Short answer
No. That is a theory about where belief came from, and where a belief came from cannot show that it is false. David Hume traced the first gods to people's hopes and fears. Ludwig Feuerbach called God human nature projected outward. Sigmund Freud called belief a wish for a protecting father. Today some researchers say the mind is quick to sense agents and purpose. Suppose the mind does lean that way. Our eyes evolved too, and they still see what is there. Freud himself wrote that an illusion, in his sense, is not necessarily an error. So the question goes back to the reasons, and they do not rest on fear. Islam teaches that people are born with a leaning towards God (﷾), which upbringing can bend. The Qur'an then calls them to reason their way to the One God (﷾).
Full explanation
The theories, stated at their strongest
The idea is old. In 1757 David Hume traced the first religion to people's hopes and fears about the events of life. In 1841 Ludwig Feuerbach argued that God (﷾) is human nature itself, its reason, will and feeling, projected outward and worshipped as another being. In 1927 Sigmund Freud called religious ideas illusions, born of a child's helplessness and longing for a father. The same year Bertrand Russell said that religion rests mainly on fear. Today the cognitive science of religion offers a newer version. The mind is quick to sense agents and purposes, because that helped our ancestors survive. On the leading view, belief in gods is a side effect of those mental tools.
“We may conclude, therefore, that, in all nations, which have embraced polytheism, the first ideas of religion arose not from a contemplation of the works of nature, but from a concern with regard to the events of life, and from the incessant hopes and fears, which actuate the human mind.”
Argues that the God of Christianity is the human species' own nature, its reason, will and feeling, projected outward and worshipped as a separate being. A person feels his own limits, he says, only because others of his kind have what he lacks. So the individual's limits are not limits of the species, and God is that ideal of the species, freed from the individual's limits. He takes the Christian teaching that God became man as a sign that man was already in God. In a later work he traced belief in God's power to the human wish to be free of every limit that nature sets.
Holds that religious ideas are illusions that fulfil mankind's oldest and strongest wishes. A small child's helplessness made it long for a father's protection, and adults, still helpless before nature and death, turned that longing to a mightier father. Among the gods' tasks he counts making amends for the sufferings that life in society imposes, so that in the end good is rewarded and evil punished. Freud defines an illusion as a belief in which a wish plays a leading part, and says it is not necessarily an error. He states that judging the truth of religious doctrines lies outside his enquiry, and that most of them can be neither proved nor refuted. He adds that some seem so improbable that they resemble delusions. He also finds it very odd that religion teaches just what we would wish, and plainly treats that as grounds for suspicion.
In the section "Fear the Foundation of Religion", says that religion rests first and mainly on fear: terror of the unknown, and fear of defeat and of death. Part of it, he says, is the wish for an elder brother who will stand by you in every trouble. He urges people to rely on science and their own efforts instead of imagined helpers above. Earlier in the lecture he rejects the First-Cause argument. He recalls a line in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography: the question "Who made me?" only raises the further question "Who made God?". If anything can exist without a cause, he says, it may as well be the world as God.
Surveys evolutionary and cognitive accounts of religion. On the by-product view, belief arises as a side effect of ordinary mental tools, such as a hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD) that reads ambiguous sounds and movements as agents. Being better safe than sorry, such a device gives many false alarms. The entry reports wide agreement that uncovering a belief's origins does not by itself show that it is false (the genetic fallacy), though origins can matter when a belief comes from an off-track process. It sets out the debunking argument built on this, and the replies: such arguments may overreach, since all our faculties have natural origins, and believers may have independent reasons.
Where a belief came from does not decide whether it is true
Philosophers who study these arguments widely agree on one point. Finding out how a belief arose does not, by itself, show that it is false. Judging a claim by where it came from has a name: the genetic fallacy. Our eyes evolved because seeing helped our ancestors survive. Yet when you see a friend across the road, that history does not make the friend unreal. Hume himself kept the two questions apart. One question, he said, is whether religion has a basis in reason. Another is how it arose in human nature. Every belief has causes, unbelief included. So causes alone cannot settle the matter.
Surveys evolutionary and cognitive accounts of religion. On the by-product view, belief arises as a side effect of ordinary mental tools, such as a hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD) that reads ambiguous sounds and movements as agents. Being better safe than sorry, such a device gives many false alarms. The entry reports wide agreement that uncovering a belief's origins does not by itself show that it is false (the genetic fallacy), though origins can matter when a belief comes from an off-track process. It sets out the debunking argument built on this, and the replies: such arguments may overreach, since all our faculties have natural origins, and believers may have independent reasons.
“As every enquiry, which regards religion, is of the utmost importance, there are two questions in particular, which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature.”
Freud's own definition leaves the question open
Freud was a firm atheist, and he thought some religious teachings very unlikely. But he chose his word with care. In his sense, an illusion is a belief in which a wish plays a leading part. He wrote that such a belief is not necessarily an error. He said that judging whether religious doctrines are true lay outside his enquiry. Of most of them he wrote that they can be neither proved nor refuted. He did add that a belief which matches our wishes so well looks suspicious. But suspicion is a reason to examine the reasons, not a verdict on them. So the real question is still open: whether there are good reasons to think that God (﷾) exists.
Holds that religious ideas are illusions that fulfil mankind's oldest and strongest wishes. A small child's helplessness made it long for a father's protection, and adults, still helpless before nature and death, turned that longing to a mightier father. Among the gods' tasks he counts making amends for the sufferings that life in society imposes, so that in the end good is rewarded and evil punished. Freud defines an illusion as a belief in which a wish plays a leading part, and says it is not necessarily an error. He states that judging the truth of religious doctrines lies outside his enquiry, and that most of them can be neither proved nor refuted. He adds that some seem so improbable that they resemble delusions. He also finds it very odd that religion teaches just what we would wish, and plainly treats that as grounds for suspicion.
When an origin story does count, and why this one falls short
An origin can matter in one kind of case: when a belief came from a process that has nothing to do with the truth. A belief planted by hypnosis is an example. The stronger argument says the mind's agent detector was built to be safe, not accurate. Philosophers call this a debunking argument: it claims a belief's origin shows that it cannot be trusted. The detector reports someone there at every rustle in the grass, so, the argument says, its alarms prove nothing. Suppose that is so. An over-sensitive smoke alarm is a reason to check for fire, not proof that there is none. And the case for God (﷾) does not rest on a rustle in the grass. It rests on reasoning anyone can check step by step: whatever depends on something needs something that depends on nothing. The page on who created God (﷾) sets it out.
Surveys evolutionary and cognitive accounts of religion. On the by-product view, belief arises as a side effect of ordinary mental tools, such as a hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD) that reads ambiguous sounds and movements as agents. Being better safe than sorry, such a device gives many false alarms. The entry reports wide agreement that uncovering a belief's origins does not by itself show that it is false (the genetic fallacy), though origins can matter when a belief comes from an off-track process. It sets out the debunking argument built on this, and the replies: such arguments may overreach, since all our faculties have natural origins, and believers may have independent reasons.
Divides all that exists into what is only possible in itself (mumkin al-wujud), which needs a cause, and what is necessary in itself (wajib al-wujud), which needs none. Argues that a chain of possible things, however long, needs a necessary being outside it, and that this being is one and has no parts.
Argues that the sufficient reason for the whole series of contingent things must lie outside that series, in a necessary substance, which Leibniz calls God.
The debunking argument cannot reach the reasons
The careful debunking argument does not say only "it evolved". It says the leaning would arise whether or not any god exists. Debunkers add that sight and arithmetic are different, because getting them right helped survival. But the case for God (﷾) does not rest on the agent-sensing leaning. It rests on logic, the very faculty the debunker must trust to make his own argument. And if God (﷾) made human nature, a mind that leans towards its Maker is working as it should. So the leaning alone neither proves God (﷾) nor disproves Him. The reasoning decides.
Surveys evolutionary and cognitive accounts of religion. On the by-product view, belief arises as a side effect of ordinary mental tools, such as a hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD) that reads ambiguous sounds and movements as agents. Being better safe than sorry, such a device gives many false alarms. The entry reports wide agreement that uncovering a belief's origins does not by itself show that it is false (the genetic fallacy), though origins can matter when a belief comes from an off-track process. It sets out the debunking argument built on this, and the replies: such arguments may overreach, since all our faculties have natural origins, and believers may have independent reasons.
Divides all that exists into what is only possible in itself (mumkin al-wujud), which needs a cause, and what is necessary in itself (wajib al-wujud), which needs none. Argues that a chain of possible things, however long, needs a necessary being outside it, and that this being is one and has no parts.
“So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not.”
Hope and fear pull both ways
Hope and fear can move unbelief as well as belief. The American philosopher Thomas Nagel, an atheist, wrote that he wants atheism to be true and hopes there is no God. He called this a fear of religion, and guessed that it is not rare. He also drew the right lesson. Being swayed by the hope that God (﷾) does not exist is as irrational as being swayed by the hope that He does. Motives explain why a person leans one way. They never decide which way is true.
In the chapter "Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion", the atheist philosopher says he is himself subject to a fear of religion: he wants atheism to be true and hopes there is no God. He guesses this "cosmic authority problem" is not rare and drives much of the scientism and reductionism of his time. He adds that being swayed by the hope that God does not exist is just as irrational as being swayed by the hope that He does.
Islam rejects a god made from wishes
The Qur'an condemns taking one's own desire as a god (25:43). It says that if the truth followed people's desires, the heavens and the earth would fall into corruption (23:71). It forbids following what one has no knowledge of (17:36). Feuerbach's stronger point is that God (﷾) is the best of human nature, freed from each person's limits. But that shows only that we can think of perfect knowledge and mercy. It cannot show that no one has them. If God (﷾) made us, our knowledge and mercy are His gifts, and our ideas of Him are not where He comes from. The reasoning from dependence ends in a being that depends on nothing. That is the opposite of human nature, not a copy of it. As the Qur'an says, nothing is like Him (42:11).
“Seest thou such a one as taketh for his god his own passion (or impulse)? Couldst thou be a disposer of affairs for him?”
“If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.”
“And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).”
Argues that the God of Christianity is the human species' own nature, its reason, will and feeling, projected outward and worshipped as a separate being. A person feels his own limits, he says, only because others of his kind have what he lacks. So the individual's limits are not limits of the species, and God is that ideal of the species, freed from the individual's limits. He takes the Christian teaching that God became man as a sign that man was already in God. In a later work he traced belief in God's power to the human wish to be free of every limit that nature sets.
Divides all that exists into what is only possible in itself (mumkin al-wujud), which needs a cause, and what is necessary in itself (wajib al-wujud), which needs none. Argues that a chain of possible things, however long, needs a necessary being outside it, and that this being is one and has no parts.
“(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).”
A hard God (﷾) to wish for
A god built from wishes would comfort and ask little. The Qur'an says believers will be tested with fear, hunger and loss (2:155). It says no one is left alone just for saying "we believe" (29:2-3). It says hearing, sight and the heart will each be questioned (17:36). This does not prove that Islam is true. It shows that "wish-fulfilment" is a poor description of this faith.
“Be sure we shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere,”
“Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false.”
“And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).”
Islam's answer: an inborn sense that upbringing can bend
Islam teaches that people are made with a leaning towards their Maker, the fitra (30:30). The Prophet (ﷺ) said every child is born on the fitra. It is the parents who make the child a Jew, a Christian or a Magian (a Zoroastrian). So Islam expects belief to be natural, and also to be bent by upbringing. In Islam the fitra is a nature made to know God (﷾). Islam does not offer it to the doubter as the proof: like the eye, it still needs light, which reasons and revelation give. Children readily see the world as made for a purpose; this fits what Islam teaches about the fitra, though research cannot prove God (﷾) exists. A bent leaning also explains why so many peoples have worshipped many gods. The Qur'an blames those who reject what God (﷾) revealed for their fathers' ways, even if their fathers lacked wisdom and guidance (2:170). It tells people to reason about their own making (52:35-36). Islam's answer is to follow that leaning to the One God (﷾). Belief, worship and character then go together as one way of life.
“So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not.”
Abu Hurayra reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said every child is born upon the fitra, the true faith, and it is his parents who make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal gives birth to a whole young one: do you see any of them born mutilated?
Reviews research on how young children think about nature. Children tend to explain natural things by their purpose, and to account for where they came from by someone's intention. Kelemen asks whether children are best described as intuitive theists, disposed to see nature as the work of a non-human designer. She suggests that by about the age of five, the description may have explanatory value.
“When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance?”
“Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief.”
The replies answered
Evolutionary Approaches to Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2026)
Surveys evolutionary and cognitive accounts of religion. On the by-product view, belief arises as a side effect of ordinary mental tools, such as a hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD) that reads ambiguous sounds and movements as agents. Being better safe than sorry, such a device gives many false alarms. The entry reports wide agreement that uncovering a belief's origins does not by itself show that it is false (the genetic fallacy), though origins can matter when a belief comes from an off-track process. It sets out the debunking argument built on this, and the replies: such arguments may overreach, since all our faculties have natural origins, and believers may have independent reasons.
Cited for
We would believe in gods whether or not any existed, so belief in God is unjustified.
The response
If God (﷾) made human nature, a mind that leans towards Him is working as it should. So the argument must first show there is no Maker, which is the original question. Debunkers reply that sight and logic are trusted because accuracy helped survival. Then the debunking cannot reach the case for God (﷾), because that case rests on logic, not on a feeling.
Where it lands — The debunking argument needs a separate case that there is no Maker, and it cannot touch reasons that rest on logic.
Evolutionary Approaches to Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2026)
Surveys evolutionary and cognitive accounts of religion. On the by-product view, belief arises as a side effect of ordinary mental tools, such as a hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD) that reads ambiguous sounds and movements as agents. Being better safe than sorry, such a device gives many false alarms. The entry reports wide agreement that uncovering a belief's origins does not by itself show that it is false (the genetic fallacy), though origins can matter when a belief comes from an off-track process. It sets out the debunking argument built on this, and the replies: such arguments may overreach, since all our faculties have natural origins, and believers may have independent reasons.
Cited for
Our minds over-detect agents, so belief in God is a false alarm.
The response
An over-sensitive smoke alarm is a reason to check for fire, not proof that there is none. The case for God (﷾) does not rest on a sense of someone in the dark. It rests on reasoning about dependence that anyone can test step by step.
Where it lands — Even if the detector over-fires, the question is settled by the reasons, and those do not come from the detector.
Evolutionary Approaches to Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2026)
Surveys evolutionary and cognitive accounts of religion. On the by-product view, belief arises as a side effect of ordinary mental tools, such as a hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD) that reads ambiguous sounds and movements as agents. Being better safe than sorry, such a device gives many false alarms. The entry reports wide agreement that uncovering a belief's origins does not by itself show that it is false (the genetic fallacy), though origins can matter when a belief comes from an off-track process. It sets out the debunking argument built on this, and the replies: such arguments may overreach, since all our faculties have natural origins, and believers may have independent reasons.
Cited for
If belief is inborn, it is just wiring. Your fitra is the same agent detector, so you have explained belief away yourself.
The response
Islam does not offer the inborn leaning as the proof. The case rests on reasoning about dependence, which anyone can test. An inborn nature made to know its Maker is what we would expect if there is one. Whether there is one, the reasons decide.
Where it lands — Calling the leaning wiring says how it works, not whether it points at something real.
Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1927)
In the section "Fear the Foundation of Religion", says that religion rests first and mainly on fear: terror of the unknown, and fear of defeat and of death. Part of it, he says, is the wish for an elder brother who will stand by you in every trouble. He urges people to rely on science and their own efforts instead of imagined helpers above. Earlier in the lecture he rejects the First-Cause argument. He recalls a line in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography: the question "Who made me?" only raises the further question "Who made God?". If anything can exist without a cause, he says, it may as well be the world as God.
Cited for
The fear story comes after the arguments fail. Russell first rejected the first-cause argument by asking "Who made God?", and only then explained belief by fear.
The response
Then everything hangs on the arguments, which is this page's point. The argument from dependence is not touched by "Who made God?". It ends in a being that depends on nothing, so nothing made Him. Russell asked why that being could not be the world. The world is made of parts, and a thing made of parts depends on them. So it cannot be the being that depends on nothing. The page on who created God (﷾) sets it out.
Where it lands — Fear can explain belief only if the reasons fail, and the reason from dependence stands.
Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927)
Holds that religious ideas are illusions that fulfil mankind's oldest and strongest wishes. A small child's helplessness made it long for a father's protection, and adults, still helpless before nature and death, turned that longing to a mightier father. Among the gods' tasks he counts making amends for the sufferings that life in society imposes, so that in the end good is rewarded and evil punished. Freud defines an illusion as a belief in which a wish plays a leading part, and says it is not necessarily an error. He states that judging the truth of religious doctrines lies outside his enquiry, and that most of them can be neither proved nor refuted. He adds that some seem so improbable that they resemble delusions. He also finds it very odd that religion teaches just what we would wish, and plainly treats that as grounds for suspicion.
Cited for
Belief in God is wish-fulfilment: a grown-up's longing for a protecting father.
The response
In Freud's own definition, an illusion is a belief driven by a wish, and it is not necessarily an error. He left the question of truth outside his enquiry. He did find it suspicious that religion matches our wishes so well. But suspicion calls for weighing the reasons; it is not a verdict on them.
Where it lands — Freud's account explains why people might believe. By his own words, it does not show that the belief is false.
Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (1841)
Argues that the God of Christianity is the human species' own nature, its reason, will and feeling, projected outward and worshipped as a separate being. A person feels his own limits, he says, only because others of his kind have what he lacks. So the individual's limits are not limits of the species, and God is that ideal of the species, freed from the individual's limits. He takes the Christian teaching that God became man as a sign that man was already in God. In a later work he traced belief in God's power to the human wish to be free of every limit that nature sets.
Cited for
God is only human nature, its reason, will and feeling, projected outward and worshipped.
The response
Some gods have been built that way, and the Qur'an condemns a god made from one's own desire (25:43). Feuerbach's stronger point is that God (﷾) is our best qualities without our limits. But being able to imagine perfect knowledge and mercy does not show that no one has them. And reasoning from dependence reaches a God unlike anything He made (42:11).
Where it lands — A projection theory can expose false images of God (﷾). It cannot show that no God exists behind them.
Qur'an 42:11 — Surat al-Shura (Consultation), verse 11
“(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).”
Cited for
The Qur'an's God hears, sees, loves and grows angry. That is a human being made larger, just as Feuerbach said.
The response
The Qur'an affirms what God (﷾) says of Himself, and in the same verse denies any likeness. Nothing is like Him, and He hears and sees (42:11). Muslims affirm His hearing without picturing an ear, and do not ask how. A shared word is not a shared nature.
Where it lands — Shared words show that we speak of God (﷾) in human language. They do not show that God (﷾) was made from human nature.
Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1927)
In the section "Fear the Foundation of Religion", says that religion rests first and mainly on fear: terror of the unknown, and fear of defeat and of death. Part of it, he says, is the wish for an elder brother who will stand by you in every trouble. He urges people to rely on science and their own efforts instead of imagined helpers above. Earlier in the lecture he rejects the First-Cause argument. He recalls a line in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography: the question "Who made me?" only raises the further question "Who made God?". If anything can exist without a cause, he says, it may as well be the world as God.
Cited for
Religion is based on fear: of the unknown, of defeat and of death.
The response
Fear may move some people to believe, as hope moves others to disbelieve. Thomas Nagel, an atheist, says he hopes there is no God. He calls either hope an irrational guide to belief. Motives settle nothing, and reasons do.
Where it lands — Where a belief's motive came from is beside the point. The reasons for a Creator must be weighed on their own.
David Hume, The Natural History of Religion (1757), Section 2, 'Origin of Polytheism', paragraph 4 (Hume Texts Online, N 2.4)
“We may conclude, therefore, that, in all nations, which have embraced polytheism, the first ideas of religion arose not from a contemplation of the works of nature, but from a concern with regard to the events of life, and from the incessant hopes and fears, which actuate the human mind.”
Cited for
Hume showed that the first religion was many gods, born of fear. Belief in one God came later.
The response
Hume's case rests on reasoning about the distant past; no written record reaches the first humans. In the same section he wrote that people reasoning from the order of nature would conceive only one maker. Islam teaches that mankind was one community and then differed (10:19), and that upbringing bends the inborn sense.
Where it lands — A theory about the first religion is not a record of it. Either way, which belief came first does not decide which is true.
David Hume, The Natural History of Religion (1757), Introduction, paragraph 1 (Hume Texts Online, N 0.1)
“As every enquiry, which regards religion, is of the utmost importance, there are two questions in particular, which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature.”
Cited for
Hume said belief in invisible powers is no instinct: some nations had none, and no two agree. So there is no inborn sense of God.
The response
Islam does not say that every person ends up believing, or that all believe alike. The hadith says parents can turn a child away, so a leaning bent by upbringing will look different from place to place. In the same paragraph Hume himself says the first religious principles are easily bent by circumstances. Whether God (﷾) exists is then a question for the reasons.
Where it lands — Variety in belief is what a leaning bent by upbringing would produce. It does not show that the leaning is absent.
Cognition, Religion and Theology Project, Oxford (2007-2010; results announced 2011)
A £1.9 million University of Oxford project of more than 40 studies in 20 countries, covering both religious and non-religious societies. It concluded that human beings are naturally predisposed to believe in gods and in an afterlife.
Cited for
Research finds people naturally inclined to believe in gods, plural. That supports many gods as much as it supports Islam.
The response
The research does speak of gods in general, and it cannot prove that God (﷾) exists. Islam expects a natural leaning that upbringing bends. The hadith says parents make the child a Jew, a Christian or a Magian (a Zoroastrian). Which belief is true is then settled by reasons, not by the leaning.
Where it lands — The research fits Islam's teaching without proving it, and the One God (﷾) is reached by reason.
Qur'an 29:65 — Surat al-Ankabut (The Spider), verse 65
“Now, if they embark on a boat, they call on Allah, making their devotion sincerely (and exclusively) to Him; but when He has delivered them safely to (dry) land, behold, they give a share (of their worship to others)!-”
Cited for
Your own Qur'an says people call on God when a storm hits at sea. That is fear making belief.
The response
The people in the verse already believed in God (﷾); danger made them call on Him alone, and safety brought back their partners. The verse blames that. Islam teaches that the sense of God (﷾) is inborn (30:30), and danger only uncovers it. The case for God (﷾) does not rest on that cry.
Where it lands — The verse shows fear uncovering a belief already there, and blames faith that lasts only while fear does.
Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1927)
In the section "Fear the Foundation of Religion", says that religion rests first and mainly on fear: terror of the unknown, and fear of defeat and of death. Part of it, he says, is the wish for an elder brother who will stand by you in every trouble. He urges people to rely on science and their own efforts instead of imagined helpers above. Earlier in the lecture he rejects the First-Cause argument. He recalls a line in John Stuart Mill's Autobiography: the question "Who made me?" only raises the further question "Who made God?". If anything can exist without a cause, he says, it may as well be the world as God.
Cited for
The Qur'an is full of warnings of Hell. It trades on the very fear Russell described.
The response
A warning assumes the danger is real; it does not create it. The Prophet (ﷺ) warned his people openly, after they agreed they had never known him to lie (Bukhari 4770). The Qur'an grounds belief in God (﷾) on reasoning, asking whether people were created of nothing or created themselves (52:35-36). Fear of a real danger is reasonable; the question is whether the danger is real.
Where it lands — The Qur'an gives reasons to know God (﷾), and warns of what turning from Him costs. A warning of a real danger is not a trick of fear.
Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927)
Holds that religious ideas are illusions that fulfil mankind's oldest and strongest wishes. A small child's helplessness made it long for a father's protection, and adults, still helpless before nature and death, turned that longing to a mightier father. Among the gods' tasks he counts making amends for the sufferings that life in society imposes, so that in the end good is rewarded and evil punished. Freud defines an illusion as a belief in which a wish plays a leading part, and says it is not necessarily an error. He states that judging the truth of religious doctrines lies outside his enquiry, and that most of them can be neither proved nor refuted. He adds that some seem so improbable that they resemble delusions. He also finds it very odd that religion teaches just what we would wish, and plainly treats that as grounds for suspicion.
Cited for
Paradise is the greatest wish of all. A religion that promises it is wish-fulfilment.
The response
Muslims do hope for Paradise. But a hope does not make a belief false, as Freud himself said. The same faith asks for daily prayer, fasting and an account of every deed, down to an atom's weight (99:7-8).
Where it lands — Hope is part of the faith, but the case for it rests on reasons, not on how pleasant it is.
Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927)
Holds that religious ideas are illusions that fulfil mankind's oldest and strongest wishes. A small child's helplessness made it long for a father's protection, and adults, still helpless before nature and death, turned that longing to a mightier father. Among the gods' tasks he counts making amends for the sufferings that life in society imposes, so that in the end good is rewarded and evil punished. Freud defines an illusion as a belief in which a wish plays a leading part, and says it is not necessarily an error. He states that judging the truth of religious doctrines lies outside his enquiry, and that most of them can be neither proved nor refuted. He adds that some seem so improbable that they resemble delusions. He also finds it very odd that religion teaches just what we would wish, and plainly treats that as grounds for suspicion.
Cited for
A God who judges is a wish too: the wish to see justice done and wrongdoers punished.
The response
Many people do long for justice. But the Qur'an says the outcome does not follow anyone's desires, its own readers' included: whoever does evil will be repaid for it (4:123). A wish would spare the one who wishes. And a wish, by this page's own rule, settles nothing either way. The reasons do.
Where it lands — Wanting justice does not show that there is none. The question returns to the reasons.
Perspectives
Atheist: belief in God comes from fear and wishes
Since Hume, many thinkers have explained religion as a product of human feeling. Hume traced the first gods to hopes and fears. Feuerbach saw God as human nature projected outward. Freud saw religious ideas as wish-fulfilments rooted in childhood helplessness. Russell said religion rests mainly on fear. If belief can be explained this way, they hold, there is no need to suppose that God is real.
God is human nature, its reason, will and feeling, projected outward and worshipped as a separate being.
Rebuttal
People do make gods in their own image, and the Qur'an condemns a god made from desire. Being able to imagine perfect qualities does not show that no one has them. Reasoning from dependence reaches a God unlike anything He made.
Religious ideas are illusions that fulfil the oldest and strongest human wishes. Above all, they fulfil the longing for a father who protects us.
Rebuttal
Freud himself said an illusion is not necessarily an error, and that judging religion's truth lay outside his enquiry. A wish explains a motive. It does not settle whether the belief is true.
Religion is based mainly on fear: fear of the unknown, of defeat and of death.
Rebuttal
Fear may move some people, as hope moves others; the atheist Thomas Nagel says he hopes there is no God. Either motive is a poor guide. The reasons for a Creator concern dependence, not danger.
Atheist: evolution explains belief in gods
Researchers find that the human mind is quick to sense someone acting, and a purpose behind things, from early childhood on. The leading view calls belief in gods a by-product: a side effect of these mental tools, which evolved to help us survive. Some philosophers go further. They argue that this explanation undermines belief, because we would believe whether or not any god existed.
Belief in gods is a side effect of a hypersensitive agency detection device, which gives many false alarms.
Rebuttal
An alarm that goes off too easily is a reason to check. It is not proof that nothing is there. The case for God (﷾) rests on reasoning that anyone can test step by step. It does not rest on a feeling that someone is there in the dark.
We would believe in gods whether or not any exist, so belief in God is unjustified.
Rebuttal
If God (﷾) made human nature, then a leaning towards Him is pointing the right way. So the argument must first show that there is no Maker. And the case for God (﷾) rests on logic, which the one making this argument trusts too.
The same mental tools produce thousands of different gods, so none of their outputs can be trusted.
Rebuttal
Different outputs show that upbringing shapes belief, which is what Islam teaches. Eyes see mirages too, and we sort them by checking, not by giving up sight. Reason sorts the claims about God (﷾).
Origins and truth are separate questions
How a belief arose and whether it is true are two different questions. Motives and mental tools explain the first. Only reasons can answer the second.
Uncovering how a belief arose does not, by itself, show that it is false.
Freud defined an illusion as a belief in which a wish plays a leading part. And he said an illusion is not necessarily an error.
Hope and fear can drive unbelief as well as belief, so motives settle nothing either way.
Take a rule that throws out beliefs just because of where they came from. It would also threaten other abilities that evolved, such as mathematics and moral judgement.
The Islamic perspective
People are born with a leaning towards their Maker, which upbringing can bend. The Qur'an condemns gods made from people's own desires. It describes a God unlike anything He made. And it asks people to reach Him by reasoning.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said every child is born on the fitra, the natural faith. It is the parents who make the child a Jew, a Christian or a Magian (a Zoroastrian).
Human beings are made with an inborn leaning towards their Maker, which upbringing can bend or cover.
The Qur'an condemns taking one's own desire as a god, and says the truth does not follow people's desires.
The Qur'an says believers will be tested with fear, hunger and loss.
The Qur'an blames those who reject what God (﷾) revealed because of their fathers' ways. And it calls people to think about how they themselves were made.