Some fantastic comments so far, both about the memory of 9/11, and the possible interconnectedness of faith and doubt.
This week we're reading the Nicholi book, _The Question of God_, so I'll keep it simple: between Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis, with whom do you find yourself agreeing more? And why, exactly? (That second question is the much more difficult one, of course.)
Between Freud and Lewis, I find myself agreeing more with Lewis.As a teenager he didn't believe in a God and became angry that there was not God. When I was younger I didn't believe there was a God either even though I was brought up Catholic just like Lewis. He brings up good points by asking why God would do such horrible things to the people he created. On the other hand Freud didn't believe in a God at all. Lewis knew deep down there was some type of God for the most of his youth but chose not to believe in such things.
ReplyDeleteI think Lewis is more lenient towards religion and God than Freud. I believe Lewis just had a hard time of what religion to follow and what felt comfortable to him. I also believe that he didn't believe in just one idea, but many religious ideas like I also do believe in. With freud, he was 100% sure there was no God and was stuck on that idea.
I personally find myself agreeing more with Lewis. I feel like he’s a man of his word and he always stayed true to himself. He demonstrated that all through his childhood years especially when he took the stand of not believing in God. Whether or not this was a result of his poor relationship with his own father or any figure of authority, in my eyes he still followed his heart. I was proud when Lewis recognized that he was contradicting himself during his Atheist years of life which led to his spiritual awakening and his belief in God. Both Freud and Lewis had poor relationships with their own fathers which they both feel contributed to their Atheism. Lewis in a sense “got over” this feeling and Freud kept with it. I also wasn’t pleased with how Freud contradicted himself. He claimed religious people suffered from mental illnesses particularly OCD. However, he highly respected several individuals of faith including: Issac Newton, St. Paul, and Oskar Pfister. This made it hard for me to take what he said seriously about religion. Freud also never forgot or forgave his father for the way he handled an Anti-Semitic attack. He felt angry that his Father just went to pick up his cap and did nothing more. I find that obnoxious that he’s mad at his father for that reason. I think no one should judge anybody unless they walk in the person’s shoes.
ReplyDeleteI do not find myself entirely agreeing with Freud or Lewis whole heartedly. While Lewis uses his personal convictions to convince his audience of the existence of God Freud seems to want to convince people of the opposite. I think it is hard for me to pick one side to stand on because I have not yet decided what my own personal beliefs are . However, I do think that Lewis presents his case in a much more truthful and plausible way. I say this because it seems like Lewis has actually put thoughts into his arguments. He seems like an open-minded individual who has examined both sides of this classic argument and then, based on his observations, formed a judgment. Although he clearly picks a side, he doesn’t strive to insult the other side’s intelligence or make their belief system seems ridiculous. He just states this is what I believe in and why. Freud, on the other hand, couldn’t seem to back his arguments up with solid, or even plausible, facts. He uses farfetched tales in an attempt to convince readers and almost makes it seems as if those who believe otherwise are intellectually unfit.
ReplyDeleteI can't decide as well. I think Freud puts forward several brilliant ideas, in that religion (or God) might reflect the most innate and powerful wishes of mankind. Too often we find ourselves in helpless situations, and the idea that there is a higher being somewhere to guide us through tougher times is extremely comforting. Perhaps this explains the allure of religion. However I do agree that Freud might have been a little too emotional/biased in his arguments. Oskar Pfister pointed out that "materialism was simply another religion". Interestingly I came across this website the other day (http://www.atheists.org/), and someone once handed me a badge that read "you don't need God to be moral". Personally I feel that atheist organisations seem to be yet another form of organised religion. I am hesitant to criticise any form of religion because one really can't know for sure. Perhaps this is why Freud's philosophical works always exhibit a "desperate and pleading tone".
ReplyDeleteLewis does seem to be somewhat less emotional, yet I retain my suspicions about a "good, omnipotent Creator". Lewis suggests that there is a Dark Power in the universe who was created by God, but looking at the horrible massacres that happened in the last century, sometimes I do wonder if it's somewhat disturbing for such a good, omnipotent God to create a "dark power" (or to give us so much "free will") to destroy mankind.
I agree with Shantaya that Lewis seemed to be much more open-minded in his arguments. He did really seem to have seen both sides. Although I definitely agree with Lewis rather than Freud, I think Freud had solid theories that certainly make sense to me. What he says about religion being created by people to make them feel better or to give them a sense of security is valid. However, despite thinking that Freud has a good argument against the existence of God, I personally have faith that God exists so I side with Lewis for that reason.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Freud certainly contradicted himself in his disbelief of the existence of God. He spoke of God frequently and certainly respected the religious officials that he knew. It almost seemed as though he may have actually believed but could not allow himself to be "sucked in" to religion when his devotion has been to science and logic his whole life. Perhaps he also held onto the rebellion against his father's religion because he didn't want to be anything like him. He viewed his father as weak and if he gave in to religion he would be weak, too. The book suggests that his father had a lot to do with what he did and what he believed in, so it's definitely possible that he didn't want to admit to being a believer because his father was.
To respond to what Angela said about the Dark Power that Lewis talked about and God-given "free will" I wanted to say that I've always liked to believe in a God that's more available, in a sense. In Intro. to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam we talked about a transcendent God versus an immanent God. It's difficult for me to feel connected to a God who is sitting up in the heavens, watching us mortals here on Earth, and doling out rulings here and there. I'd prefer to believe in the immanent God who resides on Earth in all of God's creations.
Of course I think its really impossible to agree with either of these men completely. Though Lewis was more open with his arguments, the points that Freud had mad alot more sense. In agreement with Angela, I do think that Freuds ideas of religion reflect the wishes of mankind. Whenever any truly remarkable or heartbreaking event happens, we as humans usually credit it to a higher power and this credit usually comes from a wish we made to the "power". Regardless of belivers or non believers we are all guilty of this act at one point or another which brings it back to Freuds ideas of religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteFrom Cailin: Who answers the question of God better, Freud or C.S. Lewis? Freud, an atheist offers two major arguments for why God does not exist. His two major arguments are the psychological, and the question of human suffering. Freud’s belief was that “all religious ideas are rooted in deep-seated wishes an are therefore illusion- false beliefs.”(pg 41) He felt that “the belief in God is merely a projection of powerful wishes are inner needs.” (pg 41).
ReplyDeleteFor C.S. Lewis, as a counter to Freud’s arguments, states that there is plenty of suffering in the biblical discourse which seemingly can not be what a faithful person wishes for. Lewis said though, “that this worldview begins to make sense only after you have realized that there is a real Moral Law and Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power. Only after we realize that our position is “really desperate” will we begin to understand the Scriptures.” Basically, is seems that man needs to realize that he is flawed, and has to fix himself in order to get close to God and heaven.
Lewis believes in that Old and New testaments which brings forth the belief in giving up many things in order to please God. One then must sacrifice to be saved.
For me there is one basic belief I share with C.S.Lewis which is that God is good. It is that breach into the New testament where I loose compatibility. I kind of believe that those out there like Freud, who study and search for answers in order to help people suffering from wounds of the mind there helping their patients become good people. These men and women who need psychology aid, need in because there is something keeping them from functioning properly based on the current societal standards. Medical doctors do the same thing with physical ailments. Once a person’s problems are alleviated, focusing on what’s important is easier. I don’t know if Freud would like the idea that he’s, one could argue, doing the work of God.
Neither have an answer that I would side with, but I do think there are reasons for the sciences, which includes psychology, and Freud who brought this field into existence to be improved upon later that helps many people today. I think he was as close to God, as Lewis, without actually realizing it.
I absolutely love Freud’s stubborn spirit! The guy just doesn’t know when to quit. I see a lot of him in me. I believe that the more he grunts and groans against the faithful, the more he reveals his own inner struggle with the existence of God. I’ll be the first to admit that as well! As the book mentioned, he constantly revisited the question of God, until his very end--“The lady doth protest too much, me thinks”. I also respect how he pushed us to think differently about the world around us. That said, I find his steadfast, at times vitriolic, arguments against God just as distasteful as the fire and brimstone evangelists set up along the underground passage to Port Authority who tell you to “Repent or BURN”. I cannot stand dogma in any form, especially the kind that resort to personal attacks, like calling someone mentally ill or possessed by the devil.
ReplyDeleteMy experience with religion was somewhat similar to both Freud and Lewis. Raised in a somewhat religious household (Cafeteria Catholic); went to CCD; First Communion. The whole package. Unlike these two men, growing up, I was fortunate to have a great relationship with my father, though I’m still trying to understand “…love’s austere and lonely offices”. Though I called myself a Catholic, I never really felt the “personal relationship” that others I know have felt. Then the Catholic Priest scandal happened in Boston. My family immediately moved away from the Church when the pedophile priests were protected. I always had a problem with the notion that the Pope, a human being who was elected by his peers, was infallible. This, however, sealed the deal. During the time after that up until now I had various encounters with fundamentalists who shoved their beliefs down my throat. One particularly fond memory: “You know, there was another Peter who denied Jesus three times before he finally came around”. I remember trolling through the Bible looking for particularly negative passages just to snap back and say, “See! Is this what you believe?!” I mellowed down, however, and just accepted the fact that some people believe in God and I’m just not sure.
Then I had an enlightening moment. The beginning of this semester, in fact! Up until that moment, I was in conflict with my spiritual tendencies (which I have never denied) and my love of reason. Similar to Lewis, although not an atheist, I felt contradictory in my reasoning. On the first day of classes, one of my professors mentioned Deism. After that, I spent some time researching this foreign word, and with every new day since them, I feel that I am becoming a Deist. In this way (and quite a long-winded way, I must admit! I’m sorry. Just happy I have a place where I can express all of these new feelings), I find myself connecting more with Lewis’ experience. As mentioned above, I can TOTALLY relate to Freud’s skepticism. I’ve been there and I have certainly not given it up since discovering my faith. On the contrary, I’m more skeptical than ever. Before, I wasn’t sure. Now, I’m doing everything I can and using my reason to learn more about the mysteries of this universe and see if it makes any sense at all. As faithful as one is, one can never be certain about the existence or absence of God. Some may ask why God would allow all of these horrible things to happen. To me, this doesn’t prove anything its existence or motives. For all we know, God could have pushed the universe into motion and left, unmoved by the affairs of human beings. I don’t know God’s motives and, therefore, I don’t think we can depend or wait for God to solve our problems for us. We have to stick together and actively be the change in this existence.
Just an observation: we tend to be attracted to those who seem more open-minded, tolerant, and non-judgemental. Maybe C.S. Lewis seems this way because he did in fact change his mind. But Cailin makes an important point: he ended up saying that Jesus Christ is the only way--and that's not too tolerant!
ReplyDeleteOn the other side, Freud was indeed quite vehement in his views, and maybe at times seemingly hypocritical (though I don't know about that: just b/c he alluded to the Bible and God sometimes doesn't mean he compromised his views, does it?). But he criticized religion because, indeed, he wanted to help people--and sometimes that meant being intolerant of what's hurting them, in his view.
Regarding Lewis: Cailin makes an excellent point. Lewis is definitely less "fiery" than Freud but the message is clear.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Freud: Ivan Illich gave a speech to Peace Corps volunteers entitled, "To Hell With Good Intentions". I know he was referring to American (as he puts it) "do-gooders" in Latin America but he raises a good point. He quotes an Irish saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". While Freud may be trying to save humanity, does he ever wonder that maybe humanity doesn't want to be saved by him, just as much as he doesn't want to be saved by God? What gives him the authority to save humanity? His good intentions? I cannot help but be skeptical when someone tells me they have the silver bullet to all the world's problems. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure Billy Mays was a nice fellow, but OxyClean is a lie!
After going to sleep and waking up this morning, I realize my previous post sounded quite cynical. I actually do admire Freud's desire to find ways to help humanity. My post was intended to be a "Devil's Advocate" argument (but to hell with good intentions, right?), but only now do I realize I should have indicated that. What I want to know is more about the author's mention of evidence that our brains are "hardwired" for belief--does this mean there is proof that God tinkered with our minds so we can believe, or is this some old flaw that we have to learn to overcome?
ReplyDeletei find myself agreeing more with Lewis because of the his spiritual awaking and his open mind towards religion. He dealt with his mother's death and then lonliness in boarding school which led to his doubt in there being a higher faith. He also was influenced by The Great Knock who was an aitheist in his younder years. He admits to taking interest in Hinduism and Christianity but the hardest part for him was to realize that he was not his own God. On the other hand Freus seemed to reject religion and the existance of God altogether and beleived that childhood experiences is the basis for why one feels a need for religion. I agree with Jamie and feel that Freud's childhood and relationship with his father led to his rejection of religion. I also agree with Erica in that Freud just didnt seem open to the idea of God at all, but Lewis having a similar troubled childhood was able to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lewis almost completely. He makes a ton of good points, and compared to Freud, he just sounds so much more intelligent. Freud has these set ideas on the non existence of God because of some freaky sad relationship he had with his dad, and that strong ambivalence toward your dad makes you wish for a Higher Father. but Lewis make a good point against Freud's argument about the relationship between one's Father and God the Father, that ambivalence can go either way, It can make you wish for the existence of God or for the non existence. Freud only addresses arguments which support his claims. I also agree with Lewis in the fact that God has sign posts, that they are all over, when I took biology I couldn't believe how perfectly everything was made, like how incredibly perfect every system on earth is, to say that this is merely coincidence, i think is a sad testament to human kind's faith. Lewis says that God made the world and a lot of things have gone wrong in it, and that we should right them, that there is a dark power as well, the world is corrupt because of our gift of free will , but imagine a world without that gift, where would the joy be? God gave us a conscience, those kinds of things don't come from theories like Freud's , Freud does not even offer an argument for the non existence of God, he just disputes the fact that there is one. This not only makes people question his theories, but also question the motive behind his theories, it seems as if they all pertain to his specific situation which is both unprofessional and immature, i just think Freud sounds absurd compared to lewis. Lewis and Freud's situation were similar but Lewis kept his mind opened , I think he wanted to find the truth, I think Freud just wanted to prove something, just wanted to remain unmoved and bitter. He thinks people who believe in a God are ignorant, that just shows how small minded, personal, and unfair his arguments are.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I feel like Freud contradicts himself...a lot, I still find myself agreeing with his arguments more. I find it hard to believe in the "Moral Law", that C.S. Lewis claims every individual and every culture has. I find it hard to believe that children inherently know what's morally right from wrong. When I think of all the bad things I did as a child :), my parents were always there to tell me what was right and what was wrong. I have a very hard time believing that everyone just know's right from wrong.
ReplyDeleteI would like to defend Lewis against a common accusation mentioned earlier. Is he intolerant for saying that Jesus Christ is the only way? When Lewis made this claim, he was stating that as in informed individual who had read through the scriptures and discussed them with his peers, there was proof that God is real and his message in the Bible is the absolute truth. Is deciding what you believe to be true intolerant? Must we remain in the ambivalent stage of not knowing what we believe to be considered an accepting person? Belief systems existing together, from all the different gods described in various faiths to the belief that there is no God, would be impossibly contradictory. For one to believe they have discovered the truth about God and who he is does not inhibit them from accepting ALL other people regardless of their beliefs, culture, or practices, even if they may not agree with them. In fact, if one is a believer in the Christian faith they are actually striving to treat others by Jesus' example, the one who made all the claims about how God is the only way, (when Lewis said this, he was merely agreeing with him), and was Jesus intolerant of others when their practices/beliefs differed from his own? On the contrary: he was constantly spending time with and caring for prostitues, tax collectors, and lepers, some of the most hated and disregarded people of the time. I think we are attracted to Lewis's argument not becaue he seems open-minded because he was once an atheist, but because he seems at peace. Is he vehemently arguing his point, like Freud, to desperately prove something to himself as well as others? No- I think he is joyfully spreading what he has found to be true because he wants the rest of the world to see the same amazing discovery.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to say that C.S. Lewis was wrong, but Freud's theories and comments about religion do make scene. Although I am not completely devoted to the atheist belief I can understand Freud's idea with religion being a security for some people and a symbolic bond between their parental figures. My parents weren't that religious, in fact I believe that the only reason we went to church was because I hadn't had my first communion yet. My parents didn't pray at the dinner table and they didn't tell me I was going to Hell for doing something wrong. In fact, after my first communion my parents and I never went to church, Freud would see this as a reason that I never had an attachment to religion, and I would agree with him.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I am siding with Lewis on this matter. Lewis overcame his bitter and angry feelings of his past by finally turning to faith in God. Humans definitely need a crutch to hold onto in,especially in their most desperate moments. Without that dependency one is sure to never let go of their resentment,as per Freud who died bitterly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ginette on the idea that humans utilize abstract crutches in order to sustain our own beliefs and faith. Lewis overcame what he thought was a defining moment of questioning his faith. Freud just could not get past the life that he believed God had prepared for him. If there was a God in his mind...
ReplyDeleteI think that I tend to lean more towards C.S. Lewis and maybe it is because of wish fulfillment that I tend to agree with him. Just the fact that he started out as an atheist and after reading extensively about both sides he found that he did believe in God just kind of gives a view that I hadn’t seen before. Because I know people who were believers and then after certain experiences lead them to become atheist, but it was the fist time I had ever seen it work in the opposite direction. Also it just seemed like at certain points towards the end of the book like Freud was forcing himself not to believe that there is no God though that may be because of Nicholi’s writing.
ReplyDeleteI think it might be an interesting experiment at least for myself to go back and re-read The Question of God after all that we've learned and discussed this year. Lewis and Freud are such intersting characters and I feel there is a lot to learn from them. This book was a great way to start the class and the God Delusion was a great way to finish. I do wish that we'd had a chance to read a book contradicting Dawkins arguement. I think that would have been an equally interesting read. As I said in class I think that a book succeeds when it makes the reader react in some way, whether it be good or bad, at least that means it has affected their life.
ReplyDelete