The Future of an Illusion

Rating:
Summary: Scientifc Analysis of Religion
Review: .
This is Freud's scientific analysis of religion. Religion, along with government and social, moral and ethical codes, or, civilization act as removing man from his true instinctal and destructive nature into a civil society. Religion is a neccessary illusion derived from men's wishes.

Freud can be applauded and admired as a great thinker and psychoanalyst. This is an essential book to read. Yet Freud misses out on the mystical experience, the religious or psychal ability to perceive the irrational, the awe of the numenous, the perceived knowledge apart from rational thinking and intellectual analysis. Or in Rudolph Otto's title, "the idea of the holy."

Freud ends his book, on page 71 with:

"No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion
it would be to suppose that what science
cannot give us we can get elsewhere."

So Freud was amazingly accurate on one religious foundation: human ability to create wishes and to civilize himself and in contrast Freud was missing a great deal in the mystical, the non-rational element, thus he discarded all religion as a universally accepted solution to the conflicts that arise in childhood relation to the father. While this may have some validity, it misses completely the symbolic mythological teachings that attempt to convey what is claimed universal to be real religious experience. This is where Freud leaves off and Carl Jung continues.

Rating:
Summary: Scientifc Analysis of Religion
Review: .
This is Freud's scientific analysis of religion. Religion, along with government and social, moral and ethical codes, or, civilization act as removing man from his true instinctal and destructive nature into a civil society. Religion is a neccessary illusion derived from men's wishes.

Freud can be applauded and admired as a great thinker and psychoanalyst. This is an essential book to read. Yet Freud misses out on the mystical experience, the religious or psychal ability to perceive the irrational, the awe of the numenous, the perceived knowledge apart from rational thinking and intellectual analysis. Or in Rudolph Otto's title, "the idea of the holy."

Freud ends his book, on page 71 with:

"No, our science is no illusion. But an illusion
it would be to suppose that what science
cannot give us we can get elsewhere."

So Freud was amazingly accurate on one religious foundation: human ability to create wishes and to civilize himself and in contrast Freud was missing a great deal in the mystical, the non-rational element, thus he discarded all religion as a universally accepted solution to the conflicts that arise in childhood relation to the father. While this may have some validity, it misses completely the symbolic mythological teachings that attempt to convey what is claimed universal to be real religious experience. This is where Freud leaves off and Carl Jung continues.

Rating:
Summary: Freud's outlook on religion
Review: Freud is the founder of a movement in Psychology and science that had created a whole "climate of opinion" leading well into our day. He has given us with Psychoanalysis a tool to look into the deeper layers of our minds, a language with which to communicate our understanding of how the mind functions, and a useful Psychotherapeutic tool.
His insights are especially useful because he was also very honest, courageous, and pushed the limits of rational thinking.
His handling of religion in the "future of an illusion" is very scholarly but is biased by his rigid adherance to his psychoanalytic outlook. He sees religious feelings as attempts to come to grips with painful realities of the loss of the father, fear, undue aggression, and so forth. It is at best in his view a sublimation of these myriad negative forces. He also sees it as threatening to rational thinking and as potentially mind-tranquilizing.
Freud fails to see that many people embrace and practice religion because of some genuinely positive feeling. Most people are not religious because they are fearful, rageful, or stupid. If that was the case it probably would have died long time ago.
Religion is very self-reinforcing, which mean many people actually like it.
To my mind, Freud did not have a first-hand experience of these positive roots of religion (Maybe he was smoking too much, or got caught up in his trade of strict rationalism). The needs of contact, comfort, containment,and control that religion can afford are not necessarily sublimations. They can be end by themselves for the pious to enjoy. Moreover, religion probably appeals to mental faculties other than the one we use for pure rational thinking.
Having said that, the book is truly worth 5 stars as it gives a glimpse into the working of a great mind. Freud is telling everything the way he sees it. But you must feel free to disagree, even with Freud.

Rating:
Summary: Freud's outlook on religion
Review: Freud is the founder of a movement in Psychology and science that had created a whole "climate of opinion" leading well into our day. He has given us with Psychoanalysis a tool to look into the deeper layers of our minds, a language with which to communicate our understanding of how the mind functions, and a useful Psychotherapeutic tool.
His insights are especially useful because he was also very honest, courageous, and pushed the limits of rational thinking.
His handling of religion in the "future of an illusion" is very scholarly but is biased by his rigid adherance to his psychoanalytic outlook. He sees religious feelings as attempts to come to grips with painful realities of the loss of the father, fear, undue aggression, and so forth. It is at best in his view a sublimation of these myriad negative forces. He also sees it as threatening to rational thinking and as potentially mind-tranquilizing.
Freud fails to see that many people embrace and practice religion because of some genuinely positive feeling. Most people are not religious because they are fearful, rageful, or stupid. If that was the case it probably would have died long time ago.
Religion is very self-reinforcing, which mean many people actually like it.
To my mind, Freud did not have a first-hand experience of these positive roots of religion (Maybe he was smoking too much, or got caught up in his trade of strict rationalism). The needs of contact, comfort, containment,and control that religion can afford are not necessarily sublimations. They can be end by themselves for the pious to enjoy. Moreover, religion probably appeals to mental faculties other than the one we use for pure rational thinking.
Having said that, the book is truly worth 5 stars as it gives a glimpse into the working of a great mind. Freud is telling everything the way he sees it. But you must feel free to disagree, even with Freud.

Rating:
Summary: Must read account of Freud's analysis of religion.
Review: Freud's analysis of religion is an essential read for any mental health professional interested in integrating psychoanalysis and spirituality. Despite disagreeing with many of his thoughts, it was a fantastic book.

Rating:
Summary: Introspective
Review: I would have a more in depth review but I lost my book before I finished it; and have forgotten a lot of it.

Freud is often criticized for not being scientific; maybe they are right.

The reading makes a good introspective reading; I find that questioning myself as I read to see if it is true for me is often revealing.

His writing is as that of a philosopher. At least some of his arguments seem sound to me (abstractly). At the least the book will get you thinking (if you let it).

Rating:
Summary: Mommy, where did God come from?
Review: In Freud's "The Future of an Illusion," he attempts to establish human motives for the creation of religion. If you hadn't guessed, Freud was a diehard atheist. He recognizes religion and an all-seeing, all-knowing man in the sky as an illusion to compensate for the mortality of our given father figures and as a divine system of reward and punishment for one's actions necessary for any society to function.

Most people will live to see their father die. Rather than move on and accept responsibility for his own life, man invented a fallback -- GOD. It was easier to, rather than adapt to a life without a strong but ultimately fair authoritative figure, setup and eternal epitome of "daddy."

As many philosophers have explored, man is naturally self-serving and anti-social. Without any reliable system to prevent destructive, anti-social behavior, society invented punishment for these actions, inescapable punishment that lasts eternally. Without this divine, angry-hand-of-God type punishment system, today's society simply could not exist.

Though Freud sees religion as an illusion- the paper bag that man pulls over his head to make life easier- which must be eradicated, I tend to see it more as a blessing from generations-passed. Though many people are intelligent enough to understand that their actions must be suitable for society simply for the sake of society, most are not. Further, most people are not strong enough to deal with the inevitable loss of their father figure. It is religion that allows them to function in society, and they are rewarded with the happiness that other aspects of the illusion provide (ever-lasting father, reward of heaven, etc.). If these "sheep", as some will call them, are intellectually dull enough to believe something merely because it is what their parents believed, then they would not, most likely, be acute enough to recognize that they must renounce their self-serving instincts to better server the common good.

This book is definitely worth reading. Fortunately, religion is a self-reinforcing delusion and people like Mr. Shives will read it knowing from the start that it will be brimming with blasphemy-- crimethink, and therefore read it with closed eyes. We will never run out of sheep.

Rating:
Summary: Mommy, where did God come from?
Review: One of man's greatest struggles is his effort to determine his position in the universe. From the past ages to present history, mankind has been in conflict with his own mortality. In his attempt to rectify his seemingly meaningless existence, he has created countless religions and renditions of the afterlife. Often man has also created numerous supernatural agents, such as divine spirits, to aid him in his walk through life. Religion has been a hallmark of every civilization. However, in The Future of an Illusion Sigmund Freud has come to the conclusion that religion is an illusion. Freud believes that the sooner mankind shuns all aspects of a divine, supernatural being the better off man will be in all facets of life.
In the passage, Freud has a tendency to compare the belief of Providence and a benevolent God with a concept he developed through psychoanalysis: the father-complex. He sees mankind as a frightened child using God as a crutch in order to make it through his every day occurrences. Freud sees this as a weakness and labels this as an illusion. His conclusion is basically that humans who depend on-or even believe in God-are delusional.
My reaction to Freud is one of disgust. I believe that in Freud's attempt to psychoanalyze every facet of the mind he merely saw an aspect of life which he could not rationalize scientifically and simply removed it altogether. Since God cannot be explained through the scientific method, belief is a divine Being is rubbish in Freud's eyes. I see this as a weakness on Freud's own character. I believe that Freud is uncomfortable with the idea that there is something in which science cannot wholly explain. Therefore he argues in this exposition in a way in which he justifies his own insecurities by making himself out to be a sadder but wiser man. However, I wonder if he considered the fact that although he could not prove the existence of God, he does not necessarily rule out God's existence. I believe that God is a postulate, something that cannot be proven or invalidated through scientific discourse. Freud may be right in the nature of God, but he automatically rules out His existence without giving a definite reason. I am sorry Freud, but a father-complex model does not have enough reasonable evidence to convince me that you are correct and that I am wrong.
Another aspect of Freud in which I find disconcerting is his religious fervency for science. Since Freud has discredited the existed of God he is forced to replace the vacuum with the only rational solution: science. Freud is so obsessed with the scientific method that he even rationalizes its shortcomings. In his comparison between Aristotle's "error" and Columbus's "illusion", he supports Aristotle over Columbus. This is due to the fact that Aristotle's mistake was an inaccurate scientific hypothesis, whereas the Columbus's fallacy was caused by a false belief. He states that the difference between these two mistakes is that an illusion is "derived from human wishes" and therefore it is the feebler mistake. However, I see Aristotle as a much more drastic error than Columbus who simply had a major miscalculation of the world's size and poor navigation equipment.
All in all, I appreciate Freud for his support for science. However, I believe that science does have its limits. Therefore, in the areas which science cannot explain, we should not immediately jump to conclusions as Freud has done. Until science can reasonably discredit God, I will continue on with my delusion. Actually, even if science was able to prove that there was not a God, I would probably continue to believe. In my case, hope is better than what Freud has, which is nothing. I will let Freud remain the sadder, but wiser man while I continue to believe in my Illusion.

Rating:
Summary: Well Written, However Uncovers Limits of Athiest's Paradigm
Review: One of man's greatest struggles is his effort to determine his position in the universe. From the past ages to present history, mankind has been in conflict with his own mortality. In his attempt to rectify his seemingly meaningless existence, he has created countless religions and renditions of the afterlife. Often man has also created numerous supernatural agents, such as divine spirits, to aid him in his walk through life. Religion has been a hallmark of every civilization. However, in The Future of an Illusion Sigmund Freud has come to the conclusion that religion is an illusion. Freud believes that the sooner mankind shuns all aspects of a divine, supernatural being the better off man will be in all facets of life.
In the passage, Freud has a tendency to compare the belief of Providence and a benevolent God with a concept he developed through psychoanalysis: the father-complex. He sees mankind as a frightened child using God as a crutch in order to make it through his every day occurrences. Freud sees this as a weakness and labels this as an illusion. His conclusion is basically that humans who depend on-or even believe in God-are delusional.
My reaction to Freud is one of disgust. I believe that in Freud's attempt to psychoanalyze every facet of the mind he merely saw an aspect of life which he could not rationalize scientifically and simply removed it altogether. Since God cannot be explained through the scientific method, belief is a divine Being is rubbish in Freud's eyes. I see this as a weakness on Freud's own character. I believe that Freud is uncomfortable with the idea that there is something in which science cannot wholly explain. Therefore he argues in this exposition in a way in which he justifies his own insecurities by making himself out to be a sadder but wiser man. However, I wonder if he considered the fact that although he could not prove the existence of God, he does not necessarily rule out God's existence. I believe that God is a postulate, something that cannot be proven or invalidated through scientific discourse. Freud may be right in the nature of God, but he automatically rules out His existence without giving a definite reason. I am sorry Freud, but a father-complex model does not have enough reasonable evidence to convince me that you are correct and that I am wrong.
Another aspect of Freud in which I find disconcerting is his religious fervency for science. Since Freud has discredited the existed of God he is forced to replace the vacuum with the only rational solution: science. Freud is so obsessed with the scientific method that he even rationalizes its shortcomings. In his comparison between Aristotle's "error" and Columbus's "illusion", he supports Aristotle over Columbus. This is due to the fact that Aristotle's mistake was an inaccurate scientific hypothesis, whereas the Columbus's fallacy was caused by a false belief. He states that the difference between these two mistakes is that an illusion is "derived from human wishes" and therefore it is the feebler mistake. However, I see Aristotle as a much more drastic error than Columbus who simply had a major miscalculation of the world's size and poor navigation equipment.
All in all, I appreciate Freud for his support for science. However, I believe that science does have its limits. Therefore, in the areas which science cannot explain, we should not immediately jump to conclusions as Freud has done. Until science can reasonably discredit God, I will continue on with my delusion. Actually, even if science was able to prove that there was not a God, I would probably continue to believe. In my case, hope is better than what Freud has, which is nothing. I will let Freud remain the sadder, but wiser man while I continue to believe in my Illusion.

Rating:
Summary: Freud on Religion
Review: Reading Freud is always refreshing -- not only is he a good writer, but he also has many deep psychological insights. In his 71 page text, "The Future of an Illusion," he tackles the subject of religion. A livelong atheist, Freud argues that religion is derived from a child-like sense of helplessness in the world. Its purpose, he says, is to explain the sometimes-unfathomable world, to provide societal order, and to give comfort and happiness (particularly for the "the masses" and the poor, uneducated and oppressed). Although Freud wants to reshape civilization's relationship with religion, he also recognizes that widespread atheism could undermine societal stability. Overall, this is a good, quick read -- perfect for those interested in religion/atheism, psychology and the intersection between the two.