The discussion about C.S. Lewis and Freud continues this week, so let me merely highlight some of the issues that have come up, to keep the ball rolling.
First, we’re entering the fascinating but sometimes hazy territory between someone’s psychology/background and their stated commitments. This territory is worth exploring. As I have suggested, abstract, conceptual arguments in the philosophy of religion (whether God’s existence can be proved, why God allows unwarranted suffering, etc.) have their origins in human experience. And Freud himself teaches us to look behind the views that people outwardly and publicly propound—and see what’s really going on. But how far should this scrutiny go? Are everyone’s arguments in some sense tainted by their own background or experience, or is it possible for the arguments to rise above their source? In your opinion, is that something that is possible for C.S. Lewis and Freud—or one and not the other?
Second, there have been some interesting comments about the nature of tolerance—and how tolerant we should be of tolerance. Perhaps C.S. Lewis is more appealing, in a way, because he doesn’t condemn others: he writes about his experience and invites others to explore the path to God. Meanwhile, Freud charges that the religious (along with most of humanity) are in fact living under a neurotic illusion. That’s not very nice. Indeed, tolerance is a tricky thing, and my philosopher’s side is not always very tolerant of it. We might want to say, “Whatever people believe is cool, as long as it doesn’t affect me.” But then I might invoke a classic argument in the philosophy of religion: beliefs always end up having some kind of affect. Religious devotees (and Freudians) vote, for example. And, indeed, I like to argue that if someone else believes that water can be transmuted into wine, or that human beings can be raised from the dead, and so on, then that person is making a claim on your world: namely, that such things are possible. Even if someone is generally keeping those beliefs to him or herself, the claim is still being made—so we are called upon to scrutinize it.
Just one more thing: a vital point about the argument from morality. This argument, which has made by many, including C.S. Lewis, has two vital steps: first, that there is a universal moral standard, and second, that the existence of this moral standard suggests that God exists. Recalling these two steps will help you clarify your thinking about this claim.
Ok…that’s all for now! Keep commenting.
Throughout reading The Question of God, I too have wondered if C.S. Lewis and Freud’s arguments rise above their own background and experience, in which case I am not sure. I believe that both of their arguments are strongly based upon their personal experience. However, Lewis’s story makes me question whether or not he did rise above his source. Like Freud, he experienced the death of loved ones, but was able to have a conversion in the middle of his life and believe in God. It seems that he was able to put aside the death and suffering he experienced at a young age, to examine the bigger picture. One statement that Lewis made which I found interesting was when he said “has this world been so kind to you that you should leave it with regret. There are better things ahead than any we leave behind” (Nicholi 236). He was able to turn his experience into a positive thing. Freud however doesn’t seem to rise above his personal background and turns this into a negative viewpoint towards religion. He refused to be open to the idea of religion and stated that death doesn’t exist in our unconscious minds. In this sense C.S. Lewis seems more appealing in a way because of his outlook on religion in general.
ReplyDeleteToday the concept of tolerance seems to be headed in the same direction as political correctness. I think, for both, there should be a limit on just how far we are willing to go out of our way to make other people feel better.
ReplyDeleteThere is a profound difference between being tolerant of someone's sexuality (for example) and being tolerant of someone's religion. Sexuality doesn't deal with a dispute over a fact. You're either attracted to men or you're attracted to women. Either way, that's cool, because when we have sex we're not proclaiming or defending or forcing down others' throats any sort of fact.
Religion, on the other hand, is centered on the fact of something's existence. So this being either exists or it doesn't; there is a right answer. Therefore, somewhat regrettably, I find it harder to be tolerant of people whose beliefs differ from the view of what I consider to be the truth.
How tolerant would you be of someone who insisted that 2+2=5? Most likely you'd think him or her crazy. It's the same idea. God either exists or He doesn't. Some of us are wrong and some of us are right. I don't think we should forfeit our right to question others' beliefs simply for the sake of not offending them.
Additionally, just because we haven't discovered a way to prove God's existence or non-existence doesn't mean that we should blindly accept everyone's differing views on the matter. When we begin to do that, we have essentially stopped caring about distinguishing what is true from what is false.
In my opinion, everyone’s arguments in some way are tainted by their own background or experiences. Many of our inner most feelings especially about topics such as religion take a long time to develop. A lot of the time, these feelings and arguments stem from growing up and being influenced by our parents and those closest to us. Psychologically speaking, many times if you’re constantly being told something, you unconsciously begin to believe it. I feel this was partially the case for Freud. He was constantly reminded what a disgrace he was for being Jewish and those angry feelings evolved into his total disregard for all religions. Through Anti-Semitism, and experiencing death throughout his life he became in my opinion much of what he was unfortunately surrounded by. Lewis however, became his surroundings similar to that of Freud; but he did a 360 and discovered faith instead of doubt.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a person's background allows them to decide which path to follow. Lewis and Freud grew up with similar backgrounds and they made opposing decisions on their religious paths. I think that initially people follow what their parents or outside sources instill in them. Once a person is able to really question the ideas for him or herself then they are able to choose what they wish to believe. I think faith and doubt only occur after maturity. From my own personal experience, I was baptized Christian and was raised in a Catholic school for the first 18 years of my life. About half-way through high school, it was almost as if the class split in half, some who held faith and some who doubted. It only built on from there. Backgrounds really only educate you on one side. From that, the decision is in hands of the thinker.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone's background, upbringing and experiences play a vital judgment on their belief. When looking at Freud and Lewis we can see this example from this backgrounds. Though Freud was Jewish, he didn't really follow the Jewish religion. His experiences in life helped him decide what is out there and what exist. Between his nanny living him, his father's death and also his daughter and grandsons', he came to believe there is no God. Why would any God bring him such suffering. He grew with experience to understand what is out there even if there may be nothing out there.
ReplyDeleteWith Lewis you can see the same thing. His mother died at young age for Lewis and he was traumatized after seeing her body. When he was an atheist, he believed in the same things Freud believed in, only he knew deep down there was something there but didn't want to believe it at the time and was arrogant.When his wife died, he began to believe in a sense that something was out there, that there might be a God and this could be his plan. Through all these experiences, we see how they shaped both men opinions towards finding an answer.
I agree with most of the previous comments already up on the blog. Freud and Lewis base a lot of their theories off of their own life experiences. I feel this taints the theories they are trying to show to the world. I belive a person will develop their moral standards and beliefs with each of their own personal experiences in life. Freud and Lewis make interesting points about such topics as moral law but I belive much of a person's standards come from what they have been taught and gone through throughout their life.
ReplyDeleteBut if I had to choose Frued or Lewis, I would pick Lewis. It took me much contemplation to decide who I thought had a better argument and outlook on life. I do though like Frued because he really believed strongly in everything he had said and that there was absolutely no God. I like the way Freud wasn't swayed by anything or anyone. On the other hand, I feel like Lewis has a more approachable way about discussing his ideas. Lewis' thoughts are most like mine when it comes down to it. I don't agree with everything Lewis says but I do agree with his ideas about death and grieving for example.
On the idea of arguments being tainted..
ReplyDeleteBoth Freud and Lewis went through points of Athiesm. Lewis happened to find Christianity, but both share Athiesm in common.
Freud took strides to be taken seriously as a medical professional without the stigma associated with being Jewish at the time. Though he was born Jewish, he did not believe in the religion, yet spent a long time trying to establish himself outside it.
I believe that if a person is raised within a faith and believes what they have been taught without wavering, the less likely I am to feel that their arguments are tainted. Both men went through extended periods of doubt, which influenced their beliefs and choices.
If we were to look at "terrorists" today who are raised with extreme fundamentalist values, and are taught from birth that other groups are bad- I would argue that for many, there arguments are NOT tainted.
If there are no outside influences that show contrary ideas and beliefs, what in our eyes is an "extreme fundamentalist" culture, is just a group expressing the only values they know.
As a teenager I went through a period of atheism, where I rejected my Jewish upbringing, but without it, I would not have found my way back to believing in God and practicing my religion as best I can. My arguments are not objective, and completely tilt toward what I believe to be true.
Had I not wavered, I might consider myself objective in my own right because a Jewish discourse would be my only way of relating to the world.
It's true that most of the opinions we develop on religion and life are often swayed by parental influence. Both Freud and Lewis' theories were influenced by their upbringing, and life experiences but Lewis handled his development differently, better. I wouldn't say that it's completely possible to "forget" your personal background and develop arguments completely based on knowledge or ideas you created later in life, because the arguments you choose to debate or the theories you argue are largely influenced by your parents and family. That being said, I think it's possible to develop further more intelligent concepts by pulling away from the principles you were raised on, and Lewis does that. Freud was a bitter man who wanted to be concrete in his ideas and refused to become open minded to anything besides atheism. Lewis was interested in finding something real, and he was definitely more receptive to other beliefs than his family because he went through a period of extreme atheism. Lewis has been on both sides of the argument, so that gives him an advantage, personally I think Lewis is brilliant. My parents are both very religious and for the longest time so was I, but slowly I started questioning and doubting until I wasn't sure what I believed in at all, and I became very sarcastic towards the subject of God and Christ, but randomly enough taking biology and reading Lewis' philosophy, I'm kind of finding my footing again. But even though, for a long time I didn't know what I believed in, I would still defend God to people who denied him, and I'm pretty positive that is due to my upbringing. I think of my dad when I think of religion, and I hate people talking badly about it , except me of course. So yes, it's possible to distance yourself from your background to create theories or beliefs, but I think that no matter what , pieces of your past still linger in your arguments.
ReplyDeleteI think religion is one thing that can continue to change as many times as a person wants/needs it to. It can be detached from what someone may have been raised to believe. But it does depend on our personal experiences, which is what can make religion such a personal part of our lives. It's the evolution of who we are and how our beliefs change along with us. I think it's interesting that Freud identifies with being Jewish and is greatly affected by the anti-semitism, but is known for his attack on any sort of belief in God(s). How can his identity be tied to something that he has made a career of proving wrong?
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Freud says that the Oedipus complex was drawn from his own personal experience. If this is true than how can he make it a universal theory? It makes me wonder about his other ideas and if they started as self-reflection and became Freud's universal law.
Tolerance is something that we don't have enough of in this world. But having tolerance does not mean accepting an idea or belief without question. There are many beliefs I am tolerant of because they are not doing me any harm but if I were to have the chance I would argue for my belief.
ReplyDeleteIf we chose to be intolerant of others beliefs we're not very far from starting another Holocaust. The problem arises when one society is being tolerant and the other is not. That is the basis for most wars.
It's aggravating to me that most religions are so intolerant of other religions. Can't we just agree to disagree?
I believe that all , if not most, of our views about life are tainted by our backgrounds. People come from different settings and experiences that influences how a person views their world and how the deal with the things that bring them pain. In the case of Lewis and Freud , I believe that Lewis was able to accept religion because , in his past , it was present as something positive, and if not positive , at least normal and accepted. Freud's religious background , however , was often subject to scrutiny and influenced many of the negative experiences in his life. Maybe he was unable to accept religion because the particular religion that he was born into led to his family being discriminated against and he was not familiar with any other religions.
ReplyDelete*As for tolerance , I am one to say "You do your thing , I'll do my thing" but I also realize that when one person's beliefs differs from others ,it somehow places that person’s beliefs in jeopardy. I believe that the reason there is so little tolerance when it comes to religion is because people want to believe that they are believing in the right thing; you could even say that its human nature for those of opposing religions to fight because each side desperately wants to be reassured that they are following the truth.
*For the most part, Lewis's theory of a universal moral law makes sense to me. It does seem that most people agree that things like murder, adultery , and fibbing are wrong. What Lewis's theory fails to do is offer an explanation for how different cultures interpret these moral laws. For example, we all seem to agree that murder is wrong yet , in some places, the death penalty or ,something similar ,is a common punishment.
I agree with Shantaya -- Lewis' theory of a universal moral law is indeed important. Although somehow I don't agree with Nicholi that Freud was advocating for moral relativism ("Freud thinks we do [simply make up our moral code], as we make up our traffic laws, and that moral codes can change from culture to culture"). Freud's contributions to mankind cannot be disputed, and I don't think he's simply "a bitter man who refuses to become open minded to anything besides atheism" (Samantha). No doubt he remained pessimistic for most (or all) of his life, but in my view Freud firmly believed in seeking after truth through reason, and he argued that ethical decisions should be made based on what reason determines as tending most towards the common good,rather than on the basis of one's religious beliefs (which perhaps makes sense, especially in today's context). And in doing so Freud contributed heavily to the idea of "humanity", and offers at least some of us a possible secular substitute for the notion of God.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of 'moral law' there are those like the infamous "Dexter" on showtime, that are born without a sense of guilt. There are also those born without the nerves to experience pain. Each of us has a certain moral law, based on our believes. C.S. Lewis suggests that the existence of moral law gives credit to the theroy of God's existance. However if there are those born WITHOUT it, then perhaps that too also proves that God does NOT exist.
ReplyDeleteI response to Carolinas post I agree that Dexter is a great example of someone that thinks they are exempt from guilt and therefore wouldn't be able to convey the morals they have, let alone the moral law. Your ending line about if these people don't have any views on morality and don't act morally, they don't follow what "God" has taught us. It does beg the question whether there is a "God". Perhaps, like Kwanzaa, someone invented him in the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think it is unfair to God to base our opinions, perspectives, and decisions regarding him and his existence on what we see displayed by other people, whether it be Christians who profess to believe in this God, or murderers who seem to have no moral sense. According to the Bible we are all made in God's image, and so we will not feel complete, real happiness, or absolute peace until we accept him; we were made to have a relationship with him, and without it we will feel an emptiness or longing that we try to fill with other things. It is true that many people do not seem to live by any of God's morals at all, but that does not mean he doesn't exist it merely means that people can be very good at rebelling against him. In general, we can not base our perception of a perfect God's qualities and existence on his imperfect people. We are sinful and he is not and that makes all the difference.
ReplyDelete