06/24/04

The Futility of Religious Apologetics-Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was a Austrian doctor who was the father of modern psychoanalysis. He developed a number of theories regarding the role our unconscious plays in influencing and even determining our actions, mostly through the process of sublimation, where drives and desires are transformed towards other goals and purposes.

Sigmund Freud's Response to Apologetics

At times, religious people do make an attempt, or perhaps pretense, of offering rational verification of wishful thinking in the form of "proofs" of their gods. Freud recognized this, and thus spent some time examining them.

Unsurprisingly, the defenses against skepticism which he regarded as most common at his time remain very common even today: my religion must be true because it is so old; my religion must be true because of the success of various proofs; my religion is holy, and any attempt to question it is sinful. None of these impressed Freud any more than they impress skeptics today.

Freud was particularly disdainful of attempts to defend religion precisely by relying on its irrationality. The medieval form of this was "Credo quia absurdam" - I believe because it is absurd. The more modern form is the "as if" argument - the idea that a belief is made acceptable when you live your life "as if" it were true and are thereby made happy.

The first is meaningless at best - as Freud pointed out, if one absurdity, why not another? If you value absurdity, you cannot rationally choose or prefer any one absurdity over any other. A similar argument can be raised against the second form, since they are not really arguments but evasions from the principle of rationally defending one's assertions.

Freud was particularly dismayed at attempts to defend religious faith by arguing that if they could not be absolutely proven wrong, then people are perfectly justified in believing them anyway. Many seem to think that conviction in the absence of knowledge is fine, but Freud recognized this as a "lame excuse," arguing:

"Ignorance is ignorance; no right to believe anything can be derived from it. In other matters no sensible person will behave so irresponsibly or rest content with such feeble grounds for his opinions and for the line he takes. It is only in the highest and most sacred things that he allows himself to do so."

Another common claim made on behalf of religion is a pragmatic one: namely, that religion is a positive force in human affairs. Today we hear the clarion call from religious leaders for more religion in people's lives in an effort to cure all manner of social ills. Indeed, we often hear that most of these ills would not even exist if it were not for the gradual decline of religion's influence in society over the past few decades.

Freud would find no such arguments credible. Although he noted that both religion and civilization did make important contributions in taming the wild instincts of humanity, he did not find that religion was a particularly strong force for order or morality. On the contrary, he did not find any evidence that religion made people any happier or more moral than nonreligious or less religious peers.

He wrote that "It is doubtful whether men were in general happier at a time when religious doctrines held unrestricted sway; more moral they were certainly not. [...] In every age immorality has found no less support in religion than morality has."

The implication for Freud was only too obvious: since religion has had thousands of years to show what it can achieve but has not managed to make much improvement in human beings, then reason and irreligion should be given a chance

Freud regarded science and religion to be mortal enemies, and he never made an effort to hide these feelings. On the contrary, he proclaimed it widely and loudly. Since religion had proven that it was a failure, he hoped the science might be given a chance to show its superiority.

The heart of Freud's argument was contrary to the claims of so many who attempt to build bridges between science and religion, namely that their fundamental premises are wholly incompatible. He was perhaps overly optimistic, since science is itself a human institution and hence susceptible to all human weaknesses.

*All Material taken from About.com