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