Sigmund Freud is no longer the revered figure he once was. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education noted that Freud is no longer routinely assigned even in psychology curricula. In a way, Freud is following the downpath path of that other great totem of the last couple of centuries, Karl Marx. It's hard to believe so many intelligent people spent their lives studying these two thinkers. Intellectuals, we have to conclude, are often fatally attracted to far-out theories that tease the mind but that bear little relation to what's actually going on in the world.
Marxism worked well in academic laboratories and only failed miserably when it was actually tried. Similarly for decades Freud spun out his elaborate theories, and they sounded so scientific and so modern and so avant garde. Depression? Well, that's because your sister abused you when you were four, and you have concealed from yourself the memory of it, but if you do hundreds of hours of therapy, you can excavate the source of your anxiety, and by coming to terms with it you can slowly overcome it. But today when you go to the doctor and are diagnosed with depression, he gives you a pill and you feel better. No need for most people to visit the therapist's couch.
Freud also argued that what we are secretly attracted to, we make into a taboo. Freud explained the "incest taboo" by saying that we secretly want to have sex with our mothers and our sisters, and so we repress those feelings and and outlaw them. The cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker pointed out the shortcoming of this theory. Pinker notes that by Freud's logic the fact that humans are averse to eating cow dung shows that we secretly want to eat it. Pinker's point is that there are sound evolutionary reasons both for avoiding cow dung and for avoiding incest. The former is unhealthy and attracts disease-carrying insects; the latter results in biological abnormalities. So natural selection produces humans who avoid both. Once again, Freudian fantasy is replaced with a much more plausible scientific alternative.
I've been reading Freud's The Future of an Illusion, where Freud makes the case that religion is a form of "wish fulfillment." We forget that Freud is the original author of this slogan that is so widely repeated in our time. How often do we hear people say, "People only believe in Christianity because they want it to be true." Well, let's examine this Freudian explanation in an entirely secular and rational way.
Imagine a bunch of people who have gathered in a room because they want to avoid life's difficulties--sickness, suffering, death--by making up a religion that will make them feel better. I can entirely see how such a group would come up with the concept of heaven. Heaven is a place where there is no suffering and no death. Eternal bliss would surely fit into my wish-fulfillment scheme.
But I don't see why this group would come up with the concept of hell. (We are not talking about why priests might later use the concept to enforce doctrinal obedience or institutional loyalty. We are talking about why wish-fulfilling humans would invent the concept in the first place.) Hell is not only worse than sickness but also worse than death, because death is merely the end, while hell implies eternal separation from God. I also don't see why seekers of wish-fulfillment would come up with Christian morality. Who needs the Ten Commandments or other such rules which make our lives more difficult by asserting a series of "Thou Shall Nots"? A mandate for wish-fulfillment would seem to dictate a much more libertine social morality.
Bottom line: Judaism and Christianity, not to mention the other great religions, hardly look like they are the product of mere wishful thinking. In fact, they posit a God and a moral universe that makes some fairly stern demands on humans. It's almost wishful to think that God does not exist, so that we can escape those demands. This is a point that does not seem to have occurred to poor Sigmund Freud.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 3)
31. On the contrary Mr. Galt,
In what people call Christianity even those who do righteous and or unrighteous acts are NOT fit for God's Heaven because all our righteousness is as filthy rags before God. (Romans) Each person will have to answer to God on there own behalf. Genuine Christianity is not a religion, it’s a kingdom. It’s not a theocracy over government; it Jesus the Lord (owner) over our souls. He takes the sin out so that we may right standing before God and make a difference in this fallen world we live in. The religious organization or affiliation has nothing to with one's access into God's heaven. Only by God's power through Jesus Christ is there that access because God is Holy. No natural man would invent the concept of a Personal Holy God who holds everyone accountable for their actions, and actively prepares and equips people to do His will by His power alone, and who rules as the king on the inside of his people so that they are also set apart for God's use. Salvation is God-made and God-given. Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life.
Check it.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/#the_message_that_we_were_born_to_hear
DOUGY JONES at 1:42PM on Jul 31st 2008
32. Indeed, the idea of hell arose in early Judaism, but it has a distinctly less important role than it seems to have in Christianity. Heaven, for that matter, for traditional Jews, is not a place of "reward", since the reward for having lived a "righteous" life in observance of God's law (in Judaism) is having lived a "righteous" life. There is relatively little emphasis on either Heaven or Hell and they are purposely quite ill defined. Mention of Heaven in the Torah suggests only being "at the right hand of God" and in the presence of the angels. To my recollection, the idea of a Hell of "Fire and Brimstone" is not a particularly Jewish concept. Hell seems to be simply separation from God.
Harvey at 1:48PM on Jul 31st 2008
33. Thank you Ryan.
Good call on the priestly influence aspect of the scripture. I could see it coming from the oral traditions...which would be handed down by the parents, spiritual leaders, and tribal leaders.
That leaves the last poser. What's your take on the aberrant prophets and why in the world they became part of the oral tradition?
It makes me wonder if the ancients had more of a chaotic 'well it could be' attitude toward who God spoke through than now.
oneblood at 2:05PM on Jul 31st 2008
34. He takes the sin out so that we may right standing before God and make a difference in this fallen world we live in. The religious organization or affiliation has nothing to with one's access into God's heaven. Only by God's power through Jesus Christ is there that access because God is Holy. No natural man would invent the concept of a Personal Holy God who holds everyone accountable for their actions, and actively prepares and equips people to do His will by His power alone, and who rules as the king on the inside of his people so that they are also set apart for God's use. Salvation is God-made and God-given. Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life.
- DOUGY JONES
I am ashamed to share my name with you - really doodoo head? Really? You have got to be mad! - and now I've got blood coming out of my ears just reading the words you wrote silently in my head. AAAACCCCKKKK!
Please stay in your church and preach there - where people actually come to hear that tripe. That's right I said tripe! Tripe, Tripe, Tripe that is all you really said in that poignant turn of phrase you copied from somewhere else - cause I know that didn't come out of your brain.
Because if there was actual usage of brain matter by anyone with even remotely the same name as I - It truly wouldn't be all that tripe!
TJ at 2:37PM on Jul 31st 2008
35.
Hell, by Jesus' own admission, isn't just for bad people. He told the murderer being executed next to him he'd see him at the afterparty.
So it isn't about punishment for being bad, it's about punishment for not believing. What's commandment number one? NO OTHER GODS.
When the monotheistic gods were new, they had to threaten the people who had multiple gods. What better way to do it than create an eternal torture chamber (which is something they could REALLY understand) for having other gods?
If you pray to a multitude of gods, you could always ask one of them to intervene on your behalf to one who might be angry at you. Nothing really central about it. If you have multiple gods, your monetary offerings are being scattered here and there. If you came up with one that covered everything, all that money goes to you.
Hell is an advertising gimmick. You can use it to scare people into conformance, and keep them there. Multiple gods didn't threaten you, they competed for your attention.
Eternal torture is an attention grabber.
ex-christian at 2:46PM on Jul 31st 2008
36. THAT Diddy, is the evolution of religion. Not Calvin's Ayatollah-like reign over Geneva.
ex-christian at 2:49PM on Jul 31st 2008
37. Hell is the mafia. Either give us the money or well break you soul. Just sub legs for soul.
CaptainCack at 3:10PM on Jul 31st 2008
38. In what people call Looneyville even those who sing sappy songs and or grunge rock songs are NOT fit for Snoop's House of Hotdogs because all our fairydust is as filthy chocolate sprinkles before The Big Snoop Daug (Peanuts) Each person will have to answer to Snoopy on their own nasty assed buttcrack ways. Genuine Snoop Daugology is not a perverted mind-fuck, it’s a ding-dong. It’s not a toilet seat over a trash can; it's Little Snoop the Borg (owner) over our pie-holes. Little Snoop takes the spin out so that we may be left holding our dicks before Snoop Daug and make a pooh-pie in this lame-ass heathen world we live in. The fairy-dust organization or affliction has nothing to with one's access into Snoop Daug's House of Hotdogs. Only by Snoops power through Little Snoop is there that bad-assed access because Snoop is Wholly the Big Snoop DAUG. No natural moon-dog would invent the concept of a Personal bad-assed Snoop Daug who holds all Grin and bear it heathens accountable for their pooh-flinging, and actively prepares and strips baboons to do Snoops will by Snoop DAUG power alone, and who runs like a crusty pedifile from a Dateline Investigation, cause that is all that prays to the mighty Snoopster, so that they are also set apart for the Snoopster's illicit use. Self flatulence is hornyman-made and given by the most beloved greenbean king. Little Snoopy is the Regurgitation and the barf of the world.
Punt it.
TJ at 7:33PM on Jul 31st 2008
39.
Testing, testing.
I'm only showing 38 comments on this blog, with that last one posted last evening...
testing, testing.
Doofus at 3:24PM on Aug 1st 2008
40. Hell is the mafia. Either give us the money or we'll break you soul. Just sub legs for soul.
CaptainCack at 3:10PM on Jul 31st 2008
================
God: That's a nice soul you got there. It would be a shame if anything were to, uh, *happen* to it.
Archangel Rocco: Heh - yeah, Boss. A *real* shame.
Archangel Vinnie: *I* wouldn't want it getting fire damage, Boss.
God: I'm sure with the proper tithes, my boys would be motivated to keep that soul real safe.
Archangel Rocco: Heh - yeah, Boss. *Eternally* safe.
Archangel Vinnie: Safer than Fort Knox, Boss.
Toad at 2:10AM on Aug 2nd 2008
41. It's no secret that humans are motivated by both carrots and sticks, both positive and negative reinforcement.
xxx
where did this metaphor get screwed up?
It's a carrot ON a stick. You hold it in front of the horse to make him go, but he never gets it because it's ON a stick.
As I've always said, you can lead a horse to water but a stitch in time keeps the doctor away.
Clif Kuplen at 5:28AM on Aug 2nd 2008
42.
DoubleD, once again your post is lamer than modern day christian miracles.
What is a moral universe?
JefFlyingV at 7:31AM on Aug 2nd 2008
43. JFV -
A moral universe is one in which particles and gasses and stuff have to obey gods laws. People, on the other hand, disobey gods laws, and therefore must be made to suffer for eternity. And if you really disobey gods laws, those who don't follow the laws, but claim they do will cut your head off, or torch you.
ex-christian at 6:12PM on Aug 2nd 2008
44. Freud also argued that what we are secretly attracted to, we make into a taboo. Freud explained the "incest taboo" by saying that we secretly want to have sex with our mothers and our sisters, and so we repress those feelings and and outlaw them. The cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker pointed out the shortcoming of this theory. Pinker notes that by Freud's logic the fact that humans are averse to eating cow dung shows that we secretly want to eat it. Pinker's point is that there are sound evolutionary reasons both for avoiding cow dung and for avoiding incest. The former is unhealthy and attracts disease-carrying insects; the latter results in biological abnormalities. So natural selection produces humans who avoid both. Once again, Freudian fantasy is replaced with a much more plausible scientific alternative. -- DD
-----------------------------------
Freud was full of shit, I agree.
What your critique fails to note is the difference between social taboo and illegality.
YES, incest is a dreadful act resulting in dire consequences....it is aganst the law !( the problems go way beyond biological)
Eating cow shit is not a pleasant experience...no law forbidding it that I know of.
Why do I make such a distinction, you ask?
Humans tend to criminalize actions that are being performed.
Incest is a real problem, it has been committed.
Eating bullshit? I don't think many people do that.....unless they believe YOU, you're full of it....(OR they are our old budddy Ezekial?)
mac at 7:42PM on Aug 2nd 2008
45.
AND natural selection is a construct of EVOLUTION !
Can't have it both ways Dinesh....no matter how many lies you tell!
mac at 7:45PM on Aug 2nd 2008