Quick question from a college philosophy major struggling to reconcile an interesting topic we learned about in class.
We briefly covered Feuerbach and his Hegelian-rooted philosophy of “man created God”. Or in other words, man objectified his subjective nature and called this objectified nature “God”.
The results of this thesis seem to me, for the most part, to bear substantial credence that religion could be entirely man-made.
For instance, the way I’ve come to learn of how our faith in God affects us is that God gives us what we need, and then everything we do comes from us. In other words, if I walk to my fridge to get food, I was the one doing the action–it came from me–by using my strength which was given to me by God.
If we take out the last part of that statement, we could essentially have the same result: I walked to the fridge (using the strength within me, and the source of this strength could be biological, etc. I would imagine it wouldn’t matter for someone not in interested in faith).
So, where does God become a crucial part of this argument, or more specifically, in the conclusion of a scenario such as the one I described? In other words, if we can achieve the results(getting to the fridge), why is it worth debating about how we got there?
What is the right argument here, rooted in logic (since to be clear, this isn’t a crisis of faith for me, I simply like to prepare myself for an apologetics argument for someone who maybe doesn’t have a faith life, and a lot of answers can simply come back to faith), that can be used to refute these ideas?
There could also be a chance I’m a little “too in my head” here: I’ve been taking in a whole lot of philosophy lately
Thanks so much in advance!