What Did Freud Think About Religion?
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2016
- Sigmund Freud: Famous psychoanalyst with famously eccentric research. But did you know some of his research focused on theories about religion?
@andrewmarkhenry
www.patreon.com/religionforbreakfast
www.religionforbreakfast.com
Thanks to our Patreon patrons!:
Brian B.
Kalei W.
Alex B.
Mark H.
Alice C.
Wilson
Cain
I believe in religion and I think Frued is right to a certain extent because indeed some people subconsciously follow religion not because they're convinced but they do so as a defense mechanism or to conform to norms.
For majority of people, yes. For some, they have other reasons
I think because of the complexity of the subject of religion trying to pin down the reason of why people believe will be unanswerable because of how personal and subjective it is. I imagine there are some people who believe in a religion simply cause they were born into it, or never formulated a reason to disbelieve.
Good work Andrew, getting people to expand their thinking and study areas raises the level of our understanding and communication in society enriching all!
I think that Freud's assertion is more of a philosophical point than a psychological one. I was going to go on a rant about science, philosophy and religion, but I think I'll leave it at that.
This is such a great channel!
Glad you like it!
Thanks for the video. I'd be interested in how other psychologists, such as Jung or gilded age psychologist/philosophers like William James shaped our ideas about religion.
I wouldn't give Freud such a hard time about his methods, considering we haven't made that much advancement in that particular area, even today.
This is a really good article about him io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815
True
hi, I've got a degree in psych... and you're wrong. we absolutely have made advancements. behavioural therapy was a massive leap forward, despite being severely flawed in many ways. it has since been heavily improved upon: cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to be highly effective at treating things like depression, anxiety and phobias.
there have been massive advancements in child psychology and development (for instance, attachment theory links how you were treated by your primary caregiver as an infant to the way you form romantic attachments as an adult. yeah.) as well as treatments for people suffering from addiction, bipolar disorder, etc.
psychodynamic therapy is based on freud's methods, but heavily reworked and updated. it's really good in group and family therapy settings, among others.
psych is also getting better at taking cultural contexts into account thanks to the influence of Edward Said's Orientalism (and other non-white thinkers) finally trickling in. because guess what? the way we think is not independent from our culture!
that's not even getting into neuroscience, which is doing fantastic stuff in parallel. this field is extremely fast-moving though, because we're only beginning to get past the "scratching the surface" stage and the things I learned about during my degree have been long surpassed since I finished in 2019.
so just because it doesn't produce eye-catching headlines doesn't mean there aren't huge improvements going on all around.
@@iansteelmatheson so we know what is Consciousness is right ???
I like these little videos where you pull back the curtain on theories and research somewhat past their prime. When you said Freud theorized that religions reflects "Childhood desires of an ideal father figure" it actually made me think of two other individuals whose armchair-musing are past their prime - James Frasier and Robert Graves. Graves' theories introduced New Age thought to the White Goddess - or the Triple Moon Goddess - and his theory of a matriarchal society seems to refute Freud's patriarchal, "ideal father" theories. Frasier and Graves interest me because their work has had such a large influence on literature and "New Age" religions - Wicca, etc. - yet their so-called "scholarly research" has been pretty much rejected by all modern anthropologists and historians. If you're looking for a new video topic, I'd love to hear your take on Frasier and Graves and where/how they went wrong with "The Golden Bough" and "The White Goddess".
Ultimately it depends on a chicken or the egg question.
"Are people evil because religion is evil?"
"Or is Religion evil because people are evil?"
In the end it is because WE humans are evil by nature, and will will not admit it and pushes it over on religion and politics.
To imagine a world where this was not so, where every crisis did not result in new atrocities, where every newspaper is not full of war and violence. Well, this is to imagine a world where human beings cease to be human.
"As a species we're fundamentally insane tally. Put more than two of us in a room, we pick sides and start dreaming up reasons to kill one another:"
Evil or good is perspective, I am evil from your point of view but good from someone else's, we are what we are, still imperfect creatures, we are arrogant beings thinking ourselves at the peak of existence because we have no better examples in our limited field of view, we are still far from even getting close to perfect, not much better than animals following their primitive instincts, we are still controlled by them, that gives birth to good and evil, the seven deadly sins together with the seven virtues are the byproduct of our imperfection, but it is also important to know that perfection shouldn't be reached in a living being, we need to be at the middle of the spectrum, balance between two opposites is what makes us perfect while at the same time being imperfect, we are still to reach that balance as the road of evolution is a very long one and if we don't destroy ourselves then we will reach the perfect imperfection that will bring us to the apex of our civilisation.
@@system4622 so then Epstein, Stalin and Oliver Cromwell are ok people? I'm a theist and I can't understand justification for morality if Atheism is correct because if it is then morality is relative and thus meaningless.
@Lee Ruan well he clearly did the opposite of that then. Also they were atheists except Cormwell, you bigot
Everything good and everything evil is because of us. We create the world around us, the ideas, the politics, the religions and ideologues. We create the societies we live in and if there is something great or awful about them, it's because of us. Now, this doesn't change the fact that religions cause more harm than humans would without religions. They amplify evil. They recycle the same false beliefs about morality from one generation to the next. If no one believed in Islam, we would have no Jihad. Religion is a mind-virus. It's a disease.
we are not evil by nature
Of course it is wish fulfillment. Wished for things that especially now, are simply not true or possible.
Freud's professional aim was "to replace neurotic misery by ordinary unhappiness" but his popular appeal owes more to his contribution to what Stephen Toulmin called "Modern Scientific Mythology."
Toulmin's essay of that name, published in "Metaphysical Beliefs" (1957) asserts that "popular science" occupies the territory held in the 18th and 19th centuries by "natural theology:" broad statements about humanity and the universe which, although sometimes suggested by scientific observations, go far beyond what the available evidence can support.
We have an appetite for this stuff, and it gives us comfort to believe it, but it occupies the territory of religion, not science. Freud's star has dimmed now, much as that of the Eminent Victorians did before the war, but a host of others are in the same market place: sociobiologists, nutrition gurus, etc. L Ron Hubbard completed the transition from therapist to religious entrepreneur.
My family seems to align itself with Freud, but once you get down to psychological theories everything gets very abstract and difficult to understand. My views on psychology are a mixture of Jung and Freud as well as many other psychological figures.
It makes sense honestly. I say that because imagine being ancient humans and experiencing the elements or even more importantly answering a child when they ask why did the deer lay down and not get up? His theory might not be supported but trace that idea back to ancient times. The fear of the unknown is the deepest fear. Imagine if believers woke up tomorrow and really understood there is no way of knowing what happens after death there would be panic. I don't support all he believed but on some level you can see it.
Freud's theory is brilliant and if there is no God then it is true . But if you turn the argument the other way around you get the opposite result. Meaning that if there is a God , Atheism becomes the wish fulfilment: you seek to escape the idea of responsibility & consequence. Through the desire never to meet God and the rejection of the idea that soul is eternal, you establish the desire never to be held accountable for personal immorality. And regarding the existence of God, Freud can't help you with that, you have to search elsewhere and most often of times in religion itself.
On the topic of wish fulfillment - I imagine revealed religions that include some sort of afterlife in their doctrines are more likely to spread and survive than those that don't. However, life after death is not a universal tenant of all religions, and in some faiths, the ultimate goal is annihilation of the self. I think Freud's assessment of religion is limited by the fact that he was exposed primarily to European Christianity and Judaism, which obviously excludes a wide variety of religious experience.
Very interesting thoughts. I think you're right...Freud wouldn't have known very much about Hinduism and Buddhism. He probably has a bias toward Western religions in his analysis.
porcelaintree
can you talk about Carl Jung and his more positive psychological ideas regarding religion and spirituality?
I can add it to the list of future vids. Great idea. In terms of religion theorists, I do plan on covering Durkheim, Weber, and Frazer in the coming months.
I am interested to see these. I've read a fair amount of Durkheim- but am not familiar with Weber or Frazer. Perhaps it would expose me to some great literature. I just can't stomach Jung. To me it seems like his work is what we WANT psychology to be. I have read a few of his books- and tried many times to get through others---it just seems it is not for me. It seems to cater to insecurities.... but look I mean this respectfully. I just think Freud's ideas are so much more developed and insightful. And to me Jungs archetypes seem like a soft version of Freuds ideas of the imago. It is easy to fit the entire structure of archetype psychology into the sphere of idealized versions of our parents. I also think Nietzsche was absolutely piercing and stunning in many psychological observations. I wonder if you have come across his work and read any? cheers
How about Eliade or Peter Berger ?? :)
@@ReligionForBreakfast please include Carl Jung, he believe in the metaphysical aspect of the psyche. Thanks!
Whatever may be said for Freud and his work, it has done much to influence understanding of humanity. The Tripart soul concept has done much for my own understanding of both myself and other humans. For that. I owe him as well as Byrne and Anderson many thanks.
In Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden, there are some points, with the description experiments' result, that may supoort some of Freud's interpretation. Nothing certain, it's mostly speculatiom, but still extremely interesting and thought provoking.
Well You should look at Carl Gustave Jung and how he backed up hid opposing theory against his former teacher, Freud.
You are so brilliant! I love these videos
Glad to see Otto Rank getting some love.
I'm OCD with religious obsessions, so I see a link. Also really neurotic drama person, anxiety. I find medicine really helpful, like Adivan.
Very nice explanation! For me. Thank you.
Always find it pretty annoying when someone says X is discredited but gives no rhyme or reason as to why it is.
Psychoanalysis and psychodynamic therapy is still very much a mainstream form of psychotherapy, considered the gold standard by many.
@@RobespierreThePoof As you probably know CBT is mainstream because of its short term results, and scientifically verifiable. There are plenty of studies on Psychoanalysis / psychodynamic which place it at least as affective as CBT (See research done by Shedler). CBT is affective in the short term but patients do not continue to improve after treatment has finished - which is the case with Psychoanalysis / Psychodynamic as the ability to generate insight into oneself is improved and continued to be used.. Lacan famously said the real analysis begins after treatment has finished.
In the UK Psychodynamic is available on the IAPT service and in many secondary care facilities.. Which is the primary form treatment is offered for Mental health. Psychoanalysis is still the main form of treatment for specifically conversion disorder. So it can be argued that it is still a mainstream form of psychotherapy.
Anyway my point being, its incredible frustrating to hear its been discredited when that just isnt the case. Homeopathy has been discredited and is not offered by the NHS, the same is not true for Psychoanalysis / Psychodynamic therapy and is still very much in use in the mental health field.
Thank you! Now I’m ready for my exam 👍
My opinion is that religion is a set of fantasies used to conquer mainly the death anxiety but also other lacks of control towards our environment. And that those tools will be given to the next generations to help them.
The problem is, that many religions suppress change down to the personal fantasies, effectively decreasing their members abilities in problem solving, because they unlearn to play with their fantasies, becoming more and more inflexible in trying out new solutions.
I agree.
Whether people accept or dont accept the truth the most important part is you use all the resources you have to come to find the truth
I wish more people realized that a lot of pop psychology is isn't considered scientific. Freud and Jung are the source of so many "psychiatry" tropes that have as much basis in scientific psychiatry and modern scientific therapy as does astrology. A necessary step to get from his time to our own, so I'm not suggesting he's not important, but much like alchemy, Freudian and Jungian analysis is fascinating for what it was, not for its diagnostic value today. And a lot of pop psychology that people take seriously today is based on Jungian ideas, the classic example being "type psychology", such as Myers-Briggs. Or, as the saying goes, "Myers-Briggs is astrology for smart people". But it's still effectively astrology.
Will you make a video about Carl Gustav Jung's interpretation of religion and mythology? He had a lot to say about this subject with his ideas of archetypes and collective unconscious, he tied it with gnosticism, hermetic traditions, alchemy. He was also a close student of Froid. Joseph Campbell is another significant person when it comes to this topic.
Great idea. I'll consider adding Jung to the list of theorists I am planning on covering. I'll be doing videos on Durkheim, Weber, and Frazer in the coming months.
ReligionForBreakfast Looking forward to it. Found your channel yesterday and subbed. Nice content, keep up the good work :)
If you are interested in some interesting facts about Freud, psychology and its interactions through history with religion I'd like to recomend: czcams.com/video/l1F2yhC5rq0/video.html
It is surprising that there is no mention of "Totem and Taboo" or "The man Moses and the Monotheism" that are Freud's major contributions on religion theory. Even if you despise Freud and psychoanalysis, you should not ignore the fundamental writings when talking about Freud's thoughts.
Being under training for neurology and psychiatry I'll you're wrong that Freud had unscientific options - he still is our scientific basis for clinical work until now
Can we get a citation on the first quote?
Religion should effect no one except those who are religious. The problems occur when the religious believe every one should believe as they do. We supposedly have a secular government in the U.S. yet almost all of our leaders are religious and many of our laws are based on religion. It is truly maddening.
Religion is a mode for the collective conscious to store and sort archetypes and observations of non-physical existential realities.
I’m psychology major and I agree
I love love love psychologists working on what started and maintains religion. Big field with lots of room for thinking.
Also totem and taboo is a key Freudian text on this. And Moses and monotheism.
Memories, Dreams, Reflections by Carl Jung also deals with much of Freud's theories on religions, definitely worth studying to get an idea of Freud's own complexes and how they influenced his beliefs on religion. Have any of Jung's works added to your understanding of Gnosticism and symbols in religion?
I'm actually not familiar with Jung, but the book "Evil Incarnate: Rumors of Demonic Conspiracy and Ritual Abuse in History" makes excellent use of psychoanalytical theory when studying ancient Christian authors who bashed "heresies." Epiphanius, for example, goes into graphic (both sexually and violently graphic) detail when describing Gnostic heresies. Why would he use such graphic rhetoric? The scholar argues that Epiphanius is exhibiting his own obsessions which manifest in his writing. Very interesting work, you should check the book out.
Thank you for letting me know about Evil Incarnate! Psychoanalysis is such a valuable tool for analyzing history and literature.
You would definitely enjoy Jung, he was Freud's "Crown Prince" until he began his own theories on symbols and archetypes, he surpassed Freud in understanding humanity and our nature(in my opinion). He delved deeply into religion and it's meaning from a psychological perspective, but never in too cold a fashion, he really had a love for human beliefs.
his comparison of OCD and religious rituals is a lbit far fetched. Religious rituals may agitate or encourage OCD, but it is not always the root cause. Also, out of all his theories, the one that I found most compelling was defense mechanism.
Unfortunately I have found that many people who are part of my former religion have a lot of obsessive compulsion and anxiety disorders.
What's that religion.?
Good video :) Of course Freud had his European glasses on when he made his theories of religion. The father as a cause fits well with the monotheistic Christianity. But what then about Hinduism or Buddhism with no clear single father figure to "blame"?
I think in that case his observations on common family structures are actually quite insightful still. That being said- yes you make a solid point. Keep in mind that he was knowingly centered on the more western religious models-- but he was an insanely well informed and educated person. He had many friends in other fields. World travelers and anthropologists. I think much of his insights are still very important in understanding the need for religion.
Buddhism have Dalai Lama but hinduism don't have any father or mother figure
Psychedelics taught me this. I can't believe how much home it hits
Keep feeling fascination
I keep wondering about such thinkers until today who are trying to protray religion as a way of escapism, but when it comes to science it is the darn truth, however they both came out as represntation of humans' need. The science got its credit because of the objective materialistic experiment, whereas religion is discredited because it comes from human subjective experience. Ironically, science too emerged out from the same human experience. So the pool of that experience is consciousness. Speaking of truth of religion, why consciousness has to have a unilinear way of validating truth so nothing can be verified but objects? Declining other spirtual entities of the humam experience is an imperialistic biase that shutters different experience of truth, which is religion or any spiritual experience.
I‘d say that Freuds analysis - that some religious practitioners may resemble symptoms of compulsive disorders when practicing their faith - is very plausible and it’s seen in various religious contexts. But this does not mean that religion has to be an illusion. I think it’s helpful for those practicing religion that they have to be mindful of the way they’re practicing religion and not to fall in such unhelpful behavioral patterns.
Freud and Nietzsche, the two highest pillars of human honesty and self-knowledge.
+ jung
- honesty
They were both pretty stupid
what did he think about religious experiences
Yes I think religion is basically a form of wish fulfilment to deal with anxieties. The human condition isn't always comfortable, it can be nice to think there's a grand plan and that we go on forever and "everything will work out Ok" (apart from unbelievers who end up in Hell...). And I think one reason Christianity appeals is that its God is said to be not only all-powerful but to care for us individually (as long as we follow his rules and believe the right things). Christianity is also a very convenient religion, especially Protestantism. You don't need to pray five times a day or seek enlightenment by meditating and living a life of purity etc.. just have the right beliefs about Jesus, thus dealing with the existential anxieties and leaving you free to focus on more practical things.
And can lead e person to finally forget what is important in first place when dwelling in too much worldly matters.
Please could you go over Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory for me
I'm with Freud on religion, many religious people I have met seem emotionally troubled to me and have the behaviour of the neurotic obsessive. Its the expression and product of human weakness as Einstein stated.
Einstein acknowledged the great possibility of God before he died
@@Its2ru indeed but in a pantheistic way...
Another video on ‘religion is simply wish fulfillment’: czcams.com/video/WtX_DzWEUUE/video.html
If you cast aside little cultural differences and general term differences, Sufi Islamic view on person's emotional state and Freudian view on rituals are going into same point. The problem with Freud, he could not scientificly research the unbroken minds like his student's Carl Gustave Jung. Even Jung resisted him and created a very different theory about Social (collective) Unconscious.
Also as you confirmed Freud himself acted like a esoteric religious leader. Even his relatives called him "he was like Moses to us". He had strong "beliefs" about his view and practice on psychology is the best way to explain everything related to humans. Today as secular lawyers, secular psychologists are mostly prioritize their economic interests above a person's mental health. Unlike some people who is in a mental breakdown, I can't trust anyone about my most inner problems when they are asking money in return to solve those problems. Those problems can be very intimate and mostly can be used to blackmail a person by that so called scientific psychologist.
I know that some religious groups also ask their members for money but as long as they are not some totally evil that money is being used for the society itself. Unlike neurology I don't think psychology as a positive science. Expecially the Freudian psychology looks like a total religion for doctors, because it gives conceptions to their liking. Tell me what is the difference the devil's impact on human mind as a religious person and the ID's function? What about the angels and our connection to God makes us to act, and super ego's function? What is the real difference between the notion of self and ego? I feel the difference is just in terminology and if there is anything beyond than Amy religion with long history has more and less costly solutions to mental problems than Freudian psychology. His ideas look like eastern religions with unorthodox and unscientific medical practices. While his ideas are true and common for the person's he treated, he never got contacted with whole bunch of people all over the world who never shared. I think he was antagonistic about religion because religions are effective in the same area as psychology that prevented lots of people to be his patients and moneybags.
Ultimately, we humans are fools!
Well I am a bit wired. I do think that religion is a grand wish fulfilment for humanity's greatest fears, but I don't think that human's tendency to religiosity is just a grand defence mechanism, I think it's a response to a larger movement...
Freud had a lot more to say about religion than is in this video. Unfortunately, it gives the impression he had only one or two simplistic ideas about it.
I have some compulsions and I was just thinking that they were similar to superstitions and rituals
It makes sense that religion is just wish fulfillment. However, can religion be fully understood through this conception?
Gotta test today wish me luck!
I don't think secularism will lead to the decline of religion, although it changes it a lot. I do see the decline of religion, mainly being due to more benefits, with alternatives to religion, such as medication, therapy, etc.
Carl Jung already disproved many of Freud's points. The reason why their mentor-mentee relationship broke.
True or not , Freud defenitely makes more sense than whatever the religion states.
I'm very skeptical when it comes to Freud's work. He also says that children want to have sex with their parents and tried to advocate cocaine as a medicine. He comes from 19th century reductionism
Yeah, he's definitely not correct on most of his theories...even his theories on religion. He thought religion would disappear, and it is still here 100 years later. I tried my best to convey in the video: "I don't think Freud is right!" haha.
Just because one is wrong about one thing doesn't mean he is wrong about all things.
my psychology professor once told us, anyone that's imagining of anything round/circular/spherical/oblong shapes (ball, balloon, moon, wheel, etc.) is equated to thinking of a "vagina". while anything that sticks out like a rod or phallic in shape or form (baseball bat, spoon, ballpen, etc.) that means "penis". well, that's acdng. to Freud.
call it bizarre or weird, i think, many people believe in it. i guess.
the question: do you believe in it?
I never understood the argument that “the ego, the super ego and the id have not been corroborated by neuroscience“… Wouldn’t this also invalidate the totality of the social sciences as well?
Seems to me that I hear a lot of criticism of Freud, but no coherent explanation as to what we should put in its place
Do u follow a religion or spiritual practice?
Freud was not wrong. He was closer to the Truth than most can imagine, and no one has come as close. Modern science is not much more than seance. There is no future or money in repeating the past, because its already been done. Freud must be and has been discredited by necessity. His "thing" was religion and sex. Whether he knew this or not, religion IS about sex. What is God if not creation? What is creation if not reproduction? What is reproduction if not commanded in genesis? And what is reproduction if not sex? THIS is why the Gnostic's coded their discipline.
He was marked it critically in the perspective of psychology. But we can't go completely with the freuds view. Religion may be illusion but there is also possibility that it can be alter to a more realistic , scientific and more humanistic and conscience level. Hence then such a human instinct oriented religion is there so how could you call the religion as illusion?
Freud was smart,but his approach of a scientific approach to religion. Neurotheology, is one of the present day methods. Evolutionary Psychology is also applicable, despite it being incomplete.
Well....im religious , not scared of death at all, and I'm in control.
I just see something called "sin" . And want to work on ridding it. And think others MUST.
I pretty much agree with Freud here
Was Freud echoing Fuerbach in certain ways here?
He was yes. His Future of an Illusion is the most influenced by Lectures on the Essence of Religion.
Doesn't Freud's take align with 19th century studies & criticism of religion? Aren't these also oversimplifications that do not address the cultural functions of religion studied in post-19th century anthropology?
Actually one should visit any religious place with tourism purpose as religions have nothing to do with the God as they project god as product and keep on fighting that their product is genuine and of superior quality and in the process of one upmanship millions of innocent Human being lost their only one God given live.this madness still goes on with full throttle. Xx
Does religion produce anxiety or anxiety produce religion? One thing is certain- religion reinforces obsessive neurotic behaviour.
I'm surprised you didn't include Moses and Monotheism.
YAS FREUD. ❤️.
Yes i agree with Freud
Who created the human race that's my question if Freud was alive
Happiness is what we all seek one way or another.
love it
Freud was a Renegade jewish thinker. Like karl mark he hated his fellow jews with capitalism.
Yes.
I come too late, but...when you say modern scholars are not agree with Freud. Who are they? And more importantly, why? Simply because is a controversial theory? Is it because try to encompass a though in a courage comprehensive theory instead of trying to explain everything in a minnelial superficial academic geeky, know it all, pub quiz manner, to come to any conclusion?
jose el empecinao many people disagree with Freud due to his theories on sexual influence I believe. However the Ego and Id theories he proposed are one of the first ideas taught in psychology.
Modern scholars often disagree with Freud because his theories lack deep and consistent evidence and leave much unanswered. They also don't generalize well, notably to polytheistic religions. Freud's oedipus complex and father figure ideas which are central to the development of religion (according to him) make no sense when considering them as applying to most non Judeo-Christian faiths. His theories also focus heavily on the father-son relationship, giving rise to questions (and not quite satisfactory responses) to the way similar relationships play out in daughters. It is difficult to extrapolate his arguments to fit nicely in the more general sense of religion. Furthermore, his frequent usage of reasoning by analogy is not concrete analysis. For example, as we have seen in Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism, the argument of both books turns on an extended comparison between the psychological growth of an individual and the historical development of a large social group. Considering the timespans of each, (the course of years vs the course of decades and centuries) we don't have great grounds to assume that they are even so closely connected much less that one implies the other. As Pals puts it in his book, Eight Theories of Religion, "It may well be true that from childhood onward a neurotic person passes through stages of early trauma, defense, latency, outbreak of neurosis, and return of the repressed. But outside of pure coincidence and Freud’s ingenuity, what grounds do we have to think that such a thing as the entire history of the Jews conforms to the pattern of development found in a single disturbed human personality?". That's really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to really examining the validity of Freud's claims. I might need at least a page to appropriately cover a decent spectrum of the issues with his arguments. It's not that what he thought was radical, it's that what he thought left much to be desired.
For example Freud's own student Carl Gustave Jung.
I agree with Freud
Nietzsche's disappointment with religion must have had strong echoes in those years. I suspect Freud not being able to find anything better than "God is dead". Yet, the hypnosis, psychosomatic illnesses and a systematic thinking should have been strong tools in helping mind to prevail in health and disease. To unlock the curing power of the mind is the closest psychology can come to a honest religion, which should be aiming to extract man from its darkness of mind and senses. That is, rather than repetitive, compulsive movements, warm optimism is at the core of a good religion. Maybe Freud's narrative only gravitates around the idiotic sight of the religious rituals.
Did you read "When Nietzche cried?"
I am an Atheist and I really believe in Freud.
I find it absolutely baffling how seemingly well educated people can believe in invisible gods without a shred of evidence?!?!?!?!?!
I am proud to have raised all my children to be free thinkers and to be happy to question me.even if I was religious I am convinced I would not force that on my children unlike alot of religious people do.i think religion boils down to human weakness.alot of people want to believe there is something more after death.i find all religions very sad.i would say to believers FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Christianity alone generates trillions of dollars EVERY YEAR! It's a massive money making business so of course the bs illusion has to keep going.
जो डूबेगी कश्ती तो डूबेंगे सारे
न तुम ही बनोगे न साथी तुम्हारे 😅
The Freudian theory represents a way to know the reason why a man can make a particular sense of an event, rather than another. The freudian theories aren't understood because the people don't go beyond to signifier. When you write " the children would like to fuck mom ", you have done a vulgare reduction. To understand Freudian theory it is necessary to go over words. So for example the love that the child feels for the to mother and the way in that mom welcomes that love, it can institute a future unconscious model of relationship . But about the religion Freud has understood that the seed of religious need , can find fertile ground in anguish pervasive. This anguish borns
from the recognition of "a natural" condition of man. Infact in front of the inexorable forces of nature, the man makes it human. So for example when a natural disaster threatens human life, the man imagines a diabolic entity. So they have the opportunity to ingratiate himself with this entity, directing his will. In this way the people can elaborate a huge anguish. Thanks by " divine", thanks by " the paradise" as well as a life over the life, the man has a chance for redemption against a form of unacceptable unease. Going beyond a rational thought, happens in humans, the idea that one's essence is destined to a higher purpose. Not by chance Freud observes that the members of religious groups call each other brothers, by virtue of a relationship marked by a libidinal investment with the creator, what characterizes the concept of deity as the creator of the human father.The supreme being is the translation of the parental figure, introjected as superego. the supreme being rappresents a projection of human father characterized by supreme omnipotence, the same with which the subject had to do with parental authority in childhood. Just as the child in need of care, the believer turns to God to mitigate his weaknesses. Psychoanalytic analysis shows us that just as ego expected love offering to the superego the renunciation of instinct, the religious observance of the precept subsequently asks God love and absolution for sins committed, even in this case it is greater sacrifice and will magiore gratification that the subject is expected.
If you really want a nice brain bending challenge and to have your mind blown through the back of your consciousness, dive into Jung and Neumann . It’s ironically how I found my subjective connection to God as a hyper rational atheist/heretic. “The Origins and History of Consciousness” by Erich Neumann
9/11 and hundreds of other similar actions prove that Freud's idea of religion is quite true.
Explain how
Freud is... Well, let's put it this way. In one of my favorite video games, a character goes on small rant dissing Freud and that made me love that game all the more.
the Wish is the Father of Thoth ...
cool
who else came here from a school assignment
Id, ego, superego not being scientific is very uncertain. There are many neurologists who think it's a useful concept
Can you list a few?
Umm your dead wrong about Freud. Scholars cleverly renamed his ID theory and still is taught today with the same principles. Feud fell out of favour and has been discredited but it obvious what has happened
Freud got it right
He found out about the Jesuit's, mastery of the limbic system.
Coming from a person of God's chosen people
Yes, read. But for wish fulfillment I would suggest not to choose Christ. Check what desest fathers did: cutting out what we ‘wish for’ and trying to practice love, both in extremes.
It's ironic that you are so adamant about his not being scientific. You must know-or do you not?-that there is a world-wide movement promoting the idea that indigenous knowledge has been marginalized by the hegemonic "science" of the West. And that contemporary psychology is especially distorted and unscientific because it has relied overmuch on Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic psychology test subjects. I submit that that Freud's "
This is kind of why Christianity is different.Religion says "do" and Christ says "done". On the cross it says "it is finished". Salvation is by faith alone not by works. Hope this helps :)
That idea my friend called Fatalism and led medieval Muslims to their downfall. Faith should be at the core of everything, but action will not make it insignificant it just polishes it so others and newer versions of yourself can be inspired to act better and believe deeper.
@@ercaner_buzbey faith is nothing more than taking someone's word for something. In Christianity, a person's " faith" is simply believing that the biblical authors were telling telling the truth. It is nothing more then gullibility, once you decide that they were truthful ( usually for emotional reasons) you then begin to lie to yourself because of a narcissistic self image. You begin to believe you are special and above other people and other living creatures. This continues to inflate your ego to the point that you can commit atrocities in the name of you non existent god.
Damn straight. Religion, God, whatever is no more than a cosmic comforter
Tell that to Carl Gustave Jung, Freud's most beloved student.
Yes -_-