Essay, Research Paper: Freud And Neurosis

Freud and Neurosis
Sigmund Feud believed that religion was simply an illusion. His theory is based on the belief that human impulse is to murder
and be promiscuous. If that assumption is correct, then his theory that religion is helping to prohibit these impulses, can have
some merit. However, since it is impossible to ascertain the nature of man, it is impossible to determine whether religion is
actually helping to prevent these impulses. Freud claims that moral prohibitions would not be obeyed by a majority of people if
there were not external coercions, but there are many people who are not religious and yet do not murder or have sex with
anyone they want. Thus, seems unlikely that religion alone could help to renounce these impulses. Freud, of course, would say
that other things can serve as sublimation for the sexual urges, but this theory cannot be tested because you can never find a
person who is free of every thing which might be seen as sublimation.
Like Durkheim, Freud saw religion as originating in the realization that there is a
force greater than the individual. However, where Durkheim saw that force as society, Freud saw the force as nature, which is
superior. In an effort to relate to and eventually influence that nature, man personifies nature, in the form of gods. Since many
ancient religions have gods that are of natural origin, this theory makes sense. Religion would be to the ancients what science is
now, explaining earthquakes and tornadoes as acts of the gods. In fact, Freud claims that as people become more educated
about scientific matters, they will become less religious. Here again, though, there is no proof for this statement. There are many
very scientific people who are still religious. For some, their scientific research causes greater belief in religion and the existence
of a greater power.
The biggest problem with most of Freud’s theories of religion (and of everything else) is that they are just theories. They can
never be tested because the important steps take place in the subconscious. For any exception to the rule that is found, Freud
would be able to explain the exception as just another manifestation of his theories. Thus, it becomes difficult to know whether
to believe his theories or not. It is like a trial in which one person’s word is set up against another person’s. But in this case, not
even Freud could know if he was correct in his assumptions.
Another important distinction is made between science and religious ideas in Freud’s assessment of religious ideas as illusion.
By labeling them illusion, he does leave allow that the ideas may be true, but are formed through wishes. He likens a wish for
the
Messiah to come to earth to a little girl’s wish that a prince will come and take her away. While it may be possible, it is not very
likely to happen. However, it is ironic that Freud would distinguish these illusions from science. He says that science is “the only
road which can lead us to a knowledge of reality outside ourselves” (40). It is ironic because, as stated above, very little of
Freud’s work is scientific or at all provable, as was the case for much of science at that time.
One of the most unique things about Freud’s writings is his defensive style against an imaginary opponent. Instead of simply
writing about the topic at hand to the best of his ability, he feels it necessary to pose questions to himself and then answer those
questions. While I don’t doubt that many people might ask these questions and that similar questions were probably posed to
Freud, it seems odd to defend himself against questions in this manner. This is not a talk show in which he is directly answering
questions, not does he state who his opponents are. While Freud claims he uses this method to avoid uncertainty and
overdecisiveness caused by not letting the other viewpoint into the discussion, I think the best explanation for this method of
writing lies in the type of answers that Freud gives to these contrived questions. He does not simply answer the questions.
Instead, he uses the questions to assert his intellectual superiority. This seen in the way that he never really answers the
questions but instead asserts that he feels justified in his methods or that he’s certain he’s correct, precisely because of the very
methods or findings that the opponent is questioning. Here we have yet another example of circular reasoning!


Word Count: 759