God, Freud and Religion

The origins of faith, fear and fundamentalism

Dianna T. Kenny

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317649656
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy of Religion

Choice Essential Read

Did God create man or did man create God? In this book, Dianna Kenny examines religious belief through a variety of perspectives – psychoanalytic, cognitive, neuropsychological, sociological, historical and psychiatric – to provide a coherent account of why people might believe in God. She argues that psychoanalytic theory provides a fertile and creative approach to the study of religion that attempts to integrate religious belief with our innate human nature and developmental histories that have unfolded in the context of our socialization and cultural experiences. Freud argued that religion is so compelling because it solves the problems of our existence. It explains the origin of the universe, offers solace and protection from evil, and provides a blueprint about how we should live our lives, with just rewards for the righteous and due punishments for sinners and transgressors. Science, on the other hand, offers no such explanations about the universe or the meaning of our lives and no comfort for the unanswered longings of the human race.

Is religion a form of wish-fulfilment, a collective delusion to which we cling as we try to fathom our place and purpose in the drama of cosmology? Can there be morality without faith? Are science and religion radically incompatible? What are the roots of fundamentalism and terror theology?

These are some of the questions addressed in God, Freud and Religion, a book that will be of interest to psychoanalysts, psychologists and psychotherapists, students of psychology, psychoanalysis, philosophy and theology and all those with an interest in religion and human behaviour.

Dianna Kenny is Professor of Psychology at the University of Sydney, Australia. She is the author of over 200 publications, including six books.

1 Science, God and religion

DOI: 10.4324/9781315762890-1

Introduction

Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.

(Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd)

Voltaire, in a letter to Frederick II of Prussia (6 April 1767)

Historically, enlivened debate on religion and the existence of God has been prompted by scientific advances. Examples include Copernicus's heliocentrism (i.e., discovery that the earth was not the centre of the universe) and Galileo's telescope that allowed us to see further into the galaxy than ever before, and which supported Copernicus's view that the sun was the centre of the cosmos. In 1632, Galileo published The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he was charged with the task of presenting the arguments for and against the thesis that the sun or the earth was at the centre of the universe. The book infuriated Pope Urban VIII because Galileo argued that science (and not religion) could better answer questions about the universe. In 1633, he was brought to trial for heresy. What was really on trial was the question of who owned the truth about the cosmos. Sadly, it wasn't Galileo, who was found guilty, condemned to life imprisonment and died a broken man.

Isaac Newton's masterpiece, Principia (1687), which explained how the force of gravity held the planets on course, crystallized a new vision of the universe. More than 200 years later, Edwin Hubble, an American astronomer, burst the bubble of Newton's concept of a ‘mechanistic universe’. He created the next radical shift in our understanding of the universe, demonstrating that the earth is but one small planet in one galaxy amongst a vast number of galaxies. In between came Darwin's (1876) evolutionary theory, which prompted panicked calls for a return to the familiar doctrines of creationism and intelligent design.

More recently, quantum physics, the multiverse hypothesis (i.e., there may be many other universes apart from our own) and MRI imaging of the brain are challenging the concept of a non-physical ‘soul’, and explaining the possible neurochemical bases of religious hallucinations, near-death experiences and ecstatic states. Unsurprisingly, these lines of enquiry have also spawned both reactionary and revolutionary calls for or against religious doctrine. Notwithstanding tremendous advances in the brain mapping of human emotion, memory, cognition and movement, there are many unsolved mysteries in human subjectivity that are not (yet) accessible to the neurosciences. For example, Pribram (2004) has rightly observed that brain imaging has not (yet) revealed the locus of subjective states such consciousness, meditation or inspiration. However, science is rapidly advancing in its capacity to understand previously puzzling phenomena like out-of-body experiences and other disturbed self-perceptions (Heydrich & Blanke, 2013), issues that I will take up later in the chapter.

Recent scholarship on the relationship between science and religion falls into three main groups: the first group argues that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Exemplars include Joan Roughgarden (2006), Francis Collins (2006) and Peter Todd (2012). The second group comprises atheists such as Christopher Hitchens (2007), Daniel Dennett (2006), Richard Dawkins (2006) and Sam Harris (2004, 2006), whom Gorski and Türkmen-Dervis¸oglu (2013) described as “the four horsemen of the new atheism” (p. 197) and reductionist materialists like Lewis Wolpert (2006). They view science and religion as incompatible and not only argue forcefully against the existence of God but assert that religion is conducive to violence. See, for example, Dawkins's (2006) statement, “We should blame religion itself [for violence], not religious extremism as though that were some kind of terrible perversion of real, decent religion” (p. 345).

The third is a ‘middle’ group, exemplified in the journal Zygon (from the Greek ‘to yoke’), who attempt to resolve the schism between science and religion, to get them to pull together as a team rather than act as adversaries, because it “is essential for a viable dynamics of human culture” (Peters, 2010, p. 431). According to Zygonists, neither science nor religion is an end in itself, nor is the project of integrating or uniting science and religion. The ultimate aim is the advancement of life on earth; science and religion take their places alongside technology and political and social structures to form a sustainable socio-cultural system that honours life. Peters (2010) argues that the purposes of science and religion are different – the goal of religion is to transmit life's values, aims and motivations, while science is charged with the acquisition and transmission of knowledge. The split between knowledge (science) and values (religion) is problematic because they are naturally interdependent. Older forms of religion cease to be credible in the wake of new sciences and technologies and must therefore change and adapt in light of new knowledge, just as the world of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton had to adapt, however reluctantly, to their scientific insights about the nature of the universe. Science transforms man's worldview about the “nature of the forces and realities that shape his destiny” (Peters, 2010, p. 432), which in turn transforms our way of life, and with it our responsibilities and moral obligations. For example, the advent of the atomic bomb created enormous moral and philosophical dilemmas for humanity. In 1945, during World War II, the United States government had to balance its actions for the common good in deciding to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the site of large military supply depots, in order to end the war, knowing that such as an action would kill 80,000 Japanese citizens.

Zygonism is an idealistic but implausible vision. It takes for granted that religion is the only vehicle for the development and dissemination of morals and values. Yet, it is possible to exist in a humanistic society that espouses fundamental values such as the right to liberty, justice and equality without shrouding these values in the cloak of religious doctrine. Fromm (1964) offered a humanistic interpretation of Christian religion, arguing that “the fundamental concept of humanity is embodied in Christ” (p. 70) because Christ was both God and man. Several philosophers, including Hume, Goethe, Kierkegaard, Russell and Einstein, have extolled similar humanistic values that could potentially unite the human race, obviate the need for religion and prevent the “total bureaucratization of man” (Fromm, 1964, p. 71). This may be true for the project of developing universal human values, but humanism does not offer redemption or eternal life, features that that make religion so attractive.

Conservative religions appear to conflate religion with the cultural worldview in which it is practised. Although religions are expressed within the worldview of a wider culture, the worldview is more than the religion. Religious conservatives attempt to maintain the faith status quo as it is expressed within pre-scientific worldviews, believing that the worldview is essential to the expression of their religious faith. Religious conservatism has been a significant problem for the Roman Catholic Church, which, at all stages of its history has been slow to adapt to the insights of science and changing worldviews. In fact, the Catholic Church was so opposed to progress that it spearheaded the Counter-Reformation in the sixteenth century, which spawned a number of Catholic Inquisitions – Roman, Spanish, Portuguese and Maltese – whose remit was to prosecute those accused of heresy, that is, beliefs or opinions contrary to official Church doctrine. I will have more to say about the Inquisitions in the final chapter.

A more contemporary example of the confusion of religion with worldview is the bitter debate that erupted in several states of the USA about whether schools should be permitted to teach the doctrine of creationism as part of their science curriculum, which, among other content, tells students that the earth is 6,000 years old, that the Bible is the written word of God and therefore incapable of error or contradiction, that the resurrection of Jesus was a physical and historical fact and that the world has a pre-ordained end at which time God will gather His people to Him. Eventually, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism as science in public schools was unconstitutional and banned the practice, declaring that teaching science must have a secular purpose, whose primary aim is neither to advance nor inhibit religion. Further, the ruling upheld the doctrine of the separation of church and state. This was a courageous ruling given that 53 per cent Americans are creationists (Harris, 2008).

Those with the power to elect our presidents … believe … that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.

(Harris, 2008, p. xi)

These brief examples show how the conflation of religion with worldviews gives rise to problematic expressions of religion, including literalism and fundamentalism, phenomena that are the subject of the last chapter.

Freud, science and religion

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified.

(1 Corinthians 1:22–23)

Freud (1935) explained in the “Postscript” to his Autobiographical Study that he had retained an abiding interest in the question of religion and “cultural problems” for the whole of his life, which, he said, “had fascinated me … when I was a youth scarcely old enough for thinking” (p. 72). Despite his keen interest, Freud, although Jewish and married to a Jew whose grandfather (Isaac Bernays) was a Chief Rabbi, decided early in his life that he did not believe in God or immortality, although he professed respect for the ethical demands facing human civilization, and the importance of conduct consistent with the values of social justice.

Freud's family were non-observant Jews who celebrated Christian holy days, such as Easter and Christmas, rather than Jewish feast days. However, he was well instructed in the Jewish faith, knowledge which no doubt was immensely helpful to him in the writing of Moses and Monotheism (1939), a work devoted to tracing the origin of the Jewish religion. Freud valued science and reason above religion and superstition and located his work within the determinist-scientific tradition of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Darwin (Palmer, 1997), which viewed science and religion as radically incompatible. Freud's position on this relationship is elaborated in “The question of a Weltanschauung” [worldview], in New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis (1933).

“Obsessive actions and religious practices” (Freud, 1907) represented Freud's first attempt to codify his thoughts on culture and religion. This was followed by Totem and Taboo (Freud, 1913a) and The Future of an Illusion (Freud, 1927). The opening paragraphs of this work presage Civilization and its Discontents (Freud, 1930a). Then followed “The question of a Weltanschauung” in New Introductory Lectures (Freud, 1933a); “Why war?” (Freud, 1933b); and Moses and Monotheism (Freud, 1939), Freud's erudite examination of the origins of belief in a singular deity.

Judging by the large number of books written on religion, by both protagonists and antagonists (Barbour, 2000), Freud was certainly not alone in his fascination to understand “the human quest for the experience of the numinous and for transpersonal meaning in life” (Todd, 2012, p. 23). Most recent books on religion have variously been written from historical, philosophical, theological, scientific (biological) or personal perspectives and employ evolutionary, empirical, rationalist, positivist or critical approaches. Freud (1918) and Jung (1933) argued that theology and the concept of God must be understood from a psychological perspective, a call echoed by Todd (2012), who opined that without reference to post-quantum physics, cognitive neuroscience and depth psychology, much of the scholarship on God will fail to satisfy our deepest longings for resolution of the psychophysical (mind/matter) problem, the problem of metaphysical materialism (i.e., the doctrine of mortality as extinction of the self) and our place in the “drama of cosmology” (p. 1). Psychoanalytic theory has provided a fertile and creative approach to the psychological study of religion that continues to reverberate in most current texts on the subject. Freud's work is distinctive, if not unique, in his attempts to integrate religious belief with our innate human nature (comprising our temperament and instinctual drives) and developmental histories that have unfolded in the context of our socialization and cultural experiences (Beit-Hallahmi & Argyle, 1997).

Although Freud had great faith in science's ability to solve the riddles of our existence, he was also aware that “it is not easy to deal scientifically with feelings” (Freud, 1930, p. 64) and that feelings on matters of religion run very deep. The same is true for religious experience. In “The question of a Weltanschauung” (in 1933a), Freud stated that religion is so compelling because it ‘solves’ all of the problems of our existence. It answers questions about the origin of the universe, it offers comfort and solace in life and protection against evil and provides a blueprint about how we sho...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title Page
• Font Chapter
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• 1 Science, God and religion
• 2 Does God exist?
• 3 The common origins in human nature of taboos, conscience, neurosis and religion
• 4 Freud, religion, culture and philosophy
• 5 Freud, the demonic, madness and the fanciful
• 6 Critiques of Freud’s theory on religion
• 7 Group psychology and the psychoanalysis of violence
• 8 Terror theology and fundamentalism
• References
• Index