
Freud and Faith (2007) - keiferski
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09wwln-lede-t.html
======
dnprock
I grew up in a non-religious household. I have a science career track. I study
a good amount of science. I didn't know much about religions. When I was
young, I consider myself an atheist. I enjoy reading history. Sometimes, I end
up reading some religious material.

I'm reaching the middle of my life. I gradually transition into religious
beliefs. It's somewhat an awkward and unexpected journey. There's so much
mystery in life. When you were young, you think you understand a lot. You can
study anything. But you'd slowly find yourself clueless. No book can describe
the experience of having and raising children.

I'm not sure if I'd go back to atheism towards the end of my life. I did meet
people who go that route. It's kind of interesting to see. Maybe, we just
bounce around.

~~~
technothrasher
_There 's so much mystery in life. When you were young, you think you
understand a lot. You can study anything. But you'd slowly find yourself
clueless._

This realization as I got older actually pushed me more toward atheism. I
realized none of the religions actually got you any closer to solving any of
life's mysteries. They just inserted rediculous answers without any good
reason to believe them.

Now, my atheism isn't the young person's "crusading atheism". It's just simply
my current inability to believe that a god or gods are the answer. I'm stuck
there until there's a better reason than, "we can't explain a lot of stuff, so
therefore we can just insert the supernatural and call it explained."

~~~
dnprock
I wouldn't say religion makes a lot of sense. They don't answer all. Science
sure answers a lot. Religion has some useful ideas.

Praying is a form of meditation that calms the mind. Fasting seems to work
better than most diets we've known. Having children increases long-term
survival. These common religious practices are actually long-term scientific
thinking.

I thought it's pretty ridiculous that God created the world in 7 days. But
then I learned most of the Big Bang happened in less than 1 second.

There's good knowledge that we overlook because it is considered religious.

------
gxon
It's a fascinating idea that belief in an unseen god set up the Jewish people
to be more capable of thinking in abstraction and this is part of the reason
why Jews are so over-represented in contributions to science.

If that's actually true, I wonder if it still holds value today. Are secular
education systems sufficient for producing the same or better mindset? Are
their other myths we can teach children that don't have the same cruft and
dead weight of traditional religion?

~~~
cateye
_Jewish people to be more capable of thinking in abstraction_

Do you have any proof for this? Is there a "world championship abstract
thinking" tournament that we have never heard of?

 _Jews are so over-represented in contributions to science_

This might be maybe a little bit better measurable. But the question would be:
is that because they are Jew or are there other factors?

~~~
gxon
To the first point, I'm not making that argument. It's my interpretation of
Freud's argument described in this article. Do you think I misinterpreted it?

To the second, I understand this to be fairly well established, at least in
modern times. For example, Nobel laureates are massively over represented by
people of Jewish descent [1]. Freud's argument here just seems to be yet
another theory for why this might be.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates)

------
Stierlitz
“ _If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man’s evolution, it
seems not so much to be a lasting acquisition, as a parallel to the neurosis
which the civilized individual must pass through on his way from childhood to
maturity_ ”

------
elwell
> With its panoply of saints, Christianity restored visual intensity to
> religion

I would amend "Christianity" -> "Catholicism" here.

~~~
mayiplease
The Reformation doesn't happen until well over a thousand years later, and the
Eastern Orthodox church is just as panoplied and so visual that it gave us the
word "icon". I think the original wording is better.

------
alexandercrohde
step 1. Psychologist identifies "defense mechanism" preventing people from
accepting unpleasant truths.

step 2. Psychologist being aware of defense mechanisms, declares with no
apparent evidence/testing that they are immune to them.

step 3. Psychologist ends up with beliefs no different than anybody else.

\------------

Edit:

I'm unclear what to even make of the article. To read it as a criticism of
Freud that he fell onto religion when his own death was near? To read it as a
celebration of religion that a controversial and disowned psychologist turned
to it in his old age? Or just an assortment of historical facts without any
larger relevance?

Also, maybe I'm a little turned off by the typo in it. Makes it feel
unreviewed.

~~~
dang
Your comment appears to break at least three of HN's guidelines:

" _Don 't be snarky._"

" _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A
good critical comment teaches us something._"

" _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone
says, not a weaker one that 's easier to criticize._"

Would you mind reviewing
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and sticking to the rules when posting here?

It's particularly important not to post like that when (a) there aren't any
comments in a thread yet—threads are sensitive to initial conditions and we if
start with a routine internet putdown, there's a good chance the thread will
never recover; and (b) when the topic is provocative, which Freud is, and
religion also is.

Freud certainly didn't "end up with beliefs no different than anybody else",
as the article makes clear, and if you have some reason to believe that he
ever claimed immunity from defense mechanisms, I'd like to know what that is.
It doesn't sound like Freud to me.

I invited keiferski to repost this article because I had no idea that Freud's
views on religion changed at the end of his life, and the backstory to his
publication of "Moses and Monotheism" is dramatic. There are also plenty of
side-things in this article that are fascinating, such as his "parting gift"
to the Gestapo and his views of America. Even the Nietzsche quote about Jesus
was completely new to me. Basically this is just a surprisingly good and
interesting article, at least if the general topic is of interest to begin
with, and if it isn't, there are plenty of other threads to join.

------
alexashka
We're now down to 'but there is too much enduring value in religion - ever to
think of abandoning it cold.'

Is there too much enduring value in human sacrifice, to ever think of
abandoning it cold? Or maybe slavery? What about cannibalism, can we abandon
cannibalism cold?

It's not even an argument, it's an opinion that's trying to sneak in 'enduring
value' to justify its position. Guess what, I can sneak 'enduring value' into
anything that's been done for long periods of time - there has to be something
other than a historical narrative or personal preference, for us to make
decisions regarding value collectively.

> All three contemporary writers want to get rid of religion immediately and
> with no remainder.

Why is it that I feel safe to bet a billion dollars that Sam Harris is well
aware of the many positive aspects of religion and wouldn't want to get rid of
them with 'no remainder'? Oh, maybe it's because he's said so verbatim, ad
nauseum?

I wish journalists would either do their job and actually contact the people
whose stances they wish to portray to confirm that they're portraying them
accurately, or simply stick to their usual tactics of cherry picking dead
people's writings to prop up their agenda, which is what this author does with
Freud.

\---

The gap of not being _able_ to take religion seriously, and yet _wanting_ to
have a uniting narrative to guide us, is what Nietzshe has pointed out almost
150 years ago (God is dead). It has since been coined 'nihilism'.

It's been almost 150 years and no one has come up and been able to popularize
a post-religion narrative that would appeal across country borders. We've been
stuck with nationalist dogma of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and many others.

I don't know if it's because only those seeking political power bother to
articulate powerful narratives, or because we've simply hit upon a limit of
the average human, or what the deal is. Could it be that a narrative of being
respectful towards all races and creeds is only something people can tolerate,
but not ever something they can rally behind and be energized about?

I don't know, and nobody that I'm aware of has touched this subject - it would
have to be somebody who is financially independent, highly intelligent and
compassionate. If there is such a person, I'd like to know who it is because
given that there are billions of us, I figure at least one of us has some
compelling ideas on these topics.

