The Future of an Illusion

Can you say unoriginal ideas?

In his 27 Feb 2006 review of Freud's The Future of an Illusion, Roger Schmeeckle misrepresents Freud's explanation (on pages 38-42 of this Norton publication) between Illusion and Delusion. Roger correctly identified Freud's concept of Delusion as "something that is believed that is not true" -- but then oversimplifies by stating that Freud said an Illusion is "something that may be true or false, but is believed because we want to believe it." This oversimplification ignores what Freud goes on to say, "Illusions need not be necessarily false - that is to say unrealizable or in contradiction to reality. For instance, a middle-class girl may have the illusion that a prince will come and marry her. This is possible; and a few such cases have occurred. That the Messiah will come is much less likely. Whether one classifies this belief as illusion or something analogous to delusion will depend on one's personal attitude." The point being, that while the "absolute" truth or falsity of an illusion is debatable - common sense and reason enable us to infer or deduce where the truth actually lies. For instance, it IS possible that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow (as I am unable to prove something false which has yet to occur), but I would be a fool and utterly devoid of reason and intellect to presume that it will occur. Roger then asserts that Freud was "not so much atheistic as irreligious." That Freud was irreligious is certain (what atheist wouldn't be) -- but I do not understand how anyone can read The Future of an Illusion and not easily conclude that the author was a confirmed atheist. The entire work is a testament to atheism. Accordingly, it is absurd to suggest that because Freud does not simply state "I do not believe in God" there is reason to infer that he may have believed in one. Roger continues by arguing that Freud had a "bias" or "prejudice" against religion, whereby Freud's "wish" for there to be no God led him into his own Illusions of atheism. This is quite a stretch and a distortion of Freud's dissertation -- which has at its core the fundamental assertion of reason and the power of the intellect to overcome humankind's infantile and primitive need for "wish fulfillment" in the form of a protective and benevolent God. And in a final shot, Roger accusing Freud of being a prisoner of his times -- a subject of "materialistic determinism" -- and for not having investigated or being familiar with "the evidence and reasoning of those who defend their own religious belief." Yet, that Freud was all too familiar with and understanding of the nature and roots of religious beliefs is the hallmark of The Future of an Illusion. That he might have been a "materialistic determinist" is unknown to me -- but that he was a genius as well as great "Humanist" with a profound regard for and understanding of the Human Race seems clear.

This short book is well worth the plunge. It gives a psychoanalytic answer to the questions, Why God? and Why we still need a god? The book, written late in Freud's career, remains controversial mostly because of the nature of the subject matter. However, one should not be surprised that Freud's analysis ends as it does - suggesting that the world might be better off without religion. Many reviewers attribute this conclusion to the fact that Freud himself was not a religious man. However, another point of view might be equally valid: any psychoanalytic analysis of religion -- even by a theist -- would likely have come to the same conclusion. In fact, Freud's conclusion -- that religion is an illusion born out of a need to surmount fear of the unknown, with its central component being a "father complex" - - is not far removed from, and actually resonates with, that of other scientists -- in particular with John F. Schumaker's "The Wings of Illusion," as well as his much deeper "The Corruption of Reality," which carries these ideas much further; or even Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained." For a refreshing opposing point of view that is also scientific, I found Peter Berger's Rumors of Angels a sensitive counterbalance to Freud's non-emotional approach. While this was not Freud's best work, neither is it his worse. Given his Civilizations and its Discontents, it would be difficult to imagine him not having left a firm statement on the psychoanalytic nature of religion. Because it is Freud, it deserves Five Stars.

.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.

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.

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.