A SCHOLARLY CRITIQUE OF THE FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYTIC APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF RELIGION

CHANDA ARMSTRONG Lecturer; Mpika College of Education BA, M.Ed. registered candidate [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Psychoanalytic approach to the study of religion has been criticized from many fields of religion such as sociology, , philosophy and of religion. has been applied to many fields of study by Sigmund, the neo-Freudians and other theorists and scholars. The critiques that have been made about the psychoanalytic approach to religion have been mainly centered on the methodological approach, psychoanalytic principles and psychoanalytic resolutions or findings. Therefore, this essay wishes to discuss the critiques leveled against psychoanalytic approach to the study of religion in three stages, namely: creating an understanding of religion according to psychoanalytic approach; discussing the critiques of the psychoanalytic principles and results of the psychoanalytic approach to the study of religion and the critiques leveled against the methodological approach of psychoanalysis.

Keywords: psychoanalysis, Freudian, , methodological, unconscious, .

1 | P a g e INTRODUCTION

Religion according to Psychoanalytic approach Let’s briefly look at religion according to psychoanalytic approach. viewed Religion as wish fulfillment. He described it as a projection of the wishes of man and added that children are all educated in religion, and the lessons they learn effortlessly satisfy their neurotic needs. Nevertheless, as one grows up, childhood needs are no longer met as before. Therefore, man created religion to fulfill these childhood desires that man never outgrew. To him the idea of God emerged from the , the idea of God as a father satisfied the need of the desire for a father figure, the protector and provider for man. Freud argued that much of religion developed out of childhood needs that we still desire as . (Upton, 2008)

Freud described Psychoanalysis as the theory of infantile sexuality, which represents individual human development as a progression through a number of stages in which the libidinal drives are directed towards particular pleasure release zone, beginning with the oral, to the anal, to the phallic and, after a latency period, to . Freud saw the of every individual as consisting of essential stages, a movement through a series of conflicts which are resolved by the internalization, through the operation of the superego. In infancy, such a progression entails a process whereby parental control involves the introduction to the of behavioral prohibitions and restrictions and that necessitated , displacement or sublimation of the libidinal drives and all this resulted into the birth of religion. (Nelson, 2009)

Freud assumed religion to be illusory on an individual and societal level. Freud believed that religion is the ‘universal obsessional in humanity’. The origins of such a collective neurosis lay in the various taboos of primitive times as explained in his writing,

2 | P a g e ‘ and taboos’. He regarded Religious rituals to be like obsessive, neurotic behaviors. Freud detailed his understanding of religion as an illusion in multiple works, the most well-known being, ‘The Future of an Illusion’. (Farrell, 1981)

Critiques against psychoanalytic approach to religion According to Alston (2003) psychoanalytic approach has a tendency to over–interpret and over-psychologize, while neglecting the historical and cultural component of the phenomena under study. Some Scholars have referred to this as psychological imperialism. He added that Psychoanalysis uses a psychopathology model to explain the phenomena of religion, either as a substantive approach in that the dynamics of religious actions are identical to those of psychopathological symptoms. He alluded that Freud regarded Religion as a universal compulsive neurosis. And that Freud hypothesized that there was a great deal of interaction between certain religious experiences and psychopathology. Alston observed that Freud used his patients suffering from psychopathological conditions as sample to represent religious people, which was not reflective of the factual. Alston felt that religion could not be subjected to such a model of study.

According to Colby (1960) Freud argued that the belief in God and the complex patterns of behavior and of rituals associated with this belief arose essentially out of the deep psychological need for a cosmic father. Kai-man Kwan (2006) however, argued that such an outlook underrated the logical bridge that exists between wishes and beliefs; the wishes may on occasion be a necessary condition for the beliefs, but are rarely a sufficient one. Thus, even if it is true that there is a universal wish for a cosmic father, Kai-man Kwan argued that then it was implausible to suggest that such a wish is a sufficient condition for religious belief and the complex practices and value systems associated with it. (Kai-man Kwan, 2006) Furthermore, Platinga (2000) argued that there was an absence of compelling empirical evidence to support the view that such a universal wish existed. He further accused this theory of being empirically untestable.

According to psychoanalytic approach the belief in God was neurotic, which may include the formation of psychosomatic symptoms in the individual which arise essentially either

3 | P a g e out of external trauma or through a failure to effect a resolution of the internal conflict between libidinal urges and the key psychological control mechanisms. Symptomatically, these are often presented as compulsive and devastating patterns of behavior such as repetitive ceremonial movements or an obsession with personal hygiene which normally make a normal healthy life impossible, requiring psychotherapeutic interventions in the form of such techniques as and free association. The same way religious beliefs, religious experiences and obsessive religious ritual and practices are in a dire need of psychotherapeutic interventions. (Farrell, 1981) However, Durkheim argued that there was a connection between religious beliefs and practices as a necessary one; for him, religious experience is rooted more in the actions associated with rites than it is in reflective thought. Hence, he defined religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (Torok, 1997) For Freud it is the Oedipal Complex that accounted for the origin of theistic belief. According Colby (1960) Freud contented that believers often regressed to the condition of a helpless child who is afraid of the forces of nature, and seeks the love of, and fears their father. Alston (2003) argued that this Freud’s contention had a significant role to play in the etiology of religious belief however this did not account for it being a source of theistic belief in its entirety.

Freud concluded that the resolution of Oedipus complex, which arises at , in which the male child forms a sexual attachment with the mother and comes to regard the father as a hated and feared sexual rival was of great importance in the development of religious ideas. The relationship he termed as the ‘’. Freud was convinced as central to the correct understanding of the development of religious beliefs and practices. Platinga (2000) however, argued that Freud was merely influenced by his judaic-christian beliefs;

“For if the relation of a human father to his children is, as the Judaic- Christian tradition teaches, analogous to God’s relationship to humanity,

4 | P a g e it is not surprising that human beings should think of God as their heavenly Father and should come to know God through the ’s experience of utter dependence and the growing child’s experience of being loved, cared for, and disciplined within a family”. Platinga (2000, 137)

Clearly, to the mind that is not committed in advance to a naturalistic elucidation there may be a religious as well as a naturalistic interpretation of the psychological facts. Furthermore, Alston (1967) argued that Freudian theory hardly showed that no rational grounds could be produced for theistic belief, and that Freudian theory was not logically incompatible with the truth, justifiability, and value of traditional religion.

Freud extended this concept from to group psychology, citing an example of a father figure in patriarchal monotheistic religions seeing as providing the required protection against the threat of destruction. He argued that the father-son relationship was so crucial to psychoanalysis for it demanded for the projection of a deity, designed as an all-powerful, benevolent father figure. (Farrell, 1981) However, For Durkheim, the social dimension of human life was primary; human individuality itself largely determined by, and is a function of social interaction and organization. (Torok, 1997) By this means he disagreed with Freud who sought to deal with the social dimension of religion by an extension of psychoanalytic principles from individual to group psychology.

Freud argued that, religious ideas thus owe their origin neither to reason nor experience but to a primitive need to overcome the fear of an ever-threatening nature: thereby attesting that religion was a result of irrational fears. He argued that these fears were not causes of experience or end results of thinking: they were illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind, thus labeling religion as an illusion. Sigmund Freud further argued that religion was a cause of neurosis, and a way of fulfilling our unconscious desires to elongate our childhood. He compared this illusion to childhood neurosis (Alston, 2003). Zilboorg asserted that Freud never scientifically demonstrated that religion was an illusion with empirical evidence or studies. Freud

5 | P a g e never referenced any statistical data in his work on religion as illusion, for he never conducted any research of his own on a general population, but instead, only made correlations based on his neurotic patient. (Flatt, 1976) According to Brown (1981) Pfister also criticized Freud for drawing his conclusions on the basis of observations of primitive religions and emotionally unhealthy individuals. Freud did not refer to the most normal populations when evaluating the validity of religion, but instead inferred from a minority population of his already-sick patients

In this psychoanalytic approach to religion, Freud’s asserted that religious belief is an ’s need for wish fulfillment of our deepest wishes, therefore wishful thinking. However, Platinga (2000) took issue with Freud here by alleging that Freud failed to provide any evidence for that assertion. He further argued that it was dubious that theistic belief arose from wishes because many people disliked the idea of a God monitoring their every thought, and judging them. He concluded that Freud postulated unconscious mechanisms that were responsible for such beliefs that were unreachable from first-person -knowledge of one’s beliefs.

Methodological critiques Many theorists and scholars have labeled Freud’s psychoanalytic approach to religion as ‘projectionist theory’ that has evolved from a primal which has raised query into whether it’s a scientific or historical hypothesis. Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein have both argued against Freud’s constant claim for the scientific status of psychoanalysis and the place of religion in science a resultant of the same approach. Popper argued that the terms in which is implied made it ‘unfalsifiable’ in principle and thus ‘unscientific’. The theory of Freud he argued, described some facts, but in the modus of myths. However, he felt that psychoanalysis contained most thought-provoking psychological propositions, but not in a ‘testable form’ (Popper 1963, 37).

Alfred L. Kroeber in his influential review of Freud’s and Taboo in 1919, subjected Freud’s explanation of totemism to critique in that the method engaged in it

6 | P a g e was equivalent to “multiplying into one another”,‘fractional certainties’ without him recognizing that the multiplicity of factors must successively decrease the probability of their product” (Kroeber 1920, 51). Kroeber argued that Freud depended entirely on the hypothetical approach taken by nineteenth century ethnologists such as Taylor and Frazer. Wittgenstein (1966, 51) was intrigued by Freud’s focus on mythology in his narratives, and observed that much of the cogent potency of his work derived from the claim that it had constructed a scientific explanation of ancient myths. However, he considered that what Freud had effected was of a different order; ‘a new myth’. In a similar vein, Paul Ricoeur (1970), proposed that psychoanalysis theory and its entire structure, was to be read essentially as mythical rather than scientific.

Freud claimed that psychoanalysis was to be properly considered as a rigorous science of the mind has been vigorously critiqued on those and related grounds by Adolf Grünbaum (1984), who asserted that the hermeneutic approach to Freud, constituted a grave distortion of its subject matter and that it was reflective of an objectionable scientophobia.

CONCLUSION Psychoanalytic approach to the study of religion has been very controversial. Its meta- psychological characteristics have been difficult to comprehend with traditional scientific methodologies. It’s an approach that has found support and critiques at the same time. Freud’s lack of scientific evidence in making such conclusions as seen above leads one to question the validity of his assumptions. Its methodologies have become under scrutiny as well as its findings. However, it’s indubitable that psychoanalytic approach to religion as contributed to the understanding of religion with its symbolic interpretation of psychological states of religion in individuals and groups.

7 | P a g e REFERENCES

1. Alston, W.P. (2003) ‘Psychoanalytic Theory and Theistic Belief’. In C. Taliafero, & P. Brown, S. (1981) “A look at Oskar Pfister and his Relationship to Sigmund Freud,” The Journal of Pastoral Care, 35 (1981): 223. 2. Colby, K. M. (1960). An Introduction to Psychoanalytic Research. New York: Basic. 3. Farrell, B. A. (1981). The Standing of Psychoanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4. Flatt, B (1976) “Freud and Religion: Enemies or Allies?” Restoration Quarterly 19 (1976): 193-206, online: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.tcu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid. [Accessed on 28/08/2020] 5. Grünbaum, A. (1984) the Foundations of Psychoanalysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 6. Kai-man Kwan. (2006)“Are Religious Beliefs Human Projections?” in Raymond Pelly and Peter Stuart, eds., A Religious Atheist? Critical Essays on the Work of Lloyd Geering. Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Press, 41-66. 7. Kroeber, A.L. (1920) ‘: An Ethnologic Psychoanalysis’, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 22 (1), 48-55. 8. Loewenthal, K.M. (2008) the : Short Introduction. England: One world Publications. 9. Nelson, J.M. (2009) Psychology, Religion and Spirituality. USA: Springer. 10. Platinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press. 11. Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge. 12. Rand, N., & Torok, M. (1997). Questions for Freud: The Secret History of Psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 13. Ricoeur, P. (1970) : An Essay on Interpretation (trans. D. Savage).New Haven & London: Yale University Press. 14. Upton, J.C. (2008) Religion and Psychology Research Progress. New York: Nova Science Publishers. 15. Wittgenstein, L. 1966. Lectures & Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief (ed. C. Barrett). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

8 | P a g e