Freud on Religion

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by Moose

Oh boy......not someone else who thinks they've got it all figured out.........

 

Yep! I've never claimed to have all the answers to life but it's amazing the number of people here who claim they do.

 

And it's amazing how they take an opinion so personally, as if I insulted their mother. It's JUST an opinion.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by alphamale

you're gonna need some MAJOR bandwidth to physically assault us over the internet

 

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Moose]

Originally posted by alphamale

you're gonna need some MAJOR bandwidth to physically assault us over the internet

 

<<<<<Sitting in the jungle sharpening his sword next to a camp fire in the middle of the night, face painted.....ready to rock>>>>>

[prisoner]

very funny stuff. too bad not everything is about WWE. not willing to let some poster copying from his textbooks dismiss what you write or offer up is different from reducing everything to a non-title matchup. and just for the record: i know nothing and have little to contribute. if i had it all figured out i would be dead.

 

confused: what you are doing is not debating. you are dismissing other opinions and reiterating yours (or the one you read last). your 'wisdom' is without compassion and i think you will find that service is all about compassion. nice try.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by prisoner

confused: what you are doing is not debating. you are dismissing other opinions and reiterating yours (or the one you read last). your 'wisdom' is without compassion and i think you will find that service is all about compassion. nice try.

 

Nah, that's where you're wrong. Like calling me a homophobic when I've made it clear I have gay friends. I don't think that's a good environment to raise kids and I tell my gay friends that.

 

Is it my opinion? You betcha.

Am I homophobic? Not in the slightest. As I said, I am not the judge. Only God will be. God says we must love sinners and help show them the way. I try and lead by example but don't always succeed as I am a sinner too.

 

It does prove you have little little factual information and are making wild assumptions that I am stuck in the 50s. I'm a sinner, definitely. I am nowhere near perfect. I pray for God's guidance to make me a better person every day, much more like Jesus.

 

Do you want to talk about compassion? What do YOU do to make the world a better place? Do you volunteer your tools, your money and your time to help the less fortunate? I sure do. All the time. You're naive and ignorant if you think you know all about me based on one thread.

 

I certainly don't know you but really, should I care to? You certainly don't know me.

 

Which again brings me to my point. Do I care what you think? Not in the slightest. The only person's opinion I care about and answer to is God.

 

Finally, I don't claim to know it all. Never have. However, if it makes you feel better I can start every post with "In my humble opinion...." because really what it comes down to is we're all voicing our opinion - some of us can handle it and some of us can't.

[d'Arthez]

First of all, you can be homophobic and have gay friends. The issue that decides the matter, is if you think less of them because they are homosexual. Do they live in sin in your view?

 

Compassion is not a competition. If it is a competition, it is not compassion. Your question turned it into a competition; a real compassionate person would not have said a word about his good deeds.

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

The only person's opinion I care about and answer to is God.

 

God is a person? So his Mind works the same as the human mind? If that is not the case, you have committed blasphemy.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by XNemesisX

*The forces of nature are out of our control. From the very beginning, religion was created as a means of trying to control what cannot be controlled. We are helpless when it comes to forces of nature and also inevitable death. Religion gives people a sense of control and protection from things that are out of their hands.

Ick, "Froid"

 

I remember some of this from when I was in school. My biggest conflict with him is that he has a narrow view of why religion was created and his definitions of "unfair". He makes sense sometimes, but he also contradicts himself, especially when talking about human morals vs. religiously dictated morals. And I don't believe it's "control" so much as "understanding" the forces of nature and existing in simbiance with said forces.

 

*Religion was created to promise those who are suffering a better life after they die. To make up for a miserable and unfair earthly life, they look ahead to an afterlife where they will be compensated for their grievances. Religion was also great social control. If not for religion, the poor would rob the rich blind and/or kill them. So, the poor and under privelaged accepted their subordinate role in the world because they thought this would just mean greater rewards for them after they die.

 

I don't remember exactly what he wrote about the poor robbing the rich if they were not controlled by religion---I remember something about that, but not the exact context. Humans had morals long before they had Gods--it was only in theology that the morals were recognized, named, and then attributed to a God as a way of explaining and controlling others---which is similar to what old Froidy-boy said.

 

*Humans have a need for a father figure. (this part is completely Freudian). As a child, we feel helpless and we look to the father for that protection and guidance yet we also fear that parent because he could punish us if we don't do what we are supposed to do. As adults, we no longer have that father influence in our life because we are no longer children. So, to create this father figure we come up with the concept of God. He protects us and helps us since we are helpless.....yet at the same time he is to be feared. Just like the father we typically think of as children.

 

Actually, I agree more with this than anything. A child is protected -- usually by the father. (well, used to be that way) and a mother-figure is the nurturer. Sometimes us adults need to feel protected too and as we encounter more and more stress (whether it's killing a mammoth for dinner, or getting the balance sheet to actually balance) we sometimes comfort ourselves with childhood memories in the hopes of stirring that childhood feeling of protection. It's an escape and coping mechanism and Gods are a natural offshoot of this.

 

Freud looked at the future of what he calls an "illusion"

 

In Freud's opinion, the evolution of the human species would mean the deterioration of religion. He believed that in the future people would use more logic when thinking about religion and not subscribe to the writings and beliefs of our "ignorant" ancestors. Freud could not believe that writings of people who lived so long ago and were so ignorant to so many things could still affect people in this day and age.

 

But, he attributes this to the (persistent) worry of helplessness, lack of father figure, and lack of control over life to the reason why people still want to be religious.

 

I pretty much agree with him here, but I also think that in times of great stress people will revert to the teachings of their childhood and it will be centuries before religion fades away--if it does at all. Unless the human species evolves drastically I think that mankind will probably not eliminate religion, but replace it with something else.

 

Freud referred to an illusion as something that is made up almost completely of wishful thinking with no evidence for it or against it. Therefore, an illusion COULD be true, but like most wishful thinking, it is usually false.

 

I agree with everything but the "most" and "usually" statements. 50/50

 

Opponets of Freud's view on religion have said that to rid people of religion would be cruel because it is how many people are able to tolerate life. Freud disagreed. He felt that once we rid the world of religion, more people will strive to make the life on earth better not only for themselves but also for others. He thinks the world would be more tolerant and more willing to work together to make the short life on earth better for everyone since there would be no promise of an afterlife. He felt that all forms of life would be more respected without religion.

 

Six of one, half dozen of the other. I can't predict the future and I don't think even the most complex mathematical equation is any more accurate than my, or your, best guess.

 

 

You see, an individual who has not experienced faith is as unqualified to describe faith as is a blind man unqualified to describe a sunset or the sun sparkling on snow. He can try mightily to use his tiny mind to understand what is in the mind of another, but fails - as so many people do - to comprehend that even the most brilliant of all humans is limited by his own skull. He can NEVER truly comprehed how another thinks, and he most especially is unable to comprehend that which he himself has never experienced. He can try to approximate it, but he will never, ever comprehend exactly what it is.

 

I certainly do not agree with this! Anyone can describe faith or anything else for that matter. I have heard some beautiful and consistent descriptions of sky and sunsets and trees and breezes and people and ‘things’ from blind / deaf people. Anyone remember Helen Keller? She certainly didn’t have to see a sunset in the way that you or I see a sunset to experience it, or describe it, or have an opinion on it. Same with people who discuss religions and faith.

 

Just because someone does not have a religious belief or faith does not mean they are not qualified to describe it. I think this whole statement is bunk. People experience things on many different levels. Just because someone doesn’t believe or have the same faith as you, doesn’t mean they are not qualified to put forth a description, state an opinion, or philosophize about faith or religion. It’s a bit different that reading someone’s mind!

 

Religion was created to promise those who are suffering a better life after they die. To make up for a miserable and unfair earthly life, they look ahead to an afterlife where they will be compensated for their grievances.

 

 

Not in the least. Religion wasn't 'created' at all. Again, Freud shows a pitiful failure to even understand the origins of religions.

 

People created God and therefore religion, not the other way around. But I guess those people with tiny minds that you mentioned, can’t comprehend that POV since they don’t share it

 

 

He thinks the world would be more tolerant and more willing to work together to make the short life on earth better for everyone since there would be no promise of an afterlife. He felt that all forms of life would be more respected without religion.

 

 

Religions teach respect for life. The anti-religious propound respect for self alone - asserting one's own 'rights' against those of all others.

 

Respect for life existed before religion was there to teach it. I do not propound respect for self alone and I would consider myself more anti-religion than pro-religion. While I don’t agree with Freud because I don’t think is models predicting future society were accurate, I also don’t think it accurate to group all anti-religious people as some kind of rebels against the natural instincts of mankind---those natural instincts being attributed to God alone by those who are pro-religious.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by d'Arthez

First of all, you can be homophobic and have gay friends. The issue that decides the matter, is if you think less of them because they are homosexual. Do they live in sin in your view?

 

Absolutely. I live in sin. As I said, I am far, far from perfect. I also think the notion that you can't have friends that are sinners is incorrect as well.

 

The bible teaches forgiveness.

 

Compassion is not a competition. If it is a competition, it is not compassion. Your question turned it into a competition; a real compassionate person would not have said a word about his good deeds.

 

As I said, I am not perfect. But to question my compassion without knowing me, I felt the need to inform him that his impression over one thread could not be further from reality.

 

God is a person? So his Mind works the same as the human mind? If that is not the case, you have committed blasphemy.

 

That's not my insinuation at all. I put it in that context to make better sense. I didn't want to say the only God I am resposnsible to is God. That wouldn't convey well the point I was trying to make.

[d'Arthez]

You wrote:

The only person's opinion I care about and answer to is God.

 

Grammatically you equate God with a person. There is no denying that. Because of that, I am entitled to make the logical inference that His Mind works in a similar fashion to the human mind, as you used the word person. If God is not a person, then your way of formulating your thought is incorrect.

If my assertion, for argumentssake, that God is a person is correct, which is derived from your words, then we would know something based upon your words. However, if the assertion is incorrect, we would not know a thing, except for the fact that you have committed blasphemy.

 

To call that "assumptions", as you did in your post, is to deny the words you have written ConfusedinOC.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by d'Arthez

You wrote:

 

Grammatically you equate God with a person.

 

No, grammatically I did to make the sentence sound better.

 

There is no denying that. Because of that, I am entitled to make the logical inference that His Mind works in a similar fashion to the human mind, as you used the word person. If God is not a person, then your way of formulating your thought is incorrect.

If my assertion, for argumentssake, that God is a person is correct, which is derived from your words, then we would know something based upon your words. However, if the assertion is incorrect, we would not know a thing, except for the fact that you have committed blasphemy.

 

To call that "assumptions", as you did in your post, is to deny the words you have written ConfusedinOC.

 

Semantics my friend, semantics.

 

*edit* Man is made in God's image and while we certainly are not on God's intellectual level (no one is) to infer we don't think similarly (God has emotions, my friend) to faciliate communication would not be a correct statement.

[tokyo]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

God has emotions, my friend

Where' s the difference between the psychological approach that claims that people create God because of a need for a daddy figure and your assumption that God has emotions?

 

Your God is way too human for me.

[blind_otter]

Feh. Argue with brick wall, bang head on brick wall, get bloody forehead.

[BlockHead]

blind_otter

Religious beliefs are held upon faith; no rational explanation is required or sought after. What I'm getting at is, you're using "faith" in the wrong context. In science and mathematics, rational explanation and proofs are required for a theory to be accepted in the scientific community.

You are a child in a windowless room with a rubber hammer. The rubber hammer makes a wonderful tool for testing the mechanical properties of various objects including the walls of the room. Given your limited understanding and your limited observations, you can easily postulate that the universe has six flat sides, and can bend a rubber hammer.

 

What is wrong with this picture? Maybe you don’t have the right tools. Maybe your imagination is too limited. Maybe you don’t realize how limited your senses really are. Maybe you can’t comprehend a universe without six sides.

 

kooky

Your God is way too human for me.

Maybe the opposite is true. Maybe God isn’t human enough for you. Is this a case of lowered expectations?

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by BlockHead

You are a child in a windowless room with a rubber hammer. The rubber hammer makes a wonderful tool for testing the mechanical properties of various objects including the walls of the room. Given your limited understanding and your limited observations, you can easily postulate that the universe has six flat sides, and can bend a rubber hammer.

 

What is wrong with this picture? Maybe you don’t have the right tools. Maybe your imagination is too limited. Maybe you don’t realize how limited your senses really are. Maybe you can’t comprehend a universe without six sides.

 

What is your point? I don't dare say there is no God, but I have to speak up when people misuse the word "faith".

 

OC's point was, religion and science are both faith-based. I say, science demands a certain amount of rigour in it's proofs, based on the language of mathematics, that religion simply does not ask for.

 

THAT'S ALL I'm saying. I'm not saying I understand the universe, nor am I saying I have all the answers. Just mentioning that most scientists would be offended at the comparison.

 

Some indiginous peoples in South America believed that the moon is swallowed every month by a snake. OK. That's their religious belief. They require no rigorous scientific examination to follow that belief up, because it's based in FAITH. That's what faith means, ok, that's what I'm saying. Jeeeeeeez.

[tokyo]

Originally posted by BlockHead

Maybe the opposite is true. Maybe God isn’t human enough for you. Is this a case of lowered expectations?

Explain yourself, I don't know what you mean.

[BlockHead]

blind_otter

OC's point was, religion and science are both faith-based. I say, science demands a certain amount of rigour in it's proofs, based on the language of mathematics, that religion simply does not ask for.

They all postulate.

 

Sometimes hypotheses cannot be proven because of limitations. Maybe the sensors aren’t sensitive enough. Maybe the computers aren’t powerful enough to perform all of the necessary computations. Maybe the telescopes just aren’t sensitive enough. Some mathematical proofs weren’t solvable until the advent of modern computers.

 

Science is faith-based. If scientists didn’t believe in their hypotheses, then they wouldn’t follow through and develop proofs. It isn’t like these people somehow develop groundbreaking theories in 5 minutes. They spend lifetimes, and they must believe in what they are doing to succeed.

 

I think these scientists are testing the boundaries while you are content banging your head with a rubber hammer.

kooky

Explain yourself, I don't know what you mean.

I see God as a someone who can rise above the foolishness and indulgences of humanity.

I think some people are content with being foolish and indulgent, and will resist any form of upward mobility whether it is themselves or others.

[blind_otter]

CAn I spell it out?

 

 

Given:

Religion does not nor has it EVER asked for proof.

 

Given:

Science constantly asks for proof.

 

Therefore: the term "faith" in the sense that it is used in religion is not the same as it is used in science. Religion does not demand the rigorous testing that science does. Varying accuracy of scientific instruments, base ten numbering system, varying gravitational pulls at different points in the orbit of the sun all aside.

 

There, said in the clear and concise terms of a geometric proof for you. Rather than the verbose poetry of the bible.

 

They are DIFFERENT. You don't go into your lab and pray for results. You go into your lab and use instruments and tests to get significant statistical samples to present in peer reviewed journals. Sure they all postulate. Everyone postulates. That doesn't matter, that's not pertinent to the issue at hand.

 

Belief in what you are researching is in no way comparable to belief in GOD. I find that offensive, as a person who adores science and also has a belief in the divine.

 

I mean, I do statistical reports for my boss. It takes months sometimes to compile the data. So my belief in the data I am wading through is comparable to someone else's belief in God? Absurd.

[tokyo]

Honestly, I'm getting fed up with this thread. Instead of accepting faith as what it is namely FAITH, the religious party here tries to convince people that it's more than pure belief in the not provable and it compares it's claim for absolute truth with the continous change in science where theories and hypotheses are under constant examination and submitted to processes of falsification and correction.

 

I also don't understand all this talking about a human God. Is he just some sort of Übermensch or a divine being? People are not even able to understand the essential facts about the universe and life, but they think they know what HE wants. I think he's lonely and needs a girlfriend. Yep, that's what he wants. Prove me wrong for heaven's sake.

[BlockHead]

kooky

I also don't understand all this talking about a human God. Is he just some sort of Übermensch or a divine being? People are not even able to understand the essential facts about the universe and life, but they think they know what HE wants.

Wouldn’t it be nice if scientists ignored every anomaly. Where would we be today if that were the case?

Ohhh no. I can’t imagine that! It doesn’t fit!

kooky

I think he's lonely and needs a girlfriend. Yep, that's what he wants. Prove me wrong for heaven's sake.

You are making the assumption that God has a gender, and that God needs companionship. If God were as old as time, why would he suddenly need companionship? Are you still using that rubber hammer?

The assumption that humans are purely guided by parental needs is a different kind of rubber hammer.

 

You have a small toolbox.

 

 

You are rejecting "anything is possible" for a six-sided universe.

[blind_otter]

Let me explain it this way.

 

An apple falls on a man's head. Newton thinks about why this occurs and comes up with physics and a mathematical system to describe physics (caluculus) while he is staying at his family's estate, safely away from London, during the black plague. He is a scientist, because he asks WHY.

 

An apple falls on a man's head. A religious man thinks, "It's God's will" and leaves it at that.

 

Get it?

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by BlockHead

You are making the assumption that God has a gender.

 

If kooky made an assumption, it was that God has a sex; gender is something different from that.

[MySugaree]

There's no "Faith" in science, they're paradigms. Read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (at least I believe that's the title). Science works on the principle of disprovable hypotheses through application of scientific method.

 

The existence of God cannot be disproven--it is an article of Faith, not a hypothesis that can be disproven through experimental science. To conflate the two is silly, and reflects a failure of nerve on the part of Believers. Even Pascal understood the difference.

 

If you believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection and walking on water, that's fine with me. Just don't try to bring experimental science down to that level of fantasy by suggesting that both involve Faith.

[Moose]

If you believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection and walking on water, that's fine with me. Just don't try to bring experimental science down to that level of fantasy by suggesting that both involve Faith.

Doesn't anyone understand? It's just as niave' of you to insist that man knows everything about what they've touched, felt, tested, re-tested, tried ........and in their minds.......proven......as it is for us Christians insisting that man couldn't possibly know these things and only our God can, because He's the one Who created it.

 

It requires faith in the scientist's mind and heart to believe what is truth based on what he's learned and experienced in life.......the very same goes for us Christians. No one, and I mean noone can argue that.......

 

Our problem, (being the human race that we are), is that we have a problem with being wrong.

 

None of us will ever have closure on the issue until someone manages to come back from the dead with physical proof......and it'll have to be dna now and days.....scientists won't accept polaroids anymore for some friggin' reason.....

[Marshbear]

All of your theories are very interesting but there is one simple solution to this post.

 

If you want to know if God exists then why not just ask him? Just say " hey God. If you are real and you do exist then please tell me so I will know wether to believe in you". If you think I'm crazy then that is your opinion and entitled to it. I will say that I know God exists and you can too.

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by Moose

Doesn't anyone understand? It's just as niave' of you to insist that man knows everything about what they've touched, felt, tested, re-tested, tried ........and in their minds.......proven......as it is for us Christians insisting that man couldn't possibly know these things and only our God can, because He's the one Who created it.

 

It requires faith in the scientist's mind and heart to believe what is truth based on what he's learned and experienced in life.......the very same goes for us Christians. No one, and I mean noone can argue that.......

 

Our problem, (being the human race that we are), is that we have a problem with being wrong.

 

None of us will ever have closure on the issue until someone manages to come back from the dead with physical proof......and it'll have to be dna now and days.....scientists won't accept polaroids anymore for some friggin' reason.....

 

ARGH!

 

No one is saying that science is infallible.

 

I had a long post written out but screw it. I'm not saying religion is this or that. Just that it's different from science, can we just accept that and move on? I mean come on.

 

I actually got a minor in asian religions. I went to religion classes, studied about different faiths in different parts of the world throughout history. Wow, did it at all compare to the biology, chemistry, physics, physiology, physiological psychology classes I took? NO. Because they are different and have different rigid and rigorous intellectual demands.

 

This is not a debate about faith. It's about two entirely different disciplines. It's like saying that studying english or history is the same as studying physics or mathematics.