Freud and Faith (2007) | Hacker News Reader

Freud and Faith (2007)

nytimes.com

25 pointskeiferski18 comments

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.

A little philosophy inclines man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings men's minds about to religion.

- Francis Bacon

I’ve had the same experience myself. I’d reckon it’s because ‘atheism’ in the modern western sense is really just a kind of aimless post-Christian pseudo-humanism. Its amorphousness doesn’t lend itself well to providing any deeper meaning to life.

Because atheism is not a religion. It is literally just the lack of belief in any religion. It is not an ethical system or philosophy or ideology or explanation of anything beyond that.

Atheism just means you have too seek meaning somewhere else than in religion. It does not in itself provide that meaning.

The concept of contemporary atheism is directly traceable from Christianity, the enlightenment, and western civilization as a whole, just like other ideas such as democracy or human rights. The term ‘atheism’ makes no sense in a Buddhist context, for example. Fundamentally, the word ‘religion’ is just misunderstood by most people, or ascribed only to a narrow institutional or literalist sort of belief. Much of what one believes is unconscious or behavioral, rather than explicitly stated in words.

Many/most of the people whom call themselves atheists today (especially the so-called New Atheists) also tend to still maintain this Christian ethical and political heritage (belief in democracy or the essential equality of human life, for example), even if they don’t realize the origins of their beliefs. Many of these beliefs can be described as ‘humanist’. Hence my calling them ‘post-Christian pseudo-humanists.’

I can believe there is a correlation between atheism and democratic/humanistic values, at least among modern western intellectuals. But Pol Pot was also an atheist, so it is not like it follows by necessity.

I'm really just pointing out that atheism does not imply any particular philosophy beyond the rejection of religion.

The grandparent comment sounded to me a bit like "I tried not believing in Santa Claus, but it didn't really give my life meaning." Well no, but it's not supposed to!

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."

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.

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?

good questions. follow-up question could be: do we understand the motives of the age-old religions enough to be sure we're not just recreating them?

fascinating indeed.

also, God != religion

in fact, the question of God can be reduced to a simpler question of Faith.

is there more to existence than the egoic, discursive mind?

no myth necessary.

only a willingness to go beyond the mind.

psychedelics are tools for exploration which can catapult into states which offer a glimpse (REBUS)

but the same is possible through meditation. in fact, better. and when pursued in this natural way, there is no doubt that what is found is real.

this is the path of enlightenment.

a recognition of truth via direct experience.

Calm and Headspace won’t reveal it. requires dedicated practice, but less than 10,000 hours. retreats can accelerate. and there’s no getting around self-surrender.

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?

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

“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”

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com