神病。

本文探討這種弗洛伊德學派對宗教的批判是否成立，首先我指出需要、希冀與信念的差別，而投射說往往在沒有理據的情況下由需要跳到希冀，再由希冀跳到信念。而且投射說的說明能力並不很強，而其批判往往犯了起源謬誤。其實投射機制的機制本身是不可觀測的，所以探射說的解釋難以驗證，也是雙刃劍：可用來攻擊宗教，也可用來批評無神論。再者，投射也可能是反射，而人類對宗教的慾求在無神論的世界裏難以理解，反而在宗教世界觀裏更易解釋。至於宗教是神經病的說法，是建基於宗教禮儀與強迫性精神病的不當類比，也與宗教人士的心理特質不完全吻合。我的結論是：理性上投射說的批判不能推翻宗教。

Many people believe that religion is only a kind of psychological consolation for emotionally weak people. This belief is affected by Sigmund Freud's projectionism which says that religious belief is nothing but the projection of people's infantile wishes in their hearts. So religion is essentially a kind of wishful thinking which reflects an immature mind, & hence not worthy of believing. Freud even thinks that religion is a kind of obsessional neurosis.

In this article I will examine the validity of this Freudian critique of religion. First, I will point out the differences between need, wish & belief, & argue that projectionism jumps from need to wish, & from wish to belief, with no sufficient grounds. Moreover, projectionism does not have strong explanatory power, & its critique often commits the genetic fallacy. In fact the mechanisms of projection themselves are unobservable, & hence the explanations offered by projectionism are hard to confirm empirically. These explanations are also double-edged swords, which can be used to attack religion as well as atheism. Finally, projection can in fact be reflection. The human desire for religion is difficult to explain in an atheistic world, but can be rendered more intelligible in a religious worldview. My conclusion is that rationally speaking, the critique of projectionism cannot overturn religion.