EDITORIAL
Freud's Contribution to Religion RECENTLY we read again that remarkable essay of Freud's, published in i928, "The Future of an Illusion." In this work Freud discusses religious doctrines and finds them to be illusions, that is, beliefs based upon man's wishes without relation to reality. Belief in God is the extension of a man's childhood faith in his human father into cultural and eosmie dimensions. W h e n we see this, Freud thought, belief in God will die away and man will be able to enter into a more mature and rational view of himself and the world. Religious beliefs are neurotic survivals of our childhood illusions. The ethical values and traditions of religion ean be better aeeounted for on cultural and historical grounds, even if they lose the aura of sanctity and are exposed to the same criticisms and doubts as is any other set of Values and traditions. H o w gentle and measured Freud's attack on religious beliefs seems today, even though he was denounced by many at the time as an atheist and a promoter of sexual looseness and irresponsibility. All he was saying was what many scientists, humanists, and religious thinkers have since said: There appears to be no objective evidence for the existence of a supernatural God. Religious ideas and values must be subjected to the same eritieal scrutiny as any other ideas and hypotheses of men. He was not denying the importance of religion as a social and eultural reality, but only its magical and supernatural manifestations, which he saw as illusions. There is hardly a theologian today who is seriously trying to understand religious faith and experience within the context of a genuine science of man who does not regard Freud's famous essay as a landmark in the study of religion. Such is the fate of a revolutionary thinker. In the next generation he becomes a source of traditional authority. Freud today is quoted with reverence by psychologists, physicians, social scientists, and religious thinkers alike. He has become one of the gods in "death-of-God" circles. Man's problem today is, indeed, himself. The question of his survival and continued growth does not depend on the beneficence or wrath of an external God or on natural disasters, although we suppose earth-
quakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions will continue, and there is always the possibility that our little spinning planet may collide with a really good-sized star. Survival depends primarily on what man can make of man, on whether or not we can gain rapidly enough an understanding of ourselves and an ability to control and direct our behavior toward the creative use rather than the abuse and exploitation of nature and the construction of a society where men recognize their dependence on one another and treat one another as friends and brothers. Contemporary psychology, following Freud, has made a number of positive contributions to man's need for self-understanding that have greatly illuminated the sources and motives of human behavior and religion's role, past and future, in promoting human development. The first of these is the establishment of a human experience or state of mind as fact. Our inner psychological experience is as real as our outer experience, which comes through the five senses. If a person has a deepseated belief in angels, devils, the virgin birth, or that the moon is made of green cheese, such a belief may be false or mistaken, but the belief itself is a fact. It is an illusion that nevertheless influences thinking and behavior and may even change the course of history. Any belief that men have, no matter if it is an illusion, is a fact that must be taken into account for purposes of science. Hitler's illusions about the master race were tragically destructive. Columbus' illusion that in reaching Central America he had reached Asia was, of course, mistaken; but who can estimate its effects for both good and evil on Western civilization? What psychology as a science is doing is to provide for the study of human thoughts, wishes, fears, hopes, and purposes as a vkal part of the study of man. Moreover, psychology has helped us to see one of man's age-old problems in a new light: the problem of body and mind. For centuries Western man was bemused by an artifical separation of these two entities. Body was seen as material. You could study it scientifically as you study inorganic material. Mind was seen as immaterial and impossible to study by the familiar method of observation, quantitative measurement, and testing of results. But psychology has revealed the true relationship between these entities. Man is not just a body, any more than he is just a mind. He is a complex, integrated combination of the two. If his mind is diseased or injured, the results appear not only in his body but in his intellectual, emotional, and spiritual life. By the same token, if his mind is 88
Journal of Religion and Health
diseased, his emotions disturbed, his hopes, goals, sense of meaning disrupted by fears, illusions, instincts, and passions, this conflict will express itself not only in his mental life but in all probability in his body. To understand man we must always think of him as a whole, in his physical and psychological dimensions, as well as his familial, social, political, and spiritual dimensions. When one ponders it, this is a revolutionary discovery, as full of possible meanings for man and society as the discovery of nuclear fission. It is affecting all of the sciences that deal with man and his behavior-biology, sociology, politics, medicine, psychiatry, and of course religion, which deals with the ultimate standards of value and meaning by which man lives. As an example of the way scientific thought about man must move around among the different disciplines that deal with some aspect of human nature and behavior, we might reflect on a recent statement by Dr. Rent J. Dubos, who is primarily a biologist. Observing that the genetic constitution of man is much the same as it was in late Paleolithic times, he adds that man knows little of his potentialities as a species and an individual and has made inadequate use of them. Latent human potentialities have a better chance of becoming actualized in a diversified environment that provides stimulating experiences, especially for the young. If such an environment is not provided, if our environment becomes even more narrow, there will be still fewer human types that can flourish and our society will become still poorer. ("Man Adapting: Using All Our Resources," Current, Jan., 1966 , p. 62.) Such a view of the human potential and the conditions that can release and stimulate it in the direction of its highest possible development takes us out of biology into the fields of education (How can we arouse in man the capacity to use his latent talents?); politics (How can we preserve a social order in which diversity of human talents, activities, and expressions is encouraged?); sociology (How can we balance the necesskies of social adaptation with those of free personal growth and expression?); and of course religion (What are the values and meanings that enable people to reach their highest potential?). Plainly we have come a long way from the crude materialism and logical positivism of the early part of this century and are emerging into a new and exciting era in which man moves as a pilgrim and explores into unknown lands. Thus in the same address Dubos quotes Paul Tillieh, the theologian: "Man becomes truly human only at the time of decision," and goes on to Editorial: Freud's Contribution to Religion
89
say: "The existentialist faith that man makes himself implies, of course, the willingness to decide and the courage to be, and it also demands the discipline of acquiring the kind of knowledge by which one makes these decisions." (Op. c#., p. 64.) Clearly it is not only religion that must re-think the meaning it pours into the word "god," but science that must re-think in many areas the meanings it attaches to man's nature and the sources, motivations, and goals of his behavior. This brings us to what is undoubtedly Sigmund Freud's greatest contribution to our current understanding of man: the discovery of the unconscious and its influence upon our conscious thought and action. Beneath the surface of our minds, our rational conscious thoughts and words, our familiar opinions and ideas, our conventional outward behavior, there is a whole vast, largely repressed world of feelings, desires, fears, and explosive energies that shapes our outward thinking and action more than we know or dare admit. W h e n we talk about man as a rational being and pride ourselves on having a rational religion, we are discussing only a small part of the reality. This discovery of Freud has been confirmed, tested, and documented by the research and clinical experience of psychologists and psychiatrists over the past fifty years. There have been many criticisms and revisions of Freud's theories and interpretations, but so far as we know no responsible scholar has questioned the basic hypothesis of the unconscious and its all-pervading influence upon human attitudes and decisions. There can be no understanding of man's predicament, no assessment of his difficulties and possibilities, and certainly no liberating of his creative powers that does not take into account the fact that man is an emotional being. The mature person is he who has perceived the emotional depths within his being and accepted them, so that he is no longer the prey of inexplicable fears, compulsions, hatreds, and desires, but is able to direct them to creative uses in himself and in the world around him. Thus Freud, who was seen as the enemy of religion, stands in perspective as one of its most discerning friends. A true friend is one who tells you honestly what your weaknesses are and at the same time helps you to see your possibilities for growth and improvement. This invaluable service Freud has performed for all of us today who seriously seek to contribute to an integrated science of man. HARRY C. MES~RW 9~
Journal of Religion and Health
Freud's Contribution to Religion RECENTLY we read again that remarkable essay of Freud's, published in i928, "The Future of an Illusion." In this work Freud discusses religious doctrines and finds them to be illusions, that is, beliefs based upon man's wishes without relation to reality. Belief in God is the extension of a man's childhood faith in his human father into cultural and eosmie dimensions. W h e n we see this, Freud thought, belief in God will die away and man will be able to enter into a more mature and rational view of himself and the world. Religious beliefs are neurotic survivals of our childhood illusions. The ethical values and traditions of religion ean be better aeeounted for on cultural and historical grounds, even if they lose the aura of sanctity and are exposed to the same criticisms and doubts as is any other set of Values and traditions. H o w gentle and measured Freud's attack on religious beliefs seems today, even though he was denounced by many at the time as an atheist and a promoter of sexual looseness and irresponsibility. All he was saying was what many scientists, humanists, and religious thinkers have since said: There appears to be no objective evidence for the existence of a supernatural God. Religious ideas and values must be subjected to the same eritieal scrutiny as any other ideas and hypotheses of men. He was not denying the importance of religion as a social and eultural reality, but only its magical and supernatural manifestations, which he saw as illusions. There is hardly a theologian today who is seriously trying to understand religious faith and experience within the context of a genuine science of man who does not regard Freud's famous essay as a landmark in the study of religion. Such is the fate of a revolutionary thinker. In the next generation he becomes a source of traditional authority. Freud today is quoted with reverence by psychologists, physicians, social scientists, and religious thinkers alike. He has become one of the gods in "death-of-God" circles. Man's problem today is, indeed, himself. The question of his survival and continued growth does not depend on the beneficence or wrath of an external God or on natural disasters, although we suppose earth-
quakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions will continue, and there is always the possibility that our little spinning planet may collide with a really good-sized star. Survival depends primarily on what man can make of man, on whether or not we can gain rapidly enough an understanding of ourselves and an ability to control and direct our behavior toward the creative use rather than the abuse and exploitation of nature and the construction of a society where men recognize their dependence on one another and treat one another as friends and brothers. Contemporary psychology, following Freud, has made a number of positive contributions to man's need for self-understanding that have greatly illuminated the sources and motives of human behavior and religion's role, past and future, in promoting human development. The first of these is the establishment of a human experience or state of mind as fact. Our inner psychological experience is as real as our outer experience, which comes through the five senses. If a person has a deepseated belief in angels, devils, the virgin birth, or that the moon is made of green cheese, such a belief may be false or mistaken, but the belief itself is a fact. It is an illusion that nevertheless influences thinking and behavior and may even change the course of history. Any belief that men have, no matter if it is an illusion, is a fact that must be taken into account for purposes of science. Hitler's illusions about the master race were tragically destructive. Columbus' illusion that in reaching Central America he had reached Asia was, of course, mistaken; but who can estimate its effects for both good and evil on Western civilization? What psychology as a science is doing is to provide for the study of human thoughts, wishes, fears, hopes, and purposes as a vkal part of the study of man. Moreover, psychology has helped us to see one of man's age-old problems in a new light: the problem of body and mind. For centuries Western man was bemused by an artifical separation of these two entities. Body was seen as material. You could study it scientifically as you study inorganic material. Mind was seen as immaterial and impossible to study by the familiar method of observation, quantitative measurement, and testing of results. But psychology has revealed the true relationship between these entities. Man is not just a body, any more than he is just a mind. He is a complex, integrated combination of the two. If his mind is diseased or injured, the results appear not only in his body but in his intellectual, emotional, and spiritual life. By the same token, if his mind is 88
Journal of Religion and Health
diseased, his emotions disturbed, his hopes, goals, sense of meaning disrupted by fears, illusions, instincts, and passions, this conflict will express itself not only in his mental life but in all probability in his body. To understand man we must always think of him as a whole, in his physical and psychological dimensions, as well as his familial, social, political, and spiritual dimensions. When one ponders it, this is a revolutionary discovery, as full of possible meanings for man and society as the discovery of nuclear fission. It is affecting all of the sciences that deal with man and his behavior-biology, sociology, politics, medicine, psychiatry, and of course religion, which deals with the ultimate standards of value and meaning by which man lives. As an example of the way scientific thought about man must move around among the different disciplines that deal with some aspect of human nature and behavior, we might reflect on a recent statement by Dr. Rent J. Dubos, who is primarily a biologist. Observing that the genetic constitution of man is much the same as it was in late Paleolithic times, he adds that man knows little of his potentialities as a species and an individual and has made inadequate use of them. Latent human potentialities have a better chance of becoming actualized in a diversified environment that provides stimulating experiences, especially for the young. If such an environment is not provided, if our environment becomes even more narrow, there will be still fewer human types that can flourish and our society will become still poorer. ("Man Adapting: Using All Our Resources," Current, Jan., 1966 , p. 62.) Such a view of the human potential and the conditions that can release and stimulate it in the direction of its highest possible development takes us out of biology into the fields of education (How can we arouse in man the capacity to use his latent talents?); politics (How can we preserve a social order in which diversity of human talents, activities, and expressions is encouraged?); sociology (How can we balance the necesskies of social adaptation with those of free personal growth and expression?); and of course religion (What are the values and meanings that enable people to reach their highest potential?). Plainly we have come a long way from the crude materialism and logical positivism of the early part of this century and are emerging into a new and exciting era in which man moves as a pilgrim and explores into unknown lands. Thus in the same address Dubos quotes Paul Tillieh, the theologian: "Man becomes truly human only at the time of decision," and goes on to Editorial: Freud's Contribution to Religion
89
say: "The existentialist faith that man makes himself implies, of course, the willingness to decide and the courage to be, and it also demands the discipline of acquiring the kind of knowledge by which one makes these decisions." (Op. c#., p. 64.) Clearly it is not only religion that must re-think the meaning it pours into the word "god," but science that must re-think in many areas the meanings it attaches to man's nature and the sources, motivations, and goals of his behavior. This brings us to what is undoubtedly Sigmund Freud's greatest contribution to our current understanding of man: the discovery of the unconscious and its influence upon our conscious thought and action. Beneath the surface of our minds, our rational conscious thoughts and words, our familiar opinions and ideas, our conventional outward behavior, there is a whole vast, largely repressed world of feelings, desires, fears, and explosive energies that shapes our outward thinking and action more than we know or dare admit. W h e n we talk about man as a rational being and pride ourselves on having a rational religion, we are discussing only a small part of the reality. This discovery of Freud has been confirmed, tested, and documented by the research and clinical experience of psychologists and psychiatrists over the past fifty years. There have been many criticisms and revisions of Freud's theories and interpretations, but so far as we know no responsible scholar has questioned the basic hypothesis of the unconscious and its all-pervading influence upon human attitudes and decisions. There can be no understanding of man's predicament, no assessment of his difficulties and possibilities, and certainly no liberating of his creative powers that does not take into account the fact that man is an emotional being. The mature person is he who has perceived the emotional depths within his being and accepted them, so that he is no longer the prey of inexplicable fears, compulsions, hatreds, and desires, but is able to direct them to creative uses in himself and in the world around him. Thus Freud, who was seen as the enemy of religion, stands in perspective as one of its most discerning friends. A true friend is one who tells you honestly what your weaknesses are and at the same time helps you to see your possibilities for growth and improvement. This invaluable service Freud has performed for all of us today who seriously seek to contribute to an integrated science of man. HARRY C. MES~RW 9~
Journal of Religion and Health
