Sigmund Freud presents an argument that
attempts to explain the issue of religion. According to Freud & James, the
Freudian argument, beliefs regarding religion are ‘fulfillments of the
strongest as well as pressing wishes of human minds (112). Storr (12) assert
that the secret of religion lies on the strengths that those wishes have. The
paper will address the argument by Sigmund Freud in criticizing religion.
Freud believed that he had
psychoanalytical valid argument in opposition of the honest viability of
religious belief (Freud & James 112). By psychoanalytically valid, it
implies an argument that has the capacity of convincing someone who
acknowledges the fundamental principles of psychoanalytical rationalization as
well as interpretation. Therefore, whereas Freud’s argument was not meant to
convince the people who did not accept psychoanalytic diagnoses as true, his
claim was nonetheless a strong one.
If the argument presented by Freud was
as strong as he alleged it to be, the implication would be that anyone who, by
means of his interpretation, persisted to hold on to the religious belief would
in so doing reveal him, that is, they
would illustrate themselves to be adhering to the immature wishes. According to
Idema (102), socially factual, the argument by Freud had a noteworthy effect on
psychoanalysis on the advancement of psychoanalysis during the 21st
century. His argument offered an orientation for analysis in the direction of
those who professed religious belief. This explains why a critical examination
of the argument by Freud is not an unfathomable issue. In comparison, the
American Psychoanalytical Association formally distanced itself away from the
arguments that were presented by Freud regarding homosexuality as a kind of a
psychological illness. In fact, such sort of a stand point is regarded as being
a type of discrimination (Lear 25). Is it not in any case possible that the
argument presented forward by Freud in opposition to religious belief promote
as similar prejudice against religious believers?
Freud distinctively presented an
argument that religious belief is illusionary (Freud & James 112). Freud
did mean this in a particular sense: a belief is regarded as an illusion if it
is illusionary. This is typically a misfire during the process of forming a
belief. Religion has achieved many good things to mankind (Idema 140). For
example, religion presents individuals with real consolation within difficult
times. It provides conviction as well as order in a world that is otherwise
chaotic. Superficially, the assertion that religious belief is illusionary
would appear to be self-undermining.
Freud notably argued that beliefs that
relates to religion are illusionary. According to Freud, a belief is regarded
as being illusionary if it results from a wish. This would characteristically
be a misfire in the procedure of forming beliefs (Freud & James 112). For
instance, if one believes that there is a dog on the mat, this results from,
for instance, one taking oneself to be seeing a dog on the mat to be resulting-
in the right ways- both one’s perceptual experience as well as the development
of a propositional belief. Apparently, there may be other reasonable means to
one’s beliefs.
Freud’s assertion that religious belief
is illusionary appears to be threatening from within the standpoint of
religious belief by itself. For example, if one purports the belief that Moses
was given the Ten Commandments by God as resulting from one’s wishes, or the
wishes of other people, that should attribute to one’s belief. However, if it
does not, it will disclose a problem regarding someone and his epistemic
relationship to the world (Freud & James 112).
How good is the Freudian argument in
relation to religion? A logically valid argument ought to start with apparently
true premises, and after that move by the rules of inference that are
essentially truth-preserving to concluding that as a result, must be true
(Freud & James 93). The argument by Freud is not aspiring to this sort of rigor;
and therefore to disapprove it for lacking it would fail to spot the mark. Therefore,
what sort of argument is Freudians’? Nevertheless, Freud offers an important
insight into the system that leads to the religious belief. The argument that
Freud is not compelling in leading people to make a conclusion that religion is
a construct of mental action.
The argument presented by Freud appears
to work as an interpretation (Lear 23). He points out something, for those
individuals who are prepared to see it. By presenting an interpretation, Freud
presumably supplies the illusion with which religious belief can appropriately
be comprehended. As a result, Freud’s argument is impeccable. However, the
question is how well is the argument presented by Freud being positioned in
this case. Overall, this Freudian argument appears to shape a delegitimizing
genealogy. Characteristically, genealogies are utilized in valorizing as well
as legitimating. For instance, according to Freud’s argument, the claim by the
Israelites in relation to them having a special relationship with God is
legitimated by means of a genealogy that dates back to a time when God
established a special relationship with Abraham (Freud & James 112).
Freud does not view in religion an
intentional deception of human beings. According to Freud, religion is
profoundly based on human psyche, probably too profound. It is thus significant
to elucidate this point since it touches on a deep issue in Freud’s thought of
religion (Freud & James 112). How is the argument presented by Freud
persuasive? This is a question in relation to the rhetoric of the argument
presented by Freud. Rhetoric studies illustrate how an argument guides the
psyche along to persuade as well as whether the persuasion is justifiable.
In conclusion, none of the considerations
by Freud impugns the idea that religious belief, can function as illusion. However,
they do impugn the thought that religious beliefs at all times functions that
way. Naturally, one may think that, indeed, religion does at all time function as
illusion. Nevertheless, I do not think that there exist whatever distinctive
psychoanalytic concerns that are in support of this kind of conclusion. There
is as well nothing in the argument that Freud presents that ascertains a claim
that has such a broad extent. In the spirit of the comprehensive Freudian
psychoanalysis spirit, if a person wishes to understand the responsibility of
religious belief in a given person’s life, there is no alternative for the
analysis of that person. Religious belief has the capacity of playing different
functions in people’s lives, and there is a room for speculation regarding the
distinctive uses to which religious may be put. However, Freudian’s
one-size-fits-all analysis levels the distinctions that were supposed to make a
difference.
Additional articles
Children and the Modern Market~ The potential influence of the contemporary child on the purchase decisions of their parents has significantly increased. Consequently, more companies have heightened the attention accorded to this target group....Children-and-the-Modern-Market …
Read ArticleUnveiling the Global Health Threats: Ebola, Leishmaniasis, and HIV - An In-Depth ExplorationIntroduction:Ebola, Leishmaniasis, and HIV stand as formidable health challenges, leaving an indelible mark on global public health. This comprehensive overvi...Understanding-the-Grave-Threats:-Ebola,-Leishmaniasis,-and-HIV---A-Comprehensive-Overview …
Read ArticleBecoming a leader or manager at an organization is a great step forward in the career of any worker. However, most people would admit that the title comes along with new challenges. According to the latest survey by careerBuilder, more than a qua...Management-and-Leadership …
Read Article