Search

The origin of religion is one of the important issues in the philosophy of religion and new theology (kâlâm), which has always been the source of suspicion among some materialists and atheists. The answer to this question determines the identity of religion and reveals its divine or human aspect. From the perspective of God-believing thinkers, religion has a divine origin and has been legislated by God and Prophets for the guidance of people. On the other hand, materialists and atheist philosophers consider religion an estimate of human will, lust, and ignorance, and instead of a heavenly origin, they believe that religion has an earthly origin, and religion cannot be attributed to an origin beyond this material world and material man. Meanwhile, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) sees the origin of religion in human complexes and instincts, and beyond this, he does not consider any other origin for religion. In this article, with a descriptive-argumentative method and an analytical approach, an attempt is made to investigate and criticize Freud's point of view on the origin of religion. Freud's point of view in terms of reason (‘aql) and inspired transmission (Quranic and hadith principles of Islam, naql) faces some challenges and impasses, such as the inexplicability of the mechanism that instinct of the origin of religion, the mythology of father-son relationship and its uniqueness in Christianity, the irrationality of believing in totemism, ethnic and limited view, as well as Freud's view on the origin of religion. This view conflicts with many Quranic verses and human nature.

This commentary was adapted from an oral presentation delivered at the 86th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mammalogists in Amherst, Massachusetts, on 18 June 2006 to recognize receipt of the Joseph Grinnell Award for Excellence in Education. Our continued ability to conduct fieldwork in mammalogy and train the next generation of field mammalogists is threatened by social, institutional, and bureaucratic changes that have accelerated over the past decade. These changes include continued decline in field-based natural history studies in the United States, bureaucratic regulations that are increasing in both number and complexity, increased acceptance of radical animal rights propaganda by our youth, increased fear of nature among United States citizens, and poor understanding of risk in an increasingly risk-averse society. These factors, among others, have made it increasingly difficult to conduct field research in mammalogy, and this commentary shows how these changes influenced the national response to discovery of a new rodent-borne disease, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), in 1993. Current guidelines to protect field researchers from HPS may, in fact, be destroying the very enterprise whose practitioners they were designed to protect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]