Freud's View on Religious Ideas as Illusions, and Fulfillments of Infantile Wishes - Essay Example

Religion and Theology Freud argues that religious ideas are illusions, that is, fulfillments of infantile wishes. Do you agree with him? Why or why not? Introduction Despite Freud’s contentious theory having emerged some years ago (precisely 1927) while in his quest to expound own sentiments about religion, to date these arguments continue to divide scholars. This is based on what one deems is right while trying to either support or refute Freud’s sentiments. The majority of those who refute his argument include religious scholars as well as other elites sharing similar sentiments like I do. I deem despite his argument being flawed, Freud’s sentiments are one-sided facts whose intention then and currently is basically to misrepresent religion (Belzen, 2009). Hence, represent religion as being a human conviction whose core intention encompasses repressing people through morality and social adaptation acting as a veil (Belzen, 2009). Through this misrepresentation, Freud and those who support his mode of argumentation have failed to see varied aspects that constitute religion. These embrace religion’s vitalizing and euphoric forces capable of changing oneself mostly in the form of liturgical celebration of human life as well as influencing one’s immediate material world (Belzen, 2009). Due to these and other varied omissions that characterize Freud’s premise of religion addressed in this study, I do not agree with his argument terming religious being “illusions”. In regard to illusion which Freud anchored his argument on, he forgot to remember that illusions cannot continue forever given the numerous years religion has persisted to his time and will be there afterwards (Durkheim & Pickering, 2011). This implies it is by far to what he contends and comprises Special Forces, which a religious person deems the latter dominate him or her but not to the extent of repression according to Freud. This is because these forces besides known for their ecstatic vigor are capable of moving mountains. They usually uphold and strengthen an individual such that he or she can face all trials as well as subdue nature based on his or her designs and will (Durkheim & Pickering, 2011). Consequently, this implies religion far from being an illusion is not only a “system of ideas” but also strong forces that characterize a religious person whose core force through the aid of Superior Being he can subdue anything he anticipates. This is contrary to what illusions which are short-lived besides their power through wishful thinking cannot influence one’s settings in anyway. Judging from Freud’s theory, I think his terming of religion to comprise of wishful ideas (intended satiate human inner desires of having a divine father) being completely one-sided and lacking adequate backing. For instance, he is unable to see and understand religion’s inherent vitalizing and euphoric forces capable of transforming an individual instead of it being repressive (Belzen, 2009). These special powers or forces that characterize religion are essential to humanity evident especially through liturgical celebration of life whose capability besides affirming life can transform it. This is due to mystical surrender by congregants whereby devotion is not through repression but freedom. Hence, being contrary to what Freud has inferred religion is which prompts him place it into negative confinements of repression and moral discipline intended to appease the Supreme Being as one would to a father (Belzen, 2009). Consequently, this depicts Freud’s shallow understanding of religion inspired by his conviction of predominant male presentation of a paternal Supreme Being (Belzen, 2009). In addition, Freud by propagating his notion that religion is all about wishful longing for a father figure does not apply to all creeds currently embraced by global people. His argument might to some extent explain theistic creeds but not non-atheistic, which in his premise does not draw any distinction but sums the respective beliefs in one category. For instance, if I may take Theravada Buddhism and try to figure out Freud’s argument will apply in this atheistic creed the way together with his supporters have expounded about Christianity and other theistic creeds, it does not in any sense. This is because in analyzing Buddhism congregants usually perceive Nirvana as an ultimate reality, hence the creed like what Freud contends of others cannot avail any psychological assurance. Consequently, this explains why normally many of them live bound to the notion of karma as well as holding onto the believe of cycle of rebirths. Based on this illustration and others of similar trend, one through understanding cannot authoritatively back Freud’s premise contending those holding onto religion only do so in their quest to satiate wishful inner unquenchable desire of wanting to feel they rely on a divine father figure. Freud’s argument contending congregants through wishful thinking usually invent belief structures that will assure them psychological reassurance and comfort is completely untrue besides misleading (Holowchak, 2011). Since, all congregants are much aware of the challenges (spiritual and moral) they encounter daily while trying to live as per ideals dictated by their respective creeds (Holowchak, 2011). For instance, if I may take Christianity to illustrate how difficult and challenging it is in adhering to the set precepts and more so command of Jesus to His followers. Since the inception of His ministry Jesus declared if one wishes be the beneficiary of eternal life he or she ought to embrace repentance and deny oneself (Mk 1:15). This is far from being terms as comfort contrary to what Freud’s theory all along has generalized religion to be. Because for an individual to live by these ideals especially a Christian he or she ought to subdue own desires in a way to incline one’s heart to what is acceptable thus translating to be a challenge and quite uncomforting. For instance, persecution and even controlling one’s desires such that he or she will not indulge self in certain enjoyable activities like drinking, satisfying own sexual desires anyhow with anybody . Then, how can Freud by terming religion as comprising of wishes that offer one comfort whereas in certain circumstances in observance of set discipline one can endure even insulting without retaliating or revenging? Basing my argument on C. S. Lewis’ writings about desires, he contends an individual cannot come in this world without his or her own yearnings having satisfactions to satiate them completely (Tacelli & Kreeft, 2009). This implies if an individual happens to bear certain desires, which do not have any satisfactions for them in the world, that individual’s abode is not in this world but another (Tacelli & Kreeft, 2009). Hence, inner religious yearnings contrary to what Freud contends are not self-invented wishes because they would have vanished with passage of time. Therefore, Freud while in the quest of misrepresenting religion he is unable to see the inherent desire intertwined in humanity’s nature whereby one despite having all his or her desires satisfied here on earth, yearns to have communion with a high power (Tacelli & Kreeft, 2009). However, this is not in such a way to fill inner void meant for fatherly affection because there are many currently in the world that have never experienced and known what paternal love is to suppose Supreme Being will offer one. Hence, rendering Freud’s premise as invalid because one cannot seek what he or she desires to experience if it is not inherently instituted in his or her natural self. Arguing from a scientific perspective, “illusions” or “infantile wishes” as Freud refers to them together with those backing his argument; this is not a state of one having staggered away from reality or unhealthiness’ condition (Holowchak, 2011). This is because to date numerous extensive studies so far conducted have proved how seriously religious tend to experience healthier and long lives, which is quite contrary to those who resolve to be unreligious (Walborn, 2014). This is because besides higher power intervening in their predicaments they do not have conflicting thoughts that might trigger varied and associated mental maladies. Therefore, it is quite bizarre holding onto and backing Freud’s notion that terms religion as neurosis (Holowchak, 2011). Though disregarded this initially while presenting his premise, Freud observed how religious patients despite experiencing pain were happy but termed it neurosis. However, studies from then to date have rendered this notion acceptable based on proven facts religion’s role in altering lives of those embrace it sincerely. Since, wishful thinking or desires cannot bear these effects, which are not only limited to improving lives but also extending to other varied aspects of humanity’s affairs living longer. For instance, Hedberg, (2012, p. 33) while commending on the religious person’s longevity contended how a certain study of 125,000 participants whereby those who were spiritual depicted a 25% chance of living longer contrary to their counterparts. Freud’s premise is not only distorted, flawed but also generalization of the religion notion. Hence, depicting the heightened extent of how this scholar misunderstood what religion is all about. This is quite unmistakable in his argument contending the religious due to their wishful thinking and strong desire look up to a higher divine father. However, his premise is flawed and distorted because globally there is no other creed except Christianity that normally venerates the high power as loving and caring father (Allison, 2009). Due to this generalization without in depth scrutinizing other creeds, disqualifies Freud’s arguments together with those who normally back his view as being only intended to attack Christianity. This is because other creeds like Buddhism that I have so far touched on in this study do not seem to venerate to any high power but keep holding onto the notion of karma and rebirth of the existing based on their conduct. References Bottom of Form Allison, D. C. (2009). The historical Christ and the theological Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Company. Belzen, J. A. (2009). Changing the Scientific Study of Religion: Beyond Freud?: Theoretical, Empirical and Clinical Studies from Psychoanalytic Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Durkheim, E., & Pickering, W. S. F. (2011). Durkheim on religion: A selection of readings with bibliographies and introductory remarks. Cambridge [England: James Clarke & Co. Hedberg, A. G. (2012). Achieving and living a healthy lifestyle in a world of stress: 70 lessons for those wanting improved health and lower health care costs. Fresno, California: AuthorHouse. Holowchak, M. (2011). Radical claims in Freudian psychoanalysis: Point/counterpoint. Lanham: Jason Aronson. Tacelli, R. K. & Kreeft, P. (2009). Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. Walborn, F. (2014). Religion in personality theory. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Read More