چکیده:
In this article, we have attempted to scrutinize Freud’s psychological analysis of man and God. Four different interpretations of this Freudian analysis have been examined hereunder. Freud believes that religion is the outcome of wishful thinking or fear. Freud’s views on the origin of religion have been stated in a detailed fashion in his works on psychoanalysis. His The Future of an Illusion is the focus of our study of his views on God and man in this article. Freud held that the idea of God is simply a subjective illusion, since theism is only the product of father-complex. He suggested that every child is helpless, and for this reason depends upon his human father. As the child grows up, he finds that he cannot depend on his father for protection from a hostile and intolerable world. Therefore, he concocts an idea of a divine being and projects his image of his father unto a cosmic scale. He then turns to this figment of his imagination for security and comfort.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Introduction Sigmund Freud explicitly expresses his doubts about the veracity of religion by the following words: We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be.
(Freud 1961) In Freud’s opinion, religion is merely an illusion,1 a belief which is based on a wish fulfillment and which has no base in reality.
Yet, when we ask for evidence of the truth of religion, says Freud, we are given the following three answers: "Firstly, these teachings … were already believed by our primal ancestors; secondly, we possess proofs which have been handed down to us from those same primeval times; it is forbidden to raise the question of their authentication at all" (1961, 26).
1 Let us begin with the argument of Lee and Turner against Freud’s first assertion—namely, that man created civilization to protect himself from nature.
The next point to come under attack is Freud’s assertion that man invented religion as a result of his helplessness when faced with the overwhelming powers of nature and society.
I believe Freud would have difficulty arriving at a reasonable explanation of the qualitative difference between the belief in atoms and the belief in God. Mozley attacks Freud’s contention that man would benefit from the abolition of religion and the resulting primacy of the intellect.