Religion, an illusion born of wishes
The future of an illusion
Religious doctrines are illusions, born of the oldest and strongest wishes of mankind, and there is no reason to hold them true, even if they cannot be proved false.
Religious doctrines answer exactly the wishes born of our childhood helplessness: protection, justice, life after death.
"Religion, an illusion born of wishes" is an argument by Sigmund Freud (The Future of an Illusion, VI (1927), 1927) on the question "Does God exist?" (answer: atheism). Its claim: Religious doctrines are illusions, born of the oldest and strongest wishes of mankind, and there is no reason to hold them true, even if they cannot be proved false. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P5). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 2 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.
Freud, a physician and the founder of psychoanalysis, was not a philosopher by trade, but this small book of 1927 became a classic. In it, in the form of a dialogue with an imaginary opponent, he writes that religious doctrines are illusions. The word is precise: an illusion is not an error, it is a belief carried by a wish. Freud says so himself: these doctrines can no more be refuted than proved, and he does not want to judge their truth. But he finds it highly suspicious that the world religion describes is exactly the one we are bound to wish for. His conclusion: there is no reason to hold them true, and humanity should learn to do without them.
click a premise to reject it
Without the implicit premise: Without P5, the computer finds a case where religion does answer our childhood wishes, is not proved, and yet one would have a reason to believe it: for example a religious experience, or an argument Freud does not examine. Freud himself gives the example of the girl who dreams that a prince will come for her: it does sometimes happen.
Objections
3Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.
The genetic fallacy (Freud himself concedes it) 1927 · attacks premise 5Where a belief comes from does not say whether it is true. A belief born of a wish may well be right. Freud writes it himself: an illusion is not an error, and is not necessarily false. He adds that these doctrines, impossible to prove, are also impossible to refute. So the believer's psychology settles nothing about God.
Freud replies
Where a belief comes from does not say whether it is true. A belief born of a wish may well be right. Freud writes it himself: an illusion is not an error, and is not necessarily false. He adds that these doctrines, impossible to prove, are also impossible to refute. So the believer's psychology settles nothing about God.
OOskar Pfister 1928 · attacks premise 5Pfister, a pastor in Zurich who had worked with Freud for nineteen years, answers him in Freud's own journal, under a reversed title: "The Illusion of a Future". He grants a great deal: ideas of God and the beyond are often painted in the colours of wish. But he asks: does this explain all religious thought? And is confusing wish and reality peculiar to religion? Science too starts from wishes, and must keep correcting them by reality. So the question is not "is there wishing?" but "does something true remain once the wish has been corrected?"
Freud replies
Pfister, a pastor in Zurich who had worked with Freud for nineteen years, answers him in Freud's own journal, under a reversed title: "The Illusion of a Future". He grants a great deal: ideas of God and the beyond are often painted in the colours of wish. But he asks: does this explain all religious thought? And is confusing wish and reality peculiar to religion? Science too starts from wishes, and must keep correcting them by reality. So the question is not "is there wishing?" but "does something true remain once the wish has been corrected?"
PPaul C. Vitz 1999 · attacks premise 5The argument cuts both ways. The American psychologist Paul Vitz applies Freud's method to atheism: in many famous atheists he finds a father who died early, or was absent, weak or violent. Rejecting God could thus also be a wish: to be rid of a father. If the psychological origin of a belief were enough to discredit it, it would discredit atheism too.
no reply
The argument cuts both ways. The American psychologist Paul Vitz applies Freud's method to atheism: in many famous atheists he finds a father who died early, or was absent, weak or violent. Rejecting God could thus also be a wish: to be rid of a father. If the psychological origin of a belief were enough to discredit it, it would discredit atheism too.