[139] as it is described in depth psychology, which for sociological reasons projects a special type of religion^a in order to escape the miserable situation in this world, or in order to maintain the power of a ruling class, which Marx has called "ideology^b"-- I grant you this also. But now, after all this has been said, we are again in the same situation, namely the situation: what about the relationship of ultimate concern, namely the experience of ultimacy^c, which we all have, to these images? And then the answer is very clear: these images are more or less purified projections. They can be purified. There are criteria of purification. But they are, even so, projections. You cannot have images of the ultimate without the material of your daily experience, and if the collective unconscious^d creates such images, then it is the experience of the individual and collective unconscious which produces them. In this point, all the projectionists are right. But in the moment in which they mean that this is an explaining-away of that which is MEANT, in the religious act, in the act of faith, or ultimate concern (as I have called it), then they are completely wrong, and they are not even adequate to their technical job, namely to show WHY these projections are made by human beings unconsciously, in all periods of human history, and what the impact behind it is. Now this again is a matter of genesis and validity^e. The genesis of the concrete images of the ultimate is a matter of much scientific research, and no theology^f should interfere with that research, especially not in the cases in which individual persons are subjected to psychoanalytic treatment, or in which social classes are criticized by sociological treatment.