In one of history's sad ironies, the early Psychoanalysts derogated religious belief, to the detriment of both religion and psychoanalysis; the estrangement continues to this day and continues to resonate in unfortunate ways. The irony is that there is no necessary contradiction between Psychoanalysis and religious belief and in fact, they both address some of the same questions; a synthesis would enhance both (though I think Psychoanalysis would gain the far greater measure.)
Psychoanalysis emerged at a time when man's rationality was being elevated to an idealized position. The Existentialists had dispensed with God, and science, specifically evolution, had dispensed with the need for God. (Both of these statements were/are thought true by sophisticated thinkers, though their falsity is demonstrable; in this post I will address their psychological falsity and leave it to others to discuss their philosophical and rational falsity.)
The brilliant insight of Psychoanalysis was the recognition that our rational minds existed as a thin, fragile, overlay of more primitive irrationality. The Psychoanalysts thought that if they could interpret unconscious conflicts and bring the unconscious mind under the purview of the rational mind, man would be protected from all the primitive passions that had led to so much pain and torment for the human race. The irony is that their own unconscious minds sabotaged them from carrying their argument to its obvious conclusion. Freud recognized that there is no such thing as a man who is in complete command of, and aware of, all the vagaries of his own unconscious mind. As such he recommended periodic re-analyses for practicing Analysts, just so they would not fall under the sway of their own unconscious passions. That he, and others, failed to realize that their certainty that religious belief was irrational was based on their own irrationality, is truly ironic.
In my post Political Deification, I explore some of the reasons why, in the absence of God, we use our own ideas as a replacement for God:
We are better equipped than our distant cave dwelling ancestors to understand the world, but on an individual level, we remain surrounded by monsters and magic. Fate can separate us from our loved ones in an instant and we have no mommy or daddy who will hug us and tell us everything will be all right (which our children might believe; even if someone tries to reassure us, we can not even comfort ourselves with the reassurance because we know better.) The only way we can keep our irrational (and sometimes rational) fears from destabilizing our minds is to find something more powerful than ourselves to believe in; we need God, and in the absence of God, we will invent the equivalent to protect us.
Siggy made the point yesterday that Atheism is not the default state of the human being:
It is clear that in any discussion of faith vs non-belief, the vast majority of us have to be talked out of our belief in God. Our instinctive beliefs point to a deity, however we define that deity or spirituality.
In other words, belief is God appears to be a more natural state of affairs than non belief. Notwithstanding the inevitable (and shallow) arguments that belief in God is for weak people, and other such arguments, ad nauseum, the fact remains that while we may all argue over exactly what He/She/It is, the ‘numbers’ tell the story. It is reasonable to believe each of us is born with that inherent belief structure.
It is no coincidence that Atheism is such a prominent stage of the journey of rebellious adolescents. In God knows why faith is thriving, Dinesh D'Souza writes about the current push for converts to Atheism underway by the proponents of the religion that has no God:
A group of leading atheists is puzzled by the continued existence and vitality of religion.
As biologist Richard Dawkins puts it in his new book "The God Delusion," faith is a form of irrationality, what he terms a "virus of the mind." Philosopher Daniel Dennett compares belief in God to belief in the Easter Bunny. Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" and now "Letter to a Christian Nation," professes amazement that hundreds of millions of people worldwide profess religious beliefs when there is no rational evidence for any of those beliefs. Biologist E.O. Wilson says there must be some evolutionary explanation for the universality and pervasiveness of religious belief.
Atheists believe they are sophisticated when in reality they are impoverished. Furthermore, without a God, there is no morality, as Donald Sensing points out:
If atheists are true to their own creed, they must admit that the entire concept of human rights crumbles to dust according to that same creed. Dawkins, Wilson et. al. have no “right” to denounce religion, they just have the ability or power to do so. If persons are not “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” (in the words of a famous Enlightenment rationalist), then “rights” is nothing but a flatus vocis. The concept of rights then really means nothing but “who wins.” So by their lights, atheists are able to speak out (in America, anyway, not in Saudi Arabia) and attempt to persuade others only because the rest of us let them. But why should we let them? Why don’t we religious people simply persecute atheists out of existence?
I think atheists would reply that to do so would be contrary to our own creed (well, not contrary to Islamism, but I’ll not go there today). And they would be correct. But so what? An atheist also holds that there is nothing behind religious creeds, that there is no content to them. Since religious beliefs are simply the product of evolution, they may be changed or discarded as we might wish. So could not we religious people simply say, “Sorry, persecuting atheists is no longer against our religon?” If you think not, why not?
And don’t throw the US Constitution at me: the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights is nothing more than an agreement among religious people to let atheists be. But, as I’ve just said, we can change our minds. And heck, the whole document is nothing but a product of evolution and therefore worth no more than any other political manifesto.
Can anyone refute this argument without an appeal to transcendence?
I heard one of these proponents of sophisticated Atheism on NPR this week. He suggested morality is merely based on a consensus summation of human thought (essentially, a variation on the "recourse to authority".) He failed to see what was so obvious to any listener. If there is no "appeal to transcendence" then morality is merely opinion. ("The Ten Suggestions" as some wit once remarked.) And isn't that the position of the Moral Relativists who suggest that the only morality is the one you feel enhances your self-esteem? Narcissism, ultimately, is incompatible with civilization; pure individualism in such a universe becomes indistinguishable from the universe of the grandiose infant whose own gratification is primary.
MaxedOutMama has a wonderful post which explores the real world consequences of a different aspect of this philosophical divide:
The first philosophy is grounded on the idea that absolute reality does not exist, and the second philosophy is grounded on the idea that absolute reality does exist, and that this absolute, objective reality logically makes imperative claims against the individual.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier "gets it":
Secularism is really state-sponsored Narcissim. It is a religion. It is a belief system. There is dogma. And it is being foisted on Americans. The hope is that America will trade their Judeo-Christian roots for the fleeting feel-good forbidden fruit of Secular selfishness.
America will choose and her choice will determine her survival.
And Gagdad Bob:
For that is the key: atheism is a post-civilized primitivism, pure and simple. The comparatively narrow realm of evolution explained by natural selection is embedded in the much grander vision of an evolutionary cosmos that deepens and reveals its own truth to itself through the mysterious vehicle of human consciousness. Even if materialistic scientists imgaine that they have “explained” consciousness, they will never, ever explain how this consciousness may know absolute truth. For as J.B.S. Haldane observed, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
The Blogosphere at its best provides us with the opportunity to talk to people we might never have met otherwise, and the ensuing conversation deepens our appreciation. If you really want to "feed your head", pull up a chair and read Dinesh D'Souza, Siggy, Mama, Donald Sensing, Dr. C, and Gagdad Bob, and then, read the comments Jimmy J left to my post Talkin' 'Bout My Generation, in which he revealed in the most moving terms possible, some of what I am referring to here, the limitations of rationality and its offspring, pleasure and materialism:
My world all came crashing down on the day my son was killed in a mountaineering accident. I came face to face with the awful fact that no amount of money, no material possession, no accomplishment could bring him back. My whole world been based on doing and now I had to BE a bereaved father. For years I wandered in a purgatory of grief until I finally faced the fact that, unless I got help, I was never going to live, really live, again.
I went into counseling. I'm a slow learner, but eventually I came to the realization that my self esteem was based on the quick sand of my accomplishments. I was a human "doing" not a human "being."
I purposely truncated his comment here because what he has described involves the value and the limitations of what Psychoanalysis and its offspring can offer. For the rest, he needed transcendence. Without transcendence, there is ultimately no meaning and Man without meaning is Narcissism.
*The title of this post comes from an old Gahan Wilson cartoon, which I have been unable to find on the internet. It shows a crowd of people bowing down to an empty pedestal labeled "Nothing"; a passer-by asks the question of my title.
Update: The cartoon has been found! Many Thanks to Whistling Dixie.
Recent Comments